AKMA blogs an article he’s written on
cyberspace’s effect on our relationship to the
Bible. Wow! AKMA, recently-tenured theologian at
Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, is the author
of one of the best introductions
to postmodernism, What is PostModern Biblical
Criticism?, and is a serious multilingual
scholar, as well as being one of the most
interesting (= insightful, entertaining,
compassionate) bloggers around.

He suggests two major effects the multimedia
world of the Net will bring to biblical
interpretation:

… first, a
demystification of words as means of communication,
and second, a relaxation of what has been the
constitutive hostility of modern academic biblical
studies to allegory. At the heart of both these
proposals lies a sensitivity to the explosive
breadth of means for communicating information in
cyberspace.

Fascinating. But for me, as a Jew, its fascination rests in part on
seeing how matters look to a thoughtful, scholarly,
imaginative, playful and ultimately serious thinker
from a different tradition.

For AKMA, demystifying words is a good thing, for we
believe too naively in the possibility of literal
translation and we exalt printed words over other
forms of meaningful communication and expression:

Though the Word became flesh and
dwelt among us, the Word was not manifest as a part
of speech or a siglum; the Word effected communion
with humanity by becoming human, not by becoming an
inscription.

As a Jew, we were given a set of words. They come
from the mouth of G-d, but they’re written in human
language. We get over the translation problem by
learning Hebrew and Aramaic. (When I say “we,” I
mean them other Jews; I don’t know either language
and I only believe in G-d enough to feel that if He
exists, He’s got a lot of ‘splaining to do.) Yet,
the Jewish tradition from the beginning has been aware of the hermeneutical problem of translation, for we don’t believe that even in the
original language there is a one-to-one relationship
of word to meaning. When G-d speaks in human language,
we still need to engage in an overwhelming task of
“translation” and interpretation. That’s why there
are no (?) fundamentalist Jews who believe you can
understand the scripture just by reading it out loud
in a firm, scolding tone of voice.

But scripture isn’t the only way G-d speaks.
Creation is another. So, while the Torah obviously
holds a special place for Jews in G-d’s creation, it is not
the only source of revelation. But what gives the
Torah its special place? The fact that, unlike the
rest of G-d’s creation, it’s in words. So, yes,
printed (well, hand-lettered) words do have a
special, “over-valued” place in Judaism.

Notice, of course, that having a special place
doesn’t mean having an exclusive place. Not only words convey G-d’s meaning.
So does the rest of creation. So does love. So does science. So does observance and practice and tradition. But
words are special. At least G-d’s words are.

So, if the multimedia Net results in letting some of the air out of words’ tires for Christians, I don’t think it will have the same effect on Judaism. For a text-based religion like Judaism – one that famously anticipated the hyperlinked nature of information – the Web shines as an aid to scholarship and to the conversations that are the way Jewish scholarship proceeds and succeeds. And, more important, for a community-based religion such as Judaism – Jews are a people, and observance requires living with other Jews – the Web enables a connectedness within diaspora that may indeed touch something deep within the collective us.

---

AKMA writes:

As academic biblical
interpretation moves more rapidly and
comprehensively into domains other than the printed
word, practitioners will need to learn how to
evaluate interpretations on unfamiliar terms. Under
present circumstances, the dominant critical
question posed to (verbal) interpretations consists
principally in whether they appropriately honor the
historical context of the text’s origin; such
questions well suit a discourse of interpretation
that trades in propositions as its currency. When
interpretations involve not only verbal truth-claims
about interpretive propositions, but also shapes,
colors, soundtracks, and motion, the matter of
historical verisimilitude recedes among a host of
other questions.

By rattling this cage, AKMA is making the cage
visible. Our idea of truth is all wrapped up with
our understanding of words. Truth pertains to words,
we believe. When it comes to pictures, we talk about
“accuracy” or “realism” but not truth. (That’s why
AKMA’s reference to Magritte’s “This is not a pipe”
is so apt.) But if truth has instead to do with
revelation — un-covering, in Heidegger’s sense
— then confining truth to the realm of words
cages us. Words may have a special
place in uncovering our world, but they are not the
only shovel in the tool shed.

[NOTE: Anything I write about Judaism
constitutes an act of arrogance since I know little
and believe less.

Categories: Uncategorized dw