1. HIGHER CRITICISM

Historical
----------
Modern day theologians subscribe to a literary technique known
as "higher criticism" which they like to regard as "scientific".
It's an old idea. Its origin traces to a monograph published in
1753 by a Montpellier physician by the name of Jean Astruc, who
presumed that the alternating use of Elohim and Yahweh indicated
diversity of authorship in regard to the Book of Genesis. About
25 years later, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn published an O.T.
introduction in which he attempted to distinguish among other
literary characteristics of style and content. The notion of
other sources spread to the first six book of the Bible (the
Hexateuch).
 

Reconstruction
--------------
During the 19th century, an attempt was made to reconstruct the
documents from which, it was assumed, the Hexateuch derived.
This effort splintered into three camps: (i) continuous source
documents; (ii) many disjointed, independent documents; (iii) one
continuous main document augmented by other fragments. These
hypotheses were respectively known as continuous, fragment and
supplementation, and gave way to the new document hypothesis of
Hermann Hupfeld who published what he believed to be the "real"
sources of Genesis, and later of the entire Pentateuch (first
five books of the Bible).
 

Chronology
----------
Aside from the assumption that a writing can be analyzed into
its component sources, an additional minimal requirement is, of
course, that it is possible to further determine the
chronological relationship of these sources. Hupfeld, in using
Genesis, analyzed writings which are primarily "narrative" in
their content, thereby providing little chronological order.
Some 12 years later, Karl Graf published an analysis of the O. T.
historical books in which he presented a comparative study of the
Law. The inseparable interdependence of the "narrative" and the
"laws" of the so-called "P Code" source document of Graf could be
explained either as originating centuries apart from a Divine
Being, or as deriving from the same time period, and exclusively
through human authorship.
 

Hypothesis
----------
Abraham Kuenen convinced Graf that it was "impossible" that the
narrative and the laws had been written centuries apart, and a
few years later Julius Wellhausen agreed. This belief derived
from the presupposition that a Divine Being didn't exist. Thus
was born the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis which supposes that the
Hexateuch is composed of four originally separate documents as
follows:

The "J" document ... the oldest ... so-called because of its use
of the name Yahweh (Lord) in the Genesis narratives;

The "E" document ... the next ... so-called because of its use of
Elohim (God) prior to revelation to Moses of the name Yahweh (Ex
3:14-15);

The "D" document ... the third ... so-called because of the iden-
tification with Deuteronomy (Law);

The "P" document ... the last ... so labelled because of its
priestly content.
 

Redactors
---------
Higher criticism holds that "J" and "E" were harmonized into a
single narrative "JE" by a "redactor" "R*JE", and that "JE" and
"D" were combined to form "JED" by a redactor "R*D". The "P"
document is held to be postexilic in origin, and to have been
conflated with "JED" by a redactor "R*P" to form "JEDP". Of
course, no one knows who, or where or why, or when...about not
only the documents, but also the mysterious redactors who over
hundreds of years allegedly created new material, harmonized real
and apparent discrepancies and partitioned inconsistent one-event
accounts into two intelligible separate transactions.
 

Commonality
-----------
Higher Criticism attempts to reenforce these arguments with
alleged difficulties regarding chronological events. It also
cites the use of the phrase "Almighty God" (the Hebrew is "El
Shaddai") in Gen. 17:1 (Abram), Gen. 35:11 (Jacob), and Ex. 6:2-3
(Moses) to conclude "therefore" that all three passages came from
the same source. Likewise, the ostensible absence of the
offering of sacrifice by the patriarchs in Genesis, and the
"implied assumption" that the basis of the sacrifices detailed in
Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers contextually derived from the
absence of such sacrifices prior thereto is construed to teach a
common source (in this case "P") for parts of all four books.
Since "P" is said to be the later document, modern day
theologians attempt to recast parts of Genesis into a more recent
vintage.
 

2. SOBER CRITICISM

Methodology
-----------
It must first be understood that the conclusions of higher
criticism are nothing more than blind conjecture. All of the
things cited in alleged support of the conclusions of higher
criticism can just as easily be cited in support of the
conclusions of traditional scholarship. Furthermore, the notion
that such speculations qualify as "scientific criticism" is
ludicrous. Science is science only because an a priori
inviolable standard exists which we call natural law. Every
conclusion of science is on trial against this unwavering natural
standard, and false conclusions are pursued by such laws without
mercy. The yardstick of physical laws in the world is a
prosecuting avenger against all errors of logic, assumption and
omission. The scientific method is nothing more than an
efficient procedure for uncovering that which already exists in a
hidden way. In recent days, it has become fashionable to borrow
the method of science and, in so doing, to call it "science".
Higher criticism, far from being scientific criticism, is in fact
heightened speculation.
 

Presupposition
--------------
Such methodology is not new. The techniques used by theologians
as a basis for so-called "higher criticism" of biblical
manuscripts were used previously in other disciplines and found
to be inadequate. The assumption they make is that the sources
used to produce a literary manuscript can be determined by
examining the literary style and internal character of the
manuscript. The presupposition is that the "true" origin of the
manuscript can be derived through a literary reading of it. The
result has been a belief on the part of modern day theologians
that present day biblical manuscripts are the result of editing
by the early church, and a composite of earlier documents which
the early church fit to its own "faith" experience.
 

Contemporaries
--------------
There are, however, several problems with such conjecture. C. S.
Lewis's essay entitled "Biblical Criticism" which appears in his
"Christian Reflections" volume points out that others have
applied these same techniques to his own books, attempting to
find his "true sources" through a literary reading of his work.
Although one might suppose that such attempts should be
successful because they are being done by his contemporaries,
Lewis notes that such attempts were wrong one hundred percent of
the time. This shows that the notion that one can engage in
literary psychoanalysis through internal examination of his books
is without any tangible warrant, whatsoever.
 

Conjecture
----------
The reason for such failure should come as no surprise. There is
simply too much which goes into the author's operation to be
induced afterward from the manuscript. Yet the theologians
believe that 2000 years later, and in an alien culture, they can
succeed with the biblical materials. The presumption on the part
of the critic is that he can get inside the mind of the author to
discover the "true sources" he actually employed. Perhaps the
only thing bigger than the disparity in culture and the distance
in time is the theological ego which presumes to span it.
 

Classics
--------
The theologians actually borrowed these ideas from other realms
of scholarship where it was used in the 19th century. For
example, classical scholarship attempted an identical exercise
with homer's "Iliad and the Odyssey" in order to find the "true
sources". After an enormous amount of misguided energy was spent
in the 19th century, there was no agreement whatever regarding
where one source ended, and another source began. Subsequent to
this work, they arrived at the conclusion that if the "Iliad and
the Odyssey" was not written by Homer, then it was written by
someone who lived about the same time and who had the same name.
 

Uiguritics
----------
These same techniques were employed in a comparative, near
eastern ancient language known as uiguritic scholarship. Cyrus
Gordon, one of the greatest specialists in the field, said that
these techniques of higher criticism were not only a dismal
failure, but also appeared intrinsically incapable of yielding
trustworthy results.
 

Historians
----------
The amazing thing is that whereas modern day theologians are
content to intellectually speculate about literary origins in the
absence of supportive substantive evidence, very strong
convictions undergird the conclusions of the legal and historical
disciplines with regard to the reliability of biblical
manuscripts. Especially is this true in the case of the New
Testament. A. N. Sherwin White, a specialist in Roman Law who
delivered the Serim Lectures at Oxford in 1963 (published under
the title: "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament"),
said that "it is astonishing that many theologians using the form
(higher) criticism conclude that the 'historical Christ is
unknowable' and the 'history of His mission cannot be written'".
 

Assessment
----------
White goes on to say that "this seems very curious" (which is the
British equivalent of "lame brain") "when one compares the case
with the best known contemporary of Christ who, like Christ, is a
well-documented figure...Tibereous Caesar". White goes on to
emphasize throughout the main body of his essay that the
materials used to derive a picture of Caesar are far less
reliable than the materials used to derive a picture of Jesus
Christ.
 

Computers
---------
One example of the fragile base on which higher criticism rests
can be seen in the work of two English scholars, MacGregor and
Norton. Starting with Paul's Letters to the Romans and
Galatians, they utilized computer analysis of the literary style
and internal character to "prove" that at least five other
authors actually wrote the remaining epistles traditionally
attributed to Paul. The matter seemed to be fairly well settled
until a group at Harvard used the identical computer analysis and
applied it to the first two chapters of MacGregor and Norton's
book. The result was that the Harvard specialists concluded that
at least five other authors wrote the remaining chapters of
MacGregor and Norton's book.
 

3. FUNDAMENTAL PRESUPPOSITION

Uniqueness
----------
The important thing to note regarding higher criticism, however,
is not its foundational vacuum, nor is its historical trail of
failures particularly significant. What's noteworthy is the
epistemological presumption which implicitly undergirds such
literary inquiry. The fundamental assumption made is that even
if literary styles and character could be uncovered,
distinguished and chronologically catalogued in a trustworthy
manner (which the evidence indicates is not true), then different
authors who may have produced different documents (e.g., JEDP)
are the only explanation for such literary disparity. But we
clearly know that this is not the case. For example, the most
superficial examination of Scripture reveals the foundational
principle of progressive revelation. Now this doesn't mean that
God becomes smarter, or that the Prophets evolve into higher
quality writers; rather it means the sovereign God, who designed
history and who knew its end before its beginning, chose to
reveal different things at different times.
 

Relationships
-------------
The central thrust of the Holy Writ is to reveal God's redemptive
activity in history. In other words, what progresses
chronologically is a revelation about God, and about man's
relationship to God. Accordingly, we expect to find, and do
find, within the Pentateuch, different Spirits of revelation
through the pen of Moses. The man "Moses" was simply a human
instrument in the hand of God; and it should come as no surprise
that God's progressive revelation might manifest itself in
dissimilar ways through the same human writer.
 

Differences
-----------
Indeed, depending upon man's relationship with God during the
time periods embraced by such revelation, we might expect to find
quantum leaps of literary style and character from the pen of the
same human author which are as varied as the emotional responses
that harmonize to the different Spirits of revelation. Consider,
for example, the so-called "J" and "E" documents which are
alleged to have existed in times past. Perhaps they did, and
perhaps they didn't. In either case, one Author wrote them, and
there is not one shred of definitive evidence to the contrary.
The presumption that more than one human writer is necessary to
explain such alleged literary disparity itself derives from the
presupposition that the human writer recorded such revelation
independently from God's Spirit. The use of "Elohim" clearly
denotes God as Creator, whereas the revelation of Yahweh
establishes God as Lord. These are vastly different
relationships to man, and clearly are concordant with vastly
different literary expression. Likewise, the contrast reflected
in the legal (D) and the priestly (P) is a contrast between
obedience through works and salvation through sacrifice. This
picture repeatedly occurs as, for example, in the curse and the
blessing...the mountain of Ebal and the mountain of Gerizim.
Again we expect radical differences in human response to such
profoundly different revelational implications. The use of
"Almighty God" in Gen. 17:1, 35:11 and Ex. 6:2-3 is clearly
anticipated because God is not yet "Lord". This occurred later
when the Covenant promised Abraham in Gen 17:7 was consummated at
Sinai.
 

4. THE PENTATEUCH

Humanism
--------
All of the criticisms expressed by modern day theologians, such
as alleged inconsistencies within narratives and laws, and
alleged chronological difficulties result not because the
criticism is factual, but rather because unspiritual men are
incapable of understanding what's actually going on. This, in
fact, is explicitly revealed in I Cor. 2:14. These Scriptures
were authored by the very Spirit of God in human instruments of
old; and the point is that it's a spiritual Book intended to
communicate the path of Life to other spirits who are in
resonance with such Divine and loving initiative. It is not a
cookbook or a chemistry book, and cannot be regarded as
such...either in content *or* in origin. Stated
differently, if the Scriptures were of Divine origin, then all
attempts at analysis via humanistic principles must, by
definition, produce the very results published by modern day
theologians. In other words, the hypothesis of Divine Origin and
the human conclusion of multiple sources concur. This is because
the moral, historical and spiritual coherence intrinsic to such
divinely authored Writ provides those who reject such Authorship
no other option than groundless faith in the existence years ago
of multiple source documents which do not exist today.
 

Moses
-----
In regard to the Pentateuch, we need to recognize that all
tradition, regardless of the source, whether inspired or
otherwise, unanimously affirms that the first five Books of the
Bible were written by one man, and that his name was Moses.
There is not contradicting testimony, *whatsoever* ,
regardless of the historical data one chooses to probe. We also
need to recognize another thing. The Lord Jesus Christ
repeatedly affirmed the literal historicity of the events
recorded in the Pentateuch such as Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15),
Ninevah (Luke 11:30), Tyre, Sidon and Sodom (Matt.11:21-24), Noah
(Matt. 24:37), Lot (Luke 17:28), the Ark (Matt. 24:38), the flood
(Matt. 24:39), Abel's blood (Matt. 23:35) and even creation
itself (Mark 13:19). Christ also acknowledged Moses to be not
only Israel's human authority (Matt. 8:4, 19:7-8, 22:24, 23:2;
Mark 1:44, 7:10, 10:3-4, 12:19; Luke 5:14, 16:29-31, 20:37; John
3:14, 5:46, 6:32, 7:22), but also the Pentateuch's human writer
(Mark 12:26; Luke 24:27, 24:44; John 5:45, 7:19, 7:23). Even the
Apostle John attests to this (John 1:17 and 45). Jesus, of
course, is the highest Authority on the subject. If He is
rejected, then Matt. 7:6 applies.