What could account for this 1990 radical change in belief about the German school of Higher Criticism (that began around 1860)?

This development in German universities in the 1800s is not to be confused with today’s “Critical Theory” (just in case anyone reading the 1990 quote below thinks they are akin.) This question deals with a new approach to Scripture – examining the text critically, scientifically even, as all other ancient texts should be treated. It was at total odds with the venerable Dean Burgon who declared, > “The Bible is none other than the Word of God: not some part of it, > more, some part less; but all alike, the utterance of Him who sits > upon the Throne; - absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme.” J.W. > Burgon, *Inspiration and Interpretation, Seven Sermons before the > University of Oxford in 1860-61*, p.89 Although today’s “Critical Theory” does impact on the Church, it is political, not theological, being a German idea started in Germany in 1923 that is a mixture of Marxism and postmodernism being fronted as ‘social justice’. Having cleared that up, ***here now is the quote that my question is based upon:*** > “In its own eyes, historical-critical theology wants to lend > assistance to the proclamation of the gospel through an interpretation > of the Bible that is scientifically reliable and objective. There is, > however, a monstrous contradiction between what it says it wants to > do, on the one hand, and what it actually does, on the other. It does > not further the proclamation of the gospel – in fact, it actually > prevents it.” Eta Linnemann, 1990 Dr. Linnemann was a ‘follower’ of Rudolph Bultmann and a teacher of higher criticism in the university system of West Germany but I cannot find the book she wrote which this quote apparently comes from (which is in a translation of: *Historical Criticism of the Bible*) **Can anyone** pad this quote out to **give reasons for such a drastic reversal? In what ways would Higher Criticism prevent the proclamation of the biblical gospel, as claimed? What is “this monstrous contradiction”** Dr. Linnemann hints at?