Jonathan Rowlands recently argued that the historical-critical and the TIS approaches to reading Scripture are both justified, by their own lights, in that each represents a ‘language game’ whose rules are grounded in nothing more than a preference for a particular reading goal. This brief response will challenge two of Rowlands’s main claims: (1) that Wittgenstein’s ‘language game’ concept is applicable to the reading of texts, and (2) that the coexistence of authorial and textual (types of) meaning in a text justifies a plurality of approaches.
NietzscheFriedrich1997Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality (ed. ClarkMaudemarieLeiterBrian; trans. HollingdaleR. J.; Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
6.
RowlandsJonathan2023‘In Defence of “Theological” Readings of the New Testament’, JSNT45: 243–63.
7.
RyleGilbert1931–32 ‘Systematically Misleading Expressions’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society32: 139–70.
8.
WhiteheadAlfred NorthRussellBertrand1910Principia Mathematica, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
9.
WittgensteinLudwig2009Philosophische Untersuchungen – Philosophical Investigations (trans. AnscombeG. E. M.HackerP. M. S.SchulteJoachim; 4th edn; Malden, MA: Blackwell).
10.
WoodCharles M.1975Theory and Religious Understanding: A Critique of the Hermeneutics of Joachim Wach (AAR Dissertation Series 12; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press).
