EXPOSING
THE DOCU
A SECULAR MYTH
The following article by Dr. Walter a. Maier was taken from
his notes on Genesis, and appeared in Christian News,
Documentary Hypothesis
In spite of the clear and convincing
testimony for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch: (the unanimous testimony
of antiquity; the testimony of the Pentateuch itself; the testimony of the New testament) this authorship has been denied and rejected by
modern critics. The prevalent theory in critical circles today is that the
Pentateuch, as we now have it, is the result of composite authorship, and that
it contains different sections that were written at different times and by
different men, all of whom lived long after the time of Moses. These theories
are grouped together under the designation of the “Documentary Hypothesis.”
1. The Theory Itself
According to the Documentary
Hypothesis (although it should be noted that there is a variance of opinions
among the critics as to the details of this hypothesis) the following different
sources of documents are to be regarded in the Pentateuch.
A. The Jahvist, customarily symbolized as J. This source, it is
generally claimed, was written in the
B. The Elohist.
This source (which is symbolized as E) according to critical the theory, was
written in the
C. The Deuteronomist.
This source which is abbreviated as D, but which is not marked by the
characteristic use of the divine name, is found, it is asserted, in the book of
Deuteronomy and in parts of Joshua. This source is marked by certain peculiarities
of language, according to the critics, and has a centralized worship as one of
its dominant themes. It is held that Deuteronomy and the allied portions of
Joshua date from the second half of the seventh century and that this source
owes its existence to the desire to bring about the reformation which is recorded
in 2K.
D. The priestly Code (abbreviated as
P) is the youngest of these alleged sources. It uses the divine name Elohim exclusively down to Ex. 6:2. Its style is pictured
as stiff and “laboriously circumstantial.” It is held that the Priestly code is
the product of the Persian period (ca 400). The interest of P, according to
this theory, seems to center in describing the origin of the sacred institution
of
According to the critical theory, the
two independent but parallel narratives J and E (each of which used older
extant material and each of which, in turn, was altered by later hands) were
compiled into a whole by and editor, who sometimes incorporated sections of
each source or sometimes merged the parallel accounts into a single narrative.
The composite narrative (JE) thus formed was
afterwards combined with the Deuteronomic source by a
second compiler or editor, to form JED. This composite source finally was
brought together by a third compiler, who, using the Priestly code as his
framework, accommodated JED to this, thus establishing the composite book which
is symbolized as JEDP, which substantially represents
the Pentateuch as we have it today.
II. Alleged Basis for This Theory
The reasons which are advanced in support of this theory
are the following:
A. Arguments from language. It is held
that if the language of the Pentateuch is examined, that there are definite
criteria which bear out the critical contention for the plurality of
authorship. Among these definite criteria are the following:
(1) The distinctive use of the divine
name. It is asserted for example, that the fact that the divine name, Elohim, is used exclusively from Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2:42,
that the composite divine name Jahweh-Elohim is used
almost exclusively in the remainder of the second and throughout the entire
three chapters, that there are sections in which the divine name Jahweh occurs alone, all point to distinctive authorship
and different sources.
WE REJECT this inference for the following reasons.
a) The use of the divine name is not a
criterion of authorship. In the New Testament “Jesus”, “Christ”, “Lord,” etc.
are used interchangeably and there can be no assumption of different sources
there. Similarly in the Old Testament, the terms Jahweh
and Elohim are synonyms and are used interchangeably
to emphasize the specific and individual meaning of each name. The fact that
the LXX at 180 places has a different divine name
than the Masoretic text has, implies a consideration
emphasized by Wiener in hiss “Essays on Pentateuchal
Criticism” and is strong evidence for the promiscuous use of divine names.
b) The actual occurrence of the divine
names is in conflict with the critical theories. Thus, for example, in the
third chapter where the composite designation of Jahweh-Elohim
predominates, there are two unexplainable passages in which simply Elohim is found. Similarly, there are Elohistic
portions in which Jahweh intrudes against all
critical theorization.
2) Difference of style. It is claimed
that the fact that there are different sources is betrayed by the variety of
styles. One source, critics say, moves swiftly and is epic. Another is slow and
cumbersome, etc.… BUT: “Sprachbewies” one of the
general resources of criticism, is to be rejected and for these reasons.
a) Many writers have written in
different styles at different periods of their lives.
b) The whole consideration has been
grossly exaggerated. Even critics have confessed: “the extant Israelitic literature is too limited to enable us to
determine the age of any work with certainty from mere considerations of
language and style.” Kuenen (Hexateuch),
P. 268.
B. Arguments from the contents. It is
alleged that the composite authorship of the Pentateuch may be demonstrated by
the contents of the Pentateuch. Among the arguments are the following.
1. It is asserted that there are many
duplicate narratives and it is said that these “repetitions” may be explained by
the procedure of the compilers who found that the same narrative in each source
and in many instances preserved both side by side.
AGAINST THIS contention, however, we declare:
a) The passages cited for these
alleged repetitions show that such restatements are not simply repetitious, but
that some new element is introduced in each instance.
b) The Hebrew emphasizes by
restatement.
c) Records of similar instances cannot
be represented as different records of the same occurrence.
d) The assumption of duplicate
narratives predicates a high degree of stupidity on part of the editor, to
whose ability critics have paid tribute.
2) Contradictions. It is alleged that
the presence of different sources is evidenced by the contradictions in the
Pentateuch. It is stated that if a single man wrote the five books of Moses he
would not be guilty of contradictions. To this WE RE
3) Miscellaneous and indirect reasons.
It is stated that Moses cannot be the author of the five books of Moses and
that, therefore, there is a strong possibility in favor of the documentary
hypothesis. Among the reasons for this assertion are the claims that there are
anachronisms in the Pentateuch (that Moses speaks of things that happened much
later than his day); that there are improprieties (that Moses speaks of himself
in a third person and uses terms of honor for himself); that there are errors
of which Moses would never be guilty. But all of the objections may likewise be
explained in a satisfactory manner by a sound and reverent exegesis of the
passages in question. For all such objections and their appropriate answers,
see especially “The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch” by MacDill.
III. Reason for Rejecting this Theory
We REJECT the documentary hypothesis
(and the inference that the Pentateuch came into its present form only about
the year 400 BC) for the following reasons:
A – It contradicts the plain statements of the Old
Testament and of the New Testament that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch.
B – IT contradicts the internal linguistic evidence of
the Pentateuch which presents archaic words and obsolete constructions as
evidence of the Mosaic authorship.
C – It is a superfluous theory. We can account for the
origin and present form of the Pentateuch, as well as for all alleged
difficulties raised by criticism, on the basis of the traditional and
Scriptural view. “To reject a simple and natural interpretation accordant with
all available evidence, for a complicated and needless one” is unphilosophical. (“The Veracity of the Hexateuch”)
D – It is an unnatural theory. Literature is simply
not produced in this way. There is not a single analogy in any secular method,
which critics say, has been followed in the composition of the Pentateuch.
E – It is a theory that has been built up by arbitrary
and highhanded procedures. Whenever, for example, one divine name occurs where
the critical theory demands the other, the intruding designation for God is
dropped, ascribed to the convenient editor of the sources, or otherwise removed
from the original source.
F – It is a theory that leads to absurdities. Thus the
37th chapter of Genesis, which consists of 36 verses, has been
divided into 35 fragments by Kautsch and Socin. The false principles which lead to the establishment
of the JEPD as the formula for the formation of the
Pentateuch has again sub-divided the various sources, J, E, D, P, and Cornill presents the following as the constituent elements
of the Pentateuch: J1, J2, J3, D, Dh, Dp, P1, P2, P4,
Rj, Rd, Rp, and some
fragments not included in this formula of symbols.
G – It is a theory which is built up on a vicious and
impossible principle, the evolution of religion, according to which the
religion of the Israelites has been a gradual and natural growth from the lower
to the higher, and which leaves no room or reason for the supernatural, the
divine, the revealed. Such premises are repudiated by every conception of Bibliology and of God which the Scriptures contain.
H – It is a theory which is made impossible by the
critics themselves. Not only has this analysis of the sources been rejected by
some of its leading advocates, (See “The veracity of the Hexateuch”
by
(from “Notes on
Genesis” by Prof. W. A. Maier, as reproduced in the book “Walter A. Maier Still
Speaks”, published by Lutheran News Inc. pages 55-61.)
EDITORIAL
NOTE: Although Dr. Maier graciously presented his reasons for rejecting the
documentary hypothesis, in my opinion, the assumption by its formulators that
they know more about events that transpired two to three thousand years ago
than those living back then requires a condescending arrogance that belies any
legitimate claim to scholarship. Jesus said of Moses, “He wrote of Me” (John
Gary
Branscome
“He who is
of God hears God’s words.”
(John 8:47)