![]() Abernethy, Ridley Melbourne Mission and Ministry College The Contribution of Eating to Isaiah 65–66 as a Conclusion to the BookĪndrew T. In addition to being important for my work on IGT, the reflections may also be relevant to issues such as exegesis, method or commentary writing in general. In my presentation I will be very open to suggestions on how to solve a challenge such as this. In the paper I shall reflect on these matters, not least through examples, and with a focus on potentials and profits rather than on problems. What happens if a story like IGT is commented on from a “childist” perspective? Can this be done in a scholarly responsible way? If so, how? Just as texts can be read from feminist or post-colonial point of view, they can also be read with an eye to children. my monograph “The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas”, Wipf & Stock, 2009). There are, for instance, good reasons to interpret IGT as a story having children as a main audience (cf. Within history of research IGT has often been considered theologically idiosyncratic or even heretical. But which are the most viable?įinally, there are challenges as regards the overall interpretation of IGT. with a view to cultural setting(s)? Or is a literary-narrative perspective more viable, for example to deal with the main plot of IGT – if such a common exists? Of course, not all (or just one of) these approaches can be applied – some decisions must be made. What kind of equipment from the scholar’s toolbox am I to use? Should the material primarily be dealt with from a historical-critical point of view – for instance (form-critically) with attention to individual pericopes or (redaction-critically) to similarities and differences among the variants of IGT? Or should I approach the material social-scientifically, e.g. Second, we are confronted with a number of challenges as regards method. focus on a (highly hypothetical) reconstruction of this 2nd century story, on texts preserved in Syriac and Latin (4th-6th c.), or on central Greek manuscripts (11th-14th c.)? when the preserved manuscripts differ greatly and make it virtually impossible to get at something like an original? And what if these variants reflect oral tradition rather than material primarily transmitted in written form? Should the commentary e.g. But what are we to do when there is – as is the case with IGT – no such text, i.e. ![]() As Biblical scholars we usually deal with reasonably well established texts. First, there is a problem with the text in question. Considering the kind of material IGT consists of, writing such a commentary poses special challenges. Program Unit: Children in the Biblical WorldĪn international publisher has commissioned me to produce a commentary on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT). Point of view analysis transforms Genesis 22 from a horrible text about a demanding deity to dramatic text about the freedom of choice the deity allows people to make.Ĭhallenges in Writing a Commentary on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas I want to argue that point of view affects the theological understanding of Genesis 22. Using a variety of techniques on several planes, the narrator guides the reader to see the plot and action of the narrative from a particular point of view. Perspective criticism seeks to determine which character serves as the point of view character in a narrative. Scholars such as Canadian Gary Yamasaki have focused on the role of point of view as a neglected topic in narrative studies. With its theme of child sacrifice, Genesis 22 has an established place as one of the texts that preachers avoid. ![]() Program Unit: Homiletics and Biblical StudiesĬharles Aaron, First United Methodist Church A Perspective Criticism Analysis of Genesis 22 for Preaching
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |