Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:06:39.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reception Theory, H. R. Jauss and the Formative Power of Scripture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2012

Anthony C. Thiselton
Anthony C. Thiselton*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UKthiselton@ntlworld.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Formation constitutes the key link between reception theory, Jauss and scripture. The Bible shapes readers by showing them what lies beyond the self. Hans Robert Jauss (1921–97) remains the effective founder of reception theory or reception history. He was a literary theorist, who specialised in romance literature. Following Hans-Georg Gadamer, he insisted that texts carry ‘a still unfinished meaning’, and focused on their historical influence. The exposition of how communities or thinkers have received texts includes de-familiarisation; sometimes the ‘completion’ of meaning, as in much reader-response theory; and instances of when a text ‘satisfies, surpasses, disappoints, or refutes the expectations’ of readers. Reception theory can often trace continuity in the reception of texts, as well as disjunctions, reversals and surprises. It offers a more disciplined approach to scripture than most reader-response theories. Clearly horizons of expectation play a major role in the interpretation of biblical texts. I suggest six direct parallels with biblical interpretation. (1) Like Francis Watson and others, Jauss rejects any value-neutral objectivism in interpretation. (2) The readers’ horizon of expectation derives partly from earlier readings of the text. (3) Horizons can move and change, and thus transform readers as these change. (4) Biblical genres display all of Jauss’ accounts of the responses of readers. For example, parables of reversal may surpass what the Christian believer expects, or disappoint the unbeliever. (5) Like Gadamer, Jauss emphasises the importance of formulating constructive questions in approaching texts. (6) Jauss’ ‘levels of reading’ correspond closely with Bakhtin's notion of polyphony. I compare Ormond Rush's work on reception and otherness, and Luther's insistence that the Bible often confronts us as our adversary to judge and to transform us. Finally, we illustrate the history of reception from Ulrich Luz on Matthew, from Childs on Exodus, and from my commentaries on 1 Corinthians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

Keywords

formationHans Robert Jausshermeneuticshorizon of expectation (or Bible)literary theoryreception theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , August 2012 , pp. 289 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jauss, Hans Robert, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, trans. Bahti, Timothy, Theory and History of Literature (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), vol. 2, pp. 5 and 41Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., p. 45.

3 Jauss, Hans Robert, ‘Question and Answer: Forms of Dialogic Understanding’, Theory and History of Literature (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), vol. 68, p. 63Google Scholar; cf. pp. 51–94.

4 Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method (London: Sheed & Ward, 2nd edn, 1989), p. 11Google Scholar.

5 On narcissism, see Ricoeur, Paul, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970), pp. 127–9Google Scholar and 213–15.

6 Kelsey, David, The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (London: SCM, 1975), p. 91Google Scholar.

7 This forms the first chapter of Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, pp. 3–45.

8 Ibid., p. 5.

9 Ibid., p. 15.

10 Paul de Man, ‘Introduction’, to Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, p. viii.

11 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, p. 19.

12 Ibid., p. 25.

13 Fish, Stanley, Is there a Text in this Class? (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1980), p. 3Google Scholar; cf. pp. 1–17; and Fish, Stanley, Doing What Comes Naturally (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), pp. 68–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Watson, Francis, Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), pp. 3–14Google Scholar; and his Text and Truth (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), pp. 305–29.

15 On horizon of expectation, see also Parris, David P., Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009), pp. 148–69Google Scholar.

16 See Kovacs, Judith and Rowland, Christopher, Revelation (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), pp. 3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 60–6.

17 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, p. 25.

18 Gadamer, Truth and Method, pp. 369–79.

19 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, p. 30 (my emphasis).

20 Jauss, ‘Question and Answer’, p. 51.

21 Ibid., pp. 53–4.

22 Waismann, Friedrich, The Principles of Linguistic Philosophy (London: Macmillan; New York: St Martin's Press, 1965), p. 405Google Scholar.

23 Jauss, ‘Question and Answer’, p. 71.

24 Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics (14 vols, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957–75), I/1Google Scholar, §§4:1–3; 5:1–3; 6:3; and 8:1; also Barth, Karl, The Word of God and the Word of Man (London: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.), pp. 28–96Google Scholar.

25 Fuchs, Ernst, Zum hermeneutischen Problem in der Theologie (Tűbingen: Mohr, 1959), pp. 281–305Google Scholar and Fuchs, , Studies of the Historical Jesus (London: SCM, 1964), pp. 196–212Google Scholar; and Ebeling, Gerhard, Word and Faith (London: SCM, 1963), pp. 325–32Google Scholar; and Theology and Proclamation (London: Collins, 1966), pp. 28–31.

26 Ebeling, Gerhard, The Word of God and Tradition (London: Collins, 1968), p. 29Google Scholar.

27 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, p. 78.

28 Lyons, John, Semantics (2 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), vol. 1, pp. 238–45Google Scholar.

29 Barth, Church Dogmatics, I:1, §5, p. 150.

30 Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/1, §§9–12, pp. 348–489; and Zizioulas, John D., Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985), pp. 101–22Google Scholar.

31 Thiselton, Anthony C., ‘Authority and Hermeneutics: Proposals for a More Creative Agenda’, in Satterthwaite, Philip E. and Wright, David F. (eds), A Pathway into the Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 107–42Google Scholar.

32 Tyndale, William, A Pathway into Holy Scripture, in his Doctrinal Treatises (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Parker Society, 1848), pp. 8–9Google Scholar.

33 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, p. 34.

34 Bultmann, Rudolf, ‘The Problem of Hermeneutics’, in Bultmann, R., Essays Philosophical and Theological (London: SCM, 1955), p. 255Google Scholar.

35 Lonergan, Bernard, Method in Theology (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1971), p. 157Google Scholar.

36 Miranda, José Porfirio, Marx and the Bible (London: SCM, 1977)Google Scholar.

37 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, p. 37.

38 Barr, James, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961)Google Scholar.

39 Ibid., p. 109.

40 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, p. 40.

41 Jauss, Hans Robert, Wege des Verstehens (Munich: Fink, 1994), pp. 11–28Google Scholar.

42 Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 11.

43 Ricoeur, Paul, Oneself as Another (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 317Google Scholar.

44 Rush, Ormond, The Reception of Doctrine: An Appropriation of Hans Robert Jauss’ Reception Aesthetics and Literary Hermeneutics (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1997), pp. 191Google Scholar, 293 and 294.

45 Ibid., pp. 296 and 390; cf. pp. 291–315.

46 Ibid., p. 301.

47 Jauss, ‘Poetic Text’, in Aesthetic of Reception, p. 142, where ‘poetic’ is used in Aristotle's sense of the term.

48 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, p. 145.

49 Ebeling, Gerhard, Introduction to Theological Theory of Language (London: Collins, 1973), p. 17Google Scholar.

50 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Mediating on the Word (Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications, 1986), p. 45Google Scholar.

51 Jauss, Hans Robert, ‘Histeria Calamitatum et Fortunatum Mearum. Or, A Paradigm Shift in Literary Study’, in Cohen, Ralph (ed.) The Future of Literary Theory (New York: Routledge, 1989), pp. 112–28Google Scholar; see Parris, Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 174–202.

52 Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2nd edn, 1970)Google Scholar.

53 Kuhn, Thomas S., ‘The Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?’, in Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 4–5Google Scholar; cf. pp. 1–23.

54 See Gutting, G. (ed.), Paradigms and Revolutions: Applications and Appraisals of Thomas Kuhn's Philosophy of Science (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Sankey, H., The Incommensurability Thesis (Sydney: Avebury Press, 1994Google Scholar; and Thiselton, Anthony C., The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 171–3Google Scholar and 182–3.

55 Kűng, Hans and Tracy, David (eds), Paradigm Change in Theology: A Symposium for the Future (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), pp. 18–21Google Scholar, 29–33 and 43–56.

56 Bockmuehl, , Seeing the Word (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), p. 25Google Scholar.

57 Ibid., p. 68.

58 Wright, N. T., The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God – Getting Beyond the Bible Wars (London: Harper One & SPCK, 2005), p. 114Google Scholar.

59 Ibid., p. 116.

60 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, pp. 139–85; and Hans Robert Jauss, Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics, trans. Michael Shaw (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), esp. pp. xiv–xv.

61 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, pp. 139 and 146; cf. Parris, David, Reception Theory and Biblical Studies (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009), pp. 156–69Google Scholar.

62 Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception, p. 140.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid., p. 143.

65 Fowler, Robert, ‘Who is “the Reader” in the Text?’, Semeia 31 (1985), p. 9Google Scholar.

66 Ricoeur, Paul, The Symbolism of Evil (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1967), p. 349Google Scholar.

67 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Hermeneutics: The Handwritten Manuscripts (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), p. 150Google Scholar.

68 Ricoeur, Paul, Freud and Philosophy: an Essay on Interpretation (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 1970), p. 27Google Scholar.

69 Jauss, ‘Poetic Text’, in Aesthetic of Reception, p. 147.

70 Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics, p. 150.

71 Ibid., p. 205.

72 Ibid., Hermeneutics, p. 151.

73 Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 307.

74 Ibid., p. 308.

75 Ibid.

76 Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy, p. 28.

77 Ibid., p. 27.

78 Ricoeur, Paul, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press, 1976), p. 91Google Scholar.

79 Ibid., p. 92.

80 Rush, Reception of Doctrine, p. 323.

81 See Parris, David P., Reading the Bible with Giants (London and Atlanta, GA: Paternoster, 2006), p. xviiiGoogle Scholar; cf. pp. xix–xxi.

82 Hans Robert Jauss, ‘A Questioning Adam: On the History of the Functions of Question and Answer’, in ‘Question and Answer’, pp. 51–90.

83 Ibid., p. 53.

85 Ibid., p. 54.

85 Ibid., p. 57.

86 Ibid., p. 67.

87 Ibid., pp. 69 and 70.

88 Ibid., p. 89.

89 Eco, Umberto, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1976), pp. 136–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Eco, Umberto, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (London: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 68–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Eco, Umberto, The Role of the Reader (London: Hutchinson, 1981), pp. 6–14Google Scholar.

90 Jauss, Hans Robert, ‘Three Case Studies in Aesthetic Application’, in Theory and History of Literature (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), vol. 68, pp. 95–120Google Scholar.

91 Ibid., p. 101.

92 Childs, Brevard S., Exodus: A Commentary (London: SCM, 1974), pp. 60–89Google Scholar.

93 Ibid., p. 72.

94 Ibid., p. 74.

95 Ibid., p. 76.

96 Ibid., p. 82.

97 Ibid., p. 89.

98 Luz, Ulrich, Matthew 1–7 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), vol. 3Google Scholar; Matthew 8–20 and Matthew 21–28 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001 and 2005), vol. 3.

99 Luz, Matthew 1–7, p. 120.

100 Ibid., p. 122.

101 Ibid., p. 123.

102 Ibid., p. 125.

103 Ibid., p. 127.

104 Ibid.

105 Ibid.

106 Ibid., p. 95.

107 Wilckens, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer, Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6/1–4 (Neukirchen-Vlyn: Neukirchener Verlag, and Zűrich: Benzinger Verlag, 1978–82)Google Scholar; and Kovacs, Judith and Rowland, Christopher, Revelation (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There are others in each series.

108 Clement, Stromata, 1.3,18, 19; 6.6

109 Tertullian, On the Resurrection 3; Against Marcion 5.5.

110 Origen, ‘Fragments on 1 Corinthians’, Journal of Theological Studies (1908), p. 235, sections 6–8; and also Origen, Against Celsus 5.16.

111 Cyprian, Testimonies 2.

112 Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4.2, 9, 16.

113 Thiselton, First Corinthians, p. 200.

114 Thiselton, Anthony C., 1 and 2 Thessalonians: Through the Centuries (Oxford, Blackwell, 2011)Google Scholar.

115 Ibid., p. 165.

116 Aquinas, Thomas, Commentary on Saint Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians and the Letter to the Philippians (Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1969), p. 52Google Scholar.

117 Calvin, John, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, ed. McGrath, Alister and Packer, J. I. (Wheaton, IL, and Nottingham: Crossway Books, 1999), p. 60Google Scholar.

118 Estius, (van Est, Willem H.) In Epistolam Primam B. Pauli Apostoli ad Thessalonicenses Commentarius (Moguntiae: Sumptibus Francisci Kirchhemii, 1858), vol. 2, p. 592Google Scholar.

119 Denney, James, ‘Thessalonians’, in The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1892), p. 239Google Scholar.

120 E.g. Parris, Reception Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 229–74, on the Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matt 21:33–41.