Habilitationsschrift--Kiel. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 286-301).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 1997. / Abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 92-103).

Habilitationsschrift--Kiel. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 286-301).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1996. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 159-168).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1992. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 181-183).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 92-109).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1986. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 177-181).

This thesis sets out to contribute to two fields: Augustinian studies, particularly on De doctrina christiana, and theology, specifically biblical interpretation. To do so, it puts Augustine’s text into dialogue with contemporary theological hermeneutics. The dialogical nature of the exercise allows him to remain a living voice, speaking from outside, providing resources to move beyond the current debates about the use of theology in biblical interpretation. Such a dialogue requires understanding Augustine’s text well while also grasping the existing situation. This thesis therefore explores De doctrina, engaging with typical debates and seeking to hear Augustine’s voice through the words of the text. Thereafter, his hermeneutical treatise is put into dialogue with two contemporary theologians, Werner Jeanrond and Stephen Fowl. I categorize Augustine’s text as an a posteriori hermeneutics in contrast to Jeanrond’s a priori hermeneutics. That is, Augustine does not conceive of his theory as a constraint to a logically subsequent practice in the way Jeanrond does. At the same time, Augustine does not write a strictly local hermeneutics. He can be flexible and eclectic, utilizing philosophy without subordinating theology. Still, the nature of his hermeneutics requires the ecclesial community, a commitment that brings him close to Fowl. In contrast to Fowl, however, Augustine still has much to say about the text’s voice in the words of the authors of scripture. Scriptural interpretation engenders virtue for Augustine, whereas for Fowl, the lack of virtue in the church inhibits interpretation. Above all, I argue on the basis of De doctrina that the paradigm for theological interpretation is the sermon and that its end is to engender the double love of God and neighbor.

The Farewell Discourse is a unique and climactic portion of John's Gospel which serves as a hinge on which the entire Gospel narrative pivots from Jesus' public ministry to his Passion. Shallow readings of this Discourse often pass over or ignore significant aspects of the text, especially the instruction and preparation Jesus was giving by word and action to make ready his disciples to continue his mission to the world after his departure. Other readings (notably form-critical) see the text as disarranged and therefore not a coherent whole. A thorough analysis employing the elements of Greco-Roman rhetoric has shown that there is a rhetorical dimension to the Discourse which makes sense of the text as a coherent whole. The Farewell Discourse was found to follow a rhetorical arrangement which gives a literary explanation to some assumed form-critical problems such as the ending at 14:31. Not only does this rhetorical structure give appropriate closure and transition with movement from one topic to another, it does so with a chiastic arrangement of the major topics. This thesis demonstrates that assumed disarrangements, repetitions and amplifications that have appeared problematic to other approaches do not detract from, but actually enhance the ability of the text to move and persuade. Rhetorical analysis is thus capable of giving insights into the text that otherwise might be overlooked or ignored. Throughout the Discourse, Jesus' ethos (character) as the divine one who "knows" stands out boldly and his persuasive appeal (logos) to the pathos (emotional response) of the disciples is strong, both as he seeks to move them beyond their present sorrow and distress and as he prepares them to face the future realistically and with confidence. The fourth evangelist thus presents Jesus operating rhetorically (in act as well as speech) and strategically uses Jesus' interaction with his disciples to seek a rhetorical outcome with his readers. This rhetorical approach provides a bridge between literary approaches on the one hand (which can proceed at the expense of taking into account the historical context) and historical critical approaches on the other (which can proceed at the expense of hearing the text speak as text). A rhetorical reading accounts for both literary and historical dimensions of the text. This thesis demonstrates that it is an effective interpretive methodology which elucidates dimensions of the text not adequately accounted for by other approaches.

Thesis advisor: David M. Rasmussen / Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur have each proposed remarkably similar hermeneutic approaches to the interpretation of texts. They both approach hermeneutics starting from particular insights in Husserl's and Heidegger's respective phenomenologies. They both are wary of the claims of the need for objectivity to provide adequate interpretations of texts. They both turn to Plato and Aristotle to provide models and insights for the interpretation of texts. Gadamer and Ricoeur both devote considerable attention to the critique of prior significant figures in hermeneutics. They both utilize and exploit the difference between the structures and elements of a language and the actual use and expressions made in that language for the purpose of explaining how meaning is created. For all their similarities, there are differences between the hermeneutic approaches and theories of Gadamer and Ricoeur. One significant difference between the two is the attitude that each thinker takes toward tradition or dogma. Gadamer approaches prior interpretive contexts, i.e., tradition, in a manner that privileges their capacity to provide viewpoints to adequately and effectively interpret texts. Ricoeur, on the other hand, eyes tradition more critically. His research into many of the human sciences and their methodological and philosophical foundations leads to a greater awareness and acceptance of the possible deceptive and misleading capacities of tradition. This difference in attitude toward tradition expresses itself clearly in another difference between the two thinkers. Gadamer, unlike Ricoeur, is unwilling to accept the inclusion of methodologies and insights of the human sciences within the purview of hermeneutics. Gadamer argues that such an inclusion would be anathema to the hermeneutic and philosophical project. Ricoeur, on the other hand, argues that the inclusion of these insights leads to a broadening of hermeneutic resources and to the continued relevance of hermeneutics to the philosophical project. The inclusion of the insights of the human sciences within hermeneutics also points to another significant difference between Gadamer and Ricoeur. Ricoeur argues that the determination of the meaning of a text must always be achieved through a detour to a viewpoint that lies outside the text. There must be some distance between the text and interpreter if the interpreter is to provide an adequate interpretation. Ricoeur recognizes that this demand would seem to place him in the camp of those hermeneutists who demand objectivity for acceptable interpretation. Ricoeur provides a convincing defense against this charge. Gadamer, on the other hand, argues that any move outside of that of the text serves to impose an interpretation upon it that is not sensitive or authentic to it. For Gadamer, recourse to an interpretive viewpoint outside of the text is merely a capitulation to the methodologies of control and domination of positivism and scientism. In this dissertation I explore the similarities and differences among the theories of Gadamer and Ricoeur. I explore the similarities and differences that some commentators of Gadamer and Ricoeur have found. I provide a detailed examination of Gadamer's pivotal work Truth and Method. I consider Gadamer's assessments of prior hermeneutical figures, like Schleiermacher and Dilthey, and Gadamer's proposals for an alternative approach to hermeneutical interpretation. I also examine two of Ricoeur's significant works: The Conflict of Interpretations and Time and Narrative. In a short, but dense, article Ricoeur speaks directly to what he perceives to be the difference between his work and that of Gadamer and Habermas. Through the analysis of these three works, I hope to demonstrate how Ricoeur's hermeneutical theory is both similar to and different from Gadamer's. I argue that Ricoeur's hermeneutics provides resources to address some of the weaknesses present in Gadamer's thought, particularly Gadamer's assessment of the reliability of tradition for the interpretation of texts. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.