Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Rhetoric of Social Construction (and Thomas)

Expand Messages
  • Rick Hubbard
    It seems to me that Bill Arnal s discussion of how GTh s fundamental doctrine of language discloses some important clues about the nature of the community in
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      It seems to me that Bill Arnal's discussion of how GTh's
      fundamental doctrine of language discloses some important clues
      about the nature of the community in which the gospel originated,
      or was redacted [The Rhetoric of Social Construction: Language
      and Society in the Gospel of Thomas]. It invites a re-energized
      reading of Thomas. He suggests that, "...insight into Thomas'
      understanding of language or interpretation may allow for a
      greater refinement of our comprehension of the authors'
      perception of the world, and of society around them." The
      importance of aspiring to an improved (and congenial)
      understanding of both Thomas' use of language and its social
      setting cannot be underestimated, in my opinion. Unless we do so,
      we are sentenced to endless rounds of debate over the theories of
      literary dependency, date and authorship, provenance and
      quasi-theological hermeneutics. In short, this article may be an
      integral part of the manifesto of those who march under the
      banner of "Thomas Autonomy."

      So much for the accolades. Now on to some details.

      In Section II, Bill contrasts Philo's doctrine of interpretation
      with that of Thomas. He observes:

      "While Philo appears to claim that language-- and especially the
      language of divine revelation-- conceals a meaning not
      immediately or literally present on its surface, but nevertheless
      fundamentally compatible with it, Thomas views ordinary language
      as _concealing_ [emphasis his] the true meaning of divine
      revelation: the sayings of Jesus are 'secret' or 'hidden.' There
      are not, as in Philo, layers of (compatible) meaning ..., but
      rather _a_ meaning [emphasis his], apparently fixed and single,
      to [be] _found_ [emphasis his] beneath the text."

      I'm reluctant to embarrass myself by saying how many times I've
      re-read the above statement and failed to grasp the point. I am
      completely unable to comprehend the difference between these two
      different kinds of concealment. In both cases "meaning" does not
      reside in the text itself, but beneath it. What *seems* to be
      different is EITHER that Philo presupposes that the "concealed
      meaning" of the text exists in multiple "layers" that become less
      opaque as one goes from "top to bottom" OR that there is a single
      "concealed" meaning, the clarity of which depends on the
      hermeneutical proficiency of the reader/interpreter. By contrast,
      Bill says clearly that there is but a single meaning beneath the
      text of Thomas, but what remains unclear to me is the means by
      which the reader uncovers that meaning. I THINK he says that this
      hermeneutic occurs at the simplest level of cognition, i.e.,
      simply by "... looking at the surface of things, their obvious
      qualities." That which triggers the move from "ignorance to
      understanding," or "agnosia to gnosia," is the deprecation of
      that which one inspects.

      If so, does this mean that Thomas requires a certain "cognitive
      dissonance" to be present in the reader (if the reader hopes to
      find the meaning of the words contained therein)? Similarly, is
      the purpose of Thomas to be a paradigm (or catechism) for
      invoking cognitive dissonance?


      Rick Hubbard
      Humble Maine Woodsman
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.