style="font-size:15px;"> We are dealing here with what I have chosen to call the problem of getting from there to here: how to move from the message of the Bible in the time it was given to its message for today. In many ways, I think the issue of contemporizing the biblical message is possibly the single most important issue facing evangelical hermeneutics today.341
Similarly, Vanhoozer observes that the problem that has dominated scholars’ attention in modern biblical studies is “how to overcome the cultural and historical distance that separates present-day readers from the original situation of the authors.”342 Osborne suggests that “the problem of interpretation begins and ends with the presence of the reader.”343 Childs argues that one key issue arising from such consideration is whether the bible can be anything more than an expression of a time-conditioned culture—whether any ancient text, for that matter, can have determinate meaning for the present.344
These comments from biblical scholars mirror concerns among those in philosophical hermeneutics. Both have come to appreciate the relationship in terms of a dialogue between the past and present, between author/text and reader—using the concept of the hermeneutical circle or spiral. This two-way interaction is preferred over the predominant one-way emphasis of earlier Enlightenment interpretation. Gadamer stresses openness as being essential in the I-thou relationship present in this dialogue.345 In fact, he sums up this major thread in his body of work by stating, “It is the Other who breaks into my ego-centeredness and gives me something to understand. This . . . motif has guided me from the beginning.”346 The interpreter must take caution and be willing to listen to the author/text (other) in the dialogue, without the goal of either horizon winning.347 For Gadamer, tradition is one main bridge which spans the historical gap,348 facilitating the fusion of horizons. One implication of this is that meaning is a fluid and ever-evolving entity, as readers from subsequent historical contexts dialogue with the text. Hence, Palmer argues that “meaning is not an objective, eternal idea but something that arises in relationship.”349 Moreover, meaning always transcends the intent of the original author.350 Consequently, Gadamer can say “the artist who creates something is not the ideal interpreter of it.”351 Meaning cannot be reduced down to merely authorial intent or merely seeking to reproduce that intent in one’s interpretation.352 However, most evangelicals, even if sympathetic to Gadamer’s notion of dialogue, have shied away from certain postmodern conclusions based on it. To be fair, even Gadamer and many who follow him still claim to hold onto a form of hermeneutical stability and deny mere relativism.353 Yet, the question remains, how?
For others, these assertions are unacceptable, as they provide a slippery slope toward rank relativism. According to Hirsch, unchanging meaning is to be isolated within the original author’s intent, while significance is what is in relation to the reader(s) and spans the historical gap.354 It is not the meaning of a text which actually spans the gap, but rather the significance of that meaning. As Hirsch construes it, the hermeneutical problem ultimately does not include the need to span historical distance, but rather is the search for the verbal meaning intended by the author.355 Hirsch provides an antithetical alternative to Gadamer’s view of application (what Hirsch calls significance). According to Gadamer, our understanding of a text is tied to the questions we bring to it, which are never identical to those of the original author. Understanding a text entails seeing how it applies to the situation and questions of the reader. Understanding always involves application.356
It would seem that the dilemma facing contemporary evangelical hermeneutics is a choice between two conflicting alternatives. First, in light of the complexity of historical distance and its relation to meaning highlighted in philosophical hermeneutics, evangelicals can follow Gadamer. But in order to do so, important questions must be addressed. For example, how should we conceive of the meaning of a text going beyond its author biblically, as opposed to meaning in general? Moreover, can interpretation be biblically conceived of as including both the element of production and reproduction? If meaning and application are not to be separated, how should we conceive of the relationship between original and modern meaning?
Second, in light of the dangers of relativism implied by Gadamer, evangelicals can follow the way of Hirsch. Yet again, one must address important questions. How should we define objective meaning and where is it ultimately grounded? How do we access it accurately if separated from it by historical distance? Moreover, in the case of biblical interpretation, can one understand the meaning of a text if one does not know how to apply it? Does not application presuppose meaning and vice-versa?357 More importantly, do the nature of the Bible and its own interpretation of itself match either of the two alternative paths with regard to these issues?
Where is Meaning to be Found?
Fourth, as Vanhoozer points out, there has been an identifiable shift in focus regarding where meaning is to be found in interpretation. He describes the shift in terms of the “three ages of criticism.” This threefold division parallels the threefold division found in philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.358 Although Vanhoozer treats these as separate chronological periods (at least in terms of pedagogical expediency), we prefer to treat them as emphases to avoid overgeneralization and to acknowledge the presence of each at various points throughout the history of the church.359 First, meaning is sought in the intent of the author (either human or divine). Second, meaning is sought in the text. Third, meaning is sought in the reader. Incidentally, there has also been debate regarding which of the three predominately functions to bridge the historical gap mentioned above.360 In terms of our focus on contemporary hermeneutics, the latter two have received the most attention. However, all three can be generally detected among the key figures present in the discussion. For example, Hirsch emphasizes the human author;361 Ricoeur seeks meaning in the text; and Gadamer focuses on the reader (and the reader’s dialogue with the author/text).362 It must be noted that neither Gadamer nor Ricoeur deny that an author exists or has relevance, but they do affirm that meaning escapes the limits of the author and that the author cannot provide a determinate object.363 This shift in emphasis has clearly widened the scope in defining hermeneutics to include more nuanced consideration of both, the text and the reader.
It is important to note that for each one of these emphases, deeper questions need to be raised. For instance, what is an author or an intention? The same question could be asked concerning a text and so on. The point is that even the most basic components of written communication, which are often taken for granted, involve deeper presuppositions concerning metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Indeed, the question of where meaning is to be found is ultimately a theological question, as it relates to the meaning of life and humanity.364 How one answers these questions depends on what is assumed about the nature of reality, how that reality is known or cannot be known, and whether one has a responsibility in how they understand that reality. In each case, we are confronted with the question of whether there is meaning beyond the human author, text, and human reader. Is there prior meaning to be found and understood in a text or is it dependent upon the reader to create or supply meaning?
Vanhoozer has argued that the particular character of this shift in focus is evident in what he calls the “aesthetic turn.” This turn is rooted in Kant’s fundamental dualism between the realms of freedom and nature, but more explicitly emerging in the twentieth century.365 Various movements have been identified with this shift, most notably: New Criticism, structuralism, and post-structuralism. Even Heidegger’s own shift between his earlier and later work, it has been argued,366 exhibits a microcosm of this turn.367 In biblical hermeneutics, the turn can be detected in some forms of Narrative Theology and literary criticism.368 In short, a text is seen as essentially cut off from its author in terms of meaning and historical context.369 This spirit of aestheticism includes “the idea that the realm of art is autonomous and self-sufficient, not susceptible to non-aesthetic standards, rules, or criteria.”370 The practical effect is the concept of an autonomous text, which takes on a meaning of its own, apart from its author.371 However, the shift does not stop with an autonomous text, but has spawned the concept of an autonomous reader. This is seen most clearly in certain forms of reader-response hermeneutics.372 It may be noted that postmodern deconstructionism aims to overthrow meanings rather than to create
