http://sitzimleben.com/2010/03/14/karl-barth-on-commentaries/ The Jesus Tradition—Then and Now Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:57 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 http://sitzimleben.com/2010/03/14/karl-barth-on-commentaries/comment-page-1/#comment-1562 Jon Reeves Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:57 +0000 http://sitzimleben.com/?p=799#comment-1562 I think Barth had a point. I also think he showed a good deal of foresight. The last few decades have seen so many methods come and go, but historical criticism does seem still to be rather popular - albeit, historical criticism combined with something else, which is what Barth is pointing to, I think. In Barth's case, theology seems to be an answer, but it is interesting to see how folks in the field have used HC in tandem with other methods: narrative, rhetoric, social-scientific/socio-historical (itself a kind of HC), and even cultural approaches (postcolonialism, feminist scholarship, etc). Barth's reflection yields a very good statement: "...it involves the reconsideration of what is set out in the Epistle, until the actual meaning of it is disclosed." It does, however, need further reflection as to HOW we can reconsider 'what is set out in the Epistle', but maybe his point is that theological interpretation is the tool which gets us there. Although, that tool could also very well be one or a number of methods now available in the field. I wonder what Barth would have to say about our current state of methodological hybridity? Would a 'theological' approach still be a/the primary way of going about things? I think Barth had a point. I also think he showed a good deal of foresight. The last few decades have seen so many methods come and go, but historical criticism does seem still to be rather popular – albeit, historical criticism combined with something else, which is what Barth is pointing to, I think. In Barth’s case, theology seems to be an answer, but it is interesting to see how folks in the field have used HC in tandem with other methods: narrative, rhetoric, social-scientific/socio-historical (itself a kind of HC), and even cultural approaches (postcolonialism, feminist scholarship, etc). Barth’s reflection yields a very good statement: “…it involves the reconsideration of what is set out in the Epistle, until the actual meaning of it is disclosed.” It does, however, need further reflection as to HOW we can reconsider ‘what is set out in the Epistle’, but maybe his point is that theological interpretation is the tool which gets us there. Although, that tool could also very well be one or a number of methods now available in the field. I wonder what Barth would have to say about our current state of methodological hybridity? Would a ‘theological’ approach still be a/the primary way of going about things?

]]>