{"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}
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.