Chapter Seven: The Recognition of a Discourse
S.1. Preamble
Preliminary remarks on the nature of reading (p221)
Is JT in Paul? Before analysing text we must analyse the hermeneutical ground (p221). Reading is complex and elements fuzzy and much (Umberto Eco - KC) is "narcotized"; much is sub-conscious with little "held in view". Readers may function as advocates, readers located in class, culture, authority &c. Proportionality: the more important a reading, the more complex and powerful the socially generated considerations. "IN the case of very important readings that possess a significant interplay between construal and culture over time, we tend to speak of discourses" within which we stand (p222). "It is hard to view the way that we view."
(The Gödel principle - KC).
S.2. Recognising a Discourse
2.1 The Data: Paul's canon is reasonably clear, and the passages that speak of JT, but something must have been recognised to allow classification (p223).
2.2 The Exegetical Level: "The configuration of raw data through interpretation into a meaningful entity."
2.3 The Argumentative Level: Paul is making an argument (p224). We aim for a better exegesis that produces a better argument.
2.4 Framing Requirements (p225): JT should fit with adjacent data, i.e. R 1-4 should "fit" with R 5-8 (p226). Requirements: general historical plausibility, a proximate fraking requirement, a circumstantial (but not motivational) framing (p227).
2.5 The Theoretical or Explanatory Level (p228): Referential accounts of "the object" beyond the text, e.g. Einstein or Keynes; JT claims to give a universal account of salvation (p229).
2.6 Additional Framing Requirements: Systematic framing requirement, an empirical framing requirement, a scriptural based explanation (p230).
There are additional requirements that influence the interpretation:
2.7 The Paradigmatic Setting (p231): Paradigms set wide goals and high expectations, they must satisfy requirements of coherence and enable predictable 'local' consequences but are subject to "insidious techniques" to preserve them.
From the synchronic to the diachronic:
2.8 The Church-Historical Setting: Luther iconic of arguments from history and from authority (because Luther said it ...) (p232).
2.9 The ideoculutural Setting: Culture can create readings (p233).
2.10 A discourse: Summary of S2.
S.3. Beyond Interpretative Naiveté
3.1 Normative Function: "The underlying reading sustains the higher theoretical complex in terms of its truthfulness" (p234). A new reading of a text or the discovery that the text is "wrong" may overthrow a paradigm; data, exegesis, argumentation and framing requirements are ultimately responsible for the validity of JT (p235), so the superstructure depends on the base. Falsifications in reading and construal or in terms of empirical reality (p236). But the superstructure can "interfere" with analysis at the base.
3.2 Distorted Function: The superstructure may operate psychologically or sociologically simultaneously with or prior to the reading (p237). JT vulnerable to this reversal (p238).
3.3 Strategy: Articulation, recognition then resistance or recovery (p239).
How will the superstructure try to insinuate itself:
3.4 Specifics: generous to itself, suspicious of the other; sensitive to its own concerns, sensitive to difficulties in others (p240). Superstructure laying claim to more texts than it ought (p241).
S.4 Theoretical and Paradigmatic Over determinations
A reading held to be a theory tends to etymologism and sloganising; and question-begging.
4.1 Etymologism and Sloganising: Barr: words and phrases do not have a core meaning over time; extending meaning unacceptably (p242); the example of "right" and "left" wing (p243); R cannot evoke Luther's programme.
4.2 Petitio Principii and Complementary Misconstrual (p244): Begging the question assumes the position is true, particularly seen in paradigms where the assumption is that massive evidence is needed to overthrow them. Stating that a questioning reading threatens the Gospel (p245-6).