Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? Addendum A
I thought I would offer a short addendum displaying the sort of attitude I believe is prevalent in many fundamental circles. I could be wrong, but it seems to me I run into this sort of attitude very often.
Alvin Plantinga has written:
There is no compelling or even reasonably decent argument for supposing the procedures and assumptions of historical biblical criticism are to be preferred to those of traditional biblical commentary
In this comment from Plantinga’s essay he is rhetorically assuring people that they do not have to examine the procedures of historical criticism, because if they actually understood them and did…
In the videos, Chuck assures his audience that the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) comes from “subversive” scholars and has been “shredded” and, of course, they need not bother reading any of the extremely “boring” books on the DH, they can rather take his word that it has been “shredded.” Or they can believe Jesus.
It seems I keep hearing “thinkers” all across the ideological spectrum who are encouraging people not to think! Whatever you do: do not look at the evidence!
Just to be clear: the DH has not been shredded; if anything subsequent formulations of the original DH (really should be the Documentary “Theory” if we are going to follow the program of methodological naturalism) posit even more sources for the Torah. J1, J2, or H as final redactor, do not add anything, at all, in any way, to the veracity of Mosaic authorship.
In addition, the most popular theory–as far as I can tell–in recent Torah scholarship, asserts that we can learn very little, to no, actual history from the Pentateuch but instead learn about the social conditions in Yehud in the fifth or fourth century.
Hardly, the ‘shredding’ that Chuck assures his audience has taken place…