The Pentateuch

 

INTRODUCTION

Commonly attributed as the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus,  Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), the Pentateuch (or Torah in Hebrew and Judaism) was  among the earliest corpus designated the status of “Scripture” within the Jewish Orthodox  tradition.1 The compilation hosts a diversity of material, which includes creation history,  genealogies, Patriarchal narratives, and nation-state sagas, rendered in a tapestry of thematic and literary forms and stylizations

In the most literal sense, the Pentateuch (or Torah) is an anonymous work, but traditional views support the belief of Mosaic authorship. Yet, with the advent of humanism and the Renaissance, the sense of intellectual freedom and upswing in research have led to the fact that many have begun to read the Bible critically, trying to challenge its text as well as the traditions and beliefs that are formed from it. One of the most commonly attacked beliefs is Moses’ authorship of the Torah. There has been an ongoing debate between conservative theologians representing Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch, and liberals who claim that there are several authors or redactors (Moses possibly participated in the creation of the Pentateuch, perhaps as part of the oral tradition of Israel). Basically the problem of the Pentateuch is the issue of its authorship and dating.

DATING

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century a majority of scholars gradually came to accept the

conclusions of the Newer Documentary Hypothesis, as the viewpoint propounded by Graf,

Kuenen, and Wellhausen came to be known. In essence they held that the Pentateuch had been

composed from four documents or sources, whose dates and places of origin were as follows:

 J - 9th Cent., Judah

 E - 8th Cent., Northern Kingdom of Israel

 D - 7th Cent., Judah

 P - 5th Cent., Babylon

AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH (Arguments For and Against Mosaic Authorship)

Traditionally, Moses is said to be the author of the Pentateuch. It is universally conceded that this was the traditional opinion among the Jews. To this the New Testament bears the most abundant and explicit testimony. In a period of nearly 3000 years, hardly anyone opposed the Mosaic authorship of the Torah, mainly because there were no critical investigations made; “Instead, its object was to emphasize the Pentateuch’s divine origin and authority”. A variety of historians, theologians, and thinkers are represented in this view. The Jewish testimony is unique (the Talmud, the Mishnah, the NT (Luke 24:27, 44; etc.). Philo of Alexandria wrote enthusiastically in defense of Moses’ authorship and his role as God’s interpreter. The Jewish historian Josephus also confirmed Mosaic authorship. T his view remained unchanged until the seventeenth century when several prominent philosophers like B. Spinoza and T. Hobbs revealed their results: “Ezra was responsible for the Pentateuch”. They were not totally opposed to Mosaic authorship; verses like, Exod 17:14, 24:4; Num 33:2; Deut 31:9 had significance, but they pointed out that the composition of the Pentateuch was too complicated to be the work of one author.

Christian tradition follows the Jewish view of the Pentateuch’s authorship. The Church fathers (Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyon, etc.) have expressed the same belief. Nevertheless, around the third century C.E. the concept of Ezra as author became fairly prominent. It was believed initially that the Torah had been written by Moses, but was later burnt, and then “was miraculously rewritten by Ezra”. Later, obvious problems related to the text of the Pentateuch were more and more noted such as why Moses did not write in the first person, the report on the death of Moses and the period of mourning for him in Deuteronomy 34:5–9, and double and sometimes triple reports on the same events. Furthermore, other apparent discrepancies and disagreements were noticed, for instance: Gen 7:15 — Noah gathered two of each animal, but 7:2–3 states specifically seven pairs of animals; Gen 7:11, 17, 24 and 8:3 specify certain time intervals of the flood that are hard to match, and Gen 14:14 mentions the territory of Dan’s tribe, although Dan received his land only after Moses’ death (Judg 18). Thus, even in the pre-Enlightenment era, several authors had noticed the discrepancies and soon started to articulate their assumptions more clearly. With the dawn of the Enlightenment period emerged new studies on the Pentateuch and with it new critical approaches.

CRITICISMS AND HYPOTHESES

SOURCE CRITICISM (OR OLDER DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS)

Source critics believed that the Pentateuch had grown out of oral traditions, just like all other ancient religious writings. But they concentrated their attention on identifying and interpreting parts of the Pentateuch that they believed came from independent written sources that emerged during Israel's monarchical period.

As a result of the Enlightenment era, source criticism was born. Jean Austruc wrote and published his studies on Genesis in 1753. His study led him to believe that “Moses wrote Genesis using ancient memoirs of sources”. Austruc identified two sources which he labeled A for Elohim and B for Yahweh. The question of authorship and the authority of the Pentateuch was “no dilemma” for him. He followed the traditional view which argued for Moses as the author. Unfortunately, the methodology he used was wrong; it failed to take into account that Near Eastern literature cannot be treated like literature in recent history. Nevertheless, his argument concerning two different sources within Genesis with “the primarily emphasis on the divine names as a criterion for source analysis”, laid the foundation for further research.

FRAGMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL HYPOTHESIS

Consequently, further research developed various hypotheses like the Fragment Hypothesis (FH). All pentateuchal studies leading up to this hypothesis considered the Pentateuch work to be a collage of several documents (J, E, and D). However, the FH advocated another theory; the Pentateuch is a large number of fragments which were then interlaced by one editor (sixth century B.C.E.) into the form we have today. Alexander Geddes (a Catholic priest), J. S. Vater, and W. M. L. de Wette were the main scholars who established this theory. Later, de Wette acknowledged only some parts of this particular hypothesis and used it in combination with the Documentary Hypothesis.

Later, in 1823, Georg Heinrich August von Ewald proposed a new method commonly named supplementary hypothesis (SH). The premise of his theory is “a single core E document was supplemented by J and strands from the book of Deuteronomy”. Next, according to Alexander, von Ewald adjusted his theory and found that some portions could not have been part of the three sources (E, J, and D). Furthermore, he argued for two united E documents which were later complemented by a Yahwistic editor. In this way, the Older Documentary Hypothesis and the SH were connected. Unsatisfied with those discoveries and given explanations, scholars produced a new Documentary Hypothesis which was commonly accepted at first.

(NEW) DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS

This new hypothesis of Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen6 had the most success, but not in all aspects. In Julius Wellhausen’s deduction, the Pentateuch was formed of four originally independent documents from various periods and different regions: the Yahwistic (J), Elohistic (E), Deuteronomistic (D), and Priestly documents (P). These documents were, on several occasions, by a number of editors and publishers, connected into a single unit.

The New Documentary Hypothesis (DH), which eventually became, more or less, generally acknowledged, well explains the existence of duplicates and parallel texts that speak about the same subject, but in a different manner. Albeit, it should also be emphasized that this theory was and is in some aspects questionable. In his article, Jonathan Huddleston gives a plain description

The Documentary Hypothesis is complex, but its basic outline is fairly simple:

• J and E produced early versions of Israel’s founding traditions some time between the tenth and the early eighth centuries B.C.

• D extensively revised these laws and stories in the seventh century, creating most of Deuteronomy; D–related editors combined this work with J–E, adding a few “D” touches to the earlier sources

• A sixth-century exilic or postexilic P adapted and systematized J–E–D for the hierocracy that restored the Jerusalem temple.

• Finally, fifth–century priestly editors, perhaps including Ezra, reintegrated the P and non–P (JED) versions into a single J E D P whole - the Pentateuch.

THE J, E, D, AND P SOURCE

For the purpose of better understanding, it is necessary to briefly explain what those four sources are about and where they came from. Huddleston voices that “each source has its own historical setting, its own favorite words, its own theology or agenda — even its own personality”. First, the J document is the narrative from Gen 2 through Num 22–24 (some also include the record of Moses’s death, Deu 34, in J); the designation J comes from the German word Jahweh. One of the specifics about this source is that God is portrayed as almost human, and that creates an image of his presence among the people. The J story begins with creation and goes all the way to the fulfillment of God’s plan for Israel through the patriarchs. Second, source E, unlike J, uses the name Elohim (up until Exod 3; 6); God is presented as flawless and perfect. The E story goes along with the J narrative, but from the perspective of the northern kingdom, and most scholars agree that E begins with Gen 20. Third, D stands for the Deuteronomist tradition, and thus is the central document of the Book of Deuteronomy. It differs in style from the other sources; its main concern is the preaching of the Law according to von Rad, and encouraging the people to serve God. It starts with the tale of Joshua and concludes with 2 Kings. Finally, fourth, P (for Priestly source) “focuses on genealogies, cultic laws, covenants, high days like the Sabbath, blueprints of cultic buildings, and procedures for sacrifices and ceremonies.” Like in E, God’s transcendence is not only underlined, but the source points to His “holiness and sovereignty” as well. The majority of biblical scholars follow these definitions.

FORM AND TRADITIO-HISTORICAL CRITICISM

Form criticism began as a specialized field of Old Testament studies with the work of Hermann Gunkel in The Legends of Genesis, written in 1901. Gunkel and those that followed him accepted the major tenets of source criticism, but they focused on an earlier aspect of the Pentateuch's development. Rather than focusing on the Pentateuch's written sources, form critics concentrated on what they believed to be the oral traditions that predated the time of Israel's monarchs.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Hermann Gunkel played a major role in establishing a different technique known as Form Criticism Arnold  writes that Gunkel argued that “behind the J and E sources of Genesis were collections of sagas preserved orally for centuries, instead of relatively late writings of a few great individual writers.” Specifically, his approach to the text is trying to define the individual life setting to each section which was previously overlooked.

As successor of the FC came Traditio-Historical criticism. Building on the conclusions of source and form criticism, tradition critics focused on how primitive oral traditions and written texts developed into complex theological and political perspective. Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth (later also Gerhard von Rad) were the leading scholars of this method. “common–base text (or ‘G’ for Grundlage)” which was used by separate authors of the J, E, and P sources . Houtman writes, “Both von Rad and Noth have, each with his own emphasis, directed attention to the various stages of the process by which the Pentateuch came into being.

CANONICAL AND LITERARY CRITICISM

In recent decades, many leading critical interpreters have sought to go beyond older critical historical reconstructions. Instead, they've concentrated on the remarkable theological unity and depth of the Pentateuch's traditional Hebrew text. These approaches have taken different forms — rhetorical criticism, canonical criticism, new literary criticism — to name just a few. But they all share a focus on interpreting the Pentateuch as it's been handed to us through the synagogue and the church. Treatments of the Pentateuch in its final form are more promising than older critical approaches. But only time will tell what fruit these more contemporary approaches will yield.

Despite all of these new discoveries, new criticisms appeared and old ones further developed in order to provide better insights from different angles into the creation and development of the Pentateuch. One of them was Canonical Criticism (CC) with its prominent scholars Brevard S. Childs and James A. Sanders. This approach seeks to focus “on the final form or received, canonical shape of the biblical witness”. CC is trying to use all the other critical methods, but in a sensible and restricted way (they omitted inquiries like, “minute analysis of the text or detailed identification of J, E, D, etc.”). Although most experts have more or less accepted the thesis JEDP, through the CC “they seek to explore the theological message of the received form of the canon, not only the individual source or literary traditions behind the text”.

In some way similar to the previous approach is Literary Criticism (LC) which seeks to take the text as a whole and thus to study it in its present form and not as in the previous approaches, disassembled into parts. The concern here is to read and examine the document synchronically (at the same time), and not diachronically (through time), which was the case up to that point. Furthermore, Alonso Schökel and Muilenburg used a modern version of LC as a tool for HB investigations. As a result, subsequent research from 1974 onwards used this technique and hence gave birth to the atomistic movement (Alter) that strove to explain “the possibility that the same techniques which were used to create the smaller narrative unites might also have been used on a larger scale”.

THE CURRENT STATE OF PENTATEUCHAL STUDIES

All of this above brings us to the present, and according to Norman Whybray, current pentateuchal studies have “no consensus whatever about when, why, how, and through whom the Pentateuch reached its present form, and opinions about the dates of composition of its various parts differ by more than five hundred years.” This is a somewhat discouraging outcome. After reviewing various methods in the study of the Torah, it seems that it is necessary in some way to “unite” several research methods in order to obtain solid results. Therefore, the DH — although criticized and in some segments all together rejected — has been adopted again and further developed by the majority of American scholars (Baden 2012). Additionally, Baden reports in his article on a new research system which “David Wright has termed the recent source-critical approach, the ‘Neo-Documentary Hypothesis,’ a label which is gaining some use among its adherents and others”. What the Neo-Documentary Hypothesis seeks to explain in an extensive and efficient way is “why the Pentateuch is incoherent”.  On the other hand, European scholars have also presented several new and very complicated methods in pentateuchal studies since most of them do not agree with the DH anymore.

Current Trends in Critical Study

Both source and form criticism work directly from what we can know of the text by comparing it with other literary styles and literary works. Much of the inspiration for form criticism, for example, came from the great work on the origins and development of fairy tales and folk stories by the brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson in the early nineteenth century. But these methods have been  mostly analytical; that is, they break down the narratives and laws into smaller and smaller units, and  assign dates and origins to each piece. This makes it harder to read the biblical books as single works.  There has been a definite movement to counterbalance this with rediscovery of methods that can be  used to read the Pentateuch more fully as a whole story or literary work.

Some of these are rhetorical criticism, which tries to show the literary artistry in the combination of pieces into a whole and how the whole story is structured for effect; structural analysis, which searches for the language patterns and levels of meaning that control both the plot and the underlying message by word clues; reader‐response criticism, which studies a text by paying attention to what the audience would hear and expect and how an author tries to reach that audience—this requires imagining ourselves in the world of the text. All of these are under the broad category of modern literary theory, and they have become very important new directions for biblical study, especially of the early books. Closely connected to these is canonical criticism, which tries to understand how a book like Genesis or Exodus is read as part of the larger collection of sacred books. Is there importance in Genesis being first? What happens when we read the wisdom books before the prophets in the order of our present canon?

Still another major area of new study focuses on the contributions of the social sciences. Sociology gives us models for how various types of social groupings interact together that might throw light on how ancient tribal or town or small‐kingdom forms of life were lived in biblical times. Anthropology and ethnology let us study people who are still living more like the ancients did than like the way we live. Archaeology as well discovers and re‐creates life as it was from stones and human remains. Truly, Bible study today employs all the tools made available by cooperative sharing of scholarly knowledge among different sciences. At the same time, none of the gains of one movement, such as those of the early source critics, are ever thrown away as useless, but they need to be supplemented and refined by later research. And whenever one branch of study concentrates too much on just a part of the picture, we can be sure that other scholars will arise to call us back to what we have neglected.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH

THE Higher Criticism has been of late so associated with extravagant theorizing, and with insidious attacks upon the genuineness and credibility of the books of the  Bible that the very term has become an offence to serious minds. It has come to be considered one of the most dangerous forms of infidelity, and in its very nature  hostile to revealed truth. And it must be confessed that in the hands of those who are unfriendly to supernatural religion it has proved a potent weapon in the interest of unbelief. The genuineness and historical truth of the Books of  Moses have been strenuously impugned in the name of the Higher Criticism. It has been claimed as one of its most certain results, scientifically established, that they have been falsely ascribed to Moses, and were in reality produced at a much later period. It is affirmed that the history is by no means reliable and merely records the uncertain and variant traditions of a post-Mosaic age; and that the laws are not those of Moses, but the growth of centuries after his time. All this is demonstrably based on false and sophistical reasoning, which rests on unfounded assumptions and employs weak and inconclusive arguments.

 

CONCLUSION

This piece is a concise summary of the historical and contemporary development of Pentateuch studies in Old Testament Theology. This article aims to provide information on the possible confirmation of Mosaic authorship. The purpose is to examine how the Documentary Hypothesis, Fragment and Supplemental Hypotheses, Form and Traditio-Historical Criticism, Canonical and Literary Criticism have helped to reveal or identify the identity of the author of the Torah. To better understand the mentioned hypotheses, this article presents a brief description of the J, E, D, and P sources.

THEOLOGY OF THE EXODUS

The story of the Exodus is the central salvation event in the Old Testament. The account of the liberation of a band of Hebrew slaves from horrific oppression in Egypt. There are over 120 explicit Old Testament references to the Exodus in law, narrative, prophecy and psalm, and it is difficult to exaggerate its importance.” it is not only Israelites and Jews whose worldview was shaped by the Exodus. Christians too inherited this new vision of the world. Often, Old Testament theologies and history books about ancient Israel begin with the Exodus as the first of God’s mighty acts with Israel. Again all of this comes as a consequence of the revelation of the divine name, which comprehended in its laconic form the saving purpose of God from beginning to end. So an understanding of the Exodus is absolutely critical for an understanding of an ancient Israelite and Christian world - view and essential for understanding and probing the theology of the Bible as it unfolds historically.

LIBERATION THEOLOGY

That promise provides a background for the drama of redemption on which the book of Exodus focuses. Redemption can be defined as “deliverance from the power of an alien dominion, and enjoyment of the resulting freedom.” It speaks of a deliverer and what he does to achieve deliverance. The book of Exodus is full of the vocabulary of redemption. It tells of the God who “remembers” his promise to the Hebrew patriarchs (Exodus 2:24; 6:5). God “comes down to deliver” the Israelites (3:8), or “save” them (14:30; 15:2), in order to “bring them” out of the land of Egypt (3:10-12).

Redemption involves these aspects:

1. The Lord is the author of redemption. In Exodus 6:1-8, as God answered Moses’ prayer to deliver his people, he used the pronoun “I” 18 times to emphasize that he was the one initiating the action. The Hebrew descendants of Abraham had known God primarily by the Hebrew name “El,” a common title in the ancient Near East for the supreme deity. But in Exodus, Israel learned that God is “Jehovah” or “Yahweh.” That is his personal name, a reminder that he is the God of the covenant who personally cares for his people’s welfare. In Exodus 3:14, God told Moses, “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be.” Some scholars think that statement shows that the name Yahweh comes from the Hebrew verb “to be.” In any case, the concept of “name” in the Hebrew culture is synonymous with “character.” To know the name of God is to know something of his character. Israel knew God as the one who is eternally self-existent yet present with them wherever they would go, acting on their behalf (Exodus 3:12; 33:14-16).

2. The reason for redemption was God’s promise to the forefathers of the Israelites. When God heard the groaning of the people of Israel, he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob (Exodus 2:24; cf. 6:5). In response to their need, he selected an agent of redemption, the unwilling Moses. Moses exhausted every possible excuse, but God would not take no for an answer. Moses is a vivid example of how God prepares, empowers, and sustains his chosen servants, using them to accomplish his purpose.

3. The motive of redemption was God’s grace and love (Exodus 15:13; 20:6; 34:6-7). The purpose of redemption was that Israel and the Egyptians might know God (6:7; 7:5; 8:10; 14:18). The Lord worked so that all who were involved—Moses, the Israelites, Pharaoh, and the Egyptians—would be sure that he alone is God. The Hebrew understanding of knowledge is not primarily intellectual but experience-oriented. The desired response to God’s action is not mere mental assent but also faith and obedience.

4. Redemption is achieved in Exodus by miracles (4:21)—all natural processes controlled supernaturally by God. They are variously described as signs and wonders (7:3), great acts of judgment (6:6; 7:4), and “the finger of God” (8:19). Such miracles were not frivolous fireworks but purposeful works of God. Some of the miracles prove that Moses was sent by God. The miraculous plagues proved that God is supreme, for each of them was a direct challenge to one of the gods of Egypt: Osiris the river god, Yeqt the frog god, Ra (Re) the sun god, Athor the cattle god. The miracles in the wilderness proved that God fulfills all the needs of his people.

5. The pharaoh was the villain—a picture of rebellious humanity confronted by God’s command (Exodus 4:21-23). Ten times the pharaoh hardened his heart. Yet, in a sense, it was God who hardened the pharaoh’s heart, effecting the king’s decision to defy him.

6. The Passover marked the purchase of redemption (Exodus 12:23-27; 15:16). It was a clear example of salvation by substitution. When the death angel saw the blood on the doorposts and lintels, he passed by.

7. The recipients of God’s redemption in Exodus were the Israelites. God took them as his own special people (6:7), and they were no longer free to do as they pleased. Even before the exodus he had claimed them, telling Pharaoh, “Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, ‘Let my son go that he may serve me’ ” (4:22-23, RSV).

8. The demand of redemption was obedience. On the basis of his deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, God set forth the Ten Commandments (20:1-17) and the rest of the law for them to obey. The people, though quick to pledge their obedience (19:8; 24:3), were even quicker to disobey (32:8). Because the Lord is holy and wants his people to be holy and wholehearted in devotion (34:14), he must punish iniquity. But being compassionate, he also forgives. Throughout the centuries of Israel’s history, God pleaded with his people through the prophets to remember the exodus and repent (see Micah 6:3-4). The faithful responded in gratitude with Moses’ “song of redemption” (Exodus 15; cf. Revelation 15:3-4).