We can also consider Biblical Hermeneutics from a Postmodern Perspective. Contemporary biblical hermeneutics are actually, as Derrida said in his argument for deconstruction, a good example of the fallacy (Possibiliter ergo probabiliter) committed by traditional hermeneutic method: Prediction in the case of science, retrodiction in the case of history, and interpretive conclusion in the case of the humanities – You take a scant amount of ambiguous evidence and shape it to fit your interpretive model. The model thereby accounts for your evidence, and is not contradicted by any evidence (or at least explains away seemingly recalcitrant evidence). Thereby the machine of scholarship keeps on producing and generates yet another “possible” conclusion: The Noble Lie theory of Christian origins in my case – another “guess” to throw on the heap of Christian Origins speculation. It’s a schizophrenic’s circus of competing hypothesis, each vying for supremacy, while all any particular hypothesis can claim is that it fits the evidence and is not falsified by any apparently recalcitrant evidence. This is true generally for historical Jesus studies, where the machine of scholarly speculation has shaped the scant, ambiguous evidence to produce such models as Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah, prophet of social change, Euhemerized mythical being, etc.

In fact, the only two facts universally attested to by scholars seem to be the baptism by John, and the crucifixion. Regarding the former, the John the Baptist pericope casts John in the guise of Elijah, and may echo Elijah bequeathing a double portion of his power to Elisha, so there is no way it passes the criterion of embarrassment. Regarding the crucifixion, Paul interprets Christ’s crucifixion in term of the reference in Deuteronomy of something being cursed that is hung on a tree: “13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’ — (Galatians 3:13).” So if mythicists argue that Paul learned about Christ’s crucifixion from scripture (1 Cor 15:3), this passage from Deuteronomy could be a possible place. The proper deconstructive reading is not to affirm mythicism, but rather use it to inject doubt into other models. The process of continuous unravelling and unknowing is ethics. Derrida said deconstruction is justice, such as when society relooked at its assumptions about women, African Americans, The LGBTQ community, etc. Certainty and reason are what cause terrible things.

Derrida taught that “reason” and “certainty” could be the opposite of justice because they lead to the “rationalization” and “justification” of our merely subjective points of view (such as when fundamentalists prooftext words supposedly by Jesus to “justify” their approach to life). Ethical thoughts consist in critiquing, not simply the arrogant erecting of systems as some traditional epistemology would have it. Derrida said in “The Gift of Death” and “Given Time, Counterfeit Money,” following Kierkegaard, our decisions are always “leaps of faith” that risk violence because there is never enough time to make a decision, and never enough information on which to decide, and we can never anticipate all possible consequences, etc. In this regard, for instance, Derrida presents the allegory of the hedgehog crossing the road in his short work on poetry, “”Che cos’è la poesie?”