Micah 4:1-5 an impasse in exegesis?
Three commentaries (of Allan, Mays and Van der Woude) were published in one year and all arrived at different results, although they had all applied the historical critical method. This poses a justifiable question as to the validity of historical criticism. An immanent reading of the text, although...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
SA ePublications
1985
|
| In: |
Old Testament essays
Year: 1985, Volume: 3, Pages: 46-61 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | Three commentaries (of Allan, Mays and Van der Woude) were published in one year and all arrived at different results, although they had all applied the historical critical method. This poses a justifiable question as to the validity of historical criticism. An immanent reading of the text, although it has a certain value, cannot answer the legitimate questions raised by historical criticism. Micah 4: 1-5 is considered by scholars either to be a post-exilic psalm (Mays) a quotation from earlier Liturgy (Allan) or a pseudo-prophetic reply (Van der Woude), The message of Micah 4:1-5 for its contemporary situation is therefore totally different according to various scholars. This leads to an impasse in exegesis. In conclusion the certainty with which exegetical results are postulated as absolute truths is criticised. The author takes the view that there is scope for the relative creativity of the exegete. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2312-3621 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Old Testament essays
|
| Persistent identifiers: | HDL: 10.10520/EJC-cf6e9fa24 |