www.SpiritualInsightsPage.org

1. What is the Problem?

In the summer of 2003 I visited the library of a junior college. Believing students who had attended the college were upset by what was being taught in its religious classes. Specifically, the students were introduced to destructive forms of criticism that deny that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.

I recognized that liberal theologians had authored most all of the volumes in the library. The only conservative books in evidence during this quick survey were a collection of Billy Graham's works and two titles by C. S. Lewis. A student utilizing the library would have no evidence of any other approach to the authorship of the Pentateuch other than the theories proposed by scholars following the destructive forms of liberal criticism.

The following quotes are from a book in the library, John Bowker, "The Complete Bible Handbook."

"Of course, the historical quest remains vital, even if only to point out the undoubtedly false: we can rarely know historically what is 'correct' beyond doubt, but we can know what is false or improbable (e.g., a claim that the Pentateuch was written in the second century BCE) [page 23, underlining added]."

"The book of Deuteronomy was perhaps first compiled at sanctuaries, such as Shechem and Shiloh in the north; after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722BCE, it would have been taken down to Judah [page 81, underlining added]."

Moses lived from 1527 to 1406 BC according to Gleason L. Archer, Jr., "The Chronology of the Old Testament," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1979, volume 1, page 367. Thus, according to Bowker, Moses could not have been the human author of the Pentateuch if his theory is correct.

The problem is that this theory could destroy a student's faith.

2. Whom Does the Bible Say Wrote Genesis through Deuteronomy?

The Bible is clear in stating that Genesis through Deuteronomy had Moses as Its author.

Passages that state Moses was the author: Exodus 17:14; 24:4, 7; 34:27; Leviticus 1:1; 6:8; 31:9, 24-26; Numbers 33:1-2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 11; Joshua 1:7-8; 8:31-34; 22:5; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 34:14; 35:12; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11-13; Malachi 4:4; Matthew 19:7-8; 22:24; Mark 7:10; 12:24, 26; Luke 24:44; John 1:17; 5:46-47; 7:19, 23; Acts 3:22; 26:22; Romans 10:5. This list is not exhaustive.

"It is hard to see how anyone can embrace the documentary theory (that Moses wrote not a word of the law) without attributing either falsehood or error to Christ and the apostles [Archer, page 110]."

Following a list like this at www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm, one die-hard Moses protagonist makes the surprising statement, "But nowhere in the Bible is it specifically stated that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch." Apparently some of those who do not allow Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch will allow Mosaic authorship of some of its supposed sources.

Those who believe in the Mosaic authorship of the entire five books believe that Scriptures like the ones listed above supply ample evidence for their belief. The only exception might be the description of Moses' death (Deuteronomy 34) . . . although this could have been a prophetic account of his own death.

There are additional witnesses to the Mosaic authorship in the Bible and in the writings of early Jewish and Christian authors listed in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, pages 455-459.

3. Why Do the Critics Reject Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch?

Every college student should have Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, available for reference:

"A group of students gave my first book to a professor, who was head of the history department of a large, well-known university. They asked him to read Evidence That Demands A Verdict and to give them his opinion.

"Several months later one of the students returned to his office to inquire about his progress. The professor replied that he had finished the book. He continued that it contained some of the most persuasive arguments that he had read and that he didn't know how anyone could refute them. At this point he added, 'However, I do not accept Mr. McDowell's conclusions.' The student, slightly baffled, asked, 'Why?' The head of the history department answered, 'Because of my worldview!'

"His final rejection was not based upon the evidence, but was maintained in spite of the evidence. The motivating factor for his refusing to acknowledge the evidence was his presupposition about the supernatural, not an investigation of the historical [page 353]."

George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) developed the philosophy called idealism. According to idealism, the mind and spiritual values are more fundamental than material values. As it refers to theology, idealism teaches that God revelas Himself not so much through history as He reveals Himself throughman's consciousness. This teaching resulted in three problems: (1) It degraded God's activity in history. (2) It fostered anti-supernaturalism. (3) It brought forth evolution.

Gleason L. Archer, Jr. has been the chairman of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School's Old Testament division. He is an expert in archeology, Egyptology, and Semitic languages. His degrees include B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. from Harvard; and LLB from Suffolk University Law School, and a B.D. from Princeton Seminary [New Evidence, page 732]:

"The documentary theory has been characterized by a subtle species of circular reasoning; it tends to posit its conclusion (the Bible is no supernatural revelation) as its underlying premise (there can be no such thing as supernatural revelation) [Archer, page 105]."

1. History

Julius Wellhausen was an important developer of the documentary hypothesis:

"Julius Wellhausen, in his Israelitische und Juedische Geschichte (p. 12), ridicules the account of the miracles that occurred at Sinai when God gave Moses the law, saying "Who can seriously believe all that? [New Evidence, page 355]."

"The German scholar Frank (Geshichte und Kritik der Neuren Theologie, p. 289) gives this exact summary of the presuppositions maintained by the documentary hypothesis: 'The representation of a course of history is a priori to be regarded as untrue and unhistorical if supernatural factors interpose in it [New Evidence, page 355]."

The Pentateuch is the early history of Israel. The goal of liberal scholars with respect to that history is to remove anything supernatural. Their method is to teach that the Pentateuch was not written until a thousand years after the events it records. The liberal says it contains myths developed over these years when much of the transmission was done orally. The conservative says it is a written, accurate, contemporary history.

2. The Evolution of Religion

There is a purposeful parallel between liberal theory about how the Pentateuch was created and Darwin's evolutionally biological theory.

"Rationalistic critics hypothesized that religious development went through an evolutionary process that commenced with 'a belief in spirits in the days of primitive man, and then went through various stages, which included manism or ancestor worship; fetishism or belief in objects indwelt by spirits; totemism or the belief in a tribal god and a tribal animal related to the members of the tribe; mana, or the idea of an indwelling power; magic, the control of the supernatural. Finally man conceived of clear-cut deities (polytheism) and later elevated one deity above the others, a stage called henotheism [Joseph P. Free, "Archaeology and Neo-Orthodoxy," Bibliotheca Sacra 114, January 1957, page 332, quoted in New Evidence, page 415].'"

Liberal theologians look at the history of Israel through this evolutionary filter. Monotheism is seen as the final phase of the process and was not the religious practice of the patriarchs.

3. Exhortation

"Although secular critics have almost totally abandoned the attempt to divide a book into sources, theories produced by such outmoded methods are still presented in most [liberal] biblical and theological courses as established fact [Allan A. MacRae, "The Ups and Downs of Higher Criticism," Christianity Today, October 10, 1980]."

A true believer in anti-supernaturalism will do everything he can to spin evidence to favor his presuppositions. He may not even acknowledge another view. This is why a student in a liberal college may be given the impression that other understandings, besides the documentary hypothesis and radical form criticism, do not exist. But, if the believing student digs into available literature supporting the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Old Testament, he will find very strong arguments supporting the traditional authorship.

4. What is the Documentary Hypothesis?

The hypothesis is also called the JEDP theory. The JEDP theory places the writing of the Pentateuch in the first century BC whereas Moses lived in the second century BC. The hypothesis as represented in the table and figure below may vary slightly.

1. Definitions of the Writings:

The information is from New Evidence, pages 301-395. However, there are different theories as to when J and E were joined. Dates for Moses and earlier are from Archer, page 495.

2. The Evolution of the JEDP Document:

The hypothesis first appeared in the writings of a Scottish Roman Catholic Priest, A. Geddes, in 1800. It is often associated with Julius Wellhausen who refined the theory in the late nineteenth century. Because the JEDP theory is so subjective, variations are continually being offered [New Evidence, pages 404-407].

5. What Are the Dangers of the Documentary Hypothesis?

The implications of the Documentary Hypothesis are breathtaking:

"(a) Mosaic authorship is rejected, with only bits of the Pentateuch attributed to the Mosaic period; (b) for many of the scholars who accept the Wellhausen view, the men and women of the Pentateuch were not actual human beings--at least they were idealized heroes; (c) the Pentateuch does not give us a true history of ancient times but it reflects instead the history of the divided kingdom through the early part of the postexilic period; (d) none of the people in the Pentateuch were monotheistic, and it was the postexilic priests who made them look like believers in one God; (e) God never spoke to any individuals in ancient times, but again, it was the work of the priests that gives that impression; (f) very few of the laws in the Pentateuch were prekingdom in origin; (g) very few of the cultic practices recorded in the Pentateuch were prekingdom, and many were postexilic; (h) the early Israelites never had a tabernacle such as described in Exodus; (i) all claims in the Pentateuch that God acted redemptively and miraculously in behalf of Israel are erroneous; (j) any concept that the present structural unity of the five books was original with Moses is erroneous, and, finally; (k) the skepticism inherent in the theory creates a credibility gap with the ordinary layman to the extent that the Pentateuch becomes practically useless to him (G. Herbert Livingston, The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974, page 229, quoted in New Evidence, page 394)."

These implications could destroy one's faith . . . if the theory is correct.

6. Why is the Documentary Hypothesis Wrong?

1. It Has Shaky Foundations.

"Citing literary variations within the text (divine names, doublets, repetition of accounts), style, and diction, the documentarians assert that there are four different documents--J, E, D, and P--that make up the Pentateuch [New Evidence, page 391]." The observations listed below represent the major foundations of the documentary hypothesis and correspond to chapters 22 through 25 of New Evidence.

2. Other Problems with the Hypothesis

1. The Evidence for It is Faulty:

"To sum up, it is very doubtful whether the Wellhausen hypothesis is entitled to the status of scientific respectability. There is so much of special pleading, circular reasoning, questionable deductions from unsubstantiated premises, that it is absolutely certain that its methodology would never stand up in a court of law. Scarcely any of the laws of evidence respected in legal proceedings are honored by the architects of this documentary theory. Any attorney who attempted to interpret a will or statute or deed of conveyance in the bizarre and irresponsible fashion of the source critics of the Pentateuch would find his case thrown out of court without delay [Archer, pages 108-109--Archer was also trained as a lawyer.]."

2. The Patriarchs Could Write:

"The nineteenth century German critic Hartmann denied Mosaic authorship on the grounds that it was quite literally impossible--writing not having yet been invented. (Or, so many thought then!) Archaeology has shown that Moses could have written in early Hebrew script, Egyptian hieroglyphics, or Accadian cuneiform [William MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995, page 25, underlining added]."

"We do not know exactly when writing was first invented. The oldest writing samples that still exist today date from around 3100 B.C. They come from Sumeria, a land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in modern Iraq. Egyptian writings from about the same time have also survived. Our earliest Hebrew writing is a school boy's writing exercises from the tenth century B.C. This student used a clay tablet to list the months of the year and their agricultural significance. It was found in the town of Gezer and is known as the Gezer calenda. Several other archaeological finds have produced examples of Hebrew writing from the eighth century B.C. onwards [Lane Burgland, How We Got the Bible; Chapter 13, http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar35.htm, 1999, read 2003]."

There are more recent discoveries that may take the orgin of writing even further back in history. Inscribed pottery has been found in Pakistan dating to 3500 BC [David Whitehouse, Sci/Tech, 'Earliest Writing' Found, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm, 1999, read 2003]. Inscribed tortoise shells have been found in China dating to 6600 to 6200 BC [Paul Rincon, 'Earliest writing' Found in China, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2956925.stm, 2003, read 2003]."

3. The Difficulties It Addresses are Products of Itself:

"It is to be noted, therefore, that the quest for such differences is a relatively simple and easy one. It would be a simple matter to break a crystal ball into a number of fragments and then to fill a volume with an elaborate description and discussion of the marked differences between the fragments thus obtained, and to argue that these fragments must have all come form different globes. The only conclusive refutation would be the proof that when fitted together they form once more a single globe. After all is said it is the unity and harmony of the Biblical narratives as they appear in Scriptures which is the best refutation of the theory that these self-consistent narratives have resulted from the combining of several more or less diverse and contradictory sources [Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses, revised, Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1977, page 121, underlining added]."

4. It Does Not Exist:

"Bruce K. Waltke, Ph.D., Harvard University and Fellow of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, states firmly: 'Though one who has read only the popular literature advancing the conclusions of the literary analytical approach might not realize it, even the most ardent advocate of the theory must admit that we have as yet not a single scrap of tangible, external evidence for either the existence or the history of the sources J, E, D, P. [W. F. Albright, The Archeology of Palestine, revised, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1960, pages 2, quoted by New Evidence, page 528, underlining added].'"

7. Bibliography

This brief treatment of the Documentary Hypothesis should be enough to provide the promise of a firm foundation for one's faith. In addition, the reader is encouraged to consult the following sources that will help a student in his study of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch:

Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses, Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1977.

Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979, pages 239-243.

R. K. Harrison, "Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament," The Expositor's Bible Commentary,

R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969.

K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

William MacDonald, Edited by Art Farstad, Believer's Bible Commentary, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995, pages 25-27.

Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Allen P. Ross, "Genesis," The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985, pages 15-20.

© 2003, Ken Bowles -- August 08, 2003, Edition

Advertising Appearing In Conjunction With This Page is Not Endorsed.