Talk:Historical criticism/Archive 1

Old topic
I'm planning to refactor some of this material, especially relating to lower criticism to the textual criticism article. Stephen C. Carlson 02:13 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Items I'd like to mention: higher criticism got a bad name from the activities of the self-described radical critics of the 19th cen. As a result, a more neutral term is science of introduction. Also, it would be a good idea to separate out the OT and NT higher criticism in the article, as the results are very different. --Stephen C. Carlson 17:03 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Text removed from main article as it does not discuss higher criticism:

Higher Criticism and Biblical Criticism
Lower textual criticism of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and the Talmud is considered legitimate by all branches of Judaism, and has a long history in traditional rabbinic commentators.

Since the Enlightenment this endeavor has come under withering attack from some rabbis within Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, who view all forms of scholarship in regards to religion as opening the door to what they claim is heresy.

Lower textual criticism of the New Testament and later Church writings is considered legitimate by many branches of Christianity today, and has a long history in traditional Christian commentators. Academics within the Catholic Church are especially open and receptive to lower textual criticism.

I would like to get a link from here to the article on liberal christianity. I saw an opportunity in the sentence about 'liberal Jews and Christians', but I didn't want to play with the text too much to try to fit it in. If anyone has any ideas on how to fit it in I would appreciate it. --Randolph 21:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind. :) I'll edit it and be bold. --Randolph 21:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there is good reason to keep this article independent: the term, 'Higher Criticism,' has itself a history. This page contained some utter nonsense. E.g., there was no Tubingen connection between Ludwig Feuerbach (a youbger-generation 'left-wing' Hegelian) and Friedrich Schleiermacher (I excised 'School' and 'Tubingen'); the latter was a contemporary and opponent of Hegel. I failed to fix all that needs fixed, by any stretch of the imagination; and whether or not there is a merger, there are many things to be set straight. --

Terry Foreman 16:20, 1 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Merge with "The Historical-Critical Method"
The page Historical-Critical Method already forwards to "Higher criticism". I suggest that The Historical-Critical Method (not a redirect at present) be merged with "Higher criticism." --Peter Kirby 14:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of the "The". What about historical criticism as the main page on this?  (There is no one historical-critical method, but a collection of techniques...) Stephen C. Carlson 17:53, 2005 August 13 (UTC)


 * I would prefer Historical-critical method as the main page, as that turn of phrase is (so far as I know) particular to biblical criticism. The page historical criticism should, I think, forward to historical method, which should be a good page on methodology in history generally. --Peter Kirby 21:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would prefer biblical criticism be the title with both historical criticism and the historical-critical method being subsets of biblical criticism. This is how most literature is written and wikipedia should follow suit.  Many systematic theologies address these separately.  --David Leaumont 23:38, 04 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the historical critical method only for Biblical criticism? So that wouldn't work.  I like it how it is... relatively.  Discuss the Historical critical method in abstracto and then have it break off into higher and lower criticism and higer Biblical criticism... Qur'anic criticism, etc. Merge would be bad and severely skew the article towards higher biblical criticism. gren グレン ? 15:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. I basically like how it is, but minus the "The". We need an article not solely focused on higher crticism but also one that elaborates higher criticism, given its historical importance. But the two articles should cross-reference and be looked at carefully to avoid duplication, and to ensure that material is allocated between them in a logical way. Metamagician3000 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The Historical-Critical Method is a terrible article. I just reworked it some, removing first persons like "we" and "our lord", but it still presents the two-source hypothesis as fact, with no mention of competing scholarly views anywhere. On top of this, I think there are bigger things at work. Higher criticism and Textual criticism have their own pages. Moving up a level is Historical Criticism and The Historical-Critical Method which both try to generally cover higher and lower criticism (external criticism). Moving up another level is the Historical method, which covers external criticism (higher and lower), internal criticism, and synthesis. I think the middlemen (Historical Criticism and The Historical-Critical Method) are redundent and unnecessary. The first one is a stub that basically redirects to Biblical criticism. The latter is the page that I called terrible a few lines back. Both seem to deal with the bible exclusively, where the Historical method and Textual criticism articles speak more inclusively about these studies. There are problems across the board, however I would propose this: remove the content from both Historical Criticism and The Historical-Critical Method and redirect to Historical method. Alternatively, I'd propose The Historical-Critical Method redirect to Historical Criticism, and rework that one a bit (but what more can really be said that isn't covered here  or on the individual lower and higher criticism pages?)--Andrew c 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this discussion. Biblical criticism, historical-critical method, and higher criticism could use some help and some re-organization. I've seen the historical critical method equated to higher criticism, and I've seen it divided into higher and lower criticism. The main article should be historical critical method. Higher criticism should be short, basically "This is the historical critical method minus lower criticism." Jonathan Tweet 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

informal request for comment
Would people who regularly follow/contribute to this article please look at Yahwism and the talk page, where I express my concerns? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Applying a little source criticism to our article here...
...I deduce that someone's been copying. Read and tell me if you spot any similarities. Wooster (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

a questionable mention
Someone over at Positive Christianity has claimed that that movement evolved from higher criticism, and this is what that article's Origins of the idea section currently states. I'm not qualified to decide it that's true, but editors here should go check out these claims because if they are false then it's a slander against higher criticism and should be put to rest. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 04:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

findings of higher criticism
This article is pretty dry. It defines more than it shows. A casual reader isn't going to easily see the crux of the issue and why HC is so controversial. I'd like to add a table that shows the results of HC, that is, what have critics concluded about dates and authorship.

Jonathan Tweet 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

German religious studies in the 19th century
The 19th century saw a surge in academic study of religion, especially in Germany. Is there a name for this movement? David Strauss, historical Jesus, higher criticism, advances in lower criticism, study of early church documents, Adolf Harnack, history of religions, etc. Is there an article that deals with this development in its own right, a sort of roll-up? Jonathan Tweet 14:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I passed by - with a copyedit and tag. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Higher Criticism is about more than just religion
Too much emphasis is placed on criticism of religion when the values of Higher Criticism are most clearly expressed when applied to the whole strata of human existence. Hurry with the article, please. ParlerVousWiki 08:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A vandal has blanked the page Higher criticism. --Wetman 09:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't think it was vandalism. There was never any content on it. ParlerVousWiki 10:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it it wasn't vandalism. i intend to rebuild the page with actual content about higher criticism. As it was it was only about historical criticism in Bible studies which is not the same thing.·Maunus· · ƛ · 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Aramaic Translations
What about the Aramaic translations of the New Testament? I was under the impression that the Aramaic copies were original. Secos5 02:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jesus spoke Aramaic, but hardly anyone wrote in Aramaic. Generally, people wrote Greek, as did both the Gentile and Jewish authors of the New Testament. Leadwind 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Scholarly Depth Questioned
This article appears a bit biased toward Higher Criticism, as this quote illustrates: "Once Lower Critics have done their job and we have a good idea of what the original text looked like, Higher Critics can then compare this text with the writing of other authors." This is an assumption based upon an a priori acceptance that H-C holds the key to resolving original content and intent. Also, it lacks links and comparisons to other interpretive schools, including the Historical-grammatical Method. Finally, I think more should be said about the origins and early uses of this method, its various permutations, and distinctions drawn between Biblical and non-biblical use of Historical Criticism.

--Xrysostom 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Page merge?
Is this page similar enough to Historical criticism to warrant a merger? I wasn't quite sure, so I haven't put any merge tags on the page. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

a questionable mention
Someone over at Positive Christianity has claimed that that movement evolved from higher criticism, and this is what that article's Origins of the idea section currently states. I'm not qualified to decide it that's true, but editors here should go check out these claims because if they are false then it's a slander against higher criticism and should be put to rest. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Brown does not represent the Catholic Position
While Raymond Brown was a brilliant scripture scholar he was not completely faithful to the the Catholic Faith. This is particularly true regarding the innerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures. Article 11 of Dei Verbum (The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation from the Second Vatican Council) has at times been distorted to support Brown's position that only certain parts of sacred scripture are free from error. The text reads "Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." (Emphasis added) This text can not assert support for Brown's position, and in fact contradicts it. Earlier in the article it states "For holy mother Church...holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author ...God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted." If we were to take Browns position we would then assert that God wanted errors in Sacred Scripture. This would contradict several other Catholic Doctrines. Secondly the footnotes to article 11 of Dei Verbum given below all site sources where unlimitted inerrancy is proclaimed (even by 2 previous pontifs):

1. cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 2 "On Revelation:" Denzinger 1787 (3006); Biblical Commission, Decree of June 18,1915: Denzinger 2180 (3629): EB 420; Holy Office, Epistle of Dec. 22, 1923: EB 499.

2. cf. Pius XII, encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu," Sept. 30, 1943: A.A.S. 35 (1943) p. 314; Enchiridion Bible. (EB) 556.

3. "In" and "for" man: cf. Heb. 1, and 4, 7; ("in"): 2 Sm. 23,2; Matt.1:22 and various places; ("for"): First Vatican Council, Schema on Catholic Doctrine, note 9: Coll. Lac. VII, 522.

4. Leo XIII, encyclical "Providentissimus Deus," Nov. 18, 1893: Denzinger 1952 (3293); EB 125.

5. cf. St. Augustine, "Gen. ad Litt." 2, 9, 20:PL 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, "On Truth," Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical "Providentissimus Deus:" EB 121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu:" EB 539.

Becuase Raymond Brown is obviously unfaithful to Catholic Church teaching in this matter it is unfit to use him as a representative of Catholic teaching. Aricle 11 of Dei Verbum thus more authentically and consistently (since is sites previous official Church proclamations)represents the Catholic Faith and ought to be referenced instead of Brown.

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS and historical investigation
An editor User:Rbreen seems to think that a minority view stating that "....Providentissimus Deus ... the use of historical-critical methods was unacceptable." should be the position of the Roman Catholic Church. The reason why this is in violation of WP:UNDUE is simply because the minority view in question is clearly at odds with the encyclicals... It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. (Runwiththewind 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I think editor User:Runwiththewind has got matters slightly askew, ascribing to me views I do not hold. It is hardly a minority view to say that Providentissimus Deus condemned the use of historical-critical methods; that is not my view, but that of mainstream published sources, which I referenced. It is hardly controversial, there are plenty of other sources which support this. Clearly that opinion (opposition to historical-critical methods) is no longer the position of the Catholic Church, and I have not argued that it is. I have restored the text that was there, with some changes to make the position clear and I hope (as balanced as possible)Rbreen 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am reverting back and bringing in modernism commentary. I think you are confusing modernism with the historical-critical method. (Runwiththewind 22:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I have reverted these edits because they are not supported by any published sources and appear to be your own personal interpretation. If you disagree with the information provided by these sources, please do not remove them but supplement them with alternative, referenced information. Please note that the Catechism is not in itself a source here as it does not refer specifically to the historical-critical methods. And no, I am not confusing modernism with the historical-critical method. If you consult the references I have used you will see that that is obvious. Rbreen 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To quote you... Providentissimus Deus and to some extent reaffirmed in the 1920 encyclical, Spiritus Paraclitus... Cite the positions from both documents. Show us these positions from the encyclicals before you reverted it again. You haven't shown it here or on the Father Brown article and it has been asked of you several times now.
 * I just quote directly from the Catechism without any added stuff like your edits and I will quote it here again and bold print the parts that state clearly why the historical-critical method is adopted by Vatican II which you reject. The modern Catechism states that #110 "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression." You have deleted that this stating that the Catechism is not in itself a source here as it does not refer specifically to the historical-critical methods.
 * The very start of the Catechism confirms this... in #20 The use of small print in certain passages indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations.
 * Your statement and the Catechism reference I quoted from the start can not be reconciled.
 * I think your quote mining from minority views is simply misrepresenting Church documents that have never condemned the historical-critical method. The onus is on you to quote directly from the encyclical showing this. I am quoting directly from the Catechism which you undermine as not saying what it clearly says.
 * Show us where imprimaturs have been revoked from the works granted them. You have done none of this. (Runwiththewind 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
 * This is what The Most Reverend Terrence T. Prendergast, SJ, Archbishop of Halifax, Nova Scotia, had to say: "after forty years of rigorous opposition, the Catholic Church in the 1940s made an undeniable about-face in attitude to biblical criticism. The encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) instructed Catholic scholars to use the methods of scientific approach to the Bible that had hitherto been closed to them. It was now safe for Catholic scholars to take up methods that were previously forbidden." [in John R.Donahue, 'Life in Abundance: Studies of John's Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown', Liturgical Press (2005) page 3.] I assume that a Jesuit Archbishop, recently promote by the Pope, can be assumed to know what he is talking about, and is hardly a minority view (within the Catholic Church).
 * I admit, the phrase 'subtly reversed' was my own interpretation of the explanation Raymond Brown gave (and which I quoted in his entry) as to how the Catholic Church changes direction. If you feel the reverse was not accomplished subtly, then feel free to phrase it as such.
 * The problem with quoting from the catechism is that these same phrases can be used to mean almost anything, from a complete rejection of all but the most minimal criticism to out and out reappraisal of the fundamentals. The devil is in the details, and in the interpretation of these details; again, I follow Brown's explanation of how the Church's change of tack was supported by quotations from the very encyclicals it was replacing: "the Roman Catholic Church does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time. ... What was really going on was an attempt gracefully to retain what was salvageable from the past and to move in a new direction at the same time". [Raymond Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Paulist Press (1981), page 18.]
 * Of course the church has not reversed the Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats granted to Brown. Why would they? His work is not in any way in conflict with the modern, Post-Vatican II approach of the Church. I have never suggested that it is. I have absolutely no doubt that Brown remains, after his death as during his life, a scholar in the highest standing with the Church. I am baffled as to why you keep associating me with views I do not hold or represent. Rbreen 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will ask again. Can you quote directly from Providentissimus Deus or Spiritus Paraclitus yourself showing the rejection of the historical-critical method. We can talk about infallable statements and Bishops later but first I want to see your critic of the historical-critical method in an encyclical. I believe, as has been stated before, that you haven't done this to date.
 * The Catechism of the Catholic Church begins with an APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM. Show me where it says that it is problem, can be used to mean almost anything or The devil is in the details, and in the interpretation of these details. I think a good old read of FIDEI DEPOSITUM might show you that the Church was actually promoting this to to all the People of God. I think the people of God can follow it just fine, thank you. (Runwiththewind 22:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Rbreen has quoted from a solid secondary source regarding the near 180 degree change in the Catholic Church's approach to biblical criticism. Why are you insisting that he now perform original research on the primary sources?  I can provide additional secondary sources to the Church's change in position, if that would help.  -- Cat Whisperer 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rbreen has quoted a Bishop and one book. I have quoted the entire Magesterium and their publication the Catechism with approval by the Pope in FIDEI DEPOSITUM. I would stock the Magesterium against one Bishop's quote and one book any day of the week :) See WP:UNDUE. That is why you can't find ANY encyclical or constitution that says that the historical-critical method should not be used. The reason being that even the early Church Fathers use this method. :) I will ask again. Can you quote directly from Providentissimus Deus or Spiritus Paraclitus yourself showing the rejection of the historical-critical method. (Runwiththewind 03:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
 * You have done original research using primary sources. Rbreen has found a citation in a reliable, published secondary source.  Regardless of which method you personally may perfer, Wikipedia policy is clear that Rbreen's approach is preferred.  Additionally, the view that the Church's policy regarding biblical scholarship underwent an "about-face" is the majority view of scholars, if not their unanimous view.  Fr. Raymond Brown supports this view, as does Fr. Gerald Fogarty ([ http://www.amazon.com/American-Catholic-Biblical-Scholarship-Republic/dp/1589832353 American Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A History from the Early Republic to Vatican II]).  -- Cat Whisperer 03:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Cat Whisperer doesn't seem to understand that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a seconday source if not the secondary source on Church policy today. If you have read it then you would see that it sources hundreds if not thousands of footnotes quoting the primary sources in the footnotes and even within the text itself. I think your view on the CCC being a primary source pretty much ends this debate. Quote farming for Bishops or Priests who say something contrary to the CCC is not the Roman Catholic position whatever way you try to cook it. The Catechism quoted in this text cited... 76 DV 12 # 2. which is the primary source also mentioned in this document. That makes the CCC a perfect secondary source. In your sources you have never shown the primary source they quoted... not once... even though it was asked of you several times. Show me where the Holy See position was one time that the Historical-critical method was outlawed by it. Got a code of cannon law cited? Got an encyclical cited? Show me the citations which I have asked for several times. I want to see both before I ever ascribe to such a position. Can't be too careful these days.
 * Not only does the CCC have footnotes but so does DV which is a secondary source in itself. It quotes... 7. St. Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine" III, 18, 26; PL 34, 75-76. and 8. Pius XII, loc. cit. Denziger 2294 (3829-3830); EB 557-562. St. Augustine used the historcial-critical method. I supposes the Church was doing 180s and then more 180s and maybe a 360? lol... (Runwiththewind 09:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Your accusations of quote farming are getting ridiculous. Can you find any real secondary source that agrees with your original research?  I don't think so.  If every single scholar disagrees with you on this point, don't you think that's a clue that you might be wrong?  And even if you still think you are right and all the scholars are wrong, surely you can see that Wikipedia isn't the place to publish your original research.  And as far as the Catechism goes, it as a source as to what the Church teaches in 1992 (first edition) and 1997 (revised edition).  It is largely irrelevant to the issue of what the Church taught prior to Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943.  (P.S. One Church document quoting another does not a secondary source make.  No one considers Dei Verbum a secondary source.) -- Cat Whisperer 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What didn't you understand about St. Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine"? I take it you are somewhat aware that this Saint lived between 354 - 430 and is on the record as a source for the historical-critical method? You still are unable to quote directly from any of the documents you claim cite the historical-critial method as against regulation. What you have is minority views. See WP:UNDUE
 * I will even do the work for you. Here is Saint Augustine quoted in full...
 * CHAP. 18.--WE MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE TIME AT WHICH ANYTHING WAS ENJOYED OR ALLOWED.<-- May you would like to read that chapter heading again.
 * 26. We must also be on our guard against supposing that what in the Old Testament, making allowance for the condition of those times, is not a crime or a vice even if we take it literally and not figuratively, can be transferred to the present time as a habit of life.
 * Now we have the early Saints recommending this tradition where do you think your quote farming stands now?(Runwiththewind 15:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
 * It's not my job to counter your original research with more original research of my own. And according to WP:UNDUE, it is your view (a minority view of 1) that has no place in this article.  The important point here is that every serious scholar of this issue takes Providentissimus Deus to oppose the historical-critical method.  Whether you personally are capable of seeing this from the text of that encyclical is unimportant.  And what I don't understand regarding your additional original research based on St. Augustine (another primary source) is why you think this Wikipedia article should ignore every single credentialed, published scholar on this issue and instead present your own opposing viewpoint as the only correct view. -- Cat Whisperer 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have a source for the assertion that Augustine practised the historical-critical method, please provide it. Every source I have seen regards this method as no more than two to three centuries old. Unless you are confusing it with something else?Rbreen 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you think you are in a position to challange Saint Augustine with your minority view that the historical-critical methods are some new age thing? Saint Augustine is one source used as the primary source for the secondary sources of Dei Verbum and the Catechism when he says... and I quote this for the second time... CHAP. 18.--WE MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE TIME AT WHICH ANYTHING WAS ENJOYED OR ALLOWED.<-- Maybe you would like to read that chapter heading again for the third time. Is there something you don't follow about that chapter or the preceeding instructions he lays out on his historical-critical method? Maybe I would do more work for you by actually printing up the references cited by Dei Verbum... if you have actually read it. Here is what he says...
 * 18. Those things, again, whether only sayings or whether actual deeds, which appear to the inexperienced to be sinful, and which are ascribed to God, or to men whose holiness is put before us as an example, are wholly figurative, and the hidden kernel of meaning they contain is to be picked out as food for the nourishment of charity.  Now, whoever uses transitory objects less freely than is the custom of those among whom he lives, is either temperate or superstitious; whoever, on the other hand, uses them so as to transgress the bounds of the custom of the good men about him, either has a further meaning in what he does, or is sinful.  In all such matters it is not the use of the objects, but the lust of the user, that is to blame.  Nobody in his sober senses would believe, for example, that when our Lord's feet were anointed by the woman with precious ointment, John 12:3 it was for the same purpose for which luxurious and profligate men are accustomed to have theirs anointed in those banquets which we abhor.  For the sweet odor means the good report which is earned by a life of good works; and the man who wins this, while following in the footsteps of Christ, anoints His feet (so to speak) with the most precious ointment.  And so that which in the case of other persons is often a sin, becomes, when ascribed to God or a prophet, the sign of some great truth.  Keeping company with a harlot, for example, is one thing when it is the result of abandoned manners, another thing when done in the course of his prophecy by the prophet Hosea. Hosea 1:2   Because it is a shamefully wicked thing to strip the body naked at a banquet among the drunken and licentious, it does not follow that it is a sin to be naked in the baths.
 * 26. We must also be on our guard against supposing that what in the Old Testament, making allowance for the condition of those times, is not a crime or a vice even if we take it literally and not figuratively, can be transferred to the present time as a habit of life.  For no one will do this except lust has dominion over him, and endeavors to find support for itself in the very Scriptures which were intended to overthrow it.  And the wretched man does not perceive that such matters are recorded with this useful design, that men of good hope may learn the salutary lesson, both that the custom they spurn can be turned to a good use, and that which they embrace can be used to condemnation, if the use of the former be accompanied with charity, and the use of the latter with lust.
 * There we have Saint Augustine using the historical-critical method. Or do you think Dei Verbum just lied? Show me that either of you are even remotely capable of the same work for supporting your minority view that Providentissimus Deus disproves of this method. Quote it or drop it.(Runwiththewind 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
 * "There we have Saint Augustine using the historical-critical method." There we have original research.
 * Provide a published, notable source that says the same thing, and you have a point you can put in Wikipedia.
 * If our view of Providentissimus Deus is a minority view, there will be lots of sources for the 'majority view'. Please provide some examples.
 * As far as I can see, your assertions are based entirely on your own personal intepretation of ancient sources. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You can't expect to convince anyone here with such arguments. Rbreen 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have being trying to sell Providentissimus Deus as an anti-historical-critical method document and are unable at every request to prove it except to cite minority views. I cite Church Fathers, the Magisterium, their documents, even citing the footnotes and you call it original research. The original research is holding undue weight from 1 Bishop and 1 or 2 unknown books over the Church Fathers, the Magisterium and their sources and then want to call it the Catholic position. There isn't anything remotely Catholic about what you are proposing. The Magisterium and the Church Fathers have spoken. The mystery Providentissimus Deus citation is still waiting. I wonder... maybe some confused people are just pretending it says something bad about Saint Augustine's method. The only people doing 180s are you 2 guys trying to twirl your way out of this one. (Runwiththewind 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Your efforts to convince us that you are smarter than Abp. Prendergast, Fr. Brown, and Fr. Fogarty are misdirected. We are lowly Wikipedia editors whose opinions do not matter.  Please write a scholarly article explaining their mistakes and publish it in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly or some other peer-reviewed journal of similar quality.  Then we will be happy to include your unique views in this Wikipedia article.  Until then, please accept the fact that EVERY SINGLE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL SCHOLAR disagrees with your non-notable viewpoint.  Wikipedia policy is absolutely clear that Providentissimus Deus and Dei Verbum are primary sources, and that your unique interpretation of them is original research. So even if you are right and EVERY SINGLE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL SCHOAR is dead wrong regarding Providentissimus Deus and the historical-critical method, it just doesn't matter here at Wikipedia. -- Cat Whisperer 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now over on the Brown article I can see exactly where you have made errors. You think Brown or the Historical-critical methods claim Biblical inerrancy. That was not established in the citations given and Brown never made any such statement. Thus the onus is on you to show in the article where he made the claim. You seem to be under the impression that the Magisterium is wrong, Saint Augustine is wrong and that the Catechism is wrong. Maybe you need to actually go look up what the Magisterium is. I assure that that they are not a minority view. It is actually the Holy See in case you missed that one. (Runwiththewind 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

From Fr. Brown's Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible (Paulist Press, 1990), question 17, "I thought there has been a lot of conflict between biblical scholars and official church teachers", page 27: The answer depends on the tense of your verb: there had been conflict in the earlier part of this century. But from the time of Pope Pius XII in the 1940s and the Vatican Council II in the early 1960s, there has been remarkable harmony between biblical scholars and official church teachers. (Perhaps I should underline the word "offical"; there are a small number of vocal ultraconservative Catholics who think that their interpretations of church doctrine are official and that they constitute a magisterium that can judge scholarship -- this is a group that I often call the third magisterium, consisting of self-appointed vigilantes who have no real status to speak for the church.) You can get a very good description of the conflict that existed before the Second Vatican Council, over a period of many years, in the work by Gerald P. Fogarty, American Catholic Biblical Scholarship (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989). The single most important factor in changing the picture was the positive support given to modern biblical scholarship by Pope Pius XII, so that biblical scholars came to look upon the Pope and eventually upon Roman offices like the Pontifical Biblical Commission from the 1960s on as friends rather than as censorious opponents. In the last quarter-century there has been support in both directions and no hostility between biblical scholars and official church teachers. Personally, I have often expressed my indebtedness to the support that I have received from the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and, indeed, from several papal or Roman appointments that I have held. I do not interpret this as support for my individual views or a statement that I am always right, but as a recognition that Catholic scholars properly trained in the modern biblical criticism are regarded as a positive contributing group in the larger church enterprices of porclaiming the Gospel. From Fr. Fogarty's American Catholic Biblical Scholarship, page 44: In 1893, Leo XIII issued Providentissimus Deus. He placed his teaching about biblical studies in reaction to the "rationalists," who denied inspiration. Professors of Scripture, he said, were to use the Vulgate, which Trent had declared to be the "authentic" version, but were to use the Hebrew and Greek, whenever there was any ambiguity. He encouraged more advanced students and seminarians, however, to learn the oriental languages in which the Scripture had originally been written. He praised "the art of criticism," by which he meant "lower criticism," the verification of the text. But he warned that "there has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of 'higher criticism,' which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity, and authority of each book from internal indications alone." History and historical criticism were clearly going to be problematic for Catholic exegetes. In regard to apparent contradictions between the Scripture and science, Leo noted that the sacred writers "did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and deal with things in more or less figurative langauge, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are daily used at this day, even by the most eminent men of science." In the words of Thomas, continued the pope, the writers "went by what sensibly appeared." Immediately after treating the natural sciences, the pope declared that "the principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history." It was but a logical conclusion for the liberal exegetes to develop what they termed "historical appearances." But, as will be seen, they would meet serious opposition to this approach in the early twentieth century. From Fr. Fogarty's American Catholic Biblical Scholarship, page 240, on Divino Afflante Spiritu: Pius concluded his exhortation to exegetes by reminding them that progress would be slow and that they should seek to refute adversaries but also "satisfy the indubitable conclusion of profane sciences." In the passage, which Cicognani quoted in urging the [Catholic Bible Association] to undertake the translation of the Old Testament from the original languages, the pope reminded "other sons of the Church" to have charity and not be suspicious of whatever was new. Pius XII had thus reversed a trend in Catholic biblical scholarship, which had begun toward the end of Leo XIII's pontificate, developed under Pius X, and was reinforced under Benedict XV, at least in regard to historical criticism. The new encyclical had, in fact, cited Spiritus Paraclitus only three times and one of those seemed to take Benedict's condemnation of "historical appearances" and reverse it. ... The encyclical would alter the direction of American Catholic biblical scholarship. -- Cat Whisperer 01:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Read your own work again. Father Brown clearly indicates that the third magisterium folk are not even Church officials. The final passage reveals that the trend reversed is with these critics "other sons of the Church" to have charity and not be suspicious of whatever was new. Again these critics, called ultraconservatives, are just a voice, not the Magisterium, against the historical-critical method. The Holy See as you can plainly read even from the above 3 passages supports the historical-critical method. The only voice of concern is with "rationalists," who denied inspiration. (Runwiththewind 07:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Great! Then you will have no problem with my including both these works in the article. -- Cat Whisperer 11:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are saying that the Magisterium has reversed its position. This is your claim. Your reference doesn't cite the initial position that the reverse took place from. You need to include that position before you can show reversal. Providentissimus Deus states a problem with higher criticm and rationalists. Where did they get a voice in the Magesterium? What documents? Again show the reversal in the positions. Are you saying they have a voice now? If so show the documents again. You would also do well to reply to the statement below about Saint Augustine.(Runwiththewind 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Also take the time out to read about what the Pope says on people who claim that the Church reverses its position on these matters of Dogma here. Dei Verbum is dogma. (Runwiththewind 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Do you agree with the above works or not? Please make up your mind.  It's hard enough dealing with your original research without having to deal with you flip-flopping your position at will. -- Cat Whisperer 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with what? Where do any of your documents say that a reversal in Dogma has occured? None of them cite anything like that. What they do say reversed is that some people who couldn't tolerate the idea of having a Bible cross-referenced for historical purposes where told to stop getting annoyed at anything new. They where told to reverse that position. I have no problem with statements like Providentissimus Deus saying that certain groups such as rationalists and that certain methods such as higher critic where bad but the onus is on you to show where the Church says that these are good again. You don't have any citation for reveral on Church Dogma. What Dogmatic was reversed? This has been the question all along. (Runwiththewind 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

The Catechism, Dei Verbum and Saint Augustine on the Historical-Critical Method

 * The Catechism states...#110 "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
 * Caetchism #100 cites Dei Verbum which states... 12. To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
 * Dei Verbum 12 cites... St. Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine" III, 18, 26; PL 34, 75-76. and Pius XII, loc. cit. Denziger 2294 (3829-3830); EB 557-562. His quotes can be found at
 * CONCLUSION: The secondary sources the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites Dei Verbum which cites the Church Father Saint Augustine of Hippo as the primary source for the Historical-critical method among other sources.
 * It is an error to say Dei Verbum and the Catechism are wrong or are not the Church position on this topic.(Runwiththewind 22:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

The section on the Roman Catholic view of historical criticism needs to discuss the shift that occurred from Prov. Deus to Dei Verbum. It is a significant change in position, but does not need to be understood as a mere reversal of position. The trends within historiography at the time of Prov. Deus made historical-criticism unfit as a method to apply to the study of the Bible. Augustine's use of something similar to historical criticim shows that the Church is not opposed in principle to using it. I could write something up when I get a moment. I'll try to remember. The.helping.people.tick 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This would be very welcome indeed. The section is currently drowning in original research, and all prior attempts to introduce actual secondary sources have been unilaterally reverted. -- Cat Whisperer 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * tick is correct in asserting that it does not need to be understood as a reversal of position. (Runwiththewind 08:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Cat rejects that Vatican II is infallible. and wants to paint it in a bad light by making unfounded claims that the Church has reversed its position. Tick has already explained, as have I, that cat's view does not need to be understood as a reversal of position. (Runwiththewind 06:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Even if, as you say, it does not need to be so understood (and you have yet to provide sources for that other than your own interpretations), the fact that prominent sources widely interpret it that way is enough reason to include that view in Wikipedia. To simply delete views of which you do not approve goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please stop doing this.Rbreen 08:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there is no critic that the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum references St. Augustine as a source for the historical-critical method (as proved at the start of this topic header) I have put it back in the article. Dei Verbum is Dogma. (Runwiththewind 10:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Dispute tag added
I added the dispute tag because there is already a dispute ongoing at traditionalist Catholics that is managing to find its way across to other articles like this one and Church Dogma like Dei Verbum. (Runwiththewind 10:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

Content-free article
After all the fuss, there really doesn't seem to be any content in this short article, nor does there seem to be any need for an article with this title. We do need an article on the historical movement known as the "higher criticism" (and confined to that limited topic), which any other subjects under "Historical-critical method" should be under "Historical method".

The best way to accomplish this is to move this article to "higher criticism", which now redirects here, and begin rewriting. Rick Norwood 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a big mess across multiple article, partially dealing with page moves that occurred over the past few months. Here is my proposal to start to straighten some of this stuff out:


 * First, Historical criticism in Bible studies should be moved to Higher criticism


 * As you can see from the page histories, back at the end of July, the Higher criticism article was renamed. You can tell that by seeing the phrase "higher criticism" throughout that article (just look at the ToC). Also, from the inclusion of the section on "Higher criticism of other religious texts" and a section on "Islam", the article title is inaccurate because it does not deal only with Bible studies.


 * Next, try to incorporate the first half of the higher criticism with the Biblical criticism.


 * The lead and the first two section seems to be the best candidates to be merged. One gives a summary of higher criticism, and the other a summary of lower criticism, which a parent article should do (assuming that Biblical criticism is the parent of higher criticism and lower criticism in a similar manner as Historical method is a parent to those two as well (see Historical method to see how it summarizes those two)).


 * Finally, try to incorporate the second half of the higher criticism with the newly re-created higher criticism article from point 1.


 * The second half of this current article deals with responses and religious criticism of higher criticism.


 * Hopefully my proposal makes sense, and we can start working to straighten some of this stuff out. The last thing that I'm not sure of is what to do about "Historical-critical method". If it is simply a synonym for "higher criticism", then it can stay as a redirect and simply be mentioned as such in the lead. If it something else, it probably needs to redirect to a parent article, or have it's own article written. From what I gather, it should probably redirect to Biblical criticism (or alternatively, that article renamed to "Historical-critical method"). Various web sources suggest that the Historical-critical method is made up of textual criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and source criticism. Theopedia has a pretty good article on the topic (which we may want to use some of, seeing as they release their content into the public domain).-Andrew c [talk] 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the first task is to figure out what we want the titles of articles to be. The overarching subject matter seems to be Historical method. The area in which articles have proliferated seems to be historical methods applied to the Bible. On the one hand, we have secular methods, of which the higher criticism is one. On the other hand, we have apologetics. Titles such as Historical criticism in Bible studies and Biblical criticism see to me to lead only to endless duplication -- we could have Bible criticism, Bible studies, Bible textual analysis, Historical methods applied to the Bible, etc. etc. etc. So, I agree that these articles should be brought together under one title, the problem is deciding on a title. For that matter, should the title of this article be Higher criticism or The higher criticism. At first, I favored the latter, but now I'm leaning toward the former.

Certainly, your proposals all make sense, but I don't want us to start moving things until we get the problem of article titles settled. Any ideas for titles for a streamlined family of articles on this very interesting subject? Rick Norwood 13:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see the logic behind this process - there are certainly many related and overlapping articles around. But there are major gaps in the existing article. There doesn't seem to be anything after 1918 and no mention of Harnack, Bultmann et al. The statement that "Luther taught that the Bible is the infallible word of God, and most protestant Christians have followed him in that fundamentalist belief." is seriously misleading - certainly as regards scholars, but probably as regards the public as well (though it differs from country to country). At the moment, it gives the impression that only Catholic scholars support the use of the historical method, whereas it was Protestant scholars in the nineteenth century who did most of the running, with the Catholics and others only catching up in the 1940s. (this section needs a mention of Dei Verbum, as well).


 * Secondly, where does this leave the 'historical-critical method'? What exactly is the relationship between the two? This source, found from a quick search on Google, says, "A main component of this approach [the historical-critical method] is source criticism, also called "Higher Criticism"". This suggests that higher criticism is a component of the historical-critical method and not the other way round, and that both essentially began in the eighteenth / nineteenth century. Perhaps we ought to get a clear picture of what is a subset of what before we start deciding on titles and moving things around. Rbreen 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point about protestents is certainly well taken. If you haven't already made the change, I will. As for "the historical-critical method" it isn't clear to me how that differs from, say, the academic-critical method or the historical method or the methods of history or critical methods or just plain criticism. Is there a movement by that name, or just a single book? Rick Norwood 13:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Two cents from me. And please ignore me, because I'm loaded with other projects, and don't think it's fair I have a vote if I'm not a worker. Anyway ...
 * I like Andrew's proposal because it matches the framework I perceive to be implicit in mainstream journal articles I read. By mainstream I mean JBL etc, not any particular denominational POV. In other words, it seems to be nomenclature that is accepted on an ecumenical platform, probably because it's pretty objective/non-confessional.
 * But an important point is, even if we run with Andrew's proposal now. It can be changed later. It sounds like a workable move forward from the current state of things ... and a "keep it simple" one at that.
 * Another thought. A lot of ideas are published by theological academics, that can only loosely be associated with particular denominations. In very many cases, reporting the "history of ideas" can be done very neutrally by attributing ideas to those who publish them, rather than with denominations. I tend to smell rats when people lump ideas to groups. Having said that, I'd agree with Rbreen that Protestant traditions are more closely associated with source and higher criticism, but they were self-consciously progressive Protestants. Denominations, especially the Roman Catholic Church are normally pretty good at publishing their position on controversial issues. I'd recommend reserving linking ideas to denominations unless there is documentation of them making that link themselves.
 * Anyway, I'm thrilled to know there are contributors working at this issue. Best wishes to you all, and don't let any hypercritical comments stop you chipping away! Alastair Haines 12:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS, awful first paragraph. Pretty ordinary understanding of Biblical inspiration is that God inspired human authors wrote biblical books, within human history, and that the Bible didn't "fall out of the sky". To address questions of history etc, although they focus on the "human realm," does not presume that God was not involved. In fact such questions are completely compatible with him having organized the whole show. It's just they don't presume that he did that, in fact they just don't presume. Hmph, but you guys know that ... best wishes again. Alastair Haines 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Academic-critical method
The phrase "the higher criticism" is one I have run into fairly often in my reading, and I think we need an article focused on this movement. As it happens, I haven't run into the phrase "academic-critical method". I did a Google search on the phrase, and only got two hits, both of which use the phrase in a general rather than in a specific sense, and neither of which include the hyphen. For example, "It is noteworthy that, at a time when the prevailing academic critical method was... ." This suggests that the phrase is not used often enough to be the title of a separate article. Rick Norwood 13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article title should not have a "the" in it. It should be "Higher criticism". Srnec 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but is there an article about Barnum & Baily Circus titled "The Greatest Show on Earth" or "Greatest Show on Earth, The" or just "Greatest Show on Earth"? The removal of articles from the beginning of phrases in an alphabetical print encyclopedia is a tradition that need not apply to on-line encyclopedias.

On the other hand, I have no strong feelings about the "the". Either way is fine by me. Rick Norwood 12:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The MoS style says not to use it (here), and I have seen the phrase used without the article (i.e. Journal of Higher Criticism not Journal of The Higher Criticism).-Andrew c [talk] 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you move the article, then. Rick Norwood 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Protestant Christian View
The descriptions of Martin Luther's theology here are incomplete or inaccurate. Luther didn't believe faith and reason were antithetical, but that each had its proper role -- faith seeking understanding, and not the reverse. Luther also didn't believe in an inerrant Bible -- that is a much more recent doctrine. Luther had a much more interpretive view of the Bible.

But these inaccuracies are beside the point. The references to Luther do nothing to explain a Protestant Christian view towards higher criticism today, 500 years after Luther. I suggest deleting the section unless someone wants to do it justice (a task that is beyond my expertise, I'm afraid). Ergdubito 06:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First, please note that, traditionally, new comments are added at the bottom of the page.


 * The paragraph in question quotes Martin Luther directly. The quotes support the idea that he believed that faith and reason are at odds.  If he changed his mind on that subject, a direct quote to indicate that should be supplied.  The quotes do not, however, support the claim that Luther thought the Bible inerrant, and so I've removed that claim, and replaced it with a referenced sentence. Rick Norwood 12:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering Luther had never heard of "higher criticism", I think it is out of place to quote directly from him on the topic. Quotes directly from primary sources support nothing without interpretation and context, which only a secondary source could provide for conclusion that Luther&mdash;initially a good friend of Erasmus&mdash;though reason inimical to faith. Luther could be bombastic, sharp-tongued, and hyperbolic. The quotes are simply out of place. Srnec 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me to leave the section on the Protestent view rather bare, compared to the other sections, which sketch the history of beliefs about the nature of the Bible. On the other hand, I agree with your point about quotes taken out of context. I'll try to find something that places the relationship between the view of Biblical inerrency and the view of the hicher criticism in context. Rick Norwood 12:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be quite a bit about the effect higher criticism had in the early 19th century when the German authors were translated into English and Essays and Reviews set out positions of liberal Christianity, leading to a controversy which reached an accommodation by the end of that century, but was revived by Christian fundamentalism around 1914 rejecting higher criticism and instituting ideas of biblical inerrancy close to Luther's statements – see also Creationism and #Evolution which both give references relating to higher criticism. .. dave souza, talk 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you could make some valuable contributions to the article.

I've restored one of the Luther quotes, but placed it in context, using Durant's The Reformation as a reference. Rick Norwood 13:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dave souza edit
Thanks for an excellent edit. Rick Norwood 15:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)