More on models and muddles in the social-scientific interpretation of the New Testament
It is argued that the explicit use of social science models, even so-called cross-cuItural models, does not necessarily help to eliminate anachronistic and ethnocentric interpretations of New Testament texts. A historical approach (aim of interpretation) that does not assume commensurability between...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
1992
|
| In: |
Neotestamentica
Year: 1992, Volume: 26, Issue: 1, Pages: 217-239 |
| Further subjects: | B
Naturalist
B Ethnocentric B Anti-necessitarian viewpoints B Sociological fallacy B Social theories B Anachronistic interpretations B Mediationism B Fetishism B Strict intentionism B Parallelomania B Explicit theory B Functionalism |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | It is argued that the explicit use of social science models, even so-called cross-cuItural models, does not necessarily help to eliminate anachronistic and ethnocentric interpretations of New Testament texts. A historical approach (aim of interpretation) that does not assume commensurability between different cultures, which emphasises the native's point of view, has more potential in this respect. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2518-4628 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Neotestamentica
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.10520/AJA2548356_973 |