“Your Word Is Truth”
Who Wrote The Pentateuch?
THE term “Pentateuch” refers to the first five books of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Who wrote these books?
Within the Pentateuch itself can be found statements attributing the writing to Moses (the information about his death likely being added by Joshua). (Ex. 17:14; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9) Other parts of the Bible likewise testify to Moses’ writership. (Josh. 1:7, 8; Judg. 3:4; 1 Ki. 2:3) Jesus Christ obviously accepted this as fact. He said to the Jews: “If you believed Moses you would believe me, for that one wrote about me.”—John 5:46.
But numerous modern scholars reject this testimony, advancing instead their so-called “documentary theory.” They claim that the documents on which the Pentateuch is based were written by various persons and long after the time of Moses. Says The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 3, p. 726): “The documents themselves were composed at various times, beginning in the tenth century B.C. and ending in the middle of the sixth, when the whole of the primary history was completed.”
According to the documentary theory, there are four basic sources (some would add still others) for the information contained in the Pentateuch. These are called “J” (Jahwist), “E” (Elohist), “P” (Priest Codex) and “D” (the source on which much of the book of Deuteronomy is said to be based). The underlying basis for the documentary theory is that the use of different titles for God indicates different writers. But is this reasonable? Might not a single writer logically employ various titles for the sake of variety or to reveal a different attribute of God?
When examining just a few chapters of the first book of the Pentateuch, Genesis, we find such titles as “the Most High God,” “Producer of heaven and earth,” “Sovereign Lord,” “God of sight,” “God Almighty,” “God,” “the true God,” and “the Judge of all the earth.” (Gen. 14:18, 19; 15:2; 16:13; 17:1, 3, 18; 18:25) For one to assign each section to a different writer on the basis of the different appellations for God would split up the account into meaningless fragments.
On the other hand, when we view the record as a coherent whole, we can readily see that the different titles for God are used purposefully, revealing Jehovah in his different attributes and in his various works and dealings with his people.
Then, too, variety in expression should be expected. Variety of expression is, as Professor Segal of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University noted, “a standing feature in all Hebrew narrative style, and particularly in the designation of names of persons.” In illustrating this point, he called attention to Exodus chapter 18, where “Jethro” and “father-in-law” are used in an alternating way, evidently for variety.
Decrying the unreasonableness of the documentary theory, Egyptologist K. A. Kitchen says: “In Pentateuchal criticism it has long been customary to divide the whole into separate documents or ‘hands ‘. . . . But the practice of Old Testament criticism in attributing these characteristics to different ‘hands’ or documents becomes a manifest absurdity when applied to other ancient Oriental writings that display precisely similar phenomena.” He then cites an example from an Egyptian biography that, using the theoretical methods employed by the critics of the Pentateuch, might be attributed to different “hands.” But this Egyptian biography “was conceived, composed, written, and carved within months, weeks, or even less. There can be no ‘hands’ behind its style, which merely varies with the subjects in view and the question of fitting treatment.”—The New Bible Dictionary, p. 349.
Not only is the documentary theory absurd, it actually does violence to the Biblical narrative. It would make the account of Joseph’s being sold by his half brothers a clumsy combination of two contradictory stories. For example, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 3, p. 713) states: “There are two accounts of what happened, which have been blended into confusion. In one, Joseph was thrown into a pit and left there to die. He was found by Midianites, brought to Egypt, and sold there (Ge 37 vss. 22-24, 28a [to ‘pit’], Ge 37:28c-30, 36; the source is E). In the other, he was sold to a passing band of Ishmaelites (Ge 37 vss. 25-27, 28b [to ‘silver’], Ge 37:31-35; the source is J). Reuben figures as the intercessor for Joseph in one (E), Judah in the other (J). Only such a separation offers an intelligible account of the episode.”
But does the account require such a separation to be “intelligible”? Does the separation not rather result in confusion, making it impossible for the reader to know just what did happen? If this view were correct, this would mean that it is impossible to consider intelligently the account as a harmonious whole. Yet, throughout the centuries, millions of sensible persons, including learned scholars, have done so.
Briefly, this is what occurred. Upon catching sight of Joseph at a distance, his half brothers began scheming against him, saying: “Look! Here comes that dreamer. And now come and let us kill him and pitch him into one of the waterpits.” The firstborn Reuben, however, desired to thwart the murderous plot and urged that they not kill Joseph but throw him into a dry waterpit. When Joseph arrived, they stripped him of his long striped garment and followed through on Reuben’s recommendation. Subsequently, as they were eating, a caravan of Ishmaelites came into view. By now Reuben had left. And in his absence, Judah persuaded the others that rather than killing Joseph (as they would have done by leaving him in the pit), it would be better to sell him to the passing merchants. “Hence they [Joseph’s half brothers, as indicated by the context] drew and lifted up Joseph out of the water pit and then sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver pieces. Eventually these brought Joseph into Egypt. Later Reuben returned to the waterpit and here Joseph was not in the waterpit.” (Gen. 37:18-29) Is this account difficult to understand?
Surely there is no need to claim that in one account the intercessor was Reuben and in the other, Judah. Two different times were involved. The Bible says: “Later Reuben returned,” indicating that he was not present at the time Judah recommended that Joseph be sold.
The fact that the terms “Midianites” and “Ishmaelites” are seemingly used interchangeably poses no problem. Being descendants of Abraham through his sons Ishmael and Midian, the two peoples doubtless were very much alike in their way of life, and intermarriage could have resulted in a further amalgamation. It may also be that the Midianite merchants were traveling in the Ishmaelite caravan.
Thus the “confusion” is seen to rest, not with the Bible, but with those adhering to the documentary theory. The Bible’s testimony that Moses did write the Pentateuch stands unimpeached.