Riverwind

[QUOTE=Chris Weimer;4461778]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:[QUOTE]

Never mind. I think my snap observation was bogus. I was probably thinking of "James Kennedy".

Layman

General Books on the Study of History

From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods, by Martha C. Howell.

Historical Knowing, by Leon J Goldstein.

How to Study History, by Norman F. Cantor.

In Defense of History, by Richard J. Evans.

The Logic of History; Putting Postmodernism in Perspective, by C. McCullagh.

Books about Historical Methods in NT Studies

Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1), by James D. G. Dunn.

A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Vol. 1, by John P. Meier.

The New Testament and the People of God. Volume 1: Christian origins and the question of God, by N. T. Wright.

Dunn, Wright, and Meier include substantial discussions of methods and criteria in their opening volumes of their respective historical Jesus series.

Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods, by Darrell L. Bock.

Studying the Synoptic Gospels, by E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies.

There are also books on various subjects within NT studies, such as Narrative Criticism and Reader-Response Criticism, etc.

Layman

Perhaps Jamie Kennedy?

Peter Kirby

Bleh. I like Bultmann enough, but he doesn't have a book in the genre of reflections on method.

Peter Kirby

You need a whole book to explain reader-response criticism? :Cheeky:

I've read Dunn, Wright, and Meier...I still own Dunn...and I wish they offered something meaty and critical to the subject of historical methods, but they don't. Still, it is nice to be reminded of the whales in the water.

Similarly for Sanders-Davies...read and own...not seeing its function in this category.

I haven't read and don't own Bock. Could you summarize him re: methods?

Layman

Let the reader understand: reader-response criticism and the Gospel of Mark, by Robert M. Fowler.

If I remember correctly, Sanders-Davies' book has a lengthy appendix on methods. May not be "meaty and critical" but it is there.

As for Bock, it would probably be easiest to direct you to my review on Amazon.

Peter Kirby

Karel Hanhart had a very sensible statement on XTalk:

"Alas, no book is written on one's personal bias; sometimes wives may be of help."

Perhaps a study should be done on which scholars have spouses and which do not? :devil1:

Doug Shaver

Quite possibly, now that you mention it. I was not paying close enough attention to the context of your observation. My bad.

Ted Hoffman

I think you have an obverse understanding of this. Contrary to your statements, Historical criticism approaches texts with the assumption that they refer to an actual or a real world. Thus historical criticism deals with the referential function of a text. See Mark Allan Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? (1990), p. 8. Compare this with literary criticism, which deals with a text apart from consideration of the extent to which it reflects reality. It seeks to uncover the intended effect the author would like the story to have on the readers.
Most mainstream NT scholars actually engage in historical criticism and form criticism while not fully attentive to literary, redaction and tendenz criticism. Comparative religion has also been held at bay systematically by these same scholars. But it is coming back full force and I have a sneaking suspicion that Doherty will spearhead this.

Peter Kirby

I have quite the opposite impression. Most NT scholars are not engaged in doing historical criticism of the kind trumpeted by "Jesus research". Most NT scholars don't touch "Jesus research" in their own writing. Instead they are practicing the types of criticism (including redaction/tendenz criticism) that do not relate the text formally to the supposed historical or otherwise nature of that text.

There are quite a few scholars who have bemoaned "parallelomania" for years, while at the same time another cadre of scholars--spearheaded in recent times by MacDonald, not Doherty--who have been poring over issues of intertextuality. Meanwhile, mainstreamers such as Borg compare Christ and Buddha directly. Considering that their seats are often called seats of 'Comparative Religion' in the United States, it would be interesting to know how they are holding at bay their very own confessed enterprise.