'Is the Higher Criticism Scholarly?' Summary

"Is the Higher Criticism Scholarly?", Robert Dick Wilson argues that the Higher Criticism, a method of biblical criticism that seeks to understand the origins and development of the Bible, is not scholarly. He contends that the Higher Critics rely on subjective assumptions and interpretations, and that their conclusions are often based on faulty translations of the Hebrew Bible.

Wilson begins by defining the Higher Criticism. He writes that the Higher Critics "seek to determine the date, authorship, and sources of the various books of the Bible, and to reconstruct the history of Israel and Judah on the basis of these findings." He then goes on to argue that the Higher Critics' methods are flawed.

One of Wilson's main criticisms of the Higher Critics is that they rely on subjective assumptions. He writes that "the Higher Critics are constantly making assumptions about the motives and intentions of the biblical writers, and these assumptions are often based on their own personal biases." He also argues that the Higher Critics' interpretations of the Bible are often based on faulty translations. He writes that "the Higher Critics often rely on translations of the Hebrew Bible that are inaccurate or misleading."

Wilson concludes his book by arguing that the Higher Criticism is not scholarly. He writes that "the Higher Critics' methods are flawed, their assumptions are subjective, and their interpretations are often based on faulty translations." He also argues that the Higher Critics' conclusions are often harmful to the Christian faith. He writes that "the Higher Critics' conclusions have led many people to doubt the reliability of the Bible, and this has had a negative impact on the Christian faith."

Wilson's book was well-received by conservative Christian scholars, who praised his defense of the Bible. However, the book was also criticized by liberal Christian scholars, who accused Wilson of being biased and of misrepresenting the Higher Criticism.

Despite the controversy, Wilson's book remains an important work in the debate over the Higher Criticism. It is a well-argued and well-researched book that provides a valuable critique of the Higher Criticism's methods and conclusions.