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: davidfentonism AT aim.com
  • To: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deconstructionism
  • Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:15:02 -0400

Dear Yitzhak, “A slave can choose not to be a slave. And that leaves us
in a classic deconstructive situation. Classically, a deconstruction takes
hold of a pair of binary oppositions that have been passing as valid
currency, exposes the faults in the distinctions that are drawn between them,
the definitions that claim to separate them, and shows how, to some extent,
each is implied in the other. For practical purposes it may well serve to
continue employing the concept of an oppositional pair, but the
deconstructive enterprise has pointed out the fragility, and perhaps the
ultimate futility, of the distinction.” This definition, to my mind,
comports both with the context and definition wherein I spoke of
deconstructionism which read: A philosophical theory of criticism (usually of
literature or film) that seeks to expose deep-seated contradictions in a work
by delving below its surface meaning. If I recall correctly, my point was
that skeptical scholars pretend their critique is ‘objective’ rather than
subjectively biased against the very text/belief system as evidenced by their
need to expose “the faults in the distinctions that are drawn between” what
the text claims and what it actually says in their critical eyes, of course.
Aside from this point, the argument above notions of slave vs. free in the
article is barely intelligible. It might have been more worthy if the author
constructed the same argument on the slave/free idea around a Hebrew vs.
non-Hebrew conception and practice of slavery. To use the Hebrew idea against
itself merely because it included facets which derive from their peculiar
relation to Hashem in Whom is life, freedom, mercy, etc. Contrasted to the
ba’alim of the nations (in which there is death, slavery, hatred, etc.), I
would expect the Hebrew conception slavery to be different and with
provisions to mitigate the harshness of the reality of the ancient world. The
author finds the Hebrew law which allowed escaped slaves to remain free to be
non-commonsensical but that’s because of the non-Hebrew thought being applied
to what derives from a peculiar, Hebrew, thought system. I’ve touched on this
before. Respecting the “Proverbs 9 Deconstructed” essay, I find the
“indeterminacy” in the author’s viewpoint of the prohibition to murder in
Genesis 9.5-6 does not exist in the Hebrew mind. The author must ignore all
sorts of observable sociocultural and historical informants to find
“indeterminacy.” It was at that point I bet with myself that the rest of the
essay would be more of the same and it was. For me, Sneed’s premise is
necessarily false and apparently applies a modern secular sensibility of
‘making language sexy’ to hold readers’ interest. In Hebrew thought, it is a
‘take it or leave it’ attitude. Nowhere do we find any accommodation of
Elohistic/Yahvist principles of holiness (i.e., setting oneself apart by
carrying out Hashem’s tsedakah or doing for others as He does) for the sake
of arousing the interests of the unholy (i.e., those not set apart by their
tsedakah or for whom the authority of Torah is not enough). In that case,
Sneed imposes his own “boredom” on the writer (Sholomo or Solomon) of the
Proverbs which is not only without evidence but contradicts the character and
integrity of the very content of the Proverbs themselves. Another big problem
with Sneed’s take is that it ignores the real authorship of the Proverbs is
attributed to the Holy Spirit. Sneed’s aim, as I said of deconstructionists
or skeptics or secular scholars, is to “show how the eroticization of wisdom
has a darker and more sinister side” (p. 3). Thus, the deconstructionist aims
of the authors of the articles was to attack, defame and mischaracterize in
the name of revealing the “truth” rather than scriptural truth (which is
inaccessible to them in the first place) just as I said originally. I would
add, this is not to blame skeptics for doing their best to apprehend the text
through their own human agency as there is no alternative which might
facilitate the understanding/wisdom except to begin with the fear of Y- -H.
The flesh is opposed to the spirit and the things of the spirit are spirit
and must be understood by the spirit. This is all foolishness to the
skeptical mind as it was for me as an undergraduate I the mid 1980s. I do not
fault you nor accuse you, Yitzhak. I am only describing it from the
perspective of the believer in terms which do not require the Ruach nor
emunah. Having said this, I appreciate the articles on other
sociolinguistic grounds for use in essays where I eviscerate the façade of
the postmodernist double-standard known as political correctness. In that
sense, these are prime examples in support of my initial charge against the
malevolent character of the commentary by skeptics on things scriptural. The
ironic part is, as I’ve been saying, all they have to rely on is a knowledge
of Hebrew (in some or even many cases) which is itself a stumbling stone to
their understanding of scriptural truth (that is, tsedakah). They too often
tend to approach the text with the presupposition that the only tools
necessary for apprehension of its meaning are Hebrew literacy and
intelligence. Heck, even the Sadducees, Herodians, and Shammaites had that
and did not even understand that their own Oral Torah permitted healing on
the Sabbath (as Yehoshua did) amongst many other things (e.g., oaths and
vows). I was prepared to present a more developed response to the two
articles you provided links for but that has and would take me too far away
from the essential error I find in your response (below). Here goes: (1) I do
not construct nor define deconstructionists “in opposition to those who hold
by biblical inerrancy” as you have but according to the definition I supplied
after you challenged my use which you described (below) as “a very succinct
summary of the entire method.…” (2) Having asked myself as I hope you do now
“how really are the deconstructionists opposed to inerrancy,” my response is
in the very same ways I stated in my original post to I defer, and which also
drew your ire. I would add now that deconstructionists argue a “reality” that
is their own (based upon the limitation of their own experience) because the
scriptural alternative is not only out of the question for them but its truth
is entirely un-apprehensible by them despite their towering intellects. They
see no intrinsic correlation between the Signified and the signifiers and
believers know there is because the signifiers derive directly from the
Signified and not any extrinsic sociocultural-historical inputs. I haven’t
emptied deconstructionism of what it really means but it seems that you have
approached that from my reading of your response.

Best regards, David Fenton
----------------------------
Gal. 27-29: For as many as have had a tevilah into Moshiach have clothed
yourselves with Moshiach. There is not Yehudi nor Yevani (Greek), there is
not eved (servant) nor ben chorin (freedman), there is not zachar (male) nor
nekevah (female), for you are all echad in Moshiach Yehoshua/Yeshua. And, if
you belong to Moshiach (YESHAYAH 53:10), then you are of the ZERAH of Avraham
Avinu, you are yoreshim (heirs) according to the havtachah (promise).
-----Original Message-----
From: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Deconstructionism

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

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading
spam and email virus protection.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page