Charles Lock comments, “Linearity of reading is the fundamental principle by which the text is established in modernity as a text. That is to say, when we read a text we do not see an image: the type and size of font, the disposition of words on the page, the very look of the page, are . . . . Continue Reading »
In a penetrating article on de doctrina Christiana , Rowan Williams points out that the grotesqueness and strangeness of the Bible is a “prophylactic against fastidiousness,” particularly the fastidiousness that assumes we have “nothing to learn from what startles or offends our . . . . Continue Reading »
In The Historical Austen , William Galperin notes that Austen understood that certain kinds of realistic art or aesthetics could naturalize and “realize” what is really only an ideological construct. And he notes the somewhat surprising political ramifications of such aesthetic . . . . Continue Reading »
Some decades ago, James Barr criticized biblical scholars for a fallacy he labeled “illegitimate totality transfer.” By this phrase, Barr was referring to the habit of some biblical scholars to pack every possible meaning of a word into every context. Lane Keister’s ongoing . . . . Continue Reading »
Early in the Summa theologiae , Thomas defends the fourfold interpretation of the Old Testament Scripture by saying that the words of Scripture refer univocally to things, and that God providentially uses those things to signify later things. In this, he was anticipated by Hugh of St. Victor. In . . . . Continue Reading »
Calvin is harsher on allegorical interpretation than almost anyone, yet he is all in favor of typology. David, Zedekiah, Joseph, Aaron, Samson, Joshua, Zerubbabel, Cyrus and others are types of Christ. It is no easy task to discover where he draws the line between allegory and typology, though. At . . . . Continue Reading »
If the fathers have already explained the Scriptures, Andrew of St. Victor asked, why do I need to? He answered that truth dwells “deep” and “screens herself from mortal sight.” There is always more truth to dig up because truth “hides, yet so as never wholly to be . . . . Continue Reading »
One Rhonda Wauhkonen discusses Nicholas of Lyra’s “Hebraic” semiotics and hermeneutics in a 1992 article on Chaucer. She begins by contrasting Augustine’s signum/res distinction to Lyra’s Hebraic viewpoint: “In the Hebrew system as evidenced in Scripture and as . . . . Continue Reading »
Nicholas of Lyra is known for his notion of a “double literal” sense to Scripture. For him, interpretation ad litteram includes both the historical and the doctrinal/christological senses, and he suggests that the ancient Hebrews could well have seen the Messianic sense as the literal . . . . Continue Reading »
Does the intention of the author determine the sense? There are problems with saying Yes, particularly when “intention” is assumed to be the mental state of the author, which is unrecoverable. There are also problems with saying No, because that seems to introduce (as ED Hirsch argues) . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
