CHAPTER III . FALLACIES OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
BY FRANKLIN JOHNSON, D. D., LL. D. The errors of the higher criticism of which I shall write pertain to its very substance. Those of a secondary character the limits of my space forbid me to consider. My discussion might be greatly expanded by additional masses of illustra tive material, and hence I close it with a list of books which I recommend to persons who may wish to pursue the subject further. DEFINITION OF “THE HIGHER CRITICISM.” As an introduction to the fundamental fallacies of the higher criticism, let me state what the higher criticism is, and then what the higher critics tell us they have achieved. The name “the higher criticism” was coined by Eichhorn, who lived from 1752 to 1827. Zenos,* after careful con sideration, adopts the definition of the name given by its author: “The discovery and verification of the facts regard ing the origin, form and value of literary productions upon the basis of their internal characters.” The higher critics are not blind to some other sources of argument. They refer to history where they can gain any polemic advantage by doing so. The background of the entire picture which they bring to us is the assumption that the hypothesis of evolution is true. But after all their chief appeal is to the supposed evi dence of the documents themselves. Other names for the movement have been sought. It has been called the “historic view,” on the assumption that it rep resents the real history of the Hebrew people as it must have unfolded itself by the orderly processes of human evolution. *“The Elements of the Higher Criticism.” 48
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker