This weeks reading illuminated many of the problems which scholars in my field have in approaching ancient texts. I study a period called the Second Temple period (also referred to as the inter-testamental period) which spans roughly 300BC-100AD. During this time there were numerous texts written which claimed authority through authoritative figures from Israel’s past. For example, there is a lot of literature that claims to have been written by Moses, though clearly they had been written much later. These texts have been categorized by modern scholars as “psedepigrapha” which literally means forgery or falsely attributed. The term “pseudepigrapha” carries a lot of baggage in that it assumes that the practice of not using one’s own name is plagiarism, as it is often characterized today. This does not reflect however the way in which texts were understood during this period. I will be using this problem in my field as an example while discussing my views on the identity and relationship of the author and reader of the text.
Barthes
Modern obsessions with dating and questions of authorship have limited the ways in which these pseudepigraphic texts are understood. I really liked Barthes argument that to use “authorship as the decisive clue to meaning…is misguided in that it constitutes an attempt to impose a limit on the text” (133). Barthes mockes traditional literary criticism for its emphasis on objectivity, good taste and clarity. Additionally he wrote that a text’s unity is not found in its origin rather in its destination (133). It is this comment which strikes at the core of the debate surrounding these pseudepigraphic texts. Should we be more concerned with who wrote them or should we rather focus on how they have been received?
Foucault
I also found Foucault’s notion of authorship to be particularly valuable for my example. Just as Barthes challenged the way we conceive of a “text”, Foucault challenged our modern sense of “authorship”. He asks “when and how did the authority of a work become linked to authorship?” (134). In the case of the pseudepigrapha from the second temple period this is an especially important question. There is one text in particular called Jubilees that was found in several copies at Qumran (in the Dead Sea Scrolls). It was attributed to Moses despite its late origins. There is no evidence that this text was not received as an authorial and important book for the Qumran community. Using Foucault’s line of reasoning it is not as important to know who wrote this book rather it is better to ask “what are the modes of existence of this discourse? (134). This theory called the “author-function” is particularly valuable when looking at ancient texts.
Genette & Derrida
Another question which pertains to these pseudepigraphic texts centers around the study of textuality. Many of these pseudepigraphic texts draw upon other texts to formulate their own. In the case of Jubilees it uses the story of Genesis from the bible and weaves into it his interpretation of what is going on. I agree with Genette’s approach of the relationship between different texts which he calls “open structuralism” (132). He focuses on the notion of “open texts” which draw upon other texts in their writing and reception. Derrida, though taking a slightly different look at the material, argued that “there is no pure originary text that has not been ‘touched’ by other texts” (132). I think it is therefore very important to not only look at a text on its own but to look at it contemporaneously with other texts which it invokes within it’s writing. Here Clark writes that the very idea of interpretation is reinterpreted. It is not valuable to look at a text on its own, rather it is important to situate a text within the body of literature which it developed out from.
Yıldızların Hüzün Meyveleri
8 years ago
4 comments:
Hi Nat,
Barthes would agree with you, that to focus on the author is to impose a limit on that text, and he, like Derrida and Foucault would state that the text exists in a web with other texts. You mentioned situating your text with other literature, I think these guys would interpret it even more broadly than that. Text could refer to more than just documents, it can also refer to a cultural text, thus to better understand your document, you could situate it within the dominant texts of those time, including but not limited to: discussion of law, ideologies, governance, politics, ritual, magic... all sorts of cultural texts that could reveal even more about your field of study! I like the thoughts that Barthes raised for you, for Barthes reception is about creation not passivity. He was against "consuming" texts, he believed reading was a creative act, and so for him, the text only became whole when it became involved in the creative act of the reader.
Hey Nat,
I really like how you tied particular problems of your field into this week’s reading, and how you demonstrate each theory in terms of its use to figuring out the pseudepigrapha. Where do you place yourself in the debate between author/receiver? Judging from your opinion of take on Foucault and how his opinions relate to Jubilees I think we are largely in agreement. Authorship is important and gives valuable context to the work, but it almost matters more who the perceived author was and how the text was used.
Great work
Hi Nat!
I definitely agree with you on the importance of examining how a text became meaningful to various receivers and not locking authority up with authorial intent. As Barthes comments, authorial intent is not a "decisive" avenue to meaning, however I wouldn't discount those scholars who try to work out what intentions the author may have had. I think it this is a legitimate endeavour, albeit limited, because it does offer some insight about the meanings attached to the text.
In that sense I really appreciate your example of the Qumran texts- while we can't be sure of their origin, this does not make less important the studies on the ways in which such texts became meaningful to people throughout history.
After all, the receivers of the text may not have known its origins but still succeeded in creating a meaningful relationship with it!
hey nat,
i like that we have a foucault-based discussion going here...i disagree with him to the extent that 'authorship' and 'authority' are mutually exclusive in his mind. i do not believe this to be true - while authorship may not guarantee supreme authority on a subject, the author must indeed have some authority on the subject and context in/from which he writes no? we'll talk in class!
Post a Comment