Summary: Maybe our need for interpretation and our finiteness as humans is a feature of our creation, not a consequence of the fall.
The more I read James KA Smith, the more I appreciate his perspective.
The Fall of Interpretation was Smith’s first book. It was an adaptation of his Ph.D. dissertation that he lightly edited and re-released in 2012. Last fall, it was briefly on sale, and I picked it up because it was written by Smith, without really knowing what it was about.
Like normal for Smith, this is a book that has way more philosophy than I understand. But also, like normal, I can follow the argument without always understanding some of the minor details.
Smith’s argument is “To be human is to interpret, to encounter the world and entities within the world” and “something of an encounter conditioned by the situationally of human finitude”. He is suggesting that our finitude is not something to be overcome, but something to be embraced as a feature of our creation. (Yes, the language can be a bit overly academic, but it is understandable.)
The problem is that,
“At root (and roots, of course, are usually buried, unseen and hidden) the linking of interpretation to fallenness may be understood as the product of a dominant Western interpretive tradition, a broadly neoplatonic understanding of creation and Fall, an understanding that is itself an interpretation. I believe that this tradition, which has significantly influenced aspects of the Christian tradition, remains plagued by an incipient Neoplatonism (or gnosticism) that continues to construe creational finitude and human be-ing as “essentially” fallen and therefore ties hermeneutics to such a corrupted condition.”
What was important about this book for me was his discussion of the finiteness of humanity.
Read more