The Interpretation of Scripture. De problemate transpositionis
Sku: 55300D0LE60
Archival Number: A553
Author: Lonergan, B.
Language(s): Latin,
Decade: 1960
Open 55300D0LE60.pdf

Description:
4 handwritten schematic pp. Problems of transposition, radical opposition, dialectic. Dates March 26, from spring 1963 course De Methodo Theologiae. Refers to J.D. Smart.


Database and descriptions © Copyright 2017 by Robert M. Doran

Transcription:

55300D0L060             March 26

 

J.D. Smart, The Interpretation of Scripture SCM London 1961

 

The problem of transposition (with an arrow to Smart)

 

Ai   

Bi                     problem of transposition [and] dialectic arises from the data themselves

Eijk 

Fij  

 

 Transposition:      Ap ® Aq after Wendung zur Idee

                                    Ai                                 Bi        

                                                                                                Fij

                                                Eijk

[RD: for arrows regarding the above, see the item itself]
 

irreducible oppositions  within Ai

                                    within Bi

                                within Ei, Ej, Ek

                                      within Fj

 

          where E = f(AiBi)

                   F = f(AiBiEijk)

 

(1) All are human beings.

(2) all hear, speak, do

          not only documents, monuments, of interpretation, history, doctrine, but also hearing, reading, inspecting, interpreting, narrating, teaching

 

(3) all interpretation, narration, doctrine proceeds proximately from experience, understanding, judgment, decision of the interpreter, narrator, teacher

 

(4) thus we distinguish exercite and signate. [lived and thematized]

 

          exercite: interpreting, narrating, teaching, qua experiencing, understanding, judging, deciding

          signate: interpretation, narration, doctrine

 

(5) transition from opposition between what is signified by authors, by Paul, Peter, John, Silvanus, etc., to a comparison between exercitum and signatum in individual authors.

 

(6) comparison is twofold: the same person (A) exercite, (B) signate: A and B agree = position; are opposed = counterposition.

 

(7) counterpositions are of two kinds:

          (a) insofar as exercite means natural operations, with determinate properties, in a determinate structure, there is had something normative, concrete, existing, real, which is signified in many ways depending on the diversity of place, time, culture, but in itself is the same because it is rooted in nature. Where signate is opposed to exercite normative, we have human inauthenticity. General method, philosophical crisis, Insight 14 ff., Coreth, transcendental method.

          (b) insofar as signate means the word of God, a member of Christ, to whom there is exercite opposed, the word of God judges such a person, interpreter, narrator, teacher, whence we conclude to what exercite is in accord with the word of God.

 

(8) Dialectical analysis

          (a) discerns authors and agents about whom authors write

          (b) leads to what is exercite normativum, erroneum, peccans

                   which is transcultural, for in itself it is not signified, but consciously lived

          (c) which grounds transpositions

                   regress to exercitum

                   there is revealed a likeness between positions and counterpositions in the first century,the fourth, etc.

          (d) this has transcendental implications: what is normative concerning experience, understanding, judgment, decision, also is normative concerning everything that is signified and happens.

          (e) this grounds progress: positions are to be advanced, counterpositions reversed.

          (f) this grounds practical transposition: Barth, Epistle to the Romans.