Chapter Two (Part 2 of 2) - Forum Post #4

In the last post, we discussed some of the key elements of Sailhamer’s compositional approach to “finding the author’s verbal meaning.”

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:

1. 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).
   
2. 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).
   
3. 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).
   
4. 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).

For Sailhamer, the neglect of these elements in the interpretive task results in “the loss of biblical narrative” and the downplaying of the rich theology that the biblical authors have given us in their interpretation of the events that they record.

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.

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.