What do you think?
Rate this book
Post Structuralism and the New Testament: Derrida and Foucault at the Foot of the Cross
"Poststructuralism would be historical criticism's id, the sat of its strongest anti-authoritarian instincts."
--from the Conclusion
"Stephen D. Moore is the leading practitioner of deconstruction in the field of biblical studies today."
--J. Cheryl Exum,
University of Sheffield
--from the Conclusion
"Stephen D. Moore is the leading practitioner of deconstruction in the field of biblical studies today."
--J. Cheryl Exum,
University of Sheffield
- GenresPhilosophyReligion
144 pages, Paperback
First published July 25, 1994
39 people want to read
About the author
Stephen D. Moore
37 books8 followersProfessor of New Testament at the Theological School, Drew University. His many books include Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (Yale University Press), God’s Gym: Divine Male Bodies of the Bible (Routledge), and Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament (Sheffield Phoenix).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 25, 2025
Stephen Moore’s excellent 1994 book sits within a unique transitionary (historical) moment in Biblical/New Testament scholarship – but what it demonstrates, unfortunately, is that the turn to the inclusion of POMO (post-structural non-methodology) has failed to make significant headway in altering traditional hermeneutic approaches to scripture, e.g., there’s a contemporary scholarly (theological-philosophical) series, “Postmodernism and the Church” (Baker Academic) that – on the whole, and to greater and lesser degrees – fails to provide the type of deep and thoughtful readings Moore offers.
The book consists of an approach that includes – with consistency – detailed expository and the type of thoughtful exegesis that appropriately embraces (releasement over-to) textual and interpretive fissures, aporias, and impasses. It is focused on two leading proponents of poststructuralism: Derrida and Foucault – and this is a good thing - for it allows Moore to remain hyper-focused on the presentation of the book’s rich content. In essence readers encounter Derrida’s “deconstruction” and Foucault’s understanding of “power, discipline, and punishment” – then these ideas are incorporated, taken up to guide the author’s inquiry into and reinterpretation of several themes found in the New Testament.
The work on Derrida is outstanding and inspirational. It is focused on putting in question, indeed shattering, literal and even ironic readings of the New Testament, e.g., readings associated with New Criticism, Historicism, and traditional approaches to New Testament studies, such as redactive criticism; the work of Foucault is somewhat lacking in comparison, but still worth reading and considering. Here questions concerning punishment, penance, salvation (in relation to crucifixion) are reconsidered and related to the issue of the “internalization” of a type of self-regulating ethics – although this notion of so-called “motivational” ethics, while certainly present to the synoptic Gospels, is not explored by Moore.
I offer two outstanding instances where Moore’s careful reading brings to light issues that are not highlighted in the current literature: (1) Derrida’s (hesitant, somewhat reluctant) refusal to commit to “Negative Theology” or via negativa, and (2) Foucault’s metaphysical-secular embrace of this precise type of “method” as related to his later work on the proliferation of power.
(1) Derrida sees the problems with an approach to interpreting “texts” embracing via negativa, this because the method (e.g., Aquinas), despite refusing to produce or commit to a “positive” definition of God, still assumes that God, as Transcendental Signifier, exists, and this for Derrida is nothing other than an exercise in onto-theology.
(2) Foucault’s later (as “poststructuralist”) work argues for a notion of “power” that evades all definitions, it is ineffable in the sense that it permeates all aspects of our history but is never centrally or even peripherally identifiable. Foucault approaches power as do theologians embracing via negativa – “power” in Foucault ends up looking like (no surprise!) Nietzsche’s metaphysical understanding of Wille Zur Mach as read through Heidegger’s later philosophy). Foucault approaches power in terms of “…What it is not and cannot be”).
Moore’s writing demonstrates solid scholarly integrity evidenced through vivid interpretations that boast a wry (and appropriate) sense of humor. He accomplishes what all great scholars achieve – distilling the essence of difficult – if not overly (and purposefully?) dense – material, making is accessible to readers, while at once refusing to “dumb it down” for the uninitiated. This is my first time reading Moore and I am inspired to seek out other books he has authored.
Based on this limited review, if this type of “intersectional” literature (theology-and-philosophy) that is of interest to you, I highly recommend this book! Both academics and advanced student alike will benefit from reading this book.
Dr. James M. Magrini
Former: Philosophy/College of Dupage
The book consists of an approach that includes – with consistency – detailed expository and the type of thoughtful exegesis that appropriately embraces (releasement over-to) textual and interpretive fissures, aporias, and impasses. It is focused on two leading proponents of poststructuralism: Derrida and Foucault – and this is a good thing - for it allows Moore to remain hyper-focused on the presentation of the book’s rich content. In essence readers encounter Derrida’s “deconstruction” and Foucault’s understanding of “power, discipline, and punishment” – then these ideas are incorporated, taken up to guide the author’s inquiry into and reinterpretation of several themes found in the New Testament.
The work on Derrida is outstanding and inspirational. It is focused on putting in question, indeed shattering, literal and even ironic readings of the New Testament, e.g., readings associated with New Criticism, Historicism, and traditional approaches to New Testament studies, such as redactive criticism; the work of Foucault is somewhat lacking in comparison, but still worth reading and considering. Here questions concerning punishment, penance, salvation (in relation to crucifixion) are reconsidered and related to the issue of the “internalization” of a type of self-regulating ethics – although this notion of so-called “motivational” ethics, while certainly present to the synoptic Gospels, is not explored by Moore.
I offer two outstanding instances where Moore’s careful reading brings to light issues that are not highlighted in the current literature: (1) Derrida’s (hesitant, somewhat reluctant) refusal to commit to “Negative Theology” or via negativa, and (2) Foucault’s metaphysical-secular embrace of this precise type of “method” as related to his later work on the proliferation of power.
(1) Derrida sees the problems with an approach to interpreting “texts” embracing via negativa, this because the method (e.g., Aquinas), despite refusing to produce or commit to a “positive” definition of God, still assumes that God, as Transcendental Signifier, exists, and this for Derrida is nothing other than an exercise in onto-theology.
(2) Foucault’s later (as “poststructuralist”) work argues for a notion of “power” that evades all definitions, it is ineffable in the sense that it permeates all aspects of our history but is never centrally or even peripherally identifiable. Foucault approaches power as do theologians embracing via negativa – “power” in Foucault ends up looking like (no surprise!) Nietzsche’s metaphysical understanding of Wille Zur Mach as read through Heidegger’s later philosophy). Foucault approaches power in terms of “…What it is not and cannot be”).
Moore’s writing demonstrates solid scholarly integrity evidenced through vivid interpretations that boast a wry (and appropriate) sense of humor. He accomplishes what all great scholars achieve – distilling the essence of difficult – if not overly (and purposefully?) dense – material, making is accessible to readers, while at once refusing to “dumb it down” for the uninitiated. This is my first time reading Moore and I am inspired to seek out other books he has authored.
Based on this limited review, if this type of “intersectional” literature (theology-and-philosophy) that is of interest to you, I highly recommend this book! Both academics and advanced student alike will benefit from reading this book.
Dr. James M. Magrini
Former: Philosophy/College of Dupage
Displaying 1 of 1 review