Disclaimer

What I present here is a nascent concept and one that has probably already been articulated. If you have any feedback or know of someone who has already introduced a concept like the one below, please let me know. Thanks!

Abstract

Part of the confusion about hermeneutics, especially in the world of conservative evangelicalism, is a failure to differentiate between the truth of a statement (whether the statement corresponds with objective reality) and the validity of a statement (whether the statement is actually found in the text). In this article, I define the concepts of truth and validity as they relate to interpretation and consider some of the impacts these definitions produce.

Truth and Validity

Defining the Truth of a Statement

In this concept of truth and validity, truth is used to describe whether or not a statement derived from a text corresponds with reality1. For example, consider the following sentence:

“It is clear, then, that in the realm of mathematics, 2 + 2 = 5.”

We could derive from this that 2 + 2 = 5. While this statement is clearly found in the text (hence, it is valid), it does not correspond with reality and is therefore false.

Defining the Validity of a Statement

The validity of a statement describes whether or not that statement corresponds to the meaning of the text. For example, if one reads the same passage used in the previous example:

“It is clear, then, that in the realm of mathematics, 2 + 2 = 5.”

One may draw from it the statement the same statement as before (namely 2 + 2 = 5). Because this statement is accurately derived from the text, this interpretation is valid. As we discussed in the last section, the interpreted meaning is also false. Thus, validity and truth are independent of one another; a true statement can be either valid or invalid and a false statement can be either valid or invalid.

An Example

Let us consider Titus 3:4-7:

“But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.”

If someone were to read this and come away thinking 2 + 2 must be equal to 4, this interpretation would be true (it corresponds to reality) but invalid (it is not found in the text).

If someone read this and comes away thinking God is our savior, this is true (although some would disagree, but this disagreement is rooted in the nature of reality) and valid (it comes from the text).

Hence, every statement interpreted from a text can be classified as either [true or false] and either [valid or invalid]. Before moving forward to the implications of this, I would first like to draw an analogy between this concept and the concept of truth and validity in formal logic.

An Analogy from Formal Logic

Many of you have probably already noticed a striking similarity between the definitions I just provided and those used in formal logic. Formal logic makes a distinction between the truth of a conclusion and the validity of the argument2. A conclusion can be true or false independent of whether the argument is valid or invalid. This is analogous to the distinction I am suggesting above regarding interpretations except that I am applying truth and validity to the same thing (namely, an interpretation of a text) while in formal logic, truth is applied to the conclusion and validity is applied to the argument as a whole.

Impacts of This Understanding of Truth and Validity

Understanding the distinction between truth and validity helps us classify interpretations. If one affirms the divine nature and source of the Bible and its inerrancy and infallibility, it follows that all meanings which are rightly interpreted from scripture is true. The question then becomes one of validity. As long as we are correctly interpreting what the text actually says, this gives us confidence that what we are saying is true. Understanding the difference between truth and validity should also help us avoid a consequentialist hermeneutic where we are comfortable practicing any hermeneutic that produces true conclusions. The problem with a consequentialist hermeneutic is that it ignores the validity of an interpretation. It assumes that it is good enough to arrive at a true conclusion, but it is not; we must arrive at true and valid conclusions. We need to find the right doctrine from the right passages using the right hermeneutic.

Further Research

Because every interpretation can be classified as either [true or false] and [valid or invalid], there are four possible conditions a text can have (true-valid, true-invalid, false-valid, false-invalid). In the future, I would like to explore this classification model and seek to identify any other constructs which can be derived from that model and to identify what practices may lead to true-valid conclusions versus other conclusions.