The Interpreting the New Testament written by Daniel Harrington explains how to use many forms of criticisms and methods to interpret the New Testament Bible. The examples of criticism and methods used to interpret the New Testament are literary criticism, textual criticism, source criticism, form criticism, historical criticism, redaction criticism, translations, words and motifs, parallels, and meaning of the text. These diverse methods have their own unique ways to interpret Scripture for modern readers to understand the author’s messages from distant past. The literary criticism is done when one judges qualities and characters of the literature works. The Literary criticism is general criticism of the text. The other methods of interpretation
…show more content…
In the old days, many authors were not concerned to provide any citation for their sources which led to minimum amount provided. The works of the authors were often published anonymously, or even borrow famous person’s name for their work (Harrington, 56). The form criticism takes the source criticism to its further level. The source criticism alone is not enough to study the text due to even oldest text using various references like oral traditions (Harrington, 71). The form criticism is used to discover original units of tradition and history of the literature (Harrington, 72). Form Criticism also allows for examining different types of literatures (psalms, proverbs, narratives, etc.) to understand Jesus’s stories early Church used to communicate (Harrington, 71). According to Harrington, the historical criticism “focuses on the events behind the text and what can be said about it (Harrington, 125).” Historical criticism identifies the background of the time New Testament was written and how those events have influenced in creating the …show more content…
Harrington seems to be over-the-top when it comes to sharing the information. As he explains each way of interpreting the Scripture, he presented too much of what I call “subinfo”. The “subinfo” term I use is when information that has little relation to the main topic. I understand how Harrington was trying to cover all the grounds, but the pattern of presenting the information confused me as the reader. Harrington generally presented his research in this order: Topic, Core information about topic, “subinfo,” Examples. Harrington seems to present his “subinfo” right before the examples. The people with average reading level like me would most likely to forget some of the core information Harrington provided and confuse them when they are reading the examples. I constantly had to go back and forth just trying to understand which part of the examples best fitted the core
In the old days, many authors were not concerned to provide any citation for their sources which led to minimum amount provided. The works of the authors were often published anonymously, or even borrow famous person’s name for their work (Harrington, 56). The form criticism takes the source criticism to its further level. The source criticism alone is not enough to study the text due to even oldest text using various references like oral traditions (Harrington, 71). The form criticism is used to discover original units of tradition and history of the literature (Harrington, 72). Form Criticism also allows for examining different types of literatures (psalms, proverbs, narratives, etc.) to understand Jesus’s stories early Church used to communicate (Harrington, 71). According to Harrington, the historical criticism “focuses on the events behind the text and what can be said about it (Harrington, 125).” Historical criticism identifies the background of the time New Testament was written and how those events have influenced in creating the …show more content…
Harrington seems to be over-the-top when it comes to sharing the information. As he explains each way of interpreting the Scripture, he presented too much of what I call “subinfo”. The “subinfo” term I use is when information that has little relation to the main topic. I understand how Harrington was trying to cover all the grounds, but the pattern of presenting the information confused me as the reader. Harrington generally presented his research in this order: Topic, Core information about topic, “subinfo,” Examples. Harrington seems to present his “subinfo” right before the examples. The people with average reading level like me would most likely to forget some of the core information Harrington provided and confuse them when they are reading the examples. I constantly had to go back and forth just trying to understand which part of the examples best fitted the core