Talk:Higher criticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm planning to refactor some of this material, especially relating to lower criticism to the textual criticism article. Stephen C. Carlson 02:13 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)
Items I'd like to mention: higher criticism got a bad name from the activities of the self-described radical critics of the 19th cen. As a result, a more neutral term is science of introduction. Also, it would be a good idea to separate out the OT and NT higher criticism in the article, as the results are very different. --Stephen C. Carlson 17:03 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)
Text removed from main article as it does not discuss higher criticism:
Contents |
[edit] Higher Criticism and Biblical Criticism
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)
- Never mind. :) I'll edit it and be bold. --Randolph 21:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think there is good reason to keep this article independent: the term, 'Higher Criticism,' has itself a history. This page contained some utter nonsense. E.g., there was no Tubingen connection between Ludwig Feuerbach (a youbger-generation 'left-wing' Hegelian) and Friedrich Schleiermacher (I excised 'School' and 'Tubingen'); the latter was a contemporary and opponent of Hegel. I failed to fix all that needs fixed, by any stretch of the imagination; and whether or not there is a merger, there are many things to be set straight. --
Terry Foreman 16:20, 1 Feb 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with "The Historical-Critical Method"
The page Historical-Critical Method already forwards to "Higher criticism". I suggest that The Historical-Critical Method (not a redirect at present) be merged with "Higher criticism." --Peter Kirby 14:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of the "The". What about historical criticism as the main page on this? (There is no one historical-critical method, but a collection of techniques...) Stephen C. Carlson 17:53, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
-
- I would prefer Historical-critical method as the main page, as that turn of phrase is (so far as I know) particular to biblical criticism. The page historical criticism should, I think, forward to historical method, which should be a good page on methodology in history generally. --Peter Kirby 21:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- I would prefer biblical criticism be the title with both historical criticism and the historical-critical method being subsets of biblical criticism. This is how most literature is written and wikipedia should follow suit. Many systematic theologies address these separately. --David Leaumont 23:38, 04 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Is the historical critical method only for Biblical criticism? So that wouldn't work. I like it how it is... relatively. Discuss the Historical critical method in abstracto and then have it break off into higher and lower criticism and higer Biblical criticism... Qur'anic criticism, etc. Merge would be bad and severely skew the article towards higher biblical criticism. gren グレン ? 15:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's how I see it. I basically like how it is, but minus the "The". We need an article not solely focused on higher crticism but also one that elaborates higher criticism, given its historical importance. But the two articles should cross-reference and be looked at carefully to avoid duplication, and to ensure that material is allocated between them in a logical way. Metamagician3000 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The Historical-Critical Method is a terrible article. I just reworked it some, removing first persons like "we" and "our lord", but it still presents the two-source hypothesis as fact, with no mention of competing scholarly views anywhere. On top of this, I think there are bigger things at work. Higher criticism and Textual criticism have their own pages. Moving up a level is Historical Criticism and The Historical-Critical Method which both try to generally cover higher and lower criticism (external criticism). Moving up another level is the Historical method, which covers external criticism (higher and lower), internal criticism, and synthesis. I think the middlemen (Historical Criticism and The Historical-Critical Method) are redundent and unnecessary. The first one is a stub that basically redirects to Biblical criticism. The latter is the page that I called terrible a few lines back. Both seem to deal with the bible exclusively, where the Historical method and Textual criticism articles speak more inclusively about these studies. There are problems across the board, however I would propose this: remove the content from both Historical Criticism and The Historical-Critical Method and redirect to Historical method. Alternatively, I'd propose The Historical-Critical Method redirect to Historical Criticism, and rework that one a bit (but what more can really be said that isn't covered here or on the individual lower and higher criticism pages?)--Andrew c 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] informal request for comment
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)
[edit] Applying a little source criticism to our article here...
...I deduce that someone's been copying. Read [1] and tell me if you spot any similarities. Wooster (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] a questionable mention
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)
