Consulting the Oracle

I can't read Wimsatt and Beardsley's "The Intentional Fallacy" without experiencing flashbacks.

As a high school student, I belonged to a vibrant youth group. Among countless other things, our leadership facilitated discussions about the trustworthiness, inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture. We also discussed the interpretation of Scripture, and my youth minister told us that we should interpret Scripture according to the human author's intentions. As good Christians, we couldn't conduct a seance in order to interrogate the apostle Paul, so we were encouraged to understand the context of passages in order to understand the author's meaning. I understand now that our youth pastor adopted this method in an effort to resist contemporary currents within the Church that have placed the focus on the authority of the reader.

These are the same issues that Wimsatt and Beardsley face in their essays. Who is the authority in a text? The author, the reader, or the text itself? They claim that the text has superiority and that its meaning can become evident through careful study of the text itself. No context necessary. And the text is definitely NOT about how it makes you feel.

I could apply this theory to the study of English literature without fear of mortal ramifications, but I question whether this method of interpretation applies to Scripture because of the souls and ethics that I potentially hazard if I disseminate false ideas.

Can Scripture speak for itself without an authorial context? Theoretically, there are those who pick up Bibles left by the Gideons, read the Gospel of John, and dedicate their lives to Christ. No background notes, no commentary, no concordance. Just the text itself (plus the Holy Spirit, of course). In this case, you could argue that Wimsatt and Beardsley's theory could be applied to Scripture.

But what about more complicated issues? What do we do when we simply don't understand what the text says? Some teach that the best authority on Scripture is Scripture, so they send students to the concordance. This can clear up issues. Knowing Greek and Hebrew can answer questions, as well. But does this negate the need for historical background? While perhaps the basic ideas of the Bible could be understood without external information, I think that not understanding Scriptural context or the author's intention opens doors to all kinds of misinterpretation, including how to apply what we read. Then again, Wimsatt and Beardsley seem to make the reader unimportant, so, from their perspective, application would probably become trivial. The question sends me in circles and merits more thought.