Why ‘Reception History’ Is Not Just Another Exegetical Method

The history of reception is suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding. Since the publication of Truth and Method , everyone has had the impression that reception history is just another exegetical technique. However, the heart of Gadamer's argument is not the history of the effects of the text, but the historicity of understanding: a text is seized only within the limits of the historical situation of its interpreter. To demonstrate this point, this paper takes the example of the Markan ending. Surprisingly, a 16th-century Thomistic theologian, Cajetan, and a contemporary commentary are so close that one might think they are defending the same view of the text. Both intend to maintain the canonicity of verses 9–20, but both point out that it may be adventurous to build any doctrine or practice on these verses alone. But the context is different, obviously. The first one tries to justify a conception of faith that does not depend directly on miracles; the second one affirms a hermeneutic centred on the interpreter's response, being wary of its ecclesiological drifts. This confirms that theological considerations rather than philological ones have prevailed in challenging Mark's ending

Argument (complex analysis) · Art · Context (archaeology) · Doctrine · Epistemology · Faith · Historicity (philosophy) · Interpreter · Literature · Philology · Point (geometry) · Sociology · Theology · Computer Science · History · Karl Barth and Christian Theology · Law · Medieval Philosophy and Theology · Philosophy · Reformation and Early Modern Christianity

• What Justification? Pauline Reception and the Interpretation of Phld. 8.2

  Open Access•Jonathon Lookadoo•Religions•2024

  Add to list