​The Trouble with Assumptions

Assumptions.

We make them and they make us.  

Assumptions often draw their energy from stereotypes and unexamined beliefs we absorb from our families or culture. For example, many Korean senior citizens refuse to use an electric fan while sleeping for fear that it will negatively affect the oxygen level or temperature of the sleeper. “Fans can kill!” they insist. The myth is dying out, but there are still quite a few older folks who continue to resist the nighttime fan. 

Children can absorb racist or classist opinions from their formative communities, families, siblings and other role models, resulting in ongoing needless tension between people even to the point of violence. In that case, acquired assumptions ought to be critiqued. 

But when faced with a snap decision, assumptions can be existentially helpful.

Our brains can only process a limited amount of information per moment, and making an assumption can provide a vital shortcut to appropriate action. If I see a roaring, slobbering bear charging in my general direction, it would not behoove me to examine my assumptions about mammals of the bear variety. Better to lean on the assumption that this creature is dangerous and a swift escape is in my best interest. 

An assumption is a mini-belief that we've absorbed as being true, and can safely and uncritically apply that belief to the world around us. Most of the time assumptions work well enough so that we don't need to question them. When a baby is clothed in a cute little blue outfit, it's probably safe to refer to the infant as he or him (in our culture- not in some others!). When we read a novel or watch a TV drama, we assume that it will contain a coherent story arc, characters interacting, and maybe vivid descriptions of the settings and circumstances of the story. When a story or show does not meet those expectations, we might either appreciate the novelty of the departure from the norm or, more commonly, we give it zero stars. Assuming that the laws of physics will hold up from moment to moment has proven to be a reliable and efficient way to move through the world, but a peek into the underlying quantum realm can make one wonder how much of reality is illusory. 

We're talking about unexamined beliefs or expectations, accepting a "truth" without pausing to gather evidence to support it; agreeing that everyone "just knows" that's the way things are. In the case of mad bears, a quick assumption is life-saving. Not so much when you encounter people who don't share your culture, language, social and economic status, political realities or worldview. Their sets of assumptions are radically different from ours, and ignoring that fact guarantees misunderstanding. 

Most of us would agree that we actually do encounter cultures that are far different from ours when we read ancient documents, especially those that confidently assume propositions about reality that sound ridiculous to those of us more accustomed to a scientific approach. It really helps to know something about the differential in knowledge between an ancient writer and a modern one, for example, the causes of disease, natural disasters, astronomical events and general misfortune. 

It works the other way around as well. When we approach an ancient text with our particular set of assumptions and act as if ours matched theirs, it’s a foolproof recipe for misinterpretation. 

Many faithful Christians regularly read translated versions of ancient texts that are easily two thousand years old, but because of a set of assumptions about the specialness of these texts, don’t remember to account for the context and rhetorical goals of the earliest editions of these writings. The idea that the Bible is the sacred and actual words of God can cause us to see what we want to see instead of what the original intent was. While it may be in some ways legitimate for a reader to construct a new meaning from an old text, we also need to consider how we might let the text speak for itself on its own terms.   

How can we dig out the assumptions we unwittingly map onto our Bibles? It's normal to be oblivious to the mental constructs we bring with us when we head into the scriptures to find meaning. One way to change that is to listen to a wide range of scholars who spend their careers discerning the mindsets of the ancients who wrote from perspectives that are completely alien to ours. One of the first assumptions you'll bump into on the way is the common belief that the Bible is a fully divine product and therefore free from error. Since God is perfect, the argument goes, the reader should expect no contradictions or errors of any kind. Apparent discrepancies can be explained and solved with a bit of creative interpretation. Is that a fair assumption? Does it stand up to scrutiny?

One step in that direction is to identify what some of those expectations might be. 

James Kugel in his book How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now outlines four well-worn common assumptions that inform so many interpretive approaches to the Bible. These four categories of expectations of biblical texts are not unique to us, they've been around since the misty origins of the Torah. Ancient interpreters saw no reason to examine their inherited standpoints; As you'll see, creative interpretation beyond any context was not only allowed, but expected. Here we have summarized Kugel's four assumptions:

Assumption One

Biblical texts are essentially cryptic. The plain sense of the text is not necessarily the only meaning that can be found there. Even transitional phrases like "And after all this came to pass…" challenges the interpreter to figure out what could possibly have taken place. Literal words and phrases could be full of hidden meanings that when puzzled out reveal a moral lesson or solve a contradiction with another text. This expectation forms the basis of more than a few modern sermons and Bible studies, for example, when we read the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, we immediately assign meanings to the forbidden fruit, the serpent and God's response to the chastened couple that go beyond the plain written text. Ever hear a sermon or read a book on Revelation or biblical eschatology (end times)? Even if we're not a fan of "Bible Codes" or biblical numerology, we are still impressed when a Bible teacher comes up with a hidden meaning, connection or application we never saw before. This can lead one to suppose that the Bible could be full of obscure meanings that can be brought to light by an expert reader.

Assumption Two

Biblical texts are universal. God's message, embedded in ancient narratives, prophecies, laws, poems and so on, possess ready application to every culture, time and place, from Brazilian tribes to British royalty. When a biblical source records a request for protection from certain enemies, we feel free to insert the names of our own enemies in spite of the fact that we aren't looking out our window to see Egyptian or Assyrian armies massed outside the walls of our town. This assumption leads to the conclusion that the contents of the Bible are mainly pedagogical, meant to instruct the reader in practical, everyday ways. The value of biblical texts can be personal to the modern reader despite their focus on circumstances radically different from our own. We run into trouble when topics like marriage or social status are mentioned in the scriptures and we map our own interpretive certainties onto first century Hellenized Jewish notions. We can end up with conclusions that are completely foreign to the original intent of the text because of the mismatch between our world and theirs.  

Assumption Three

The Bible is error-free. Contradictions and mistakes cannot be found in the texts making up the scriptures, and every word is in perfect accord with the beliefs and practices contemporary to the modern interpreter. Whether you find yourself living in the period surrounding Israel and Judah's diaspora and captivity, in Luther's German academic halls, or in a twenty-first century evangelical congregation, we assume that the Bible a priori does not deviate from consistency with our "correct" views. If there is a whiff of contradiction, anachronism, geographical or historical error, exaggeration or bias, we interpreters must puzzle it out until it fits into place. If God appears to change his mind, or punish people for relatively minor offenses, an explanation that best keeps the Bible together as a single-minded, inerrant unit always wins. It's why we have books entitled Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties.

One example is the gospel resurrection accounts. Luke's Jesus is portrayed as commanding the stunned disciples to "...stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (a reach forward to Luke's second volume, Acts), while Matthew's Jesus reminds the two Marys that he would see them in Galilee, where they later meet to receive a commission as apostles. John's gospel includes both traditions and Mark sides with Matthew. The fact that Matthew jumps to Galilee in order to maintain his mountaintop symbolism should tell us that reading with a binary inerrant / errant mindset does not always fit the text.

Assumption Four

Overarching the other assumptions is the firm belief that the unitary work of the Bible is primarily a divine product, a book that was essentially produced by God and given to humans as a source of revelation. Inerrantists (those who are especially convinced of assumption three) phrase it this way: "when the Bible speaks, God speaks." This includes texts that don't contain any direct quotes from God, like most of the material in the Psalms that record the words of a human worshipper addressing God, or narratives that simply record what happened. This assumption leads to a belief in the doctrine of inspiration- the idea that God did something mysterious in the composition of the original texts that resulted in an exact representation of what he wanted to say. Not only that, but the same enigmatic process was in play every time a scribe put pen to parchment to copy a Greek text or translate it into Latin. The “divine product” assumption elevates what might have originated as ordinary human-produced documents to a special category of unassailable authority as the exact words of God. This puts a great deal of pressure on scripture to precisely line up with varying cultural reality maps over long periods of time and distance. 

Assessing Assumptions

Are these assumptions valid? Are there other ones that make more sense? Is it possible that past editors and redactors who were a bit less convinced of assumption four might have "adjusted" some biblical content in order to better harmonize with their aims? What if we made an attempt to see the Bible without these four assumptions? And their history? We know something about the debates concerning canonicity that occurred in the centuries after the texts were produced, and it was anything but certain that a given book would achieve the rank of sacred scripture. It took a long time for the mystique to develop as people discussed them, started using them in liturgy and re-understood them as special.

The Bible is an anthology of ancient documents processed through multiple centuries, languages, cultures and theological persuasions. Most of us aren't accustomed to reading and interpreting ancient literature, but when it comes to our Bibles, we like to think that we are experts at deciphering texts that are truly alien to our world. Simply acknowledging that fact should render our certainty suspect even though it complicates things for the Christ-follower who takes the Bible seriously.

Because we bring many subtle, detailed assumptions to the texts of the Bible, some diligence is called for. Christian Bible readers often betray a double standard when it comes to arriving at the “correct” meanings of scripture. On one hand, we insist that historical context, ancient social mores, Greek grammar and literary analysis are important n deciphering what the Bible is saying, and we love all those little insights into the world of first century Judea that appear to sharpen our interpretations. 

On the other hand, Christians also contend that true understanding of this sacred book requires sacred help, often quoting 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 and other passages that infer that deeper apprehension of truth is only possible through a mystical process involving a collaboration between the reader and God the Holy Spirit. As one writer puts it: “...without the power of the Holy Spirit, we cannot understand [the Bible]. Taking their cues from Paul, many believers are quick to apply a form of circular reasoning when they read the 1 Corinthians passage: 

“Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.

Not just anyone can truly understand the Bible- only those with the proper God-given spiritual discernment. How do we know this? The Bible itself tells us! 

There are problems with this circularity of reasoning for people who are also enculturated to think scientifically. There’s also the fact that the subject that Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthians chapter 2 is not scripture, but what he calls “gifts.” One could suppose that God’s gifts include a written book, but it's not explicit in the passage. 

There are underlying rhetorical structures many of us have never heard of, but should have a tremendous impact on interpretation. Simply knowing a bit of Greco-Roman rhetoric or letter-writing conventions can help us avoid misinterpreting a text because our unexamined, unconscious assumptions will lead us to a biased and possibly wrong certainty about a text's meaning and application.

Taking a deeper look at our assumptions frees the text to speak for itself and encourages us to look at other reasonable, coherent and possibly superior interpretations. Historians and others who study ancient texts like those in the Bible live in probabilities and plausibilities, not certainties, and perhaps we would do well to write our certainties in pencil with a good supply of erasers handy.

For more:

Kugel, James, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now

Schniedewind, William M., How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel