>-----Original Message-----
>From: Heike Bödeker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 01 December 2000 13:20
>...
>Yes, but various (mis-?) interpretations would be part of dealing with the
>history of any text's reception, nevertheless.

At 14:01 01.12.00 +0000, Lovett, Dorothy replied:
>true and an even mor ebssic question is what a text which is 3-4k old haaas
>to do with life here today given that if we do say ok it is texcontextual
>(as we must) then our context is different End of story!

It would be easier if there was an obvious break in the text's reception, 
like saying why should I study Hittite texts when even the Greeks didn't 
still know anything worth mentioning about them? Or, perhaps, which is a 
bit more painful from a European viewpoint, though more from a 
philosophical and philological than theological perspective, the 
developments that as counter-movements motivated the Karolingian and 
Byzantine Renaissances around 800 and The (Italian) Renaissance (also what 
has been called the Byzantine Pre-Renaissance of the late 13th/early 14th 
cent. with Demetrios Triklinos as its key figure).

>But of course it isn't since it has been borne on and in our individual and
>collective consciousness taht the Bible is the Word of God and true for all
>people in all times and places.

Even if the latter claims hadn't been made (apart from the fact they didn't 
affect me personally so much) the Bible still contained phantasmatic 
material (going beyond the realm of what usually would be perceived as 
religion, or even ideology) up to the day shared by various (though 
inhomogenic) groups. (Whereby I with Bion and DeMause think there is a deep 
split with individuals that allow resp. force them to function in a group 
mode, i.e. a psychotic identification of the group with the mother's body, 
rather than individuality arising from a Jung'ian undifferentiated 
ur-soup). One e.g. could think of parent-child relationships, including 
phenomena such as "reverse parenting". Which is not meant to hurt any 
Christian's religious feelings, but quite universal, e.g. if K.-H. 
Schlesier (The Wolves of Heaven. Norman, OK 1987: p. 42) can write: "In 
concordance with the old northern Siberian world experience, I might ask: 
Who needed the shaman most? The answer is: the spirits themselves. They 
made the shaman; they acted, and they explained the world through the 
shaman." Which probably also gives an idea why we justifiedly can not only 
study Classical Antiquity or ancient near Eastern cultures...

>...so we need to engage with the H A G (sorry no insult intended !) to 
>explicate ourselves from the power it has been given

To be true, I'm a bit skeptical as to whether liberation can be achieved by 
philological study ;-)

>And there are some lovely stories in the bible as ancient literature etc 
>yes? Not many for women mind you ,,,,,

Guess this would be an interesting question, what was enjoyable to whom and 
why... Like, I often mentioned stories which in late 20th cent. 1st world 
cultures would be considered vulgar prattle (if not absurd, just thinking 
of the detached phallus type of story, which in a Lacanian perspective, 
however, very well made sense...), and lead to reactions like it was hard 
to imagine how women in the corresponding cultures were either compliant 
with it, or the opposite, idealizing, reaction, namely wondering if they 
were so sexually liberated they could enjoy telling phantastic erotic 
stories the same way that men do, and, above all, sharing them with them.

Another question, of course, being what was really deeply moving (though 
not necessarily delightful, just thinking e.g. of Sophoclean dramas...)

Best,

Heike