The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and W

This work is a milestone for the discipline of hermeneutics. Thiselton appeals to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and the later Wittgenstein in mutually qualifying ways so as to, in effect, usher in a new paradigm for hermeneutics that has still not been appreciated. I know this to be the case because I did my PhD (The Grammar of Hermeneutics) on Thiselton's hermeneutical theory, and on The Two Horizons in particular, and Thiselton has commended my thesis. If Gadamer transposes an over-abstract and over-totalising Hegelian philosophy of history into a more concrete hermeneutics of traditions, then he still requires correction from the later Wittgenstein in regards to a more properly extra-linguistic grounding for language in the particularities and continuities of historical speech-action. Gadamer also requires correction from Schleiermacher, Heidegger and Bultmann in relation to an adequate stress on a non-transcendental 'unique' human subject (Dasein), and in relation to the fact that tradition does not always filter out false prejudgments through effective history. Saussure and the tradition of general linguistics adds specificity in relation to Gadamer's notion of 'distancing', such that Gadamer's relative silence with respect to the actual practicalities of interpretation in relation to the historical particularity of the textual horizon is addressed. A final way in which Gadamer requires correction if we are to espouse a theological hermeneutic centres on - in Gadamer's own words - the historicity of the incarnation, the point at which Gadamer reckoned that he and Pannenberg parted company. Thus, against what many critics have argued, Thiselton's title 'The Two Horizons' is as much of a criticism of Gadamer as it is an adoption of Gadamer's philosophy of understanding. Nor is Thiselton merely Pannenbergian, because of his appeals to Wittgenstein. Nor is Thiselton a mere follower of the New Hermeneutic, as James Barr erroneously argues. On the contrary, the opposite is the case. Thus, within theological hermeneutics, if Bultmann's dialogue with philosophy was not broad enough to solve the hermeneutical problem, then that of the New Hermeneutic was not broad enough either. This is not at all to argue that such thinkers were 'narrowly read', but rather that their preunderstandings were prematurely fixed critically speaking such that insufficient of their vast philosophical reading was allowed to contribute positively to the critical filter against which such influences were judged. Thus, Thiselton is concerned to broaden philosophical and theological dialogue beyond that of the New Hermeneutic, which he does in no less than seven ways. One of the main points that emerged from my study of The Two Horizons was that no single response in the literature had understood it adequately - a point that Thiselton acknowledged was the case. Whilst Thiselton's style is quite dense, it is well worth understanding The Two Horizons, since it is far more