Lawrence wrote: "What especially bothers me about this review (and possibly Peeters’ biography) is that Bultmann created a correlative theory (also based upon Heidegger) *Demythologizing *Scripture. The term “deconstruction” would also fit what Bultmann did – but possibly only in the misunderstood sense that we Americans understand it." I can't speak to how Americans understand the concept, 'deconstruction', but I don't see Bultmann engaged in deconstruction, at least as Derrida described it. Bultmann's demythologizing aimed at stripping away the mythological elements of the Biblical text in order to arrive at historical and existential truths. For Derrida, deconstruction was an act of critical thinking that undermined the claim that there were core or central truths in texts, cultures, etc. that could be uncovered. The text which is often identified with Derrida's turn to deconstruction is 'Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences', which was Derrida's deconstruction of Levi-Strauss. 'Structure, Sign and Play' was based on a lecture given at a conference on structuralism at Johns Hopkins in 1966, well before the culture wars of the 1980s. It seems to me that Derrida's attraction, both to followers and detractors, lay in his being so obscure, and therefore convenient, for whatever agenda was at hand. Sincerely, Phil Enns