Paul Tyson's A Christian Theology of Science has convinced me that David Hume would not be able to affirm the Nicene Creed, though admittedly I didn't need much convincing. In fact, Tyson persuaded me of nearly all his claims about matters before, say, 1922. It is not as though I disagree with the rest, but that in telling the sweeping story of theology's fate in modernity—on which I agree with Tyson—he cuts off his story too soon: a hundred years ago, just when things were about to get exciting in theology again. If he had continued telling the story until today, his book would likely come to very different conclusions; my own conclusions, not coincidentally.1 My plan here is first, to summarize the book, second, to continue Tyson's own story but filling in the missing last century, and finally, to consider a few examples to show how Tyson's Christian theology of science could cash out in scientific practice.
保罗·泰森(Paul Tyson)的《基督教科学神学》(A Christian Theology of Science)让我相信，大卫·休谟(David Hume)无法肯定尼西亚信经，尽管我承认我不需要太多说服力。事实上，在1922年之前，泰森几乎说服了我他所有关于事物的主张。并不是说我不同意其他人的观点，而是说在讲述神学在现代命运的宏大故事时——我同意泰森的观点——他过早地切断了他的故事:一百年前，就在神学即将再次变得激动人心的时候。如果他把这个故事一直讲到今天，他的书可能会得出非常不同的结论;这是我自己的结论，并非巧合我在这里的计划是，首先，总结这本书，其次，继续泰森自己的故事，但填补上个世纪缺失的部分，最后，考虑几个例子，以表明泰森的基督教科学神学如何在科学实践中兑现。
{"title":"Ahead by a Century","authors":"John Perry, D.T. Everhart","doi":"10.1111/moth.12908","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12908","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Paul Tyson's <i>A Christian Theology of Science</i> has convinced me that David Hume would not be able to affirm the Nicene Creed, though admittedly I didn't need much convincing. In fact, Tyson persuaded me of nearly all his claims about matters before, say, 1922. It is not as though I disagree with the rest, but that in telling the sweeping story of theology's fate in modernity—on which I agree with Tyson—he cuts off his story too soon: a hundred years ago, just when things were about to get exciting in theology again. If he had continued telling the story until today, his book would likely come to very different conclusions; my own conclusions, not coincidentally.1 My plan here is first, to summarize the book, second, to continue Tyson's own story but filling in the missing last century, and finally, to consider a few examples to show how Tyson's Christian theology of science could cash out in scientific practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":18945,"journal":{"name":"Modern Theology","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138496781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I am delighted and humbled that my exploratory thoughts on a Christian theology of science have received such serious attention from these five remarkable scholars, and in this Modern Theology forum. One could not hope for a more eminent set of reviewers or a more noble forum. What struck me most from the five reviews was how the three metaphysical theologians, on the one hand, and the science-engaged theologian and the historian of modern science and religion, on the other hand, read the book in very different ways. This illustrates to me something of the manner in which the central currents of modern science and religion discourse are struggling to come to terms with the new confidence and visibility of Christian metaphysical theology. Stated the other way around, science and religion discourse has had a pretty happy time over the past century and a half largely ignoring metaphysical theology, and its recent emergence into visibility is perhaps somewhat bewildering to the now eminent and established intellectual traditions that underpin today's mainstream science and religion scholarship. This scholarship largely operates as if traditional metaphysics of any sort—and certainly of the pre-modern theological realist sort—is impossible after Kant, as if ‘science’ and ‘religion’ exist as discrete but perhaps interfaceable domains, as if modern science is obviously an advance on all previous visions of reality, and as if science gives us decisive truths about how things really are—truths that Christian theology must simply adapt to, at whatever doctrinal cost. Peter Harrison and John Perry/D.T. Everhart are profitably questioning aspects of the above-mentioned assumptions, which remain strongly present within the methodologically atheist social sciences1 and populist scientism.2 Yet in large measure, Harrison and Perry/Everhart progress their questions from a stance that has credibility within contemporary science and religion discourse. By ‘within’ I do not mean any compliant conformity, rather I mean that they carefully speak questions to the boundaries and assumptions of that world of discourse with an astute sensitivity to what its status quo can and cannot hear. Acquiring and applying independent but insider-recognized credibility is a complex and demanding enterprise. The historian's approach to modern credibility is interpretive within firmly positive historical categories, and is as non-normative as the aim of historical objectivity allows. The historian, then, can strategically undertake boundary-questioning enterprises—without getting normative or pugnacious—which can be employed to most fruitful effect by a careful, even tacitly theological thinker, like Harrison. As ‘good’ historians refuse to get positionally soiled in first-order meaning disputes, they are polite guests and are usually welcomed inside most of the various academic silos that have developed around the study of both science and religion since the 1960s. The science-engage
{"title":"Response to Reviews of <i>A Christian Theology of Science</i>","authors":"Paul Tyson","doi":"10.1111/moth.12909","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12909","url":null,"abstract":"I am delighted and humbled that my exploratory thoughts on a Christian theology of science have received such serious attention from these five remarkable scholars, and in this Modern Theology forum. One could not hope for a more eminent set of reviewers or a more noble forum. What struck me most from the five reviews was how the three metaphysical theologians, on the one hand, and the science-engaged theologian and the historian of modern science and religion, on the other hand, read the book in very different ways. This illustrates to me something of the manner in which the central currents of modern science and religion discourse are struggling to come to terms with the new confidence and visibility of Christian metaphysical theology. Stated the other way around, science and religion discourse has had a pretty happy time over the past century and a half largely ignoring metaphysical theology, and its recent emergence into visibility is perhaps somewhat bewildering to the now eminent and established intellectual traditions that underpin today's mainstream science and religion scholarship. This scholarship largely operates as if traditional metaphysics of any sort—and certainly of the pre-modern theological realist sort—is impossible after Kant, as if ‘science’ and ‘religion’ exist as discrete but perhaps interfaceable domains, as if modern science is obviously an advance on all previous visions of reality, and as if science gives us decisive truths about how things really are—truths that Christian theology must simply adapt to, at whatever doctrinal cost. Peter Harrison and John Perry/D.T. Everhart are profitably questioning aspects of the above-mentioned assumptions, which remain strongly present within the methodologically atheist social sciences1 and populist scientism.2 Yet in large measure, Harrison and Perry/Everhart progress their questions from a stance that has credibility within contemporary science and religion discourse. By ‘within’ I do not mean any compliant conformity, rather I mean that they carefully speak questions to the boundaries and assumptions of that world of discourse with an astute sensitivity to what its status quo can and cannot hear. Acquiring and applying independent but insider-recognized credibility is a complex and demanding enterprise. The historian's approach to modern credibility is interpretive within firmly positive historical categories, and is as non-normative as the aim of historical objectivity allows. The historian, then, can strategically undertake boundary-questioning enterprises—without getting normative or pugnacious—which can be employed to most fruitful effect by a careful, even tacitly theological thinker, like Harrison. As ‘good’ historians refuse to get positionally soiled in first-order meaning disputes, they are polite guests and are usually welcomed inside most of the various academic silos that have developed around the study of both science and religion since the 1960s. The science-engage","PeriodicalId":18945,"journal":{"name":"Modern Theology","volume":"131 16","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136351298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Modern TheologyEarly View Review Essay A Christian Theology of Science? Michael Hanby, Corresponding Author Michael Hanby [email protected] John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage & Family at the Catholic University of America, McGivney Hall, 620 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington, D.C, 20064 USASearch for more papers by this author Michael Hanby, Corresponding Author Michael Hanby [email protected] John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage & Family at the Catholic University of America, McGivney Hall, 620 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington, D.C, 20064 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 November 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12911Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation
{"title":"A Christian Theology of Science?","authors":"Michael Hanby","doi":"10.1111/moth.12911","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12911","url":null,"abstract":"Modern TheologyEarly View Review Essay A Christian Theology of Science? Michael Hanby, Corresponding Author Michael Hanby [email protected] John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage & Family at the Catholic University of America, McGivney Hall, 620 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington, D.C, 20064 USASearch for more papers by this author Michael Hanby, Corresponding Author Michael Hanby [email protected] John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage & Family at the Catholic University of America, McGivney Hall, 620 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington, D.C, 20064 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 November 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12911Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation","PeriodicalId":18945,"journal":{"name":"Modern Theology","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135038843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I was delighted to see Paul Tyson's A Christian Theology of Science appear in print. By way of full disclosure, I was in the fortunate position of watching the book take shape in real time and to have had (at times, lively) discussions with its author about its central claims. Like any stimulating new work that seeks to lay out a new agenda, the book not only articulates a bold thesis, but at the same time raises a host of new questions. What follows is a brief summary of the book's argument as I understand it, followed by some of the questions I was left with having completed it. These mostly concern the overall framing device of the book—what Tyson refers to as ‘the first truth discourses’ of science and theology. A second, and relatively brief set of questions is to do with what follows from Tyson's analysis for our evaluation and understanding of modern science. A Christian Theology of Science is part of a relatively new and (literally) unapologetic trend to relocate the science-theology discussion into the heart of Christian theology.1 The central argument of the book is that modern science embodies a worldview that is incompatible with, and indeed opposed to, a genuinely Christian worldview. Tyson speaks in this context of the ‘first truth discourse of science’ which he opposes to ‘the first truth discourse of Christianity’ (1-3). The historical thesis is that in the West, from the seventeenth century onwards, the latter was gradually displaced by the former. Tyson identifies the first truth discourse of science with a form of reductive materialism (24-25), while the first truth discourse of Christianity entails belief in doctrinal propositions that coincide broadly with traditional symbols of faith such as the Apostle's Creed (12, 110). The normative thesis is that unless we recognize the implicit tension between these competing discourses, any attempt to understand the relationship between science and religion is doomed to failure. Tyson argues that this is true for most of such efforts since the nineteenth century: these are variously categorized as ‘adaptation’, ‘withdrawal’, and ‘appropriation’ (5-7, cf. 83-88). Adaptation, typified by liberal Protestantism, makes the relationship work by conceding territory to science and relinquishing central doctrinal claims. Withdrawal involves the privatization of religion, sealing it hermetically from the secular world. Appropriation seeks to bring the methods of science into Christian theology, exemplified in movements such as Young Earth Creationism, or Intelligent Design. What Tyson proposes in place of these unsatisfactory options is a genuinely Christian theology of science that openly confronts the radical difference in their basic orientations. This confrontation involves exposing the underlying metaphysical assumptions of the two enterprises in order to make their basic differences in perspective more explicit. Once this has been accomplished it then becomes possible to begin a reconceptu
{"title":"Review of Paul Tyson, <i>A Christian Theology of Science</i>","authors":"Peter Harrison","doi":"10.1111/moth.12910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12910","url":null,"abstract":"I was delighted to see Paul Tyson's A Christian Theology of Science appear in print. By way of full disclosure, I was in the fortunate position of watching the book take shape in real time and to have had (at times, lively) discussions with its author about its central claims. Like any stimulating new work that seeks to lay out a new agenda, the book not only articulates a bold thesis, but at the same time raises a host of new questions. What follows is a brief summary of the book's argument as I understand it, followed by some of the questions I was left with having completed it. These mostly concern the overall framing device of the book—what Tyson refers to as ‘the first truth discourses’ of science and theology. A second, and relatively brief set of questions is to do with what follows from Tyson's analysis for our evaluation and understanding of modern science. A Christian Theology of Science is part of a relatively new and (literally) unapologetic trend to relocate the science-theology discussion into the heart of Christian theology.1 The central argument of the book is that modern science embodies a worldview that is incompatible with, and indeed opposed to, a genuinely Christian worldview. Tyson speaks in this context of the ‘first truth discourse of science’ which he opposes to ‘the first truth discourse of Christianity’ (1-3). The historical thesis is that in the West, from the seventeenth century onwards, the latter was gradually displaced by the former. Tyson identifies the first truth discourse of science with a form of reductive materialism (24-25), while the first truth discourse of Christianity entails belief in doctrinal propositions that coincide broadly with traditional symbols of faith such as the Apostle's Creed (12, 110). The normative thesis is that unless we recognize the implicit tension between these competing discourses, any attempt to understand the relationship between science and religion is doomed to failure. Tyson argues that this is true for most of such efforts since the nineteenth century: these are variously categorized as ‘adaptation’, ‘withdrawal’, and ‘appropriation’ (5-7, cf. 83-88). Adaptation, typified by liberal Protestantism, makes the relationship work by conceding territory to science and relinquishing central doctrinal claims. Withdrawal involves the privatization of religion, sealing it hermetically from the secular world. Appropriation seeks to bring the methods of science into Christian theology, exemplified in movements such as Young Earth Creationism, or Intelligent Design. What Tyson proposes in place of these unsatisfactory options is a genuinely Christian theology of science that openly confronts the radical difference in their basic orientations. This confrontation involves exposing the underlying metaphysical assumptions of the two enterprises in order to make their basic differences in perspective more explicit. Once this has been accomplished it then becomes possible to begin a reconceptu","PeriodicalId":18945,"journal":{"name":"Modern Theology","volume":" 36","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135291550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In the context of contemporary mass atrocities and the search for justice, we offer a contemporary reading of the Book of Lamentations—a heartbreaking poem about a devastated city—through the witness of Edith Stein, a Jewish Catholic philosopher, educator, feminist, and Carmelite martyr of the Holocaust. Stein's own story of suffering gender and racial discrimination and her writings on empathy can help readers enter the world of Lamentations with compassion for those who bear the pain of acute injustice. In addition, her devotion in prayer and worship to the crucified and risen Christ as a Carmelite nun can help us find meaning in suffering. In her writings and witness, she teaches us that God's faithfulness does not abandon us to evil and that his unfailing love rescues us and transforms us into people of compassion and hope in the world.
在当代大规模暴行和寻求正义的背景下，我们通过伊迪丝·斯坦(Edith Stein)的见证，对《哀歌书》(Book of lament哀伤)进行当代解读。伊迪丝·斯坦是一位犹太天主教哲学家、教育家、女权主义者，也是大屠杀的加尔默罗会烈士。斯坦因自己遭受性别和种族歧视的故事，以及她关于同理心的作品，可以帮助读者带着对那些遭受严重不公正痛苦的人的同情，进入《哀歌》的世界。此外，作为加尔默罗会修女，她虔诚地祈祷和崇拜被钉十字架和复活的基督，可以帮助我们在苦难中找到意义。在她的著作和见证中，她教导我们，上帝的信实不会把我们抛弃在邪恶中，他永不停止的爱拯救我们，把我们变成世界上有同情心和希望的人。
{"title":"Performative Theodicy: Edith Stein and the Recovery of Lamentation","authors":"Peter Nguyen, Nicolae Roddy","doi":"10.1111/moth.12907","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12907","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the context of contemporary mass atrocities and the search for justice, we offer a contemporary reading of the Book of Lamentations—a heartbreaking poem about a devastated city—through the witness of Edith Stein, a Jewish Catholic philosopher, educator, feminist, and Carmelite martyr of the Holocaust. Stein's own story of suffering gender and racial discrimination and her writings on empathy can help readers enter the world of Lamentations with compassion for those who bear the pain of acute injustice. In addition, her devotion in prayer and worship to the crucified and risen Christ as a Carmelite nun can help us find meaning in suffering. In her writings and witness, she teaches us that God's faithfulness does not abandon us to evil and that his unfailing love rescues us and transforms us into people of compassion and hope in the world.","PeriodicalId":18945,"journal":{"name":"Modern Theology","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135618591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The relation of theology and economy is a perennial theological challenge. Many contemporary theologians' understanding of this challenge is shaped by Karl Barth's attempt to resolve a set of tensions problematising this relation inherited from figures like Kant and Feuerbach. Barth ‘identified’ God's decision to be God with God's decision to be human. Further, he inconsistently but insistently claimed that the ‘form’ in which God reveals Godself in the person of Jesus somewhat isomorphically corresponds to God in Godself. The brilliance and yet instability of Barth's approach spawned a number of construals of theology and economy which depart from him in significant ways. I label these contemporary trajectories the post‐Barthian temptation, Barthian revisionism, Barthian Balthasarianism, and Barthian catholicism and critically evaluate them, suggesting that Barthian catholicism is the most promising.
{"title":"Theology and Economy ‘after’ Barth","authors":"Jared Michelson","doi":"10.1111/moth.12906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12906","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The relation of theology and economy is a perennial theological challenge. Many contemporary theologians' understanding of this challenge is shaped by Karl Barth's attempt to resolve a set of tensions problematising this relation inherited from figures like Kant and Feuerbach. Barth ‘identified’ God's decision to be God with God's decision to be human. Further, he inconsistently but insistently claimed that the ‘form’ in which God reveals Godself in the person of Jesus somewhat isomorphically corresponds to God in Godself. The brilliance and yet instability of Barth's approach spawned a number of construals of theology and economy which depart from him in significant ways. I label these contemporary trajectories the post‐Barthian temptation, Barthian revisionism, Barthian Balthasarianism, and Barthian catholicism and critically evaluate them, suggesting that Barthian catholicism is the most promising.","PeriodicalId":18945,"journal":{"name":"Modern Theology","volume":"207 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135889755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Modern TheologyEarly View Review Essay “THE RESERVE OF TRUTH” Kevin Hart, Corresponding Author Kevin Hart [email protected] Department of Religious Studies, 323 Gibson Hall, 1540 Jefferson Park Avenue, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904-4126 USASearch for more papers by this author Kevin Hart, Corresponding Author Kevin Hart [email protected] Department of Religious Studies, 323 Gibson Hall, 1540 Jefferson Park Avenue, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904-4126 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 18 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12904Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation
{"title":"“THE RESERVE OF TRUTH”","authors":"Kevin Hart","doi":"10.1111/moth.12904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12904","url":null,"abstract":"Modern TheologyEarly View Review Essay “THE RESERVE OF TRUTH” Kevin Hart, Corresponding Author Kevin Hart [email protected] Department of Religious Studies, 323 Gibson Hall, 1540 Jefferson Park Avenue, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904-4126 USASearch for more papers by this author Kevin Hart, Corresponding Author Kevin Hart [email protected] Department of Religious Studies, 323 Gibson Hall, 1540 Jefferson Park Avenue, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904-4126 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 18 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12904Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation","PeriodicalId":18945,"journal":{"name":"Modern Theology","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135889455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Modern TheologyEarly View Review Essay The Arc of the Image: Conjugation, Repetition, Question Cyril O'Regan, Corresponding Author Cyril O'Regan [email protected] Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, 130 Malloy Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556 USASearch for more papers by this author Cyril O'Regan, Corresponding Author Cyril O'Regan [email protected] Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, 130 Malloy Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12900Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation
现代神学年鉴评论文章形象的弧线:变位，重复，问题Cyril O'Regan，通讯作者Cyril O'Regan [email protected]圣母院大学神学系，130 Malloy Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556 usa搜索本作者的更多论文Cyril O'Regan，通讯作者Cyril O'Regan [email protected]圣母院大学神学系，130 Malloy Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556 usa搜索本作者的更多论文首次发表:2023年10月16日https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12900Read全文taboutpdf ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare给予accessShare全文accessShare全文accessShare请查看我们的使用条款和条件，并勾选下面的复选框共享文章的全文版本。我已经阅读并接受了Wiley在线图书馆使用共享链接的条款和条件，请使用下面的链接与您的朋友和同事分享本文的全文版本。学习更多的知识。复制URL共享链接共享onemailfacebooktwitterlinkedinreddit微信早期视图在线版本记录前纳入问题相关信息
{"title":"The Arc of the Image: Conjugation, Repetition, Question","authors":"Cyril O'Regan","doi":"10.1111/moth.12900","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12900","url":null,"abstract":"Modern TheologyEarly View Review Essay The Arc of the Image: Conjugation, Repetition, Question Cyril O'Regan, Corresponding Author Cyril O'Regan [email protected] Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, 130 Malloy Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556 USASearch for more papers by this author Cyril O'Regan, Corresponding Author Cyril O'Regan [email protected] Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, 130 Malloy Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12900Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation","PeriodicalId":18945,"journal":{"name":"Modern Theology","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136112915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号