Background
While the church
has, from its earliest days, recognized that the Old Testament
is a part of her heritage, there has by no means been a
consensus view with regard to its interpretation. Origen, and
others of the Alexandrian tradition, favored an approach to
Old Testament theology that saw the entire work as an
allegory--beneath any Old Testament text there could be found,
if one looked hard enough, an allegorical reference to a New
Testament event or person. While such a Christocentric view of
the Old Testament is certainly laudable, this approach did not
show respect for the fact that the books of the Old Covenant
were written within a historical context by historical
figures. In the formative years of the church there were
various attempts made at criticism of the Old Testament both
inside and outside of the church. Some with Gnostic leanings
declared the Old Testament to be the creation of a lesser god
than the God of the New Testament.1
Porphyry argued against Daniel having written the work
ascribed to him, and dated it to the time at which the
prophecies were fulfilled (i.e., during the reign of Antiochus
IV Epiphanes, 175-163 B.C). He doubted that anyone could
prophecy with that degree of accuracy, so it must be an
eyewitness account.2 In the latter
years of the first millennium A.D. there were further attacks
against the chronology of the Old Testament, especially among
Muslim apologists.
It was not until
after the Reformation, however, that the level of attack
against the fidelity of the Old Testament was raised. While
there were, evidently, questions raised concerning the origins
of the Old Testament books, many people looked to the church
for their interpretation and for guidance in their
understanding of these issues. The Reformation changed
things. The authority of Rome as the interpreter of the
Scriptures had been challenged. On the one hand, this meant
that people recognized the fact that Scripture itself is its
own interpreter. On the other hand, this also meant that, in
the eyes of some, people had license to develop their own
ideas on the meaning and origin of Scriptural books apart from
an external authority.3
The rise of
humanism aided and guided this adverse development. Baruch de
Spinoza (1632-1677), a Dutch pantheistic-rationalistic
philosopher who, like many of his kind, denied the possibility
of the miraculous, and hence denied the possibility of divine
revelation, rejected the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
While various suggestions were made as to who wrote what parts
of the Pentateuch, it was Jean Astruc, a French physician who,
in a 1753 work entitled Conjectures, proposed that
Genesis (and other places in the Old Testament) can be divided
based on the name for God used. Some portions utilize
Elohim as the name for God, while others use Jehovah
(Yahweh). Hence, one detects the presence of Elhoistic
sections from the hand of one source, and Jehovistic sections
from the hand of another source. J. G. Eichhorn developed
Astruc's theory to the point of recognizing a distinctive
stylistic difference between the Elhoistic and Jehovistic
authors, even suggesting that their handiwork can be observed
elsewhere beyond the book of Genesis. It is worth noting,
though, that Astruc and Eichhorn at least credited Moses as
the compiler of these sources.4
W. M. L. De Wette
supported the Astruc-Eichhorn documentary theory, and added to
this the notion that the copy of the Book of the Law
discovered at the time of Josiah constituted the core of the
book of Deuteronomy. Hence, one could identify possibly three
sources at work in the Pentateuchal narrative:5
an Elhoistic source, a Jehovistic source, and the book of
Deuteronomy. In 1853, Herman Hupfeld identified a secondary
Elhoistic source; that is, a source that used the name Elohim
as opposed to Jehovah, yet whose style was unlike the
Elhoistic author and more like the Jehovistic author. This
source was called "2nd Elohist," or E, while the
former Elohist was designated "P" in light of his "priestly
tendencies."6
Up to this point,
the Elohist document was considered to be the earliest source
for the Pentateuch, and this would be dated somewhere between
the time of the Judges and the time of King David. In 1866,
there was a radical departure from this view when Karl
Heinrich Graf published his book, The Historical Books of
the Old Testament. Influenced by his teacher, Eduard
Reuss, Graf proposed that, while the historical sections were
relatively old, the priestly laws were inserted after the
exile, and hence the basic document for the Pentateuch was not
early, but late.7 John William
Colenzo (1814-1883) went further and also denied the
historicity of any of the historical content of the
Pentateuch's primary document. In addition to this, he
postulated that the Book of the Law discovered during the
reign of Josiah was the book of Deuteronomy, and that
Chronicles was composed with the sole purpose of promoting
priestly and Levitical interests.8
Abraham Keunen voiced his disagreement to this dating scheme.
He held that the Jehovistic document was the basic source
document for the Pentateuch, supplemented by the Elhoistic
document, Deuteronomy, the exilic laws, and the Priestly
document, which was considered to be from the time of Ezra.9
Finally, by way of
background, it is important to note the work of Johann Karl
Wilhelm Vatke (1806-1882). Vatke, applying principles of
Hegelian philosophy, took the position that religions move
from a primitive to a more advanced form over time. Applying
this position to a study of Israelite history, and
incorporating his comparative study of Canaanite and Egyptian
religion, he concluded that Israel's religious life did not
deteriorate from a high point at the time of Moses. Rather,
it started as a primitive astral religion, and developed later
into a cult of Yahweh. On this basis, he regarded most of the
Pentateuchal foundational document as exilic in date.10
Julius Wellhausen
Julius Wellhausen
(1844-1918) is sometimes credited with formulating the
documentary hypothesis, but, as is evident from the above, his
work was mainly as a popular exponent of the views coming out
of the German school of the time. He studied under Ewald at
the University of Gttingen, and later served as professor at
Greifswald, Halle, Marburg, and Gttingen. The work that
brought his views to the attention of the public was his
Prolegomena to the History of Israel, first published in
1878. In this book, Wellhausen gives a brief history of how
he first became interested in the documentary hypothesis:
In my early student days I was attracted
by the stories of Saul and David, Ahab and Elijah; the
discourses of Amos and Isaiah laid strong hold on me, and I
read myself well into the prophetic and historical books of
the Old Testament. Thanks to such aids as were accessible to
me, I even considered that I understood them tolerably, but
at the same time was troubled with a bad conscience, as if I
were beginning with the roof instead of the foundation; for
I had no thorough acquaintance with the Law, of which I was
accustomed to be told that it was the basis and postulate of
the whole literature. At last I took courage and made my way
through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and even through
Knobel's Commentary to these books. But it was in vain that
I looked for the light which was to be shed from this source
on the historical and prophetical books. On the contrary,
my enjoyment of the latter was marred by the Law; it did not
bring them any nearer me, but intruded itself uneasily, like
a ghost that makes a noise indeed, but is not visible and
really effects nothing. Even where there were points of
contact between it and them, differences also made
themselves felt, and I found it impossible to give a candid
decision in favour of the priority of the Law. Dimly I
began to perceive that throughout there was between them all
the difference that separates two wholly distinct worlds.
Yet, so far from attaining clear conceptions, I only fell
into deeper confusion, which was worse confounded by the
explanations of Ewald in the second volume of history of
Israel.11 At last, in the
course of a casual visit in Göttingen in the summer of 1867,
I learned through Ritschl that Karl Heinrich Graf placed the
law later than the Prophets, and, almost without knowing his
reasons for the hypothesis, I was prepared to accept it; I
readily acknowledged to myself the possibility of
understanding Hebrew antiquity without the book of the
Torah.12
From this account,
one can see clearly that Wellhausen's point of departure from
his earlier views was not a critical examination of the texts,
but a discomfort that something did not seem right. It
is his testimony that thanks to Ritschl, Graf, and their
predecessors no doubt, he gained enlightenment that enabled
him to let go of his previous convictions regarding the
integrity of the Biblical text. This paper will, hopefully,
demonstrate that at the root of the documentary hypothesis
there is not a firmly established, historically defensible
presentation of the fragmentary nature of the Torah. Rather,
at its root is a theory based on the application of the
naturalistic assumptions of seventeenth and eighteenth century
humanists to the Biblical text. As Walter Kaiser points out,
some modern proponents of the documentary hypothesis would
like to wish that foundation does not exist, however it must
exist for them, or the whole building collapses.13
In 1880,
Wellhausen published an overview of his Prolegomena,
which was the basis for the 1881 Encyclopaedia Britannica
entry on Israel. The publication of this edition
exposed the English-speaking world to German critical
scholarship, and it caused a scandal.14
Today, however, Wellhausen's views, whether challenged,
adapted, or accepted at face value, have become integral to
any study of the Old Testament. Even among those who may
question the existence of specific J, E, D, and P sources, the
questions raised by Wellhausen have caused many to abandoned
traditional, and even Biblical assertions regarding the
authorship and dating of the Old Testament.15
For this reason, it is extremely vital that those engaged in
Old Testament study be aware of Wellhausen's work, as well as
the reasons why the documentary hypothesis as it stands today
cannot be held as an adequate explanation of Pentateuchal
origins. Indeed, it is important that the problems of the
Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis are presented to the
student of the Old Testament, in the hope that, by the grace
of God, his confidence in the Biblical record may be
strengthened.
The critique
presented in this paper will be organized in the following
way: firstly, there will be a presentation of the major themes
of the documentary hypothesis along with arguments in support
of them. This will be followed by a critique of each of those
themes. The paper will then close with some observations and
conclusions. It should be noted that not every argument and
not every theme apparent in the writings of documentary
hypothesis supporters will be dealt with; such a task is
beyond the scope of this paper. The purpose of this paper is
to present the major themes and arguments in the hope
that the refutation of these will provide the basis for
critiques of others not covered.
The Elimination of the Supernatural
Wellhausen's
position on the place of the supernatural and divine
revelation does not seem to be as cut-and-dried as it might be
to many of his modern-day followers. In his Prolegomena,
he does not deny the existence of God, nor does he reject the
claims of the Old Testament writers to having received the
Word of God. On the other hand, his obvious willingness to
move outside the Scriptures to find naturalistic answers to
his questions that were, in many ways, contrary to the
Scriptures shows, at best, a highly deficient view of the
authority of the Word of God. Indeed, to arrive at the
conclusions he arrived at, one would have to abandon
completely the notion of God-breathed Scripture, given the
amount of error, myth, and misrepresentation that his view
necessarily demands. Nevertheless, W. Robertson Smith, in his
introduction to the English translation of the Prolegomena
states quite emphatically that the book is for the person "who
has faith enough to see the hand of God as clearly in a long
providential development as in a sudden miracle."16
What is
undeniable, however, is that the foundation of the documentary
hypothesis is heavily influenced by naturalistic, humanistic
philosophy. Orr reports the view of Keunen, who stated that
the religion of Israel is one of many religions, and not
anything more; this is, apparently, the view of "modern
theological science."17 In his
work, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, Keunen states:
So soon as we derive a separate part of
Israel's religious life directly from God, and allow the
supernatural or immediate revelation to intervene in even
one single point, so long also our view of the whole
continues to be incorrect... It is the supposition of a
natural development alone which accounts for all the
phenomena.18
In other words,
the moment one admits the intervention of special revelation
or the supernatural into the study of the Israel's religious
history, it is at that moment that one is guaranteed to come
up with erroneous results. It is only by considering
religious history along natural processes of
development that one is, according to Keunen, guaranteed to
come up with satisfactory results. This view was also
expressed by Pfeiffer: "The Old Testament owes its origin to
the religious aspirations of the Jews."19
Prior to Pfeiffer
and Keunen, Comte (1798-1857), representing what was known as
the "Positivist" approach, applied a methodology to the study
of religion that was founded on the premise that science, with
its verifiable laws of succession and resemblance, can explain
all natural phenomena without the need to appeal to the
supernatural. It is evident that this approach of "positive
science" greatly influenced the thinking of the liberal higher
critics of the nineteenth century.20
In short, the
documentary hypothesis emerged out of a time of growing
emphasis on the centrality of man in history and nature. This
thought found its apex with Darwin's speculations on
evolution, and this incorporated itself with the view of
history adopted by the proponents of this hypothesis. Such an
emphasis on the importance of rationalistic thought and the
preeminence of man could not tolerate a view of history that
placed God in Sovereign control, and that allowed for His
guidance and intervention in the affairs of men. Their
rejection of the supernatural was based on the assumption that
all things happen as a result of natural phenomena, and
therefore they could be assured of a natural explanation for
everything.21
The Evolution of Religion
By the time of
Wellhausen, the traditional ideas of how religious belief came
about were being questioned. The conservative view that the
people of Israel were always monotheistic was replaced with
the idea of religion moving through an evolutionary process,
starting with primitive man's belief in spirits, through
ancestor worship, fetishism, totemism, magic, and then
eventually to defined personifications of divinity as in
polytheism, culminating in the elevating of one deity above
the others in a precursor to monotheism. G. E. Wright has
given a good summation of how this view of the development of
religion was applied by Wellhausen and his followers:
The Graf-Wellhausen reconstruction of the
history of Israel's religion was, in effect, an assertion
that within the pages of the Old Testament we have a perfect
example of the evolution of religion from animism in
patriarchal times through henotheism to monotheism. The last
was first achieved in pure form during the sixth and fifth
centuries. The patriarchs worshipped the spirits in trees,
stones, springs, mountains, etc. The God of pre-prophetic
Israel was a tribal deity, limited in power to the land of
Palestine. Under the influence of Baalism, he even became a
fertility god and sufficiently tolerant to allow the early
religion of Israel to be distinguished little from that of
Canaan. It was the prophets who were the true innovators and
who produced most, if not all, of that which was truly
distinctive in Israel, the grand culmination coming with the
universalism of II Isaiah. Thus we have animism, or
polydemonism, a limited tribal deity, implicit ethical
monotheism, and finally, explicit and universal monotheism.22
For examples of
Patriarchal animism, the "higher critics" looked to passages
such as Genesis 12:6 where the Lord appeared to Abram at the
oak of Moreh at the site of Shechem, the oaks of Mamre in
Genesis 13:18, where Abram built an altar to the Lord or the
stone set up at Ebenezer by Samuel in 1 Samuel 7:12. Also,
they note the numerous references to wells, and springs of
water in places such as Genesis 14:7, Numbers 21:17f, and
Joshua 18:17.23 Apparently, the
association of these objects with divine activity was enough
to convince the "higher critics" that these things in
themselves were seen by the early Israelites to have power to
affect the lives of people. It was not that these were simply
designated as memorials, but that God actually existed within
the object.24
In addition to
uncovering traces of animism in the Old Testament, Wellhausen
associated polytheistic tendencies with passages where place
names were connected with God, Baal, sanctuaries, or Canaanite
worship (e.g., Joshua 15:11; Numbers 25:3; Deuteronomy 32:13;
Judges 3:7).25 He also
"discovered" elements of totemism in the names of people and
places in the Old Testament (e.g., Rachel ("ewe"), Caleb
("dog"), Eglah ("calf")).26 Such
totemism, they theorized, developed into ancestor worship.
This can be seen, supposedly, in the sanctity of their burial
sites (e.g., Genesis 23:1ff.), and also in the teraphim
or "household gods." Some scholars associated this word with
the Hebrew term rph'im, "shades of the departed,"
implying that they represented deceased ancestors.27
Among other
examples of primitive religion ascribed to early Israel by the
"higher critics" was human sacrifice. Keunen suggested that
there was a connection between Moloch and Yahweh, since human
sacrifice was a part of Moloch worship, and he saw such
practice in events such as the offering of Isaac by Abraham
(Genesis 22), the killing of the Egyptian first-born (Exodus
13:2, 11-12, and subsequently the concept of offering one's
first-born or first-fruits), the slaughter of Agag by Samuel
(1 Samuel 15:33), and the hanging of the seven sons of Saul (2
Samuel 21:1-14).28
The latter stages
of Israelite religion, according to Wellhausen, are marked by,
at the very least, a henotheism, where Yahweh is regarded as
the pre-eminent God above other gods for Israel--a kind of
tribal god.29 This eventually
gave way to the ethical monotheism of the prophets.30
It is evident that
such an attitude toward Israelite history has a major impact
on one's view of the authorship and dating of the Old
Testament. Any passages that display an "advanced"
monotheistic or henotheistic persuasion necessarily have to be
considered to be at the very earliest pre-prophetic; certainly
not of the patriarchal, and perhaps only just from the Davidic
era. This would further bolster the claim that Deuteronomy is
of mid-seventh century origin, since it is very strongly
monotheistic (or henotheistic) in tone.31
It is plain to see, therefore, how important such a theory as
this is to the documentary hypothesis.
The Late Date of Deuteronomy
About the origin of Deuteronomy there is
still less dispute; in all circles where appreciation of
scientific results can be looked for at all, it is
recognized that it was composed in the same age as that in
which it was discovered, and that it was made the rule of
Josiah's reformation, which took place about a generation
before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans.32
Such was the
opinion of Wellhausen, echoing the belief of De Wette that the
document recovered during the reign of Josiah was nothing
other than the Book of Deuteronomy itself (2 Kings 22). This
belief was not merely asserted, but based upon a couple of
observations from the text and the period. Firstly, the themes
discussed in Deuteronomy reflect both the nature of the
reforms that Josiah enacted, and also echo the tenor of
prophetic utterance around this time (640-609 B.C.). The call
for ethical purity among the people, and the call to worship
in one place as opposed to many are echoed in Deuteronomy 12,
14, and 23, for example.
Wellhausen argued
that the Jehovistic document lay at the foundation of
Deuteronomy, but Deuteronomy itself is clearly later. This is
evident from the overturning of previous laws by new ones that
focus worship in a central location:
...For example, when he permits slaying
without sacrificing, and that too anywhere; when, in order
not to abolish the right of asylum (Exodus xxi.13, 14;
1Kings ii. 28) along with the altars, he appoints special
cities of refuge for the innocent who are pursued by the
avenger of blood...33
Wellhausen thus
notes the changes in legislation made in accordance with this
"new attitude" toward the one true place of worship for God's
people. Since there is no body of legislation known to Israel
since "the book of the Covenant" in Exodus 20-23, the sudden
appearance of a document in the reign of Josiah that brings
about sweeping reform seems, at least to Wellhausen, very
suspicious. Some who follow Wellhausen's view regard the book
to have been a "pious fraud"--that is, certain prophets
composed the work under the name of Moses in order to bring
about the reforms that Josiah enacted. Others believe it to be
a work that was composed in the style of Moses with no
intention to deceive.[34]
Whichever view one follows, both necessarily conclude that
Deuteronomy is not a Mosaic, mid-late second millennium B.C.
work.
It is critical to
realize the impact of this conclusion. As James Orr notes:
If Deuteronomy is a work of the age of
Josiah, then, necessarily, everything in the other Old
Testament books which depends on Deuteronomy--the
Deuteronomic revisions of Joshua and Judges, the
Deuteronomic allusions and speeches in the Books of Kings,
narratives of fact based on Deuteronomy--e.g., the
blessings and cursings, and writing of the law on stones, at
Ebal, all must be put later than that age.35
Indeed, as far as
questions of dating and authorship are concerned, Deuteronomy
is the keystone of the whole documentary hypothesis.36
The Unhistorical Nature of the
Patriarchal Narratives
Naturally, if the
Pentateuch cannot be dated within the lifetimes of those about
whom it is written, then the very historicity of those
accounts might be drawn into question. According to many who
hold to the documentary hypothesis, the Patriarchs were not
historical figures, but were either personifications of the
various clans that bear their names, or they were works of
fiction.37 They point out that
many of the genealogies are given by tribal or clan name, not
according to the names of individuals. For example, the
so-called "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10 refers constantly
either to the toldot, or "generations," of certain
people, or to the benē, the "sons of,"
certain people. This is in stark contrast to, say Jesus'
lineage as presented in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, where
the genealogy is given from person to person.
In connection with
the idea of the evolution of religion, the high ethical
values, and "advanced" moral and religious ideals exhibited by
the Patriarchs in the Pentateuch call into question their
historicity. If it is to be assumed that religions evolve
over many generations from primitive to complex forms, then
any display of "complex" religious worship or ideals by that
religion's earliest representatives must surely be a later
imposition onto the historical narrative. Wellhausen asserted
that Abraham was not even spoken of until the later prophets:
"In the earlier literature... Isaac is mentioned even by Amos,
Abraham first appears in Isaiah xl.-lxvii." The implication
of this statement is that the stories of Abraham come from the
same period in which he is spoken of and referred to as a role
model, i.e., the later prophetic era. If there are no direct
references to him during the pre-exilic era, then none of the
stories about him could be derived from any earlier than the
exilic era. In the words of Wellhausen:
It is true, we attain to no historical
knowledge of the patriarchs, but only of the time when the
stories about them arose in the Israelite people; this later
age is here unconsciously projected, in its inner and its
outward features, into hoary antiquity, and is reflected
there like a glorified mirage.39
Finally, since the
existence of the supernatural has been eliminated as an option
for the "higher critic," the stories of miraculous
interventions in history (angelic appearances, revelatory
divine messages, the parting of seas, and so forth) must be
considered as mythical additions to the text in order to
heighten their appeal and cast the heroes of the stories as
being particularly favored by God, and, hence, to be admired
and heeded. For the "higher critic," one cannot maintain the
idea of a God working in history along with an objective,
scholarly approach to the Biblical text.40
The Late Date of the Mosaic Law
Due to the
assertion that religious belief evolves over time from simple
to complex, the view that the Mosaic Law, or the Book of the
Covenant as preserved in Exodus 20-23 (with Exodus 20:1-17
forming the Decalogue), was composed at one time by Moses in
the mid-second millennium simply had to be false. The ideas
expressed in these chapters were not of a primitive religious
group, but an advanced ethical people. Also, some of the
legislation in these chapters (particularly chapter 22, and
also, to some extent, in chapter 23) seems to reflect an
agricultural situation. This best fits the post-settlement
period of Israel's history, when they had already established
themselves in Canaan. In light of these observations, the Book
of the Covenant cannot be original with Moses, and must date
somewhere in the eighth to seventh century BC.
Even relatively
conservative scholars have conceded this latter point. For
example, in his commentary on Exodus for the Word Biblical
Commentary series, John Durham states, "That the Book of the
Covenant is a disruption of the Sinai narrative sequence, and
that many of its laws are more appropriate to the settled life
in Canaan than to the nomadic life of the wilderness of Sinai,
cannot reasonably be doubted."41
Also, Wellhausen states:
Agriculture was learned by the Hebrews
from the Canaanites in whose land they settled, and in
commingling with whom they, during the period of the Judges,
made the transition to a sedentary life. Before the
metamorphosis of shepherds into peasants was effected, they
could not possibly have had feasts which related to
agriculture.42
The Existence of Multiple
Sources/Editors/Redactors
Astruc and
Eichhorn are credited with the identification of the Elohistic
and Jehovistic sources based on those two names of God, and
the style employed when those names are used. As has already
been noted, both Astruc and Eichhorn would still credit Moses
as the compiler of these works and, therefore, would not have
seen this as evidence of their lateness. However, what had
begun with the identification of two underlying documents soon
grew. Eventually multiple sources were identified for the
Pentateuch (and, in time, other parts of the Old Testament).
There was an early E, a late E, the Jehovistic document, and
finally Deuteronomy. It was Graf who, utilizing existing
theories, differentiated the Levitical code from the
Deuteronomic, and ascribed a later date to this Levitical
code. He identified the so-called "earlier" E with this
Levitical, or "Priestly" code, and hence placed this E
document at the end of the process. This "early" E became P,
or the Priestly Code, and the sequence was amended to either
E, J, D, P or J, E, D, P (there was not agreement whether the
former "late" E was earlier or later than J until Kuenen gave
the latter sequence his support).43
While Wellhausen
cannot be credited with making these divisions, he certainly
developed the theory further and gave it popular voice. Much
has been written on the alleged contents of these hypothetical
sources. Since the documents are hypothetical, evidence is
drawn from the texts of Scripture that are thought to
represent each document, and these texts are considered in
light of their style, the history of the region, geography,
and the theory of religious evolution.
The J document is
regarded as being from around 850 BC. It contains a history of
Judah from creation to the settlement in Canaan. This is
evident from the amount of references to territorial expansion
and the rise of Judah (see, for example, Genesis 15:18; 27:40;
49:8ff.).44 The E document is
considered to be about a century later than J and fragmentary
in nature. It supposedly originates from the North, given the
prominence accorded to Joseph, and the cities of Bethel and
Shechem (Genesis 28:17; 31:13; 33:19f.). Also, it has a
distinctive religious and moralistic emphasis, as demonstrated
in the story of Abraham offering Isaac. D is considered to be
from the time of Josiah, and is identified, by and large, with
the Book of the Law discovered during his reign (2 Kings
22:3ff.). For evidence of this, proponents of the documentary
hypothesis point to the correspondence between the regulations
of Deuteronomy and the nature of Josiah's reforms. In
particular, they note the emphasis on the pure worship of
God's people in one place. Finally, P consists of a variety of
laws drawn from different periods in the nation's history. The
various law codes were drawn together to provide a legal basis
for the post-exilic community. Lending support to the
post-exilic dating of this document is the detailed
description of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25-27), and also the
detailed descriptions of their complex religious rituals.
Of course, if
these documents post-date Moses, then Mosaic authorship cannot
be held to any of them. Indeed, the scholar holding to the
documentary hypothesis will hesitate to name any particular
person mentioned in the pages of Scripture as the sole author
of any of these works. They would rather claim that these are
documents that were passed from hand to hand through a series
of editors and redactors. Information was added, or
clarification given parenthetically,45
thus altering the original text. Hence, it is the contention
of the liberal scholar that the text of the Old Testament has
not come to us unchanged, but has grown over generations
according to the events of the time.
The basic J, E, D,
and P documents were further divided and refined during the
years succeeding Wellhausen's work. Smend identified two
Jahwist documents, Eissfelt identified a "Lay" source (L),
Morgenstern discovered a Kenite source (K), Pfeiffer thought
he had found a Southern (S) source of non-Israelite origin,
and so on. However, the core JEDP sources have remain central
to the theory, and are still considered at the foundation of
the documentary, liberal, approach to the study of the Old
Testament.
Having identified
six key areas of the documentary hypothesis, the direction of
this work shall now turn to offering a critique of these
areas. Before beginning the critique, the reader should note
that the original Graf-Wellhausen theory was constructed at a
time when archaeological study was in its infancy. Had
Wellhausen waited until closer to his death to publish, the
reaction may have been quite different. In light of modern
archaeological finds, liberal scholars today acknowledge that
certain aspects of the theory once held to can no longer be
considered tenable.46 There is,
however, a stubborn streak in liberalism that refuses to let
go of JEDP completely, and many modern liberals still hold to
the basic tenets of the theory.47
It is the judgment of this author that the six views
identified here for criticism represent popular views
expounded by Wellhausen that are still maintained in many
liberal circles today.
A Critique of the Elimination of the
Supernatural
It is often
assumed in liberal scholarly circles that complete objectivity
in Biblical studies is not only helpful, but also necessary.48
However, it cannot be denied that true objectivity is
impossible for anyone, since each person approaches an issue
with his or her own set of presuppositions and beliefs. The
scholar ought to try to approach an issue devoid of as much
prejudice as possible, but complete objectivity is simply too
much to ask. As much as the Christian scholar assumes
supernatural intervention in history, the liberal scholar
assumes the contrary. For the Christian, it would be contrary
to his belief system to entertain the possibility of pure
“natural” process without special revelation; the same applies
for the liberal with regard to the opposite opinion.
Since the
advancement of archaeology over the past one hundred years,
many aspects of the liberal position have been shown to be
tenuous at best. Indeed, the topics addressed in this paper
have been addressed by archaeology in ways that make it more
difficult for the liberal scholar to maintain the
presuppositions that make his position possible. The arguments
contrary to the notion of the natural, evolutionary
development of religion beg the question of where the
particular, and comparatively peculiar, religion of the
Israelites actually originated. Questions regarding some of
the unusual aspects of Israelite worship, as well as the
stories in the early chapters of Genesis need to be addressed
in light of recent discoveries. It is a shame, and is often
frustrating that the liberal scholars are so frequently
unwilling to offer an honest agnosticism over these issues,
and instead attempt to assert their presuppositions all the
more forcefully in spite of the evidence.
As much as the
liberal scholar would like to dispense of the supernatural,
and read the text as a work of human hands depicting events
that happened without divine intervention, there are too many
questions that he cannot adequately answer for such an
assumption to be presumed fact. Questions of this nature will
be raised in the proceeding pages. It must also be noted,
however that as much as archaeology raises questions regarding
the liberal position, archaeology by no means "proves" the
existence of God, or even the truth claims of Christianity.
Many details of
Hebrew history and religion have been confirmed by the spade
of the excavator; yet, the main function of Biblical
archaeology is to expose the human environment and furnish a
properly accredited background to the study of the ancient
Hebrews. It should never be expected to demonstrate the
veracity of the spiritual truths implicit in the Old
Testament, since archaeology is essentially a human activity
and cannot therefore as such confirm theology or open the
realm of faith.49
A Critique of the Evolution of Religion
The evolutionary
view of religion depends upon the idea that religious
expression as a whole evolved through the various stages,
noted earlier, at various points in history. According to this
theory, during the time of the patriarchs, animism would have
been prominent. Certainly, according to this theory, the idea
that the patriarchal religion was monotheistic (or even
henotheistic) could not be true. However, recent
archaeological discoveries have indicated that during the time
of the patriarchs, Near Eastern religion was far from
animistic. Statues of deities in a triad have been found in
what has been described as a temple-like structure at an
excavation in Jericho. These were dated to around the third
millennium B.C.50 There is also
evidence of a highly developed polytheism characteristic of
the religions of Egypt and Mesopotamia at this time.
The Mesopotamians of this period had
already applied categories of personality to the great
cosmic powers that dominated their pantheon, and were
worshipping them in temples that were regarded as the
earthly residence of the deities.51
Also, it would serve the liberal critic well
to note that, at this time, the Egyptians had a pantheon whose
head god was Re, and the Canaanites had the god El as their
chief deity.
From the
archaeological evidence, therefore, it seems that animism was
far from prevalent during the patriarchal period. Indeed, any
lingering artifacts of animistic religion found during this
period must be seen as the exception, and not the rule. The
religion of the period was far more sophisticated than
Wellhausen imagined.
With regard to the
"evidences" of animism noted earlier, one must not confuse
references to objects (stones, trees, rivers, etc.) that were
used as symbols for the worship of such objects. No indication
is given in the Old Testament texts that God could not speak
to His chosen mouthpiece without the intervention of these
objects. "The staff of Moses constituted the symbol of his
authority and was not the source of his inspiration or power."52
The totemism that
was supposedly found in the Old Testament by the higher
critics is also unsupported by archaeological evidence.
Totemism was practiced largely by North Americans, Africans,
and Australians and there is no evidence that the practice
spread further abroad. It was certainly not widespread enough
to be considered a general phase that all religions passed
through. While there may be evidence of Egyptian totemism, at
least in some form, this appeared only in the later decadence
of the religion, and was probably nothing more than simple
animal worship. There is no evidence for anything like even
the Egyptian practice of mummifying cats and dogs in
Mesopotamia or Sumeria. The ascription of the names of animals
or objects to people need be nothing more than the recognition
of certain characteristics in that person reminiscent of the
animal or object. Apart from further evidence of animism in
the ancient Near East at this time, it is speculative at best
to read anything else into these passages.
The suggestion
that human sacrifice was an acceptable part of Israelite
worship is nothing short of ludicrous. The passages cited
earlier do not support this view. The command to sacrifice
Isaac that was issued to Abraham was clearly a test of
Abraham's faith. The ritual was not completed, at the Lord's
command. Furthermore, the Lord provided an acceptable
sacrifice for Abraham to offer in place of his son. Samuel's
killing of Agag does not bear the hallmarks of religious
ritual, even though the text says it was done "before the
Lord." This applies to the other passages cited, also. As for
the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter in fulfillment of the
rash vow he made (Judges 11:30-40), there is doubt over
whether his daughter was killed or simply offered into the
service of the Lord to fulfill the vow. And even if she was
killed as a sacrifice, this one incident hardly proves the
rule.
... Admitting that the maiden was actually
slain as a sacrifice, and not simply devoted, we may be
excused... for not accepting the action of this very
partially enlightened Gileadite, in a rude age, as a rule
for judging of the true character of Israel's religion.53
The use of the
name "El" or "Baal" in place names or names of people has been
cited as evidence of early ancestor worship, or polytheism,
where the person is elevated to the status of deity. However,
it should be observed that such name designations often
occurred as a result of a theophany (e.g., Ishmael, "God
hears," because God heard the cries of his mother,
Hagar--Genesis 16:10), or a place of religious significance
(e.g., Peniel, where Jacob wrestled with God--Genesis 32:30).54
It is also evident from archaeological discoveries that the
teraphim, far from being evidence of either ancestor
worship or polytheism, constituted, among other things,
inheritance rites. It is clear why, therefore, Rachel secretly
packed the household idols when she and Jacob left Laban: she
was ensuring that she would inherit her father's property.55
It is also evident
from archaeological discoveries that it was entirely possible
for monotheism to exist in the time of Moses, and even before
that time. Evidence for this can be seen in the practice of
contemporary pagan religions of the same time. For example, a
Babylonian find from around 1500-1200 B.C. identifies all the
major Babylonian gods with the god Marduk. In this text,
Zababa is Marduk of battle, Sin is Marduk as illuminator of
night, and Adad is Marduk of rain. Similar practices are
observed elsewhere by scholars, even in Syria and Canaan.56
There is much more
that could be said with regard to this particular issue, and
the reader is referred to the numerous articles and books on
the subject. Suffice it to say that there is sufficient reason
to question the evolutionary hypothesis with regard to
religion. The supposition that such a development occurred is
too simplistic, especially in light of the archaeological
evidence. Yet, as Orr indicates, the liberal position is found
also to be internally inconsistent, even aside from
archaeological evidence:
How constantly, for instance, are
Jephthah's words in Judges 11:24, relied on in proof that,
in the time of the Judges, Jehovah sustained the same
relation to Israel as Chemosh did to Moab. Yet this section
is declared by the critics not to belong to the older
stratum of the book of Judges, but to be a late insertion of
uncertain date: certainly, therefore, on the theory, no real
speech of Jephthah's... Similarly, the statement of David in
1 Samuel 26:19, that his enemies had driven him out of
Jehovah's inheritance saying, "Go, serve other
gods"--continually quoted in proof that to David Jehovah was
only a tribal god--is, with the chapter to which it belongs,
assigned by Kautzsch, with others, to a comparatively late
date: is valueless, therefore, as a testimony to David's own
sentiments. Is it desired, again, to prove an original
connection between Jehovah and Moloch? Kuenen, to that end,
accepts as "historical" the statement in Amos 5:26 that the
Israelites carried about in the desert "the tabernacle of
Moloch," though the whole history of the wanderings, which,
in its JE parts, is allowed to be older that Amos, is
rejected by him. A proof of bull-worship of Jehovah from
ancient times is found by some in the story of the making of
the golden calf in Exodus 32; yet the story is rejected as
unhistorical.57
Both in terms of
archaeology and internal consistency, the theory of
evolutionary development has been shown to be inadequate to
enlighten the background of the Old Testament narratives. As
will become evident, the very fact that this theory can no
longer be taken for granted damages, perhaps irreparably, the
whole documentary hypothesis. So much has been laid upon this
assumption that to tear it down destroys the whole structure.
A Critique of the Late Date of
Deuteronomy
It was noted
earlier that, for the liberal scholar, the dating of
Deuteronomy depends largely upon placing its origin during the
reign of Josiah (seventh century B.C.), and identifying it as
the document recovered during that time (2 Kings 22:8).
Evidence for this is supposedly found in the reforms of Josiah
that followed the discovery of this document that seem to
reflect the Deuteronomic legislation, in particular the
centralization of Israelite worship in Jerusalem.
The difficulties
with this reasoning are plain from the text itself. To begin
with, nowhere does Deuteronomy make the claim that Jerusalem
is to be the central place of worship. Jerusalem is not named
either explicitly or implicitly. Moreover, one must question
the assertion that the concern of Deuteronomy is to centralize
Israelite worship, such that people could not worship
elsewhere. As Harrison points out, "The real force of the
contrast in Deuteronomy 12 is not between many alters of God
and one, but between those of the Canaanites dedicated to
alien deities and the place where the name of God is to be
revered... the question is not their number but their
character."58
It would surely be
no strange thing for Hilkiah the priest to have recovered the
book of Deuteronomy. As is evident from 2 Kings, both kingdoms
had slipped more than once into apostasy, and it would not be
surprising to learn that the Mosaic law had been lost at that
time.59 The problem comes with
then hypothesizing that this book of the law was a recent
creation by the hands of the prophets to force Josiah's hand
toward reformation. This is to read more into the text than
the text itself permits, and the subjective nature of such an
assertion is even more obvious when the presupposition of the
evolutionary nature of religion is stripped away. If the high
moral nature of the Deuteronomic legislation does not
necessarily place it at a late date, then there is no reason
to suppose that Deuteronomy cannot be Mosaic.
James Orr, writing
at the beginning of the twentieth century, raises some very
simple yet compelling questions with regard to the liberal
theory. For example, how could the priest present to the king
a book purporting to be of Mosaic origin when, so to speak,
the ink is still wet? Surely such a modern work would not have
the look of antiquity and the king, unless he was extremely
dull-witted, would not be deceived by such a clear forgery.
Also, the text of 2 Kings 22 indicates an awareness of this
book's existence, and the recognition of its authority when it
was read. If this book were a novel invention, surely it would
not have received such an eager hearing, and be recognized as
the book of the law?60
Moreover, as Orr
correctly points out, scholars are not in agreement on either
the authorship of this work, or its date. Many, including
Wellhausen, Graf, Keunen, and Colenso, have no difficulty in
asserting that Deuteronomy is a "pious fraud": a book written
at the time of Josiah to provoke reform. Other, more
conservative scholars, feeling the force of the "pious fraud"
argument, wish to give the work at least some sense of
antiquity, so they push its composition back to the days of
Hezekiah or Manasseh. However, since they have only their
conscience as a basis for this, what is there, apart from an
allegiance to the evolutionary theory, that prevents them from
assigning its authorship to Moses, or at least to his time?61
Also, if this work is a "pious fraud," is it one at the hands
of the prophets or the priests? Does it reflect a prophetic
agenda for moral reform, or a priestly agenda regarding the
sanctuary, the priesthood, and the centralization of worship
in Jerusalem? Orr suggests that the very fact that there would
be a conflict of interest indicates the unified nature of the
work apart from either the prophets or priests of Josiah's
time.62
Against the theory
of a seventh-century origin for Deuteronomy, Harrison points
out that Deuteronomy does, in fact, fit the situation of
Israel on the brink of entering the Promised Land. The
Israelites were about to enter a land that was under Canaanite
rule, and the influence of Canaanite religion would be strong.
For this reason, the Lord commanded Israel to destroy all
traces of Canaanite worship, so that the pure worship of the
Lord would not be tainted by pagan rituals (Deuteronomy 7, and
12, for example).63 The
Deuteronomic legislation is clearly preparatory (notice the
language in 18:9; 19:1; and 26:1, for example). It is surely
presumption to assume that this cannot be the case; only by
denying the supernatural and asserting the evolutionary view
could one doubt that this legislation was given to Moses to
establish the religious framework of the people once they had
settled in Canaan.
While it is
possible that the reforms of Josiah were influenced in part by
provisions in Deuteronomy, the purpose of Deuteronomy went
well beyond the reforms of Josiah. As Harrison succinctly puts
it, "To set the matter in correct perspective it need only be
observed that the reformation of Josiah resulted in an
abolition of idolatry, and not in the establishing of a
centralized sanctuary, the latter having obtained since the
days of Solomon."64 The
suggestion that the purpose of Deuteronomy was fulfilled in
the reforms of Josiah surely underestimates the scope of the
Deuteronomic legislation, and overestimates the scope of the
reforms of Josiah.
A Critique of the Unhistorical Nature of
the Patriarchal Narratives
Some of the
initial objections to the assertions made regarding the
supposed unhistorical nature of the patriarchal narratives
have already been addressed in the discussion of the
evolutionary theory and the place of the supernatural. There
is more that can be said, however, of a positive nature
regarding the general historicity of the accounts of the
patriarchs.
It is true to say
that little is known of the patriarchs themselves outside of
the Scriptural record, and archaeology has not helped the
Biblical scholar on that front. However, archaeology has
provided the scholar with a wealth of information regarding
the culture of the early- to mid- second millennium B.C. Near
East that enables us to place the patriarchal narratives into
this location and timeframe.
To begin with, the
account of creation and the flood found in Genesis 1-11 have
parallels in Babylonian literature, in particular the
Atrahasīs which is dated to about 1800 B.C., though it is
based on sources that are probably earlier.65
While some might argue that this document is the source of the
accounts in the early chapters of Genesis, it is unlikely that
this is the case. This document, and others discovered that
are like it, gives insight into the Near Eastern mindset, and
the way in which such issues were being discussed at that
time. The fact that Genesis 1-11 deals with the same subject
matter helps us to place it in this timeframe. However, the
numerous points of variation might suggest that Genesis 1-11
serves as, perhaps, an apologetic against some of the myths of
creation circulating at that time. For example, in the
Babylonian and Mesopotamian texts, creation occurred as a
divine afterthought, and initially things were rough but
gradually improved over time. The Biblical account, however,
states that creation was purposeful, and the creation of man
was the apex of God's creative activity. In Genesis 1-3,
rather than being presented with a picture of progression from
a hard to an easy life, the text indicates that man was
created in perfection with all the benefits of communion with
God. However, man fell from this position as a result of sin,
and, from thereon, was left to work the ground (Genesis
3:17-19).66 The portrayal of God
is also different: the God of Genesis 1-11 is one, omnipotent
and holy God, not the multitude of competitive, lustful gods
of the other texts.67 Further, as
Gordon Wenham points out, "...until the discovery of the
Atrahasis epic, it had hardly been appreciated that the
command given to Adam to 'be fruitful and multiply' showed
Genesis rejecting the ancient fear of a population explosion."68
As mentioned
previously, archaeology has been unable to provide parallel
accounts of the patriarchal narratives in the Scriptures.
However, excavations at and around the site of the ancient
royal palace at Mari, the capital of the Semitic Amorites in
the eighteenth century B.C., have brought to light some
interesting information. In particular, names of Biblical
patriarchs were commemorated in the designation of sites such
as Serug, Peleg, and Terah.69
Also, from documents and records discovered, it is apparent
that names such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Laban, and Joseph
were in common use at that time.70
It is also interesting that the occurrence of these names
would not fit with a later period.71
The discovery of
one thousand clay tablets at the site of ancient Nuzu in
central Iraq in 1925 have proven to be very valuable for
detailing mid-second millennium Near Eastern customs. In a
number of instances, these parallel customs recorded in
Genesis.72 For example, the Nuzu
tablets provide an example of exchanging inheritance rites for
something comparatively trivial (in this case, three sheep).
This parallels Esau trading his birthright to Jacob for some
stew (Genesis 25: 29-34). Also, the binding nature of Isaac's
blessing, even though it was oral (Genesis 27): the Nuzu
tablets confirm that, at this time in Near Eastern society,
such oral blessings had legal validity. It was noted earlier
that the teraphim, rather than indicating an allegiance
to other gods, or ancestor worship of some kind, actually
denoted inheritance rights. One of the Nuzu tablets shows that
a son-in-law could make a legal claim for the estate of his
father-in-law based on his possession of the family
teraphim.
These tablets also
indicate that it was customary for the marriage contract to
require a woman unable to provide progeny for her husband to
supply him with a concubine that he may not be deprived of an
heir. The concubine would not have the same status within the
family as the wife, but it was required that the concubine,
and any children she might bear, be made a part of the family.
Should the wife subsequently bear her husband a son, this
son's inheritance rights would supercede those of any of the
concubine's offspring.73 In light
of this, it is easy to see how the story of Abraham and Sarah
falls neatly into the mid-second millennium Near Eastern
environment (Genesis 16 and 21). It is clear that when Sarah
employed the services of Hagar, this was in accordance with
the custom. The hesitation that Sarah had over expelling Hagar
and Ishmael is also understandable given the requirement that
the concubine remain within the household. However, as
Harrison notes:
...it is important in this connection to
note that Sarah's action could have been defended according
to the ancient Sumerian code of Lipit-Ishtar (ca.
1850 B.C.), one of the sources underlying the legislation of
Hammurabi, which stated that the freedom received by the
dispossessed slave was to be considered adequate
compensation for the act of expulsion.
Finally, the story
told in Genesis 23 of the burial of Sarah and Abraham's
purchase of the cave of Machpelah is given context as a result
of the recovery of some Hittite legal texts from Boghazky,
which is in modern-day Turkey. In the Genesis account, Abraham
is seeking a place to bury his wife. He would like to use the
cave of Machpelah, which belongs to Ephron the Hittite. He
approaches Ephron and offers to buy the cave, which is on his
property, for its full price. Ephron offers to give both the
field and the cave to Abraham for his dead. Abraham insists on
paying for it, and Ephron concedes, asking four hundred
sheckels of silver. Abraham weighs this out for him and takes
possession of the property. This entire transaction takes
place, as the text notes frequently, "in the hearing of the
sons of Heth."
This narrative has
a legal air about it, and some of the details are, perhaps, a
little peculiar (the repeated mention of the sons of Heth,
Abraham's desire to purchase only the cave and not the full
property, the mention of the trees on the property, to name a
few). However, the Hittite legal texts from Boghazky go a
long way to help us understand what is going on in this
passage. Firstly, Abraham's request to purchase only the cave
and not the entire land could be explained by the fact that
under the Hittite law, someone who purchases the entire
property of the seller is bound to render feudal services of
some nature to the seller. Clearly, Abraham wanted to avoid
this. When Ephron insisted on selling the whole property,
Abraham accepted and, according to documented custom, weighed
the full amount out to Ephron in silver in the presence of
witnesses. Hittite law required the transaction to be public.
Finally, Hittite custom was to indicate the number of trees on
the property, hence the mention of trees in the text.74
This is just a
small sampling of the archaeological information that is
available to the scholar with regard to the cultural
background of the patriarchal narratives. At the very least,
the correspondence between the accounts in the Old Testament
and the documents recovered from the ground suggest that the
narratives could date back to the period of which they
speak. It is the opinion of this writer, and many others more
adept in this field of study, that the evidence is too great
for there to be any further question over the subject.75
A Critique of the Late Date of the Mosaic
Law
One of the main
reasons for dating the Mosaic Law to the fifth, or even
fourth, century B.C. is the evolutionary theory. That is,
religion was not advanced enough by this time to account for
the high moral and ethical standards exhibited in the Mosaic
Law. As noted previously, recent archaeological finds have
given scholars reason to question the validity of the
evolutionary theory of religion. There is evidence of
"advanced" religious practices well into the time of Moses,
and even prior to that time. As for the high standards of the
Mosaic legislation, "The standards represented by the law
codes of the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Hittites... have
effectively refuted this assumption."76
With regard to the
agricultural nature of the statutes and their supposed
relationship to a time of settlement, it should be remembered
that the exodus journey from Egypt to Canaan should only have
taken a couple of years. It would have been reasonable to plan
for a settlement scenario just a few years in advance. The
fact that their journey took much longer as a result of
Israel's sin (Numbers 13) was, at least as far as the
Israelites were concerned, unplanned. Also, as Harrison points
out, the Israelites were not ignorant of agriculture, even
during their wilderness wandering:
... the Israelites at Sinai were in fact
the heirs of four centuries of agricultural and pastoral
experience in a rich and fertile region of the Nile delta,
and... neither they nor their forefathers had ever been true
desert nomads in the modern Bedouin sense... What is clear
is the fact that there was certainly no need for the
Israelites to be settled in Canaan before such laws and
regulations could be promulgated.77
The existence of
other legal codes at the time of the exodus also lends
credence to the belief that the Mosaic Law (or the book of the
Covenant, as it is sometimes called) dates somewhere around
1500-1400 B.C. These other codes include the Code of Hammurabi
(2000-1700 B.C.), and the Hittite and Assyrian Codes
(1400-1200 B.C.), which all display evidence of being
"advanced" in nature.78
Of further
interest with regard to the dating of the Mosaic Law, as well
as Deuteronomy, is the discovery of various treaties and legal
documents in the area of ancient Babylon. The suzerainty
treaties are of particular interest, since these were treaties
enacted between a great king who might rule over an empire,
and a lesser king. The treaties had a covenant form, and had a
specific structure during the second millennium: a prologue, a
historic prelude, stipulations, instructions for preservation
of the enactments, and curses and blessings that might come
about as a result of keeping or breaking the treaty.79
This form fits both the pattern of the book of the Covenant
(Exodus 19-24), as well as the book of Deuteronomy. It is of
further interest that the treaty form changed over the
following millennium such that first millennium suzerainty
treaties omitted two of the aforementioned five sections.80
If the book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy are both written
in the style of a suzerainty treaty, this places them both in
the second millennium, not the first millennium.
On the basis of
the aforementioned evidence alone, there is, no confident
basis for dating the Mosaic Law in a time period outside of
the mid-second millennium B.C.
A Critique of the Existence of Multiple
Sources/Editors/Redactors
From the outset,
it should be stated that it is inconsistent with the testimony
of the Old Testament texts themselves to deny that sources
have been used, and that people other than the main author of
the books worked on the texts. The problem that most
conservatives have with the liberal approach is not that the
liberal appeals to sources; it is that they appeal to
hypothetical sources.81
Numbers 21:14 refers to the Book of the Wars of the Lord; 2
Samuel 1:18 refers to the book of Jashar; 1 Kings 11:41 refers
to the book of the acts of Solomon. Clearly, sources were
being used in the composition of these books. Sources,
however, neither deny antiquity, nor do they deny authorship.
It is also evident
that while, as conservatives assert, Moses wrote the major
part of the Pentateuch, editorial work was done by other
hands. Moses clearly did not write Deuteronomy 34, which gives
an account of his death. Someone else (possibly Joshua), wrote
this chapter, and, indeed, could well have written chapters
32-34, since at this point in the narrative the book of the
Law was in the Ark of the Covenant.82
There are other points in the Old Testament where some
editorializing may, arguably, have occurred.83
However, the claims of the liberal go well beyond the
occasional change or addition. As has been documented, the
liberal claims that the entire basis for, at least, the
Pentateuch is a collection of late documents that have been
edited and worked over to fit the desires of the editor.
It should be clear
that by undermining the theory of religious evolution, one of
the major pillars supporting the JEDP framework has been taken
away. Without this, there is no philosophical reason for
dating the documents as late as Wellhausen and his followers
would. The only other place that the supporters of the theory
can look to support their documentary distinctions is within
the style of the Biblical texts themselves.
As previously
noted, Astruc differentiated the J and E documents on the
basis of the names of God used. This was further developed to
identify the documents on the basis of style such that J was a
document originating in Judah with concerns in that area
specifically, and E originated in Ephraim, and is more
concerned with things pertaining to the North. However,
critics are not united on this opinion, with some eminent
critics placing J in the North as well as E.84
The preference for Southern and Northern places allegedly
evident in J and E respectively is simply a myth. Abraham had
a home in Hebron (a J location), and yet his first home was in
Bethel (an E location). Isaac lived in Beersheba according to
both J and E, and E records Jacob's residence as in Hebron.85
In short, the designations of J and E documents are purely and
solely at the mercy of the scholar interpreting the texts. The
subjective nature of these designations is beyond dispute,
especially when the spurious presuppositions of the liberal
critics are removed.
With regard to the
different names of God used, Dahse studied the divine names as
used in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) and discovered
significant variations from their use in the Hebrew text.86
This alone should be enough to question the validity of this
approach. Liberal critics had also noted occasions where the
divine names were combined (Yahweh-Elohim), denoting, for
them, a conflation of the two sources. However, as Cyrus
Gordon ably points out, compound names for a deity is not
unusual in ancient Near Eastern texts. In an article he wrote
for Christianity Today, Gordon cites examples of gods
at Ugarit with such compound names: Qadish-Amrar, and
Ibb-Nikkal. He also notes the most famous deity with a
compound name, the Egyptian god Amon-Re, formed from the
joining of the god of the capital city, Thebes, and Re, the
universal Sun god, after the Egyptian conquest. Though
comprised of the names of two gods, Amon-Re designated one
god.87
The P document,
according to the liberal critics, is the Priestly document,
containing details such as the measurements of the Tabernacle
and Noah's Ark. This document is given a late date because of
this style, which, in the eyes of the liberal critics, is
characterized by this kind of attention to detail. Cyrus
Gordon, again, observed that dating this document late on the
basis of style is without basis in fact:
... after a four-year hiatus in my
academic career during World War II... I offered a course on
the Gilgamesh Epic. In the eleventh tablet I could not help
noting that the Babylonian account of the construction of
the Ark contains specification in detail much like the
Hebrew account of Noah's Ark. At the same time, I recalled
that the Genesis description is ascribed to P of Second
Temple date, because facts and figures such as those
pertaining to the Ark are characteristic of the hypothetical
Priestly author. What occurred to me was that if the Genesis
account of the Ark belongs to P on such grounds, the
Gilgamesh Epic account of the Ark belonged to P on the same
grounds--which is absurd.88
Finally, it has
been noted that this kind of documentary dividing had been the
practice of literary critics for years before Old Testament
scholars took up the art. However, literary criticism as a
whole has abandoned the practice because the literary critics
acknowledge the highly speculative nature of the exercise. As
C. S. Lewis put it, "There used to be English scholars who
were prepared to cut up Henry VI between half a dozen
authors and assign his share to each. We don't do that now...
Everywhere, except in theology, there has been a vigorous
growth of skepticism about skepticism itself."89
Any student of literature knows that a single author can adopt
many different styles according to the needs of the work at
hand. To use style, then, as a basis for distinguishing
between multiple authors is, at best, a dangerous exercise,
prone to error.
This critique has
been, of necessity, brief. There is much more that could be
said with regard to each of these points, and many more points
could be added to these. The foregoing ought to be sufficient,
though, to demonstrate that the JEDP theory, or the Graf-Wellhausen
documentary hypothesis, is of no value for either the student
or the scholar of the Old Testament. So much energy has been
employed by liberal critics in dividing up the text of the Old
Testament into alleged sources, that the beautiful unity of
the whole has been lost in the editing. In the words of C. S.
Lewis, "They claim to see fern-seed and can't see a elephant
ten yards away in broad daylight."90
The work of the Biblical scholar should be the text itself,
and not hypothetical sources. Enough time has been wasted
chasing shadows; may scholarship regain its taste for
substance.
Endnotes
[1]R.
K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, Mi.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969;
reprint, Peabody, Ma.: Prince Press, 1999), p. 4.
[2]Ibid.,
pp. 5-6.
[3]Ibid.,
pp. 8-9.
[4]James
Orr, Problem of the Old Testament, (Ny.: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1906), p. 197. See footnote 5.
[5]In
fact, by this time, it was popular to include Joshua with the
Pentateuch to make a Hexateuch.
[6]Harrison,
p. 17; Orr, pp. 198-199.
[7]Orr,
p. 200.
[8]Harrison,
p. 20.
[9]Ibid.,
pp. 20-21.
[10]Harrison,
p. 20; Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present,
pp. 280-281.
[11]Heinrich
Ewald (1803-1875) taught that the books of the Old Testament
had gone through the hands of a number of redactors, and
divided them into three major works comprising the Hexateuch
(pre-exilic), Judges-2 Kings (exilic), and
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (post-exilic). See Gerald Bray,
Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present, (Downer's Grove,
Il.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), p. 279-280
[12]Julius
Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, (n.p.
: n.d., 1878, 1883). >From an e-text version available from
Project Gutenberg at
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03/prole10.txt.
It appears that this book was called a "Prolegomena" since it
was intended to be part one of a two-part History of Israel.
The purpose of the first volume was to lay the philosophical
foundation for the second.
[13]Walter
Kaiser, transcript of a lecture given at the Ankerberg
Theological Research Institute Orlando Apologetics Conference,
1991: Exploding the JEDP Theory or the Documentary
Hypothesis, pp. 10-11. Transcript prepared by the
Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tn.
[14]Bray,
p. 284.
[15]See,
for example, Lester L. Grabbe, Leviticus, (Sheffield,
England: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 16-19, where Grabbe leaves the
existence of a "P" document open, but maintains that Leviticus
"has undergone a long period of growth with many additions and
editings." He then bluntly states, "scholars are agreed on
this point." Any reading of the works of Harrison, Kaiser,
Archer, and others would reveal that this is far from being a
universal consensus opinion among scholars.
[16]Wellhausen,
Prolegomena.
[17]Orr,
p. 12.
[18]Quoted
in Orr, p. 13.
[19]Quoted
in Joseph P. Free, "Archaeology and Biblical Criticism: Part
I: Is Rationalistic Biblical Criticism Dead?" Bibliotheca
Sacra 113, no. 450 (1956): 126.
[20]Harrison,
pp. 351-352.
[21]See
Dr. A. Noordtzy, "The Old Testament Problem Part 1,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 97, no. 388 (1940): 471-472, who also
notes the increasing tendency (unfortunately prevalent even
today) for people to discuss religion in abstract terms,
treating it as man's attempts to reach up to God, or some kind
of divinity, and thus regarding all religions of equal worth
and purpose, with no intrinsic differences.
[22]G.
E. Wright, "The Present State of Biblical Archaeology," The
Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, pp. 89-90. Quoted
in Joseph P. Free, "Archaeology and Biblical Criticism: Part
III: Archaeology and Liberalism," Bibliotheca Sacra
113, no. 452 (1956): 333-334.
[23]Harrison,
p. 353.
[24]Orr,
p. 138.
[25]Ibid.,
p. 354.
[26]Totemism
is the belief that there is a relationship between a clan and
a group of animals or plants. See Harrison, p. 354.
[27]Harrison,
p. 355.
[28]Orr,
p. 140.
[29]Suggested,
perhaps, in passages such as Psalm 97:9, "For You are the LORD
Most High over all the earth; You are exalted far above all
gods."
[30]Harrison,
p. 355.
[31]The
Shema (Deut. 6:4-5) is only one of many examples of this.
[32]Wellhausen,
Prolegomena.
[33]Ibid.
It is of interest to note that, since the legislation focusing
on this worship center (which is identified by Wellhausen as
Jerusalem) begins in Deuteronomy 12, he considered the
"original" book of Deuteronomy to be only the section from
chapter 12 to chapter 26.
[34]Orr,
p. 249
[35]Orr,
pp. 249-250.
[36]Harrison,
p. 640.
[37]Hence,
Wellhausen states, "Abraham alone is certainly not the name of
a people like Isaac and Lot: he is somewhat difficult to
interpret. That is not to say that in such a connection as
this we may regard him as a historical person; he might with
more likelihood be regarded as a free creation of unconscious
art" (Prolegomena).
[38]Prolegomena.
[39]Wellhausen,
Prolegomena.
[40]Dr. Gerald Larue made the following comment in a debate
with Dr. Walter Kaiser in 1987: "Well, this is a bias, and, of
course, what you deal with is interpretation. Something
happens and somebody says, 'Well, this is... because God...'
So we have Christian scholars who are higher critics who have
written books called The Mighty Acts of God, dealing
with the interpretation of history as God acting within the
realm of man. The secular historian doesn't utilize that kind
of belief system." (Transcript from The John Ankerberg
Evangelistic Association of a debate recorded for The John
Ankerberg Show, 1987: How Was the Old Testament Written?
p. 6.)
[41]John I. Durham, Exodus,
(Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1987), p. 281.
[42]Wellhausen,
Prolegomena.
[43]Harrison,
p. 501.
[44]Ibid.
The author acknowledges his debt to Harrison for this summary
of JEDP.
[45]For
example, the account of the death of Moses at the end of
Deuteronomy, or the references to certain things being so "to
this day" (Genesis 19:37-38; 22:14; 47:26; Deuteronomy 2:22;
3:14, to name a few).
[46]An
example of this is the discovery of cuneiform writing,
demonstrating that people were writing at least as early as
the time of Moses, if not earlier. This overturned the prior
contention that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch
since writing had not been invented.
[47]On
the John Ankerberg Show, when asked if he still holds to JEDP,
Dr. Gerald Larue stated, "I utilize this as the best we have
at the moment... Possibly somebody will come up with something
better..." (Transcript, How Was the Old Testament Written?
p. 6). Given that Dr. Larue is still subscribing to this
120-year-old theory, one is given cause to doubt that he truly
believes this to be the case.
[48]Lester
L. Grabbe, "Fundamentalism and Scholarship," in Barry P.
Thompson (ed.), Scripture: Meaning and Method: Essays
Presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, (Hull, England; Hull
University Press, 1987). This principle is the contention
behind Grabbe's article. He argues that Christians cannot
truly be scholars since their work is biased from the outset
by their faith. This author has encountered this perspective
on numerous occasions.
[49]Harrison,
p. 93.
[50]Joseph
P. Free, "Archaeology and Biblical Criticism: Part III:
Archaeology and Liberalism" p. 334.
[51]Harrison,
p. 384.
[52]Harrison,
p. 387. It is instructive to note that no images of Yahweh
have ever been found.
[53]Orr,
p. 140.
[54]Harrison,
p. 392.
[55]Genesis
31:34; Ibid., p. 393
[56]Free,
"Archaeology and Biblical Criticism Part III: Archaeology and
Liberalism," pp. 335-336.
[57]Orr,
pp. 121-122.
[58]Harrison,
pp. 642-643.
[59]Harrison,
citing the work of Cyrus Gordon, notes that ancient Near
Eastern law codes were often discarded in actual life.
"Mesopotamian judges consistently omitted any reference to law
codes in their court decisions, preferring instead to be
guided by tradition, public feeling, and their own estimate of
the situation confronting them... Thus the rediscovery of lost
Sumerian legal codes some centuries after their promulgation
would have constituted as complete a surprise to the
contemporary Babylonians generally as the finding of the ‘book
of the law' did to Josiah" (Ibid., pp. 647-8).
[60]Orr,
p. 257-260.
[61]Ibid.,
pp. 260-261.
[62]Ibid.,
p. 262.
[63]Harrison,
p. 644.
[64]Ibid.,
p. 646.
[65]Donald
J. Wiseman, "Archaeology and Scripture," Westminster
Theological Journal (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster
Seminary) 33, no. 2 (1971): 142.
[66]Gordon
J. Wenham, "The Place of Biblical Criticism in Theological
Study," Themelios (Leicester, England: IFES) 14, no 3
(1989): 87.
[67]Ibid.
[68]Ibid.
[69]Harrison,
p. 106.
[70]Ibid.
[71]Free,
"Archaeology and Biblical Criticism: Part III: Archaeology and
Liberalism," p.331.
[72]What
follows is a summary of the points made by Free (Ibid., pp.
329-330).
[73]Harrison,
p. 108.
[74]Harrison,
pp. 111-112.
[75]Harrison,
Archer, Kaiser, Free, and Wiseman are but a few of the Old
Testament scholars who would support this claim.
[76]Burrows,
What Mean These Stones, p. 56, cited in Free,
"Archaeology and Biblical Criticism: Part III: Archaeology and
Liberalism," p. 339.
[77]Harrison,
pp. 583-584.
[78]Free,
"Archaeology and Biblical Criticism: Part III: Archaeology and
Liberalism," p. 338.
[79]Wiseman,
p. 144; Walter Kaiser, "Exploding the JEDP Theory or the
Documentary Hypothesis," pp. 6-7.
[80]Kaiser,
"Exploding the JEDP Theory or the Documentary Hypothesis," p.
6.
[81]Ibid.,
p. 4.
[82]Harrison,
p. 661.
[83]For
example, the passages referring to things being so "to this
day" (e.g., Gen. 19:37; Deut. 2:22; Joshua 6:25; 1 Samuel 5:5
et al.). This is debatable since it is possible that Moses,
describing a situation some years ago may indicate that the
same was still true at the time of his writing. There are
also, however, claims made that the names of certain places
have been updated to reflect a more modern usage. For example,
the reference to Dan in Genesis 14:14 could possibly be to the
Dan that was renamed from Laish in Judges 18:29. Since Moses
would not have been aware of the name change, he would have
originally written "Laish," and a later hand updated it to
Dan. See Kaiser and Larue, "How Was the Old Testament
Written," pp. 8-9. Such changes are seen by some conservatives
as no worse than the way modern Bible translators make use of
dynamic equivalence.
[84]Orr,
p. 209.
[85]Orr,
p. 210.
[86]Harrison,
p. 30.
[87]Cyrus
H. Gordon, "Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit,"
Christianity Today IV, No. 4 (1959): 132-133.
[88]Ibid.,
p. 131.
[89]C.
S. Lewis, "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism" (originally
titled "Fern-seed and Elephants"), The Seeing Eye (New
York: Ballantine Books, 1992), p. 217.
[90]Ibid.,
210.
A Brief Bibliography
Free, Joseph P.,
"Archaeology and Biblical Criticism" Parts I-III,
Bibliotheca Sacra nos. 450-452
Kaiser, Walter C.,
Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Mi.:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1991)
Harrison, R. K.,
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mi.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969; reprint, Peabody,
Ma.: Prince Press, 1999)
Orr, James,
Problem of the Old Testament, (Ny.: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1906)
Thiele, Edwin R.,
The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand
Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983; reprint, Grand
Rapids, Mi.: Kregel Publications, 1994)
Wellhausen,
Julius, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, (n.p. :
n.d., 1878, 1883)
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03/prole10.txt.
|
