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

Re: [John_Lit] Discussion of Colleen Conway's SBL2000 Paper

Expand Messages
  • Colleen M. Conway
    ... meaning ... don t ... as ... I guess this the point, as I see it. Since there will be as many concepts of it (i.e., some past event) as there are people
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 2, 2001
      > Dear Colleen Conway:
      >
      > In your paper, you approvingly note, Jean Howard has wriitten that
      > "'history' is not objective, transparent, unified, or easily knowable and
      > consequently is extremely problematic as a concept for grounding the
      meaning
      > of a literary text". If this statement is correct, then this has profound
      > implications for someone, like myself, who is interested in uncovering the
      > meaning of John intended by its author(s).
      > However, is this statement correct? History is said to be "a concept".
      > In one sense, this may be right. That is, if there is an eternal and
      > perfect being, then, I suppose, history may exist in the mind of this
      > being as a concept.
      > Still, isn't history simply the past? So, when we say, "Well, it's now
      > history!", do we not mean that "it" belongs to the past? Certainly we
      don't
      > mean that "it" is now a concept. Indeed, each one of us will have a
      > different concept of "it"--so that there will be as many concepts of "it"
      as
      > there are people aware of "it".

      I guess this the point, as I see it. Since there will be as many concepts of
      "it" (i.e., some past event) as there are people aware of "it," Howard's
      statement seems on target--this "it" is not objective, transparent, unified,
      or easily knowable.

      > Also, is there not a sense in which elements of history continue to
      exist
      > in the present? You kick a stone and see in it a sea creature preserved
      > unchanged for millions of years. You also see on the stone stirations
      that
      > are 40,000 years old--with they having been created when it was
      transported
      > by a
      > glacier. You look up in the sky and see a star as it appeared millions of
      > years ago--it taking that long for the light from it to reach your eyes.
      > You read John and you real a text that has remained basically unchanged
      for
      > well over a thousand years.

      Hence, while it must be granted that it is not an easy task to
      > re-construct the meaning of John intended by its author(s) by examining
      the
      > elements from the past that still exist, is it really "extremely
      > problematic"? Isn't the basic problem the practical problem of
      recognizing
      > and fully utiilizing the clues that the text itself provides us rather
      than
      > any theoretical and/or philosophical problem?

      I certainly agree that elements of history continue into the present,
      especially, in the case of New Testament studies, interpretive history. So
      that while we may read a text such as John that is "unchanged for over a
      thousand years" we read it through the lens of an interpretive history that
      is ever-changing. For instance, before redaction criticism and the birth of
      the Johannine community, one would be hard pressed to find readings of the
      Gospel through this particular window to the "past." The "clues" in the text
      would lead the reader to quite different conclusions. My guess is that in
      another thirty years scholars will read such clues in a different way.

      Still, whether or not there is an objective history that one can know is,
      for me, not as crucial as the additional point that Howard makes regarding
      the relationship between history an literature. I am interested in the ways
      that literature participates in historical processes (rather than merely
      reflecting historical fact). How does the Gospel of John become an agent in
      constructing a culture's sense of reality? I think this is a fascinating
      question both in terms of the ancient readers of this Gospel, and for
      contemporary ones.

      Many thanks for your thoughtful response,

      Colleen
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.