One would think that, with an abundance of manuscript evidence confirming the textual accuracy of the Old Testament back to the very time of its completion, combined with its universal acceptance as authentic and divinely inspired, by both Jews and Christians, in the centuries closest to its writing and compilation, it would be taken at face value by those who use it, at least until some clear evidence of fraud or forgery comes to light.
But this is not the case. The higher critics insist that practically none of the Old Testament books were written by the traditional authors — all were written much later, by writers who had no direct knowledge at all of what they were writing. Claims of authorship were deliberately misrepresented to give the writings a spurious authority and, especially, to make their records of current events look like fulfilled prophecies.
This peculiar field of study began, as do most attacks on the Bible, with an attack on the two creation chapters of Genesis. Jean Astruc, an infidel French physician, in 1753 wrote that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were from two different and conflicting sources, since the name used for God was, in the first case, Elohim, and in the second, Jehovah Elohim. He was followed by the German rationalist Eichorn, who in 1779 noted differences of style also. DeWette in 1806 professed to distinguish four main writers of the "Hexateuch," writers now known as J, E, P, and D (referring, respectively, to the supposed "Jehovist," "Elohist," "Priestly," and "Deuteronomist" writers and editors). Various writers suggested still other documentary divisions, authors and "redactors." The Graf–Wellhausen "Hypothesis" (developed in 1866–78) worked out a very complex division of the first six books of the Bible, all supposedly written and edited in the period 900–600 B.C., whereas Moses died about 1450 B.C. Other prominent higher critics of the 19th century included Kuenen, Driver, Cheyne, Ewald, Coonhill, and others. All such men were, of course, evolutionists (though some antedated Darwin) and naturalists (though some professed Christianity and held professorships in theological schools).
The higher criticism does not, of course, stop with the books of Moses and Joshua, though these were the first to be attacked. Because of their fulfilled prophecies, Isaiah and Daniel have been particularly fought, but actually no book of the Old Testament has escaped these destructive critics.
Although these critical writings are full of high-sounding technical discussions about vocabulary and style, the real underlying presuppositions of such writers are as follows:
1 Moses could not have written the Pentateuch, because writing was unknown in his day (and, if Moses' books had to be moved to a late date, the others, that accepted Moses' authorship, had to be moved to still later dates).
2 The evolutionary theory of man's cultural developments precluded attainment of high civilizations and literary abilities as early in Israel's history as the Bible indicated.
3 The miracle stories of Genesis, Exodus, Kings, Jonah, etc., were derived from ancient mythologies. This must be so, since miracles are impossible scientifically.
4 Fulfilled prophecy is also a miracle, and therefore impossible.
But all these presuppositions are false! In recent decades, many archaeological discoveries have confirmed that writing was very common, even among tradesmen and housewives, before even the time of Abraham. The boyhood home of the latter, Ur of the Chaldees, for example, has yielded thousands of stone volumes from its excavated library. Similarly, a great collection of business documents was unearthed at Nuzi, a city of the Horites, from the time of Abraham. The Ras Shamra tablets are examples of alphabetic cuneiform writing in the days of Moses. The Tel-el-Amarna letters have also shown widespread use of cuneiform writing at that time.
What is true of writing is also true of civilizations and literature. Even if evolution had been proved true (and exactly the opposite is the case), it certainly had attained a high state of culture long before Moses. More evidence comes in almost daily of an advanced state of technology in very ancient times, not only in Bible lands, but even in western Europe, America, the far East, and other areas.
As far as miracles and fulfilled prophecies are concerned, a bias against miracles and prophecy is, of course, a bias against God. To say miracles are impossible is atheism. The idea that the biblical miracles were derived from similar tales in other nations is pure assumption. Many such similarities (e.g., legends of the great Flood, the long day, etc.) are best accounted for as dim recollections of real events, the records of which are preserved accurately only in the Bible. Every one of the more local Bible miracles is very credible, in terms of both testimony and divine purpose, and there is no reason to reject any of them.
The higher critics deal at great length with details of grammar, vocabulary, and style, but none of these speculations can offset the universal testimony of the Jews and the Early Church, and especially that of Christ himself, that the writings are authentic. As far as style is concerned, it is pure presumption to think that one can distinguish different authors merely by their styles. The style and vocabulary of a single writer may and do vary widely from one book to another, depending on the subject being discussed and the purpose of writing. The style and vocabulary of the present writer's engineering publications, for example, are very different from those of this book, but they both have the same author!
With respect to the Book of Genesis, however, it is probable that differences in style and vocabulary actually are partly attributable to different writers. These are not the mysterious J, E, P, and D, however, but Adam, Noah, Shem, and the other patriarchs. The divisions of Genesis are marked off by the phrase "these are the generations of (author)." It is quite possible that these sections were thus originally written on tablets of stone by the patriarchal eyewitnesses themselves, handed down, and then finally compiled and edited by Moses.
Discussions of details of grammar and vocabulary are beyond the scope of our present purpose. It should be noted, however, that all such critical speculations have been thoroughly answered and refuted by conservative Bible scholars. The fact that these refutations have been completely ignored by liberals means only that such critics are either too lazy or too arrogant to read them, for they are unanswerable.
One such scholar was Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, long-time professor of Semitic philology at Princeton Seminary. Dr. Wilson was proficient in some 45 languages and dialects, and was probably more intimately familiar with the Hebrew Old Testament than any man of his generation. He died in 1930 after 50 years of continuous scholarly contributions to the study of the Old Testament. His devastating critiques of the higher criticism in all its details have never been answered.
Wilson was not alone. Numerous other conservative Old Testament authorities — men such as W.H. Green, A.H. Finn, James Orr, Oswald Allis, Melvin G. Kyle, Edward J. Young, and many others — have thoroughly answered and demolished every claim of the higher critics, if the critics would only read their writings! Dr. Wilson summarizes the situation as follows:
In conclusion, we claim that the assaults upon the integrity and trustworthiness of the Old Testament along the line of language have utterly failed. The critics have not succeeded in a single line of attack in showing that the diction and style of any part of the Old Testament are not in harmony with the ideas and aims of writers who lived at, or near, the time when the events occurred that are recorded in the various documents…. We boldly challenge these Goliaths of ex-cathedra theories to come down into the field of ordinary concordances, dictionaries, and literature, and fight a fight to the finish on the level ground of the facts and the evidence.[6]
The Geographical and Historical Accuracy of the Old Testament
There is no reason at all to question on a linguistic basis that Moses could have written the Pentateuch, that Daniel could have written the book that bears his name, or that any of the books of the Old Testament could have been written by their traditional authors at the time and places claimed. This contention is still further strengthened by the amazing historical accuracy of the Bible narratives, wherever they can be checked.
Critics, of course, are far more eager to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Bible than on that of any other ancient book, and they have systematically refused to accept its historicity at any point unless there