Derrida's Différance and Biblical Interpretation

Yung Suk Kim

Derrida's deconstruction theory challenges readers to rethink meaning altogether. He argues that there is no absolute unity or coherence in the text, which is an entangled web of various signifiers/significations that defy one single meaning. Derrida coins différance to connote the double meaning of differing and deferring. The signified is not fixed once and for all and must be different because the signifiers are like drops of water in the ocean. Likewise, we should delay meaning forever. Derrida differs from Saussure, who believes that even though there is no one-to-one link between the signifier and the signified, the signified is achieved in a given system of relations. 

A common misunderstanding about Derrida is he undermines faith and relativizes truth, promoting "anything goes." That is not true because deconstruction challenges the orthodoxies that subjugate the marginalized or voiceless. It defies "closure" in the text and sees new voices of fairness and justice. A parable is a type of deconstruction literature that resists conventional wisdom and helps readers to see something differently, subverting their world. 

As a case in point, we can take 1 Cor 12:27: "You are the body of Christ and individually members of it." The traditional interpretation focuses on the body's metaphorical organism: "You are the members of the body, which is the church, whose head is Christ, and individually, you are members." Here, the body is an organism metaphor, and the achieved meaning is unity in Christ and membership in him. But in fact, there is an alternative reading that resists the tradition. I read the body of Christ as the "Christic body" in the sense that the Corinthians must embody Christ, individually and communally. Here, the body is a metaphor "for a way of living" (for example, see 1 Cor 6:15-20). 1 Cor 6:15 reads: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I, therefore, take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! " (NRSVue). Paul’s point is the body is for God, which means they must embody Christ in their lives.

If we translate the body of Christ as “Christ-like body,” this use of the genitive case is called an attributive genitive. We see this example in "the body of sin” (Rom 6:6), which we understand as "the sinful body." 

The alternative interpretation underscores the ethical union with Christ and the diversity of the community. That is the Corinthians must follow Christ and honor one another. Then, they can maintain a Christ-like community. Christ is not the owner of the church, but its foundation. The point is not mere membership to the church but impregnable participation in Christ and his faith.

*Note: I have argued for an alternative reading of "the body of Christ" through a number of articles and books. My debut book is Christ's Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (Fortress, 2008). The most recent book on Paul is How to Read Paul: A Brief Introduction to His Theology, Writings, and World (Fortress, 2021).

Kant, Modernity, and Biblical Interpretation

Yung Suk Kim

Kant's perspicacious analysis of human capacity and limitations is notable. As a pioneer of modern philosophy, he sees in humans both the power of reason and its limitations. Reason-based, duty-driven, universal law is remarkable in that we may bring about change for all human beings universally. His vision is idealistic, yet we cannot ignore his passion for the universal significance of ethics. Kant also argues that we are limited beings who can understand or perceive only things as they appear to them. He distinguishes between noumenon ("the thing-in-itself") and phenomenon ("the thing as it appears to an observer"). The former is unknowable by humans while the latter is perceived. If we recognize this difference and walk a tightrope between the two, we are "modern."

Understood this way, postmodernity, if it exists at all, is not a blow to the Kantian modern sensibility. Instead, it is an heir to modern philosophy in ways that we can embrace lofty standards of universal law coupled with self-critical observations about our world.  

Likewise, in biblical interpretation, we can distinguish between the knowable and the unknowable. The former is a rough representation of reality reflected in ancient texts, communities, societies, and empires. Otherwise, reality itself is unknowable. So, what we need is a humble spirit as well as a critical mindset.

Collapse of Logocentrism: From Kant to Saussure to Derrida

Yung Suk Kim

From Immanuel Kant to Ferdinand de Saussure to Jacques Derrida, there is a common thread that they all seem to reject logocentrism that has been dominant for far too long in Western tradition and philosophy. Logocentrism regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality. 

But Kant (1724-1804), well known for his transcendental philosophy, points to human limitations to knowledge/reality and distinguishes between noumenon (“the thing-in-itself”) and phenomenon (“the thing as it appears to an observer”). While noumena are unknowable, we experience or perceive phenomena only. So, for example, the "war" as a fight between two countries is noumenon, which is unknowable; we only perceive its phenomenon. If the word "war" is a sign of that reality, it must be also unknowable because reality itself is unknowable. In his transcendental idealism, language belongs to the subjective human experience. Accordingly, logocentrism has no place with him because language or words are within "the arbitrariness of subjective empirical consciousness" (see note 1). 

Saussure (1857-1913), a founding figure of modern linguistics, argues there is no one-to-one link between the signifier (word) and the signified (an actual thing). That is, he disputes the logical connection between them. The signifier must be imperfect and what comes out of it is multiple. For example, the "war" in a certain context signifies myriad things.

Derrida (1930-2004) more forcefully challenges logocentrism in his deconstruction theory. That is, no literature can set forever meaning to readers because there are internal systems of collapse within the literature. All in all, meaning is not fixed once and for all, as his coined term différance conveys meaning's difference and deferral. 

*Note 1: Yaron Senderowicz, "Language and reason in Kant's epistemology," Histoire Épistémologie Langage Année 1997 19-1 p. 147 (135-148).

"Test everything" (Biblical Interpretation)

 

In some sense, biblical interpretation is about testing. "Test everything," says Paul in 1 Thess 5:21. After testing, you can "hold fast to what is good." Until then, you must test everything: the text itself, interpretations of others, and your view. A real fight in biblical interpretation is a fight against yourself. No one is exempt from testing.