Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description

by Anthony C. Thiselton

This lucidly written survey of hermeneutics includes a thorough examination of the extent of the contribution of philosophy to the interpretation of the Bible, as well as a detailed original treatment of the work of Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein. Notes; full bibliography; indexes.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Biblical Studies, Reference

484 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1969

About the author

Anthony Charles Thiselton is emeritus professor of Christian theology at the University of Nottingham and a fellow of the British Academy. His recent publications include Approaching Philosophy of Religion, Discovering Romans, Systematic Theology, The Holy Spirit, and The Last Things.

Reviews

[Charles Puskas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read portions of this book when it was first published in 1980 (his revised dissertation), but I now wanted to read through all 455 pages to understand Thiselton earliest interpretations Heidegger, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein for New Testament interpretation. His understandings of Heidegger and Gadamer are helpful especially as they relate to the new hermeneutic (now waning in influence). His assessment of Wittgenstein is selective probably due to the perplexity of his thought and its relevance for biblical interpretation. I hope to compare his earlier insights with some of his later publications to note any change in his assessment and understanding of these continental philosophers.

[Jack Hayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Two Horizons is a challenging book to review. If you are interested in the New Hermeneutic, which is no longer new, this is a book to check out. He clearly outlines the field, beginning with Heidegger, seeing Bultmann’s place in hermeneutics and Gadamer’s innovation, and ends with a most optimistic assessment of Wittgenstein. Overall, Thiselton is trying to demonstrate that the text and its interpreter are separate. This separation is not wholly inadequate, so perhaps reader responses can be valid. This is because we cannot escape our pre-understanding and the fact that we are in a world. Helpfully in the last chapter, he outlines how Wittegenstiens grammatical proportions can help us understand the NT.

Overall, it is a good starting place for general hermeneutics and a cry for all disciplines to listen to be humble.

89% Fusing means listening to the other and realizing you are other

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thiselton draws from Gadamer’s “fusion of horizons” and argues that “the modern interpreter, no less than the text, stands in a given historical context and tradition” (Thiselton 11). Earlier, more Enlightenment-friendly hermeneutics agreed that the text was culturally and socially conditioned. They simply denied that they, too, were conditioned. While the book at times reads like a summary encyclopedia of several thinkers, Thiselton goes break new ground and clear misconceptions.

Thiselton’s use of scholars like Heidegger, Gadamer, Bultmann, and Wittgenstein calls attention to “horizons” as “pre-understanding,” the limit of which an interpreter can see. For Heidegger, the reader doesn’t have a viewpoint outside of history. “The relation between Dasein to its world is prior to the separation between subject and object” (145). Heidegger’s world is analogous to (if not identical with) Gadamer’s tradition. Heidegger gives us several tools for interpretation: State-of-mind = one’s mood. Mood manifests our Dasein and our thrownness. Mood, feeling, etc., “disclose something to us” (163). Understanding = it is a priori. “Dasein has possibilities before it knows possibilities.” What we call ‘understanding’ is a projection of Dasein’s Being ‘both upon its for-the-sake-of-which’ and upon significance, as the worldhood of the current world’” (163-164). In other words, what we consider ‘significant’ has to already be related to our ‘universe of concern.’

Thiselton ends with several chapters on Ludwig Wittgenstein. He argues that the earlier Wittgenstein was not enslaved to positivism, but was unduly influenced by Kant’s dualism. Perhaps, I am no expert.

[Timothy Crouch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terrific. Dense (though lucid), no doubt; requiring considerable background knowledge, absolutely; now dated in some specific conclusions, probably. But an incredibly impressive synthesis of deep and wide-ranging research, and an eloquent defense / proof of the value of philosophical description for biblical interpretation. Five stars is for books that “everyone should read” — and not everyone should read this. But for those interested in the existential questions of biblical scholarship, it is surely essential to engage with Thiselton’s programme.

[John Antony · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most competent theology books ever written.
Thiselton was a scholar of singular erudition.

[Richard Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

found at:
http://theosproject.blogspot.com/2007...

borrowed from uofa

[Mayowa Adebiyi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much easier to read than Vanhoozer's "is there meaning in this Text", precedes it yet just as good as KJV's sophisticated treatment of Literary Theory (in fact Vanhoozer quotes from it extensively).

Although this is just as good in its own right, I'd recommend reading this first and then tackling Vanhoozer as well.

[Jacob]

This is tough. It would probably be very helpful to read his sparring partners before reading this. I got about 1/3 of the way through before giving up. I'm sure there is a lot here, but it's not helpful to me until I have a better foundation.

[Kevin Hale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dense writing, but helpful.