MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2085754704 · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2265.2009.00438_10.x

The Nature of Biblical Criticism. By John Barton

2008· article· en· W2085754704 sur OpenAlexaff
Shawn W. Flynn

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Heythrop Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCriticismBiblical studiesBiblical criticismHistorical criticismPhilosophyLiterary criticismEpistemologyObjectivity (philosophy)Sociological criticismNew CriticismLiteratureTheologyLiterary theoryLiterary scienceArtLinguistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Pp.190 , London : Westminster John Knox Press , 2007 , $24.95 . This published version of Barton's Croall Lectures at the University of Edinburgh in 2005 explores biblical criticism through ten theses. In defending these theses, B. explains the roots and boundaries of the critical endeavor in biblical studies and argues the wrong-headedness of criticisms against it. The principal strategy he uses is to describe the critical endeavor in its widest possible scope. Chapters 2–3 argue that biblical criticism and recent literary methods are not opposed since both are concerned with genre recognition (p. 26). B. prefers the term ‘biblical criticism’ to ‘historical criticism’, since history is only a part of the critical operation. In fact, biblical criticism's primary concerns are semantics, genre awareness and bracketing the question of truth in preference for determining the exact meaning of a text. (pp. 38, 58). B. argues that the goal of the critical method is the plain sense which is, however, open to allegory (p. 110). B.'s defence undermines cavils that biblical criticism claims exclusive objectivity, has concern only for history, and is antipathetic to theological readings. B.'s description, however, fits only an ideal form; he accuses critics of not capturing this ‘self-understanding’ (p. 57). However, there is frequently a chasm between how biblical criticism is practiced and how B. re-constructs it. This is evident in B.'s discussion of intentionalism. For B., concern for the author is ‘an accidental rather than an inherent part of the establishment of biblical criticism’ (p. 76). Yet critics point out that authorial intention has been a primary focus; to argue it is accidental does not give sufficient attention to what occurs in practice or what has led to this focus. That said, when biblical criticism operates in the way B. describes, it stands up to this criticism leveled against it. Later chapters explore the theological implications of the critical method. In chapter 5 B. traces the roots of biblical criticism to the Renaissance. He appreciates the current critical endeavor as including a theological contribution, since a theological dimension has not been absent to the critical method from its origins. Chapter 6 takes on claims that biblical criticism is theologically void (Childs, Braaten, Jenson, Moberly and Seitz). B. defends biblical criticism and what he calls ‘advocacy’ readings by offering a two step process: an uncovering of the textual meaning, and a subsequent analysis of this meaning from the perspective of one's belief. He applies this process through an interesting analysis of feminist claims of misogynistic readings. We must first have established what a text actually means before we can claim a misreading (p. 160). A contradiction ensues, for ‘when they insist this must be done from a confessional or committed viewpoint, they are plainly in opposition to the values that criticism stands for’ (p. 174). While this is one of B.'s strongest points, the argument could be strengthened if specific opponents' arguments were taken up. The feminists remain unnamed and only their general position is described. B.'s treatment even of the major critics, though he explores each in some detail, also ends up gathering them into one (p. 147). The final sections consider the role of the critical method for the church. For B. ‘bracketing out’ one's presupposition of truth is essential for uncovering the plain sense of a text. B. claims bracketing out is more theological that other reading methods since without it ‘we have no meaning whose truth value we can even begin to assess’ (p. 171). He parallels this to prayer, where prayer begins with attention to a reality beyond oneself before reflecting on that reality. In other words, both share a first step of admitting an objective reality (p. 181). Even if there remains a gap between how B. describes the critical process in an ideal form and how it is sometimes practiced, this discussion dispels simplistic objections by demonstrating a viable critical process. This study should be read by students questioning what is happening with the critical endeavor, those frustrated with the critical method, and those who need help articulating its contributions.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,529
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Heythrop JournalMême sujetBiblical Studies and InterpretationTravaux en français237 207