Wright on the Psychology of Pauline Authorship

Last updated on: March 19, 2014 at 5:05 pm by Paul C. Maxwell

Wright on the Psychology of Pauline Authorship 2014-03-19T17:05:47-04:00 Paul C. Maxwell

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

N.T. Wright suggests that behind Paul’s theology in Philemon, there lies a greater story of reconciled slaves – the exodus event. As an aside to this observation, he takes the opportunity to make an insightful hermeneutical comment about coordinating the context and the psychology of the human authors of Scripture. He argues that, in order to yield fruitful exegetical (and even systematic) results, we need to be willing to take interpretative risks with the author’s intention. He comments,

“No doubt some will insist that to detect an [exodus] allusion [in Philemon] like this is out of order; that only those biblical echoes may be allowed which we can be sure Paul’s intended audience would certainly have recognized. But that is (to be frank) not how most writers write, and we may be confident that it is not how Paul thought. Take that route, and there will be nothing left remarkable beneath the visiting moon. Take, though, the risk of assuming that the texts’ footfalls echo in the memory of one familiar with them from boyhood; assume that there are indeed times when one can find the mind’s construction in the phrase; and the reward may be not only an insight into the way Paul’s mind worked but also a sudden clarity about what he was really saying in this particular instance.”[1]

We have been warned against the practice of psychologizing an author in order to find the meaning in his/her text, but we must keep in mind that, as Schleiermacher concisely states, “the task of hermeneutics consists in reproducing, as completely as possible, the entire inner course of the writer’s activity in composing.”[2] The shortcomings of Wright and Schleiermacher aside, we always implement a presupposition about the role of the psychology of the human author of an inspired text in our exegesis. Perhaps a helpful step forward in understanding the proper place of psychology in exegesis would be to at least admit what that presupposition is about the psychology of the human author, and what role it plays in our exegetical process. To what degree is it determinative? Normative? Prescriptive?

It seems to me that, whatever other disciplines we use to supplement our understanding of a meaning in a text (history, lexicography, morphology, sociology, etc.), and whatever philosophical approach we bring to the concept of the author (conceding its death, structuralism, post-structuralism, etc.), the entry point for exegesis must always be the “inner course of the writer’s activity in composing.”

[1] N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 4 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 14.

[2] Freidrich Schleiermacher, “Über den Begriff der Hermeneutik,” in Hermeneutik und Kritik, 321. See Jean Grondin’s helpful discussion in Introduction to Philosophical Hermentics, Yale Studies in Hermeneutics, trans. Joel Weinsheimer (Yale University Press, 1994), 72-73.

Theology

hermeneutics

theology

Previous Post

January 24, 2014

Cynicism on Desiring God

Next Post

April 22, 2014 Ben Dunson on Romans and Psychology

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Apologetics Biblical Counseling Blog Historical Theology New Testament Old Testament Philosophy prayers Psychology Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 January 2014 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What tax collector wrote a Gospel and was called by Jesus?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Matthew Luke Barnabas Mark