Subject: Re: The function of TC

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:42:34 -0500 (EST)

Ken,

   Thanks for the serious engagement.  Let me say that (1) I think you are
misreading Fish rather seriously (or creatively constructing a
misreading!) if you thknin that he allows for an infinite stream of
equally valid deconstructionist readings of a text;  I have to say that
this way of putting it makes me suspect strongly that either you haven't
actually read Fish or overlooked (or disputed?) the parts where he
explicitly states otherwise.  I don't have time to track down chapter and
verse just now, especially since someone ran off with my copy!, but he
deals with all this in several of the later essays in _Is There a Text in
the Class_ and, I believe, in some of the _What Comes Naturally_ essays;

    Apart from that (2) I'm afraid that I don't understand what your
question is when you ask what the *purpose* of studying texts would be. 
(I'm a bit confused becuase if someone asked me what the purposes of my
playing raquetball, following the Tar Heels -- a misguided venture these
days, I might add, and listening to Mozart were, I'm not sure I'd know
what to say....).  Maybe I would be helped if you would tell me what your
own "purposes" for studying texts are, so I could respond.

-- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> 
> Dear Bart:
> 
>    Serious question:  if we grant reades a fully creative role, as Fish 
> does (in my reading of him, at laest), and grant an infinite stream of 
> euqally valid, deconstructed readings, and don't posit a meaning in a 
> text (as Eco would), what wuold be the purpose of studying texts?  From 
> my readings of certain post-modernist writers (and clearly one cannot 
> say what all PM thinkers beliee, because there is a lot of variation), 
> the whole notion of arguing for anything about a text in a book, 
> article, email or whatever, is clearly inappropriate.  Texts don't have 
> meanings.  Readers create texts and meanings.  Therefore, there is 
> really no reason why anyone should be interested in anyone else's 
> equally valid reading of a "text".  So why would you want to bother with 
> TC or biblical interpretation at all, since it's not possible to 
> interpret the biblical text as such if you're a deconstructionist?  Or 
> am I missing something?  
> 
> 
> Ken Litwak
>

---

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:09:25 -0500 (EST)

Bart,
At 02:42 PM 1/23/97 -0500, you wrote:

>days, I might add,

The one consolation is that at least Duke is doing much better this year
than last!!!
For that we can all be grateful.

> and listening to Mozart 

Because when one listen's to Mozart, one is hearing the Voice of God sans words.

The purpose of TC is the same as (interestingly) following a great
basketball team like Duke or listening to the wondrous music of little
Wolfgang.  One does such things for the pure pleasure of discovery and the
enjoyment of the very important work of others.  TC is, when done right, as
exciting as a double overtime or a Mozart overture.

>-- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West

[email-masked]