Critiquing: Why Should We Try to Understand the Author’s Intent When Interpreting the Bible?

April 6, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Interpretation Issues — Authorial Intent — Postmodern Deconstruction — Hermeneutic Challenges — Demonic Manifestations

---

Introduction

The content from April 6, 2023, titled Why Should We Try to Understand the Author’s Intent When Interpreting the Bible?, explores the concept of interpreting texts based on the author’s intent, contrasting this with postmodern interpretative methods. It also touches upon the contemporary rarity of demon possession. This critique will assess the logical coherence of the content, highlighting any logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims.

Outline of Main Points

1. Authorial Intent Hermeneutic vs. Postmodern Interpretation
2. Consequences of Ignoring Authorial Intent
3. Analogies to Explain Authorial Intent
4. Claims About Spiritual Realities and Demon Possession
5. Conclusion and Critical Analysis

---

Authorial Intent Hermeneutic vs. Postmodern Interpretation

The content argues for the superiority of an authorial intent hermeneutic over postmodern deconstruction. According to Greg Cokel, interpreting texts based on the author’s original intent is crucial for understanding their true meaning. He criticizes the postmodern approach, stating it allows for subjective and relativistic interpretations that ignore the author’s original meaning.

• Logical Fallacies: The content commits a false dichotomy fallacy by presenting only two options for text interpretation: authorial intent and postmodern deconstruction. Other valid hermeneutic methods exist, such as historical-critical or reader-response criticism, which are not addressed.
• Cognitive Biases: There is a confirmation bias in favor of the authorial intent approach, dismissing alternative interpretations without thorough examination.

Consequences of Ignoring Authorial Intent

Cokel asserts that ignoring authorial intent leads to subjective interpretations that render the text meaningless. He provides examples, such as misinterpreting legal documents or sacred texts, to illustrate the potential dangers.

• Logical Inconsistencies: The argument presupposes that texts have a single, definitive meaning intended by the author, ignoring the dynamic nature of language and context. For instance, “when one says that it’s my interpretation, that’s utterly subjective, you’re not saying this is what Tom Sawyer is about, you’re saying I’m making it into something else.”
• Cognitive Biases: The content demonstrates anchoring bias by fixating on the initial premise that authorial intent is the only valid approach, disregarding the complexities of textual interpretation.

Analogies to Explain Authorial Intent

Several analogies are used to explain the importance of authorial intent, including reading a math textbook or using a GPS. These analogies aim to show that correct interpretation requires adherence to the author’s original meaning to achieve desired outcomes.

• Logical Fallacies: The analogies suffer from false analogy fallacies. Comparing the Bible or literary texts to a math textbook or GPS oversimplifies the interpretative process, ignoring the unique characteristics of different genres and contexts. For example, “if you start putting your own ideas into that math book and making up your own ideas, you’re not gonna know the truth and you’re certainly not going to know anything about the moon or how to get there.”
• Cognitive Biases: There is a selection bias in choosing analogies that support the author’s viewpoint while ignoring those that might illustrate the validity of diverse interpretative methods.

Claims About Spiritual Realities and Demon Possession

The content addresses why demon possession seems less common today than in biblical times. Cokel suggests several reasons, including cultural differences in acknowledging supernatural phenomena and strategic behavior by demonic forces.

• Unsubstantiated Claims: The explanation for the rarity of demon possession today is based on speculation and lacks empirical evidence. Statements like “the devil has free reign in a culture that doesn’t believe he exists” are presented without substantiation.
• Logical Fallacies: The argument contains an appeal to ignorance fallacy, implying that because modern science does not acknowledge demons, their existence is unduly dismissed.
• Cognitive Biases: Confirmation bias is evident in the assumption that demon possession is real but hidden due to cultural disbelief.

Conclusion and Critical Analysis

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

• False Dichotomy: Presenting only two interpretation methods (authorial intent vs. postmodern deconstruction).
• False Analogy: Comparing the interpretation of literary texts to using a math textbook or GPS.
• Appeal to Ignorance: Suggesting the lack of scientific acknowledgment of demons implies their hidden presence.
• Confirmation Bias: Favoring evidence that supports the author’s perspective on interpretation and demon possession.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

• Unsubstantiated Claims: Assertions regarding the strategic behavior of demonic forces and the impact of cultural disbelief are speculative and lack empirical support.
• Obligation to Substantiate: Claims about supernatural phenomena require robust evidence, and failure to provide such evidence undermines the argument’s credibility.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the available evidence. The content’s arguments for authorial intent and demon possession lack sufficient empirical support and rely heavily on speculative reasoning. Thus, the degree of belief in these claims should be proportional to the strength of the supporting evidence, which is currently inadequate.

---

Thank you for reading this critique. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the arguments further, please feel free to leave a comment below.