The methods of textual criticism are two, comparison of documentary evidence, and con jecture. Where material for the former is abundant, as in the New Testament, the latter has little place. Where such material is scanty, as in the Old Testament, conjecture must be used, although it should always be with caution.
The chief principles generally recognized in the etnployment of documentary evidence are the following: (1) The weight of manu script evidence is to be considered, although this alone cannot be decisive. The weight of evidence does not come from a mere enumera tion of manuscripts, but must take into con sideration their division into classes and rela tion to each other, with special reference to their genealogical relation, that is, the deriva tion of one from another or of two or more from a common earlier manuscript. The result of such study is that some manuscripts are to be regarded as of much' greater value than others. But any estimate of the value of a manuscript is itself based in large measure upon the question of the correctness of its readings. Hence such judgments can be only tentative or there is danger of reasoning in a circle. (2) The most comprehensive and generally accepted principle is this, that read ing is to be preferred which best explains the others. A special application of this is often stated thus, the more difficult reading is to be preferred. But that is by no means uni versally the case, it applies particularly to deliberate changes, and is of comparatively little importance in relation to the Old Testa ment. (3) The reading should be suitable to the context. On this point, however, there is obviously an especially wide opportunity for difference of opinion.
Higher Criticism of the Bible, Histori cally Considered.— For a discussion concern ing the nature of Higher Criticism see the article, HIGHER CRITICISM. The employment of Higher Criticism must have characterized Biblical study from the earliest times, no thor ough study could be made without its use in some measure. A few of the early Church fathers, notably Origen, particularly illustrate this. But such early use was unsystematic and comparatively unimportant. It is only in modern times that Higher Criticism has become one of the most important elements in Biblical study.
Higher Criticism, being a study of internal evidence, proceeds by an inductive method. The use of inductive methods is one of the prominent characteristics of modern science. Without doabt the large use of Higher Criti cism in modern times is simply one phase of the general scientific progress of this period, it is the application of scientific method of literary study. evidence used in Higher Criticism may be conveniently classified as of three kinds, literary, historical, and that arising from the thought. In the historical development of Higher Criticism these three varieties of evi dence have become successively prominent in the order named.
Especially at first the use of Higher Criti cism was much greater in connection with the Old Testament than with the New Testament, although the general historical development was similar in the two cases. Hence in this brief historical account it is the application to the Old Testament that will be more largely con sidered.
Some use of Higher Criticism was made at the time of the Reformation and after. But the beginning of any systematic use, and so of the really modern period, should be put in 1753. In that year Jean Astruc, a French phy sician, published (Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont it paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese.) This presents the view that Moses in writing Genesis• made use of two earlier documents, in one of which God was known as Jehovah and in the other as Elohim. The evidence he presents is thus purely literary. J. G. Eichhorn, i his 'Einleitung ins Ake Testament) (17W-83), called attention to the fact that the Jehovah and Elohim sections were also characterized by dif ferences of style, and that the same documents are to be discerned in the remainder of the Pentateuch. He first called this method by the name Criticism,' and treated the whole Old Testament from this standpoint. The general type of view which he presented has been called the ("document-theory. The 'frag ment-theory* of Alexander Geddes, which ap pears in 'The Holy Bible, or the Books ac counted Sacred by Jews and Christians, etc.) (1792-97), does not 41iffgr from it in principle, but contemplates smaller .documents, or f rag ments. Others followed along the line of each of these views.