“极简主义者”如何改变最近的圣经奖学金?

IF 0.1 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1080/09018328.2020.1805208
Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò
{"title":"“极简主义者”如何改变最近的圣经奖学金?","authors":"Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò","doi":"10.1080/09018328.2020.1805208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper aims to highlight the problem of methodologies used in historical reconstruction within Biblical studies. The so-called “minimalists” have called for change in the methodology used in Biblical studies, and in historical reconstruction in particular, for the last three decades. The issue is illustrated by two cases where extra-biblical sources allow for radical shift in the interpretation. As a counterpart, the two cases from current biblical studies are recalled, as the examples for scholarship accepting traditional reasoning and opinio communis without profound verification. The conclusion leads to the opinion that the methodological shift advocated by the “Minimalists” did not take place, and is not widely accepted.","PeriodicalId":42456,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament","volume":"34 1","pages":"43 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09018328.2020.1805208","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How did “Minimalists” Change Recent Biblical Scholarship?\",\"authors\":\"Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09018328.2020.1805208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The paper aims to highlight the problem of methodologies used in historical reconstruction within Biblical studies. The so-called “minimalists” have called for change in the methodology used in Biblical studies, and in historical reconstruction in particular, for the last three decades. The issue is illustrated by two cases where extra-biblical sources allow for radical shift in the interpretation. As a counterpart, the two cases from current biblical studies are recalled, as the examples for scholarship accepting traditional reasoning and opinio communis without profound verification. The conclusion leads to the opinion that the methodological shift advocated by the “Minimalists” did not take place, and is not widely accepted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"43 - 50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09018328.2020.1805208\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2020.1805208\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2020.1805208","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

摘要本文旨在强调圣经研究中历史重建所使用的方法论问题。在过去的三十年里,所谓的“极简主义者”呼吁改变《圣经》研究中使用的方法,尤其是历史重建中的方法。这一问题可以通过两个案例来说明,在这两个案例中,圣经外的来源允许解释发生根本性的转变。作为回应,我们回顾了当前圣经研究中的两个案例,作为学术界在没有深入验证的情况下接受传统推理和共产主义观点的例子。这一结论导致了一种观点,即“极简主义者”所倡导的方法论转变并没有发生,也没有被广泛接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How did “Minimalists” Change Recent Biblical Scholarship?
ABSTRACT The paper aims to highlight the problem of methodologies used in historical reconstruction within Biblical studies. The so-called “minimalists” have called for change in the methodology used in Biblical studies, and in historical reconstruction in particular, for the last three decades. The issue is illustrated by two cases where extra-biblical sources allow for radical shift in the interpretation. As a counterpart, the two cases from current biblical studies are recalled, as the examples for scholarship accepting traditional reasoning and opinio communis without profound verification. The conclusion leads to the opinion that the methodological shift advocated by the “Minimalists” did not take place, and is not widely accepted.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
An Intertextual Analysis of Jehu’s Violence in Kings and Chronicles (2 Kgs 9-10 and 2 Chr 21-24) Greece and Yehud in the Achaemenid Period: The Background of Cultural Transfer Longing for Flowing Streams—Water as Metaphor and Mediator in Psalm 42 “And They Reap the Wheat Harvest”: An Intertextual Investigation into the Meaning of a Small Remark in the Story of the Return of the Ark (I Samuel 6,13) Forty Years with SJOT
×
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