Annotated Bibliography: New Historical Criticism
Annotated Bibliography
"New Historical Criticism." New Historical Criticism. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2013.
I like this description of Historical Criticism because it shows me how people
used to look at criticism before. Historical criticism used to be about people
looking at the background of the author, what time frame he lived in, the things
that were happening around him/her that influenced that specific piece of writing.
With new historicism, things get more complex. New historicists look to answer
questions that anthropologists and sociologists would raise; they look deeper into
the meaning of the text. I like the simpler version of the old historical critics.
Enns, Peter. "Evangelical Faith …show more content…
Peter Enns gives a real life example of what it means to be a
historic critic. He says “…kind of like the way an investigative journalist
pokes around for the back-story of a White House press-release.” To me
this made a lot of sense, and it allowed me to get a clearer image of
historical criticism. This article talks a lot about biblical historical criticism
and how the Bible is a good place for historical critics to talk about.
Although I don’t agree in the way most critics try to discredit the bible, for
the sake of this group project, I will use this if need be in my groups
presentation.
Veeser, Harold A., and Brook Thomas. "Chapter 12." The New Historicism. New York:
Routledge, 1989. 182. Print.
The book The New Historicism is a book that is written just for historical
criticism, which is why I am so thankful that I found it. This specific passage
explains more thoroughly the difference between historical criticism and new
historicism. Fredric Jameson is quoted here saying about historicism referring it to
“our relationship to the past, and our possibility of understanding the
"New Historical Criticism." New Historical Criticism. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2013.
I like this description of Historical Criticism because it shows me how people
used to look at criticism before. Historical criticism used to be about people
looking at the background of the author, what time frame he lived in, the things
that were happening around him/her that influenced that specific piece of writing.
With new historicism, things get more complex. New historicists look to answer
questions that anthropologists and sociologists would raise; they look deeper into
the meaning of the text. I like the simpler version of the old historical critics.
Enns, Peter. "Evangelical Faith …show more content…
Peter Enns gives a real life example of what it means to be a
historic critic. He says “…kind of like the way an investigative journalist
pokes around for the back-story of a White House press-release.” To me
this made a lot of sense, and it allowed me to get a clearer image of
historical criticism. This article talks a lot about biblical historical criticism
and how the Bible is a good place for historical critics to talk about.
Although I don’t agree in the way most critics try to discredit the bible, for
the sake of this group project, I will use this if need be in my groups
presentation.
Veeser, Harold A., and Brook Thomas. "Chapter 12." The New Historicism. New York:
Routledge, 1989. 182. Print.
The book The New Historicism is a book that is written just for historical
criticism, which is why I am so thankful that I found it. This specific passage
explains more thoroughly the difference between historical criticism and new
historicism. Fredric Jameson is quoted here saying about historicism referring it to
“our relationship to the past, and our possibility of understanding the