This method is almost like an odd mix of the two previous methods in the sense that it relies heavily on both the historical-critical method, as well as, allowing a person to interpret into a modern day meaning. Now, the issue becomes that in allowing an individual person or interpreter to decide what a text means now, there has and will continue to be conflicting meanings which arise. After all, when it comes down to it, in using this method of understanding the meaning of the Bible it leaves it up to an individual basis. And, though groups of people may come together and agree on certain translations, meanings, and anything else, the fact of the matter is each individual person has gone through life differently, meaning his or her own concept of the text might still be different in the end. So, sadly by using the reader-response method there is still confusion because, “…the church has continued to lose any sense of derived authority from the text, since no one can rank, much less determine, which is the correct or preferred meaning from the large number of competing meanings,” (Kaiser and …show more content…
This method focuses on first on a historical study of the text and then a study of its meaning through theological relevance. This means that this method heavily focuses on taking a text and looking at everything from the syntax of phrases, clauses, and how the sentence contributes to entire paragraphs. Syntactical theological method states that, “because the Bible purports to be a word from God, the task of locating meaning is not finished until one apprehends the purpose, scope, or reason (indeed, the theology) for which that text was written,” (Kaiser and Silva). Essentially, this method is similar to each of the previous methods, but it seeks to balance out each of these methods in a more manageable