What is "historical criticism" of sacred scriptures, and does it negate believers' faith in them?

This question is frequently raised today, especially when people hear about "historical criticism" or "the historical-critical method" of sacred scriptures. Some think it's an attack on religion, while others see it as a scientific necessity. The truth is more complex than either position suggests.

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some believers:

"Historical criticism is a conspiracy to destroy religion." This is an oversimplification. Many pioneers of historical criticism were believers who wanted to understand their sacred texts more deeply. Father Lagrange, founder of the Biblical School in Jerusalem, and Albright, dean of Biblical archaeologists—both were devout believers who used historical methods.

"Sacred scripture is above historical criticism." This position creates a problem: if the sacred text speaks about historical events (the Exodus, Christ's crucifixion, the Prophet's migration), how can we prevent historical inquiry about them? Faith in the sanctity of the text doesn't negate its historical nature.

"A true believer doesn't ask these questions." This position ignores the religious tradition itself. Muslim scholars developed the science of jarḥ wa-taʿdīl to scrutinize hadiths, and Church Fathers discussed differences between the Gospels. Critical questioning is part of the tradition, not foreign to it.

From some secularists:

"Historical criticism has proven that sacred books are myths." This is an unjustified leap. Historical criticism studies how texts were formed, who wrote them, and when, but it cannot judge the truth of spiritual or theological content. This is beyond the scope of the historical method.

"Modern science has exposed the falsehood of religious texts." This confuses methodologies. Historical criticism isn't a "natural science" but a humanistic method with its limitations. Results vary according to the researcher's presuppositions.

"Believers reject historical criticism because they fear the truth." This is an unfair generalization. Many of the most prominent historical critics are believers (Raymond Brown, N.T. Wright, James Dunn). The disagreement isn't between "faith and science" but about interpreting results.

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They fail to understand the nature and limits of historical criticism. Historical criticism is a tool for understanding how texts reached us and the context in which they arose. It's not a "judgment" on the truth of the religious message, but an attempt to understand the text's history.

Serious Positions in the Debate

First, defining historical criticism. A collection of methods for studying ancient texts:
- Source criticism: Where did the information come from?
- Form criticism: What literary genres are used?
- Redaction criticism: How did the final editor compile the materials?
- Textual criticism: What is the original text closest to the author?

These methods are applied to all ancient texts, religious and non-religious.

Second, the official Catholic position. Since Pope Pius XII (1943) and then Vatican II, the Catholic Church encourages the use of historical methods while maintaining faith in revelation. "Truth has nothing to fear from truth."

Third, the conservative Protestant position. Scholars like F.F. Bruce and Craig Blomberg use historical criticism to defend the Gospels' historical reliability. They see the method itself as neutral, with results depending on how it's applied.

Fourth, the contemporary Islamic position. Scholars like Fazlur Rahman and Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd called for applying similar methods to the Quran, amid considerable debate. Others like Mohammed Abed al-Jabri see the possibility of benefiting from some tools while preserving the Quran's distinctiveness.

Practical Examples

- The discovery of the Qumran manuscripts confirmed the accuracy of Biblical text transmission across centuries
- Historical criticism of the Gospels revealed the diversity of early testimonies about Jesus
- Study of early Quranic manuscripts (Sanaa, Birmingham) confirmed early preservation of the text

Where We Stand in This Debate Today

Historical criticism is a tool, not a creed. It can be used in different ways. A confident believer doesn't fear historical questions but sees them as opportunities for deeper understanding. At the same time, the historical method has limits—it cannot prove or disprove revelation, miracles, or spiritual truths.

The lesson: Historical criticism doesn't necessarily "negate" faith, nor does faith prevent asking historical questions. The relationship is more complex and richer than that.

For Advanced Reading

- Intermediate level: Joseph Fitzmyer's introduction to historical criticism of the New Testament
- Advanced level: "The Historical-Critical Method" by Edgar Krentz
- For Islamic context: "Major Themes of the Qur'an" by Fazlur Rahman
- "Historical Criticism and Faith" page on the website