MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP By Dr. Robert Gange 1. HIGHER CRITICISM Historical ---------- Modern day theologians subscribe to a literary technique known as "higher criticism" which they like to regard as "scientific". It's an old idea. Its origin traces to a monograph published in 1753 by a Montpellier physician by the name of Jean Astruc, who presumed that the alternating use of Elohim and Yahweh indicated diversity of authorship in regard to the Book of Genesis. About 25 years later, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn published an O.T. introduction in which he attempted to distinguish among other literary characteristics of style and content. The notion of other sources spread to the first six book of the Bible (the Hexateuch). Reconstruction -------------- During the 19th century, an attempt was made to reconstruct the documents from which, it was assumed, the Hexateuch derived. This effort splintered into three camps: (i) continuous source documents; (ii) many disjointed, independent documents; (iii) one continuous main document augmented by other fragments. These hypotheses were respectively known as continuous, fragment and supplementation, and gave way to the new document hypothesis of Hermann Hupfeld who published what he believed to be the "real" sources of Genesis, and later of the entire Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible). Chronology ---------- Aside from the assumption that a writing can be analyzed into its component sources, an additional minimal requirement is, of course, that it is possible to further determine the chronological relationship of these sources. Hupfeld, in using Genesis, analyzed writings which are primarily "narrative" in their content, thereby providing little chronological order. Some 12 years later, Karl Graf published an analysis of the O. T. historical books in which he presented a comparative study of the Law. The inseparable interdependence of the "narrative" and the "laws" of the so-called "P Code" source document of Graf could be explained either as originating centuries apart from a Divine Being, or as deriving from the same time period, and exclusively through human authorship. Hypothesis ---------- Abraham Kuenen convinced Graf that it was "impossible" that the narrative and the laws had been written centuries apart, and a few years later Julius Wellhausen agreed. This belief derived from the presupposition that a Divine Being didn't exist. Thus was born the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis which supposes that the Hexateuch is composed of four originally separate documents as follows: The "J" document ... the oldest ... so-called because of its use of the name Yahweh (Lord) in the Genesis narratives; The "E" document ... the next ... so-called because of its use of Elohim (God) prior to revelation to Moses of the name Yahweh (Ex 3:14-15); The "D" document ... the third ... so-called because of the iden- tification with Deuteronomy (Law); The "P" document ... the last ... so labelled because of its priestly content. Redactors --------- Higher criticism holds that "J" and "E" were harmonized into a single narrative "JE" by a "redactor" "R*JE", and that "JE" and "D" were combined to form "JED" by a redactor "R*D". The "P" document is held to be postexilic in origin, and to have been conflated with "JED" by a redactor "R*P" to form "JEDP". Of course, no one knows who, or where or why, or when...about not only the documents, but also the mysterious redactors who over hundreds of years allegedly created new material, harmonized real and apparent discrepancies and partitioned inconsistent one-event accounts into two intelligible separate transactions. Commonality ----------- Higher Criticism attempts to reenforce these arguments with alleged difficulties regarding chronological events. It also cites the use of the phrase "Almighty God" (the Hebrew is "El Shaddai") in Gen. 17:1 (Abram), Gen. 35:11 (Jacob), and Ex. 6:2-3 (Moses) to conclude "therefore" that all three passages came from the same source. Likewise, the ostensible absence of the offering of sacrifice by the patriarchs in Genesis, and the "implied assumption" that the basis of the sacrifices detailed in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers contextually derived from the absence of such sacrifices prior thereto is construed to teach a common source (in this case "P") for parts of all four books. Since "P" is said to be the later document, modern day theologians attempt to recast parts of Genesis into a more recent vintage. 2. SOBER CRITICISM Methodology ----------- It must first be understood that the conclusions of higher criticism are nothing more than blind conjecture. All of the things cited in alleged support of the conclusions of higher criticism can just as easily be cited in support of the conclusions of traditional scholarship. Furthermore, the notion that such speculations qualify as "scientific criticism" is ludicrous. Science is science only because an a priori inviolable standard exists which we call natural law. Every conclusion of science is on trial against this unwavering natural standard, and false conclusions are pursued by such laws without mercy. The yardstick of physical laws in the world is a prosecuting avenger against all errors of logic, assumption and omission. The scientific method is nothing more than an efficient procedure for uncovering that which already exists in a hidden way. In recent days, it has become fashionable to borrow the method of science and, in so doing, to call it "science". Higher criticism, far from being scientific criticism, is in fact heightened speculation. Presupposition -------------- Such methodology is not new. The techniques used by theologians as a basis for so-called "higher criticism" of biblical manuscripts were used previously in other disciplines and found to be inadequate. The assumption they make is that the sources used to produce a literary manuscript can be determined by examining the literary style and internal character of the manuscript. The presupposition is that the "true" origin of the manuscript can be derived through a literary reading of it. The result has been a belief on the part of modern day theologians that present day biblical manuscripts are the result of editing by the early church, and a composite of earlier documents which the early church fit to its own "faith" experience. Contemporaries -------------- There are, however, several problems with such conjecture. C. S. Lewis's essay entitled "Biblical Criticism" which appears in his "Christian Reflections" volume points out that others have applied these same techniques to his own books, attempting to find his "true sources" through a literary reading of his work. Although one might suppose that such attempts should be successful because they are being done by his contemporaries, Lewis notes that such attempts were wrong one hundred percent of the time. This shows that the notion that one can engage in literary psychoanalysis through internal examination of his books is without any tangible warrant, whatsoever. Conjecture ---------- The reason for such failure should come as no surprise. There is simply too much which goes into the author's operation to be induced afterward from the manuscript. Yet the theologians believe that 2000 years later, and in an alien culture, they can succeed with the biblical materials. The presumption on the part of the critic is that he can get inside the mind of the author to discover the "true sources" he actually employed. Perhaps the only thing bigger than the disparity in culture and the distance in time is the theological ego which presumes to span it. Classics -------- The theologians actually borrowed these ideas from other realms of scholarship where it was used in the 19th century. For example, classical scholarship attempted an identical exercise with homer's "Iliad and the Odyssey" in order to find the "true sources". After an enormous amount of misguided energy was spent in the 19th century, there was no agreement whatever regarding where one source ended, and another source began. Subsequent to this work, they arrived at the conclusion that if the "Iliad and the Odyssey" was not written by Homer, then it was written by someone who lived about the same time and who had the same name. Uiguritics ---------- These same techniques were employed in a comparative, near eastern ancient language known as uiguritic scholarship. Cyrus Gordon, one of the greatest specialists in the field, said that these techniques of higher criticism were not only a dismal failure, but also appeared intrinsically incapable of yielding trustworthy results. Historians ---------- The amazing thing is that whereas modern day theologians are content to intellectually speculate about literary origins in the absence of supportive substantive evidence, very strong convictions undergird the conclusions of the legal and historical disciplines with regard to the reliability of biblical manuscripts. Especially is this true in the case of the New Testament. A. N. Sherwin White, a specialist in Roman Law who delivered the Serim Lectures at Oxford in 1963 (published under the title: "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament"), said that "it is astonishing that many theologians using the form (higher) criticism conclude that the 'historical Christ is unknowable' and the 'history of His mission cannot be written'". Assessment ---------- White goes on to say that "this seems very curious" (which is the British equivalent of "lame brain") "when one compares the case with the best known contemporary of Christ who, like Christ, is a well-documented figure...Tibereous Caesar". White goes on to emphasize throughout the main body of his essay that the materials used to derive a picture of Caesar are far less reliable than the materials used to derive a picture of Jesus Christ. Computers --------- One example of the fragile base on which higher criticism rests can be seen in the work of two English scholars, MacGregor and Norton. Starting with Paul's Letters to the Romans and Galatians, they utilized computer analysis of the literary style and internal character to "prove" that at least five other authors actually wrote the remaining epistles traditionally attributed to Paul. The matter seemed to be fairly well settled until a group at Harvard used the identical computer analysis and applied it to the first two chapters of MacGregor and Norton's book. The result was that the Harvard specialists concluded that at least five other authors wrote the remaining chapters of MacGregor and Norton's book. 3. FUNDAMENTAL PRESUPPOSITION Uniqueness ---------- The important thing to note regarding higher criticism, however, is not its foundational vacuum, nor is its historical trail of failures particularly significant. What's noteworthy is the epistemological presumption which implicitly undergirds such literary inquiry. The fundamental assumption made is that even if literary styles and character could be uncovered, distinguished and chronologically catalogued in a trustworthy manner (which the evidence indicates is not true), then different authors who may have produced different documents (e.g., JEDP) are the only explanation for such literary disparity. But we clearly know that this is not the case. For example, the most superficial examination of Scripture reveals the foundational principle of progressive revelation. Now this doesn't mean that God becomes smarter, or that the Prophets evolve into higher quality writers; rather it means the sovereign God, who designed history and who knew its end before its beginning, chose to reveal different things at different times. Relationships ------------- The central thrust of the Holy Writ is to reveal God's redemptive activity in history. In other words, what progresses chronologically is a revelation about God, and about man's relationship to God. Accordingly, we expect to find, and do find, within the Pentateuch, different Spirits of revelation through the pen of Moses. The man "Moses" was simply a human instrument in the hand of God; and it should come as no surprise that God's progressive revelation might manifest itself in dissimilar ways through the same human writer. Differences ----------- Indeed, depending upon man's relationship with God during the time periods embraced by such revelation, we might expect to find quantum leaps of literary style and character from the pen of the same human author which are as varied as the emotional responses that harmonize to the different Spirits of revelation. Consider, for example, the so-called "J" and "E" documents which are alleged to have existed in times past. Perhaps they did, and perhaps they didn't. In either case, one Author wrote them, and there is not one shred of definitive evidence to the contrary. The presumption that more than one human writer is necessary to explain such alleged literary disparity itself derives from the presupposition that the human writer recorded such revelation independently from God's Spirit. The use of "Elohim" clearly denotes God as Creator, whereas the revelation of Yahweh establishes God as Lord. These are vastly different relationships to man, and clearly are concordant with vastly different literary expression. Likewise, the contrast reflected in the legal (D) and the priestly (P) is a contrast between obedience through works and salvation through sacrifice. This picture repeatedly occurs as, for example, in the curse and the blessing...the mountain of Ebal and the mountain of Gerizim. Again we expect radical differences in human response to such profoundly different revelational implications. The use of "Almighty God" in Gen. 17:1, 35:11 and Ex. 6:2-3 is clearly anticipated because God is not yet "Lord". This occurred later when the Covenant promised Abraham in Gen 17:7 was consummated at Sinai. 4. THE PENTATEUCH Humanism -------- All of the criticisms expressed by modern day theologians, such as alleged inconsistencies within narratives and laws, and alleged chronological difficulties result not because the criticism is factual, but rather because unspiritual men are incapable of understanding what's actually going on. This, in fact, is explicitly revealed in I Cor. 2:14. These Scriptures were authored by the very Spirit of God in human instruments of old; and the point is that it's a spiritual Book intended to communicate the path of Life to other spirits who are in resonance with such Divine and loving initiative. It is not a cookbook or a chemistry book, and cannot be regarded as such...either in content *or* in origin. Stated differently, if the Scriptures were of Divine origin, then all attempts at analysis via humanistic principles must, by definition, produce the very results published by modern day theologians. In other words, the hypothesis of Divine Origin and the human conclusion of multiple sources concur. This is because the moral, historical and spiritual coherence intrinsic to such divinely authored Writ provides those who reject such Authorship no other option than groundless faith in the existence years ago of multiple source documents which do not exist today. Moses ----- In regard to the Pentateuch, we need to recognize that all tradition, regardless of the source, whether inspired or otherwise, unanimously affirms that the first five Books of the Bible were written by one man, and that his name was Moses. There is not contradicting testimony, *whatsoever* , regardless of the historical data one chooses to probe. We also need to recognize another thing. The Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly affirmed the literal historicity of the events recorded in the Pentateuch such as Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15), Ninevah (Luke 11:30), Tyre, Sidon and Sodom (Matt.11:21-24), Noah (Matt. 24:37), Lot (Luke 17:28), the Ark (Matt. 24:38), the flood (Matt. 24:39), Abel's blood (Matt. 23:35) and even creation itself (Mark 13:19). Christ also acknowledged Moses to be not only Israel's human authority (Matt. 8:4, 19:7-8, 22:24, 23:2; Mark 1:44, 7:10, 10:3-4, 12:19; Luke 5:14, 16:29-31, 20:37; John 3:14, 5:46, 6:32, 7:22), but also the Pentateuch's human writer (Mark 12:26; Luke 24:27, 24:44; John 5:45, 7:19, 7:23). Even the Apostle John attests to this (John 1:17 and 45). Jesus, of course, is the highest Authority on the subject. If He is rejected, then Matt. 7:6 applies.