CRITICISM
word
'criticiam'
is
also
taken
in
its
popular
sense
as
im-plying
captiousness
and
faultfinding.
Further,
the
most
starthng,
and
therefore
the
most
generally
observed,
results
of
criticism
being
destructive
of
preconceived
notions,
criticism
itself
has
been
regarded
as
a
negative
process,
and
even
aa
an
attack
on
the
Bible
It
is
not
to
he
denied
that
there
are
Higher
Critics
whose
arguments
may
be
construed
in
this
way;
but
these
are
a
minority,
and
there
are
also
Higher
Critics
who
are
not
only
loyal
to
the
Divine
revelation
m
Scripture,
but
whose
work
may
be
described
as
largely
constructive.
Higher
criticism
itself
is
neutral;
it
has
no
bias;
it
is
a
scientific
process.
The
champions
of
accepted
views
are
compellea
to
use
this
process
when
arguing
with
scholars
who
take
up
positioiis
with
which
they
disagree.
But,
strictly
speaking,
it
is
not
a
con-troversial
weapon.
It
is
a
powerful
instrument
for
ascer-taining
facts
aoout
the
history
of
the
Bible.
Seeing,
how-ever,
that
a
certain
amount
of
odium
has
been
attached
to
the
title
—
however
unwarrantably—
;perhap3
it
would
be
better
to
substitute
a
phrase
less
liable
to
misinter-pretation
—
such
aa
the
expression
'Historical^
method.'
For
in
point
of
fact
it
is
in
the
application
of
this
method,
which
has
been
found
so
fruitful
in
other
regions
of
study,
to
the
Bible,
that
the
actual
work
of
the
Higher
Criticism
is
carried
on.
The
several
parts
of
Scripture
are
viewed
in
their
places
in
the
total
development
of
the
literature
to
which
they
belong,
with
regard
to
the
spirit
of
the
times
in
which
they
were
produced,
and
as
themselves
throwing
light
on
the
problem
of
their
own
origin
and
purpose.
In
place
of
the
external
evidence
of
testimony
conjoined
to
mere
tradition,
attention
is
now
given
more
carefully^
to
the
internal
evidenceof
literary
and
doctrinal
characteristics.
Traces
of
the
'Higher'
Criticism
are
to
be
discovered
among
the
Fathers,
e.g.
in
Origen
with
his
discussion
of
the
authorship
of
Hebrews,
in
Dionysius
of
Alex-andria's
critical
objections
to
the
ascription
of
the
Revelation
to
the
author
of
the
Fourth
Gospel,
etc.
It
was
revived
at
the
Renaissance
by
Reuchlin
and
Erasmus,
and
it
was
fearlessly
pursued
by
Martin
Luther.
But
the
scientific
development
of
the
method
begins
with
MichaeUs
(1750)
and
Semler
(1771),
especially
the
latter,
for
MichaeUs
did
not
fully
develop
his
critical
views
till
he
issued
the
4th
ed.
of
his
Introduction
to
the
NT
(1788).
Eichhorn
went
further
in
raising
a
criticism
of
the
NT
Canon
(1804),
and
was
opposed
by
Hug,
a
Roman
Catholic
writer,
in
a
very
scholarly
work.
A
little
later
came
de
Wette
(1826),
who
pursued
the
new
critical
method
with
moderation
and
great
precision
of
scholar-ship.
Credner
followed
on
similar
lines
(1836).
Mean-while
Guericke,
Olshausen,
and
Neander
opposed
the
contemporary
trend
of
criticism.
A
new
departure
was
taken
by
Ferdinand
Christian
Baur
in
1831,
who
introduced
the
'tendency'
criticism,
the
result
of
which
has
come
to
be
known
as
the
'
Ttibingen
hypothesis,'
according
to
which
there
was
a
sharp
division
in
the
early
Church
between
St.
Paul
and
the
twelve
Apostles,
and
which
regarded
the
several
NT
books
as
in
some
cases
inspired
by
the
tendency
of
one
or
other
of
these
parties,
and
as
in
other
cases
written
with
a
view
to
effect
a
reconciliation
between
them
in
the
interest
of
a
subsequent
Catholic
unity.
Zeller
(1842)
and
Schwegler
(1846)
followed
on
the
same
hnes.
A
little
later
(1850)
one
of
Baur's
disciples,
Albrecht
Ritschl,
threw
a
bomb-shell
into
the
Tubingen
camp
by
starting
from
the
same
position
as
his
master,
but
advancing
to
very
different
conclusions.
The
'Tubingen
hypothesis
was
advocated
in
England
by
S.
Davidson;
but
its
extreme
positions
have
been
given
up
by
most
scholars,
although
it
had
a
later
representative
in
Hilgenfeld,
and
its
spirit
has
been
continued
in
Pfleiderer.
Meanwhile
new
problems
have
emerged,
represented
in
a
free
critical
manner
by
the
Holtzmanns,
Weizsacker,
Wernle,
etc.,
while
the
Ritschhan
school
has
been
brought
down
to
recent
times
in
Harnack,
JOlicher,
etc.
A
line
of
negative
criticism,
first
seen
in
Bruno
Bauer
(1850),
who
gave
up
all
historicity
in
the
Gospels,
and
denied
the
genuineness
of
any
of
St.
Paul's
Epistles,
was
revived
during
the
latter
part
of
the
19th
cent,
in
Holland,
by
Loman
and
Steck.
Schmledel
took
up
an
extreme
negative
position
with
regard
to
the
Gospels,
but
he
CROCODILE
has
since
modified
it,
and
Van
Manen
has
argued
against
the
genuineness
of
all
St.
Paul's
Epistles.
In
the
second
half
of
the
last
cent,
the
historicity
of
the
Gospels
and
the
genuineness
of
all
the
PauUne
Epistles
were
maintained
by
Lightfoot,
Westcott,
Hort,
and
others
in
the
first
rank
of
scholarship.
Zahn,
with
great
learning,
argues
for
a
conservative
position,
and
the
tendency
of
the
mediating
school
represented
by
Harnack
and
Jillicher
is
to
admit
the
genuineness
of
much
the
greater
part
of
the
NT,
the
exceptions
with
this
school
being
especially
Eph.,
2
Thess.,
the
Pastorals,
1
and
2
Peter,
James.
There
is
a
tendency
to
connect
the
Fourth
Gospel
more
closely
with
St.
John,
even
among
those
who
do
not
attribute
it
immediately
to
the
pen
of
the
Apostle.
Criticism
came
later
into
contact
with
the
OT;
but
here
it
has
been
much
more
revolutionary,
and
not
only
extremists
but
nearly
all
scholars
of
eminence
have
now
come
to
agreement
with
regard
to
the
main
points
of
the
new
position.
It
may
be
said
to
have
commenced
with
Lessing
and
Herder
in
their
literary
treatment
of
Scripture;
but
this
did
not
seriously
affect
the
historical
position.
That
was
first
attacked
on
modern
critical
lines
by
Vatke
early
in
the
19th
cent.,
but
his
work
met
with
universal
disapproval,
due
in
a
great
measure
to
its
difficult
Hegelianism.
We
come
to
more
intelligible
positions
in
Ewald,
the
first
edition
of
whose
History
of
Israel
appeared
in
1843-52,
and
contained
criticism
of
authorities,
four
of
which
he
distinguished
in
the
Penta-teuch.
Then
K.
H.
Graf
(1866),
following
hintsofReuss,
dropped
in
the
lecture-room,
but
never
published
by
that
cautious
scholar,
put
forth
the
hypothesis
which
became
the
basis
of
the
subsequently
developed
theory
of
the
early
history
of
Israel,
and
thus
gave
rise
to
the
phrase
'the
Grafian
hypothesis,'
according
to
which
the
Priestly
legislation
of
the
Pentateuch
came
later
than
Deuteronomy,
and
was
only
incorporated
with
the
earlier
work
of
the
Deuteronomist
after
the
Exile.
Meanwhile
Colenso
was
working
at
the
historical
diffi-culties
of
the
Pentateuch,
and
he.was
followed
by
Kuenen,
whose
Religion
of
Israel
(1869-70)
drew
attention
to
the
great
8th
cent,
prophets
as
affording
the
true
basis
of
that
religion,
rather
than
the
Pentateuch
which
is
later
in
date,
and
the
references
of
which
to
earlier
times
can
be
best
appreciated
after
a
study
of
the
prophets.
This
study
of
the
prophets,
as
the
key
to
the
OT,
was
greatly
promoted
in
England
by
Robertson
Smith,
who
also
introduced
the
newer
views
of
the
OT
generally
to
English
readers.
Wellhausen's
History
of
Israel
(1878)
worked
out
a
view
of
the
early
history,
on
the
basis
of
the
analysis
of
the
documents
along
the
lines
laid
down
by
Graf,
with
such
clearness
and
force
that
his
positions
have
come
to
be
accepted
by
most
OT
scholars,
especially
as
they
were
subsequently
more
fully
developed
(1884).
Reuss,
after
keeping
silence
on
the
subject
for
half
a
century,
published
his
own
views
on
the
OT
(1879),
and
these
also
tended
to
confirm
the
Grafian
theory.
Even
Franz
Delitzsch,
after
long
maintaining
a
conservative
standpoint,
moved
at
last
a
good
way
towards
the
accepted
theory,
and
thus
proved
his
openness
of
mind
and
loyalty
to
truth.
Less
radical
positions
than
that
of
Kuenen
and
Wellhausen
have
been
defended
by
Dillmann,
Schrader,
NBldeke,
Strack,
Ryssel,
Kittel.
On
the
other
hand,
we
see
in
Duhm,
among
the
more
recent
critics,
an
advance
of
disintegrating
criticism,
especially
with
regard
to
the
prophets;
and
a
quite
unique
attitude
is
taken
up
by
Cheyne.
But
EngUsh
scholars
are
more
in
agreement
with
the
views
of
Driver
and
G.
Adam
Smith,
who
accept
the
main
positions
of
Wellhausen
and
assign
a
primary
place
to
the
prophets
as
the
chief
exponents
of
the
higher
religion
of
Israel,
in
which
the
world
possesses
a
genuine
revelation
of
the
mind
and
will
of
God
of
the
highest
value
for
all
ages.
W.
F.
Adeney.
CROCODILE.—
(l)HDj/S(Mn,Ps74»,
Is
271,
Job
411'-.
The
last
reference
is
almost
certainly
to
the
crocodile,
