HIGHER CRITICISM | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 4, 1901

HIGHER CRITICISM.

In the olden time no one questioned the fact that Moses wrote the first book of the Bible. It was left to modern times for men to learn (?) that not Moses, but several persons, wrote the book of Genesis.

Really, it matters little whether we know who wrote the several books of the Bible. But it is of infinite importance that we appreciate the fact that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God,” having come “not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

It may matter little as to the name of the man who wrote this book or that; but we do know that these books were written by holy men. Further, we know that the scriptures came not by man's will. In other words, no man said, “I will write this.” But God spoke through men, moving them by His Holy Spirit to say the things that were to be said.

But higher criticism gets above (?) this. It tells us that Genesis was once in three parts, written by three different men, at different times in different places. Later these three fragments were welded together into a consecutive narrative by a fourth party. This union is not so perfect but that the lines of union can be fairly well traced, and the three separate parts distinguished; and as was to be supposed, these three parts do not harmonize in all particulars; one contradicts the others, and there are frequent discrepancies.

If I accept such reasonings as this, how can I believe in the divine origin of the Bible? It makes the Scriptures a mass of crazy patchwork. One man writes a certain portion, later, another man writes more, and then a third adds his part; now along comes a fourth and puts the three together as well as he can, and the narrative is complete (?).

Let me give you their own words. They are the words of a Bible scholar, not an intended Bible enemy: “The Hebrew chronicles and histories are all of them composite works. Like many of the medieval chronicles and histories, they are compiled from different sources, from materials of different ages. The extracts are woven together so as to produce a consecutive narrative. But it is generally not difficult to distinguish the points at which the different sections are pieced together. The similarity of style, in certain sections of the narrative, combined with marked dissimilarity from the style in other sections, has enabled scholars to class together the portions which may be assigned to one or other literary source.”

Since higher criticism takes this position, let us at the outset understand the drift of its teachings. Its tendency is to break down the authority of the Bible by striking a blow at its divine origin.

For example, the book of Genesis is composite, written by unknown men in unknown times in unknown places. Now these gathered-up fragments are patched together by another unknown man in an unknown time and unknown place. And all this is but to show how the book of Genesis, or any other book of the Bible for that matter, could be written by men, and that without the aid of Inspiration. And when it is thus once grasped that the Book, or books, could be thus written without the aid of the Spirit of God, many a man goes further, and says that, in his opinion, God had no more to do with the making of the Bible than He has had to do with any other good book.

And so men reason from higher criticism (?) to complete doubt, skepticism, and agnosticism. This every time is the logical outcome of higher criticism. And this is one argument against the doctrine of higher criticism, so-called.

Again, these different parts of a book, though patched together into one complete whole, are yet so poorly put together that scholars can detect the lines of union, and dissect the whole into its many component parts. And what is the rule by which they discover so much?—There is but one answer: they are entirely guided by their own weak, fallible judgment. Neither do all these higher (?) critics agree in their dismembering of the word of God. Nevertheless they have found enough points in common to keep them steadily at work on their darling scheme.

By their fruits ye shall know them. Let us forever understand that corrupt fruit is unmistakable evidence of a corrupt tree. Any theory that tends to elevate the human judgment above the word of God must be forever wrong. If any man wishes to put his mind and judgment above the authority and truth of the Scriptures, let him espouse higher criticism.

However, when I make my mind and judgment superior to anything, that thing so subjugated to my mental authority and judgment becomes to me a decidedly secondary thing. How is it with you?

And this is the second argument against higher criticism, so-called.