Stump and Swinburne on Revelation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20310620 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John Lamont (Harvard University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1996 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 395-411 |
| Publication date | 1996-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Religious Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0034-4125 • E-ISSN: 1469-901X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0034412500024434 |
| OpenAlex | W2101199060 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 3 |
In his important book Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy , Richard Swinburne has proposed a comprehensive account of the nature of Christian revelation. This account has been criticized by Eleonore Stump. Stump has raised objections to Swinburne's views on biblical interpretation, and to his deistic view of revelation. I will argue that her objections to his views on biblical interpretation are ill-founded. Her criticism of a deistic conception of revelation is justified, but the alternative that she offers to such a conception is unsatisfactory. I will suggest a different alternative, and argue that Swinburne's general account would be improved if he incorported it
Analogy · Criticism · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy) · Linguistics · Literature · Metaphor · Revelation · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Karl Barth and Christian Theology · Philosophy · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |