Abstract
Wolterstorff defends the claim not only that ‘God speaks’ through the Bible but also that the reader gains ever new insights upon subsequent readings of it. I qualify this project with the philosophical hermeneutics he rejects—namely that of Gadamer and Ricoeur. Wolterstorff thinks what he calls ‘authorial discourse interpretation’ provides warrant for religious communities believing that ‘God speaks’ to them through a text. In developing this hermeneutic, he dismisses the viability of Gadamer and Ricoeur's approach because, Wolterstorff asserts, their form of interpretation is merely an operation performed on an artifact. While a cursory study of Gadamer and Ricoeur might support such dismissal, particularly Ricoeur's emphasis on writing's obliteration of dialogue, a closer study guided by the hermeneutic priority of questioning complicates Wolterstorff's caricature. If writing obliterates dialogue, what happens to questions and responses? My thesis is that dialogue with another is preserved through the hermeneutical arc. I demonstrate this through specifying distinct logics of question and answer that occur in the reading process, and I delimit these logics by way of appeal to contemporary literacy pedagogy and its taxonomies of questions. A voice does speak with and listen to a reader in the event of reading, in this case a God who is not behind but before the text. Isolating this other who speaks and listens provides reinforcement for constructive theological work aligned with Gadamer and Ricoeur's hermeneutics, and answers for the experience of hearing ‘God speak’ differently through sacred texts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Ricoeur (1991e, p. 64), where he writes that with philosophical hermeneutics, ‘a new question… will be asked, what is the mode of being of that being who exists only in understanding?’ See also Gadamer's analysis of the three modes of interacting with a ‘Thou’ and the way in which historically effected consciousness must experience the classical text ‘as if it were a Thou’ (2004, pp. 352–355).
I find encouraging corroboration for this project in Irigaray's passing statement: ‘In order to talk to the other, to listen to the other, to hold a dialogue between us, we have to again find an artistic, musical, touchful way of speaking or saying and of listening able to be perceived in a written text, then not reduced to a simple assistance for remembering meaning or to some code to be respected’ (2002, p. xx, emphasis added). The metaphors, or impertinent predications, that a ‘text speaks’ and a ‘text listens’ will be clarified below. For constructive metaphorical theology, see McFague (1982); Tracy (1998).
I allude here to Tillich's affirmation of the God beyond the God of theism (2000), as well as to Ricoeur's conclusion that, ‘An idol must die so that a symbol of being may begin to speak’ (1974). Cf. The classical Chan (Zen) Master, Linji, urges, ‘Whatever you encounter, either within or without, slay it at once. On meeting the buddha slay the buddha…’ (2009, p. 22).
As with many dualisms, this one might be problematized (see Fish 1981). My distinction rests on Buber's between the ‘I-It’ and the ‘I-Thou’ (1970).
See Fish on Iser: ‘To the question informing much of contemporary literary theory—what is the source of interpretive authority, the text or the reader—Iser answers “both.”’ (1981).
See Ricoeur's critique of the perceptual model for the imagination and his proposal of a semantic—that is, sentential—model (1979).
See also Heidegger's predication of Language that ‘Language speaks’ (2001a, pp. 188). For Heidegger, this only becomes clear once we understand what speaking is.
Let us resist being diminutive about ‘mere’ metaphor. A lesson can be applied here from Tillich (2001), where to critics claiming that he thinks ‘God’ is just a symbol, he exclaims that God is ‘not less’ than a symbol. For Ricoeur, metaphors disclose being preceding the difference between discovery and invention (2008, p. 281).
See also Ricoeur 1985, p. 99.
See Vanhoozer 1998, pp. 263–265.
See Gadamer 2004, pp. 370 and 468.
As Sung reminds us, though, we ought not to confuse ethics with hermeneutics (2001, p. 275).
Wolterstorff consents to this when he writes, ‘my contention that God discourses with us has important implications…’ (2006, p. 49, my emphasis). Giving someone else a mere ‘talking to’ is relevantly distinct from discoursing with them.
Gadamer provides warrant for this turn to listening: ‘anyone who listens is fundamentally open. Without such openness there is no genuine human bond’ (2004, p. 355). On the relationships between questioning and listening, see Bublitz 1988 and Gardner 2001 on ‘listening tokens’ and Dickman 2009b, c, Cf. Heidegger 1982, pp. 123–124. As Heidegger writes, ‘Speaking is of itself a listening. Speaking is listening to the language which we speak. Thus, it is a listening not while but before we are speaking’ (1982, pp. 123–124, my emphasis).
Cf. Adler and Van Dorn 1972, pp. 114–136.
Gadamer also writes, ‘A statement, as I understand it, is a motivated assertion… Now everyone who has been either a witness or a victim of an interrogation knows how dreadful it is when one has to answer questions without knowing why one is asked them’ (2007, pp. 103–104, my emphasis). See also Gadamer 2004, p. 464, and 1989a, p. 124.
See also Gadamer 2004, p. 391.
Cf. Iser 1972, p. 284
Gadamer writes, ‘Because our understanding does not comprehend what it knows in one single inclusive glance, it must… present it to itself as if in an inner dialogue with itself’ (2004, p. 422).
See also Gadamer 1989b, p. 96.
See also Ricoeur 1986, pp. 130–131.
For example, a fairy tale beginning with ‘Once upon a time…’ demands a reader ask, ‘And then?’ Every detail supplied by a story answers such questions. This does not mean that readers cannot instead ask ‘improper’ questions and refuse to play along with the demands of a text. As Booth writes, ‘To refuse might be the very best thing in the world for us to do; there is no guarantee that a text, taken in terms of its own demands, will be either interesting or harmless’ (1979, p. 239). Note that these questions and answers deal with individual sentences.
While Gadamer isolates genuine questions from pedagogical, rhetorical, and slanted ones, he does not distinguish between kinds of question—such as closed and open ones—to isolate this properly hermeneutical one (2004, p. 357). See Quirk and Greenbaum 1973, p. 197 and Leech and Svartvik 1975, p. 283.
Cf. Adler and Van Dorn 1972, pp. 46–47
Adler and Van Dorn, like Ricoeur, delineate discrete levels of reading (1972).
For the idea of dividing questions as they relate to the reading process in terms of what is ‘on the line,’ ‘between the lines,’ and ‘beyond the lines,’ see Brownlie et al. 1988. Cf. Porter and Stovell 2012, pp. 13–19. As for the convention of distinguishing reading levels in terms of the first, second, and third reading, see Ricoeur 1988, p. 175, and Alder and Van Dorn 1972.
These divergent lines of inquiry are rooted in Dilthey's distinction between ‘explanation’ and ‘understanding’ (Dilthey 1972, 1988; Ricoeur 1991f). In the explanatory mode, readers can attempt to situate a book in specific historical contexts, rendering its ‘present speech’ innocuous. Source criticism and redaction criticism are examples whereby a text as book is reduced to constituent parts, and those parts are shown to belong to often contesting cultures (see Krentz 1982; Perrin 1970; McKenzie and Haynes 1999. Cf. Holstein 1975).
For an example, Jakko Hintikka deals with difficulties in reading Wittgenstein by way of appeal to Wittgenstein's dyslexia. See Hintikka 2000, p. 6.
With regard to a writer's intentions in particular, such as the writers of the New Testament, Gadamer notes, ‘If by the meaning of a text we understand the mens auctoris…, then we do the New Testament authors a false honor. Their honor should lie precisely in the fact that they proclaim something that surpasses their own horizon of understanding…’ (1977, p. 210, Gadamer's emphasis).
As many Christians ask themselves, ‘What would Jesus do?’
See Gadamer 2004, p. 385.
See Ricoeur 1976, p. 37.
Gadamer writes, ‘The commonality between [conversation] partners is so very strong that the point is no longer the fact that I think this and you think that, but rather it involves the shared interpretation of the world which makes moral and social solidarity possible’ (2007, p. 96).
As Gadamer writes, ‘[The reader] must question what lies behind what is said. He must understand it as an answer to a question. If we go back behind what is said, then we inevitably ask questions beyond what is said. We understand the sense of a text only by acquiring the horizon of the question—a horizon that, as such, necessarily includes other possible answers’ (2004, p. 363). Cf. Ricoeur's claim that, ‘The moment when literature attains its highest degree of efficacity is perhaps the moment when it places its readers in the position of finding… the appropriate questions, those that constitute the aesthetic and moral problem posed by a work’ (1988, p. 173).
I address the theme of symmetry elsewhere (see Dickman 2009a). Despite Levinas's accusations of hermeneutics undermining ethical asymmetry (see Levinas 1998b, and 1985; see also Ricoeur and Chretian 2004), dialogue need not necessarily be symmetrical if genuine participation comes with a certain negation of oneself (Gadamer 2004, p. 387). Ricoeur refers to it as a ‘synergistic relation’ (1988, p. 178).
As Beatty writes in his careful study of listening, ‘To listen to another with openness is… to open the self to the possibility of taking seriously meanings of the sort that can transform it’ (1999, p. 295, Beatty's emphasis).
See Gadamer 2004, p. 370.
Cf. Wolterstorff 1995, p. 13. Here Wolterstorff lists ‘asking’ as among the illocutionary acts available to God.
References
Adler, M. J., & Van Dorn, C. (1972). How to read a book: the classic guide to intelligent reading. New York: Touchstone. Completely revised and updated.
Barthes, R. (1975). An introduction to the structural analysis of narrative, L. Duisit (Trans.). New Literary History, 6(2), 237–272.
Beatty, J. (1999). Good listening. Educational Theory, 49(3), 281–298.
Bell, M. (1975). Questioning. Philosophical Quarterly, 25(100), 193–212.
Booth, W. (1979). Critical understanding: the powers and limits of pluralism. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Brownlie, F., Close, S., & Wingren, L. (1988). Reaching for higher thought: reading, writing, thinking strategies. Edmonton: Arnold Publishers.
Bruns, G. (1993). Against poetry: Heidegger, Ricoeur, and the originary scene of hermeneutics. In D. Klemm & W. Schweiker (Eds.), Meanings in texts and actions: questioning Paul Ricoeur (pp. 34–35). Charlottesville: University of Virginia.
Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. W. Kaufmann (Trans.). New York: Touchstone.
Bublitz, W. (1988). Supportive fellow-speakers and cooperative conversation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chretian, J. (2004). The call and the response. A. Davenport (Trans.). New York: Fordham University.
Davey, N. (2003). The subject as dialogical fiction. In C. Grant (Ed.), Radical communications: rethinking interaction and dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davey, N. (2006). Unquiet understanding: Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. Albany: SUNY.
Dickman, N. (2009a). Anxiety and the face of the other: Tillich and Levinas on the origin of questioning. Sophia, 48(3), 267–279.
Dickman, N. (2009b). Dialogue and divinity: a hermeneutics of the interrogative mood in religious language. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Iowa. Ann Arbor: ProQuest/UMI.
Dickman, N. (2009c). The challenge of asking engaging questions. Currents in Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 3–16.
Dillon, J. T. (1978). Using questions to depress student thought. The School Review, 87(1), 50–63.
Dilthey, W. (1972). The rise of hermeneutics, F. Jameson (Trans.). New Literary History, On Interpretation: I(2), 229–244.
Dilthey, W. (1988). Introduction to the human sciences: an attempt to lay a foundation for the study of society and history. R. Betanzos (Trans.). Detroit: Wayne State University.
Feuerbach, L. (1989). The essence of Christianity. G. Eliot (Trans.). Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Fichte, J. (1987). The vocation of man. P. Preuss (Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Fish, S. (1981). Why no one's afraid of Wolfgang Iser. Diacritics, 11(1), 2–13.
Fiumara, C. (1995). The other side of language: a philosophy of listening. London: Routledge.
Fiumara, C. (2003). The development of hermeneutical prospects. In L. Code (Ed.), Feminist interpretations of Hans-Georg Gadamer. University Park: University of Pennsylvania.
Gadamer, H. (1977). Martin Heidegger and Marburg theology. In D. Linge (Ed.), Philosophical hermeneutics (pp. 198–213). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gadamer, H. (1989a). Hermeneutics and logocentrism, D. Schmidt and R. Palmer (Trans.). In D. Michelfelder & R. Palmer (Eds.), Dialogue and deconstruction: the Gadamer–Derrida encounter (pp. 114–125). Albany: SUNY.
Gadamer, H. (1989b). Letter to Dallmayr, D. Schmidt and R. Palmer (Trans.). In D. Michelfelder & R. Palmer (Eds.), Dialogue and deconstruction: the Gadamer–Derrida encounter (pp. 93–101). Albany: SUNY.
Gadamer, H. (1989c). Text and interpretation, D. Schmidt and R. Palmer (Trans.). In D. Michelfelder & R. Palmer (Eds.), Dialogue and deconstruction: the Gadamer–Derrida encounter (pp. 21–51). Albany: SUNY.
Gadamer, H. (2004). Truth and method, 2nd revised edition. Joel Weinshimer and Donald G. Marshall (Trans). New York: Continuum.
Gadamer, H. (2007). Language and understanding. In R. Palmer (Ed.), The Gadamer reader: a bouquet of the later writings (pp. 89–107). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: response tokens and listener stance. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goody, E. (1978). Towards a theory of questions. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 17–43). New York: Cambridge University.
Graesser, A., & Person, N. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137.
Grondin, J. (1994). Introduction to philosophical hermeneutics. J. Weinsheimer (Trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Harrah, D. (1961). A logic of questions and answers. Philosophy of Science, 28(1), 40–46.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1997). On art, religion, and the history of philosophy: introductory lectures. J.G. Gray (Ed. and Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Heidegger, M. (1982). On the way to language. P.D. Hertz (Trans.). New York: HarperCollins.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time: a translation of Sein und Zeit. J. Stambaugh (Trans.). Albany: SUNY Press.
Heidegger, M. (2001a). Language. In A. Hofstadter (Ed.), Poetry, language, thought. New York: Perennial Classics.
Heidegger, M. (2001b). The origin of the work of art. In A. Hofstadter (Ed.), Poetry, language, thought. New York: Perennial Classics.
Hintikka, J. (2000). On Wittgenstein. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Holstein, J. (1975). Confronting the “old” in the Old Testament. Religious Education, 70(1), 77–81.
Irigaray, L. (2002). The way of love. New York: Continuum.
Iser, W. (1972). The reading process: a phenomenological approach. New Literary History, 3(2), 279–299.
Iser, W. (1981). Talk like whales: a reply to Stanley Fish. Diacritics, 11(3), 82–87.
Kierkegaard, S. (1980). The sickness unto death, H.V. Hong and E.H. Hong (Eds. and Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Klemm, D. (1983). The hermeneutical theory of Paul Ricoeur: a constructive analysis. East Brunswick: Associated University Press.
Klemm, D. (2008). Philosophy and Kerygma: Ricoeur as reader of the bible. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Reading Ricoeur (pp. 47–70). Albany: SUNY.
Klemm, D. and W. Schweiker. (2008). Religion and the human future: an essay in theological humanism. Wiley-Blackwell.
Koshik, I. (2005). Alternative questions use in conversational repair. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 193–211.
Krentz, E. (1982). The historical–critical method. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.
Levinas, E. (1985). Ethics and infinity: conversations with Philippe Nemo. R. Cohen (Trans.). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Levinas, E. (1990). Loving the torah more than god. In S. Hand (Ed.), Difficult freedom. Baltimore: John Hopkins University.
Levinas, E. (1998a). Useless suffering. In M. Smith and B. Harshav (Trans.), Entre nous: on thinking-of-the-other (pp. 1–12). New York: Columbia University Press.
Levinas, E. (1998b). Dialogue: self-consciousness and proximity of the neighbor. In B. Bergo (Trans.), Of God who comes to mind (pp. 137–151). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Linji (2009). The record of Linji, R.F. Sasaki (Trans.) and T.Y. Kirchner (Ed.). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
McFague, S. (1982). Metaphorical theology: models of god in religious language. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
McKenzie, S. L., & Haynes, S. R. (Eds.). (1999). To each its own meaning: an introduction to biblical criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Morgan, N., & Saxton, J. (2006). Asking better questions. Markham: Pembroke.
Nagarjuna. (1995). The fundamental wisdom of the middle way. J.L. Garfield (Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perrin, N. (1970). What is redaction criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Plato. (1997a). The sophist. In J. Cooper (Ed.), Plato: complete works (pp. 235–293). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Plato. (1997b). Theaetetus. In J. Cooper (Ed.), Plato: complete works (pp. 157–234). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Porter, S. E., & Stovell, B. M. (Eds.). (2012). Biblical hermeneutics: five views. Madison: Intervarsity Press.
Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A concise grammar of contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Raphael, T. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516–522.
Raphael, T., & Au, R. (2005). QAR: enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206–221.
Ricoeur, P. (1974). Religion, atheism, and faith. In D. Idhe (Ed.), The conflict of interpretations: essays in hermeneutics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University.
Ricoeur, P. (1979). The function of fiction in shaping reality. Man and World, 12(2), 123–141.
Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences. J.B. Thompson (Trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative (Vol. I. K. Blamey and D. Pellauer (Trans.)). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1985). Time and narrative (Vol. II. K. Blamey and D. Pellauer (Trans.)). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1986). Life: a story in search of a narrator, J. Kray and A. Scholten (Trans.). In M. Doeser & J. Kray (Eds.), Facts and values: philosophical reflections from Western and Non-Western perspectives (pp. 121–132). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Ricoeur, P. (1988). Time and narrative (Vol. III. K. Blamey and D. Pellauer (Trans.)). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1991a). The hermeneutical function of distanciation. In K. Blamey and J. Thompson (Trans.), From text to action: essays in hermeneutics, Vol. II (pp. 75–88). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1991b). The model of the text: meaningful action considered as a text. In K. Blamey and J. Thompson (Trans.), From text to action: essays in hermeneutics, Vol. II (pp. 144–167). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1991c). On interpretation. In K. Blamey and J. Thompson (Trans.), From text to action: essays in hermeneutics, Vol. II (pp. 1–23). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1991d). Philosophical hermeneutics and biblical hermeneutics. In K. Blamey and J. Thompson (Trans.), From text to action: essays in hermeneutics, Vol. II (pp. 89–104). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1991e). The task of hermeneutics. In K. Blamey and J. Thompson (Trans.), From text to action: essays in hermeneutics, Vol. II (pp. 53–74). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1991f). What is a text? Explanation and understanding. In K. Blamey and J. Thompson (Trans.), From text to action: essays in hermeneutics, Vol. II (pp. 105–124). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1994). Oneself as another. K. Blamey (Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1995a). Interpretive narrative, D. Pellauer (Trans.). In M. Wallace (Ed.), Figuring the sacred: religion, narrative, and imagination (pp. 181–200). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1995b). Naming God, D. Pellauer (Trans.). In M. Wallace (Ed.), Figuring the sacred: religion, narrative, and imagination (pp. 217–235). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1995c). Philosophy and religious language. In M. Wallace (Ed.) and D. Pellauer (Trans.), Figuring the sacred: religion, narrative, and imagination (pp. 35–47). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Ricoeur, P. (2000). Experience and language in religious discourse. In Phenomenology and the ‘Theological Turn’: the French debate (pp. 127–146). New York: Fordham University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (2008). The rule of metaphor: the creation of meaning in language. In R. Czerny, I. K. Blamey, and J. Costello (Trans.). New York: Routledge.
Risser, J. (1997). Hermeneutics and the voice of the other: re-reading Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. Albany: SUNY Press.
Scharlemann, R. (1993). The textuality of texts. In D. Klemm & W. Schweiker (Eds.), Meanings in texts and actions: questioning Ricoeur. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Schleiermacher, F. (1978). Hermeneutics: outline of the 1819 lectures, J. Wojcik and R. Hass (Trans.). New Literary History, 10(1), 1–16.
Schneider, P. (1991). The analyst's questions to the patient: implicit aims and functions. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 37, 552–573.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seeskin, K. (1987). Dialogue and discovery: a study in Socratic method. Albany: SUNY Press.
Sousa, P., Pinheiro, R., & Silva, R. (2003). Questions about questions: new views on an old prejudice. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 84, 865–878.
Stenström, A. (1984). Questions and responses in English conversation. Malmö, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.
Sung, W. (2001). Dialogue in philosophical hermeneutics. EurAmerica, 31(2), 231–285.
Tillich, P. (1951). Systematic theology (Vol. I). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tillich, P. (1957). Systematic theology (Vol. II). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tillich, P. (2000). The courage to be. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tillich, P. (2001). The dynamics of faith. New York: HarperCollins.
Tomm, K. (1987). Interventive interviewing: Part II: reflexive questioning as a means to enable self-healing. Family Practice, 26(2), 167–183.
Tracy, D. (1998). Analogical imagination: christian theology and the culture of pluralism. New York: Crossroad Publishing.
Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. A. L. (2005). Content area reading: literacy and learning across the curriculum (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Vandevelde, P. (2008). The challenge of the ‘such as it was’: Ricoeur's theory of narratives. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Reading Ricoeur (pp. 141–163). Albany: SUNY.
Vanhoozer, K. J. (1998). Is there a meaning in this text? The Bible, the reader, and the morality of literary knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Vanhoozer, K. J. (2001). From speech acts to scripture acts. In C. G. Bartholomew (Ed.), After Pentecost: language and biblical interpretation (Vol. 2, pp. 1–49). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Vanhoozer, K. J., Smith, J. K. A., & Benson, B. E. (Eds.). (2006). Hermeneutics at the crossroads. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Westphal, M. (1997). Review essay: theology as talking about a God who talks. Modern Theology, 13(4), 525–536.
Westphal, M. (2012). The philosophical/theological view. In S. E. Porter & B. M. Stovell (Eds.), Biblical hermeneutics: five views (pp. 70–88). Madison: Intervarsity Press.
Wiggins, G. and J. McTighe. (2005). Understanding by design, expanded 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Wilson, N., Grisham, D., & Smetana, L. (2009). Investigating content area teachers' understanding of a content literacy framework. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(8), 708–718.
Wolterstorff, N. (1995). Divine discourse: philosophical reflections on the claim that God speaks. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wolterstorff, N. (2006). Resuscitating the author. In K. Vanhoozer, J. Smith, & B. Benson (Eds.), Hermeneutics at the crossroads (pp. 35–50). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude to three blind reviewers as well as Brian C. Kanouse, Jamie C. Watson, Maren O. Mitchell, and Alyssa R. Lowery for their critically constructive feedback on previous drafts of this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dickman, N.E. Between Gadamer and Ricoeur: Preserving Dialogue in the Hermeneutical Arc for the Sake of a God Who Speaks and Listens. SOPHIA 53, 553–573 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-013-0402-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-013-0402-0