Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

A refutation of Source Criticism

In the Late 17^th century, a philosopher and theologian by the name of Benedict Spinoza, with some of his contemporaries theorized that the Torah was not authored by Moses, and had possibly been the concoction of a much later era in Israel's history than had been previously supposed, perhaps by the hand of Ezra. What had gotten him thinking was the difficulty in reconciling the author's use of the third person, he, rather then the first, I, as well as the account of Moses' death in Deuteronomy 34. If, Spinoza contended, Moses had written the Pentateuch, he surely could not have written the account of His own passing. Based upon that assumption, why would it be wrong to insist there were other authors for other parts of the Torah apart from Deuteronomy? At this point in history Mosaic authorship hadn't truly been challenged for close to 1500 years¹. Spinoza's challenge, too, was not given much hearing among scholarly circles, at least not until deistic, rationalist, and empiricist philosophy flourished early in the following century. Coupled with Charles Darwin's naturalism, a ripe climate for such challenges was being prepared, for Darwin had furnished people with the means to defend antisupernaturalistic views of humanity and history. Finally, in the latter half of the 19^th century scholars such as Graf, Keunen, and Wellhausen took the work started by men like Spinoza and other intermediaries and ran with it, formalizing the documentary hypothesis.

What is today called source criticism, JEDP theory, or documentary hypothesis, is most commonly attributed to Wellhausen. Based upon evolutionary and antisupernaturalistic ideals, it asserts the Pentateuch is the result of four major sources, written between the ages of 850 b.c.e. through 570 b.c.e. The first is the J source, characterized by the usage of the name Yahweh, or Jehovah. The second is proposed to be the E source, so designated by the usage of the name Elohiym, approximately 750 b.c.e. The primary two sources were assumed to be written by unknown persons within the borders of national Israel. Source three is purported to have been written by the priest Hilkiah, and possibly others, at the endorsement of King Josiah in 621 b.c.e. This deuteronomic writer(s), influenced by the prophet Jeremiah, later reworked Israel's history as recorded in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The final composers were grouped together as the Priestly source. Their intent was to add strength and credibility to the theocratic institutions of Israel during and beyond the exilic period of Israel's history. They therefore are accredited the priestly components of the Torah, such as the rites and rituals of sacrifice.

Classic Wellhausen theory holds at its core certain assumptions which have aided in the erroneous assertions it makes. These weaknesses warrant exposition before any critical refutation of individual criteria can be set forth, and counter evidence towards Mosaic authorship can be presented.

1. Circular reasoning- the conclusion posited is in actuality the underlying assumption at the onset. Foundational to source criticism is the belief that the bible is not divine revelation. Under that premise, all evidences for inspirational origins of scripture, such as fulfilled prophecy as is not encountered in any other holy writ worldwide, are automatically pushed aside. It was implicit in the intellectualism of the day to find a natural rational answer for everything, excepting of course the idea of whether rationalism was a worthy foundational belief. Rationalism takes as its starting point the mind of man, not revelation. Rationalism must be accepted purely by faith since it must be appealed to in its own defense. (quote Finn? Theory upon a theory? Pg 4 or 5))

2. Textual evidence- Wellhausen's theory is supposed to be based on the texts themselves. However, whenever the text runs against the documentarian school, the text then "must have been a later redaction or interpolation". For example, it is alleged that no priestly legislation exists in the historical books of the Hebrew Scriptures. When it is countered that evidence of priestly provision or Mosaic Law is included in the historical writings, they are assumed to have been later insertions. What would be the result if when playing a game of soccer, one team would disallow every goal and then change the rules to give themselves the advantage as soon as the second team got the upper hand? This is the same tactic applied by documentarians because the presuppositions they build upon make poor foundation.

3. Subjective bias- in most if not all cases where the scriptures touch on anything historical, the bias was to automatically reject it on the basis that the bible cannot be inspired text. In other instances, where there has been a choice to trust the biblical record or pagan sources, regardless of the date of composition, the pagan sources were favored. As will be explored, the biblical historical record has been confirmed time and again by archeology in the last century. (Argument from silence, living in the echoes of previous silence)

4. Evolutionary theory- it is assumed that the religion of the Israelites started as polytheism and then evolved into the monotheistic belief which eventually took deep root in the Hebrew culture. This is untenable considering no polytheistic nation known to antiquity has ever done so with the sole exceptions being those which came out of Judaism; Christianity and Islam². Israel is a stand alone in this occurrence. This preconceived idea, based upon the assumption evolutionary theory is more fact than theory, taints any possibility of discovering the truth about the origin of scripture by eliminating many outcomes at the onset. The accounts of contact with God by the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or even Moses, are then reinterpreted as having been rewritten into the text to fit the later climate of the supposed evolution to monotheism.

   Another evolutionary assumption made by source critics is that the people of that time period were too simple to have developed such an advanced code of laws and ethics, let alone that the Hebrews were capable of recording it all. Then, as documentarians see repetition and varying styles, themes, and synonyms in the text, in view of this naive assumption it is believed proof positive of late composition by sources instead of literary device by a single author. By that rationale, an author such as Milton "could not possibly have written merry poems such as L'Allegro, lofty epic poetry such as Paradise Lost, and scintillating prose essays such as Areopagitica"³.

5. Scholarly arrogance- the assumption that man 3400 plus years after the events can do a better job reconstructing the events than those removed from them by mere centuries, even by the documentarians own dating schemes, is quite the arrogant presupposition. Of course this too is based on the idea that mankind evolved from lesser intelligent to more intelligent beings. Archeology casts doubt on the supposed lesser intelligence of man in human history.

The New Testaments commentary on the Old.

Of all works of antiquity, there is none textually as well attested as the New Testament. Compare the number of N/T manuscripts and fragments, close to twenty-five thousand, to all other works, and they pale in comparison. Combine that with the over thirty-six thousand citations of the New Testament by the ante Nicene fathers and it is flagrant deceit to say we do not have what the first century church both recorded and considered scripture. By that reasoning it is impossible in my mind to enter into discussion on Mosaic authorship without pulling on that thread and following the trail.

The time period between the Apostles and the acceptance of Christianity by emperor Constantine in the early fourth century is, unfortunately, little known or studied by many critics, of Christianity in general, and of the bible specifically. However, there is a rich history of writings from this ante Nicene church period. A spiritual genealogy of sorts can be easily reconstructed from these writings in which we can trace back to the Apostles of Christ. These records are of considerable value, recording not only the history, but specifically a history of true Christian doctrine. Within these texts, we find attestation to Mosaic authorship by the men who have direct lines to the apostles. Consider the following basic chart⁴;

In short, Mosaicity is the tradition of the church which we have inherited from the Jews. While that may not necessarily prove it true, it by no means proves it false either. It is foolishness to assume something is false just because it is a tradition, as most source criticism seems to assume.

Upon entering study of the N/T's commentary on the Old, it is plainly evident the apostles and other N/T writers trusted Mosaic authorship; "For the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (Jn 1:17)⁵; "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, we have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write…" (Jn 1:45); "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord" (Lk 2:22, referring to Lev 12); "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren…" (Act 3:22, referring to Deut 18:15-19); "And by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Act 13:39); "For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things shall live by them" (Rom 10:5, referring to Lev 18:5); "And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" (Mk 12:26, referring to Ex 3:6); "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn" (1 Cor 9:9 and 1Tim 5:18, referring to Deut 25:4). The N/T not only affirms Mosaic authorship, but also confirms for us the historicity of; Adam and Eve (1 Tim 2:13 from Gen 1-3), Cain and Able (Heb 11:4 from Gen 4), Enoch the seventh generation from Adam (Jud 1:4, thus validating the genealogical lists of pre flood peoples), Noah and his family(1Pet 3:20and 2 Pet 2:5, from Gen 6-9), Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the list continues through a host of people found in the Law of Moses. This validates not only the claim Moses wrote, but also the claim that which he wrote was an historical account.

The teachings of Jesus confirm Mosaicity as well; "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" (John 7:19); "Because of your hard-heartedness Moses allowed you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so" (Mat 19:7); "For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me" (Jn 5:46) ; "And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Lk 24:27); "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms about Me" (Lk 24:44). Jesus also said "… if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My Words?" (Jn 5:47). In this last verse, Jesus equated the trustworthiness of Mosaic Law with His own authority. As Archer said, "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." ⁶ If the Pentateuch is not Mosaic, then the N/T is necessarily suspect as well, if not outright false. Since there is no reason to distrust the N/T, it adds credibility to the defense of Mosaic authorship of the Torah.

The Criteria for distinguishing sources.

In 1753, a French physician and amateur in the field of biblical scholarship named Jean Astruc laid the next major plank in establishing source criticism. His contribution was in his taking specific notice of the different names for God in Genesis 1 and 2, and concluding the different names pointed to different authors. Following in his steps was German born Johann Gottfried Eichhorn who, publishing in 1780-83, expanded the work to include from Genesis 1 through Exodus 2. While today the criteria of divine names is little rehearsed, it is foundational to the rise of the theory, and if this criteria fails, then a large portion the foundation will have been exposed as sand, causing the rest of the theory to remain in serious question. That is precisely the case; if either of these men had the benefit of modern archeology, their ideas would never have become entrenched in the minds of those who would carry the torch of the source hypothesis. In plain speak, there is no way they would have ever assumed different names meant different authors had they seen the evidence of other ancient cultures, who likewise used different and multiple names for their gods. I quote from the work of Archer;

In Babylonia, the Sumerian counterparts were alternated the Akkadian names; Bel was also Enlil and Nunamnir (Prologue to the Lipit-Ishtar code); Anum was Ilum, Sin was Nanna, Ea was Enki, Utu was Shamash, and Ishtar was Inanna or Telitum (cf. Prologue to Hammerabi's code). At Ugarit, Baal was also called Aliyan, El was Laptan, and Kothar-wa-Khasis (the artificer god) was Hayyin (cf. Aqhat, ANET, p. 151). In Egypt, Osiris (the judge of the dead and lord of the netherworld) was also Wennefer, Neb-Abdu, and Khentamentiu (cf. the Ikhernofer Stela in the Berlin Museum); his son Horus was also Re-Harakhti, and so on throughout the Egyptian pantheon⁷.

Through deeper study we glean that variant names for God become increasingly useless as a criteria, as a sort of recycling of deities can be traced through ancient cultures. Take Baal, the young storm god of the Canaanites, as one of a number of examples. As we search out information on young storm gods through other cultures, we see variations of that same deity throughout history from that time period until the time of the Romans two thousand years later; in Babylon he was Bel or Marduk; to the Aramaeans he was Hadad; to the Sumerians Tammuz or Dumuzi; the Egyptian version seems to have been known as Set; to the Mesopotamians he was known as Enlil; to the Syrians and Hittites he was Adad and Teshub; in the times of the Greeks and Romans Zeus or Jupiter became known as the chief god, the god of thunder and lightning. Even as close as the times of the Vikings they believed in the god of thunder, whom they named Thor. The idea that the gods of ancient times can be traced thus makes most sense if the biblical record is accurate⁸. Seen in the increasing light of antiquity and archeology, this primary source criterion cannot withstand scrutiny. It is doubtless that either Astruc or Eichhorn would have ever pushed their theory had they the information we have today. Continuance to propagate the idea of names as a criteria for source division assumes Israel as a stand alone and ignorant people, incapable of things which were common in any other culture around them, chiefly of recording and specifically of using synonyms and variant names for God.

In many cases, both Yahweh and Elohiym are used simultaneously, often translated "the LORD God" in most bibles today (21 times alone in Gen 1-9), but the propensity to stubbornly stick to the source theory influenced critics to assume interpolation. We do not have any textual evidence to substantiate this claim. More plausibly, in keeping with the cultural and archeological data, would be to read the text with the understanding that the name for God being used is so on the basis of which attributes are most important to the message of each passage in question.

To be Continued…

footnotes

1. Between the first through the third centuries there were some attacks on Mosaicity. At that time the suspicions were not able to get a foot hold either.

2. Islamic faith has not been born from Judaism in a traditional sense, but they purportedly share the common ancestry of Abraham through Ishmael. Christianity has never been polytheistic either, but had many early adherents who moved by conversion from polytheism to biblical truth and monotheistic faith.

3. Gleason Archer, A survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody Press, Chicago, 1973, pg 106.

4. There are also many other fathers who could be quoted, but for the basis of this argument to show the unbroken string of writers from the Apostles to Constantine, I have chosen only a few.

5. Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture references are taken from the King James Version of the bible.

6. Archer, SOTI, pg…

7. Ibid, page 119.

8. At the tower of Babel, as the people dispersed and language became divided, the one true God could easily have gotten lost in the mix of false ones as the birth of these new cultures tried to each explain what would have seemed like personal or tribal deities. I am not suggesting this to be the case; I am merely proposing a plausible explanation in place of the falsehoods of source criticism.