Bible criticism—particularly in its liberal and academic forms—has operated as one of the most systematic and insidious assaults on the authority, reliability, and inerrancy of the Word of God. What is presented in academic institutions as “objective scholarship” under the labels of higher criticism, source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and literary criticism is, upon examination, a deeply flawed system rooted in naturalistic presuppositions and philosophical skepticism. This methodology has permeated seminaries and theological faculties since the 18th century and continues to poison pulpits and classrooms by undermining faith in the biblical text.

From its inception, modern biblical criticism has not sought to understand the Bible but to dissect it, deconstruct it, and ultimately denounce its divine origin. The claim that these critical methods are neutral or scientific is a delusion. In truth, they are ideologically driven tools of Enlightenment rationalism, secular humanism, and German idealism—systems that categorically reject divine revelation, prophetic foresight, and miraculous intervention. This article will expose these methods as theological Trojan horses and contrast them with the literal, historical-grammatical method of exegesis which upholds the divine authority of Scripture.

The Rise of Higher Criticism: A Product of Apostasy

Higher criticism began to gain traction in the 18th and 19th centuries through the influence of Enlightenment rationalism and German philosophy. Julius Wellhausen, one of the most prominent figures in this movement, developed the Documentary Hypothesis, which claimed that the Pentateuch was not authored by Moses but was a composite of four separate sources—J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly)—redacted centuries after the events they purported to record.

Wellhausen’s theory, now thoroughly debunked by conservative scholarship and archaeological discoveries, nevertheless captured Western academia because it offered a “scientific” way to explain away supernatural elements, predictive prophecy, and Mosaic authorship. In his worldview, the Bible evolved through human processes, much like Darwinian evolution purportedly explains biological development. Thus, Genesis became myth, the Law of Moses a late invention, and Israel’s history a retrojection of post-exilic theological concerns.

This foundational presupposition—that the Bible is merely human in origin—has shaped every branch of critical theory that followed. It is not that critics proved the Bible is uninspired; they simply assumed it. As Gleason Archer rightly observed, “The Wellhausen school started with the pure assumption … that Israel’s religion was of merely human origin like any other.”

The Assumptions and Tactics of Modern Bible Criticism

Bible criticism operates not by testing its theories against objective evidence, but by selectively interpreting the text to support pre-existing philosophical frameworks. The methods are legion: any variation in style, vocabulary, or repetition is treated as evidence of multiple sources; theological development within the canon is construed as evidence of evolving human religion rather than progressive revelation; and predictive prophecy is automatically dismissed as vaticinium ex eventu—prophecy written after the fact.

Critics assume that no author could have used both “Jehovah” and “Elohim” to refer to God, as if variation in divine names necessitates multiple authorship. They treat ancient Hebrew narrative, which commonly includes repetition, thematic emphasis, and varied diction, as literary inconsistency. They arbitrarily fragment cohesive texts, dismiss miracle accounts as myth, and relegate fulfilled prophecies to mere retrospective constructions. Yet all of this is presented with academic gravitas as though it were established fact.

In reality, it is conjecture built on conjecture. As noted in the 1909 Jewish Encyclopedia, the Documentary Hypothesis was based on “assumptions” that ritual must become more complex over time—an idea disproven by comparative anthropology. Likewise, the New Encyclopaedia Britannica later conceded that “archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of the typical historical details of even the oldest periods.”

The Impact of Literary and Postmodern Criticism

In the 20th century, literary criticism, structuralism, poststructuralism, and deconstruction were applied to Scripture, compounding the damage. Narrative criticism reimagines biblical texts as fictional constructs, while canonical criticism sidelines authorial intent. Rhetorical criticism focuses on persuasion and structure rather than truth. Each of these approaches denies the Bible’s claim to objective, historical, divinely revealed truth. Their foundation is not exegesis but existentialism and relativism.

These methods claim to be “readings” rather than interpretations, rejecting the idea that any one interpretation—especially a literal or historical one—can be normative. In doing so, they displace the authority of God’s Word and elevate the authority of the reader or community. They invert the proper role of interpreter and text. The result is a Bible that means anything and therefore nothing.

Canonical criticism, pioneered by Brevard Childs, claims to honor the final form of the text, yet even it sidesteps the historical reality behind the text. It treats the canon as a theological product of the believing community, not a divinely authored, historically rooted revelation from God.

Archaeology and Historical Evidence Vindicate Scripture

Far from undermining Scripture, archaeology has consistently affirmed the historical veracity of the Bible. The existence of Belshazzar, once denied by critics, was later confirmed through cuneiform inscriptions. This example mirrors dozens of similar instances: the Hittites (once unknown outside the Bible), the destruction of Jericho, the historical reliability of the census under Quirinius, and the accuracy of Luke’s titles for officials in Acts—all affirmed by archaeological or historical discoveries.

Contrary to higher criticism, archaeology has shown that the earliest books of the Bible reflect a level of detail and cultural awareness that could not have been fabricated centuries later. The internal consistency and external corroboration of the biblical text continues to defy the skeptical claims of critics.

The Fruit of Bible Criticism: Apostasy and Unbelief

The impact of critical methodologies is evident in the decline of biblical authority in seminaries and churches. Once the authority of Scripture is undermined, theological liberalism follows. Denials of miracles, redefinitions of sin, rejection of the atonement, universalist soteriology, and revisionist ethics all trace their root back to a compromised doctrine of Scripture.

The acceptance of higher criticism opens the floodgates to reinterpretation of all biblical doctrines. Genesis becomes myth, Adam a literary archetype, the Flood a local event or a fable, and Jesus’ resurrection a metaphor. The authority of the Bible is traded for the uncertainty of human opinion, and theological anarchy ensues.

It is no coincidence that denominations most affected by liberal scholarship have also seen the most significant doctrinal collapse and moral compromise. Once the Bible is no longer inerrant, it is no longer authoritative. When that happens, man becomes the arbiter of truth.

The Historical-Grammatical Method: A Faithful Approach to Interpretation

The conservative response to Bible criticism is not anti-intellectualism but sound hermeneutics. The historical-grammatical method interprets Scripture based on the normal rules of language, the context of the passage, the intent of the author, and the unity of the whole canon. It treats the Bible as what it claims to be—divine revelation communicated through human authors in real historical settings.

This method affirms plenary verbal inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16), inerrancy in the original manuscripts (John 17:17), and the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Peter 1:3). It does not force the text to fit modern ideologies or literary trends. It seeks to understand, not dissect; to believe, not demythologize.

Sound exegesis affirms Moses as the author of the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24), Isaiah as the sole author of his prophecy (Isaiah 1:1), and Daniel as the author of his visions during the Babylonian exile (Daniel 1:1, 21). It affirms predictive prophecy as genuine revelation from God (Isaiah 46:9–10), and the miracles of Jesus as literal historical events (John 20:30–31). It does not explain away the text but submits to its authority.

Conclusion

Bible criticism in its various forms—higher, literary, rhetorical, redaction, or postmodern—is not a neutral or objective academic tool. It is a spiritually corrosive ideology born of unbelief, designed to subvert the authority of God’s Word under the guise of scholarship. It is a product of Enlightenment rationalism, German idealism, and liberal theology, and it has no rightful place in the interpretive task of faithful exegesis.

The task of the Christian scholar is not to accommodate the assumptions of a skeptical world but to uphold the inerrant, inspired Word of God. As Psalm 119:160 affirms, “The sum of Your word is truth.” We do not stand in judgment over Scripture; it stands in judgment over us.

You My Also Enjoy

Athenagoras of Athens: Apologist of the Physical Resurrection and the Triune God

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS