Peter Kirby

I recently took stock of the books that I possess concerning methods, and found that they divided rather neatly between methods of interpretation and methods of historical criticism.

Can anyone add to this subject? With either a question or a statement? Here is my personal bibliography.

I. Methods of Interpretation

New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Anthony C. Thiselton)

Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation (Christopher Tuckett)

The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (ed. Edgar V. McKnight, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon)

Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation (ed. David G. Horrell)

What Is Social-Scientific Criticism (John H. Elliott)

New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (George A. Kennedy)

What Is Redaction Criticism? (Norman Perrin)

What Is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? (A.K.M. Adam)

Literary Criticism of the New Testament (William A. Beardslee)

Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Norman R. Petersen)

II. Methods of Historical Criticism

Philosophies of History: From Enlightenment to Postmodernity (ed. Robert M. Burns, Hugh Rayment-Pickard)

Justifying Historical Descriptions (C. Behan McCullagh)

Critical Realism & The New Testament (Ben F. Meyer)

The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter)

Riverwind

Just a comment...

From the names I happen to recognize, it appears that the books you purchased on "Methods of Interpretation" are mostly by Christian authors.

On the other hand, it appears that the books you purchased on "Methods of Historical Criticism" are mostly by liberal authors.

I'm not familiar with all the names and I'm not sure I've pegged the beliefs of the authors I am familiar with, so feel free to correct me on that analysis. I assume it is likely something along these lines that piqued your interest in this?

Peter Kirby

Ummm...I'm not sure what you are on about.

Riverwind

I don't guess I'm "on about" anything. I was just making an observation. Perhaps its an incorrect one (though Kennedy and Perrin are, I believe, evangelical Christians, Gerd Theissen, I believe is a liberal Christian or a non-Christian).

Perhaps it doesn't even matter. With respect to your other recent posts, I guess I thought you might be headed in that direction in some way. Are you looking for something in specific about these works?

Peter Kirby

No, nothing specific. They are what I possess.

Are you sure you don't have in mind Gerd Ludemann?

Riverwind

No, I'm aware of the difference between the two. I certainly would not consider Gerd Ludemann a Christian. I may, however, be mistaken about Theissen...faulty memory of his book...

Doug Shaver

If Riverwind's observation is accurate, it might suggest that Christian scholars tend to be uninterested in historical criticism. If that is so, one possible explanation would be that historical criticism tends to undermine presumptions about the historical reliability of early Christian writings.

Gamera

Peter, I'm surprised you don't have anything here by Rudolph Bultmann, who in some ways bridges the gap between rigorous historical criticism and hermeneutics.

Chris Weimer

I cannot comment on this particular book, but George Kennedy is a Classicist first and foremost, being probably the expert on ancient rhetoric. I've read four of his books just recently for a Quintilian paper I wrote, and I must therefore recommend him. Good choice. I hope this one is just as good as his others.

PS - Just saw your comment, Riverwind, and I wonder where you got the idea that George Kennedy is an evangelical? You certainly can't tell from the books I've read, which were, in case anyone is interested:

Quintilian, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, The Art of Persuasion in Greece, and A New History of Classical Rhetoric.

Riverwind

Ah...this interpretation of "my data" is exactly why I added in the word "purchased" into my observation.

If my observation is accurate, which I am not really sure of, is what you say the case, or is it simply that Peter happened to lean toward books on interpretation by Christians and books on historical criticism by non-believers or liberal Christians?