The Old Testament
]
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Introduction
The Holy Bible distinguishes itself from all other books known to man, in that it claims to be a written revelation of man's creator. It is therefore to be regarded as a supernatural work, brought into existence exclusively for man's salvation. Though other religious books might make similar claims, no other book employs such an undeniable proof of divine authorship. The Holy Bible proves its divine authorship through the agency of proven prophecy down through the history of man. Some say that it is a book which is just as relevant to man in this era, as to the man to whom it had been originally entrusted.As we study this magnificent work of art, we shall do well to remember, that many of these utterances of God, often focused upon, and have a direct reference to, certain historical situations, which were currently presenting themselves to God's people. It is imperative that we strive to interpret the original intent, through a proper understanding of the problems and situations that had encompassed these writings. By ignoring any of these, we shall surely expose ourselves to a much greater risk, at misconstruing the true meaning and intention of the Holy Spirit, in the preserving of these holy utterances.
A good Old Testament introduction would include a systematic study of the ancient backgrounds of each book, in an attempt to determine how each is to be properly understood. A systematic study of this type, must incorporate several different disciplines or branches of expertise. Such various disciplines would include: the studies of various Semitic languages, the parallel Hebrew and non-Hebrew history, the competing religious teachings and cultures, the questions of authorship, the approximate dates of origin, a knowledge of parallel historical situations, problems or conflicts, the employing of acceptable methods of textual criticism as concerns the original text, the integrity of the text, and finally, the transmission of the written text throughout history.
Arthur would suggest that the scope of an Old Testament introduction should not encompass the areas of Old Testament languages, general history, and pagan religions. The remainder should then be properly divided into two main subdivisions: General introduction and Special introduction. In the general introduction, we should expect to find a primary focus upon the notion of inspiration, history of the canon, with a main emphasis being upon the Pentateuch of Moses. The special introduction should then focus upon the remaining thirty-one books. Such topics would include: the issues of authorship, date of origin, original purpose intended, and overall integrity.
There is no doubt that the early writers considered the Old Testament writings to be initiated as a single work by God himself, as surely if he had written each letter upon a stone with his own finger. As for the New Testament, it is the compliment of the Old. Without the New Testament, the Old is merely a collection of historical or religious writings. When the two become joined to one another, by the Spirit of God, they become one, much as a man and woman become one through the bond of marriage. The whole now demonstrates a new living organism, having as its one focus the redemption of man. If the new came first, it would have had no foundation to rest upon. The old could not complete the work, for it was incomplete, being alone. The two joined however now becomes one new book that the Christian Church declares to be the canon of biblical truth, that is, the standard by which all other truth is to be measured.
With the commentary of the New Testament as our guide, we are able to discover how the Old Testament as a whole, witnesses to a divine authorship. Within the Old we discover a remarkable singleness of purpose, the identification and revelation of the Messiah. If there be just one thing that we might conclude, from our studies of the various religions and philosophies of man throughout the history of man, that one thing would be, that "man by his own searching cannot find out God." Through his own effort man has proven this conclusively. If there is a God, and if that God is indeed concerned about revealing himself to all of mankind, then it appears that there are perhaps only two possible means by which he might achieve this goal. The first is that he must simply reveal himself individually to every man. When we consider the overwhelming evidence, we are forced to conclude, that the multitudes of man's various religious experiences and attempts to find and know God, has in reality only promoted confusion and chaos. This means that only the second is a sensible alternative. God must reveal himself in a written book, one that must be preserved by his own power and cannot be altered by the hands of man.
We can assume that if Adam and Eve had once truly known God, they would certainly have instructed each of their children concerning him. Yet today, we find a considerable amount of religious confusion, described by some as, the endless babbling tongues of the great Babylonian whore, who symbolically represents the religious voice throughout our world. Obviously, such a written document seems to be necessary for God to achieve his purpose.
If we would conclude then that such a book is necessary, we might also demand it be absolutely required, that this book also be trustworthy and dependable. In other words, the written words must be inerant. We can allow for no mistakes otherwise the whole must also become suspect, man becomes exalted over his God, and finally becomes the judge over God's word. Archer has concluded, "If the Bible turns out to be a mixture of truth and error, then it becomes a book like any other." If that God shall then extend forth his hand from heaven, to hand to man a written book containing his revealed will; and that man can further accept that the words are inerant; only then can that man's God, truly become a God to him. In such an instance, that man has submitted himself to his God, by acknowledging the greater will, a higher power, and a judge who is set even above himself. If that man however, should receive those written words from his God, while continuing to doubt the truth of his words; that man must set himself up as judge, to decide for himself, what is good, and what is evil. If the book contains mistakes, the man must determine through his own intellect and rational judgment, which portions of the sacred text are in error, and which portions are the truth. When he therefore engages in this very act, as judge of God's Word, it is not God any longer who declares what is truth or what is falsehood, but it is rather that man. The man now becomes, for all practical purposes, his own god. The man now determines his own fate. The man decides whom he will give ear to; and as such, he remains in his own confusion. Each man therefore must become his own god, and his God has now become, for all practical purposes, dead. As such, we must ultimately conclude, that if the revelation given by God is to be of any value whatsoever to the man, it must be infallible. If there is one mistake, the whole must necessarily be rejected.
[ Go To Top]
Inerrancy and Infallible Textual Transmission
This leads us to the question of infallible textual transmission. Those who regard the scriptures as being inerrant, usually refer to the original manuscripts and not the translations that we have today. A translation by definition cannot be the inerrant, unblemished, infallible word of the living God; no matter how much effort is employed by the translator. The translation must always be less then exact. By employing the services of infallible men as instruments, to accomplish God's work upon this earth, the inerrancy of the first text, cannot be preserved throughout the multitudes of copies of manuscripts. Men make mistakes; not a great revelation here, but a fact nevertheless. When a scribe makes a mistake while copying a section of the original manuscript, that does not cause the original to cease from being infallible and without error. It is the copy that contains the error. Years later, when several manuscripts are compared and the scribe's error is discovered, the error can often be easily corrected and the manuscript restored. A Christian belief then, in the Inerrancy of the Word of God, does not imply that the translation that we have within our hands is perfect, that is without blemish or defect. On the contrary, the Christian academic community freely admits the existence of, and the potential for, possible defects. As such, it continually seeks to restore or correct such defects wherever possible. We might easily conclude however, by summarizing our previous thoughts, if there is such a serious error to be found in the scriptures, severely altering the message that we have received, then God's purpose has been frustrated. We must admit that God's revelation to man is surely corrupt, and as such, there can be no pure or complete knowledge of truth; such a situation would leave mankind completely cut off from God, implying that man must even now be existing in a continual state of hopelessness. When we put this in its proper perspective, we might clearly see how impossible such a circumstance would be. This would imply that man's defective nature, is somewhat greater than God's own power to save. This is unthinkable and completely unacceptable.[ Go To Top]
Doctrine of the Inspiration of ScriptureWhat if there was one serious defect in God's written revelation to man? What would that imply? The entire revelation of God rests upon inerrancy. One mistake would initiate a domino type effect throughout the Holy book. Christ himself has declared that this is impossible.
For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled.
(Mat 5:18 KJV)If one jot or tittle has passed away, so has the righteousness of Christ, for he is found to be a liar. If he is a liar, then he is not without sin. If he is not without sin, he is not blameless, hence he is no longer the perfect sacrifice. The conclusion is that we must all be found in our sin, with no possible hope of salvation.
How can we be sure that our Bible is the Word of God? What makes it different then the Vedas or the Quran? What makes it different then the Book of Mormon? In the days of the Maccabees, Israel was convinced that they were witnessing the very fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies. The prophecies of Daniel had been so accurate, that many scholars wrongly suppose that portions of the book of Daniel must be of late origin, sometime following the Maccabean revolt. For the Christian who believes in the inerrancy of scripture, it is no great endeavor to simply rest in the prophecies of Daniel. We need not even question the authorship or date. For the skeptics, the enemy has brought forth the lie which once partaken of, causes that man's faith in biblical infallibility to die; such questions, as are continually raised by the skeptics, seem to be mere smoke screens. We don't need to spend time wondering about Daniel. What about the hundreds of prophesies concerning the Christ in the Old Testament? These many prophecies declare Jesus to be the one; the Messiah whom the Jews had rejected. He has truly become King of kings and Lord of lords. The Old Testament is saturated with prophecies concerning the Christ. There is no need for anyone to ever have any doubt..[ Go To Top]
As a result of the enemy, filling the hearts and minds of the people of God with spiritual confusion, some members of the Church have embraced the Neo-Orthodox view. This view teaches, that it is absolutely unnecessary to demand that a doctrine of biblical inerrancy be taught. According to the Neo-Orthodox teaching, the written word is not pure; it is the spiritual word who is pure, for he is the Christ. The written word serves only as a vehicle to arrive to that place of meeting God. What is important is not a doctrine of the inerrancy of scriptures, but an "existential encounter between the believer and God." Spiritual truth cannot be imprisoned within the limitation of words common to man. As such, they teach that it is not the words so much, but rather the spirit or intent behind the words that is truly important. Inerrancy tends to be an obstacle for the true faith, so they teach. It becomes a needless crutch, having the effect of retarding an otherwise normal Christian growth. In their zeal to stop the questions of higher criticism, the "mind of Christ" doctrine has become increasingly prevalent among that group, by which the question of inerrancy becomes meaningless. They propose that there is indeed error in the scriptures, which one would expect because mankind is sinful. What we must learn to do then, is to merely judge biblical truth solely upon this "mind of Christ" principle. It is only through this method, that we might finally discover, what in the Bible is true, and what should otherwise be discarded.Since we have concluded that there are indeed some areas of difficulty and confusion that arise in a study of the scriptures, what then should be our approach? Archer suggests that we have but two alternatives. When an issue should arise, for which we apparently have no satisfactory answer, one choice is to simply drop our faith in biblical inerrancy. Our other choice is more passive. We could simply choose to shelf the inconsistencies, refusing to doubt the scriptures; and simply continue believing and trusting that in due time, God will show us the things that we need to know, to give answer to such questions that seemingly attack our faith. Archer stresses how one must begin his approach to the Bible, by having one of two perspectives: either we begin having a prior assumption that the Bible is fallible, or we choose to accept that it must be infallible. Both are valid approaches to study. If after studying the scriptures and allowing the Bible to stand upon its own merit, we then discover, based upon the overwhelming evidence of data collected, that we must switch our basic assumption to the one or the other, this would not only be acceptable but necessary.
A third approach would be to allow ourselves to continually drift back and forth between fallible and infallible, thus forcing us to exist most of our time in somewhat of a neutral state. This is a bad place for us to be. Even the author of the epistle of James sternly warns about a man who has such an unstable faith in God's word.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.
For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea
driven with the wind and tossed.
For let not that man think that he shall receive
any thing of the Lord.
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
(James 1:6-8 KJV)[ Go To Top]
The Hebrew Manuscripts and The Early Versions
One of the problems that we face daily in our confrontations with the skeptics, is that we simply do not have copies of the infallible original manuscripts, that jointly make up our Old Testament. This presents us with what some might consider as a major problem. Although the original might have been infallible, no educated man would accept, nor should he be willing to accept, that the copies that we do have are themselves inerrant. Evidence suggests that such manuscripts contain the flaws of fallible men, copyist errors, etc. All is to be expected, for it is apparent that none of us is perfect. Translations that span from one language to another, most assuredly contain differences in their meanings. This is a fact and an issue that simply will not go away. We must have an answer for the skeptic or he shall remain in his skepticism forever.The original manuscripts that we do possess are sources written in many different languages. Such languages include: Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic, etc. Of these many manuscripts, it has long been recognized that the most accurate should be found in the Hebrew, primarily because God originally chose to speak forth his revelation in the Hebrew tongue. It has generally been concluded that the likelihood of text corruption in these is less, but even these were copied by hand and must assuredly contain various human errors. Perhaps the main issue with the Hebrew manuscripts, is that there is close to a thousand years between the date of the supposed originals, and the copies we have today. Until this last generation, this manuscript problem was even much greater. All has changed however, with the discovery of the Qumran (Dead Sea) scrolls and fragments. It is a fact that the oldest manuscripts that we now possess, have come forth as a result of these recent discoveries. The Qumran manuscripts date from 300 B.C. to A.D. 50. Although many of the Qumran findings consist of fragments, there are also various finds which are relatively complete. These finds have done much to confirm the accuracy of the scriptures, as they have been handed down to us over the last two thousand years of Christianity.
Perhaps the greatest find is the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah (IQISa), as it contains the entire sixty-six chapters of Isaiah; belonging to the Masoretic Text (MT) family, although it does seldom deviate to favoring the Septuagint (LXX), but only occasionally. A second important find is that of the Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHb) which also favors the MT. Other great finds include the various fragments of: Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Samuel, Jeremiah, Exodus, Numbers, Daniel, Psalms, and others of the Minor Prophets.
These various scrolls and fragments support four primary manuscript families. These families are: (1) the proto-Masoretic family (corresponding to our Hebrew translation), (2) the proto-Septuagintal family (Greek predecessor of our Septuagint translation), (3) the proto-Samaritan, and finally (4) the neutral family. This fourth family suggests, that even at the time of Christ, there had been a recognition of the existence of these three families or perspectives, and at least some attempt was being made at that time, to combine and derive from them, a "best" or "most desirable" scriptural family, that takes all such sources into consideration. While some might think these families, or variety of versions, tends towards a much greater state of confusion; others may recognize the beauty of the threefold witness, which God has provided. As God has given to us the three Synoptic Gospels, each of which contains their own individual glory, perhaps this fourth family had esteemed these other three families as each having a unique glory of their own. One is easily reminded of the testimony of the three witnesses, and as such, a spirit of praise and adoration seems to rise up within his soul, as he meditates upon the wonder and magnificence of God's works and chosen methods, that at times tend to stagger the human intellect. The existence of such knowledge, and the recognition that such a variety of issues had existed, even in the days of Jesus, helps us to realize, that these things are not designed by God to confuse us, but rather to compliment each other in their united testimony.
In the mouth of two or three witnesses
shall every word be established.
( 2 Cor 13:1 KJV)
Although the Dead Sea Scrolls offer the oldest collection of the Hebrew manuscripts and fragments, we do possess many other Hebrew manuscripts of great importance. Some of the most important manuscripts include: the British Museum Oriental Pentateuch (A.D. 850), the Codex Cairensis collection of the writings of both Major and Minor Prophets (A.D. 895), and the Aleppo Codex complete collection of the Old Testament (A.D. 900- 950). Perhaps the most important is the Lenigrad MS complete collection of the Old Testament (A.D. 980) which furnishes the basis of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (recognized standard Hebrew text). There is also a Samaritan Pentateuch (A.D. 900-990) which is noted to contain many variants (6,000) from the generally accepted MS, and in at least 1,900 instances, often tends to favor the LXX over the MS.
The Septuagint (LXX) is believed to have been translated in Alexandria 250-150 B.C. While some believe that it consists of a variety of differing Greek texts, of which the early church had later assembled into a standard Old Testament Greek text, others maintain that such a standard Greek text, must have existed at the time of its translation in pre-Christian times. As with the Hebrew originals, many of the older sources are in the form of original fragments complimentary to the Septuagint. The Rylands Papyrus 458 of Deut. 23-28 (150 B.C.) is perhaps the oldest fragment. There are many Qumran fragments including portions of Leviticus, Micah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. These Qumran fragments are dated 100 B.C. - A.D. 50. There are many earlier fragments besides these; such as the Egyptian Chester Beatty Papryi containing portions of Numbers and Deuteronomy (A.D. 50), the Fayyumic Coptic portion of Genesis (A.D. 270-350), the Egyptian Papyrus 911 of Genesis 1-35 (A.D. 250-300), the Freer Greek Manuscript V of the minor prophets (A.D. 350-400), the Codex Marchalianus containing portions of the prophets from Isaiah through Malachi (A.D. 400-500), and the Codex Vaticanus containing the entire Old Testament as well as most of the New (A.D. 325-350).
One problem with the LXX is that the accuracy of translation varies greatly in quality from book to book; the exception of course being found within the Pentateuch, as it was the source of the Greek Targum, and synagogue worship throughout the Jewish congregations of Egypt. As for the earlier historical books such as Joshua through 2 Kings and including Psalms, there seems to have been much more strictness employed, being rendered closely to their Hebrew Vorlage, while the others including Isaiah through Malachi are almost paraphrased. When it comes to the LXX then, we should always bear in mind that such Greek scribes who brought us the proto-Septuagintal family or writings, were not at all like the meticulous Jewish scribes who continually strive for a complete accuracy of the original text. At times, great liberties were taken from the original setting. Because of the knowledge we have concerning these things, we should always approach any obvious inconsistencies between the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments, with a suspicion first on the part of the Greek, rather than on the Hebrew.
The Old Latin version of the Septuagint, also called the Itala Version (A.D. 200), finds its value primarily in helping scholars to ascertain the original text of the LXX. Today we have only fragments of this version. Next we have the Würzburg Palimpsest Codex (A.D. 450) which contains various Latin fragments of the Torah and the prophets. Lyons Codex (A.D. 650) contains Latin fragments from Genesis to Judges. Of greatest importance from the Latin perspective is perhaps Jerome's Vulgate (A.D. 390-404). Originally published along with the Itala Version, some corruption had crept into this translation, which is later expurgated by the new (A.D. 1590) edition of the Vulgate as a result of a decision of the Council of Trent. Because Jerome had become a Hebrew scholar in his later days, the Vulgate serves to help correct erroneous translations from the Hebrew to Greek. There is at least some attempt by Jerome, to get back to the original Hebrew meaning, which was otherwise somewhat lost in various places throughout the LXX.
During the period of Babylonian Exile, the common Jew began to speak the language of the Persian empire rather than their own Hebrew language. This language is called Aramaic. Although the more educated among the Jews never ceased to study Hebrew, the common folk needed to have the Hebrew translated into Aramaic, even in their synagogues. The translator would paraphrase the Hebrew in the Aramaic tongue, rather than merely translate word for word, in an attempt to explain and teach what the original meaning was in the Hebrew. Eventually, these paraphrased teachings were committed to writing. These eventually became known as the famed Aramic Targums, a phrase meaning simply "an Aramaic translation." These targums are not of much value for textual criticism, but there may be some value as concerns the historical interpretation of various Old Testament texts. Traditionally it is believed that the targums find their origins around the time of Ezra (Neh. 8:7-8), but the oldest is the Targum of Job (11Q) believed to be written around 100 B.C. The more familiar targums are the Targum of Onkelos (A.D. 200-300), Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel (A.D. 300-400) on the Prophets including Joshua through Kings and Isaiah through Malachi, Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Torah (A.D. 650), and the Jerusalem Targum on the Torah (A.D. 700).
The Syriac version of the Old Testament (A.D. 100-200), also called the "Peshitta" meaning "the simple", was originally translated from the Hebrew texts, but had later gone through a revision to make it conform more to the Septuagint. Unfortunately this renders it somewhat questionable as concerns textual criticism. The Syriac Hexapla (A.D. 616) is known to be a translation of the Septuagint (Origen's Hexapla -- fifth column), as is also true of Jerome's Vulgate.
Other versions such as the Coptic, Ethiopic, and Arabic might be summarized as primarily translations from the LXX except for the Arabic Saadia Gaon (A.D. 930), which evidently is translated from the Hebrew. The Armenian version is thought to be a translation from the Peshitta, further implying both a Hebrew and Greek element. The Polyglot versions appearing during the times of the reformation demonstrate the compulsion to thoroughly cross study all ancient versions side by side (A.D. 1522-1657).
[ Go To Top]
Lower Criticism of the Old TestamentLower Criticism might be defined as that which deals with the study of the authorship and integrity of the books of the Bible. Many believe that the original scriptures, as they were given to man from God, were inerrant and infallible. Such a belief does not suggest that the texts that we have today, being mere copies of the originals, are in any way free from error. It is to be understood that such copies must without doubt contain many errors and inconsistencies from one copy to another, and especially from one language translation to another. Lower criticism then encompasses that scientific approach or method that strives to restore the biblical text to its original meaning. To accomplish this task, the critic must consider several different manuscripts and employ a series of scientific steps, which he refers to as the Canons of Textual Criticism.
There are twelve very common types of manuscript errors. When a letter or letters should have been written twice but were inadvertently copied only once, this is referred to as the error of Haplography. Another error very similar to this first type, often occurs when a word is copied twice instead of once as it was in the original. This dual copying we refer to as Dittography. It was always possible for a copier to unknowingly skip a word or a letter. This is referred to as an Accidental Omission. Those who work in banking or accounting are familiar with the common error of transposing one number with another. For example the number 312 could be transposed as 321. This can also happen with characters when copying a document. Obviously such an occurrence could completely change the meaning of a word. In the study of lower criticism we refer to this error as Metathesis. Another common mistake is called Fusion, that is the mistake of combining two separate words to form one. Then there is the opposite error of Fusion, which we refer to as Fission. Now fission is the dividing of one word into two separate words. Then again there are times where two different words might sound alike but they are spelled different and have different meanings. We call these words, homonyms. There is always a possibility when copying a document that the scribe might write down a homonym of the original word. This common manuscript error is referred to as Homophony.
Certain languages seem to be especially prone to confusing one character with another. In Hebrew such a mistake is often made between a Daleth (ã) and a Resh (ø). This error is referred to as Misreading Similar Letters and is very common especially in days when all manuscripts had been written by hand. Similar to this would be Vowel Misreading. Originally the Hebrew alphabet had consisted only of consonants. Years later, a few of these Hebrew characters (é, å, ä) came to be used to indicate the presence of certain vowels. The Sopherim tended to restrict the writing of vowel letters to indicate a pure-long vowel but occasionally these characters were meant to represent constants. This has ultimately resulted in a substantial difference in meaning at times. Another common error along this line is the error known as Vowel Point Variations. The vowel points were added by the Masoretic scribes (A.D. 600). Before the vowel points were added, the word "God(s)" for instance, was represented as íéäìà, but afterwards, the new vowel points had changed the representation of this word to íéä"GàÁ. Of course, until these vowel points were added, there had been a much greater possibility for mistranslating.
While copying a document, the eyes of a copier might accidentally skip a few sentences or passages. This would especially occur in situations where the document might contain two such sentences having identical or very similar endings. When this had occurred, the copier might easily have inadvertently skipped to the next passage. Unknowingly he would simply continue on with his copying. The results would be of course, that the final copy would have one less sentence or passage then the original had. When the error is caused as a result of two endings being similar, this type of error is commonly called Homoeoteleuton. It was also possible that the error was caused because the two beginnings were similar rather than the two ends. In that case this type of error would be called Homoeoarkton.
As Archer indicates, there are seven Canons of Textual Criticism. These are: (1) The older reading is to be preferred, (2) The more difficult reading is to be preferred, (3) The shorter reading is to be preferred, (4) The reading that best explains all the variant is to be preferred, (5) The reading with the widest geographical support is to be preferred, (6) The reading that conforms to the style and diction of the author is to be preferred, (7) The reading that reflect no doctrinal bias is to be preferred. Of course, merely by following these seven principles does not guarantee a more accurate translation. The sad truth is that various critics have been known to misuse such principles to suit their own needs. Unfortunately for all of us, man is still quite fallible. Errors are without a doubt here with us upon this earth as long as fallible man remains. The purpose of Lower Criticism is merely to aim at helping to minimize such errors.
The word canon is a word which means the same thing as a "straight edge" or "ruler". As pertains to the holy books, the biblical canon is meant to be that standard of truth by which all other truth or inspired writings are to be measured by. Those books that have found their way into the recognized canon, are believed to be, the "writings that conform to a particular rule or standard of divine inspiration and authority." The Protestant Bible might be thought of simply as a collection of all books that make up that divine canon. The Roman Catholic Church on the other hand, has added fourteen other apocryphal writings to this accepted canon, which is the reason that the Catholic Bible is slightly different then the Protestant Bible.
The debate about which books should make up the accepted canon has been around for many years. The same disagreement that we find between the Catholic Canon and the Protestant Canon finds its origin in the Septuagint. It has even been proposed that the an Alexandrian Canon had existed of which we have preserved in the LXX. The Masoretic Canon is the Hebrew Canon, which includes the same books as the common Protestant Bible, although the arrangement and number are different. This is possible because several of the books were joined in the Masoretic Canon. The Alexandrian Canon however, contains all the books within the Masoretic Canon, but also contains others that are commonly called, the Apocrypha. Since the apocryphal books are not meant to be a major focus of this present work, we really do not need to discuss them anymore here. The debate referred to, regarding the "true" or "recognized" canon, had also included other books, of which presently are not even considered to be apocryphal. Let's expound a little upon this.
In the days in which the Mishnah had been written (A.D. 100-200), we discover a certain controversy over the so-called Antilegomena. The word Antilegomena merely means "the books spoken against." Included in the antilegomena are: Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. This should not come as a great surprise as even in our own history we find such men as Martin Luther, often considered as being one of the great fathers of the reformation, had acknowledged that he himself had questioned the canonicity of both the Old Testament books of Esther as well as the New Testament epistle of James. What becomes apparent then, is that this question of canonicity is not really a clear cut issue as the average member of the Church might assume. Much as we might desire, there simply is no set of rules or mechanical testing methods by which we might clearly define, what is and what is not a validated member of the biblical canon. If the people of God decide among themselves to draw up some sort of agreement, or a listing purporting to be an all inclusive listing of all canonical writings, this act alone cannot make it so. Speaking on this subject, Archer says, "So also with lists of authoritative books drawn up by ecclesiastical synods or councils. They did not impart canonicity to a single page of Scripture; they simply acknowledged the divine inspiration of religious documents that were inherently canonical from the time they were first composed, and formally rejected other books for which canonicity had been falsely claimed."
When speaking of the canon as regards its authors and dates of composition, it is important to realize who is doing the talking. It is generally accepted that the Old Testament consists of three different groups of writings: Torah, Prophets, and Kethûbîm (the Writings or Hagiographa). From a liberal's point of view, the written Torah originated with Josiah's reform (750-650 B.C.) and was not truly authored by Moses. It is commonly taught that the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Major and Minor Prophets, etc.), must have originated somewhere around 300-200 B.C. As for the Hagiographa, it is typically dated approximately 150-90 B.C. From all this, we can easily see that an obvious disagreement between scholars exists, as to the actual writing and authorship of the original manuscripts, depending upon which side of the fence one stands.
[ Go To Top] Throughout history, the authorship of the Pentateuch, or for that matter any of the inspired writings of the Old Testament, was never really challenged very much. It was assumed that Moses had written the first five books attributed to him. The prophets who would follow Moses must certainly have authored those books attributed to them. In the eighteenth century, the rise of deistic philosophy had been ushered in, bringing with it a new look at the proposed evolution of the scriptures. The Documentary Hypothesis is simply a theory of evolution, not of man, but of man's recorded dealings with God. In general, it began as merely a belief that the writings that we have today were not copies of the originals, but rather revisions and compilations of various writings throughout the history of Judaism.
The Documentary Hypothesis began with the inquisitive mind of Jean Astruc, who proposed that Moses must certainly have had in his possession, two differing documents of creation, of which he afterwards had compiled together with his own writings. One of the original authors had evidently known God by the name Elohim, while the other knew him by the name Jehovah. This thesis, although not immediately accepted by scholars of his day, set up a foundation upon which others came later to build upon.
Johann Gottfried Eichhorn laid his own bricks upon Astruc's foundation, proposing not the creation account of Genesis alone, but the entire book of Genesis, and even the first sections of Exodus, must have originally consisted of two separate document sources, of which had later been compiled into one. In the beginning of his thesis, he obviously had believed that Moses had been that compiler, but afterwards, it seemed more plausible that this compilation would have actually taken place some days after the time of Moses. In essence we might refer to this historical event as, "Moses must decrease and Eichhorn must increase." The Jahwist (J) and Elohist (E) documents now began to become firmly fixed in the minds of critics.
The stage was now set for the thesis of William Martin Lebrecht De Wette. He proposed that it was unlikely that any portions of the Pentateuch had been written earlier than the days of David. Deuteronomy could not have been the work of Moses. The book was merely "concocted to serve the governmental campaign" of Josiah and Hilkiah (621 B.C.). We now have a new document (D) added to the already proposed (J) and (E) documents. De Wette was not truly a proponent of the Documentary School of thought, but rather belonged to the Fragmentary Theorists. The so called Fragmentary Theory had found its origin from within the mind of Alexander Geddes. This being the case, it was purposed that there were even other documents besides these three. Although it was probably not De Wette's original intention, it seems that Moses was now slowly beginning to become a mere figment of one's imagination, a personification of an imaginary deliverer, if you will, rather than an author and prophetic spokesman for God. This new notion of Moses would most certainly begin to paint a much different picture than is portrayed within the holy writings themselves.
Surely the supporting beams were now in place, which would now allow for yet the further development of such evolutionary ideas about the Old Testament. Being a student of Geddes' teachings, Johann Vater later proposed that the book of Genesis alone could be broken down into thirty-nine different fragments. Some of these fragments were perhaps written by Moses himself, but many could not have been. It was further proposed that the final compilation of the Pentateuch could not possibly have taken place until at least the days of the Babylonian exile (587-538 B.C.). This was of course clearly evidenced by the predictions of the Babylonian captivity, and promised restoration from that land of exile. Surely we could never accept that the Pentateuch might posses some strange supernatural nature about it. How else might the great prophet Moses, a man who had obviously walked in the supernatural power of the creator, have possibly written such things in his day? Is it not evident in the historical records of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, that no such legislation had been enacted by Moses? For if such legislation was in force, Israel must have chosen to ignore the writings and laws of Moses. This would be highly unbelievable for God's people to neglect his words, wouldn't it? We must conclude with Vater that these laws of Moses must surely be written no later than the Jewish monarchy. The reader will try to excuse my obvious sarcasm.
Not everyone bought into these theories of fragmentation, as proposed by their founders, but the basic foundation had been laid and was never to cease to exist. The Supplementary Theory came afterwards, Franz Delitzch being one of its advocates. He and others (Ewald, Bleek) had originally assumed that there must have been one major document that had been the basis for all other additions. It was proposed that this foundational document (E) had probably being written somewhere between Saul and Solomon (1050-950 B.C.). Afterwards, (J) compiled his supplements with the original. In the compilation, much of the original had been deliberately left unaltered, much like the Masoretes when they had added the vowels to the already existing consonants of the Hebrew scriptures. They tried to do so in such a way, as to not alter the original script in any way.
Of the three Supplementarists, Delitzch was the most conservative. He appears on the scene after Ewald and Bleek, maintaining that all portions of the Pentateuch attributed to Moses must certainly have truly been authored by him. Delitzch argued that, even in trying to maintain his conservative viewpoint, some allowance was necessary, to incorporate a certain amount of supplemental additions. He believed that others such as Eleazar, being the third son of Aaron, were obviously used by God to make supplemental additions to the scriptures. He maintained a belief in inspiration, and proposed that his beliefs would in no way attempt to frustrate, remove, or even challenge the belief in biblical inspiration.
Heinrich Ewald eventually departed from the Supplementary Theory to what has been labeled, the Crystallization Theory. He had imagined that Moses must certainly have been the original author of the Decalogue and even some of the older laws, perhaps even other portions of that which is written. Sometime long after, perhaps during the period of the Judges, there arose an anonymous Judean who had composed a Book of Covenants. In the days of Solomon, there arose another anonymous writer, perhaps a Levite, who must have authored a Book of Origins. This book would have included much of the material thought to be attributed to (E). Years afterward, perhaps in the days of Elijah, a biography of Moses had been compiled. Finally, in the days of Uzziah, a Judean compiled the whole into one, introducing the name of "Yahweh" throughout. As such, the Pentateuch was thought of as a literary crystal, consisting of successive layers upon layers.
Frederick Bleek had later proposed that the book of Joshua was actually an extension to the Pentateuch. The whole should be considered as a Hexateuch, as according to his theory, there must have been two major compilations or revisions of these works. The first consisted of an addition to the Genesis creation account, while the second (D) compilation contained both the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua, thereby combining all into a set of six volumes.
Although the various documentary theories had a profound impact upon the field of biblical scholarship, which without question still influences many commentators today, there were some such as Ernest Wilhelm Hengstenberg, who became mighty defenders against the attacks of the liberal. These men were able to skillfully refute the standard arguments proposed by the proponents of these various theories. Hengstenberg is said to have had a strong influence over his pupil Frederick Keil, the same Keil who had collaborated with Delitzch to produce a conservative commentary of the Old Testament.
Along with Hengstenberg, Joseph Addison Alexander and William Henry Green helped to almost bring about a complete devastation to the very foundation of the documentary theory; and although the liberals could never quite defend their decisive blows against these false presuppositions, still the theories in one form or another remain. For some liberals it seems, it is better to believe in a false theory, than to accept that the biblical record might be true.
Hermann Hupfeld came to the rescue of the defeated documentary theory, with his invention of the alleged anonymous redactor. He restructured the document theory ordering the documents as P, E, J, D, and then added the redactor or final compiler (R). The strategy of the liberal critic is as follows: whenever any discrepancy arises, it is automatically attributed to the hand of R. As a result of this effort, the theory regained strength again. Following his works, Abraham Kuenen proposed that P was the final compiler because the Holiness Code (H) must have had its origin in the time of Ezekiel and the exile. P therefore incorporates H and the order should be represented as: J, E, D, and P. The documentary theory was alive and kicking as one reborn from the dead, and the time was ripe for the persuasive voice of Julius Wellhausen.
Wellhausen had merely restated the documentary theory accepting the J, E, D, P order; for although he proposed nothing really knew, the world seemed to be ripe for his rehearsal of, or proclamation of, this teaching. Today we live in a world where the documentary theory is still very much alive, although admittedly weakened from the sever blows of the truth. For lack of a better theory, the liberal world continues to celebrate Wellhausen, attributing the theory to him, while conservative theologians continue to attack it. The battle as such, is far from over.
Modern scholarship still continues to clutch the Documentary Hypothesis close to its heart, in spite of its many opponents, who come forth even from out of its own camps. A few of these documentary theologians have even added to the four primary documents, by proposing the inventions of a Lay source (L), which was supposed to have arisen during the days of Elijah, a Kenite source (K) which focused primarily upon the details of the life of Moses and relations between the Israelites and the Kenites, and a Mount Seir source (S) having its origin during the days of Solomon. While the defenders of the documentary hypothesis continue to promote their teachings, this is no longer the trend of twentieth century scholarship. Like a hungry beast, many scholars are currently attacking this documentary prey. It has been suggested that the documentary theory has five exposed, yet absolutely vital supporting areas. There is an obvious spirit of contempt against the commonly accepted teaching of the documentary theory. Few theologians are willing to continue to tolerate the theory in its present form any longer. Still, for lack of anything better, many continue to cling to the theory in one form or another.
The primary area of attack concentrates on the use of the divine names Jahweh and Elohim to define authorship. August Klostermann declared as early as 1893 that a comparison of the MT to the LXX demonstrates conclusively that the use of the divine name in not dependable, due to the fact that the textual transmission between the two texts is insufficiently inerrant. This is a major argument against the Documentarian theory and has even become a great embarrassment for them, because they tend to award place to the LXX over the MT, even to the extent that they use the LXX frequently as the basis of their justification in correcting the MT. It is an indisputable and undeniable fact that the LXX does not support this great name game.
In 1908, B. D. Eerdmans attacked Wellhausian's documentary source division on the basis of comparative religion. His argument was that the sagas of Genesis must be of greater antiquity then either a 850 B.C. (J) or 750 B.C. (E) document because he could trace these farther back to a polytheistic source. The rituals found in the (P) document are without question of greater antiquity then the document itself. Such rituals would definitely tend to reflect more of a Mosaic time period, simply because they belong to a very early stage of religious development. This can be shown by a simple comparison with that of other religions and their natural development. He further charged that the artificial division proposed by the Documentarians destroys the unity within the Genesis sagas. The theory for this reason must be rejected.
The second major area of attack is targeted against the origin of the J, E, and P documents themselves as being separate from each other. Hermann Grunkel argued that the invention of such documents is useless, as they are ultimately hypothetical by their very nature, and as such can never prove anything. Grunkel seems to have hit the nail square on the head with this charge, as the inventions of such mental documents, seem only to generate more speculation, and ultimately, much additional confusion. Grunkel suggested that the only valid approach, would be to define the various categories in which the oral material might belong, and from there, to attempt to trace out the most probable line of development of each category, until we might finally arrive at the place where each, might be written down in their present form. Like Eerdmans, Grunkel stressed that the sagas of Genesis had obviously been handed down from previous generations in an oral form. As such, the origin of the Torah should be considered no different then the origin of any other ancient literature.
In 1945, Ivan Engnell began to boldly oppose the Wellhausian Document Source theory, by restating the findings of Klostermann, as concerns the LXX, together with Grunkel, as regards the major role of oral tradition, and an analysis of the Genesis sagas and cycles. Such were originally cultic legends that may be found connected with various sanctuaries according to Engnell. Engnell further proposed that Genesis through Numbers appears to have been written from a (P) type school, while Deuteronomy appears to have its origin from a (D) circle of traditionalists. Any legal material would naturally come from the various local sanctuaries along with the rehearsal of the oral traditions. Beyond these apparent differences however, no documentation divisions exist to be seen.
The third attempt to wound the victim is targeted against the suggested priority of the J source over the E source. R. H. Kennett argued that the E source must come before the J, because the J appears to have been written in response to Josiah's reforms (615 B.C.). He goes out on a limb here, postulating that the J document might well have been the document referred to by the prophet Jeremiah.
How do ye say, We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us?
Lo, certainly in vain made he it;
the pen of the scribes is in vain.
(Jer 8:8 KJV)Archer suggests that if we can admit with Engnell that the whole of Genesis consists of the legend cycles, orally preserved at the various local sanctuaries, and if we might further agree that Exodus through Numbers belongs to a priestly source, then we no longer have a need for either a J or an E.
After carefully analyzing the supposed J and E sources, Paul Volz came to the conclusion in 1933 that there simply is no coherent independent E source. It was his desire for all to abandon the Documentary Hypothesis for a more plausible Supplement Hypothesis, suggesting that in Genesis there is only a J source. The so called E source is nothing but a later editor. In addition to this, there is nothing at all which might be ascribed to P. Not only is the priority of J to E thereby eliminated, but the idea of an independent existence of document E has also been shown to be false.
In 1919, Martin Kegel insisted, that the Josianic date for the Deuteronomy must be in error. If this were not the case, would not the false priests of idolatry have refuted the genuineness of this work as being the work of Moses? Following his rebuke comes Edward Robertson around the 1940s suggesting that the purpose of writing Deuteronomy was to help join the then united nation of Israel together during the days of Samuel (1000 B.C.). According to the scriptures, we can clearly see that this work was somehow lost, but later we see that it is again rediscovered in the days of Josiah.
On the other side of the spectrum, Gustav Hölscher in 1922 argued that Deuteronomy is probably the work of Zerubbabel and Jeshua. This would imply that it was written sometime after the return from the Babylonian exile. His primary argument is that Moses could never have required the male inhabitants, to forsake their own families and homes, for days or weeks at a time, to participate in certain religious rites at a central sanctuary.
Ever since the triumph of deism in the late eighteenth century, the trend of Liberal scholarship has been without question decidedly against Mosaic authorship. Along with the arrival of the various proponents of the Documentary Theory, come also the largely accepted conclusion that the entire Pentateuch must be of a post-exilic origin. Such beliefs have been so ingrained in our modern day scholarship, that any student who might cleave to a more conservative belief in Mosaic authorship, would be labeled as being obviously uneducated, still clinging to a supposed superstitious belief in a supernatural revelation. For the modern scholar, there can be nothing supernatural in the bible. All that is written must be explained according to a natural chain of historic events. The Documentary Theory, as proposed by modern theology, might easily be likened to the Evolutionary Theory, which continues to be promulgated throughout all branches of modern sciences. A student of biblical theology who rejects the Documentary theory, is similar to a student of life sciences who rejects the Theory of Evolution.
The Documentary theory, much like the Evolution theory, has its missing link. There is much evidence that naturally betrays such conclusions as are proposed by adherents of the documentary theory, but all such data is merely ignored. These theorists have invented a method by which they might successfully evade all evidence that stands against their theory. Their guardian is called the infamous "Redactor" or "Interpolator". He represents a fictitious group of priestly scribes who at some time in the distant past, went through the entire Old Testament making various modifications, in an attempt to make the disjointed parts appear to flow together as a whole. So remarkable was the Redactor, so almost perfect was the results of his effort, that he has made it appear to us that the entire Pentateuch might have been authored by Moses himself. How might anyone refute that the Redactor has created a marvelous work? How might anyone even attempt to challenge the existence of such a scribe or scribes? Is not his works open for all to behold; with such majesty, and almost human perfection. Not so perfect enough however, that the minds of the modern theological genius cannot behold and detect the scribbling of his pen.
It is almost uncanny, regardless of how dependable and accurate the Old Testament writings prove themselves to be; how many continue to look upon them with great suspicion and skepticism. Such writings are only to be confirmed by the spurious writings of the heathen. If there be any difference between the two, the tendency of modern scholarship is to accept the heathen document as the original; for surely it is the heathen document that reflects the truth. Such treatment of the Old Testament is without doubt unwarranted, illogical, and most certainly biased. It is amazing that such beliefs and attitudes continue to flourish throughout the world of biblical scholarship. Unfortunately such seems to be the best alternative; although many have denied various portions of this theory, making their amendments here and there, while denying the documentary theory as a whole. This leaves the critic however with only one logical conclusion. The bible must be what is truly purports to be, a divine supernatural revelation from the mouth of God. Like the evolutionists and their obvious abhorrence with the simplicity of creation, this just will not do. So until another better theory comes along, they shall continue to believe and teach the one that they know without question to be a lie.
The underlying problem with the Wellhausen theory, seems to be in its basic foundational assumption that all religions must be of human origin. It is similar to the evolutionist, maintaining that all that exists must have happened naturally. As students of the bible, we must realize the underlying foundation of both of these theories. This premise is not truly a bad or evil thing. From the perspective of scholarship, how can we truly study ancient religions, without beginning at a similar foundation? We must agree that the removing of the supernatural is necessary and should apply when studying the religions of Egypt, Babylon, and India. Why then should it not apply to the religion of Israel? Is it possible that the religion of Israel might be different from all others of the world? How can we take such a biased approach? This might help to explain why so many are willingly eager to accept such false foundational premises of modern scholarship. Is this modern liberal critic of the Christian religion truly our enemy? Is it possible that the critic is not our enemy, but only another voice in the wind? Those who have a conservative attitude regarding the supernatural inspiration of the Old Testament would tend to view this critic with contempt. We would not think to reject all of the advances in science, merely because at its foundation we detect the stench of the pollution of evolution. Rather, we graciously allow the one to function, endeavoring to deny the false, while enjoying the fruit that comes forth, in spite of the weakened foundation. In the field of theology, the conservative must learn to tolerate the teachings of the liberal. While it is true that as far as biblical studies, the denial of the supernatural depreciates significantly any fruit that might follow, from the big picture of the entire world, these things probably must be. To remove the supernatural is to attempt to remove the superstition, fable, myth, or legend. As concerns the study of all world religions, we must have it this way.
As concerns the conservative viewpoint for the authorship of the Pentateuch, there is no other satisfactory conclusion except Mosaic authorship. Continually, the Pentateuch declares that "Moses wrote" (Ex. 24:7; 34:27; Deut 31:9 KJV). The rest of the Old Testament continually refers to those words which Moses had written; and even the New Testament declares Mosaic authorship of the Law.
The historic accounts of the Pentateuch practically demand an eye witness account of these events. The pedigree associated with Moses strongly suggests that he must have created at least some of these works. The familiarity with the ancient land of Egypt; the realistic life struggles of the desert; and the emphasis upon the building of the tabernacle; all these appear to corroborate the conservative viewpoint. It probably takes less faith to believe all that the Pentateuch declares, than to believe what the liberal scholars say about the Pentateuch and its origin.
[ Go To Top]
Variations and Doublets As Criteria For Source DivisionThe name variation (Elohim/Yahweh) found throughout the Pentateuch is the most critical aspect of the Documentary Hypothesis. If we were to view the ancient religion of Israel as any other, as we might expect to do if our focus was in comparative religions, we would soon discover that such an application of multiple names for the national deity, is really quite common throughout such ancient writings. Surprisingly, a marvelous testimony comes from the Quran; regarding a unity of authorship within the Pentateuch writings. No one raises such questions of authorship as regards these Arabic writings, although the same uses of multiple names of God are discovered throughout. These Arabic writings, being of ancient Semitic origin, would tend to support that such is not only representative of an ancient Semitic style of writing, but should even be expected within the documents written by the hand of Moses. Furthermore, as early as the twelfth century A.D., Rabbi Jehuda Hallevi pointed out, how the use of the name Elohim, had denoted the divine attributes of God, while the use of the name Yahweh, had indicated a covenant relationship. There is no need to invent a theory of multiple documents.
Through their continual dissecting and arranging of certain scriptures into the familiar E, J, and P groupings, the advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis have created three separate imaginary document sources. Remarkably the E scripture sources seem to pivot around etiological legends. The P scriptures amazingly contain a strong emphasis upon genealogy. Finally, the J scriptures contain much of the biographical narrative. If these three documents could be discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, such would be a very interesting find indeed. When a document such as the Pentateuch is acquired first as a whole, and is then divided into three groupings based upon any three such distinct categories, is it any wonder that the end product reflects such commonalties? If anyone took a deck of cards and divided them into their four different suits, would we not expect to see some commonalties between the cards within a given group? Such appears to be the foolish endeavors of the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis.
There is no doubt that some stories within the Pentateuch seem to be a retelling of an earlier story. In Genesis we have the story of Isaac declaring his wife to be his sister. Now this story is undoubtedly parallel to the two accounts of Abraham doing likewise to his wife. The question we must ask is whether the historical fact could have happened. In other words, could not the son, finding himself in rather similar circumstances, have employed the same behavior as his father? Of course this is quite possible. On the other hand, is it possible that Abraham might have employed the same behavior twice in his life? Have you my reader ever made the same mistake twice? Given a similar stimulus, has it ever been clearly documented that an organism has ever emitted the same behavior twice? Without a doubt, such questions reflect a certain amount of absurdity. Still, such is the foundation upon which the Documentary Hypothesis is built. Repetition of major portions of scripture is without any doubt a trait of the Old Testament. The only point that such parallelism might suggest, is perhaps that the two events have something noteworthy in common. There is no further need to elaborate upon such things.
When apparent doublets within the Pentateuch seem to give two differing accounts of the same event, there is always another alternative reading, in which the second account appears to compliment or expand upon the first. The contention that is raised in association with the doublets, seems to be more a matter of imaginative invention, or even a deliberate misreading and forcing of one's interpretation of, the one source against the other. The two creation accounts, might easily be shown to be, not two dissimilar and contradictory accounts, but a general account, to be followed by a second; being more specific, and as such, each one complimenting the other. As such, the honest reader will find no clear contradiction between the supposed two differing flood narratives. Instead, he will discover that the two actually do compliment each other, demonstrating that the two are not two at all, but only the first, being enlarged upon by the second.
Many of the supposed problems or issues raised by the critics, would not be issues at all, if only the original sources had first been written in classical Greek, Latin, or yet another similar written language. In such languages, the common paratactic forms of the Hebrew could be more accurately employed, through the proper use of subordinate conjunctions or participles. For example, the same particle in Hebrew (we) for instance, might also be translated as (when, while, then, even, that is to say). Honest scholarship should and must also consider these elements.
Another trait of the Hebrew scriptures, often used to support the theories of multiple document sources, is referred to as Poetic Parallelism. Wellhausen and Kuenen would both have us to believe that such parallelism is the result of two or more differing sources be compiled together as one. While there is no doubt that the scriptures have an obvious parallel balance like structure, should not such an argument be better used against the theory of multiple document merging or compiling? The late Bullinger demonstrated how such a marvelous structure carries through not only the Old Testament, but even carries into the New Testament as well. This poetic structure is a marvel itself to behold. It would seem that such a wonder should have helped to silence the critics. Still, the advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis continue to propagate their dead theories, even after the foul stench of the corpse has now become obvious to all, that is all who would be honest enough to simply take a sniff for themselves.
[ Go To Top]
Late Words and Aramaisms As Criteria For Source DivisionAmong the divisive tactics employed by liberal criticism, is the deliberate late dating of various books of the Old Testament, purely on the basis that the particular book might contain certain words, of which the critics propose to have been of a much later use or origin. The argument certainly sounds very scientific, and as such, tends to silence the argument of the conservative. The problem is that only the half of the truth is usually made known by the critic, that half which supports his late dating of the particular book in question.
The liberal will propose that any word that occurs less than three or four times throughout the Old Testament, and can be found reoccurring only in later Hebrew literature such as the Talmud or Midrash, must clearly be of later origin. The argument naturally implies that the entire book must also be of a later date. The argument sounds plausible enough, but are such assumptions valid to begin with? The fact is, that such so called rare words appear in every book of the Old Testament and in practically every chapter. What this means then, is that the liberal critic can bring this "scientific proof" in at any time to force his argument. It is a fact that when statistics are compiled for these rare words, those books agreed by all to be of the latest origin, ironically contain a much lower percentage of these words, than those books that are agreed to be the earliest. The results are proved to be statistically absurd showing absolutely no valid correlation.
Whenever the liberal critic discovers the presence of an Aramaic word, within any of the books of the Old Testament, he almost automatically concludes, that this particular text must be of post-exilic origin. He imagines that the only valid conclusion to make, is either that the entire book must be of a late date, or at least one of the original document sources is of a late date. The foundation upon which his argument rests however is unable to support his conclusions, although this doesn't prevent him from employing the tactic. The presence of what appears to be Aramaic words does not necessarily demand that the original was indeed Aramaic. The original might have equally have been of Hebrew origin and borrowed from the Hebrew to Aramaic rather than the reverse. Often it can be discovered that the same word might likely also have been derived from the Arabic, Phoenician, Babylonian, Ethiopic, etc. Ancient literature dating to the 15th century B.C. shows the intermingling of the different ancient Semitic languages. There is even a more interesting point that the critic would rather that we did not know.
According to the narrative of Abraham, which we find within the book of Genesis, it would appear that Abraham had spent a great amount of time in the Aramaic speaking land of Haran. He and his family, as well as his servants, must have certainly been fluent in the ancient Aramaic language before they had ever entered into the land of Canaan. Abraham's son Isaac took his bride Rebecca from the land of Padanaram. The common language of that land was also Aramaic. Jacob's brides Leah and Rachel were also from Aramaic speaking lands. In addition to this, Moses himself possessed the best education which Egypt could offer. The old Aramaic argument, although when confronted by it seems to stop most conservative Christians dead in their tracks, in truth carries very little weight. In spite of these facts however, the liberal scholars continue to assign a late date to at least 1500 verses, merely on the basis of the supposed Aramaic origin of these words alone.
[ Go To Top]
Wellhausen's Reconstruction of Hebrew History
Preprophetic and Prophetic PeriodAccording to the Wellhausen school of Old Testament theology, the documented history of Israel begins around 850 B.C. Prior to this we have no documented history. We do have some evidence of a Hebrew people, but that also consists largely of oral tradition, being mixed with what might be described as both fantastic superstition and legend. There is no true religion of Israel as formerly believed, that is to say, as being handed down to a people by direct revelation of the creator himself. As such, the religion of the Hebrew should be considered as no different from the religion of any other people. It must be explained only by natural process, having nothing whatsoever to do with divine revelation.
The ancient religion of the Hebrew people finds its beginning as any other polytheistic religion, being very similar to every other religion known to man. It then slowly begins to evolve toward a belief in monotheism. The figures of Aaron, Moses, and even Abraham, are to be accepted as somewhat fictional characters. There is some doubt as to whether any of these figures had even existed. They are therefore to be understood as being mere legends of Hebrew folklore or myth.
As for the religion of Israel, it must surely have evolved like that of neighboring countries such as: Egypt, Greece, and Babylon. Originally, theirs was also a religion boasting a great multitude of gods. As years passed however, through the process of syncretism, the many gods eventually are reduced to but a mere few. Monotheism becomes merely the natural fruit of the continual process of syncretism. This brief summary somewhat represents the overall attitude among those in the Wellhausen school of Old Testament theology. One problem this group of liberal theologians conveniently fails to mention, is that neither the Egyptians, Babylonians, nor the Greeks, had ever completely embraced a true monotheistic belief. In other words, of every ancient religion known to man, only the Hebrew religion has ever fully attained to this great final peak of the religious evolutionary chain, for it is well known that both Christianity and Islam are merely offshoots from a monotheistic Judaism.
The Wellhausen picture of the preprophetic period of religious Israel depicts the Hebrew as a people who worship trees, stone idols, brazen serpents, as well as a people who perform regular infant sacrifice of their firstborn sons. As such, they are viewed as somewhat identical in religious behavior as the evil Canaanites, of whom they are said to have replaced. They originally must have worshipped a plurality of gods, being evident by the very Hebrew name by which they referred to their God, Elohim. It isn't until the days of the prophet Amos that a monotheistic religious movement had begun among the people of Israel. Others followed such as Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah. Finally, sometime during the days of Jeremiah, the book of Deuteronomy supernaturally springs forth into existence. The book claims as its author the already revered man Moses. Moses himself might have been merely a fabricated hero, much like the supposed personalities of both Aaron and Abraham. In the days of Ezekiel, a new priestly school begins to emerge. Finally after the return from exile, this priestly order begins to publish other portions of the Pentateuch, also claiming to have been written by the prophet Moses. Following them comes the books of Joshua, Samuel, etc. This Wellhausen picture of Israeli history has been generally accepted by modern liberal scholarship, and now becomes the standard by which all Old Testament writings are to be dated.
[ Go To Top]
The Priestly PeriodAnother of the popular teachings, in accordance with the Wellhausen hypothesis, is the notion that the Levitical priesthood had arisen, primarily due to the fall of the united kingdom, the division of the tribes, and finally the subsequent deportation of the Israelites into captivity. The last of these events had especially caused the Israelites to abandon any hope in world political prominence. The priesthood was therefore established as a sort of glue to hold the nation together. It gave the Israelites a reason to be Israel. Emphasis would now be upon sacrifice and ritual. What was once a nation of priests, would now become a people with a certain tribe, the Levites, being chosen to be the priesthood for all. This eventually evolved into a further division of the recognized priesthood. Emerging upon the scene are the descendants of Aaron, who are believed to be primarily responsible for the Priestly Code (550-450 B.C.). It is the prophet Ezekiel who is credited with the establishment of the Aaronic priesthood, by his assignment of the descendants of Zadok, to the superior position over all other Levites. Along with the establishment of the order of Zadok, Aaron is invented by the priesthood by their teachings and writings, and purported to have been the brother of Moses. It is Aaron who is awarded the highest priestly position in the days of Moses.
The supporters of the Wellhausen theories would have us to believe that all references to the Levitical priesthood or descendants of Aaron, the tabernacle, the ritual, and the sacrifice, must have been of a much later date then the rest of the Pentateuch. All such references or "additions" to the text must therefore be attributed to the writings of P, which would date them equally among 550-450 B.C.
There are some major problems with this theory, as the prophet Amos is ascribed a date of 755 B.C. In his writings, he speaks of those who have taken the vow of the Nazarites, as well as the offering up of sacrifices containing leaven. Both depend upon the supposed later priestly writings. There are yet other problems with this theory. The supposed later day emphasis upon the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, the Two Tablets of Witness, and the Urim and Thummim, becomes an extremely important issue, as neither of these would have no longer existed during these days. As such, each must be an invention from the imaginative minds of those of the new priesthood. Among other interesting "missing links" is the silence regarding the Holy city of Jerusalem. Although Melchizedek is mentioned as the king of Salem, and Mount Moriah is mentioned as the holy place of Abraham's sacrifice of his son Isaac, there is not one mentioning of the holy city of Jerusalem within the P document. This missing city, the greatest city of all, is considered to be very strange considering the mentioning of so many other Palestinian cities.
[ Go To Top]
Archaeological Evidence For the Antiquity of the PentateuchThe esteemed archaeologist W.F. Albright considers Wellhausen to be among the more prominent of the Documentarian Theorists. He has even been quoted as suggesting that Wellhausen might well be the greatest Biblical scholar of the Ninteenth century. According to Albright however, there are some serious problems with the Wellhausen notion of historic Israel. The famed archaeologist suggests that the Wellhausen story of Israel, and the supposed evolved religion, is in fact an extremely poor distortion of reality. He makes these claims with an obvious respect for the esteemed theologian; his conclusion however is that, recent archaeological finds, especially throughout this last century, simply do not support the antiquated theory. There was perhaps a time when the foundational assumptions of the Wellhausen Hypothesis might be considered plausible, but today its advocates outwardly deny and willingly distort the facts.
Archaeology proves time and again to be the great scientific friend of Christianity. In the past, it was easier for the theologian to deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, simply on the basis that there was no evidence whatsoever to support, that the art of writing had existed prior to the days of David. Such new discoveries, such as the Ugaritic or Ras Shamra Tablets, now prove a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew, containing a thirty letter alphabet, to have definitely been in use around 1400 B.C. Earlier writings have been discovered by the turquoise miners of Serabit el-Khadim, demonstrating that even the lower classes of society were able to read and write. Excavations of the city of Ur (1922-1934) have revealed a quite advanced civilization around 2000 B.C., in which the average middle class citizen dwelled in a house containing between ten and twenty rooms. It is obvious from this archaeological find, that schools were maintained for the education of the young. Writing tablets used by school children have been discovered, showing that even the children were literate in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Ancient cities dating to 3000 B.C. throughout the Jordan valley, now prove that the area had been definitely inhabited during the days of Abraham, a fact that scholars used to ridicule the Biblical record for. The Mari tablets discovered in 1933, a find numbering some twenty thousand tablets, contain references to the Habiru (Akkadian form of Hebrew) people, being described as a warlike group of wanderers or "people from the other side". The term might well be in reference to the crossing over of the Jordan.
The Nuzi Tablets dated from around the 15th century, have given us great insight into, and verification of, the customs as recorded within the book of Genesis concerning Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The testimony of archaeology suggests that the moral law, religious practices, and the manner of cutting covenants, which we find within the scriptures, would strongly agree with that of Israel's ancient neighbors. The discoveries of other advanced civilizations, such as that of the Egyptians and the Babylonians, would further support that such literature as is purported to have been written by Moses, might easily have been so.
[ Go To Top]
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archer, Gleason. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.Bullinger, E. W. The Companion Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1990.
To order any
materials please contact us at
fanter@attglobal.net
Or Send Mail
Inquiries To:
Ronald
G. Fanter
Cutting
Edge Ministries
Box 1222
Round Lake
Beach, IL. 60073
PDF files can be viewed and printed using the
free Adobe Acrobat Reader software.
You may download
the software from Adobe.