A recent review of my John commentary in the BECNT series (Baker, 2004) in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48/3 (September 2005): 647–50 has this to say about my hermeneutical method:
“However, Köstenberger appears to be skeptical toward interpretations that may suggest a layer of meaning beyond the historical. In other words, while Köstenberger allows for an “echo” of Christ’s sacrifical death in the narration of his footwashing (Christ “laid down” and “took up” his clothes in John 13:4, 12, p. 404), he is characteristically hesitant to embrace more large-scale “echoes” seen by scholars who have come to appreciate the literary artistry of the Fourth Gospel (whether intended by the author or not [!]). For example, in regard to Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1–42), Köstenberger acknowledges but dismisses the possibility that on a secondary level, the story can function as a romantic picture of Yahweh’s wooing back to himself wayward Samaritans (p. 142n, p. 153n). Several elements in the story contribute to this reading: (a) Jesus is called a bridegroom in the pericope immediately preceding this incident (John 3:29); (b) the well (v. 6), Jesus’ request for a drink (v. 7), and the reference to food afterward (v. 32) frames [sic] the story as a betrothal type-scene (Gen 24:1–61; 29:1–20; Exod 2:15b–21); (c) the Samaritan woman is depicted as sexually wayward, with five husbands, much like the Samaritans who prostituted themselves with the gods of five nations (2 Kgs 17:24, 30–31); and (d) the story ends with a reunion—the Samaritans embrace the bridegroom (vv. 39–42). Köstenberger’s stated hermeneutical approach would consider a symbolic reading valid only if it were clearly within the intention of the original author. His commentary understandably omits extensive discussion of this reading because John’s interest is primarily about Jesus’ life and not about Samaritan reconciliation.
“However, literary studies have long recognized that symbolism is by its very nature open-ended and that it is satisfying to reflect upon multiple meanings beyond those intended by the original author. I personally do not believe John the author wished to picture Jesus and the Samaritan woman as romantic symbols, but when I first came across this proposed reading I enjoyed the process of contemplating it. In fact, in some ways it led me to a deeper appreciation of Yahweh as lover. Students who seek a commentary that summarizes all that literary studies into the Fourth Gospel have to offer deserve to have their imaginations and aesthetic impulses fully engaged. I would guess that would mean devoting space to forays, explorations, and even speculations into the Fourth Gospel’s literary artistry, in addition to the more solidly objective work of historical reconstruction and theological formulation.”
Does this reviewer have a point? I would love for you who are reading this to comment. I plan to join the discussion in my next blog after hearing from you.
Technorati Tags: Bible, reader-response, authorial intent, Gospel of John
By the way, I really appreciate your John commentary, and have found it a worthy updating to your mentor’s commentary.
It seems that his point is that you are not imaginative enough. Reading between the lines, however, (and it seems one has to do that with this review!) he is really critizing you for not being post-modern in how you approach the text. Why should we, for instance, thrill in the discovery of something that we will not wind up espousing? He wants you to be more open-ended. “Less exegetical” is how I read “open-ended.” To me, exegesis has to come to conclusions. Cranfield is an excellent model here. He lists all of the interpretive options, and then actually argues for a position. All the best commentators do this. I think he’s wide.
I also appreciate your John commentary and have used it in my study and preaching through the last supper , upper room discourse, and “high priestly” prayer.
I think the reviewer does not have a good point in wishing you went beyond the authorial intent. I think he would have a point if he argued that, though it was not John’s intent, it was the Spirit’s intent (who “breathed out” the writing). I’ve seen this argued for in biblical theological discussions of the use of the OT in the NT where God knew and connected more to what was written in the OT than what the OT author realized (typologically according to Carson). In the case of the OT, we have Christ as the final revelation and the apostles commissioned to teach us the mind of God.
If Christ is the final and fullest revelation, on what grounds does the reviewer demand that we move beyond (human) authorial intent? My only guess would be divine authorial intent, but then how would he justify that? I think his move beyond human authorial intent lies in literary theory and arbitrary imaginations with loose literary connections along the lines of, “this reminds me of…”
In the end, in my view, I think the reviewer’s ground for his approach is arbitrary and at best, the consensus of some scholars. That is hardly solid ground to write interpretations of the words of God that will affect pastors and churches who study the gospel according to the apostle John. I thank God for giving us the book of John and (though less) I thank God for giving us commentators like you and Carson who help us find solid ground for understanding the mind of God in this postmodern age.
I think this is definitely a form of literary midrash. Midrash is definitely acceptable (”behold a virgin shall conceive” – application of this prophesy to Jesus is certainly midrash). However I would be very wary of this kind literary midrash – it very much borders on allegory. While allegory makes a nice story, and can warm the heart (all appreciated) they should not be leaned on for theological conclusions or a motivation for praxis.
I am all for the posit’s of the authors intent in writing. We are all certainly aware that these are mythopoetic authors not looking for “absolute truth” but rather are (to some extant) looking to explain the world and their situations in some way (of course they do explain truth to us, but they also convey how truths matter to them personally). However, when we start drawing grandiose pictures based on snippets of phrases and images gleaned out of a parable to further an end – we have lost our course.
Jesus is firmly planted within an apocalyptic context and our primary source of exegesis can’t contradict him in that regard. Secondary (Midrash) and tertiary (Allegory) meanings can offer different perspectives, but of course can’t (or they are truly meaningless) contradict the apocalyptic content. If they do, we are creating a Jesus in our own image.
I’m with PJ. If the connection a commentator is not seeing is something that good biblical theologians might discover to be present in the Holy Spirit’s intention behind a passage, even if the human author might not have seen the connection, that’s fine. It’s best for the commentator to point out that that’s what’s going on, of course. Otherwise it would be nothing more than the reader-response kind of interpretation that’s being called postmodernism in some of these comments. (I admit that reader-response hermeneutical approaches have resulted from postmodernism in terms of their historical source, but they are not identical with postmodernism, and many Bible studies I’ve sat through do exactly that without a shred of postmodernism undergirding them.) But to assert that an interpretation makes sense of the text even if there’s no reason to think that even the divine author intended it seems to me to be a pretty serious misuse of the text.
Now I think the reviewer does seem to want to support the interpretation by things in the text in the only case mentioned, which was seeing John 4 as about the bridegroom of Hosea 1-3 returning for Samaria (in addition to what it’s clearly about). In this case, I don’t think there are no biblical theological considerations in favor of the view, but I also think it’s a good idea to be hesitant in putting forward such connections. Some of the most intriguing OT-NT connections have little basis in the texts other than observed similarities (e.g. Elisha and Jesus once you compare Elijah and John the Baptist). The speculative connections we can draw do count as biblical theology to a point, but we have to acknowledge how much is speculation as to what God might have intended by a particular similarity between two texts and how much can really be derived from the texts themselves. I’m not sure this reviewer is leaving as much room for such hesitancy as I’d want.
[...] Biblical Foundations » Authorial Intent vs. Reader-Response [...]
Andreas,
1. I think the reviewer was a bit harder on you than he should have been!
2. On reader-response criticism (RRC), we must avoid the hard-core one’s that avoid assigning the text any authorial intention or any extra-textual referentiality. Ultimately a text is a communicative act enmeshed in the text by an author. An author is a communicative agent and not a disembodied mind that we blindly grasp after. Kevin Vanhoozer and Anthony Thiselton have done some superb work here and they enabled me to cope with studies in postmodern highly RRC driven University.
3. I think it’s important to note that an historical approach should include a tacit element of RRC. A historical reading of the NT should be concerned with how it was read by its first readers. How would they have interpreted it or received the text? Reading is the means through which meaning is distributed to the intended audience so that audience reception is a necessary component of a text’s historical effect. A good example of this is Peter Bolt’s volume on Mark, “Do you not care that we are perishing” which looks at how Mark would have been interpreted and read by first-century readers, esp. given high mortality rates in the ancient world.
In answer to your question: No he does not have a point. Commentaries are for exegesis not cataloging fanciful interpretations beyond authorial intent. If he wants that kind of devotional study he should look elsewhere.
I’m a little surprised that was published in JETS. I’ll have to go see who the reviewer was.
I think you appropriately put an exclamation point in this comment: “he is characteristically hesitant to embrace more large-scale ‘echoes’ seen by scholars who have come to appreciate the literary artistry of the Fourth Gospel (whether intended by the author or not [!]).”
[...] gracias a aquellos de ustedes que han respondido a mi más reciente columna digital acerca del intento de autor vs. La respuesta del lector. Recibí un mensaje sarcástico que [...]