One of the most recent methods is reader-response criticism. Reader-response criticism does not seek to understand the historical world behind the text (historical research, as this volume advocates). Nor does reader-response criticism seek to map the literary world of the text (i.e., paying close attention to the literary ‘architecture’ of a text, as this volume encourages). Rather, reader-response criticism is concerned with the world in front of the text. That is, for these practitioners the ‘author,’ ‘historical context,’ and idea of textual ‘intentionality’ are mere illusions. The only interaction worthy of investigation and reflection is the one that occurs between text and reader; and, in the end, the reader (and the reader alone) is responsible for the production of ‘meaning.’ Thus, the place of privilege once reserved for the author, the historical circumstances surrounding a text, and the intentionality locked within a text has now been surrendered to the reader.
–Gordon Fee, New Testament Exegesis (Appendix to the 3rd Edition)
One problem I’ve seen with this approach is that people over-interpret the text, especially if it is fairly plain. In wanting to come up with meaning, it’s easy to dream up a lot of theories of what the word, verse or passage could mean.
Regarding determining the tense, voice, and mood of verb forms Fee says:
Deciding that there is no special meaning to be found in some usages is also part of the exegetical process.
I think that sometimes in the exegetical process, we find that a text just means what it says. Or there is ambiguity. It may seem like a waste of time to do the research and investigation only to come back to where we started, but it can keep us from over-interpreting or lead us to determine that we don’t really know and keep us from coming up with theories about “what it means to me” or “what I feel like it’s saying.”
2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Good post. Excellent reminder to all students of the Word.I hate “Bible studies” where you hear phrases like “what it means to me” or “what I feel like it’s saying.”
Of course Fee here pictures an extreme form of reader-response criticism, a la Stanley Fish, in which the author & his/her world is considered completely dead… But there are milder ways in which reader-response theory can be useful: For example, when Paul says in 2 Thessalonians “you know what is currently holding back the man of lawlessness”, Paul expects that his readers will fill in the blanks in order to thoughtfully supply the full meaning – which illustrates that interpretation involves both the horizon of the author and that of its readers, whether 2 months after it was written, or 2,000 years after it was written.But I do agree with you – this approach can be taken way too far and result in comically silly interpretations. As you say, sometimes it’s better to just let the text say what it obviously says!
Thanks Matthew. I was probably using Fee’s quote and the term a little loosely to make my point.
And that makes me wonder–how much should be expected of the Christian who is not a “serious student of the Bible”? I would say everyone should be a serious student of the Bible to some degree. But how far should that go?
Jeff
Interesting…I know some who really know the Bible well who wouldn’t qualify as a “Bible student” and I know some “Bible students” who wouldn’t know the meaning of scripture if God Himself explained it to them.All of that is to say that there has to be some balance between study and revelation. I think God honors study with revelation (concealing a matter and us searching it out), but many want to rely strictly on revelation without the study. I have fallen into that trap before, and I think we need to learn to walk the fine line.
Where does that leave scholarly work? If everyone is allowed equal voice in the “message” of the text, then surely there would be no need for clerics or religious institutions…hmm, vanity of vanities, there’s nothing new under the sun