Historical Criticism: Are its Days Numbered?

Historical-critical methods of study have proven quite successful in illuminating the history, religion, and culture of ancient Israel. So successful, in fact, that historical critics have routinely shown just as much, and at times even more, interest in reconstructing the history and religion of Israel than in reading the very texts in which this history and religion are embedded. This neglect of reading has opened up the historical-critical project to a whole host of criticism, especially from a new generation of literary critics who are now prominent in the field. Very generally, these critics have noted that whatever more one makes of the Hebrew Bible, it is first and foremost a collection of literary texts, and as such, it requires to be studied and read like any other body of literature. This observation has struck a receptive chord among biblical scholars, resulting in a renewed and vigorous interest in the literary study of the Hebrew Bible. This has been a very positive development for the field. The Hebrew Bible has long cried out for sophisticated and theoretically informed treatments of its constituent texts as literature. Yet there is a problem. Many of the literary approaches currently applied to the Hebrew Bible exhibit an alarming disinterest in history and in the more diachronic aspects of textual study. As D. Jobling writes, "The most troublesome methodological problems continue to lie in the relationship of literary reading of the Bible to historical hypotheses about it." 1 The problem of literature and history provides the focus for the present essay. 2 It is my belief that the current ahistoricist orientation of biblical literary criticism is severely wrongheaded. Literary study of whatever kind, and especially of the Hebrew Bible, cannot escape history, and therefore what is required is a program

A review of the history of Biblical textual criticism and some of its shortcomings. Presented -- is an approach which redirects the discipline and adds the dignity it deserves. Numerous references and quotations.

Has the Field of Textual Criticism Changed in the Past Half-Century, 2024

“Has the Field of Textual Criticism Changed in the Past Half-Century?” in Emanuel Tov, Studies in Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, Volume 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2024), 403–24: At the end of this, my fifth, collected essays on textual studies, in a section named 'Reflections,' I devote attention to the question regarding whether the field of textual criticism has changed in the past half-century and, if so, in which ways. I do so upon special request of the editor of the series, and I do so with pleasure since the writing down of these ideas enables me to arrange my thoughts. 1 This is not a topic I have reflected on much before, but I had passing thoughts about several aspects. We must first ask ourselves whether textual criticism is a separate field.

In contrast to an overly optimistic view of the state of the NT text, scholars have raised new challenges and begun to explore new horizons in textual criticism. These emphases call into question common assumptions about the goals of textual criticism. This article examines six areas of emphasis, noting where they are problematic as well as where they show promise for understanding not only the discipline but also the nature and function of the NT.

The central question addressed in this assignment concerns the interpretation of philosophical texts of the past. What is it to take up a critical attitude towards a work in the history of philosophy? What hermeneutical procedures and practices can give guidance here? There are, without doubt, very few agreed rules but at least one guiding principle comes to mind, namely, that the critic should be sensitive to the historical nature of texts, and all that that involves. To be oblivious to this advice is to develop anachronistic readings and hence, to derive misplaced and distorting critical judgements.

New Testament Textual Criticism:The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles, 2010