Jump to content

Menu

Do you believe that books are intendend to only have one interpretation?


Recommended Posts

Ds is working on a simplified hermeneutics study of the Bible at church. I think they are just working on certain significant parts, as this is part of the Sr High youth group.

 

We were talking about it the other night and he commented that there is only one interpretation of Bible (or any literature for that matter) that is 100% correct, and that is the interpretation of the author. He was commenting that literature (counting the Bible as lit) isn't supposed to be personally interpreted by the reader, but the reader's responsibility is to try to discover the writer's interpretation of events within the words. FYI: He was not trying to say that he knows the correct interpretation, just that it exists.

 

What do you think of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good subject. The writer may or may not have only one interpretation but once the work is 'read' by another person there are now two views and at least two interpretations in the conversation. It is not possible to say that the reader's interpretation is any less valid once the work has left the author's hands.

 

ETA: But that is just my interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first reaction is that a book which has only one interpretation is not a very good book.:lol: I guess I just don't buy into author privilege very much. If there were only one correct reading why would anyone bother to keep discussing books? What is there to discuss once the "correct" interpretation has been arrived at? I can't accept this idea. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first reaction is that a book which has only one interpretation is not a very good book.:lol: I guess I just don't buy into author privilege very much. If there were only one correct reading why would anyone bother to keep discussing books? What is there to discuss once the "correct" interpretation has been arrived at? I can't accept this idea. :001_smile:

 

:iagree: Even when I write I leave some elements open. I always have a meaning in mind, but sometimes I'll read through it again and find something different pops out. I prefer stories (and hope to write that way) that have enough depth to be discussed on several levels and with several interpretations.

 

When reading other works much of interpretation depends on the perspective/experience I bring to the story, imo.

 

The bible, one interpretation? Yeah, that's been working well for the last 2,000 years. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is impossible for a quality piece of writing to have only one interpretation. Only the author would know if it is intended to have more than one. What the author intends is not necessarily going to matter once the work is in the reader's hands. The reader will react to the writing with their own thoughts and bring their own experiences to the writing as well.

 

I think some readers can go way too far reading into a work, seeing symbolism where it was not intended, superimposing the writer's life unto the work when in reality the work could have been sparked by someone else.

 

In my writer's group I submitted a poem about marriage from the bride's point of view many years down the line. It was amazing the responses I got. One person wrote me a long e mail about the beautiful relationship the poem celebrated. Another told me he would be so upset if his wife wrote that poem. Opinions were all over the place. There were many people who started making assumptions about my marriage. In reality the poem was inspired by something that happened to me, but by the time it was finished it really reflected many different experiences I've witnessed within marriages, not necessarily my own.

 

I was faced with having to decide whether to tell the group what the poem meant (my original intention) or letting it stand on its own. Since I was somewhat taken back by all the responses, I ended up letting it stand without coloring it with my own comments. I decided the fact that it would illicit so many different reactions meant that people really put themselves into the poem--as the reader should. Sometimes I wonder if I should have gone 'on the record'. BTW, I can see now why authors sometimes get annoyed by some interpretations of their writing.

 

As far as the Bible goes, it really depends on whether you are reading it as a Christian for spiritual guidance, or as literature. For the Christian, I think there are some things that are very clear and have only one interpretation. Then there are other verses meant to work with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which may lead one Christian to a different conclusion than a fellow Christian. I think God designed it to work that way because he made each of us different with different personalities, experiences and challenges in our lives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thoughts. :001_smile:

 

Along similar lines a Pastor friend of mine posted this on FB:

 

Until you learn how to read poetry (and think poetically) you will struggle reading the Hebrew prophets. Isaiah through Malachi is almost all Hebrew poetry.Poetry is not about "explaining" things -- that's what prose does. Poetry is about igniting imagination. Poetry is a lousy way of explaining things, but it is often the only way of communicating the deepest things. I remember Peter Hitchens saying that his brother, Christopher (the famous atheist), would never be persuaded to faith in Christ by argument, but possibly by poetry. Poetry offers an alternative take on reality, an option outside of the status quo; this is what the Hebrew prophets excelled at. But to read poetry as prose -- as prosaic "explanation" -- destroys the poetry and distorts the meaning. Poetry -- which is what most prophecy is -- speaks to a different part of the being than prose. Prose informs the intellect, poetry inspires the imagination.Trying to "understand" or "figure out" poetry can often be self-defeating. Sometimes it's more helpful to simply enter into the rhythm of poetry. It's why I haven't "read" the Psalms for years. Instead I chant the Psalms everyday. After all, the Psalms are poems and songs -- they are to be sung and chanted, not merely "read" in a modern prosaic way. The riches of the Psalms are found only as they are prayed, sung, and chanted. An entirely different part of your brain is activated when you sing or chant something, as opposed to when you read or say something.

 

 

Ds is working on a simplified hermeneutics study of the Bible at church. I think they are just working on certain significant parts, as this is part of the Sr High youth group.

 

We were talking about it the other night and he commented that there is only one interpretation of Bible (or any literature for that matter) that is 100% correct, and that is the interpretation of the author. He was commenting that literature (counting the Bible as lit) isn't supposed to be personally interpreted by the reader, but the reader's responsibility is to try to discover the writer's interpretation of events within the words. FYI: He was not trying to say that he knows the correct interpretation, just that it exists.

 

What do you think of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would make sense that the author knows best what he meant to communicate.

In the case of the Bible, there are obvious difficulties in determining the "one right" interpretation which is why there is much strife in Christendom.

I believe God speaks to all of us through scripture and, if we listen, we hear what he wants us to "hear." Obviously there are passages that are very clear and leave little room for various interpretations.

Edited by Liz CA
Clarify position
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how C.S. Lewis put it in his book An Experiment in Criticism...

 

A work of (whatever) art can be either "received" or "used." When we "receive" it we exert our senses and imagination and various other powers according to a pattern invented by the artist. When we "use" it we treat it as assistance for our own activities.

 

Using it would include developing a personal philosophy of life from a work, using it as a means to call up memories, etc.

 

I think a lot of time when people say they derive an interpretation from a book that differs from the author's intent they are doing the above. They are "using" the book.

 

I don't necessarily see that as bad, but I think one should recognize it for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Bible is the Word of God, so obviously there exists a correct interpretation.

 

That said, we are all humans and as St. Paul puts it, we see "through a glass, darkly". That is why there have been so many great theological debates over the millennia as to the correct interpretation of Scripture. We can pray that the Holy Spirit will guide us to the right one, but I don't think any of us can KNOW for 100% certain that we have found it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every text allows for a potentially infinite net of associations and connections (with other texts, other concepts, etc.). As one reads, one reduces that net to something tangible and understandable.

 

The point is not in "reconstruction" of the "original meaning" or "intent". That is a grade school understanding of literature - "what did the author want to communicate?". The solution cannot be in the "reconstruction", because an ideal reconstruction of the relationships and connections would be a 1:1 one (if you think of geographical maps, everything presented in its real proportions), which does not help. The point of a map is to reduce the relationships to something tangible. Every interpretation has to reduce, to a point. If everything were perfectly reconstructed (1:1), there would be no conclusions because they would be tautological ("It is so and so because it is so and so."). But the world is too complex, and the net of possible relationships is too complex for a human being to seize it. One cannot interpret but by reducing and selecting.

 

As regards Bible, it gets even more interesting. Bible speaks the human language, not divine. IOW, all of the categories with which it operates and which it uses, including the language itself, are ultimately insufficient. It is like trying to explain the color to a person blind from birth: "Well, it is a property of each physical object - but see, it is not really a property of the thing itself, but then again it is not an attribute either, more like, it is a property which 'exists' only at some times when the light reflects from it, and then with the light the things get this additional property, which is not a property such as a density or size, but something which appears as though it exists inside it, as thought it is it, but it is in fact only a function in some specific circumstances, yadda yadda yadda". See where it gets? The Bible is entirely like that. Whenever it speaks of God as merciful, the "merciful" is problematic because you can only capture it in categories known to you. What the heck does "merciful" mean. Especially in a being which does not change (does not "oscillate" between mercy and non-mercy), etc. IOW, it is not only the problem of extreme complexity of possible connections, but also the problem of trying to speak of something which is outside of any sphere of human conceptual understanding and/or any kind of experience.

 

So, there is no one "right" interpretation NOR is there a multitude of "right" ones. The only "right" thing is the thing itself, every interpretation is a reduction, and that "right" understanding is something a human being can never reach anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can agree that the author is the only one who knows the original, intended meaning of what he/she writes - but "The Bible" has many, many authors, not one (unless you're counting God as the author, rather than the individuals from a variety of time periods who actually set down the text)....

 

The word "interpretation," however, in one of it's definitions, means: "an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work." This requires a reader. It is the reader who interprets what they believe the author intended.... And that may include many variations.... The intent is not necessarily the same thing as the interpretation.

 

With respect to God authoring the Bible, I perceive many interpretations of the same piece of scripture over time - and so do most others I know who I've talked to about this. It is a different sort of creature than books written soley by human authors. I believe it is the Living Word of God and that it has the ability to speak to its readers to offer what they need when they seek anything from it: comfort, solace, inspiration, protection, etc., etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to write a lot of poetry. One poem I wrote with one meaning in mind, and when a friend read it, she interpreted it in an entirely different way, a way that I hadn't even seen. I had to admit that her interpretation was better (ie, fit the words chosen in the poem better) than mine! So, was I, as the author of the poem, wrong in my interpretation? :)

 

So, no, I do not agree that the author knows the only interpretation. I think that literature is something magical, and things can appear that were not planned or intended by the author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ds is working on a simplified hermeneutics study of the Bible at church. I think they are just working on certain significant parts, as this is part of the Sr High youth group.

 

We were talking about it the other night and he commented that there is only one interpretation of Bible (or any literature for that matter) that is 100% correct, and that is the interpretation of the author. He was commenting that literature (counting the Bible as lit) isn't supposed to be personally interpreted by the reader, but the reader's responsibility is to try to discover the writer's interpretation of events within the words. FYI: He was not trying to say that he knows the correct interpretation, just that it exists.

 

What do you think of this?

 

Well, I may be incorrect, but I think the opposite. :)

I think that (particularly the Bible) can be interpreted by different people at different times. I think that God is well aware of that, even though the writer at the time probably would not have been. Similar with other books - I've read the same book twice, about 3-4 years apart. The first time, it resonated with me in one way. The second time, in another.

That said, I do get where he is coming from on the writer's interpretation. But the writer could never probably comprehend the way that different people would interpret it personally. Does that make any sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answers to this are going to vary greatly depending on your theological position on scripture. If you believe it is inspired, inerrant, infallible, etc then you are likely to believe that there is one interpretation but various applications. Even the most conservative of scholars generally leave room for the fact that fallible man is limited in his ability to perfectly interpret the text.

 

If you hold a more liberal view of scripture and tend to see the Bible as a collection of stories and/or literature and similar to the writings of other religions or historical pieces then the idea of multiple interpretations would make the most sense.

 

What the instructor in a hermenuetics course teaches and is expecting from a student would differ greatly from one class to another based on the theology of the teacher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. And, from what I've read and studied, many Biblical scholars don't either.

 

I believe that inspired literature is organic, and is able and meant to be interpreted in context of the reader's current situation, history, and level of insight and need.

 

yes, this. :iagree: any well written thought provoking book opens a conversation between the reader and writer. The Bible is a particularly powerful example of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray Bradbury has always maintained that Fahrenheit 451 is primarily about the dumbing down of society thanks to TV, yet most people interpret it as a book about censorship.

 

We read this as a read-aloud when ds was about 11. We talked a lot about the value of the printed book, not much about censorship, but the TV part truly stuck with him. Before he'd watch TV just to have it on, afterward he quit watching TV, period. He is on the computer a lot, but he never gets into a show or its characters. I found the effect fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...