Lecture 2 the Historical-Critical Method

Lecture 2: The Historical Critical Method's (HCM) Techniques; BI 5305 AdvancedIntroduction to the Old Testament; Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Fall 2008

There are many works extant which describe and evaluate the different exegetical methods. 1

These were the primary ones used in the following discussion: Richard N. Soulen, Handbook ofBiblical Criticism, 3d ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 2001), 1ff.; John H. Hayes and Carl R. HolladayBiblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, rev. ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), 1ff; Victor H.Matthews and James C. Moyer, The Old Testament: Text and Context (Peabody, MA:Hendrickson, 1997), 28-30.

John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, 2d ed. (Louisville, KY:2

Westminster/John Knox, 1996), 5.

1

I. INTRODUCTION.1

A. The history of the HCM has been a history of the on-going evolution of newermethods of exegesis.

1. Each method has seemed to grow out of previous ones, being perceived asrelated to them, yet different from them.

2. This process is likely to continue in the future.

B. This evolution of new methods has been perceived in academic circles as an endin itself, which has produced several problems.2

1. The insistence “that there is, somewhere, a ‘correct’ method which, if onlywe could find it, would unlock the mysteries of the text.”

2. “The tendency of each newly-discovered method to excommunicate itspredecessors.”

3. “The tendency to denigrate the ‘ordinary’ reader as ‘non-critical.’”

4. The on-going pursuit of method “tries to process the text, rather than toread it.”

C. Even with these problems, as we have observed, the HCM is here to stay–it is notgoing to go away.

D. The purpose of this lecture is to introduce you to the more prevalent methodsextant at this time.


Richard N. Soulen, Handbook, 192.3

A. Alt, O. Eißfeldt, P. Kahle, et al, eds.. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche4

Bibelstiftung, 1967/77), abb. BHS; Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, CarloM. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament, 4 ed. rev. (Stuttgart:th

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) abb. GNT; Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini,Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26 ed. (Stuttgart:th

Gesameherstellung Biblia Druck, 1979), abb. NA.

Hayes and Holladay, Biblical Exegesis, 27.5

2

II. TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

A. The study of the text to “reconstruct the original wording of the Biblical text” and“to establish the history of the transmission of the text through the centuries.”

B. “The first of these two goals is in fact hypothetical and unattainable. In everyinstance the original copy (called the autograph) of the books of the Bible is lost,hence ever reconstruction is a matter of conjecture. TC’s task, therefore, is tocompare existing MSS, no two of which are alike, in order to develop a ‘criticaltext’ . . . which lists variant readings in footnotes, called a ‘critical apparatus.’ Modern translations of the Bible are, in the main, based on such critical texts(TEV, JB, NEB).”3

C. The BHS and the GNT, or the NA are the most prominent examples of these.4

D. This fact usually surprises the non-professional and indicates we should not say,“the Greek/Hebrew says,” but say instead, “the Greek/Hebrew, according to Xcritical text, says”

III. GRAMMATICAL CRITICISM.

A. “Grammatical criticism includes all attempts to answer questions pertaining to thelanguage of the text. This includes both the words themselves, either alone or inphrases, as well as the way in which the words are put together or the syntax ofthe sentence or paragraph. Rules of grammar in effect at the time the passage waswritten may also need to be examined if it appears that meaning andunderstanding depend upon resolving grammatical issues.”5

B. E.g., Acts 2:1 “They” refers back to “apostles,” not the “120”


Soulen, Handbook, 79.6



3

C. This method encompasses the older “philological study” employed in wordstudies.

IV. HISTORICAL CRITICISM.

A. HC deals “. . . with the historical setting of a document, the time and place inwhich it was written, its sources, if any, the events, dates, persons, and placesmentioned or implied in the text, etc. Its goal is the writing of a chronologicalnarrative of pertinent events, revealing where possible the nature andinterconnection of the events themselves.”6

B. HC “. . . is based on assumptions similar to those used in working with otherancient texts. The biblical critic is concerned with both the situation depicted inthe text and the situation which gave birth to the text.”7

V. SOURCE (THE “OLD” LITERARY CRITICISM).

A. Literary Criticism has three basic definitions:8

1. “a particular approach to the analysis of Scripture which appeared insystematic form in the 19th cent. (often called Source Criticism) andwhich, considerably refined, is still practiced.”

2. “that investigation of a text which seeks to explicate the intention andachievements of the author through a detailed analysis of the componentelements and structure of the text itself (here the what and how of awriting rather than its whence or why . . . is sought).”

3. “any undertaking which attempts to understand Biblical literature simplyas literature, often in a manner paralleling the interests and methods ofcontemporary literary critics generally, such as I. A. Richards, T. S. Elliot,Northrop Frye, et al.”


4

4. Older scholars used the first definition for the term “Literary Criticism,”but with the rise of “New Literary Critical School” the method is betterdesignated “Source Criticism,” leaving the other two definitions for thenew literary critical school's use.

B. Source Criticism, as the first definition asserts, is the task of analyzing the literaryfeatures of a given document to determine its literary character, origins, and statesof written composition in order to determine what particular sources make up thecomplete unit.

C. Five pillars of Source Criticism:

1. The use of divine names (Pentateuchal Studies)2. Language and style.3. Contradictions and divergences within the text.4. Duplications and repetition of material.5. The evidence that different accounts have been combined.

D. Techniques:

1. Compare // accounts, 2 Sam. 7:11-16 vs. 1 Chr. 17:10-14, (God’s promiseto David).

a. Cf. especially 2 Sam 7:14-16 with 1 Chron 13-14b. In one Yhwh promises to punish for disobedience, but not the other

2. Distinguishing combined accounts, 1 Sam. 16:14ff. And 17:55ff. (Davidand Goliath–“Who is this man?”).

a. Chapter 16 Saul is introduced to David.b. Yet he asks, “Who is this man?” in chapter 17

3. Recognize literary style and terminology;

a. Cf. Judges 3:7-11, 12ff; 4:1ff; 6:1ff.; 10:6ff; 13:1ff.b. Cf. 2 Kgs 14:1-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3; 18:1-3, etc.

4. Establish divergent viewpoints and ways of thought, Jer. vs. Jer. 33:14-26,(Hope for a better day–Redactor?).



5

5. Trace normative motifs, Eccles. 1:2-3 (Vanity of Life in the context ofseeking what is good.)

E. Categories for discovering literary sources:

1. Style–writing technique, structural arrangement, use of language.2. Terminology–recurring terms, names, expressions, clusters of words.3. Perspective–central thrust, outlook, vantage point.

F. Examples of supposed sources and their interpretation:

1. Finding sources:

a. Gen 1:1-2:4a & 5=P b. Gen 2:4b-4:26=Jc. Gen. 6-9= two versions of flood story.

2. Interpreting sources:

a. Yahwist–promise, grace, etc.b. Priestly writer and covenant–structure–exile or later.

VI. FORM CRITICISM.

A. “(Ger.: Formgeschichte, Gattungsgeschichte) may be loosely defined as theanalysis of the typical forms by which human existence is expressed linguistically;traditionally this referred particularly to their oral pre-literary state. . . .”9

B. General characteristics:

1. Attempts to ascertain what kind of speech is used when a particular eventwas recorded.

2. Was God speaking? If so, was he warning of Judgment? Is the speech anargument (disputation) between a prophet and his audience?

3. (Some of this we have been doing for years, we have just never called itform criticism.)


Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Fortress, 1986), 79-80.10

6

4. Even so, the method is based on the theory of a long period of oraltradition before events were committed to writing.

a. We must admit that there was probably an oral period before theevents in books were recorded, but nothing nearly as long asscholars theorize.

(1) Jeremiah and his book indicate that the preaching (oral) andthe written (both editions) existed side-by-side.

(2) The prophetic books, for example, are probably intended asprophetic summaries of their ministries.

(3) Surely, there was more to the prophet Jonah's ministry thanwhat he records in his book (cf. 2 Kgs 14:25)!

(4) Examples of this in more modern times are your sermons,and Campbell’s “Sermon on the Law.”

b. Rendtorff explains:

On the one hand we must certainly reckon with the fact that for along period in ancient Israel a variety of texts were preserved andhanded down by word of mouth and only set down in writing at arelatively late stage. On the other, we often hear in the OldTestament that particular things were written down: laws andcommandments (Ex. 24.4; 32.25; Josh. 24.26), legal documents(Deut. 24.1; Jer. 32.10), cultic texts (Ex. 17.14; Num. 5.23); letters(II Sam. 11.14; 1 Kings 21.8; II Kings 10.1) etc. There were alsobooks like the “Book of the Wars of YHWH” (Num. 21.14); the“Book of the Just” (Josh. 10:13; II Sam. 1.18), the “Chronicles” ofSolomon (I Kings 11.41) and the “Chronicles” of the kings ofIsrael (I Kings 14.19, etc.) and Judah (I Kings 1.29, etc.).10

C. Principles (assumptions, presuppositions):


7

1. Inherent in the long oral prehistory of the text, there is a certain tenacity inthe genres, but also flexibility and change as they develop.

2. Each genre originates in a particular Sitz im Leben and this setting can berecovered through a study of the genre itself.

3. In earliest usage genres were short, oral, and originated in and wereemployed in general, communal life.

4. Collections of popular and classical literature came into being as Israelmoved into a more literary phase.

a. Collectors gave structure and unity to literature derived from itsoral stage.

b. In the final stages, different genres were combined and mixed.

D. Goals:

1. To recover the full living history of the OT literature, especially for insightinto oral stages and to place all stages into their settings in the life ofIsrael.

2. To operate as a tool of exegesis to help grasp the meaning of texts.

E. Methods:

1. Structure–analyze, outline, pattern, schema (original unit) for analysis,formulae, patterns.

2. Genre–describe type, example, elements constant or variable,conventional structure of genre and how different.

3. Setting–situation which maintained the various genres - speaker, audience,etc.

4. Intention–state purpose, etc.

F. Relation to other criticisms:


Rendtorff, Old Testament, 80-128.11

8

1. Literary criticism:

a. Form Criticism–not authors but collectors, editors, redactors oftraditions.

b. Form Criticism–new way of analysis through structure, genre,intent.

c. Evidence of multiple authorship = evidence of multiple traditions.

2. Gave rise to:

a. Tradition criticism–complete history of OT literature through pre-literary stages.

b. Redaction criticism–theological motivation as for the revision ofthe material gave it emphasis and themes.

G. Form Criticism and the Historian–Form criticism uncovers older traditionscloser to events, separates these out from the newer interpretations, and helpsreconstruct institutions.

H. Form Criticism and Theology–how people created and passed on and usedtraditions. There are many different genres which are reflected in thistransmission. Rentorff categorizes them according to the following groupings:11

1. Genres of the Family, Clan, Tribe, and Local Community: love songs,lamentation, communal songs, proverbs, riddles, wisdom, prohibitions,tribal sayings, narratives, folk tales, sagas, novellas, aetiologies, legends,sacred narrative.

2. Genres of the Legal Sphere: clan law, family law, legal procedures,accusations, defenses, confessions, verdicts, consequences, casuistic laws,apodictic laws, prohibitions, law of death, and curses.

3. The Cult: nomadic worship, communion and sacrifice, passover,pilgrimage, cultic legends, festal calendars, sacrificial rituals, atonement,purity, psalms, hymns, songs of Zion, participial hymns, imperative




9

hymns, hymns to Yhwh, individual hymns, lamentations, and songs ofthanksgiving.

4. Political Institutions--Monarchy: lists, historical narratives (rise ofDavid; succession to the throne), royal psalms, wisdom traditions, wisdomsayings, admonitions, proverbs, didactic discourses, didactic narrative, andpersonification of wisdom

5. Prophecy: terms descriptive of prophets (seers, men of God, sons ofprophets, prophetic groups, prophetic office, relationship to king, variousmetaphors), narratives about prophets, sign actions, visions, messageformulas, words of disaster, announcements of judgment, two-part saying,admonitions, disputation sayings, words of salvation, sayings againstforeign nations, and apocalyptic.

VII. TRADITION CRITICISM

A. Derives from form criticism and is “the study of the history of oral traditionsduring the period of their transmission.”12

B. This method attempts to reconstruct the entire history of a particular literary unitfrom it hypothetical origin and development in its oral stage to its compositionand final redaction in literary form.

C. For example, the revised edition of Jeremiah was also an expanded version (cf.36:1-4, 23, 27-31). So can we trace the earliest to the latest components of thebook until its Hebrew text of Jeremiah extant today is adequately explained?

VIII. REDACTION CRITICISM.

A. This method “seeks to lay bare the theological perspectives of a Biblical writer byanalyzing the editorial (redactional) and compositional techniques andinterpretations employed by him in shaping and framing the written and/or oraltraditions at hand. . . .”13



Matthews and Moyer, Old Testament, 29.15

10

B. Often the things identified as theological (or special) interests are what weevangelicals call the divine interests.

C. E.g., some scholars see several things as the special interests of the so-called Dtr:

1. “There was no king in Israel, every man did what was right in his owneyes.”

2. The reasons given for the fall of the nations of Israel and Judah.

3. Reasons given for the particular punishment of an individual.

4. Explanations of historical events and circumstances.

IX. STRUCTURALIST CRITICISM.

A. This is an ahistorical approach which focuses on the structure of the language todetermine the relationship of the “whole” text.

B. “Structuralists are as interested in how texts communicate and have meaning as inwhat they communicate and mean. They emphasize such questions as thefollowing: How does a particular text produced under particular culturalconstraints embody and give expression to universal concerns? How does areader decode the text or how does the text communicate its deep structure toresonate with the deep structures of the reader? For structural literary critics,emphasis falls on the text and the reader and the process of reading andunderstanding rather than on such matters a writing and the author's intention.”14

X. CANONICAL CRITICISM.

A. Is less interested in textual development and more interested in the final form ofthe text.

B. “Primary here is the perspective of the text as ‘sacred’ or ‘canonical’ and theprocess of asking questions about the ways in which the text is used to address thefaith concerns of the communities that use it.”15



11

XI. SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM.

A. Attempts to understand the text in terms of the social world.

B. Utilizes psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc. "to recreate the biblical worldand to gain insights into the reasoning behind such things as ritual, shame as asocial control device, and legal procedure."16

XII. NEW LITERARY CRITICAL SCHOOL.

A. Once the sources were found, the explanation of how they were combined to formthe complete text became of primary importance.

B. Such emphasis on the nature of the completed text evolved this new literaryapproach.

C. Simply put, any time a text is discussed in terms of its completed state this is partof what is known as literary criticism.

D. Major characteristics include:

1. View all received texts as wholes.

2. Acceptance of the work as intentional production of single author (someignore this–not concerned).

3. Bible as literature on synchronic level–for its own sake.

4. Key to meaning is logic and intrinsic rather than historical situation.

5. As a result the method is more interested in readers than authors.

XIII. NARRATIVE CRITICISM.

A. Narrative Criticism is a spin-off of the New Literary Criticism.



12

B. “Through a close reading, this method identifies formal and conventionalstructures of the narrative, determines plot, develops characterization,distinguishes point of view, exposes language play, and relates it all to someoverarching theme.”17

C. This method is much more palatable to conservative scholars.

XIV. READER RESPONSE CRITICISM.

A. A spin-off of both the New Literary Criticism as well as Narrative Criticism.

B. Assumes that the communication process involves understanding the relationshipbetween sender, message, and receiver.

C. Every text presupposes a reader, whether a real person or a hypothetical reader,who influences the way the text is structured and framed.

D. The author assumes the reader has the ability to decode and understand what iswritten (similar to the symbols in Revelation)

XV. POSTCRITICAL BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

A. Cannot use “postcritical criticism,” as this would be an oxymoron.

B. The very name indicates a “denial” of critical methods

1. “Postcritical biblical interpretation is not ‘post’ critical because it rejectsoutright critical methodologies and their guiding philosophicalassumptions.”

2. Rather, the postcritical exegete argues the above critical methodologies“fully bracket out questions of ultimate meaning and too often devolveinto interminable scholastic debates about the methodological legitimacyor adequacy of this or that approach.”

C. “Unlike methodologies such as source and form criticism, which disintegrate thetext into its antecedent kernels, postcritical biblical interpretation assumes that thecanonical form of the text was designed to convey a message, and that finally the


Soulen, Handbook, 139-40.18

13

Bible itself is a text in its own right in which all discernible units large and smalltake on new hues and connotations.”

D. This message is determined by the community, the end result of which means themeaning of the text is fluid.18

XVI. POSTMODERN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

A. Once again, we cannot use the term “criticism,” because the postmodern critic “issuspicious of modern rationalist accounts of truth, reason, and objectivity.”

1. The postmodern exegete “sees the world and personal identities as diverse,dispersed, indeterminate, and ungrounded.”

2. He “celebrates (or is resigned to) an approach to life and thought that isplayful, eclectic, pluralistic, and subversive of traditional boundaries.”

B. The postmodern exegete attempts to point out what he/she considers to be threefallacies of biblical criticism:

1. “the view that biblical texts are artifacts that have a single, stable,meaning”

2. “a text’s meaning, though initially hidden from the modern interpreter bytemporal and cultural distances, can be recovered by historicalreconstruction”

3. “the benefits of critical methods accrue over time as methods becomemore sophisticated and as data increase.”

C. The postmodern exegete asserts instead “. . . the meaning of a text is not ‘in’ thetext waiting to be recovered through the use of neutral, generally applicablecriteria. Rather, textual meaning is constructed through the interplay of a text’ssemantic and rhetorical aspects and the reader’s own life-world. In effect, thereader constructs the meaning of a text by creative use of the language, nuances,and conventions in which the reader is immersed. Thus postmodern biblicalinterpretation shifts the focus of attention from the historical origins of a text (‘theworld behind the text’) and even from the text itself (‘the world of the text’) to the



14

reader’s use of a text within a given community of interpretation (‘the world infront of the text’).”

D. Doing this means the postmodern exegete emphasizes two things:

1. The distinctiveness of different interpretative communities and theinsistence that no community can claim to particular knowledge of a text.

2. The interpretative process requires the reader “to lay bare his or herinterests in the act of reading the text” (race, gender, class, sexuality,institutional location, etc.) as part of the interpretive process.19

E. The form of interpretation makes truth relative (fluid), involves the exegete ineisegesis rather than exegesis, and is very common in our pluralistic society.

XVII. POSTCOLONIAL BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

A. This approach is the umbrella term covering a multitude of practices, such as thelast two discussed.

B. It emphasizes that all interpretation of the past three to four hundred must beviewed through the lens of the imperial and colonial ideas of dominance andresistance.

C. It focuses on the Bible in the context of Western colonialism

1. “It demonstrates how Christian missionaries, official representatives of thecolonizing powers, and colonized peoples themselves used the Bible inways that legitimated colonialism.”

2. The focus is on how these interpreted the Bible rather than any inherentmeaning of the holy word

a. Cf. Roy Moore’s lawyers’ argument in his Ten Commandmentslawsuit as argued before the Supreme Court

b. “These laws are part of our culture and should be allowed to bedisplayed.”



R. P. Carroll, “The Reader and the Text,” in Text in Context, A. D. H. Mayes, ed. (Oxford:21

Oxford University, 2000), 14-23.


15

3. So “The Bible figures not as an ancient document to be investigated, or asa source of faith to be interpreted, but as an instrument of colonial powerto be unmasked and deflected.

D. Postcolonial interpretation uses diverse methods, including, but not limited to:

1. Comparative religion2. Feminist interpretation3. Afrocentric interpretation4. Folklore

E. Such an approach means the postcolonial exegete determines “to accept theideological distortion of God’s word as God’s word “20

XVIII. POSTCRITICAL, POSTMODERN, AND POSTCOLONIALINTERPRETATION HAVE OPENED THE DOOR FOR A NUMBER OFNEW CRITICISMS.21

A. Feminist Criticism.

1. The rise of feminism has developed this approach in biblical studies.

2. “Feminist critics attempt to show the intrinsic importance of women in theancient world and the influence they had in shaping its culture as well asthe biblical narrative.”22

3. Consists of a wide range of feminists.

a. Some, such as Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin, have beenidentified as “radical” and “inappropriate for doing biblicalstudies,” while others, such as Alice Bach, Mieke Bal, Athalya


Carroll, “The Reader and the Text,” 17.23



16

Brenner, and Cheryl Exum “have worked the Bible brilliantly forand on behalf of women readers.”23

b. Such exegetes have highlighted what they see as “The hostilitytowards women which may be apparent in the texts,” which, theyargue, “raises questions about metaphor, metonym, trope, andrepresentation are used in the biblical text and then appropriated byreading communities.”24

c. Such interpretation means, according to them that “The propheticpenchant for denouncing Israel as a whore, a faithless wife or apromiscuous bawd (e.g. Ezekiel 16,23; cf. Hosea 1,3) can nolonger be tolerated in silence or internalized as a biblical value, butmust be challenged, deconstructed, and opposed by modern readersand readings.”25

d. Such is easily seen in more subtle ways—Job’s wife echoesSatan’s statements (“Curse God and die.”)

B. Ethnicity:

1. Assumes “because every ethnic group has a different story and brings tothe biblical text different ways of reading it” (Carroll, 18)

2. The problem with this method is the imprecise meaning of “ethnicity.”

3. People are multi-cultured:

a. What is your background according to genealogy, social status, job,political orientation, religious orientation, etc.?

b. Which ones are to be accepted and which ones are to be rejected?

4. One perfect example is the Global Bible Commentary


17

a. What I wrote:

The socio-political climate of today’s globally shrinkingworld demands that Bible students, whether academician,pastor, evangelist, or the like, maintain a dialogue withthose engaged in similar pursuits, but living in othercontexts. The GBC facilitates this process because of itsmethodology. Each commentary opens with anidentification of the commentator’s personal sociallocation, proceeds with an interpretation of the text, andconcludes with a discussion of the text’s relevance orirrelevance in the commentator’s larger life setting. Theresult for readers of the GBC is the entrance into the worldof others, who may not “see as we see,” “think as wethink,” “believe as we believe,” but nevertheless perceiveGod’s word as a relevant force in their lives. This dialogueof diversity is a necessary first step to achieve “the unity ofthe spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3).

—Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D. Associate Professor of BibleFaulkner University

b. What they printed:

The socio-political climate of today’s globally shrinkingworld demands that Bible students, whether academician,pastor, evangelist, or the like, maintain a dialogue withthose engaged in similar pursuits, but living in othercontexts. The GBC facilitates this process because of itsmethodology. Each commentary opens with anidentification of the commentator’s personal sociallocation, proceeds with an interpretation of the text, andconcludes with a discussion of the text’s relevance orirrelevance in the commentator’s larger life setting. Theresult for readers of the GBC is the entrance into the worldof others, who may not “see as we see,” “think as wethink,” “believe as we believe,” but nevertheless perceiveGod’s word as a relevant force in their lives.


Carroll, “The Reader and the Text, 21.26


18

c. Not only are they arguing that each culture should read the Bible inits own way, but, “Jehoiakim like” they edited out what I wrote,interpreting my words as they desired rather than what I said.

d. Revisionist history, etc., is part of this whole movement

C. Fundamentalism:

1. Comprised of such wide-ranging groups, all of which are often “inimicalto academic and historical readings,” and which “have tended to be keptisolated from one another.”26

2. Fundamentalists make up the major groups with which you are familiar:

a. A rejection of rationalism

b. A belief in the plenary verbal inspiration of the scriptures

c. Their views of inspiration usually predisposes them to a “flat”reading of the text—“God said it, that settles it.”

d. Premillennial in orientation

D. Carroll’s evaluation of these yields food for thought:

Personally I find all modern approaches to reading the Bible which make noallowance for the historical and antique dimensions of the Bible to be fairlyuseless because they confuse modernistic readings with wishful thinking andimpose their own ideological holdings on the text while fondly imagining thatthey are doing nothing more than reading the text innocently. I am however awarethat religious communities invariably read the Bible as if it were timeless andaddressed to themselves and therefore the historical-critical scrutiny is regarded asbeing not only unnecessary but intrusive and wrongheaded. Between these twopoles I imagine most Bible readers may well find themselves.27

XIX. SUMMARY AND LIMITATIONS.


Mark Allen Powell, “The Bible and Modern Literary Criticism,” Summary of Proceedings of28

ATLA, 43d meeting (1989), 79.

19

A. The HCM is a conglomeration of approaches which “seeks to reconstruct the lifeand thought of biblical times through an objective, scientific analysis of biblicalmaterial.”28

B. As we noted previously, this approach is here to stay, though some have begun inthis postmodern world to talk of its demise.

C. “Modern readers are . . . faced with a plethora of reading strategies of hermeneuticpossibilities and conflicting systems in relation to communities of Bible reading,which embarrass them with the riches of what is on offer. What must also perplexmodern readers however is the range of choice and the competing claims forattention and commitment. How is any one group to determine which strategiesthey should employ and which communities they should join?” (Carroll, 23).

D. This is the postmodern world in which we live.

E. In light of Peter’s admonition to “. . . but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord.Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you anaccounting for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15), how prepared are you?

F. People are around you everyday that have absorbed some of these beliefs.

Documents

Lecture 2 the Historical-Critical Method