古以色列历史的“高等法院”:考古、文本和优先问题

Pub Date : 2019-08-01 DOI:10.5508/JHS.2019.V19.A1
Daniel D. Pioske
{"title":"古以色列历史的“高等法院”:考古、文本和优先问题","authors":"Daniel D. Pioske","doi":"10.5508/JHS.2019.V19.A1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines debates surrounding what evidence, textual or archaeological, deserves priority within matters of historical interpretation as they pertain to the history of ancient Israel. Rather than resolving this debate, however, this investigation problematizes the premises that undergird approaches that accord precedence to one type of evidence over another. Drawing on theories of assemblage, this study concludes with a sketch of how an alternative interpretive framework might be conceived.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The “High Court” of Ancient Israel’s Past: Archaeology, Texts, and the Question of Priority\",\"authors\":\"Daniel D. Pioske\",\"doi\":\"10.5508/JHS.2019.V19.A1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study examines debates surrounding what evidence, textual or archaeological, deserves priority within matters of historical interpretation as they pertain to the history of ancient Israel. Rather than resolving this debate, however, this investigation problematizes the premises that undergird approaches that accord precedence to one type of evidence over another. Drawing on theories of assemblage, this study concludes with a sketch of how an alternative interpretive framework might be conceived.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5508/JHS.2019.V19.A1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5508/JHS.2019.V19.A1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这项研究考察了关于哪些证据,无论是文本证据还是考古证据,在与古以色列历史有关的历史解释问题中值得优先考虑的争论。然而,这项调查非但没有解决这场辩论,反而使支撑一种证据优先于另一种证据的方法的前提出现了问题。在集合论的基础上,本研究总结了如何构思一个替代的解释框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
The “High Court” of Ancient Israel’s Past: Archaeology, Texts, and the Question of Priority
This study examines debates surrounding what evidence, textual or archaeological, deserves priority within matters of historical interpretation as they pertain to the history of ancient Israel. Rather than resolving this debate, however, this investigation problematizes the premises that undergird approaches that accord precedence to one type of evidence over another. Drawing on theories of assemblage, this study concludes with a sketch of how an alternative interpretive framework might be conceived.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信