What are the basic critical methods in Carson and Moo. Which method offers the most promise for attaining a clear interpretation of Scripture, and why? How can this method help a modern interpreter?
The critical methods of Carson and Moo fit into two broad categories, which include historical criticism and literary criticism. Historical criticism attempts to discover the “historical reality behind the text” (Carson and Moo, 61). Although literary criticism may subsume historical criticism, the focus of literary criticism attempts to study works of literature by focusing on the text as opposed to what is behind the text (Carson and Moo, 61). The following explores the various methods of historical and literary criticism as well as offering a solution for attaining a clear interpretation of Scripture.
Historical criticism comprises several disciplines including form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, and tradition criticism (Carson and Moo, 55). Form criticism focuses on the various elements or characteristics of the work and specifically focuses on “the period of oral transmission” (Carson and Moo, 79). As its name implies source criticism attempts to identify the relevant written sources utilized by the writer (Carson and Moo, 85-86). Alternatively, redaction criticism focus on the authors and attempts to identify the material the writers may have added or modified based on their respective theological perspectives (Carson and Moo, 79). Finally, tradition criticism is the utilization of form, source, and redaction criticism in tandem to extract the entirety of the tradition (Carson and Moo, 79).
Literary criticism may be as simple as reading the text as one would read a piece of classical literature by identifying literary devices, background, climax, and so forth (Carson and Moo, 57-58). However, a new form of literary criticism argues for an immersion into the text where a discovery of meaning occurs in an encounter with God and thus avoids the minutia of historical criticism (Carson and Moo, 60). Although the intentions of the new literary criticism appear genuine, it led to various extremes including deconstructionism, which argued that meaning was unavailable in the text alone, but instead, only available via an exchange between the reader and the text (Carson and Moo, 61). Deconstructionism naturally led to the reader-response theory that, in its extreme, leaves meaning entirely to the individual (Carson and Moo, 61).
The extremes of historical criticism have the potential of leading to an atomistic interpretation that may completely miss the meaning of the text by focusing on the parts and avoiding the whole. Alternatively, the extremes of literary criticism risk a relativistic postmodern reading where truth or correct meaning is unavailable to humanity. Accordingly, the method with the most promise for attaining a clear interpretation of Scripture is one that provides an amalgamation of historical and literary criticism. A method that joins the two disciplines, possibly coined convergence criticism, which discerns the meaning of Scripture by identifying the reality of history and ascertaining its applicability to modern life, appears to have the most promise.
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.
