Reception history
i am looking to determine if reception history is the same as history of hermeneutics/interpretation and how to trace this in Logos.
Comments
-
Looks like a chicken vs the egg problem. Especially when populations largely can't read.
A good quote this morning:
"The author [Gospel of John] was probably not conscious of the distinction between the intended readers and the implied reader in his own text. In that time the difference between the implied readers and the real readers was probably not very great. But for modern readers, a difficult distance has to be partly bridged by scientific commentaries. Moreover modern narratology pays special attention to the active role which the readers have in the recovery of the sense of the text, in order to understand its communicative value.
When reading a novel the readers accept an implied contract with the narrator, that the plot is about a fantasy world. John, on the contrary, describes Jesus’ miracles and actions as real also outside the narrated world. The intended readers are presupposed to accept his starting-point. Modern readers who by their preconceptions cannot accept Jesus’ miracles and actions as real therefore have difficulties in becoming ideal readers of John’s Gospel. I must admit that the results of a narrative method can be problematic for many modern readers."
from New Readings in John (Nisson, Pederson)
0 -
Christian Alexander said:
if reception history is the same as history of hermeneutics/interpretation
Related but not the same. Your starting point should be an understanding of Hans-Georg Gadamer and, perhaps, the commentary on Matthew by Ulrich Luz. This is a case where Wikipedia provides a solid answer:
[quote]It (reception history) aims to show how biblical interpretations have developed throughout the centuries. The field that predated the reception history of the Bible has been known as the “history of interpretation” or “history of exegesis.” The greatest difference between reception history and its predecessor approach is that reception history does not restrict its interpretations. It includes interpretations that are marginal and even unorthodox. Reception history does not restrict interpretations by medium either; it includes the use of art, music, poetry, and liturgy. In contrast, the history of interpretation is concerned with how biblical scholars have interpreted a text in only their commentaries and monographs
As indicated by DMB, it is closely related to literary criticism in the reader response mode.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I thought this was interesting fly-in-the-ointment (same resource as above; continuing). The 'seeing' of course is the correct interpretation. And 'seeing' doesn't demand interpretation.
"Those who believe can ‘see’, but those who do not believe have difficulties ‘seeing’, even if they can appreciate the subtle technique of the author. One can even say that the symbolic language used in the Gospel is a language for ‘insiders’ who belong to the Johannine community."
0 -
You're looking at Nissen, Johannes, and Sigfred Pedersen. New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives. Essays from the Scandinavian Conference on the Fourth Gospel, Århus, 1997. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004 right? I see a reader-response essay but I'm not seeing a reception history essay. Where am I screwing up?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I see a reader-response essay but I'm not seeing a reception history essay. Where am I screwing up?
Yes, Nissen. And no you're not misplacing a reception history essay. More like they bounce around, across the definitions, so it's not easy keeping track.
Hallbeck on literary reading was a ping-pong ... as an example, he quotes Henriksen "The event in John is ‘that God becomes man in Bethany across the Jordan, and shortly after he comes wandering through Judea and into Jerusalem." That really illustrates the difference of the potential randomness of 'reception history' and interpretive history!
Then, it took me forever to figure out 'synchronic literary reading' ... as delivered.
0 -
Thanks. That makes sense.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
