Eyewitness Testimony and the Historicity of Scripture

  What does Scripture claim to be? Not what have “experts” said about it. Not what do the History Channel and unbelieving scholars say. What kind of claim does Scripture make for itself? A much fuller answer could be given by reviewing over many hours the many specific texts that speak to it, but a simple summary can be easily stated: the Scriptures claim to be the God-breathed, fully trustworthy, infallible and unerring Word of God, written and preserved for his people. We do not believe the Bible is a book about God written by men. We do not believe it is a record of what others have said about God. We believe it is a completely accurate and trustworthy guide to what God himself says. It is accurate in all that it represents, even when quoting the words of a liar or of the Devil himself. It is not an academic history or a scientific text, but it is accurate in its report of such matters, even if they are not its focus. And while Scripture’s true identity and nature is made known by the Holy Spirit testifying in the regenerate heart, its claims and reports can be tested and corroborated by the historical statements it makes. It is not an unverifiable piece of fairy tale or mythology. It is a historical work of literature testifying of real events involving real people in real places, and its authority is not ethereal but robustly earthly, practical, and powerful for real people living in real places down to the present day.

Fairy tales begin once upon a time in a faraway land, and they end with everyone living happily ever after--okay, technically that’s only true in the sissified Disney versions, but we’re drawing a contrast, not doing in-depth literary analysis of folklore. The fairy tale does not claim to be an historical story; it claims to be about something true that probably never happened. By contrast, much academic historical work and journalisming today claims to be a historical account regarding something that isn’t true. But the Scriptures claim to be both: historical and true to life. Actual and philosophical. And it does this not by recounting imaginary events in a faraway land but by recording real events involving specified persons, places, and times. The ending is a little like a modern fairy tale, but not exactly. The Bridegroom who was destined to be King saves his Bride, slays the Dragon, has a multitude of children, inherits a magical new world, and lives happily ever after together with them there, and everyone else burns in Hell.

Now some people are too enlightened to believe that Scripture is true in its recounting of history, but they say they are perfectly willing to accept it as a guide to faith and worship. How noble. They believe the Bible was written by a bunch of ancient, ignorant boobs who don’t really know what happened and can’t really be trusted concerning what they think they know, but we can definitely rely on them to tell us what to believe and how to get to heaven. This is the kind of proposal only a highly educated person could accept. Anyone with enough sense to come in out of the rain or who has ever had a real blister on his hand is more likely to call that nonsense what it is.

It matters what we think about what Scripture says, because you can’t say the book is false and undependable on one point without undermining everything else. Many scholars are content to mythologize John’s Gospel. It’s the “theological” account, not the original historical version. But that’s not what John says. He says in v.24 this is what really happened. It is eyewitness testimony. And if the witness gets his facts wrong, how can we rely on his testimony? It would be like saying a man was an intelligent, morally upstanding person other than being an arrogant, ignorant liar.

        We cannot speak out of both sides of our mouth when it comes to the Bible, and if you decide to believe that what the Bible says about itself is true, then you have to be prepared for the fact that much of the world will think you are the idiot. If you can’t believe the OT history, why would you think you can rely on the accounts of the resurrection? If the miracles of Jesus are ahistorical exaggerations, how can you trust his power to save you? Human authors will make mistakes. They get it wrong all the time. But if the Bible has errors and its history isn’t historical, the fault belongs to God, because he is the ultimate and infallible Author and Preserver of it. --JME

Why Do I Listen To Preaching?

“As for you, son of man, your people who talk together about you by the walls and at the doors of the houses, say to one another, each to his brother, 'Come, and hear what the word is that comes from the LORD.' And they come to you as people come, and they sit before you as my people, and they hear what you say but they will not do it; for with lustful talk in their mouths they act; their heart is set on their gain. And behold, you are to them like one who sings lustful songs with a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument, for they hear what you say, but they will not do it.” (Ezekiel 33:30-32)

I love listening to good preaching. It thrills me to sit at the feet of faithful men as they open their Bibles and expound the word of God. What a blessing it would have been to hear Ezekiel or Isaiah or John the Baptist or Paul preach! Not everyone enjoys good preaching, but those who do must be on-guard that our delight is not led astray.

The Lord warned Ezekiel not to be puffed up by the praise and popularity of his preaching. Men loved to come and hear him, but their enjoyment was superficial. They did not receive the word of God in their hearts. People enjoyed listening to Ezekiel the same way they enjoy beautiful music. But good preaching is not entertainment. It is edification (up-building) and instruction for the soul.

We must be careful that our joy in exposition does not remain on the surface of our hearts. God’s word is intended to pierce our inner being (Heb. 4:12). It lays us bare, convicting and converting us anew as we persevere in hearing, reading, studying, and meditating on it. James tells us, “Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (1:22). That is a real danger for us all. So love preaching. Enjoy the delight of hearing God’s word proclaimed. Look forward to sitting under the instruction of God’s word. But let it do its work in you. Let the words sink deep in your heart. May the preaching of God’s word give us joy, but even more may we be better, more faithful, and more obedient for having heard it. -JME

Wellhausen and the Documentary Theory

This paper was written for a Church History class last fall. It is only a brief introduction to the issues involved, but I hope you will find it useful and/or interesting. -JME

Julius Wellhausen and
The Documentary Theory of Pentateuchal Origins

Introduction

Julius Wellhausen was born in Germany in 1844, the son of a Protestant pastor.[1] Wellhausen intended to follow his father into the ministry and began studying theology at Gottingen in 1862.[2] Ultimately, he chose to pursue an academic rather than pastoral career. Wellhausen served as a professor of theology at Greifswald for ten years, from 1872-1882. During these years, Wellhausen began to publicize the unorthodox views on Pentateuchal origins that would forever mark him in the annals of Old Testament scholarship. The publication of his landmark Geschichte Israels, I in 1878 generated considerable controversy, and Wellhausen eventually realized he could not remain true to himself and provide seminarians the theological preparation they needed for ministry.[3] Wellhausen was preeminently a historian, not a theologian.[4] He resigned his position as professor of theology and became a lecturer for several years, eventually settling once again in an academic post as a professor of Semitic languages.[5]

The Documentary Theory that will forever be associated with Julius Wellhausen was not conceived by him.[6] The theory was formulated by other scholars, but Wellhausen’s “skill as a linguist and his literary sensitivity enabled him to establish his positions with great thoroughness and care.”[7] Although his theory was not unique, Wellhausen is credited with giving it “such forceful and brilliant expression that a ‘paradigm shift’ began to be established.”[8] He prompted “a flood-tide of opinion” that profoundly influenced Old Testament study.[9]

            Julius Wellhausen forever changed the course of biblical scholarship. Though well-intentioned, he legitimized scholarly skepticism of the biblical documents and undermined both the internal testimony and external traditions associated with the scriptures. We will briefly summarize the Documentary Theory advanced by Wellhausen, the religious motivations involved in it, and the result for Old Testament scholarship.

Wellhausen and the Documentary Theory

Wellhausen was not the first to suggest the books of Moses were actually late compositions arranged from various literary sources, but his restatement of this Documentary Theory was skillful and persuasive.[10] The professor viewed Old Testament history as a compilation of mythological interpretations of religious traditions, not a historical account of Israel’s origins.[11] He accepted a historical Moses had, in some way, founded the Israelite religion, but he denied any of the biblical documents could be dated to his time.[12] He believed claims of Mosaic authorship were not meant to suggest Moses actually wrote these documents but were intended to bolster the documents’ authority by association with a prominent, historical character.

In his Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, Wellhausen proposed to discuss whether the “law is the starting-point for the history of ancient Israel, or not rather for that of Judaism, i.e., of the religious communion which survived the destruction of the nation by the Assyrians and Chaldeans.”[13] His initial interest in the history of the Pentateuch arose from his inability to reconcile the Israelite history found in the historical narratives (e.g. Samuel and Kings) with the prescriptions codified in the books of Law.[14] Rejecting the evidence for Mosaic authorship found in Jewish tradition and the New Testament writings, Wellhausen believed the only means of discovering the origins of the Law was by analysis of the contents coupled with extra-biblical history.[15] He concluded that little more than half of the Old Testament, excepting the Pentateuch, was composed prior to the exile in Babylon.[16]

            In 1822 Friederich Bleek proposed the final written form of the Mosaic tradition should be viewed as a Hexateuch, to include Joshua as a sixth book, rather than the five-fold Pentateuch.[17] By 1860, Old Testament critical scholars had reached a consensus on the composition of the Hexateuch. They agreed Deuteronomy was written in the seventh century B.C. and that the Hexateuch, with the exception of limited post-exilic contributions, had begun to reflect its present form at the hands of Deuteronomic editors in the seventh and sixth centuries.[18]

Eventually scholars proposed four major literary sources which were collated and edited to form the Hexateuch as known in modern times. The Jahwist source (J) was written around 850 B.C. by an anonymous writer in the Southern kingdom of Judah. The Elohist source (E) was written about 750 B.C. by an anonymous writer in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Deuteronomic source (D) was written to support the reforms of King Josiah during the revival of 621 B.C. The Priestly source (P) was written in stages between 570 and 400 B.C.[19]

            Wellhausen supported the JEDP arrangement on the basis of an evolutionary theory of origins.[20] He affirmed the Pentateuch “is no literary unity, and no simple historical quantity.”[21] The original elements had to be disentangled. Wellhausen considered the main portion to be “historical only in form; the history serves merely as a framework on which to arrange the legislative material, or as a mask to disguise it.”[22]

Wellhausen’s Motivation for Historical Criticism

            The leading proponents in the new field of higher criticism believed faith would be strengthened by the discipline, benefiting from a solid, historical foundation rather than blind acceptance of outdated tradition.[23] The older view of the Old Testament as a prophetic collection pointing to Jesus Christ was “being replaced by a fresh and more scholarly apologetic which showed that in the Old Testament were to be found the moral and spiritual foundations of a universal religion.”[24] Many scholars from various philosophical, theological, and ecclesiastical backgrounds embraced critical study, confident they had common cause in the search for truth.[25]

            It is true Wellhausen shows signs of Hegelian philosophical idealism.[26] But it is also true he considered uncovering the true origins of Israel’s religion to be “an achievement of immense religious and spiritual worth.”[27] Readers can perceive “a deep religious feeling, and a very real sensitivity to theological issues” in Wellhausen’s work.[28] He considered the preaching of Jesus to be the “crowning glory” of Old Testament religion.[29]

Wellhausen’s Lasting Influence

            The speculation of higher criticism was largely ignored until deism created an environment which favored “historical skepticism and rejection of the supernatural.”[30] Once historical criticism of the Old Testament literature was accepted, it permeated the rest of religious scholarship, transforming the discipline by introducing a new paradigm.[31] Once the historicity of the Bible was undermined, the theology derived from it suffered as well.

            Subsequent scholars took Wellhausen’s basic premise even further.[32] William Robertson Smith built upon the assumptions of the Wellhausen theory and assumed Old Testament history was largely contrived based on oral traditions.[33] Others described portions of the Old Testament history not as “conscious perversion” but as “unconscious idealization,” affirming the documents could still be viewed as inspired even if not historically accurate.[34]

            Whereas Wellhausen’s analysis focused on the historical origins of the Hexateuch, men like Gerhard von Rad (1901-71) questioned why the sources were written at all, speculating on what kind of God was imagined by those who composed such stories.[35]

Eventually Wellhausen’s theory was disproven and largely discarded even by liberal scholars. Twentieth century scholarship eviscerated the “neat, tight structure erected by the Documentary Theory.”[36] But by and large, “even those scholars who have repudiated Wellhausen have shown no tendency to embrace a more conservative view of the origin of the books of Moses.”[37] Wellhausen legitimized skepticism of the biblical documents. His basic assumption Moses did not write any book remains. No longer do scholars assume the truthfulness or historicity of the canon. They presuppose its claims are not factual, but contrived.

Conclusion

            Julius Wellhausen was a gifted scholar and writer who began with, an apparently sincere, desire to study the word of God more carefully and uncover its historical foundation. But deism, rationalism, and modernism had challenged belief in the supernatural intervention of an immanent God for one hundred and fifty years prior to his birth. Within this environment Wellhausen approached the biblical text with flawed assumptions which biased his conclusions. If we exclude the possibility of the miraculous and divine interaction with the affairs of men described in scripture, we cannot claim to be engaged in unbiased study. Sadly it was Wellhausen’s influence which legitimized skeptical scholarship and ended, perhaps forever, the willingness of many scholars to take seriously the supernatural and historical aspects of scripture.

 

---

[1] Ronald Clements, One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1976) 7.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 6-7.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 1.

[7] Clements, 10.

[8] John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. (London, England: Fortress, 1985),  260.

[9] Ibid., 268.

[10] Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1964), 79.

[11] Clements, 31.

[12] Rogerson, 267.

[13] Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. (Gloucester, MA: Meridian, 1958), 1.

[14] Ibid., 3.

[15] Wellhausen, 2.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Archer, 76.

[18] Rogerson, 257.

[19] Archer, 81.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Wellhausen, 6.

[22] Wellhausen, 7.

[23] Clements, 2.

[24] Ibid., 2.

[25] Ibid., 3.

[26] Clements, 3.

[27] Ibid., 12.

[28] Ibid., 11.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Archer, 73.

[31] Clements, 143.

[32] Ibid., 13-14.

[33] Rogerson, 278.

[34] Rogerson, 284.

[35] Clements, 24.

[36] Archer, 94.

[37] Ibid., 94.

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1964.

Clements, Ronald E. One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1976.

Rogerson, John. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. London, England: Fortress, 1985.

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Gloucester, MA: Meridian, 1958.

PDF