 |
| York Minster: trekearth |
Brief On Methodology/Higher Criticism
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
 |
| Encoutering page 145. |
In regard to the graphic:
At Columbia Bible College (1991-1995) and Canadian Baptist Seminary/Trinity Western University (1995-1999), I was taught forms of the historical grammatical method, as the hermeneutical norm.
I accept that this approach in general, has reasonable and sound methods.
When I attended my first University of Wales, Trinity Saint David (2004-2010), PhD student dinner and meeting, many of the other students seemed negative on that method (hermeneutical approach).
In other words, the intended meanings of the author, the theology and philosophy (of religion) are examined.
Higher criticism, which was the favoured approach of most of the Wales' students based on our discussions, placed far more emphasis on finding the methodology of the author.
In hindsight, having now achieved two Canadian, Christian course work degrees and two British, secular, research only degrees, and several more years of technical academic blogging; I do place more emphasis on understanding methodology than I did prior to beginning the PhD work. Much of my PhD focused on higher criticism and methodology.
To be clear, I was taught methodology and higher criticism in my course work degrees, prior to my British research theses. They were emphasized far more in the United Kingdom.
However, in my view the theology and philosophy of an author (s) is still of primary concern, the methodology a secondary concern.
At least in the academic fields of theology and philosophy of religion. An emphasis on biblical studies may indeed prioritize methodology in a review.
I can understand the benefits of an approach favouring methodology and textual criticism as one can become an expert on a Biblical text, or famous writers such as Kant or Augustine, as examples.
But a weakness, in my opinion, is that a primary emphasis on methodology and textual criticism may, in some cases, produce more disciples of academies, writers and scholars; as opposed to textual biblical evaluation, in context.
I would be in basic agreement with the point from 'Encountering', where the theologian (biblical scholar, philosopher) is made more important than the Bible. It is a risk of too much emphasis on higher criticism.
