Reader Response vs. Authorial Intent

[Deacon]

By the way, the "Wretched" broadcaster is Todd Friel. In this video he makes points about the authorial intent of two songs, and how the author has the right to say what his or her song means. So, one song he talked about was "Puff, the Magic Dragon," with lyrics by Lenny Lipton and music by Peter Yarrow, done by Peter, Paul & Mary. I remember a conversation with my mother in which she claimed the song was about drugs, and that view is still out there. However, Lipton has said over and over that it was not about drugs. Who will you believe, my mother and others who think it is, or the actual author, who had no reason to lie? \

Here he is: The Man Who Wrote "Puff, the Magic Dragon" Swears It's Not About Drugs - LA Weekly

Another song referenced was Paul MacCartney's "I Get By with a Little Help from my Friends," who some say was about drugs but MacCartney says it wasn't. Todd says it therefore was not, but the song does mention "getting high." So it does talk about drugs but P.M. says it's not, and you can kind of see that.

The author of a Pop song has many reasons to mislead the public as to their intent.
One song I enjoyed as a youth was “Brand New Key” by Maloney
Clearly it relates to young sexually (although I didn’t interpret it as such when I was younger). The author denies any connotation of sexuality. If it was admitted it never would have made it past the censors, radio playtime would end and there would be no royalties. To continue the ruse in later years only adds to the songs longevity.

There is a balance in every translation. If translators do not consider the reader they might fail to communicate the proper message.

Rob

 

[Van]

Communicating the "proper message" might be in the eye of the beholder. There are those that claim begotten means not begotten, glorified means not yet glorified, saved through faith actually means born anew (regenerated) then given faith. There is no limit for those who fix scripture.

 

[Deacon]

So the general doctrine God gives, and then the writer expresses in in his way? can he make mistakes though in some details?

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Article VI
We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII
We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII
We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

 

[1689Dave]

I don't think "original" speaker or audience understanding is trustworthy. An example would be Elijah showing up as John the Baptist. Or the Kingdom of God showing up as spiritual in the times of the Roman Empire instead of Physical as most expected. So I don't draw too many conclusions on the OT until I gather what the NT says first.

 

[John of Japan]

Oops. He ends up taking it too far by going beyond authorial intent and into original responses. It depends on what you mean by original audience. Christians and unbelievers both managed to misunderstand the word spoken or written to them—some things were hard to understand. And then there were things even angels longed to look into.

And he would probably do better to skip the 'sex, drugs, and rock & roll' examples and use something more certain. But at least it wasn't "Toke, the Magic Dragon."

Good points.

But I have to say that "Puff..." was not a rock song. Peter, Paul and Mary were part of the folk movement of the 1960's (though they sometimes did rock, too), and this song in particular had none of the characteristics of rock: syncopation, heavy bass, drums, undue repetition, etc. The Beatles, though, that's another story.... He could have used a better example there.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't think "original" speaker or audience understanding is trustworthy. An example would be Elijah showing up as John the Baptist. Or the Kingdom of God showing up as spiritual in the times of the Roman Empire instead of Physical as most expected. So I don't draw too many conclusions on the OT until I gather what the NT says first.

I don't think you are understanding authorial intent. Do you disagree that God had an original intent when inspiring the passages you have mentioned?

 

[1689Dave]

I don't think you are understanding authorial intent. Do you disagree that God had an original intent when inspiring the passages you have mentioned?

Yes but often misunderstood. The NT interpreted the original for us. God even said he spoke to Moses directly but to the other prophets in less discernable terms.

 

[John of Japan]

The author of a Pop song has many reasons to mislead the public as to their intent.
One song I enjoyed as a youth was “Brand New Key” by Maloney
Clearly it relates to young sexually (although I didn’t interpret it as such when I was younger). The author denies any connotation of sexuality. If it was admitted it never would have made it past the censors, radio playtime would end and there would be no royalties. To continue the ruse in later years only adds to the songs longevity.

Good point. I remember Peter, Paul & Mary's other song, "I Dig Rock and Roll Music" where they say, "But if I really say it, the radio won't play it, unless I lay it between the lines." But I do think "Puff..." is an example of authorial intent being innocent.

There is a balance in every translation. If translators do not consider the reader they might fail to communicate the proper message.

Rob

Well, yes. I teach my students that their translation must be understandable. However, "reader response" goes beyond this. The main point here is, are we making the original author the authority, or are we making the modern reader the authority? Sometimes the reader (of any era) is not going to be able to understand clear Scripture, even when translated well, because it is spiritual, and they are not heeding the Holy Spirit.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes but often misunderstood. The NT interpreted the original for us. God even said he spoke to Moses directly but to the other prophets in less discernable terms.

The point of authorial intent is not, is it understandable in modern terms? But, what did the original divine/human authors intend us to know?

 

[1689Dave]

The point of authorial intent is not, is it understandable in modern terms? But, what did the original divine/human authors intend us to know?

They themselves did not know for the most part. The did not know they were speaking in symbols until Jesus reinterpreted their claims. Only the born again like Abraham realized the land promises symbolized Heaven. The carnal minded understood them as written.

 

[MartyF]

neo-orthodox

What is your definition of neo-orthodox? Please expand on the definition fully.

 

[John of Japan]

What is your definition of neo-orthodox? Please expand on the definition fully.

Good question. Neo-orthodoxy is the theological adaptation of the secular philosophy of existentialism. This philosophy teaches that personal experiences are what are important rather than epistemology. What counts to the individual is, am I living authentically (in Heidegger's term)? In Bible translation, Nida's "reader response" theory is the practical outworking of his neo-orthodoxy. (This is not my idea, it is what he himself said. See the quotes in the OP.) To the neo-orthodox believer, the Bible is not the Word of God, but becomes the Word of God as it is experienced.

I like what Francis Schaeffer said about it, which applies here: "The heart of neo-orthodox existential theology is that the Bible gives us a quarry out of which to have religious experience, but that the Bible contains mistakes where it touches that which is verifiable--namely history and science. But unhappily we must say that in some circles this concept now has come into some of that which is called evangelicalism" (The Great Evangelical Disaster, by Francis Schaeffer, p. 49).

Again, Erickson wrote, "In the neo-orthodox view, since there are no revealed truths, only truths of revelation, how one person interprets an encounter with God may be different from another person's understanding. Indeed, even the interpretations given to events by the authors of Scripture were not divinely inspired. What they wrote was merely their own attempt to give some accounting of what they had experienced" (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed,m 222).

Added in another Nida quote:
“Neo-orthodox theology has given a new perspective to the doctrine of divine inspiration. For the most part, it conceives of inspiration primarily in terms of the response of the receptor, and places less emphasis on what happened to the source at the time of writing.”
Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1964), 27

 

[John of Japan]

They themselves did not know for the most part. The did not know they were speaking in symbols until Jesus reinterpreted their claims. Only the born again like Abraham realized the land promises symbolized Heaven. The carnal minded understood them as written.

I assume you mean the human writers of Scripture did not know "for the most part." (I certainly wouldn't put it that way.) But surely you will admit that the divine Author knew what He meant. Thus, authorial intent in Scripture is based on verbal inspiration.

And by the way, surely you are not saying that the writers of Scripture were not all saved, are you?

 

[1689Dave]

I assume you mean the human writers of Scripture did not know "for the most part." (I certainly wouldn't put it that way.) But surely you will admit that the divine Author knew what He meant. Thus, authorial intent in Scripture is based on verbal inspiration.

And by the way, surely you are not saying that the writers of Scripture were not all saved, are you?

Of course, God knows what he meant. Jesus explained it to them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nope. If he can, then Scripture is not θεόπνευστος.

Why wouldn't God breath the scriptures to each individual word written?

 

[Yeshua1]

No, the Holy Spirit keeps writer from error.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

He did the same thing in each word being inspired...

 

[Yeshua1]

I assume you mean the human writers of Scripture did not know "for the most part." (I certainly wouldn't put it that way.) But surely you will admit that the divine Author knew what He meant. Thus, authorial intent in Scripture is based on verbal inspiration.

And by the way, surely you are not saying that the writers of Scripture were not all saved, are you?

This part about symbolic at first and then Jesus had to clarify seems strange wording to me!

 

[Yeshua1]

Communicating the "proper message" might be in the eye of the beholder. There are those that claim begotten means not begotten, glorified means not yet glorified, saved through faith actually means born anew (regenerated) then given faith. There is no limit for those who fix scripture.

Except that you are asserting here your own problems with those issues!

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course, God knows what he meant. Jesus explained it to them.

So those who read and heard the OT had no way of understanding it until coming of Jesus?

 

[Van]

Except that you are asserting here your own problems with those issues!

Once again, the denier of scripture tries to shift the blame., just as the Obama Justice Department spokespersons try to shift the blame to the Trump Justice Department. There is no limit when folks become untethered from truth.

Begotten does not mean "not begotten."

Glorified does not mean not yet glorified.

Saved through faith means our faith, if credited by God, provides our access to the grace of salvation.

Y1 teaches the reciprocal message, which is bogus.