DSpace
 

KNUSTSpace >
Theses / Dissertations >
College of Arts and Social Sciences >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6258

Title: The historical-critical method and its assessment of Jesus as a historical being or a mythical figure
Authors: Adjei-Boadi, Samuel
Issue Date: 6-Aug-2013
Abstract: In this thesis, much attention has been given to defining what historical-critical method is, its insufficiencies and its assessment of Jesus as a historical being or a mythical figure. The method is a way of interpreting the Bible (and any other historical material) by using historical research, literary examination, findings from the social sciences and archaeology. It is called historical-critical method because it seeks to discover the political, economic, cultural, social and religious contexts of the Bible or any other book. The other side of this method is criticism. It evaluates and judges the biblical texts and its narratives in the light of modern scientific methodology. To achieve these two goals, the historical-critical method uses several approaches or methodologies such as textual criticism, form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, grammatical criticism, structuralist criticism, historical criticism and its new forms such as the social-scientific criticism. The historical-critical method of biblical interpretation has been in operation for some years now. For the period of its history, the method has made major contributions, seen as either positive or negative, to the overall turf of Biblical studies depending on who is doing the evaluation. Today, several scholars from diverse theological persuasions have expressed the need not to use the method to de-mystify the Scriptures or the need to modify its use in biblical studies. In assessing the historical Jesus, the historical-critical method questions ―who really was the man‖ referred to as Jesus in the New Testament. According to scholars, the New Testament books do not give a clear answer to this question. Therefore, the critical assumption is that there is a probability that a different being or a similar being could have been used as the Jesus of history or the Jesus of faith (or both) as it has been expressed implicitly in the Gospels
Description: A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of Philosophy degree in Religious Studies, 2013
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6258
Appears in Collections:College of Arts and Social Sciences

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
SAMUEL ADJEI-BOADI.pdf791.77 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

Valid XHTML 1.0! DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2010  Duraspace - Feedback