Pentateuchal Criticism

2002-02-19

Introductory Study

The Pentateuchal narrative, according to many critical scholars, is not of Mosaic authorship. Within modern times, such scholars have noticed that the Pentateuch seems to have come from many sources of written and oral traditions, that were in later years compiled together to give us the Pentateuch. Perhaps some of this is true when compiling the primeval history. Moses either compiled the events of the ancient world in the centuries preceding his birth from various sources, or God simply revealed the information to him by telling him directly. These scholars attribute these sources of the entire Pentateuch to various literary forms and use of vocabulary. As we will see, however, it will be difficult to reconcile the Pentateuch as well as the entire Bible as God’s revealed word if we take this approach.

Critical scholarship’s theory is called the JEPD theory, or the Multiple Source Documentary Hypothesis. The letters stand for four different sources that come from different periods throughout Israelite history. Some scholars argue that there are more than four. The acronym refers to the following: “J” stands for the name of God, the Tetragrammaton (“Jehovah”), which allegedly represents the oldest material dating in the ninth century B.C. “E” stands for Elohim, which supposedly originates in the middle of the eighth century B.C. Together, as the names suggest, they refer to which name of God the text primarily employs in a given section; the former is the personal, covenantal name of God, as the latter uses the generic name Elohim (Hebrew: God or gods), which shows the remoteness of God from the world (Eissfeldt 184). The “P” source stands for “priestly,” which often refers to sacrifices or proper ways to pray, which is said to be post-exilic, the latest material. The “D” source is for Deuteronomy, as many scholars attribute this to the time of Josiah or shortly thereafter.

Form criticism sees the Pentateuch as strands of different traditions that were compiled together. While still holding on to the letters J, E, P, and D, Eissfeldt observes different criteria in seeing the different literary strands. First, as formerly mentioned, is the name shift from the Tetragrammaton to Elohim (Eissfeldt 182). This shift can be seen, as Eissfeldt notes, in the cases of the casting away of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21. J, using the personal name of the Lord, also proves God to be more anthropomorphic in character, and Eissfeldt even notes that there is less fear when people encounter God when in the J source (Eissfeldt 184). Eissfeldt argues that the differentiation between names only stands true for Genesis and the beginning of Exodus (Eissfeldt 182-183). This is considered insufficient, since the names are used in all narratives, and there are supposedly more than two sources.

There is also a linguistic usage, where different words are used for the same concept. An example is the use of the word שִׁפְחָה in the J source and אָמָה in the E source (see Genesis 16:5 and 32:22, and Genesis 21:12 and 30:3, respectively). Eissfeldt also speaks of a diversity of ideas, which can mean a number of concepts that differ over a period of time. A good example is the listing of the Flood narrative according to the alleged P and J sources. J will make mention of unclean and clean animals because of Noah’s sacrifice that will follow the Flood. The theology of P will not stand for sacrifice before the receiving of the Levitical priesthood and law (Eissfeldt 185). A fourth criterion in form criticism is literary phenomena. There is the use of doublets, which there could be as many as fifty so-called doublets. Tradition history still sees the Pentateuch as a conglomeration of strands, but compiled together as a whole work. Therefore, a more unified work is seen and studied, though the Pentateuch is seen as pieces put together.

These viewpoints led scholars to see the Pentateuch with a skeptical eye (Bright 68). From these methods of Pentateuchal criticism, the Pentateuch is a compilation of ancient tales, not even recorded until the ninth century B.C. at the earliest. As seen earlier, scholars read different theologies into the different strands (such as the view of sacrifice in P and J, as discussed above). Scholars themselves disagree on what comes from what source. The rich history and tradition of Israel is cheapened into folklore that was borrowed from their neighbors in the Ancient Near East.

The consequences for these views are great. When one degrades the value for the Pentateuch, it is an assault on the divine call of Israel. They are not God’s chosen people, but nomadic Semites that settled in the land of Canaan. Their myths validate their claims to the land. The book of Deuteronomy (source D), apparently written around the time of Josiah, perhaps is nothing more than Israelite propaganda that followed the miserable reigns of Manasseh and Amon. Also, when attacking the Pentateuch, we attack the entire Bible, since the Pentateuch is the very foundation for God’s plan that is moving toward a final goal in history. It is not possible to yield to these views of Scripture yet have a conservative belief on the inerrancy or inspiration of Scripture without seeing major paradoxes. Even the message of salvation falls apart, because the Gospel message is dependant upon the Law of Moses (cf. Romans 3:20, that by the Law came knowledge of sin).

Most of these theories that prevailed were not examined in the context of the Ancient Near East. As a more understanding of ancient languages arose, such as Mesopotamian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics, they served a major role in understanding the Old Testament in all periods (Harrison 33). Formerly, Bright says, when the documentary hypothesis was developed, little was known about the cultures of the ancient Orient (Bright 69). As it will be seen later, archaeological evidence will neither prove the existence of Abraham and patriarchs, nor the Exodus, but the customs seen in the ancient narrative of the Pentateuch will fit perfectly within the time period in which they existed. This, however, does not seem to shake modern liberal scholars.

Though such scholars might revise their theories, they do not abandon them (Bright 69). It seems as though for many, if one were to find the remains of a large box on a mountain in Turkey with the same dimensions of the ark Noah built, or any such evidence that might prove a portion of the ancient Biblical past, the hardness of a heart cannot be answered with anything.

Most Christians would probably not hold the beliefs of tradition history, source, or form criticism. First, they are not looking to dissect the Bible into parts that in themselves are not individual parts. They are looking to a unified theology from a unified work that they can trust and apply to their own lives, that they might know the living God better. The argument is similar to that of the believer that also is a believer in evolution. Death before Adam means that death was not brought by God as a punishment. Therefore, the death of Christ was nothing, because He cannot die for the sins of humankind if death is not a punishment. The same argument applies to Pentateuchal criticism. For example, if Abraham did not exist, but was a compilation of ancient tales, then all the times the New Testament authors refer to Genesis 15:6 (See Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, and James 2:23; that righteousness before God comes through faith) is nothing more than a nice morality lesson. When Jesus quotes Deuteronomy passages to the devil in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13), he is not quoting the oracles of God, but something from the mind of one of Josiah’s contemporaries (though many such scholars do not believe that the Gospel’s Jesus is the real Jesus, but a fabrication of the disciples!). We must question creation by the hand of God, the devastating effects of sin, the concept of marriage as God’s design, the call of Israel, concepts of sacrifice, and a myriad of other things that have their origin in the Pentateuch. If the foundation of the Bible is assaulted, then the whole Bible crumbles, and then there is no special revelation from God. Our hope in Jesus Christ is therefore shaken. Conservative believers may occasionally believe in these things, but they have not considered what they believe is a theological crisis and paradox.

History and Archaeology

There is nothing to say about proving the existence of Abraham or the patriarchs outside the Biblical narrative. It would be difficult to prove some of these things. An archaeologist would have to find some remains that authenticates the remains of Abraham, a Semitic nomad who came from Ur of the Chaldees via Padanaram to Palestine. Though he became rich by God’s blessing, he was not a man of great impact in the Ancient Near East at that time (compared to Hammurabi or Sargon I). Even for Joseph, a Semite who had great authority in Egypt, it would be hard to find anything in archaeological digs (especially since his bones were moved when the Israelites left Egypt; he wouldn’t have a royal tomb). Since most scholars give a late date for the Exodus, he would probably be confused with one of the Hyksos rulers. Trying to find these things would be almost impossible, though God can do such impressive works.

However, scholars can verify the validity of the Scripture to a certain extent by comparing the cultures and customs of the ancient contemporaries of the Patriarchs. The kinds of observations that were found are fascinating. Of course, by comparing the internal evidence with the archaeological findings one will be able to determine if this literature was written in blocks starting in the ninth century throughout the exile or if it were written in the mid to late fifteenth century B.C. as conservative scholarship would testify.

Merrill looks to the Nuzi tablets as archaeological evidence to find parallels in customs to the Patriarchal period. There are great parallels between the obtaining of an heir by adopting a household servant (i.e. Eliezer of Damascus, cf. Genesis 15:2-4). Likewise a surrogate mother could be offered if a woman was barren (i.e. Hagar the Egyptian, cf. Genesis 16:1-2). These customs, Merrill argues, were customs that were long in place, since the Nuzi tablets testify of a period about 400-500 years following the Patriarchal period (Merrill 39).

The political system of Genesis 14 is very suggestive of the period from which it came (Ross 292). The vassal city-states to the king Chedorlaomer that band together, Ross suggests, along with the subjugation of the rebellious vassal states are suggestive of the period at the beginning of the second millennium B.C.

Mazar argues that internal evidence such as the personal names in Genesis are of West Semitic origin and are from the first half of the second century B.C. (Mazar 225). He argues that such internal evidence cannot be ignored; interestingly enough he still holds that the narratives were orally preserved for centuries until the time of David and Solomon (Mazar 225-226). This is an obvious contradiction.

Because of the excellent preservation of the material within in the Pentateuch, one who was contemporary with the events must have written it. The internal evidence links the five books together, one leading one right into another (cf. Genesis 50:26 and Exodus 1:1, and so forth). Merrill goes into detail of how Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the oppression and Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus (see Merrill 59ff). It would make sense that an eyewitness to all of the events would have known to write down all the details. One with the Israelites’ election, Exodus and conquest in mind wrote this unified work. In Joshua, the Law was already written down that Joshua and the Israelites were to observe it (Joshua 1:7-8).

With these things in mind, the Law had to have been written down before the conquest. The preservation of cultural details and the timing of the Exodus testify to this. In the case of Genesis, there is no other man capable of compiling ancient history than that of Moses. There seem to be several major reasons:

Moses knew God face to face (Exodus 33:11).
Moses was adopted into a royal family (Exodus 2:9-10) and was highly educated as opposed to Semitic slaves that probably were not as educated.
He would have access to records in Egypt, one of the most ancient civilizations in the world.
Everything was written for a Jewish audience in mind. The creation story in Genesis 1:1-2:3 tells how everything was created by God, and are not gods in themselves. For example, the Egyptians primary deity was the sun, but God is introduced as the creator of the sun. God is the God of all peoples, as seen in the table of nations in Genesis 10; he is not a tribal deity or a god merely of a specific part of the world.

Naturally, since the death of Moses is recorded in Deuteronomy 34:5, there are two possibilities. Another finished the work, which all signs would point toward Joshua in that case, or Moses prophetically could look to the future to finish the work.

Inconsistencies in the Documentary Hypothesis

Problems naturally arise with Documentary Hypothesis worldview. For example, the J source uses the Tetragrammaton to show God anthropomorphically, and the E source will show God as remote from creation. However, when we come to the narrative in Genesis 2:4, both names for God are used (indicated by the usage of “LORD God”). Which does it belong to? The narrative here in Genesis 2-3 is very anthropomorphic, as is characteristic of J. But in Genesis 3, the man and the woman are afraid of God when they are found naked and in hiding. God then passes judgment on the man, woman, and serpent. These are elements that are more characteristic of E. The author does communicate using the names throughout the Pentateuch, showing God’s intimacy or power when he wishes, depending on the context. The author of this unified work, therefore, is showing that God is both the God of grace in giving the man and the woman a new hope of life, but also the One that is the sovereign Lord that passes judgment. This passage is not an isolated incident, but happens in other passages where both names appear, though not necessarily next to each other (Genesis 9:26; 15:2ff; 24:7ff, Exodus 3:15).

Take for another example, a common view that the “cycles” of narratives that are found with Abraham and Isaac. The references of interest are Genesis 12:10-20, when Abraham (then Abram) goes to Egypt, Genesis 20:1-18, when Abraham goes to Gerar, and Genesis 26:1-17, when Isaac goes to Gerar. Some scholars would say that this is the same story from different traditions. The first and the third sojourning took place because of famine, and all three accounts say that either Abraham or Isaac, depending on which account, tells his wife to say that they are the man’s sister, not wife. Your view of the Bible determines how you view this. The more natural rendering of this reoccurring situation explains something about the men involved.

The first account tells of Abram going to Egypt because of a famine, and tells Sarai to say that she is the sister of Abram so that he will not get killed by Pharaoh king of Egypt (cf. 12:13). Abram (now Abraham) does the same with Abimelech king of Gerar, but when he is caught in the deception, he reveals to the king that Sarai (now Sarah) truly was his half-sister (20:12). These were acts of deception because of his fear that he would be killed. Abraham should have known that he would not have been killed, because of God’s promise in Genesis 15. Isaac’s situation tells the reader something interesting, because Isaac tells Abimelech king of Gerar the same thing (26:7). What Isaac said was an outright lie, for Rebekah was not his sister at all. This is a common trend in Scripture: that the children’s sins escalate beyond those of their parents. The accounts of Jacob and Esau show that they sinned worse than their parents did, and the sons of Jacob sinned worse than their father did. The same thing happens to those who fought in the Conquest in Joshua. They did not completely obey the Lord by driving out all of the Canaanites (Judges 1:19-36), and their children did not obey the Lord at all (2:10). There are plenty examples of this phenomenon. If there are doublets, reoccurring themes or similar narratives in the Bible, they were intentionally placed where they are for a reason.

Summary

Internal evidence testifies of the Pentateuch was written down at an early date by one particular author. It cannot be ignored that the Patriarchal narrative fits the customs of the Ancient Near East of the Middle Bronze Age. Excavations in the Promised Land that indicate destroyed cities with defaced idols show us evidence of the Conquest, and zeal against idolatry that the Law condemns. The rest of the law must have been written down before this Conquest; God had commanded Israel to meditate on it and follow it in Joshua 1. There is some room for oral transmission in the case of Genesis, as the Ancient Near East “does attest to a remarkable transmission of tradition through oral channels” (Merrill 17). Genesis was written for an Israelite audience as the foundation for the rest of the Pentateuch and for the conquest. The Israelites were fully aware of why they were in Canaan by the time Moses had died.

Sources

Bright, John. A History of Israel, Third Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament, An Introduction. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday, 1990.

Merrill, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.