Hermeneutics is the science of making choices between one or more possible translations of a text, or one or more interpretations of a text. It is that body of principles, which sets the rules for making sound decisions about the meaning of the holy writings. Without consistent hermeneutics, a person, or a sect, or a even cult can get virtually any meaning they want out of a given text of the holy writings. For this reason the faithful translator and interpreter of the holy writings must be all the more diligent to keep the principles in mind consciously, so as to be careful not to be led astray by the ideological smorgasbord proffered by the religious world.

We must also be aware that even the science of hermeneutics itself has been corrupted by the religious world, so what often goes as a good hermeneutic is only an excuse to interpret the text as one sees fit. So the question remains, "How is a true set of hermeneutics arrived at?" This article will answer that question, and then it will provide a few examples, or exercises to show the application of some of the rules.

First, a good hermeneutic can be applied in every single interpretive situation which faces the translator or biblical interpreter. Contrast this with the poor hermeneutic which is only applied in a few cases, and then another different principle is substituted at the pleasure of the interpreter. The good hermeneutic, however, is applied even handedly all the time.

Most hermeneutics are simply common sense rules that most people would readily agree with. The problem is that these rules need to be pointed out and consciously applied in the case of the holy writings, because it is only with the interpretation or translation of the holy writings that prejudices and emotions run so high. Therefore, a heavy dose of self-control and consistent principle has to be carefully applied if interpreters are to avoid a "hermanuetical relativism."

There is a hermeneutic that is more important than all others, best described as the "Prime Directive" of interpretive rules. That principle is simply stated: There is a meaning that is normative at each level of linguistic expression, which ought to be assumed unless the context proves otherwise. The old name for this principle is "literal interpretation," but it is no longer as useful as it was as a name for the "prime directive," because its enemies (hermeneutical relativists) have succeeded in characterizing it as a principle which ignores figures of speech, which it did not.

The prime directive can be broken down into smaller units. The usual meaning of a word should be assumed unless the context proves otherwise. And the usual meaning of a prefix or suffix should be assumed unless the context proves otherwise.

The next hermeneutic would follow logically. Secondary or less common meanings should only be used when the primary meaning creates a contradiction in the context. But this is simply the first hermeneutic in different words. Another principle is The smaller units of language govern the meaning of the whole, and another is interpreters should tamper with the original texts as little as possible.

The times when the translator or interpreter needs any other principles than those stated above is so extremely rare that we need not really state them, as nearly every single misinterpretation in existence manages to contradict those already stated above.

Now, so that this does not remain a theoretical exercise, I will show their application to two texts, Yochannan 1:1 [John 1:1], and Yishayahu 9:5 [Isaiah 9:6]. I have chosen these two texts because they are often misinterpreted, and they serve as good examples, not because the Messianic Community has any doubt about what they mean.

First Yochannan 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God." The word "Word" in the Greek is logoV [logos], and in the Greek is normally means a "word" written on a page, or a series of words on a page, i.e. declarative "expression," or "saying," i.e. "explanation." The most normative meaning, of course, would simply be a single written "word," but this would contradict the context, because the word is "God," and letters on a page be not God, unless we are to indulge in bibliolatry, so we must use a secondary sense that is tied as close to the normative meaning as possible, i.e. the word is God's explanation of himself or better yet his "expression" of himself. The Greek word logoV [logos] is also known to have this meaning. If we were to backtranslate it into Hebrew, the equivalent would be rbd [dabar] which has the same two meanings that were discussed for the Greek word.

The conclusion we reached is also supported by the context, i.e. the Word is God's expression of himself, because we find that the "Word was God," and then later we find that the Word is "The only begotten God, who being in the bosom of the Father, who declares him" (Yn. 1:18). That is, when we see the Word (Yayshua, vs. 17) we see God's expression of himself, because Yayshua (the expression) is God himself.

Looking at the word "God," now, we know that the usual meaning of the word is the only God YHWH, and this meaning fits the context without contradiction, hence to remain true to the normative prime directive we should not seek another meaning. Now, let us compare this with another proposed translation of Yn. 1:1, " "In the beginning was Torah, and Torah was with Elohim (Mighty Ones) and Torah was El (a mighty One) ... and Torah was made flesh and tabernacled with us" (*Anonymous).

First, "Torah" does not represent logoV [logos] as well as the Hebrew rbd [dabar]. "Torah" means "teaching," or "instruction," and hence is not as normative as [dabar] or [logos]. Next we look at the translation of [theos], which is normally rendered "God." Keep in mind that the Greek text has a nomina sacra for God, i.e. the first and last letters of the Greek word [theos] or [theon] in the papyri, which is discussed in Vol. 1, No. 3. and Vol. 1, No. 5. As such, it normally represents the Hebrew "Elohim." Similarly in English we put "God" to indicate "Elohim," since the singular English "God" is inadequate to convey this, and nobody wants to say "Gods." The word "Elohim," can mean "mighty ones," but again this meaning is secondary, and according to the prime directive should only be resorted to when a logical contradiction would otherwise occur with the context. Finally, the switch from the plural "Elohim," to the singular "El" by Our Anonymous author is not supported by the context. The same nomina sacra should be translated as the same normative nomina sacra in both cases, i.e. Elohim. Therefore, the text should read, "In the beginning was the Word [dabar, expression], and the Word [dabar, expression] was with the Elohim [God], and the Word [dabar, expression] was Elohim [God]."

Finally two last points on this text. Our Anonymous author has the Torah becoming flesh, but this requires a figurative understanding. However, if the Word, Yayshua, God's expression of himself, becomes flesh, then no figurative understanding is needed. And since the non-figurative interpretation makes sense in the context we must adopt it since non figurative meaning is more normative. Now for the final point: "In the beginning" points us back to Gen. 1:1, "Berasheet," (cp. LXX also), where "Elohim" is most assuredly the Creator, not some other mighty ones. Yn. 1:2-3 reinforces the same when he says that "without him not one thing has come into existence which has come into existence" which points to creative activity.

Now quickly turning to our second example (Ys. 9:5 [Is. 9:6]), which normally reads according to the Hebrew word order, "And one shall call name of him wonderful counselor God mighty Father everlasting," or "And he will be called name of him wonderful counselor God mighty Father of booty" as an alternative. In either case the child is "mighty God." Now our anonymous author proposed the translation, "And the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, will call his name Prince of Peace." However, this violates the afore mentioned hermeneutic since it requires such tampering with the text as to change the meaning by rearranging the Hebrew words. So once again the proposed translation is not normative. Our Anonymous author proposes other translations by inserting "is" into the text, however when adding a word to the text, the result should make the same sense as the original without the added word, otherwise the added word changes the meaning and causes the translation to deviate from the normative understanding without the added word.