Liberal scholarship on the Tenakh subscribes to something called the JEDP theory, or Documentary Hypothesis.
JEDP refers to the idea that the Torah, the Law of Moses, wasn’t composed by Moses, but rather, was the result of thousands of edits over several centuries, merging and harmonizing independent sources: the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly sources.
This form of higher criticism suggests the the Torah didn’t reach it’s final form until about 450 BCE.
This idea can be shocking to a lot of believers. Most conservative bible scholars categorically reject this idea, seeing as how it undermines the reliability of Scripture.
How does it undermine the reliability of the Scriptures?
By claiming some books have been heavily edited and are therefore less reliable. “Oh, Leviticus should be taken with a grain of salt, seeing how it wasn’t formed until long after Genesis, having undergone many redactions to harmonize it with the other books!”
Another example is how the theory claims the “book of Torah” King Josiah discovered in 1 Kings was actually a new book, written by one of the JEDP sources, which didn’t get merged in until later, thus rendering the record of the historical books of the Tenakh unreliable.
Additionally, the words of Yeshua and the disciples are undermined, as they understood Moses to be the principal author of the Torah, e.g. “Moses wrote to you saying…”, “…on Moses, whom you have set your hope”, etc.
The idea that the Torah was the result of 500+ years of redactions and harmonizing generally doesn’t inspire confidence in the reliability of God’s word.
In the following video. Messianic scholar J.K. McKee explains this theory and why it’s important for you, the regular Messianic folk, to be aware of this view and understand it, that you can give an adequate answer to those criticizing the Scriptures.
The Documentary Hypothesis has many variations.
ReplyDeleteBut I'd like to encourage people not to accept a simplistic view of the Torah's composition either (such as "Moses wrote all of it down" or even "Moses wrote 80% of it down."
Any realistic theory has to contend with a number of issues:
(1) Anachronisms like the word "Philistines" or describing Abraham in Gen 14 going as far as Dan.
(2) Phrases such as "as it is to this day."
(3) Numbers such as thew population of Israelites that can only be considered realistic if you have not looked into the matter at all (towns like Jericho could fit a few hundred soldiers max, so why would 600,000 Israelite males worry at all).
A realistic view of the Torah's composition can assume a legitimate core of Mosaic writing (possibly in a major sense, such as not only writing legal codes, but also compiling Genesis or possibly a smaller role for Moses as the originator of the legal codes).
Sorry for the many typos in that last comment.
ReplyDeleteI know my comment will stir some controversy. I think, though, that people who find this controversial have not looked deeply into the matter.
As evidence, I'd be interested in people pointing out any commentators they can find (preferably from the last 100 years) who would say, "Moses wrote it all down" or even "Moses wrote 80% of it down."
Captcha says "prove" :-)
Definitely. If you watch McKee's video, he is arguing for principal Mosaic authorship.
ReplyDeleteI don't know any serious scholars who argue Moses wrote 100% of the thing.
My own personal views of the composition of the Pentateuch lean most closely to scholars like R.K. Harrison and K.A. Kitchen. Yes, I am "conservative," but I would not consider myself impossibly or rigidly so.
ReplyDeleteIn this week's Exodus lecture I demonstrate a personal favorability toward a Thirteenth Century Exodus. When we get to Numbers in the next few weeks I will argue the total population of Israel in the hundreds of thousands, and not 2-3 million.
J.K.:
ReplyDeleteSounds reasonable.
I'd put the number (men, women, and children) in the 20,000 range.
Blessings and peace.
Judah,
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone would actually make the argument “Oh, Leviticus should be taken with a grain of salt, seeing how it wasn’t formed until long after Genesis, having undergone many redactions to harmonize it with the other books!” Who would both think that DH is the best model for the composition of the Torah and think that "oldest = best"?
There's no reason to think that the word 'torah' in the Hebrew Bible refers to The Torah (TM) that we know today. Deutoronomy is the only book of the Pentateuch that talks about itself as 'this scroll of instruction' (torah), and 2 Kings talks about Josiah finding 'the scroll of instruction'. Put 2 and 2 together and...?
Jesus also thought that Noah's flood actually happened and that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds. Who cares? He lived in the first century CE, and they believed those things then.
"The idea that the Torah was the result of 500+ years of redactions and harmonizing generally doesn’t inspire confidence in the reliability of God’s word."
This sort of logic leads to people learning biology and becoming atheists.
Also, "criticism" has two meanings: negativity and analysis. The "criticism" in higher criticism just means "analysis".
Atonio,
ReplyDeleteYou talk about our beliefs leading people to become atheists. But didn't you just reject Yeshua yourself not a few weeks ago?
When Yeshua has spoken, I give it authority. (And yes, I believe the New Testament is a reliable witness to Yeshua's words.) I don't write it off as, "Oh, they believed those silly things back then." Maybe we are the silly ones for assuming we're wiser and more knowledgable than all other generations.
It really doesn't matter how much ancient redaction played a part in the development of the Torah. If God could inspire one hand to write His Word, He could also work through a committee... With men this is not possible, with God, all things are possible. The real question is not how it was constructed, but in the end, is it authoritative? Is it God's word? for me.. it is.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what I'm trying to find out, Dr. Schiffman.
ReplyDeleteSomething which definitely needs to be kept in mind are some of the shifts that have occurred within the critical tradition itself. Up until the 1930s and 40s, it was quite common to see liberal commentaries on the Torah spend more time trying to divide it up into sources, than actually interpret the text.
ReplyDeleteThis proved to be quite frustrating, because even if source critics think the Pentateuch is the result of JEDP, they still have to deal with the text in its final, canonical form. Liberal preachers still must "preach"! Thankfully, most of the liberal commentaries on the market today do this, with the documentary hypothesis present but not overwhelmingly so. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Conext by Brevard Childs is a good read if you want to get familiar with how this transition has occurred among critical proponents.
Actually Judah, relative to your comments to Antonio, I have nothing but compassion for his situation since I too am struggling with issues of faith (as recorded "you know where") and am trying to answer questions that don't have pat, neatly packaged, answers.
ReplyDeleteThe "Lev Echad" blog's subtitle (which I published in one of my own blog posts) seems an important guide to how we should be treating each other, especially when we don't agree:
Jewish unity is possible - really! It begins with acting decently toward one another, it follows with tolerating others as they pursue lives of goodness; it culminates with many different Jews, but just one heart.
While we have different viewpoints on matters of theology and faith, I believe we are all pursuing lives of goodness and thus should act decently toward one another...tolerating each other rather than being condemning.
No, I'm not giving you a hard time Judah, but as I consider my own situation, I know I'm not in a position to be "casting stones" at other people. I'm becoming increasingly diminished as I realize the true and immense vastness of the journey of faith that lies before me.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100%!!
At the end of the Torah reading, I mean it when I point and say that this is the Torah written by the hand of Moses. Apparently Yeshua did too (John 5:46-47).
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that BE claims the value of rabbinic tradition, and still succumbs to liberal "scholarship" regarding something so fundamental (and traditional) as the authorship of the thing they claim to revere and follow.
Shabbat Shalom
B"H
"It is interesting that BE claims the value of rabbinic tradition, and still succumbs to liberal "scholarship" regarding something so fundamental (and traditional) as the authorship of the thing they claim to revere and follow."
ReplyDeleteRick, I have no problem holding fast to the fact that Moses composed all five books of Torah and was its primary author, while allowing for future additions done in the "name of Moses". For those who really know Jewish traditions also know Talmud itself is replete with statements done in the name of other, already departed sages....for example:
"Said Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Chanina: "Torah scholars increase peace in the world.' "
"Rabbi Simeon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Simeon: He is not culpable unless he writes there the name [of a god], for it is written, 'Or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the L-rd'"
"The Meam Loez, in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, says that the Messiah will come from Safed on his way to Jerusalem."
'Nough said... Gut Shabbos
For those who really know Jewish traditions also know Talmud itself is replete with statements done in the name of other
ReplyDeleteYes, as a student of the Talmud, I also know the lack of ambiguity in the Talmud. Attribution is a key element in Jewish tradition. We see things specifically cited "in the name of" (not anynomously) or as an anonymously cited baraitot. Nowhere do we see the Sages undoing attributing statements as Documentary Hypothesis does.
Jewish tradition, indeed Scripture itself, gives no quarter the notion that Moses did not write the Torah. Our Sages even feel uncomfortable with the notion that Joshua could have penned the last verses.
So how is it that BE gets to pick and choose what parts of "Jewish tradition" it wants to adhere to? Just because the single authorship of the Torah does not wash with liberal conclusions, that tradition (in fact, the Scriptural position) is set aside. It makes some of us go, "hmmm."
Shabbat Shalom
B"H
"Jewish tradition, indeed Scripture itself, gives no quarter the notion that Moses did not write the Torah. "
ReplyDeleteWho said that Moses "did not write the Torah?" The argument goes that he may not have written every single part of it before he died and some parts may have been edited/amended later. But it was Moses' book!
But before you cast stones at other, both Torah and NT are quite clear that Gentiles are not obligated to Mosaic Law, the majority of the Jewish sages and Christian scholars hold that to be a self-evident truth, and yet YOU (being OL/One-Law) somehow wrest from the scriptures that both the Jewish and the Christian scholars got it wrong when it comes to Torah and Gentiles.
@Gene, you make too many assumptions about me. But nice redirect. Time for Kabbalat Shabbat.
ReplyDeleteShabbat Shalom
B"H
"Anonymous" was me. Fat fingers.
ReplyDeleteB"H
Derek >> "I'd put the number (men, women, and children) in the 20,000 range."
ReplyDelete: Then how do you explain the census of Levite males and Israelite firstborn males in the 22,000 range in Numbers 3?
-- Maureen
The debate over the numbers of the Exodus generation comes down to how one views the Hebrew term elef and its various Semitic cognates. There is broad support in favor of elef meaning both "thousand" or "company" / "troop." If one approaches the tabulation schema for Ancient Israel's population, looking at elef from the perspective of it being company/troop and not thousand, then a total population of 2-3 million can be questioned.
ReplyDeleteI have summarized this discussion in an FAQ entry on my website:
http://tnnonline.net/faq/e.html#Exodus numbers of
@Maureen,
ReplyDeleteSince the days of the first Temple, men have read the Torah and seen the so-called "anachronisms" such as Genesis 14:14's mention of "Dan." So why is it only in the age of criticism that Documentary Hypothesis has viability? Were the ancient Sages just stupid? No, the difference between now and ages past is not information.
It a lack of the fear of HaShem.
The Sages read these oddities in Scripture and assume the All-Wise G-d is speaking of prophetic events. The modern theologian arrogantly assumes that the wisdom of the Sages was a blind faith in literalism.
It explains a lot that some of the voices of Bilateral Ecclesiology are also vying for the "Bart Ehrman Award" for promoting Documentary Hypothesis.
For those who are truly curious, read the words of RASHI or RAMBAN about these so-called “anachronisms” – they always address them. Their words speak in awe of the One Who Knows All, not as know-it-alls.
Absolutely LOVE your answer, Rick! Please keep earnestly contending for the faith and telling it like it is. It is disheartening to witness the falling away of so many in these perilous times.
ReplyDeleteTo those on "the slippery slope" I would add this line to the children's song, "Be careful little eyes what you see"....................
"Be careful little minds what you read....."
I try not to read more at one time than I can grasp, ponder, digest, and refute! Information overload of the "yea, hath God said?" skeptic persuasion is hazardous to our spiritual health.
"It is disheartening to witness the falling away of so many in these perilous times."
ReplyDeleteTandi... One Law's neo-Galatianism smells a lot more like the "falling of away" one reads about in the Bible than some theologian's OPINION over a number of Israelites coming out of Egypt. For your own sanity sake people... get a grip.
Interestingly enough Rick and Maureen, I'm reading Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted" now. Yes, he is a literalist and, as a Christian turned agnostic, he doesn't seem to acknowledge the possibility that anything supernatural can occur as part of the Biblical narrative.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I haven't finished the book yet and so far he does "hint" that, although he no longer has faith, that faith is possible, even in light of his personal scholarly conclusions. Also, not all scholars agree on the various points regarding Bibical consistency and we must remember that an informed and scholarly opinion isn't the same as an undisputable fact.
Beyond the facts, also remember that God is the author of truth.
J.K., How is it possible to translate the Hebrew word as "company/troop" in this verse?
ReplyDeleteAnd all the firstborn males by the number of names, from a month old and upward, of those that were numbered of them, were twenty and two thousand two hundred and threescore and thirteen. (Numbers 3:43)
And if there were over 22,000 firstborn males counted in the census, what does that do to your theory and Derek's statement that there were only 20,000 Israelites total?!
remember that an informed and scholarly opinion isn't the same as an undisputable fact
ReplyDeleteLOL. No, I would say that "scholarly opinion" is the antithesis of fact.
"For your own sanity sake people... get a grip"
ReplyDeleteWe are grasping and holding on like Jacob did. Comments like yours only steel our resolve and firm our grip.
James, I am very concerned about the slippery slope you are on. You are reading the same books (Ehrman, etc.) that my formerly zealous intellectual Messianic friends read....and they ended up rabid atheists spewing the most horrid blasphemies against the God of the Bible all over the Internet. It breaks my heart to watch these train wrecks unfold before my eyes. The cognitive dissonance you are experiencing is dangerous. I have seen this confusion take its toll on others very close to me. Please be careful! Praying for you.....and all of us.
ReplyDeleteJames, I am very concerned about the slippery slope you are on. You are reading the same books (Ehrman, etc.) that my formerly zealous intellectual Messianic friends read...
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your concern and I can't say that re-examining my faith doesn't come without risks. On the other hand, reading Ehrman isn't the same as buying everything he writes about. As I mentioned before, I think he's taking a way too literal approach to the Bible. I'm coming to think of the Bible as God's way of teaching us the "truth" about Him, not the "facts" about Him. Some scholars get too caught up in their heads and forget that you also need to read the Word of God with your heart and your Spirit.
If it's any comfort, I'm also planning to read "Putting Jesus in His Place" by Bowman and Komoszewski and "From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God" by Maurice Casey. I've also put "Scripting Jesus" by L Michael White on my list, and I plan to review my wife's current lesson notes from her Chabad class on "Writing Your Own Mission Statement" (since as a "Messianic", I wouldn't likely be welcome to attend the class personally).
I hope you're following along with my journey on my blog. I encourage people of good faith like you to "keep an eye on me", so to speak, and offer both sound advice and sincere prayer.
Thanks. :-)
The main issue with the total population of the Exodus generation, as I said, comes down to how a reader looks at the term elef and how it can mean "company" or "troop." For the purposes of Numbers 1:46, 603 elef 500 can be viewed as 603 squads of 500.
ReplyDeleteThe available definitions of elef as seen in the HALOT lexicon include "group of a thousand," "part of a tribe," and "later often tribe." The FAQ I put together, I believer, fairly summarizes the different positions. K.A. Kitchen's notation that elef does not always mean "thousand" is most useful.
"LOL. No, I would say that "scholarly opinion" is the antithesis of fact."
ReplyDeleteDoes not that above comment (and especially the attitude that goes along with it) exemplify the results of the deeply ingrained disdain for theological and historical scholarship in the "One-Law movement"? No wonder the movement has given birth so many wacky theologies and sub-movements over the course of just the past decade.
@Gene, you (wrongly) assume I am "One Law"
ReplyDelete"@Gene, you (wrongly) assume I am "One Law""
ReplyDeleteRick, now why in the name of all good and pure would you make this false statement, when on your own website you wrote:
"Regarding the life of Torah for Jew and Gentiles alike, we are "One King, One People, ONE LAW" and we repudiate divisive doctrines such as "Divine Invitiation"
From: http://www.bereansonline.org/believe.htm
On the other hand, people do change.... so, if you are no longer "One-Law" - Mazel Tov! - perhaps it's time to update your website?
Thanks for visiting my website.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the statement is not creedal. Also, if you read it carefully you may notice a distinct difference between it and "One Law."
Lastly, we do not align ourselves with others by such definitions.
@Gene, to be more clear, I have edited that line. I hope you like the change.
ReplyDeleteWhen I have some more time, B"H, I will provide a link in the statement to even more clearly define not only what we approve of, but what we repudiate and why. Should I include a link to your blog? < grin >
http://www.bereansonline.org/believe.htm
So much for the silliness of "What we believe" statements...
"First, the statement is not creedal."
ReplyDeleteHard to see in any other way, not that it matters - the fact is that you are expressly and obviously "One Law" in every sense of that word.
"Also, if you read it carefully you may notice a distinct difference between it and "One Law."
Please do explain how what you teach is any different.... say from Tim Hegg (who is, arguably, the "High Priest" of One Law today). What the significant differences between your teaching and Hegg's when it comes to Torah, Jews, and Gentiles (specifically).
"Lastly, we do not align ourselves with others by such definitions."
OK, WHO are you then aligned with?
"Gene, to be more clear, I have edited that line. I hope you like the change."
It still says that you are "One Law". It also says that you "repudiate... Supersessionism" - which is a disingenuous statement considering that One Law IS a version of Superessionism.
"Should I include a link to your blog?"
Sure, Rick, please do - I would love the opportunity to educate some of your visitors:)
I just love it when discussions on Messianic blogs get grossly off topic--and we then get to see people smear and malign one another. Certainly is the love of Yeshua in action, dontyathink?
ReplyDeleteMessy-antic indeed, folks...
@Gene:
ReplyDeleteIt still says that you are "One Law". It also says that you "repudiate... Supersessionism" - which is a disingenuous statement considering that One Law IS a version of Superessionism.
No, it does not say we are "One Law" - regardless, "One Law = Supercessionism" is simply your definition, one which does not pass muster. Neither does me calling you a "Supercessionist" make it so. Supercessionism has a specific and well-documented definition - which neither you nor I fall into.
OK, WHO are you then aligned with?
It seems that you have a hot button which blinds you to all else. Can't you read Who we are aligned with? The One King - which means we are also aligned with His One People.
However, unlike the "I am of Messiah" crowd of 1Cor 1:12, we do not exclude folks who do not agree with us. Even you (especially you) would be invited to make aliyah to the Torah in our fellowship. Not only because it is the essence of hospitality - but because I honestly love you Gene.
"I honestly love you Gene."
ReplyDeleteOK, Rick, all is forgiven:)
"I honestly love you Gene."
ReplyDeleteOK, Rick, all is forgiven:)
Well, it *is* Valentine's Day, guys. ;-)
Judah,
ReplyDeleteLet me rephrase what I said.
I don't think that Yeshua's statements should be evaluated one way or the other on the basis of those factual inaccuracies that are the result of his having lived in a specific historical time period.
Unlike Yeshua, we have geology to tell us that Noah's story did not happen literally. Unlike Yeshua, we know of seeds that are smaller than the mustard seed. Neither of his statements are actually contingent on the literal truth of those facts.
I do not think we differ much from our ancestors, except that we have now excavated huge chunks of the earth and looked around and not seen much credible support for a global flood since they lived.
The first time I rejected Yeshua about five years ago, there was not a thought of academic scholarship in my head, the battle was between Tovia Singer and what I'd been exposed to... and Tovia won.
Hopefully that sounds less flippant and arrogant.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteSo true. As fragmented as Protestantism, and as lacking in cohesiveness as Karaism.
(That sounds so beautiful and poetic, I should write it in a poem).
While even in the so-called "Orthodox" Jewish world there are different groups, unfortunately, as a result of the exile - there aren't a bunch of different opposing sects calling one another heretics and such. The issue and cause for any difference is the same, aside from the issue of the certain heretical beliefs of Hhabad-Lubavitch.