In Defence of ‘Theological’ Readings of the New Testament

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION Journal for the Study of the New Testament Pub Date : 2022-11-24 DOI:10.1177/0142064X221136265
John Rowlands
{"title":"In Defence of ‘Theological’ Readings of the New Testament","authors":"John Rowlands","doi":"10.1177/0142064X221136265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"‘Theological interpretation of Scripture’ (TIS) has undergone a resurgence within Christian theology. This has been matched in some quarters of ‘mainstream’ New Testament studies by a renewed insistence on the illegitimacy of such an approach in the context of academic readings of the New Testament. In this article the author mounts a defence for the academic credibility of ‘theological’ readings of the New Testament, while simultaneously articulating the manner in which such readings have frequently overstepped the boundaries of their hermeneutical framework. He notes the two reading strategies emerge implicitly out of mutually exclusive hermeneutical traditions and suggests that explicating the hermeneutical foundations of both reading strategies might explain the conflict and help to move beyond it.","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"45 1","pages":"243 - 263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X221136265","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

‘Theological interpretation of Scripture’ (TIS) has undergone a resurgence within Christian theology. This has been matched in some quarters of ‘mainstream’ New Testament studies by a renewed insistence on the illegitimacy of such an approach in the context of academic readings of the New Testament. In this article the author mounts a defence for the academic credibility of ‘theological’ readings of the New Testament, while simultaneously articulating the manner in which such readings have frequently overstepped the boundaries of their hermeneutical framework. He notes the two reading strategies emerge implicitly out of mutually exclusive hermeneutical traditions and suggests that explicating the hermeneutical foundations of both reading strategies might explain the conflict and help to move beyond it.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为新约的“神学”解读辩护
“圣经的神学解释”(TIS)在基督教神学中死灰复燃。在一些“主流”新约研究中,人们再次坚持认为这种方法在新约的学术阅读中是非法的。在这篇文章中,作者为《新约》的“神学”解读的学术可信度进行了辩护,同时阐述了这种解读经常超越其解释学框架界限的方式。他指出,这两种阅读策略隐含地产生于相互排斥的解释学传统,并认为解释这两种读书策略的解释学基础可能会解释冲突,并有助于超越冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The Journal for the Study of the New Testament is one of the leading academic journals in New Testament Studies. It is published five times a year and aims to present cutting-edge work for a readership of scholars, teachers in the field of New Testament, postgraduate students and advanced undergraduates. All the many and diverse aspects of New Testament study are represented and promoted by the journal, including innovative work from historical perspectives, studies using social-scientific and literary theory or developing theological, cultural and contextual approaches.
期刊最新文献
Re-Examining Richard Bauckham’s Argument from Name Popularity in Light of Apocryphal and Talmudic Evidence Index of Authors 17. Revelation 14. Philippians & Thessalonians Index of Titles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1