Why ‘Reception History’ Is Not Just Another Exegetical Method: The Case Of Mark's Ending
The history of reception is suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding. Since the publication of Truth and Method, everyone has had the impression that reception history is just another exegetical technique. However, the heart of Gadamer's argument is not the history of the effects of the te...
| Published in: | New Testament studies |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2023
|
| In: |
New Testament studies
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Cajetan, Thomas 1469-1534
/ End
/ Mark
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The history of reception is suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding. Since the publication of Truth and Method, everyone has had the impression that reception history is just another exegetical technique. However, the heart of Gadamer's argument is not the history of the effects of the text, but the historicity of understanding: a text is seized only within the limits of the historical situation of its interpreter. To demonstrate this point, this paper takes the example of the Markan ending. Surprisingly, a 16th-century Thomistic theologian, Cajetan, and a contemporary commentary are so close that one might think they are defending the same view of the text. Both intend to maintain the canonicity of verses 9-20, but both point out that it may be adventurous to build any doctrine or practice on these verses alone. But the context is different, obviously. The first one tries to justify a conception of faith that does not depend directly on miracles; the second one affirms a hermeneutic centred on the interpreter's response, being wary of its ecclesiological drifts. This confirms that theological considerations rather than philological ones have prevailed in challenging Mark's ending. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-8145 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: New Testament studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0028688522000406 |