Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
This article delves into the origins, methodologies, and assumptions of Higher Criticism and Historical Criticism of the Bible. Through a comprehensive evaluation, it explores the credibility of these critical approaches, examining their limitations, biases, and the extent to which they are supported by archaeological evidence. Explore an in-depth analysis of the reliability of Higher and Historical Criticism of the Bible. This article scrutinizes their methodologies, biases, and archaeological backing to evaluate their credibility. Ideal for those seeking an objective look at these influential but controversial scholarly approaches.
The Rise of Historical Criticism
Historical criticism of the Bible emerged predominantly in the eighteenth century, gained momentum in the nineteenth, and dominated scholarly circles by the twentieth century. This method of interpretation has often been at odds with conservative viewpoints, as it has called into question the reliability and authenticity of the Scriptures. Scholars like F. C. Baur have posited that the New Testament contains contradictions between the teachings of Peter and Paul. Meanwhile, figures such as Julius Wellhausen have asserted that the Pentateuch—traditionally attributed to Moses—was compiled over centuries by various authors.
The Faith-Historical Nexus
Nonetheless, it’s crucial to acknowledge that historical criticism has also been advantageous to the Christian community. The Christian faith is inherently rooted in historical events. God’s ultimate revelation is through Jesus Christ, who existed in a specific historical and geographical context. The Apostle Paul forcefully argued that without the historical resurrection of Jesus, Christian faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:12–19). Hence, history is not an adversary but an ally in the quest for understanding the will and nature of God as revealed in the Scriptures.
Benefits of Historical Criticism
The positive impacts of historical research on the understanding of the Bible are substantial. For instance, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls illuminated the cultural and religious backdrop against which the New Testament was written. Historical criticism has also dislodged unfounded traditional beliefs. It was once thought, for example, that the New Testament was written in a unique “Holy Ghost” language, which has now been debunked; it was actually written in the vernacular Greek of its time.
The Dangers of Philosophical Assumptions
However, historical criticism is not without its pitfalls. Much of it was born from the Enlightenment philosophy that dismissed the supernatural as incompatible with rational thought. Scholars like Rudolf Bultmann extended this philosophy, insisting that any form of miracle is historically implausible. Such perspectives are not the result of impartial historical inquiry but stem from a preexisting naturalistic worldview that categorically denies the possibility of miracles.
The Fallacy of Objective Neutrality
Historical critics often claim a mantle of objectivity, believing that their approach can rectify divisions arising from theological debates, such as those between Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Arminianism. However, this notion of objectivity has been largely discredited. The field of historical criticism itself is rife with conflicting theories and interpretations, failing to offer a unified “assured result of scholarship.”
The Ebb and Flow of Scholarly Opinion
Prominent theories that once unsettled evangelical confidence, such as those of Baur and Wellhausen, have lost much of their traction. The passage of time has shown that scholarly consensus is fluid, subject to questioning and reformulation. Thus, while conservatives should remain open to legitimate critique and refinement of interpretation, it’s important to approach current scholarly trends with discernment.
The Scriptures Stand the Test
Unresolved issues in historical criticism do not indicate that the Scriptures are unreliable. Rather, it signifies the limitations inherent in historical research, which often relies on fragmentary evidence. Overall, historical criticism has provided valuable insights that help us understand the Scriptures better. However, caution is warranted. The method often leans on presuppositions that are antithetical to a worldview accepting the supernatural. Thus, historical criticism has not proven the Bible false. On the contrary, when correctly interpreted, the Bible has enduringly withstood scrutiny and remains a reliable source of divine revelation.
Assessing the Reliability of Higher Criticism
Origins and Assumptions of Higher Criticism
Higher criticism of the Bible gained significant momentum in the 18th and 19th centuries. Scholars like Julius Wellhausen proposed that the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua were not written until the fifth century B.C.E., nearly a thousand years after the events they describe. This point of view suggests that these texts were compilations of much earlier material. Critics of this school of thought argue that the accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures aren’t literal history but rather interpretations of the nation of Israel’s later history.
Challenging the Traditional Narratives
These higher critics extend their skepticism to other core aspects of biblical accounts. They claim that the Ark of the Covenant and the tabernacle did not exist as described in the Bible. They also argue that the Aaronic priesthood’s authority was not established until just before Jerusalem’s destruction in the sixth century B.C.E. They even challenge the usage of names for God in the Scriptures as evidence of multiple authors, positing that different names for God (’Elo·himʹ and Jehovah) indicate different authors.
Is Their Methodology Sound?
Critics often employ techniques such as textual dissection and stylistic analysis to assert their theories. However, this approach is not incontrovertible proof but rather speculative at best. One must question the reliability of methods that rely on the assumption that a change in style or terminology necessarily indicates a different author.
The Influence of Philosophical Presuppositions
Another notable criticism of higher criticism comes from those who argue that these scholars begin with a preconceived naturalistic worldview. Scholars like Gleason L. Archer, Jr. contend that higher critics already assume that the Bible is a human product subject to evolutionary processes, thus their approach is fundamentally biased.
Does Archaeology Support Higher Criticism?
While higher criticism relies heavily on textual analysis, it has often been deficient in incorporating archaeological findings. Recent archaeological work tends to affirm the historical reliability of the Bible, casting doubt on theories that claim the biblical accounts are mere reflections of a much later period.
Why the Popularity Among Intellectuals?
Despite its shortcomings, higher criticism remains popular because it aligns with secular, rationalistic viewpoints. For many intellectuals, higher criticism conveniently eliminates the need for a divinely inspired Scripture, much like the theory of evolution attempts to eliminate the need for a Creator.
A Critical Evaluation of Higher Criticism
In summary, higher criticism poses important questions but often fails to provide satisfactory answers. Its methodology is speculative, its assumptions are often biased, and it tends to ignore archaeological evidence that doesn’t fit its narrative. Although the approach has been embraced by many, it has not successfully proven that the Bible is merely a human product. Rather, the Bible continues to stand as a reliable document, rooted in actual events and experiences, which demands serious consideration.
Christian Publishing House and Edward D. Andrews seek to firmly establish and defend a conservative approach to biblical exegesis and hermeneutics while meticulously exposing and critiquing the fallacies and biases prevalent in modern biblical criticism. The central thesis posits that liberal-moderate biblical criticism, incorporating literary criticism, rhetorical criticism, narrative criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, structuralism, poststructuralism, canonical criticism, and historical criticism, are fundamentally flawed and speculative. It highlights that these methods, often presented as objective and scientific, are indeed reflective of broader ideological systems such as secular humanism, the Enlightenment, and German idealism, which have significantly swayed Western academia and thought over the past four centuries. Our many blog articles and books (See In This Article) argue that these critical methodologies constitute an ongoing assault on the Bible, reinforcing scholarly biases and distancing biblical interpretation from truth. The ultimate goal is to equip readers with a clear understanding of conservative exegetical principles and methods, demonstrating how these approaches are grounded in an unswerving commitment to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, thereby offering an antidote to the subjective and ideologically skewed practices of modern biblical criticism. It is also a warning: Biblical criticism has opened the gates to a flood of pseudo-scholarly works whose influence has been to undermine people’s confidence in the Bible.