http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=36
Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch--Tried and True
Some time ago, a young lady from a local university visited our offices
at Apologetics Press and asked to talk to someone about a “new theory”
she had been taught in a freshmen literature class. For the first time
in her life, she had been told that Moses could not have been the author
of the first five books of the Old Testament.
“He lived too early in human history to have written it.”
“The Pentateuch contains information Moses could not have known.”
“Many of the details are from a later age and are inappropriately inserted into the book of Genesis.”
“The Pentateuch actually was pieced together by anonymous sources
(commonly called J, E, D, and P) at a fairly late date—long after Moses’
death.”
This impressionable young freshman was extremely disturbed by her
professor’s statements. She was completely taken aback by the things
skeptics and alleged “biblical scholars” had to say about the matter.
Consequently, she began to question what she had learned regarding the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch in her Sunday school classes and at
the Christian school she had attended nearly all of her life.
“Why would I be taught my whole life by teachers and preachers that
Moses wrote Genesis through Deuteronomy, if he really didn’t?”
“Why did I not know about this until now?”
“Does it really matter who wrote Genesis, anyway?”
THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS
The idea that Moses did not write the Pentateuch actually has been
around for more than a millennium. However, until the mid-seventeenth
century, the vast majority of people still maintained that Moses was its
author. It was in the mid-1600s that the Dutch philosopher Benedict
Spinoza began to seriously question this widely held belief (Green,
1978, p. 47; Dillard and Longman, 1994, p. 40). French physician Jean
Astruc developed the original Documentary Hypothesis in 1753, and it
went through many different alterations until Karl Graf revised the
initial hypothesis in the mid-nineteenth century. Julius Wellhausen then
restated Graf’s Documentary Hypothesis and brought it to light in
European and American scholarly circles (see McDowell, 1999, pp.
404-406). It thus has become known to many as the Graf-Wellhausen
Hypothesis.
Since the “Period of Enlightenment,” the Graf-Wellhausen explanation of
the origin of the Pentateuch has been thrust consistently into the
faces of Christians. Liberal scholars teach that the Pentateuch was
compiled from four original “source documents”—designated as J, E, D,
and P. These four documents supposedly were written at different times
by different authors, and eventually were compiled into the Pentateuch
by a redactor (editor). The J, or Jehovahist, document (usually known as
the Yahwehist document) supposedly was written around 850 B.C., and was characterized by its use of the divine name
Yahweh.
Elohim is the divine name that identifies the E, or Elohist, document, purportedly written around 750 B.C. The D, or Deuteronomist, document contained most of the book of Deuteronomy and was supposed to have been written around 620 B.C.
The last section to be written was the P, or Priestly, document, which
would have contained most of the priestly laws, and allegedly was
written around 500 B.C. We are told these documents were then redacted (edited) into one work about 300 years later in 200 B.C. (Morris, 1976, p. 23; McDowell, 1999, p. 406).
It is becoming increasingly popular to believe this theory. For
example, not long ago we at Apologetics Press received an e-mail
“informing” us that “the documentary theory is accepted by almost all
scholarly interpreters.” Numerous commentaries, religious journals, and
Web sites consistently promote it. And many professors who teach
religious courses espouse it. Undoubtedly, it is champion among the
topics discussed in classes on a critical introduction to the Bible. In
most “scholarly” circles, if one does not hold to the Documentary
Hypothesis (or at least some form of it), he is considered fanatical and
uneducated. In his book,
The Darwin Wars, Andrew Brown mentioned
an interview he had with the rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in which Dr. Sacks
defended the proposition that Moses wrote (or dictated) the first five
books of the Bible. Brown’s response was: “That is the most shocking
thing I have ever heard an intellectual say” (1999, p. 167).
Why are people today having such a difficult time believing that Moses
wrote the Pentateuch? Likely, the principal reason is because students
are bombarded with adamant “assurance” statements like the following:
“One of the certain results of modern Bible study has been the
discovery that the first five books of the Old Testament were not
written by Moses” (Gottwald, 1959, p. 103, emp. added).
“It is obvious that the Book of Genesis was not written by a single author” (Rendtorff, 1998, 14[1]:44, emp. added).
“The most determined biblicist can see that there is no way Moses could have written the Torah” (McKinsey, 1995, p. 366, emp. added).
Statements such as these have made their way into thousands of
classrooms. Sadly, before hearing skeptics and liberal scholars present
their ineffectual arguments for such beliefs, students frequently become
so spellbound by the “intellectual” façade and bold affirmations of
certainty that they rarely even consider the evidence at hand.
MOSES AND THE ART OF WRITING
Amazingly, one of the first assumptions upon which this theory rests
was disproved long ago. From the earliest period of the development of
the Documentary Hypothesis, it was assumed that Moses lived in an age
prior to the knowledge of writing. One of the “founding fathers” of this
theory, Julius Wellhausen, was convinced that “[a]ncient Israel was
certainly not without God-given bases for ordering of human life;
only they were not fixed in writing”
(1885, p. 393, emp. added). Just thirteen years later, Hermann Schultz
declared: “Of the legendary character of the pre-Mosaic narrators, the
time of which they treat is a sufficient proof.
It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing” (1898, pp. 25-26, emp. added). One year later, T.K. Cheyne’s
Encyclopedia Biblica was published, in which he contended that the Pentateuch was not written until
almost a thousand years after Moses
(1899, 2:2055). These suppositions most certainly had an impact on
these men’s belief in (and promotion of) the theory that Moses could not
possibly have written the first five books of the Old Testament.
One major problem with the Documentary Hypothesis is that we now know
Moses did not live “prior to all knowledge of writing.” In fact, he
lived
long after the art of writing was already known. A
veritable plethora of archaeological discoveries has proven one of the
earliest assumptions of the Wellhausen theory to be wrong.
1. In 1949, C.F.A. Schaeffer “found a tablet at Ras Shamra containing
the thirty letters of the Ugaritic alphabet in their proper order. It
was discovered that the sequence of the Ugaritic alphabet was the same
as modern Hebrew, revealing that
the Hebrew alphabet goes back at least 3,500 years” (Jackson, 1982, p. 32, emp. added).
2. In 1933, J.L. Starkey, who had studied under famed archaeologist
W.M.F. Petrie, excavated the city of Lachish, which had figured
prominently in Joshua’s conquest of Canaan (Joshua 10). Among other
things, he unearthed a pottery water pitcher “inscribed with a
dedication in eleven archaic letters, the earliest ‘Hebrew’ inscription
known” (Wiseman, 1974, p. 705). According to Charles Pfeiffer,
The Old, or palaeo-Hebrew script is the form of writing which is
similar to that used by the Phoenicians. A royal inscription of King
Shaphatball of Gebal (Byblos) in this alphabet dates from about 1600 B.C. (1966, p. 33).
3. In 1901-1902, the Code of Hammurabi was discovered at the ancient
site of Susa (in what is now Iran) by a French archaeological expedition
under the direction of Jacques de Morgan. It was written on a piece of
black diorite nearly eight feet high, and contained 282 sections. In
their book,
Archaeology and Bible History, Joseph Free and Howard Vos stated:
The Code of Hammurabi was written several hundred years before the time of Moses (c. 1500-1400 B.C.).... This code, from the period 2000-1700 B.C. ,
contains advanced laws similar to those in the Mosaic laws.... In view
of this archaeological evidence, the destructive critic can no longer
insist that the laws of Moses are too advanced for his time (1992, pp.
103,55, emp. added).
The Code of Hammurabi established beyond doubt that writing was known hundreds of years before Moses.
The truth is, numerous archaeological discoveries of the past 100 years
have proven once and for all that the art of writing was known not only
during Moses’ day, but also long before Moses came on the scene.
Although skeptics, liberal theologians, and certain college professors
continue to perpetuate the Documentary Hypothesis, they should be
informed (or reminded) of the fact that
one of the foundational assumptions upon which the theory rests has been completely shattered by archeological evidence.
EVIDENCE FOR THE DOCUMENTARY
HYPOTHESIS—REFUTED
Many of the questions surrounding this theory were answered years ago by the respected scholar J.W. McGarvey. His book,
The Authorship of Deuteronomy,
(first published in 1902) silenced many supporters of the Documentary
Hypothesis. Critics simply could not overcome his ability to detect and
expose the many perversions of their teachings. Over the last century,
however, various critics eventually regained their confidence and began
citing even more “evidence” for their theory. One category of “proof ‘
frequently mentioned by skeptics and liberal scholars is that of
chronological lapses (also called anachronisms). Allegedly, numerous
references found in the Pentateuch are said to be of a later time;
hence, it is impossible for them to be Mosaic. According to Israel
Finkelstein and Neil Silberman in their extremely popular book on
archaeology and the Bible,
The Bible Unearthed, “archaeology has
provided enough evidence to support a new contention that the historical
core of the Pentateuch...was substantially shaped in the seventh
century BCE” (2001, p. 14; BCE stands for Before the Common Era)—about 800 years
after Moses lived. Two years earlier, Stephen Van Eck wrote in the
Skeptical Review:
“[T]he best evidence against the Mosaic authorship is contained in the
Pentateuch itself,” which “contains anachronistic references impossible
to be the work of Moses” (1999, p. 2). Thus, allegedly, “at the very
least, we can conclude that many elements in the patriarchal narratives
are unhistorical” (Tobin, 2000).
Just what are these “anachronistic references” that are “impossible to
be the work of Moses”? And are there reasonable explanations for them
being in the Pentateuch? What can be said about the alleged
chronological lapses that have led many to believe the stories of the
Bible are unhistorical?
NO KING IN ISRAEL...YET
For most people, the 36
th chapter of Genesis is “unfamiliar territory.” It is known more for being the chapter
after Genesis 35 (in which details are given about Jacob’s name being changed to Israel) and
before
chapter 37 (where one reads about Joseph’s brothers selling him into
slavery). Nowhere does Genesis 36 record the names of such patriarchs as
Abraham, Isaac, or Joseph. (And Jacob is mentioned just once.) Nor are
there any memorable stories from this portion of Genesis—of the kind
that we learned in our youth. Perhaps the least-studied chapter in the
first book of the Bible is Genesis 36—the genealogy of Esau.
Surprisingly, to some, this often-overlooked chapter contains one of
the more controversial phrases in the book. Genesis 36:31 states: “And
these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel”
(emp. added). According to skeptics and liberal theologians, the
notation “before there reigned any king over the children of Israel”
points to the days of the monarchs. Dennis McKinsey declared in his
book,
Biblical Errancy:
This passage could only have been written after the first king began to
reign. ...It had to have been written after Saul became king, while
Moses, the alleged author, lived long before Saul (2000, p. 521).
Paul Tobin also indicated that this portion of the Bible “must
therefore have been written, at the very earliest, after the first
Jewish King, Saul, began to rule over the Israelites which was around
three centuries after the death of Moses” (2000). Tobin went on to ask
(a question he feels cannot possibly be answered): “Now how could Moses
have known that there would be kings that reigned over the Israelites?”
There are two logical reasons why Moses could mention future Israelite
kingship. First, Moses knew about the explicit promises God had made
both to Abraham and Jacob concerning the future kings of Israel. On one
occasion, God informed Abraham and Sarah that many kings would be among
their posterity. He promised Abraham saying, “And I will bless her
[Sarah—EL], and moreover I will give thee a son of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations;
kings of peoples shall be of her”
(Genesis 17:16, emp. added). Years later (and just one chapter before
the verse in question), when God appeared to Jacob at Bethel and changed
his name to Israel, He said: “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and
multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and
kings shall come out of thy loins” (Genesis 35:11, emp. added). The fact that Genesis 36:31 reads, “And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,” does not mean this account must have been written by someone who lived
after the monarchy was introduced to Israel. Rather, this statement was written with the
promise
in mind that various kings would come out of the loins of Abraham and
Jacob, and merely conveys the notion that Edom became a kingdom at an
earlier time than Israel. Keil and Delitzsch remarked: “Such a thought
was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, that
Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his
[Jacob’s—EL] own family, was a hope handed down
to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted
to foster” (1996). Furthermore, the placement of this parenthetical
clause (“before any king reigned over the children of Israel”) in 36:31
was exceedingly natural on the part of the sacred historian, who,
having but a few verses before (Gen 35:11) put on record the divine
promise to Jacob that “kings should come out of his loins,” was led to
remark [discuss—EL] the national prosperity and
regal establishment of the Edomites long before the organization of a
similar order of things in Israel. He could not help indulging such a
reflection, when he contrasted the posterity of Esau with those of Jacob
from the standpoint of the promise (Gen 25:23) [Jamieson, et al.,
1997].
A second reason Moses is justified in having knowledge of Israelite
kingship before it was known experientially is because Moses was
inspired (John 5:46; Mark 12:26; cf. Exodus 20:1; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2
Peter 1:20-21). For someone to say that the author of Genesis could not
have been Moses, because the author spoke generally of Israelite kings
prior to their existence, totally ignores the fact that Moses received
special revelation from Heaven. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than
in the passage found in Deuteronomy 17:14-15. Here, Moses prophetically
stated:
When thou art come unto the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, and
shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, “I will set a
king over me, like all the nations that are round about me;” thou shalt surely set him king over thee, whom Jehovah thy God shall choose:
one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest
not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother (emp. added).
Under normal circumstances, such foreknowledge would be impossible. One
must keep in mind, however, that “with God all things are possible”
(Matthew 19:26)—and God was with Moses (cf. Exodus 3:12; 6:2; 25:22).
Were the Christian to claim that Moses wrote Genesis without being
inspired or without having knowledge of the earlier promises made to
Abraham and Jacob about the future kingship of Israel, the critic would
be correct in concluding that Genesis 36:31 is anachronistic. But, the
truth is, a Christian’s faith is based on the evidences which prove that
the Bible writers possessed access to supernatural revelation. Thus,
Moses’ superior knowledge is not a problem. Rather, it is to be
expected.
CAMELS BEARING A HEAVY LOAD
Arguably, the most widely alleged anachronisms used in support of the
idea that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible
are the accounts of the early patriarchs possessing camels. The word
“camel(s)” appears twenty-three times in twenty-one verses in the book
of Genesis. The first book of the Bible declares that camels existed in
Egypt during the time of Abraham (12:14-17), in Palestine in the days
Isaac (24:63), in Padan Aram while Jacob was employed by Laban (30:43),
and were owned by the Midianites during the time when Joseph was sold
into Egyptian slavery (37:25,36). Make no mistake about it—the book of
beginnings clearly teaches that camels had been domesticated since at
least the time of Abraham.
According to skeptics, and a growing number of “biblical scholars,”
however, the fact that Moses wrote about camels being domesticated in
the time of Abraham directly contradicts the archaeological evidence.
Over one hundred years ago, T.K. Cheyne wrote: “The assertion that the
ancient Egyptians knew of the camel is unfounded” (1899, 1:634). In
Norman Gottwald’s defense of the Documentary Hypothesis, he cited the
mention of camels in Genesis as one of the main “indications that the
standpoint of the writer was later than the age of Moses” (1959, p.
104). More recently, Finkelstein and Silberman confidently asserted:
We now know through archaeological research that camels were not domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millennium and were not widely used in that capacity in the ancient Near East until well after 1000 BCE (2001, p. 37, emp. added).
By way of summary, then, what the Bible believer has been told is:
“[T]ame camels were simply unknown during Abraham’s time” (Tobin, 2000).
While these claims have been made repeatedly over the last century, the
truth of the matter is that skeptics and liberal theologians are unable
to cite one piece of solid archaeological evidence in support of their
claims. As Randall Younker of Andrews University stated in March 2000
while delivering a speech in the Dominican Republic: “Clearly, scholars
who have denied the presence of domesticated camels in the 2
nd millennium BC
have been committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. This approach
should not be allowed to cast doubt upon the veracity of any historical
document, let alone Scripture” (2000). The burden of proof actually
should be upon skeptics to show that camels were not domesticated until
well after the time of the patriarchs. Instead, they assure their
listeners of the camel’s absence in Abraham’s day—without one shred of
archaeological evidence. [Remember, for many years they also argued that
writing was unknown during the time of Moses—a conclusion based
entirely on “silence.” Now, however, they have recanted that idea,
because evidence has been found to the contrary.]
What makes their claims even more disturbing is that several pieces of
evidence do exist (and have existed for some time) that prove camels
were domesticated during (and even before) the time of Abraham
(approximately 2,000 B.C.). In an article that appeared in the
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
a half-century ago, professor Joseph Free listed several instances of
Egyptian archaeological finds supporting the domestication of camels. [NOTE:
The dates given for the Egyptian dynasties are from Clayton, 2001, pp.
14-68]. The earliest evidence comes from a pottery camel’s head and a
terra cotta tablet with men riding on and leading camels. According to
Free, these are both from predynastic Egypt (1944, pp. 189-190), which
according to Clayton is roughly before 3150 B.C.
Free also lists three clay camel heads and a limestone vessel in the
form of a camel lying down—all dated during the First Dynasty of Egypt
(3050-2890 B.C.). He then mentions several models of camels from the Fourth Dynasty (2613-2498 B.C.), and a petroglyph depicting a camel and a man dated at the Sixth Dynasty (2345-2184 B.C.).
Such evidence has led one respected Egyptologist to conclude that “the
extant evidence clearly indicates that the domestic camel was known [in
Egypt—EL] by 3,000 B.C.”—long before Abraham’s time (Kitchen, 1980, 1:228).
Perhaps the most convincing find in support of the early domestication
of camels in Egypt is a rope made of camel’s hair found in the Fayum (an
oasis area southwest of modern-day Cairo). The two-strand twist of
hair, measuring a little over three feet long, was found in the late
1920s, and was sent to the Natural History Museum, where it was analyzed
and compared to the hair of several different animals. After extensive
testing, it was determined to be camel hair, dated (by analyzing the
layer in which it was found) to the Third or Fourth Egyptian Dynasty
(2686-2498 B.C.). In his article, Free also listed several other discoveries from around 2,000 B.C. and later, each of which showed camels as domestic animals (1944, pp. 189-190).
While prolific in Egypt, finds relating to the domestication of camels are not limited to the African continent. In his book,
Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, Kenneth Kitchen, professor emeritus at the University of Liverpool, reported several discoveries
made outside of Egypt, proving that ancient camel domestication existed around 2,000 B.C.
Lexical lists from Mesopotamia have been uncovered that show a
knowledge of domesticated camels as far back as that time. Camel bones
have been found in household ruins at Mari in present-day Syria that
fossilologists believe are also at least 4,000 years old. Furthermore, a
Sumerian text from the time of Abraham has been discovered in the
ancient city of Nippur (located in what is now southeastern Iraq) that
clearly implies the domestication of camels by its allusions to camels’
milk (Kitchen, 1966, p. 79).
All of these documented finds support the domestication of camels in
Egypt many years before the time of Abraham. Yet, as Younker so well
stated, skeptics refuse to acknowledge any of this evidence.
It is interesting to note how, once an idea gets into the literature,
it can become entrenched in conventional scholarly thinking. I remember
doing research on the ancient site of Hama in Syria. As I was reading
through the excavation reports (published in French), I came across a
reference to a figurine from the 2nd
millennium which the excavator thought must be a horse, but the strange
hump in the middle of its back made one think of a camel. I looked at
the photograph and the figurine was obviously that of a camel! The
scholar was so influenced by the idea that camels were not used until
the 1st millennium, that when he found
a figurine of one in the second millennium, he felt compelled to call
it a horse! This is a classic example of circular reasoning (2000,
parenthetical comment in orig.).
Finds relating to the domestication of camels are not as prevalent in the second millennium B.C.
as they are in the first millennium. This does not make the skeptics’
case any stronger, however. Just because camels were not as widely used
during Abraham’s time as they were later, does not mean that they were
entirely undomesticated. As Free commented:
Many who have rejected this reference to Abraham’s camels seem to have assumed something which the text does not state. It
should be carefully noted that the biblical reference does not
necessarily indicate that the camel was common in Egypt at that time,
nor does it evidence that the Egyptians had made any great progress in
the breeding and domestication of camels. It merely says that Abraham
had camels (1944, p. 191, emp. added).
Similarly, Younker noted:
This is not to say that domesticated camels were abundant and widely
used everywhere in the ancient Near East in the early second millennium.
However, the patriarchal narratives do not necessarily require large
numbers of camels.... The smaller amount of evidence for domestic camels
in the late third and early second millennium B.C., especially in Palestine, is in accordance with this more restricted use (1997, 42:52).
Even without the above-mentioned archaeological finds (which to the
unbiased examiner prove that camels were domesticated in the time of
Abraham), it only seems reasonable to conclude that because wild camels
have been known since the Creation, “there is no credible reason why
such an indispensable animal in desert and semi-arid lands should not
have been sporadically domesticated in patriarchal times and even
earlier” (see “Animal Kingdom,” 1988). The truth is, all of the
available evidence points to one conclusion—the limited use of
domesticated camels during and before the time of Abraham. The supposed
“anachronism” of domesticated camels during the time of the patriarchs
is, in fact, an actual historical reference to the use of these animals
at that time. Those who reject this conclusion cannot offer a single
piece of solid archaeological evidence on behalf of their theory. They
simply argue from the “silence” of archaeology...which is silent no
more!
MOSES’ KNOWLEDGE OF GATES
A further “proof” against Mosaic authorship is the continuous mention of gates throughout the Pentateuch. As McKinsey wrote:
Deut. 15:22 says, “Thou shalt eat it within thy gates.” The phrase
“within thy gates” occurs in the Pentateuch about twenty-five times and
refers to the gates of Palestinian cities, which the Israelites did not
inhabit until after the death of Moses (1995, p. 363, emp. in orig.).
In making this statement, however, Mr. McKinsey commits a gross error
by assuming that the passage is referring solely to the “gates of
Palestinian cities.” Moreover, what skeptics like McKinsey fail to
mention is the fact that “gate” does not necessarily mean the large
doors in the walls of fortified cities. Sometimes, gates are used to
represent entrances into areas of dwelling, as in Exodus 32:26: “Then
Moses stood
in the gate of the camp, and said, ‘Whoso is on
Jehovah’s side, (let him come) unto me.’ And all the sons of Levi
gathered themselves together unto him” (emp. added). Would anyone
suppose that the Israelites built walls and gates around their
Bedouin-style tent cities? Of course not. Therefore, “gate” can mean the
entrance to a city—of tents. In fact, the Hebrew word for gate (
ša‘ar) is translated as “entrance” ten times in the NIV. And in the NKJV,
ša‘ar is translated as “entrance” in Exodus 32:36.
Giving Dennis McKinsey the benefit of the doubt (that the term “gates”
refers to the Palestinian cities), Moses could have been referring to
the cities that the Israelites would capture in the future. Since he was
inspired while writing the Pentateuch (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter
1:20-21), this knowledge could have been the result of that inspiration,
similar to the knowledge that Israel one day would have a king. Either
way, the mention of “gates” in the Pentateuch is not anachronistic.
PHILISTINES IN THE TIME OF
ABRAHAM—FALLACY OR FACT?
The Bible declares that long before King David defeated the Philistine
giant named Goliath in the valley of Elah (1 Samuel 17), Abraham and
Isaac had occasional contact with a people known as the Philistines. In
fact, seven of the eight times that the Philistines are mentioned in
Genesis, they are discussed in connection with either Abraham’s visit
with Abimelech, king of the Philistines (21:32,34), or with Isaac’s
visit to the same city (Gerar) a few years later (26:1,8,14-15,18). For
some time now, critics of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch have
considered the mention of the Philistines—so early in human history—to
be inappropriately inserted into the patriarchal account. Supposedly,
“Philistines...did not come into Palestine until
after the time
of Moses” (Gottwald, 1959, p. 104, emp. added), and any mention of them
before that time represents a “historical inaccuracy” (Frank, 1964, p.
323). Thus, as Millar Burrows concluded, the mention of Philistines in
Genesis may be considered “a convenient and harmless anachronism,” which
“is undoubtedly a mistake” (1941, p. 277).
As with most allegations brought against the Scriptures, those who
claim the Philistine nation was not around in Abraham’s day are basing
their conclusion on at least one unprovable assumption—namely, that the
Philistines living in the days of the patriarchs were a great nation,
similar to the one living during the time of the United Kingdom. The
evidence suggests, however, that this assumption is wrong. The Bible
does not present the Philistines of Abraham’s day as the same mighty
Philistine nation that would arise hundreds of years later. Abimelech,
the king of Gerar, is portrayed as being intimidated by Abraham (cf.
Genesis 21:25). Surely, had the Philistine people been a great nation in
the time of the patriarchs, they would not have been afraid of one man
(Abraham) and a few hundred servants (cf. Genesis 14:14). Furthermore,
of the five great Philistine city-states that were so prominent
throughout the period of the Judges and the United Kingdom (Ashdod,
Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza—Joshua 13:3; 1 Samuel 6:17), none was
mentioned. Rather, only a small village known as Gerar was named. To
assume that the Bible presents the entire civilization of the
Philistines as being present during Abraham’s day is to err. In reality,
one reads only of a small Philistine kingdom.
The word “Philistine” was a somewhat generic term that meant “sea
people.” No doubt, some of the Aegean sea people made their way to
Palestine long before a later migration took place—one that was
considerably larger. In commenting on these Philistines, Larry Richards
observed:
While there is general agreement that massive settlement of the coast
of Canaan by sea peoples from Crete took place around 1200 B.C.,
there is no reason to suppose Philistine settlements did not exist long
before this time. In Abram’s time as in the time of Moses a variety of
peoples had settled in Canaan, including Hittites from the far north.
Certainly the seagoing peoples who traded the Mediterranean had
established colonies along the shores of the entire basin for centuries
prior to Abraham’s time. There is no reason to suppose that the
Philistines, whose forefathers came from Crete, were not among them
(1993, p. 40).
No archaeological evidence exists that denies various groups of “sea
people” were in Canaan long before the arrival of the main body in the
early twelfth century B.C. (see Unger, 1954, p.
91; Archer, 1964, p. 266; Harrison, 1963, p. 32). To assume that not a
single group of Philistines lived in Palestine during the time of
Abraham because archaeology has not documented them until about 1190 B.C.
is to argue from negative evidence, and is without substantial weight.
In response to those who would deny the Philistines’ existence based
upon their silence in the archeological world before this time,
professor Kitchen stated:
Inscriptionally, we know so little about the Aegean peoples as compared
with those of the rest of the Ancient Near East in the second
millennium B.C., that it is premature to deny outright the possible existence of Philistines in the Aegean area before 1200 B.C. (1966, p. 80n).
Likely, successive waves of sea peoples from the Aegean Sea migrated to
Canaan, even as early as Abraham’s time, and continued coming until the
massive movement in the twelfth century B.C. (Archer, 1970, 127:18).
Based on past experiences, one might think that critics of the Bible’s
inerrancy would learn to refrain from making accusations when arguing
from silence. For years, modernists and skeptics taught that the Hittite
kingdom, which is mentioned over forty times in Scripture (Exodus
23:28; Joshua 1:4; et al.), was a figment of the Bible writers’
imaginations, since no evidence of the Hittite’s existence had been
located. But those utterances vanished into thin air when, in 1906, the
Hittite capital was discovered, along with more than 10,000 clay tablets
that contained the Hittite’s law system. Critics of the Bible’s claim
of divine inspiration at one time also accused Luke of gross inaccuracy
because he used the title
politarchas to denote the city officials of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6,8), rather than the more common terms
strateegoi (magistrates) and
exousiais (authorities). To support their accusations, they pointed out that the term
politarch
is found nowhere else in all of Greek literature as an official title.
Once again, these charges eventually were dropped, based on the fact
that the term
politarchas has now been found in 32 inscriptions from the second century B.C. to the third century A.D.
(Bruce, 1988, p. 324n), with at least five of these inscriptions
originating from Thessalonica—the very city about which Luke wrote in
Acts 17 (Robertson, 1997).
Although critics accuse biblical writers of revealing erroneous
information, their claims continue to evaporate with the passing of time
and the compilation of evidence.
DOES IT REALLY MATTER
WHO WROTE THE PENTATEUCH?
To some, the question of whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch is a
trivial matter—one of secondary importance. After all, we do not
consider it an absolute necessity to know whom God inspired to write the
book of Job or the epistle of Hebrews. We do not draw lines of
fellowship over who wrote 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Why,
then, should the discussion of who penned the first five books of the
Bible be any different?
The difference is that the Bible is filled with references attributing these books to Moses! Within the Pentateuch itself, one can read numerous times how Moses wrote the law of God.
“Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah” (Exodus 24:4).
“Jehovah said unto Moses, ‘Write thou these words...’ ” (Exodus 34:27).
“Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Jehovah” (Numbers 33:2).
“Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto the priests...” (Deuteronomy 31:9).
Bible writers throughout the Old Testament credited Moses with writing
the Pentateuch (also known as the Torah or “the Law”). A plain statement
of this commonly held conviction is expressed in Joshua 8:32: “There,
in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones
the law of Moses, which he [Moses—EL]
had written” (NIV, emp. added). Notice also that 2 Chronicles 34:14 states: “Hilkiah the priest found
the Book of the law of Jehovah
given by Moses” (emp. added; cf. Ezra 3:2; 6:18, Nehemiah 13:1, and Malachi 4:4). As Josh McDowell noted in his book,
More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, these verses “refer to an actual written ‘law of Moses,’ not simply an oral tradition” (1975, pp. 93-94). [NOTE:
The Hebrew Bible was not divided like our modern English Old Testament.
It consisted of three divisions: the Law, the Prophets, and the
Writings (cf. Luke 24:44). It contained the same “books” we have today;
it was just divided differently. Genesis through Deuteronomy was
considered one unit, and thus frequently was called “the Law” or “the
Book” (2 Chronicles 25:4; cf. Mark 12:26). Even a casual perusal of its
individual components will confirm that each book presupposes the one
that precedes it. Without Genesis, Exodus reads like a book begun
midway; without Exodus, Leviticus is a mystery; and so on. They were not
intended to be five separate volumes in a common category, but rather,
are five divisions of the same book. Hence, the singular references:
“the Law” or “the Book.”]
The New Testament writers also showed no hesitation in affirming that
Moses wrote the Pentateuch. John wrote: “The law was given through
Moses” (John 1:17). Luke recorded of the resurrected Jesus: “And
beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them [His
disciples—EL] in all the scriptures the things
concerning himself ‘ (Luke 24:27). Referring to the Jewish practice of
publicly reading the Law, James affirmed Mosaic authorship: “For Moses
from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being
read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21). With this Paul
concurred, saying, “For
Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them’ ” (Romans 10:5, NKJV,
emp. added; cf. Leviticus 18:5). In 2 Corinthians 3:15, Paul also
wrote: “Moses is read.” The phrase “Moses is read” is a clear example of
the figure of speech known as metonymy (where one thing is put for
another) [see Dungan, 1888, pp. 273-275]. Today, we may ask if someone
has read Shakespeare, Homer, or Virgil, by which we mean to ask if he or
she has read the
writings of these men. In the story of the rich
man and Lazarus, one reads where Abraham spoke to the rich man
concerning his five brothers saying, “They have Moses and the prophets;
let them hear them” (Luke 16:29). Were Moses and the Old Testament
prophets still on Earth in the first century? No. The meaning is that
the rich man’s brothers had
the writings of Moses and the prophets.
Furthermore, both Jesus’ disciples and His enemies recognized and
accepted the books of Moses. After Philip was called to follow Jesus, he
found his brother Nathanael and said: “We have found Him of whom
Moses in the law, and also the prophets,
wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45, NKJV, emp. added). Notice also that New Testament Sadducees considered Moses as the author, saying, “Teacher,
Moses wrote unto us,
if a man’s brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no
child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his
brother” (Mark 12:19, emp. added; cf. Deuteronomy 25:5).
A final reason that one must defend the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch, instead of sitting by idly and claiming that “it doesn’t
really matter who wrote it,” is because
Jesus Himself acknowledged that “the Law” came from Moses.
In Mark 7:10, Jesus quoted from both Exodus 20 and 21, attributing the
words to Moses. Mark likewise recorded a conversation Jesus had with the
Pharisees regarding what “Moses permitted” and “wrote” in Deuteronomy
chapter 24 (Mark 10:3-5; cf. Matthew 19:8). Later, we see where Jesus
asked the Sadducees, “Have you not read
in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the bush, how
God spake unto him,
saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob’?” (Mark 12:26, emp. added). But, perhaps the most convincing
passage of all can be found in John 5:46-47, where Jesus stated: “For if
ye believed
Moses, ye would believe me; for he
wrote of me. But if ye believe not
his writings,
how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47, emp. added; cf.
Deuteronomy 18:15-18). The truth is, by claiming that Moses did not
write the books of the Pentateuch, one essentially is claiming that
Jesus was mistaken. M.R. DeHaan expounded upon this problem in his book,
Genesis and Evolution:
Prove that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch and you
prove that Jesus was totally mistaken and not the infallible Son of God
he claimed to be. Upon your faith in Moses as the writer of the five
books attributed to him rests also your faith in Jesus as the Son of
God. You cannot believe in Jesus Christ without believing what Moses
wrote. You see, there is much more involved in denying the books of
Moses than most people suppose (1978, p. 41).
Indeed, believing Moses wrote the Pentateuch is
very important.
It is not a trivial issue we should treat frivolously while suggesting
that “it really doesn’t matter.” It matters because the deity of Christ
and the integrity of the Bible writers are at stake!
REFERENCES
“Animal Kingdom” (1988),
The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), orig. published by Moody Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Archer, Gleason (1964),
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Archer, Gleason L. (1970), “Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham to Moses,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, 127:3-25, January.
Brown, Andrew (1999),
The Darwin Wars (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Bruce, F.F. (1988),
The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.
Burrows, Millar (1941),
What Mean These Stones? (New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research).
Cheyne, T.K. (1899),
Encyclopedia Biblica (London: A & C Black).
Clayton, Peter A. (2001),
Chronicle of the Pharaohs (London: Thames & Hudson).
DeHaan, M.R. (1978),
Genesis and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Dillard, Raymond B. and Tremper Longman III (1994),
An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Dungan, D.R. (no date),
Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001),
The Bible Unearthed (New York: Free Press).
Frank, H.T. (1964),
An Archaeological Companion to the Bible (London: SCM Press).
Free, Joseph P. (1944), “Abraham’s Camels,”
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 3:187-193, July.
Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992),
Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gottwald, Norman (1959),
A Light to the Nations (New York: Harper and Row).
Green, William Henry (1978),
The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Harrison, R.K. (1963),
The Archaeology of the Old Testament (New York: Harper and Row).
Jackson, Wayne (1982),
Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997),
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996),
Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.
Kitchen, K.A. (1966),
Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Kitchen, K.A. (1980),
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale).
McDowell, Josh (1975),
More Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ).
McDowell, Josh (1999),
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville, TN: Nelson).
McGarvey, J.W. (1902),
The Authorship of Deuteronomy (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995),
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000),
Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Morris, Henry M. (1976),
The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1966),
The Biblical World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Rendtorff, Rolf (1998), “What We Miss by Taking the Bible Apart,”
Bible Review, 14[1]:42-44, February.
Richards, Larry (1993),
735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).
Robertson, A.T. (1997),
Word Pictures in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Schultz, Hermann (1898),
Old Testament Theology, transl. from fourth edition by H.A. Patterson (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark).
Tobin, Paul N. (2000), “Mythological Elements in the Story of Abraham and the Patriachal [sic] Narratives,”
The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager [On-line], URL: http://www.geocit ies.com/paulntobin/abraham.html.
Unger, Merrill (1954),
Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Van Eck, Stephen (1999), “The Pentateuch: Not Wholly Moses or Even Partially,”
Skeptical Review, 10:2-3,16, September/October.
Wellhausen, Julius (1885),
Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black), translated by Black and Menzies.
Wiseman, D.J. (1974),
The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Younker, Randall W. (1997), “Late Bronze Age Camel Petroglyphs in the Wadi Nasib, Sinai,”
Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin, 42:47-54.
Younker, Randall W. (2000), “The Bible and Archaeology,”
The Symposium on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship, [On-line], URL: http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_26B/26Bc_457-477.htm.
he
entertainment industry is a multi-billion dollar business. It would be
difficult to measure the impact on society of the seemingly limitless
forms of entertainment. More Americans voted in the 2009 American Idol
contest than have voted for any U.S. President (Bella, 2009; “2008
Official…,” 2009). The time and money spent on making, marketing, and
viewing movies and television programs is staggering. Prior to the baby
boomer generation, forms of amusement in American society were tempered
and significantly curtailed—by design. The WW2 generation spent very
little time and money on diversion, recreation, and “playing.” And it
wasn’t just that they did not have the financial resources; they
believed that their time and money were better spent on more meaningful,
worthwhile pursuits. But with the arrival of the “party generation”
(and the two generations since), devotion to amusement and entertainment
has escalated, and that devotion now literally dominates life in
America.