Poison In the Water
In light of our Fall Genesis book studies beginning, I thought it may be helpful to consider a popular (but poisonous) error regarding the authorship of the book of Genesis. I am talking about Source Criticism. What exactly is it?
“A method of biblical study that seeks to determine the literary sources behind a final text. It has sometimes been called ‘literary criticism’ or ‘higher criticism,’ as opposed to the “lower” textual criticism.”
Is this a big deal? What is wrong with trying to determine the sources that came together to form portions of the Bible? The Bible itself makes reference to sources we don’t have (1 Chron. 21:17). The issue with source criticism is not simply the effort by some to understand how references to extra-biblical material were used in the formation of the Bible. The issue is that source criticism as a discipline usually always leads to a low view of inspiration and ends up making Scripture something it doesn’t claim to be.
For example: Those who hold to a source critical view almost always deny Mosaic authorship, and instead teach that the Israelite community wrote these stories centuries later in order to make sense of their past or current situation. This of course opens the door to historical error and myth, which proponents of this view usually teach. Did Abraham really do all that Genesis claims he did? They answer no. Did the tabernacle ever really exist? Again, the vast majority would argue that it did not. Instead, they believe that later Levitical priests created the story of the tabernacle in order to gain power in their own day. Can you begin to taste the poison?
Famous Example: Documentary Hypothesis
The most widespread proposal used to be the Documentary Hypothesis. Rather than accepting Moses as the main author for the Pentateuch with minor editing after his death, it proposes four separate sources arising over the course of half a millennium:
J – Yahwehist
Originated from southern kingdom of Judah around 850 BC.
E - Elohimist
Arose in the northern kingdom around 750 BC, and refugees brought sources together in Judah during Assyrian exile.
D - Deuteronomist
A product of Josiah’s reforms around 621 BC.
P - Priestly
The latest source, coming from 5th century postexilic context
The D.H. then claims that these 4 sources were later stitched together by editors. If you are confused by this understanding you are not alone — it is confusing! While it may seem strange and foreign to the average church goer in a conservative evangelical church, it is the popular academic understanding. As a new Christian attending a Christian university this is what I was taught in my Old Testament Survey class. It was again what I was taught in my Old Testament Prophetic Literature class – where I learned that Isaiah could not have written Isaiah but rather there are three different Isaiah sources (obviously!).
This critical understanding of the Bible’s composition stems from the post-Enlightenment period, when people like Jean Astruc (1684-1766) and others began searching for evidence of individual sources used to compose the Bible. The problem? They never found them. To date, none of the proposed JEDP sources have been found. This alone should give pause to source critical theories. It also shows how unlike source other historical research source criticism is. The normal historian goes to actual sources and finds real clues to shape their understanding, but the source critic starts with the finished work of the Bible and then proceeds to hypothesize about the sources that formed it (never finding the supposed sources to verify claims).
We should reject source criticism on the grounds that it is plainly against the testimony of Scripture (which attributes authorship to Moses) and it is not actually historical but conjecture. There is no actual evidence these supposed sources ever existed. Also, this way of reading, especially the Old Testament, does not do justice to the Bible. Peter Gentry puts it this way: “We cannot critique ancient, Eastern texts using principles of literary analysis based on modern, Western literature.”
Relating this to the creation account in Genesis:
“The so-called second account of creation, does not, in fact, prove that an editor patched together different sources but rather corresponds well to the normal pattern of Hebrew narrative when an author seeks to consider a topic in a resumptive manner… the approach in ancient Hebrew literature is to take up a topic and develop it from a particular perspective and then to stop and take up the same theme again from another point of view. The effect of repetition – that is, discussion of the same topic from different points of view – is to present well-rounded ideas, 3-D ideas, so to speak. The first creation story (1:1-2:3) gives a global perspective. The second creation story (2:4-3:24) begins by focusing on the creation of man.”
Implications of The Hypothesis
I want us to briefly consider the serious implications of holding to something like the Documentary Hypothesis:
-
This view has no place for Mosaic authorship, which contradicts Scripture itself. The idea that later priests created the tabernacle story promotes historical fiction.
-
The final form and unity of the Bible comes from multiple editors and compilers centuries later, so there are duplicate and conflicting narratives which are not reconciled.
-
This is a natural consequence and related to historical accuracy. There is a tendency to treat these historical narratives as fiction and allegorize them to find morals.
-
Instead of God speaking directly and clearly to man the people of Israel become a religious community that explains their version of events.
Scripture itself claims to be the opposite, a divine revelation from God that clearly communicates who He is and what He expects.
To Conclude
We need not go along with the popular and academic theories of our day concerning the Bible. Later Scripture, indeed Jesus himself, attributes Mosaic authorship to the Pentateuch. It is a reliable document and worthy of our trust. The proofs for this are many, but that is for a different article. We end with this: the short and simple explanation of the authorship of Genesis from our Bible study books is right:
“While (1) the author does not identify himself in Genesis, and (2) Genesis ends almost three centuries before Moses was born, both the Old Testament and the New Testament ascribe this composition to Moses (see, e.g. Exodus 17:14; Numbers 33:2; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Matthew 8:4; Mark 12:26; Luke 16:29; John 5:46). Moses is the fitting author in light of his educational background (see Acts 7:22), and no compelling reasons have been forthcoming to challenge his authorship. Genesis was written after the Exodus (c. 1445 BC) but before Moses’ death (c. 1405 BC).”
Material from:
Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, Source Criticism
Lexham Bible Dictionary