 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Source criticism" biblical studies – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(August 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Part ofa series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
Source criticism, inbiblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the authors andredactors of a biblical text. It originated in the 18th century with the work ofJean Astruc, who adapted the methods already developed for investigating the texts ofclassical antiquity (in particular,Homer'sIliad) to his own investigation into the sources of theBook of Genesis.[1] It was subsequently considerably developed by German scholars in what was known as "thehigher criticism", a term no longer in widespread use. The ultimate aim of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text and also the religious history ofancient Israel.
In general, the closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened. In the Bible where a variety of earlier sources have been quoted, the historian seeks to identify and date those sources used by biblical writers as the first step in evaluating their historical reliability.
In other cases, Bible scholars use the way a text is written (changes in style, vocabulary, repetitions, and the like) to determine what sources may have been used by a biblical author. With some reasonable guesswork it is possible to deduce sources not identified as such (e.g., genealogies). Some inter-biblical sources can be determined by virtue of the fact that the source is still extant, for example, where theBooks of Chronicles quotes or retells the accounts of the books ofSamuel andKings.
Source criticism has been applied to several parts of theTanakh (the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament).
The documentary hypothesis considers the sources for thePentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), claiming that it derives from four separate sources: theYahwist,Elohist,Deuteronomist, andPriestly:[2]
For example, of the two creation stories at the start of Genesis, the first is ascribed to P, while the second (the creation of Adam and Eve in chapter 2) is ascribed to J.
While the documentary hypothesis has widespread support among biblical scholars, other hypotheses such as the "fragmentary" and "supplementary" have also been proposed.[citation needed]
The writers of the Tanakh sometimes mention sources they use. These includeActs of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41),Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29 and in a number of other places),Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19 and in a number of other places), theBook of Jashar (Josh 10:12–14, 2 Sam 1:18–27, and possibly to be restored via textual criticism to 1 Kings 8:12), andBook of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14).
A more complicated and speculative form of source criticism results from critical evaluation of style, vocabulary, reduplication, and discrepancies. An example of this kind of source criticism is found in the book ofEzra–Nehemiah (typically treated by biblical scholars as one book) where scholars identify four types of source material: letters to and from Persian officials, lists of things, the Ezra memoir (where Ezra speaks in first person), and the Nehemiah memoir (where Nehemiah speaks in first person). It is thus deduced that the writer of Ezra–Nehemiah had access to these four kinds of source material in putting together his book.
Source criticism also leads many scholars towards redaction of thebook of Isaiah from original multiple authorship.
In the study of theNew Testament, an example of source criticism is the study of theSynoptic problem. Critics noticed that the three Synoptic Gospels,Matthew,Mark andLuke, were very similar, indeed, at times identical. The most popular view accounting for the duplication is called thetwo-source hypothesis.[3] The 2SH attempts to solve the synoptic problem by advancing Marcan priority to explain the triple tradition, and the existence of theQ document to solve the double tradition. Matthew and Luke used Mark and a second source, called Q not extant, for the sayings found in both of them but not in Mark.[4] However, other theories that posit direct use of Matthew by Luke or vice versa without Q are increasing in popularity within scholarship.[5][6]
There has been a scholarly turn against source-criticism of the gospels.[7] Johannine scholars have moved away from proposing hypothetical sources or reconstructions behind the gospel of John, and the rise of theFarrer Hypothesis in Synoptic studies can be attributed to this shift as well.[8]