\

Internal Criticism: A Brief Reflection

Copyright 2002 José Cossa

Internal criticism, aka positive criticism, is the attempt

of the researcher to restore the meaning of the text. This is
the phase of hermeneutics in which the researcher engages
with the meaning of the text rather than the external
elements of the document. Here, more than before, domain
specific knowledge of context is essential.
 In this stage of investigation the researcher and
exegete engage in positive criticism, which attempts to
restore the meaning of statements, and negative criticism,
which places doubt on what external and positive criticism
have established as reasonable findings. Here the
researcher and exegete combat both aesogesis and
untrustworthiness.

In positive criticism the historian and exegete assess

the literal meaning of the text and the real meaning of
statements. Literal meanings are the immediate meanings
of a document and often fool the immature reader. Often
poetry is written in a way that the meaning is hidden behind
a style of language, i.e., literary devices, which necessitate
an understanding of such language and what rules are
applied to identify and interpret them. For example, Psalm 1
is full of metaphors and simile and unless the reader
understands such devices there is no way one can
understand the meaning of the passage; however, before
venturing into the discovery of a meaning behind the literal
text, the reader must deal with the text as is by asking “what
does the statement say?” and then ask “what’s the point the
author is making in the statement?” In the case of Psalm 1,
the reader will soon discover that there is more to the text
than a simple aim of beautifying ones relationship with God
by using literary devices – there is power of meaning in the
metaphors and similes used by the author and a reason for
the author to select such metaphors. I am talking here of
authorial intent, which in itself raises controversy as to
whether such can really be known in the absence of the
original author (Ryken). The verdict pronounced by some
theologians such as the Biblical theology of missions’
advocates is that the theme of missio Dei is the standard
against which to judge the truthfulness of meaning and
legitimacy of purpose of a scriptural text.

There is another problem of language that pertains to

the fact that some texts, i.e., Shakespeare, the KJV Bible,
were not written in today’s language. This also requires a
contextual understanding of the style in which the text was
written before the attribution of meaning. For example, in
the archaic English of the KJV the word gay means happy
while in today’s society such is a reference to sexual
orientation.

While positive criticism simply attempts to ascertain

what the text means by analyzing its statements within a
context, i.e., literary, historical, geographical, etc.; in
negative criticism, the historian conducts (a) tests of
competence; (b) gossip, humor and slander; (b) myths,
legends and traditions; (c) tests of truthfulness; and, (d)
discredit statements. According to Hockett, in the latter, the
critic engages in ascertaining what opportunity the maker of
the statement had to know the facts, i.e., eyewitness versus
the conditions under which the witness observed the event
and how the witness relates to other witness accounts, the
position of observation, etc.. Essentially, this is the starting
point of ascertaining the meaning of the text. Other sources
that must equally be checked against their background are
newspaper claims which may be tinted with issues of
affiliation and patronage. The claims within the newspapers
articles of slavery times should be scrutinized against the
times and the civilization in vogue. For example, I would
doubt any news article written by the mainstream
newspapers during slavery times reporting on an issue of
rape of a white woman by a black male, but if the Chicago
Times in 2002 reported the same I would be more inclined
to believe although not without suspicion since racism and
stereotypes are still evident in today’s society.

The other elements to be doubted are oral testimony in

the form of gossip, rumor, slander, myth, legends, and
traditions, because they often result from various motives
that might be questionable. The integrity of the source is of
utmost importance. However, Hockett stands firmly on
positivistic grounds and diminishes the value of orate
traditions. Glick supports the opposite of what Hockett
propagates, and today there is more evidence that even
within orate traditions there are experts and novices and
such experts merit greater reliance (Goldman).

Hockett discusses tests of truthfulness that might aid

the researcher to deal with the question of whether the
integrity of the source always goes hand-in-hand with the
statements being true. The advice is to inquire whether the
source had any personal interest, and the affiliation of the
source to race, party, sect, society, etc. In the example of
the rape during slavery, one is more likely to doubt a
statement made in those days by the newspaper because
the journalists were likely to be Caucasians and a part of
the elite. The intentions of the source are coupled with bias,
which is an enemy of impartial truth, if such [impartial truth]
ever exists. To deal with bias one has to be aware of the
different perspectives of the writers as they have been, or
are, influenced by factors of various kinds. For instance,
Hockett’s bias is evident as he rests on one methodology,
i.e., positivism, to ascertain facts. His advice to refrain from
investigating miracles when such are against the laws of
nature is clear evidence that historians have strong biases
too.

External Criticism: A Brief Reflection

Copyright © 2002 José Cossa

External criticism, which is also known as lower

criticism, is a tool used by historians and exegetes to
determine the validity of a document, particularly a
document with some sort of historical significance. It is the
first of two stages of inquiry for it is followed by internal
criticism. It ventures towards inquiry regarding (a)
authorship; (b) originality and accuracy of copy; and (c) if
errors are found it helps assess the nature of errors found,
i.e., if they are scribal errors or other kinds of errors.
 In dating text, historians and exegetes assess if there
are any inconsistencies in the source (text) rather than
assume immediate knowledge of when the text was written,
i.e., is the source what it claims to be? Does anything nullify
the claim of the source? In the process of recovering, to the
very best of his ability, the original text of scripture or of a
document, the historian must resolve the inconsistencies
found within the text or source and explain them.

Some of the dates found in the books of the Bible are

conflicting with the actual times of historical events that are
known to have happened in the time claimed in the books
of the Bible and the names associated with them, i.e.,
Isaiah. Biblical lower criticism has preoccupied itself with
explaining these errors or inconsistencies for as long as the
external criticism technique has been in existence. With the
advent of this method of criticism and others other forms of
textual criticism, i.e., internal criticism, there has been
conflict over whether the technique is moral for it challenges
both the belief of inerrancy and infallibility of scripture;
however, with general historical documents the technique is
less of an issue. For example, Max Anders claims that the
Bible as originally written was without errors and that any
apparent error or contradiction can be explained – for him,
one must separate fact from details that seem
contradictory. He states that if he tells his wife that he is
going to the post office and then on the way back he tells
her that he picked a screwdriver at the hardware store, he
would have not lied by omitting the trip to the hardware
store. This, he claims, is one of the many incidents
classified by critics as errors and contradictions in
Scriptures.

Some biblical scholars agree that there are apparent

contradictions, but the facts in the Bible remain true and
untouched by the seeming contradiction – One example of
this school can be seen in the field of Biblical theology of
missions (e.g., John York, my former professor of this
subject), where some schools claim that there is one
underlying theme in the Bible, i.e., missio Dei [lat. mission
of God], from which drives the entire message and purpose
of the writings and is above all the seeming contradictions
found in the minute details. According to this school, God’s
mission of redemption of mankind is a theme that is left
undisturbed by errors and seeming contradictions of
manuscripts, and runs from Genesis to Revelations. This
aspect of one theme will be discussed also within the
context of internal criticism. I present this argument here to
explain that one’s understanding of infallibility of the Bible
can be a factor in determining internal evidence because
some schools, not necessarily that advocated by York,
have gone to extremes of not wanting to temper with the
text of Scripture either because of its sacredness or
because there is no need to do so since the purpose of
scripture is to present a particular message and the details
do not matter.
 In spite of the contradictions between various biblical
scholars and historians, both exegetes and historians have
benefited from the technique of lower criticism because
they have managed to make better sense out of conflicting
passages within the literature that they analyze.

In determining authorship, the tool of external criticism

helps the researcher and exegete to assess the author’s
name, affiliation, i.e., religious group, political party,
ethnicity, etc. In this phase the researcher attempts to
determine authorship by (a) using internal evidence about
the author; (b) using supplementary data from other
material related to the descriptions in the text such as
history, geography, etc.; (c) assessing the tone of
document, (d) identifying patterns or streams that help
establish connection to original author when dealing with
anonymous writings; (e) identifying clues of authorship; (f)
assessing the presence of second or third party speech
writers, ghostwriters, and plagiarists.

In determining the evidence of date the researcher

also looks at the language used, the sequence and
relationship of events