HISTORICAL CRITICISM

>literary criticism in the light of historical evidence or based on the context in which a work was written,
including facts about the author’s life and the historical and social circumstances of the time. This
contrasts with other types of criticism, such as textual and formal in which emphasis is placed on
examining the text itself while outside influences on the text are disregarded

> investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text"

>The goal of historical criticism, traditionally, has been to try to understand the text’s meaning in its
original context and to answer questions about the text, such as:

* Who wrote it?

* When was it written?

* What else what happening at the time of its writing?

* How did it come to be in the form we have it today?

* What did it mean to the people who first read or heard it?

Historical criticism has also often sought answers to the ever-elusive question of what is called
“authorial intent”: What did the author intend for this text to mean in his or her time and place?

Methods of Historical Criticism

Scholars use a variety of methods in attempting to answer these
questions, all of which draw on other fields of biblical and historical
scholarship, such as linguistics and archaeology.
Three of the most widely used methods are:
1. Source criticism. Source criticism questions whether texts came from a singular source,
author, or historical context, and seeks to untangle the sources present within any given text.For
example, source criticism reads the gospel of Matthew with an eye towards what material came
from other gospels or from Matthew’s own tradition. The gospel of Matthew shares some
material with the gospel of Mark, and other material with the gospel of Luke; a source critic
would be interested in which material is shared and how.

2. Form criticism. Form criticism seeks to understand the claims of a text by analyzing its
linguistic patterns.For example, form criticism reads the Gospel of Matthew with an eye towards
how certain words and expressions, like “the kingdom of heaven,” reflect the broader claims of
the text.

3. Redaction criticism. Redaction criticism analyzes how redactors (i.e., editors) wove together
various traditions into one whole.For example, redaction criticism reads the Gospel of Matthew
with an eye toward how Matthew changes or uses material from other traditions (like the gospels
of Mark and Luke) to fit the text’s broader claims.