Oxford Bibliographies Your Best Research Starts Here Biblical Criticism Daniel J. Harrington LAST REVIEWED: 22 NOVEMBER 2022 LAST MODIFIED: 28 OCTOBER 2011 Dk: 10.1083/0809780195309361-0066 Introduction The term "biblical criticism” refers to the process of establishing the plain meaning of biblical texts and of assessing their historical accuracy. Biblical criticism is also known as higher crtcism (as opposed to “lower” textual riicism), historical criticism, and the historical-crtical method. The word “criticism” need not be interpreted negatively, as ifthe task were mainly criticizing the Bible or pointing out its errors. Rather, “eitcism” indicates the effort at using scientific criteria (historical and literary) and human reason to understand and explain as objectively as possible the meaning intended by the biblical writers. While the modern versions of biblical criticism have roots in patristic, medieval, Reformation, and Renaissance biblical interpretation, the earliest full statement of the approach came from the philosopher Baruch/Benedict Spinoza in his Tractatus Theologico-Polticus. Spinoza urged that the Bible should be treated lke any other book, that it should be read in the light of the rules of philology and history, that one must attend to the context of a passage within Scripture and establish the circumstances in which the book was written, that the Bible's truth (or untruth) can be recognized by the light of natural reason (without need of tradition or ecclesiastical interference), and that its miracle stories should be interpreted in terms of the physical laws of nature. Much in Spinaza’s declaration can be explained by its author's historical circumstances (excommunicated by the local synagogue) and philosophy (his idea of nature as a substitute for God). However, it has been possible for biblical scholars and churches to ignore Spinoza's philosophy and to develop a historical-ertical methodology that does not deny the basic tenets of Judaism and/or Christianity—so much so that the historical-critical method shorn of Spinoza's dubious philosophical assumptions has been repeatedly described in recent, official Roman Catholic documents as “indispensable” (though not completely adequate in itself in interpreting biblical texts, Introductory Works Spinoza 1989 sets forth the basic principles mixed in with that philosopher's own debatable assumptions. Sarr 2000 offers a critical reflection on current Old Testament study, and Barton 2007 defends the historical-crical method. Both Krentz 1975 and Fitzmyer 1995 show how the method has been accepted and adapted in mainline Christian biblical interpretation; Krentz does so from the dual perspective of classical philology and New Testament study, while Fitzmyer was one of the arc which he comments. Barton 1998 provides seminal essays on various aspects of biblical ctcism. Barton 2010 offers an accurate snapshot of where biblical eriticism stands today, while Collins 2005 looks toward its future in view of the emergence of postmodernism. 18 of the Catholic document on Barr, James. “Biblical Criticism.” in History and Ideology in the Old Testament: Biblical Studies at the End of a Millennium. By James Barr, 32-58. Hensley Henson Lectures for 1997. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Describes biblical criticism as analyzing a text in its historical setting and assessing the accuracy of its depiction of events, persons, and teachings. Barton, John, Press, 1998, The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge UniversityTwenty essays by British and American scholars on the methods of biblical interpretation and on the biblical books in modem interpretation Barton, John. The Nature of Biblical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Understands biblical criticism as establishing the plain meaning of the text, with the tools of Iterary and historical analysis. The best ‘modem statement about the topic Barton, John. The Bible: The Basics. London and New York: Routledge, 2010. concise, reliable, and accessible guide to the results of modem biblical ericism. Collins, John J. The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005, In the wake of postmodemism, biblical theology and ethics remain viable but will have to be more skeptical and self-critical Fitzmyer, Joseph A, The Biblical Commission's Document “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.” Subsidia Biblica 18, Rome: Pontifici Istituto Biblico, 1995, The document's description ofthe historical-ciical method and Fitzmyer's commentary and bibliography are among the clearest statements on biblical criticism today. Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method. Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975, Traces the rise of historical-citicl study against the background of classical philology and describes its goals, techniques, presuppositions, and achievements, Spinoza, Baruch. Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Translated by Samuel Shirley. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1989. The earliest (1670) comprehensive treatment of biblical ctcism, by a famous philosopher. Gebhardt edition, 1925. back to top Your subscription doesn't include the subject of this book, Copyright © 2028, All rights reserved.