Mapping the map of Scripture

Debates involving the particular interpretation of Scripture frequently graduate to debates involving hermeneutics in general. And these, in turn, often involve the use of metaphors, like the “hermeneutical circle” or “interpretive grid” or “lens,” &c.

What these metaphors have in common is the suggestion that interpretation is a purely subjective process in which we simply project our preconceived methods and assumptions onto the text. We find what we were looking for. We take from the text what we brought to the text.

As a matter of human psychology or group psychology, that’s often true to one degree or another. Some readers are systematically guilty of doing just that. Indeed, some readers consciously do that very thing.

However, this type of metaphor tends to be overdrawn. For one thing, those that use it usually do think they know what Scripture means. They exempt themselves from the skeptical metaphor they apply to their opponents.

Every metaphor has its limitations. But if we’re going to use a metaphor to capture the hermeneutical process, my preference would be a cartographic metaphor.

There are different kids of maps. Different maps focus on different features, or combine different features. Maps can be general, thematic, topographic, topological, or orienteering. Maps can be up to date or out of date. Maps can be local, regional, or global.

In principle, you could use one map to find another map. Suppose you hid a map, like a treasure hunt. If you already had a map, you could use that map to locate the other map.

Which brings me to another point: you could use one kind of map to locate another kind of map. Perhaps the map you were using in your treasure hunt is not a very good map. Sketchy. Dated. Barely adequate. You make a few wrong turns.

Still, by using that map, you are able to find the other map. The map you discover is a much better map. More current. More detailed. Now that you have a better map, you can discard the inferior map.

You use your inferior map to discover a superior map. Once you have your hands on the superior map, you no longer need the inferior map. You can now use the superior map to find what you need.

We all bring different maps to our reading of Scripture. But Scripture is, itself a map. And we can compare one map with another. We can begin to observe the differences.

Once we study the Scriptural map, we become less dependent on the extrascriptural map we initially brought to the quest. Even if we needed an extrascriptural map to locate the Scriptural map, once we discover the Scriptural map, we can transition to the Scriptural map. The Scriptural map can correct for mistakes on the extrascriptural map.

What we start with is not what we end with. You can use one map to search for another. You don’t have to keep using the same map from start to finish. It’s possible to trade-up.

Or, to return to the lens metaphor, you can use an old pair of glasses to find a new pair of glasses. Even if you can’t see without a pair of glasses, and the old pair has an old prescription, it may be adequate to help you locate the new pair. Once you find the new pair, you don’t need to keep wearing the old pair.