Higher Criticism

    John A. Widtsoe   In Search of Truth, 81-82.
    To Latter-day Saints there can be no objection to the careful and critical study of the scriptures, ancient or modern, provided only that it be an honest study—a search for truth. The Prophet Joseph Smith voiced the attitude of the Church at a time when modern higher criticism was in its infancy. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." This article of our faith is really a challenge to search the scriptures critically.  
    S. R. Driver  
    Criticism in the hands of Christian scholars does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old Testament; it presupposes it; it seeks only to determine the conditions under which it operates, and the literary forms through which it manifests itself; and it thus helps us to frame truer conceptions of the methods which it has pleased God to employ in revealing Himself.   An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament
    Sir Frederick Kenyon   Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts
    The history of Biblical criticism. . . is full of erroneous views, confidently proclaimed, eagerly accepted by those who wish to appear in the vanguard of advance, and then disproved or allowed gradually to sink into obscurity. The way to counter the results of research which are distasteful to us is more research; and it is surely a healthier faith to believe that truth is great and will prevail than to hide one's head ostrich-like, in the sand.  
    Bruce R. McConkie   Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., 353–355.
    HIGHER CRITICISM.  
    See APOSTASY, BIBLE, EVOLUTION, REVELATION, SCRIPTURE.  
    In modern times, the uninspired Biblical scholars of the world—men [354] without faith, without revelation, without the gift of the Holy Ghost, without a knowledge of the plan of salvation; men who do not accept Christ as the literal Son of God—have studiously dissected the Bible so as, in effect, to destroy its divine authenticity. Their work is called higher criticism, though as has aptly been said it should more accurately be called destructive criticism.
  
    Theories of the higher critics—based as they are on speculative evolution, on speculative archeological deductions, and on pure imagination—include such conclusions as:
    
    That the books of the Bible (particularly the earlier Old Testament books) are not the revealed mind and will of the Lord, but rather they are the compilations of various authors and scribes who edited and wove together the myths of pre-historic peoples;    
    That the Pentateuch or five books of Moses were compiled long after the day of Moses from four earlier (and now unavailable) accounts-the "J" (Jehovistic), the "E" (Elohistic), the "P" (Priestly), and "D" (Deuteronomistic);
    
    That the Book of Isaiah, for instance, was authored by two, three, or four different persons living at different times;
    
    That as a result of the manner in which the Bible came into being, it abounds in errors, contradictions, and recorded myths, and that it is not inspired in the sense that it came by revelation from God;    
    That early man could neither read nor write and was not endowed with the same intellectual capacity which the evolutionary processes have now given him;
    
    That such Biblical accounts as pertain to the creation, fall of Adam, Garden of Eden, flood of Noah, and confusion of tongues grew out of Assyrian and Babylonian myths and were incorporated into the Hebrew scriptures by ignorant or unenlightened scribes who thereby gave to myths the sanctity of revelation;    
    That the earliest religion came into being as part of the evolution ary development of man, that it included the worship of many gods, and that the concept of one supreme Deity was only gradually accepted by the Hebrew peoples.

   
    To a greater or lesser extent these false theories are accepted and taught in every sectarian church in Christendom. They are interwoven in nearly every article found in the Bible dictionaries commonly used by sectarian Christians. They are part and portion of the promised universal apostasy which the prophets specified would prevail in the last days. Occasionally some of these views are even found in the true Church and creep into lessons and class discussions. In the final analysis they are doctrines of the devil, doctrines which destroy faith and prevent acceptance of the full gospel of salvation.
    
    Latter-day Saints who have [355] gained testimonies of the divinity of the Lord's great latter-day work know that the theories of the higher critics are false. Scores of direct revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith deny, categorically and bluntly, the theories of these critics. For instance, the Book of Mormon establishes the divinity of Isaiah's writings; the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham set forth the truth about God's ancient dealings with the people from the days of Adam down; and many sections in the Doctrine and Covenants pointedly refute the specific claims of the higher critics. An excellent analysis of higher criticism is found on pages 490–515 of Man: His Origin and Destiny by President Joseph Fielding Smith.
    
    Joseph Fielding Smith   Man: His Origin and Destiny, 490–493

Hereafter, the notes in this column are President Smith's.
    CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX
  
    AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES  
    (Old Testament—Part Two)
  
  DURING the second half of the nineteenth century there was a determined effort launched on the part of' certain scholars to tear asunder and destroy the authenticity of the holy scriptures. They were influenced by the same spirit which prompted the organic evolutionists. This plan has been called "Higher Criticism," but in reality it should be called "destructive criticism."    
    The advocates of this theory assumed to have the wisdom by which they could discover, without Urim or Thummim but by their own wisdom, a difference in style in the various books of the Bible. This difference in style they proclaimed was discovered within paragraphs as well as in chapters of the various books.    
    Moreover, they taught that in many of the books, particularly the five books of Moses and Joshua, Isaiah and others, there was evidence that indicated that parts could not have been written at the time indicated by these books, but at some later date. In this manner of criticism unknown writers had to be provided to take care of these theories. Some of the passages, like that dealing with Isaiah's prophecy naming Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1–4), they maintained were written by authors after the prophetic events had taken place.    
    To their way of thinking even God could not predict the birth of a man over one hundred years before he was born. In the Book of Genesis they thought they discovered combinations of writers, and that the account of the creation and Adam's advent in the Garden of Eden was in conflict with itself.    
    These critics were not like the prophets of old of whom Peter speaks: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came [491] not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter:20–21.) These learned men do not claim to have the guidance of the Holy Ghost, but by their scientific training they have spoken and given utterance.    
  In their contention, through their uninspired skill, they maintain that they were able to discover that the five books of Moses were not the works of Moses. So they concluded to give these books to several authors living at various times. Genesis, said they, was compiled by some enterprising scribes hundreds of years later. So the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua had to be assigned to writers of various and later times. Moreover, their doctrine was that the stories of creation, the Garden of Eden, Adam's fall, recorded in Genesis, were taken from the myths and legends of the Assyrians and Babylonians. It was the accepted view at that time that "the Mosaic age was outside the scope of written records."*   * Kenyon, Sir Frederick G., Victoria Transactions, Vol. 82 (1950), page 225.
  In addition to this severe criticism of the Pentateuch these critics assigned the Book of Isaiah to at least three different writers. The entire study was, of course, speculative, and could be nothing more.    
    Examples have been given where some of these experts who claim to decipher these ancient writings, have failed to find the line of demarkation in the writings of men in our own day. Sir Charles Marston, a renowned archaeologist, illustrates this in his most excellent work, New Bible Evidence. He says that the work of various writers of The New York Times which are doubtless amended by editors and sub-editors, yet so far as he is aware,    
   

"No textual critic ever pretended to be able to distinguish one writer from another, nor to identify the amendations of the editorial staff. If methods of textual criticism powerless to analyze contemporary composition, how can, they correctly analyze documents composed more than two thousand years ago, and often in a dead language? Yet it is the very fact that the documents are so ancient [492] and the language so old, that seems to be responsible for the supposition that the critic can do so, and to sustain their supreme confidence." (pp. 232–233.)

    
  He further says that "the so-called textual criticism of the Old Testament is an endeavor to extract internal evidence from a sacred text. Such a method cannot be applied to contemporary literature. He relates how a case of plagiarism of a modern book led to the investigation of "Higher Criticism," in a Canadian law court in 1931. The judge called it "solemn nonsense." Then the case was taken to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and the "Higher Criticism" was there called by justice Riddel, "almost an insult to common sense." Then finally the case was taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of England, which is the highest tribunal of England, or the British Empire, in October 1932. Judge Atkin, the presiding judge described "Higher Criticism" as "fantastic hypotheses."    
    In addition to this attempt to find multiple authors for the scriptures, this "research" has also resulted in these advocates classing many of the earlier stories in the realm of fiction and myths, which they have claimed were current for many years antecedent to the days of Adam. The story of creation, the temptation and the fall - to go into the discard as having no divine sanction, but came out of the Assyro-Babylonian myths. This also, they say, is true of the flood, and the story of the confusion of tongues. … [493] …    
  Their search led these scholars to divide the books f Moses into four grand divisions: the "J" (Jehovistic), "E" (Elohistic), the "P" (Priestly), and "D" (Deutoronomistic). These writings were made at different times, according to this story, and by enterprising scribes, who compiled and placed them in the books as we have them now.    
    They maintain that in the first chapters of Genesis there are contradictions. This conclusion is reached in part at least, due to the fact that in the transations as the world has them of Genesis, these great men do not have the knowledge that there were two creations. First, the spiritual and second, the physical. Again, they have no correct understanding that Jehovah and Elohiim are separate personages, one being the Father and the other the Son. There is no contradiction and it is a case where the things of God are not understood by the spirit man, and this great truth was made clear by Paul.*   * 1 Cor 2:10–12. [
     

Mormons, … Higher Criticism
The Flood Narrative
Notebooks
Home