Note: This was a paper for Old Testament Survey 1 at Southern Evangelical Seminary
The eighteenth century saw the rise of an approach to the Biblical text based on a denial of the supernatural and a belief that there were natural explanations from science and history to apply to the Biblical text. These views rejected the idea that the Bible could be a supernatural work of inspiration by the Holy Spirit. A climate of skepticism toward a supernatural God had been building from Deist, Materialist, and Naturalist views starting in the 17th century, through philosophers such as Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and Benedict de Spinoza, and these views crystallized into rationalist and naturalist approaches to the Bible as a secular work which attacked the authority and truth of Scripture.[2] Common assertions that resulted from this were that there were two sources for Genesis, that Moses did not author the whole Pentateuch, that Deuteronomy was written at the time of King Josiah, that the Old Testament ceremonies were borrowed from pagan cultures, that the Bible stories are myths passed on orally before being written, that the Bible has contradictions, and that the Bible is fallible but becomes God’s word to each person as they encounter it.
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS
Many critics proposed that the Pentateuch was compiled from different sources, that it was written or gathered together after the time of Moses as a post-exilic work, and that Moses did not write all or any of it. Although attacks on the sources of and veracity of the Old Testament and on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch started at the time of the early church,[3] it was later scholars of the 18th century who presented specific documentary hypotheses to explain how Genesis or the Pentateuch was composed. One of the first to highlight this view was Jean Astruc, who set forth the view that Genesis was based on two ancient sources, one that called God “Elohim” and one that called God “Yahweh,” and that these sources were combined by Moses.[4] The Yahweh source viewed God in anthropomorphic terms, while the Elohist source saw God in terms of religious laws and morals.[5]
This view was developed by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn in the late 18th century, who proposed parallel accounts by Jehovist, or Jahwist (also Yahwist), and Elohist sources, called J and E.[6] Eichhorn was one of the first scholars to apply scientific and secular methods to studying the Bible, and was known as the “Father of Old Testament Criticism.”[7] Eichhorn proposed the use of literary analysis in determining the various sources of the Old Testament text.[8] Later in the first half of the 19th century, Willem Martin Lebrecht De Wette postulated that the Pentateuch was not written before David’s time, and that Deuteronomy was composed around 621 B.C. essentially as a ruse, so that it would be “found” by Hilkiah in order to unify and strengthen King Josiah’s leadership.[9] De Wette also proposed that the various books were put together by different redactors.[10] The Deuteronomy manuscript was called D, and added to J and E as various sources for the Pentateuch.[11]
The fragmentary theory that inspired De Wette had been put forth earlier by Alexander Geddes, who suggested that the Pentateuch was compiled by a single redactor from various sources in the time of Solomon,[12] and also proposed that Joshua should be a part of the Pentateuch, thus forming a Hexateuch.[13] This theory was developed in the early 19th century by J. S. Vater, who set forth the view that there were as many as forty separate sources for the Pentateuch which were not arranged together until the Babylonian Exile.[14]
A further documentary hypothesis was the supplementary theory advocated by Heinrich Ewald, Friederich Bleek, and Franz Delitzsch. This theory postulated that the Pentateuch rested on a foundational source or tradition from around 1,000 B.C. known as the Elohistic source, E, but which was supplemented by the later author of the document, J.[15] According to Ewald’s ideas, several authors supplemented and reworked the Mosaic documents at various times up until the mid-8th century B.C.[16] Some of these sources were a Book of Covenants from the time of Judges and a Book of Origins from the period of Solomon.[17] Delitzsch speculated that non-Mosaic parts of document E were written by Eleazar, Aaron’s son, though he believed that all parts of the Pentateuch claimed by Moses were genuinely Mosaic,[18] and later joined with conservative scholar E. W. Hengstenberg in the writing of conservative commentaries.[19]
More was to be added to these theories by Hermann Hupfield, Karl Heinrich Graf, and Abraham Kuenen, who introduced new twists to the growing claims of documentary theories. Hupfield, believing that the foundational document E should be divided into earlier and later sources, designated the earlier E or E1, as a priestly code, P, and the later E, called E2, as closer to J.[20] Hupfield, who also proposed a redactor who rearranged and combined the sources for the Pentateuch, had as his order of documentary sources, PEJD.[21] Graf, on the other hand, divided P into historical P and legal P, surmising that the legal aspects of P, not being mentioned in Deuteronomy, dated from the time of the Exile, thus giving an order of historical-P, E, J, D, and legal-P.[22] Both Graf and his teacher Eduard Reuss had concluded that the prophets pre-dated the law, thus dating large portions of the Pentateuch after the 8th century B.C.[23] Hupfield’s and Graf’s documentary orders were scrambled by Kuenen, who in the later 19th century postulated that the Jahwist document was basic and had been supplemented by Elohistic extracts, by Deuteronomy, and by a Priestly document from the time of Ezra, giving the order now as JEDP.[24]
The documentary hypothesis as developed by these scholars and the JEDP order were supported by Julius Wellhausen and made well known in two books he authored in 1876 and 1878.[25] Wellhausen proposed the date for the Jahwist document as 850 B.C., and the Elohist as 750 B.C., being combined by a redactor around 650 B.C.[26] He also placed Deuteronomy in the period of Josiah, and theorized that it was added to the other material by a redactor around 550 B.C., with the Priestly Code P being added to form JEDP by 400 B.C.[27] Wellhausen was influenced by Hegelian philosophy and Darwinian theories that were making advances at the time, and he superimposed these ideas onto the Hebrews as a people progressing from animism to monotheism, thus rejecting sources that described an early monotheistic Jewish faith.[28]
Wellhausen also had a bias against abstractions, and considered the Priestly Code to be abstract and static, as opposed to the earlier poetical aspects of the Jahwist religion.[29] Yet, as one admirer notes, Wellhausen, while condemning abstract theories, relied himself on “highly theoretical – and theological abstractions.”[30] Wellhausen proposed that the Mosaic law code, rather than a foundation for Israel, was a product of post-exilic Israel.[31] The Wellhausen hypothesis gained followers, undoubtedly partly due to Wellhausen’s brilliance and his superior writing skills,[32] and soon became the dominant theory in non-conservative schools; and, although refuted by many, it is still accepted and taught in many places today.[33]
Some of those in the 20th century who claimed agreement with Wellhausen nevertheless modified or changed some of the Graf-Wellhausen theories. One of these was Rudolph Smend, who advocated two authors of the J document, J1 and J2.[34] This view was echoed by Eichrodt, and later expanded on by Otto Eissfeldt, who proposed document L (a Lay source) which he believed was in the earlier J, and also in Judges and Samuel.[35]
Other hypothetical documents were proposed as well, such as document K (for Kenite) used for King Asa’s reforms put forth by Julius Morgenstern; and Robert H. Pfeiffer’s non-Israelite source S from J and E.[36] The type of thinking that under girded and popularized this hypothesis eventually led to the theories proposing two authors for Isaiah and a later date for the book of Daniel.[37]
HIGHER CRITICAL THOUGHT, PAST AND PRESENT
Many of the earliest attacks on the Old Testament were leveled by Gnostics such as Valentinus and Marcion, and similar attacks continued through the centuries by critics such as Ibn Hazam who, in the 10th century, claimed that Ezra had written much of the Pentateuch.[38] Although comparable attacks persisted into the following centuries, it was rationalist and pantheist philosopher Benedict Spinoza who first contributed significantly to modern Biblical higher criticism.[39] Spinoza’s rationalistic and anti-supernatural presuppositions led him to conclude that the Bible is fallible and does not contain propositional revelation from God.[40] He also proposed that Ezra penned the books from Genesis to 2 Kings, thus rejecting Mosaic authorship.[41] His views of the Bible were repeated later by many of those who proposed the various documentary hypotheses, which were popularized by Wellhausen and then disseminated widely by S. R. Driver, Charles Augustus Briggs, Julius A. Bewer, Robert H. Pfeiffer, and W. Robertson Smith.[42].
According to Dr. Norman L. Geisler, there is negative, or destructive, higher criticism and positive, or constructive, higher criticism.[43] Negative higher criticism has come in the forms of Historical, Source, Form, Tradition, and Redaction Criticism.[44] The documentary theories arose from Form Criticism; Tradition Criticism proposed that the patriarchal stories were orally transmitted for generations before being written; and Redaction Criticism postulated that biblical texts were written or edited later by redactors or by different authors than those identified with the texts.[45] There are conservative scholars who endorse redaction models;[46] however, it can be argued that redaction theories confuse inspiration of scripture with the unbiblical view of “inspired redactors,” and confuse authority of scripture with textual criticism, which would cover scribal changes.[47] Historical criticism covers a broad area, and is related to other forms of criticism such as Redaction Criticism.[48] If there are naturalist, materialist, idealist, agnostic, or other philosophical biases in the approach, then these lead to destructive criticism, no matter what form is being used.[49]
The early stages of higher critical thought as formulated by Wellhausen and his followers, though modified by some, have not been replaced by any other theories accorded the same status in the scholarly world, though there have been refutations of Wellhausen’s theories.[50] Yet the scholars who opposed the Graf-Wellhausen theories did not offer conservative views affirming the truth of Scripture, but continued in a trend of negative higher criticism, fed by theories based on anthropology, literature, history, and sociology.[51]
The views of Wellhausen and his followers, and variations on their views have continued into the present, with additional assertions from others in the 20th century who also took a stand against supernaturalism, and who asserted that the Bible is errant or is not the word of God. In this camp are Harold DeWolfe, Harry Emerson Fosdick, and Shubert Ogden.
For DeWolfe, who rejected miracles and the supernatural, the Bible is an errant human document with contradictions, and demonstrates that Jesus was against Old Testament teachings.[52] Though he regretted his earlier views at the end of his life, Fosdick espoused an evaluation of the Bible through scientific reasoning that rejects the supernatural, and in a modern context, accepting its contradictions.[53] Ogden, along with others like Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and John Baillie, asserted that Scripture is not infallible, has contradictions, and should be viewed as truthful only in certain limited ways.[54] Brunner even acknowledged his indebtedness to higher criticism for rejecting verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.[55]
Barth, whose neo-orthodox views influenced Brunner and Baillie, stated that even though the Bible is fallible, it becomes the word of God to the reader but is itself not objectively the word of God.[56] This relegated Scripture to a subjective evaluation equal to mere opinion instead of objective truth.[57]
Anthropology and history brought forth new forms of higher criticism in the 20th century. One form came about with Herman Gunkel, greatly influenced by Albert Eichhorn, and an advocate of the “History of Religions” school,[58] who proposed that stories in Genesis could be traced back to oral tradition through a study of literary forms,[59] and that Hebrew beliefs had been influenced by Near East pagan cultures.[60] Assuming a progression toward individualism in the Biblical texts, Gunkel, a Neo-Romantic and anti-Materialist, considered the Old Testament to be on a level lower than the higher level of individualism portrayed in the New Testament.[61] Although Gunkel was asserting early dates for Hebrew beliefs in contrast to the Wellhausen theories that dated such teachings later, Gunkel did not accept the Genesis accounts as true, but as folklore.[62] This theory of an oral tradition as the basis for some of the Old Testament was advocated by H. S. Nyberg, Birkeland, and Engnell, who proposed oral traditions preserved by various circles and schools over long periods of time before being written down.[63]
Scholars of the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century from the school of Tradition Criticism, such as Sigmund Mowinckel, Friedrich Delitzsch, and Hugo Winckler, had proposed that the customs and festivals of Israelites were part of a common culture in the Near East, an idea endorsed and expanded on by S. H. Hooke, who concluded that some of the Hebrews’ rituals paralleled Babylonian rituals.[64] This view continues to be popular. For example, the book, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, attempts to show the intersection of Old Testament “epics” with the stories and legends of the cultures surrounding the Hebrews. In this book, which offers some important information relevant to the Old Testament, the authors discuss the Exodus account of the plagues in Egypt and, assuming that this account was based on “poetic precursors” which involved a long period of oral transmission, state that since there are so many changes, additions, and deletions in such accounts, only a “historic kernel may have a precise historic context in time and place,” but that to extract such a kernel from an “epic” is “difficult and often impossible.”[65] Therefore, they conclude that “in some way a series of natural disorders struck the land of Egypt” which were interpreted by the Israelites as coming from God.[66] The authors also summon up a “striking Egyptian literary parallel” for the crossing of the Sea of Reeds.[67]
A Darwinian bias is revealed in their statement that the Israelites recognized the existence of other gods as seen by the first commandment forbidding worship of other gods, by the celebratory song of thanks in Exodus speaking of God as incomparable to other gods (Ex. 15:11), and by the view that the plagues were attacks on Egyptian deities. The authors use these passages to support their view that the early Israelites had a monolatry and did not move to pure monotheism until the 6th century B.C.[68]
Theories arguing against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch continued. In the 1940’s, F. V. Winnett proposed that Exodus and Numbers were based on a Northern Kingdom tradition, then transferred to the Southern Kingdom after 722 B.C., where it was revised according to the customs of that time, then later reformulated into the book of Deuteronomy.[69] G. T. Manley set forth the view in the 1950’s that Moses did not write Deuteronomy, but that its source was an unknown person from the time of Eli.[70] Even the highly respected C. S. Lewis believed the Bible was fallible, and viewed much of the Old Testament as mythology, seeing figures like Adam and Job as mythological, taking on truth in the New Testament.[71]
The mid-20th century also saw such critics as Gerhard Von Rad, Brevard Childs, and Martin Noth. Von Rad, although he saw a unity in the Hexateuch of Genesis through Joshua, maintained that Deuteronomy came from a circle of “rural Levites,” that the Israelites had a late doctrine of creation, and that they did not worship Yahweh as the supreme God until the 7th or 6th century B.C.[72] Childs, though he advocated the Documentary Hypothesis of the previous century, had a high regard for the Bible as a valid object of study and appreciation; however, he treated it as simply human literature.[73] Noth argued that Deuteronomy was part of a unit running through to Kings, compiled by a single writer, thereby separating Deuteronomy from the Pentateuch.[74] Noth displayed a strong bias against the Bible, searching for discrepancies and assuming inconsistencies in the book of Numbers without a scholarly basis for this.[75]
The historical and literary criticism of the 19th and early 20th centuries continued due to a persistent rejection of the supernatural and the legacy of the documentary theories, still accepted by many.[76] One critic of the documentary hypotheses states that this model has moved today to “one with a thousand pieces,” and that “the last fifty years of biblical scholarship have multiplied the sources of documents from five, to more than a score.”[77] Scholar Richard Elliott Friedman has even speculated on the identities of the authors of JEPD, suggesting J was perhaps written by a woman in the royal court of Judah, E was composed by a Levitical priest in Israel between 922 and 722 B.C., P was written in the court of King Hezekiah between 727 and 698 B.C., and that Baruch, an associate of Jeremiah, may have authored document D.[78]
One of the changes in attitudes toward the Old Testament came about with the discovery and subsequent study of the Dead Sea scrolls.[79] These scrolls supported the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and provided evidence against negative biblical criticism.[80] This discovery also brought doubt to the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis by showing that there were at least three different Pentateuchal textual types circulating at the time of Christ, and not one fixed form as proposed by Wellhausen.[81]
Another work important in Biblical studies was that of Yehezkel Kaufmann who, although he partially accepted the Graf-Wellhausen documentary theories, maintained that the Israelites had a religion completely different from any other in the ancient world; he rejected the theory of an evolutionary shift from primitive to monotheistic beliefs among the Hebrews, insisting that the Hebrews had an indigenous monotheism.[82] Kaufmann also claimed that the deities in the Old Testament texts were not viewed as gods, but as idols.[83] W. F. Albright, though not a conservative scholar, opposed the theories of long oral transmissions of Biblical narratives, and instead proposed written material as the source for the narratives.[84] Albright also presented the idea that there was a monotheistic belief in the time of Moses, which was an earlier time than had been set forth by other scholars.[85]
To sum up differences between contemporary higher critical thought and such criticism earlier, it is apparent that although the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis is not accepted as it once was by most scholars, variations of it live on through attitudes interwoven with an anti-supernatural bias that rejects evidence for divine inspiration of Scripture.
AN EVALUATION OF HIGHER CRITICAL THOUGHT
Based on rationalist and later idealist thinking, scholars analyzed the Bible through a grid of their own making, rather than seeing what the Bible itself was saying, and rather than accepting the Bible’s historical accounts as true. Some of the philosophies that gave rise to these attitudes in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were rationalism, Hegelian idealism, and an anti-supernatural naturalism.[86] Rationalism is a way of discovering objective reality based purely on reason and, as such, can be useful and applicable. However, unlimited rationalism, or rationalism that denies the supernatural, leads to a limitation in perceiving or believing anything beyond reason, such as God.[87] Hegel’s idealism, which posited that there is an Absolute Spirit thinking its thoughts through man’s mind, branched into different forms, one of which was anti-religion and anti-supernatural in thinking and was the form that most influenced Biblical higher criticism.[88]
The documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch was based on unproved presuppositions that Moses was not the author and that the books were written much later than the time period of Moses, a result of skeptical thinking and an emphasis on literary analysis which prevented a consideration of the Biblical books as reliable sources.[89] Darwinian and Hegelian evolutionary thinking by those doing historical and tradition criticism assumed that the Israelites had a primitive, animistic, or polytheistic religion that “evolved” to monotheism, dismissing early Biblical accounts as myth or legend.[90] In addition to these philosophical biases, there were the views of Mowinckel and his followers, and of Hooke, who held that the early Israelites had based religious customs and traditions on those of the pagan nations around them.[91]
Such presuppositions guaranteed that the Bible would not be seen for what it claimed to be, but rather as a book that could be analyzed according to the popular schools of criticism of the day. Part of this was due to the fact that little was known in the time period these methods arose about life in the Near East or in 2,000 B.C.[92] The critics were also selective, ignoring or distorting evidence that contradicted their presuppositions.[93]
Although many of the higher critical arguments were refuted in the 19th and 20th centuries by archeological discoveries or by scholars such as Haevernick, Hengstenberg, Keil, Rupprecht, Moeller, C. L. Woolley, W. F. Albright, A. Parrot, Petrie, Breasted, E. Chiera, C. F. A. Schaeffer, R. D. Wilson, Gleason L. Archer, Merrill Unger, R. Laird Harris, and R. K. Harrison, such views of the Bible persist.[94] One example of refuting the J and E sources for Genesis is the study of the Koran by R. D. Wilson, who showed that certain suras use the name Allah for God and others designate God as Rab, just as certain parts of Genesis use Yahweh while others use Elohim.[95] Despite this occurrence in the Koran, no Islamic scholars have dissected the Koran on this basis of two names for God as the critics did to Genesis.[96] In the 1960’s, archaeologist C. H. Gordon repudiated the theory behind two sources for two divine names as a basis for the documentary hypothesis by pointing out that Ugaritic, Egyptian, and Greek literature commonly revealed compound names for deities.[97] Therefore, there was no reason to assume two authors based on the two names used for God in the Old Testament.
Archeological discoveries in the 20th century served to reveal flaws in higher criticism in many areas. Sources showed that animism, which was ascribed to the early Israelites by some scholars, had disappeared altogether from the Ancient Near East centuries before the Hebrew patriarchs.[98] Another discovery was that the Deuteronomy literary form was an ancient form based on the suzerainty treaties kings made with their subjects in that time period.[99] Hittites mentioned in Genesis were not known historically until a Hittite library was discovered in Turkey in 1906.[100] Evidence has also revealed the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah, and that there was earthquake activity in that region.[101]
Wellhausen had argued that the Hebrews did not use written language until the early monarchy. However, archeological discoveries revealed that from 3100 B.C. in the Near East, writing was highly regarded, and by 1500 B.C., an alphabet distinct from cuneiform and hieroglyphs was being used in Syria and Palestine.[102]
The Biblical accounts of creation and the Flood as myth has been refuted in many ways. The Genesis version of creation is simple and direct, unlike the elaborate pagan creation stories. Since it was discovered that simple stories in the Near East tended to become embellished and more complex as time went by, and not the reverse, then Genesis was most likely not a myth since it is simple to begin with.[103] Flood stories outside the Bible are more elaborate than the Genesis account, which argues for the originality of the Genesis story; the dimensions of the ark for Noah make more sense than the descriptions of the size and shape of flood boats in pagan stories; and Genesis reports 40 days for the rain as opposed to shorter periods of rain in other accounts which would not have been enough time for rain to flood the world.[104] Additionally, there is geological evidence to support a worldwide flood.[105]
Critics argue that the different styles in the Pentateuch indicate that Moses could not have written all the Pentateuchal books. However, authors can and do change style.[106] Critics have assumed that Moses could not have known about the creation and other events prior to his time, and since he could not have written about his death, then Moses cannot be the author of the whole Pentateuch. However, the information on creation could have been given to Moses supernaturally, or Moses could have compiled and edited the records of patriarchal family history.[107] Many scholars believe that Joshua could have penned the account of Moses’ death.[108] Some scholars have pointed at the later place names of villages and cities as a basis for saying the Biblical text was written later; however, these could have been later interpolations by copyists.[109] Linguistically and historically, the Pentateuch fits into a time period existing centuries before the dates many critics had affixed to the Priestly portions of the Pentateuch.[110]
Evidence for Moses as author of the Exodus is strong. Exodus reveals an eyewitness account and knowledge of the wilderness, and there is no qualified person other than Moses proposed as this eyewitness. Exodus and the Pentateuch have been ascribed to Moses by rabbinical sources, and by Jewish writers Philo and Josephus.[111] Joshua and Jesus both refer to Moses as the author of the Law.[112]
As for ascribing the Priestly Code to a late date, C. H. Gordon concluded, based on Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform sources, that the Priestly Code was, in fact, pre-Mosaic.[113] In other Near Eastern cultures, priestly material is earlier rather than later; so, assuming Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers followed these patterns, these books could also be dated from about 2,000 B.C.[114]
The circular and a priori reasoning of the higher critical scholars, as well as assertions and assumptions that were not based on valid historical research or evidence, has been noted by many. Leupold and Archer point out that these critics were guided subjectively rather than by logic, and R. K. Harrison states that the critics selected evidence to support their claims and ignored evidence that weakened such claims.[115] Such critics ignore the fulfilled predictions of the Bible as well, over 800 alone in the Old Testament.[116]
Scholars who subjected Scripture to negative higher criticism seem to have disregarded the many objections to and refutations of such criticism based on historical, archeological, and literary discoveries. As of the early 1940’s, when Leupold wrote his commentary on the Old Testament, he stated that the critics have “failed to discern” that such refutations existed.[117] Archer states that proposing “objective examination” of Biblical texts only invites “ridicule” from those scholars who continue the higher critical methods and attitudes of their predecessors, and that these scholars are the ones in control of the Biblical studies departments and seminaries.[118]
Critics continue to point out apparent contradictions and scholars such as Archer continue to answer by showing that though there are some scribal discrepancies, there are no real contradictions.[119] Archeological evidence is offered by archeologists and by evidential and historical apologists. The Christian community has steadily been responding for several years to higher criticism with apologists and scholars such as C. S. Lewis, J. P. Moreland, R. K. Harrison, William Lane Craig, John Warwick Montgomery, Gleason Archer, R. C. Sproul, B. B. Warfield, Gary Habermas, Norman Geisler, and others who have written several books.[120] A former disciple of Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs, Dr. Eta Linneman, has now critiqued her former teachers, pointing out the flaws of higher critical methods and assertions.[121] Nevertheless, these responses are falling on the ears of critics steeped in anti-supernaturalism and long schooled to view the Bible as the fallible product of human thought, myth, and beliefs. It remains to be seen what impact the new surge of Christian apologetics and further archeological discoveries will have on those critics with entrenched skeptical views of the Bible.
ENDNOTES
2] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 135-41; Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969; reprint, Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1999), 9-11, 11, 13, 351 (page citations are to the reprint edition).
[3] Harrison, 1-6; 498-499.
[4] Gleason Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 89-90; Harrison, 11-12.
[5] Jeffrey L. Sheler, Is the Bible True? (NY: HarperCollins, 1999), 25.
[6] Archer., 90-91; Harrison, 14.
[7] Geisler, 158; Harrison, 13, 14.
[8] Harrison, 14.
[9] Archer., 91.
[10] Harrison, 15.
[11] Archer, 91.
[12] Archer, 91; Harrison, 14.
[13] Harrison, 14.
[14] Archer, 91; Harrison, 15.
[15] Archer, 92, Harrison, 16.
[16] Archer, 92.
[17] Harrison, 17.
[18] Archer, 93.
[19] Harrison, 18.
[20] Archer, 94.
[21] Archer, 94; Harrison, 17.
[22] Archer, 95; Harrison, 19.
[23] Robert A. Oden, Jr., The Bible Without Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1987), 19.
[24] Archer, 95; Harrison, 20-21; William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic Wm. Bush, Old Testament Survey, The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 10-11.
[25] Archer, 95-96; Harrison, 21-23.
[26] Harrison, 501.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Archer, 95; Harrison, 21, 22, 352-355.
[29] Oden, 23.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Harrison, 22.
[32] Oden, 20-21.
[33] Archer, 96-97; Harrison, 24-25.
[34] Harrison., 38, 503.
[35] Archer, 99; Harrison, 39, 504; LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, 11.
[36] Archer, 99; Harrison, 503.
[37] Harrison, 25.
[38] Ibid., 5-7.
[39] Geisler, 138; Harrison, 10.
[40] Geisler, 138.
[41] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 710; Harrison, 10.
[42] Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, 160; Harrison, 27, 28.
[43] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 86.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ibid., 87, 88.
[46] Geisler, A General Introduction the Bible, 251.
[47] Ibid., 253-25.
[48] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 88.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, 161.
[51] Archer, 111, 571-576.
[52] Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, 165-166.
[53] Ibid., 167-168.
[54] Ibid., 168-169, 171-75.
[55] Ibid., 173.
[56] Archer, 34-35; Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, 172.
[57] Archer, 35.
[58] Oden, 29, 30, 32.
[59] LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, 12.
[60] Harrison, 35.
[61] Oden, 31.
[62] Harrison, 36.
[63] Ibid., 66, 67, 505.
[64] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 88; Harrison, 47, 51-52, 356-357.
[65] Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary A. Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997), 146.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Ibid., 148.
[68] Ibid., 148-149.
[69] Harrison., 70.
[70] Ibid., 72.
[71] Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, 176, 177.
[72] Archer, 109, 571; Harrison, 641.
[73] Archer, 573-574.
[74] Donald Harman Akenson, Surpassing Wonder, The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds (NY: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998), 26.
[75] Archer, 575.
[76] Oden, 38.
[77] Akenson, 34.
[78] Sheler, 25.
[79] Harrison, 74.
[80] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 187; Harrison, 75.
[81] R. K. Harrison, “Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1979), 242; Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 518.
[82] Archer, 573; Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 75, 374-76 .
[83] Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 375.
[84] Ibid, 80.
[85] Ibid., 372-373.
[86] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 88.
[87] Ibid., 634.
[88] Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, 144-145; Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 310.
[89] Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 303.
[90] Ibid., 303-304, 352-55.
[91] Ibid., 47, 51-53, 356-357.
[92] Ibid., 303.
[93] Harrison, “Historical and Literary Criticism,” 242.
[94] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 587; Harrison, “Historical and Literary Criticism,” 242; H. C. Leupold, Leupold on the Old Testament, vol. 1, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House and The Wartburg Press, 1942), 20.
[95] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 587; Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 517.
[96] Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 517.
[97] Ibid., 79, 519-520.
[98] Ibid., 383-388, 516.
[99] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 588.
[100] Ibid., 49.
[101] Ibid., 50.
[102] Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 201, 205.
[103] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 50.
[104] Ibid., 49.
[105] Ibid., 50.
[106] Ibid., 588.
[107] Ibid., 50, 587.
[108] Ibid., 587.
[109] Ibid., 588.
[110] Harrison, “Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament,” 243.
[111] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 588.
[112] Ibid.
[113] Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 516.
[114] Harrison, “Historical and Literary Criticism,” 243.
[115] Archer, 577; Harrison, “Historical and Literary Criticism,” 242; Leopold, 18-19.
[116] Archer, 578, 579.
[117] Leupold, 20.
[118] Archer, 577.
[119] Ibid., 580.
[120] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, 42, 43.
[121] Archer, 581-582.
WORKS CITED
Akenson, Donald Harman. Surpassing Wonder, The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. NY: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998.
Gleason Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
Gordon, Cyrus H. and Gary A. Rendsburg. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.
Harrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1999.
Harrison, R. K. “Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 1, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1979.
LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic Wm. Bush. Old Testament Survey, The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2d ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.
Leupold, H. C. Leupold on the Old Testament. Vol. 1, Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House and The Wartburg Press, 1942.
Oden, Jr., Robert A. The Bible Without Theology. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1987.
Sheler, Jeffrey L. Is the Bible True? NY: HarperCollins, 1999.