United Theological College, Bangalore

Theories of Biblical Interpretation

Dziesetuo Theunuo (Mth. OT)
1. Introduction
This paper deals with the theories of biblical interpretation. It begins with the historical
development of biblical interpretation and identifies three epochs; pre-modern period, modern
period, and post-modern period. Next it investigates the interpretive theories of
Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Saussure, and deconstruction. Lastly,
it tries to find the connection between theories of interpretation and their relation to biblical
interpretation.

2. Historical Development of Biblical Interpretation

The historicity of biblical interpretation can be roughly divided into three periods; the pre-
modern period beginning in the early Jewish tradition continuing till Reformation, the modern
period beginning with Schleiermacher, and the post-modern period.
However, if we are to consider theories of redaction criticism or the documentary hypothesis,
then technically biblical ‘hermeneuts’1 were in office even during ancient times. Still, most
study on hermeneutics trace the beginning of biblical interpretation from the Jewish scribes
after exile, who were translating Hebrew text into Aramaic.2 We also know from the findings
of the Dead Sea Scrolls that a Jewish group called the Qumran community were writing
commentaries based on their experience. And by the beginning of the Christian era Judaism
had develop different methods for interpretating the Old Testament namely midrash, pesher,
mishna and haggadic. The essence of such methods were inherited by Christianity.
Jesus reformed the understanding of Old Testament when he proclaimed himself as the
fulfilment of the Scriptures. This Christological approach to Old Testament was taken up by
the New Testament writers and the Church Fathers. Coming to the Church Fathers we see an
appeal to apostolic tradition for interpretation, and subsequently the two schools emerged as a
result; Alexandria emphasising allegorical and Antioch emphasising literal method of
interpretation. This tradition of biblical interpretation dominated throughout the Middle Ages3
During the Reformation a shift from traditional way of interpretation to sola scriptura took
place among the Protestants. Here methods such as ‘scripture interprets scripture’ and bible in
historical context were introduced. Reformation led to Enlightenment which also marks a shift
of worldview from theocentric to anthropocentric. This gave rise to Biblical criticism where
Bible was taken as a literature.
The beginning of modern biblical interpretation is marked by Schleiermacher’s interpretation
as an ‘art’ and not a ‘science’. His work influenced the work of Dilthey and Heidegger and
Gadamer, who were forerunners for the philosophical foundation for in Biblical interpretation.
Post-modern biblical interpretation is marked by theories of suspicion and they include works
of Derrida’s deconstruction, Ricoeur’s suspicion and linguistic theories beginning with
Saussure.

1
Jasper David says that this is the traditional way of referring to interpreters. Jasper David, A Short
Introduction to Hermeneutics (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 3.
2
Anthony Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An introduction (Michigan: William B Eerdmans, 2009), David, A
Short Introduction to Hermeneutics.
3
David, A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics, 45.

1
3. Theories of Interpretation
3.1. Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Theory of Understanding
Often entitled as the “father of modern hermeneutics”4 Schleiermacher changed the trajectory
of hermeneutics when he defined hermeneutics as “the art of understanding” as opposed to
hermeneutics which was understood as “rules of interpretation.”5 For him, hermeneutics as an
‘art of understanding’ meant that hermeneutics is part of thinking and so it is philosophical and
consequently the principles of hermeneutics must be universal.6
Schleiermacher’s theory of understanding is paradoxical in nature. He begins by asking, “what
are the conditions upon which understanding could take place at all?”7 The basic condition, he
says, is that, “the interpreter must try to become the immediate reader of the text in order to
understand its allusions, its atmosphere, and its special field of images.”8 As such
understanding must begin with understanding the world of the author because “one must
already know a man (sic) in order to understand what he says, and yet one first becomes
acquainted with him (sic) by what he (sic) says”9. This is Schleiermacher’s paradox for
understanding.
This paradox is often termed as the ‘hermeneutical circle’ or the ‘hermeneutical spiral’10. Here
understanding of a text or a work involves understanding the whole and also understanding the
parts that constitute the whole. Every element of a text requires examination, but the
understanding of each element must be in light of the sentence, clause, or book. But our
understanding of the text depends upon the understanding of the elements. Further our
understanding is based on the prior understanding of what the text is about.11 Thus
understanding is the psychological and grammatical interpretation of the text. Psychological
aspect involves understanding the author and grammatical aspect involves the interpretation of
the linguistic elements of a text. Schleiermacher says that “complete knowledge always
involves an apparent circle, that each part can be understood only out of the whole to which it
belongs, and vice versa.”12 Thus for Schleiermacher understanding does not happen in a liner
process, but understanding is navigating back and forth between the part and the whole.
3.2. Wilhelm Dilthey’s ‘Lived Experience’
Wilhelm Dilthey was deeply influenced by Schleiermacher and tried to extend the
Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics in his work. Like Schleiermacher, Dilthey focused on
psychological life and cultural context, and was concerned with understanding of a text as it
appeared in many forms.13 But Dilthey differs for Schleiermacher when he argues for widening
the hermeneutical boundary into the areas of epistemology, logic and methodology for human
science.14 He tried to establish hermeneutic as the epistemology of human science.

4
Grant R Osborn, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
(Illionies: Inter Varsity Press, 1991), 468.
5
Friedrich Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics: The Handwritten Manuscripts, translated by James Duke and
Jack Forsman, edited by Heinz Kimmerle (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 28.
6
Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics, 97.
7
Anthony Thiselton, New Horizon in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992), 205.
8
Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics, 43.
9
Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics, 56.
10
Thiselton calls it hermeneutical circle, Osborn says it is hermeneutical spiral. Thiselton, New Horizon in
Hermeneutics, 205. Osborn, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 287.
11
Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 155.
12
Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics, 113
13
David E Klemm, Hermeneutical Inquiry, in Vol. 1 of The Interpretation of Tests (Atlanta Georgia:
Scholars Press, 1986), 91.
14
Klemm, Hermeneutical Inquiry, 92

2
In the field of Biblical interpretation, he is known for his essay “The Development of
Hermeneutics”. Here he begins by identifying the problem of understanding in natural science
and the human science. Natural science is objective and so quantitative. But human science
must be subjective as it studies the “inner reality directly experienced in all its complexity” by
an individual.15 It must take into consideration the “lived experience” or “life” of the individual
which is conditioned by his/her world or history.16 This ‘life’ is the interaction of human
activities and experiences of the individual with his/her society. And since a person cannot be
separated from ‘lived experience’, the meaning of a text, expressed by the author, is found
when we trace its linguistic to its context and understanding the ‘lived experience’ of the
author.17 In other words, one need to put oneself in the shoes of the author to understand what
he/she says.
Further, Dilthey argues, understanding between individuals in different historical context is
possible because, as humans expressive beings we express our being through language, and
this can be reconstructed into one’s own historical setting.18 In the study biblical of
interpretation Dilthey’s work broadened the scope of hermeneutic to include all human
institutions. His concept of ‘lived experience’ or knowing what it was like to live led
investigation of historical context of authors.
3.3. Martin Heidegger’s Dasien
Since Plato, Heidegger argues, philosophers hitherto have misunderstood and misinterpreted
human beings. The problem he identifies is in the epistemological study that have tried to
understand humans as dethatched form the world, a gap which Descartes have widen when he
explained that ideas in our mind are true apart from the word with his ‘cogito, ergo sum’.19
Thus, for Heidegger since Plato’s epistemology for understanding human the foundation of
knowledge has been set off course. He proposes for ontology, the study of being, as the basis
for understanding.20
Dasien lies at the heart of Heidegger’s hermeneutics. Dasien in simple means ‘being-there’ it
can also be understood as ‘being of human being’.21 In other words it is the quality of human
being that makes it a human. For Hiedegger this dasien is temporal and always in
communication with the beings in the world. And dasien is in a dialectical process of becoming
as it experience the world. The tool with which dasien interacts with the world is language.
Thus, for Heidegger, the hermeneutical question that arise is, ‘what is the meaning of being (in
the world), as interpreted by dasien as it interacts with the world through language?’
Consequently, for him, interpretation is the act where our being (dasien) engages with the being
of the world through language for understanding.22 In simple, interpretation is interpretation of
being.

15
Klemm, Hermeneutical Inquiry, 94
16
Klemm, Hermeneutical Inquiry, 96
17
Wilhelm Dilthey, “The Development of Hermeneutics,” in vol 1 of Hermeneutical Inquiry, edited by
David E Klemm (Atlanta Georgia: Scholars Press, 1986), 98.
18
Dilthey, “The Development of Hermeneutics,” 99.
19
Hubert L. Dreyfus, Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time (London: The
MIT Press, 1990), 1-3.
20
Dreyfus, Being-in-the-World, 4.
21
Martin Heidegger, Being and time, translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (London:
Bloomsbury, 1962), 26.
22
Klemm, Hermeneutical Inquiry, 135

3
 3.4. Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Hermeneutical Problem
Gadamer was a German philosopher who offered a turning point in hermeneutic since
Schleiermacher. For him understanding and interpretation are interchangeable, and language
the medium for understanding and sharing complexities of human experience. 23 In his magnum
opus Truth and Method Gadamer critiques the method used by science to arrive at truth. He
says that hitherto the method used by science have distorted the truth about human being. This
is because methods do not take into account the experience of human life, but abstracts the
problem from reality and understand it apart from human experience. Such method assumes
human as alien to its being separated from all its historical experience.24 By this he meant that
our consciousness is historically affected and because it is conditioned by history there are no
non-interested interpreters.25 Thus a text or a work cannot be separated from its historical
experience. However, it should be made clear that he was not against the use of method for
deriving truth, only that method should be derived from the experience of human.26
For Gadamer understanding comes through logos which for him is synonymous with language.
Logos or language is the medium for communication with others. He believed that the interplay
between the interlocutors in a dialogue produce analogous meaning through fusing of horizon.
Gadamer would say that understanding always involves fusion of horizon because the partners
in the dialogue belong to and is condition by their historicity. 27
3.5. Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutic of Suspicion
Ricoeur distinguishes between two approaches to hermeneutics. First is the hermeneutics of
faith which aims to restore the meaning of a text. Here, the reader believes the text as being
able communicate the subjective experience of the author free of interest. Second is the
hermeneutist of suspicion which aims at analysing the text communicated by the author with a
sense of doubt.28
Ricoeur hermeneutics of suspicion is best expounded in his book Feud and Philosophy: An
Essay on Interpretation. Here he looks at hermeneutics for the psychoanalysis of feud. He says
that Feud’s work was a hermeneutics because he did not take the text at face value but probed
into the superficial and deceptive text to see the true reality of the text that lay burry underneath
it.29 Applying this to hermeneutics he argues that the problem of hermeneutics is the problem
of language. He says that language is a problem it is nuance in nature, it can mean something
other than what it says. This is because language are symbols and their interpretation and
understanding and expression are conditional.30 Thus, hermeneutics of suspicion always
involves an in-group understanding. Meaning that the language as symbols is to be read
according to some procedure that helps the reader to decode the style of symbols.31
3.6. Ferdinand De Saussure Structuralism
Structuralism originated in the linguistic theories of Ferdinand De Saussure. His work Cours
de Linguistique Generale (1916) became to be accepted as an authoritative work in linguistics,

23
Thiselton, New Horizon in Hermeneutics. 206-28
24
Gadamar, Truth and method
25
Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 221.
26
Klemm, Hermeneutical Inquiry, 175.
27
Gadamar, Truth and method,
28
Thiselton, New Horizon in Hermeneutics, 233
29
Paul Ricoeur, “Intellectual Biography,” in The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, edited by Lewis E. Hahn
(Chicago: Open Court, 1995), 5.
30
Paul Ricoeur, Feud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, translated by Denis Savage (London:
Yale University Press, 1970), 7.
31
Ricoeur, “Intellectual Biography,” 10.

4
and established a number of fundamental principles which are inherited in linguistics and
structuralist methodologies at present day.32 In his work Saussure distinguished between what
he called langue and parole (language and acts of speaking). He saw langue or language as a
general system or structure from which particular words or acts of speaking, parole were
selected. These words are arbitrary, and might change from time to time, just as they differ
from one language to another. But the underlying meaning of a word stays the same.33
Translation is therefore basically an affair of parole, not of langue.
In biblical studies this has two effects. First, it was taken to imply that language was
autonomous and generated meaning ‘internally’ rather than by its relation to history or to life.
Second, it was initially welcomed as an ‘objective’ science of language. This meant that
meaning is subjective and that language function as a system of structure, independent of
human attitude or experience.34 Thus with regards to relation of structuralism to biblical
studies, a structuralist approach to the Bible mainly focuses on the form of the text as a
linguistic or the textual phenomenon. As such it often ignores all questions about the historical
background of a text, or the intention of the author of the text.35
In the structuralist approach to Old Testament the work of David Jobling is commendable. His
book in the JSOT titled The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Three Structural Analysis in the Old
Testament provides an interpretation of 1 Samuel 13-31, Numbers 11-12, 1 Kings 17-18 using
structuralist approach. In his first essay he presents a theological problem: how Saul dynasty is
replaced by David dynasty? Here he sees the role of Jonathan in relation with David and Saul
and concludes that Jonathan served not his interest but the interests of one who supplants him.36
In the second, he considers both paradigmatic and syntagmatic issues of the narrative. In the
paradigmatic study, he argues that the narrative works in explicating a counter-program to
Yahweh’s interest, but seen syntagmatically, the narrative focuses on the issue of Moses’
leadership.37 In the third, the same analysis as the second is used to analysis the relation
between Ahab and the people, and concludes that the king is worst that the people
(paradigmatic), he leads them into apostasy and lags behind in repentance (syntagmatic).38
3.7. Deconstruction
Deconstruction or poststructuralism arose as a reaction against the certainties of structuralism.
Like structuralism, deconstruction identifies textual features but, unlike structuralism, it
concentrates on the rhetorical rather than the grammatical.39 Deconstruction is ascribed to
Jacques Derrida but its essence can be traced back to Nietzsche, Freud, Husserl, and Heidegger.
Nietzsche cuts away the ground of knowing saying that all concepts are pseudo-concepts
because they depend on rhetoric, on metaphors, metonymies, synecdoche; Freud asked critical
questions about human psyche that psychological pathologies are imbedded in the unconscious

32
David Greenwood, Structuralism and the Biblical Text (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1985), 1.
33
Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, edited and translated by Roy Harris (London:
Bloomsberry, 2013), 34-35.
34
Gerald Bary, Biblical Interpretation Past and Present (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1996), 487.
35
Anthony C. Thistelton, “Structuralism and Biblical Studies: Method or Ideology?” Expository Times 89/11
vol1 (1978): 329-35.
36
David Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Three Structural Analysis in the Old Testament, in JSOT
Supplement Series 7, (Sheffield: Sheffield University, 1978), 84-85.
37
Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative, 63-64.
38
Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative, 81.
39
Wilferd L. Guerin, Earle Labour, et.al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature, 4th edition (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 340.

5
mind; Husserl and Heidegger saw that ‘being’ could not be fathomed by traditional ontology,
or the study of ‘reality’.40
Deconstruction means undermining or erasing meaning that have been mistakenly assumed to
be fixed. It questions the presence of any objective structure or context in a text. Instead of a
text having one ultimate meaning of a text, deconstruction describes that the state of a text is
flexible, and its meaning provisional.41Derrida says that his approach is the undoing of
logocentricism, the notion that written language contains a self-evident meaning that points to
an unchanging meaning.42
David Clines’ essay “Deconstructing the Book of Job” takes up the aspect of deconstruction in
which a discourse is perceived to “undermine the philosophy it asserts or the hierarchical
oppositions on which it relies.”43 He sees two explicit philosophies in confrontation in Job.
First, the traditional dogma that the righteous person is rewarded, and that only the wicked
suffer is not uniformly denied. Second, and stronger principle, that the righteous also suffer,
and that piety does not necessarily lead to prosperity. Clines concludes that the purpose here
of the deconstruction strategy is to eliminate dogma as dogma.44
4. The Development of Biblical Interpretation
This section discusses the relation between theories of interpretations and biblical studied. The
theories have been broadly categorized into, behind the text, within the text, and in front of the
text to analyse how these theories has been incorporated into biblical interpretation
4.1. Behind the Text
Historical exegesis began as early as the biblical account itself. However, a scientific enquiry
into to historical context and the situation of the biblical text only at a later period. This credit
goes to the Enlightenment thinkers who were sceptical to traditional foundation of knowledge
and appealed to history for a new foundation.45 In responding to the Enlightenment tradition,
Schleiermacher introduced his theory of understanding called the hermeneutical circle. In
application, this form of interpretation focuses on the mind of the author, along with the impact
with his or her sociohistorical setting, as the means of gaining meaning form a given text.
Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer followed Schleirtmacher’s footsteps in focusing the
relationship between author and text in interpretation.46
These theories of interpretation had a formative influence on the hermeneutical model which
is broadly called ‘traditional criticism’ or ‘historical criticism’. Generally, there are three
branches of traditional criticism; evolutionary model, historical reconstructions, original
meaning.47 The feature of evolutionary model in traditional criticism points to the desire to
determine the background of biblical texts and to develop theories tracing how we gain our

40
Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press, 2016), 45-49.
41
Guerin, Labour, et.al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. 341
42
Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, 75.
43
David J.A. Clines, “Deconstructing the Book of Job,” in JBL 127/3 (2008): 491
44
Clines, “Deconstructing the Book of Job,” 492-499.
45
Thiltenton, Hermeneutics, 124.
46
Stanley E Porter and Beth M Stovell, “Introduction: Trajectories in Biblical Hermeneutics,” in Biblical
Hermeneutics: Five Views edited by Stanley E Porter and Beth M Stovell (Bangalore: Omega Book World,
2012), 14.
47
John Barton, “Historical-Critical Approaches,” in The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation,
edited by John Barton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 9-20.

6
current text from that background.48 Often the goal of traditional criticism is to access the
authenticity of the biblical texts or the stories behind the texts.
4.2. Within the Text
In response to the traditional approach, which look behind the text, many biblical scholars
began to look for new hermeneutical orientations. It embraced approaches that looked within
the text itself like the narrative criticism.49 In the secular world during the late 20th century,
there developed a literary criticism called the New Criticism. Biblical literary criticism has its
literary and theoretical basis in the New Criticism. This method developed out of a
hermeneutical tradition that focused on the text as the autonomous means of transmitting
meaning. The interpretative elements of New Criticism has its roots in the structuralism of
Saussure.50
By accepting this form of literary theory, biblical scholars shifted their focus form behind the
text to within the text. With this shift both the intent of the author and historical background
was removed form equation, and replaced them with an emphasis on poetic, narrative and
textual unity. 51
4.3. In front of the Text
Reader oriented or Infront of the text places emphasis on the active role of the reader in
interpreting the text. This approach is often associated with poststructuralism, which reacted
against structuralism and embraced the role of the subject in interpretation.52 Poststructuralism
began to significantly influence biblical interpretation. The theory was regarded as joyous
tidings and liberation from authorial and textual captivity. The theory has much affinity with
the postcolonial and liberative criticism.53
5. Conclusion
Biblical interpretation since Enlightenment had borrowed critical methods to analyse the text.
Various theories of philosophers, literary critiques, sociologist (though not presented in this
paper), and linguist, has been employed in the study of the biblical text. The employment of
such theories allowed the interpreters to explore different aspects of the text and bring out
various interpretation.
Theories of biblical interpretation are indebted to the theories of interpretation in the secular
world. Many of the interpretative tools that are used for interpreting the biblical text are
incorporation of interpretative tools borrowed from the secular scholarship. This, however,
does not mean that interpreters fully relay on the theories to interpreted the text but are used as
a guiding principles (for example the hermeneutical circle) to look into the text.

48
John Barton, “Historical-Critical Approaches,” 11.
49
Porter and Stovell, “Introduction,” 16.
50
Douglas Day, “Background of the New Criticism,” in The Journal of Aesthetic and Art Criticism, 24/3
(1966): 429-40
51
Thiselton, New Horizon in Hermeneutics, 154.
52
Porter and Stovell, “Introduction,” 18.
53
Robert Carroll, “Poststructuralist Approaches: New Historicism and Postmodernism,” in The Cambridge
Companion to Biblical Interpretation, edited by John Barton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998),
50-63

7
Bibliography
Barton, John. “Historical-Critical Approaches.” In The Cambridge Companion to
Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John Barton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Bary, Gerald. Biblical Interpretation Past and Present. Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1996.
Carroll, Robert. “Poststructuralist Approaches: New Historicism and Postmodernism.”
In The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John Barton. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Clines, David J.A. “Deconstructing the Book of Job.” In Journal of Biblical Literature.
127/3 (2008): 491-499
David, Jasper. A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics. Kentucky: Westminster John
Knox, 2004.
Day, Douglas. “Background of the New Criticis.” In The Journal of Aesthetic and Art
Criticism 24/3 (1966): 429-440.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2016.
Dreyfus, Hubert L. Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time.
London: The MIT Press, 1990.
Greenwood, David. Structuralism and the Biblical Text. Berlin: Mouton Publishers,
1985.
Guerin, Wilferd L. Earle Labour, et.al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature.
th
4 edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and time. Ttranslated by John Macquarrie and Edward
Robinson. London: Bloomsbury, 1962.
Jobling, David. The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Three Structural Analysis in the Old
Testament. In Journal for the Study of Old Testament. Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: Sheffield
University, 1978.
Klemm, David E. Hermeneutical Inquiry. In Vol. 1 of The Interpretation of Tests. Atlanta
Georgia: Scholars Press, 1986.
Osborn, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical
Interpretation. Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1991.
Porter, Stanley E. and Beth M Stovell. “Introduction: Trajectories in Biblical
Hermeneutics.” In Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views. Edited by Stanley E Porter and Beth M
Stovell. Bangalore: Omega Book World, 2012.
Ricoeur, Paul. Feud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation. Translated by Denis
Savage. London: Yale University Press, 1970.
Ricoeur, Paul “Intellectual Biography.” In The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur. Edited by
Lewis E. Hahn. Chicago: Open Court, 1995.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Hermeneutics: The Handwritten Manuscripts. Translated by
James Duke and Jack Forsman. Edited by Heinz Kimmerle. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.
Thiselton, Anthony. Hermeneutics: An introduction. Michigan: William B Eerdmans,
2009.
Thiselton, Anthony. New Horizon in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992.
Thistelton, Anthony. “Structuralism and Biblical Studies: Method or Ideology?”
Expository Times 89/11 Vol 1 (1978): 329-35