Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Deconstructionism

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deconstructionism
  • Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:46:23 -0500

Dear Kevin,
In practice inerrantists are very likely to be opposed to deconstruction as
it strikes at a central issue for the overwhelming majority of inerrantists
- that the text has one plain, intended meaning and all other meanings are
to some degree false. To accept deconstruction as a valid way of
approaching scriptural texts is only possible if you have rejected most of
the assumptions on which inerrancy is based and are at least willing to
assume that the text *may* have more than one valid meaning. The idea that
a Biblical author may in fact have communicated more than a plain reading of
what the text itself reveals is not likely to sit well with most
inerrantists. The "interpretive lenses" of inerrantists and
deconstructionists are in reality likely to be very different, even if on a
strictly logical basis it may not be a necessity that this be so.

HH: Perhaps we should let David speak for himself, if he chooses, since you may be presenting inerrantism in an overly rigid manner. The doctrine of inerrancy is not inherently opposed to the idea that a passage could have a double meaning. That is a literary question, and each proposed instance on double meaning must be judged on its own merit. An allegory or parable is a case of double meaning, yet the Bible has a number of these, accepted by everybody. I did not read everything Yitzhak offered, but I looked at the slavery text raised in the following article:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/Postmodern1/Ethics.html

HH: This first part of the article does not seem to be deconstruction in the destructive sense that the word sometimes implies. The author accepts the text but simply says it has "deconstructive" implications for the institution of slavery. He is giving his outlook on the text. For myself, his view seems overly rosy, since the text does not do away with slavery even in principle:

Deuteronomy 23.15-16

You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you; he shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place which he shall choose within one of your towns, where it pleases him best; you shall not oppress him.

HH: The slave owner had every right to go retrieve a runaway slave, doubtless using force if necessary. However, other people were not obliged to return a runaway slave to his master. I think the author is right that the law has implications about God's view of the accepted social custom of slavery, which God himself accepted according to the Mosaic law. God did not feel any particular righteousness was shown by returning a runaway slave to his master. However, the slave was not necessarily freed by this law as long as the slave master had the capacity to enforce his rights as the slave owner. The law does not prevent him from recapturing a slave, nor does it require anybody to resist him in the effort to do so.

HH: The interpretation of the text by the article Yitzhak recommended is interesting and does not really undermine the authority of the biblical text. I believe it is that sort of undermining of biblical authority that David was talking about when he used the term deconstruction.

HH: Yitzhak is complaining that David is misusing the term deconstruction, but actually he is using it according to one meaning that the term has acquired, while Yitzhak wants to assert the more original and positive meaning. Here is a passage that shows that David was using the term according to a current popular usage, but that Yitzhak was defending the original usage :
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/hermeneutics.html#dec

Deconstruction

The popular epithet "deconstruction" comes from hermeneutics. "Dekonstruction", as originated by Heidegger, did not, contrary to its current popular usage, mean "destructive criticism". The term was popularized by Derrida, but in a context where it was accompanied by destructive criticism. Heidegger was very interested in reading philosophy in the original Greek, and noticed that translators tended to add their own interpretations as they translate. These interpretations accumulate as "constructions", and a doctrine, whether translated or reinterpreted in some other manner (for example, a law reinterpreted by a judge), accumulates these constructions over time, becoming a new doctrine. Heidegger, desiring to unearth the original Greek thinkers, set about to remove such constructions.

Deconstruction in its "postmodern" construction is usually applied to ferret out a bias one wants to remove, and has tended to get mixed up in the literature alongside criticism of those biases. So guess what, deconstruction has acquired an new interpretation, a new construction, "destructive criticism". But deconstruction in its original sense is not a criticism at all, it is simply a theory about how traditions evolve, namely via the accumulation of constructions, along with a methodology for ferreting out constructions that have for some other reason been deemed to be undesired.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
Kevin Riley
-------Original Message------- From: Yitzhak Sapir Date: 5/04/2007 12:22:39 AM Dear David, In your original use of the word "desconstructionists," it was used in The following sentence: "I am not making an argument for the inerrancy Of the TN'K here but the unbridgeable difference between the interpretive Lenses of those who accept the inerrancy of the TN'K as originally Scripted and those deconstructionists who work from their own Preconceived notions." As such, it places deconstructionists in Opposition to those who hold by biblical inerrancy. This is not Deconstructionism. While you have quoted a dictionary definition, This definition is a very succinct summary of the entire method and in Fact does not do much to explain what it really is. So, here are Examples of deconstruction of some biblical texts: http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/Postmodern1/Ethics.html http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_66.pdf I suggest you read them, and then ask yourself how really are The deconstructionists opposed to inerrancy? In reality, it seems that You have used deconstructionism as a label, emptying it of what it Really means. Yitzhak Sapir _______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page