QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies Vol.
No.
1, (June 2.
: 51-65 DOI: 10.
46362/quaerens.
READER-RESPONSE CRITICISM:
The Role of the Author.
Text, and Reader in Interpretation Fitzroy Willis Ohio Christian University.
Morrow.
GA.
USA Email: willis.
fitzroy@yahoo.
Submitted: 10 November 2024 Revision: 12 May 2025 Published: 30 June 2025 Abstract Reader-Response Criticism (RRC) examines how meaning is derived from texts, emphasizing the roles of the author, text, and reader in interpretation.
Traditionally.
RRC scholarship has focused on the interaction between text and reader, with minimal attention to the authorAos role.
This paper broadens the scope to include the author alongside the text and reader, offering a more comprehensive analysis of RRC in biblical Using historical and contemporary RRC perspectives, this study categorizes interpretive approaches into conservative, moderate, and liberal, each with varying emphases on the author, text, and reader.
The article analyzes key theories in conservative RRC, which prioritize the authorAos intent, moderate RRC, which balances reader and text, and liberal RRC, which centers the readerAos interpretation.
Findings reveal significant implications for understanding scriptural and literary texts, where the choice of RRC approach shapes interpretive outcomes and highlights potential conflicts between subjective and objective readings.
This study contributes to the field by providing a structured framework for RRC, underscoring the complexity of meaningmaking and advancing critical discourse on the interpretive process.
Keywords: Reader-Response criticism.
text, reader.
INTRODUCTION
How is meaning or correct interpretation derived from a text? Or, what is the correct interpretation of a text? Throughout history, these questions have been among the most significant and consequential that humanity has faced.
For perceived correct interpretations of textsAispecifically, the BibleAihave caused people to accept or reject Aureligion,Ay fight wars or be pacifists, and adopt particular philosophies or ideologies.
For this reason, it is important to understand how Scripture is interpreted.
But, because of the space constraints of this paper, and the variety of biblical interpretive methods in existence, the purpose of this paper will be to discuss AuReader-response CriticismAy (RRC) and the role of the author, text and reader in that particular method of biblical 1 These thoughts were inspired by the personal letter of Dr.
Graham Twelftree to his Interpreting Scripture class at Regent University.
Reader-Response CriticismAFitzroy This approach is significant because the role of the author has not been focused upon in traditional scholarship on RRC.
Indeed, traditional RRC scholarship has only focused upon the role of the reader and the text towards the derivation of meaning.
For example.
John Barton thinks there are two forms of RRCAia AuhardAy form where the reader uses the text to construct a meaning, and a AusoftAy form where meaning is derived from the reader and the text.
2 Kevin Vanhoozer put forward the concepts of AuconservativeAy RRCAiwhere Authe text itself invites the reader to participate in the construal of its meaning.
Ay And AuradicalAy RRC, where the reader uses the text for their own aims and purposes.
3 Finally.
Robin Parry posited two categories of RRCAia AuradicalAy theory where the reader is stressed over any role the text may play in interpretation and a AumoderateAy theory where the text and reader contribute to To his credit.
Parry did qualify that his categorization was just one way to deal with RRC.
5 Still, it is noteworthy that neither of the three scholars emphasized the role of the author in RRC, butAiand appropriatelyAifocused on the role of the reader and the This paper, however, will focus on the author, text, and reader because they are three of the main components of the Auall importantAy interpretive process.
6 Further, the amount of emphasis given to the author, text and reader can be used to identify three types of Reader-response criticsAiwhich, herein will be classified as conservative, moderate and liberalAithese will be the main focus of this paper.
Before going into the main focus, however, some definitions of key terms will be given, followed by a brief context of RRC.
The method in this article examines Reader-Response Criticism (RRC) by focusing on the roles of the author, text, and reader in the interpretation process.
Traditionally.
RRC has predominantly emphasized the interaction between the text and reader, with limited attention given to the author's role.
This study broadens the scope by including the author alongside the text and reader, offering a more comprehensive analysis of RRC in biblical interpretation.
The article categorizes interpretive approaches into three 2 John Barton.
AuThinking about Reader-Response Criticism,Ay The ExpTim 113 .
: 147.
3 Kevin Vanhoozer.
Is There a Meaning in This Text (Grand Rapids: Harper Collins, 1.
, 28.
4 Robin Parry.
Robin Parry.
AuReader-Response CriticismAy.
Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids.
MI: Baker Academic, 2.
, 659.
5 Robin Parry.
AuReader-Response CriticismAy, 659.
6 Other components are the narrator and the audience, but will not be focused upon because they are not essential in RRC.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies.
Vol.
No.
June 2025 types: conservative, moderate, and liberal, each of which emphasizes different aspects of the author, text, and reader in determining meaning.
The conservative approach highlights the authorAos intent as the stable and objective meaning of the text, while the moderate approach views meaning as a product of the interaction between the reader and the text.
In contrast, the liberal approach centers the readerAos interpretation, asserting that meaning is shaped by the readerAos perspective.
7 By exploring these varying approaches, the article contributes to the field by providing a structured framework for RRC, advancing the discourse on the complexities of meaning-making and its implications for biblical and literary interpretation.
DISCUSSION
Definitions The first key term to be defined in order to facilitate the ensuing discussion is AuReader-Response Criticism.
Ay RRC is a variety of theories and methodologies in which the reader has a leading role relative to the author and text in determining interpretation or meaning of a particular text.
8 In other words, all Reader-Response Critics focus on the role of the reader in the interpretive process, and do so in varying degrees based on how they view factors such as the author, text, language, world, and the relationship between these and other factors.
Second.
Auconservative RRCAyAiunlike that of Vanhoozer, where the text is the main determinant of meaning10Aisuggests that the reader Audefines meaning as message the author intends to convey via the text .
the authorAos intention is objective and stable .
meaning of text is meaning of author.
Ay11 Though the reader has the lead role in determining meaning, he or she considers the authorAos intention as the correct John Barton, "Thinking about Reader-Response Criticism": 147.
Kevin Vanhoozer.
Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 28.
Robin Parry.
AuReader-Response CriticismAy, 659.
Eric Hirsch.
Validity in Interpretation (New Haven.
CT: Yale University Press, 1.
, 5.
8 John Barton.
AuThinking about Reader-Response CriticismAy, 147.
Some of these theories and methodologies will be discussed below as part of the main discussion of conservative, moderate and liberal RRC.
9 Edgar McKnight.
AuReader-Response Criticism,Ay DBI: 372.
10 Kevin Vanhoozer.
Is There a Meaning in This Text, 28.
Also, the three methods of RRC are herein categorized as Auconservative,Ay Aumoderate,Ay and Auliberal.
Ay 11 Eric Hirsch.
Validity in Interpretation, 5.
Reader-Response CriticismAFitzroy Because of the AuconservativeAy reader-response criticAos focus on the authorAos intentions, they can also be called intentionalists.
Third.
Aumoderate RRCAyAilike VanhoozerAos Auconservative,Ay and BartonAos AusoftAy form of RRCAiconsiders meaning to be derived from both the reader and the text.
13 In this AumoderateAy RRC model, the reader is more involved in the actual determination of meaning than the conservative model since he or she considers themselves part of the interpretive process, rather than assigning the responsibility for meaning to the authorAos intent.
The final key term being defined is Auliberal RRC,Ay in this model the role of the reader is the factor in the interpretive process.
For the reader is stressed over any role the text or author may play in interpretation.
Liberal RRC, then, is similar to BartonAos AuhardAy form, along with Parry and VanhoozerAos AuradicalAy theories.
The Context of Reader-Response Criticism Having defined our key terms, a brief context of RRC will now be given.
In his article entitled AuReader Response Theory,Ay Bernard Lategan well summarized RRCAos 14 For Lategan, four developments led to the rise of RRC.
The first was studies in the sociology of literature which concluded that the effect on society of a work of literature was as important as the literatureAos production and content.
Second, in philosophical hermeneutics.
Gadamer developed his notion of the Aueffective historyAy of a To Gadamer, an individualAos interpretation cannot be all that a text can mean, for oneAos interpretation is a complement of the interpretation of other readers.
Third, there arose a goal of formulating a history of literature in terms of the reception of texts in order to systematize how texts were evaluated.
The major proponent of this development.
Hans Jauss, described the concept as the Auaesthetics of reception.
Ay Finally, the ideas of the structuralists whose formalism maintained that the text has a stable structure that is unrelated to the author and reader.
Indeed, all four of these developments evoked the reaction that involves the three reader-focused method.
of 12 John Poirier.
AuSome Detracting Considerations for Reader-Response Theory,Ay CBQ 62 .
13 John Barton.
AuThinking about Reader-Response CriticismAy, 147.
14 Bernard Lategan.
AuReader Response Theory,Ay ABD 5:626.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies.
Vol.
No.
June 2025 interpretation - Auconservative,Ay Aumoderate,Ay and AuliberalAy - known as RRC.
15 These three methodologies for deriving meaning will now be focused upon.
Role of the Author in Reader-Response Criticism The role of the author is the focal point of AuconservativeAy RRC.
In this methodology, the reader considers meaning to be what the author intends in the text he or she has written.
Thus, it is important to understand more about the author.
In his essay AuWho is Authe ReaderAy in Reader Response Criticism?Ay Robert Fowler suggested there were two types of authors.
The first is the Aureal authorAy or the Auliving flesh and blood personAy who actually wrote the text.
The second is an Auimplied authorAy or the image of his or herself created by the Aureal authorAy in order to communicate their 16 Regardless of which author is behind the text, it is their intentions that AuconservativeAy RRC considers to be the meaning of the text.
IronicallyAiand historicallyAithe thought that the aim of interpretation is to understand the intentions of the author goes back to Friedrich Schleiermacher, who is considered the father of liberal theology.
In the contemporary context.
AuconservativeAy RRC is championed by scholars like Eric Hirsch who consider the intention of the author to be the stable and objective meaning of a text.
18 Implicit in HirschAos assessment is the idea that meaning or the interpretation of a text is not a subjective undertaking.
Thus, individual readers cannot assign their perceived interpretations to texts, for the meaning or the authorAos intent cannot be influenced by the readerAos personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
John Poirier can also be considered a AuconservativeAy reader-response critic.
In his essay.
AuSome Detracting Considerations for Reader-Response Theory,Ay he wrote to reveal what he believed to be Ausignificant problemsAy with the reasoning of AuradicalAy or liberal RRC.
To him.
Aua text inscribes its authorAos purpose,Ay and Aua text originates as a conventional register of an authorAos intentions.
Ay19 Therefore.
Poirier concluded that liberal RRC does not convey the true meaning of a textAithe author does.
15 Kevin Vanhoozer.
Is There a Meaning in This Text, 27.
16 Robert Fowler.
AuWho is Authe ReaderAy in Reader Response Criticism?Ay Semeia 31 .
: 10.
17 Anthony Thiselton.
New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1.
, 49.
18 Eric Hirsch.
Validity in Interpretation, 5.
19 John Poirier.
AuSome Detracting Considerations for Reader-Response TheoryAy, 250, 253.
Reader-Response CriticismAFitzroy But there are also opponents of AuconservativeAy RRC.
For example.
William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley argued that Authe design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art.
Ay20 Vanhoozer rightly suggested the two critics based their argument on four Auintentional Ay21 The first is the Aufallacy of relevancyAyAiauthorial intent is irrelevant for all Second, the Aufallacy of transparencyAyAiconsciousness is not transparent to itselfAithis attacked AuconservativeAy reader-response critics like Hirsch who maintained that authorial meaning is the one that is in their consciousness.
Third, the Aufallacy of identityAyAiauthorAos intention cannot be identified with what is mentally conveyed in the Finally, the Aufallacy of objectivityAyAithe AuobjectiveAy author cannot be separated from his or her AusubjectiveAy environment.
The two scholars seem to have overstated themselves by saying that the authorAos intention is not available, because readers are able to know what authorAos intend.
This can be seen in texts where the author explicitly states his or her intentions.
For example, this paperAos purpose is to discuss RRC.
22 And, one should not assume that this authorAos conscious purpose was not intended because of subjective influences.
Otherwise, the author is irrelevant.
A second opponent of AuconservativeAy RRC was Northrop Frye.
He insisted that it is AuillegitimateAy for a reader to ask.
Auwhat did the author mean by this?Ay He did so for two main reasons.
First, the reader can never know what the author intended, and second, one should not assume that the author knew what he intended.
23 Frye seems to have borrowed his objections to AuconservativeAy RRC from Wimsatt and Beardsley, so the previous objections to their arguments apply here as well.
Finally.
Jacques Derrida suggested that it is an illusion to think the authorAos voice is authoritative, and the text represents the authorAos mind.
For the author is a subjective mythical figure of the readers mind.
24 As a result.
Vanhoozer rightly commented that DerridaAos AudeconstructionAy of the role of the author undoes any chance that the intent of 20 William Wimsatt, and Monroe Beardsley.
AuThe intentional Fallacy,Ay in WimsattAos the Verbal Icon:
Studies in the meaning of Poetry (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1.
, 3.
21 Kevin Vanhoozer.
Is There a Meaning in This Text, 82Ae84.
22 See purpose statement in section 1, line 7 of p.
Whether or not I accomplished my purpose is another story.
23 Northrop Frye.
AuLiterary Criticism,Ay in The Aims and Methods of Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literatures .
James Thorpe.
New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1.
, 59.
24 Jacques Derrida.
Of Grammatology .
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1.
, 3.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies.
Vol.
No.
June 2025 the author can be the object of interpretation.
25 Derrida seemed to have assumed that a personAosAispecifically the authorAiontology and epistemology are based on the perceived interpretation of others.
That may be why DerridaAos AudeconstructionAy has been considered Authe single most radical development in hermeneutical theory.
Ay26 Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpreting and understanding texts.
In light of the opposition and support for AuconservativeAy RRC, one can conclude that the role of the author in AuconservativeAy reader-response criticism is to give meaning, bring stability and objectivity, as well as inscribe his or her purpose to a text.
However, the authorAos intentions should be objective, relevant, transparent and be identified with the text.
The role of the AumoderateAy reader-response critics in the derivation of meaning will now be discussed.
Role of the Text in Reader-Response Criticism The role of the text and reader are focused upon in AumoderateAy RRC.
For AumoderateAy reader response critics, meaning is said to be derived from both the text and the reader.
This method of interpretation is considered to Auprovide liberating insightAy into the interpretive process without giving in to extreme relativism.
27 For.
AumoderateAy RRC arbitrates between the notions that the text has a particular meaning and that the text has a plurality of meanings.
28 However, since the role of the reader in RRC will be focused on below, this section will mainly discuss the role of the text in RRC.
And before focusing on the role of the text.
Authe textAy needs to be defined.
What is the Autext?Ay various definitions have been suggested.
On the one hand.
Paul Ricouer says a text is Aua discourse fixed by writing.
29 Thus, a text can be either verbal or written communication.
And Poirier suggests that a text is Aua conventional register of an authorAos intentions.
30 On the other hand.
Derrida concludes that a text is Authe idea of a totality, finite or infinite, of the signifier.
Ay31 And Aua differential network, a fabric of 25 Kevin Vanhoozer.
Is There a Meaning in This Text, 74.
26 Richard Palmer.
AuHermeneutics,Ay in Contemporary Philosophy.
Guttorm Flyistad .
(Evanston:
Nortwestern University Press, 1.
, 2:470.
27 Robin Parry.
AuReader-Response Criticism,Ay 660.
28 Robin Parry.
AuReader-Response Criticism,Ay 659.
29 Paul Ricoeur.
Interpretation Theory:Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1.
, 26.
See also.
Paul Ricoeur.
Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, ed.
and trans.
By John Thompson (New York.
NY: Cambridge university Press, 1.
, 145.
30 John Poirier.
AuSome Detracting Considerations for Reader-Response TheoryAy, 253.
31 Jacques Derrida.
Of Grammatology, 18.
Reader-Response CriticismAFitzroy traces, referring endlessly to something other than itself.
Ay32 In other words.
Derrida thinks a text is consideredAiby Western societyAito be the source of meaning because it is an objective source of what one needs to know.
This understanding of AutextAy led Derrida to his AudeconstructionistAy method of interpretation.
Furthermore.
Ronald Barthes sees AutextAy as a AumetaphorAy which does not contain the authorAos intentions, and is Auan irreducible plurality.
Ay33 For Barthes then, a text is subjective and can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
Now, concerning the role of the text in RRC, various AomoderateAy reader-response critics have offered their thoughts.
To begin.
Wimsatt and Beardsley state that the text is Aua verbal entity that functions nicely on its own.
Ay34 To them, meaning can be ascertained by seeing how words were used, and the textual structure is the source of meaning.
Second.
Wolfgang Iser declared that Authe text represents a potential effect that is realized in the reading process.
Ay35 Thus, the text does not contain meaning.
Rather, meaning is determined upon reading the structure of the text.
For Iser, the text by itself cannot provide meaning, for it contains Augaps,Ay or material readers need to supplement in order to AucompleteAy meaning.
36 Therefore, the text is a partner in meaning with the Third.
Paul Ricoeur has said that Aua text can mean all that it can mean,Ay but cannot mean anything a reader wants.
37 Because Ricoeur considers a text to be fixed, he does not think a reader can subjectively apply their perceived interpretation to it.
Rather, the text should be explained Auin terms of its internal relations, its structure.
Ay38 This notion seems to assume that a textAos internal structure is always intended or is an objective element toward interpretation.
But, is that true? Do all authors write with AuproperAy grammatical structure? For this author, it is conceivable that the rules of grammar are not always followed in the writing of text.
32 Jacques Derrida.
AuLiving On Border Lines,Ay in Deconstruction and Criticism (London: Routledge and Kegan, 1.
, 83.
33 Ronald Barthes.
AuFrom Work to Text,Ay in Josue Harari, ed.
Textual Strategies: Perspectives in PostStructuralist Criticism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1.
, 83Ae84.
34 William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley.
AuThe intentional FallacyAy, 4.
35 Wolfgang Iser.
The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1.
, ix.
36 Wolfgang Iser.
The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response, 68.
37 Paul Ricoeur.
Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 177.
38 Paul Ricoeur.
Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 152.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies.
Vol.
No.
June 2025 Finally.
Barton, in contrast to Iser, arguing against AuliberalAy RRC, suggested that the text can provide meaning in and of itself.
39 For.
Autexts have definite meanings, which it is the business of the critic to discover.
Ay40 This opinion seems similar to a conservative RRC view because of the suggestion of a particular meaning in the text.
However, meaning, for Barton, is not based on the authorAos intent, but is derived from the structure of the text.
Despite the previous opinions, there are scholars who are opposed to the views or interpretive methodology of AumoderateAy reader-response critics.
For example, though AumoderateAy RRC is anachronistic to Schleiermacher, the German theologian rules out any role the text may have in determining meaning.
The Aufather of liberal theologyAy expressed that the meaning of a text is derived from the experience and thought of the 41 Second.
Fish argues that there is nothing in the text to interpretAithereby ruling out a role for the text in the interpretive process.
42 Fish is a proponent of the AuliberalAy reader response critical view that it is the reader who is responsible for bringing meaning to a text.
Finally.
Poirier, the intentionalist, suggests that AumoderateAy RRC interprets a text as if it was a Aucauseless association of words,Ay and therefore eliminates the textAos only self-authentic function.
43 To Poirier, the role of the author is the function that gives meaning to a text.
In conclusion, most proponents of AumoderateAy reader-response criticism maintain that the role of the text in RRC is to provide a specific meaning through its internal But, there is also the opinion that the text only provides Aupotential meaning,Ay and actual meaning is determined by the reader.
The role of the reader in RRC will now be discussed.
Role of the Reader in Reader-Response Criticism The role of the reader is the focal point of AuliberalAy RRC.
Indeed, in this method of interpreting literature, the reader plays the leading role over the author and the text in 39 John Barton.
AuThinking about Reader-Response CriticismAy, 148.
40 John Barton.
AuThinking about Reader-Response CriticismAy, 150.
41 Friedrich Schleiermacher.
Hermeneutics: The Handwritten Manuscripts, in Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology, ed.
Keith Clements (London: Collins, 1.
, 167.
42 Stanley Fish.
AuWhy No OneAos Afraid of Wolfgang Iser,Ay in Doing What Comes Naturally: Change.
Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies (Durham: Duke University Press, 1.
, 69Ae70.
43 John Poirier.
AuSome Detracting Considerations for Reader-Response TheoryAy, 254.
Reader-Response CriticismAFitzroy determining the meaning of a text.
44 But.
Fowler rightly asserted that there is some ambiguity as to who Aothe readerAo is.
Ay45 In, his essay entitled AuAoCriticAo/AoReader,AoAy George Steiner suggest these ambiguities are in large part due to a failure to distinguish between the role of Authe readerAy and Authe critic.
Ay46 To him Authe criticAy is more than just a On the one hand, a critic is Auan expertAy and part of an Auinterpretive communityAy that guides their work.
The critic judges or gives his or her opinion about a textAos worth and also attempts to evaluate all previous readings or interpretations of a text.
Thus.
Steiner considers the critic to be objective, that is, relative to the reader.
47 On the other hand.
Steiner considers Authe readerAy to be subjective because he or she attempts to remove the distance between them and the text.
48 And even considers themselves to be the subject of their reading.
In light of SteinerAos work.
Fowler seeks to clarify the ambiguities as to who Authe readerAy is by defining four types of readers.
The first is the Aucritical reader.
Ay This reader is part of an Auinterpretive communityAy and remains Auopen enough to ask any question and to risk any judgment, even if it should mean repudiating.
Ay50 Second, the Aureal readerAy is the Auflesh and blood personAy who actually reads and is clearly outside of the 51 Third, the Auimplied readerAy is the role or person that the text implies for the This Auimplied readerAy has the minimum attributes needed to understand the 52 Finally, the AuidealAy or Auinformed readerAy amplifies the Auimplied reader.
Ay He or she has linguistic and literary proficiency that enables acceptable interpretation of texts.
Regardless of which reader is involved with the text, it is their role or interpretation of a text that AuliberalAy reader-response critics consider to be the textAos meaning.
Such AuliberalAy reader-response critics include Stanley Fish.
For him, correct interpretation is determined by the Auinterpretive communityAy of readers, and there are 44 John Barton.
AuThinking about Reader-Response Criticism,Ay 147.
45 Robert Fowler.
AuWho is Authe ReaderAy in Reader Response Criticism?Ay 5.
46 George Steiner.
AuAoCriticAo/AoReader,AoAy New Literary History 10:423Ae52.
Steiner rightly admits that AureadingAy and AucriticismAy overlaps, but still thinks it is important to understand both activities and how they relate to each other, 451.
47 George Steiner.
AuAoCriticAo/AoReader,AoAy 423Ae52.
48 George Steiner.
AuAoCriticAo/AoReader,AoAy 449.
49 George Steiner.
AuAoCriticAo/AoReader,AoAy 439.
50 Robert Fowler.
AuWho is Authe ReaderAy in Reader Response Criticism?Ay 10.
51 Robert Fowler.
AuWho is Authe ReaderAy in Reader Response Criticism?Ay 10.
Bernard Lategan.
AuReader Response Theory,Ay 627.
52 Robert Fowler.
AuWho is Authe ReaderAy in Reader Response Criticism?Ay, 10.
Bernard Lategan.
AuReader Response TheoryAy, 626Ae627.
53 Robert Fowler.
AuWho is Authe ReaderAy in Reader Response Criticism?Ay, 15.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies.
Vol.
No.
June 2025 as many meanings to a text as the amount of interpretations Auinterpretive communitiesAy give to it.
54 Fish defined the Auinterpretive communityAy as Authose who share interpretive strategiesAy for writing texts.
To him, since the interpretive strategies existed before the text, they determine the textAos meaning.
55 And, the Auinterpretive communityAy is not objective because its perspective is to be critically read and interpreted.
And their perspective is not subjective because it was derived through the agreed upon critical 56 Therefore, an argument over objectivity or subjectivity of the interpretation is irrelevant.
Fish rightly commented that his interpretive methodology causes the role of the author, text and individual reader to become products of the interpretive community, because meaning is determined by communities of readers.
57 However, overstates when he suggests that there is no subjectivity in his way of deriving meaning.
For, the subjectivity of an individual reader has been replaced by the subjectivity of individual Auinterpretive communities.
Ay Therefore.
Fowler is correct in his assessment that the source of meaning, for Fish, is the pre-existing presuppositions of an Auinterpretive Ay58 For there are many Auinterpretive communitiesAy and they do not all share the same method of interpretation.
Thus.
Fish is correct when he acknowledged that based on his interpretive methodology there is no Ausingle correct interpretationAy and reading becomes ideological and guided by special interests.
Another AuliberalAy reader-response critic is Norman Holland.
Contrary to Fish.
Holland considers meaning to be derived from individual readers.
In his essay entitled AuTransactive Criticism: Re-creation through identity,Ay Holland said.
Auwe use the literary to replicate ourselves.
Ay59 By this Holland suggested that the psyche or an individualAos projection of themselves as a result of reading is the meaning of the text.
Thus.
HollandAos AuliberalAy RRC is rightly considered to be Aupsycho-analytical.
Ay61 As with other methodologies.
AuliberalAy RRC has its detractors.
For example.
Thiselton assert that it could transform textsAilike the BibleAiinto Auidolatrous 54 Stanley Fish.
Is There a Text in This Class? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1.
, 14.
55 Stanley Fish.
Is There a Text in This Class?, 14.
56 Stanley Fish.
Is There a Text in This Class?, 14.
57 Stanley Fish.
Is There a Text in This Class?, 16Ae17.
58 Robert Fowler.
AuWho is Authe ReaderAy in Reader Response Criticism?Ay 14.
59 Norman Holland.
AuTransactive Criticism: Re-creation through identity,Ay Criticism 18 .
: 342.
60 Robin Parry.
AuReader-Response Criticism,Ay 659.
61 Anthony Thiselton.
New Horizons in Hermeneutics, 529.
Reader-Response CriticismAFitzroy instruments of self-affirmation.
Ay62 And it nullifies the purpose of hermeneutics, especially as it relates to the ability to dialog.
63 Thiselton was concerned that the ability to dialog would be hinderedAithereby allowing particular view points to go unchecked.
Barton is another detractor of AuliberalAy RRC.
He declared that the method prevents a text from being able to surprise readers because AuliberalAy RRC brings its own meaning to the text.
64 Also.
AuliberalAy RRC, reverts to an AuauthoritarianismAy that dictates how texts like the Bible should be read.
65 These concerns appear similar to those of Thiselton, in terms of the concern for true objectivity in the interpretive process.
Not surprisingly, however, there are arguments for AuliberalAy RRC.
For example.
Fowler suggested that AuliberalAy RRC like that of Holland has necessarily brought attention to the richness of the reading experience and can make significant contribution to the interpretive process since there had not been previous monitoring of the reading process.
Instead readers use to focus only on the meaning they derive after the text ended.
66 As a result of this contribution most readers are now critical readers throughout a text and are deriving significant meaning they otherwise would not have.
Another argument for AuliberalAy RRC is that it Auhas affinities with the language of oral culture.
Ay68 Thus, it is a useful tool for studying oral narratives like those so prevalent in the Bible.
This is because the AutemporalAy or AuexperientialAy nature of this criticism is similar to that of the oral or spoken wordAiwhich is also temporal.
However, the fact that things are experiential does not necessarily mean they interpret each other well, since the experiences take place at different times and contexts.
Based on the arguments above, one can conclude that the role of the reader in AuliberalAy RRC is to determine the meaning of a text.
This can be accomplished as the reader removes the distance between his or herself and the text.
become part of an Auinterpretive communityAy.
or AureplicateAy themselves with the text.
62 Anthony Thiselton.
Promise of Hermeneutics, 155.
63 Anthony Thiselton.
New Horizons in Hermeneutics, 550.
64 John Barton.
AuThinking about Reader-Response Criticism,Ay 149.
65 John Barton.
AuThinking about Reader-Response Criticism,Ay 150.
66 Robert Fowler.
AuWho is Authe ReaderAy in Reader Response Criticism?Ay 19.
67 AuMost readersAy here refer to those that are at least on the graduate level.
68 Robert Fowler.
AuWho is Authe ReaderAy in Reader Response Criticism?Ay 20.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies.
Vol.
No.
June 2025
CONCLUSION
In Conclusion.
Reader-Response Criticism is a variety of interpretive methodologies in which the readerAos role is to determine the meaning of a text.
Whether its Auconservative,Ay AumoderateAy or AuliberalAy RRC, these ways of interpreting texts have their advantages and disadvantages.
And current scholarship has not been able to conclusively demonstrate that one of these methods is to be preferred over the other.
Thus, it seems that a reader-response critical approach that considers the advantages of all three forms should be beneficial towards the derivation of meaning from a text.
Such an approach could be applied as follows: the current reader consider that an author often writes with a clear agenda that should be reckoned with.
And, the author may have purposefully adopted a particular grammatical structure for their text in an attempt to convey meaning.
Further, since communication is at least a dialog, the original reader, as well as the present readerAos perspective should be assessed.
For, these readers cannot be separated from the influence of their contextAiwhich includes how their interpretive communities affect the way meaning is perceived.
This model reader-response critical approach suggests that the best way to derive the meaning of a text is for each reader to be a Aucritical reader.
Ay One may ask.
Auhow does this model compare with the present standing or scholarly view of RRC?Ay Well, the present standing of RRC suggests it is a majority This is because Vanhoozer said RRC was Auan emerging consensus.
Ay69 And Barton stated.
Auany who dissent from it [RRC] are at one and the same time showing their lack of interpretative sophistication.
Ay70 Unfortunately.
Barton and Vanhoozer did not distinguish between the various methods in RRC.
But, because traditional scholarshipAiwhich they representAihas not focused upon the role of the author, one cannot make an objective comparison between traditional RRC and the model approach presented above.
But, because todayAos readers continuously ask.
Auwhat does the author mean?Ay Deconstruction of texts is rampant.
and readers continue to replicate themselves with texts, it can be inferred that the role of the author, text and reader in the present RRC is subjective while their roles in the model approach is equally valid.
69 Kevin Vanhoozer.
Is There a Meaning in This Text, 10.
70 John Barton.
AuThinking about Reader-Response Criticism,Ay 147.
Reader-Response CriticismAFitzroy
REFERENCES