Language Games and the Meaning(s) of ‘Meaning’
Two Problems with Jonathan Rowlands’s Defense of ‘Theological Readings’
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21447232 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John C Poirier (0000-0001-9228-225X, Independent Scholar, USA, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 1015-1021 |
| Publication date | 2026-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0142-064X • E-ISSN: 1745-5294 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0142064x251403218 |
| OpenAlex | W7117476596 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 2 |
Jonathan Rowlands recently argued that the historical-critical and the TIS approaches to reading Scripture are both justified, by their own lights, in that each represents a ‘language game’ whose rules are grounded in nothing more than a preference for a particular reading goal. This brief response will challenge two of Rowlands’s main claims: (1) that Wittgenstein’s ‘language game’ concept is applicable to the reading of texts, and (2) that the coexistence of authorial and textual (types of) meaning in a text justifies a plurality of approaches
Meaning (existential) · Nothing · Preference · Reading (process) · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Karl Barth and Christian Theology · Wittgensteinian philosophy and applications
| Highly cited | No |
|---|