Transcript Who Wrote the Pentateuch? - The Rev. Dr. Charles W. Allen

Who Wrote the Pentateuch?
Was Moses the Author?
By the time the First Testament was
canonized (AFTER the beginning of
the Christian movement), it was
generally held that Moses was the
author of all five books of the Torah.
Suggestions to the contrary were
dismissed or met with hostility until
the 1800s.
Currently, most scholars do not think
Moses wrote all five books and
would question whether he even
wrote very much of any book.
What is the evidence from the texts
themselves?
Textual evidence for Mosaic authorship:
Some texts in the Torah and the rest
of the Jewish Bible say that Moses
wrote some narratives and a legal
code. (Exodus 17:14, 24:4, 34:27-28;
Numbers 33:2, Deuteronomy 31:9,
24-26; Joshua 8:31-34, 1 Kings 2:3, 2
Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles 23:18, 2
Chronicles 25:4, 2 Chronicles 35:12,
Ezra 6:18, Nehemiah 8:1, Nehemiah
8:14, Nehemiah 13:1).
None of these texts say that Moses
wrote all or even most of GenesisDeuteronomy.
Later Jewish Tradition and the New Testament
The practice of attributing everything in these books to
Moses in Jesus’ day does not necessarily mean that
anyone knew this for a fact or stopped to think about
whether the attribution was fully accurate.
This was a way of telling people where they could find
the text being quoted.
Jews, Jesus (who was a Jew, of course) and early
Christians did assume that Moses’ (and God’s!) authority
lay behind all of these texts.
That is not an historical claim but a theological one.
Problems with assuming that Moses is the author:
anachronisms and contrasting doublets
There are a number of anachronisms:
Moses is always referred to in the third person.
Would “the most humble of men, the humblest man on earth”
(Numbers 12:3) write that about himself?
Deuteronomy repeatedly uses the phrase “to this day” (e.g., 3:14;
34:6).
How did Moses recount his own death and burial, in the past tense?
Whoever wrote about Moses’ death seems to write in the same style
as the rest of Deuteronomy and later books (Joshua through 2 Kings).
“Never since has there arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses”
(Deuteronomy 34:10): sounds like an assessment made after other
prophets arose.
Genesis repeatedly mentions: “at that time the Canaanites were in the
land” (e.g., 12:6; 13:7), which implies that they are no longer there at
the time of writing (but they were there before the Israelites occupied
Canaan).
Passages refer to lands east of the Jordan as “beyond the Jordan”
(Genesis 50:10; Numbers 21:1)
Genesis refers to kings who ruled “before any king reigned over the
Israelites” (Genesis 36:31).
Besides anachronisms, there
seem to be a considerable
number of “doublets”—
“stories or laws that are
repeated in the Torah,
sometimes identically, more
often with [notable]
differences in detail” [Richard Elliot
Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco 2003), p. 27].
Friedman lists 31 doublets
(sometimes triplets).
We’ll look at three.
Genesis 1-2 seems to have two versions of creation, with different
names for God and a different order of events.
Genesis 1
Elohim
Six days
Heavens and earth (heaven
focused)
Creates by speaking
Follows a blueprint
Plants
Animals
Humans: male/female
Genesis 2
YHWH Elohim
One day
Earth and heavens (earth
focused)
Works with hands, breath
Improvises
Human (adham=“earthling”?)
Plants
Animals (possible spouses!)
Splits human into male/female
Genesis 6-8 seems to interweave two flood stories which make perfect
sense, but don’t match, when separated by the name used for God.
Version 1
Elohim
Unemotional
One pair of every animal
Noah/family enter ark on
the same day the flood
begins
Flood lasts 150 days
Version 2
YHWH
Sorry about creating
humans
Seven pairs of all clean
animals/birds; one pair of
all unclean animals
Noah/family enter ark
seven days before the
flood begins
Flood lasts 40 days
There seem to be actually three versions of the crossing of “The Red Sea”
(Yam Suf), which hang more or less together when separated
(Exodus 13:17-14:31)
Version 1
YHWH
Israelites flee
Pharaoh responds
Egyptians pursue
A pillar of cloud
stands between
Israel & the
Egyptians
Sea pushed back
from shore by a wind
Egyptians thrown
into panic
Egyptians flee onto
dry seabed & are
drowned when the
sea returns
Version 2
Elohim
Israelites permitted
to leave
Pharaoh’s &
Egyptians’ minds
are changed
Egyptians pursue
Angel of Elohim
stands between
Israel and the
Egyptians
Nothing happens
to the sea.
Angel clogs
Egyptians’ chariot
wheels; they can’t
pursue (but are not
killed)
Version 3
YHWH
Israelites leave
YHWH hardens
Pharaoh’s heart
Egyptians pursue
Moses splits sea,
creating a path
with walls of water
on both sides
Egyptians pursue
Israelites into the
path
Moses closes sea,
drowning the
Egyptians
Parting the Sea:
One of THREE Versions?
The Documentary Hypothesis: Stage 1
To account for the anachronisms and these contrasting
doublets (and triplets), scholars eventually came up with
“The Documentary Hypothesis.”
In the 1700s three scholars, working independently,
noticed a pattern: Many of the doublets used a different
name for God in each version (YHWH, Elohim).
This led to the distinction between the J and E sources.
[J stands for JHWH—the German spelling.]
The Documentary Hypothesis: Stage 2
Scholars still found doublets in E (e.g., the crossing of
Yam Suf), so, following the same logic, they
hypothesized a third source.
They noticed that some of the doublets in E were
preoccupied with priests, so they used that to distinguish
a Priestly source, P, from the rest of E. It includes almost
all of Leviticus.
Then scholars noticed that this scheme seemed to be
making more sense of Genesis-Numbers, but not of
Deuteronomy, which seemed to have its own
independent style, so they hypothesized a fourth source,
D.
The Documentary Hypothesis: Stage 3
This still did not account for everything (e.g.,
God is called YHWH Elohim in Genesis 2 &3,
but nowhere else in the entire Pentateuch), but
scholars could always attribute anomalies like
that to one or more Redactors (i.e., editors).
After all, somebody had to weave these sources
together.
J — the Jahwist. J describes a human-like God called Yahweh who
speaks directly to people. J has a special interest in Judah and in
the Aaronid priesthood. J has an extremely eloquent style. J uses an
earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.
E — the Elohist. E describes a human-like God initially called
Elohim, and called Yahweh subsequent to the incident of the burning
bush. In E God tends to communicate through dreams. E focuses on
the northern kingdom of Israel and on the Shiloh priesthood. E has a
moderately eloquent style. E uses an earlier form of the Hebrew
language than P.
P — the Priestly source. P describes a distant and unmerciful God,
sometimes referred to as Elohim or as El Shaddai. P partly
duplicates J and E, but alters some details, and also consists of
most of Leviticus. P has its main interest in an Aaronid priesthood
and in King Hezekiah. P has a low level of literary style, and has an
interest in lists, precise measurements, and dates.
D — the Deuteronomist. D consists of most of Deuteronomy. D
probably also wrote the Deuteronomistic history (Josh, Judg, 1 & 2
Sam, 1 & 2 Kgs). D has a particular interest in the Shiloh priesthood
and in King Josiah. D uses a form of Hebrew similar to that of P, but
in a different literary style.
Friedman’s Assessment (p. 28)
The different names of God in contrasting doublets were the starting
point for the hypothesis. But the most compelling case comes from
the convergence of other patterns which were later noticed.
When we try separating contrasting doublets:
“This also results in the resolution of nearly all the contradictions.”
“The name of God divides consistently in all but three out of more
than two thousand occurances.”
“The terminology of each [hypothesized] source remains consistent
within that source.” Friedman lists 24 examples of terms “which are
consistent through nearly four hundred occurances.”
“This produces continuous narratives that flow with only a rare
break.”
“The Hebrew of each source fits consistently with what we know of
the Hebrew of each period [from archeology].”
Friedman’s assessment (continued):
Therefore:
“The most compelling argument for the hypothesis is that
this hypothesis best accounts for the fact that all this
evidence of so many kinds comes together so
consistently.”
“To this day, no one known to me who challenged the
hypothesis has ever addressed this fact.”
In fact, Friedman argues, no scholar is clever enough to
make all the evidence line up in this way.
So it cannot be dismissed as, say, a secular humanist
conspiracy of scholars setting out to find the results they
wanted to find.