E-mail me!
Back
Biblical scholarship has raised many questions about the origins of the Old Testament. One of the theories that has resulted is the document theory - better known as the documentary hypothesis. The basic premise of the theory states a groups of editors, not Moses as tradition states, wrote and/or compiled the contents of the Torah. The Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, are said to come from a number of different sources. Since the exact sources are not known, the individual peices of the Torah have been assigned names. Some, but not all, of the names include J, P, E, D, JE, J1, J2, and even JR. The most recognized of these are the J, P, E, and D. Despite scholarship, many fundamentalist, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens maintain that the documentary hypothesis is a false belief.
There are several notable arguments to support the anti-document position. One of the main arguments for the documentary hypothesis is that Moses would not have had enough time to write everything that has been attributed to him. The immediate response is, "Of course he did." Modern writers have written far more in less time that what Moses is supposed to have written his works. An obvious example is Stephen King, the popular horror writer. He has written a volume many times the size of the entire Bible. Also, Moses wondered around in the desert for forty years with relatively little to do. If I had nothing to do for forty years, I would probably write a book too.
Another argument for the documentary hypothesis is the vastly different literary styles within the Torah. This is easy enough to explain. When I call home to my parents, I don't use the same vocabulary and style I would use when speaking to a professor or even a close friend. This may be the case in the Torah. Moses may not have written just for one group of people. One doesn't write a children's book the same one would for a medical journal. Also, as a writer matures, his writing style changes. I don't write the same way today that I did in the ninth grade.
Yet another argument is the apparent contradictions within the creation stories. Two contradictions exist - the chronological order of events and the creation of mankind. The chronological order contradiction doesn't work to prove this argument. If NASA was to produce a film about the development of the Space Shuttle, the script probably wouldn't be in chronological order. Rather, they would present it in a logical manner - i.e. major components or system groups, even the order in which components are used during a mission. NASA would even go as far as to present an order that would convey the magnificence of the acheivement. Same could be said of the creation accounts. Also, the first account says, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to out likeness... so God created humankind," while the second account has Eve created from a rib of the pre-existing Adam. At first look these seem to contradict. However, if one examines the first account closely, it doesn't actually say how or in any particular sequence God created man. It simply says God created man. These accounts aren't contradictory - just different.