Thu Jan 23 10:55:21 1997
From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 10:55:21 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id KAA09480; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:54:32 -0500
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:49:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Bart Ehrman
X-Sender: behrman@login3.isis.unc.edu
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism
In-Reply-To: <2D89302D07@div.ed.ac.uk>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 7742
Larry,
I suppose we're getting to the point where everyone else can start
ignoring us, what with our kidneys getting punched and our knees getting
jerked (and our noses getting tweaked). I want only to say that what I
*meant* (! even a close reading evidently didn't reveal it, cause there it
was in black and white!) (well, the text actually *does* come in different
colors these days...) (my view, of course, is that it always has) is that
the *readings* you posit (which are, I would maintain, "constructed"
rather than "discovered" in the text; this I think we would agree, is at
the heart of our disagreement) are hegemonic, not that you are. Once you
introduce "correctness" into the equation, there's no backing out. Of
course, given your complaint that I'm not listening to you -- which I
heard, by the way -- this misconstrual strikes me as a shade ironic. But
if you want to raise the point, I'm happy to pursue it: weren't *you* the
one who started this strand by urging us to avoid deconstruction because
that leads us down a deadly path? (Wish I had save the original message
to quote the words, but it's off in the ionosphere). That strikes *me* as
an attempt at control.
Quite apart from all that, given your postings, I think there's no
point at all in denying that you believe there are such things as "texts"
that have "meanings" that are there to be discovered, that the ways to
discover these "correct" readings involve applying proper methods of
interpretation, intelligence, and effort, and that those who apply
"improper" methods, or who are wanting in intelligence or effort, are not
likely to discover the correct meanings. If that isn't modernism in its
most naked form, then I'd like you to tell me what is. And if you didn't
have to wait for Fish to learn about the problems of this modernist view,
then I'd like you to tell me in clear terms what you think these problems
*are*.
Let me end for anyone else who hasn't had the good sense simply to
delete these little tirades back and forth by saying that Larry and I are
indeed friends and are probably having a good time (though it is starting
to heat up in here). Moreover, this conversation is not at *ALL* unrelated
to textual criticism. If this discipline is involved in reconstructing
*texts* then it makes some sense to figure out what it is that we think
we're *doing*. For example, the question of what a text *is* is not
unproblematic. And the questino of whether scribes who reconstructed the
text were doing something different from what we all do every time we read
a text strikes me as particularly germane.
-- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote:
>
> Bart Ehrman writes to/of me:
>
> > Well, maybe "unreconstructed modernist" sounds like a dirty epithet
> > that you simply don't want to embrace. Because based on what does seem to
> > be your assumptions about the hegemony of "correct" understandings of the
> > "original" meanings of "texts," that somehow we can have access to (if we
> > just work hard enough at it and apply the right methods), I'd judge that
> > postmodernist discourse has created only a negative and reactive response,
> > rather than a rethinking and reformulation of any of your basic
> > epistemological positions. I.e., your approach to texts is clearly
> > modernist, and it doesn't appear to be a modernism affected by anything
> > resembling poststructuralist theory. If that's not an unreconstructed
> > modernism, then I'll eat my Fish.
> >
> > :-) Bart
>
> Well, I must grant that I didn't have to wait for Fish etc. to
> criticize enlightenment/"modernist" approaches to knowledge to see
> the problems involved--so in that sense at least I guess I haven't
> been all that re-shaped as to problematics of "modernism" by this
> particular theoretical wave. But I do sincerely grant that
> "poststructuralist/postmodernist" theoreticians have pointed to real
> difficulties in interpretation, real logical issues invovled for all
> of us, and that we can thus learn--even if we do not become
> disciples.
> I utterly reject the term "hegemony" to describe my approach. I
> do not advocate any group controlling anything; I do not advocate
> some particular view being considered binding by any force other than
> its power to gain assent through powers of reasoning-persuasion.
> This term "hegemony" has become an epithet of no meaning any more,
> rather like "fascist" was in my grad student days--meaning merely
> anyone I want to label as not falling into line with me & my drinking
> buddies. Can we lay off such useless kidney punches, Bart?
> I do advocate the reasonableness of the idea that scholars in a
> particular body of inquiry *can* attempt to evaluate the comparitive
> validity and adequacy of theories, interpretations etc., and
> can/should attempt to do so by attempting to develop and use bases
> other than mere social coercion. I do think that in TC and other
> subjects these bases include legitimately the idea of an author or
> artist or copyist or group (as the case may be) and that it is these
> others whom we can attempt to engage via what they say/have said,
> written, constructed, etc. And I hold that we can try to develop
> means of assessing interpretations as to how well they help us engage
> these others via the texts or other relevant items being interpreted.
> How can I help but react with some considerable negativity to some
> forms of postmodernist theory if I find the positions illogical in
> some vital ways, and the aims anti-human and inimical to the
> nourishment of humane learning? But not all aspects or examples of
> "postmodernist" advocacy seem to me so, and even misguided ideas can
> clarify our own thinking.
> I do not hold, and have not stated here, that we can gain access to
> some single "correct" and hegemonically-enforced interpretation "if
> we just work hard and apply the right methods". I have advocated the
> view that it is not unreasonable to use the notions of "correct" and
> "incorrect" as theoretical concepts, and that we should/can try to
> develop appropriate means of seeking to do *justice* to the subject
> matters we study (and those who produced the subject matter we
> study), while granting freely that any attempt must also be
> critically examined on the assumption that it is corrigible and,
> the effort difficult, the more where there is distance twixt us and
> the item being studied (such as linguistic, cultural, social, gender
> etc. distances). Indeed, I do *not* harbor the notion that by trying
> very hard we can arrive at a final statement of things "wie es
> eigentlich gewesen ist": When have I said otherwise?
> SO, Bart. If we are to continue this discussion, here or (lest we
> tax overmuch the patience of others) elsewhere, let us attempt to
> understand each other carefully, and resist distorting what each
> other is saying. You don't like my reaction to some forms of modern
> theory--fair enough. But try to understand what I'm saying, and
> listen when I tell you that your characterizations seem to me
> distorting rhetoric rather than accurate reflections. (And I hope we
> know each other well enough for you to know, Bart, that my direct
> manner of expression here in *no* way indicates any personal
> hostility. I say this here for the benefit of other readers on whom
> this missive is inflicted.)
> 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