Who Really Wrote the First Five Books of the Bible?

Introduction to the Mosaic Authorship Controversy

In the latter half of the nineteenth century, higher criticism began to gain traction, with critics disputing the traditional belief that Moses authored the Pentateuch. These scholars argued that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were not written by Moses but were instead composed from four distinct sources between the 10th and 6th centuries B.C.E. These sources were identified by the letters “J,” “E,” “D,” and “P,” representing the initials of the supposed writers in what has come to be known as the Documentary Hypothesis.

Source Criticism, a branch of higher criticism, is employed by liberal Bible scholars in their attempt to identify the original sources used in compiling these five books, discounting Mosaic authorship. Most scholars who engage in higher criticism begin with liberal presuppositions. Dr. Gleason L. Archer, Jr., identifies a critical flaw in the reasoning behind the Documentary Hypothesis. He notes that “The Wellhausen school started with the pure assumption (which they have hardly bothered to demonstrate) that Israel’s religion was of merely human origin like any other and that it was to be explained as a mere product of evolution.” In essence, Wellhausen and his followers approached the text with the presupposition that the Bible is not divine revelation but the product of human imagination, and thus they reason from this premise rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself. The devastating impact of this assumption on the authority of Scripture is akin to having a natural disaster undermine the very foundation of one's home.

Liberal scholars argue that Moses did not write every word of Genesis through Deuteronomy. They claim that this belief is a tradition that arose during the period following the Jews' return from exile in Babylon in 537 B.C.E., which continued into the time of Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 C.E. These critics also assert that Deuteronomy 31:9, which states that Moses “[wrote] this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, that bare the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, and unto all the elders of Israel,” has been misinterpreted. They argue that the passage refers only to the laws in Deuteronomy chapters 12–28, and that over time this tradition expanded to include the entire Pentateuch.

Moreover, these scholars suggest that the language and theological context of Deuteronomy, particularly chapters 12–18, indicate that these texts were written long after Moses’ death. According to them, by the time Jesus lived in the first century C.E., the belief that Moses authored the first five books of the Bible had become widely accepted, even though it was based on a misunderstanding. They contend that Jesus, the Son of God, was also misled by this tradition and, as a result, perpetuated it when he referred to “the book of Moses” (Mark 12:26), a title that included Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Similarly, in John 17:23, when Jesus referred to “the law of Moses,” he was affirming the long-held Jewish tradition that attributed the Pentateuch to Moses. From the critics' perspective, Jesus inadvertently passed this tradition on to the early Christians.

Given the extensive discussion of critical scholars in previous sections, it is useful to review the history and evolution of the Documentary Hypothesis before refuting it in detail. How did this hypothesis, once considered just an idea, come to dominate academic and secular institutions, as well as many seminaries? What is the relationship between a hypothesis, theory, and law? In the physical sciences, a concept must pass through several stages before being established as a law:

Observation: “I observe that objects fall to the earth.”
Hypothesis: “I think something must be pulling these objects to the earth. I will call it gravity.”
Experimentation: “I will test my hypothesis by dropping different objects from a height. Every time I do, they fall, suggesting my hypothesis is correct.”
Theory: “After many tests, I notice that objects always fall, regardless of location or context. This phenomenon is consistent enough to be called a theory.”
Law: “After extensive observation and testing over time, the principle seems absolutely true and is now considered a law.”

Where does the Documentary Hypothesis fit into this process? Critics like Wellhausen made observations and formulated a hypothesis to explain the data. However, their theory has not passed the rigorous testing required by the scientific method to become anything more than a hypothesis.

Let us now examine the forefathers of source criticism, beginning with Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164), the most famous medieval Bible scholar. While Ibn Ezra did not overtly deny Mosaic authorship of the Torah, he subtly questioned whether Moses wrote every part of it. One verse, in particular, caused him concern: Deuteronomy 1:1, which states, “These are the words that Moses spoke to all of Israel beyond the Jordan.” According to Ibn Ezra, the term “beyond the Jordan” implies that Moses was writing from the west side of the Jordan, although he never entered that territory. This apparent contradiction raised doubts for Ibn Ezra, but he did not pursue his questions aggressively.

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), another early critic, wrote, “It is therefore sufficiently evident that the five books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after it be not so manifest.” Hobbes, like Francis Bacon, further eroded the belief in the Bible as a source of divine authority. His skepticism planted seeds of doubt in the minds of future critics.

Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677) went even further, boldly asserting, “It is thus clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but by someone who lived long after Moses.” Spinoza, driven by rationalism and deductive reasoning, claimed that because “there are many passages in the Pentateuch which Moses could not have written, it follows that the belief that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch is ungrounded and irrational.” Spinoza also denied that the prophets spoke by divine inspiration, arguing instead that their words were of human origin. In his view, the Bible, including the New Testament, was nothing more than a collection of fragmentary human writings. His rejection of miracles and divine authority had a lasting influence on modern higher criticism.

Richard Simon (1638–1712), a French Catholic priest, accepted that Moses was the primary author of the Pentateuch but noted certain repetitions, now called “doublets,” within the text. For example, Simon pointed to:

Two creation stories
Two accounts of the Abrahamic covenant
Two stories where Abraham names his son Isaac
Two accounts where Abraham claims Sarah is his sister
Two stories of Jacob’s journey to Haran
Two accounts of God revealing himself to Jacob at Bethel
Two instances of God changing Jacob's name to Israel
Two episodes of Moses drawing water from a rock at Meribah

These repetitions, Simon argued, suggested the existence of multiple sources.

Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, contributed significantly to the development of the Documentary Hypothesis. Although he did not deny that Moses authored the Pentateuch, Astruc observed two different sources in Genesis: one using the term Elohim (God) and the other using Jehovah (God’s personal name). Based on these observations, he hypothesized that Moses drew upon these two sources when writing the early chapters of Genesis. Astruc’s work marked the beginning of the Documentary Hypothesis, even though he still credited Moses as the compiler of these sources.

David Hume (1711–1776), an eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher, had a profound impact on the denial of divine authority, miracles, and prophecy. His skepticism reached far into the modern era. Hume’s first pillar of doubt rested on his claim that “a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.” For Hume, the consistent operation of natural laws meant that miracles could never occur. His second pillar was his belief that people are gullible and want to believe in miracles, which often turn out to be frauds. Lastly, Hume argued that miracles only occurred in periods of ignorance, with none reported in more enlightened times. Rejecting the possibility of miracles, Hume dismissed the inspiration of Scripture, concluding that the Bible “contains nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827) expanded on Jean Astruc’s ideas, applying his source theory to the entire Pentateuch. Eichhorn also coined the term “higher criticism” and introduced the labels “J” (Jehovah) and “E” (Elohim) to designate the different sources.

Karl Heinrich Graf (1815–1869) played a pivotal role in shaping the modern Documentary Hypothesis. He proposed that the “J” source was written around the 9th century B.C.E., the “E” source shortly thereafter, and Deuteronomy shortly before King Josiah’s reforms in the 7th century B.C.E. Graf argued that the “P” source, focused on priestly concerns, was written during the 6th century, after the Babylonian exile.

Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), a German Bible critic, is best known for popularizing the Documentary Hypothesis in his 1878 work Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prolegomena to the History of Israel). He asserted that the Pentateuch, and even the book of Joshua, was compiled from various sources written between the 9th and 5th centuries B.C.E., well after the events described. Wellhausen identified the “J” source as the portions where God’s personal name, Jehovah, is used and suggested that this author lived around 850 B.C.E. He further argued that the “E” source, using the title Elohim for God, was written in the northern kingdom of Israel around 750–700 B.C.E.

Wellhausen’s views gained widespread acceptance, particularly in secular universities and liberal seminaries. However, as we will explore further, Wellhausen’s acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis was not based on rigorous textual analysis but on a subjective feeling that something was amiss in the traditional understanding of the Pentateuch.

With the introduction of source criticism, additional questions about authorship arose. The “D” source, representing Deuteronomy, was thought to have been composed during the reign of King Josiah in the 7th century B.C.E., based on 2 Kings 22:8, where Hilkiah the high priest discovers a book of the law. Critics argue that the “D” writer was also responsible for the historical books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings. They further contend that the “J,” “E,” and “D” sources were combined around 586 B.C.E., during or after the Babylonian exile.

The final source, “P,” is associated with priestly regulations, such as sacrifices and temple rituals. Scholars have debated when the “P” source was written, with estimates ranging from before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. to the post-exilic period around 450 B.C.E. The critics agree, however, that the Pentateuch in its current form was compiled from the “J,” “E,” “D,” and “P” sources by a redactor around 400 B.C.E.

DIFFICULTIES IN THE BIBLE: Alleged Errors and Contradictions

Buy Now

Arguments of Higher Critics for the Documentary Hypothesis

Higher critics present several arguments in favor of the Documentary Hypothesis. These arguments can be categorized into four primary areas: (1) the use of divine names, (2) perceived discrepancies, (3) repetition, also referred to as "doublets," and (4) differences in language and style. We will explore each of these points and examine at least one example from each, providing responses based on evidence supporting Mosaic authorship.

Divine Names

Higher critics claim that different divine names in the Bible indicate the work of separate authors. Specifically, they argue that every verse that uses the Hebrew word for God, (Elohim), is attributed to a distinct writer, labeled "E" for "Elohist." Conversely, they maintain that any verse containing the Tetragrammaton, Jehovah (JHVH), is the product of a different writer, called "J" for "Jawist" (Cassuto, 18-21). Critics focus particularly on the opening chapters of Genesis to illustrate this point. They assert that in Genesis 1:1-31, only the term "God" (Elohim) is used to describe creation, while in Genesis 2:4-25, the text shifts to using God's personal name (Jehovah).

R. E. Friedman expands on this, explaining that three individuals—a minister, a physician, and a professor—noticed that some biblical stories seemed to have two versions. In many cases, one version would use one name for God, and the other would use a different name. According to Friedman, this led to the conclusion that the Bible was a combination of sources, each using different names for God (R. E. Friedman, 50).

However, different contexts naturally call for different uses of divine names. Throughout the Old Testament, Moses (or another author, if one were to entertain the critics’ assumptions) may use Elohim in contexts emphasizing God’s power, majesty, or creative activity. On the other hand, Moses uses Jehovah in situations where the relationship between God and His people, or a personal connection between Jehovah and a faithful servant, is being highlighted.

The claim that these different names indicate different authors quickly falls apart when examined more closely. Take, for instance, just a small portion of Genesis as rendered in the American Standard Version (1901). In a few short chapters, God is referred to as "God Most High," "possessor of heaven and earth," "O Lord Jehovah," "a God that seeth," "God Almighty," "God," and "the Judge of all the earth" (Genesis 14:18-19; 15:2; 16:13; 17:1, 3; 18:25). It is implausible to suggest that all these variations point to different authors. For example, Genesis 28:13 reads, "And, behold, Jehovah stood above it, and said, I am Jehovah, the God [Elohim] of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed." If the critics' hypothesis were applied, this one verse would require two separate authors. Psalm 47:5 provides another example: "God is gone up with a shout, Jehovah with the sound of a trumpet." Would we then suggest two authors for this single verse as well?

Conservative scholars, recognizing the illogic in such claims, note that the use of different titles for the same figure is common in literature. M. H. Segal points out, "Just as those interchanges of human proper names and their respective appellative common nouns cannot by any stretch of the imagination be ascribed to a change of author or source of document, so also the corresponding interchanges of the divine names in the Pentateuch must not be attributed to such a literary cause." An analogy can be drawn from historical texts: for example, a paragraph in an encyclopedia might refer to Adolf Hitler by the terms "Führer," "Adolf Hitler," and simply "Hitler." Surely, no one would suggest multiple authors based on this variation.

Dr. John J. Davis also helps clarify that no other religious document from the ancient Near East was subjected to such documentary analysis. For example, applying the Documentary Hypothesis to the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Enuma Elish would be considered "complete folly." The author of Genesis, like many other ancient writers, may have selected divine names based on theological emphasis rather than dogmatic preference. Baal and Hadad, for instance, were used interchangeably in Ugaritic texts, and similar examples can be found in Egyptian writings.

Ancient Near Eastern deities often had multiple names, further debunking the idea that varying names necessarily indicate multiple authors. As mentioned earlier, the Babylonian god Marduk (Merodach) had approximately 50 different names in the Enuma Elish. If scholars attempted to apply the Documentary Hypothesis to such works, they would struggle to support the theory, as ancient writers—just like modern ones—used different titles and names interchangeably. Biblical scholar Mark F. Rooker concludes that the occurrence of Elohim and Jehovah in the Old Testament is not due to different sources but to contextual and semantic considerations. In wisdom literature, Elohim is consistently used, while in legal and prophetic texts, Jehovah appears. In narrative sections like the Pentateuch, both are used as appropriate for the passage's theological focus. Elohim highlights God’s role as the Creator and Ruler, while Jehovah reflects the personal, covenant-keeping relationship He has with Israel (Cassuto, 31).

To illustrate, consider the first two chapters of Genesis. In Genesis 1:1-2:4a, Elohim is used 35 times in connection with God’s creation of the universe, emphasizing His power and majesty. In Genesis 2:4b-25, the text switches to Jehovah in a context that deals with God’s personal relationship with man and woman. Far from being a second creation account, Genesis 2:4b-25 is a more detailed retelling of the creation of humanity, which was briefly mentioned in Genesis 1. It is only fitting that the more intimate name of Jehovah is used in this context, as the focus is on God's personal interaction with Adam and Eve.

Thus, there is no reason to assume two different authors are involved. Rather, it is two distinct contexts in which the author, Moses, appropriately switches between titles. The same principles apply throughout the Pentateuch and the Old Testament as a whole.

Discrepancies

Perceived discrepancies are often pointed to by critics as evidence of multiple authorship. These so-called discrepancies are like pebbles that critics eagerly add to the side of the scale, favoring their argument for the Documentary Hypothesis. However, most of these discrepancies are superficial and can be resolved with a closer reading of the text.

Let us outline the alleged different sources that critics claim are responsible for various parts of the Pentateuch:

"J" represents any portion using Jehovah as God’s name.
"E" refers to sections where Elohim is used.
"P" is for priestly activities.
"D" is for Deuteronomy, which is said to differ in language and content from the other four books.
"RJE" is the supposed compiler who merged "J" and "E."
"R" stands for the editors or redactors who compiled the entire Pentateuch.
"U" stands for alleged "unknown independent texts."

A prime example of a "discrepancy" often cited is in the narrative of Abram. In Genesis 11:26 (ESV), Terah was 70 years old when he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran. In Genesis 11:32 (ESV), Terah dies at 205 years old, which would make Abram 135 at the time he left Haran. However, in Genesis 12:4 (ASV), Abram departs Haran at 75 years old. Critics argue that this contradiction can be resolved by assuming that Genesis 12 belongs to a different source than Genesis 11.

In reality, this "discrepancy" is easily explained. Genesis 11:26 does not state that Abram was the firstborn; it only mentions that Terah began having children at age 70. Abram, though listed first due to his prominence in the biblical narrative, was not necessarily the oldest. This practice of listing the most prominent son first is seen elsewhere in Scripture, such as in the case of Shem and Isaac (Genesis 5:32; 11:10; 1 Chronicles 1:28). Abram was likely born when Terah was 130 years old. Genesis 11:26 and 11:32 are thus harmonious with Genesis 12:4. Additionally, Genesis 20:12 confirms that Abram was Sarah’s half-brother, which further supports this understanding. Therefore, the notion that multiple authors are involved based on this supposed discrepancy is unnecessary.

Another example is found in Genesis 37:25-28, 36; 38:1; and 39:1, regarding the sale of Joseph. In Genesis 37:25-28, Judah suggests selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites, but verse 28 shifts to the Midianites drawing him from the pit and selling him to the Ishmaelites. In verse 36, the Midianites (though some translations say Medanites) sell Joseph to Potiphar. Genesis 39:1 says the Ishmaelites delivered Joseph to Potiphar. Critics argue this is a contradiction between two sources, "J" and "E," combined by an editor who left both accounts intact.

A closer examination reveals that no contradiction exists. Ishmael and Midian were both sons of Abraham, making it plausible that their descendants intermarried. The terms "Ishmaelites" and "Midianites" were likely used interchangeably to describe the same group, as seen in Judges 8:24-26. It is also possible that an Ishmaelite caravan included Midianite traders who brokered the sale of Joseph, leading to both names being used for the same event. Therefore, there is no need to assume different authors based on this narrative.

Repetitions (Doublets)

Doublets, or the repetition of the same story twice, are often pointed to as evidence of multiple sources. Critics argue that examples like two creation stories (Genesis 1:1-2:4 and Genesis 2:4-25), two accounts of God’s covenant with Abraham, two stories of Abraham claiming Sarah was his sister, and two instances of Moses bringing water from the rock (Exodus 17:6 and Numbers 20:11) indicate different sources.

One of the most frequently cited examples of doublets is the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1:27 (ESV), "God created man in his own image," while Genesis 2:7 (ASV) says, "Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground." Critics argue that this represents two different versions of the same story. However, Genesis 1:1-2:3 presents the overall creation account, while Genesis 2:4-25 provides a more detailed account of the creation of man, specifically in relation to the Garden of Eden. These are not two separate stories but complementary perspectives focusing on different aspects of creation.

Bible scholar Leon Kass, who supports the Documentary Hypothesis, suggests that these two stories should be read independently of one another to understand their divergent teachings. However, this approach ignores the literary structure of the text. Repetition and parallelism are common features of Ancient Near Eastern literature, including Hebrew texts. In fact, repetition is used throughout Scripture for emphasis. Acts, for instance, contains three accounts of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:3-8; 22:6-11; 26:12-18), which serve to stress the significance of his experience.

In Genesis, repetitions often serve to highlight important themes. For example, Exodus 24-29 provides detailed instructions for building the tabernacle, and Exodus 34-40 repeats those instructions, emphasizing that the Israelites followed Jehovah’s commands exactly. Repetition does not necessarily indicate multiple authors; it is a literary technique used to underscore critical points.

Even in cases where doublets seem more pronounced, the distinctions between Elohim and Jehovah can be attributed to contextual differences. Critics like Richard Elliott Friedman argue that doublets are divided between accounts that use the divine name Jehovah and those that use Elohim. However, his argument breaks down when examining examples like the "Matriarch in Danger" narratives, where both Elohim and Jehovah appear within the same account. If the critics' strongest examples fail under scrutiny, their broader claims become increasingly tenuous.

Ultimately, the use of repetition in Scripture, far from being evidence of multiple authors, is a common literary device employed for emphasis and clarity. Before proceeding to the next section on differences in language and style, it is essential to recognize that such repetition is characteristic of Ancient Near Eastern literature and should not be seen as an indication of separate sources.

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS: What Is the Truth About the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Buy Now

Differences in Language and Style

Supporters of the Documentary Hypothesis argue that the Pentateuch displays variations in language, such as preferences for certain words, differences in vocabulary, and recurring expressions in Deuteronomy not found in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These differences, they assert, point to multiple sources. Critics also highlight individual characteristics in grammar and syntax, further noting that "P" (the priestly source) is dry and boring, while "J" and "E" are vivid and engaging in their storytelling. Additionally, "D" (Deuteronomy) uses expressions like "with all your heart and all your soul," which are absent from the other books of the Pentateuch. Critics conclude that the differences in language and style are so pronounced that they necessitate multiple writers.

However, the assumption that each alleged writer of the Pentateuch was so limited in vocabulary and writing ability that they would only use a single word or expression for a particular idea is simply unfounded. Ancient Hebrew writers, like their modern counterparts, employed a wide variety of words and expressions. Douglas K. Stuart, Professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, explains that ancient Israelites demonstrated a clear preference for variety in their writing rather than a rigid consistency in style:

Spelling Variations: When multiple spellings of a word were available, Israelites preserved both spellings and used them interchangeably. They saw no need for uniformity in spelling and preferred to keep the alternatives.
Common Expressions: Variations in common expressions were similarly preserved. If multiple ways of saying the same thing existed, the Israelites would employ both, indicating a preference for variation over stylistic consistency.
Grammatical Forms: The same phenomenon applies to grammatical forms. When two different ways of expressing a verb or phrase were available, both were used, ensuring both were preserved in the language.
The Masoretic System: The Masoretes, who worked during the medieval period, continued this tradition of preserving variants rather than selecting one form and discarding the other. The Kethib-Qere system, for example, allowed both consonantal and vocalized forms of a word to coexist in the text, showing a clear preference for retaining alternatives.

Differences in style and vocabulary do exist in the Pentateuch, and an honest investigator would not deny this. However, these differences must be examined within the broader context of Hebrew writing. One of the main arguments of higher critics is based on the use of the verbs yalad and holid, claiming that their distinct usage in different genealogies proves the presence of multiple authors. To understand this argument better, a brief review of Biblical Hebrew grammar is useful.

Qal (simple verb form): This is the basic, active form of the verb, meaning “light” or “easy.”
Hiphil (causative form): This form modifies the verb’s root to indicate a causative action, meaning “he caused to give birth.”

For example:

Gen. 4:18: "Irad begat (yalad) Mehujael."
Gen. 5:4: "Adam after he begat (holid) Seth."

Critics claim that finding yalad in the genealogies of Cain (Genesis 4), the Table of Nations (Genesis 10), and Nahor’s family (Genesis 22)—all attributed to "J"—while holid is used in the genealogies of Adam to Noah (Genesis 5) and Shem (Genesis 11)—attributed to "P"—proves the existence of two authors.

In reality, this difference in word choice is dictated by the rules of Hebrew grammar and syntax. These words are not unique to particular authors, nor do they indicate separate sources. Rather, they follow socially accepted linguistic rules. When proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis remove Hebrew words from their context and view them in isolation, their reasoning becomes subjective and based on personal preferences rather than the principles of Hebrew grammar.

Umberto Cassuto, a prominent scholar of Biblical studies, explains the usage of yalad and holid:

“The verb yalad is only used in the past tense (perfect) or present participle form, while holid is employed when the future tense (imperfect) or a causative form is needed. For example, one would say so-and-so yalad (‘so-and-so begat’) in the past tense, but one would not say so-and-so yeled (‘he will beget’) in the future tense when referring to the father. Instead, holid is used in the future tense. This is simply a feature of the Hebrew language. Therefore, in the genealogies from Adam to Noah and Noah to Abraham, it would have been impossible to use anything other than holid in certain grammatical contexts. It is not an indication of different sources but rather a reflection of the rules of Hebrew syntax.”

Similarly, K. A. Kitchen, a leading expert in Biblical history, argues in his book Ancient Orient and Old Testament that "stylistic differences are meaningless and merely reflect the differences in subject matter." Kitchen notes that these same style variations can be found in other ancient texts whose literary unity is beyond question.

Interestingly, a 1981 study further challenges the Documentary Hypothesis. Conducted by Professor Yehuda Radday of the Technion in Haifa, Israel, the study involved a five-year computer analysis of the Book of Genesis. More than 20,000 words were fed into the computer, which analyzed their linguistic makeup. Contrary to the expectations of higher critics, the study found an 82% probability that Genesis was written by one author, not three as traditionally held by modern criticism. The research team, using 54 criteria including word length, vocabulary richness, and grammatical structure, found no significant linguistic distinction between the alleged "J" and "E" sections. The team concluded that "dramatic tales and legal documents must necessarily display different 'behavior,'" meaning that stylistic differences are to be expected when comparing different types of writing, not different authors.

Thus, the critics' argument that the Pentateuch must have multiple authors due to differences in style and vocabulary is flawed. Jewish and Christian conservatives accept Moses as the author of the first five books of the Bible. Critics, on the other hand, argue that while Moses is a central figure in the Pentateuch, they find no direct statement in the text itself declaring him as the writer, dismissing the belief in Mosaic authorship as mere tradition.

THE HISTORICAL ADAM & EVE: Reconciling Faith and Fact in Genesis

Buy Now

Internal Evidence for Moses’ Authorship

It is evident that Moses did not write every word of the Pentateuch. For instance, the account of Moses' death, found in Deuteronomy 34:1–8, was likely added by Joshua after Moses’ death. Critics argue that this proves Moses was not the sole author of the Pentateuch, and they question whether Moses, known for his humility, would have written Numbers 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth." (ESV) However, it's essential to remember that Jesus referred to His own gentleness in Matthew 11:29, saying, "I am gentle and lowly in heart," without it being considered boasting. Both Moses and Jesus were stating facts, not engaging in self-promotion. Any additional material, such as the account of Moses' death, is minimal and does not negate Moses' primary authorship of the Pentateuch.

YOUR GUIDE FOR DEFENDING THE BIBLE: Self-Education of the Bible Made Easy

Buy Now

What Does the Biblical Evidence from the Old Testament Report?

Numerous Old Testament passages point to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Consider the following examples:

Exodus 17:14: "And Jehovah said unto Moses, 'Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.'"
Exodus 24:4: "And Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah, and rose up early in the morning, and built an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel."
Exodus 34:27: "And Jehovah said unto Moses, 'Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.'"
Leviticus 26:46: "These are the statutes and ordinances and laws, which Jehovah made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by Moses."
Deuteronomy 31:9: "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, that bare the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, and unto all the elders of Israel."

The evidence is clear: Moses is consistently identified as the author of various sections of the Pentateuch. Rejecting Moses' authorship would imply that these inspired writers were mistaken, which would undermine their reliability and inspiration. The alternative, which the critics suggest, is that this was all part of a vast conspiracy. However, this theory does not hold up to scrutiny.

What Does the Biblical Evidence from Jesus Christ Report?

Jesus Himself affirmed Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch on multiple occasions:

Matthew 8:4: "And Jesus said to him, 'See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.'"
Matthew 19:8: "He said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.'"
Mark 12:26: "And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?"
John 5:46: "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me."

These statements from Jesus demonstrate that He regarded Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Ignoring the testimony of Christ in favor of modern criticism is not tenable for those who take the Bible seriously.

What Does the Biblical Evidence from the Apostles Report?

The apostles also attributed the authorship of the Law to Moses:

Acts 6:14: "For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us."
Acts 15:5: "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'"
Romans 10:5: "For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them."

Again, this evidence reinforces the understanding that Moses was regarded as the author of the Pentateuch by the apostles and early Christians.

What Does the Internal Evidence Report?

The internal evidence within the Pentateuch itself provides strong support for Moses' authorship. If the books had been written between the ninth and fifth centuries B.C.E., more than a millennium after the events they describe, the author(s) would have needed an expert knowledge of various disciplines, such as:

Egyptian names and titles that match historical inscriptions.
Toponymy (study of place names) and onomatology (study of names) related to the regions mentioned in the Pentateuch.
Customs, cultures, and religious practices of Egypt, desert dwellers, and the inhabitants of Canaan from 1,000 years earlier.
Botanical and zoological knowledge of plant and animal life in Egypt, Sinai, and Canaan.

For example, the writer of Exodus 15:27 mentions Elim, "where there were twelve wells of water and seventy palm trees." Such precise details indicate an eyewitness account. The geographical and botanical knowledge displayed in the text could not have been known by someone writing centuries later.

The internal evidence also points to the consistency of linguistic forms that date to the fifteenth century B.C.E. Dr. John J. Davis highlights the usage of certain Hebrew words that had fallen out of use by the time of the supposed ninth to sixth-century authorship proposed by higher critics. For instance, the use of the pronoun hiw’ instead of hî’ and the word for "young girl" spelled na’ar instead of na’ărâ are consistent with an older form of Hebrew.

Finally, it would make little sense for someone writing during the idolatry-ridden period between 850 and 450 B.C.E. to include strict laws against false prophets and idol worship, as found in Deuteronomy 13:2–11. These laws would have been impossible to enforce during that period, making them far more appropriate for the time of Moses, when the Israelites were preparing to enter a land filled with idolatrous nations.

The internal evidence points decisively to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. The knowledge of Egyptian customs, place names, and flora and fauna, as well as the linguistic consistency with the time of Moses, make it unlikely that the Pentateuch was written centuries later. Rather, the evidence suggests that Moses, who "was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22), was the eyewitness and primary author of these five books.

DO WE STILL NEED A LITERAL BIBLE?: Discover the Truth about Literal Bibles

Buy Now

External Evidence for Moses' Authorship

The Pentateuch, referred to as "the book of the law of Moses" by Joshua, was universally accepted by Jews, Christians, and Muslims as divinely inspired scripture. The claim that Moses is the author of these five books did not arise from tradition but is something Moses himself declared, affirming that he wrote under the divine command of Jehovah God. Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire were in agreement that Moses was the writer of the Pentateuch, a belief supported by various sources, including the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Palestinian Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud, the Apocrypha, Philo Judaeus (a contemporary of Jesus and Paul), and Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37–100 C.E.).

Early Christian writers, active between 150 C.E. and 400 C.E., also affirmed Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch. These include:

Theophilus (c. 180, E): "Moses, the servant of God, recorded, through the Holy Spirit, the very beginning of the creation of the world."
Tertullian (c. 207, W): "For knowledge of the Creator did not begin with the volume of Moses."
Origen (c. 225, E): "What portion of scripture can give us more information concerning the creation of the world than the account that Moses has transmitted?"
Novatian (c. 235, W): "Moses said, 'And the Lord God saw that the wickedness of men was overflowing upon the Earth.'"
Victorinus (c. 280, W): "It is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about creation, which is called Genesis."
Methodius (c. 290, E): "If you will look at the books of Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, or the Prophets who follow..."
Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E): "Let the following books be considered venerable and holy by you, both of the clergy and the laity: the five books of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy."

ARCHAEOLOGY & THE OLD TESTAMENT

Buy Now

Archaeology and the Bible

Archaeology, unlike higher criticism, relies on physical evidence rather than mere hypotheses or inferences. Archaeological findings provide explicit and direct evidence that supports many of the events, characters, and settings described in the Bible. While archaeology is not a total vindicator, it has consistently defended the accuracy of God’s Word. Over the past 150 years, the understanding of ancient times has been greatly expanded and refined. Today, thousands of events within the Bible have been confirmed to be in harmony with archaeological records.

The archaeological data not available to earlier scholars like Wellhausen could have altered their conclusions. Dr. Mark F. Rooker, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, pointed out that the discovery of multiple divine names in ancient Near Eastern deities, such as the fifty names of the god Marduk in the Babylonian Creation account Enuma Elish, demonstrates that the presence of multiple divine names in the Bible does not indicate different sources. These names are used in contextually appropriate ways, further invalidating the Documentary Hypothesis.

Several archaeological discoveries have confirmed the accuracy of the Biblical account. For instance, the ziggurat at Uruk (Erech) was found to have been constructed using clay and bitumen, in harmony with the materials described in the Bible. The Egyptian names and titles in the book of Exodus match Egyptian inscriptions, and archaeological evidence supports the Hebrew people’s separation from the Egyptians while living in Egypt, consistent with Biblical accounts.

Pharaoh’s daughter bathing in the Nile, as described in Exodus 2:5, is supported by archaeological evidence showing that it was a common practice in ancient Egypt. Moreover, Egyptian magicians, mentioned in the account of Moses, are confirmed by historical records as being a part of Egyptian life at the time.

Further archaeological evidence includes bricks made with and without straw, discovered in Egypt, corroborating the Biblical narrative of the Israelites being forced to make bricks with less straw under oppressive labor conditions (Exodus 5:6). The Papyri Anastasi, ancient Egyptian documents, mention the scarcity of straw, mirroring the Biblical description.

References to nations such as Edom, Egypt, Moab, Canaan, Ammon, and Amalek, mentioned in the book of Numbers, align with the historical context and geography of the time. Archaeological findings continue to strengthen the case for Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. According to Halley’s Bible Handbook, "Archaeology has been speaking so loudly of late that it is causing a decided reaction toward the conservative view." The theory that writing was unknown in Moses' day has been debunked, and yearly discoveries in Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia further validate the historical accuracy of the Old Testament narratives.

The Silver Amulet: A Blow to the Documentary Hypothesis

The Silver Amulet is one of the many archaeological discoveries that undermine the Documentary Hypothesis. This portion of Numbers, identified by critics as part of the "P" document, was initially dated to the late seventh or early sixth centuries B.C.E. Critics later challenged this dating, arguing for a third or second-century B.C.E. date. However, after advanced analysis using photographic and computer imaging at the University of Southern California, researchers confirmed the original dating of the late seventh century B.C.E., providing further evidence of the early existence of this Biblical text.

Archaeological Insights into Exodus

In Exodus 14:6-7 (ESV), the Pharaoh is described as leading his army, a practice confirmed by archaeological findings that show the Pharaoh personally leading his army into battle, in line with his position as the god and supreme chief of Egypt.

Critics often question the lack of Egyptian records of the Exodus and the absence of archaeological evidence for the Israelites' 215-year stay in Egypt. However, archaeology provides an explanation. Egyptian dynasties would erase any unflattering historical records from their predecessors, especially if those events, such as the Exodus, would have damaged Egypt's dignity. Historical erasures, like those performed by Thutmose III on Queen Hatshepsut’s monuments, demonstrate that this was a common practice.

Discoveries at Nuzi

In 1925, archaeologists uncovered clay tablets at Nuzi in northeastern Mesopotamia, which provided a wealth of legal contracts dating back to the fifteenth century B.C.E. These tablets revealed many customs from the Patriarchal period that aligned with Biblical accounts. For example, the tablets shed light on the tradition of a childless couple adopting a servant or son to care for them in old age, a custom that helps explain Abraham’s intention to make Eliezer his heir (Genesis 15:2-3).

The Price of a Slave: Joseph’s Story

Joseph, sold as a slave for 20 pieces of silver, was in harmony with the slave prices of the time, as shown in archaeological records. The inflation of slave prices over time aligns perfectly with the Biblical account, as shown in the following chart:

Source	Date	Price of a Slave in Silver
Akkad and 3rd Ur Dynasties	2000 B.C.E.	8-10 pieces of silver
Joseph (Genesis 37:2, 28)	1750 B.C.E.	20 pieces of silver
Hammurabi Code	1799-1700 B.C.E.	20 pieces of silver
Mari Tablets	1799-1600 B.C.E.	20 pieces of silver
Exodus 21:32	1520-1470 B.C.E.	30 pieces of silver
Nuzi Tablets	1499-1400 B.C.E.	30 pieces of silver
Ugarit Tablets	1399-1200 B.C.E.	30-40 pieces of silver
Assyria	First Millennium B.C.E.	50-60 pieces of silver
2 Kings 15:20	790 B.C.E.	50 pieces of silver
Persia	750-500 B.C.E.	90-120 pieces of silver

Again, this shows that only a writer contemporary with the events could accurately record such details. Moses, through oral tradition or written records, was able to provide a true historical account.

The Exodus and Egyptian Pride

Seti I, a military commander and son of Ramses, recorded his triumphs on the walls of the temple of Amon-Ra at Karnak. This practice of recording victories while omitting defeats was typical of Egyptian rulers. Thutmose III’s erasure of Queen Hatshepsut from Egyptian history serves as another example. Given this cultural practice, it is no surprise that Egypt left no record of the humiliating events surrounding the Exodus.

The overwhelming archaeological evidence continues to validate the authenticity of the Biblical account and reinforces Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch. From Egyptian names and customs to historical events, the Pentateuch displays remarkable accuracy that could only have come from a writer who had firsthand knowledge or access to precise records—further confirming Moses as the author.

DEFENDING OLD TESTAMENT AUTHORSHIP: The Word of God Is Authentic and True

Buy Now

Concluding Thoughts on the Mosaic Authorship Controversy

Initially, I considered concluding this discussion by presenting quotes from many respected scholars to support Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch. While quoting reputable scholars can lend weight to an argument, it doesn't prove the case. It merely shows that others share your reasoning. For this reason, I have included quotations from just two scholars to make that point. Truth is not determined by counting the number of people who support a particular idea. Instead, conclusions should be based on evidence. Critics of Moses’ authorship often argue, "Today, hardly any scholar believes that Moses wrote the Pentateuch." If their majority opinion makes them right, then we must also consider that for centuries, scholars in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions universally accepted Moses' authorship—until the Age of Reason in the 18th and 19th centuries, when people began questioning not only Moses' authorship but also the existence of God.

Would a Christian living in 1700 C.E. have ever doubted Moses' authorship? It’s unlikely. So how did the Documentary Hypothesis transform from hypothesis to “fact”? It began when leading professors at major universities planted seeds of doubt among their students. At the start of the 19th century, higher criticism and skepticism were gaining momentum, providing fertile ground for the Documentary Hypothesis to flourish. The process became a domino effect: a few scholars influenced a generation of students, who then became scholars themselves, perpetuating the cycle.

By the 20th century, challenging the Bible became fashionable in academic circles. Liberal theology dominated the higher education system, isolating conservative scholars. As a result, students were primarily exposed to liberal interpretations, while conservative scholarship was marginalized. In this environment, liberal critics continually questioned Moses' authorship, and their skepticism was reinforced in textbooks and literature.

How did this shift occur with little resistance? Conservative scholars of the early 20th century largely viewed these liberal critiques as trivial and did not consider them worth addressing. However, by 1950, the Documentary Hypothesis had gained widespread acceptance, and conservative scholars found themselves playing catch-up. Over the last 30 to 40 years, some influential conservative scholars have tried to push back against the liberal movement. However, their efforts may seem too little, too late.

It’s worth noting that there were prominent defenders of the Bible’s authenticity in the 19th and early 20th centuries, such as R. A. Torrey. Still, today, liberal scholarship continues to dominate, often portraying opposition as uninformed. Books critical of the Bible tend to sell better than those encouraging faith in God's Word. Many conservative scholars remain on the sidelines, while liberal scholars produce a steady stream of articles and books. Liberal scholars have only grown more aggressive, while conservatives struggle to reclaim their place in academic discourse.

John Laux, in his book Introduction to the Bible, critiques the implications of the Documentary Hypothesis:

"The Documentary Theory is built up on assertions which are either arbitrary or absolutely false. If the extreme Documentary Theory were true, the Israelites would have been the victims of a clumsy deception when they permitted the heavy burden of the Law to be imposed upon them. It would have been the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in the history of the world."

The implications are even more severe when we consider Jesus' teachings. If the Documentary Hypothesis were correct, it would mean that either Jesus was misled by a false tradition or that He knowingly perpetuated a deception. Jesus repeatedly affirmed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, which leaves us with three options:

Jesus knew Moses was the writer because He was there, in heaven, before His earthly birth.
Jesus knew Moses was not the writer but continued to promote the tradition anyway.
Jesus was ignorant of the truth and unknowingly taught a tradition that was false.

If Jesus knowingly perpetuated a falsehood, He would be a liar, which contradicts Hebrews 4:15, which states that Jesus was "without sin." If He was ignorant of the truth, this would call into question His prehuman existence (John 1:1-2; 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58; Colossians 1:15-18; Revelation 3:14; Proverbs 8:22-30). Based on Scripture and other evidence, we can confidently conclude that Jesus knew Moses was the author, and He truthfully taught this.

Scholar Duane Garrett observes the following about the Documentary Hypothesis:

"The time has long passed for scholars of every theological persuasion to recognize that the Graf-Wellhausen theory, as a starting point for continued research, is dead. The Documentary Hypothesis and the arguments that support it have been effectively demolished by scholars from many different theological perspectives and areas of expertise. Even so, the ghost of Wellhausen hovers over Old Testament studies and symposiums like a thick fog. One wonders if we will ever return to the day when discussions of Genesis will not be stilted by interminable references to P and J."

Though modern critics of Mosaic authorship present their arguments with wit and conviction, they often lead unsuspecting readers astray with cleverly crafted but misleading conclusions. Unfortunately, many accept these scholars' claims without question.

Jesus, however, directly affirmed Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch, quoting or alluding to 23 of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures. He quoted all five of the books attributed to Moses, referencing the book of Deuteronomy 16 times, demonstrating that He viewed these writings as authoritative, historical, and divinely inspired. As we reflect on Jesus’ references to Moses, we must recognize that rejecting Moses' authorship, as critics do, is tantamount to calling Jesus a liar.

Conservative scholars, such as F. David Farnell, Gleason L. Archer Jr., C. John Collins, K. A. Kitchen, and Norman L. Geisler, have responded comprehensively to most of the higher critics' arguments. For the few remaining unanswered questions, we are content to await further discoveries. Over the past 150 years, archaeological findings, improved understanding of ancient languages, and the discovery of manuscripts have resolved most issues that higher critics once raised. For instance, a critic might highlight an alleged discrepancy, only for new evidence to emerge that proves them wrong.

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting the Bible’s accuracy, critics continue to find new issues to challenge. After one objection is resolved, they move on to another. This cycle raises questions about their true motives. How many times must their objections be disproven before we stop giving them credence? Sadly, their books, filled with sensationalized claims, often outsell those offering sound biblical scholarship. The average reader may prefer a tabloid-style story about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene (as falsely portrayed in books like The Da Vinci Code) rather than a factual account based on the Gospels.

For today’s Christian, studying the real, historical life of Jesus is paramount. The writer of Hebrews exhorts us to "fix our eyes on Jesus" and "consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men." Jehovah God himself declared, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" (Matthew 17:5, NIV). While apologetic works defending the historical Jesus or the resurrection are valuable, the primary source for understanding Jesus' life and ministry should always be the four Gospels.

Returning to Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis, his analysis was based on an evolutionary view of Israelite religion, progressing from animism to monotheism over a millennium. He also rejected the miraculous and prophetic elements of Scripture, which heavily influenced his conclusions. Wellhausen’s personal biases led him to read his assumptions into the text, rather than drawing conclusions from the evidence (eisegesis).

The evidence presented in this book demonstrates that the Documentary Hypothesis lacks real support. Modern critics face the challenge of their own lack of consensus. Divisions among scholars have resulted in ever more complex theories, including the division of source strata into multiple layers and the invention of new categories. Scholars disagree about the dating of the sources, and some now doubt whether the E source ever existed. These internal inconsistencies further weaken the credibility of the Documentary Hypothesis.

In contrast, the evidence supporting Moses' authorship is strong. The minor additions made by Joshua or later inspired copyists do not undermine the authenticity of the Pentateuch. Joshua, an inspired writer, may have updated the text in Deuteronomy 34, which records Moses' death, and could have added the reference in Numbers 12:3 about Moses' humility. Other updates, such as the mention of "Ur of the Chaldeans" in Genesis 11:28, likely came from later copyists, possibly Ezra.

As we conclude, it is clear that the arguments for Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch are well-supported by both internal and external evidence. The additions and updates made over time, rather than undermining the integrity of the text, reflect the care with which God’s Word was preserved and transmitted for future generations. The historical accuracy of the Bible remains intact, and the evidence continues to validate Moses as the inspired writer of the Pentateuch.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM: What are Some Outstanding Weaknesses of Modern Historical...

Buy Now

Higher Criticism—How Reliable?

The rise of higher criticism of the Bible began in the 18th and 19th centuries, gaining traction particularly in the latter half of the 19th century. German Bible critic Julius Wellhausen popularized the theory that the first six books of the Bible, including Joshua, were written around the 5th century B.C.E., approximately a thousand years after the events they describe. He acknowledged that some material within these books had likely been written earlier. This theory was incorporated into the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which stated: “Genesis is a post-exilic work composed of a post-exilic priestly source (P) and non-priestly earlier sources which differ markedly from P in language, style and religious standpoint.”

Wellhausen and his followers argued that the early history recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures was not literal but rather popular traditions of the past. They believed that the historical accounts were reflections of later periods of Israel's history. For instance, they suggested that the enmity between Jacob and Esau was not an actual historical event, but rather a symbolic representation of the later conflict between the nations of Israel and Edom.

Similarly, higher critics claimed that Moses did not receive a commandment to construct the ark of the covenant and that the tabernacle, the center of Israelite worship in the wilderness, never existed. They believed that the authority of the Aaronic priesthood was only fully established shortly before Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians in the 6th century B.C.E.

But what “proof” did these critics provide for their assertions? Higher criticism claims to be able to divide the early books of the Bible into multiple distinct documents. Their key principle is based on the assumption that any verse using the Hebrew word for God (’Elo·himʹ) was written by one source, while any verse using Jehovah (JHVH) was written by another. Critics assume that one writer could not use both terms.

Additionally, they argue that any event described more than once in a book is proof of multiple authorship, despite the fact that ancient Semitic literature often used repetition. Critics also suggest that changes in style within a book indicate different writers, even though many authors—ancient and modern—alter their style depending on the subject matter.

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS: Biblical Criticism on Trial

Buy Now

Is there real evidence for these theories? Not at all. One commentator noted: “Criticism, even at its best, is speculative and tentative, something always liable to be modified or proved wrong and having to be replaced by something else. It is an intellectual exercise, subject to all the doubts and guesses which are inseparable from such exercises.” Biblical higher criticism is speculative in the extreme.

Gleason L. Archer, Jr., pointed out a major flaw in the reasoning of higher criticism: “The Wellhausen school started with the pure assumption (which they have hardly bothered to demonstrate) that Israel’s religion was of merely human origin like any other, and that it was to be explained as a mere product of evolution.” In other words, Wellhausen and his followers began with the assumption that the Bible was merely a human document and then built their theory from that foundation.

The Jewish Encyclopedia also identified two major weaknesses in Wellhausen’s theory: first, it assumes that religious rituals become more elaborate over time; second, it claims that older sources must represent earlier stages of ritual development. Both assumptions, however, are flawed. The first contradicts evidence from primitive cultures, while the second finds no support in other ancient ritual codes, such as those from India.

How can we test the accuracy of higher criticism? The Jewish Encyclopedia suggests that Wellhausen’s theory, based largely on literary analysis, should be supplemented by evidence from institutional archaeology. Over time, did archaeological findings support Wellhausen’s views? The New Encyclopædia Britannica provides an answer: “Archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of the typical historical details of even the oldest periods [of Bible history] and to discount the theory that the Pentateuchal accounts [the historical records in the earliest books of the Bible] are merely the reflection of a much later period.”

Why, then, does higher criticism remain popular among intellectuals today, despite its weaknesses? The reason is simple: it tells them what they want to hear. A 19th-century scholar once remarked: “Personally, I welcomed this book of Wellhausen’s more than almost any other; for the pressing problem of the history of the Old Testament appeared to me to be at last solved in a manner consonant to the principle of human evolution which I am compelled to apply to the history of all religion.” In essence, higher criticism fit neatly with the scholar’s biases as an evolutionist. Both higher criticism and evolution serve similar ends—removing the need to believe in a Creator or in the Bible as God’s inspired Word.

In today's rationalistic 20th and 21st centuries, it seems plausible to intellectuals that the Bible is merely a product of human invention. They find it easier to believe that prophecies were written after the events took place, rather than accepting them as genuine. Miraculous events recorded in the Bible are dismissed as myths or legends. However, such views are based on prejudice and lack solid evidence for rejecting the Bible's authenticity. Higher criticism is deeply flawed, and its attacks on the Bible have failed to prove that it is not the Word of God.

ARCHAEOLOGY & THE NEW TESTAMENT

Buy Now

Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

Unlike higher criticism, archaeology is grounded in physical evidence. Archaeologists uncover remains of past civilizations, helping to increase our understanding of ancient times. As a result, archaeology has frequently corroborated what we read in the Bible, and in many instances, it has vindicated the Bible against its critics.

While archaeology does not always provide absolute proof, it has consistently added weight to the Bible's historical accuracy. Many times, archaeological discoveries have harmonized with the biblical record, demonstrating that the events, places, and practices described in Scripture were real and reliable.

In summary, higher criticism has no solid evidence to back its claims and is speculative at best. On the other hand, archaeology, with its tangible findings, continues to support the Bible’s accuracy and reliability, confirming that it is not merely the product of human invention but a divinely inspired text.

THE BIBLE ON TRIAL: Examining the Evidence for Being Inspired, Inerrant, Authent

Buy Now

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).