Review of Alissa Jones Nelson, Power and Responsibility in Biblical Interpretation: Reading the Book of Job with Edward Said, London, Routledge, 2012

J. Harding
{"title":"Review of Alissa Jones Nelson, Power and Responsibility in Biblical Interpretation: Reading the Book of Job with Edward Said, London, Routledge, 2012","authors":"J. Harding","doi":"10.2104/BCT.V12I2.665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There has been a great deal of soul-searching of late in the Biblical Studies “guild” and around its edges as to the identity and proper goals of the discipline, if indeed there still exists a single discipline at all. This soul-searching has been prompted by a wide array of factors. One factor has been the proliferation of different methodological approaches in the later decades of the twentieth century and early years of the twenty-first, all accompanied by a concomitant efflorescence of interpretive perspectives and philosophical standpoints. Such newer approaches, perspectives, and standpoints entail different understandings of the respective roles of subjectivity and objectivity in the process of interpreting biblical texts. More recently we have also seen a burgeoning of reception-historical approaches to biblical texts (classical and ancient Near Eastern texts have also benefited from such treatment) which have emerged to challenge the hitherto dominant historicalcritical paradigms of the guild. Much of this, though by no means all, has taken place within the privileged and hallowed halls of the Western academy (or at least to a significant degree under its influence) and falls within the purview of what Alissa Jones Nelson terms “academic” or “idea-primary” (1) approaches. These approaches are dominated by readers trained in the languages, methods and ruling questions that have long shaped and determined the character and purpose of the Biblical Studies guild.","PeriodicalId":53382,"journal":{"name":"The Bible and Critical Theory","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bible and Critical Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2104/BCT.V12I2.665","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been a great deal of soul-searching of late in the Biblical Studies “guild” and around its edges as to the identity and proper goals of the discipline, if indeed there still exists a single discipline at all. This soul-searching has been prompted by a wide array of factors. One factor has been the proliferation of different methodological approaches in the later decades of the twentieth century and early years of the twenty-first, all accompanied by a concomitant efflorescence of interpretive perspectives and philosophical standpoints. Such newer approaches, perspectives, and standpoints entail different understandings of the respective roles of subjectivity and objectivity in the process of interpreting biblical texts. More recently we have also seen a burgeoning of reception-historical approaches to biblical texts (classical and ancient Near Eastern texts have also benefited from such treatment) which have emerged to challenge the hitherto dominant historicalcritical paradigms of the guild. Much of this, though by no means all, has taken place within the privileged and hallowed halls of the Western academy (or at least to a significant degree under its influence) and falls within the purview of what Alissa Jones Nelson terms “academic” or “idea-primary” (1) approaches. These approaches are dominated by readers trained in the languages, methods and ruling questions that have long shaped and determined the character and purpose of the Biblical Studies guild.
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
《圣经解读中的权力与责任:与爱德华·赛义德一起读约伯记》,伦敦,劳特利奇出版社,2012年
最近,在圣经研究“行会”中,有大量的自我反省,围绕着它的边缘,关于这门学科的身份和正确目标,如果确实存在一个单一的学科的话。这种自我反省是由一系列因素引起的。其中一个因素是,在20世纪后期和21世纪初期,不同的方法论方法激增,所有这些都伴随着解释性观点和哲学立场的蓬勃发展。这些新的方法、观点和立场需要对解释圣经文本过程中主观性和客观性各自的作用有不同的理解。最近,我们也看到了对圣经文本(古典和古代近东文本也受益于这种处理)的接受历史方法的蓬勃发展,这些方法已经出现,挑战了公会迄今为止占主导地位的历史批判范式。其中的大部分,虽然不是全部,都发生在享有特权和神圣的西方学术殿堂中(或者至少在很大程度上受其影响),并属于Alissa Jones Nelson所说的“学术”或“思想初级”(1)方法的范畴。这些方法是由受过语言、方法和支配问题训练的读者主导的,这些问题长期以来塑造和决定了圣经研究协会的特点和目的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
COVID-19 farm outbreaks in Ontario, January-December 2020. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 both show similarly reduced disease severity of COVID-19 compared to Delta, Germany, 2021 to 2022. The Israelites Tell Their Story: PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION The Disputed Pauline Letters:
×
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