Some people self-proclaim that they take the 'plain meaning' of a text, and accuse others of instead doing 'mental gymnastics' with it. And whether someone is taking a plain meaning or not can of course be assessed logically and grammatically.
But even so, whose 'plain meaning' might they be taking? Because the thing is, the other side also makes the same claim and accusation. We all approach evidence with a worldview, which is informed by our narratives. We also have our own concepts of how a writer should express something if he thought it was true, and we have our own 'rules' about how a reader is therefore allowed to take it. We all do, even empirical scientists.
What we should discipline our minds to do then, is give thought to the author's worldview; to the narratives which informed his worldview; to how the author might have felt it appropriate to write about something, and the ways he would have thought it appropriate for a reader to take such a piece of writing - rather than your way of doing all that, or my way, or a 17th century way, or a 4th century way.
Consider a first-century text in light of first-century ways of written expression and comprehension; specifically the first century Jewish worldview and narratives; and more specifically, first-century Christian ones; and still more specifically, Pauline ones. Otherwise something that he thought was plain enough, mightn't be to us. Or, what we think is plain enough, mightn't even have been intended by him.
Academia arguably has access to more material that can assist with that task today than what may have been a consideration in 1619. Or maybe not - the discussion is definitely a worthy one. Adding that dimension to New Testament studies since the 20th century hasn't been at all harmful to theological discussion.
But even so, whose 'plain meaning' might they be taking? Because the thing is, the other side also makes the same claim and accusation. We all approach evidence with a worldview, which is informed by our narratives. We also have our own concepts of how a writer should express something if he thought it was true, and we have our own 'rules' about how a reader is therefore allowed to take it. We all do, even empirical scientists.
What we should discipline our minds to do then, is give thought to the author's worldview; to the narratives which informed his worldview; to how the author might have felt it appropriate to write about something, and the ways he would have thought it appropriate for a reader to take such a piece of writing - rather than your way of doing all that, or my way, or a 17th century way, or a 4th century way.
Consider a first-century text in light of first-century ways of written expression and comprehension; specifically the first century Jewish worldview and narratives; and more specifically, first-century Christian ones; and still more specifically, Pauline ones. Otherwise something that he thought was plain enough, mightn't be to us. Or, what we think is plain enough, mightn't even have been intended by him.
Academia arguably has access to more material that can assist with that task today than what may have been a consideration in 1619. Or maybe not - the discussion is definitely a worthy one. Adding that dimension to New Testament studies since the 20th century hasn't been at all harmful to theological discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment