With Antonio Lombatti blog, I stumbled upon this beautiful post Jim Linville. In reality, 'this is the text of the report that the professor of the University' of Lethbridge has read the last meeting of the SBL in Atlanta. The title '"Taking to Task Over Textbooks Old Testament Mythology" ("to test the manual on the subject of mythology in the Old Testament") and Linville, precisely, wittily analyzes a series of introductions to the Old Old Testament (or, rather, try not to make) the theme of mythology in the Hebrew Bible. Maybe you will not 'agree with all the opinions of Linville, but highly recommend reading the piece, which, inter alia, 'a series of very good information for those interested to read a manual of this type.
Linville works with a definition of "myth" very sophisticated ("a story becomes myth in the eyes of the observer as a result of massive cultural and hermeneutic) and rightly expect the same rigor to books, however, very often stumble theological prejudices. However, I wondered if the use of the term "myth" is always helpful. Take, for example, this post appeared yesterday on the website of the Censor, which incorporates an awareness campaign in the United States. The term "myth" in this context has a different meaning da quello usato da Linville: qui abbiamo l'uso piu' polemico e il mito diviene "un racconto falso e irrazionale". E' giusto impiegare il termine in contesto scientifico, quando esso, volenti o nolenti, porta con se' un tale bagaglio polemico? Una cosa simile mi e' accaduta un paio di anni fa in una conferenza in cui ebbi una lunga discussione sull'opportunita' di utilizzare il termine "sincretismo". Comunemente, questa parola e' spregiativa e polemica, ma il professore che discuteva con me riteneva di poterla usare in modo neutro, dopo averne dato una nuova e assai articolata definzione. Il problema e' che non basta dare, all'inizio di ogni articolo o di ogni conferenza, una nuova e particolareggiata definizione: l'uso tradizionale e' nelle ears and minds of all and finally impose ', at best, creating confusion. Sometimes I should just give up certain categories.
The question 'even more' tricky if, as in the case of the "myth" is false, by implication you are also using a contrast with the "story", which instead would establish the truth in a rational way '"facts." I think that today one can seriously claim only a definition of history as a critical discipline and, therefore, we can only talk so much on a historical clarification of how the facts really are gone. If you go in the opposite direction is likely only a return to positivism, and as new "myths" are continuously generated by the companies' human (mind you well, even more than 'secular), you would end up having historical, what it' already 'happened many times, ensure the very "facts" supporting the "myth" of the moment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment