David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Heythrop Journal 53 (2):253-263 (2012)
It is perhaps ironic that a methodology still convinced of its radical iconoclasm and progressive nature should at the same time be regarded as critically backward, a by-product of a disappearing philosophy. Such a view of the historical-critical method is held by John Milbank who argues that because of its dependence upon heretical philosophies that affirm the ontological autonomy of a world without reference to or participation in God, it should be confined to theological history. This essay will argue that Milbank's challenge ought to be taken seriously by Christian biblical interpreters and suggests that historical-critical study, in the form criticised by Milbank, needs to be rejected. Milbank exposes the philosophical bankruptcy of the method from a Christian perspective; nevertheless, Milbank overstretches himself. His rejection of the historical-critical method results in a hermeneutic that has no place for a biblical text's historical particularity and sense. Because of this, he is left subsuming historic texts into the regula fidei of his philosophical meta-narrative, whether they fit such a move or not. This is particularly the case with Milbank's treatment of biblical texts, which, it shall be argued, operates as a refusal of history and a refusal of the particularity and alterity of the text. This highlights the need for an historical hermeneutic for Christian biblical interpretation, based on theological presuppositions, which takes the theological value of both historical particularity and the text seriously
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Bowlin (2004). Introduction: Parts, Wholes, and Opposites: John Milbank as "Geisteshistoriker". Journal of Religious Ethics 32 (2):257 - 269.
David M. Craig (2004). Naves and Nukes: John Ruskin as "Augustinian" Social Theorist? Journal of Religious Ethics 32 (2):325 - 356.
John Berkman & Frederick C. Bauerschmidt (1996). II. Absolutely Fabulous and Civil. Philosophy and Theology 9 (3-4):435-446.
Gordon E. Michalson (2004). Re-Reading the Post-Kantian Tradition with Milbank. Journal of Religious Ethics 32 (2):357 - 383.
James Wetzel (2004). Splendid Vices and Secular Virtues: Variations on Milbank's Augustine. Journal of Religious Ethics 32 (2):271 - 300.
Daniel Haynes (2011). The Metaphysics of Christian Ethics: Radical Orthodoxy and Theosis. Heythrop Journal 52 (4):659-671.
Michael M. Waddell (2008). Faith and Reason in the Wake of Milbank and Pickstock. International Philosophical Quarterly 48 (3):381-396.
Eleonore Stump (1989). Visits to the Sepulcher and Biblical Exegesis. Faith and Philosophy 6 (4):353-377.
John Milbank (2005). The Invocation of Clio: A Response. Journal of Religious Ethics 33 (1):3-44.
Dan Miller (2010). Review of Slavoj Žižek and John Milbank's, the Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic? Edited by Creston Davis. [REVIEW] Sophia 49 (1):165-167.
William P. Loewe (1996). III. Beyond Secular Reason? Philosophy and Theology 9 (3-4):447-454.
Jean Porter (1997). Mere History: The Place of Historical Studies in Theological Ethics. Journal of Religious Ethics 25 (3):103 - 126.
Anthony J. Godzieba (1996). I. Fear and Loathing in Modernity. Philosophy and Theology 9 (3-4):419-433.
Aviezer Tucker (2005). Miracles, Historical Testimonies, and Probabilities. History and Theory 44 (3):373–390.
Joseph M. Levine (1999). The Autonomy of History: Truth and Method From Erasmus to Gibbon. University of Chicago Press.
Added to index2011-12-01
Total downloads5 ( #175,930 of 1,004,733 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?