More than One way to Read a Book - 8 views

• 
  #1 Sterling Field on 15 Feb 10

   

  It is my contention, and certainly that of Derrida, Heidegger and Wittgenstein that there is more than one way to read a book. That a book holds within itself more than just one meaning. This can certainly be applied to the Bible in this case, and I believe that it must be applied in order to bridge the gap of irreconcilable differences that are contained within, and what would seem to be blatant contradictions in terms and passages. There must be, in my opinion, more than one way to look at the Bible in order for it to stay relevant to and for humankind in this day and age. J. Hillis Miller states it well, "Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."
  
  Derrida, in "Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida" states, "Because, however, affirmative deconstruction is, it is affirmative in a way that is not simply positive, not simply conservative, not simply a way of repeating the given institution. I think that the life of an institution implies that we are able to criticize, to transform, to open the institution to its own future" (p 5-6).
  
  This is precisely the approach that Derrida brings to reading his texts and deconstructing them. He criticizes (rightly), transforms (brilliantly) and allows many of the texts to open themselves to a new future being viewed in a different light. That is the way that Derrida and I look at the Bible (only I would not consider myself a full Deconstructionist). We do not take what we are given at face value, standing back we hold an open and honest examination of what we are reading (although I speak in the present tense, I know that Derrida has recently passed away in the past few years) and we hold paramount the ideas that these texts can and should be pulled apart and re evaluated with an eye for the truth.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">It is my contention, and certainly that of Derrida, Heidegger and Wittgenstein that there is more than one way to read a book. That a book holds within itself more than just one meaning. This can certainly be applied to the Bible in this case, and I believe that it must be applied in order to bridge the gap of irreconcilable differences that are contained within, and what would seem to be blatant contradictions in terms and passages. There must be, in my opinion, more than one way to look at the Bible in order for it to stay relevant to and for humankind in this day and age. J. Hillis Miller states it well, "Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air." <br /> <br /> Derrida, in "Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida" states, "Because, however, affirmative deconstruction is, it is affirmative in a way that is not simply positive, not simply conservative, not simply a way of repeating the given institution. I think that the life of an institution implies that we are able to criticize, to transform, to open the institution to its own future" (p 5-6). <br /> <br /> This is precisely the approach that Derrida brings to reading his texts and deconstructing them. He criticizes (rightly), transforms (brilliantly) and allows many of the texts to open themselves to a new future being viewed in a different light. That is the way that Derrida and I look at the Bible (only I would not consider myself a full Deconstructionist). We do not take what we are given at face value, standing back we hold an open and honest examination of what we are reading (although I speak in the present tense, I know that Derrida has recently passed away in the past few years) and we hold paramount the ideas that these texts can and should be pulled apart and re evaluated with an eye for the truth.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #2 Mandy Todd Moore on 17 Feb 10

   

  Sterling, I like what you say about "standing back we hold and open and honest examination of what we are reading." I think sometimes people are so invested in the Bible and what it has to offer that it becomes incredibly difficult to "pull apart" and re-evaluate. I am very interesting in this form of biblical criticism. Thanks!

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Sterling, I like what you say about "standing back we hold and open and honest examination of what we are reading." I think sometimes people are so invested in the Bible and what it has to offer that it becomes incredibly difficult to "pull apart" and re-evaluate. I am very interesting in this form of biblical criticism. Thanks!</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #3 Michael Hemenway on 17 Feb 10

   

  Sterling, are there a few biblical scholars you found that apply this approach well?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Sterling, are there a few biblical scholars you found that apply this approach well?</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top