Bible Criticism
The Danger of Biblical Criticism
Abstract
This paper argues that modern biblical criticism—specifically New Testament source criticism and Old Testament higher criticism—is fundamentally incompatible with the biblical, confessional, and theological doctrine of Holy Scripture. By examining Scripture’s own testimony concerning inspiration, preservation, authorship, and authority, and by aligning these doctrines explicitly with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), this study demonstrates that biblical criticism is not a neutral academic tool but a doctrinal system that undermines revelation. Particular attention is given to the denial of verbal–plenary inspiration, the erosion of providential preservation, the rejection of Mosaic and apostolic authorship, and the theological consequences of Markan priority and the Documentary Hypothesis. The paper concludes that biblical criticism necessarily replaces divine revelation with human reconstruction and must therefore be rejected as unbiblical and confessionally inadmissible.
I. Introduction: The Question Is Not Academic but Theological
The modern discussion of biblical criticism is often framed as a matter of scholarly method, literary analysis, or historical inquiry. However, Scripture itself does not permit such neutrality. The Bible speaks clearly and repeatedly about its own origin, nature, authority, and preservation. Consequently, any system that explains Scripture in a manner contrary to Scripture’s self-testimony must be evaluated not merely as an academic theory, but as a theological position.
Biblical criticism—whether expressed through New Testament source criticism or Old Testament higher criticism—rests upon presuppositions that directly conflict with the doctrines of inspiration and preservation. These presuppositions are not minor or peripheral; they reshape the doctrine of Scripture at its foundation. This paper therefore approaches biblical criticism not from the standpoint of literary studies, but from the standpoint of biblical theology and confessional orthodoxy.
II. The Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration
A. The Meaning of Inspiration
The foundational biblical text concerning inspiration is 2 Timothy 3:16:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God.”
The Greek term theopneustos literally means “God-breathed.” Scripture does not say that Scripture is inspired in the sense of being elevated religious reflection, nor that its authors were inspired persons whose ideas were later recorded. Rather, Scripture itself—graphē, the written text—is breathed out by God.
This definition establishes three critical truths. First, inspiration is divine in origin, not human. Second, inspiration applies to Scripture as Scripture, that is, to the written words. Third, inspiration is comprehensive: “all Scripture,” not portions or themes, is inspired.
B. The Method of Inspiration
Scripture further explains how inspiration operates:
“Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21)
The verb translated “moved” (pherō) denotes being carried or borne along. The human authors of Scripture were not autonomous thinkers assembling traditions or editing sources. They were instruments sovereignly carried by the Spirit of God. The initiative, direction, and authority belong to God.
This divine movement establishes the doctrine traditionally called verbal–plenary inspiration. Verbal inspiration affirms that the very words of Scripture are inspired. Plenary inspiration affirms that all Scripture is inspired. Together, these doctrines exclude any theory that locates inspiration merely in ideas, concepts, or later editorial processes.
C. Christ’s Testimony to Verbal Inspiration
Jesus Christ Himself affirmed verbal inspiration:
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)
Christ grounded spiritual life not in general truths or religious insights, but in every word spoken by God. Furthermore, He affirmed the enduring authority of the smallest textual elements:
“One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” (Matthew 5:18)
Such statements are unintelligible under conceptual or editorial theories of inspiration. They presuppose that Scripture is authoritative at the level of words and letters.
III. The Biblical Doctrine of Preservation
Inspiration cannot be isolated from preservation. A God who speaks authoritatively must also preserve what He has spoken. Scripture explicitly teaches this doctrine:
“The words of the LORD are pure words… Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalm 12:6–7)
Preservation refers not merely to the survival of religious ideas, but to the guarding of God’s words. The promise is perpetual—“for ever”—and divine—“Thou shalt keep them.”
This doctrine directly contradicts any theory that requires Scripture to pass through stages of corruption, loss, reconstruction, or doctrinal development. Preservation does not mean that Scripture evolves toward clarity; it means that God safeguards His revelation against such evolution.
IV. Source Criticism: Claims and Presuppositions
New Testament source criticism asserts that the Gospels are the product of literary dependence. According to this view, Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, and additional shared material derives from a hypothetical document commonly called “Q.” The Gospel writers are thus portrayed as editors who selected, modified, and expanded earlier materials.
These claims rest on presuppositions rather than biblical testimony. Scripture nowhere teaches that inspired authors depended on prior documents, that doctrine developed through successive editorial layers, or that hypothetical sources underlie the canonical text. Source criticism therefore explains Scripture by appealing to what Scripture itself never affirms.
V. Higher Criticism and the Pentateuch
Higher criticism applies the same methodology to the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch. The Documentary Hypothesis claims that the Law is a composite of multiple sources (commonly labeled J, E, D, and P), written centuries after Moses and reflecting evolving religious ideas.
This theory directly contradicts Scripture’s own testimony. Jesus affirmed Mosaic authorship:
“Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46)
The New Testament repeatedly treats the Law as the work of Moses and as authoritative Scripture. To deny Mosaic authorship is therefore not merely to dispute a historical claim, but to challenge the authority and truthfulness of Christ Himself.
Higher criticism thus demonstrates that biblical criticism is not confined to literary questions; it strikes at the foundation of biblical authority.
VI. Apostolic Authority and Eyewitness Testimony
Scripture grounds its authority not in anonymous tradition but in apostolic and prophetic witness:
“That which we have seen with our eyes… and our hands have handled.” (1 John 1:1)
Matthew was an apostle and an eyewitness of Christ’s ministry. To subordinate his Gospel to a non-apostolic source is to invert the biblical order of authority:
“Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” (Ephesians 2:20)
Scripture never elevates secondary testimony above primary eyewitness revelation.
VII. The Promise of Spirit-Guided Revelation
Christ promised His apostles divine assistance in the production of Scripture:
“The Holy Ghost… shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance.” (John 14:26)
This promise explains the origin of the Gospels without recourse to documentary dependence. The authority of the Gospels rests on the Spirit’s guidance, not on the authors’ access to sources.
VIII. Theological Consequences of Biblical Criticism
Once biblical criticism is adopted, several consequences follow inevitably. Scripture becomes a product of history rather than revelation. Authority shifts from God to scholars. Doctrine becomes provisional and subject to revision. The unity and certainty of Scripture are replaced by fragmentation and speculation.
These outcomes are not accidental; they flow directly from the presuppositions of criticism.
IX. Confessional Evaluation: Westminster and 1689
The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession affirm that Scripture is “immediately inspired by God” and “kept pure in all ages.” They reject mediated inspiration, textual evolution, and external authorities in interpretation. Biblical criticism, by contrast, depends upon mediated inspiration, textual development, and scholarly reconstruction. The two systems are therefore incompatible.
X. Conclusion
Biblical criticism is not a harmless academic exercise. It is a doctrinal system that denies verbal–plenary inspiration, undermines providential preservation, and redefines the authority of Scripture. In contrast, Scripture testifies to its own divine origin, verbal precision, and perpetual preservation. This testimony is confessed by historic Reformed theology and must be upheld by the Church. Scripture does not evolve; it proceeds from God, complete, authoritative, and preserved.
Scripture does not evolve.
Scripture proceeds from God—whole, ordered, and preserved.
Kenneth Malenge
Comments
Post a Comment