The Bible Says That!? - Who Wrote The Torah? Pt. 9
Click "Play" below to listen as you read along.
Click "Download" to check out today's handout
Today we’re going to be talking about all of the counterarguments working against this theory. This theory isn’t perfect and there are some who disagree with it–and that’s a good thing! Healthy scholarship welcomes pushback and a conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of every hypothesis. Let’s get right into it
The “Law of Moses”
What are some counterarguments you’ve come up with or issues you’ve identified with this hypothesis?
I am not necessarily going to try and break down each one of these counterarguments and try to prove this theory correct. I want to be fair to these counterarguments and see how they stand up to both Scripture and the evidence we’ve been pouring over for the past few weeks. So let’s start with the largest counterargument: the fact that the Torah is called the Law of “Moses” and even comes from the very lips of Jesus as “the law of Moses.”
How does this stand in tension with the Source Documentary hypothesis?
What are Mosaic authorship's strengths and weaknesses?
If we assume Mosaic authorship, what do we have to ignore/concede to make this work?
If we go with the source doc hypothesis, what do we have to ignore/concede to make this work?
“Law of Moses” can indicate Authority, not necessarily authorship
In the ancient near east, when something was attributed to someone or something, for example, the law “of Moses” or the temple “of God”–that doesn’t necessarily mean that Moses wrote the entire law or that God built the temple himself. Instead, it can mean–in the law of Moses example– that the material came through Moses or was rooted in a tradition associated with him.
For example: The Declaration of Independence. I’m going to be cheeky here: “Who is ‘independence’?” It’s not talking about a person named “independence” who wrote this document. Instead, it's referring to a nationwide event and this document is associated with it. Ok Ok. Real question: Who wrote the Declaration of Independence? You could say “Thomas Jefferson penned the document.” You could say that “the Founding fathers collaborated to create the specific details of the document.” You could say that since every single father wrote on the piece of paper at the end with their signature that “They all wrote the document.”
Which answer is the correct answer? Technically, they are all correct. However, this is a cheap answer and wouldn’t fly in any high school civics class. The same thing could be said about biblical authorship.
Here’s an analogy: We often say “the Psalms of David” even though we know for a fact that David did not write all 150 psalms. Instead, these psalms represent the Davidic tradition. Some he wrote–or perhaps he wrote the original core–and the others were written for David or on behalf of or in line with the Davidic tradition, his reign as King and the theological understanding of worship to God through song and poetry.
So it is possible that when NT characters (including Jesus) says “Moses said…” or the “law of Moses,” he could be aligning with the traditional understanding of the Torah as teaching that originated from Moses, even if the actual composition or core law codes of the Torah are more complex.
Jesus meets people where they are
Jesus was trying to teach an entire people group about God’s kingdom and launch a new covenant and start the church. So he has to meet his audience where they are at within the theological framework that they understand. It’s possible he too called it the “law of Moses,” because that is what everyone called it. To get bogged down in the nitty gritty time after time after time, would take away from his mission.
Also, we know in some instances He said “law of Moses,” or “Moses said…” as shorthand for the entire canon of Scripture for the Jewish people in the first century– which was our Old Testament. So this can just be shorthand for “Scripture,” not a statement of authorship.
An example would be like when we say “the sun rises and sets,” even though we know that the Earth is what is rotating, not the sun moving across the solar system.
Mosaic Core with a later expansion
To be clear, even scholars who subscribe to the Source Documentary hypothesis do not all agree on everything. One camp argues that Moses did in fact contribute to the foundational teachings, laws, and covenant traditions of the Torah. Specifically, Exodus 20:22-23:33 which is known as the covenant code. The Covenant Code is the Oldest Law code material we have in the Bible and some scholars attribute this core law code to Moses. With this in mind, this is called the “law of Moses” yet does not include all of Torah. But I digress.
Then later in history, later scribes and priests expanded, edited, and wrote down the other oral traditions of the Israelite people which is what later became the rest of the Torah.
Biblical edits
We have clear examples of edits made to the Torah
Numbers 21:14 – references to the “book of the Wars of the Lord” (lost source)
Deut. 34:5-12 – Describes Moses’ death – which is less likely to have been written by Moses himself.
Genesis 36:31 – refers to the kings of Israel – before Israel had any kings.
Instead of trying to bend over backwards by explaining away reasons for these types of edits (i.e. God had Moses predict his own death and write it down.) it makes more sense for God to just use an editor to write this God-breathed text.
These are at least some explanations to help put your mind at ease regarding the issue of the “law of Moses.”
Other Counterarguments
Where is all of the manuscript evidence for the source doc hypothesis?
Surprise, we don’t have a single original copy of any manuscript in the Bible. That’s not a full answer, but it does give context.
This theory is based solely on the literary evidence based on internal evidence. This theory takes the words on the page themselves and sees patterns, notices, styles and themes that weave throughout these texts. Then it tries to understand why these differences within the text are there. It tries to do it’s best to understand God’s Holy word using the evidence we have in the texts that we have today.
Doublets can be stylistic, not source-based
This argues that repetition is common in ancient literature and that the oral traditions repeat themselves for emphasis.
The problem is that many of these doublets are either somewhat contradictory (for theological, stylistic, purpose driven reasons) and amount more to just style.
Specifically, the type of doublets go beyond just normal repetition. They are retellings, written for different purposes and different audiences.
Ancient authors weren’t concerned with modern notions of consistency
This argues that ancient storytelling could tolerate inconsistencies and that not every difference means it’s a different source.
The problem with this is that even ancient audiences could notice clear contradictions, especially big ones like the Name of God! Or how specific law codes were enforced and executed. This hypothesis doesn’t assume a modern understanding of consistency. But instead focuses on the patterns that emerge (vocabulary, theology, geography, the use of the divine name) and try to make sense of why these inconsistencies exist if it was all a single source.
Material from JEDP overlap and thus cannot be from different sources.
For example, both P and D focus and emphasize on centralization of worship and sacrifice. J and E both tell similar stories of the same patriarchs, so they can’t possibly be from different sources.
Yes, true overlap exists, but each source still remains consistent within itself and displays unique characteristics with specific combinations of data points within each source. Overlap doesn’t negate the source theory–in the same way the synoptic gospels do not negate the truth of the life of Jesus. Instead, it shows development of the source itself and the common threads between the sources, which actually lead to support each source. If each was exactly the same, I’d be suspicious. If each source was completely different, I’d be suspicious.
Next week, we’ll look to how this fits into our faith, how we can personally sit with tension, and how we can use what we’ve learned to actually strengthen our assurance in the Bible as we bring our original thoughts back into the conversation.