The Gospels and non believers

[Roseeurekacross]

which part of the historical critical method do you oppose. what about it?

and what of hermeneutics. Or are you a Biblical Exegesis person

 

[Hodos]

The historical critical method is a secular method of examining scripture that attempts to enforce modern historical approaches on reading scripture. So anything that cannot be explained using naturalistic scientific theory is automatically discounted. So essentially, any miracle or prophetic pronouncement is assumed to be either mythical or added into the text later, etc. Orthodox Christian scholarship rejects this approach to examining scripture.

The historical grammatical method is a faithful means of reading scripture. The historical grammatical method looks at the grammar and syntax of a given passage and examines the passage according to the cultural norms and historical events of the time in order to derive the original intended meaning out of the text. This method assumes that when miracles, for example, are reported by the gospel authors, they are reporting what they saw and experienced and that these aren’t just later myths added into the text. This is more in line with faithful exegetical reading of scripture. I think it is actually the historical grammatical method that you are thinking about.

I hope that clarifies the difference in the two approaches to scripture.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The historical grammatical method looks at the grammar and syntax of a given passage and examines the passage according to the cultural norms and historical events of the time in order to derive the original intended meaning out of the text.

hermenutics, the historical - critical method (Diachronic) and the literary - critical methods look at all these things too

They look at within the text, behind the text and in front of the text.

There is a good primer on these methods, in How to Read the Bible by Dizdar in Reading the Bible ed M. Ryan.

The function of form, source, redaction, socio historical criticisms and how they contribute to a reading of the text the Diachronic or Literary-critical way is quite interesting.

There are some great reads on the Parables in this light too. The mustard seed parable is one I can think of.

I am not familiar with the Historical grammatical method, is it part of hermeneutics

 

[Hodos]

Yeah, I have read a similar book by Gordon Fee, which does a nice job of explaining the different literary forms and the challenges of hermeneutics involved with those literary genres. Most of what I read I think I kind of implicitly knew already from my own reading of scripture through the years, but seeing it in black and white really helped to reinforce some good habits that I had and highlighted some bad habits that I need to work on.