A small quibble. I think the theological point doesn’t come from this scripture but rather this scripture is the prooftext used to express the notion. I actually always thought 1 Cor 14 was perhaps a better text (although still not clearly expressing the notion often taught in the church)

I think the point is that the origin of prophesy is God and to merely focus in on the prophet is to miss what was being expressed. When we say “no private interpretation” it doesn’t just mean we get to pick the meaning. However I think that a logical implication from what was taught. (i.e. that the origin of the text is beyond the simple context)

I wonder if any have any thoughts on my comment above (#1)? There was a point of clarification here and there, but no one has made any claims about it, disagreements with it, etc. Is this a good model for interpretation? Does it ring with the quotation from Joseph that was shared here? How does it bear on the history of religious interpretation that has given way to textual critical theory? Thoughts?

Second, a response to Larry. The connection between Peter’s claim that revelation comes by God’s will and not by the prophet’s will and my claim that there is no justification for the claim that Mormon’s are not to privately interpret scripture is this: Mormons generally derive the claim that they are not to interpret scripture themselves from Peter’s claim that scripture is of no private interpretation. But when we look at the context, the Greek, and better translations, Peter doesn’t say that. He says that prophets receive their prophecies by God’s will and not their own. In other words, the claim that scripture should not be subject to personal interpretation is a misreading of the text. There are certainly powerful implications in that text for personal interpretation, but Peter does not, it appears, say anything about whether personal interpretation should be done. There is certainly no commandment against it, which is nice, because I’m not sure what such a commandment would mean.

I’d say that Joseph’s comments are quite similar to the notion of Deconstruction, whether in Derrida or the similar notion in Heidegger. Of course Derrida’s use is a little more Hegelian than Heidegger’s (IMO). There he not only wants to return to the original phenomena that allowed the text to be produced. He wants to focus on what was left out or excluded in the text as we have it. And, since the text is always a finite and therefore incomplete representation of an infinite phenomena, that “left out” is always available. And that was what I was trying to get at.

Texts are always about something and to correctly read the text we shouldn’t just focus on what the text says in its public meaning, nor in a way should we just worry about the author’s intent. Rather we should place ourselves in the role of the original questioner trying to bring forth the truth that was sought after. It is that bringing forth truth that is the point of the scriptures.

Marc D’s quotation of Joseph Smith is striking for a couple reasons. First, the prophet disavows interpretation–and then immediately describes a method of interpreting the scriptures. The interpretive method he describes is also quite similar to a line from Gadamer that I came across a few days ago: “Truly, one can only understand a text if one has understood the question to which the text is an answer.”

In reponse #7, Jonathan Green points out that contemporary literary theories, including deconstruction, have their antecedents in discussions of biblical interpretation. That is an important point. It is also important, I think, to note that the usual way we understand what the scriptures mean originates in the 18th century in arguments against the Bible and the possibility that it contains revelation, arguments made by people like Thomas Paine. For a very good and reasonably brief overview of the connection between literary theory and biblical exegesis, read the first part of Hans Frei’s The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. I have some problems with Frei’s response to that history, narrative theology (though I am also sympathetic to it), but his account of the history makes for good reading.

Joe suggested (#9) that deconstruction doesn’t allow us ever to reach the text. Of course there are lots of kinds of deconstruction, so he may be right about some. But I don’t think he’s right about Derrida’s. Derrida’s point isn’t that we can’t reach the text. His point is that if we make a connection to what the text points to, we do so by means of something extra-textual. The result it that our analysis of the text itself can open up a variety of possibilities if we don’t have the extra-textual something available to tie the text to that at which it points.

Thank you for the clarification.