the Week of Proper 26 / Ordinary 31
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Dictionaries
Criticism
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
or CRITICISM . Biblical criticism is divided into two branches: (1) Lower Criticism , which is concerned with the original text of Scripture the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT, by reference to ( a ) the external evidence of MSS, versions, and citations in ancient literature, and ( b ) the intrinsic evidence of the inherent probability of one reading as compared with a rival reading, judged by such rules as that preference should be given to the more difficult reading, the shorter reading, the most characteristic reading, and the reading which accounts for the alternative readings (see Text of the NT); (2) Higher Criticism , which is concerned with the authorship, dates, and circumstances of origin, doctrinal character and tendency, historicity, and other such questions concerning the books of Scripture, as far as these matters can be determined by a careful examination of their contents, comparing the various sections of each one with another, or comparing the books in their entirety with one another, and bringing all possible light to bear upon them from history, literature, antiquities, monuments, etc.
The title of the second branch of criticism is often misunderstood in popular usage. The Lower Criticism being little heard of except among experts, while the Higher Criticism is often mentioned in public, the true comparison suggested is not perceived, and the latter phrase is taken to indicate a certain arrogance on the part of advanced critics, and contempt for the older scholarship. Then the word ‘criticism’ is also taken in its popular sense as implying captiousness and faultfinding. Further, the most startling, and therefore the most generally observed, results of criticism being destructive of preconceived notions, criticism itself has been regarded as a negative process, and even as an attack on the Bible. It is not to be denied that there are Higher Critics whose arguments may be construed in this way; but these are a minority, and there are also Higher Critics who are not only loyal to the Divine revelation in Scripture, but whose work may be described as largely constructive. Higher criticism itself is neutral; it has no bias; it is a scientific process. The champions of accepted views are compelied to use this process when arguing with scholars who take up positions with which they disagree. But, strictly speaking, it is not a controversial weapon. It is a powerful instrument for ascertaining facts about the history of the Bible. Seeing, however, that a certain amount of odium has been attached to the title however unwarrantably perhaps it would be better to substitute a phrase less liable to misinterpretation such as the expression ‘Historical method.’ For in point of fact it is in the application of this method, which has been found so fruitful in other regions of study, to the Bible, that the actual work of the Higher Criticism is carried on. The several parts of Scripture are viewed in their places in the total development of the literature to which they belong, with regard to the spirit of the times in which they were produced, and as themselves throwing light on the problem of their own origin and purpose. In place of the external evidence of testimony conjoined to mere tradition, attention is now given more carefully to the internal evidence of literary and doctrinal characteristics.
Traces of the ‘Higher’ Criticism are to be discovered among the Fathers, e.g. in Origen with his discussion of the authorship of Hebrews, in Dionysius of Alexandria’s critical objections to the ascription of the Revelation to the author of the Fourth Gospel, etc. It was revived at the Renaissance by Reuchlin and Erasmus, and it was fearlessly pursued by Martin Luther. But the scientific development of the method begins with Michaelis (1750) and Semler (1771), especially the latter, for Michaelis did not fully develop his critical views till he issued the 4th ed. of his Introduction to the NT (1788). Eichhorn went further in raising a criticism of the NT Canon (1804), and was opposed by Hug, a Roman Catholic writer, in a very scholarly work. A little later came de Wette (1826), who pursued the new critical method with moderation and great precision of scholarship. Credner followed on similar lines (1836). Meanwhile Guericke, Olshausen, and Neander opposed the contemporary trend of criticism. A new departure was taken by Ferdinand Christian Baur in 1831, who introduced the ‘tendency’ criticism, the result of which has come to be known as the ‘Tübingen hypothesis,’ according to which there was a sharp division in the early Church between St. Paul and the twelve Apostles, and which regarded the several NT books as in some cases inspired by the tendency of one or other of these parties, and as in other cases written with a view to effect a reconciliation between them in the interest of a subsequent Catholic unity. Zeller (1842) and Schwegler (1846) followed on the same lines. A little later (1850) one of Baur’s disciples, Albrecht Ritschl, threw a bombshell into the Tübingen camp by starting from the same position as his master, but advancing to very different conclusions. The Tübingen hypothesis was advocated in England by S. Davidson; but its extreme positions have been given up by most scholars, although it had a later representative in Hilgenfeld, and its spirit has been continued in Pfleiderer.
Meanwhile new problems have emerged, represented in a free critical manner by the Holtzmanns, Weizsäcker, Wernle, etc., while the Ritschlian school has been brought down to recent times in Harnack, Jülicher, etc. A line of negative criticism, first seen in Bruno Bauer (1850), who gave up all historicity in the Gospels, and denied the genuineness of any of St. Paul’s Epistles, was revived during the latter part of the 19th cent. in Holland, by Loman and Steck. Schmiedel took up an extreme negative position with regard to the Gospels, but he has since modified it, and Van Manen has argued against the genuineness of all St. Paul’s Epistles. In the second half of the last cent. the historicity of the Gospels and the genuineness of all the Pauline Epistles were maintained by Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, and others in the first rank of scholarship. Zahn, with great learning, argues for a conservative position, and the tendency of the mediating school represented by Harnack and Jülicher is to admit the genuineness of much the greater part of the NT, the exceptions with this school being especially Eph., 2 Thess., the Pastorals, 1 and 2Peter, James. There is a tendency to connect the Fourth Gospel more closely with St. John, even among those who do not attribute it immediately to the pen of the Apostle.
Criticism came later into contact with the OT; but here it has been much more revolutionary, and not only extremists but nearly all scholars of eminence have now come to agreement with regard to the main points of the new position. It may be said to have commenced with Lessing and Herder in their literary treatment of Scripture; but this did not seriously affect the historical position. That was first attacked on modern critical lines by Vatke early in the 19th cent., but his work met with universal disapproval, due in a great measure to its difficult Hegelianism. We come to more intelligible positions in Ewald, the first edition of whose History of Israel appeared in 1843 52, and contained criticism of authorities, four of which he distinguished in the Pentateuch. Then K. H. Graf (1866), following hints of Reuss, dropped in the lecture-room, but never published by that cautious scholar, put forth the hypothesis which became the basis of the subsequently developed theory of the early history of Israel, and thus gave rise to the phrase ‘the Grafian hypothesis,’ according to which the Priestly legislation of the Pentateuch came later than Deuteronomy, and was only incorporated with the earlier work of the Deuteronomist after the Exile. Meanwhile Colenso was working at the historical difficulties of the Pentateuch, and he was followed by Kuenen, whose Religion of Israel (1869 70) drew attention to the great 8th cent. prophets as affording the true basis of that religion, rather than the Pentateuch which is later in date, and the references of which to earlier times can be best appreciated after a study of the prophets. This study of the prophets, as the key to the OT, was greatly promoted in England by Robertson Smith, who also introduced the newer views of the OT generally to English readers. Wellhausen’s History of Israel (1878) worked out a view of the early history, on the basis of the analysis of the documents along the lines laid down by Graf, with such clearness and force that his positions have come to be accepted by most OT scholars, especially as they were subsequently more fully developed (1884). Reuss, after keeping silence on the subject for half a century, published his own views on the OT (1879), and these also tended to confirm the Grafian theory. Even Franz Delitzsch, after long maintaining a conservative standpoint, moved at last a good way towards the accepted theory, and thus proved his openness of mind and loyalty to truth. Less radical positions than that of Kuenen and Wellhausen have been defended by Dillmann, Schrader, Nöldeke, Strack, Ryssel, Kittel. On the other hand, we see in Duhm, among the more recent critics, an advance of disintegrating criticism, especially with regard to the prophets; and a quite unique attitude is taken up by Cheyne. But English scholars are more in agreement with the views of Driver and G. Adam Smith, who accept the main positions of Wellhausen and assign a primary place to the prophets as the chief exponents of the higher religion of Israel, in which the world possesses a genuine revelation of the mind and will of God of the highest value for all ages.
W. F. Adeney.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Criticism'. Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdb/c/criticism.html. 1909.
