The idea of multiple authorship of the Pentateuch is a somewhat heated point of contention between conservative, usually evangelical, Christians and more liberal academics, some of whom do not adhere to the faith they study. As such, the debate is usually characterized as educated scholars and experts versus lay Church members and naïve pastors. As with all religious and doctrinal contentions, the issue is more complicated than it may first appear. While the idea of multiple authorship of separate “strands” within the first five books of the Old Testament began to go out of vogue among biblical scholars in around the 1970s (in favor of a more complex vision of redaction, editing, and gradual development), the most famous iteration of source criticism remains the Documentary Hypothesis associated with Julius Wellhausen. In it, Wellhausen (among several others) attempts to identify the voices of the separate authors of the Pentateuch, and to speculate on their reasons for writing, worldview, and time of composition. But what are the difficulties this presents for conservative views of biblical inerrancy, and why does it matter so much to so many people?
It is, admittedly, almost impossible to make a strong case for biblical inerrancy without assuming divine revelation. Without the doctrine of God’s superintendence of the writing, composition, and compilation of the Bible, passages such as Genesis 1-11 must become virtually entirely fictional or legendary. Even assuming the traditional account of the Pentateuch’s composition by Moses, hundreds to thousands of years pass between “Let there be light” and “Let My people go.” Without God’s revelation to Moses (or any author) there would seem to be no way to know what happened in the world’s infancy. A tantalizing hint of an antediluvian scroll or record is given in Genesis 5:1, “the scroll of the generations of Adam,” which, given new discoveries of writing appearing as early as 3400 BCE among the Sumerians (Kaiser 58), may mean that the author of Genesis compiled the book from other written material. This is, however, not conclusive.
But for evangelical Christians who hold to the doctrine of plenary inspiration and inerrancy, the revelation of Holy Scripture is a presupposition already made, and thus justification of accounts in the early chapters of Genesis is quite simple. God was there, and He narrated it to Moses. This is, of course, an easy solution, but one cannot justify the inerrancy of the Bible by saying that God wrote it, and that we know God wrote it because the Bible is inerrant. This is obvious, though pious, circular reasoning.
The true basis for the inerrancy of scripture rests in faith. Unless one assumes the absolute truth of the Bible, one cannot trust it completely, and if one cannot trust it completely, one cannot trust its account of the perfect life, propitiatory death, and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the Bible is not completely errorless, then there are (necessarily) errors in some of it. If there are errors in some of it, for example, the numerous claims of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, then there is no way to know that the account of the resurrection of Jesus is not also in error. It is an all or nothing game. The basis of all Christian belief is called into question the moment the Bible descends from Logos to literature. Admittedly, the claims of God’s work in the lives of believers would remain were the Bible to fall, but the knowledge of the nature and demands of that God would be gone.
It is because one must trust the Bible completely that evangelical Christians resist the theory of multiple authorship of the Pentateuch. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, and from the mouth of Jesus Himself, Moses is called the author of the Torah. For example: Ex 17:14, 24:4, 34:27; Nm 33:1,2; Dt 31:9,11 within the Pentateuch itself, Jos 1:8, 8:31,32; 1 Kg 2:3; 2 Kg 14:6; Ezr 6:18; Neh 13:1; Dn 9:11-13; Mal 4:4 in the rest of the Old Testament, and Mt 19:8; Jn 5:46,47; Ac 3:22; Rm 10:5 in the New Testament (Block 158). If Christians are to take the Bible as truth, they must reckon with this mountain of claims to Mosaic authorship. Only through a sort of lexical gymnastics, going against the plain meaning of the text, can a view of multiple authorship be supported by one claiming biblical inerrancy. However, the text does record that Joshua added somewhat to the Mosaic corpus, presumably after Moses’ death, which would explain statements such as that recording Moses’ humility (Numbers 12:3), and the account of his death.
While it may be argued whether biblical inerrancy is a “modern” development, it certainly has a basis, at least for evangelical Christians, in theological necessity. Without a completely trustworthy account of God’s work, Christianity is severely crippled, if not killed. It has been shown that the Bible makes a myriad of claims to Mosaic authorship, which entails the exclusion of claims to multiple authorship. No other person besides Joshua is said to have added anything (Joshua 24:26). This especially excludes the Documentary Hypothesis, which would not match up with Biblical claims in authorship or even date of composition. Thus, the concepts of biblical inerrancy and multiple authorship seem to be mutually exclusive. Evidence for multiple authors, such as that provided above, would need to be accounted for, but it should be the policy of Christianity to take the authority of the Bible as absolute, and to hold to it even in the face of contradictory scholarship, in sure and certain faith that the Bible will be justified in the end. So while the doctrine of biblical inerrancy may be disagreed with due to source critical scholarship, it should not be dismissed or labeled as simple ignorance.
Works Cited
Block, Daniel J. "Who Wrote the Pentateuch and When Was It Written?." Apologetics Study Bible. Ed. Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007. Print.
Kaiser, Jr., Walter C . The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? Downer's Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment