For the past 150 years most geologists have reached their conclusions without reference to divine intervention. Their scientific models exclude miracles, and to them predictive prophecy must be merely the extrapolation of present trends.

Does this mean that geology is without value to Christians? Are the tools of geologists a threat to our trust in God? No. Most educated Christians have learned to distinguish method from philosophy. Our Bible-believing geologists do not possess a body of physical evidence separate from their non-believing colleagues. Their different conclusions stem from differing interpretations of the same data.

For the past 150 years scholars have made careful investigation of the Bible as an influential literary production. Many have considered the Bible an entirely human document, written without divine intervention. Their presuppositions exclude miracles; thus to them predictive prophecy cannot exist.

Does this mean that such scholars' research is without value? Do their tools threaten a Christian's trust in God? I argue no. Many educated Christians have learned to distinguish method from philosophy. Those scholars who recognize the Bible as the inspired word of God do not possess a body of evidence separate from their non-believing colleagues. Their different conclusions stem from differing interpretations of the same data.

If we would avoid acrimonious waste of time and the generation of unwarranted heat, we must first define our terms. In biblical scholarship, as in many other fields, the term "critical" refers merely to careful reasoned opinion, the product of research. A drama critic is not one who rejects drama; an art critic does not destroy works of art. Scientists routinely criticize scientific work, not to destroy science, but to understand it better.

Yet recently much has been said against what is termed the "historical-critical" method of Bible study. To some this term has become a synonym for arrogant and irresponsible dissection of the word of God. The "higher critic" is thought to pass judgment on the Bible, determining which portions are inspired, and which are not. We grant that historically some scholars may have behaved just as described, but such arrogance would be their personal quality; it is not inherent or essential in careful study of the Word.

The Bible student, whether casual or intensely disciplined, will have natural curiosity about the documents before him. How did the various books of the Bible come to be written? What can we know of their human authors? Why do Matthew and Luke include almost the entire book of Mark? How did they come to share other sections, word for word, which are not found in Mark? Has material produced by various authors been perhaps selected and edited by others? [For Luke's own reference to the process, read Luke 1:1-4.]

Study concerning the probable authors is technically called "source criticism." Consideration of the materials they used in their writing is called "redaction criticism." These are subsets of the field of study called "higher criticism."

I am baffled by the invective which has been directed against unnamed "higher critics" within our church. I know we have careful scholars in the above fields. I know that our Adventist scholars share special respect and holy regard for God's Word, or they wouldn't be Adventists.

We should be rightly grateful for scholarly expertise. Yet all of us who take the Bible seriously must consider these issues. The moment anyone asks who wrote the book of Hebrews, he becomes a higher critic.

Are we becoming divided over our use of terms? We use words to communicate, but our words may themselves become barriers to understanding.

May I refer to our SDA Bible Commentary [5BC 147-189], which offers an historical overview of the rise and fall of prominent higher critics. It rightly points out that those who begin their study by denying predictive prophecy, miracles, and divine intervention, thereby bias their conclusions.

Then the article offers this summary:

"In conclusion it should be pointed out that there is a legitimate, as well as destructive, higher criticism. Legitimate criticism seeks to take all that linguistic, literary, historical, and archeological study has proved in regard to the Bible, and to use this in determining the approximate dates of writing, the probable authors, where the authors' names are not stated, the conditions under which they wrote, and the materials they used in their writing." [5BC 188].

I believe this responsible attitude toward the historical-critical method has been orthodox, at least since the Commentary was published in 1956. What follows is another scholarly excerpt, which may remind us of the proper use of these terms, "higher" and "lower" criticism:

"There has been much unnecessary prejudice aroused by the use of the term 'higher criticism.' It is called 'higher,' not, as is often popularly imagined, in arrogant and fancied superiority to the humble writings under discussion, but in contrast to the other type of criticism, viz., textual or 'lower.' This latter has for its sole object the reconstruction of the exact text of each book as it left the pen of the particular author.

"If we had the original copy (technically called the autograph) of each of these books, there would be no reason for textual criticism. But since these have long since disappeared and in their place we have thousands of copies, both in Greek and in the various dialects into which the Greek was early translated, and since no two of these copies exactly agree, the textual or lower critic sets for his task the reconstruction, as near as possible, of the ipsissima verba. [that is, the very word itself].

"In distinction from this the higher critic deals not with the text–for this he is dependent upon the lower critic–but with the sources and methods employed by the particular author in question. All questions dealing with authorship, date, and general character of the writing are his concern. Who was the author? Why did he write? When did he write? To whom? What were his sources of information? Is the writing as we now have it all from one pen, or are two or three writings from the same author telescoped together, or, on the contrary, have two or more different authors all had a hand?

"In a word, higher criticism is simply historical and literary research helping to evaluate the biblical writings in such a way that they may speak for themselves. Thus it should be evident that the terms 'higher' and 'lower,' as here applied, are the results of the New Testament being considered a river. The lower or textual critic stands downstream at the river's mouth; the higher critic approaches it at a point up near its sources. Hence, the notion, first that 'higher' means a self-constituted and absurd arrogance on the part of egotistical scholars, and second, that criticism means fault-finding adverse criticism, eager in its quest for flaws, is seen to be the sheerest nonsense." –Enselin, M.S., Christian Beginnings, 1938, pp. 206, 207.

Seventh-day Adventists have been greatly blessed by Ellen White's frankness concerning the creation and transmission of holy scripture:

"The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes...

"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.

"It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God." –1SM 20, 21 (Manuscript 24, 1886).

As in private discussion and public pronouncements we share our enthusiasm for the Bible, let us be eager to learn from one another. We need the expertise of our scholars, and we all need to become deeper students of God's Word. We study to better understand God Himself, whom to know is life eternal. Meanwhile, let us be very careful how we direct our artillery. How tragic if we should wound our own by "friendly fire."

© 1998 R. Wresch, M.D.