上帝和人的言說行動——范浩沙的神學詮釋學

The Speech Acts of God and Man: Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s Theological Hermeneutics

CHIU Shung Ming

Given that we cannot talk about the future development of evangelical theology apart from the influence of hermeneutics in this postmodern era, this paper hopes to call forth attention to the need of constructing a theological hermeneutics in a convincing way. Kevin J. Vanhoozer is regarded as one of the most promising evangelical theologians, who makes a notable contribution on this area. This paper aims to introduce the main thought of his theological hermeneutics with a critical evaluation.

One of the most difficult and controversial questions of hermeneutics is about the understanding of meaning. Is there only one fixed meaning in a text? Where can we find the meaning/meanings? Do we get the meaning/meanings from author’s intention, text, reader’s interpretation or somewhere else? Of course, no consensus exists among the various views of hermeneutics.

Vanhoozer, as a proponent of hermeneutics realism, undoubtedly rejects both Jacques Derrida’s deconstructive way of reading and Stanley Fish’s reader response theory. He stresses that the death of author in the hermeneutics non-realism is the consequence of the claim of the death of God. In view of that, Vanhoozer argues that in doing theological hermeneutics God must be our first thought and Scripture our second thought. That is to say, we cannot think about theological hermeneutics apart from who God is and what God communicates. In fact, the hermeneutics of the speech-act theory is of special interest for Vanhoozer. It exhibits both a speech-to-action and a God-centered communicative action model for a Trinitarian theological hermeneutics. Moreover, Vanhoozer also argues that we can find the fixed meaning in the authorial illocutionary act. By looking at the theory argued by Vanhoozer, the author attempts to conclude this paper with some evaluations as to how evangelical theological hermeneutics should be constructed in a convincing way by asking and examining the following questions: Is it possible to make consensus on Derrida’s meaning of deconstruction? Does Vanhoozer misunderstand what Derrida means? Is there really a fixed meaning in authorial intention?