Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Subject: RE: terms modern, pre- and post-

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Fred Putnam" <fputnam AT biblical.edu>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Subject: RE: terms modern, pre- and post-
  • Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:27:37 -0400


Vince & Paul,

I'll make this quick, since it is 'way off-list.

"Modern" in this discussion essentially refers to the thought processes and
certainty
engendered by the Enlightenment, the rise of the "scientific process"
(experimental
verification), Descartes, &c. It entails [at least] two assumptions: (1) All
human beings
can and do appeal to certain fundamental assumptions in searching for truth
(or even in
merely living); (2) absolute truth can be known with absolute certainty
(i.e., I can say, "I
know that my conclusions are absolutely right"). In biblical studies, for
example, the
JEDP hegemony is a truism for many that cannot, therefore, be questioned
without
revealing some other bias (and will not be questioned by anyone willing to
"face the
facts").

Postmodernism, on the other hand, says that although there is absolute truth,
we may
or may not know it *at any point* of our understanding, for several reasons.
(1) We are
part of the search for understanding, and our own preconceptions--and the
questions
which they lead us to ask--determine at least some of what we find; (2) we
need a
variety of perspectives, without rejecting any of them out of hand, in order
to begin to
approximate the truth more fully, since every perspective has its own biases,
and thus
serves as a corrective to others; (3) our truths are therefore constructed
"socially",
because they are in fact approximate formulations/expressions of the truth;
(4) we
should therefore hold "truth" lightly, realizing that we may be wrong
(although we may
be very confident of some things). If nothing else, a truly postmodern spirit
engenders
humility.

I am not expert or fluent in this, although I have been dabbling [emphasis
here] with
these ideas for a number of years.

One of my colleagues, John Franke, has co-authored a book with Stanley Grenz,
another theologian, titled Beyond Foundationalism (JohnKnox) that addresses
these
issues in the area of theology. I think that some of Kenneth Pike's work on
language as
an aspect of human behavior sets a trajectory in the same directions in the
field of
linguistics (vs., e.g., logical positivism, structuralism, and the
"certainties" assumed by
those and other approaches to language). Deridda (as he has been read in USA)
is a
radical postmodern; I find Ricoeur and Gadamer more helpful.

Not as quick as I'd hoped (sigh).

Pax et lux,
Fred
--------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: terms modern, pre- and post-
From: "Paul Zellmer" <smdirect AT bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:21:17 -0400
X-Message-Number: 8

Vince,

As I understand the philosophical (as opposed to the artistic or
architectural) use of modern/post-modern, modern tends to emphasize a
logical approach to dealing with questions. Post-modern thought
emphasizes more of the impact on the individual.

Most of the impact that this has made on my work is a change of focus
between how I address issues with the over-40 crowd and with the under-40
crowd. The older group seems to grasp exegesis and information-oriented
approaches, while the younger crowd needs more of the emotional,
motivational emphasis.

Pre-modern is not a term that I have seen used, except as a grouping of
all or philosophical thoughts prior to the modern period.

HTH,

Paul

Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D.
"Dominus illuminatio mea."

Professor of Old Testament
Biblical Theological Seminary
fputnam AT biblical.edu
215-368-5000x150 (office & voice-mail)




  • Subject: RE: terms modern, pre- and post-, Fred Putnam, 05/31/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page