1
READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
In the New General Education Curriculum
MODULE 3
HISTORICAL CRITICISMS examines the origins of earliest text to appreciate the underlying
circumstances upon which the text came to be (Soulen & Soulen, 2001). It has two important
goals: first, to discover the original meaning of the text in its primitive or historical context and
its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. Second, to establish a reconstruction of the
historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. Historical criticism has two types,
external criticism and internal criticism.
Historical criticism has its roots in the 17th century during the Protestant Reformation and gained
popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries (Ebeling, 1963). The absence of historical
investigation paved the way for historical criticism to rest on philosophical and theological
interpretations. The passing of time has advanced historical criticism into various methodologies
used today such as source criticism (which analyzes and studies the sources used by biblical
authors), form criticism (which seeks to determine a unit’s original form and historical context
of the literary tradition), redaction criticism (which regards the author of the text as editor or
the source materials), tradition criticism (which attempts to trace the developmental stages of
the oral tradition from its historical emergence to its literary presentation), canonical criticism
(which focuses its interpretation of the bible on the text of biblical canon), and related
methodologies (Soulen, 2001).
There are two parts to a historical criticism. The first part is to determine the authenticity of the
material, also called provenance of a source. The critic should determine the origin of the
material, its author, and the sources of information used. External criticism is used in determining
these facts. The second part is to weigh the testimony to the truth. The critic must examine the
trustworthiness of the testimonies as well as determine the probability of the statements to be
true. This process is called internal criticism or higher criticism since it deals with more important
matters that the external form.
1. External criticism determines the authenticity of the source. The authenticity of the
material may be tested in two ways, by paleographical (the deciphering and dating of historical
manuscripts) and diplomatic criticism (critical analysis of historical document to understand how
the document came to be, the information transmitted, and the relationships between the facts
purported in the document and the reality). The material must be investigated based on the time
and place it is written. The critic must determine whether the material under investigation is raw,
meaning unaltered, and it exists exactly as the author left it.
The content must be viewed in every possible angle, as forgery was not unknown during the
Middle Ages. The authenticity of the material can be examined from other genuine sources
having the same subject or written during the same period. The similarities or agreements and
differences or disagreements of some common details, such as the culture and traditions, and
events during the period by which the document was made can be a basis for judging the
authenticity of the text.
2. Internal criticism determines the historicity of the facts contained in the document. It is not
necessary to prove the authenticity of the material or document. However, the facts
contained in the document must first be tested before any conclusion pertaining to it can be
admitted. In determining the value of the facts, the character of the sources, the knowledge
of the author, and the influences prevalent at that time of writing must be carefully
investigated. It must be ascertained first that the critic knows exactly what the author said
and that he/she understands the document from the standpoint of the author. Moreover, the
facts given by the author or writer must be firmly established as having taken place exactly as
reported.
TEST OF AUTHENTICITY
To distinguish a hoax or a misinterpretation from genuine document, the historian must
use tests common in police and legal detection. Making the best guess of the date of the
document, he/she examines the materials to see whether they are not anachronistic: paper was
rare in Europe before the fifteenth century, and printing was unknown; pencils did not exist there
before 16th century; typewriting was not invented until; the 19th century; and Indian paper came
only at the end of the century. The historian also examines the inks for signs of age or of
anachronistic chemical composition.
Making the best guess of the possible author of the document. He/she sees if he/she can
identify the handwriting, signature, seal, letterhead, or watermark. Even when the handwriting
is unfamiloiar, it can be compared with authenticated specimens. One of the unfulfilled needs of
the historian is more of what the French call “isographies” or the dictionaries of biography giving
examples of handwriting. For some period of history, experts using techniques known
paleography and diplomatics have long known that in certain regions at certain times handwriting
and the style and form of official documents were conventionalized. The disciplines of
paleography and diplomatics were founded in 17th century by Dom Jean Mabillon, a French
Benedictine monk and scholar of the Congregation of Saint Maur. Seals have been the subject of
special study by sigillographers, and experts can detect fake ones. Anachronistic styles (idioms,
orthography, or punctuation) can be detected by specialists who are familiar with contemporary
writing. Often spelling particularly of proper names and signature reveal forgery as would also
unhistoric grammar Anachronistic references to events (too early or too late or too remote) or
the dating of a document at a time when the alleged writer could not possibly have been at the
place designated (the alibi) uncovers fraud. Sometimes the skillful forger has all too carefully
followed the best historical sources and his [product becomes too obviously a copy in certain
passages; by skillful paraphrase and invention. He/she is given away by the absence of trivia and
otherwise unknown details from his/her manufactured account. However, usually if the
document is where it ought to be (e.g., in a family’s archives, of in the governmental bureau’s
record) its provenance (custody, as the lawyers refer to it), creates a presumption of its
genuineness (Gottschalk, 1969).