Talk:Historical criticism/Archive 1

message: Lower textual criticism of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and the Talmud is considered legitimate by all branches of Judaism, and has a long history in traditional rabbinic commentators.   
Since the Enlightenment this endeavor has come under withering attack from some rabbis within Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, who view all forms of scholarship in regards to religion as opening the door to what they claim is heresy.
Lower textual criticism of the New Testament and later Church writings is considered legitimate by many branches of Christianity today, and has a long history in traditional Christian commentators. Academics within the Catholic Church are especially open and receptive to lower textual criticism.
----
----
I would like to get a link from here to the article on liberal christianity.  I saw an opportunity in the sentence about 'liberal Jews and Christians', but I didn't want to play with the text too much to try to fit it in.  If anyone has any ideas on how to fit it in I would appreciate it. --Randolph 21:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. :)  I'll edit it and be bold. --Randolph 21:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Higher Criticism and Biblical Criticism

message: Would people who regularly follow/contribute to this article please look at Yahwism and the talk page, where I express my concerns?  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  informal request for comment 

message: ...I deduce that someone's been copying.  Read  and tell me if you spot any similarities.  Wooster (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applying a little source criticism to our article here... 

message: Someone over at Positive Christianity has claimed that that movement evolved from higher criticism, and this is what that article's Origins of the idea section currently states. I'm not qualified to decide it that's true, but editors here should go check out these claims because if they are false then it's a slander against higher criticism and should be put to rest. — coelacan talk — 04:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a questionable mention 

message: This article is pretty dry. 
It defines more than it shows.
A casual reader isn't going to easily see the crux of the issue and why HC is so controversial.
I'd like to add a table that shows the results of HC, that is, what have critics concluded about dates and authorship.
Books of the Bible                                                              	Traditional authorship                      	Critical authorship
Torah (Pentateuch, Books of Moses)                                              	Moses, c 1300 BC                            	redacted c 400 BC, possibly by Ezra, based on various older works
Gospels of Matthew and Mark                                                     	Matthew, Mark; mid 1st century              	anonymous, mid to late 1st century
Gospel of Luke, Acts                                                            	Luke, companion of Paul                     	anonymous
Gospel of John, 1 John                                                          	Apostle John                                	anonymous
2 John, 3 John                                                                  	Apostle John (sometimes disputed)           	single, distinct author
Revelation                                                                      	John the Apostle (sometimes disputed)       	distinct author (not the same as the Gospel of John or 2 & 3 John)
Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon	Paul                                        	Paul
Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians                                          	Paul                                        	no consensus
1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus                                                        	Paul                                        	pseudopedigraphical
Epistle to the Hebrews                                                          	Paul (disputed)                             	anonymous, c 95
1 Peter                                                                         	Apostle Peter, before 64 (Peter's martyrdom)	pseudopedigraphical, 70-90
2 Peter                                                                         	Apostle Peter, before 64                    	pseudopedigraphical, perhaps as late as c 150 AD, the last-written book of the Bible
Jonathan Tweet 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  findings of higher criticism 

message: The 19th century saw a surge in academic study of religion, especially in Germany. Is there a name for this movement? David Strauss, historical Jesus, higher criticism, advances in lower criticism, study of early church documents, Adolf Harnack, history of religions, etc. Is there an article that deals with this development in its own right, a sort of roll-up? Jonathan Tweet 14:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German religious studies in the 19th century 

message: I passed by - with a copyedit and tag. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍  contributions 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Too much emphasis is placed on criticism of religion when the values of Higher Criticism are most clearly expressed when applied to the whole strata of human existence. Hurry with the article, please.
ParlerVousWiki 08:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it it wasn't vandalism. i intend to rebuild the page with actual content about higher criticism. As it was it was only about historical criticism in Bible studies which is not the same thing.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher Criticism is about more than just religion 

message: What about the Aramaic translations of the New Testament? I was under the impression that the Aramaic copies were original. Secos5 02:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus spoke Aramaic, but hardly anyone wrote in Aramaic. Generally, people wrote Greek, as did both the Gentile and Jewish authors of the New Testament. Leadwind 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aramaic Translations

message: This article appears a bit biased toward Higher Criticism, as this quote illustrates: "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." This is an assumption based upon an a priori acceptance that H-C holds the key to resolving original content and intent. Also, it lacks links and comparisons to other interpretive schools, including the Historical-grammatical Method. Finally, I think more should be said about the origins and early uses of this method, its various permutations, and distinctions drawn between Biblical and non-biblical use of Historical Criticism.
--Xrysostom 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and Scholarly Depth Questioned

message: Is this page similar enough to Historical criticism to warrant a merger? I wasn't quite sure, so I haven't put any merge tags on the page. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page merge? 

message: Someone over at Positive Christianity has claimed that that movement evolved from higher criticism, and this is what that article's Origins of the idea section currently states. I'm not qualified to decide it that's true, but editors here should go check out these claims because if they are false then it's a slander against higher criticism and should be put to rest. — coelacan talk — 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a questionable mention 

message: *The Catechism states...#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."
*Caetchism #100 cites Dei Verbum which states... 12. To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
*Dei Verbum 12 cites... St. Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine" III, 18, 26; PL 34, 75-76. and Pius XII, loc. cit. Denziger 2294 (3829-3830); EB 557-562. His quotes can be found at 
*CONCLUSION: The secondary sources the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites Dei Verbum which cites the Church Father Saint Augustine of Hippo as the primary source for the Historical-critical method among other sources. 
*It is an error to say Dei Verbum and the Catechism are wrong or are not the Church position on this topic.(Runwiththewind 22:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be very welcome indeed.  The section is currently drowning in original research, and all prior attempts to introduce actual secondary sources have been unilaterally reverted. -- Cat Whisperer 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: tick is correct in asserting that it does not need to be understood as a reversal of position. (Runwiththewind 08:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cat rejects that Vatican II is infallible.  and wants to paint it in a bad light by making unfounded claims that the Church has reversed its position. Tick has already explained, as have I, that cat's view does not need to be understood as a reversal of position. (Runwiththewind 06:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if, as you say, it does not need to be so understood (and you have yet to provide sources for that other than your own interpretations), the fact that prominent sources widely interpret it that way is enough reason to include that view in Wikipedia. To simply delete views of which you do not approve goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please stop doing this.Rbreen 08:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since there is no critic that the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum references St. Augustine as a source for the historical-critical method (as proved at the start of this topic header) I have put it back in the article. Dei Verbum is Dogma. (Runwiththewind 10:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Catechism, Dei Verbum and Saint Augustine on the Historical-Critical Method 

message: I added the dispute tag because there is already a dispute ongoing at traditionalist Catholics that is managing to find its way across to other articles like this one and Church Dogma like Dei Verbum. (Runwiththewind 10:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag added 

message: The phrase "the higher criticism" is one I have run into fairly often in my reading, and I think we need an article focused on this movement.  As it happens, I haven't run into the phrase "academic-critical method".  I did a Google search on the phrase, and only got two hits, both of which use the phrase in a general rather than in a specific sense, and neither of which include the hyphen.  For example, "It is noteworthy that, at a time when the prevailing academic critical method was... ."  This suggests that the phrase is not used often enough to be the title of a separate article.  Rick Norwood 13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article title should not have a "the" in it. It should be "Higher criticism". Srnec 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The MoS style says not to use it (here), and I have seen the phrase used without the article (i.e. Journal of Higher Criticism not Journal of The Higher Criticism).-Andrew c [talk] 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic-critical method 

message: Thanks for an excellent edit. Rick Norwood 15:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave souza edit