Problems of communication are often explained in terms of the inherent limitations of language. But this, of course, assumes that the mind’s thoughts are whole, complete, and comprehensive until they have the misfortune to issue into the cold nasty world in speech and writing. But this, of . . . . Continue Reading »
It’s a strange hermeneutical theory that doesn’t want to deal with words, but that’s the way many modern hermeneutical systems (beginning with Schleiermacher) work: The interpreter is trying to slip past the veil of language to the mind behind. Inky words on rag-and-wood-pulp . . . . Continue Reading »
Lundin suggests that “At the core of Hirsch’s appeal is a promise dear to American culture - that we can return to the innocent origins and begin history anew . . . . Hirsch wants a ‘ruthlessly critical process of validation’ to establish the facts of original intent and . . . . Continue Reading »
Roger Lundin comments on the ironies of evangelical support for ED Hirsch and its frequent suspicion, if not outright condemnation, of Gadamer: “There are manifold ironies to the conservative embrace of Hirsch and spurning of Gadamer. At their heart is the fact that Hirsch’s theory of . . . . Continue Reading »
Victor Zuckerkandl points out that Western music since the 17th century has been measured music, that is, music in which beats are organized into groups, into measures. This innovation in musical organization creates a complex rhythmic situation. At one level, there is a recognizable beat running . . . . Continue Reading »
Does beauty compel assent? It certainly seems to. Ought it? That’s trickier. If an explanation encompasses the data simply and elegantly and beautifully, does that make it a good explanation? Does that make it true? Are the “transcendentals” truly interchangeable? If the . . . . Continue Reading »
Can we say that Hosea had Jesus in mind when he wrote “out of Egypt I call My Son”? Does it matter whether he did or not? If not, does this mean we can do anything we like to texts, find in them whatever we care to bring? Historian David Steinmetz (in Ellen Davis and Richard Hays, ed., . . . . Continue Reading »
I read John 1:1, and I hear echoes of Genesis 1:1, and I begin to suspect that John wants to teach that the gospel story is a story of new creation. That conclusion does not rest simply on the phrase “in the beginning,” but that phrase is certainly a pointer in that direction. I read . . . . Continue Reading »
David Steinmetz finds Benjamin Jowett’s claim that Scripture’s “one meaning” is “the meaning which it had to the mind of the Prophet or Evangelist who first uttered or wrote, to the hearers or readers who first received it” to be “insufficiently historical, . . . . Continue Reading »
Words are not hard BBs of meaning. Nor are words like the atoms of ancient atomic theory - impermeable bits of matter. Words are like atoms as understood in modern physics, taking on new properties when they are in the vicinity of other words. Or, if you like, words are like your fickle friends who . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
