Who Wrote the Pentateuch?Who Wrote the Pentateuch?

Was Moses the Author?Was Moses the Author?

By the time the First Testament was By the time the First Testament was canonized (AFTER the beginning of canonized (AFTER the beginning of the Christian movement), it was the Christian movement), it was generally held that Moses was the generally held that Moses was the author of all five books of the Torah. author of all five books of the Torah. Suggestions to the contrary were Suggestions to the contrary were dismissed or met with hostility until dismissed or met with hostility until the 1800s. the 1800s. Currently, most scholars do not think Currently, most scholars do not think Moses wrote all five books and Moses wrote all five books and would question whether he even would question whether he even wrote very much of any book. wrote very much of any book. What is the evidence from the texts What is the evidence from the texts themselves?themselves?

Textual evidence for Mosaic authorship:Textual evidence for Mosaic authorship:

Some texts in the Torah and the rest Some texts in the Torah and the rest of the Jewish Bible say that Moses of the Jewish Bible say that Moses wrote some narratives and a legal wrote some narratives and a legal code. (Exodus 17:14, 24:4, 34:27-28; code. (Exodus 17:14, 24:4, 34:27-28; Numbers 33:2, Deuteronomy 31:9, Numbers 33:2, Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26; Joshua 8:31-34, 1 Kings 2:3, 2 24-26; Joshua 8:31-34, 1 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles 23:18, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles 23:18, 2 Chronicles 25:4, 2 Chronicles 35:12, Chronicles 25:4, 2 Chronicles 35:12, Ezra 6:18, Nehemiah 8:1, Nehemiah Ezra 6:18, Nehemiah 8:1, Nehemiah 8:14, Nehemiah 13:1). 8:14, Nehemiah 13:1).

None of these texts say that Moses None of these texts say that Moses wrote all or even most of Genesis-wrote all or even most of Genesis-Deuteronomy.Deuteronomy.

Later Jewish Tradition and the New TestamentLater Jewish Tradition and the New Testament

The practice of attributing everything in these books to The practice of attributing everything in these books to Moses in Jesus’ day does not necessarily mean that Moses in Jesus’ day does not necessarily mean that anyone knew this for a fact or stopped to think about anyone knew this for a fact or stopped to think about whether the attribution was fully accurate. whether the attribution was fully accurate.

This was a way of telling people where they could find This was a way of telling people where they could find the text being quoted. the text being quoted.

Jews, Jesus (who was a Jew, of course) and early Jews, Jesus (who was a Jew, of course) and early Christians did assume that Moses’ (and God’s!) authority Christians did assume that Moses’ (and God’s!) authority lay behind all of these texts. lay behind all of these texts.

That is not an historical claim but a theological one.That is not an historical claim but a theological one.

There are a number of anachronisms:There are a number of anachronisms:Moses is always referred to in the third person.Moses is always referred to in the third person.Would “the most humble of men, the humblest man on earth” Would “the most humble of men, the humblest man on earth” (Numbers 12:3) write that about himself?(Numbers 12:3) write that about himself?Deuteronomy repeatedly uses the phrase “to this day” (e.g., 3:14; Deuteronomy repeatedly uses the phrase “to this day” (e.g., 3:14; 34:6).34:6).How did Moses recount his own death and burial, in the past tense?How did Moses recount his own death and burial, in the past tense?Whoever wrote about Moses’ death seems to write in the same style Whoever wrote about Moses’ death seems to write in the same style as the rest of Deuteronomy and later books (Joshua through 2 Kings).as the rest of Deuteronomy and later books (Joshua through 2 Kings).““Never since has there arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses” Never since has there arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses” (Deuteronomy 34:10): sounds like an assessment made after other (Deuteronomy 34:10): sounds like an assessment made after other prophets arose.prophets arose.Genesis repeatedly mentions: “at that time the Canaanites were in the Genesis repeatedly mentions: “at that time the Canaanites were in the land” (e.g., 12:6; 13:7), which implies that they are no longer there at land” (e.g., 12:6; 13:7), which implies that they are no longer there at the time of writing (but they were there before the Israelites occupied the time of writing (but they were there before the Israelites occupied Canaan).Canaan).Passages refer to lands east of the Jordan as “beyond the Jordan” Passages refer to lands east of the Jordan as “beyond the Jordan” (Genesis 50:10; Numbers 21:1)(Genesis 50:10; Numbers 21:1)Genesis refers to kings who ruled “before any king reigned over the Genesis refers to kings who ruled “before any king reigned over the Israelites” (Genesis 36:31). Israelites” (Genesis 36:31).

Problems with assuming that Moses is the author:Problems with assuming that Moses is the author:anachronisms and contrasting doubletsanachronisms and contrasting doublets

Besides anachronisms, there Besides anachronisms, there seem to be a considerable seem to be a considerable number of number of “doublets”—“stories or laws “doublets”—“stories or laws that are repeated in the that are repeated in the Torah, sometimes identically, Torah, sometimes identically, more often with [notable] more often with [notable] differences in detail” differences in detail” [Richard Elliot [Richard Elliot Friedman, Friedman, The Bible with Sources RevealedThe Bible with Sources Revealed (San (San

Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco 2003), p. 27].Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco 2003), p. 27].

Friedman lists 31 doublets Friedman lists 31 doublets (sometimes triplets). (sometimes triplets).

We’ll look at three.We’ll look at three.

Genesis 1-2 seems to have two versions of creation, with different Genesis 1-2 seems to have two versions of creation, with different names for God and a different order of events.names for God and a different order of events.

Genesis 1Genesis 1ElohimElohimSix daysSix daysHeavens and earth (heaven Heavens and earth (heaven focused)focused)Creates by speakingCreates by speakingFollows a blueprintFollows a blueprintPlantsPlantsAnimalsAnimalsHumans: male/femaleHumans: male/female

Genesis 2Genesis 2YHWH ElohimYHWH ElohimOne dayOne dayEarth and heavens (earth Earth and heavens (earth focused)focused)Works with hands, breathWorks with hands, breathImprovisesImprovisesHuman (adham=“earthling”?)Human (adham=“earthling”?)PlantsPlantsAnimals (possible spouses!)Animals (possible spouses!)Splits human into male/femaleSplits human into male/female

Genesis 6-8 seems to interweave two flood stories which make perfect Genesis 6-8 seems to interweave two flood stories which make perfect sense, but don’t match, when separated by the name used for God.sense, but don’t match, when separated by the name used for God.

Version 1Version 1

ElohimElohim

UnemotionalUnemotional

One pair of every animalOne pair of every animal

Noah/family enter ark on Noah/family enter ark on the same day the flood the same day the flood beginsbegins

Flood lasts 150 daysFlood lasts 150 days

Version 2Version 2

YHWHYHWH

Sorry about creating Sorry about creating humanshumans

Seven pairs of all clean Seven pairs of all clean animals/birds; one pair of animals/birds; one pair of all unclean animalsall unclean animals

Noah/family enter ark Noah/family enter ark seven days before the seven days before the flood beginsflood begins

Flood lasts 40 daysFlood lasts 40 days

There seem to be actually three versions of the crossing of “The Red Sea” There seem to be actually three versions of the crossing of “The Red Sea” ((Yam SufYam Suf), which hang more or less together when separated ), which hang more or less together when separated

(Exodus 13:17-14:31)(Exodus 13:17-14:31) Version 1Version 1YHWHYHWHIsraelites flee Israelites flee Pharaoh responds Pharaoh responds Egyptians pursueEgyptians pursueA pillar of cloud A pillar of cloud stands between stands between Israel & the Israel & the EgyptiansEgyptiansSea pushed back Sea pushed back from shore by a windfrom shore by a windEgyptians thrown Egyptians thrown into panicinto panicEgyptians flee onto Egyptians flee onto dry seabed & are dry seabed & are drowned when the drowned when the sea returns sea returns

Version 2Version 2ElohimElohimIsraelites permitted Israelites permitted to leaveto leavePharaoh’s & Pharaoh’s & Egyptians’ minds Egyptians’ minds are changedare changedEgyptians pursueEgyptians pursueAngel of Angel of ElohimElohim stands between stands between Israel and the Israel and the EgyptiansEgyptiansNothing happens to Nothing happens to the sea.the sea.Angel clogs Angel clogs Egyptians’ chariot Egyptians’ chariot wheels; they can’t wheels; they can’t pursue (but are not pursue (but are not killed) killed)

Version 3Version 3

YHWHYHWH

Israelites leaveIsraelites leave

YHWH hardens YHWH hardens Pharaoh’s heartPharaoh’s heart

Egyptians pursueEgyptians pursue

Moses splits sea, Moses splits sea, creating a path with creating a path with walls of water on walls of water on both sidesboth sides

Egyptians pursue Egyptians pursue Israelites into the Israelites into the pathpath

Moses closes sea, Moses closes sea, drowning the drowning the Egyptians Egyptians

Parting the Sea: Parting the Sea: One of One of THREETHREE Versions? Versions?

The Documentary Hypothesis: Stage 1The Documentary Hypothesis: Stage 1

To account for the anachronisms and these contrasting To account for the anachronisms and these contrasting doublets (and triplets), scholars eventually came up with doublets (and triplets), scholars eventually came up with “The Documentary Hypothesis.”“The Documentary Hypothesis.”

In the 1700s three scholars, working independently, In the 1700s three scholars, working independently, noticed a pattern: Many of the doublets used a different noticed a pattern: Many of the doublets used a different name for God in each version (name for God in each version (YHWHYHWH, , ElohimElohim).).

This led to the distinction between the J and E sources. This led to the distinction between the J and E sources. [J stands for JHWH—the German spelling.][J stands for JHWH—the German spelling.]

The Documentary Hypothesis: Stage 2The Documentary Hypothesis: Stage 2

Scholars still found doublets in E (e.g., the crossing of Scholars still found doublets in E (e.g., the crossing of Yam SufYam Suf), so, following the same logic, they ), so, following the same logic, they hypothesized a third source. hypothesized a third source.

They noticed that some of the doublets in E were They noticed that some of the doublets in E were preoccupied with priests, so they used that to distinguish preoccupied with priests, so they used that to distinguish a Priestly source, P, from the rest of E. It includes almost a Priestly source, P, from the rest of E. It includes almost all of Leviticus.all of Leviticus.

Then scholars noticed that this scheme seemed to be Then scholars noticed that this scheme seemed to be making more sense of Genesis-Numbers, but not of making more sense of Genesis-Numbers, but not of Deuteronomy, which seemed to have its own Deuteronomy, which seemed to have its own independent style, so they hypothesized a fourth source, independent style, so they hypothesized a fourth source, D.D.

The Documentary Hypothesis: Stage 3The Documentary Hypothesis: Stage 3

This still did not account for everything (e.g., This still did not account for everything (e.g., God is called God is called YHWHYHWH ElohimElohim in Genesis 2 &3, in Genesis 2 &3, but nowhere else in the entire Pentateuch), but but nowhere else in the entire Pentateuch), but scholars could always attribute anomalies like scholars could always attribute anomalies like that to one or more Redactors (i.e., editors). that to one or more Redactors (i.e., editors).

After all, After all, somebodysomebody had to weave these sources had to weave these sources together.together.

JJ — the — the JahwistJahwist. J describes a human-like God called . J describes a human-like God called YahwehYahweh who who speaks directly to people. J has a special interest in Judah and in speaks directly to people. J has a special interest in Judah and in the Aaronid priesthood. J has an extremely eloquent style. J uses the Aaronid priesthood. J has an extremely eloquent style. J uses an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.

EE — the — the ElohistElohist. E describes a human-like God initially called . E describes a human-like God initially called ElohimElohim, and called , and called YahwehYahweh subsequent to the incident of the subsequent to the incident of the burning bush. In E God tends to communicate through dreams. E burning bush. In E God tends to communicate through dreams. E focuses on the northern kingdom of Israel and on the Shiloh focuses on the northern kingdom of Israel and on the Shiloh priesthood. E has a moderately eloquent style. E uses an earlier priesthood. E has a moderately eloquent style. E uses an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.form of the Hebrew language than P.

PP — the — the PriestlyPriestly source. P describes a distant and unmerciful God, source. P describes a distant and unmerciful God, sometimes referred to as sometimes referred to as ElohimElohim or as or as El ShaddaiEl Shaddai. P partly . P partly duplicates J and E, but alters some details, and also consists of duplicates J and E, but alters some details, and also consists of most of Leviticus. P has its main interest in an Aaronid priesthood most of Leviticus. P has its main interest in an Aaronid priesthood and in King Hezekiah. P has a low level of literary style, and has an and in King Hezekiah. P has a low level of literary style, and has an interest in lists, precise measurements, and dates.interest in lists, precise measurements, and dates.

DD — the — the DeuteronomistDeuteronomist. D consists of most of Deuteronomy. D . D consists of most of Deuteronomy. D probably also wrote the Deuteronomistic history (Josh, Judg, 1 & 2 probably also wrote the Deuteronomistic history (Josh, Judg, 1 & 2 Sam, 1 & 2 Kgs). D has a particular interest in the Shiloh priesthood Sam, 1 & 2 Kgs). D has a particular interest in the Shiloh priesthood and in King Josiah. D uses a form of Hebrew similar to that of P, but and in King Josiah. D uses a form of Hebrew similar to that of P, but in a different literary style.in a different literary style.

Friedman’s Assessment (p. 28)Friedman’s Assessment (p. 28)

The different names of God in contrasting doublets were the starting The different names of God in contrasting doublets were the starting point for the hypothesis. But the most compelling case comes from point for the hypothesis. But the most compelling case comes from the convergence of other patterns which were later noticed.the convergence of other patterns which were later noticed.

When we try separating contrasting doublets:When we try separating contrasting doublets:

““This also results in the resolution of nearly all the contradictions.”This also results in the resolution of nearly all the contradictions.”

““The name of God divides consistently in all but three out of more The name of God divides consistently in all but three out of more than two thousand occurances.”than two thousand occurances.”

““The terminology of each [hypothesized] source remains consistent The terminology of each [hypothesized] source remains consistent within that source.” Friedman lists 24 examples of terms “which are within that source.” Friedman lists 24 examples of terms “which are consistent through nearly four hundred occurances.”consistent through nearly four hundred occurances.”

““This produces continuous narratives that flow with only a rare This produces continuous narratives that flow with only a rare break.”break.”

““The Hebrew of each source fits consistently with what we know of The Hebrew of each source fits consistently with what we know of the Hebrew of each period [from archeology].”the Hebrew of each period [from archeology].”

Friedman’s assessment (continued):Friedman’s assessment (continued):

Therefore: Therefore: ““The most compelling argument for the hypothesis is that The most compelling argument for the hypothesis is that this hypothesis best accounts for the fact that all this this hypothesis best accounts for the fact that all this evidence of so many kinds comes together so evidence of so many kinds comes together so consistently.” consistently.”

““To this day, no one known to me who challenged the To this day, no one known to me who challenged the hypothesis has ever addressed this fact.”hypothesis has ever addressed this fact.”

In fact, Friedman argues, no scholar is clever enough to In fact, Friedman argues, no scholar is clever enough to make all the evidence line up in this way. make all the evidence line up in this way.

So it cannot be dismissed as, say, a secular humanist So it cannot be dismissed as, say, a secular humanist conspiracy of scholars setting out to find the results they conspiracy of scholars setting out to find the results they wanted to find.wanted to find.