Loading...Yesterday I began a short thread dealing with problems in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, as a kind of foreshadowing of the sorts of things I’ll be covering in my online course of eight lectures, that I’ll be giving live, with Q&A, on December 10-11; again, if you’re interested, you can find out about the course here: Finding Moses – Online Course Covering the Historicity of the Pentateuch – Bart D. Ehrman – New Testament Scholar, Speaker, and Consultant (bartehrman.com)
The course will be a followup to my earlier one on Genesis (called “In the Beginning”). Many of the same problems that I have discussed on the blog and in my course about Genesis apply to the other books of the Pentateuch as well. For many of us, some of the most interesting ones involve contradictions among the various narratives.
I talk about that a bit in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Here’s some of what I deal with there, edited here and there for the blog.
You find them right off the bat in Genesis, in the two creation stories of chapters 1-2, which simply can’t be reconciled, no matter how hard you (or your favorite televangelist) try. Less well known: the literary inconsistencies of Genesis are not unique to these two chapters. On the contrary, there are such problems scattered throughout the book. You can see this for yourself simply by reading the text very carefully. Read, for example, the story of the flood in Genesis 6-9, and you will find comparable differences. One of the most glaring is this: according to Gen. 6:19 God told Noah to take two animals “of every kind” with him into the ark; but according to Gen. 7:2 God told him to take seven pairs of all “clean animals” and two of every other kind of animal. Well, which is it? And how can it be both?
Similar differences occur in other parts of the Pentateuch, as I’ll be discussing in my course. One of my favorite examples comes in Exodus, where Moses miraculously performs the “ten plagues” against the Egyptians in order to convince the reluctant Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go free from slavery. These are terrific stories, as good as the accounts of the Patriarchs in Genesis. But scholars have long detected similar discrepancies. It has been noted, for example, that in the fifth plague,
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Such differences occur not only within this or that book of the Pentateuch; similar problems were found to occur between one book and the next, making it appear that the same author is not responsible for the entire work. And so, for example, in Exodus, in one of Moses’ early encounters with the deity, God tells him “I am the LORD (Yahweh). I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty (Hebrew: El Shaddai), but by my name ‘The LORD’ (Yahweh) I did not make myself known to them” (Exod. 6:3). Here God is saying that the patriarchs of Genesis did not know the personal name of God, Yahweh; they only knew him as God Almighty, El Shaddai. But that will come as a very big surprise to a careful reader of Genesis. For it is quite clear in Genesis not only that God appeared to the patriarchs as The LORD (Yahweh), but that they called him by that name. Consider Gen. 4:26: “At that time people began to invoke the name of the LORD (Yahweh).” Or even more telling, Gen. 15:6-8:
And he [Abraham] believed the LORD (Yahweh), and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness. Then he said to him, “I am the LORD (Yahweh) who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess.” But he said, O Lord GOD (Adonai Yahweh), how am I to know that I shall possess it?”
According to Exodus, God never appeared to or revealed himself to Abraham as Yahweh; according to Genesis, he did. There are clearly different sources that have been incorporated into these stories. That is made all the more evident by the doublets (and the triplet) that we observed earlier in the Patriarchal narratives.
******************
Anyway, I’ll be talking about this kind of thing in the course — not as THE major point, but just as one of the intriguing features of these most important books. In my Genesis course, and several times on the blog before, I’ve explained why such problems have led scholars to assume that the Pentateuch was not written by a single person (let alone Moses) (for one thing, the narrative describes his death!) but is the product of a group of sources edited together into the five books.
Here for those who need/want it, is a brief summary of this “Documentary Hypothesis” for the Pentateuch.
The Documentary Hypothesis
The most popular solution to the problem of the authorship of the Pentateuch is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. In its most widespread form, this is the view that behind the Pentateuch there are actually four different written sources (all of them based on oral traditions), written by different authors, living at different times in the history of ancient Israel, with different points of view and emphases, that have been edited together into one long five-volume work.
The scholar whose name is most widely associated with this hypothesis was a German Professor of Hebrew Bible named Julius Wellhausen, who lived from 1844 to 1918. Wellhausen did not invent the documentary hypothesis, but he did work out its details in a more compelling way than any of his predecessors. And he managed to convince an entire host of fellow scholars of its persuasiveness, starting with his major 1878 publication (in German), History of Ancient Israel. Among other things, Wellhausen claimed that the four sources of the Pentateuch were written centuries after the events they narrate, and by authors living centuries removed from one another. As a result, the accounts do not represent eyewitness reports (for example, by Moses) and are not historically reliable. We do not know who the actual authors of these sources were, but Wellhausen called them by four initials, the J source (possibly written in the 10th c. BCE — that is some three centuries after the latest part of the narrative action), the E source (9th c. BCE), the D source (7th BCE), and the P source (6th c BCE). Sometimes, as a result, this is known as the JEDP hypothesis.
Since Wellhausen’s day, scholars have seen more complexities among our sources, but some form of the Documentary Hypothesis is widely held still today.
In a recent lecture, Richard Rohr explained that it wasn’t till the end or just after the Enlightenment that the Catholic church declared the pope to be infallible, and Protestants declared the bible to be infallible. He says that this was in reaction to the Enlightenment and it’s sureties. How different people regarded things before that is another question.
So we don’t have an infallible pope or priests or church leaders, or organization. We don’t have infallible texts, bible or testaments. Chances are we don’t have infallible laypeople and church members either.
All that’s left for people who are believers is the infallibility and perfection of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. Cept how do we know if anyone is ever in touch with their Spirits and their insights?
I have a problem with Exodus that seems more serious that the question of who wrote it. All my life, I have heard in church that the Moses story was that the Pharaoh had to be punished with a series of plagues for his disbelief/disobedience to God. But Exodus 7:3 and the following account show that it was all a set-up to contribute to the Jewish Origin Story. In fact, according to the text, Pharaoh/the Egyptians didn’t deserve punishment because there was no free will choice; it was all engineered by God to make a point. What do Apologists make of that?
Yeah, it’s a real puzzle/problem. My sense is that apologists do the same with it as with all “divine providence/human free will” issues — that say they humans freely chose to do it even though it was ordained, i.e., that there was both divine and human input. Or sometimes they say that God merely “foreknew” that it would happen, and therefore could be said to have caused it (in the sense he didn’t stop it). Etc. But, yeah, it’s a problem.
I began studying the contradictions a while back. The slave laws are what first stood out to me. Can Israelites own other Israelites as slaves? How long can they own slaves? These are answered in conflicting and contradictory ways.
Yup.
In at least one of the gospels, Jesus, as befits God, seems to know he will be put to death but rise again on the third day.
Doesn’t his foreknowledge of the resurrection substantially reduce the magnitude of his sacrifice even though it certainly doesn’t eliminate it?
But maybe that just shows that it was the sacrifice itself, following Jewish practice, that was atoning for sin and “that suffering for us” was secondary at most?
It’s in all four Gospels, pretty emphatically. The Gospel writers seem to want to emphasize both that he wasn’t caught by surprise and that he really suffered horribly. But I’d say it’s true that knowing it’ll all be fantastic once it’s over is not the same as dying in despair. Mark, interestingly, even though he has Jesus predict his resurrection, does indeed die in despair, as if he was no longer sure.
The fact that all versions with their contradictions are recorded in the HB signifies that the Israelites wrote their books for Israelites and for no one else. Judaism was not, and is not, missionary
( the opposite, unfortunately, to this very day).
Israel kept their history and stories zealously, with contradictions never signifying a ” loss of faith”.Jewish peoplehood, and nationhood,kinship, shared history,survival,land,worldview and other aspects incorporate the Torah as central but also part of the many themes that constitute Judaism.
We must infer that the least amount of material was allowed to be discarded in the editing room. Such editing feat is truly magnificent. For all the contradictions that may be found, the logical organizing and telling of a narrative covering thousands of years is admirable.
Our task was to eternally ponder these texts,debate them and still accept them all ,at the core,as the history of the people in their relationship with their God.
Ancient Israel could not have predicted that Christianity would claim ownership of its most sacred texts either.
Rabbinical exegesis of hundreds of years took every sentence and word apart, not always looking at historical veracity but to constantly impart and preserve an evergreen system of meaning.
I enjoyed reading this post. Thanks for that. It sounds very similar to ideas I’ve heard in many Joel Baden YT clips.
One criticism of the atonement doctrine is why couldn’t God just forgive humanity’s sins rather than have to punish and sacrifice Jesus—or anyone else.
Have any theologians made the case that, if, as portrayed in at least one of the gospels, Jesus is God, couldn’t it be said that God actually punished himself rather than punish us for our sins? Isn’t that the same or very similar to just forgiving us? And, in the first place, it’s not hard to imagine a compassionate God necessarily having to suffer in various ways as a result of human sin. Maybe the crucifixion simply dramatizes that.
Maybe one of the key questions is whether atonement is thought of as (a substitute for) vengeance or at least as retributive Justice—on the one hand—or—on the other hand—the equivalent of the suffering actually caused by sin.
Yes, it does get tricky once the doctrine of the Trinity comes in. But even then the Father is usually said to have had the wrote of orchestrating and the Son of executing the divine will. And it creates a similar problem: why would anyone have to sacrifice *themselves* through torture and death to free another. Why not just forgive them?
Great question!
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Do you know what the Methodist stance on homosexuality is? And also: how is it that some churches come to different conclusions on these kinds of matters, surely if one comes to a decision the others will find the same evidence?
Thank you!!
Ah, in the U.S., just a couple of weeks ago, the Methodist church split on the issue. The “United” Methodist church is no longer united. A group of churches left the denomination because most of the churches were not in favor of forbidding LGBTQ people to be ordaines as ministers. In very broad terms, they come to different conclusions because some interpret some passages of the BIble as continuing to be normative and other passages to be restricted to their own originnal time and place. (THe issue: Is this ethical law applicable for all time or have things changed so much that it is no longer applicable. It’s worth stressing that *everyone* agrees some laws are no longer applicable [selling a daughter into slavery; not wearing garments made out of two kinds of fabric]; but there are big disagreements on others (usually involving social issues taht people have firm ideas about *apart* from what the BIble says)
Do you see Exodus 33 as a contradiction? In Exo 33:11 – “So the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend…” and yet later in v. 20 the Lord says Moses cannot see His face. I’ve had a preacher tell me v. 11 isn’t meant to be literal, but it seems to me it clearly means “face to face.”
It’s always interesting to see which *one* part of a contradiction people say isn’t literal. Why that one, and not the other.
I saw this lecture/presentation some time ago and though you might like it. It seems to dovetail into this post:
“Who Wrote the Bible? Episode 1: The Torah”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY-l0X7yGY0&t=56s
Hi Bart, Well, when we consider the literary purposes of the P poem in Genesis 1 and the J allegory in Genesis 2-3, then there are no contradictions, but that is not want wooden literalists want to hear. Do you agree? Cheers, James 🙂
Nope! 🙂
What are your thoughts on David Mitchell’s work on Messiah Ben Joseph? He argues that the anticipation of a suffering Messiah predates Christianity.
http://mydigitalseminary.com/messiah-ben-joseph/
It hasn’t gotten a lot of traction among scholars. I’ve never found it convincing.
I suppose bursting out in laughter is not the expected reaction to an analysis of the Pentateuch, but that’s exactly what I did when reading about some of the discrepancies – especially the livestock problem. I certainly don’t mean to be disrespectful, but that is the case.
With respect to the two creation accounts, how is it possible that the two irreconcilable accounts came to be placed back to back? While piecing together different accounts may explain their existence, it just doesn’t seem possible, at least to me, that the obviously contradictory nature was not detected when assembling the final version. I guess this applies to all of the contradictions you mention, but it seems especially so in the creation account versions.
Readers hardly ever see the discrepancies without someone point them out to them; editors often do that, incorporate two sources they like not realizeing they are at odds (and not examining them point by point to see the problems.) Happens a lot, even though it seems weird. (Happens in TV documentaries iwth talking heads all the time; not to mention undergraduate term papers….)
The issue of the two Gods is true to the history of Ancient Israel, even as some scribal retroactive updating confuses the matter.
Ancient Israel was created from the amalgam of the Canaanite tribes and the migrations from Egypt .The God El, father of the Canaanite gods, gave its name to the name Israel. Isar El ישר אל means ” El won” or ” El became the ruler”, just as Sarah meant princess and in modern Israel, sarah means minister. Shaddai is most likely to have been of Mesopotamian roots. Thus, EL Shaddai was, indeed, the God of the Patriarchs.
The later addition of YHWH to Genesis seems very much a scribal ” improvement”. YHWH was the God of the Shasu( nomads, destroyers) named Yahu (inscribed יהו, perhaps just missing the second ה at first). It was also the God of Midian, where Mose(s) dwelt and the tale of the revelatory burning bush came from.
Mose(s) and the Levites took YHW(H) into Canaan, where it merged with El as in the ” Eloheinu” of the syncretic “Shema” or in , for example, in a name such as Elija, Eliyahu, my God ( my El) is Yahu, Eli-Yahu.
Thus there are no real contradictions at the core of the history relayed by God’s names, as their provenance is attested in material findings.
There is, though, of course, scribal and/or editor tampering with the names of the ” two Gods”. It is remarkable that, coincidentally, both the Canaanite Israelites and the Southern immigrant contingent worshipped one God.
, as henotheists or monolatrous worshippers.
( which ones were they, actually?).
This of course facilitated the merger, though the Levites “won”, as they were dispersed throughout Canaan/Israel. YHWH was elevated to the status of main deity. The ” Shema” tells us that: YHWH is One.
Have you heard of the discovered lost verses of Genesis?
“After the 40-day flood had receded to great voids beneath the earth, Noah was displeased with the behavior of his son, Australia. He instructed Australia to take his wife Malaysia and set sail for a distant far-off land. They took with them the kangaroos, koalas, cassowaries, platypus, wombats, and Tasmanian devils. Noah was also displeased with his son Americ and his wife Canadia…”
Ha! Scribes left that one out!
Good one! Ahaha
Doctor Ehrman,
6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.
in the world jesus lives in, is it true that holy and unholy dont mix? who is the embodiment of unholy ? swines and dogs? and are the disbelievers identified as swines and dogs here?
quote:
6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.
Dogs were seen as unclean, or at least unfavourably. Pigs, obviously, were the quintessentially unclean animal. Calling gentiles “pigs” and “dogs” was a way to say they were not under the law, they were unclean and should not be “touched” (interacted with).
end quote
Yes, the point of “holy” is that it is and is to be completely “set apart” from all that is not holy. Swine were, of course, forbidden as sources of food. And dogs, in that context, were not house pets; they were mongrels on the street who were generally thought of as uncouth and foul.
Great post, as usual, and thank you for it. A quick question: couldn’t the documentary hypothesis also be consistent with some of the sources for the Pentateuch being now lost written sources, in addition to some oral traditions? There amount of material in the Pentateuch is so voluminous that it is hard to believe that it only has oral sources behind it. There are places where the text refers to now lost documents like, for example, in the link below. Also, although your area of expertise is in the biblical texts, have you considered being involved in or working on a historical/critical examination of the Quran? In doing a web search with key words like “contradictions in the Quran” various websites are found that point out contradictions in those writings similar to the kinds of contradictions you have pointed out in the biblical texts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Wars_of_the_Lord
Almost everyone thinks the written sources behind the Pentateuch were themselves based on oral sources and of course other sources could have been involved, but there’s no compelling evidence for it in mos people’s judgment.
I’m not inclined to work on the Qur’an, since I don’t do Arabic, but Stephen Shoemaker, a veyr fine scholar, has done just such an analysis that came out in the summer, called “Creating the Quran”disabledupes{46c757e6f5129aec63d696aa7e826410}disabledupes
I Just want (if I may) to present my understanding here, which “might” be useful:
Contradiction happens when two clear-cut statements cannot both be true.
However, the word “clear-cut” is not really clear; I might see a statement as clear-cut while others not. So, I am going here to breakdown contradictions into: “textual contradictions” and “understanding contradictions”.
“Textual contradictions” are much “closer” to certainty as the contradictions are in the text, while “understanding contradictions” are “probably” a bit far from certainty as they depend on the interpretations.
For example: a statement in a report says: the project finished in 6 days. Another statement in this report says: the project finished in 8 days. There is here a clear “textual contradiction”.
However, if the second statement says: there were three phases in this project: the first took 2 days the second took 2 days and the third took 4 days, then there is no “textual contradiction” here, but there is an “understanding contradiction”: we ”interpreted” it to be 8 days in total which contradict with the first statement. But if we realized that the second and third phases were conducted in parallel then the project took 6 days in total.
———>>
———>>
Textual contradictions are almost like mathematics: we can clearly agree if the contradiction is in the text or in the interpretation. Furthermore, textual contradictions in any book are limited. Understanding contradictions (that are identified based on objective and homeworking efforts) are fluctuated (up and down) due to the new emergent understandings through time.
However, if someone truly hated a book and they based their conclusions on non-objective non-homeworking efforts then the textual contradictions will continue to be limited but their highlighted “understanding contradictions” for this book will become “infinite” as this type of contradictions have a subjective element in it.
My understanding is that there are no textual contradictions in the Quran. The contradictions in the internet are “understanding contradictions”, and most of it are based on non-homeworking non-academic efforts as they have been discussed and reconciled 1200 years ago in the main Quranic commentary books.
However, new objective “understanding contradictions” will continue to appear due to the new understandings that will continue to emerge through time, and as in the past, there will continue to be efforts to reconcile them.
However, understanding contradictions do have a subjective element in it, while textual contradictions don’t.
Hi, I am curious as to the nature of the substance known as “strong drink” in the Old Testament. Examples include Noah and Lot, among others. Do we know anything about this strong drink?
I believe Noah gets drunk on wine (GEn 9:21); so too Lot (19:32) But “strong drink” is mentioned elsewhere, and it’s usually understood to be some kind of liquor. Some have suggested grappa (given the grape production), but I don’t realy know.
My educated guess is some type of fortified wine, or beer.
Dear Bart
Isn’t a contradiction on Genesis 17 between verses 7 and 21? In 7 it’s a covenant with Abraham and all his descendents and in 21 is only with Jacob and all his descendents?
Yup, one of the many problems of Genesis!