Abstracts of CGST JOURNAL Issue No.27 July 1999
Hermeneutics: Exploration and Critique

TOP

CGST JOURNAL No. 27 (in Chinese)

SUBSCRIPTION FORM

Text and Meaning: Theological Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Culture
(An Abstract)
Kang Phee Seng @ Jiang Pisheng
Associate Professor, Department of Religion and Philosophy, Hong Kong Baptist University

        This paper deals with the issue of text and meaning in the interpretation of the biblical text. It seeks to understand what happens when the Christian Church interprets the Scripture. It begins with an examination of the postmodern theory of interpretation and argues that the postmodern relativistic understanding of truth is incoherent. It questions the validity of the postmodern a priori approach to biblical interpretation and rejects its hermeneutics as theological. Since theology and hermeneutics are inseparable, theological hermeneutics must take its rise from Christian doctrine. It is only within an inseparable relation between hermeneutics and theology that an integral relation between text and meaning can be firmly established.

        Insofar as postmodernism is a culture of interpretation, the issue of text and meaning lies at the very heart of the current debate about postmodernism. Postmodern hermeneutics takes the non-realist approach to interpretation. It denies the existence of an objective, external world outside the text. As it claims, "there is nothing outside the text." Any attempt to recover the original intention of the author is thus in vain. "The death of the author" in postmodern hermeneutics is not merely a recognition of the physical absence of the author in the process of interpretation but rather the affirmation of the ultimate metaphysical separation between the text and its author. That is to say, while the text is the product of the author, the interpretation is that of the reader. Even a signature or a declaration left by the author in the text has no authority on its interpretation, for they too are elements of the text which are subject to further interpretation.

        Not only is the author rendered superfluous, the text is also considered open and incomplete. An interpretation of a text is a new translation, that is, a creation of another text through which the reader expresses herself. There is thus no "authorised version," because meaning is merely a function of the reader and interpretation a reflection of the reader's response. The postmodern "turn to the reader" is indeed the application in literary criticism of Kant's "turn to the subject." Epistemologically, there is no escape of human from her own subjectivity and consciousness. A metaphysical dichotomy between text and meaning is finally declared by Derrida's deconstruction. The possibility of true knowledge is denied by undoing determinate meaning. Hence, hermeneutics becomes an endless activity of replacing one signifier by another.

        The paper also tries to respond to recent attempts by some Chinese scholars to advocate for a postmodern reading of the biblical text. In spite of their claim to the contrary, truth in postmodern is relativistic. Not only do they confuse epistemological uncertainty with ontological impossibility, they seem also to fall within a positivist methodology which they strongly criticised. And if meaning is ultimately unattainable, translation would in fact be impossible.

        While it is true that the application of philosophical hermeneutics to biblical text would render "new" insights and understanding, this paper nevertheless questions the validity of such an a priori approach as theological. The problem lies ultimately in the postmodern's refusal to regard the biblical text it interprets as revelational. The paper argues that since theological hermeneutics attempts to understand what happens when the Christian Church interprets the Scripture, its theory must be theological. On the other hand, theology is hermeneutical as it must contain within itself a doctrine of scripture and of the nature of apostolic witness. It has often been asked, "What can the Church learn from the postmodern?" However, as far as theological hermeneutics is concerned, the more pertinent question is, "What can the postmodern learn from the Church?"

        The issue of hermeneutics in the final analysis is theological. The efficacy of divine revelation cannot be undermined. The divine self-revelation is integral to the being of God as God is One who reveals himself in Jesus Christ and speaks through his Spirit to the prophets and the apostles. The postmodern hermeneutical approach of beginning with the divine text and ending with the reader's creative response is at best Pelagian. Matthias Grunewald's Crucifixion portraits beautifully the relation between text and meaning in theological hermeneutics: Although human word is only like the forefinger of the Baptist, it does point to the Christ on the cross. The paper ends with ten positive statements on the relation between theology and (theological) hermeneutics.

The Moral Responsibility of Reading and Interpreting
(An abstract)
Carver T. Yu
Vice President, China Graduate School of Theology

        Postmodern hermeneutics is the product of a cultural consciousness typical of a culture which renders everything into commodities. According to Roland Barthes, writers have been transformed into authors who are basically nothing but artisans serving the consumer society. The concept of writing has been radically changed, so is the concept of reading. Reading is for entertainment. The tradition of reading for participation in the pursuit of truth or for cultivation of moral character is gone. Reading is no longer an act which somehow involves moral commitment. This concept of reading inevitably calls for a theory of understanding which does not need to take the authenticity of both the text and the writer seriously. The attitude of reading for entertainment produces a hermeneutics which justifies taking the integrity of the text lightly. This concept of reading is in stark contrast with two traditions of the understanding of reading, both of which have a long history. For one tradition, reading has the purpose of character formation. Both the writer and reader are moral agents. Reading involves moral responsibility. The other tradition takes reading as an act of reactualizing the authorial presence. The text is a thou whose integrity cannot be violated, and thus calls for our deepest respect. The moral responsibility to a text is as real as it is to a human person.

        There are situations in which reading cannot be taken lightly. It can be deadly serious. In the reading [decoding] of encoded military communications, hundreds or thousands of lives can be at stake. The reader has to assume without doubt that there is intended meaning in the encrypted text. He has to think-after the thinking of the encoder. Here moral responsibility is involved in reading. In the reading of laws in legal proceedings, the judge has the moral responsibility to read the intended meaning intrinsic to the laws, and ignore his personal opinion.

        The reading of the Bible calls for a sense of moral responsibility even for non-believers. Biblical writers put their life at stake to bear witness to what they wrote as truth. They had an unambiguous claim of truth, and they demanded utmost seriousness in the reading of their message. Their writing is not for entertainment. One may reject their message, but one may not treat it as a piece of artifacts. Without any sense of moral responsibility, postmodern interpreters are bound to violate the authenticity of the Bible. As for believers, the intended meaning is for salvation and therefore has the utmost serious implications. It is therefore questionable that a postmodernist approach is congenial to the way the Bible may be read.

Augustine the Ancient Exegete
(An Abstract)
Justin T. T. Tan
Dean of Chinese Department and Lecturer, Bible College of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia

        We get a glimpse of the exegetical method of Augustine in his interpretation of the creation of light in Genesis: "Let there be light, and there was light." Two points are noted here: only after the creation of light did things begin to emerge as objects, and it is only after the coming of light that created things could be discerned in all their varieties. So it is with God's word when it is uttered: it illuminates and enables things to be illuminated in their various forms. Augustine's interpretation of Scripture sees this as analogous to the variety of meanings in each text.

        However, for Augustine, the task of interpretation should always be governed by the principle of dual Charity: interpretation must be carried out with the aim of seeking God and loving him, and through loving God, loving others as well. So it does not matter if one interprets Scripture in a particular way and another a different way, or even if the interpretations differ yet again from what the biblical authors meant, as all possess the same Spirit, and each perceives truths in different contexts. Love is the all-pervading attitude in exegesis: interpretation is motivated by love, and is the way of seeking the source of love and applying the ethics of love.

        Ambrose's sermons made an impact on the younger Augustine in more than one way. In terms of exegesis, he not only combated the detrimental criticism of the Manicheans, but also upheld that the biblical text could be understood in ways other than the literal. "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life" was his oft-quoted text in justifying the multiplicity of meaning in the text.

        Following Tyconius's seven rules of Scriptural interpretation, Augustine was quick to point out, from the first rule, that scriptural interpretation should always be under the authority of the Church, as the Church and Christ are one body. In the fourth, fifth and sixth rules, Tyconius reckoned the variant readings of the text per se, while Augustine saw the validity of variant interpretations of the same texts. As the texts may in this case be exposed to heretical interpretation, Augustine introduced the Dogma of the Church as a guide against heretical abuses of Scripture.

        Augustine then implemented the four-fold hermeneutics of the neo-Platonic tradition, historia, aetiologia, analogia, allegoria, so as to see the multi-layered meaning of the biblical texts. An example of this is his understanding of Law and Grace. He first concurred with Tyconius in confirming the unity of the two Testaments. The keeping of the Law, however, is indispensable in human progression. Just as the Israelites were bounded by legalism, exegesis could be bounded by literalism. If one cannot come to God by reason, he can obey Him through the Law. This in itself is grace. But for the believers, the Law was our pedagogue in Christ, and this also is grace. What was discarded is not the Law , but the veil (2 Cor. 3:14), which is virtually the literal meaning of the Old Testament text. In Christ, the veil has been removed and the allegoria revealed.

        Augustine could be portrayed as bearing a number of titles, but his main role is a pastoral one, as he made defenses of his faith, and provided wise and eloquent teachings. In my view Augustine is exemplary in his exegetical work as well as his ways of life.

        In the current advent of literary interpretation and post-modern hermeneutics, allegorical interpretation has once again gained attention, even as a remedy of the objectivism of modern exegesis. In this, maybe, we can get a glimpse of the abiding significance of Augustine's exegetical methods.

Rethinking Grammatico-historical Exegesis
(An abstract)
Simon S. M. Wong
Lecturer, Chinese Mission Seminary

        The purpose of this article is twofold: a succinct layout of the agenda of grammatico-historical exegesis and a reflection on the present status quo of both western and Chinese scholarship. The author first settles the issue of terminologies such as "exegesis," "interpretation" and "hermeneutics," and then traces the historical root of this kind of exegesis. The main body of the paper (section 3) is divided into three sections, dealing respectively with the textual, grammatical and historical aspects of this exegesis.

        Due to different textual heritages, the NT text has been established with a stronger scholarly consensus than the OT text; there is still a long way before OT scholars could claim to have the nearest form of the OT autograph. As for the study on the grammatical aspect of the text, emphasis has shifted from a diachronic orientation to a synchronic one, as there has been a blooming interest in modern linguistics. The advancement in textual and grammatical studies has not yet been reflected in Chinese biblical scholarship, the strength of which seems to lie in the historical study of the text. It is, also, in the historical study of the text that traditional exegesis faces its most serious blow from modern hermeneutics. The notion of "the death of the author" has, in particular, been most controversial. In this article the author shows that modern hermeneutics practitioners have misused "Speech Act Theory" by emptying out the descriptive power of language, and he also quotes some powerful arguments against this new fashion from Vanhoozer's recent work, Is There a Meaning in This Text?.

TOP

CGST JOURNAL No. 27 (in Chinese)

SUBSCRIPTION FORM

Experience, Subjectivity and Feminist Hermeneutics
(An Abstract)
Dora Wang
Visiting Lecturer, Singapore Bible College

        In the tradition of the Christian Church, woman has been the victim of male domination: her voice silenced, her name erased, her experience denied and her participation confined. Feminist interpreters have arisen to confront this tradition with a prophetic mission, to expose the sins of patriarchy and liberate women from its oppressive structure. While traditional interpretations render women the "object" of male scholarship, with men acting as the "subject" of interpretation, feminist interpreters make a paradigm shift of this and name women the "subject," making women's experience of oppression a focus of their hermeneutics.

        Feminist interpreters are successful in pointing out the androcentric character of certain biblical texts, and the biased nature of both the text and the interpreter. They also identify the denial of women's full humanity as the major sin of patriarchy. Their recognition of experience and subjectivity as a legitimate part of the interpretation process has won the interest of many, especially women. A better understanding of the Scriptures is made possible as interpretation is enriched by various modes of learning. The potential effect of this is a liberated view on the status of the oppressed, women being among them.

        It is unfortunate, however, that the liberationists represented by Elizabeth Scḥ ssler Fiorenza presuppose that there is a hidden patriarchal conspiracy behind the canonical texts of the Bible, and so their theories are permeated with a hermeneutics of suspicion. In this light the biblical message becomes obscured, and the liberated effect of this method diminishes. Other liberationists, represented by Rosemary R. Ruether, identify the prophetic faith as the norm against which they criticize the Bible, and they reject biblical texts that conflict with this norm. They are also blinded by their socio-political perception, and fail to recognize the spiritual aspect of the Gospel message which is foundational to true liberation. The revisionists, represented by Phyllis Trible, acknowledge the authority of Scripture in trying to do justice to women, and they incessantly wrestle with the interpretation of texts in this concern. Hence, while not free from prejudice, they show promise of attaining an understanding of Scripture that will lead to a true liberation for both women and men.

        Feminist interpreters have certainly exposed the sins of patriarchy, but their message is yet to be heeded. The participation of evangelical interpreters, both male and female, may provide the needed balance in perspectives, in this endeavour of liberating both women and men from the bondage of patriarchy.

Reader-Oriented Approaches and Biblical Interpretation:
Toward an Appraisal
(An abstract)
Barbara Mei Leung Lai
Professor of Old Testament, Co-director, Chinese Ministry Program, Tyndale Seminary, Ontario, Canada

        Written from the perspective of a minority woman in the profession in North American context, this five-part reflective article attempts to address the yet unsettled issue of the predominant role of reader-engagement in biblical interpretation. The writer first provides a conceptual framework for the discussion, hammering out the necessary criteria for a certain common locale to facilitate dialogues from different sharply defined perspectives in the academy. Then she moves on from an analysis of the current trends to an assessment of the representative few in the spectrum of reader-oriented approaches. The question of "How Far Do Readers Make Sense?" and its related issues including subjectivity, polyvalence and indeterminacy are also examined. A two-center model (i.e. text-centered and reader-oriented) for biblical interpretation is proposed. The existing tension coming out of this proposal is then dealt with in a more positive manner. Presenting three sets of tension (text-centered and reader-oriented; intrinsic textual constraints and extrinsic contextual constraints; and subjective meaning-making and objective truth) to the foreground, the article concludes with a more reflective section on "Toward an Appraisal" -- affirmative yet intriguing, inviting faith-seeking-understanding scholar-saints, pastor-teachers to engage in this dynamic discourse.

Introducing Three Main Traditions of Christian Spirituality -- 
with Comments on Dr. Wan's Monograph
(An abstract)
Kin-yip Louie
Ph.D. Candidate, Westminster Theological Seminary

        In his book published last year, God's Image: Assess[ing] the Merits and Demerits of Four Main Traditions, Dr. Milton Wan evaluates the Catholic, the Protestant, the charismatic and the Orthodox traditions of spirituality.

        His evaluations on three of the traditions, however, seem unwarranted, as he fails to expound related documents in their historical context. This article attempts to present the proper understanding of those three traditions in light of their historical-theological settings. In the Catholic tradition, the monastic approach to God emphasizes the spiritual power of our intellect and our will. Emotion or sexuality plays a very minor role. Here, although God is portrayed as the spouse of the human soul, he is portrayed in such a way only for the perfect saints who have no sexual desires at all. This is far from attainable for most Christians. The Puritan tradition emphasizes personal experiences of God's grace and the purity of living. In this tradition, God is a caring father close by our side. Lifeless intellectualism and moralism are not the issues. In fact they are what the Puritans condemn. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, there is equal attention given to positive (cataphatic) theology as well as negative theology. The Jesus Prayer is meant for exercising mental control and calmness, rather than emptying our sub-conscious or our emotions.

TOP

CGST JOURNAL No. 27 (in Chinese)

SUBSCRIPTION FORM

Last Modified:  December 09, 1999.