The Historical-Critical Method

by Edgar Krentz

Edgar Krentz packs an impressive amount of material into these pages. He calls it a map of the current terrain; it is quite detailed and thoroughly reliable. The Christian Century Edgar Krentz's book introduces the reader to the type of modern biblical interpretation that has held the pride of place for more than a century.... Like its predecessors in the series, this book is an invaluable introduction for the student of the Bible. America

Genres: Biblical Studies, Theology

96 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1976

Reviews

[Steve Irby · Rating 2 out of 5]

I just finished "The Historical-Critical Method," by Edgar Krentz.

Let's begin with the steps of biblical interpretation:
1: what did this text mean to the first readers?--what did the writer intend?
2: in light of #1 what does that mean to me?
3: in light of #'s 1&2 how do I tell that to others?

This book hits #1, exegesis.

The Historical-Critical Method was actually spearheaded/articulated by a Roman priest whose aim was apologetic: you can't trust Sola scriptura so come see daddy and take your marching orders from the church. Breaking down the scripture using reason leaves one adrift unless that have the tradition (the church and all that the church says) as a guide. The goal in the Historical-Critical Method is to treat the text as any other ancient text and evaluate it on its own merit without the presupposition of Divine intervention. What this allowed was to see the writings in their historical context rather than an ahistorical, dropped from above interpretation. This enlightenment, rationalistic way of interpretation does bias one to antisupernaturalism though if that can be bracketed off momentarily this can be an advantageous tool.

It seems that the Historical-Critical Method asks two questions when scientifically looking at a text:
What is the evidence?
What is the value of the evidence?

While searching one should be free from a party or dogmatic and partial to no -isms: supernaturalism, naturalism or rationalism.

"The exegeet should determine historically and grammatically what his author said, no more and no less," p 25.

The main difference between the secular Historical-Critical scholar and the biblical scholarship using the same methodology is that the secular one is always anthropocentric while the biblical scholar can be Theocentric. Also, chronology is the framework for history. When diving into the history of a work one first establish a chronology upon which one sketches history.

Sorry yall, this was 90 pp of biblical scholarship which is tough to make fun.

[Eli · Rating 2 out of 5]

A pretty good introduction and summary of the historical-critical method with its benefits and drawbacks.

[Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good summary.

[Jason Gardner · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was fine and served its purpose. But come on--it's a book on the development of the historical-critical method of interpretation--how exciting could it get?!?

[Obe Rush · Rating 5 out of 5]

good