.jpg)
Articles
CENI as a Hermeneutic?
I wanted to say a couple of things about CENI (Command, Example, Necessary Inference or Implication) as a hermeneutic (a method of interpretation). CENI is simply the formalized way of stating how ALL communication works. Simplified, and more obvious, is that if we are going to communicate our will to anyone, we will either 1) tell what we want, 2) show what we want, or 3) imply what we expect others to get. This is, I have argued, self-evident because no one can deny this without using it. In other words, just try to deny “tell, show, or imply” without telling me, showing me, or implying something about it. CENI may seem more complicated, but it is the very same thing in fancier talk. My recommendation is to simplify, and no one can really argue against it.
But is CENI or TSI (as I’ll refer to it) a hermeneutical method? I sometimes see the criticism of it as a failed hermeneutic (method of intepretation), but I believe this misses the point of it. Let me elaborate.
TSI is foundational to any form of communication. There is no communication without it (again, just try denying it and you’ll only affirm it). So it is inherent in any spoken or written communication (not just in studying the Bible). It is not, in itself, a hermeneutic, but is rather foundational to any hermeneutic. Any hermeneutic will already assume the reality of TSI.
Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. It is what we as the recipients (readers, hearers) bring to the communication process. TSI, on the other hand, is inherent in what the communicator gives. That is, we, the readers or listeners, do not provide the TSI; we take the TSI that is given to us and try to understand what that means. TSI, then, is not a method of interpretation; it is the material that we try to interpret. We might misinterpret it. We might fail to get out of it what is intended. But it is nevertheless the raw material that we use in order to understand what the author or speaker intends. There is no getting around this. No one interprets anything that is not first told, shown, or implied.
So, CENI (TSI) is not a hermeneutic. It is the bare bones of what we work with when we do interpret. Thus, criticizing it as a failed hermeneutic is to misunderstand it at the most basic level. Instead of criticizing it, let’s recognize it for what it is (inherent in the communication process) and then deal with how we should properly understand the statements, examples, and implications.
by Doy Moyer
