Monday, February 1, 2010

Chapter Two (Part 1 of 2) - Forum Post #3

Chapter Two- “Finding the Author’s Verbal Meaning.”

This month we are on chapter two of Meaning, “Finding the Author’s Verbal Meaning.” In chapter one, Sailhamer describes the nature of theology as a re-presentation of the biblical material. In this chapter, he outlines his approach to discerning the meaning of a text, and the Pentateuch in particular. This chapter is the most technical so far, as it deals with fundamental interpretive issues and the implications of his author-based hermeneutic.

The text-centered nature of Sailhamer’s approach is evident in the first sentence of the chapter: “In order to understand the Bible, one must read it” (68).

Sailhamer emphasizes that God has chosen to communicate his word to his people through the means of human language. If we want to hear a word from the Lord, we will have to read the texts he has given to us (and inspired). Sailhamer writes, “Many miracles are recorded in the Bible, but what is most remarkable about the Bible is the Bible itself.” He argues that “through human language, modern readers can understand the thoughts of biblical authors who lived thousands of years ago in a culture very different from our own” (68).

The Pursuit of the Author’s “Verbal Meaning”

For Sailhamer, the goal of biblical interpretation is the verbal meaning of the biblical author. Acknowledging the presence of a divine as well as human author, Sailhamer asserts that the divine intent “is the same as the human author.” By doing this, he assumes in relation to the OT that “what its human author intended to say is the same as what God intended.” In other words, “if we understand the human author’s intent, we will know what God intended” (69).

After establishing the important role of the author, Sailhamer clarifies what he means by “verbal meaning.” It is “the meaning of the words used by the biblical author” (69). He notes that language itself is not static and that authors cannot control the meaning of words in general. They can only make use of the language available to them, and they must utilize that language if they are to communicate to readers. Accordingly, “an author’s intent lies in the given meaning of the words he uses and in the way he uses them in a specific work” (73).

So, the meaning is “not merely in the biblical book; the meaning is the book. It is what the author has said by means of his book that constitutes his intended meaning” (73). Following these general hermeneutical guidelines, an interpreter should seek an author’s intended meaning in the words he has actually written.

For Sailhamer, this task involves knowing “the compositional, or literary, strategy within which the author uses his words” (73). This description is Sailhamer’s understanding of the “grammatical-historical approach,” which he attempts to apply to the Pentateuch consistently.

Summing up his interpretive approach, Sailhamer writes, “One finds the meaning and message of the Pentateuch not in asking why it was written or how, but in asking what was written as the book itself.”

Questions to Ponder:

1) One of Sailhamer’s foundational presuppositions involves the close relationship between the divine author and the human author. What do you make of his resolution of this tension? What are some of the pros and cons of this approach over other approaches (e.g., Sensus Plenior)?

2) One implication of Sailhamer’s text-centered approach is a downplaying of the importance of historical background information for discerning an author’s meaning. He notes that many of the OT books are anonymous and many are historical narratives. For Sailhamer, these are two reasons why focusing on background info is not very helpful (70-72). What do you make of Sailhamer’s point here? Can you think of a compelling counterproposal to his examples or overall conclusions?

Note: We will post the second half of our discussion of Chapter Two on February 15th.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ched,

This is a brilliantly written summary and the discussion questions at the end are riveting and demand a response from me.

What is the argument against sensus plenior? It seems like, in Genesis 50, God can superimpose an intention in historical events (you intended this for eveil God intended it for good). So why not a dual intention with the event of inspiration?

Ok, thanks man!
adam

Anonymous said...

Great post! Thanks for posting this.

Two things:
1) How does "verbal meaning" differ from the traditional category of "authorial intent"? What does Sailhamer gain with with "verbal meaning"?

2) In response to your second question, I've long been puzzled by the text-centered approach as an alternative to the historical approach. First of all, it's undeniable that a biblical text is historical in the content and as a mode of communication. Any textual study is inextricably tied to the context out of which the corpus is born, whereby its meaning can fully attained. It's been difficult for me to understand where Sailhamer is going with this. To be frank, that's part of the reason why I haven't put so much time into his writings. How would one defend (or just articulate) Sailhamer's position?

Bret Rogers said...

I have a question that I have asked myself recently in light of a discussion in a doctoral seminar. This would relate best to the second question Ched posed.

What if you take the OT as primarily a polemic against Baalism, etc.? This is a question my professor raised against Sailhamer's position, saying that if it is polemical (e.g. another creation account with YHWH, not Baal as creator) then there is no way we can fully understand the argument without comparative studies.

Another question he raised was with respect to texts like "boiling a goat in its mother's milk". How could anyone understand a text like that apart from some consideration of "background" study?

One more. He also objected to Sailhamer's position using Isaiah 7, and showing that vv. 1-13 assume the reader has a working knowledge of the political situation (apart from the text).

Just some objections from other scholars I thought we could ponder.

Andy Witt said...

Great questions, guys!

Adam,
That is an intriguing way to answer the question. However, it's not exactly the same. Throughout the Joseph story God clearly told Joseph and his brothers exactly what his intentions were with Joseph, yet they continually responded with rebellious hearts. It seems God intended to do good with Joseph the entire time, and his brothers knew it and tried to stop it - and there lies one of the morals of the story. If God had told the brothers one thing, then did something completely different with Joseph, then that'd be sensus plenior. Instead, what Joseph dreamed actually happened, both prophet and God had the same intention.

Donald,
1) I think Sailhamer would use the two interchangeably, but explains it as "verbal meaning" to be clear on what he is saying.
2) I thought Sailhamer explained the difference well in this chapter. The problem with many of the "historical" approaches lies in how to determine the historical context. For example, if I am studying Genesis 12, do I continue to use the author's context (Moses), or do I use the character's context (Abraham) to determine meaning? It seems that Sailhamer is arguing that we use the author's historical context (the best we can) to determine the meaning of the words he/she uses. If the author wanted us to know cultural/social context he/she would provide, as the author does i.e. in Ruth. The historical/cultural background we know of is profitable for apologetics, to show that the text fits the time period it is recalling, but beyond that, how does it help determine what the text means? Sailhamer seems to say that historical context is necessary for making a dictionary (lexicon), but beyond that only helps apologetically.

Bret,
1) I would ask - what in the text leads you to think that this is a polemic against Baal. Did the text lead you there in the first place, or your "inspired" imagination? Most of the time, such hypothesis are not driven by the text, but are driven by speculative guesses at historical context. Should we base our meaning of God's word on our best guess at a background (our imaginations are not inspired), or by the words He has actually inspired?
2) What "background" information helps us understand goat's milk better? The meaning is fairly plain to me. How am I to be sure that the background information it correct? Won't my exegesis be wrong if the background information is wrong?
3) I don't think Sailhamer's opposed to using Kings and Chronicles to help paint a background to Isaiah's book. In fact, doesn't the historical note in Isaiah 1.1 ask us too? The historical note *does not* ask us to use ANE sources to paint the picture, but why couldn't the reader use other OT books? Isaiah 7.1-13 might assume the reader has a knowledge of Kings and Chronicles, I'm just not sure that is ammunition against a "textual" reading. An analogy is the Psalter, which clearly takes some of its superscriptions from David's life in Samuel. To me, that suggests re-reading Samuel to better appreciate what is going on in the Psalter.

In the end, I think Sailhamer just wants us to be close readers of the text. He wants us to pay attention to how a book is structured and "meditate" on the Scriptures just like Joshua and the Blessed Man were asked. We often jump to ANE sources and background information without putting it the time God asks us to put into reading Scripture. I'd ask you to re-read the section in the chapter on the "Tower of Babel" narrative. He shows, I think quite well, the difference between the two approaches, and the dangers of the comparative studies method.

Great discussion!

Blessings, Andy

Ben Arbour said...

I hope to comment more later, but while I'm thinking about it...

Andy, what exactly in the text of the Declaration of Independence would lead you to believe that this document is polemical against Great Britain? Probably nothing. But historical background sheds light on the document and helps us more fully understand it.

Perhaps the points Sailhamer makes regarding historical backgrounds are valid points for Old Testament studies, where we lack substantial literature written in Ancient Hebrew--all else is comparative at best. However, his interpretive strategies would present problems for New Testament studies, where we DO have many other writtings in koine that assist us in both historical background work as well as philology.

Billy said...

Disclaimer: I've read other work by Sailhamer, but not the newest one. It's on my list to read for 2015. That's probably the soonest I'll get to it.

Here's some thoughts:

First, someone mentioned above about why the distinction between authorial intent and verbal meaning. At least from what I can tell from Ched's post, a brief glance at this chapter, and my previous understanding of Sailhamer's approach, the nuance of verbal meaning is a larger category than authorial intent. That is to say, it seems to include what is also known as "utterance meaning". As was noted before, Sailhamer's emphasis is on "what" and "how" things are said, not only on "why". In the past, much of the "historical-critical methods" were centered on the "why" and "whence" of the text. Utterance meaning can even extend to the book as a whole. Thus, Sailhamer's text-centered approach naturally lends itself to a larger category such as "verbal meaning" which makes room for his arguments concerning textual strategies and contextual reading without violating the authorial intent.

Second, like I said from the outset, I haven't read the new book yet, but commenting from what I know, it seems that for the most part when Sailhamer discusses the role of history for interpretation it is normally with reference to OT narratives. He is responding to a previous methodology that sought the meaning of the text from "behind the text" which resulted in the Bible's textual deconstruction. Historicity is absolutely essential for the veracity of the Bible for Sailhamer, however, because revelation is located in a text and not an event, discovery of the Bible's meaning comes from critical engagement with the biblical text itself which by necessity, brings with it a whole different method than the historical-critical one. I don't believe that Sailhamer would not view historical studies as an interpretive tool, especially when it comes to languages; what he is saying is that the meaning of Scripture is not dependent upon historical reconstruction. Doctrinally, it's a matter of the sufficiency of Scripture. The text does not require supplemented information in order to have meaning. This is where I think Sailhamer has been abused and misunderstood. I think he would help himself more if he explained his view of historical studies in association with other OT books like the Psalms, Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes where the issue of interpretation is not narrative reconstruction but rather more so cultural idiom. Personally, I do not see one having to look up what a Hebrew idiom meant that does not smoothly and clearly translate into English to be contradictory to his methodology because the issue is not a deficiency of the text, but rather of the distance of the reader. Once that idiom is known at a basic definitional level, then the reader is left to determine its "verbal meaning" within the context of the author's literary strategy which upholds the text-centered approach.

Was that coherent or did it evoke many utterances?

Billy

Anonymous said...

Andy,

I appreciate your thoughts on this. You say "If God had told the brothers one thing, then did something completely different with Joseph, then that'd be sensus plenior." But is that conflict inherent in the sensus plenior? What you say seems to imply the human intention is at odds with the divine intention (one thing/completely different) but since God is capable of imposing intent upon human action such that there is *both* divine and human intent, then in the case of the biblial writers the different intents are compatable (in the sense that one does not contradict the other). When you say "same intention" this implies we have access to the human intent, the divine intent, and can compare them to make sure they are the same. But it seems to me that all we have is the text. So how do you know the human and divine intent were the same?

Thanks,
adam

Ched said...

@Adam,

"This is a brilliantly written summary and the discussion questions at the end are riveting and demand a response from me."

This is deftly constructed jabberwocky. :)

You said in your second comment, "But it seems to me that all we have is the text. So how do you know the human and divine intent were the same?"

I think this is the point at which S. and the view of Sensus Plenior part ways. For S., the divine intention was to inspire the human intention. So, for him, to understand the human author is to understand what God intended readers of the Scripture to understand.

He makes two key presuppositions: 1) the divine intention is conveyed in the human intention, and 2) the human intention can be discerned from the text. And, he acknowledges that these are in fact "assumptions" that he is making. So, after stating these positions, S. will spend most of his time attempting to discern the author's verbal meaning (textual intent). I think for him this is the most fruitful approach, because this is the way you understand what God intended to communicate.

I think a key quotation from this chapter is on page 69:

"In the case of the Bible, the specific author I have in mind is the human author. To be sure, in the OT there is a divine intent along with the humanity of the author. That intent, as I understand it, is the same as the human author. In my approach to the OT, I always assume that what its human author intended to say is the same as what God intended. If we understand the human author's intent, we will know what God intended."

Andy Witt said...

Ched, you answered that question well for me.

@benarbour03,
I haven't done a study on the Declaration of Independence, but I'd ask what the difference would be in interpretation with and without the "polemic against GB"? If the Declaration of Independence is a well-written document that was meant to be read by generations of people, then its' authors would frame their arguments in a clear and cogent manner. I'd be curious to know what "deeper meaning" you would get from the Dec. of Ind. ---- is it anything substantial? Maybe you get a better sense of how a great a declaration it is by understanding the history behind it, but does that background actually change the "verbal meaning" of the document?

Ched said...

@Donald,

You asked, "What does Sailhamer gain with with 'verbal meaning'?"

I think (and this echoes some of what Billy said) that he uses this terminology in order to highlight the textual focus (I used "textual intent" above). It in some ways also sidesteps the whole idea of the "intentional fallacy" that tries to gain access to an author's mind or his "intentions" (i.e., mental/psychological state, desires, wishes, etc.). So, when S. says "authorial intention," he means an author's "verbal meaning."

I think he means by this, "what an author has actually done in his text". In other words, an author's verbal meaning isn't necessarily what he "intended" to do, but what he has actually done in the writing of his text. The idea is tied to communicative intention. The goal is to discern what an author has tried to "communicate."

Outside of this communicative intent, I think S. would grant that the "intention/mental state" of the author (human or divine!) is impossible to recover.

Anonymous said...

Ched,

Those comments were from the heart, brother ;).

Why use the language of intent and not just text? Is there some biblical reason? Just off the cuff, it seems like the issue in Scriptures own use of Scripture the issue is what is said, but maybe there are places where intent is raised and I am unaware.

Thanks,
adam

Paige Britton said...

Hello, all!

Could one of you kindly locate Sailhamer for me with reference to Walter Kaiser's view of the OT authors' knowledge? I have gathered that there is some difference with regard to their overall approach to the OT (promise plan v. verbal meaning/compositional view), and I am guessing there is some similarity re. the sensus plenior question (if divine & human meaning are considered the same). Do they think along the same lines with regard to what the OT authors knew ahead of time, or is Sailhamer more reticent than Kaiser to insist that they had full knowledge of what their words pointed towards?

Thanks!
Paige B.

Andy Witt said...

Paige B,
Glad to see you commenting! From what I gathered in personal communication, Kaiser and Sailhamer are very good friends and were former colleagues, though I can't remember from where. In any case, you are right in seeing some similarities in their views (i.e. single intention), though I think they arrive at those similarities through different means (as you also noticed). The big difference is noticeable is Kaiser working through the "epochs" of history vs. Sailhamer working with the textual/compositional approach we've been reading about. I noticed the difference much when reading Sailhamer's 'Pentateuch as Narrative' and Kaiser's 'Toward an OT Theology' side by side.
As far as what the authors knew of ahead of time, I can't give a definite answer. I've always wanted to know it as well, maybe some who have done a PhD with Sailhamer may be able to answer that better.
Andy

Paige Britton said...

Thanks, Andy! I'm glad to hear they're good friends. Kaiser is a nut (as in, very funny). I did a distance-learning OT course once that was based on his lectures. I dubbed him "Mr. Rabbit Trail" after about fifteen minutes. :)

Hey, here's another connection question: Why don't I see Kevin Vanhoozer in the author index of MP? Does Sailhamer ever interact with Vanhoozer's thought, to your knowledge? I would think they are remarkably similar in their desire to find meaning in the TEXT.

Paige B.

Ched said...

@Paige,

You asked, "Why don't I see Kevin Vanhoozer in the author index of MP? Does Sailhamer ever interact with Vanhoozer's thought, to your knowledge?"

Vanhoozer's emphasis on the Canon as the authoritative Script for theology, his author/text centered understanding of meaning, and his focus on "authorial discourse interpretation" seem very compatible with elements of S.'s approach.

I think the reason why S. doesn't interact with Vanhoozer is the same reason Vanhoozer doesn't interact with Sailhamer. They are working in different disciplines with different aims and objects of study.

S.'s work on the Pentateuch has some methodological overlap with Vanhoozer's work, but more in the sense that they are both pulling from many of the same resources (e.g., E.D. Hirsch, Hans Frei, the Canon!), but not necessarily referencing each other.

Billy said...

I think Paige brings up a good point though, one that I've given some thought before in the past too. I agree with Ched's explanation, and would say, that is most likely the case; however, I believe that Sailhamer would only strengthen his positions, and possibly, alleviate some of the "liberal" suspicions of his arguments if he were to draw off of more contemporary evangelical handlings of Frei such as Vanhoozer. In both "Is There a Meaning in this Text?" and in "The Drama of Doctrine," Vanhoozer provides a plethora of ideas concerning authorial meaning, textual meaning, canon, and so forth that I would love to see Sailhamer engage and use for the sake of fleshing out even more his text-centered approach.

For the most part, his narrative theology is mainly grounded upon Frei's work specifically and singularly, but there are many others since Frei who have done the conservative evangelical community a great deal of favor by furthering the work of biblical theology and theological, text-centered hermeneutics. It would be nice to see Sailhamer associate himself with some of these authors and their works. I think it would help better to place him in the midst of current discussions and writings.

Andy Witt said...

As usual, good points guys (and gal!). I know from personal communication that "Meaning of Pentateuch" was submitted for publishing way back in mid-2006 and went through a couple of publishers before put in print by IVP. That could be part of the reason why Sailhamer didn't interact with the latest of Vanhoozer's works (Drama had publishing date of Aug '05). As for "Is There Meaning," I think the similarities with Sailhamer are easy enough to see, and no comment from Sailhamer would really add much to the discussion. But I do agree, it would be good to see Sailhamer engage in print with some of these more recent evangelical-theological interpretations. He may do quite a bit of engaging with them in classes, though.

@Billy, Sailhamer's text-centered approach is fleshed-out quite well in his Intro to OT Theology. Also, he has a little book called "Biblical Prophecy" that lays out his hermeneutic too.

As a side note, before this book, I don't think even scholars associated with a canonical approach are all that familiar with Sailhamer. I was able to sit down with Christopher Seitz during a recent trip to Toronto and he said that he hadn't really read that much Sailhamer - which I found somewhat odd. The two share quite a bit in their approaches.

Andy Witt said...

I just read this in Goldingay's evangelical Psalms commentary, it is concerning sensus plenior and will help contrast Sailhamer's single intention better. This is from Vol I of the 3-volume series (pg 72):
"Psalms such as Ps. 2 are not...prophecies. They talk not about a coming king but about a present king. In applying them to Jesus under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then, the NT is using them to illumine the significance of Jesus, but using them in a way that sees new significance in them. IT IS NOT WORKING WITH THE MEANING THE HOLY SPIRIT ORIGINALLY GAVE THEM, the meaning they had for their human authors and the people who first used them." [emphasis mine]

As an OT scholar, for me this completely undermines the authority of the NT. This means that the NT authors misunderstood the verbal meaning of the OT texts. If they did, they had no right to apply these texts to Jesus. If they cannot apply these texts to Jesus, then Jesus is not the Messiah. Goldingay seems to think that they do in fact have the right to do that, since they are "inspired." But how can the Holy Spirit inspire two completely different meanings to one text? This, I think, is the major criticism of sensus plenior - and it does undermine the authority of the NT authors.

This is also the strength of the "single intention" view (ala Sailhamer and Kaiser), which, IMO gains much support from recent canonical and compositional approaches. In fact, by the end of Meaning of the Pentateuch, Sailhamer will show us why the NT reads the Pentateuch as it rightfully should (and does!).

Andy

Paige Britton said...

@Andy,

Goldingay seems to be working with a dual-op inspiration model: if the Holy Spirit did not "originally" give a certain meaning to a text, but the fuller meaning was later perceived by the NT authors (under God's inspiration), then the OT text was inspired twice!

But I don't think everyone defines "sensus plenior" this way -- you guys probably know Doug Moo's chapter in Hermeneutics, Authority & Canon (I think I have that title right), in which "sensus plenior" has more to do with what the original human author didn't consciously know than with what God originally intended. There was room, then, for God's deeper meaning -- always there, but not always immediately obvious -- to become clearer as events unfolded over time.

This is a more generous reading of the "sensus plenior" idea, one which preserves the authority of the NT, as the later authors connected the dots. (On a side note, I'm not impressed with Pete Enns' attempt to explain this; he seems to leave out inspiration entirely and lean on what the NT authors could figure out on their own because they were so bowled over by recent events and had been studying their 2ndT lit.)

One point of contact between a more generous definition of sensus plenior and Sailhamer's "single intention" view is the necessity of careful reading. On the one hand, it's possible to read the story backward, in an events-to-text direction, and grasp the deeper meaning of the OT Scriptures that was always there, but that one had totally missed. On the other hand, someone who was reading carefully from "in the beginning" onward could read the story frontwards, from text to events (i.e., the Messiah-events), and be right there waiting for Jesus before he showed up, like Simeon and Anna. Sailhamer sees, I believe, that the prophets read in this way. (I don't think his view asserts as much conscious, detailed knowledge on the part of the OT authors as Kaiser's would, though.)

Probably most of the NT Jewish-Christians had to learn to read like Sailhamer!

Paige B.

Paige Britton said...

@Andy, Billy & Ched --
Thanks for your thoughts re. Sailhamer & Vanhoozer. I guess that now that I have them both walking around in my head, so to speak, I keep expecting them to talk to each other. Vanhoozer's line (in First Theology) that "recipients or observers of communicative action are responsible for doing justice to the words of others" sounds a lot like Sailhamer's appeal to us to READ THE BOOK, CAREFULLY.

Interesting that you see the need for S to interact more with contemporary scholarship: I was just remarking to myself that he'd ended his historical overview of "res" and "verba" with Vos, and I wondered where the postmoderns were. But then I thought that there is really no more wonderful insult to that crowd than to ignore them entirely. ;)

Paige B.

Billy said...

@Andy,

I've actually read his OT Theology, most of The Pentateuch as Narrative and several other of his articles and what not. The only things I've not really touched upon are some of the booklets from his Zondervan series and the new book. Needless to say, as hermeneutically driven as his approach is, it would be great to see him interact with more updated work in the fields of theological interpretation and hermeneutics. For instance, you mention Christopher Seitz, in his most recent publication, "The Goodly Fellowship of the Prophets," in a relatively short space, he engages not only biblical studies guys, but he even interacts with guys like Francis Watson often. Not to mention, I'm not sure when your sit down talk with Prof. Seitz was, but he actually deals with Sailhamer in that book and contests his emphasis on the order of the Writings based upon his essay in Hafemann's "Biblical Theology" textbook. Either way, it's not so much a critique as it is an admonition. Because Sailhamer's approach sparks mainly a hermeneutic and theological method debate more than it does creating conversations about OT Theology and interpretaton with everyone I meet, I think he should expand his sources into the abundance of writings being put out in those fields today by evangelicals.

Andy Witt said...

@Billy,

Well said. As I think about it, most of the Sailhamer conversations I've had are split depending on I'm talking with - with academics, it seems the conversations deal more with method than theology, but with laypeople at church, conversations center mainly on theology.

I didn't mean to come off priggish earlier, as if I was saying that I've read more Sailhamer than you. I was only hoping to point out a resource that does lay out his compositional approach in a rather detailed way. I agree with your admonition, it would be nice to see something published that interacts with more contemporary works. At the same time, he uses rare, untranslated German, Latin, and Hebrew works that many of the contemporaries wouldn't dream to touch.

He could very well deal with his contemporaries in his classes - and I know that he's argued some of his ideas differently based on contemporary scholarly criticism. For instance, in a hermeneutics class I took with him he argued points made in his article on Hosea 11 and Matthew 2, but modified them to counter some of the arguments made by Enns response article. Maybe some of his former/current PhD students could help us out here.

Andy

Anonymous said...

Andy/Billy
When I was in California with Sailhamer, he would talk about VanHoozer and we had Seitz and Craig Blomberg out there for seminars with Sailhamer. It was good natured but they did discuss each others ideas.

Ed Payne

Billy said...

Ed,

Thanks for the personal testimony. That is encouraging to hear. Wish I could've been there. Is there any audio from available online from those seminars?

Billy