Université Don Bosco de Lubumbashi
Détail de l'auteur
Documents disponibles écrits par cet auteur (1)
Affiner la recherche Interroger des sources externes
[article]
| Titre : |
Reading and Hearing in Ancient Contexts |
| Type de document : |
texte imprimé |
| Auteurs : |
Rafael RodrÃguez, Auteur |
| Année de publication : |
2010 |
| Article en page(s) : |
pp. 151-178. |
| Langues : |
Anglais (eng) |
| Résumé : |
This article clarifies a perennial problem relating to the concept of ‘orality’ in Gospels studies and attempts to provide some resolution to that problem. Specifically, Gospels criticism has struggled to conceptualize the relation between the Jesus tradition as it was orally performed and early textual (written) expressions of that tradition. The binary opposition ‘literacy/orality’ has failed to provide any help in this conceptualization, and this failure is rooted especially in the rather nebulous (yet widespread) concept of ‘orality’. New Testament scholarship requires a set of culturally specific models of textuality, including the non-communicative functions of written texts and the non-literate use of written traditions. Before we can develop the necessary models, however, we need to deal with the problems we have created by appealing to ‘orality’. |
in Journal for the Study of the New Testament > Volume 32/2 (2009) . - pp. 151-178.
[article] Reading and Hearing in Ancient Contexts [texte imprimé] / Rafael RodrÃguez, Auteur . - 2010 . - pp. 151-178. Langues : Anglais ( eng) in Journal for the Study of the New Testament > Volume 32/2 (2009) . - pp. 151-178.
| Résumé : |
This article clarifies a perennial problem relating to the concept of ‘orality’ in Gospels studies and attempts to provide some resolution to that problem. Specifically, Gospels criticism has struggled to conceptualize the relation between the Jesus tradition as it was orally performed and early textual (written) expressions of that tradition. The binary opposition ‘literacy/orality’ has failed to provide any help in this conceptualization, and this failure is rooted especially in the rather nebulous (yet widespread) concept of ‘orality’. New Testament scholarship requires a set of culturally specific models of textuality, including the non-communicative functions of written texts and the non-literate use of written traditions. Before we can develop the necessary models, however, we need to deal with the problems we have created by appealing to ‘orality’. |
|  |
