Customer Reviews: Read 3 more reviews...
 Essential Read for the Biblical Interpreter in the Postmodern Age October 18, 2008
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.
 Disappointing August 17, 2008
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
Vanhoozer is atypical among evangelicals for his willingness to critically engage the likes of Derrida, Fish, and Foucault. For that, he deserves praise. He is unfortunately all too typical of evangelicals, however, in his reactionary, alarmist response to these thinkers. One of his central arguments is that if meaning doesn't inhere in texts, people can make them say whatever they want and that would be very unfortunate indeed (it would result in interpretive anarchy). Therefore, meaning inheres in texts. Apparently, for Vanhoozer, the fact that something is unfortunate is sufficient to make it also untrue. Allow me to apply Vanhoozer's reasoning in another area: Statement-"Your grandmother died"; Response-"If my grandmother died, that would be very unfortunate"; Conclusion-"Therefore, my grandmother did not die." This is obviously fallacious reasoning, but it is the reasoning central to Vanhoozer's rejection on contemporary literary theories of textual meaning (he has other arguments, of course--this is just an example, but it demonstrates the ethos of the book). (I would fault this argument on other grounds; socialization, location in an interpretive tradition, and orthodox doctrine are all factors that dramatically contrain the range of plausible interpretations without the need to locate meaning in the text itself). Vanhoozer offers similar arguments throughout the book, although he finally concludes by simply stating that the falseness of literary theory can be deduced from his understanding of the trinity. After convincing you in the first half of the claims of contemporary literary theory, he tells you in the second that if you're a true Christian, you can't believe in it.
Books like this will continue to reinforce the "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" that Mark Noll documented in his masterful book. Evangelicals currently have little if any impact on the academic community outside their own subculture, largely due to their unwillingness to seriously engage and make their beliefs intelligible in light of the best philosophy and science of the day. Books like this are the prime reason why. Evangelicalism is so reactionary, so homogenous, so quick to shoot down anything (or anyone) who is unfamiliar or challenging (witness D.A. Caron's book on the emergent church) that it inevitably results in an environment that efficiently expells all independent thinkers (who usually become intellectual leaders) and either drives them away from the faith or to negative manifestations of it. Vanhoozer's book will only aid and abet the tendency of many (Caron, Dobson, etc.) within the subculture to cloak their own agency behind "the text itself" or a "method" and thus, pass of their own opinions about particular issues as "God's opinion" about those issues. If you're looking for a nuanced Christian engagement with literary theory, I'd highly recommend looking elsewhere: nearly all of James K.A. Smith's books (esp. Fall of Interpretation), Dale B. Martin's Sex and the Single Savior, any book on the history of biblical interpretation (including discussions of the matter by Mark Noll in his books).
 Excellent analysis of contemporary positions, but... October 26, 2007
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
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.
Narrow September 23, 2007
10 out of 18 found this review helpful
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.
enlightening February 25, 2007
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
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.
|
