Customer Reviews

Is There a Meaning in This Text?

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This was a book used for a class I took on Contemporary Hermeneutics, and I found it to be a very helpful book for understanding the epistemological shift that has occurred in the twentieth century, when Derrida, Fish, etc. began arguing that words only point to other words and have no real relation to reality and no possability of containing true meaning. Vanhoozer goes into great detail explaining concepts like refferential/differential meaning in language, the death of the author in postmodern literary criticism, the rise of interpretation based meaning, etc. The whole first half of the book is all about explaining these things, and he is very fair to the proponents of the views he goes about explaining. This is by far the most thorough and thoughtful analysis of those issues that I have come across. The problem I have with the book is the second half.

The second half of the book details Vanhoozer's positive response to these issues as he builds a Christian answer to how we can have meaning in words and texts. He does this by using the Trinity and the Speech Act theory. The problem is that he never explains HOW the Trinity is the basis for communicative meaning. He repeatedly uses the Trinity as a parallel to how communication can have meaning (i.e. the incarnation of Christ being the perfect representation of God), but he never explains how that is the BASIS for his position. He keeps using the Trinity as a sort of metaphor about how it works, and then he keeps saying that it is not JUST a metaphor, but he never explains HOW it actually is more than a metaphor.

The greatest problem I have with the book, however, is the Calvinitic Presuppositionalism which underlies his entire positive Christian response. He assummes the fact that there is meaning and a Trinitarian God, and from that assumption tries to bring them together. Now, I agree that there is meaning and a Trinitarian God, but to someone who does not believe that, he can offer no reason for them to believe it from within the system he builds. He has essentially taken a very pragmatic approach to the issue and said that he wants there to communicable meaning in language, and that in order to achieve this meaning we must believe that it is grounded in the Trinitarian God. In other words, he has shown that communicative meaning makes sense inside the Christian worldview, but he offers no reason to believe that we should be inside the Christian worldview. He has assumed the end he is trying to reach and built that end into his argument that the end is there, so it is really a sort of circular reasoning. That said, I believe that his end is correct, but as an Arminian Christian I think that there is a way/need to actually give evidence that it is the case without just assuming it in the first place.

Please do not misinterpret what I have said to mean that this is a bad book in any way. It is an excellent book, especially the first half. The second half is not bad, but it is a little unclear on exactly how things work and why someone who does not already agree with his conclusion should be persuaded to take Vanhoozer's view. I still highly recommend this book (though you should be aware that it is not an easy read at all), but just keep in mind that if you are not a Calvinistic Presuppositionalist you will have to look elsewhere to complete the picture Vanhoozer has put together.

Overall grade: A+ for the first half, A- for the second half.

This book is not for the fainthearted, but for any thinking person who is tired of under-researched caricatures of the literary theories associated with postmodernity, this is the book to read. Vanhoozer's book is exhaustive in its scope and incisive in its interpretations; he writes for people who are not content with simplistic treatments of what are serious issues. Few are as conversant with the relevant literature as Vanhoozer, and he writes as an expert in the field, not an outsider. His critiques are balanced and careful, and his constructive suggestions for Christian responses to current trends are brilliant. Any teacher or pastor who wants a thorough examination of the literary foundations of postmodernity must read this book. Ultimately, it will help you to reach out to our confused generation more sympathetically and effectively.

Vanhoozer's work is an absolutely essential read for anyone who wants to understand the art of biblical interpretation from a Christian perspective in the postmodern age. His exhaustive work clearly explains contemporary philosophical and literary theory, so that even the beginner in the field can get a grasp on the issues. He takes the objections of postmodernists seriously and integrates their insights when appropriate. Nevertheless, he avoids the philosophical indeterminism and non-realism of our day.

Vanhoozer's work will only seem reactionary to those who have long since fallen into the deep end of postmodern nihilism. In reality, this book is a significant moderation of modernist absolutism, in light of the critics' critiques. It affirms a hermeneutic of humility and faith that recognizes the difficulty of interpretation and the noetic effects of the fall, all the while avoiding the relativisitc impulses and the undermining of biblical authority that so characterize postmodern skepticism and faithless disbelief in the God who communicates. While some may question aspects of his conclusions, for the Christian who still believes God has something to say to his people and wants to learn to read the Bible with faith and humility, this is a great starting point.

The first three main chapters of this book outline arguments for the "undoing" of the author, text, and reader using the ideas of Derrida, Foucault, Fish, and others. This section is the most helpful introduction to post-structuralism that I have ever read. Vanhoozer clearly and effectively explains the philosophical foundations of these different lines of thought. For the superior clarity and accessibility of Vanhoozer's work, I give this book fives stars.

The last three main chapters make up Vanhoozer's response to post-structuralism, primarily through the use of Searle's and Austin's theories of "ordinary language." I sympathize with the reviewers who have labeled this section as "alarmist" and unnecessarily "reactionary," for there were several times I became frustrated with how quickly Vanhoozer dismissed various alternative ideas. However, this imperfection is not enough to keep the incredibly well-researched work from being helpful to those who want a great introduction into post-structuralist theory and philosophy of language.

I can hardly think of a better book to merit republication in Zondervan's "Landmarks in Christian Scholarship" series than Is There a Meaning in This Text? by Kevin Vanhoozer. Interacting cautiously and critically with postmodern philosophy and literary theory, Vanhoozer courageously reasons for the resurrection of the author, the redemption of the text, and the reformation of the reader.

Is there any way of regaining authorial intention and therefore biblical authority in our postmodern milieu? Vanhoozer utilizes speech-act theory to show how every text is a result of communicative action in which an author intends to do something with his or her words. He demonstrates how we can approach Scripture with hermeneutical realism, knowing that the divine/human authors really did intend to communicate something through the particular words we have in our Bibles, and we are responsible to discover and respond to this meaning today.

But can we really access the meaning in the text, even Scripture? Vanhoozer argues that we can discover meaning through a thick description of everything the author was doing through this particular act of textual communication. To be responsible and respectful to the text, therefore, implies searching for the actual meaning of the text, not whatever meaning we care to project. This is hard work, however, and calls for a myriad of skills and virtues, which leads him to the reformation of the reader.

Honesty, openness, attention and obedience will lead us to realize and respond to the meaning that the author intended. To understand Scripture means to take the position of a servant, and to approach the difficult yet joyful task of interpretation with humility and conviction. If we do this, will we really find just one meaning? Vanhoozer's hermeneutical realism and a robust doctrine of the Spirit lead him to defend a Pentecostal plurality of meaning and significance. In other words, it takes a diversity of methods and reading in a diversity of contexts to approach the thick, unified meaning of Scripture. In addition, true meaning and significance will emerge through faithfulness to the text, fruitfulness in the lives of readers, forcefulness in edifying the community, and fittingness in embodying the meaning of Scripture.

It is almost impossible to summarize the content and significance of such a substantial work, but hopefully the recap above approximates the meaning in this important text. You may find the contents (locution) of the book obtuse at times, but what Vanhoozer does (illocution) in the book is astonishing, and its effect (perlocution) is far-reaching. If you are interested in hermeneutics and concerned to maintain the authority, meaning, and relevance of Scripture, Is There a Meaning in This Text? is an essential addition to your library!

I teach biblical studies at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. While this is not an easy read, it is my number one recommendation to students who wish to study biblical hermeneutics, and second place lags far beind. Vanhoozer writing is dense, i.e. he packs a lot into every paragraph. It is a book that requires thoughtful, slow reading. But the rewards are rich. Vanhoozer engages the cutting edges of current literary theory in a careful, considered and considerate manner. He infuses his prose with many illuminating illustrations and word pictures in a manner that captivitated my interest throughout. It is not a text that can be recommended for the average undergrad, but is a must for anyone wishing to do advanced reflection on this important topic. Kudos, Kevin!

This must have been the most difficult book that I have ever read. I can say, however, that I have read it with profit. There is a reason that it is considered a modern standard in the field of hermeneutics. VanHoozer states his case, quotes extensively from those with whom he disagrees, uses many references to bolster his point, and builds a good argument. What is that argument? That there is indeed meaning in the Bible text. The death of God movement has led to the death of the author movement, it seems. Some are declaring that meaning is in the eye (head, or heart, I suppose) of the reader/community instead of being resident in the text. VanHoozer argues that texts are the result of authors communicating, and that communicating requires meaning or nothing is communicated. VanHoozer relates this to Trinitarian theology by stating that there is a God, thus there is an author of all things, so there is meaning. There is the incarnation of the Son of God, so God manifests and communicates with man, so authors and the meanings in their texts obviously are real. He then reminds us that there is the Holy Spirit who is also God and illuminates the text that we might understand. With all of this in mind, he calls us back to a sort of literal hermeneutic in which the "literal sense is the literary sense." I recommend this book to people interested in hermeneutics, and people who have lots of reading time. A worthwhile read.

this is a wonderful book. if anyone wants to dig deeper into their faith and their understanding of the Bible they should read this.

Vanhoozer's objectivity in explaining, in plain language, the various, often confusing concepts that confront anyone trying to understand hermeneutic theory is refreshing. I was impressed that Vanhoozer didn't set out to discredit theories with which he didn't agree, but instead explained them rationally and in the end presented his own opposing view(s). His patience with deconstruction theory is impressive. I would recommend this book to any , who like me, appreciate a civil discussion of a controversial topic.

Vanhoozer presents a broadly researched work on hermeneutics and surveys a vast amount of perspectives and literature. With such a wide range of research his conclusions are surprisingly narrow. Vanhoozer prefers to stick to very sharp dichotomies and present extreme ultimatums that typified conservative reactions to the ambiguous "Postmodernism" during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Although it is evident that Vanhoozer has read his sources well, he has failed in terms of reflection. Hence, in dealing with Gadamer, in particular, he concludes that Gadamer's position on the nature of interpretation and text would lead into relativism. Yet I do not find this to be the case, and, ironically, neither did Gadamer! Gadamer refuted various forms of relativism on many occasions. Vanhoozer, however, does not seem interested in any perspective that does not fit into his traditional, rigid hermeneutic. I find there are many, many alternatives (Gadamer being one of them, crf. the book of Hebrews) to the tired old hermeneutics that Vanhoozer recycles.

Unfortunately, Vanhoozer's theory, for all of his research, is merely warmed up meatloaf from the fridge. There is nothing here that truly makes progress or builds upon the quality thinking that has taken place in hermeneutics in the 20th century. I see it as primarily reactionary and alarmist. Vanhoozer's main focus is to try to preserve stable interpretations. But what if hermeneutics is not the "stable science" that we had thought? What if there are unstable elements? What if interpretation (pace Gadamer) involves both the text of the past and the horizon of the present? These are the key questions that Vanhoozer does not satisfactory address. He is too much of an alarmist, too paranoid about losing "stability" in interpretation.

Anthony Thiselton is one of the few conservatives to whom one can turn for a fair engagement with hermeneutical theory and an attempt to formulate genuine thoughtfulness. Thiselton gives Vanhoozer praise for this book, but also nails down one of Vanhoozer's primary weaknesses:
"The attack on anti-representationalism can reflect an equally misguided mirror image when a proponent of the opposite view seeks to reinstate reference and representation, as well as single determinate meanings, to contexts in language that they simply fail to fit. In spite of my immense admiration for Kevin Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in This Text? I find an over-readiness to ask whether rather than when defences and attacks concerning reference and determinate meaning are theologically constructive or destructive. It tends to demote the importance of non-referential, non-representational language if we resort to suggesting that the grossly over-simple, over-general, exhausted distinction between meaning and significance, could serve as a panacea for all hermeneutical headaches by the reverend E.D. Hirsch. Hirsch's attempts to revitalize the humanist model of language contained much of value, but unfortunately his conceptual and semiotic tools were too dated and general to address fully the complexities and nuances of the "postmodern" world." (See p. 613 of Thiselton on Hermeneutics)

Thiselton is much more generous than I. Frankly, I have very little patience left with Evangelical voices that are so reactionist and alarmist, lacking any real forward-thinking. We have no theologians with vision and courage. They are often merely products of the machine who recycle outdated theories of textuality. In a recent essay (see "Discourse on Matter" in Hermeneutics at the Crossroads (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion)) Vanhoozer calls his book (Is there Meaning in this Text?) a "lion well roared," with the implication that he does not regret his emphatic statements, even if they were something of an exaggeration. In my opinion this work is sound and fury, signifying nothing. After 20 years or so this will be a dated book, with little more than a historical interest as one of many reactionary and unoriginal pieces of Evangelical theological literature, so much of which winds up in the dustbins of irrelevancy.

Anthony Thiselton is a much better resource than Vanhoozer for hermeneutical theory. His New Horizons New Horizons in Hermeneutics accomplishes everything that Vahnoozer attempted to do, without getting too bogged down in alarmist rhetoric. While I do not agree with all of Thiselton's conclusion, this is a far better resource and renders Vanhoozer's work completely useless.

In my essay "Living and Dynamic" (available on my blog) I specifically address Vanhoozer's hermeneutic while examining the hermeneutic at work in Hebrews as the author recontextualizes the Old Testament. In my opinion, if one does not have the energy to work through Vanhoozer or Thiselton they could always turn to the book of Hebrews for an outstanding example of how interpretation can be living and dynamic, while still caring for and respecting the original context of a text.