What Is the Higher Criticism Movement? — Its Principles and Its Characteristics
Some of Its Leading Characters
By A. EARL HALL, B. A.
This is the first of some eight articles by Professor Hall on the reply of archaeology to present-day Biblical criticism.
His article this week states the principles on which the “higher critic” works. Next week, he will tell of the startling inroads made by the critics among the theological seminaries, and consequently with the ministers of this day and generation. The remaining articles tell of discoveries in Babylon, Egypt, and elsewhere that completely overthrow the theories of the critics.
The mass of evidence that has been unearthed to establish the absolute accuracy and reliability of God’s word, is marvelous. The inference is irresistible that divine Providence caused the inscriptions on tablets and monuments to be preserved. And it is furthermore impressive that the strong hand of Divinity has brought them forth in this generation, to comfort and encourage the believer in its inspired Book, and to confound the destructive critic and caviler. EDITOR.
The term “higher criticism,” since the days of Eichorn, the noted German philosopher, has had a definite meaning and place in theological discussions. That this article may set forth clearly the object of higher criticism, and time and space be conserved, a few questions will be answered that will place the matter before us.
WHAT IS HIGHER CRITICISM?
First, what is “higher criticism”? The term is really devised as a contrast to “lower” or “textual criticism.” The latter terms are used commonly, and their field of study is recognized as a proper and legitimate one. They are applied to facts relating to the Scripture text itself, an examination of manuscripts, and readings in various versions and codices. The former term, “higher,” embraces a study of historic origins, dates, and authorships. In a word, it is the literary study of the Bible. This is also a proper field of research. If that is so, then why this discussion, for so many decades and even centuries? And why is the term associated with unbelief in the Bible? We will endeavor to answer these very important questions.
REQUISITES FOR HIGHER CRITICS
It can readily be seen that marked ability and diligent study are requisite for a successful career in the line of work known as “higher criticism.” But we must not stop here. At the same time, it demands the simple, childlike faith of which Christ once spoke. And here is the root of the whole difficulty. Here is where the destructive element in this movement has entered—stealthily at first; but during the past century, its boasted “assured results” are heralded everywhere. Thousands have believed the doctrines advanced; but it may be noted here that some of the more radical positions have been given up by the critics in late years. Yet the general principles and policies are still adhered to.
But a word further in reference to the qualifications necessary for those who engage in the work of critically examining the Scriptures. The statement of Luther concerning one who undertakes a translation to the point: “It demands a right pious, free, reverent, Christian, scholarly, and well trained mind.” Notice the words “pious,” “reverent,” and “Christian,” and remember them as we mention some of the leaders in this work.
A statement from Prof. W. G. Jordan will greatly aid in recognizing one great fundamental error of the whole fabric: “The nineteenth century has applied to the history of the documents of the Hebrew people its own magic word evolution.”—“Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought,” quoted in “Fundamentals,” volume 2, page 54.
MUST ASSUME THE HYPOTHESIS OF EVOLUTION
Dr. Franklin Johnson, who quotes this, adds: “Thus were there no hypothesis of evolution, there would be no higher criticism. The ‘assured results’ of higher criticism have been gained, after all, not by an inductive study. . . . They have been attained by assuming that the hypothesis of evolution is true, and that the religion of Israel must have unfolded itself by a process of natural evolution.”—Id., page 54.
It is further stated, on sufficient grounds, (1) that the leaders in this propaganda base their theories largely on their own subjective conclusions, (2) that the Germans—the most radical—are especially given to the framing of hypotheses; and (3) that they are strongly biased against the supernatural.
DENY MIRACLES, PROPHECY, AND REVELATION
Again Dr. Johnson says, in speaking of the continental critics: “They deny the validity of miracle, or any miraculous narrative, all being legendary exaggerations of events that are entirely explicable from natural causes; they deny the reality of prophecy; all such prophecies are merely conjectures or coincidences; and last, that there is no revelation in the sense in which it is held by the universal Christian church.”—“Fundamentals,” volume 1, pages 89, 91, 97.
That there may be no misunderstanding of these charges, we quote from another authoritative work, which gives statements from the writings of the critics themselves. This particular school—a late German one—believes that Babylonia was the home and center of culture, that Israel borrowed generously from that source, and that ancient history is to be tested by astrology.
THEY WOULD INTERPRET BY ASTROLOGY
Professor Winckler may be regarded as the real founder of the school. In 1900, he published his views of the universe. After speaking of the divisions of the world and heaven, the zodiac and the planets, he says that the heavens reveal the past, the present, and the future, for those who can read them; and that astrology, therefore, was the all-important test and interpreter of ancient history, and that even Israel practiced it or were influenced by it.
There is some truth in the last statement, but only so when Israel had apostatized.
Further, according to Professor Winckler, the patriarchs and leaders of Israel were solar or lunar mythological personages. Abraham and Lot are identical with the708Gemini—Castor and Pollux—of the Romans. Jacob was a moon deity, and his twelve sons are the twelve months; the stories of Moses, Joseph, and others are sun myths; even David and Solomon do not escape classification in this category.
This scholar’s views are given somewhat lengthily, as they are typical of the whole school, as well as giving an idea of how the Old Testament is viewed by the critics in general.
WOULD MAKE BABYLON THE SOURCE
Professor Zimmern devotes his time to working out analogies, and looks for Babylonian originals for all of the Jewish history. He even says that in Israel the writer considered Yahweh—Jehovah—to be identical with Marduk—Merodach—a Babylonian deity. Christ weeping over Jerusalem, His agony in the garden, His death and resurrection, have their origin in the traditions of Marduk; all are simply repetitions of Marduk and Tammuz myths.
Photo by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y.
BULGARIAN CAVALRY ON THE MARCH
Dr. Jeremias admits the possibility of the patriarchs’ being historical personages. Professor Jensen finds the originals of Biblical characters from Abraham to Christ, including John the Baptist, in the Babylonian collection of sun myths. He calls the Gospels “mythographs,” and says further that “the old Israelitish history, the history of Jesus of Nazareth, has collapsed, and the apostolic history has been exploded.”—A. T. Clay, “Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites,” pages 14–19.
THREE SCHOOLS OF THE CRITICS
Let the reader now follow as a brief sketch is given of the rise and development of the movement under consideration. It may be divided into schools of three periods,—the French-Dutch, the German, and the British-American.
The remainder of this article will be devoted to a sketch of a few representatives of these schools.
Spinosa (1632–1677), born in Amsterdam, is called the “fountainhead” of the movement. It is of interest to note that his parents were Jews, and were driven from Portugal on that account. He boldly repudiated the Mosaic authorship and the traditional date of the Pentateuch, placing its origin as late as Ezra.
Astruc (1684–1766), born in France, is called the “father of the documentary theories.” He finds ten or twelve memoirs in Genesis. He says, “Genesis is disfigured by useless repetitions, disorders, and contradictions.”—Hirschfelder, page 66, quoted in “Fundamentals,” volume 1, page 94.
With Eichorn, the German critic (1752–1827), we come to one whose formative influence was very marked. Most of the later writers do homage to the “new sun.” He profited by the works of Astruc, especially putting in shape his documentary hypothesis. It is through him that the term “higher criticism” has become identified with the movement.
THE SCHOOL OF COMPROMISE
The British-American is called the school of compromise, because none of the scholars have been so radical as those on the continent of Europe. In England, Drs. Davidson and Driver, both of world-wide reputation in theological circles, and in America, the late Dr. Briggs, may be mentioned among those who have been lured by the “rational interpretation” of the Scriptures.
Since this “religious war” rages to a large extent around the Pentateuch, it may be proper to set before the reader just what the critics say about it. First, they say it contains material of three values,—“the probably true, the certainly doubtful, and the positively spurious; that it consists of four completely diverse documents, composed at various periods between 800 and 425 B. C. They represent traditions of the Hebrews; were not, as is evident, written by Moses; are inconsistent, incomplete, and contain misleading statements.”—Quoted in “Fundamentals,” volume 1, pages 102, 103.
From the foregoing, it can be readily seen that there is no final authority, and that the day of proof texts and harmony is gone. As the New Testament does not escape, as stated before, Christ’s authority is valueless.
When such men, occupying prominent positions in the educational and theological world, have been so completely deceived by this “vain philosophy,” and have now, through their works and by almost unlimited influence, a large following in the Christian world, it is not difficult to answer the question of Christ, “When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?”
“INFIDEL” IS THE PROPER TERM.
A few brief statements may be helpful in fixing the essential facts of the above in mind: “Higher criticism” is the term applied to a movement in the literary study of the Bible, which is proper in itself; but after a consideration of some of the qualifications necessary for those who would do such work, it is apparent that a class of men are active in this capacity who lack almost wholly some of the very necessary ones. The term “infidel” is a proper one to apply to many of the leaders, at least, as they place little or no confidence in a plain “Thus saith the Lord.” When we realize the tremendous influence of these teachings, it is incumbent that we know for ourselves about the book that is a complete guide to life eternal.
Absolute fairness and impartiality is the rule followed in all these discussions. Nothing like a full presentation is here possible. The important facts are given here, so the reader will get an idea at least of the movement which in the end will leave only the body of the Bible, the Book itself being swept away by the critics.
