Plan de Manejo Ambiental

Ricoeur acknowledges that biblical hermeneutics is under an obligation to answer general questions such as: ☜What is a text? i.e. what is the relation between spoken and written language? What is the relation between explanation and understanding within the encompassing act of reading? What is the relation between a structural analysis and an existential appropriation?☝2 But, he also identifies a series of specific issues for biblical hermeneutics concerning the kerygmatic kernel of preaching; the connections between faith and word; the character of ☁disclosure☂ and the concept of revelation. At first biblical hermeneutics seems to be a subordinate category of general hermeneutics, but ☜there is a complex relationship of mutual inclusion☝ between the two, and finally, there is an ☜inverse relationship☝ so that ☜theological hermeneutics [▁] subordinates philosophical hermeneutics to itself☝.3

Ricoeur does not offer a single hermeneutic method for the interpretation of scripture, but applies different interpretative tools according to the variety of biblical genres. We find him using form criticism, historical criticism, structuralist readings and narrative and literary readings in different circumstances. He insists that his approach to the texts is justified by their nature as a collection of writings of different genres with an internal dynamic which includes intertextual interpretation. In his essay ☜Towards a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation☝ Ricoeur suggests that we should expect revelation to be expressed in the forms which are most originary to faith, and then lists five forms of discourse or genres found in the bible; narrative, prescriptive, wisdom, hymnic and prophetic. 4 He argues that each must be considered holistically: meaning cannot be extracted from the text any more that the meaning of a symbol or metaphor can be separated from its linguistic form. ☜The literary genres of the Bible do not constitute a rhetorical façade which it would be possible to pull down in order to reveal some

2

Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor, p. 321.

3_{☜Philosophical and Biblical Hermeneutics☝ in Ricoeur, From Text to Action, pp. 89-90.} 4

The well known quotation reads: ☜A hermeneutic of revelation must give priority to those modalities of discourse which are most originary within the language of a community of faith☝ Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, p. 90.

110

thought content that is indifferent to its literary vehicle.☝5 _{Each must be interpreted on its own} terms and understood to reveal an aspect of God. Together they embody a form of revelation which is anti-monolithic, ☜pluralistic, polysemic and at most analogical in form.☝6 Ricoeur draws heavily on Northrop Frye to explore the unifying structure created by the relationship between the genres, expressed through the ☜thoroughgoing typological functioning of biblical significations☝ which create a network of interconnections of meanings which accumulate to reinforce each other.7

We can understand Ricoeur☂s approach if we briefly summarise his descriptions of the various genres. Narrative texts describe events which ☜make history☝ and have shaped the community. Ricoeur☂s reading of the narrative texts was strongly influenced by Gerhart von Rad☂s work on salvation history which identified the Israelite liberation from slavery as the foundation narrative of the chosen people.8 _{God is revealed as an actor in events which have a}

transcendent character. God☂s actions are described in the narratives as witnessed, remembered and narrated by the community. Ricoeur argues that narrative provides the corrective to other texts where the presentation of God can seem monolithic. Although, for example the God of the Decalogue and Leviticus demands complete obedience, the Law is given on Sinai in the narrative context of a new covenant to show it is part of an evolving relationship and not an oppressive rule.

Other mediating relationships include that between prophecy and narrative ♠ offering the counterpoint of promise and judgement, uncertainty and confidence; and prescription and wisdom which Ricoeur characterises as concerned with ethos and cosmos, the latter concerned particularly with suffering and the absence of God. Hymnic texts express the response of individuals and communities to God. Ricoeur draws on a typology from Westermann to show how symbolic expressions relating to God call for particular human responses. Thus the God who saves invites a confession of praise; the God who blesses invites expressions of gratitude;

5

Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, p. 91. 6

Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, p. 75. 7

The Whole and Divided Self, ed. by Aune and McCarthy, p. 208ff.citing Northrop Frye, The Great Code : The Bible and Literature, 1st edn (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982).

8

111

the God who punishes demands repentance and obedience and the God who shows mercy invokes confidence and hope. 9 In the psalms all these responses are brought to language articulating meaning between the poles of lament and praise.10 Finally, the prophetic texts contain the trace of this call and response on individuals and communities most directly.

All these genres constitute a whole which Ricoeur identifies as a poetic text. Like all poetic texts it reveals a new reality in which we are invited to participate. Thus far, the biblical text is interpreted with the same hermeneutic method as any poetic text. Ricoeur argues that this areligious sense of revelation restores the concept of biblical revelation to its full dignity because it reveals the unique reference of the biblical text. Its particularity lies in the One to whom all the partial discourse refers, to the Name which is the ☜point of intersection and the vanishing point of all our discourse about God, the name of the unnameable.☝11 This point is beyond the limits of our perception and beyond the limits of expression. We are reminded that ☜The God who reveals himself is a hidden God and hidden things belong to him☝ and ☜The one who reveals himself is also the one who conceals himself.☝12

The Name is a limit expression in the philosophical tradition. Ricoeur is often understood as a Kantian philosopher, (and notably described himself as a ☜post-Hegelian Kantian☝), but I believe that his view of limit expressions owes much more to Jaspers than to Kant. 13 For Kant, limit expressions mark the formal boundaries of practical reason and transcendence is treated as an empty or unknowable category. By contrast, Jaspers identified transcendence with God and construed limit experiences as constructive in that they shape and enable our thinking. For Jaspers experience of transcendence is shaped by our experience of guilt or fault, in which we not only recognise our failure but see the gap between contingency and perfect possibility. This contrasts with Ricoeur☂s insistence on the possibility of hope and original innocence as

9

Claus Westermann, What does the Old Testament say about God?, Sprunt Lectures (London: SPCK, 1979). Cited by Ricoeur, ☜The Self in the Mirror of the Scriptures☝ in The Whole and Divided Self, ed. by Aune and McCarthy, pp. 214-215.

10

The Whole and Divided Self, ed. by Aune and McCarthy, p. 216. 11

Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation., p. 104 12

Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, p. 93.

13 _{Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations, pp. 412-417. See also Pamela Sue Anderson,}

112

the ultimate ground of human experience, a religious position taken from Marcel. At times in his life, as we have seen, Ricoeur rigorously separated his philosophical stance from his religious position. However, it could be argued, and I would want to do so, that even in his philosophical writing, Ricoeur never loses this positive, permissive, constructive approach to limit expressions which can be hard to justify except on the grounds of faith.

The limit expression to which the biblical texts uniquely refer is expressed by Ricoeur in different terms: sometimes the referent is ☜God☝, on other occasions it is the world ☜wherein I can project my ownmost possibilities☝ called ☜a new creation, a new Covenant, the Kingdom of God☝.14

In a later text, Ricoeur explains that the naming of God not only implies but creates a poetic world in which God exists, rules and sustains creation, which we can inhabit. Naming God is what the biblical texts do, specifying the religious at the heart of the poetic.15 Naming God shapes our self-understanding not only as creatures in the cosmos, but as ethical and political beings as we shall see in Chapter Six.

Ricoeur☂s account of revelation has no pretensions either to the transparency of philosophical truth or to ☜heteronomy under the verdict of the magisterium☝ as he describes the truth claims of religion. He prefers to suggest that he is offering a claim of revelation which is not a boast but a ☜non-violent appeal☝.16 This appeal, understood as an existential call on the reader, can be recognised as the unifying feature in the biblical texts: it is the call and response pattern which Ricoeur describes as the guiding thread in biblical exegesis.17

14

Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, p. 102. 15

Paul Ricoeur ☜Naming God☝ in Ricoeur, Figuring the Sacred, p. 223. 16

Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, p. 95.

17 _{Paul Ricoeur, ☜The Self in the Mirror of the Scriptures☝ in The Whole and Divided Self, ed.} by Aune and McCarthy, pp. 201-220.

113 The Summoned Self

The dialogic structure of the biblical texts points to their unique referent, which we might tentatively describe as the Divine Other, or the One Who Calls. We turn now to consider some symbolic representations of the One Who Responds, variously described by Ricoeur as the ☜summoned subject☝, or the ☜mandated subject☝. To be summoned is to find oneself constituted by the very word one has been interpreting, and to discover that one is not self- grounding or self-constituting. Ricoeur writes; ☜My confession to myself is that man is instituted by the word, that is, by a language which is less spoken by man than spoken to man.☝18

This experience itself is described in the biblical texts in the typology of the

summoned subject which begins with the prophet, whose call is directly reported. The typical prophetic narrative has a consistent structure which begins with an announcement of the divine presence followed by a command; it describes the response ♠ which often indicates anxiety or a sense of inadequacy on behalf of the subject ♠ and ends with the commissioning of the subject and reassurance of the continuing support and presence of the divine. Although ☜just one is called, a whole people is intended☝ and these narratives of vocation are intended to be models of the whole community☂s collective calling.19 _{The typology points forward to the one} the prophets foretell, and so helps the community to understand the Christ event. It is a typology which links glory and suffering, not only in the face of the prophets (exemplified by Moses) but in the face of the suffering servant (Isaiah), the face of Christ and the faces of the early Christian community.20

The link between glory and suffering reminds us of the role of testimony in the life of the summoned self. The one who responds to the call is the one who testifies to its power in his or her life.

18

Paul Ricoeur, ☜The Language of Faith☝ in The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: An Anthology of his Work, ed. by Charles E Reagan and David Stewart, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1978), p. 237.

19 _{Ricoeur, Figuring the Sacred, p. 266.} 20

114 Testimony

Testimony forms the epistemological framework which Ricoeur applies to revelation. He considers its use in everyday life before considering its role in philosophy and religion. The key themes are quickly established: testimony is a form of judgement which is neither objective nor relative; it both provides something to be interpreted and is, in itself, the result of interpretation; and it is given weight by the commitment shown in suffering. In particular, testimony is concerned with events rather than the self.21

In the Christian context we are familiar with the semantic connection between testimony and commitment expressed in the use of the term ☜ma r t ur☝ (martyr) where witness is tested to the limit of death. Ricoeur also notes the connection between limit experience and testimony, which he sets in the context of philosophy: ☜Testimony should be a philosophical problem and not limited to historical or legal contexts☝ he suggests. 22

He attempts to find a philosophy in which the experience of the absolute can be joined to the idea of the absolute. The experience of revelation, he suggests, is a moment in which the self is divested of itself, and it is only in this divestment that the claim of the absolute can be experienced. However, the experience can only be expressed in contingent symbols demanding interpretation which in turn gives rise to testimony.

A witness gives testimony to report or relate that which they have seen or heard. It is, we might note, already an interpretation, since it is the product of an experience already absorbed and shaped by the witness. The witness themselves has made a judgement of what they have seen or heard and is sharing it with another. This other acts in a judicial role and points forward to the most common context for the giving of testimony, which is the trial.23 The trial situation illuminates a number of characteristics of testimony; it takes place in the context of a dispute between two claims which cannot be resolved simply by a recourse to known facts;

21

A Passion for the Possible, ed. by Treanor and Venema, p. 22. 22 _{Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, p. 119.} 23

115

there is an interplay between claim and defence which may involve persuasion as well as argument; finally it involves a decision based on the probable rather than on verifiable proof.24 The witness must not only convince others, but must be convicted him or herself of the truth of his or her claim. This conviction is demonstrated in preparedness to suffer and to die for the truth. The relationship between witness and suffering is reflected in the great historical archetypes; the suffering servant, Socrates, Jesus.25

Although there are connections between the religious and secular uses of the word ☜testimony☝ as the semantic link between ☜witness☝ and ☜martyr☝ has proved, Ricoeur suggests that religion provides a further dimension to testimony which goes beyond secular use and proffers a new meaning. Giving an example from Second Isaiah Ricoeur demonstrates how the prophetic witness is sent in order to testify and the content of his testimony is God. 26 The testimony becomes proclamation and everyone who hears it becomes a witness. Ricoeur has made a connection between testimony and prophecy which does not negate the secular meanings of testimony but absorbs and expands them. Testimony becomes witness to the true nature of the divine: it makes claims about divine signs, and is to be judged against false ideas of the divine and against idols.

Ricoeur then applies these insights into the biblical account of revelation. He sees testimony as occupying the space between confession and history. Following Von Rad he suggests that the key Old Testament credo is that found in Deuteronomy 26:5-9 which testifies not only to the existence of God and his special relationship with his people but with their experience of his saving action.27 This confessional discourse paves the way for the new meaning of testimony found in the gospels. Jesus sends his disciples to be witnesses to him: to testify that he is the Christ, the Son of God. While the evangelists move between the poles of historical narrative in Luke and confessional narrative in John, the two are nevertheless joined, and as we have seen

24

Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, pp. 126-127. 25

Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, p. 129. 26

Isaiah 43:8-13 and 44:6-8

27 _{The Hermeneutics of Testimony in Ricoeur and Mudge, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, p.} 133.

116

in Ricoeur☂s writing on biblical genre, it is precisely the existence of these differences in the gospels which gives revelation its characteristics.

Richard Bauckham☂s development of the relationship between limit experience and testimony owes something to Ricoeur☂s work. In Memory, History, Forgetting, Ricoeur repeatedly refers to events which are at the limits of experience and representation, most often citing the holocaust as an example.28 In Time and Narrative he uses the term ☜uniquely unique events☝ for the same category.29 As Bauckham suggests, whether we are considering the unimaginable horror of the holocaust or the overwhelming encounter with the resurrected Christ, the testimony of the eyewitness assumes a unique quality and role because the experience itself is beyond our imagining.30 Bauckham is careful to preserve the unique character of each event and to stress that their relationship is only analogical, but he is keen to show that we have experience in our own immediate history of the value of testimony and that we ought to re- evaluate our view of the gospels in the light of this experience.

Ricoeur☂s exploration of these topics in Essays on Biblical Interpretation was inspired, at least partially, by a critique of Bultmann☂s demythologising project. Ricoeur argued that although Bultmann was right to concentrate on the existential claim which the kerygma makes on the reader he had moved too quickly from Scripture to response without taking the ☜long detour☝ through the text which is necessary to fully understand it. Ricoeur observes that revelation is only possible because humans are capable of receiving it, and by whatever means revelation takes place we can only observe the human response: the divine initiative is outside the realm of study. For Ricoeur, the key to understanding lies in the character of biblical text which does not merely report events, but interprets them and testifies to their significance for the

community of faith. Ricoeur argues that Bultmann is too confident about the existential signification of the New Testament accounts because he has lost sight of the gap between

28

Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, pp. 175,254,255, 258,498. See also Paul Ricoeur, ☜Historiography and the representation of the past☝ in 2000 Years and Beyond: Faith, Identity and the 'Common Era'. ed. by Paul Gifford, and others, (London , New York: Routledge, 2003), pp. 51-68.

29

Ricoeur, Time and Narrative Volume 3, p. 188.

30 _{Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony} (Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans 2006), p. 492ff.

117

event, report and testimony.31 _{Whereas the tradition would see the text as a secondary witness} which is a corrupted version of reality, Ricoeur prioritises the biblical text over other forms of discourse, identifying the reading experience as parallel to the experience of the earliest apostles, because it is a means by which we hear or receive testimony.32

Bauckham argues for a more direct link between eyewitness testimony and the texts of the gospels, while not taking Bultmann☂s short cut.33 He follows Ricoeur☂s arguments on the interrelationship between history and interpretation, using them to support his claim that the gospels may well contain eyewitness testimony rather than versions of events handed down through oral tradition within specific worshipping communities. If Bultmann has conflated the