SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.43 número4An adjudication of the most prominent ecclesiastical and theological traditions to the ethics of socio-economical rightsAppealing to Scripture and its use in mission índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Em processo de indexaçãoCitado por Google
  • Em processo de indexaçãoSimilares em Google

Compartilhar


In die Skriflig

versão On-line ISSN 2305-0853
versão impressa ISSN 1018-6441

In Skriflig (Online) vol.43 no.4 Cape Town Jan. 2009

 

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

 

Philosophical theories of truth and the logical status of intra-Biblical fallacies of contextomy

 

Waarheidsteorieë in die filosofie en die logiese status van intra-Bybelse kontekstonomie

 

 

J.W. Gericke

Faculty of Humanities, North-West University, Vaal Triangle Campus, VANDERBIJLPARK. E-mail: jaco.gericke@nwu.ac.za

 

 


ABSTRACT

The relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament is a major problem in the discipline of Biblical theology. From a historical perspective the ways in which some New Testament authors have justified their truth-claims by appealing to the Old Testament clearly involve the fallacy of contextomy. A good example of this is the interpretation of texts from the Psalter in the letter to the Hebrews. As a result, the question of logical status arises, i.e., Is it true? With this article the author hopes to contribute to the ongoing discussion by suggesting that, given so many incommensurable philosophical theories on the nature of truth, a more nuanced manner of speaking may be in order. Whether and in what sense the text will be seen as "true" ultimately depends on what we mean when we affirm or deny that something is true in the first place.


OPSOMMING

Die verhouding tussen die Ou en Nuwe Testamente word tradisioneel beskou as 'n fundamentele probleem in die Bybelse teologie. Vanuit 'n historiese perspektief blyk dit dat party Bybelse outeurs se waarheidsaansprake geregverdig word by wyse van kontekstomieë. 'n Goeie voorbeeld hiervan is die interpretasie van tekste uit die Psalms in die brief aan die Hebreërs. Gevolglik ontstaan 'n vraag na logiese status, met ander woorde, Is dit waar? Met hierdie artikel hoop die outeur om 'n bydra te lewer tot die voortgaande bespreking deur voor te stel dat, gegewe die magdom onversoenbare filosofiese teorieë oor die aard van waarheid, dit dalk nodig mag wees om in gesprekke oor die onderwerp meer genuanseerd met die waarheidsbegrip om te gaan. Op welke wyse die teks as "waar" beskou kan word, sal uiteindelik afhanklik wees van wat ons bedoel indien ons beweer of ontken dat iets in die eerste plek waar is.


 

 

“Full text available only in PDF format”

 

 

List of references

ARMESTO, F.F. 1999. Truth - a history and guide for the perplexed. New edition. London: Bantam.         [ Links ]

ARMOUR-GARB, B. & BEALL, J.C., eds. 2005. Deflationary truth. Chicago: Open Court.         [ Links ]

AUSTIN, J.L. 1979. Truth. Reprinted in Philosophical Papers. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

BARR, J. 1999. The concept of Biblical theology: an Old Testament perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress.         [ Links ]

BLACKBURN, S. & SIMMONS, K., eds. 1999. Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

BRUEGGEMANN, W. 1997. Theology of the Old Testament: testimony, dispute, advocacy. Philadelphia: Fortress.         [ Links ]

CARROLL, R.P. 1997. Wolf in the sheepfold: the Bible as problematic for theology. London: SCM.         [ Links ]

CLEMENTS, R.E. 1985. The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. South Western journal of theology, 28:36-45.         [ Links ]

CUPITT, D. 1990. What's a story? London: SCM.         [ Links ]

DAVID, S.M. 2004a. Theories of truth. (In Niiniluoto, I., Sintonen, M. & Wolenski, J., eds. Handbook of epistemology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 331-414.         [ Links ])

DAVID, S.M. 2004b. Don't forget about the correspondence theory of truth. (In Jackson, F. & Priest, G., eds. Lewisian themes: the philosophy of David K. Lewis. Oxford: Clarendon. p. 43-48.         [ Links ])

DAVIDSON, D. 1984. Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

DAVIDSON, D. 1990. The structure and content of truth. The journal of philosophy, 87:279-328.         [ Links ]

DAVIES, P.R. 1995. Whose Bible is it anyway? Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOT Sup. Series.         [ Links ])

ENGEL, M.S. With good reason: an introduction to informal fallacies. Bedford: St. Martins.         [ Links ]

FIELD, H. 1994. Disquotational truth and factually defective discourse. Philosophical review, 103(3):405-52.         [ Links ]

GLANZBERG, M. 2008. Truth. (In Zalta, E.N., ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/truth/ Date of access: 17 Feb. 2009.         [ Links ]

GROVER, S. 1992. A prosentential theory of truth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.         [ Links ]

GUTHRIE, G.H. 2003. Hebrews' use of the Old Testament: recent trends in research. Currents in Biblical research, 1(2):271-294.         [ Links ]

HASEL, G. 1986. Old Testament theology: basic issues in the current debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.         [ Links ]

HORWICH, P. 1998. Truth. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.         [ Links ]

KIRKHAM, R.L. 1992. Theories of truth: a critical introduction. Cambridge: MIT.         [ Links ]

KÜNNE, W. 2003. Conceptions of truth. Oxford: Clarendon.         [ Links ]

LEPORE, E. 2000. Meaning and argument: an introduction to logic through language. London: Blackwell.         [ Links ]

LYNCH, M.P. 2001. The nature of truth: from the classic to the contemporary. Cambridge: MIT.         [ Links ]

MCGRATH, M. 2001. Between deflationism and correspondence. New York: Garland.         [ Links ]

ORD, D.R. & COOTE, R.B. 1994. Is the Bible true? Understanding the Bible today. New York: Orbis.         [ Links ]

RORTY, R, 1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.         [ Links ]

SCHANTZ, R., ed. 2002. What is truth? Berlin: De Gruyter.         [ Links ]

SCHMITT, F.F. 1995. Truth: a primer. Boulder: Westview.         [ Links ]

SOAMES, S. 1999. Understanding truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

STOLJAR, D. & DAMNJANOVIC, N. 2008. The deflationary theory of truth. (In Zalta, E.N., ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/truth-deflationary Date of access: 17 Feb. 2007.         [ Links ]

TARSKI, A. 1956. The concept of truth in formalized languages: logic, semantics, metamathematics. New York: Clarendon.         [ Links ]

THAGARD, F. 2007. Coherence, truth and the development of scientific knowledge. Philosophy of science, 74:26-47.         [ Links ]

VISION, G. 2004. Veritas: the correspondence theory and its critics. Cambridge: MIT.         [ Links ]

YOUNG, J.O. 2001. A defense of the coherence theory of truth. The journal of philosophical research, 26:89-101.         [ Links ]

Creative Commons License Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons