A Rabbinic Response to the Documentary Hypothesis
One of the ways critical scholars have looked at the Pentateuch is to see it as a compilation of numerous sources over a long period of time (most often JEDP) rather than as a work primarily by Moses. While there may be some truth to the documentary hypothesis or some form of it, it is often used to demonstrate that the Bible is untrustworthy. The Biblical Archaeology Review web-site has an interesting article by a Jewish rabbi responding to the documentary hypothesis. You can find it here. It is worth reading and it is a good reminder that before the books of Moses were the Christian Pentateuch, they were the Jewish Torah.
I have a question for you on a different topic, if I may:
The typical Christian believer today seems to think that he or she knows what Jesus said and what Jesus did over 19 centuries ago. In reality, no living mortal today knows (beyond a reasonable doubt) what Jesus said or did way back in the 1st century A.D. Do you understand that?
Yes, we can have a very good idea of what Jesus said and did 19 centuries ago. Can we prove every word of it in a scientific way? No, but we can not do that for Augustus, Napoleon, George Washington or any other historical figure. But we have very good sources that were compiled relatively soon after Jesus that contain earlier traditions. These are sources that we can trust and that give us a very good idea of what Jesus said and did.
Stephen, I’ll reply to you at length after I get back from vacation. Meanwhile, here’s a thought:
Everything in the NT is really of a whole, a unity. It’s really one Story. An amazing, phenomenal Story.
We know that everything this Story says, is true, because the Story is eyewitness testimony.
We know the Story is eyewitness testimony, because the Story says that it is eyewitness testimony.
We know the eyewitness testimony is true, because the Story says that the eyewitness testimony is true.
We know that anything the Story says about the eyewitness testimony, is true, because the Story says that everything it says, is true.
We know that everything the Story says, is true, because the Story is eyewitness testimony.
We know the Story is eyewitness testimony, because the Story says that it is eyewitness testimony.
We know the eyewitness testimony is true, because the Story says that the eyewitness testimony is true.
We know that anything the Story says about the eyewitness testimony, is true, because the Story says that everything it says, is true.
Ad infinitum.
Perhaps that is how some people understand the Bible but it is not required to accept the New Testament as valid testimony of the words and deeds of Jesus. Why do we believe that we have the words of Socrates in the writings of Plato? Why do we believe that we have the words of the rabbis in the Mishnah? Why do we believe we have the words of Muhammad in the Qur’an? We believe these things because we examine the sources and judge whether or not they seem likely and how close they are to the person they are about. With the New Testament we have multiple sources (synoptics, John, Paul) that speak of Jesus’ ministry. They are reasonably close to the actual events and they fit with what we would expect of situations in that social context. They also represent a faith of which the eyewitnesses thought was true enough to die for. I believe that the New Testament is valid testimony not because it claims to be but because under honest historical scrutiny, it holds up as a true witness.
I’ll be back from vacation in 2 weeks so Adios till then.