Lijo Devadhas
I am D. Lijo, from Chennai, India, and currently serving as a Lecturer of the New Testament at Great Harvest Theological Institute, Chennai. I did my Master of Theology (New Testament) at Faith Theological Seminary. I did my Bachelor of Divinity from Serampore University, my M. A(English Literature) from Madras University, and my B.SC (Physics) at Madras Christian College.
My favoured research methods include Redaction Criticism, Intertextuality (inner-biblical allusions and exegesis), and Rhetorical Criticism. My areas of expertise are New Testament Studies and the Greek language. I am so glad that you have discovered my little spot on the web.
Phone: 93846132175
Address: No 5A, Kanmalai Street, Vandalur, Chennai , India
My favoured research methods include Redaction Criticism, Intertextuality (inner-biblical allusions and exegesis), and Rhetorical Criticism. My areas of expertise are New Testament Studies and the Greek language. I am so glad that you have discovered my little spot on the web.
Phone: 93846132175
Address: No 5A, Kanmalai Street, Vandalur, Chennai , India
less
InterestsView All (70)
Uploads
Papers by Lijo Devadhas
In Part II, "Deconstruction," the author defines Deconstruction as "Jacques Derrida's application of poststructuralist principles to language and criticism," he then discusses the relationship between speech and writing. The author describes "logocentrism," the subjugated role of literature or writing to speech Derrida calls "phonocentrism," which is only another effect of the meta-orientated thought system of Western metaphysics which he calls "Iogocentrism" Then he deals with structuralism, the distinction of langue and parole, thereby privileging speech over writing, presence over distance are discussed. Then the difference is discussed. It is a word created by Derrida because of its non-existence in speech. It is a non-signifying sign or an ambiguous sign and is, as such undecidable.
In Part III, "On context," the author comments, "Context is seen by the structuralist as the stabilizing factor in language. Context is a constraint on the plurality of meanings of words. But, how stable is the context?" then he deals with intertextuality. The author comments, "Derrida continues and says that there are no borderlines in texts. A text is never about If what happened". It never stops at "what happened." Deconstruction may have some misleading overtones. It may suggest a nihilism towards language and, therefore, towards texts. It may mean disintegration and demolition, but this is not the aim of deconstruction. Deconstruction aims to construct meaning by exploring all the possibilities without accepting the old orthodox thinking of texts per se and taking its finiteness without fleeing into the ivory towers of established methodology and logic. In Part IV, "CRITIQUE," The author assesses the criticism leveled against Deconstruction by discussing the problem of communication, the distinction between speech and writing, the finding of meaning. The first point of criticism against deconstruction is a practical matter: communication. However, many texts are deconstructed; they still communicate.
In Part V, "Positive aspects," The author brings out Derrida's definition of literature. For Derrida, all writings are literature. Then the author discusses Meaning and textuality, Biblical studies, and intertextuality. The contribution of deconstruction to Biblical interpretation is the idea of intertextuality. Texts in the Bible were rewritten and re-used in new contexts, so much so that it is not always possible to distinguish the original text from these. The form-critical solution of trying to establish fixed forms and then interpret them still in the same way irrespective of their context, deconstruction urges rewriting originality. A new text is created whenever another text is rewritten and should be interpreted in its originality. The interpretational process even plays a part in repetition. Whenever this process comes into play, originality and individuality appear in texts. In Biblical texts, the examples of rewriting are many. These texts, however much they are rewritten, should be treated in their originality. Thus the article By H. J. Hunter attempts to describe, criticize, and find the relevancy of deconstruction for biblical interpretation and suggests that deconstruction should be taken seriously within theological circles. Still, it should sustain its claim to be realistic, also in the field of practical interpretation and application.