A Sharp Break: Childs, Wellhausen, and Theo-referentiality
Julius Wellhausen proposed a "sharp break" between ancient Israelite religion and early Judaism: for him, the eighth-century prophets were the "spiritual destroyers of old Israel" and the forerunners of early Judaism. The biblical theologian Brevard Childs rejected Wellhausen...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[2019]
|
| Dans: |
Harvard theological review
Année: 2019, Volume: 112, Numéro: 2, Pages: 135-159 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Childs, Brevard S. 1923-2007
/ Wellhausen, Julius 1844-1918
/ Israélites
/ Judaïsme primitif
/ Théologie
/ Histoire
|
| RelBib Classification: | FA Théologie HB Ancien Testament HD Judaïsme ancien KAH Époque moderne KAJ Époque contemporaine TA Histoire |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Israelite Religion
B Theological Exegesis B Theological Interpretation B Brevard Childs B Julius Wellhausen B Early Judaism |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | Julius Wellhausen proposed a "sharp break" between ancient Israelite religion and early Judaism: for him, the eighth-century prophets were the "spiritual destroyers of old Israel" and the forerunners of early Judaism. The biblical theologian Brevard Childs rejected Wellhausen's reconstruction and insisted instead that "very strong theological continuity" characterized the development of Israelite religion from its outset. Numerous contemporary theological interpreters share Childs's perspective. However, a "Wellhausen renaissance" is currently underway in the study of Israelite religion and early Judaism. This situation poses an unresolved challenge for theological interpretation, at least of the kind that Childs advocated. The present article addresses this dilemma. It first inventories Childs's reasons for opposing Wellhausen's sharp break, which emerge from Childs's vision for scriptural "theo- referentiality." Secondly, it tests whether Childs's theological insights, the very same that led to his repudiation of Wellhausen, might accommodate Wellhausen's historical claim. The final result is to set Wellhausen and Childs, historical reconstruction and theological interpretation, in a noncompetitive relationship. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1475-4517 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Harvard theological review
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0017816019000038 |