English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 1309/3723 (35%)
Visitors : 2235645      Online Users : 31
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.taitheo.org.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/5882


    Title: 從「舊講道學」到「新講道學」的演變(上):二本具代表性的講道學教科書之 比較— John Broadus(1870)及Fred Craddock(1985)
    From Old Homiletics to New Homiletics Ⅰ: A Comparative Study of Two Exemplary Textbooks by John Broadus (1870) and Fred Craddock (1985)
    Authors: 蔡慈倫
    Tsai, Tzu-lun
    Keywords: 約翰.博洛德 (John Broadus)
    弗瑞德.克拉達 (Fred Craddock)
    講道的教學 (homiletical pedagogy)
    Date: 2014-05
    Issue Date: 2014-05-13T08:57:22Z (UTC)
    Abstract: 本論文試圖有系統地瞭解「舊講道學」與「新講道學」的不同。為了更具體的說明新、舊講道學在方法論上及教學內容上的差異,筆者分析並比較二本具代表性的講道學教科書─John Broadus 在1870年出版的《講章的準備及傳講》(A Treatise on the Preparation andDelivery of Sermons),及Fred Craddock 在1985 年出版的《講道》(Preaching)。
    倘若如一些學者所言(如:Lucy Rose),二十世紀上半期是Broadus 的時代,他對講道的瞭解是「當代講道學理論所反對並建構的主要背景」的話,那麼1970 年代的「新講道學」所反對的並不是「舊講道學」的「原型」,而是一個被簡化、甚至被曲解的「變型」,即在歷史的進程中Broadus 的講道學理論遭到後人的修改、誤解、或忽
    視。然而,當代講道學者卻忽略此一事實。一個可能的原因是,大多數學者並非直接從Broadus 的教科書文本進行研究,而是採用第二手資料,以致於造成人云亦云的現象,並對「舊講道學」作了不客觀且不正確的批判。所以,本論文不僅提供講道學老師一個具體說明「從舊講道學到新講道學的演變」之教材,更修正了當代講道學對「舊講道學」所持的一些錯誤觀念,同時也證明了「第一手資料的研究」在講道學研究上的重要性。

    This article discusses speci!cally and systematically the differences between Old and New Homiletics in terms of their method and pedagogical content. In order to do this in a concrete way, The author examines two influential textbooks that represent the methods of Old and New Homiletics – John Broadus’ A Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons (1870) and Fred Craddock’s Preaching (1985).
    According to scholars, such as Lucy Rose, if the first half of twentieth century was designated as the Broadus era and his understanding of preaching is the dominant backdrop against which contemporary traditional Homiletical Theory was formulated, then what New Homiletics in the 1970’s was responding to a productive caricature of Old Homiletics that was simpli!ed or even misrepresented what Old Homiletics actually was. In other words, Broadus’ homiletical theory was misunderstood, altered, or ignored by his successors in the course of time. This has been overlooked by modern homileticians. One reason for this neglect may be that scholars did not investigate Broadus’ textbook directly but relied instead on secondary materials that improperly or even wrongly represented Old Homiletics. Therefore, this article not only provides teachers a concrete material for teaching preaching and corrects a major stereotype held by the contemporary
    scholars, but it also demonstrates the necessity of studying primary text
    for homiletical research.
    Relation: 《台灣神學論刊》no.37:167-195
    Appears in Collections:[蔡慈倫 (Tsai, Tzu-Lun)] 教師研究著作

    Files in This Item:

    There are no files associated with this item.



    All items in TAITHEO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    請尊重著作權法

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback