The Theory of Higher Criticism: Key Assumptions and Fallacies

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

The meaning of higher criticism
Arguments of higher critics
The purpose of higher criticism
Fallacies of higher criticism
Bibliography

The notion of higher criticism was introduced by Eichhorn (1752-1827), who defined it as the discovery and verification of the facts on origin and value of literal works with special attention being paid to the internal characters. Higher critics refer to the historical facts and, for this reason, higher criticism is often called the documentary hypothesis. Higher criticism of the Old Testament is based on the assumption that the hypothesis of evolution can be true. Higher criticism examines the historical origins, the dates of writing, and authors of different Biblical books. Thus, higher criticism, as the science of the Bible, is a study of the literal structure of the books, the Old Testament in particular. The study of the books of the Bible requires the ability of the scholar to understand the meaning of the words. Thus he has to be a believer in God.

Without faith, the scriptures cannot be explained, and without scholarship, the historical origins cannot be investigated.

The meaning of higher criticism

Higher critics hold that Pentateuch is based on the four completely different writings (the primary resources), including the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly Code. Each of these books was composed in different periods of time prior to the death of Jesus Christ. According to the higher critics, these documents are the source of the different traditions of Hebrews. It is believed that the conjecture of these four writings was composed by Moses. However, higher critics reject this assumption and note that the conjecture was written by the so-called Redactor, who introduced the new information, harmonized the flow of writing, and wrote additional documents. Later, the Pentateuch was revised and rewritten several times by other anonymous writers who are not known to modern historians.

Higher critics agree that the four documents are inconsistent and incomplete. However, it is not clear how much information is missing and when and by whom it was removed.

Despite the many disputes among higher critics, they all assume that Pentateuch was changed by several redactors and new materials were added by unknown writers. There is evidence that these writers have not only misapprehended the original writings but have also misrepresented them in the revised works.

The reader of the Old Testament might get the impression that most of the information presented in the books is contradictory and could not take place historically. Higher critics strive to locate the colored impressions added by writers and renew the valuable elements of the supportive documents. Most of the stories of the Pentateuch are regarded by higher critics as trustworthy but partially legendary. For example, the first eleven chapters of Genesis are considered to be written based on myths and legends. Higher critics deny the historical value of these chapters because there is no archeological proof of the Patriarchs existence.

Arguments of higher critics

Higher critics strive to explain the Biblical scriptures relying on historical evidence and literal analysis. It can be noted that modern higher critics deny faith because they promote the idea that miracles and prophecies do not occur.

Moreover, Biblical stories are contradictory inside. The fact that there are many contradictions in Bible is the main reason why higher critics believe in multiple authorship of the Pentateuch. For example, in Genesis 14:14, it is written that Abram has led the group of people to the city Dan, while it did not exist at that time it came into existence only at the time of Judges (Judges 18:29), which is a long time after the death of Moses.

Moreover, higher criticism is based on the assumption that Bible editors lived many years after the events they described have occurred. Redactors have rewritten the information they gained from different sources (oral traditions, proverbs, and exhortations passed from generation to generation, as well as already written materials). It is argued that higher criticism devalues Biblical writings, even though the initial aim was to improve the understanding of the holy writings. Here are some of the assumptions raised by higher critics:

Pentateuch consists of four books (J, E, D, and P)
Genesis 1-11 is a myth (is not proved by historical and geographical facts)
The book of Isaiah was composed by more than two writers
The experience of Jonah is an allegory with religious meaning
Gospels is the collection of stories put together by religious leaders

Another important argument discussed by higher critics is that there is no single line in Pentateuch about Moses being the author of it. For example, Moses is traditionally considered to be the author of the story of the monarchy (described in the Pentateuch), while Moses was already dead at that time and could not write about the events which took place after his death. There is more evidence that the texts initially referred to the authorship of Moses were written by many contributors.

For example, the contradiction is also found in the story of Noah: Genesis 6:19 Noah is told to take the two pairs of every animal, while in Genesis 7:2, he is ordered to take only seven pairs of clean animals and birds.

The purpose of higher criticism

Higher criticism is not faith-denying; it strives to find the explanation to the doublets in Old Testaments, to the contradictory stories and different language styles. These would not be found in the text was written by one person. Peter Enns agrees with the assumption that Pentateuch was written by different authors and was revised many times. It can be the case that Mosaic Code leaves the space for modifications that might be required by the new lifestyle of people[6]. Higher critics understand the importance of time, authorship, and origin of Biblical writings to the believers. The purpose of higher criticism is not merely the literal analysis of the texts but the investigation of the texts belonging to the historical and religious fields.

Pentateuch, as the collection of writings, tells the story of Moses life in the third person, which indicates that Moses did not codify himself in the Biblical stories. Historically and legally, Pentateuch could not be written at the time of Moses, and Moses is not the author of it. At the same time, higher critics do not reject the assumption that at least some parts of the Pentateuch are Mosaic. The problem with finding the true author lies both in historical and religious sciences: at the time when Pentateuch was written, most of the traditions and stories were passed orally, while from a religious perspective, the idea that Old Testament was not written by Moses but was rather revised by unknown writers is not accepted either by Church or by believers.

Fallacies of higher criticism

Higher criticism is rejected as valid by many religious leaders, historians, and literal analysts. The first fallacy of higher criticism is based on the fact that the various authors of the Pentateuch are not known (neither their names nor their origins); they are imaginary and, therefore, cannot be referred to as historical figures. The second fallacy of higher criticism is the overdependence of higher critics on evolution theory and the history of religious literature. As Franklin Johnson has noted, were there no hypothesis of evolution, there would be no higher criticism. Thus, the higher critics initially accept the hypothesis of evolution as valid, as the true story of humankinds creation, while rejecting the validity of Biblical creation story.

Moreover, higher criticism refers heavily to archaeological findings and to the assumption that at the time of events described in the Pentateuch, all of the traditions were passed orally. The recent archaeological discovery of the Tel el-Amarna tablets indicates that long before the exodus was written, people possessed writing skills and were able to record the events. Higher criticism could help to understand the Bible better, but it will not be accepted by the believers because higher criticism undermines the foundation of the faith (Bible as the Word of God) and holds that all of the Biblical writings are composed by humans and revised by unknown writers.

In conclusion, modern Christians do not hold Bible being 100 percent accurate, and higher criticism is even taught in seminary. Higher critics are partially successful in proving that the Bible is not accurate historically, but they do not deny the religious value of this book. It really does not matter what type of flame covered Moses on the mountain; it is not important whether it was the sunlight or the bush blossom; the only thing which matters is that he has heard the voice[9]. In other words, higher criticism holds that the Bible is historically false, but at the same time, it is religiously right. It is not important whether the Bible is historically accurate as long as it teaches the intended religious lessons.

Bibliography

Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament, an Introduction. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.
Enns, Peter. William Henry Green and the authorship of the Pentateuch: Some historical considerations. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (2002), 1-18.
Hague, Canon. The History of the Higher Criticism. Chapter 1 in Volume 1 The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. Baker Books (revised 2005)
Johnson, Franklin. Fallacies of the Higher Criticism.
Long, V. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Moss, A. Dedicated to the Poor Souls in Purgatory. The Catholic Encyclopedia XI. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
Pratt, Jr. He Gave Us Stories: The Bible Students Guide to Interpreting Old Testament. Brentwood: Wolgemuth and Hyath, 1994.
The Fallacy of Higher Criticism. Editorial 19, no. 1 (1984).
Canon Hague, The History of the Higher Criticism. Chapter 1 in Volume 1 The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (Baker Books, 2005).
Pratt, He Gave Us Stories: The Bible Students Guide to Interpreting Old Testament Narratives (Brentwood: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1994), 43
Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, an Introduction (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 37
The Fallacy of Higher Criticism, Editorial 19, no. 1 (1984)
Eissfeldt, 38
Peter Enns, William Henry Green and the authorship of the Pentateuch: Some historical considerations, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (2002), 12
A. Moss, Dedicated to the Poor Souls in Purgatory, The Catholic Encyclopedia XI (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911), 1621
Franklin Johnson, Fallacies of the Higher Criticism.
V. Long, The Art of Biblical Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 121.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Theory of Higher Criticism: Key Assumptions and Fallacies

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)