PENTATEUCH. – A great narrative and legislative work, occupying the first place among the books that form the Bible, composed of “five volumes”: Genesis (q.v.), Exodus (q.v.), Leviticus (q.v.), Numbers (q.v.), Deuteronomy (q.v.).
OUTLINE:
I. Name, subject matter
II. Author
III. Criticism
IV. Ecclesiastical directives.I. Name, subject matter
Already in documents dating back to the 4th century B.C., the book is called Tôrâh, hat-Tôrâh “(the) law” (Neh. 8, 2), a name that remained in common Hebrew usage (Lk. 10, 26); less frequently “Book of Moses,” “Moses” (ibid. 8, 1; 13, 1; Lk. 16, 29). In Greek ecclesiastical usage since the 2nd century A.D. (Origen, In Io., 13, 16) the name (ἡ) Πενταεὐχος prevailed, which in itself is an adjective meaning “the (book, βιβλος) five-part” (τεῦχος, “case” for the preservation of a scroll and “volume”); thus among the Latins Pentateuchus, already by Tertullian (C. Marc., 1, 10).In the biblical canon of the Council of Trent (Denz-U, 784) it is stated: “5 (books) of Moses.” This is because from antiquity the work has been divided into 5 parts, which among the Jews were designated by the first words of each, while in the Greek version (and hence in the Vulgate and modern languages) they were designated on the basis of their content.
spiritual meaning, fully resolved in the p. In Marxism the p. is the simple subjectivization of objective-dialect
workers of Moses, varied in several forms, is part of the entire biblical tradition: “Book of the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8, 31; 23, 6; 2 Kgs. 14, 6); “Book of Moses” (2 Kgs. 2, 3; 2 Chr. 35, 12; Ezra 6, 18; Neh. 13, 1); practically equivalent to these are “Book of the Law of the Lord given through Moses” (2 Chr. 34, 14), “Law of Moses” (2 Chr. 23, 18; Bar. 2, 2; Dan. 9, 11, 13); a particular prescription of the P. (Lev. 26, 14; Deut. 28, 15) is recalled as “the law that God made Moses write” (Bar. 2, 28 ff.).
The same situation is reflected in the New Testament: Jesus speaks of the “Book of Moses” (Mk. 12, 26), of the “Law of Moses,” etc.; he refers to prescriptions of the P. as commands of Moses (Mt. 8, 4; 19, 8); he declares that Moses “wrote of him,” but the Jews do not believe in him, because they do not believe even in the “writings” (ἐγνώκασι). Moses (Jn. 5, 46 ff.). The contemporaries of Christ likewise refer to prescriptions of the P. as of Moses: the Pharisees (Mt. 19, 7; Jn. 8, 5; Acts 6, 14), the Sadducees (Mt. 22, 24), the disciples (Jn. 1, 45). The conviction passes to the Apostles (Acts 3, 22; Rom. 10, 5; 19; 1 Cor. 9, 9, etc.) and to the first faithful (Acts 7, 37; 28, 23).
The Fathers also speak in a way that leaves no doubt that they share the common idea that the first five books of the Bible are by Moses; nor do they suspect that it could be otherwise. The rejection of the Mosaic authorship of the P. made by some heretics (Nazarenes, Manicheans), for doctrinal rather than critical reasons (cf. Homil. Ps.-Clement, 3, 47; St. Epiphanius, Acts 1, 13; 33, 4; 66, 42), seemed a ridiculous extravagance. The statement of St. Jerome (C. Helv., 7): “sive Moysen dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi, sive Esdram eiusdem instauratorem operis, non recuso” does not in the least call the issue into doubt, any more than the legend (the apocryphal 2 Esd. 14, 18 ff.) to which it refers.
The value of these testimonies, including those of Christ and the Apostles, is first of all of a historical-critical nature: they provide proof of the continuity of a tradition that goes back to the time to which the book is attributed, so that they deserve serious consideration even from the standpoint of historical methodology. It is to be noted the categorical and peaceful character of the common conviction, without hesitation or contrary assertions, even though it was well known that the end of Deuteronomy, in which the death of Moses himself is narrated, is by another inspired author (without the text having felt the need to declare it), and other small parts are by other authors.
It is advisable to set aside all expressions whose validity might be undermined by other explanations: e.g., when reference is made to the “book of Moses,” but it is evident that the P. is meant, the book known by the name of Moses (2 Chr. 34, 14). What remain are the passages in which the conviction is explicitly expressed that Moses wrote certain specific passages: in these cases it is not a matter of adaptations by the sacred writer to current modes of expression, but of acceptance and approval of the statement: Moses wrote this. That a proposition of faith emerges from this “seems undeniable.” This is the case with Ex. 17, 14; 24, 4; 34, 27; Num. 33, 2; Deut. 31, 9, 24, for the respective passages (Ex. 17, 8-13; 20-23; etc.), in particular the Song (Deut. 31, 22).
If the extent of the Mosaic writing is enlarged, strictly speaking one must proceed with greater caution: this is the case with Deut. 31, 9 in favor of this law: is it the whole of Deuteronomy? As it now stands? In other cases there is a generic guarantee: the words of Jesus in Jn. 5, 45-47, affirming the existence in the P. of some messianic prophecy (direct or typical, not specified), say that such prophecy is testimony for Jesus himself from Moses (who is joined in the same passage to two other witnesses, to whom certainly books cannot be substituted: John
Pentateuch – Coptic P. Moses before the burning bush with a scroll in his hand. Coptic miniature and writing of the 9th-10th century – Arabic writing of the 13th-14th century – Vatican Library, cod. Vat. copto 1, f. 97.”
While it was publicly admitted that Moses could make use of collaborators who worked under his guidance, expressing all and only what he intended, the P. was implicitly referred to as a single work. Today it is a common view that it would not be in conflict with theological principles to admit that at the death of Moses the P. in its present form did not yet exist, but that the writings, works of Moses (in the strict or broad sense mentioned above), which later flowed entirely and substantially into what became the P., did exist. What is important is that the content of the P. be recognized as Mosaic, the revelations that it contains based on the authority of Moses.
This conclusion, always in a necessary and sufficient sense, is also supported by internal proofs for the Mosaic authorship of the P., proofs of substance and to some extent of form, which scholars have gathered (e.g., A. Bea [q.V. BIBLICA.], pp. 21-24), and which are continually growing thanks to the merit of archaeological and literary studies: that is, that complex of indications that reveal the hand of a writer contemporary with the events and often of the protagonist himself, Moses, and reveal the adherence of the narrative to the course of events, as one would naturally expect in a report that is continually updated (e.g., the abundance of documents for periods of prosperity and their scarcity for difficult ones: q.V. NUMBERS).
The error of criticism, more than in the search for sources or distinct literary units in the P., lies in the refusal to refer the book, or its “sources,” back to Moses himself, thus emptying the tradition of all its content, which refers the fundamental revealed doctrines of that book to the authority of the great Leader and Prophet.
III. CRITICISM
The criticism of the P. is one of the central problems of biblical science for about a century, as shown by very instructive overall studies (A. Bea, J. Coppens). The Protestant B. Witter (1711), the Catholics J. Astruc (1753) and A. Geddes (late 18th century) noted in the text of Genesis some differences that pointed toward the distinction of “documents.”Systematic critical study, with important deductions, did not emerge until the appearance of the “theory of the (two) documents” (J. G. Eichorn, d. 1827: he distinguished in Genesis two documents, roughly corresponding to the later J and P), that of the “supplements” (M. C. De Wette, d. 1843: among other things he attributes the composition of Deuteronomy to the reform of Josiah), and that of the “fragments and additions” (G. A. Ewald, d. 1875, who however changed his opinion several times; then Fr. Bleek, J. F. C. Tuch, etc.), with a tendency to prevail over the first, by the work of numerous adherents who later reformulated it in various ways (H. Hupfeld, A. Kuenen, K. H. Graf, etc.).
In its “classical” form it is bound up with the name of J. Wellhausen (d. 1918), who expounded it especially in the works *Die Composition des Hexateuchs* (the Hexateuch [v.] is P plus the book of Joshua, involved in the same fate), of which the 3rd ed. is of 1899, and *Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels* (6th ed. 1927).
To formulate it Wellhausen made use of ideas coming from fields other than historical-critical exegesis. From Hegelian philosophy, then universally held, he took the principle of cultural and religious evolutionism, according to which Israel, like all other ancient peoples, “had to” pass from the nomadic stage to the agricultural, then to that of commercial and artisan activity, and, correspondingly as regards religion, from a complex of animistic, fetishistic practices to polytheism, then to monolatry, which later still was theorized into true monotheism. Almost absolutely sceptical about the historical value of the biblical books and, in general, of ancient traditions, Wellhausen refused to reckon with any development in history that could not be controlled by documentary evidence.
These principles, applied to the historical-literary development of the Bible and of the religious civilization which they delineate, together with the critical “proofs” expressed with much philological and historical-comparative erudition, led to a representation of ancient Israel quite different from the traditional one. The initiators of Israelite monotheism would have been the prophets, and their writings the oldest texts of the Bible. The Pentateuch, which by a fiction not altogether disinterested on the part of the dominant class was attributed to Moses, a semi-legendary figure of whom history can scarcely say anything, turns out to be the fusion of four different writings of different periods, none earlier than the 9th century, besides minor redactional parts and the “Covenant Code” (Ex. 20:24–23:19) of the 9th century: the Yahwist history (J) of c. 850 B.C. and the Elohist (E) of c. 770 B.C. (so called from the names Jahweh and ’Elohim respectively by which they designate God), combined together about 650 B.C.; Deuteronomy (D), composed at the end of the 7th century, promulgated as a “discovery” (pious fraud) in 620, and becoming the norm for a vast revision of existing writings, including the same JE; the “Priestly Code” (P = *Priesterkodex*), a narrative and legislative book containing various groups of stories and laws of a cultic character, among which the oldest is the “Holiness Code,” now in Lev. 17–26, refashioned with JE through a long process which, about 445 B.C., at the time of Nehemiah’s reform, culminated in what later became the Torah.
Wellhausen also describes the character of the individual “sources,” which in the present Pentateuch are scattered in fragments here and there. The narrative of J, which begins with the origins, is simple and primitive; more reflective is the story of E, which begins with Abraham. D represents a religious and legislative deepening in comparison with J and E, the fruit of prophetic preaching, but a product of “deuteronomic” activity is, besides the present fifth book of the Pentateuch, a general revision of existing writings, including that which previously contained the fusion of J and E. From the activity of the priestly circles in exile, working towards a future restoration on new foundations, there arose the vast historical-legislative writing P, which was in substance the basis of the future Pentateuch, since the complex JE was inserted into it like a framework; this represents the height of speculation and is also formally more evolved (schemes, genealogies, technical formulary of religion and cult).
In the distinction of the sources various internal criteria were applied, especially the following three:
a) The difference in the use of the divine names Jahweh and ’Elohim: in Genesis and Exodus up to ch. 6 the two names are found, with a slight preponderance of the latter (145 J, 165 E, 20 P); in the rest of the Pentateuch almost only the former (124 J, 20 E, 1 P), with certain regularities in the distribution. The interpretation given by Wellhausenism as regards Genesis is that J, assuming the name Jahweh known from the beginning of humanity (Gen. 4:26), uses it throughout the narrative, while E and P, before the revelation of Ex. 3:14, suppose that name unknown and therefore use ’Elohim.
b) Language and vocabulary: the various documents have different lexical, grammatical, and stylistic preferences and reveal Aramaic linguistic influences to different degrees (the lists offered by Wellhausen have been complicated and lengthened by later scholars): e.g., “I” is expressed mostly by ’anokhi in the oldest, always by ’ani in P; “maidservant” is ’amah in J, ’anah in E; the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine are “Canaanites” for J, “Amorites” for E; “to beget” is yalad for J, yalad for P, etc. Proper to P are *bara’* “to create,” *nephesh* “person,” etc.; P has Aramaising forms to the greatest extent.
c) “Doublets”: it is observed that there are traits or episodes repeated two (or three) times, with differences of detail, not of substance: in the process of compilation the two or three forms were sometimes kept distinct (in immediate contact or not), sometimes fused together, but in such a way that analysis leaves the various distinct elements recognizable. As parallels kept distinct are cited the accounts of creation (Gen. 1:1–2:4a and 2:4b–24), of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15 and 17), of the manna and the quails (Ex. 16 and Num. 11), etc. From the splitting of duplicates result the accounts of the Flood (Gen. 6–8), of the plagues of Egypt (Ex. 7–9), etc. These passages were offered by different sources, which had already collected them differentiated from the tradition. This argument from criticism was indicated as decisive for demonstrating that the Pentateuch is not the work of Moses, because certainly Moses would not have used different accounts at least for relating events in which he himself had taken part as protagonist.
Wellhausen immediately found wide assent among scholars, many of whom collaborated in refining his doctrines, deepening and resolving difficulties. E.g., it soon appeared impossible for Wellhausenism to explain how Jahweh “became” a transcendent, moral, universal God, the unique God of the universe, in comparison with colleagues much more powerful like Marduk, Assur, Amon: and K. Budde replied by appealing to the character proper to Jahweh as a divinity not imposed but freely chosen by a people, as the “covenant” shows, one of those deeply human acts which found the spiritual life of humanity; but already the conservative Protestant E. König refuted this paralogism, showing first of all that Jahweh is not chosen but is he who chooses a people.
The theory exerted an enormous influence for several decades after its appearance, penetrating introductions (C. Steuernagel, C. H. Cornill, partially E. König), inspiring contemporary commentaries (W. Nowack, K. Marti, the International Critical Commentary, etc.), biblical theology studies (A. Schulz, W. Smend, B. Stade, E. Kautzsch, A. Berthollet), and histories of Israel.
Consensus was not always so complete: there were important reactions, regarding general principles such as that of religious evolution, especially concerning the overall reconstruction of ancient Near Eastern history (the great weak point of Wellhausen’s system, a typical “armchair” scholar, was its confrontation with archaeological data) and the delineation of Israelite biblical religious and cultural development. In particular, scholars of various tendencies (among whom several great Catholic masters deserve honorable mention—see A. Bea, pp. 34-36; J. Goettsberger [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 75-78)—demonstrated that the presence of laws and certain moral memories in P was undeniable; many arguments advanced by Wellhausen were devoid of value, since the facts adduced had to be interpreted differently.
The insistence on critical reading of the Bible and the absorption of all attention into these arid problems of origins and sources at a certain point reached saturation and generated weariness. Some openly proclaimed this both from the general cultural sphere and among biblical scholars, calling for a return to spiritual and precisely religious problems and values. The possibility of reaping the fruits of a century of studies on the entire ancient Near East, its religions, and literatures conditioned the rise of new exegetical currents, closely akin to the methods of “history of religions” and “form criticism” (v.).
For several decades now, no one has professed Wellhausenism in the form it took half a century ago. Yet it has not been replaced by a system that is substantially traditionalist: after all, non-Catholics remain Wellhausenians, albeit each in their own way. Among living scholars, Th. H. Robinson, J. Hempel, O. Eissfeldt, and W. Rudolph have made important adjustments to the system, expressed reservations, explicitly denied particular points, and yet advanced further in the path of dissection. Thus, to cite a few examples, after much discussion on the unity of E, it has ended by being divided into two (E₁, E₂), called by Eissfeldt L (a “lay” source, lacking “priestly” ideas, composed in David’s time, ca. 950, with older elements) and E₂ (which contains parts once assigned to the additions of E and P); P has also been subdivided (G. von Rad), as have the remaining documents. Meanwhile, a new absolute and relative chronology has been studied (E. König places E at the head of the series); great uncertainty still surrounds the unity and date of D. More recently, it has been denied that E contains narrative elements (P. Volz – W. Rudolph), with important anti-Wellhausen consequences; individual studies have attacked the validity of philological-critical arguments. J. Engnell, with others of the “Uppsala school,” rejects the old methods of literary criticism of P as “desperate.”
A. Weiser and A. Bentzen essentially follow Wellhausen but diverge from him in many applications and conclusions. Bentzen prefers to speak of “strata” rather than “documents” in P and acknowledges that the new generation is skeptical about the documentary hypothesis.
Today, the general conception of Israel’s history and its religious development has, in many respects, drawn closer to the traditional view, thanks to archaeological documentation. When one considers Israel descending from prehistoric origins, now better known, one forms a very different judgment from that obtained by working backward, which was rather the disposition of older scholars: Israel appears in full historical light; beneath Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code there are archaic elements, which the discoveries of Oriental codes invite us to date earlier in a way fully favorable to tradition. As for the literary question, one can only note a fervor of research that cannot be reduced to unity. New analyses of texts are made, new methods are attempted to reconstruct their history—sometimes, unfortunately, chasing fleeting shadows of oral traditions and hypothetical religious ideologies of initiates, but often with excellent positive results. The work of W. F. Albright on monotheism from the Stone Age to Christianity (1940) is indicative of a profound revolution in the minds of many scholars. Great progress has been made regarding the laws: it is admitted that they result from the elaboration of an ancient fundamental writing. As for the narrative parts, however, the hypothesis of multiple parallel strands still largely prevails, which would best account for the structure of P.
The division of sources and their chronology remains the real point of disagreement between the two opposing tendencies—the integral Wellhausenianism and rigid conservatism—and the field on which mutual concessions and attenuations have been attempted by both sides.
a) The conservative tendency has first of all scrutinized the critical arguments cited, greatly reducing their importance. The criterion of divine names has been largely undermined by objections arising from the state of the Hebrew text and the distribution of the two names in ancient translations, which is not uniform; exegesis also shows that the preference for one name over another is sometimes conditioned by psychological, linguistic, or theological motives (A. Bea, p. 54 ff.), so that many scholars today refer to this criterion only as a form of confirmation. The criterion of linguistic differences has also been shattered. In other books, both inside and outside the Bible, certainly by a single author, one can detect at times insistent preferences for particular vocabulary. Often, the differing subject matter (e.g., narratives with different purposes, different laws) required varied terminology; or different words indicate different realities, i.e., apparent synonyms that were precise expressions that had to be distinguished (e.g., Amorites are one thing, Canaanites another; pîkhah is different from ‘amah). In this regard, many observations to be considered established are found in the work of U. Cassuto (v. BIBLICA). Even regarding “doublets,” exaggeration has occurred, both in their assignment (sometimes they are different things, as in the case of the three wives of the patriarchs in peril: Gen 12:1 ff.; 20:1 ff.; 26:7 ff.) and in their interpretation. Legislative doublets represent successive provisions that are repeated or modified. In the case of “fused” doublets, caution is needed for another reason: perhaps the distinction is unwarranted. In the Babylonian flood story in the Gilgamesh epic, tablet XI, there are data that correspond to J and P (A. Sanda [V. BIBLICA.], p. 82).
b) For this reason many authors do not subscribe to the theory of the division of sources; instead, they believe that the work which remained at Moses’ death was already unitary, and that the differences noted are so limited in scope that their explanation can be sought elsewhere than in a difference of origin. The decree of 1906, without expressing any doctrine on the matter (since it directly concerns Mosaic authenticity) and without imposing or suggesting any particular theory, implicitly directed scholars’ attention to the fact of various collaborators, different written and oral sources, and later additions. It has also been observed that Oriental literary art reveals the existence of a technique that imposed certain artistic procedures for various “genres” (just as in Greek tragedy a fixed language tinged with Doric forms was required, certain modes of thought were obligatory for the choruses, while the spoken parts were in Attic dialect; and if they referred to epic cycles, they contained Ionicisms); but the application of this consideration to the case of the Pentateuch is not helpful. For reasons of respect for tradition, others uphold substantial unity, resorting to theories of fragments and supplements (J. Goettsberger, P. Heinisch). Still others uphold the primitive unity of the work, but in a condition that is not known, because the present book results from the reworking of different forms assumed by the primitive text through different transmissions and revisions (A. Vaccari; V. GENESIS).
c) There is also an intermediate position, represented with variations by exegetes of differing inspiration, which consists in distinguishing, so to speak, between a legal line and a factual line. E. Sellin, critic and archaeologist, after many fluctuations in the direction of an increasing rapprochement with tradition, while substantially upholding the distinction of documents (together with other scholars, he attaches importance to a hypothetical connection between the composition of the Pentateuchal narratives and different cultural usages, sanctuaries, etc.), observes that these are not entities so clearly defined that it is possible to isolate them: an isolation which is necessary before proceeding to further conclusions. One may compare this idea with that of Catholic authors who, while not inclined to admit the documents, do not deny the possibility of their existence; they do, however, deny that there is any means of recognizing them in their entirety (e.g., H. Höpfl, *Introduzione in Vet. Test.*, 1st ed., Rome 1921, p. 50). This intermediate position has enabled Catholic authors to adopt the theory of division as a working hypothesis and to consider its foundations and consequences from all aspects: a task whose utility cannot be denied.
d) Nevertheless, it must be stated at once that the position of those exegetes who, with certain qualifications—first of all avoiding impossible divisions into half-verses and limiting themselves to what is certain in passages of well-defined character—have believed they could accept as demonstrated a distinction of sources for Genesis and the entire Pentateuch is not contrary to Catholic requirements.
Should agreement be reached, on the basis of factual observations and disregarding erroneous reconstructions, on the substantial recognition of a certain number of truly distinct and well-defined documents, the authority of tradition would not be contradicted, together with all the value it represents. To advance this hypothesis, one must determine the Mosaic element recognized in each document (“authenticity”): this principle can never be abandoned, for the two reasons already noted—the theological authority and the general value that must be recognized in a sound historical methodology in tradition. It seems that the thought expressed by J. Touzard in his well-known article (v. BIBLICA., col. 724 ff; condemned as containing unsound doctrines on 23 April 1920) was precisely defective in this respect.
The system outlined by M.-J. Lagrange in the documentary hypothesis, limited to Genesis and harmonized with Catholic requirements of respect for tradition, retains general indicative value for the affirmations of principle. “Doublets” seem to be something congenital to the Hebrew spirit, which appears not to feel it can explain itself well except by using different ways of saying the same thing; when it comes to laws, the obvious explanation is the combination of two texts of the same disposition, varied in the actual will of the legislator at two different moments; but if it is a question of history, in cases where a double version must truly be proven, it is more natural to think of originally distinct writings, even if by the same author. The Bible offers a parallel to the difference between two historical-theological visions, one Elohistic and one Yahwistic, in the notice of the introduction, at a given moment, of the name Yahweh as a specification of the generic Semitic ‘Elohim’, with which transition the documents may be connected. The reasons that have led authoritative modern critics to raise the chronology of J and E to the age of David and Solomon—since it is natural that nationalist activity should seek support in ancient promises and divine rights—are much more valid for the time of Moses, who was leading his tribes to the conquest of a homeland. There is no reason to deny Moses the other texts, with the reservations allowed by Catholic principles regarding developments and additions.
For this explanation, or others within the documentary hypothesis, all theories that are incompatible with expiation must be avoided, as well as objections that, though in different form, are also found in the hypothesis of the purely and simply substantial authenticity of a single work written by Moses; e.g., that the conception of the divine is opposed (though to a certain extent a difference may be admitted) in J, E, and P; or that the knowledge of Canaan shown by the documents (less markedly in E than in J) is that of people already residing there. This second difficulty is not insurmountable: the knowledge of Canaan in E, J, and P is that which can be had by neighbors traveling on camel or horseback. Even today in ‘Ammān one can find local people willing to act as guides throughout the country on both sides of the Jordan. One must spend some time in Palestine to realize how small it is! Moreover, the Hebrews came from Egypt, where there was long experience of expeditions to the north: it is instructive, e.g., Seir (v.), for which, according to a recent interpretation of an ancient hieroglyphic text, knowledge could have been gained in Egypt that would have enabled the Hebrews of Moses to take the route described in Deut. 2:8 ff. (cf. J. Janssen, in *Biblia*, 15 [1934], p. 538).
Once these general difficulties are overcome, one must seek for each individual source a dating that allows recognition of the essential Mosaic element it contains. Just as the path chosen by critics to explain the peculiarities of the documents—regarding them as the work of different authors—is not the only one and is false in comparison with tradition, so the chronological differentiation among them can correspond to different periods in Moses’ time. Even in this respect, one can proceed along the path left open by the decree of 1906: Moses’ collaborators would have worked on different compositions at different times and for ever new purposes. Emphasis must be given to the testimonies of P itself regarding the parts written by Moses; to the references of the earliest prophets to laws and traditions as known, recognized, and widespread (thus Hos. 8:12, which speaks of a great quantity of written *Tôrôth*; Amos 2:8, which clearly refers to Deut. 2:4, 12; etc.). An attempt in this direction is that indicated in the cited article by M.-J. Lagrange (for Genesis), which places E and J within the direct activity of Moses and shows that P is to be attributed to Moses, first of all insofar as it is a reworking of the material of the two preceding sources.
The most serious difficulties for dating within the Wellhausen hypothesis were created by Deuteronomy, which was presented as the theoretical enunciation of principles applied in the reform of Josiah (v.). Yet precisely on this point the system has received strong refutations at the hands of many scholars (W. Eichrodt, W. Staerk, A. C. Welch, T. Oestreich, E. Sellin, G. Von Rad), who postulate at least two earlier [editions], deny that Deuteronomy is the code that served as the starting point for a reconstruction according to the priestly ideal, and deny that there is between Deuteronomy and the reform of Josiah the close relationship supposed, which would make the two phenomena perfectly coincident.
IV. ECCLESIASTICAL DIRECTIVES
An important point of comparison, not only theologically, for every doctrine concerning the problem of the P. [Pentateuch] remains the aforementioned decree of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 27 June 1906 on “The Mosaic Authorship of the P.” (Ench. Bibl., op. cit., nn. 174–76). It comprises four points in the form of answers to doubts, but may be summarized in two: an affirmation of the Mosaic authorship of the P., denying that the book as a whole can be regarded as a collection of writings posterior to Moses; a clarification of the concept of Mosaic authorship, stating that it does not imply personal and direct composition by the author, does not exclude the use of written and oral sources, nor does it exclude later modifications and even additions. On the present meaning of the decree and the unfounded nature of the accusations leveled against it cf. J. Coppens, Histoire... (v. BIBLICA), pp. 171–94. The current directives of ecclesiastical authority are expressed in the letter of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (16 Jan. 1948) to Cardinal E. C. Suhard, archbishop of Paris, signed by the secretary J. M. Vosté (AAS, 40 [1948], pp. 45–48).The following problems remain debated, in large part even among Catholics: the general conception of the historical-literary development of Israel as represented in the Bible; the meaning of Mosaic authorship; the division and chronology of the sources; the historiographical method applied in the P.
The reference to tradition must be clarified in comparison with the notion of Mosaic authorship, which recurs in ecclesiastical documents and in common Catholic studies. The decree of 1906, by defining that Moses is the author of the P. through the exclusion of theories that derive this book from writings posterior to him, and on the other hand admitting that Moses could avail himself of the work of others, extends the notion of author to that of “responsible author.” The same extension applies to possible earlier literary units (written and oral traditions) incorporated into the P. Thus the definition of authorship is broadened well beyond the sense the term has at first glance. A rational application of it opens the way to the resolution of many problems, including that of the division of sources and their dating. For this reason many authors have sought to explain and develop II. Some have concluded that the second and third responses intend a “substantial” or “content” authorship rather than a “literary” or “formal” authorship. The letter of the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Cardinal E. C. Suhard of 16 Jan. 1948 (AAS, 40 [1948], pp. 45–48) invites Catholic scholars to study the question more deeply. This document is authentically interpreted by the encyclical Humani generis (AAS, 42 [1950], p. 576). With regard to laws, this conception does not seem to present notable difficulties: many nations of Europe still have the “Code Napoléon,” yet it is known that upon the Napoleonic foundation many new elements have been added, updating the law according to the liberal principles the famous leader wished to affirm in his legislation. Naturally, for the expression to be correct, it must be that the ancient foundation is indeed preserved (in the Mosaic case this is certain, if only from what tradition and comparative oriental law teach) and that the new developments are truly deduced from the general principles preserved (of this, too, the internal coherence of Hebrew law bears witness). What matters most, some have said, is the principle “of the fundamental character of Mosaicism and of the evolution of Israelite law in its spirit and direction” (H. Dumeste, cited by J. Coppens [V. BIBLICA.], p. 187). In a broader sense some would include even truly new developments, but entirely consistent with the traditional part, just as doctrines that are not found expressed in the works of Aquinas but are in strict harmony with his thought might be regarded as authentically Thomistic: the case of the P. is somewhat different, but it may also be said that good legislation is always an application of general principles and particular cases, as in a logical system of thought.
For the narratives, the possibilities of a benevolent interpretation for criticism seem smaller, but they are not excluded. Among Catholics the most advanced appears to be P. Heinisch: in his esteemed commentaries on the P. he denies to Moses an impressive quantity of laws and even of narrative sections; and he gives the judgment already expressed by G. Hoberg and later by A. Allgeier: “The P. is the product of religious development within the people entrusted with Revelation, from Moses down to the time after the Babylonian exile, on the basis of the dispositions fixed in writing by Moses” (Biblische Zeitgesch., Freiburg i. Br. 1937, p. 60; cf. pp. 49–66). Even here the Mosaic guarantee for some passages is direct, for others it is taught by internal characteristics, at least for reasons of coherence.
In the conception of the development of Israelite history within the framework of ancient history, the movement in the direction of traditional theses has been continuous: the progress of archaeology has increasingly confirmed the historical data of the Bible. The thesis, expressed or latent in all Wellhausenian writings, of an Israelite historical-religious evolution from an initial polydaemonistic phase to a legalistic-cultic form, is not justified by the facts. It is not true that at the outset there is always a more backward religious form; on the contrary, it is true that all more or less clearly developed religious cultures show at the beginning the idea of a supreme God. Moreover, the Hebrews at their historical origins, emerging from the Semitic stock, were not primitives.
In the matter of religion Israel was incomparably superior to its environmental conditions. In Hebrew there is no trace of a nominal formation for “from.” The study of the religions of Babylon and Egypt has confirmed the unique character of Hebrew religion. Learned men “confess that at the origins there must have been the ‘charisma,’ the ‘inspired personality,’” and conclude with a reserved reference to Ex. 3:14 ff. and 19:5–22. No scholar, even non-Catholic, after the works, e.g., of H. Gunkel on the prophets, could any longer attribute to prophecy the invention of Hebrew monotheism. Nor is it true that civilization in general is in a constant ascending line.
Archaeological and ancient historical studies have especially shown that Israel is not isolated within civilization. Comparison with the traditions of other peoples lends the greatest confidence to those of the Bible. The discovery of Oriental codices, some of which are several centuries earlier than Moses (in recent years, alongside the Code of Hammurabi, even older ones from the kings Lipit-Ishtar and Bilalama have been found), has shown that the Mosaic body of laws, which Wellhausen traced back to the Exile (6th century B.C.), reveals archaic elements and is by no means anachronistic for the period to which the Bible assigns II. The discovery of the existence of alphabetic writing (v. ALPHABET) precisely in the region of Sinai and Canaan, and under such conditions as to suggest that it was widely diffused well before the end of the second millennium (the surviving examples are accidental), shows that Moses not only could have used it but very probably did so. Perhaps the use of writing by Moses is to be linked with its already existing use within the patriarchal family (which, it is well to recall, was not composed of “primitive” people) from the time of their entry into Canaan and Egypt, a use that is hypothetical but rendered entirely plausible by the circumstances mentioned.
Moses would not have been credited with the Pentateuch if its core in some way were not his; and, on the other hand, the attribution to the personality of a legislator, at least in essentials, is demanded by the character of that code, which is strictly theocratic and cannot be conceived as an anonymous compilation of existing customs. As for the ritual part, the judgments of critics are so discordant (cf. A. Bea, in Biblica, 16 [1935], p. 190) that they inspire no confidence; considering it, as tradition does, as part of the whole Torah remains therefore the best course.
All this vindicates those scholars who advocate, even in biblical studies—as classical and medieval philologists have already done—a progressively more respectful return to patriarchal and Mosaic traditions (A. Bea, ibid., p. 199). Progress in this field will also have useful repercussions in the literary sphere, where the question of the Pentateuch is properly situated.
As for the method employed in the Pentateuch, as in most of the oldest historical books of the Bible, important explanations have been gained that must be kept in mind for interpretation, whatever answer is given to the question of its origin: since the Pentateuch is a composite work even on the hypothesis of strict Mosaic authorship, by reason of its use of information from various sources (Pontifical Biblical Commission, Decree n. 111). In judging the historiography of the Old Testament, one must bear in mind “the limits and cautions” recalled by the encyclical Humani generis (AAS, 42 [1950], pp. 576–77).
Catholic principles on inspiration affirm a human element in the composition of Sacred Scripture and attribute to the compiler the true status of author. This human element is recognized in everything that serves to express the divine thought: thus language with its possible idioms, the complex of ideas that form a culture or civilization, and what is important here, literary technique. The procedures that in modern mentality a honest and truthful historiography must follow were not judged in the same way by ancient Orientals, who, when they found a written report and approved it, could include it without citing the source.
I. Guidi (L’historiographie chez les Sémites, in Revue biblique, 15 [1906], pp. 509–19) pointed out the sources, as he identified them, of Arabic narratives used second-hand with adaptations of details, sometimes done with skill worthy of admiration. The joining of different passages involves elements of composition that have more a literary than a historical function. This consideration may be among those useful for illustrating point IV of the 1906 decree. A similar case is that of “doublets”: when the Semitic writer was faced with two accounts of the same event with differing details, if he had no reason to prefer one, he would merge them, preserving the distinctive elements of each or reporting both. But he did this precisely out of scrupulous regard for historical truth: attachment to tradition moved him to do so. Respect for the written testimony led him to preserve what it reported; the lesson is in the whole.
These criteria also serve to justify “later additions,” which Catholic exegesis admits even in the Pentateuch, and sometimes in considerable extensions, groups of several verses forming a coherent sense. Some hold that in a documentary hypothesis the insertion of such phrases and passages by inspired men is easier to understand than in the hypothesis of insertion into a book already recognized as such, unless one supposes that these passages were added to the book of Moses because there was no other containing the ancient traditions and laws. Suffice it as examples: Deut. 17:14–20 (the law of the king: cf. 1 Sam. 8, especially vv. 6–9, 18, and 1 Sam. 10:25, according to which the “statute of the kingdom” was written by Samuel); Ex. 16:23 (which, if by Moses, was added at the end of his life); Num. 32:41–42; Gen. 36:31–43 (cf. V. 31); Deut. 4:41–42; 19:7; elements of Deut. 14 and 26; etc.
Moreover, these later additions, to which Catholic criticism devotes all its attention and diligence out of respect for the Sacred Book “cum omnibus suis partibus,” recognizing in them the guarantee of inspiration, do not contain those fundamental doctrinal data that make the Pentateuch the first great stage of written Revelation, the remotest foundation of faith, and the necessary presupposition of the Gospel. Even the principal revelations of the Pentateuch are in a certain way illumined by Christ: the presupposition from which the messianism of Jewish expectation and Christian fulfillment develops and gives to Christ’s mission the meaning of reparation and reconciliation, redemption, λύτρωσις, is in Gen. 3:15. Likewise, in parts exclusively Mosaic, one finds those primordial revelatory teachings on monotheism, creation, fundamental moral law, and the Decalogue (v.), from which the unique importance of this book for faith appears in all its fullness.