Who Wrote the Bible - Essay Example

Who Wrote the Bible? The Bible--a book held in such esteem that we place our hand on it when we testify in court to the truth of what we are saying. “I swear on the Bible” is a statement one hears all the time both in and out of legal situations when someone wants to reinforce that what they saying or doing is accurate. How this document became the benchmark in Western civilization for the epitome of honesty and integrity is an interesting historical question that bears investigation. Who exactly wrote the Bible is a fascinating question often asked in relationship to the book’s serious and eternal impact, particularly on people’s religious views, behavior and attitudes, and even more particularly on its social, cultural and political impact. Considering the book in that context it is a question everyone should be asking whether a believer or none. Biblical scholar Richard Elliot Friedman, author of Who Wrote the Bible, presents a documentary hypothesis (DH) (originated by Julius Wellhausen) that seeks to prove that the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses, was gleaned from original valid narratives edited along the way into its current form by a series of redactors (editors) as late as the 19th Century. Friedman is one of a long line of scholars to attempt the task, with others earlier arriving at the basic theory, as he does, that the Torah is a woven fabric of selections. In this sense Friedman’s arguments and theories are not new and one is left wondering why his particular collection of consistencies and inconsistencies over the centuries proves anything more than what most people already think: that the Bible is simply a collection of stories, some based on fact, some not, and that as a historical document it lacks veracity. The hypothesis (DH) developed slowly over the course of the 19th Century and by its end a complex theory was in place of the Bible as having four main sources: Yahwist (J) ; Elohist; Deuteronomist, and the Priestly Writer – in order later determined as JEPD. The hypothesis dominated biblical scholarship for much of the 20th century, and, although challenged by other models in the late 20th Century, its terminology and insights continue to provide the framework for modern theories including Friedman’s. Yet regarding its identity as the definitive word of God, Friedman makes no claims and in fact supports its import and identity as more historical and literary. “The redactor was as much an artist, in his own way, as the authors of J, E, P, and D. were in theirs...His task was not merely difficult, it was creative. It called for wisdom and literary sensitivity at each step, as well as a skill that is no less an art than storytelling.” (Friedman 232). So, while the work is certainly of great academic importance and interest, and of great value to the study of the Bible as a series of stories, it does not in any way enhance its worth or identity as the definitive word of God to man. What then is Friedman saying about the Bible and its cultural, social and political influence today as perhaps unduly influential and undeserved as a quasi-spiritual directive. Not enough, I say, especially given Friedman’s own position and argument quite clear in the final chapter which indicates he sees it as a document purely the work of intriguing and eclectic human effort. “In the end, he (redactor) was the one who created the work that we have read all these years. He assembled the final form of the stories and laws that, in thousands of ways, have influenced millions.” (Friedman 233). Citing the many contributions made by contributors over the centuries, he intimates the probability that new ideas, or editorial commentary are likely as not to have contributed to “the word” some take as coming directly from God. “...the question...is: is the Bible [really any] more than the sum of its parts?” (Friedman 233). If this is the case, why then does it and should it be considered the icon of unquestionable truth in western civilization? The points Friedman makes throughout the book are extremely fascinating to anyone who enjoys historical investigation, but I found myself asking why he would gather all of this research to prove something (granted from an academic perspective) that many people, particularly academics, already believe to be true. In short, what is the point? Regarding proving his argument, however, he does a commendable job. His research is riveting and as an academic investigative work, mostly convincing with, for me anyway, a few glitches: he accepts the notion that original truthful document existed and glosses over the intent of the editors. Chapter Critique In the first chapter, “What Did Moses Write,” Friedman cites 12th century Spanish rabbi Ibn Ezra who found inconsistencies many editors find today in modern manuscripts that render stories unbelievable and confusing from the point of syntax. “...several passages that appeared not to be from Moses' own hand: passages that referred to Moses in the third person, used terms that Moses would not have known, described places where Moses had never been, and used language that reflected another time and locale from those of Moses. (19) The point here is that some writers and editors (redactors) are better than others and over-edited books tend to fall in upon themselves from having “too many hands in the pie,” a charge Friedman is making automatically by forwarding his original argument. Regarding the sources of the Pentateuch, we see that not only is it today a shadow of its original self (he rather accepts that there was an original core to the document handed down by Moses), but even Friedman admits a probably distortion of ideas and edicts by rabbins who were not exactly trustworthy. “The Christian Church...[is] inclined to pin its faith to what the rabbins said about the origins of this book....sifted by criticism we find that the traditions of the rabbins are not at all trustworthy.” (42) He cites that all religions, despite differences among scholars as to which portions are consistent with original documents and which are in question, accept the notion that “the analysis of Hexateuch into several distinct original documents is purely a literary question in which no article of faith is involved.” (58) Friedman wants to believe this, saying “...there are no Hebrew professors...who would deny the literary analysis of the Petateuch into the four great document.” (58) Friedman’s chapter Who Wrote the Bible? presents a particularly troublesome issue regarding translation that even for his rather cogent argument causes problems for statements about “original stories” and Moses. Jerome, in his analysis of original texts, admits serious problems with translation which Friedman dismisses as “fanciful” while admitting there may be some truth to “the impossibility of determining the exact meaning of many Hebrew sentences” (330). Of particular concern is Friedman’s stance on information included after the Exile, which he accepts as copies of original works of the prophets “must have been kept” (102) because they were so important to Hebrews of later. “Words so momentous ought to be sacredly treasured” (102). He reinforces his conjecture with references to such consistencies as the use of the word prophet and prophecies even in Elizabethan edits as proof that even in the 17th Century the word as originally used was used to “preaching or speaking according to the will of God” (109). He seems to be somehow disputing bastardization of content. Moving away from the problems of the Old Testament to the New Testament Friedman writes of them as “well-known documents” saying “we are on firm ground of history when we talk about them” (207). Again, he begins with an assumption then moves forward to prove the argument. Somehow his contention that the writers were not aware they were writing something that would eventually become a sacred book renders them more believable, a fact disputed by some scholars who have suggested a great degree of drama injected into them for the purpose of deifying Christ and to establishing the new religion of which He is the centerpiece. Even Still, a proponent of the New Testament’s worth as a religious document, wrote, “We know from narrative criticism that many NT events were probably invented to tell a story about Jesus. But when we are able to do so we should give the benefit of the doubt to those passages that seem historically or contextually probable” (para. 1), a suggestion with which Friedman would apparently agree. Citing Justin he makes an important admission. First of all, he accepts that “interpreted” means “translated,” (242), admitting further that the apostle Mark, as translator, “never heard the Lord” but “attached himself to Peter...[who adapted] his lessons to the need of the occasion” ( 242). The possibility, then, for the bastardization of original stories (questionable) from Peter was quite good. The fact that Mark’s goal, as recorder, was “to make no false statements in what he heard” (242). Further evidence of Friedman’s naïveté is found in his statement “This is a perfect description of the Gospel of Mark as we have it in our hands today” (242). In conclusion, Friedman’s apology at the end of the book essentially for me negates his purpose in producing it (scholarly investigation) and reveals perhaps why he wrote it in the first place: to assure its acceptance as some sort of spiritual guideline for the human race. While admitting the book is not either historically, scientifically or morally infallible, he nevertheless states, “that we may depend upon the truthfulness of the outline” (352) excusing “the contradictions which appear here and there” (352). To the point, while he has thoroughly supported his argument of the book as a redactors’ product over centuries, he wants us to excuse what might be human fallacy and intent and accept the documents as a valid outline for living the spiritual life. Works Cited Friedman, Richard Elliott. Who Wrote the Bible? New York: Summit Books (Simon & Schuster, Inc.), 1987 Still, James. “Critique of New Testament Reliability and "Bias" in NT Development.” Retrieved September 13, 2010 from: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/critbias.html Read More