P source, problems
According to the Documentary Hypothesis (DH), the P source is
responsible for more of the Pentateuch than any other source. Based upon my own
very rough calculations, critical scholars assign to P about 20% of Gen, about
50% of Exo, about 95% of Lev, and about 70% of Num. Mainstream DH thought is
that P was not written until the return from exile, although some follow Richard
Elliot Friedman and date the bulk of the P source to Hezekiah's time. Therefore,
evidence from P that relates to time periods before Hezekiah and are not
explainable by critical scholars except as complete fabrications (or even
completely unexplainable) would serve to demonstrate that the supposed P source
was in fact written when it claims to have been written: during the time of
Moses. I intend to point out several things that in fact do serve as such forms
of evidence.
One complicating matter is this differing opinion by critical
scholars about when to date the P source, whether it was c 710 BC or c 450 BC.
As the latter date is the far more prevalent one among critical scholars it is
the one that I will focus most upon, but in any case virtually all of my points
relate to the earlier date as well. At the same time, this complicating matter
of different dates for P is actually helpful, as the scholars in both sub-camps
here are quite adept at pointing out some of the failings of the other. All in
all, the post-exilic date supported by most critical scholars is far more absurd
that the earlier date proposed by Friedman. Friedman's approach removes some,
but not all, of the problems that I present below.
I will begin by citing a list given by Josh McDowell in Volume
2 of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." He notes that there are several features
present in P but absent from the post-exilic period. I have omitted some that I
think are "stretches" on his part but the remainder are: tabernacle, ark, ten
commandments [I take this to refer to the tablets], Urim and Thummim, cities of
refuge, and the test of adultery by ordeal. He also lists leprosy and Nazirites
as two features present in P and in the pre-exilic period, but absent from the
post-exilic period. Finally, he lists several features absent from P yet
prominent in the post-exilic period: the divine name "Yahweh Sabaoth" [LORD of
hosts], singing and music as central in worship, scribes, designation of the
central sanctuary as the "temple", mention of legislation concerning the
post-exilic industrial revolution, and the city of Jerusalem. I will take up
some of these issues, plus some others, in more detail.
Looking at the cities of refuge makes for an interesting
consideration. During both the Hezekiah-period and the post-exilic period most
of the cities were outside the areas controlled by the Israelites. Whichever
date is given for P by critical scholars, it seems that there would be no point
whatsoever in dealing with the cities of refuge in this level of detail. The
only sensible explanation is that these sections of the Pentateuch were written
by Moses prior to the entry into Canaan.
Of course the most important city during the Hezekiah period
and the post-exilic period was Jerusalem. To put it bluntly, Jerusalem was the
Holy City of All Time, the place where Yahweh Elohim, the One True God, Yahweh
Sabaoth, chose to "dwell" in His Temple. Under Hezekiah and following the return
from exile there was much enthusiasm about Jerusalem. So what does the P source
say about Jerusalem, as part of what the DH claims is its effort to justify the
exclusiveness of the Aaronic priesthood to the people? NOTHING. This is
eminently explainable if the Pentateuch really were written by Moses, as God had
not yet revealed Jerusalem as the place where His name would finally dwell, and
in any case He first established Shiloh before rejecting it (see Psa 78:60 and
related refs that deal with this). But as the DH claims that the author(s) of
the P source was making up things left and right to justify the exclusiveness of
the Aaron priesthood, it makes no sense for this source not to have included
something about Jerusalem. The only two refs in the Pentateuch that I can think
of that relate to Jerusalem are the mention of Melchizedek King-Priest of Salem
in Gen 14, and the "sacrifice" of Isaac upon Mount Moriah in Gen 22. According
to critical scholars, these come from the J or the E source, and in any case are
extremely obscure about pointing forward to Jerusalem as the future center of
worship. Surely other places mentioned in Genesis, such as Shechem, Bethel,
Hebron, and Beersheba are far more prominent. And besides, as we shall see when
we get to the two postings about problems with the DH theory about Deuteronomy,
the Shechem/Mt Ebal/Mt Gerizim location is mentioned far more prominently than
Jerusalem is. As for locations within Canaan mentioned by the P source, these
are confined to the purchase by Abraham of the cave of Machpelah in Gen 23 and
the renaming of Jacob to Israel in Gen 35 at Bethel. And interestingly, in the
mention of Hebron in Gen 23:2), the ancient name of Kirjath-Arba is used along
with a note that "(that is, Hebron)." It does not seem sensible that the P
source, writing hundreds of years after the name of Kirjath-Arba had been
replaced, would have used that name, unless it was to expressly deceive the
post-exilic and later audiences.
One of the differences between the Temple worship services of
the divided kingdom and post-exilic periods when compared to the tabernacle
period concerned the use of singing and musical instruments. Since according to
the DH the entire purpose of writing the P source was to provide a supposedly
ancient justification for the Temple worship services, it seems inexplicable
that the author(s) of the P source would make absolutely no mention whatsoever
of this aspect of worship. At best in the P source there are a couple of
mentions of spontaneous songs, but nothing like the organized singing and music
of the later Temple periods. Remember that the Temple singers were Levites (1Ch
23:5-6), and were an important part of the Temple worship service. Also related
to this is the issue of the Nethinim, or temple servants. As I understand it
there is some debate about exactly who they were and what their key functions
were, but the fact is that they played some kind of key role in keeping the
Temple up and running.
Another interesting item concerns one that I would never have
thought of, but which makes an interesting point: the dedication dates for the
Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, and Zerubbabel's temple. Gleason Archer points out
that the Tabernacle was dedicated on the first day of the first month, or Nisan
(Exo 40:2), that Solomon's Temple was dedicated sometime in the month of
Ethanim, the seventh month (1Ki 8:2), and that Zerubbabel's Temple was dedicated
on the 3rd of Adar, or 12th month (Ezr 6:15). Part and parcel of the standard
form of the DH about the P source is that the Tabernacle was only a device
created by the author(s) of the P source to justify the Temple worship services.
If this is so, then it is highly suspect that the P source author would invent a
date for the dedication of the Tabernacle that was different from the dedication
date of the rebuilt Temple. This matter does not constitute rock-solid proof,
but it remains awkward for critical scholars to explain nonetheless.
The last item that I wish to discuss here concerns the
citation by Amos of certain material only contained in the P source sections of
the Pentateuch. According to all critical scholars, the P source was not written
until at least the time of Hezekiah, and more probably not until the time of the
return from exile. As Amos predates Hezekiah, his citations of P source material
are not accounted for by the DH.
My list of applicable references is drawn from Gleason Archer.
He points out that in Amo 2:11,12 we read of Amos castigating the Israelites for
giving the Nazirites wine to drink. This passage implies a knowledge of Num
6:1-21. Also, in Amo 4:5, Amos speaks concerning those who offer a sacrifice of
that which is leavened. This refers back to Lev 2:11, which is part of the P
source material according to the DH. Amo 4:5 also speaks of a free-will offering
in a manner that hearkens back to Lev 7:16-19; 22:18; and Num 15:3. Amo 5:21
speaks of solemn assemblies in a way that presupposes the existence of Lev 23:36
and Num 29:35, and several phrases concerning various offerings in Amo 5:22 all
relate back to P source material.
The DH response to these references places them in a catch-22.
If they argue that the P source made up the legislation about various offerings
and things like the Nazirites, then the Amos references are unexplainable. But
if they argue that the P source was drawing upon long-existing practices, then
where does all the evidence for a late (Hezekiah's day or later) P source come
from? What good would it do for the P source to refer back to long-existing
practices if the goal was to provide justification for a new way of doing
things? And if the practices were already pre-existing, then where did they come
from and upon what basis did previous generations follow them? Take the issue of
the Nazirites as an example. Clearly the practice of Naziriteship predated Amos,
and if we may refer back to Samson it certainly predated Amos by quite a bit. If
the practice didn't come from Moses then where did it come from? The easiest
answer to these questions is to accept the claim of the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch. These last couple of issues are not by themselves ironclad proof of
Mosaic authorship. But as I just stated, they fit with the claim of Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch far better than they fit with the Documentary
Hypothesis. (DB)
