THE COAT IS RED

The context of texts is an abstraction that can easily fall into the abyss of academic theory (and often has), but I think it is important for interpreters of texts (esp. Christians reading the Bible) to understand how this works in real life. My friend’s formula is this: “Texts are bound by Context, but Context is boundless.” This does not mean that every Text (or Symbol) has an infinite number meanings, but rather, every Text has unlimited possibilities for meaning. Absolute meaning is not removed from the universe, nor from the Bible, but it is placed outside the grasp of human reason. Once when I tried to explain the unlimited possibilities of a text, someone posed the statement, “THE COAT IS RED” to question my hypothesis. At the time, I felt my answer was inadequate, so this is my second chance to explain the human endeavor of interpreting texts and their contexts.

THE COAT IS RED (TCIR)

At first glance it seems to be a simple enough statement of fact, as long as one assumes that humans perceive colors in the same way. In fact, TCIR can cover a broad spectrum of meanings from an example in an English grammar book to a code phrase between spies. Both of these examples show that such a statement is arbitrary in meaning, but “arbitrariness” sinks more towards the abyss of theory than helping us connect its range of meanings to the experienced world. It is better to think of texts and language as events—events that occur within different social/economic/political structures that are never static, events within a specific, fluid context. Let’s imagine these contexts to show TCIR’s range of meaning.

The simplest context where meaning occurs is in categories—categories made by different cultures and sub-cultures. In our statement, THE COAT IS RED, we can point out at least two categories: one for COAT and one for RED. It is easy to see the problem in discourse.

A: The coat is red.

B: That’s not a coat, that’s a jacket. (Or blazer, or kimono, etc.)

OR

A: The coat is red.

B: That’s not red, that’s pink. (Or maroon, or scarlet, etc.)

For the one who has spent time in a different culture, learning a different language, it will become evident that different cultures categorize things differently. Indeed, it was my experience while in Korea that outer garments and colors were categorized differently than how I learned them. Incidentally, this is a problem that Bible translator’s face when trying to represent the Hebrew or Greek (but more on this later).

The previous discourse was a relatively benign one, with very little at stake for divergent meanings. But let’s try to imagine a political/economic context where the meaning of TCIR will carry more weight. Imagine that A&B are in 1775 New England.

A: What color is his coat?

B: The coat is red.

A: A Red Coat! That traitor!

The “basic meaning of TCIR” is that an outer garment is a certain color, and that is socially agreed upon. But in this context the meaning is more than its “basic meaning.” TCIR’s meaning is wrapped up in the political/economic struggle of the Revolutionary War, and it could mean life or death for A, B, or the one with the Red Coat.

But now, to make things more complicated, expand the meaning of Coat and Red, and the interpreter will be greeted with a host of different meanings. Coat could refer to a coat of arms, animal fur, or a layer of paint, rather than an outer garment. Likewise, Red could refer to a communist entity or a symbol of anger. In a certain social/political context, TCIR could be referring to a chemical waste crisis where an animal with brown fur has had its fur turn to red. Similarly, it could be a ritual initiation phrase for someone being inducted into a secret communist sect. The event of the phrase determines (in part) its meaning, and each event of TCIR is unique.

We are moving towards biblical examples, but we are not ready yet. We have seen how the phrase’s initial context significantly constructs its understanding for the interpreter. Unfortunately, for many texts the initial context is either unknowable or knowable only in part to the reader. The interpreter has to attempt to grasp the initial context as is possible, but the interpreter is guided by more than the initial context, namely in the form of preconceived ideas and personal biases based in human desire. We will come to this, shortly.