I want to be delicate in my analysis of
reader-response criticism because it has evidently been a sufficient criticism
to merit legitimacy over the years within largely liberal Christian circles and
the unbelieving community. However, as you will come to also see once this
chapter is complete, I fail to connect with the legitimacy of this particular
method of criticism of the Biblical texts. The thesis of this chapter is to
communicate why the reader-response theory fails to present any credible
objections to the historical reliability of the Biblical texts. Within my
critical analysis of reader-response criticism, I want to unveil the fallacious
reasoning that suggests the reader has the authority to unveil the true meaning
of the text rather than the author. This form of reasoning allows for
innumerable contradictions in the genuine understanding of the Biblical text
itself.
What is Reader-Response Criticism?
The
premise of reader-response criticism is revolved around how the reader responds
to the Biblical text and therefore has a predominant role in creating the
meaning of the text.[1] The content of the text is taken from the
literature by the individual reader for a singular interpretation that is
specific to the reader. Meaning, the interpretation is likely going to be
different for every reader under this theory. There are many aspects of this
reader-response criticism that ultimately affect the outcome of the
interpretation. These variants include prior literary or philosophical
presuppositions of the reader.1
There are different schools of thought under
reader-response criticism. Two prominent reader-response critics were named
Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser. Their approaches generally represent the
foundation in which reader-response criticism is based upon. Fish believed that
“it is the reader who ‘makes’ literature”.[2] He believed that the reader-response
criticism should primarily revolve around the act of reading rather than on the
history, biography, etc… of the text.1 Next, Iser held two
positions that define his approach to reader-response criticism. He held that
the meaning of a text is found in its content and that the meaning of the
content is a conjecture of the reader. Iser maintained that the author’s
intention should be considered but not without the intention of the reader
being combined with it.1
After this
brief summary of reader-response criticism, it must be acknowledged prior to
reviewing the objections that the most important thing about criticism is that
we assess whether the criticism effectively critiques the integrity of the
language, texts, and the subject of the Biblical texts.1 The
objections to this particular form of criticism should be understood in light
of this fact. You may have already developed some objections of your own to
this particular method of critiquing Biblical texts.
Objections
to Reader-Response Criticism
The
primary objection to reader-response criticism is grounded in the fact that the
reader ultimately determines the meaning of the text and not the author. Given
that being the case, the reader can ultimately undermine what the authorial
intent of the literature in order to fit his self-proclaimed meaning into the
text. While I can agree with the idea that text can be individually interpreted
in a multitude of different fashions, it would seem rather farfetched to insist
that the meaning actually derives from the readers’ perspective. To accurately critique
the Biblical texts, the fact is that reader-response criticism is certainly not
the most reliable method of doing so because it relies heavy upon the
presuppositions of the reader doing the interpreting. There are five
fundamental objections to reader-response criticism that highlight the drastic
limitations of reader-response criticism and ultimately expose why it could
never be effective at critiquing the Biblical texts.
The
first argument that can be brought against reader-response criticism would be
that the criticism brought against the Biblical text using this method are not
comprehensive.1 Meaning that this method is not the holistic
approach of the Biblical texts that is needed to come to an objective
conclusion on the historicity of the Biblical texts and the meanings of them.
This approach fails to provide the objective criticisms necessary to better
understand where the Biblical texts are allegedly weak in terms of its
historical reliability. Reader-response criticism cannot be a substitute for
any conventional method of reliable historical research and analysis.1
By the subjective nature of an individual response; this method cannot be taken
as a serious objection to the Biblical text.
The
second objection relates to the orientation of the Biblical scriptures and how
reader-response critics generally approach Biblical texts improperly. Many of these
critics fail to see that the Bible shouldn’t be classified as secular
literature. Many reader-response critics don’t interpret the Bible as a
historical source or a literary document. They are ultimately focused on what
the meaning of the text is in a contemporary setting rather than focusing on
the original circumstances and intent of the text at the time it was being
authored.1 While it should never be denied that the
circumstances between now and the time of Biblical authorship have greatly
changed, we should never change the meaning of the text to suit our situation
but rather interpret the text in its proper setting and understand the meaning as
it relates to our own modern-day lives.
The
third objection is closely related to the second objection as it relates to the
orientation of the Biblical texts itself. The second objection highlights how
the Biblical texts shouldn’t be classified as secular literature and how the
Bible has been reduced to fictional literature in the eyes of many
reader-response critics. That is why the third objection highlights the flaw in
their literary study of the Biblical texts. The flaw is that it approaches the
Biblical texts as if they were fictional literature.1 The
nature of the Biblical texts are full of meaning and powerful messages that
have the potential to dramatically affect our lives. We can even go so far as
to say that each one of us is affected differently by the message of the
Bible. However, the meaning of the text in
our hearts doesn’t truly change the meaning of the text itself. The study of
the meaning of the words in the text is different from the study of the
historical reliability of the text. When critiquing a work of literary fiction,
the reader isn’t considering whether or not what he is reading is absolute and
is freer to speculate and conjecture. The reality is that the foundation for
literary fiction is falsehood. Readers must never approach the Biblical texts
in a manner that is freer to easily dismiss the authorial intent and conjure
their own message because of an unwise assumption that the texts are fictional.
The
fourth objection to reader-response criticism is that the authorial intention
of the Biblical text is of minimal importance in the interpretation of the
texts.1 While it is true that the authorial intent isn’t
completely ignored from the criticism, it certainly is a peripheral priority of
the reader-response critic. Without placing priority on what the authorial
intent was, we submit that any possible interpretation of the text is equally
valid despite what the authorial intent was.[3] When discarding the authority of the author,
it is meaningless to assign a definitive meaning over it. Meaning would be
relative in reader-response theory because it is all contingent on how the
reader responds.
The
fifth objection to reader-response theory is that it fails to provide a secure
foundation for readers who actually strive to understand the true meaning of
the text.1 Reader-response criticism relies heavily upon the
creativity of the reader. However, as highlighted earlier, if the reader is
highly predisposed to have a preconceived agenda prior to interpreting the
literature or has already established concrete presuppositions of the material
he is critiquing, then the creativity can flow freely without the worry of having
to abide by set guidelines constituting reliable and accurate scholarship of
the texts.
Examples
of Reader-Response Criticism
Given
the five fundamental objections to reader-response criticism, it is fair to say
that the critics who advocate for this theory are not grounding their method of
critique in a critique that permits optimal understanding of the Biblical
texts. The reliability of this form of criticism is non-existent if you take
into consideration the very nature of the criticism itself. The criticism is
founded upon how one truly responds to the texts rather than placing priority
on the message that was being communicated at the time of authorship.
Now
that we’ve established the meaning of reader-response criticism and laid out
the basic objections of its reliability and effectiveness, it is important to see
how silly reader-response criticism would be in other parts of our daily lives.
This can be done by laying out illustrations of reader-response criticism in
order to fully appreciate the absurdity of the claims to understanding and
truth that it makes over the Biblical texts.
A
good modern day example of the ineffectiveness of reader-response criticism
would be how liberal scholars interpret the Constitution in a manner that wasn’t
intended by the framers of the document. We see these types of
misinterpretations done at the peril of the American population as well as the
government which was designed to uphold the basic principles of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those in governmental power are sworn into
office with the oath of upholding these documents. Those that consider the
Constitution to be living document interpret the Constitution in a manner that
suits their best interests at any point in time. This approach to the
Constitution has failed to honorably validate the original intention and
meaning of the Constitution. This is what we are seeing when we see the Bible
approached in exactly the same way. We acknowledge that historical documents
cannot be subject to reader-response theory because of the existence of an
objective and meaningful message that was being communicated at the time of
authorship and it would be completely unreliable to frivolously and
irresponsibly interpret a document of this nature merely on a response to the
text. Reader-response criticism doesn’t work for the Constitution nor does it
work for the Bible.
The
Bible has meaningful messages to convey. The written text was authored the way
it was for an objective reason. When I verbally communicate with my friends or
colleagues, I have a definitive message that I am trying to convey. When I
proclaim to my wife that “I’m going to the store”, I don’t imagine she would
interpret the meaning of my statement to mean that I’m taking a plane to the
other side of the country. However, under the principles of reader-response
criticism, the possibility wouldn’t necessary be invalid as it is primarily
contingent on the reader’s (listener in this case) response to my declarative
statement. This is clearly an extreme example of the insufficiency of
reader-response criticism, but I think it is illustrative to how bizarre of a
method it truly is. The idea that the reader is in control of the meaning of
author’s message is delusional.
Conclusion
The
merits of any document are to be found upon a thorough investigation of the
document itself. We must evaluate the historical basis for the text, textual
framework of the text, genre, audience, context, author, geographic location,
etc… These are essential components of understanding the true meaning of the
text as it was originally written. Once we can delve deep enough into the text
to properly understand what the text was trying to convey, then it is possible
to interpret the text in terms of its genuine meaning.
The
reality is that we will never fully agree on the meaning of all texts. The many
denominations of Christianity should give us an indication as to the complexity
of these texts when it comes to its meaning. If every Christian thought the
texts conveyed an identical meaning, there would be only one denomination.
However, among all the denominations, the overall message of the New Testament
literature is overwhelmingly clear; Jesus Christ died for our sins and was resurrected
on the third day. This is the basis for our Christian faith and it must never
be compromised by irresponsible methods of critique such as reader-response
criticism.
Ultimately,
the Christian message cannot be masked by those who seek to find an alternative
meaning based upon naturalistic presuppositions. Those that try haven’t found a
sound basis for their foundational presuppositions that guides them throughout
their studies. Unfortunately, their naturalistic presuppositions will lead them
to their demise if they fail to acknowledge the fault in their own reasoning
and acknowledge the true message of Christ.
Some
may say that Christians are doing the same thing towards these texts but with
theistic presuppositions. I can wholeheartedly and proudly admit that I have
theistic presuppositions, however Christians must answer the challenge posed in
Peter 3:15 that states, “But
in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to
everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do
this with gentleness and respect.” Our understanding of our own doctrines is an
essential factor when communicating with those that feel that reader-response
criticism is capable of exploiting the alleged fallacies in the Biblical texts.
In
all honestly, I do not fully comprehend how this form of criticism is worthy of
any credible merit in any realm of scholarship. Unfortunately, those that are
convinced that our own cognitive devices are capable of performing such extreme
feats of Biblical interpretation on the foundation of a mere response have made
this article a necessary one. I would love to say that most people should know
better but apparently it is easier to read and respond than to read, study,
read, study, and then respond after a sufficient familiarity of the text has
been adequately established.
In
closing, I’d wish to fully provoke your curiosity in understanding what it
truly means to assign relative meaning to the Biblical texts. Under
reader-response criticism, any possible interpretation would be acceptable
without argument. Now think about what it means to have a Bible that has
communicated a definitive message that the Lord has divinely provided. I think
I’m going to place my trust in God’s Word rather than allow my trust to be dismayed
by those who claim authority over it and interpret it at their own will at
their own peril.
John 14:6 – “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
to the Father except through me"
[1] Steven
L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. To
Each Its Own Meaning (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press)
[2] Stanley
Fish. Is There a Text in This Class?
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press)
[3] Robert
Stein. A Basic Guide to Interpreting the
Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group)
No comments:
Post a Comment