巨大的罪过

Collin Cornell
{"title":"巨大的罪过","authors":"Collin Cornell","doi":"10.1163/15743012-bja10021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article identifies two examples of constructive theological argumentation in recent religion-historical research: specifically, research on the Yahwism of a Persian-period island called Elephantine. These examples are significant because the task of history of religions is to offer critical (re)description of the contents of religion and not to make positive recommendations for current-day god-talk or ethics. In addition to setting out these disciplinary stakes, the article suggests that the location of these trespasses is also of interest: the historical subdiscipline that studies Elephantine, by virtue of its propinquity to the Bible proper, draws theological cachet from the Bible, while its smaller infrastructure relative to academic biblical studies makes room for more editorializing. Lastly, the article answers each theological proposal in kind, with brief theological counterarguments made, not obliquely and paracanonically, but directly from canonical biblical texts. In this way, the article advocates for maintaining the integrity of each discipline: descriptive history of religions and constructive theologizing.","PeriodicalId":41841,"journal":{"name":"Religion and Theology-A Journal of Contemporary Religious Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Elephantine Trespasses\",\"authors\":\"Collin Cornell\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15743012-bja10021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article identifies two examples of constructive theological argumentation in recent religion-historical research: specifically, research on the Yahwism of a Persian-period island called Elephantine. These examples are significant because the task of history of religions is to offer critical (re)description of the contents of religion and not to make positive recommendations for current-day god-talk or ethics. In addition to setting out these disciplinary stakes, the article suggests that the location of these trespasses is also of interest: the historical subdiscipline that studies Elephantine, by virtue of its propinquity to the Bible proper, draws theological cachet from the Bible, while its smaller infrastructure relative to academic biblical studies makes room for more editorializing. Lastly, the article answers each theological proposal in kind, with brief theological counterarguments made, not obliquely and paracanonically, but directly from canonical biblical texts. In this way, the article advocates for maintaining the integrity of each discipline: descriptive history of religions and constructive theologizing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Religion and Theology-A Journal of Contemporary Religious Discourse\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Religion and Theology-A Journal of Contemporary Religious Discourse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15743012-bja10021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion and Theology-A Journal of Contemporary Religious Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15743012-bja10021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文确定了最近宗教史研究中建设性神学论证的两个例子:具体来说,是对波斯时期一个名为“象岛”的岛屿上的耶和华主义的研究。这些例子很重要,因为宗教史的任务是对宗教内容进行批判性(重新)描述,而不是对当今的上帝话语或伦理提出积极的建议。除了列出这些学科的利害关系,这篇文章还指出,这些越界的地点也令人感兴趣:研究象岛岛的历史分支学科,由于其与圣经本身的接近,从圣经中获得了神学声望,而相对于学术圣经研究,它的基础设施较小,为更多的编辑提供了空间。最后,这篇文章以同样的方式回答了每一个神学建议,并提出了简短的神学反驳,不是间接地和假意地,而是直接从正典圣经文本中。通过这种方式,文章主张保持每个学科的完整性:描述性的宗教历史和建设性的神学。
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
Elephantine Trespasses
This article identifies two examples of constructive theological argumentation in recent religion-historical research: specifically, research on the Yahwism of a Persian-period island called Elephantine. These examples are significant because the task of history of religions is to offer critical (re)description of the contents of religion and not to make positive recommendations for current-day god-talk or ethics. In addition to setting out these disciplinary stakes, the article suggests that the location of these trespasses is also of interest: the historical subdiscipline that studies Elephantine, by virtue of its propinquity to the Bible proper, draws theological cachet from the Bible, while its smaller infrastructure relative to academic biblical studies makes room for more editorializing. Lastly, the article answers each theological proposal in kind, with brief theological counterarguments made, not obliquely and paracanonically, but directly from canonical biblical texts. In this way, the article advocates for maintaining the integrity of each discipline: descriptive history of religions and constructive theologizing.
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
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
The Salvific City Under Caesar’s Sword Pondering Tibetan Buddhist Alterity in Peter Dickinson’s Tulku Mani and Augustine: Collected Essays on Mani, Manichaeism and Augustine , by Johannes van Oort “God” in Augustine’s Confessions
×
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