Historical criticism, also called the historical-critical method, is a way of studying ancient texts to learn about the time and place in which they were written. It focuses on understanding "the world behind the text" and delays judging whether the text is true or important until after it has been carefully interpreted. This method is often used to study religious texts like those from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but it is also applied to other writings from different cultures and time periods.

A historian using historical criticism has several goals. First, they want to understand what the text says and how it was meant to be understood by the people who first read it. This is sometimes called the "intended meaning" of the text. Second, they examine how trustworthy and reliable the sources are. Sources are like witnesses to the past, but they may not always tell the full story. Historians look at the writer's purpose, biases, and whether the information is consistent. Even sources that did not intend to share information but ended up doing so are valuable. Historians must consider all possible explanations and use evidence to decide which ones are most likely true. In biblical studies, relying only on religious texts is not enough. Instead, historians also study other writings, archaeological findings, and other sources. They must respect the text's own meaning, finding it within the text itself rather than adding their own ideas or assumptions.

The start of historical criticism is often linked to the Age of Enlightenment, but it actually began during the Renaissance. It developed in the 17th century and became widely known in the 19th and 20th centuries. Early historians were influenced by the Protestant Reformation, which challenged old ways of interpreting texts. Over time, historical criticism evolved into many methods, such as studying language (philology), comparing different versions of texts (textual criticism), analyzing writing styles (literary criticism), and examining sources, forms, and how texts were edited (source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition criticism, and canonical criticism).

Definition

Historical-critical methods are the steps used to study a text's past, including when and where it was written, its sources, and the people, places, events, and customs it mentions or suggests. Scholars who use these methods may revise their conclusions based on new evidence, so some findings are likely but not certain. This process helps a field improve over time, as earlier mistakes can be corrected later, and it helps people today understand past events with greater confidence.

Using the historical-critical method means analyzing a text both critically and historically. Reading a text critically means examining it carefully to find evidence and question assumptions. Reading a text historically means considering the time and place in which it was written to understand its meaning in that context.

Historical events are often connected, meaning changes in one cause can affect related outcomes. A method called historicism may be used, where cause-and-effect relationships are studied using methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is an approach from science that only considers natural causes, not supernatural ones. However, the historical-critical method can also be used without methodological naturalism. Some approaches that allow supernatural causes may still question their use if they rely on unexplained events or favor religious ideas without clear evidence.

In general, natural explanations are often preferred because they match what scientists and historians know about the world. Even when supernatural causes are not ruled out, natural explanations may be favored for being more consistent with regular scientific and historical understanding.

Methods

Historical criticism includes several areas of study: textual criticism, source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition criticism, and radical criticism.

Textual criticism aims to find the original version of a text. This is often needed before using other methods, because knowing what the text originally said helps analyze its sources, style, and history. The challenge is that the original writings (called autographs) of the Bible have not survived, and the copies (manuscripts) have differences. These differences can be small, like spelling errors or missing words, or larger, such as the ending of Mark 16 or the Johannine Comma. Textual critics compare all these differences to determine which version is most likely the original.

Source criticism looks for the original sources that influenced a text. It focuses on written sources, while oral sources are studied in form criticism. An example is the Documentary Hypothesis, which suggests the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) came from five earlier written sources: J, E, P, and D. Source criticism also helps solve the Synoptic Problem, which asks how the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are related, and whether a shared source called "Q" exists. Recently, similar methods have been used in studying the Quran.

Form criticism identifies and analyzes "forms" in a text, which are patterns or structures that make certain types of writing recognizable. For example, letters, hymns, parables, and announcements often follow specific formats. In the Old Testament, prophetic messages often begin with "Thus says the Lord." Many of Jesus’ sayings, like the Beatitudes, also have clear structures. Form critics study (1) the type of text, such as a letter or parable, (2) the real-life situations where the text was used, (3) how forms were passed down orally before being written, and (4) how these forms changed over time.

Redaction criticism examines how sources were collected, arranged, edited, and changed to create a final text. While source and form criticism focus on the origins of the text’s parts, redaction criticism looks at how the author modified earlier material before the final version was written. This process is called redaction, and the person who did it is called the redactor. A redactor might choose which parts to include, add comments, or clarify details. If multiple redactors worked over time, the text might go through several stages. Comparing the text to similar writings, like the Books of Kings and Chronicles, can help understand this process. Over time, scholars have separated redaction criticism into two areas: redaction criticism (which looks at changes over time) and composition criticism (which focuses on how the final text was structured). Composition criticism studies how different parts were combined into a unified whole, while redaction criticism looks at the text’s development through time. There is no clear line between the two, but composition criticism focuses more on the final structure, and redaction criticism on the process of change.

Controversy

A discussion has arisen about the terms "historical" and "critical" in the historical-critical method. Two issues are raised about the word "historical": (1) Critical methods are not only historical but also involve literary analysis, and (2) The word "history" is too broad. It can mean the reconstruction of events behind a text, the study of a text's own history, the intended meaning of a text, or an approach that ignores supernatural elements. For these reasons, John Barton prefers the term "biblical criticism." Others argue that literary methods can also have historical aspects, such as examining the historical context that influenced authors. They also note that "historical-critical method" does not need to include all critical approaches, only those focused on historical questions. Thus, "biblical criticism" can refer to all critical Bible studies, while "historical criticism" refers only to those tied to historical events.

Some worry that the word "critical" might suggest a negative judgment of the text. However, in the historical-critical method, "critical" means objective evaluation, not hostility. It emphasizes using methods thoroughly to reach conclusions, regardless of the outcome.

The status of the historical-critical method as a "method" has been questioned. Andrew Louth argues it assumes an objective reality and meaning within a text that can be discovered by skilled interpreters. John Barton says it is not as systematic as the "scientific method." He explains that the scientific method is applied step-by-step, with conclusions drawn only from results. In contrast, methods like source criticism require prior understanding of the text. David Law responds by saying the historical-critical method is similar to the scientific method in that both start with a hypothesis, test it, and adjust it based on results. Neither method is free of assumptions.

Some argue that the historical-critical method forces a secular view, ignoring spiritual truths. David Law counters that this is a misunderstanding. He explains the method avoids assuming a theological perspective but does not rule out spiritual truths. It allows study without bias toward any conclusion. The idea of divine inspiration is not rejected but treated as irrelevant to analysis.

Since the 1970s, historical criticism has faced challenges. First, many scholars have shifted focus from historical questions to literary ones centered on the reader. Postmodernist scholars question the idea of a single "original meaning" of a text. Second, feminist theologians argue historical criticism is not neutral but reinforces the dominance of Western male perspectives. They claim all readings, including those using historical criticism, are influenced by social, political, and class interests. Supporters of historical criticism respond by saying literary criticism can complement, not replace, historical methods. They also note that feminist and postcolonial approaches can be integrated into historical criticism to address biases. As a result, historical criticism has been expanded, corrected, and improved through new methods, rather than declining.

History

Throughout history, many writers and scholars have used methods similar to those of the historical-critical approach. For example, some early Christian leaders, called Church Fathers, debated whether certain biblical books were written by the people they are traditionally believed to have written. They used style and language to decide if Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews or if the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were written by the same person. Jerome noted that many people doubted whether the Apostle Peter wrote the Second Epistle of Peter. Julius Africanus argued in a letter to Origen that the story of Susanna in the Book of Daniel might not be real. Augustine believed that studying secular knowledge helped understand the Bible better, rather than relying only on claims of divine inspiration. The Exegetical School of Antioch was known for challenging symbolic interpretations of the Bible, which were common in the School of Alexandria. In 1440, Lorenzo Valla proved the Donation of Constantine was a fake by analyzing language, law, history, and politics. The Protestant Reformation encouraged reading the Bible directly, without relying heavily on tradition. During the Middle Ages, symbolic interpretations became less important, but they remained popular until the Renaissance. Scholars in this period focused on returning to original sources, collecting and checking manuscripts, creating critical editions of religious texts, and learning ancient languages. The rise of Bible translations in local languages and Protestantism challenged the Catholic Church’s control over interpreting the Bible. Joachim Camerarius argued that the Bible should be read from the authors’ perspectives, while Hugo Grotius believed it should be understood in its historical context. John Lightfoot emphasized the Jewish background of the New Testament, which required studying rabbinic texts. The rise of Deism and Rationalism further questioned traditional views of the Bible. For example, Johann August Ernesti saw the Bible as a collection of different writings rather than a single unified work.

Historical criticism of the Bible began with Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677). The term "higher criticism" became widely used in Europe from the mid-18th to the early 20th century to describe the work of scholars like Jean Astruc (1684–1766), Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), and Wellhausen (1844–1918). Today, "higher criticism" refers to the academic study of the Bible using historical and critical methods, though the term sometimes applies to earlier or later similar work. The phrase "historical-critical" was first used in the 17th century and later adopted in biblical studies in the 19th century.

"Higher criticism" originally described the work of German scholars from the Tübingen School. After Friedrich Schleiermacher’s groundbreaking study of the New Testament, scholars like David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872) examined Middle Eastern historical records from biblical times to find evidence of events described in the Bible. These scholars built on ideas from Enlightenment and Rationalist thinkers such as John Locke (1632–1704), David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831), and French rationalists.

These ideas influenced English thinkers like Samuel Taylor Coleridge and George Eliot, who translated works by Strauss and Feuerbach. In 1860, seven liberal Anglican theologians began using historical criticism in Christian teachings, leading to a major controversy in their book Essays and Reviews. This debate overshadowed the controversy over Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Two authors faced accusations of heresy and lost their jobs, but their ruling was overturned in 1864. In 1863, Ernest Renan (1823–1892), a French scholar, wrote La Vie de Jésus, continuing the work of Strauss and Feuerbach. In Catholicism, Alfred Loisy’s L’Évangile et l’Église (1902) challenged earlier works, leading to the modernist crisis (1902–1961). Scholars like Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) used higher criticism to reinterpret the Bible’s stories, a process called "demythologizing."

Reception in religious circles

The Catholic Church did not use historical criticism as a method to study the Bible until the twentieth century. This method was not accepted by the Council of Trent in 1546, which emphasized the Church’s way of interpreting the Bible instead of personal opinions. This decision was repeated by the First Vatican Council in 1869–1870. In 1907, Pope Pius X criticized historical criticism in a document called Lamentabili sane exitu. However, by the mid-twentieth century, attitudes changed. In 1943, Pope Pius XII allowed historical criticism in an encyclical called Divino afflante Spiritu, calling it a duty. Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown called this document a "Magna Carta for biblical progress." In 1964, the Pontifical Biblical Commission published a document called Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, which supported the method and explained how to use it for understanding the Bible. The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) also supported this approach. Later, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, which further explained the method.

Because of these changes, Roman Catholic scholars began working in universities and made important contributions to the study of the Bible. However, Catholic theologian Scott Hahn said:

— Hahn and Wiker (2021)

On April 23, 1993, the Pontifical Biblical Commission published The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, which outlined the steps of the historical-critical method:

• Textual criticism: This involves comparing the oldest and best-quality manuscripts, ancient translations, and writings by early church leaders to find the version of the Bible closest to the original.
• Linguistic analysis: This studies the structure and meaning of words using historical methods.
• Form criticism: This examines repeated or conflicting parts of the Bible to understand its sources and divide texts into smaller units.
• Tradition criticism: This looks at how oral traditions influenced the written texts and how they changed over time.
• Redaction criticism: This analyzes how the final version of a text was edited, focusing on the message the author wanted to share. This is the only step that focuses on the text as it exists today, not its history.

The historical-critical method can also include evaluating whether events in the Bible actually happened. The Pontifical Biblical Commission also mentions other methods, such as analyzing how language is used, studying symbols, and examining storytelling techniques.

In 1966, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations supported the Church’s acceptance of historical criticism, as the Catholic Church had done earlier. However, in 1973, the commission rejected this method.

Starting in the nineteenth century, evangelical scholars and writers opposed the ideas of historical critics. At the time, some evangelicals claimed that historical critics treated religious beliefs as facts. Many church leaders, such as James Orr, William Henry Green, and others, argued against historical criticism. Some of these views are still supported in certain conservative evangelical groups. Protestant denominations have not agreed on this issue, with debates like the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy and the Downgrade controversy. Most evangelical scholars prefer the historical-grammatical method of interpreting the Bible, but many modern university scholars do not. Some well-known evangelicals, including Gleason Archer Jr., C. S. Lewis, and Scott W. Hahn, rejected the historical-critical method.

Some evangelical Christians believe that historical criticism has contributed to a decline in church attendance, fewer people converting to Christianity, and a loss of belief in the Bible’s supernatural elements. Accepting historical criticism led to different views about Protestant Christianity. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (Article XVI) supports the belief that the Bible is without error, but it does not directly respond to historical criticism.

Meanwhile, some scholars, such as Robert M. Price, Darrell J. Doughty, and Hermann Detering, have tried to revive extreme ideas from the Dutch Radical School of historical criticism. However, these views are not widely accepted and are mostly discussed in small publications like the Journal of Higher Criticism.