Biblical Interpretations
Study 6D Literary Criticism
Literary Criticism is an internal comparison of the text with itself. It asks such questions as, Is the text consistent with itself? Are different literary styles evident? What words and characteristic expressions are used? Are words or phrases used frequently and consistently or are there changes?
As the literary critics pursue their task, they sometimes expose what appear to be factual incorrectness and inconsistencies within the text. This can pose real problems for people who claim the Bible to be infallible and inerrant. Literary criticism does not create these problems. The text does! The ‘critic’ certainly exposes the problems but then tries to work with them, giving explanations about what causes them.
A number of examples of these inconsistencies in the Old Testament and some in the New Testament will be dealt with. First - the Old Testament.
Research on the Pentateuch done by Jean Astruc in 1753 was published in a paper suggesting that, because different Hebrew words for God were used in Genesis, a difference in authorship was indicated. By using the different words for God, Elohim is translated God and Yahweh translated Lord (or sometimes Yahweh Elohim - Lord God) as his criterion, he divided Genesis into two separate and distinct documents. The different words are used right throughout Genesis. See Genesis 1:1,3,4,6, and compare with 2:5,7,8,9. Look at 6:5, and 8 and then look at 6:9,11 and 13. Then look at 7:1 and 6 and compare these with 7:9 and 16. See also 17:1 and compare with 17:3, 9, 15 and 18. Compare 24:52, 25:21, 23 and 26:25 with 30:17 and 22. Compare 31:3 with 31:24. It continues in 39:2, 5, and 21 with a comparison of 46:1 and 2. These different words are used right throughout Genesis. This is detailed investigation!
If you do this exercise you will have done some literary criticism, looking at the text very closely. Doing too much of it can be very boring!
Other scholars, building on Astruc’s initial work, produced an explanation regarding the growth of the whole Pentateuch. This theory answered many of the puzzling inconsistencies that exist in it. Before we look at this theory, we look at some of the inconsistencies of the text.
One of these important and early inconsistencies that was discovered concerns the names of God. In the Burning Bush story in Exodus 6:2‑3, God is said to be speaking to Moses -
God spoke to Moses and said, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as Almighty God (ie. El Shaddai in Hebrew); but I did not let myself be known to them by my name, Jehovah.” (ie. Yahweh in Hebrew)
Almighty God’ is in Hebrew, ‘E1 Shaddai’. It had ancient connections with the storm gods whom they feared.
The name ‘The Lord’ is in Hebrew, ‘Yahweh’.
God's statement to Moses, above, is consistent with Genesis 17:1 concerning Abraham -
When Abraham was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty.”(ie. El Shaddai in Hebrew)
and Genesis 35:11 concerning Jacob -
So he named him Israel. And God said to him, “I am God Almighty.” (ie. El Shaddai in Hebrew)
However, in Genesis 14:22, concerning Abraham -
but Abraham said to the king of Sodom, “I lift my hand and swear by the Lord,........”(ie. Yahweh in Hebrew)
Abraham calls God Yahweh!
In Genesis 26:25, concerning Isaac -
So Isaac built an alter there and invoked the Lord (ie. Yahweh in Hebrew) by name.
Isaac invokes the name Yahweh!
Genesis 27:20 concerns Jacob. This is the story of Jacob deceiving his father, Isaac, into thinking he was Esau, his brother Jacob brought some venison to Isaac and he was surprised how quickly Jacob met his request. Read the story. Isaac said to his son, “What is this that you have found so quickly?”, and Jacob answered, “It is what the Lord (ie. Yahweh in Hebrew) your God put in my way.”
Jacob calls God Yahweh!
It is apparent from these passages that the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all know God by the name ‘the Lord’ or ‘Yahweh’ in Hebrew. But this is the same name referred to when God said to Moses, “I did not let myself be known to them by my name.”
It seems that there is a serious inconsistency here. We have God telling Moses, who lived hundreds of years after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God had not let this particular name be known to them, but all of them know it.
When all these Genesis stories are taken together, we have a real problem. It could not be that God was lying to Moses about what God let or didn't let Abraham, Isaac and Jacob know. But how did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob know this particular name of God if God expressly informs Moses that He had not made Himself known to them by this name? Surely God is not deceiving Moses!
When taking all the stories together they do not give consistent information.
When we realise, however, that the different stories come from different sources, written by different people at different times, the inconsistencies become at least understandable.
The stories do not agree with respect to the use of the Yahweh name of God, but at least we can accept they are not contradictory, as they would have been had they been written by the same author.
Another question that arises when looking closely at the text of Genesis is; Why does God tell Noah twice to take animals into the ark?
Why is Noah instructed to take one female and one male of every animal in Genesis 6:19 -
And you shall bring living creatures of every kind into the ark to keep them alive with you, two of each kind, a male and female; two of every kind of bird, beast, and reptile shall come to you to be kept alive.
and then a few verses later, instructed to take seven pairs of clean and one pair of unclean animals. In Genesis 7:2-3 -
Take with you seven pairs, male and female, of all beasts that are ritually clean and one pair, male and female, of all beasts that are not clean; also seven pairs, male and female, of every kind of bird - to ensure that life continues on earth.
Why are there two sets of instructions? How would Noah know what was ritually clean and unclean anyway? In the Genesis story, Noah lived a long time prior to any laws or directives about which animals were clean or unclean.
Another question arises when the text is studied closely. Why does Jacob name Bethel twice, once in Genesis 28:19 -
He named that place Beth-El; but the earlier name was of the city was Luz.
and then again in Genesis 35:15 -
Jacob called the place where God had spoken with him Bethel.
One would think naming it once would be enough.
Yet other questions arise. Why are there two different versions of the 4th Commandment, as mentioned in the previous study. One is in Exodus 20:8-11 and the other in Deuteronomy 5:12-15. Why are there two names for the mountain on which the Ten Commandments were given to Moses?
Mt. Sinai is used in Exodus 19:18 -
Mount Sinai was all smoking because the Lord had come down upon it with fire:
and the name Mt. Horeb is used in Deuteronomy 4:15 -
On that day when the Lord spoke to you out of the fire on Horeb....
Are they the same mountain? There is not full agreement amongst scholars on the answer.
So when we look at the text very closely we sometimes expose problems of inconsistency, contradictions, or just a plainly, confused piece of material. Mention has been made of only a few of the examples that arise. Over the past few centuries, literary criticism has been found to be helpful in addressing some of these questions.
As has been stated, problems are not created by literary criticism, but by the text itself. The inconsistencies become apparent when we look at the text closely.
For another example of a problem exposed when reading the text closely, and then being solved by literary criticism, we turn to the story of what happened to Joseph before he was sold in Egypt.
This is an example of a story which cannot withstand an internal examination for consistency. It is suggested that it is an amalgamation of two stories. The confusion remains but we can accept the inconsistencies and not regard them too seriously as they would be if they had been written by the same author.
The story is found in Genesis 37:17-38 & 39:1. The way the text is set out below gives the suggested separation into the two stories. This sort of separation can be done for many other parts of the Pentateuch as well. Some sections are more easily separated into their different components than others. This story is somewhat complex and as such needs some skilled work for the separation. However, when this is done the text makes more sense.
Firstly, read the whole story straight through. One of the confusing elements is the mention of two sets of traders, Ishmaelites and Midianites. It would appear that the Midianites sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites who then sell him in Egypt. However at the end of the story the Midianites sell him in Egypt as well!
Secondly, read only the part printed in ordinary italics. This story tells how both Reuben and Judah protect Joseph from being killed. Judah persuades his brothers to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, who later sell him in Egypt. Joseph’s robe is sprinkled with blood and taken home to Jacob.
Lastly, read the story in bold ordinary print only. In this story, Reuben is the only one who tries to protect Joseph. His brothers are going to kill him but instead they throw him into a pit.
Reuben hopes to rescue him, but Joseph is stolen by the Midianites from the pit and when Reuben discovers Joseph has gone, he is ‘beside himself’. The Midianites later sell Joseph in Egypt.
37:17. The man said, “They have gone away from here ; I heard them speak of going to Dothan.” So Joseph followed his brothers, and he found them at Dothan,
18. They saw him in the distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him.
19. They said to each other, “Here comes this dreamer.
20. Now is our chance; let us kill him and throw him into one of these pits and say that a wild beast has devoured him. Then we shall see what will become of his dreams.”
21. When Reuben heard, he came to his rescue urging them not to take his life., “Let us have no bloodshed.”
22. He said, “Throw him into this pit in the wilderness, but do him no bodily harm.” He meant to save him from them so as to restore him to his father.
23. When Joseph came up to his brothers, they stripped him of the long, sleeved robe, which he was wearing,
24 took him and threw him into the pit. The pit was empty and had no water in it.
25. Then they sat down to eat some food: and, looking up, they saw an Ishmaelite caravan coming in from Gilead on the way down to Egypt, with camels carrying gum, tragacanth and balm and myrrh.
26. Judah said to his brothers, “What shall we gain by killing our brother and concealing his death?
27 Why not sell him to the Ishmaelites? Let us do him no harm, for he is our brother, our own flesh and blood.”; And his brothers agreed with him.
28. Meanwhile some Midianite merchants passed by, they drew Joseph up out of the pit. They sold him for twenty pieces of silver to the Ishmaelites, and they brought Joseph to Egypt.
29. When Reuben went back to the pit and Joseph was not there.
30. He rent his clothes and went back to his brothers and said, “The boy is not there. Where can I go?”
31 Joseph’s brothers took his robe, killed a goat, and dipped it in the goat’s blood.
32. Then they tore the robe, the long, sleeved robe, brought it to their father and said, “Look what we have found. Do you recognise it?
Is this your son’s robe or not?”
33. Jacob did recognise it, and he replied, “It is my son’s robe. A wild beast has devoured him. Joseph has been torn to pieces.”
34. Jacob rent his clothes, put on sackcloth and mourned his son for a long time.
35. His sons and daughters all tried to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted. He said, “I will go to my grave mourning for my son.” Thus Joseph’s father wept for him.
36. Meanwhile the Midianites had sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s eunuchs, the captain of the Guard.
39:1. When Joseph was taken down to Egypt, he was bought by Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s eunuchs, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian. Potiphar bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him there.
If this text above comes from two different sources, then the differences are explained even though we might criticise the amalgamation of the two stories into one as being rather clumsy.
So there are issues raised here, in this story. If there are different sources from which this Bible text is composed, the inconsistencies are explained. They still remain but are understood to be the result of rather poor editing.
Turning now to the New Testament, we consider some of the material in the four Gospels and discover that the issue of consistency is more easily addressed. These are four different accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. We would not expect Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to be identical. If they were, there would be no point in having the four.
For the gospels, the analogy has been used of four different people each giving their own eye‑witness account of a traffic accident. There will be differences. People see things differently and they often remember different details.
And differences there are in the gospels when we compare them with each other! The explanation for this is somewhat more complex than the analogy of the motor vehicle accident, so let us identify some of the obvious differences.
Let us consider three pieces of material from the gospels.
Firstly, consider the narratives of Jesus’ birth. Matthew and Luke are the only Gospels with such stories. They are irreconcilable when compared. Both gospels tell of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem but they disagree on the issue of where the parents lived before this.
In Matthew 2:1 -
Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea,.....
Then, after the flight into Egypt to escape the child slaughter ordered by King Herod, Joseph is warned not to go back there. Instead of going back to live in Bethlehem, he and his family go to Nazareth.
Matthew 2:21‑23 it states that -
So he (Joseph) rose, took mother and child with him, and came to the land of Israel. Hearing, however, that Archelaus had succeeded his father Herod as King of Judaea, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by a dream, he withdrew to the region of Galilee; there he settled in a town called Nazareth.
In Matthew, Nazareth is not mentioned until after the escape into Egypt, after Jesus’ birth. It is only after they return from Egypt that the family go to, and then settle in, Nazareth.
However, Luke 2:4-6 states -
And so Joseph went up to Judea from the town of Nazareth in Galilee, to register at the city of David, called Bethlehem ..... And while they were there the time came for her baby to be born, and she gave birth to a son, her first-born.
In Luke, Jesus’ parents live in Nazareth before his birth and make the journey to Bethlehem for the census. This conflicts with the content of Matthew’s story.
Secondly, the inscriptions on the cross are different for all four gospels.
Matthew 27:37 has –
This is Jesus the King of the Jews.
Mark 15:26 has –
The King of the Jews.
Luke 23:38 has –
This is the King of the Jews.
John 19:19 has –
Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews.
These differences are quite insignificant to many people; however, some would raise them as examples of inconsistencies or even contradictions within the New Testament. It could be stated, “Only one can be historically correct. They cannot all be correct. Three must have false details.” Some would say this is splitting hairs and is of no consequence in the larger debate about Biblical truth. That is absolutely true, however, if a claim that the Bible is without error is made, a problem arises.
Thirdly, if the same sort of comparison is to be made of the four gospel accounts of the women visiting the tomb to anoint the body of' Jesus on the third day after his crucifixion, inconsistency arises.
In Matthew 28:1 -
When Mary of Magdala and the other Mary - go to the tomb.
In Mark 16:1 -
Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James and Salome - go.
In Luke 24:10 -
Mary of Magdala, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and they, with the other women..... are the ones who go.
And in John 20:1 -
only Mary of Magdala goes.
Here again, it is just not possible to combine all these accounts in order to create one factually consistent story. They can’t all be historically accurate and correct. Like the inscriptions on the cross, it could be argued that these inaccuracies are totally unimportant. However, if there is an assertion that the Bible is absolutely correct, that it is without error, then any inaccuracy or inconsistency presents a problem. One could continue with numerous other examples in the Gospels. With different audiences in mind and wanting to emphasise different facets of Jesus' message, each gospel writer tells the story differently.
The problems of inconsistency in the Penteteuch and the four gospels are totally different. The four Gospels are separate and distinct documents. They might be inconsistent when compared with each other, but there is little internal inconsistency within each.
The Pentateuch is only one document and there are inconsistencies within it.
Now for the theory about the Pentateuch’s different sources. It has long been held by the great majority of scholars that there is material from four different sources mixed together in the Pentateuch.
The literary critic’s job is to try to separate it into its different strands. Briefly, this theory states that the Pentateuch was written over a period of about 500 years. The four sources of material have been given the names J, E, P and D. (These are explained in the paper at the end of this study.) There were various amalgamations of different material during those 500 years and after the Exile about 350 BCE. It is suggested that the priest Ezra may have had a hand in its final editing.
You can print out the chart of the evolution of the Penteteuch, using the link at the end of this study.
When one reads the Bible very closely, taking note of all the details, one can list countless inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions right throughout its literature. This is not done to discredit the truth of the Bible or in an effort to diminish the importance of its teachings. It is done to enable all the material we have in the Bible to be approached honestly and openly, endeavouring to find answers for the difficulties that arise. Literary criticism and historical criticism are both used as techniques for explaining many of the inconsistencies encountered.
As well as specific questions regarding the correctness of the text, some broader questions arise as literary criticism is undertaken.
For instance, looking again at the gospels, it is obvious that John’s Gospel is very different to the other three gospels. Why? There are no parables in John’s gospel but that gospel has all the ‘I am’ sayings of Jesus, at least 10. There are no ‘I am’ sayings in the first three Gospels but many parables. When some sayings seem to be so crucial to the writer of one gospel, why are they not mentioned at all in other gospels? This could lead to further questions. Surely if Jesus said these words and they were so important and central to one gospel writer, why do the others ignore them completely, as if Jesus never said them? Did he actually say these words or is the writer/s of John’s gospel preaching about Jesus, giving his/their personal testimony as to who Jesus is for him/them?
Significant words and characteristic phrases that are repeated often reveal a common authorship. It is possible, through literary criticism, to link certain books of the Bible very closely. It is also possible to assert from literary critical studies, that some books of the Bible are a combination of lots of different material originating from different sources, from different authors and even from different historical eras.
Questions for discussion
We have been exposed to serious questions regarding our sacred book. We can ignore these questions or we can take this literary criticism on board but then we are left with a Bible that we can’t take at face value any more. What do you think?
If there is so much inconsistency in the Bible how can we be sure of anything?
If we can’t look for historical or factual truth from the Bible, what sort of truth can it reveal?
A Paper on the Sources and the evolution of the Pentateuch
How do inconsistencies arise? There is a widely accepted theory that the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are considered to be an edited combination of four or more different and very ancient manuscripts which have been lost or were destroyed.
Having looked at the various questions surrounding the authorship of the books of the Bible and also having looked at dating issues, it may be helpful to look a little more closely at the Pentateuch, (the Torah) - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There is a theory, accepted by nearly all reputable scholars, that the creation of the Pentateuch has a long and complex history. These four sources mentioned above have been given the names J, E, D and P. These names are explained later.
It must always be remembered that the J, E, D and P source documents is a theory and not an historical fact. It is a theory put forward, to try to answer some of the textual questions that arise when closely reading the material in the Pentateuch. Some of these questions have been raised previously in this study.
The names of God, which we will look at more closely in a future study, is one of the important ways by which different writings can be identified and separated. The type of language and the type of stories, the statutes and the style of writing used are all reasonably distinctive, enabling literary material to be linked or separated.
Having done some separation, it is possible to tackle the question of dating the material which in turn can assist in further grouping of material. Theological and sociological concepts as well as rules about sacrifice and the covenant are also important identifying factors for this as well as other parts of the Bible.
Before discussing the written documents, it is important to keep in mind that there was a long oral tradition in Israelite history. Before anything was written down, stories, commandments, rituals, and the content of religious ceremonies were handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation for hundreds of years. It is usually accepted now that this oral way of keeping stories alive in the culture, could have given rise to gradual changes as they were handed on from father to son.
The J, E, D and P sources are now identified in more detail.
The J tradition
This tradition takes its name from the word it uses for God ‑‘Jahweh’ (This is an alternative of Yahweh.), translated ‘Lord’. J probably contained the oldest collection of stories and could have been written down at about 950 BCE. It has a ‘southern/Judean’ emphasis. It most probably included the creation story of Genesis in chapter 2, the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, the old Noah stories, many stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. It is suggested that stories associated with the Joshua-lead invasion of 'the promised land' and even up to the time of David, are included.
The E tradition
This tradition also takes its name from the word it uses for God, ‘Elohim’ translated as ‘God’. E was probably another very old collection of stories and this has a ‘northern/Israel’ bias. It could have been written down at about 850 BCE. It has a priestly emphasis and goes well with the P document when they are combined. It may have a shorter historical period of narrative than J, covering a period from Abraham to Moses and maybe not much more. It has the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, and maybe some of the events in the life of Joshua. It is sometimes very difficult to define each of the traditions precisely.
The D tradition
This derives its name from its foundational material that we now have in the Book of Deuteronomy. The D document is probably a single unit and not as much a collection, like J and E. It was probably written at about 650 BCE and has little if any reference to any stories dealing with events prior to Moses. Its basic theme is a reaffirmation of the covenant between God and the chosen race, Israel. Here the legal tradition of the book of Exodus is not just repeated; it is reinterpreted in contemporary (for then) terms, so that the promises and demands of the covenant were brought near to every worshipping Israelite.
Deuteronomy purports to be Moses’ farewell address to the people. The distinctive teaching of the D document is that worship of the Lord is to be centralised in one place. When this document was first made public, the Jerusalem temple was regarded as the central sanctuary. This probably was the book which prompted King Josiah’s sweeping religious reforms referred to in 2 Kings chapters 22 and 23. It is probably the ‘Book of the Law’ mentioned in 2 Kings 22:11 -
When the king heard what was in the book of the law, he rent his clothes, and ordered the Priest, Hilkiah ............ Read on.
The emphases of the Deuteronomy literature are very influential throughout the Old Testament leading to, amongst other things, a revision of the sacred history. It is intensely nationalistic but it is now recognised that it has a totally inadequate way of understanding the processes of human history.
In the older Interpreter's Bible, a scholar, when discussing the influence of Deuteronomy and its ideas, states -
To our own day we are cursed with superficial constructions of the historical process in neat moral categories which history itself contradicts. .... that which saw life in terms of rewards and punishments only, could not cope with the realities of national tragedy....
Deuteronomy teaches that there was a direct link between what happened to Israel and whether or not they had been loyal and faithful worshippers of God. This simply didn’t make sense, and the Deuteronomy ideas were re‑thought by Isaiah, some of the psalmists, and some of the prophets.
Nevertheless, the D document's emphasis on justice and responsibility played an important role in the development of the Israelite religion.
The P tradition
This tradition is given its name because of its Priestly emphases. It was probably gathered and edited between 500 ‑ 450 BCE.
This dates it after the exile and puts it in the historical setting of the return to Jerusalem from Babylon and the rebuilding of the Temple and the nation, around the time of Nehemiah and Ezra.
It is very legalistic and systematic. It had 500 years of theological and religious thought and reflection, above and beyond that which the earliest stories, and traditions J and E had. It has the national experience of the exile and the individual experiences which that precipitated. With this Babylonian experience and the mammoth task of rebuilding the nation, many authoritative, restrictive, and very nationalistic stances were taken by the Jewish leadership.
As we have already seen, there were moves to purify the nation from foreign blood during the time of Ezra. There was a great deal of study of the Law. There was a strong feeling that they, as a nation, had a second chance for a wonderful future and so some of the leaders were adamant that they should not make any of their previously perceived mistakes. Thus, this P document has a great emphasis on circumcision, Sabbath keeping and the prohibition on eating blood. It deals in detail with the building of the Tabernacle.
It has the creation material of Genesis chapter 1. It has stories about Noah, Abraham, and Jacob. It has the part of the Noah story where Noah is commanded to take seven pairs of clean and two pairs of unclean animals into the Ark. Why? Because the writer has Priestly emphasis and is very concerned about ceremonial rules and laws, even for Noah. Some scholars have a different explanation and assign the seven-pair command to the J tradition and have the P document refine the story.
For those of us not used to such literary examinations, this can all be a bit confusing! Which ever way it goes however, there are two different stories dealing with Noah.
A great deal of Leviticus and Numbers was probably part of this P document.
All of this fits very comfortably with the historical situation in which the different proposed documents are said to have been written and in which they exercised their influence.
It has been suggested by some scholars that there were a number of different combinations and editing of the Pentateuch before it came to us in its present form. It is also suggested that the priest Ezra could have had a significant involvement in its final construction.
This theory suggests that the Pentateuch came into its final form at about 350BCE. You can reference the chart you have printed.
This theory of four sources for the Pentateuch gives plausible explanations for the issues raised previously - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knowing God’s special name, the differences between Genesis chapters 1 and 2, Noah being given two different sets of instructions, Jacob naming Bethel twice, and many many other inconsistencies that have not been mentioned.
If we don’t accept this theory, how can we explain the problems encountered?
It may help turning to the four New Testament gospels to help explain this theory.
Each gospel is a separate unit, a reasonably complete unit each telling the story of Jesus in a different environment by different authors. When we compare the gospels with each other, looking at all the details of the events associated with Jesus, his teachings, his parables, his birth, his death and resurrection, we come across numerous differences. Many of these are minor but some are significant. This is not a worry to most of us because we seldom compare the gospels with each other. If we did, we could probably say that the differences are brought about by the different perspectives of the different authors. ‘These differences do not compromise the message’, we could quite rightly assert.
However, imagine this scenario.
Imagine what might happen if we decided to take all the material in all four gospels, and arrange it differently. Instead of having four different stories we wanted to have just one. In this single book we want one co-ordinated story of Jesus. We decide to have five separate chapters in this book.
We set to work and separate out the two sets of stories about the birth of Jesus, one in Matthew and the other in Luke. We combine them into a single short chapter. Our first chapter we call ‘The Birth of Jesus’. We collect into the second chapter all the parables of Jesus and conversations with his disciples. We call this chapter ‘Jesus the teacher’. We extract from all four gospels, the stories of his arguments with the Pharisees, putting them into another chapter, our third, calling it ‘Jesus makes enemies’. We pick out all the miracle and healing stories and put them into another chapter. We name this fourth chapter ‘Jesus, the compassionate miracle worker’. We combine the crucifixion and resurrection stories from all four gospels into yet another separate chapter, our fifth and last, calling it, ‘The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus’. We now have five chapters containing all the material found in all four Gospels. Instead of having four different stories we have one. In the five chapters we have created one continuous narrative following the life and ministry of Jesus, beginning with his birth and ending with his death and resurrection.
We now have our one book containing the story about Jesus and we call it ‘The Story of Jesus’. In this one book the five chapters are:-
Chapter 1 - The Birth of Jesus.
Chapter 2 - Jesus, the teacher.
Chapter 3 - Jesus makes enemies.
Chapter 4 - Jesus, the compassionate miracle worker.
Chapter 5 - The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus.
We find this rearrangement of all the gospels’ material into one story, a very tricky exercise, because many parts of the four gospels are not easy to combine. Differences are numerous. Different wordings of teachings in the different gospels compete with each other. Sometimes, details of ‘Who said what?’ and ‘Who did what?’ do not agree when comparing two or more gospel accounts. ‘What happened when?’ is sometimes tricky to reconcile when the four gospels give different accounts. By using all the material from all the four gospels to create our one coordinated story, we end up with internal inconsistencies because the gospels, the four sources of our material, do not agree in detail. Stories in the gospels dealing with the same event in Jesus’ life are quite different.
The birth stories in Matthew in chapters 1 & 2 and Luke in chapters 2 & 3 are quite different. See earlier notes.
Some parables, with the same basic story line, have very different details; eg. the parable of the great feast in Matthew 22:1-10 and in Luke 14:15-24.
Some of the stories associated with the activities of Jesus also are different in their detail; eg. Jesus walking on the water told in Matthew 14:22-32 and John 6:16-21.
Some of the teachings of Jesus dealing with the same matters are slightly different in different gospels; eg. the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-12 and Luke 6:20-23.
The stories of the resurrection are quite different in their details. See earlier notes in this study. Compare Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John chapters 20 and 21.
These are only a few of the differences. However, these differences do not deter us from our project of combining the four gospels into one storyline. Even though it is a difficult task, we think it is better to have one coordinated story than four separate ones.
Imagine in this scenario, that if, after creating this one coordinated story in the five new chapters, we are not very concerned about preserving the original four gospels and they are either lost or even destroyed.
We are convinced that we have all the material from all four gospels and it is arranged in a better format, so we think. We no longer need the four original gospels. In our newly created book of five chapters we have achieved our goal - one coordinated story of Jesus. We have done a good job.
But there’s more! Now imagine that this scenario moves forward about 1000 years! Many hundreds of years after we created this one book of five chapters, because the four original gospels were lost or destroyed, their very existence is forgotten.
What is left is the single book of five chapters with no concrete evidence of the existence of the original four gospels. Those of us who created the single book of five chapters out of the four gospels, have all long since died - some hundreds of years ago.
After this long stretch of time, people have only the single book of five chapters. But people are now confronted with the inconsistencies within it. They become confused by the inconsistencies and seeming contradictions. Why are the details of ‘Who said what?’ and ‘Who did what?’ and ‘What happened when?’ unclear and sometimes so confusing? Why do some of the parables of Jesus seem to have two different endings? Did Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth before Jesus’ birth or not? Who and how many visited the tomb on the first day of the week to anoint the body of Jesus after his burial? What did Pilate actually write on the cross of Jesus?
Many other questions would arise. Why does the story seem confused, even contradictory? People could create a theory about this problem. They might say, “What if there were a number of other documents, now lost, that told much the same story but did not agree in the details? These lost documents could have been used in the creation of this existing single book with its five chapters. What if those who created what we now have, wanted to use all the material from the ‘lost’ books, even though they didn’t agree in all their details; and what if, after creating this single coordinated story, the editors thought the original documents were not important and so they lost them or even had them destroyed?”
This could be an explanation of the inconsistencies discovered in this book of five chapters covering the story of Jesus. The four sources, that were lost or destroyed and now forgotten, did not agree in detail. Problem solved!
Something similar to this scenario is suggested as a theory behind the inconsistencies that have been uncovered in the Pentateuch. Our Pentateuch has five, as it were, chapters! We call them Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
The theory suggests that there were original sources, now lost, that originated from different historical periods and were written by different authors wishing to emphasise different aspects of their religion. Because of this, these source documents did not agree in detail. The differences in detail cause the inconsistencies when they were amalgamated into the Pentateuch. J, E, D, and P were all different.
Summary
The Pentateuch - Torah took a very long period to evolve. A pictorial presentation of the Pentateuch’s evolution can be printed, as previously suggested. It began with stories and laws being handed down by word of mouth, from father to son, for hundreds of years, an oral tradition. Collections of the earliest writings of these folk-law and folk-lore were probably made some time after the reign of Solomon.
J, E, D and P all represent the different sources of material and the chart has the possible times of their writing/collection. It is suggested that the last major contribution to the material was made by a powerful priest during, or just before, ‘the Return’ from exile in Babylon. As suggested precviously,, the priest Ezra may have taken part in its the final writing/editing.
Questions and quotations for discussion
What do people, who believe Moses wrote the Torah, do with this theory? If they reject this theory how do they explain the inconsistencies?
I have wondered about the creation stories in Genesis. Don’t we have to take them as scientifically correct? If they are not scientifically correct, are they in error? If so, what else is wrong?
Some people believe the earth is only 6000 years old. If not, what do we make of the Biblical record?
None of this has anything to do with Christian discipleship. All this Bible background stuff is too academic. Just tell me the simple story and let’s get on with life.
If we don’t do study of Bible background like this, we will never be able to understand a lot of what it says.
Print a chart of the growth and evolution of the Pentateuch
Print Booklet (Download and print double-side, flip on short edge) The text above has the text of the bookblets edited somewhat and because there are many pictures in the booklets, all reference to them has been omitted.