A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
*The following is copyright 2007 by Nathan J. Barnes, all rights reserved.*
The epistemology that I derive from the best of Gadamer and Schleiermacher follows, formulated with special attention to the unique problems I face as an interpreter of the New Testament and early Christian writings. In a moment of genius, a human being (our original author) has a thought which is a lived experience in their mind. This thought is immediately formulated by that persons mind into language as Heidegger proved. However, as Gadamer argues, language is de facto an inadequate medium of exactly signifying the lived experience of a thought, even though the thought comes out of language. It is precisely here that metaphysics come into play: the description of the experience in the mind and how thoughts become language and language acts as a signifier of them are safely within this category of philosophy.[FONT="][1]http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#_ftn1 The significance of the process of the formation of thought preceeding from language (creation and transmission of thought) is that it requires that understanding (the reception of thought) is not scientific (and therefore defies the use of scientific methods) but ontological. As Gadamer argues, the process of creating and understanding defies all logical and scientific explanation, and must be understood and practiced as a philosophical art. [/FONT]
In order to communicate this thought to other human beings s/he writes the chosen language in which their thought is emodied in order to share their thought(s) or dictates it to another human being, and the thought is recorded via language in a text. The meaning of the text therefore is the content of the thought, the lived experience of the author encased by language.[FONT="][2]http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#_ftn2 The truth of the text is its meaning. This understanding does allow the reader to recreate in their minds - to some extent - the original authors experience, inasmuch as that experience was competently and effectively translated by the author into understandable language. [/FONT]
Every aspect of my role as a modern reader is inter-connected and circular, continually refined by further studies. Nevertheless, I do understand priorities in the various critical methods that I use. My first task is to isolate the text which most likely was written by a particular author. Then, I attempt to isolate the language of the author in its historical contexts, which may be used to strengthen text-critical choices and vice-versa. I need to shape my prejudices to match as closely as possible those of an ancient person so I can read it as close to they would as possible. Gadamer calls this process stepping out of oneself -- and afterwards, coming back to oneself with knowledge.
The phrase historical contexts is intentionally broad and includes a host of very complex problems that must be addressed by an interpreter of ancient texts. The original author and readers were at least somewhat familiar with the contemporary functions of multiple aspects of the text. The educated author and audience knew something of the contemporary rhetoric, meanings of words, and ideas or movements which the author was implicitly or explicitly opposing or supporting. This knowledge enabled the original author to communicate his message effectively to his readers, and his readers to understand clearly the truth of its content. All of these elements are de facto unknown to modern readers unless we search for them and discover them in the ancient past by using a variety of historical critical methods.
[FONT="]My primary goal is to derive original meaning from the text: to best understand the content that the original language signifies. I do want to do more than simply extract dead meaning from the text. The text must contain some meaning, some content, some truth for contemporary readers. Otherwise, continuing to read this text is meaningless. It is here that I can situate Christian theology. Since the New Testament and early Christian writings have ongoing contemporary significance, I consider it my responsibility to consider various other meanings which may or may not be signified in either the original language or my own reconstruction.
[/FONT][FONT="][1]http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#_ftnref1 James Risser has a useful summation of the relationship of meaning to words in Greek metaphysics as opposed to Gadamers metaphysics, Hermeneutics and the Voice of the Other (New York: State of NYU Press, 1997), 163-6.[/FONT]
[FONT="][2]http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#_ftnref2 Here I am taking sides in the metaphysical debate concerning the relationship between meaning and words. The author chooses words that best fit their thought, which may or may not be expressible in available words, which is why authors can create neologisms to better express their thoughts. Therefore, words are attributed meanings which signify thoughts rather than vice versa.[/FONT]
The epistemology that I derive from the best of Gadamer and Schleiermacher follows, formulated with special attention to the unique problems I face as an interpreter of the New Testament and early Christian writings. In a moment of genius, a human being (our original author) has a thought which is a lived experience in their mind. This thought is immediately formulated by that persons mind into language as Heidegger proved. However, as Gadamer argues, language is de facto an inadequate medium of exactly signifying the lived experience of a thought, even though the thought comes out of language. It is precisely here that metaphysics come into play: the description of the experience in the mind and how thoughts become language and language acts as a signifier of them are safely within this category of philosophy.[FONT="][1]http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#_ftn1 The significance of the process of the formation of thought preceeding from language (creation and transmission of thought) is that it requires that understanding (the reception of thought) is not scientific (and therefore defies the use of scientific methods) but ontological. As Gadamer argues, the process of creating and understanding defies all logical and scientific explanation, and must be understood and practiced as a philosophical art. [/FONT]
In order to communicate this thought to other human beings s/he writes the chosen language in which their thought is emodied in order to share their thought(s) or dictates it to another human being, and the thought is recorded via language in a text. The meaning of the text therefore is the content of the thought, the lived experience of the author encased by language.[FONT="][2]http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#_ftn2 The truth of the text is its meaning. This understanding does allow the reader to recreate in their minds - to some extent - the original authors experience, inasmuch as that experience was competently and effectively translated by the author into understandable language. [/FONT]
Every aspect of my role as a modern reader is inter-connected and circular, continually refined by further studies. Nevertheless, I do understand priorities in the various critical methods that I use. My first task is to isolate the text which most likely was written by a particular author. Then, I attempt to isolate the language of the author in its historical contexts, which may be used to strengthen text-critical choices and vice-versa. I need to shape my prejudices to match as closely as possible those of an ancient person so I can read it as close to they would as possible. Gadamer calls this process stepping out of oneself -- and afterwards, coming back to oneself with knowledge.
The phrase historical contexts is intentionally broad and includes a host of very complex problems that must be addressed by an interpreter of ancient texts. The original author and readers were at least somewhat familiar with the contemporary functions of multiple aspects of the text. The educated author and audience knew something of the contemporary rhetoric, meanings of words, and ideas or movements which the author was implicitly or explicitly opposing or supporting. This knowledge enabled the original author to communicate his message effectively to his readers, and his readers to understand clearly the truth of its content. All of these elements are de facto unknown to modern readers unless we search for them and discover them in the ancient past by using a variety of historical critical methods.
[FONT="]My primary goal is to derive original meaning from the text: to best understand the content that the original language signifies. I do want to do more than simply extract dead meaning from the text. The text must contain some meaning, some content, some truth for contemporary readers. Otherwise, continuing to read this text is meaningless. It is here that I can situate Christian theology. Since the New Testament and early Christian writings have ongoing contemporary significance, I consider it my responsibility to consider various other meanings which may or may not be signified in either the original language or my own reconstruction.
[/FONT][FONT="][1]http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#_ftnref1 James Risser has a useful summation of the relationship of meaning to words in Greek metaphysics as opposed to Gadamers metaphysics, Hermeneutics and the Voice of the Other (New York: State of NYU Press, 1997), 163-6.[/FONT]
[FONT="][2]http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/#_ftnref2 Here I am taking sides in the metaphysical debate concerning the relationship between meaning and words. The author chooses words that best fit their thought, which may or may not be expressible in available words, which is why authors can create neologisms to better express their thoughts. Therefore, words are attributed meanings which signify thoughts rather than vice versa.[/FONT]
