- Home
- A-Z Publications
- NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion
- Previous Issues
- Volume 63, Issue 3, 2009
NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion - Volume 63, Issue 3, 2009
Volume 63, Issue 3, 2009
-
-
[Non-Western Women's Images of Jesus, Jezusbeelden van niet-westerse vrouwen]
Authors: Martha T. Frederiks & Martien E. BrinkmanIn this article, the question is raised in which regard non-Western, female theologians’ images of Jesus are different from those of Western, female theologians and from non-Western, male theologians. We begin with a sketch of the Christological debate within Western, feminist theology. Next, we divide our survey of non-Western women’s images of Jesus into two categories: images which refer to typically female characteristics, and images which do not refer to these aspects, but which, for women, do have an emotional value. We conclude that the connectedness with Jesus as the origin of life (power) unites Western and non-Western, female theologians. Jesus is not a lonesome mediator who occupies an isolated position between God and man. However, non-Western, female theologians usually refer to a broader concept of life in which the many threats of life are dealt with more extensively, and they also more emphatically hold on to their personal relationship to Jesus. They share their broad concept of life with their male colleagues, who, however, pay considerably less attention to Jesus as a breaker of taboos – especially concerning the female (im)purity. Non-Western, female theologians turn out to be more uninhibited in using the notion of a salvific sacrifice than Western female theologians. No doubt, this more positive attitude is related to their less individualistic attitude to life.
-
-
-
[Contra Merz. Een repliek op A. Merz’ artikel ‘Ein Jesus ohne “spin” und “special effects” ’, Contra Merz]
More LessThis is a reply to a paper by A. Merz, Ein Jesus ohne ‘spin’ und ‘special effects’, in which she states that my 2008 book Jezus van Nazaret is a methodological failure. I want to show that Merz reaches this conclusion by unfair methods. First: she characterizes my argumentation in a general way as ‘implausible’ but never mentions the content of my arguments, let alone discusses them. Second: whenever I quote established theologians whose ideas I used, Merz systematically avoids mentioning their names, instead proceeds as if these ideas are mine – which gives her the academic freedom to belittle them. Third: she paraphrases my text in mocking hyperboles, thereby misleading the reader. Merz’s goal is apologetic: she tries to undermine the image of Jesus I presented in my book.
-
-
-
[Theologie als dubbelspel: over verscheidenheid en dynamiek van theologie en godsdienstwetenschap, Theology as a Double: On Plurality and Dynamics in Dutch Theology and Science of Religions]
More LessThe complex and shifting relationships between Dutch academic theology and godsdienstwetenschap (the neutral study of religions) are examined in this article from the perspective of science of religions. It has four parts. In the first section, the expanding fields of study and increase in multidisciplinarity of theology and science of religions are sketched, and the growing overlap between them, causing sizable parts of academic theology to become ‘de-theologised’. The relationship between theology and religion is next examined from the perspective of the history of religions. It shows that theology is as much a liability as it is an asset to religions. In the final two sections, the current plurality of theology and science of religions is sketched and the shifting relations between their various kinds.
-
-
-
[De eigen vraaghorizon van Theologie en Godsdienstwetenschappen, The Specific ‘Horizon of Questioning’ of both Theology and Religious Studies]
More LessThis article argues that theology and religious studies are both fully-fledged academic disciplines and that they are distinct with respect to their specific ‘horizon of questioning’. Thus neither should theology be taken up with religious studies, nor should religious studies be absorbed by theology. Following I.U. Dalferth, the author argues that the ‘horizon of questioning’ of religious studies concerns a theoretical description of religious phenomena, whereas theology is practically oriented, thus seeing the human life coram Deo and presupposing faith in theological understanding (fides quaerens intellectum). Moreover, theology as an academic discipline does not require a ‘hard’ version of methodological agnosticism.
-
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 78 (2024)
-
Volume 77 (2023)
-
Volume 76 (2022)
-
Volume 75 (2021)
-
Volume 74 (2020)
-
Volume 73 (2019)
-
Volume 72 (2018)
-
Volume 71 (2017)
-
Volume 70 (2016)
-
Volume 69 (2015)
-
Volume 68 (2014)
-
Volume 67 (2013)
-
Volume 66 (2012)
-
Volume 65 (2011)
-
Volume 64 (2010)
-
Volume 63 (2009)
-
Volume 62 (2008)
-
Volume 61 (2007)
-
Volume 60 (2006)
-
Volume 59 (2005)
-
Volume 58 (2004)
-
Volume 57 (2003)
-
Volume 56 (2002)
-
Volume 55 (2001)
-
Volume 54 (2000)
-
Volume 53 (1999)
-
Volume 52 (1998)
-
Volume 51 (1997)
-
Volume 50 (1996)
-
Volume 49 (1995)
-
Volume 48 (1994)
-
Volume 47 (1993)
-
Volume 46 (1992)
-
Volume 45 (1991)
-
Volume 44 (1990)
-
Volume 43 (1989)
-
Volume 42 (1988)
-
Volume 41 (1987)
-
Volume 40 (1986)
-
Volume 39 (1985)
-
Volume 38 (1984)
-
Volume 37 (1983)
-
Volume 36 (1982)
-
Volume 35 (1981)
-
Volume 34 (1980)