Did Moses Really Write the First Five Books of the Bible

The Documentary Hypothesis is the theory that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. It holds that later editors assembled those books from four earlier sources, labeled J, E, D and P. Its strongest form goes further and says the events those books report never happened. Dr. Van Gayton, a board member for Jude 3 Project, answers that the theory’s deepest premise is not found in the text at all. That premise is a decision, made in advance, that God cannot act in history.

This guide works through the theory one piece at a time, then through Gayton’s response, and then down to that starting point. You can work through it alone in about an hour with a King James Bible open. You can also use it across one or two group sessions. Two practices sit in the middle of the guide, and the discussion questions near the end work best after you have done them.

Three words to have in hand first

Most confusion about this debate comes from missing vocabulary, so start there.

Pentateuch is the name for Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, the five books traditionally credited to Moses.

Source criticism is the attempt to identify earlier written material behind a finished text. Gayton calls it an analytical tool, and he does not object to the tool itself.

Presupposition is a belief a reader brings to the text before reading it. Everyone has presuppositions. They decide what kinds of explanation a reader will even consider.

Keep the third word in view. The whole guide ends up there.

What the four letters stand for

In Gayton’s account, the theory began in the eighteenth century with a scholar named Astruc. Astruc noticed that different names for God appear in different passages of Moses’s writings. He concluded that Moses had worked from two earlier documents. Then, in 1878, the German scholar Wellhausen expanded those two documents to four.

Gayton describes the four sources this way. J uses the divine name and speaks of God in human terms. It calls the mountain of the law Sinai. E supplements J, uses the name Elohim, and calls the mountain Horeb. D comes mainly from Deuteronomy, with its speeches and its stress on one central place of worship, and the theory dates it to King Josiah’s reform. P is the priestly material, concentrated in Leviticus and Numbers, with its rituals, dietary laws and concern for holiness and God’s transcendence. On this view, priests after the exile in Babylon combined all four into the books we have.

Why build such a theory? Gayton says its advocates were trying to explain “what they considered contradictions relative to dates and doublets and anachronisms” in the text. A doublet is a story that seems to appear twice. An anachronism is a detail that seems to belong to a later period. The theory treats these features as seams where separate documents were stitched together.

Practice one: see the observation for yourself

Read Genesis 1:1-2:3. Then read Genesis 2:4-25. In the King James Version, the first passage speaks of God. From Genesis 2:4 onward, the text speaks of the LORD God. The capital letters in LORD mark the Hebrew divine name.

Write down two or three other differences you notice between the passages. Look at the order of events, the scale of the description and what each passage focuses on. Then write two possible explanations side by side. The first is that two authors wrote two accounts. The second is that one author moved from a wide view of creation to a close view of the first humans. Do not choose yet. The point is to see that the observation is real and that it allows more than one explanation.

One theory, two different claims

Here is the most common misunderstanding: people treat the Documentary Hypothesis as a single claim. It actually bundles two claims that need to be separated.

The first is a claim about composition, about how the books were put together. Notice that Astruc’s original version kept Moses as the author. It was a theory about what Moses used. A Christian can examine questions about earlier material without any threat to the faith.

The second is a claim about history, about whether the events took place. Gayton says the strongest version of the theory reads the Pentateuch as a later Israel looking back and saying, “this is how Israel wanted the story to be. This is what they would’ve wanted God to say.” On that reading, God did not speak to Moses. The words were the community’s wishes, not its memory.

These claims do not stand or fall together. Shifting divine names might suggest an author drew on older material. They cannot show that God never spoke. Something else has to carry that second conclusion.

Practice two: sort the claims

Label each statement below with one letter: O for an observation about the text, C for a claim about composition, H for a claim about history, or P for a presupposition.

1. The name used for God changes between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
2. Moses drew on older written material when he wrote.
3. Priests after the exile combined four documents into one text.
4. God never spoke to Moses, and the books record what Israel wished he had said.
5. Nothing outside nature can act within nature.

Once you have labeled them, draw arrows showing which statements could support which. Most people find that statements 1 through 3 can connect to one another. Statement 4 does not follow from any of them. It follows only from statement 5. If you are leading a group, give people a few minutes to work alone before comparing answers. Disagreements over the labels are worth talking through, because they show exactly where the argument turns.

How Gayton answers the theory

Gayton’s response comes in three parts. Take them in order, because each one builds on the one before.

First: the starting assumption

Gayton does not reject careful study. “There’s nothing wrong with taking a critical look at the word of God, but what is essential is the basic presupposition that you hold in looking at this Bible,” he says. He frames the choice plainly. “If you believe in a closed universe of cause and effect, then there is no outside intervention,” he says. The alternative he describes is this: “If you believe in an open universe into which God is creator can intervene and pass through and suspend laws that he created whenever he wants to, then there is room for the supernatural.”

The reasoning matters more than the slogan. If a reader begins with a closed universe, then every passage where God speaks must be explained as something else, however the evidence looks. The verdict comes before the reading. “So your starting point will determine how you interpret what you read,” Gayton says.

Second: the missing sources

The theory depends on documents behind the finished text. Gayton asks the obvious question: “where are the documents that they drew from?” His challenge is blunt: “Show me the original documents.”

A defender of the hypothesis has a fair reply. Sources absorbed into a finished work often do not survive, so their absence is expected. State that reply honestly, because it shows what the debate is really about. If no copies of J, E, D or P exist, the evidence for them is the finished text itself. The sources are inferences drawn from patterns in that text, and other readers explain the same patterns differently. An inference can be useful. It is not the same thing as a discovered manuscript.

Third: reading the author fairly, and digging

Gayton appeals to a principle of reading he credits to Aristotle. When something in an author’s work does not make sense, the reader should suspect that he is missing something. “But you do not assume that the author did not know what he was talking about.” On the creation passages you compared in practice one, his conclusion is direct: “there’s not two creation stories.”

He applies the same principle to doublets. Abraham tells foreigners his wife is his sister, and later his son does the same. Gayton grants that this looks like repetition. His answer is that men living in similar cultures, married to beautiful women and facing similar dangers, could well act the same way.

He also points to archaeology. He says critics once asked where certain cities named in Moses’s writings could be, until excavation showed that ancient people “built cities on top of cities.” He says critics also claimed people in Moses’s time were not writing, and that archaeology has shown civilizations in that region were. Gayton does not name specific sites or texts in this conversation. Hold these as his summaries until you check the evidence yourself. He is also careful about how much weight archaeology can carry: “Now, the word of God is the word of God, whether archeology can back it up or not.” Archaeology can support the account’s reliability. It does not give the account its authority.

Lisa Fields adds an observation from the books’ own content. They are hard on Israel, and they are hard on Moses, who is not allowed to enter the land (Numbers 20:12; Deuteronomy 34:4). If a later community were writing the history it wished it had, this would be an odd way to do it. “It just seems like a horrible story to write for yourself if it didn’t happen,” she says.

Practice three: test a doublet

Read Genesis 12:10-20 and Genesis 26:6-11 side by side. Make two columns, one for what is the same and one for what is different. Look at the people, the places, how the deception is discovered and how the ruler responds. Then ask which explanation accounts for more of what you wrote down: one story told twice by different sources, or two similar events in one family.

What the books say about themselves

The text makes its own claims, and they belong in the discussion. Exodus 14:1 is typical of the repeated formula: “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying.” Exodus 24:4 reports writing: “And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD.” Deuteronomy 31:9 adds that “Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi.”

In John 5:46, Jesus tells his opponents, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” In context, he is arguing with religious leaders about whether their own Scriptures point to him. The verse assumes Moses wrote. It does not answer every modern question. For example, Deuteronomy 34 records Moses’s death and burial, and an honest reader should ask how that fits. A careful case for Mosaic authorship admits such questions rather than claiming more than the verses say.

The question beneath all the others

Every step so far comes back to one question: can God act in history? Gayton does not pretend believers start from neutral ground. He grants that “everybody has what we call first principles in life, things that we believe are true, even though we may not be able to prove that.” His complaint is not that critics have assumptions. It is that one assumption, a closed universe, has been treated as if it were simply where scholarship begins.

He also explains why the stakes are high for Christians in particular. Remove God’s acts from the Pentateuch, and the same rule removes the healings in the Gospels and the resurrection. “But when you take the supernatural element out of Christianity, there is no Christianity,” he says. He does not conclude that believers should stop studying. “I think those who do believe in the power of God still have a responsibility to pursue scholarship, to be analytical,” he says.

For group leaders: this is the point where a discussion can slide into mocking people who hold the hypothesis. Steer away from that. Before anyone responds to the theory, ask someone to restate it in a way its own defenders would accept.

Questions for discussion

1. After practice two, which of the theory’s claims do you find most reasonable, and which least? What made the difference?
2. Gayton argues that a closed universe is a starting assumption, not a finding. What evidence, if any, could ever show that a starting assumption is mistaken?
3. How much weight should the missing source documents carry? How would a defender of the hypothesis answer you, and is that answer sufficient?
4. In practice three, did the two stories look more like one tradition told twice or like two events? What would change your mind?
5. Aristotle’s principle asks readers to give an author the benefit of the doubt. When is that fair, and when could it become a way of avoiding real problems in a text?
6. Lisa Fields notes how harshly these books treat Israel and Moses. How strong is that as evidence against the wish-history reading?
7. If a friend told you Moses could not have written these books, what would you ask first to learn which of the two claims they meant?

A question to carry

This week, read one passage in which God speaks to Moses, such as Exodus 3. Read it slowly, and pay attention to the moment you start explaining it. Ask yourself whether you are reading what the text reports or deciding beforehand what it is allowed to report. You do not need to settle every scholarly argument to answer that honestly. You only need to notice which question you have already answered before you began: whether the God this book describes can speak at all.