Authority of texts: Talks with interpreters

This post is fulfilling my promise to follow up on Lurie's agurment on the authority of texts on the web. I had a chat with my hermeneutic lecturers and decided I will not cut N paste any bit of thier feedback. Hope you bear the length, I'm just being a good student -:)

• This is what Dr. Philip Culbertson had to say after co-teaching a course on “The Bible in Popular Culture”

I showed the students, first, a very familiar translation of Psalm 23:

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside the still waters;
He restores my soul.
He leads me in right paths
For his name’s sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I shall fear no evil;
For you are with me;
Your rod and your staff—they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me
In the presence of my enemies;
You anoint my head with oil;
My cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
All the days of my life,
And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord,
My whole life long.

The students were very quiet as I read the psalm from the document projector. There seemed to be no comment from them, but rather a sense of listening and waiting. Next I showed them the recent HipHop translation of the Psalm, from Timothy Holder’s The Hip Hop Prayer Book (New York: Church Publishing, 2006):

The Lord is all that, I need for nothing.
He allows me to chill.
He keeps me from being heated
And allows me to breathe easy.
He guides my life so that I can
Represent and give shout outs in His name.
And even though I walk through the hood of death,
I don’t back down, for You have my back.
The fact that He has me
Covered allows me to chill.
He provides me with back-up
In front of player-haters,
And I know that I am a baller
And life will be phat.
I fall back in the Lord’s crib
For the rest of my life.

I read out the HipHop text slowly, and discovered that the students laughed often, and rather loudly, at the end of each line. I was a bit surprised: I’d never thought of Ps. 23 as a source of amusement. I felt confused both by the text itself, and by the students’ reactions. I felt how unfamiliar the new translation was, and I felt disoriented or de-stabilized. My struggle was, I think, to figure out whether I could move a familiar set of meanings from one set of comfortable signifiers to another set of startling and uncomfortable signifiers. I felt as though the “assumed” (my assumptions, obviously) original signified meaning had disappeared in the “trans-lation”. I felt as if I had lost my ability to play within the familiar text of Ps.23, and with that loss of play came a kind of grief.

This seems like a great example of deconstruction, in that the new translation seemed, to me, to render the text incoherent. I stumbled, in my heart as well as my head. How could it be possible that “chill” means the same thing as “lie down in green pastures”? If “chill” doesn’t mean that, then what does it mean? I wondered if the original author of Ps. 23 would have recognized “chill” as a synonym? Would she have recognized any convergence of signified meaning between “chill” and “lie down in green pastures”?

The new translation did not match the “hyperlinks” embedded in me as a 62-year-old white male raised from birth in the church. Ps. 23 carries, for me, the authority of familiarity, plus a variety of emotional agglutinates including comfort, nurture, and a hint of controlled threat. Interestingly, I could find those agglutinates in the new translation, in spite of the way the unfamiliar signifiers disoriented me, but finding them was hard work, and not particularly satisfying.

Did this exercise jeopardize a sense of divine authority in Ps. 23? No, because I don’t generally consider the Psalms to be divinely-inspired, but rather, a group of hymnic poems that carry the authority of profound human experience in the face of an imagined divine. But I have spent, like millions of others before me, some time looking to certain passages in the Bible in order to “borrow” the comfort that some human being before me has found and used. This is what seemed removed by dealing with a vocabulary that confronted me with the profound disorientation of implied meanings with which I could not identify. But I also wondered whether if I could hear the HipHop text read out loud, as I have so often heard the traditional text read out loud, that I could experience the same emotional ebb-and-flow through the voice of someone to whom the vocabulary seemed to “fit”.

To bring this all back to Peter Lurie’s argument, I think there is more at work here than Derrida’s deconstructionism is designed to contain. I liked Lurie’s article because of the questions it made me ask myself, and I am fascinated by Derrida. But I also believe it is virtually impossible for Christians to read the Bible without some sort of involvement with our psychodynamic inner world, for surely, after all, that is where our sense of “authority” lies.

Some years ago, I argued in an article that because the word authority is built on the Latin root auctor, which means to nourish, that any authority which does not nourish is false authority. I approach the authority of the Biblical text, then, as an exercise in nurturance, however loosely that term might be defined. In the end, I think I was more nourished by Lurie’s article than I was by the HipHop trans-lation of Ps.23. Lurie’s article allowed me to “play” inside my inner world, and thus nurtured me, and in that sense, offered authority. The HipHop translation disoriented me so much that I forgot how to play.

So does a web reading of a Biblical text dissolve its authority automatically? No, not to me, as long as the web reading leaves room for nurturing playfulness. It’s only when that playfulness is removed that the authority of the text becomes jeopardized.

More talks with the......................

Talks on Authority

Aisea has recently posted on the topic of bible and hypertext. he follows from my previous concern raised by Luire's article on the web and the authority of the text. from a perspective of interpretation he says

"When I read a text and try to interpret that particular text, does the text (Bible) still holds the authority or have I taken that authority from the text? In my opinion, in providing my own interpretation of a text will give me the authority. On the other hand, if I provide a variety of interpretations I’m handing over the authority to the reader."

• he is clearly speaking of authority to interpret of which the web tends to promote.
• the web also gives the authority to rewrite the text. not in terms of a new bible but as the readers surf from thier point of interest, there is an aspect of rewriting.

but even then, the text remains text......................... as te tapo says "we extract but still go back to the same text"! So, what about the 'authority'?

"Right to remain silent..."

upto today, i thought "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say or.. will be used against (or for you) in a court of law" is only to be heard during arrests.

in my class today, (* oh like i noticed we and while are not bed mates so I corrected it after publishing) while learning how to evaluate web resources (of course for easy understanding comparing and contrasting with the print world). One of things that came up was how easily web publishing enables scholars to get away with comments, quotes and the likes. anytime the mind plays its usuall tricks, the scholar can always change whatever comment and publish again.

now, remember how many times we have read pleasing or unpleasing quotes from print books even after the author has come up with upto the 5th Edition to maybe change his or her position? in some way, the scholar can never make a wrong write once it has appeared in print and reached those library shelves. "whatever you write will be used against or for you in footnotes, in-texts or endnotes... no matter how many editions you publish"

This is just one difference between web publishing and print publishing

Texts, Hypertext and Authority of texts

I did put up a post on Peter Lurie taking up Derridas concept of deconstruction to explain how the web works in reading of texts.

It is quite interesting how Lurie apply this concept and probably succeeds. however, is he right in claiming that linking texts of hypertext dissolve the authority of text? Tim in one of his posts has got me thinking of this and want to explore it further.

I can not stop thinking of what "authority" we are talking about here. but first what deconstruction aims at;

• "generating conflicting meanings from the same text, and playing those meanings against each other...... (T. K. Seung)"
• "seeks to subtle, often unwitting ideological inconsistencies in a text that seem hard to resolve and that prevent interpreters from claiming that it has a fixed meaning"- claiming the text does not have fixed meaning may also imply that it speaks to people in different ways and under different circumstances. once the text is able to speak to the reader in any way, or even not to speak at all after unveiling ambiguities- it definately has authority.
• "critical overturning of all structures and hierarchies on which we have built beliefs and belief systems in culture (D. Jasper)"

but like I said our understanding of 'authority' when it comes to biblical texts has also undergone some significant changes over the years.

• In ages authority of texts is achieved when one is able to trust the scripture as the rule of life. The debate has been whether the texts become a rule of life after being asked questions (probably deconstructed) or just as it is (based on other features like inerrancy, inspiration..)

Within biblical studies, reading such as feminist readings/hermeneutic has proved beyond doubt that texts have to be peeled off their social, cultural, political lacings before we can make any claims.

Now, the aim of hypertext like Lurie explains is to understand the text better- the literal, historical, social and even the cultural dimensions of it. The text becomes a reference point (authority). after the deconstruction, one chooses which way to go- after getting appropriate meaning. In one way or the other, the text becomes a rule- give direction to the online reader. It is therefore inappropriate to say the web rips the text off authority ( as a rule).

However, if "authority' in Peter's case is to mean consistency/ in print, the text guides where to start and finish- then the text maybe dissolve of any authority online as the reader chooses where to start and end- the text nolonger guides its reading......

Check out for more on this :-)

Page vs Screen?

I see the use of hypertext as one aspect of reading and therefore agree that it is not necessary to make competing claims (page vs Screen):

I think Tim Burkeley is right in his article Form, medium and Function, it is more important to talk about the rhetorical effects of presenting texts in print or hypertexts- or the rhetorical needs of the different genres of communication rather than a focus on thier "technological containers"-

• The monograph and the commentary: the commentary as txt replicating another prior text which may feature repetitions of various sorts, has more cross-references than a monograph. A mongraph provides a coherent argument presenting a particular case, or thesis over an extended period of time.- Commentary explains a prior text. (hypertexts used before- only extended in digital)

Print restrict the hypertextual nature of commentaries (footnotes and bibliographical information)- fingers move back and forth and maybe the reader may never get hold of the quoted book.- Digital makes hypertext easier to read

Jacques Derrida in digital enviroment?

Peter Lurie in "Why the Web Will Win the Culture Wars for the Left: Deconstructing Hyperlinks" has chosen to explain the contribution of internet to reading using Derrida's deconstruction. I'm interested in his post because of my comment that internet scholarship can be viewed as one of the many hermeneutical approaches. While I'm not sure Peter sufficiently apply deconstruction , he manages to illuminate how the web works in reading of biblical passages and the internet as a post-modernist tool of reading. which I think was his aim anyway.

• One thing for sure is that in reading a passage online, the authority of reading the texts lies with the surfer. The reader chooses where to begin and end his/her reading using the building blocks of the web (HTML, hyperlinks, frames, and meta-tags). "They combine to create a highly associative, endlessly referential and contingent environment that provides an expanse of information at the same time that it subverts any claim to authority, since another view is just a click away." - Now here is where Derrida comes in for Peter.

"Hypertext markup language (HTML) provides graphic display instructions to the web browser. Codes control the presentation of each web page, including pictures, colors, fonts and the organization of text. Without HTML, a web browser would show a continuous scroll of plain text. Although HTML is normally invisible, the viewer can select a viewing option that exposes the program codes. With HTML visible, the structure of each web page is laid bare, like a theater with transparent curtains and sets, so the lighting crew, scaffolding, director and actors in the wings were all visible. Hyperlinks, which often appear in underlined blue text, provide the essential connectivity of the web, enabling the user to jump from one page to another, a sort of black hole through which a viewer can jump in and emerge in another place. Framing divides a web site into separate windows, each displayed in a separate part of the screen and independently functional. Hyperlinks connect each frame, allowing the user to move among screens without leaving the site. Search engines organize information on the web as well, while helping users locate information they want. Google returns a short description of and hyperlink to a list of sites ranked by likely relevance. In many cases the web page communicates to the search engine through metatags, which are encoded in the HTML and usually consist of key words that provide an associative description of the site itself."

how about a biblical passage?

• "For the deconstructionist, each text is endlessly referential, a web of associations and connections that is finally ambiguous.- reading the bible onlineReading the bible online at www.bible.org is a typically interactive effort, one that despite the intentions of the Biblical Studies Foundation, which operates the site, explodes the authority of the text. The viewer chooses any of eighteen different versions of the bible, and then finds a matrix of hyperlinks organized by chapter and verse that link to the requested section. Four frames provide the biblical text and accompanying information, including footnotes hyperlinked to other sources with explanatory material, a hyperlinked index of every other chapter, and links to the Biblical Studies Foundation's homepage, as well as other related sources. The site also contains the customary search function, which appears on the left, and of course the internet browser itself has a search function that is always visible, so that an engaged reader may be constantly toggling between biblical text, commentary in the footnotes, word searches suggested by the bible or footnotes or a combination of both. Readers unfamiliar with a word may click on the footnote with a short definition or synonym. If that is unsatisfactory, typing the word into the search function will yield a link to a dictionary of biblical words, terms and phrases that may offer a more refined and accurate definition. The reader may be satisfied and return to the text or pursue the matter further, needing just two clicks to find the same passage in an alternative translation. If the reader is interested in a historical analysis of the passage, a search for ?biblical history' yields and array of relevant academic and religious sites from all perspectives. A reader might devote a day to pursuing a single passage, a single line, finding herself farther and farther afield from the original text and translation. Indeed, she might forget which site she was reading. Reading the bible online is an exploration of multiple sources, commentators and bibliographic tributaries."
• "The Web invites, even demands that its users go back, forward, around and elsewhere in an associative search for meaning.- -

Peter Lurie however fails to point out how the web also enable the reader to deconstruct ideologies maybe in terms of policies that accompany web pages. this i suppose was an important aspect in Derridas concept of deconstruction.

Future scholarship- history

The study of texts depending on the approach taken involves in one way or the other a study of the world behind the text, of the texts, or infront of the text (of the reader). keen readers of biblical texts are involved in study of history at some point.

McClymer contibute to our undertanding of how the "collaborative, multimediated, networked, nonlinear, and multi-accented environment" enable a new way of studying history.

Whatever part of the history of the text we choose to study, "the evidence comes in a wide array of forms.... we know there are crucial missing pieces."

The space, economic and like factors of the print cunlture force us to choose which part of the evidence is more appropriate and discard the others. We are unable to give the other evidence in full except maybe refer our readers to other sources- in footnotes, endnotes or an attached summary.

Though speaking of history as a discpline, I agree with McClymer that any form of history requires a "high degree of flexibility". Others we wrongly assume history to be a well- structured field. Leave alone the fact that choosing of what is appropriate or what goes to the print is coloured with many ideologies and biases.

The digital culture through tools like links enable the historian to give all the collected evidence and maybe help the readers understand his/her choice of which is appropriate.

Future scholarship- for students

This post is the second of the insights from thefutureofthebook project. The post is based on renewed publics, revised pedagogies- Anvi Santos.

It is one thing to be overwhelmed by such abundant knowledge that new scholarship provide and enables research by biblical students/students from other fields, but another thing to be able to determine the creibility fo the information.

There are a vairety of bible study blogs and biblical studies related blogs, but how do we determine quality? Fulfiling the intentions of Socrates that "the role of the intellectual is to bring the fire of knowledge closer to the people and therefore enriching their lives instead of having it locked up in the Ivory Tower in an autistic discourse among academics" is not without a challenge.

Santos argues that the new technology offers ways of pedagogies and community intervention. this include;

"the development, drafting and revision of critical writing would
happen in public before scholarly work is put through the traditional
blind "peer-review" process- this gives the students the opportunity to see,
learn and participate in the process other than only being
presented with finished works to digest."

but the students would not be able to participate without the approparite tools. by this I mean "critical digital literacy skills" to write and research in this enviroment as "creators, critics, analysts, activists, or consumers".

insitutions as well as individuals are beginning to take up this challenge. Courses on digital media are being introduced among others within the field of biblical studies. Glad to note that i'm currently taking a course on "Bible in electronic context" to be able to critically participate in the new scholarship. almost half way through the course, i have learnt;

• variuos components of hypertext resources, such that i can participate in a discussion as well as set up my own resource for learning purposes including researching.
• members of the class are also able to dialogue with each other and engage in critical conversations as we learn to critically participate in a digital environment through our blogs. the conversation helps us to "see the connections between individual experiences and larger social, cultural, political, economic, and/or technological processes." other members of the community are also welcomed to participate to complement the already cross-cultural class.
• the students are in the process of setting up hypertext resources for biblical studies as part of our course work assessment.

All these aimed at increasing our knowledge and participation in the new scholarship especially being able to "judge online resources critically and incorporate these materials into their research in ways that go beyond merely cutting and pasting text." Our lecturer remains the expert as he assess our created resources.

Future scholarship

Reading Anvis Santos "introducing media commons" give me an idea of the purpose of the new scholarship enhanced by the use of internet. In the next three posts, I will be writing on this insights from Santos and others from futureofthebook and some of the contibutions to biblical studies. This post is about general insights.

• It is undeniable that the digital age is here with us. The age is increasingly requiring the opening up of 'former scholarly world' to the scrutiny of the public. While it maybe doing so without the 'experts' themsleves agreeing to it, I believe the future of the book project is an initiative by the scholars to voluntary respond to this challenge before change can change them.
• Secondly, while digital is becoming the talk of the town, I want to see it as only a particular lense of reading given that it forms its own community. In other words, just like the many hermeneutical lenses within biblical studies, internet scholarship for me targets the community created by the new age. I therefore analyse its contibution as one among other reading and outreach lenses and to some extent as a site of resistance to the traditional form of scholarship- printing press.

Biblical studies has many faces though not clearly distinguishable as such; It has

1. common reader- maybe best known as the "congregations"
2. pastors- directly in contact with the common reader
3. students- who depending on interest may end up joining the pastors
4. academics- directly in conctact with the students and in some cases double the role of pastors.

These categories are not as clear cut as such because of some taking up multiple roles, this is only to give some framework. Whatever the case, Internet scholarship mostly benefits the students and academics (faculty) who aim at "scholarship, service and teaching."

The academics aim to produce teaching materials for students and materials that make reading of the bible easier for common readers- materials like bible commentaries or on particular bible topics. The students on the other hand continually undertake research via the internet, while the common reader belonging to the internet community browse the web for information or transfomation. -

• The greatest departure point that I see with the new scholarship is it aim of allowing the targeted community to be part of the scholarship from day one of the project "readers will be able to follow the development of an idea from its germination in a blog, though its drafting as an article". This is achieved by "leaving the network open to continual analysis and critique"- This is majorly for the benefit of students and faculty, and even one scholar and other scholar.
• Secondly, it is one way of realizing the dream of opening up communication between the academy and the wider reading public- however as Santos rightly says, this does not go without a challenge. As much as this kind of scholarship is aimed at creating commons, the fact is that there is still the expert and the learner. It is only the interraction that changes. But it needs a rethinking of how these roles would be defined or clealry cut. narrowing the gap between scholarship, service and teaching.-
• Thirdly, the interractive environment allow for many vioces as people all over the world, perspectives and fields post thier critical analysis and views. To the academic, it makes the work rich, full of new ideas and exciting :-)-
• Using tools like hyperlinks, the academic is able to quote from "multi mediated" materials. without too much worry about space- of course there are restrictions such as copyrights but not as much as printing as a lense of reading.

How does this benefit the students?(-: look out for the next post............