Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
This article considers the legacy of James Barrâs The Semantics of Biblical Language. Ideally, his criticisms of theologyâs use of philology would have been assimilated already into the field. But the kinds of abuses that Barr so clearly identified and critiqued are still commonly found. As a way of exploring this state of affairs, the case of μεÏάνοια (ârepentanceâ) in New Testament studies is taken up in the first part of this article.â©
The second part of the article considers the ways in which Barrâs thoroughgoing critique of its specious appropriation for theology has left many justifiably skittish about employing it to any significant effect and has contributed, perhaps, to a sense that ongoing engagement with the original languages of biblical literature is not a necessity and, certainly, not an avenue to creative scholarship. Examples will be adduced from biblical Hebrew ×××¢ (âknowâ), ×× (âheartâ), and ××× (âloveâ) for how we might approach language and its deployment as a way of engaging difference, in this case, in and through ancient Israelite thinking about âmindâ and âemotions.ââ©
The article concludes with the suggestion that we might move the practice of philology forward in biblical studies by attending more fully to the positionality of its practitioners. In particular, what emerges throughout the study is the dominance of a certain interiorizing language of the self, whereby biblical Hebrew terms are made to conform to a modern dichotomy of mind and body.â©
Kauf
Sofortzugang erwerben (PDF-Download und unbegrenzter Online-Zugang):
Institutszugang
Melden Sie sich mit Open Athens, Shibboleth oder Ihren institutionellen Anmeldedaten an.
Persönliche Anmeldung
Melden Sie sich mit Ihrem brill.com-Konto an
âJames Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961). Overviews of Barrâs work can be found in Samuel E. Balentine, âJames Barrâs Quest for Sound and Adequate Biblical Interpretation,â in S.E. Balentine and J. Barton (eds.), Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 5â15, and John Barton, âJames Barr as Critic and Theologian,â in ibid., pp. 16â26. For Barrâs collected essays, see John Barton (ed.), Bible and Interpretation: The Collected Essays of James Barr (3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013â2014). References to his articles below will be to the original publications.
âE.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), pp. 106â113.
âJ. Lunde, âRepentance,â Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1992), p. 669. See also Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), p. 104.
âSee, further, David A. Lambert, How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity, and the Interpretation of Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 181â83.
âCeslas Spicq, âμεÏανοÎÏ, μεÏάνοια,â Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (ed. and trans. James D. Ernest; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), vol. 2, p. 475.
âReimarus, Fragments (ed. C.H. Talbert; trans. R.S. Fraser; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), pp. 65â71.
âN.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), pp. 246â58.
âSee now Dru Johnson, Biblical Knowing: A Scriptural Epistemology of Error (Eugene: Cascade, 2013), which in many respects represents an advance. See also Meir Malul, Knowledge, Control and Sex: Studies in Biblical Thought, Culture and Worldview (Jerusalem: Graphit, 2002).
âT. Collins, âThe Physiology of Tears in the Old Testament: Part I,â CBQ 33 (1971), pp. 18â38. See further, for a summary of her similar approach to Greek literature, Ruth Padel, In and Out of Mind: Greek Images of the Tragic Self (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 39â40.
âSee further Carasik, âThe Limits of Omniscience,â pp. 221â28. Here, Carasik questions the mode of knowing, reconfiguring it as âtesting,â but not the object of knowledge (i.e., the human mind). The point is still to discern through âexternal actionsâ what is ââinâ the Israelitesâ heartsâ (p. 224).
âTigay, Deuteronomy, p. 77. See also Stephen A. Geller, âThe God of the Covenant,â in B.N. Porter (ed.), One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World (Chebeague: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000), p. 294. Indeed, ×× is frequently used as a way of grounding âsincerityâ in the biblical text. See Michael L. Barré, âHearts, Beds, and Repentance in Psalm 4,5 and Hosea 7,14,â Biblica 76 (1995), pp. 53â62; and Moshe Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer: As a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 48â51.
âSee James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 36â47; David J.A. Clines, âThe Disjoined Body: The Body and Self in Hebrew Rhetoric,â in G.A. van der Heever and S.W. van Heerden (eds.), Biblical Interpretation (Pretoria: University of South Africa, 2001), pp. 48â57; and Robert A. Di Vito, âOld Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity,â CBQ 61 (1999), pp. 217â38.
âH.L. Ginsberg, âHeart,â Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972), vol. 8, pp. 7â8.
âSmith, âHeart and Innards,â p. 431. See also the attempt to find a physiological basis for ×× in Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (trans. Margaret Kohl; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), pp. 40â58.
âDi Vito, âOld Testament Anthropology,â p. 233.
âFrancis Brown, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), p. 523.
âVoloÅ¡inov, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, p. 23.
âGary A. Anderson, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991).
âQuoted from James I. Porter, Nietzsche and the Philology of the Future (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), p. 14, and see pp. 1â31 for his general discussion of the place of philology for Nietzsche.
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 1037 | 121 | 15 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 388 | 19 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 373 | 40 | 0 |
This article considers the legacy of James Barrâs The Semantics of Biblical Language. Ideally, his criticisms of theologyâs use of philology would have been assimilated already into the field. But the kinds of abuses that Barr so clearly identified and critiqued are still commonly found. As a way of exploring this state of affairs, the case of μεÏάνοια (ârepentanceâ) in New Testament studies is taken up in the first part of this article.â©
The second part of the article considers the ways in which Barrâs thoroughgoing critique of its specious appropriation for theology has left many justifiably skittish about employing it to any significant effect and has contributed, perhaps, to a sense that ongoing engagement with the original languages of biblical literature is not a necessity and, certainly, not an avenue to creative scholarship. Examples will be adduced from biblical Hebrew ×××¢ (âknowâ), ×× (âheartâ), and ××× (âloveâ) for how we might approach language and its deployment as a way of engaging difference, in this case, in and through ancient Israelite thinking about âmindâ and âemotions.ââ©
The article concludes with the suggestion that we might move the practice of philology forward in biblical studies by attending more fully to the positionality of its practitioners. In particular, what emerges throughout the study is the dominance of a certain interiorizing language of the self, whereby biblical Hebrew terms are made to conform to a modern dichotomy of mind and body.â©
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 1037 | 121 | 15 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 388 | 19 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 373 | 40 | 0 |