• Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism

  • History, Method, Practice
  • Di: R. S. Sugirtharajah
  • Letto da: Kevin Young
  • Durata: 7 ore e 10 min
  • Versione integrale Audiolibro
  • Data di pubblicazione: 15/04/2013
  • Lingua: Inglese
  • Editore: Audible Studios
Vantaggi dell'abbonamento Vantaggi dell'abbonamento
  • Accedi ad un universo di contenuti audio, senza limiti d'ascolto.
  • Ascolta dove vuoi, quando vuoi, anche offline.
  • Dopo i primi 30 giorni gratis l’iscrizione si rinnova automaticamente a EUR 9,99 al mese.
  • Cancella la tua iscrizione in ogni momento.

Sintesi dell'editore

Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice offers a concise and multifaceted overview of the origins, development, and application of postcolonial criticism to biblical studies.

Offers a concise and accessible introduction to postcolonial biblical studies.

Provides a comprehensive overview of postcolonial studies by one of the field's most prominent figures.

Explains one of the most innovative and important developments in modern biblical studies.

Accessible enough to appeal to general readers interested in religion.

©2012 R. S. Sugirtharajah, with the exception of Chapter 3 c. 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd (P)2013 Audible Ltd

Cosa ne pensano gli iscritti

Non ci sono recensioni disponibili
Ordina per:
  • Generale
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Lettura
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Storia
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Amy
  • 30/04/2019

More Postcolonialism Than Biblical Criticism

I came into this work eager to learn about a new way of approaching the Bible, but the majority of this book focuses on explicating Postcolonialism and then focusing on applying this analysis to historical analysis of religious interaction. When the book gets around to applying the hermeneutical methods the results aren't that impressive. Contrapuntal reading turns out to just be comparing and contrasting texts. 'Late style' is more interesting but it's confusing as to why exactly it's Postcolonial other than that it's an approach advocated by Edward Said. The analysis of Luke raises some interesting points but reaches conclusions that are just odd (saying that Dives and Lazarus is an affirmation of the wealth is, to put it charitably, a pretty courageous interpretation). Part of what seems to be going wrong here is that while the author wants readers to be aware of their own positionality, he does not seem particularly interested in examining his own positionality towards the Biblical texts. His interpretations are correct. There's never any language that says that he is presenting a possible interpretation of the text that is on par with other interpretations. Those other interpretations are wrong and his is right. For such an over interpreted text as the Bible this stretches credulity and makes his arguments seem implausible.