What is Upper (Higher) Biblical Criticism? An Explanation.

A Preface

By Michael Seymour


When I started college in 1990, I had determined in my mind that I wanted to achieve a BA degree in Political Science, and then to graduate from Law School. When I was about half way through my undergraduate studies, my path took an unexpected turn.  I had taken a Religious Studies class, which I deeply enjoyed, and when I took the final exam for that class I wrote a three to five page essay on the subject of Grace. While I wrote the essay I felt the presence of God very close to me and was very blessed.  About a week later I found a note on my car under the windshield wiper, it was from my professor, and Chairman of the Religious Studies Department of the University of West Virginia, the late Manfred Meitzen. He asked me in the note to call him to find a time when we could sit down and chat a while.  So I did call, and we met together in his Office and talked about my essay which He appreciated very much. He asked me if I would consider coming over to the the Religious Studies Department, and changing my major to Religious Studies.

I told Manfred I would get back to Him.  I prayed over the matter for a few days, and felt that sweet gentle flow of the Holy Ghost moving in my heart.  So I switched my major to Religious Studies.  I have never been sorry in any way for that decision, it was the second greatest decision I had ever made, next to asking the Lord Jesus into my heart, and for Him to fill me with the Holy Ghost.  What I gained in that switch of majors I am not quite able to articulate in words.  It was a blessing, and has continued to bless my heart as the years have passed.  I find it to be a great honor to have studied under Manfred, who studied under Helmut Koester, the former Chairman of Religious Studies at Harvard University.  Also if I am not mistaken, Helmut studied under Rudolph Bultmann whose name appears below.  Manfred had a tremendous mind, and deeply respected Helmut Koester, Rudolph Bultmann, Paul Tillich, and Karl Bart.  In essence I was privileged to study under these men as well through Manfred and their Books,  all of whom by the way were Lutheran Ministers.

The material below occupied much of subject matter that I studied.  It was an awesome experience for me as it answered so very many questions for me that I could not find answers to.  Probably the Greatest blessing as I will call it, that I received from my studies within this discipline, was that it gave me a tremendously strong foundation to build upon as I furthered my studies.  It gave to me a strong historical foundation, and the Historical Contexts of which I lacked!  I understand it therefore now that my minor was to end up being in History.  This historical foundation revealed to me the History of Israel, and the Middle East, from the Sumerians onward with the development of the Semitic Peoples, there religious origins, and their early beliefs, oral traditions, which would eventually become written traditions, some of which would make up a large portion of our Bibles today.  It further revealed to me what it was like (as much as it is possible understand) to live in a very ancient world, with no science, no empirical wisdom, no rationalism, very little technology if any, until the Egyptian dynasties.

A world where magic, and mysticism was in abundance. Where the World was flat, no system of mechanics, and the then known world was very very small.  Where disasters were the Wrath of the Gods, or God.  It revealed to me the Evolutionary process of a people, which started with Abraham, to Jacob, to Moses, to David, to Jesus, the Historical, and societal changes that came over a long period of time.  During this time Oral traditions developed and were the guiding force until the first Psalm was written at about 1000 B.C. , and then most of the Old Testament was put into writing just before, during, and somewhat after the Exile to Babylon, 591 B.C., to the 1st century B.C.  There were many changes to their religious views, and interpretations of events, and their societal rules over the centuries.  Our Bibles reflect many of the changes during this very long process and development of a people, the Hebrews.

Our Bibles contain, about 3500 years of reflection, wisdom, societal changes, religious and cultural understandings of the People of Israel.  Mankind is over time shaped, and reshaped by World Views that change as Knowledge, and Wisdom increases. Mankind is forever learning, thus forever changing.  I personally believe that it is God that increases Mans knowledge and wisdom over time.  All things change along with this to include Religious understanding.  Within this framework, or backdrop I began to learn How the Bible was written over a long period of time, and by whom.  I learned how to read the bible in different ways.  Criticism means to Study! We typically read the Bible from a Devotional Perspective, and we should as Christians.  However, we should also read it critically, or from an analytical perspective:

  1. relating to or using analysis or logical reasoning.

By reading the Scripture critically you can ascertain a lot of very valuable information on many levels.  For example, you will begin to understand how the Bible was written, what and who were the sources of the information.  How was this information edited, and modified for particular audiences that the documents were written for.  Secondly, and probably more importantly you will gain insight to the ” sitz im leben,” or settings in life of the community the document was written for, and of the authors/editors.  By reaching an understanding of the sitz im leben, you then understand how the context of the words written are couched.  Thus gaining a close contextual understanding of the scripture.  You see, something was said to people of different times and places, and something was meant in a context and setting of that time!  The original meaning of the statements are what you will begin to gain.  Jesus was 100 percent Jewish, and His religion was Judaism.  He was a very Devout Jewish man.  His thinking was Jewish, His culture was Jewish, and His worldview was Jewish.  The Gospels are enamored with Jewish thought, with over 155 explicit references to the Old Testament Scriptures.  With many hundreds of Allusions, and Echoes, from Old Testament.

Over 360 explicit references to the Old Testament within the New Testament.  In order to understand the New Testament deeply, one has to obtain a deep understanding of the Old Testament.  The New Testament and it’s context are couched in the Old Testament!  This understanding is not gained just with devotional readings of the Scripture.  A deep understanding comes by reading the Bible like an Investigator, using analysis, and systematic study.  This is what Upper or Higher Biblical Criticism is about. The document below is very concise, but informative, and with many links for you to begin to study the Bible at a Higher Level, that is Historically, and Critically.

One should understand that this type of study of the scripture has been resisted by many of the Religious Traditionalists since the first century, and perhaps somewhat before.  This type of study of the scripture gained a lot of traction, and notoriety in the 18th century study by German Scholars.  I would like to share below an example of this type of resistance from one of the most brilliant theological minds of the very early 19th century, by Moses Stuart, Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover, 1827:

“The knowledge of these facts, resulting from repeated experience, first led me to the design of publishing in extenso, on the Epistle to the The Hebrews.  The repeated solicitations which have been made, that I would engage in this undertaking, might perhaps constitute some apology for embarking in it, if such an apology were necessary.  But the time has come, when in our country (USA), no apology is necessary for an effort to promote the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, or to cast any light upon them.  There is an apprehension, at present, somewhat extensive and continually increasing, that no one age, nor any body of men pertaining to it, have done all which the human faculties, with the blessing of God, are capable of accomplishing.  Christians, in this country, are coming more and more to believe, that as the church advances nearer to that state, in which “the knowledge of the Lord shall fill the earth as the waters cover the seas,” a better understanding of the Scriptures may be confidently hoped for and expected….Should it be said, that the German writers, whom I have opposed, are as yet unknown in this country, and that it was expedient to make them known;  the allegation would only shew how little acquainted the person who makes it is, with the actual state of our present knowledge, and with the relations with which we stand to the German authors.  Our youth are everyday resorting to Germany for education;  our colleges are filling up with professors, who have been educated there;  the language of Germany is becoming an object of classical study in our public Seminaries of Learning;  and in a multitude of ways, through the medium of translations as well as by the knowledge of the German Language, is the literature of Germany producing an influence upon our own.

In this state of things the attacks made upon the Pauline origin, or upon the canonical credit, of the Epistle to The Hebrews, cannot be kept back from the knowledge of our intelligent and industrious students.  It is better, therefore, to meet the whole matter with an open face, fairly to examine it, and either to yield to the force of arguments suggested by the critics of the old world, or to combat them in such a way as effectually to defend the positions that we take. Christian candor and impartiality demand this.  The day of authority in the church is passed by;  it is to be hoped, that the day of sound reason and of argument, is to follow.  It is better to convince men by an appeal to their understandings and their hearts, than it is to terrify them by holding the rod of authority over them, or to deter them from speaking out their convictions by arguments ad invidiam…..

Our religion seeks no concealment;  it fears no assaults.  If it will not stand the test of sober reason and of argument, it will not long have place in the world, among enlightened men.  Those who shrink from such tests, and declaim against the use of our reason, shew their want of confidence in the cause which they profess to espouse.  If they did but know it, they are already half won over, to the ranks of doubters or of unbelievers.” Moses Stuart’s Preface to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume 1.  Mr. Stuart expresses a concern and view of the state of education, both religious, and secular in 1827, and no doubt somewhat before.  He is not protesting Biblical Criticism, he is protesting Radical Criticism, which you will see below.  It was at this time that a massive German immigration was taking place in the US, and culminating with 1 out of every 5 Americans being of German Stock.  The German influence on all aspects of American life was strong, and all in all good.  As with any new inertia of thought, things can be taken to far, such as the claims of Radical Criticism.  It does not mean that Biblical Criticism is in any way a bad thing.  Mr. Stuart proclaims above that the Scripture can stand up to scrutiny, and he is correct.  May the Lord Bless You continually as you begin a new level of study of the Scripture as He did for me.


Historical criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient text in order to understand “the world behind the text”.[1]

The primary goal of historical criticism is to ascertain the text’s primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. This may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events which the text describes. An ancient text may also serve as a document, record or source for reconstructing the ancient past which may also serve as a chief interest to the historical critic. In regard to Semitic biblical interpretation, the historical critic would be able to interpret “The Literature of Israel” as well as “The History of Israel”.[2]

In 18th century Biblical criticism, the term higher criticism was commonly used in mainstream scholarship [3] in contrast with lower criticism. In the 21st century, historical criticism is the more commonly used term for higher criticism, while textual criticism is more common than the loose expression lower criticism.[4]

Historical criticism began in the 17th century and gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries. The perspective of the early historical critic was rooted in Protestant reformation ideology, in as much as their approach to biblical studies were free from the influence of traditional interpretation.[5] Where historical investigation was unavailable, historical criticism rested on philosophical and theological interpretation. With each passing century, historical criticism became refined into various methodologies used today: source criticismform criticismredaction criticismtradition criticismcanonical criticism, and related methodologies.[2]




Historical-critical methods are the specific procedures [1] used to examine the text’s historical origins, such as: the time, the place in which the text was written, its sources, the events, dates, persons, places, things, and customs that are mentioned or implied in the text.[2]

The approach of Historical-critical methods typifies the following: (1) that reality is uniform and universal, (2) that reality is accessible to human reason and investigation (3) that all events historical and natural are interconnected and comparable to analogy, (4) that humanity’s contemporary experience of reality can provide objective criteria to what could or could not have happened in past events.[1]


Application of the historical critical method, in biblical studies, investigates the books of the Hebrew Bible as well as the New Testament. Historical critics compare texts to other texts written around the same time. An example of this is when modern biblical scholarship has attempted to understand the Book of Revelation in its1st century historical context, by identifying its literary genre with Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.

In regard to the Gospelshigher criticism deals with the synoptic problem, the relations among MatthewMark, and Luke. In some cases, such as with severalPauline epistleshigher criticism can confirm the traditional understanding of authorship. High criticism understood the New Testament texts within a historical context: that is, that they are not adamantine, but writings that express the traditio (what is handed down). Its great achievement is to short-circuit those who believe that certain books are word for word truth. the truth lies in the historical context.

In Classical studies, the 19th century approach to higher criticism set aside “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.”[6] Thus, higher criticism, whether biblical, classical, Byzantine or medieval, focuses on the source documents to determine who wrote it, when it was written, and where.

Historical/higher criticism has also been applied to other religious writings from HinduismBuddhismConfucianism, as well as the Qur’an.


Diagram of the Documentary Hypothesis.

* includes most of Leviticus
includes most of Deuteronomy
Deuteronomic history“: Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1& 2 Kings

Historical criticism comprises several disciplines which include:[2]

Source criticism[edit]

Main article: Source criticism

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 “insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies.”[7]

Form criticism[edit]

Main article: Form criticism

Source criticism: diagram of the two-source hypothesis, an explanation for the relationship of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

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 (“setting in life”), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.[8] 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 methodology in biblical studies.[9]

Redaction criticism[edit]

Main article: Redaction Criticism

Redaction criticism studies “the collection, arrangement, editing and modification of sources”, and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the author/s of the text.[10]

Radical criticism[edit]

Main article: Radical Criticism

At the end of the 19th Century, there have been advocates of higher criticism, who strenuously tried to avoid any trace of dogma or theological bias when reconstructing a past reality. This has led to the branch of Radical Criticism, pursued by historical critics most skeptical of ecclesial tradition and dismissive toward sympathetic scholarship. Radical criticism has projected the concept that Jesus never existed,[1] nor his apostles. Radical critics have also attempted to show that none of the Pauline epistles are authentic; that Paul is nothing more than a controverted (conflated) authorial token.


The Dutch scholars Desiderius Erasmus (1466? – 1536) and Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677) are usually credited as the first to study the Bible in this way.[11] When applied to the Bible, the historical-critical method is distinct from the traditional, devotional approach.[12] In particular, while devotional readers concern themselves with the overall message of the Bible, historians examine the distinct messages of each book in the Bible.[12] Guided by the devotional approach, for example, Christians often combine accounts from different gospels into single accounts, whereas historians attempt to discern what is unique about each gospel, including how they are different.[12]

The phrase “higher criticism” 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 century), Johann Salomo Semler (1725–91), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), and Julius Wellhausen(1844–1918).[13] In academic circles today, this is the body of work properly considered “higher criticism”, 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-19th 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 LockeDavid HumeImmanuel KantGotthold LessingGottlieb FichteG. W. F. 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 The 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), 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 themodernist crisis (1902–61). Some scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann have used higher criticism of the Bible to “demythologize” it.


Scholars of higher criticism have sometimes upheld and sometimes challenged the traditional authorship of various books of the Bible.[14] Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each book.

Old Testament[edit]

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 through Hegelian analysis of the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times.[15][16]

Their ideas were brought to England by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, then in 1846 Mary Ann Evans 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 Christianitywhich held that the idea of God was created by man to express the divine within himself, though Strauss attracted most of the controversy.[15] 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 topublish 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.[17][18]

New Testament[edit]


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.

Attempts at higher criticism of the Qur’an have met with hostility and resistance among traditional Islamic scholars, who contend that using the methods of higher criticism either implies that the Qur’an was written by human beings—a position incompatible with the generally accepted tenet that the Qur’an is the literal word of God revealed to Muhammad—or that the Qur’an was created, a position held by the Mu’tazili school of early Islam but rejected by the Ash’ari school that forms the basis for mainstream Islamic thought today. Attempts to resolve the issue or sidestep it, such as Nasr Abu Zayd‘s attempt to treat the Qur’an as a divinely revealednaṣṣ (text) in the human Arabic language and thus subject to higher criticism and hermeneutics, have not been widely accepted.


Views on higher-criticism[edit]

Higher criticism was recognized to varying extents, by Orthodox Jews and many traditional Christians, yet they often found that higher critics gave unsatisfactory or even heretical interpretations. In particular, religious conservatives object to the rationalistic and naturalistic presuppositions of a large number of practitioners of higher criticism, which lead to conclusions that conservative scholars find unscientific.

Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus while affirming the need for a balanced historical study of the Scriptures.[30] However, in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu: “[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.” [31]

Today, many Evangelical 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][32] Within academia, the new hermeneutics inspired by critical theory has eclipsed earlier critical approaches such as higher criticism.[33]

Views on historical-methods[edit]

The historical-critical method of Biblical scholarship is taught widely in Western nations, including in many seminaries.[12] According to Ehrman, most lay Christians are unaware of how different this particular academic view of the Bible is from their own.[12] Conservative evangelical schools, however, often reject this approach, teaching instead that the Bible is completely inerrant in all matters (in contrast to the less conservative Protestant view that it is infallible only in matters relating topersonal salvation, a doctrine called biblical infallibility) and that it reflects explicit divine inspiration.[12] However, the Catholic Church, while teaching inerrancy,[34]also allows for more nuance in interpretation than would conservative Evangelical schools, because of its historical understanding of the “four senses of Scripture”.[35] In The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” the need for historical criticism is clearly expressed and affirmed.

With Protestant historical-criticism, the movement of rationalism as promoted by Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), held that reason is the determiner of truth. Spinoza did not regard the Bible as divinely inspired, instead it was to be evaluated like any other book. Later rationalists also have rejected the authority of Scripture.[36]

See also[edit]


  1. Jump up to:a b c d Soulen, Richard N.; Soulen, R. Kendall (2001). Handbook of biblical criticism (3rd ed., rev. and expanded. ed.). Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 78. ISBN 0-664-22314-1.
  2. Jump up to:a b c d Soulen, Richard N. (2001). Handbook of Biblical Criticism. John Knox. p. 79.
  3. Jump up^ Hahn, general editor, Scott (2009). Catholic Bible dictionary (1st ed. ed.). New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-51229-5.
  4. Jump up^ Soulen, Richard N. (2001). Handbook of Biblical Criticism. John Knox. pp. 108, 190.
  5. Jump up^ Gerhard Ebeling. Word and Faith. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1963
  6. Jump up^ Burkert, Greek Religion (1985), Introduction.
  7. Jump up^ Antony F. Campbell, SJ, “Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Texts”, in The Hebrew Bible in Modern Study, p.6. Campbell renames source criticism as “origin criticism”.
  8. Jump up^ Bibledudes.com
  9. Jump up^ Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003
  10. Jump up^ Religious Studies Department, Santa Clara University.
  11. Jump up^ Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, p. 125, Touchstone, 1961, ISBN 0-671-20159-X,
  12. Jump up to:a b c d e f g Ehrman, Bart D.Jesus, Interrupted, HarperCollins, 2009. ISBN 0-06-117393-2
  13. Jump up^ The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2007
  14. Jump up^ Dates for the Sacred Texts of the Jewish and Christian Traditions: Athabasca University
  15. Jump up to:a b Glenn Everett, Associate Professor of English, University of Tennessee at Martin (1988). “The Higher Critics”. The Victorian Web. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
  16. Jump up^ “Tubingen School”. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
  17. Jump up^ Glenn Everett, Associate Professor of English, University of Tennessee at Martin (1988). “Essays and Reviews (1860)”. The Victorian Web. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
  18. Jump up^ 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 2007-11-06.
  19. Jump up^ New American Bible: Job
  20. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Dates for the Sacred Texts of the Jewish and Christian Traditions
  21. Jump up^ Miller, Stephen M., Huber, Robert V. (2004). The Bible: A History. Good Books. p. 33. ISBN 1-56148-414-8.
  22. Jump up^ New American Bible: John
  23. Jump up^ see Signs Gospel for more on reconstruction of original John
  24. Jump up^ Vindicating the Integrity of John’s Gospel
  25. Jump up^ 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
  26. Jump up^ http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=531&C=563 Richard Heard, Introduction To The New Testament
  27. Jump up^ New American Bible: James
  28. Jump up^ Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, second edition. HarperCollins Canada; Zondervan: 2005. ISBN 0-310-23859-5ISBN 978-0-310-23859-1. p.659.
  29. Jump up^ New American Bible: Jude
  30. Jump up^ Fogarty, page 40.
  31. Jump up^ Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943.
  32. Jump up^ Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
  33. Jump up^ IVP New Bible Commentary 21st Century edition. p11
  34. Jump up^ [1], Chapter III, par. 11.
  35. Jump up^ [2]
  36. Jump up^ Klein, William W. William Wade; Craig Blomberg; Robert L Hubbard; Kermit Allen Ecklebarger (1993). Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas, Tex.: Word Pub. ISBN 0-8499-0774-8. Page 43


  • Gerald P. Fogarty, S.J. American Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A History from the Early Republic to Vatican II, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1989, ISBN 0-06-062666-6Nihil obstat by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.
  • Robert Dick Wilson, “Is the Higher Criticism Scholarly? Clearly Attested Facts Showing That the Destructive ‘Assured Results of Modern Scholarship’ Are Indefensible, reprinted in Christian News, vol. 29, no. 9 (4 March 1991), p. 11-14.

External links[edit]



For More on This Subject Click on Link Below:



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s