Higher Criticism


Published on

Published in: Spiritual, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Higher Criticism

  1. 1. Higher criticism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Part of a series on The Bible Biblical canon and books Tanakh: Torah · Nevi'im · Ketuvim Old Testament · Hebrew Bible · New Testament · New Covenant · Deuterocanon · Antilegomena · Chapters and verses Apocrypha: Jewish · OT · NT Development and authorship Jewish Canon · Old Testament canon · New Testament canon · Mosaic authorship · Pauline epistles · Johannine works Translations and manuscripts Septuagint · Samaritan Pentateuch · Dead Sea scrolls · Targums · Peshitta · Vetus Latina · Vulgate · Masoretic text · Gothic
  2. 2. Bible · Luther Bible · English Bibles Biblical studies Dating the Bible · Biblical criticism · Historical criticism · Textual criticism · Novum Testamentum Graece · NT textual categories · Documentary hypothesis · Synoptic problem · The Bible and history · Biblical archaeology Interpretation Hermeneutics · Pesher · Midrash · Pardes · Allegorical · Literalism · Prophecy Views Inerrancy · Infallibility · Criticism · Islamic · Qur'anic · Gnostic · Judaism and Christianity · Law in Christianity This box: view • talk • edit Historical criticism or Higher criticism is a branch of literary analysis that investigates the origins of a text: as applied in biblical studies it naturally investigates foremost the books of the Bible. In Classical studies, the new higher criticism of the nineteenth century set aside quot;efforts to fill ancient religion with direct meaning and relevance and devoted itself instead to the critical collection and chronological ordering of the source material,quot;[1] Thus higher criticism, whether biblical, classical, Byzantine or medieval, focuses on the sources of a document to determine who wrote it, when it was written, and where. For example, higher criticism deals with the synoptic problem, the question of how Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate to each other. In some cases, such as with several Pauline epistles, higher criticism confirms the traditional understanding of authorship. In other cases, higher
  3. 3. criticism contradicts church tradition (as with the gospels) or even the words of the Bible itself (as with 2 Peter). The documentary hypothesis, which attempts to chart the origins of the Torah, is another key issue in higher criticism. The Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1466? - 1536) is usually credited as the first to study the Bible in this light,[2] although many of his methods are also found in the much earlier writing of Saint Augustine (354 - 430).[citation needed] Higher criticism is used in contrast with Lower criticism (or textual criticism), the endeavour to determine what a text originally said before it was altered (through error or intent). Once lower critics have done their job and we have a good idea of what the original text looked like, higher critics can then compare this text with the writing of other authors. Diagram of the Documentary Hypothesis. * includes most of Leviticus † includes most of Deuteronomy ‡ quot;Deuteronomic historyquot;: Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1& 2 Kings Higher criticism treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Lower criticism is used for attempts to interpret Biblical texts based only on the internal evidence from the texts themselves. As an example, consider the treatment of Noah's Ark in various editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In the first edition, in 1771, the story of Noah and the Ark is treated as essentially factual, and the following scientific evidence is offered, quot;...Buteo and Kircher have proved geometrically, that, taking the common cubit as a foot and a half, the ark was abundantly sufficient for all the animals supposed to be lodged in it..., the number of species of animals will be found much less than is generally imagined,not amounting to an hundred species of quadrupeds... .quot; By the eighth edition, however, the encyclopedia says of the Noah story, quot;The insuperable difficulties connected with the belief that all other existing species of animals were provided for in the ark are obviated by adopting the suggestion of Bishop Stillingfleet, approved by Matthew Poole...and others, that the Deluge did not extend beyond the region of the earth then inhabited...quot; By the ninth edition, in 1875, there is no attempt to reconcile the Noah story with scientific fact, and it is presented without comment. In the 1960 edition, in the article Ark, we find the following, quot;Before the days of quot;higher criticismquot; and the rise of the modern scientific views as to the origin of the species, there was much discussion among the learned, and many ingenious and curious theories were advanced, as to the number of animals on the ark...quot;[3] Contents [hide]  1 History of Higher criticism
  4. 4.  2 Theological responses o 2.1 Roman Catholic view o 2.2 Protestant Christian view  3 Types of higher criticism o 3.1 Source criticism  3.1.1 Redaction criticism o 3.2 Form criticism and tradition history o 3.3 Radical criticism  4 Findings of higher criticism o 4.1 Old Testament o 4.2 New Testament  5 Higher criticism of other religious texts o 5.1 Qur'an  6 See also o 6.1 History of higher criticism  7 References  8 External links  9 Notes [edit] History of Higher criticism The phrase quot;the higher criticismquot; became popular in Europe from the mid-18th century to the early 20th century, to describe the work of such scholars as Jean Astruc (mid-18th cent.), Johann Salomo Semler (1725-91), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), and Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918).[4] In academic circles today, this is the body of work properly considered quot;the higher criticismquot;, though the phrase is sometimes applied to earlier or later work using similar methods. Higher criticism originally referred to the work of German Biblical scholars, of the Tübingen School. After the path-breaking work on the New Testament by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the next generation which included scholars such as David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72) in the mid-nineteenth century analyzed the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times in search of independent confirmation of events related in the Bible. These latter scholars built on the tradition of Enlightenment and Rationalist thinkers such as John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Hegel and the French rationalists. These ideas were imported to England by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and, in particular, by George Eliot's translations of Strauss's life of Jesus (1846) and Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity (1854). In 1860 seven liberal Anglican theologians began the process of incorporating this historical criticism into Christian doctrine in Essays and Reviews, causing a five year storm of controversy which completely overshadowed the arguments over Darwin's newly published On the Origin of Species. Two of the authors were indicted for heresy and lost their jobs by 1862, but in 1864 had the judgement overturned on appeal. La Vie de Jésus (1863), the seminal work by a Frenchman, Ernest Renan (1823–92),
  5. 5. continued in the same tradition as Strauss and Feuerbach. In Catholicism, L'Evangile et l'Eglise (1902), the magnum opus by Alfred Loisy against the Essence of Christianity of Adolf von Harnack and La Vie de Jesus of Renan, gave birth to the modernist crisis (1902– 61). Some scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, have used higher criticism of the Bible to quot;demythologizequot; it. [edit] Theological responses The questions of higher criticism are widely recognized by Orthodox Jews and many traditional Christians as legitimate questions, yet they often find the answers given by the higher critics unsatisfactory or even heretical. In particular, religious conservatives object to the rationalistic and naturalistic presuppositions of a large number of practitioners of higher criticism that lead to conclusions that conservative religionists find unacceptable. Nonetheless, conservative Bible scholars practice their own form of higher criticism within their supernaturalist and confessional frameworks. In contrast, other biblical scholars believe that the evidence uncovered by higher criticism undermines such confessional frameworks. In addition, religiously liberal Christians and religiously liberal Jews typically maintain that belief in God has nothing to do with the authorship of the Pentateuch. Most serious Christian scholars accept many of the methods and conclusions that were so shocking when they were first introduced.[citation needed] [edit] Roman Catholic view Pope Leo XIII (1810 - 1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus;[5], but in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu: quot;[T]extual criticism ... [is] quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books ... Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed.quot; [6] Today the modern Catechism states: quot;#110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.quot; [edit] Protestant Christian view Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Reformation, believed strongly in the literal truth of scripture. He wrote, quot;All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd and false.quot; But at other times, he accepted the authority of reason, so long as it did not contradict scripture. quot;Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Sacred Scripture or by evident reason... my conscience is captive to the Word of God.quot; He even used some of the methods that would later be called quot;higher criticismquot; in his study of the Bible. He wrote, quot;The discourses of the Prophets were none of them regularly committed to writing at the time; their disciples and
  6. 6. hearers collected them subsequently. ... Solomon's Proverbs were not the work of Solomon.quot;[7] Around the end of the 18th century Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, quot;the founder of modern Old Testament criticismquot;, produced works of quot;investigation of the inner nature of the Old Testament with the help of the Higher Criticismquot;.Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher also influenced the development of Higher Criticism. A group of German biblical scholars at Tübingen University formed the Tübingen school of theology under the leadership of Ferdinand Christian Baur, with important works being produced by Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach and David Strauss. In the early 19th century they sought independent confirmation of the events related in the Bible throug Hegelian h analysis of the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times.[8][9] Their ideas were brought to England by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, then in 1846 George Eliot translated David Strauss's sensational Leben Jesu as the Life of Jesus Critically Examined, a quest for the historical Jesus. In 1854 she followed this with a translation of Feuerbach's even more radical Essence of Christianity which held that the idea of God was created by man to express the divine within himself, though Strauss attracted most of the controversy.[8] The loose grouping of Broad Churchmen in the Church of England was influenced by the German higher critics. In particular, Benjamin Jowett visited Germany and studied the work of Baur in the 1840s, then in 1866 published his book on The Epistles of St Paul, arousing theological opposition. He then collaborated with six other theologians to publish their Essays and Reviews in 1860. The central essay was Jowett's On the Interpretation of Scripture which argued that the Bible should be studied to find the authors' original meaning in their own context rather than expecting it to provide a modern scientific text.[10][11] Today, some Protestants oppose the methods of the higher criticism, and hold that the Bible is divinely inspired and incapable of error, at least in its original form.[12] [edit] Types of higher criticism Source criticism: diagram of the two-source hypothesis, an explanation for the relationship of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Higher criticism is divided up into sub-categories, including primarily source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism. [edit] Source criticism Main article: Source criticism
  7. 7. Source criticism is the search for the original sources which lie behind a given biblical text. It can be traced back to the 17th century French priest Richard Simon, and its most influential product is undoubtably Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), whose quot;insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies.quot;[13] [edit] Redaction criticism Main article: Redaction Criticism Redaction criticism studies quot;the collection, arrangement, editing and modification of sourcesquot;, and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the author/s of the text.[14] [edit] Form criticism and tradition history Main article: Form criticism Form criticism breaks the Bible down into sections (pericopes, stories) which are analyzed and categorized by genres (prose or verse, letters, laws, court archives, war hymns, poems of lament, etc). The form critic then theorizes on the pericope's Sitz im Leben (quot;setting in lifequot;), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.[15] Tradition history is a specific aspect of form criticism which aims at tracing the way in which the pericopes entered the larger units of the biblical canon, and especially the way in which they made the transition from oral to written form. The belief in the priority, stability, and even detectability, of oral traditions is now recognised to be so deeply questionable as to render tradition history largely useless, but form criticism itself continues to develop as a viable methodolgy in biblical studies.[16] [edit] Radical criticism Main article: Radical Criticism Radical Criticism, around the end of the nineteenth century, typically tried to show that none of the Pauline epistles are authentic; that Paul is nothing but a controverted authorial token. This group of scholars often postulated the ahistoricity of Jesus and the apostles. [edit] Findings of higher criticism Scholars of higher criticism have sometimes upheld and sometimes challenged the traditional authorship of various books of the Bible. [edit] Old Testament Author according to Author according to Book tradition scholarship
  8. 8. Documentary hypothesis: Four independent documents (the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and the Priestly source), composed between 900- 550 BC, redacted c 450 BC, possibly by Ezra Supplementary models (e.g. John Van Seters): Torah composed as a series of authorial expansions of an original source document, Torah usually identified as J or P, largely during the 7th (Pentateuch, Moses, c 1300 BC and 6th centuries BC, final form achieved c. 450 Books of Moses) BC. Fragmentary models (e.g. Rolf Rendtorff, Erhard Blum): Torah the product of the slow accretion of fragmentary traditions, (no documents), over period 850-550 BC, final form c. 450 BC. Biblical minimalism: Torah composed in Hellenistic-Hasmonean period, c. 300-140 BC. Joshua with a portion Deuteronomist using material from the Jahwist Joshua by Phinehas or Eleazar and Elohist Judges Samuel Deuteronomist Ruth Samuel A later author, writing after the time of David 1 Samuel Deuteronomist as a combination of a Jerusalem Samuel, Gad, and source, republican source, the court history of 2 Samuel Nathan David, the sanctuaries source, and the monarchial source 1 Kings Perhaps Ezra Deuteronomist 2 Kings 1 Chronicles The Chronicler, writing between 450 and 435 BC, Ezra 2 Chronicles after the Babylonian captivity The Chronicler, writing between 450 and 435 BC, Ezra Ezra after the Babylonian captivity Nehemiah using some The Chronicler, writing between 450 and 435 BC, Nehemiah material by Ezra after the Babylonian captivity Tobit A writer in the second century BC Eliakim (Joakim), the Judith high priest of the story The Great Assembly An unknown author writing between 460 and 331 Esther using material from BC Mordecai A devout Jew from the An unknown Jewish author, writing around 100 1 Maccabees Holy Land. BC Based on the writing of An unknown author, writing in the second or 1st 2 Maccabees Jason of Cyrene century BC 3 Maccabees An Alexandrian Jew writing in Greek in the first
  9. 9. century BC or first century AD An Alexandrian Jew writing in the first century 4 Maccabees Josephus BC or first century AD Job Moses A writer in the 4th century BC. Mainly David and also Asaph, sons of Korah, Various authors recording oral tradition. Portions Psalms Moses, Heman the from 1000BC to 200BC. Ezrahite, Ethan the Ezrahite and Solomon Solomon, Agur son of An editor compiling from various sources well Proverbs Jakeh, Lemuel and after the time of Solomon other wise men A Hebrew poet of the third or second centuries BC using the life of Solomon as a vista for the Hebrews' pursuit of Wisdom. An unknown author Ecclesiastes Solomon in Hellenistic period from two older oral sources (Eccl1:1-6:9 which claims to be Solomon, Eccl6:10-12:8 with the theme of non-knowing) Song of Solomon Solomon An Alexandrian Jew writing during the Jewish Wisdom Solomon Hellenistic period Jesus the son of Sirach Sirach of Jerusalem Three main authors and an extensive editing process. Is1-39 quot;Historical Isaiahquot; with multiple Isaiah Isaiah layers of editing. Is40-55 Exilic(Deutero-Isaiah) & Is56-66 post-exilic(Trito-Isaiah). Jeremiah Jeremiah Baruch ben Neriah[17] Disupted and perhaps based on the older Mesopotamian genre of the quot;city lamentquot;, of Lamentations Jeremiah which the Lament for Ur is among the oldest and best-known Letter of Jeremiah A Hellenistic Jew living in Alexandria Jeremiah An author writing during or shortly after the Baruch Baruch ben Neriah period of the Maccabees Disputed, with varying degrees of attribution to Ezekiel Ezekiel Ezekiel Daniel, sixth century An editor/author in the mid-second century BC, Daniel BC using older folk-tales for the first half of the book Hosea Hosea Joel Joel Amos Amos Obadiah Obadiah Jonah Jonah Possibly a post-exilic (after 530 BC) editor
  10. 10. recording oral traditions passed down from the eighth century BC The first three chapters by Micah and the Micah Micah remainder by a later writer Nahum Nahum Habakkuk Habakkuk Disputed; possibly a writer after the time period Zephaniah Zephaniah indicated by the text Haggai Haggai Zechariah (chapters 1-8); the later remaining Zechariah Zechariah designated Deutero-Zechariah, were possibly written by disciples of Zechariah Malachi Malachi or Ezra Possibly the author of Deutero-Zechariah [edit] New Testament Author according to Author according to Book tradition scholarship Mark, follower of anonymous, perhaps Mark, follower of Gospel of Mark Peter; mid 1st Peter; mid to late 1st century; the first century written gospel An unknown author who borrowed from Gospel of Matthew The Apostle Matthew both Mark and a source called Q, late 1st century Luke or an unknown author who Luke, companion of Gospel of Luke borrowed from both Mark and a source Paul called Q, late 1st century An unknown author with no direct connection to the historical Jesus; John Gospel of John Apostle John 21 finished after death of primary author by follower(s); the last written gospel Luke, companion of Luke or an unknown author who also Acts of the Apostles Paul wrote the Gospel of Luke Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Paul the Apostle, see Paul Thessalonians, Epistle to Pauline epistles Philemon Ephesians Paul the Apostle Paul or edited dictations from Paul Disputed; perhaps Paul coauthoring with Colossians Paul the Apostle Timothy An associate or disciple after his death, 2 Thessalonians Paul the Apostle representing what they believed was his message[18] 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, see Paul the Apostle pseudepigraphal, perhaps someone Pastoral epistles associated with Paul, writing at a later date
  11. 11. see Authorship of the Pauline epistles Paul the Apostle An unknown author, but almost certainly Epistle to the Hebrews (disputed) not Paul[19], c 95 A writer in the late first or early second James James the Just centuries, after the death of James the Just Apostle Peter, before pseudepigraphal or perhaps Silas, 1 Peter 64 (Peter's proficient with Greek writing, 70-90 martyrdom) pseudepigraphal, certainly not Peter[20], Apostle Peter, before 2 Peter perhaps as late as c 150 AD, the last- 64 written book of the Bible An unknown author with no direct 1 John Apostle John connection to the historical Jesus Same as Gospel of John, late 1st century An unknown author with no direct Apostle John 2 John, 3 John connection to the historical Jesus, final (sometimes disputed) Editor of John 21, c 100-110 A pseudonymous work written between Jude the Apostle or Jude the end of the first century and the first Jude, brother of Jesus quarter of the 2nd century distinct author, perhaps John of Patmos Apostle (not the same author as the Gospel of Book of Revelation John(sometimes John or 2 & 3 John) disputed) see Authorship of the Johannine works [edit] Higher criticism of other religious texts Both higher and lower forms of criticism are carried out today with the religious writings of many religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. [edit] Qur'an Modern higher criticism is just beginning for the Qur'an. This scholarship questions some traditional claims about its composition and content, contending that the Qur'an incorporates material from both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament; however, other scholars argue that it cites examples from previous texts, as the New Testament did to the Old Testament. For example, Islamic history records that Uthman collected all variants of the Qur'an and destroyed those that he did not approve of. Further information: Origin and development of the Qur'an [edit] See also  Biblical criticism  Textual criticism (lower criticism)
  12. 12.  Documentary hypothesis  Synoptic Problem  Historical-grammatical  Historical-grammatical method  Biblical genres  Misquoting Jesus [edit] History of higher criticism  Alexander Geddes  Edwin Johnson (historian) [edit] References  Gerald P. Fogarty, S.J. American Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A History from the Early Republic to Vatican II, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1989, ISBN 0-06- 062666-6. Nihil obstat by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. [edit] External links  Rutgers University: Synoptic Gospels Primer: introduction to the history of literary analysis of the Greek gospels, and aids in confronting the range of factors that need to be taken into consideration in accounting for the literary relationship of the first three gospels.  Journal of Higher Criticism  From the Divine Oracle to Higher Criticism  Catholic Encyclopedia article quot;Biblical Criticism (Higher)quot;  Dictionary of the history of Ideas - Modernism and the Church  Teaching Bible based on Higher Criticism  quot;Historical Criticism and the Evangelicalquot; by Grant Osborne  quot;From the Divine Oracle to Higher Criticismquot; from The Warfare of Science With Theology by Andrew White, 1896  Catholic Encyclopedia article (1908) quot;Biblical Criticism (Higher)quot;  Dictionary of the history of Ideas: Modernism in the Christian Church [edit] Notes 1. ^ Burkert, Greek Religion (1985), Introduction. 2. ^ Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, p. 125, Touchstone, 1961, ISBN 0-671- 20159-X, 3. ^ All quotations from the article quot;Arkquot; in the 1960 Encyclopedia Britannica 4. ^ The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2007 5. ^ Fogarty, page 40. 6. ^ Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943. 7. ^ Will Durant, The Reformation, Simon and Schuster, 1957, p. 361-371
  13. 13. 8. ^ a b Glenn Everett, Associate Professor of English, University of Tennessee at Martin (1988). The Higher Critics. The Victorian Web. Retrieved on 2007-11-06. 9. ^ Tubingen School. Retrieved on 2007-11-06. 10. ^ Glenn Everett, Associate Professor of English, University of Tennessee at Martin (1988). Essays and Reviews (1860). The Victorian Web. Retrieved on 2007-11-06. 11. ^ Josef L. Altholz, Professor of History, University of Minnesota (1976). The Warfare of Conscience with Theology. The Mind and Art of Victorian England. Victorian Web. Retrieved on 2007-11-06. 12. ^ Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 13. ^ Antony F. Campbell, SJ, quot;Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Textsquot;, in The Hebrew Bible in Modern Study, p.6. Campbell renames source criticism as quot;origin criticismquot;. 14. ^ [http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/facstaff/murphy/cour es/exegesis/redaction.htm s Religious Studies Department, Santa Clara University. 15. ^ Bibledudes.com 16. ^ Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003 17. ^ Miller, Stephen M., Huber, Robert V. (2004). The Bible: A History. Good Books, page 33. ISBN 1561484148. 18. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford, p.385; Beverly Roberts Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians, Westminster John Knox Press, 1998, p.93; Vincent M. Smiles, First Thessalonians, Philippians, Second Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, Liturgical Press, 2005, p.53; Udo Schnelle, translated by M. Eugene Boring, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 315-325; M. Eugene Boring, Fred B. Craddock, The People's New Testament Commentary, Westminster John Knox Press, 2004 p652; Joseph Francis Kelly, An Introduction to the New Testament for Catholics, Liturgical Press, 2006 p.32 19. ^ http://religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=531&C=563 Richard Heard, Introduction To The New Testament 20. ^ Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, second edition. HarperCollins Canada; Zondervan: 2005. ISBN-10 0310238595, ISBN-13 978-0310238591. p.659. Retrieved from quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticismquot; Categories: Biblical criticism Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2008 Views  Article  Discussion  Edit this page  History Personal tools
  14. 14.  Log in / create account Navigation  Main Page  Contents  Featured content  Current events  Random article Interaction  About Wikipedia  Community portal  Recent changes  Contact Wikipedia  Donate to Wikipedia  Help Search Toolbox  What links here  Related changes  Upload file  Special pages  Printable version  Permanent link  Cite this page Languages  Dansk  Deutsch  Français  Interlingua  Nederlands  This page was last modified on 6 April 2008, at 09:39.
  15. 15.  All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.  Privacy policy  About Wikipedia  Disclaimers