Hope for a Troubled Discipline? Contributions to New Testament Studies from Reception History
The recent attempt by G. Aichele, P. Miscall and R. Walsh to generate a debate between historical criticism and postmodern interpretation using the language of comparative mythologies has so far fallen flat. Here it is suggested that a more fruitful way forward would be to re-label historical-critic...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sage
2010
|
| In: |
Journal for the study of the New Testament
Year: 2010, Volume: 33, Issue: 2, Pages: 207-220 |
| Further subjects: | B
re-labelling
B Dialogue B Historical Criticism B postmodern interpretation B Schism B Reception History |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | The recent attempt by G. Aichele, P. Miscall and R. Walsh to generate a debate between historical criticism and postmodern interpretation using the language of comparative mythologies has so far fallen flat. Here it is suggested that a more fruitful way forward would be to re-label historical-critical methodologies with the terminology of reception history. This would build on the presence of audiences—whether real or constructed—within those methodologies while undermining the use of terms like ‘first-stage/secondstage’ to keep them at the centre of biblical interpretation and encouraging historical critics to venture into the history of interpretation. This broadening of the discipline should also help limit the impact of the current financial climate on what otherwise appears to be a very narrow and heavily over-subscribed area of the humanities. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5294 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the New Testament
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0142064X10385518 |