Higher Criticism by Earle Albert Rowell

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · May 24, 1910

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 37, No. 20.

Higher Criticism

By Earle Albert Rowell

III. Absurdities and Contradictions of Higher Criticism

N their desperate efforts to make their theories stand upright, the Higher Critics are driven into many absurd positions, a few of which will be dealt with here. The whole theory is one huge absurdity and contradiction; but the strangest fact of all is that the very positions upon which they most pride themselves, and upon which they lay the most stress, are the ones most open to exposure and most evidently the product of a baseless imagination.

"Any one familiar with literature, knows how difficult it is for a well-known writer to disguise his hand. It will often be recognized through all disguises, even by those who are not experts."—Briggs, "Study of Holy Scripture," page 99.

It is upon stylistic differences in the various parts of a Bible book that Higher Criticism is based. The whole top-heavy theory is built upon the supposed detection of different writers by a variation in style. "Difference of style implies difference of author and period of composition."—Id., page 97.

Now since "Higher Criticism is a science, and its results as sure as those of any other science" (Id., page 105), let us push our inquiry a little further, and ascertain some of the scientific results of this new science when applied to the phenomena of style.

"It is agreed among Critics that the Ephraimitic writer is brief, terse and archaic in style; the Judaic writer is poetic and descriptive. The Priestly writer is annalistic and diffuse, fond of names and dates. He aims at precision and compactness. The logical faculty prevails. There is little coloring. The Deuteronomic writer is rhetorical and hortatory, practical and earnest. His aim is instruction and guidance."—Id., page 301.

The Results

Now we are in full possession of the means of tearing the books of Moses apart and apportioning to each of the above mentioned four writers his separate production. But when we start to do this, we are appalled to find that instead of just four writers, the task is made herculean by the discovery of not only scores but hundreds of writers, many of whom wrote so much alike that they can not be distinguished! We are gravely informed of this in spite of the fact that the whole theory rests upon the "sure results" of the scientific ability of the Critics to distinguish all the different writers with unfailing accuracy by their differences of style, which they can not even disguise.

"It seems to be evident that there were GROUPS of earlier Ephraimitic and Judaic writers, and these were followed by GROUPS of Deuteronomic and Priestly writers, and the composition of the Old Testament was a MUCH more elaborate affair than the earlier critics supposed. The same is true of the Gospels."—Id., page 290.

Occasionally we find a Critic who admits the difficulty of such a theory. "The style of the two writers (E and J) is so very similar, except for the use of the divine names, that it is impossible to distinguish them by considerations of style alone."—Colenso, Pent., volume 5, page 59.

Dr. Driver also admits the difficulty, but he is so wedded to the theory that he is driven to the following logic in its defense: "Indeed stylistic criteria alone would not generally suffice to distinguish J and E; tho when the distinction has been effected by other means, SLIGHT differences of style APPEAR to disclose themselves."—Introd., page 126.

When learned men are driven to such absurdities of logic to defend a hypothesis, it is self-evident that they have an absurd hypothesis to defend.

Furthermore, in commenting on the narrative in Gen. 12:10-20, he says: "The term Jehovah is uniformly employed."—Id., page 23. The point of his argument is that if the term Jehovah, instead of Lord, is used in the whole narrative, it must be written by the writer designated by the Critics as J, who they claim is the only one to use "Jehovah." But upon reading the passage in question, we find, much to our surprise, that here "uniformly" is just once. In studying the writings of Higher Critics, one is constantly finding such makeshifts to bolster up a system that is based upon unproved assumptions, false inferences, narrow views, absurd probabilities, and palmed off on the unwary from the sacred sanctum of the theological seminary or the still more sacred sanctuary of the pulpit, as the "sure results" of the "scientific method of criticism," which it would be not only an exposure of ignorance and narrow-mindedness but even treason to doubt.

In Deuteronomy

The first four chapters of Deuteronomy are declared by most recent Critics to be the work of a different writer from the rest, tho "the usage of speech is the same as in chapters 5-11."—Otelli, Com. on Deut., page 9.

This unwelcome difficulty is smoothed by another Higher Critic thus: "The great similarity of language MUST be explained as the result of IMITATION."—Kuenen, Hex., page 117. Thus we see that a difference of authorship is first assumed, and then when the fact that there is no difference in style is pointed out and is so glaringly evident that even the Higher Critics admit it, we are gravely informed there "must" be imitation. It simply "must" be so, for the hypotheses "must" be maintained at the expense of reason and any and all facts.

Indeed, Dr. Driver says of Deuteronomy: "Particular words, and phrases, consisting sometimes of entire clauses, occur with extraordinary frequency, giving a distinctive coloring to EVERY PART of the work."—Deut., page 82. Hence if the style is any criterion, even the testimony of Higher Criticism shows it is the work of one writer. The tests of style are first made the means of judgment; and then when it cuts across their desires or theory, it is completely ignored, and "imitation" "must" account for the "wonderful similarity" of one part of the work with the other!

Their theory requires that the writer designated by them as E always use "Elohim" for "God," and the one designated by J always use "Jehovah." But we find, on the contrary, that E uses "Jehovah" and J uses "Elohim," and sometimes each uses both joined, as in Gen. 2:4. Thus is their theory so pulverized by its own weight that Addis has to admit, after years of study on this very subject, that "attempts have been made to separate the component documents. . . . But the task seems to be hopeless, and there is nothing like agreement in result."—Hex., volume 1, page 165. All this in spite of the dictum of Dr. Briggs that it is so easy to detect differences in style that writers can't disguise their styles enough to deceive even a non-expert.

The New Testament

Similar absurdities are everywhere prevalent in the New Theology writings on the New Testament. We have space for but one example. P. W. Schmidel, professor of New Testament exegesis in the University of Zurich, in his article on Acts in the Encyclopedia Biblica, section 4, speaks of Acts containing "a whole series of demonstrable inaccuracies." And in section 13 we are told that "no statement merits immediate acceptance on the mere grounds of its presence in the book. . . . Positive proofs of the trustworthiness of Acts must be tested with the greatest caution"! In section 14 we learn that "with regard to the speeches, it is beyond doubt, that the author constructed them in each case according to his own conception

of the situation." Then we reach this astonishing statement: "In short, almost the only element that is historically important is the Christology of the speeches of Peter." And these speeches are pure imagination, absolute fiction!

This is monstrous enough, but in section 19 we find a still more startling statement: "The value of Acts as a devout and edifying work, can not be impaired by criticism. Indeed the book is helped by criticism, WHICH LEADS BEYOND A MERE BLIND FAITH IN ITS CONTENTS." It is to such lengths as this one is always led when he casts aside the "Word of truth" and is "blown about by every wind of doctrine." In the place of "sound doctrine" we have here an air of knowledge, a cant of advanced thought, and a sound of wisdom.

It may puzzle the reader upon just what grounds the Higher Critics base all these unproved theories and absurd and contradictory conclusions. Dr. Driver, one of the foremost Higher Critics of England, tells us frankly all about it:

"We can ONLY argue upon GROUNDS OF PROBALITY, derived from OUR views of the progress of the art of writing, or of literary composition, or of the rise and growth of the prophetic tone and feeling in ancient Israel, or of the period in which traditions contained in the narrative MIGHT have taken shape, or of the PROBALITY that they would have been written down before the impetus given to culture by the monarchy had taken effect, and SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS, for estimating most of which, the PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENTS on one side or the other MAY be advanced, a STANDARD ON WHICH WE CAN CONFIDENTLY RELY SCARCELY ADMITS OF BEING FIXED."—O. T. Lit., 6th edition, page 122.

This is what the "assured results" of their "scientific" Criticism amount to. Here is the whole thing summed up in one comprehensive sentence by one of the greatest of Higher Critics, and upon his own admission we see how absolutely flimsy are the theories, how baseless their conclusions.

And this is the boasted Higher Criticism which so boldly discredits the whole Bible! Are these "grounds of probability," "plausible arguments" founded upon "our views," to be accepted in preference to the authority of Christ, "one of whose words should not be broken"? Shall we discard our confidence in the divine Book upon such baseless reasons, vain delusions, foolish theories, and contradictory assumptions? Shall we not rather stand upon the fact that "Thy Word is true from the beginning"? Ps. 119: 160.