Home  About us  Contact
 

Theological Interpretation (theological + interpretation)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

The Depth and Destiny of Work: An African Theological Interpretation , By Nimi Warikobo

RELIGIOUS STUDIES REVIEW, Issue 2 2010
Elias K. Bongmba
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

The Bible and the Crisis of Meaning: Debates on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture.

THE HEYTHROP JOURNAL, Issue 1 2009
By D. Christopher Spinks
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Studies in Theological Interpretation).

THE HEYTHROP JOURNAL, Issue 1 2009
By Christopher R. Seitz
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Reclaiming a Theological Reading of the Bible: Barth's Interpretation of Job as a Case Study

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, Issue 2 2000
Robert J. Sherman
Modern scholarship often seems intent on breaking scripture apart without offering a means to put it back together again in an intellectually responsible and theologically useful way. This article recognizes that numerous scholars have sought to redress this situation and suggests that Karl Barth's method of scriptural interpretation may be a useful and instructive resource. Barth possessed the historical-critical skills of his day yet always employed them in the service of his theological interpretation. One clear example of his method may be found in his ,mini-commentary' on the book of Job (in Church Dogmatics IV/3), which is examined as a case study. [source]

KIERKEGAARD, INDIRECT COMMUNICATION, AND AMBIGUITY

THE HEYTHROP JOURNAL, Issue 1 2009
JAMIE TURNBULL
Notoriously, Kierkegaard claims his project to be one of indirect communication. This paper considers the idea that Kierkegaard's distinction between direct and indirect communication is to be accounted for in terms of ambiguity. I begin by outlining the different claims Kierkegaard makes about his method, before examining the textual evidence for attributing such a distinction to him. I then turn to the work of Edward Mooney, who claims that the distinction between direct and indirect communication is to be drawn in just this way. I argue that Mooney misinterprets the type of ambiguity Kierkegaard holds to be involved in indirect communication, and consequently ends up with an unsatisfactory account of Kierkegaard's method. Finally I seek to cast doubt on the very idea that ambiguity might do justice to the claims Kierkegaard makes about his project, and suggest that what is required to do so is a theological interpretation of his work. [source]