Is it possible to be unbiased when interpreting Scripture?

Question

Hermeneutics is not only concerned with the science of interpretation, but also with the philosophy of interpretation. One of the major questions under examination in modern discussions about hermeneutics is how one's presuppositions, framework, theology, biases, and agendas affect their interpretation. (To make things simple, I'll use the term "bias" to refer to all of these.)

I think everyone would agree that we all have bias. I think everyone would even agree that it is impossible to eliminate all bias. What is less clear is whether bias can be held tentatively by the interpreter so as to enable them to effectively assess an alternate perspective, and perhaps change their view as a result of this "unbiased" analysis. The technical term for this idea is "bracketing," and it basically refers to the capability to hold your view as tentative while entertaining another view, thereby enabling you to assess the relative merits of both your view and the view under examination.

So the question on the table is: Is it possible to "bracket" your bias during interpretation, enabling you to essentially approach the text in an "unbiased" manner, despite the bias that is technically present?

Answer 1

Is it possible to "bracket" your bias during interpretation, enabling you to essentially approach the text in an "unbiased" manner, despite the bias that is technically present?

It is possible to "bracket" a subset of your bias but not all of it.

As an analogy, if you do not like the look of a certain food you can agree to take a blind taste test to find out whether you like the taste, knowing that you wouldn't be able to escape your bias against the visual appearance of the food if you were not blindfold.

However, the philosophical question becomes much more, well, philosophical, when you start talking about setting aside your framework or worldview. The problem is that we are now talking about issues at the deepest level of our understanding, and they encompass the very action we are trying to undertake. Consider this question: what is the meaning of 'biased' or 'unbiased'? Does not the answer depend on your worldview? A postmodern might believe there is ultimately no such thing. Everyone else will have their own perspective.

Logically, you cannot set aside all your most foundational beliefs. This is because all your decisions are ultimately based on these foundations, including your decision to try and set them aside. In other words setting them aside would also involve setting aside your decision to set them aside: a logical nonsense.

So, can we "bracket" your bias during interpretation?

The question is unanswerable unless you define the domain in which you are trying to set aside bias. Once you have defined 'bias' in the domain in question you can seek to set it aside, but trying to be wholly objective is impossible: just framework-blindness by another name.

Answer 2

This is an excellent question, but if I may rephrase it slightly:

Is Hermeneutics a branch of Epistemology or Ontology?

Hermeneutics is the theory (and art) of understanding a text.

Epistemology is the philosophical examination of how people obtain knowledge. So if hermeneutics is merely an epistemological endeavour, then it's entirely possible to isolate, validate, and apply the methods of interpretation without concerning ourselves with their truth. When I read the first chapter of Genesis, I can examine whether or not the author described ex nihilo creation based on the evidence from the text and its context. At the end of the day, I can walk away satisfied with my work whether or not I agree with the Genesis cosmology.

Note that there is nothing particularly distinctive about sacred texts in this context: the techniques used for reading Plato, Philo, and Philippians are identical. If hermeneutics is a subset of epistemology, we can be confident that by applying the appropriate methodology we obtain knowledge of the meaning the author intended to convey. Many modern hermeneutical approaches assume interpretation is a skill that can be taught and that the techniques used to understand a text are unbiased and can be applied by any rational thinker.

Ontology is the study of being or existence. René Descartes famously described the relationship between thinking and being. As individuals, we don't really know that anything exists outside our own meditations. We can only infer the existence of things outside of us via reason. Traditional accounts of existence are unreliable since they depend on variable factors other than pure reason. In essence, they suffer from biases of various sorts. Therefore, we can only depend on our methods of interpretation to ensure confidence in our understanding of ancient texts.

Recently philosophers have expressed discomfort with dualism. Hermeneutics has taken an ontological turn. Explaining why the turn is necessary requires another section:

Horizons of understanding

Hans-Georg Gadamer building on the work of his teacher, Martin Heidegger, notes:

Every finite present has its limitations. We define the concept of “situation” by saying that it represents a standpoint that limits the possibility of vision. Hence an essential part of the concept of situation is the concept of “horizon.” The horizon is the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular vantage point... A person who has no horizon is a man who does not see far enough and hence overvalues what is nearest to him. On the other hand, "to have an horizon" means not being limited to what is nearby, but to being able to see beyond it...[W]orking out of the hermeneutical situation means the achievement of the right horizon of inquiry for the questions evoked by the encounter with tradition.—Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. New York: Continuum, 1997, p.302 (as quoted by Wikipedia)

According to this way of looking at things, the author of Genesis desired to communicate something from within his sphere of understanding and the only way we can be confident that we know that thing is by expanding our own horizon until it fuses with the author's. Since each of us come from a slightly different situation, we have different horizons and must approach the text from different directions. We are, in a sense, inherently biased before we even take up a text to read it.

We expand our horizons on the back of other interpreters. I can't myself put my feet in the shoes of our ancient Greek and Hebrew authors and neither can you. But we can begin to understand our texts through the various commentators who have come before us. By using the tools, methods, and techniques of hermeneutics, we can bring our own biases into the conversation of the ages. I can express it no better than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

At the end of the day, Gadamer claims, it is not really we who address the texts of tradition, but the canonic texts that address us. Having traveled through decades and centuries, the classic works of art, literature, science, and philosophy question us and our way of life. Our prejudices, whatever aspects of our cultural horizon that we take for granted, are brought into the open in the encounter with the past. As a part of the tradition in which we stand, historical texts have an authority that precedes our own. Yet this authority is kept alive only to the extent that it is recognized by the present. We recognize the authority of a text (or a work of art) by engaging with it in textual explication and interpretation, by entering into a dialogical relationship with the past. It is this movement of understanding that Gadamer refers to as the fusion of horizons. As we come, through the work of interpretation, to understand what at first appears alien, we participate in the production of a richer, more encompassing context of meaning—we gain a better and more profound understanding not only of the text but also of ourselves. In the fusion of horizons, the initial appearance of distance and alienness does itself emerge as a function of the limitations of our own initial point of departure.—Ramberg, Bjørn and Gjesdal, Kristin, "Hermeneutics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Answer 3

A bracketed reading does not allow a reader to approach the text in an essentially unbiased manner. Rather, just the opposite is true: a bracketed reading is one in which the reader adopts a particular and essentially biased viewpoint.

The classic example of bracketing is a jury trial in which the jurors are asked to consider only the evidence presented before the court. Their "reading" of the evidence in this manner is intended to give fairness to the trial. That does not mean, however, that the jurors following these instructions will always make the "correct reading" of what really happened. It may well be that one of the jurors knows something outside of the evidence presented in court which would indict the defendant; yet because she has chosen to bracket off this knowledge, she might find the defendant not guilty on account of a lack of evidence presented by the prosecution.

In the realm of biblical hermeneutics, Wright's series on Christian Origins and the Question of God is a good example of one that gives a bracketed reading of the New Testament. He approaches the text by first leaving open (bracketing) certain questions pertaining to god and the nature of Jesus. This allows him to give what he calls a "fresh" reading, building up his case largely from the presuppositions of his opponents. In other words, Wright has intentionally adopted many of the biases of his readers.

There is undoubtedly great apologetic value to such a methodology; but at the same time it's far from clear that it produces the best reading of the New Testament. Indeed, many would insist that some sort of regula fidei is necessary for sound interpretation.

Regardless of whether or not it is the best approach to interpretation, a bracketed reading is not an essentially unbiased reading.

We might imagine such a noble historian as a white-aproned chemist, carefully mixing two parts potassium with one part sodium, or alternatively, as a well-dressed Hercule Poirot, simply observing and then collecting data until the truth of the whole matter is (magically, it seems) produced out of thin air. These images of the historians’ role and achievements linger in popular understanding, as whole television channels dedicated to popularized “history” testify. [...] Nevertheless, within the academy, recognition that history writing is not entirely neutral or “scientific” has long been recognized.

^{Pennington, Jonathan T. (2012-07-01). Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction (p. 94). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.}

Answer 4

Years ago I read with interest Berger and Luckmann's classic The Social Construction of Reality. As near as I could tell, Berger was a sociologist who may have been (and still is?) a Christian. He taught at a variety of schools, including Evangelische Akademie in Germany, the University of North Carolina, Hartford Theological Seminary, the New School for Social Research, Rutgers University, and Boston College, and later in his career became the director of the Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs (formerly the Institute for the Study of Economic Culture).

About the only thing I remember about the book is that not infrequently Berger employed the term "bracketing," particularly when the subject of religion cropped up. As near as I could tell, Berger (and Luckmann's) bracketing was an attempt to put aside (or put on hold) their Christian religious beliefs while expatiating on and developing their thesis on the sociological acquisition of the knowledge of reality.

At the time I read Berger's book (the 1980s), I simply chalked up Berger's bracketing to, at best, an attempt to retain objectivity in a discipline that wasn't then (and probably still is not) brim full of committed Christians who did not believe in hermetically sealing off their Christian presuppositions from their so-called secular intellectual pursuits; and at worst, a slight compromise to keep the peace in a predominantly anti-supernatural, anti-god milieu (not to mention, but I will, his need to make a living). Hey, sociologists have families and need to eat, too! Besides, didn’t Jesus say we’re to be as harmless and doves but as wise as serpents? After all, why get our unbelieving peers on the defensive before they’ve had a chance to ask us of the hope within us (1 Pet 3:15)?

As to whether or not Berger's tendency to bracket any and all truth claims associated with religion was the better part of wisdom and perhaps even God's will for him as a Christian in agnostic academia, I'll leave to others to speculate. The fact remains, he bracketed any Truth claims in that particular book. Whether the bracketing continued in Berger's other books (e.g., The Noise of Solemn Assemblies; The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion; and a Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural) I do not know. Perhaps someone more familiar with Berger's thoughts on religion and the supernatural would care to venture an informed opinion and share it with fans of SE/BH.

The purpose of my lengthy introduction is to suggest that people engage in bracketing all the time, and not just academics, exegetes, and hermeneutists. Is bracketing successful, at least partially? Yes, to some extent.

Some Christians even need to learn how to do so, since both deliberately and sometimes perhaps unwittingly they attempt to shoehorn theology into conversations, discussions, dialogs, and debates where it may not belong but rather sticks out like a pregnant pole-vaulter.

Yes, we Christians are to be ready to give an answer to those who ask us of the hope that is within us, but notice that Peter's admonition says we are to give an answer, and an answer implies a question (1 Peter 3:15)!

Sociologists, scientists, mathematicians, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and blue-collar workers, ad infinitum, all carry certain presuppositions and assumptions with them everywhere they go. The notion that anyone at any time can be 100 percent objective is risible. We are all subjects, are we not? How can subjects separate themselves from themselves? Impossible. To bracket oneself is a contradiction in terms. There are things human beings (and God) simply cannot do. We cannot, for example, engage in things that are characterized by mutual exclusivity. Neither God nor any of us can make a square circle or cause two plus two to equal three.

On the other hand, we have been given the ability by our Creator to be able to look at ourselves at one remove in what is called a self-reflexive mode. Perhaps apropos your question (or perhaps not!), I thought of “Doubting Thomas.”

Thomas wanted to believe what Jesus said, but he had difficulty bracketing his doubts and simply believing, unless he could be persuaded to do so by empirical proof. When Jesus said to him and the other disciples,

". . . I go to prepare a place for you, [and] if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself . . .. And you know the way where I am going” (Jn 14:3-5),

in response to these words, Thomas said in effect,

Lord, I don’t even know your destination, let alone how you’re getting there!

And then Jesus said to him,

”I am the way, the truth, and the life . . .” (14:6).

In conclusion, in one sense, bracketing is clearly impossible, since we cannot separate ourselves from ourselves. On the other hand, we are able to step back and question some of our assumptions when we are wrestling with an inner- and/or outer conflict. King David is known for saying,

”Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why have you become disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall again praise Him For the help of His presence” (Ps 42:5,11).

We can bracket such things as assumptions, negative (stinkin’) thinkin’, but we succeed only in fooling ourselves if we think our brackets are hermetically sealed. Yeah, we can play devil’s advocate with others and with ourselves, but when all is said and done, we cannot simply divest ourselves of the roots of our being, which Kenneth Burke calls true piety. The only way to do so at a fundamental level is by being persuaded otherwise.

Answer 5

**1bi·as noun \ˈbī-əs\

: a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly** (Merriam Webster Dictionary).

Yes, it is possible to lay aside bias when approaching Scripture to interpret it. It is essential to humble oneself before Scriptural and the Spirit of Scripture, with faith, in such a way that the text leads one leads one away from bias and into the mind of Christ.

Hebrews 4:1 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things
are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account (nkjv).

Scripture is able to preform surgery on our hearts and thoughts, souls and minds. The core of an individual determines the the outcome. If self is core, there is a bias toward self; then what oneself thinks or believes already, appears more important that what one finds in the text. If one's culture or tradition is core, there is a bias toward tradition; then the way we have always done it or thought about it appears more important than the text. If one's affiliation is central, there is a denominational bias; than denominational doctrines and teachings are more important that what one reads in the text. Through such biases, we will likely render the Word of God of no effect and it will likely result in treating others unfairly. If, however, God Himself and His living Word abide in us and we in Him, and He is our core, then what He says is most important. He says it, we believe it, we confess it (say the same thing as Him). Any thoughts, beliefs, traditions or doctrines that are in keeping with what Scripture says remain. Any not in keeping with it are denied. In this way we are transformed by the renewing of our minds, from faith to faith, line upon line, precept upon precept. Unlike biases that result in unfair treatment, the mind of Christ leads to unity.

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

It is then irrelevant what biases we had when we came to the Scripture, it matters what biases we walk away from and whose mind we walk into.

Answer 6

1. Question Restatement:

Is it possible to be unbiased when interpreting Scripture?

---

2. Scripture itself requires an inclination / disposition bias:

No matter which way the answer falls, a bias can certainly undermine a conclusion - if it is not disclosed.

A better question might be, "Is it possible to properly interpret Scripture - without bias?", because:

All throughout Scripture - it is stated that a bias actually IS required:

There are way too many passages of Scripture to cite here - that assert that a bias IS required, (a particular temperament, inclination, or disposition, see Bias Definition).

NASB, Deuteronomy 30:17 - But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, [lit. hear | תִשְׁמָ֑ע], but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them,

NASB, Jeremiah 23:17 “They keep saying to those who despise Me, ‘The Lord has said, “You will have peace”’; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’

NASB, Ezekiel 36:26 - Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

This is reflected in the New Testament as well:

NASB, Matthew 11:15 - He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Properly Interpreting the Garden of Eden Narrative, with Bias:

For example, I personally interpret the phrase that Eve was created to be a "helper suitable" for Adam, as "An advocate to go before him," (which might even entail standing before him to challenge him).

I interpret Eve's role with a sense of nobility, because Eve's actions contending with the Serpent, and then with God, are very consistent with that interpretation - resulting in Adam's life being saved. Also, I find that every narrative in Scripture shows that life only comes through this kind of advocacy for others - regardless of "who is right", (like Job being healed - only after he prayed for his friends, or salvation coming to the world because of Jesus' unconditional advocacy on the cross, or Rahab's advocacy for the spies, Samson's for Israel, Moses for Israel, David for Israel, etc, etc).

However, that narrative cannot be reasonably interpreted this way - without all of those presuppositions and biases.

But - this "heart / mind-set" is what Scripture explicitly states is required to properly understand Scripture - over and over again, ("a heart of flesh, not stone").

However, and But: In classic Rhetoric, several objections exist, including:

Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.

Conclusion:

So no, Biblical texts - themselves - suggest that Scripture cannot be properly interpreted unless a person actually IS biased - and chooses to employ a systematic theology that "God is desperately in love with the world and desperate for life, and therefore decreed, that:

"Mercy triumphs over judgment, and that judgment will be merciless to those who show no mercy," (James 4, and all throughout Scripture).

Answer 7

... A second answer.

1. Question Restatement:

Is it possible to "bracket" your bias during interpretation, enabling you to essentially approach the text in an "unbiased" manner, despite the bias that is technically present?

---

2. Answer - Attempting to Avoiding Bias leads to an Automation Bias:

As a "thought experiment": can a computational, philological, computing system be created that can interpret any text - let alone a Biblical text - without any bias, (even Confirmation Bias)?

Confirmation Bias, Wikipedia Article: the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

Human cognition, by definition, necessarily requires an act of associating an inquiry with prior experience and knowledge, (also see constructivism theory).

This means that any absence of experience, or knowledge, will always cause that examination to be biased - towards previous experiences, and attained knowledge - notwithstanding "divine revelation" and "noetics".

Even when modeling artificial intelligence, some form of cognitive bias is always present - and some biases are necessary conditions for learning.

Specifically, if one were to go to the extreme, to try to "bracket" all possible biases, (perhaps to the extent of using a computer simulation) - it would still, necessarily, lead to an "automation / computation bias".

Automation Bias: The tendency to depend excessively on automated systems which can lead to erroneous automated information overriding correct decisions.

Bracketing Bias: The tendency to depend excessively on unbiased, computated, conclusions which can lead to erroneous inferences overriding correct conclusions, (yep, just made this up; apropos, the existence of "God" is a perfect example of this - another discussion).

In other words, it is impossible to avoid all biases, and therefore necessary to determine which forms of biases are actually valued in Biblical hermeneutics, (a computational / deductive bias is certainly not one of them).

Answer 8

"the techniques used for reading Plato, Philo, and Philippians are identical"

From the quote above pulled from answer 2 I am startled by how far we have lost sight of the simple truth that the Bible is not just another literary work but rather the inspired word of God.The single most common sign that someone has received His Holy Spirit is a new desire to read and to understand the Bible. Each of us has experienced a testimony where someone says "The Bible never made sense before, now I can't put it down".

Thus begins my supposition that each and every translation of the Bible is in of itself a mini-commentary, containing the Bias of the author(s). We are given 4 versions of the Gospel to bear witness that even the inspired Word of God is delivered through each individual's bias (life experience).

So bias exists even in the original texts; we are chasing our tails to think we can operate without bias. Embrace it and even allow it to reveal truth that no one else might see! But also pray that you are sensitive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit for it will teach you everything you need to know, rather than to lean on your own understanding. Bias exists as a tool God uses to reveal truth in a unique way for a unique time. The book of Esther revealed truths to the persecuted Jews in Europe of the early 20th century that is far different from the truths revealed to us in America here in the early 21st century.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.