The Study Bible has been a boom for the reader in search of spiritual authenticity. A concordance, an explanation of language differences and the meaning of old terminologies are explained along with their theological significance. These resources are readily available right alongside the text. The problem is that like all books, the study Bible is written for a particular market and a lack of honesty cannot be avoided.
“Today’s New
International Study Bible”, Revised edition 2006, published by Zondervan gives us
an introduction to each book, the author and dating. On page 2, under the
heading of Authorship and Dating of Genesis, the following statement is shared. “Historically, Jews and Christians alike have
held that Moses was the author/compiler of the first five books of the OT.” The study Bible also fixes the peoples wandering
in the desert (1446 to 1406 B.C.) as the “most likely” dating for the writing of
all five books.
The next
paragraph rightfully acknowledges another theory on the authorship of Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. According to this theory, there are four
differing sources visible in the text of these books. Four sources could mean four authors. Four
sources could mean four separate oral traditions. This theory was named the
Documentary Hypothesis and advanced by a book written in 1965 by J. Wellhausen.
This theory dated the writing or compilation of most of the Pentateuch in the
range of 850 -750 B.C., at least 700 years after the death of Moses.
The TNIV
study Bible quickly dismisses this theory with a market friendly response using
words like claimed, presumed, and allegedly. As the last word the conversation stops with
the following statement.
“However,
this view is not supported by conclusive evidence, and intensive archaeological and
literary research has tended to undercut many of the arguments used to
challenge Mosaic authorship.”
The TNIV editors must be democrats. This summary of their opposition to any criticism of Mosaic authorship is a deceptive word salad. Are they telling us that Mosaic authorship is a fact? Some of us would like to judge for ourselves whether there is conclusive evidence for that supposed fact. There is no archaeological or literary research outside the very few Bible references, that supports the Moses theory. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Many years (1980)
have passed since I cared about such matters.
Being led to check it out, I googled the Documentary Hypothesis and found
that nothing is as it was portrayed forty-five years ago but nothing has really
changed. The bottom line is that any understanding about the author or authors
of the Pentateuch is still open to question, all opinions are still theories
and communicating that fact to the reader is the only honest alternative.
G. Goslaw
Landers, Ca.
