这么多年了还隐身吗?希伯来圣经中的女性神语:对大卫·j·A·克莱因斯的回应

IF 0.6 1区 哲学 0 RELIGION Journal of Biblical Literature Pub Date : 2022-06-15 DOI:10.15699/jbl.1412.2022.1
H. Levinson
{"title":"这么多年了还隐身吗?希伯来圣经中的女性神语:对大卫·j·A·克莱因斯的回应","authors":"H. Levinson","doi":"10.15699/jbl.1412.2022.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In a recent JBL article, David J. A. Clines reviews twenty-two Hebrew Bible texts that allegedly include female god-language. His review concludes: \"There is not a single instance of female language about the deity in the Hebrew Bible.\" Three major methodological difficulties undermine this unqualified conclusion: the selective choice of conversation partners, together with an inattention to the history of feminist biblical scholarship; the author's decision to exclude metaphor theory from the scope of his article; and, finally, his paradoxical failure to define at the outset what \"female\" language means in reference to the deity. The article's significant methodological deficiencies make its conclusions inevitable and, in effect, yield a literalist reading. Given the importance of the topic to the discipline, the present response provides a more hermeneutically self-aware analysis of the methodological and theoretical issues. This study demonstrates that feminist scholarship has an intellectual history essential to exegetical studies of such texts, and that metaphor theory is essential to any discussion of gendered language for the deity in the Hebrew Bible.","PeriodicalId":15251,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biblical Literature","volume":"141 1","pages":"199 - 217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Still Invisible after All These Years? Female God-Language in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to David J. A. Clines\",\"authors\":\"H. Levinson\",\"doi\":\"10.15699/jbl.1412.2022.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:In a recent JBL article, David J. A. Clines reviews twenty-two Hebrew Bible texts that allegedly include female god-language. His review concludes: \\\"There is not a single instance of female language about the deity in the Hebrew Bible.\\\" Three major methodological difficulties undermine this unqualified conclusion: the selective choice of conversation partners, together with an inattention to the history of feminist biblical scholarship; the author's decision to exclude metaphor theory from the scope of his article; and, finally, his paradoxical failure to define at the outset what \\\"female\\\" language means in reference to the deity. The article's significant methodological deficiencies make its conclusions inevitable and, in effect, yield a literalist reading. Given the importance of the topic to the discipline, the present response provides a more hermeneutically self-aware analysis of the methodological and theoretical issues. This study demonstrates that feminist scholarship has an intellectual history essential to exegetical studies of such texts, and that metaphor theory is essential to any discussion of gendered language for the deity in the Hebrew Bible.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Biblical Literature\",\"volume\":\"141 1\",\"pages\":\"199 - 217\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Biblical Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1412.2022.1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"Journal of Biblical Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1412.2022.1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要:在JBL最近的一篇文章中,大卫·J·a·克莱恩斯评论了22本希伯来语圣经文本,据称其中包含了女性神的语言。他的评论总结道:“《希伯来圣经》中没有一个关于神的女性语言的例子。”三个主要的方法论困难破坏了这一不合格的结论:选择性地选择对话伙伴,以及对女权主义圣经学术史的忽视;作者决定将隐喻理论排除在文章范围之外;最后,他自相矛盾地未能在一开始就定义“女性”语言对神的意义。这篇文章在方法论上的重大缺陷使其结论不可避免,实际上,它产生了一种文学主义的阅读。鉴于该主题对该学科的重要性,本回应对方法论和理论问题进行了更具解释学意义的自我意识分析。这项研究表明,女权主义学术有着对此类文本的训诫研究至关重要的知识史,隐喻理论对任何关于希伯来圣经中神的性别语言的讨论都至关重要。
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
Still Invisible after All These Years? Female God-Language in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to David J. A. Clines
Abstract:In a recent JBL article, David J. A. Clines reviews twenty-two Hebrew Bible texts that allegedly include female god-language. His review concludes: "There is not a single instance of female language about the deity in the Hebrew Bible." Three major methodological difficulties undermine this unqualified conclusion: the selective choice of conversation partners, together with an inattention to the history of feminist biblical scholarship; the author's decision to exclude metaphor theory from the scope of his article; and, finally, his paradoxical failure to define at the outset what "female" language means in reference to the deity. The article's significant methodological deficiencies make its conclusions inevitable and, in effect, yield a literalist reading. Given the importance of the topic to the discipline, the present response provides a more hermeneutically self-aware analysis of the methodological and theoretical issues. This study demonstrates that feminist scholarship has an intellectual history essential to exegetical studies of such texts, and that metaphor theory is essential to any discussion of gendered language for the deity in the Hebrew Bible.
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
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Getting Rigor Right: A Framework for Methodological Choice in Adaptive Monitoring and Evaluation. Love, Marriage, and a Delayed Harvest: Isaiah 61 as the Reversal of the Song of the Vineyard (5:1–7) Remembering God’s Beloved Son: Jeremiah 38:20 LXX and Mark 1:11 Exotica and the Ethiopian of Acts 8:26–40: Toward a Different Fabula John 21:15–19 as a Prophetic Succession: A Reading in Light of 2 Kings 2:1–18
×
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