advertisement
On The Insider: Britney's Back
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
ProQuest

Meaning, intention, and application: Speech act theory in the hermeneutics of Francis Watson and Kevin J. Vanhoozer

Trinity Journal,  Fall 2002  by Blue, Scott A

<< Page 1  Continued from page 5.  Previous | Next

a Christian faith concerned to retain its own coherence cannot for a moment accept that the biblical texts (individually and as a whole) lack a single, determinate meaning, that their meanings are created by their readers, or that theological interpretations must see themselves as non-privileged participants in an open-ended, pluralistic conversation.44

To give in to a postmodern hermeneutic insists that there is no distinction between the Bible and any other "classic text."45 In addition, Watson proposes that postmodern interpreters have ulterior motives for undermining the stability of the biblical text and its author:

advertisement

A biblical text in which nothing is fixed and in which everything opens up infinite interpretive possibilities would enable the interpreter to subvert and to erode the much resented stabilities, dualities, hierarchies and orthodoxies that are so characteristic of the Christian faith.46

Vanhoozer is similarly dedicated to rescuing hermeneutics from postmodern critics. In an earlier work, he draws a distinction between "Reformation hermeneutics," with its attention to grammatico-historical interpretation, and "aesthetic theology." The latter, which influenced postmodern interpretation, "is the idea that the realm of art is autonomous and self-sufficient, not susceptible to non-aesthetic standards, rules, or criteria."47 Aesthetic theology's influence is most seen in the postmodernists jettisoning of the author and his intention. Vanhoozer, on the other hand, calls for a return to authorial intent on ethical grounds:

Though we do not own language, I nevertheless think that willful misunderstanding of texts is somehow guilty of doing violence to the author. Purposefully to misinterpret an author seems akin to disrespect, a kind of semantic rape.48

Vanhoozer's critique of postmodern hermeneutics is again taken up in Is There a Meaning in this Text? where he draws a contrast between an Augustininan theory of "joy" and Derrida's theory of "play." This distinction leads Vanhoozer to one of his central theses: "To begin thinking about language and human beings from the perspective of Christian belief is to recognize the centrality and interrelatedness of communication and communion."49 This conclusion bears on his defense of the author against postmodern critics:

To respect the moral rights of the author is essentially to receive his or her communication, not to revise it. This reception, in turn, is the basis for literary knowledge that can perhaps become the basis for personal knowledge, for communion over space and time.50

B. Moving Beyond Linguistics

In "Speech Acts and God Talk," James F. Harris explores the implications of Austin's speech act theory for religious language. Crucial for an analysis of speech act theory is an attempt to move beyond the difficulties associated with relating the meaning of a proposition to something external in reality, what Austin calls the "descriptive fallacy." Rather, speech act theory "by focusing upon various kinds of utterances in various situations attempts to avoid the descriptive fallacy."51 Furthermore,