Credibility of Mosaic Authorship

George Chen Kaidi

Hebrew Bible – Research Paper

April 2011
 George Chen

Thesis

The Documentary Hypothesis might provide a partial explanation to the origins of the

Pentateuch1, but is not substantial in disproving the Mosaic Authorship2 altogether.

Objective

This paper seeks to provide a critical analysis to the Documentary (or Graf-Wellhausen)

Hypothesis (DH), which challenges the Mosaic Authorship to the Pentateuch3. The DH attributes

the Pentateuch to be derived from four primary sources - Yahwist or Jahwist (J), Elohist (E),

Deuteronomist (D), Priestly (P) – with the final touch and compilation done by redactors4. The

paradigm shift from a conservative view to the realization of a possible alternative is of utmost

significance, especially to the reliability of the scriptures, since the Pentateuch itself testifies to

the Mosaic Authorship. In this paper, evidence of the DH and defense of Mosaic Authorship will

be analyzed and juxtaposed, and implications of hypothesis will be examined.

Documentary Hypothesis

While the conservative view asserts God-inspired Mosaic Authorship to the Pentateuch, the

documentarian view claims otherwise, and shifts the time frame of writing from 1400 B.C. to a

post-mosaic time around 400 B.C. The primary assumption of the DH5 is the variation in names

of God in Genesis chapters 1 and 2, as pointed out by Jean Astruc. While he did not intend to

deny the Mosaic Authorship (he believed that Moses compiled different sources), the two

different words used, Elohim and Yahweh, was later on extrapolated to suggest two separate

1
Pentateuch refers to the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy.
2
Traditional attribution of the Pentateuch to Moses.
3
Kevin L. Barney, "Reflections on the documentary hypothesis." Dialogue 33, no. 1 (March 1, 2000), 58.
4
Ibid, 58.
5
Matthew Graham, “Documentary Hypothesis: A Subjective Approach to Biblical Criticism” Graham Apologetics:
2-3.

1
 George Chen

authors involved. The division is further demonstrated when there is a discrepancy on the

revelation of God’s name. Exodus 6:2-3 records God revealing His name as “YHWH” for the

first time to Moses. Genesis 4:26, on the other hand, addresses God as “YHWH”, revealing the

possibility of the writings of another author6. This subtle distinction is repeatedly seen in the

Pentateuch, together with clusters of ideas which are unique to specific sets of stories, and proves

to be tell-tale signs of the hypothesis.

The appearance of doublets, or repeats of the same story, is also seen in the Pentateuch7. The two

accounts of creation story in Genesis (Gn 1; 2), two stories of Abraham claiming Sarah as his

sister (Gn 12; 20), and two stories of Jacob’s name being changed to Israel (Gn 32; 35) 8 for

instance, are examples of doublets. The most plausible explanation would be what the DH

Theorist claim as having a second narrative source merged into the original story, thereby

establishing the claim of multiple authorship. While it might be a possible explanation that

Moses wrote the Pentateuch, with the inclusion of additions from scribes at a later period, the

notion of the difference in language and style in writing proves otherwise. According to

advocates of the DH, authors generally write with a consistent style throughout an inscription, in

the usage of phrases, vocabulary, sentence structure, and idioms. The difference in styles 9

indicates the works of different authors.

Advocates of the DH pressed on that even if Moses could have written about his own death and

did write about his humility, he could not have written that “no one knows the place of his burial

to this day” (Dt 34:6); the premises simply indicate a latter addition to the text, assumedly by a

6
Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with sources revealed: a new view into the five books of Moses. (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 35.
7
Ibid, 13.
8
Graham, “Documentary Hypothesis: A Subjective Approach to Biblical Criticism”, 11.
9
Ibid, 2.

2
 George Chen

redactor. There is also inconsistency of ideas within the same instance of a passage: In Exodus

33, God spoke to Moses face to face (Ex 33:11), whereas within the space of nine verses, God

says that Moses “cannot see (His) face, for man shall not see (Him) and live" (Ex 33:20).

The Pentateuch also shows signs of a composite structure10. A good example to demonstrate the

observations of the JEDP sources could be found in the Passover narrative in Exodus 12-1311:

Exodus 12:1-20 -P : Priestly instructions from Moses and Aaron

Exodus 12:21-39 - JE : Instructions from Moses emphasizing significance of actions

Exodus 12:40-51 -P : Moses and Aaron giving specific directions for Passover

Exodus 13:1-16 -D : Consecration of the firstborn with the community as the focus

Exodus 13:17-22 - JE : Leadership of Moses at the center

The P source recorded instructions given through Moses and Aaron, while the JE source gives

Moses the limelight. The D source reiterates the content covered in Exodus 12, but given from

the perspective of observance to the Torah of the community12.

Implications

The main implications of the DH deal with the reliability of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch itself

testifies about the God-inspired Mosaic Authorship, and the bible is consistent in establishing

that statement. The Pentateuch itself recorded several times that the Lord instructed Moses (Ex

17:4) to write down the law (Ex 34:27), which he did (Ex 24:4; Dt 31:24) and gave to his people

(Ex 34:27; Lv 1:1; 6:8; Dt 31:9). In other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, references to the law

attribute to the authorship of Moses (2 Chr 34:14; Jos 8:31), in the words “obey all the laws

10
William H. Green, The Higher Criticism Of The Pentateuch. (Princeton, N. J.: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895), 46.
11
"JEDP: "Sources" in the Pentateuch." Biblical and Theological Resources. http://www.crivoice.org/jedp.html
(accessed April 5, 2011).
12
Ibid

3
 George Chen

Moses gave you” (Jos 1:7; 22:5). The most significant statement is made by Jesus when he

himself explicitly mentions the writings of Moses (Mk 12:26), and that “(Moses) wrote about

(Him)” (Jn 46:5). Having established the “fact” that Moses did write down the law from God, the

implications of the hypothesis being true would be the inaccuracy and reliability of the bible. The

scriptures, deemed as a religious and holy inscription from God (2 Tm 3:16), should be flawless

by nature, and the implications of the true hypothesis would mean a reconsideration of the

current view on the bible13.

Consider the implications of another possible scenario in which Moses wrote part of the

Pentateuch, covering the law which God gave, but redactors later on infused a narrative, with the

possibility of adding other sources, to the original writings. In this case, the implications of a true

hypothesis are negated as the hypothesis may very well complement the claims of the scriptures

on Mosaic Authorship that he indeed penned down the law from God, but it was only after a

millennium that scribes or redactors made compilations with other sources.

Redactors

Although redactors are responsible for the final form of the Pentateuch, their activities are

minimal and they hardly ever interfere with the integrity of the writings14. The inconsistencies in

the scriptures only prove that the redactors tried to preserve the texts’ integrity and tradition as

much as possible, without any alterations of the content on their parts. According to Ska,

redactors only intervened when they had the obligation to, under vital conditions such as the

advent of new circumstances or mentalities15; in which they adapted the text according to their

13
A. A. Pfanstiehl, "The Wellhausen Hypothesis, a Question of Vital Consequence." The Old Testament Student 5,
no. 2 (1885): 85-86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3156574 (accessed April 5, 2011).
14
Jean Louis Ska. 2005. "A plea on behalf of the biblical redactors." Studia theologica 59, no. 1: 4-18. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 5, 2011), 5.
15
Ibid, 14-15.

4
 George Chen

interpretations. In this context, they are described as custodians of the ancient texts16. In light of

this, the reliability of the Pentateuch would still stand, regardless if the hypothesis of multiple

sources is true.

Defense

While the DH asserts that the Pentateuch was derived from multiple sources and combined by

redactors based on observations by higher critics, the denial of Mosaic Authorship by the DH has

been widely rejected. There are substantial evidences that support the conservative view of the

origins of the Pentateuch:

Firstly, and to reinforce my previously mentioned point, the Pentateuch itself testifies to Mosaic

Authorship (Ex 24:4; Dt 31:24). The rest of the bible is also consistent with the assertion. Second,

the counter-argument that the names of God, YHWH and Elohim, does not give grounds of

separate authorship. Umberto Cassuto published in The Documentary Hypothesis and the

Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures that the use of the two names of God had

significant, intentional purposes17. The names were of a different type: The designation Elohim is

an “appellative that was applied both to the One God of Israel and to the heathen gods”; YHWH

is “a proper noun, the specific name of Israel’s God, the God whom the Israelites acknowledged

as the Sovereign of the universe and as the Divinity who chose them as His people” 18. An

analogy for the name duality is the example of a city, which could either be called Jerusalem, or

by the appellation city19 . The different names are employed in different usage. For instance,

YHWH would be used to express the direct relationship between God and His people, while

16
Ibid, 15.
17
Umberto Cassuto. The documentary hypothesis and the composition of the Pentateuch: eight lectures. (Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1983), 18-22
18
Ibid, 32
19
Ibid, 32

5
 George Chen

Elohim would be used to assert God’s almighty and transcendental image. The application is

clearly demonstrated in the dual accounts of the creation story from Genesis 1 and 2; first

established God as an almighty creator who is above all with the name “YHWH”, and then

portraying him as a ruler over man, with a direct and personal relationship20.

“Inconsistencies” in the literal historical accounts, which are used to support the hypothesis, can

be explained in terms of their intended context. The example used above regarding God and

Moses having face-to-face meetings (Ex 33:11; 33:20; Dt 34:10) is in fact non-contradictory, as

opposed to the claims of DH. While no one can see God face-to-face and still live (Ex 33:20),

nowhere in the Pentateuch did it mention that Moses did meet God in that manner. The

Pentateuch clearly and only records that the LORD knew (Dt 34:10) and spoke (Ex 33:11) to

Moses face-to-face, which is line with the passage in Exodus 33:22 that the LORD covers Moses

with his hand as He passes by him. Another example used to support the DH is found in the

passages Genesis 11 and 12 where both texts disagree on the age of Abram. Terah fathered

Abram at the age of 70 (Gn 11:26) and died at 205 (Gn 11:32), which meant that Abram was 135

years old when he was called to leave Ur, disagreeing with Genesis 12:4 that he was only 75

when he left Haran. While the DH attributes the inconsistency to the compilation of two different

sources, its claim is dependent on the assumption that Terah had all three children at the same

time, as inferred from Genesis 11:26 “After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of

Abram, Nahor and Haran”. It is, however, unlikely that Terah had all three children at the same

time, and it is very possible that Terah first became a father at 70, while having Abram at a later

age. The basis for this statement lies mainly in reassertion by Stephen in Acts 7, where he spoke

of Abram - “After the death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now living” –

20
Ibid, 34

6
 George Chen

to the religious leaders, who knew the Pentateuch inside out. An obvious error in the statement

would have received criticism, but none was recorded.

Although written in the third person, the Pentateuch finely points out the details of the accounts

of which only an eyewitness could express21. In Exodus 15:27, the specific number of springs

and palm trees are described, by which it would too farfetched for another author living a century

away to fill in, as proposed by the documentarians. The same level of details is recorded in

Numbers 11:7-8, showing evidence of an observer’s account.

The previous assumption by the DH that Moses lived in an era without the knowledge of

writing 22 has also been proven otherwise by Schaeffer who “found a tablet at Ras Shamra

containing the thirty letters of the Ugaritic alphabet”23, of which the sequence matches that of

modern Hebrew, “revealing that the Hebrew alphabet goes back at least 3,500 years”24, which

was far before Moses’ time. The Code of Hammurabi also established that the knowledge of

writing was present hundreds of years before Moses25.

The DH is not cogent, moreover, as the assignment of the Pentateuch to the JEDP sources is

inconsistent. For instance, in some E and P passages, Yahweh, which is a qualifying attribute by

DH advocates, is present26 (Gn 17:1; 22:11). No doubt the DH does not instate a specific number

of sources used, its inability to properly distinguish the sources simply points in the direction of

Cassuto’s counter-argument that the different names simply stressed on different significance.

21
Graham, “Documentary Hypothesis: A Subjective Approach to Biblical Criticism” Graham Apologetics: 18.
22
C. Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy. (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1995), 366.
23
Wayne Jackson. Biblical Studies In The Light of Archaeology. (Montgomery, Ala.: Apologetics Press, 1982), 32.
24
Ibid, 32.
25
Joseph P. Free and F. Vos Howard, Archaeology and Bible History. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 103.
26
Timothy Lin, “The Genuineness And Mosaic Authorship Of Genesis” Genesis: A Biblical Theology (Biblical
Studies Ministries International, Inc., 1997), 18-24.

7
 George Chen

Other pieces of evidence support Mosaic Authorship. First, there is Pentateuchal literary unity27,

which Documentarians attribute to Redactors. Moses, on the other hand, was raised in Pharaoh’s

courts, and would be equally capable of writing it as well. Second, several external sources

ascribe the Pentateuch to the Mosaic Authorship28:

i) The Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus, 24:23 (180 BC)

ii) The Talmud, Baba Bathra, 146, (200 AD)

iii) The Mishnah, Pirqe Aboth I, 1, (100 AD)

iv) Josephus in his Against Apion 11:8

Conclusion

Upon weighing the documentarian view against the traditional view, it is found that the DH is as

problematic as the problems it encountered in the Pentateuch, and thus is “no longer solving”,

but instead needs “fixing” 29 . The evidence presented by the DH is not conclusive and often

depends on the underlying assumptions. Furthermore, the texts are subjected to the individual’s

interpretation, and different passages are subjected to literal or metaphorical reading. In terms of

explaining the phenomenon of doublets and differences on theology, the DH might provide a

plausible hypothesis, but has no grounds in denying Mosaic Authorship altogether.

I stand firm by the conservative view that despite various hypothesis and arguments against

Mosaic Authorship, none is presented in a convincing and coherent manner, thus leaving Mosaic

Authorship as the most credible attribution.

27
Gleason Archer, Jr., A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 111-118.
28
Kenneth Kitchen, quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1999), 458-59.
29
Campbell, Antony F., and Mark A. Brien. Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient
Israel. (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 1.

8
 George Chen

In view of the ongoing development in source criticism, an unbiased and absolute answer to the

origins of the Pentateuch cannot be instated, yet. The relative “inconsistencies” in the texts

simply exemplify the preservation of original source(s) by either Moses or redactors. The

inability of fully disproving the Mosaic Authorship signifies the reliability and trustworthiness of

the Pentateuch, as it has been for the past three millenniums. As it stands, the scholarly debate

should not affect the Christian faith, unless the hypothesis is proven otherwise.

Regardless, the DH still serves to be a viable “starting point of research”30 until the day new

theological models are able to justly explain the Pentateuch.

30
Richard Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Simon & Schuster, Summit Books, 1987), 28.

9
 George Chen

Bibliography
Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible with sources revealed: a new view into the five books of
Moses. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005)

Neusner, Jacob. "Testing the documentary hypothesis: Abot, ARNA, and the canonical processes
of formulating the rabbinic documents." Review of Rabbinic Judaism 12, no. 2 (January 1, 2009):
161-188.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. "Empirical basis for the documentary hypothesis." Journal of Biblical
Literature 94, no. 3 (September 1, 1975): 329-342.

Barney, Kevin L. "Reflections on the documentary hypothesis." Dialogue 33, no. 1 (March 1,
2000): 57-99.

Bacon, Benjamin Wisner. The Genesis of Genesis; A Study of the Documentary Sources of the
First Book of Moses, in Accordance with the Results of Critical Science, Illustrating the
Presence of Bibles within the Bible. (Hartford: The Student Pub. Co., 1892)

Ska, Jean Louis. "A plea on behalf of the biblical redactors." Studia theologica 59, no. 1 (January
1, 2005): 4-18.

Green, William H.. The Higher Criticism Of The Pentateuch. (Princeton, N. J.: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1895)

Pfanstiehl, A. A. "The Wellhausen Hypothesis, a Question of Vital Consequence." The Old

Testament Student 5, no. 2 (1885): 85-86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3156574 (accessed April 5,
2011).

Cassuto, Umberto. The documentary hypothesis and the composition of the Pentateuch: eight
lectures. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1983)

Lin, Timothy. “The Genuineness And Mosaic Authorship Of Genesis” Genesis: A Biblical
Theology (Biblical Studies Ministries International, Inc., 1997), 18-24.

Archer, Jr. Gleason, A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1980).

Kitchen, Kenneth, quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict,
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999)

Antony F. Campbell, and Brien Mark A. Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the
Theology of Ancient Israel. (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005)

Friedman, Richard, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Simon & Schuster, Summit Books, 1987),
28.

10
 George Chen

McKinsey, C. Dennis. The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy. (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus

Books, 1995)

Jackson, Wayne. Biblical Studies In The Light of Archaeology. (Montgomery, Ala.: Apologetics
Press, 1982)

P. Free, Joseph and Howard, F. Vos, Archaeology and Bible History. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1992)

11