Documentary evidence; that which deals with the investigation of the text of a document with a view to ascertaining its true and original form. It uses for this purpose, printed editions, manuscripts, translations, quotations, allusions, everything bearing on the "text" of the documents; thus It is called "textual criticism."

It later came to be known as "Lower Criticism;" Higher Criticism being applied to that field of study pertaing to the claims made within the text of the documents under consideration. "Higher" is an appellation supplied by the holders of a "New theory," and in order to give it credence, named it "Higher Criticism."

The term "Criticism" as applied heretofore, implies the analysis, formation, and expression of a judgment or estimate as to "value placed upon" some consideration or other appertaining thereunto. As this judgment is expressed by a person, it cannot altogether be free of personal bias.

But the work of the Textual Critic is more objective and less likely to be influenced by subjective considerations, than that of the Higher Critic. His task is to determine the correct text, not pass judgment on its origin or value.

But when the Higher Critic undertakes to decide whether the claims made for the document, by the document, as to date, author, ans value, are credible, there is far more likelihood that subjective elements, nay, personal biases, will influence his conclusions to a considerable extent, even to the point of controling them.

Documentary Hypothesis of Higher Criticism: In 1753 a French Physician named Astruc analyzed the book of Genesis by dividing its account according to whether God was identified as "Elohim" or "Jehovah." But Astruc argued for the Mosaic authorship, though he denied the "source" material within its pages.

In 1787, and 1803, Eichhorn, who has been called "The Father of Higher Criticism," agreed with Astruc's analysis and finding that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. Neither of them carried the analysis beyond the beginning chapters of Exodus.

In 1805, De Wette challenged the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and assigned Deuteronomy to the time of Josiah. this stirred a calamitous controversy, causing many writers to come forward in defense of the traditional view.

By 1823, Eichhorn no longer insisted upon the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

In 1823, Bleek extended the analysis to Joshua, and confirmed the critics in their opinion that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, as they now considered it to extend beyond the lifetime of Moses, so how could he be its author? Which in turn, called into question much of the source material attributed to him. This is circular reasoning at its worst. "The Pentateuch couldn't have been written by Moses, because his sources have been determined, by our theory, to post date him, therefore could not have been his work;" so goes the argument of Higher Criticism.

The original theory, as proposed by Astruc and Eichhorn, was a "two-document" hypothesis, depending upon two documents as source material for the Mosaic documents. Publication of their "theory" opened the floodgates for many other "higher criticism" theories, which are in reality, nothing but an attack upon the accepted scriptures, as from God; with its built-in "authority," and all that implies.

The Testimony of "Tradition" contradicts the "theory" of Higher Criticism. Higher Critics do not deny the antiquity and universal acceptance of the tradition that the Pentateuch is "of Moses." they rather affirm that their own untested view is in fact a "modern discovery." The Apocrapha; Josephus; Philo; the Talmud; Mileto, Bishop of Sardis (cir,175 a.d.); All the Church Fathers lists of canonical scriptures; The Common tradition to them all, is that it represents the teachings of the bible itself.

The universal understanding, among Jews and Christians, was that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Josephus states this to be the case, for Judaism; and in Luther's translation of the bible, "a book of Moses" titles each of the books of the Pentateuch.

The 1611 KJV echos the sentiment. A very important question relating thereunto, is, how true is the basis for this tradition which dates from antiquity?

1. The basis for the tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is manifold.

a. The claims that the Pentateuch makes for itself.

The quotation from Josephus, that the Pentateuch "contains Moses' laws," is borne out by the document itself. It is clearly declared that the decalogue, given at Sinai, were made by Moses; and that the ten "words" were uttered in his presence [Exo 20:19ff]; He was told later to write them; [34:27].

With reference to the laws of Exod 21-23, we are specifically told that "Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah" [24:4]; and the document which contains them is clearly understood to be the "book of the covenant."[vs.7]

Tabarnacle construction and directions appertaining thereunto are given in Exo 25-31, in the form of personal communications to Moses; and the actual construction account is replete with references to "as Jehovah commanded Moses."

In the Leviticus account, the words "Jehovah spake (said, called0 unto Moses" (or less frequently, "unto Moses and Aaron"), occur 35 times, 19 of which are at chapter beginnings. Lev 26:46 and 27:34 connect the giving of these priestly laws, with specificity, to Sinai.

Numbers follows much the same pattern; nearly half the chapters beginning the same way; the last verse being in the encampment at Moab.

Deuteronomy rehashes what has already been said, with a view to preparing the people for the new circumstances under which these laws will prevail. Deu 31:9,24 says Moses wrote the law in a book; verse 26 tells us the Levites were commanded by Moses, to put this book inside the Ark of the covenant.

The Historicity of the events recorded, has the same broad application as that of the legal aspect. Moses was told to write of God's judgment upon Amelek, "in a book" [Ex 17:14]. It is also stated that Moses wrote wrote the journal of the travels, recorded in Numbers 33. We are told that Moses gave to Israel, the song and benediction recorded in Deu 32-33.

The fact of these chapters being attributed to Moses, reminds us of Josephus' reference, "and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death." They show that Moses was interested in the history of his people [Deut. 32:7-8]; and the author of Deut 33 might well have recorded Gen 49. While it is true, the book of Genesis nowhere records moses as its author, however, the "and" with which Exodus begins, continues an intelligible sequel to the Genesis account as no other book does.

b. Testimony of the Old Testament References to Moses are as numerous in Joshua as in all the other books of the Old Testament in total. They purport to show that Joshua derives his authority from Moses. Appeal is constantly made to "as Moses commanded." These references serve to define Joshua's role after the death of Moses; Joshua is often spoken of, as though he were Moses' successor. This is misleading. [Deu 18:15,18][Acts 3:20-24] Jesus Christ was Moses' successor.

Fourteen other books reference Moses by name. More frequently, they reference "the Law."

c. Testimony of the new Testament Jesus did not dispute the Old Testament Canon as accepted by the Jews. His challenge was always to their misinterpretation of it, and failure to obey its mandates. [Lk 20:37; John 7:19]] This is made abundantly clear in Luke 24:27,44, showing that Jesus recognized the divisions of the Old Testament, as later defined by Josephus, already in existance; and that the "writings" of Moses [John 5:47; Luke 16:29,31] which he referenced, were the Pentateuch. He quoted the decalogue [Exo 20:12; Deu 5:16] with the words "Moses said," [Mark 7:10]; adding quotations from [Exod 21:17] and [Lev 20:9]

When the Pharisees contested with him about divorce, [Mat 19:3] he appealed first to [Gen 2:24], When the appeal referenced "Moses command" [Deu 24:1-4], he showed that Moses allowed divorce because of their hardness of heart.

When the question concerning a brother's duty to a deceased brother's widow was placed in ridicule by the Saducees, who wanted to make resurrection appear as a fable, Jesus appealed to the utterance at the burning bush; [Exo 3:6, which in [Mark 12:26] are referenced as "the book of Moses," and in [Mat 23:31 ascribed directly to "God."

Paul the apostle subscribed to the same view. [Acts 28:23][Rom 10:19][1 Cor 9:9][2 Cor 3:15] indicating clearly that the New Testament viewpoint was that "Moses" and "the law" are equivalent expressions.

2. Consequence of rejection of the claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, is to leave nothing beyond the "modern discovery," for reference.

a. The first such consequence is rejection of all positive external evidence, both Biblical, and extra-biblical, as to authorship of the Pentateuch. This is not done on the strength of authority of older and better evidence, as no such evidence has ever been produced, much less offered.

It is done only on the basis of "theory," the correctness of which, has never been proved, nor honestly examined. It is simply "stated," then treated as though much scholarship had gone into the "discovery" thereof. THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

b. The second consequence of rejection of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, is to admit that the fundamental account is erroneous.

c. The third consequence of rejection of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, is the adoption of a low view of the authority and credibility of the bible in any capacity whatever.

3. The Methodology employed by the higher critics is responsible for these radical consequences.

a. A variation in diction, style, point of view, subject matter, are all seized upon as evidence for differing authorship. Different authorships become contradictions. Contradictions become lies.

b. The uniqueness of Israel's communication with God is rejected, and becomes a uniqueness of Israel itself, and its speccial genius for religion.

c. Supernatural redemptive efforts become naturalistic evolutionary effort. "Miracles" become tales of "exageration," or presented as "unscientific." Well, miralces are not "unscientific." They are "NON-scientific."

Attacks upon the "truth of scripture" are just one of a long list of consequences, by those who do not wish to study the problem for themselves, depending upon traditions going back thousands of years, into antiquity; but would rather depend upon traditions dating back to 1753; which "tradition" is based upon an untested, unproved theory.

Attack upon the veracity of many of the verses within context has begun, stating that Mark 16, verse 9 through the end of the chapter, are redactive, for example, is one of many destructive approaches taken by those who would do away with the doctrines of hell and Eternal Damnation.

A Major breakdown of all that is held dear because of appeal to the older traditions, as the "modern studies" make their "new" and atrocious claims. Sin is no longer sin. Hell disappears from doctrine, and eternal damnation becomes temporary punishment. All appeals to scripture fall on deaf ears, of those who fail to understand the value of history, to doctrine.

And that is the sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves today.

Theophilus Book