Wallener

I believe we are, though it appears I am not expressing myself particularly well. The authors and subsequent redactors of the texts certainly had an intent. I completely agree with Vanhoozer on that point. The problem is Vanhoozer's "means to get at it" amount to bringing specific (spiritual) beliefs (about the text) to the text.

CJD

There is no 'even'. We simply do. That is the point.

yada, yada, I agree …

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by this. Will the text say to us: "This is exactly what is meant here in this pericope"? I am not talking about a fixed point here. I am talking about the belief that any given text has communicative intention. You can argue about fixed, dogmatic interpretations with someone who makes them.

CJD

CJD

Aha. That's bullshit, if you don't mind me saying so. Vork and I have had this discussion before. It won't end.

Wallener

Well, if Vork wasn't able to illuminate your errors for you, you're well beyond the reach of my powers. The discussion may never end, but my participation in it certainly can.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm saying that the assumption that a text has a communicative intention, while a truism, is not, in itself, especially helpful or meaningful when it comes to analysis. What I take issue to is the assertion that there are "means to get at" that intention from the text itself and from what seems to be a suggestion (correct me if I'm wrong) that simple "intuition" is any sort of valid method for divining that intention.

CJD

Vanhoozer doesn't argue that simple intuition is any sort of valid method for divining that intention. That was Vork's mistake, albeit lead on by the reviewer.

CJD

I really shouldn't go here since our current discussion is not about this, BUT this is no different than saying "I tried to think [accommodatingly] about these two problems …" (to use your own 'basic belief', Wallener); or "I tried to think [atheistically] about these two problems …", or "I tried to think [insert basic view of the world here] about these two problems … ."

It's inescapable. As Vork said, "All beliefs exist in networks of other beliefs and values." We each have them, and we each bring them to the text. All you're doing is pointing out Vanhoozer's honesty.

CJD

Wallener

Indeed it is. Which is precisely why his approach ends up in exactly the same place as deconstructionism. I never suggested the guy is dishonest, I'm saying he has failed to avoid the same pitfalls he critisized others for. He's just taking a little different route before falling into them.

CJD

No, no, no. We can keep our baggage in check — by employing sound, socio-grammatical interpretive criticism to the text. This is not the same as suggesting some kind of 'brute fact' is ascertainable from the text (apart from our own beliefs, as Diogenes seems to fear Vanhoozer is saying), nor is it tantamount to deconstructionism — just because we all bring baggage to the text does not mean that baggage completely overshadows our ability to employ sound methods of interpretive criticism, with the result of reading the text in its context.

CJD

Wallener

Yes, I understand. What you state above is the equivalent of apologetics for Deconstructionism. "We're guilty - but only in moderation."