Emergent Reading 4: Were the Authors of the New Testament our Postmodern Predecessors?

As I continue through John D. Caputo's book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct (Baker Academic, 2007),I have read a number of things that have been both encouraging and disturbing. I have enjoyed being exposed to a number of ideas that are new to me, at least in terms of formal, deliberate study. At this point I'm ready to discuss chapter 3, but I have been stuck on a couple comments that Caputo made in chapter 2, and I'm hoping that perhaps the community on the blogosphere might help to orient my thinking here.

In chapter 2 Caputo spends some time discussing Derrida's book, The Post Card, where he calls into question not only the objective capacity of a text of literature, but also our capability as readers to grasp the message of a text objectively. For example, consider the following comments:

"The Post Card was an economic figure for saying several different things. On one level, Derrida meant that a text- say, one of the letters written by St. Paul- is a physical object and it may get lost (as were most of the letters of Paul and all of the first manuscripts of the Gospels) or misquoted or altered over several centuries of editing (which has also happened to the Scriptures). He also meant that a text simply may not be understood by its recipients, who never "get" what is "sent". Finally he meant that even when it is not and even when it is understood, a text remains structurally and in principle capable of being understood differently-by different communities of readers at different times, in other times and places- so that it is always happening (arriver) but never arrives (arriver) decisively at just one final destination (I will come back to this point below) that would be authorized to pronounce its meaning once and for all.
Christianity is a good example of the postal principle in several ways, for in Christianity the Hebrew Scriptures arrived in a place they did not see coming and were made to say things by the authors of the New Testament that favored a Christian outcome. The authors of the New Testament were not "fundamentalists" about reading the Hebrew Scriptures but were very creative readers and misreaders of those ancient texts. They had their own agenda."(pg. 47)

Now I can accept that every reader of a given text, under certain circumstances, may not understand it in exactly the same way, and that a number of historical and contextual factors can contribute to this state of affairs, but this still leaves a number of important points unaddressed. Before I put the question out there for discussion, lets not assume any answers; I will try to cash out the implications, and I want to encourage all of you to offer vigorous correction if its needed. Here are some of the key questions I can identify:

1. Are the Scriptures just like any other text?

2. Are the notions of revelation or inspiration relevant ways of talking about both the biblical text and the authors themselves given the current, postmodern academic state of affairs?

3. Were the writers of the New Testament truly making "creative" or subjective use of the Hebrew Scriptures?

Now, when I think about answering these questions, I would first say no, the Scriptures are not like any other text, given their place as God's revelation to man. I would also obviously say that it is relevant to consider the notions of revelation and inspiration as valid ways of understanding the unique character of the text. This also forces me to uphold the claim that the authors of the New Testament were not making "creative"use of the text, but that their use of the text came part and parcel with their inspired and therefore authoritative roles in the completion of God's written revelation. Therefore, I would say, it is premature to assume that the biblical text is so readily subject to the inherent weaknesses that Caputo and Derrida suggest all texts fall victim. Finally, let me suggest that perhaps a tightly-woven, satisfying logical philosophical construct is not needed to substantiate the revealtory capacity of the biblical text; unless you also believe that all Christian convictions must satisfy the demands of modern philosophy, which I would say calls faith itself into question. Now before all of you emergent folk balk at my rather mundane and traditional take on these questions, lets turn the tables and look at the implications of the negative conclusions:

Caputo is basically saying, based on his quote, unless I understand him incorrectly, that:

1. Not only is it unlikely for later readers or recipients of the biblical text to read it in the same way, garnering the same meaning, as the original readers, but that the biblical text is just like any other text. Therefore, its capacity to reveal objective truth about God is subject to significant question.

2.This problem is amplified based on the clearly asserted fact that the Scriptures themselves have been"misquoted or altered over several centuries of editing." (see my last post, Emergent Reading 3, to see the questions I raise on this point)

3. The "creative" or subjective use of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves by the authors of the New Testament is not only a testimony to the subjectivity of the New Testament itself, but also functions as a powerful justification for our contemporary, postmodern appropriations of the text. The New Testament authors had an agenda, so we can too.

Now, please, correct me if I am not properly understanding the ideas Caputo presents, but doesn't this conclusion basically undermine any basis for Christianity itself. While I do not want to overstate things here, it seems that to undermine the Scriptures in this way is to cast doubt on Christianity as a whole. I mean, why would I give any creedance, or defer authority to something, when it seems that its intergrity is cast into considerable, if not total doubt? Might this be the basis for the claim of many, like Tony Jones, Peter Rollins, Brian Mclaren, etc., etc., to claim that orthodoxy does not exist? I don't know, but it seems like a reasonable question.

Again, I want to stress that I am relatively new to much of this literature and I am truly looking for answers. I learn by doing all I can to question ideas that are presented to me, so please do not take this as polemical banter, or in-bred theology, but as an effort to challenge a set of ideas like any other. Really, I challenge anyone who sees this, not to a debate (per se), but to offer a cogent explanation and correction where needed. If I'm seeing this incorrectly, I want to know how and why- I will be better for it!

More to come....