Evidence That Demands A Verdict

THAT DEMANDS AVERDICT
HISTORICAL EVIDENCES FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
VOLUME II
f'ilTiîM
)0SH Mcdowell
EVIDENCE
THAT DEAIANDS AVERDICT
VOLUME II
HISTORICAL EVIDENCES FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
êt^S^,
THOMAS NELSON PUBLISHERS

Nashville
Copyright © 1993 by Josh D. McDowell
Previously published by Here's life Publishers, Inc. copyright ©
1975, 1981.
All rights reserved. Written permission must be secured from

the publisher to use or reproduce any part of this book, except
for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles.
Published in Nashville, Tennessee, by Thomas Nelson, Inc.,

Publishers, and distributed in Canada by Word Communica-
tions, Ltd., Richmond, British Columbia, and in the Untied
Kingdom by Word (UK), Ltd., Milton Keynes, England.
ISBN 0-8407-4379-3 (v. 2 : pbk.)
Printed in the United States of America

TO TWO OF MY FORMER PROFESSORS
DR. CHARLES FEINBERG AND DR.
ROBERT SAUCY
With deep appreciation and respect
for their Uves, friendship and
constant encouragement in Christ.
FOREWORD
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, fifth edition, defines an apologist as, "One who
apologizes or who argues in defense of a cause, institution, or the like; specifically one
who argues in defense of Christianity." Even a casual glance at church history reveals
that through the years the Holy Spirit has given to certain theologians the gift of
apologetics. Names like Athanasius, Augustine and Calvin come to the fore to
document the authenticity of this claim.
In our day one of the truly gifted men in this intellectual and spiritual discipline is
Josh McDowell. Back in 1972 he published Evidence That Demands a Verdict. In it he
presents with great convicting power hundreds of historical evidences which validate
the teachings of the Christian faith. I make bold to say that no intelligent person can
read this with an open mind without coming to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the
unique Son of God and man's only sufficient Savior. I consider this volume one of the
most valuable I have in my library.
And now Mr. McDowell has completed his second major work. More Evidence That
Demands a Verdict. From perusing it in its unedited form I have discovered that it has
the same characteristics as the first, i.e., sound scholarship, penetrating exegesis and
convincing proofs which are simply stated. Thousands of hours of competent research
based on an extensive bibliography made up of books and periodicals representing
every point of view have gone into its production. It is a valuable tool for the serious-
minded Christian worker as he seeks to come to grips with the pagan philosophical,
psychological and economic concepts of our day. I am grateful to Campus Crusade for
Christ for their backing and their encouragement in making it possible for this gifted
author to bring this volume into being. I intend to make full use of it in my ministry.
Harold L. Fickett. Jr., ThD, Pastor

Faith Evangelical Church
Chatsworth, California
PREFACE
WHY MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT?
There are various reasons for adding this volume to my first book, Evidence That
Demands a Verdict:
(1) All the material could not be put into one volume.
(2) I have received manyrequests from students, professors and pastors for
material dealing with the Documentary Hypothesis and Form Criticism.
University students are taking courses from professors steeped in one view,
and the student, because of a lack of background, finds himself being
brainwashed, not educated. He has no basis from which to answer and
usually no sources to develop a positive response to what he is taught.
Instead of responding with positive evidence, the student is intimidated.
(3) There seems to be a need to counteract the "absoluteness" of so many

university textbooks on these two subjects.
DO WHAT WITH IT?

It is my desire that this book give Christian believers the confidence and knowledge to
speak up. Christian students will be able to use this material to write papers, give
speeches and interject their convictions about Jesus Christ and the Scriptures in the
classroom.
After reading the manuscript of More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, the
following comments were made:
A university student: "If I would have had this material last year, I could have in-
telligently answered almost every negative assertion of the professor in my Old

Testament class."
A professor: "Your book provided much of the material I had been looking for to give
in my class. Thanks a lot."
A pastor: "The knowledge I gained from reading your book has answered the nagging
doubts I had left over from seminary."
A layman: "Your research has helped me to evaluate the Sunday school material I
have been asked to teach."
THE TERM "RADICAL CRITIC"

The terms "radical critic" and "radical criticism" have been chosen as convenient ones
to indicate those who not only adhere to the Documentary Hypothesis and Form
Criticism but basically advocate a naturalistic world view (see page 3). The label is not
used in an invidious sense.
A "COCKSURE COMPLACENCY" OR
A "CAREFUL CONSIDERATION"?
Bernard W. Anderson says that "in these days we speak less dogmatically of the
'assured gains' of Biblical Criticism, for someone is just apt to pull the rug out from
under our feet." 2/81
About the present need of examining the evidence further, Anderson speaks of "the
serious undergraduate himself who may be quite skeptical but is no longer able to
dismiss the Bible with cocksure complacency." 1/81
THE CRITICS AND CRITICISM

It seems that every time the term "critic" is used, it denotes a negative discipline or
study. That should not be the case. The word critic or criticism is a positive term. A
basic definition of criticism is the examination of a problem, a text or issue, etc., to
determine its authenticity, reliability or meaning.
MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT
For example, Higher Criticism, rightly understood, "is simply the careful scrutiny, on
the principles which it is customary to apply to all literature, of the actual phenomena
of the Bible, with a view to deduce from these such conclusions as may be warranted
regarding the age, authorship, mode of composition, sources, etc., of the different
books; and everyone who engages in such inquiries, with whatever aim, is a 'Higher
Critic' and cannot help himself." 1/9 Therefore, anyone who studies the authenticity
of a book is a "Higher Critic," whether he is a liberal or a conservative.
The problem that usually leads to a misunderstanding of its use is that High Criticism,
as well as other types, has almost exclusively been associated with a "method yielding a
certain class of results."
The critical method, so often attached to liberal theology, has been falsely assumed to
be a liberal discipline. The various names used for God in Genesis, the
strictly
similarity of passages in the Synoptic Gospels, etc. are facts to be recognized. This is
the job of criticism. The "collation and sifting of evidence, with a view to the ob-
taining of a satisfactory explanation ... is a critical process." 1/9
I in no way want to discredit the function of criticism. However, and it shall be ap-
parent in the following pages, I do disagree with the humanistic view that often
determines the results of the radical critics. It is the subjective analysis of the critical
results with which I take issue. Too many of the objective results are made to coincide
with a subjective, rationalistic, anti-supernatural, humanistic outlook.
A DIFFICULT TASK
I realize that when I state a view of radical criticism,
it does not necessarily mean that
all the radical critics adhere to that particular assumption or view.
It would be impossible, as well as boring, to give all the various views and differences
of opinion of the critics on any one problem or assertion. Theradical critics, between
themselves, differ as much in their assumptions as the conservative scholars often do in
their answers.
Each person receiving the early drafts of the manuscript suggested another author or
book that should be represented. Finally the line had to be drawn or the work would
have gone on ad infinitum.
THE PURPOSE
Idid not have in mind, nor have I in practice expected, to replace or supersede the use
of many excellent works in these fields by very competent biblical and literary
scholars.
But much of the research and many of the writings in this book are not available at
most secular universities. Therefore students and faculty are often limited in their
examination of the subjects dealt with in the classroom and in this book. Some of the
best works are unavailable to the student, especially in the area of answers to the
radical assumptions.
I will probably be accused of being unfair or lopsided in the presentation of the
material in this volume. It will more than likely be said that more space was given to
the answers to radical criticism than to its assumptions and their support.
I am of the opinion that the university textbooks are abounding with explanations of
the assumptions of radical criticism. However, there seem to be few answers in text-
books (if any, in the majority of them) to these viewa, especially by capable con-
servative critics. Perhaps More Evidence That Demands a Verdict will help to offset
this imbalance. Thus it will contribute to the process of education.
ATTITUDE
The purpose of this book is not to "kill a critic" or to "destroy a hypothesis," but rather
to provide material that can be used to better understand the issues involved and to
answer many of the conclusions of the naturalistic critics and their methods. Often I
hear various believers incorrectly pass off the radical critics as "infidels" or "blind
skeptics."
I am at odds with many of the radical critics over various issues and methods of ap-
proach to biblical criticism, but I respect them as individuals and often admire their
dedication and research.
The proper motivation behind the use of these lecture notes is to glorify and magnify
Christ— not to win an argument. Apologetics is not for proving the Word of God but
simply for providing a basis for faith.
One should have a gentle and reverent spirit when using these notes: "But sanctify
Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to every one who
asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and
reverence" (I Peter 3:15).
These notes, used with a proper attitude, will help to motivate a person to honestly
consider Jesus Christ and will head him toward the central and primary issue— the
gospel (such as is contained in the Four Spiritual Laws at the end of this book).
When I share Christ with someone who has some honest doubts, I give him enough
apologetics to answer his questions or satisfy his curiosity and then turn the con-
versation back to his relationship with Christ. The presentation of evidence
(apologetics) should never be a substitute for using the Word of God.
A FOIBLE OF SCHOLARSHIP
For years the hackneyed phrases "Documentary Hypothesis," "JEDP," "Moses didn't
write the Pentateuch," "Form Criticism," etc., have been heard again and again in the
classrooms of our universities.
Today, it often seems that a theory is accepted because of its place in a textbook and
its continued repetition and recognition.
Often repetition is a foible of scholarship. One scholar notes: "Another common and
natural phenomenon is the repetition of hypotheses once proposed. As in other fields,
so in Bible study, what begins as a very tentative guess becomes by repetition an
assumed fact and represents 'the consensus of scholarly opinion.'"
The above should be a warning, not only to the radical critic, but to the conservative
critic as well.
SOME CRITICISMS
(1) One criticism of my book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, (and it
first
be made of this book too) has been that the quotes are too long.
will certainly
I have included long quotes so that individuals using the material can better
understand the context and, therefore, not misuse a reference. It is easy for
quotations to be misleading. I have tried to avoid a misrepresentation of any
writer.
(2) Another criticism is that many quotes are very similar and therefore un-
necessary. Again my purpose here is to give the person using the material
ample sources so that he can choose what he thinks is relevant. Most books
have limited documentation and, therefore, if several people use them, they
begin to sound like parrots. More Evidence That Demands a Verdict has
sufficient sources to allow its use by various people without their sounding
like a broken record. Also, it permits those using the material to be creative.
(S) Stillanother criticism is that some references are used several times. Yes, a
few quotes are used two times. The reason for this is that they are appropriate
in each situation and aid the reader in understanding the issue.
(4) Others I didn't deal with Source Criticism, Historical

will criticize that
Criticism, the NewQuest, the Post-Bultmannian influence, Existentialism,
Demythologization, the Q
document or the Synoptic Problem, epistomology,
etc. The purpose of this book is to clarify the issues and give some practical
answers to the questions that students have asked me over the last three years.
It is not to give the pros and cons of the multitudes of problems, questions
and schools of criticism.
RESEARCH TEAM MEMBERS

Working with me in compiling this research was a team of 14 students from 14
universities. It all started after my first book, Evidence
That Demands a Verdict, was
published. Several students approached me about working on the project so they
could receive credit at their universities.
Ron Lutjens Bowling Green University

RESEARCH: Historic Reliability
of the Old Testament
James Davis Louisiana Polytechnic Institute
RESEARCH: Archaeology
Frank Dickerson Ohio State University
RESEARCH: Presupposition of
Anti-Supernaturalism
Jay Gary Georgia Tech

RESEARCH: Synoptic Problem
Roy Moran Baylor University
RESEARCH: Documentary Hypothesis
John Austin University of Virginia
(Campus Crusade for Christ Director)
Richard Beckham Louisiana State University
RESEARCH: Dating of Daniel
Dave Wilson Trinity Seminary
Terry Shope University of Arkansas
RESEARCH: Form Criticism
John Sloan West Texas State University
RESEARCH: Form Criticism
Faith Osteen Arizona State University
Research Assistant
Stephanie Ross North Texas State University
Research Assistant
Beth Veazie University of Arizona
Research Assistant
Nancy Thompson Chaffey College
Research Assistant
After eight years of traveling and lecturing in universities, I see a great need for
Christian students to invest their lives in research.
Robert Mounce, dean of the Potter College of Arts and Humanities at Western
Kentucky University speaks of the commitment and vision necessary for such an
endeavor:
"The task of scholarship is in fact a lowly role which demands tremendous dedication.
My own personal feeling is that young men with a gift of conceptualization and
perception need to be encouraged to really believe that God can be served in the
solitude of one's study surrounded by the fruits of scholarly labor.'*
WHY COPYRIGHTED?
The reason that these notes have been copyrighted is not to limit their use, but to
protect them from misuse and to safeguard the rights of the authors and publishers of
the multitude of quotations I have used and documented.
OUTLINE FORM
Because the notes are in outline form and the transitions between various concepts are
not extensively written out, the effective use of this material will result as a person
spends time thinking through individual sections and developing his own convictions.
Thus, it becomes his message and not the parroting of someone else's.
GODISNOWHERE
means
GOD IS NO WHERE? or GOD IS NOW HERE?
The outline structure of the notes can sometimes cause a person to misunderstand an
illustration or concept. Be cautious in drawing conclusions one way or another when
you do not clearly understand something. Study it further and investigate other
sources.
A LIFETIME INVESTMENT
The following are books that I recommend a person buy for his library. Also, these
would be good books to buy and donate to your university library. (Often university
libraries will buy books if you fill out a request slip.)
1. Archer, Gleason, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Moody Press.

2. Cassuto, U. The Documentary Hypothesis. Magnes Press, The Hebrew
University.
5. Free, Joseph P. Archaeology and Bible History. Scripture Press.
4. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Inter- Varsity Press.
5. Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company.
6. Kistemaker, Simon. The Gospels in Current Study. Baker Book House.
7. Kitchen, K.A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Inter- Varsity Press.
8. Ladd, G.E. The New Testament and Criticism. Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co.
(The following are three excellent books for understanding New Testament
Criticism.)
9. Marshall, Howard I. Luke: Historian and Theologian. 2^ndervan Publishing
House
10. McNight, Edgar V. What is Form Criticism? Fortress Press (any in this series).
11. Perrin, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism? Yortrts&^rcss.
(The following is an excellent workbook to understand "forms" according to
Form Criticism.)
12. Montgomery. Robert M. and Richard W. Stegner. Auxiliary Studies in the
Forms in the Gospels^ I. The Pronouncement Story. Abingdon Press.
Bible:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Oswald T. The Old Testament,
Allis, Its Claims and Its Critics. The Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company.
2. Anderson, Bernard W. "Changing Emphasis in Biblical Criticism." Journal of
Bible and Religion. April, 1955. Vol. 23, pp. 81-88.
EXPLANATION OF GENERAL FORMAT

FOOTNOTES: After each quote there will be two sets of numbers divided by a
diagonal (example: 47/21-23). The number to the left of the diagonal is the
reference to the source in the bibliography at the end of each section. The
number on the right refers to the page or pages where the quote is located in
the reference source.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The entire bibliography is not placed at the back of the lecture
notes. There are five individual bibliographies placed at the ends of the various
divisions of the notes.
This enables a person to remove a section of the notes and have its
bibliography with it to facilitate the locating of reference sources.
OUTLINE: I have chosen not to use the traditional method of outlining. Instead I
am employing a method that is easy to use in locating specific references in

printed notes while lecturing.
Traditional Method Used Here

I. lA.
A. IB.
1. IC.
a. ID.
(1) IE.
(a) IF.
INDEXES: Located at the back of the notes are two separate indexes to help you in
using these notes: 1. Author Index; 2. Subject Index.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES: At the back of the book is a limited biography of
various authors. This will give the reader a background on some of the authors
quoted.
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION 1
This section deals with anti-supernaturalism and archae-

ology. Both topics relate to the Documentary Hypothesis
and Form Criticism. Therefore they are treated at the be-
ginning instead of under each of the two following sections.
Chapter 1. THE PRESUPPOSITION OF
ANTI-SUPERNATURALISM S
An explanation of the basic presupposition of both the
Documentarians and the Form Critics. Often the alleged
objective historical conclusions are molded by a sub-
jective world view.
Chapter 2. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CRITICISM 17

A discussion of the contributions and influence of ar-
chaeology to criticism.
Bibliography 22
SECTION II. DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 25
The discipline of literary criticism applied to the Pentateuch
is examined along with evidence for Mosaic authorship.
Chapter 3. INTRODUCTION TO THE DOCUMENTARY
HYPOTHESIS 29
What is the Documentary Hypothesis? What are the
JED? documents?
Chapter 4. INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL CRITICISM .... 35
Biblical criticism defined and the different critical
schools explained.
Chapter 5. INTRODUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCH 39
The purpose and importance of the first five biblical
books.
Chapter 6. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCUMENl ARY
HYPOTHESIS 43
A description of the various documentary theories and
their modern revisions.
Chapter 7. GROUND RULES 47
The ancient oriental environment provides various
principles to apply to the Old Testament.
Chapter 8. DOCUMENTARY PRESUPPOSITIONS 51
An mvestigation of the four basic documentary
assumptions:
(1 Priority of source analysis over archaeology;
(2) Natural view of Israel's religion and history;
(3) No writing in Israel at Moses' time;
(4) Legendary view of patriarchal narratives.
F Chapter 9. CONSEQUENCES OF RADICAL HIGHER
CRITICISM 89
A discussion of the results of Israel's history being
unhistorical, fraudulent and naturalistic.
Chapter 10. EVIDENCE FOR MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP ... 95
The internal and external testimony for Moses'
authorship of the Pentateuch.
Chapter 11. THE PHENOMENON OF DIVINE NAMES 121
The various uses of the divine names (Elohim, Yahweh,
etc.) are put in their right perspective.
Chapter 12. THE REPETITION OF ACCOUNTS AND

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS 137
Certain stories in the Pentateuch are said to be repeated
twice and others to have contradictory details.
Chapter 13. THE INCONGRUITIES 159
The writing in the third person and the record of Moses'
death is said to be incongruous with Mosaic authorship.
Chapter 14. THE INTERNAL DIVERSITIES 161
A discussion of the assumed difference of subject matter,
style, and diction.
Chapter 15. THE CONCLUSION TO THE DOCUMENTARY

HYPOTHESIS 169
Bibliography 175
SECTION III. FORM CRITICISM 185
The basic tenets of Form Criticism are examined. Practical
answers are given to the basic assumptions and conclusion.
Chapter 16. INTRODUCTION TO FORM CRITICISM 189
Form Criticism is defined and its purpose and proponents
discussed.
Chapter 17. DEFINITION OFTERMS 201

A glossary as an aid to the study of Form Criticism.
Chapter 18. ORAL TRADITION 205
The assumption that before the Gospels were written
there was a period of oral transmission.
Chapter 19. PERICOPES 2la
Basic to the form critical method is the concept that the
gospel material first circulated in small, independent
units.
Chapter 20. CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE FORM . . 223

The listing, defining and explanation of various forms.
Chapter 21. THE CREATIVE COMMUNITY 247
The assumption that vital factors which gave rise to and
preserved the various forms are to be found in the
practical interests of the Christian community.
Chapter 22. NO BIOGRAPHICAL INTEREST 263
The assumption that the gospels have no biographical,
chronological or geographical value.
Chaptcr23. LAWS OF TRADITION 269
Through discovering various laws of tradition it is
assumed the original form of a tradition can be
discovered.
Chapter 24. HISTORICAL SKEPTICISM 279
The cause and extent of the rehabiUty of the record of the
historical Jesus is examined.
Chapter 25. THE MESSIANIC SECRET THEORY 287
The conclusion that the messianic claims of the historical
Jesus are to be rejected as a post- Easter creation.
Chapter26. GNOSTICISM 291
The heavenly redeemer concept applied to Christ is
attributed to a Gnostic Myth which developed in oriental
dualism before Jesus ever lived.
Chapter 27. CONCLUSION TO FORM CRITICISM 299
A look at the contribution and limitations of the Form
Critical approach.
Chapter 28.AN ASSESSMENT OF THE HISTORICAL

CRITICAL METHOD 303
Chapter 29. REDACTION CRITICISM 305
SECTION IV. APPENDICES 327
THE STONES CRY OUT—Archaeological Examples
1) The Stories of Isaac, Jacob and Joseph
2) The Pentateuch
3) The Conquest of Canaan
4) The Hittites
5) The Lachish Letters
6) The Exile
7) Tell Mardikh: The Discovery of Ebla
Bibliography 356
"Recent Illumination of the Old Testament" 358
by Siegfried H. Horn
"Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit" 364
by Cyrus H. Gordon
"A Comparison of Form Criticism and Classical
Criticism of the Gospels" 369
by Gordon R. Lewis
"Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism" 375
by C.S. Lewis
"The Influence of Form Criticism on Christology" 380
by Bob Patterson
Authors Index 383
Subject Index 386
section I
introduction
This section deals with anti-supernaturalism and archaeology. These topics
relate to both the Documentary Hypothesis and Form Criticism.
SECTION OUTLINE
Chapter 1 . The
Presupposition of Anti-supernaturalism
lA. Presupposition
IB. Definition
2B. Synonyms
SB. Unavoidable
4B. Do we have a right?
2A. Anti-supernaturalism
IB. Definition
2B. Explanation
SB. Some illustrations
4B Examples of proponents
.
IC. The Documentary Hypothesis

2C. Form Criticism
SA. Science and miracles
IB. The limitations of science
2B. Hume's philosophical argument
4A. A proper approach to history
IB. A critical method
2B. An appropriate investigation
5A. In summary
Chapter 2. Archaeology and Criticism
lA. Definition
2 A. Basic reasons for increased interest
SA. Basic contributions of biblical criticism
4 A. A word of precaution
5A In summary
chapter 1
the
presupposition
of
anti-supernaturalisni
Before entering the study of the Documentary Hypothesis (see page 29) and Form
Criticism (see page 183) there is a very crucial and often misunderstood area that
needs to be dealt with— anti-supematuralism.
If there is any subject where ignorance abounds it is here. So many sincere students
and laymen are led astray because of conclusions that are allegedly based upon ob-
jective historical or literary investigation and method. However, in reality, the
conclusions are the result of a subjective world view.
lA. PRESUPPOSITION
IB. Definition
A presupposition is is assumed or supposed in advance.
something that A
good definition would be"to require or involve necessarily as an antecedent
condition." One could say that to "presuppose" is to conclude something
before the investigation is commenced.
2B. Synonyms
Prejudge, assume as true, prejudice, forejudgement, preconceived opinion,
fixed conclusion, preconceived notion, jump to a conclusion.
SB. Unavoidable
Presuppositions are to a degree inevitable. Thomas Whitelaw of Great
Britain cites the German theologian, Biedermann {ChristUche Dogmatik),
who put it this way:
.
4 MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT
It is if one asserts that genuinely scientific and

"not true but sand in the eyes,
historic criticismcan and should proceed without dogmatic presuppositions.
In the last instance the consideration of the so-called purely historic grounds
always reaches the point where it can and will decide concerning this, whether
it can or cannot hold some particular thing in and of itself to be possible. . .
Some sort of boundary definitions, be they ever so elastically held, of what is

historically possible, every student brings with him to historical investigations;
and these are for that student dogmatic presuppositions." 36/172
"It is perfectly true," continues James Orr, "that it is impossible in any inquiry
to dispense with guiding principles of investigation, and with presuppositions
of some kind, and there is no criticism on earth that does so ... Only these .
should not be allowed to warp or distort the facts, or be applied to support a

preconceived conclusion. The scientist also finds it incumbent on him to
'anticipate nature' with his interrogations and tentative hypotheses, which,
however, have to be brought to the test... of experimental verification."
16/14
Commenting on the need for presuppositions, John Warwick Montgomery
makes the following observation: "First,though Kant was quite right that all
arguments begin with a prioris, it does not follow that one presupposition is as
good as another" 1/388
Thomas Whitelaw says both the radical and conservative critics presuppose
too much:
"So long as Higher Critics believe in a God, they have no right to postulate His
noninterference with the ordinary line of causation or to assume beforehand
that 'miracles do not happen,' or that 'prediction' in the sense of foretelling
future events 'is impossible.' Admitting that it would be a violation of sound
reasoning to make the contrary suppositions, viz. that in God's providential
government of the world and revelation of Himself miracles and predictions
must occur, one has ground to contend that the argumentation is equally
unfair— is a virtual begging of the question — which starts from the premise.
No supernatural except within the lines and limits of the natural. Impartial
inquirers will severely restrict themselves to investigating the reality or non-
reality of so-called facts, i.e. to examining and proving phenomena with a
view to ascertaining their true character, whether they are natural or not."
36/178
In all fairness to the radical critic, it needs to be realized that "sometimes
professedly conservative writers take great liberties with the simple facts of
Scripture and put forward conclusions which are quite as baseless as the
conclusions of radical criticism." 37/339
Oswald Allis observes the prejudices on both sides:
"The 'scientific scholar'
generally speaking, quite as dogmatic in rejecting
is,
the authority of the Old Testament, as the conservative is in accepting and

defending it. He is just as insistent on fitting the Old Testament into a world
view, which rejects the redemptive supernaturalism of the Bible and the
uniqueness of its history, religion and cultus, as the Bible defender is in in-
sisting on the uniqueness of Old Testament history and the supernaturalism
which pervades it. .To charge an opponent with bias and dogmatism, is an
. .
easy way of avoiding the issue." 37/338
4B Do We Have a Right?
One needs to constantly and consciously be aware of his presuppositions. I
had "Do I have a right to my presuppositions?" A key issue is,
to ask myself,
"Do one's presuppositions coincide with reality, with what really is? Is there
sufficient evidence to support them?"
MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT 5
2A. ANTI-SUPERNATURALISM
Since this concept of anti-supernaturalism is prevalent among the radical critics
of both the Documentary Hypothesis and Form Criticism schools, I decided to
deal with it here rather than in these respective sections.
IB. Definition
For our purposes we will define anti-supernaturalism as disbelief either in
God's existence or His intervention in the natural order of the universe. In the
Pentateuch it is explicitly stated no less than 235 times that either God
"spoke" to Moses, or God "commanded" Moses to do something (according to
an examination of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). A critic
with an anti-supernaturalism bias (presupposition) would immediately reject
these accounts as being unhistorical prior to his investigation.
AJ. Carlson, in Science and the Supernatural, defines the supernatural as

"information, theories, beliefs and practices claiming origins other than
verifiable experience and thinking, or events contrary to known processes in
nature." 1/5-8
2B. Explanation
IC. STATEMENT OF POSITION
Since we purportedly live in a closed system or universe, there can be no
interference or intrusion from the outside by an alleged God. This closed
system or continuum means that every event has its cause within the
system. To put it plainly, every event or happening has its natural ex-
planation. Therefore, any reference to a divine act or event is futile, since
it is presumed there has to be a natural explanation for all phenomena.
2C. BASIC TENETS

It is difficult to summarize the tenets of those holding to an anti-
supernatural viewpoint because they vary among themselves. The
following are held by many:
ID. We live in a closed system (every cause has its natural effect).
2D. There is no God. (For many critics it would be more appropriate to state
it thus: "For all practical purposes, there is no God.")
SD. There is no supernatural.

4D. Miracles are not possible.
3B. Some Illustrations
IC. A group of students gave my first book to a professor, who was also head of
the history department of a large, well-known university. They asked him
to read Evidence That Demands A Verdict and give them his opinion.
Several months later one of the students returned to his office to inquire
about his progress. The professor replied that he had finished the book. He
continued that "it contained some of the most persuasive arguments that
he had read and didn't know how anyone could refute them." At this point
he added, "However, I do not accept Mr. McDowell's conclusions." The
student, slightly baffled, asked, "Why?" The head of the history depart-
ment answered, "Because of my world view!" His final rejection was not
because of the evidence but in spite of the evidence. The motivating factor
for refusing to acknowledge the evidence was his presupposition about the
supernatural and not an investigation of the historical.
2C. At another university I was lecturing in a philosophy class. Upon my
conclusion the professor immediately began to badger me with questions
about the validity of the resurrection. After several minutes the discussion
almost became obnoxious.
Finally a student asked the professor what he believed took place that first
Easter morning. After a brief pause, the professor honestly replied: "To
tell you the truth, I really don't know." Then he immediately added rather
forcefully, "But it wasn't the resurrection!"
After a short period of interrogation he reluctantly admitted this was
because of his world outlook and bias against God acting within the realm
of history.
SC. During another class lecture in which I was speaking on Christianity and
philosophy, the professor interrupted me and said, "This is all ridiculous.
We all know that there has to be some other explanation for the empty
tomb."
4C. The above is one of many reasons why I often make the statement in
history classes that "following the modern historical approach I would
never come to believe in the resurrection of Jesus as Savior and Lord." Most
Christians at this point look askance at me because they know I teach that
Christianity is a historical faith. Then I have to point out that I said
"following the modern historical approach." I could not justify my

examination of history adhering to the "modern approach." The reason is
that it presupposes certain conclusions before an investigation is com-
menced. The average "modern" historian rules out any reference to the
supernatural as being unhistorical, or to use a hackneyed expression, as
"myth."
They approach and then adjust the
history with a preconceived notion
evidence accordingly. In other words, before they even begin their
historical examination they have determined the content of their results.
Many historians approach history with certain presuppositions and these

presuppositions are not historical biases but rather philosophical
prejudices. Their historical perspective is rooted within a philosophical
framework, and the metaphysical conviction usually determines the
"historical" content and results. The "modern" researcher, when presented
with the historical evidence for the resurrection, will usually reject it, but
not because of historical examination.
The response will often be: "Because we know there is no God"; or "The
supernatural is not possible"; or, "We live in a closed system"; or "Miracles
are not possible"; etc. etc. ad infinitum. I usually reply, "Did you come to
, ,
this conclusion by studying the historical evidence or did you think it up

philosophically?" All too often it is the offshoot of philosophical
speculation and not historical homework.
The above men rejected my contentions, not because of any weakness in
the material, but rather because they were confirmed naturalists.
Clark Pinnock clearly describes the problem: "Until he (the naturalist) will
admit the possibility of a theistic world, no amount of evidence will
convince modern man that the Resurrection is not absurd." 39/6,7
Bernard Ramm clarifies the naturalistic approach and its effect upon the
results of one's study:
"If the issue over the existence of the supernatural, very obviously such
is
an approach has made the conclusion its major premise. In short, before
the criticism actually begins, the supernatural is ruled out. All of it must
go. The conclusion is not therefore purely a result of openminded study of
the supernatural, but a conclusion dictated dogmatically by an an-
tisupernatural metaphysics. On what other basis could critics completely
rule out the supernatural in a document that admittedly has historical
value?" 13/204
5C. A VIVID EXAMPLE OF A COMMITMENT TO A PRESUPPOSED

CONCLUSION
For many years I have been telling a joke that illustrates a presuppositional
viewpoint. J. Warwick Montgomery tells this humorous anecdote:
"Once upon a time there was a man who thought he was dead. His con-
cerned wife and friends sent him to the friendly neighborhood psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist determined to cure him by convincing him of one fact
that contradicted his belief that he was dead. The psychiatrist decided to
use the simple truth that dead men do not bleed. He put his patient to
work reading medical texts, observing autopsies, etc. After weeks of effort,
the patient finally said, 'All right, all rightl You've convinced me. Dead
men do not bleed.' Whereupon the psychiatrist stuck him in the arm with a
needle, and the blood flowed. The man looked down with a contorted,
ashen face and cried: 'Good Lordl Dead men bleed after alll'
Montgomery comments:
"This parable illustrates that if you hold unsound presuppositions with
sufficient tenacity, facts will make no difference at all, and you will be able
to create a world of your own, totally unrelated to reality and totally in-
capable of being touched by reality. Such a condition (which the
philosophers call solipsistic, psychiatrists call autistically psychotic, and
lawyers call insane) is tantamount to death because connection with the
living world is severed. The man in the parable not only thought he was
dead, but in a very real sense, he was dead because facts no longer meant
anything to him." 33/21, 22
4B. Examples of Proponents

This section will basically deal with those who advocate either the
Documentary Hypothesis or Form Criticism.
IC. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS
Here is an exact summary of their presupposition as given by the German
scholar Frank (Geshtchte und Kritik der Neuren Theologie, p. 289): "The
representation of a course of history is a priori to be regarded as untrue
and unhistorical if supernatural factors interpose in it. Everything must be
naturalised and likened to the course of natural history."
In one of his works (De Profeten en de Profetie onder Israel, Vol. I, pp. 5,
585) A. Kuenen states his anti-supernaturalist position:
"So long as we attribute a part of Israel's religious life directly to God and
allow supernatural or immediate revelation to intervene even in one in-
stance, just so long does our view of the whole remain inexact, and we see
ourselves obliged to do violence here or there to the well -assured content of
the historical accounts. It is only the assumption of a natural development
that takes account of all the phenomena."
In De Godsdienst van Israel (Vol. I, p 111) Kuenen confesses that "the
familiar intercourse of the divinity with the patriarchs constitutes for me
one of the determining considerations against the historical character of
the narratives."
The idea that there was no supernatural intervention on the part of God in
the affairs of the Israelites has not been abandoned.
Langdon B. Gilkey, formerly of Vanderbilt University, now with the
University of Chicago, describes the biblical account of the entire Exodus-
Sinai experience as "the acts Hebrews believed God might have done and
—
the words he might have said had he done and said them but of course we
recognize he did not." 40/148
Julius Wellhausen, in his Israelitische und Juedische Geschichte (p. 12),

ridicules the account of the miracles that occurred at Sinai when God gave
Moses the law with the scornful exclamation, "Who can seriously believe
all that?"
Referring to the Hebrews' crossing of the Red Sea, Gilkey says: "We deny
the miraculous character of the event and say its cause was merely an East
wind, and then we point to the unusual response of Hebrew faith." 40/150
In contrast to these anti-supernaturalist views, W.H. Green concludes that

"we cannot intelligently nor safely overlook the palpable bias against the
supernatural which has infected the critical theories .... All the
acknowledged leaders of the movement have, without exception, scouted
the reality of miracles and prophecy and immediate divine revelation in
their genuine and evangelical sense. Their theories are all inwrought with
naturalistic presuppositions, which cannot be disentangled from them
without their falling to pieces. "41 /1 57
J. Orr, in speaking of the 19th century documentation scholarship (very

much applicable to the 20th century), states that "for now the fact becomes
apparent, there is, indeed, not the least attempt to disguise it, —
that, to a
large and influential school of critical inquirers— those, moreover, who
have had the most to do with the shaping of the current critical theories—
this question of a supernatural origin for the religion of Israel is already
foreclosed; is ruled out at the start as a 'a priori' inadmissible." 42/12
2C. FORM CRITICISM

Rudolph Bultmann, one of the foremost proponents of Form Criticism lays
the initial groundwork for his discipline:
"The historical method includes the presupposition that history is a unity
in the sense of a closed continuum of effects in which individual events are
connected by the succession of cause and effect. This does not mean that
the process of history is determined by the causal law and that there are no
free decisions of men whose actions determine the course of historical
happenings. But even a free decision does not happen without cause,
without a motive; and the task of the historian is to come to know the
motives of actions. All decisions and all deeds have their causes and
consequences; and the historical method presupposes that it is possible in
principle to exhibit these and their connection and thus to understand the
whole historical process as a closed unity.
"This closedness means that the continuum of historical happenings

cannot be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers
and that therefore there is no 'miracle' in this sense of the word. Such a
miracle would be an event whose cause did not lie within history It is in
accordance with such a method as this that the science of history goes to
work on all historical documents. And there cannot be any exceptions in
the case of biblical texts if the latter are at all to be understood
historically. " 44/29 1 292 ,
Bultmann presupposes that 20th century men take it for granted that the
events of nature and of history are nowhere interrupted by the intervention
of supernatural powers.
Also, according to Bultmann, "an historical fact which involves a
resurrection from the dead is utterly inconceivable." 44/39
Norman Perrin, in The Promise of Bultmann, says that "perhaps most
important of all for Bultmann is the fact that not only are there no unique
events in history, but also that history which historians investigate is a
closed chain of cause and effect. The idea of God as a force intervening in
history as an effective cause is one which a historian cannot contemplate."

45/38
"It follows," adds Perrin, "from what we have said that God cannot be the
effective cause of an event with history; only a man or a people's faith in
God can be that. Moreover, since the process of history is uniform and not
random — if it were random any kind of historical existence would become
impossible— then it follows that there never has been and there never will
be an event within history (that is, world history) of which God has been or
will be the effective cause." 45/90, 91
Bultmann rejects "miracles." Writing m

Jesus Christ and Mythology, he
says that "therefore, modern man acknowledges as reality only such
phenomena or events as are comprehensible within the framework of the
rational order of the universe. He does not acknowledge miracles because
they do not fit into this lawful order." 46/37, 38
Bultmann continues his argument in Kerygma and Myth:

"It not at all relevant for critics to point out that the world-picture of
is
natural science today is no longer that of the nineteenth century, and it is

naive to seek to use the relativization of the causal law to refurbish the
belief in miracle, as if by this relativization the door had been opened for
the intrusion of transcendent powers. Does science today renounce ex-
periment? So long as it does not, it stands in the tradition of thought that
began in Greece with the question of the cause, and the demand that a
reason be given for things." 44/120, 121
Writing on anti-supernaturalism and Bultmann, Herman Ridderbos said:
"It inconceivable to a modern thinker that it is possible for one who is
is
dead to be brought again into physical existence; for modern man has
learned to understand the organization of the human body. Modern man
can conceive of God's action only as an event which intervenes and
transforms the reality of his own 'essential' life; that is to say, an event in
the reality of his existence as spirit. He cannot conceive of the acts of
redemption insofar as they are concerned with man as a natural reality and
with the natural reality of the whole cosmos. It is at the same time implied
that the conception of Christ, as a pre-existent heavenly being, and of the
removal of man into a heavenly world of light, and the clothing of man in
a heavenly body, is not only rationally unthinkable but also is meaningless;
it says nothing." 47/18
Pierre Benoit, after analyzing the method of Form Criticism concludes:

"Behind these relatively new methods, new at least in their technical
all
application, we discover one fundamental thesis which is not itself new at
all. This is the denial of the supernatural which we are so accustomed to
meeting in works of modern rationalist criticism. It is a thesis which, once
it is stripped of its various masks, literary, historical or sociological
analysis, reveals its true identity —
it is a philosophical one." 43/39
3C. OTHER PROPONENTS

W.J. Sparrow-Simpson points out that David Strauss "long ago fully
admitted that 'the origin of that faith in the disciples is fully accounted for
if we look upon the Resurrection of Jesus, as the Evangelists describe it, as
an external miraculous occurrence' (New Life, i, 399). Nothing can be
more genuine that Strauss' acknowledgment that he was controlled by a
priori considerations, to which the fact of a resurrection was inadmissible;
cf. p. 397:-
"'Here, then, we stand on that decisive point where, in the presence of the
accounts of the miraculous Resurrection of Jesus, we either acknowledge
the inadmissibility of the natural and historical view of the life of Jesus,
and must consequently retract all that precedes and give up our whole
undertaking, or pledge ourselves to make out the possibility of the results
of these accounts, i.e. the origin of the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus
without any correspondingly miraculous fact.'
"This is his conscious, deliberate undertaking— to give an explanation of

the evidence on the presupposition of a certain view of the universe. It
invariably amounts to this. At the grave in Joseph's garden two an-
tagonistic world- theories confront each other (cf. Ihmels. Auferstehung, p.
27; Luthardt, Glaubenslehre).
"The ultimate reasons for rejecting the Resurrection evidence are not
As Sabatier truly says, 'Even if the differences were perfectly
historical.
reconciled, or even did not exist at all, men who will not admit the
miraculous would none the less decisively reject the witness. As Zeller
frankly acknowledges, their rejection is based on a philosophic theory, and
not on historic considerations' (L'Apdtre Paul, p. 42)." 48/511
Schubert Ogden, a form critic, cites Glauben and Verstehn ("The Problem
of Miracles." Religion in Life, I, Winter, 1957-58, p. 63): "The idea of
miracle has become impossible for us today because we understand nature
as a lawful occurrence and must therefore understand miracle as an event
that breaks this lawful continuum. Such an idea is no longer acceptable
.
to us." 49/33
F.C. Burkitt in Jesus Christ acknowledges the following: "I confess that I
seeno way to treat the Feeding of the Five Thousand except by a process of
frank rationalization .... The solution which alone appeals to me is that
Jesus told the disciples to distribute their scanty store, and that their
example made those who were well provided share with those who had
little." 50/32
Ernst Kasemann
vividly expresses the opinion of the anti-supematuralist.
He writes about the words and deeds of Jesus in the Gospels as "an un-
broken series of divine revelations and mighty acts, which have no common
basis of comparison with any other human life and thus can no longer be
comprehended within the category of the historical." 51/30
SA. SCIENCE AND MIRACLES
IB. The Limitations of Science in the Realm of Miracles and the Supernatural
J.W.N. Sullivan, in his book The Limitations of Science, shows that since the
publication of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (1905) and Planck's
endeavors on "black-body radiation," the scientists are faced with "the
vicissitudes of so-called natural law in an uncharted and unobstructed
universe." 3/79
Sullivan writes:
"What is called the modem 'revolution in science' consists in the fact that the
Newtonian outlook which dominated the scientific world for nearly two
hundred years, has been found insufficient. It is in process of being replaced
by a different outlook, and, although the reconstruction is by no means
complete, it is already apparent that the philosophical implications of the
new outlook are very different from those of the old one." 3/138
James R. Moore, in Christianity for the Tough Minded (edited by John
Warwick Montgomery), adds that "today scientists will admit that no one
knows enough about 'natural law' to say that any event is necessarily a
violation of it. They agree that an individual's non-statistical sample of time
and space is hardly sufficient ground on which to base immutable
generalizations concerning the nature of the entire universe. Today what we
commonly term 'natural law' is in fact only our inductive and statistical
descriptions of natural phenomena. " 58/79
John Montgomery denotes that the anti-supernatural position is both

"philosophically and scientifically irresponsible." First of all, philosophically
"because no one below the status of a god could know the universe so well as to
eliminate miracles a priori.'* Secondly, scientifically "because in the gage of
Einsteinian physics (so different from the world of Newtonian absolutes in
which Hume formulated his classic anti-miraculous argument) the universe
has opened up to all possibilities, 'any attempt to state a "universal law of
causation" must prove futile* (Max Black, Models and Metaphors), and only a
careful consideration of the empirical testimony for a miraculous event can
determine whether in fact it has or has not occurred." 2/32
An explanation of the above continues in History and Christianity:

"But can the modem man accept a 'miracle* such as the resurrection? The
answer is a surprising one: The resurrection has to be accepted by us just
because we are modem men, men living in the Einstein relativistic age. For
us, unlike people of the Newtonian epoch, the universe is no longer a tight,
safe, predictable playing-field in which we know all the rules. Since Einstein
no modern has had the right to rule out the possibility of events because of
prior knowledge of 'natural law.*
"The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether in
fact has occurred. The problem of 'miracles,' then, must be solved in the
it
realm of historical investigation, not in the realm of philosophical

speculation.** 4/75, 76
"And note," continues Montgomery, "that a historian, in facing an alleged

'miracle,' is really facing nothing new. All historical events are unique, and
the test of their factual character can be only the accepted documentary
approach that we have followed here. No historian has a right to a closed
system of natural causation, for, as the Comell logician Max Black has shown
in a recent essay, the very concept of cause is 'a peculiar, unsystematic, and
CTTdLtic notion' (Models and Metaphors, p. 169).*' 4/75, 76
Vincent Taylor, a prominent form critic, warns against too great a

dogmatism with regard to the miraculous:
"It is far too late to-day to dismiss the question by saying that 'miracles are
impossible'; that stage of the discussion is definitely past. Science takes a

much humbler and truer view of natural law than was characteristic of
former times; we now know that the 'laws of Nature' are convenient sum-
maries of existing knowledge. Nature is not a 'closed system,' and miracles are
not 'intrusions' into an 'established order.' In the last fifty years we have been
staggered too often by discoveries which at one time were pronounced im-
possible. Wehave lived to hear of the breaking up of the atom, and to find
scientists themselves speaking of the universe as 'more like a great thought
than like a great machine.' This change of view does not, of course, accredit
the miraculous; but it does mean that, given the right conditions, miracles are
not impossible; no scientific or philosophic dogma stands in the way." 52/135
2B. Hume's Philosophical Argument

IC. HUME'S POSITION
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firni and
unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a
miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from
experience can possibly be imagined Nothing is esteemed a miracle if
it ever happens in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a
man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden; . But it is a

. .
miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been
observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform
experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not
merit that appellation." 5/126, 127
2C. C.S. Lewis cogently answers Hume's assertion that "nothing is esteemed a
miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature."
Lewis writes:
"Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely
'uniform experience' against miracles, if in other words they have never
happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the ex-
perience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of
them are false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only if
we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are
arguing in a circle." 6/105
Merald Westphal, in his review of "The Historian and the Believer," writes:
"If God miracles are not merely logically possible, but really and
exists,
genuinely possible at every moment. The only condition hindering the ac-
tualisation of this possibility lies in the divine will. (For the theologian to say
that scientific knowledge has rendered belief in miracles intellectually
irresponsible is to affirm that scientific knowledge provides us with knowledge
of limits within which the divine will always operates.) Since the question of
morality has been introduced, one may perhaps be permitted to inquire
about the intellectual integrity of such an affirmation. Is peace with one's age
to be purchased at any cost?" 57/280
4A. A PROPER APPROACH TO HISTORY
IB. A Critical Method
IC. The Erlangen historian Ethelbert Stauffer gives us some suggestions on
how to approach history:
"What do we [as historians] when we experience surprises which run
counter to all our expectations, perhaps all our convictions and even our
period's whole understanding of truth? We say as one great historian used
to say in such instances: 'It is surely possible.' And why not? For the critical
historian nothing is impossible." 7/17
2C. The historian Philip Schaff adds to the above:

"The purpose of the historian is not to construct a history from precon-
ceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from
the best evidence and to let it speak for itself." 54/175
5C. Ronald Sider, professor of history at the Messiah College campus at
Temple University, details how a historian should deal with presup-
positions:
"What does the critical historian do when his evidence points very strongly
to the reality of an event which contradicts his expectations and goes
against the naturalistic view of reality? I submit that he must follow his
analyzed sources. It is unscientific to begin with the philosophical
critically
presupposition that miracles cannot occur. Unless we avoid such one-sided
presuppositions, historical interpretation becomes mere propaganda.
"We have a right to demand good evidence for an alleged event which we
have not experienced, but we dare not judee reality by our limited ex-
perience." 12/ SI
4C. Montgomery concludes that "we have no right to begin with the presup-
position that Jesus can be no more than a man. For then, obviously, our
conclusions may simply reflect our preconceptions instead of representing
the actual contttnt of the documents. We

must, in other words, objectively
try to discover the picture Jesus and his contemporaries had of him,
whether we agree with it or not. The question for us is not whether Jesus is
pictured as a man. Virtually no one today would question this, for the
records tell us that he was hungry and tired, that he wept, that he suffered
and died, in short, that he was human.
"The question we face today is whether he was depicted as no more than a
man.' 4/48, 49
2B. An Appropriate Investigation

A critical historian should "decide the historicity of alleged miracles on the
basis of the evidence that can be adduced for each individual case." 8/313
The application of the above historical inquiry is greatly enhanced with the
scientificknowledge we have today. "The scientific description," comments
Professor Sider, "of the observed regularity of nature was a very significant
factor in the development of a more critical attitude toward reports of
unusual events of all kinds. The fact that an alleged event is not what one
would expect on the basis of observed regularity in a given scientific field
'activates a warning light' [Harvey, "The Historian and the Believer," p.
225]." 8/314
At this point one realizes that he must proceed with caution and carefully
examine the data about the alleged event.
For example— the resurrection of Jesus: A critical historian would want to
check out the witnesses; confirm the death by crucifixion; go over the burial
procedures; confirm the reports of Jesus being alive on the third day and the
tomb being empty. Then it would be sensible to consider every possible ex-
planation of the above data. At this stage one would want to peruse other
corroborative evidence and then draw an appropriate conclusion.
The historian cannot prove that the resurrection and subsequent empty tomb
was a direct intervention by God. Ronald Sider clearly states that "the
historian qua historian of course could never prove that an unusual event was
inexplicable in terms of natural causes, much less that it was due to direct
divine activity. (At best the historian could say that the evidence for the event
was strong enough to warrant his affirming its historicity even though the
event was inexplicable in terms of present scientific knowledge.) But he could
never rule out the possibility that future scientific knowledge would be able to
explain the event as one instance of a regularly recurring pattern. [See
Patrick Nowell-Smith, 'Miracles,' in New Essays in Philosophical Theology,
ed. A. Flew and A. Maclntyre (Macmillan, New York, 1964), pp. 243-53, and
especially p. 245.] But the historian's inability to prove that the unusual event
is a 'miracle' does not preclude his ruling on its facticity. In the case of the
alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the historian qua historian could
never demonstrate that God raised Jesus, but he might, if he found the
evidence adequate, conclude that Jesus was probably alive on the third day."
8/317.318
The affirmation or step of commitment to one's conclusion could only come
probably was alive on the third
after sufficient evidence indicates that "Tesus ^
-^
day."
Orr warns us that "whatever our personal convictions— and of these, of
course, we cannot divest ourselves— we must, in conducting our argument,
place ourselves in as absolutely neutral an attitude of mind as we can. We
must try to see the facts exactly as they are. If differences emerge, let them be
noted. If the facts are such as to compel us to assume a special origin for this
religion, let that come to light in the course of the inquiry." 42/14
"The ultimate test," continues Orr, "in either case is fitness to meet the facts."
42/14
George E. Ladd, speaking of the inabiHty to speak of the resurrection in
natural terms, writes that the Christian faith affirms that "in the resurrection
of Christ an event occurred in history, in time and in space, among men
which is without historical explanation or causality, but is a direct un-
mediated act of God. Indeed, when the historian can explain the resurrection
ofJesus in purely human terms, those who hold anything like an evangelical
faith will be faced with a problem of shattering dimensions. Faith does not,
however, mean a leap in the dark, an irrational credulity, a believing against
evidences and against reason. It means believing in the light of historical
facts, consistent with evidences, on the basis of witnesses. It would be im-
possible to believe in the resurrection of Jesus apart from the historical facts of
His death, His burial, and the witness of the disciples." 9/187
"If historical criticism," concludes Ladd, "could establish that the great
events of redemptive history did not occur, any evangelical faith would be
impossible. If the historical critic could prove that Jesus never rose from the
tomb. Christian faith would be shattered. Scripture itself affirms as much (I
Corinthians 15:12-19)." 9/86
The very story of Christianity is that God has intervened in history, and these
acts or interventions are beyond natural explanation when it comes to
analyzing their cause. The author firmly believes that a living God who acts
within history would obviously be beyond "natural human explanation."
What men have done today is to God out by a narrow naturalistic
rule
definition of history. "If historical study," advises Wolfhart Pannenberg,
"keeps itself free from the dogmatic postulate that all events are of the same
kind, and at the same time remains critical toward its own procedure, there
does not have to be any impossibility in principle in asserting the historicity of
the resurrection of Jesus." 10/264, 265
Robert M. Horn {The Book That Speaks for Itself used by permission of
Inter- Varsity Press, Downers Grove, 111.) is very helpful in understanding
people's biases in approaching history:
"To put it at its most obvious, a person who denies God's existence will not
subscribe to belief in the Bible."
"A Muslim, convinced that God cannot beget, will not accept as the Word of
God, a book that teaches that Christ is the only begotten Son of God.
"Some believe that God is not personal, but rather the Ultimate, the Ground
of Being. Such will be predisposed to reject the Bible as God's personal self-
revelation. On their premise, the Bible cannot be the personal word of 'I AM
WHO I AM' (Ex. 3:14).
"Others rule out the supernatural. They will not be likely to give credence to
the book which teaches that Christ rose from the dead.
"Stillothers hold that God cannot communicate His truth undistorted
through sinful men; hence they regard the Bible as, at least in parts, no more
than human." 53/10
Gerhardus Vos is very explicit in his analysis of anti-supematuralism's ap-

proach:
Historical study has become a powerful instrument in the service of the anti-
supematuralistic spirit of the modern age. Professing to be strictly neutral
and to seek nothing but the truth it has in point of fact directed its assault
along the whole line against the outstanding miraculous events of Sacred
History. It has rewritten this history so as to make the supernatural elements
disappear from its record. It has called into question the historicity of one
after the other of the great redemptive acts of God. We

need not say here that
the apologetic answer to these attacks has been able and fully satisfactory to
every intelligent believer. But the Christian public at large is not always able
to distinguish between well-authenticated facts as such and historical con-
structions in which the facts have been manipulated and their interpretation
shaped by a prion philosophical principles. People are accustomed to look
upon history as the realm of facts par excellence, second only to pure science
in the absolute certainty of its concrete results. They do not as easily detect in
historical argumentation as they would in philosophic reasoning the
naturalistic premises which predetermine the conclusions. It is not difficult,
therefore, to give the popular mind the impression that it is confronted with
an irrefutable array of evidence discrediting the Biblefacts, whereas in reality
it isasked to accept a certain philosophy of the facts made to discredit the
Bible. Hence there has arisen in many quarters a feeling of uneasiness and
concern with regard to the historical basis of facts on which Christianity has
hitherto been supposed to rest." 1 1/293
Bultmann, one of the more radical form critics, speaks about the need for
and the need for a freedom from presuppositions:
objectivity
"And just for this reason the demand for freedom from presuppositions, for
an unprejudiced approach, which is valid for all science, is also valid for
historical research. The historian is certainly not allowed to presuppose the
results of his research, and he is obliged to keep back, to reduce to silence, his
personal desires with regard to these results." 14/122
Bultmann continues this thought in Existence and Faith: "The question
whether exegesis without presuppositions is possible must be answered af-
firmatively if 'without presuppositions' means 'without presupposing the
results of the exegesis.* In this sense, exegesis without presuppositions is not
only possible but demanded."
Bultmann qualifies this by saying that in another sense there is no such thing
as presuppositionless research. He asserts: "However the one presupposition
that cannot be dismissed is the historical method of interrogating the text."
15/289. 290
With regard to presuppositionless scholarship, Swedish scholar Seth
Erlandsson states:
"But at the same time that this is maintained it is often said that we must
presuppose that the Bible is of the same nature as any other human literature.
By this assertion it is not merely meant that the Bible was written in human
language and contains the literary finesses or expressions found in human
literature. It is presupposed that the Bible 'like all other products of human
activity contains mistakes and inaccuracies' and that all that is related in it
including its ideological content, is altogether conditioned by human forces
and has a complete explanation in this— worldly factors. If an other-worldly
factor has intervened, then it cannot be analyzed historically, and for this
reason we must presuppose that such an other-worldly factor, if it exists, has
only made use of this-worldly causes, (so that what hapened can be fully
explained in terms of these latter, that is, this-worldly, causes)." 3/8. 9
Erlandsson's point being that even those who advocate no presuppositions still
approach the Scriptures with them.

I contend that by using the historical method, as Bultmann defines it, as a
closed continuum of effects, closed to transcendental intervention, the

presuppositions will inevitably presuppose the results.
Orr correctly concludes that "to assume beforehand, in an inquiry which
turns on this very point, that the religion of Israel presents no features but
—
such as are explicable out of natural causes, that no higher factors are
—
needed to account for it, is to prejudge the whole question." 16/13
To the radical critic, the presence of the miraculous is sufficient evidence for
rejecting its historicity or at least sufficient reason to reject the "credibility of
its witnesses.'*
One would wonder, as A.H. Sayce has speculated, that

was no record "if there
of miracles in the Old and New Testaments, may be
questioned whether so
it
much zeal would have been displayed in endeavouring to throw doubt on the
authenticity of their contents." 17/126
The Christian should not permit the "modem historians" or "radical critics**
to determine the "limits of its discipline." 9/190 "On the contrary," writes
Ladd, "Christian theology must recognize that the critical-historical method
isa child of rationalism and as such is based on a naturalistic world view."
9/190
The radical critics are not lacking when it comes to ability and scholarship,
etc.
The problem area is not their lack of knowledge of the evidence but rather
their hermeneutics or approach to biblical criticism based upon their world
view.
Birger Gerhardsson has appropriately said, "But the validity of its results
depends on the validity of its first principles." 55/6
5A. IN SUMMARY
IB. The anti-supernaturalist bases his thinking on the presupposition that
God has not intervened in history. Therefore he rejects evidence in-
dicating the supernatural no matter how convincing.
2B. Both conservative and radical critics must beware of prejudices.
3B. Modern science no longer views nature as a "closed system" and therefore
cannot insist that miracles do not exist.
4B. The historian should draw his conclusions from the facts at his disposal,
not force the facts to conform to his presuppositions.
chapter 2
archaeology
and
criticism
The discipline of archaeology is basically a recent study. It has made a significant

contribution in the area of biblical criticism.
lA. DEFINITION
The word archaeology is composed of two Greek words: (1) Archaios means
"old" or "ancient" and (2) Logos signifying "word, treatise or study." A literal
defmition is "the study of antiquity." It is basically "a science devoted to the
recovery of ancient civilizations with a view to reconstructing the story. .
progress and fall."

2A. BASIC REASONS FOR THE RAPIDLY INCREASING INTEREST IN
ARCHAEOLOGY
William F. Albright gives four factors for the steady advance in the area of
archaeology:
IB. "A rapid increase in the number of serious archaeological expeditions
from many different countries, including Japan. Museum space and volume
of publication have kept pace with the field work.
2B. "An improvement of archaeological method that has been little short of
phenomenal. This applies both to the analysis of superimposed layers of
occupation (stratigraphy) and to classification and relative dating of objects
found (typology).
3B. "Use of innumerable new techniques derived from the natural sciences,
among them radiocarbon (carbon isotope 14) for dating.
4B. "Decipherment and interpretation of the flood of new inscriptions and
texts in many scripts and languages, many quite unknown until recent
decades. The application of sound linguistic and philological method to well-
preserved cuneiform tablets and Egyptian hieratic papyri makes it possible to
publish them with speed and accuracy. A new script is deciphered quickly, if
17
.
there are a few clues or sufficient material to permit decoding. The

good
number of cuneiform from three millennia preserved under debris of
tablets
occupation in Western Asia and Egypt seems to be practically unlimited, and
new methods of baking and reproduction have reduced losses to a surprisingly
low proportion.
With the aid of statigraphy, scientific analysis, and museum research, the
archaeologist can now reconstrua the daily life of ancient peoples with
remarkable completeness." 19/3
SA. BASIC CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL CRITICISM
IB. Archaeology Enhances the "Scientific Study" of the Text
Archaeological insight helps in the areas of manuscript accuracy, un-
derstanding of technical words and the development of more dependable
lexicons.
2B. Archaeology Acts as a Check in the Area of Critical Studies (Both Radical
and Conservative)
H.M. Orlinsky in Ancient Israel discusses how a new attitude has developed in
regard to the negative results of previous radical criticism;
"More and more the older view that the biblical data were suspect and even
likely to be corroborated by extra-biblical facts, is giving way to
false, unless
one which holds that, by and large, the biblical accounts are more likely to be
true than false, unless clear cut evidence from sources outside the Bible
demonstrate the reverse." 20/6
Reformed Jewish scholar, Nelson Glueck, has affirmed:
"Itis worth emphasizing that in all this work no archaeological discovery has
ever controverted a single, properly understood Biblical statement." 2/6

L.H. Grollenberg adds that it greatly illumines the biblical background of
many passages:
"The views (of the older documentary critics) proceeded from a rather hasty
application of the evolutionary pattern and were based too exclusively upon
textual criticism. Thanks to the work of the archaeologist, the modem
scholar is in closer contact with the actual world in which Israel had its roots
. .Today.
. many scholars feel a renewed confidence in the skilful
. .
narrators of chapters 12-50 of Genesis, the stories of the patriarchs must

. . .
be based on historical memories." 21/35

The University of Chicago professor, Raymond A. Bowman, denotes that
archaeology helps provide a balance between the Bible and critical
hypothesis: "The confirmation of the biblical narrative at most points has led
to a new respea for biblical tradition and a more conservative conception of
biblical history." 22/30
Albright, in "Archaeology Confronts Biblical Criticism," says that "ar-
chaeological and inscriptional data have established the historicity of in-
numerable passages and statements of the Old Testament." 23/181
Archaeology does not prove the Bible to be the Word of God. All it can do is
confirm the basic historicity or authenticity of a narrative. It can show that a
certain incident fits into the time it purports to be from. "We shall probably
never," writes G.E. Wright, "be able to prove that Abram really existed. .
but what we can prove is that his life and times, as reflected in the stories
about him, fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly
within any later period." 27/40
Millar Burrows of Yale recognized the value of archaeology in confirming the
authenticity of the Scriptures:
"The Bible is supported by archaeological evidence again and again. On the
whole, there can be no question that the results of excavation have increased
the respect of scholars for the Bible as a collection of historical documents.
The confirmation is both general and specific. The fact that the record can
be so often explained or illustrated by archaeological data shows that it fits
into the framework of history as only a genuine product of ancient life could
do. In addition to this general authentication, however, we find the record
verified repeatedly at specific points. Names of places and persons turn up at
the right places and in the right periods." 24/6
Joseph Free comments that he once "thumbed through the book of Genesis
and mentally noted that each of the fifty chapters are either illuminated or
confirmed by some archaeological discovery— the same would be true for
most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."
25/340
A.T. Olmstead in "History, Ancient World, and the Bible," speaks about the
unfolding of the Documentary Hypothesis: "While Old Testament Higher
Critics spun out their increasingly minute dissections, and more and more
took an agnostic attitude toward the recorded facts, this attitude was sharply
challenged by exciting discoveries in the Near East." 26/13
SB. Archaeology Helps to Illustrate and Explain Various Biblical Passages
It enhances our knowledge of the economic, cultural, social and political
background of biblical passages. Also, archaeology contributes to the un-
derstanding of other religions that bordered Israel.
S.H. Horn, an archaeologist, gives an excellent example of how ar-

chaeological evidence helps in biblical study:
"Archaeological explorations have shed some interesting light on the capture
of Jerusalem by David. The biblical accounts of that capture (II Sam. 5:6-8
and I Chron. 11:6) are rather obscure without the help obtained from ar-
chaeological evidence. Take for example Second Samuel 5:8, which in the
King James Version reads: 'And David said on that day. Whosoever getteth up
to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are
hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain.* Add to this statement
First Chronicles 11:6
— 'So Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up and was
chief.'
"Some years ago I saw a painting of the conquest of Jerusalem in which the
artistshowed a man climbing up a metal downspout, running on the outside
face of the city wall. This picture was absurd, because ancient city walls had
neither gutters nor downspouts, although they had weeping holes in the walls
to drain water off. The Revised Standard Version, produced after the
situation had become clear through archaeological discoveries made on the
spot, translates the pertinent passages: 'And David said on that day, 'Whoever
would smite the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack the lame
and the blind, who are hated by David's soul.'" 'And Joab the son of Zeruiah
went up first, so he became chief.* What was this water shaft that Joab
climbed?
"Jerusalem in those days was a small city lying on a single spur of the hills on
which the large city eventually stood. Its position was one of great natural
strength, because it was surrounded on three sides by deep valleys. This was
why the Jebusites boastfully declared that even blind and lame could hold
their city against a powerful attacking army. But the water supply of the city
was poor; the population was entirely dependent on a spring that lay outside
the city on the eastern slope of the hill.
"So that they could obtain water without having to go down to where the
spring was located, the Jebusites had constructed an elaborate system of
tunnels through the rock. First they had dug a horizontal tunnel, be^nning at
the spring and proceeding toward the center of the city. After digging for
ninety feet they hit a natural cave. From the cave they dug a vertical shaft
forty-five feet high, and from the end of the shaft a sloping tunnel 135 feet
long and a staircase that ended at the surface of their city, 110 feet above the
water level of the spring. The spring was then concealed from the outside so
that no enemy could detect it. To get water the Jebusite woman went down
through the upper tunnel and let their water skins down the shaft to draw
water from the cave, to which it was brought by natural flow through the
horizontal tunnel that connected the cave with the spring.
"However, one question remained unanswered. The excavations of R.A.S.

Macalister and J.G. Duncan some forty years ago had uncovered a wall and a
tower that were thought to be of Jebusite and Davidic origin respectively. This
tract of wall ran along the rim of the hill of Ophel, west of the tunnel en-
trance. Thus the entrance was left outside the protective city wall, exposed to
the attacks and interference of enemies. Why hadn't the tunnel been built to
end inside the city? This puzzle has now been solved by the recent excavations
of Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel. She found that Macalister and Duncan had
given the wall and tower they discovered wrong dates; these things actually
originated in the Hellenistic period. She uncovered the real Jebusite wall a
little farther down the slope of the hill, east of the tunnel entrance, which now
puts the entrance safely in the old city area.
"David, a native of Bethlehem, four miles south of Jerusalem, may have
found out about the spring and its tunnel system in the days when as a youth
he roamed through the countryside. Later, as king he based his surprise
attack on this knowledge, and made the promise that the first man who
entered the city through the water shaft would become his commander-in-
chief. Joab, who was already general of the army, did not want to lose that
position and therefore led the attack himself. The Israelites apparently went
through the tunnel, climbed up the shaft, and were in the city before any of
the besieged citizens had any idea that so bold a plan had been conceived.
"This water system, constructed more than three thousand years ago, is still in
existence and can be examined by any tourist. Some good climbers have even
climbed the shaft in modem times, though it is not easy to do so because the
rock walls are smooth and slick and give little hold for hand or foot. The shaft
is also a little too wide for a comfortable climb, as I learned in my un-
successful attempt to climb it." 34/15, 16
4B. Archaeology Helps to Supplement Areas Not Dealt with in the Bible
A good example here is the intertestamental period, kings, military cam-
paigns, and empires not mentioned in the Scriptures.
4A. A WORD OF PRECAUTION
All too often we hear the phrase, "Archaeology proves the Bible." There needs to
be a word of caution. Archaeology cannot "prove" the Bible, if by that you mean
"prove it to be inspired and revealed by God." If by prove, one means "showing
some biblical event or passage to be historical," then it would be a correct usage.
I believe archaeology contributes to biblical criticism, not in the area of in-
spiration or revelation, but in historical accuracy and trustworthiness about the

events that are recorded. Let's say the rocks on which the Ten Commandments
were written are found. Archaeology could confirm that they were rocks, the
Ten Commandments were written on them and that they came from the period
of Moses; it could not prove that God had written them.
Millar Burrows writes that archaeology "can tell us a great deal about the
topography of a military campaign. It can tell us nothing about the nature of
God." 30/290
One limitation of archaeology is the paucity of evidence. "Historians of an-
tiquity," writes Edwin Yamauchi, "in using the archaeological evidence have
very often failed to realize how slight is the evidence at our disposal. It would not
be exaggerating to point out that what we have is but one fraction of a second
fraction of a third fraction of a fourth fraction of a fifth fraction of the possible
evidence." 28/9
Joseph Free in Archaeology and Bible History answers the question of ar-
chaeology and its relationship to the Bible: "We pointed out that numerous
passages of the Bible which long puzzled the commentators have readily yielded
up their meaning when new light from archaeological discoveries has been
focused on them. In other words, archaeology illuminates the text of the
Scriptures and so makes valuable contributions to the fields of Biblical in-
terpretation and exegesis. In addition to illuminating the Bible, archaeology has
confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical
or contradictory to known facts." 29/1
One also needs to realize that archaeology has not refuted the "radical critics."
Burrows is quite clear on this point: "It is quite untrue to say that all the theories
of the critics have been overthrown by archaeological discoveries. It is even more

untrue to say that the fundamental attitudes and methods of modem scientific
criticism have been refuted." 30/292
However, as you will see in this book, archaeology has shown that many tenets of
radical criticism are invalid and has called into question what has often been
taught as "assured results of higher criticism."
Albright comments about the evidence for the extensive reign of Solomon which
had been questioned by the radical critics. He writes: "Once more we find that
the radical criticism of the past half-century must be corrected drastically."
31/22
Some people will make the unfounded assertion that supematuralists and the
nonsupematuralist can never agree on the results of archaeology because they
exist in two totally different planes. Therefore, some conclude that you interpret
archaeological findings according to your own viewpoint.
Joseph Free in "Archaeology and Higher Criticism," answers this assertion in a

very convincing way. "According to this view," contends Free, "a given ar-
chaeological discovery means one thing to a supernaturalist, and something
different to a non-supernaturalist, and therefore archaeology has only an in-
cidental bearing on the whole matter of apologetics.
"Actually, this is not the whole picture. To illustrate: in the nineteenth century,
the Biblical critic could hold with good reason that there never was a Sargon,
that the Hittites either did not exist or were insignificant, that the patriarchal
accounts had a late background, that the sevenfold lampstand of the tabernacle
was a late concept, that the Davidic Empire was not as extensive as the Bible
implied, that Belshazzar never existed, and that a host of other supposed errors
and impossibilities existed in the Biblical record.
"Archaeological discoveries showed, on the contrary, that Sargon existed and
lived in a palatial dwelling some twelve miles north of Nineveh, that the Hittites
not only existed but were a significant people, that the background of the
patriarchs fits the time indicated in the Bible, that the concept of a sevenfold
lamp existed in the Early Iron Age, that a significant city given in the record of
David's Empire lies far to the north, that Belshazzar existed and ruled over
Babylon, and that a host of other supposed errors and contradictions are not
errors at all.
"It of course true that in certain peripheral areas, one's theology will have a
is
bearing on his interpretation of a given fact or a particular archaeological

discovery. But in the broad outline as well as in a host of small details, facts are
facts whether discovered by a supernaturalist or nonsupematuralist. The writer
knows of no nonsupematuralist who still argues that Sargon never existed, that
there never were any Hittites, or that Belshazzar is still a legend. There are many
points on which all candid scholars can agree, regardless of their theology.
There are certain areas, however, where the liberal has not taken the evidence,
archaeological or otherwise, sufficiently into account. This is true, we believe, in
the realm of the documentary theory and in the question of authorship, date,
and integrity of the books of the Bible." 32/30.31
Note: For some examples of archaeology affecting criticism, see the appendix
"The Stones Cry Out— Archaeology and Criticism."
5A. IN SUMMARY
IB. Archaeology docs not prove the Bible; it confirms its historicity and ex-
plains various passages.
2B. Archaeology has not refuted the radical critics, but has caused a
questioning of many of their presuppositions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Carlson, A.J. Science and the Supernatural (Pamphlet). Yellow Springs, Ohio:
American Humanist Association, n.d.
2. Montgomery, John W. (ed.). Christianity For the Tough Minded. Minneapolis:
Bethany Fellowship. Inc., 1973.
S. J.W.N. The Limitations of Science. New York: Mentor Books, 1963.
Sullivan,
4. Montgomery, John W. History and Christianity. Downers Grove, 111: Inter- Varsity
Press. 1964.
5. Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Chicago: Open

Court. 1958.
6. Lewis, C.S. Miracles. New York: Macmillan, 1947.
7. Stauffer, YxYitXhtn. Jesus and His Story. Translated by Dorothea M. Barton. New
York: Knopf, 1960.
8. Sider. Ronald. "The Historian, The Miraculous and Post-Newtonian Man."
Scottishjoumal of Theology. August, 1972. Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 309-319.
9. Ladd, George E. The New Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967.
10. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Revelation As History. Translated by David Granskou.
New York: Macmillan, 1968.
11. Vos. Gerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948.
12. Sider. Ronald. "A Case for Easter," His Magazine. April. 1972. pp. 27-31.
13. Ramm. Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidence. Chicago: Moody Press. 1953.
14. Bultmann. Rudolf.History and Eschatology. Edinburgh: The Edinburgh
University Press, 1957.
15. Bultmann, Rudolf. Existence and Faith. Shorter writings of R. Bultmann
selected, translated and introduced by Schubert M. Ogden. Cleveland and New
York: Meridian Books-The World Publishing Co., 1960.
16. Orr, James. The Problem of the Old Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1917.
17. Sayce, A.H. Monuments, Facts and Higher Critical Fancies. London: The
Religious Tract Society, 1904.
18. Allis. Oswald T. The Old Testament, Its Claims and Its Critics. Nutley, New
Jersey:The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1972.
MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT 2S
19. Albright, Wm. R. "Archaeological Discovery of the Scriptures," Christianity

7orfa> June 21. 1968. Vol. 12, No. 19. pp. 915-917.
20. Orlinsky, Harry. Ancient Israel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1954.
21. Grollenberg, Luc H. Atlas of the Bible. Translated and edited by Joyce M.H.
ReidandH.H. Rowley. London: Nelson, 1956.
22. Bowman, Raymond. "Old Testament Research between the Great Wars," The
Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow. Ed. by Harold H. Willoughby.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.
23. Albright, W.F. Archaeology Confronts Biblical Criticism," The American
Scholar. Spring, 1938. Vol. 7, pp. 176-188.
24. Burrows, Millar. "How Archaeology Helps the Student of the Bible," Workers
with Youth. April, 1948. pp. 6-10
25. Free, Joseph P. "Archaeology and the Bible," His Magazine. May, 1949. Vol. 9,
pp. 17-20.
26. Olmstead, A.T. "History, Ancient World, and the Bible," Journal of Near
Eastern Studies. Jznmry, 1943. pp. 1-34.
27. Wright, G.E. Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957.
28. Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Stones, Scripts, Scholars," Christianity Today. February

14, 1969. Vol. 13. pp. 8ff.
29. Free, Joseph P. Archaeology and Bible History. Wheaton, 111.: Scripture Press,
1969.
30. Burrows, Millar. What Mean These Stones? New York: Meridian Books, 1956.
31. Albright, Wm. "New Light on the Early History of Phoenician Colonization,"
F.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. October, 1941. Vol. 83,
pp. 14-22.
32. Free, Joseph P. "Archaeology and Higher Criticism," Bibliotheca Sacra. January,
1957. Vol. 114. pp. 23-29.
33. Montgomery, John W. The Altizer- Montgomery Dialogue. Chicago: Inter-
Varsity, 1967.
34. Horn, S.H. "Recent Illumination of the Old Testament," Christianity Today.
June 21, 1968. Vol. 12, pp. 925-929.
35. Livingston, Herbert G. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.
36. Whitelaw, Thomas. Old Testament Critics. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench,
Trubner&Co., Ltd., 1903.
37. Allis. Oswald T. The Five Books of Moses. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., copyright 1943, revised 1969.
38. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. New York, London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1903.
39. Pinnock, Clark. Set Forth Your Case. Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1967.
40. Gilkey, Langdon "Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical
B.
Language," Concordia Theological Monthly. March, 1962. Vol. 33, pp. 143-
154.
41. Green, William H. The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1895.
42. Orr, James. The Problem of the Old Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1917.
43. Benoit, Pierre./e5U5 and the Gospels. Vol. I. Translated by Benet Weatherhead.
Herder and Herder, 1973.
.
44. Bultmann, Rudolf. Kerygma and Myth. Ed. by H.W. Bartsch. Translated by
Reginald M. New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
Fuller.
45. Perrin, Norman. The Promise of Bultmann. In the series, The Promise of
Theology, edited by Martin E. Marty. New York: J. P. Lippincott Co., 1969.
46. Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1958.
47. Ridderbos, Herman N. Bultmann. Translated by Dr. David H. Freeman. Grand
48. Sparrow-Simpson, W.J. "Resurrection and Christ," A Dictionary of Christ and
the Gospels. Vol. 2. Edited by James Hastings. Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1908.
49. Ogden, Schubert M. Christ Without Myth. New York: Harper and Row
Publishers, 1961.
50. Burkitt, T.C.Jesus Christ. London and Glasgow: Blackie and Sons, Ltd., 1932.
51. Kasemann, Ernst. Essays on New Testament Themes. Naperville, 111.: Alec R.
Allenson, Inc., SCM Press Ltd., 1964.
52. Taylor, Vincent. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan
and Co. Limited, Second edition, 1935.
53. Horn, Robert M. The Book That Speaks for Itself Downers Grove, 111.: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1970.
54. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. I. New York: Charles
55. Gerhardsson, Birger. Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity.
Translated by Eric J. Sharpe. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1964.
56. Driver, S.R. i4n Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891
57. Westphal, Merald. "The Historian and the Believer," Religious Studies. 1967.
Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 277-282.
58. Moore, James R. "Science and Christianity: Towards Peaceful Coexistence,"
Christianity for the Tough Minded. Edited by John W. Montgomery. Min-
neapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1973.
section 1 1
documentary
hypothesis
The discipline of literary criticism applied to the Pentateuch is examined
along with evidence for Mosaic authorship.
SECTION OUTLINE
Chapter 5. Introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis
Chapter 4. Introduction to Biblical Criticism
lA. Definitions
IB. Higher criticism
2 B History of higher criticism
.
2A. Three schools of radical Pentateuchal criticism

1B Documentary Hypothesis — statement of theory
.
2B. Form Criticism (Formgeschichte)

SB. Oral traditionists ("Uppsala School")
Chapter 5. Introduction to the Pentateuch
1A . Purpose and importance of the Pentateuch
2 A. Origin and history of non- Mosaic authorship theory
Chapter 6 The Development of the Documentary Hypothesis
.
1 A. Importance of the Documentary Hypothesis in destructive higher criticism

2 A. History of its development
1B First documentary theory
.
2B. Fragmentary hypothesis

SB. Supplementary theory
4B. Crystallization theory
5B. Modified documentary theory
6B. Development hypothesis (revised documentary theory)
7B. Summary of Pentateuchal analysis up to Wellhausen
Chapter?. Ground Rules
1 A. Approach the Hebrew Scriptures as other ancient literature
2 A. Exercise an open mind
25
3A. Submit to external, objective controls

4 A. Conclusion
Chapter 8. Documentary Presuppositions
lA. Introduction
2 A Priority of source analysis over archaeology
.
3A. Natural view of Israel's religion and history (evolutionary)

IB. Monotheism
2B. Environmental conditioning
3B. The second commandment
4B. Moral level
5B. The priestly code
6B. Additional comments
7B. Implications
4A. No writing in Israel at Moses' time (ca. 1500-1400 B.C.)
5A. The legendary view of patriarchal narratives
IB. Documentary assumption
2B. Basic answer
IC. Inscriptional material
ID. The Mari Tablets
2D. The Law Codes
3D. The Egyptian Execration Texts
4D. The Nuzi Tablets
5D. The Ebla Tablets (see Appendix p. 354)
2C. Living conditions
ID. The social-cultural setting
2D. The geographical-topographical setting
3C. The counter-issue: Abraham in Egypt
3B. Genesis 14— an additional example
IC. The Mesopotamian kings
2C. The extensive travel
3C. The route of march
4C. Authority over Canaan
6 A Conclusion regarding presuppositions of Documentary Hypothesis
.
Chapter 9. Consequences of Radical Higher Criticism

1 A. The Old Testament is essentially unhistorical
2A. Israel's religion is totally natural, not supernatural in origin and

development
3 A. and religion is basically fraudulent
Israel's history
Chapter Evidence for Mosaic authorship
10.
lA. Internal evidence
IB. Witness of Pentateuch
2B. Witness of the other Old Testament books
3 B Witness of the New Testament
.
2A. External evidence

IB. Jewish tradition
2B. Early Christian tradition
3B. Covenant -form analysis
IC. Introduction
2C. Deuteronomy and the Second Millennium B.C. Treaty
3C. Deuteronomy and the First Millennium B.C. Treaties
4C. Conclusion
3 A. The antiquity of the alleged D source
IB. Introduction
2B. Statements
IC. Statements frequently recurring
2C. Geographical statements
3B. Style
27
4B. Antiquity of legislation

5B. Statements alleged to oppose Mosaic authorship and antiquity of D
6B. Centralized worship
4A. The antiquity of P source
'
5 A. Archaeology
IB. Antiquityof the Pentateuch— internal evidence
IC. The desert setting of Exodus— Numbers
2C. Egyptian influence in portions of the Pentateuch
ID. Geography
2D. Diction I
3D. Names of Egyptian kings ''
3C. Archaisms in Language

2B. Other archaeological evidence for Mosaic authorship
IC. Early Hebrew literature i
2C. Early parallels in Pentateuchal laws I
ID. The Covenant Code !
2D. Land transaction recorded in Genesis 25

5D. Three customs referred to in Genesis 16, 27, and SI
Chapter 1 1 The Phenomenon of Divine Names
.
lA. Introduction
2A. Documentary assumption
3A. Basic answer
IB. Specific uses of various divine names j
2B. Exegesis of Exodus 6:3 j
3B. Similar use of divine names in the Koran i
4B. Difficulties with the documentarians' manipulation of divine names

IC. Inconsistency
2C. Appeal to redactors
3C. Extent of source division
5B. Divine name variation in the LXX (Septuagint)
Chapter 1 2 The Repetition of Accounts and Alleged Contradictions
.
lA. Repetition of accounts i
IB. Introduction '
2B. Documentary assumption |
3B. Basic answer <
IC. The creation story j
2C. The naming of Isaac

|
3C. Abraham's deceit

4C. Isaac's deceit
5C. The naming of the well at Beersheba
6C. Jacob's flocks prosper
7C. The continuity of isolated documents
ID. The flood story
2D. Abraham's journey
3D. Isaac's blessing
4D. The story of Joseph
8C. Other evidence explaining repetitious accounts ]
2A. Alleged contradictions ,
IB. Introduction I
2B. Documentary assumption

|
3B. Basic answer {
IC. Nomenclature
2C. Legislation
3C. Customs
4C. Ethics
3A. Anachronisms— late words '
IB. Introduction !
2B. Documentary assumption

SB. Basic answer
IC. Scribal glosses
2C. Rare words
3C. Aramaisms
Chapter 13. Incongruities
lA. Introduction
SA. Basic answer
IB. Third person phenomenon
IC. Possibly dictated
2C. Possibly written by Moses in third person
2B. Moses' death
Chapter 14. Internal Diversity
lA. Introduction
SA. Basic answer
IB. Subject matter
2B. Style
SB. Diction
IC. Subject matter
2C. Variety
4B. The unity of the Pentateuch
Chapter 15. Conclusion to the Documentary Hypothesis
lA. Suggested strengths
1B .Collective force of the hypothesis
2B. The reason for the widespread acceptance of the theory
2A. Fatal methodological weaknesses
IB. The imposition of a modem occidental view on ancient oriental
literature
2B. The lack of objective evidence
SB. Substitution of disintegrative approach for harmonistic approach
4B. The number of "original documents" is unlimited
5B. Irresponsible logic
IC. The formulation of documents J, E, D and P
2C. The utter dependence upon redactors
SA. Ultimate failure of the hypothesis
4A. Some closing comments
%
chapter 3
introduction
- to the
documentary
hypothesis
Julius Wellhausen in 1895 added the finishing touches to a hypothesis which is
prevalent in modem biblical circles. The hypothesis is known as the Documentary
Hypothesis (JEDP hypothesis). Using literary criticism as its basis for argument, this
hypothesis sets forth the idea that the Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy) was not
written by Moses, as the Bible claims, but was completed years after Moses died.
Those adhering to the Documentary Hypothesis teach that the first five books of the
Bible were written close to one thousand years after Moses' death and were the result
of a process of writing, rewriting, editing and compiling by various anonymous editors
or redactors.
Citing literary variations within the text (divine names, doublets, repetition of ac-
counts), style and diction, the documentarians assert that there are four different
documents, J, E, D and P, which make up the Pentateuch. The J stands for the divine
name YHWH which is the name for God characteristically used by the anonymous J
writer. This writer had a flowing style and a peculiar vocabulary. E denotes the Elohist
document which is known for its use of Elohim as the name for God. J and E are often
difficult to separate within the text so they are often referred to as one source, JE. The
letter D describes the Deuteronomic code which was found in 621 B.C. Finally P
represents the Priestly writer. This writer was the last compiler to work with the Old
Testament. He put the finishing touches on it. P is characterized by its use of the name
Elohim for God and its acrid style. "Its language is that of a jurist, rather than a
historian." 18/12 P is not to be confused with the Elohist document which has a fresh
flowing style.
Chronologically these came in the same order as the letters, J, E, D, P. The following
is an excellent description of the background and purpose of each writer:
"J, or the Yahwist, was the first writer to bring together the legends, myths, poems
even well-known stories from other peoples, such as the Babylonians, into one great
history of God's people. Some of the sources J used were oral traditions; some were
29
so MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT
already in written form. This anonymous writer lived about the time of David or
Solomon. He was concerned to save the old traditions when Israel was becoming a
nation and, as a world power, was coming into contact with other nations and ideas.
In planning his work, J seems to have used the old confessions of faith or creeds about
what God had done for his people. As an example see Deut. 26.3 10. Around this
basic outline of creeds, he grouped the narratives. This writer is called the Yahwist
because he used Yahweh as the name for God. German scholars, who first discovered
this writer, spell Yahweh with a 'J'.
"E, or the Elohist, was the second writer to gather all the traditions into one history.
He wrote about 700 B.C., perhaps when the Northern Kingdom, Israel, was
threatened by enemies. E used traditions that had been passed down among northern
tribes. Some of these were the same as those used by J; others were different. E used
the name Elohim for God in stories before the time of Moses. He believed that the
name Yahweh was revealed to Moses. E gave special emphasis to Moses. See his
description in Deut. 34:10 12. E was a good writer of stories, for example, the story of
Joseph.
"JE. The works of these two writers were put together into one history by an
unknown
editor after Jerusalem was destroyed. Sometimes the editor kept both J's and E's telling
of a story, even when they differed in details. Other times he would use one as the
basic material and add details from the other. In Ex., ch. 14, the basic material is
from very little from E is used. Occasionally the editor added sentences of his own.
J;
"P may have been a priest or a group of priests who lived during the exile in Babylon.
They worked out a code of holiness for the people, that is, the ways of worship and the
laws that ought to be observed. This Priestly Code was at first a separate book.
Sometime in the fourth century B.C. it was worked into parts of the JE book. It was 'as
if someone were to take a stirring account of American history and insert into it at key
points the American Constitution or legislation of Congress.' Usually the P material is
not so lively as the JE parts. The P writers were interested in details of worship and
sacrifice, in laws, in genealogies, in specific locations and dates, in exact descriptions
and measurements, and the like. When they added to the stories of J and E, they were
likely to emphasize and even overemphasize the intervention of God and to make some
actions almost magical." 82/11-14
The D or Deuteronomy document has as its purpose reform in religious practices. J, E

and P were not yet united into a single work when D was composed.
"It was a great manifesto," writes Driver, "against the dominant tendencies of the
time. It laid down the lines of a great religious reform. Whether written in the dark
days of Manasseh, or during the brighter years which followed the accession of Josiah,
it was a nobly-conceived endeavour to provide in anticipation a spiritual rallying-
point, round which, when circumstances favoured, the disorganized forces of the
national religion might range themselves again. It was an emphatic reaffirmation of
the fundamental principles which Moses had long ago insisted on, loyalty to Jehovah
and repudiation of all false gods: it was an endeavour to realize in practice the ideals
of the prophets, especially of Hosea and Isaiah, to transform the Judah demoralized
by Manasseh into the 'holy nation' pictured in Isaiah's vision, and to awaken in it that
devotion to God, and love for man, which Hosea had declared to be the first of human
duties." 18/89
"Throughout the discourses the author's aim is to provide motives, by which to secure
loyalty to Him. .Deuteronomy may be described as the prophetic re -formulation,
. .
and adaptation to new needs, of an older legislation. It is highly probable that. the . .
bulk of the laws contained in Dt. is undoubtedly far more ancient than the time of the
author himself: and in dealing with them as he has done, in combining them into a
manual for the guidance of the people, and providing them with hortatory in-
troductions and comments." 18/91
Herbert Livingston gives an excellent summary of the dates of the four documents of
Wellhausen's theory:
MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT SI
"How then did the Wellhausen theory date the four documents? Since the D document
was declaredto be written in the seventh century and made public in Josiah's reform
of 621 B.C., that document became the keystone for the procedure. It was decided
that D knew about the contents of J and E, but not of the contents of P; hence, J and E
were written before 621 B.C. and P, at a later date.
,
"Dialectically, the J document, with its naive concepts, could be dated before E, and
the early phases of the divided kingdom seemed to provide a good historical setting. It
could be argued that J was the kingdom of Judah's reaction against the establishment
of the kingdom of north Israel. The purpose of J, then, was to provide Judah with a
'historical' document that would justify Judah's and Jerusalem's claim to be the
governmental center of all Israel. Likewise, E would be the antithetical production of
the kingdom of north Israel, led by the tribe of Ephraim, to show that there were
historical antecedents in the Patriarchs and in Joshua for the governmental center to
be located in the north.
"The theory continued to conclude that after the destruction of the northern kingdom
of Israel, in 721 B.C., broadminded men during the reign of Manasseh (first half of
seventh century B.C.) felt that the E document was too valuable to lose, so they
blended it with the J document. This new JE document became a new thesis and the D
document its antithesis. The thinking of the D document is said to have triumphed,
substantially, during the Exile in Babylon and colored the composition of the
historical books Joshua through II Kings. However, the 'Holiness Code,' tied with
Ezekiel, arose as another antithesis to D; and slowly, for perhaps a century, the priests
in exile and then in Jerusalem put together the P document and made it the
framework of a grand synthesis, the Pentateuch.
"In summary, the J document is dated a bit later than 900 B.C., and the E document
somewhat later in the ninth century B.C. The two were put together about 650 B.C.,
and were written about that same time and made public in 621 B.C. The P document
appeared in the fifth century and the Pentateuch composed in approximately its
present form about 400 B.C." 120/228, 229
As a result of the above assertions, those adhering to the Documentary Hypothesis
reject the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
Moses, who may be dated around 1,400 B.C., purports to have written the Pen-
tateuch. The documentarians reject this date and say it was not completed until
sometime between the eighth and fifth centuries B.C.
The Documentary Hypothesis calls into question the credibilityof the entire Old
Testament. One would have to conclude, if their assertions are correct, that the Old
Testament is a gigantic literary fraud. Either God did speak to and through Moses or
we have to acknowledge that we possess a belles-lettres hoax.
The primary issue is not the "unit of the pentateuch" but "how did this unity come
about?" In other words, the literary section of Genesis through Deuteronomy is one
continuous narrative. The question posed here is, "How did this continuous narrative
come into existence?" Was it, as traditional Christianity asserts and the Bible teaches,
written by Moses, or was it compiled years later? The whole issue calls into question
the trustworthiness of Jesus, the accuracy of both the Old and New Testament writers
and the integrity of Moses himself.
Livingston makes an acute observation:
"Almost every book that promotes the theory has a listing of chapters and verses
originally belonging to the independent documents. All isolated fragments that are
left over are attributed, much too easily, to redactors or compilers. It should be
understood, however, that there are no literary references, no extant manuscripts of
any kind, which mention the J, E, D, or P documents, either singly or as a group.
They have been created by separating them, with the aid of the above mentioned
criteria, from the extant text of the Pentateuch." 120/227
Livingston gives consequences of adherence to the theory of the Documentary

Hypothesis:
"(a) Mosaic authorship is rejected, with only bits of the Pentateuch attributed to the
Mosaic period; (b) for many of the scholars who accept the Wellhausen view, the men
and women of the Pentateuch were not actual human beings— at best they were
idealized heroes; (c) the Pentateuch does not give us a true history of ancient times,
but it reflects instead the history of the divided kingdom through the early part of the
postexilic period; (d) none of the people in the Pentateuch were monotheistic, and it
was the postexilic priests who made them look like believers in one God; (e) God never
spoke to any individuals but again, it was the work of the priests that
in ancient times,
gives that impression; very few of the laws in the Pentateuch were prekingdom in
(f)
origin; (g) very few of the cultic practices recorded in the Pentateuch were
prekingdom, and many were postexilic; (h) the early Israelites never had a tabernacle
such as described in Exodus; (i) all claims in the Pentateuch that God acted
rcdemptively and miraculously in behalf of Israel are erroneous; (j) any concept that
the present structural unity of the five books was original with Moses is erroneous,
and. finally; (k) the skepticism inherent in the theory creates a credibility gap with the
ordinary layman to the extent that the Pentateuch becomes practically useless to
him." 120/229
The following section is written (1) to present the evidence for Mosaic authorship; (2)
to clarify the assertions of those who advocate and propagate the Documentary
Hypothesis; (3) to give some basic answers to the documentarian assumptions.
Documentary Hypothesis
Southern Traditions Northern Traditions
Priestly
Traditions
ca. 750 B.C. E

mmmmmmmmmmmJk e
700 B.C.
JE ca.
Deuteronomy, Fall of Samaria, 721 B.C.

621 B.C.
D / Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B.C.
\1 JE and P between 500 and 400 B.C.

(Genesis through Numbers)
JEDP
chapter 4
introduction
to
biblical
criticism
lA. DEFINITIONS
"The word criticism denotes, primarily, a judgment, or an act of judging; its
derivation from a Greek verb (. [krino]) meaning to discern, or to try, or to
. .
pass judgment upon, or to determine, gives it this signification. As applied to

literary matters, it conveys the idea, not of fault-finding, but of fairly and justly
estimating both merits and defects. In other words, it is simply an impartial
judgment, or as nearly such as the given critic can render, on whatever question
is under consideration." 59/70, 71
This kind of study can be applied to the Bible and is therefore called biblical
criticism. It is defined by the Christian Cyclopedia as:
"the science by which we arrive at a satisfactory acquaintance with the origin,

history, and present state of the original text of Scripture." 25/206
Biblical criticism has been divided into two kinds:

(1) Lower criticism"which is more of a verbal and historical nature, and is
confined to the words, or the collocation of the words, as they stand in the
manuscript or printed texts, the ancient versions, and other legitimate
sources of appeal." 25/206 Lower criticism is also known as textual
criticism.
(2) Higher criticism "consists in the exercise of the judgment in reference to

the text, on grounds taken from the nature, form, method, subject, or
arguments of the different books; the nature and connection of the con-
text; the relation of passages to each other; the known circumstances of the
writers, and those of the persons for whose immediate use they wrote."
25/206
IB. Higher Criticism
The questions of the higher criticism are questions of integrity, authenticity,
credibility and literary forms of the various writings that make up the Bible.
35
S6 MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT
The term "higher criticism" is not, in and of itself, a negative term. James
Orr, former Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology in the United
Free Church College, Glasgow, Scotland, stated it this way:
"The truth is, and the fact has to be faced, that no one who studies the Old
Testament in the light of modem knowledge can help being, to some extent, a
'Higher Critic,' nor is it desirable he should. The name has unfortunately
come to be associated all but exclusively with a method yielding a certain class
of results; but it has no necessary connection with these results. 'Higher
Criticism,' rightly understood, simply the careful scrutiny, on the principles
is
which it is customary to apply to of the actual phenomena of the

all literature,
Bible, with a view to deduce from these such conclusions as may be warranted
regarding the age, authorship, mode of composition, sources, etc., of the
different books; and everyone who engages in such inquiries, with whatever
aim, is a 'Higher Critic,; and cannot help himself." 50/9
Green adds that higher criticism in its modem implication has a negative
connotation, but in fact it properly means an inquiry into the origin and
character of the writings to which it is applied. By using all available
materials the higher critic seeks to ascertain the author of a work, period in
which it was written, the circumstances surrounding the writing, and the
design with which the writing was produced. Investigations conducted in such
a manner will prove most important in understanding and appreciating the
writing. 26/6
Higher criticism should remain as objective as possible. Orr said:
"The age, authorship, and simple or composite character of a book arc
matters for investigation, to be determined solely by evidence, and it is justly
claimed that criticism, in its investigation of such subjects, must be un-
trammelled: That faith cannot be bound up with results of purely hterary
judgments." 50/16
This includes faith in theories and presuppositions as well as "religious" faith.
2B. History of Higher Criticism

Although higher criticism asan exacting science had been applied to some
classical literature before the 19th century, J.G. Eichhom, a German
rationalist of the late 1700's was the first to apply the term to the study of the
Bible. He introduced the second edition of his Einleitung in das Alte
Testament (O.T Introduction) in 1787 with these words:
"I have been obliged to bestow the greatest amount of labor on a hitherto
entirely unworked field, the investigation of the inner constitution of the
particular writings of the Old Testament, by the Higher Criticism (a new
name to no humanist)." 16/19
Eichhom has been called the "Father of Old Testament Criticism."
Although the term "higher criticism" did not become associated with biblical
studies until Eichhom, it was Jean Astruc's publication of his treatise on
Genesis in 1753 that actually marked the beginning of higher critical
methodology as applied to the Old Testament. While Astruc defended Moses
as the author of Genesis, he concluded that there were independent sources
woven together throughout the book. Subsequently the entire Pentateuch
(Genesis- Deuteronomy) was subjected to extensive source analysis. Higher
criticism therefore may be said to have been spawned and developed in
Pentateuchal analysis. It was the highly complex conclusions regarding the
authorship and dating of the Pentateuch (the Documentary Hypothesis) by
European (especially German) higher critics promulgated primarily during
the 1800's that formed the foundation for most subsequent critical inquiry
into the Old Testament. Therefore, an investigation of modem Old
Testament higher criticism in general will have to consider, first of all, past
Pentateuchal analysis. It is the key to a proper evaluation of all higher

criticism of the Old Testament since Astruc.
Unfortunately, the higher critical school which grew up out of German
scholarship in the last century employed some faulty methodology and
tenaciously held to some questionable presuppositions. This seriously un-
dermined the validity of many of their conclusions. Entire books were rent
into numerous "sources"; most of the books in the Old Testament were dated
later— by almost a 1000 years in some cases— than the actual witness of the
documents themselves would allow. The biblical account of the early
Hebrews' history was replaced by a complicated and well-thought-out theory
in contradiction to Israel's own account of her history in almost every major
point.
Because of wholesale reconstruction of Israelite literature, and its radical

its
remaking of Hebrew history, this school, which has dominated Old Testament
studies since its inception, together with the methodology that achieved these
drastic results, came to be known in some circles as "destructive higher
criticism."
2A. THREE SCHOOLS OF RADICAL PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM
IB. —
Documentary Hypothesis Statement of Theory
The Pentateuch, although traditionally ascribed to Moses, was actually a
compilation of four basic documents written by independent authors over a
period of approximately 400 years beginning ca. 850 B.C. and gradually
combined by unknown redactors who put it in its basic form by about 400
B.C. The main criterion for this theory was a close analysis of the text itself
through which it was thought the actual documents could be isolated. The
classic expression of this theory came from a German scholar. Julius
Wellhausen, in 1878. 32/19-27
2B. Form Criticism (Formgeschtchte)
The form critical school likewise held that the Pentateuch was the product of
a compilation process and not the work of Moses. But it differed from the
Documentary Hypothesis in that it held the individual documents were

themselves compilations developing from early oral tradition and being
placed in writing only during or after the exilic period (586 B.C.). Very little
could be known about the literary development of these documents and it was
clear to this school that the neat isolation of documents achieved by the
documentary school was impossible. The only practical approach was to go
behind the sources in their written form and examine the types of categories
to which the original material belonged in its oral state and then follow the
probable course of development of each one of these oral units until it finally
reached its written form. Great emphasis was placed upon the Sitz im Leben
(life situation) of these different categories in determining through what kind
of process they evolved into their written form. Herman Gunkel and Hugo
Gressmann, two German scholars, have been credited with founding this
school at the beginning of the 20th century. (Gunkel's Die Sagen der Genesis,
1901; Die Schnften des Alten Testaments, 1911; Gressmann's Die Alteste
Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels, 1910.) 32/35-38
SB. Oral Traditionists ("Uppsala School")
Similar to the form critical school, the oral traditionists held that the Pen-
tateuch is not Mosaic in origin but is rather a collection of material compiled
over centuries and committed to writing not before the Exile. Totally
rejecting the Documentary Hypothesis as an occidental solution to a literary
problem of the vastly different ancient Near East, this Scandinavian school
placed even more emphasis on oral tradition than Gunkel and the form
critics. Some even claimed that oral tradition was more important in the
transmission of material than was writing in the ancient Orient. It is not
written documents which must be dealt with but rather units of oral tradition,
circles of tradition, and various "schools" within these traditionist circles.
They seek to classify the material into literary categories such as narratives,
legal, prose, poetry and especially subdivided types called Gattungen. These
subdivided types (Gattungen) are given "laws'* as to how they develop in "life
situations" (Sitz tm Leben).
There are two basic sources of tradition in the Pentateuch: one extends from
Genesis through Numbers and points to a P (priestly) type school of tradition.
The other is a D (Deuteronomy through II Kings) work which exhibits a
different style than P, and f)oints to a D circle of traditionists. Largely
responsible for this most recent trend in Pentateuchal analysis were Johannes
Pedersen (Die Auffassung vom Alten Testament, 1931) and Ivan Engnell
(Gamla Testamentet en Traditionshistorisk Inledning, 1945). 32/66-69
chapter 5
introduction
to the
L pentateuch
As was noted earlier, the first five books of the Old Testament. Genesis through
Deuteronomy (also called the Five Books of Moses), are known as the Pentateuch,
deriving from the Greek word pentateuchos meaning "five-volumed [sc. book]."
49/957
The collection of these five books was first called the Pentateuch by Origen in the
third century A.D. in his commentary on the Gospel of John. 32/495 Jewish tradition
has called these five books the Tor ah (deriving from the Hebrew word tdrft, meaning
''instruction"), theBook of the Law, the Law of Moses or simply the Law.
Harrison breaks down the contents of the Pentateuch as follows:
1 Primeval History with a Mesopotamian Background, Gen. 1 — 11
2. —
History of the Patriarchs. Gen. 12 50
3. —
The Oppression of Israel and Preparations for the Exodus, Exod. 1 9
4. The Exodus, Passover, and the Arrival at Sinai, Exod. 10—19
5. The Decalogue and the Covenant at Sinai, Exod. 20—24
6. Legislation Relating to the Tabernacle and Aaronic Priesthood, Exod. 25—31
7. —
The Idolatrous Violation of the Covenant. Exod. 32 34
8. The Implementation of Regulations Concerning the Tabernacle. Exod. 35—40
9. -
The Law of Offerings. Lev. 1 7
10. The Consecration of the Priests and Initial Offerings, Lev. 8—10
11 —
The Laws of Cleanliness, Lev. 11 15
12. The Day of Atonement. Lev. 16
13. Laws Concerning Morality and Cleanliness, Lev. 17—26
14. Vows and Tithes. Lev. 27
15. Numberings and Laws, Num. 1—9
16. The Journey from Sinai to Kadesh. Num. 10—20
17. Wanderings to Moab, Num. 21 — 36
18. Historical Retrospect to the Wilderness Period, Deut. 1 —4
19. Second Speech, with an Hortatory Introduction. Deut. 5 — 11
39
. .
20. Collected Statutes and Rights, Deut. 12-26

21 Cursing and Blessing. Deut. 27 30 -
22. The Accession of Joshua and Death of Moses, Deut. 31 — 34
32/496
1 A. PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE PENTATEUCH
The Bible is history, but of a very special kind. It is the history of God's
redemption of mankind, and the Pentateuch is chapter one of that history.
61/187, 188
Unger elaborates:
"The author of the Pentateuch had a definite plan. He did not apply himself to
recording the story of human history. His task was rather to give an account of
God's gracious provisions for man's salvation. The Pentateuch, accordingly, is
history with a motive behind it, a deep, religious motive, which imbues the
whole. The religious principle underlying it, on the other hand, does not render
the events recounted any less historical. It merely gives them a permanent
importance far transcending the times in which and about which they were
written and far out-reaching in importance their application to any one nation
or people, investing them with an inestimable and abiding value for all
mankind. .
"Failure to comprehend the precise character and purpose of the Pentateuch has
led many critics to deny its historicity altogether or to adopt low views of its
reliability. If, for instance, the account of the Egyptian sojourn, the miraculous
deliverance and the wilderness wanderings were fictitious, its vital connection
not only with Hebrew history but with the whole Biblical plan of salvation raises
the insoluable [sic] problem of how this extraordinary record could ever have
been fabricated." 61/188. 189
D.A. Hubbard speaks of the prime importance of the Pentateuch in un-
derstanding
Israel's relationship with God:
"A record of revelation and response, the Pentateuch testifies to the saving acts
ofGod who is sovereign Lord of history and nature. The central act of Ck)d in
the Pentateuch (and indeed the Old Testament) is the Exodus from Egypt. Here
God broke in upon the consciousness of the Israelites and revealed Himself as the
redeeming God. Insights gained from this revelation enabled them under Moses'
leadership to reevaluate the traditions of their ancestors and see in them the
budding of God's dealings which had bloomed so brilliantly in the liberation
from Egypt." 49/963
Even Langdon B. Gilkey, hardly a conservative scholar, calls the Exodus-Sinai
experience "the pivotal point of biblical religion." 26/ 147
Therefore, the Pentateuch occupies an important place in the Christian view of
the universe since it records God's initial revealing of Himself to mankind.
As Gilkey puts it:
"The Exodus event has a confessional as well as a historical interest for us. The
question of what God did at Sinai is, in other words, not only a question for the
scholar of Semitic religion and theology, it is even more a question for the
contemporary believer who wishes to make his witness today to the acts of God in
history." 26/147
2A. ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF NON-MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP THEORY
According to John of Damascus, the Nazarites. a sect of Christians of Jewish
birth living during the second century, denied that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
71/113 The Clementine Homilies, a collection of ancient writings somewhat
later than the second century, stated that the Pentateuch was written by 70 wise
men after Moses' death. (For a study of the unreliability of these writings and the
invalid methodology of historical and biblical interpretation which they em-

ployed, see E.J. Young's An Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 118, 119.)
71/112
Although there were several groups and individuals from the first two centuries
A.D. who denied the essential Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the
following passage from Young should be noted:
"During the first two centuries of the Christian era there is no recorded instance
of criticism that is hostile to the Bible among Church
fathers or in the or-
the
thodox Church The
Apostolic Fathers and the subsequent Ante-Nicene
itself.
Fathers, in so far as they expressed themselves on the subject, believed Moses to
be the author of the Pentateuch, and the Old Testament to be a divine book. .
"Such instances of hostile criticism as are extant from this period come either
from groups that were considered to be heretical or from the external pagan
world. Furthermore, this criticism reflected certain philosophical presup-
positions and is of a decidedly biased and unscientific character." 71/113,114
The allegation that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch thus had its
beginning during the first two centuries A.D. The primary basis upon which this
charge rested was the presence of passages supposedly written after Moses' time.
There was some minor activity in the question of Mosaic authorship during the
following centuries but it was not until the 18th century when the argument
moved to a new foundation, that of literary criticism, that the theory of non-
Mosaic authorship was extensively developed. (For a survey of the developments
from the third century to the 1700's see E.J. Young, An Introduction to the Old
Testament.) 71/ 116-120
chapter 6.
the
development
,
of the
documentary
hypothesis
1 A. IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS IN RADICAL
HIGHER CRITICISM
We have already referred to the important role that the Documentary
Hypothesis has played in the establishment of a whole school of higher critical
scholarship that has undeniably undermined the literary and historical integrity
of the Old Testament. The radical conclusions reached by this school therefore
necessitate a careful and searching investigation of its position by all serious
students of the Old Testament. Any such investigation must start with the
analysis of the Pentateuch as set forth in the Documentary Hypothesis. Whether
this radical higher criticial position is indeed a valid one or whether it ought to
be discarded in favor of one which is better suited to the facts at hand will be
determined largely by an objective assessment of the classic Documentary
Hypothesis and its subsequent revisions.
\ 2A. HISTORY OF ITS DEVELOPMENT
IB. First Documentary Theory
As far as is known, a Protestant priest, H.B. Witter, in the early part of the
18th century, was the first to assert that there were two parallel accounts of
creation and that they were distinguishable by the use of the different divine
names. He was also the Hrst to suggest the divine names as criteria for
distinguishing the different documents. (See his Jura Israelttarum in
Palestina, 1711.) 15/9; 71/118
The first significant treatment of the documentary theory was set forth in
1753 by the French physician Jean Astruc in his book Conjectures Concerning
the Original Memoranda which it Appears Moses Used to Compose the Book
of Genesis.
Astruc held that there were distinct documents in Genesis, discernible
primarily by the unique usage of the divine names Elohim and Jehovah in the
43
opening chapters. Astruc realized that the divine name phenomenon could
not be used as a criterion for testing any portions of the Pentateuch beyond
Genesis. Alleged repetition of events (i.e., the creation and flood stories) and
chronological inaccuracies were also cited by Astruc as evidence for un-
derlying sources. Although he developed a documentary theory, Astruc
defended Moses as being the compiler of the documents. 71/118-121
The first to introduce Astruc's theory to Germany was J.G. Eichhom. In his
three- volume introduction to the Old Testament, Einleitung in das Alte
Testament (1780-1783), Eichhom suggested that criteria for source analysis in
the Pentateuch should include literary considerations (i.e., diversity in style,
words peculiar to previously isolated documents, etc.), in addition to Astruc's
divine name criterion. 32/14
2B. Fragmentary Hypothesis
IC. THE THEORY
In 1800 a Scottish Roman Catholic priest, A. Geddes, called Astruc's two-
document theory a "work of fancy." He held there was a mass of fragments,
large and small, (not actual documents) that were pieced together by a
redactor about 500 years after Moses' death. From 1802-1805 the German,
Johann Vater, developed Geddes' theory. He tried to demonstrate the
gradual growth of the Pentateuch from individual fragments. He held that
there were at least 38 different fragment sources. Although some of the
particular fragments were from Moses' time, the Pentateuch as we now
have it was compiled about the time of the Jewish Exile (586 B.C.). This
theory was developed more fully in 1831 by the German scholar A.T.
Hartmann. 71/123-127
2C. ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM ASTRUC'S DOCUMENTARY
THEORY
Those who hold this theory believe there are no continuous documents, but
rather a mass of fragments of documents impossible to isolate.
SB. Supplementary Theory
IC. THE THEORY
In 1823, Heinrich Ewald dealt the "death blow" to the fragmentary
hypothesis in his book Die Komposition der Genesis Kritisch Untersucht, in
which he defended the unity of Genesis. By 1830 he had developed a new
theory which held that the basis of the first six books of the Bible lay in an
Elohistic writing, but that later a parallel document which used the divine
name "Jehovah" arose. Still later, an editor took excerpts from this J
document and inserted them into the initial E document. Numerous
versions of this basic hypothesis subsequently developed, with some like De
Wette (1840) and Lengerke (1844) holding not to one supplementation but
three. 71/127-129
2C. ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM FRAGMENTARY HYPOTHESIS

There is not a hodge-podge of sources but rather a unity with one basic
document (E) running throughout Genesis with supplements (J) being
added later.
4B. Crystallization Theory
IC. THE THEORY
By 1845 Ewald had rejected his own supplementary theory. In its place he
offered that instead of one supplementer there were five narrators who
wrote various parts of the Pentateuch at different times over a period of
700 years. The fifth narrator, supposedly a Judean of the time of King
Uzziah, constantly used the name Jehovah and was the final editor. He
completed the Pentateuch about 790-740 B.C. Ewald also held that
Deuteronomy was an independent work added around 500 B.C. Others

who held to a simpler form of this theory were August Knobel (1861) and
E. Schraeder(1869). 71/129, 130
2C. ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM SUPPLEMENTARY THEORY
There is not one supplementer but rather five different narrators who
wrote different parts of the Pentateuch at various times.
5B. Modified Documentary Theory
IC. THE THEORY
In 1853, Herman Hupfeld sought to show:
a) that J sections in Genesis were not supplements but rather they
formed a continuous document.
b) that the basicE document (supplementary theory) was not one
continuous document but rather a composite of two separate
documents (which he called P and E).
c) that these three documents were put into present form by a redactor.
d) that Deuteronomy was an entirely separate document, added last
(designated by D).
Therefore, Hupfeld held that there were actually four distinct documents
woven into the fabric of the Pentateuchal narrative: P (early Elohist), E, J.
D. 71/130, 131
2C. ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM CRYSTALLIZATION THEORY
Not five narrators but one redactor combined the documents: J document,
early Elohist P document, late Elohist E document.
6B. Development Hypothesis (Revised Documentary Theory)
IC. THE THEORY (today most commonly called "Documentary Hypothesis")
Whereas Hupfeld had established the chronological order of the
documents as being P E J D, during the 1860's Karl H. Graf completely
reversed the order to J E D P, holding that the basic document (first Elohist
or P) was not the earliest portion of the Pentateuch but the last. Grafs
theory was strengthened by Abraham Kuenen's book De Godsdienst Van
/jrae/ (1869-70).
Julius Wellhausen (Die Komposition des Hexateuchs, 1876 and

Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 1878) skillfully and eloquently for-
mulated Grafs and Kuenen's revised documentary theory and gave it the
classic expression that brought it to prominence in most European (and
later American) scholarly circles. Wellhausen restated the Documentary
Hypothesis (later to be called the Graf- Wellhausen Hypothesis) in terms of
the evolutionary view of history which was prevalent in philosophical
circles at that time.
He held:
1) The earliest part of the Pentateuch came from two originally in-
dependent documents, the Jehovist (850 B.C.) and Elohist (750
B.C.).
2) From these the Jehovist compiled a narrative work (650 B.C.).

3) Deuteronomy came in Josiah's time and its author incorporated this
into the Jehovist's work.
4) The priestly legislation in the Elohist document was largely the work
of Ezra and is referred to as the Priestly Document. A later editor(s)
revised and edited the conglomeration of documents by about 200
B.C. to form the extant Pentateuch we have today.
. K
In England, W. Robertson Smith (The Old Testament in the Jewish

Church, 1881) interpreted and propounded the writings of Wellhausen.
But it was Samuel R. Driver who, in his Introduction to the Literature of
the Old Testament, (1891), gave Wellhausenism its classic presentation to
the English-speaking worid. The most notable eariy advocate of the
Wellhausen school in America was Charies A. Briggs, (The Higher
Criticism of the Hexateuch, 1893). 11/79; 71/136-138
2C. ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM MODIFIED DOCUMENTARY
THEORY
P is not the eariiest document but the latest JEDP sequence as worked out
on a systematic evolutionary pattern.
7B. The Development and Modern Revisions of the Documentary Hypothesis
Since Wellhausen.
IC. Rudolph Smend (Die ErzUhlung des Hexateuchs auf Ihre Quellen Un-
tersucht, 1912)— Not one J document but two: J' andj*. 11/91
2C. Otto Eissfeldt (Hexateuchsynopse, 1922) — L document within J document,

written in 860 B.C. 11/91
SC. R.H. Kennett in Deuteronomy and the Decalogue (1920); Gustav HOlscher
in Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums (The Composition
and Origin of Deuteronomy) (1922). Both held:
Deuteronomy was later than the Josiah period. Thus, the "book of the law"
found in the temple in 621 B.C. was not Deuteronomy. 11/100, 101
4C. Martin Kegel in Die Kultusreformation desjosias (Josiah's Reformation of
the Cultus) (1919), Adam C. Welch in The Code of Deuteronomy (1924),
Edward Robertson in Bulletin ofJohn Rylands Library (1936, 1941, 1942,
1944), all concluded that Deuteronomy was written much earlier than
Josiah's time (621 B.C.). 11/101, 102
5C. Max LOhr, in his Der Priestercodex in der Genesis (The Priestly Code in
Genesis) (1924), asserted:
1 An independent P source never existed.
2. The Pentateuch was composed by Ezra who drew upon preexilic
written materials.
S. These written materials could not be identified with any specific

documents (e.g. J, E, etc.). 11/97
6C. Morgenstem (The Oldest Document of the Hexateuch, 1927)—
Julius
document (somewhat similar to Eissfeldt's L) present in J. 11/91
7C. Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph, in their Der Elohist als ErzUhler: Ein
Irrweg der Pentateuchkritikf (The Elohist as a Narrator: a Mistake in
Pentateuchal Criticism?) (1933), concluded:
1 There were no grounds for the existence of a separate E document.
2. Only one writer in the whole book of Genesis, with a few additions
made by a later editor. 11/100
8C. Robert Pfeiffer (Introduction to the Old Testament, 1941)- S Document
found in J and E sections of Genesis 1-11 and 14-38, dated 950 B.C. 11/91
chapter 7
ground
rules
k
The ancient oriental environment of the Old Testament provides many very close
literary parallels.And while many ignore it, no one can well deny the truth that
principles found to be valid in studying ancient oriental history and literature should
be applied to the Old Testament history and literature. Likewise principles that are
decidedly false when applied to ancient Near Eastern literature and history should not
be applied to Old Testament literature and history. 42/28
Three elementary principles should permeate this investigation:
lA. APPROACH THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES AS OTHER ANCIENT

LITERATURE—HARMONISTICALLY
Literary genius and critic Coleridge established this basic rule for literature long
ago:
"When we meet an apparent error in a good author, we are to presume ourselves
ignorant of his understanding, until we are certain that we understand his
ignorance." cited by 10/125
Historian John Warwick Montgomery states that in the determination of the
an ancient document "historical and literary scholarship
essential historicity of
continues to follow Aristotle's dictum [De Arte Poetica, 14606-14616] that the
benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated [unjustly
assumed] by the critic to himself." 48/29
Kitchen has more recently emphasized the necessity of this principle in Old
Testament studies as well as Egyptology:
"It is normal practice to assume the general reliability of statements in our
sources, unless there is good, explicit evidence to the contrary. The basic
. . .
harmony that ultimately underlies extant records should be sought out, even
despite apparent discrepancy. Throughout ancient history, our existing sources
are incomplete and elliptical." 42/28-33
47
Allis labels this approach the "harmonistic method," and elaborates on its
application to the Hebrew writings:
"It has two obvious advantages. The one is that it does justice to the intelligence
and common sense of the writers of the Bible. To claim that the writers, com-
pilers, editors of the biblical records would introduce or combine conflicting
accounts of the same event into a narrative is to challenge their intelligence, or
their honesty, or their competence to deal with the data which they record. The
second is that it is the biblical method of interpretation. The many times and
various ways in which the biblical writers quote or refer to one another implies
their confidence in the sources quoted. Their method is a harmonistic method.
Most important of all, this method of interpretation is the only one which is
consistent with the high claims of the Bible to be the Word of God." 90/35
2A. EXERCISE AN OPEN MIND
Bewer, a firm defendant of the documentary position, has provided an out-
standing exposition of this principle:
"A truly scientific criticism never stops. No question ever closed for it. When
is
new facts appear or a new way of understanding old is shown, the critic is
facts
ready to reexamine, to modify or to overthrow his theory, if it does not account
for all the facts in the most satisfactory way. For he is interested in the truth of
his theory, and indifferent to the label, old or new; orthodox or heterodox;
conservative, liberal or radical, that others may place upon it." 94/305
Another radical critic, W.R. Harper, heartily agrees:
"It should be remembered that, after all, it is not a question of opinion, but of
fact. It matters not what any particular critic may think or say. It is the duty of
every man who studies this question to take up one by one the points suggested,
and to decide for himself whether or not they are true." 108/73
R.K. Harrison is likewise insistent upon such an attitude:
"As the result of the impact of what TH.

Huxley once called 'one ugly little fact/
the truly scientific investigator will make whatever changes are demanded by the
situation, even if he is compelled to begin his research de novo to all intents and
purposes." 32/508
The direction in which the facts lead may not be palatable, but it must be
followed. Kitchen reasons that even if "some of the results reached here ap-
proximate to a traditional view or seem to agree with theological orthodoxy,
then this is simply because the tradition in question or that orthodoxy are that
much closer to the real facts than is commonly realized. While one must indeed
never prefer mere orthodoxy to truth, it is also perverse to deny that orthodox
views can be true." 42/173
The highly respected Jewish scholar Cyrus Gordon, formerly of Brandeis
University and New York University, concludes that "a commitment to any
hypothetical source structure like JEDP is out of keeping with what I consider
the only tenable position for a critical scholar: to go wherever the evidence leads
htm." 27 /Z
8A. SUBMIT TO EXTERNAL, OBJECTIVE CONTROLS
These all-important facts to which our minds must necessarily remain open are
discovered by an archaeological examination of the ancient Orient. Cassuto
exhorts us "to conduct our investigation without prejudgment or anticipatory
fear, but to rely on the objective examination of the texts themselves and the
help afforded by our knowledge of the ancient East, in the cultural environment
of which the children of Israel lived when the Torah was written. Let us not
approach the Scriptural passages with the literary and aesthetic criteria of our
time, but let us apply to them the standards obtaining in the ancient East
generally and among the people of Israel particularly." 15/12
Kitchen establishes this as an axiom:

"Priority must always be givento tangible, objective data, and to external
evidence, over subjective theory or speculative opinions. Facts must control
theory, not vice versa." 42/28-33
Certainly Cassuto is to be commended for attributing much respect to the
documentarians because of their labor. There should be no attempt to belittle

them, but we do have the right to examine rigidly the hypothesis they put forth
and their method of obtaining their evidence for this hypothesis. Since there is a
tremendous amount of archaeological evidence existing today that these
documentarians were lacking when they constructed their theories, we may
discover something they missed or solve a problem which left them perplexed.
15/13
"In view of the grave shortcomings," writes Harrison, "of the Graf-Wellhausen
approach to the problems of the Pentateuch, and to the Old Testament in
general, any new study will need to be based firmly upon an accredited
methodology that will utilize the vast quantities of control material now
available to scholars throughout the world, and will argue inductively from the
known to the unknown instead of making pronouncements from a purely
theoretical standpoint that bears only a slight relation to some of the known
facts." 32/533
Elsewhere, Harrison affirms that "it is only when criticism is properly established
upon an assured basis of ancient Near Eastern life rather than upon occidental
philosophical or methodological speculations that Old Testament scholarship
can expect to reflect something of the vitality, dignity, and spiritual richness of
the law, prophecy, and the sacred writings." 32/82
Kyle very effectively epitomizes this principle:
"Theory must always give way to fact. In the settlement of disputes, facts are
final. Even so staunch a defender of the rights and function of criticism as Dr.
Driver, (Authority and Archaeology, p. 143.) recognized this principle, at least
in theory. For he says: 'Where the testimony of archaeology is direct, it is of the
highest possible value, and, as a rule, determines the question decisively: even
where it is indirect, if it is sufficiently circumstantial and precise, it makes a
settlement highly probable.'" 117/32

4A. CONCLUSION
These principles are implicit in ancient Near Eastern studies. One point that
should be stressed is that a positive approach does not exclude critical study of
material but it avoids the distortions that hypercriticism brings. If positive
studies had been pursued, the modern critical school would have a different
position and many of the supposed problems would be in correct proportion.
42/34
The present condition in Old Testament criticism is summed up by Kitchen:
"Through the impact of the Ancient Orient upon the Old Testament and upon
Old Testament studies a new tension is being set up while an older one is being
reduced. For the comparative material from the Ancient Near East is tending to
agree with the extant structure of Old Testament documents as actually tran-
smitted to us, rather than with the reconstructions of nineteenth-century Old
Testament scholarship— or with its twentieth-century prolongation and
developments to the present day.
"Some examples may illustrate this point. The valid and close parallels to the
social customs of the Patriarchs come from documents of the nineteenth to
fifteenth centuries B.C. (agreeing with an early-second-millennium origin for
this material in Genesis), and not from Assyro- Babylonian data of the tenth to
sixth centuries B.C. (possible period of the supposed 'J,' 'E' sources). Likewise for
Genesis 23, the closest parallel comes from the Hittite Laws which passed into
oblivion with the fall of the Hittite Empire about 1200 B.C. The covenant -forms
which appear in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Joshua follow the model of those
current in the thirteenth century B.C. —
the period of Moses and Joshua— and
not those of the first millennium B.C." 42/25
Instead of starting biblical studies with the presupposition that the Old
Testament has error throughout, many contradictions, historical inaccuracies,
and gross textual errors, the proper study should include a meticulous
examination of the Hebrew text in light of modem archaeology and the
knowledge existing of cultures of the ancient Near East in the third millennium
B.C. 32/532
Orlinsky remarks that the modem flow of thinking is going in this direction:
"More and more the older view that the Biblical data were suspect and even
likely to be corroborated by extra-biblical facts, is giving way to one
false, unless
which holds that, by and large, the Biblical accounts are more likely to be true
than false, unless clear-cut evidence from sources outside the Bible demonstrates
the reverse." 213/81
chapter 8
ckcumentary , ,
presuppositions
INTRODUCTION
Underlying much of the radical higher critical methodology are some very
important presuppositions. This is not necessarily objectionable, and is to a
degree, inevitable. Orr cites the German theologian, Biedermann (Christliche
Dogmatik), who put it this way:
It is"not true but sand in the eyes, if one asserts that genuinely scientific and
historic criticism can and should proceed without dogmatic presuppositions. In
the last instance the consideration of the so-called purely historic grounds always
reaches the point where it can and will decide concerning this, whether it can or
cannot hold some particular thing in and of itself to be possible. Some sort
. . .
of boundary definitions, be they ever so elastically held, of what is historically

possible, every student brings with him to historical investigations; and these are
for that student dogmatic presuppositions." 50/172
The radical critics are not lacking when it comes to ability and scholarship, etc.
The problem area is not their lack of knowledge of the evidence but rather their
hermeneutics or approach to biblical criticism based upon their world view.
Gerhardsson has appropriately said, "But the validity of its results depends on
the validity of its first principles." 223/6
So often discussion in the area of biblical criticism is carried out on the level of
conclusions or answers, rather than at the level of presuppositions or our basis of
thinking.
Talking at the level of presuppositions reveals whether people have the right to
come to a logical conclusion. If a person has reasonable presuppositions in light
of known evidence, his logical conclusions may well be correct.
But if his presuppositions are faulty, his logical conclusions will only magnify
original errors as an argument is extended.
51
r,2 MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT
In the study of the Bible there have always been various philosophical
presuppositions. Evaluating these is beyond the scope of this work. But ar-
chaeology has given us much to consider today in the objective realm. Any
presuppositions regarding the Bible must consider this as well.
One of the first needs in this study is the harmonizing of presuppositions with the
objective data available, before serious discussion on other points begins.
The question as it relates to the documentarians is, "What were their presup-
positions and were they admissible?
The most basic presupposition of the majority of radical critics is ami- super-
naturalism. This presupposition is treated in chapter one.
2A. PRIORITY OF SOURCE ANALYSIS OVER ARCHAEOLOGY
One of the major weaknesses of the radical higher critical school was that in
much of their analysis and isolation of alleged documents conclusions were
based almost exclusively upon their own subjective theories regarding the history
of Israel and the probable development and compilation process of the supposed
sources, with little reference to the more objective and verifiable information
that was being provided by archaeology.
The methodological parallels which continue between Pentateuchal and

Homeric studies are due and also to mutual profit from
to reciprocal influence
the progress made in general techniques of research.
"Undoubtedly," writes Cassuto, "it is affected also by the opinions and concepts,
the trends and demands, the character and idiosyncrasies of each age. This
being so, it may well be that we have not before us an objective discovery of what
is actually to be found in the ancient books, but the result of the subjective
impression that these writings have on the people of a given environment. If

among peoples so different from one another scholars find literary
. . .
phenomena so complex and yet so similar, and precisely one trend in one epoch
and another trend in another, and yet a third period, the suspicion naturally
arises that the investigators' conceptions are not based on purely objective facts
but that they were appreciably motivated by the subjective characteristics of the
researchers themselves." 15/12
Harrison points this out:
"Whatever else may be adduced

in criticism of Wellhausen and his school, it is
quite evident that his theory of Pentateuchal origins would have been vastly
different (if, indeed, it had been formulated at all) had Wellhausen chosen to
take account of the archaeological material available for study in his day, and
had he subordinated his philosophical and theoretical considerations to a sober
and rational assessment of the factual evidence as a whole. While he and his
followers drew to some extent upon the philological discoveries of the day and
manifested a degree of interest in the origins of late Arabic culture in relation to
Semitic presursors, they depended almost exclusively upon their own view of the
culture and religious history of the Hebrews for purposes of Biblical in-
terpretation." 32/509
Harrison continues:
"Wellhausen took almost no note whatever of the progress in the field of oriental
scholarship, and once having arrived at his conclusions, he never troubled to
revise his opinion in the light of subsequent research in the general field."
32/509
Even some critics were still claiming that analyzing alleged
as late as 1931
sources was the most accurate method for determining the historical
background of the Pentateuch. J. Pedersen, a Swedish scholar and one of the
pioneers of the oral tradition school made the following statement ("Die Auf-
fassung vom Alten Testament" in Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschafi, 1931. Vol. 49, p. 179) here cited by C. R. North:
"All the sources of the Pentateuch are both pre-exilic and post-exilic. When we
work with them and the other sources, we have no other means than that of
intrinsic appraisement (innere Schatzung); in every single case the character of
the material must be examined and the supposed background be inferred from
that." 77/62
Such dependence upon so subjective a methodology as source analysis has been
criticized by many scholars.
Mendenhall says:
"The value of literary analysis for history and its success in convincing the
scholarly world today depends upon the isolation of more adequate criteria for
judgment than has evidently so far been produced by its adherents. The results,
consequently, must be judged to fall in the category of hypotheses, not of
historical fact. For the reconstruction of history itself, something more than
literary analysis is needed, valuable and necessary as hypotheses are." 68/34
"Literary criticism," cautions Wright, "is an indispensable tool for the in-
troductory study of written documents, but it is not in itself the key to historical
reconstruction. As Mendenhall has expressed it, 'The isolation of a source in the
Pentateuch or elsewhere could give no more historical information other than
the fact that it was reduced to written form, at some more or less fixed
chronological period, by a person with a particular view of Israel's past. It could
not produce criteria for the evaluation of the sources it isolated, beyond a
possible demonstration that a later source used an earlier* ("Biblical History in
Transition"). Consequently, external criteria are needed, and these are precisely
what the archaeologist has provided in abundance." 199/46
A.H. Sayce adds that:
"Time after time the most positive assertions of a skeptical criticism have been
disproved by archaeological discovery, events and personages that were con-
fidently pronounced to be mythical have been shown to be historical, and the
older writers have turned out to have been better acquainted with what they
were describing than the modem critic who has flouted them." 137/23
G.E. Wright warns that "we must attempt to reconstruct the history of Israel, as
historians do that of other early peoples, by the use of every tool available, and
that by no means permits the neglect of archaeology." 199/51
Similarly Albright calls for verifiable methods:
"The ultimate historicity of a given datum is never conclusively established nor
disproved by the literary framework in which it is imbedded: there must always
be external evidence." 3/12
The following statement by Mendenhall is well worth noting:
"It is significant that most of the important new results in historical studies have
little to do with literary analysis." 68/50
Finally, Gunkel, a radical critic whose own method is quite arbitrary, says that
he "at this point cannot conceal his conviction that the reigning school of
literary criticism is all too zealous to explain as not genuine the passages which
do not exactly fit in with its construction of the history, or which are hard to be
understood by the modern investigator, and that a powerful reaction must
follow on the period of this criticism." 214/113
Wright, speaking of external data to check hypercriticism (which leads to hyper
skepticism), says that:
"When the basic attitudes of higher criticism were being formed in the last
century, there was an insufficient amount of extra -biblical data to serve as a
check to hyperskepticism. Consequently, passage after passage was challenged as
being a literary forgery, and the possibility of 'pious fraud' in the compilation of
written documents was exaggerated beyond the limits even of common sense.
When such a critical attitude is established, constructive work becomes in-

creasingly difficult, since emotional as well as rational actors are involved in the
general negativism." 200/80
Albright comments with regard to the historicity of the Old Testament:
"Archaeological and inscriptional data have established the historicity of in-
numerable passages and statements of the Old Testament; the number of such
cases is many times greater than those where the reverse has been proved or has
been made probable." 4/181
Albright further states:
"Wellhausen ranks in our eyes as the greatest Biblical scholar of the

still
nineteenth century. But his standpoint is antiquated and his picture of the
evolution of Israel is sadly distorted." 4/ 1 85
3A. NATURAL VIEW OF ISRAEL'S RELIGION AND HISTORY
(EVOLUTIONARY)
Concomitant with Hegel's evolutionary concept applied to history is its ap-
plication to religion, especially to the Old Testament. Rationalistic critics
hypothesized that religious development went through an evolutionary process
which commenced with "a belief in spirits in the days of primitive man, and then
went through various stages, which included manism or ancestor worship;
fetishism or belief in objects indwelt by spirits; totemism or the belief in a tribal
god and a tribal animal related to the members of the tribe; mana, or the idea
of an indwelling power; magic, the control of the supernatural. Finally man
conceived of clear-cut deities (polytheism) and later elevated one deity above the
others, a stage called henotheism." 166/332
G.E. Wright explains the view of Wellhausen and many other radical critics:
"The Graf- Wellhausen reconstruction of the history of Israel's religion was, in
effect, an assertion that within the pages of the Old Testament we have a perfect
example of the evolution of religion from animism in patriarchal times through
henotheism to monotheism. The last was first achieved in pure form during the
sixth and fifth centuries. The patriarchs worshipped
the spirits in trees, stones,
springs, mountains, etc. The God of pre-prophetic
Israel was a tribal deity,
limited in his power to the land of Palestine.Under the influence of Baalism, he
even became a fertility god and sufficiently tolerant to allow the early religion of
Israel to be distinguished from that of Canaan. It was the prophets who were the
true innovators and who produced most, if not all, of that which was truly
distinctive in Israel, the grand culmination coming with the universalism of II
Isaiah. Thus we have animism, or polydemonism, a limited tribal deity, implicit
ethical monotheism, and finally, explicit and universal monotheism." 200/89,
90
Orr says that "if, on impartial consideration, it can be shovm that the religion of
Israel admits of explanation on purely natural principles, then the historian will
be justified in his verdict that it stands, in this respect, on the same footing as
other religions. If, on the other hand, fair investigation brings out a different
result, — if it demonstrates that this religion has features which place it in a
different category from all others, and compel us to postulate for it a different
and higher origin, — then that fact must be frankly recognised as part of the
scientific result, and the nature and extent of this higher element must be made
the subject of inquiry. It will not do to override the facts— if facts they are— by a
priori dogmatic assumptions on the one side any more than on the other. Thus
far we agree with Kuenen, that we must begin by treating the religion of Israel
exactly as we would treat any other religion." 50/14
Orr continues:
"First,and perhaps deepest, of the reasons for this rejection is the a priori one,
that such a conception of God as the Old Testament attributes to the patriarchs
and Moses was impossible for them at that stage of history. It is too elevated
to
and minds to have entertained. The idea of the unity of God
spiritual for their
has for its correlates the ideas of the world and of humanity, and neither of these
ideas, it is asserted, was possessed by ancient Israel." 50/127, 128
Wellhausen, speaking on the creation of the world, says that "in a youthful
people such a theological abstraction is unheard of, and so with the Hebrew we
find both the word and the notion only coming into use after the Babylonian
exile." 63/305
Wellhausen adds that "the religious notion o{ humanity underlying Gen. ix. 6 is
not ancient with the Hebrews any more than with other nations." 63/312
The Dutch scholar, this position in the chapter entitled, "Our
Kuenen, stated
Standpoint," in his book. The Religion of Israel. He lays down the principle that
no distinction can be made between the religion of Israel and other religions.
Kuenen says, "For us the Israelitish religion is one of those religions; nothing
less, but also nothing more." 116/N.R
Orr's evaluation of this position is well taken:
"To assume beforehand, an inquiry which turns on this very point, that the
in
religion of Israel presents no features but such as are explicable out of natural
causes, —that no higher factors are needed to account for it, —is to prejudge the
whole question." 50/13
Here we note what the critics' interpretation of Israel's history actually was.
Gleason Archer, a graduate of Harvard University, Suffolk Law School,
Princeton Theological Seminary, and currently chairman of the Department of
Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, provides us with an
introduction to this point.
An evolutionary understanding of history and an anthropocentric view of
religion dominated the 19th century. The prevailing thinkers viewed religion as
devoid of any divine intervention, explaining it as a natural development
produced by man's subjective needs. Their verdict was that the Hebrew religion,
as its neighbor religions, certainly must have begun with animism and then
evolved through the stages of polydemonism, polytheism, menolatry, and finally
monotheism. 11/132, 133
That the then-current evolutionary philosophy of Hegel had a definite effect on
Old Testament studies is clearly attested to by Herbert Hahn:
"The conception of development was the chief contribution of the
historical
Old Testament. It is true, of course, that this
liberal critics to the exegesis of the
conception did not grow merely from an objective reading of the sources. In a
larger sense, it was a reflection of the intellectual temper of the times. The
genetic conception of Old Testament history fitted in with the evolutionary
principle of interpretation prevailing in contemporary science and philosophy.
In the natural sciences, the influence of Darwin had made the theory of
evolution the predominant hypothesis affecting research. In the historical
sciences and in the areas of religious and philosophical thought, the
evolutionary concept had begun to exercise a powerful influence after Hegel had
substituted the notion of 'becoming' for the idea of 'being.' He had arrived at the
notion by a priori reasoning without testing it by scientific application to ob-
servable fact, but Hegel was none the less the intellectual progenitor of the
modem point of view. In every department of historical investigation the
conception of development was being used to explain the history of man's
thought, his institutions, and even his religious faiths. It was not strange that the
same principle should be applied to the explanation of Old Testament history.
In every age exegesis has concormed to the thought forms of the time, and in the
latter half of the nineteenth century thought was dominated by the scientific
methos and an evolutionary view of history." 31/9, 10
Paul Feinberg writes of Hegel's historical approach:

"Hegel believed that the problem of philosophy was to find the meaning of
history. From this fundamental presupposition he attempted to explain the
whole of human history. The history of Israel, covering nearly two millennia,
was a likely starting place. In his Philosophy of Religion, Hegel assigns the
Hebrew religion a defined and necessary place in the evolutionary development
of Christianity, the absolute religion. Hegel's view of Hebrew religion and his
general schematization of history offered an irresistible framework in which
Hegelians would attempt to interpret the Old Testament." 22/3
The Encyclopedia Britannica summarizes Hegel's philosophy:
"Hegel presupposes that the whole of human history is a process through which
mankind has been making spiritual and moral progress; it is what human mind
has done in the course of its advance to self-knowledge. The first step was to
. . .
make the transition from a natural life of savagery to a state of order and law."
75/202, 203
Hegel's influence on 19th century Old Testament scholars can be seen in this
statement by Kuenen (Religion of Israel, p. 225) cited here by Orr:
"To what we might call the universal, or at least the common rule, that religion
begins with fetishism, then develops into polytheism, and then, but not before,
ascends to monotheism — that is to say, if this highest stage be reached— to this
rule the Israelites are no exception." 50/47
Such a position either ignores or discredits Israel's own account of her history as
we have it in the Old Testament.
The Wellhausen school approached the Hebrew religion with the preconceived
notion that it was a mere product of evolution, untouched by the supernatural.
This approach completely ignored the fact that 071/3; the Hebrew religion and its
branches have produced a genuine monotheism, and that the singular message
throughout the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures is monotheism. Thus, the
accounts of the Israelite fathers such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses have
been re-examined with intent to show that their early polytheism was
camouflaged by the later Deuteronomic and Priestly writers. 1 1/98
That this Israel's history and
whole presupposition— the evolutionary view of
religion — was Documentary Hypothesis is stated in this
crucial to the entire
summary of the foundations of the theory found in The Interpreter's Dictionary
of the Bible:
"In its standard form the documentary hypothesis rested upon arguments of two
kinds: those based upon literary and linguistic evidence, which resulted in the
division of the Pentateuchal material into various written sources; and those
based upon historical evidence for the evolution of religious institutions and
ideas in Israel, which produced an analytical description of the in-
terrelationships among the documents, and a c^ronological arrangement to
account for them." 37/713
W.F. Albright, W.W. Spence Professor of Semitic Languages from 1929-1958 at
John Hopkins University and a sometime director of the American Schools of
Oriental Research in Jerusalem, was, until his death in 1971, considered by
many to be the foremost biblical archaeologist in the world. His work has forced
many critics to completely reassess their conclusions regarding the history of
Israel. About Wellhausen's application of Hegel's philosophical theories to the
history of Israel, Albright said:
"He tried, by means of Hegelian analogy with pre-Islamic and Islamic Arabia,
to build a system for the development of Israel's history, religion, and literature
which would fit his critical analysis. Wellhausen's structure was so brilliant and
afforded such a simple, apparently uniform interpretation that it was adopted
almost universally by liberal Protestant scholars, and even largely by Catholic

and Jewish scholars. There were, of course, some exceptions, but in nearly all
places where men were thoroughly schooled by learning Hebrew and Greek and
absorbing the critical method, they also learned Wellhausenian principles.
Unfortunately all of this was developed in the infancy of archaeology, and was of
very little value in interpreting history." 6/15
Critics have often restricted advanced theological concepts to Israel's later
history, concluding that early concepts must have been primitive.
Kitchen has conclusively demonstrated that many such "advanced concepts"

were common property of the ancient Orient as early as the third millennium
B.C. Their widespread presence in so many written documents makes the
familiarity of these ideas to the Hebrews likely at any point of their history. For
example, many have attributed the personification of wisdom in Proverbs eight
and nine to influence of the third and fourth century B.C. Greeks. But exactly
the same type of personification of truth, justice, understanding, etc. is found as
early as the third millennium B.C. in Egypt and Mesopotamia, as well as in the
second millennium B.C. in Hittite, Hurrian, and Canaanite literature. The
concept of a universal God was demonstrated as early as 1940 to be widespread
during the third millennium B.C., yet some radical critics are still insistent upon
attributing this biblical idea (as seen in Psalm 67) to "relatively late times."
42/126, 127
John Mackay, former president of Princeton Seminary, reflects this language of

the evolutionary school when he says, concerning the Old Testament: "The
narrative, taken as a whole, aims at conveying the idea that, first under the lowly
form of a tribal deity, the one universal God, the 'god of the whole earth,'
manifested himself in the life of Israel" (Heritage and Destiny, p. 17). Cited by
167/131
William F. Albright sums up this view when he states:
"The Wellhausen has agreed on a refusal to admit Mosaic
entire school of
monotheism, and a conviction that Israelite monotheism was the result of a
gradual process, which did not culminate until the eighth century B.C."
209/163
The radical critics are here expressing the obvious results or conclusions of their
anti-supernatural presuppositions appled to the religion of Israel in the Old
Testament. Since a direct revelation from God is ruled out, their monotheism
must have developed through regular evolutionary channels like other religions.
Therefore, the radical critics conclude that a piece of literature can be dated by
its stage of religious teaching. One is supposed to deduce that the earlier the
literary source, the more primitive the religious concepts.
When monotheism appears in a book purporting to be dated at the time of

Moses 1400 B.C.) it is immediately rejected by many radical critics because
(ca.
the "roots of monotheism" writes Pfeiffer, "were not planted until the time of
Amos." 85/580
The following are a few of the assumptions of those who advocate the
evolutionary presupposition."
IB. Monotheism
IC. DOCUMENTARY ASSUMPTION
It was not until the time of Amos
that monotheism found a beginning in
Israel's religion and during the Mosaic age (ca. 1400 B.C.).
definitely not
As Harrison says, "Wellhausen rejected the idea that the Torah as a whole
was the starting point for the history of Israel as a community of the Faith."
32/352
Concerning monotheism, Wellhausen says:

"It isextremely doubtful whether the actual monotheism, which is un-
doubtedly presupposed in the universal moral precepts of the Decalogue,
could have formed the foundation of a national religion at the downfall of
the nation, and thereupon kept its hold upon the people in an artificial
manner by means of the idea of a covenant formed by the God of the
universe with, in the first instance, Israel alone." 146/20, 21
Monotheism was not considered to be present in the Mosaic age but rather
a result of the purifying effects of the Babylonian exile and not charac-
teristic of Israel until after the sixth century B.C.
"The Hebrews," Kuenen agrees, "were undoubtedly polytheists. This is

shown, not only by the sequel of their history, but also by positive evidence
of later date, it is true, but still admissible, because it is not contradicted
by a single account of former times." 11 6/270
Kuenen continues:
"At first the religion of Israel was polytheism. During the eighth century
B.C. the great majority of the people still acknowledged the existence of
many gods, and, what is more, they worshipped them. And we can add
that during the seventh century, and down to the beginning of the
Babylonish exile (586 B.C.). this state of things remained unaltered."
116/223,224
Kuenen explains his reasons for evolution of religion, "To what one might
call the universal, or at least the common rule, that religion begins with
fetishism, then develops into polytheism, and then, but not before, ascends
to monotheism —that is to say, if this highest stage be reached— to this rule
the Semites are no exception." 1 16/225
Kuenen summarizes his theory:
"The lowest conception of religion will no doubt have had most adherents.
This we know as fetishism, which continues to exist even where less childish
ideas have already arisen and, for instance, the adoration of the heavenly
bodies, of the sun, moon, and planets, has been introduced. Therefore we
certainly shall not err if we assume that the worship of trees and especially
of stones, which for some reason or other were held to be abodes of the
deity, was very common among the Hebrews. The Old Testament still
contains many reminiscences of that stone-worship, which was by no
means limited to the land of Goshen, but was continued in Canaan also.
When Jahveh was afterwards acknowledged by many as the only god, these
holy stones were brought into connection with him in various ways. It is
here worthy of note, that most of them are said to have been set up by the
patriarchs during their wanderings through Canaan, either as altars in
honor of Jahveh or as memorials of his presence: this is easily accounted
for, if the worship of stones had really been common in former times."
116/270,271
Pfeiffer concludes:
"Amos, without discrimination of race or nation, planted the roots of a

universal religion, from which were to grow the great monotheistic
religions of salvation, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." 132/580
20. BASIC ANSWER

William Albright says that "it is precisely between 1500 and 1200 B.C.,
F.
i.e., Mosaic age, that we find the closest approach to monotheism in
in the
the ancient Gentile world before the Persian period." 7/178
Joseph Free continues that an "examination of the archeological in-

scriptional material shows that a monotheistic type of worship of the god
Aton came into Egypt in the period between 1400 and 1350 B.C.
Monotheistic tendencies in Babylonia are evidenced in the period 1500-
1200 B.C. in a famous Babylonian text which identifies all important
Babylonian deities with some aspect of the great god Marduk; Zababa i$
Marduk of battle, Sin is Marduk as illuminer of night, Adad is Marduk of
rain. There is one great god, with various functions. Monotheistic ten-
dencies also appear in Syria and Canaan in this same period of the
fourteenth century B.C. Certain names were given to gods worshiped in
many different places, all of whom were considered as variant forms of one
great deity: there was a Teshup of Nirik, a Teshup of Khalab (Aleppo), a
Teshup of Shamukha; it seems that finally Teshup was thought of as the
great and sole god, who manifested himself in many places." 166/334, 335
Albright writes that he had "gathered archaeological data from many
quarters for the purpose of filling in the historical background of religious
syncretism and conflict against which the prophets fulfilled their mission.
Thanks to archaeology we can see, more clearly that the prophets of Israel
were neither pagan ecstatics or religious innovators." 7/178
Albright not only concludes that Amos "was no religious innovator, much
less the earliest monotheistic teacher of Israel," but that "orthodox
Yahwism remained the same from Moses to Ezra." 9/313
E.G. Wright observes that "we can assert with confidence that by the time
of the patriarchs the religion of all parts of the Near East was a long
distance removed from the animistic stage, if the latter in any approved
textbook form ever existed at all." 200/0)
"It is an incontestable fact of history," concludes Archer, "that no other
nation (apart from those influenced by the Hebrew faith) ever did develop
a true monotheistic religion which commanded the general allegiance of
its people. Isolated figures may be pointed out like Akhnaton and
Xenophanes (both of whom also spoke of 'gods' in the plural number), but
it remains incontrovertible that neither the Egyptians nor the Babylonians
nor the Greeks ever embraces a monotheistic fait^ on a national basis."

11/134
James Orr observes that the monotheism of the Israelites is one of the first
characteristics to be noted when studying the Old Testament. This is quite
a feat in itself, in view of the fact that polytheism and idolatry were the
modem trend. The religions of the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the
Egyptians, and even Israel's Palestinian neighbors were incorrigibly
corrupt and polytheistic. Only in Judah was God known. 50/40, 41
Thus Wellhausen's theory of unilinear evolutionary development on a

simple, one-dimensional time line from the "simple" to the "complex" has
come to be regarded by most archaeologists as erroneous.
Kitchen concludes:
"Unilinear evolution is a fallacy. It is valid only within a small field of
reference for a limited segment of time and not for whole cultures over
long periods of time. One thinks of Egypt's thrice repeated rise and fall in
and after the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms respectively, or of the
successive flowerings of Sumerian civilization. Old Babylonian culture and
the Assyro- Babylonian kingdoms in Mesopotamia. This oscillation and
mutation applies to all aspects of civilization: artistic standards, literary
output and abilities, political institutions, the state of society, economics,
and not least religious belief and practice. Intertwined with the
multicoloured fabric of change are lines of continuity in usage that show

remarkable consistency from early epochs." 42/ 11 3, 1 14
Ronald Youngblood adds that "it cannot be shown that there is a universal
tendency on the part of polytheistic religions to gradually reduce the
number of deities until finally arriving at one deity. In some instances, in
fact, such a religion may even add more deities as its adherents become
aware of more and more natural phenomena to deifyl At any rate, the Old
Testament teaches that monotheism, far from having evolved through the
centuries of Israel's history, is one of the inspired insights revealed to the
covenant people by the one true God Himself." 225/9
Here would be that appropriate place to ask, "Was Moses a monotheist?"
"If by 'monotheist,'" writes Albright, "is meant a thinker with views
specifically like those of Philo Judaeus or Rabbi Aquiba, of St. Paul or St.
Augustine, of Mohammed or Maimonides, of St. Thomas or Calvin, of
Mordecai Kaplan of H.N. Wieman, Moses was not one. If, on the other
hand, the term 'monotheist' means one who teaches the existence of only
one God, the creator of everything, the source of justice, who is equally
powerful in Egypt, in the desert, and in Palestine, who has no sexuality
and no mythology, who is human in form but cannot be seen by human eye
and cannot be represented in any form— then the founder of Yahwism was
certainly a monotheist." 9/271 , 272
The degree to which Moses can be considered as a true monotheist has
been a topic of much discussion by scholars. However, R.K. Harrison
believes that there is little "justification for not attributing monotheism to
Moses, although care should be taken not to understand that concept in a
speculative Hellenic sense. A more accurate designation of the situation
might well be framed in terms of an empirical ethical monotheism."
32/403
Waltke adds:
"Many scholars argue for a devolution in religion from monotheism to
polytheism. Study of Ras Shama shows that
"The existence of a particular god named El is not only important for the
origins of the religion of Israel, but it raises the problem of a primitive
Semitic monotheism formerly defended by Renon. The thesis of an
original monotheism has been upheld more recently and with more
convincing arguments by scholars of such varied outlook as Andrew Lang,
N. Soederblom, R. Pettazzoni, Father W. Schmidt and Geo Widengren,
Upsala and finally, and on the particular grounds of the religion of Israel,
I. Enguell believes that El, the supreme god of the Caupanites, was a 'high
god' who was worshipped in the whole of the west Semitic world under the
names of El Shadday, El Elyon, Shaelem, and Hadad." (E. Jacobs,
Theology of the Old Testament, 1958, pp. 44f.) 5/2
2B. Environmental Conditioning
The natural evolutionary process through conditioning by environmental
and geographical conditions produced the Israelite religion. Basically, the
religious tenets were borrowed by Israel from the pagan religions
surrounding Israel.
2C. BASIC ANSWERS

"The faith of Israel." writes G.E. Wright, "even in its earliest and basic
forms is so utterly different from that of the contemporary polytheisms that
one simply cannot explain it fully by evolutionary or environmental
categories. Such a contention runs somewhat counter to the habits of
thought and the methodological assumptions of many leading scholars of

the last two generations. Yet it is difficult to see how any other conclusion is
justified by the facts as we now know them from the vast accumulation of
knowledge about the Biblical world." 148/7
W.F. Albright points out that it is impossible that the Israelite religion
could be accounted for by saying it was borrowed from the adjacent
religions:
"Every new publication of North-Canaanite inscriptions or literary
documents will thus add to our knowledge of the literary background of
the Old Testament. On the other hand, every fresh publication of
Canaanite mythological texts makes the gulf between the religions of
Canaan and of Israel increasingly clear. A common geographical en-
vironment, a common material culture, and a common language were not
enough to quench the glowing spark of Israelite faith in the God of Moses
or to assimilate the cult of Yahweh to that of Baal." 154/24
The Israelites were able to resist the pressure of syncretism with the pagan
religions that surrounded them.
Alexander Heidel describes the differences between the contemporary
Babylonian polytheism and Israelite monotheism:
"The Babylonian creation stories are permeated with a crude polytheism.
They speak not only of successive generations of gods and goddesses
proceeding from Apsfl and Tiflmat, with all of them in need of physical
nourishment, since all consist of matter as well as of spirit, but they speak
also of different creators.
"Against all of this, the opening chapters of Genesis as well as the Old
Testament in general refer to only one Creator and Maintainer of all
things, one God who created and transcends all cosmic matter. In the
entire Old Testament, there is not a trace of a theogony [battle of the
gods], such as we find, for example in Enflma elish and in Hesiod. To this
faith the Babylonians never attained." 176/96, 97
The danger of environmental corruption is indicated by Merrill Unger:
"The patriarchs, sojourning in the midst of polytheism with its divination
and other forms of occultism, were constantly in danger of corruption.
The teraphim of Rachel (Gen. 31:19), 'the strange gods' which Jacob
ordered put away from his household (Gen. 35:2) and hid under an oak in
Shechem (v. 4), are indicative of contamination. However, the patriarchs
were remarkably free from the divinatory methods of surrounding pagan
peoples." 193/127
One of the many major differences is the duality of pagan religion in terms
of sex.
"For some reason," writes G.E. Wright, "perhaps in part because of the
historical nature of God's revelation, the Israelite did not combine the
complementary forces of nature by means of a duality expressed in terms
of sex. While the category of personality is, of course, applied to Yahweh
and while the pronouns used are in their masculine gender, there is no
complementary feminine. The duality of male and female is to be found
only in the created world; it is not a part of the Godhead, which is
essentially sexless. Biblical Hebrew has no word for goddess. Equally
phenomenal is the preservation of God's mystery and holiness by the
prohibition of images, either of God himself or of any other spiritual being
m heaven or on earth, a prohibition preserved in the oldest law which the
Old Testament contains." 148/23
Albright concludes:
"This is not the place to describe the total breakdown of Wellhausenism
under the impact of our new knowledge of antiquity; suffice it to say that
no arguments have been brought against early Israelite monotheism that
would not apply equally well (with appropriate changes in specific
evidence) to postexilic Judaism. Nothing can alter the now certain fact that
the gulf between the religions of Israel and of Canaan was as great as the
resemblance between their material cultures and their poetic literatures."
150/545
To the above Wright adds that "it is increasingly realized today that the
attempt to make of the Old Testament a source book for the evolution of
religion from very primitive to highly advanced concepts has been made
possible only by means of a radical misinterpretation of the literature."
148/12
3B. The Second Commandment
The second commandment, although attributed to Moses, could not have
been a part of the early because of its probhibition of
Israelite religions
images. The radical critics reject Mosaic authorship and early dating of
the decalogue because it is believed that they in fact did worship images.
Julius Wellhausen states that "the prohibition of images was during the
older period quite unknown." 63/439 Wellhausen says this is one of the
main reasons for rejecting the authenticity of Mosaic authorship.
R.W. Smith writes:
"Even the principle of the second commandment, that Jehovah is not to be
worshipped by images. . cannot, in the light of history, be regarded as
.
having so fundamental a place in the religion of early Israel." 208/63
2C. BASIC ANSWER

It israther obvious that, if the prohibition of image worship was a late
addition to the Pentateuch and the Israelites worshipped images, then one
should find images of Jehovah.
However this has not been the case. G.E. Wright records that the ex-
cavation of Megiddo by the University of Chicago failed to turn up images
of Jehovah. He says "tremendous amounts of debris was moved from the
first five town levels (all Israelite), and not a single example has been found
as far as this writer is aware." 201/413
Wright continues: "There is no image of deity ever mentioned in

Patriarchal worship, nor in connection with the instution of the Taber-
nacle which served as the central shrine of the tribal amphictyony, nor in
the Temple of Solomon. On the other hand, we know from archaeology
that Israelites possessed small plaques or figures of the Canaanite fertility
and mother goddesses in great number. This indicates the widespread
syncretism which went on in early Israel, precisely as the literature frankly
testifies. When the Aramaeans and Philistines settled in Canaanite
territory, they adopted Canaanite customs. When the Amorites settled in
Mesopotamia, they took over Sumerian religion, adjusting their own
religious pantheon to it. Similarly, the people of Israel were tempted to
adopt the customs of their environment. Yet in the vast mass of debris dug
out of Israelite towns there is yet to be found an image of a male deity."
148/24
Many of the misunderstandings are the result of not discerning between the
"official doctrines" of Israel's religion and the "actual practices" of some of
the common people.
Wright concludes that "the evidence is vividly dear that the prohibition
against images of Yahweh was so deeply fixed in early Israel, that even the
unenlightened and the tolerant understood that Yahweh was simply not to
be honored in this way." 148/24, 25
To the above he adds:
"The basic character and antiquity of the second commandment thus
receives as strong a support as archeology will probably ever be able to
produce for it." 200/93
4B. Moral Level
The laws, moral tone, and social level ascribed to Moses are too lofty to be
found so early in Israel's development.
2C. BASIC ANSWER
Various archaeological discoveries have discouraged the continuation of
this assumption. Millar Burrows writes:
"The standards represented by the ancient law codes of the Babylonians,

Assyrians, and Hittites, as well as the high ideals found in the Egyptian
Book of the Dead and the early Wisdom Literature of the Egyptians, have
effectively refuted this assumption." 156/46
Speaking of the Israelites, of the conquest of Canaan, and the pagan
worship encountered by Israel, Albright says that their gross mythology
and worship "were replaced by Israel, with its nomadic [although they
were not nomads] simplicity and purity of life, its lofty monotheism, and
its severe code of ethics." 9/214
6B. The Priestly Code

"The Priestly Code," writes Pfeiffer, "like all legislation, notwithstanding
itsdeliberate timelessness and fictitious Mosaic background, bears the
earmarks of its age, the first half of the Persian period (538-331 B.C.)."
132/257
Joseph Free in "Archaeology and Higher Criticism" explains further the
P.
situation when he explains that "another body of supposedly very late
material in the Pentateuch is the record of the Levitical sacrificial laws,
assigned to the P document If the bulk of much of the Pentateuch,
assigned to the P document, is to be dated 500 B.C., the Mosaicity of the
Pentateuch is definitely set aside.
"Archaeological evidence, on the contrary, shows that there is no valid
reason for dating the Levitical sacrificial laws late, for they appear in the
Ugaritic material from the fourteenth century B.C." 164/33
2C. BASIC ANSWER
ID. Tenure in Egypt
Apparently the skeptics of the early dating believe that the Israelites
were simply too primitive in Moses' day to write such a law. Archer
disagrees:
"It can hardly be objected that the Israelites were too primitive to be
governed by laws such as these back in Moses* time, since according to
their own explicit record they had been living in the midst of one of the
most advanced civilizations of ancient times for over four hundred
years, and would naturally have entertained more advanced concepts of
jurisprudence than tribes indigenous to the desert." 11/162
2D. Code of Hammurabi

Also, it seems the other half of the skepticism comes from the belief that
no primitive civilization could have written such a work as the code we
have today. J.R Free in Archaeology and Bible History takes issue with
this:
"Archaeological discoveries, however, have shown that the advanced

laws of Deuteronomy and the rest of the Pentateuch do not have to be
dated late in accordance with the supposition of the critical school. The
Code of Hammurabi (written within the period 2000-1700 B.C.) was
found by a French archaeological expedition under the direction of M.
Jacques de Morgan in 1901-1902 at the site of ancient Susa, to the east
of the region of Mesopotamia. The code was written on a piece of black
diorite, nearly eight feet high, and contained two hundred eighty-two
sections or paragraphs.
"The Code of Hammurabi was written several hundred years before the
time of Moses 1500-1400 B.C.), and yet it contains some laws which
(c.
are similar to those recorded by Moses. In the light of this, the liberal
has no right to say that the laws of Moses are too advanced for his time,
and could not have been written by him." 162/121
Meredith G. Kline in the "Is the History of the Old Testament Ac-
curate?" chapter of Can I Trust the Bible] (edited by Howard Vos) adds:
"Archaeology speaks decisively against Wellhausen's notion that
Pentateuchal legislation is too complex and its cultic provisions too
elaborate for so early a time as that of Moses, to whom the authorship of
the Pentateuch is attributed in both Old and New Testaments. As
evidence of the antiquity of codified law, there are Assyrian and Hittite
law codes from approximately the time of Moses, the Code of Ham-
murabi some three centuries before Moses, and the more recently
discovered fragments of other Babylonian and Sumerian predecessors of
Hammurabi's Code, dating back to Abraham's day." 62/146
A.H. Sayce (Monument Fact and Higher Critical Fancies) answers
Pfeiffer soundly:
"In other words, the Mosaic code must belong to the age to which
tradition assigns it, and presupposes the historical conditions which the
Biblical narrative describes. Not only has the code of Khammu-rabi
[i.e. Hammurabi] proved that the legislation of Moses was possible, it
has also shown that the social and political circumstances under which it
claims to have arisen are the only ones under which it could have been
compiled." 137/82
If the equal caliber of the codes is not enough to convince one of the
possibility of the early date, then Archer gives even added evidence in
that the "Babylonian Code of Hammurabi... shows numerous
similarities to the provisions in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers relative
to the punishment of crimes and the imposition of damages for torts and
breaches of contract." 11/161
Not only is the quality comparable, but even some of the laws arc
similar. Free sums it up:
"The Code of Hammurabi was found in 1901-2 by a French expedition
at the site of ancient Susa, east ofMesopotamia. On the surface of this
monument some 282 laws were recorded, comprising the legislation of
the Babylonian king Hammurabi, who lived within the period of 2000-
1700 B.C. . Some critics held that the laws of Moses (1500-1400 B.C.)
. .
were too advanced for his day and assigned them to a much later period
(800-400 B.C.). The discovery of Hammurabi's code, which precedes
Moses by several centuries, effectively answered this objection." 163/20
y
8C. COUNTER ASSUMPTION

Unfortunately this has created an obvious accusation by the documen-
tarians.
"Then it was suggested," Free continues, "that Moses borrowed his laws
from the Code of Hammurabi. A comparison of the two over a period of

years, however, has convinced most critics that there are essential dif-
ferences and that the laws of the Old Testament are in no essential way
dependent upon the Babylonian." 163/20
Sayce explains the issue at hand:
"Certain German
Assyriologists have been at great pains to discover
similarities between the codes of Khammu-rabi and Moses, and to infer
from this a connection between them. And there are cases in which the
similarity is striking." 137/71
Merrill Unger says:

"Again, higher critical views which have placed the origin of many of the
laws ascribed to Moses in the ninth, eighth, or seventh century B.C., or
even later, have had to be drastically revised or entirely rejected. On the
other hand, the discovery of the early extra- Biblical legal material has led
many to adopt an equally faulty view that Hebrew legislation is merely a
selection and adaptation of Babylonian law." 193/154, 155
4C. FURTHER ANSWERS

1 D . Contrast of the Codes
Archer explains that "it should be understood, of course, that the
differences between the Torah and the Code of Hammurabi are far
more striking than the resemblances. But the differences proceed
largely from the entirely different ideology to which each of the two
cultures adhered." 11/162
And again:
"The Babylonian code is alleged to have been received by Hammurabi
from the sun god, Shamash. Moses received his laws directly from God.
Hammurabi, despite his purported reception from Shamash, takes
credit for them in both the prologue and epilogue of the Code. He, not
Shamash, established order and equity throughout the land. Moses, in
contrast, is only an instrument. The legislation is, 'Thus saith Yahweh.'"
193/156
Further, "in the Hebrew laws a greater value is set upon human life, a
stricterregard for the honor of womanhood is discernible, and a more
humane treatment of slaves is enjoined. Moreover, the Babylonian Code
has nothing in it corresponding to that twofold golden thread running
through the Mosaic legislation— love to God and love to one's neighbor
(Matt. 22:37-40)." 193/157
He goes on to say that "Hammurabi's laws are adapted to the irrigation-
culture and the highly commercialized urban society of Mesopotamia.
The Mosaic injunctions, on the other hand, suit a simple agricultural,
pastoral people of a dry land like Palestine, much less advanced in social
and commercial development, but keenly conscious in all phases of their
living of their divine calling." 193/156
And finally, Hebrew Code contains many purely religious in-
"the
junctions and ritual regulations. The Code of Hammurabi is civil.
However, the priestly laws of Leviticus contain many points of contact
with corresponding priestly ritual and practice in Western Asia,
whether in Canaan and Phoenicia or in Mesopotamia." 193/156

Free speaks of "no real connection between the Mosaic laws and the
Code of Hammurabi. Such an acknowledgment was made by G.A.
Barton, liberal professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who said, 'A
comparison of the Code of Hammurabi as a whole with the Pen-
tateuchal laws as a whole, while it reveals certain similarities, convinces
the student that the laws of the Old Testament are in no essential way
dependent upon the Babylonian laws. .'
The Code contains many
. .
laws peculiar to itself, including those relating to soldiers, tax-

collectors, and wine-merchants." 162/121
Sayce, an Assyriologist, makes the conclusion that "the difference

between the two codes in this last particular is characteristic of a dif-
ference which runs through the whole of them, and makes the contrast
between them far greater and more striking than any agreement that
can be pointed out." 137/72
2D. Ugarit (Ras Shamra) Discoveries

It seems that only evidence available is
this section thus far indicates the
the Hammurabi Code. This not true, and we will now see how the
is
Priestly Code compares with another archaeological find. To begin
with, Joseph P. Free says that "the fact that the Ras Shamra Tablets
[Ras Shamra is a Canaanite city located on the Syro- Palestinian coast
just opposite the tip of Cyprus.], dating back to about 1400 B.C. record
several laws similar to those of Leviticus, shows that the liberal has no
right to deny the possibility of such a code of sacrificial laws as early as
the time of Moses." 162/112
Millar Burrows in What Mean These Stones? goes further to explain

that "texts from Ras Shamrah name many kinds of sacrificial animals,
including some that were used also in the Hebrew religion and some
which were excluded by the laws of the Old Testament. Several of the
terms employed in the Hebrew Old Testament for the various types of
offering also have appeared in the Ras Shamrah tablets, for example the
burnt offering, the whole burnt offering, the guilt offering, and the
peace offering." 156/234
Would not mutual sacrifices mean Moses used Ras Shamra as a source?
Free concludes by answering thus:
"We two possible answers. In the first
believe that there are at least
place, they may have been diffusedfrom Israel at the time they were
revealed to Moses (about 1450 B.C.) and have come into the practices of
the Canaanites and people of Syria, being reflected in the Ras Shamra
tablets (1400-1350 B.C.). The second possibiUty is that the laws and
statutes revealed by the Lord at a much earlier time (and later given to
Moses) were handed down among various peoples and appear in a
modified and often corrupted form among such people as those of Ras
Shamra." 162/112
SD. Lipit-Ishtar Law Code

Briefly, the Lipit-Ishtar Code is another discovery, as Francis Steele in
"Lipit-Ishtar Law Code" (American Journal of Archeology) explains:
"The importance of the Lipit-Ishtar law code can scarcely be
overemphasized. Its discovery extends the history of codified law by
nearly two centuries and thereby paves the way for a comparative study
of law almost four thousand years old." 191/164
Waltke quoting S.N. Kramer concerning the Lipit-Ishtar Law Code

writes:
"All seven pieces date from the Early Post-Sumerian period, that is, they
were actually inscribed sometime in the first half of the second
millennium B.C. As for the first compilation of the code, it must have
taken place sometime during the eleven-year reign of Lipit-Ishtar, who
ruled probably during the first half of the nineteenth century B.C., it
thus antedates the Hammurabi Code by more than a century and a
half." (S.N. Kramer, ANET, 1953, p. 159) 5/1
4D. The Laws of Eshnunna

The same can be said of the Eshnunna law code of the old Babylon
period (1830-1550 B.C.). Hammurabi apparently incorporated some of
this code into his own system. Two tablets found in 1945 and 1947 near
Baghdad contain these ancient laws.
Reunen Yaron points out that archaeology confirms that these tablets
could not be dated after the reign of King Dadusha. The last year of
Dadusha's reign is set in the seventh year of Hammurabi. However,
archaeology cannot set the date of its composition. The usual date given
to the Eshnunna Law Codes is about 200 years before Hammurabi.
224/1,2
The kingdom of Eshnunna "fell victim to the expansionist policies
. . .
pursued with success by Hammurabi of Babylon, during the fourth

decade of his reign." 224/1
The discovery of the above two tablets adds additional evidence that the
Hammurabi Codes were not the only source of an early codified law.
The Laws of Eshnunna: "The code, written during the twentieth
century B.C. in the Akkadian language, contains sixty paragraphs of
law dealing with such subjects as the price of commodities, the hire of
wagons and boats, the wages of laborers, marriage, divorce and
adultery, assault and battery, and the placing of responsibility for the ox
that gores a man and the mad dog that bites a man." (Biblical World,
1966, p. 232) 5/1
6B. Additional Comments
Albright says that Wellhausen's "standpoint is antiquated and its picture of
the early evolution of Israel is sadly distorted." 2/185
Wright speaking of Albright says that he "has amassed archeological fact
upon fact in his review of the Bible's setting in the world in order to show that
Wellhausen's developmental scheme, ultimately drawn from the idealistic
philosophy of Hegel, no longer fits the facts as they are now known." 199/45
Ira Maurice Price in The Monuments and
the Old Testament writes that "the
critical views of the origin of many
of the laws ascribed to Moses locating
them in the ninth, eighth, and seventh centuries, and even later B.C., must
not only be modified, but in some cases, entirely rejected." 188/219
M.J. Lagrange ("L' Authenticity Mosaique de la Gen6se et la Thôrie des
Documents"), a man who was involved in biblical and archaeological en-
deavors in Jerusalem for nearly 40 years, concludes:
"It a fact that the historical work of Wellhausen is more than compromised.
is
The evolution which starts from fetishism to rise to monolatry and then to
monotheism, or from a very rudimentary rustic worship to complicated social
and sacerdotal institutions, cannot be maintained in face of the evidence of
the facts revealed by the recent discoveries." Cited by 190/312, 313
Where did this archaeological evidence come from?
George Mendenhall, of the University of Michigan, speaking of the actual

excavations that have led archaeologists to the preceding conclusion, says:
"The starting point was the introduction of new evidence from Ras Shamra
and Mari, which excluded from the realm of probability certain theories
about the Patriarchal narratives previously held, and which, together with
many details from other sources, called for a new theory to account for the
new evidence. ... if those who made up the twelve tribes of Israel included
some at least who had first been in contact with Mesopotamian civilization,
then for a period of centuries lived in a land surrounded by a cosmopolitan
complex of many cultures in process of amalgamation, then it follows that
they can hardly have been childlike, cultureless, traditionless barbarians. It
follows that the earliest stages of the religion of Israel need not have been as
primitive as earlier scholars had thought — not on the grounds of evidence,
but on the basis of an a priori theory of how religion must evolve." 68/40
So Albright had taught:
"History is not a meaningless record of chance happenings, or even a mere
chain of related occurrences; it is a complex web of interacting patterns, each
of which has its own structure, however difficult it may be to dissect the
structure and to identify its characteristic elements. Moreover, the web is itself
constantly changing, and by comparing successive states which it exhibits to
the trained eye of the historian we can detect the direction in which it is
changing— in other words, its evolution. We also emphasized the fact that the
evolution of historical patterns is highly complex and variable; it may move in
any direction and it cannot be detected by a priori hypotheses nor can it be
explained by any deterministic theory. We also pointed out that this
organismic nature of history makes unilinear 'historicism' unsuitable as a clue
to the complexities of the history of religion. For this reason Wellhausen's
Hegelian method was utterly unsuited to become the master-key with which
scholars might enter the sanctuary of Israelite religion and acquire a
satisfying understanding of it." 7/3
Albright's conclusion seems final:

"In the light of the ancient orient nothing seems more artificial and contrary
to analogy than the postulated evolution of Hebrew religion within the limits
of time and circumstance allowed by the school of Wellhausen." 2/182
7B. Implications
These conclusions undermine the entire Documentary Hypothesis
seriously
both in its form and in its present state of flux, since current Pen-
classical
tateuchal analysis is, for the most part, still solidly based on the classical
Documentary Theory.
Kitchen's conclusion is justified:
"As extended unilinear development is, therefore, an invalid assumption,

there is no reason whatever to date supposed literary fragments or sources by
the imaginary level of their concepts on a scale from 'primitive' to 'ad-
vanced.' "42/ 114
4A. NO WRITING IN ISRAEL AT MOSES' TIME (ca. 1500-1400 B.C.)

IB. Documentary Assumption
Writing was virtually unknown in Israel during Moses' time and consequently
Moses could not have written the Pentateuch.
Wellhausen himself said:
"Ancient Israel was certainly not without God-given bases for the ordering of
human life; only they were not fixed in writing." 63/393
^ MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT 69
il
book Old Testament Theology:
Schultz, in 1893, states in his
"Of the legendary character of the pre- Mosaic narrators, the time of which
J
they treat is a sufficient proof. It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing,
^
a time separated by an interval of more than four hundred years, of which
there is absolutely no history, from the nearest period of which Israel had
^
some dim historical recollection, a time when in civilised countries writing

j
was only beginning to be used for the most important matters of State. Now
wandering herdsmen have invariably an instinctive dislike to writing. In fact,
at the present day, it is considered a disgrace among many Bedouin tribes in
the peninsula of Sinai to be able to write. It is therefore impossible that such
men could hand down their family histories, in themselves quite unim-
portant, in any other way than orally, to wit, in legends. And even when
writing had come into use, in the time, that is, between Moses and David, it
would be but sparingly used, and much that happened to the people must still
have been handed down simply as legend." 138/25, 26
There is every reason to believe that in the time of Moses language was highly
usable as a vehicle of literary expression, and most likely had been so for
centuries. Concerning this point, Driver believes "it is not denied that the
patriarchs possessed the art of writing" but the use of documents from the
patriarchal age is "a mere hypothesis, for the truth of which no positive
grounds can be alleged." 17/xlii
And speaking of hypothesis, Orr reminds us that the critical view itself is
surely "built on hypothesis. The value of a hypothesis is the degree in which it
explains facts, and, in the silence of the Book of Genesis, we can only reason
from general probabilities. But the probabilities, derived from the state of
culture at the time, from the fixed and circumstantial character of the
tradition, and from the archaeological notices embedded in the book, are, we
think, strong, that the Hebrews, even in the patriarchal age, were to some
extent acquainted with books and writing. If so, we may believe that at an
early period, in Egypt under Joseph, if not before, attempts would be made to
set down things in writing." 50/375
When it Israel's beginnings dated to the early dawn of

was believed that
civilization, the position was more tenable that the Hebrews were
unacquainted with writing. It was likewise respectable to doubt their capacity
to conceive such lofty ideas as expressed in Moses' laws or David's psalms.
2B. Basic Answer

IC. EVALUATION AND CULTURAL CLIMATE
The British Assyriologist A.H. Sayce evaluates this late date of writing
theory. He claims that "this supposed late use of writing for literary
purposes was merely an assumption, with nothing more solid to rest upon
than the critic's own theories and presuppositions. And as soon as it could
be tested by solid fact it crumbled into dust. First Egyptology, then
Assyriology, showed that the art of writing in the ancient East, so far from
being of modem growth, was of vast antiquity, and that the two great
powers which divided the civilized world between them were each em-
phatically a nation of scribes and readers. Centuries before Abraham was
born Egypt and Babylonia were alike full of schools and libraries, of
teachers and pupils, of poets and prose-writers, and of the literary works
which they had composed." 137/28, 29 He cites Crete as another example.
A.J. Evans found evidence of pre- Mosaic writing on Crete. Not only were
Egypt and Babylon writing in hieroglyphic and cuneiform respectively, but
Crete had three, perhaps four systems, i.e. pictographs, linear symbols,
etc. 137/41
Albright, speaking of the various writing systems that existed in the ancient
Orient even during pre-Mosaic patriarchal times, says:
"In this connection it may be said that writing was well known in Palestine
and Syria throughout the Patriarchal Age (Middle Bronze, 2100-1500
B.C.). No fewer than five scripts are known to have been in use: Egyptian
hieroglyphs, used for personal and place names by the Canaanites; Ac-
cadian cueniform; the hieroglyphiform syllabary of Phoenicia, used from
the 23rd century or earlier (as known since 1935); the linear alphabet of
Sinai, three inscriptions in which are now known from Palestine (this script
seems to be the direct progenitor of our own); the cuneiform alphabet of
Ugarit (used also a little later in Palestine), which was discovered in 1929.
This means that Hebrew historical traditions need not have been handed
down through oral transmission alone." 2/186
Cyrus Gordon, formerly professor of Near Eastern Studies and chairman
of the Department of Mediterranean Studies at Brandeis University and an
authority on the tablets discovered at Ugarit, concludes similarly:
"The excavations at Ugarit have revealed a high material and literary

culture in Canaan prior to the emergence of the Hebrews. Prose and
poetry were already fully developed. The educational system was so ad-
vanced that dictionaries in four languages were compiled for the use of
scribes, and the individual words were listed in their Ugaritic, Babylonian,
Sumerian, and Hurrian equivalents. The beginnings of Israel are rooted in
a highly cultural Canaan where the contributions of several talented
peoples (including the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and branches of the
Indo-Europeans) had converged and blended. The notion that early
Israelite religion and society were primitive is completely false. Canaan in
the days of the Patriarchs was the hub of a great international culture. The
Bible, hailing from such a time and place, cannot be devoid of sources.
But let us study them by taking the Bible on its own terms and against its
own authentic background." 27/133, 134
The archaeological evidence serves not only to refute the older critics'
antequated theory but also serves as positive evidence to support the
probability that Moses kept written records.
Sayce makes a shuddering conclusion:
"The Babylonia of the age of Abraham was a more highly educated
country than the England of George III." 137/35
Why can archaeologists make such statements? Several archaeological
finds bring them to the above conclusion. We will study four.
2C. UGARIT (RASSHAMRA)

William F. Albright explained the Ugarit discoveries. The cuneiform
writing of Ugarit is a system completely native to Syria- Palestine and was
recovered in 1929 by C.F.A. Schaeffer on the Syrian north coast. The most
prominent deposits of tablets with this writing are at Ugarit and Ras
Shamra. Artifacts with this script are dated as early as 1400 B.C., though
the alphabet itself is probably older. 5/187; 11/157
Albright says:
"It is exaggerate the importance of the Canaanite alphabetic
difficult to
tablets from Ugarit, north of Canaan proper. Thanks to them, we have a
vast body of texts from the age of Moses (fourteenth and thirteenth cen-
turies B.C.). They are partly in local prose dialect of Ugarit at that time,
but mostly in a generalized poetic dialect that corresponds closely to such
I
early Hebrew poetic language as the Song of Miriam (thirteenth century

B.C.) and the Son of Deborah (twelfth century), as well as to many of the
early Psalms. They have enormously widened our knowledge of biblical
Hebrew vocabulary and grammar." 149/3, 4
3C. EGYPTIAN LETTERS
Sayce noted that Egypt was a very literate nation. During the reign of
Ikhnaton (or Amenhotep IV), about 1375-1358 B.C., who tried to change
the entire religious system of Egypt, great amounts of correspondence,
called the Amarna tablets, were exchanged between Egypt, Syria,
Palestine and Babylon. Many of these have been discovered at Amarna
since 1887. Not only do these show writing to have been in use, but further,
they are not in hieroglyphics but Babylonian cuneiform. This indicates a
close contact between the two, so much so that a standard diplomatic
language of the day was used. The art of writing was well entrenched by
this time. 137/38, 39
4C. MT. SINAI INSCRIPTIONS

S.H. Horn explains yet another find:
"In 1917 Alan Gardiner, noted British Egyptologist, made the first
decipherment of the Proto-Semitic inscriptions found at Mt. Sinai by
Flinders Petrie more than ten years earlier. These inscriptions, written in a
pictorial script by Canaanites before the middle of the second millennium
B.C., prove that alphabetic writing existed before the time of Moses."
177/14
5C. GEZER CALENDAR

The Gezer Calendar, written in 925 B.C. (found by Macalister in the
1900's) obviously an exercise performed by a child. It proves that writing
is
was well established in society at that time even to the point of being taught
to children. 11/157
Compare Judges 8:14 where a youth picked at random from the town of
Succoth was able to "write down" the names of the 77 elders for Gideon.
Albright shows the importance of this definitely Semitic writing:
"The oldest important Israelite inscription is the Gezer Calendar, a
schoolboy's exercise tablet of soft limestone, on which he had awkwardly
scratched the text of a ditty giving the order of the chief agricultural
operations through the year. It dates from the late tenth century, if we may
judge from the agreement of the evidence for forms of letters from con-
temporary Byblus with the stratigraphic context in which it was
discovered." 5/132
6C. CONCLUSION: CRITICS CRITICIZED

This issue constitutes a major upset for skeptics of Bible history. Sayce said
it well when he asserted:
"As late as 1862, Sir George Cornewall Lewis denied it [writing in Moses*
day], and as late as 1871 the eminent Semitic scholar Professor Noldeke
declared that the results of Assyriology in both linguistic and historical
matters had 'a highly suspicious air.' It was subjective theory against ob-
jective fact, and in accordance with the usual 'critical' method fact had to
give way to theory." 137/35, 36
He then concludes, "Moses not only could have written the Pentateuch,
but it would have been little short of a miracle had he not been a scribe."
137/42.43
James Orr in The Problem of the Old Testament explained the trans
formation of modem thought in the following manner:
"Formerly Israel was looked upon as a people belonging to the dim dawn
of history at a period when, except in Egypt, civilization had hardly begun.
It was possible then to argue that the art of writing did not exist among the
Hebrews, and that they had not the capacity for the exalted religious ideas
which the narratives of their early history implies. Moses could not have
given the laws, nor David have written the psalms, which the history
ascribes to them. This contention is now rendered impossible by the
discovery of the extraordinary light of civilization which shone in the
Tigro- Euphrates valley, and in the valley of the Nile, millenniums before
Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees, or Moses led his people out of Egypt.
The transformation of opinion is revolutionary." 50/396, 397
5A. THE LEGENDARY VIEW OF PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES

The question of historicity of the Abraham accounts has been a favorite
battleground between believer and skeptic. It is difficult to remain neutral on
this issue and consider the Bible important for man today. Merrill linger in
his Archaeology and the Old Testament shows that the historicity of
Abraham is no mean issue, but vital to New Testament faith:
"The figure of Abraham emerges from the ancient Mesopotamian world of
his time with such remarkable vividness and assumes a role of such im-
portance in the history of redemption that he is not overshadowed by even
Moses, the great emancipator and lawgiver of Israel. Throughout the Old
Testament and especially the New Testament the name of Abraham stands
for the representative man of faith (cf. Rom. 4:1-25)." 193/105
Therefore we can turn to Gleason Archer in A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction for a phrasing of the allegation. He explains that the
documentarians believe "the Genesis accounts of the career of Abraham and
his descendants are untrustworthy and often unhistorical. Noldeke even went
so far as to deny the historical existence of Abraham altogether." 11/158
From the pen of noted critics we have explanatory material. Julius
Wellhausen writes:
"From the patriarchal narratives it is impossible to obtain any historical

information with regard to the patriarchs; we can only learn something about
the time in which the stories about them were first told by the Israelite people.
This later period, with all its essential and superficial characteristics, was
unintentionally projected back into hoary antiquity and is reflected there like
a transfigured mirage." 63/331
Wellhausen viewed Abraham as "a free creation of unconscious art." 63/320
Hermann Schultz says:
"The result may be given in outline as follows: —
Genesis is the book of sacred
legend, with a mythical introduction. The first three chapters of it, in par-
ticular, present us with revelation-myths of the most important kind, and the
following eight with mythical elements that have been recast more in the form
of legend. From Abraham to Moses we have national legend pure and simple,
mixed with a variety of mythical elements which have become almost
unrecognisable. From Moses to David we have history still mixed with a great
deal of the legendary, and even partly with mythical elements that are no
longer distinguishable. From David onwards we have history, with no more
legendary elements in it than are everywhere present in history as written by
the ancients." 138/31
And finally, from Robert H. Pfeiffer:
"Our sharp distinction between story and history, fancy and fact, seems
meaningless when applied to the body of Old Testament narratives which
present all the gradations between pure fiction (as in the stories about Adam,
Noah, Samson) and genuine history (as in the ancient biography of David and
in the Memoirs of Nehemiah). Only in the recital of events on the part of an
eyewitness (unless he be lying as in I Sam. 22:10a and II Sam. 1:7-10) may
exact historicity be expected in the Old Testament narratives. Their
credibility decreases in the ratio of their distance in time from the narrator."
132/27
2B. Basic Answer
In the next few pages we will examine what we know about the patriarchal
period and show that archaeology has played a big part in increasing this
knowledge. G. Ernest Wright points out:
"There are numerous illustrations of the service which archaeology has
rendered along this line. Perhaps the most noteworthy is the partial 'recovery'
of the patriarchal period of biblical history." 200/80
IC. INSCRIPTIONAL MATERIAL
In this section we will investigate certain finds; in the next we will see how
the finds have contributed to filling out our understanding of patriarchal
culture. Unger has struck the balance between the two.
"As a result of archaeological research, particularly that of the last three
decades, a large quantity of inscriptional material is now available to
scholars, which has an important bearing on the patriarchal age. This
material is of the greatest importance." 193/120, 121
He goes on to add that, though much has so far been unprinted, it has
been crippling to skeptical theories, and
analysis of the material has raised
the standing of the Old Testament history. It does not establish such ac-
counts as inviolate, but "it does mean that it has furnished a great deal of
indirect evidence showing that the stories fit into the background of the
age, as that age can now be recovered from the new sources of knowledge
available, and that customs which appear in the stories prevailed in the
world in which the patriarchs are set." 193/120, 121
Professor David Noel Freedman of the University of Michigan, and
director of the William F. Albright School for Archaeological Research in
Jerusalem, states specifically regarding the historicity of the patriarchs:
"In the same mood, that is the search for truth, I now bring you word, not
about Moses and his generation, the historicity of which continues to be
questioned by many leading scholars, but about an earlier generation still,
that of the patriarchs, and to be more specific, the father of them and of us
all, that is by faith if not in fact — Abraham or Abram. Even to talk about
the possible historicity of the stories of Genesis and the figures who play
leading roles in them is to jeopardize one's standing in the profession and
to lay oneself open to the charges of pseudo-scholarship.
"Nevertheless, there have been outstanding scholars in the past who held
these peculiar notions, and I do not hesitate to identify myself with this
viewpoint and as an adherent of that school of thought, I recall an in-
teresting and remarkable ultimate ancestor, for the members of the three
great monotheistic faiths— Judaism, Christianity and Islam — all trace
their descent from Abraham himself, which makes the subject of his
historicity of something more than academic interest. Professor W.F.
Albright, whom we all acknowledge as an Abrahamic figure in the
scholarship of our day, and the father- professor of a legion of us, his
followers and disciples, was quite circumspect about a historical recon-
struction of the Genesis narratives and about precise circumstances and

activities of the patriarchs, as well as their beliefs. At the same time, the
illustrious cuneiformist at the University of Pennsylvania, E. Speiser, who
unlike Albright did not profess a personal religion, had hardly any
reservations at all; he did not merely assert the historicity of Abraham and
his extensive family, but insisted on his monotheistic faith. Together these
eminent scholars were an island fortress of conservative, almost traditional
views, in an age of skepticism, but, of the two, Speiser was the more
outspoken and direct, while Albright was more reticent and nuanced. Now
that vindication is on its way, it is clear that Speiser was closer to historical
reality, but even the presently known facts go far beyond what either of
these great thinkers could have imagined.
"I am here to inform you that recent archaeological discoveries have
proved to be directly pertinent to the question of the historicity of the
patriarchal traditions, as they are preserved in the Genesis narratives.
Generally they confirm or at least support the basic positions maintained
by giants like Albright and Speiser, while effectively undercutting the
prevailing skepticism and sophistry of the larger contingent representative
of continental and American scholarship." 19/144
ID. The Mari Tablets

William F. Albright in his From the Stone Age to Christianity com-
ments,
"The latest Mari on the Middle Euphrates.
discoveries at have . .
strikingly confirmed the according to which their

Israelite traditions
Hebrew forefathers came to Palestine from the region of Harran in
northwestern Mesopotamia." 9/197
In his article "The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology," he goes
further:
"The excavation of Mari began in 1933, under the direction of Andre
Parrot. Situated on the Middle Euphrates, Mari was one of the most
important centers of the Northwest Semitic life of Patriarchal times. In
1936, M. Parrot unearthed many thousands of cuneiform tablets dating
mostly from about 1700 B.C., which are now in course of being studied
and published. These tablets throw direct light on the background of
the Patriarchal traditions of Genesis." 150/538
He goes on further to explain the impact of the Mari Tablets:
"Now we can speak even more emphatically, and with a wealth of
additional detail. For example, the 'city of Nahor' which plays a role
next to Harran in the Patriarchal stories (Gen. 24:10) turns up
frequently along with Harran in the Mari documents about 1700 B.C.
The name of a prince of Mari, Arriyuk, is evidently the same as the
Arioch of Genesis 14. 'Benjamin often appears as a tribal name at
Mari." 150/541. 542
In the 1950 edition of The Archaeology of Palestine, one gets the feel of
the impact of these tablets by noting the following:
Dossin and Jean are editing the thousands of tablets from Mari; every
new publication of theirs helps us better to understand the life and times
of the Hebrew Patriarchs. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob no longer seem
isolated figures, much less reflections of later Israelite history; they now
appear as true children of their age, bearing the same names, moving
about over the same territory, visiting the same towns (especially Harran
and Nahor), practising the same customs as their contemporaries. In
other words, the patriarchal narratives have a historical nucleus

throughout, though it is likely that long oral transmission of the original
poems and later prose sagas which underlie the present text of Genesis
has considerably refracted the original events." 5/236
2D. The Law Codes
We have come to understand many of the actions of the patriarchs
through the law codes of the Hittites, who exerted a strong influence on
culture at that time. Archer notes the findings of one archaeologist:
"As Manfred Lehmann brings out [Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research, No. 129, Feb. 1953, p. 18], the account in Genesis
23 exhibits such an intimate knowledge of Hittite procedure as to make
it certain that the episode antedated the destruction of the Hittite power
in the thirteenth century B.C." 1 1/161

Henry T. Frank in Bible, Archaeology, and Faith elucidates an
Abrahamic episode:
"Similarly, a number of once puzzling incidents associated with the
patriarchs are also shown by archaeological discoveries to have been
commonplace in the early second millennium. We
have already seen
that Abraham's haggling with Ephron concerning the purchase of the
Cave of Machpelah was in accordance with common ancient practice.
Apparently Abraham wished to purchase only the cave itself in which to
bury his wife, Sarah. Yet governed by Hittite practice he had to buy not
only the cave but the land and the arbors associated with it. This
assumption of feudal obligation described in Genesis 23:1-20 is exactly
in accord with the recovered Hittite documents from BoghazkOy in
which such details are stressed." 161/74
3D. The Egyptian Execration Texts
Unger explains what these denunciatory artifacts are:
"The so-called 'Execration Texts* add their evidence to attest the
authentic background of the patriarchs as presented in Genesis. These
curious documents are statuettes and vases inscribed in Egyptian
hieratic script with the names of potential enemies of the Pharaoh. If
threatened by rebellion the Egyptian king had only to break the fragile
objects on which were written the names and accompanying formulae,
to the accompaniment of a magical ceremony, and forthwith the rebels
would somehow come to grief. The group of vases from Berlin,
published by Kurt Sethe (1926), probably date from the end of the
twentieth century B.C., while the collection of statuettes from Brussels,
published by G. Posener (1940), date from the late nineteenth century."
193/127
4D. The Nuzi Tablets

S.H. Horn in his Christianity Today article, "Recent Illumination of the
Old Testament," introduces the Nuzi Tablets:
"The discovery of a whole archive of legal and social texts at Nuzi, a
small place in northeastern Iraq, has revealed that the social and legal
background of the patriarchal age is reflected accurately and in great
detail in the Old Testament patriarchal narratives." 177/14
G.E. Wright in his "Present State of Biblical Archaeology" (1947) in
The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow and Cyrus Gordon in
"BiblicalCustoms and the Nuzu Tablets" (The Biblical Archaeologist)
provide good background material. Wright includes certain key points:
Nuzi (or Nuzu) is located southeast of Nineveh. Some of the patriarchal
episodes seem unusual, even to the later Israelites but this find at Nuzu
clears the picture. The Nuzians were Hurrians (biblical Horites),
formerly thought of as 'cave dwellers," and are now understood as
Armenoid, non-Indo-Europeans of North Mesopotamia, who flourished
in the 1500 and 1400's B.C. 200/43
Gordon follows up by explaining that though the patriarchs were not

Nuzians, the cultures of the two were alike due to similar time and
place. Therefore the Nuzi Tablets help us to understand Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob. 172/2
Wright points out that the "Nuzi tablets elucidate many a custom
typical of the patriarchal age in the second millennium, but not of
Israelite Hfe in the first." 200/87
Cyrus Gordon contends:

"Thanks to the Nuzu texts we may feel confident that the social in-
stitutions have come down to us authentically " 172/9
What are some specific instances in which the Nuzi Tablets help us to
understand Genesis? Horn answers:
we find several strange accounts of a
"First, in the patriarchal stories
barren wife who asked her husband to produce a child for her by her
maid servant. Sarah did this, and later also Jacob's two wives, Rachel
and Leah. Today we know that this practice was not unusual during the
patriarchal age. The laws of that period as well as ancient marriage
contracts mention it. For example, in a marriage contract from Nuzi,
the bride Kelim-ninu promises in written form to procure for her
husband Shennima a slave girl as a second wife, if she fails to bear him
children. She also promises that she will not drive out the offspring of
such a union. In no other period besides the patriarchal age do we find
this strange custom." 177/14
Gordon in another article refers to the Documentary Hypothesis:

"The cuneiform contracts from Nuzu have demonstrated that the social
institutions of the patriarchs are genuine and preMosaic. They cannot
have been invented by any post- Mosaic. They cannot have been in-
vented by any post-Mosaic J, E, D or P." 173/241
In Gordon's "Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets," we find yet
another custom explained.
"Itwas a custom at Nuzu for childless people to adopt a son to serve

them as lone as thev lived and to bury and mourn for them when they
died. In exchange for these services the adopted son was designated as
however, the adoptor should beget a son after the adoption, the
heir. If,
adopted must yield to the real son the right of being the chief heir
Once we know of this proviso, we have the legal meaning of God's reply
in Genesis 15:4: 'This (slave) shall not inherit thee, but he that shall
come out of thine inwards shall inherit th*^.'" 172/2, 3
Albright concludes the worth of the Nuzi Tablets:
"When we add the fact that our present knowledge of social institutions
and customs in another part of northern Mesopotamia in the fifteenth
century (Nuzi) has brilliantly illuminated many details in the
patriarchal stories which do not fit into the post- Mosaic tradition at all,
our case for the substantial historicity of the tradition of the Patriarchs
is clinched." 8/4, 5
5D. The Ebla Tablets

The tremendous archaeological discovery of Tell Mardikh of the an-
cient city of Ebla is revealing a wealth of new light on the patriarchal

narratives. Although very little has come to publication as yet, the
evidence points to exciting new gains and significant inroads for Near
Eastern studies of the third millennium B.C., especially as related to the
Old Testament accounts.
Referring to the patriarchal narratives, with general reference at first to
Ebla and then specifically to a tablet that has been uncovered, David
Noel Freedman states:
"Nevertheless, in spite of the bad examples from the past and the ample
warnings by those associated with the Ebla finds, I believe firmly that
there is a link between the Ebla tablets and the Bible, not only of the
general linguistic and literary type already mentioned, which is almost
inevitable, or even in terms of a common pool of names of persons and
places, but much more direct in terms of history, chronology and fact."
19/148
Some of the specifics that Dr. Freedman mentions with regard to
history, chronology and fact all center on a tablet for which its exact
translation is now a clouded issue. Some of the information first released
to Dr. Freedman has been revised (as he himself mentions in his article
19/143-164.) Hopefully with its publication the evidence will support
the original reading of the tablet. But while that is pending. Dr.
Freedman also pointed out that there is still a link between Ebla and the
Bible, and time should surface to what extent.
2C. THE LIVING CONDITIONS

and more are combined to give us a picture of the culture of
All these finds
Middle Bronze Age Palestine (2000-1500 B.C.). For convenience, the
following part is broken into the social-cultural setting and the
geographical setting.
ID. The Social-Cultural Setting
Millar Burrows introduces the area:
"Specific archaeological evidence that this or that event in the stories of
the patriarchs actually occurred may not be forthcoming, but the social
customs reflected by the stories fit the patriarchal period; they also fit
the region from which the patriarchs are said to have come." 156/278,
279
Albright is even stronger:
"The movements in the hill country of Palestine, of seasonal
picture of
migration between the Negreb and central Palestine, and of easy travel
to Mesopotamia and Egypt is, accordingly, so perfectly in accord with
conditions in the Middle Bronze Age that historical skepticism is quite
unwarranted." 8/4
For some specific instances, Fred H. Wight mentions the question of
travel.
"Men who have doubted the historic character of the patriarchs have
questioned the migration of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to the
land of Canaan, and also the military expedition from Babylonia to
Palestine as indicated in Genesis 14, because they have insisted that
extensive travel was not known in that day. But Babylonian excavators
[at Mari] have uncovered a tablet that shows there was much travel
between these two lands in those days. This tablet is dated in the era of
Abraham, and was a wagon contract. The owner of the wagon leased
it
it to a man on condition that it not be driven to Kittim (i.e.,

for a year
the coast land of the Mediterranean Sea). Evidently, it was quite
customary for men to drive their wagons over this route from Babylonia
to Canaan or vicinity, and this owner stipulated that this should not be
done with his wagon. This is clear evidence of wide travel between these
two sections of the ancient world." 198/61, 62
Joseph P. Free even mentions the custom of heavy doors during Lot's
time. He mentions Genesis 19:9 where the evil men of Sodom could not
get through Lot's doorway. Keil and Albright studied Tell Beit Mirsim
which is Kirjath-Sepher of the Bible and found walls and doors of 2200-
1600 B.C. to be heavy and strong. At the 900-600 B.C. level homes most
likely had used archways or curtains, but no doors were found. In Lot's
day, the police force was not so strong and forbidding doors were
needed. But with stronger law and order, doors were no longer needed
for protection. 162/62
Free then took the offensive:
"Lot's heavy door fits precisely in this period. The critics, however, date
the writing of the accounts of Abraham in the ninth and eighth cen-
turies B.C. How did the writer know the conditions a thousand years or
more before his time? 162/63
Concerning the name of Abraham, John Elder explains:
"It is not to be expected that the histories which kings of those times
have left will contain mention of such a man as Abraham. But a tablet
found in Babylonia bears the name Abarama and records that he paid
his rent. At the least it shows that Abraham was one of the names used
in that period."
To summarize, Albright sets forth a broad analysis:
"Numerous recent excavations in of this period in Palestine,

sites
supplemented by finds made in Egypt and Syria, give us a remarkably
precise idea of patriarchal Palestine, fitting well into the picture handed
down in Genesis." 8/3
2D. The Geographical-Topographical Setting
Unger speaks of the topographical accuracy of Genesis and shows that
"it is significant, too, in this connection that the topographical allusions
in the patriarchal stories the archaeological indications of the Middle
fit
Bronze Age (200- 1500 B.C.) extremely well." 193/ 114

And further,
"The five cities of the plain (circle) of the Jordan, Sodom, Gomorrah,
Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar, also belong to the early patriarchal age.
The Biblical notices that the district of the Jordan, where these cities
were located, was exceedlingly fertile and well-peopled around 2065
B.C. but that not long afterwards was abandoned, are in full accord
with the archaeological facts." 193/114
Earlier scholars maintained that the Jordan Valley was hardly
populated in Abraham's day. Archer, however, shows that "Nelson
Glueck has in recent decades uncovered more than seventy sites in the
Jordan Valley, some of them as ancient as 3000 B.C." 11/159
Archer continues that "as for Abraham's career in Palestine, the ex-
cavations at Shechem and Bethel show that they were inhabited in
Abraham's time." 11/159
Joseph Free speaks of Shechem, Ai, and Bethel:
"When Abraham came into Canaan, he dwelt for a time near Shechem
(Shichem, Gen. 12:6), about thirty miles north of Jerusalem, in a plain

within the central mountain ridge of Palestine. Later he moved a few
miles to the south and pitched his tent between Bethel and Ai (Gen.
12:8), some twelve miles north of Jerusalem (ISBE, article on 'Bethel').
Here he built an altar to the Lord and worshipped." 162/53
He goes on to say that "practically all of the towns mentioned in con-
nection with Abraham (such as Shechem, Ai, Bethel) have been ex-
cavated, and the findings show that these go back to Abraham's time."
162/53
Concerning the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10, and the listings in
chapter 11, Burrows comments that the lists of Genesis 10 and 11 have
been enlightened by archaeology, since many names remained lost to
outside sources until recent material was discovered. 156/258
Free in his article "Archaeology and the Historical Accuracy of
Scripture," works from Albright here:
"Archaeological monuments, however, have yielded the names of
peoples and countries mentioned in this record [Gen. 10]. Many of them
were unknown until discovered in ancient archaeological records. W.F.
Albright, in his 1955 revision of the article, 'Recent Discoveries in Bible
Lands,' pointed out what he had said earlier, that this chapter stands
absolutely alone in ancient literature (Young's Analytical Concordance
to the Bible, p. 30). We find that the monuments attest:
Tubal in the form Tabal

Meshech as Mushke
Ashkenaz as Ashkunz
Togarmah as Tegarama
Elishah as Alashi (Alashiyah)
Tarshish as Tarsisi (Assyrian Tarshish)
Cush as Kusi (pronounced Kush in Assyrian)
Phut as Putu
Dedan as Ddn
Accad as Akkadu
Shinar as Shanghar
Many other parallels appear in the monuments, and this evidence leads
Dr. Albright to conclude that The Table of Nations remains an
astonishingly accurate document." 1 65/21
Summing up in his Archaeology and Bible History, Free closes:
"The fact, however, that the cities mentioned in connection with
Abraham are shown by archaeological discoveries to have existed in his
time constitutes a definite argument for the accuracy of the background
of the Abrahamic accounts in the Scriptures." 162/53
3C. THE COUNTER-ISSUE: ABRAHAM IN EGYPT
Before moving to a conclusion, one final point must be dealt with. Some
maintain that Abraham could not have visited Egypt due to a
critics will
closed-door policy. This is brought out by Edgar Banks:
"Frequently it has been asserted that neither Abraham nor any other of his
people and age was ever down in Egypt, and that it would have been
impossible for him or for any other stranger to enter the country from
which all strangers were excluded." 222/58
This question has been brought to my attention by Joseph Free in his
Archaeology and Bible History. He explains the situation:
"Popular books on archaeology frequently allude to the critical view that
strangers could not have come into Egypt in earlier times, and often reter
the basis of such an idea back to the first century historians, Strabo or
Diodorus, but ordinarily no further documentation is given." 162/54
Free also cited Millar Neatby:
"Neatby says that the critic could quote Strabo, the Greek geographer and
historian, who stated shortly before the time of Christ that 'Not till the
time of Psammetichus (654 B.C.) did Egypt open its ports to strangers or
grant security to foreign traders.' T. Millar Neatby, Confirming the
Scriptures, (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, n.d,), Vol. II, pp. 114,
115." 162/54
"A detailed examination of the writings of Strabo and Diodorus has shown,
however, that such an implication is given by Strabo, and a point blank
statement is made by Diodorus." 162/54
Strabo:
"Now the earlier kings of the Egyptians, being content with what they had
and not wanting foreign imports at all, and being prejudiced against all
who sailed the seas, and particularly against the Greeks (for owing to
scarcity of land of their own the Greeks were ravagers and coveters of that
of others), set a guard over this region and ordered it to keep away any who
should approach." 78/27
Diodorus:
"Psammetichus. regularly treated with kindness any foreigners who
. .
sojourned in Egypt of their own free will. and, speaking generally, he

. .
was the first Egyptian king to open to other nations the trading- places
through the rest of Egypt and to offer a large measure of security to
strangers from across the seas. For his predecessors in power had con-
sistently closed Egypt to strangers, either killing or enslaving any who
touched its shores." 79/235
There is only one problem. Archaeology has shown the Old Testament to
be the accurate work and not the first century historians:

"Archaeological discoveries, however, show that people from the region of
Palestine and Syria were coming to Egypt in the period of Abraham. This
is clearly indicated by a tomb painting at Beni Hassan, dating a little after
2000 B.C. It shows Asiatic Semites who have come to Egypt. . Fur-
. .
thermore, the archaeological and historical indications of the coming of

the Hyksos into Egypt c. 1900 B.C. provides another piece of evidence
showing that strangers could come into that land. Their entrance was
almost contemporary with that of Abraham. The Bible is correct in this
indication and Diodorus was wrong." 162/54, 55
4C. CONCLUSION
G.E. Wright gives the story behind an extra -biblical reference to
Abraham, which is most rare:
"The first great disaster since the reign of Saul descended upon the two
kingdoms about 918 B.C. Our books of Kings give us scant information
about it:
'And it came to pass in the fifth year of King Rehoboam that Shishak, king
of Egypt came up against Jerusalem. And he took away the treasures of the
house (Temple) of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house. And
. . .
he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made (I Kings
14:25-6).'
"This king of Egypt thought more highly of his campaign, however, and on
the walls of the great temple of Kamak in Upper Egypt he had his artists
carve a picture of himself smiting the Asiatics in the presence of the god
Amon, who with a goddess is depicted as presenting to him ten lines of

captives.Each captive symbolized a town or locality, the name of which
was inscribed below. From these names we can gather the extent of his
campaign. The biblical account implies that only Judah was affected, but
all of Palestine apparently suffered, for the list includes cities in the
Esdraelon, Transjordan, the hill country of both Israel and Judah, and
even Edom. There is an interesting reference to the Field of Abram,
presumably the Hebron area, and this is the first time that a source outside
the Bible confirms that Patriarch's connection with a locality in Palestine."
200/148
W.F. Albright writes that "so many corroborations of details have been
discovered in recent years that most competent scholars have given up the
old critical theory according to which the stories of the Patriarchs are
mostly retrojections from the time of the Dual Monarchy (ninth- eighth
centuries B.C.)." 9/183
Albright concludes that "as a whole the picture in Genesis is historical, and
there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details
and the sketches of personality which make the Patriarchs come alive with
a vividness unknown to a single extrabiblical character in the whole vast
literature of the ancient Near East." 8/5
Millar Burrows says:

"No longer can we think of Abraham as a lonely figure moving across
uninhabited wastes to an almost unoccupied land, and taking possession of
it as an arctic explorer claims the wastes of the north for his nation."
156/92
Gordon, writes that "in regard to the background of the
J. P. Free, citing
patriarchal narratives Cyrus Gordon, writing on the Nuzi tablets, points
out that they show us that the picture of patriarchal society has come down
to us authenticaWy (Biblical Archaeologist, 3:1:9, January, 1940)." 164/34
Jack Finegan says that "certainly the Patriarchal stories fit with thorough
congruity and often with surprising relevance of detail into the historical
setting of life in Mesopotamia during the early second millennium B.C."
Even W.A. Irwin of Southern Methodist University, not a conservative in

"The Modern Approach to the Old Testament,"
his views, in his article
writes:
"An extreme skepticism in regard to the patriarchal stories has given place
to recognition that they preserve valid reminiscences of historic movements
and social conditions." 178/14
W.F. Albright concludes:
"Turning to Israel, I defend the substantial historicity of patriarchal
tradition, without any appreciable change in my point of view, and insist,

just as in 1940-46, on the primacy of oral tradition over written literature.
I have not surrendered a single position with regard to early Israelite
monotheism but, on the contrary, consider the Mosaic tradition as even
more reliable than I did then. Without altering my general view of the
growth of the social and political institutions of Israel, I now recognize that
Israelite law and religious institutions tend to be old and more continuous
than I had supposed— in other words, I have grown more conservative in
my attitude to Moasic tradition." 9/2
J. Bright states:
"We can assert with full confidence that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were
actual historical individuals." 14/82
Any discussion of the historicity of the patriarchs will have to consider
Bright's recommendation:
"The only safe and proper course lies in a balanced examination of the
traditions against the background of the world of the day and, in the light
of that, making such positive statements as the evidence allows.
Hypothetical reconstructions, plausible though these may be, are to be
eschewed. Much must remain obscure. But enough can be said to make it
certain that the patriarchal traditions are firmly anchored in history."
14/69
SB. Genesis 14 - An Additional Example
One area which was continuously criticized in regard to its historicity is the
abstruse chapter 14 of Genesis. This chapter narrates Abraham's victory over
Chedorlaomer and the Mesopotamian kings.
The first person to apply the "German rationalistic criticism" to Genesis 14
was Theodore Noldeke (1826-1930). He wrote a pamphlet titled "The
Unhistorical Character of Genesis 14," in which he labels it a forgery and
describes the expedition as being "ficititous."
Julius Wellhausen writes of its "historical unreliability":
"That 'at the time of Abraham' four Kings from the Persian Gulf made a
razzia (or raid) as far as the peninsula of Sinai; that they, on that occasion,
surprised and captured five city- princes who reigned in the Dead Sea; that
finally Abraham, at the head of 318 servants, fell upon the departing victors,
—
and recaptured what they had robbed, these are simply impossibilities."
207/312
Wellhausen continues:
"From the patriarchal narratives it is impossible to obtain any historical
information with regard to the Patriarchs. We can only learn something
about the time in which the stories about them were first told by the Israelite
people. This later period, with all its essential and superficial characteristics,
was unintentionally projected backward into hoary antiquity, and is reflected
there like a transfigured mirage." 207/331
William F. Albright in 1918 wrote an article entitled "Historical and
Mythical Elements in the Story of Joseph." He concluded that chapter 14
"must be regarded, with Asmussen. and Haupt.
. . as a political pamphlet,
. .
designed (so Haupt) to strengthen the hands of the patriotic Jews who were
supporting the rebellion of Zerubbabel against the Persian monarch."
203/136
Albright concludes that "the Hebrew material was either borrowed from
extant legends like the saga of the cities of the plain and the legend of
Melchizedek, or invented by use of haggadic processes." 203/136
However, as a result of his own archaeological discoveries in 1929, he had his
skeptical views radically changed and concluded that "this account represents
the invading host as marching down from Hauran through eastern Gilead
and Moab to the southeastern part of Palestine. Formerly the writer con-
sidered this extraordinary line of march as being the best proof of the
essentially legendary character of the narrative. In 1929 however, he
discovered a line of Early and Middle Bronze Age mounds, some of great size,
running down along the eastern edge of Gilead, between the desert and the
forest of Gilead. Moreover, the cities of Hauran (Bashan) with which the
account of the campaign opens, Ashtaroth and Karnaim, were both occupied
in this period, as shown by archaeological examination of their sites. The
same is true of eastern Moab. where the writer discovered an Early Middle-
Bronze city at Ader in 1924. This route called "The Way of the King." in later
Israelite tradition, does not appear to have ever been employed by invading
armies in the Iron Age." 209/142, 143
The following is indicative of his change in view when he writes that Genesis
14 "can no longer be considered as unhistorical, in view of the many con-
firmations of details which we owe to recent finds." 204/140
Joseph Free lists several specific accusations made by the radical critics against
the historicity of Genesis 14. They shall be dealt with briefly.
IC. THE MESOPOTAMIAN KINGS
ID. Documentary Assumption
The Mesopotamian kings' names were said to be fictitious or
unhistorical.
2D. Basic Answer

The Mari tablets (18th century B.C.) discovered in 1933 contain the
name Arriyuk (or Arriwuk) identified with the name Arioch of Genesis
14.150/542
K.A. Kitchen points out:
"Tid'al is a Tidkhalia, a Hittite name known from the nineteenth
century B.C. onwards, and borne by four or five Hittite kings in the
eighteenth to the thirteenth centuries B.C. Chedorla'-omer is typically
Elamite. of the Old Babylonian period (2000-1700 B.C.) and
. .
later. . The individuals themselves have not yet been identified in

. .
extra-biblical documents, but this is not surprising when one considers

the gaps in our knowledge of the period." 42/44
Howard Vos concludes:
"For a long time the names of the four kings of the East were thought to
be unhistorical, but most scholars now find some means of identifying
them with known persons or at least identifying them as historical name
forms." 197/68. 69
Nahum Sama recognizes that events in Genesis 14 are based upon
documents of great antiquity. He writes that "the prose style has
preserved indications of an archaic substratum in verse form. For in-
stance, the names of the Canaanite Kings are arranged in two
alliterative pairs, Bera-Birsha and Shinab-Shemeber. The language
contains some unique or very rare words and phrases. One such, hanikh
(v. 14), meaning 'an armed-retainer,' appears but this once in the bible,
but it is found in the Egyptian execration texts of the nineteenth-
eighteenth centuries B.C.E. and in a fifteenth-century B.C.E.
cuneiform inspription from Taanach, Israel.
"It will be noticed that only four of the local monarchs are mentioned by
name, the fifth being called simply, 'the king of Bela' (v. 2). Had the
whole episode no historical foundation, the writer would surely not have
been at a loss for a name." 210/111
2C. THE EXTENSIVE TRAVEL
There could not have been "extensive travel" such as the military
campaign in Genesis 14.
2D. Basic Answer
Vos states that "the assertion made formerly that travel was not so
extensive in the patriarchal period as indicated in this chapter and that
military control of Palestine by Mesopotamian kings did not exist at that
time must now be discarded. The expedition of kings of Elam and
Babylonia appears in different light when we learn, for instance, that as
early as 2300 B.C. Sargon of Akkad (near Babylon) made raids on the
Amorites of Syria and Palestine." 197/70, 71
L
Another example of extensive travel as implied in Genesis 14 is given by

G.A. Barton. The paragraph is entitled: "Travel between Babylonia
and Palestine." Barton translates a document from a Babylonian clay
tablet containing a wagon contract. He writes:
"The date of the above interesting document has not been identified
with certainty. It is thought by some to belong to the reign of Sham-
suiluna, the successor of Hammurabi. The writing clearly shows that at
any rate it comes from the period of this dynasty. Kittim in the
. .
contract is the word used in the Hebrew of Jeremiah 2:10 and Ezekiel
27:6 for the coast lands of the Mediterranean. It undoubtedly has that
meaning here. This contract was written in Sippar, the Agade of earlier
times, a town on the Euphrates a little to the north of Babylon. It reveals
the fact that at the time the document was written there was so much
travel between Babylonia and the Mediterranean coast that a man
could not lease a wagon for a year without danger that it might be
driven over the long route to Syria or Palestine. ..." 205/347
Joseph Free relates that "other implication of long-distance travel is
found inone of the Mari Tablets, which indicated that the King of
ancient Ugarit on the Mediterranean coast planned to visit the King of
Mari on the Euphrates. Such discoveries do not support the idea of
limited travel, but rather the implication of the extensive travel involved
in the campaign of the four kings of the east." 165/217, 218
3C. THE ROUTE OF MARCH

It was not reasonable that the route of the march would follow the
geographical lines as indicated.
2D. Basic Answer
Fred Wight states that "archaeological discoveries have compelled an
increasing recognition of the value of this Scripture from the historical
viewpoint." 198/105
William F. Albright confesses that "the underlying account of the
campaign waged by the Eastern kings appears to be historical. This
account represents the invading host as marching down from Hauran
through eastern Gilead and Moab to the southeastern part of Palestine."
109/142
However, Albright did not always attest to the historicity of the cam-
paign. For a long time he "considered this extraordinary line of march
as being the best proof of the essentially legendary character of the
narrative." 209/142
He retracted his above legendary view when he wrote (also a quote
previously used):
"In 1929, however, he [Dr. Albright referring to himself] discovered a
line of Early and middle Bronze Age mounds, some of great size,
running down along the eastern edge of Gilead, between the desert and
the forests of Gilead. Moreover, the cities of Hauran (Bashan) with
which the account of the campaign opens, Ashtaroth and Kamaim,
were both occupied in this period, as shown by archaeological
examination of their sites. The same is true of eastern Moab, where the
writer discovered an Early- Middle Bronze city at Ader in 1924."
209/142
If the account of the invasion is historical, there would be various areas
of developed regions of permanent sedentary occupation existing very
early along the route followed.
Nahum Sarna writes that "extensive archaeological surveys of Trans-

jordan and the Negeb have indeed shown this to have been the case
during what is known as the Middle Bronze I period, i.e. between the
twenty-first and nineteenth centuries B.C.E. A civiHzation of a high
order of achievement flourished throughout this period, and a truly
amazing number of settlements has been discovered. Strangely enough,
there occurs a complete and sudden interruption in settled life in Trans-
jordan and the Negeb just at the end of the period, apparently as a
result of some historic catastrophic invasion that systematically wiped
out everything in its path. For the next six hundred years, Transjordan
remained desolate until the founding of the Kingdoms of Edom and
Moab in the thirteenth century B.C.E. In the Negeb, the break in
civilization lasted nearly a thousand years.
"In the light of all this, it is not unreasonable to assume that the story of
the battle of the Kings in the Book of Genesis preserves an authentic
echo of a great military expedition which put an end to the Middle
Bronze I settlements. The annals recording the catastrophic events may
well have furnished the basis for the biblical account." 210/113,115
The evidence has caused Albright to conclude that "Genesis 14 can no
longer be considered as unhistorical, in view of the many confirmations
of details which we owe to recent finds." 204/140
4C. AUTHORITY OVER CANAAN

The Mesopotamian kings had no sovereignty over Canaan.
2D. Basic Answer
Joseph Free writes concerning their control over Canaan:
"Archaeological evidence of their control or attempt at control over the
region of Canaan was found in an inscription in which the King of Elam
(Persia) called himself 'the prince of the Land of Amurru' (M.G. Kyle,
Deciding Voice of the Monuments, p. 133). Amurru, the land of the
Amorites, included Syria and Canaan." 165/218, 219
5C. SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Kenneth Kitchen contends that "the system of power- alliances (four kings
against five) is typical in Mesopotamian politics within the period c. 2000-
1750 B.C., but not before or after this general period when different
political patterns prevailed." 42/44
Millar Burrows:
"According to the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, eastern Palestine was
invaded by a coalition of kings in the time of Abraham. The route taken by
the invading armies led from the region of Damascus southward along the
eastern edge of Gilead and Moab. The explorations of Albright and
Glueck have shown that there was a line of important cities along this route
before 2000 B.C. and for a century or two thereafter, but not in later
periods." 156/71
Howard Vos:
"As we continue to investigate the historicity of Genesis 14, we might well
ask any of the towns mentioned in verses 5 through 7 have yet been
if
identified. At least three have been." 197/72
S.L. Caiger states that "there seems no reason to question a factual basis of
Genesis 14." 157/34
William Albright:
"A generation ago most critical scholars regarded this chapter as very late
and as quite unhistorical. Now we cannot accept such an easy way out of
the difficulties which the chapter presents, since some of its allusions are
exceedingly early, carrying us directly back into the Middle Bronze Age."
209/237
6A. CONCLUSION REGARDING PRESUPPOSITIONS OF DOCU-
MENTARY HYPOTHESIS
IB. Presuppositions as the Basis
The importance of presuppositions in the formulation of the Documentary
Hypothesis is brought out by George Mendenhall when he says:
"Wellhausen's theory of the history of Israelite religion was very largely based
on a Hegelian philosophy of hisotry, not upon his literary analysis. It was an a
priori evolutionary scheme which guided him in the utilization of his sources."
68/36
This suspicion that the founders of the Documentary Theory were not as
scientifically objective in their handling of the material as modem critics
would have us believe (31/17) seems to be supported by these two statements
of Wellhausen in which we see employment of careless and subjective
methodology and the priority that a priori theories took over the textual
evidence itself:
"At last, in the course of a casual visit in Gottingen in the summer of 1867, I
learned through Ritschl that Karl Heinrich Graf placed the Law later than
the Prophets, and, almost without knowing his reasons for the hypothesis, I
was prepared to accept it; I readily acknowledged to myself the possibility of
understanding Hebrew antiquity without the book of the Torah." 63/3, 4
"Almost more important to me than the phenomena themselves, are the

presuppositions which lie behind them." 63/368
Thus, Whitelae's criticism is certainly justified:
"It not questioned that hypothesis as a tentative method of proof is perfectly

is
legitimate. Frequently no other means of arriving at the solution of hard

problems in science and philosophy is possible than by testing the ap-
plicability of first one supposition and then another. ... In this way
Grotefend, Rawlinson, and other Assyriologists deciphered the cuneiform
inscriptions which have so wondrously enriched our knowledge of antiquity.
Hence no real objection can be taken to the adoption by BibUcal scholars of
the same plan when confronted by knotty questions which cannot otherwise
be answered. What is complained of is the making of a priori assumptions
which rather raise difficulties than remove them, and holding these
assumptions as demonstrated truths without having previously established
them by convincing argument." 64/188, 189
Finally, all six of the documentarians' presuppositions that we have examined
must be regarded as invalid. Anti-supematuralism (see page 3) must be
rejected on the grounds that it claims to have absolute truth regarding the
existence of God or the extent and nature of His intervention in the natural
order of the universe, i.e., either His existence or His divine intervention is
ruled out as an impossibility on an a priori basis.

Another of these presuppositions (an a priori distrust of the Old Testament
record) must be rejected since it flies in the face of an accepted cannon of
criticism that has stood the test of time, having guided literary and historical
scholars since the time of Aristotle.
The remaining four presuppositions (evolutionary view of Israel's history;
priority of source analysis over verifiable methodology; legendary view of
patriarchal narratives; and the assumption that there was no writing in Israel
during the Mosaic age) have all been soundly refuted by archaeology. (For
additional development between archaeology and criticism, see appendix

page 327.)
2B. Presuppositions and Contemporary Biblical Criticism
Some students of the Bible are under the assumption that in the field of
biblical study the age of "the a priori assumption" has been rendered ob-
solete, having been replaced by "the conclusion that is reached only after the
application of the totally objective scientific method in an analysis of the
data." If preconceived positions are held, it is the conservative "Fun-
damentalists" who hold them and not the unbiased adherents of higher
liberal criticism whose interest in the Bible is not hampered by "dogmatic
religious beliefs." Indeed, the term "liberal" connotes in many minds one who
is less biased than the "conservative."
But such conclusions are, at best, wishful thinking. Although of a decidedly

different nature, modern liberal critics, like conservatives, maintain certain
preconceived positions. This important fact cannot be overstressed and
failure to recognize it invites the serious charge of intellectual dishonesty.
Gilkey, himself a documentarian, concludes his article, "Cosmology, On-

tology, and the Travail of Biblical Language," with this reminder to the
entire school of liberal biblical criticism to which he belongs:
"And for all of us, a contemporary understanding of ancient Scriptures
depends as much on a careful analysis of our present presuppositions as it does
on being learned in the religion and faith of the past." 26/154
chapter 9
consequences
radical
-higher criticism
1 Acceptance of the conclusions of radical higher criticism necessitates embracing the
following consequences:
1 A. THE OLD TESTAMENT IS ESSENTIALLY UNHISTORICAL
For most adherents of the radical higher critical schools, the Old Testament
does not contain an accurate history of Israel. It has, to be sure, isolated events
which in themselves may be considered historical, but when viewed as a whole it
gives a false picture of Israelite chronological history. Working from this
premise, the critics have constructed their own account of early Hebrew history
which, as can be seen from the chart below, quite contradicts the Old Testament
record in many major points.
Walther Eichrodt's comment regarding the critics' treatment of the book of
Ezekiel points out the difficulties of constructing theories that contradict the
actual text:
"This unsatisfactory fluctuation in the theories is no mere matter of chance; it is
the necessary result of all the difficulties encountered by any attempt to work out
such a fundamental theory on the basis of a text which states the exact opposite.
Whenever they do not fit in with the theory, the established pieces of in-
formation about dates and geographical locations must now be accepted, and
again dismissed as doubtful, without any reliable methodological basis for the
conclusions. There is also a readiness to take those elements of the tradition that
are difficult to accommodate to this interpretation, and either make them mean
something else or else try to eliminate them by critical methods." 19/8, 9
The following chart compares the Hebrew's account of their own history (some
of the major events) with that of the modern higher critics. This chart represents
only the general trend in radical higher criticism and therefore cannot be said to
represent the view of every critic. However, it is the general outline prominent in
most destructive higher critical circles today. In passing, it should also be noted
89
that Wellhausen's reconstruction of early Hebrew history was even more radical
than the view represented here.
OLD TESTAMENT RECORD DOCUMENTARIAN VIEW

1445-1405 Moses gives "the 1400 Covenant Code
B.C. Law" and writes B.C. (Material in
Genesis, Exodus, Exodus 20-23)
Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy 1000 David's reign
1000 David's reign 960 Solomon's temple
960 Solomon's temple 950 J document
850(?) Obadiah— first 930 Kingdom divides

writing prophet
850 E document
J50-550 Golden Age of
the Prophets 750 Amos— first
writing prophet
722 End of northern
kingdom (Israel) 50-550 Golden Age of
the Prophets
586 Jerusalem falls;
Exile 722 End of northern
kingdom (Israel)
539 Restoraticm
of Israel 622 Deuteronomic Code
450 Ezra reforms second 586 Jerusalem falls;

Jewish Commonwealth Exile
on basis of the Law
(Torah) 575 H (Holiness) Code
(Leviticus 17-20)
550 Deuteronomic circle

edits Deuteronomy—
II Kings
539 Restoration of
Israel
450 P document written

for the purpose of
instituting Second
Jewish Commonwealt
450-400 P circle compiles

Tetrateuch (Gene-
sis—Numbers);
Deuteronomy
added later to
form Pentateuch
We see that the biblical sequence of the Law being given early and followed by
the prophets has been exactly reversed; for, according to the critics, the Law,
comprised of the Deuteronomic Code, Holiness Code, and the Priestly Code (the
bulk of the legislative material in the Pentateuch) did not come into existence
until long after the prophets. And yet it is clear from the text that many of the
prophets appealed to a body of law which was already in existence in their time
and which was authoritatively binding upon the people. Amos even refers to this
law as "the Torah ['Law'] of Yahweh" (Amos 2:4).
Thus, the critics have created a crucial and irreconcilable contradiction
regarding both the chronology and the theological development of Israel's
history.
This contradiction leaves us with an insurpassable gulf between an authoritative

Word of God on the one hand and "a tattered miscellany of half-mythical and
historically unreliable literary fragments" on the other. And even more fun-
damentally, we are left with extreme tension between the scriptural portrayal of
Israelite history and the reconstruction of the radical critics.
"It does not put the matter too strongly to say that, to the more radical school of
critics, the Old Testament is in the main unhistorical Not necessarily, of course,
that there is not in parts— some would acknowledge in considerable parts— a
historical substratum. Everyone may not go so far, at one end of the history, as
Stade, who doubts whether Israel as a people was ever in Egypt at all; or, at the
other end, as Rosters, who denies the return from the exile at Babylon under
Zerubbabel. But the books as they stand are, for all that, held not to be, at least
till the days of the kings, and even then only very partially, genuine history."
50/56
This implies that the clear picture we see in the Old Testament of the
development of a coherent and unified divine plan (teleological element) in
Israel's history beginning in Genesis with Adam, and to be culminated in the
promised Messiah as witnessed to by the prophets, was contrived.
Kautzsch, of Halle, in a lecture on **The Abiding Value of the Old Testament,"
cited by Orr, writes:
"The abiding value of the Old Testament lies above all in this, that it guarantees
to us with absolute certainty the fact and the process of a divine plan and way of
salvation, which found its conclusion and fulfillment in the new covenant, in the
Person and work of Jesus Christ." 50/61
Orr says that the reply which "comes from the side of the criticism that seeks to
get rid of the teleological element in the history is, that the Biblical represen-
tation is an unreal and artificial one: not a development in accordance with the
actual history, but an imaginary development, the result of a reading back into
the primitive legends of the ideas of the prophetic age. The appearance of
development is superimposed on the historical tradition by the manner in which
its materials are manipulated. Grant, it is said, the critical scheme— its analysis
and partition of documents— and the illusion of teleology in the Old Testament
story disappears; so far at least as any extraordinary cause is required to account
for it. In the words of Professor Robertson: 'What they maintain is, that the
scheme of the Biblical writers is an afterthought, which by a process of
manipulation of older documents, and by a systematic representation of earlier
events in the light of much later times, has been made to appear as if it were the
original and genuine development.' " 50/61 62 ,
2A. ISRAEL'SRELIGION IS TOTALLY NATURAL, NOT SUPER-

NATURAL IN ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT (In other words, God did
not really act in Israel's history; the Hebrews only thought He did.)
How is this derived from the literary analysis of the Pentateuch? Orr explains;
"Nothing, it may be plausibly argued, depends, for the decision of the super-
natural origin of the religion, on whether the Pentateuch, as we have it, is from
the pen of Moses, or is made up of three or four documents, put together at a
late date; or at what period the Levitical law as finally codified; or whether the
Book of Isaiah is the work of one, or two, or of ten authors; or whether the
Psalms are pre-exilic, or post-exilic, in origin. Yet, as will be seen more fully
later, the dependence of the literary criticism on the religious theory is really
very close. For, if it be true, as every fair mind must admit, that there are many
scholars who succeed, to their own satisfaction, in combining the acceptance of
the main results of the critical hypothesis of the Old Testament, even in its
advanced form, with firm belief in the reality of supernatural revelation in
Israel it is equally true that, in the case of others, and these pre-eminently, in Dr.
Cheyne's phrase, 'The Founders of Criticism,' the decisions arrived at on purely
literary questions, — the date of a psalm, e.g., the genuineness of a passage, or
the integrity of a book, — are largely controlled by the view taken of the origin
and course of development of the religion; and, with a different theory on these
subjects, the judgments passed on the age, relations and historical value, of
particular writings, would be different also. This dependence of many of the
—
conclusions of criticism — by no means, of course, all on the religious and
historical standpoint is practically admitted by Wellhausen, (63/12) when he
declares that 'it is only within the region of religious antiquities and dominant
religious ideas— the region which Vatke in his Biblische Theologte had occupied
in its full breadth, and where the real battle first kindled— that the controversy
can be brought to a definite issue.'" 50/4, 5
Gilkey, an honest spokesman for this view, states it quite unequivocally:
"Now this assumption of a causal order among phenomenal events, and

therefore of the authority of the scientific interpretation of observable events,
makes a great difference to the validity one assigns to biblical narratives and so
to the way one understands their meaning. Suddenly a vast panoply of divine
deeds and events recorded in Scripture are no longer regarded as having actually
happened. Not only, for example, do the six days of creation, the historical fall
in Eden, and the flood seem to us historically untrue, but even more the majority
of divine deeds in the biblical history of the Hebrew people become what we
choose to call symbols rather than plain old historical facts. To mention only a
few: Abraham's unexpected child; the many divine visitations; the words and
directions to the patriarchs; the plagues visited on the Egyptians; the pillar of
fire; the parting of the seas; the verbal deliverance of covenantal law on Sinai;
the strategic and logistic help in the conquest; the audible voice heard by the
prophets; and so on — all these "acts" vanish from the plane of historical reality
and enter the never-never land of "religious interpretation" by the Hebrew
people. Therefore when we read what the Old Testament seems to say God did,
or what precritical commentators said God did (see Calvin), and then look at a
modern interpretation of what God did in biblical times, we find a tremendous
difference: the wonder events and the verbal divine commentaries, commands,
and promises are gone. Whatever the Hebrews believed, we believe that the
biblical people lived in the same causal continuum of space and time in which
we live, and so one in which no divine wonders transpire and no divine voices
were heard." 26/144, 145
He brings this view to its logical conclusion:

"The vast panoply of wonder and voice events that preceded the Exodus-
covenant event, in effect the patriarchal narratives, are now taken to be Hebrew
interpretations of their own historical past based on the faith gained at the
Exodus. For us then, these narratives represent not so much histories of what
God actually did and said as parables expressive of the faith the post-Exodus
Jews had, namely, belief in a God who was active, did deeds, spoke promises and
commands, and so on. Third, the biblical accounts of the post-Exodus life— for
example, the proclamation and codification of the law, the conquest, and the
prophetic movement— are understood as the covenant people's interpretation
through their Exodus faith of their continuing life and history. For modem
biblical theology the Bible is no longer so much a book containing a description
of God's actual acts and words as it is a book containing Hebrew interpretations,
'creative interpretations' as we call them, which, like the parable of Jonah, tell
stories of God's deeds and man's responses to express the theological beliefs of
Hebrew religion. Thus the Bible is a book descriptive not of the acts of God but
of Hebrew religion." 26/146
The radical nature of this position is realized by Gilkey when he admits:
"The difference between this view of the Bible as a parable illustrative of
Hebrew religious faith and the view of the Bible as a direct narrative of God's
actual deeds and words is so vast that it scarcely needs comment." 26/146
3A. THE HISTORY AND RELIGION OF ISRAEL ARE BASICALLY

FRAUDULENT
It is clear upon reading the Hebrews* account of their own history and religion as
laid out before us in the Old Testament that they intended the account to be
accepted by readers as truly historical. The sequence of Moses giving the Law
and then later the prophets judging the people by harking back to the Mosaic
Law was meant to be an account of what really happened— and in what precise
order it happened.
Unger makes a similar point:

"Again, Deuteronomy if not published till 621 B.C., yet professing to be from
Moses' mouth and pen, cannot be cleared of the suspicion of pious forgery. The
same may be said of the Priestly Code, not completed till about 500 B.C., but
repeatedly professing to be directly and divinely commanded to Moses. Under
these circumstances the honesty and integrity of the redactors can scarcely be
unchallenged." 61/231
Whoever wrote the Old Testament books and canonized them wanted us to
think that the history depicted in them was indeed the real history of Israel. If
the documentarians are right, the historians of the Old Testament are wrong,
and there does not seem to be any reasonable way of getting around the im-
plications of a "contrived" history.
chapter 10
evidence
for
mosaic
—authorship
lA. INTERNAL EVIDENCE
IB. Witness o£ Pentateuch
The Pentateuch itself clearly states that these portions of its contents were
written by Moses:
IC. BOOK OF THE COVENANT, extending from Exodus 20:22-23:33
"And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. Then he arose early in
the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve
pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel .... Then he took the Book of the
Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, 'All that
the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedienti' " Exodus 24:4, 7
2C. RENEWAL OF THE COVENANT, referring to Exodus 34: 10-26
"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance
with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."*
Exodus 34:27
3C. DEUTERONOMIC CODE, which comprises the bulk of Deuteronomy 5-
30
"So Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi who
carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel."
Deuteronomy 31:9
"And it finished writing the words of this law in a
came about, when Moses
book were complete, that Moses commanded the Levites who
until they
carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, 'Take this book of the'"
law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord
Deuteronomy 31:24-26
Such a passage cannot be used to prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch;
but it does presuppose a considerable book which at least refers to
95
Deuteronomy 5-26, and indicates a large amount of literary activity by
Moses. 53/86
4C. GOD'S JUDGMENT OF AMALEK
"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write this in a book as a memorial, and
recite to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from
it
under heaven.' " Exodus 17:14

5C. ITINERARY OF ISRAELITES FROM RAMSES TO MOAB
"And Moses recorded their starting places according to their journeys by
the command of the Lord, and these arc their journeys according to their
starting places." Numbers 33:2
6C. THE SONG OF MOSES IN DEUTERONOMY 32

"Now therefore write this song for yourselves, and teach it to the sons of
Israel;put it on their lips, in order that this song may be a witness for Me
against the sons of Israel.
"For when I bring them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I
swore to their fathers, and they have eaten and are satisfied and become
prosperous, then they will turn to other gods and serve them, and spurn Me
and break My covenant.
"Then it shall come about when many evils and troubles have come upon
them, that this song will testify before them as a witness (for it shall not be
forgotten from the lips of their descendants); for I know their intent which
they are developing today, before I have brought them into the land which
I swore.
7C. When we speak of Moses as having "written" the Pentateuch or being its
"author," should be noted, as has previously been pointed out, that quite
it
in accord with ancient Mesopotamian practice, this does not necessarily

mean he himself wrote the words with his own hand, although such may
have been the case. It is quite possible that the bulk of the Pentateuch was,
like Hammurabi's Law Code, dictated to scribes. This in no way un-
dermines the essential Mosaic authorship of the contents of the Pen-
tateuch.
8C. THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN THESE PASSAGES ATTRIBUTE
THEIR AUTHORSHIP TO MOSES in either the superscription or
subscription:
Exodus - 12:1-28; 20-24, 25-31. 34
Leviticus - 1-7, 8. 13, 16, 17-26. 27
Numbers -1,2.4, 6:1-21. 8:1-4, 8:5-22. 15. 19. 27:6-23. 28. 29, 30. 35
Deuteronomy - 1-33
9C. MOSES CERTAINLY WAS IN A POSITION TO WRITE THE

PENTATEUCH. He grew up in Pharoah's house and was, as Stephen said,
"learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22). All now agree
that this learning would have included the knowledge of writing.
Moses had the information necessary for the project. It is likely that
records of pre-Mosaic history existed; and had they been in the possession
of the Hebrews, they would have certainly become accessible to Moses, the
champion of his people. Had they been kept in the Egyptian archives from
Joseph's time, they would have likewise been available to Moses during his
early adulthood.
Moses also had the time to record this history. He spent 40 years in Egypt
and 40 years in Midian, and there was plenty of time in both of these
periods to author Genesis. 53/93, 94
That Moses was pre-eminently prepared to author a work such as the

Pentateuch is witnessed by the following qualifications:
(a) Education - he was trained in the royal Egyptian court in their highly
developed academic disciplines. This without a doubt included a
knowledge of writing, for even the women's toilet articles of the time
were inscribed.
(b) Tradition - he undoubtedly received the Hebrew traditions of their
early history and encounters with God.
(c) Geographical familiarity • Moses possessed an intimate knowledge of
the climateand geography of Egypt and Sinai as displayed in the
Pentateuch.
(d) Motivation - as the founder of the Commonwealth of Israel, he had
more than adequate incentive to provide the nation with concrete
moral and religious foundations.
(e) Time -40 long years of wandering in the Sinai wilderness easily
allowed ample opportunity to write this work.
At a time when even uneducated slaves working at the Egyptian turquoise
mines were inscribing their records on the tunnel walls, it is inconceivable
that a man of Moses' background would fail to record the details of one of
history's most significant epochs.
Kurt Sethe, one of the greatest authorities of this century on ancient Egypt,
in attempting to find the father of one of the greatest contributions to the
literary progress of civilization, the North Semitic script, mentions Moses
as a possibility [ Vom Bilde Zum Buchstaben, (1939), p. 56]. 46/23
2B. Witness of the Other Old Testament Books
These Old Testament verses record that the Torah or "the Law," was from
Moses:
Joshua 8:32 speaks of "the Law of Moses, which he had written."
(Those of the following verses which are marked by an asterisk refer to an
actual written "Law of Moses," not simply an oral tradition):
Joshua 1:7. 8*; 8:31*. 34*; 23:6*
I Kings 2:3*
II Kings 14:6*; 23:25
IChronicles 22:13
IIChronicles 5:10; 23:18*; 25:4*; 30:16; 33:8; 34:14; 35:12*
Ezra 3:2; 6:18*; 7:6
Nehemiah 1:7. 8; 8:1*. 14*; 9:14; 10:29; 13:1*
Daniel 9:11. 13*
Malachi4:4
SB. Witness of the New Testament
The New Testament writers also held that the Torah or "the Law" came from
Moses.
The apostles believed that "Moses wrote for us a law." (Mark 12:19)
John was confident that "the Law was given through Moses." (John 1:17)
Paul, speaking of a Pentateuchal passage, asserts "Moses writes." (Rom. 10:5)
Other passages which insist on this include:
Luke 2:22; 20:28

John 1:45; 8:5; 9:29
Acts 3:22; 6:14; 13:39; 15:1, 21; 26:22; 28:23
I Corinthians 9:9
II Corinthians 3:15
Hebrews 9: 19
Revelation 15:3
They also record that Jesus believed the Torah to be from Moses:
Mark7:10; 10:3-5; 12:26
Luke 5:14; 16:29-31; 24:27. 44
John 7:19. 23
Especially in John 5:45-47 Jesus states unequivocally his belief that Moses
wrote the Torah:
"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses
you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.
'Tor if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me.
"But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
Eissfeldt states:
"The name used in the New Testament clearly with reference to the whole
Pentateuch— the Book of Moses— is certainly to be understood as meaning
that Moses was the compiler of the Pentateuch." 20/158
2A. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

IB. Jewish Tradition
R.H. Pfeiffer says:
"There is no reason to doubt that the Pentateuch was considered the divine
revelation to Moses when it was canonized about 400 B.C." 85/133
IC. ECCLESIASTICUS, one of the books of the Apocrypha which was written
about 180 B.C., gives this witness:
"All thisis the covenant-book of God Most High, the law which Moses
enacted to be the heritage of the assemblies of Jacob" Ecclesiasticus 24:23

(New English Bible).
2C. THE TALMUD, (Baba Bathra, 146), a Jewish commentary on the Law
(Torah), dating from about 200 B.C., and the MISHNAH. (Pirqe Aboth,
I, 1), a rabbinic interpretation and legislation dating from about 100
B.C., both attribute the Torah to Moses.

3C. Likewise, PHILO, the Jewish philosopher- theologian bom approximately
20 A.D. held Mosaic authorship:
"But I will. tell the story of Moses as I have learned it, both from the
. .
sacred books, the wonderful monuments of his wisdom which he has left
behind him, and from some of the elders of the nation." 51/279
4C. The first century A.D. Jewish historian FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS says in his
Josephus Against Apion (11:8):
"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us,
disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have) but
only 22 books [our present 39], which are ju.stly believed to be divine; and
of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions of
the origin of mankind till his death." 39/609
2B. Early Christian Tradition
IC. JUNILIUS, an imperial official in the court of Justinian I, Byzantine
emperor from 527-565 A.D., held to the Mosaic authorship of the Pen-
tateuch as can be seen from this dialogue between himself and one of his
disciples, recorded in De Parttbus Divinae Legis:
"CONCERNING THE WRITERS OF THE DIVINE BOOKS
Disciple: How do you know who are the writers of the divine books?
Master: In three ways. Either from the titles and prefaces. .or from the titles .
alone. or from the tradition of the ancients, as Moses is believed to have

. .
written the first 5 books of the History; although the title does not say so,
nor does he himself write, 'the Lord spake unto me,' but as of another, 'the
Lord spake unto Moses.'" 28/44, 45
2C. LEONTIUS OF BYZANTIUM (sixth century A.D.) said in his treatise

Contra Mestorianos:
"As for these five books, all bear witness that they are (the work) of Moses."
28/45
SC. OTHER CHURCH FATHERS attributing the Pentateuch to Moses in
their lists of the Old Testament canon:
1. MeHto, Bishop of Sardis 175 A.D.
2. Cyril of Jerusalem 348-386 A.D.
3. Hilary 366 A.D.
4. Rufmus 410 A.D.
5. Augustine 430 A.D.
4C. The Pentateuch is ascribed to Moses also in the following canonical lists of
the early church.
ID. Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila
2D. The Synopsis (revised by Lagarde)
3D. List of the Apostolic Canons
4D. Innocent I -417 A.D.
SB. Covenant-form Analysis

IC. INTRODUCTION
In 1954 George Mendenhall published an epochal article in which he
described the ancient suzerainty treaties which were established between
victorious Near Eastern kings and their vanquished subjects. He pointed
out striking similarities between these treaties and certain treaty forms in
the Hebrew Scriptures. Meredith Kline took his work further by
demonstrating the correlation of these treaties to the Book of Deuteronomy
as a whole.
The renowned archaeologist, G. Ernest Wright, introduces us to Men-

denhall's study:
"Another major discovery within the realm of law which I venture to
predict will stand the test of time is George E. Mendenhall's pioneer work
on the formal background of the Mosaic covenant. This background, he
has shown, is not to be found in the covenants of Bedouin society, as
Johannes Pedersen had supposed. Instead it is to be found in the realm of
international law, specifically in the suzerainty treaties of the Late Bronze
Age found among the Hittite archives. This discovery has meant a number
of things, of which I can mention only one. For the first time, we can gain
a clearer perception of the way Deity was conceived in Israel and of the
reason why certain types of language were permissible when used of him
and others were not. The God of Israel was not the head of a pantheon
which represented the primary powers of the natural world. He was first
and foremost a suzerain, not a king among kings but the Emperor, the
'King of kings and Lord of lords* who had no equal. Consequently, the
Hebrew term, melek, rarely used of God before the time of David, was not
strictly applicable to him because it had received its primary political
definition from the rival Bronze Age dynasts of Syro- Palestinian city-
states. The suzerainty of Israel's God concerned the whole world, and the
focus of attention was not on the life of nature but on the administration of
a vast empire. The language was thus closely geared to history and
historical perspectives." 86/150
2C. DEUTERONOMY AND THE SECOND MILLENNIUM B.C. TREATY

HITTITE SUZERAINTY TREATY OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM
B.C.
"1) Preamble or title, identifying the author of the covenant.
2) Historical prologue or retrospect, mentioning previous relations

between the two parties involved; past benefactions by the suzerain
are a basis for the vassal's gratitude and future obedience.
S) Stipulations basic and detailed; the obligations laid upon the vassal
by the sovereign.
4) (a). Deposition of a copy of the covenant in the vassal's sanctuary and
(b). Periodic public reading of the covenant terms to the people.
5) Witnesses, a long list of gods invoked to witness the covenant.
6) (a). Curses, invoked upon the vassal if he breaks the covenant and,
(b). Blessings, invoked upon the vassal if he keeps the covenant.
Nearly all the known treaties of the fourteenth/ thirteenth centuries B.C.
follow this pattern closely. Sometimes some elements are omitted, but the
order of them is almost invariable, whenever the original texts are suf-
ficiently well preserved to be analyzed. This is. therefore, a stable form in
the period concerned. Earlier than this, the pattern was apparently
somewhat different." 42/92, 93
DEUTERONOMIC COVENANT
Sinai Covenant in Deuteronomy
1) Preamble - 1:1 -b
2) Historical prologue -1:6-5:29
3) Stipulations - 4-11 (basic); 12-26 (detailed)
4) a. Deposition of text -31:9, 24-26

b. Public reading - 31:10-12
5) Witnesses - since pagan gods arc excluded here, ancient oriental
godlists are absent. Moses' song could have been the witness (31:16-
30; 32:1-47), as Kitchen suggests.
6) Curses and Blessings - 28:1-14 (blessings); 28:15-68 (curses); the

sequence here is blessings— curses— witness as opposed to the wit-
ness—curses—blessings sequence of ancient oriental treaties, possibly
due to the different nature of the witness here in Deuteronomy.
42/96, 97
The close correspondence between the two has led Kitchen to observe that
"there can be no serious doubt (on present evidence) that the greater bulk
of Deuteronomy coincides very closely indeed with the fourteenth- and
thirteenth- century treaties, even more strikingly than do Exodus and
Joshua. The essential difference in literary nature is that the Near Eastern
documents are formal legal documents of the covenants concerned,
whereas Deuteronomy is cast as the report of an actual ceremony of
renewing a covenant in acts and speech." 217/3
Kline displays equal confidence:
"In the light of the evidence now surveyed, it would seem indisputable that
the Book of Deuteronomy, not in the form of some imaginary original core
but precisely in the integrity of its present form, the only one for which
there is any objective evidence, exhibits the structure of the ancient
suzerainty treaties in the unity and completeness of their classic pattern."
44/41
But Kline and Kitchen are not alone in their observations. D.J. McCarthy
has produced the most thorough examination of the ancient treaties in his
scholarly Treaty and Covenant. Although he identifies more readily with
the radical critics, the comparison has been unavoidable for him:
"Is there, therefore, a text in the Old Testament which exemplifies with
sufficient fullness the treaty form?For an affirmative answer we need only
look at the basic elements of the Book of Deuteronomy." 220/1 10
He goes on to assert that Deuteronomy's basic components "present an
organic structure which is that of the treaty." 220/1 10
Elsewhere McCarthy emphatically states that "there can be no doubt that
Deuteronomy does show some kind of relationship to the literary forms of
these treaties." 219/230
Even G. von Rad, the form critic who dates Deuteronomy sometime after
701 B.C. admits:
"Comparison of the ancient Near Eastern treaties, especially those made
by the Hittites in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C., with
passages in the Old Testament has revealed so many things in common
between the two, particularly in the matter of the form, that there must be
some connection between these suzerainty treaties and the exposition of the
details of Jahweh's covenant with Israel given in certain passages in the Old
Testament." 52/132
The most recent extensive study of this issue has been undertaken by
Weinfeld. While he goes to great length to maintain a late date for
Deuteronomy, he is forced to acknowledge:
"The major sections of the Hittite state treaties. . . are all found in the book
of Deuteronomy." 221/61
3C. DEUTERONOMY AND THE FIRST MILLENNIUM B.C. TREATIES
If we find no appreciable differences between the treaty forms of the first
and second millennia B.C., then there is no reason on the basis of this
particular investigation to assign to Deuteronomy the traditional early
date as opposed to the sixth-seventh century B.C. date given by the radical
critics.But this is not the case.
As early as 1954, Mendenhall recognized that the covenant type which is
found in the second millennium B.C. in Deuteronomy "cannot be proven
to have survived the downfall of the great empires of the late second
millennium B.C. When empires again arose, notably Assyria, the structure
of the covenant by which they bound their vassals is entirely different. Even
in Israel, the writer submits that the older form of covenant was no longer
widely known after the united monarchy." 47/30
The quite conspicuous differences which Mendenhall speaks of can be
detailed thus:
i) Order
(a) earlier form almost invariably places divine witnesses be-
The
tween stipulations and curses; this is never found in later treaties.
42/95
(b) The highly consistent order of the earlier treaties is replaced by
more randomness. 42/96
2) Content
(a) The customary historical prologue of the second millennium
B.C. is totally absent in the later treaties. 42/95. 44/43, 47/56,

216/84
(b) The first millennium B.C. treaties are also lacking in the earlier
usage of blessings in conjunction with the cursings. 42/96, 44/42
What are the immediate implications of this?

Kline says:
"The implications of the new evidence for the questions of the antiquity
and authenticity of Deuteronomy must not be suppressed. Though the
tradition of the suzerainty form is attested down into the first millennium
B.C., the full classic pattern is documented only in the Syro- Anatolian
treaties of the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries B.C. Accordingly, the
customary higher critical view of Deuteronomy's origins can be maintained
only by scholars able to persuade themselves that a process of accretion in
the first millennium B.C., with more or less of a conscious editorial assist,
managed to reproduce exactly a complex legal pattern belonging to the
second millennium B.C. To preserve any semblance of plausibility the
hypothesis of these scholars must be so drastically modified in the direction
of a greater antiquity for so much more of Deuteronomy as to leave
practically meaningless any persistent insistence on a final seventh century
B.C. edition of the book." 44/15
The Old Testament covenant form demonstrates an amazing
correspondence to the pattern of the late-second millennium treaties as
opposed to the pattern of the first millennium treaties. The Sinai covenant
and its renewals must be classified with the former, for with the latter it
shares only the essential common core (title, stipulation,* witnesses, and
curses). Recent evidence has only buttressed Mendenhall's original view
that the Sinai covenant closely parallels the late-second millennium
treaties and not those of the first millennium. 42/98
4C. CONCLUSION
Even if we may conclude with confidence that Deuteronomy uniquely
reflects thecovenant form of the second millennium B.C., does this give us
reason to conclude that it was necessarily authored then? Kitchen answers
with a resounding yes, reasoning that if Deuteronomy and the other
passages displaying this form "first took fixed literary forms only in the
ninth to sixth centuries B.C. and onward, why and how should their
writers (or redactors) so easily be able to reproduce covenant-forms that
had fallen out of customary use 300 to 600 years earlier {i.e., after about
1200 B.C.), and entirely fail to reflect the first-millennium covenant- forms
that were commonly used in their own day?" 42/100
In a recent article, Kitchen presents a forceful summary of the body of
evidence we have considered:
"The present writer cannot see any legitimate way of escape from the
crystal-clear evidence of the correspondence of Deuteronomy with the
remarkably stable treaty or covenant form of the fourteenth- thirteenth
centuries B.C. Two points follow here. First, the basic structure of
Deuteronomy and much of the content that gives specific character to that
structure must constitute a recognizable literary entity; second, this is a
literary entity not of the eighth or seventh century B.C. but rather from ca.
1200 B.C. at latest. Those who so choose may wish to claim that this or
that individual 'law' or concept appears to be of later date than the late
thirteenth century B.C.; but it is no longer methodologically permissible
gaily to remove essential features of the covenant-form on a mere
preconception (especially if of nineteenth-century [A.D.] vintage) of what
is merely thought— not proven— to be late." 217/4
And Kline concludes:

"Accordingly, while it is necessary to recognize a substantial continuity in
pattern between the earlier and later treaties, it is proper to distinguish the
Hittite treaties of the second millennium B.C. as the 'classic' form. And
without any doubt the Book of Deuteronomy belongs to the classic stage in
this documentary evolution. Here then is significant confirmation of the
prima facie case for the Mosaic origin of the Deuteronomic treaty of the
great King." 44/43
Many scholars will allow that archaeology has demonstrated the "essential
of many historical
reliability" facts within the biblical record, but they still
contend that these facts, along with legend and myth were passed "orally"
for a millennium or more. But Deuteronomy's form demonstrates that it
had to be written in the middle of the second millennium B.C. Otherwise
no account can be given for its literary format.
3A. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE ALLEGED D SOURCE
IB. Introduction
The crucial role which Deuteronomy plays in the entire documentary scheme
is recognized by Radical critic George Dahl acknowledges this truth:
all.
"By unanimous consent this book is accorded a central and pivotal position in
the study of Old Testament history, literature and religion. The epochal
reconstruction of the course of Hebrew history, which it has been the supreme
service and merit of critical Biblical scholarship to mediate, depends for its
validity first of all upon the essential correctness of our dating of
Deuteronomy. In particular, the identification of the so-called Fifth Book of
Moses with the book of the law mentioned in 2 Kings 22f. is generally
regarded as the very keystone of the arch of Old Testament research." 94/360
"The Code of Deuteronomy," Rowley concurs, "is ... of vital importance in
Pentateuchal criticism, since it is primarily by relation to it that the other
documents are dated." 54/29
There is also little disagreement among scholars of all positions that the book
which was discovered in the temple in 621 B.C., sparking the reforms of King
Josiah (II Kings 22 and 23), was essentially the book which we now call
Deuteronomy. But there is much disagreement over the date of its original
authorship: the radical critics assign it to a time not long before the 621
discovery, while others insist that it must be dated from the time of Moses.
2B. Statements
IC. STATEMENTS FREQUENTLY RECURRING
Von Rad, speaking of Deuteronomy, tells us that the most frequent phrases
show the most important thoughts.
Research into the most common phrases reveals the following groupings:
(a) memories of the past in Egypt.
(b) Yahweh's covenant for protection from Canaanite influence in the
land.
(c) entry into the land.
(d) national unity (with no mention of the split kingdom of the seventh
century B.C.).
(e) sin and cleansing (all of an exceedingly different nature from the
eighth century B.C. denunciations for moral evils).
(f) blessings when the land will be entered. 123/28-36
Pederson describes the purpose of the entire book thus: "The main object
of the book, in its present shape, is to protect the Israelite community

against Canaanite influence." 82/27
These theme ideas sharply contrast with any period in the first millennium
B.C., but harmonize perfectly with the period the book claims for itself—
immediately preceding the entrance into Canaan in the second millen-
nium B.C.
2C. GEOGRAPHICAL STATEMENTS
Manley's words quite aptly summarize the geographical attestations for the
antiquity of this book:
"When we review the geographical data as a whole," Manley observes, "the
details appear to be much too accurate to be due either to chance or to
oral tradition. The account of the journeyings in chapters i-iii is altogether
realistic and quite unlike an introduction prefixed to a collection of old
laws; it bears every sign of originality. The views described and the features
of the Moabite country reproduced must have been seen by human eyes;
the antiquarian notes also belong to the period and are not the result of
archaeological research.
"The omissions also are significant: there is no hint of Jerusalem, nor of
Ramah, dear to Samuel's heart, not even of Shiloh, where the tabernacle
came to rest. Everything points to its historical character and early date."
123/64
3B. Style
Radical critic Norman Habel succinctly phrases this accusation that the D
writing is different from the restof the Pentateuch:
"The style and jargon of Deuteronomy are very obvious. They stand in sharp
contrast to the literary characteristics of the rest of the Pentateuch. When
compared with Genesis through Numbers, Deuteronomy presents a new
world of terms, thought patterns, groups of expressions, and stereotype
idioms." 107/12
Dahl mentions another distinctive aspect of this book's style:
"The developed oratorical style of Deuteronomy, smooth, flowing and

sustained, presupposes a long literary history behind it." 94/372
But the alleged in style and the contradictions between
differences
Deuteronomy and the of the Pentateuch are mainly caused by their
rest
respective standpoints. Leviticus, for example is a codified law book which
the priests are to use, while Deuteronomy is made up of popular addresses.
Therefore, we are not surprised to find that in Deuteronomy Moses uses an
oratorical style, edits details, emphasizes practical issues and often includes
directions regarding the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan. 53/113
And to say with Dahl (as do many scholars) that the oratorical style indicates
a long period of development is so irresponsible as to barely merit a response.
It would seem probable that a book recording the speeches of a great orator
would display a "developed oratorical style" without needing a long period of
evolution. Besides that, examples abound of literature with a smooth and
developed style which has no longer period of development.
A final stylistic point is emphasized by Manley:
"The same style can to some extent be perceived in some of the earlier
speeches of Moses recorded in the Pentateuch." 123/27
4B. Antiquity of Legislation
The radical argument for a late date based on legislative consideration is
competently related by Dahl:

"In general, .it would appear that the relationship of Deuteronomy lies in
. .
the general direction of expansion and development of the earlier laws. Its
code reflects a distinctly more advanced and complicated community life

than that underlying Ex. 21-23 (34)." 94/367
G.T. Manley, a respected British Old Testament scholar, conducted a
detailed and thorough study of each of the Pentateuchal laws to discover if
this bold claim were indeed true. His startling conclusions are quoted:
"It has to be admitted that the Wellhausen scheme breaks down upon a close
examination of the laws.
"1. The absolute dating has no foundation. There is nothing specific to
connect the laws of JE with the early monarchy, those of Deuteronomy with
621 B.C., nor those of P with the exile.
"On the contrary, laws of great antiquity are found in all these, and some are
peculiar to each— rather they bear the appearance of contemporary layers of
material.
"2. The statement that Deuteronomy xii-xxvi is an 'expansion' of the JE code
ismisleading. A few of the old laws and precepts are repeated, more of the
same type are omitted; where a law is modified there is no sign that it has
been adapted to the needs of the seventh century. The material peculiar to
Deuteronomy includes much that is demonstrably old, and nothing
manifestly of a late origin.
"The two groups of laws appear to be complementary and roughly con-
temporary.
"3.The argument for the chronological sequence JE, D, P, fares no better; it
cannot rightly be said that Deuteronomy shows dependence on JE and
ignorance of P; it has some elements in common with both, rather more with
the latter.
"The laws of Lv. xi concerning food reappear in Dt. xiv in a different form,
but one which shows no difference of period. Deuteronomy asserts the
existence of a priestly law concerning leprosy, and assumes the existence of
laws of sacrifice, such as are found in P.
"4. The laws of Dt. xii-xxvi follow naturally upon the preceding discourse in
chapters v-xi and appear quite suitable to the place and occasion stated in iv.
44-49. The parenetic additions also, where they occur, belong to the period
when the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt was a living memory, and
are quite different from the exhortations which Isaiah addressed to a
disillusioned and sophisticated people." 123/94, 95
Later in the same monograph (The Book of the Law), Manley adds these
observations:
"If the author be a reformer addressing the people of Judah groaning under
the evils of Manasseh's rule, he is wonderfully successful in concealing the
fact. He encumbers his programme of reform with a number of obsolete,
impracticable and irrelevant laws; he betrays no hint of the divided kingdom,
or of the promises to David; and whilst the possibility of a king is envisaged,
the civil law entirely ignores his existence.
"The author of Deuteronomy issues laws which he expects to be obeyed; this is
not the attitude of the reforming prophets, who call upon Israel to repent over
laws that have been broken. This contrast with the prophetic utterances goes
down to the very heart of the book, and colours the legislation throughout.
"From this aspect also the only time which provides a suitable background for
the legislation is the pre-prophetic period." 123/121
5B. Statements Alleged to Oppose Mosaic Authorship and Antiquity of D
(a) The phrase "beyond the Jordan" to refer to the region east of the Jor-
dan. It is contended that, since Deuteronomy claims to have been
written in that region, "beyond the Jordan" could only refer to Canaan
proper, on the western side. However, it has been adequately demon-
strated that this phrase was simply a technical term for that region, even
as it was known as Paraea ("The Other-side Land") during the New
Testament times and has more recently been known as Transjordania
(even to its inhabitants). 11/244, 123/49
(b) The phrase "until this day." Here it is urged that this indicates a great
lapse of time since the event mentioned. Yet in each instance of its
usage, it is highly appropriate that Moses use this phrase in light of only
the previous forty year period, to indicate that a situation has persisted
until these final days of his life. 1 1/243
(c) The account of Moses' death in Deuteronomy 34. But it is quite

reasonable to assume that Joshua included this account, just as often an
obituary is added to the final work of a man of great letters. 1 1/244 And
it is worthy of note here that the other events of the book cover all of
Moses' life, and never transgress that limit. 123/172

6B. Centralized Worship
The adherents to the Documentary Hypothesis assume that at the time of
Moses there was a plurality of sanctuaries that were permitted or
legitimate. Then at the time of Josiah (621 B.C.) there was a religious
revival and the major reform was the establishing of a central sanctuary in
Jerusalem.
The main function of the Code of Deuteronomy, which was found in the
temple at the time of Josiah, was to put an end to the various places of
worship.
It is held that Exodus 20:24 is an "old law" which commanded the building
of altars in various parts of the land. 80/136-138. These locations of
worship were appropriate and the Israelites were to worship Yahweh at
these sanctuaries. Then, at the publication of Deuteronomy, the wor-
shipping was to be permitted only at the central sanctuary in Jerusalem
and worship at the multiplicity of sanctuaries was forbidden.
2C. BASIC ANSWER
ID. "You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it
your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your
oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will
come to you and bless you" (Exodus 20:24).
Nowhere does this verse speak of sanctuaries. It mentions only altars.
Since this is the first legal directive about worship in the Pentateuch
(except for the second commandment), it is to be connected with the
patriarchal and Mosaic period. Thus "in every place where I cause My
name to be remembered" refers to such places as the plain of Moreh
(Genesis 12:16), Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:2), Beersheba (Genesis
26:23), Bethel (Genesis 35:1) and Rephidim (Exodus 17:8, 15).
To this G.T. Manley adds that "the statement that when Deuteronomy
was composed the old law 'was revoked, and worship centralized in
Jerusalem' is also contrary to the facts and inconsistent with the theory
itself. Would any author engaged on an 'expansion' of the JE code
revoke an important element in it without a word of explanation?"
87/131
"If the legislator," writes G.C. Aalders, "was thinking of sanctuaries, of
which no mention whatever had been made previously, he undoubtedly
would have indicated it more clearly. So the text certainly does not
mean a plurality of sanctuaries; at most it refers to a multiplicity of

altars." 1/72
2D. To the above, one could say that a plurality of altars speaks of a
multiplicity of sanctuaries.
The phrase "in every place where I cause My name to be remembered"
does not necessarily mean that this is done simultaneously.
Aalders points out that "as a rule the Hebrew noun kol, when combined
with another noun provided with the definite article, as is the case here,
indicates rather a number of persons or things m
succession, especially
when the noun added is singular. We point to the well-known kol hayom
of which 'always' is the ordinary sense, that is to say: 'all successive days*;
to Ex. i. 22 where 'every son' and 'every daughter' naturally refers to all
children born successively; to On. xx. 13 where 'every place whither we
shall come' cannot but indicate a number of places reached by
Abraham and Sarah in succession; and to Dt. xi. 24; I Sa. iii. 17, etc. It
istherefore incorrect to state that the expression 'in all places where I
record my name' must be understood of a number of places of worship
existing at the same time." 1/73
3D. It is interesting that the exhortation chapters (5-11) of Deuteronomy do

not once mention the place of worship. Deuteronomy 12 demands, not
the unification of worship, but its purification. It needed to be
protected from pagan and idolatrous influence and cleansed from the
idols and abominations that had defiled it.
4D . Deuteronomy 12:13, 14 contains a warning about the central sanctuary:

"Be careful that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every cultic
place you see, but in the place which the Lord chooses in one of your
tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do
all that I command you."
The documentary assumption is that "in every cultic place you see"
refers to the previous multiple sanctuaries that are now being forbidden.
However, 12:15 must give it another connotation:
"However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your gates,
whatever you desire, according to the blessing of the Lord your God
which He has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of
the gazelle and the deer."
Verses 13 and 14 are limited by the word "however" in 15. Verse 13 is
speaking of "burnt offerings" which are to be presented in a sanctuary
whose existence is presupposed. But, the phrase "in every place" in verse
13 does not refer to a condemnation of previous altars but to be taken
synonymously with "within any of your gates" in verse 15. Therefore, the
meaning of verses 13-15 is that cattle can be slaughtered anywhere but
burnt offerings are not to be presented everywhere.
Contrary to the documentary assumption verse 13 does not "require that
there should be a concentration of worship in contrast to a previous time
when various cult-places were legitimate, but it simply cautions the
Israelite not to offer burnt offerings wherever he might wish, and limits
these offerings to the one sanctuary whose existence is presupposed."
1/75
5D. There are many situations that presuppose a central sanctuary prior to
Josiah's reformation in 621 B.C.: "the house of God" Judges 18:31; "the
temple of the Lord" I Samuel 1:9, 3:3.
The following references refer to a simple sanctuary: I Samuel 1:3;
Exodus 23:17, 19; 34:23. 26 (cf. Deuteronomy 16:16). These are

directly connected with the sanctuary: I Samuel 21:4; Exodus 25:30;
Leviticus 24:5; I Samuel 21:9 (cf. Exodus 28:6).
6D. I Kings 8:4 records that the elders and priests brought the ark and all
the holy vessels to the tabernacle. Aalders writes that "to understand
how any one can imagine that even at that time a multiplicity of sanc-
tuaries existed and was deemed legitimate. The beautiful temple with
its glorious wealth and grandeur must naturally have occupied such a
prominent place in the religious life of the people that it is utteriy in-
conceivable how it could have had a number of rival sanctuaries. This is
confirmed by the proceedings of Jeroboam, the first ruler of the Nor-
thern Kingdom, who feared lest the heart of the people might turn
again unto Rehoboam, the king of Judah, if they went up to sacrifice in
the house of the Lord at Jerusalem (I Ki.xii. 27). He therefore instituted
two places of worship, one in Beth-el and the other in Dan (verses 28 f.).
This proves that in his days the people were accustomed to bring their
offerings to the temple, and that the temple was the central sanctuary
for the whole people of Israel. It could not therefore have been necessary
in the days of King Josiah to concentrate the cult at the temple, since the
temple had been the uncontested centre of worship from its foun-
dation." 1/79, 80
7D. The text of II Kings 22:8-13 beseeches us to conclude that the "book of
the law" which was found was an old book. The phrase "our fathers
have not listened to the words of this book" (II Kings 22:13) and this
being the cause of the wrath of God indicate its antiquity.
G.T. Manley says: "It was at once recognized as the 'book of the law,'
which suggests that such a book was known to have existed, but had
been lost or forgotten. These things could not have been if the book
were known by some to be the work of men still living." 87/125
8D. There is no apparent close connection between Deuteronomy and the
events surrounding Josiah. They agree in their denouncing of the sins of

wizardry and idolatry but these same sins are also denounced in other
parts of the Pentateuch. "But certain evils of the time," writes Manley,
"such as the k'mdTtm ('idolatrous priests'), though known to Hosea (x. 5)
and Zephaniah (i. 4, 5), and put down by Josiah (II Ki. xxiii. 5), are
ignored in Deuteronomy. The same is true of the burning of incense to
Baal (Ho. ii. 13, xii. 2; II Ki. xxiii. 5), and of the 'sun-images' (Is. xvii.
8. xxvii. 9; II Ch. xxxiv. 4)." 87/125
"On the other hand," continues Manley, "there are many commands in
Deuteronomy, such as the destruction of the Amalekites and the
assigning of the cities of refuge, which are not mentioned as part of
Josiah's reform, and would have been anachronisms at that time."
87/125
9D. Deuteronomy 27:1-8. One of the most formidable barriers to the
documentary assumption of centralization is the command in
Deuteronomy 27:1-8 in which Moses is told to build an altar on Mount
Ebal. This passage uses the same words as Exodus 20:24 about an altar
that Deuteronomy was supposed to forbid or revoke.
The construction of this altar, commanded by Yahweh (Deuteronomy
27) is accomplished in Joshua 8:30, 31. It is no wonder that S.R. Driver
recognizes that this passage produces "considerable critical difficulties"
and that "it stands in a most unsuitable place." 80/294
lOD. Sacrifices at "altars" and "high places"

The writer is indebted to the publisher and author of The Book of the
Law for allowing the generous quoting of the following treatment of the
Hebrew 6ama/i— "high places."
LOCAL SANCTUARIES
"The term 'local sanctuaries' is somewhat vague, and if used loosely is
apt to mix together things which differ, and which need separate
treatment. The information at our disposal concerning local altars is
scanty, and the shortage of facts encourages speculation. It is tempting
to group together every place of sacred memories or where a sacrifice is
recorded, and to reckon them all as permanent sanctuaries, each with a
complement of sacrificing priests who followed a particular ritual and
built up its own body of traditions. The wiser course, however, is to
adhere as closely as possible to the record and to observe certain obvious
distinctions, such as between acts on the one hand which claimed divine
sanction and, on the other, cases where the people 'did evil in the sight
of the Lord.*
"We shall begin with a brief survey of what is recorded of sacrifices, (1)
at altars and (2)
at high places, in the books of Joshua to 2 Samuel, that
is, before the temple was built.
"In these books there are seven instances of an 'altar' being erected, two
in connection with theophanies (Jdg. vi. 26-28, xiii. 20), and five on
other occasions (Jos. viii. 30; Jdg. xxi. 2-4; I Sa. vii. 17, xiv. 35; 2 Sa.
xxiv. 25). Moreover there is the statement in Jos. ix. 27 concerning the
Gibeonites serving the 'altar of the Lord,' presumably at the tabernacle,
and the story of the 'altar of witness' in Jos. xxii.
"It is a curious faa, and may be only a coincidence, that both in these
books and in the legislation of Deuteronomy, the plural 'altars' occurs
only once, and then in each case in reference to those of the Canaanites
Odg. ii. 2; Dt. xii. 2).
"We read also of sacrifices at Bethlehem (I Sa. xvi. 5, xx. 29) and Gilgal
(I Sa. xiii. 8) and by the men of Beth-shemesh in the presence of the ark
(ISa.vi. 15).
"Gideon's altar was still standing when the story was written, and that at
Shechem at the time of Joshua's death (Jos. xxiv. 26); the site of David's
altar was used for the temple. The others fade into oblivion.
"The (b&m&h) is not the same as the 'altar.' The two words
'high place'
and meaning and call for separate treatment.
differ in origin
"The word bdm&h is absent from Joshua and Judges, but in I Samuel
two are mentioned.
"There was one at Ramah to which Samuel 'went up' (I Sa. ix. 13), and
one nearby the of God,' from which a band of musical prophets
'hill
came 'down' (I Sa. x. 5). On the former was a 'guest chamber* where
Samuel entertained thirty persons at a sacrificial feast. The language
employed shows that these b&mdth were, or were situated upon,
eminences.
"This ends our information about sacrifices offered to Yahweh, which
are authorized and approved. When under the judges the people
'forsook the Lord and served Baal and Ashtaroth' (Jdg. li. 13), this was
something quite different, and was condemned.
"A new phase is introduced with the building of the temple; the tone
changes, and the word bim&h begins to acquire a new and evil con-
notation. A
transition can be seen in I Ki. ill. 1-4, where the writer tells
us that 'the people still sacrificed in high places because there was no
house built to the name of the Lord until those days'; this practice on the
part of 'the people' is deprecated rather than condemned.
"We next read that Solomon walked 'in the statutes of David his father;
only he sacrificed and burned incense in high places,' which also in-
volves a tone of disapproval. The writer adds: 'The king went to Gibeon
to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place' (I Ki. iii. 4).
"Here the LXX

translates viii><ordTrf Kal ntydXv (highest and great), as
elevation was in mind (Gibeon being the highest point in the
if its lofty
region); but possibly the reference is to the presence of the tabernacle
there (cf. II Ch. i. 1-3). Up to this point the notion of height lingers
about the word b&mdh; it now disappears, and it comes to represent
some kind of structure which can be 'built' (I Ki. xiv. 23), and destroyed
and rebuilt II Ki. xxi. 3), in a city or in a gateway (II Ki. xxiii. 8).
"The continued existence of the bamdth is considered a blot on the
record of otherwise good kings: the building of them by the people is
condemned outright (I Ki. xiv. 22-24), a condemnation passed equally
upon the beth- bamdth, whatever their exact nature may have been (I
Ki. xii. 31; II Ki. xvii. 29, xxiii. 19).
"This disapproval cannot be attributed merely to the Deuteronomic bias
of the author, for it is expressed with great vigour by the prophets also
(Ho. viii. 11, X. 1; Am. iii. 14, iv. 4-6, v. 4-6; Mi. i. 7; Is. ii. 8).
"The ground of objection has no relevance to a centralizing law, but is
to the idolatry and corruption introduced by syncretism with the
Canaanite religion, against which stem warnings had been given not
only in Dt. xii. 29-32, but earlier in Ex. xxxiv. 12-16 (J).
"In the northern kingdom the pure religion of Yahweh was threatened
with extinction by the royal patronage of the Phoenician Ba'al worship
under Ahab and Jezebel. This was fiercely contested by Elijah; the altars
of Yahweh to which he referred (I Ki. xix. 10) may have been erected by
pious Israelites who were prevented from going up to Jerusalem to
worship, or were possibly some of more ancient origin.
"Archaeology has little to add to this picture. Canaanite shrines which

have been discovered at Gezer and elsewhere belong to the pre- Israelite
period, and 'it still requires explanation why no Hebrew high place or
other shrine for worship, whether of Yahweh or of some "strange god," is
known from the period of Hebrew domination and the area of Hebrew
occupation in Palestine.'
"This is the historical background, cleared of conjecture, against which
Wellhausen's interpretations must be judged." 87/128-131
IID. Aalders concludes: "The advocates of the documentary theory criticize
it as 'subjective history'; but such a verdict is not scientific. On the
contrary, we must apply the accusation to the theory itself, which having
forced an interpretation upon the Pentuteuchal code which has ab-
solutely no foundation in the wording of the law, rewrites history in
order to bring the facts in harmony with this interpretation; and finally
assigns all historical evidence discordant with its supposition to a
'deuteronomic' redactor! Against such a method the most energetic
protest must be raised." 1/81
7B. Sec the following section for information on the antiquity of P and the
ubernacle.
8B. Conclusion
On the basis of the internal evidence, we are left with a number of extremely
difficultproblems if we tenaciously retain the late-date position for D. Besides
the problems mentioned above, we must ask other questions of those holding
to a seventh century B.C. date. Since the author was clearly a preacher of
distinction and of power (even founding a 'Deuteronomic* school of writers,
according to the documentarians), why are we left with no trace of his name
or person in the mid-first millennium B.C.? If he is such an effective refor-
mer, why does he only denounce the sins of his ancestors? If his code of rules is
intended to revoke an old Mosaic law, why does he ascribe them to Moses
himself? If his purpose is to centralize worship in Jerusalem, why does he never
show a knowledge of its existence? And why would he hide his book in the
temple? 123/142
Moreover, given that it is of a late date and thus a forgery. Raven has
discussed the "many persons in Judah who had powerful motives for exposing
this forgery if it was one. The wicked people whom the book condemned
would have seized the opportunity of condemning it as a forgery." 53/1 12
4A. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE ALLEGED P SOURCE
Driver has asserted:
"The pre-Exilic period shows no indications of P being in operation." 18/136
And Wellhausen has confidently affirmed:
"To any one who knows anything about history it is not necessary to prove that
the so-called Mosaic theocracy, which nowhere suits the circumstances of the
earlier periods, and of which the prophets, even in their most ideal
delineations of the Israelite state as it ought to be have not the faintest shadow
of an idea, is, so to speak, a perfect fit for post-exiHan Judaism, and had its
actuality only there." 63/151
2B. Basic Answer

IC. We may discover if the Priestly writing is indeed a "perfect fit" for the post-
exilic period by testing P in light of the writings of Ezra, Nehemiah,
Esther, Haggai. Zechariah. and Malachi. If its ideas may be shown to be
harmonious with these writers and contradictory to the earlier ones, the
radical claim will be strengthened.
ID. Features present in P, but absent from the post-exilic period:
tabernacle
ark, ten commandments, Urim and Thummim
day of atonement
cities of refuge
test of adultery by ordeal
wave offerings
Korban
2D. Features present in P and in the pre-exilic period, but absent from the
post-exilic period:
circumcision, which is heavily emphasized in pre-exilic Joshua and I and

II Samuel
significance of blood
leprosy
Nazarites
various offerings
3D. Features present in P and in both periods:

sabbath
passover
feast of unleavened bread

feast of tabernacles
4D. Features absent from P, yet prominent in post-exilic period:
divine name "Yahweh of hosts"— 86 times in post-exilic authors

singing and music as central in worship
scribes
use of sackcloth
designation of central sanctuary as the "temple"
mention of legislation concerning the post-exilic industrial revolution
112/39
city of Jerusalem 10/196-199
The radical critics have failed to adequately deal with any of these
astonishing discrepancies when assigning to P a date in the sixth century
B.C. O.T. Allis is forced to conclude:
"The claim that the Priest Code fits the post-exilic period like a glove is
as little justified as the claim that it does not fit the pre-exilic period."
10/201
2C. INTERNAL EVIDENCE AND PS RELATION TO THE OTHER
SOURCES
If P is the last source to be recorded, it follows that no other sources would
show a knowledge of P. Many such statements have been issued, such as the
declaration by Driver, "nor is the legislation of P presupposed in
Deuteronomy." 18/137
However, the following facts make it difficult to honestly affirm that P was
unknown until the sixth century B.C.
ID. Material dealing with Aaron is usually assigned to document P. Ac-
cording to Brightman, "Aaron is missing from J and only incidental in
E." This is accomplished by deleting all 13 occurrences in J. 96/459
5D. Deuteronomy 14:320 - a passage almost identical to one in Leviticus,
forcing Driver to acknowledge:

"That it is borrowed by D from P— or at least from a priestly collection
of ôroM — rather than conversely, appears from certain features of style
which connect it with P and not with Deuteronomy If so, however,
one part of P was in existence when Deuteronomy was written." 18/137,
138
SD. The following list definitely substantiates the antiquity of the law and
shows that P was known in the pre-exilic times.
Deuteronomy 15:1 the year of release (as in Leviticus 25:2)
-
Deuteronomy 23:9, 10 ceremonial impurity (as in Leviticus 15)

Deuteronomy 24:8 - a law of leprosy given to the priests (Leviticus 15
and 14)
Amos 2:11, 12 Nazarites forbidden wine (Numbers 6:1-21 [P])
-
Amos 4:5 proscription of leaven in sacrifices (Leviticus 2:11)

-
Amos 5:22 burnt, meat, and peace offerings (Leviticus 7 and 8)

-
Amos 4:5 free will offering (Leviticus 7, etc.)

-
Amos 5:21 solemn assembly (Leviticus 23, etc.)

-
Hosea 12:9 dwelling in booths (Leviticus 23:42) 42/150. 151

-
The could be extended but the point has been established. We must
list
decide with Archer that "already in 755 B.C. there was a written body of
law, including both P and D, and labeled by the prophet himself as the
Torah of Yahweh (Amos 2:4), and accepted by his public as an
authentic and authoritative body of legislation binding upon them."
11/151
And Allis effectively expresses this conclusion:

"When the critics reject those statements in the record which indicate
that the law was ancient, they are not only guilty of tampering with the
evidence, but they also make the denunciations uttered by Israel's
historians and prophets of her failure to keep the law both farcical and
cruel. For these teachers of Israel insisted that all of Israel's sufferings
were due to the failure of the people to keep a law which, if the critics
are correct, was unknown to them." 10/202
3C. GENESIS 17
Samuel R. Rolling in "The Dating of the So-Called 'P-sections' in Genesis,"
an abstract of his book published under the title Zur Datierung Der
"Genesis- P-Stucke" Namentlich Des Kapitels Genesis XVII, writing about
Genesis 17 and circumcision says that the "form, style and content of
Genesis 17 belong to the 2nd millenium [sic] B.C. and have nothing to do
with post-exilic writers. As Mendenhall (Law and Covenant, 1955), Baltzer
(Das Bundesformular, 1960), M.G. Kline (Treaty of the Great King,
1963), have done, and previous to this Wiener (Studies in Biblical Law,
1904), among others, I draw a parallel to the Vassal Treaties and show how
Genesis 17, as to construction and style, is similar to these treaties of the
middle of the 2nd millenium [sic] B.C., which no longer exist in this form
after the year 1200 B.C. There is, moreover, no motive for reproducing the
chapter in this form later in view of the fact that the structure of the
treaties of later periods is different." 196/68
4C. GENESIS 9
This section attributed to the P sourceis said to be late and is a reference to
the Persian period. The critic often says that the eating and spilling of
blood are a rejection of the holy war.
Railing concludes that the same reasons for "rejecting a priestly tendency
writing for the exilic- post exilic period, also applies to a Persian period:
Just why an exilic-postexilic priest should select from the food laws one
that allows the eating of meat without blood is quite unexplainable,
especially because no particular reason is given by the writer. For the
exilic-postexilic period it appears superfluous to grant a general per-
mission to eat meat (Genesis 9:3). In this period a law differentiating
between prohibited and non- prohibited meats would be more un-
derstandable. It is just verse 3 which indicates that there is no exilic-
postexilic priestly interest involved and that the levitical legislation is not
yet in existence.
"'A priestly tendency cannot be recognized. If there had been any special
danger of an undue consumption of blood in the exilic-postexilic period it
would then not have been necessary to first permit meat to be eaten and
after this to forbid the eating of blood. However, the so-called exilic-
postexilic sources indicate no such danger and I Samuel 14:32-34 presumes
such a prohibition.'" 196/75
5C. THE TABERNACLE
ID. Documentarian Assumption
Usually the documentarian passes off the tabernacle in Exodus as a
"pure fantasy." The entire Exodus account is attributed to the P
document and is considered late and unreliable.
The structure is thought to be too elaborate for the time of Moses. It is
alleged to be the pure creation of the post-exilic imagination.

It has been proposed that the Hebrews of Moses' age did not have the
skills necessary to construct such an elaborate tabernacle or tent.
1 14 MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT
Wellhausen writes:
"The temple, the focus to which the worship was concentrated, and
which was not built until Solomon's time, is by this document regarded
as so indispensable even for the troubled days of the wanderings before
the settlement, that it is made portable, and in the form of a tabernacle
set up in the very beginning of things. For the truth is, that the taber-
nacle is the copy, not the prototype, of the temple at Jerusalem." 63/36,
37
Wellhausen continues that "the tabernacle rests on an historical fic-
tion .... at the outset its very possibility is doubtful." 63/39
A. Bentzen says the tabernacle is "quite unrealistic." 13/34
"The Tabernacle, as described by P, represents, not a historical

structure, which once actually existed, but an ideal, an ideal, based—
indeed upon a historical reality, but far transcending it, and designed as
the embodiment of certain spiritual ideas." 81/426
2D. Basic Answer

Kenneth Kitchen, in "Some Egyptian Background to the Old
Testament," enumerates the various archaeological discoveries that give
a general background of portable structures very close in most essentials
to the Mosaic tabernacle.
The first one is dated about 2600 B.C. and is the prefabricated, por-
table bed canopy of Queen Hetepheres I, who was the mother of Kheops
who constructed the great pyramid.
"This remarkable structure," writes Kitchen, "is a framework of long
beams along top and bottom separated by vertical rods and comer-posts
on three sides of a rectangle, with a lintel beam and other horizontal
'roof-beams' across the top. The entire structure was of wood, was
throughout overlaid with gold, had hooks for curtains all round, and
consisted entirely of beams and rods fitting together with tenons in
sockets for rapid and customary erection and dismantling, just like the
Hebrew Tabernacle thirteen centuries later." 72/9
There are various prefabricated structures from the Archaic and Old
Kingdom periods (ca. 2850-2200). G.A. Reisner and W.S. Smith
describe further structures that were depicted on the walls of tombs of
the fourth to sixth dynasties (ca. 2600-2200 B.C.). 76/14, 15
Another form of prefabricated structures going back to the third

millennium B.C. is described by Kitchen. He writes about "the Tent of
Purification (ibw) to which the corpses of royal and exalted personages
were borne for the rituals of purification both before and after em-
balmment. From pictures in Old Kingdom tombs, it is clear that these
portable 'tents' were sizeable structures having hangings of cloth (like
curtaining) upon a framework of vertical poles or pillars linked along
the top by horizontal bars and beams— again, directly reminiscent of
the Tabernacle. (B. Grdseloff, Das Aegyptische Retnigungszelt, 1941,
plus E. Drioton, Annales du Service des AntiquiUs de I'^ypte, 40,
(1940), 1008. Good pictures of "Tent of Purification" showing con-
struction in Blackman. Rock Tombs of Meir, V, 1952, Pis. 42, 43)."
252/9, 10
The relics of several of these "tents" have been discovered. See Kitchen
(72/10) and Reisner and Smith (76/13-17) for further descriptions of
these.
Kitchen indicates that "clearer evidence of the practicality and actual
use at a remote age of the very constructional techniques exemplified by
the Tabernacle could hardly be wished for." 72/9

R.K. Harrison concludes:
"In view of this evidence there seems to be no adequate reason for
denying the existence of a structure such as the Tabernacle to the
Hebrews of the Mosaic period." 32/405
Kitchen adds:
"Hitherto-neglected Egyptian evidence for prefabricated structures for
religious and other uses definitively refutes the charge of late fantasy
with very early examples of the constructional techniques so airily
dismissed." 72/9
To this Kitchen says that "it is now entirely unnecessary to dismiss either
the concept or construction of the Tabernacle of Ex. xxvi, xxxvi as
fantasy or free idealisation. The Egyptian data here adduced cannot of
course directly prove the early existence of that Tabernacle, but it does
create a very strong presumption in favour of the reasonableness and
veracity of the straightforward Biblical account." 72/11
Against the objection that the Hebrews at the time of Moses did not
possess the necessary ability to construct such an elaborate structure,
R.K. Harrison writes that "it need only be remarked that the Egyptians
placed a high value upon Semitic craftsmanship in precious metals
when it came to exacting tribute from subjugated areas of Syria and
Palestine, as illustrated by a number of tomb-scenes." 32/405. See also
251/34
Kitchen concludes that "it is sometimes objected that as a subject-race
before the Exodus, the Hebrews would have no skills such as the work of
the Tabernacle required, and could hardly have obtained the necessary
materials even from spoiling the Egyptians. However, this is far from
being necessarily the case. . amply sufficient skills to furnish a Bezalel
. .
and an Oholiab, and from the Egyptians in the E. Delta at that par-
ticular epoch spoils (Ex. xii, 35-36) amply sufficient for the work of the
Tabernacle." 72/12, 13
G.T. Manley writes:
"It is true that the unity of the nation and the one-ness of Yahweh called
for one sanctuary round which the people could gather. But this was no
discovery of later times, it went back to the covenant in Horeb (Ex.
xxxiv. 23; Dt. V. 2, 6, vi. 2). The simple fact is that from Joshua onwards
there always existed a national centre for worship, first the tabernacle,
then the temple." 87/127
For further information on the tabernacle, see three excellent chapters
on its antiquity in The Unity of the Pentateuch by A.H. Finn.
Concerning the belief that there were two different representations of
the "Tent of Meeting," one in the early JE passages and another in the
late P passages, see A.H. Finn above and also James Orr in The Problem
of the Old Testament.
6C. See the preceding section for information on the antiquity of D and
centralized worship.
7C. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
Archaeology has recently provided us with two powerful supports for the
early dating of the Priestly writings.
Kitchen describes the first find:
"Certain difficult expressions and passages in Leviticus could be solved

only with cuneiform data of the eighteenth to fifteenth centuries B.C
these were archaic and obscure by the post-exilic period." 42/129

The Ras Shamra tablets (1400 B.C.), which contain a large amount of
Ugaritic literature, render the Wellhausen post-exilic concept void. Many
of the technical sacrificial terms of Leviticus were discovered in far
removed Canaanite-speaking Ugarit (1400 B.C.). Such P terms as:
1) ishsheh - "offering made by fire"
2) kaltl - "whole burnt offering"
3) shelamin - "peace offering"
4) CLsham (?) - "guilt offering"
Archer is correct in concluding that "these terms were already current in
Palestine at the time of Moses and the conquest, and that the whole line of
reasoning which made out the terminology of the Levitical cultus to be late
is devoid of foundation." 11/149, 150
3B. External Evidence

See page 99. regarding covenant-form analysis.
5A. ARCHAEOLOGY
IB. Antiquity of the Penuteuch - Internal Evidence
Optimum any written document may be achieved
objectivity in dating
through examining internal evidence. Clues may be discovered in allusions to
current events, geographical or climatic conditions, prevalent flora and
fauna and eye-witness involvement. And from these clues can be established a
reasonably accurate estimate of the place and date of the origin of the
document. 11/101
There is a substantial amount of internal evidence that the Pentateuch, both
in its form and content, is very much older than the ninth-fifth century B.C.
dating scheme assigned to it by the critics.
The following are a few examples of the internal details which indicate the
antiquity of the Pentateuch:
IC. THE DESERT SETTING OF EXODUS- NUMBERS
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are quite obviously aimed at a people
wandering in the desert, not a nation of farmers settled for centuries in
their promised land. Otherwise, the frequent and detailed descriptions of
the portable tabernacle are absurd. The meticulous instructions for en-
campment (Numbers 2:1-31) and for marching (Numbers 10:14-20) would
be irrelevant for a settled nation, but eminently practical for the desert
experience. Desert references are abundant, including sanitary in-
structions for desert life (Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) and the sending of the
scapegoat into the desert (Leviticus 16:10). 11/106-108
2C. EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE IN PORTIONS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Much of the material in Genesis and Exodus has an obvious Egyptian
background. We would expect this if it was written by Moses (reared in an
Egyptian court) shortly after the Israelites* Exodus from Egypt. But it
would hardly be explainable had it been written, as the documentarians
claim, more than 400 years after the Hebrews left Egypt. [An ambitious
work which discusses the Egyptian background of the stories of Moses and
Joseph in Egypt is Abraham Yahuda's The Language of the Pentateuch in
Its Relationship to Egyptian (1933).]
This Egyptian influence is manifest in at least these different areas:

ID. Geography
The geography of Egypt and Sinai is familiar to the author of these
narratives (i.e., —
Genesis 37 Numbers 10). Many authentic locales
which have been confirmed by modem archaeology are referred to by

the author. Conversely, this author knows little of the Palestinian
geography except by patriarchal tradition. For example, in Genesis 13
when the author wants to convey a picture of the land of Canaan, he
compares it with Egypt, (v. 10). Similarly, in a P passage the author
refers to Hebron by its pre-exilic name Kirjath-arba (Genesis 23:2). And
its founding is explained by the author in Numbers 13:22, in which the
author refers to the building of Zoan in Egypt. The reference to Shalem,
"a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan," is improbable for a
writer whose people had dwelt in Canaan for centuries. The writer of
the Pentateuch generally regards Palestine as a new country which the
Israelites will enter in the future. 11/106
This intimacy with Egyptian geography is especially noticeable in the

case of the second book.
The writer of Exodus had a thorough knowledge of Egyptian territory.
He knew the Egyptian papyrus (Exodus 2:3), the character of the Nile
bank and was well acquainted with the sandy desert (Exodus 2:12). He
knew of such places as Ramses, Succoth (Exodus 12:37), Etham (Exodus
13:20) and Pi-Hahiroth (Exodus 14:2). The mention in Exodus 14:3 that
"the wilderness had shut them in" shows an intimate knowledge of the
geography of Egypt. In fact, chapter 14 cannot be understood without
knowledge of Egyptian geography. 53/109
2D. Diction
"He [author of Genesis and Exodus] uses a greater percentage of
Egyptian words," writes Archer, "than elsewhere in the Old Testament.
For example: (a) the expression abrek (Gen. 41:43— translated 'bow the
knee') is apparently the Egyptian 'b rk ('O heart, bow downl'), although
many other explanations have been offered for this; (b) weights and
measures, such as zeret ('a span') from drt—'hand'; 'ephah ('tenth of a
homer') from 'pt;hin (about five quarts volume) from hnw; (c) gome'
('papyrus') from kmyt; (d) qemah ('flour') from kmhw (a type of bread);
(e) ses ('fine linen') from ss ('linen'); (f) yôr ('Nile, river') from 'trw -
'river' (which becomes eioor in Coptic)." 11/102, 103
This author also makes use of numerous names which are distinctively
Egyptian. These include:
(a) Potipherah (Genesis 41:45; 46:20) and its shorter form Potiphar
(Genesis 37:36; 39: 1) meaning "whom Ra (the Sun-God) gave."
(b) Zaphnath-paaneah (Genesis 41:45), which Pharaoh named Joseph.
The LXX interprets this to mean "saviour of the world"— a fitting
title for the one who delivered Egypt from famine.
(c) Asenath (Genesis 41 :45, 50), Joseph's wife.

(d) On (Genesis 41:45, 50; 46:20), the ancient Egyptian name for
Heliopolis.
(e) Rameses (Genesis 47:11; Exodus 1:11; 12:37; Numbers 33:3, 5).
(f) Pithom (Exodus 1:11), likely the Egyptian Pi-Tum which is first
mentioned in the 19th dynasty monuments, just as Exodus here
recordsit. 53/107, 108
3D. Names of Egyptian Kings

A few Egyptologists committed to the position of radical criticism have
argued that an early author would have certainly mentioned the names
of the contemporary Egyptian kings. But in truth the absence of such
names on Hebrew literature until the time of Solomon actually supports
early authorship. The custom of the New Kingdom Egyptian official
language was to refer to the king simply as "Pharaoh," without con-
necting his name with the title. While the Israelites were in Egypt, they
conformed to this practice. 11/105
It is here also worthy of note that the antiquity of the Old Testament is
supported in the mention of royalty wearing a signet ring and a chain of
gold as a token of authority (Genesis 41:42; Esther 3:10. 12; 8:2, 8, 10;
Daniel 5:29). This was unknown to Israel but existed in ancient Egypt,
Persia and Babylon.
3C. ARCHAISMS IN LANGUAGE

Certain words and phrases that are used in the Pentateuch are known to
have become obsolete after the Mosaic age.
Albright says this about chapter 15 of Genesis:
"The account of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham. is replete
. .
with archaisms; itsantiquity has been established by E.A. Speiser. Here we

have an example of the central place held in early Hebrew religion by the
special god of a man with whom he made a solemn compact, according to
the terms of which the god would protect him and his family in return for
an oath of allegiance. This is a primitive form of the suzerainty treaty. . . .
In the Late Bronze Age the word beritu, Hebrew berit, 'compact,' appears
in Syria and Egypt (where it was a Semitic loanword) in connection with
contract labor and contractual hiring of persons listed in a given
document." 8/8
Archer gives other examples of archaisms:
". the word for the pronoun 'she' is frequently spelled HW* instead of the
. .
regular HY'. We also meet with N'R instead of the feminine form N'RH for
'young girl.* Occasionally (i.e., twice in Genesis) HLZH (hallazeh) appears
for demonstrative 'that' instead of hallaz, the form in use in Judges,
Samuel and thereafter. The verb 'laugh' is spelled SHQ^ (in Genesis and
Exodus) instead of SHQ; 'lamb' is KSB instead of the later KBS (kebei).'*
11/107
This body of evidence should also include the fact that there are places in
the Old Testament where trivial details are mentioned that a later author
would be unlikely to include. For example, when Joseph and the Egyptians
were separated from Joseph's brothers at the table, included is the ex-
planatory note, "the Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews, for
that is loathsome to the Egyptians" (Genesis 43:32). Would a later author
include this? 53/109
On the basis of the above evidence. Archer r--»akes this final evaluation:
"Judging therefore by the internal evidences of the Pentateuchal text we

are driven to the conclusion that the author must have been originally a
resident of Egypt (not of Palestine), a contemporary eyewitness of the
Exodus and wilderness wandering, and possessed of a very high degree of
education, learning and literary skill." 11/101
; MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT 119
2B . Other Archaeological Evidence for Mosaic Authorship

IC. EARLY HEBREW LITERATURE
The traditional destructive higher critical view that Hebrew literature was,
for the most part, comparatively late, still prevails today as can be seen
from this statement byJ.L. McKenzie:

"Itis generally accepted that no Israelite literature was written extensively
before the reign of David." 38/1073

But, because of the recent knowledge of the literacy of the ancient Near
East, it is possible to assign an earlier date to the Pentateuch than has
previously been suggested. It is a fact that the scribes of antiquity recorded
events at the time of their occurrence or shortly after, thus shortening the
time of oral transmission of the material before it was written down. It is
now known that oral transmission was used to disseminate the material to
the people and not primarily to preserve the material, since they had
written records in existence.
That the majority of the Old Testament is of great antiquity is without
question. 33/18. 19
2C. EARLY PARALLELS IN PENTATEUCHAL LAWS
Many of the laws and legal procedures recorded in the Pentateuch are now
known to be much older than was formerly assumed as a result of the
numerous discoveries of parallel laws of other Mesopotamian cultures.
We cite three specific examples:
ID. The Covenant Code
Mendenhall says:
"It hard to conceive of a law code which could be more at variance

is
from what we know of Canaanite culture than the Covenant Code

(Exod. 21— 23— JE). . . The Canaanite cities were predominantly
.
commercial, rigidly stratified in social structure. . The Covenant

. .
Code shows no social stratification, for the slaves mentioned are not
members of the community, with the single exception of the daughter
who is sold as an amah or slave- wife (who is herself strongly protected by
law) .... The laws of the Covenant Code reflect the customs, morality
and religious obligations of the Israelite community (or perhaps some
specific Israelite community of the North) before the monarchy. .
since it exhibits just that mixture of case law and apodictic law
(technique and policy respectively) which we find in covenants from the
Hittite sources and in Mesopotamian codes as well; any study which
assumes that it is a later, artificial composite from originally in-
dependent literary sources may be assigned rather to rational ingenuity
than to historical fact." 47/13, 14
Albright also establishes the antiquity of the Covenant Code:
"Moreover, the Eshnunna Code, which is nearly two centuries older than
the Code of Hammurabi, contains the first exact parallel to an early
biblical law (Ex. xxi. 35, dealing with the division of oxen after a fatal
combat between the animals). Since the Code of Eshnunna is on any
rational theory at least five centuries earlier than the Book of the
Covenant, this parallel becomes particularly interesting. Of course, it is
now becoming a truism that the cultural background of the Book of the
Covenant lies in the Bronze Age, not in the Iron; i.e., it must go back
substantially to the Mosaic Age." 55/39
2D. Land Transaction Recorded in Genesis 23

Archer discusses the antiquity of this particular procedure. Genesis 2S
describes Abraham's reluctance in purchasing an entire traa of land
from Ephron the Hittite, rather desiring only the cave of Machpelah
itself and the immediate grounds. The discovery of the Hittite Legal
Code (dating from 1300 B.C.) provides amazing parallels, and explains
that the owner of an entire parcel must carry out the duties of feudal
service, including pagan religious observances. Thus, Abraham plainly
refused to purchase any more than a portion of the tract so as to avoid
any involvement with gods other than Yahweh. This narrative reflects
such a grasp of Hittite procedure as to make it highly probable that it
preceded the fall of the Hittites in the 13th century B.C. 11/161
3D. Three customs referred to in Genesis
Archer points out that the antiquity of three customs referred to in

Genesis (chapters 16, 27, and 31 respectively) has been established by
archaeology. Many of the ancient customs of Genesis have been proven
to be common in the second millennium B.C., but not in the first
millennium B.C. Nuzi yielded numerous 15th century B.C. legal
documents which spoke of siring legitimate children by handmaidens
(such as Abraham by Hagar); an oral deathbed will as binding (such as
Isaac to Jacob); and need for having the family teraphim (such as
Rachel took from Laban) to claim inheritance rights. 11/107
3C. CONCLUSION
It should be clear at archaeology has done much, not only to
this point that
undermine the Documentary Hypothesis, but also to, in fact, add support
to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
About the Pentateuch Albright says:

"New discoveries continue to confirm the historical accuracy or the literary
antiquity of detail after detail in it." 5/225
Bright makes this statement about the patriarchal narratives:
"No evidence has come to light contradicting any item in the tradition.**
14/67
Albright warns:
"It is. .sheer hypercriticism to deny the substantial Mosaic character of
.
the Pentateuchal tradition." 5/224

Meredith Kline gives an appropriate conclusion:
"The story of twentieth century Biblical archaeology is the story of the
silencing of the clamorous voice of the modem western Wellhausen by the
voiceless witnesses emerging from ancient eastern mounds. The plot of the
story would be clearer were it not for the reluctance of critical scholars to
part with their traditional teachings. But all are now obliged to admit that
far from the Biblical narratives of patriarchal and Mosaic days being alien
to the second millennium B.C. where tht Biblical chronology locates
them, they would be completely out of place in the first millennium B.D.
The BibUcal sequence of Law and Prophets has been vindicated." 83/139
chapter 11
the
phenomenon
divine names
Otto Eissfeldt gives four major foundations of the Documentary Hypothesis:
1) Change in divine names
2) Linguistic usage— (a) persons, places, objects being designated by dif-
ferent names, (b) words, expressions, and stylistic peculiarities are said to
be characteristic of different documents
3) Diversity of ideas— religious, moral, legal, political; also, the difference in
the contemporary conditions and events which they presuppose
4) Literary phenomena— double accounts, interruption of a continuous
narrative by extraneous material, etc. 20/182-188
lA. INTRODUCTION
ELOHIM occurs S3 times in the first 34 verses of Genesis. It is followed by
JEHOVAH (YHWH) ELOHIM 20 times in the next 45 verses, and finally by
JEHOVAH (YHWH) 10 times in the following 25 verses. It would seem that such
selective usage of divine names was more than coincidenta. 10/23
2A. DOCUMENTARY ASSUMPTION
Critics have held that the isolated use of various divine names [i.e., Jehovah
(English pronunciation) or Yahweh (Hebrew pronunciation) and Elohim] in-
dicated more than one author. This is what initially led Astruc to the conclusion
that various sources lay intertwined and combined in the Pentateuch. Notice
this statement in his Conjectures, cited by The Encyclopedia of Religion and
Ethics:
121
B
"In the Hebrew text of Genesis, God is designated by two different names. The
first is Elohim, for, while this name has other meanings in Hebrew, it is
especially applied to the Supreme Being. The other is Jehovah, niH^ the great.
name of God, expressing his essence. Now one might suppose that the two names
were used indiscriminately as synonymous terms, merely to lend variety to the
style. This, however, would be an error. The names are never intermixed; there
are whole chapters, or large parts of chapters, in which God is always called
Elohim, and others, at least as numerous, in which he is always named Jehovah.
If Moses were the author of Genesis, we should have to ascribe this strange and
harsh variation to himself. But can we conceive such negligence in the com-
position of so short a book as Genesis? Shall we impute to Moses a fault such as
no other writer has committed? It is not more natural to explain this variation by
supposing that Genesis was composed of two or three memoirs, the authors of
which gave different names to God, one using that of Elohim, another that of
Jehovah or Jehovah Elohim?" 21/315
While it is often claimed that this criterion is no longer employed by the critics,
the following statement by A. Bentzen shows how important it still remains to

modern critics:
"If we are to distinguish between the traditions we must look for 'constants*
along this line. The first 'constant* which was noticed was the peculiar changes
in the use of the Divine names. The change in the use of the Divine names is
however more than a simply linguistic 'constant.' It is a material 'constant.' We
know that its use, at least in Gen. and in the beginning of Exodus follows a
definite plan." Later, "Accordingly, in the parts of the Pentateuch from Gen. 1
to Exodus 6 we must be entitled to use the criterion of the Divine names to

distinguish between different traditions." 13/ vol. II 27, 28
3A. BASIC ANSWER
1 . Specific Uses of Various Divine Names
Each divine name had and they were not necessarily
a special significance
synonymous. The author used Jehovah, Elohim, or Jehovah-Elohim ac-
cording to the context of the passage. Therefore there is a real purpose
behind the isolated usage of divine names and not random choosing.
In the 12th century R. Jehuda Halevi wrote a book called Cosri in which he
explained the etymology of each of the divine names. His conclusions are
paraphrased here by E.W. Hengstenberg, professor of theology at the
University of Berlin during the middle of the 19th century:
"[Elohim] isthe most general name of the Deity; it distinguishes him only in
his fullness ofpower without reference to his personality or moral qualities—
to any special relation in which he stands to men— either as to the benefits he
bestows, or to the requirements he makes. On this account, where God has
witnessed of himself and is truly known, another name is added to Elohim —
this is the name Jehovah, peculiar to the people who received his revelation
and his covenant .... The name Jehovah is unintelligible to all who are not
acquainted with that development of the Divine essence which is represented
by it; while Elohim distinguishing him as God in those respects which are
known to all men, is universally intelligible. The nime Jehovah is the
. . .
nomen proprium [proper name] of God, and being one that expresses the
inmost nucleus of his essence, only intelligible where God has come forth,
is
laid open the and has permitted his creatures to behold

recesses of his heart,
them, so that, instead of an obscure undefined being, of whom thus much
only is known and affirmed, that he is powerful, that he is immense — he here
exhibits himself the most personal of all persons, the most characteristic of all
characters." 35/216, 217
Umberto Cassuto, the Jewish scholar and late professor at the Hebrew
University, continues:
"First consider the characters of the two Names. They are not of the same
type. The designation was originally a common noun, an appellative,
'Eld him
that was applied both to the One God of Israel and to the heathen gods (so,
too, was the name 'El). On the other hand the name YHWH
is a proper noun,
the specific name of Israel's God. the God whom the Israelites acknowledged
as the Sovereign of the universe and as the Divinity who chose them as His
people. Let me cite a parallel by way of illustration. A certain city may be
caiWedJeriisalem or simply city. The appellation city is common to her and to
all other cities; the namt Jerusalem belongs to her alone. When the ancestors
of the Jewish people realized that there is but One God, and that only
'YHWH, He is 'Elohim' (I Kings xviii 39), then the common substantive
'Eld him also acquired for them the signification of a proper noun, and
became synonymous with the name YHWH.
If Jerusalem had been the sole
city in the world of those who spoke Hebrew, then of course the word city
would have become a proper name, synonymous WithJerusalem. " 15/18
Cassuto sets forth these rules as an explanation for the use of divine names.
YHWH ELOHIM
l)"It selected the name YHWH 1) "It preferred the name ELOHIM
when the text reflects the Israelite when the passage implies the ab-
conception of God, which is em- stract idea of the Deity prevalent
bodied in the portrayal of YHWH in the international circles of 'wise
and finds expression in the at- —
men* God conceived as the Crea-
tributes traditionally ascribed to tor of the physical universe, as the
Him by Israel, particularly in His Ruler of nature, as the Source of
ethical character." life.
2) YHWH "is used, when

expression 2) "The name Elohim when the con-
is given to the direct intuitive no- cept of thinkers who mediate on
tion of God, which characterizes the lofty problems connected with
the simple faith of the multitude the existence of the world and
or the ardour of the prophetic humanity is to be conveyed.
spirit.
3) "The name YHWH occurs when 3) "Elohim, when the portrayal is
the context depicts the Divine at- more general, superficial and
tributes in relatively lucid and, as hazy, leaving an impression of
it were, palpable terms, a clear obscurity.
picture being conveyed."
4) YHWH "is found when the Torah 4) "Elohim, when it wishes to men-
seeks to arouse in the soul of the tion God in an ordinary manner or
reader or the listener the feeling of when the expression or thought
the sublimity of the Divine Pres- may not, out of reverence, be
ence in all its majesty and glory. associated directly with the Holiest
name.
5) "The name YHWH is employed 5) "Elohim, when the Deity is alluded
when God is presented to us in His to as a Transcendental Being who
personal character and in direct exists completely outside and
relationship to people or nature." above the physical universe.
6) YHWH "appears when the refer- 6) "Elohim, when He is spoken of in
ence is to the God of Israel relative relation to one who is not a mem-
to His people or to their ancestors. ber of the Chosen people.
7) "YHWH is mentioned when the 7) "Elohim, when the subject-matter
theme concerns Israel's tradition." appertains to the universal tradi-
tion."
Sometimes, of course, it happens that two opposite rules apply together and
come in conflict with each other; then, as logic demands, the rule that is more
material to the primary purport of the relevant passage prevails. 15/30-41
These rules apply to certain types of literature in different ways:
PROPHETIC. The prophets of the Old Testament consistently used the

divine name YHWH instead of Elohim. Jonah is an exception, employing the
title Elohim for the of Israel a number of times. But this exception only
God
proves the rule, for Jonah actually belongs to the narrative literature because
of its viewpoint. Isaiah is another exception; he replaces Yahweh, not with
Elohim, but with El, a name for God which was originally a common noun.
15/20
LEGAL. Yahweh is the only personal name of God employed throughout the
legal literature of the Pentateuch and Ezekiel. 15/20
POETIC. The literature classified as poetic normally uses YHWH. Some

poems that belong to the wisdom literature or that have been influenced by it
are an exception. In the second and third books, known as the Elohistic
books, the use of 'El or 'Elohim are of the majority. 15/20
WISDOM. Wisdom literature is unique in that it is a universal literary style
and similar writing may be discovered throughout the ancient Orient. An
investigation of the similar literature among Israel's neighbors should prove
quite beneficial.
But as one begins to study these books "we are struck by an amazing
phenomenon. The wisdom books of the ancient East, irrespective of the
people from which they emanated or the language in which they were written,
usually refer to the Godhead by an appellative rather than by the proper
namesof the various divinities." 15/21
NARRATIVE. Narrative literature, as is found throughout the Pentateuch,
the Earlier Prophets, Job, Jonah, etc., frequently uses both Yahweh and
Elohim in close proximity. 15/21
CHARACTERISTICALLY JEWISH PASSAGES. Umberto Cassuto, the
late professor at the University, in explaining the use of Yahweh states
Hebrew
that in "those categories that have a purely Israelite character, only the
Tetragrammaton [Yahweh] occurs, this being the national name of God,
expressing the personal conception of the Deity exclusive to Israel."
ANCIENT HEBREW. Ancient Hebrew letters found at Lachish illustrate
the usage of Yahweh in daily life. It is employed not only in greetings and in
oaths, but throughout the entire letter. Elohim never appears. A parallel is
seen in the consistent use of Yahweh on scriptural greetings (Judges 6:12;
Psalms 129:8; Ruth 2:4) and in the actual rabbinical dictum that required
use of Yahweh in greeting another. 15/24
MODERN HEBREW. Even in modem Hebrew, Cassuto says, "We are exact
inour choice of words, we employ the Tetragrammaton [Yahweh] when we
have in mind the traditional Jewish idea of the Deity, and the name Elohim
when we wish to express the philosophic or universal concept of the
Godhead." 15/30
The following is a brief application of these rules to Genesis: In Genesis one,
God appears as Creator of the physical universe and as Lord of the world who
has dominion over everything. Everything that exists does so because of His
fiat alone,without direct contact between Him and nature. Thus the rules
apply here that Elohim should be used. 15/32
In the story of the Garden of Eden we find God as a moral ruler because He
imposes certain rules on man. Also, a personal side of God is shown as He
relates directly to man. Yahweh fits easily here as would be expected. The
only place Elohim is used is when the serpent speaks and when the woman is
talking to the serpent. Yahweh is avoided out of reverence to the national God
of Israel. 15/33
In the same passage we find Yahweh linked with Elohim, because the
Scriptures now wish to identify Elohim with Yahweh:
"In other words that the God of the ethical world is none other than the God
of the physical world, that the God of Israel is the God of the entire universe,
that the names YHWH and Elohim point only to two different aspects of His
activity, or to two different ways in which He reveals Himself to the children
of men." 15/33 This explains the double usage and in subsequent chapters the
names are used individually according to context.
Cassuto explains:
"In the story of the Generation of Division (xi 1-9) YHWH
appears. The
reason is clear: in this narrative only the place of the occurrence is outside the
Land of Israel; the story itself is wholly Israelite in character, and it contains
not an iota of foreign material. Unlike the accounts of the Creation and the
Flood, it has no cosmopolitan tradition as its background to serve as the basis
of the Torah's portrayal; on the contrary, here we find the Israelite spirit in
complete opposition to the attitude and aspirations of the proud heathen
peoples, who dominate the world. Thus the Israelite conception of the
relationship between man and God is conveyed by the Israelite name of the
Deity." 15/37
In chapter 12 of Genesis, the story of Abraham starts. It seems fitting that the
Israelite name for the Godhead should be used.
Archer applied this to the early chapters of Genesis. A careful study of the use
of Yahweh and Elohim in the book of Genesis will reveal the purpose that the
writer had in mind. Elohim (which is perhaps derived from a root meaning
"powerful," "strong," or "foremost") refers to God as being the almighty
Creator and Lord of the universe. Thus Elohim is appropriate for Genesis one
because God is in the role of the almighty Creator, whereas Yahweh is the
name of God when He is in the covenant engagement. Thus in Genesis two
Yahweh is almost exclusively used because God is dealing with Adam and Eve
in a covenant relationship. In Genesis three, when Satan appears, the name
for God changes back to Elohim because God is in no way related to Satan in
a covenant relationship. Thus, both the serpent and Eve refer to Him as
Elohim. The name changes back to Jehovah He calls out to Adam (3:9) and
as
reproves Eve (3:13) and it is the covenant God that puts the curse on the
serpent (3:14). 11/112
John H. Raven argues similarly:
"This argument ignores the etymology of the names of God and conceives of
them as used interchangeably merely as a matter of habit. It is not claimed by
the critics that J was ignorant of the name Elohim or P and E of the name
Jehovah, but that each preferred one of these names. But if so, the question
remains, why did J prefer the name Jehovah and E and P the name Elohim.
To this important question the divisive hypothesis gives no satisfactory answer.
If the Pentateuch however be the work of one author, the use of these names is
is precisely that which the so-called characteristics of P, J
sufficiently clear. It
and E, require. P is said to be cold, formal, systematic, logical; but it is
precisely in such passages that one would expect Elohim, the general name for
God, the name which has no special relation to Israel but is used many times
in reference to the deities of the Gentiles. J on the other hand is said to be
naJve, anthropomorphic in his conception of God; but these evidences of
religious fervor would lead us to expect the proper national name of God, the
name which emphasized his covenant relations with Israel." 53/118, 119
Even Kuenen. one of the founders of the classic Documentary Hypothesis,

admitted the uncertainty of this criterion:
"The original distinction between Jahweh [another spelling] and Elohim very
often accounts for the use of one of these appellations in preference to the
other." 45/56
"The history of critical investigation," continues Kuenen, "has shown that far
too much weight has often been laid on agreement in the use of the divine
names. ... It is well, therefore, to utter a warning against laying an
exaggerated stress on this one phenomenon." 45/61
More recently, the oral traditionalist, Engnell, charges that source division on
the basis of differing usages is totally unwarranted (in Swedish Bible Dic-
tionary: Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk, ii) and is here cited by North as
saying:
"In so far as a certain 'constant' change of divine names is really to be found,
a closer examination shows that this does not rest upon change of documents
but upon a conscious stylistic practice of the traditionist, something which is
bound up with the fact that the different divine names have different
ideological associations and therewith different import. Thus, Yahweh is
readily used when it is a question of Israel's national God, indicated as such
over against foreign gods, and where the history of the fathers is concerned,
&c., while on the other hand Elohim, 'God,' gives more expression to a
'theological' and abstract-cosmic picture of God, and is therefore used in
larger and more moving contexts. So, then, it is the traditionist, the same
. . .
traditionist, who varies in the choice of divine names, not the 'documents.'"
77/66, 67
Cassuto boldly proclaims that there "is no reason, therefore, to feel surprise
that the use of these Names varies in the Torah. On the contrary, we should
be surprised if they were not changed about. The position is of necessity what
it is. It is not a case of disparity between different documents, or of
mechanical amalgamation of separate texts; every Hebrew author was
compelled to write thus and to use the two Names in this manner, because
their primary signification, the general literary tradition of the ancient East,
and the rules governing the use in the Divine Names throughout the entire
range of Hebrew literature, demanded this." 15/41
Archaeology provides an answer for the use of the compound name Yahweh-
Elohim.
One of the major assumptions of the JEDP hypothesis is that the use of
Jehovah is typical of a J document and Elohim of an E document. The
combination of these two documents is the ground used by the radical critics
to account for the compound name Yahweh-Elohim. Cyrus Gordon cites his
personal experience on this subject, "All this is admirably logical and for
years I never questioned it. But my Ugaritic studies destroyed this kind of
logic with relevant facts." 27/132 At Ugarit, deities were found with com-
pound names. For example: Qadish-Amrar is the name of one and Ibb-
Nikkal another. Most of the time "and" was put between the two parts, but
the conjunction can be omitted.
Thus it was common to use compound names for a god. Amon-Re, the most
famous god with a compound name, was a deity that resulted from the
Egyptian conquest under the 18th dynasty. Amon was the god of the city of
Thebes where the political power existed, while Re was the universal sun god.
These two gods were combined because of the political leadership in Thebes
and the universalism of Re. But Amon-Re is one god. This sheds light on the
combination of Yahweh-Elohim. Yahweh refers to the specifics of the deity,
while Elohim is more of a general or universal designation of the deity. This
consolidation of Yahweh-Elohim may be demonstrating that Yahweh equals

Elohim, which can be restated "Yahweh is God." Yet the documentarians tell
us that Yahweh-Elohim is the result of combining the two documents J and E.
This is as unfounded as using an A document and R document to explain the
compound deity Amon- Re. 27/132, 133
Kitchen adds: "For multiple terms for deity, compare the use of three names,
a fixed epithet, and common noun 'god' for the god Osiris on the Berlin stela
of Ikhernofret: Osiris, Wennofer, Khent-amentiu, 'Lord of Abydos' (Neb-
'Abdju), and nuter, 'god' {cf. 'Elohim in Hebrew). But no Egyptologist
bothers to invent 'Osirist,' 'Wennofrist,' 'Khentamentist,' Neb-'Abdjuist and
Nuterist sources to match the Yahwist and Elohist of Old Testament studies.
Ikhernofret shows what could be taken as 'prolixity' of expression, but it is
certain that this commemorative inscription was composed (as one unit),
carved and up within weeks, or possibly even days, of the events to which it
set
chiefly relates, and has no literary 'pre-history' of several centuries of 'hands,'
redactors and conflation. This applies to other texts, a few cited here and
many more not. Alongside Egypt, multiple divine names occur in
Mesopotamia. We might cite Enlil also called Nunamnir in the prologue to
the Lipit-Ishtar laws, and in the prologue to Hammurapi's laws we have
Inanna/Ishtar/Telitum, and Nintu/Mama." 42/121
Raven, in material used previously, introduces a difficulty in using divine
names as evidence for multiple authors:
"It not claimed by the critics that J was ignorant of the name Elohim or P
is
and E of the name Jehovah, but that each preferred one of these names. But if
so, the question remains, why did J prefer the name Jehovah and E and P the
name Elohim? To this important question the divisive hypothesis gives no
satisfactory answer. If the Pentateuch however be the work of one author, the
use of these names is sufficiently clear." 53/ 118
"The great innovation on the part of the Israelites," Cassuto observes,
pagans give expression, on
"consists in the fact that, while the writings of the
the one hand, to the abstract and general notion of Divinity, and, on the
other, make mention of some particular god, in Hebrew literature the concept
of the specific God of Israel is completely identified with that of the God of
the whole earth. YHWH, whom the children of Israel recognize and before
whom they prostrate themselves, is none other than 'Elohim, of whose
dominion over them all men are more or less clearly conscious, and whom
they are destined to acknowledge fully in time to come. This is the sublime
thought to which the Biblical poets give expression through the variation of
the Names." 15/25
2B. Exegesis of Exodus 6:3
This verse is taken by the critics to mean that the name Jehovah (Yahweh,
YHWH) was not known in Israel until God revealed it to Moses at Sinai.
Therefore, all the passages in Genesis and in Exodus before this one where
"Jehovah" is used must have been written by a hand other than the one who
wrote this Exodus passage; otherwise (if there is only one author) he would
be guilty of an obvious contradiction: having the patriarchs use 'Jehovah"
throughout Genesis but then stating that the name was unknown until it
was revealed to Moses.
This view is stated by the British scholar, H.H. Rowley: "Exodus 6:2f. says:
'I am Jehovah, and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob
as El Shaddai, but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them.' Yet

there are several passages in the book of Genesis which declare that God
was known to the patriarchs by the name Jehovah. The name is known to
Abram (Genesis 15:2, 8), to Sarai (16:2), to Laban (24:31); it is used by

angelic visitors in conversation with Abraham (18:14) and with Lot
(19:13); and God is represented as saying 'I am Jehovah' to Abram (14:7)
and to Jacob (28:13)." 54/20, 21 (See also 23/115)
2C. BASIC ANSWER
**Correct exegesis of Exodus 6:3: This verse does not mean that the name
"Jehovah" was literally unknown to the Israelites before Moses' time (i.e.,
that it did not exist), but rather that they didn't have the relationship with
God that the name "Jehovah" implied. In other words, they knew God by
His name "Jehovah" but not by his character "Jehovah."
W.J. Martin, in his book Stylistic Criteria and the Analysis of the Pen-
tateuch, said:
"It might have been possible, of course, to have denied the implications by
drawing attention to the full sense of the Hebrew word for 'name.' The
field ofmeaning of this word covers not only that of 'name,' that is, a
verbal deputy, a label for a thing, but also denotes the attributes of the
thing named. It may stand for reputation, character, honour, name and
fame. Hence the reference would not be so much to nomenclature as to the
nature of the reality for which the name stood." 46/17, 18
J.H. Hertz, former chief rabbi in London, England, in his commentary on
the Pentateuch and Haftorahs says:
"Exodus 6:3 is the focal point of critical scholarship. According to them,
God here first reveals his name as YHWH to Moses. Thus all chapters in
Genesis and Exodus where the name Yahweh appears are from another
source. This is used as decisive proof of the multiple document hypothesis
of the Pentateuch, and is proclaimed by all radical critics as the clue to the
JEDP hypothesis.
"The current Critical explanation of this verse, however, rests on a total
misunderstanding of Hebrew idiom. When Scripture states that Israel, or
the nations, or Pharaoh, 'shall know that God is Adonay' — this does not
mean that they shall be informed that His Name is Y H WH (Adonay), as
the Critics would have it; but that they shall come to witness His power and
comprehend those attributes of the Divine nature which that Name
denotes. Thus, Jer. xvi, 21, 'I will cause them to know my hand and my
might, and they shall know that my name is Adonay.' [Orthodox Jews do
not pronounce YHWH's name lest they break the third commandment and
thus substitute Adonay which means "Lord."] In Ezekiel the phrase, 'They
shall know that I am Adonay,' occurs more than sixty times. Nowhere does
it mean. They will know Him by the four letters of His Name. Every time it
means, they will know Him by His acts and the fulfillment of His promise."
36/104
"The word to know in the Old Testament" states Raven, "generally in-
cludes the idea of apprehension and the expression 'to know the name of
Jehovah' is used many times in this fuller sense of apprehending the divine
attributes (I Kings 8:43; Psalms 9:11, 91:14; Isaiah 52:6, 64:1; Jeremiah
16:21; Ezekiel 39:6, 7). All this shows the meaning to be that Abraham.
Isaac and Jacob knew God as a God of power but not as the God of the
covenant." 53/121
Archer argues similarly that the radical critics reject the method of
founding Christian doctrine on proof-text but yet they found one of their
primary doctrines upon this very method. This method seeks a literal
interpretation of two verses without considering context or the analogy of
other scriptural teaching. This instance is found in Exodus 6:2, 3. ("I am
YHWH and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and Jacob, as El Shaddai,
but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them.") The
documentarians hold that this is the first time the name Yahweh was
revealed to Moses in the E document. However, J did not know about this
and assumed Yahweh was a suitable name for the pre- Mosaic ers. Yet, with
a proper understanding both of the verb "to know" yadra) and of the
implications in Hebrew of knowing someone's name, it becomes clear that
the meaning is not literal. All ten plagues were surely not for the mere
purpose that the Egyptians might know that the God of the Israelites was
named Yahweh (Exodus 14:4, "... and the Egyptians will know that I am
Yahweh.") Rather, the intent of the plagues is that the Egyptians might
witness the covenant faithfulness of God to His people and thus know Him
by experience as Yahweh, the covenant God. (See also Exodus 6:7, "You
shall know that I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out from under
the burdens of the Egyptians.") "Hebrew usage therefore indicates clearly
enough that Exodus 6:3 teaches that God. who in earlier generations had
revealed Himself as El Shaddai (God Almighty) by deeds of power and
mercy, would not in Moses' generation reveal Himself as the covenant-
keeping Jehovah by His marvelous deliverance of the whole nation of
Israel." 11/113, 114
"The context of the passage," continues Raven, "and the usils loquendi of
the expression, 'to know the name' show clearly that the meaning is to have
an experimental knowledge of the attributes emphasized by the name."
55/121
G.T. Manley makes this observation on the Hebrew verbs involved:
"Where a name is made known for the first time the verb commonly used is
ndghadh (hiph), as in Genesis 32:29. Here [Exodus 6:3] it is yddra, the
same as is found in I Sam. 2:12 and 3:7, where the persons concerned were
familiar with the name Yahweh but not with all that the name implied."
87/47
The critics use this verse as the basis for their division of the J document
which uses the name Jehovah, from the E document which uses Elohim.
But this verse distinguishes not Elohim from Jehovah, but El-Sahddai from
Jehovah, as Merrill Unger points out:
"That this supposition regarding the meaning of Exodus 6:2, 3 is totally
unwarranted and has no foundation outside the exigencies of the critical
hypothesis is apparent first, because of the clear distinction indicated in
the passage itself 'God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the
Lord: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the
name of God Almighty (El Shaddai); but by my name Jehovah was I not
known to them.' Significantly, the reference does not distinguish Jehovah
from Elohim (occurring over 200 times in Genesis) but from El Shaddai
(occurring five times in Genesis), the name denoting the particular
character in which God revealed Himself to be the patriarchs (Genesis
17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3)." 61/251
Another important issue often overlooked in regard to Exodus 6:2, 3 is
what is referred to in Hebrew as the Beth Essential.
The revised version renders this passage as follows: "I appeared. . . as El
Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh. ..."
This translation does not indicate that although there is a preposition
(prefix Beth) in the original for "as," which governs "El Shaddai," there is
no corresponding preposition for the word "by" which here governs "my
name Yahweh." Grammatically there needs to be a preposition "by" or
"as" in English.
Gcsenius gives an excellent basis for the use of the preposition "as" in
relationship to "my name Yahweh."
This would carry the meaning of "character or inner condition, as distinct
from outer circumstances or designation." 128/14
Gesenius writes that "in poetic parallelism the governing power of a
preposition is sometimes extended to the corresponding substantive of the
second member [Gesenius - Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar, Para. 119 hh,
1910]." 128/14
Isaiah is an excellent example of this "poetic parallelism": "For my name's
sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you"
(Revised Standard Version). Although English demands two uses of "for
the sake of Hebrew allows only one (here used before the first noun).
In this case, as in others, "the preposition extends to the second word
exactly thesame [meaning] which it exercises over the first." 128/14
There is no reason why Exodus 6:2, 3 should not be governed by the same
principle. "My name Yahweh" should be governed the same way as the
Beth Essential governs "El Shaddai."
Motyer in The Revelation of the Divine Name gives an excellent treatment
of the meaning of the Beth Essential.
"In this verse [Exodus 6:3]," writes Motyer, "the Beth Essentiae is ap-
propriately translated 'as,' that is to say, it is used with a view to con-
centrating attention on character or inner condition, as distinct from outer
circumstances or designation. When God revealed Himself 'as' El Shaddai,
it was not with a view to providing the patriarchs with a title by which they
could address Him, but to give them an insight into His character such as
that title aptly conveyed. Likewise, in Exodus iii. 2, 'the angel of Yahweh
appeared. .as a. flame of fire.
.
.' The outward circumstances may have
. .
—
served in the first instance to attract Moses' attention though this is not
necessary, for his attention was, in point of fact, caught by the continued
existence of the bush in spite of the flame. The flame was the appropriate
characterization of God Himself, designed to provide a suitable revelation
of the divine Nature to Moses at that particular juncture of his career.
When we carry this force over to the nouns 'my name Yahweh' we reach a
conclusion in accordance with the translation we are seeking to justify: 'I
showed myself. in the character of El Shaddai, but in the character
. .
expressed by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known." 128/14

Motyer continues:
"The accuracy of the proposed translation is further established by its
suitability tocontext. (The place of the verse in the scheme of
its
revelation, as we see it, is this: not that now for the first time the name as a
sound is declared, but that now for the first time the essential significance
of the name is to be made known). The patriarchs called God Yahweh, but
knew Him as El Shaddai; their descendants will both call Him and know
Him by His name Yahweh. This is certainly the burden of Exodus vi.. 6ff.
where Moses receives the message he is to iinpart ot Israel. The message
opens and closes with the seal of the divine authority, 'I am Yahweh,' and
on the basis of this authority it declares the saving acts which, it is
specifically stated, will be a revelation of Yahweh's nature, for, as a result
of what He will do, Israel will 'know that I am Yahweh,' but, in point of
fact, their knowledge will be, not the name merely, but also the character
of Israel's God. This meaning of the phrase is consistent throughout the
Bible." 128/14
Given the document arians' interpretation of this passage, we are left with a
most difficult question: Why did not one t the many redactors involved in
>
the compilation of the Pentateuch reconcile the obvious contradiction

between the use of the name Jehovah by the patriarchs in Genesis and the
statement in Exodus 6:3 that the name was first revealed to Moses at Sinai?
Unger says that, besides the problems both of the context and of the true
meaning of the words, the radical critics' position on Exodus 6:2, 3 is
further weakened by the common sense implication of their own
hypothesis. The redactor to whom they attribute these accounts clearly did
not understand the passage as they do, for he saw here no contradiction
with the frequent usage of "Yahweh" throughout Genesis. Had he seen a
contradiction, he surely would have either altered the verse or deleted the
earlier occurrences of the name "Yahweh." 61/252
"The redactor of the Pentateuch, if such there were," Raven notes, "could
not have considered the statement of Exodus 6:3 inconsistent with the
frequent use of the name Jehovah by the patriarchs. Otherwise he would
either have changed the statement in Exodus or the name Jehovah in
Genesis. The many generations of Jews and Christians who were ignorant
of the composite authorship of Genesis also saw nothing difficult in Exodus
6-3." 53/121
It is also possible that the passage has been incorrectly translated into
English. Martin explains:
"There however, another possible translation which would eliminate all
is,
conflict with the remote context. The phrase, 'but by my name the LORD
I did not make myself known to them' could be taken in Hebrew as an
elliptical interrogative. The translation of the whole verse would then run:
'I suffered myself to appear (Niph'al) to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob,
as El-Shaddai, for did I not let myself be known to them by my name

YHWH?' Hebrew possesses an interrogative particle but on a number of
occasions it is as here omitted: a good example is in Genesis xviii. 12. It is
possible that in the spoken language the intonation was usually sufficient
to indicate a question, as is still the case in living Semitic languages. In-
tonation has been described as the subjective stratum in languages in
contrast to words, the objective stratum. Writing can never be a full, but
only to a greater or less degree a partial representation of the spoken word.
No ancient script attempted to indicate intonation, and even at the present
day with all our typographical aids no completely satisfactory system has
been devised. It should not be a cause for surprise that, in the transference
of speech to writing, such meagre aids as there were should on occasion,
possibly because unexpressed in speech, be omitted altogether. Com-
mentators have not always reckoned with the possibility. For instance, in
Job xxiii. 17, Tor have I not been cut off on account of the darkness?*
which is a parallel case to the one under discussion, Bick quite
unashamedly deletes the negative.
"No objection could be taken to this translation of Exodus vi. 3, in the light
of Semitic usage, even if it had only the context to commend it. There is,
however, strong support forthcoming from the grammatical structure of
the following sentence. This is introduced by the words 'and also.' Now in
Hebrew common syntactical practice demands that where 'and also' is
preceded by a negative it also introduces a negative clause and vice-versa,
otherwise we would be faced with a non sequitur. In this instance the clause
after 'and also' is positive, hence one would expect to find the preceding
clause a positive one. The translation of the clause as an interrogative
would thus remove any illogicality. A perfectly good reason can be given
for the use of an interrogative form here: it is a well-known method of
giving a phrase an asseverative character. A translation of 'and also* in this
context by 'but' would be highly unsatisfactory if not altogether inad-
missible on the ground that the next clause again is introduced by 'and
also.' This makesit extremely hard to avoid drawing the conclusion that
we are here dealing with a series of positive statements, the first couched
for the sake of emphasis in an interrogative form, and the two subsequent
ones introduced by 'and also' to bring them into logical co-ordination."
46/18, 19
Finally, it should be noted that the divine name criterion cannot be ap-
plied to any material after Exodus 6:3 since from that point on, according
to the critics, E and P, like J are free to use Jehovah. Even Eissfeldt admits
this:
"Admittedly the difference of divine names may only be used in the

analysis of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus. For the two sources which
we now call E and P avoid the name Yahweh at first and only use it from
the moment when God makes this known as his name to Moses— E from
Exodus 3:15 and P from Exodus 6:6 on." 20/183
Yet many critics have attempted to show composite authorship for the
remaining portions of the Pentateuch on the basis of divine names. It
should be obvious that all such attempts have no logical foundation and
are therefore invalid.
SB. Similar Use of Divine Names in the Koran
The Koran provides a helpful parallel to the irregular distribution of the
divine names on the Pentateuch. No one questions the single authorship of
these Arabic scriptures. Yet they display the same phenomenon as their
Hebrew relative. The name Allahu parallels with Elohim, and Rabbu ('lord')
corresponds to Adonay ('lord') which the Jews used later to refer to Yahweh.
In some suras (chapters) the names are intermingled, but in others only the
one or the other appears. For example, the name never occurs in the
following suras: 4, 9, 24. 33, 48, 49. 57, 59, 61. 62. 63. 64, 86, 88, 95, 101,
102, 103. 104. 107, 109. Ill, 112. While the name Allahu is never used in
these suras: 15, 32, 54. 55. 56. 68. 75. 78, 83. 87. 89, 92. 93. 94. 99. 100. 105,
106. 108. 113. 114.
This is conclusive evidence that ancient Semitic literature was capable of
using two names for God. yet with one author. 11/111
4B. Difficulties with the Documenurians' Manipulation of Divine Names
IC. INCONSISTENCY
According to documentarians, the divine name Yahweh indicates J source,
Elohim indicates E source, P source used Elohim up to Exodus 6:3 but
thereafter used Jehovah also.
The following sample passages contain divine names that do not
correspond with the right source from which the passage is supposed to
come:
a. Elohim occurs in these J source passages:
1) Genesis 31:50
2) Genesis 33:5. 11
b. Yahweh occurs in these P source passages before Exodus 6:3:
1) Genesis 17:1
2) Genesis 21:1
c. Yahweh occurs in these E source passages:
1) Genesis 21:33
2) Genesis 22:4, 11
3) Genesis 28:21
4) Exodusl8:l,8. 9. 10. 11
t MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT 13S
2C. APPEAL TO REDACTORS. The critics* answer to these obvious con-

tradictions that the redactors (whose who compiled and edited the
is
documents) either made a mistake by copying in the wrong name or took

the liberty to arbitrarily interchange the names here and there. The second
explanation is of course appealed to more than the first.
H.H. Rowley is an example:
"We need not, therefore, be surprised that the compiler of the Pentateuch
should have extracted material from older sources, or should have worked
material from more than one source into a continuous narrative, or should
have felt himself free to make slight alterations in what he took over, or
have composed the joins in his narratives. These alterations and joins are
usually attributed to the Redactor, and it should occasion no surprise that
the compiler or redactor has left some traces of his own work." 54/25 (Sec
also R.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, (1941), pp. 282-
289.)
Oswald T. Allis comments on such an assumption:
"Finally, be noted that what cannot but be regarded as a major
it is to
defect of the critical analysis appears already quite plainly in connection
with the use of the divine names: it cannot be carried through without
appeal to a redactor or redactors. This means that where simple, even if
hairsplitting, partitioning of the text will not give the source analysis
desired by the critics, it is alleged that a redactor has altered or edited the
sources. If JEHOVAH is regarded as the name of Deity characteristicc of J,
the addition of ELOHIM in the title Jehovah Elohim in Genesis 2:4b-3:24

has to be attributed to a redactor." 10/38, 39
Raven points out the fallacious circular reasoning of the critics* appeal to
redactors:
"Sometimes they sweep aside by asserting that
difficulties altered the R
name, at others that the text evidently corrupt. Neither of these sup-
is
positions however has any basis outside of the exigencies of the hypothesis.
The hypothesis is said to be derived from the phenomena of the text, as we
have it; but if those phenomena do not suit the hypothesis, they are
rejected as worthless. May we not reasonably ask: If the text is corrupt how
can we trust the hypothesis which is derived from it? The very existence of
R and several R's is a baseless assumption made necessary by the dif-
ficulties of the divisive hypothesis." 53/120
The implication of all this is well-stated by Allis when he concludes:

"It is to be noted, therefore, that every appeal to the redactor is a tacit
admission on the part of the critics that their theory breaks down at that
point." 10/39
3C. EXTENT OF SOURCE DIVISION
Even single verses are chopped up into "sources.** For example. Genesis
21:1,2:
1) "Then the Lord [Yahweh] took note of Sarah as He had said, and the
Lord [Yahweh] did for Sarah as He had promised.
2) So Sarah conceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the
appointed time of which God [Elohim] had spoken to him.**
Now, according to the critics, "Then the Lord [Yahweh] took note of Sarah
as He had said;; is assigned to J; "and the Lord [Yahweh] did for Sarah as
He had promised" is assigned to P (in spite of the documentarians' in-
sistence that P didn't use "Yahweh" before Exodus 6:3); "So Sarah con-
ceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age" is assigned to J; and "at
the appointed time of which God [Elohim] had spoken to him" is assigned
toR
Throughout this discussion we refer to the Hsts found in The Interpreter's
One- Volume Commentary on the Bible (88/2, 34, 85) in which all the
passages in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers are assigned to their respective
sources. These lists are found on pages: 2 (Genesis), 34 (Exodus), and 85
(Numbers).
Nearly 100 verses in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers are likewise divided up
into at least two sources by the documentarians:
Genesis:
2:4 21:1.2,6 41:46
7:16, 17 25:11,26 42:28
8:2,3,13 31:18 45:1.5
10:1 32:13 46:1
12:4 33:18 47:5.6. 27
13:11.12 35:22 48:9. 10
16:1 37:25,28 49:1.28
19:30
Exodus:
1:20 12:27 25:18
2:23 13:3 31:18
3:4 14:9, 19.20,21.27 32:8, 34 35
4:20 15:21.22. 25 33:5.19
7:15.17.20,21 16:13.15 34:1,11 14
8:15 17:1.2.7
9:23,24.35 19:2.3.9. 11.13
10:1,13.15 24:12. 15. 18
Numbers
13:17,26 16:1.2.26 .27
14:1 20:22
Germany, a student of Greek philology, drew
Professor F, Dornseiff of
between Greek and Old Testament literature during the 1930's.
parallels
His comments on the implausibility of the above conclusions {Zettschrift
fUr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1934, pp. 57-75) are cited by
Aalders:
"Who can picture the genesis of a first-rate literary work like the Greek
Homer or the Pentateuch by 'redactors cutting 'sources' into small pieces,
and compacting these separate sentences into a new unit, and that in
following out such a method they met with a great literary success?" 1/28
5B. Divine Name Variation in the LXX (Septuagint)
There is much more names in the LXX than
variation in the use of divine
there is Text (MT). Documentarians have traditionally used
in the Masoretic
the MT as the basis for their source division holding that it is by far the more
reliable of the two. and have consequently almost totally ignored divine name
usage in the LXX.
Archer points out that the usage of divine names as a means of separating
documents was first rejected by A. Klostermann {Der Pentateuch, 1893). who
insisted that the Hebrew text has not been accurately transmitted through the
centuries. Johannes Dahse [212/n.p.] was the first to come up with a scholarly
investigation of the relationship of the MT to the LXX, when he showed that
the LXX had no less than 180 instances of non-corresponding names (e.g.,
theos for Yahweh or kyrios for Elohim). This gives pause to the assumption
that the MT is sufficiently well known in all of its variants so that we may
autonomically prefer the MT reading in every case over the LXX. Many of
these decisions were made before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and need to
be re-evaluated.
J. Skinner, in 1914, replied to Dahse in a book called The Divine Names in
Genesis, in which he showed that the agreement of divine names in the
Masoretic Text and the Samaritan texts (earlier than the LXX) extends to
over 300 cases, while there were only 8 or 9 differences. Critics have assumed
that Skinner's "crushing reply" (55/79) to Dahse was final on the issue of
divine names and the LXX. But as a result of the findings of the Dead Sea
Scrolls scholars are now quite confident that there were at least three separate
families of manuscripts existing before the Masoretic period. Therefore, the
close agreement of the Masoretic Text with the Samaritan texts probably
means nothing more than that they came from the same manuscript
tradition. It does not prove that the MT is closer to the original text than the
LXX.
In 1908, in his Die Komposition der Genesis, B.D. Eerdmans, Kuenen's
successor at the University of Leiden, also admitted that this argument based
on Septuagintal data was a powerful one and asserted that it was impossible to
use the divine names as evidence for separate documents. 1 1/84, 85
Wellhausen himself admitted (in a private letter to J. Dahse, published in

1912) that the argument against using the divine names as a criterion in light
of the variations in usage in the LXX had "touched the weak point of his
theory." 1/21
Harrison speaks of how the Dead Sea Scrolls have strengthened the opinion
that there was possibly more variation of divine names in the original text
than the MT allows:
"That there were at least three distinct families of Hebrew manuscripts in

existence in the pre-Massoretic period has been demonstrated convincingly as
a result of the manuscript discoveries at Qumran, and in particular from the
fragments recovered from 4Q; thereby confirming the opinion that there was
considerably more variety in the text of early Pentateuchal manuscripts than
was the case with the MT itself. Since the latter has traditionally been used a»
the basis of documentary analysis in view of the fact that it was regarded as
the Tixed' text, it is interesting to speculate as to what might have happened
to the entire Graf- Wellhausen theory had one or more pre-Massoretic texts
been available for the use of nineteenth-century literary critics. The answer
has in fact been supplied to a large extent by Albright, who, as mentioned
above, has stated that the fragmentary manuscripts recovered from 4Q have
already seriously undermined the foundations of detailed literary criticism."
32/518
Harrison speaks about some of the textual evidence at Qumran "which shows
that it was eminently possible for the translators of the LXX version to have
had several manuscript families of the Pentateuch at their disposal, whose
nature and contents were by no means identical in all respects with those of
the Massoretic tradition." 32/518
chapter 12
the
repetition
oi
accounts
and
alleged
contradictions
lA. REPETITION OF ACCOUNTS
IB. Introduction
Certain stories in the Pentateuch are said to be repeated twice. Other stories
are said to have contradictory details (i.e., Creation— Genesis l-2:4a-P; 2:4b
ff-J; Flood-Genesis 6:1-8; 7:1-5. 7-10. 12. 16b. 17b. 22-23; 8:2b-3a. 6-12,
13b. 20-22-J; Genesis 6:9-22; 7:6. 11. 13-16a, 17a [except "forty days"], 18-
21. 24; 8:l-2a. 3b-5. 13a. 14-19-P). 14/159
2B. Documentary Assumption
Since no author would have reason to repeat the same story twice, the
repetition of certain narratives (parallel accounts) indicates more than one
author at work. Also, since one author could hardly be charged with giving us
obviously contradictory details, those stories in which such discrepancies
occur are the work of a redactor or editor who wove together two different
accounts of the same story (interwoven accounia).
Rollin Walker speaks for this view {A Study of Genesis and Exodus, p. 24)
when he says the following, as cited by O.T. Allis:
"Toward the question of the precise historical accuracy of the stories of the
books of Genesis and Exodus we ought to take somewhat the same attitude
that the editor of the books took when he gave us parallel and conflicting
accounts of the same event, and thereby confessed that he was not sure which
of the two was exactly right." 10/123
Otto Eissfeldt lists no less than 19 allegedly repetitious or contradictory ac-
counts. 20/189, 190
137
8
3B. Basic Answer

Supposed double and triple accounts of the same story are actually different
stories with similar details.
Concerning the dual accounts of certain stories in the Pentateuch, Raven
notes that "these accounts are not really parallel. Some of them are merely
similar events, as the two instances in which Abraham lied concerning his wife
and the same action by Isaac. The redactor must have considered these quite
distinct. In other cases there is a repetition from a different standpoint, as the
account of the creation in Genesis 2 is from the standpoint of the God of
revelation and providence. Sometimes the repetition is a characteristic of
Hebrew style, which often makes a general statement by way of introduction
and then enlarges upon it." 53/124, 125
The supposed contradictory details in certain stories are in fact sup-
plementary details and are seen as being contradictory only when the stories
are misinterpreted.
IC. THE CREATION STORY
H.H. Rowley says: "For instance, between the two accounts of the Creation
there a disagreement as to the sequence of creation, a difference in the
is
usage of the divine names, a difference in the conception of God, and a

difference of style." 54/24 (See also 17/35. 36)
Attacking this position. Kitchen points out that two lines of argument have
been drawn in favor of a double narrative of the creation accounts:
theological and stylistic differences between Genesis one and two and a
seemingly different order of creation. The style differences have no weight
as an argument and simply reflect changes in subject matter; and the
understanding of a transcendent God in Genesis one as opposed to an
anthropomorphic God in Genesis two is "vastly overdrawn and frankly,
illusory." 42/118
E.J. Young illustrates this: "The anthropomorphic God of Genesis 2
'fashions,' 'breathes,' 'plants,' 'places,' 'takes,' 'sets,' 'brings,' 'closes up,*
'builds,' 'walks.' have quite a superficial argument. Man in
But the critics
his finite express ideas about God in anything but an-
mind cannot
thropomorphisms. Chapter 1 of Genesis expresses God in such equally
anthropomorphic terms as, 'called,' 'saw,' 'blessed,' 'deliberated' (verse 26
'let us make'), God 'worked' for six days then He 'rested.'" 71/51
Kitchen continues: "The same may be said of the order of events. In
Genesis 2:19, there is no explicit warrant in the text for assuming that the
creation of animals here happened immediately before their naming {i.e.,
after man's creation); this is eisegesis, not exegesis. The proper equivalent
in English for the first verb in Genesis 2:19 is the pluperfect ('. .had .
formed...'). Thus the artificial difficulty over the order of events

disappears." 42/ 1 1
There is an essential difference in the two accounts which must be ap-
preciated: Genesis one describes the creation of the world, while Genesis
two details and further describes the specific creation of Adam and of his
immediate environment in the Garden of Eden. This is accented by the
introductory phrase in Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the
heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh
Elohim made the earth and the heavens." Throughout Genesis the phrase
"these are the generations" occurs nine other times, each time introducing
an account of the offspring descended from a specific ancestor. This would
then indicate that in the verses following Genesis 2:4, we will find an
account of the offspring of the heavens and earth after the initial creation
has taken place. And that is just what we find here in the case of Adam and
Eve (v. 7— "Yahweh Elohim formed man of dust from the ground").
11/118 It must be emphasized that we do not have here an example of
incompatible repetition. We have an example of a skeletal outline of
creation as a whole, followed by a detailed focus on the final point of the
outline— man. Lack of recognition of this common Hebrew literary device,
in the words of Kitchen, "borders on obscurantism." 42/1 16, 117
Kitchen then shows how archaeology has brought this type of literary
pattern to light. For just such a literary pattern is commonplace in other
texts of the ancient Near East. On the Karnak Poetical Stela from Egypt,
the address of Amun to King Tuthmosis III breaks down thus:
Paragraph one— expressing his general supremacy (Would the diver-
sified style indicate a J source?)
Paragraph two— more precise poetical expression of supremacy (Would

the rigidity indicate a P source?)
The Gebel Barker Stela is similar:
Paragraph one— general royal supremacy (J source?)
Paragraph two— specific triumphs in Syria- Palestine (P source?)
Several of the royal inscriptions of Urartu are likewise enlightening:
Paragraph one— victory over specified lands ascribed to the chariot of
the god Haldi (Would an "H" source be indicated by
the brief, rigid style?)
Paragraph two— detailed repetition of description of these victories, this
time as achieved by the king (Is a "K" source indicated
by this detailed, varied style?)
Just as an assignment of the various portions of these Egyptian texts to
different documents is unheard of in scholarly circles, so is it absurd to
practice a dissection of sources in their contemporary literature found in
Genesis one and two. 42/ 117
Orr explains it this way:
". .
of things, how constantly is it alleged that 'we have
.to the beginnings
two contradictory accounts of the creation. It is certain that the narratives
'
in Gen. i.-ii. 4 and chap. ii. 4 ff. are quite different in character and style,
and view the work of creation from different standpoints. But they are not
'contradictory'; they are, in fact, bound together in the closest manner as
complementary. The second narrative, taken by itself, begins abruptly,
with manifest reference to the first: 'In the day that Jehovah Elohim made
earth and heaven* (ver. 4). It is, in truth, a misnomer to speak of chap. ii.
as an account of the 'creation' at all, in the same sense as chap. i. It
contains no account of the creation of either earth or heaven, or of the
general world of vegetation; its interest centers in the making of man and
woman, and everything in the narrative is regarded from that point of
view." 50/346, 347
2C. THE NAMING OF ISAAC
It istheorized that the accounts of three different documents regarding the
naming of Isaac have been included in Genesis (Genesis 17:17 from P,
18:12 from J and 21:6 from E). But is it unreasonable to assume that both
Abraham and Sarah laughed with disbelief when they were individually
told that Isaac would be bom, and that they later laughed with joy at his
birth?
3C. ABRAHAM'S DECEIT

The critics allege that the two occurrences of Abraham passing Sarah off
as his sister are merely variations of the same event. It is naive to assume
that men never make the same mistake twice nor yield to the same temp-
tation more than once. In this case, the weakness of the assumption is
magnified by the consideration that Abraham profited financially on both
occasions. 11/120
4C. ISAAC'S DECEIT

When Isaac allowed his wife to be regarded as his sister while Abimelech
was king of the Philistines in Gerar (Genesis 26:6-1 1), he provided striking
similarities to the E account of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 20. If these
are to be understood as differing versions of the same event which have
been incorporated into Genesis by the redactor, several very difficult
assumptions must be made: 1.) that sons never follow the bad example of
the parents, 2.) that the sexual habits of the people of Gerar had changed
for the better by the time of Isaac, 3.) that the Philistine dynasties never
handed down the same name from ruler to ruler, (i.e., Abimelech I,
Abimelech II, etc.), even though in Egypt the 12th dynasty practiced the
exact same thing (Amenemhat I, II and III, and also Senwosret I, II and
III). The same practice occurred in Phoenicia. A series of Hirams or
Ahirams ruled in Tyre and Byblos. It is noteworthy that the account of
Abraham's first deception concerning his relationship to Sarah (Genesis
12) is assigned to J along with the similar Genesis 26 account of Isaac and
Rebekah. Another instance of "repetitive" accounts being allowed by the
critics to stand as genuinely separate events is seen in the assigning to E of
both of Jacob's visits to Bethel (Genesis 35:1-8 and Genesis 28:18-22).
11/120.121
5C. THE NAMING OF THE WELL AT BEERSHEBA
In Genesis we
discover two stories of the naming of the well at Beersheba —
first by Abrahamin Genesis 21:31 (assigned to E) and then by Isaac in
Genesis 26:33 (attributed to P). But there is no evidence that these are
actually two (J and P) versions of the same original episode. In light of the
nomadic habits of Abraham and Isaac, it is more likely that the well was
stopped up by Abraham's enemies upon his departure, only to be reopened
by Isaac when he returned to his father's old rangeland. And it is
reasonable to see Isaac reviving the old name and reconfirming the treaty
which gave him the right to the well. 11/121
6C. JACOB'S FLOCKS PROSPER
Driver divides Genesis 30:25 - 31:18 into two sections: Genesis 30:25-31
which comes mainly from the J source and Genesis 31:2-18 taken mainly
from the E source. He confirms:
"The two sources give a different account of the arrangement between
Jacob and Laban, and of the manner in which, nevertheless, Jacob
prospered. The success which in 30, 35 ff. is attributed to Jacob's
stratagem, with the effect of the striped rods upon the ewes in the flock, is
in 31:7-12 attributed to the frustration by Providence of Laban's attempt,
by repeatedly altering his terms, to overreach Jacob, and to the fact that
only the striped he-goats leaped upon the ewes." 18/15
When these two chapters are heard for what they are saying and are
evaluated in light of the rest of Scripture as well as the ancient Near East,
they neither contain any discrepancy nor require divergent sources.
Chapter 30 contains the author's objective description of the selective
breeding which Jacob practiced in this situation. In chapter 31, the author
relates the event from Jacob's perspective (by dialogue) as Jacob, speaking
to his wives, ascribes to the all-provident God the credit for both his
knowledge and success in the venture. Jacob had to acknowledge in the end
that it was not any prenatal influence stratagem at work (docs it at all
work?) but only Godl So Genesis 30 reports what Jacob did and hoped for,
but Genesis 31 teaches what was actually so and even Jacob had to agree.
In the process, Jacob relates complementary but not contradictory details.
Numerous examples of an event being described from both the human and
the divine perspective may be found in Scripture (Judges 7:7, 21-23;
Exodus 14:21; Genesis 4:1).
This may be found in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Kitchen
also
cites the royal inscriptions at Urartu, in which one paragraph attributes
victory over specified nations to the chariot of the god Haldi and the next
paragraph repeats the same victories in more detail as accomplished by the
king. No scholar would think of dividing this account into various sources
upon such grounds. 42/1 17
7C. THE CONTINUITY OF ISOLATED DOCUMENTS
one of the characteristic features of the Pentateuchal
Eissfeldt states that
narratives "the interweaving of compiled parallels, which are therefore
is
incomplete." 20/189 (See also 18/8 and 16/76, 77)

One of the destructive higher critics' reasons for holding that there are
various sources interwoven in certain narratives is the argument that when
these sources are isolated and all the J passages put together and all the P
passages put together, there are formed two separate continuous and
coherent stories.
In his book. The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, the late William H.
Green gave a brilliant illustration of the arbitrary nature of this argument.
He took the New Testament parable of the prodigal son and subjected it to
the same treatment to which the documentarians were subjecting some of
the Pentateuchal narratives. Here are his results: (Phrases in parentheses
Green attributes to a "redactor.")
THE PRODIGAL SON, Luke xv. 11-32.
A B
11. Acertain man had two sons: 12. (A certain man had two sons:)
and the younger of them said to his
father. Father, give me the portion of 12b. and he divided unto them his
thy substance that falleth to me. . . . living.
13. And not many days after the
younger son gathered all together, .. . 13b. And (one of them) took his
and there he wasted his substance journey into a far country.... 14. And
with riotous living when he had spent all, there arose a
mighty famine in that country.... 15.
And he went and joined himself to
14b. and he began to be in want. one of the citizens of that country;
and he sent him into his fields to feed
swine. 16. And he would fain have
been filled with the husks that the
16b. And no man gave unto him. swine did eat. ... 17. But when he
came to himself he said, How many
20. And he arose, and came to his hired servants of my father's have
father; ...and he ran, and fell on his bread enough and to spare, and I per-
neck, and kissed him. 21. And the son ish here with hungerl 18. I will arise
said unto him. Father, I have sinned and go to my father, and will say unto
against heaven, and in thy sight: I am him. Father, I have sinned against
no more worthy to be called thy son. heaven, and in thy sight: 19. I am no
22. But the father said to his servants, more worthy to be called thy son:
Bring forth quickly the best robe, and make me as one of thy hired ser-
put it on him; and put a ring on his vants. . 20b. But while he was yet
. .
hand, and shoes on his feet:... 24. for afar off, his father saw him, and was
this my son was dead, and is alive moved with compassion:. .23. and .
again. . .And they began to be

. (said) Bring the fatted calf, and kill it,
merry. 25. Now his elder son was in and let us eat, and make merry. ...
the field: and as he came and drew 24b. he was lost, and is found.... 25b.
nigh to the house, ... 28. he was (And the other son) heard music and
angry, and would not go in: and his dancing. 26. And he called to him one
father came out, and entreated him. of the servants, and inquired what
29. But he answered and said to his these things might be. 27.And he said
father, Lo, these many years do I serve unto him, Thy brother is come; and
thee, and I never transgressed a com- thy father hath killed the fatted calf,
mandment of thine: and yet thou because he hath received him safe
never gavest me a kid, that I might and sound. 32b. and he was lost
. .
make merry with my friends: 30. but and is found. 29/119, 120
when this thy son came, which hath
devoured thy living with harlots, thou
killedst for him the fatted calf. 31.
And he said unto him. Son, thou art
ever with me, and all that is mine is
thine. 32. But it was meet to make

merry and be glad: for this thy
brother was dead, and is alive again.
Although these two stories were arbitrarily manufactured by Green out of
the one story, each has unique characteristics which, by someone un-
familiar with Green's clever scheme, might be induced as evidence for
composite authorship:
"A and B agree that there were two sons, one of whom received a portion of
his father's property,and by his own fault was reduced to great destitution,
in consequence of which he returned penitently to his father, and ad-
dressed him in language which is nearly identical in both accounts. The
father received him with great tenderness and demonstrations of joy, which
attracted the attention of the other son.
"The differences are quite as striking as the points of agreement. A
distinguishes the sons as elder and younger; B makes no mention of their
relative ages. In A
the younger obtained his portion by solicitation, and the
father retained the remainder in his own possession; in B the father divided
his property between both of his sons of his own motion. In the prodigal A
remained in his father's neighborhood, and reduced himself to penury by
riotous living; in B he went to a distant country and spent all his property,
but there is no intimation that he indulged in unseemly excesses. It would
rather appear that he was injudicious; and to crown his misfortunes there
occurred a severe famine. His fault seems to have consisted in having gone
so far away from his father and from the holy land, and in engaging in the
unclean occupation of tending swine. In A
the destitution seems to have
been chiefly want of clothing; in B want of food. Hence in the father A
directed the best robe and ring and shoes to be brought for him; in B the
fatted calf was killed. In B the son came from a distant land, and the
father saw him afar off, in A
he came from the neighborhood, and the
father ran at once and fell on his neck and kissed him. In B he had been
engaged in a menial occupation, and so bethought himself of his father's
hired servants, and asked to be made a servant himself; in A he had been
living luxuriously, and while confessing his unworthiness makes no request
to be put on the footing of a servant. In A the father speaks of his son
having been dead because of his profligate life; in B of his having been lost
because of his absence in a distant land. In A, but not in B, the other son
was displeased at the reception given to the prodigal. And here it would
appear that R has slightly altered the text. The elder son must have said to
his father in A, 'When this thy son came, which hath devoured thy sub-
stance with harlots, thou didst put on him the best robe.* The redactor has
here substituted the B word 'living' for 'substance,* which is used by A; and
with the view of making a better contrast with 'kid* he has introduced the B
phrase, 'thou killedst for him the fatted calf."* 29/121 122
,
Green points out another similar experiment, a work entitled "Romans

Dissected*' by E.D. McRealsham, the pseudonym of Professor CM. Mead,
formerly of Hartford Theological Seminary. Green Comments:
"The result of his ingenious and scholarly discussion is to demonstrate that
as plausible an argument can be made from diction, style, and doctrinal
contents for the fourfold division of the Epistle to the Romans as for the
composite character of the Pentateuch.'* 29/125
ID. The Flood Story
Rowley says:
"Again in the story of the Flood we find that according to Gen. vi. 19f.
Noah is commanded
to take a single pair of every species into the Ark,
whereas according to Gen. vii. 2 he is bidden to take seven pairs of clean
beasts and a single pair of unclean. Gen. vii. 8f. emphasizes this con-
tradiction with its specific statement that of clean and unclean a single
pair went into the Ark, though it is possible that the emphasis on the
contradiction is not original. Similarly there is disagreement in the
duration of the Flood. According to Gen. vii. 12 the rains lasted forty
days, after which, according to vii. 6ff., Noah waited for certain periods
of seven days before the waters were abated, whereas according to Gen.
vii. 24 the waters prevailed for a hundred and fifty days, and were not
finally abated until a year and ten days after the beginning of the Flood
(vii. 14; cf. vii.)." 54/18
Kitchen argues:
"It has often been claimed, for example, that Genesis 7 to 8 gives two
different estimates for the duration of the Flood, but in fact these are
purely the invention of the theory. The biblical text as it stands is wholly
consistent in giving a year and ten days (eleven, if first and last are both
counted) as the total duration of the Flood episode, as clearly pointed
out by Aalders, Heidel and others long ago. Likewise, the supposed
clash between Genesis 6:19, 20 (cf. Gn. 7:8, 9) and Genesis 7:2, 3 over
'two by two' or 'seven pairs* is imaginary. In Genesis 6:20 shenayim,
'pair,* isprobably being used as a collective por 'pairs,* seeing that one
cannot form a plural of a dual word in Hebrew (no shenayimtml);
Genesis 6:19, 20 and 7:8, 9 are general statements while Genesis 7:2, 3
(clearly twos and sevens) is specific.** 42/120
Alexander Heidel provides us with a thorough investigation of the

question on the biblical account of the duration of the Flood:
"Modem biblical criticism, as is well known, sees in the Genesis account
of the deluge a blending of two main, in several respects irreconcilably
contradictory, sources put together by a redactor. According to the one
source, called P (or the Priestly Code), the flood began on the seven-
teenth day of the second month (7:11) and ended on the twenty-seventh
day of the second month of the following year (8:13-14), the whole
occurrence thus extending over a period of one year and eleven days.
But according to the other source, called J (or the Yahwistic Narrative),
it rained for forty days and forty nights (7:12), at the end of which Noah
opened the window of the ark and sent forth four birds at intervals of
three successive periods of seven days (8:6-12), whereupon he removed
the covering of the ark and found that the face of the ground was dry
(vs. 136); accordingly, the duration of the flood was only sixty-one days.
"With this view I cannot agree. However, this is not the place to enter
upon a detailed discussion of the problems involved; a few words will
have to suffice. I do by no means deny that a number of different
documents may have been utilized in the composition of the biblical
flood story, for the Scriptures themselves indicate unmistakably that the
sacred penmen employed written records and the like in the preparation
of their books. But, in spite of the claims that have been made, I am not
at all convinced that the biblical material can be resolved into its
constituent elements with any degree of certainty. Moreover. I am not in
sympathy with the common practice of treating the alleged remnants of
each supposed document as if it constituted the whole, with the result
that the Genesis account of the deluge, with which alone we are at
present concerned, fairly teems with discrepancies. It must be apparent
to every unprejudiced reader that the Genesis version of the flood, as
divided by modem biblical criticism, shows several important gaps in
the portions assigned to J and P. Therefore, if we had access to the
complete text of the supposed documents denominated J and P
(assuming, for the sake of argument, that such documents ever existed),
we might see at once that there were no discrepancies at all between the
two. But even without such access, it has been demonstrated repeatedly
that the alleged contradictions in the Genesis narrative are capable of a
simple and reasonable solution if the story is left as we fmd it in the
Hebrew text.
"A good illustration of this we have in the point under examination ~
the duration of the flood. If we leave the biblical text as it stands and
treat the story as one whole, the numerical data on the duration of the
deluge are in perfect harmony, as shown by the following.
"According to 7: 1 1 the flood began in the six hundredth year of Noah's
,
life,on the seventeenth day of the second month, coming seven days
after Noah had received the command to enter the ark (7:1-4, 10). For
forty days and forty nights it rained upon the earth (vs. 12). It is not said
anywhere that after this period the downpour stopped altogether. On
the contrary, the rain and the gushing-forth of the subterranean springs
continued; for it is clearly stated that the fountains of the deep and the
windows of heaven were not closed and that the rain from heaven was
not stopped . until the end of the one hundred and fiftieth day after
. .
the outbreak of the flood, for which reason the waters kept rising or
maintained their maximum height during all this time (7:24-8:2). But
while the flow of the subterranean waters may have continued with
great force even after the first forty days, the uninterrupted and
unrestrained torrential downpour from heaven must have ceased and
the rain must have continued much more moderately, for we read in
7:12: 'The rain came upon the earth forty days and forty nights,' and in
verse 17: 'The flood (mabbul) came upon the earth forty days.' As
pointed out before, the term mabbQl in verse 17 undoubtedly describes
the unprecedented stream of rain from above, which made the waters
mount on the surface of the earth. From this it seems quite obvious that
it was the unchecked torrential rain or the sheets of water from the sky
which ceased after the first forty days.
"At the end of the 150 days the waters began to decrease (8:3), and on
the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark rested on one of the
mountains of Ararat (vs. 4). This was exactly five months and 1 day
from the beginning of the flood (cf. 7:11). The obvious conclusion
appears to be that the 150 days constituted 5 months and that each
month, consequently, consisted of 30 days. On the day that the waters
began to abate, i.e., on the one hundred and fifty-first day from the
commencement of the flood, the ark grounded. The waters continued
to decrease until, on the first day of the tenth month, the tops of the
mountains became visible (8:5). If a month is reckoned at 30 days, this
gives us 74 additional days, yielding a total of 225 days. At the end of 40
days from this date, i.e., the first of the tenth month, Noah opened the
window of the ark and sent forth four birds at intervals of three suc-
cessive periods of 7 days (vss. 6-12). Since the first bird was released on
the forty-first day, these figures add up to 62 more days and bring the
total up to 287 days. The last bird was sent forth on the two hundred
and eighty- seventh day from the beginning of the deluge, or (adding the
46 days of the year which elapsed before the outbreak of the flood) on
the three hundred and thirty-third day of the year. We have, ac-
cordingly, arrived at the third day of the twelfth month. Twenty-eight
days later, on the first day of the following year, in the six hundred and
firstyear of Noah's life, the waters were dried up from off the earth (but
the surface of the ground was not yet fully dry) and Noah removed the
covering of the ark (vs. 13). A month and 26 days after that, on the
twenty-seventh of the second month, the earth was again dry and firm,
and Noah left the ark (vss. 14 ff.). These two periods amount to 84 days.
Adding these days to the 287, we gain a grand total of 371 days, or 1
year and 1 1 days, beginning with the outbreak of the flood. There is
here no discrepancy whatever."
34/245-247
Not only are the alleged discrepancies nonexistent, but the two accounts
are organically dependent upon one another and thus already form a
unit. Raven demonstrates this:
"The critics have been unable to extract two records of the flood even
tolerably complete. The beginning of chapter seven is assigned to J. If
so, we are told by J that God commanded Noah to come with all his
house into the ark, without telling a word about the building of the ark
or the members of Noah's family. Chapter seven needs precisely the
statement of Chap. 6:9-22 to make it complete or comprehensible. Gen.
8:13 says: 'And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked and
behold the face of the ground was dry—' This is assigned to J but not
another word of J is recorded till verse 20 where we read: 'And Noah
builded an altar unto the Lord.' This serious gap is bridged by the
intervening statements which the critics assigned to R
Furthermore
Gen. 9:1-17 (P) is not a useless repetition of Gen. 8:12-22 (J) but an
enlargement of God's covenant with Noah after he had built the altar to
Jehovah and recommenced his life upon earth." 53/125
2D. Abraham's Journey
The critics also have "discovered" two interwoven stories in chapters 11-
13 of Genesis which Orr describes and answers thus:
"After many variations of opinion, the critics have settled down to give
Gen. xi. 28-30 to J, and
ver. 27, 31, and 32 to P; beyond this only chaps,
xii. 46, 5, and xiii. 6, 116, 12 are assigned to P in chaps, xii., xiii. But
this yields some remarkable results. In chap. xi. 28, the J story begins
quite abruptly, without telling us who Terah, Haran, Abram, and
Nahor are; i.e., it needs ver. 27 for its explanation. The residence of the
family is placed by J in Ur of the Chaldees (elsewhere given as a P mark).
and nothing is related of the migration to Haran (cf. P, vers. 31 52). Yet ,
thismigration is apparently assumed in the call to Abraham in Gen. xii.

1. In ver. 6, Abraham is said to have 'passed through the land into the
place of Sichem,' but we are not told what land. It is P alone who tells of
his departure from Haran. and coming to the land of Canaan (ver. 46,
5). But this very fragment in P assumes the departure from Haran as a
thing known (ver. 4b), and so needs the first part of the verse, given to J.
In other words, the story, as it stands, is a unity: divided, its connection
is destroyed." 50/351
3D. Isaac's Blessing
Genesis 27 has likewise failed to escape the scalpel of the critics. The
chapter opens with the account of Isaac's preparations to bestow his
blessing upon Esau. The first four verses provide an excellent example
of arbitrary methods by the critics in dissecting passages.
Verse one reads "Now it came about, when Isaac was old, and his eyes
were too dim to see, that he called his older son Esau and said to him.
'My son.* And he said to him. 'Here I am.'" Because this passage is given
to J. the final phrase "and said to him, 'My son.' And he said to him,
'Here I am.'" is deleted as a feature unique to E. But certainly such a
basic formula cannot be reasonably assigned to one author and ex-
cluded from all others. This is not even supported by the text, for
Genesis 22:11 records the words, "But the Angel of Yahweh called to
him from heaven, and said, 'Abraham, AbrahamI' And he said, 'Here I
am.'" Not only do the critics here replace Yahweh with Elohim, but they
go on to assign to E every passage containing the formula but no divine
name. This is a blatant example of arguing in a circle. And further, if in
Genesis 27:1 the formula were removed, we would expect verse two to
read, "And Isaac said to htm." But this word is missing from the Hebrew
text and confirms that this sentence is not the conversation opener.
Verses 2-4 continue, Isaac said, 'Behold now, I am old and I do
"And
not know the day of my
death. Now then, please take your gear, your
quiver, and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me;
and prepare a savory dish for me such as I love, and bring it to me that I
may eat, so that my soul may bless you before I die.'" Claiming that the
words "and prepare a savory dish for me. that I may eat," represent a
. .
variant motif of the same story, the phrase is deleted and assigned to E.
The other variant of this motif, majoring on "game" as opposed to the
"savory dish," goes to J. Thus J reads, "Now then, please take your
quiver. .and hunt game for me, so that my soul may bless you before I
.
die." Yet this totally eliminates the crucial point that Esau return with
the game and serve it to his father. On the other hand, J reads, "And
prepare a savory dish for me such as I love ... so that my soul may bless
you before I die." Here our story is further twisted so that Esau, the
valiant hunter, is relegated to a housewife's role.
Taken as we have it, this passage is clearly a sensible, lucid unit;
dissected, it is meaningless. 15/87-97
4D. The Story of Joseph
Rowley speaks of contradictions in this story also:
"In Gen. xxxvi. 27 Judah proposes that Joseph should be sold to some
Ishmaelites, and the following verse states that this was done, while Gen.
xxxix. 1 says the Ishmaelites sold him to an Egyptian. But Gen. xxxvii
28a introduces Midianites who passed by and kidnapped Joseph from
the pit, without the knowledge of his brethren (29f.), and who later sold
Joseph to Potiphar (xxxvii. 36)." 54/18, 19
Kitchen again answers the charge:

"It is also often asserted that Genesis 57 contains parts of two
irreconcilable accounts of how Joseph was sold into Egypt: (a) by his
brothers to the Ishmaelites and so into Egypt (Gn. 37:25, 28b; cf. 45:4,
5), and (b) by the Midianites who took him from the pit (Gn. 37:28a,
36; cf. 40:14, 15). The truth is much simpler.
"First, the terms 'Ishmaelites/ Midianites' overlap, and refer to the same
group in whole or in part {cf. Jdg. 8:24).
"Secondly, the pronoun 'they* in Genesis 37:28 refers back to Joseph's
brothers, not to the Midianites. In Hebrew, the antecedent of a pronoun
is not always the last preceding noun. If this were not so the phrase 'he
has brought an evil name.
.
m
Deuteronomy 22:19 would refer to the
. '
innocent father; likewise the pronouns 'his' and 'he' in Deuteronomy

22:29 go back to an erring other man; and so elsewhere in Hebrew. In
Egypt, after talking to Tuthmosis II, Ineni mentions the accession of 'his
(Tuthmosis II's) son," Tuthmosis II, and*then the real rule of 'his sister,
. .Hatshepsut.' But 'his' here refers back to Tuthmosis II, not to his
.
son.
"Thirdlyi in private conversation Joseph could be blunt with his own
brothers (Gn. 45:4, 5, 'you sold. ...'), but in seeking a favour from the
royal butler, an alien, he could not very well reveal the humiliating fact
that his own blood brothers wanted to be rid of him (Gn. 40:14, 15)—
however unjustly, what kind of impression would that admission have
made on the butler?" 42/ 1 1 9 - 1 20
(It should be noted that this reference to being "kidnapped" in Genesis
40:14, 15 is totally accurate since Joseph was literally kidnapped from
his father by his brothers and it was ultimately because of them that he
was taken out of "the land of the Hebrews.")
Lamenting a critical attack upon a passage much like the instances
described above, Cassuto appropriately remarks that the passage
"affords a classic example of outstandingly beautiful narrative art, and
by dismembering it we only destroy a wonderful literary work, the like of
which it is hard to find." 15/96
8C. OTHER EVIDENCE EXPLAINING REPETITIOUS ACCOUNTS
Hebrew style is marked by three distinctive traits which illuminate the
problem of repetitious accounts:
ID. Paratactic sentence structure is the practice, says Archer, "by which
subordinate or interdependent ideas are linked together by the simple
connective "and" (Heb. W^)" 11/122 Thir word thus may be used to
convey the meaning of "in order that," "when," "while," "then," "even,"
or "that is to say" — a versatility which all Hebrew grammarians
acknowledge.
and elaborates further:
Allis agrees
"The Hebrew not infrequently uses dependent clauses as the English

does. But very often coordinates clauses by "and" where we would
subordinate one to the other. ... It is to be noted, therefore, that this
tendency to join complete sentences together loosely by "and" may make
it appear that the writer is repeating himself; and these loosely con-
nected sentences which all refer to the same event or topic may seem
more or less repetitious and to be lacking in strictly logical or
chronological sequence. And the very simplicity of the syntax makes it a
relatively easy matter to cut apart such sentences, to assert that they
describe the same event from different and even conflicting viewpoints
and must be assigned to different sources. Were the Biblical narratives

written in complicated periodic sentences in the style of an Addison,
such analysis would be far more difficult if not impossible." 10/96, 97
A misunderstanding of this basic principle allows many to assume that a
late editor clumsily glued his sourcces together with the word "and." But
a similar dissection would be impossible in languages which are more
precise in this respect, such as classical Greek and Latin. 11/122
2D. Repetition for emphasis is seen in the "tendency to repeat in slightly

varied form those elements of the narrative which are of special im-
portance," states Archer. 11/122
Allis develops this idea, explaining that "the Bible is a very emphatic
book. Its aim is to impress upon the hearer or reader the great im-
portance of the themes of which it treats. The most natural way of
securing emphasis in a narrative is by amplification or reiteration.
Consequently the Biblical style is often decidedly diffuse and charac-
terized by elaborateness of detail and by repetition." 10/97
The account of the 10 plagues (Exodus 7-11) provides an excellent
example of Some of the plagues are described in as many as five
this.
steps: threat, command, enaction, prayer for removal and termination.
By misunderstanding the emphatic nature of this re|>etition, the radical
critics have given seven plagues to J, five plagues to E, and only four to P
(not including a fifth which is threatened but not executed). This leaves
us with three incomplete accounts, each needing the material in the
others to form a sensible entity. 11/122, 123
3D. Poetic parallelism, in Archer's words, is the "balanced structure of
paired clauses which is employed so extensively in Hebrew verse."
11/123
Again, Allis provides a clear statement of the issue:
"In dealing with the Question of repetitions, it is important to note that

repetition or parallelism in phraseology and content (para lie lismtis
membrorum) is a characteristic feature of Hebrew poetry. This is so
obvious that proof is unnecessary. A familiar illustration of practically
synonymous parallelism is the following:
'The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul.
The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple'
(Ps.xix. 7)." 10/108
And in demonstrating the role of such parallelism beyond the boun-
daries of poetry, Allis expresses that "it has been clearly shown that the
dividing line between prose and poetry is not fixed and sharply defined
but that elevated or impassioned prose may approximate very closely to
poetry, balanced repetition or parallelism." 10/108, 109
When the divine names are alternated in such a parallel fashion, it

should clearly be attributed to the poetic style, not to divergent sources.
Genesis 30:23, 24 illustrates this:
"Elohim has taken away {"asaf) my reproach May Yahweh add
{"yosef) to me another son."
To divide this passage into E and J due to
the divine names (as the critics
do) to fail to recognize the poetic purpose of the alternation of the
is
names and to violate the clear poetic parallelism of "asaf* and "yoscf."
11/122,123
4D. Gordon correlates the Hebrew style with other ancient oriental styles:
"One of the commonest grounds for positing differences of authorship
are the repetitions, with variants, in the Bible. But such repetitions are
typical of ancient Near East literature: Babylonian, Ugaritic, and even
Greek. Moreover, the tastes of the Bible world called for duplication.
Joseph and later Pharaoh, each had prophetic dreams in duplicate. In
Johan 4, the Prophet's chagrin is described at two stages, each ac-
companied by God's asking 'Are you good and angry?' (w. 4,9). Would
anyone insist that such duplicates stem from different pens?" 27/132
5D. The critics' inconsistency

AUis points out also the inconsistency of the documentarians in not
claiming as repetitious references to Moses' and Aaron's deaths:
"Three statements are made in Numbers regarding the death of Moses
and Aaron. (1) Chap. xx. 24 declares that Aaron is to die because Moses
and Aaron sinned, but says nothing of Moses' death; (2) chap. xxvi. 13
says that Moses Aaron did and for the same reason; (3)
shall die as
chap.xxxi. 2 declares that Moses shall die, but gives no reason of any
kind. It would be easy to assert that the first passage belongs to a source
which knew only of Aaron's death as a punishment for their joint act of
disobedience, that the third knew of Moses' death but of no reason for it
unless it be that his work was finished. But all are given to P. This is
especially noteworthy because the critics cite as proof that Num. xiii.-
xiv. is composite the fact that xiii. 30 and xiv. 24 do not mention Joshua
along with Caleb, while xiv. 6, 39, do mention him. So they assign these
passages to JE and P respectively." 10/94
2A. ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS

IB. Introduction
Upon a casual reading of the text, certain contradictions regarding
nomenclature, geography, legislation, customs, ethics, etc. seem to appear.
The contradictions are. in fact, real. This is further evidence that there are
different authors from different backgrounds, writing at different times.
Rather than try to correct the contradictions by deciding which one was right
and rejecting the other, the redactors incorporated both accounts into the
work.
SB. Basic Answer
Upon careful analysis of the text, the Hebrew language and the ancient
oriental cultural background in which the Israelites lived, one finds that these
alleged contradictions can be justly harmonized and do in fact, in many cases,
disappear.
This truth is tacitly acknowledged by the critics, as Raven perceptively notes:
"The admission of a final redactor is fatal to the assertion of irreconcilable
contradictions in the Pentateuch. A man of such marvelous ability as he must
have possessed would have seen the contradictions if they were as patent as
they are said to be, and would have removed them." 53/127
IC. NOMENCLATURE
The hold that different names given to the same person or place is
critics
an indication that there is more than one author. (See 17/13; 13/47;
20/182-188)
Examples:
(1). Amorite is used in Genesis 10:16 and Deuteronomy 2:24 but
Canaanite in Genesis 10: 18 and Deuteronomy 1:7.
(2). Horeb is used in Exodus 33:6 and 17:6 but Sinai in Exodus 34:2 and
16:1.
(3). Jethro is used in Exodus 3:1 and 4:18 but Reuel in Genesis 36:17 and
Exodus 2: 18.
R.K. Harrison offers a much more plausible and verifiable alternative,
making clear that such a criterion involves utter disregard for its only
it
possible source of objective verification— the evidence from the ancient

Near East. The hundreds of examples from Egypt include such personal
name variations as Sebekkhu, a military commander, being likewise
referred to as Djaa. 32/521
K. A. Kitchen has provided us with many other helpful instances:

"In Egypt, many peope had double names like the Israel/Jacob or
Jethro/Reuel of the Old Testament, e.g., Sebekkhu called Djaa whose
stela in Manchester University Museum exemplifies the use of three names
for one Palestinian populace: Mentiu-Setet ('Asiatic Beduin*), Retenu
('Syrians') and 'Amu* ('Asiatics')— just like the Ishmaelites/Midianites or
Canaanites/Amorites of the Old Testament. For personal and group
names elsewhere, cf. in Mesopotamia the sage Ahiqar (or Ahuqar) who is
Aba'-enlil-dari (not to mention Tiglath-pileser III = Pul, and Shalmaneser
V = Ululai). In the Hittite Empire, a series of kings had double names,
while 'Mitanni' and 'Hanigalbat' and 'Mitanni* and 'Hurrians' occur as
double designations of the state and people of Mitanni.
"For place-names like Sinai/Horeb, compare in the text of Merenptah's
'Israel Stela' two names for Egypt (Remit, Tameri) and five names and
variants for Memphis (Mennefer; Ineb-hedj, Inbu, Ineb-heqa; Hatkup-
tah). Similarly, examples can be found elsewhere." 42/123, 124
The two alleged accounts of Aaron's death at Mount Hor (Numbers 20:22;
21:4; 33:33; Deuteronomy 32:50) and at Moserah (Deuteronomy 10:6)
provide good evidence for the multiple document theory, or so a
documentarian would say. But a careful scrutiny of the passages will show
that in fact there is no contradiction and thus no ground for a multiple
source conclusion. The word Moserah in Deuteronomy 10:6 means
"chastisement" and designates the event of Aaron's death, not the place.
This makes it clear that his death on Mount Hor was a reproof, a
chastisement for his sin at Meribah (Numbers 20:24; Deuteronomy 32:51).
He received the same recompense for his rebellion that Moses received:
never to enter the Promised Land. The two accounts are thus in harmony
and preserve the fact that Aaron did die at Mount Hor while the people
were camped below. Moses marked the sad occasion by naming the camp
site Moseroth (Numbers 33:31; Deuteronomy 10:6). 32/510, 511
2C. LEGISLATION
Critics have consistently held that certain laws contained in the Pentateuch
are contradictory and that others are identically repeated. This can be
seen in this statement by Hahn:
"The theory that separate groups of cultic regulations originated at the
local shrines raises the possibility that the duplications and inconsistencies
in the Pentateuchal law may have been due to independent, parallel
developments rather than successive stages in the history of the law." 31/32
These differences in and repetitions of some of the legislative material arc
held to be evidence of composite authorship since one writer could hardly
be guilty of such obvious inconsistency. Harrison supplies a feasible
solution:
"Thus it is quite possible that in the post-Mosaic period some of the

enactments were altered somewhat to suit changing circumstances, a
process that is perfectly legitimate in any culture, and which does not in
any sense vitiate the provenance of the original legislation. No doubt some
of the duplications and inconsistencies in Pentateuchal law of which Hahn
speaks were due, not to the rise of separate though parallel cultic
regulations, as he and many other liberal writers suppose, but to the
deliberate attempt on the part of the responsible authorities, whether
priestly or other, to adapt the traditional legislation to the point where new
conditions of life would be properly accommodated. This doubtless un-
derlies the situation whereby the provisions of Numbers 26:52-56 relating
to inheritance were modified by the circumstances detailed in Numbers
27:1-11 and Numbers 36:1-9, or where the regulations for an offering to
cover sins of ignorance or inadvertence (Lev. 4:2-21) were changed by the
provisions of Numbers 15:22-29. Again, it is of importance to note the
witness of the text to the fact that some later additions were made to the
Book of the Covenant in the time of Joshua (Josh. 24:26)." 32/539, 540
3C. CUSTOMS
In examining the customs of naming the children, the negative critics cite
a proof for multiple documents. They say that in the P document the
father names the children, while the mother has this privilege in J and E
documents. Thus, each of these documents originated in separate en-
vironments.
When one looks at the cases in J and E, it is found that there are 19 or 20
examples that conform to the rule; but there are also 14 exceptions. The
number of exceptions is enough to arouse suspicion, especially when it is
noted that every instance connected with Jacob is counted as one instance.
This weakens the credibility of the case, especially in the light of the fact
that two of these instances are classified as P simply because the father
names the son. A third instance is unclear as to whether the father named
the son or not, which leaves only one instance; and this is nothing on which
to base an hypothesis.
The Torah informs us of the reason why there is a difference in the naming
of children. Usually the reason for naming a child is etymological and
concerns the circumstances at birth. When the circumstance concerns the
father he names it, and the same with the mother. This rule is simple and
logical, and is valid in every case. When the circumstances apply to the son
only or in the rare event that etymological explanation is given, the rule
does not apply; in these instances it is once the father, once the mother, and
otherwise indefinite. 15/66
4C. ETHICS
J and E
are said to have a defect in their moral sensitivity, while P is alert
and One evidence for this is cited from the story in which Jacob
sensitive.
tricks Isaac into giving him Esau's blessing. The moral character of the
story must be judged by what attitude the text takes toward the trans-
gressors. In narratives of this nature, it is fundamental that the text does
not express its judgment explicitly and subjectively, but it relates the story
objectively and allows the reader to learn the moral from the way the
events unfold.
It isa fact that Jacob and Rebekah sinned in tricking Isaac, but what did
they receive? Jacob was exploited by Laban in the same manner that he
exploited his father, and Scripture makes it clear that Jacob received the
wrong wife, Leah, as a punishment.
1
Rebekah too received her heartache when she had to send away the son she
loved so much. She once asked him to obey her in the deceitful plot, and
again she had to ask him to obey her in leaving. Thus, the moral ethic of
the Torah is preserved and source division is again shown to be without
grounds.
P is void of a single passage which requires close examination in order to
learn its moral. P's complete silence concerning the transgressions of the
patriarchs, however, does not necessitate a divergency of sources. For it is
significant to note that only two narratives concerning the patriarchs are
assigned to P (the Cave of Machpelah and the Circumcision). On the other
hand, P abounds with dry reports, chronologies and genealogies. Certainly
the point on ethics is meaningless when applied to material with no
didactic content and with no relevant narratives. 15/63-65
3A. ANACHRONISMS— LATE WORDS

IB. Introduction
Certain words are used in the Pentateuch that seem to have come from a later
time period. Also, there are words that occur only a few times in the Old
Testament and then reappear only much later in other Jewish writings.
The occurrence of such anachronistic words shows that the Pentateuch was
written at a time much later than Moses*.
SB. Basic Answer
Some of these words can be attributed to later scribal glosses. Others are, in
fact, earlyand not late words, and with still others it is difficult to tell whether
they are early or late.
IC. SCRIBAL GLOSSES
Three examples of words that obviously came (that is, to radical critics)
from a period of history later than the Mosaic age:
(1). "Philistines" in Exodus 13:17
(2). "Dan" Deuteronomy 34:
in Genesis 14:14,
(3). Canaan called "land of the Hebrews" in Genesis 40: 15

(See 17/15; 54/17)
Harrison suggests that such supposed anachronisms may be explained to
be successive scribal revisions that brought the text up to date in some
areas.
Other examples are the description of Moses as a prophet of Israel
(Deuteronomy 34:10), as well as the various scribal glosses that give later
forms of earlier names (Genesis 14:8, 15, 17; 17:14; 23:2; 35:6). Weiser
alleges that the reference to a king in Deuteronomy 17:14 is anachronistic;
but this shows lack of perception because the passage is foretelling events to
take place, and is not recording the present situation. 32/524
Harrison continues:
"Along with revisions of spelling and the inclusion of glosses on the text,
the scribes of antiquity frequently replaced an earlier proper name by its
later form. This latter phenomenon may well account for such apparent
anachronisms as the mention in the Pentateuch of the 'way of the land of
the Philistines* (Exod. 13:17), at a time when the Philistines had yet to
occupy the Palestinian coastal region in any strength.'* 32/523
MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT 1 53
2C. RARE WORDS

Archer paraphrases the critics' argument regarding rare words:
"If a word occurring less than three or four times in the Old Testament
recurs only in later Hebrew literature (the Talmud and Midrash), then the
word is of late origin, and the Old Testament passage must be of late
composition." 11/125
This is invariably the interpretation offered by Old Testament scholars;
but there are in fact three viable explanations:
(a) as stated above, that the *'early" occurrence is actually within a body
of writing which had a later origin;
(b) that the "early" occurrence provides evidence that the word was
actually in common usage at the earlier date;
(c) that a truly "late" word may only demonstrate that the word itself
was originated in the text (having been substituted for an obsolete,
offensive or obscure word), and shows nothing as to the date of the
body of writing.
While most scholars ignore the last two principles, the validity of the
principles may be proven by an examination of literary remains of the
ancient Orient which are objectively dated.
An example of (b) presents itself in the well-known phenomenon of the
sporadic occurrence of words in, for instance, the Pyramid Texts of 2400
B.C. The word may then totally disappear, only to be found 21 centuries
later (about 300-30 B.C.) in the writings of the Greco-Roman period. To
compact more than two millennia of Egyptian history into a two and a half
century period is, of course, absurd. Yet a wholesale application of this
criterion leads scholars to just such absurdities with Hebrew literature.
42/141,142
Likewise, Ecclesiasticus 50:3, dated in the second century B.C., provided
the earliest occurrence of sivh ("reservoir"), leading to the conclusion that
it was a late word. But the more recent surprise discovery of the same word
on the Moabite Stone added a sudden seven centuries to its age. 11/126,
127
One of many examples of (c) is seen in the Ashmolean text of the story of
Sinuhe, which is definitely dated in the 20th century B.C. due to internal
statements. However, the occurrence of yam for "sea" and the Late-
Egyptian bw for "no" point to a date of 1500 B.C., according to principle
(a). Manuscripts from about 1800 B.C. provide us with the answer— that
the two words were actually substituted for early forms. The future
discovery of very ancient Old Testament manuscripts may show the same
truth in the Hebrew Scriptures. 42/141-143
Further, the Old Testament provides only a bare representation of the
entire Hebrew literary output. Three thousand Oid Testament words
appear less than six times; 1500 occur but once. Certainly a greater
knowledge of Hebrew literature and conversation would establish many of
these as everyday Hebrew terms. Similarly, no one would argue that words
like "invasion" (I Samuel 30:14), "jumping" (Nahum 3:2) and "lance"
(Jeremiah 50:42) are rare in English, yet they are found only once in the
English Bible. 11/126, 127
Robert Dick Wilson has done an excellent study of the words used five or
lesstimes in the Old Testament. He has shown that "a large part of the
words that are produced as evidence [by the critics] of the late date of
documents containing them cannot themselves be proved to be late. For,

first, no one can maintain that because a word occurs only in a late
document the word itself is therefore late; for in this case, if a late
document was the only survival of a once numerous body of literature,
every word in it would be late; which is absurd. Nor, secondly, can one
maintain that a document is late merely because it contains words which
do not occur in earlier ones, which are known to us. Every new find of
Egyptian Aramaic papyri gives us words not known before, except, if at
all, m documents written hundreds of years later. Nor, thirdly, is a word to
be considered as evidence of the lateness of a document in which it occurs
simply because it occurs again in documents known to be late, such as the
Hebrew parts of the Talmud. And yet, this is frequently affirmed by the
critics. ... it is obvious that a kind of proof that will prove almost
everything to be late, and especially the parts considered late to be early, is
absurd and inadmissible as evidence in a case designed to prove that some
documents are later than others because they contain words of this kind.
For it is certain that if all are late, then none are early— a conclusion which
would overthrow the position of all critics, radical as well as conservative;
and since this conclusion is desired and maintained by none, it must be
dismissed as absurd.
"In proof, however, that such words are found in every book, and in almost
every part of every book, of the Old Testament we subjoin the following
tables. These tables are based on special concordances of every book and of
every part of every book of the Old Testament, prepared by and now in the
possession of the writer of this article. In accordance with the laws of
evidence, that 'witnesses must give evidence of facts,' and 'an expert may
state general facts which are the result of scientific knowledge, and that an
expert may give an account of experiments [hence, also of investigations]
performed by him for the purpose of forming his opinion,' it may add force
and clearness to the evidence about to be presented, if an account is first
given of the way in which the facts upon which the tables are based were
collected. One whole summer was spent in gathering from a Hebrew
concordance all the words in the Old Testament that occur there five times
or less, giving also the places where the words occur. A second summer
sufficed for making from this general concordance a special concordance
for each book. In the third summer, special concordances were made for J,
E. D, H, and P, for each of the five books of the Psalter and for each of the
psalms; for each of the parts of Proverbs, and of the alleged parts of Isaiah,
Micah, Zechariah, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah; and for such parts as
Gen. xiv and the poems contained in Gen. xlix, Ex. xv, Deut. xxxii, xxxiii
and Judges v. Then, each of the words of this kind was sought for in the
Aramaic and in the Hebrew of the post-biblical Jewish writers. The
evidence of the facts collected is manifest, and we think conclusive.
"A study of these percentages should convince everyone that the presence
of such words in a document is no proof of its relative lateness.*
Numbe-
of words Per
occurring centage
inO.T. ofth«e
five word*
time* in
orim Talmud
Psalms Ixxix s 00.0

Prov. xxxi. 1-9 00.0
Isaiah xxiv-xxvii 00.0
Obadiah 7 14.S
Isaiah xxxvi-ix 7 14.3

Judges- Ruth 107 15.8
Nahum 36 16.7
Ezra i-vi 6 16.7
Micah ii 11 18.2
Isaiah xxxiv-v 5 20.0
Isaiah xiii-xiv 10 20.0
Isaiah (1st pt.) 121 22.3
Malachi IS 23.1
Ezekiel 335 24.9
Lamentation 56 25.0
Haggai 4 25.0
Ezra vii-x 8 25.0
Zechariah ii 16 25.0
Isaiah xl-lxvi 62 25.8
Proverbs i-ix 69 27.5
Daniel 47 29.8
Zecharia [sic] i 22 30.8
•In explanation of these tables it may be said that they are prepared with special reference to the
critical analysisof the O.T. Thus the Pentateuch is arranged according to the documents. J, E,
D. H and P; and the Proverbs are divided into seven portions (following LOT). The first column
of the tables gives for each book or part of a book the number of words occurring five times or
less in the Old Testament that are found in it; and the second column the percentage of these
words that are to be found in the same sense in the Hebrew of the Talmud.
of words Per
occurring cent age
In O.T of these
five words
limn in
orle» Talmud
Zecharia [sic] iii 12 30.8

Micah i 22 31.8
Job 374 31.0
Jeremiah 278 32.1
Psalms 514 33.1
Book I 123 35.8
Book II 135 31.1
Book III 76 30.3
Book IV 61 31.1
BookV 118 34.7
Micah iii 15 33.3
Prov. x-xxii. 16 80 33.8
Proverbs xxii. 17-xxiv 30 36.7
Sam. -Kings 356 37.2
Habakkuk 34 38.2
Joel 28 39.3
Jonah 15 40.0
Hosea 65 41.5
Jehovist
0) 162 44.4
Zephaniah 31 45.2
Amos 50 46.0
Elohist (E) 119 48.7
Prov. xxxi. 10-31 6 50.0
Holiness Code (H) 48 50.0
Chronicles 144 51.5
Prov. xxv-xxix 52 51.9

Esther 57 52.6
Priest Code (P) 192 53.1
Deuteronomist (D) 154 53.2
Proverbs xxx 15 53.5
Song of Songs 99 54.6
Nehemiah 48 56.3
Ecclesiastes 77 57.1
Memoirs of Nehemiah 27 59.3
"A careful reading of this table will justify the statement made above that a
'kind of proof that will prove almost everything to be late, and especially
the parts considered late to be early, is absurd and inadmissible as evidence
in a case designed to prove that some documents are later than others
because they contain words of this kind.' This kind of evidence would
simply prove almost all the documents of the Old Testament to be late. If
admitted as valid, it would militate as much against the views of the
radicals as it would against those of the conservatives.
"Take, for example, the number of these words occurring in the alleged
documents of the Pentateuch. J and E together have 281 words in about
2,170 verses (one in less than every 7y,o verses) and about 46 per cent of
these words are found in the Talmud; D has 154 words in about 1,000
verses (or one in every SVio verses) and about 53 per cent of them in the
Talmud, and PH 201 words in 2,340 verses (or one in every 8y,o verses) and
about 52 per cent of the words in the Talmud. Surely, no unbiased judge of
literature would attempt to settle the dates of documents on such slight
variations as these from one word in 6y,o to one in SVio and from 46 to 53
per cent in the TalmudI Besides, in regard to the relative proportion in
verses the order is PH, JE, D and in percentages in the Talmud JE, PH, D;
but according to the Wellhausians, it should in both cases be JE, D, PH.
The slight variations in both cases point to unity of authorship and likeness
of date." 65/131-136
SC. ARAMAISMS
The Babylonian Capitivity (607-538 B.C.) marked the beginning of the
Jews'abandonment of their ancestral Hebrew language in favor of the
more widely spoken Aramaic language. Therefore, the critics held that the
presence of an Aramaic word in the biblical text was evidence that the
passage had a post-exilic origin. They asserted that many such
"Aramaisms" do in fact appear in the Pentateuch. This supports their
theory of a late origin for their written sources (J,
E, D, P, etc.).
But Archer offers this philological evidence:
"A great number of Hebrew words which they [documentarians] have

classified as Aramaisms turn out, on closer examination, to have a very
good claim to the status of authentic Hebre.v words, or else to be derivable
from Phoenician, Babylonian or Arabic dialects, rather than from
Aramaic. For example, many critics have carelessly assumed that Hebrew
nouns ending in -on are necessarily Aramaic because the -dn ending is so
common Aramaic. Yet the fact of the matter is that this ending is also
in
found with frequency in Babylonian and Arabic, and further proof is
fair
necessary to demonstrate that it could not have been native in Hebrew
from Canaanite times." 11/129
The Jewish scholar M.H. Segal concludes similarly:
"It has been the fashion among writers on the subject to brand as an
Aramaism any infrequent Hebrew word which happens to be found more

or less frequently in Aramaic dialects. Most of the Aramaisms are as native
in Hebrew as they are in Aramaic. Many of them arc also found in other
Semitic languages." 57/8
Kautzsch (Die Aramaismen im Alien Testamente) has listed about 350
words as being possibly of Aramaic origin. On this basis, over 1500 Old
Testament verses in which the words occur are assigned a late date. Yet the
thorough scholarship of R.D. Wilson has revealed the following in-
formation:
(a) 1 50 of these 350 words are never found in an Aramaic dialect.
(b) 235 of these 350 words are never found in Aramaic literature before
the second century A.D.
(c) Only 40 of those found earlier than the second century A.D. arc
unique to Aramaic among the Near Eastern languages.
(d) Only 50 of the list of 350 words are found in the Pentateuch.
(c) More than two-thirds of these 50 "Aramaic" words in the Pentateuch

had to be replaced by an genuinely Aramaic word to make them
intelligible in the Aramaic translations.
(f) Most of the words which were not replaced in the Aramaic tran-
slations are still not unique to Aramaic among the Near Eastern
Languages.
Even using the dating of the radical critics, we find that a full 120 of these
alleged 350 "Aramaic words" are used by Old Testament writers as much
as 700 years before they are found in any Aramaic documents. While it is
easy to understand these as Hebrew words which were incorporated into
Aramaic as more and more Jews made the transition, it is difficult to
believe that the biblical writers borrowed so many Aramaic words which
are apparently not used until seven centuries later. 65/155-163
chapter 1
incongruities.
lA. INTRODUCTION
The Pentateuch was supposed to have been written by Moses, yet many passages
regarding Moses are written in the third person, rather than the first. Also, if the
Pentateuch was written by Moses, how could it contain the account of his death?
Such incongruities are an indication that in reality Moses did not write the
Pentateuch.
3A. BASIC ANSWER
There are two very plausible alternatives to the critics* third person argument.
And the account of Moses death need not necessarily be attributed to Moses.
IB. Third Person Phenomen
IC. POSSIBLY DICTATED
Moses may have dictated his work to scribes.
Harrison suggests this:
"Equally uncertain is the actual extent to which Moses recorded personally

the written material credited to him. It may well be that the presence of
third person pronouns in various sections of the Mosaic enactments in-
dicate that these sections were dictated. Quite possibly many of the small
159
or isolated sections in the Hebrew text were committed initially to the

priests for safekeeping, and only at a later period were the manuscript
pieces assembled into some sort of mosaic and joined together into a roll/*
32/538
This would be quite consistent with ancient oriental practice as R.D.
Wilson argues:
"Is one to allege, then, that Hammurabi cannot be called the author of the
code named after him, unless, forsooth, he inscribed it with his own hand?
And yet the monument expressly ascribes itself to Hammurabi in the words
of the epilogue (Col. Li. 59-67): 'In the days that are yet to come, for all
future times, may the king who is in the land observe the words of
righteousness which I have written upon my monument. .' Are we to
. .
suppose that Moses cannot have recorded his thought and words and deeds
just in the same way that his predecessors, contemporaries, and successors,
did?" 65/24, 25
2C. POSSIBLY WRITTEN BY MOSES IN THIRD PERSON
Mosesmay have actually written in the third person. This does not seem
too unreasonable in light of the fact that the following authors of antiquity
wrote about themselves, either in part or in full, in the third person:
The Wars of the Jews (first century A.D.)
Josephus,
Xenophon, Anabasis (fifth century B.C.)
Julius Caesar, Gallic Hâr (first century B.C.) 41/23, 24; 61/265
2B. Moses' Death
The account of Moses' death was a later addition.
The Talmud [Baba Bathra 146] attributes this section relating to Moses*
death to Joshua. 32/661
Archer says this about Deuteronomy:
"Chapter 34 demonstrably post-Mosaic, since it contains a short account of
is
Moses* decease. But this does not endanger in the slightest the Mosaic
authenticity of the other thirty-three chapters, for the closing chapter fur-
nishes only that type of obituary which is often appended to the final work of
great men of letters." 1 1/224
G. Aalders in his book, A Short Introduction to the Pentateuch, treats the
various viewson the death of Moses recorded in chapter 34 of Deuteronomy.
1/105-110
chapter 14
internal
diversity
lA. INTRODUCTION
There is considerable diversity in the Pentateuch as to subject matter, style, and
diction.
This internal diversity highly suggests that the Pentateuch was written by dif-
ferent men at different times each of whom had his own individual point of view
and technique. This is much more plausible than believing that only one man is
responsible for a work characterized by such diversity as the Pentateuch.
SA. BASIC ANSWER
Diversity of subject matter, style, and diction can be legitimately accounted for
without resorting to composite authorship.
IB. Subject Matter
Regarding the ancient orientals' ability to write different subject matter,
Harrison says:
"The concentration in one man of the ability to write historical narrative, to

compose poetry, and to collate legal material is by no means as unique as
earlier critical writers were wont to assume. As Kitchen has pointed out, an
illustration of this kind of ability from ancient Egypt at a period some seven
centuries prior to the time of Moses has been furnished in all orobability by
161
Khety (or Akhtoy), son of Duauf, a writer who lived in the time of the
pharaoh Amenemhat I {ca. 1991-1962 B.C.). This versatile individual ap-
parently combined the functions of educator, poet, and political
propagandist, and wrote the Satire of the Trades as a text for use by students
in the scribal schools. He was probably commissioned to give literary form to
the Teaching of Amenemhat I, which was a political pamphlet popular in the
Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties as an exercise to be copied by schoolboys.
In addition, he may have been the author of a popular Hymn to the Nile,
which with the foregoing works was also frequently copied out by scribes.
Quite clearly, then, it is by no means inherently impossible for a talented
individual to have engaged during the Amama period in the kind of literary
activity traditionally ascribed to Moses." 32/538
2B. Style
Driver states, "If the parts assigned to P be read attentively, even in a trans-
lation, and compared with the rest of the narrative, the peculiarities of style
will be apparent." 18/20 (See the quote by Driver below in the Diction sec-
tion.)
Raven deals well with this phenomenon as it occurs in passages relating

specifically to God:
"P is said to be cold, formal, systematic, logical but it is precisely in such
passages that one would expect Elohim, the general name for God, the name
which has no special relation to Israel but is used many times in reference to
the deities of the Gentiles. J on the other hand is said to be naive, an-
thropomorphic in his conception of God: but these evidences of religious
fervor would lead us to expect the proper national name of God, the name
which emphasized his covenant relations with Israel. There are passages in
which we cannot explain why one name of the deity is used rather than
another; but in the great majority of cases, any other name would be inap-
propriate." 53/119
Dante's Divine Comedy provides a helpful example of a work which has only
one author but has divergent styles in presenting God's nature. Many passages
colorfully depict the intervention of God into human affairs (as J and E),
while immediately beside them are passages rich in systematic doctrine (as P).
Yet here we have one author and one document— no more. 15/59
Indeed, it cannot be contested that in the P document one finds a cold, dry
atmosphere that has an affinity for details and a fondness of stereotyped
phrases. In contrast to P, J and E are marked by their vividness, color and life.
But let us not be deceived by appearances. The reason P is dull and dry is
because the material attributed to it is that way by nature. How is it possible
to give vitality and charm to a genealogical record? But the few narratives
given to P contain vividness and grace of diction, just as the genealogies
assigned to J are frigid, insipid and schematic. Thus one finds, affirms
Cassuto, that "change of style depends on change of subject matter, not on
different sources." 15/53, 54
Raven further develops this central issue:
"The claim of a distinct vocabulary for P and JE can be maintained only by
mutilating the record. If an expression usually found in P occurs in a JE
section, the chapter and sometimes even the verse is divided. If narratives
were left entire except in case of an expression which might be a later gloss,
the argument would be much weakened. By this method any literary work
could be divided into several sources, more or less complete." 53/124
Kitchen very aptly drives home this weakness in the critics' methodology,
stating that "the supposed consistency of criteria over a large body of writing
is contrived and deceptive (especially on vocabulary, for example), and will

hold for 'style' only if one in the first place picks out everything of a particular
kind, then proclaims it as all belonging to one document separate from the
rest, and finally appeals to its remarkable consistency— a consistency ob-
tained by deliberate selection in the first place, and hence attained by circular
reasoning. 'P' owes its existence mainly to this kind of procedure, and was not
even recognized to have existed for the one hundred years from Astruc in 1753
until Hupfeld in 1853." 42/115-116
Many radical critics are confident that a difference in style within the same
subject matter would tend to indicate different authors. But any one author
will use different styles for different subject matter. Alawyer, for example,
will use a different style in a letter to his mother than in a brief he has
prepared. Here again a clergyman uses a different style talking to his children
m the morning than he does in his benediction. A physician will only use a
prescription style of writing when writing a prescription. In the same vein, the
technical description of the ark in Genesis is no more evidence of different
authorship from the surrounding narrative than a naval architect's style of
describing a vessel makes him a different author than the same architect
writing a love letter to his fiancee. 27/132
Finally, archaeological data indicate that the existence of stylistic differences
in a literarywork was characteristic of much of the ancient Orient. Kitchen
has described the inscription of Uni, an Egyptian official (2400 B.C.), which
contains a flowing narrative (J, E?), summary statements (P?), a victory hymn
(H) and two different refrains (Ri, Rj?) which are repeated often. Yet the fact
remains that there is no question of different documents in the monumental
inscription which was engraved in stone at the request of the one it com-
memorates. 42/125, 126
Another helpful parallel is discovered in the royal inscriptions of the kings of
Urartu. There is a set formula for going forth of the god Haldi (P?), a triple
formula for the going forth of the king (Ki, Kj, Ks,?), a compact statement of
success (S?) or first personal narrative (N?) and every so often there are
statistics of the Urartian army or of the spoils they have taken (P again?). This
is unquestioned as a document because it has no prehistory or rival proto-
author and its style has lasted a century. 42/125, 126

SB. Diction
Certain words are considered to be unique to the J document, others to the P
document, and so on. Driver gives an extensive list of those words and phrases
that are said to be an indication of composite authorship, (see 18/131-135
About Genesis, Driver says:
"In short, the Book of Genesis presents two groups of sections, distinguished
from each other by differences of phraseology and style." 17/ IV
Even allowing that there was no other plausible explanation for this
phenomenon, W.J. Martin points out that inducing composite authorship
from a variation in vocabulary is groundless:
"The invalidity of such criteria has long been recognized by classical scholars,
and no one would now think of attaching any significance to, say, the fact
that beans are mentioned in the Iliad but not in the Odyssey; that the Iliad is
rich in words for wounds and wounding, whereas such words are rare in, or
absent from, the Odyssey; that the words for grasshopper, crane, eel,
maggots, snow, sparrow, and donkey occur only in the Iliad, palm-tree only
in the Odyssey. In fact the Iliad uses 1,500 words none of which occurs in the
Odyssey. Or again, no deductions of any kind could be made from the fact
that in the works of Shakespeare the word 'pious' is found only in Hamlet and
subsequent plays. Even inconsistencies may occur in one and the same author;
Virgil in a single book makes the wooden horse of fir in one passage, of
maplewood in another, and of oak in yet another." 46/13
Cassuto establishes the following ground rules for the proper handling of
linguistic diversity:
"(a) we must not rely upon the differences in language in order to determine
the origin of the sections, which we shall subsequently use to decide the
linguistic characteristics of the sources, for in that case we shall indeed fall
into the snare of reasoning in a circle; (b) nor emend the texts in order to
make them conform to our theory; (c) nor consider words and forms
mechanically, as though they were divorced from their context and the latter
could have no bearing on their use. As we shall soon see, the exponents of the
documentary hypothesis were not always careful to avoid all these pitfalls."
15/44
While it is readily admitted that there
considerable variation of vocabulary
is
in the Pentateuch (i.e., that different words denote the same thing, that
certain phrases and words appear in some sections but not in others, etc.), the
evidence for the existence of unique diction in each "source" is the result of
the critics* circular reasoning. They compile a list of all the passages that
contain certain words, labelling these passages as being from a particular
"source," and then announce that since these words do not appear elsewhere
in the text outside that "source" they are, in fact, characteristic of that
"source" only. Thus, the phenomenon is created by the hypothesis itself. (Sec
above, Kitchen's first quote on variation in style.)
Here is one example:
There are two words in Hebrew for "female slave," one being amah and the
other shiphah. Critics have assigned amah to the Elohist as being the word he
used for "female slave" and shiphah to the Yahwist as being his term for the
same thing. 11/111
Some critics assert that when speaking of a female slave the Yahwist in-
variably uses the Hebrew word shiphah and the Elohist always uses amah.
Driver quite prudently- concedes that E's use of amah is not invariable, but
only preferable. Yet even this is strong. E uses amah six times in Genesis
(20:17; 21:10, 12, 13; 30:3; 31:33), yet 5/i«p/ia/i occurs almost as often in E or
in solidly unified contexts (assigned to E: Genesis 20:14; 29:24, 29; assigned to
P:30:4. 7, 18.)
Orr reacts harshly to the methodology practiced here, retorting:
"It is pure arbitrariness and circular reasoning to change this single word in
chap. XX. 14 and xxx. 18, on the ground that 'the regular word for women
slaves in E is Amah/ and that 'J on the other hand always employs Shiphah' —
the very point in dispute. In chap. xxix. 24, 29, the verses are cut out and
given to P; chap. xxx. 4, 7 are similarly cut out and given to J." 50/231
Genesis 20 furnishes the first substantial E portion in Genesis; yet shiphah (the
J word) appears in verse 14, then followed by amah (the E word) in v. 17.
Holzingar, asserting that "E does not use the word," deletes shiphah, as he also
does in Genesis 30:18. To presuppose that E uses this word and to then at-
tribute every exception to J's insertion or to the redactor's blunder is to simply
build one's conclusion into his premise. Such a method is logically fallacious,
unscientific and would allow one to prove anything he likes. 11/111
Cassuto provides us with another very beneficial example. He believes that a
lack of scholarship is shown when the proponents of the theory deal with the
Hebrew words beterem and terem. Each place beterem appears is ascribed to
E and where terem is found, it is ascribed to J. Unfortunately for the

documentarians, these words are not synonyms. They are two totally different
words; beterem means "before" and terem means "not only." It is apparent
since these words mean two different things that their usage would be dif-
ferent. There is no question here of different sources. 15/51
Diversity of diction is also the issue when the documentarians argue that the
use of the words "to bring up from Egypt" (which are employed by the E
document) and "to bring forth from Egypt" (which are employed by the J
document) are proof of multiple documents.
But in understanding the meaning of each phrase we reach a different
conclusion. When the phrase "to bring up from Egypt" is used, it means they
came from Egypt and entered into the Promised Land, while "to bring forth
from Egypt" simply means to leave Egypt. In Genesis 46:4, God tells Jacob "I
will also surely bring you up." This means Hwill bring him back to the
Promised Land. On the other hand, in Genesis 15:14, it says, "and afterwards
they will come out with many possessions" which when read with the context
clearly shows that the Exodus is being talked about. When the inner meaning
of the words is sought and the passage is not looked at mechanically, the
underlying principles become clear. 15/48
We find a further example in the fact that the Pentateuch records numbers in
two different ways: ascending order, such as the number "twenty and a
hundred," and descending order, "a hundred and twenty." The critics
postulate that J, E and D employ the descending order, while ascending order
is characteristic of P.
A more logical explanation can be found in the fact that the ascending order
is consistently associated with technical or statistical dates. On the other
hand, solitary numbers are almost always in descending order, except in a few
cases where special circumstances operate. Examples of this rule are seen
when Moses was addressing the children of Israel, saying, "I am an hundred
and twenty" (Deuteronomy 31:2), and in the passage concerning the offering
of princes, where it states, "all the gold of the dishes being twenty and a
hundred shekels" (Numbers 7:86, RSV).
In the light of this explanation one may ask how it is possible to explain the
fact that the ascending order is to be found only in the P sections. The answer
is very simple: P is formulated on the basis of its assumed constituency of all
chronological and genealogical tables, all statistical records, all technical

descriptions of services and the like. Thus, it is obvious that the ascending
order will occur more often in the supposed P document. 15/51 ff
A final example is supplied by the word yalad. This Hebrew word for "beget"
is alternately used in its causative form and in its regular form (but with
causative meaning). Critics explain this by assigning the former to P and the
latter to J. Their reasons? Apparently so that in passages of doubtful source, a
precedent may now be established for assigning to J those which use the
regular form with a causative meaning and to P those which use the strictly
causative form. 15/43
IC. SUBJECT MATTER
In answer to the argument that words peculiar to the supposed documents
are evidence for the documentary theory. Raven points out that the real
reason for word variation is a difference in subject matter:
"Of course the argument has no weight unless the words or expression is
one which both writers had occasion to use. Many of the words m Driver's
J, E, nor D had occasion to use
list are confined to P because neither
them." 53/122
This should be obvious. We would expect the vocabulary used in a

systematic genealogy (e.g. Genesis 10) to be somewhat different from the
vocabulary used in a flowing narrative (e.g. Genesis 8-9). Upon in-
vestigation we find that it is not because it was written by two different
people but because one is a genealogy and one is a narrative.
20. VARIETY
It is essential to remember that a single author will utilize variety to attain
vividness or emphasis. A helpful example is seen in the Exodus account of
pharaoh's refusal to release the Israelites from Egypt. His obstinacy in the
face of the plagues is referred to by three verbs meaning "to make strong or
bold" (assigned to P and E), "to make hard" (assigned to P), and "to make
heavy and insensible" (given to J). But an examination of the sequence of
their usage yields the recognition of a natural psychological order— from
boldness, to hardness, to insensibility. This is clearly due to the design of
the author, not the mingling of documents. 11/116
3C. OUR POSSESSION OF ONLY A FRACTION OF THE AR-
CHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT COULD SHED MUCH LIGHT
ON ANCIENT HEBREW USAGE OF CERTAIN WORDS
The radical critics have traditionally held that the longer form of the
pronoun "I" (anoki) is earlier in usage than the shorter form (ani). This
distinction is employed as a criterion for source division, even though an
investigation of the text shows that the alternation of the two forms is
frequently due to cliche. "I (ani) am Yahweh" is obviously a conventional
phrase which is regularly found in contexts which freely use the longer
form anoki. And the entire argument has recently been proven a
fabrication by the discovery of fifteenth century B.C. inscriptions at Ras
Shamra in which both forms of the pronoun are seen side by side.
Another example:
Two Hebrew words for "window" are used in the Flood story. Arubbah is
used in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2a. But in 8:6 the word for "window" is challon
(10/78, 79). The documentarians hold that arubbah is the word that the P
author used for window, and consequently Genesis 7:11 and the first part
of 8:2 are part of the P document. Challon is the word that the J author
used for "window" and so Genesis 8:6 is part of the J document.
Is there another way to account for the use of both of these words that seem
to denote the very same thing in so short a narrative as the Flood story?
The answer is yes. Although we do not yet know why both these terms were
used in such close proximity to each other, archaeological excavations at
Ras Shamra uncovered a tablet on which both of these words appear, thus
rendering it highly untenable that the same usage in Genesis must mean
two authors. 251/88, 98
Such archaeological discoveries have seriously undermined the arguments
of the Documentary Hypothesis and there is every reason to believe that
further excavations will continue to provide us with verifiable data
regarding the real literary techniques of the ancient Hebrews.
While has already done much to defend the integrity of Israelite
it
literature, it should be realized that archaeology has barely even scratched
the surface, as Edwin Yamauchi, formerly of Rutgers University and now

of Miami University (Ohio), points out:
"If one could by an overly optimistic estimate reckon that % of our
materials and inscriptions survived, that ^ of the available sites have been
excavated, that '/^ of the excavated sites have been examined, and that % of
the materials and

inscriptions excavated have been published, one would
still have than 1/1000 of the possible evidence (Vi X X x »^).
less '/i 1/4
Realistically speaking the percentage is no doubt even smaller." 70/12
4B. The Unity of the Pentateuch

The entire Pentateuch is founded upon a unity of arrangement and is linked
together into an organic whole, with only rare overlapping and restatement
due to the progressive nature of God's revelation to Moses. Even the critics
acknowledge this unity by their introduction of the hypothetical redactor to
account for the Pentateuch's present order and harmony. 1 1/108
An example of such a concession is provided by Edward Riehm (Einlettung in
dasAlte Testament, 1889, 1, p. 202), here cited by Archer:
"Most of the laws of the middle books of the Pentateuch form essentially a
homogeneous whole. They do not indeed all come from one hand, and have
not been written at one and the same time .... However, they are all ruled by
the same principles and ideas, have the same setting, the like form of
representation, and the same mode of expression. A multitude of definite
terms appear again and again. In manifold ways also the laws refer to one
another. Apart from isolated subordinate differences, they agree with one
another, and so supplement each other as to give the impression of a single
whole, worked out with a marvelous consistency in its details." 1 1/108
W.J. Martin states:
"Genesis possesses all the characteristics of a homogeneous work: articulation,

the unwitting use of forms and syntactical patterns which indicate the
linguistic and geographical milieu of the writer, the function of particles, and
in particular the definite article passing through the stages from demon-
strative to definitive, as well as here the fluid state of grammatical gender.
The writer of Genesis was a man of such pre-eminent literary gifts, as almost
to suggest a facility and preoccupation with models in another literary
medium. He has all the characteristics of genius: variety and diversity,
multiplicity of alternatives, wide range of colours, a full gamut of notes
exploited with masterly skill. No man now would dream of deducing from
diversity of style diversity of authorship; diversity is part of the very texture of
genius. It is not in the uniformity of diction or style but in the uniformity of
quality that unity is discerned. It is easier to believe in a single genius than to
believe that there existed a group of men possessing such pre-eminent gifts, so
self-effacing, who could have produced such a work." 46/22
chapter 1
conclusion
- to the
documentary
hypothesis
lA. SUGGESTED STRENGTHS

IB. Collective Force of the Hypothesis
Critics readily admit that each criterion by which the Pentateuch is divided
into sources is not, by itself, a convincing argument. However, when taken
collectively, these criteria do in fact present a powerful case for composite
authorship.
Along these lines the British documentarian, A.T. Chapman, says:
"The strength of the critical position is mainly due to the fact that the same
conclusions are reached by independent lines of argument." 16/39 Hence
they appeal to the cumulative effect of these "independent lines of argument"
(criteria).
But as Kitchen points out: "It is a waste of time to talk about the 'cumulative
force* ofarguments that are each invalid; + + + = on any reckoning.
The supposed concordance of assorted criteria whose independence is more
apparent than real has had to be rejected .on evidence far too bulky to
. .
include in this book." 42/125

2B. The Reason for the Widespread Acceptance of the Theory
Why, it may be asked, if the Documentary Hypothesis is as invalid as this
investigation has attempted to show, was it so eagerly received and defended
169
in most scholarly circles throughout continental Europe, Great Britain, and

the United States?
W.H. Green answers this way:
"A large number of eminent scholars accept the critical partition of the
Pentateuch in general, if not in all its details. It has its fascinations, which
sufficiently account for its popularity. The learning, ability, and patient toil
which have been expended upon its elaboration, the specious arguments
arrayed in its support, and the skill with which it has been adapted to the
phenomena of the Pentateuch and of the Old Testament generally, have
given to it the appearance of great plausibility. The novel lines of inquiry
which it opens make it attractive to those of a speculative turn of mind, who
see in it the opportunity for original and fruitful research in the reproduction
of ancient documents, long buried unsuspected in the existing text, which
they antedate by centuries. The boldness and seeming success with which it
undertakes to revolutionize traditional opinion and give a new respect to the
origin and history of the religion of the Old Testament, and its alliance with
the doctrine of development, which has found such wide application in other
fields of investigation, have largely contributed to its popularity." 29/131 132
,
Green continues:
"Its failureis not from the lack of ingenuity or learning, or persevering effort
on the part of its advocates, not from the want of using the utmost latitude of
conjecture, but simply from the impossibility of accomplishing the end
proposed." 29/132
2A. FATAL METHODOLOGICAL WEAKNESSES

Gleason Archer, a graduate of Suffolk Law School, sums up the fallacious
methodology in this way:
"It very doubtful whether the Wellhausen hypothesis is entitled to the status of
is
scientific respectability. There is so much of special pleading, circular

reasoning, questionable deductions from unsubstantiated premises that it is
absolutely certain that its methodology would never stand up in a court of law.
Scarcely any of the laws of evidence respected in legal proceedings are honored
by the architects of this Documentary Theory. Any attorney who attempted to
interpret a will or statute or deed of conveyance in the bizarre and irresponsible
fashion of the source-critics of the Pentateuch would find his case thrown out of
the court without delay." 11/99
Some specific examples of these weaknesses are outlined below.
IB. The Imposition of a Modern Occidental View on Ancient Oriental
Literature
The radical critics' approach is highly questionable when it is assumed that
(a) thedate of composition of each document can be confidently fixed, even
with no other contemporary Hebrew literature available for comparison, and
that, (b) unexpected or rare words in the Masoretic Text can be readily
replaced by a more suitable word.
These practices are especially doubtful in light of Archer's observation:
"As foreigners living in an entirely different age and culture, they have felt
themselves competent to discard or reshuffle phrases or even entire verses
whenever their Occidental concepts of consistency or style have been of-
fended.
"They have also assumed that scholars living more than 3,400 years after the
event can (largely on the basis of philosophical theories) more reliably
reconstruct the way things really happened than could the ancient authors
themselves (who were removed from the events in question by no more than
600 or 1000 years even by the critic's own dating)." 1 1/99

2B. The Lack of Objective Evidence
Even the most dogmatic documentarian must admit that there is no objective
evidence for the existence or the history of the J, E or any of the documents
that are alleged to make up the Torah. There is no manuscript of any portion
of the Old Testament dating from earlier than the third century B.C. 42/23
W.H. Green's comment on this point (in Chambers, Moses and His Recent
Critics, pp. 104, 105) cited by Torrey, is well taken:
"All tradition and all historical testimony as to the origin of the Pentateuch
are against them. The burden of proof is wholly upon the critics. And this
proof should be clear and convincing in proportion to the gravity and the
revolutionary character of the consequences which it is proposed to base upon
it." 60/74
Bruce K. Waltke, Ph.D., Harvard University and Fellow of the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem states firmly:
"Though one who has read only the popular literature advancing the con-
approach might not realize it. even the most
clusions of the literary analytical
ardent advocate of the theory must admit that we have as yet not a single
scrap of tangible, external evidence for either the existence or the history of
the sources], E, D, P." 5/2
3B. Substitution of Disintegrative Approach for Harmonistic Approach

The harmonistic approach is the standard methodology in the study both of
literature and of ancient documents. Anytime it is abandoned for an attempt
to fmd contradictions, literature will yield such "contradictions" by virtue of
its inherent diversity. The same is true of biblical studies.
Allis has aptly noted:

"Disintegration must result inevitably from the application of the disin-
tegrative method of interpretation, whether the variations or differences
appealed to are found in the form or in the content of the document to which
it is applied." 10/126
Kyle maintains a similar line of thinking:

"Criticism is not faultfinding, but it very easily becomes so. And when it sets
out on a course of reconstruction which questions the integrity and trust-
worthiness of the documents to which it is applied, the disposition to find
fault, to look for discord, is irresistible; indeed, it is essential to the process.
But it is a fallacious method which is very apt to nullify processes of thought."
117/178
One of the most painful features of this weakness is its tendency to fabricate
problems which are normally not there.
"Some of the alleged difficulties," avers Kitchen, "are merely the illegitimate
product of the literary theory itself. Theories which artificially create dif-
ficulties that were previously non-existent are obviously wrong and should
therefore be discarded." 42/114
The fallacy of this approach is lucidly epitomized by O.T. Allis' illustration:
"It be noted, therefore, that the quest for such differences is a relatively
is to
simple and easy one. It would be a simple matter to break a crystal ball into a
number of fragments and then to fill a volume with an elaborate description
and discussion of the marked differences between the fragments thus ob-
tained, and to argue that these fragments must have all come from different
globes. The only conclusive refutation would be the proof that when fitted
'
172 MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT (
together they form once more a single globe. After all is said it is the unity
and harmony of the Biblical narratives as they appear in the Scriptures which
is the best refutation of the theory that these self- consistent narratives have
resulted from the combining of several more or less diverse and contradictory
sources." 10/121
4B. The Number of "Original Documents" Is Unlimited
Due to the disintegrative nature of the methodology and the absence of any
objective controls, any consistent analysis of the text becomes ridiculous. ||
North has described some early instances of such effects.
"Baentsch, it may be remembered, in his Leviticus Commentary (1900),

worked with no less than seven P-sigla: P, Ps, Pss, Ph (xvii-xxvi), Po (i-vii), Pr
(xi-xv), and Rp. Any one of the secondary sources might have a second (Ph*,
Pr*) or third (Pr") hand, together with redactors (Rpo, Rph) and even
secondary redactors (Rp*)- We even meet with refinements like Po'.Po*. Po*,
Po**. This is surely the reductio ad absurdum of the analytical method." 77/56
Recent analysis has fared no better; new sources such as J', J*, L, K, and S
have abounded. This has led North, a prominent spokesman for the radical I
critics, to a telling conclusion: |
"It seems with sufficient analytical ingenuity

likely that it would be possible to
sort out more such documents." Cited by 55/55
Green clearly perceives the reasoning behind such boundless fragmentation.

he notes, "the inevitable nemesis of the hypothesis reacting upon itself.
"It is,"
The very principles and methods which are employed in dividing the Pen-
tateuch into different documents, can be applied with like success and quite I
as much cogency in the division and subdivision of each of the documents to

any assignable extent." 108/164
Equally perceptive is Allis, who points out that "if consistently applied the
principles and methods of the higher criticism would lead to the complete
disintegration of the Pentateuch and that it is only the failure on the part of
the critics to apply them in thoroughgoing fashion which prevents this fiasco
from occurring." 10/89
Alan Cole rings the death knell:
"The old and tidy 'documentary hypothesis' has largely failed by its own
success, with ever smaller and smaller units, or unconnected fragments
postulated by scholars, instead of major and continuous written sources.
100/15
5B. Irresponsible Logic

The logical fallacy committed by the radical critics is variously referred to as
petitio pnnctpti, begging the Question or arguing in a circle. Putting it
simply, this is the practice of building one's desired conclusions into his
premises so as to assure that said conclusions will result. At least two blatant
occurrences of this may be found.
IC. THE FORMULATION OF DOCUMENTS J, E. D AND P
In the construction of the four primary documents, the characteristics of
each document were predetermined. Then each passage containing the
appropriate characteristics was assigned to the corresponding document.
S.R. Driver writes that "Elohim is not here accompanied by the other
criteria of P's style, [that] forbids our assigning the sections thus
characterized to that source." 18/13
The result is four documents, each containing material with distinctive
traits. But to then triumphantly assert that this demonstrates the original
existence of these four documents is logically untenable, for the resulting

"sources" are only the product of a predetermined purpose, totally devoid
of any objective evidence or any parallel occurence in the world of
literature. And so the argument spins in its unverifiable and meaningless
circle.
2C. THE UTTER DEPENDENCE UPON REDACTORS

With the introduction of the redactor, the radical critics add another
example of a solution which originates in their construction and not in
fact. The redactor stretches their logic even thinner, for his presence in-
sures the fact that no evidence can arise which cannot, at least
hypothetically, be falsified by evidence is removed from the arenas of logic
and evidence, and thus is unsupportable.
Allis solemnly contends that "in assigning to the redactor the role of editor
and making him responsible for all the cases where the analysis does not
work out as they think it should, the critics resort to a device which is
destructive of their whole position. For the critics to blame the failure of
the analysis to work out satisfactorily on an unknown redactor who has
changed the text of his sources is equivalent to changing the actual text
which the critics have before them in the interest of their theory as to what
the text originally was. To put it bluntly, it is what is called 'doctoring the
evidence.' By such means any theory can be proved or disproved." 10/60
And he elsewhere reminds us that "every appeal to the redactor is a tacit
admission on the part of the critics that their theory breaks down at that
point." 10/39
The renowned Jewish novelist, Herman Wouk, undertook a searching
investigation of the Documentary Hypothesis and his reaction to the
presence of the redactor deserves close attention. "With the discovery of
the interpolater, writes Wouk, "Wellhausen's difficulties were at an end.
As a tool of controversial logic this figure is wonderful .... When all else
fails Wellhausen— grammar, continuity, divine names or outright
falsifying of the plain sense of the Hebrew— he works an interpolater." He
declares that Engnell "dealt the death blow to the Prolegomena by
analysing Wellhausen's villainous ghost, the interpolater, and driving it
from the field with a polite scholarly horse laugh." 67/315-317
ULTIMATE FAILURE OF THE HYPOTHESIS

In his book. The Documentary Hypothesis, the late Umberto Cassuto devotes
six entirechapters to the investigation of the five most significant criteria the
documentarians offer as evidence that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. He
compares the five basic objections to pillars which hold up a house. (Naturally,
these objections to Mosaic authorship are also supports for the Documentary
Hypothesis.) About these supports or "pillars" of the Documentary Hypothesis,
Cassuto says in his concluding chapter:
"I did not prove that the pillarswere weak or that each one failed to give decisive
support, but I established that they were not pillars at all, that they did not exist,
that they were purely imaginary. In view of this, my final conclusion that the
documentary hypothesis is null and void is justified." 15/100, 101
Another Jewish scholar, M.H. Segal, after an investigation of the Pentateuchal
problem in his book, The Pentateuch— Its Composition and Its Authorship,
concludes:
"The preceding pages have made it clear why we must reject the Documentary
Theory as an explanation of the composition of the Pentateuch. The Theory is
complicated, artificial and anomalous. It is based on unproved assumptions. It
uses unreliable criteria for the separation of the text into component documents.
"To these defects may be added other serious faults.

It carries its work of analysis
to absurd lengths, and neglects the synthetic study of the Pentateuch as a literary
whole. By an abnormal use of the analytical method, the Theory has reduced
the Pentateuch to a mass of incoherent fragments, historical and legalistic, to a
collection of late legends and of traditions of doubtful origin, all strung together
by late compilers on an artificial chronological thread. This is a fundamentally
false evaluation of the Pentateuch. Even a cursory reading of the Pentateuch is
sufficient to show that the events recorded therein are set out in logical
sequence, that there is some plan combining its various parts and some purpose
unifying all its contents, and that this plan and purpose find their realization in
the conclusion of the Pentateuch which is also the end of the Mosaic age." 58/22
Thus, Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis must, in the final analysis, be
regarded as unsuccessful in attempting to substantiate its denial of Mosaic
authorship in favor of the JEDP source theory.
4A. SOME CLOSING COMMENTS
IB. The Jewish scholar, Yehezkel Kaufmann, relates the present state of af-
fairs:
"Wellhausen's arguments complemented each other nicely, and offered what

seemed to be a solid foundation upon which to build the house of biblical
criticism. Since then, however, both the evidence and the arguments sup-
porting this structure have been called into question and, to some extent,
even rejected. Yet biblical scholarship, while admitting that the grounds have
crumbled away, nevertheless continues to adhere to the conclusions." 40/1
2B. Mendenhall speaks of the continued acceptance of the documentarian
evolutionary religious development:
"It is at least a justified suspicion that a scholarly piety toward the past, rather
than historical evidence, is the main foundation for their position." 68/36
SB. Bright adds that even today the "documentary hypothesis still commands
general acceptance, and must be the starting point of any discussion."
14/62
4B. The renowned Jewish scholar, Cyrus Gordon, relates the almost blind
adherence of many critics to the documentary theory:
"When I speak of a 'commitment' to JEDP, I mean it in the deepest sense of
the word. have heard professors of Old Testament refer to the integrity of
I
JEDP They are willing to countenance modifications in

as their 'conviction.*
detail. They permit you to subdivide (D,, D|, Dj, and so forth) or combine
(JE) or add a new document designated by another capital letter but they will
not tolerate any questioning of the basic JEDP structure." 27/131
Gordon concludes:
"I amat a loss to explain this kind of 'conviction' on any grounds other than
intellectual laziness or inability to reappraise." 27/131
5B. The British scholar, H.H. Rowley, will not reject the theory simply
because he sees nothing better to replace it with:
That it [the Graf-Wellhausen theory] is widely rejected in whole or in part is
doubtless true, but there is no view to put in in its place that would not be
more widely and emphatically rejected. The Graf-Wellhausen view is only
. . .
a working hypothesis, which can be abandoned with alacrity when a more

satisfying view is found, but which cannot with profit be abandoned until
then." 54/46
According to this view it is better to hold to an invalid theory than to have to
admit to not holding one at all.
6B. Cyrus Gordon, in the end of an article in which he uncompromisingly

criticized the entire Wellhausen theory, gave a striking example of this
unquestioned allegiance to the Documentary Hypothesis:
"A professor of Bible in a leading university once asked me to give him the
facts on JEDP. I told him essentially what I have written above. He replied: 'I
am convinced by what you say but I shall go on teaching the old system.'
When I asked him why, he answered: 'Because what you have told me means I
should have to unlearn as well as study afresh and rethink. It is easier to go on
with the accepted system of higher criticism for which we have standard
textbooks.'" 27/134
7B. Such a statement would seem to justify Mendenhall's suspicion of many
modern biblical critics:
"It is much easier to follow the accepted pattern of the 19th century,
especially since ithas received some academic respectability, mostly through
default, and to be content with pointing out a few inadequacies here and
there which will show that one is keeping up to date." 68/38
8B. Herman Wouk, the Jewish author and playwright, while not a
professional biblical scholar as such, nevertheless provides some honest
suggestions as to why there remains a general basic acceptance of the
theories propounded by Wellhausen and his followers. In his book. This Is
My God, Wouk, in the chapter on the Pentateuch, offers this poignant
evaluation:
"It is a hard thing for men who have given their lives to a theory, and taught it
to younger men, to see it fall apart." 67/318
To this Wouk adds:
"What the scholars had found out at long last, of course, was that literary
analysis is not a scientiHc method. Literary style is a fluid, shifting thing, at
best, a palimpsest or a potpourri. The hand of Shakespeare is in the pages of

Dickens: Scott wrote chapters of Mark Twain; Spinoza is full of Hobbes and
Descartes. Shakespeare was the greatest echoer of all, and the greatest stylist
of all. Literary analysis has been used for generations by obsessive men to
prove that everybody but Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. 1 believe literary
analysis could be used to prove that I wrote both David Copperfield and A
Farewell to Arms. I wish it were sound." 67/317
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Aalders, G.A. A Short Introduction to the Pentateuch. Chicago: Inter- Varsity
Christian Fellowship, n.d. (originally published in 1 949).
2. Albright, W.F. "Archaeology Confronts Biblical Criticism," The American
Scholar. April, 1938. Vol. 7, pp. 176-188.
8. Albright, W.F. "The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Ar-
chaeology, "Bu//eim of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 1939. Vol.
74, pp. 11-23.
4. Albright, W.F. Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. New York: Funk and
Wagnalls, 1955.
5. Albright, W.F. The Archaeology of Palestine. Baltimore: Penguin Books,
revised 1960.
6. Albright, W.F. Archaeology, Historical Analogy, and Early Biblical Tradition.
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1966.
7. Albright, W.F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press, 1942
8. Albright, W.F. The Biblical Period From A hraham to Ezra. New York: Harper
&Row. 1963.
9. Albright, W.F. From the Stone Age to Christianity. Baltimore: John Hopkins
Press, 1940.
10. Allis, Oswald T. The Five Books of Moses. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., revised 1969.
11. Archer, Gleason, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody
Press, ©1964, 1974. Moody Press. Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Used by
permission.
12. Beattie, F.R. Radical Criticism. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1894.
15. Bentzen, A. Introduction to the Old Testament. 2 Vob. Copenhagen: G.E.C.
Gad. 1948.
14. Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1959.
15. Cassuto, U. The Documentary Hypothesis. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, the Hebrew
University, 1941. First English edition, 1961.
16. Chapman, A.T. An Introduction to the Pentateuch. Cambridge: The

17. Driver, S.R. The Book of Genesis. London: Methuen & Co., 1904.
18. Driver, S.R. Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913.
19. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel. Translated by Coslett Quin. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1970.
20. Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament— An Introduction. New York: Harper and
Row Publilshers. 1965.
21. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Edited by James Hastings. Edinburgh: T.
&
T.Clark. 1935.
22. Feinberg, Paul D. The Doctrine of God in the Pentateuch. Doctoral Disser-
tation. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968.
23. Fohrer, Georg. Introduction to the Old Testament. Initiated by Ernst Sellin.
Translated by David Green. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965.
24. Freedom. D.N. and J.C. Greenfield, eds. New Directions in Biblical Ar-
chaeology. Garden City: Doubleday, 1969.
25. Gardner, James. The Christian Cyclopedia. Glasgow: Blackie and Son, 1858.
26. Gilkey, Langdon B. "Cosmology. Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical
Language." Concordia Theological Monthly. March, 1962. Vol. 33, pp. 142-
154.
27. Gordon, Cyrus H. "Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit," Christianity Today.
November 23, 1959. Vol. 4, pp. 13M33.
28. Gray, Edward M. Old Testament Criticism. New York and London: Harper &
Brothers, 1923.
29. Green, William H. The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. New York: Chas.
80. Gunkel. Hermann. What Remains of the Old Testament? London: George
Allan and Unwin LTD., 1928.
51. Hahn, Herbert F. The Old Testament in Modem Research. Philadelphia;
Fortress Press, 1966.
52. Harrison. R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1970.
53. Harrison, R.K. Old Testament Times. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1970.
54. Heidel, Alexander. TAe Gtlgamesh Epic and the Old Testament Parallels.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949.
55. Hengstenberg, E.W. Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch. Vol. 2.
Edinburgh: James Nisbet & Co. , 1847.
56. Hertz, J. H. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. Vol. 2. London: Oxford University
Press, 1930. 1951.
57. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2. Edited by George A. Buttrick.
New York: Abingdon Press, 1962.
58. The Interpreter's One- Volume Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Charles
Laymon. New York: Abingdon Press, 1971.
59. Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius fosephus. Translated by William
Whiston. Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., 1860.
40. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1960.
41. Kim, Chi Syun. The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch. Doctoral Disser-
tation. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1935.
42. Kitchen, K.A. Ancient Orient and the Old Testament. Chicago: Inter- Varsity
Press, 1966.
45. Kline. Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids: William B.
44. Kline, Meredith G. "Dynastic Covenant," Westminster Theological foumal.
November, 1961. Vol. 23, pp. 1-15.
45. Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico- Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Com-
position of the Hexateuch. Translated by P.H. Wicksteed. London: MacMillan
& Co., 1886.
46. Martin, W.J. Stylistic Criteria and the Analysis of the Pentateuch. London:
Tyndale Press, 1955.
47. Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant In Israel and the Ancient Near East.
Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium. 1955.
48. Montgomery, John Warwick. History and Christianity. Downers Grove: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1964.
49. The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J.D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
50. Orr. James. The Problem of the Old Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, written 1905, printed 1917.
51. Philo, Judaeus. The Works of Philo. Vol. 4. Translated by F.H. Colson.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1935.
52. Von Rad, G. Old Testament Theology. 2 Vols. Edinburgh and London: Oliver
and Boyd LTD. English edition published 1962.
55. Raven, John Howard. Old Testament Introduction. New York: Fleming H.
RevellCompany, 1906, revised 1910.
54. Rowley, H.H. The Growth of the Old Testament. London: Hutchinson's
University Library, Hutchinson House. 1950.
55. Albright, Wm. F. "The Old Testament and the Archaeology of Palestine," Old
Testament and Modem Study. Edited by H.H. Rowley. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1st edition 1951.
56. Rowley. H.H. Worship in Ancient Israel. London: S.P.C.K., 1967.

57. Segal. M.H. Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927.
58. Segal, M.H. The Pentateuch— Its Composition and Its Authorship. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1967.
59. Selleck, W.S. The New Appreciation of the Bible. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1906.
60. Torrey, R. A. The Higher Criticism and the New Theology. Montrose: Montrose
Christian Literature Society. 1911.
61. Unger, Merrill F. Introductory Guide to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.
62. Vos, Howard F., ed. Can I Trust the Bible? Chicago: Moody Press, ©1963,
Moody Press, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Used by permission.
Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by Black
6S. Wellhausen, Julius.
and Menzies. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1885. (Originally
published in 1878 under the title History of Israel.)
64. Whitelaw, Thomas. Old Testament Critics. London: Kegan. Paul, Trench,
Trubner&Co.. LTD., 1903.
65. Wilson, R.D. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament. London: Mar-
shall Brothers Limited, 1926.
66. Wilson, R.D. Studies in the Book of Daniel (Series II). New York: Fleming H.
Revell Company. 1938.
67. Wouk, Herman. This Is My God. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1959.
68. Mendenhall, George E. "Biblical History in Transition." The Bible and the
Ancient Near East. Edited by G.E. Wright. New York: Doubleday and
Company. 1961.
69. Wright. G.E. God Who Acts. London: SCM Press. LTD.. 1958.
70. Yamauchi. Edwin M. "Stones. Scripts, and Scholars." Christianity Today.
February 14. 1969. Vol. 13. No. 10, pp. 8-13.
71. Young. E.J. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Co.. 1949.
72. Kitchen, K.A. "Some Egyptian Background to the Old Testament," The
Tyndale House Bulletin. Nos. 5 and 6, 1960.
73. Sanders, C. Introduction to Research in English Literary History. New York:
MacMillan. 1952.
74. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury
Press. 1944.
75. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. 2. New York: University Press. 1969.

76. Reisner. G.A.. and W.S. Smith. A History of the Giza Necropolis, Vol. 2.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1955.
77. North. C.R. "Pentateuchal Criticism," The Old Testament and Modem Study.
Edited by H.H. Rowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.
78. The Geography ofStrabo, Vol. 8. English translation by Horace Leonard Jones.
New York: Putnam's, 1932.
79. Diodorus of Sicily, Vol. 1. English translation by C.H. Oldlather. New York:
Putnam's, 1933.
80. Driver, S.R. "Deuteronomy," International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh:
T&TClark, 1896.
81. Driver, S.R. "Book of Exodus," Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.
Cambridge: The University Press, 1911.
82. Pederson, Johannes, and Geoffrey Cumberlege. Israel, Its Life and Culture.
Vols. 1 and 2. Translated by Annie I. Fausboll. London: Oxford University

Press, 1947.
83. Kline, Meredith. "Is the History of the Old Testament Accurate?" Can I Trust
My Bible? Edited by Howard Vos. Chicago: Moody Press, ©1963. Moody Press,
Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Used by permission.
84. Ng, David, ed. Sourcebook. Philadelphia: Board of Christian Education— The
United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1970.
85. Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper,
1941.
86. Wright, Ernest G. "Biblical Archaeology Today," New Directions in Biblical
Archaeology. Edited by David N. Freedman and J.C. Greenfield. Garden City:
Doubleday, 1969.
87. Manley, G.T. The Book of the Law. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1957.
88. The Interpreter's One- Volume Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Charles M.
Laymon. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.
89. Albright, W.F. History, Archaeology, and Christian Humanism. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.
90. Allis, Oswald T. The Old Testament, Its Claims and Its Critics. Nutley, New
Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1972.
91. Anderson, G.W. A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament. London: Gerald
Duckworth and Co., Ltd., 1959.
92. Barton, George A. The Religion of Israel. New York: MacMillanCo.. 1918.
93. Barzun, J. and H. Graff. The Modem Researcher. New York: Harcourt, Brace
andWorld, Inc., 1957.
94. Bewer, Julius A., Lewis Bayles Paton and George Dahl. "The Problem of
Deuteronomy: ASymposium," Journal of Biblical Literature. 1929-30. Vol.47,
pp. 305-379.
95. Briggs, C.A. The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. New York: Charles
96. Brightman, Edgar S. The Sources of the Hexateuch. New York: Abingdon
Press, 1918.
97. Brown, Lewis, This Believing World. New York: MacMillan Company, 1961.
98. Cassuto, U. Commentary on Genesis 1-11. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, the Hebrew
University, 1964.
99. Cheyne, T.K., Founders of Old Testament Criticism. London: Methuen & Co.,
1893.
100. Cole, R. Alan. Exodus. Downers Grove, 111.: Inter- Varsity Press, 1973.
101. Cornill, Carl. Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament. New
York: G.P. PutnamsSons, 1907.
102. Davis, John J. Conquest and Crisis. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969.
103. Eerdmans, B.D. The Religion of Israel. Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden,
1947.
104. Engnell, Ivan. A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays on the Old Testament.
Translated and edited by John T. Willis. Nashville: Vanderbilt Press, 1969.
105. Flanders, Henry Jackson, Jr. and Robert Wilson Crapps and David Anthony
Smith. People of the Covenant. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1973.
106. Gordon, Cyrus. Introduction to Old Testament Times. Ventnor, N.J.: Ventnor
Publishers, Inc., 1953.
107. Habel, Norman C. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia:

108. Harper, William R. and W. Henry Green. "The Pentateuchal Question."

Hebraica. October, 1888. Vol. 5, No. 1, pp 18-73.
109. Harrison, R.K. "The Old Testament and its Critics." Christianity Today, May
25. 1959.
110. Kaiser, Walter C, Jr.. "The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11." New Perspectives
on the Old Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne. Waco: Word Books,
copyright 1970.
HI. Kautzsch, E. An Outline of the History of the Literature of the Old Testament.
Translated by John Taylor. Oxford: Williams and Norgate. 1898.
112. Kelso, James. Archaeology and Our Old Testament Contemporaries. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1966.
113. Kenyon, Sir Frederic. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. London: Eyre
and Spottiswoode, 1939.
114. Kittel, R. A History of the Hebrews. Vol. 1. Translated by John Taylor.
Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1895.
115. Kittel, R. The ScientificStudy of the Old Testament. Translated by J. Caleb
Hughes. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1910.
116. Kuenen, A., The Religion of Israel. Translated by Alfred Heath May. Edin-
burgh: Williams and Norgate, 1874.
117. Kyle, Melvin G. The Deciding Voice of the Monuments in Biblical Criticism.
Oberlin, Ohio: Bibliotheca Sacra Company, 1924.
118. Kyle, Melvin G. The Problem of the Pentateuch. Oberlin, Ohio: Bibliotheca
Sacra Co., 1920.
119. Lewis, C.S. "Modem Theology and Biblical Criticism," Christian Reflections,
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967.
120. Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand
121. Loetscher, Lefferts A., Editor-in-chief. "Pentateuch," Twentieth Century
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1955.
122. MacDill, David, The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch. Pittsburgh: United
Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1896.
123. Manley, G.T. The Book of the Law. London: The Tyndale Press, 1957.
124. Meek, J.T. Hebrew Origins. Revised Edition. New York: Harper Brothers, 1950.
125. Moller, Wilhelm. Are the Critics Right? New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.,
1899.
126. Montgomery, John Warwick. "Is Man His Own God?" Christianity For the
Tough Minded. Edited by John Warwick Montgomery. Minneapolis: Bethany
Fellowship, Inc., 1973.
127. Moore, James R. "Science and Christianity: Toward Peaceful Coexistence,"
Christianity For the Tough Minded. Edited by John Warwick Montgomery.
Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc.. 1973.
128. Motyer, J. A. The Revelation of the Divine Name. London: The Tyndale Press.
1959.
129. Nielsen. Eduard. Oral Tradition. London: SCM Press, 1954.
130. North. C.R. "Pentateuchal Criticism," The Old Testament and Modem Study.
Edited by H.H. Rowley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967.
I
151. Payne, J.B. An Outline of Hebrew History. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1954.
152. Pfeiffer, R.H. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper and
Brothers Publishers. 1948.
155. Rast, Walter E. Tradition, History and the Old Testament. Philadelphia:
154. Richardson, Alan. The Bible in the Age of Science. Philadelphia: The West-
minster Press, 1961.
155. Sayce, A.H. Fresh Light From the Ancient Monuments. London: The Religious
Tract Society, 1895.
156. Sayce, A.H. The 'Higher Criticism" and the Verdict of the Monuments.
London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1895.
157. Sayce, A.H. Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies. London: The
Religious Tract Society, 1904.
158. Schultz, Hermann. Old Testament Theology. Translated from the fourth
edition by H.A. Patterson. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1898.
159. Segal, M.H. The Pentateuch, Its Composition and Other Biblical Studies.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 1967.
140. Simpson, C.A. The Early Tradition of Israel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1948.
141. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. Edinburgh: T
&T Clark, 1950.
142. Smith, W. Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. London: Adam
and Charles Black, 1907.
145. Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism and the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press. 1971.
144. Von Rad, Gerhard. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. London:
and Boyd, 1966.
Oliver
145. Vos, Geerhardus. The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes. London:
Hodder and Stoughton. 1886.
146. Wellhausen, J. Sketch of the History of Israel andfudah. London and Edin-
burgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1891.
147. Woudstra, Marten H. "The Tabernacle in Biblical-Theological Perspective,"
New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne. Waco,
Texas: Word Books, copyright 1970.
148. Wright, G.E. The Old Testament Against Its Environment. Chicago: Henry
RegneryCo., 1950.
149. Albright, William F. "Arahaeological Discoveries and the Scriptures,"
Christianity Today.June 21, 1968. Vol. 12, pp. 5-5.
150. Albright. William F. "The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology," Religion
inUfe. 1952. Vol. 21, pp. 557-550.
151. Albright, W.F. "A Brief History of Judah from the Days of Josiah to Alexander
xhtGxtzx." Biblical Archaeologist. February, 1946. Vol. 9, pp. 1-16.
152. Albright, W.F. "King Jehoiachin in Exile," Biblical Archaeologist. December,
1942. Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 49-55.
155. Albright, W.F. "The Oldest Hebrew Letters: Lachish Ostraca," Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research. April, 1958. No. 70. pp. 11-16.
154. Albright,W.F. "Recent Progress in North-Canaanite Research," Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research. April, 1958. No. 70, pp. 18-24.
155. Battenfield, James Richard. Historicity of Genesis Fourteen. Unpublished
Bachelor of Divinity Thesis submitted to Talbot Theological Seminary.

156. Burrows, Millar. What Mean These Stones? New York: Meridian Books. 1957.
157. Caiger, S.L. Bible and Spade. London: Oxford University Press, 1936.
158. Elder, John. Prophets, Idols, and Diggers. New York: Bobbs- Merrill Co.,
©1960. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
159. Feinberg, Charles L. "The Relation of Archaeology to Biblical Criticism,"
bibliotheca Sacra. June. 1947. Vol. 104, No. 414. pp. 170-181.
160. Finegan, Jack. Light from the Ancient Past, London: Oxford Press, distr. in the
U.S. by Princeton University Press, 1946.
161. Frank, Henry Thomas. Bible, Archaeology and Faith. Nashville, Tenn.:
Abingdon Press, 1971.
1969.
163. Free, Joseph P. "Archaeology and the Bible," His Magazine. May, 1949. Vol. 9,
pp. 17-20. reprinted by permission form His, student magazine of Inter- Varsity
Christian Fellowship, ©1949.
164. Free, Joseph P. "Archaeology and Higher Criticism." Bibliotheca Sacra.
January, 1957. Vol. 114. pp. 23-39.
165. Free, Joseph P. "Archaeology and the Historical Accuracy of Scripture,"
Bibliotheca Sacra. ]u\y. 1956. Vol. 113, pp. 214-226.
166. Free, Joseph P. "Archaeology and Liberalism," Bibliotheca Sacra. July, 1956.
Vol. 113, pp. 322-338.
167. Free, Joseph P. "Archaeology and Neo- Orthodoxy," Bibliotheca Sacra. January,
I957.V0I. 114, pp. 123-132.
168. Garstang, John. The Foundations of Bible History; Joshua, Judges. New York:
R.R.Smith, Inc., 1931.
169. Glueck, Nelson. Rivers In the Desert. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Cadahy,
1959.
170. Glueck. Nelson. "The Second Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh." Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research. October, 1939. No. 75. pp. 8-22.
171. Glueck. Nelson. "The Third Season at Tell el-Kheleifeh," Bulletin of the
American Schoob of Oriental Research. October, 1940. No. 79, pp. 2-18.
172. Gordon, C.H. "Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets," T he Biblical Ar-
chaeologist. February, 1940. Vol. 3, pp. 1-12.
173. Gordon, Cyrus. "The Patriarchal Age," Journal of Bible and Religion. October,
1955. Vol. 21, No. 4.
174. Hamilton. Floyd. Basis of the Christian Faith. New York: Harper. 1933.
175. Hauper, R.S. "Lachish— Frontier Fortress of Judah," Biblical Archaeologist.
December, 1938. Vol. I, pp. 30-32.
176. Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1963.
177. Horn, S.H. "Recent Illumination of the Old Testament," Christianity Today.
June 21, 1968. Vol. 12, pp. 925-929.
178. Irwin, W.A. "The Modem Approach to the Old Testament, "yourmz/ of Bible
and Religion. 1953. Vol. 21, pp. 9-20.
179. Kenyon, Kathleen. Beginning in Archaeology. New York: Praeger, 1962.
180. Kline, Meredith G. "Is History of the Old Testament Accurate? Can I Trust the
Bible? Edited by Howard Vos. Chicago: Moody, ©1963. Moody Press, Moody
Bible Institute of Chicago. Used by permission.
181. Lapp, Paul W. Biblical Archaeology and History. New York: World
Publishing. 1969.
182. Leemans, W.F. "Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period as Revealed by
Texts from Southern Mesopotamia," Studia et Documenta ad iura Orientis
Antiqui Pertinentia. 1960. Vol. 6.
183. Little, Paul, Know Why You Believe. Wheaton, 111.: Scripture Press, 1967.
184. Oesterley, W.O.E. and Theodore H. Robinson, Hebrew Religion: Its Origin
and Developments. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
1935.
185. Oman, Sir Charles. On the Writing of History. New York: Barnes and Noble.
1939.
186. Palmer, Humphrey. Logic of Gospel Criticism. London, Melbourne: Mac-
Millan; New York: St. Martin's Press, 1968.
187. Peet, T. Eric. Egypt and the Old Testament. Liverpool: Univ. Press of Liver-
pool, 1942.
188. Price, Ira Maurice, The Monuments and the Old Testament. 17th edition.
Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1925.
189. Robertson, A.T. A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament. Part I. New
York: Richard R. Smith, Inc. 1931.
190. Steams, M.B. "Biblical Archaeology and the Higher Critics," Bibliotheca
5acra. July-September, 1939. Vol. 96, No. 483, pp. 307-318.
191. Steele, Francis. "Lipit-Ishtar Law Code," American foumal of Archaeology.
April-June, 1947. Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 158-164.
192. Thiele, E.R. "The Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel," /oMma/ of
Near Eastern Studies. July, 1944. Vol. 3, pp. 137-186.
193. Unger, Merrill F. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: 2^n-
dervan, 1954.
194. Unger, Merrill F. "Archaeological Discoveries," Bibliotheca Sacra. January,
1955. Vol. 112, Part 1; p. 55. Part II, p. 137.
195. Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis. Translated by John H. Marks (in The Old
Testament Library. G. Ernest Wright, et. al. eds. Philadelphia: The West-
minster Press, 1961).
196. KOlling, Samuel R. "The Dating of the So-Called 'P-Sections' in Genesis,"
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Spring, 1972. Vol. 15.
197. Vos, Howard F. Genesis and Archaeology. Chicago: Moody Press, ©1963.
Moody Press, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Used by permission.
198. Wight, Fred H. Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody
Press, ©1955. Moody Press, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Used by per-
mission.
199. Wright, G. Ernest. "Archaeology and Old Testament Studies," Journal of
Biblical Literature. December, 1958. Vol. 77, pp. 39-51.
200. Wright, G. Ernest. "The Present State of Biblical Archaeology," The Study of
the Bible Today and Tomorrow. Edited by Harold R. Willoughby. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1947.
201. Wright, G. Ernest. "The Terminology of Old Testament Religion and Itt
Significance," Journal of Near Eastern Studies. October, 1942. Vol. I, No. 4,
pp. 404-414.
202. Wright, G.E. "Two Misunderstood Items in the Exodus Conquest Cycle,"
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. April, 1942. No. 86,
pp. 33-34.
.
203. Albright, William F. "Historical and Mythical Elements in the Story of Joseph,**
Journal of Biblical Uterature. 1918. Vol. 37, pp. 111-143.
204. Albright, William F. "The Old Testament and Archaeology," Old Testament
Commentary. Edited by Herbert L. Alleman and Elmer E. Flack.
Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1948.
205. Barton, G.A. "Archaeology and the Bible." Philadelphia: American Sunday
School Union, 1937.
206. Unger, Merrill F. "Archaeological Discoveries and Their Bearing on Old
Ttstdimtnt,"' Bibliotheca Sacra. April, 1955. Vol. 112, pp. 137-142.
207. Wellhauscn, JuHus. Die Composition des Hexateuchs. Third Edition, Berlin,
1899.
208. Smith, R.W. The Prophets of Israel. 1895.
209. Albright, William F. Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible. New York: Revell.
1933.
210. Sama, Nahum. Understanding Genesis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1966.
211. Anderson, Bernard W. "Changing Emphasis in Biblical Scholarship, /ouma/ of
Bible and Religion. April, 1955. Vol. 23, pp. 81-88.
212. Dahse, Johannes. 'Texkritische Bedenken gegen den Ausgangspunkt der
Pentateuchkritik" ("Textual-Critical Doubts About the Initial Premise of
Pentateuchal Criticism"), Archivenfur Religionswissenschaft. 1903.
213. Orlinsky, Harry. Ancient Israel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1954.
214. Gunkel, Hermann. The Legends of Genesis. Translated by W.H. Carruth.
Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co. 1901 ,
215. Hillers, Delbert. Treaty-Curse and the Old Testament Prophets. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964.
216. Huffmon, Herbert B. "The Exodus, Sinai, and the Credo," Catholic Biblical
Quarterly. 1965. Vol. 27, pp. 101-113.
217. Kitchen, K.A. "Ancient Orient, 'Deuteronism* and the Old Testament," New
Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne, Waco, Texas:
Word, 1970.
218. Kline, Meredith. "The Concepts of Canon and Covenant," New Perspectives on
the Old Testament. Edited byj. Barton Payne. Waco, Texas: Word, 1970.
219. McCarthy, Dennis J. "Covenant in the Old Testament," Catholic Biblical
Quarterly. 1954. Vol. 27, pp. 217-40.
220. McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1963.
221. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and The Deuteronomic School. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1972.
222. Banks. Edgar J. The Bible and the Spade. New York: Association Press, 1913.
223. Gerhardsson, Birger. Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity.
Translated by Eric. J. Sharpe. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1964.
224. Yaron, Reunen. The Laws ofEshnunna. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1969.
225. Youngblood, Ronald. The Heart of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House. 1971.
226. Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology." The
Evangelical Quarterly. April-June, 1974. Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 81, 91.
section
form
criticism
The basic tenets of Form Criticism are examined. Practical answers are
given to the basic assumptions and conclusions.
SECTION OUTLINE
Chapter 16. Introduction to New Testament Form Criticism
lA. Defmition
2 A. Purposes
SA. Methodology
4A. Background and history
IB. Background
2B. History
5 A Major proponents of Form Criticism
.
IB. Martin Dibelius

2B. Rudolf Bultmann
SB. Vincent Taylor
4B. Summary
IC. Similarities between Dibelius and Bultmann
2C. Some basic criticism
6A. In summary
Chapter 1 7 Defmition of Terms
.
1 A. R.A. Spivey and D.M. Smith's basic glossary

2 A. Redaction Criticism
185
3 A. Religionsgeschichtliche Methode
4A. Gospel tradition
5 A. Community
6 A. Creative community
7 A. Sitz im Leben
8A. Units or Pericopes
9A. Artificial context
lOA. Demythologization
11 A. History
Chapter 18. Oral Tradition
1 A. Introduction and explanation
2A. Major proponents
IB. Martin Dibelius
2B. Rudolf Bultmann
3B. Vincent Taylor
5 A. Basic answer and analysis
4A. Conclusion
5A. In summary
Chapterl 9 Pericopes or Self-contained Units
.
lA. Basic assumption

2 A. Proponents
IB. Karl Ludwig Schmidt
2B. Martin Dibelius
SB. Rudolf Bultmann
4B. Vincent Taylor
5B. Comments on passion narrative
3 A. Basic answers and analysis
1B Critical analysis of pericopes transmission
.
2B. Critical analysis of the fallacy of inaccurate transmission of pericopc

4A. In summary
Chapter 20. Classification According to the Form
IB. A summary of the form classification
2B. A breakdown of the classifications
3B. The forms of Martin Dibelius
IC. Paradigms
2C. Tales ornoi/e//en
3C. Legends
4C. Remaining forms
4B. The forms of Rudolf Bultmann
IC. Apothegm or Apophthegm
2C. Sayings
ID. Logia or wisdom sayings
2D. Prophetic sayings
3D. Legal sayings
4D. "I" sayings
5D. Parables
3C. Miracle stories
4C. Historical narratives and legends
5C. Myths
5B. The forms of Vincent Taylor
IC. Pronouncement stories
2C. Sayings and parables
3C. Miracle stories
2A. Basic answer
IB. Criticism posed by the form critics themselves
2B. Criticism from other authors I
IC. Criticism of apothegm and paradigm J
2C. Criticism of noi/e//en (tales) and parables

3C. Criticism of legends and parables
4C Criticism of miracles
.
5C. Final criticisms ,
3A. In summary I
Chapter 21. The Creative Community I
lA. A creative community ]
IB. Basic assumption !
IC. Dibelius
j
2C. Bultmann
j
3C. Taylor ^
2B. Basic answer \
IC. Do communities produce matchless sayings like those of Jesus?

2C. Did the Sttz im Leben influence the creation of the sayings of Jesus?
3C. Did the creative community lack eyewitness evidence?
4C. Did the New Testament writers pass on accurate tradition?
5C. Does the emphasis on community creativity diminish the character {
of Jesus?
2A. An illiterate community I
3A. A parousia-conscious and salvation-minded community i
4A. Conclusion
5A. In summary
Chapter 22. No Biographical Interest
'

IB. The position of Dibelius i
2B. The position of Bultmann i
3B. The position of Taylor

2A. Basic answer |
IB. Description of a biography \
2B. Biographical interest of Gospels established j
3B. Evidence of biographical interest in the Gospels

3A. In summary
Chapter 23 Laws of Tradition
.

IB. Martin Dibelius
2B. Rudolf Bultmann
3B. Vincent Taylor
2A. Basic answer
IB. The basic criterion of the historical authenticity judgment was the
laws of tradition
2B. The effect of eyewitnesses
3B. The value of hostile witnesses
3A. In summary
Chapter 24. The Historical Skepticism
1B .The opinion of Albert Schweitzer
2B. The opinion of Martin Dibelius
3 B The opinion of Rudolf Bultm ann
.
4B The opinion of Ernst Kasemann

.
2A. Basic answer

1B .The result of following Bultmann
2B. The historical accounts of the disciples
3B. The unique character of Jesus
4B. The view of the critics— truly impartial?
3A. In summary
Chapter 25. The Messianic Secret Theory
1 A. The Messianic concept of Wrede
2 A. Wrede's concept as elaborated by Bultmann
3 A. Basic answer
4A. In summary
Chapter 26. Gnosticism
lA. Bultmann's definition
2A. Origins of Christianity relating to Gnostic, Judaistic, and
"Early Civilization" thought patterns
IB. According to Martin Dibelius
2B. According to Rudolf Bultmann
3A. The effects of Gnosticism on Christian thought
4A. Basic answer
IB. The evidence against a Gnostic influence
2B. The inconsistencies of Dibelius and Bultmann
5A. In summary
Chapter 27. Conclusion to Form Criticism
lA. Contributions
2A. Limitations
Chapter 28. An Assessment of the Historical-Critical Method
Chapter 29. Redaction Criticism
lA. Definition
2A. Purpose
IB. Purpose
2B. Relationship to Form Criticism
3A. Background and History
IB. Background
2B. History
4A. Major Proponents
IB. Gunther Bomkamm
2B. Hans Conzelmann
3B. WilHMarxsen
5 A. Methodology
IB. Presuppositions
2B. Procedure
6A. Basic Contributions
7A. Basic Criticisms
8A. In Summary
"
chapter
introduction
to
new testament
• ^«
form
•
criticism
Source criticism can only take one back to the written sources for the life of Christ,
which appeared no earlier than 25 years after the events they recorded. The material
was passed by word of mouth until it was written down in the form of the Gospels.
Form Criticism tries to fill in this gap of oral transmission.
The form critics assume that the Gospels are composed of small independent units or
episodes. These small single units (pericopes) were circulated independently. The
critics teach that the units gradually took on the form of various types of folk
literature, such as legends, tales, myths and parables.
According to Form Criticism, the formation and preservation of the units were
basically determined by the needs of the Christian community (îU im Leben). In
other words, when the community had a problem, they either created or preserved a
saying or episode of Jesus to meet the needs of that particular problem. Therefore,
these units are not basically witnesses to the life of Christ but rather are considered to
be the beliefs and practices of the early Church.
This criticism proposes that the evangelists were not so much the writers as the editors
of the four Gospels. They took the small units and put them in an artificial framework
to aid in preaching and teaching. Phrases such as "again," "immediately," "after a
few days,' "while on the way" and "after this" are not historical. Instead they provide
a fictitious framework for gluing together the separate units or episodes. These
chronological phrases serve as connectives for the various literary units.
189
The task of Form Criticism was to discover the "laws of tradition" which governed the
collection, development and writing down of the isolated units. Then with the
removal of the artificial (editorial) framework of chronology provided by the
evangelists, Form Criticism attempts to recover the original form of the units
(pericopes) and determine for what practical purpose (Sttz im Leben) the early
Christians preserved them.
By this method it was thought that one could "pierce back beyond written sources into
the period of oral transmission and account for the rise of the different types of
episodes which eventually became a part of the Gospels." 48/445
Form Criticism eventually became more than a literary analysis. It developed into a
historical analysis and began to pass judgment on the historicity of various passages or
uniu.
lA. DEHNITIONS
IB. Form Criticism is basically the translation of the German word Form-
geschichte. Its literal translation is "history of form."
Form Criticism is the study of forms of literature and "documents that
preserve earlier tradition. Its basic assumption is that the earlier, oral use of
the tradition shaped the material and resulted in the variety of literary forms
found in the final written record. Study of these forms, therefore, throws light
on the Ufe and thinking of the people who thus preserved tradition." 46/436
2B. Robert Spivey and D. Moody Smith, in The Anatomy of the New
Testament, further define the method of Form Criticism as "the
classification of the 'forms' in which the tradition, especially the Gospel
tradition, circulated before being written down and the attempt to
determine the 'setting of life' of the church which they reflect." 1 13/463
SB. As E.B. Redlich, a form critic, observes:
"Form Criticism is a method of study and investigation which deals with the
pre-literary stage of the Gospel tradition, when the material was handed
down orally. It seeks to discover the origins and history of the material, that is
to say, of the narratives and sayings which make up the Gospels, and to ex-
plain how the original narratives and sayings assumed their present form in
the Gospels. It is concerned with the processes that led to the formation of the
Gospels." 101/9
4B. G.E. Ladd defines Form Criticism by concluding that "the designation
'form criticism' refers to the various literary forms which the oral tradition
assumed as it was passed from mouth to mouth. Back of this study was the
assumption that certain laws of oral tradition when applied to the Gospels
will lead to the recovery of the earliest form of the tradition. A close study of
these forms led to the critical conclusion that in its earliest stages, the
material in the Gospels was passed on orally as a series of disconnected units,
anecdotes, stories, sayings, teachings, parables, and so on. Each unit of
tradition had its own history in the church. The historical outline of Jesus*
career as it is found in Mark and largely embodied in Matthew and Luke is no
part of this tradition, but is the creation of the author of the Second Gospel,
who collected many of these units of tradition, created a historical outline for
Jesus* career, and used this outline as a narrative thread upon which to string
the disconnected beads of independent traditions. This means that the in-
dications in the Gospels of sequence, time, place, and the like are quite
unhistorical and untrustworthy and must therefore be ignored by serious
Gospel criticism. As a result, we have no 'life' or 'biography* of Jesus, but only
a series of detached anecdotes and teachings artificially and unhistorically
strung together." 74/144, 145
5B. Rudolf Bultmann, a radical form critic, explains the form critical ap-
proach by saying:
"For over forty years now, students of the New Testament have been aware of
the existence of a school of gospel research known as Form Criticism— or,
more accurately, Formgeschichte, Form History. Its attention has been
devoted to the component units into which the tradition underlying the
Synoptic Gospels may be analyzed. It endeavors to study the oral tradition at
a stage prior to its crystallization in gospels, or even in sources underlying the
gospels, whether written documents or cycles of fixed tradition— such as Q,
the pre-Marcan outline of Jesus' ministry, the sequences in the narratives and
discourse material, the Passion Narrative, and so on." 19/vii
He continues his explanation:
"Form Criticism begins with the realization that the tradition contained in
the Synoptic Gospels originally consisted of separate units, which were joined
together editorially by the evangelists. Form Criticism is therefore concerned
to distinguish these units of tradition, and to discover their earliest form and
origin in the life of the early Christian community. It views the gospels as
essentially compilations of this older material. But it also studies them as
finished works, in order to evaluate the literary activity of the evangelists, and
to discover the theological motives that guided them." 19/3,4
6B. McGinley lists five basic principles of Form Criticism:

1). "The synoptic Gospels are popular, sub-literary compositions.
2). "They depict the faith of the primitive Christians who created them,
not the historical Jesus.
S). "They are artificial collections of isolated units of tradition.
4). "These units originally had a definite literary form which can still be
detected.
5). "This form was created by a definite social situation." 82/4
2A. PURPOSES OF FORM CRITICISM
R.H. Lightfoot summarizes the precepts of Form Criticism:
"They remind us that the early church is by no means likely to have expressed
itself at once in a literary way, and they believe, first, that in the earliest years
memories and traditions of the words and deeds of Jesus were only handed on
from mouth to mouth, and secondly, that they were valued, not so much (as we
might have expected) in and for themselves, as for their importance in solving
problems connected with the life and needs of the young churches. These needs,
they think, would be chiefly concerned with mission preaching, catechetical
teaching, demonstration of the content and meaning of the Christian life,
refutation ofJewish and other objections, and, perhaps above all, worship. They
believe, further, that these memories and traditions would circulate at first
chiefly in two forms: on the one hand, that of little, separate stories, and, on the
other that of sayings of the Lord, whether in isolation or in small collections.
Both would gradually assume a more or less fixed shape, through constant
repetition in the churches; and, whatever may be true about the sayings, the
stories would tend to form themselves upon the model of similar stories about
teachers and leaders in the Jewish or the Hellenistic world. And, finally, they
suggest that many of these pre-literary traditions are still discernible in our
written gospels, especially St. Mark, and that to some extent they can be
classified according to their type or form; whence the name of the new study."
76/30,31
Martin Dibelius provides an explanation:
"It tries to bridge the gap in the New Testament by setting forth the common
.
basis upon which both the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the narrative of Jesus of
Nazareth rests." 37/18
He continues by citing one of the objectives of the form critical method:
"In the first place, by reconstruction and analysis, it seeks to explain the origin
of the tradition about Jesus, and thus to penetrate into a period previous to that
in which our Gospels and their written sources were recorded." 36/ Preface
Dibelius adds that make clear the intention and real interest of the
"it seeks to
earliest tradition. We
must show with what objertive the first churches
recounted stories about Jesus, passed them from mouth to mouth as independent
narratives, or copied them from papyrus to papyrus. In the same manner we
must examine the sayings of Jesus and ask with what intention these churches
collected them, learnt them by heart, and wrote them down." 36/Preface
Rudolf Bultmann has asserted, "The central principle of Form Criticism has
been fully established, viz. that the earliest gospel traditions circulated orally
within the church, whose religious needs they served, and were only gradually
gathered together into groups, blocks, or sequences and finally gospels. 19/ix *
He explains that Form Criticism has developed into "an attempt to apply to
them [the Gospels] the methods of form- criticism which H. Gunkel and his
disciples had already applied to the Old Testament. This involved discovering
what the original units of the synoptics were, both sayings and stories, to try to
establish what their historical setting was, whether they belonged to a primary or
secondary tradition or whether they were the produa of editorial activity."
21/2.3
SA. METHODOLOGY
Vincent Taylor notes the steps taken in Form Criticism:
(1) Classification of materialby form.
(2) Recovering of original form
(3) Search for Sitz im Leben (life-situation). 1 14/22
Robert Mounce. in an informal interview, has summarized the form critical
procedure in the following manner:
"The form critic first lists the various types of forms into which the Bible
narratives may be divided. Then he tries to determine the Sitz im Leben, the
situation in life, of the early church that accounu for the development of each of
the pericopes which are placed in the categories. Was it fear of persecution? Was
it the movement of the Gentile church out of the Jewish setting? Was it heresy?
Etc.
"After determination of the Sitz im Leben, one can account for the changes that
have taken place and peel off the layers that have been added to the sayings of
Jesus. The result is the return of the Gospel sayings, to their original or pure
state." 144
4A. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
IB. Background
Form Criticism originated in Gennany in the years after the close of the War
of 19141918. 101/16
Floyd V. Filson explains the early history of Form Criticism of the Synoptic
Gospeb:
"It appeared as a clear-cut method in works by K.L. Schmidt (1919), M.
Dibelius (1919, and R. Bultmann (1921), the three scholars whose work still
dominates this field of study. It built upon many forerunners: Olrick's studies
of folktales; Gunkel's identification of oral traditions embedded in the Old
Testament; Wellhausen's critical attention to the individual items of the

gospel tradition and to the early stages of that tradition; Norden's study of
prose style and mission discourses; etc. It built upon the concept that iden-
tification of written sources could not fully bridge the gap between Jesus and
the written Gospels. A
period of oral tradition had intervened and called for
study." 46/436
The outstanding scholars of the immediate pre-war age in Germany include
Bernard Weiss, Holtzmann, Wrede, Johannes Weiss, Wellhausen, Gunkel
and Wendland. 101/16
In the field of Form Criticism. Easton parallels some main authors and their
works:
"Their authors are respectively, [Martin Albertz], [Rudolf Bultmann],
[Martin Dibelius] and [Karl Ludwig Schmidt]. While their results are very
diverse, all have in common the essential quality of endeavoring to define
sharply the nature of the first Gospel tradition, and to determine something
of the laws that governed its formation and transmission." 43/28.29
Among oihcr noiablc form critics are D.E. Nineham and R.H. Lightfoot.
Some of the less radical form critics include Frederick Grant, C.H. Dodd.
B.S. Easton. Vincent Taylor. They have been influenced by Bultmann and
his followers, as evidenced in their writings and their use of the same or
similar terminology. 57/2
Rudolf Pesch continues to trace the early development of Form Criticism as

he relates that "at the beginning of the present century J. Weiss declared
explicitly that the investigation of the literary forms of the gospels and of the
individual groupings of material in them was one of the 'tasks for con-
temporary scientific research into the N.T.' (Aufgaben der neutestament-
lichen Wissenschaft in der Gegenwart [1908]. p. 35). But his predecessor, J. G.
Herder, had already 'recognized for the first time the problems involved in
form-critical research into the gospels' (W.G. KOmmel, p.98). Another
predecessor towards the end of the previous century was F. Overbeck, who had
called for 'a history of the forms* of 'the primitive literature of Christianity'
{Historische Zeitschrift 48 [1882], p. 423). Before the First World War two
classical scholars, P. Wendland {Die urchristlichen Literaturformen [1912])
and E. Norden (Agnosthos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte
religiOser Rede [1913]). set in motion form-critical researches into the N.T. in
certain important directions. After the War, the period of the form-critical
approach really began." 97/337,338
C.F.D. Moule remarks that "the new impetus seems to have come at first from
work on folklore, especially in the Old Testament, by scholars in Scandinavia
and Germany, who claimed attention for the investigation of the laws of oral
transmission. What actually happens, they asked, to stories when they are
passed from mouth mouth in an unliterary community? Gradually, at least
to
two important principles formulated themselves in reply. First, that, by
examining a sufficiently wide range of examples, one might become familiar
enough with the standard 'shapes' or 'forms' assumed by stories in successive
stages of transmission to be able, with some degree of accuracy, to strip the
latest form of a given story down, by a kind of onion-peeling process, to its
most primitive, original shape. And secondly, that it is a mistake to treat the
sort of written documents which are now under discussion as though they were
'literary,' since the collective influence of communities was generally more
important than any one individual in shaping a story, and even in moulding a
whole document." 88/87
E.V. McKnight, in his short but thorough study of Form Criticism, What Is
Form Criticism?, provides further background information concerning the
positions arrived at through source criticism:

"By the eariy part of the twentieth century the critical study of the Synoptic
Gospels had arrived at the following positions: (1) The 'two document'
hypothesis was accepted. Mark and Q
served as sources for Matthew and
Luke. (2) Both Mark and Q, as well as Matthew and Luke, were influenced by
the theological views of the early church. (3) Mark and Q
contained not only
early authentic materials but also materials of a later date." 83/9,10
2B. History
Bob E. Patterson, in an article entitled "The Influence of Form Criticism on
Christology." has set forth a complete history of Form Criticism. (See ap-
pendix, p. 345.)
Donald Guthrie has observed that there has been a noticeable rise in the
acceptance of Form Criticism. He notes that many influences have helped to
produce and maintain this movement. Among these influences are:
(1) Weak points in the theory of source criticism. Being a literary criticism,
source criticism limited itself to the available documents. And, when studying
Matthew and Luke, the source critic failed to deal with the 20 to 30 year span
which came between the death of Jesus and the point in time when the written
sources appeared. The form critics attempt to account for this time span.
(2) A
general questioning of the historical accuracy of Mark. Wilhelm Wrede
started this trend with his "Messianic Secret" theory (See page 277), which
stated that Mark wrote his Gospel with the purpose of conveying the un-
folding revelation of Jesus' Messiahship (or the conveyance of the "Messianic
Secret").
Later, Julius Wellhauscn put forth the idea that the original or first tradition
in Mark was interlaced with added material from the Gospel writers and
heavily dependent on the Christian thinking of that day.
(3) The update the Gospels. Because the first century view of the
desire to
world is relevant, according to form critics, an avid wish arose
no longer
among these theologians to bring the Gospels into the world of the 20th
century.
(4) The attempt to position the literary materials in their original situation,
life setting or Sttz tm Leben. This thrust was readily observed in the form
critics' appeal to the Gospel backgrounds. 131/188, 195
5A. MAJOR PROPONENTS OF FORM CRITICISM

IB. Martin Dibelius
Martin Dibelius, author of From Tradition to Gospel, A Fresh Approach to
the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Gospel Criticism and
Christology, Jesus and other major works, was one of the first renowned form
critics. A summary presentation of his approach to Form Criticism follows.
Initially, he comments that "in prosecuting a research in the history of the

Form of the Gospels, we must concern ourselves first of all and most of all with
only one section of primitive Christian literature, namely the synoptic
Gospels." 36/2
He continues:
"The literary understanding of the synoptics begins with the recognition that
they are collections of material. The composers are only to the smallest extent
authors. They are principally collectors, vehicles of tradition, editors. Before
all else their labour consists in handing down, grouping, and working over the
material which has come to them." 36/3
Dibelius announces his personal goal in Form Criticism:

"We hoped to be able to the trustworthiness of the tradition of the life of
test
Jesus by the employment of new and less subjective criteria, to escape in this
way from the arbitrary judgments of the psychological treatment of the life of
Jesus, and finally in some measure to establish more firmly the knowledge of
the words and deeds of Jesus." 155/42
He interprets that "the first understanding afforded by the standpoint of
Formgeschichte is that there never was a 'purely' historical witness to Jesus.
Whatever was told of Jesus' words and deeds was always a testimony of faith as
formulated for preaching and exhortation in order to convert unbelievers and
confirm the faithful. What founded Christianity was not knowledge about a
historical process, but the confidence that the content of the story was
salvation: the decisive beginning of the End." 36/295
Another theological goal of Formgeschichte, as Dibelius puts it, is to un-

dertake to depict a comprehension of the story of Jesus, by which the
frameworks of the material are dominated. 36/295
Dibelius alleges that the Gospels did not intend to portray the person of Jesus
Christ. With this being the case, we should not question the tradition
preserved in the Gospels. But, if we did search them for information con-
cerning the character or qualities of Christ, none would be found. By using
secular interrogation and finding no answers we must conclude that the
tradition was not literary. 36/300
The fortune of primitive Christianity is reflected in the various forms of
Gospel tradition. The form was "determined by ecclesiastical requirements
arising in the course of missionary labour and of preaching." 36/287
The early church was a missionary church, and the "missionary purpose was
the cause and preaching was the means of spreading abroad that which the
disciples of Jesus possessed as recollections." 36/13
What drove the early Christians to such a propagation of the tradition "was
the work of proselytizing to which they felt themselves bound, i.e. the
missionary purpose." 36/13
When Dibelius speaks of preaching "all possible forms of Christian
propaganda are included: mission preaching, preaching during worship, and
catechumen instruction. The mission of Christendom in the world was the
originative cause of all these different activities." 36/15
There was only one complete connected narrative about a portion of the life
of Christ and that is the "Passion story." 36/23, 178 The main purpose of the
"Passion story," according to Dibelius, was not to confirm the story but "to
make clear what in the Passion took place by God's will." 36/186
All the other traditional units existed without any connection to other units.
In conclusion, Dibelius speaks of the formation of the Gospel tradition:
"When, however, we trace the tradition back to its initial stage we find no
description of the life of Jesus, but short paragraphs or pericopae. This is the
fundamental hypothesis of the method of Form Criticism (formgeschichtliche
Methode) as a representative of which I am speaking here." 37/27
2B. Rudolf Bultmann

Rudolf Bultmann, a former professor of New Testament studies at Breslau,
Giessen and Marburg, retired from his professorship in 1951. But he has
continued to have a worldwide impact due to his outstanding contribution to
contemporary New Testament critical scholarship. Bultmann has authored
many books expressing the form critical viewpoint. Some of these are The
History of the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus and the Word, Theology of the New
Testament andjesus Christ and Mythology.
IC. The following represents a collection of statements about and by Bult-

mann:
Klaas Runia comments on the impaa that Bultmann has made on the
world:
"Bultmann's program has had a tremendous influence upon postwar
theology. Nearly all leading theologians in Germany today are former
students of his or at least have been strongly influenced, by his way of
thinking. In the United States, similar but even more radical ideas have
been advocated by Paul Tillich, and again we must say that many of the
leading theologians belong to this school. Some go even so far as to say that
the traditional idea of God, based on the Bible, is dead." 107/13
Rudolf Pesch continues:
"R. Bultmann, whose approach is more strongly influenced by com-
parative religion and historical criticism, formulated the truth 'that the
literature in which the life of a given community, even the primitive
Christian community, is reflected, springs out of quite definite social
conditions and needs, which produce a quite definite style and quite
specific forms and categories.'" 97/338
H.N. Ridderbos observes that Bultmann's approach to the New Testament
is to compare it to non-Christian religions and their development. This
approach is called the method of the history of religion

(Religiongeschichte). 102/12
Bultmann has been noted for his skeptical approach to the Gospels. It is his
conclusion that "one can only emphasize the uncertainty of our knowledge
of the person and work of the historical Jesus and likewise of the origin of
Christianity." 19/20
Bultmann describes the development of Form Criticism by stating that
"the forms of the literary tradition must be used to establish the influences
operating in the life of the community, and the life of the community must
be used to render the forms themselves intelligible." 21/5
Bultmann discusses his method:
"The first to distinguish between the tradition material
step is which the
evangelists used and their editorial additions." 19/25
2C. A FEW COMMENTS AND CRITICISMS

G.E. Ladd points out that one of Bultmann's fundamental methods for
reconstructing the early history of Christian thought and establishing the
historicity of Jesus is the "comparative religious method."
"This is a method developed in German scholarship which assumes that

any given religious phenomenon must be understood in terms of its
religious environment." 74/8
Schubert Ogden, in his book Christ Without Myth, has observed:

"The step in an imminent criticism of Bultmann's proposal is to show
first
that its entire meaning may be reduced to two fundamental propositions:
(1) Christian faith is to be interpreted exhaustively and without remainder
as man's original possibility of authentic historical (geschichtlich) existence
as this is more or less adequately clarified and conceptualized by an ap-
propriate philosophical analysis. (2) Christian faith is actually realizable,
or is a 'possibility in fact,' only because of the particular historical
(historisch) event Jesus of Nazareth, which is the originative event of the

church and its distinctive word and sacraments. The second step in the
criticism is to demonstrate that, as Barth and Buri and many others have
held, these two propositions are mutually incompatible." 91/111,112
Edward EUwein interprets Bultmann's view of what we can know of Jesus in
this way:
"Who is the man Jesus? He is a man like ourselves, not a mythical figure;
he without messianic radiance, a real man — but merely a man, a teacher

is
and a prophet, who worked for a brief time, who prophesied the imminent
end of the world and the breaking in of the rule of God, who renewed and
radicalized the protest of the great Old Testament prophets against
legalism and cultic worship of God, and who was delivered up by the Jews
to the Romans and was crucified. Everything else is uncertain and
legendary." 175/34
Donald Guthrie, in his New Testament Introduction, identifies the un-
derlying cause of Bultmann's theology:
"Bultmann's disillusionment led him to seek an approach to the Gospels
which would emancipate him from the need for historical demonstration.
Only so could the simplest, in his opinion, ever come to faith. He was
further prompted to this non-historical approach by his commitment to
existential philosophy. Deeply influenced by Heidegger, Bultmann
maintained that the most important element in Christian faith was an
existential encounter with Christ." 131/93, 94
In conclusion Martin E. Marty from the University of Chicago states the

different reactions toward Bultmann:
"Rudolf Bultmann has been the greatest New Testament scholar of the
twentieth century. So say many of his colleagues and rivals. No, Bultmann
has muddied theological waters by tying himself to the tortured philosophy
of his fellow Marburger, Martin Heidegger. So say most anti-
Heideggerians, and their number is legion. Another voice, from a large
Lutheran party in Germany, about their fellow Lutheran: Rudolf Bult-
mann is the arch-heretic of the century." 179/10
SB. Vincent Taylor

Vincent Taylor, one of the major form critics, has actually been quite critical
of the study which he supports. Taylor's primary work dealing with the area of
Form Criticism has been The Formation of the Gospel Tradition which was
first copyrighted in 1935. In this work he comments on what he concludes to
be the major strengths and weaknesses of Form Criticism. Taylor does not
possess the historical skepticism of Bultmann.
Initially, Taylor concurs with the form critics concerning their basic
assumption:
"It remains for us to consider the fundamental assumption of Form-Criticism,
that, in the main, the earliest tradition consisted of small isolated units
without local or temporal connexions; and further, since the two questions are
inseparable, to ask what place is to be given to the recollections of eyewit-
nesses. With the Gospel of Mark before us it is impossible to deny that the
earliest tradition was largely a mass of fragments." 1 14/38,39
Concerning the oral tradition as presented by Dibelius and Bultmann, Taylor

tends to agree with both:
"Form Criticism operates on the principle that the materials of the written
Gospels can be divided into groups on the basis of differences in structure and
form, and that these differences give us clues to the ways in which they
developed in the pre-literary period. The differences grew out of the ways in
which the elements of the Gospels were used in the day to day life of the
Church, as material for preaching, for teaching, and for missionary
propaganda." 119/470.71
In reference to the crucial issue of community creativity and biographical
interest, Taylor makes this assumption:
"Several reasons can be suggested for the want of a biographical interest.
First, the early Christians were men of humble origin and attainments; they
were not a literary people, and so did not face the problems which confront
the chronicler. Further, their eyes were on the New Heaven and the New
Earth which they believed Christ would soon bring. They did not know that
nineteen centuries later we should still lack the consummation: nothing would
have astonished them more. Their hopes were on the future: what need was
there to record the past? Again, the formation of Jesus-tradition was largely a
communal process. Stories had survival-value, not so much because they had
interest for the individual, but because they ministered to the needs of
Christians who met together in religious fellowship. Had the first Christians a
biographical interest?
"So far as the Evangelists are concerned, somewhat different answers must be
given. None of them aims at producing a biography in the modem sense of
the term, although all wish to tell the Story of Jesus. In the Fourth Gospel the
dominant aims are religious and doctrinal, but the material is presented in a
historical framework. In Mark there is present a desire to sketch in outline the
course of the Ministry of Jesus, and the same outline is followed in Matthew,
although here it is subordinated to didactic and ecclesiastical interests. In
Luke the sixfold date of iii. If., and the terms of the Preface (i. 1-4) indicate
an intention to tell the Story in orderly succession, although we cannot assume
that chronological succession is meant, or still less is achieved." 114/143,144
4B. Summary
To summarize these major proponents of Form Criticism it is necessary to
consider some of the similarities and differences found among them.
IC. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN DIBELIUS AND BULTMANN
Although Bultmann and Dibelius classify the traditional material dif-
ferently, that is. they see different forms with different life situations, they
are in basic agreement as to their fundamental assumption. That
assumption is twofold. They agree
that the traditional material first
existed as brief, rounded units, having the early community as their Sitz im
Leben and that all historical contexts in the Gospels (with the exception of
the Passion Story) are to be regarded as the editorial work of the
evangelists. 57/24,25
E.V. McKnight continues to note the similarities between Dibelius and

Bultmann: They "assume that the materials can be classified as to form
and that the form enables the students to reconstruct the history of the
tradition." 83/20
L.J. McGinley approaches Dibelius and Bultmann in a slightly different
manner. He points out that they have agreed on style, disagreed on ter-
minology, agreed on material, disagreed on the growth of the tradition,
disagreed on the Sttz im Leben and finally agreed with a complete denial
of the historical value of their categories. 82/45,46
McGinley continues:
"Bultmann and Dibelius agree that the description and classification of
forms is but one part of the task undertaken by form- criticism. They
maintain that since there exists a relationship between the different

literary species produced in a community and the various functions of the
community life, this relationship can be detected and the historico-social
situation which created a defmite form to satisfy a defmite need can be
determined." 82/18.19
McGinley observes that "in seeking parallels for the Gospel stories, Dibelius
frequently refers to the rabbinic writings. Despite the relatively late
redaction of this literature, he believes that the anecdotes themselves are of
comparatively early origin and satisfactorily illustrate the synoptic
narratives." 82/96
McGinley adds that "Bultmann also makes abundant use of illustrations
and analogies from the rabbinic tradition. He believes, however, that the
process that led to its fixation was more complicated than that which
occurred with regard to the synoptic tradition. In the Gospels the forms
were preserved more purely than in the rabbinic literature, where the
formation was more conscious and where the motifs were artistically varied
and individual units reshaped." 82/97
2C. SOME BASIC CRITICISM
One of the most basic differences between Bultmann and Dibelius is their
concept of the "controlling motive" in the formation of the units.
1). Bultmann: The alleged debates between the early community and
Judaism was the motive. 146/39-44; 149/350, 351
2). Dibelius: "Missionary goal" was the actual motive and "preaching"
was the means of propagation. 36/13
Vincent Taylor provides a criticism of Bultmann when he claims that
"Bultmann's tests of genuineness are much too subjective. Can we get very
far by selecting a few characteristic features in the sayings of Jesus, and by
making these a touchstone by which we decide the genuineness of the
tradition as a whole? To decide what is characteristic is not easy, and, even
if we can do this, the test must often fail because even the greatest of
teachers often say familiar things. Great teachers refuse to be true to type,
even their own type." 114/107. 108
Bultmann who follows Martin Dibelius in the chronological development
of Form Criticism states that:
"In distinction from Dibelius I am indeed convinced that form-criticism,
just because literary forms are related to the life and history of the
primitive Church not only presupposes judgements of facts alongside
judgements of literary criticism, but must also lead to judgements about
facts (the genuineness of a saying, the historicity of a report and the like)."
21/5
Alfred Wikenhauser presents a serious criticism against the major form-
critics:
"The ascription to the primitive Christian community of a really creative

power is a serious defect in Form Criticism as it is applied by many of its
exponents— notably by Bultmann and Bertram, and, less radically, by
Dibelius; they maintain that certain parts of the synoptic Gospels were free
creations of the community, or that motifs for their forming— especially
for miracle stores or Novellen, and legends— were borrowed from Judaism
and more particularly from Hellenism." 126/276
One of the major accusations against the form critics has been in the area
of subjectivity. Robert Mounce, in a recent interview, has commented on
this particular problem as he says:
"Form Criticism sounds like a scientific method. If it were, you would find
consistency of interpretation. But the interpretations of a single saying vary
widely. Not only are interpretations widespread but form critics often can't
agree whether a pericopae is a miracle story or a pronouncement story—
the two can be woven together. One would expect consistency in historical
reconstruction if Form Criticism were a true science." 144
I.J. Peritz, also commenting on the area of subjectivity of the form critics,
has concluded:
"Form Criticism thus brings face to face with the obligation either to
acquiesce in its faulty method and conclusions or to combat them. What is
involved, however, is not the alternative between an uncritical attitude and
criticism, but between criticism and hypercriticism. A critical view of the
Gospels does not claim strict objectivity. It is hard to tell sometimes where
poetry ends and history begins. It is highly probable that there is no un-
derlying strictly chronological or topographical scheme; and that they arc
not biography in 'our sense.' But this is far from admitting that we have no
reliable testimony from eyewitnesses; that the Church from its Christ of
faith created the Jesus of history, instead of from the Jesus of history its
Christ of faith." 95/205
He adds:
"The great fault of Form Criticism is its imaginative subjectivity in
evaluating tradition." 95/205
In a recent periodical Peritz sums up the views of form critics by stating
that "it is only in one thing they all agree, namely, that the earliest disciples
of Jesus were too ignorant in literary method or too indifferent to
biography or history to make an effort to perpetuate the memory of their
Master." 95/202
6A. IN SUMMARY
IB. Form Criticism seeks to discover the original literary forms in which the
traditions of Jesus were written down.
2B. The form critics hope by discovering the original forms to be able to
identify the needs of the early Church which prompted their creation.
SB. The form critical method involves dividing the Gospels as to literary form,
then seeking the life situation which brought them into being. They seek
to reduce the Gospels to their original pure state.
4B. Form Criticism was born Germany following World War I.

in
5B. Among its major proponents are Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann and
Vincent Taylor.
chapter 1 7,
definKion
of
terms
lA. A BASIC GLOSSARY
R.A. Spivey and D.M. Smith, in their Anatomy of the New Testament, provide
the following glossary as an aid to the study of Form Criticism.
IB. ''Eschatology: discourse about the last things or the end of the age (Greek
eschatos meaning 'last'). Traditionally the term is used of Christian thought
concerning all the events and actions associated with both the end of history
and the end of human life.
2B. "Gnosticism: a religious movement or attitude widespread about the time of
the emergence of the Christian faith. Believers possessed a secret knowledge
(gnosis)and sought to escape the ephemeral earthly world for the eternal
heavenly world.
I
SB. "Hellenization: the process or result of the spread of Greek language and
culture in the Mediterranean world after Alexander the Great (died 323
B.C.).
i
4B. "Kcrygma (literally 'proclamation'): the early Christian preaching about

I
Jesus as the Christ intended to elicit the decision of faith.

6B. "Myth: the result of man's effort to communicate his faith in transcendent
reality by means of story and symbol. This technical use of the term should be
distinguished from the popular meaning of a fantastic or untrue story.
6B. "Oral Tradition: any teaching or similar material transmitted from person
to person or generation to generation by word of mouth rather than by use of
I
writing; also the process of such transmission.
201
or
7B. "Parable: a brief story that makes its point by the unusual development
of the narrative. The various details do not function as allegory but
imagery
are significant for the story itself. Although the parable was already
known to
the Jewish religious tradition, Jesus made especial use of it.
8B. "Pcricopc: a 'cutting around' or section. The term is used of the individual,
complete units of tradition about Jesus that circulated separately in the early
church and were ultimately joined together to form the Gospels.
9B. "Redactor: one who edits, revises, or shapes the literary sources that he has at
hand. The separation of tradition and redaction is the primary task of form
criticism.
lOB. "Source Criticism: the work of identifying the written sources that were used
in the composition of any given document, such as one of the Gospels.
IIB. "Synoptic Problem: the problem of understanding the relationship between

the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), taking account of their
great similarities as well as their distinct differences. The generally accepted
solution is that both Matthew and Luke used Mark, the Q, source consisting
largely of Jesus' sayings, and distinct material to which each had access
separately." 113/463-466
2A. REDAKTION CRITICISM

Redaktion Criticism is defined by Norman Perrin, a prominent representative of
this school:
"It isconcerned with studying the theological motivation of the author as this is
revealed in the collection, arrangement, editing, and modification of
traditional material, and in the composition of new material or the creation of
new forms within the traditions of early Christianity." 184/1
SA. RELIGIONSGESCHICHTLICHE METHODE
It is called the religionsgeschtchtliche Methode, or the study of the Hebrew-
Christian religion in terms of the history of religions in general. This method
represents the most thorough-going application of a naturalistic historicism to
the study of the Bible. It assumes "that biblical religion, in both the Old and
New Testaments, passed through stages of growth and evolution like all ancient
religions, and in this evolution was heavily influenced through interaction with
its religious environment. This method involves the consistent application of the
principle of analogy to biblical religion: the history and development of other
ancient religions. This method is not at all interested in the truth of the Bible or
in revelation, Hebrew religion is studied simply as one of many ancient Near
Eastern religions, and the religion of the early church is seen as a syncretistic
movement which had its ultimate origin with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth
and which borrowed and blended important elements from the first-century
Jewish and Graeco- Roman religions." 74/195, 196
4A. GOSPEL TRADITION
Vincent Taylor interprets this term in the following way:
"[by] 'Gospel tradition' I mean
that which we have received from the first
Christians concerning the words and deeds of Jesus: and by its 'formation I
understand both the external characteristics of the tradition and the process by
which it came into being." 114/1
5A. COMMUNITY
The form critics seek to define with this term the contemporary Christian church
of the day when the Synoptic Gospels were written. Rudolf Bultmann often uses
this term synonymously with the phrase "the primitive Christian church." 57/13
6A. CREATIVE COMMUNITY
Inherent in the fundamental assumptions of Form Criticism lies the concept of a
creative community. Stanley Gundry explains this concept:
"The early Christian community is said to have been creative. By this is meant
that anonymous forces in the community, operating according to fixed laws,
either created tradition about Jesus or changed and molded existent tradition
about Him." 57/13
7 A. SITZIMLEBEN
A translation of this German phrase could be "the life situation."
It refers tothe characteristic mode or setting of life in the early Church. Form
critics believe thatevery part or unit of the tradition of Jesus has been in some
way influenced by the community, whether it was manufactured by the com-
munity or refined by the community. Therefore, the units are an adequate
source for Sitz im Leben information or details. 57/13, 14
8A. UNITS OR PERICOPES
These are the individual, and at one time scattered, bits of tradition which,
although complete in themselves, were gathered together by the Synoptic writers
to form the Gospels. Examples of a pericope would be a short saying, a parable,
an account of a healing or any similar bit of tradition from the life of Jesus which
was complete by itself. 57/12, 13
9A. ARTIFICIAL CONTEXT
As stated above, the units (or pericopes) are to have been first connected with
other units in the framework of Mark. The framework of Mark is the artificial
context in which the units are supposedly imbedded. The artificial context is
said to have been a result of the editorial work of the evangelist. Gundry adds
that "this artificial context is also called the 'historical framework.'" 57/13
lOA. DEMYTHOLOGIZATION
To have a proper understanding of Form Criticism and especially of Rudolf
Bultmann's work, it is necessary to understand what the radical critics mean to
convey by this term.
Donald Guthrie has defined this term by saying that "'demythologization,' is the
attempt to interpret the Gospels stripped of all elements which form analysis
have shown to belong to the first-century environment of the early Church."
131/190
G.E. Ladd adds that demythologizing "means the interpretation of
mythological language in terms of the concept of human existence it embodies.
It sees through the objectifying form of mythological language to the concept of
human existence contained in it." 75/26,27
11 A. HISTORY
J. P.Martin has distinguished between two different concepts of history. As he
explains it. there is "Historie (mere history as an object of scientific study) and
Geschichte (the event and its effects on present and future)." 79/21
Norman Perrin has made a similar distinction:
"In the first place we have history in the sense of 'what actually happened.' in the
sense of historical factuality. For this kind of history Bultmann would use the
word Historie.
"This kind of history is subject to investigation by the historical sciences."
96/37.38
Perrin adds that "the second of the conceptions linked to the word 'history is that
of history in the sense of an event from the past living on in influence upon and
significance for the future. The second of these two German words for history is
'Geschichte.'" 96/40
chapter 18
oral
tradition
Form Criticism assumes that before the Gospels were written there was a period of
oral tradition.
lA. INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION

K. Groebel has enunciated the form critics* need for oral tradition. He shows
that the "unit types grow out of the everyday life of their particular community:
funerals, weddings, victories, defeats, worship and its liturgical acts, instruction,
missionary propaganda, etc. These and the like are the 'seat in life' of each kind
of tradition unit. Tradition is never preserved for its own sake with conscious
antiquarian intent, but only because some need or interest of the community
presses it into service. In such service it stays alive as oral tradition as long as that
practical interest remains alive." 54/320
Floyd V. Filson notes that the form critics were the first to make an intensive
study of oral tradition. Filson notes the effect of this study on the Gospel
tradition (note the discounting of eyewitnesses):
"Moreover, not only is the function of the final editor of the material minimized,
but the former tendency, still widely dominant, to bridge the decades between
Jesus and the actual writing of the Gospels by some one eyewitness for each
Gospel, is seriously discounted. Instead, for example, of seeing Peter as the
sufficient guarantor of what Mk. contains, there is a tendency to sec^ in Mk. the
deposit of a collection of uniu of continually repeated oral tradition." 47/95
205
Ernst Kasemann, a post-Bultmannian form critic, but a disciple of

Bultmann, has set forth the following proposition:
"The Synoptic Gospels as we have them today are the product of a
tradition which was at least forty years in process of formation and
the material of which is composed of very small units. At first it was
individual sayings and isolated stories which were handed on; later,
these were collected together probably for preaching purposes; this
made it possible for the Evangelists, in a third and final stage, to set
the appearance of Jesus on earth within a framework of space and

time." 68/59
Vincent Taylor has provided the following summary of the radical
critics' concept of oral tradition:
"During this period the tradition circulated mainly in separate oral

units which can be classified according to their form. It is believed,
further, thatmuch may be inferred regarding the origin of these
units,the causes which gave rise to them, and the changes they
underwent until in the course of time they were given a written
form." 114/10
G.E. Ladd has offered his support to the concept of an oral tradition:
"We may conclude, therefore, that the contention of form criticism
that the Gospel tradition was preserved in oral form for a generation
by the church is not only a fact which is attested strongly by the New
Testament, but is also a fact of great theological importance. Not
only was the Holy Spirit active in the writing of the books of the New
Testament; he was also active in the history of the Gospel tradition
before it assumed written form. This theological fact is seldom
recognized by form critics, for they usually work as historians, not as
theologians." 74/153
One of the main interests of the radical critics has been the division of
the period of oral tradition into sections. Vincent Taylor has
postulated that the first period of the tradition would extend from
A.D. 30 to A.D. 50. He continues that "throughout the whole of this
firstperiod, no sign of a demand meets us for a connected record,
apart from the Passion Story, and no interest is visible in the life of
Jesus eariier than His Ministry." 114/174. 175
Taylor further remarks that "the second period extends ap-
proximately from about 50 to 65 A.D.. though some of the processes
now to be described may have begun in the eariier period." 114/175.
Taylor continues that "the characteristic mark of this second stage is

the attempt to gather the scattered elements of the tradition into
groups." 114/175, 176
The third period of the tradition extends from A.D. 65 to the initial
writmg of the Gospels. Concerning Taylor remarks that
this period.
a special impulse to the task of Gospel compilation w?s given by the
rapid expansion of the Gentile Mission, the lapse of time, and the
mcreased need for Christian instruction and defence." 1 14/185
In conclusion. Taylor reflects on the development of oral tradition:

"The time is one in which precious fragments
are treasured for their
immediate interest and value; Christian hands are full of jewels, but
there IS no desire to weave a crown." 114/174, 175
2A. MAJOR PROPONENTS

IB. Ma rtin Dibelius' Concept of Oral Tradition
"Before the Gospels were written, the source of preaching, teaching, and
edification in the Church was the tradition about Jesus preserved either orally,
or else in small collections capable of expansion. When the Gospels became
current, the Church no longer held to the fluid tradition but to the writings in
book form in which the old material had been recorded." 35/56
In trying to understand oral tradition, it is necessary to know what led to the
handing down of tradition. Dibelius observes that "more than anything else,
[that] led to the handing down of the tradition, viz. missionary purpose was
the cause and preaching was the means of spreading abroad that which the
disciples of Jesus possessed as recollections." 36/13
Dibelius goes on to clarify his understanding:

"If I speak of preaching in this connection, all possible forms of Christian
propaganda are included: mission preaching, preaching during worship, and
catechumen instruction. The mission of Christendom in the world was the
originative cause of all these different activities." 36/15
Concerning the sayings of Jesus, Dibelius contends that they were regarded by
the Christian churches to be "rules for right living" and were used to serve the
purposes of the church. As he says:
"When the words of Jesus were assembled as ordinances for the churches it
was easy to suit them to more advanced church-relationships by par-
ticularizing what was general, explaining what was misunderstood, and
moderating prophetic severity." 35/33. 34
He adds that "these Christians believed themselves to be more faithful to their
Master when they explained His sayings by expanding them and then
followed them with understanding, than if they had abhorred any addition
and passed on the original form of His words."
But he quickly qualifies this:
"Moreover those changes of form did not alter the essence of the gospel: the
message of Jesus has been preserved for us in the first 3 Gospels self-
consistently and unspoiled." 35/34, 35
In addition, Dibelius notes that the assembling together of Jesus' short and
pithy "sayings" depended upon an oral tradition. He continues:
"We shall understand how these short and very pregnant utterances were
treasured up and passed on by the hearers if we bear clearly in mind the
strength of the memory of ancient people living in relatively simple social
circumstances, and not driven to and fro by the modem desire for
movement." 35/28
Dibelius attributes the collection of sayings to a group of unnamed and
unknown people whose sole purpose was not to write books but rather to pass
on tradition. He follows this thought by saying that "even the earliest
Evangelists really intended nothing else." 35/52, 53
Dibelius notes that these sayings of Jesus were handed down with context. He
says that "this fact is proved by the way in which the sayings have been
assembled into the 'speeches* or 'sermons* of Jesus." 35/32
Another area of concern to which Dibelius addresses himself is the authen-
ticity of the sayings of Jesus:
"Of course this stringing together of genuine sayings of Jesus with other
Christian words of exhortation could become a source of error. In certain
circumstances at a later date, other words standing in the neighbourhood of
the authentic sayings could be held equally authentic and so increase the
number of genuine words of Jesus by a few spurious ones. But that could only
happen on the assumption that authentic words of Jesus were as a matter of
fact to be found among the pieces of advice in the exhortations." 36/241
Concerning stories about Jesus, Dibelius states that "a glance shows that the
narrative sections of the Gospels are not at all concerned with giving a
chronicle of events, with biography, or Mnth making a connected historical
record. What is set down is essentially stories in narrative form, complete in
themselves. In form at least they are similar to our anecdotes, and they deal
with separate incidents in the life of Jesus. They would not have come down to
us rounded off and complete in themselves, at any rate in Mark's Gospel, if
they had not been current separately in the first instance, passed on from
mouth to mouth independently of each other." 35/35
2B. Rudolf Bultmann's Concept of the Oral Tradition
Bultmann begins by stating that "the passing on of words of the Lord was
motivated not by historical-biographical interest but by the practical concern
to regulate the way of life of believers and to keep their hope alive. The one
whom they heard speaking in the words was not the historical Jesus, but the
Church's heavenly Lord." 25/124
Bultmann continues by referring to the problem of obscurance of the
transmission of the tradition:
"As such narratives pass from mouth to mouth, or when one writer takes them
over from another, their fundamental character remains the same, but the
details are subject to the control of fancy and are usually made more explicit
and definite." 19/32
Probably the best summary of Bultmann's concept of the oral tradition can be
seen in his list of four laws which govern narrative and tradition:
(1) The first law is that narrators do not give long, unified accounts, but
rather, small, single pictures of utmost simplicity.
(2) Secondly, as narratives pass from mouth to mouth, their fun-

damental character remains the same, but the details are subject to
the control of fancy and are usually more explicit and definite.
(S) In the third place, Bultmann thinks that he has discovered that
indirect discourse tends to become direct discourse in the process of
transmission.
(4) Finally,he claims that there was an inclination to impose a schematic

idea of the course of Jesus' activity on the tradition. With these
principles as a basis, Bultmann analyzes the various types of
traditional material. 146/32-34
SB. Vincent Taylor's Concept of Oral Tradition

Taylor, speaking as a representative of Form Criticism, acknowledges: "We
gladly recognize the divine element in the Gospels, but we see that they came
mto existence in human ways, that in His wisdom God did not think it
necessary to safeguard them by protective measures, but left them free to win
their own way and to make their own conouests. We believe also that, while
the results of this method are often perplexing to us, God's way has proved to
be to His greater praise and glory. But if this is so it is all the more necessary to
understand the process by which the tradition has been formed and trans-
mitted. 114/2
Taylor cites B.S. Easton concerning the oral tradition:
"We have every reason to believe that the first tradition of the sayings-groups
and the parables arose in Jesus' lifetime and under His personal direction; the
earliest content of the tradition He Himself required His disciples to commit

to memory." 43/41
Taylor remarks that "during the years which immediately followed the
Resurrection, the first Christians preserved cycles of connected reminiscences
associated with the various centres of the Ministry of Jesus." 1 14/69
Taylor continually alludes to a process of dissolution in transmission. He
observes that "the stories have been shortened and rounded in the course of
oral transmission; they have passed from hand to hand, and have been made
the subject of comment and reflection, with the result that many a vivid detail
has fallen by the way while the historical core remains." 1 14/158
He further explains that "the most important exception to the dissolving
process continued to be the Passion Story which existed in the form of short
accounts of the Arrest, Trial, and Crucifixion of Jesus current at different
centres of primitive Christianity." 114/169, 170
Taylor introduces a new element into the concept of oral tradition. E.L. Abel
comments on this by referring to Taylor:
"Those Christians who had lived to see both Jesus and the Gospels written
would have been able to prevent imagination from spreading into the
Gospels. Taylor proclaims that the presence of eyewitnesses, for at least a
' . . .
generation, would serve as a check on corruptions innocently due to

imagination The late T.W. Manson held firmly to the view that a great
'
deal of information in the Gospel of Mark comes directly from Peter the
apostle. This supposition is based on statements similar to the following made
by Papias (ca.A.D. 140): 'Mark was the interpreter of Peter and wrote down
accurately, though not in order, that which he remembered of what was said
or done by the Lord. He had, of course, neither heard the Lord nor did he
follow Him, but later, as I said, Peter. The latter adapted his teaching to the
needs of the moment, but not as if he wanted to make a collection of the
Lord's sayings, so that Mark made no mistake when he wrote down some
things as he remembered them. He intended only one thing, to omit or falsify
nothing which he had heard.'" 1/273
One of the precepts of the form critics has been that as time passed, the oral
tradition suffered in transmission. Vincent Taylor, a critic himself, attempts
to answer to what degree this tradition has suffered and what has caused this
suffering. But in so doing, he considers the greater importance to be in
examining the causes that are responsible for the obscuring of the original
tradition. The causes he notes are:
most of the sayings must have been spoken in Aramaic,

(1) "In the first place,
whereas we have them now in Greek; and translation, however faithful, must
always mean some loss of accuracy and the possibility of error.
in which
(2) "Again, there are cases where a saying is modified by the context
it appears
(3) "Further, a saying may be modified by religious interests.
The phrase 'Son
of man,' for example, may be introduced into a context to which it does not
belong. Wecan see that this has happened when we compare an earlier and a
later Gospel: in Mk. viii.27 Jesus asks: 'Who do men say that I am?'; but in
Mt. xvi. 13 the question appears in the form: 'Who do men say that the Son of
man is?'
(4) "More debatable are the cases in which sayings have
been niodified by
later dogmatic beliefs, by controversies, or by existing practices." 114/110-
113
However, Taylor adds that personally "I have no hesitation in claiming that
the tradition of the words of Jesus is far better preserved than we have any
right to expect, and with much greater accuracy than is to be found in the
record of the words of any great teacher of the past." 1 14/ 110-113
4B. Summary
James Martin, in The Reliability of the Gospels, has provided an excellent
summation of the concepts of the oral tradition:
"The first might be termed the sphere of worship, where stories of Jesus were
told to beHevers for their edification. This sphere includes the Christian
church services, the catechumenical classes, the Christian family gatherings
and, indeed, every situation where the stories of Jesus might be recounted to
those who owned allegiance to Him for their instruction, their guidance, their
encouragement, their comfort and, in general, their strengthening in the
Christian way. The other might be termed the sphere of evangelism, where
the stories of Jesus were told to unbelievers for their conviction and con-
version. This sphere includes the preaching on the mission-field, the
arguments employed in public debate and, indeed, every situation where
Christians might be concerned to vindicate their faith in the eyes of those who
did not share it." 80/52
Martin adds that perhaps the strongest and largest area of oral tradition was
that of the early Christian worship service, which in form, was borrowed from
the synagogue service, but whose flavor was distinctly Christian. "One of its
distinctive and prominent features was the place given to recounting
something of the life of Jesus. At some stage in the service, someone of
authority was called upon to speak to the congregation about Jesus, and
related some incident of His life or some aspect of His teaching. In this way
the perpetuation of the tradition had an appointed and regular place in the
services of worship in the early Church." 80/56
3A. BASIC ANSWER AND ANALYSIS

Criticism of Form Criticism has not been wanting. Filson includes the following
points:
"It does not do justice to the historical sense, intelligence and integrity of the
eariy Christians: while it rightly recognizes the extensive topical grouping of
material in the Gospels, it goes too far in discrediting their basic outline of Jesus'
niinistry; while it correctly sees the importance of the early oral period, it hardly
gives adequate weight to the fact that within some twenty years the writing of
written sources began, and so the process of oral tradition was not so long as in
folk tales and in the eariiest Old Testament stories: its tendency to assume
radical distortion of the tradition in the Hellenistic church is refuted by the
prevailmg Semitic character of the common Synoptic tradition: and its results
are warped by unexamined assumptions, such as that miracle stories are largely
late creations and that explicit Christology arose first
in the church rather than
m the mmd of Jesus." 46/436, 437
Speaking of the brevity of the time element involved in the writing of the New
Testament, Kistemaker writes:
"Normally, the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture
takes njany generations: it is a gradual process spread over centuries
of time. But
m conformity with the thinking of the form critic, we must conclude that the
Gospel stories were produced and collected within little more than one
generation. In terms of the form-critical approach, the formation
of the in-
dividual Gospel units must be understood as a telescoped
project with ac-
celerated course of action." 186/48, 49
A.M. Hunter continues:
(1) "The critics assumed that all the early tradition about Jesus was quite
unfixed and relatively unreliable, though the first Christians, who
were Jews, had a serious care for the faithful and controlled trans-
mission of their Lord's words and deeds.
(2) "They drew dubious parallels between oral tradition in other
cultures, where the time of transmission runs into centuries, and oral
tradition in the Gospels, where it is a matter of two or three decades.
"They were prone to assume that the form of a Gospel story or saying
was a reliable criterion of its authenticity, which of course it is not."
63/34
The accuracy of oral tradition is an additional matter of concern. The form
criticstend to be skeptical of the reliability of oral tradition.
To this James Martin has answered:

"The Oral Tradition was made public through the knowledge of the Christians
in the Church, and because it was made public the accuracy of it is sound."
80/65
He continues that it is reliable to believe that the church services and their
construction of transmission was very trustworthy. In the services the stories of
Jesus were repeated so often that these stories had to be well known. In light of
this the Church would be unlikely to permit any kind of change in form or
content. 80/61
E.F. Scott concurs that "while it was still in the oral phase it came to be invested
with forms, which were more or less conventional. These conclusions are
reasonably certain, and it does not follow from any of them or from all of them
together that the record is untrustworthy." 1 1 1/188, 189
A.H. McNeile challenges Form Criticism's concept of oral tradition. He points
critics do not deal with the tradition of Jesus' words as closely as
out that form
they should. A careful look at I Corinthians 7:10, 12, 25 shows the careful
preservation and the existence of a genuine tradition of recording these words.
In the Jewish religion it was customary for a student to memorize a rabbi's
teaching. Mishna, Aboth, ii, 8: "A good pupil was like a plastered cistern that
loses not a drop." If we rely on C.F. Burney's theory {The Poetry of Our Lord
[1925]), we can assume that much of the Lord's teaching is in Aramaic poetical
form, making it easy to be memorized. 85/4
Another area of conflict in the treatment of Form Criticism and oral tradition
has been its failure to acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit. Robert Mounce
has commented that "Form Criticism has little or no place for the doctrine of the
Holy Spirit and His role in the origin and transmission of the teachings of Jesus."
144
Taking into account the chronological considerations, McGinley comments on
the theories of Dibelius and Bultmann:
were still alive when the
"First of all, eyewitnesses of the events in question
tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter
enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrate a
series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false
statements could, and would, be challenged.
"Secondly, even though Christianity had widespread growth, the traditions of
the gospels were so well formed that 30 years after Jesus' death, the Gospel of
Mark, influenced by Peter, was instantly accepted in Rome.
"Thirdly, the fact that the whole process took less than thirty years, and that its
essential part was accomplished in a decade and a half, finds no parallel in any
tradition to which the Synoptic Gospels have been compared." 82/25
This time element, a definite control in the test of Form Criticism, shows up a
major defect in the theory and Dibelius has not fully answered the implications
while Bultmann has entirely overlooked it.
One of the major criticisms against the form critics' idea of the oral tradition is
that the period of oral tradition (as defined by the critics) is not long enough to
have allowed the alterations in the tradition that the radical critics have alleged.
It is very important to the critics to find a period that is analogous to the oral
tradition period of the Gospels. A.H. McNeile observes that "the period which
divides Jesus' Resurrection form the date of Mark's composition is little more
than one generation. Dibelius sought for an analogy and found it in the
Apophthegmata Patrum, though the tradition about the desert Fathers took not
thirty or forty years to form but about one hundred. It is not unusual for men
even of slight intellectual ability to recall and relate clearly important events
occurring thirty-five years previously." 85/54
E.B. Redlich, a form critic, adds that "if, as is possible, the written source
common toMatthew and Luke, generally known as Q, could be dated about
A.D. 50, and if the special source of Luke, designated L, was a document which
could be dated about the same time, and if our Lord died about A.D. 30, the
strictly oral period would be no more than twenty years. In point of fact, it is
another weakness of Form Criticism that it sits too lightly on the results of
literary criticism and assumes that the formative period lasted about two
generations or forty years. Thus, in their investigations there is a tendency to
overlook the presence and influence of those who were eye-witnesses and ear-
witnesses of the events of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and could
thereforeguarantee the historical value of the tradition." 101/15, 16
L.J. McGinleybelieves that the formation of the tradition began after the death
of Jesus, not earlier than A.D. 29-30, and was completed before Mark, i.e.
i.e.,
A.D. 55-62. However, before Paul's captivity in 58, he had written to the
Romans and Corinthians, the Thessalonians and Galatians in a way that
assumed they had a prior detailed knowledge of Jesus. Taking these facts into
consideration, we can conclude that the formative period cannot be extended
beyond the year A.D. 50. From the form-critical viewpoint, the beginnings must
have been slow, because the lack of biographical interest and expectation of a
soon-to-happen Second Coming had to be overcome by the rise of other motives.
82/24
James Martin in The Reliability of the Gospels has remarked that "as a matter of
fact, there was no time for the Gospel story of Jesus to have been produced by
legendary accretion. The growth of legend is always a slow and gradual thing.
But in this instance the story of Jesus was being proclaimed, substantially as the
Gospels now record it, simultaneously with the beeinnine of the Church."
80/103. 104
L.J. McGinley, author of Form Criticism of the Synoptic Healing Narratives,
adds:
"In developing such an intricate theory as form-criticism from either the
analytic or constructive viewpoint, one of the investigator's primary concerns
should be to discover a suitable external 'control' by which he can test his
conclusion. Such a 'control' is at hand for form -criticism of the Gospels. It
consists in determining the length of time required for a tradition to evolve in
the manner proposed. This is not extremely difficult. The natural impression
that such an evolutionary process extends over a long span of years can be tested
by a study of those 'general laws governing popular narrative and tradition, such
as stories and anecdotes.' [Rudolf Bultmann. Die Erforschung der synoptischen
Evangelien {2nd. ed.; Giessen, 1930), p. 15.] and particularly by considering the
development of the rabbinic and Hellenic literatures so much employed in form-
criticism for analogies of style. Yet form-critics have consistently neglected any
precise statements on this point, and it is significant that Dibelius considers the
formation of the Apophthegmata Patrum a good analogy precisely because it
was accomplished in so short a time [Martin Dibelius. "Zur Formgeschichtc der
Evangelien." Theol. Rund., N.F.I. (1929), p. 173]." 82/23
He concludes by citing KOhler: "... that no more than fifteen years can be
assigned to the active evolution of the synoptic tradition as understood by form-
criticism ]Dasformgeschtchtltche Problem des N.T. (Tubingen, 1927), p. 25].'*
Steven H. Travis notes in his article, "Form Criticism":
"The assumption that there was an oral period before any of the gospel material
came to be written down has been questioned by H. Schurmann. He suggests
that during Jesus' ministry his disciples may have written notes on main aspects
of his teaching." 6/159
P.O. Kenyon, a proven scholar, who questions the time element required by the
form critical hypothesis, says that "there is simply not time for the elaborate
processes required for Dibelius' Formgeschtchte, which has won rather sur-
prising popularity, but which presupposes, first the dissemination of stories of
the life and teachings of Jesus, then their collection and classification into groups
according to their character, and then the formation of continuous narratives in
which they were utilized." 149/52
J. Warwick Montgomery has analyzed Form Criticism and has concluded that it
fails because "the time interval between the writing of the New Testament
documents as we have them and the events of Jesus' life which they record is too
brief to allow for communal redaction by the Church." 87/37
4A. CONCLUSION
Babcock questions the validity of the basis of Form Criticism when he observes:
"This process of gradual moulding, in the course of which the stories were so
modified that considerable allowance must be made for additions and
diminutions before we can arrive at the true account of the event, would seem to
demand a considerable interval of time. But it is now established that the
Crucifixion took place in A.D. 33 and that all the Gospels were composed and in
circulation by the end of the first century; we cannot therefore allow for a period
of more than sixty years for the composition of any of them, and further, the
Gospels according to St. Mark and St. Luke may well be all written within a
quarter of a century after the last event narrated, while Q, which has been
embodied in St. Luke and St. Matthew, may be at least ten years earlier. To the
argument that form criticism demands a prolonged period and therefore that
the composition of the Gospels must be put late there is thus an obvious reply,
that other considerations both allow and suggest that their composition may be
put far earlier, and this casts doubts on the validity of the theory of form
criticism." 3/16
Paul L. Maier writes that "arguments that Christianity hatched its Easter myth
over a lengthy period of time or that the sources were written many years after
the event are simply not factual.' 153/122
6A. IN SUMMARY
IB. The form critics hold that the Gospel traditions were passed on in oral
form for at least one generationafter the death of Christ.
2B. Form critics believe the oral traditions were used mainly in worship and
evangelism.
SB. Other scholars contend that there was not enough time between the death
of Christ and the writing of the Gospels for the traditions to develop in the
way the form critics propose.
4B. Many think the form critics are overly skeptical about the reliability of
oral traditon.
chapter 19—,
pericopes
or
self-contained
units
Form Criticism assumes that during the oral period the narratives and sayings, with
the exception of the Passion narrative, circulated mainly as single, self-contained,
detached units, complete in themselves. These units arc usually referred to as
pericopes.
lA. BASIC ASSUMPTION
Floyd V. Filson, in Origins of the Gospels, stated that "fundamental to the form
method is the idea that the gospel material first circulated in small,
critic's
independent units." 47/93
Filson suggests that it was continued repetition which tended to encourage the
extension or oral tradition and it was this same tradition which tended to fix the
form.
"According to form critics, it was largely through constant repetition during
those days of oral use that the tradition received the form which it now possesses.
Studies of folklore and popular stories in various languages lead to the con-
clusion that continued repetition of such material tends to give it a rather fixed
form, which is suited to the material and to the setting in which it is used. These
results are regarded as good guides for gospel study. Through constant
repetition the material was given much of its present form." 47/92, 93
Alfred Wikenhauser, in his New Testament Introduction, has concluded that

this assumption is the basic proposition of Form Criticism. He observes:
"The Gospels are not literary works of a single mould which owe their existence
to the personality of a writer; they consist of a considerable number of small
215
units or single passages (single stories and single sayings) which redactors have
forged into a unity with the minimum of change. The Evangelists did not give
shape to unformed tradition; they brought together into a unity the Gospel
material which had been handed down in fairly set forms. Only the framework
into which they set the individual passages is their own work, and this framework
is an artificial creation." 126/255, 256
Wellhausen, cited by Bultmann, adds that "the oldest tradition consisted almost
entirely of smallfragments (sayings or words of Jesus), and did not present a
continuous story of the deeds of Jesus or any complete collection of sayings.
When these fragments were collected, they were connected so as to form a
continuous narrative." 155/340
2A. PROPONENTS
IB. Karl Ludwig Schmidt
K.L. Schmidt, author of Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, and a German
form critic, has observed:
"Only now and then, from considerations about the inner character of a story,
can we fix these somewhat more precisely in respect to time and place. But as
a whole there is no life of Jesus in the sense of an evolving biography, no
chronological sketch of the story of Jesus, but only single stories, pericopae,
which are put into a framework." 147/47
2B. Martin Dibelius
Dibelius, concerning this element of the transmission of isolated pericopes,
states that "when . we trace the tradition back to its initial stage we find no
. .
descriptions of the life of Jesus, but short, separate paragraphs or pericopae.

This is the fundamental hypothesis of the method of form-criticism (for-
mgeschichtliche Methode), as a representative of which I am speaking here."

87/27
Dibelius continues by explaining:
"In the earliest period there was no connected narrative of the life, or at least
of the work of Jesus, i.e. a narrative comparable to a literary biography or the
legendary life of a saint. The stories contained in the synoptic Gospels, whose
essential categories I have attempted to describe, were at first handed down in
isolation as independent stories. Fold tradition as contained in the Gospels
could pass on Paradigms, Tales, and Legends, but not a comprehensive
description of Jesus' work." 36/178
Martin Dibelius claims that by careful reading of the Gospels we should find
thatit is true that "the evangelists took over material which already possessed
a form of its own. They joined some paragraphs together which beforehand
had possessed a certain independent completeness." 36/4
Dibelius carries this concept of pericopes a little further by referring to
another law of oral tradition which deals not with pericopes that are closely
connected but rather with isolated units:
"We must presuppose the operation of still another law for the handing down
of the sayings of Jesus. Here we have to do not with the words of Jesus which
constituted either the kernel or the goal of the story, for the tradition of these
sayings is closely connected with the handing down of the narratives, but
rather we are now dealing with another class, viz. isolated sayings, especially
proverbs, metaphors and commandments." 36/26, 27
SB. Rudolf Bultmann
Bultmann concurs with Martin Dibelius when he alleges that "it may be seen
quite clearly that the original tradition was made up almost entirely of brief
single units (sayings or short narratives), and that almost all references to time
r
I
and place which serve to connect up the single sections into a larger context
are the editorial work of the evangelists." 19/25
According to Bultmann, as the critics distinguish the "different stages of the
synoptic tradition from one another in order to identify the oldest, the very
first task is to make a critical distinction between tradition and editorial
redaction in the Synoptic Gospels." 181/342
"It becomes clear" writes Bultmann, "that the original tradition underlying
Mark (with perhaps the exception of the story of the Passion) consisted almost
and that virtually all the descriptions of
entirely of small isolated fragments;
place or time which connect the individual fragments into a larger whole are
due to redaction." 181/342
Bultmann, who has carried Form Criticism to its ultimate conclusion, has
concentrated his thoughts on the transmission of pericopes in their relation to
the evangelist. He writes that their problem was "how to localize historically,
and assign to a definite place in the life of Jesus, his sayings which had been
collected without any reference to the place or time when they were spoken."
19/26. 27
4B. Vincent Taylor

Vincent Taylor, a contemporary British form critic, has stated that "from the
beginning then isolated sayings must have been current in Christian tradition.
What Jesus said was remembered; where it was said, and under what con-
ditions, was less easily recalled in circumstances less dramatic than those
associated with the Pronouncement-Stories." 114/88
Taylor observes that the material in the oral tradition "was not guided and
sustained by a biographical interest, and accordingly it soon began to perish
by an inevitable process of attrition. Practical interests were uppermost, and
thus it was that within about a decade the Gospel traditon came to be mainly
a collection of isolated stories, sayings, and sayings-groups." 114/169. 170
Taylor's survey on the stories of oral tradition states that "the survey has
shown that for the most part the stories are self-contained. This, again, is a
feature of oral tradition which as a rule, is content to record incidents rather
than a sequence of events." 1 14/167
Vincent Taylor presents the form critical argument concerning the Passion
narrative, the one narrative that did not circulate as separate entities but
rather as complete in itself. Taylor explains this by saying that "the situation
in which the primitive community found itself demanded a continuous
Passion Story. Almost from the first the followers of Jesus found themselves
faced by a serious difficulty; both for themselves and others it was necessary to
be able to show how a Crucified Messiah could be the subject of a message of
Salvation. The first Christians were not long in discovering that such a
message was 'unto Jews a stumbling-block, and unto Gentiles foolishness' (I
Cor. i. 23). Arguments from Old Testament prophecies were not enough to
meet this difficulty; such arguments made it the more necessary to tell the
Story of the Cross and to tell it as a whole It was necessary to tell the
connected Story, and so much the more as only the account of the succession
of Passion and Easter solves the paradox of the Cross, only the combination of
the events satisfies the need for interpretation, only the connexion of the
individual incidents can answer the question of guilt." 1 14/47
5B. Comments on the Passion Narrative
M. Dibelius speaking as a representative of Form Criticism on the issue of a
complete Passion narrative says that "we must presuppose the early existence
of a Passion narrative complete in itself since preaching, whether for the
purpose of the mission or of worship, required some such a text." 36/23
Dibelius adds that this necessary presupposition of Form Criticism "is justified
by a glance at the tradition which has come down to us. The relatively fixed
character of the Passion narrative in the synoptics, and the quite unique
agreement between John and the other evangelists in this part of the
narrative, show that this material had duly and uniformly reached its definite
form." 36/23
Dibelius continues by observing the processes by which each evangelist records
the Passion narrative. Of Matthew he says:
"Matthew increased the Passion material by introducing details copied from
the Old Testament, e.g. the thirty pieces of silver, the gall in the drink, the
detailed formulation of the scoffs of the passers-by (Matthew xxvi, 15; xxvii,
34, 43). He increased the material also by taking up Legends or legendary
extensions of the narrative, such as the description of the traitor and his
death, Pilate washing his hands, and the sentries at the grave and their ex-
pressions (xxvi 25; xxvii, 3-10, 24. 25. 62-6; xxviii. 11-15)." 36/196
,
Referring to Mark. Dibelius asserts:
"It probable that scriptural proof was at first only a postulate, a postulate
is
rooted in the Easter faith. But this faith guaranteed the assurance that the
very Passion of Jesus was in accordance with God's will, and God's will was to
be found in the scriptures. Thus the witness of the scriptures may have been
spoken of before it could really be adduced. Then in certain Old Testament
passages, e.g. Psalms xxii, xxxi, Ixix; Isaiah liii, the Passion of Jesus was
found depicted in advance. These passages were read again and again as the
evangel of the Passion. From this there grew, of a certainty still before the use
of Mark's gospel, a conception of the via dolorosa and of the hour of suf-
fering." 36/184
Dibelius claims that "Luke presents the Passion as a martyrdom. There were
Jewish martyrdoms, as is proved by the literary record of them in the Mar-
tyrdom of Isaiah, and in II and IV Maccabees. Since these were read among
the Christians the evangelist could expect that if he presented Jesus as a
martyr he would be understood by Christian readers." 36/201
Dibelius concludes by professing that "the whole Lucan record presents an
attempt to give the words of institution the force of history by putting them in
the framework of a Passover meal. This framework and what belongs to it. as
well as the dividing of the eschatological words into two sayings, is naturally
the work of an evangelist who was pondering such an historization." 36/2 10
SA. BASIC ANSWERS AND ANALYSIS
IB. Critical Analysis of Pericopc Transmission
It has been set forth that a "fundamental principle of the method called Form
Criticism is this: the synoptic Gospels are a collection of small, independent
units artificially linked together by the evangelists." 82/9. 10
L.J. McGinley has reacted to this by claiming that "while admitting readily
that the evangelists employed various, independent sources in composing
their Gospels, that the transition from scene to scene is frequently stereotyped
and sometimes awkward, that Matthew, e.g.. preferred topical arrangement
to detailed chronological sequence, that the composition of all is simple and
akin neither to the romantic biography nor the scientific history, we must still
reject this concept of patchwork Gospels in which the role of the evangelist is
restricted to that of a compiler." 82/9. 10
Vincent Taylor once again observes that form critical assumptions, such as
the assumption of the oral tradition, "are constantly made which, to say the
least, demand scrutiny, such as the too confident belief that the primitive
tradition consisted almost entirely of isolated units and was purely popular in
origin." 114/20
C.H. Dodd has observed that "none of the gospels would ever have come into
being, were it not for fact that the individual pieces of the oral tradition were
proclaimed from the beginning as elements of a coherent story." 148/55
The work which Mark did in his Gospel was done "not arbitrarily or
irresponsibly, adds Dodd, "but under such guidance as he could find in
tradition. It is hazardous to argue from the precise sequence of the narrative
in detail; yet there is good reason to believe that in broad lines the Marcan
order does represent a genuine succession of events, within which movement
and development can be traced." 183/400
W.E. Barnes has challenged this fundamental assumption of Dibelius and the
form critics by commenting:
"In his hardy rejection of connecting links in the Gospel narrative Dibelius
overlooks (or dismisses) the several indications of a trustworthy geographical
tradition of our Lord's wandering ministry, which these links supply. Is it
reasonable to suppose that a late and ignorant evangelist-editor invented
these scattered links, which when gathered together yield us so probable a
story of the movements of Jesus?" 6/52
R.O.P. Taylor believes that the origin of the Gospels is based on a pattern
that originated in the worship of the early Church rather than isolated pieces
of oral tradition. He contends that there was a coherent story of Jesus'
ministry described by the apostles that was regularly recited in a fixed form in
church worship. As a result, Mark wrote down this pattern and it was also
used by the other evangelists. Thus these evangelists were not depending on
the Gospel of Mark, but this Gospel pattern of worship, cited by 136/1 19
James Martin writes that "the employment of artificial forms can not be
pressed to mean more than that the Church was accustomed to tell particular
kinds of Jesus-stories in particular ways. Many analogies can be cited where
factual accounts are cast into a prescribed mould of narration without
prejudice either to their truth or to the world's recognition of their truth. The
illustration readiest to mind is that of policemen's reports and their evidence
in court." 80/76
L.J. McGinley climaxes the criticism against the form critics' position
regarding the transmission of isolated units in the oral tradition by em-
phasizing that "were the Gospels mere compilations, their heterogeneous
origin should be conspicuous in the tenor of their story. Yet it is a striking fact
that in these three converging and diverging narratives there reigns a simple
but unmistakable consistency; there is no contradiction in Jesus' doctrine nor
in His deeds, no inconsistency of word with action; the story of His success and
failure flows logically to its end; the description of the land in which He lived
and the people whom He encountered — a land and people never seen by
many of the early Christians— has never been convicted of inaccuracy. Such
unanimity of presentation would be impossible in a collection of isolated
units." 82/10
2B. Critical Analysis of the Fallacy of Inaccurate Transmission of Pericopcs

To begin with, James Martin explains two factors of influence on the trans-
mission of oral tradition:
"Underlying the whole business of the transmission of the oral tradition arc
two factors whose influence on the preservation of accuracy must have been
considerable. To these we make passing reference as we close the chapter.
"There is, for one, the fact that the early Church was Jewish in background
and in outlook. Every Jew had been trained to treat tradition with great
respect and with the utmost care. Those Jews who became
Christians
inevitably attached their reverence for tradition to the new tradition
which
had to do with Jesus: and, as they had been careful to preserve the old
traditions with accuracy, so were thev careful with regard to the new.
"The other factor is the early Church's deep conviction regarding Jesus'
authority, for He was Messiah and more than Messiah— as the events of
history had shown. This was the fundamental reason that stories of Him were
told and preserved; and this was sufficient reason to ensure that these stories
would be perpetuated with the utmost accuracy." 80/67
Kistemaker, writing of the 120 at Pentecost who received the Holy Spirit, says
that "these people did not vanish but were active in many communities
throughout Palestine, preaching the word which they had received from
Jesus. In the letters of Paul, the words 'receive' and 'deliver' are technical
terms referring to the transmission of a sacred trust. Hence, when Paul in-
structs the Christians at Corinth in the proper celebration of the Lx)rd's
Supper, he says: 'For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,
that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread' (I Cor.
13:23). And in Chapter 15 of that same epistle, he uses these terms again: 'For
I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received' (v. 3). The form
critic fails to take note of the faithful transmission of the very words of Jesus
which the apostles delivered to the churches. In this chain of receiving and
delivering, he does not want to see Jesus as the originator of the gospel
tradition." 186/48, 49
Martin continues that "it is easily forgotten and yet of considerable

significance that in the oral period the traditions of Jesus were being quoted in
the hearing of unbelievers, many of whom were antagonistic, as well as of
believers. This also must have helped in no small measure to ensure that they
suffered no substantial change in the course of their repetition. For the
uncommitted and the hostile, quick to seize on any feature of the Christians'
story which did not tally with its previous telling, would have made the most
of the discrepancy. As a result, both in their public preaching and in debate
and discussion, it would be impossible for the Christians to vary their stories in
any material aspect from one telling to the other." 80/67
A.M. Hunter adds:
"In the last sixyears or so, however, Scandinavian reaction to Teutonic
scepticism has taken a new and hopeful line in the work of Harald Riesenfeld
and Birger Gerhardsson [Memory and Manuscript, 1961]. Their argument —
and there is a lot to be said for it, even if it does not take us all the way— may
be summed up thus: (1) The Jewish community was accustomed to transmit
its oral tradition from teacher to pupil in a relatively fixed and controlled
way; (2) New Testament references to 'tradition' suggest that the early
Christians, most of them Jews, showed a like concern for faithful trans-
mission; (3) this process of transmission began with Jesus, Himself a Teacher
who made His disciples repeat and memorize what He taught them {e.g., the
sayings, many in poetic form, in the Sermon on the Mount). Ergo we may
have confidence in the historical worth of our Gospels." 64/15-20
In dealing with this important concern of memorization of transmitted
material, James Martin notes:
"The Jews of that day had a power of memory far superior to ours and the
accuracy of their verbal transmission was, by our standards, most
remarkable. For many generations— books being then, let us remember, a
rare commodity— they had been accustomed to learn and to teach by word of
mouth. As a result, their memories had become superbly trained and
regularly performed feats that would be astonishing in Western circles."
80/66, 67
B S Easton adds to this thought when he writes:
. .
"Furthermore. Jesus was popularly known and addressed as Rabbi, so that his
method of teaching had recognizable elements in common with that of other

rabbis. Like them, in particular, he gathered around himself a small group of
very intimate disciples, who were being trained to become teachers in their
turn; such training among the Jews always included the verbatim
memorization of the teacher's most important sayings." 43/40, 41
James Martin reiterates that a significant fact which warrants discussion is
that the Jews regarded spoken words as superior to written. Since the early
Christians were Jews, they shared this outlook. They preferred to have spoken
words to relate to the authority, so they found it unnecessary to have tradition
put down in documentary form. But because the eyewitnesses were dying off,
a change became necessary. 80/50
W.S. Taylor has commented that remembering, especially rote memory
emphasized by the rabbis, played an important part in teaching in Jesus*
time. Jesus showed concern with memory work in His teaching methods. He
surrounded Himself with a small group of intimate disciples, whom He taught
so that they could in turn teach others. Verbatim memorization was always
used by the Jews for learning a teacher's most important sayings. Some of
Jesus' sayings illustrate, in form, the rabbi's use of memorization methods.
119/478,479
Recognizing this fallacy of inaccurate transmission of isolated bits of
tradition, T.W. Manson writes that "we need some explanation why it was
possible for the details of the story to be remembered and the general outline
forgotten." 154/213
In History and Christianity John Warwick Montgomery states:
"We know from the mishna that it was Jewish custom to memorize a Rabbi's
teaching, for a good pupil was like a 'plastered cistern that loses not a drop*
[Mishna Aboth, II. 8]. And we can be sure that the early Church, impressed as
it was by Jesus, governed itself by this ideal. Moreover, none of the form-
critical researches has ever been successful in yielding a non- supernatural

picture of Jesus, for 'all parts of the Gospel record are shown by these various
groupings to be pervaded by a consistent picture of Jesus as the Messiah, the
Son ofGod' [16/33]." 87/37, 38
Taylor makes reference to B.S. Easton as he offers evidence on the Jewish
Rabbis:
"He [Easton] reminds us that Jewish Rabbis used to instruct small groups of
intimate disciples, requiring them to memorise their own most important
sayings; and he argues that, since Jesus was frequently addressed as 'Rabbi,*
and had to prepare His disciples within a brief space of time for popular
preaching, it is probable that He used similar methods." 1 14/94
4A. IN SUMMARY
IB. Form critics contend that during the oral period the literary units
which were complete in themselves, circulated separately.
(pericopes),
2B. According to the form critics, the Passion story was the only extensive
narrative which was in circulation during this period.
SB. Critics of Form Criticism feel that stories about Jesus would have been
passed down accurately. They point to the Jewish tradition of accurate
oral transmission and the fact that many who knew Jesus were still alive in
this period.
chapter 20
classification
according
.to the
form
Material in the Gospels can be classified according to form.
IB. A good summary of the form classification held to by the form critics is
provided by Everett F. Harrison:
"(1) Pronouncement stories. (Vincent Taylor's term) or apophthegmata
(Bultmann) or Paradigms (Dibelius, in recognition of their use in Christian
preaching). These involve incidents, quite brief as a rule, ending in an
aphorism or famous saying that drives home the lesson. An example is the
passage regarding the tribute money, ending in Jesus* notable pronouncement
about rendering to Caesar and to God (Mark 12:17).
"(2) Miracle stories. Bultmann finds the same stylistic characteristics for the
general run of Jesus* miracles as are common to those reported in the
Hellenistic world: a statement of the malady, with special stress on its dire
character so as to magnify the cure; the account of the healing: a statement of
the effect on those who are present. Due to the correspondences, Bultmann
concludes that these belong to the Hellenistic phase of the expanding church
rather than to its Palestinian phase. Dibelius distinguishes miracles that are
closely connected with the proclamation of the kingdom, which he therefore
subsumes under Paradigms, and others that are stories complete in them-
selves and abounding in detail. These he calls 'tales,* and thinks that in them
Jesus is simply pictured as a wonder-worker having exceptional potency.
223
"(S) Stories about Jesus. These have considerable variety and therefore arc
not easy to classify. It is readily admitted by the form critics that there arc
mythological elements in the portrayal of Jesus, for example, in the trans-
figuration. The tendency is regarded as full-blown in the Fourth Gospel. The
category of myth is applied to those elements of the Gospel exposition of Jesus
that present him in a guise transcending the human and the natural.
"(4) Sayings of Jesus. These are of several types. One is wisdom words. Since
Judaism was rich in gnomic literature, this element in Jesus' teaching is to be
expected. Yet there must be a suspicion, according to Bultmann, that at least
some of the sayings of this type attributed to Jesus have been put in his mouth
by the Evangelists. A second type may be called prophetic sayings. These
include the Beatitudes and the utterances of a more apocalyptic nature, such
as the prediction of the destruction of the temple. Again, there are statements
that may be called legislative, in which Jesus gives teachings about prayer,
fasting, divorce, forgiveness, and a variety of other topics. Sometimes these
are classified as church words. Then there are certain 'I' sayings in which the
person of Jesus is made prominent in some way. Finally, there is a well defmed
group of sayings known as parables, Jesus' favorite device for expounding the
kingdom of God.
"(5) The Passion story. While complete agreement is lacking among the form
critics, some seeing it as a sustained, well-knit narrative, in contrast to the
fragmentary nature of the other Gospel materials, others seeing it as a piecing
together of short fragments later embellished, it is nevertheless regarded as
one of the forms." 58/148. 149
2B. A Further Breakdown of the Classifications Used by Martin Dibelius,

Rudolf Buhmann and Vincent Taylor
IC. CLASSIFICATIONS ACCORDING TO DIBELIUS:
1) Paradigms - short incidents which climax in a teaching utterance of
Jesus.
2) Tales • stories told for their own sakes, miracle stories.
S) Legends - stories about saintly people.
4) Exhortations.
5) Myths - stories of Jesus regarded as divine.
6) Passion Story.
The most historical of these are, according to Dibelius, paradigms,
exhortations and elements of the Passion Story.
2C. CLASSIFICATIONS ACCORDING TO BULTMANN:
1) Apothegm - essentially coincidental with paradigms.
2) Sayings - a) logia or wisdom utterances.
b) prophetic and apocalyptic sayings.
c) legal and ecclesiastical pronouncements.
d) 'T' use.
e) parables.
S) Miracle stories.
4) Historical narratives and legends— grouping based on content more
—
than form Practically all of this material is a product of the Church.
SC. CLASSIFICATIONS ACCORDING TO TAYLOR
1) Passion narratives definite and ordered form.
2) Pronouncement Stories equivalent to Dibelius' paradignu.
-
5) Sayings and Parables.

4) Miracle Stories.
5) Stories about Jesus.
SB. The Forms of Martin Dibelius

The theory of form development is hypothesized by Dibelius:
"The fortune of primitive Christianity is reflected in the history of the Gospel-
Form. The first beginnings of its shaping hardly deserve to be called literary.
What Form was present was determined by ecclesiastical requirements arising
in the course of missionary labour and of preaching. The Passion story, the
most significant piece of tradition for Christian faith, was told relatively early
as a connected story. Moreover isolated events from the life of Jesus, suitable
for sermons, were told in short stories, and sayings and parables were used
especially for a practical purpose. But pleasure in the narrative for its own
sake arose and seized upon literary devices. The technique of the Tale
developed, and lent meanwhile a fully secular character to the miracle stories.
In addition, legendary narratives full of personal interest in the persons of the
sacred story joined themselves to the periphery of the tradition. One told of
these persons in the same way as similar narratives from the surrounding
world spoke of other holy men. Already between the lines of the Gospel-Form
one can see that the faith of Christendom moved from its fundamental
strangeness in the world and its self- limitation to the religious interests of the
Church, to an accommodation to the world and to harmony with its
relationships." 36/287
IC. PARADIGMS
Dibelius recognizes five essential characteristics of the paradigms:
1) Brief and simple for possible sermon use.
2) Style that causes the words of Jesus to stand out clearly.

S) Independence from literary context.
4) Ending in a thought useful for preaching.
5) Religious emphasis rather than artistic,

cited by 83/22
Some of the characteristics of this form include:
1) External rounding-off at beginning and end.

2) Brevity and simplicity - (lack portraiture).
3) Coloring of narrative in a totally religious and realistically unworldly

manner.
4) Reaches climax and concludes with a word of Jesus.
36/44-69
The purpose of the paradigm is preaching. Dibelius emphasizes that "the
concentrated brevity of Paradigms rests upon a concern which makes the
material subject to the purpose of the preacher, hinders wandering, and
silences the unessential. Even what is only vivid or only arresting cannot be
regarded as essential from the standpoint of a sermon." 36/53
McKnight, quoting Dibelius, says that sermons weren't just the bare
Gospel message "but rather the message as explained, illustrated and
supported with references and otherwise developed." 83/21
Dibelius further develops this preaching concept:
"Everywhere it is evident that what Jesus said possesses somehow a general
significance, and, as a regulation for faith or life, gives the
whole story an
immediate relation with the hearer. It is no wonder then that we ^na tn>»
could be
true of many Paradigms if by means of such sayings the story
woven into the preaching." 36/56
He states why the sermon form is such a durable literary type:

"The nearer a narrative stands to the sermon the less is it questionable, or
likely to have been changed by romantic, legendary, or literary in-
fluences." 56/61
He enumerates the positive points of the paradigm:

"The self-limitation of the Paradigm on stylistic grounds must be un-
derstood in the case of healings in the same manner as in those which we
have already analysed. No question is raised about the technique of the
miracle, and none about the technical skill of the miracle-worker. The
only important points are that Jesus healed, and in what way He revealed
the meaning and purpose of His work in a brief word to the man who had
been healed and to the witnesses. Those are motives which have immediate
significance for preaching, and thereby we pass over from the negative to
the positive characteristics of a paradigmatic style." 36/55, 56
A list of eight paradigms of Dibelius are:

The Healing of the Paralytic Mark ii, 1 ff.
The Question of Fasting Mark ii, 18f.
The Rubbing of the Ears of Com Mark ii, 23 ff.
The Healing of the Withered Hand Mark iii, 1 ff.
The Relatives of Jesus Mark iii, 20 f., 30 ff.
Blessing the Children Mark x, 13 ff.
The Tribute Money Mark xii, 13 ff.
The Anointing in Bethany Mark xiv, 3 ff.
.36/42.43
"In addition to these eight typical stories another ten of a less pure type can
be regarded as illustrations — and will be so employed in the following
research."
The Healing in the Synagogue Mark i, 23 ff.
The Call of Levi Markii, 13ff.
Jesus in Nazareth Mark vi, 1 ff.
The Rich Young Man Mark x, 17 ff.
TheSonsof Zebedee Markx, 35 ff.
The Blind Man of Jericho Mark x, 46 ff.
Cleansing the Temple Mark xi, 15 ff.
The Question of the Sadducees Mark xii, 18 ff.
The Inhospitable Samaritans Luke ix, 51 ff.

The Man with the Dropsy Luke xiv, 1 ff.
36/42, 43
"The paradigms existed in isolation," states Dibelius. The repercussions of
this, according to Dibelius are:
1) independent life must be noticeable in them today.
2) evidence of an external rounding off. 36/44
Dibelius is not concerned by the alleged unhistorical character of the
paradigm:
"Therefore it should cause no surprise if in the Paradigms we were to come
across sentences or at least words of Jesus of whose historical reliability

there is doubt. They are not proved to be genuine by the fact of relatively
primitive tradition, and on the other hand the paradigmatic nature of the
matter is not spoiled by such unhistoric traits." 36/96
When talking of paradigms, Dibelius notes that a paradigm tends to be an
example, a narrative with all interest centered upon the actual words of
Jesus. 36/42
And concerning the originality of the paradigms Dibelius says:

"This manner of abbreviating the circumstances and giving the concluding
saying as strikingly as possible is, therefore, apart from a few exceptions,
not that of the original tradition, but is indicative of the secular style into
which the gospel tradition was entering. The relative originality of the
primitive Christian Paradigm in Greek literature comes out here once
more." 36/ 163
2C. TALES OR NOVELLEN
Basil Redlich interprets Dibelius' definition of tales: "Stories about Jesus
which set Him forth as a wonder-worker. These were formed not for
edification, not to show Christ's power over the human soul, but to display
the power of Jesus over nature and sickness. They were valued for them-
selves, and not for any saying in them, and might serve as examples to
Christian healers and exorcists. They were the creation of a body of
storytellers." 101/28
Dibelius' classification of tales is complete in itself. Its major difference
from the seemingly similar paradigm is its broadness of description which
tends to illustrate the same artistic element as exhibited in the Old
Testament. All in all, it can be asserted that the tales provide far more
detail than the paradigms. 36/76, 77
Dibelius remarks: "The paradigms aim at proselytising. .the folk-tales

.
aim amusing and even perhaps impressing with a certain popular

at
sagacity." 36/288
Another form critic, R.H. Lightfoot, defines this term:
"This word implies a prose narrative comparatively short in length, which
presents something new in the sense of something striking, concentrates its
attention on one point only, and is distinguished by a strict attention to
form. It must possess a turning-point, after which it generally passes
rapidly to its denouement." 76/45
Dibelius further clarifies that "it is not Jesus as the herald of the Kingdom
of God with His signs, demands, threats and promises, who stands in the
centre of these stories, but Jesus the miracle-worker. The Tales deal with
Jesus the thaumaturge. " 36/80
We can note six characteristics of these tales as we study Dibelius:

1) They are individual stories complete in themselves.
2) They tend to be detailed with secular motivation.
3) They have a lack of devotional motives and slackening of words of Jesus
of general value.
4) They deal with Jesus as a miracle- worker.
5) They involve history of the illness.
6) They show success of the miracle. 36/72-103
Tales, a form classification, says McKnight, inaugurated by Dibelius. are
said to originate in one of three ways: (1) by paradigmatic extension, (2) by
the introduction of a foreign motif, or (3) by the borrowing of alien
material. 83/23
Dibelius cites nine tales from the Gospel of Mark:
"Especially in Mark a number of narratives show the unmistakable signs of
this category, so that we may recognize the following nine as Tales.
The Leper: Mark i, 40-5.

The Storm: Markiv, 35-41.
The Demons and the Swine: Mark v, 1-20.

The Daughter of Jairus and the Woman with the Issue: Mark v, 21 -4S.
The Feeding of the Five Thousand: Mark vi, 35-44.
The Walking on the Sea: Mark vi, 45-52.
The Man. Deaf and Dumb: Mark vii. 32-37.
The Blind Man of Bethsaida: Mark viii, 22-6.
The Epileptic Boy: Markix. 14-29." 36/71. 72
He comments on the alleged relationship between Christian tales and other
literary types:
"We can see the significance of primitive Christian Tales if we notice two
processes within Hellenistic religious history: (a) the incidental
replacement of Myths by stories of miracles, and (b) the disappearance of
the boundaries between God and the Godsent man." 36/96
Dibelius begins to question the historical reliability of the lives of talc
authors: "It is true that we know nothing of those who put together these
Christian tales, but we can describe the characteristics of their creations."
36/70,71
He then goes on to question the historicity of the talcs:
"The historical reliability of the Tales is in no way guaranteed by these

demonstrations, rather analysis has already shown that the Tales are only
to be used with great caution as historical sources. They lack the protection
which preaching furnished to the Paradigms, and they were open to the
invasion of foreign motives, since the shaping of their form was not in-
fluenced by missionary requirements, but by the pleasure of narrating the
Tale." 36/292
Dibelius observes that "this type, as a whole, is less historical than the
Paradigm." 36/102
"The category which it is meant to describe is more 'worldly' and has more
of its literary forms than the Paradigm." 36/70, 71
"Indeed, 'literary style in reporting miracles, a feature which we missed on
the whole from Paradigms, appears in the Talcs with a certain
. . .
regularity.'" 36/82
Dibelius summarizes:
"The Tales are meant to show Jesus as the Lord of divine powers, and they
effect this object by a narrative style which does not despise colourful, or
even 'secular,' means." 36/96
SC. LEGENDS
Dibelius notes another form which is used only occasionally in the New
Testament, the legend. He defines it:
"By this term is meant a narrative written in an edifying style and telling of
extraordinary things about a holy man or a holy place. Interest in the
virtue and religiousness of the saint is in the foreground." 35/43
Another thought about Dibelius' "Legend":
"The term 'Legend' does not exclude historical traits, but only says that the
main interest of the narrator lies elsewhere than in the historicity. It is
directed to the religiousness and sanctity of the hero." 35/43
This form is a "legendary biography." Dibelius assumes that "simple events
are surrounded with a heavenly light, or elements from other Legends arc
transferred to the hero in order to show the connection of his life with the
divine world. But above all, his life is decorated with characters and scenes
which correspond to the very nature of legendary biography." 36/108
Along with the biographical interest, an interest in man's fate is also

discovered. Dibelius holds that "Legends are religious narratives of a
saintly man in whose works and fate interest is taken. An aetiological
interest is to be found alongside of the biographical; the endeavour is to
give grounds for the significance of the saint's day by such narratives."
36/104
Concerning the purpose of legends, Dibelius states:
"Hence the Legends found among the Gospel narratives were intended to
satisfy a double need: (1) the wish to know something of the holy men and
women in Jesus' surroundings, their virtues and also their lot; (2) the desire
which gradually came in, to know Jesus Himself in this way." 36/ 11
Finally, the central point of the legend is enunciated by Dibelius:
"The deeds and experiences of a man, whofor his piety and sanctity is
honoured by God with a special fate, stand as the middle point of a typical
personal legend. He works miracles, reconciles enemies, tames animals;
distress and danger lead him to salvation, and even as a martyr he is
surrounded by signs of divine grace." 36/105
In a footnote from his book, From Tradition to Gospel, Dibelius notes
three legends: Luke 4:29, 30; Mark 11:14, 21; Matthew 17:27. Of these
three, only Matthew 17:27 is an independent legend. 36/106
Concerning legends and Christ's infancy, Dibelius remarks:
"Thus the infancy story shows itself to be a collection of legends of varied

content, and also to be at different levels of historical significance." 35/51
A result of legends is commented on by Dibelius:
"Legends put halos round men, and set in a transfiguring light the very
things with which religious men deal. Hence everything belonging to the
very fact of holy men may become significant in a Legend." 36/132
And he further notes:
"A legendary form as such is in any case no decisive objection against the
historicityof the hero, or even of an event, although again it is no
guarantee for the faithfulness of the record to the truth. Rather the
contrary, for it offers an argument for historical criticism of details."
36/109
4C. REMAINING FORMS OF DIBELIUS

Redlich seeks to establish the myth classification of Dibelius. He remarks
that Dibelius uses "myths" to describe "many-sided interactions" or events
which take place between mythological but not human persons. There are
three: the Baptism, the Temptation and the Transfiguration. 101/30
Dibelius remarks about the sayings:
"Their Form is due to another standpoint; by placing together materially
related words of Jesus the intention was to convey to Christendom a
'teaching' of Jesus on important questions of church life. Thus it is not to
be wondered at that once and again actual problems of the church crop
up, whether they do or do not suit the biographical occasion which the
evangelist has given the whole." 36/222
Concerning the sayings of Jesus, Dibelius rather dogmatically states:
"The Gospels of Matthew and Luke frequently contain identical passaecs,
which are lacking in Mark. These consist of sayings so closely related in
form and style that the similarity cannot be due to accident nor to the
parallelisms of oral tradition. Moreover, as far as we are able to judge,
sometimes Matthew and sometimes Luke offers the more original tor-
)
mulation, a fact that excludes the presupposition that one had been used
by the other. We must, therefore, presuppose that both made use of a
common source, a collection of sayings of Jesus, which has been lost, and
which has been called the Sayings Source, or, in accordance with the need
for brevity in scientific terminology, simply Q." 36/52, 53
Dibelius notes that Jesus used such forms as:
Epic Repetition - Luke 15:18,21.

Antithesisoftypes- Luke 18:9-14; Luke 16:19-31.
Law of three-fold repetition - Matthew 25:14-39.
Parables - Matthew 7:24-27.
Proverbs - Matthew 7:3-5,6.
Hebrew sense- parallelism Matthew 10:26, 27.
-
Old Testament passages Matthew 5:21-24.

-
Commandments Matthew 6:17; Luke 14:26.

-
Prophecy Matthew 24:4-14. 35/30-33

-
According to Dibelius, the type form chosen depended largely on the use
intended:
"Thus the things which were remembered automatically took on a definite
form, for it is only when such matters have received a form that they arc
able to bring about repentance and gain converts." 36/13, 14
Finally we may infer what the author (Dibelius) considers Jesus' role to be
in the history of these forms. Dibelius states that Jesus, John the Baptist and
Peter were "prophetic persons of the Orient." Like the other two, Jesus
wrote nothing. Jesus' teachings were passed on orally in the. definite forms
necessary for preservation — forms like proverbs, parabolic narratives,
riddles and fairy-tales. It is even asserted that Jesus not only used definite
forms but also made use of stories that were already current. All He did
was alter them to suit his purposes. 35/27, 31
4B. The Forms of Rudolf Bultmann

Bultmann, a modem proponent of the form critical method, asserts that "we
must remind ourselves that certain forms were found close at hand in the
environment of the early Christian community, and offered themselves for
purposes of tradition. Similar sayings and brief narratives were handed down
in Jewish literature, and their forms show remarkable similarity to those of
the evangelical material." 19/30
Fredrich Muller adds three Bultmann principles for analysis of form and
content in the Gospels:
"There is also the interpretation of its literary form, and here Bultmann has
shown that this form can be understood only on the basis of three sup-
positions: (1) that the Evangelist himself depended on written Gnostic
sources; (2) that an editor of the original text of the Gospel made additions to
it; and (3) that in the copying of this Gospel later, a certain disarrangement of
its content occurred." 176/207

IC. APOTHEGM OR APOPHTHEGM
Bultmann writes that he "should reckon as part of the tradition of the
sayings a species of traditional material which might well be reckoned as
stories— viz. such units as consist of sayings of Jesus set in a brief context. I
use a term to describe them which comes from Greek literature, and is least
question-begging- 'apophthegms'. "21/11
Redlich summarizes some characteristics of Bultmann's apophthegms:
(1 "The interest of the story centers on a saying of Jesus.
(2) "The narrative is simple and brief, just long enough to make the story
MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT 2S1
intelligible.
(3) "The biographical interest, lacking in many of the narratives, forms
an ingredient of the stories. Generally the parties concerned are
vaguely described.
(4) "The narrative ends in the saying or an act ofJesus." 101/90
Bultmann defmes the apophthegm:
"The distinguishing character of an apophthegma is the fact that it
portrays a minor scene that furnishes the framework for an important
utterance of a hero, a philosopher, a religious preacher, or some other such
person. The important thing is the utterance itself; the narrative
framework serves only to portray a situation giving occasion to the ut-
terance."
About biographical apophthegmata he says:
"These are pictorial creations of the Christian community in which is
brought to clear expression what the community held to be the character
of their Master, what they experienced in relation to him, or how he fared
in popular estimation." 18/46, 47
McGinley says that apophthegms, as defined by Bultmann, are comprised
of controversies, instructions or biographical information. 82/37
And McKnight adds that Bultmann notes three different apophthegmatic
types which arise due to various settings and causes. These are (a) con-
troversy dialogues occasioned by conflict, (b) scholastic dialogues arising
from opponents' questions and (c) biographical apophthegms which are in
the form of a historical report. 83/26, 27
McKnight further notes that to Bultmann, any of the three
apophthegmatic types can be considered an "ideal" Church construction.
Bultmann concedes that the background for the form may be true but the
apophthegm is not an historical report; it is a Church construction. 83/26,
Vincent Taylor lists one group of apophthegms:

"Bultmann's first group consists of twenty-four stories, sixteen of which
appear also in the lists of Dibelius or Albertz. Of the sixteen stories, one,
the Dropsical Man, is recorded by Luke alone (xiv. 1-6), and a second, the
Baptist's Question (Lk. vii. 19ff. = Mt. xi. 2ff.), comes from Q. The
remaining fourteen stories are Markan: the Paralytic (ii. 3ff.), Eating with
Publicans and Sinners (ii. 15ff.), Fasting (ii. 18ff.), Cornfields on the
Sabbath Day (ii. 23ff.), the Man with the Withered Hand (iii. Iff), the
Beelzebub Controversy (iii. 22ff.), Clean and Unclean (vii. 5ff.). Divorce
(x. 2ff.), the Rich Man (x. 17ff.), the Sons of Zebedee (x. 35ff.). Authonty
(xi. 27ff.), Tribute-money (xii. 13ff.), the Resurrection (xii.
18ff.) and the
Great Commandment (xii. 28ff.). All these stories reward study, but it is
not possible now to examine more than one or two." 1 14/63,64
A second group is enumerated by Taylor:

2-10 = Mt îii- 5-15) js
"The story of the Centurion's Servant (Lk. vii.
Disaples (i. 16-20. ii.
from Q. Four are from Mark: the Calling of the First
tfe Rejection at Nazareth (vi. 1-6). the Syro- Phoenician Woman (vik
14).
24-30). and the Cleansing (xi. 15-7); and the
remaining five arc found in
^nd Herod (xiu. 31-3)
Luke alone: Martha ancTMary (x. 38-42), Jesus
76
After citing two of Bultmann's apophthegms, Basil Redlich expresses his

viewpoint about their vaHdity. Of the genuine apophthegms, two are the
Tribute-Money [Mark 12:13-17] and the Anoinung [Mark 14:3-9]. In the
same context:
"In short, the Apothegm -Stories are a reflection of the actual conditions of
the days Jesus preached in Palestine. We must remember that Bultmann
does not deny that Jesus ever lived. He forgets that Jesus did not live in
isolation and that, as One who uttered historical apothegmata, He was
attended by eye-witnesses anxious to hear and learn the words of wisdom
which fell from the Rabbi's lips. To expca our Lord's hearers to forget
every occasion but two, and when and in what circumstances every
pronouncement was made is to expea the incredible." 101/113, 114
McGinley lists the "healing" apophthegms.
In the such subdivision, the following healing stories are classed as
first
apophthegms:
1) The man with the withered hand, Mark 3:1-6.
2) The man with dropsy, Luke 14: 1-6.
3) The woman with a spirit of infirmity, Luke IS: 10-14.
4) The blind and dumb possessed man. Mark 3:22-26; Matthew 12:22-28;
Luke 11:14-20
5)The paralytic. Mark 2:1-12. 82/37
2C. SAYINGS
Bultmann comments that "not only have many of the older sayings of Jesus
been modified in the course of tradition, but not seldom words have been
placed in Jesus' mouth which in reality were either spoken by other Jewish
teachers or first arose in the Christian community." 19/52
He points out the historicity of sayings:
"Even though we must give up the historicity of many of these narratives,
still it remains possible, and even probable, that in many cases the saying
of Jesus which they contain is thoroughly historical." 19/46

ID. Logia or Wisdom Sayings
Bultmann postulates that the birth of wisdom sayings is in community
needs:
"Since the context or conneaion was really created by the later tradition
(chiefly by the evangelists themselves), one must consider the question
whether such Wisdom -sayings were not first admitted to the collection
of Jesus' sayings at the time when, under the stress of the community's
own needs, connected discourses of Jesus were first produced." 19/55
Or maybe they were derived from the treasure of Jewish thought.
Bultmann professes:
"Now it is naturally possible that Jesus himself originated some of the
Wisdom-sayings which the gospels record as spoken by him. It is equally
possible that he made use now and then of proverbs which were current
in his time. But it is quite clear that we must reckon with the possibility
that the primitive community placed in his mouth many a beautiful
saying that was really derived from the treasure of Jewish proverbial
lore." 19/55
McKnight refers to three possibilities that authenticate "proverb," or
wisdom saying, origin:
(1) Jesus was the actual originator.
(2) Jesus made use of proverbs that were popular in his time.
(3) The early Church put sayings in Jesus' mouth, sayings that were
taken from Jewish proverbial lore.

Bultmann's proverb illustrates Jesus as awisdom teacher similar to other
wisdom teachers in Israel, Judaism and the Orient. 83/28
2D. Prophetic Sayings
These sayings are described by Bultmann as those which "proclaimed
the arrival of the Reign of God and preached the call to repentance,
promising salvation for those who were prepared and threatening woes
upon the unrepentant." 19/56, 57
Community creation is again noted with the wisdom saying by Bult-
mann:
"One may with perfect right recognize among them authentic words of
Jesus; and though the Christian community itself produced many a
prophetic saying, as may be clearly shown, it must nevertheless be
recognized that, according to the testimony of the earliest Christians
themselves, they owed their eschatological enthusiasm to the prophetic
appearance of Jesus." 19/56, 57
SD. Legal Sayings
"Finally, a third group" writes Bultmann, "is formed by Jesus' words
regarding the Law, to which have been attached many sayings setting
forth the regulations of the community. Though the formulation of
. . .
one or another of them may be due to the church, as a whole these words
of conflict with legalism, and expressing a spiritual obedience to the will
of God. go back to the prophetic personality to whom the church owed
its existence, that is to the personality of Jesus. Even though many of the
sayings may have originated in the community, the spirit that lives in
them goes back to the work of Jesus." 19/58
4D. "I" Sayings
One of Bultmann's form classifications is the "I" sayings, which consist
of the sayings that are attributed to Jesus where He speaks of His
all
work or His destiny or Himself. Bultmann alleges that Jesus did not
speak of Himself in first person but he admits that it is impossible to
prove this.
Bultmann adds to the skepticism of historical accuracy when he says:
"Since such serious considerations arise against so many of these sayings,
one can have but little confidence even in regard to those which do not
come under positive suspicion, such as Lk. 12:49; Mk. 2:17b; Matt
15:24. We must now add that all these sayings which speak of the
iXeHi; (or diToaraXfjvat. cp esp. Lk. 4:13 with Mk. 1:38) of Jesus are
also under suspicion of being Church products because this terminology
seems to be the means of its looking back to the historical appearance of
Jesus as a whole." 21/155
5D. Parables
McKnight defines a parable as a "concise and simple story which is
much like apopular story in its concrete language, its use of dialectical
language and soliloquy, and its repetition. It is a story told to call forth
judgment on the part of the hearer; a judgment is made regarding the
story of everyday human affairs and relations, then the judgment
it
applied in the realm of the spiritual life." 83/30, 31

Gospels
Redlich distinguishes between the sayings and parables of the
when he confines the term parables to the "longer" sayings where a
comparison is made. 101/135
2S4 MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT
Bultmann provides some criteria by which we can judge the authenticity

of a parabolic saying:
"We can only count on possessing a genuine similitude of Jesus where,
on the one hand, expression is given to the contrast between Jewish
morality and piety and the distinctive eschatological temper which
characterized the preaching of Jesus; and where on the other hand we
find no specifically Christian features." 21/205
Alfred Wikenhauser alludes to the creativity of the community con-
cerning "I" sayings:
"Similarly most of the 'I sayings' are creations of the community ex-
pressing their faith in Jesus, his work, and his fate. In most cases the
parables must be regarded as genuine traditional material, but in the
course of transmission many of them were amplified with allegorical
elements, or were interpreted and explained as allegories (Mk. 4, 14-20;
Mt. 13, 36-43); indeed some of them must be regarded as creations of
the community (e.g.. Mk. 12, 1-12; Mt. 25, 1-13). It is also highly
probable that there are parables from Jewish tradition, which were
ascribed to Jesus by the Christian community (thus Lk. 16, 19-31; 14, 7-
11, 12-14)." 126/268,269
Criteria for authenticity of Jesus' sayings using the Form-Critical

Method are:
By Bultmann:
(1) It doesn't reflect early Church faith.
(2) It doesn't arise out of Judaism.
Byjeremias:
(3) It does have Aramaic traits.
(4) It consistent with other sayings of Jesus
is which arc deemed
authentic. 83/65-68
3C. MIRACLE STORIES

Schubert Ogden translates Bultmann's definition of miracle stories to be
the following:
"Characteristic miracle stories are those in which the miracle constitutes
the main theme and is described with considerable detail, such as the
healing of the Gerasene demoniac, the cure of the woman with the issue of
blood, the raising of the daughter of Jairus from death, the stories of the
stilling of the storm, of walking on the sea, and others.
"Accounts of the miraculous healings run as follows: First, the condition of

the sick person is depicted in such fashion as to enhance the magnitude of
the miracle. After this introductory description of the illness comes the
account of the healing itself. The close of the miracle story depicts the
consequence of the miracle, frequently describing the astonishment or the
terror or the approval of those who witnessed the miraculous event. In
other cases, the close of the narrative shows the one who is healed
demonstrating by some appropriate action that he is entirely cured."
18/43.44
One of the two main groups of the narrative material as classified by
Bultmann is the miracle stories. These are essentially the same as Dibelius'
tales, characterized as stories consisting of miracles and healings with the

miracle constituting the main theme. Miracles are also recorded in the
apophthegms, but the miracle is secondary to the rest of the apophthegm.
83/31,32
R. Fuller, author of Interpreting the Miracles, concludes that there is a
strong tradition of Jesus as an exorcist and healer:

'But we can never be certain of the authenticity of any actual miracle story
in the gospels. While a few of them may rest upon specific memory, most of
them have probably been shaped out of generalized memories." 158/39
4C HISTORICAL NARRATIVES AND LEGENDS
McKnight relates that Bultmann defines a legend as a narrative which is
both religious and edifying. It is not a miracle story or a history as such,
but it may contain elements of both. Historical stories and legends are
treated together by Bultmann, due to an inability to separate the two.
83/32
Taylor quotes Bultmann's definition {Die Geschtchte der Synoptischen
Tradition, 1921. p. 260):
"'As legends," he says, 'I designate the narrative pieces of the tradition
which are not properly speaking miracle-stories, but which nevertheless
have no historical but a religious and edifying character.* " 1 14/31 32
,
5C. MYTHS
Bultmann sets forth his understanding of myths:
"Myths speak about gods and demons as powers on which man knows
himself to be dependent, powers whose favor he needs, powers whose wrath
he fears. Myths express the knowledge that man is not master of the world
and of his life, that the world within which he lives is full of riddles and
mysteries and that human life is also full of riddles and mysteries." 22/19
"The whole conception of the world," continues Bultmann, "which is
presupposed in the preaching of Jesus as in the New Testament generally is

mythological; i.e., the conception of the world as being structured in three
stories, heaven, earth and hell; the conception of the intervention of
supernatural powers in the course of events; and the conception of
miracles, especially the conception of the intervention of supernatural
powers in the inner life of the soul, the conception that men can be
tempted and corrupted by the devil and possessed by evil spirits. This
conception of the world we call mythological because it is different from
the conception of the world which has been formed and developed by
science since its inception in ancient Greece and which has been accepted
by all modem men." 22/15
Ogden stresses Professor Bultmann's restrictions about the classification:

"It does not include all discourse about the divine, but solely that type of
such discourse in which God is spoken of in the categories of science, and
the propositions of which, therefore, are open to verification or
falsification by their coherence or incoherence with the propositions
of
genuine scientific thinking." 177/112
Ogden Bultmann's position on the "myth" classification when he
clarifies
states:
"Myth is that way of speaking in which the realm

of the divine is con-
appropriate
ceptualized as though it were the object of the kind of thinkmg
to science. To use one of his own favorite examples,
myth speaks of God s
distance and
transcendence over the world as if it were a matter of spatial
thus pictures him as located in a heaven situated
somewhere above the
that myth
world of mundane occurrences. The result of such speaking is
with the thinking of science and being
sooner or later comes into conflict
it has the
no match for its adversary, inevitably gives way before it. Because
discourse, and yet
logical and grammatical form of objective scientific
cannot speak, it
intends to speak of a reality of which science in principle
2S6 MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT
can only be regarded by the scientist as a kind of primitive thinking that no

longer has any reason for being." 177/112
5B. The Forms of Vincent Taylor
IC. PRONOUNCEMENT-STORIES
Vincent Taylor has used the term pronouncement -stories to classify a form
of Gospel narrative:
"Their chief characteristic, it will be remembered, is that they culminate
in a saying of Jesus which expresses some ethical or religious precept; the
saying may be evoked by a question friendly or otherwise, or may be
associated with an incident which is indicated in very few words." 1 14/63
Taylor disagrees with Bultmann and Dibelius on the terms paradigm and
apophthegmata. He asserts that "Paradigmen ('models') is too general and
is too exclusively associated with the theory that the stories were formed
under the influence of preaching. On the other hand, Apophthegmata is
literary rather than popular and, by concentrating attention too much on
the final word of Jesus, it almost invites a deprecatory attitude to the
narrative element. For these reasons I should like to suggest a name which
has not yet been used. Why not call these narratives Pronouncement-
5/onw?" 114/30
He further emphasizes: "I suggest that neither of the names by which
Dibelius and Bultmann designate the stories is satisfactory." 1 14/63
Taylor gives an illustration of this form:
"The Tribute-money (Mk. xii. 13ff.) illustrates the Pronouncement-Story
at its best.
"'And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians,
that they might catch him in talk, And when they were come, they say unto
him, "Master, we know that thou art true, and carest not for any one: for
thou regardest not the person of men, but of a truth teachest the way of
God: Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall
we not give?" But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, "Why
tempt ye me? Bring me a penny, that I may see it." And they brought it.
And he saith unto them, "Whose is this image and superscription?" And
they said unto him, "Caesar's." And Jesus said unto them, "Render unto
Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are
God's." And they marvelled greatly at him.'
"This section, which is many Pronouncement-Stories, is a
longer than
perfect unity. the one story in this group where Bultmann sees no
It is
reason to think of a community-formation. There is not the slightest
. . .
interest in individuals, or in questions of time or place. Everything leads up

to the final word of Jesus, which for the early Christians must have had the
force of a pronouncement. So Jesus had spoken, and there was no more to
besaid!" 114/64.65
He professes that "the narrative element is not much more than a frame for
the saying of Jesus." 114/71
Many of the pronouncement-stories have been lost. Taylor comments:
"The Pronouncement-Stories in the Gospels can be only a
thirty or forty
fraction of those which existed in the oral period. Many must have
perished through the weakness of human memory; but the saying, the most
virile element in the oral unit, would often survive, separated from the
question which prompted it and the account of the evcnu out of which it
sprang." 114/81
20. SAYINGS AND PARABLES

The concept of parables is highlighted by Taylor:
"In respect of form, the parables are more elaborate developments of the
figures, comparisons, and metaphors which are so frequent in the sayines
*
of Jesus." 114/100
Vincent Taylor alleges that the parables of Jesus circulated alone or in
pairs and were collected at different centers. The parable introductions
have been added by the evangelists with a comment on the parables
themselves. So. inevitably there is a tendency to add sayings in the in-
troduction which are similar to the parable itself. As Rudolf Bultmann has
pointed out, the effect of this has been to introduce an element of un-
certainty into the interpretation of parables. 1 14/102
Taylor concludes that the sayings-tradition is historically accurate. He
writes:
"There is in the great majority of the sayings attributed to Jesus a self-
authenticating note which stamps them as His, and not the formations of
the community. This is an aesthetic judgment, and its limits cannot be
precisely fixed, but it ought not to be neglected by any one who seeks to
give a comprehensive opinion on the historical value of the sayings. Taken
along with the more objective argimients, it confirms our conclusion that
substantially the sayings- tradition is historically trustworthy." IHilO
5C. MIRACLE STORIES
Taylor alludes to a list of miracles:
"The Miracle-Stories proper include thirteen healing-miracles and five
nature-miracles. The former include: the Demoniac in the Synagogue,
Peter's Wife's Mother, the Leper, the Paralytic, the Gerasene Demoniac,
the Daughter of Jai'rus, the Woman with the Issue, the Deaf Mute, the
Blind Man near Bethsaida, the Epileptic Lad, Blind Bartimaeus, the
Dumb Demoniac (Lk. xi. 14; Mt. xii. 22-4; cf. ix. 32-4), and the Young
Man at Nain (Lk. vii. 11-7). The nature-miracles are the Stilling of the
Storm, the Feeding of the Five Thousand, the Walking on the Water, the
Cursing of the Fig Tree, and the Draught of Fishes." 1 14/120
6B. Other Authors

In concluding we include a few remarks about the various forms by different
authors:
McGinley summarizes the method and assumptions of the form critical
that primitive literary expression has made use of

fixed
method by noting first
forms. This form is recognized in word choice,
sentence construction and
presentation. The form is produced according to the
need*
manner of literary
evolves subject to certain transmission laws. bZ/
1
of the community, and it
McKnight talks about paradigms and legends:

very
"The tales and legends are less historical than paradigms because ofthcir
histoncally. They arose
nature. Tales, however, are not all on the same level
in three different ways: by extending paradigms
by introducing foreign
material; and the historical judgment upon
motifs, and by borrowing foreign
presupposed when he
a tale is related to its origin. A historical basis U to be
tale developed from a paradigm. Only when »
non-Ch"»"«".«^n; " the
of the nan^t»ve
probable origin of a Christian tale is the historical reliability
Teally brought into question. Even legends must not
be ruled ?"t "
P^^'S
historical content.
vehicles of history, lor legends too may contam some
83/34
Kasemann postulates the manner in which forms were created:
"First, there is secular material, previously circulating in the manner of

proverbs, but now transferred to Jesus. Then the community, appealing in its
internal disagreement to the Master or seeking to make his individuality more
vivid, created in the so-called conflict discourses or apophthegms ideal scenes
for his words and deeds." 68/60
Easton relates his view of form classifications and their importance when he
states:
"The disputations show us Jesus as the Rabbi, the sayings as the Teacher, the
miracles as the Wonder-worker. These literary types, poor in historic detail,
little interested in the private life of their Hero, show Jesus purely objectively
in his calling, which includes his criticism of the Law, preaching the Gospel,
and healing the sick." 44/60
2A. BASIC ANSWER TO THE ASSUMPTION OF FORM CLASSIFI-
CATIONS
1 B . Criticism Posed by the Form Critics Themselves
The untrustworthiness of the forms is commented on by Dibelius. He not only
writes that "Paradigms" are words relatively trustworthy (36/62) but also
concludes that one cannot guarantee the historical reliability of "Tales."
Dealing with the questions of eyewitnesses, Dibelius concedes:
"Because the eye witnesses could control and correct, a relative trust-
worthiness of the Paradigms is guaranteed." 36/62
One wonders why he does not conclude that eyewitnesses actually wrote
narrative stories, rather than form classified pieces of literature.
Vincent Taylor comments about the limits of Form Criticism:
"For the sayings of Jesus Bultmann's five-fold classification is useful, but here
we discover the limitations of Form-Criticism; for the terms do little more
than describe stylistic features; they do not denote popular forms into which
an individual or a community unconsciously throws sayings.... We may
cenainly to advantage study the formal aspects of sayings, but when we try to
classify them according to popular forms, the attempt breaks down. Morever,
the method is almost bound to result in scepticism." 1 14/31
Taylor questions pronouncement-stories as products of imagination:

"The distribution of the Pronouncement-Stories has some bearing on the
question of their early currency and genuineness. There are at least twenty in
Mark, seven or nine in Luke's special source, four or five in Q, one in Mat-
thew, and none in John. If the stories are products of Christian imagination,
why do they not increase in number as time passes, and as new problems
confront the growing Church? Why is there no Pronouncement Story about
the necessity of the Cross, or the Gentile Mission, or the foundation and
organization of the Church? The absence of these topics in the stories which
have come down to us gives us reasons to pause before views which credit the
first Christians with a facility for invention and imagination always at
command. If Bultmann is right. Christian imagination was potent where it
was least needed, feeble or wanting where silence called for its exercise; it left
undone the things which it ought to have done, and did the things it had no
needtodo." 114/86, 87
Taylor disagrees with Bultmann by alleging:
"Bultmann thinks that many of the Apophthegmata have been spun out of
sayings of Jesus by the imagination of the community, and that even where a
story is a 'uniform conception' it is often 'ideal' in character. I cannot think
that this opinion is supported by a study of the stories themselves." 1 14/85
About myths and legends, Taylor frankly observes:

'"Myths' and 'Legends' are terms which do not define any particular struc-
tural forms." 114/31. 32
Taylor and Bultmann disagree over form classification. Taylor remarks about
the second list (see page 225) of Bultmann's apophthegms:
"The remaining ten stories in Bultmann's second list seem to me to be Stories
about Jesus rather than Pronouncement- Stories. " 1 14/75, 76
Alfred Wikenhauser challenges the judgments of historicity of a passage on
the basis of form:
"Many ofexponents use Form Criticism as a means of historical criticism;
its
against them
it must be strongly emphasized that the form of a traditional
passage provides no foundation for a judgment concerning its historicity .
The study of content must supplement the study of form; Form Criticism
must becomplementedby the study of facts." 126/275, 276
Redlich establishes an internal weakness of form classification concerning
myths. It confuses subjective historical judgment with objective historical
study. For instance, the title "myth" is an initial judgment of a narrative's
historical value. Also, and this is admitted by even the form critics, "myth"
stories have no literary form and are classifiable only according to their
contents. "Form-less" stories are beyond the confines of "Form" Criticism.
101/15
Relating to the categorical form "miracles," Redlich exposes a major dif-
ference between Christian and non-Christian literature:
"Hence we may conclude that Jesus required this personal faith in Him and
that a genuine part of the tradition. Now, in non-Christian tales such a
it is
demand is unknown: in them the cures are magical. There exists therefore a
vital difference between the Christian and non-Christian parallel Miracle-
Stories. An element is to be found in the Christian stories, which is unique.
Parallelism fails in the most important element. 101/131
The inherent problem with classification of the Gospel material into created
forms is pointed out byJ.M. Robinson:
Sitz im Leben of the

"The form critic conjectured that one way to identify the
grounds
gospel tradition would be to classify the material on purely formal
the Church's life responsible for the rise ot
and then to identify the function in
but did not
each identified form. This procedure is methodologically sound,
in practice arrive at ultimately conclusive results. This
was due to the in-
distinctness of the formal structure of much of the material
and the difficulty
.
of making a clear correlation between formal tendencies

and their setting in
the Church's life. Consequently when the form critics
came to discuss the
question for which their method was at
historicity of the gospel tradition, a
the conclusion which
best only indirectly relevant, they tended to arrive at
conclusion which form
their general orientation suggested, rather than a
criticism as such required." 104/36. 37
which h^^^ »"

A noted form critic comments on the myriad of forms
their theory. Easton professes^f^"
that.
vented by form critics to suit the needs of
"Paradigms, stories, legends, cult-legends, epiphanies,
^P^'êgms miracles
logia.
parables folk-tales, controversies, dialogues, parenesis. P'-oPJ^f.''^
^"f
^Hegorics
first person.
apocalyptic utterances, church rules, sayings in the
exhibited
poem stanzas-the research of the past decade has "f Po^^wi^h
really ana yze forms with
terminology! But how profitable is it all? Can we
oi
such precision as to make form-criticism a true discipline? 44/
2B. Highly Subjective

The following criticism of one critic, Dibelius, is applicable to all of the
critics.
McGinley alleges that Dibelius' method suffers due to his transition from a
constructive methodology to an analytical one. He asserts that some stories
have been subjectively chosen as typical paradigms without proof being
presented that they were used in preaching or that they belong to a specific
paradigmatic type. The arbitrary norms established, analysis begins by
analytic exclusion and pruning leaving less than half of the eighteen chosen
paradigms being of pure type. Thus, the exception becomes the rule! 82/35
W.E. Barnes claims faulty judgment is apparent in Dibelius's classifications:
"Why, for instance, is the healing of the leper [Mark 1:40-44] to be reckoned
as a 'Tale,' and not as a 'Paradigm? It stands first in Dibelius's list of Tales,
but it has most of the characteristics of a Paradigm. It is brief: it can be easily
isolated from the context: it is 'religious' in that it enjoins obedience to the
Mosaic Law: it reaches its highest point in a saying of Jesus: it gives a direction
which is strictly applicable to the place and to our Lord's attitude to the Law.
The Twelve and other disciples needed to be taught that the Law of Moses was
still valid for certain crises in their daily life [From Tradition to Gospel, p. 71,
72]. Dibelius's judgment becomes warped when he has to do with a

'miraculous' account [Matthew 5:17]." 6/58
IC. CRITICISM OF APOPHTHEGM AND PARADIGM
There are many divergences between these "parallel" forms.
In comparing
the apophthegm and paradigm we find that each author, Dibelius and
Bultmann, is analyzing the same material. Bultmann's apophthegm in-
cludes 44 examples of other divergencies. For example, the terminology—
Bultmann all but two are included in Bultmann's list. This obvious
divergency is just an example of other divergencies. For example, the
terminology— Bultmann alleges that the saying goes back to Jesus and the
framework was created, while Dibelius holds that the saying results from
the preacher and the story goes back to Jesus. 82/45
W.E. Barnes comments on the paradigm as defined by Dibelius:
"A Paradigm, by Dibelius, must have none of the vivid touches
as defined
in the narrative which suggest to most readers the eye-witness as the source
of the story: 'Every expression of individual sensibility is absent [except
that] which is in a high degree concerned with the matter itself [36/37] i.e.
with the word or deed of Jesus himself. Dibelius postulates a severe and
restrained type of oratory for the earliest missionaries, and ascribes to their
sermons only the 'least adorned' of the Gospel narratives. How very un-
human these early missionaries must have been, and yet they won their
fellow-men over to the Gospel." 6/50
He further challenges the paradigm:
"A second mark of a Paradigm is the brevity and simplicity of the
narrative. In a Paradigm we learn of the actual circumstances only as
much as we must know in order to understand the intervention of Jesus.
Attractive details are left out. Only short passages could be introduced into
a sermon. The Tribute Money is a case in point.
"These are rash assertions. Wasall early Christian preaching, including
that of the fiery St. Peter, limited thus? Dibelius is relying no doubt on the
reports of Christian sermons which are found in the Acts of the Apostles.
But does he suppose that these reports are complete, or even that they are
more than a taste of these sermons? His argument
sufficiently full to give us
requires that we should be able to learn from these summaries not only the
contents but also the method and style of the Christian preachers. But the
reports are too brief." 6/52, 53
Laurence J. McGinley makes the following observation:

"As for the ending of the story with a thought useful for preaching, is it not
at least possible that the actual incident originally so ended? Jesus might
well point His deeds by a saying of universal significance, and there is no
more natural reaction to a miraculous cure than a spontaneous ex-
clamation of wonder from those present. Any one of these eighteen
paradigms, and many other stories not listed here, might well have
illustrated missionary sermons. But Dibelius has failed to prove that they
were so used and by such use were molded to their present form." 82/36
Are the stories which don't fit the strict paradigm form closer to the
authentic version? F.J. Babcock explains:
"In cases in which a story does not agree strictly with its type-pattern they
would assert that these eccentricities, if we may so call them, were later
additions and should be pruned away; though of course the very opposite
may be the truer account, that while the mass have had their angles and
edges worn off, these, by their very nonconformity to type, are shown to be
closer to the original." 3/16
When Bultmann, says McGinley, begins to attempt to determine the

apophthegmatic type, subjectivism enters the picture. He conjectures that
acts have been thought up to provide occasion for dispute; he sets aside
some verses because, to him, they weaken Jesus' sayings as intelligible apart
from their context. He continually speaks of the procreativity of the
apophthegm but he neglects the questions of how the category arose in the
first place, if, as he asserts, the incidents never occurred. 82/43
McGinley continues that ultimately Bultmann "rejects as secondary

corruptions of the primitive type almost all details of time and place, all
initiative by Jesus, all definite names and characterization, the constant
opposition of the Scribes and Pharisees. In so doing, he constructs a typical
apothegm but destroys its reason for existence. Jesus lives at no time and in
no place; He does nothing of His own account; He moves in a world of
impersonal shadows; there is no reason for His rejection, trial, execution.
While being molded to fit the theory, the facts have disappeared." 82/43
McGinley summarizes his argument by stating his analysis of the
apophthegm:
"It is such a mixture of arbitrary statements and detailed analysis, of
capricious bias and clever dissection that it leaves the reader overwhelmed
and confused." 82/43
2C. CRITICISM OF NO VELLEN (TALES) AND PARABLES
Noting the arbitrariness of the distinctions between the novellen and the
paradigm, L.J. McGinley writes that the key distinction between Dibelius's
novelle (tale) and the paradigm rests in the extent of description. Granted
some of the novellen are much more extensive and detailed than any
paradigm (Mark 5:1), but by comparing healing narratives in each
category, we find that four of five paradigms and four of seven novellen are
of the same length, six verses. In addition, as regards detail, some novellen
are told every bit as vividly as some paradigm; for example compare the
novelle in Mark 10:46 to the paradigm in Mark 1:40. 82/57, 58
He goes on to comment about the lack of well-defined categories:
stylistic traits of this category, therefore, are conditioned by
"The the
content of the narratives rather than by their external form. Since there is
no difference between the categories in breadth of style or
essential
religious tone, and since miracle-stories are also included among the
paradigms— with gestures, proof of the cure, and choral-ending— we may
reasonably conclude that the sharp distinction Dibelius has drawn between
these categories is an exaggeration." 82/58
The origin and date of the novellen is vague. McGinley argues that
"regarding the historical value of the novellen Dibelius maintains that
some of these stories were developed by expansion of the paradigms. But
this presupposes that the novellen are of later date, and for this no proof is
given. Nor was it possible in the first two decades of Christianity, as it
actually existed, for extraneous motifs and foreign material to penetrate
the tradition in the manner Dibelius suggests." 82/59
3C. CRITICISM OF LEGENDS AND PARABLES

W.E. Barnes makes this observation about legends:
"To a third class of narrative Dibelius gives the name of 'Legends.' In
surveying these, he starts with a general statement, a questionable
assertion, which seems intended to prohibit any examination of his view.
'The oldest tradition,' he tells us, 'has no answer to give to questions about
persons belonging to the most intimate circles of Jesus' [36/71]. In support
of his statement, he gravely points out that in the account of the relatives
'seeking Jesus, no names are given: they are described merely as 'his
mother and his brethren' [36/49]. With equal gravity he points out in the
story of Jesus' rejection in His own country that His neighbours, while
mentioning His mother's name and the names of His four brethren and
mentioning His sisters' existence, fail to give His sisters' names. His strange
inference from this is that when names and details are given in other cases
they do not come from the oldest tradition. His view is that Christian
curiosity was aroused only at a later period conceniing persons who came
in contact with our Lord: and legends were invented to satisfy this
curiosity." 6/71, 72
Commenting about the lack of structural form. Harold H. Hutson writes

about myths and legends:
"The stories about Jesus present a more doubtful classification. This
material has no definite structural form and shows form criticism at its
weakest points. 'Myths' and 'legends' do not define particular structural
forms, but depend largely upon historical references for decision between
factual information and the accretion of details." 66/132
C.S. Lewis, former professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at
Cambridge University states regarding legends:
"If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to
know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is
trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spent
on that Gospel." 10/154
He then adds, referring to the Gospels:
"I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths
all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like
this." 10/155
4C. CRITICISM OF MIRACLES

L.J. McGinley, after analyzing Bultmann's concept of miracle stories,
concludes that many of Bultmann's allegations concerning the form rest
upon the simplicity of the synoptic style. He continues:
"These books are not modem psychological biographies; they imply,
rather than depict, motives and inner dispositions. They are apologetic in
aim and so interest centers on Jesus. They are concisely written and follow
no complicated pattern in their narrative portions, However, they are not
accounts composed along rigidly formalistic lines, comparable, for
example, to the classical sonnet. Hence Bultmann errs in identifying as a
'subsequent development* any deviation from a theoretically pure type. It
is not possible to establish the type with such detailed accuracy." 82/63
McGinley further relates a "common sense" reason for the form of healing
miracles:
"Granted that two stories relate a cure, it is inevitable that there should be
common history of the illness, request for a cure, healing,
traits:
verification of the healing, reactions [139/142]. In these general features,
the Gospel miracle-narratives differ but little from the latest reports of the
medical examiners at Lourdes; and yet —
this is the important point- such
common obviously do not prove a similarity of atmosphere, a
traits
parallel community creation of cult-legends, the influence of primitive
literary laws, or a similar Sitz im Leben in the Palestine of long ago and the
southern France of today. Details relatively unimportant regarding the
cure itself will, therefore, be of prime importance as indications of the
milieu in which the story arose." 82/76
F.F. Bruce questions the conclusions reached by form critical analysis:
"Again, the miracle-stories of the Gospels can be studied in terms of Form

Criticism; they can be compared with stories of similar wonders in
literature or folklore, and various interesting inferences can be drawn from
a comparative examination of this kind. But this approach will not lead us
to firm conclusions about the historical character of the Gospel miracles,
nor will it explain the significance which these miracles have in the context
of the life and activity of Jesus." 16/63
5C. FINAL CRITICISMS

Observing historical studies, G.E. Wright proclaims:
"It is significant that most of the important new results in historical studies
have to do literary analysis." 128/50
little
John Warwick Montgomery cites HJ. Rose who comments on form

analysis by saying:
"'The chief weapon of the separatists has always been literary criticism.
and of this it is not too much to say that such niggling word-baitmg. such
microscopic hunting of minute inconsistencies and flaws in logic, has
hardly been seen, outside of the Homeric field, since Rymar and John
Dennis died' [H.J. Rose. Handbook of Greek Literature from Homer to the
Age ofLucian. London: Methuen, 1934, pp. 42,43.]." 87/36
Neill rightly concludes:
"No one is likely to deny that there is value in the classification of material.
The question at once arises, however, whether the classification really
it. The
arises out of the material itself or whether it has been imposed upon
fact that various scholars analyse the words of Jesus in different
ways
suggests that not all is perfectly clear, and that the categories of which
use
has been made are not so much inherent in the New Testament itselt
as
arrived at by other methods and imposed upon the material

trom
without." 187/246
A.H. McNeile quotes M. Goguel about the form critics and their
classifications:
"As M. Goguel [139/114-160] has said, 'It docs not appear in the name of
what principle it can be maintained that such a section as could be used for
preaching not to be used at the same time for instruction, for con-
is
troversy, for mission work, and perhaps also quite simply to satisfy pious
imagination and curiosity.'" 85/52
A correlation of the Gospels with a history of the early Christian life may
be enlightening, but it does not reveal more than general patterns.
McGinley continues with the deficiencies:

"Itcannot tell us, at this late date, why many of the forms were chosen nor
whether there ever was a definite relation between them and the life of the
community. To postulate such a definite relationship and then employ it as
a measure of the historicity of individual passages— as Bultmann and
Dibelius have done— has been severely and justly criticized as a serious
defect in the method." 82/20, 21
Although some of the Gospel stories and narratives fall into conventional
forms and similar patterns, F.F. Bruce makes the following observation:
"There are occasions on which a stereotyped style is insisted upon even in
modem life. When,
for example, a police officer gives evidence in court,
he does not adorn his narrative with the graces of oratory, but adheres as
closely as he can to a prescribed and stereotyped 'form.' The object of this
is that the evidence he gives may conform as closely as possible to the
actual course of events which he describes. What his narrative lacks in
artistic finish, it gains in accuracy. The stereotyped style of many of the
Gospel narratives and discourses serves the same end; it is a guarantee of
their substantial accuracy. It frequently happens that, because of this
preservation of a definite 'form,' the reports of similar incidents or similar
sayings will be given in much the same languages and constructed on much
the same framework, but we must not infer from this similarity of
language and framework that two similar narratives are duplicate ac-
counts of one and the same event, or that two similar parables (e.g. the
wedding feast of Matthew xxii. 2ff. and the great supper of Luke xiv. 16ff.)
are necessarily variant versions of one and the same parable, any more
than we should conclude that, because a police officer describes two street
accidents in almost identical language, he is really giving variant accounts
of one and the same street accident." 16/32, 33
Stan Gundry concludes "that material in stereotyped forms is neither more
nor less historical because of its form, which supposedly relates it to a Sitz
im Le6en in the church." 57/62
He goes on to say:
"Forms do not give the related material a relative historical value. Form is
in no way related to truth or falsity. Nothing can be inferred from
stereotyped forms other than that the church was accustomed to tell stories
about Jesus in a certain way." 57/60
L.J. McGinleyreiterates: "The serious defects in the general theory of
Form Criticism will, naturally, vitiate its conclusions when it is applied to
definite form-categories of the Gospels." 82/28
A.M. Hunter says that one "must never forget that the form in which a
story is told can never tell us whether the substance of the story is true or
false. The whole method is too subjective and speculative to afford us
much sure guidance." 174/40
T.W. Manson acutely observes that "a paragraph of Mark is not a penny
the better or the worse for being labelled 'Apothegm' or 'Pronouncement
Story or 'Paradigm.' In fact if Form-criticism had stuck to its proper
business, it would not have made any real stir. We should have taken it as
we take the forms of Hebrew poetry or the forms of musical composition."

133/4
3A. IN SUMMARY
IB. Although there are similarities, each form critic has his own categories of
forms which he finds in the Gospels.
2B. Often the form critics find fault with the forms of their colleagues.
SB. Other scholars find many of the form divisions to be unreliable.
4B. The form critics go astray when they use the form of a passage to prove its
historical value.
The historicity of a saying is form. By way of
not determined by its
illustration, let's assume that 1 like antiques. As I am
looking through the
classified ads. 1 come across an advertisement (form) about an antique
auction. The ad says there will be plenty of early American antiques. I attend
the auction and find out there is only one antique up for auction. Everything
else is mere used furniture.
Now, if the form (in this case the classified ad) determined the accuracy of the
content, then I would automatically reject all classified ads about antique
auctions. In reality, the form does not determine the reliability of its content.
One must examine further than form to determine the dependability of
content.
chapter 21
the
creative
community
Form Criticism assumes that vital factors which gave rise to and preserved forms are to
be found in the practical interests of the Christian community.
lA. A CREATIVE COMMUNITY

IB. Basic Assumption
Spivey and Smith convey a common theory about the handing down of the
traditions of Jesus, citing mainly the faith and circumstances of the early
Church. In early Christianity, they believe, the Lord's authority did not stop
with His life and death; He was a living Lord and the tradition was living and
developing." The pressing needs of the community and church stimulated the
writing down and hence partially fixing of this tradition.
"One obvious reason for writing Gospels was the death of the apostles, those
who had been with Jesus. The church could not afford to lose the tradition of
Jesus. Mark probably originated in the mid-sixties when, according to
tradition, Paul and Peter, the two great apostles, were martyred.
"Other motives were also at work in the writing down of the Gospels. A
church facing persecution needed to know the way in which Jesus himself had
faced persecution. The early church, furthermore, had to struggle to un-
derstand itself apart from the law, organization, rites, and customs of
Judaism. The early church also had to face the problem posed by the delay of
the expected parousia (second coming of Jesus) and the end of the world. As
247
the Christian mission expanded into the Gentile world, a further crisis was
posed by the problem of how a religion basically Jewish in origin could appeal
to the Hellenistic world without losing its identity and distinctiveness."
113/64,65
In his book. Origins of the Gospels, Filson identifies these needs of the early
church:
(l)Need for an outline to serve as a guide in mattersof belief and conduct.
(2) Need for a guide to the meaning of their faith and understanding of their
Savior.
(3) Need to express their faith in worship and need for the materials to express
that faith.
(4) Need for material when in contact with problem of heresy or persecution.
47/95-97
Alluding to the "life situation" or Sitz im Leben of the early community,
Barker, Lane and Michaels indicate:
"According to form critical reconstructions, as it expanded the church was
confronted with a diversity of needs and interests. These concerns were
missionary (presenting Jesus' life in such a way as to win new converts).
catechetical (instructing the converts in their new faith), apologetic (an-
swering the Jewish and pagan detractors of the faith), and disciplinary
(protecting the church's life and belief against dangers from within). Such
interests varied as the church moved into new environments. The materials
required to instruct Christians in Palestine could be quite different from those
necessary for the same purpose in Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or Rome.
Cultural differences required adaptation. Diversity of need influenced not
only what was remembered (and therefore taught), but also how it was
remembered. Thus the form as well as the content of the gospel materials in
the Hellenistic churches could differ considerably from what was adopted in
the church at Jerusalem. Each church faced the problem of how to translate
the gospel message into language that would be understood in a particular
cultural environment, without distortion of the essential truth received from
Jesus and the apostles." 5/68
IC. DIBELIUS' VIEW OFTHE CREATIVE COMMUNITY

Dibelius points out the conflict between the authenticity of Jesus' words
and the creation by the community:
"But we do not reach about Jesus' words, because we must
final certainty
reckon with the fact from the beginning, the development of the
that,
tradition took place amongst what were really the interests of the cultus."
36/209
Concerning development of tradition, Dibelius concludes about the
community:
"In this way a large and fertile development took place in primitive
Christian literature. The first traditions arose from the immediate
requirements of the churches, without literary intention, without regard to
the world or to the following ages." 35/271
He has also concluded that the Sitz im Leben of the oral tradition rests in
the preaching of the early Church. He remarks:
"We may suppose that the manner in which the doings of Jesus was
narrated was determined by the requirements of the sermon; in this way an
illustrative style fitted for missionary work and for worship could arise."
36/26. 27
2C. BULTMANN'S VIEW OF THE CREATIVE COMMUNITY

Bultmann contends that "it is through the medium of the community,
accordingly, that the figure of the historical Jesus appears." 10/60
It was the needs of Christian faith and life that provided the cause for
Gospel tradition, Bultmann continues:
perfectly clear that it was not the historical interest that dominated,
*'lt is
but the needs of Chirstian faith and life. One may designate the final
motive by which the gospels were produced as the cuUtc (that is, the needs
of common worship), if one considers that the high point of Christian life
was the gathering of the community for worship, when the figure of Jesus,
his teaching as well as his life, was set forth before the eyes of the faithful,
and when accordingly the gospels served for public reading." 19/64
Bultmann says that we "conclude that the whole framework of the history
of Jesus must be viewed as an editorial construction, and that therewith a
whole series of typical scenes, which because of their ecclesiastical use and
their poetic and artistic associations we had looked upon as scenes in the
life of Jesus, must be viewed as creations of the evangelists." 19/28
In the area of the authenticity of Jesus' sayings, Bultmann observes that "it
istherefore possible that the picture which the Synoptists give us of the
person and the message of Jesus has obliterated many an older trait, and
that many a word is attributed to him which he did not utter." 19/20
Bultmann alleges:
"Not only have many of the older sayings of Jesus been modified in the
course of tradition, but not seldom words have been placed in Jesus* mouth
which in reality were either spoken by other Jewish teachers or first arose in
the Christian community." 19/42
He goes on to say:
"The tradition gathered dominical sayings, gave them a new form,
enlarged them by additions and developed them further: it collected other
(Jewish) sayings, and fitted them by adaptation for reception into the
treasury of Christian instruction, and produced new sayings from its
consciousness of a new possession, sayings which they ingenuously put into
themouth of Jesus."
In summary of his challenge to the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus,
Bultmann establishes that "in the synoptic tradition a series of sayings
shows that Jesus' work was conceived as decisive happening, especially such
as speak of him as having come or having been sent. They are scarcely (at
least in the majority of cases) original words of Jesus, but mostly products
of the Church. And so far as they had already arisen in the earliest (i.e. the
Palestinian) Church (which cannot in every case be clearly made out) they
Church in retrospect conceived the phenomenon of Jesus
testify that this
together with meaning as a unity." 25/44
its
Bultmann would further establish the creative power of the community

when he decides that Jesus had no desire to be the Father of a Church. The
Church accepted Him:
"Stillhe did not found an order or a sect, far less a 'Church.' nor did he
expect that everyone should or could forsake house and family.
"The saying about the building of the 'Church' (eKKXrjaLa) Mt. 16:18 is,
like the whole of Mt. 16:17-19, a later product of the Church. 24/10
creation,
In reference to the effect of the Sitz im Leben on community
Bultmann declares:
"The proper understanding of form-criticism rests upon the judgement
that the literature in which the Hfe of a given community, even the
primitive Christian community, has taken shape, springs out of quite
definite conditions and wants of Hfe from which grows up a quite definite
style and quite forms and categories. Thus every literary category
specific
has its 'life im Leben: Gunkel), whether it be worship in its
situation' {Sitz
different forms, or work, or hunting, or war. The Sitz im Leben is not,
however, an individual historical event, but a typical situation or oc-
cupation in the life of a community." 21/4
Bultmann further asserts:
"Apparently the situation is to be understood only as follows: these
traditions first arose in the Christian community and are to be explained
by its situation. The 'disciples,' i.e. the primitive Christian church, have
broken with the old customs in this matter, and they are defending
themselves against criticism by means of the stories, through which they
make their appeal to a saying of Jesus." 19/44, 45
Selecting one of the Gospels as an example of creative community,
Bultmann interprets that "Mark is the work of an author who is steeped in
the theology of the early Church, and who ordered and arranged the
traditional material that he received in the light of the faith of the early
Church— that was the result: and the task which follows for historical
research is this: to separate the various strata in Mark and to determine
which belonged to the original historical tradition and which derived from
the work of the author." 21/1
Bultmann adds:
"What we find in Mark is for the most part a reflection of the later faith of
the Church, 'a productive formation of the Church,' or the work of

creative imagination. This not only accounts for the framework of the life
of Jesus, but also to a large extent for the picture of Jesus within this
framework. The historical reality of Jesus is very much covered over by
myth and legend. The schema of the Christ myth has distorted the actual
historical tradition." 175/30
Bultmann attributes the use of Old Testament Scripture to the com-

munity's debate concerning Jesus:
"It is certainly possible that the saying of Jesus enshrined in such a setting is
old and authentic, as, for example, probably Mark ii. 19. In the other
cases it is less probable, since here argumentative use is made of sentences
from the Old Testament, and since most of the words of Jesus which cite
the Old Testament are suspected of originating in the theological debates
of the primitive community. Just as in this primitive community the faith
in Jesus as the Messiah was defended by an appeal to Old Testament
passages, so likewise an effort was made to found Christian practice upon a
similar appeal." 19/44, 45
We must, therefore, according to Bultmann, conclude the following:
"As a resultof this investigation it appears that the outline of the life of
Jesus, as it is given by Mark and taken over by Matthew and Luke, is an
editorial creation, and that as a consequence our actual knowledge of the
course of Jesus' life is restricted to what little can be discovered in the
individual scenes constituting the older tradition." 135/343
SC. TAYLOR'S VIEW OF THE CREATIVE COMMUNITY

The Gospel traditions have been molded by the influence of all aspects of
early Christian life.
Taylor states that "every consideration bearing on the life of the first
Christians must be taken into account — the practica4êmands arising
from daily life, the need to explain the new faith to themselves and to
others, the necessities of defence against objections and slanders from
unfriendly and hostile neighbours. These and other considerations have
determined the form which the tradition now has, and the changes it has
undergone, and by taking them into account it is often possible to explain
why this or that element in the tradition has survived and why much we
should greatly desire to know has not been handed down to us." 1 14/36
Taylor asks:
"Have we not in all this a glimpse, not only of the Evangelist at work, but
of the conditions of the primitive period in a typical community? All is
determined by the needs, practical, religious, and apologetic of the first
Christians, and the tradition is continuous or fragmentary as the needs
dictate." 113/61
He agrees with the community or "social transmission of the Gospel:

"All the Form Critics rightly emphasize the social aspects of the formative
process."
Taylor believes in the influence of the creative community:
"The narratives are mainly legends and ideal constructions, and most of
the sayings, while Palestinian in origin, are products of primitive
Christianity which puts back its own ideas and beliefs into the lips of Jesus.
Fascher sums up the tendencies of the book well when he writes: 'The late
and creative community is at work; it transforms everything into myth' [see
140/144]." 114/14
2B. Basic Answer to the Assumption that the Practical Interest of the
Christian Community Gave Birth to the Gospels
Confronted by the problem of the Christian community's transmission of the
traditions of their leader, W.D. Davies claims:
"Consider the alternatives placed before a student of the tradition about
Jesus. The first alternative is to believe that for some time after his death and
resurrection what Jesus did and said was neglected and so forgotten. But, as
the Church developed, it became necessary for her to find rules for conduct,
teaching for catechumens, material for 'sermons.' To meet this need, the
Christian communities created their own sayings or borrowed materials from
Jewish and Hellenistic sources and ascribed them to Jesus. The other alter-
native is to recognize that what Jesus actually taught was remembered by his
followers and adapted by the Churches as the need arose." 333/1 15
Martin continues this line of reasoning:
"There was never any time when the Church lacked the historical tradition of
those who wish to
Jesus. This indisputable fact has been blithely overlooked by
created or
treat the Jesus-tradition of the Gospels as something that was either
tradition ot
transformed by the Church. Either the Church had no authentic
with its beliefs; or
Jesus at all and fashioned a tradition for itself in conformity
and the
there were just a handful of vague recollections of Jesus in existence
Gospels out of them. Such ideas could
Church took these and developed the
in some
be written off as too absurd to merit any attention, were it not that
quarters they appear to be seriously entertained." 80/62, 63
is virtually
The description of a creative community in the New Testament
nonexistent according to Redlich:
blind
"Form Criticism in stressing the influence of the primitive community is
the community a
to the influence of Jesus as a rabbi and a prophet. It makes
creative body, of which there is little or no trace in the New Testament."
101/78
Easton continues:
"Ifwe are to follow Wellhausen and Bultmann, we must hold that Jesus gave
no systematic teaching but was able, none the less, to inspire his followers with
the utmost moral and literary discrimination; so much so that when they
came to draw up rules for themselves they adopted only the basic content of
the Synoptists. That is, Wellhausen and Bultmann canonize the entire
Palestinian Church." 44/108
The receptive rather than the creative nature of any community, whether it
be in theNew Testament or in today's society, is emphasized by Otto Piper:

"The documents of the N.T. confirm the findings of sociology and an-
thropology according to which collectives are receptive rather than creative
entities." 136/123
C.F.D. Moule, in an article which honors T.W. Manson, writes that the four
Gospels are "first and foremost addressed 'from faith,' indeed, but not 'to
faith' so much as to unbelief." 84/ 1 67
Moule argues that "all four Gospels alike are to be interpreted as more than
anything else evangelistic and apologetic in purpose. .the Synoptic Gospels
.
represent primarily the recognition that a vital element in evangelism is the

plain story of what happened in the ministry of Jesus." 84/175, 176
Concerning the account of Jesus as an "ingredient in worship,"
historical
Moule demands that, so far as possible, it be kept
writes that "its very nature
in this distinguishable condition and not overlaid by interpretation. Still . . .
more, it was to equip Christians with a knowledge of their origins, for use in
evangelism and apologetic."
"The Christian communities," adds Moule, "were vividly aware of the
necessity of trying to avoid romancing, and of not confusing post-resurrection
experiences of incorporation in the Body of Christ with the pre-resurrection
process of discipleship — of following, learning, imitating. .. they have
generally resisted so phenomenally well the temptation to read back into the
narrative the contemporary interpretation of Christ; and was not this due to a
conscious resistance to the non-'historical' in the sense just indicated?" 84/ 1 75
"Christians knew well that if they lost sight of the story behind that experience
their worship could be like a house built on sand; and that if they preached
salvation without the story of how it came they could be powerless as
evangelists; and that if they could not explain how they came to stand where
they did, they would be failing to give a reason for their hope.
"Therefore, they cherished the narrative as something precious. . . , The point
isthat the Christians knew the difference between the two — between the pre-
resurrection situation and the post-resurrection situation — and that their aim
was to tell faithfully the story of the former led to the latter. And in
how
actual fact, they succeeded better than is often allowed." 84/ 1 73
IC. DO COMMUNITIES PRODUCE MATCHLESS SAYINGS LIKE THOSE

OFJESUS?
Easton comments that "it is easy enough to speak of the creation of sayings
by a community, but the phrase is really meaningless. Communities do not
create sayings; such creation comes from individuals and from individuals
only. Communities may adopt and transmit sayings, and may modify and
standardize them in transmission, but the sayings themselves must first
exist." 44/1 16
Vincent Taylor, a form critic, goes on to point out that it is doubtful that
these communities could have formed so many of these sayings; this does
not coincide with actual conditions of the time they were written. He
points out that the first Christians were acutely aware of what Jesus said
and what He didn't say, more so than Bultmann. As an example, in I
Corinthians 7, Paul points out the difference between Christ's commands
and his own; and he speaks of matters from which he acknowledges that he
has no specific command from the Lord (vv. 25. 40). 1 14/107-109
Also, the time element necessary for community creation is lacking. Floyd
Filson states:
"Any tendency to derive the bulk of the perennially vital Gospel tradition
from the masses of believers instead of from Jesus must inevitably be
suspected. If we do not place the beginning of written records of Jesus*
words and deeds later than 50 A.D., we can hardly find room for such
remarkable creative activity as would ascribe to the earliest Christians the
elaboration of any large part of the tradition." 47/1 10
Robert Mounce summarizes a noted form critic's method of extracting the
"actual" saying of Jesus from the Gospel narratives:
"After peeling off the layers of tradition, there are only a few of the sayings
of Jesus that one can accept as authentic, according to Norman Perrin. He
uses the 'criterion of dissimilarity in a two-fold way.
(lyif Jesus says anything which sounds like the early Church, then this
can't be an authentic utterance.
[Mounce points out that Perrin ignores the possibility that the early
Church took up and developed a saying of Jesus.]
(2)*'If it sounds like ancient Judaism, then you can't trust it either, as being
originally from Jesus.
[The Gospel, however, got underway in a Jewish setting. How else could
Jesus talk but like a Jew?]"
[Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching ofJesus, p. 39] 144
Regarding the above observations. Barker, Lane and Michael list six
detractions from the theory in the area of community's creation of Jesus'
sayings:
(ly'The Gospel arose in a Jewish milieu where tradition was sacred and
established procedures existed by which it was maintained.
(2)"From the beginning the apostles had a proprietary interest in this
tradition and a zealous concern to preserve and protect it.
(3)"There had never been a concept of the church without ministry.
Through the original apostles, as well as the prophets and teachers who
followed, this ministry was a ministry of the word. The word of God
therefore, in the form of gospel tradition, was never subservient to the
community. It existed distinct from the church and had authority over
it.
(4)"Even before Paul's labors, the tradition had come to possess a certain
fixity. .
(5)"The Gospel materials were reduced to writing within the lifetime of

first-generation believers.
(6)"Rather extensive communication among individual churches
throughout the Empire, including even Jerusalem, was a distinguishing
feature of primitive Christianity."
2C. DID THE SITZ IM LEBEN INFLUENCE THE CREATION OF

THE
SAYINGS OF JESUS?
Gospel must be
G.E. Ladd observes that while "we readily admit that each
does not follow that this
studied in terms of its supposed Sitz im Leben, it
Sttzim Leben, exercised a significant creative factor in the formation of
thecontentof the Gospel tradition." 74/162
A factor guarding the evolutionary molding of Jesus' sa)'ings if referred to
by Martin:
"The fact that the history of Jesus was integral to the Christian
proclamation from the beginning allows no scope for an evolutionary
development of any extent. The interest and concern of the whole
Christian community were too much focused on the facts of its origin for
that." 80/112
Regarding the lifesetting, Guthrie inquires:
"But what Bultmann and his followers is how the original
cannot explain
Jesus became so 'coloured' or adapted to their own
point of view by the
later Christian community. Is it not much more credible to believe that the
Christian community was 'coloured' by the authentic teaching of Jesus?"
131/201.202
Davies adds:
"The tradition about Jesus has its source in His activity: it is not the
creation of the community, however much colored by its needs." 34/92, 93
Would not Jesus teach in the established norm of his day?
Ladd writes:
"Would we not expect that there would be parallels between Jesus' teaching
and His Jewish environment? After all. He was a first-century Jew. Would
we not expect His teachings to be useful in the church? This critical norm
has, as a recent reviewer well pointed out, decided in advance that the
result will be: 'a Jesus who was unorthodox,
since anything that savours of
orthodoxy, Jewish or Christian, has been excluded a priori [A.T. Hanson,
"Essays on New Testament Themes," Scottish Journal of Theology. 18
(1965). p. 107],'" 74/164
McNeile observes that if there was any truth to the position of the Form
Critics,then the problems in the early Church would have been evident in
the Gospels or the practices of the Church would have been discussed or
answered by Jesus. 85/55
is no evidence of this sort in the Gospels
Easton points out that there they —
are incredibly free from these problems. If anything, the treatment of
Christ's words during the period of oral transmission is considered con-
servative. 44/108-115
The radical critics maintain that settings for the Gospel tradition
originated in the early Church. But it seems much more realistic to ascribe
the settings to the life and times of Jesus, rather than the life and times of
the Church. It is here that Charles W.F. Smith claims that Form Criticism
becomes very endangered. The form critics tend to use the Gospels as
evidence for the life of the early Church and then they use that same
evidence to criticize the Gospels. 112/273
SO. DID THE CREATIVE COMMUNITY LACK EYEWITNESS EVI-
DENCE?
Gundry writes:
"In the next place, it was demonstrated that the idea of a creative com-
munity is an impossible entity. Besides the fact that communities do not
have this power, it would have been impossible for the community to
function in this manner because of the presence of eyewitnesses. The
community could only have passed on a tradition grounded in the facts."
57/64, 65
Questioning the ability of a community without eyewitnesses, Gundry
reasons:
"Is it conceivable that in its own discussions and disputes the early church
would not have examined doubtful statements concerning Jesus' ministry?
If they, in fact, did not examine such statements with careful scrutiny, why
is there such uniform agreement as to the nature and details of that
ministry? A community that was purely creative and lacking in the powers
of discrimination would have found it impossible to form a uniform and
consistent tradition. The traditon must have been under the control of
eyewitnesses within the church." 55/35, 36
Redlich comments that "some form critics in tracing the influence of the
community mean to imply that much of the material, both narratives and
sayings, were created by and in the communities. They were then at-
tributed to Jesus. That is to say, the communities were bereft of apostles
and eyewitnesses whose presence would check any unhistorical tendency.
They only created myths. The early primitive Church consisted of men and
women who were under the influence of fantasy." 101/60, 61
Guthrie challenges the principle of a "created" faith by stating:
"The uniqueness of the material is because of the uniqueness of the Person
in whom it is centered and for whom the early Christians were prepared to
suffer even death. Any Form Criticism which loses sight of this becomes at
once divorced from reality. The Christians would not have been prepared
to die in order to defend the products of their own imaginations. " 131/211
4C. DID THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS PASS ON ACCURATE

TRADITION?
Guthrie remarks about the Christian community's belief in the authen-
ticity of the traditions of Christ:
"Itseems most natural to assume that the Christian traditions were trans-
mitted because they were believed to be authentic and were most probably
regarded as authentic in the form in which they were transmitted. This
means that the 'forms' were essential parts of the tradition and were not, as
some form critics have maintained, the productions of the community."
131/231
Referring to the New Testament's accuracy, Manson proposes:
"There a simple test that can be applied to theories that suggest the
is
tradition about Jesus is in any considerable degree the creation of the

Christian community. possess a fair selection of the written works of
We
one of the most influential figures in the Church during the period in
which the Gopsel tradition took shape. St. Paul's letters were all written
before the earliest Gospel. The Roman community- the traditional home
of St. Mark's Gospel - possessed the Epistle to the Romans before it
possessed the Roman Gospel of Mark. The Pauline letters abound in
utterances which could easily be transferred to Jesus and presented to the
world as oracles of the Lord. How many are? None. It seems a little odd
that, if the story of Jesus was the creation of the Christian community,
no
use should have been made of the admirable materials offered by one of
the most able, active, and influential members of the community." 1 33/
The form critics have a real hang-up in dealing with the different em-
phases in the Gospels, especially between Mark and Matthew. G.E^
Ladd
asserts that this is no problem; it makes historical sense to
conclude that
Mark was written to meet the needs of a Gentile audience and Matthew was
that each
written to a Jewish Christian community. Obviously the sketch
needs
author would present should vary so as to more adequately meet the
of the audience. 74/161
Gundry questions the circumstances and qualities of a "creative com-

munity" and brings the accuracy dispute to Hght:
"From the book of Acts it is evident that the early Christians were men of
varied races and cultures. Yet their faith demanded complete submission
to the moral precepts of and worship of an obscure Jew, crucified by a
Roman governor. It required complete severance from Judaism and
heathenism. But this was accomplished in such far distant places as Rome
in the short time between Jesus' death and Paul's letter to Rome. Can it
seriously be supposed that this is the result of a creative community?"
56/142
5C. DOES THE EMPHASIS ON COMMUNITY CREATIVITY DIMINISH

THE CHARACTER OF JESUS?
A.M. Hunter notes that "far too much is ascribed to the creation of the
Early Church; far too little to the creative genius of the Church's Founder."
65/14
in which much of the Gospel material has
Bruch holds that "while the form
been preserved may be explained in terms of a life-setting in the primitive
Church, the material itself demands a life-setting in the Palestinian
ministry of Jesus." 15/12
Or, put more simply, Bruch says:
"A the early Church does not preclude a prior 'life-setting'

'life-setting' in
in the Hfe of Jesus Himself." 16/73
Davies comments on the teaching ability of Jesus:

"Much Form Criticism has been unnecessarily sceptical about the amount
of teaching which can be traced back to Jesus himself. If the coming of the
Christ in the flesh interested Christians, they must have been concerned
with the details of his life in the flesh. Another way of asserting the same
thing is to recognize that Form Criticism has ascribed to the Christian
communities a role, in the creation of the tradition preserved in the
Gospels, which is exaggerated. The New Testament witnesses to virile,
expanding Christian communities, it is true, but also to confused and
immature ones. It is more likely that the trust, the creativity, the
originality which lies behind the Gospel tradition of the works and words of
Jesus should be credited to him rather than to the body of Christians. The
kind of penetrating insight preserved in the Gospels points not to com-
munities—mixed and often muddled in their thinking— but to a supreme
source in a single person, Jesus, Rabbi and prophet." 33/115
Filson continues the remarks about the distinctive teaching style:
make the apostolic age responsible for the creation

"Finally, all attempts to
of any considerable amount of the Gospel material shatter upon the
evidence of the parables. This is the characteristic teaching form in the
Synoptic Gospels. It is noticeably absent from the rest of the New
Testament and from other early Christian literature. If the apostolic age
had created these masterly mediums of teaching, other writings of that
time would naturally have reflected the same method. But they do not.
The primitive Church preserved a sense of the difference between Jesus'
teaching method and their own ideas and methods.
"If the Gospels had been written in a Church lacking historical perspective,
they would surely reveal the same traits found in the other literature
written in that period. On the contrary, they prove to be sources for the life
of Jesus which are not largely affected by the mood and movements of the
apostolic age." 47/109
Guthrie further cites Jesus' teaching quaHties:

(ly'Because Christ as a Teacher was greater than the community He
founded, the form as well as the content of the oral tradition was
characteristic of His teaching and personality, and not that of the
community.
(2)"Variations of His teachings may not be considered unhistorical on this
account, since Jesus may have repeated certain teachings at different
times and in different forms." 131/211
The creative character of Jesus is referred to by Wikenhauser:
"It is making of tradition to anonymous forces, to say
false to ascribe the
that it was the community and the faith of the community which formed
and handed on the tradition about Jesus. Creative power belongs not to a
mass but only to individuals who tower over the mass." 126/277
Jesus' unique personality is again emphasized, this time by Peritz:
"It the Jesus of history that is the only efficient genesis of the gospel
is
tradition. If it had not been for His potent personality there would have
been no gospel tradition. No explanation of the written Gospels is worthy
of notice that minimizes the living and historic reality of the personality of
Jesus. Form Criticism at this point is but one step removed from the myth
theory. For whereas the myth theory resolved Jesus into an astral deity
without historic existence, Form Criticism makes Him the product of the
early Church. Against both errors we posit as the first stage in the gospel
tradition the historic Jesus." 95/199
2A. AN ILLITERATE COMMUNITY

IB. Basic Assumption Pertaining to the Backgrounds of Early Christians
Grant theorizes that "the earliest Christians were into a literary, not even, for
the most part, and educated group— as we should define 'educated.' 'Not
many wise many mighty, not many noble, are called; but
after the flesh, not
God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them
that are wise (I Cor. i. 26ff.). They were the humble, the simple,
' and
many of them were no doubt illiterate. God chose to reveal himself to
'babes' -'little ones' is an interchangeable synonym for disciples in one
im-
portant section of the Palestinian or Syrian Gospel of Matthew (x. 42, xi. 25,
etc.)." 53/40
Dibelius refers to this unusual paradox in the community:
"The paradox has become probable to us that unliterary men created a
definite style." 36/37
He goes on to describe this illiterate people and their purpose:
"The company of unlettered people which expected the end of the world any
books
day had neither the capacity nor the inclination for the production ot
and we must not predicate a true literary activity m the Christian Church
ot
the first two or three decades. The materials which have been
handed down to
us in the Gospels lived in these decades an unliterary life or had
indeed as yet
no life at all." 36/9
the Gospel
Therefore Dibelius states how we can intrepret the production of
forms:
developed in the
"To understand the categories of popular writings as they
sphere of unliterary people we must enquire into their life and.
our special m
their worship. 30/
case, which deals with religious texts, into the customs of
2B. Basic Answer to an Illiterate Community Assumption

assumption of an illiterate community, one
In consideration of the critics'
must wonder how these men regard the scholarship of early Christian leaders
such as Luke, James and, most notably, Paul. Filson clarifies the position on
illiteracy of the community:
"It has already been pointed out that form criticism has erred and given a
one-sided picture by depicting the transmission of the tradition as being
exclusively in the hands of simple fold untrained in literary matters. Men of
education and discernment were present and influential in the Church at all
times. There were teachers whose special responsibility required their con-
stant attention to the tradition. What form criticism learns about the per-
petuation of folklore among simple, backward people is not a real parallel to
the process in the primitive Church." 47/107
Filson specifically points out:
"However, a picture of primitive Christianity as composed solely of illiterate

folk of the lowest class is not what any of our records suggest. There were
'teachers' who had both the ability and the zeal to give intelligent attention to
the tradition. Moreover, there were educated people, among whom we may
name Stephen, Philip, Barnabas, Mark, and Paul as examples, who arc not
to be ignored in any estimate of the intellectual and social level of the
primitive Church." 47/104, 105
Peritz asserts that "the illiteracy and lack of literary and historical interest of
the disciple circle, which form critics stress so extravagantly, are
exaggerations and woefully needed ex hypothest" 95/199
3A. A PAROUSIA CONSCIOUS AND SALVATION-MINDED COMMUNITY

IB. Basic Assumption
Bultmann expectancy of the parousia as he notes that "in early
refers to the
Christianity history swallowed up in eschatology. The early Christian
is
community understands itself not as a historical but as an eschatological

phenomenon. It is conscious that it belongs no longer to the present world but
to the new Aeon which is at the door. The question then is how long this
consciousness can remain vivid, how long the expectation of the imminent
end of the world can remain unshaken." 20/51
He expounds further on the anticipation of the Second Coming:
"How did the developing Church endure and overcome its disappointment
that the parousia of Christ failed to materialize? The first answer is that the
disappointment did not take place suddenly, not everywhere at the same time.
The 'time- between' was never reckoned by fixed months or years, as it once
was in the Jewish apocalyptic and often later in the history of the Church; the
parousia of Christ was never expected on a fixed day; it was believed that God
had fixed the day and that no man knew it. By this faith the disappointment
and the doubts which awoke here and there could be stilled, and it is a fact
that the Christians gradually became accustomed to waiting. Certainly, in
times of oppression or persecution the expectation of the near end of the
world and the hope of it flamed up passionately. But, on the other hand, the
Pastoral Epistles show that the Christians gradually slid into a manner of life
which was both Christian and civic at the same time, and various admonitions
here and there to be patient, waiting, and vigilant indicate the same." 20/51
Dibelius directs us toward the community's concentration on salvation:
"The oldest traditions of Jesus came into existence because the community
was in —
need of them a community which had no thought of biography or of
—
world-history but of salvation a community which had a desire to write
books but only to preserve all that was necessary for preaching. That must be
made absolutely clear unless we are to approach the Christian tradition with
the wrong questions." 37/30
Thus he concludes about the information concerning Jesus that was preserved
by the community:
community) were eager to know about that past or describe it,
"If they (the
they had only to think of the salvation which it had guaranteed to them."
37/28. 29
2B. Basic Answer
Redlich reveals Form Criticism's oversight of the faith of the early Church:
"Form Criticism by too great an emphasis on the expected Parousia has lost
normal
sight of the life which men lived though the Parousia was held to be
imminent." 101/79
Then he challenges the form critics' belief in a "Parousia conscious" com-
munity:
"The Acts, Q, and the Epistles bear witness to the multiplicity of interests
which affected the life of the Chruch. However much the expected Parousia
controlled the life and conduct of the early Christians, we find them living a
normal life, interested for example in supplying the needs of the poor (Acts
4:34, 6:1-6). Paul was insistent that the Corinthian Church should abound in
the work of the Lord (I Cor. 15:58). The stories would therefore illustrate and
encourage Christians as well as would be converts in giving teaching on all the
practical interests of daily life." 101/59. 60
Martin points to the balanced faith of the Christians:

"The categories of the Synoptics do not easily fit the frame of existential
Nor does the kerygma of Jesus about the kingdom of God fit the
historicity.
frame of individualistic pietism. Rather the Kerygma of Jesus with his
awareness of an interval between Passion and Parousia points to a larger
concept of the history of salvation in keeping with the Old Testament
background." 79/23
4A. CONCLUSION
Piper professes that "the universal adherence to the gospel pattern proves that
for the primitive church the gospel story had supernatural kerygmatic authority.
That would hardly be the case if the gospel material had been invented to satisfy
the desires and wishes of the congregation." 136/124
The and the appeal to the "Primitive Community
division of forms
" for their
source does not belong in the realm of objective literary criticism.

Pierre Benoit concludes:
"It is plain that this method which at first sight seemed original
and full of
promise is revealed to be artificial and subjective as soon as it is rigidly applied.
Admittedly there are certain distinct and recognisable forms in the Gospel. But
it is impossible to refer them back to specific functions of
the primitive com-
munity without artificiality; they include only part, and that a small one, ot the
gospel tradition; and lastly they are incapable, by themselves, of guaranteeing
any judgement of the historical value of their content." 58/26
kind, it is
Benoit adds to the above that "in order to pass any judgement of this
trom
necessary to pass from the study of the form to the study of the substance,
this leads to
literary criticism to the analysis of reality; and, as we shall soon see,
only too
a return to a kind of criticism which has nothing new about it, but is
well known." 58/26
community.
Hunter underlines an interesting point about the creative Christian
make much of the creative part played by
He points out that "the form critics
the early community in the formation of the Gospel tradition. The
implication is
material in order to
that the Christian church manufactured much of the Gospel
explain her faith. And we cannot help asking: if early Christian faith created the
Gospel record, what created Christian faith?" 174/40
Guthrie reiterates the weakness of the "creative community" theory by con-
cluding:
"Whatever part the community played in the process of transmission, it is in-
conceivable that the community created either the sayings of Jesus or the
narratives about Him. The Christian communities were groups of people who
had 'received' Christian traditions, and had believed them to be true and on the
basis of them had made personal committal of themselves to Christ. No other
explanation can make early Christian development intelligible. The future of
form criticism will largely depend on the degree to which this fact is recognized."
131/231
Philospher, economist and noted historian, John Stuart Mill, proclaims:
"It of no use to say that Christ as exhibited in the Gospels is not historical, and
is
that we do not know how much of what is admirable has been super-added by
the tradition of His followers. Who among His disciples, or among their
proselytes, was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of
imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels?" cited by 138/154
Neill concludes that only Jesus had the capacity to create such a high caliber of
spiritual truth:
"To sum up so much spiritual truth so simply, so briefly, and in such un-
forgettable images demands creative genius of the highest possible calibre. Who
in the early Christian groups had such genius? Paul, on occasion, is capable of
flights of lyric splendour; but he has not a plastic, visual imagination of the kind
that expresses itself in such forms as the story of the temptation. In the first
century we know of one man, and one only, who had that kind of imagination,
and that kind of power over words. His name was Jesus of Nazareth." 187/251
Vincent Taylor, himself a form critic, makes known the results of overem-
phasizing the influence of the Christian community:
"Form-Criticism is justified in calling attention to the influence of the Christian
community, but it has been carried beyond the bounds of probability. It has
fostered a doubtful equanimity in the attitude of many scholars to the alleged
activity of the Church in transforming the original tradition, and has en-
couraged a readiness to embark on the waters of an adventurous typology which
travels far beyond its limited developments in the New Testament." 1 17/357
George Eldon Ladd believes that anyone who holds the view "that the Gospels do
not preserve authentic traditions but embody to a considerable degree material
created by the communities overlooks four important facts: (1) the brief period
of time which elapsed between the events and the record of the events, (2) the
role of eyewitnesses in preserving the tradition, (3) the role of the authoritative
apostolic witness, and (4) the role of the Holy Spirit." 74/163
5A. IN SUMMARY
IB. Form Criticism assumes the Gospels were written because of the early
Christian community's need to preserve and explain their faith and that
the Gospels are not historic or authentic. A creative community, not the
Holy Spirit, is the author of these four accounts.
2B. The answer to this assumption is that the early Christian community was
too focused on the facts to "create" Jesus' sayings.
3B. Form Criticism assumes the early Christians were illiterate.

4B. —
The answer evidence reveals that educated men (Paul) were very much a
part of the primitive Church.
5B. Form Criticism assumes that the early Church was too Second Coming
conscious and hope oriented to be rational and historical.

6B. The answer — Acts, Q and the Epistles reveal that the early Christians led
normal, practical lives. They were admonished to abound in the work of
the Lord, not as if they expected to be "taken up" at any moment.
7B. The caliber of the Gospel message is too high to have originated with a
creative community.
chapter 22
biographical
interest

Form Criticism assumes that the early Christian community had no
biographical interest, so the Gospels have no biographical, chronological or
geographical value.
Gundry begins:
"This assumption postulates a creative community that is lacking in
biographical interest and yet creates a tradition to meet its own needs. What
these needs were can be discovered by the form of each unit. Thus, the Gospels
are primarily sources of information about the life of the early church, not the
life of Christ. The units were then strung together in an artificial context by the
evangelists, whose primary task was redaction. Such is the assumption with its
implications." 57/42
The original purpose of the Gospels is set forth by McKnight:
"The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus written for historical purposes by the
original disciples of Jesus; rather, they are religious writings produced a
generation after the earthly Jesus to serve the life and faith of the early church."
83/2
And what was eventually included in the Gospels is deduced by Filson:
"Itwas not mere historical or biographical interest that governed the choice of
what survived. The choice, according to the form critic, was governed by the
usage and needs of the Church." 47/95
263
Wikenhauser confirms:
"The Gospels are not biographies, but testimonials to faith. They do not
describe the of Jesus in the sense of following the exterior and interior
life
development of his life and work, depicting his personality and demonstrating
his significance in history. They are connected with the primitive Christian
proclamation of faith, and in so far as they are a record of Jesus' words and deeds
they tell of the works, teaching, and Passion of the God-sent Saviour of men;
they thereby make his work as Saviour live before the eyes of the Christian
community. But they lack almost entirely what is indispensable to a biography:
the origin and youth of the hero, his spiritual development, the depiction of his
character, a theme, and a chronology." 126/255, 256
Smith states the position of most radical critics:
"To say that the Gospels do not biography of Jesus is by now

yield material for a
a clich6. The attempt to recover history from the Gospels
is beset by such grave
difficulties that only those who have studied the attempt can gage the dimen-
sions of the problem. It is popularly supposed that form-criticism has
necessitated this conclusion." 11 2/266
1 B . The Position of Dibelius

Dibelius proclaims:
"All these considerations confirm this judgment: the oldest traditions of Jesus
came into existence because the community was in need of them— a com-
munity which had no thought of biography or of world-history but of
salvation— a community which had no desire to write books but only to
preserve all that was necessary for preaching." 37/30
The concern for the tradition which culminated in the Gospels arose around
the interest of the churches in preaching, worship and teaching. As Dibelius
writes:
"Concern for the tradition arose from this necessity, and not from literary or
biographical requirements." 36/30
Dibelius notes that with the growth and spread of public worship people
desired to see an overall picture of Jesus in the story of salvation. He con-
tinues:
"That could be accomplished if traits proper to worship were introduced, e.g.

into individual miracle stories." 35/47
Dibelius would have us "cast our vote" for Jesus, a "political candidate with no
qualifications" when he writes:
"The fact that Jesus was a man
is decisive for faith; how this earthly life was
lived seems to be of no importance." 37/12
2B. The Position of Bultmann

Bultmann's position is summarized by McGinley who relates his position on
Jesus:
"We know nothing of Jesus' life, only His message. We possess this message
only as it was presented by the community. The Gospel of John is not a source
of this presentation. In the synoptic Gospels everything of Hellenistic origin is
to be set aside. Of the remainder, all that betrays community interests or
advanced development is to be excluded. The resultant oldest stratum was
possibly the product of a complicated process no longer discernible. It is
questionable how far the picture of Jesus presented by the community in this
oldest stratum is a true one. The thought-content of the stratum is probably
Jesus', but it makes no difference if it is not." 82/27
In one of his most famous books,y«u$ and the Word, Bultmann declares:
"I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life
and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in
either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources
about Jesus do not exist." 23/8
Bultmann doesn't agree with those that say the early Christians had a
biographical interest, but he circularly argues:
"Those apothegms which are of a biographical character are likewise for the
most part creations of the community, since they give expression to what
Christians had experienced of their Master or what he had experienced at the
hands of his people." 19/45
SB. The Position of Taylor
Taylor asserts the complete lack of a biographical interest in the community:
"The Evangelists could not succeed because for a generation at least a
Christianity had existed which was destitute of the biographical interest: no
one thought of recording the life of Christ." 114/143, 144
He then clarifies the biographical interest question:
"If by a 'biographical interest' we mean a wish to tell stories from the life of
Jesus, the first Christians had such an interest; but if we mean the desire to
trace the course of a man's life, to show how one thing led to another, to
depict the development of his personality, to make him real to the
imagination and the understanding, the first Christians had no such interest."
114/144
Finalizing his argument, he asserts:
"Nothing is so revealing as a biography— about the author! But we can
dispense with fuller knowledge about the Evangelists because we have been
spared the veil which well-intentioned biographers would have cast over the
face of Jesus. Because the Gospels are not biographies, we know Him better."
114/145
2A. BASIC ANSWER
1 B . Description of a B iography
Davies defines the three forms of biographies:
"Of late has been frequently asserted that the Gospels are not biographies.
it
But thisadmission must not be too exclusively interpreted. As a genre of

literature, biography, in its mature form, has only emerged in the last three
centuries and it has assumed three forms: (1) That in which the biographical
data are fused, the biographer himself being present in the work as om-
niscient narrator (we think of Morley's Life of Gladstone as one example of
this). Obviously the Gospels are not biographies in this sense. (2) That m
which there is a free creation, in the biographer's own words, the result bemg
something akin to the painter's portrait — an impression, which may, in fact,
be more 'true' than the first type of biography mentioned. But, agam, the
Gospels are not such individualistic, impressionistic creations; the role of the
in the formation of the tradition rules out such extreme
per-
community
sonalism. (3) That in which the biographer arranges traditional documentary
and other material to produce an integrated work. With this last type the
Gospels can broadly be compared, i.e., they manipulate traditional material
with seriousness." 34/94
Filson extends the modern definition further:
"Let a number of modern biographies be examined. They will follow a rough
ol the
chronological framework, but within those limits the various interests
person depicted will become centers around which material is gathered. Lacn
chapter will trace one hne of interest." 47/103
2B. Biographical Interest of Gospels Established

Barnes brings to light the biographical interest:
"When critics deny the preservation of an 'historical' (or, better, a

'biographical') tradition of the ministry of Jesus, they forget that Jesus had a
mother who survived Him, and also devoted followers both women and men.
Are we to believe that these stored up no memories of the words (and acts
also) of the Master? And the Twelve— though they often misunderstood Him,
would they not preserve among themselves either by happy recollection or by
eager discussion many of His startling sayings and of His unexpected deeds?
And was not the eager expectation itself of the second coming based on a
lively memory of the blessings of the first coming manifested in the Galilean
ministry? Such, surely, are the probabilities, and the probabilities receive
confirmation from vivid touches which are seen constantly in Mark, which is
confessedly the earliest of our Gospels." 6/15, 16
Davies explains that the interest of the Church in the life of Jesus accounts for
the emergence of the Gospels by concluding that "it is difficult to un-
derstand—if the early churches were uninterested in the life of Jesus to any
considerable degree— why Gospels should have emerged at all. On the other
hand, if the early Churches were concerned to witness to the 'story' of Jesus,
the emergence of the Gospel form becomes easily intelligible, and the
preservation of geographic and chronological data in the Gospels natural."
33/117
Peritz reasons why the critics are against biographical interest:
"Discarding the testimony of Papias and Luke that these sources are based on
the reports of eye witnesses and contain biographical and historical data,
Form Critics substitute for an alleged internal evidence to the effect that these
sources contain no historical or biographical data for the construction of a hfe
of Jesus." 95/200, 201
Martin declares that:
"Itwas not a little only of Jesus that was remembered but a great deal (cf.
John 21 :25). What took place in the first decades of the Christian Church was
not the adaptation and elaboration of a few reminiscences to increase their
usefulness but the selection from a host of reminiscences of those that ap-
peared most valuable." 80/1 12
An important point is established by Gundry concerning community
biographical interest in Jesus:
"The centrality of Jesus to the Christian message indicates that the early
church had a very intense desire to know more about Jesus, and that they
would have been very discriminating in their acceptance of accounts of His
life." 55/39
3B. Evidence of Biographical Interest in the Gospels

Concerning biographical, historical, and geographical evidence in Mark,
Barnes writes:
"From the fact of the preservation of these geographical details, as well as of
the names of persons by the Second Evangelist, we have good reason to draw
the conclusion that the vivid touches also, which illuminate many of the
episodes related by St. Mark, are due not to the literary art of the Evangelist
but to the fact that he drew from a living tradition." 6/11, 12
Barnes cites a specific example in Mark:
"But Mark's treatment of Pilate and of the condemnation of Jesus warns us
St.
that the Christian tradition was biographical rather than 'historical.' This
Evangelist does not tell us even that Pilate was governor ('Procurator') of
Judaea: he was not interested in Pilate, but only in Pilate's belief in the in-
nocence of Jesus. But the Christian tradition which St. Mark followed had a
vivid biographical memory. It told that Simon of Cyrene, the father of
Alexander and Rufus, had borne the cross of Jesus, and it recorded the names
of three of the women who saw Jesus die— Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother
of James the less, and Salome [Mark 15]." 6/11, 12
Manson strengthens the biographical evidences in Mark with a pointed query:
"But if the outline had then to be created ad hoc, it can only be that for the
thirty years between the end of the Ministry and the production of Mark,
Christians in general were not interested in the story of the Ministry and
allowed it to be forgotten. One would like to know why the first generation
were not interested while the second generation demanded a continuous
narrative. More than that, we need some explanation why it was possible for
the details of the story to be remembered and the general outline forgotten. It
is not the normal way of remembering important periods in our experience."
133/5
Burkitt strongly asserts a biographical interest in Mark:
"In reviewing Sundwall's Die Zusammensetzung des Markits-evangeltums in
the Journal of Theological Studies (April, 1935, pp. 186-8) Burkitt wrote: 'In
opposition to the opinion of many scholars I feel that Mark is a Biography, if
by Biography we mean the chief outlines of a career, rather than a static
characterization. In Mark there is movement and progression It does not
sound to me like Gemeindetheologie, the unconscious secretion of a com-

munity of believers. Nothing but a strong element of personal reminiscence
could have produced it. And therefore I still hold to the belief that it em-
bodies the private reminiscences of Peter, supplemented for the last week by
the reminiscences of the young Mark himself.' " cited by 1 14/ix
Vincent Taylor adds to Burkitt's observation:
"In no way. it seems to me, does Form-Criticism weaken this judgment."
1 14/ix
Ladd observes the biographical methodology in Matthew:

"In other words, Matthew deliberately rearranges Mark's order of events, not
because he thought they were historically wrong and he wishes to correct
Mark's errors, but because a topical rearrangement better suited Matthew's
purpose. A failure to recognize fully that the Evangelists obviouslv had no
biographical concerns will result in attributing to them alleged historical
errors that are in reality no part of their purpose and should not therefore be
seen as errors at all." 74/167
G.N. Stanton in his chapter, "Ancient Biographical Writing."

Jesus ofm
Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, referring to the view that Gospel
accounts offer no comparison to Hellenistic biography, states:
partly from
"This view, which seeks to establish the perspective of the Gospels
extremely in_
a comparison with ancient biographical writing, has been
assessment ot
fluential. but it is based on a quite surprisingly inaccurate
ancient biographical writing." 11/118
different from
Stanton continues by demonstrating that the Gospels are not so
The evidence is quite
ancient biography so as to preclude any similarity.
literary and historical milieu.
substantial for the Gospels to be placed in that
11/117-136
Ancient
Moreland concludes his excellent section on "The Gospels and
Biographies" with:
"An important conclusion has been reached. The Gospels do have enough in
common with ancient biographies to be called biographical. And one pur-
pose of biography was to give a prose narrative presenting supposedly
historical facts which were to reveal the character of the figure, often with a
view toward affecting the reader's behavior. More specifically, the Gospels at
least partially served the purpose of distortions. But a question arises at this
point." 9/87
Concerning the biographical interest of the early Church, Gundry observes

the words of Paul and Luke:
(1) "If there were no biographical interest in the early church, why did
Paul distinguish between his words and the Lord's words (I Cor. 7:10,
12.25)?
(2) "If the earlychurch had no biographical interest, why had many
taken in hand to draw up narratives of the events of Jesus' life,
(3) "and why had they used the material of eyewitnesses (Luke 1 1 -2)? If :
such were the case, why did Luke add to this collection an accurate
account of the Lord's ministry after having done his own careful
research (Luke 1:3-4)?
(4) "If these early Christians had no biographical interest, why did they
bother to appeal constantly to the fact that they were eyewitnesses of
the events concerning which they spoke?
(5) "The Form Critics must discredit the book of Acts and Luke's
prologue if they are to claim seriously that the early church had no
biographical interest." 55/38
4B. Conclusion
Bultmann writes, in his History of the Synoptic Tradition, that tradition is
not the product of Jesus' life, but that Jesus' life is the product of tradition.
When tradition is removed, very little of Jesus is left.
G.E. Ladd articulates his criticism of the form critics' stand on the
biographical interest of the community:
"We must insist that it is poor criticism to demand biographical precision of
the Evangelists when they themselves obviously did not intend it. This does
not mean that we can go all the way with the form critics. Their conclusion
that we have no trustworthy historical outline for the life of Jesus does not
follow." 75/168
Manson asserts that "it is at least conceivable that one of the chief motives for
preserving the stories at all, and for selecting those that were embodied in the
Gospels, was just plain admiration and love for their hero. It is conceivable
that he was at least as interesting, for his own sake, to people in the first
century as he is to historians in the twentieth." 133/6
Harrison affirms that "the very idea that there was no biographical interest on
the part of the early church in Jesus of Nazareth is incredible." 58/150
SA. IN SUMMARY
IB. The form critic assumes the early Christian community had no
biographical, chronological or geographical interest.
2B. The answer— Why did Mark state geographical and biographical details if
he had no interest in preserving interest? Why did the disciples stress the
fact theywere eyewitnesses? Why did the disciples remember and write
down the events of Jesus' life if they had no biographical interest?
chapter 23
laws
of
fradition
Form Criticism assumes that the original form of tradition can be recovered and its
history before being written down can be traced by discovering the laws of tradition.
Form critics believe that by comparing the pre-literary forms of oral tradition in
other societies with those of the gospel that we can come to some conclusions
concerning "the laws which operate as formative factors in popular tradition,
[M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, Ivor, Nicholson, and Watson, 1934,
p.7] certain definite principles of transformation [143/20]." 1 19/471
These laws are:
"(1) As time goes on, the oral tradition becomes embellished by the elaboration
of simple themes and by the addition of new detail. It becomes both longer and
more complex. Consequently, it can be taken as virtually axiomatic that 'the
simpler version represents the original' [143/23]. (2) As time goes on, there is a
tendency for the particular to become general, and for a statement with local
significance to become a statement with universal significance. In the situation
faced by the expanding Church, this tendency was accentuated. (3) As time goes
on, the material often changes in form, becoming more dramatic by the ad-
dition of vivid detail, by the transformation of indirect into direct narration,
etc. (4) And, as time goes on, concepts are added which would have been un-
familiar and unnatural in the original situation." 119/471
269
LJ. McGinley has analyzed the approach that the radical critics have taken
concerning the authentication of the Synoptic material. He has concluded:
"While reconstructing the transmission of the synoptic material, form-critics
have attempted to estimate whether it could have been transmitted with
historical truthfulness. Their conclusions have been negative." 82/12
Filson notes what the critics concluded:
"The Gospels become an important source of information about the life, in-
problems, and development of the apostolic age. In fact, that is precisely
terests,
what the form critic claims. This position may be most sharply and drastically
formulated in the statement that the Gospels are a primary source for the study
of the apostolic age, but only secondarily of value for study of the life of Jesus."
47/99
A.H. McNeile has observed that "a rule about such traditions appears to be that
a cycle of legends primitive than the separate story, which serves as the
is less
basic unit. Each unit has its particular colouring so that if two stories are
combined the colours are blurred. In a primitive unit the actors are few and the
action is short, vivid, and direct. The unit is apt to end with an oral
generalization or to include a striking saying which would be easily remembered
and for which the framework of the story may serve simply as the scaffolding."
85/48
IB. Martin Dibelius
Dibelius approaches this particular issue in the following manner:
"In each case we must inquire (1) as to the motive which caused the spreading
of the reminiscences, although the feelings and desires of the people were
directed towards the future, and (2) as to the law which governed their
spreading and which helped to form and to preserve what had been said. If
there is no such law, then the writing of the Gospels implies not an organic
development of the process by means of collecting, trimming, and binding
together, but the beginning of a new and purely literary development. If
there was no such motive, then it is quite impossible to understand how men
who made no pretentions to literature could create a tradition which con-
stituted the first steps of the literary production which was even then coming
into being." 36/11
Dibelius continues by alleging that "the first Christians had no interest in

reporting the life and passion of Jesus objectively to mankind, sine ira et
studio. They wanted nothing else than to win as many as possible to salvation
in the last hour just before the end of the world, which they believed to be at
hand. Those early Christians were not interested in history." 37/16
Dibelius concludes by remarking that "a further limitation of the historicity
of the tradition is entailed by this concentration of interest on its missionary
application. The stories are couched in a certain style, that is to say, they are
told in a way calculated to edify believers and to win over unbelievers. They
are not objective accounts of events." 37/76
2B. Rudolf Bultmann
Rudolf Bultmann concurs with Dibelius' skeptical approach to the study of
the tradition:
"The doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth
refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the
historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest
Palestinian community. But how far that community preserved an objectively
true picture of him and his message is another question." 23/13
Much of what Bultmann claims is based upon the position held by Julius
Wellhausen, another noted biblical scholar. Here Bultmann refers to his

predecessor:
"Wellhausen said the Spirit of Jesus undoubtedly breathes in the utterances
derived from the community at Jerusalem; but we do not derive a historical
picture of Jesus himself from the conception of Jesus which prevailed in the
community." 135/341
SB. Vincent Taylor
Taylor does not concur with Bultmann and Dibelius. He maintains that
"Bultmann takes no account of the existence of eyewitnesses. The orphaned
Christian community has no leaders to whom it can appeal for an account of
what Jesus said: it might have been marooned on an island in the Greek
Archipelago! This attitude is due to Bultmann's preoccupation with forms,
but it vitiates a study of the question of genuineness from the beginning."
114/107
Taylor tends to accept the historic authenticity of the tradition, for as he
states:
"The presence of eyewitnesses, for at least a generation, would serve as a

check on corruptions innocently due to the imagination." 1 14/207
4B. Summary
The radical critics have alleged that the tradition is historically unsound.
Their basic criterion has been the laws of tradition and their ramifications.
Ernst Kasemann helps to approach this problem as he explains:
"To paradox as sharply as possible: the community takes so much
state the
trouble to maintain historical continuity with him who once trod this earth
that it allows the historical events of this earthly life to pass for the most part
into oblivion and replaces them by its own message." 68/20
R.H. Lightfoot adds:
"It seems, then, that the form of the earthly no less than of the heavenly Christ
is for the most part hidden from us. For all the inestimable value of the
gospels, they yield us little more than a whisper of his voice; we trace in them
but the outskirts of his ways." 76/225
Eyewitness testimony is noticeably absent from the considerations of the Form
Critics.Bultmann explains this by noting:
"Is it to say that faith grows out of the encounter with the Holy
enough
Scriptures as theWord of God, that faith is nothing but simple hearing? The
answer is yes. But this answer is valid only if the Scriptures are understood
neither as a manual of doctrine nor as a record of witnesses to a faith which I
interpret by sympathy and empathy." 22/71
H.N. Ridderbos goes one step further:
"What can we do with the mythological story of the resurrection? We can no
longer accept it as a miraculous event which supplies us with the objective
proof of Christ's significance. It is true that it is so thought of repeatedly in the
New Testament (Acts 17:31). and Paul also tries to establish with certainty
the resurrection as a historical event by enumerating the eye witnesses (I
Corinthians 15:3-8). But this argumentation is fatal. The return of the dead
witnesses
to life is a mythical event; the resurrection cannot be established by
as an objective fact, a guarantee of faith; the resurrection itself is an object
ot
faith." 102/24, 25
2A. BASIC ANSWER
IB. The basic criterion of the historical authenticity judgment was the laws of
tradition. But note:
"Even a quick comparison will show how striking are the differences between
most of the principles of remembering as Bartlett [Bartlett, F.C. Remem-
bering. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932)] demonstrates them,
and the principles of the transmission of narrative material which govern the
conclusions of form criticism. According to the principles of form criticism,
'the simpler version represents the original'; according to the principles of
remembering, the simpler form represents the end of a process of change.
According to the former, unfamiliar material is added in the process of
transmission; according to the latter, unfamiliar material is reduced in the
process of remembering. According to the former, particular statements
tend, with the passage of time, to become general, and local references to
become universal; according to the latter, general statements almost in-
variably tend to become particular. Thus, if a general statement is found in a
remembered narrative, it is likely to belong to an early stage in the process of
remembering." 119/474, 475
W.S. Taylor continues, again referring to Bartlett's work titled Remem-
bering:
"The process of remembering, he [Bartlett] says, always tends to produce a
shortened and simplified version of the original. 'With frequent reproduc-
tion, omission of detail, simplification of events and structure. .may go on
.
almost indefinitely.' 'When a readily recognizable form is presented, this

tends to undergo simplification into a genuinely conventionalized
representation.' When the material presented is not originally in a readily
recognizable form, then once memory has reduced it to 'some readily
recognizable form ..simplification sets in.'" 119/473
.
Vincent Taylor has conducted a study of oral tradition, and his conclusion is
that orally transmitted material tends to be shortened or abbreviated. In spite
of material being added to the tradition. Taylor finds it remarkable that the
accounts almost always shorten. Things such as names of persons or places
usually begin to be omitted the longer something is orally transmitted. And a
general rounding of material with the subsequent omission of details is the
normal end product of such a process. 1 14/ 1 24
E.L. Abel has observed:
"Contrary to the conclusions derived from Form Criticism, studies of rumor
transmission indicate that as information is transmitted, the general form or
outline of a story remains intact, but fewer words and fewer original details
are preserved." 1/375, 376
As a result of his personal experiments, Vincent Taylor postulates:
"The experiments show that the tendency of oral transmission is definitely in
the direction of abbreviation. Additions are certainly made in all good faith
through misunderstandings and efforts to picture the course of events, but
almost always the stories become shorter and more conventional.
"Such experiments suggest that longer Miracle-Stories, which are not
products of literary stand near the records of eyewitnesses, and that the
art,
shorter and more conventional stories have passed through many hands
before they were committed to writing." 114/124, 125
C.H. Dodd cites the emphasis the Gospel writers placed on facts, about Jesus
as well as the teaching of Jesus:
"So far, the tradition behind the Gospels is strictly comparable with the
contemporary oral traditions of Judaism. But in one point the Christian
tradition departs from the Jewish model. The disciples of Jesus not only
handed down what he taught. They laid at least equal stress upon certain
facts about him. When Gospels came to be written, these facts bulked
largely." 39/17
2B. The Effect of Eyewitnesses

As to the beginnings of the writings of the gospels, W.E. Barnes observes that
"because of the wide-spread growth of the stories of Jesus and lack of
Ministers, who were also eyewitnesses, it became very evident for the Word to
be put full account in writing. St. Luke [Luke 1:2-4] acknowledged the need
for writings. The converts too felt the need for written material to remind
them of what they had heard." 6/2
James Martin concurs by adding that the disciples and followers of Jesus did
not forget Him or His teachings due to constant repetition among themselves
and occasional debate with their opponents. For the most part, this main-
tenance was oral but there was some early writing down of the tradition. As
time passed and eyewitnesses died, the tradition began to be written into an
official form, thus, our four Gospels. 80/24, 25
In conclusion. Harrison cites E. Fascher, author of Die Formgeschichtliche
Methode (140), and his objection to form study:
"Because the materials of the Gospels are vastly different from the substance
of folk literature, the literary laws governing popular tradition are not ap-
f)licable. The subject matter of the Gospels is far more important than any
iterary form." 58/150
In reference to the lack of mention of the eyewitnesses' influence on the oral
tradition, James Martin establishes that "it is easily forgotten and yet of
considerable significance that in the oral period the traditions of Jesus were
being quoted in the hearing of unbelievers, many of whom were antagonistic,
as well as of believers. This also must have helped in no small measure to
ensure that they suffered no substantial change in the course of their
repetition. For the uncommitted and the hostile, quick to seize on any feature
of the Christians' story which did not tally with its previous telling, would have
made the most of the discrepancy. As a result, both in their public preaching
and in debate and discussion, it would be impossible for the Christians to vary
their stories in any material aspect from one telling to the other." 80/67, 68
Floyd Filson calls this lack of reference to eyewitnesses "the most flagrant"
error of the form critics. He points out that "the most flagrant errors of form
critics calls for mention. Folk tales do not reckon with eyewitnesses. Form
critics also tend to forget them. Vincent Taylor reproaches extreme critics by
saying that they act as though all eyewitnesses had been caught up to heaven
immediately after Jesus' death. In contrast to this serious fault of much form
criticism, we must hold that the eyewitnesses mentioned in Lk. 1:2 exercised a
great control over the tradition in its early and crucial stage." 47/107. 108
Gundry adds:
"The failure of form criticism to account adequately for the role of eyewit-
nesses in the early church is sufficient to discredit its basic assumption with its
implications. If there were eyewitnesses, there could have been no creative
community that formed and transformed tradition to suit its own needs
without regard to the truth. But the form critic ignores the possibility of
eyewitnesses, for he is totally occupied with forms and the smooth working
of
a theory. He has not taken the time to examine the historical evidence.
55/34, 35
critics in
Vincent Taylor, who finds himself diametrically opposed to the form
this particular area, charges:
presents a very
"It is on this question of eyewitnesses that Form-Criticism
have been
vulnerable front. If the Form-Critics are right, the disciples must
translated to heaven immediately after the Resurrection. As
Bultmann sees it.
the primitive community exists in vacuo, cut off from its founders by the walls
of an inexplicable ignorance." 1 14/41
He adds:
"All this is absurd; but there is a reason for this unwillingness to take into
account the existence of leaders and eyewitnesses. Indeed, there are two
reasons. By the very nature of his studies the Form-Critic is not predisposed in
favour of eyewitnesses; he deals with oral forms shaped by nameless in-
dividuals, and the recognition of persons who enrich the tradition by their
actual recollections comes as a disturbing element to the smooth working of
the theory." 114/41
Taylor concludes by reiterating:

"However disturbing to the smooth working of theories the influence of
eyewitnesses on the formation of the tradition cannot possibly be ignored.
The one hundred and twenty at Pentecost did not go into permanent retreat;
for at least a generation they moved among the young Palestinian com-
munities, and through preaching and fellowship their recollections were at
the disposal of those who sought information .... But when all qualifications
have been made, the presence of personal testimony is an element in the
formative process which it is folly to ignore. By its neglect of this factor Form-
Criticism gains in internal coherence, but it loses its power to accomplish its
main task which is to describe the Sitz im Leben of the tradition." 1 14/42, 43
Alfred Wikenhauser suggests:
"Against this it must be emphasized vigorously that we may not exclude from
the formation of tradition the eyewitnesses of the life and work, passion and
death of Jesus. Luke says explicitly that the accounts of his predecessors,
which he knows and uses, were guaranteed by those 'who from the beginning
were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word' (that is, of the proclamation of
the Gospel), and he intends his own work to be a proof of all that his readers
had learned (1, 1-4). Enough firsthand witnesses were still alive in the few
decades during which tradition got its final shaping; we have only to think of
Peter, James, and John, the pillars 'of the Church of Jerusalem (Gal. 2, 9) at
the time of the Council of Jerusalem (cf. also 1 Cor. 15, 6).' " 126/276. 277
E.B. Redlich agrees:
"It will not follow that every detail of every narrative of our Lord's life can be
guaranteed to be historically true because eye witnesses were alive when the
first records were made. We must allow for personal errors, want of powers of
scientific observation, the Eastern outlook and Modes of thought, misun-
derstandings and such like. Our claim is that there is prima-facie ground for
assuming the substantial accurace of the Gospel narrative." 101/36
A.M. Hunter comments on the form critics' view of the eyewitnesses at the
time tradition was taking place:
"Reading the Form Critics, we get the impression that when the Gospel
tradition was taking shape, all the eye-witnesses of our Lord's ministry were
either dead or in hiding." 65/14
Robert Mounce concurs with the conclusion of Hunter when he states that
apparently the eyewitnesses of the event were either dead or sleeping! There
was not that long a period of time between the teachings of Jesus and the
development of the Gospels. Eyewitnesses to the events still had to be on the
scene. 144
On this volatile issue, E.B. Redlich upholds the questionable character of
eyewitness testimony:
"In the earliest days there was no clamant need for an ordered Resurrection
narrative. Eye-witnesses could testify to having seen Jesus after His
Resurrection, and there were hundreds of them (1 Corinthians 15:6). The
fact of the tremendous happening on Easter Day was assured by first-hand
evidence of an indisputable character." 101/178, 179

Stanley Gundry summarizes by saying that "it cannot be successfully argued
that the eyewitnesses had died before the oral tradition had reached a fixed
form and then was finally put down into written form. F.F. Bruce, who ac-
cepts the priority of Mark, argues for written sources of the Synoptic Gospels
not later than about A.D. 60.
"Even assuming that Source Criticism is valid, one must still allow for a
crystallization of the tradition that is complete some years before it is written
down. However, according to Galatians 2:9, James, Peter, and John were still
alive." 57/47
Gundry adds that "the earliest that the event there recorded can be dated is
A.D. 48. The earliest that I Corinthians can be dated is A.D. 55; but ac-
cording to I Corinthians 15:6, a good number of eyewitnesses were still alive.
In other words, it is not at all unlikely that by the time the gospel tradition
was crystallized in its oral form according to the Form Critic and that by the
time it was recorded in documents according to the Source Critic, there were
still eyewitnesses alive that could either affirm or deny the authenticity of the
material. It is not only unlikely that these eyewitnesses all would have died, it
is almost impossible." 57/47
Even Dibelius himself admits the terrific impact that eyewitnesses must have
played on the oral tradition:
"At the period when eye-witnesses of Jesus were still alive, it was not possible
to mar the picture of Jesus in the tradition. Chronology furnished criterion for
judging the evangelical tradition." 36/293
Allan Barr has concluded:
"If the Christians had a real interest in the accuracy of their traditions, they
must have them by their own standards of evidence. Now it need hardly
tested
be said that we cannot expect these to be the standards of the modern
historian. The impartial criticism of sources, the weighing of probabilities,
the sifting and appraising of indirect evidence, were beyond the range of the
early Christians and their contemporaries. Where, then, could men of the
time and cultural level of the early Christians find standards to verify the facts
reported to them, if so they wished to do? The answer is simply this— in the
principle of corroboration by eye-witnesses." 8/401
Another possibility that the form critics failed to deal with is the influence
that hostile eyewitnesses might have played on the oral tradition. With
reference to these hostile eyewitnesses, Gundry remarks that "there were
individuals antagonistic to Christianity outside the church who had been
eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry. Again, is it possible that they would have
allowed false statements to pass as facts concerning His life which they also
knew so well? Christianity would have opened itself to ridicule if it had
created such stories to perpetuate itself." 55/36
James Martin adds:
"There can be little doubt that, if the Christians had been guilty of in-
consistency in the repetition of their tradition, their enemies would have been
able to rout them ignominiously from the field, making them a public
laughing-stock and effectively ensuring that their preaching would have no
impact on the minds of any who heard it." 80/68
The apostles, who surely desired to honor the Lord, would not have been a
party to the habit of ascribing to Him facts that did not originate with Him.
Further, hundreds of people in the early Church must have been a powerful
restraining factor in keeping the tradition true to fact. 50/150
L.J. McGinley also recognizes the impact of the hostile witnesses:

"First of all eyewitnesses of the events in question were still alive when the
tradition had been completely formed; and among these eyewitnesses were
bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to
narrate a series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time
when false statements could, and would, be challenged." 82/25
3B. The Value of Hostile Witnesses
In The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? F.F. Bruce em-
phasizes the value of hostile witnesses:
"And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to
reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant
with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not
afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of wilful manipulation of the facts),
which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so.
On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is
the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, 'We
are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you yourselves also know' (Acts ii.
22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material
respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have
served as a further corrective." 16/45, 46
He adds:
"We are, in fact, practically all the way through in touch with the evidence of
eyewitnesses. The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of this first-
hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. 'We are witnesses of these
things,' was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by
no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of
Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who
could remember what had and had not happened. Indeed, the evidence is
that the early Christians were careful to distinguish between sayings of Jesus
and their own inferences or judgments. Paul, for example, when discussing
the vexed questions of marriage and divorce in I Corinthians vii, is careful to
make this distinction between his own advice on the subject and the Lord's
decisive ruling: 'I, not the Lord,' and again, 'Not I, but the Lord.'" 16/45, 46
In conclusion, Stan Gundry reiterates:
"An equally important factor is that there were individuals antagonistic to
Christianity outside the church who had been eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.
Again, is it possible that they would have allowed false statements to pass as
facts concerning His life which they also knew so well? Christianity would have
opened itself to ridicule if it had created such stories to perpetuate itself."
57/45
3A. CONCLUSION
L.J. McGinley has decided that using the methodology assumed by the form
critics "leaves a mangled text, of interest neither to the primitive Christian nor
the modem exegete." 82/70
P.O. Duncker refers to P. Benoit who asks if anything of historical worth can
remain after the form critics have eliminated from the tradition most of the
gospel material as unhistorical. He answers:
"Very little; a quite inoffensive residue: Jesus of Galilee, who thought himself to
be a prophet, who must have spoken and acted accordingly, without our being
able to say exactly what he spoke and how he acted, who eventually died in a
lamentable way. All the rest: his divine origin, his mission of salvation, the proof
he gave for these by his words and miracles, finally the resurrection which set a
seal on his work, all this is pure fiction, proceeding from faith and cult, and
clothed with a legendary tradition, which was formed in the course of the
preachings and the disputes of the primitive community [Benoit, Pierre. Ex^gise
et TtUologie. Vol. I, p. 46. Paris: Editions du Cerf. 1961]." 42/28
J. Martin observes that the Gospels cannot be ignored as historical

documents
and that the evangelists wrote them to be considered as such. Martin believes
that too often the Gospels are classified as legends without considering their
historical claims. He points out that at the time these were written there was no
historical method to use as a standard, but rather, the evangelists accepted their
material and recorded it without question. The writer concludes that the
question of the historicity of the Gospels should not be sloughed off so easily but
that the facts show they are historically accurate and they read like historical
writings. Martin points out that it is obvious that they were intended to be
historical. 80/101
E.F. Scott claims that in examining the Gospels we usually take two approaches,
looking at them for their religious message and as historical fact. As works of
history, Scott says, we should subject them to all the normal tests of truth that
any document of history is put through. However, Scott argues that while
evaluating the Gospels one should not be influenced by their religious value
apart from their historical value. This, because Christians believe that God
entered history at a point in time and brought salvation through a human life
lived in historical time, and the foundations of the Christian faith depend on the
facts recorded in the gospels. 111/196
SA. IN SUMMARY
IB. The form critic assumes that tradition is historically unsound by nature.
Therefore the early Christian tradition is historically unsound.
2B. The answer —Studies on oral transmission show that although original
material is often shortened, the story's outline remains intact. The
presence of antagonistic eyewitnesses would not allow false statements to be
recorded.
chapter 24
the
historical
I skepticism

The New Testament writings do not portray a historical picture of Jesus.
Rudolf Bultmann quotes Julius Wellhausen as saying:
"The spirit of Jesus undoubtedly breathes in the utterances derived from the
community at Jeruslaem; but we do not derive a historical picture of Jesus
himself from the conception of Jesus which prevailed in the community."
1 00/ O^
In order to establish a principle for historical research of Jesus, Wellhausen goes
on to say:
"We must recognize that a literary work or a fragment of tradition is a primary

source for the historical situation out of which it arose, and is only a secondary
source for the historical details concerning which it gives information." 135/341
This assertion leads us to view the Gospels as a secondary source for the facts
concerning Jesus. J. Martin concurs:
"Gospels must be taken as reliable renderings of what the Church believed at the
time of writing concerning the facts on which its faith was founded." 80/44
Therefore, R. H. Lightfoot, a noted critic, infers:
form of the earthly no less than of the heavenly Christ is

"It seems, then, that the
for the most part hidden from us. For all the inestimable value of the gospels,
279
they yield us little more than a whisper of his voice; we trace in them but the
outskirts of his ways." 76/225
IB. The Opinion of Albert Schweitzer

The search for a historical Jesus, a Jesus whose existence could be concretely
proven (outside the Bible and Christian experience), was led by critic Albert
Schweitzer. He writes:
"The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward as the Messiah, who preached the
ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon
earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any
existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by
liberalism, and clothed by modem theology in an historical garb." 109/396
Schweitzer continues with an observation about the problem of our study of a

historical Jesus, which itself, he claims, has had erratic background:
"The study of the Life of Jesus has had a curious history. It set out in quest of
the historical Jesus, believing that when it had found Him it could bring Him
straight into our time as a Teacher and Savior. It loosed the bands by which
He had been riveted for centuries to the stony rocks of ecclesiastical doctrine,
and rejoiced to see life and movement coming into the figure once more, and
the historical Jesus advancing, as it seemed, to meet it. But He does not stay;
He passes by our time and returns to His own." 109/397
2B. The opinion of Martin Dibelius
Martin Dibelius doubts any historical interest in Jesus:
"The Christians had no interest in reporting the life and passion of Jesus
first
objectively to mankind, sine ira et studio. They wanted nothing else than to
win as many as possible to salvation in the last hour just before the end of the
world, which they believed to be at hand. Those early Christians were not
interested in history." 37/16
Attacking the objectivity of biblical events, Dibelius elaborates on the aspect
of Christian "propaganda" clouding the true historical picture:
"A further limitation of the historicity of the tradition is entailed by this
concentration of interest on its missionary application. The stories are
couched in a certain style, that is to say, they are told in a way calculated to
edify believers and to win over unbelievers. They are not objective accounts of
events." 37/76
SB. The Opinion of Rudolf Bultmann

The skepticism of the historical truth of Jesus' life often surfaces in Bult-
mann's theology:
"I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life
and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in
either, are moreover fragmentary and legendary; and other sources about
Jesus do not exist." 23/8
He proclaims "the character of Jesus, the vivid picture of his personality and
his life, cannot now be clearly made out." 19/61
Bultmann comments on a historicalmethod of searching the Scriptures, and
his view of how an event, such as a miracle, should be interpreted (actually
ruled out):
"The historical method includes the presupposition that history is a unity in
the sense of a closed continuum of effects in which individual events are
connected by the succession of cause and effect. This does not mean that the
process of history is determined by the causal law and that there are no free
decisions of men whose actions determine the course of historical happenings.
But even a free decision does not happen without cause, without a motive;
and the task of the historian is to come to know the motives of actions. All
decisions and all deeds have their causes and consequences; and the historical
method presupposes that it is possible in principle to exhibit these and their
connection and thus to understand the whole historical process as a closed
unity.
"This closedness means that the continuum of historical happenings cannot

be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers and that
therefore there is no 'miracle' in this sense of the word. Such a miracle would
be an event whose cause did not lie within history.... It is in accordance with
such a method as this that the science of history goes to work on all historical
documents. And there cannot be any exceptions in the case of biblical texts if
the latter are at all to be understood [as] historical." 18/291 ,292
He adds:
"All this goes to show that the interest of the gospels
absolutely different
is
from that of the modem historian. The historian can make

progress toward
the recovery of the life of Jesus only through the process of critical analysis.
The gospels, on the other hand, proclaim Jesus Christ, and were meant to be
read as proclamations." 19/70
It is not the existence of Jesus that Bultmann questions; rather, he questions
how objective the Gospel writers were.
Bultmann concludes that "the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is

unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus
stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is
represented by the oldest Palestinian community. But how far that com-
munity preserved an objectively true picture of him and his message is
another question." 23/13
Fuller sums up Bultmann's view:
"All we know, he says, is that Jesus was executed by the Romans as a political
criminal. But what we can reconstruct does not take us very far." 51/14
The extreme skepticism of Bultmann is not adhered to by Dibelius. He admits
that some of the earliest pieces of tradition possess "authentic memories"
conveyed by eyewitnesses.
4B. The Opinion of Ernst Kasemann

A former student of Rudolf Bultmann, Ernst Kasemann holds that "it was not
historical but kerygmatic interest which handed them [the individual units of
Gospel tradition] on. From this standpoint it becomes comprehensible that
this tradition, or at least the overwhelming mass of it, cannot be called
authentic. Only a few words of the Sermon on the Mount and of the conflict
with the Pharisees, a number of parables and some scattered material of
various kinds go back with any degree of probability to the Jesus of history
himself. Of his deeds, we know only that he had the reputation of being a
miracle-worker, that he himself referred to his power of exorcism and that he
was finally crucified under Pontius Pilate. The preaching about him has
almost entirely supplanted his own preaching, as can be seen most clearly of
all in the completely unhistorical Gospel of John." 68/59, 60
In approaching the problem of historical revision of the Gospel material by

the community, Ernst Kasemann maintains:
"To state the paradox as sharply as possible: the community takes so much
trouble to maintain historical continuity with him who once trod this earth
that it allows the historical events of this earthly life to pass for the most part
into oblivion and replaces them by its own message." 68/20
His fixation on one's existential identification with the cross, instead of a

historically based faith, leads him to conclude that "for this reason the
historical element in the story of Jesus has, in these other writings, shrunk
almost to vanishing point." 68/21
2A. Rebuttal
The consequence of employing the historical skepticism of the form critics is
exposed by Ladd:
"The Son of God incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth becomes a product rather
than the creator of Christian faith. He is no longer seen as the Saviour of the
Christian community." 74/147
IB. The Result of Following Bultmann
What remains after Bultmann and his followers have eliminated from
tradition most of the Gospel material as historically inaccurate and as
creations of the community?
Peter G. Duncker cites R Benoit concerning what would be left:
"Very little; a quite inoffensive residue: Jesus of Galilee, who thought himself
to be a prophet, who must have spoken and acted accordingly, without our
being able to say exactly what he spoke and how he acted, who eventually
died in a lamentable way. All the rest: his divine origin, his mission of
salvation, the proof he gave for these by his words and miracles, finally the
resurrection which set a seal on his work, all this is pure fiction, proceeding
from faith and cult, and clothed with a legendary tradition, which was
formed in the course of the preachings and the disputes of the primitive
community [Benoit, Pierre. Ex^gise of Thôlogie. (p. 46, Vol. I) Paris:
Editions du Cerf. 1961]." 42/28
One author, David Cairns, has made this conclusion about Bultmann's form
of theology, which runs away from the historical towards the existential:
"Our provisional conclusion in this chaptermust be that none of the
urged by Bultmann in support of his flight from history carries
justifications
conviction. The whole enterprise resembles too much the remedy of
decapitation as a cure for a headache." 30/149
A frightening aspect of Bultmann's approach to the New Testament is ob-
served by Ellwein when he notes Bultmann's existential basis:
"Is it not a disturbing feature of Bultmann's interpretation of the New
Testament message when the historical reality of the historical Jesus of
Nazareth becomes a 'relative X'? This means that the occurrence of God's
revelation which has assumed bodily and historical form in Jesus evaporates
and is, so to speak, placed within parentheses." 175/42
Ellwein continues:
"All that remains is the punctual event of preaching, a kind of 'mathematical
point'which lacks any extension just because this very extension would illicitly
render the 'other-worldly' into something 'this- worldly.*" 175/42
Bultmann's desire to exclude historical framework and analysis "leaves a
mangled text, of interest neither to the primitive Christian nor the modem
exegete." 82/70
2B. The Historical Accounts of the Disciples

Peritz cites the purpose of the disciples to be the recording of the Gospels. He
claims:
"To declare, as Form Critics do, that the early disciples of Jesus expected the
end of the age and had no interest in history, may be true of a small group;
but it was not true of all. If it were true of all, we should have no gospel
records whatever; and Luke's 'many' who had attempted gospel accounts
could not have existed." 95/205
A. N. Sherwin- White makes a comparison between the methods of writing
history used by the Roman writers and the Gospel writer. He concludes that
"it can be maintained that those who had a passionate interest in the story of
Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolical and didactic rather than
historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the
historical kernel of their material." 182/191
F. F. Bruce comments on the historical accuracy of Luke:

"A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to
test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not
available. Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or
unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others
can be depended upon to be inaccurate. Luke's record entitles him to be
regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy." 16/90
Blackman notes the dependability of the Gospel writers as he indicates that
"Luke's awareness that the salvation-history concerning Jesus of Nazareth is a
part of history as a whole. In this Luke is not to be completely differentiated
from his fellow evangelists. All of them are conscious of being reporters of
real events played out by a real historical person. For all their effort to create
a conviction about that person, and to testify to the divine power that
operated through him, they are essentially reporters, not free to invent or
falsify the data which the tradition of their churches presented as having
happened in Galilee and Judaea a generation earlier." 1 1/27
SB. The Unique Character of Jesus as the Foundation of the Authenticity of
the New Testament
E. F. Scott makes the following observation about the attack of the critics:
"...(their)evidence would hardly be challenged if they were concerned with
some other hero of antiquity, and it is only because they recount the life of
Jesus that they are viewed suspiciously." 111/1
If one is to judge the historicity of Jesus, then He ought to be judged as im-
partially as any other figure in history. F. F. Bruce testifies that "the historicity
of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius
Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.
"The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of
the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as
Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear
all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians
ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the
relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them
a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus,
will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they
have been taught." 16/119, 120
The claims by the New Testament writers about the character of the
historical Jesus are not seen to be a problem by Montgomery:
"However, the inability to distinguish Jesus' claims for himself from the New
Testament writers' claims for him should cause no dismay, since (1) the
situation exactly parallels that for all historical personages who have not
themselves chosen to write (e.g., Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar,
Charlemagne). We would hardly claim that in these cases we can achieve no
adequate historical portraits. Also, (2) the New Testament writers, as we saw
in the previous chapter, record eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus and can
therefore be trusted to convey an accurate historical picture of him.." 87/48
4B. Ancient Historiography

J. P.
Moreland presents the main issue:
"Were ancient historians able to distinguish fact from fiction? Is there any
evidence that they desired to do so? The works of Greek, Roman and Jewish
historians all probably influenced the New Testament writers." 9/87
Thus, a major objection often penned against the Gospels as ancient
documents is that their authors (as well as authors of other ancient
documents) lived in a different historical arena where factual accuracy was
not important.
Moreland continues by discussing some of the evidence:
"Among Greek writers, many discussed the importance of giving an accurate
account of what happened. Herodotus emphasizes the role of eyewitnesses in
historical reporting. The historian must, however, evaluate and verify their
reports using common sense. Reports of superhuman and miraculous oc-
currence should be regarded with suspicion. Thucydides also attempted to
evaluate the accuracy of reports that came to him. In History of the
Peloponnesian War, 1.22.1, he does admit that on occasion he did invent
speeches. But in those cases he attempted to be consistent with what was
knovm of the speaker. In any case, he did not feel free to invent narrative.
Polybsius held very exacting standards. He advocated examination of sources,
objectivity, and castigated superstition and a 'womanish love of the
miraculous.' He also advocated the questioning of reliable eyewitnesses." 9/88
A. W. Mosley concludes his article, "Historical Reporting in the Ancient
World," with the following summation:
"The survey shows clearly, then, that the question, 'Did it happen in this way?'
was which made sense to the people living at that time, and was a
a question
question which was often asked. People living then knew that there was a
difference between fact and fiction.
Mosely further states:
"Generally was easier to be inaccurate when a writer was dealing with events
it
that had happened a long time before. Writers who were dealing with events
of the recent past — eyewitnesses being still alive — seem generally to have
tried to be as accurate as possible and to get the information from the
eyewitnesses. They knew they could not get away with inventing freely stories
of events and personalities of the recent past. We note that Josephus accused
Justus of holding back publication of his history until eyewitnesses were no
longer available and this is strongly condemned.
"We have seen that these historians (e.g., Lucian, Dionysius. Polybius,
Ephorus, Cicero, Josephus and Tacitus) were quick to criticize their fellow
writers if they gave inaccurate accounts. A person who gave an inaccurate
account of something that had happened was regarded as having — in some
measure at least — failed. We would expect to find that such charges were
brought against the New Testament writers if they had failed in this way.
"Our survey has not proved anything conclusive about the attitude of the New
Testament writers to the historicity of the traditions they received and passed
on about the historical Jesus, but it would suggest that we should not assume
from the start that they could not have been interested in the question of
authenticity. It is quite possible that people were concerned to distinguish
which reports were factually true, and that this influenced the development of
the Christian tradition, both in the period where reports were passed on
orally, and later when the tradition came to be written down." 12/26
5B. The View of the Critics — Is It Truly Impartial?

Objecting to form critics' personal opinions, Redlich writes:
"Historical Criticism must not be identified, as Form Critics often do, with
the critic's own
personal opinion of the historical truth of a narrative or
saying. This latter is a historical value- judgment. It has no connection with
laws of the tradition or with formal characteristics." 101/11
McNeile believes that the form critics have gone too far in passing judgment
on the contents of the Gospels, for their method is a literary one — not
historical. 85/54
G. E. Ladd reasons: "It must be recognized that modem biblical criticism was
not the product of a believing scholarship concerned with a better un-
derstanding of the Bible as the Word of God in its historical setting, but of
scholarship which rejected the Bible's claim to be the supematurally inspired
Word of God." 74/38
6B. Conclusion
"The "may not have been interested in
Christians," concludes Pierre Benoit,
'history';but they were certainly interested in the 'historical'. The preachers of
the new faith may not have wanted to narrate everything about Jesus, but they
certainly did not want to relate anything that was not real." 58/32
Benoit poses the following question:
"Is credible that the converts accepted so novel a faith, which demanded so
it
much of them, on the strength of mere gossip-sessions, at which Dibelius and

Bultmann's preachers invented sayings and actions which Jesus never uttered
and never performed merely to suit themselves?" 58/32
Filson notes the ultimate result of extending the form critic's historical
skepticism:
"As may readily be seen, if the Gospels thus reflect the life and thought of the
primitive Church, the problem of the reliability of the material for the study
of Jesus' life arises. This is frankly recognized by the form critic, and when an
element of the tradition shows a developed church interest, or a Hellenistic
character, it is rejected from the fund of usable data for the life of Jesus. Since
all the material preserved was used by the Church, this skepticism may go so
far as practically to deny that we have any dependable data left with which to
picture the historical Jesus." 47/99
Stressing the need for external evidence, Albright holds that "the ultimate
historicity of a given datum is never conclusively established nor disproved by
the literary framework in which it is imbedded; there must always be external
evidence." 129/12
Albright adds: "From the standpoint of the objective historian data cannot be
disproved by criticism of the accidental literary framework in which they
occur, unless there are solid independent reasons for rejecting the historicity
of an appreciable number of other data found in the same framework."
156/293, 294
Finally, the testimony ofcontemporary historians of Jesus' day should be
acknowledged. Laurence J. McGinley confirms:
"In any study of the Synoptic Gospels whether it's Dibelius* concentration on
transmission and composition or Bultmann's historical portrayal of the
synoptic tradition from origin to crystallization, something should be said for
historical testimony. But, it's noti [H. Dieckmann, "Die Formgeschichtliche
Methode und ihre Anwendung aufdie Auferstehungs Berichte," Scholastik, I,
1926, p. 389] External testimony such as Irenaeus TertuUian, and Origen is
noticeably not referred to. Justin's observation that the Gospels are merely
apostolic memoirs [Apologia, I, 66] is mentioned only to be rejected as
misleading [Bultmann, Die Erforschung der Synoptischen Evangelien, The
New Approach, p. 397]. Papias' testimony [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,
III, 39 (MP6, XX, 296-300) pp. 22, 23] of Matthew and Mark fares no better.
Bultmann refers to Papias' reference to Mark as the interpreter of Peter as —
an error; Dibelius refers to Papias' testimony on the authorship of Matthew
and Mark but concludes that he has been mislead by thinking that the
evangelists were really authors [Bultmann, Zur Formgeschichte der
Evangelien, Theol. Rund. N.F.I. 1929, p. 10]. This neglect of historical
testimony seems to show a lack of completeness and perspective.
"As De Grandmaison remarks, 'it is the wisest method in these matters to
prefer an ounce of ancient information which is authentic to a bookful of
learned conjectures' [De Grandmaison, /ejuj Christ, I, 1935, p. 115]." 82/22,
23
Norman Pittenger declares:
"Let us take it for granted that all attempts to deny the historicity of Jesus
have failed." 100/89, 90
SA. IN SUMMARY
IB. Form Criticism assumes the New Testament portrays what the Church
believed to be true of Jesus, rather than what was true.
2B. The answer— Bultmann's conclusions concerning the historical inac-
curacy of the Gospels are unsound, for not even the Christian would be
interested in the end product of a Gospel taken out of its historical
framework.
IC. Luke proved himself to be habitually accurate.
2C. No other historical figure is attacked as Jesus is. Critics' views are not
impartial.
3C. Attempts to deny the historicity of Jesus have failed.
chapter 25
the
messianic
I secret theory.
Reginald Fuller poses the problem that is dealt with in this section:
"But what of the Messianic problem? Did Jesus claim to be Messiah? Did He possess a
'Messianic consciousness'? Form criticism had eliminated the Messianic categories
from the sayings of the historical Jesus on the ground that these categories reflect the
faith of the post-Easter church." 51/37
lA. THE MESSIANIC CONCEPT OF WREDE

Basil Redlich outlines Wrede's theory of the Messianic Secret:
"The diciples were not gradually educated to believe who Jesus was, and the
confession of Jesus as Messiah did not begin until after the Resurrection. This
belief in the Messiahship was the outcome of the experiences of that event, which
convinced the disciples that He was risen. The Messiahship was therefore not
revealed to anyone during the ministry and the idea of it was not revealed to
anyone before the Resurrection. Even Jesus did not believe He was the Messiah.
What we find in Mark is a theory imposed by Mark on the narrative." 101/20
A further development of this idea is commented on by Edgar McKnight. He
says that Wrede came up with the Messianic Secret concept. He states that
before the Resurrection no one supposed that Jesus was the Messiah, but af-
terwards He was interpreted in this way. Mark in his effort to overcome the non-
Messianic tradition attempted to harmonize the historical and dogmatic
elements by using the idea of an intentional secrecy of Jesus' Messiahship." 83/8
287
G. E. Ladd sheds more light on the subject when he says that Wrede's renowned
Messianic Secret theory holds that Jesus did not claim to be Messiah nor was His
mission Messianic. The Resurrection alone brought about belief in Jesus*
Messiahship, especially after the Resurrection when the Church read
Messiahship back into His life. The Church possessed a non-Messianic tradition,
which was embarrassing because it did hold a Messianic faith— hence, in order
to alleviate the embarrassment of this contradiction, the Messianic Secret was
created— that Jesus knew He was the Messiah, but kept this knowledge from His
disciples. 74/157
A modern day interpretation of the Messianic Secret is detailed by Martin
Stallman in his essay entitled, "Contemporary Interpretation of the Gospels as a
Challenge to Preaching and Religious Education":
"As is known, the confidence with which earlier investigators had hoped to
well
lay bare behind the Marcan Gospel a substratum of reliable historical in-
formation about Jesus was first shaken by W. Wrede's book, The Messianic
Secret of the Gospels (1901). He was the first to focus attention upon the
procedures of the second Evangelist, because he sought to explain the curious
way in which the latter incorporates the 'injunctions to silence' into his narrative.
No one whose attention has once been called to it can fail to be impressed by
what Wrede observed and then traced to the theory of the 'Messianic secret.' On
the one hand, the Evangelist unmistakably treats the career of Jesus as the arena
in which the final conflict between God and the demonic powers takes place. He
tells of exorcisms and healings in which this struggle is victoriously carried
through; even the so-called 'conflict narratives' (Mark 3:1-6, 22-30; 2:1-12),
which are connected with healing miracles and which culminate- in a saying of
Jesus, portray the same drama. On the other hand, wherever Jesus' authority
comes clearly into view, it is suppressed with a command to silence. Jesus does
not wish recognition as Messiah; he encounters profound misunderstanding not
only from the people but from his very disciples (4:40 f.; 6:52; 8:16 ff.; 9:10, 32).
Even his parables are intentionally enigmatic; they are aimed at rendering their
hearers obdurate, and they are explained only for the benefit of the disciples
(4: 10 ff ). This combination of the theme of the manifestation of Jesus' Messianic
authority with the motif of the Messianic secret imparts to the Evangelist's
presentation a uniquely contradictory flavor. The aptness of M. Dibelius*
characterization of the Gospel of Mark as 'a book of secret epiphanies' is widely
recognized.
"To explain features Wrede drew upon pragmatic historical con-
these
siderations. He
held that Mark needed to explain to his readers why Jesus was
believed to be the Messiah only after Easter; to meet this need, Mark put forth
the theory that Jesus himself did not wish to be recognized as Messiah and for
that reason had in fact not been. In actual fact, Jesus' earthly career had
possessed no observable Messianic traits. It was in the gospel account that his
activity on earth was first represented as that of the Son of God. In producing
this representation, however, Mark was not able without resulting contradiction
to combine the historical actualities of Jesus' career— and what was remembered
of them— with the conceptions of Jesus' Messianic authority which had in the
meantime become current in the Christian community." 178/238
2A. WREDE'S CONCEPT AS ELABORATED BY BULTMANN

Bultmann wonders about the consistency of the Messianic Secret:
"Itwas soon no longer conceivable that Jesus* life was unmessianic— at least in
the circles of Hellenistic Christianity in which the synoptics took form. That
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, should have legitimated himself as such even in his
earthly activity seemed self-evident, and so the gospel account of his ministry was
cast in the light of messianic faith. The contradiction between this point of view
and the traditional material finds expression in the theory of the Messiah-secret,
which gives the Gospel of Mark its peculiar character: Jesus functioned as the
Messiah, but his messiah-ship was to remain hidden until the resurrection (Mk.
9:9). The demons, who recognize him, are commanded to be quiet; silence is
also commanded after Peter's Confession (8:30), after the Transfiguration (9:9),
and after some of themiracles. The motif of the disciples* incomprehension
likewise serves the secrecy-theory: Though the disciples receive secret revelation,
they fail to understand it. Of course, this secrecy- theory, whose existence and
importance W. Wrede pointed out, was incapable of being consistently carried
through; hence the Gospel of Mark has been rightly characterized by the
paradoxical term, book of 'secret epiphanies' (Dibelius)." 24/32
To Bultmann there v/as a notable distinction to be made between Jesus' teaching
and the early Church's teaching:
'Jesus viewed himself only as the herald of the imminent end of the world,
announcing the coming of the heavenly Son of Man. The early church believed
that Jesus had been exalted to heaven and would himself be the Messianic Son of
Man in the coming kingdom." 75/13
Bultmann summarizes any Messianic purpose that Jesus might have had:
"He does not proclaim himself as the Messiah, i.e. the king of the time of
salvation, buthe points ahead to the Son of Man as another than himself. He in
his the demand for decision, insofar as his cry, as God's last
own person signifies
word before the End, calls men to decision." 24/9
The result of Bultmann's view is commented on by Herman Ridderbos. When
asked what remains of the Christ of the Apostles* Creed, Ridderbos quotes a
critic of Bultmann as concluding that Jesus Christ "was not conceived by the
Holy Ghost, not born of the Virgin Mary. He did suffer under Pontius Pilate, he
was crucified, he did not descend into hell and did not rise again on the third
day from the dead; he did not ascend into heaven and does not sit on the right
hand of God the Father, and will not come to judge the living and the dead."
102/27
3A. BASIC ANSWER

Concerning the tradition of the non-Messianic Jesus, Ladd says:
"The fact is that we do not have a non-messianic tradition. Such a 'neutral*
tradition is a purely hypothetical critical reconstruction, which rests on rather
flimsy evidence." 74/158
T. W. Manson, a recent British critic, ads to the above: "The farther we travel
along the Wredestrasse, Wrede Avenue, the clearer it becomes that it is the road
to nowhere." 154/216
Filson concurs with Ladd about the tradition, when he adds a comment about
the impossibility of the apostles creating the title of Messiah for Jesus:
"A second example of the respect paid the tradition is found in the way that the
title 'Son of man' is frequently used in all the Gospels, and always by Jesus alone,
while in the rest of the New Testament the title is used but once of him outside of
the Gospels (Acts 7:56). This is so clear and unanimous a testimony that all
attempts to say the apostolic age first brought this title into use are futile and
unreasonable. They did not originate it; it was not their spontaneous way of
referring to him; they did know that it was a favorite expression of Jesus himself."
47/108. 109
Montgomery follows the same line of thought with this conclusion:
"Moreover, were these early followers of Jesus psychologically or tem-

peramentally capable of carrying out such a deification process? Certainly they,
no less than Jesus himself, were then charlatans or psychotics. Yet the picture of
them in the documents is one of practical, ordinary people, down- to earth

fishermen, hardheaded tax gatherers, etc., and people with perhaps more than
the usual dose of skepticism. Think of Peter returning to his old way of life after
Jesus' death; think of 'doubting' Thomas. Hardly the kind of men to be swept off
their feet into mass hallucination of technicolor proportions." 87/71 72 ,
4A. IN SUMMARY
IB. The form critic says the Messianic Concept was created by Jesus' followers.
Not even Jesus believed He was the Messiah. Bultmann says Jesus "points
ahead to the Son of Man as another than Himself." (24/9)
2B. The answer —
IC. Jesus, Not His disciples, uses the title "Son of Man" in the Gospels.
2C. The disciples lives show they were practical, ordinary men, not charlatans
or psychotics.
chapter 26
• •
gnosticism
lA. BULTMAN'S DEFINITION
G. E. Ladd interprets Bultmann as saying that Gnosticism gave rise to the
concept of the existence of a "redeemer of man." The concept of a heavenly
redeemer who comes from the realm of light to the fallen world to release man
and restore him to light does not factually reflect the Gospels nor is it distinctly
and uniquely Christian. It is a Gnostic myth which developed in oriental dualism
beforejesus ever lived. 75/17
Bultmann gives his own description of a Gnostic redeemer:
"Redemption comes from the heavenly world. Once more a light-person sent by
the highest god, indeed the son and 'image' of the most high, comes down from
the light-world bringing Gnosis. He 'wakes' the sparks of light who have sunk
into sleep or drunkenness and 'reminds' them of their heavenly home. He
teaches them concerning their superiority to the world and concerning the
attitude they are to adopt toward the world. He dispenses the sacraments by
which they are to purify themselves and fan back to life their quenched light-
power or at least strengthen its weakened state— by which, in other words, they
are 'reborn.' He teaches them about the heavenly journey they will start at death
and communicates to them the stations of this journey— past the demonic
watchmen of the starry spheres. And going ahead he prepares the way for them,
the way which he, the redeemer himself, must also take to be redeemed. For here
on earth he does not appear in divine form, but appears disguised in the gar-
ment of earthly beings so as not to be recognized by the demons. In so ap-
291
pearing, he takes upon himself the toil and misery of earthly existence and has to
endure contempt and persecution until he takes his leave and is elevated to the
world of light." 24/167
Ladd explains Bultmann's attempt to relate Gnostic and New Testament
thought patterns:
"At this point Bultmann makes his biggest leap. He postulates a conflation of the
mystery redemption myth and the Gnostic myth as background for New
Testament thought. The idea of a dying and rising cult deity (mystery religions)
was conflated with the idea of a heavenly redeemer who comes to earth to save
fallen man (Gnostic religion). These two were in turn added to the Jewish myth
of a heavenly Son of Man. Out of this threefold conflation of Jewish apocalyptic,
mystery, and Gnostic myths emerged the syncretistic figure of a heavenly being
who comes from the realm of light to bring men the knowledge of God
(Gnostic), who dies and rises again (mystery), who ascends to heaven and will
come again as the Son of Man to break off history and inaugurate the Kingdom
of God (Jewish apocalyptic)." 74/205
The following is a list of discoveries of Gnostic sources compiled by W. F.
Albright:
"Our last category of outstanding discoveries carries down into the Christian era
and may seem too late to be of significance for biblical studies. First comes the
discovery in 1930 of seven Manichean codices composed in part by Mani,
founder of this Gnostic sect, in the third century A.D., translated into Coptic
soon afterwards and copied for us by fourth-century scribes. The publication,
chiefly due to the talent of H. J. Polotsky, began in 1934 and was interrupted in
1940 by the war. Before this our only firsthand knowledge of Manichean
literature came from fragments translated into Central Asiatic languages and
discovered in Turkestan by German explorers before the First World War. Now
we have a mass of original material, which among other things, establishes the
secondary character of Mandeanism in relation to Manicheism; the former has
been regarded by many scholars as in part older than the Gospel of John.
"In 1947 a second, even more remarkable, discovery of Gnostic books was made
in Egypt, this time a lot of some forty treatises bound together in codices, at
Chenoboscium (Chenoboskion) in Upper Egypt. These books are also in Coptic;
the extant copies date from the third and fourth centuries and the original
Greek works from which they were translated must go back to the second and
third centuries. We have here for the first time the original writings of the
strange early Gnostic groups called the Barbelo Gnostics, the Ophites, Sethians,
and others, as well as several Hermetic treatises. At last we can control and
expand the information given us by Hippolytus, Irenaeus, and Epiphanius
about these early Gnostics and their beliefs. The new documents will have ex-
traordinary significance in connection with the debate about the alleged Gnostic
affinities of the Gospel of John. Fortunately all (or nearly all) of these codices
have been acquired by the Egyptian government, and it is to be hoped that they
will be published before long. Meanwhile we have very reliable information
from the first student of these texts, Jean Doresse." 157/540, 541
2A. ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY RELATING TO GNOSTIC, JUDAISTIC,

AND "EARLY aVILIZATION" THOUGHT PATTERNS
IB. According to Martin Dibelius
Dibelius compares the style of the Gospels' rendition of Christ's healing power
to secular renditions. He compares the Gospels' inclusion of the severity of the
illness and the technique of the miracle that Christ used to such secular
renditions of other thaumaturges in the Talmud or antiquities. 36/82, 83
Dibelius notes use of Judaism's traditions in the origins of Christianity:
Halakha— "the tradition of rules concerning life and worship"

1.)
Haggada— "the tradition of historical and theological material" 36/28
2.)
2B. According to Rudolf Bultmann

Gnosticism came from the Orient, and then developed side-by-side with the
Christian religion, influencing it in many ways. Or so theorizes Bultmann:
"Gnosticism is not a phenomenon that first appeared within the Christian
Church. It cannot be described as a speculative Christian theology under the
influence of Greek philosophical tradition. It is not properly regarded as the
'acute Hellenization' of Christianity, as Hamack in his time supposed. It has
its roots in a dualistic redemption-religion which invaded Hellenism from the
orient. Seen as a whole, it is a phenomenon parallel or competitive to the
Christian religion. Each of these movements, the Gnostic and the Christian,
influenced the other in many ways, but of that we shall have to speak later on.
At any rate, there was very soon a Christian Gnosticism which, in its radical
form, completely rejected the Old Testament, thus constituting the most
extreme of the possibilities to be surveyed; that is why it is here named first."
24/109.110
He goes on to say:
"But sometimes Christianity and Gnosticism combined. On the whole, one
could be tempted to term Hellenistic Christianity a syncretistic structure. The
only reason one may not do so is that it is not just a conglomerate of
heterogeneous materials; in spite of all its syncretism in detail it retains from
its origin an inherent drive toward an independent understanding, all its own,
of God, world, and man. But the question is: Will this drive triumph and
achieve clear form in a genuinely Christian theology?" 24/164, 165
Professor Bultmann stresses the relationship of Gnosticism to Christianity:
"Now it must be carefully noted that in all this is combatted not as
Gnosticism
if it were a foreign, heathen religion into which Christians are in danger of
apostatizing. Rather, it is only dealt with so far as it is a phenomenon within
Christianity And it is also clear that the Gnostics here oppwsed by no means
regard the Christian congregations as a mission field which they want to
convert from Christianity to Gnosticism. Rather, they consider themselves
Christians teaching a Christian wisdom— and that is the way they appear to
the churches, too....
"At first. Gnosticism probably penetrated into the Christian congregations
mostly through the medium of a Hellenistic Judaism that was itself in the grip
of syncretism. "24/170, 171
Ridderbos comments on the Gnostic and Greek myths and their relation to
Jesus as viewed by some critics:
"Here the Old Testament idea of a king or the Hellenistic conception of a

divine essence was not developed as strongly as the mysterious, miraculous
power over which Jesus had command, and which placed him upon the same
niveau, in the consciousness of the Christian church, as the well-known
Hellenistic miracle workers who also called themselves 'Sons of God,' and were
thought of as intermediary beings, God-men, or heroes. These God-men were
viewed as the product of a mixture of a divine and a human essence. They
appear not only in the Greek tradition but also in the Babylonian, and
especially in the Egyptian legends of the kings.
"Later on, however, this conception of Jesus as a divine man is entirely sur-
passed by the previously mentioned conception according to which Jesus was a
self-sufficient or an independent divine being who descended from the
heavens. This latter conception receives its particular form not from the old
Greek religions but from the later pre-Christian gnosticism, according to
which a pre-existent divine being came upon the earth in order to conduct the
conflict or struggle against the powers of darkness." 102/13, 14
3A. THE EFFECTS OF GNOSTICISM ON CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

Bultmann distinguishes a so-called "apparent" Gnostic influence in the Gospels:
"It Gnostic language when Satan is called 'the god of this world' (aiwfos) (II
is
Cor. 4:4), the 'ruler of this world" (Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). 'the prince of the
power of the air' (Eph. 2:2), or 'the ruler of this Aeon' (Ign. Eph. 19:1). Both in
name and meaning 'the rulers of this age' who brought 'the Lord of glory' to the
cross (I Cor. 2:6,8) are figures of Gnostic mythology— viz. those demonic world-
rulers who are also meant by the terms 'angels,' 'principalities,' 'authorities,'
'powers' (Rom. 8:38f.; I Cor. 15:24. 26; Col. 1:16; 2:10, 15; Eph. 1:21; 3:10;
6:12; I Pet. 3:22) and are at least included in the 'many gods and many lords' of
I Cor. 8:4. As in Gnosticism, they are conceived to be in essence star-spirits; as
such they are called 'elemental spirits of the universe' (Gal. 4:3. 9; c£ Col. 2:8,
20) who govern the elapse and division of time (Gal. 4:10). Also Gnostic are the
'world rulers of this present darkness' and the 'spiritual hosts of wickedness in the
heavenly places' (i.e. in the region of air, the lower sphere of the firmament,
Eph. 6:12).
"Aside from the terms for mythological figures, the terminology in which
dualism is expressed shows extensive Gnostic influence. This is most apparent in
John, whose language is governed by the antithesis 'light — darkness.'" 24/173
Bultmann professes a decided existential influence upon man as a result of
Gnosticism:
"For Christian missions, the Gnostic movement was a competitor of the most
seriousand dangerous sort because of the far-reaching relatedness between
them. For the essence of Gnosticism does not lie in its syncretistic mythology but
rather in a new understanding— new in the ancient world— of man and the
world; its mythology is only the expression of this understanding. Whereas to
—
ancient man the world had been home in the Old Testament as God's creation,
to classic Greece as the cosmos pervaded by the deity— the utter difference of
human existence from all worldly existence was recognized for the first time in
Gnosticism and Christianity, and thus the world became foreign soil to the
human self; in fact, in Gnosticism, his prison." 24/165
Bultmann presents another reference to Gnostic thought and its effect on the
Christian community's idea of salvation:
"While in the presentation of Luke- Acts this paradox was resolved in favor of a
theology of history which knows only a history of salvation unrolling as world
history... it was also resolved in another direction by sacrificing from the
kerygma its reference to the historical occurrence. This happened in Gnosticism.
In it the occurrence of salvation is understood with a consistent one-sidedness as
transcendental, and, in consequence of divorcing it from history, the occurrence
of salvation becomes mythical. Unlike heathen Gnosticism, Christian
Gnosticism naturally could not give up all connection with the historical person
Jesus and thus transplant the occurrence of salvation into a mythical past. But it
did surrender the historical reality of the Redeemer when it denied the identity
of the Son of God with the historical Jesus by teaching either that the Son of God
only temporarily — from the baptism of Jesus, say— united with the human Jesus
and then left him before the passion, or that the Redeemer's human form was
only seemingly a body (docetism)." 25/126, 127
Bultmann claims that the "powers beyond" come to the present as a result of
gnosticism:
"In the sacramental Church eschatology is not abandoned, but it is neutralized
in so far as the powers of the beyond are already working in the present. The
t
interest in eschatology diminishes. And for this there is the further peculiar
reason that the cosmic drama, which was expected in the future, was thought of
as having in a certain sense already happened. The influence of the gnostic
mythology was effective here. The Gnostics believed that, although there is to be
an end of the world, the decisive event has already happened in that the
heavenly Saviour came into this world and then left it and so prepared a way to
the heavenly world of light for his adherents. His descent and ascent are combat
with and victory over the hostile cosmic powers, which have incarcerated the
heavenly sparks of light in human souls and then obstruct their way back into
the heavenly home." 20/54
Bultmann further elaborates:
"Insofar as Christian preaching remained true to the tradition of the Old
Testament and Judaism and of the earliest Church, definitive contrasts between
it and Gnosticism are straightway apparent. In harmony with that tradition the
Christian message did by and large hold to the idea that the world is the creation
of the one true God, and hence that the creator-God and the redeemer-God are
one. That immediately results in a contrast in anthropology. For in the
genuinely Christian view, man is, body and soul, the creature of God, and no
pre-existent spark of heavenly light — as if that were his real being— is to be
distinguished from his psychosomatic existence. Hence, that division between
those who bear the spark of light within, the 'spiritual ones' (who, Gnostically
speaking, aiefvaeiawyouevoi: 'by nature saved') and the mere 'men of soul' or
'men of flesh' who lack the heavenly self, was not considered a priori to run
through all mankind, though this Gnostic differentiation was taken over in
another way. Correspondingly, a contrast in eschatology persists almost con-
sistently, insofar as the Christian proclamation does not know the idea of the
heavenly journey of the self made possible by Gnosis and sacraments, but does
teach the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment." 24/168
Dibelius puts forth a form critical view of how the tradition of Jesus developed
eventually to its end stage oi gnosis:
"And further, right at the beginning of the history of primitive Christian
literature, there stood a tradition of an unliterary nature, consisting of short
narratives and striking sayings, which were repeated for practical purposes.
Those who gather them gradually try not only to give their context, but also to
interpret them and indeed, to make their point of view explicit. Thus it comes
about at length that the mythological element takes charge of the entire
material of evangelical history. But this also corresponds to the general
development of primitive Christianity which passes from a historical person to
his formal worship and finally to the cosmic mythological Christ of Gnosis, and
to ecclesiastical Christology." 36/287, 288
4A. BASIC ANSWER

IB. The Evidence Against a Gnostic Influence
W. F. Albright questions the veracity of Gnostic influence on Christianity:
"The New Testament, according to many scholars, exhibits pronounced
gnostic features, and in fact is unintelligible, historically speaking, unless
understood against a gnostic background. Gnostics believed that salvation
came through esoteric mysteries, 'gnosis,* a mysterious, superhuman,
enigmatic knowledge, which was hidden from ordinary men. Now these
scholars claimed that there was a pre-Christian gnosticism, and that this is
best illustrated by the books of the Mandaeans, the so-called Christians of
John the Baptist, who still survive in Iraq on the lower Tigris. This is rather a
surprising claim, since, although John the Baptist is their great hero, the
Mandaeans consider Jesus as their great demon or devil, and are bitterly
hostile to both Christianity and Judaism." 2/40
Albright continues his attack:

"In fact, two discoveries have now proved this theory to be entirely wrong.
The first is the Dead Sea Scrolls. The second is the Chenoboskion papyri."
2/41
He notes:
"Before this discovery, nothing was known about the early gnostics except
what was preserved in the writings of the specialists in heresies, the so-called
heresiographers, notably Irenaeus of Lyons (late second century), Hippolytus
and Epiphanius in the fourth century." 2/41
(early third century),
Finally he tells of the archaeological finds confirming the reliability of the

Church fathers as opposed to the gnostics:
"The gnostics were believed by many scholars to be fairly orthodox
Christians— the church fathers were said to have exaggerated their diver-
gences. We now know that the church fathers were very reliable. They did not
tell us everything by any means, but what they did tell us has been confirmed
in large part by these new finds, and nothing of what they said has been shown
to be wrong. This is just what we should expect, since they would have played
directly into the hands of the gnostics, if they had misrepresented them. On
the other side, there is no evidence today for pre-Christian gnosticism." 2/42
2B. The Inconsistencies of Dibelius and Bultmann
Dibelius notes that there is infrequent use of "Legend" in the Canonical
Gospels even though its use is prevalent in the apocryphal Gospels. What little
"Legend" is used is a result of accession from outside the Christian world and
sparse use seems to indicate that as Dibelius puts it:
"That is a sign that the tradition of Jesus was at first closed to accessions from
the 'world' and was only open to them when Christianity itself entered further
into that world.'" 35/45
Dibelius' question is, if the tradition of Jesus was at first closed to accessions
from the outside world, how could pagan mysteries and miracles and Gnostic
heresies have had such a dominant effect on the Gospel as is noted by both
Dibelius and Bultmann? 35/45, 46
In reference to Bultmann's pre-Christian era hypothesis of a Gnostic personal
redeemer Ladd says that "there is no clear evidence that the concept of a
Gnostic heavenly redeemer ever existed in the pre-Christian era; and the
hypothesis of a conflation of the Gnostic and the mystery religion myths is
equally tenuous." 75/48
Finally, Ladd questions Bultmann concerning another problem:
"The religionsgeschichtliche reconstruction will show the need of thorough
historical scholarship Bultmann holds that Jesus was finally interpreted in
the Gentile world in terms of the Gnostic mythology of a pre-existent heavenly
redeemer who descends to earth to deliver men imprisoned in the realm of
fallen matter and to lead them back to the realm of light where they belong.
It is, however, a fact that none of the ancient sources knows of such a heavenly
redeemer in pre-Christian times [R. McL. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem.
(London: Mowbray, 1958), p. 217]. Such -^n alleged figure is a critical
hypothesis derived from post-Christian sources which were influenced by
Christian faith. The historical fact is that 'there is no hint of the figure of the
redeemer in any non-Christian Gnostic source' [Hugh Anderson, ye5iz5 and
Christian Origins. (New York: Oxford, 1964), p. 52]. One of the main
foundations of Bultmann's historical reconstruction is without firm historical
support." 74/210
One of the best books on Gnosticism is The Gnostic Problem by Robert M. Wilson.
i
Wilson writes that "to the Christian . the primary ideas are the forgiveness of sins,
. .
reconciliation with God [by the 'redeemer'], and eternal life, the first two of which are
not known to the Gnostic." 185/217 To this Wilson adds that "there are similarities
and differences, but in the end Gnosticism is fundamentally un-Christian and un-
Jewish." 185/218
A book that should be consulted for further research on Gnosticism is Pre-Christian
Gnosticism by Edwin M. Yamauchi. This work is a survey of the proposed evidence for
pre-Christian Gnosticism.
5A. IN SUMMARY
IB. Form Criticism says the heavenly redeemer concept originated with the
Gnostics, not the Christians. Gnosticism influenced much of the Christian
theology and terminology.
2B. The answer
IC. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Chenoboskion papyri show that Christianity
could not possibly be a product of Gnostic thought.
2C. The liberal argument is inconsistent —
it says early tradition was "closed to
accessions from the outside world" (35/45, 46), but then says the early
tradition was open to Gnostic influence.
3C. Gnosticism is fundamentally un-Christian and un-Jewish. How could it
then be incorporated into Christianity?

chapter 27
conclusion
to form
criticism-
Every critical method or study has its pros and cons, its contributions and short-
comings.
This section gives some of the contributions and limitiations of the "Form Critical"
approach.
lA. CONTRIBUTION OF FORM CRITICISM
B. S. Easton highlights a contribution made through the form critical study
when he concludes:
"Form-study brings us into contact with the earliest Christian pedagogy, and so
should prove a fruitful field of study, particularly in the light it will throw on the
early Palestinian Christian interests. This is reason enough to give the new
discipline our full attention." 44/77
Barker, Lane, and Michaels establish the following contributions of Form

Criticism:
1) "It helps immeasurably in the appreciation of the distinctive style

and structure of synoptic tradition. The form of the written Gospels
essentially mirrors that of the oral tradition which preceded them.
2) "It is neither possible nor necessary to demand a complete har-

monization of the chronologies of the different Gospels. Con-
sequently the Gospel narratives are grouped according to a variety of
patterns.
299
SOO MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT
3) "Form some otherwise perplexing variations

criticism helps explain
in parallel accounts of the same incident. A detail omitted by one
evangelist may be included by another because it carries for him a
certain relevance with respect to the situation out of which he writes."
5/70
Some other results are noted by Floyd Filson:
"It is true that the gospel tradition was orally preserved for a time. It is also true
that this early period was of the greatest importance for the dependability of all
later forms of the tradition, and therefore merits our closest scrutiny.
"It is true that small units of tradition, whether teaching tradition or narrative
material, were known and utilized for practical purposes as occasion demanded.
It may also be accepted as reasonable that typical incidents or utterances were
preserved, and in some cases these units may have been composite.
"Beyond question it is true that the surviving gospel material is but a very small
portion of the total amount that might have been preserved. It is likewise true
that the selection of what was to survive was governed largely by practical in-
terests connected with the faith and life of the Church. Just as a preacher in our
day will remember particularly those features of an address or book which affect
his own life, thinking, and preaching, so the memory of those early Christians
was much governed by their needs and interests.
"It is also true that the needs of guidance, instruction, worship, and controversy
were prominent influences in this v;hole process, and that the
attitude of those
who transmitted the tradition was not that of the research fellow or detached
biographer. And this means that to some extent even a careful and cautious
critical study of the Gospels will see reflected in them the life of the primitive
Church, for the interests and problems of the early Christians can be inferred
from them." 47/103-105
Another important aspect, as New Testament scholar Harold W. Hochner has
pointed out, is that form criticism has focused our attention on the oral period.
7/NP
Steven Travis agrees:
"Form criticism has helped us, however tentatively, to penetrate into the "tunnel
period" between A.D. 30 and 50, before any of our New Testament documents
were written down. For instance, it has given us clues about methods of
preaching and teaching among the early Christians, and about their debates
with Jewish opponents. 6/161
One important conclusion of form critical study is contributed by Mounce:
"Form is a good reminder of the nature of Jesus' teaching: its con-
Criticism
ciseness and
wide applicability. What we have in the Gospels is a select body
its
of teaching capable of universal application." 144
Two important conclusions of Form Criticism are revealed by Redlich:
(1) "Form Criticism by admitting that collections of saying were made
early has pointed to the possibility that the ipsissima verba ['exact
words'] of our Lord were treasured as orarles to guide and control the
destinies of individuals and of the Church.
(2) "Form Criticism has stimulated the study of Gospel origins, and its
method of research and investigation may lead to a wider scientific
study in the future." 101/79
2A. LIMITATIONS OF FORM CRITICISM

Basil Redlich summarizes the limitations of the Form Critical technique:
1) "Classification should be according to form and nothing else, as in
Apothegm-Stories, Miracle-Stories and Parables. Where forms do

not exist, classification according to contents is not Form Criticism.
2) "Form-less groups should not be given historical value-judgments
before investigation. Also where a type or form does not exist, no
historical valuation can be justified. Form Criticism should in-
vestigate the forms of the tradition, explain the forms, and attempts
to trace the development of forms and of forms only.
5) "Form Criticism has not made adequate use of the results of Literary
Criticism of the Gospels, e.g., the dating of the documentary sources
of the synoptic gospels, and the connexion of these sources with the
great centres of Christendom
4) "Form Criticism in stressing the influence of the primitive com-

munity is blind to the influence of Jesus as a Rabbi and a prophet. On
the one hand, it makes the community a creative body, of which
there is little or no trace in the New Testament. The primitive

Christians were not all Rabbis nor all Solomons. On the other hand,
it is not recognized that Jesus was not a teacher who perpetually
repeated the same maxims or memorized addresses which He

delivered without variation. He is likely to have repeated the same
saying in different form and constantly varied His discourses. Also
variations in the Gospels may have been due to fuller information.
Matthew and Luke and John, who composed their Gospels after
Mark, would have been able to revise the narrative from further
knowledge.
5) "Form Criticism neglects far too much the presence of eyewitnesses in
the formative period and their ability to check the tradition and to
safeguard it.
6) "Form Criticism neglects the evidence of second-century and later

writers.
7) "Form Criticism has not clearly defined the extent of the formative
period.
8) "Form Criticism has unjustifiably assumed that the contexts and

settings and chronological details are of no historical or biographical
value.
9) "Form Criticism is not justified in assuming that analogy is a guide to

the historical truth of their legends and myths.
10) "Form Criticism in evaluating the vital factors does not take account
of all the varied interests of the early Church.
11) "Form Criticism gives a wide scope for subjective treatment and to
this its supporters are partial.
12) "Form Criticism overlooks the undoubted fact that the primitive
Church was willing to suffer and die for its belief in Jesus and the
power of His name. Jesus was a real Jesus and their Christ, Who had
proved Himself by His deeds and His teaching.
13) "Form Criticism by too great an emphasis on the expected Parousia
has lost sight of the normal life which men lived though the Parousia
was held to be imminent." 101/77, 78
McGinley comments on the defects in Form Criticism developed by Bultmann
and Dibelius, as he states:
"It has failed to work out a position in independence of the Two-Source theory
[140/51]. It has neglected the essential differences between the Gospels and
Kleinliteratur. It has accepted the discredited theory of collective creation and
applied it to a community in which it did not and could not exist. It has
mistaken simplicity of style for patchwork compilation. Forms have been too
sharply defined and at the price of much excision of the text. A Sitz im Leben
has been sought in every phase of primitive Christian life except the most im-
portant one: the Christian's desire to know the life of Jesus. Throughout, no
place is given to historical testimony; substance is neglected in preoccupation
with form; the controlling factor of time is disregarded; there is prejudice
against the historical value of the whole Gospel story." 82/154
One of the peripheral goals of radical form critics has been to establish a
historical Jesus authenticated through for analysis.
Form Criticism has contributed to the modern evangelical understanding of the
Gospels in a negative sense by failing in this quest. As G. E. Ladd summarizes:
"Form criticism has failed to discover a purely historical Jesus." 74/157
F. J. Babcock concludes:
"But when by using this evidence we have been enabled to penetrate some little
way into the mind
of the early converts and their teachers, we find that whole
basis of the form criticism theory has been dissolved and has vanished. It is
ingenious, it is to some extent plausible, there are suggestions that it might
contain fragments of truth. So it was with the Tubingen theory, and there is no
reason to doubt that in a short time the theory of form criticism will share the
same fate." 3/20
Rogers states:
"The method assumes solutions to questions that are still open, such as the
source and synoptic questions. It assumes the validity of the two documentary
theory of Mark and Qas the basis for Matthew and Luke. The priority of Mark
is also assumed." 209/NP
A general impression by McGinley of Form Criticism:

"At best, much of what is true in form criticism is not new and much of what is
new is not true, still, at the worst, there is wheat in the chaff for the winnowing."
82/154
McGinley states his opinion of Bultmann's work:
"If, as Bultmann contends, Schmidt has destroyed the framework of the Gospel
story, then his successor has mutilated the picture itself beyond recognition, and
analysis has become annihilation." 82/68
In concluding, F. F. Bruce has a suggestion for the form critic:
"When painstaking work has been accomplished and the core of the
this
tradition authenticated as securely as possible, he will do well to stand back
among the rank and file of Gospel readers and, listening with them to the
witness of the Evangelists, join in acknowledging that this witness has the 'ring of
truth' [J. B. Phillips.
^ Ring of Truth: A Translator's Testimony (London,
1967)]." 17/57
^ J ^
y
chapter 28
an assessment
of the
historical
.critical
method
The documentary hypothesis and form criticism are facets of what is more broadly
known in theology as the historical-critical method. This method, which essentially
saw its birth as a child of the enlightenment, has attracted a strong following in
theological circles. It is the leading method by which liberal scholars (radical or
higher critics) study the Scripture in Europe and has taken an increasing toll on
American biblical scholarship as well.
Some evangelical leaders are quick to point out that this method has its strengths,
especially with regard to the importance of understanding the historical milieu in
which the document was written, as well as appraising the evidence critically; i.e.,
with scrutiny. This is certainly true and to be commended. Scripture must be
examined historically; i.e., in its historical background.
Scripture also must be examined critically. By this we mean, scrutinizing the text, we
must ascertain such things as its authorship, date of writing and the reliability and
accuracy of the text. For if the Scriptures are true, they will certainly stand the
scrutiny of scholarship.
However, the radical presuppositions of the historical-critical method are so tightly
bound up with this method, it is impossible to separate the form of the method (its
use) from its negative presuppositions or axioms. All methods have presuppositions,
yet as pointed out earlier in this work, the negative presuppositions of this method,
303
such as anti-supematuralisms, ipso-facto preclude an entire arena in testimony and

evidence (especially from the biblical text itself). So by "critically" the radical critic
who uses this method, not only means looking at the text with close scrutiny, but also
looking at it with a number of ill-founded presuppositions.
This method, when applied to the Scriptures has seen an ever widening gap between
those who expound it from the pulpit and the scholar's chair to those who attempt to
understand it and apply it in their lives, as students and laymen. This is for a number
of reasons.
One is due to its faulty presuppositions. If the supernatural is divorced from reality,
why listen to the Bible? It is just another natural book. Theology becomes no more
than religious humanism. Second, in recent years the historical-critical method has
become so complex in its method and scope that it can be used competently and
understood only by a limited number of educated specialists.
As a simplified example, the person who is hurting in his marriage may turn to the
Bible for help in rough times. As the couple contemplates divorce, they look over the
Scriptural injunctions and make some positive applications to help them weather the
storm as they rely on the bedrock of Scripture, only then to find out from their pastor
the next day: (1) it was not a miracle of a supernatural God to bring man and woman
together as the story recounts in Genesis, and (2) all the New Testament teaching on
divorce really did not come from Christ anyway. Some zealous Gospel writer just
penned his thoughts as they meshed with the community around him, and put them in
Jesus* mouth to lend authority to what is being said. After all, Jesus might have said it
anywayl No one would want to rely on that type of authority for his marriage.
Robin Scroggs, himself a liberal critic, in the Chicago Theological Seminary Register
in his article, "Beyond Criticism to Encounter: The Bible in the Post-Critical Age,"
makes this present observation with regard to the success and usefulness of the
historical-critical method.
"By placing the texts in their historical, political, sociological and economical con-
texts, people quickly get a glimpse of a human reality with which they can more easily
identify" 221/5
James A. Sanders, also a liberal critic, makes this evaluation of biblical criticisms:
"But as with most other such movements, this one, too, has created some problems:
there apparently came a point when its produce more negative than
work seemed to
positive results for the ongoing believing communities. The charge that biblical
scholarship has locked the Bible into the past and rendered it irrelevant has been
made with increasing volume since the demise of neo-orthodox theology."
Walter Wink, another liberal critic, in his book The Bible in Human
Transformation, categorically asserts, "The historical-critical method has reduced the
Bible to a dead letter." 223/4
O. C. Edwards summarizes Wink's analysis of the historical -critical method and
states:
"It produces a trained incapacity to deal with the real problems of actural living
persons in their daily lives." 224/116
Itmust be noted, although it cannot be elaborated on here, that not all of those who
believe the historical-critical method is presently a liability believe it should be
scrapped altogether. Many call for a major overhaul. However, no overhaul will be of
benefit until their presuppositions are altered.
chapter 29.
redaction
criticism
Within the last 50 years a new discipline has developed known as Redaction Criticism.
This new approach finds its roots in the form critical method, and depends to some
extent on its methodology. As with New Testament form criticism, Redaction
Criticism up to this point has had its primary focus on the synoptic Gospels rather
than on Pauline or Johannine writings. However, unlike form criticism which focuses
on the period of oral transmission, the redaction critical method centers on the
Gospels themselves.
This method adds a new dimension to New Testament criticism, that of the sitzem-
leben of the author. The writers of the Gospels are not seen simply as compilers of
different forms, but rather as authors in their own right. They are as men who
carefully orchestrated a literary symphony using the Gospel "form" pioneered by the
evangelist Mark. The Gospel writers are seen as both theological composers and
redactors putting together primarily a literary and theological work, not a historical
one.
Redaction criticism seeks to determine the theological viewpoint of the evangelist who
wrote the Gospel. The critics attempt to ascertain what sources or accounts did the
Gospel writers choose and why, and where these are fitted together in his particular
account (known as "seams"). The critics want to find the specific theological "glue"
the authors used to build their Gospels.
But as the redaction critic attempts to determine why each author chose to develop his
Gospel as he did, he completely ignores the author's own claims and reasons for
writing. The critics also do not view the Gospels as historical accounts in any accepted
305
sense of the idea. The critics pass judgment on the documents before they are allowed
to speak for themselves.
A short presentation of the tenets of redaction criticism follows:

lA. DEFINITIONS
IB. The authors are seen as active rather than passive instruments in the
development of the Gospels. Gunther Bornkamm comments:
"The Synoptic writers show— all three and each in his own special way— by
their editing and construction, by their selection, inclusion and omission, and
not least by what at first sight appears an insignificant, but on closer
examination is seen to be a characteristic treatment of the tradttional
material, that they are by no means mere collectors and handers-on of the
tradition, but are also interpreters of it." 189/11
2B. Norman Perrin defines redaction criticism this way:

"It concerned with studying the theological motivation of an author as this
is
is revealed in the collection, arrangement, editing, and modification of
traditional material, and in the composition of new material or the creation

of new forms within the traditions of early Christianity." 191/1
He then adds:
"The prime requisite for redaction criticism is the ability to trace the form
and content of material used by the author concerned or in some way to
determine the nature and extent of his activity in collecting and creating, as
well as in arranging, editing and composing." 191/2
3B. Stephen Smalley, in his essay, "Redaction Criticism," from New

Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, explains
Redaction Criticism this way:
"The term 'redaction' in Gospel criticism describes the editorial work carried
out by the evangelists on their sources when they composed the Gospels. It has
been suggested by Ernst Haenchen that 'composition criticism' would better
describe the study of this process."
Smalley further describes the difference between "redaction criticism" and
"composition criticism":
"Although they are close together, they are strictly speaking different
disciplines. One(redaction criticism) is the study of the observable changes
introduced by the Gospel writers into the traditional material they received
and used. The other (composition criticism) examines the arrangement of this
material, an arrangement which is motived by the theological understanding
and intention of the evangelists. And some scholars expand the term 'com-
position' in this context to include the construction of wholly new sayings by
the Gospel writers, which are then (so it is claimed) attributed by them to
Jesus.
"It is possible that in the future composition criticism will need to be
distinguished from redaction criticism, just as redaction criticism is currently

distinguished from form criticism. But meanwhile, and for convenience, the
term'redaction criticism' can be understood as the detection of the evangelists'
creative contribution in all its aspects to the Christian tradition which they
transmit." 194/181
2A. PURPOSE
Integrally related to the purpose of redaction criticism is its relation to form
criticism
IB. Purpose
As with form criticism, redaction criticism seeks to uncover the traditions
regarding Jesus Christ. Yet according to the redaction critics, the discipline of
form criticism had overlooked an important point. Robert Stein comments:
"As a result the form critics forgot that the individual Gospels are also units
which demand consideration and must be investigated as individual entities.
This error was due in part to the fact that the form critics looked upon the
Gospel writers as merely collectors or Sammler. They were only'scissors and
paste men' who assembled together the various pericopes. As a result the first
three books of the NT were viewed not as 'gospels' but as 'pericope collec-
tions.' Form critics therefore felt justified in treating each pericope as an
individual gem. Each bit of tradition was treated as a separate pearl and
carefully analyzed. But what of the setting into which these gems were placed?
The form critics overlooked the fact that the setting provided by the
evangelists gave a distinct appearance to these gems. They overlooked the fact
that these pearls of tradition were strung together in a particular manner and
revealed a particular design. 193/45-46
Ralph Martin ampHfies the above:
"Put simply, the aim and intention of a redaktionsgeschtlich treatment of the
gospels is concerned to upturn by reversal of Harvyns and Davey that 'the
evangelist write as historians and not as theologians.' The evidence adduced in
support of this reversal which turns the gospel writers into theologians lies in
the Tendenz of the gospel material, that is, in the reason why certain in-
cidents are included in just the ways they are and couched in the particular
language used." 192/46-47
Joachim Rohde in Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists comments:

"The most important discovery of redaction criticism which goes beyond form
criticism is that it is not the gospels as a whole which must be claimed as
composite material but only their content, whilst the redaction of it, that is to
say, its grouping, its composition and arrangement into a definite
geographical and chronological framework with quite definite theological
viewpoints, must be regarded as the work of the evangelist. This investigation
of redaction criticism into the gospel as a whole led to the realization that the
evangelists' choice of material, the order in which they placed what they had
collected, especially the arrangement of their compositions, and the
alterations they made in the traditional matter, are all determined by their
theology; in other words, the evangelists did their work as theologians and
from theological viewpoints." 195/14-15
Thus the major purpose of redaction criticism is to determine what
theological viewpoints shaped the Gospel writers' thinking and how did their
doctrine guide them in writing, collecting and arranging their Gospel. All
this is undertaken to ascertain what the Gospel writers have to say to us today.
2B . Relationship to Form Criticism
Redaction criticism those arose out of the need to fill a void left by form
criticism. Yet the two disciplines, although different, are distinctly related.
Smalley elucidated:
"Why is it necessary at all in the study of the Gospels to move beyond form
criticism into redaction criticism? Since both disciplines are concerned with
the editing and shaping of the tradition about Jesus, although at different
stages, need they be separated? The answer to these questions is straight-
forward. There is an important difference between the approaches of form
criticism and redaction criticism in the method used and the conclusions
reached, as well as in the fact that they are concerned with different stages in
the history of the Christian tradition.
"Form criticism (especially in its older versions) tends to view the Gospels as
collections of material which originated as independent units (an assumption

that itself needs qualification), and the evangelists as little more than 'scissors
and paste men' who gathered these units together with a special interpretative
slant in mind. Redaction criticism, on the other hand, looks at the Gospels as
complete documents, and sees the evangelists as individual theologians (even
'authors') in their ovm right. Form criticism deals with the origins of the
Gospel tradition, redaction criticism with its later stages.
"Redaction criticism thus builds on redaction criticism, in the sense that
form-critical method enables us to detect the '.'ork of the evangelists them-
selves more clearly. The newer discipline of redaction criticism moves away
from form criticism, however, in that it sets out to discover the theological
uniqueness of the evangelists in relation to their sources. To this extent
redaction criticism is not a real part of form criticism. But once the two have
been separated, it is important to notice that redaction criticism does not then
become simply a study of 'the theology' of the evangelists. It is rather a
consideration of the creative way in which these writers have handled their
sources at the final stages of composition." 194/182
3A. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
IB. Background
In the nineteenth century the old quest for the historical Jesus was taking
place. The movement was initiated by the works of H. S. Reimanus published
posthumously by G. Lessing. Reimanus believed the Gospel accounts were
colored by the news of the disciples. He held to a rationalistic base and
believed that the resurrection accounts were contradictory and not part of
Christ's teaching.
Later, D. F. Strauss, with the publication of his Life of Jesus, Critically

Examined, touched off a strong debate as he contended that the truth of the
historical Jesus was shrouded in myth. The quest for the historical Jesus
continued, however, as the critics attempted to reconstruct the liberal lives of
Christ. Many of these men held to a rationalistic, objective view of history,
that Jesus was no more than an ordinary man, and historical (non-
supernatural) evidence could be found to reconstruct his life. These men also
held the historicity of the Markan account in fairly high esteem (seen through
their rational presuppositions), believing the Gospels presented basically an
historical picture, especially Mark, the first Gospel written.
The factors which contributed to the demise of the old quest also served as a
foundation for the eventual rise of redaction criticism. One such factor was
William Wrede's The Messianic Secret. Wrede's book served to shatter the
idea that Mark was historically accurate in his approach (see page 277).
Wrede believed Mark wrote from a personal rather than historical viewpoint.
Perrin comments on Wrede's contribution:
"So far as the development of redaction criticism is concerned, Wrede's thesis
opened the way for the study of the dogmatic ideas and theological con-
ceptions that were at work in the tradition. The study of these ideas and
conceptions is the task of redaction criticism, and Wrede's work on the
Messianic Secret is in many ways the first product of this discipline." 191/12
As mentioned earlier, form criticism served as the historical base for redaction
criticism. As the Gospels were studied using the form critical approach, the
need to consider the
Gospel writers as authors rather than simply collectors
became a major concern. Another important work anticipating this
viewpoint was R. H. Lightfoot's History and Interpretation in the Gospels. In
this work, which is actually a series of lectures given at the University of
Oxford in 1934, Lightfoot discusses the Gospels from & formgeschichte ap-
proach, paying special attention to the previous work on the subject. In his
third lecture, Lightfoot argues that Mark sets forth his purpose for writing his
Gospel, and that it is theological in nature. Lightfoot believes Mark's
theological viewpoint affected his historical reporting and was colored by it.
He states:
"In St.Mark's gospel the case seems very different. Here our first impression
may well be that we are dealing with a plain historical record, to which we
must assign our own interpretation; and the attempt to do so has been
constantly made in the last two generations. But it is becoming probable that
in this gospel also the significance which the evangelist believes to belong to
and inhere in the history is constantly suggested in the form of fact, and that
St. Mark's gospel is built upon the basis of a definite doctrine, although the
latter is much less obtrusively and pervadingly present than in the gospel of
St. John. 196/58-59
With these slowly emerging emphases redaction criticism came to the fore.
One other factor contributed to the rise of the discipline and that was the
oversight of form criticism to see the writers of the Gospels as more than mere
editors. (See "Purpose" on page 306 for a discussion of this factor.)
2B. History
Redaction criticism is relatively a new discipline with the majority of the
scholarship taking place in the last 30 years, after World War II. The
scholarly lull in Germany during the war years served to focus attention on the
apparent weaknesses in the form critical method. This focus, together with
works such as Lightfoot's, saw three different works appear, on each of the
three synoptic Gospels, all written independently of each other in the late
mid -fifties.
forties to
The works were: (1) On Matthew: "End-Expectation and Church in Mat-

thew" (1954, in a brief in a German publication; 1956, a more expanded
form), and "The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew" (1948, original German
publication) by Gunther Bornkamm. They are now found in English in
Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 1963. (2) On Luke: The Theology
of St. Luke (1953, original German edition; 1960, for the English translation.
(3) On Mark: Mark the Evangelist (1956, original German publication; 1969
for the English translation).
These three books are the seminal works which helped usher in the redaction
criticism approach.
Perrin comments on this origin of the discipline:

"Redaction criticism burst into full flower immediately after the Second
World War in Germany. Just as three scholars emerged with independent
works marking the beginning of form criticism proper after the hiatus caused
by the First World War, so three scholars came forward with independent
works denoting the beginning of redaction criticism proper after the hiatus
caused by the Second World War. After the First World War it was Karl
Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann, as we have already
noted; after the Second World War it was Gunther Bornkamm, Hans
Conzelmann, and Willi Marzsen. Though working independently of one
another — Bornkamm on Matthew, Conzelmann on Luke, and Marxsen on
Mark— they moved in the same general direction. One of them, Willi
Marxsen, gave the new movement its German name, Redaktionsgeschichte."
191/25
i4A. MAJOR PROPONENTS
IB. Gunther Bornkamm
Bornkamm, a pupil of Bultmann, is considered the first of the true redaction
critics." 191/26
Bornkamm believes Matthew's theological emphasis is ecclesiological in

The Church's relationship to the imminent
nature. return of Christ is
examined in Bornkamm's "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew." In the
short essay, "The Stilling of the Storm," he illustrates how Matthew used the
Markan accounts of the narrative and then structured his own in such a way
as to bring across his specific emphasis.
Focusing on the individual contributions of the Gospel writers, Bornkamm

states:
"The evangelists do not hark back to some kind of church archives when they
pass on the words and deeds of Jesus, but they draw them from the kerygma of
the Church and serve this kerygma. Because Jesus is not a figure of the past
and thus is no museum piece, there can be no 'archives' for the primitive
Christian tradition about him, in which he is kept. This insight into the
nature of the tradition about Jesus is confirmed in detail again and again.
The pericope which is here to serve as an example for making clear the
evangelist's method of working is the story of the stilling of the storm. 189/52-
55
Referring to Bornkamm's contribution to redaction criticism, Smalley states:
"Gunther Bornkamm's work on the Gospel of Matthew marks the rise of
redaction criticism. As a pupil of Rudolf Bultmann, he proceeded from form-
critical assumptions to the further stage of analyzing Matthew's own
theological outlook and intention as this is to be discerned in his handling of
traditional material. In two articles which were later included in the volume
now translated as Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, Bornkamm set
out his conclusions about the first evangelist and his work. The earlier essay is
a study of the episode of the stilling of the storm in Matthew 8: 23-27, and
attempts to show how Matthew treated the source from which he derived this
pericope (Mk. 4:35-41). The new context and presentation given to the in-
cident, Bornkamm claims, reveal the independent meaning it has for the
evangelist. The miracle thus becomes to him 'a kerygmatic paradigm of the
danger and glory of discipleship.' The other essay of Bornkamm deals with
the construction of the discourses of Jesus in Matthew, and discusses the extent
to which these are controlled by the evangelist's own understanding of the
church, the end, the law, Christ himself, and the interrelation of all four.
Together, these two studies reflect Bornkamm's dominant conviction that
Matthew is a distinctive redactor; an 'interpreter of the tradition which he
collected and arranged.'" 194/183
Rohde comments on his use of form criticism and how it relates to the
redaction method in Bornkamm's interpretation of the Matthenian accounts.
Rohde points to Bornkamm's shift in emphasis to the authors themselves:
"We must begin with Bornkamm's first article. His introductory remarks
make it how far he is building on the form-critical method. He at-
evident
tributes to form criticism the methodical elaboration of the insight that the
gospels must be understood as kerygma, and not as biographies of Jesus of
Nazareth; and that they cannot be fitted into any of the literary categories of
antiquity, but that they are stamped and determined in every respect by faith
in Jesus Christ, the Crucified and Risen One, both in their content and their
.
form as a whole and in detail " 195/11
,
He further adds:
"In conclusion, Bornkamm declares that in this interpretation of the stilling
of the storm he does not intend to attack the principles of form criticism,
according to which the single pericopes are regarded as the primary data of
the tradition. In the future, however, even greater care must be taken to
enquire about the motives for the composition by the individual evangelists. It
is true that they had worked to a large extent as collectors; yet it is important
to ascertain the definite theological intentions revealed by the composition.

By its connection with the sayings about discipleship, the stilling of the storm
has become kerygma and a paradigm of the danger and glory of disciple-
ship." 195/13
2B. Hans Conzelmann
Of Conzelmann, Perrin states:
"If Gunther Bornkamm is the first of the true redaction critics, Hans Con-
zelmann is most important. His Theology of St. Luke, first
certainly the
published in German in 1954, is the one work above all others which focused
attention upon this new discipline and convinced a whole world of New
Testament scholarship that here, indeed, was a major new departure in New
Testament Studies. His book ranks with Bultmann's History of the Synoptic
Tradition or Jeremias's The Parables ofJesus as one of the few truly seminal
works of our time in the field of New Testament research; neither the
discipline of New Testament theology as a whole nor the understanding of
Luke in particular will ever be the same again." 191/28-29
Conzelmann comments on the need to see Luke primarily as a theologian
rather than a historian. This is a major directive in Conzelmann's approach:
"In what sense then can Luke be described as a 'historian'? Modern research
concerns itself essentially with the reliability of his reporting, but if we are
interested in the first place not in what is reported, but in the report as such,
the problem takes a different form: what is Luke's conception of the meaning
of his account? We must start from a methodical comparison with his sources,
in so far as these are directly available or can be reconstructed. What is Luke's
attitude to his forerunners and how does he conceive his task in the context of
the contemporary Church's understanding of doctrine and history? Our aim is
not to investigate the models and sources as such, nor is it to reconstruct the
historical events. This is of course an indispensable task, but first of all the
meaning of the text before must be investigated regardless of our idea of the
probable course of historical events, regardless, that is, of the picture which
Luke gives of the latter.
"We must of course define Luke's own historical position in the context of the
development of the Church. Only in this way can we understand how on the
one hand he looks back to the 'arche' of the Church as something unique and
unrepeatable, which presupposes a certain distance in time, and how on the
other hand he looks forward to the eschatological events. What distinguishes
him is not that he thinks in the categories of promise and fulfillment, for this
he has in common with others, but the way in which he builds up from these
categories a picture of the course of saving history, and the way in which he
employs the traditional material for this purpose." 197/12-13
Of Conzelmann's contribution Smalley remarks:
"Hans Conzelmann's work as a redaction critic has been concerned mainly
with Luke- Acts. His book Die Mitte der Zeit, first published in 1954, and
translated into English as The Theology of St. Luke, marks a watershed in
Gospel studies and an important advance in the method of redaction criticism
itself; for it is an analysis of Luke's unique role as a theologian." 194/183
SB. Willi Marxsen

Marxsen's redaction critical study of Mark is a highlight in its field. In his
work Mark the Evangelist, Marxsen first used the term redaktionsgeschichte.
He also proposed a three-fold sitz-em-leben, rather than two-fold as ad-
vocated by the form critics. His three sitz-em-leben are (1) of Jesus, (2) of the
church, and (the new contribution) (3) of the author. This new emphasis set
the standard for future work in redaction criticism.
2
Some have disagreed with Marxsen over the use of three sitzemleben (some
seeing two and three as one unit) but the disagreement is mainly one of
semantics. 193/49ff
Marxsen desires to make a clear distinction between form and redaction

criticism. 190/215
Perrin comments on Marxsen's distinctions between form and redaction

criticism:
"First,he stresses the difference between the understanding of the evangelists

in the one discipline and the other. Form criticism regarded the evangelists
primarily as collectors of tradition, whereas redaction criticism regards them
as authors in their own right. Secondly, form criticism was mostly concerned
with breaking down the tradition into small units and particularly with the
way in which these small units came into being in the first place.
"Redaction criticism, however, concerns itself with the larger units down to
and including the particular form of Gospel and asks questions about the
purpose of the formation of these larger units of tradition. Thirdly, form
criticism with its concern for the individual units of tradition and its un-
derstanding of the evangelists as collectors of tradition could never do justice
to that bold new step taken by the evangelist Mark, who gathers together
individual units and larger collections of tradition and out of them fashions
something wholly new— a 'Gospel.'
"Both Matthew and Luke inherit this form, 'Gospel,' from Mark and make
further use of it themselves; in no small measure it is the purpose of redaction
criticism to do justice to both the Marcan theology lying behind the creation
of the form 'Gospel,* and to those aspects of the Lucan and Matthean
theology which become evident as we consider the way in which they use the
form as well as the tradition which they inherit from Mark. Fourthly in
keeping with his understanding of the totality of the transmission of tradition
from its creation in the early church to its reformulation by the synoptic
evangelists, Marxsen claims that one should be prepared to consider three
separate 'settings-in-life' for synoptic tradition. 191/33-34
Smalley discusses Marxsen's contribution to the field:

"Marxsen accepts the method and conclusions of form criticism as a basis for
his work. But once more, like them, he goes beyond this to emphasize the
important contribution made by Mark himself when he collected together the
independent units of the evangelic tradition and wrote them up into a Gospel
as such, characterized by his own theological outlook.
"That outlook is seen particularly, Marxsen claims, in Mark's treatment of

such features as the tradition about John the Baptist and the geographical
references in his narratives. (Galilee, for example, is 'obviously the
evangelist's own creation.') Throughout, Marxsen sees the second evangelist
as a theologically motivated redactor, whose doctrinal interpretations become
clearer when the use by Matthew and Luke of the Marcan tradition and its
interpretations is considered.
"One of Marxsen's more important contributions to the whole discussion of
redaction criticism is his clarification of the threefold setting of all Gospel
material (in the teaching of Jesus, in the life of the early church and in the
writing and intention of the evangelists), of which mention has already been
made. In this as in many other ways, Marxsen laid down methodological
precedents which other redaction critics have followed." 194/184
5A. METHODOLOGY
IB. Presuppostions
The major presuppositions of the redaction critical approach are the
following.
IC. TWO SOURCE HYPOTHESIS
Redaction criticism depends heavily on Markan priority, along with the
necessity of the Q
source. Should Markan priority be seriously questioned
with evidence to doubt its veracity, most of redaction criticism in its
present form would crumble.
All three major proponents depend on Mark as the primary source for
their work, each one trying to understand how the different evangelists
made use of Mark. For Marxsen it is a comparison to determine how Mark
was used by both Matthew and Luke.
Rohde comments:
"Most of the scholars who use the redaction-critical method start with the
two-source theory and try to grasp the specific theology of the individual
evangelist by comparing the synoptists." 195/19
Perrin also comments:
"The prime requisite for redaction criticism is the ability to trace the form
and content of material used by the author concerned or in some way to
determine the nature and extent of his activity in collecting and creating,
as well as in arranging, editing and composing. The most successful
redaction-critical work has been done on the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke, since in these we have one major source which each evangelist used,
the Gospel of Mark, and can reconstruct a good deal of another, the
sayings source 'Q.*
"But similar work can be done wherever the use of traditional material can
be determined or the particular activity of the author detected, and it is
interesting to note that redaction criticism really began with work on the
Gospel of Mark." 191/2
2C. FORM CRITICISM
As previously mentioned and emphasized, the discipline of form criticism
isa primary requisite to redaction studies (see purpose). Not all proponents
would put the same stress on its usefulness or advantages, but it never-
theless is needed.
Perrin comments:
"In the field of New Testament criticism, the discipline of redaction
criticism the latest of the three major developments which are the
is
subjects of the volumes in this series: literary criticism, form criticism, and
redaction criticism. Though the distinctions between the three disciplines
are somewhat artificial, they do call attention to the fact that the critical
work has proceeded by stages and that one type of work builds upon the
results of another. Form criticism and redaction criticism in particular are
very closely related to one another. They are in fact the first and second
stages of a unified discipline, but their divergence in emphasis is sufficient
to justify their being treated separately." 191/2
3C. THEOLOGIANS VS. HISTORIANS

The redaction critics presuppose that the theological viewpoint of the
author was the dominant factor which shaped the composition of his
Gospel. Historical accuracy and objectivity were secondary to the need to
present a specific picture of Christ as seen by the community and the
author.
Perrin comments on this attitude:
"In our view Mark is a significant and creative literary figure and deserves
to be read in the form in which he chose to write rather than in summary.
Mark has the right to be read on his own terms, and after several
generations of being read mistakenly, as a historian, he has earned the
right to be read as a theologian." 191/53
Soulen puts it this way:
"It important to note that RC (redaction criticism) as applied to the
is
synoptic Gospels is based on the Two Source Hypothesis which names Mark
and Qas sources in the writing of Matthew and Luke. Should the priority
of Matthew be established, as some suggest, the redaction-critical analysis
of the synoptics would have to begin all over again." 199/143-44
4C. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

As with other liberal critics, the redaction critics hold to a rationalistic
foundation.
In the main, they hold to a rigid scientific world view where the super-
natural is ruled out on a priori grounds.
This Procrustean bed also shapes their historiography. Their view rules out
any real possibility of objective history.
These presuppositions shape all their thinking.
2B. Procedure
The methodology of the redaction critics involves the need to ascertain what
sources or accounts the Gospel writers chose and why. as well as where these
accounts are fitted together in his particular account (known as seams). This
is undertaken by determining the various sitz-em-lebens from which the
material arose, including the authors'.

The general goals of the procedure are listed by Martin:
"Attention is from the small, independent units into which form-
shifted
criticism had separated the gospel materials, and interest is turned to the
gospels as literary wholes.
"An important corollary of this change of perspective is that the evangelists
emerge from the role of simple collectors and Tradents (i.e. handers-on) of
the material they assemble and are reinstated in their own right as authors
why by their selecting and editing the material impose on that material a
distinctive theological stamp. In a phrase used by J. Rohde {op. cit., p. 12; cf.
p. 20), they do not simply hand on the story, but by placing it in a particular
context and editing its details they become the earliest exegetes of it.
"This means that we are invited to penetrate beneath the layers of the gospel
data which can be identified as traditional and seek to locate the elements of
the evangelist's editorializing work. We are encouraged to enter and explore
the world of the evangelist himself— or more plausibly the community of
which he was a member and seek to understand what the gospel sections and
the completed whole of the gospels would have meant in those situations.
"So we are bidden, at the behest of redaction criticism, the 'third life-setting'
of the gospels, i.e., the setting which provides explanatory contexts for the
evangelist's own work. For W. Marxsen who pioneered the redactional study
of Mark's gospel this entailed a study of the historical and theological
background which provoked the evangelist to publish his literary work under
the novel caption of 'gospel.' Marxsen needed to find an 'occasion,' called by
him a catalyst which is required to cause the author to assemble, edit and
then make public in written form what we know as a gospel book.
"Assuming that Mark had before him a collection of loosely connected sec-
tions of narrative and teaching, what impulse moved him to set them into a
coherent pattern which conveyed a unified message? It cannot have been by
accident that his gospel was born, for 'it is not at all obvious that this totally
disparate material should finally find its way into the unity of a Gospel."
192/47-8
Stein in his article, "What Is Redaktionsgeschichte?" delineates this further as
he discusses the concerns in the redaction critical procedure:
"Rather we are concerned with ascertaining the unique contribution to and

understanding of the sources by the evangelists. This will be found in their
seams, interpretative comments, summaries, modification of material,
selection of material, omission of material, arrangement, introductions,
conclusions, vocabulary, christological titles, etc. In the redaktionsgeschichte
investigation of the gospels we do not seek primarily the theology of the
evangelist's sources as form criticism does, but having ascertained the
evangelist's redaction, we seek to find:
"What unique theological views does the evangelist present which are foreign
to his sources? Redaktionsgeschichte is not primarily concerned with any
unique literary style or arrangement that an evangelist may have used. It

seeks rather the unique theological views of the evangelist. An example of this
is the twofold division of Galilee-Jerusalem found in Mark. If this is due to
literary and stylistic motives, redaktionsgeschichte is not involved, but, if this

scheme is due to a theological motive, then redaktiongeschichte is very much
involved.
"What unusual theological emphasis or emphases does the evangelist place
upon the sources he received? An evangelist may give to his sources an em-
phasis which is not necessarily a de novo creation. The evangelist reveals his
redaktionsgeschichte in this instance by the unusual stress he places upon a
certain theme found in the tradition. An example of this is the 'messianic
secret' found in Mark.
"What theological purpose or purposes does the evangelist have in writing his
gospel?
"What is the Sitz im Leben out of which the evangelist writes his gospel? It is
hoped that the results of (1) and (2) can be systematized so that the purpose
and Sitz im Leben of the evangelist can be ascertained. This will not always
be so. Some of the evangelists' redaktionsgeschichte will concern peripheral
matters, for not every change or stress will involve a major problem, concern,
or purpose of the evangelists. As a result some of the results of (1) and (2) may
at times not be of great importance or relevance for (3) and (4)." 193/53-54
For a more detailed look at procedure see Robert H. Stein's "The

Redaktionsgeschcichtlich Investigation of a Markan Seam (MC/21ff).'*
200/70-94
Also for a treatment on specifics N. Perrin's chapter, "Redaction Criticism at
Work: A Sample" in What Is Redaction Criticism? is helpful. 191/40-63
Dan O. Via, Jr. summarizes:
"Redaction criticism is the most recent of the three disciplines to have become
a self-conscious method of inquiry. It grew out of form criticism, and it
presupposes and continues the procedures of the earlier discipline while
extending and intensifying certain of them. The redaction critic mvestigates
how smaller units— both simple and composite — from the oral tradition or
from written sources were put together to form larger complexes, and he is
especially interested in the formation of the Gospels as finished products.
Redaction criticism is concerned with the interaction between an inherited
tradition and a later interpretive point of view. Its goals are to understand
why the items from the tradition were modified and connected as they were,
to identify the theological motifs that were at work in composing a finished
Gospel, and to elucidate the theological point of view which is expressed in
and through the composition. Although redaction criticism has been most
closely associated with the Gospels, there is no reason why it could not be
used — and actually it is being used — to illuminate the relationship between

tradition and interpretation in other New Testament books." 191/vi-vii
6A. BASIC CRITICISMS

IB. Many of the criticisms which apply to form criticism will also clearly
apply here since redaction criticism builds on this discipline.
2B. The two-source theory of the Gospels and Markan priority has never been
established and is in dispute today.
SB. Professor Harold W. Hehner, Ph.D. in New Tesument at Cambridge,
makes the following summary assessments:
IC. The sitz-em-leben position is not historically substantiated. The evidence
points to the fact that the Gospels created the Christian community rather
than the fact that the communities created the Gospel.
2C. The role of eyewitnesses is forgotten. Their testimony is clear in the
Gospels, and if one of them was wrong they could have corrected him. The
critics believe that theologians would distort history to fit their theology.
This is not necessarily the case. The critics attempt to reconstruct the
Gospel accounts totally apart from the eyewitnesses, who were there.
SC. The uniqueness of Jesus is minimized. The critics assume that the Gospel
writers made the brilliant statements in the Gospels rather than Jesus.
4C. Christian ethics are minimized. Christ emphasized the truth, yet the
Gospel writers fabricated a story. They told us that the story of Christ
happened a certain way, yet in reality it did not. It was a community
creation. A small lie may have small consequences, yet here their lie is
believed by thousands and thousands thus have even died for a lie.
5C. There is no room for the Holy Spirit. Their naturalistic theology almost
excludes the work of God in the believer's life.

6C. Simply because the authors have a theological purpose in writing does not
negate authenticity or historical accuracy.
7A. IN SUMMARY
IB. Redaction criticism seeks to discover the theological viewpoint of the
Gospel writer, both how he arrived at it and how it influenced the shaping
of his work.
2B. Redaction criticism came into existence in Germany following World War
SB. Its major proponents are Gunther Bornkam«n, Willi Marxsen and Hans
Conzelmann.
4B. The redaction critics seek to understand three major sitz-em-lebens, that
of Jesus' day, of the church, and of the author.
5B. The redaction critics have little, if any, historical substantiation or
evidence for their view and operation of their method.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 . Abel, E.L. "Psychology of Memory and Rumor Transmission and Their Bearing
on Theories of Oral Transmission in Early Christianity," y^^^^^' of Religion.
October, 1971. Vol. 51. pp. 270-281.
2. Albright, W.F. New Horizons in Biblical Research. New York: Oxford
S. Babcock, F.J. "Form Criticism," The Expository Times. October, 1941. Vol. 53,
No. 1, pp. 16-20.
4. Baker, Dom Aelred. "Form and the Gospels," Downside Review. January, 1970.
Vol. 88, pp. 14-26.
5. Barker, Glenn W., William L. Lane, J. Ramsey Michaels. The New Testament
Speaks. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1969.
6. Barnes, W.E. Gospel Criticism and Form Criticism. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1936.
7. Barr, Allan. "Bultmann's Estimate of Jesus," Scottish Journal of Theology.
December, 1954. Vol. 7, pp. 337-352.
8. Barr, Allan. "The Factor of Testimony in the Gospels," Expository Times. June,
1938. Vol. 49, No. 9, pp. 401-408.
9. Barrett, C.K. "Myth and the New Testament, Expository Times. September,
1957. Vol.68, No. 12. pp. 359-362.
10. Bartsch, Hans-Werner, ed. Kerygma and Myth. Translated by Reginald H.
Fuller. London: S P C K, 1962.
11. Blackman, E.G. "Jesus Christ Yesterday: The Historical Basis of the Christian
Faith," Canadianjournal of Theology. April, 1961. Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 118-127.
12. Bowman, John Wick. "From Schweitzer to Bultmann," Theology Today. July,
1954. Vol. 11, pp. 160-178.
13. Braaten, Carl E. and Roy A. Harrisville, editors and translators. The Historical
Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1964.
14. Braaten, Carl E. and Roy A. Harrisville, selectors, editors, and translators.
Kerygma and History. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962.
15. Bruce, F.F. "Criticism and Faith," Christianity Today. November 21, 1960. Vol.
5, No. 4, pp. 9-12.
16. Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Fifth edition.
Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter- Varsity Press, 1960.
17. Bruce, F.F. Tradition Old and New. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House. 1970.
18. Bultmann, Rudolf. Existence and Faith. Shorter writings of R. Bultmann
selected, translated and introduced by Schubert M. Ogden. Cleveland and New
York: Meridian Books -The World Publishing Co.. 1960.
19. Bultmann. Rudolf and Karl Kundsin. Form Criticism. Translated by F. C.
Grant. Original Publisher — Willett, Clark, and Co., 1934. Harper and
Brothers— Torchbook Edition, 1962.
20. Bultmann, Rudolf. History and Eschatology. Edinburgh: The Edinburgh
21. Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John
Marsh. New York: Harper and Row. 1963.
22. Bultmann, KndoM. Jesu^ Christ and Mythology. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1958.
23. Bultmann, RudoU. Jesus and the Word. Translated by Louise Pettibone Smith
and Erminie Huntress Lantero. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958.
24. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Translated by
Kendrick Grobel. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951.
25. Bultmann, R. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 2. Translated by Kendrick
Grobel. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955.
26. Burkitt, F. Crawford. The Gospel History and Its Transmission. Edinburgh: T.
&T. Clark, 1925.
27. Burkitt, F.C.Jesus Christ. London and Glasgow: Blackie and Sons, Ltd., 1932.
28. Cadbury, Henry J. "Some Foibles of N.T. Scholarship," /ourna/ of Bible and
Religion. July, 1958. Vol. 26, pp. 213-216.
29. Cadoux, Arthur Temple. The Sources of the Second Gospel. London: James
Clarke and Co. Ltd., n.d.
30. Cairns, David, A Gospel Without Myth? London: SCM Press Ltd., 1960.
31. Campbell, Richard. "History and Bultmann's Structural Inconsistency,"

Religious Studies. March. 1973. Vol. 9, pp. 63-79.
82. Culpepper, Robert H. "The Problem of Miracles," Review and Expositor. April,
1956. Vol. 53, pp. 211-224.
33. Davies, W.D. Invitation to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday and Oo.,
Inc.. 1966.
34. Davies, W.D. "Quest to Be Resumed in New Testament Studies," Union

Seminary Quarterly. January, 1960. Vol. 15, pp. 83-98.
35. Dibelius, Martin. A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian
Literature. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936.
36. Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935.
37. Dibelius. Martin. Gospel Criticism and Christology. London: Ivor Nicholson
and Watson. Ltd.. 1935.
38. Dibelius, Martin. Jesus. Translated by Charles B. Hedrick and Frederick C.
Grant. Philadelphia: The Wesminster Press, 1949.
39. Dodd, C.H. About the Gospels. The Coming of Christ. Cambridge: at the
University Press. 1958.
40. Dodd. C.H. History and the Gospel. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1938.
41. Dodd. C.H. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet and Co., Ltd.,
1935.
42. Duncker. Peter G. "Biblical Criticism." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly.
January. 1963. Vol. 25. No. 1. pp. 22-33.
43. Easton. Burton Scott. Christ in the Gospels. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1930.
44. Easton. Burton Scott. The Gospel Before the Gospels. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons. 1928.
45. Ferr6. Nels F. S. "Contemporary Theology in the Light of 100 Years," Theology
Tday. October. 1958. Vol. 15. pp. 366-76.
46. Filson. Floyd V. "Form Criticism." Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge. Vol. 1. Edited by Lefferts A. Loetscher. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1955.
47. Filson. Floyd V. Origins of the Gospeb. New York: Abingdon Press. 1938.
48. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "Memory and Manuscript: The Origins and Transmission
of the Gospel Tradition," Theological Studies. September, 1962. Vol. 23, pp.
442-457.
49. Fuller, Reginald Horace. "Rudolf Bultmann," Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. 4.
Chicago: William Benton, 1962.
50. Fuller, Reginald H. The Mission and Achievement ofJesus. London: SCM Press
Ltd., 1967.
51. Fuller, Reginald H. The New Testament in Current Study. New York: Charles
52. Grant, F. C. "Biblical Studies; Views and Reviews," Theology Today. April,
1957. Vol. 14, pp. 48-60.
53. Grant, Frederick C. The Growth of the Gospels. New York: The Abingdon
Press, 1933.
54. Groebel, K. "Form Criticism," The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Edited
by Emory Stevens Bucke. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962. Vol. 2, pp. 320,
321.
55. Gundry, Stanley N. "A Critique of the Fundamental Assumption of Form
Criticism, Part I," Bibliotheca Sacra. April, 1966. No. 489, pp. 32-39.
56. Gundry, Stanley N. "A Critique of the Fundamental Assumption of Form
Criticism, Part II," Bibliotheca Sacra. June, 1966. No. 490. pp. 140-149.
57. Gundry, Stan. An Investigation of the Fundamental Assumption of Form
Criticism. A
thesis presented to the Department of New Testament Language
and Literature at Talbot Theological Seminary, June, 1963.
58. Benoit, Pierre. Jesus and the Gospels. Vol. 1. Translated by Benet
Weatherhead. New York: Herder and Herder, 1973.
59. Henderson, Idm. Rudolf Bultmann. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1965.
60. Henry, C.F. H. "The Theological Crisis in Europe: Decline of the Bultmann
Era?" Christianity Today. September 25. 1964. Vol. 8. pp. 12-14.
61. Hodges, Zane C. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts," Bibliotheca
Sacra. October- December, 1967. Vol. 124, No.. 496. pp. 339-348.
62. Hoskyns, Sir Edwyn and Noel Davey The Riddle of the New Testament. Lon-
don: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1947.
63. Hunter, Archibald M. Introducing the New Testament. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, Third Revised Edition. 1972.
64. Hunter, A.M. "New Testament Survey," The Expository Times. October, 1964.
Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 15-20.
65. Hunter, A.M. The Work and Words ofJesus. Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1950.
66. Hutson, Harold H. "Form Criticism of the New Testament," /ouma/ of Bible
and Religion. July, 1951. Vol. 19, pp. 130-133.
67. Johnson, Sherman E. "Bultmann and the Mythology of the New Testament,"
Anglican Theological Review. ]?in\x2iTy, 1954. Vol. 36, pp. 29-47.
68. Kasemann, Ernst. Essays on New Testament Themes. Naperville, 111.: Alec R.
AUenson, Inc.; London: SCM Press Ltd., 1964.
69. Kasemann, Ernst. New Testament Questions of Today. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1969.
70. Kee, H.C. "Arti2\o^ dind. Gospt\" Journal of Biblical Literature. September,
1973. Vol. 92, pp. 402-422.
71. Kegley, Charles W., ed. The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann. New York: Harper
and Row Publishers, 1966.
72. Kenyon, Sir Frederic. The Story of the Bible. London: John Murray, 1936.
73. Runneth, Walter. "Dare We Follow Bukmann?" Christianity Today. October

13. 1961. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 25-28.
74. Ladd, G.E. The New Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids: Wm, B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co., 1967.
75. Ladd, George Eldon. Rudolf Bultmann. Chicago: Inter- Varsity Press, 1964.
76. Lightfoot, Robert Henry. History and Interpretation in the Gospels. New York:
Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1934.
77. Malevez, L. The Christian Message and Myth. London: SCM Press. Ltd., 1958.
78. Manson, T.W. The Sayings offesus. London: SCM Press Ltd.. 1949.
79. Martin, J. P. "Beyond Bultmann, What?" Christianity Today. November 24,
1961. Vol.6, No. 4, pp. 20-23.
80. Martin, James. The Reliability of the Gospels. London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1959.
81. McClymont, J. A. New Testament Criticism. New York: Hodder and Stoughton,
1913.
82. McGinley, Laurence J. Form Criticism of the Synoptic Healing Narratives.
Woodstock. Maryland: Woodstock College Press. 1944.
83. McKnight, Edgar V. What Is Form Criticism f Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1969.
84. Moule, C.F.D. "The Intentions of the Evangelists." New Testament Essays.
Edited by A.J.B. Higgins. Manchester: at the University Press. 1959.
85. McNeile, A.H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. London:
Oxford University Press, 1953.
86. Miegge. Giovanni. Gospel and Myth in the Thought of Rudolf Bultmann.
Translated by Bishop Stephen Neill. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press,
1960.
87. Montgomery, John Warwick. History and Christianity. Downers Grove, Illinois:
Inter- Varsity Press, copyright 1964.
88. Moule. C.F.D. "Form Criticism and Philological Studies," London Quarterly
and Holbom Review. April, 1958. Vol. 183, pp. 87-92.
89. Mounce, Robert H. "Is the New Testament Historically Accurate?" Can I Trust
My Bible? Edited by Howard Vos. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.
90. Nineham, D.E. "Eyewitness Testimony and the Gospel Tradition," Thefoumal
of Theological Studies. October. 1960. Vol. 11. pp. 255-264.
91. Ogden, Schubert M. Christ Without Myth. New York: Harper and Row
Publishers. 1961.
92. Ogden, S. "Debate on Demythologizing," Journal of Bible and Religion.
January, 1959. Vol. 27. pp. 17-27.
93. Parkin, Vincent. "Bultmann and Demythologizing." The London Quarterly
and Holbom Review. October, 1962. Vol. 187. Sixth series. Vol. 31, pp. 258-
263.
94. Patterson, Bob E. "The Influence of Form -Criticism on Christology," En-
counter. Winter, 1970. Vol. 31. pp. 5-24.
95. Peritz, Ismar J. "Form Criticism as an Experiment." Religion in Life. Spring,
1941. Vol. 10, No. 2. pp. 196-211.
96. Perrin,Norman. The Promise of Bultmann. In a series — the Promise of

Theology, edited by Martin E. Marty. New York: J. P. Lippincott Co., 1969.
97. Pesch, Rudolf. "Form Criticism," Sacramentum Mundi. Edited by Karl

Rahner. New York: Herder and Herder, 1968. Vol. 2, pp. 334-337.
98. Pinnock, Clark H. "The Case Against Form-Criticism," Christianity Today. July
16, 1965. Vol. 9, pp. 1064-1065.
99. "Myth in the New Testament," Twentieth Century Encyclopedia

Piper, Otto A.
of Religious Knowledge. Vol. 2. Edited by Lefferts A. Loetscher. Grand
100. Pittenger, W. Norman. "The Problem of the Historical Jesus," Anglican
Theological Review. April, 1954. Vol. 36, pp. 89-93.
101. Redlich, E. Basil. Form Criticism. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd.,
1939.
102. Ridderbos, Herman N. Bultmann. Translated by David H. Freeman. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House 1960.=
103. Riddle, Donald Wayne. Early Christian Life as Reflected in Its Literature. New
York: Willett, Clark and Company, 1936.
104. Robinson, James M. A New Quest of the Historical Jesus. Naperville, Illinois:
Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1959.
105. Robinson, James M. "The Recent Debate on the New Quest, "/oumfl/ of Bible
and Religion. July, 1962. Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 198-206.
106. Rosche, Theodore R. "The Words of Jesus and the Future of the 'Q' Hypothesis,
Part \li:' Journal of Biblical Review. September, 1960. Vol. 79, pp. 210-220.
107. Runia, Klaas. "The Modem Debate Around the Bible," Christianity Today.
July 5, 1968. Vol. 12, No. 20, pp. 12-15.
108. Schweitzer, Albert. Out of My Life and Thought. Translated by C.T. Campton.
New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1949.
109. Schweitzer, Albert. The Psychiatric Study ofJesus. Translated by Charles R.Joy.
Boston: The Beacon Press, 1948.
110. Scott, Ernest Findlay. The New Testament Today. New York: Macmillan
Company, 1927.
111. Scott, Ernest Findlay. The Validity of the Gospel Record. New York: Charles
112. Smith, Charles W.F. "Is Jesus Dispensable?" Anglican Theological Review. July,
1962. Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 263-280.
113. Spivey, Robert A. and D. Moody Smith, Jr. Anatomy of the New Testament.
London: The Macmillan Company— Collier Macmillan Limited, 1969.
114. Taylor, Vincent. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan
and Co. Limited, Second edition, 1935.
115. Taylor, Vincent. The Gospels, A Short Introduction. Fifth Edition. London:
The Epworth Press, 1945.
116. Taylor, Vincent. "Modem Issues in Biblical Studies," The Expository Times.
December, 1959. Vol. 71, pp. 68-72.
117. Taylor, Vincent. "Second Thoughts— Formgeschichte." The Expository Times.
September, 1964. Vol. 75, No. 12. pp. 356-358.
118. Taylor, Vincent. "State of New Testament Studies Today," London Quarterly
and Holbom Review. April, 1958. Vol. 183, pp. 81-86.
119. Taylor, W.S. "Memory and Gospel Tradition," Theology Today. January, 1959.
Vol. 15, pp. 470-479. Used by permission of Theology Today.
120. Throckmorton, Burton H. Jr. The New Testament and Mythology.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1949.
121. Vardaman, E. Jerry. "The Gospel of Mark and 'The Scrolls.*" Christianity
Today. September 28, 1973. Vol. 17. pp. 4-7.
122. Vokes, F.E. "The Context of L\fe—Sitz im Leben," Church Quarterly Review.
July 5. 1952. Vol. 153. pp. 350-354.
123. Wallace, H.C. "Miracle as a Literary Device," The Modem Churchman. April
27. 1961. Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 168-171.
124. Wedel, T.O. "Bultmann and Next Sunday's Sermon," Anglican Theological
Review. JinudiTy, 1957. Vol. 39. pp. 1-8.
125. Weiss. Johannes. Earliest Christianity. Translated by Frederick C. Grant. New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1959.
126. Wikenhauser, Alfred. New Testament Introduction. Translated by Joseph
Cunningham. Freiburg, West Germany: Herder and Herder, 1958.
127. Wrede, W. Paul. Translated by Edward Lummis. London: Elsom and Co.,
1907.
128. Wright, G.E. The Bible and the Ancient Near East New York: Doubleday &
Co.. 1961.
129. Albright, W.F. "The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Ar-
chaeology," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. April,
1939.Vol.74, pp. 11-23.
130. Thomas, W.H. Griffith. Christianity's Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.
131. Guthrie. Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downer's Grove, 111: Inter-
Varsity Press, Third edition, 1970.
132. Palmer, Humphrey. The Logic of Gospel Criticism. London and Melbourne:
Macmillan; New York: St. Martin's Press, 1968.
133. Manson, T.W. "The Quest of the Historical Jesus— Continues." Studies in the
Gospels and Epistles. Edited by Matthew Black. Manchester: Manchester
134. Dodd, C.H. New Testament Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1954.
135. Bultmann, Rudolf. "A New Approach to the Synoptic Problem." /ottma/ of
Religion. Jvdy, 1926. Vol. 6, pp. 337-362.
136. Piper, Otto. "The Origin of the Gospel Pattern, "/ouma/ of Biblical Literature.
June, 1959. Vol. 78. pp. 115-124.
137. Stonehouse, Ned B. Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
138. Schaff, Philip. The Person offesus. New York: American Tract Society, n.d.
139. Gouguel, M. "Une nouvelle 6cole de critique 6vang61ique: la form-und
traditiongeschichliche Schule," Revue de Vhistoire des relilgions. Paris: E.
Leroux, 1926. t. XCIV, pp. 115-160.
140. Fascher, E. Die Formgeschichtliche Methode. Giessen: TOpclmann, 1924.
141. Schweitzer. Albert. Quest of the Historical fesus. Translated by W. Mont-
gomery. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1906.
142. Riesenfeld, Harald. The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings: A Study in the
Limits of Tormegeschichte. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co. Limited. 1957.
'
143. Jeremias, Joachim. The Parables offesus. Translated by S.H. Hookc. London:
SCM Press Ltd., Sixth edition. 1963.
144. Mounce, Robert. Interview. July 2, 1974.
145. Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943.
146. Bultmann, R. "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels," Form Criticism. Edited by
Frederick C. Grant. Chicago: Willett. Clark & Co., 1934.
147. Schmidt, K.L. Der Rahman der Geschichte Jesiu. Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn,
1919.
148. Dodd, C.H. The Apostolic Preaching. London: Hodder and Stoughton
Limited, 1936.
149. Kenyon, Frederic. The Bible and Modern Scholarship. London: J. Murray,
1948.
150. Manson, T.W. "Is It Possible to Write a Life of Christ?" The Expository Times.
May, 1942. Vol. 53. pp. 248-251.
151. Manson, T.W. Jesus the Messiah. Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1946.
152. Harrison, Everett F. "Are the Gospels Reliable?" Moody Monthly. February,
1966.
153. Maier, Paul L. First Easter: The True and Unfamiliar Story. New York: Harper
and Row, 1973.
154. Manson, T.W. "Present Day Research in the Life of Jesus," The Background of
the New Testament and Its Eschatology. Edited by W.D. Davies and D. Daube.
Cambridge: at the University Press, 1956.
155. Dibelius, Martin. "The Contribution of Germany to New Testament Science,"
The Expository Times. October, 1930. Vol. 42, pp. 39-43.
156. Albright, Wm. F. From Stone Age to Christianity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1940.
157. Albright, Wm. F. "The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology," Religion in
Life. Autumn, 1952. Vol. 21, pp. 537-550.
158. Fuller, R. Interpreting the Miracles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.
159. Enslin, Morton Scott. Christian Beginnings. New York: Harper and Brothers
Publishers, 1938.
160. Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 1 Translated by Kirsopp Lake.
London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1926.
161. Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.
162. Hayes. D.A. The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts. New York: The
Methodist Book Concern, 1919.
163. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. Chicago:
Howard-Severance Co., 1915.
The Student's Introduction
164. Redlich, E. Basil. to the Synoptic Gospels. London:
Longmans, Green and Co., 1936.
165. Ropes, James Hardy. The Synoptic Gospels. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1934.
166. Sanday, William, ed. Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem Oxford: at the
Clarendon Press, 1911.
167. Schaff. Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 1. New York: Charles
168. Scott, Ernest Finlay. The Literature of the New Testament. Momingside
Heights, New York: Columbia University Press, 1936.
169. Stanton, Vincent Henry. The Gospels as Historical Documents. Vol. 2. Cam-
bridge: at the University Press, 1909.
170. Streeter, Brunett Hillman. The Four Gospels. London: Macmillan and Co.,
Fifth Impression, 1936.
171. Tenney, Merrill C. The Genius of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co., 1951.
172. Tenney, Merrill C. "Reversals of New Testament Criticism," Revelation and the
Bible. Edited by Carl F. H. Henry. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969.
173. Westcott, Brooke Foss. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London:
Macmillan and Co. 1888.
,
174. Hunter, A.M. Interpreting the New Testament: 1900-1950. London: SCM Press
Ltd., 1951.
175. Ellwein, Eduard. "Rudolf Bultmann's Interpretation of the Kerygma,"
Kerygma and History. Edited by Carl E. Braaten and Roy A. Harrisville. New
York: Abingdon Press, 1962.
176. Muller, Fredrich. "Bultmann's Relationship to Classical Philology," The
Theology of Rudolf Bultmann. Edited by Charles W. Kcgley. London: SCM
Press, 1966.
177. Ogden, Schubert M. "The Significance of Rudolf Bultmann for Contemporary

Theology," The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann. Edited by Charles Kegley.
London: SCM Press, 1966.
178. Stallman, Martin. "Contemporary Interpretation of the Gospels as a Challenge
to Preaching and Religious Education." The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann.
Edited by Charles Kegley. London: SCM Press. 1966.
179. Marty, Martin E. "Foreword" to The Promise of Bultmann by Norman Pcrrin.
New York: J. B. Lippincott Company. 1969.
180. Taylor, R.O.P. The Ground Work of the Gospels. Oxford: B. Blackwall, 1946.
181. Bultmann, R. "The New Approach to the Synoptic Problem," Thefoumal of

Religion. July, 1926. Vol. 6, pp. 337-362.
182. Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law m the New
Testament. Oxiord: at the Clarendon Press, 1963.
183. Dodd, C.H. "The Framework of the Gospel Narrative," The Expository Times.
June, 1932. Vol. 43, pp. 396-400.
18t. Perrin, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism^ Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1969.
185. Wilson, Robert M. The Gnostic Problem. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co.
Limited, 1958.
186. Kistemaker, Simon. The Gospels in Current Study. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1972.
187. Neill, Stephen. The Interpretation of the New Testament. London: Oxford
188. Yamauchi, Edwin. Pre-Christian Gnosticism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd-
man's Publishing Co., 1973.
189. Bomkamm, GUnther. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1963.
190. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction, Downers Grove: Inter- Varsity
Press, 1970.
191. Perrin, Norman. What Is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1969.
192. Martin, Ralph, Mark, Evangelist and Theologian, Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House. 1973.
193. Stein, Robert M. "What is Redaktiongeschichte?" foumal of Biblical
Literature, Vol. 88, 1969, pp. 45-56.
194. Smalley, Stephen S. "Redaction Criticism," in New Testament Interpretation.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, pp. 181-198.
195. Rohde, Joachim. Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists, Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1968.
196. Lightfoot, Robert Henry. History and Interpretation in the Gospels, London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1935.
197. Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke, Translated by Geoffrey Boswell.
New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1961.
198. Marxsen, Willi.Mark the Evangelist, Translated' by Roy A. Harrisville. New
York: Abingdon Press, 1969.
199. Soulen, Richard N. Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1976.
200. Stein, Robert H. "The Redaktionsgeschichtliche Investigation of a Markan
Sedim," Zeitschrift far die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 6\ (1970): 70-94.
201. Hoehner, Harold W. "Jesus the Source or Product of Christianity," Lecture
taped at the University of California at San Diego, Lajolla, California, January
22, 1976.
202. Nash, Ronald H., ed. Philosophy of Gordon Clark. Philadelphia: The
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1968.
203. Glueck, Nelson. "The Bible as a Divining Rod." Horizon 2:2. November, 1959.
204. Erlandsson, Seth. Tr. by Harold O.J. Brown, "Is Biblical Scholarship Possible
Without Presuppositions?" Trinityfoumal Vol. VII, No. 1, Spring 1978.
205. Albright, W.F. The American Scholar, 1941.
206. Waltke, Bruce K. "A Critical Reappraisal of the Literary Analytical Ap-
proach," Unpublished Paper. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975.
207. Marshall, I. Howard, ed. New Testament Interpretation, Essays on Principles
and Methods, Grand Rapids: WilHam B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1977. ,
208. Hoehner, Harold W. "Unpublished Lecture Notes in Biblical Introduction

902," Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring, 1975.
209. Rogers, Cleon. "Unpublished Lecture Notes from Contemporary New
Testament Issues in European Theology 232." Dallas Theological Seminary,
Spring. 1979.
210. Moreland, J. P. An Apologetic Critique of the Major Presuppositions of the New
Quest of the Historical Jesus, Th.M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,
1979.
211. Lewis, C.S. Christian Reflections. Edited by Walter Hooper. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1967.
212. Stanton. G.N. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. London:
Cambridge University Press. 1974.
213. Mosely, A.W. "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World," New Testament
Studies 12 (1965-66): 10-26.
214. Campbell, E.F., Jr. "The Amama Letters and the Amama Period," The
Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 23, Feb., 1960.
215. Kitchen, K.A. "The Old Testament in the Context: 1 from the Origins to the
Eve of the Exodus." TSF Bulletin, Vol. 59. Spring. 1971.
216. Wright, G. Ernest, Biblical Archaeology, Westminster Press, Philadelphia.
1962.
217. Albright. W.F. The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible, Fleming H. Revell
Co.. New York, 1932.
218. Kitchen, K.A. The Bible in Its World, Downers Grove, 111.: Inter-varsity Press,
1978.
219. Pettinato, Giovanni, "The Royal Archives of Tell-Mardikh-Ebla," The Biblical
Archaeologist, Vol 39. No. 2, pp. 44-52. May, 1976.
220. Freedman, David Noel. "The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets; Ebla, and the
Cities of the Plain," Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 143-164.
December, 1978.
221. Scroggs, Robin. "Beyond Criticism to Encounter: The Bible in the Post-Critical
Age." Chicago Theological Seminary Register 6S (FdiW 1978): 1-11.
222. Sanders, James A. "Biblical Criticism and the Bible as Canon," Union Seminary
Quarterly Review 32 (Spring and Summer 1977): 157-165.
223. Wink, Walter. The Bible in Human Transformation. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1973.
224. Edwards, O.C. Jr. "Historical-Critical Method's Failure of Nerve and a

Prescription for a Tonic: A Review of Some Recent Literature," Anglican
Theological Review 59 (April 1977): 115-134.
225. Smedley, C. Donald. "The Theological Shift of Method and Perspective in
Contemporary Biblical Criticism," Th.M. Research Project, Dallas
Theological Seminary, 1980.
226. Maier, Gerhard. The End of the Historical- Critical Method. Translated by
E.W. Leverenz and R.F. Norden. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1974.
section IV
appendices
THE STONES CRY OUT
(archaeological examples)
lA. The stories of Isaac, Jacob and Joseph
IB. Isaac: The oral blessing episode (Genesis 27)
2B. Jacob
IC. The purchase of Esau's birthright
2C. The Jacob and Laban episode (Genesis 29)
3C. The stolen images episode (Genesis 31)
SB. Joseph
IC. The visit to Egypt
2C. Joseph's promotions
3C. Joseph's tomb
4B. Conclusion
2A. The Pentateuch: Other Archaeological Examples
IB. Genesis
IC. Table of nations
2C. Date of Patriarchs
3C. Use of Camels
2B. Exodus- Leviticus
IC. The Ten Commandments
2C. The Tabernacle
3C. Form of the Covenant
SA. The conquest of Canaan
IB. The basic assumption
2B. Basic answer
IC. Amarna Tablets
2C. The setting
SB. Conclusion
327
4A. TheHittites
IB. Introduction
2B. Brief history
SB. The story of their discovery
IC. Sayce'swork
2C. Hofner'swork
5 A. Lachish Letters
IB. Introduction
2B. Dating and historical setting
SB. The letters
IC. Letter I
2C. Letter III
SC. Letter IV
4C. Letter VI
4B. Significance
IC. Gedaliahseal
2C. The Lachish findings
6A. The Exile
IB. Introduction
2B. Characters
IC. Jehoiachin (Joichin)
2C. Cyrus
SC. Ezra
4C. Nehemiah
SB. Archaeological finds
IC. Pottery
2C. Cyrus cylinder
SC. Elephantine Tablets
4C. Babylonian ration lists and jar handles
4B. Controversies
IC. C.C. Torrey
2C. No real Exile or Restoration
SC. Details of the Exile
4C. Question of Ezra - Nehemiah
5C. No destruction of Judah
5B. Conclusion
Bibliography
1 A. THE STORIES OF ISAAC, JACOB AND JOSEPH

This section deals with what archaeology has to say about the setting in which
Isaac, Jacob and Joseph lived. It deals with certain of the episodes that have long
perplexed biblical commentators and critics.
IB. Isaac: The Oral Blessing Episode (Genesis 27)
Itwould seem, indicates Joseph Free, a most unusual event that Isaac did not
take his oral blessing back when he discovered Jacob's deception. However,
the Nuzi Tablets tell us that such an oral declaration was perfectly legal and
binding. Thus he could not retract the oral blessing. One tablet records a law
suit involving a woman who was to wed a man, but his jealous brothers
contested it. The man won the suit because his father had orally promised the
woman to him. Oral statements carried a very different weight then than they
do today. The Nuzi texts came from a similar culture to that in Genesis.
21/322, 323
G. Ernest Wright explains this serious action:
"Oral blessings or death-bed wills were recognized as valid at Nuzi as well as

in Patriarchal society. Such blessings were serious matters and were
irrevocable. We
recall that Isaac was prepared to keep his word even though
his blessinghad been extorted by Jacob under false pretenses. 'And Isaac
trembled with a very great trembling and said: "Whoever it was that hunted
game and brought it to me and I ate. .even he shall be blessed.'" (27:33).**
.
44/43
In commenting further on the above Nuzi record, Cyrus Gordon draws three
points:
"This text conforms with Biblical blessings like those of the Patriarchs in that
it is (a) an oral will, (b) with legal validity, (c) made to a son by a dying
father." 25/8
Thus a clearer light is thrown on a culture which we know inadequately at
best.
2B. Jacob
IC. THE PURCHASE OF ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT
Gordon provides information on this episode in Genesis 25:
"Few incidents in family life seem more peculiar to us than Esau's sale of
his birthright to his twin brother, Jacob. It has been pointed out that one of
the [Nuzi] tablets. portrays a similar event." 25/3,5
. .
The tablet which Gordon refers to is explained by Wright:

"Esau's sale of his birthright to Jacob is also paralleled in the Nuzi tablets
where one brother sells a grove, which he has inherited, for three sheep!
This would seem to have been quite as uneven a bargain as that of Esau:
'Esau said to Jacob: "Give me, I pray, some of that red pottage to eat. ." .
And Jacob said: "Sell me first thy birthright." And Esau said: "Behold I am
about to die (of hunger); what is a birthright to me?" And Jacob said:
"Swear to me first." And he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob.
Then Jacob gave Esau bread and a mess of lentils and he ate and drank'
(25:30-4)." 44/43
Free explains further.
"In one Nuzi tablet, there is a record of a man named Tupkitilla, who
transferred his inheritance rights concerning a grove to his brother,
Kurpazah, in exchange for three sheep. Esau used a similar technique in
exchanging his inheritance rights to obtain the desired pottage." 18/68, 69
S.H. Horn, in "Recent Illumination of the Old Testament" {Christianity
Today), draws a colorful conclusion:
"Esau sold his rights for food in the pot, while Tupkitilla sold his for food
still on the hoof." 28/14, 15
2C. THE JACOB AND LABAN EPISODE (Genesis 29)

Cyrus Gordon claims that we can understand even Genesis 29 by episodes
in the Nuzi Tablets:
"Laban agrees to give a daughter in marriage to Jacob when he makes him
a member of the household; 'It is better that I give her to thee than that I
give her to another man. Dwell with mel' (Genesis 29:9). Our thesis that
Jacob's joining Laban's household approximates Wullu's [person men-
tioned in the Tablets] adoption is borne out by other remarkable
resemblances with the Nuzu document." 25/6
3C. THE STOLEN IMAGES EPISODE (Genesis 31)
This has been explained by other Nuzi discoveries. The following, from
J. P.Frees "Archaeology and the Bible" {His Magazine), gives a good
explanation of not only the episode, but also the background on the Nuzi
Tablets themselves:
"Over 1000 clay tablets were found in 1925 in the excavation of a

Mesopotamian site knov^ today as Yorgan Tepe. Subsequent work brought
forth another 3000 tablets and revealed the ancient site as 'Nuzi.' the
tablets, written about 1500 B.C., illuminate the background of the
Biblical patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. One instance will be
cited: When Jacob and Rachel left the home of Laban, Rachel stole
Laban's family images or 'teraphim.' When Laban discovered the theft, he
pursued his daughter and son-in-law, and after a long journey overtook
them (Genesis 31:19-23). Commentators have long wondered why he
would go to such pains to recover images he could have replaced easily in
the local shops. The Nuzi tablets record one instance of a son-in-law who
possessed the family images having the right to lay legal claim to his father-
in-law's property, a fact which explains Laban's anxiety. This and other
evidence from the Nuzi tablets fits the background of the Patriarchal
accounts into the early period when the partriarchs lived, and does not
support the critical view— which holds that the accounts were written 1000
years after their time." 19/20
Thanks to archaeology, we are beginning to understand the actual setting
of much of the Bible.
SB. Joseph
IC. SELLING INTO SLAVERY
K.A. Kitchen brings out in his book, Ancient Orient and Old Testament,
that Genesis 37:28 gives the correct price for a slave in the 18th century
B.C.:
"Finally, the price of twenty shekels of silver paid for Joseph in Genesis
37:28 is the correct average price for a slave in about the eighteenth
century B.C.: earlier than this, slaves were cheaper (average, ten to fifteen
shekels), and later they became steadily dearer, this is one more little detail
true to its period in cultural history. 30/52, 53
2C. THE VISIT TO EGYPT

The possibility of Joseph's visit to Egypt has been questioned by some.
Millar Burrows (What Mean These Stones?) points out:
"Accounts of going down to Egypt in times of famine (12: 10; 42:1, 2) bring
to mind Egyptian references to Asiatics who came to Egypt for this pur-
pose. A picture of visiting Semites may be seen on the wall of a tomb at
Beni Hasan which comes from a time not far from that of Abraham."
13/266.267
Howard Vos (Genesis and Archaeology) also points out the presence of the
Hyksos in Egypt.
"But we have much more than the pictorial representation from
Knumhotep's tomb to support the early entrance of foreigners into Egypt.
There are many indications that the Hyksos began to infiltrate the Nile
Valley around 1900 B.C. Other comigents came about 1730 and over-
whelmed the native Egyptian rulers. So if we take an early date for the
entrance of the Hebrews into Egypt, they would have come in during the
period of Hyksos infiltration — when many foreigners were apparently
entering. If we accept a date of about 1700 or 1650 B.C. for the entrance
of the Hebrews, the Hyksos would have been ruling Egypt and likely would
have received other foreigners." 42/102
Vos goes on to draw four connections between the Hyksos tribes and the
Bible. One. the Egyptians considered the Hyksos and the Hebrews as
different. Two, it is a possibility that the rising Egyptian king who was
antagonistic toward Joseph's people (Exodus 1:8) was the nationalistic
Egyptian king. Naturally such a fever of nationalism would not be healthy

for any foreigners. Three, Genesis 47:17 is the first time horses are
mentioned in the Bible. The Hyksos introduced horses to Egypt. Four,
after the Hyksos expulsion, much land was concentrated in the hands of
the monarchs; this fits with the events of the famine which Joseph
predicted and through which he strengthened the crown. 42/104
3C. JOSEPH'S PROMOTIONS

The following is a summary of Howard Vos's discussion of the question of
Joseph's admittedly unique rise, found in his Genesis and Archaeology:
Joseph's being lifted from slavery to prime minister of Egypt has caused
some critical eyebrows to rise, but we have some archaeological accounts of
similar things happening in the Land of the Nile.
"A Canaanite Meri-Ra, became armor-bearer to Pharaoh; another
Canaanite, Ben-Mat-Ana, was appointed to the high position of in-
terpreter; and a Semite, Yanhamu or Jauhamu, became deputy to
Amenhotep III, with charge over the granaries of the delta, a respon-
sibility similar to that of Joseph before and during the famine."
When Pharaoh appointed Joseph prime minister, he was given a ring and a
gold chain or a collar which is normal procedure for Egyptian office
promotions [cf. 35/161. 162]. 42/106.
G.E. Campbell, commenting on the Amoma period, further discusses this
parallel of Joseph's rise to power:
"One figure in the Rib-Adda correspondence constitutes an interesting
link both with the princes of the cities in Palestine to the south and with the
Bible. He is Yanhamu, whom Rib-Adda at one point describes as the
musallil of the king. The term means, in all likelihood, the fanbearer of
the king, an honorary title referring to one who is very close to the king,
presumably sharing in counsels on affairs of state. Yanhamu held, then, a
very prominent position in Egyptian affairs. His name appears in
correspondence from princes up and down Palestine-Syria. At the
beginning of the Rib- Adda period, Yanhamu seems to have been in charge
of the issuing of supplies from the Egyptian bread-basket called Yarimuta,
and we have already seen that Rib-Adda was apparently constantly in need
of his services.
"Yanhamu has a Semitic name. This, of course, suggests further parallel to
the Joseph narrative in Genesis, beyond the fact that both are related to the
supplies of food for foreigners. Yanhamu offers an excellent confirmation
of the genuinely Egyptian background of the Joseph narrative, but this
does not mean, of course, that these men are identical, or that they func-
tioned at the same time. Indeed Joseph may better fit into the preceding
period for a number of reasons, although the evidence as yet precludes
anything approaching certainty. It is clear that Semites could rise to
positions of great authority in Egypt: they may even have been preferred at
a time when indigenous leadership got too powerful or too inbred. 13/16, "
17
With regard to Semites rising to power in Egyptian government. Kitchen —
with reference to previously recovered stelae and the Brooklyn and Illahun
papyri, comments:
"We know that Semites in the Egypt of the Xllth-XIIIth Dynasties (c.
1991-1633 B.C.) got into Egyptian administrative documents and were
mentioned on private family monuments. On the eve of the Hyksos regime
and during its course we find Semites as princelings and officials having
their names written in hieroglyphics on scarab-seals and the like. In this
context, a Joseph could have done likewise.
Though slaves today are not normally promoted instantly to prime

minister without at least a minimal breaking-in position to get their feet
wet in the responsibility of office, this was not necessarily the case in an-
cient Egypt.
4C. JOSEPHS TOMB

John Elder in his Prophets, Idols, and Diggers made an interesting
comment:
"In the last verses of Genesis it is told how Joseph adjured his relatives to
take his bones back to Canaan whenever God should restore them to their
original home, and in Joshua 24:32 it is told how his body was indeed
brought to Palestine and buried at Shechem. For centuries there was a
tomb at Shechem reverenced as the tomb of Joseph. A few years ago the
tomb was opened. It was found to contain a body mummified according to
the Egyptian custom, and in the tomb, among other things, was a sword of
the kind worn by Egyptian officials." 15/54
4B. Conclusion
Needless to say, the Nuzi discoveries have played a central role in illuminating
the different portions of this section; in fact, they have been of singular
importance. S.H. Horn lists six areas of influence which the texts have
exercised.
"Other [Nuzi] texts show that was ordinarily chosen for a son by his
a bride
father, as the patriarchs did; that a man had
to pay a dowry to his father-in-
law, or to work for his father-in-law if he could not afford the dowry, as poor
Jacob had to do; that the orally expressed will of a father could not be
changed after it had been pronounced, as in Isaac's refusal to change the
blessings pronounced over Jacob even though they had been obtained by
deception; that a bride ordinarily received from her father a slave girl as a
personal maid, as Leah and Rachel did when they were married to Jacob;
that the theft of cult objects or of a god was punishable by death, which was
why Jacob consented to the death of the one with whom the stolen gods of his
father-in-law were found; that the strange relationship between Judah and his
daughter-in-law Tamar is vividly illustrated by the laws of the ancient
Assyrians and Hittites." 28/14
Archaeology has indeed had an impact on our knowledge of Bible
backgrounds.
2A. THE PENTATEUCH: Other Archaeological Examples
IB. Genesis
The first book of Moses, especially chapters 1-11, have been viewed as saga or
legend, stories in a mythological rather than an historical setting. Recent
archaeological finds do not favor the mythological stance. Here is a sampling
of some of the evidence.
IC. TABLE OF NATIONS
The Table of Nations in Genesis appears accurate and unique in ancient
history, commenting on its accuracy, Albright says:
"In view of the inextricable confusion of racial and national strains in the
ancient near East it would be quite impossible to draw up a simple scheme
which would satisfy all scholars; no one system could satisfy all the claims
made on the basis of ethnic predominance, ethnographic diffusion,
language, physical type, culture, historical tradition. The Table of
Nations remains an astonishingly accurate document.
"(It) shows such a remarkably 'modern' understanding of the ethnic and
linguistic situation in the ancient world, in spite of all its complexity, that
scholars never fail to be impressed with the author's knowledge of the
subject. ("The Old Testament and Archaeology, in Old Testament

Commentary, Philadelphia, 1948. p. 138). 40/77
Concerning its uniqueness in historical literature, Albright states:
"It stands absolutely alone in ancient literature, without a remote parallel

even among the Greeks, where we find the closest approach to a
distribution of peoples in genealogical framework. But among the Greeks
the framework is mythological and the people are all Greeks or Aegean
tribes." (Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, p. 25)
2C. DATE OF PATRIARCHS

Rather than an early first millennium date, the evidence points strongly to
millennium or early second millennium date for the partiarchs.
late third
Albright explains:
"In this connection it must again be stressed that a date for Abraham in
the fifteenth or fourteenth century B.C. is unacceptable for the following
basic reasons.
"1 The names of early Hebrew individuals and tribal groupings belong to
.
the first half of the second millenium, and few of them survive as names in
actual usage into the Late Bronze Age, to which the names of the Mosaid
Age clearly belong. .
"2. The Hebrew

genealogies include only the Patriarchs and the heads of
clans belonging to them. There is then a jump to the fathers of the leading
figures of the Exodus. This is parallel to the situation found in Africa
(especially Sudan and Rhodesia). Arabia and the Pacific Islands, where
excavation and radiocarbon datings have forced the chronology based on
Polynesian generations back centuries. .
3C. USE OF CAMELS

Kenneth Kitchen remarks:
"It is often asserted that the mention of camels and of their use is an
anachronism in Genesis. This charge is simply not true, as there is both

philological and archaeological evidence for knowledge and use of this
animal in the early second millenium B.C. and even earlier." 30/79
He further explains:
"While a possible reference to camels in a fodder-list from Alalakh (c.
eighteenth century B.C.) has been disputed, the great Mesopotamian
lexical lists that originated in the Old Babylonian period show a knowledge
of the camel c. 2000/1700 B.C. including its domestication. Furthermore,
a Sumerian text from Nippur from the same early period gives clear
evidence of domestication of the camel by then, by its allusions to camel's
milk. Camel bones were found in house-ruins at Mari of the pre-Sargonic
age (twenty-fifth to twenty-fourth centuries B.C.), and also in various
Palestinian sites from 2000 to 1200 B.C. From Byblos comes an incomplete
camel figurine of the nineteenth/eighteenth centuries B.C. This and a
variety of other evidence cannot be lightly disregarded. For the early and
middle second millenium B.C., only limited use is presupposed by either
the biblical or external evidences until the twelfth century B.C." 30/79-80
2B. Exodus - Leviticus
The following examples provide additional confirmation for the historicity of
the Pentateuchal accounts.
IC. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
The antiquity of the first and second commandments of the Decalogue has
found support in archaeology. G. Ernest Wright states:
"Equally surprising is the prohibition against images. 'Thou shalt not

make unto thee a graven image' or any 'molten gods' (Exodus 20:4; 34:17).
This is a significant commandment since there was nothing Hke it in the
world about. Archaeology offers support for the antiquity of this com-
mandment in Israel in that a figure of Yahweh has yet to be found in debris
of an Israelite town. The interesting fact is that Canaanite cities possess
quite a series of copper and bronze figurines of male deities, most of which
are identified with Baal. But when we come to Israelite towns, the series
gives out. Yet Israelites were familiar with such images, as we know from
the denunciations in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Habbakuk, and Isaiah. In
the city of Megiddo, for example, a tremendous amount of debris was
moved from the first five town-levels (all Israelite), and not a single
example has been discovered. 15/116-117
"At the same time, however, large numbers of figurines representing the
mother-goddess are found in every excavation into Israelite houses, in-
dicating that many homes had one or more of them. To be sure, they are
no longer as sensuous as the Canaanite examples (cf. Fig. 72), but they are
nevertheless indisputable evidence of the widespread syncretism, verging
on polytheism, among the common people. They probably owned them,
however, not so much for theological as for magical reasons, using them as
'good luck' charms. It would not be surprising to find an occasional image
of Yahweh among such unenlightened and tolerant circles in Israel, but
the fact remains that the people seemed to understand that God was simply
not honored in that way. The antiquity of the Second Commandment thus
receives support, and by implication also the First Commandment; and
these two prohibitions are certainly among the distinguishing features of
Israelite belief 15/117-118
2C. THE TABERNACLE

W.F. Albright, writing in The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible,
finds a number of archaeological discoveries which support the historicity
of the Tabernacle:
"On the other hand, recent archaeologcal discoveries have warned us
against undue skepticism with regard to the age of the material preserved
by P. It has quite generally been assumed, for example, that the Priestly
Source gives a fanciful account of the Tabernacle, its installation and cult,
which at best only reflects priestly ideals of the Exilic Age. Against this
attitude the writer wishes to protest most vigorously." 2/159
Albright discusses the geographic background:
"Many indications point to a desert background of the Tent of Meeting
{ohel moed, the term used by P most frequently). Whereas cedar and olive-
wood were employed in building the Temple of Solomon, acacia alone is
mentioned in the account of the construction of the Tabernacle. The
predominant use of goats' hair tent-cloth and of ram-skins and lamb-skins
{orot elim, orot tehaskim, Ex. 25:5, etc.) surely rests on authentic
tradition. Quite aside from all other considerations, the wholesale
deviation from the plans of the Temple of Solomon and of the ideal
Temple of Ezekiel remains inexplicable if we must suppose that the
Tabernacle is a fanciful construction of Exilic priests, nor can we explain
the admittedly composite structure of the description unless we suppose
that it had some tangible background in tradition.." 2/161
Concerning the altar of incense, which was connected with the
Tabernacle, Albright states:
"While we cannot go into detail, for lack of space, with regard to the
apparatus of the Mosaic cult, as described by P., we may refer again to the
discussion of the altar of incense in chapter II. in connection with our
discovery of the top of such an altar in the level of the tenth or eleventh
centuries B.C. at Tell Beit Mirsim. The description of the altar of incense
used in the Tabernacle (Ex. 30:1-3) agrees with that of the hammanim
discovered here and in other sites, though it was considerably larger. Now
the Priestly Code would never have introduced such a hamman into its
Tabernacle unless there had been a warrant for it in old tradition. During
the Prophetic Age the use of hammanim had been denounced and incense
eliminated from official Mosaic ritual."
Finally, he comments on the seven-branched candlestick, which was used
inside the Tabernacle:
"It is a common view among biblical scholars today that the seven
branched candlestick of the Tabernacle (Ex. 25:31ff., 37:17ff.) reflects the
Babylonian or even the Persian period. Unhappily for this a priori con-
ception, however, it is precisely in the Early Iron I — never afterwards—
that we find pottery lamps with seven places for wicks, the rim of the lamp
being pinched together seven times. Such lamps are found in Tell Beit
Mirsim B, as well as in contemporary deposits elsewhere in Palestine."
2/161-162
3C. FORM OF THE COVENANT
Most liberal scholars claim the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but
was the product of a much later age. However, as K.A. Kitchen (among
others) points out, the particular form of the covenant found in the
Pentateuch has its historical parallel only in the age of Moses:
"The central feature of the book of Exodus is the giving of the covenant-
commandments, the law and the cult at Sinai. Exodus from chapter 19
onwards, and all of Leviticus, both center upon Sinai, the founding-point
of the Israelite nation in all later biblical tradition. After the time in the
wilderness and Israel's arrival (as a new generation) in Moab before
crossing the Jordan, there was a renewal of the covenant and its laws-
enshrined in Deuteronomy. The form of covenant found in Exodus-
Leviticus and in Deuteronomy (plus Joshua 24) is neither arbitrary nor
accidental. It is a form proper to the general period of the exodus, current
in the 14th/ 13th centuries B.C. and neither earlier nor later on the total
available evidence." 17/79
3A. THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN
1 B . The B asic Assumption
Some picture of the conquest of Canaan in Joshua,
critics reject the biblical
replacing with another picture of the culture and setting at that time. Paul
it
Lapp in Biblical Archaeology and History has claimed that this "perspective
has led some scholars to take the view that there was virtually no conquest by
j.
Joshua at all. Instead, there was a gradual and peaceful infiltration of the
I sparsely settled central hill country of Palestine by the Joshua tribes. The
actual destructive conquest of Joshua is also dismissed by another hypothesis
which considers the arrival of the Joshua tribes a trigger that touched off
popular revolts overthrowing the leaders of the Palestinian city-states."
31/108
Lapp gives a good background to the question:
"The [Canaan] conquest provides another example of the search for con-
nections between biblical and historical-archaeological material. This
concerns an event for which there is a considerable amount of archaeological
evidence, a great amount of detailed description in the biblical sources, and
volumes of diverse opinions and hypotheses produced by modern scholars."
31/107
Indeed this has been a popular battlefield.
1
2B. Basic Answer

G. Ernest Wright in "The Present State of Biblical Archeology" gives an
excellent evaluation of the trend. Wright points out that archaeology is
causing breakthroughs in the understanding of the Bible, a case in point
being the concept of Israelite conquest of Canaan. The original concept
deleted actual combat and considered it a gradual one of "osmosis," the two
cultures being "progressively amalgamated." The excavation of Bethel,
Lachish and Debir overthrows such a view, since these sites were destroyed
furiously at about 1200 B.C. Apparently the farthest thing from the mind of
the conquerers was a synthesis of culture. Joshua 10 and 11 was said to be in
conflict with Judges 1 but this has been overstated. It is incorrect to assume
,
that assimilation, though widely practiced, was the rule. Israel was much too
nationalistic for such cultural indecisiveness. 44/1-15
Lapp continues:
"The archaeological evidence supports the view that the biblical traditions
developed from an actual historical conquest under Joshua in the late thir-
teenth century B C .." 3 1 / 11
.
IC. AMARNA TABLETS

Archer explains how this discovery has helped clarify the historical picture.
The Tell el-Amama Tablets, Archer says, came to light from the Egyptian
siteof el-Amama (1887), ancient capital of Egypt (called Akhetaten then).
They are from officials of Palestine and Syria who were upset about at-
tacking Habiru (or 'Apiru). They describe a disorganized turmoil among
the states there, speak of how many are deserting their allegiance to Egypt
and ask for military aid to stop the onslaught. One letter from Megiddo
lists some of the fallen cities, all of which are in the south (region of Arad).
This conforms with the Israel conquest pattern. Cities like Gezer, Ashkelon
and Lachish are reported as fallen.
In Joshua these were recorded as among the first taken. Jericho, Beer-
sheba, Bethel and Gibeon are not even heard from once. These were the
first to fall to Joshua. We may conclude, therefore, that these tablets
record the Hebrew conquest of Canaan in 1400-1380 from the standpoint
of the Canaanites themselves." 12/164
J. P. Free evaluates their significance:
"The tablets illuminate and confirm the picture which the Bible gives of
Palestine at that time. Canaan in the period of conquest was subject to
many local kings, who ruled over individual cities with perhaps their
surrounding territory." 18/136
Unger quotes one of the tablets:
"Abdi-Hiba, governor of Jerusalem wrote numerous letters to the Pharaoh

Akhnaton (1387-1366 B.C.) beseeching Egyptian aid against the en-
croaching Habiru, if the country were to be saved for Egypt:
'The Habiru plunder all lands of the king.
If archers are here
this year, then the lands of the king,
the Lord, will remain; but if the archers are not here,
then the lands of the king, my lord, are lost.'
[Taken from Samuel Mercer, The Tell elAmama Tablets (Toronto
1939). Vol. II, no. 287. lines 56-60.]" 40/146
A big question arises as to whether "Habiru" means "Hebrew." Henry
Thomas Frank asserts that this cannot be:
"Some time ago it was fashionable to equate these people with the biblical
Hebrews and to see in the Amama Letters evidence of the Hebrew invasion
of Canaan. This ecjuation is no longer possible. First, other archaeological

evidence shows it is still at least a century too early for the Hebrew in-
cursion. Second, while the question of the Hapiru is still complex, ar-
chaeologically recovered documents now indicate that they were an
ethnically mixed group, speaking several different languages, but bound
together by their occupation: brigandage. While there may have been
Hebrews among them, they were not the Hebrews nor were they even
nomads. Their name Hapiru may originally have meant 'tramp,* 'dusty
one,* or perhaps 'wanderer,* but it came to designate a 'robber,* a 'bandit.'
These were stateless persons, a fourth class in a highly stratified society.
They lived by stealing, smuggling, and increasingly by raiding and
destroying settled areas. Eventually they became a threat even to the cities.
Over and over again in the Amarna Letters princes accuse one another of
being allied with these outlaws. Indeed, in some cases the very word
Hapiru seems used as a term of abuse.** 17/69
W.F. Albright, however, does feel the two are related:

"During the past fifteen years (1947-1962) it has become possible to
pinpoint the background of the stories of Abraham (Gen. 12-24) with a
precision wholly undreamed of when the first edition of this survey was
written. The meaning of the term 'Apiru-'Abtru, later 'Ibri, 'Hebrew,' has
now been established; it meant something like 'donkey-man, donkey
driver, huckster, caravaneer.' Originally it may have meant 'dusty,* with
obvious reference to the dust raised by donkeys on a much-travelled road."
4/5
Unger also maintains a connection:
"In the light of the interesting fact that Abraham is the first person in the
Bible to bear the name Hebrew, 'Ibri, (Gen. 14:13), the occurrence of the
term 'Habiru' in the Mari letters (eighteenth century B.C.) and earlier in
the Cappadocian texts (nineteenth century B.C.) as well as in the later
Nuzian, Hittite, Amarna and Ugaritic texts (fifteenth-fourteenth centuries
B.C.) is significant, since the philological equation Hebrew-Habiru seems
assured.** 40/124, 125
The Amarna Tablets seem to aid greatly in a better knowledge of the

conquest of Canaan. J. P. Free adds:
"For their betrayal of the Canaanite-Amorite cause, the Hivite group was
attacked by a coaHtion of five Amorite kings (Josh. 10:5). The Amarna
Tablets confirm this picture of Canaan, for they were actually written by
such kinglets who ruled over various cities. Seven of the letters were written
by the king of Jerusalem, and others were from the kings of such places as
Tyre and Sidon. They reflect the same general lack of unity among the
city-states of Canaan as indicated in the Biblical record.'* 18/136
2C. THE SETTING

Lapp sets forth an interesting case:
"This evidence, coupled with the obvious differences in character of oc-
cupation and quality of pottery, makes it very difficult to refute a
postulation favorable to a substantial conquest by Joshua. Intercity
struggles would scarcely have produced a new culture, and popular
revolutions would hardly have led to major destructions of larger towns. If
the conquest merely amounted to peaceful infiltration, to whom are the
destructions and occupations between the end of the Late Bronze age and
the arrival of the Sea Peoples to be attributed? The destruction of large
and heavily fortified towns like Lachish and Hazor can best be explained
by a concerted effort on the part of a sizable body of troops under Joshua.
It is possible to attribute these destructions to Egyptian campaigns, Sea
Peoples without their characteristic pottery, or internecine struggles, but
why promote such postulations in the face of clear statements in the

biblical sources that these two sites were destroyed by Joshua?" 31/110
The 1200 plus B.C. burning levels violate the explicit statement of the
narratives that Joshua burned none of the cities in their falls except
Jericho, Ai and Hazor (c.f. Joshua 11:13). So those burning levels may
indeed be due to the sea peoples' invasion or Egyptian campaigns.
Free further shows how archaeology can be used to double check ancient
works.
"Several of the cities indicated as taken by the Israelites have been ex-
cavated, including Jericho, Lachish, Debir, and Hazor; and evidence has
been found at each one indicating destruction about 1400 B.C. or a little
later. On the other hand, certain cities are indicated as not having been
taken, such as Bethshan, Taanach, and Megiddo (Josh. 17:11), and ex-
cavation at these sites has shown that they were not taken at this time."
18/237
G.E. Wright evaluates the evidence in "The Present State of Biblical
Archaeology":
"The violent destruction which occurred at such sites as Bethel, Lachish,
and Debir during the thirteenth century indicates that we must take
seriously the biblical claims for a storming of at least central and southern
Palestine with such violence and such contempt for the inhabitants that
there was small opportunity or desire for amalgamation on a large scale."
44/83
Further, in "The Terminology of Old Testament Religion," Wright speaks
of the cultural difference:
"Likewise unique in Israel, as compared with Canaan, are the moral tone
of the religion with its apodictic legal tradition, the conception of covenant
relation between God and people, and the cosmological conceptions."
45/413
Albright, in From the Stone Age to Christianity, points out the character
of the Israelites:
"Archaeological excavation and exploration are throwing increasing light
on the character of the earliest Israelite occupation, about 1200 B.C. [The
author would place this occupation at 1400 B.C.— middle of Late Bronze
age.] First it is important to note that the new inhabitants settled in towns
like Bethel and Tell Beir Mir-sim almost immediately after their
destruction. The Israelites were thus far from being characteristic nomads
or even seminomads, but were ready to settle down at once and live the life
of peasants, tilling the soil and dwelling in stone houses. A second main
point is that the new Israelite occupation was incomparably more intensive
than was the preceding Canaanite one." 6/212
SB. Conclusion
Gleason Archer notes Albright's conclusions:
"It is because of the cumulative impact of all these findings that ar-
chaeologists like W.F. Albright have felt constrained to concede the essential
accuracy of the Pentateuch." 12/165
W.F. Albright:
"M. Noth and K. Mohlenbrink have recently made a vigorous attack on the
historical reliability of the stories of the Conquest in Joshua, on various
literary and aetiological grounds, but they have been opposed with equal
vigor by the writer (1939); archaeological discoveries of the past few years
have proved that their attack far overshoots the mark." 6/209
Anderson of Drew Theological Seminary comments on behalf of biblical

criticism:
"In these days we speak dogmatically of the 'assured gains' of Biblical

less
criticism, for someone is rug out from under our feet. For
just apt to pull the
instance, if one has said with great assurance that scholars are agreed that the
conquest of Canaan was a slow gradual process and that the book of Joshua is
a falsification of the actual state of affairs, it is very disconcerting to hear
scholars like Albright, Wright, Bright, and Orlinsky say that archaeological
research in central Palestine indicates a decisive phase of conquest." 11/81
Free concludes:
"In summary, we find that efforts to set aside the historicity of the Conquest
are not supported by archeological evidence." 22/221 222 ,
4A. THEHITTITES
IB. Introduction
The Bible mentions the Hittites many times. But until recently scholars had
found no other ancient writings which referred to them. Therefore the very
existence of this civilization was often doubted. John Elder (Prophets, Idols,
and Diggers) explains that "one of the striking confirmations of Bible history
to come from the science of archeology is the 'recovery' of the Hittite peoples
and their empires. Here is a people whose name appears again and again in
the Old Testament, but who in secular history had been completely forgotten
and whose very existence was considered to be extremely doubtful." 15/75
Elder goes on to mention some of the popular biblical references.
"In Genesis 23:10, it is told that Abraham bought a parcel of land for a
burying place from Ephron the Hittite. In Genesis 26:34, Esau takes a Hittite
girl for wife, to the great grief of his mother. In the Book of Exodus, the
Hittites are frequently mentioned in the lists of people whose land the
Hebrews set out to conquer. In Joshua 11:1-9, the Hittites join in the con-
federation of nations that try to resist Joshua's advance, only to be defeated by
the waters of Merom. In Judges, intermarriage occurs between the Hebrews
and the Hittites. In I Samuel 26, Hittites enroll in David's army, and during
the reign of Solomon he makes slaves of the Hittite element in his kingdom
and allows his people to take Hittite wives. But until the investigations of
modern archeologists, the Hittites remained a shadowy and undefined
people." 15/75
Finally, he gives us a brief summary of the archaeological finds in this area:
"Clay tablets found in Assyria and Egypt give us our first picture of the
Hittites and their way of life. Egyptian artists depicted them as having
features we identify as Armenian, and it seems more than likely that the
Hittites were the ancestors of the Armenian race. An Egyptian tablet records
a fierce battle between Ramses II and the Hittites at Kadesh on the Orontes
River in 1287 B.C." 15/75
2B. Brief History
M.B. Stearns, in his Bibliotheca Sacra article, "Biblical Archaeology and the
Higher Critics," mentions the coming of the Hittites into the limelight:
"It is interesting to know that Sir Leonard Woolley, whose name has become a
household word because of his remarkable discoveries at Abraham's city of

Ur, is at present engaged in the excavation of a great Hittite palace near
Antioch in Syria, built about 1600 B.C. Of this discovery he himself has
written to the London Times, 'The frequent references in the Old Testament
to Hittites living in Syria and Palestine in the Patriarchal age, which have
often been rejected as anachronisms, may yet prove sound history.' For if the
Hittites were established in Antioch as early as 1600 B.C., there may well have
been some members of their race farther South." 37/317

Merrill Unger, in an article for Bibliotheca Sacra, gives an excellent
description of the history of these people:
"Like the Horites, the Biblical references to the Hittites used to be regarded in
critical circles as historically worthless." 39/139
He also says:
"Less than a century ago the Hittite meant little more to the reader of the
Bible than the Hivite or the Perizzite." 39/140
The were in contact with Bible characters as early as Abraham and as
Hittites
late asDavid and Solomon. Though the Old Testament claims the
significance of the Hittite might, broad acceptance was not enjoyed until
archaeology began to point out how significant the Hittite Empire really was,
rivaling at times Egyptian dynasties and Mesopotamian kingdoms.
and monuments began to surface about 1871, first around
Hittite artifacts
Carchemish. In 1884, William Wright published a history, The Empire of the
Hittites and A.H. Sayce published The Hittites— The Story of a Forgotten
Empire. A breakthrough came in 1906-07 with the discovery of 10,000 clay
tablets in many languages at Boghazkoi. These revolutionized knowledge of
the Hittites.
These pointed out two periods of great Hittite power, the first around 1800
B.C., the second of about 1400 to 1200 B.C. In the second, we see a definite
empire tendency, and the Hittites seemed to be the nation to look out for
during Subbiluliuma's reign (1300's B.C.). Contact was strong with Egypt at
this time.
But the wole thing came to a halt about 1200 B.C.; Boghazkoi stumbled,
though Hittite influence would remain through other cities that had not
fallen, such as Carchemish, Hamath and North Syria.
"The Assyrian emperor Tiglathphileser I, around 1100 B.C., fought with the
Hittites and other peoples of western Asia. Ashurnaisirpal (885-860 B.C.) put
Sangara, king of Carchemish, under tribute. In 717 B.C. Carchemish finally
fell into the hands of Sargon II, and the Hittites were absorbed by the great
Assyrian empire. But meanwhile they had become the cultural tie between
the Tigris-Euphrates valley and Europe." 39/141
These discoveries have increased greatly our knowledge of the ancient Near
East and the Old Testament is much more clear as a result.
"The manner in which archeology has brought to light the ancient Horites
and Hittites furnishes a good example of the way this important science is
expanding Biblical horizons." 39/140, 141
SB. The Story of Their Discovery
IC. SAYCESWORK
Acceptance of the above history did not come easily. Fred Wight in his
Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands gives a brief picture of what had
to endure:
"A.H. Sayce, of Oxford, was the first scholar to identify the Hittite people
from the monuments. In 1876 he read a paper to the Society of Biblical
Archaeology wherein he attributed certain inscriptions found in Hamath
and at Aleppo to the Hittites. In 1879 he visited the Near East and in 1880
he read another paper to the archaeologists, asserting that the Hittites had
lived in the mountainous country north of Mesopotamia and also in all of
Asia Minor." 43/92. 93
J. P. Free continues:
"Then A.H. Sayce, a British assyriologist, identified the Hittites of the

Bible with the mysterious Hatti of the monuments, and pubHshed his
'Story of a Forgotten Empire' (1892), but E.A.W. Budge of the British
Museum as late as 1902 rejected this identification 'on insufficient
grounds.' But when in 1906, Hugo Winckler of Berlin went to the site of
Boghaz-koi in central Turkey and examined the remains of what proved to
be the Hittite capital, there could be no more doubt. Winckler found an
archive of clay tablets, which contained among other documents a
military treaty between the Hittites and the Egyptians nearly 1300 years
before Christ ."19/19
Albright in Recent Discoveries m Bible Lands gives this evaluation:
"In 1871 some inscriptions in a previously unknown type of hieroglyphic
script were discovered at Hamath in Syria, and eight years later A.H.
Sayce identified the script with that of inscriptions already known from
Asia Minor. Applying the term 'Hittite' to all of the Bible was doubted by
many, but it has proved to be correct." 9/53
2C. HOFNER
One of the leading experts on the Hittites is Harry A. Hofner, formerly of
the faculty of Yale University, now with the Oriental Institute at the
University of Chicago.
Hofner warns about the pitfalls posed by the term 'Hittites." He writes that
possible to identify at least four distinct ethnic groups in antiquity to
"it is
whom the name 'Hittite' (Nesite LU"'"///4rr/, Egyptian ht, Ugaritic hty,
Hebrew fiitti = LXX khettaios, Akkadian hattu) has at some time been
applied." 47/198
The first group, according to Hofner, is the Hattians who inhabited the
central plateau of Asia Minor about 2,000 B.C. The second group was the
Indo-Europeans who also settled in Asia Minor and ruled over the urban
centers about 1,700 B.C. They were identified with the phrase "men of
Hatti." A third group were the "Neo-Hittites" who ruled Syria the first half
of the first-millennium B.C. The fourth group is almost entirely identified
by the Old Testament.
"It is my opinion," Hofner, "that we never encounter Hittites of my
asserts
first two categories Hattians or Nesites) in the Old Testament. The
(i.e.
'kings of the Hittites* spoken of during the time of Solomon (2 Chr. 1:17)
and Jehoram son of Ahab (2 Kings 7:6) were Syrians ('Hittites' of category
three). But apart from the expression 'the land of Hittites,' which
sometimes denotes Syria, all other references to 'Hittites* in the Old
Testament are to a small group living in the hills during the era of the
Patriarchs and the later descendants of that group." 42/214
Hofner continues that the "real-estate transaction between Abraham and
'Ephron, the Hittite' in Genesis 23 does not presuppose 'intimate
knowledge of intricate subtleties of Hittites laws and customs,' as has been
claimed. These 'Hittites' would seem to be natives in every sense of the
word. 42/214
4B. Evaluation
Fred Wight:
"Now the Bible picture of this people fits in perfectly with what we know of
the Hittite nation from the monuments. As an empire they never conquered
the land of Canaan itself, although Hittite local tribes did settle there at an
early date. Nothing discovered by the excavators has in any way discredited
the Biblical account. Scripture accuracy has once more been proved by the
archaeologists." 43/94, 95
5A. THE LACHISH LETTERS

IB. Introduction
IC. OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND
Jeremiah 34:6, 7 read as follows:
"Then Jeremiah the prophet spoke all these words to Zedekiah king of
Judah in Jerusalem when the army of the king of Babylon was fighting
against Jerusalem and against all the remaining cities of Judah, that is,
Lachish and Azekah, for they alone remained as fortified cities among the
cities of Judah."
Israelhad been in a futile rebellioin against Nebuchadnezzar. Judah was
not united in this revolt. Jeremiah preached submission, while the Jewish
leaders could only speak of resistance, and resist they did, though they
were soundly defeated by the powers of Nebuchadnezzar. In the final days
of the rebellion, the last vestiges of Hebrew independence were embodied
in a pair of outposts, Lachish and Azekah, 35 miles southwest of
Jerusalem. From Lachish came a series of letters giving a graphic picture
of what it was like to be in such a situation. These add greatly to our
knowledge of Old Testament background. This discovery is known as the
Lachish Letters (or Ostraca).
2C. BACKGROUND TO FIND
William F. Albright, in his Religion in Life article, "The Bible After
Twenty Years of Archaeology," introduces us to this find:
"...we mention the new documents from the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.
which have come to light since 1935. In 1935 the late J.L. Starkey
discovered the Ostraca of Lachish, consisting chiefly of letters written in
ink on potsherds. Together with several additional ostraca found in 1938,
they form a unique body of Hebrew prose from the time of Jeremiah.
Further light on the time of the Exile comes from the ration lists of
Nebuchadnezzar, found by the Germans at Babylon and partly published
by E.F. Weidner in 1939. Other new evidence will be discussed below.
Somewhat later but of decisive value for our understanding of the history
and literature of the Jews in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah are the
continuing finds and publications of Aramaic papyri and ostraca from
Egypt. Four large groups of this material are being published, and their
complete publication will more than double the total bulk of such
documents available twenty years ago." 3/539
R.S. Haupert wrote a survey article on these finds, "Lachish — Frontier
Fortress of Judah." He goes into the authorship and background of the
letters:
"Most of the best preserved are letters written by a certain Hoshaiah (a

good Biblical name: Neh. 12:32, Jer. 42:1 ;43:2), apparently a subordinate
military officer stationed at an outpost or observation point not far from
Lachish, to Yaosh, the commanding officer of Lachish. That the letters
were all written within a period of a few days or weeks is indicated by the
fact that the pieces of pottery on which they were wrtten were from jars of
similar shape and date, and five of the pieces actually fit together as
fragments of the same original vessel. The fact that all but two of the
letters were found on the floor of the guardroom naturally suggest that
they were deposited there by Yaosh himself upon receiving them from
Hoshaiah." 27/30, 31
2B. Dating and Historical Setting

Albright wrote a special article on this find. "The Oldest Hebrew Letters:
Lachish Ostraca," in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT S4S
Research, and he deals with the setting of the Letters:

"In the course of this sketch it will have become increasingly evident to the
attentive reader that the language of the Lachish documents is perfect
classical Hebrew. The divergences from biblical usage are much fewer and
less significant than supposed by Torczner. In these letters we find ourselves in
exactly the age of Jeremiah, with social and political conditions agreeing
perfectly with the picture drawn in the book that bears his name. The
Lachish Letters take their place worthily between the Ostraca of Samaria and
the Elephantine Papyri as epigraphic monuments of Biblical Hebrew history."
8/17
G.E. Wright, in "The Present State of Biblical Archaeology," dates the letters
by internal evidence:
"On Letter XX are the words 'the ninth year,' that is, of King Zedekiah. That
isthe same year in which Nebuchadnezzar arrived to begin the reduction of
Judah: 'in the ninth year. in the tenth month' (II Kings 25: 1 this would be
. . , ;
about January 588 B.C., the siege of Jerusalem continuing to July 587 B.C.—
II Kings 25:2-3)." 44/179
Millar Burrows ( What Mean These Stones?) agrees with Wright:
"At Lachish evidence of two destructions not far apart has been found;
undoubtedly they are to be attributed to Nebuchadnezzar's invasions of 597
and 587 B.C. The now famous Lachish letters were found in the debris from
the second of these destructions." 13/107
Albright sums up the question of the dating of the finds:
"Starkey has contributed a useful sketch of the discovery, explaining the
archaeological situation in which the ostraca were found and fixing their date
just before the final destruction of Lachish at the end of Zedekiah's reign. The
facts are so clear that Torczner has surrendered his objections to this date,
which is now acccepted by all students." 8/11, 12
3B. The Letters
For sake of convenience, each of the letters was labeled with a number.
Haupert gives an overview of Letters II through VI:
"Throughout this group of letters [Letters II -Vi] Hoshaiah is continually
defending himself to his superior, although the charges against him are not
always clear. It is tempting to think that he is in sympathy with the Jeremiah
faction which wanted to submit to the Babylonians instead of rebelling; but,
of course, we cannot be sure." 27/31
He then touched on several of them
IC. LETTER I
"Letter I. .though only a list of names, is of striking significance since
.
three of the nine names which occur— Gemariah, Jaazanian, and

Neriah— appear in the Old Testament only in the time of Jeremiah. A
fourth name is Jeremiah, which, however, is not limited in the Old
Testament to the prophet Jeremiah, and need not refer to him. A fifth
name, likewise not limited to this period, is Mattaniah, which Biblical
students will recognize as the pre-throne name of King Zedekiah." 27/31
2C. LETTER III
Haupert continues:
"In Letter III Hoshaiah reports to Yaosh that a royal mission is on the way
to Egypt, and that a company of this group has been sent to his outpost (or
to Lachish) for provisions, an allusion which points directly to the intrigues
of the pro-Egyptian party under Zedekiah. Of unusual interest is the
reference in the same letter to 'the prophet.' Some writers have confidently
identified this prophet with Jeremiah. This is entirely possible, but we
cannot be certain and should be careful about pushing the evidence too
far" 27/32
SC. LETTER IV
J.R Free (Archaeology and Bible History) speaks of Letter IV, an often-
mentioned one:
"In the days of Jeremiah when the Babylonian army was taking one town
after another injudah (about 589-586 B.C.), we are told in the Bible that,
as yet, the two cities of Lachish and Azekah had not fallen (Jer. 34:7).
Striking confirmation of the fact that these two cities were among those
still holding out is furnished by the Lachish letters. Letter No. 4, written
by the army officer at a military outpost to his superior officer at Lachish,

says 'We are watching for the signals of Lachish according to all in-
dications which my Lord hath given, for we cannot see Azekah.' This letter
not only shows us how Nebuchadnezzar's army was tightening its net
around the land of Judah, but also evidences the close relationship between
Lachish and Azekah which are similarly linked in the book of Jeremiah."
18/223
Haupert sees it at another angle:
"The final statement of Letter IV affords an intimate glimpse into the
declining days of the Kingdom
of Judah. Hoshaiah concludes: 'Investigate,
and (my lord) will for the fire-signals of Lachish we are wat-
know that
ching, according to all the signs which my lord has given, for we cannot see
Azekah.' This statement calls to mind immediately the passage in Jer.
34:7." 27/32
Wright adds his view of the reference to not seeing Azekah:

"When Hoshaiah says that he 'cannot see Azekah,' he may mean that the
has already fallen and is no longer sending signals. At any rate,
latter city
we here learn that Judah had a signal system, presumably by fire or smoke,
and the atmosphere of the letters reflects the worry and disorder of a
besieged country. A date in the autumn of 589 (or 588) B.C. has been
suggested for the bulk of the letters." 44/179
4C. LETTER VI
Joseph Free points out the close relationship between Letter VI and
Jeremiah's writings:
"J.L. Starkey found (1935) a group of eighteen potsherds bearing on their
surface several military messages written by an army officer to his superior
officer stationed at Lachish. W.F. Albright has pointed out ["A Brief
History of Judah from the Days of Josiah to Alexander the Great," Biblical
Archaeologist, Vol. 9, No. 1, February, 1946, p. 4.] that in one of these
letters (No. 6) the army officer complains that the royal officials (sarim)
had sent out circular letters which 'weaken the hands' of the people. The
army officer who wrote this Lachish letter used the expression, 'weaken the
hands,' to describe the effect of the over-optimism of the royal officials,
whereas the officials, referred to in the book of Jeremiah (38:4), in turn
had used the same expression in describing the effect of Jeremiah's realistic
prophecy concerning the approaching fall of Jerusalem. The royal officials
were deemed guilty of the very action which they sought to ascribe to
Jeremiah." 18/222
4B. Significance
IC. GEDALIAHSEAL
John Elder points out yet another find in addition to the Ostraca, which
adds even more weight to the biblical story of Lachish:
"The nearby city fortress of Lachish provides clear proof that it had been
twice burned over a short period of time, coinciding with the two captures
of Jerusalem. In Lachish the imprint of a clay seal was found, its back still
shows the fibers of the papyrus to which it had been attached. It reads:
'The property of Gedaliah who is over the house.* We meet this
distinguished individual in II Kings 25:22, where we are told: 'And as for
the people that remained in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah. ruler."*
. .
15/108, 109
2C. THE LACHISH FINDINGS
Haupert concludes:
"The real significance of the Lachish Letters can hardly be exaggerated.
No archaeological discovery to date has had a more direct bearing upon
the Old Testament. The scribes who wrote the letters (for there was more
than one) wrote with genuine artistry in classical Hebrew, and we have
virtually a new section of Old Testament literature: a supplement to
Jeremiah." 27/32
6A. THE EXILE
IB. Introduction
It woulld be a pleasant state if one were able to say that controversies over the
Old Testament taper off after the patriarchs, but this is simply not the case.
In fact, some scholars take issue with even the very basic events in the Old
Testament which occur long after the early days of Genesis.
This section deals with a very interesting, though less broadly known, part of
Israelite history, that of the Exile, or "Babylonian Captivity," the history of
which is recorded in II Kings 17ff, II Chronicles 36ff, Ezra and Nehemiah.
William F. Albright, in From the Stone Age to Christianity, gives a good
thesis statement for this section:
"The post-exilic matter in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah has been regarded

by a number of scholars (notably by C.C. Torrey) as largely apocryphal, but
recent discoveries and investigations have strikingly discredited this extreme
position.*' 6/208
If the allegations against the traditional interpretation become established,
then it will strategically damage
the integrity of the Old Testament with the
inevitable result of confusion as to which statements are "accurate" and which
are to be rejected. Archaeology requires no such drastic modification, and in
the following pages we will examine what can be said about this period.
2B. Characters
For clarity, since the history of the Exile is not so popular as that of Moses, a
brief introduction to the four main characters of this study follows.
IC. JEHOIACHIN QOICHIN)
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia gives us some of the
facts:Jehoiachin reigned three months (597 B.C.) in Judah before being
taken to Babylon to spend 37 years in prison. This marked the first
deportation into Babylon after the very small group to leave under his
father. 29/1577
Jehoiachin should not be confused with his father, Jehoiakim, who was an
unfortunately poor ruler for eleven years starting in 608 B.C. 29/1579
Jack Finegan goes on to explain his plight in Babylon. He claims that from
the excavations at Babylon it is known that, though he was given no ruling
power, Jehoiachin was considered the legal king of Judah. He had a certain
degree of freedom of movement and after his 37 -year captivity was given
even better treatment (II Kings 25:27-30). 16/188. 189
Albright, in "Kingjehoiachin in Exile" (Biblical Archaeologist), explained

the scene in Judah.
He commented that those who stayed behind liked Jehoiachin as ruler
more than his successors; they called them "bad figs" in Jeremiah 24.
Nebuchadnezzar's son was benevolent with the displaced king, though
Jehoiachin never was allowed to return and died in Babylon. 7/50
2C. CYRUS
R
Joseph Free (Archaeology and Bible History) mentions Cyrus. He ex-
plains that the empire of Nebuchadnezzar centered in Babylon fell to
Cyrus the Great of Persia in 539 B.C. He was the king that allowed the Jews
of Babylon to return to their home (note II Chronicles 36:22, 23 and Ezra
1:1-4). He reversed what the Assyrians and Nebuchadnezzar did in the
deportations. 18/236, 237
Ira Price, in The Monuments and the Old Testament, picks up the
evaluation of Cyrus, praising him as "a shrewd politician, and a kind-
hearted ruler." He made the place of the conquered people as comfortable
as possible, allowing cultural autonomy within the empire. He had reasons
for returning the Jews. First, it was a normal procedure to allow many
captive people to return to wherever they had been taken from, not just
Jews. Second, Cyrus might have been shovm Isaiah 44:28 or heard the
essence of the prophecy that he, Cyrus, would allow the Jews to rebuild the
temple and city. Third, he may have wanted a buffer state between Egypt
and himself and Israel would fit in quite well. 35/382, 383
5C. EZRA
R. Dick Wilson's article, "Ezra," in The International Standard Bible
Encyclopaedia, gives a brief summary of Ezra. He was bom a priest in
Babylon, though his profession as he grew up was a scribe. In about the
year 459-458 B.C., he presented the King of Persia, Artaxerxes I, with a
request to return to Judah and re-establish the law of Jehovah in Jerusalem.
The king consented in an astonishingly positive way. At Jerusalem. Ezra
saw a number of repentances of the people and also set to work rebuilding
the temple. This Jewish scribe was a major leader of Judah during the
rebuilding of Jerusalem after the Exile. 29/1082, 1083
4C. NEHEMIAH
In the same encyclopedia, under 'Nehemiah," Wilson goes into his story.
He was appointed at an early age to be the cupbearer to the King of Persia,
Artaxerxes, who ruled in 464-424 B.C. This was an extremely strategic
office, in which Nehemiah came in very close contact with one of the most
influential men in the world. Small wonder that he was later put into the
position of governor of Judea (444 B.C.). With the influence and power he
had, he was able to have the walls of Jerusalem built, as well as gates, in
addition to bringing about numerous social reforms. Ezra helped in all
these projects. 29/2131
3B. Archaeological Finds

Before getting into what archaeological finds we have, a brief foreshadowing
of the actual controversies vnW help us to see the impact that these finds have
made. Albright, in "The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology" Religion
in Life), summarized the critics' viewpoint:
"Then in 1895 and 1896 W.H.
Kosters and C.C. Torrey began their on-
slaughts on post-exilic history, followed by S.A. Cook and others. Torrey
started by denying the authenticity of the Ezra Memoirs and went on to reject
that of the Book of Ezekiel and finally that of the Book of Jeremiah. Con-
tinuing with remorseless logic (given his totally unacceptable premises), he
denied that there had been a thoroughgoing devastation of Judah and

Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, that there had
been any real Exile or Restoration, and that there was an Ezra. The figure of
Nehemiah he regarded as obscure and unimportant." 3/545
This is a picture of what the critics attack when considering the Exile.
IC. POTTERY
Albright, in Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible, made a point about
pottery,which is a valuable archaeological consideration:
"There is fortunately a marked difference between the pottery of the pre-
exilic and of the post-exilic periods, so that confusion is impossible.
Practically all the ancient Judaean sites of the southern Shephelah and the
adjacent Negeb, and many in the southern hill-country to the east show no
occupation after the Exile (unless in the Roman or Byzantine periods.)"
2/171
2C. CYRUS CYLINDER
This is a record of goings on during the time of Cyrus the Great, as Free
affirms:
"Archaeological evidence that Cyrus pursued a liberal and tolerant policy
toward deported peoples, such as the Jews whom he found in Babylonia,
was discovered during the nineteenth century by Rassam, who found the
Cyrus Cylinder. This cylinder states concerning such groups, 'All of their
peoples I assembled and restored to their own dwelling-places.' A picture
of one of Cyrus' cylinders appears in several handbooks on archaeology. It
tells of his taking the city of Babylon without violence, and, later, of
returning people to their former dwellings." 18/237
Fred Wight adds:
"On a broken cylinder discovered at Ur, Cyrus is recorded as having said:
'Sin (the moon-god), the illuminator of heaven and earth, with his
favorable sign delivered into my hands the four quarters of the world, and
I returned the gods to their shrines.' This recalls to mind the proclamations
of II Chronicles 36:22, 23 and Ezra 1:2, 3." 43/68

Finegan draws a conclusion from this:
"The of Cyrus's decree of release which is quoted in the Old

spirit
Testament (II Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:2-4) is confirmed by the Cyrus
cylinder, where the king relates that he allowed the captives to return to
their various countries and rebuild their temples." 16/191
The significance of this cylinder will become obvious as the section con-
tinues.
3C. ELEPHANTINE TABLETS

W.F. Albright, in "The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology," ex-
plained that these papyrus documents are of fifth century vintage and were
found in an Upper Egyptian Jewish colony. They were published between
1904 and 1911. They have seriously jolted critical positions. 3/546
Jack Finegan commented on the contents:
"The contents of the Elephantine papyri are varied, ranging from the copy
of the Behistun inscription of Darius mentioned above. to such a
. .
document as a Jewish marriage contract. In one letter, dated about 419

B.C. the Jews of Elephantine are instructed by the authority of the Persian
,
government to celebrate the Passover according to the official practice of

the Jerusalem temple as embodied in the priestly code (Exodus 12:1-20)."
16/201
4C. BABYLONIAN RATION LISTS AND JAR HANDLES

Finegan mentioned the Ishtar Gate of Babylon:
"In the ruins of the vaulted building near the Ishtar Gate which was
mentioned above. some 300 cuneiform tablets were unearthed. Upon
. .
study these have been found to date from between 595 and 570 B.C., and
to contain lists of rations such as barley and oil paid to craftsmen and
captives who lived in and near Babylon at that time. But the name of
. . .
most significance to us is none other than that of Yaukin, king of Judah,

with whom also five royal princes are listed." 16/188
Yaukin is the same as Jehoiachin. Albright has more to say:
"In recently published tablets from a royal archive of Nebuchadnezzar,

dating in and about the year 592 B.C., Jehoiachin and five of his sons, as
well as at least five other Jews, are mentioned among recipients of rations
from the royal court. It is significant that Jehoiachin was still called 'king
of Judah' in official Babylonian documents." 4/85
This is what G. Ernest Wright said concerning the Babylonian jar handles
recently unearthed. He begins:

"Further confirmation of the status of Jehoiachin in Babylon comes from
the discovery in Palestine of three stamped jar-handles which bore the
words, 'Belonging to Eliakim, steward of Yaukin.'" 44/178
These jar handles are not significant in themselves, but the seals impressed
upon them make them very valuable; they can be dated about 598-587
B.C. Eliakim was a caretaker of the royal possessions of Yaukin. There
were seals saying other things as well. One bearing a rooster's image was
discovered eight miles north of Jerusalem. Wright explains this one and
another:
"Itbelonged 'To Jaazaniah, servant of the king,' a Judean royal official
mentioned in II Kings 25:23 and Jer. 40:8 (cf also Jer. 42:1 and 'Azariah'
in 43:2, all of whom may be the same person). The other was a seal im-
pression found in the ruins of Lachish. ... It bears the inscription, 'To
Gedaliah who is over the house.' This is undoubtedly the same man as the
governor whom Nebuchadnezzar appointed 'over the people who
remained in the land of Judah' after the fall of Jerusalem and who was soon
murdered (II Kings 25:22-26; Jer. 40-1)." 44/178
4B. Controversies
With background knowledge of the main characters of this period, as
this
well as the illumination which archaeology can provide, we are now able to
examine the controversial issues at hand. Joseph Free ("Archaeology and the
Historical Accuracy of Scriptures" in Bibliotheca Sacra) summarized Torrey's
basic allegations thus:
"Torrey denied, among other things, the following:
(1) The authenticity of the record in Ezra;
(2) the fact of any real devastation as recorded in the Biblical account of
the destruction and devastation of Judah at the beginning of the
Exile;
(3) the fact of any real Exile or Restoration;
(4) even the implications of the details of the Exile, e.g., II Kings 25:11-
12 indicates that virtually all the skilled workers were taken away in
the Exile, and the poor of the land had to replace the vinedressers
and gardeners (husbandmen) so taken away. Torrey's denial of the
details of the Exile went so far that he asserted that no Jewish gar-
deners could possibly have been taken as captives to Babylon."
22/223. 224
IC. C.C.TORREY
Torrey wrote The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, a
short booklet which dealt mainly with the composition of Ezra and
Nehemiah. Toward the latter part, he investigated the historical value of
the Old Testament accounts of this period. What follows are short excerpts
from the pamphlet:
"The results reached in the preceding investigation will, if accepted,
necessitate a decided change in our estimate of the value of Ezra-
Nehemiah as a source for the post-exilic history of the Jews." 38/51
"No fact of O.T. criticism is more firmly established than this; that the
Chronicler, as a historian, is thoroughly untrustworthy. He distorts facts
deliberately and habitually; invents chapter after chapter with the greatest
freedom; and, what is most dangerous of all, his history is not written for
its own sake, but in the interest of an extremely one-sided theory." 38/52
"As for the story of the Return under Zerubbabel, told in Ezra 1.2, each
one of its several features has been repeatedly shown to be unworthy of
credence. The Cyrus edict cannot possibly be regarded as genuine." 38/52
Torrey was careful, however, to give praise honestly.
"The story of Ezra is the Chronicler's masterpiece. It is the best exem-
plification of the traits that appear so prominently in the long passages in
the book of Chronicles, his own qualities as a writer of fiction and his idea
of the history of Israel." 38/57
He cannot be accused of ambiguity. He concluded the book with the
following paragraph:
"The result of the investigation as to the historical content of Ezra-Neh.
has thus been to show, that aside from the greater part of Neh. 1-6 the
book has no value whatever, as history. It may have served a useful purpose
in its own day. The Chr. [Chronicler] was not trying to write history for us,
but for what he supposed to be the benefit of his people. He had his ovm
motive, which we shall do well not to judge harshly. But his work, whatever
else may be said of it, certainly throws no light on the history of the Jews in
the Persian period." 38/65
It might be argued that Torrey was at a disadvantage by not having the
modern finds of archaeology available. However, it would be difficult to
show how Torrey was expecting any finds to cause him to modify his
opinions. It would seem probable that if any significant archaeological
discoveries were to be coming, he would expect them to validate not refute,
his skepticism. In light of what we know today, the scarce archaeological
facts of his day seem to merely bring out more clearly the hypothetical, not
factual, learning of the early critics.
With a quote from Albright, we will begin our brief review of the in-
dividual questions:
"The views of these scholars have been categorically disproved by the
archaeological discoveries of the past twenty years." 3/546
2C. NO REAL EXILE OR RESTORATION
Ezra purposed to restore Jewish laws. Did he succeed? The Archaeology of
Palestineand the Bible by W.F. Albright gives a decided yes:
"The famous Passover letter proved that normative Judaism was imposed
upon the colonies of the Diaspora by the aid of the Persian Government, in
corroboration of the statements in Ezra." 2/170
Does archaeology say the children of Israel went to Babylon? Jack Finegan
concludes that they did:
"Amidst the splendors of Babylon, however, our greatest interest lies in the
inquiry as to whether any traces of the Jewish exiles remain. A discovery of
much importance to the biblical archaeologist now makes it possible to
give an affirmative answer to this question (Ernst F. Weidner in Melanges
Syriens offerts a Monsieur Ren^ Dussaud II (1939), pp. 923-927; W.F.
Albright in BA v. 4 (Dec. 1942), pp. 49-55.)." 16/188
3C. DETAILS OF THE EXILE
One interesting question is how many details are confirmed by ar-
chaeology? To begin with, we can look to the Babylonian Lists and W.F.
Albright ("Kingjehoiachin in Exile," Biblical Archaeologist)'.
"The contents of the tablets, in Dr. Weidner's [the discoverer] resume,
prove to be extraordinarily interesting, since they list payments of rations
m oil and barley, etc., to captives and skilled workmen from many nations,
all living in and around Babylon, between the years 595 and 570 B.C.
Among them are Yaukin, king of Judah, and five royal princes, as well as
numerous other men of Judah; the songs of Aga, king of Ascalon in the
land of the Philistines, together with mariners and musicians from that
seaport; mariners and craftsmen from Tyre, Byblus and Arvad in
Phoenicia; Elamites, Medes and Persians; many Egyptians, who were
mariners, ship-builders, horse-trainers and monkey-trainers." 7/51
He goes on to explain that "Father L.H. Vincent, identified the name
'Yaukin' as an abbreviated form of Joiachin,' just as the name 'Yauqim' of
contemporary documents is an abbreviation of Joiakim.' 7/50
In Kings 24:14, we read of the king of Babylon taking the Jews into
II
exile,not only the Judean King, but also the "craftsman and smiths."
Albright takes Torrey to issue on this point:
"Incidentally, Torrey asserted that no Jewish gardeners can possibly have
—
been taken as captives to Babylon but we have in these same ration lists,
among other captive Jews, a Jewish gardenerl The attempt by Torrey and
Irwin to show that there was no Jewish dispersion in Babylonia to which
Ezekiel can have preached— assuming that he existed at all —
has collapsed
entirely. That neither language nor content of the Book of Ezekiel fits any
period or place outside of the early sixth century B.C. and Babylonia, has
been proved in detail by CO. Howie (1950)." 3/546
Free comments on the presence of Kingjehoiachin in Babylon:
"It is thrilling to be able to find even the 'ration receipts' of King
Jehoiachin from twenty-five hundred years ago." 18/221

4C. QUESTION OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH
One big reason for the late dating of Ezra, and thus an allowance for less
respect due its historical value, is the so-called late words found therein.
This is one reason Torrey felt so much at liberty to abuse the integrity of
the book. Albright again, however, raises a difficulty with such a view.
"For example, Torrey insisted that certain words, among them pithgama,
'matter, affair,' were of Greek origin and could not, therefore, have been
taken into biblical Aramaic before 330 B.C. In the last twenty years these
very same words have turned up in Egyptian Aramaic and Babylonian
cuneiform documents from the late fifth century, that is, from the very
time of Ezra! The forced Greek etymologies which he proposed are now
mere curiosities." 3/546, 547
In "Archaeology and Higher
Criticism," J. P. Free notes that the
"rationalistic view" maintains a single authorship of Ezra,
critical
Nehemiah and Chronicles (20/36). R.H. Pfeiffer (Introduction to the Old
Testament) can be cited:
"The book of Ezra-Nehemiah is the sequel of Chronicles and was written
by the Chronicler Chron. 36:22f. is repeated verbatim in Ezra l:l-3a).

(II
It relates the history of the Jews during the century which elapsed from the
edict of Cyrus allowing the Exiles to return (538 B.C.) to Nehemiah's
second visit to Jerusalem (432 B.C.; Neh. 13:6f.; cf. 5:14)." 34/813
Free then returns to the words used in the book of Ezra:
"The late dating of thesebooks by the liberal was based, among other
things, on the assumption that the Aramaic letters in Ezra were written in
a late type of Aramaic. The discovery of the Elephantine Letters on an
island in the Nile River showed that the Aramaic of Ezra may easily date
back to the fourth century, if not to the end of the fifth." 20/36
In dealing with Nehemiah, he says,
"The reference in Nehemiah to the drachma, a Greek coin, was also held
to be evidence of the late date of that book. But the discovery of six
drachmas in the Persian level in the excavation of Beth-zur, south of
Bethlehem, showed that Nehemiah would not have been ahead of himself
in mentioning the drachma about 450 B.C." 20/36, 37
Free goes on to cite Albright accusing Pfeiffer of being "far behind the van
of Old Testament scholarship" (2/253) in his maintaining of a third
century (B.C.) date of Ezra-Nehemiah-Chronicles. Then, he concludes:
"Thus, at point after point the reasons for late dating of many of the books
of the Old Testament is shown by archaeological discovery not to be
supported." 20/37
Before closing the case on Ezra-Nehemiah, we have an interesting story of
one man who stood up strongly against this popular late-date theory, even
though he did not have the benefits of modem archaeology. The man is
Eduard Meyer.
Albright, in From the Stone Age to Christianity, introduces him to us:
"E. Meyer's brilliant defense of its authenticity in 1897 was not only fully
justified as far as it went but was not even sufficiently comprehensive."
6/208
In another book, he adds:
"The language alone undoubtedly forms a powerful argument in favour of
the essential authenticity of the Aramaic letters in Ezra, which has been
denied by most modern scholars, with the brilliant exception of Eduard
Meyer." 2/170
In an article he goes further:
"The great ancient historian, Eduard Meyer, fifty-five years ago insisted on
the substantial authenticity of the Persian decrees and official letters
preserved in Ezra; during the past twenty years strong additional evidence
for them has been published by H.H. Schaeder and Elias Bickerman. If it
were practicable to quote from still unpublished Aramaic documents from
fifth-century Egypt, the weight of factual evidence would crush all op-
position." 3/547
To Albright, the case is closed:
"Again Torrey and others have insisted that the language of the book is
late, dating from the third century B.C., after Alexander the Great. The
publication of the fifth-century Elephantine Papyri (1904-1911) from a
Jewish colony near Assuan in upper Egypt had already made Torrey's
position difficult, but subsequent discoveries by Mittwoch, Eilers, and
others have dealt it the coup de grdce. " 3/546
5C. NO DESTRUCTION OF JUDAH

This final category will not take long, but it is included because at one time
it was believed that there was no
actually real destruction of Judah when
Nebuchadnezzar marched through.
Free says:
"The invasions of Nebuchadnezzar in 605, 597, and 587-586 B.C. caused
much damage and destruction in Judah. Archaeological evidence shows
that many of the cities of Judah were destroyed and not rebuilt, a fact
particularly evidenced in the excavations at Azekah, Bethshemesh, and
Kirjathsepher, and also by surface examination elsewhere." 18/227
What have the excavations shown? Albright gives a clue:
"The views of these scholars have been categorically disproved by the
archaeological discoveries of the past twenty years. Excavation and surface
exploration in Judah have proved that the towns of Judah were not only
completely destroyed by the Chaldeans in their two invasions, but were not
reoccupied for generations— often never again in history. This is solidly
demonstrated by the evidence of pottery (which serves the archaeologist as
fossils serve the geologist in dating periods), confirmed by a steadily in-
creasing number of inscriptions from the last years of the Kingdom of
Judah. Vivid light is shed on these events by the Lachish Ostraca and other
recently discovered documents." 3/546
And in conclusion, he is most clear:
"Archaeological data have thus demonstrated the substantial originality of
the Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah, beyond doubt."
7A. TELL MARDIKH: The Discovery of Ebla
One of the greatest archaeological finds in this century has only recently come to
light. In 1964 Professor Paolo Matthiae, archaeologist from the University of
Rome, began a systematic excavation of a then unknown city. Due to the
determination and foresight of Matthiae, in 1974-75 a great royal palace was
uncovered which eventually yielded over 15,000 tablets and fragments.
Giovanni. Pettinato, epigrapher, had worked closely with Matthiae in helping to
determine some of the paleographic significance of the find. At present, only a
fraction of the tablets have been translated. It is now certain that upon this
ancient site the once prestigious city of Ebla ruled the Near East as the seat of a
great empire. Ebla is located near the modem-day city of Aleppo in North
Syria.
The zenith of Ebla was principally in the third millennium B.C. (co-terminous
with the time of the patriarchs). Although the Ebla texts, at present, do not
specifically mention biblical people or events (although there is much debate
over this issue) they do provide an abundance of background material and
biblical place names for evaluating the biblical narratives. The importance of
Ebla for Syrian history is most impressive. The significance of Ebla for biblical
studies is phenomenal. So far only the tip of the iceberg has been seen. Although
the evidence has taken time to surface, listed here is some of the support for the
biblical narratives.
IB. Biblical Towns

In reference to the identification of biblical towns in the Ebla archives,
Kitchen notes:
"Not a few towns of biblical interest appear in the Ebla tablets, which
preserve (in most cases) the earliest-known mention of these in written
records.
"More useful, potentially, are the Eblaite mentions of familiar Palestinian
place-names such as Hazor, Megiddo, Jerusalem, Lachish, Dor, Gaza,
Ashtarot (-Qamaim), etc. Several of these places are known archaeologically

to have been inhabited towns in the third millennium B.C. (Early Bronze Age
III-IV), and these tablets confirm their early importance, possibly as local
city-states. Finally, Canaan itself now appears as a geographical entity from
the later third millennium B.C., long before any other dated external
mention so far known to us— it will be interesting to leam what extent is
accorded to Canaan in the Ebla texts." 218/53-54
2B. Biblical Names
"Not a few of the proper names of inhabitants of Ebla have struck Pettinato
and others by their obvious resemblances to a wide range of personal names of
individuals in the Bible." 218/52
"The most important contributions of the Ebla occurrences of these and other
such names are (i) to emphasize once more that these are names used by real
human individuals (never by gods, or exclusively [if ever] by tribes, or by
fairytale figures), and (ii) to indicate the immense antiquity of names of this
type, and of these names in particular." 218/53
Dr. Pettinato gives clear Eblaite variations on such Hebrew names as Israel,
Ishmael and Micaiah. 219/50
SB. Ancient Near Eastern Tribute
Some consider the tribute received by Solomon at the height of his empire as
fanciful exaggeration. But the find at Ebla offers another interpretation of
the accounts.
"Imperial Ebla at the height of its power must have had a vast income. From
one defeated king of Mari alone, a tribute of 1 1 ,000 pounds of silver and 880
pounds of gold was exacted on one occasion. This ten tons of silver and over
one third of a ton of gold was no mean haul in itself. Yet it was simply one
'delectable extra' so far as the treasury- accounts of Ebla were concerned. In
such an economic context, the 666 talents (about twenty tons) of gold as
Solomon's basic income from his entire 'empire' some 15 centuries later (I
Kings 10:14; II Chronicles 9:13) loses its air of exaggeration and begins to
look quite prosaic as just part of a wider picture of the considerable (if
transient) wealth of major kingdoms of the ancient biblical world.
"The comparisons just given do not prove that Solomon actually did receive
666 talents of gold, or that his kingdom was organized just as Kings describes.
But they do indicate clearly (i) that the Old Testament data must be studied
in the context of their world and not in isolation, and (ii) that the scale of
activity portrayed in the Old Testament writings is neither impossible nor
even improbable when measured by the relevant external standards." 218/51-
52
4B. Religious Practices
The Ebla texts reveal that many of the Old Testament religious practices are
not as "late" as some critical scholars have espoused.
"In matters like priests, cult and offerings the records from Ebla so far merely
reinforce for Syria- Palestine what we already know for Egypt, Mesopotamia
and Anatolia in the third, second and first millennia B.C., and from the
records of North-Syrian Qatna and Ugarit for the second millennium B.C.
Namely, that well-organized temple cults, sacrifices, full rituals, etc., were a
constant feature of ancient Near-Eastern religious life at all periods from
prehistory down to Graeco-Roman times. They have nothing to do with
baseless theories of the nineteenth century A.D., whereby such features of
religious lifecan only be a mark of 'late sophistication,' virtually forbidden to
the Hebrews until after the Babylonian exile — alone oi all the peoples of the
ancient East. There is simply no rational basis for the quaint idea that the
simple rites of Moses' tabernacle (cf. Leviticus) or of Solomon's temple, both
well over 1000 years later than the rituals practiced in half-a-dozen Eblaite
temples, must be the idle invention of idealizing writers as late as the fifth
century B.C." 218/54
G. Pettinato comments on the source of the specifics referred to by Kitchen:

"Passing on to the divine cult, we note the existence of the temples of Dagan,
Astar, Kamos, Rasap, all attested in the texts from Ebla. Among the offerings
are listed bread, drinks, or even animals. Two tablets in particular, TM, 75,
G, 1974 and TM, 75, G, 2238, stand out because they record the offerings of
various animals to different gods made by all the members of the royal family
during a single month. For example, '11 sheep for the god Adad from the en
as an offering,' '12 sheep for the god Dagan from the en as an offering,* '10
sheep for the god Rasap of the city Edani from the en as an offering.'
"Among the more interesting aspects of the divine cult at Ebla is the presence
of diverse categories of priests and priestesses, including two classes of
prophets, the mahhu and the nabiutum, the second of which finds a natural
counterpart in the Old Testament. To explain the biblical phenomenon
scholars have hitherto looked to Mari for background, but in the future Ebla
will also claim their attention." 219/49
5B. Hebrew Words

K.A. Kitchen speaks of the critical view of Scripture held by many liberal
scholars:
"Seventy or a hundred years ago, no such vast depth of perspective was

possible; and to suit the purely theoretical reconstructions of Old Testament
books and history by German Old Testament scholars in particular, many
words in Hebrew were labelled 'late' — 600 B.C. and later, in effect.. By this
simple means, mere philosophical prejudices could be given the outward
appearance of a 'scientific' reconstruction down to the present day." 218/50
As a reply, he continues:
"However, the immense growth in our knowledge of the earlier history of
words found in Old Testament Hebrew tends now to alter all this. If a given
word is used in Ebla in 2300 B.C., and in Ugarit in 1300 B.C., then it cannot
by any stretch of the imagination be a 'late word' (600 B.C.I), or an
'Aramaism' at periods when standard Aramaic had not yet evolved. It
becomes instead an early word, a part of the ancestral inheritance of biblical
Hebrew. More positively, the increased number of contexts that one gains for
rarer words can provide useful confirmation— or correction— of our un-
derstanding of their meaning." 218/50
Referring to specific words. Kitchen states:
"Thus, to go back to the survey of city-officials at Ebla, the term used for
those scores of 'leaders' was nase, the same word as nasi, a term in biblical
Hebrew used for leaders of the tribes of Israel (e.g., Numbe/s 1:16, 44, etc.),
and applied to other purely human rulers such as Solomon (I Kings 11:34).
Old-fashioned biblical criticism declared the word to be 'late,' a mark of the
hypothetical 'priestly code' for example.
"The word ketem, 'gold,* is in Hebrew a rare and poetic synomym for zahab,
and is commonly dismissed as 'late.' Unfortunately for this mis-dating, the
word was borrowed into Egyptian from Canaanite back in the twelfth century
B.C., and now— over 1000 years earlier still— recurs as kutim in the Paleo-
Canaanite of Ebla, 2300 B.C." 218/50
He continues:
"As remarked in Chapter 2, the Hebrew word tehom, 'deep,' was not
borrowed from Babylonian, seeing that it is attested not only in Ugaritic as
thmt (thirteenth century B.C.) but also Ebla a thousand years earHer
(ti'amatum). The term is Common Semitic.
"As an example of a rare word confirmed in both existence and meaning, one
may cite Hebrew 'ereshet, 'desire,' which occurs just once in the Bible, in
Psalm 21:2 (Heb. 21:3). Besides being found in Ugaritic in the thirteenth
century B.C., this word now appears a millennium earlier at Ebla as irisatum
(Eblaite or Old- Akkadian) in the Sumerian/Eblaite vocabulary tablets.
"Finally, the supposed 'late' verb hadash/hiddesh, 'be new'/'to renew' goes
back— again— via Ugaritic (hadath) to Eblaite (h)edash(u). And so on, for
many more besides." 218/50-51
Kitchen concludes:
"The are— or should be— clear. Set against 2'/^ thousand years of
lessons here
historyand development of the West Semitic dialects, the whole position of
the dating of the vocabulary and usages in biblical Hebrew will need to be
completely reexamined. The truth appears to be that early West Semitic in
the third and second millennia B.C. had in common a vast and rich
vocabulary, to which the later dialects such as Canaanite, Hebrew,
Phoenician, Aramaic, etc., fell heirs— but in uneven measure. Words that
remained in everyday prosaic use in one of these languages lingered on only in
high-flown poetry or in traditional expressions in another of the group. Thus,
not a few supposed 'late words' or 'Aramaisms' in Hebrew (especially in
poetry) are nothing more than early West-Semitic words that have found less
use in Hebrew but have stayed more alive in Aramaic." 218/51
6B. Future Value
More evidence from Ebla will soon be forthcoming and will shed more light
on the biblical account.
Temporarily, some of the potentially very significant finds concerning
biblical historicity have been clouded with uncertain reports. One of these
finds centers on the five cities of the plain mentioned in Genesis 14. The
historicity of these cities and their kings has long been questioned by critical
scholars. But evidence came to light in the early stages of the Ebla excavation
that shed important new background on the historicity of these cities.
220/143-164
However, new excavations of the data have called some of these findings into
question. 220/143
Hopefully these issues will be resolved soon for the benefit of all.
8A. CONCLUSION
Archaeology does not prove the Bible. It does not prove beyond a shadow of a
doubt all aspects of the history of the Exile. It does, however, put the one who
wishes to maintain the traditional view on at least an equal footing with the
skeptics. A person must no longer feel required to believe scholarship like that of
Torrey. Free put a simple closing to his study of the subject thus:
"In summary, archaeological discoveries show at point after point that the
Biblical record is confirmed and commended as trustworthy. This confirmation
is not confined to a few general instances." 22/225
NOTE: For further study of this area, see either Free, or better, Albright. These two
have done extensive work in this area, as this section indicates: Free, Joseph P.—
JArchaeology and Bible History and an article series in Bibliotheca Sacra in 1956-57;
Albright, William YoxwtW— Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible, "King
Jehoiachin in Exile" in Biblical Archaeologist and "The Bible After Twenty Years of
Archaeology" in Religion in Life.
APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Albright, William F. The Archaeology of Palestine. Baltimore: Penguin Books,
1960.
2. Albright, William F. Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible. New York: Revell,
1932.
3. Albright, William F. "The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology," Religion in
Life. Autumn. 1952. Vol. 21, pp. 537-550.
4. Albright, William F. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York:
Harper, 1960.
5. Albright, William F. "A Brief History of Judah from the Days of Josiah to
Alexander the Great." Biblical Archaeologist. February, 1946. Vol. 9, No. 1,
pp. 1-16.
6. Albright, William F. From the Stone Age to Christianity. Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press. 1940.
7. Albright,William F. "King Jehoiachin in Exile," Biblical Archaeologist.

December. 1942. Vol. 5. No. 4. pp. 49-55.
8. Albright, William F. "The Oldest Hebrew Letters: Lachish Ostraca," Bulletin of
the American Schoob of Oriental Research. April, 1938. No. 70, pp. 11-16.
9. Albright, William F. Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. New York: Funk and
Wagnall, 1955.
10. Albright, William F. "Recent Progress in NorthCanaanite Research," Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research. April, 1938. No. 70, pp. 18-24.
11. Anderson, Bernhard W. "Changing Emphasis in Biblical Scholarship, "/ouma/
of Bible and Religion. April, 1955. Vol. 23. pp. 81-88.
12. Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody,©
1964, 1974. Moody Press, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Used by per-
mission.
IS. Burrows, Millar. What Mean These Stones? Nev/ York: Meridian Books. 1957.
14. Caiger, S.L. Bible and Spade. London: Oxford University Press, 1936.
15. Elder, John. Prophets, Idols, and Diggers. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co.. 1960.
16. Finegan, Jack. Light from the Ancient Past. London: Oxford Press, distributed
in the U.S. by Princeton University Press, 1946.
17. Frank, Henry Thomas. Bible, Archaeology and Faith. Nashville: Abingdon
Press. 1971.
1969.
19. Free, Joseph P."Archaeology and the Bible," HIS Magazine. May. 1949. Vol. 9.
pp. 17-20. Reprinted by permission from HIS, student magazine of Inter-
Varsity Christian Fellowship. ©1949.
20. Free. Joseph P. "Archaeology and Higher Criticism." Bibliotheca Sacra. January,
1957. Vol 114. pp. 23-29.
21. Free. Joseph P. "Archaeology and Liberalism," Bibliotheca Sacra. October, 1956.
Vol. 113,322-338.
22. Free, Joseph P. "Archaeology and the Historical Accuracy of Scripture,"
Bibliotheca Sacra. ]u\y, 1956. Vol. 113, pp. 214-226.
23. Glueck, Nelson. "The Second Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh," Bulletin of the
American Schoob of Oriental Research. October, 1939. Vol. 75, pp. 8-22.
24. Glueck, Nelson. "The Third Season at Tell el-Kheleifeh," Bulletin of the
American Schoob of Oriental Research. October, 1940. Vol. 79, pp. 2-18.
25. Gordon, C.H. "Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets," The Biblical Ar-
chaeologist. February. 1940. Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-12.
26. Hamilton, Floyd. Basis of the Christian Faith. New York: Harper, 1933.
27. Haupert, R.S, "Lachish— Frontier Fortress of Judah," Biblical Archaeologist.
December. 1938. Vol. 1. No. 4. pp. 30-32.
28. Horn, Siegfried H. "Recent Illumination of the Old Testament," Christianity
rorfa> June21, 1968. Vol. 12, No. 19, pp. 13-17.
29. International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. 5 vols. Edited by James Orr, John L.
Nielsen, and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids: Wm
B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1939.
30. Kitchen. K.A. The Ancient Orient and the Old Testament. Chicago: Inter-
Varsity Press. 1966.
51. Lapp. Paul W. Biblical Archaeology and History. New York: World Publishing,
1969.
32. Little. Paul. Know Why You Believe. Wheaton, 111.: Scripture Press. 1967.
33. Peet. T. Eric. Egypt and the Old Testament. Liverpool: University Press of
Liverpool. 1942.
34. Pfeiffer, Robert to the Old Testament. New York: Harper. 1948.
H. Introduction
35. Price. Ira The Monuments and the Old Testament. 17th edition.
M.
Philadelphia: Thejudson Press. 1925.
36. Sayce. A.H. Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies. London: The
Religious Tract Society. 1910.
37. Steams, M.B. and the Higher Critics," Bibliotheca Sacra.
"Biblical Archaeology
No. 383. pp. 307-318.
July. 1939. Vol. 96.
38. Torrey, Charles C. The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah.
Giessen, Germany: J. Ricker'sche Buchhandlung, 1896.
39. linger. Merrill F. "Archaeological Discoveries and Their Bearing on Old
Ttstdccn^nx." Bibliotheca Sacra. April. 1955. Vol. 112. pp. 137-142.
40. Unger. Merrill R. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan. 1954.
41. Vos, Howard, ed. An Introduction to Bible Archaeology. Chicago:
Moody. ©1959. Moody Press, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Used by
permission.
42. Vos. Howard. Genesis and Archaeology. Chicago: Moody Press, ©1963.
43. Wight. Fred H. Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands. Chicago:
Moody, ©1955. Moody Press, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Used by
Permission.
44. Wright, G.E. "The Present State of Biblical Archaeology," The Study of the Bible
Today and Tomorrow. Edited by Harold R. Willoughby. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1947.
45. Wright, G.E. "The Terminology of the Old Testament Religion and Its
Significance," youma/o/ Near £05^ Studies. October, 1942. Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.
404-414.
46. Oesterley, W.O.E. and Theodore H. Robinson. Hebrew Religion: Its Origin and
Developments. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1935.
47. Hofner, Harry A. "The Hittites and the Hurrians," Peoples of the Old Testament.
Edited by D.J. Wiseman. London: Oxford Press, 1973.
RECENT ILLUMINATION OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT
SIGFRIED H.HORN
We Christians have a particular interest in the past of the Near East, because our
religious and cultural roots lie there. Our beliefs are guided by an ancient book, the
Bible, that was produced in its entirety in lands strange to us by people who did not
speak our tongue and whose customs were not ours. If the message contained in that
ancient book is to have maning for us modems of the Western world, we must un-
derstand it and have confidence in its authenticity, its veracity, its timelessness, and its
eternal values.
During the last two centuries, the Old Testament more than the New has been sub-
jected to much critical investigation. We
know it was written in Hebrew by Jews 2,500
years ago and more. It contains accounts of miracles that cannot be verified, events
that seem unreal or fantastic, and prophecies in a symbolism that requires special
study to be understood. Little wonder that many thinking people have questioned the
value of the Old Testament for this modem age and have subjected it to a scrutiny
that no other book, ancient or modem, has ever experienced.
Many fields have undergone revolutions during the last few centuries. In the space of
150 yearss, traveling has been accelerated from 4 to 17,000 miles an hour. Electronic
computers now make calculations with breath-taking speed. Electric and atomic
power has been harnessed and can be released at will. The worlds of the Arctic and
the Antarctic, of the deep sea, of the air that surrounds us and of the empty space
beyond our atmosphere — all these have been explored. No wonder the inquisitive
mind of modem man began also to question traditional religious beliefs, whei) he saw
that values changed in many areas and that the views of his forbears in many fields of
knowledge proved false. It is only natural, then, that the basis of our Christian faith,
the Bible, has been subjected to careful scrutiny.
For some seemed to threaten doom for the Bible, par-
results of this investigation
ticularly the Old Testament. The culmination was reached at the time of World War
I. Scholars did not yet know that a Hebrew alphabetic script existed before the eighth
or ninth century B.C.; therefore they thought that the Pentateuch could not have
been produced any earlier than the period of the Hebrew kings. Since ancient
parallels for the strange customs described in the patriarchal stories had not been
discovered, practically all scholars of standing in Europe and America considered
these stories ficticious. Furthermore, the earliest known Hebrew Old Testament
manuscripts came from the tenth century A.D. and thus were less than a thousand
years old. This strengthened the suspicion that the Bible text had undergone sub-
stantial changes during its transmission from one generation to another over a period
of many centuries from which no witnesses seemed to have survived.
Not surprisingly, many scholars therefore abandoned belief in traditional views about
the Old Testament. Friedrich Delitzsch, a great German Assyriologist and Old
Testament scholar, wrote in 1921 that "the books of Moses, Joshua and Judges suffer
under the fault that history is indiscriminately mixed with legends and fairy tales, as is
also the case in the Book of Kings" {Die gross THuschung, I, 10). He also asserted that
"the Old Testament works, the alleged Word of God, has been transmitted in a much
more faulty and careless way than we can comprehend" (II, 5). Julius Wellhausen, the
famous higher Bible critic, proclaimed unchallenged his idea that the conditions of
the later Jewish monarchy were retrojected into the hoary past, and that the
patriarchal stories were no more than a transfigured mirage of unreality. He was so
fully convinced of the unreliability of the biblical narratives that he exclaimed: "If it
[the Israelite tradition] were only possible, it would be folly to prefer any other
possibility" {Komposition des Hexateuch, p. 346).
MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT S59
But thanks to archaeological discoveries made during the last forty years, this
situation haschanged completely. In 1917 Alan Gardiner, noted British Egyptologist,
made the first decipherment of the Proto-Semitic inscriptions found at Mt. Sinai by
Flinders Petrie more than ten years earlier. These inscriptions, written in a pictorial
script by Canaanites before the middle of the second millennium B.C., prove that
alphabetic writing existed before the time of Moses. Numerous other inscriptions in
the same script have since that time come to light in Palestine and near Mt. Sinai,
showing that the art of writing in an alphabetic script was already widespread in the
patriarchal age.
The discovery of a whole archive of legal and social texts at Nuzi, a small place in
northeastern Iraq, has revealed that the social and legal background of the
patriarchal age is reflected accurately and in great detail in the Old Testament
patriarchal narratives. Nothing has done more in recent years to restore confidence in
the reliability of these narratives than the humble Nuzi texts. Scholar after scholar has
testified that "there is today no reason to doubt the authenticity of the general
background of the patriarchal narratives" (E.A. Speiser, Annual of the American
Schools of Oriental Research, XIII, 43). To the discoveries at Nuzi must be added the
finding of several law codes from the early second millennium B.C. that have revealed
the legal background for many strange customs encountered in the patriarchal
period.
Since 1929, annual excavations carried out at Ras Shamra in northern Syria have
given us a large mass of Canaanite literature, written in an alphabetic cuneiform
script that was deciphered in an incredibly short time, chiefly through the ingenuity of
two scholars, one German and one French. These texts have illuminated the religion
as well as the moral and social conditions of the ancient Canaanites and have provided
much linguistic help for a better understanding of the poetical sections of the Old
Testament.
Excavations of numerous sites in Palestine, Syria, and other Bible lands have brought
to light many bits of evidence that have made major or minor contributions to a better
understanding or verification of the Bible Stories. Professor W.F. Albright, the
greatest living Orientalist made the following significant remarks in 1958 when he
reviewed the archaeological accomplishment of the recent past:
Thanks to modern research we now recognize its [the Bible's] substantial
historicity. The narratives of the patriarchs, of Moses and the exodus, of the
conquest of Canaan, of the judges, the monarchy, exile and restoration,
have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have
thought impossible forty years ago [The Christian Century, November 19,
1958, p. 1329].
Then came the culmination of all discoveries in the field of biblical archaeology: the
finding of Hebrew scrolls in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, scrolls that have given us
samples, dating from the period from the third century B.C. to the second century
A.D., of all Old Testament books save one. The few well-preserved documents as well
as the tens of thousands of fragments of worm-eaten and rotten Bible scrolls, which
patient scholars have deciphered and published, have already done much to restore
confidence in the reliability of the Hebrew text. One can find scores of published
testimonials by reputable scholars who as the result of their studies of the Dead Sea
scrolls have declared their surprise that the changes the Masoretic Hebrew text ex-
perienced in the course of transmission were so few and so insignificant. Professor
Albright said in this respect that the Dead Sea scrolls prove "conclusively that we must
treat the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible with the utmost respect and that the
free emending of difficult passages in which modern critical scholars have indulged
cannot be tolerated any longer" {Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 1955, p 128).
Having taken look at the phenomenal changes in the evaluation of the
this general
Old Testament, let us turn to some concrete examples of illumination
reliability of the
and verification of the Old Testament by archaeological discoveries. First, in the
patriarchal stories we find several strange accounts of a barren wife who asked her
husband to produce a child for her by her maid servant. Sarah did this, and later also
Jacob's two wives, Rachel and Leah. Today we know that this practice was not
unusual during the patriarchal age. The laws of that period as well as ancient
marriage contracts mention it. For example, in a marriage contract from Nuzi, the
bride Kelim-ninu promises in written form to procure for her husband Shennima a
slave girl as second wife, if she fails to bear him children. She also promises that she
will not drive out the offspring of such a union. In no other period besides the
patriarchal age do we find this strange custom.
Another example is the sale of Esau's birthright to Jacob for a dish of lentils. It is hard
to believe that that status of an older brother or sister could ever have been attained by
purchase. Nowever, a Nuzi text deals with this very custom. In a written contract
between Tupkitilia and Kurpazah, two brothers, Tupkitilla sells his inheritance rights
to his younger brother for three sheep. Esau sold his rights for food in the pot, while
Tupkitilla sold his for food still on the hoof.
Other texts show that a bride was ordinarily chosen for a son by his father, as the
patriarchs did; that a man had to pay a dowry to his father-in-law, or to work for his
father-in-law if he could not afford the dowry, as poor Jacob had to do; that the orally
expressed will of a father could not be changed after it had been pronounced, as in
Isaac's refusal to change the blessings pronounced over Jacob even though they had
been obtained by deception; that a bride ordinarily received from her father a slave
girl as personal maid, as Leah and Rachel did when they were married to Jacob; that
the theft of cult objects of a god was punishable by death, which was why Jacob
consented to the death of the one with whom the stolen gods of his father-in-law were
found; that the strange relationship between Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar is
vividly illustrated by the laws of the ancient Assyrians and Hittites. These are only
some of the many parallels to customs reflected in the patriarchal stories that ar-
chaeologists have discovered. Such evidence shows clearly that these narratives were
written soon after the events described had occurred, when these strange customs
either still existed or had not yet been forgotten.
Leaving the patriarchal period, let us see how archaeological material can illuminate
biblical records without providing a scrap of written material. The excavations at
Shiloh by Danish scholars provide an example. The early chapters of the first book of
Samuel describe the story of Eli and Samuel at the tabernacle located at Shiloh. This
city was at that time the seat of the desert sanctuary originally constructed under
Moses' direction at Mt. Sinai. Its greatest treasure was the Ark of the Covenant. Then
we read that the Ark was captured by the Philistines in the battle of Aphek and held
by them for some time. Finally it was returned to Israel, but not to the city of Shiloh.
For many years it remained at Kirjath-jearim, until David transferred it to Jerusalem,
his capital. Moreover, when we read again of the family of Eli, the Ark resides not at
Shiloh but at Nob; nothing is said about the fate of Shiloh and its sanctuary.
What happened to it? In the book of Jeremiah, references are made to some great
disaster that befell Shiloh at some unspecified period of Israel's history. Nothing in
Jeremiah's references suggests that this disaster had occurred in the distant past.
However, scholars have long supposed that the Philistines destroyed Shiloh and its tent
sanctuary after they defeated the Israelites and took the Ark at the battle of Aphek.
When the Danes excavated Shiloh, they found evidence that satisfactorily answers the
question. The broken pieces of pottery discovered there provide a means for recon-
structing the ancient history of Shiloh. This pottery evidence shows that there was a
break in the city's history from the eleventh century B.C. until the sixth century. From
biblical evidence we know that the early eleventh century B.C. is precisely the period
of the Philistine defeat of Israel and the capture of the Ark; hence we have proof that
at that time the city of Shiloh and the Tabernacle must have been destroyed.
I want to inject a personal note about the discoveries at Shechem, for I have par-
ticipated in its excavation. Our 1960 work at Shechem revealed that the city and its
great temple of Baal were destroyed in the twelfth century B.C. That is exactly the
time indicated in the Bible for the destruction of Shechem by Abimelech, the bastard
son of the judge Gideon. The archaeological evidence— broken pieces of pottery — sets
that date at about 1150 B.C. The agreement between the two dates, one obtained
from biblical evidence and the other from archaeological data, could hardly have
been closer. This is certainly a source of great satisfaction for us biblical ar-
chaeologists.
For another illustration of the value of archaeological evidence for a better un-
derstanding of the Old Testament, let us go to Jerusalem. Archaeological explorations
have shed some interesting light on the capture of Jerusalem by David. The biblical
accountsof that capture (II Sam. 5:6-8 and I Chron. 11:6) are rather obscure without
the help obtained from archaeological evidence. Take for example II Samuel 5:8,
which in the King James Version reads: "And David said on that day, Whosoever
getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that
are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain." Add to this statement I
—
Chronicles 11:6 "Sojoab the son of Zeruiah went first up and was chief
."
Some years ago saw a painting of the conquest of Jerusalem in which the artist
I
showed a man climbing up

a metal downspout, running on the outside face of the city
wall. This picture was absurd, because ancient city walls had neither gutters nor
downspouts, although they had weeping holes in the walls to drain water off. The
Revised Standard Version, produced after the situation had become clear through
archaeological discoveries made on the spot, translates the pertinent passages: "And
David said on that day, 'Whoever would smite the Jebusites, let him get up on the
water shaft to attack the lame and the blind, who are hated by David's soul, And
Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, so he became chief." What was this water shaft
that Joab climbed?
Jerusalem in those days was a small city lying on a single spur of the hills on which the
large city eventually stood. Its position was one of great natural strength, because it
was surrounded on three sides by deep valleys. This was why the Jebusites boastfully
declared that even blind and lame could hold their city against a powerful attacking
army. But the water supply of the city was poor; the population was entirely
dependent on a spring that lay outside the city on the eastern slope of the hill.
So that they could obtain water without having to go down to where the spring was
located, the Jebusites had constructed an elaborate system of tunnels through the
rock. First they had dug a horizontal tunnel, beginning at the spring and proceeding
toward the center of the city. After digging for ninety feet they hit a natural cave.
From the cave they dug a vertical shaft forty-five feet high, and from the end of the
shaft a sloping tunnel 135 feet long and a stair case that ended at the surface of their
city, 110 feet above the water level of the spring. The spring was then concealed from
the outside so that no enemy could detect it. To get water the Jebusite women went
down through the upper tunnel and let their water skins down the shaft to draw water
from the cave, to which it was brought by natural flow through the horizontal tunnel
that connected the cave with the spring.
However, one question remained unanswered. The excavations of R.A.S. Macalister
and J.G. Duncan some forty years ago had uncovered a wall and a tower that were
thought to be of Jebusite and Davidic origin respectively. This tract of wall ran along
the rim of the hill of Ophel, west of the tunnel entrance. Thus the entrance was left
outside the protective city wall, exposed to the attacks and interference of enemies.
Why hadn't the tunnel been built to end inside the city? This puzzle has now been
solved by the recent excavations of Kathleen Kenyon on ophel. She found that
Macalister and Duncan had given the wall and tower they discovered wrong dates:
these things actually originated in the Hellenistic period. She uncovered the real
Jebusite wall a little farther down the slope of the hill, east of the tunnel entrance,
which now puts the entrance safely in the old city area.
David, a native of Bethlehem, four miles south of Jerusalem, may have found out
about the spring and its tunnel system in the days when as a youth he roamed through
the countryside. Later, as king he based his surprise attack on this knowledge, and
made the promise that the first man who entered the city through the water shaft
would be his commander-in-chief. Joab, who was already general of the army, did not
want to lose that position and therefore led the attack himself. The Israelites ap-
parently went through the tunnel, climbed up the shaft, and were in the city before
any of the besieged citizens had any idea that so bold a plan had been conceived.
This water system, constructed more than three thousand years ago, is still in
existence and can be examined by any tourist. Some good climbers have even climbed
the shaft in modem times, though it is not easy to do so because the rock walls are
smooth and slick and give little hold for hand or foot. The shaft is also a little too wide
for a comfortable climb, as I learned in my unsuccessful attempt to climb it.
Among many other illustrations of how archaeology clears up disputed points of

biblical history, I want
mention one more, involving the conquests of Jerusalem by
to
Nebuchadnezzar II. Various biblical records mention three conquests of Judah's
capital by the Babylonian king, first in 605 B.C., in the third year of Kingjehoiakim,
then in 597 after a three-month reign of Jehoiachin, and finally in 586 in the eleventh
year of King Zedekiah. For a long time scholars did not doubt that Nebuchadnezzar
had taken Jerusalem, for the biblical statements seemed quite clear on this point.
However, many scholars became somewhat suspicious when a hundred years of ex-
cavations in Babylonia failed to turn up one single text of Nebuchadnezzar referring
to any one of these conquests of Jerusalem, though numerous texts written by this
monarch had come to light during these hundred years. Also, the city of Babylon,
which the Germans excavated during a long campaign of eighteen years, failed to
provide a single document to show that Nebuchadnezzar had ever been at war with
the kingdom of Judah or had ever taken their capital, Jerusalem. A number of well-
known scholars began to doubt that Nebuchadnezzar had ever taken Jerusalem during
his reign. But today these doubts are groundless: at least one of Nebuchadnezzar's
three conquests of Jerusalem is well attested by several pieces of archaeological
evidence, of which I shall mention two recent ones.
Shortly before the last war. Professor Ernst Weidner worked in the Berlin Museum on
unimposing tablets that had been found in some storerooms of Nebuchadnezzar's
palace in Babylon many years ago. These tablets contained day-by-day records of the
issuance of grain and oil to dependents of the royal palace, such as workmen engaged
in royal building operations, musicians employed as entertainers, and hostages from
foreign countries. As Weidner studied these somewhat dry records, he suddenly came
upon the name of King Jehoiachin of Judah as recipient of royal rations of grain and
oil. The tablets mentioning the king were written in 592 B.C., five years after he had
been taken captive, and his five sons and their tutor are mentioned also. Jehoiachin
received twenty times as much foodstuff as any other person listed, an indication that
he was still considered an honorable personage and may have been allowed to keep
servants for his use. His imprisonment, to which the Bible also refers, seems to have
begun at a later time, probably when efforts were made during a rebellion (described
by Jeremiah) to put him back on the throne of Judah.
The second interesting discovery bearing on this subject was made in 1955 by Donald
Wiseman of the British Museum. Among tablets that had been in that museum for
many decades Wiseman discovered one that chronicled several years of Nebuchad-
nezzar's reign. This tablet describes briefly the military campaign of Nebuchadnezzar
against Judah in 597 B.C. and the capture of Jerusalem on March 16 of that year— the
first exact date of a biblical event obtained from a factual non-biblical record. The
tablet also states that Nebuchadnezzar deposed King Jehoiachin and replaced him by
Zedekiah.
These two discoveries teach us a valuable lesson. That some excavations from which
we expect some information seem to shed no light on biblical events should not be
taken as evidence that the biblical records are at fault. We should never forget that all
our evidence is fragmentary and incomplete, spotty in some parts and more full in
others. Conclusions based on incomplete or negative evidence can be entirely

misleading, as this illustration clearly shows. Time after time, after a long period of
patient waiting, solutions ot our problems have been found. There are still many
points awaiting clarification, which may come as more archaeological evidence comes
to light.
Many more examples could be given of how archaeological evidence has shed light on
interesting details of biblical history. The unpretentious castle at Gibeah, King Saul's
residence, has been excavated, and Solomon's copper and iron mines in Edom have
been rediscovered and in part are being exploited again by modem Israelis. The
Assyrian cuneiform documents mention nine of the thirty-six Hebrew kings that
reigned during the period of Assyria's existence and give us much valuable in-
formation about the history of the divided kingdom. Egypt has produced welcome
historical evidence, both in documents and in other material. There are records of
King Shishak's invasion of Judah and Israel after Solomon's death, recorded in two
Old Testament books. A large existing archive consists of scores of papyrus documents
written by Jews of the post-exilic period; these have illustrated many obscure points of
that interesting time we glimpse in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
The archaeologist's pick and hoe have produced for the biblical scholar an abundance
of auxiliary material that enables him to understand and defend the historical
narratives much better than before. And we can assume that there is more to come.
Reprinted from Christianity Today.

June21, 1968. Vol. 12. No. 19. pp. 13-17.
Used by permission
HIGHER CRITICS AND FORBIDDEN FRUIT

CYRUS H. GORDON
Though Bible scholars live in an age of unprecedented discovery, they stand in the
shadow of nineteenth-century higher criticism. There was a time when the label
"conservative" meant the rejection of that higher criticism, but now the conservative
mind often latches onto higher criticism even though archaeology has rendered it
untenable. My conservative critics, some of whom are on the faculties of Protestant,
Catholic, and Jewish seminaries, find fault not because my writings run counter to any
particular religious tenet, but because I am not devoted toJEDP: the badge of inter-
confessional academic respectability.
INTELLECTUAL COMMITMENT
All of my Bible professors were conservative higher critics with a positive ap-
preciation—and in some instances, with a profound knowledge — of the ar-
chaeological discoveries bearing on the Bible. I was trained simultaneously in higher
criticism and biblical archaeology without at first realizing that the two points of view
were mutually exclusive. By this I mean that a commitment to any hypothetical
source-structure like JED? is out of keeping with what I consider the only tenable
position for a critical scholar: to go wherever the evidence leads him.
When I speak of a "commitment" to JED P, I mean it in the deepest sense of the word.
I have heard professors of Old Testament refer to the integrity of JEDP as their
"conviction." They are willing to countenance modifications in detail. They permit
you to subdivide (Di, Dj, Ds, and so forth) or combine (JE) or add a new document
designated by another capital letter; but they will not tolerate any questioning of the
basic JEDP structure. I am at a loss to explain this kind of "conviction" on any
grounds other than intellectual laziness or inability to reappraise.
The turning point in my own thinking came after (and in large measure because of) a
four-year hiatus in my academic career during World War II. Coming out of the army
and back into teaching, I offered a course on the Gilgamesh Epic. In the eleventh
tablet I could not help noting that the Babylonian account of the construction of the
Ark contains the specifications in detail much like the Hebrew account of Noah's Ark.
At the same time, I recalled that the Genesis description is ascribed to P of Second
Temple date, because facts and figures such as those pertaining to the Ark are
characteristic of the hypothetical Priestly author. What occurred to me was that if the
Genesis account of the Ark belonged to P on such grounds, the Gilgamesh Epic ac-
count of the Ark belonged to P on the same grounds— which is absurd. The prc-
Abrahamic Genesis traditions (such as the Deluge) are not late P products; they are
essentially pre-Mosaic and it is not easy to single out even details that are late. This
has been indicated by Sumero-Akkadian tablets for a long time; it is now crystal-clear
from the Ugaritic texts, where whole literary themes as well as specific phrases are now
in our possession on pre-Mosaic tablets, as well as in our canonical Bible. Ezekiel
(14:13-19) thus refers to an ancient Daniel: a model of virtue who emerged together
with his progeny from a major disaster. We now have the Ugaritic Epic of this Daniel
on tablets copied in the fourteenth century B.C., when the story was already old. Like
many another psalm ascribed to David, psalm 68, far from being late, is full of pre-
Davidic expressions some of which were not even understood before the discovery of
the Ugaritic poems. In verse 7, for example, kosharot means "songstresses" as in
Ugaritic so that we are to translate "He brings out prisoners with the songstresses,'*
meaning that when God rescues us from trouble, he brings us joy as well as relief. He
frees the prisoner not into a cold world but into one of joyous song. The Kosharot were
just as much a part of the classical Canaanite heritage of the Hebrews as the Muses are
a part of our classical Greek heritage.
The question the biblical scholar now asks is not "How much post-Mosaic (or post-
Exilic) is this or that?" but rather "How much pre-Mosaic (or pre-Abrahamic)?"
The urge to chop the Bible (and other ancient writings) up into sources is often due to
the false assumption that a different style must mean a different author.
AUTHORSHIP AND STYLE

When the subject matter is the same, different styles do ordinarily indicate different
authorship. But any one author will employ different styles for different types of
subject matter. A lawyer uses different styles depending on whether he is preparing a
brief, or writing a letter to his mother. A clergyman does not use the same style in
making a benediction and in talking to his children at the breakfast table. No
physician writes in prescription style except on prescription blanks. Accordingly the
technical style of Genesis in describing the Ark is no more an indication of different
authorship from the surrounding narrative than a naval architect's style in describing
the specifications of a ship makes him a different author from the same architect
writing a love letter to his fiancee.
Minds that are incapable of grasping whole entities are tempted to fractionalize the
whole into smaller units. The Book of Job, for all its difficulties, is infinitely greater
than the sum of its parts after the critics have hacked it to bits. Ancient Near East
literature makes it abundantly clear that Job as it stands is a consciously constructed
single composition. The kind of criticism that detaches the prose prologue and
epilogue from the poetic dialogues on stylistic grounds (that is, that "prose and poetry
don't mix") runs counter to ancient Near Eastern rules of composition. From many
available illustrations, let us single out Hammurapi's Code in which the prose laws are
framed within a poetic prologue and epilogue, giving the composition what may be
called the ABA form. This means that the main body of the composition is enclosed
within language of a contrasting style. The structure of Job {"prose- poetry-prose")
exemplifies this ABA scheme. Moreover, the structure of Daniel {" Hehrevf- Aramaic
Hebrew") also reflects the ABA pattern, and the book should be understood as a
whole, consciously composed unit.
No one in his right mind would want to outlaw the study of the component parts of
biblical (or any other) books, but a sane approach to scriptural (or and [sic] other)
literature requires that we take it on its own terms, and not force it into an alien
system.
One of the commonest grounds for positing differences of authorship are the
repetitions, with variants, in the Bible. But such repetitions are typical of ancient
Near East literature: Babylonian, Ugaritic, and even Greek. Moreover, the tastes of
the Bible World called for duplication. Joseph and later Pharaoh, each had prophetic
dreams in duplicate. In Jonah 4, the Prophet's chagrin is described at two stages, each
accompanied by God's asking "Are you good and angry?" (w. 4, 9). Would anyone
insist that such duplicates stem from different pens?
One particular type of duplicate is especially interesting because of the extrabiblical

collateral material at our disposal. Judges 4 gives the prose and Judges 5 the poetic
account of Deborah's victory. The two accounts confront us with variants. The usual
critical position is that the poetic version is old; the prose version later. The assump-
tion of disparity in age or provenance between the two accounts on stylistic grounds is
specious. Historic events were sometimes recorded in Egypt simultaneously in prose
and poetic versions, with the major differences appropriate to the two literary media.
(Sometimes the Egyptians added a third version — in pictures.) In approaching
matters such as the date and authorship of Judges 4 and 5, it is more germane to bear
in mind the usages of the Bible World than it is to follow in the footsteps of modem
analytic scholars who build logical but unrealistic systems.
A FRAGILE CORNERSTONE
One of the fragile cornerstones of the JEDP hypothesis is the notion that the mention
of "Jehovah" (actually "Yahweh") typifies a J document, while "Elohim" typifies an E
document. A conflation of J and E sources into JE is supposed to account for the
compound name Yahweh- Elohim. All this is admirably logical and for years I never
questioned it. But my

Ugaritic studies destroyed this kind of logic with relevant facts.
At Ugarit, have compound names. One deity is called Qadish-Amrar;
deities often
another, Ibb-Nikkal. Usually "and" is put between the two parts (Qadish-and-Amrar,
Nikkal-and-Ibb, Koshar-and-Hasis, and so forth), but the conjunction can be
omitted. Not only biblical but also classical scholars will have to recognize this
phenomenon. In Prometheus Bound, Kratos Bia-te "Force-and-Violence" is such a
combination. If any further proof were necessary, Herodotus provides it in his history
(8:111), where he relates that Themistocles tried to extort money from the Andreans
by telling them that he came with two great gods "Persuasion-and-Necessity." The
Andrians refused to pay, and their way of telling him "you can't squeeze blood from a
turnip" was that their gods were unfortunately "Poverty-and- Impotence." Thus it was
a widespread usage to fuse two names into one for designating a god. The most
famous is perhaps Amon-Re who became the great universal deity as a result of
Egyptian conquest under the eighteenth dynasty. Amon was the ram-headed god of
the capital city, Thebes. Re was the old universal Sun god. The fusion of Re's religious
universalism with the political leadership in Amon's Thebes underlies the double
name "Amon-Re." But Amon-Re is one entity. Scholars can do much to explain the
combination of elements in Yahweh-Elohim. Yahweh was a specific divine name,
whereas Elohim designated "Deity" in a more general, universal way. The com-
bination Yahweh-Elohim is probably to be explained as "Yahweh = Elohim," which
we may paraphrase as "Yahweh is God." But when we are told that "Yahweh-Elohim is
the result of documentary conflation, we cannot accept it any more than we can
understand Amon-Re to be the result of combining an "A" document with an "R"
document.
THE GENUINE SOURCES

Older documents do underlie much of the Old Testament. Our Book of Proverbs is
compiled from collections indicated as "The proverbs of Solomon, son of David"
(1:1), "The proverbs of Solomon" (10:1), "These also are saying of the wise" (24:23),
"These also are proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah
copied" (25:1), "The words of Agur" (30:1), and "The words of Lemuel, king of
Massa, which his mother taught him" (31:1). The individual psalms must have existed
before our canonical book of 1 50 Psalms was compiled. Many of the psalms bear titles
ascribing them to specific authors. But other biblical books do not have titles heading
the text. The scroll of Ruth begins "Now it came to pass in the days when the judges
ruled"; Leviticus opens "And Jehovah called unto Moses"; and so on. Since some
biblical books are compilations (like Proverbs and Psalms) and since titles were often
omitted (as in Ruth or Leviticus), it follows that certain biblical books can be com-
pilations of earlier sources unidentified by titles.
If JEDP are artificial sources of the Pentateuch, are there any real ones? Yes, and one
of them happens to be the book of Wars of Jehovah cited in Numbers 21:14. Another
ancient source used by the authors of both Joshua and Samuel is the book of Jashar,
excerpted in Joshua 10:13 and II Samuel 1:18 ff. The second of these excerpts is the
beautiful dirge of David for Saul and Jonathan, which was used for teaching the
troops of Judah heroism and skill in the art of war (note, for teaching the sons of
Judah bowmanship — in v. 18). There can be little doubt that the book of Jashar was a
national epic, commemorating the heroic course of Hebrew history from at least the
conquest under Joshua to the foundation of the Davidic dynasty. Like other national
epics, including the Iliad and Shah-nameh, the book of Jashar was used for inspiring
warriors to live, and if necessary to die, like their illustrious forerunners. If the entire
book of Jashar was characterized by the high quality reflected in David's dirge, we can
only hope that future discoveries will restore it to us. It might successfully compete
with the Homeric epic as a masterpiece of world literature.
The books of Kings draw on earlier documents, such as, "the book of the acts of
Solomon" Kings 11:41); and "the chronicles of the kings of Judah" and "the
(I
chronicles of the kings of Israel." The canonical books of Chronicles cite a host of
sources by name. The time is ripe for a fresh investigation of such genuine sources of
Scripture, particularly against the background of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
THE MODERN IDOLS

No two higher critics seem to agree on where J, E, D
or P begins or ends. The attempt
to state such matters precisely in the Polychrome Bible discredited the use of colors
but not the continuance of less precise verbal formulations. The "history" of Israel is
stillbeing written on the premise that we can only do so scientifically according to
hypothetical documents to which exact dates are blandly assigned. While most critics
place P last chronologically, some of the most erudite now insist that P is early, an-
tedating D in any case. Any system (whether P is earlier or later than D in such a
system makes no difference) that prevents us from going where the facts may lead is
not for me. I prefer to deal with the large array of authentic materials from the Bible
World and to be unimpeded by any hypothetical system.
There may well be quite a few sources designated but not generally recognized as such
in the Bible. Just as an older Deluge story is incorporated in the Gilgamesh Epic,
another older variant Flood account has been, I think, excerpted in Genesis. The
Hebrew word toledot (literally "generations") can designate a "narrative" or "story."

In Genesis 6:9 "This is the Narrative of Noah" (literally, "generations of Noah") may
well have conveyed to an ancient Hebrew what a title does to us. The account of
nature in Genesis 2:4 ff. is introduced by "This is the Account of the Cosmos"
(literally, "the generations of the heavens and the earth") and might possibly have
been intended as a title indicating a biblical source.
Let us keep our eyes open and our minds sharp. Let us make observations and check
them against the available facts. But let us not erect vast edifices on shifting sands.
The excavations at Ugarit have revealed a high material and literary culture in
Canaan prior to the emergence of the Hebrews. Prose and poetry were already fully
developed. The educational system was so advanced that dictionaries in four
languages were compiled for the use of scribes, and the individual words were listed in
the Ugaritic, Babylonian, Sumerian, and Hurrian equivalents. The beginnings of
Israel are rooted in a highly cultural Canaan where the contribution of several
talented peoples (including the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and branches of the Indo-
Europeans) had converged and blended. The notion that early Israelite religion and
society were primitive is completely false. Canaan in the days of the Patriarchs was the
hub of a great international culture. The Bible, hailing from such a time and place,
cannot be devoid of sources. But let us study them by taking the Bible on its own terms
and against its own authentic background.
If there is any expression in the Hebrew language that is charged with meaning for the
intellectual person devoted to his biblical heritage, it is simhat torah "the delight in
studying Scripture." I am
familiar with this delight and I like to see others have the
opportunity of experiencing it. I am
distressed to meet ever so many intelligent and
serious university students who tell me that their teachers of Bible have killed the
subject by harping on the notion that biblical study consists of analyzing the text into
JEDP. The unedifying conclusion of all such study is that nothing is authentic. That
this type of teaching should go on in our age of discovery when biblical scholarship is
so exciting is, so to speak, a perverse miracle.
A professor of Bible in a leading university once asked me to give him the facts on
JEDP. I told him essentially what I have written above. He replied: "I am convinced by
what you say but I shall go on teaching the old system." When I asked him why, he
answered: "Because what you have told me means I should have to unlearn as well as
study afresh and rethink. It is easier to go on with the accepted system of higher
criticism for which we have standard textbooks." What a happy professorl He refuses
to forfeit his place in Eden by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Reprinted from Christianity Today.

November 23. 1959. Vol. 4, pp. 131-134.
Used by permission.
A COMPARISON OF
FORM CRITICISM AND CLASSICAL CRITICISM
OF THE GOSPELS
BY GORDON R. LEWIS
By way of introduction to this brief paper I should like to state two hypotheses and
focus upon the precise nature of this issue regarding them.
THE HYPOTHESIS OF CLASSICAL CRITICISM
Criticism of the Gospels is not new. Attempts to discover the way in which such
remarkably similar and yet different accounts of Jesus' life were composed and have
been made since the early days of church history. Among the scholars who treated the
problems of harmonizing the Gospels were: Tatian (died A.D. 172), Ammonius of
Alexandria (220), Eusebius of Caesarea (died 340), Augustine (400); in the sixteenth
century: Osiander, Jansen, Robert Stephens, John Calvin, Du Molin, Chemnitz; in the
17th and 18th centuries: Lightfoot, Bengal, Newcome; in the 19th century: Wieseler,
Tischendorf, Greswell, William Thomson, Rushbrooke, Edward Robinson, S.J.
Andrews, and Frederik Gardner.* The work of these men varied in linguistic and
historical skill, and in many detailed conclusions. But for the present purposes they
are classified together because as they faced the charges of unreliability against the
Gospels and examined the complex data, they did not find irreconcilable con-
tradictions in the Gospel records nor insuperable discrepancies with fact. Classical
critics concluded that the Gospels portrayed Jesus as He was and that Christian faith
confessed that Jesus was both Lord and Christ.
THE HYPOTHESIS OF FORM CRITICISM
Another trend in investigation of the Gospels has found irreconcilable contradictions
and insuperable discrepancies with fact. Consequently, form critics concluded that
little could be known about Jesus as He was, but that this did not disturb their faith in
the Christ. While there were many forerunners, major recent proponents of form
criticism have been Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann, Gunther Bornkamm and
Joachim Jeremias.' Again there are varieties of emphasis, but for shorthand purposes
we shall refer to the general conclusions of these men as Form Criticism.
THE ISSUE
A responsible student will recognize that he cannot be completely objective in his
evaluation of the evidence or the assessment of these two perspectives. None of the
scholars mentioned on either side has been perfectly objective, no one ever is. At the
same time, responsible scholarship is cognizant of its biases, examines other alter-
natives than its own and tests the possibilities in terms of as objective an analysis of the
relevant data as possible.
A responsible student of the Gospels will examine both form criticism and classical
criticism as possible hypotheses. He will identify and assess the similarities and the
differences between them. Where they differ, he will accept the hypothesis which
consistently accounts for the greatest number of facts with the fewest difficulties. As
Alan Richardson explained,
The way to approach the New Testament is by framing of an hypothesis
(whether consciously or unconsciously) and then testing it by continual
checking with the New Testament documents and other relevant evidence from
the period. This is in fact the way in which historical critical interpretation is
done nowadays in every field of historical reconstruction. It necessarily involves
a personal or subjective element, but this is now seen to be unavoidable, as the
illusion of scientific or presuppositionless history recedes. It does not, however,
involve an absolute subjectivism or historical relativism for the pursuit of
history as a humane science involves the conviction that one historical in-
terpretation can be rationally shown to be better than another.*
.
It is not necessary to choose between form criticism and classical criticism at every
I
point, however, because in a number of significant points their outlook is similar.

AGREEMENTS
1 Both classical criticism and form criticism seek to obtain the meaning of the Bible
through grammatical, historical exegesis.
2. Both insist that dogmatic theology must not be allowed to determine the in-
terpretation of biblical texts.
3. Both hold that the Gospel tradition was preserved in largely oral form for a
generation by the church.
4. The Gospels did not arise in a neutral vacuum, but in the life of an active, wit-
nessing church. The life setting of the church explains why many sayings and
incidents in the Gospels were put on record.
5. The forms in which the preaching and teaching were cast became stereotyped.
6. There is interpretive value in determining the literary form of the passages under
investigation.
7. A literary document is to be interpreted in terms of the author's purpose.

Undoubtedly other convictions are also shared, but these are sufficient to indicate a
significant amount of common ground.
DIFFERENCES
Differences will be pointed out in relation to the points of agreement as numbered.
1. Classical criticism divorces the grammatical, historical method of interpretation
from a naturalistic world-view, seeking to interpret the literature in terms of its
inherent supernatural presuppositions. Form criticism assumes the truth of
positivistic world-view from the 19th and early 20th century and imposes this upon
the Gospels.
2. If classical criticism occasionally yields to the dictates of orthodox theology, does
not form criticism continuously yield to the dictates of Bultmann's 19th century
"scientific" view of the cosmos as a closed system of natural causes, and to
Heidegger's demand for a Jesus as an authentic repeatable human possibility?
3. While form criticism assumes that an oral tradition of twenty to thirty years allows
for the growth of folk tales and considerable distortion of the truth concerning
Jesus, classical criticism regards a generation insufficient for the production of
folklore. T.W. Manson explained.
In the first decades of the life of the original Palestinian community, the tradition
concerning the teaching of Jesus rested on a broader base than we commonly
imagine. We tend to think of it as being in the hands of a few distinguished
persons who were leaders in the Church, and to forget the common people who
heard Jesus gladly, and who also had memories. When this is realized we can see
that the Church's task in meeting the problems which arose in its own life and in
its relations with the Jewish authorities was not that of creating words of Jesus
applicable to these situations, but rather that of selecting what was relevant from
the available mass of reminiscences.*
Put more popularly still, "Legends, like mushrooms grow best in the dark out of stuff
that has time to decay. Not so for the Gospels, there was not enough time and there
was too much light!"
4. Form criticism assumes a complete difference between life situations in the ex-
perience of Jesus and that of the early church. Classical criticism sees the
possibility of considerable similarity. For example, when questions arose in the
church about divorce or paying a temple tax, it was natural to recall what Jesus
had said on the subject.* Similarly, form criticism assumes a radical distortion of
the tradition in the Hellenistic church. Classical criticism denies that distortion on
the basis of the prevailingly Semitic character of the common Synoptic tradition.
As William Barclay concludes his ironic assessment of form criticism,
The Form Critics have done an immeasurable service in enabling us to understand
the formation, the genesis and the aim of the gospels, but. . their one mistake is
.
their failure to see that the gospel writers sought to awaken faith in Jesus as He
was. This is not to say that they have the standards and the methods of accuracy of
a modern scientific historian, but it is to say that their aim was to show Jesus as He
was in the days of His flesh in order that men might by faith find the risen Lord.'
5. Form criticism assumes that the form of statement somehow determines the truth
or falsity of its content. Classical criticism questions the wisdom of testing truth-
claims by their linguistic form. Healing stories from all over the world follow a
recurrent form stressing the intractability of the disease, the completeness of the
cure, and the effect on the spectators. But the fact that a story follows this
stereotype tells us nothing about its historicity. The classification of sayings of
Jesus according to their form tells us little about their authenticity.*
6. Form criticismmakes little of the difference between the tradition of the scribes
and the Gospel tradition. Classical criticism sees a marked difference between the
preservation of the traditions of men who frustrated the Word of God (Matt. 15:6)
and preservation of the Gospel tradition which was the Word of God. Early
Christians, in fact, made a clear distinction between their own judgments and
Christ's pronouncements (I Cor. 7:10, 12, 25).
7. Assuming that history must be totally objective and give a complete, connected
development of a person's life from beginning to end, form critics have concluded
that a life of Jesus is no longer possible." Classical criticism, recognizing that all
history is interpretive and that no history is complete, maintain that the writers of
the Gospel disclose informed selection and interpretation in terms of their
discernible purposes. Obviously they did not attempt a complete, chronological
account of Jesus' life and times. The important thing to them was who Jesus was in
order that men might believe on Him. Since their concerns were topical rather
than chronological, "errors" may be attributed to them that are no errors at all.
They can only be errors if the critic forces upon the material standards which were
no part of the Evangelists' purpose.'®
One other difference is particularly significant. Form critics do not regard the Holy
Spirit's superintendence of all the written and oral processes of composition of the
Gospels a necessary hypothesis, possibly because they try to work as historians rather
than as theologians.'' Classical criticism questions the possibility of divorcing the
sciences completely, and affirms that the Holy Spirit's activity not only guided the
writing of the Gospels, but also the preservation of authentic written and oral sources
for the writers.
WHICH VIEW BEST FITS THE FACTS?

Form criticism has developed on the basis that the classical view could not consistently
account for the phenomena of the Gospels. If there are logical contradictions between
the accounts and discrepancies with known facts, of course, it is impossible to defend a
careful preservation of the testimony of eyewitnesses under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit.
Classical criticism,on the other hand, finds that a careful use of logic and assessment
of relevant data does not come up with actual contradictions or discrepancies.
"Variations in different reports of the same event are to be expected because of the
complexity of antecedents to the event, the varied facets of it, and the multiple
perspectives possible for different purposes. In order to show distortion of the facts
concerning the historical Jesus, form critics must produce more than mere differences
in accounts, they must produce actual contradictions. Two different assertions are
: only contradictory when they affirm and deny the same thing at the same time and in
the same respect. Many alleged contradictions are not contradictions at all, but in
logical terminology sub contraries.
For example, form critics observe that in John Jesus' ministry is primarily in
Jerusalem; in the Synoptics in Galilee. Since Jesus admittedly ministered in both
areas, and it was no part of the purpose of either John or the Synoptics to give a
complete travelogue, this difference is not of the kind to support invention by the
church, or any hypothesis of historical inaccuracy.
Form critics see difficulty in the fact that Matthew and Luke give two reasons for Jesus'
having been bom in Bethlehem though he was a citizen of Nazareth. If the reason in
Matthew is Micah's prophecy (5:2), that in no way conflicts with Luke's reference to
instrumental reason — the census which took Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, the
original home of David's family.
Is Luke's census at A.D. 6 not impossible to reconcile with the statement that Herod
was alive at the time, since he died in 4 B.C.? Here is a genuine difficulty. But a
monument inscription indicates that Quirinius was twice Governor of Syria and that
the first governorship was from 7 or 8 B.C. to A.D. 1. The preceding census was
probably ordered in Rome in 7 B.C. and delays in its implementation bring it to 4 or 5
B.C.>«
In the Synoptics, form critics point out, Jesus refuses to give signs while in John the
signs are listed. Signs are also given by Jesus to John the Baptist in the Synoptics (Matt.
11:4). On one occasion when the Pharisees were particularly obtuse and would not
have been disturbed by any facts (Mark 8:12), Jesus refused to perform any further
than his resurrection from the dead. It is unhistorical criticism to take a
signs, other
statement from a limited context and give it a universal and necessary reference to
manufacture difficulties.
Form critics find a problem in that John has a realized eschatology in which the
kingdom is not coming as in the Synoptics, but has arrived in the eternal Christ.
However, John also has futuristic elements (5:28 and 11:25, resurrection from the
dead). It is important to know that there are several uses of the word "kingdom" and
there is no contradiction if a different sense is involved in these different contexts. The
kingdom may refer to God's providential rule over all, to Christ's present spiritual rule
in the hearts of believers, and to a future social and political kingdom. It is quite
possible that the gospels teach all three without contradiction.
Numerous problems are raised in connection with the resurrection accounts. Mark
has the women upon their discovery of the empty tomb and telling no one.
fearful
Matthew has them run at once to tell the disciples. John, Matthew and Mark disagree
about how many women came to the tomb. Luke and Acts disagree about how long
the appearances continued. Mark has Jesus instruct the disciples about the
resurrection, yet they are surprised when the news reaches them.
In response let me quote John {Honest to God) Robinson in his unusually good article
on the resurrection in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible:
"When we turn to the gospels, their evidence on the empty tomb is in substance
unanimous. There are, indeed, differences of detail which at times have been given an
exaggerated prominence. None of these, however, is the kind of difference that
. .
impugns the authenticity of the narrative. Indeed they are all precisely what one
would look for in genuine accounts of so confused and confusing a scene [The
. . .
recent mythological view fails to do justice to the scriptural evidence.] Many in fact
will continue to find it easier to believe that the empty tomb produced the disciples'
faith than that the disciples'faith produced the empty tomb."
Robinson concludes, "All the appearances, in fact, depict the same phenomenon, of a
body identical, yet changed, transcending the limitations of the flesh yet capable of
manifesting itself within the order of flesh." Again, "According to all our accounts it
was the appearances, not the tomb, that were decisive for the disciples' faith."
The calendar, the Lord's day, the Christian Church, and the New Testament all stand
today as witnesses of a world-shaking, history-making event that took place in the first
century. If not the resurrection, then what? Although critics have tried every con-
ceivable way to explain away the evidence, one after another the theories collapsed.
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible reports, "Recent scholars have, therefore,
tended to abandon the attempt to give rationalistic explanations of the narrative as it
stands."
CONCLUSIONS
This brief study has not been able to make anything like a thorough investigation of
the problem, but it has attempted to indicate the lines such an investigation would
take. Each hypothesis must be evaluated by the evidence available. As Alan
Richardson says.
Thus, for example, R. Bultmann's hypothesis that the theology of the New
Testament is a mythological conglomeration of Jewish apocalyptic and
Hellenistic gnostic ideas which have somehow coagulated round the name of
Jesus of Nazareth, about whom little certain historical knowledge can be at-
tained, must be studied to see whether it gives a rational and coherent ex-
planation of the New Testament evidence. In this respect it should be compared
with the other hypotheses, such as that Jesus himself is the prime author of the
striking reinterpretation of the Old Testament theology which is found in his
own reported teachings and in the New Testament as a whole (the new
covenant, the new Israel, the reinterpreted Messiahship, the reign of God, and
soon).
The Phenomenon of the New Testament CRD. Moule adds the phenomena of the
Christian community which possessed nothing distinctive except the conviction that
Jesus had been raised from the dead— that the one who Jesus was had been raised to
life absolute. The origin and rise of other movements may be explained by factors
anyone can recognize as valid even if their peculiarities are discounted as invalid. But
if the basic Christian conviction is discounted, it is difficult to know where to look for
an explosion powerful enough to launch the missile."
In addition to the phenomenon of the church, are the astounding phenomena of the
change of the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, the production of the New
Testament itself and the personal experience of disciples such as Saul who became
Paul. These and other phenomena can be accounted for by the classical view that we
can know who Jesus was and that he in fact rose from the dead. If not the Jesus of
Nazareth as portrayed in the Gospels, then what? Form criticism has not only failed to
establish logical contradictions and actual discrepancies but also has failed to provide
an adequate hypothesis to account for these astounding events of the years im-
mediately following Jesus' life.
It isnot enough for Jeremias to take misleading narratives as a "call" to faith in

another "Christ."" To what Christ shall we respond? If we cannot believe the church's
witness to the historical Jesus, why should we accept its human, fallible witness to an
unknown Christ? As Jesus said, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe me
not, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:12).
A call went out from Norad to the radio and TV networks of America on Saturday,
February 20, 1971. It proclaimed a national emergency and told all stations to go off
the air and await instructions from the government. If such untrustworthy "calls"
became habitual we could hardly be expected to prepare ourselves for a real
emergency upon hearing another. If the Gospels habitually distort the message about
Jesus, can we trust them concerning the Christ?
Brought up on form criticism, William Hamilton through a false biblical record
sought revelatory encounters with the true God. But he lost all confidence in
p
misguiding pointers to a transcendent realm and pronounced a Lord of history dead.
Uncertain biblical sounds provided no check upon J.J. Altizer's claim to have ex-
perienced not merely the absence of God, but the death of God. Such contradictory
claims for personal experience must be tested by evidence and truth (I John 4:1-3).
The early Christians knew what we need to know, that if Jesus the Christ were not
raised from the dead faith is futile (I Cor. 15:17).
But now Christ risen from the deadl (I Cor. 15:20). The Lord of history reversed the
is
irreversible forces of nature, transformed history's greatest moral tragedy into a

triumph of holy love, and laid the foundation of a community of forgiveness.
Used by permission of:
Dr. Gordon Lewis

Professor of Systematic Theology
and Christian Philosophy
Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary
Denver. Colorado
REFERENCES
*For a survey of these productions see R.M. Riddle, "Introductory Essay" to
Augustine's Harmony of the Gospels, ed. Philip Schaff in A Select Library of the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. VI (Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), pp. 67-70.
'For a survey of the history of form criticism see E. Basil Redlich, Form Criticism
(London: Duckworth. 1948), pp. 9-33.
'Alan Richardson, "New Testament Theology" ed. by Alan Richardson, A Dictionary
of Christian Theology {London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1969), p. 229.
*Cited by R.W. Catterall, "Modem Reason and the Gospels" ed. by John J. Heaney,
Faith, Reason and the Gospels (Westminster: The Newman Press, 1964), p. 167.
•F.F. Bruce, "Form Criticism," ed. Everett F. Harrison, Baker's Dictionary of
T/ieo/og3i (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960). pp. 227-28.
•Floyd V. Filson, "Form Criticism," Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge, I (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1955), p. 437.
'William Barclay. The First Three Gospels (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press,
1966), p. 115.
•F.F. Bruce, op. cit.
•K. Grobel. "Form Criticism," The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, II (New
York: Abingdon Press. 1962).
'"George Ladd. The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 167.
Ûbid.
>«W.M. Ramsay, Was Christ Bom at Bethlehem? (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
1898). pp. 227-244.
"C.F.D. Moule. The Phenomenon of the New Testament (Naperville. 111.: Alec R.
Allenson, 1967), p. 21.
"Joachim Jeremias, The Problem of the Historicalfesvs (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1964), pp. 23-24.
MODERN THEOLOGY
AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM
BY C.S. LEWIS
The undermining of the old orthodoxy has been mainly the work of divines engaged
in New Testament criticism. The authority of experts in that discipline is the
authority in deference to whom we are asked to give up a huge mass of beliefs shared
in common by the early Church, the Fathers, the Middle Ages, the Reformers, and
even the nineteenth century. I want to explain what it is that makes me skeptical
about this authority. Ignorantly skeptical, as you will all too easily see. But the
skepticism is the father of the ignorance. It is hard to persevere in a close study when
you can work up no prima facie confidence in your teachers.
First then, whatever these men maybe as Biblical critics, I distrust them as critics.
They seem to me to lack literary judgement,
to be imperceptive about the very quality
of the texts they are reading. It sounds a strange charge to bring against men who
have been steeped in those books all their lives. But that might be just the trouble. A
man who has spent his youth and manhood in the minute study of New Testament
texts and of other people's studies of them, whose literary experiences of those texts
lacks any standard of comparison such as can only grow from a wide and deep and
genial experience of literature in general, is, I should think, very likely to miss the
obvious things about them. If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or
romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his
palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spent on
that Gospel. But I had better turn to examples.
In what is already a very old commentary I read that the Fourth Gospel is regarded by
one school as a 'spiritual romance', 'a poem not a history', to be judged by the same
canons as Nathan's parable, the Book of Jonah, Paradise Lost 'or, more exactly.
Pilgrim's Progress'. After a man has said that, why need one attend to anything else he
says about any book in the world? Note that he regards Pilgrim's Progress, a story
which professes to be a dream and flaunts its allegorical nature by every single proper
name it uses, as the closest parallel. Note that the whole epic panoply of Milton goes
for nothing. But even if we leave out the grosser absurdities and keep xo Jonah, the
insensitiveness is craiss—Jonah, a tale with as few even pretended historical at-
tachments 2iS Job, grotesque in incident and surely not without a distinct, though of
course edifying, vein of typically Jewish humour. Then turn to John. Read the
dialogues: that with the Samaritan woman at the well, or that which follows the
healing of the man born blind. Look at its pictures: Jesus (if I may use the word)
doodling with his finger in the dust; the unforgettable //r Se vv^ (xiii, 30). I have
been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know
what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only
two possible views. Either this is reportage— though it may no doubt contain errors-
pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in
the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated
the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must
be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to
read.
Here, from Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament (p. 30) is another: 'Observe in
what unassimilated fashion the prediction of the parousia (Mk. viii, 38) follows upon
the prediction of the passion (viii, 31).' What can he mean? Unassimilated? Bultmann
believes that predictions of the parousia are older than those of the passion. He
therefore wants to believe— and no doubt does believe— that when they occur in the
same passage some discrepancy or 'unassimilation' must be perceptible between them.
But surely he foists this on the text with shocking lack of perception. Peter has con-
fessed Jesus to be the Anointed One. That flash of glory is hardly over before the dark
prophecy begins— that the Son of Man must suffer and die. Then this contrast is
repeated. Peter, raised for a moment by his confession, makes his false step; the
crushing rebuff 'Get thee behind me' follows. Then, across that momentary ruin
which Peter (as so often) becomes, the voice of the Master, turning to the crowd,
generalizes the moral. All His followers must take up the cross. This avoidance of
suffering, this self-preservation, is not what life is really about. Then, more definitely
still, the summons to martyrdom. You must stand to your tackling. If you disown
Christ here and now. He will disown you later. Logically, emotionally, imaginatively,
the sequence is perfect. Only a Bultmann could think otherwise.
Finally, from the same Bultmann; 'The personality of Jesus has no importance for the
kerygma either of Paul or of John. Indeed the tradition of the earliest Church did
. .
not even unconsciously preserve a picture of his personality. Every attempt to

reconstruct one remains a play of subjective imagination.'
So there is no personality of Our Lord presented in the New Testament. Through
what strange process has this learned German gone in order to make himself blind to
what all men except him see? What evidence have we that he would recognize a
personality if it were there? For it is Bultmann contra mundum. If anything whatever
is common to all believers, and even to many unbelievers, it is the sense that in the
Gospels they have met a personality. There are characters whom we know to be
historical but of whom we do not feel that we have any personal knowledge—
knowledge by acquaintance; such are Alexander, Attila, or William of Orange. There
are others who make no claim to historical reality but whom, none the less, we know
as we know real people: Falstaff, Uncle Toby, Mr. Pickwick. But there are only three
characters who, claiming the first sort of reality, also actually have the second. And
surely everyone knows who they are: Plato's Socrates, the Jesus of the Gospels, and
Boswell's Johnson. Our acquaintance with them shows itself in a dozen ways. When wc
look into the Aprocryphal gospels, we find ourselves constantly saying of this or that
logion, 'No. It's a fine saying, but not His. That wasn't how He talked.'— just as we do
with all pseudo-Johnsoniana.
So strong is the flavour of the personality that, even while He says things which, on any
other assumption than that of Divine Incarnation in the fullest sense, would be ap-
pallingly arrogant, yet we — and many unbelievers too — accept Him at His own
valuation when He says 'I am meek and lowly of heart.' Even those passages in the New
Testament which superficially, and in intention, are most concerned with the Divine,
and least with the Human Nature, bring us face to face with the personality. I am not
sure that they don't do this more than any others. 'We beheld His glory, the glory as of
the only begotten of the Father, full of graciousness and reality. . which we have
.
looked upon and our hands have handled.' What is gained by trying to evade or
dissipate this shattering immediacy of personal contact by talk about 'that
significance which the early church found that it was impelled to attribute to the
Master'? This hits us in the face. Not what they were impelled to do but what I should
call impersonality: what you'd get in a D.N.B article or an obituary or a Victorian
Life and Letters of Yeshua Bar- Yosef in three volumes with photographs.
That then is my first bleat. me to believe they can read between the
These men ask
lines of the old texts; the evidence their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth
is
discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can't see an elephant
ten yards away in broad daylight.
—
Now for my second bleat. All theology of the liberal type involves at some point and
—
often involves throughout the claim that the real behaviour and purpose and
teaching of Christ came very rapidly to be misunderstood and misrepresented by His
followers, and has been recovered or exhumed only by modem scholars. Now long
before I became interested in theology I had met this kind of theory elsewhere. The
tradition of Jowett still dominated the study of ancient philosophy when I was reading
Greats. One was brought up to believe that the real meaning of Plato had been
misunderstood by Aristotle and wildly travestied by the new-Platonists, only to be
recovered by the modems. When recovered, it turned out (most fortunately) that
Plato had really all along been an English Hegelian, rather like T.H. Green. I have
met a third time in my own professional studies; every week a clever undergraduate,
it
every quarter a dull American don, discovers for the first time what some
Shakesperian play really meant. But in this third instance I am a privileged person.
The revolution in thought and sentiment which has occurred in my own lifetime is so
great that I belong, mentally, to Shakespeare's world far more than to that of these
recent interpreters. I see— I feel it in my bones— I know beyond argument that most —
of their interpretations are merely impossible; they involve a way of looking at things
which was not known in 1914, much less in the Jacobean period. This daily confirms
my suspicion of the same approach to Plato or the New Testament. The idea that any
man or writer should be opaque to those who lived in the same culture, spoke the same
language, shared the same habitual imagery and unconscious assumptions, and yet be
transparent to those who have none of these advantages, is in my opinion
preposterous. There is an a priori improbability in it which almost no argument and
no evidence could counterbalance.
Thirdly, I find in these theologians a constant use of the principle that the miraculous
does not occur. Thus any statement put into Our Lord's mouth by the old texts,
which, if He had really made it, would constitute a prediction of the future, is taken to
have been put in after the occurrence which it seemed to predict. This is very sensible
if we start by knowing that inspired prediction can never occur. Similarly in general,
the rejection as unhistorical of all passages which narrate miracles is sensible if we
start by knowing that the miraculous in general never occurs. Now I do not here want
to discuss whether the miraculous is possible. I only want to point out that this is a
purely philosophical question. Scholars, as scholars, speak on it with no more
authority than anyone else. The canon 'If miraculous, unhistorical' is one they bring
to their study of the texts, not one they have learned from it. If one is speaking of
authority, the united authority of all the Biblical critics in the world counts here for
nothing. On this they speak simply as men; men obviously influenced by, and perhaps
insufficiently critical of, the spirit of the age they grew up in.
But my fourth bleat— which is also my loudest and longest— is still to come.
All this sort of criticism attempts to reconstruct the genesis of the texts itstudies; what
vanished documents each author used, when and where he wrote, with what purposes,
under what influences— the whole Sitz im Leben of the text. This is done with im-
mense erudition and great ingenuity. And at first sight it very convincing. I think I
is
should be convinced by it carry about with me a charm the herb

myself, but that I —
mo/y— against it. You must excuse me if I now speak for a while of myself. The value
of what I say depends on its being first-hand evidence.
What forearms me against all these Reconstructions is the fact that I have seen it all
from the other end of the stick. I have watched reviewers reconstructing the genesis of
my own books in just this way.
Until you come to be reviewed yourself you would never believe how little of an or-
dinary review is taken up by criticism in the strict sense: by evaluation, praise, or
censure, of the book actually written. Most of it is taken up with imaginary histories of
the process by which you wrote it. The very terms which the reviewers use in praising
or dis- praising often imply such a history. They praise a passage as 'spontaneous' and
censure another as 'laboured'; that is, they think they know that you wrote the one
currente calamo and the other invita Minerva.
What the value of such reconstructions is I learned very early in my career. I had
published a book of essays; and the one into which I had put most of my heart, the one
I really cared about and in which I discharged a keen enthusiasm, was on William
Morris. And in almost the first review I was told that this was obviously the only one in
the book in which I had felt no interest. Now don't mistake. The critic was, I now
believe, quite right in thinking it the worst essay in the book; at least everyone agreed
with him. Where he was totally wrong was in his imaginary history of the causes which
produced its dullness.
Well, this made me prick up my ears. Since then I have watched with some care
similar imaginary histories both of my own books and of books by friends whose real
history I knew. Reviewers, both friendly and hostile, will dash you off such histories
with great confidence; will tell you what public events had directed the author's mind
to this or that, what other authors had influenced him, what his overall intention
was, what sort of audience he principally addressed, why— and when— he did
everything.
Now I must record my impression; then, distinct from it, what I can say with
first
certainty. My
impression is that in the whole of my experience not one of these guesses
has on any one point been right; that the method shows a record of 100 per cent
failure. You would expect that by mere chance they would hit as often as they miss.
But it is my impression that they do no such thing. I can't remember a single hit. But
as I have not kept a careful record my mere impression may be mistaken. What I
think I can say with certainty is that they are usually wrong. . . .
Now ought to give us pause. The reconstruction of the history of a text,

this surely
when the text is ancient, sounds very convincing. But one is after all sailing by dead
reckoning; the results cannot be checked by fact. In order to decide how reliable the
method is, what more could you ask for than to be shown an instance where the same
method is at work and we have facts to check it by? Well, that is what I have done.
And we find, that when this check is available, the results are either always, or else
nearly always, wrong. The 'assured results of modem scholarship', as to the way in
which an old book was written, are 'assured', we may conclude, only because the men
who knew the facts are dead and can't blow the gaff. The huge essays in my own field
which reconstruct the history of Piers Plowman or The Faerie Queene are most
unlikely to be anything but sheer illusions.
Am I then venturing to compare every whipster who writes a review in a modem
weekly with these great scholars who have devoted their whole lives to the detailed
study of the New Testament? If the former are always wrong, does it follow that the
latter must fare no better?
There are two answers to this. First, while I respect the learning of the great biblical
critics. I am
not yet persuaded that their judgement is equally to be respected. But,
secondly, consider with what overwhelming advantages the mere reviewers start. They
reconstruct the history of a book written by someone whose mother-tongue is the same
as theirs; a contemporary, educated like themselves, living in something like the same
mental and spiritual climate. They have everything to help them. The superiority in
judgement and diligence which you are going to attribute to the biblical critics will
have to be almost superhuman if it is to offset the fact that they are everywhere faced
with customs, language, race-characteristics, a religious background, habits of
composition, and basic assumptions, which no scholarship will ever enable any man
now alive to know as surely and intimately and instinctively as the reviewer can know
mine. And for the very same reason, remember, the biblical critics, whatever
reconstructions they devise, can never be crudely proved wrong. St. Mark is dead.
When they meet St. Peter there will be more pressing matters to discuss.
You may say. of course, that such reviewers are foolish in so far as they guess how a
sort ofbook they never wrote themselves was written by another. They assume that you
wrote a story as they would try to write a story; the fact that they would so try. explains
why they have not produced any stories. But are the biblical critics in this way much
better off? Dr. Bultmann never wrote a gospel. Has the experience of his learned,
specialized, and no doubt meritorious, life really given him any power of seeing into
the minds of those long dead men who were caught up into what, on any view, must be
regarded as the central religious experience of the whole human race? It is no in-
say — he himself would admit — that he must in every way be divided from
civility to
the evangelists by far more formidable barriers — spiritual as well as intellectual —
than any that could exist between my reviewers and me.
This essay is from a published collection of Lewis' lectures and
"Christian Reflections," edited by Walter Hooper. It is

articles,
used by permission of the publisher, William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
THE INFLUENCE OF FORM

CRITICISM ON CHRISTOLOGY
BY BOB PATTERSON
New Testament form criticism appear suddenly around 1919. Two
did not
movements in biblical studies led to Hermann Gunkel, building on the work
its birth.
of the Wellhausen school, pioneered from [sic] criticism in the Old Testament at the
turn of the century. Gunkel started with the principle that the authors of Old
Testament were compilers of the tradition rather than professional writers. Assuming
that the collected traditions contained a great variety of literary types and forms,
Gunkel proposed to sift out each separate type and study it according to its form,
content, style, and structure. "Thereafter each type had to be traced back to its 'Sitz
im Leben,' its life-situation in the daily environment and activity of the Hebrew
people, at which stage the tradition was spoken, not written." The original types
during the oral period consisted of songs celebrating victory in war, funeral laments,
prophetic sermons, and cult liturgies, among others. In his commentary on Genesis in
1901 he demonstrated the wide-ranging possibilities of form criticism for biblical
studies.
At the same time distinguished German scholars in the field of literary criticism were
also paving the way for New Testament form criticism. David F. Strauss (1835) had
set the stageby denying the historical value of the Gospels, claiming that they were
legends formed years after their supposed occurrence. In 1901 Bernard Weiss (and
Holtzmann) countered this skepticism by affirming that the Gospel of Mark, the
primary Gospel, and a secondary source designated as Q
(the "two document
hypothesis" of literary criticism), were historically trustworthy. In the same year,
however, a new and different attack on the historical reliability of Mark was made by
Wilhelm Wrede.
Wrede said that (1) Mark artificially [sic] constructed the framework of his narratives,
(2) that he included later and less reliable as well as earlier traditions, and (3) that he
imposed a doctrinal theory on his Gospel. Wrede held that Mark must have imposed
on his narrative the idea that the disciples were trained by Jesus during his ministry to
believe that Jesus was the Messiah (the "Messianic Secret"), because every evidence
indicated that it was not revealed to anyone until after the resurrection. Even Jesus
himself did not know He was the Messiah. Wrede concluded that the "Messianic
Secret" was "a device invented by Mark in order to reconcile the non- Messianic
materials of his source with his own christological beliefs." Wrede said that the Jesus of
Mark was unhistorical, and that the supernatural divine Christ in Mark reflects the
faith of the church a generation after Easter. By 1914 this debate centering about
Mark had reached a general consensus.
The Two-document hypothesis was accepted, but the historical value of Mark
and the trustworthiness of Q
were being questioned. Secondly, it was being
argued that Mark and Q
were influenced by the theological views of the early
Church. Thirdly, it was being asserted that Mark was a collection not only of
traditional narratives and sayings of Jesus, but of material of a later date
[101/24].
In the fourth place, it was being said that there were legendary elements in Mark.
From these studies scholars began to recognize that there were "forms" of oral
tradition in Mark, but they could not get at them with the tools of literary criticism.
Out of the inability of literary criticism to answer many of the questions about the pre-
literary stage of Mark and the other Gospels, New Testament form criticism, "the
child of disappointment" was born. Three scholars, Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bult-
mann, and K.L. Schmidt working simultaneously but independently on the primitive
Christian tradition and the laws of their formation and transmission, founded New
Testament form criticism ("formgeschichte," form history).
They took up the principles enunciated by Gunkel for Old Testament studies and
applied them to the New Testament. These pioneers accepted the main results of
literary criticism, then moved on to investigate the traditions (pre-literary oral
traditions) and the way they were moulded before they received literary shape.
According to the Form Critics, the evangelists were not authors, but collectors
and editors. Their work consisted in collecting, choosing, grouping, re-
shaping, and handing down the traditions. They had nothing to do with the
original moulding, for they took over material which had a "form" and which
existed in independent self-contained units.
They assumed that the original oral tradition behind the Gospels took shape as they
did in any folklore traditions (China, India, Persia, Greece) which were moulded by
constant repetition. The first aim of the form critics, then, was to discover the laws of
oral tradition in the "twilight period," when the tradition was still circulating "orally
as a series of disconnected units, anecdotes, stories, saying, teaching, parables, and so
on."
The second aim of the form critics was to arrive at the actual happenings and sayings
of Jesus and thus resolve any doubts about the trustworthiness of the knowledge
concerning the historical Jesus. Back of this aim stood the skepticism of Wrede and his
principle of the "messianic Secret." The form critics assumed that the traditions about
Jesus had been transformed by the collective consciousness of the primitive Christian
community, that the Gospels are expressions of the community's faith. But by
following the form critical method they felt that they would know the Jesus of history
as he was before the Gospels were written. K.L. Schmidt, in examining the framework
in which the Markan materials were set, distinguished between the "tradition" (the
isolated units of material) and the "redactions" (the connecting links between the
units, the contributions of the evangelist). He concluded that the Markan geography
and chronology were unreliable and that the "redactions" provided clues to Mark's
own distinctive theology. Schmidt set the task for form criticism, i.e., to discover the
previous history of the units of material.
As Bultmann and Dibelius applied the form critical method to the Gospels the process
comprised three operations. First, the oral units were classified according to a form.
Second, the forms were assigned to a life setting in the community or group which
created them ("Sitz im Leben," life situation, creative milieu). Third, the historical
value of each unit was assessed. Dibelius felt that the oral traditions [sic] were first
shaped by the preaching needs of the church. He lists the forms as follows: 1.
Paradigms (sermon illustrations); 2. Miracle stories about Jesus (tales or Novellen); 3.
Catechetical teaching (sayings); 4. Edifying narratives (legends); 5. Supernatural
stories (mythen); 6. Passion narratives. Bultmann's grouping of the material is as
follows: 1. Apothegms (may be controversial or biographical, practically the group
called paradigms by Dibelius); 2. Sayings, which he divides into five groups (wisdom
words, "I" words, prophetic and apocalyptic words, law words and community rules,
and parables); 3. Miracle stories; 4. Legends.
Dibelius, a conservative form critic, was quite cautious in his assessment of the
trustworthiness of the historical records.
He found that the forms of the units of the tradition had been determined
largely by the kind of people to whom they could be traced back: Preachers,
teachers or missionaries. Yet while Dibelius clearly saw that the tradition had
undergone considerable change in the preaching, teaching, and missionary
interest of the primitive Church, he did not deny the possibility of its historicity
as going back in the first instance to Jesus himself.
To Bultmann, however, the Gospels lose much of their trustworthiness as historical
records and the Jesus of history is lost. In his hands form criticism took a skeptical
direction. He accounts as historically trustworthy only about forty of the group that he
lists as Sayings, none of the Miracle Stories, and none of the Legends. He rejected the
idea that the Gospel traditionists "had any kind of historical intention, and
characterized the materials of the tradition about Jesus as the legendary or
mythological fabrications of the primitive Christian community, which gave objective
expression to its faith in concrete stories regarding Jesus."
Not all form critics think that the early church completely transformed the original
tradition about Jesus. Vincent Taylor, author of one of the best books in English on
form criticism, says that form criticism "seems to me to furnish constructive
suggestions which in many ways confirm the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel
tradition." Taylor further remarks that if the skeptical form critics such as Bultmann
are right "the disciples must have been translated to heaven immediately after the
Resurrection." The skeptical form critic, by the very nature of his assumptions, is not
predisposed in favour of any original eyewitnesses. Form criticism is limited in that the
form does not always give clues to the life setting of the narrative and by the face [sic]
that the form does not always serve as the best way for ascertaining the legitimacy of
historical authenticity.
During the '20's two other movements were arraigning the liberal attempts to
reconstruct the lifeof Jesus— form criticism and Karl Earth's Dialectical Theology.
Both movements emphasized that the New Testament must be understood from the
point of view of the post- Easter church. These "kerygma theologians" made two
devastating criticisms against the "life of Jesus" enterprise. First, they demonstrated
that the New Testament documents are primarily kerygmatic proclamations in which
Jesus is pointed to as God's saving act on man's behalf, and not historical sources for
the life of Christ. To suppress the kerygmatic element is to miss the faith element of
the post-Easter community. Second, they questioned the ability of the historical
method to grasp the nature of God's revelation of Himself in Christ." God's presence
for man's salvation is not an objective phenomenon within the grasp of men, not even
of learned historians who are able to work their way back to supposedly certain facts
about Jesus." The only way to perceive God's revelation is through learning the
kerygma and responding in faith and obedience. By these assertions the historical-
critical method and form criticism in particular entered into an alliance with classical
christology to preserve the mystery of Jesus.
In 1953 Ernst Kasemann started what is known as the "post- Bultmann" phase of New
Testament study by returning to the problem of the historical Jesus. To rid the New
Testament of the docetism implicit in Bultmann's program of demythologizing (the
"myths" of the kerygma are interpretative rather than objective statements) is the
primary motive behind the new quest. Kasemann and others [sic] want to show that
there is at least a consistent frame of reference between Jesus and the church's
kerygma. These scholars, regarding the resurrection as a matter that can be known
only by faith, try to find elements in the tradition that have not been fully assimilated
by the post-Easter faith.
To the extent that they are not assimilated by faith, they point to Jesus as he
really was. But these elements must not be irrelevant or contrary to Easter faith,
for the whole purpose of the new quest, in distinction from the old, is to
demonstrate a parallel between the Jesus of history and Easter faith, so that it
cannot be said that faith must be a myth [Reginald H. Fuller. Easter Faith and
History, p. 112].
Reprinted from Encounter.
Winter, 1970. Vol. 31. No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Used by permission.
AUTHOR INDEX
Cole, R.A., 172
Aalders. G.. 106. 107. 108 Coleridge. 47
Abel. E.L., 272 Conzelmann. H., 311
j Albright. W.F.. 17. 18. 21. 53. 54. 56. D
'
57.58.59.60.61.63.67.68.70.71. Dahl.G.. 104
74.76.77.79.81,82.84.85. 118. Dahse.J., 135
119. 120.285.292.295,332.333. Davies.W.D., 251. 254. 264. 266
334. 337, 338. 341. 342. 343. 346. DeGrandmaison. 286
347.349.350,351.352 Delitzsch. F..359
AUis, O.T.. 4, 48. 112, 113. 133. 147.
DeWette. 44
148, 149. 171. 173
Dibelius. M., 191. 192. 194. 198. 207,
Anderson. B.W. 339
217. 218, 224, 226. 227. 228. 229.
Anderson. H.. 297
230, 248. 257. 258, 265. 270. 275.
Archer. G..Jr.. 55. 59, 72. 78, 116, 118.
280, 286. 292. 296. 384
120. 125. 128. 134. 148. 153. 156.
Diodorus. 80
160. 167. 169.338
Dodd. C.H.. 193.218.272
Astruc. 43. 44
Dornseiff. F.. 134
B Driver. S.R.. 30. 46. 48. HI. 112, 140.
Babcock, F. J., 213. 241.302 162, 163, 164. 172
Barclay. W.. 373 Duncker. P.G.. 276
Banks. E.J.. 79 E
Barker. G.W.. 248 Easton. B.S.. 193. 220. 221, 238, 252,
Barnes. W.E.. 218. 240. 242. 266. 273 299
Barr. A..275 Edwards. O.C.. 304
Bartlett. F.C..272 Eichorn.J.G.. 36.44
Barton. G.A.. 66. 84 Eichrodt. W.,89
Benoit. P..9.259.285 Einstein, 11
Bentzen. A.. 114 Eissfeldt. O.. 46, 98. 121. 137. 141
Bewer.J.A..48 Elder.J..78. 332. 344
Biedermann, 51 Ellwein. E., 197,282
Black, M.. 11 Engnell,I..38. 60
Blackman. E.G.. 283 Erdmans. B.D.. 134
Bornkamm,G..306, 309 Erlandsson, S.. 15
Bowman. R.. 18 Ewald, H. 44
Briggs. C.A..46
Evans, A.J.. 69
Bright.].. 81. 82. 173
Bruce. F.F.. 243. 276. 283. 302
Bruch. 256 Feinberg. P.D.. 56
Bultmann. R.. 192. 194.
8, 9. 15. 191. Fascher, E.. 273
198. 203. 208. 216. 224. 230. 232. Filson. F.V.. 192. 204. 210. 215. 248.
233. 234, 239. 240. 249. 250. 258. 253. 256. 258. 263. 265, 270, 273.
264. 268. 270, 279, 280. 282. 289. 285. 289. 300
291.293,294.296,384 Finegan. J.. 81. 345. 347. 348. 349
Burkitt,F.C., 10,267 Finn. A. H.. 115
Burrows, M., 18, 20. 21. 63. 66. 77. 79. Frank. H.T..7.75, 336
81.85.330.343 Free. J. P.. 19. 21. 59. 63. 64, 65. 66. 78.
C 79. 81, 83. 84. 85. 328. 329. 336. 337.
338. 339. 340. 344. 346. 347. 350.
Caiger. S.L.. 85
351, 352
Cairns. D.. 282
Freedman.D.N..73.77
Campbell. G.E.. 331
Fuller. R.H.. 234. 280. 287. 385
Carlson, A.J.. 5
Cassuto, U.. 48. 49. 52, 122. 125. 126, G
127, 147. 164. 173 Gardiner. A.. 71
Chapman. A.T.. 169 Geddes. A..44
384 MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICl
Gerhardsson, B., 16, 51 Kaufmann. Y., 174

Gesenius, W.. 130 Kautzsch.91. 157
Gilkey. L.B.. 7. 40. 87. 92. 93 Kegel, M.. 46
Glueck. N..18.78 Kennett, R.H..46
Goguel, M..243 Kenyon, F.G.,213
Gordon. C.H.. 48. 70. 76. 148. 174. Kistemaker, S., 220
175.329,365 Kitchen. K.A.. 47, 48, 49, 57, 59, 68,
Graf, K.H.,45.86 83,85, 100. 102, 114, 115,127, 138
Grant, F.C., 193,257 143, 147, 150, 161, 162, 169. 171,
Green, W.H., 8. 36. 141, 143. 169. 171, 330.331.333.334,352.354.
172 Kline. M.G.. 64, 100. 102. 113. 120
Gressmann, H. 37 Kdhler, 213
Groebel.K.,205 Kramer. S.N. ,67
Grollenberg, L.. 18 Kuenen. A.,7,55,56.58. 126
Grotefend. 86 Kulling. S.R.. 113
Gundry. S.N.. 203. 243, 254. 256. 263. Kyle. M.G.. 171
266,273.275,276 L
Gunkel,H.,37,53, 193,383 Ladd. G.E.. 14, 16, 190, 196, 203, 206.
Guthrie. D.. 194. 197, 203. 254. 257.
253, 254, 260. 267. 268. 285, 288.
260 291.292.296
H Lagrange. M.J., 67
Habel. 104 Lane, 248
Hahn. H..55 Lang, A., 60
Halevi.RJ.. 122 Lapp. P.W., 335. 336.337
Harper. W.R.. 48 Lehmann, M.. 75
Harrison. E.F..223 Lengerke, 44
Harrison. R.K.. 48. 49, 52, 57, 60. 115. Lewis, C.S.. 12,242.377
134, 150, 152. 159. 161.268 Lewis. G.C.. 71
Hartmann. A.T.. 44 Lewis. G.R., 371
Haupert. R.S.. 342, 343. 344, 345 Lightfoot. R.H., 191, 193. 227. 271,
Hegel. 55, 56 279, 308
Hehner. H.W..316 Livingston, G.H.. 30. 31
Heidegger. M.. 197 Lohr. 46
Heidel. A..61. 143
Hengstenberg, E.W.. 122 M
Herder, J. G., 193 Mackay.J..57
Hertz, J. H.. 128 Maier. P.L..213
Hochner, H.W.,300 Manley, G.T.. 104. 105. 106. 108. 115,
Hofner, H.A..341 129
Holtzmann. 193 Manson. T.W.. 221. 244. 255. 267. 268.
Horn, R.M.. 14 289. 372
Horn, S.H., 19. 70. 75. 329. 332. 359 Martin. R.. 307, 314
Hubbard. D.A., 40 Martin. W.J.. 3, 128, 131, 167, 203.
Hume. D.. 11 210.211.212,219,220.221.251.
Hunter. A.M.. 210. 220. 243. 256. 274 254. 259. 266. 273. 275. 277. 279
Hupfeld. H..45 Marty. M.E.. 197
Hutson. H.H.,242 Marxsen. W..311.312
Huxley, T.H., 48 McCarthy. D.J. 101
.
McGinley. L.J.. 191. 198. 211. 212. 218,

I-J
219.231.232.237.240,241,242.
Irwin. W. A.. 81
244. 270. 275. 276. 285, 301, 302
Jeremias.J..234 McKenzie.J.L.. 119
Josephus, F., 98 McKnight. E.V.. 193. 198. 225. 231.
K 232.233.235.237.263,287
Kasemann. E., 10. 206. 237. 271. 281. McNeile. A.H., 211, 212, 243, 254, 270.
385 285
Mendenhall. C. 53. 68. 99. 101. 119, Richardson, A.. 371. 375
174 Ridderbos. H.N.B., 9, 271, 293
Michaels, 248 Robertson. 91
Mill. J.S., 260 Robinson,J.M..239. 374
Montgomery, J., 7, 11. 12. 47. 213. 221, Rogers, C, 302
243. 289 Rohde.J.. 307. 310,313
Moore, JR., 10 Rose. H.J., 243
Moreland.J.P.,267.284 Rowley, H.H.. 103. 127. 133. 138. 143,
Morgeiistern, J. 46 146. 174
Mosley. A.W.,284 Rudolph. W., 46
Motyer.J.A.,130 Runia. K., 196
Moule, C.F.D., 193,252.375 S
Mounce. R.H., 192. 253. 274. 300
Sanders, J. A., 304
Muller.F..230
Sarna. N., 83
N Sayce. A.H.. 16, 53, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70,
Neatby,T.M..80 71.340
NeiIl.S.,243,260 Schaff. P., 12
Nineham,D.E., 193 Schmidt. K.L., 192,216.384
Noldeke, T.,71,82 Schmidt, W.. 60
North. C.R., 126. 172 Schultz. H..69. 72
O Schweitzer. A., 280
Scott. E.F.. 211. 277. 283
Ogden. S.M.. 10. 196. 234. 235
Scroggs, R.. 304
Olmstead. AT., 19
Segal. M.H., 156, 173
Olrick, 193
Origen, 39 Sethe. K..97
Sherwin-White. A.N..283
Orlinsky, H.,18.50
Sider. R.. 12. 13
Orr, J.. 8. 14. 15. 36, 51. 54, 56, 59, 72.
Skinner. J.. 135
91, 139, 145. 164
Smalley. S..306. 312
Overbeck. F.. 193
Smend, R.. 46
P Smith. C.W.F.. 264
Parrot, 74 Smith. D.M.. 190.201.247
Patterson, B.E., 194, 383 Smith, R.W.. 62
Pederson,J.,38. 52. 103 Smith. W.R., 46
Peritz. I.J.,200.257.266.282 Smith. W.S.. 114
Perrin. N.. 8. 202. 203. 253. 306, 308, Soederblom. N.. 60
309,312,313 Sparrow-Simpson, W.J.. 9
Pesch, R.,193 Speiser, E., 74
Pettazzoni, R., 60 Spence, W.W.,56
Pettinato, C. 353. 354 Spivey. R.A.. 190.201.247
Pfeiffer. R.H.. 46. 57. 58, 63, 73, 98. Stallman, M..288
133 Stanton. G.N. .267
Philo, 98 Stauffer. E., 12
Pinnock, C, 6 Stearnes. M.B.. 339
Piper, O.A., 259 Steele. F.. 66
Pittenger, N.. 286 Stein. R.. 307. 315
Price, I. M., 67, 346 Strabo, 80
R Strauss. D.. 308, 383
Ramm, B., 6 Sullivan.J.W.N..10
Raven. J. H., 111. 125. 127. 129. 133. T
145. 162. 165 Taylor. R.O. P.. 219
Rawlinson. 86 Taylor, V., 192. 193. 197. 199. 202,
Redlich. E.B., 190, 212. 229, 232, 233. 206. 208. 217. 218, 224. 231. 236,
255, 259. 274, 285. 287. 300 237. 238. 239. 250. 251. 253. 260.
Reihm, E., 167 265.267.271.272
Reisner, G.A., 114 Taylor. W.S..1 1.22 1.272
Torrey. C.C.. 345. 346. 348. 349 Wendland. P.. 193

Travis. S.H.. 213. 300 Westphal.M.. 12
U Whitelaw. T..4.86
Widengren, G.. 60
Unger. M.F. 40. 61. 65. 78. 93. 131.
Wight. F.H.. 77. 84. 341. 347
336. 337, 340
Wikenhauser. A.. 199. 215. 234. 239.
V 257. 264. 274
Vater.J..44 Wilson. R.D.. 153. 157. 160. 297. 346
Via. D.O..Jr..315 Wink, W.. 304
Volz. P..46 Witter. H.B.. 43
VonRad. G.. 101.103 Wouk.H.. 173. 175
Vos. G..14 Wrede. W.P.. 193. 287. 288. 308. 383
VOS.H.F..8S.85.330 Wright. G.E.. 53. 54. 59. 60. 61. 62. 67.
W 73. 75. 76. 80. 99. 243. 328. 329. 333.
Walker. R.. 137 336. 338. 343. 344, 348
Waltke. B.K..60. 67. 171 Y
Weinfeld. 101 Yamauchi. E.M 21.297
Weiss. B.. 383 Yaron. R.. 67
Weiss. J., 193 Young, E.J. 138,
Wellhausen. J.. 8. 29. 45. 52. 54. 55. 56. Youngblood. R.. 60
58.62.68.72.82.86.90. 110. 111.
114. 135. 169. 174. 193. 194.216.
271.279 Zeller. 10
[ MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT 387
SUBJECT INDEX
Criticism, definition, 35
Abraham. 69-73. 77-80. 81. 119. 120, Lower. 35
125. 131. 139.329-330 Higher. 35
Journey of. 145 Historical. 14
Accadian Cuneiform, 69-70 Textual. 18
Aleppo. 340 Cyrus Cylinder, 347
Ai. 78. 338 Cyrus the Great. 346, 347, 351
Amalekites. 108 D
Amarna Tablets. 71. 336, S37
Darius, 347
Amorites. 85
Darwin. 54
Anachronisms, late words. 152-157
Anti-Supernaturalism. 3-16, 91-93
D Document, 31-33, 38, 101. 102,
106-113. 165
Aramaeans. 62
Dead Sea Scrolls. 296
Archaeology. 17-22. 48. 49, 52-86.
Demythologization, 203
116-120
Divine names, use of. 121-135
Arioch. 74
Documentary Hypothesis. 5,7,8
Arriyuk, 74
Anti -supernatural presupposition,
Ashtaroth. 82. 84
Assyrians. 59, 63. 64
25-183
Crystalization theory, 44
Artaxerxes. 346
First theory. 43
B Fragmentary theory, 44
Baal. 60 Modern revisions. 46
Babylonia. 58-60. 63. 69. 70. 77. 343. Modified theory, 45
344. 350 Supplementary theory, 44
Code of, 65. 66
Captivity. 345
E
Belshazzar. 21 E Document. 29. 30, 33. 45. 50, 112,
Beersheba.Wellof, 140 131. 140. 148. 151.165
Bethel. 79 Egypt. 69.71.77.79.80
Beth Essential. 129-130 Egyptians. 61. 63
Biographical Interests Elephantine Papyri, 351
See Evangelists Esau, 329
Eschatology. 201
C Eshnunna. laws of, 67, 119
Canaan. 54. 58. 60-63. 66. 69-71, 78, Evangelists (no biographical interests),
83.85. 104.110.117,119, 189.263-268
332-339. 341 Execration Texts, 97
Carchemish. 340 Exile. 345-355
Chaldeans. 347. 352 Exodus 6:3. 127
Chenoboskion Papyra. 292, 296 Exodus. The. 40
Community. 189. 202-203, 247, 271. Eyewitnesses. 238, 254, 255, 266,
279 281 271-276
Creative. 196. 202-203, 247-261, 265. Ezekiel. 355
301 Ezra. 346. 348-355
Illiterate. 258
F
Primitive. 217. 250, 251. 273, 276, 282.
285. 301 Faith. 14
Contradictions, alleged. 149-157 Flood story. 143
Nomenclature, 149 Form Criticism
Legislation, 150 Basic principles. 191
Customs, 151 Definition. 190
Ethics. 151 History of. 190-191
Creation story. 138. 139 Major proponents, 194-200
Crete. 69 Purpose. 191. 192
Subjective, 199, 240, 301
Forms, Classification according to, 189, Jeremiah, 352
192. 223-245 Jericho, 338
Apothegm, 230, 245. 265, 301 John of Damascus, 40
Historicity of, 240 Joseph, 146-147,328-332
Legends, 216. 218. 228. 234. 239, Judah. 346. 351.352
270, 296, 301
Miracle stories. 223, 234, 237. 272,
300 Karnak. Temple of, 80
Myths. 201, 229. 235. 239. 257, 292, Karnaim. 82, 84
300 Khammu-rabi. Code of, 65
Parables. 202, 237, 300 L
Paradigms, 216,225.244
Lachish, Ostraca of, 342-345
Pronouncement stories, 223. 236, 244
Lipit-Ishtar Law Code, 66-127
Sayings. 224. 232. 237
Luke, accuracy of. 282. 283
Tales, iVoi/e//en, 216,227
M
Gattungen, 38 Machpelah, Cave of. 75
Genesis Manasseh, 105
Chapternine, 113 Mani, 292
Chapter seventeen. 113 Marduk, 59
Gezer Calendar, 71 Mari. 68, 74.77,83.337
Gideon. 71 Megiddo. 62, 338
Melchizedek, 82
Gilead. 82-84
Gnosticism. 201,291-297
Mesopotamia. 64, 65. 68. 70. 74, 77,
81,83-85, 127,329,340
Goshen, 58
Messianic Secret Theory. 194. 287-290
Gospel Tradition. 202
Miracles. 5. 10. 12
H Moab. 84. 85. 104
Habiru. 336, 337 Monotheism. 54, 57-60
Hamath, 340 Mosaic Authorship, 32. 40, 41, 93-120
Hamlet, 163 Moses, death of, 159
Hammurabi, Code of, 63-67, 119
N
Hauran, 82, 84
Hellenization, 201,293
Nebuchadnezzar. 342. 346. 348. 352
Henotheism, 54 Nehemiah. 346. 349. 351, 355
"High places" rtama^;, 109-111 Nuzi Tablets. 75. 76. 81. 120. 328. 329,
Historical Skepticism. 279-286 335. 337
History
Approach to, 12-16 Odyssey. 163
Reliability of documents, 47-48 Oral Tradition. 37. 38. 197. 201.
Two types. 203 205-213. 217. 255. 269. 272, 273
Hittites, 21, 63, 64, 75, 83. 99, 115, Bultmann's concept, 208
119. 120.337.339-341 Dibelius' concept, 207
Treaties. 100-103 Taylor's concept, 208
Hivite. 340 Oral Transmission, 118. 189, 272
Horites. 75. 339
P
Hurrians. 75
Papias. 286
Hyksos. 80, 330
Passion story, 195. 217. 218. 224
I-J Patriarchs. 61, 70, 72, 73, 77, 78, 81,
Isaac. 74, 120. 131. 139,328,329 339
Blessing of, 146 P Document, 29, SO. 33. 38. 45. 63. 93.
IshtarGate, 348 111-116. 132. 140. 148. 152. 162,
Jacob, 61, 74, 122, 131, 140. 328, 329 165.172
J Document, 29, 30, 33. 45, 50, 140, Pericopes. 189. 202. 203. 215-221
148. 151. 162,165.166 340
Perizzite.
Jebusites. 19 62
Philistines.
Jehoiachin. 345, 346. 348. 350 Phoenicia, 70
Plagues, 148 Susa, 64

Polytheism, 56, 57. 59 Synoptic Healing Narrative. 212
Presuppositions, 3-16 Synoptic Problem. 202
Documentary hypothesis, 51-86 T
Form criticism. 4, 810, 37 Tabernacle. 62, 113-116
R Talmud, 98
Rachel, 61, 120. 330 Tel Beit Mirsim, 78, 338
Ras Shamra Tablets, 66, 67. 70. 116 Ten Commandments, 20
Redaktion Criticism. 202 Tent of Meeting, 115
Religionsgeschichtliche Method. 202 Torah, 39, 57, 98, 151
Repetition of Accounts, 137-149 Tradition. Laws of. 190. 269-277
S U
Sarah. 75 Ugaritic, 63. 70. 84, 148, 337
Sargon, 21. 340 Uppsala School, 37
Saul, 80 Urof theChaldees. 72. 339. 347
Science. 10-11, 13 V-W
Septuagint, 134
Virgil. 158
Shakespeare, 163
Witnesses, hostile, 276
Shamash, 65
Worship, centralized, 106, 111
SitzimLeben, 38. 189, 190, 192. 203.
248, 249, 253. 274. 302 Y-Z
Solomon, 21 Yaukin, 348
Temple. 62 Zedekiah. 343
Zerubbabel.82.91.349
The Controversy Rages.,
THE BIBLE wm
WORDS OF GOD?
OR
WORDS OF MEN?
ISTHERE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
BIBLE AS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD?
When Josh McDowell published his first powerful defense

of the Bible, EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT,
it became a national bestseller within a matter of months.
Now Josh McDowell follows that impressive defense with
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT VOWME II
-A serious-minded work for every person who wants to
overcome doubts about the Bible.
An excellent resource book for students who are facing
tough questions of biblical criticism.
- Used in colleges and in universities across the nation, this
book has proven to be a dynamic force in challenging
Christians, Jews and unbelievers to re-examine the claims
of the Scriptures.
I
A practical book for the Christian who wants to strengthen
his or her faith with greater knowledge and understanding.
JOSH McDowell, a graduate of Wheaton College and magna cum laude

graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary, is a member of two national honor
societies and is one of the most popular speakers on university campuses across
America today. During the last 20 years he has spoken in over 60 countries to
more than seven million young people and adults in over 800 universities and
high schools.
He has authored or co-authored 26 popular books, among them Answers To
Tough Questions, Handbook of Today's Religions, His Image... My Image, and
The Secret of Loving. Through his books, films, and television appearances.
Josh McDowell has become one of the primary defenders of the faith for today.
ISBN 0-aMD7-M37T-3
9 "780840"743794

Evidence That Demands A Verdict

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence That Demands A Verdict

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence That Demands A Verdict

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What are some criticisms of the Bible addressed in the book?

What are some criticisms of the Bible addressed in the book?

THAT DEMANDS AVERDICT

HISTORICAL EVIDENCES FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

THOMAS NELSON PUBLISHERS

All rights reserved. Written permission must be secured from

Published in Nashville, Tennessee, by Thomas Nelson, Inc.,

ISBN 0-8407-4379-3 (v. 2 : pbk.)

Printed in the United States of America

Harold L. Fickett. Jr., ThD, Pastor

(3) There seems to be a need to counteract the "absoluteness" of so many

DO WHAT WITH IT?

telligently answered almost every negative assertion of the professor in my Old

have been asked to teach."

THE TERM "RADICAL CRITIC"

THE CRITICS AND CRITICISM

(4) Others I didn't deal with Source Criticism, Historical

RESEARCH TEAM MEMBERS

Ron Lutjens Bowling Green University

Jay Gary Georgia Tech

1. Archer, Gleason, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Moody Press.

4. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Inter- Varsity Press.

5. Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans

8. Ladd, G.E. The New Testament and Criticism. Wm. B. Eerdmans

EXPLANATION OF GENERAL FORMAT

am employing a method that is easy to use in locating specific references in

Traditional Method Used Here

This section deals with anti-supernaturalism and archae-

Chapter 2. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CRITICISM 17

Chapter 12. THE REPETITION OF ACCOUNTS AND

Chapter 15. THE CONCLUSION TO THE DOCUMENTARY

Chapter 17. DEFINITION OFTERMS 201

Chapter 20. CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE FORM . . 223

Chapter 28.AN ASSESSMENT OF THE HISTORICAL

IC. The Documentary Hypothesis

4 MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT

It is if one asserts that genuinely scientific and

Some sort of boundary definitions, be they ever so elastically held, of what is

should not be allowed to warp or distort the facts, or be applied to support a

the authority of the Old Testament, as the conservative is in accepting and

easy way of avoiding the issue." 37/338

AJ. Carlson, in Science and the Supernatural, defines the supernatural as

2C. BASIC TENETS

SD. There is no supernatural.

"following the modern historical approach." I could not justify my

Many historians approach history with certain presuppositions and these

this conclusion by studying the historical evidence or did you think it up

5C. A VIVID EXAMPLE OF A COMMITMENT TO A PRESUPPOSED

4B. Examples of Proponents

Julius Wellhausen, in his Israelitische und Juedische Geschichte (p. 12),

In contrast to these anti-supernaturalist views, W.H. Green concludes that

J. Orr, in speaking of the 19th century documentation scholarship (very

2C. FORM CRITICISM

"This closedness means that the continuum of historical happenings

history as an effective cause is one which a historian cannot contemplate."

Bultmann rejects "miracles." Writing m

Bultmann continues his argument in Kerygma and Myth: