Lesson 3: HISTORICAL CRITICISMS
Historical criticism examines the origins of earliest text to appreciate the
underlying circumstances upon which the text came to be (Soulen and Soulen, 2001).
It has two important goals: First, to discover the original meaning of the text in its
primitive or historical context and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus.
Second, to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and
recipients of the text. Historical criticism has two types: external criticism and
internal criticism.
Historical criticism has its roots in the 17th century during the Protestant
Reformation and gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries (Ebeling,
1963). The absence of historical investigation paved the way for historical criticism to
rest on philosophical and theological interpretation. The passing of time has advanced
historical criticism into various methodologies used today: source criticism, form
criticism, redaction criticism, tradition criticism, canonical criticism, and related
methodologies (Soulen, 2001).
There are two parts to a historical criticism. The first part is to determine the
authenticity of the material. The critic should determine the origin of the material, its
author, and the sources of information used. External criticism is used in determining
these facts. The second part is to weigh the testimony to the truth. The critic must
examine the trustworthiness of the testimonies as well as determine the probability of
the statements to be true. This process is called internal criticism or higher criticism
since it deals with more important matters than the external form.
External criticism determines the authenticity of the source. The authenticity
of the material may be tested in two ways, by paleographical and diplomatic criticism.
The material must be investigated based on the time and place it is written. The critic
must determine whether the material under investigation is raw, meaning unaltered,
and it exists exactly as the author left it. The content must be viewed in every possible
angle, as forgery was not unknown during the Middle Ages. The authenticity of the
material can be examined from other genuine sources having the same subject or
written during the same period. The similarities or agreements and differences or
disagreements of some common details, such as the culture and traditions, and events
during the period by which the document was written can be a basis for judging the
authenticity of the text.
Internal Criticism determines the historicity of the facts contained in the
document. It is not necessary to prove the authenticity of the material or document.
However, the facts contained in the document must first be tested before any
conclusion pertaining to it can be admitted. In determining the value of the facts, the
character of the sources, the knowledge of the author, and the influences prevalent at
the time of writing must be carefully investigated. It must be ascertained first that the
critic knows exactly what the author said and that he understands the document from
the standpoint of the author. Moreover, the facts given by the author or writer must
be firmly established as having taken place exactly as reported.
16
Test of Authenticity
To distinguish a hoax or a misrepresentation from a genuine document, the
historian must use tests that are common also in police and legal detection. Making
the best guess of the date of the document, he examines the materials to see whether
they are not anachronistic: paper was rare in Europe before the fifteenth century, and
printing was unknown; pencils did not exist there before the sixteenth century;
typewriting was not invented until the nineteenth century; and Indian paper came
only at the end of that century. The historian also examines the inks for signs of age or
of anachronistic chemical composition.
Making the best guess of the possible author of the document, he sees if he can
identify the handwriting, signature, seal, letterhead, or watermark. Even when the
handwriting is unfamiliar, it can be compared with authenticated specimens. One of
the unfulfilled needs of the historian is more of what the French call “isographies” or
the dictionaries of biography giving examples of handwriting. For some period of
history, experts using techniques known as paleography and diplomatics, first
systematized by Mabillon in the seventeenth century, have long known that in certain
regions at certain times handwriting and the style and form of official documents were
conventionalized. Seals have been the subject of special study sigillographers, and
experts can detect fake ones. Anachronistic styles (idiom, orthography, or
punctuation) can be detected by specialists who are familiar with contemporary
writing. Often spelling particularly of proper names and signatures, reveal forgery as
would also unhistoric grammar.
Anachronistic references to events (too early or too late or too remote) or the
dating of a document at a time when the alleged writer could not possibly have been
at the place designated (the alibi) uncovers fraud. Sometimes the skillful forger has all
too carefully followed the best historical sources and his product becomes too
obviously a copy in certain passages; by skillful paraphrase and invention, he is given
away by the absence of trivia and otherwise unknown details from his manufactured
account. However, usually if the document is where it ought to be (e.g., in a family’s
archives, of in the governmental bureau’s record) its provenance (custody, as the
lawyers refer to it), creates a presumption of its genuineness (Gottschalk, 1969).
17