What is Hermeneutics? Hermeneutics has a long and complex history.

The idea of hermeneutics can be traced to the ancient Greek. The Greek verb hermeneuein can be glossed as to interpret, to translate. In the biblical studies, hermeneutics has been defined as rules for interpretation of scripture. In this sense, it is almost equivalent to the exegesis. The early hermeneutical thinking was dominated by attempts to find the method or technique for pursing the correct understanding. Recently, Thiselton has a simple description of hermeneutics, Hermeneutics explores how we read, understand and handle the text, especially those whose texts are in an ancient time, in a different context of our own. Biblical hermeneutics investigates more specifically how we read, understand and respond to biblical texts. Actually, Hermeneutics has experience complex developments since early nineteenth century. We will list the major trends of the developments in the following. 1) Romantic hermeneutics Schleiermacher and Dilthey are two representatives of this camp. They are exemplars of the interpretation in the author-oriented tradition. They seek the individuality of an authorial intention and his or her historical or social context over the text themselves. Schleiermacher is titled as the modern father of hermeneutics, who has shift the disciplinebound hermeneutics into the generalized hermeneutics. He turns the regional to general hermeneutics. That is, hermeneutics is not limited in a handful disciplines, but become a more generalized view of human awareness. Palmer rightly points out that Schleiermacher has argued for that hermeneutics is an art of understanding, not just a bunch rule of exegesis. Schleimacher offers two sides of interpretation: the grammatical interpretation, which examines the usual linguistic usage; and the psychological interpretation, which explores the authorial intention and his or her context in order to seek the textual meaning meant in the author. Dilthey follows Schleiermacher to pursue the human consciousness. He distinguished the natural science and human science. It is his aim to develop methods of gaining objectively valid interpretations of expressions of inner life. Evaluation Schleiermacher and Diltheys hermeneutics tended to identify interpretation with the category of understanding and define understanding as the recognition of authorial intention. This

psychologizing conception of hermeneutics has been rejected as the basis of textual meaning, because it leads to an undependable subjectivity. Schleimachers hermeneutics tries to interpret authorial intention as the textual meaning. This is too subjective for the hermeneutics. Barth has critique Schleiermacher reduces theology to anthropology. Gadamer contends Schleimachers hermeneutics limited in authorial intention which cannot be a method of interpretation. Dilthey failed to overcome the scientific style of reductionism exemplified in the natural science. Gadamer also considered Diltheys epistemological analysis of text does not go far enough, comparing to Gadamers ontological analysis of language. 2) Bultmanns existential hermeneutics Bultmann is a significant New Testament scholar. His works covers broad area. Regarding hermeneutics, I will talk about his de-objectifying text and demothologizing biblical text i. de-objectifying Bultmann has been influenced by neo-Kantian, Heidegger and dualism etc. His thought can be traced to many different sources. Anyway, he agrees with Heidegger that de-objeectifying text was a major way of understanding religious texts and exposing their importance for today. in denying the objectifying the text. For them, to explore the textual meaning is not to abstract them and generalize them. The interpreter is the participant not a spectator of a biblical scripture. The Christ event cannot be an objective knowledge for Christians, but invites our experience with the crucifixion with Christ. God is out of our cognitive knowledge and cannot be in our system of cognition. We need to experience in the grace of God. Faith is not cognitive knowledge, but our personal experience with God. Our justification is not the works of historical belief, but out of grace and undergoing with the experience of God. ii. Demothologizing For Bultmann, the biblical scripture is written with the worldly view of the ancient time. The biblical authors wrote out of their world view. The myth is out-wordly language. In order to explore the reality, the kerygma, Bultmann requires to demothologizing biblical language. He did not deny the Christ event occurrence, but tried to peel the outer clothes to explore the true meaning of the biblical texts. For him, to deny the world-view of the scripture is different from denying the scripture itself. iii. evaluation

Bultmann attempt to rescue the biblical scripture from the attacks of the liberal theologians and tried to find a way to respond the view of history-of-religion. However, how can kerygma be separated from its historical context? 3) Gadamers hermeneutics Gadamer has great influences in the twentieth century. He said hermenetuics is above all a practice and art of understanding. For him, the prejudice or bias is part of our prior hermeneutical situatedness. The process of the hermeneutics is the process of the fusions of the past in the text and the present around the reader. i. understanding and hermeneutics Gadamer shifts from epistological to ontological hermeneutics. He was profoundly influenced by Heidegger and Kierkgaards view that being and true could not be approached through generalization and objetificaiton. He proposes that understanding is not something we can grasp through experimental isolation, but that which grasped us in an experience or event of the meaning out of our control. Understanding is something provisional, temporal and historical, which stands the heart of truth and method. Gadamer rejects descartess rational method to provide a neutral starting point. For him, genuine understanding emerges when we seek to establish a dialectic or open-ended questioning and answering model between the past and the present, the text and the interpreter, without aiming a final or complete interpretation. Hermeneutics is a product of asking questions. We must risk our assumptions, desires, allowing ourselves to be caught up in the event of interpretation. ii. language and hermeneutics The significance of Gadamers hermeneutics lies in his ontological understanding of the nature of language. Palmer rightly observes that fundamental to Gadamers conception of language is the rejection of the sign theory. The function of language is not that of pointing things. For Gadamer, language is not a tool for understanding, but discloses our life-world. Language is the medium in which the tradition conceals itself and is transmitted. Language is not merely external clothing for thoughts, but thought and language are bound up with each other. He concludes with a universal hermeneutics: we are led to a universal hermeneutics that was concerned with the general relationship of man to the world. iii. the fusion of horizons

Gadamer perceived the fundamental stance of respect for the otherness of the horizon of the other. He stressed the hermeneutical importance of pre-judgement or prejudices within pregiven horizons. These horizons are not fixed, but on the move. Something emerges when it transcends both the prior language of the community and the prior consciousness of the interpreter, and is born out of interaction between them and the fusion of the horizons. 4) Paul Ricoeurs hermeneutics i. hermeneutics of suspicion Paul Ricoeur explores Freuds psychological works. Freuds work supply a framework for his hermeneutics of suspicion: willing to suspect, willing to listen; vow of rigor, vow of obedience ii. explanation and understanding Ricoeur differed from Gadamer, since he acknowledged the importance both of explanation understanding in the hermeneutics. Since we are fallible human beings and we should have some device to prevent us from wrong understanding? Ricoeur sets the hermeneutical spiral of the process of explanation and understanding. At first, we have some naive understanding of the whole, then we comprehend in a further step with the support of explanatory devices. We may have some guess for the understanding, and then process into more comprehension. iii. language as discourse Ricoeurs contribution in hermeneutics is his reconsidering language basis on the linguistics and literary theory. He disagrees to Sign theory, which considered language to point to the thing. Language is a complex structure. Not just a series of sentence. 5) Theological hermeneutics Thiselton and Vanhoozer are the two main representative of theological hermeneutics. They dont think that doctrine

In conclusion, I would like to follow Porters statement that hermeneutics has not claimed to guarantee universal, absolute and certain knowledge or complete rational and clear thinking, but only to help us foster the best means at our disposal of searching for meaning and truth. We are in the hermeneutical spiral that reaches upward, yearning for new insights and truth. Hermeneutics is a hybrid of that which is, that which came before, that which is coming. It is

ontological, epistemological, and far more. Hermeneutics theories continue to expand and develop in new directions. A study of hermeneutics belongs to its history.