HIGHER CRITICISM, The. The higher criticism is a science whose aim is the deter mination of the literary history of books and writings. It sets forth the facts and principles by which we must determine, in the case of any writing, its its unity, its dates the place of its composition, its authorship, the method of its composition or construction, its integrity and the amount and character of any subsequent editing it has received, so far as these matters can be discovered by the use of such internal evidence as is presented in the writing itself. It is thus the science for ascer taining the literary form and the literary his tory of any writing by means of internal evi dence. These same matters may also be deter mined, in part or in whole, by external evidence in many cases; that is, by history or tradition. This latter method will not necessarily be either better or worse than the method which employs internal evidence. The greater probability of the result, in every case, will depend upon the amount and the character of the evidence which is attainable. Sometimes external evi dence may be more abundant and trustworthy than the internal evidence, and sometimes the reverse may be true.
The science under consideration is termed higher criticism to distinguish it from the re lated science of lower, or textual, criticism. This latter science has for its object the ascer taining of the history of writings as the work of penmen and printers. It seeks to determine just the words and the letters which the author himself wrote, and what are the changes which his work has suffered in transmission. Since the literary history of a writing is, on the whole, of more importance than the history of the written or printed text, the science of the literary history is justly termed the higher criticism.
The higher criticism is a science which is equally applicable to all literatures. It may be used to determine the literary history of a writ ing of any age, language or people. But, of late, it has been especially brought into notice in its application to the literature of the Bible. On this account, it is sometimes spoken of as if it were a science belonging to Biblical study only. But the fact is that Biblical higher criti cism is only one department of higher criticism in general.
As employed in Biblical study, higher criti cism adopts the following method: (1) it sets forth the principles by which, according to the teachings of general literary criticism, we may correctly determine the literary form, the unity, the date, the place of composition, the author ship, the method of composition or construction, the integrity, the amount and character of sub sequent editing, of each of the Biblical books and writings; (2) it then presents the evidential facts to be found in each of the Biblical books and writings, to which these principles will apply; and (3) finally it gives the conclusions which result from the application of these prin ciples to the evidential facts. In practice, how ever, different schools of Biblical higher critics come to very different conclusions upon the same basis of evidential facts, while using the same principles of criticism. This results from the varying opinions held by these critics in relation to the value and significance of the evidential facts, due to their differing views about the history of Israel, and their philo sophical convictions concerning the place of the supernatural in that history. Those critics who refuse to allow the existence of any super natural element in the history of Israel, and hold that this history was the product of only those forces which shape and determine all human history, so that it was exactly like the history of every other people, cannot put the same value and meaning upon the historical testimony and references to be found in the Biblical books, as those critics must who be lieve that the history of Israel was, to no in considerable extent, a supernatural history, and, therefore, different from the history of every other people. In the case of the Old Testa
ment, for example, some critics hold, because of their philosophical opinions in regard to the supernatural, and the universality of the work ing of the evolutionary forces of history, that the historical material of the Old Testament, as we now have it, is not to be accepted as the true basis of Old Testament history, and that this history must be constructed out of this material, under the guidance of some philo sophical theory. Other critics accept the his torical material which is now to be found in the Old Testament, as furnishing in itself the true Old Testament history. Since the eviden tial facts used in higher criticism receive their value and meaning from their evident relation to a previously determined history, it is clear that each of two so different histories cannot be a basis for the same critical conclusions. But it is to be noted that the determination of the histories is not a work of higher criticism, but is a matter which results from the philo sophical opinions held by historians. The con sequence of these facts is that the only results which have thus far been reached by Biblical higher criticism, which all schools of critics would accept, seem to be: (1) The existence of different documents in the Pentateuch, which have been used in its compilation, although there is, among critics, quite a little difference of view in relation to the age of these docu ments and the time of their compilation into the Pentateuch; (2) the plural authorship of the books of the Old Testament known as the books of Isaiah and Zechariah; and (3) the fact that older sources have been used in the making of the synoptic gospels and the book of Acts. From all that has been said, it will be seen that it is not the duty of higher criti cism to assert or deny anything in relation to the inspiration of the Scriptures, or their au thority for belief or conduct. With these mat ters this science has absolutely nothing to do.
Bibliography.—Anderson, 'The Bible and Modern Criticism' (1902) ; Cheyne, T. K., 'Founders of Old Testament Criticism' (Lon don 1892) ; Jacobus, M. W., •(A. Problem in New Testament Criticism' (New York 1900) ; Kent, C. F., 'Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament' (1911) ; Lias, 'Principles of Biblical Criticism' (1893) • McFadyen, 'Old Testament Criticism and the thristian Church' (1903) ; Nash, H. S., 'History of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament' (New York 1900) ; Nicoll, 'The Church's One Foundation: Christ and Recent Criticism' (1901) ; Orr, 'The Problem of the Old Testament Considered with Reference to Recent Criticism' (1906) ; Peters, 'The Old Testament and the New Scholarship' (1901) ; Rishell, 'The Higher Criticism' (1893) ; i Smith, W. R., 'The Old Testament in the Jewish Church' (Edinburgh 1892)Wellhausen, J., 'Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels> (5th ed., Berlin 1899) ; Zenos, 'The Elements of the Higher Criticism' (1895).