I’m eating dinner now, after an exhilarating afternoon thinking and arguing with a terrific class at McCormick Seminary. Some of the students may be dropping by (since I indicated that I’d rather not vist them on their BlackBoard site); if so, a warm welcome to you, and after I finish my dinner I’ll post some reflections on our discussion.
A lot of the conversation concerned relativity in interpretation, and my unwillingness to identify a transcendent criterion for validity by which one can always tell the good ’uns from the bad ones. I’m not holding out on anyone; I simply decline to play the game of nominating my favorite criterion, and then arguing that it’s really not just my favorite, but a necessary condition for legitimate interpretation. (One of the first time anyone linked to my page came when David Weinberger cited my observing (relative to this kind of universal truth) “I'll agree that we believe in universal truths when the truths in question are so universal that you'll let me tell you what they are.” People clutch after these universals so that they can assure their own rightness and their interlocutors’ wrongness; but if the truth in question is necessary, transcendent, obvious, or whatever — shouldn’t it be just as obvious to me?
I don’t disbelieve in universal truth; I just disbelieve anyone who tells me that he or she knows what the universal truth is (how would I know they’re right?). And in the field of biblical interpretation, where people claim to have the universally true correct interpretation of biblical texts as a way of life, the probative value of such claims closely approximates. . . zero. So why bother? Why not simply say, “This is the best interpretation I can see, and it’s best for these reasons. Unless you can show me a better, I think this is the correct interpretation of this verse.”
Anthony asked me what difference my book makes, to which I (ultimately) said, “It makes no difference at all. The people on whose behalf I argue for the legitimacy of non-modern interpretations don’t care for or need my support, and the ones whose minds I’d like to change won’t think I’m right.” On the other hand, when people give the book a good hard reading, some exciting conversations ensue — so it’s good for that, anyway.
Ansho really thinks that meaning is a property that inheres to a text. I’ve run that argument online a number of times with my betters, but my quick response amounts to the question, “What is this property, and how do we detect it?” I’ve been over this at greater length (well, more length; I shouldn’t say it was “great”) in articles subsequent to the Making Sense book, but to be honest I don’t remember which. Sorry, Anshi.
I mentioned the “Integral and Differential Hermeneutics” essay in class; the book (not quite as expensive as I thought, according to Mark Goodacre, though since the students are mostly not SBL members, they’d have to pay the full $125 plus an offspring of the publishers’ choice, and if you don’t have any offspring, your nieces, nephews, and cousins are fair game) is available online through the link over to the right, but you can download the PDF of my chapter (and I tend to think it the best in the book, though I haven’t had time to read any of the others yet) under the thumbnail of the book cover. If you’re captivated by my aqrguments, or just annoyed, you might also enjoy or resent my article in Interpretation from a few years back — “Walk This Way: Difference, Repetition, and the Imitation of Christ.”
And now it’s past my bedtime. Goodnight, and thanks again.
Posted by AKMA at October 5, 2004 07:38 PM | TrackBackYour students would also be able to get the book at the individual's half-price rate; you don't have to be an SBL member to do so.
Posted by: Mark Goodacre at October 6, 2004 07:14 AMSorry, Mark — my mistake. For a student, though, $60 is still on the steep side.
Posted by: AKMA at October 6, 2004 01:03 PMThank you for this interesting note. I have not had opportunity to read any of your works and I only recently in the last several weeks knew about this blog. I would like to pose a question.
When you say that you don't disbelieve in universal truth ... I wonder if we can't whittle that down to simply "truth"... but you disbelieve anyone who says that he or she knows it... are you meaning to say that "no one should believe anyone who says that they know the truth?"
Or is this a report of your particular stance alone... which others may or may not consider worthwhile, especially considering his or her own experience?
You have probably already answered this question a hundred times, but I am trying to get a handle on how to think about what you are saying.
Posted by: Mark Diebel at October 6, 2004 04:31 PMThank you for this interesting note. I have not had opportunity to read any of your works and I only recently in the last several weeks knew about this blog. I would like to pose a question.
When you say that you don't disbelieve in universal truth ... I wonder if we can't whittle that down to simply "truth"... but you disbelieve anyone who says that he or she knows it... are you meaning to say that "no one should believe anyone who says that they know the truth?"
Or is this a report of your particular stance alone... which others may or may not consider worthwhile, especially considering his or her own experience?
You have probably already answered this question a hundred times, but I am trying to get a handle on how to think about what you are saying.
Posted by: Mark Diebel at October 6, 2004 04:31 PMAgain, I would like to thank you for allowing me to sit with you and attempt to interpret your work to and intermediate with the other students last Tuesday.
It occurs to me that what you suggest in Making Sense of NT Theology is a reflection of your Anglo-Catholic tradition in the sense that it is one with a strong doctrine of the church, whereas the questions from Andy, Patrick, Anshi, etc., reflect traditions without such a strong tradition. In the Catholic/Anglo-Catholic (and Orthodox for that matter) tradition, it is the church which becomes the hermeneutic lens rather than the individual, and, thus, questions of ultimate authority are bound to arise. Therefore, my question to you is, do you believe that at least part of the heavy reliance on the historical-critical method is an attempt (for many Protestants anyway, consciously or not) to find a replacement for the intermediating presence and work of the church?
Posted by: Rebecca Proefrock at October 9, 2004 07:01 PM