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 means “God-breathed.” The text does not describe Scripture as inspiring in its effect upon readers, nor does it speak of inspired religious experiences later reduced to writing. Rather, it asserts that Scripture itself—graphē, the written text—is breathed out by God.
This wording is decisive. Inspiration is not located in the authors, the ideas, or the religious community, but in the product: the written Scripture. The breath of God is not metaphorical enthusiasm or moral elevation; it is the divine act by which God speaks in written form.
Three doctrinal conclusions follow necessarily from this definition:
- Inspiration is divine in origin.
- Scripture proceeds from God, not from human religious insight. Human authors are not the source but the means.
- Inspiration applies to the written text.
- The object of inspiration is Scripture as Scripture. Authority therefore resides in the text itself, not behind it or beyond it.
- Inspiration is comprehensive.
- “All Scripture” leaves no category of uninspired biblical material. Narrative, law, poetry, prophecy, doctrine, and history are equally God-breathed.
These conclusions exclude partial, selective, or graduated theories of inspiration.
B. The Method of Inspiration
Scripture further explains the manner in which this divine breathing took place:
“Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21)
The verb pherō (“moved”) denotes being carried along by an external power. The image is not one of cooperation between equal partners, but of divine superintendence. The human authors spoke, yet their speaking was governed, directed, and borne along by the Holy Spirit.
This text clarifies two essential points:
Human authorship is real, but subordinate.
The men truly spoke, wrote, and expressed themselves; yet their activity was under divine control.
- Divine authorship is ultimate.
- The initiative, content, and authority of Scripture originate with God, not with the human mind.
From this biblical description arises the doctrine of verbal–plenary inspiration.
- Verbal inspiration affirms that inspiration extends to the very words, not merely to general thoughts.
- Plenary inspiration affirms that inspiration extends to the whole of Scripture, not merely to selected parts.
Together, these affirmations rule out theories that reduce inspiration to religious ideas, moral insights, or later editorial refinement. What Scripture says, God says.
C. Christ’s Testimony to Verbal Inspiration
The Lord Jesus Christ explicitly affirmed this understanding of Scripture.
“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 in every word spoken by God. Authority is not attached merely to overarching messages, but to the words themselves. This presupposes that Scripture, in its verbal form, is the direct speech of God.
He further declared:
“One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” (Matthew 5:18)
A jot and a tittle are the smallest components of the Hebrew text. Christ’s argument depends upon the enduring authority of the minutest textual details. Such language is incompatible with any theory that locates inspiration only in concepts, themes, or religious intent.
Christ’s view of Scripture is therefore unmistakable:
Scripture is verbally inspired, permanently authoritative, and divinely preserved at the level of words.
III. The Biblical Doctrine of Preservation
The doctrine of preservation is inseparably bound to the doctrine of inspiration. A God who speaks with authority must also preserve what He has spoken. To affirm inspiration without preservation is to assert that God gave His Word, yet failed to guard it. Scripture itself will not allow such a separation.
The biblical witness explicitly teaches divine preservation:
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
(Psalm 12:6–7)
The subject of preservation in this passage is not human tradition, religious meaning, or theological insight, but “the words of the LORD.” The purity described in verse 6 grounds the promise given in verse 7. Because God’s words are pure, He Himself commits to their preservation.
Several doctrinal affirmations follow directly from the text.
First, preservation is divine, not ecclesiastical or academic.
The psalm does not say, “men shall keep them,” but, “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD.” Preservation is God’s work, not the achievement of scholars, councils, or institutions. Human instruments may be used, but the responsibility and guarantee belong to God alone.
Second, preservation concerns the words themselves.
Just as inspiration attaches to graphē—the written text—preservation attaches to the same object. God preserves what He inspired. Preservation is therefore verbal, not merely conceptual. The promise is not that God will maintain correct doctrine in general, but that He will guard His spoken and written words.
Third, preservation is perpetual.
The phrase “from this generation for ever” excludes any notion of temporary loss or extended disappearance. Scripture does not teach that God’s Word must be recovered after centuries of corruption, nor that it exists only in fragmentary or uncertain form. What God gives, He keeps.
This doctrine stands in direct opposition to any theory that requires Scripture to undergo fundamental corruption, textual loss, or doctrinal reconstruction. Preservation does not mean that Scripture survives in principle while its form deteriorates; it means that God actively safeguards His revelation against such deterioration.
Preservation also does not imply progressive clarification through historical development. God’s Word does not evolve toward accuracy. It is given pure, and it is kept pure. The authority of Scripture therefore rests not on modern reconstruction, but on divine faithfulness.
In sum, the doctrine of preservation affirms that the same God who breathed out His Word has faithfully guarded it. Inspiration guarantees divine origin; preservation guarantees divine continuity. To deny preservation is ultimately to undermine the authority of Scripture itself.
IV. Source Criticism: Claims and Presuppositions
New Testament source criticism maintains that the Gospels are the product of literary dependence rather than direct apostolic or prophetic authorship. The theory commonly asserts that Mark was written first, that Matthew and Luke relied upon Mark as a primary source, and that additional shared material derives from a hypothetical document usually designated as Q. Within this framework, the Gospel writers are portrayed not primarily as witnesses or authoritative spokesmen, but as editors and compilers who selected, rearranged, and modified pre-existing materials.
Such claims do not arise from the testimony of Scripture itself, but from methodological presuppositions imposed upon the text. Scripture nowhere teaches that inspired authors depended upon earlier written sources as the basis of their authority. Nor does it suggest that gospel truth emerged through stages of literary development or editorial refinement. The canonical Gospels present themselves as authoritative proclamation, not as the final product of an evolutionary process.
The central difficulty with source criticism lies not merely in its conclusions, but in its starting point. The theory assumes that similarity requires dependence, that variation requires redaction, and that historical reliability must be explained by hypothetical sources. These assumptions function as controlling principles rather than as conclusions drawn from biblical evidence.
As a result, source criticism explains Scripture by appealing to what Scripture itself never affirms. Hypothetical documents are treated as explanatory necessities, while the explicit claims of inspiration and divine superintendence are marginalized. The authority of the text is thus relocated from God’s act of revelation to human processes of composition.
In contrast, the biblical doctrine of inspiration affirms that the Gospel writers wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21). Their authority rests not on literary dependence, but on divine authorship. Any interpretive approach that requires inspired Scripture to be reconstructed through conjectural sources ultimately shifts confidence away from God’s Word as given, and toward theories about what might have existed behind it.
V. Higher Criticism and the Pentateuch
Higher criticism extends the same methodological assumptions applied to the New Testament into the Old Testament, most notably the Pentateuch. Central to this approach is the Documentary Hypothesis, which asserts that the Law is not a unified work given through Moses, but a composite of multiple sources—commonly designated J, E, D, and P—compiled centuries after Moses and reflecting the gradual evolution of Israel’s religion.
This theory does not arise from Scripture’s testimony about itself, but from critical presuppositions that prioritize literary reconstruction over divine revelation. The Pentateuch does not present itself as a late editorial compilation, nor as the product of anonymous schools of tradition. It consistently speaks with a unified voice and grounds its authority in God’s direct communication through Moses.
More decisively, the Documentary Hypothesis stands in direct contradiction to the testimony of Jesus Christ. Our Lord explicitly affirmed Mosaic authorship when He declared:
“Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46)
Christ’s statement assumes that Moses wrote Scripture, that what Moses wrote was authoritative, and that it bore direct witness to Christ Himself. This affirmation is not incidental; it is foundational to Christ’s argument. To deny Mosaic authorship is therefore not merely to question a historical detail, but to reject the interpretive framework by which Christ understood and authenticated Scripture.
The New Testament consistently reinforces this view. The Law is repeatedly cited as “Moses” and treated as binding, authoritative Scripture (e.g., Matthew 8:4; Luke 24:27; Romans 10:5). Apostolic preaching and teaching do not distinguish between hypothetical sources or editorial layers; they appeal to the Law as the unified Word of God given through Moses.
Consequently, higher criticism exposes its true character. It is not confined to neutral literary analysis, but advances claims that directly affect the authority of Scripture and the credibility of Christ’s testimony. If Moses did not write the Law, then Christ either accommodated error or affirmed falsehood—both conclusions being incompatible with His divine authority and truthfulness.
Higher criticism, therefore, does not merely challenge the structure of the biblical text; it strikes at the foundation of biblical authority itself. In doing so, it forces a clear choice between the self-attesting Word of God and theories that stand in judgment over it.
VI. Apostolic Authority and Eyewitness Testimony
Scripture grounds its authority not in anonymous tradition or later reconstruction, but in apostolic and prophetic witness. The New Testament consistently appeals to direct encounter and firsthand testimony as the basis of its proclamation:
“That which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled…” (1 John 1:1)
This language is deliberate and emphatic. Authority is rooted in eyewitness experience, publicly attested and divinely commissioned. The apostles do not present themselves as editors of inherited traditions, but as witnesses of historical events interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew, in particular, was an apostle and an eyewitness of Christ’s ministry. His Gospel bears the authority of one who heard Christ teach, saw His works, and followed Him personally. To subordinate Matthew’s Gospel to a non-apostolic source is therefore to reverse the biblical order of authority, placing hypothetical or secondary testimony above direct apostolic witness.
Scripture itself establishes this order:
“Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” (Ephesians 2:20)
Foundations precede structures; they are not derived from them. Apostolic testimony is foundational, not derivative. The church does not create or refine the apostolic message; it receives and rests upon it.
Nowhere does Scripture suggest that primary eyewitness revelation is dependent upon earlier anonymous sources for its substance or authority. Nor does it permit later reconstructions to stand in judgment over apostolic witness. The apostolic office, by divine appointment, carried both historical proximity and doctrinal authority.
Thus, any theory that elevates secondary testimony above apostolic witness stands in tension with Scripture’s own claims about how revelation is given and authenticated. The Bible consistently moves from eyewitness to church, not from tradition to apostle.
In this way, apostolic authority and eyewitness testimony function not merely as historical details, but as essential components of biblical authority itself.
VII. The Promise of Spirit-Guided Revelation
Christ explicitly promised His apostles divine assistance in the reception and communication of revelation. On the night before His crucifixion, He declared:
“The Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26)
This promise directly addresses the question of how the apostolic testimony was preserved and transmitted with accuracy. The apostles were not left to rely on fallible memory, accumulated tradition, or documentary aids. Christ assured them that the Holy Spirit would both teach and remind, guaranteeing faithful recollection and authoritative interpretation of His words and works.
The scope of this promise is comprehensive. “All things” does not suggest partial assistance or general guidance, but full divine superintendence over what the apostles would later proclaim and record. The Spirit’s work ensures not only accuracy of memory, but doctrinal clarity and theological coherence.
This promise provides a sufficient and biblical explanation for the origin of the Gospels. The authority of the Gospel accounts rests not on the evangelists’ access to sources, whether oral or written, but on the Spirit’s direct guidance. The Gospels are authoritative because they are Spirit-taught and Spirit-guarded, not because they are products of literary dependence.
Consequently, theories that ground Gospel reliability in documentary reconstruction rather than divine promise reverse the order established by Christ Himself. Scripture locates confidence in the Spirit’s ministry, not in human methods. To seek the authority of the Gospels in hypothetical sources is to look beneath the very foundation Christ laid.
In this way, the promise of Spirit-guided revelation stands as a direct biblical alternative to source-critical explanations. It affirms that the Gospels are trustworthy, not because they were carefully assembled, but because they were divinely overseen.
VIII. Theological Consequences of Biblical Criticism
Once biblical criticism is adopted as the governing framework for interpreting Scripture, certain consequences follow by necessity rather than by accident. These outcomes are not excesses of the method; they are the logical result of its presuppositions.
First, Scripture is redefined as a product of history rather than an act of revelation. The Bible is treated as the outcome of religious development, shaped by cultural forces and historical circumstances, rather than as the Word spoken by God. Revelation is displaced by reconstruction, and divine speech is reduced to human expression.
Second, authority shifts from God to the interpreter. The final court of appeal is no longer the text as given, but the scholar who stands over it. Meaning is determined not by what Scripture says, but by what critical methodology allows it to have said. In this way, human judgment replaces divine authority.
Third, doctrine becomes provisional. If Scripture is the result of evolving traditions and competing voices, then no teaching can claim finality. Doctrine is rendered tentative, subject to revision as theories change. Certainty gives way to probability, and confession is replaced by hypothesis.
Fourth, the unity of Scripture is dissolved. Instead of a coherent and harmonious revelation, the Bible is fragmented into sources, strata, and layers. What Scripture presents as a unified testimony to God’s redemptive purpose is recast as a collection of disparate and sometimes conflicting perspectives.
These consequences are not aberrations or misapplications of biblical criticism. They follow directly from its foundational assumptions. A method that begins by suspending divine authorship cannot end by affirming divine authority. What is presupposed at the outset determines what is permitted at the conclusion.
Thus, biblical criticism does not merely offer an alternative reading strategy; it introduces a fundamentally different doctrine of Scripture. The question it raises is not primarily literary or historical, but theological: whether Scripture stands above the church as God’s Word, or beneath it as a subject of human analysis.
IX. Confessional Evaluation: Westminster and 1689
The historic Reformed confessions—the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) and the Second London Baptist Confession (1689)—unequivocally affirm the divine origin and preservation of Scripture. Both declare that the Bible is “immediately inspired by God” and “kept pure in all ages.” This language emphasizes that Scripture’s authority does not rely on human mediation, progressive development, or editorial reconstruction. God Himself is both the source and the guardian of His Word.
These confessions explicitly reject any notion of:
- Mediated inspiration, in which authority is derived from human sources.
- Textual evolution, in which Scripture gradually develops over time.
- External interpretive authorities, in which meaning is determined by scholars, councils, or traditions apart from the text itself.
In contrast, modern biblical criticism is built on assumptions that presuppose human mediation, postulated editorial processes, and layered reconstruction. Its methodology places human reasoning above God’s self-attested revelation and treats Scripture as historically conditioned rather than divinely guaranteed.
The resulting systems are therefore mutually exclusive. The confessional view grounds authority in God’s immediate act of inspiration and His preservation of His Word, while biblical criticism subordinates Scripture to human processes. One affirms the divine reliability and sufficiency of Scripture; the other treats it as contingent and provisional. Acceptance of both simultaneously is impossible without contradiction.
In sum, the Reformed confessions provide a theologically coherent framework for understanding Scripture as God-breathed, Spirit-guarded, and eternally authoritative—a framework incompatible with critical theories that undermine divine authorship or preservation.
X. Conclusion
Biblical criticism is not merely a neutral scholarly tool; it constitutes a doctrinal system with profound theological implications. It denies the verbal–plenary inspiration of Scripture, undermines God’s providence in preservation, and relocates authority from God to human interpretation. Its claims are not incidental but flow inevitably from its presuppositions.
In contrast, Scripture testifies to its own divine origin, verbal accuracy, and perpetual preservation. This testimony is affirmed throughout the canon and acknowledged by historic Reformed confessions. Scripture is not a work in progress; it is not dependent on human reconstruction or literary speculation. It is God-breathed, complete, authoritative, and faithfully preserved for all generations.
The Church is therefore called to receive, uphold, and proclaim Scripture as the unerring Word of God. Faith, doctrine, and life must be grounded on the certainty of what God has spoken and preserved, resisting any system that would subordinate divine revelation to human judgment.
Kenneth Malenge
Comments
Post a Comment