How Was the Old Testament Written? ā Program 2
By: Dr. Gerald Lrue, Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr.; ©1989 |
Is the Old Testament history, or is it myth? Is the text riddled with inconsistencies and discrepancies as some critics claim? |
Is the Old Testament a Credible Book?
Introduction
Tonight, John Ankerberg will investigate the topic: How was the Old Testament written? The Holy Bible is like no other book in all the world. It claims to be the written revelation of the one true God, and gives proof of this claim by presenting infallible evidence. Other religious documents such as the Qurāan may claim to be the very word of God, but they contain no such self-authenticating proofs as does the Bible. Only the Bible validates its claims by prior prophecy and subsequent fulfillment. But professors in American universities are teaching our students the theories of the higher critics who declare that the Bible is merely a product of human origin. The higher critics assert that the Old Testament can be dealt with in a purely literary way, and naturalistic explanations must be found for every account which depicts the supernatural.
In tonightās program John will examine the theories that the higher critics have put forth denying the Bible is historically accurate. One of these assertions is that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. Julius Wellhausen, the founder of the documentary theory, has stated, āWriting was virtually unknown in Israel during Mosesā time, and consequently Moses could not have written the Pentateuch.ā If the higher critics are correct, then the Bible is in error. Even Jesus Christ Himself was wrong when He taught that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. The higher critics have also written that the Bible is not historically trustworthy, pointing to the fact that they have never heard of any evidence of a nation revealed in the Bible called the Hittites. What about this? And finally, the higher critics claim they alone are scientific in their assumptions of approaching the Old Testament. But have they really given the Bible the benefit of the doubt in what it states, or have they approached the Bible with an anti-supernatural bias? These questions will be answered tonight as John examines the evidence from archaeology and history. Find out whether the JEDP theory of the higher critics has been demolished by the evidence or whether it still stands. We invite you to join us.
Introduction
Tonight, John Ankerberg examines āHow was the Old Testament written?ā Those who have criticized the Bible have based their theories on the following faulty assumptions: First, when the higher critic sees different names for God being used in a text, this automatically means to him that different authors wrote that material. For example, they say all the material in which the writer calls God āJehovahā was written by the āJā author; all the material in which God is called āElohimā was written by the āEā author. But if the different names of God prove different authors, then the Hebrew writers were the only ones in the history of literature that were incapable of using more than one name for God.
Second, the critics assume that different writing styles and different vocabulary prove there were different authors. But by using this same criteria, critics could not possibly accept the fact that one single author like Milton could write merry poetry such as El Allegro, lofty epic poetry such as Paradise Los,t and third, scintillating prose essays such as Areopagitica. If Milton had been a Hebrew author, the critics would have to be speedily carved up into A B C multiple source hypotheses. Different styles do not prove different authors.
Third, the higher critic assumes that differences in accounts, alleged discrepancies or contradictions prove that there were different authors who gave us conflicting information. But through the science of textual criticism, we are beginning to understand and reconcile some of the alleged discrepancies in the ancient texts. Evangelicals have always advocated the inspiration and inerrancy of the original autographs, not every manuscript copied by scribes.
Fourth, the higher critics believe editorial insertions such as the account of Mosesā death in Deuteronomy 34 proves there were multiple authors. But in Joshua 24:26 the Bible states, āAnd Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God.ā If Joshua recorded anything in the Book of the Law, then he also must have contributed to what Moses wrote in the Law, the first five books of the Bible. Evangelicals have always held that it is correct to state that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, meaning that he wrote the majority of it. But they have also held that some of it was written by such people as Joshua, as the Scripture itself records. These writers as well as Moses were inspired by God in their writings. The critic believes that by pointing out that not all of the Pentateuch was written by Moses, he is proving that none of the Pentateuch was written by Moses. But this assumption is not logical, it is not supported by Scripture, and is not held by orthodox, evangelical Christians.
Finally, the critics assume that historical accounts of the Bible that lack present day archaeological evidence are fictional. But archaeology has proven that many such assumptions once made by the critics about the Bible were wrong, such as: āThere was no writing in Mosesā day,ā and āthe patriarchs, Moses himself, the ancient Hittite nation, as well as all of the cities mentioned in Genesis 14 never existed;ā āThe literary structure of the Pentateuch, particularly Deuteronomy, could not have been written by Moses;ā and āThe exodus and conquest of Canaan could never have happened.ā
All of these statements, once made by the higher critics, have now been proven to be false by the latest archaeological evidence. Tonight, weāll investigate some more the higher criticsā so-called discrepancies, such as the account of Mosesā death: who wrote it? Obviously, if Moses was dead, he could not have written it. We will also examine the Scriptures in Exodus 6 in which the Israelites are said not to know the personal name of their God, Yahweh, until it was revealed to Moses on the holy mountain, and compare that with Genesis 4 which says that the Israelites called upon the name of Yahweh from the very earliest times. The higher critics assume this proves different authors, otherwise how could one author state that the Hebrews did know, and at the same time, did not know the name of their God? To find out the answers, we invite you to join us for tonightās program.
- Ankerberg: Welcome! Iām really glad that youāve joined us tonight. Our topic is, āIs the Old Testament a credible book?ā Is it history or is it myth? Tonight, my guests are Dr. Gerald Larue, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology and Biblical Studies at the University of Southern California, and heās currently Chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. My second guest is Dr. Walter Kaiser, Academic Dean and Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. Heās the author of many books. Guys, weāre glad that you are here tonight, and I canāt wait to get into this discussion.
- Dr. Larue, you have said in How the Old Testament Was Written, an article that was written in the Free Inquiry magazine, a Secular Humanist magazine, and you have said, āThe list of inconsistencies concerning the books that Moses was supposed to write could be extended, and as they accumulate, the problem is such that it is clear that more than one author contributed to the so-called āBooks of Moses.ā And therefore thereās really no reason to believe that Moses was anything more than a hero figure, whose name has become attached to collections of ancient Hebrew law codes, indeed the Mosaic authorship has been replaced by a mosaic of authors.ā Now, this is one of the six main arguments of the higher critics that helped them to develop JEPD, that namely, we have inconsistencies or discrepancies in the text and therefore we posit that thereās got to be some guy that came in afterwards and either messed it up, added to it or fixed it, right?
- Larue: Or Moses was a little inconsistent.
- Ankerberg: Or Moses himself was off-balance. Either way, it canāt be that God spoke to Moses or God helped Moses in collecting data so it was accurately brought down to us as traditionally held.
- Larue: Or God is inconsistent.
- Ankerberg: Now, Dr. Kaiser, we need to come to this, because thatās a serious problem here. And I have outlined six or seven that I think almost all the students at the university would say, āYeah, Iāve heard this from my professor along the way of these inconsistencies.ā Iām going to give them. And letās take a couple here. Iāll outlined them and then weāll take them in order, okay? First of all, the city of Dan mentioned in Genesis 14:14, āItās got to be a verbal error,ā they all say. āBecause you find that in another spot,ā I think in the book of Judges āthat you find thatās where itās established. How in the world if itās established there could it show up in Mosesā first book?ā Letās start with that one.
- Kaiser: Well, sure enough, I think that probably is not as humble a claim as it should be. I think itās a very exorbitant claim. First of all, Dan does appear in Genesis 14. It looks like indeed someone got their calculations incorrect. But indeed we do have two āDans.ā There is not only the Dan which is far north, we have another Dan thatās on the route of retreat coming through Damascus, which is also a good possibility. But the scholars have always known, and we have a number of situations like this, where the text has been modernized. And, again, we are asking whether indeed āDanā is in the original autography or whether that has been later on updated. The older name of the city is, if indeed weāre talking of the Dan in the north, is Laish. Thatās clear; and that it was renamed in the time when the tribe of Dan moved north in Judges 18. But I donāt think that you could mark it down as an error. Youāll have to know and have complete control of all the texts and the autographs. And at this point, I would say we ought to be hesitant before we mark that one down as a sure inconsistency.
- Ankerberg: Leupold also in his book said that it didnāt make any sense to take the geographical area of the Dan mentioned in the older books simply because if they take them that way, they would have gotten messed up with rivers. And itās hard to retreat when youāve got to cross about four rivers in a row. But the geographical area that youāve got in Genesis, which would suppose another site altogether for that city, is a terrific way to ābeat itā out of that area.
- Larue: There is a problem, though. Youāve already indicated that the text could be modernized. This means then that already weāre talking of an editorial change in the text. Somebody has made a change. If this was originally Laishāautographs we donāt have; we have only very late documentsāand if this was originally Laish, then some editor has been at work and changed it to Dan for whatever reasons. That, again, goes back to what I have been saying: the text has been editorialized. Thatās what I was getting at. Iām not saying it was wrong, but Iām saying that itās very unlikely that Moses would have written āDanā before Dan was named.
- Ankerberg: Let me ask you, does that seem to you to bother the accuracy of the inspiration of the Bible as Christians hold it, then?
- Larue: No, this is a different subject entirely. What Iām dealing with hereā¦.
- Ankerberg: Well, inerrancy and inspiration would say that God helped Moses or the authors put right information in there.
- Larue: Okay, then you would have to say that God inspired the editor to make the change.
- Ankerberg: Do you have a problem with that?
- Larue: If you want to go on that kind of a theory. I have a problem with the whole āinspirationā theory.
- Ankerberg: Is there any evidence about that, Dr. Kaiser?
- Kaiser: The evidence, I think, in terms of texts we donāt have. The Evangelical always insists that it is inerrancy and that the work of God was in the original text. And that it is the original text that accurately depicts the real. Now, if youāre still talking about the same city, which city has a modern equivalent, then the problem that we have here is about the same problem that you get in a modern version, which takes an old word and updates it and tries to put it in common coinage to put it into communication. So, itās not an error. Weāre still talking about the same pinpointed geographical site. The question is, how will it best communicate to the generations who are trying to hear it?
- Ankerberg: Well, talking about these other editors that might have been inspired, that might sound heretical. But letās jump right to the big one, and that is the fact, who wrote the end of Deuteronomy concerning Moses? Obviously, if Moses is dead, how in the world can he be describing that? But if itās not Moses who wrote it, then we have somebody else who wrote the last couple of verses in Deuteronomy. So the critics would say, āTherefore youāve got proof that Moses didnāt write the Pentateuch.ā
- Kaiser: Well, of course, though, the question is the claim. Does the end of the book of Deuteronomy claim that it was written by Moses? And the answer is, āNo.ā I think the Evangelical only wants to say that the report of the first five books comes from a contemporary, and that Moses does the bulk of that, probably the greater lionās share. But obviously no one is claiming, and Iāve never seen an Evangelical,⦠can you name someone who really said Moses wrote his own death, and also prophesied that no one knows to this day where his grave is? Thatās unusual prophecy. But on the other hand, you do have, in the next book, Joshua 24, Joshua claiming that he was instructed to add many words to the Book of the Law. The āBook of the Lawā generally is taken by scholars to be a reference to Torah. So here you have a contemporary of Moses, who is in control of the data, who is writing it. My supposition, and all of those Evangelicals Iāve ever read is, no, Moses did not write Deuteronomy 34. Joshua probably did, because we do have a claim that he wrote in the Book of the Law.
- Ankerberg: Does that bother you, Dr. Larue?
- Larue: No, it just says that Moses didnāt write all of the Torah. Thatās all. And thatās what Iāve been saying. Iāve been saying that we have editors. Weāve now got Joshua making additions to it. Youāve accepted the last 10 verses as Joshua, how many others did he make? Which means itās not Moses, itās some contemporary. Weāve already got the editorial process going, by your own statement.
- Kaiser: But if I could join in here. This is fun! Because it seems to me at that point that youāre pressing so hard, itās curious. Why would you say it wouldnāt be Moses? Suppose I wrote a letter to my wife, and I had a complete description of what took place in our debate, see? And I gave her all of the words here, and then John, who knows my wife, would add on the bottom a P.S. And one of the other staff here would add something else too as well. Would that then not be my letter? It would seem to me that the body and the main part of it still is my letter. And you could refer to it, and she would think that I wrote it. And yet would not get upset because there are three P.S.ās on the bottom of it. I think thatās the flavor of the material that weāre dealing with here.
- Larue: Youāre evading the issue. The P.S. is not listed here. Nobody says P.S. The statement is, āMoses wrote the Torah.ā And Iām saying, āThe Torah has been editorialized,ā and youāre saying, āYes, but that doesnāt mean Moses didnāt write it.ā
- Ankerberg: Yeah, youāve got an assumption, I think, going there. For example, did Hammurabi write every bit of the law?
- Larue: Hammurabi obviously borrowed laws from other people.
- Ankerberg: Yeah, but I mean, the fact is, his name went on the top, and obviously there wasā¦
- Larue: No. This is not true. Itās called āHammurabiās Code.ā He argued, as the biblical people did, that he was inspired by a god. And I accept his inspiration on the same level as I accept the biblical one or accept the Qurāan. All of these people claim to have inspiration. How do you test inspiration?
- Ankerberg: Weāre not talking about that, weāre talking about, did Hammurabi write every single syllable that is underneath the codes?
- Larue: I doubt that he wrote any of it. I thinkā¦
- Ankerberg: Yeah, I think you can prove that. But his name is still attributed to that body of literature. Is that any different than what weāre talking about with Moses? Youāve got two examples right back in the same time period.
- Larue: Well, little bit different time period, but even soā¦.
- Ankerberg: So the question is then, who is saying that itās got to be done exactly the way youāre saying it?
- Larue: Iām not saying that. Iām saying that your claim is, that āThis is the words of Moses.ā And Iām saying, āSome of them.ā Who knows. How can you test?
- Ankerberg: The claim is what, Dr. Kaiser?
- Kaiser: The claim is that Moses wrote such substantial bulk of this material that his name can be placed over the whole of it. And thatās fair in any kind of field of reference. I think you would find that to be fair. Thatās why I used the illustration of the letter. And I think that that is fair for our Lord Jesus, to refer to the bulk of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; and the fact that indeed there is a P.S.āas a matter of fact, Deuteronomy 34 is kind of a P.S. here.
- Larue: Yes it is.
- Kaiser: A grave P.S., coming right at the end about his death. And there is a reference to additional material, but I donāt think that takes away from its claims.
- Ankerberg: Weāre going to take a break here, and weāre going to come back and take another one of the inconsistencies that Dr. Larue has put into his article: āDid the Hebrews not know the personal name of their God?ā And weāre going to talk about that in just a little bit. So please stick with us.
- Ankerberg: Okay, welcome, weāre back. And weāre talking with Dr. Gerald Larue and with Dr. Walter Kaiser. Dr. Kaiser, letās take another one of the so-called discrepancies in the text that would, according to Dr. Larue and other higher critics, show multiple authors. And it comes from Exodus 3:13-15 and Exodus 6:2-3, where you find the Hebrews did not know the personal name of their God Yahweh until it was revealed to Moses on the holy mountain. Yet Genesis 4:26 notes that from the very early times people called upon the name of Yahweh. āDoesnāt this show multiple authors?ā Or, āDonāt we have an error?ā How could they know and not know?
- Kaiser: Well, itās curious that you bring that up, John. We have been talking about that for just about 250 years or more, so I would assume that by now weāve been to school. I think the standard answer there is found in the language that Moses wrote in, which is Hebrew. And at this point he uses a little expression before the word for the name of his God, and that is the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, bethāBeth essentia, as itās calledāand therefore it should not be translated as if he did not know the name āJehovahā or Yahweh, as if when he heard this name he said, āSo what is this? Iāve not heard this name before! This is a whole new idea, and let me write that down!ā So he wrote down Yahweh and said, āThis is going to be my new name of my God. From here on out Iām going to use that.ā But rather the translation should be that He, God, was not known. El or Elohim did not reveal Himself or make Himself known. Now, this little beth, the second letter of the alphabet here, is translated āin the nature of,ā āin the quality of,ā āin the character of.ā They did not see the import of this part of His character and qualities. This has been known since 1600, 1700. Gesenius, in the standard Greek grammar, gives us his explanation. He gives explanation as a grammarian, not as a theologian. Therefore, I am surprised that weāre still talking about this this late in history. We should move on.
- Ankerberg: Dr. Larue, any comment? Does that make sense?
- Larue: Iām only interested in the Exodus 6 where it said, āI am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.ā
- Kaiser: And thatās the very passage weāre talking about.
- Larue: Yes.
- Kaiser: āBy my name, bāshem.ā
- Larue: Bāshem.
- Kaiser: Yeah. Itās āin the nature, in the character ofā the name Yahweh they didnāt come to know it.
- Larue: Well, wait a minuteā¦
- Kaiser: Theyāre using name here and the beth essentiaāthis is not only attested in this passageā¦
- Larue: Right.
- Kaiser: ā¦weāve got a whole category of Hebrew passages where itās a well known syntactical and grammatical feature of the Hebrew language. So weāll have to play according to Mosesā rules rather than our English translation.
- Larue: Then youāre saying they did know the name Yahweh before.
- Kaiser: Oh, yes, and thatās why itās found 156 times in Genesis already.
- Larue: Right. Right.
- Ankerberg: Yeah, but one more thing before we close this program. Who really killed Goliath? Was it Elhanan or David? You have to compare 2 Samuel 21:19 with 1 Samuel 17:53 and the account in Chronicles there. What do you think, Dr. Kaiser?
- Kaiser: This is well known again. In the Chronicles narrative, I think that we have āthe brother ofā introduce that phrase which is, I think, an indication that our text in Samuel at the present time is not the best text. We have known of all the books in the Old Testament that Samuel is the one, especially from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that has given us the most fits. When we did the book of Isaiahāwe found the Isaiah Scrollāfor over 100 pages of material when the Revised Standard Version (RSV) came out they made 13 corrections for over 100 pages of text. My teacher Harry Erlinski said to me that, indeed, we were incorrect on 10 of those 13. He said there are only three changes and these three changes in Isaiah were of a nature of changing of one letter or so, the difference between an English spelling of āhonourā and American spelling. It is about equivalent to what we are dealing with here. But when we come to Samuel, Samuelās text seems to be better in what we call the Septuagint or the Greek version. And there indeed it does harmonize with the Chronicles material. So I believe in the book of Samuel, 1 and 2 Samuel, I think in the Greek version we are preserving the authentic original text, and now the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to be pointing in that direction.
- Ankerberg: Okay, the fact is that you seem to have a corruption that has come down and theyāre simply saying, āVoila! There you have an error!ā Okay. Does that knock out the fact of the accuracy of the text? Does that knock out the fact of the author who wrote it? Does that show multiple authors because you have that?
- Kaiser: No, I donāt think so at all. Itās that science we call the science of textual criticism. It goes on constantly. We have refined that much better in the New Testament, and only since the Dead Sea Scrolls have we really gotten into it for Old Testament. The day of the Old Testament scholar in textual criticism still lies up ahead. And I think that there are some very, very good solutions. But I donāt think we ought to pronounce the benediction on that one yet. There are ways which it seems to me that problem can be solved, and they have been known for over 100 years.
- Ankerberg: Okay, weāre not done with this yet, but weāre out of time for this week. Weāve got a couple more, such as, were there two writers of Isaiah? Are there two Isaiahs? Was Daniel a fraud that was written and simply portrayed to everybody that it was written in the fifth or sixth century and actually written down about [AD] 166, right in that area? Weāre going to talk about that next week, so please join us.
[ā¦] Read Part 2 [ā¦]