1.  What is historical criticism?

Have you ever seen that cartoon with the singing frog? The plot of this particular cartoon is that a frog from the late nineteenth century is placed in a time vault. Somewhere in the mid-twentieth century an unsuspecting construction worker uncovers the vault and discovers the singing frog. The frog, amazingly enough, can perform songs from the late nineteenth century. It is also an adroit dancer (although versed in the dance stylings of the late nineteenth century). The construction worker attempts to profit from the very talented frog, but, to his embarrassement, the frog will only perform when no one else is around. Eventually, tired of the humiliation the frog has caused him, the construction worker places the frog back in a time vault. The cartoon ends with a futuristic construction worker unearthing the vault and discovering the talented singing and dancing frog...

So what does a singing frog have to do with historical criticism? Well, the cartoon illustrates nicely the idea that an artifact can relate history, i.e. be a reflection of a specific time in place within history, and that an artifact can have its own history. The former is represented in the frog's performance of period song and dance while attired in late nineteenth century garb. The latter is represented in the frog being unearthed by at least two different workers. Each worker will most likely have a very similar experience with the frog but the artifact will have touched two different periods and will have begun to compile its own narrative. Likewise, historical criticism may be understood as the examination of the "history in the text" and of the "history of the text."

2. History in the text

Concerning the history in the text, Hayes & Holladay write:

Quite obviously, if the text contains references to persons, places, and customs sufficiently strange to the reader, it will be necessary to become acquainted sufficiently with the historical period in the text to understand what is being said at the most elementary level. (Hayes & Holladay, p. 47)

Consider many of the parables as found within the Gospel of Matthew. Chapter 13 of the Matthean gospel offers three parables that are centered around farming and which would be readily understood by the agrarian society of the original audience, e.g. the parable of the sower (Mt 13ff), the parable of the weeds among wheat (Mt 13:24-30), the parable of the mustard seed (Mt 13:31 - 32). But how many modern readers (whose ability to harvest  the many fruits of the Information age is an indication of the historical gap between the reader and the text) readily understand, say, the contrast of comparing a tiny mustard seed with the greatness in size of the kingdom of God? It is possible for the modern reader to come to an understanding of the parable of the mustard seed, but typically we must refer to footnotes or to commentary or perhaps even to a homily or sermon in order to come to a decent understanding of the text. Sometimes even non-biblical sources can be quite helpful in understanding passages more deeply.

More often than not, if we grow in our understanding of the history in the text, we grow in our appreciation of the text. We have heard the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25 - 37) The idea underlying the Good Samaritan parable is so prevalent, even in secular society, that we have a set of laws called the Good Samaritan laws. The Good Samaritan laws address the liability of rendering medical aid to strangers in need. So, it is possible, even if we do not understand the history of the period in which the parable was created, that we can still appreciate the passage. Essentially, one could argue that the meaning of the text is to help others when they are in need. If we were to take just a moment to consult some of the critical commentaries, however, we would see that there is a deeper meaning to be gathered from the history in the text. Due to earlier conflicts between the Northern and Southern kingdoms of Judea, much acrimony existed between northerner and southerner (history tends to repeat itself after all!) The writer/writers of the gospel and the parable are challenging the commonly held biases of the day. That is why Jesus, a Galilean, is portrayed within the parable as depicting a Samaritan as the hero. The parable is not just a story about helping others. It is a parable that challenges us to grow in ways that may not always be comfortable. If we put on Christ, then we must conceive of all as our neighbor and of all as in need. Although the first meaning is very well-received, the additional meaning (which I have surely not exhausted here) gleaned from historical criticism is an enhanced understanding.

3. History of the text

One of the more common preconceptions that readers have of the Bible is that the compilation process of each text and of the Bible as a whole was a succinct occurrence. That is, it is commonly held that the texts were written by a single author and that the resulting work was immediately put to press. Modern scholarship disagrees with the aforementioned preconception.

In fact, it is now widely recognized that many of the writings of the Bible were edited rather than written by single individuals and that many persons and groups engaged in this editing process which, in some instances, extended over a period of decades or even centuries. Especially is this the case with the Pentateuch, but also with other parts of the Bible as well. (Hayes & Holladay, P. 49)

The history of the text, then, is the chronicle of the life of the text from its conception throughout  its development. The history of a specific text can examine the authorship, i.e. was the text written by a single author or by multiple authors. Historical criticism can also examine the composition of the text. Different styles and different genres as found within the text are often clues for the biblical scholar that a work may have been composed over a length of time and can also indicate multiple authorship. Historical criticism of this sort can also be used in the study of and in the dating of passages. Consider the parable of the sower as mentioned supra. (Mt 13:1 - 9) The same parable is also found in the other two synoptic gospels: Mk 4:1 - 9; Lk 8:4 - 8; see also the so-called gnostic gospel of Thomas 9. Scholars, by studying the interaction between texts and common materials, can gain insight not only into the dating of texts but also into the development of religious ideas and practices. Finally, historical criticism of the history of the text also affords scholars insight into the situation of life that the writer or writers were experiencing while composing the text.