Alexander S. Jensen, Theological Hermeneutics (London: SCM Press, 2007) xiv + 237 pps.
This SCM textbook for graduate and post-graduate students in theology and biblical studies, written by Alexander Jensen (Lecturer in Systematic Theology at Murdoch University, Australia) introduces theological hermeneutics by giving a broad historical overview of the development of hermeneutical thinking. Jensen defines hermeneutics as the analysis of the obstacles to understanding (and thus to application). Beginning with the allegorical interpretation of myths in Hellenism, the history of hermeneutical thinking and various responses to obstacles is depicted within this text. Moreover, Jensen incorporates contemporary views of the hermeneutics. Following the opening chapters on the history of hermeneutical thought, the book presents an accurate, though concise, synopsis of the various contemporary hermeneutical schools of thought, and points out their indebtedness in the hermeneutical tradition flowing from (at least) Augustine. As a result, a key thread employed by Jenson throughout the text in his is the Augustinian distinction between verbum interius (the inner word) and verbum externum (the outer word; ref. 127, 224–6). Jenson notes that a form of the allegorical interpretation of Scriptures persisted from the onset of the Church (contrary to popular beliefs) even until the sixteenth century. While the focus of this textbook is upon biblical interpretation, Jensen nevertheless addresses some issues outside of theology as well, for Jensen sees the world as an organic whole in which the parts affect the whole just as much as the whole affects the parts (so to speak).
Finding areas to critique within this informative volume is hard, and I believe rather misguided (for the breadth, width and accuracy of Jensen is unparalleled); however, I will take issue with Jensen on three issues that I deem are important for the reader of this textbook to be aware of prior to reading it. First, I am concerned with Jensen’s dismissal of Thomas Reid’s common sense realism (82–6, 123–4, 207–8, 224–6). Reid believed that common sense is, or at least should be, at the foundation of all philosophical inquiry. Reid rightly argued, in my opinion, that there is a certain regard due to human testimony in matters of fact, and even to human authority in matters of opinion. Reid is best known, however, for his epistemology of sensation, and as such he is properly viewed to be important for the realization of today’s scientific methodology in no small measure. I, along with Reid, believe that sensations serve to make us directly aware of real objects without the aid of any intervening medium. Reid offers a form of ‘direct realism’, upon which science is based and upon which it depends. In fact, Reid posits a type of realism that is critically essential for the perpetuation of science, and as a result I find Jensen’s outright dismissal of him to be somewhat problematic for today’s scientifically literate culture.
Second, Jensen has an apparent affinity toward the existential hermeneutics of the twentieth century that is somewhat (in my opinion) not formally stated. Indeed, it seems clear that Jenson has a special affinity toward Ricoeur (especially concerning his theory of symbol and metaphor, 146–7, 226). Moreover, as apparent from a thorough reading of the book (indicated, e.g., by the amount of space allowed for them versus other representatives), Jenson has a bent toward of existential hermeneutics in general, . I find especially interesting Jensen’s total omission of Ludwig Wittgenstein from his coverage of modern hermeneutics, since Wittgenstein is commonly seen to be the father of analytic philosophy, which was in opposition to the predominant existential bent of his day. Third, I will note (for better or for worse) Jensen’s heavy (undue?) emphasis upon modernistic hermeneutics to the exclusion of further development to the contributions of medieval hermeneuts (with his running thread of Augustine’s distinction between verbum interius and verbum externum not withstanding).
All in all, however, despite my brief and minimal critiques, I heartily recommend f this textbook for graduate and post-graduate introductions to historical hermeneutical theory. I will note, in conclusion, that the breadth and width of coverage provided herein exceeds that which one may find in similar recent accounts from Jeanrond (1991) and Jasper (2004). Both the questions raised, as well as the possible answers suggested in this textbook will be of interest to students of theology and biblical studies, as well as other disciplines such as philosophy and literature.
Bradford McCall
Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.