Is It Modernist to Use the Historical-Critical Method?

The Historical-Critical Method is an approach to Biblical interpretation which some view as an expression of the Modernist heresy. They say:

There is no question that the historical-critical method is modernist – in fact, it is one of the core tenets of modernism. (“Historical-Critical Method Condemned by Pope St. Pius X”)

Is that a plausible view?

1. The Historical-Critical Method

The Historical-Critical Method (also known as “higher criticism” or “historical criticism” or “biblical criticism”) is a set of techniques for analyzing texts. It is the standard way of studying any historical document. Whether it be 3000-year-old texts of Homer’s Odyssey or 400-year-old plays of William Shakespeare, the historical-critical method reveals important information about those documents.

The argument for using the historical-critical method to understand the Bible, is that the Bible has human authors. Therefore it should be studied like any other document produced by humans.

The argument for rejecting the historical-critical method, is that the Bible also has a divine author. This means that the Bible is uniquely different to every other human document.

To some extent, arguments about the historical-critical method turn on arguments about the nature of the relationship between divine inspiration and human authorship. If God’s inspiration removed the freewill of the human authors, then it would be inappropriate to use the historical-critical method.

Generally, most Christians accept that divine inspiration left the human authors with free will, as it is possible to see the individual stylistic contributions of Biblical authors in the Biblical texts. This means that it is hard to deny that the historical-critical method has some relevance to understanding the Bible. The question is how much relevance it should have.

2. Pope Leo XIII

In 1893 Pope Leo XIII commented on the historical-critical method (or “higher criticism”). He said:

There has arisen… an inept method, dignified by the name of the “higher criticism,” which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone… [T]his vaunted “higher criticism” will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics … tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination… of all prophecy and miracle… (Providentissimus Deus 17)

Leo XIII’s view seems, on the surface, to be particularly negative about the historical-critical method, as he calls it an “inept method.” But if we look carefully at what he says, his criticism is focused upon the fact that Biblical critics are bringing “bias, prejudice and false philosophy” to their use of the historical-critical method. They are claiming to read various anti-religious conclusions out of the Biblical text (such as the impossibility of prophecies or miracles). But, in reality, the critics are appealing to ideological assumptions in order to read their anti-religious prejudices into the text.

A careful reading of Leo XIII’s words shows that there are two distinct issues. One issue is the historical-critical method itself, about which Leo XIII has relatively little to say. This is because his main focus is the separate ideological issue (i.e., the additional principles) which Rationalists are assuming and reading into Scripture.

Leo’s main defense against the use of false ideological principles is to remind Biblical scholars of the Church’s golden rule of Biblical interpretation. That rule insists:

that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures. (Providentissimus Deus 14)

3. Pope Pius X

The next pope, Pius X, noted that there was a link between Modernism and the historical-critical method. In 1907 he said:

The historical method of the Modernists… [is that] the philosopher leads the way, [and] the historian follows [with]… internal and textual criticism… [which] is an agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism. Hence anybody who… employs it… places himself in opposition to Catholic faith. (Pascendi Dominici Gregis 34)

Pius X is following broadly the same approach as Leo XIII. In the passage above he mentions both the historical-critical method and the ideological problems of those using it (i.e., an agnostic, immanentist and evolutionist ideology).

The way that Pius X states the problem makes it difficult to see what specifically he thinks is the error of the Modernists (on this particular issue). Is it the use of the historical-critical method itself, or is it the use of the historical-critical method with additional false ideological principles?

We can begin to clarify the issue if we look at how Pius X responded to two books.

In 1903 Alfred Loisy published The Gospel and the Church. That book appealed to the historical-critical method and it used an agnostic ideology to reject Church dogmas. The Vatican condemned the book as Modernist, and Loisy was excommunicated.

In 1905 Marie-Joseph Lagrange published The Historical Criticism and the Old Testament. That book appealed to the historical-critical method while also rejecting false ideological principles. The book occasioned nervousness in the Vatican, but it was not condemned as Modernist. Lagrange went on to found modern Catholic Biblical studies and he is now a candidate for Beatification.

When we compare the fates of Loisy and Lagrange, they show that there is a Modernist way of using the historical-critical method (i.e., with false ideological principles) but there is also a non-Modernist way of using it.

4. Pope Pius XII

In his 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (DAS) Pope Pius XII described the task of Biblical interpretation in words which effectively described the application of the historical-critical method. He said:

What… [the Biblical authors] wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, … with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing… the authors of that ancient period… did use. (DAS 35)

In taking a more positive view of the historical-critical method, Pius XII also acknowledged that his predecessors had been right to be cautious about false ideologies, such as the “prejudices of rationalism” (DAS 4), which distorted the use of the historical-critical method.

To ensure that the use of the historical-critical method cannot go astray, Pius XII echoed the words of his predecessors and insisted upon the Church’s golden rule of Biblical interpretation:

The… interpretation of… [the Bible has] …been confided to the Church by God Himself… [so Biblical scholars] should take into account the explanations and declarations of the teaching authority of the Church, … the interpretation given by the Holy Fathers, and “the analogy of faith.” (DAS 24)

5. Pope Paul VI

In 1964, in the background of Vatican II but not part of the Council itself, the Pontifical Biblical Commission published De Historica Evangeliorum Veritate, (The Historicity of the Gospels [HG]).

That is an important document because it unambiguously approved of the use of the historical-critical method. It stated:

In short the exegete will use any and every means which will enable him to acquire a deeper insight into the nature of the gospel testimony, the religious life of the early churches, and the meaning and value of the apostolic tradition. (HG)

This paragraph builds on the logic of previous papal teaching by recognizing that it is not methodologies themselves (such as the historical-critical method) which are problematic. Thus, the document stated that “any and every” method can be good.

The document echoes the teaching of Leo XIII and Pius X by noting that when problems arise in Biblical exegesis, it is typically because of the false ideologies which are used alongside methodologies such as the historical-critical method. Thus, the document stated:

However… [the exegete] must move with caution…, because the [historical critical] method is often interlaced with inadmissible philosophical and theological principles… Some proponents of this method, motivated by rationalistic prejudices…  deny the intervention of a personal God in the world… and reject the possibility or actual occurrence of miracles and prophecies. (HG)

Following the teaching of Leo XIII, Pius X and Pius XII, the document concluded by reiterating the Church’s golden rule of Biblical interpretation:

[The Biblical exegete] … should always be prepared to obey the Magisterium of the Church. And he should never forget… that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error. (HG)

6. Vatican II

In 1965 the Second Vatican Council addressed the issue of Biblical interpretation in Dei Verbum (DV). It stated:

Attention should be given… to “literary forms” … in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic… The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express… [D]ue attention must be paid to the customary… styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer. (DV 12)

Dei Verbum did not explicitly refer to the historical-critical method. However, in 2003 Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) confirmed that this document of Vatican II was indeed referring to that methodology. (See Relationship between Magisterium and Exegetes.)

Vatican II did not explicitly mention the problem of the additional ideological principles, which can undermine the use of the historical-critical method. That may be due to the explicit discussion of that particular issue in the (contemporaneous) document mentioned in the previous section.

However, Vatican II implicitly ruled out the use of false ideological principles when it reiterated the words of Pius XII and insisted upon the Church’s golden rule of Biblical interpretation. It stated:

Serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules…  [T]he way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (DV 12)

Commenting on Vatican II’s position, Cardinal Avery Dulles explained it in the following words:

Scripture and tradition together constitute one sacred deposit. It is incorrect, therefore, to speak as though Scripture alone, examined with the tools of historical-critical scholarship, could adequately deliver the Word of God. (“Vatican II on the Interpretation of Scripture”)

7. Post-Conciliar Teaching

In the years after Vatican II, Church teaching has followed the approach outlined by the Council.

This can be seen in the 1993 document, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.” That document noted that the historical-critical method is “indispensable” and that Biblical studies “requires it.” But, it also warned against the “danger” of allowing the method to “claim a monopoly” and of failing to use the methodology “within the tradition of the Church.”

The same position was presented in the Vatican’s 2011 document Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles and Criteria.

That position was also presented in Pope Benedict XVI’s 2010 document Verbum Domini (VD). He insisted, on the one hand, that the historical-critical method is “indispensable” (VD 32). But he insisted, on the other hand, that it is not “comprehensive,” as it must be supplemented with the Church’s theological principles (VD 34). He summed up the Church’s position in the following words:

Only where both methodological levels, the historical-critical and the theological, are respected, can one speak of a theological exegesis [which is] an exegesis worthy of… [Scripture]. (VD 34; see also his 2008 Address, and 2013 Address)

More recently, Cardinal Koch has reiterated precisely the same teaching in his 2019 Bible Engagement in the Catholic Church Tradition.

8. Conclusion

Whether the historical-critical method can be criticized as an aspect of Modernism, depends on the circumstances of its usage.

There was a period at the beginning of the twentieth century when Modernists used the historical-critical method, and that led to confusion about the status of the method itself. At that time, some theologians even succumbed to versions of association fallacy, fallaciously criticizing the historical-critical method because of its “guilt by association” with the Modernists who used it.

Ultimately the Church’s position has been a reiterated insistence upon a balanced perspective which lay between two extremes. At one extreme it rejected a traditionalist insistence that ANY use of the historical-critical method is effectively a commitment to the Modernist heresy. At the other extreme it rejected the view of secular academia which insists upon ONLY using the historical-critical method, albeit alongside whatever ideological principles happen to be in the minds of its users. (See The Pope’s Jesus: Gerd Lüdemann and Benedict XVI.)

What this all means is that it is not Modernist to use the historical-critical method. However, like any tool, the historical-critical method can be misused and abused; especially if it is used alongside the false ideological principles of Modernism.