84:
22:
178:
really fair to say that deconstruction means that "each person's own interpretation is valid at the expense of the original author's intent." That's not exactly an accurate understanding of deconstruction, and definitely not NPOV. I'm not sure how to fix it, though, short of removing the entire sentence. So that's what I'm doing.
74:
53:
197:
The article really needs a proper discussion of criticism of the GH method. It should deal with both religious criticisms, eg the
Christians who prefer highly allegorical readings should have their view presented, and secular, eg historical-critical scholars frequently find the readings produced by
325:
Christian belief may play an important part in the third step, application. But as far as I see, Ehrman's book is about the first two steps: observation and interpretation. I think that observation and interpretation can be carried out in the same way by
Christians and by agnostics as long as both
421:
The historical-critical method is not "an academic exercise"; Catholic and mainline
Protestant scholars depend heavily on it, and the footnote attached to this statement provides support for it (at least regarding Catholics). This method is taught even in Catholic elementary schools and in parish
379:
Both sentences make sense if the word "author" in the first sentence means the human author who actually wrote or dictated the text, while in the second sentence the word "author" means God or the Holy Spirit who inspired the human author. That would make sense, but I am not sure whether I got it
177:
The statement that in "postmodern and liberal forms of literary deconstructionism" appears to equate postmodern methods and liberal methods of textual analysis and/or criticism. Deconstruction is better classified solely as a postmodern way of analyzing text. But beyond that, I don't think it is
254:
is virtually nonexistant (we have a "welcome and expand", if that counts ;), and we need knowledgeable editors to build it up. If that sounds like something you'd like to help out with, either let me know, or just start doing it! Thanks for any time you can contribute to the cause,
414:
First, "so-called" should be removed. Second, from what I can tell, the historical-critical method is more an academic exercise and not a hermeneutical method used by mainline or
Catholic churches. Third, the footnote attached to this statement does not provide support for it.
306:
No, almost surely not. The historical-grammatical method is something used by theologians, not historians like Ehrman. This article describes the historical-grammatical method as "Christian" (surely correct) and Ehrman is not
Christian, also making it unlikely that he uses it.
400:
The comment above regarding a conservative
Christian POV has not fully been addressed in nearly two years. I want to move toward a more neutral point of view, but am unsure how to proceed. In particular, I think the following statements need work:
326:
work in a scientific way. Would you say that - as long as it's about observertion and interpretation only - there must be a difference between an agnostic and a
Christian who uses the historical-grammatical method? --
201:
I cleaned up some sections that showed a particularly blatant bias but I am not the right person to go over the whole article and correct. I neither have the expertise, nor am I anything approaching unbiased myself.
458:
Scholars who use the historical-critical method treat the Bible as they would any other text, and in embracing a naturalistic methodology, preclude interpretations which allow prophetic foresight on part of the
157:
I'm not the one who added the cleanup tag, but next time someone works on this article, could a paragraph be added contrasting the
Historical-grammatical method with the historical-critical method? Thanks.
463:
The first half of this sentence is fine, but the part about a "naturalistic methodology" and disallowing "prophetic foresight" are not NPOV. I am removing the second half of the sentence.
354:
Second
Sentence: For those who regard the text as divinely inspired and seek to determine the intention of the divine author this method will naturally have attraction.
357:
If a person wants to determine the intent of the author, why would a style of interpretation that has no regard for the intent of the author be attractive to him/her?
493:
287:
calls one of his methods “literary-historical method”. Is this a synonym of “historical-grammatical method” too? And is it something else than
140:
130:
351:
First
Sentence: In the reader-response method, the focus is on how the book is perceived by the reader, not on the intention of the author.
498:
488:
364:
441:
218:
198:
the grammatical-historical method unconvincing and more a product of preconceived notions than serious engagement with the text.
106:
33:
97:
58:
264:
247:
194:
This article seems to have a clear Christian POV, and more specifically a conservative Christian point of view.
235:
21:
368:
260:
251:
39:
470:
437:
429:
410:
who reject the so-called historical-critical method used by mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics.
360:
312:
214:
206:
385:
331:
296:
243:
105:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
288:
474:
445:
389:
372:
335:
316:
300:
268:
222:
184:
172:
162:
466:
433:
308:
210:
181:
381:
327:
292:
284:
482:
168:
And how about deciding whether it's historical-grammatical or grammaticl-historical?
89:
250:, and I'm here to put out an invitation to you, my fellow wikipedians :-). Our
239:
159:
79:
169:
242:. I'm part of a (very) small group of individuals building content in the
102:
73:
52:
15:
348:
The two sentences in this article contradict each other.
291:, which is also called “historical-critical method”? --
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
8:
19:
47:
425:I agree about removing the "so-called".
281:A Brief Introduction to the New Testament
49:
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
82:
72:
51:
20:
453:Section on Historical Criticism
252:Center of Biblical Hermeneutics
135:This article has been rated as
418:Any ideas on how to fix this?
396:Toward a neutral point of view
248:Department of Biblical Studies
1:
494:Low-importance Bible articles
173:22:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
475:17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
446:00:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
390:21:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
373:14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
223:17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
163:21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
336:23:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
317:14:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
230:Invitation from Wikiversity
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Bible
515:
499:WikiProject Bible articles
489:Start-Class Bible articles
269:12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
141:project's importance scale
118:Template:WikiProject Bible
301:09:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
185:17:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
344:reader response method
28:This article is rated
275:“literary-historical”
422:Bible study groups.
244:School of Theology
34:content assessment
449:
432:comment added by
363:comment added by
226:
209:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
98:WikiProject Bible
506:
448:
426:
375:
289:Higher criticism
261:Opensourcejunkie
236:Opensourcejunkie
225:
203:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
514:
513:
509:
508:
507:
505:
504:
503:
479:
478:
455:
427:
407:
398:
358:
346:
277:
232:
204:
192:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
83:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
512:
510:
502:
501:
496:
491:
481:
480:
454:
451:
406:
403:
397:
394:
393:
392:
345:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
320:
319:
285:Bart D. Ehrman
276:
273:
272:
271:
231:
228:
191:
188:
167:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
121:Bible articles
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
511:
500:
497:
495:
492:
490:
487:
486:
484:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
461:
460:
452:
450:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
423:
419:
416:
412:
411:
404:
402:
395:
391:
387:
383:
378:
377:
376:
374:
370:
366:
365:96.42.224.236
362:
355:
352:
349:
343:
337:
333:
329:
324:
323:
322:
321:
318:
314:
310:
305:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
257:
256:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
229:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
199:
195:
190:Christian POV
189:
187:
186:
183:
179:
175:
174:
171:
165:
164:
161:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
465:
462:
457:
456:
428:— Preceding
424:
420:
417:
413:
409:
408:
399:
356:
353:
350:
347:
280:
279:In his book
278:
234:Hi, this is
233:
200:
196:
193:
180:
176:
166:
156:
136:
96:
90:Bible portal
40:WikiProjects
405:Top section
359:—Preceding
240:Wikiversity
205:—Preceding
30:Start-class
483:Categories
467:Aardvark92
434:Irisheyes5
380:right. --
309:MathHisSci
211:MathHisSci
182:Aardvark92
382:Irene1949
328:Irene1949
293:Irene1949
459:authors.
442:contribs
430:unsigned
361:unsigned
219:contribs
207:unsigned
139:on the
160:Ropcat
36:scale.
238:from
112:Bible
103:Bible
59:Bible
471:talk
438:talk
386:talk
369:talk
332:talk
313:talk
297:talk
265:talk
215:talk
170:PiCo
246:'s
131:Low
485::
473:)
444:)
440:•
388:)
371:)
334:)
315:)
299:)
283:,
267:)
259:--
221:)
217:•
469:(
436:(
384:(
367:(
330:(
311:(
295:(
263:(
213:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
