On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> How is he critiquing a text? He's critiquing obtuse interpretations
> of a text. Besides, haven't our resident biblical scholars made a
> point of the bible not being "a text" but a multiplicity of texts?
I could wax Derridean and say that all texts are multiplicities, but the average bible reader - no, about 95% of bible readers - treat the thing as a unitary document, the fucking word of God, the ultimate author.
Doug