
Living and leading a church in the shadow of the University of Glasgow, I have felt challenged by divinity students of the university and a professor who attends Re:Hope to research ‘higher criticism’ and ‘biblical authorship’, especially with the first 5 books of the bible. The Universities in Glasgow are teaching the same as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. namely, that Moses didn’t write the first 5 books of the bible, instead they were written by at least 4 different authors 500-800 years after Moses lived.
Knowing the calibre of universities teaching the higher criticism approach to the bible I was expecting a highly scholastic and tightly packaged theory and found myself shockingly disappointed. At times, in my study, it felt a bit like reading the Da Vinci Code, one part conspiracy, one part institutional cover up. It felt like the Da Vinci Code but with much larger holes and leaps than I ever imagined.
Although there are lots of little issues one could address pertaining aspects of the higher critical approach, ultimately it all boils down to one premise. Either God is who the bible says he is, or not. The Critical approach begins with the premise that God is not who the bible says he is, if he even exists at all. And all we have been told about God via the bible is merely the work of disgruntled, historical revisionists, re-slanting their history to forward their political interests hundreds of years later.
There is only need of such a theory if God is not who the bible says He is. There is only need of such theory if God cannot do supernatural things, if he cannot both lead people to prophecy and then see prophecy fulfilled. If God is not who the bible says He is, what was the deal with Jesus? Good thing God is.