1. Higher criticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
The Bible
Biblical canon and
books
Tanakh: Torah ·
Nevi'im · Ketuvim Old
Testament · Hebrew
Bible · New
Testament · New
Covenant ·
Deuterocanon ·
Antilegomena ·
Chapters and verses
Apocrypha: Jewish ·
OT · NT
Development and
authorship
Jewish Canon · Old
Testament canon ·
New Testament
canon · Mosaic
authorship · Pauline
epistles · Johannine
works
Translations and
manuscripts
Septuagint · Samaritan
Pentateuch · Dead Sea
scrolls · Targums ·
Peshitta · Vetus
Latina · Vulgate ·
Masoretic text · Gothic

2. Bible · Luther Bible ·
English Bibles
Biblical studies
Dating the Bible ·
Biblical criticism ·
Historical criticism ·
Textual criticism ·
Novum Testamentum
Graece · NT textual
categories ·
Documentary
hypothesis · Synoptic
problem · The Bible
and history · Biblical
archaeology
Interpretation
Hermeneutics ·
Pesher · Midrash ·
Pardes · Allegorical ·
Literalism · Prophecy
Views
Inerrancy ·
Infallibility ·
Criticism · Islamic ·
Qur'anic · Gnostic ·
Judaism and
Christianity · Law in
Christianity
This box: view • talk • edit
Historical criticism or Higher criticism is a branch of literary analysis that investigates
the origins of a text: as applied in biblical studies it naturally investigates foremost the
books of the Bible. In Classical studies, the new higher criticism of the nineteenth century
set aside quot;efforts to fill ancient religion with direct meaning and relevance and devoted
itself instead to the critical collection and chronological ordering of the source material,quot;[1]
Thus higher criticism, whether biblical, classical, Byzantine or medieval, focuses on the
sources of a document to determine who wrote it, when it was written, and where. For
example, higher criticism deals with the synoptic problem, the question of how Matthew,
Mark, and Luke relate to each other. In some cases, such as with several Pauline epistles,
higher criticism confirms the traditional understanding of authorship. In other cases, higher

3. criticism contradicts church tradition (as with the gospels) or even the words of the Bible
itself (as with 2 Peter). The documentary hypothesis, which attempts to chart the origins of
the Torah, is another key issue in higher criticism.
The Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1466? - 1536) is usually credited as the first to
study the Bible in this light,[2] although many of his methods are also found in the much
earlier writing of Saint Augustine (354 - 430).[citation needed]
Higher criticism is used in contrast with Lower criticism (or textual criticism), the
endeavour to determine what a text originally said before it was altered (through error or
intent). 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.
Diagram of the Documentary Hypothesis.
* includes most of Leviticus
†
includes most of Deuteronomy
‡
quot;Deuteronomic historyquot;: Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1& 2 Kings
Higher criticism treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical
time and for various human motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible as the
inerrant word of God. Lower criticism is used for attempts to interpret Biblical texts based
only on the internal evidence from the texts themselves.
As an example, consider the treatment of Noah's Ark in various editions of the
Encyclopedia Britannica. In the first edition, in 1771, the story of Noah and the Ark is
treated as essentially factual, and the following scientific evidence is offered, quot;...Buteo and
Kircher have proved geometrically, that, taking the common cubit as a foot and a half, the
ark was abundantly sufficient for all the animals supposed to be lodged in it..., the number
of species of animals will be found much less than is generally imagined,not amounting to
an hundred species of quadrupeds... .quot; By the eighth edition, however, the encyclopedia
says of the Noah story, quot;The insuperable difficulties connected with the belief that all other
existing species of animals were provided for in the ark are obviated by adopting the
suggestion of Bishop Stillingfleet, approved by Matthew Poole...and others, that the Deluge
did not extend beyond the region of the earth then inhabited...quot; By the ninth edition, in
1875, there is no attempt to reconcile the Noah story with scientific fact, and it is presented
without comment. In the 1960 edition, in the article Ark, we find the following, quot;Before the
days of quot;higher criticismquot; and the rise of the modern scientific views as to the origin of the
species, there was much discussion among the learned, and many ingenious and curious
theories were advanced, as to the number of animals on the ark...quot;[3]
Contents
[hide]
 1 History of Higher criticism

4.  2 Theological responses
o 2.1 Roman Catholic view
o 2.2 Protestant Christian view
 3 Types of higher criticism
o 3.1 Source criticism
 3.1.1 Redaction criticism
o 3.2 Form criticism and tradition history
o 3.3 Radical criticism
 4 Findings of higher criticism
o 4.1 Old Testament
o 4.2 New Testament
 5 Higher criticism of other religious texts
o 5.1 Qur'an
 6 See also
o 6.1 History of higher criticism
 7 References
 8 External links
 9 Notes
[edit] History of Higher criticism
The phrase quot;the higher criticismquot; became popular in Europe from the mid-18th century to
the early 20th century, to describe the work of such scholars as Jean Astruc (mid-18th
cent.), Johann Salomo Semler (1725-91), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827),
Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), and Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918).[4] In academic
circles today, this is the body of work properly considered quot;the higher criticismquot;, though
the phrase is sometimes applied to earlier or later work using similar methods.
Higher criticism originally referred to the work of German Biblical scholars, of the
Tübingen School. After the path-breaking work on the New Testament by Friedrich
Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the next generation which included scholars such as David
Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72) in the mid-nineteenth
century analyzed the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old
Testament times in search of independent confirmation of events related in the Bible. These
latter scholars built on the tradition of Enlightenment and Rationalist thinkers such as John
Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Hegel and
the French rationalists.
These ideas were imported to England by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and, in particular, by
George Eliot's translations of Strauss's life of Jesus (1846) and Feuerbach's The Essence of
Christianity (1854). In 1860 seven liberal Anglican theologians began the process of
incorporating this historical criticism into Christian doctrine in Essays and Reviews,
causing a five year storm of controversy which completely overshadowed the arguments
over Darwin's newly published On the Origin of Species. Two of the authors were indicted
for heresy and lost their jobs by 1862, but in 1864 had the judgement overturned on appeal.
La Vie de Jésus (1863), the seminal work by a Frenchman, Ernest Renan (1823–92),

5. continued in the same tradition as Strauss and Feuerbach. In Catholicism, L'Evangile et
l'Eglise (1902), the magnum opus by Alfred Loisy against the Essence of Christianity of
Adolf von Harnack and La Vie de Jesus of Renan, gave birth to the modernist crisis (1902–
61). Some scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, have used higher criticism of the Bible to
quot;demythologizequot; it.
[edit] Theological responses
The questions of higher criticism are widely recognized by Orthodox Jews and many
traditional Christians as legitimate questions, yet they often find the answers given by the
higher critics unsatisfactory or even heretical. In particular, religious conservatives object
to the rationalistic and naturalistic presuppositions of a large number of practitioners of
higher criticism that lead to conclusions that conservative religionists find unacceptable.
Nonetheless, conservative Bible scholars practice their own form of higher criticism within
their supernaturalist and confessional frameworks. In contrast, other biblical scholars
believe that the evidence uncovered by higher criticism undermines such confessional
frameworks. In addition, religiously liberal Christians and religiously liberal Jews typically
maintain that belief in God has nothing to do with the authorship of the Pentateuch. Most
serious Christian scholars accept many of the methods and conclusions that were so
shocking when they were first introduced.[citation needed]
[edit] Roman Catholic view
Pope Leo XIII (1810 - 1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his encyclical
Providentissimus Deus;[5], but in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship in
his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu: quot;[T]extual criticism ... [is] quite rightly employed in
the case of the Sacred Books ... Let the interpreter then, with all care and without
neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar
character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources
written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed.quot; [6]
Today the modern Catechism states: quot;#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.quot;
[edit] Protestant Christian view
Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Reformation, believed strongly in the literal truth of
scripture. He wrote, quot;All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in
His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd and false.quot; But at other
times, he accepted the authority of reason, so long as it did not contradict scripture. quot;Unless
I am convicted by the testimony of Sacred Scripture or by evident reason... my conscience
is captive to the Word of God.quot; He even used some of the methods that would later be
called quot;higher criticismquot; in his study of the Bible. He wrote, quot;The discourses of the
Prophets were none of them regularly committed to writing at the time; their disciples and

6. hearers collected them subsequently. ... Solomon's Proverbs were not the work of
Solomon.quot;[7]
Around the end of the 18th century Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, quot;the founder of modern Old
Testament criticismquot;, produced works of quot;investigation of the inner nature of the Old
Testament with the help of the Higher Criticismquot;.Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher
also influenced the development of Higher Criticism.
A group of German biblical scholars at Tübingen University formed the Tübingen school
of theology under the leadership of Ferdinand Christian Baur, with important works being
produced by Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach and David Strauss. In the early 19th century they
sought independent confirmation of the events related in the Bible throug Hegelian
h
analysis of the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament
times.[8][9]
Their ideas were brought to England by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, then in 1846 George
Eliot translated David Strauss's sensational Leben Jesu as the Life of Jesus Critically
Examined, a quest for the historical Jesus. In 1854 she followed this with a translation of
Feuerbach's even more radical Essence of Christianity which held that the idea of God was
created by man to express the divine within himself, though Strauss attracted most of the
controversy.[8] The loose grouping of Broad Churchmen in the Church of England was
influenced by the German higher critics. In particular, Benjamin Jowett visited Germany
and studied the work of Baur in the 1840s, then in 1866 published his book on The Epistles
of St Paul, arousing theological opposition. He then collaborated with six other theologians
to publish their Essays and Reviews in 1860. The central essay was Jowett's On the
Interpretation of Scripture which argued that the Bible should be studied to find the
authors' original meaning in their own context rather than expecting it to provide a modern
scientific text.[10][11]
Today, some Protestants oppose the methods of the higher criticism, and hold that the Bible
is divinely inspired and incapable of error, at least in its original form.[12]
[edit] Types of higher criticism
Source criticism: diagram of the two-source hypothesis, an explanation for the relationship
of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Higher criticism is divided up into sub-categories, including primarily source criticism,
form criticism, and redaction criticism.
[edit] Source criticism
Main article: Source criticism

7. Source criticism is the search for the original sources which lie behind a given biblical text.
It can be traced back to the 17th century French priest Richard Simon, and its most
influential product is undoubtably Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels
(1878), whose quot;insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern
biblical studies.quot;[13]
[edit] Redaction criticism
Main article: Redaction Criticism
Redaction criticism studies quot;the collection, arrangement, editing and modification of
sourcesquot;, and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the author/s
of the text.[14]
[edit] Form criticism and tradition history
Main article: Form criticism
Form criticism breaks the Bible down into sections (pericopes, stories) which are analyzed
and categorized by genres (prose or verse, letters, laws, court archives, war hymns, poems
of lament, etc). The form critic then theorizes on the pericope's Sitz im Leben (quot;setting in
lifequot;), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.[15] Tradition history is a
specific aspect of form criticism which aims at tracing the way in which the pericopes
entered the larger units of the biblical canon, and especially the way in which they made
the transition from oral to written form. The belief in the priority, stability, and even
detectability, of oral traditions is now recognised to be so deeply questionable as to render
tradition history largely useless, but form criticism itself continues to develop as a viable
methodolgy in biblical studies.[16]
[edit] Radical criticism
Main article: Radical Criticism
Radical Criticism, around the end of the nineteenth century, typically tried to show that
none of the Pauline epistles are authentic; that Paul is nothing but a controverted authorial
token. This group of scholars often postulated the ahistoricity of Jesus and the apostles.
[edit] Findings of higher criticism
Scholars of higher criticism have sometimes upheld and sometimes challenged the
traditional authorship of various books of the Bible.
[edit] Old Testament
Author according to Author according to
Book
tradition scholarship

8. Documentary hypothesis: Four independent
documents (the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist
and the Priestly source), composed between 900-
550 BC, redacted c 450 BC, possibly by Ezra
Supplementary models (e.g. John Van Seters):
Torah composed as a series of authorial
expansions of an original source document,
Torah usually identified as J or P, largely during the 7th
(Pentateuch, Moses, c 1300 BC and 6th centuries BC, final form achieved c. 450
Books of Moses) BC.
Fragmentary models (e.g. Rolf Rendtorff, Erhard
Blum): Torah the product of the slow accretion of
fragmentary traditions, (no documents), over
period 850-550 BC, final form c. 450 BC.
Biblical minimalism: Torah composed in
Hellenistic-Hasmonean period, c. 300-140 BC.
Joshua with a portion Deuteronomist using material from the Jahwist
Joshua
by Phinehas or Eleazar and Elohist
Judges Samuel Deuteronomist
Ruth Samuel A later author, writing after the time of David
1 Samuel Deuteronomist as a combination of a Jerusalem
Samuel, Gad, and source, republican source, the court history of
2 Samuel Nathan David, the sanctuaries source, and the monarchial
source
1 Kings
Perhaps Ezra Deuteronomist
2 Kings
1 Chronicles The Chronicler, writing between 450 and 435 BC,
Ezra
2 Chronicles after the Babylonian captivity
The Chronicler, writing between 450 and 435 BC,
Ezra Ezra
after the Babylonian captivity
Nehemiah using some The Chronicler, writing between 450 and 435 BC,
Nehemiah
material by Ezra after the Babylonian captivity
Tobit A writer in the second century BC
Eliakim (Joakim), the
Judith
high priest of the story
The Great Assembly
An unknown author writing between 460 and 331
Esther using material from
BC
Mordecai
A devout Jew from the An unknown Jewish author, writing around 100
1 Maccabees
Holy Land. BC
Based on the writing of An unknown author, writing in the second or 1st
2 Maccabees
Jason of Cyrene century BC
3 Maccabees An Alexandrian Jew writing in Greek in the first

9. century BC or first century AD
An Alexandrian Jew writing in the first century
4 Maccabees Josephus
BC or first century AD
Job Moses A writer in the 4th century BC.
Mainly David and also
Asaph, sons of Korah,
Various authors recording oral tradition. Portions
Psalms Moses, Heman the
from 1000BC to 200BC.
Ezrahite, Ethan the
Ezrahite and Solomon
Solomon, Agur son of
An editor compiling from various sources well
Proverbs Jakeh, Lemuel and
after the time of Solomon
other wise men
A Hebrew poet of the third or second centuries BC
using the life of Solomon as a vista for the
Hebrews' pursuit of Wisdom. An unknown author
Ecclesiastes Solomon
in Hellenistic period from two older oral sources
(Eccl1:1-6:9 which claims to be Solomon,
Eccl6:10-12:8 with the theme of non-knowing)
Song of
Solomon
Solomon
An Alexandrian Jew writing during the Jewish
Wisdom Solomon
Hellenistic period
Jesus the son of Sirach
Sirach
of Jerusalem
Three main authors and an extensive editing
process. Is1-39 quot;Historical Isaiahquot; with multiple
Isaiah Isaiah
layers of editing. Is40-55 Exilic(Deutero-Isaiah) &
Is56-66 post-exilic(Trito-Isaiah).
Jeremiah Jeremiah Baruch ben Neriah[17]
Disupted and perhaps based on the older
Mesopotamian genre of the quot;city lamentquot;, of
Lamentations Jeremiah
which the Lament for Ur is among the oldest and
best-known
Letter of
Jeremiah A Hellenistic Jew living in Alexandria
Jeremiah
An author writing during or shortly after the
Baruch Baruch ben Neriah
period of the Maccabees
Disputed, with varying degrees of attribution to
Ezekiel Ezekiel
Ezekiel
Daniel, sixth century An editor/author in the mid-second century BC,
Daniel
BC using older folk-tales for the first half of the book
Hosea Hosea
Joel Joel
Amos Amos
Obadiah Obadiah
Jonah Jonah Possibly a post-exilic (after 530 BC) editor

10. recording oral traditions passed down from the
eighth century BC
The first three chapters by Micah and the
Micah Micah
remainder by a later writer
Nahum Nahum
Habakkuk Habakkuk
Disputed; possibly a writer after the time period
Zephaniah Zephaniah
indicated by the text
Haggai Haggai
Zechariah (chapters 1-8); the later remaining
Zechariah Zechariah designated Deutero-Zechariah, were possibly
written by disciples of Zechariah
Malachi Malachi or Ezra Possibly the author of Deutero-Zechariah
[edit] New Testament
Author according to Author according to
Book
tradition scholarship
Mark, follower of anonymous, perhaps Mark, follower of
Gospel of Mark Peter; mid 1st Peter; mid to late 1st century; the first
century written gospel
An unknown author who borrowed from
Gospel of Matthew The Apostle Matthew both Mark and a source called Q, late 1st
century
Luke or an unknown author who
Luke, companion of
Gospel of Luke borrowed from both Mark and a source
Paul
called Q, late 1st century
An unknown author with no direct
connection to the historical Jesus; John
Gospel of John Apostle John
21 finished after death of primary author
by follower(s); the last written gospel
Luke, companion of Luke or an unknown author who also
Acts of the Apostles
Paul wrote the Gospel of Luke
Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Philippians, 1 Paul the Apostle, see
Paul
Thessalonians, Epistle to Pauline epistles
Philemon
Ephesians Paul the Apostle Paul or edited dictations from Paul
Disputed; perhaps Paul coauthoring with
Colossians Paul the Apostle
Timothy
An associate or disciple after his death,
2 Thessalonians Paul the Apostle representing what they believed was his
message[18]
1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, see Paul the Apostle pseudepigraphal, perhaps someone
Pastoral epistles associated with Paul, writing at a later
date

11. see Authorship of the Pauline epistles
Paul the Apostle An unknown author, but almost certainly
Epistle to the Hebrews
(disputed) not Paul[19], c 95
A writer in the late first or early second
James James the Just centuries, after the death of James the
Just
Apostle Peter, before
pseudepigraphal or perhaps Silas,
1 Peter 64 (Peter's
proficient with Greek writing, 70-90
martyrdom)
pseudepigraphal, certainly not Peter[20],
Apostle Peter, before
2 Peter perhaps as late as c 150 AD, the last-
64
written book of the Bible
An unknown author with no direct
1 John Apostle John connection to the historical Jesus Same
as Gospel of John, late 1st century
An unknown author with no direct
Apostle John
2 John, 3 John connection to the historical Jesus, final
(sometimes disputed)
Editor of John 21, c 100-110
A pseudonymous work written between
Jude the Apostle or
Jude the end of the first century and the first
Jude, brother of Jesus
quarter of the 2nd century
distinct author, perhaps John of Patmos
Apostle
(not the same author as the Gospel of
Book of Revelation John(sometimes
John or 2 & 3 John)
disputed)
see Authorship of the Johannine works
[edit] Higher criticism of other religious texts
Both higher and lower forms of criticism are carried out today with the religious writings
of many religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism.
[edit] Qur'an
Modern higher criticism is just beginning for the Qur'an. This scholarship questions some
traditional claims about its composition and content, contending that the Qur'an
incorporates material from both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament; however, other
scholars argue that it cites examples from previous texts, as the New Testament did to the
Old Testament. For example, Islamic history records that Uthman collected all variants of
the Qur'an and destroyed those that he did not approve of.
Further information: Origin and development of the Qur'an
[edit] See also
 Biblical criticism
 Textual criticism (lower criticism)

12.  Documentary hypothesis
 Synoptic Problem
 Historical-grammatical
 Historical-grammatical method
 Biblical genres
 Misquoting Jesus
[edit] History of higher criticism
 Alexander Geddes
 Edwin Johnson (historian)
[edit] References
 Gerald P. Fogarty, S.J. American Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A History from the
Early Republic to Vatican II, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1989, ISBN 0-06-
062666-6. Nihil obstat by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.
[edit] External links
 Rutgers University: Synoptic Gospels Primer: introduction to the history of literary
analysis of the Greek gospels, and aids in confronting the range of factors that need
to be taken into consideration in accounting for the literary relationship of the first
three gospels.
 Journal of Higher Criticism
 From the Divine Oracle to Higher Criticism
 Catholic Encyclopedia article quot;Biblical Criticism (Higher)quot;
 Dictionary of the history of Ideas - Modernism and the Church
 Teaching Bible based on Higher Criticism
 quot;Historical Criticism and the Evangelicalquot; by Grant Osborne
 quot;From the Divine Oracle to Higher Criticismquot; from The Warfare of Science With
Theology by Andrew White, 1896
 Catholic Encyclopedia article (1908) quot;Biblical Criticism (Higher)quot;
 Dictionary of the history of Ideas: Modernism in the Christian Church
[edit] Notes
1. ^ Burkert, Greek Religion (1985), Introduction.
2. ^ Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, p. 125, Touchstone, 1961, ISBN 0-671-
20159-X,
3. ^ All quotations from the article quot;Arkquot; in the 1960 Encyclopedia Britannica
4. ^ The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2007
5. ^ Fogarty, page 40.
6. ^ Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943.
7. ^ Will Durant, The Reformation, Simon and Schuster, 1957, p. 361-371

13. 8. ^ a b Glenn Everett, Associate Professor of English, University of Tennessee at
Martin (1988). The Higher Critics. The Victorian Web. Retrieved on 2007-11-06.
9. ^ Tubingen School. Retrieved on 2007-11-06.
10. ^ Glenn Everett, Associate Professor of English, University of Tennessee at Martin
(1988). Essays and Reviews (1860). The Victorian Web. Retrieved on 2007-11-06.
11. ^ Josef L. Altholz, Professor of History, University of Minnesota (1976). The
Warfare of Conscience with Theology. The Mind and Art of Victorian England.
Victorian Web. Retrieved on 2007-11-06.
12. ^ Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
13. ^ Antony F. Campbell, SJ, quot;Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Textsquot;, in
The Hebrew Bible in Modern Study, p.6. Campbell renames source criticism as
quot;origin criticismquot;.
14. ^ [http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/facstaff/murphy/cour es/exegesis/redaction.htm
s
Religious Studies Department, Santa Clara University.
15. ^ Bibledudes.com
16. ^ Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The
Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003
17. ^ Miller, Stephen M., Huber, Robert V. (2004). The Bible: A History. Good Books,
page 33. ISBN 1561484148.
18. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the
Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford, p.385; Beverly Roberts Gaventa,
First and Second Thessalonians, Westminster John Knox Press, 1998, p.93;
Vincent M. Smiles, First Thessalonians, Philippians, Second Thessalonians,
Colossians, Ephesians, Liturgical Press, 2005, p.53; Udo Schnelle, translated by M.
Eugene Boring, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 315-325; M. Eugene Boring, Fred B.
Craddock, The People's New Testament Commentary, Westminster John Knox
Press, 2004 p652; Joseph Francis Kelly, An Introduction to the New Testament for
Catholics, Liturgical Press, 2006 p.32
19. ^ http://religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=531&C=563 Richard Heard,
Introduction To The New Testament
20. ^ Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament,
second edition. HarperCollins Canada; Zondervan: 2005. ISBN-10 0310238595,
ISBN-13 978-0310238591. p.659.
Retrieved from quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticismquot;
Categories: Biblical criticism
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced
statements since February 2008
Views
 Article
 Discussion
 Edit this page
 History
Personal tools

14.  Log in / create account
Navigation
 Main Page
 Contents
 Featured content
 Current events
 Random article
Interaction
 About Wikipedia
 Community portal
 Recent changes
 Contact Wikipedia
 Donate to Wikipedia
 Help
Search
Toolbox
 What links here
 Related changes
 Upload file
 Special pages
 Printable version
 Permanent link
 Cite this page
Languages
 Dansk
 Deutsch
 Français
 Interlingua
 Nederlands
 This page was last modified on 6 April 2008, at 09:39.

15.  All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See
Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S.
registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
 Privacy policy
 About Wikipedia
 Disclaimers