Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge

by Kevin J. Vanhoozer

Is there a meaning in the Bible, or is meaning rather a matter of who is reading or of how one reads? Does Christian doctrine have anything to contribute to debates about interpretation, literary theory, and post modernity? These are questions of crucial importance for contemporary biblical studies and theology alike.

Kevin Vanhoozer contends that the postmodern crisis in hermeneutics—'incredulity towards meaning, ' a deep-set skepticism concerning the possibility of correct interpretation—is fundamentally a crisis in theology provoked by an inadequate view of God and by the announcement of God's 'death.

'Part 1 examines the ways in which deconstruction and radical reader-response criticism 'undo' the traditional concepts of author, text, and reading. Dr. Vanhoozer engages critically with the work of Derrida, Rorty, and Fish, among others, and demonstrates the detrimental influence of the postmodern 'suspicion of hermeneutics' on biblical studies.

In Part 2, Dr. Vanhoozer defends the concept of the author and the possibility of literary knowledge by drawing on the resources of Christian doctrine and by viewing meaning in terms of communicative action. He argues that there is a meaning in the text, that it can be known with relative adequacy, and that readers have a responsibility to do so by cultivating 'interpretive virtues.'Successive chapters build on Trinitarian theology and speech act philosophy in order to treat the metaphysics, methodology, and morals of interpretation. From a Christian perspective, meaning and interpretation are ultimately grounded in God's own communicative action in creation, in the canon, and preeminently in Christ. Prominent features in Part 2 include a new account of the author's intention and of the literal sense, the reclaiming of the distinction between meaning and significance in terms of Word and Spirit, and the image of the reader as a disciple-martyr, whose vocation is to witness to something other than oneself.

Is There a Meaning in This Text? guides the student toward greater confidence in the authority, clarity, and relevance of Scripture, and a well-reasoned expectation to understand accurately the message of the Bible. Is There a Meaning in This Text? is a comprehensive and creative analysis of current debates over biblical hermeneutics that draws on interdisciplinary resources, all coordinated by Christian theology. It makes a significant contribution to biblical interpretation that will be of interest to readers in a number of fields. The intention of the book is to revitalize and enlarge the concept of author-oriented interpretation and to restore confidence that readers of the Bible can reach understanding. The result is a major challenge to the central assumptions of postmodern biblical scholarship and a constructive alternative proposal—an Augustinian hermeneutic—that reinvigorates the notion of biblical authority and finds a new exegetical practice that recognizes the importance of both the reader's situation and the literal sense.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Biblical Studies, Christianity, Christian, Religion, Scripture

512 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 1, 1998

About the author

Kevin J. Vanhoozer is currently Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. From 1990-98 he was Senior Lecturer in Theology and Religious Studies at New College, University of Edinburgh. Vanhoozer received a BA from Westmont College, an M.Div from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, England having studied under Nicholas Lash.

Reviews

[Kaitlyn Pindak · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this book is a must-read for all who desire to be pastors or deeply study and/or communicate theology, literature and, especially, scripture. Very foundational and formative for this area.

But there were times I struggled because it’s a denser, more heady text and some of it was over my head. But I definitely enjoyed parts too and learned a lot from this book.

A few favorite quotes towards the end:

“Humility is the virtue that constantly reminds interpreters that we can get it wrong. More positively, humility enables the reader to wait upon the text, to participate in the covenant of discourse, and, if need be, to empty oneself for the sake of the text...

In the NT, Jesus consistently teaches that it is the lowly and the meek who will inherit the earth. (Quotes Matt 11:25) In light of humanity’s utter dependence on God, humility is clearly the most honest and appropriate attitude- and the most fitting- to adopt...

Faith not only seeks understanding but often gets it.”

(Pgs 464-466)

[Jack Hayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing how much is in this book; like 5 books worth of information and advancement in hermeneutical thinking. Still as prescient today as it must have been a bomb when released.

Texts have meaning through authors, who are communicative agents and our ethical role is to listen well and witness to them. Accepting that unknowability is not the end and that literary knowledge is possible.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kevin Vanhoozer focuses on the metaphysical implications of “meaning.” His work surveys the collapse of foundationalisms, their postmodern alternatives, and his own speech-act hermeneutics that paves the way forward from the postmodern morass, albeit sympathetic to some of Jacques Derrida’s criticisms.

Risking some oversimplification, Vanhoozer sees the three eras as the Age of the Author (we can know the author’s meaning in a text), the Age of the Text (e.g., late Modernity; we can’t know the author’s psychological intentions, but we can find meaning by focusing on the structure of the text), and the Age of the Reader (there is no transcendent meaning in the text; we create meaning).

Vanhoozer characterizes postmoderns as either “Undoers” (Derrida, deconstruction) or “Users” (Rorty, pragmatism). Vanhoozer goes to great pains to understand postmodernism, even if he doesn’t affirm it. Derrida is correct there is no pure realm of meaning and presence of which we have hermetic access. All such knowings and readings are situated knowings and readings. But that doesn’t mean we can’t know. Derrida himself admits he is not a relativist. He simply says if all meanings are situated meanings and that there is no Transcendental Signifier, what privileges one reading over another?

Vanhoozer’s answer is along the lines of the Trinity. God is first and foremost a communicative agent. Being and Speech is not reduced to a monad. It is indeed deferred. There is differance (though not ontological difference) but not violence in the Trinity. His very being is a self-communicative act. Trinitarian hermeneutics affirms both the One and the Many. There is meaning and unity in the text, but arrived by a plurality of literary methods.

With Paul Ricouer Vanhoozer agrees that metaphor is not simply literary window-dressing. It has ontological significance. The goal of Matthew is not to get to Romans. Metaphors can actually “break” deconstruction: they are determinate enough to convey stable meaning without being exhaustively specifiable (130). With Derrida we agree that all language is ultimately metaphorical (and thus problematic for metaphysics). But with Ricoeur and against Derrida, we believe that metaphors are meaningful and do communicate truth, even if they don’t exhaust the truth.

Pros

This book is magnificent. I sing its praises. Aside from the brilliant crash course in continental philosophy, Vanhoozer introduces readers to speech-act philosophy. He has a sensitive reading of sola scriptura which nicely rebuts communitarian claims.

Cons

Many of the chapters were excessively long (several were 300+ endnotes).

[John Lundberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

This might be one of the most important books I've read to date, I'm pretty excited about it and thought it would be worth sharing a few thoughts.

Kevin Vanhoozer breaks his book into two parts: the first half is a survey of postmodern and deconstruction philosophers whose arguments center around the claim that humans are incapable of discovering truth or meaning through language. They then conclude that all truth claims must be deconstructed and exposed as false (deconstruction) or that meaning is created by the reader, since it cannot be discovered (postmodernism).

In the second half Vanhoozer proposes and thoroughly defends the view that an author's true intention can be discovered through interpretation and that we can adequately know what a text means.

This book has plenty of answers for common questions Christians can face today, like...
- If there is one correct meaning of a text, why have so many Christians disagreed over the course of church history?
- How can anyone discover an author's intended meaning with all of their cultural biases?

I'm over 25 years late reading this book (lol) but believe it has much to offer today. Postmodernism is the air we breathe, the church can't afford to not think about it.

Vanhoozer is humble, witty, and thorough in his writing, though this book is a GRIND to get through with all of the philosophy and metaphysics (and sources). I would still recommend it to anyone interested in interpretation and hermeneutics or aspiring to teach the Bible.

[Michi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Insightful, helpful, and at times beautiful.
The booked gave me a good grasp of what is at stake in the hermeneutical debates of the last 50 years. It also offers an interesting genuinely theological (viz. trinitarian) way forward.
But, it could have been way shorter.

[Taylor Rollo · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Bible is the Word of God. The Bible, the Scriptures, primarily teach us what man is to believe concerning God—His nature and His acts—and what duty God requires of man. The Westminster Confession of Faith says this in its first chapter:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word…. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary… for salvation are so clearly propounded… that not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Implicit in that confessional statement is the belief that there is meaning in the Bible, meaning that God intended and inspired, and that the meaning is accessible and understandable by man. Certainly, it is acknowledged that the illumination of the Spirit is necessary for a “saving understanding” of Scripture, however, that sill assumes that the text itself has meaning that man is meant to perceive. This conviction did not need to be specifically stated in the confession because it was simply understood by the Westminster divines to be a given.

Several centuries later, that conviction is no longer a given. Prominent postmodern literary and hermeneutic theory believes the exact opposite, i.e. meaning is relative to the encounter of the reader and the text. There is no meaning that is independent of our attempts to interpret anything—the text only reflects the reality of the reader. Nietzsche once said, “Ultimately, man finds in things nothing but what he himself has imported into them.” For postmodern philosophers this axiom not only holds true for written texts but for the world itself. Everything is a text, yet there is no inherent meaning in any text. Postmodernism, tersely stated, is “incredulity towards meaning.”

The Christian reader can easily see where this philosophy takes Biblical interpretation. Under these assumptions, Scripture has no inherent meaning, therefore meaning is not dependent on what God said but what the reader brings to the text. How can Christianity possibly function in this philosophical environment? Is there a meaning in the text, the Bible? As one can see by the title, that is the big question that Vanhoozer sets out to answer. Vanhoozer says, “the project for the present work: to articulate and defend the possibility, in the vale of the shadow of Derrida, that readers can legitimately and responsibly attain literary knowledge of the Bible.”

Vanhoozer takes on a difficult but necessary task in this work. He goes up against the postmodern “giants” of this age—Derrida, Rorty, Foucault, etc.—to show that there is a meaning in the text and that readers can get to it. In a charitable and extensive way, Vanhoozer exposes and brings to light the theological and philosophical foundations which undergird the present debate over meaning. He then produces a better literary theory that is inherently more plausible, coheres with Biblical truth, and shows that with humility and conviction interpretation can produce adequate (but not absolute) knowledge of the Bible.

The bulk of this work is divide into two large, well-organized sections—“Undoing Interpretation” and “Redoing Interpretation.” In each large section there are three chapters about the author, the text, and the reader, respectively. These three chapters form sectional parallels of “undoing” (attacks on the three elements) and “redoing” (resurrection of the three elements)—i.e. two parallels five, three parallels six, and four parallels seven. This is a formidable work to summarize, to say that least. Using Vanhoozer’s parallel framework, we will do our best to briefly state the key aspects of his argument, but no summary can do justice to the exhaustiveness of this work.

The First Parallel: In chapter two, Vanhoozer describes Postmodernism’s “case against the author.” It might surprise readers who are used to modernism presuppositions, but many postmodern literary theorists deny the author’s existence altogether. “How can someone get there?” one might ask. Vanhoozer shows how deconstructionists have followed Nietzsche in denying God’s existence. When one denies God’s existence, there is no foundation for believing that there is a mind-independent reality to which “true” descriptions must correspond. To put it another way, without God there is no metaphysical reality to which meaning can correspond, so meaning is not fixed for anything. So deconstructionists have denied the idea of a “fixed” meaning in texts; therefore identifying the “author” becomes difficult. “Who is the author?” becomes a metaphysical question that depends on the definition of “intention,” accessibility of intention, and whether a text’s meaning should be defined in terms of who wrote it or who reads it. “Why should the text’s meaning be defined in terms of the intention of the one who wrote it?” postmodern theorists ask. This is the result of the postmodern case against the author. In chapter five, Vanhoozer “resurrects” the author by challenging these philosophical assertions. He shows that the concept of “author” is really a theological issue. It is an issue dependent on the existence of God as a communicative agent who places the imago Dei in humanity, making them communicating agents as well. Therefore, the doctrines of God and creation are of paramount theological importance in the case for the author. In addition, by use of contemporary philosophies of common-sense realism and speech-act, Vanhoozer lays the groundwork for correlating the author’s intention and communicative action.

The Second Parallel: In chapter three, Vanhoozer tackles the postmodern problem with meaning itself. This is an epistemological problem about the nature and method of literary knowledge, i.e. interpretation. Postmodern philosophers ask questions about the nature of interpretive reality itself—“What methods, if any, enable us to gain knowledge of the text?” Are there criteria that can be used to judge one interpretation with respect to another and show its meaning? The postmodern deconstructionists answer, no. “There is nothing outside the text,” is Derrida’s most famous phrase. This brings hermeneutics to a state of complete relativism, killing the text and meaning. In chapter six, Vanhoozer “resurrects” the text and meaning. Since the problem is an epistemological problem, we need a solid epistemological foundation. Here Vanhoozer primarily builds on the foundation set by Plantinga in his famous work, Warrant and Proper Function. This (and the progress made in the first parallel) gives him the foundation to argue that there is meaning in the text—enacted communicative intention. He then goes on to discuss interpretation itself and argues that meaning can be adequately known by viewing the text as a communicative act, respecting the various levels from word definition to canonical setting. He holds that one should take the Bible literally, but this does not mean simply taking note of the locutions (dictionary definitions strung together), as many often do. One must consider the locutions and the illocutions (actions performed by saying something) of the author’s speech, i.e. the whole communicative act. He undergirds this with a Christological analogy—the person of Jesus cannot be reduced to His physical, visible humanity (just as the literal sense cannot be reduced to the locutions), but one must take into account His humanity and His divinity (just as the literal sense must take into account the whole communicative act). Through the process of using the literal sense as the interpretive norm and taking into account the various levels of the communicative act, the meaning of the text can be adequately known.

The Third Parallel: In this final parallel of chapters, Vanhoozer takes on the problem of the reader and the ethics of meaning (the problem in chapter four and his solution in chapter seven). Postmodern theorists now see the text as largely (or completely) inactive and the reader as active in the meaning of the text. Since, as described above, there is no “fixed” meaning, the reader takes part in the meaning. Some “conservative” theorists say the text draws the reader into participate in the elucidation of meaning. The “radical” theorists, like Derrida, give the reader complete reign. The reader being active, then, brings up the question of interpretive obligations? Is there an ethical or moral reader stance/constraint? Most postmodern theorists would answer, no. In chapter seven, Vanhoozer builds on his previous chapters and argues that communication requires regulation. He argues that the reader must normally understand the text, being a servant to the text and asking questions that it invites, but occasionally can “overstand” the text, acting as a lord and asking questions of it that it does not invite. One can only overstand, however, after one has sufficiently worked to understand and then only insofar as one aims to uncover the text’s significance, e.g. contemporary application. Into this discussion Vanhoozer brings the doctrine of the Spirit. He argues that ethical interpretation is a spiritual exercise that ultimately requires the Holy Spirit to be done rightly.

In his three sets of parallel chapters, Vanhoozer has engaged the postmodern critics and shown that the author can have communicative action and intent, that the text can be adequately understood, and that the reader has an ethical obligation in interpretation. In all this he uses Trinitarian theology as his foundation. In his final chapter, Vanhoozer describes what he calls the “hermeneutic of the cross.” He holds that there are two interpretative “deadly sins”: sloth and pride. Pride encourages us to think we have the correct meaning before we have adequately and ethically attempted to interpret the text. Sloth encourages us to think there is no meaning in the text and, therefore, should not attempt uncover any. The cross, however, gives both the hermeneutic of humility and conviction. In all his argumentation with postmodern critics, Vanhoozer has been charitable and also humbly accepted postmodern chastisement, when it is warranted. One of those is the danger of bringing our bias to the text and making our interpretation an idol, but humility reminds interpreters that we can get it wrong. Humility, however, must be balanced by conviction, or we end up treating the text like a postmodern critic. Vanhoozer summarizes, “While there may be more light on the Bible’s meaning to come, we have a firm enough grasp of the overall story line as to encourage boldness in our witness. Only such confidence, commitment, and conviction about what can be known can serve as the corrective to interpretive skepticism and sloth. The uncommitted interpretation is not worth hearing.”

One probably understands by now that Vanhoozer’s work is both compelling and demanding. His knowledge of the postmodern landscape is far-reaching and that is one of the greatest gifts of this work. He charitably, extensively, and readably works through the postmodern attacks on meaning and interpretation, showing the philosophical and theological issues with those philosophical theories. The engagement of the culture in which our preaching and theology exists is alone reason enough to read this book. His “redoing” of what Postmodernism has undone is, on the whole, exceptional as well. From a Trinitarian framework he builds a theological foundation for authorial intent, textual meaning, and ethical reader interpretation that is very helpful when engaging a postmodern world. Some may say it is too dependent on Christian theology, but we think that Vanhoozer is simply being faithful to his Reformed Presuppositionalism roots. Besides, if there is one thing that Postmodernism expects everyone to bring to the table, it is presuppositions.

Now comes the task of assessing any weaknesses of the work. We will give two that stood out while reading this work. First, we can hardly fault Vanhoozer for being charitable to the postmodern critics, for charity is a virtue that many of us lack. However, we do believe that he has given too much affirmation to Postmodernism. It is humble and wise to acknowledge certain postmodern correctives, but one cannot give away the proverbial farm when it comes to rationality. For example, Vanhoozer casts the Enlightenment as the ultimate example of rationality run rampant. However, rationality was integral to philosophical thought long before the Enlightenment, and was it not the coupling of rationality to human autonomy that gave rise to the central flaws of the Enlightenment? Second, Vanhoozer does not separate hermeneutics of Scripture from general hermeneutics but makes the former paradigmatic of the latter. Yet, one is not going to read Shakespeare and Paul in the same way, at least one should not. Does one really need a Christian theology to interpret Shakespeare’s intended meaning as one does with Paul? No. Vanhoozer would undoubtedly agree, however the emphasis on common ground downplays the differences between Scripture and all other texts. To emphasize the theological dimension of general hermeneutics seems to either raise human texts to a height they do not deserve or lower Scripture below is inspired right.

In conclusion, the two flaws mentioned above pale in comparison to the usefulness of this book as a whole for the case for Biblical meaning and interpretation, and we are overall very impressed with this book. It is not for the faint of heart, however. While readable, it is philosophically heavy and complex. It, of course, has to be given the subject matter of the book. We would not recommend this for the average Joe in the Church. We do think that pastors, theologians, and seminary students need to read this book. The cultural landscape that we preach and teach in is thoroughly entrenched in many of the presuppositions and ideals of Postmodernism that Vanhoozer describes. We need to learn to interact with those presuppositions, expose them to our people in understandable ways, and offer them a strong alternative so they can go to their Scriptures with humility, conviction, and confidence. In a postmodern world, our people need to be able to trust that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

[Nolan Butler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Challenging and inspiring! Vanhoozer is a genius. He shows how trinitarian theology and speech-acts theory counter postmodern interpretation and provide guidelines for a properly Christian hermeneutic. This book has helped me to read and obey the Bible better!

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

So first of all, this was a hard book to read so don't pick this up as a light read. Realistically, I could get through about five or six pages at a time while retaining comprehension (even at that pace you may choose to debate the point in my case). Warning aside, I learned a lot from this book.

Vanhoozer spends a large part of the first half helping readers understand the deconstructionist/non-realist philosophy toward meaning. While a lot of these issues have bumped around in my head, others have thought about them extensively and I enjoyed fleshing out some previously ephemeral thoughts. He follows this up by "resurrecting" the text and author, which had been deposed by the reader in non-realist thought. The underlying point was that texts represent a "speech-act" by the author. And while we admittedly lose the ability to perfectly understand the authors' meaning in light of the fluidity of language and our varying contexts through time/place/experience, we can know "enough" by carefully interpreting the text. Among the most helpful frameworks was differentiating between illocution and perlocution. Vanhoozer argues that we have an ethical responsibility to attempt to understand the illocution (what the author did when they wrote the text). An author might also have a desired perlocution (the effect a text has on the reader) but this is ultimately beyond the authors control. When post-modern reader claim that the meaning is whatever they see in the text they are confusing the two. I think Vanhoozer would say that just because the perlocutions of a text can vary infinitely, that does not excuse us from trying to see the "otherness" represented in the text; that is, trying to interpret what the author put there, not just seeing our own reflection in the text.

The last half of the book shifts toward reading the Bible specifically. There were some good points about different levels of interpretation that I thought were helpful. For example, reading a passage in the Bible and interpreting it within the context of that particular book, as part of that authors' broader set of books, and as part of the whole canon. I thought the term "thick description" as a definition for proper interpretation was interesting. I also found the section on metaphors fascinating. And finally, I appreciated that concluding call to interpret with both confidence that there is a meaning in the text which can be found with careful work (avoiding sloth), and humility that we can end up being wrong in how we interpret a text (avoiding pride).

My only real frustration with this book (other than my own inability to read it more quickly) was that it did not address a large leap in logic at the middle. The first half establishes that the authors' intended meaning can be interpreted, and then the second half talks about seeking to interpret the Bible as authored by God. Attributing authorship to God rather than man is clearly a hugely significant assumption as it relates to how we interpret the Bible and I was hoping Vanhoozer would have spent some time walking through that assumption. I suppose that is a big enough question to merit a separate book, but the two halves felt disjointed without addressing the step.

In conclusion, while I have considered metaphysical questions informally for a long time, this book is the first I've read that gave me a taste of the more formal discipline. I really enjoyed thinking about the role and function of language at the most basic level! The four star review reflects how hard this book was to read through, how much I think I learned, and the disjointed assumptions between the first and second sections.

[Jo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Summary: Jacques Derrida is like a dementor, Thanos, and The Cat In The Hat rolled into one, with his ability to unravel textual reality and his radical insistence on play in the absence of authority. But readers of the Bible (or anything else) should not despair, because the pursuit of adequate knowledge rests on a rational understanding of communication as action. Armed with humility, the Holy Spirit, and a sensitivity to genre, readers can enjoy the abundance available within the determinate meaning, which really is there in the text.

A few comments:
-Vanhoozer's writing can be like a verbal arabesque (for example: "doing things with words involves intersubjective linguistic conventions and individual intentions as well as literary inventions" or "a text is both a completed communicative project and a projectile...") which is delightful, but also sometimes hard to sort out.

-Because this is meant to be a textbook, Vanhoozer repeats, repeats, repeats concepts. It's very helpful for dull-witted people like myself, but on the other hand it can be hard to tell when he's adding something new to the argument.

-Vanhoozer is eminently quotable, but again this becomes a liability because one is tempted to spend too much time writing down beautifully expressed ideas.

[Nathan Douthit · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am highly recommending this to anyone interested in a philosophy of interpretation. It takes seriously the claims of deconstruction and postmodernism and discuss appropriate responses. It has been very helpful to me in my reading of scripture and discussion of all texts.

[Lucas Bradburn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ironically enough, this book was hard for me to understand!! What I did understand though was worth the time invested. Good treatment of hermeneutical issues. The last chapter was the most helpful.

[Cathy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a scholarly book, so ....not really for leisure reading (unless you're the type who reads Foucault or Habermas or Derrida for pleasure, in which case this book is right up your alley.) It takes effort to read and comprehend the book, but I am glad I did because the book communicated something very meaningful. Essentially the author is examining the postmodern view that meaning in texts is fluid and entirely constructed by the reader, who in turn are constructions of social forces/ideology. The author presents an alternative view, based on Christian theology, that 1) Readers have an obligation to humble themselves before the text, which is the author's speech act, out of respect and love for the author; 2) While it is difficult to understand the "exact" meaning the author tried to communicate, and we will probably never get there in this life because we are corrupted and the world is corrupted, God has created humans as communicative beings and allows us to achieve "adequate" understanding of the author's meaning, so we should have faith in that there is a meaning, and hope that we can achieve adequately understand it; 3) Meaning is multi-leveled, so interpretations made from different perspectives can complement each other rather than pressing for the reader to choose a "right" one as dogma. As a Christian who loves reading, I love that this book provides a framework, based on the trinity (God is creator/author, Jesus is the Word that becomes tangible to humanity, Spirit guides us into attending and following the author's meaning), on how to read books!

[Samuel Bierig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Better the second time I read it.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A profound and stimulating book. In part one, Vanhoozer demonstrates how postmodern philosophy destroys confidence in the author, text, and reader in what he calls the three ages of criticism. In part two, he returns to each of these areas (author, text, reader) to demonstrate how only Trinitarian theology can undergird the possibility of hermeneutics. Difficult reading at times, but only because of the breadth of material he covers. Vanhoozer is an excellent writer and gives an intellectual and theological tour de force here.

Also read in July 2017.

[Mayowa Adebiyi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Critically engages with almost everyone that has said something about reading. Complex but well worth the time

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential reading for any would be interpreters. Fantastic!

[Jeremy]

KV's title intentionally echoes Fish's Is There a Text in This Class?

[Andre Filho · Rating 5 out of 5]

The way is in the center. Neither to the left, nor to the right; trough the center.
In the darkness, we can't see where's the center. We need light(the word)
The problem is that more than light, we need our eyes to be opened in order that the light, instead of troubling our sleep, will show us the way. We need the Holy Spirit to do it for we are lazy sleepy people.
We need also to know the center in such a way that by looking to it and left and right, we'll be able to determine which is the center. Therefore we need wisdom. Christ is the way. Therefore, wisdom is knowing Christ. Not theorically, but personally. The amount we know him, is the amount we know the way.
More, we need to perceive the way but also trust that it's the right way and have passion to choose and walk through it. We need faith.
And finally, to be able to do all this... we need first of all to know and believe that there's a way instead of nothing or various ways. We need to accept that truth exists and it's attainable. In other ways, we need to be not fools, for only fools deny reality.
A book that completely changed my life. It talks about interpretation. But life is interpretation and therefore hermeneutics are not only for literature, but also for life. Interpretating right is living right.
I recommend it to anyone who has a good intelectual and theological background and want to go deep. The book is extremely dense and iconical, but worthy every page and second.

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 3 out of 5]

Is there a meaning in this text? est un traité d'herméneutique (science de l'interprétation) par Vanhoozer.

Le livre est décomposé en deux parties: dans la première, Vanhoozer décrit le paysage actuel de l'herméneutique et les théories postmodernes. La vision de Derrida et ses disciples est décrite avec beaucoup de soin. Dans la deuxième, il décrit avec soin son propre modèle de "discours-acte", qui permet de sauvegarder l'autorité du texte (biblique) tout en répondant aux objections post-modernes.

J'ai beaucoup aimé lire la première partie: elle est informative et nous permet de comprendre non seulement la théologie post-moderne, mais notre monde tout court: beaucoup d'idées et de slogans que nous voyons circuler sont basées sur les idées des philosophes post-modernes, c'est éclairant que d'avoir une explication. J'ai laissé de côté la deuxième partie, mais j'y reviendrais plus volontiers pour le jour où j'aurais besoin d'avoir un modèle herméneutique fouillé.

Ce n'est pas une lecture facile, mais ce n'est pas la faute de l'auteur: au contraire, il écrit plutôt clairement pour un sujet aussi compliqué. Toute personne qui cherche à savoir ce qu'il se passe avec la parole post-moderne sera éclairée par la première partie. Toute personne qui a besoin d'un modèle herméneutique à jour trouvera son bonheur dans la deuxième.

[Matt Pelto · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a fun book, but I believe it is an important book. The cynic in me wants to say that Dr. Vanhoozer spends nearly 500 pages explaining what is common sense, but when theories are popularized that undermine what has, until that point, been common, an explanation is necessary. In the first half of this book, Vanhoozer offers an even handed critique of the various strains of postmodernism, taking what it has to offer (namely, the rejection of absolute certainty in interpretation), and systematically rejecting the rest. He then spends the second half of the book presenting a positive hermeneutic based on a version a speech-act theory (which in this case, treats texts as actions complete with actors, intentions, effects, and objects). While most of this book will likely put into words what you may already sense is true, his assertion of the theological and trinitarian basis for communication is a major contribution of this work. However, I do agree with Dr. Poythress' assessment that Vanhoozer's case would be better made by further emphasizing the theological ground as opposed to mixing the theological and secular. I wouldn't necessarily recommend this for a general audience, but if you are dealing in epistemology and/or are in close contact with postmodernism, this will be an important tool.

[Gwilym Davies · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book that is so helpful in so many ways: easily worth 5 stars if it weren't for the fact that it is much harder work than I suspect it really needs to be. I think the thing that is maximally frustrating is the way Vanhoozer seems to write in bullet points: it's almost as though he plots a series of bullet points, and then develops each one into a mini essay, with the result that his argument is frustratingly less linear (and easy to follow, and interesting) than it ought to be. But the critical realist position he argues for is brilliant, there's so much to like in his application of it - brilliant on canon, literary speech acts, the ethics of listening, humility, genre, the otherness of the text, the literal sense, the author, and purpose. So a truly helpful book that would be even better if it were a little more accessible. As it is, I wonder if the essay on 'speech acts to scripture acts' in First Theology is worth about 80% of the value for approximately 20% of the effort...

[Ethan Hardin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exhausting, exhaustive, and worth every word. Readers beware. Vanhoozer masterfully dialogues with the most threatening philosophies to the biblical community, sees their redemptive value, and redirects their insights in an incredibly thorough dialogue with some of the world's most critical minds. You will become aware of the hubris of modernity, the rebuke of postmodernism, and the role of the reader in a way you may not be able to recover from. I wrestled with this book and walked away with Jacobean limp: an encounter that has changed me and that I won't soon forget. It is nourishment to the deep thinker and wisdom to the exegete. We must be reminded of the relationships involved in our task: ethical attentiveness to the author, the text, and fearfully, ourselves. Vanhoozer, thank you for modeling these with patience and grace. You are a breath of fresh air for those fatigued by the feud of grumpy modernity and its rebel child.

[Felicity Chen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe I’m just dumb but why were there so many words?? I think the point could have been made in half of the page count. Also it contained a weirdly high number of really violent metaphors which I lowkey think needs a trigger warning. So you are warned! I think the author could have been a poet because there was a huge number of random alliterations (so many. They make me irrationally angry😅. They were well done I just like those only in sermons, they irritate me in books like this). I’m not sure he knew the focal audience. He would explain what the 10 commandments were, but then turn around and quote things in different languages without a translation. And I think it’s supposed to be for lay people pastors? Idk. Anyway, lots of my dislike is probably due to me not enjoying reading philosophical books and this was that, so it’s probably just not a fit for me. You might love it!

[Bella Briška · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was such a long read! Uhh.
Although, I don’t agree with main thesis of this book and also some other of the author’s opinions, this was a well written and well researched book. I really respect how in-depth the author goes into the arguments of “the opposition” (represented mainly postmodernists). The language is clear and engaging - which is kind of a rare commodity in theoretical literature. Would recommend to those who are interested in hermeneutics and philosophy of language.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vanhoozer argues that hermeneutics is essentially theological. He learns from postmodernism while laying bare its shortcomings, ultimately echoing a basically Augustinian approach to interpretation. Four stars because as well written and profound as the work is, it could have been about 100 pages shorter without suffering - lots of repetition.

[Cole Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vanhoozer engages with hermeneutics on so many levels. Postmodernists feats and failures, speech acts, presuppositions and posture, literary versus literalistic meaning, ethics and aims, the list goes on. Definitely a book you come out of with your arms full and can go back for more. Highly recommend!

[Andrii Dutchak · Rating 5 out of 5]

Найкраще що я коли-небудь читав про текст, про тлумачення тексту і про герменевтику в цілому. І навіть більше, після цієї книги починаєш розуміти наскільки переплетені герменевтичні практики з нашим повсякденним існуванням, з наши розумінням навколишнього, з нашим спілкуванням. Велика книга. Рекомендую.

[Timothy Gatewood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tremendously helpful book. Pertinent for anyone interested in hermeneutics, worldview theory, or postmodernism. 4 out of 5 because of the sheer length – the book could be shortened a good bit without suffering.

[Andy Dollahite · Rating 4 out of 5]

An absolutely essential read for modern scriptural hermeneutics. I think there has been good pushback on some of KVH's conclusions or propositions, But this work is exceedingly valuable for engaging a world skeptical of meaning, particularly in the Book of books.

[John Rossitto · Rating 5 out of 5]

not a light text

This is not a casual book to read for one’s devotions. Author reviews and critics various view points and brings many different authors to the text. A problem for me is the desire to read some of the authors quoted.