Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Higher criticism, particularly as it has been applied to the Bible, challenges the authenticity and reliability of Scripture by proposing that many of the biblical texts, especially the Pentateuch, were not written when traditionally believed. This line of criticism became popular during the 18th and 19th centuries and has continued to influence modern biblical studies. Higher critics, such as Julius Wellhausen, argued that the first five books of the Bible, as well as the book of Joshua, were not written by Moses but were compiled centuries later from various sources. This approach has cast doubt on the historical reliability of the Bible, calling into question whether it reflects true events or simply later traditions and myths.

This article seeks to exhaustively examine the claims of higher criticism and test its reliability against the objective evidence of archaeology, historical context, and the Bible’s internal consistency. Does the Bible stand up to the scrutiny of higher criticism, or does higher criticism fail in its assumptions? More importantly, how does archaeology—an independent and evidence-based field—support or contradict the conclusions of higher critics? To answer these questions, we will begin by understanding the roots of higher criticism, followed by a detailed examination of its methods and assumptions, and finally comparing its claims against the Bible and historical evidence.

What is Higher Criticism, and How Does It Differ From Lower Criticism?

Higher criticism, also known as historical criticism, seeks to evaluate the origins, authorship, and historical accuracy of biblical texts. It contrasts with lower criticism (or textual criticism), which focuses on analyzing the textual transmission of biblical manuscripts, looking for scribal errors and variants over time. While lower criticism serves an important role in ensuring that the biblical text is preserved as accurately as possible, higher criticism goes much further by questioning the historical and theological claims of Scripture itself.

The foundation of higher criticism is based on the presumption that the Bible, like other ancient religious texts, evolved over time through various authors and editors, often reflecting the cultural and political influences of the period in which they were written. This approach strips the Bible of its divine inspiration, treating it as a purely human product.

Julius Wellhausen and the Documentary Hypothesis

One of the most influential figures in higher criticism is Julius Wellhausen, a German scholar who popularized the Documentary Hypothesis. According to Wellhausen’s theory, the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were not written by Moses, as traditionally believed, but were instead a compilation of different sources. These sources, designated as J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronomist), were supposedly written at different times and then edited together to form the Pentateuch.

Wellhausen argued that these sources reflected different theological viewpoints and were composed long after the events they describe, during or after the Babylonian exile (post-586 B.C.E.). According to this theory, the accounts of Israel’s early history, such as the Exodus and the giving of the Law at Sinai, were not actual events but later fabrications designed to justify the religious practices of the post-exilic Jewish community.

What Evidence Did Higher Critics Use to Support Their Claims?

The Documentary Hypothesis and similar theories of higher criticism are based on certain assumptions and methods that aim to dissect the biblical text into its supposed constituent parts. One of the primary methods used by higher critics is source division, where they attempt to identify different authors by looking at the use of different names for God (e.g., Jehovah vs. Elohim). Critics argue that passages using “Jehovah” must have come from one source, while those using “Elohim” were written by another.

Additionally, higher critics look for repetitions or doublets in the text and argue that these are evidence of multiple sources being combined. For example, the two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are often cited as proof that two different sources were at work. Higher critics also point to differences in style, vocabulary, and theological emphasis as evidence of multiple authors.

However, these methods are highly speculative and subjective. The assumption that different names for God indicate different authors fails to recognize the possibility that a single author or editor could use different names to highlight different aspects of God’s character. For example, “Elohim” often emphasizes God’s majesty and power as Creator, while “Jehovah” emphasizes His personal covenant relationship with Israel.

Moreover, repetition and variation in style are common in ancient Near Eastern literature and do not necessarily imply multiple authors. Many ancient texts, including those outside the Bible, feature similar stylistic devices, such as repetition, for emphasis or clarity. The idea that each change in style reflects a different author is an overreach.

Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?

Higher criticism’s attack on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is based on the assumption that these books could not have been written during Moses’ lifetime. Critics argue that writing in the form of a comprehensive legal code, as found in the Torah, did not exist in the time of Moses and that the religion of Israel was a later development.

However, this assumption is not supported by the evidence. Archaeological discoveries have shown that advanced writing systems, including legal codes, existed in the ancient Near East long before the time of Moses. For example, the Code of Hammurabi, a detailed legal code, dates to the 18th century B.C.E., centuries before Moses lived. This demonstrates that the concept of a written law was not foreign to the time period in which Moses lived.

The Bible itself provides strong evidence for Mosaic authorship. In numerous places, the Pentateuch explicitly claims that Moses wrote down the Law. Exodus 24:4 states, “And Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah.” Similarly, Deuteronomy 31:9 records, “Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, and to all the elders of Israel.” These claims of Mosaic authorship are not limited to the Old Testament. Jesus Himself, in John 5:46, said, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.”

Does Archaeology Support or Contradict Higher Criticism?

One of the major flaws of higher criticism is its reliance on speculative literary analysis while often ignoring or downplaying the significance of archaeological findings. Archaeology, as a field, has repeatedly vindicated the historical accuracy of the Bible, providing evidence that many of the events described in Scripture actually took place.

For example, one of the key claims of higher critics was that King Belshazzar, mentioned in Daniel 5, never existed. Critics argued that the historical records only mentioned Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon before its fall to the Persians in 539 B.C.E., and therefore, the Bible’s account must be a fabrication. However, in the 19th century, archaeologists discovered the Nabonidus Cylinder, which confirmed that Belshazzar was, in fact, the son of Nabonidus and was left in charge of Babylon while his father was away on a prolonged campaign. This discovery directly supports the biblical account, demonstrating that Belshazzar was a real historical figure.

Similarly, higher critics long denied the existence of the Hittites, a people mentioned frequently in the Old Testament. For years, skeptics claimed that the Hittites were a fictional group, as there was no evidence outside the Bible for their existence. However, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, archaeologists uncovered extensive evidence of the Hittite civilization, including the discovery of their capital city, Hattusa, in modern-day Turkey. Once again, archaeology confirmed the accuracy of the biblical record.

These examples demonstrate that archaeology, an evidence-based field, consistently supports the Bible’s historical reliability, while higher criticism relies on speculative assumptions that often lack solid evidence.

Higher Criticism’s Presuppositions and Biases

One of the foundational problems with higher criticism is that it often begins with naturalistic and anti-supernatural presuppositions. Julius Wellhausen and other higher critics operated under the assumption that the Bible was a purely human document, the product of evolving religious traditions, rather than a divinely inspired revelation from God.

Gleason L. Archer, a noted biblical scholar, pointed out that Wellhausen and his followers started with the assumption that “Israel’s religion was of merely human origin like any other, and that it was to be explained as a mere product of evolution.” This starting point effectively dismisses the possibility of divine inspiration and revelation from the outset, skewing their interpretation of the evidence.

This bias is particularly evident in the way higher critics treat biblical prophecy. Critics argue that prophecies were written after the events they describe, rather than accepting them as genuine predictions of future events. For example, the prophecies of Daniel, which accurately describe the rise and fall of empires such as Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, are dismissed by higher critics as later additions. However, this approach is driven by a refusal to accept the supernatural, rather than by objective evidence.

The Flawed Assumptions of Higher Criticism

Higher criticism relies on several flawed assumptions that undermine its conclusions. One of these assumptions is that religious rituals and practices must evolve over time, becoming more elaborate as a religion matures. Wellhausen and his followers argued that the complex rituals and laws found in the Pentateuch, such as the detailed instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle and the offerings, could not have existed in the early period of Israel’s history and must have been added later.

However, this assumption is not supported by the evidence. As the Jewish Encyclopedia pointed out, “the arguments by which Wellhausen has almost entirely captured the whole body of contemporary Biblical critics are based on two assumptions: first, that ritual becomes more elaborate in the development of religion; secondly, that older sources necessarily deal with the earlier stages of ritual development. The former assumption is against the evidence of primitive cultures, and the latter finds no support in the evidence of ritual codes like those of India.”

In other words, the idea that religious practices must evolve in a certain way is not a universal truth. Many ancient cultures had highly complex religious systems from their earliest stages, and there is no reason to assume that Israel’s religion followed a different pattern.

Another flawed assumption of higher criticism is that changes in style or vocabulary within a text necessarily indicate multiple authors. As previously noted, ancient Semitic literature often uses repetition and variation for emphasis, and modern authors also vary their style depending on the subject matter or the audience. The assumption that each change in style represents a different author ignores the possibility of literary techniques or editorial activity within a single author’s work.

How Should Christians Respond to Higher Criticism?

For conservative Evangelical Christians, the response to higher criticism must be rooted in a firm commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The Bible, as the Word of God, is reliable and trustworthy, and its teachings must be accepted as true, even when they challenge modern presuppositions.

Christians should also be aware of the biases and assumptions that underlie higher criticism. The naturalistic worldview that drives much of higher criticism is fundamentally at odds with the Christian belief in a God who reveals Himself through Scripture and who acts in history. The dismissal of miracles, prophecy, and divine inspiration is not based on objective evidence but on a philosophical commitment to naturalism.

Finally, Christians can take confidence in the fact that archaeology and other fields of study have consistently supported the Bible’s historical reliability. While higher criticism may attempt to undermine faith in Scripture, the evidence overwhelmingly affirms that the Bible is a trustworthy record of God’s actions in history.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).