Peter Kirby

Wallener, what are you arguing for? That there is some purely objective way of determining what the biblical texts mean?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Hey! Looks like the reviewer did lead me on. Very sorry. Because if CJD has correctly characterized Vanhoozer, than the below is pretty much what I believe. The whole purpose of methodology is to keep baggage in check....

But I have real problems with this characterization, CJD, because Vanhoozer is an inerrantist, at least according to this lecture of his. In other words, Wallener is right. Here's what Vanhoozer says, in his own words:

• First: the Bible speaks truly ‘in the original manuscripts’. We have already seen that the Reformers were able to affirm the truthfulness of the Bible and to acknowledge errors due to faulty translation or transmission. To the objection that we do not now possess the original manuscripts, it must be pointed out that textual critical studies have brought us extremely close to the original text. The relatively small number of textual variations do not for the most part affect our ability to recognize the original text. At the same time, it is important not to ascribe inerrancy to the copies of the originals, since these are the products of an all-too human process of transmission.
  
  The second qualification is just as important: ‘when interpreted according to the intended sense’. It is often tempting to claim the same authority for one’s interpretations as for the biblical text itself. The thrust of the doctrine of inerrancy, however, like that of sola scriptura, is to stress the distinction between the Word of God and the words of men. Interpretations of the Bible fall under the category ‘words of men’. It is thus important not to ascribe inerrancy to our interpretations. To the objection that we do not possess the correct interpretation, we must appeal not to inerrancy but to the perspicuity of Scripture. What conflicts there are about biblical interpretation ultimately must be ascribed to the fallible interpreter, not to the infallible text.

So, I think I must respectfully reject your characterization of Vanhoozer. Vanhoozer's "determinate meaning" really means What My Interpretation of Reformed Theology Says About The Text.

Vorkosigan

Wallener

Oh my, not at all. I'm suggesting that whatever arguments Vanhoozer presents for the ability to find "inherent meaning" are completely undermined by his inability to use his own methodology to get useful meaning out of the texts without backprojecting his beliefs into the texts.

Put another way: I find Vanhoozer more circuitous, but no less circular, than the usual band of exegists.

CJD

There is no doubt Reformed folks in particular suffer from this delusion. But please don't accuse Vanhoozer of this; he nowhere smacks of one who makes paper popes of the Reformed confessions. In fact, his book does quite the opposite: he takes aim at both the fundamentalist's dogmatic hermeneutic as well as the deconstructionist's hermeneutic of suspicion. Despite his stance on the authority of Scripture, he does not start there (and further, his views on it are irrelevant; e.g., I differ with him on this and yet I still can argue for and agree with his hermeneutic). In his own words, which you quoted, he starts with the very thing I have been arguing all along — that the text has a meaning! ("… we must appeal not to inerrancy but to the perspicuity …").

In other words, what difference does it mean in the end if the so-called 'infallible' meaning can never be attained? He might affirm there is one; you do not; but both cannot get to it. This does not mean, of course, that one is unable to get at a meaning, or that one meaning is preferable, if not more plausible, than another (If Vanhoozer then thinks that this particular meaning carries authoritative weight, what do you care? I mean, it's not as if he'll be dashing babies' heads on rocks or anything.).

What this does, in contradistinction to what Wallener seems to be arguing, is that despite our circularity, we can indeed do responsible interpretive criticism. Please don't play the positivist with me (Wallener); the blade cuts both ways.

CJD

Vorkosigan

Hey! I'm starting to enjoy this exchange, so different from the usual ones where we snarl at each other. You may make a convert of me yet.

But I read him as saying in that last line that contradictions are the result of human error, and do not exist in the text.

It affects the reading of the text and hence, his attempt to get at the author's meaning.

Evangelical politics and their threat to the nation's life and liberty are based on their readings of the text. I care very much what they say and think about it.

Vorkosigan

CJD

Touché. What can I say? Don't paint us so broadly. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat; Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. Besides, there is no monolithic 'evangelical politics', at least not from my vantage point (let's not confuse the 'Christian Right' with 'evangelical').

CJD

You see, I perused your webpage. You are human! I'll try not to snarl as much. Apologies.

I didn't read Vanhoozer as saying the contradictions per se were the result of human error; I read him saying that the contradictory interpretations we come up with are the result of human error. Some, to be sure, may only be apparent, and thus they may actually complement each other. But his point, again, is that a meaning can be attained. Whether or not he thinks errors exist in the original text is entirely irrelevant (because the originals don't exist). Remember, he doesn't ascribe 'inerrancy' to the copies.

If you think that it profoundly , that is all good and well. But to be fair, we'd have to start showing this on a case-by-case basis.

Best,

CJD

John A. Broussard

As usual, I'm having difficulties getting to the nub of this thread.

Is someone saying that a series of words woven together must have some meaning independent of what meaning various readers assign to it?

An answer to that question, with a brief clarification, would help me no end.