Mike Sangrey of Exegetitor somehow managed to post this delightful and insightful comment in Haloscan, and as it is so good that I've put it here so everyone can see. (I hope this is OK Mike?)
Mike Wrote:
I once had a disagreement with David Tuggy, PhD in Lingusitics, regarding ambiguity. I finally looked up the word 'ambiguous' in a dictionary only to discover David was using the word in one way, I was using it in the other.I'd love to explore this more, Mike, can you give us an example of how one of you was focusing on ambiguity of interpretation, and the other on intention... I think I see what you mean, if so when Wayne thinks "ambiguity" he thinks of different interpretations possible, when I think "ambiguity" I envisage multiple intentions...
You see, the word is ...ummmmm... ambiguous.
And yet, as soon as I saw the ambiguity in our disagreement, the disagreement suddenly became a conversation. In fact, the whole nature of ambiguity became quite clear.
I think that is what happens in the Bible (in any well written text, for that matter). Authors want to reach their readers along several levels, meaning enveloped by entertainment is quite a communicative text.
So, I agree, I think there's a richness in ambiguity within the text; however, the ambiguity creates another level of coherence in the text, and, in fact, it tightens up the meaning all the more. In other words, ironically--hmmmmm, interesting word, 'ironically'--ironically, the ambiguity brings about clarity. Or, to say it from the author's perspective, clarity intends ambiguity.
And I love the way you draw attention to how in ambiguous texts the ambiguity creates stronger coherence. That's just one of the neat things, by triggering other echoes an ambiguous expression tightens the cohesion, and by stimulating other meanings it makes another layer of coherence!
¶ 7:58 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
I think I see what you mean, if so when Wayne thinks "ambiguity" he thinks of different interpretations possible, when I think "ambiguity" I envisage multiple intentions...
Tim, as I mentioned in my recent blog posts on ambiguity, it can be intended or not. Ambiguity is simply a syntactic phenomenon where more than one distinct syntactic or lexical meaning is possible. Referring to ambiguity does not tell us where the source of the ambiguity is, or if it is intended by a speaker or deduced through interpretaion. That is why I referred in my posts to "intended ambiguity". This would be ambiguity which a speaker/author intends. Puns are intended ambiguity. There are some word plays in the Hebrew Bible which are delightful instances of intended ambiguity. You know about them far more than I would.
The kind of ambiguity which I cautioned us not to translate in English versions is unintended ambiguity, i.e. interpretational ambiguity which the original speaker/author did not intend. I believe it is not accurate to translate such ambiguity since it is not part of the message of the original. It is simply part of a possible intepretation of that original message, but not part of authorial intent, at least in most cases of ambiguity in the biblical source texts.
