Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Fred Putnam" <fputnam AT biblical.edu>]

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)