Biblical criticism
Biblical criticism is the result of applying the standards of Critical thinking to questions raised by the Scriptures.
Lower criticism
Textual criticism deals with handwriting analysis, spelling errors, scribal errors, glosses, omissions, doublets, provenance of manuscripts, etc. The goal of textual criticism is to determine the original version of the scriptures.
Higher criticism
Form criticism
All interpretation of language depends on assessing the form of speech or literary genre (French, "kind" or "type") being employed.
- oral vs. written
- fiction vs. non-fiction
- poetry (sung or recited) vs. prose
- first person vs. third person point-of-view
- contemporary account vs. history derived from sources
- Indirect uses of language: irony, sarcasm, puns, humor; metaphor and simile; allusions to other texts; juxtaposition; etc.
Special Biblical Genres
Old Testament
- cosmic myths
- history
- law (early forms of Midrash: Haggadah or Halakah)
- psalm
- proverb
- apocalyptic
- prophecy
- Wisdom literature (includes some theological fiction like Jonah, Job, Tobit);
New Testament
- gospel
- epistle
- parenesis (comfort)
- parable
- hymns
- sayings of the Lord
- miracle stories
- polemic
- diatribe
- hyperbole
- ridicule
Historical criticism
What likelihood is there that the story, in whole or in part, reflects real events? When was the story first told? Who first wrote it down? How many versions of the story are there? Do they support or contradict each other? What was going on in the world of the tellers, recorders and editors of the story when they made their contribution to the text as we have it now--in other words, what was the sitz im Leben (life-situation) of the text as it developed?
James Pritchard (1910-1997) was one of the great biblical archeologists. He found hundreds of sites mentioned in the Bible in an effort to prove that "every word in the Bible was factually correct." I don't think he succeeded in that effort, but he showed that there are unquestionably a multitude of historical truths in the Bible.
Redaction criticism
A "redactor" is an editor (from the Latin redigere, re- + agere, to collect or bring back).
Who assembled the material in its final form? What was the editor thinking of when changes were introduced? What purpose or purposes were served by bringing disparate stories together? Who decided that the book was canonical (i.e., who decided that it was to be listed as one of the books "inspired by God")? What influenced their choice of this book to become part of the canon?
We can only judge a redactor's contribution to the final form of a story when two or more versions of the same story exist. For those who accept the Q-hypothesis, Matthew and Luke redacted (edited) the gospel of Mark. The second ending of the gospel of Mark (16:9-20) looks like a redaction of the Lucan resurrection stories. John 21 seems to be tacked onto the end of the original gospel of John by another author. There is a peculiar relationship between Ephesians and Colossians--one might be a second edition of the other.