In this second part, I simply wanted to outline two areas where Sailhamer supports his case in the history of interpretation.
Trading in “words” and “things”
First, Sailhamer argues that “lying behind most Christian discussions of biblical interpretation are the formative ideas of Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine” (74). He explains that “in that work Augustine focuses on the principles and procedures Christians should use to ground their beliefs in Scripture.”
Sailhamer points out that for Augustine, “the meaning of the Bible is found in the interrelationship of two features of texts: its ‘words’ (verba) and the ‘things’ (res) to which its words pointed, or the ‘things’ signified by its words.” In this model, “the purpose of a ‘word’ (verbum) is to point to a ‘thing’ (res) in the outside world” (74).
In addition, the “things” that the “words” of Scripture pointed to could also point to other things. In the precritical period, the “mind of God” is what determined the relationship between the things that the words of Scripture pointed to and any other entities that those “things” signified. With the rise of historical-criticism, the meaning of the “things” that Scripture pointed to were determined by what was deemed to be “historically” plausible. This meant that “history had grown larger than the Bible, and biblical history could locate its meaning only from within the coordinates of that larger history” (97).
For Sailhamer, the historical-critical emphasis on “the role of external reality” was “little more than a continuation of Augustine’s discussion of ‘words’ (verba) and ‘things’ (res)” (77).
Elements of a Precritical Reading of Scripture
In the above analysis, the center of meaning rests in “things” and their relation to other “things.” In contrast, Sailhamer argues that the center of meaning for a precritical understanding of Scripture rests in the words of the text. Sailhamer writes, “In the classical evangelical view of the ‘verbal meaning’ of Scripture, the meaning assigned to the things (res) referred to by the words of Scripture is founding the meaning of those words (verba) as parts of the ancient biblical language” (88). In other words, “the biblical words point to and assign meaning to the extrabiblical things (res) in the real (res) world” (88).
In sum, “the meaning of Scripture was tied directly to the meaning of its words (verba)” (89).
Sailhamer then summarizes four elements of a precritical reading of Scripture:
- Biblical Realism: “In a precritical reading of the Bible (OT), it was taken for granted that if a biblical narrative was realistic (which they almost always are!) it must also be real, that is, historically true” (90).
- A Single Story: “If the many individual real (true) stories in the Bible (OT) are part of one real world, they must all also be a part of the same real story, one that includes the NT stories and the storied world of the reader in all ages” (91).
- Figuration: “Figuration is a way of recounting events so that their basic similarities and interconnectedness become apparent . . . The ‘similarities’ drawn between otherwise dissimilar stories in the Bible are meant to signal a connectedness of the stories and the events they recount. They belong together and are part of a single whole” (91).
- The Bible is my Story: “Since the world rendered by the cumulative biblical narratives is conceived of as the only real world (res), it follows that it includes the world of the reader. It is thus the duty of the reader to fit his or her life into the events of the biblical story” (91).
Questions to Ponder:
1) How do these two areas relate to or inform Sailhamer’s formulations in the first part of the chapter? Do you think Augustine's distinctions play the pivotal role that Sailhamer assigns them?
2) What is the relationship between what Sailhamer calls “figuration” and the interpretive practice of “typology”? Further, how does Sailhamer portray typology, and does this differ from how NT scholars understand and use the term?
As always, feel free to bring up any element of the chapter for discussion in the comments.
6 comments:
I had some thoughts about question #1: Augustine's categories marvelously make sense of all kinds of movements away from "the author's verbal meaning." There's the critical movement away, which treats the text as artifact; there's the evangelical movement towards a historicism based on archaeology and geology, which yet values the text as "inspired" but neglects to READ it very carefully; and there is the down-home, grass-roots, "culture of opinion" Bible study that assumes that the text is to be a springboard for all kinds of personal emotive associations and assumptions. ("What it says to ME is...") All of these "readings" indicate a studied interest in the "res" outside the text, rather than attention to the "verba" of the text itself. Drives me nuts.
A question for you guys: One thing Ched didn't get into here was how the Church became the location of the "official" reading of the mind of God, and how the Reformation principle of "sola Scriptura" challenged this. Sailhamer discusses this aspect a little on pp.79-80, and then returns to it briefly on p.84. As he notes, "the Scripture principle raised as many questions as it answered...If not the authority of the church, then by whose authority must one judge the meaning of the words of Scripture?"
Obviously it's too big a question to answer thoroughly here, but I am curious as to how you folks who especially love the compositional approach treat the question of "how do you know whose interpretation is the best"? I tend to answer this in terms of the intellectual virtues; i.e., I try to lean on interpretations that reflect humility, diligence, and alertness with respect to reading the text. Any thoughts to add?
Thanks for this interesting discussion, Ched!
Paige B.
Paige B,
It seems that the best interpretation would have to go along the same lines as Sailhamer's earlier discussion about coming up with the "big idea" of the text. It's the interpretation that makes the most sense of the most important things in the text. Now, one scholar's "this makes the most sense" is another scholar's "that makes no sense" - so I guess there's ultimately going to be some subjectivity involved. That said, the author did say something with those words, and it's our job to do the best we can to determine what he/she actually said, and not what we think he/she should have said, or what we would have said. And I agree with you totally about the intellectual virtues - there must be plenty of humility, respect for other interpreters, etc. Hope that helps some.
Andy
Yes, thanks! I remembered that part in MP about the "big idea" after I wrote up the question. I guess that I find those interpretations most persuasive that are able to show convincingly the bigger picture, grounded in the text, and that pay close attention to the way the words go. We being Protestants, the words themselves have to be our checks & balances.
I've always been somewhat confused by the difference Sailhamer makes between figuration and typology. Can someone here explain it?
@Paige + Andy,
I think the question of whose interpretation is authoritative is an important one.
To add to y'all's comments, I think a robust understanding of the Sola Scriptura principle is helpful. As the Reformers used and understood the Sola Scriptura slogan, Scripture isn't the "only" authority for believers (nuda Scriptura; "Just Me and my Bible Biblicism"), but it is the ultimate authority (the norm that norms all other norms).
So, I think maybe the history of interpretation, along with reason, and even the experience of the larger church also informs our understanding of the correct "big picture" interpretation of the text (along with the important interpretive virtues you guys mentioned).
I think this concern is also one of the reasons why S. strives to connect his hermenuetical framework developed in the early chapters of Meaning to the premodern/precritical way of understanding the nature of texts and composition.
Re. "figuration" and "typology" --
If I understand Sailhamer correctly, figuration differs from typology in that the former is as big as history, and the latter is (traditionally speaking) narrowly defined and, perhaps, essentially symbolic. In figuration there's an echo or a resonance between events in history, from OT to NT to the reader's own life, that reminds us that all of history is under God's providential control.
I guess S. gets "figuration" from Erich Auerbach (see note p.93). He seems to be ambivalent about the practice of typology, which seems to have legitimacy when the Reformed use it, but not when the medieval church went to town on it (words=things; things=more things). (Maybe the key here is moderation?)
Paige B.
Post a Comment