Lately I have been reading The New Testament and the People of God by N.T. Wright. The beginning section of the book deals with hermeneutics. One of the problems people face in reading texts these days is whether or not a text actually refers to anything real. In reading a story about some event, can it actually convey anything truthful about the event, or does it only tell us only what the author is thinking about? Indeed, some are of the opinion that a story/text really tells us about the mind of author, and nothing more, and so they look for clues in the book to find out about the author's personal life. Wright basically says that this idea is a bunch of bunk.There is an interesting connection here to art history and art interpretation. Some people think that in looking at an artist's work they can somehow find out about his or her personal belief system, or discover what philosophy he or she followed. Theories like that make for interesting reading at times, but it must be remembered that they are always, in the end, merely speculation and theories. With that in mind, Jackson Pollock is a favorite whipping boy of people like Francis Schaffer. They say that his art shows how meaningless he thought life and the world was. But I don't think his work can be written off that easily. His drip paintings are extremely beautiful (you really have to go see one in person), and are wonderful studies in formless painting. They ought to be apprciated for what they are, and not used as a jumping-off point for mindless speculation about his personal life. The same thing is true with reading the NT. It is meant to be read for what it is.
