Dale Allison observes how the patterns of most commentaries privilege recent works over older sources. Rather, he says the history of interpretation invites serious consideration for the following reasons. “Such history is intrinsically interesting in and of itself.” “It instills … Continue reading
De Gruyter is providing an invaluable collection of works that will assist those involved in History of Interpretation, Wirkungsgeschichte, reception theory, and more. They are attempting to set new standards in the field of research with The Bible and Its Reception series. For those involved in this field of study, I heartily recommend you keeping an eye on these publications.
My academic interests have shifted drastically over the past number of years. One of these interests propelled forward into the spot-light is the Patristic studies. They have great value in shaping hermeneutics, theology, and piety. Over the next number of months, I am personally working through methodologies of History of Interpretation and Reception History (Wirkungsgeschichte); both of which, need defining (more to come on making sure these two methods are understood without conflating the two; they do two different things).
In this process of working through methodologies, I came across this quote. although Roberts and Rowland conflate the concepts of “History of Interpretation” and “Reception History,” this quote, nonetheless, is extremely remarkable.
The goal of reception history is to develop an open-ended dialogic form of hermeneutics that is not alienated from human experience, and which enables exegesis to regain its interpretative self-consciousness. Once this is understood, the social and existential relevance of reception history becomes more apparent.
An “open-ended dialogic form of hermeneutics” is a clear description of the HoI and Reception History’s foundation.
Jonathan Roberts and Christopher Rowland, “Introduction,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33, no. 2 (Dec 2010): 133.