Interpretation and the Fall

James K. A. Smith has a neat scheme for summarizing different view of interpretation in terms of the categories of creation and fall. For some thinkers, interpretation and the possibility of misinterpretation are results of the Fall; for others, interpretation and misinterpretation is inherent in created life, though there is a difference between those who see this as structurally good (Christian) or inherently violent (gnostic).

Here’s a version of the chart he provides on p 23:

Present Immediacy: Hermeneutics is a result of the fall; mediation is overcome in the present; this view is represented by Richard Lints and some other evangelical writers.

Eschatological Immediacy: Hermeneutics is a result of the fall; mediation is overcome in the future; this is represented by Pannenberg, Gadamer, Habermas.

Violent mediation: Hermeneutics is constitutive of human being but is structurally violent; mediation cannot be overcome, and thus neither can violence; this view is represented by Heidegger and Derrida.

Creational Hermeneutic: Hermeneutics is constitutive of human being but is structurally good; mediation cannot be overcome but is an aspect of creaturehood, and though violence is possible it is not necessary or inherent; Augustine represents this view (though Smith puts Augustine in brackets).

Smith is defending the last of these, which seems exactly right to me.