I greatly enjoy studying how we understand things—whether texts, another person in conversation, etc. I thought I would share some thoughts about such understanding-theory (hermeneutics, if you will), specifically focused on texts and meaning. Does a text control its own interpretation?
For a long time the notion has persisted that texts guide and control their own interpretation. Texts thus “speak.” In evangelical circles we often discuss this in terms of authorial intent. The author’s intention, discernable through the text, constrains its meaning for us. This certainly makes sense, does it not? As I type this post I intend to communicate certain things and I expect/hope that my intended points will guide how you read what I am saying. E.D. Hirsch’s 40 year old book remains a classic for this approach to interpretation and hermeneutics.
Interestingly, this notion of texts (or an author’s intention) controlling interpretation is largely rejected by many theorists of interpretation and communication—and not simply because they are so-called “post-Modernists.” For a while I kicked against this turn in interpretive theory. But slowly—and ironically, as I have quested more and more after reading texts in their ancient horizons trying to understand, for example, what Paul was getting at in Galatians 2-3—I have come to appreciate this questioning of traditional notions of texts controlling their own interpretation and/or simply “containing” their own meaning. I come to appreciate that texts do not exercise their own agency as we “read” them—texts do not interpret themselves.
Put simply, when we read a text, we actively create meaning. “Meaning” does not simply jump out of the text at us. For a classic example, a Stop-sign by the side of the road “means” one thing to us while a Stop-sign hanging in a modern art exhibit will “mean” something else. It is the same “text,” but we understand vastly different “meanings.” There is obviously much more that could be said here…
Before balking at this too quickly, keep in mind that the issue here is what happens when we read a text? What is going on when we read a text and come away with a meaning? When we see dots and marks on a page, wall, billboard, etc. (a “text”), we create meaning out of it for ourselves according to (largely unconscious) contingent cultural conventions for how to create meaning. We, again, often unconsciously create meaning as we seek to place the “text” in relation to other things and perceive it and its surroundings as providing various cues that we use to create the appropriate meaning—again, “appropriate” in terms of ways we have been enculturated to create meaning (to read).
It is often held that this eliminates the notion of a text having a meaning or “speaking.” For us as Christians this can seem especially problematic, because we (rightly) hold that God speaks through the Bible; that the Bible speaks (authoritatively!). I do not see this descriptive approach to what we do when we read as necessarily militating against the notion of texts “speaking,” of the Bible speaking to us. If anything this might push us to reframe some of our questions in terms of what are legitimate Christian ways to create meaning? Often discussions of the implications of God being the author of the Bible focus on how that impacts what the text itself “means.” Perhaps this approach can help us wrestle with the implications of God as author from the point of view of legitimate ways to create-meaning on our end? Does this mean God might work in more ways than we realize when it comes to all the diverse ways people create meaning (“read”) from the Bible? Does this make more room in our approaches to the Bible for the Spirit’s role and the role of church-community? Again, this will be something for the discussion and/or a future post if people are interested.
Why have I posted on this here? This very much gets at an important issue in discussions of contextualization and contextualized theology. If you will, it is focusing on the receiving context, on what happens on our side of the communication interaction with the Bible. Applied correctly, it helps us grapple with what happens on the other side of the communication dialogue when we try to communicate with others and/or when others “read” the Bible. Especially as we consider reading the Bible together as important for our life as a church, I thought a post on what happens when we read a “text”—when we create meaning with a text—would be fitting.
September 12, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Hi Stephen,
hope you’ve been well.
I thought that on this topic you might enjoy this piece by AKMA:
http://akma.disseminary.org/?p=1485#more-1485
I also commend his book, What Is Post-Modern Biblical Criticism, as a useful and very readable take on some aspects of post-modernism.
Be Good.
September 6, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Ben,
Interesting. I am unclear as to how I left open the option of not integrating. As I already said, I think I agree with your comments in the areas of ethics and interpretation—especially of Scripture.
In the midst of settling in up here and starting a new program, I have tried to spend a few moments pondering how to put this. How does the text “mean” in your point of view? How does the “language instance” exist prior to the activity of the interpreter, in your point of view? Is this the historical “meaning” of the text?
September 5, 2008 at 6:06 pm
TTH,
Well, yeah, only something of great import could make me venture in.
I glossed my comments as hubris in a perhaps ironic fashion. There in I commit the great sin of asserting that the text is and the text determines– it is the hermeneutical equivalent of metaphysics in theology. My assertion is “sly” because I do so by description of our subjectivity, which is always a well-mannered line of thought in our era. It is never good to introduce your imaginary friend, but it is fascinating to talk about your feelings for your imaginary friend
You replicate Craig’s positive recognition of “an ethical dimension.” I find such a reference dubious or at best equivocal, because *often* it suggests one element that is acknowledged but not integrated to the whole under discussion.
Not all is ethics, but all is such that ethics is. Texts must exist in such a fashion that fidelity is not only relevant but irreducible from our interpretive activity.
September 4, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Ben,
You commenting here of course leaves me speechless : ). Again, I am sorry for taking so long to get back to you. It has been quite busy settling in up here.
I agree with most of what you wrote. I appreciate your bringing out the ethical-responsibility aspect of our interpretive activity, especially with respect to our Bible. Part of the reason for my focus in this post on the side of the reader (us) and what we in fact “do” while reading is to highlight our responsibility more—as you have done well.
As for the ways I want to push back a bit, or at least put some points up for further conversation, that will have to wait…
Thanks for your patience. Again, sorry for taking sooooooooooooo long. I hope all is well down in NC.
September 4, 2008 at 10:25 pm
TTH:
oh, I figured you were left speechless by my comment or its hubris; happy to think that instead you were settling in up there.
September 3, 2008 at 9:00 am
Sorry I am taking so long to get back to everyone, again.
September 2, 2008 at 12:08 pm
FTH,
I think we are looking at interpretation in a similar way and are headed in similar directions. My two concerns (and I agree that they’re pastoral) are the following:
1. We need to be careful to not give the impression that we can make the text mean whatever we want it to (you express this concern as well). I like Benjamin’s point about an ethical dimension.
2. We need to be careful that we don’t make it appear as if interpreting the text is virtually impossible. The pastoral concern here is we don’t want to imply that people in the pews can’t read and understand their Bibles. Our inquiry may lead to an amazement and wonder about language, speaking and reading, but we shouldn’t let that wonder hide the reality that we do this, most of the time, without even thinking about it. Yes there are difficult passages (I had to preach from one Sunday), but in general, reading is an obtainable though remarkable skill.
September 1, 2008 at 2:29 pm
TTH: This is simply not a new idea.
It is inherent and obvious in the Biblical consideration of language. Of course interpretation is an activity carried out by the receiver of language, which is why language and use of meaning are so fully described in both ethical terms (wicked/righteous) and teleological terms (life/death).
What one does with the words of others and of God– that is fraught with significance because of the value inherent to those words before one takes them in hand. All the matters of virtue and perversion associated with the actions of some hearer– this presumes/demonstrates that there is a value of the words before they are interpreted AND an ethically characterized activity in interpretation.
The scandal of the question about a text interpreting itself, seems to me, is what that says about the responsiblity of the interpreter. That’s right, you have to do it yourself, AND your endeavor is measured by God in terms of a fidelity to the previous language instance.
The common tilt of this observation about human language is to liberate the activity of interpretation from false standards. Fine, unless the suggestion becomes that there is no standard previous to and independent from the interpreter. In that case, everything to which I have alluded about fidelity with the words of others is excluded (and with it the Bible’s emic contribution to hermeneutics). Solipism can’t produce fidelity, only echos.
I don’t think you want to go there. Human finitude, historical visisitude, appropriately chastened hermeneutical attitude– still confronts you with the fact that sufficient stuff must come across the gap for you to take in hand for the activity of interpretation. But, according to the Biblical handling of the matter, finitude and variations in linquistic competence are not the crucial question.
How about this. Just require that only “stative verbs” be employed in describing the text, and all you have done is stated the dependence of interpretation upon its object. Then, what makes a verb stative? Hmmm . . . “the cliffs rise from the white, broad beach”. Earthquake or accurate description of state? You don’t have to look for the script to squiggle or the punctuation to pulse to speak of the text doing anything that was done to produce it. It can all “be there” without excluding the interpreter’s work of “getting it”.
But, that is not my main point nor I think the point of the Bible’s words about language use. It is assumed that the language instance exists and has a value prior to activity by its audience. For this reason, reader activity comes under scrutiny. It is because the text “means” (statively) and because you interpret (verb with an object) that your activity is ethical (wicked/righteous) and has a teleology (life/death).
The dispute shouldn’t be about whether texts interpret themselves (a reflexive verb with an implied indirect object). The dispute is about whether texts existing as themselves (stative verb) are interpreted.
September 1, 2008 at 11:55 am
FTH: a simple question: was the HTFC’s reading of I&I a legitimate creation of meaning in the text? If not, how do you avoid the creation of “wrong” meanings? In other words, don’t you see you’ve just vindicated Enns’ opponents, unless you think the original text has the intergrity of its own meaning (with the intended one of its author)?
September 1, 2008 at 9:00 am
JB,
Vanhoozer is someone I greatly appreciate as an evangelical trying to help us think more consciously about hermeneutics and reading, if you will.
Again, when I have more time (hopefully very soon), perhaps we could discuss him more here.
I hope all is well down there in Philly and that your class schedule is not too hectic this semester.
September 1, 2008 at 8:56 am
CraigV,
It seems we are both somewhat after the same thing, perhaps? Even if you do not think the language of “creating meaning” is helpful, we are both emphasizing the importance of focus on the process of interpretation and the importance (skill) of the agency of the interpreter—and his/her responsibility in approaching the text?
My language of “creating meaning” is me trying to inject the discourse of some contemporary interpretive theory into this discussion. I realize it is probably not the most pastorally wise language in some contexts. Does that get at your concern?
September 1, 2008 at 8:53 am
Steve,
As soon as I have some more time, I would like to discuss how “Christ reinterprets or is the lense through which we read the Bible. This is why we (Christians) simply don’t read the OT “as is” or like a Jew would read it.” I think this is an excellent point and is very relevant to discussions of how to read Christianly.
Also, I agree that from the point of view of historical-contextual approaches to “reading,” historical-contextual hermeneutics does limit possibilities.
September 1, 2008 at 8:49 am
Andy,
I appreciate your comment and points, and basically agree with them from one point of view. I hope I am not too redundant below where I try to clarify some of my concerns.
As most of you, I think, picked up on, my point was not to deny that “texts” generally have an original historical meaning of some sort. This can still be complicated, however, by issues of how the ancient audiences actually understood the texts. Sometimes an author means to communicate one thing and if, for example, he/she is trying to do so in a language or context that is somewhat new to him, he/she sometimes does not use the language as speakers/hearers in that particular context do. This obviously remains an issue with contemporary communications and texts.
My point was to bring out how in studying the phenomenon of reading the proper focus, in terms of the dynamics of what is happening, is on the reader. The reader is the only active agent in reading and from a phenomenological viewpoint, is creating meaning by methods/ways of reading into which the reader has been socialized.
To the extent that there is an overlap between the horizons of the author and the reader in terms of expected reading conventions, general social-cultural context (which includes language), specific contextual concerns and expectations, etc., to that extent the reading will be what we tend to mean by “reading the meaning out of the text.” But, (1) in terms of the dynamics of what is happening in “the reading,” what is still going on is the reader actively creating meaning. The reader is simply doing so the way “the author” may have expected/desired him or her to do. Also, (2), we should recognize that when it comes to us reading ancient texts, none of these overlaps generally remain for us now. Even people who consciously seek to read texts in some original-historical manner (create meaning in a historical-contextual way) must consciously strive to do so through the intense and active study of ancient culture and contexts. So, again, from a descriptive point of view of what actually happens when we read a text in this manner, we are still creating meaning by means of a particular way of creating meaning (historical-contextual).
I do also have an issue with locating “the meaning” “in” the text’s original-historical meaning, for a couple of reasons. Perhaps you all can help me with your thoughts on these issues and how they impact the excellent concerns you voiced…as soon as I get around to sharing some of them. For now, however, I must run and do some other things. I will try to get back to this soon.
Did this clarify anything? Again, I certainly appreciate and basically agree with your points, Andy. And yes, Go Heels!
August 31, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Darryl
It’s possible that you did…As you do it all the time to other peoples posts.
Nick
August 31, 2008 at 8:35 am
FTH: it’s great to see that you’ve finally come around to the HT report’s view on I&I. I didn’t think you had it in you. Then again, maybe I simply read into your text what I created.
August 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Howdy everyone. I have been very busy settling into my new apartment and preparing for the semester, so I have not had the time I would like to engage your comments. Sadly I devoted what little comment time I had to another blog…oops. I will try to get back to you sometime tomorrow.
Thanks for your insightful comments.
August 30, 2008 at 11:49 am
Hey FTH (and others),
If you haven’t read it yet, I’d highly recommend Kevin Vanhoozer’s excellent and quite thorogh work, “Is There a Meaning in this Text?” Vanhoozer sets his own view of literary knowledge over against both foundationalist and deconstructionist approaches, and argues for a hermeneutic of both humility and conviction which recognizes both the fact of the reader as active interpretive agent as well as the responsibility of the reader to understand the meaning of the author.
I find most evangelical critiques of postmodern hermeneutics to be heavily lacking in a multitude of ways. Vanhoozer’s work, however, offers a well-informed, intelligent, and balanced interaction which is both intellectually stimulating and edifying.
Peace,
JB
August 29, 2008 at 12:52 pm
In one sense it’s obvious that the text doesn’t interpret itself in the same way that it’s obvious that the text doesn’t read itself. I suspect that talk of ‘creating meaning’ is a bit misleading and might not be the most constructive way to go. What I think is key in it, however, is seeing reading (or interpreting) as a skill. The question then changes from “What is the meaning of the text?” (as if the text is somehow in the way and we must get through it or past it to get to the meaning) to “How does one read this text well?”
August 29, 2008 at 11:58 am
These are obviously complex issues that span various disciplines (linguistics, history, theology, etc).
I think one reason there is talk about “legitimate Christian ways to create meaning” is because Christ reinterprets or is the lense through which we read the Bible. This is why we (Christians) simply don’t read the OT “as is” or like a Jew would read it.
This does not mean that we cannot lean from other ways people/cultures discern meaning but as Christians we necessiarially have a Christian lense.
Also, not all interpretion is legitmate. I know of a person who was convinced that Hebrews 12 (surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses) was referring to angles. Could this interpretation be legitmate? I don’t think so. My point is that Hermeneutics may not give only one legitmate meaning but it certainly limits the possibilities.
August 29, 2008 at 11:36 am
As one who is still kicking against the goads, here are some thoughts. I can affirm much of what you say as being true to an extent but not exclusively. In other words, “we actively create meaning” is true but we do not exclusively create meaning. “Texts do not interpret themselves” is true but I would be more comfortable saying texts do not exclusively interpret themselves.
You raise the issue of our “unconscious” involvement in the interpretive process. I agree that we bring a lot of baggage to the texts. Instead of saying, “what are legitimate Christian ways to create meaning” would it be possible to say in reference to the Bible, “what are conscientious ways that Christians can discern the meaning of a text.” Of course, I sympathize with Frame who connects meaning with application.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post. Go Heels!