Just for the Record

I had no initial inclination to take up the psychodynamics of biblical interpretation; my research in hermeneutics just kept driving me that way (this way).
And yes, I am self-conscious enough to realise how absurd that sounds in this context. It doesn’t stop its being true, though; there’s no trace of my current chapter in earlier drafts of the project. At most, I might refer to Jung’s amplification as a paradigm of sorts of interpretation, entirely deracinated of its original embeddedness in analytical practice. Now, though, all I can see is condensation and displacement and especially cathexis, cathexis, cathexis.

(Later edit: not that I haven’t talked about this general topic before, whether here or in the Breu Without Authorial Intention volume, in ‘The Good That I Mean I Do Not Say: Meaning, Intention, Psychology and Romans 7.’)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *