About the Author(s)

    Christoffel Lombaard Email symbol
    Department of Christian Spirituality, Church History and Missiology, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa


    Lombaard, C., 2021, ‘Erratum: Considering mystagogy as method in Biblical Spirituality’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 77(1), a7050. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v77i1.7050

    Note: DOI link to the original article: https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i4.6094


    Erratum: Considering mystagogy as method in Biblical Spirituality

    Christoffel Lombaard

    Published: 24 Nov. 2021

    Copyright: © 2021. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    In the version of this article initially published, Lombaard, C., 2020, ‘Considering mystagogy as method in Biblical Spirituality’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76(4), a6094. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i4.6094, the first paragraph on page 7 was incorrectly structured as normal text. The paragraph should form part of the quotation by Lampe (1957) on the previous page.

    The paragraph is hereby corrected to:

    To this may be added the inference drawn by Lampe (1957), which because of its insightfulness on this matter deserves to be carried forward:

    This being so, it is obviously a matter of great importance for us to inquire whether the typological method may legitimately be employed in what is said to be a ‘post-critical’ age, or whether it rests upon pre-critical presuppositions which the development of the historical and critical approach to the Bible has rendered untenable. Does typology, in fact, imply a reversion to Biblical fundamentalism? Can any criteria be discovered for making a distinction between legitimate and exegetically justifiable typology, on the one hand, and the unwarrantable exercise of private and uncontrolled ingenuity on the other? Can typology be employed without a return to that conception of Scripture which essentially belongs to a pre-critical age – the notion that the sacred writings are a mysterious collection of enigmas revealing divine secrets to those who can discover the key to their solution? Can we distinguish between legitimate and fanciful typology? Can this method ever provide a firm scriptural basis for Christian doctrine, or is it too subjective and individualistic for this purpose? Can we find any criteria for the use of the typological method, so that we may restore to the ordinary Christian reader something of his or her inheritance of Biblical exegesis, whilst still remaining faithful to the canons and principles of literary and historical criticism? (pp. 21–22)

    This correction does not alter the study’s findings of significance or overall interpretation of the study’s results. The publisher apologises for any inconvenience caused.

    Crossref Citations

    No related citations found.