Rejoinder ad nauseum

MARCS Response:

Let me respond to Jerome’s historical question first. First, I probably should have mentioned that I dropped the word “literal” from the description of the hemeneutic we’re considering on purpose. At the very least, that word is usually used far too vaguely to be of any real help here.

Second, it seems that we’re mingling quite a few issues here that I think need to be separated for clarity: the object of hermeneutics (e.g., “meaning” of the text, intention of the A/author, etc.), the method(s) of interpretation, the level of confidence we can have in the accuracy of our interpretation, and the ultimate goal of interpretation (e.g. cognition, trasnformation, etc.). If we’re going to bundle all of this together, then obviously there are real differences, say, Augustine and Osborne. But, if we’re going to have a more meaningful discussion about hermeneutics, we should probably identify more clearly which aspect we’re discussing and what exactly the supposed differences are.

So third, my historical point only focused on “object” and “method” in this discussion. With regard to “object,” I would say that both ancient and modern interpreters aim at understanding the meaning that the human author tried to convey to us, though most ancient interpreters saw that as only one object among many. Even Origen, usually portrayed as the worst offender against “literal” interpretation, was keen to understand the meaning as presented in the text by the human author. That was clearly an important hermeneutical aim for him and the other early exegetes, and is a point of commonality with modern hermeneutics.

And, I would see similar commonality in method. If this is the aim of hermeneutics, both early and modern hermeneuts agree that close attention to the actual words of the text (grammar, syntax, lexical issues, etc) understood in their historical context is important. Early commentaries/homilies are replete with examples of early interpreters doing just this. Now again, they didn’t see this as the only proper method of interpretatin

So yes, I would disagree with Jerome that historical-grammatical interpretation is a tool dawn from modernistic assumptions. It is a tool that has long been a part of the church’s hermeneutical toolkit and has almost always functioned as a vital part of valid interpretation.

Now, none of this means that modernist philosophical assumptions have not had any impact on evangelical interpretations. There’s a difference between saying that modernist philosophy gave us the tool and saying that modernist philosophy influences the ways in which we wield the tool. But, I’ll have to save that for a later commet.

My Rejoinder

Alas, dis-closure of our difference /difference further emerges. This is very instructive to those who follow the discussion of this blog. Although my construct for hermeneutical clarity is quite different from the four divisions upon which you have elaborated, I do find them inter-est-ing to engage.

Marc’s Objection #1 Regarding your second point, the modern “aim at understanding the meaning that the human author tried to convey to us,”

Dico: That aim emerges from “common sense realism”. More poignant, however, is the statement “though most ancient interpreters saw that (the aim of the human author) as only one object among many.” The many, especially to those who seek spiritual sense that transcends the symbol/word of the author in order to embrace the Author distinguishes himself from the voice of modernity as do the voice of many ancients as you say i.e. Origen- in extremis. My point, univocity of modernity is in contrast to plurivocity of antiquity in the voice of object(s) in your very statement.

Marcs objection#2 As for method, “the hermeneuts” of common sense realism may have in common approaching “the actual words of the text (grammar, syntax, lexical issues, etc) understood in their historical context”

Dico: …but they get off of the bus at that stop. Surely, the prominence of allegorical and multiplicity of senses in the method of the ancients militate against commonality with the “one” sense of LHG method of evangelical moderns, i.e. Ryrie. Those riding to the school of Alexandria bus went many stops further than the moderns, so we seem to disagree. I say seem because I do muse over the hesitating affirmation “they didn’t see this as the only proper method of interpretatin (sic)”. That is my point, the univocity of modernity with a sole method embedded within common sense realism and the plurivocity of the ancients incorporating varying voicings from literal, allegorical, multiplicity of sense etc. show dissociation between the E-LHG hermeneuts v the ancients. Are you arguing on my behalf or showing agapeic being?

Finally, I do not view a univocal E-LHG method *as a tool* of common sense realism rather I associate it as a pressing out as accidens of the hermenuet’s philosophical substantia (Neo-Thomistic speak). By this I mean E-LHG method is actualization of its potential in their philosophical essence, common sense realism. Thus, for the univocal engaged in the method, it is no tool it is B/being. Now I seek the horizon of sweet dreamsJ