It’s not an exaggeration to say that most biblical literalists who rail against postmodern theology and postmodern biblical interpretation have neither seriously read, nor studied postmodernism or postmodern interpretation. I can say so, because I was one of them not so long ago. Should the loudest critics of postmodern interpretation ever actually do so, it would be very difficult for them to continue to brand the entire interpretive approach as thoroughly flawed and entirely useless. Be assured, anyone who does so has neither read, nor considered postmodernism or postmodern interpretive methods.
Interpreters reject postmodern interpretation for a number of reasons. The following series of posts will be dedicated to looking at each of these objections and articulating solid reasons as to why the objections are not really as “air-tight” as some would have us believe. This series of posts will also include a bunch of thoughts on postmodern interpretation and history. I’m learning too.
That said, let’s move towards one of the most common reasons cited against this interpretive method.
One of the most prevalent objections to postmodern interpretation has to do with the belief that a text has a single determinate meaning that has been created by the text author(s) to be discovered by the text reader. This objection is most common in biblical interpretation, thanks to Calvin and Luther. Calvin and Luther rejected the idea of multiple/layered meanings and ushered into church history a form of interpretation that not only distanced their methodology from the majority of church fathers and historic (medieval) interpretive forms, but also celebrated the idea of literal interpretation as superior. Calvin and Luther’s new methodology did not stop there. It also celebrated the grammatical-historical hermeneutic as the one key that will unlock the door that leads to the single determinate meaning of the text. This interpretive method has been the method of choice ever since, in spite of the problems inherent to it.
The biggest problem with Calvin and Luther’s interpretive method is found in the bible itself. Ironically, this problem is ignored in spite of their dogmatic cry to “let scripture interpret scripture,” an often repeated literalist mantra. If scripture is allowed to interpret scripture, or even inform our own contemporary interpretive methodology, then interpretive methods that include multiple meanings and levels in texts would find scriptural precedence, and the Apostle Paul would finally be able to pass a contemporary bible college class on hermeneutics.
Consider, for example, Paul’s interpretive treatment of the Genesis narrative of Hagar And Sarah in Galatians chapter four. One would think this particular text – and Paul’s interpretive handling of the text within the text – is totally foreign to those who advance the idea of a single determinate meaning, if the resounding silence surrounding it and the total lack of application of Paul’s method within it is any indication. At any rate, the apostle interprets the Genesis text allegorically, while, of course, standing upon the historicity he understands to be within the text. That is unarguably an interpretive method that not only sets a biblical precedence for multiple meanings, but also actually applies it to texts that the apostle claimed were cumulatively breathed out by God.
If Paul’s handling of inspired texts is not sufficient to establish a biblical precedent for multiple interpretive meanings, then consider, if you will, the Gospel authors’ handling of Jesus’ teaching and their interpretation of this teaching. Truth be told, the move from oral culture to textual was not without its problems. Granted, followers participating in the early Jesus movement were still “figuring things out,” as far as Jesus’ teaching was concerned. Still, that doesn’t change the fact that these Gospel authors interpreted – or perhaps re-interpreted – Jesus’ teaching differently as time progressed, which resulted in different interpretations (for example, see: Luke’s handling of particular texts in Mark and Matthew here and here). The question to be asked then is a simple yet profound one: Is Luke’s interpretation of specific texts different from his sources (Q, L, Matthew, Mark)? If the answer is yes, then one would not create a false dichotomy by asking a few logical questions: 1.) If Luke’s interpretation of Matthew and Mark is different then does that make Mark and Matthew wrong? If it does make them wrong, does that do irreparable harm to our idea of inspiration? 2.) If Luke’s interpretation of Matthew and Mark is different, but does not mean Matthew and Mark are wrong, then are we saying that Matthew and Mark simply prioritized a different interpretive meaning that was based upon what they knew and the moment in time in which they wrote? If this is our preferred answer, and it should be if our idea(s) of inspiration are important enough, then why in the world would we have an interpretive or methodological problem with the idea of multiple meanings?
If this is still not enough information to build a precedence for the interpretive idea of multiple meanings then do consider our contemporary understanding of heaven and hell. We all have subconsciously applied different meanings to biblical texts that reference heaven and hell. This subconscious application has occurred largely as a result of contemporary cultural understandings and an evolving worldview (unless you still believe the earth is flat). Literalists often dismiss the idea that our culture and experiences can can influence our interpretations. In spite of these objections, we are shaped by our culture and experiences in more ways than we will ever be aware. Consider, if you will the way we subconsciously/unconsciously interpret and express passages regarding heaven and hell. Much of our doctrine and thought concerning these places are expressed in a way that points towards multiple meanings in the text themselves. Let me explain: 1. The writers of these texts literally believed that the earth was flat and heaven was literally located directly above it and hell was a literal geographic locale directly beneath it. 2. We know differently now. The earth is round and space surrounds it for as far as can be imagined. 3. When we read the texts regarding heaven and hell today, an interpretive shift of sorts occurs, unconsciously. Within that shift a different meaning is born. We have moved from the literal to the spiritual. This meaning is not only different than the original authors, but also different from the readers who picked up the text shortly after they were written. 4. Today, we still express the idea of heaven and hell but these expressions are different from the author’s and somehow diverge from the text themselves as concerns meaning. Yes, we – contemporary readers and the original author and audience – express an idea of heaven and hell that are similar, but we – the contemporary readers – have arrived there by sub/unconsciously changing the meaning of the text themselves (we assume the world is round and surrounded by space and we read this assumption into the texts). Today, heaven and hell aren’t geographical places that we can map or point towards, but spiritualized concepts of totally unknown locations. That’s a big difference between past and present interpretations of the same texts. The question, again, concerns the literalists who claim that a text has a single determinate meaning that has been created by the text author(s) to be discovered by the text reader. If the biblical authors did set out to do so, we aren’t – and haven’t been – following their lead, at least not in this specific case. It’s hard to take such a claim seriously when in fact literalists not only build their expressions upon interpretive methods that include multiple meanings, but they also create multiple meanings themselves, albeit subtly and perhaps unconsciously.
The three above examples should be considered seriously. Think about it all for a while before you react against it. Then seriously ask yourself if Calvin and Luther’s single-meaning methodology is as superior as it is often made out to be. I’m not discarding Calvin and Luther’s methodology. I’m simply saying that it is only one of many and I’m asking if it is really all it is advertised to be. The truth of the matter and the point that should not be lost in all of this is: postmodernism and postmodern interpretation is less of a critical theory that we can apply and use to decipher text and textual meaning (as if it were just another tool in our biblical criticism toolbox), and more of an event that has been present in all of our expressions since the very, very beginning. In fact, it alive and well within the texts and interpretive methods cited in the above biblical – let me say that again, “biblical” – examples.
Related posts:
Good stuff. I look forward to the next posts.
Having some heated debates with hard literalists (and having been one myself in the past) I really think the most compelling argument against the claim One Dominant Interpretation is the biblical text itself. It just won’t render in such a way. It is inherently polyvalent, a characteristic that, in my opinion, makes it much more richer than it might be otherwise.
I agree, Blake. In Matthew Mark and Luke alone we can find an interpretive model that goes far beyond the Singular Determinate Meaning. What we find there is far more alive and dynamic than our contemporary interpretive methods and ideas would permit. In fact, I don’t think it would unfair or uncharitable to say that our expression of things like biblical inerrancy are far more complicated than that of the Gospel writers, who had no problem changing , rearranging, and/or altering their sources.
Thanks for the comment, Blake! I look forward to more of your thoughts. Again, I’ve only just started to really dig into this subject. It’s fascinating. I’m sure your thoughts and suggestions will help me as I learn …
I am going to wait for more of these posts before I ask any real questions beyond these:
Have you intentionally included the ad hominems and mischaracterizations in your first 2 paragraphs, or is this just an oversight?
Have you applied the postmodern critique to this text which you have created? It deconstructs itself in a most interesting way.
Dave – You are going to have to do better than that, my friend. I know you can too.
First of all, re: ad hominem. That is just a silly charge. Discerning whether or not someone has actually studied a topic or a subject is neither a difficult thing to do, nor is it unfair or fallacious to point out. Furthermore, suggesting that critics of something actually study the something they are criticizing is no ad hom. If it is, I just ad hom’d myself in the first paragraph! There are a whole lot of people who rail against this interpretation without understanding it or reading it. We both know this is true. I did not attack anyone personally; I attacked the approach and the authenticity of the approach itself. So, where is the ad hom?
Secondly, re: your question undoubtedly built upon your belief that postmodernism inherently self-contradicts. See the last two sentences of my post. They are important and I”ll be saying more about it in the immediate future. I”ll simply say this in the meanwhile: I think you are confusing what you understand to be “self-contradiction” with what I understand to be the “postmodern event.” I know, that may sound vague at the moment, but I’ll explain it in upcoming posts. Again, read the last two sentences of my post.
Thanks, Dave! :)
Dave – I figured out that if we reply to the original comment within any given comment thread, then the comment boxes don’t shrink and our conversations will be much more readable. In other words, hit the reply button under the first comment beginning each thread. Does that make sense? I’m working on a much friendlier solution. ‘Till then, this is the best was to have a conversation here.
Reply to the very first comment beginning each conversational thread. Thanks!
“It’s not an exaggeration to say that most biblical literalists who rail against postmodern theology and postmodern biblical interpretation have neither seriously read, nor studied postmodernism or postmodern interpretation.”
Overgeneralization bordering on ad hom – unless you have statistically significant evidence to support this assertion, this reads like an attempt at “those with differing opinions are uneducated”, something that I hope you realize is false. Luminaries with the standing of Noam Chomsky don’t take pomo seriously, so it’s not such an entirely unheard of place to be. My favorite example is the “Sokal Affair” – for a summary, Wikipedia has an OK one, but you really gotta track down the actual article.
“I can say so, because I was one of them not so long ago.”
Again, statistical significance is critical – 1 person, or indeed all the people that a single person knows, does not make a statistically significant sample of a population. This is elementary college mathematics – at Millersville, it is the first days lesson in MATH 130, and even part of MATH 100.
“Should the loudest critics of postmodern interpretation ever actually do so, it would be very difficult for them to continue to brand the entire interpretive approach as thoroughly flawed and entirely useless.”
This sets up a failed dichotomy – the issue is the “thoroughly flawed and entirely useless” phrase. It is possible, and indeed, in the circles in which I run, common for people to see the potential uses and purposes of historical/cultural critique, aka pomo lit theory. But they don’t buy into the “no absolute truth” factor that is mandatory by the anti-foundationalist underpinnings of pomo theory, as well as the writings of the pomo gurus like Lyotard, Derrida, Stanley Fish, et al. Now, to be clear, my friends and cohorts are not a statistically significant sample either – but I am making no claims about the population at large. All I have to show in order to falsify your statement above is that ANY outliers exist, which is easily accomplished.
“Be assured, anyone who does so has neither read, nor considered postmodernism or postmodern interpretive methods.”
This is blatant, heavy-handed, and verifiably false. The statement that you are making here, if taken and run through the logic grinder, falls apart. Piece by piece, we can analyze it.
“Be assured…” – appeal to authority, your own I presume.
“…anyone who does so…” – overgeneralization, with “so” being a referent to finding the approach “thoroughly flawed and entirely useless.”
“Has neither read, nor considered…” – Really. A postmodernist should never be willing to make such a universalist statement – it’s antithetical to the approach, since these kind of absolutist statements form the basis of the imperialist/colonialist rhetoric that postmodernism railed against. Universals are disallowed by definition within a postmodern framework. This simply becomes a “if you disagree, you are unread, unlearned, and unreflective.” If that is not an ad hominem statement, I’ll eat my rhetoric/logic texts.
All in all, Shawn, I can understand not wanting to take the label of ad hominem – it’s not a pleasant label to have to accept. But when you overly generalize, and then make factual assertions that impugn the academic integrity of anyone who disagrees with you, you have to bite the bullet and call it like it lies on paper (or the screen, as the case may be).
I would ask you this – how much have you actually digested of Jacque-Francis Lyotard, Jacque Derrida, Micheal Foucault, Stanley Fish, Martin Heidegger, Roland Barthes, and Richard Rorty? They are the grandaddies, but there are countless other key texts that explicate it all.
“…postmodernism and postmodern interpretation is less of a critical theory that we can apply and use to decipher text and textual meaning (as if it were just another tool in our biblical criticism toolbox), and more of an event that has been present in all of our expressions since the very, very beginning. In fact, it alive and well within the texts and interpretive methods cited in the above biblical – let me say that again, “biblical” – examples.”
Yea, you are going to have to explain that a little more. Postmodernism IS a lit crit theory, much like the Freudian critique, or biographical criticism, or New Criticism, or Reader-Response theory. Your repeated use of the phrase postmodern “event” recalls Derrida, Lyotard, and Lacan, and is linked to the model of textual deconstruction that Derrida outlines in “Of Grammatology”, as well as “Speech and Phenomena”. You may be using the term in a different sense than that with which I am familiar – but in all modesty, I am intimately familiar with the concept as it is used in philosophy/english/history departments, having spent the last 12 years of my life reading and writing about it in both lay and academic circles.
Anyway, I do look forward to reading more of your specific examples. Do you have, perhaps, a recommendation for a scholarly (as in cited and referenced in an academic way, with peer reviewed quality standards) book on this kind of interpretative methodology?
Dave – You are very good at distraction. I say that not as an attack or to be disrespectful, but you literally spent all of your time dissecting my 1st paragraph while not saying one word about the examples cited.
It is not an ad hom, and I do not accept the charge, because I didn’t attack someone personally. If I attacked anything, it was a methodology. And I know for a fact that it is a popular one because I have experienced it. Now, we can debate experience all day if you’d like, but then again it might be detrimental to your own interpretations of how God speaks to you. Beyond all of that, I’m not really into providing you with an annotated list of blogs to prove to you that this is factual. We both know that it is.
In fact, if you can ask me the following, and you did,
“How much have you actually digested of Jacque-Francis Lyotard, Jacque Derrida, Micheal Foucault, Stanley Fish, Martin Heidegger, Roland Barthes, and Richard Rorty?”
Then how/why do you think it fallacious for me to claim that most people discard the method as entirely useless without knowing the same? I’m not only asking the same question in my 1st paragraph as you asked me, but I’m also saying that the majority of naysayers would answer your question negatively.
Your entire comment above is a distraction because you spent all that time focusing on and misdiagnosing my 1st paragraph rather than saying one word about the examples I provided. Are you going to say anything about single determinate meaning(s)? Are you going to say anything about the biblical examples of interpretive methodology I cite?
I am very familiar with the “Sokal Affair” (since undergraduate school) but can’t help but wonder what it has to do with my post? Did I say anything about the existence of absolute truth in this post? No, right now I’m talking about single determinate meaning(s)! Do I know many people who discard postmodern interpretation w/o knowing anything at all about it? Yes. So, let’s stop with the “dichotomy” charges and get to the points made in the texts.
Also, if your looking for “peer-reviewed quality standards,” just to buttress the buttress of whatever it is you are trying to argue, then you are in the wrong place. This ‘aint the ivory tower. This (the blogosphere) is the center of decentralization.
What do you do with the textual examples cited, and how do you reconcile their content with the interpretive methodology of Calvin and Luther?
You can hide behind my 1st paragraph as long as you want, but it’s kind of disappointing because there are more important issues to be wrestled with in the above post, Dave.
And re: my own journey into the broader study of postmodernism, I’m doing it right now. I think that has been made clear a few times. You say that you have been doing it for what, 12 years? Then you should surely have an answer ready for the above Biblical texts, right? Have at it, Dave. :)
Your thoughts are appreciated, Dave! Don’t confuse my seeming frustration with ill will. I enjoy our conversations a lot. Peace. :)
PS: You changed your charge, Dave. You now say my 1st paragraph is an “Overgeneralization bordering on ad hom …” Well, is it almost an ad hom, or is it an ad hom? First, it was an ad hom; then it was bordering. Which is it, Dave?
Addressing things 1 at a time…
Is it ad hom, or bordering? I chose to back off to a more generous position, since I don’t want to just argue logical and rhetorical mistakes and devices with you. If you prefer, I can return to my original stance.
Distraction… not so much from my perspective. By addressing the underpinnings of your first paragraph, I address the broader idea of postmodernism. By pointing out the generalizations, mischaracterizations, statistical irregularities, and logical/rhetorical issues, the actual argument can be strengthened. Cleaning these up would add a lot to the first post. You’ll have to forgive me, but I am used to grading student papers/essays and proofreading for students handing material into 400+ level courses at university. So I am always looking at rhetoric and the like. I don’t think that just because this is a “blog” that it is excused from academic rigor, when addressing academic subjects.
Not addressing your points… yep, I did not speak to them, yet. Note the “yet” at the end of that sentence. I wish to consider them thoroughly, and frame responses that are both respectful and insightful. Throwing off emotive responses without rigor would be detrimental to the discussion, wouldn’t you agree?
Not attacking a person but a methodology… you make no distinction in text. I choose not to assume what is not written. You reference the “critics” and “literalists” – these are people, not a methodology. I’m responding to a text, not an intent. Also, I don’t need a list of blogs… if you want to give me a list, give me a list of people who cite sources with precision – something that blogs rarely do, since it is not usually the point of the exercise.
Peer review… maybe you missed what I was getting at. If so, my bad. I am looking for a quality, rigorous, precise text that I can look over to get a better and more thorough look at this subject than a blog is designed to give. Since have been studying this, I thought you might have one or know of one. I mention the quality standards because of my own profession (teaching) and my own experience with sloppy work (my own and others). Peer review protects the writer and the reader, and is not a bad thing. The ivory tower is not so bad after all – sounds like you went there at one point.
“How much have you read, blah blah blah”… Did you take this as sarcasm? It was an honest question. You seem to know a lot about the history of textual criticism within the Bible, but you seem less solid on the history of postmodern thought in general. The difference (there is a pun here if you read Derrida, though a bad one) is that I asked a question; you made an assertion.
Anyway, now that this is done…
I apologize again if I gave offense. I will address your actual questions, when I understand them a little better. You write in a very loose style (not bad, just not like I am used to), and it takes me a little time to get through it and really come to grips with it all. I don’t want to just fire off a bunch of jargon at you, since THAT would be disrespectful if anything is. I may even wait until you have finished with several examples before responding to any at all.
Peace out.
Dave – You can take whatever stance you’d like regarding your charge of ad hom in my first paragraph. It doesn’t matter to me, honestly, because 1. I don’t accept it, and 2. My thoughts concerning the approach literalists take – whether good or bad in your mind – does not nullify the points concerning the postmodern interpretive approach and/or the examples cited in the biblical text. That said, I’m baffled at how you can connect a very specific 1st paragraph ad hom – whether it’s really there or not – with an undermining of the broader idea of postmodernism??? Seriously, that’s a huge leap.
I’m purposely ignoring much of your other comments because, again, I find them distracting, at the very least, and, at worst, an attempt to re-frame the discussion, whether intentional or not. I’m also ignoring them because some are just plain silly, with due respect. Are you honestly going to try to say that you can’t see that I was pointing towards methodology in the first paragraph (i.e., actually studying that which one finds objectionable before one brands it objectionable)? Odd. I know you know what a prerequisite is, right? Would you really hold this sort of line before a classroom of your students? If you say no, and I hope you would, would your consider yourself fallacious?
So, I’ll reiterate: I’m talking, in this first post, about objections literalists have against postmodern interpretation. The first of these objections is single determinate meaning(s) and the Calvin and Luther connection.
That’s what this discussion is about right now. If you’d like to continue than move yourself beyond the 1st paragraph and your hang-up on misplaced fallacies, Dave. I’m confident that I clearly communicated examples of biblical interpretive methodology that calls into question the 1st objection of literalists. Do you have anything to add to that point? And please, don’t blow smoke by saying this is sloppy work, or my style is loose, or you need peer-reviewed materials, or an annotated whatever. That’s pure BS. The texts relevant to this discussion are right there in front of you and I would think that a guy who teaches 400+ level courses at university would neither need time to properly form a non-emotive response that is substantiated by vigor, nor would such a fellow need more examples to prevent the “firing off of jargon,” as you say.
Let’s get to the point, Dave. The first of objection of literalists has to do with single determinate meaning(s). Literalists say there is only one. Are they correct? If so, how do you reconcile the examples in my post with your methodology?
PS: Yes, I’m very aware of historical and textual criticism. Yes, I’m only beginning to dive deep into a study of postmodernism. That said, I have already read many of the authors you cite. I’m more read than perhaps a man of your obvious university stature may think. I still have much to learn because I need to connect some frameworks together to find an interpretive approach that I think works in our time and setting. Yes, I’ve been to the “ivory tower,” and quite frankly it sucks. I’d like my money back, to be completely honest. Why? because even after my time in the ivory tower, here I am doing it on my own. Perhaps that’s the way it should be? You know, it’s like that whole thing with Jesus and his “speaking with authority” thing. You understand what that statement meant in it’s context, right? I don’t want an answer for that particular question. it was a rhetorical one and I’d like for us to stick with the original questions in this post, but I would like you to think about it as you grade your students’ papers, Dave.
If you want to learn about water, don’t ask the fish.
Dave – Where do you teach? What University? You mentioned Millersville somewhere here on the blog. Is that it? I pegged you for somewhere in New Jersey though …
Got your e-mail, Dave! Thank you! It humanizes the conversation. :)
I have found most opponents to postmodernism do not even feel they need to engage with postmodernism to criticize it, as Gene Edward Veith lays out in the introduction to his book Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture:
“The specific contributions of major figures of postmordern thought such as Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, and others, I am skipping. Nor am I plunging into the technical details of critical theory, hermeneutics, or other highly specialized kinds of discourse postmodernists generally use to thrash out their ideas.”
That is a serious mistake in my opinion – why not engage Derrida, et al? It’s not like God isn’t greater than the ideas of men and women…
I do think, though, that many people who claim postmodernism as their thing would do well to read a little more thoroughly into their forebears. For every Evangelical who can’t handle Lacan’s “Mirror” or Derrida’s “differance” or even Saussure’s “signifier/signified” relationship, I have generally met a postmodernist who can’t handle them either.
We should all try to be literate in our own views, and the beliefs of those with whom we disagree.
OK, a few questions for you Shawn. I need a little clarification, if you could.
Re: Paul – I’m not sure what Galatians 4 contributes to the interpretive discussion. I’m sure I am missing something here, but I have read it over and over and still am lost. All I can say at this point is that it is an OLD idea, and one that Calvin and Luther accepted, that a historical event could have a spiritual significance. Also, wouldn’t the natural reply of a literalist or whatever be that God was interpreting His own Word, and not Paul? Certainly everyone acknowledges that Paul wrote the words on the page, but the literalist view is that he wrote the words that God gave to him. It would minimize the impact of Paul, at least as the theory goes.
Re: Luke – It’s a long book, dude… still reading to figure out what you are getting at.
Re: Heaven, Hell, and Geography – Again, not sure how this proves the point. I mean, in the OT they talk about Jerusalem as being the navel of the earth… and I don’t know a lot of literalists who argue that our planet had an umbilical cord at one point, or even that Jerusalem is literally the geographic center of the earth. They recognize that it is a metaphor. Literalism does not ignore the possibility of symbolism, allegory, metaphor, etc. Likewise, heaven and hell as geographical places is obviously not a reality (at least as we understand it), but is metaphorical. I don’t see how this makes a point. Maybe I am just missing something, like I said – I am used to applying pomo stuff to Hemingway and Faulkner, not so much with Paul and Moses.
So I guess my overall question is this – could you perhaps formulate something akin to a definition, and perhaps a methodology for using this kind of interpretive pattern? I know that sounds like a pain, but I still think I may be locked into Derridaesque thinking too much… this may be more of an issue of terminology than anything else. Either way, I am feeling like we are talking around each other. I’m sure that Saussure had sometihng interesting to say about this…
Galatians 4 – Paul interprets it allegorically. Yes, this is an old idea; it’s as old as Paul. It’s age makes me wonder why we ignore it so and how we got away with it for so long. It’s Paul’s interpretive method/treatment of the Genesis text that’s important in this discussion. One would have a really hard time treating texts like Paul does in this case in a contemporary hermeneutics class. Paul is attributing multiple meanings to the Genesis text, which makes the argument or single determinate meanings a bit of a stretch. I also see what you are getting at when you say “wouldn’t the natural reply of a literalist or whatever be that God was interpreting His own Word, and not Paul?” I would simply say in response then that “God himself wouldn’t pass a contemporary hermeneutics class either!” God and Paul would flunk out.
Luke – It is a long book. It’s also full of interpretive methodology that we largely ignore. Luke not only is adjusting his eschatology, but he is also adjusting his sources in places to emphasis his point. We superimpose our own interpretive methodology upon Luke’s sources and upon Luke itself and I am suggesting that if Luke did the same thing as we are doing then we wouldn’t Luke as we have it before us right now. What’s that say about our methodology and our contemporary ideas of inspiration? Luke, in the process of writing the Gospel, renders the idea of single determinate meaning a stretch too. It’s there, but it may take some time to find it. And after it is found, then comes the hard work of application.
Heaven and Hell texts – The biblical worldview is flat. The earth was the center of the three-tiered universe. Heaven was literally located directly above it (that’s where God literally lived and dropped manna from) and hell was directly below it. This worldview is present within a lot – a lot – of texts. The texts concerning heaven and hell are one example. We pick up these texts are extract from them a different meaning than the author’s of them invested into them as a result of their literal worldview. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, and I honestly believe revelation was conveyed in spite of embedded worldviews (that’s what incarnation does), but I do believe that our unconscious act of extracting a different meaning from these texts renders single determinate meanings a bit of a stretch.
The larger point I’m trying to make that encompasses all of this, is simply this: The Single Determinate Meaning Objection that literalists of the Calvin and Luther persuasion proclaim is invalid as a result of the literalist’s interpretive self-contradiction(s). Said differently, their own bible contains interpretive methodology that contradicts their “let the bible interpret the bible” mantra and they themselves extract multiple meanings from texts whether they realize it or not and when it is theologically convenient. I also want to reiterate that all of the above is right there in our bible.
Spend some time with that Luke example. I think you’ll be amazed at what you find, Dave.
Finally, you asked, “So I guess my overall question is this – could you perhaps formulate something akin to a definition, and perhaps a methodology for using this kind of interpretive pattern?”
That’s what I’m working on right now. This whole thing is my attempt to put some big pieces together. I’m in search of an interpretive framework. You are actually participating in a process that I’m doing live. I’m reading, studying, and trying to build a framework in real time.
I agree. Again, that’s exactly what I’m doing right now.
I would also say that the many people who claim the bible as their final authority would do well to know it beyond the words that sit in front of them.
I think if we could get the two groups of people who are willing to engage postmodernism and actually know the Bible together, in the same space, and work on figuring out a framework that works, we would accomplish much.
Thanks for the reference, Thom! We all know full well that there are people out there, on both sides, who object to things before they actually know the thing to which they object. I still don’t think it’s a fallacy to simply say as much. :)
Shawn what I want to know after reading the discussion, and a reply from a cousin who read the article after I posted it to my page, is what you see as the alternative to single determinate meaning?
Does it require going all the way to whatever meaning the reader finds, or just accepting that there are multiple layers of meaning?
I would go so far myself as to say that the Word is alive (ie “In the beginning was the Word and…”) and therefore capable of actually revealing new meanings to us over time. I don’t think it requires going all the way to words mean just whatever the reader thinks. Are we on the same path? peace, Greg
Maybe you could clarify something else for me… I have been thinking a little about this, and I wonder if you and I aren’t swinging at straw men a little. Could you, clearly and from your own understanding, define a “literalist” for me?
Secondly, do you remember where Luther and Calvin say that a Scripture cannot have multiple layers of meaning? I’m sitting here with a copy of Calvin’s “Institutes” and I am not seeing this anywhere. Luther is generally absent in any real quantity from my bookshelf, except in limited excerpts in anthologies, so I can’t really check there, and I haven’t found an internet source either. Help!
And I am happy to be part of this – and thanks for the email, by the way. It really does help to humanize the conversation and take away some of the isolation taht comes with this kind of medium.
A big ol “amen” to the above.
Dave – A literalist to me is an interpreter who advances the idea of their preferred interpretive methodology (usually this method is constructed upon the ideas of single determinate meanings, authorial intent, historical-grammatical hermeneutics, and the circular “let scripture interpret scripture” mantra) as the superior and only true interpretive methodology. For me, the term literalist doesn’t mean that these interpreters fail to recognize literary devices (e.g., metaphor, etc.), or are people who believe the earth is flat and supported by four corner pillars (although these people could be called literalists); the term means that people can and often do realize such things but do not admit it or recognize them at all in their interpretations, and the realization does not at all inform their interpretation(s). That’s an interpretive failure and a literalists permits it to fail in order to protect their preferred interpretation, whatever that may be. So, I guess I would say that a literalist is one who prefers an interpretation over the interpretive methodology and process itself.
I am a literalist at times, just to assure you that I am not using the term in a pejorative sense. So, my beef is not with the term itself, or the idea toward which it points; I take issue with when and where it is implemented. A literalist uses it for his or her own purposes, when convenient. An honest exegete reads it when he or she must, regardless of the effect it may or may not have on presuppositions.
First, Calvin:
Re: interpretation, Calvin says, “Allegory is to be strictly excluded. When the purpose is to let the matter itself speak out in the exposition, there is no time for luxuriating in the wealth of problems that so many exegetes love, not for the sake of the text, but to draw attention to themselves” (Corpus Reformatorum, 59.33).
Re: authorial intent, Calvin says, “Since it is almost the interpreter’s only task to unfold the mind of the writer whom he has undertaken to expound, he misses the mark, or at least strays outside his limits, by the extent to which he leads his students away from the meaning of author [in the Bible] … It is presumptuous and almost blasphemous to turn the meaning of scripture around without due care, as though it were some game that we were playing” (Calvin, Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 1.4).
Re: Original, Grammatical Meaning, Calvin says “Let us know that the true meaning of Scripture is the genuine and simple one [germanus et simplex], and let us embrace and hold it tightly. Let us … boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those fictitious expositions which lead us away from the literal sense” (Calvini Opera- Corpus Reformatorum, 50.237; Institutes, 4.17.22). One theologian (B. S. Childs) suggests that “Calvin does not … need to add a secondary or spiritual meaning to the text because the literal sense is its own witness to God’s divine plan” (Childs, Sensus Literalis, 87).
Then, Luther:
Scriptura sui ipsius interpres – “Let Scripture Interpret Scripture,” To which Luther says “That is the true method of interpretation, which puts Scripture alongside of Scripture in a right and proper way” (H. E. Jacobs, ‘Luther’ in E.R.E. VIII, p. 334.).
The Litral Sense – Luther says, “The literal sense of Scripture alone is the whole essence of faith and Christian theology … If we wish to handle Scripture aright, our sole effort will be to obtain the one, simple, seminal and certain literal sense” (Quoted in F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation, p. 327.).
I could go on, but basically, the two chief reformers shared major congruence as concerns their literal interpreitve methods. They not only broke from many church fathers in this regard (e.g. Origen, Jerome and Augustine), but also set the precedence for the preferred method of interpretation for years to come. In fact, it is still the method of choice in spite of the many problems inherent to it, the biblical examples of interpretation that contradict it, and perhaps most importantly the mass ignorance surrounding it.
PS: Got your number and I’m looking forward to that beer and conversation in real-time! I’ll phone you later this week. It’s a very busy one.
Yes, Greg. We are on the same path. In fact, the next objection to postmodern interpretation has to do with the issue you cite. Anti-postmodernists and literalists say the relativism and nihilism will result in interpretive methods that diverge from a single determinate meaning that is totally wrapped up in authorial intent. This is, of course, not true, IMHO.
Thanks, Greg! Nice to have other voices involved in this conversation!
As a recovering fundamentalist, I have struggled with it. Tim has helped a lot.
Right now, I find the view that any of us individually or in a group have arrived at the final correct interpretation of God and the universe, even in part, to be hubris akin to the temptation of original sin in the creation story. Its not God and the Word I don’t trust to be eternal, dependable, and true. Its us I don’t trust to be able to fully comprehend everything about anything! lol
Thanks for the citations, it helps to clarify exactly what we are talking about in the above post. I will most likely be gone from the site for a few days (big certification exam coming up Saturday) and anyway it gives me time to read stuff and think about it a little.
Not problem, Dave! Look forward to your return … and a real-time meet up for further conversation, drinks, and food! Be well!
OK – so I got that silly cert test outta the way now… whew!
Looking at this, I do wonder exactly who REALLY follows what Luther and Calvin are saying here. No offense intended, but setting up a 100% literalist model of interpretation, and then beating it up, is not exactly an accomplishment. So we’ve established that a text can have multiple meanings… but (at least in the circles I run in, and am very familiar with) this is not really an argument. Scripture can interpret Scripture without an SDM. It seems like we are going to have a hard time getting from “there is no X” to “we ought to do Y”, where X is anything and Y is a pomo critique. There are plenty of shades between SDM and PoMo, after all.
I’ll default to “God gave Luke, and Paul, the words to put on the paper.” Are they language, and thus suspect for malleability? Yes. Are they the interpretations and thoughts of humans? NO! They aren’t. Can God have a verse with 2 very real meanings? Sure! Can a verse mean whatever I want it to mean just because I don’t like the old interpretation (yes I know this is a stereotype…)? No, it can’t.
I look at Postmodernism this way: it is a great method to take apart Hemingway, Faulkner, Shakespeare, whatever. All humans. Ultimately, it tries to get at what lies beneath humanity. But it can’t get at what is more foundational than man – God. The minute you start to deal with the Divine, a human analysis is going to need alteration. Would we try to use Freudian psychoanalysis on God? I wouldn’t… so why would I use another human interpretive system like Postmodernism? It’s like applying Newtonian physics to things on a subatomic level – it defies all logic, and breaks the model completely.
I’m also curious, on a slight tangent – what do you make of the verses about Scripture not being for “private interpretation” in Peter’s letter? Seems that a postmodern approach calls for a strictly private interpretation, depending on how you define private and postmodern.
Dave, you wrote “Looking at this, I do wonder exactly who REALLY follows what Luther and Calvin are saying here. No offense intended, but setting up a 100% literalist model of interpretation, and then beating it up, is not exactly an accomplishment.”
Who follows it?!? Every hermeneutics prof./class I have ever sat under/taken, that’s who! Have you ever taken a hermeneutics class, Dave? If you tried to implement the interpretive methods employed by the biblical authors I cite in any hermeneutics class you could possibly fail the course, or get a personal lecture at the very least. Allegory, for example, is not an acceptable interpretive method in contemporary hermeneutics, and contemporary hermeneutics finds its genesis with Calvin and Luther. Every herm class I have ever heard of operates on the presupposition that there is one determined meaning in the text and that by using the right tools (historical-grammatical method), we can not only discover what the original author meant, but also apply that meaning in our own world.
So, if it’s a strawman you were hunting for, keep looking, because this ‘aint it. :)
You also, wrote, “I look at Postmodernism this way: it is a great method to take apart Hemingway, Faulkner, Shakespeare, whatever. All humans. Ultimately, it tries to get at what lies beneath humanity. But it can’t get at what is more foundational than man – God.”
We’ve been here before, Dave. Revelation is offered to us in understandable and accessible ways, by God, of course. Everything is a redemptive analogy. Jesus himself was a redemptive analogy. Unless God appeared before you and spoke what you know directly to you, then you have picked it up through different modes of communication (books, sermons, etc.). These modes of communication were delivered to you by others who have been shaped in countless ways by their settings and cultures (thus the need for redemptive analogies in the first place!). It takes more than a bit of interpretation to get to the revelation. Is this easy? No. Is there room for error? Yes. If it’s too much work and/or too risky, take it up with God. He could just appear and speak directly to us, I’m sure, but God instead let things unfold like this. So, interpretation is absolutely necessary for understanding God’s revelation, unless you received a message directly from God. We must interpret. How we interpret is what you and I have been discussing.
Too, I’m not and have never been saying that we can make scripture say whatever we want just because I don’t like an old interpretation.
Freud and his psychoanalysis have nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. In fact, I think you might be treading into fallacious territory on that one, or just being distracting again. :)
Re: private interpretation: Scripture was meant to be interpreted in community. Said differently, scripture is meant to be read with other people rather than all by one’s self. Ironically, if Christians were actually practicing this back in the 16th century, instead of defaulting to Calvin, Luther, or the Catholic Church, you and I would not even be having this debate today. At any rate, I think you are misunderstanding “private interpretation.” Reading scripture in the context of community does not limit the way we read it, but how and why we read it.