Journal: Southeastern Theological Review
Volume: STR 02:2 (Winter 2011)
Article: How To Do Things With Meaning In Biblical Interpretation
Author: Richard S. Briggs

STR 2:2 (Winter 2011) p. 143

How To Do Things With Meaning In Biblical Interpretation

Richard S. Briggs

Cranmer Hall, St John’s College, Durham University, England

Introduction

Biblical studies today is a fascinating and multi-layered phenomenon. In the various institutional forms in which it manifests itself, particularly in conferences and publications, it betrays an extraordinary diversity, almost to the point where one can wonder whether there is any common denominator which ties it all together. On one level, of course, the common denominator of biblical studies is the Bible itself. Yet as soon as one puts the interpretative endeavor into motion, or brings the Bible into some hermeneutical context, the resultant diversity appears to overwhelm any attempt to say what biblical studies is. The purpose of this paper is not to insist that there should, after all, be one thing at the heart of biblical study, but neither is to sit back with a sense of resignation and say that since the ship has sailed there is no prospect of constructive ways ahead.

Rather, this paper will argue that meaning is one important focus of attention in biblical interpretation, but only when understood in an appropriately low-key and localized way. For some this thesis may sound obvious in any case, but for those aware of various recent debates in biblical interpretation it is no longer a straightforward claim to make. The path to this thesis must therefore take some time to review what has been at stake in such debates, before building to the constructive point at issue, which will utilize some aspects of the work of J. L. Austin, best known for his theory of speech acts, to explore “how to do things with meaning in biblical interpretation.”

I begin therefore with a basic question: what is it that readers do when they come to the Bible in the field of biblical studies, as broadly conceived as possible? This “framing” exercise offers a potentially vast number of ways of describing the core interpretative activities, but at least tries to clarify some key features. In particular: Why will there always be interpretative diversity? How does it relate to the differing conceptions of the role of the text and the reader in interpretation? Where does all this leave questions of meaning? I then suggest that many of the things we do with biblical texts fall within the range of occupying ourselves with

STR 2:2 (Winter 2011) p. 144

meaning, in one way or another, but that in the light of deep interpretative disarray in the pursuit of meaning, it may be time to recognize that we neither need nor can really obtain a proper theoretical account of meaning. In light of J. L. Austin’s lesser known work on meaning, I suggest that the conclusi...