In an excellent paper Watt, James W, 2022, "Leviticus 25's History of Inspiring Freedom as a Moral Challenge to Literary-Historical Interpretation", Biblical Interpretation, p18-19, Watt makes the following observation:
"When interpreters recommend one meaning over others, their recommendation can only be defended by reference to these interpreters’ own cultural contexts and the audiences that they address. In other words, there is no “real” or “original” meaning of a text. There are, however, “better” and “worse” meanings, and these value judgments must be justified on the basis of the entire range of culturally relevant values, including moral relevance and contemporary social impact as well as philological accuracy, literary context, historical plausibility, and traditional significance." (my emphasis).
I would strongly nuance this as follows.
God, the omniscient author, intended HIS word to be multivalent. In that sense only do I agree with the sentiment expressed here that there is no single meaning in the text. The guidelines that follow are very pertinent but, within these constraints and a necessary humility recognising our own frailty and limits, we are guided by the God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, in the interpretation of God's word for this day. Always recognising both that we err and that as our circumstances change, so God will bring out new things from HIS Word for us to see.
No comments:
Post a Comment