Changes

== Higher criticism ==

== Higher criticism ==

The ''higher'' or ''historical criticism'' of the [[Bible]] (not the criticism of the Bible ''throughout'' history, but rather the criticism of the Bible ''as'' history) deals with whether the Bible is, or is not, a valid source of history. The [[German]] higher critic Johann Gottfried Eichhorn coined the term.<ref name=CathEn>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04491c.htm Biblical criticism (higher)] in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908)</ref>

The ''higher'' or ''historical criticism'' of the Bible (not the criticism of the Bible ''throughout'' history, but rather the criticism of the Bible ''as'' history) deals with whether the Bible is, or is not, a valid source of history. The German higher critic Johann Gottfried Eichhorn coined the term.<ref name=CathEn>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04491c.htm Biblical criticism (higher)] in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908)</ref>

Higher criticism asks whether the Bible is consistent with extra-Biblical [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds and with what is known of the [[language]]s in which it was written. Inevitably higher criticism must face squarely the question of whether Divine inspiration exists or not, and whether supernatural causes or events are admissible or not. These can only be [[presupposition]]. For that reason, at least two divergent schools of thought have always existed in higher criticism. Their differences are irreconcilable, because one school believes that anything supernatural is to be rejected out-of-hand, and the other school is not so sure of that. These "non-rationalistic" thinkers tend to divide between [[Protestantism|Protestant]] and [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] schools of thought. Higher criticism ''also'' claims to examine the internal evidence of the Bible and whether certain parts of the Bible are properly consistent with other parts.

Higher criticism asks whether the Bible is consistent with extra-Biblical [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds and with what is known of the languages in which it was written. Inevitably higher criticism must face squarely the question of whether Divine inspiration exists or not, and whether supernatural causes or events are admissible or not. These can only be [[presupposition]]. For that reason, at least two divergent schools of thought have always existed in higher criticism. Their differences are irreconcilable, because one school believes that anything supernatural is to be rejected out-of-hand, and the other school is not so sure of that. These "non-rationalistic" thinkers tend to divide between [[Protestantism|Protestant]] and [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] schools of thought. Higher criticism ''also'' claims to examine the internal evidence of the Bible and whether certain parts of the Bible are properly consistent with other parts.

=== History of higher criticism ===

=== History of higher criticism ===

Arguably the first person to use the Bible seriously as a historical document, and to integrate the history it records with other recorded histories, was [[James Ussher]]. His work was so influential that for three and a half centuries most editions of the [[King James Version]] of the Bible carried top-margin dates derived from Ussher's magnum opus, [[The Annals of the World]].

[[The Catholic Encyclopedia]] includes<ref name=CathEn/> an excellent treatment of the full state of higher criticism until 1908. It shows that higher criticism, as such, began earlier than the Enlightenment. The [[Constantine]]-era bishop [[Origen]] holding, for example, that [[Paul]] was not the same man who wrote the Epistle to the [[Hebrews (book)|Hebrews]]. Origen's student [[Dionysius]] held on linguistic grounds that the man calling himself "John" who wrote [[Revelation]] was not the same man as the [[Apostle]] named [[John]]. Higher criticism contemporary to Ussher explored such questions as whether [[Moses]] was the true author of the first five books of the Bible, called the "Books of Moses" in the [[King James Version]].

[[The Catholic Encyclopedia]] includes<ref name=CathEn/> an excellent treatment of the full state of higher criticism until 1908. It shows that higher criticism, as such, began earlier than the Enlightenment. The [[Constantine]]-era bishop [[Origen]] holding, for example, that [[Paul]] was not the same man who wrote the Epistle to the [[Hebrews (book)|Hebrews]]. Origen's student [[Dionysius]] held on linguistic grounds that the man calling himself "John" who wrote [[Revelation]] was not the same man as the [[Apostle]] named [[John]]. Higher criticism contemporary to Ussher explored such questions as whether [[Moses]] was the true author of the first five books of the Bible, called the "Books of Moses" in the [[King James Version]].

Then in the early nineteenth century a group of French and German scholars began evaluate the internal style of the Bible and to test its historical claims against other historical documents and archaeological finds. They drew their inspiration from the new fields of historiography, archaeology, and linguistics.  

Then in the early nineteenth century a group of [[France|French]] and [[Germany|German]] scholars began to test the Bible against other historical documents and [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds. They drew their inspiration from the [[Rationalism|Rationalist]] school of philosophy and other schools of thought that developed during the [[Enlightenment]] period. But at that point the criticism of the [[Old Testament]] and the [[New Testament]] tended to have vastly different emphases, with Old Testament criticism centering on questions of language and competing historical records, and New Testament criticism directly attacking the Divinity of its Central Character, [[Jesus Christ]], and the authenticities of the various Letters of [[Paul]] and the general epistles of [[John]], [[Epistle of James|James]], and others.

Analysis of the Old Testament and the New Testament tended to have vastly different emphases, with Old Testament criticism centering on questions of language and competing historical records, and New Testament criticism looking at authorship and the interrelations of texts, including non-canaonical and apocryphal texts.  Of special concern was the authorship of of the Epistles.

The claims made in the field of [[Assyrian chronology]], and specifically as regards alleged synchronies between [[Assyria]]n rulers and certain kings of the [[Northern Kingdom]], became popular toward the end of the nineteenth century. This is the criticism that informed [[Edwin R. Thiele]]'s thesis that the writers of the Kings and Chronicles books used reign synchronies and lengths that were incomplete.

The claims made in the field of [[Assyrian chronology]], and specifically as regards alleged synchronies between [[Assyria]]n rulers and certain kings of the [[Northern Kingdom]], became popular toward the end of the nineteenth century. This is the criticism that informed [[Edwin R. Thiele]]'s thesis that the writers of the Kings and Chronicles books used reign synchronies and lengths that were incomplete.

In 1994, a group of forthright [[atheists]] started the Journal of Higher Criticism<ref name=JHC>[http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/index.htm Journal of Higher Criticism] at the [[Atheist]] Alliance. Has multiple additional links.</ref> and billed it as "a forthright attempt - in a time of scholarly neo-conservatism - to hark back to the bold historical hypotheses and critical interpretations associated with the great names of F. C. Baur and Tübingen." The phrase "scholarly neo-conservatism" is probably an attempt to link an apparent renewal of belief in [[God]] with a resurgence of ''political'' conservatism in the [[United States]] that culminated in a sharp reversal-of-fortunes of the two major political parties in the Federal Election of 1994. This Journal ceased publication in 2003, but the original site is still an active domain and has a recent (2007) copyright notice.

Atheists rarely study the Bible, but there is a small group that tries to revive some theories from the 19th century that most scholars now dismiss. They started the ''Journal of Higher Criticism''<ref name=JHC>[http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/index.htm Journal of Higher Criticism] at the [[Atheist]] Alliance. Has multiple additional links.</ref> and billed it as "a forthright attempt - in a time of scholarly neo-conservatism - to hark back to the bold historical hypotheses and critical interpretations associated with the great names of F. C. Baur and Tübingen."  

=== Biblical criticism understood to support Christian supernatural beliefs ===

=== Biblical criticism understood to support Christian supernatural beliefs ===

== See Also ==

== See Also ==

* [[Disputed Biblical Translations]]

* [[Disputed Biblical Translations]]