No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
1 The Classic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), pp. 118–19.Google Scholar
2 “Foundational Theology and Theological Education,” Theological Education 20/2 (Spring 1984): 107–24.Google Scholar
3 Culler, Jonathan, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981), pp. 54–59Google Scholar, considers this double-sidedness not a strength but a weakness of reception hermeneutics.
4 The reference to reception as dangerous stems from Yves Congar's classic essay on reception: see Congar, Yves, “La ‘Réception’ comme réalité ecclesiologique,” Revue des sciences philosophies et théologiques 56 (1972): 369–403.Google Scholar
5 Interestingly Schleiercnacher was regarded by some contemporaries as a foundationalist and by others as an anti-foundationalist—to use present day categories. Protestant Neo-orthodoxy has generally regarded him as a foundationalist, whereas Roman Catholic theology has had the opposite interpretation. For his own explanation, see Schleiermacher, Friedrich D. E., On the Glaubenslehre: Two Letters to Dr. Lücke, Intro., ed., and trans. Duke, James and Fiorenza, Francis; AAR Texts and Translations 3 (Chicago, CA: Scholars Press, 1981).Google Scholar
6 Bernstein, Richard J., Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), esp. pp. 222–31.Google Scholar