Score 85 – Test the Documentary Hypothesis against a suitable passage of your choice. Assess its explanatory power and the extent to which it assists you as a reader.
Answer text Question 1
What is the Documentary Hypothesis, and it is accurate? This essay will attempt to answer this question. We will begin by a description of what the Documentary Hypothesis is. Then, through the examination of the first few chapters of Genesis, we will examine the Hypothesis’ claims against Scripture.
The Documentary Hypothesis has been developed for centuries. Because that history is not essential to answering this question, it will be set aside. What matters is what the Hypothesis actually claims. The Hypothesis claims that over the course of hundreds of years (proponents of the Hypothesis, of course, varying widely in opinions on exactly how long), the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) was written. This of course means that many authors and editors were involved, and that Moses is not it’s author. There are, it is claimed, four main sources from which the Pentateuch was derived. It is summarized as JDEP. The only sources we will need to consider for this essay, however, is J (the YAHWEH source) and P (the Priest source). The significance of those signifiers will become clearer later in this essay. Because of the scope of the Hypothesis (all of the Pentateuch) and the limited scope of this essay, we will focus on the first few chapters of Genesis.
Those who are proponents of this Hypothesis have three primary reasons they advocate for it from Genesis. The first in the variation of Divine names in the Text. The second are the repetitions in the Text. And the third, the difference in style between Text blocks. As a further note here, those who propose this Hypothesis are in the Text. They aren’t ignoring it, and it isn’t fair to say that they are actively trying to destroy the reliability of the Bible. Therefore, it is important to engage the Text with them with compassion and understanding — understanding not only of the inerrant Text, but of human frailty.
First, then, the claim that the variation is divine names constitutes a reason for the Documentary Hypothesis. From 1:1-2:3, the divine names used in, simply, “God.” This is credited to the P source. Then, from 2:4-4:26 (with a few notable exceptions!), the divine names used is “LORD God.” Then, from 5:1, it reverts to the name “God,” implying the P source, according to the Hypothesis. Does this make sense? No, not really. A variation in Name does not imply different authors. Take Tolkien’s writings in The Lord of the Rings, and his character Aragorn. Through his book, Aragorn is called Strider by the Hobbits, Elessar by the Elves, and more. Tolkien, one writer, wrote of Aragorn as all of those names, still referring to the same person, depending on the circumstance and who he was interacting with. Furthermore, there are notable exceptions in 2:4-4:26 where LORD God is used. In 3:1, the serpent used only “God.” Is it better to assume that this is a random portion of an unknown P source text stitched back in? Or is it plainer to assume that the devil is trying to convince Eve that God is not the God He presents Himself to be to her, namely, the “LORD God?” I think the latter. Also, in 4:25, the same deviation is made. However, I have no time to expand on it here.
Second, what about the repetitions in the Text? What about multiple creation accounts, and they mix up the order in which things are created. Is this a valid reason for the Documentary Hypothesis? No. First of all, as for the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and the creation account of Chapter 2 and their similarities, it is not above a good author to use repetitions from different vantage points to best communicate the actual events that took place. Book detectives know to ask multiple witnesses for their eye witness accounts, not simply because they won’t perfectly remember the same event, but because (usually) no one witness will have the single best vantage point of the event. Second of all, the repetitions are clearly intentional. Stephen regularly refers to the “seams” of Genesis: places where “these are the generations of” show up. These act as seams, connecting a former narrative to the next narrative. They usually come after a completion of events or the death of the main character in the narrative before. Then it introduces the next main character and gives a genealogy of that characters family. The first seam comes in 2:3 to 2:4. Some others are 4:26 to 5:1, 6:8-6:9, 9:29 to 10:1, and on we could go. It is not uncommon to repeat things, as seen clearly by the seams 4:26-5:1. There, in 5:1-2, the Book once again recounts the creation of man and woman. If this was the same source as 1:1-2:3, having stitched in 2:4-4:46 from another source, it would be extremely odd as 1:27 just recounted mankind’s creation. Which is more reasonable to assume? That there were two sources, one of which utilized repetitions? Or that, as I argue, it was one author who utilized repetition intentionally to communicate most accurately what actually happened?
Third, what about difference in style? Genesis 1:1-2:3 is more poetic in form, and 2:4 and on is more structured. What are we to make of this? Again, is it better to assume the development of the Book and the stitching together of several sources? Or is it better to see the emphasis the author is putting to the different Text blocks? To see that in Genesis 1:1-2:3 is from God’s perspective, telling the creation of the heavens and the earth, and that 2:4 and on is telling of the generation of the heavens and the earth. I think that is the more reasonable approach. Again, Tolkien wrote in the style of many authors when he wrote The Lord of the Rings. Much is written from the perspective of the prophets, some is written from the perspective of the Elves, and some by an unnamed human scholar, all people who Tolkien invented to make his fictional writing more authentic to actual historical documents. Why is it unreasonable to assume that it couldn’t have been written by the same author who wanted to emphasis different perspectives and angles and facets of the events he was writing about?
In summation, the Documentary Hypothesis seems unnecessary and groundless. Simply from the Text of Genesis, there are no arguments that stick. The variation in Divine Names seems intentional, as well as the difference in style, and the repetitions in the Text. Unless other reason can be provided to reexamine this Text from outside of Scripture or from elsewhere in Scripture, the point made in this essay seem to exclude the accuracy of the Documentary Hypothesis.
Score 45 – Select a passage from the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel or Kings. Discuss how the passage carries forward themes from the Pentateuch, and explain how these connections illuminate the passage for a Christian reader.
Answer text Question 4
How does Joshua 1:1-9 and 5:13-6:7 carry forward the themes of the Pentateuch? Is this short essay, I would like to propose three answers. First, that God is a God who draws near His people through an appointed mediator. Second, that God approaches Joshua the same way in which He approached Moses. And third, that God goes with His people and is their strength. In these ways the themes of the Pentateuch are continued in Joshua. As we look at these themes, we will see how they apply to the Christian reader today.
First, God is a God who draws near His people through an appointed mediator. In Exodus and on, it was Moses. Moses would be the one communicating with God, advocating for the people, standing between them and God’s wrath, etc. Key examples of this include Exodus 32 when Moses implored the LORD not to destroy His people (32:11, for example), and when Moses meets with God in the tent of meeting (Exodus 33:7-23). In Joshua, God is drawing near to His people again, with Joshua as His mediator (see Joshua 1:1-9). And just as God promised to give Egypt into Moses’ hand, so also not He promises to give Jericho into Joshua’s hand (Joshua 6:2). Now, we have a better mediator (1 Timothy 1), who is appointed over all things (greater than Moses – Hebrews 3), who is our righteousness and advocate (1 John 2:1-2), and has entered into the closest proximity possible with God the Father (Hebrews 9-10)! The rest that Joshua could not give, He gives (Hebrews 4:8-13)!
Second, God approaches Joshua in the same way He approached Moses. I say “in the same way” not because it was exactly the same, but because it was thematically the same. In both Exodus 3 and Joshua 5, God tells His chosen mediator to take of his sandals, because he is standing on holy ground. Holiness is a major theme throughout the entirety of these Books, especially as relates God’s position to His people. Further more, God appears to both in a personal manner: to Moses in a burning bush, identifying Himself as YAHWEH, God of his fathers. To Joshua, it is in the “man,” who I believe to be Jesus pre-incarnation (see John 1:18; see also that he is worshiped and says the same thing God does in Exodus 3). Both Moses and Joshua face fearfulness, and God answers them (Moses – Exodus 4; Joshua – Joshua 1:1-9). Throughout these Books both the people’s need of dependence upon God and Moses’ and Joshua’s need of God are emphasized, again and again. For the Christian reader, it is reassuring that God has taken the initiative to save us and make us more like Jesus. The Triune God of the Bible draws near to us in Jesus Christ. We can know Him in a closer way than even Moses or Joshua did!
Third, God goes with His people and is their strength. In Exodus 33:15-16, Moses makes clear that what makes God’s people special is that God goes with them. He is the One who gives them success and identity. If He does not go with them, all is in vain! In Joshua, the same theme is repeated (1:9, for a specific example). In Joshua 6, God asks His people and his new rookie leader to rely on His strength completely if they are going to have victory. If God does not go with Joshua and His people, their efforts will fail. God asks something similar of Moses at his commission: one man going up against the entirety of Egypt, completely reliant on God for success. For the Christian reader today, we too need to have the same dependence on God. He is the source of our strength, and He is what makes us unique (Titus 2:14)!
From this one Text we can see how obviously the Book of Joshua continues the themes established in Exodus. There are many more connections throughout the whole Pentateuch, but that exceeds the scope of this essay. In this, we can see that God’s nearness, His initiation to draw near, and His strength is central to these themes. And they are central to the Christian reader today. God draws near to us in Christ, the mediator of a better covenant, and we can rely on His strength! Let us draw the wisdom and instruction God has given to us in the Old Testament, and run to God in Christ!
Score 65 – The elders of a nearby church ask you for help, as you’re an Old Testament theologian. Their pastor has said that Isaiah did not write all of Isaiah. They want to know whether their pastor must necessarily be denying something central about the doctrine of Scripture. Write a guide for them, so that they can understand the issues behind the question.
Answer text Question 8
Questions like these can be hard to handle. First of all, there is the questions, and even doubts that can come about the validity of the Bible. I want to encourage you, first and foremost, that asking question about the Bible isn’t something wrong — in fact, God is a God who invites us to examine what He says and examine His words. Think of Jesus inviting Thomas to stick his finger in his side to be certain that He was who He said He was, or how the people who searched the Scriptures diligently to see if what Paul said was true were called noble in Acts. A second reason this kind of question can be difficult is the people who hold them. We need to be careful not to condemn people for looking at the Bible and coming to different positions than ours. Instead, we need to look at the Bible and really get our hands around what we believe the Text is saying. After we’ve done that, we need to compassionately approach those who hold a position that we believe is unbiblical. It may be that you both have the same high view of Scripture, and the problem is merely exegetical. It is true, this theory largely arose because of a rejection of the possibility of predictive prophesy, but we shouldn’t assume that — you should assume the problem is exegetical until proven otherwise. The worst thing you could do is burn your bridges to that person. We should always assume the best, especially of pastors we’ve known to be faithful, and follow Jesus instructions in Matthew 18, and the instruction of Paul in 1 and 2 Timothy. Now, let’s examine the arguments for the claim that Isaiah didn’t write all of Isaiah.
Not everyone will hold to the same position on multiple authors for Isaiah, so keep that in mind while I describe the general position amongst scholars. Many scholars divide the Book up into three sections, and attribute one or multiple authors to those sections. First, Isaiah 1-39 is, according to them, written by Isaiah of Jerusalem pre-exile. Second, 40-55 is written during Babylonian captivity by an anonymous Babylonian prophet in the exile. Third, 56-66 is seen as another section after the return of the exile, and is usually attributed to many authors and editors.
Motyer, a brilliant commentator on Isaiah, makes a very compelling case that the third section (56-66) relies on the second section (40-55) being real. The third section assumed as being after the exile because the setting is very clearly not Babylon. Is 40-55 is in Babylon, that requires a return. If 40-55 wasn’t assumed, 56-66 would be recognized as written by the same author of 1-39 (or at least written pre-exile) because the style and themes are so similar. I don’t think that even Sweeney or McConville, two proponents of the multiple authors theory who I will reference in this essay, would disagree with that.
I will take the position that we shouldn’t hold to the multiple authorship idea, and instead advocate for Isaiah son of Amoz (Isaiah 1:1) as the single author, for the sake of clarity. One of the first reasons I would give, assuming that I am talking with a Christian (as you are, your pastor) is that the New Testament implies only one author: Isaiah. Key passages for this are John 12:38-40, and Luke 3:4. I will leave you to hunt down those passages and examine them for yourself.
Second, we need to engage with the actual Text of Isaiah. So what evidence is there that 40-55 doesn’t take place in Babylonian captivity? For one thing, there are nine references to Babylon in 1-39, and only four references in 40-55. Those references are 43:14, 47:1, 48:14, and 48:20. A key text as to why this section is not written in Babylon, but is a prediction that these things will take place, is 52:11 (Motyer expands on the following argument in his commentary, if you want more detail). This cannot be written while in Babylon. First, Isaiah says “come out of there” not “come out of here.” Second, Isaiah’s focus has changed. He has already called them to flee Babylon in 48:20-21. He has done away with the captivity problem that he has been predicting. The new problem is a moral one (48:22). To this problem, God has already prescribed his remedy in 49:5-6). Thus, from 48:21 and on, it is a moral problem Isaiah is addressing, not an immediate captivity in Babylon. Motyer says something like, Babylon hasn’t been brought into focus at all in these chapters; in fact, just the opposite has happened.
Third, as Palmer Robertson points out, why is it unreasonable to think that Isaiah, who predicted the downfall of Babylon in 13:1, is incapable of seeing a future captivity of Israel by Babylon, and a future return? Fourth, one of the claims for multi-authorship is that the future contributors and editors to the original Isaiah of Jerusalem’s work added their writings on to 1-39 to gain authority, 1-39 presumably having authority already amongst people. But why, as Robertson has pointed out, would that be allowed? And who or what group would be able to authorize or undertake such a task? And why would adding to an already established work that was, apparently, widely known and respected add to the authority of what was added? These questions, as far as I know form reading Sweeney and McConville, are ignored.
Fifth, the constant themes throughout Isaiah as a whole. Both McConville and Sweeney admit that there are consistent themes spanning the whole of Isaiah. They have sought to come up with a solution for such unity of themes while maintaining the multiple authors claim, and they are reaching, to say the least. Even McConville admits that the authors and editors that followed Isaiah would have had to have had impeccable knowledge of Isaiah’s mind to maintain the themes the original Isaiah established in 1-39.
Sixth, and finally, is the division in style of 39-40. Even in our English translations, we can tell that there has been a shift in the way 40 is written from how 1-39 was written. Should we assume, therefore, that the multiple authors assumption is valid? No, at least not in it’s current formulation. For 40:9 makes clear that Isaiah is still speaking to “the cities of Judah,” which cannot mean that they are in exile at this point. Is there, therefore, a more simple explanation to why 40 and on is different from 39 and before? I think so, but I will that for you to discover for yourself, as it goes beyond the scope of this essay.
In conclusion, it simply doesn’t make sense to assume multiple authors logically or Biblically. The assumptions that need to be made in order to maintain multiple authorship is simply ridiculous, if I can be blunt. That said, you shouldn’t start off by telling your pastor that his current views are ridiculous. Instead, pray that God works in his heart. If you are agree and are right that the Book of Isaiah was written by one man (Isaiah son of Amoz), and if you pastor truly believes that the Bible is the Word of God and that he should submit to it, then he should come to realize with you that the views he currently holds are ridiculous. I hope this helps guide you in your thoughts, prayer, and conversation. Grace and peace to you from the God of all wisdom and insight, who makes straight crooked paths.
Standing Before God, This We Are and No More 