Can the Torah withstand secular biblical criticism?

If you are serious about finding an answer, you really should seek out Professor Eliezer Berkovits’ book Man and God; studies in Biblical theology published by Wayne State University Press in 1969. Although probably long out of print, most university libraries probably have a copy.

The key import of the book for myself was Professor Berkovits’s application of what I call “contextual analysis” to “decipher” the meaning of the various names of G-d and other key biblical concepts. Think of how you might try to figure out the meaning of a language you know imperfectly. Most of the words in any given sentence are known to you, but certain keywords are not. Essentially, you can discover their meaning by their context. Now — when you review the use of these same terms across 24 different books written over a millennium, you would expect their connotation if not their denotation to gradually change as the language developed and its speakers were exposed to other languages and cultures.

What conclusions would draw when you discover, without exegesis, without outside interpretation, that the simple contextual meaning of these keywords and concepts remain consistent throughout the entire collection of books?

Professor Berkovits does not answer my question. He leaves it to his readers to review the examples be brings and to draw their own conclusions.

Your question really should be: can classical biblical criticism withstand the inner logic and consistency of the Torah narrative when approached objectively without a negative agenda and jaundiced eyes?