Higher & Lower Criticism

I spoke recently with a Pastor who may be classified as a mild King James Only Advocate. He told me that Lower or Textual Criticism is a stepping stone to Higher Criticism, and that we should not be engaged in it. I would respectively disagree. But first, let me define what is ”Lower” and what is “Higher” Criticism.

Lower or textual criticism seeks to ascertain the true and original form of a text based on things like copies of the manuscripts, translations of the text, quotations of the text in other writings etc. The need for such a science or discipline arises because the original manuscripts are no longer available today and the surviving copies of the manuscripts differ from one another at various points. Based on the text that Lower criticism has produced, Higher Criticism then seeks to ascertain whether the claims which are made regarding it, by the document itself or by other evidence, are true, whether its alleged authorship and date are correct ,and whether its statements are trustworthy and credible.

The difference between the two forms of criticism is this: in the case of lower criticism, the textual critic seeks to simply determine what the original text says and he does not pass judgment on the value or truthfulness or origin of the text. The higher critic on the other hand undertakes to decide whether the claims of the text are true or false.

It’s clear that there is a great difference between these two disciplines and while it is true that higher criticism  begins its work where lower criticism ends, it is not true that the two always go together. A conservative evangelical, who believes the Bible to be God’s inerrant word, can be involved in lower criticism but he does not have to (and indeed he will never) become a higher critic. No true Christian will ever stand in criticism of the Bible and try to determine for himself which part of the Bible is true and which is false. He believes and accepts the whole because it is all God’s word and cannot be in error at any single point.

Besides the fact that lower criticism does not necessarily lead to higher criticism, we need to also remember that those who produced the Textus Receptus and the King James Version were all lower or textual critics themselves! The first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was produced by Erasmus and Erasmus was a first class textual critic in his day, and the methods of criticism he used are not very different to what modern textual critics use. One of the main differences of course is that Erasmus did not have as many manuscripts and material to work with compared to what the modern critic has.

We should not arbitrarily fix a particular edition of the Greek text, say Erasmus’ third edition or the so called ”TR” underlying the KJV, as the only text we should use or worse still, to say that that text is 100% accurate and a perfect replica of the original manuscript.

Textual Criticism is not something that evangelicals need to be afraid of or to avoid as long as we take note of two things. Firstly, the Bible, in its original manuscript, is inspired and without error, and secondly, God has indeed providentially preserved His Word through the years.

Advertisement