Interpretational Method Doesn’t Determine Outcome?

The method of interpretation does not really determine the end result of interpretation. Hermeneutical methods are the tools we use to find out what a Scripture text means…as tools, they do not themselves determine what meaning will be found in a text, any more than a woodcarver’s tools determine what he will do with a piece of wood. 61

I was reading through the wonderful Let the Reader Understand when I stumbled across this incredibly poor illustration. The intention of McCartney and Clayton is summarized on page 62, “Hermeneutical goal is more important than, and antecedent to, method.” This is true and properly addressed. However, the authors have clearly overstated their case and made a false assertion.

Firstly, the analogy between an interpreter and a wood-carver is not accurately represented. To be an accurate analogy, it should read, “…any more than a woodcarver’s tools determine the end result of the carving,” not “any more than a woodcarver’s tools determine what he will do with a piece of wood.”  The end result is the wood-carving, not the will and actions of the wood-carver. The original argument is that “the method of interpretation does not really determine the end result of the interpretation,” not “the method of interpretation does not really determine the actions/intention of the interpreter.” Clayton and McCartney appear to have unintentionally slipped in a straw-man argument; no one is arguing that a woodcarver’s tools will determine what he does with them, but there is no question that a woodcarver’s tools determine what the final carving (e.g. interpretation) looks like!

Secondly, the conclusion is false. The method of interpretation does determine the end result of interpretation. Two persons with the same interpretive intentions and presuppositions can arrive at two different conclusions regarding one particular text. In the same way, two wood-carvers with the same experience can try and carve a similar object (i.e. a duck), but due to the lack of proper tools (i.e. jig saw, chisel, etc.) and lack of proper method (i.e. no knowledge of how to smooth and shave wood), can arrive at two very, very different looking ducks (if ducks at all!). It’s almost as if Clayton and McCartney are asserting that if I want badly enough to construct a beautiful house, it doesn’t matter how I build it or what tools I use, the “end result” will be a beautiful house.

In short, Clayton and McCartney are right in saying “Hermeneutical goal is more important than, and antecedent to, method.” But there is no need to go as far as to say that method doesn’t determine outcome. In fact, the two assertions are not antithetical, but rather complimentary. One should avoid being reductionistic and hold on to both truths: both hermeneutical goals and hermeneutics itself (as tools) determine the outcome of interpretation.