Wed Jan 22 09:42:21 1997

From owner-tc-list  Wed Jan 22 09:42:21 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA27885; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:41:06 -0500
From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" 
Organization: Divinity Faculty
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:35:59 +000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism
Priority: normal
References: <11C40F26DB@div.ed.ac.uk>
In-reply-to: 
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50)
Message-ID: <16BDEC2A36@div.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3865

Bart Ehrman writes to me:

>     It seems to me that what you're giving is a *caricature* of
> postmodernist approaches to texts.  Where, Larry, did you get the idea
> that postmodernists have no theoretical grounds on which to evaluate
> different readings of a text??? (Not from Fish, I can assure you!) (You
> should reread him!) (Actually, everyone should reread him, in my opinion)

I got the idea from Fish and from others.  E.g., when asked why he 
should get a handsome salary for interpreting English Lit., if there 
was no real possibility of talking about validity in interpretation, 
and when someone else might do the job cheaper, he responded by 
saying "Because I can make it entertaining".  "Postmodernist" should 
probably always be put into quote marks because it represents a 
diversity of theoretists, and because all sorts of people claim to 
embrace the term who then use it to represent quite a wide assortment 
of views & approaches.  I've referre here to what I term "radical" 
examples/versions, in which it is simply so that the theoretical aim 
of trying compare interpetations in light of what might be argued to 
be more or less probably a meaning intended by an author--any such 
aim is thrown out of court at the outset.  "Historical" readings of 
texts on this sort of view are thus "useful" readings--i.e., readings 
that accord with a current interest or agenda--and this is asserted 
as the only valid criterion for assessing readings (examples can be 
supplied).

> 
>     One point at issue may simply be rather banal, viz., what you mean by
> a "correct" reading.

Bart--My point was that it is legitimate to try to determine what may 
be more or less "correct" readings, as distinguished from the view 
that there is no theoretical basis for even entertaining the 
question. I wish to assert that it is not a waste of time for us to 
argue over readings as to whether they are more or less "correct" and 
to argue over what "correct" means.

> 
>     I should also say that there are not many folk working in the biblical
> field who are intimately familiar with postmodernist discourse from the
> *inside* (as opposed to the dilletantes, who will always, I'm afraid to
> say, be with us) -- i.e. people who actually read this stuff on its own
> terms and for its own merit rather than simply seeing how they can come up
> with a different approach to interpreting Mark, or whatever.  

Well, I for one freely admit to not being a specialist and expert in 
the burgeoning "postmodernist" literature.  I do, however, base my 
statements and attempted characterizations on real statements from 
advocates of "postmodernist" approaches, and from expositions of such 
theorists by colleagues in various places who *do* make it part of 
their professional expertise to master this material.  But then, on 
what basis would anyone say that my interpretation of postmodernist 
theories is a "caricature", unless it is theoretically possible 
to argue about such things as the relation of texts to the 
intended meanings/ideas/theories of the authors of these texts 
(e.g., Fish's writings!), and about something being "correct" or 
not?
>The ones in
> this small crowd who have talked to me about "Orthodox Corruption" have
> actually *liked* its approach to textual criticism (well ... they _said_
> they did :-)).  And they seem to be the ones who have appreciated the full
> ironies of the title. 

Bart, Count me among those who appreciate the book (though not an 
uncritical appreciation, as I know you would appreciate), and among 
those who detect the irony (and slight mischief?) *intended* (!) in 
the title.  I was being ironic myself!  
Cheers,
Larry Hurtado
 
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk

Back