Gonzalez Dieguez "Language, Biblical Interpretation and Philosophy" in A. Santos Campos (ed.) Spinoza Basic Concepts.pdf (original) (raw)
Related papers
This chapter focuses on the interaction between theological and other approaches to the LXX, especially text-critical approaches. In my view, the recognition of theology in a translation is not a solid fact, nor does it reflect an objective statement about what we identify in the translation, but a subjective recognition of a way of understanding elements in the translation. The description of theology in a translation can hardly ever be descriptive, since there is always an element of interpretation involved: deviations from MT that look to us like theological could have been caused by other factors as well. The theological and textual approaches represent two different disciplines that are usually mutually exclusive. If a deviation of the LXX from MT reflects a Hebrew variant, it cannot reflect theological exegesis at the same time, because a deviating Hebrew reading does not reflect the translator's intentions. By the same token, if that deviation was caused by the translator's techniques in transferring the message of the Hebrew into Greek, that detail does not reflect theology either. After a methodological introduction, I exemplify how certain differences between MT and the LXX can be approached by either a text-critical or a theological approach. I discuss approaches, not necessarily textual evidence of a certain type. In many cases, no decision can be made, and we often also change our mind. No one approach is preferable to another, since much depends on our intuition. Both Rösel and I use both approaches at different times, but with different frequencies ; Rösel turns more to the theological approach and I more to the text-critical approach. 1. Background This study focuses on the interaction between theological and other approaches to the LXX, especially the text-critical approach. In my view, the recognition of theology in a translation is not a solid fact,
Placing Interpretation, Ancient and Modern, in a Historical Perspective
The rules and procedures followed by ancient interpreters are also different from the modern ones. What has happened to make those ancient presuppositions untenable and the rules no longer viable? The answer to this question is the subject of this introductory chapter. It is our contention that there has been an irreversible development of historical consciousness, or growth of awareness of the process of development in history, that makes it impossible to apply the ancient presuppositions and rules today. This is not due, as many would have it, to the prejudices of the Enlightenment or to a loss of faith, but to a change in the structure of our consciousness of history (the past). We live in a different mental world or a mental world that is structured differently in significant ways from that of five hundred years ago. One factor in the development of contemporary historical consciousness has been the critical reading of ancient texts, which has resulted in a process of historicization of the biblical texts. The historicization of the biblical texts reveals that they had in fact been dehistoricized in an earlier period, that is, they had lost their historical and human setting. This double process has inevitably raised questions about the authority of the biblical text with the result that the Bible plays a different role today than it did five hundred years ago.
Earlier draft of paper presented at ACPA Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2014. (See above.) Abstract The believing practitioner of natural theology is keenly aware of how necessary it is to interpret Scripture (be that the Jewish or Christian Scriptures, the Qur’an, etc.) in a non-literal way in order to accommodate it to the findings of natural theology. For instance, the classical theistic attributes of divine simplicity, immutability, and eternity have forced philosophers like Averroes, Maimonides, and Aquinas to read in a non-literal way scriptural passages that apparently allude to God as having parts, as changing through time, and as being somehow in time. As a result, many classical theists, in particular Averroes and Maimonides, have developed theories of biblical interpretation that capitalize on an allegorical and inner meaning that is hidden to the uninitiated underneath the veil of Scripture’s literal sense, and that is meant to be discovered by the philosopher’s trained scientific mind. Moreover, in these theories the literal sense is shot through with falsehood, whereas only the inner or allegorical sense is presented as always true and harmonious with the findings of philosophy. Aquinas, however, diverges from this approach: although he acknowledges the presence of a spiritual sense distinct from the literal, he claims that the scientific study of Scripture (sacra doctrina) hinges not on the spiritual but on the literal sense of Scripture, and that all theological arguments must always proceed from this literal sense. Moreover, nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense, no matter how bizarre the text may be. Thus, whereas it is relatively easy to see how Averroes and Maimonides’ views on the interpretation of Scripture are coherent with their philosophical thought, in the case of Aquinas this is not so easy to explain. This paper examines and compares the views of these three thinkers on the interpretation of Scripture and inquires whether Aquinas successfully develops a theory of biblical interpretation that is in harmony with his natural theology and other philosophical views.
Our enhanced historical consciousness, due in part to historical critical methodology developed over several centuries, renders many of these principles and procedures obsolete or inoperative. Those who understand the ancient rules and procedures can still appreciate and profit from the content of the patristic commentaries. However, there are two basic aspects of patristic interpretation that remain important today. The first is the conviction that the word of God in the fullest sense is Jesus Christ. In him alone do we find the fullness of revelation and all the previous writings must be measured in the light of this revelation, of the divine philanthropia, God’s love for the human race. This fundamental conviction of patristic interpreters is echoed many times in the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Benedict XVI, first of all in the assertion that “the Logos refers in the first place to the eternal Word, the only Son, begotten of the Father before all ages and consubstantial with him.” He goes on to note that “while in the Church we greatly venerate the sacred Scriptures, the Christian faith is not a 'religion of the book': Christianity is the 'religion of the word of God,' not of 'a written and mute word, but of the incarnate and living Word.' The second aspect of patristic interpretation I wish to stress, which follows from the first, is the necessity of a theological critique of the Scriptures. The original historical meaning of the texts is not enough, especially in an era of rising fundamentalist reading. We must always ask how they can be understood by Christians and that involves theology, that is, the discourse about the nature of God.
Translation as Interpretation in Medieval Iberian Religious Thought
eHumanista, 2019
Abstract: In this article I explore how translation and interpretation were blurred by authors such as Ibn Ṭufayl, Maimonides and Alfonso de la Torre, who envisioned their role as commentator as one of “translating” knowledge acquired through use of the Active Intellect into images through language. For these thinkers narratives and allegorical fiction are one of several appropriate forms of translating metaphysical knowledge for different audiences. Keywords: translation, interpretation, allegory, Ibn Ṭufayl, Maimonides, Alfonso de la Torre, language, religion