新品:
￥4,634 税込
配送料 ¥750 6月2日-7日にお届け
発送元: 英国の販売代理店
販売者: 英国の販売代理店
￥4,634 税込
配送料 ¥750 6月2日-7日にお届け
詳細を見る
残り2点 ご注文はお早めに 在庫状況について
￥￥4,634 () 選択したオプションを含めます。 最初の月の支払いと選択されたオプションが含まれています。 詳細
価格
小計
￥￥4,634
小計
初期支払いの内訳
レジで表示される配送料、配送日、注文合計 (税込)。
出荷元
★英国の販売代理店★
出荷元
★英国の販売代理店★
販売元
★英国の販売代理店★
（18291件の評価）
販売元
★英国の販売代理店★
（18291件の評価）
支払い方法
お客様情報を保護しています
お客様情報を保護しています
Amazonはお客様のセキュリティとプライバシーの保護に全力で取り組んでいます。Amazonの支払いセキュリティシステムは、送信中にお客様の情報を暗号化します。お客様のクレジットカード情報を出品者と共有することはありません。また、お客様の情報を他者に販売することはありません。 詳細はこちら
支払い方法
お客様情報を保護しています
Amazonはお客様のセキュリティとプライバシーの保護に全力で取り組んでいます。Amazonの支払いセキュリティシステムは、送信中にお客様の情報を暗号化します。お客様のクレジットカード情報を出品者と共有することはありません。また、お客様の情報を他者に販売することはありません。 詳細はこちら
￥3,686 税込
ポイント: 37pt  (1%)  詳細はこちら
少し使用感あり。 海外からの発送のため、２—４週間程度でお手元に商品をお届けします。商品及びサービス等の質問は、日本語で対応いたします。 少し使用感あり。 海外からの発送のため、２—４週間程度でお手元に商品をお届けします。商品及びサービス等の質問は、日本語で対応いたします。 一部を表示
配送料 ¥257 6月10日-23日にお届け
詳細を見る
通常5～6日以内に発送します。 在庫状況について
￥￥4,634 () 選択したオプションを含めます。 最初の月の支払いと選択されたオプションが含まれています。 詳細
価格
小計
￥￥4,634
小計
初期支払いの内訳
レジで表示される配送料、配送日、注文合計 (税込)。
この商品は、Paper Cavalier JP が販売、発送します。
Kindleアプリのロゴ画像

無料のKindleアプリをダウンロードして、スマートフォン、タブレット、またはコンピューターで今すぐKindle本を読むことができます。Kindleデバイスは必要ありません。

ウェブ版Kindleなら、お使いのブラウザですぐにお読みいただけます。

携帯電話のカメラを使用する - 以下のコードをスキャンし、Kindleアプリをダウンロードしてください。

KindleアプリをダウンロードするためのQRコード

著者をフォロー

John Barton
+ フォロー
この著者の他の本
何か問題が発生しました。後で再度リクエストしてください。

The Nature of Biblical Criticism ペーパーバック – 2007/5/21

英語版 John Barton (著)
4.7 5つ星のうち4.7 6個の評価
すべての形式と版を表示
{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"￥4,634","priceAmount":4634.00,"currencySymbol":"￥","integerValue":"4,634","decimalSeparator":null,"fractionalValue":null,"symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"rIkleeHwtayqyjb3MCIQ9US8MMutVhCRRw%2FFtW%2BDK5EmtfvnBM3S10DZ98jVI4AaKUvckUzrgm1op8mF0PBiVPkDmVCSWR1sVo54Qblj3wYLqny766p8La6zEid8pXww2nzGuboZKdr4LqaYZX9MQgKKu5Gtb3Qx4fegV5gE6zxaUq0tFXmtIVLKHyrG36eG","locale":"ja-JP","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}, {"displayPrice":"￥3,686","priceAmount":3686.00,"currencySymbol":"￥","integerValue":"3,686","decimalSeparator":null,"fractionalValue":null,"symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"rIkleeHwtayqyjb3MCIQ9US8MMutVhCR4lN56uo4UlyoysrVMzthu6x7tesLCsBnh0r8AMuhfK7DtTZzE8IRXh2ZtTH9kshH9y34eKVTk%2BrN3IR74sZrJzrGK1x1bmLlv8l6XtwdozVsQu15idrJv2Sgh%2B%2FOElzxRPk8dhQN17oDzDh4fkOPQg%3D%3D","locale":"ja-JP","buyingOptionType":"USED","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":1}]}

購入オプションとあわせ買い

Biblical criticism faces increasing hostility on two fronts: from biblical conservatives, who claim it is inherently positivistic and religiously skeptical, and from postmodernists, who see it as driven by the falsities of objectivity and neutrality. In this magisterial overview of the key factors and developments in biblical studies, John Barton demonstrates that these evaluations of biblical criticism fail to do justice to the work that has been done by critical scholars over many generations. Traditional biblical criticism has had as its central concern a semantic interest: a desire to establish the "plain sense" of the biblical text, which in itself requires sensitivity to many literary aspects of texts. Therefore, he argues, biblical criticism already includes many of the methodological approaches now being recommended as alternatives to it and, further, the agenda of biblical studies is far less fragmented than often thought.

続きを読む もっと少なく読む
Previous page
  1. 本の長さ
    206ページ
  2. 言語
    英語
  3. 出版社
    Westminster John Knox Pr
  4. 発売日
    2007/5/21
  5. 寸法
    15.24 x 1.27 x 22.86 cm
  6. ISBN-10
    066422587X
  7. ISBN-13
    978-0664225872
  8. すべての詳細を表示
Next page

商品の説明

著者について

John Barton is Oriel and Laing Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at the University of Oxford in England. His publications include The Oxford Bible Commentary, The Original Story, Understanding Old Testament Ethics (WJK), and How the Bible Came to Be (WJK).

登録情報

  • 出版社 ‏ : ‎ Westminster John Knox Pr (2007/5/21)
  • 発売日 ‏ : ‎ 2007/5/21
  • 言語 ‏ : ‎ 英語
  • ペーパーバック ‏ : ‎ 206ページ
  • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 066422587X
  • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0664225872
  • 寸法 ‏ : ‎ 15.24 x 1.27 x 22.86 cm
  • カスタマーレビュー:
    4.7 5つ星のうち4.7 6個の評価

著者について

著者をフォローして、新作のアップデートや改善されたおすすめを入手してください。
John Barton

John Barton

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

著者の本をもっと発見したり、よく似た著者を見つけたり、著者のブログを読んだりしましょう

カスタマーレビュー

星5つ中4.7つ
5つのうち4.7つ
6グローバルレーティング

この商品をレビュー

他のお客様にも意見を伝えましょう
カスタマーレビューを書く

上位レビュー、対象国： 日本

日本からの0件のレビューとお客様による0件の評価があります

他の国からのトップレビュー

すべてのレビューを日本語に翻訳
Roy J Squires
5つ星のうち5.0 Excellent historical study of the study of the Biblical and Apocryphal literature
2021年5月27日に英国でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
Barton has done an excellent history of how the Biblical and Apocryphal literature has been studied since the late 1st century AD by the theological and academic communities.
1人のお客様がこれが役に立ったと考えています
 レポート
Robert Jackson
5つ星のうち5.0 Everyone bore the brunt of the sabotaged chicken
2012年6月28日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
I could not put this book down from the moment I started reading. I think this book crystallises the great challenge and opportunity that biblical criticism presents to faith. 'Confessing' approaches demand that we draw from the text what we want it to say - the dogmas of the church. This betrays a lack of faith in the Bible, and it demands a stance that will be closed to recognising what the Bible says. Barton argues that critical scholarship has always been seeking out the 'plain meaning' of the text, and that this desire is what resulted in documentary hypotheses and historical criticism. Such approaches grew out of a plain recognition that the Bible is a collective work, and that it relates to history.

Barton's scholarly defence of this thesis is second to none. The enormous import of his conclusions would seem pedestrian to a non-critical reader, but to anyone who has spent years training in biblical analysis, this book is an absolute revelation. There is no tension between historical and literary approaches: A literary analysis of the Bible is the very thing that reveals the significance of its historical narratives. The only 'challenge' which biblical scholarship puts out to faith is to *deepen* trust that we can analyse the Bible on *its* terms and not our own.

Two specific observations at the end really floored me. First of all, Barton writes that "far from biblical criticism's having subverted faith, it seems to me that for most people it has not even begun to make an impression on it" (p 185). By keeping critical scholarship at a distance from dogmatic theology and pastoral activity, we are stunting our appreciation of the Bible and failing to appropriate the fruits of human learning.

And right at the end, Barton says that "it is commonly said that the findings of critical scholarship are of no value in communicating the Christian gospel to ordinary people. My own conviction is that this because hardly anyone has ever tried" (page 190). Wow. What a great point. I just finished reading ' Patience with God: The Story of Zacchaeus Continuing In Us ,' and in that book Halik points out that many people's scepticism toward the Bible could be dispelled by simply reading some modern biblical criticism. So he's really saying the same thing. The church is so faithless in trusting that 'taking the Bible at its word' will be fruitful that it has cut itself off from the benefits of scholarly biblical analysis.

This book is a tremendous challenge to the current impasse and debate. The challenge is indeed between faithful and faithless appropriations of the Bible, but the divide is the inverse of what is generally assumed. As Barton ominously investigates, "everyone bore the brunt of the sabotaged chicken."
3人のお客様がこれが役に立ったと考えています
 レポート
Jordan Pariah
5つ星のうち4.0 Two Steps From Perfection
2011年3月21日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
This book is so good...so profound...so penetrating. It is as if Barton knew everything I have been chewing on for five or six years, anticipated the questions, answers, problems, and solutions, gathered it all together, and lucidly arranged it all in a veritable tour de force. There is really nothing I can say about what Barton has done well in this book that will do anything but subtract from his genius. So instead, this review will focus on the two negative criticisms I have that prevent me from awarding the book a five-star rating. If my criticisms are harsh, it is only because I am so enamored of the job Barton has done and feel like the star player has momentarily let the team down.

A particular choice of terminology or definition.

Barton unnecessarily obfuscates his discussion by using Positivitic terms like "objective," "value-neutral," "detached," or "without distortion" in non-Positivistic ways (and also attributes his highly questionable definitions to the Positivists themselves).

For instance, when Barton says "objective," he means something like "refusing to simply read one's own ideas into the text" or "having a sense of detachment from the text." In other words, to be "objective" for Barton is to say "what I think and what the text says are probably a little different." Talk about a ludicrous definition. As if scholars using the term "objective" meant to differentiate their work from those who had no concept of a distance between themselves and the text. Who exactly were those people? Even the Surrealists of the Post-Modern movement had an awareness of something real beyond the subjective self--the "Sur" real. Even the most conservative interpreters understand that the text has a meaning that exists outside themselves (which Barton admits outright on p. 172). Few are the extremists who have ever thought or said "there is no way of encountering the text other than one already totally colored by one's own presuppositions," who seem to be Barton's talking partners (p. 49). If that is what is "not objective," then Barton's definition would be perfectly reasonable. But in my estimation, it is a mammoth caricature of those who are "not objective" and those who saw themselves as being "objective" in opposition to them.

When Barton says "value-neutral" or "detached," he doesn't mean "without bias or prejudice," which would be its plain sense, Positivist definition. Rather, he means something like "allowing one's perspective to be questioned." If someone is unwilling to question their perspective, they are not value-neutral or detached, but who are those who have been totally unwilling to question their perspective? The problem wasn't that nobody thought "maybe I should allow what I think the text means to be questioned." The problem was that certain folk were okay with allowing what they thought the text should mean to come before attempting an understanding of the text (this is Barton's own argument here). Biblical critics were reacting to the later situation, not the former. So what's the point of the weird definitions? "Value-neutral" and "detached" are words that simply should no longer be used.

And when Barton says "without distortion," he doesn't mean that we are not influencing the meaning of the text at all as one would expect, but something along the lines of "even though understanding is a self-involving exercise, one should seek to not completely distort the message that the text can convey." Again, who are the ones that this definition is opposing? Biblical critics weren't responding to those who had no sense of the distortion they could cause to a text, but to those who were willing to let their religious belief dictate what the text could mean instead of trying to let the text dictate what they believed. Biblical critics sought to do otherwise because they had respect for the biblical scrolls as literary texts (instead of treating them as an "inspired jumble"). Barton's re-defining of terms causes unnecessary confusion. Positivistic phrases like this are better left abandoned.

Failure to incorporate the reader.

Barton recognizes that meaning is determined in part by the reader. This is one of the four "coordinates" of literary understanding that he draws on as illustrated by M.H. Abrams (p. 75). He indirectly depends on this dynamic, for instance, when he refers to intuition as the primary way of undertaking the biblical-critical exercise, by saying that "scientific" or "method" is not the appropriate way to describe it, or by saying that what is involved is understanding instead of processing. Unfortunately, however, he constantly neglects to include this coordinate anywhere in his arguments.

For instance, Barton says biblical criticism "is precisely an attempt to avoid trying to master the text, but instead to allow it its own space, to make its own points in its own way, and to receive it without the distortion that is produced if we try to control it and twist it to our own ends" (p. 58, note 63). But he forgets to mention that we do control and twist the text by every act of understanding we undertake. If three people go into a room, come out, and someone asks them what they saw, they will each say they saw something different, or they will describe the same thing(s) differently. That isn't because there is nothing in the room to see and not because they are wrong about what they saw, but because all three interpretations are formed and constrained by those who make them. Barton knows this. But he doesn't seem willing to make that dimension clear.

He says on the same page "biblical criticism contains in essence three central features: (a) attention to semantics, . . . (b) awareness of genre, and (c) bracketing out questions of truth," but leaves out (d) imposition of our own perception. Barton knows that our perception is part of the equation, which is why he calls so strongly for a struggle with and against it. So why is (d) missing? Why is he leaving out the fourth coordinate in literary competence?

Again, Barton says "what constitutes it as critical is that it asks about the sense the text makes if it is read without a constraining framework of expectations" (p. 108). But Barton knows that there is no such thing as interpretation without a framework of expectation. His own argument throughout the book is that biblical criticism developed because of a specific framework of expectation: biblical texts are literature and thus should be understood as literature. So why isn't his argument more nuanced? Why isn't he saying what either a Positivist or Romanticist would not?

Barton says "our aim as critics is not to translate the text . . . into our own terms, but to get inside it and understand it from within" (p. 113). And yet, it is only by the terms of the one who goes into the text that the text can be understood. All understanding is colored by our particular perceptions. This doesn't mean we can't say something true about the text, and it doesn't mean there is unlimited meaning, but it does acknowledge that the reader influences understanding. Barton could have said as much, but didn't.

Barton comes close to bringing this aspect into the conversation is when he notes "in postmodernist thinking, . . .it is believed that the very perception of meaning is entirely determined by where one is standing" (p. 162, note 43). But then he doesn't engage that line of thinking. Surely he doesn't believe one can step from where one isn't already standing. Surely he must realize the obvious link between his two-fold argument (A. most biblical scholars are people of faith and B. if anything, scholarship has been slanted in favor of faith perspectives) with the quote above. What people think influences how they think! One cannot think in a manner foreign to our own selves.

Only two sentences in the entire book gave me what I was hoping for. And so I end with that stunning revelation: "How can we be sure that our own concerns and preoccupations are not contaminating our reading of past texts? We cannot, but we can try" (p. 181).
1人のお客様がこれが役に立ったと考えています
 レポート
A. Abernethy
5つ星のうち4.0 Barton's Biblical Criicism
2010年2月8日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
There are several helpful contributions in Barton's book. First, it helpfully reminds Biblical scholarship that investigation of a historical nature is not the foundation of Biblical Criticism; rather, Biblical criticism (Barton claims) begins with a focus on the "text" (i.e. literary). The incongruities and difficulties in the text are what lead to inquiry of a historical nature (accidental). Barton emphasizes this because he desires to show that Biblical Criticism is not antithetical to literary approaches. The primary focus of Biblical criticism is textual not historical (accidental). Second, amidst Barton's attempt to show how Biblical Criticism is compatable with many literay approaches, he does not gloss over the fact that Biblical Criticism is at odds with theological approaches, including the canonical approach. He argues that the Biblical critic brackets out all theological presuppositions as one attempts to discern the "plain sense" of the text. This bracketing out enables the critic to realistically evaluate the Bible as if it were any "ancient text." This makes Biblical criticism incompatible with the canonical approach.
There are a few points missing from Barton's book. First, he does not discuss how inter-textuality fits into Biblical Criticism. If inter-textuality were permitted, would this invite a larger theological framework of the ancient Israelite audience to come to bear on the task of interpretation? Second, while Barton recognizes that various levels of meaning can be found in the text and appropriately studied by the critic, I would be interested to see how a Biblical Critic might go about finding meaning at the largest literary level (the canonical). I suppose that Barton would argue that due to a lack of congruity and coherence in the Biblical text at a larger literary level that it is best to focus on smaller literary units. It would have been helpful to have a fuller discussion regarding what it looks like to find meaning at various levels of a text and how one decides what levels are worthy of attention.
While I personally believe that it is permissible (even preferable) to interpret the text with appropriate theological presuppositions (such are unavoidable), I found Barton's book to be a helpful discussion regarding what is the essence of Biblical Criticism- a quest for the "plain sense" of the text by means of bracketing out all theological presuppositions and a willingness to question the text. While conservatives may not adopt this approach, it is a helpful explanation of Biblical Criticism by one of the foremost critics in the last 50 years.
レポート