by the public acts of the author, although they would not word the matter
identically. Both would also deny that exegesis involves mindreading.
As they explain the signifi cance of a particular text to a particular
reader, additional convergences emerge. Both presume individual readers
will fi nd payoff from a particular text differently. Both believe interpreta-
tion involves a search for correlation or congruence between the author’s
consciousness, as reconstructed in the mind of the reader, and the read-
er’s own consciousness. Moreover, both agree that some interpretations
are stronger, more convincing, saner, and some are weaker, bizarre, even
paranoid.
Both also note that reading involves making value judgments. For Eco,
all literature is at least partially open and therefore the reader is required to
make conjectures about meaningful correlations and ultimately to choose
which correlations seem best. For Hirsch, there is also a moral dimension
to interpretation as the reader pursues correlations between his own world
and what the author intended. Thus, both Hirsch and Eco believe correla-
tions involve the assignment of value.
One of Hirsch’s limitations is that his thoughts about correlation are
rather general and are not well concretized. Eco can supplement Hirsch
because he gives more helpful and more elaborate discussions of how in
everyday life people constantly distinguish meaningful relationships from
those that are trivial or insignifi cant.
B IBLICAL HERMENEUTICS AND CUMULATIVE GUIDANCE
When we turn to interpretation of the Bible, a question forces its way to
center stage: How do the many books in the canon, and the meanings
their authors intended, relate to each other?
It is standard parlance in Protestant circles to speak of “the authority of
Scripture,” which means different things to different people. Lying some-
where in the notional background of this phrase is the concept of the theo-
logical unity of Scripture, based on the presumption that the Holy Spirit
is the author of it all. A corollary is the principle that “Scripture interprets
Scripture,” which is generally understood to mean that more obscure pas-
sages of Scripture should be interpreted in light of clearer ones. This also
implies that what the Spirit teaches in one passage of Scripture cannot be
contrary to what the Spirit teaches in another.
While there is a pious logic in this depiction, I fi nd this theological topos
to be problematic, as have many Pentecostals over the past half-century.
94 G.W. MENZIES