Critical Assessment
Vanhoozer’s purpose for writing his book on “meaning” is to rescue the Bible from the academics, theologians, and laypeople who set out to destroy traditional hermeneutical practices and replace them with relativistic nonsense. However, in doing so, Vanhoozer also believes that some of their reasons for rejecting an absolutist understanding of meaning are valid even though their solutions are not. Thus, throughout the book Vanhoozer integrates theories from a wide variety of disciplines to both demonstrate the bankruptcy of deconstructionist hermeneutics and develop a modified hermeneutic rooted in objective meaning but tempered against absolutism. He also asserts as part of his thesis that the hermeneutical issues he addresses in his book are theological issues at heart.
Vanhoozer opens the topic of hermeneutics by assessing how philosophers have handled the question of meaning from Plato to the modern day. Plato presents three possibilities for how words have meaning. First, words “mean” by social/cultural convention alone. Thus, the words themselves are not based on anything and can change at the whim of the user. Second, Plato presents a view based on his theory of ideals by which every “thing” has a specific and perfect name. Third, Plato articulates a view in which the linking of words to objects helps to define the object itself. Vanhoozer deftly shows how these three views are the starting point for all of the various views held in the modern day.
Vanhoozer singles out Jacque Derrida as the “literary philosopher” who kicked off the breakdown of meaning that has permeated into biblical hermeneutics (20). His view, deconstructionism, is a direct attack on philosophy, reason, and authority. Some of its fundamental assumptions are (1) all interpreters are limited by their own horizons and cultures, (2) no person or academic field has access to universal or absolute truth, and (3) language is used to assert authority and remake the world according to one’s own preferences. Under this view, truth is an illusionary construct used to gain power and control. To counter this view, Vanhoozer asserts a triad of hermeneutic principles coupled with a philosophical maxim. In order to protect against deconstructivism one must hold to the theological distinction between text and commentary along with asserting hermeneutic realism, rationality, and responsibility.
Next Vanhoozer addresses the relationship of the author to the meaning of the text. Under the traditional view of meaning, the author is the creator and owner of the text. Thus, the meaning of the text is controlled by the author and finds its ultimate ground in the author. The assertion of the existence of authors provides the strongest basis for determinate interpretation. Whether or not anyone other than the author is aware of the meaning is irrelevant to the fact that a standard exists by which interpretations can be judged. The goal of hermeneutics under this view is to, as best as possible, understanding the original/authorial meaning of the text.
Vanhoozer links Derrida’s attack on the author to Nietzsche’s “death of God” philosophy. With the removal of the necessity of the existence of God, any God-like perspective on truth or reality also disappears. The existence of any objective meaning is essentially eradicated as well, leading to hermeneutical non-realism. However, Vanhoozer astutely points out that Nietzsche’s “death of God” philosophy does not take the Christian sense of God into account and thus proclaims God’s death a priori. He also reveals the reason for Derrida’s attack on objectivity: the desire to eradicate textual authority as the key to Christian moral authority.
Additionally, Vanhoozer also detailed how the recent attacks on Biblical authorship are all attempts to undermine Scriptural authority. For example, Biblical critics of the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras attacked Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch by arguing that Ezra wrote the majority of the Old Testament for political purposes. Such an assertion has the effect of removing any shred of historicity from the documents and shifts authorial intent to such a level that most of the Old Testament books become propaganda pieces. Ultimately, as authorship continues to die, Vanhoozer argues that the Bible will be interpreted as a context independent text with near unlimited but equally valid meanings.
Vanhoozer moves from discussion of the author to its postmodern replacement: literary convention and textuality. Derrida’s textuality is promoted as a culture-neutral way of approaching meaning as opposed to the traditional author-created form of meaning he characterizes as “white mythology” (54). In terms of knowledge, Derrida rejects any aspect of truth and holds to a pragmatist value system. For him, interpretations are fruit that simply taste different from each other and help people to differing degrees. Thus, interpretations are not right and wrong; rather, they are culturally situated to help people in different situations. Additionally, Derrida attacks the notion of argumentation and replaces it with narrative and conversation. Rather than comparing interpretations on a propositional level, Derrida argues that the proper method of discourse is story-telling.
Vanhoozer ends his chapter on interpretation with a discussion of literal versus allegorical meaning throughout history and as it presents itself in the postmodern/traditional debate. Though he affirms the literal mode of interpretation, he also argues that allegorical interpretation has a place as long as it operates in a specific set of boundaries. For instance, he argues that metaphors cannot have unlimited equivocal meaning, they must contain a stable meaning base that allows for bounded ambiguity. He ties this understanding with his interpretive method called “adequate” interpretation which holds to a determinative-ambiguity spectrum under which texts can be said to contain objective meaning without asserting absolutism.
Critical Evaluation
Vanhoozer does an exceptional job elucidating the theological underpinnings of attacks on hermeneutics and meaning, by framing the existence of objective meaning in terms of transcendence of a creator or god. Vanhoozer demonstrates that Derrida’s and other postmodernists’ attacks on meaning are not rationally based; rather they originate as part of an a priori assertion of the non-existence of any ultimate, transcendent being. This also allows Vanhoozer to eschew a purely rational construction of a theory of interpretation in favor of a theory rooted in theology proper, like the theology of the Trinity.
One issue that arises in the first three chapters is a tendency for Vanhoozer to create mediated solutions to problems arising between the traditional view of interpretation and the postmodern views. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, further discussion on the potential impact of his theories would be helpful in the text as he is developing them. For example, in the preface, Vanhoozer mentions that obscurantism could be a side effect of his personal theory of interpretation, but in the next three chapters, whenever he argues for his viewpoint he does not mention how he is trying to avoid the issues he brought up earlier.
Vanhoozer’s interpreter’s credo represents an exceptional safeguard against hermeneutical error and eisegesis that hits on multiple levels. However, it would have been interesting to see him develop this from Scripture directly. Even a few extra sentences on each one would have added a substantial benefit to the strength of his argument as tying his method to Scripture would demonstrate that it is part of the theological framework that he takes presuppositionally.
Finally, though he stated his “adequate” theory of interpretation, he does not give an adequate method to deal with the ambiguity that he allows. For example, he states that different texts and different literary devices have different levels of precision in terms of meaning. This may be true, but how does one assess the accuracy of interpretations at different levels of precision? Additionally, how does one judge between interpretations that occur at the more ambiguous levels of meaning? These are questions which his section on his theory fostered but did not answer, though he may address them later.
Critical Analysis
In the final section of Part I, Vanhoozer addresses the postmodern emphasis on the reader over the author in determining the meaning of a text. Traditionally, the reader was thought of as a dispassionate observer of the work of an author; however, with the postmodern turn, contextuality is brought to the forefront of interpretation and the reader’s own situation and circumstances drive the creation of meaning. Under this view, any possible objective meaning of the text is discarded and an infinite number of relativistic interpretations is embraced. Thus, meaning is not discovered but created as the reader takes the place of the writer. For example, Iser argues that texts by nature have meaning gaps that can only be filled by readers, thus the reader literally completes the text deterministically for his or herself. Other scholars assert that there are not norms or standard ethics by which people should read. Under this view, texts are created anew each time they are read.
Using the model of the reader, Vanhoozer engages in a thoughtful discussion of how this model can allow interpretive violence to run rampant through academic literature and scholarly criticism. He argues that though Derrida’s liberation of the reader leads to a freedom of meaning on the surface, Derrida has only exchanged one constraint for another – eisegesis. Rather than viewing the plethora of interpretations as unique and valid viewpoints, Vanhoozer discreetly categorizes them into acts of understanding and acts of ventriloquism. When a reader understands the text in terms of the authorial intent, he or she is not being bound by a straitjacket but protecting the author’s freedom to speak and use words. Contrarily, when a reader reads his or her own agenda into the text, the text is victimized, and the author is enslaved. Thus, rather than freeing the reader, both the reader and the author become bound by the reader’s perspective.
As an example of this destructive ideology, Vanhoozer presents an example of how people have attempted to tear down various biblical ideologies through a deconstructionist interpretation of Deuteronomy. First, deconstructionists attempt to undo the text by isolating political paradigms and religious means of control and then interpreting them in terms of the type of society they believe the authors were trying to create. However, Vanhoozer astutely points out that the assertion of the authority of God’s laws benefits everyone as opposed to a specific political group. Thus, the deconstruction’s presupposition that there is a political or religious agenda is shown to be deficient. Additionally, Vanhoozer critiques the feminist understanding of the Torah as promoting an unjust patriarchal society. However, he points out that placing judgment on the society of an ancient people group based on modern predilections is narcissistic and hinders one’s ability to learn from texts.
After analyzing the postmodern understanding of meaning, Vanhoozer moves to Part Two of his work in which he presents his own theory for meaning, starting with the recovery of the author. Throughout this section, Vanhoozer attempts to align his literary theory with Scripture and doctrinal statements. For instance, he opens the chapter by stating that “the fear of the author is the beginning of literary knowledge” (loc. 5490). He also draws a parallel between how people view authorship and the question of what it means to be human in the first place. He then expands upon these concepts to articulate his position of the author being a “citizen of language” (loc. 5503). In his view, authors are given language as a divine gift for the purpose of communication with God and others. Thus, language users have the right to speak, to mean, and to be heard, while simultaneously holding to the responsible use of language. This ultimately prevents language from being a constricting force that people must break free from as well as from being relativistic and thus completely devoid of any utility.
One of the most significant moves Vanhoozer makes is to convert meaning from being a property into being an action, from being a noun to being a verb. This has the effect of firmly rooting meaning not in the reader, nor even in the text as a specific association of words; rather, meaning is grounded in the act of a communicative agent. Alternatively, groups of words mean things because someone intended a meaning by speaking or writing them. This grounds meaning not in individual types and tokens, but in the conjunction of a token with an action, reflecting a sentence level understanding of meaning as opposed to a purely definitional or grammatical understanding of meaning. He asserts that the speech act is the fundamental action that imbues language with meaning.
In one of the best sections of the book, Vanhoozer presents a theological understanding of language as being designed by God for “covenantal communication” (loc. 5584). Thus, the faculties that people are endowed with for understanding language and communicating using language have proper function and a proper environment within which they work. According to Vanhoozer, the proper function is to “produce true interpretation and understanding” (loc. 5608). Vanhoozer’s theory is directly opposed to deconstructionism and postmodern theories which all assert the relativity of meaning. Vanhoozer understands the proper environment to be how people use language and cites coercion and manipulation as improper environments. By asserting God as a communicative God and language as His gift to mankind, Vanhoozer undercuts the postmodern suspicion toward the institution of language and provides a good reason to trust lingual faculties. Finally, Vanhoozer asserts that the postmodern separation between word and world is the defining event that categorized the sacred and secular split of modernity.
Critical Evaluation
Vanhoozer raises a critical point when he asks the question of whether or not the canon of Scripture is under the authority of some form of apostolic interpretation. Unfortunately, he does not provide a resolution to this question; rather he simply states that it may be possible to have biblical authority and simultaneously authoritative, communal interpretation if and only if the Scriptures generate the community. However, if this is the natural outflow of his theory, it is difficult to see how such a model would work outside of a Roman Catholic framework. If implemented in Protestant churches, it would seem to develop a relativistic view of interpretation where each individual community’s interpretation is actually valid and authoritative. Vanhoozer may be attempting to get around this by limiting interpretation to that which covers basic Christian doctrines, “a Trinitarian rule of faith,” but that decision would be arbitrary. Thus, his conclusion on community authority needs more work in order to be useful to the Christian community.
Another vital question Vanhoozer raises is how does his theory simultaneously incorporate both human authorship and divine authorship in terms of authorial intent? His solution is to view the entire canon of Scripture as necessary to determining divine authorial intent, thus prophetic words can have more meaning than just what the prophet intended. However, while this understanding has substantial merits, it also raises difficult theological questions. First, are the covenants meant as they were stated at the times they were given or are they fulfilled in Christ spiritually? Vanhoozer’s theory gives credence to the latter though there are substantial reasons for accepting the former. Second, though he argues that the Word of God reaches maximal sense in context of the entire canon, he does not wholly solve the issue of Scripture gaining new meaning as further revelation is given. These are not defeaters of Vanhoozer’s theory, but it would be good to see better treatments of the issues he brings up.
Critical Assessment
Vanhoozer starts chapter six by applying Plantinga’s reformed epistemology to literary theory. He argues that determinate meaning is properly basic and can be asserted axiomatically. He justifies this assertion by stating that language has a design plan that is focused on producing covenantal relationships between persons when it is functioning properly and in the proper environment. In light of that design plan, language must be able to facilitate the content of covenants, thus determinative meaning must exist.
A direct correlate of meaning being properly basic is that interpretation must also be properly basic. Vanhoozer argues that one aspect of the design plan for the mind is that it is an interpretive organ. When it is situated in the appropriate linguistic environment, it functions by attributing meaning to text and speech. Interpretation is the second half of the formation of covenantal relationships. Meaning is intended by the speaker/author and meaning is interpreted by the hearer/reader. When these things are functioning properly, the design plan of language is achieved.
Later in the chapter, Vanhoozer addresses the issue of conflicting interpretations by posing his own theory of critical hermeneutical realism. His theory is rooted in the existence of an objective correct interpretation but denies that any individual or group of people can be certain that they are in possession of it. In his view, all interpretations are fallible and subject to correction at any point. Though access to the perfect interpretation is a priori ruled out, Vanhoozer allows for comparison and critical judgment of interpretations based on the data gained from discerning authorial intent and careful examination of primary texts.
In the seventh chapter, Vanhoozer addresses the existence of interpretive virtues. These virtues are derived from the design plan that a properly functioning mind will generate meaningful interpretation. He argues that honesty, openness, attention, and obedience are all attitudes and actions that contribute toward interpretations that will best resemble the ultimate objective meaning that the author intended, thus they are virtuous.
Vanhoozer also addresses the issue of how Scripture should be read and approached. He argues heavily against resting interpretive authority in any form of human community whether it be scholarly, ecclesial, or inclusivist. All such communities are ultimately fallible and can at best only hold the best current interpretation rather than the ultimate interpretation. Vanhoozer argues that the best interpretations and the ones that should hold authority within the church should come from believing communities who read Scripture canonically and read Scripture as the ultimate authority over faith and life. Though this method will not produce the perfect interpretation, it keeps interpretation safeguarded against biased readings.
In addition to deconstructionism, Vanhoozer also tackles issues he sees in the fundamentalist movement. For instance, he argues that fundamentalists are guilty of historicizing biblical passages that are blatantly non-historical. In doing so, he cites fundamentalists being unwilling to take genre and varying forms of literary communication into account within their interpretations. Second, he argues that fundamentalists have taken an overly propositional approach to Scripture. The result is an underappreciation and utilization of the illocutionary and perlocutionary aspects of the Bible, as well as a diminishing of the Holy Spirit’s role in the process of hermeneutics. Finally, Vanhoozer admits that his theory has certain eschatological implications that jar with fundamentalism. He argues that speech-act theory coupled with a canonical reading of the text precludes dispensationalism and embraces covenantal theology.
In the final chapter, Vanhoozer summarizes the three major themes that run through his book. First, he argues that hermeneutics as a field must be governed by trinitarian theology. To root the pursuit of interpretation and meaning in anything other than the Christian God will result in either the relativization of meaning, the destruction of human dignity and self-understanding, or the acceptance of a nihilistic worldview along with some of the God-is-Dead philosophers. Contrarily, embracing a trinitarian hermeneutic will maintain the sanctity of the author, the proper place of the reader as a discoverer of meaning, the ability of the Spirit to effect the desired outcome of Biblical engagement and the covenantal framework of language.
Second, Vanhoozer argues that interpreters need to move from text being a “verbal idol” to a “verbal icon” (loc. 13069). The text as verbal idol is the result of a reader-dominated version of hermeneutics wherein the reader determines the meaning of the text apart from authorial intent, and in some cases the text itself. In this framework, the text becomes an idol of the self, reflecting the values and beliefs of the critic who created the text’s meaning. In opposition, Vanhoozer argues that the text should act as an icon of the author. The text captures aspects of the author who wrote it and the text itself points to the author. In the case of Scripture, in being the Word of God it is also the self-disclosure of God. Thus, none of the stories, narratives, letters, or Gospels serve simply as historical records. Rather, they serve as icons that point toward the nature and character of the God they disclose.
Finally, Vanhoozer argues for hermeneutic humility over and against pride and sloth. Pride enters into hermeneutics as people believe that they are in possession of the ultimate determinative interpretation of any given text. Sloth occurs the moment people succumb to the idea that there is no ultimate meaning and respond by ceasing to engage with the text properly as it presents itself as the creative work of an author. True humility resides in the belief that one has done one’s best job at remaining faithful to the text in terms of interpretation, but also maintaining an attitude of teachability and correctability as new interpretations are brought forth.
Critical Evaluation
Viewing the book as a whole, Vanhoozer’s accomplishments are extraordinary. Not only is he able to soundly refute deconstructionist theory, but he is also able to engage cordially with many postmodern scholars and glean a variety of helpful insights that assist in the development of a thoroughly theological hermeneutical system. However, the inclusion and focus on deconstructionist scholars left little room for interaction with in-house evangelical scholars. Though his theory sounds good on many levels, it is difficult to judge as Vanhoozer does not hold it up to much comparison with current evangelical theories of hermeneutics (excepting the fundamentalist section).
Additionally, Vanhoozer’s trinitarian hermeneutic is extremely pleasing to the ear. However, outside of a systematic discussion of the Trinity, it is difficult to present his categories, groupings, and attributions as correct interpretations of trinitarian doctrine. Instead, they often come off as external impositions on the text. For example, Vanhoozer states that the Father’s work is in locution and the Son’s work is in illocution, but how does that fit with the fact that Jesus speaks on His own authority and simultaneously only does what the Father does? Taking the hard categorization that Vanhoozer does makes for a tight theology but does not necessarily perfectly represent the Trinity.
Finally, Vanhoozer is to be applauded for his emphasis on the ethics of reading and interpretation. As he points out, all too often scholars, academics, and theologians read and interpret the Bible and other books without a thought as to the manner in which they approach the texts. By focusing on humility, Vanhoozer encapsulates not only the proper posture to approach texts, but the proper way to approach all of creation and God Himself. By approaching Scripture with humility, the church will be able to avoid dogmatism and skepticism alike.
Comments