Talk:Historical-critical method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Aramaic Translations
What about the Aramaic translations of the New Testament? I was under the impression that the Aramaic copies were original. Secos5 02:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV and Scholarly Depth Questioned
This article appears a bit biased toward Higher Criticism, as this quote illustrates: "Once Lower Critics have done their job and we have a good idea of what the original text looked like, Higher Critics can then compare this text with the writing of other authors." This is an assumption based upon an a priori acceptance that H-C holds the key to resolving original content and intent. Also, it lacks links and comparisons to other interpretive schools, including the Historical-grammatical Method. Finally, I think more should be said about the origins and early uses of this method, its various permutations, and distinctions drawn between Biblical and non-biblical use of Historical Criticism.
--Xrysostom 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page merge?
Is this page similar enough to Historical criticism to warrant a merger? I wasn't quite sure, so I haven't put any merge tags on the page. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] a questionable mention
Someone over at Positive Christianity has claimed that that movement evolved from higher criticism, and this is what that article's Origins of the idea section currently states. I'm not qualified to decide it that's true, but editors here should go check out these claims because if they are false then it's a slander against higher criticism and should be put to rest. — coelacan talk — 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
