Meaning, intention, and application: Speech act theory in the hermeneutics of Francis Watson and Kevin J. Vanhoozer

Trinity Journal, Fall 2002 by Blue, Scott A

In recent hermeneutical discussion, both Hirsch and Austin find themselves at the center of an evangelical attempt to rescue the author from the hands of postmodern literary critics. Two proponents of merging Hirsch's concern for authorial intent and Austin's speech act theory are Francis Watson and Kevin J. Vanhoozer. While both share a common disdain for the postmodern declaration of the death of the author, they are by no means monolithic in their approaches. There are distinct differences between Watson and Vanhoozer in their overall programs of hermeneutics, their discussions of how speech act theory is used to resurrect the author's intent, and their views of significance after purporting a strict Hirschian distinction between meaning and significance. The question thus becomes whether Watson and Vanhoozer are allies or competitors within the evangelical camp of hermeneutics. In order to answer this question, this article will seek to accomplish several goals. First, a broad overview will be given of both Watson's recovery of biblical theology and Vanhoozer's Trinitarian hermeneutics. Within each appraisal will be a general review of their defense of authorial intent and speech act theory. Second, similarities between the two will be acknowledged and appraised. Third, those aspects which differentiate Watson and Vanhoozer will be noted before turning to a critical issue that both need to address further.

II. WATSON'S RECOVERY OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

In Text, Church and World, Francis Watson outlines his hermeneutical program of the biblical text, placed within the reading community of the church, which takes into consideration the world at large. "Text, church and world," Watson claims,

are thus related to one another as three concentric circles. The text, the innermost circle, is located within the church, and the church is located within the outermost circle. There seems to be no reason in principle why biblical interpretation should not be practised within this hermeneutical framework.15

Watson's discussion of the biblical text implies his bent towards a recovery of biblical theology from its decline in the 1960s. He argues that hermeneutics must concern itself with the final form of the biblical text, because (1) contemporary literary study "has established this approach to function as a workable paradigm for interpretive practice"; (2) the biblical text in its final form has exclusively functioned authoritatively in the synagogue and church; and (3) the canonical form of the biblical text is optimal for theological inquiry.16

With the publication of Text and Truth, Watson clarifies and expands his discussion of the value of a biblical/theological approach to hermeneutics.17 In the chapter, "Literal Sense, Authorial Intention, and Objective Interpretation: In Defense of Some Unfashionable Concepts," Watson criticizes what he describes as the principal elements in the postmodern paradigm for biblical interpretation: "opposition to the notion of the single, literal sense; the readerly construction of meaning; and the theological relativism entailed in the commitment to pluralism."18 In defending a literal sense, authorial intent, and objective interpretation, Watson begins with the premise that "writing, like speaking, is a communicative action."19 If so, then two conclusions naturally follow. First, like speech, writing bears witness to and cannot be understood apart from its origin in human action. Second, writing allows a speech act to be extended in time and space; it "intends a context beyond the range of the human voice."20 Although one must modify slightly the pattern of speech as a communicative action where it takes the form of a speech act of writing, Watson nevertheless concludes: