ASIA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

Where Can an Interpreter Find the Locus of

eanin!"

Su#$itted to% Dr& Ed'in (erona

Su#)ect% *i#+ica+ E,e!esis and (ra,is

*-

Rue+ .& Cha/e0 1u+- 234 5667

Where Can an Interpreter Find the Locus of

eanin!"

The essa-ist p+ans to ans'er the $ain 8uestion under fi/e headin!s& First4 he c+arifies the $eanin! of the 8uestion& Second4 he differentiates t'o di$ensions of $eanin! in the 8uestion& Third4 he inc+udes so$e findin!s fro$ his readin! of W& Rando+ph Tate9s #oo:& Fourth4 he presents his persona+ position concernin! the +ocus of $eanin!& Fina++-4 he conc+udes 'ith t'o re+ated su#)ects that in his )ud!$ent are re+ated to the 8uestion under stud-& C+arification Concernin! the ;uestion In ans'erin! our 8uestion4 I consider it a $ust to c+arif- first the $eanin! of the 8uestion& The 8uestion 'i++ on+- #e c+arified if the $eanin! of <$eanin!= 'ithin the 8uestion is c+ear& After understandin! the $eanin! of $eanin!4 then I can c+ear+- ans'er the 8uestion as to the <+ocus= of $eanin!& I find the 'or:s of Grant R& Os#orne and W& Rando+ph Tate #eneficia+ in this c+arification& Grant R& Os#orne $entions that he adopted the <$eanin!> si!nificance= sche$e in his for$u+ation of the #oo: <The Her$eneutica+ Spira+= fro$ E& D Hirsch&2 W& Rando+ph Tate states a popu+ar notion a#out the t'ofo+d tas:s of her$eneutics4 'hich are e,e!esis and interpretation& 5 He affir$s that e,e!esis focuses on deter$inin! the $eanin! of the te,t in the past&3 On the other hand4 the pri$ar- #usiness of interpretation is to e,p+ain the past $eanin! of the te,t to conte$porar- audience& ? Os#orne9s distinction assists us to see the t'o di$ensions of $eanin! that 'ou+d he+p us in appreciatin! the ans'er to the 8uestion& Tate9s e,p+anation reinforces our understandin! of these t'o di$ensions of $eanin!& @e/erthe+ess4 it is Car+ *raaten9s definition of her$eneutics as $entioned #Tate that inf+uences $e to coin the ter$ <e,istentia+ $eanin!= referrin! to the si!nificance aspect of $eanin!& *raaten descri#es the second tas: of her$eneutics as the effort to $a:e the te,t <e,istentia++- $eanin!fu+ in our

2 5

Grant R& Os#orne4 The Her$eneutica+ Spira+ AI++inois% IB(4 2CC2D4 p&7&

W& Rando+ph Tate4 *i#+ica+ Interpretation% An Inte!rated Approach A assachusets% Hendric:son (u#+ishers4 2CC2D4 p& ,/&
3 ?

I#id& I#id&

present situation&=E The T'o Di$ensions of eanin! With the fore!oin! consideration4 I thin: I 'i++ no' esta#+ish $- o'n understandin! #et'een these t'o di$ensions of $eanin!& The first di$ension of $eanin!4 I #e+ie/e as popu+ar+- accepted is the historica+ $eanin! of the te,t& It is 'hat the te,t $eant& It is the $eanin! of the te,t in the past as understood #- ori!ina+ audience or reader and co$$unicated #- the inspired author& The second di$ension of $eanin! is the e,istentia+ $eanin! of the te,t& *e,istentia+ $eanin!4 I read it as the $eanin! of the te,t at present& It is 'hat the te,t $eans to conte$porar- readers or students& In Os#orne9s fra$e'or:4 I thin: this is the <si!nificance= aspect of the $eanin! of the te,t& In Tate9s ter$s4 it is the interpretation aspect of her$eneutics& After esta#+ishin! these t'o di$ensions of $eanin!4 'hich are the historica+ $eanin! and the e,istentia+ $eanin! of the te,t I 'i++ no' return to our $ain 8uestion& For $e4 since the $eanin! of <$eanin!= can #e +e!iti$ate+- understood in t'o 'a-s4 it fo++o's then that the 8uestion $ust #e refor$u+ated and #e ans'ered in t'o 'a-s& The /a!ueness in this area 'i++ a+so resu+t into a /a!ue ans'er concernin! the +ocus of $eanin!& Therefore4 I 'ou+d +i:e to #rea:do'n the 8uestion into t'o in re+ation to the t'o di$ensions of $eanin!& The first 8uestion is <Where can an interpreter find the +ocus of ori!ina+ or historica+ $eanin! of the te,t"= - ne,t 8uestion is <Where can an interpreter find the +ocus of e,istentia+ $eanin! of the te,t"= To $- $ind4 the first 8uestion is $ore difficu+t to ans'er than the second one& Once 'e sett+e the ans'er to the first 8uestion the ans'er to the second 8uestion 'i++ fo++o' natura++-& In ans'erin! these 8uestions4 +et $e introduce first so$e of $- findin!s fro$ $- readin! of Tate9s 'or:&

(resentation and E/a+uation of Tate9s (roposa+ W& Rando+ph Tate $entions three possi#+e +oci of $eanin!% the author4 the te,t4 and the reader& In author>centered interpretation4 the +ocus of $eanin! is found in the <author intended $eanin!&= The t'o crucia+ data to identifthe author intended $eanin! are the e,tra>te,tua+ 'or+d of the author and the
E

I#id&

occasion that pro$pted the 'ritin! of the te,t& F In the te,t>centered interpretation4 the +ocus of $eanin! is identified in the fina+ for$ of an independent te,t&7 The te,t in itse+f is sufficient to pro/ide the needed $eanin!&G In the reader>centered interpretation4 especia++- the $ore radica+ t-pe4 it affir$s that the reader hi$se+f ori!inates the $eanin! of the te,t& C On the other hand4 there is a $oderate t-pe of reader>centered interpretation represented #- Ed!ar B& cHni!ht& 26For cHni!ht as Tate c+ai$s4 <$eanin! is produced #- the natura+ interaction #et'een the te,t and reader <22 cHni!ht position therefore is a $i,ture #et'een the te,t and the reader& It is not proper to +ocate hi$ under an e,c+usi/e reader>centered interpretation& oreo/er4 persona++- I a$ suspicious if there are scho+ars indeed 'ho cou+d sustain such a sin!+e and e,c+usi/e position as to the +ocus of $eanin!& Tate conc+udes that concernin! the +ocus of $eanin!4 his proposa+ is that <$eanin! resu+t fro$ a con/ersation #et'een= the te,t9s 'or+d and the reader9s 'or+d4 <a con/ersation infor$ed #- the author9s 'or+d& 25 For hi$4 there e,ists an interaction a$on! these three 'or+ds in order to create $eanin!& The +ocus of $eanin! is found in the interaction or interp+a- a$on! these 'or+ds&23 In $- initia+ perusa+ of Tate9s 'or:4 I ca$e up 'ith a tentati/e conc+usion that he is p+a-in! safe as to the current de#ate concernin! the +ocus of $eanin! in the na$e of <inte!ration&= I thin: that his 'or: 'ou+d #e $ore #eneficia+ if he did prioriti0e e,p+ainin! the $eanin! of $eanin! #efore atte$ptin! to +ocate the +ocus of $eanin!& I hope that I 'i++ #e $ore )udicious in $- e/a+uation +ater as I 'i++ ha/e $ore ti$e to ana+-0e deeper the f+o' of ar!u$ents of the author& - (ersona+ (osition
F 7 G C 26 22 25 23

I#id&4 p& ,/i& I#id&4 p& ,/iii& I#id& I#id&4 p& ,i,& I#id& I#id& I#id&p&,,& I#id&

Concernin! $- persona+ position as to the +ocus of the ori!ina+ or historica+ $eanin!4 I find it in the te,t& I accept that the author intended $eanin! as it e,isted in his $ind4 inf+uenced #oth #- his 'or+d and a particu+ar occasion is different fro$ the co$$unicated intended $eanin! recorded in the fina+ for$ of the te,t& Ho'e/er4 for $e4 in deter$inin! the ori!ina+ $eanin!4 the data pro/ided #- the te,t is enou!h& @onethe+ess4 it does not necessari+fo++o' that the stud- of the author9s 'or+d is no +on!er i$portant& In fact4 :no'in! the author9s 'or+d 'ou+d enrich our understandin! of the $eanin! pro/ided #- the te,t& As I ha/e $entioned ear+ier4 the ans'er to the second 8uestion is dependent on the ans'er to the first 8uestion& Re!ardin! the +ocus of e,istentia+ $eanin!4 I find it rooted in the ori!ina+ $eanin!& - her$eneutica+ e8uation is si$p+e& What 'e ha/e 'ith us to stud- and interpret is the te,t not the author9s 'or+d& Therefore4 I put in the te,t the +ocus of ori!ina+ $eanin!& After deter$inin! the ori!ina+ $eanin!4 our second tas: as interpreter is to find the +ocus of e,istentia+ $eanin!4 'hich is for $e4 is the ori!ina+ $eanin! of the te,t& I see the ori!ina+ $eanin! as so$ethin! fi,ed4 sta#+e4 and one& Ho'e/er4 the idea of its fi,edness4 sta#i+it-4 and oneness does not re$o/e the space for !ro'th in understandin! of the ori!ina+ $eanin!& This !ro'th affects so$eho' the 8ua+it- and depth of understandin! #ut its #asic su#stance re$ains the sa$e& On the other hand4 I 'e+co$e the /ariet- of $eanin!s 'hen it co$es to the e,istentia+ $eanin! of the te,t& I ha/e no pro#+e$ acceptin! the concept used #- Os#orne such us the e,istence of $u+tip+e $eanin!s Apo+-/a+ent or p+urisi!nificationD2? as app+ied to e,istentia+ $eanin!& I cannot entertain the idea 'hen $u+tip+e $eanin!s are app+ied to the ori!ina+ $eanin!& Sti++ in acceptin!4 the $u+tip+icit- of e,istentia+ $eanin!s certain criteria are necessar- for not a++ :inds of e,istentia+ $eanin!s are /a+id& These criteria 'ou+d ser/e to distin!uish #et'een /a+id and in/a+id e,istentia+ $eanin!& One criterion 'ou+d #e faithfu+ness to the ori!ina+ $eanin!& The ro+e of the reader 'ith his up#rin!in!4 presuppositions and i$$ediate conte,t p+a- a si!nificant ro+e in the for$ation of di/ersit- of $eanin!s #ut their pri$ar- source of infor$ation is the ori!ina+ $eanin!& T'o Su#)ects Worth- to #e Considered Re+ated to the ;uestion In c+osin!4 there are t'o additiona+ su#)ects in $- $ind4 'hich I #e+ie/e
2?

Os#orne4 pp& 3724 37E&

are so$eho' re+ated to our 8uestion e/en thou!h I do not :no' ho' to connect the$ +o!ica++-& The first one is re+ated to $- con/iction concernin! the $inistr- of the Ho+- Spirit in re+ation to $eanin!& I #e+ie/e that the te,t is the $eans the Spirit of God used in order for an interpreter or reader to :no' $eanin! of an- :ind& The reason 'h- a reader understands the <o#)ecti/e= 2E $eanin! of the te,t is #ecause of the su#)ecti/e and interna+ 'or:in! of the Spirit in the spirit4 $ind4 and heart of the reader& I cannot separate these three for I #e+ie/e that it is the 'ho+e persona+it- of the interpreter 'ho has the a#i+it- to !rasp the $eanin! throu!h the i++u$ination of the spirit& - second and +ast concern is a#out the nature of ans'er to our 8uestion& The 8uestion concernin! the +ocus of $eanin! is not an eas- 8uestion& I thin: that ans'erin! this 8uestion #oi+s do'n to the $ore i$portant 8uestion4 'hich is the 8uestion of authorit-& Ho'e/er4 I ha/e a !ro'in! rea+i0ation that the 8uestion of authorit- has #een i!nored in sett+in! this :ind of 8uestion& (ersona++-4 I a$ sti++ con/inced that the 8uestion of authorit- is an inescapa#+e pre$ise in this :ind of in8uir-& One of $- #asic assu$ptions is that an interpreter stri/in! to #e #i#+ica++- faithfu+ is sti++ under o#+i!ation to su#$it his $ind to Christ re/ea+ed in the Scriptures& Further$ore4 I a+so #e+ie/e that e/en thou!h the te,t of the Scripture is inc+uded in this 8uestion4 sti++ an interpreter has no ri!ht to appea+ to an- other authorit- e,cept the fina+ court of appea+4 'hich is the *i#+e& For $e4 to appea+ to an- other authorit- such as tradition4 reason and e,perience to sett+e this $atter 'i++ resu+t u+ti$ate+- into re+ati/is$& To set aside the authoritof the *i#+e in ans'erin! this 8uestion 'i++ not +ead to the a#sence of authorit#ut to the transfer of authorit- to so$eone or so$ethin! e+se& It cou+d #e the reason of $an4 a consensus #- the interpreti/e co$$unit-4 e,perience4 or other sources& I find it difficu+t to understand4 ana+-0e4 and e/a+uate an- 8uestion 'ithout a #asis& oreo/er4 I cannot find an- other #asis to e/a+uate current 8uestions 'hether the- are co$in! fro$ her$eneutics4 theo+o!- or phi+osophe,cept #ased on #i#+ica+ authorit-& The <*i#+ica+ idea of the *i#+e= 2F is crucia+
The reason 'h- I put this 'ord under 8uotation $ar: is #ecause of the fact that traditiona+ conception of <o#)ecti/it-= of :no'+ed!e or of $eanin! is either under 8uestion in current scho+arship or considered irre+e/ant and has #een rep+aced a+read- 'ith a ne' :ind of <o#)ecti/it-&= The student sti++ #e+ie/es in o#)ecti/it- fro$ the traditiona+ point of /ie'&
2F Wi++ia$ *+a:e4 Ban Ti+9s Bision for Education4 Chapter F in the Foundations of Christian Scho+arship% Essa-s in Ban Ti+9s (erspecti/e ABa++ecito4 Ca+ifornia% Ross House *oo:s4 2C7FD4 26?4 8uotin! Corne+ius Ban Ti+4 A Christian Theor- of Hno'+ed!e A(hi+ade+phia% (res#-terian and Refor$ed (u#+ishin! Co$pan-4 2CFCD4 5E>?6& 2E

in +ocatin! the authorit- in an- in8uir-& This :ind of reasonin! is desi!nated as <circu+ar reasonin!&=27 @e/erthe+ess4 I thin: $an cannot escape circu+ar reasonin!& It is not a 8uestion #et'een the presence and a#sence of circu+ar reasonin!& It is a 8uestion of 'hich t-pe of circu+ar reasonin!& To ans'er this 8uestion is #e-ond the scope of this paper& A $ore difficu+t 8uestion that re$ains is 'hether the *i#+e dea+s 'ith the 8uestion as to the +ocus of $eanin!& I #e+ie/e it does& To de$onstrate this ans'er concrete+- 'ou+d re8uire no +itt+e a$ount of e,e!etica+ +a#or& In c+osin!4 I 'ou+d +i:e to end 'ith Banhoo0er9s <her$eneutics of the cross4= 'hich ca++s for hu$i+it- on the part of interpreters& He sa-s that <'e 'i++ on+- !ain understandin! AI interpret it as $eanin!D>of God4 te,t4 others4 and ourse+/es > if 'e are 'i++in! to put ourse+/es second and our interpreti/e theories to the test of the te,t&=2G I read this state$ent as an affir$ation of *i#+ica+ authorit-&

27 I #orro'ed this idea and the e,p+anation that fo++o's fro$ Corne+ius Ban Ti+9s presuppositiona+ apo+o!etics as e,p+ained #- Gre! *ahnsen& *ahnsen states that Christianit- is usua++- char!ed as trapped 'ith circu+ar reasonin!& It is c+ai$ed that if Christianit- 'ou+d persist in upho+din! circu+ar reasonin!4 <it has 'ritten do'n its o'n death 'arrant as far as inte++i!ent $en are concerned&= *ahnsen refutes the a#o/e ar!u$ent sa-in! that4 <circu+ar reasonin! is the on+- reasonin! that is possi#+e to finite $an&= He affir$s further that4 <The refusa+ to ad$it the necessit- of circu+ar reasonin! is itse+f an e/ident to:en of opposition to Christianit-= A2CCG4 E2GD&

He/in Banhoo0er4 Is There a .onder/an4 2CCGD4 p& ?FE&

2G

eanin! in This Te,t" AGrand Rapids

ichi!an%

REFERE@CES *ahnsen4 Gre! L& 2CCG& Ban Ti+9s Apo+o!etic% Readin!s and Ana+-sis& (hi++ips#ur!4 @e' 1erse-% ( and R (u#+ishin! House& @orth4 Gar- ed& 2C7F& Foundations of Christian Scho+arship% Essa-s in the Ban Ti+ (erspecti/e& Ba++ecito4 Ca+ifornia% Ross House *oo:s& Os#orne4 Grant R& 2CC2& The Her$eneutica+ Spira+% A Co$prehensi/e Introduction to *i#+ica+ Interpretation& Do'ners Gro/e4 I++inois% IB(& Tate4 Rando+ph W& 2CC2& *i#+ica+ Interpretation% An Inte!rated Approach& (ea#od-4 assachusets% Hendric:son (u#+ishers& Banhoo0er4 He/in 1& 2CCG& Is There A ichi!an% .onder/an&

eanin! In This Te,t" Grand Rapids4