Talk:Psychological biblical criticism

General comments about what appears to be a first draft

Admittedly, the following are my subjective impressions to reading the article, and they may not be correct. But if they were reactions, they will probably also be the reactions of at least some other readers.

I wish to point out, in a constructive way, that the current version looks like a commercial for Kille and others. This isn't a good approach for several reasons. First, "hero worship" is a bad way to approach any discipline. (On a larger scale, consider, for example, the situation with Freud or Jung.) It produces researchers too concerned about citing the "authority" and being part of his/her camp. This diminishes creativity and the emergence of new ideas: (1) people try too hard to win the praise and attention of the 'expert'; (2) to disagree invites the wrath of the 'orthodox'.

Most importantly, it denies the obvious and admitted reality that psychological biblical criticism is as old as the Bible. For starters, what about Philo? (Shouldn't Philo be mentioned in the first paragraph?)

It seems to me that discerning people instinctively understand the Bible at a psychological level (among other ways). One reason psychological criticism seems so innovative today is because there are so many literalists.

It is imperative that academic disciplines resist the tendency to form little, isolated pockets of self-designated authorities. Anyone in or connected with the academic world should be sensitive to this, because they've doubtless seen the phenomenon.

These issues become all the more important precisely because of the great need to make psychological biblical criticism available as a hermeneutical method to Christians and others today. Thus these comments are not offered to offend, but rather to exhort to reflect and edit the article in ways that draw in more related literature and viewpoints. Practical321 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)