[lit-ideas] Re: Faith
- From: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 12:01:26 +0900
On 2005/05/17, at 5:18, JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx wrote:
> I'd like to know how a Literary Critic/Literary Theory type who =20
> buys into
> the desconstructionist "No Master Text" thing, and who is a =20
> Christian,
> approaches a set of sacred texts like the Bible. I've been asking =20=
> this of various
> people in various venues for 10 years and can't get an answer.
Once possible answer, described in Fundamentalism: The Search for =20
Meaning -- by Malise Ruthven, is the shift from "literalism" to =20
"inerrancy," i.e. from the conviction that every word of scripture =20
has one and only one real, referential meaning to the belief that =20
there is a unique reading in which all of the apparent =20
inconsistencies in scripture disappear=81\the task of the theologian =20
being to approximate that reading as closely as possible.
This is, I note, logically the same sort of move made by =20
anthropologists who assume that a "culture" must be an internally =20
coherent and consistent system, and by art historians, psychologists =20
and political philosophers who make similar assumptions concerning =20
"works," "selves," and "nations," respectively.
None of these moves goes far enough to satisfy the strict =20
deconstructionist "No Master Text" assumption; but all may seem =20
compelling to those who are willing to accept the notion that the =20
true Master Text can only be approximated by readings of varying =20
quality.
John McCreery=
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
