A critique of the documentary hypothesis

Summary: This essay argues that the Torah is a divine text written by Moses at God’s command, and it rejects higher biblical criticism which claims the Torah was composed from multiple human sources (J, E, P, D) and edited much later. It critiques the documentary hypothesis on several grounds: the absence of any ancient Jewish tradition mentioning multiple Torah versions, the improbability that a nation would accept a newly-composed scripture, and the implausibility of a Redactor weaving together separate sources without any record of him doing this. Archaeological, historical, and biblical evidence is presented that Israelites in the early biblical period possessed a known “book of the Torah” and practiced its laws, implying a continuous tradition rather than a late composition. Drawing on the scholarship of Umberto Cassuto, the essay argues that variations such as the divine names YHWH and Elohim reflect theological nuance and literary purpose, and not multiple authors. Ultimately, the essay maintains that the Torah’s coherence, literary sophistication, fulfilled prophecies, and the historical survival and restoration of the Jewish people support its divine origin rather than human compilation.

The four sources proposed by Wellhausen

Each of the sources in the system of Wellhausen constituted a full and independent account of the history of Israel, and even more crucial — to the development of the religion of ancient Israel.3 Each document also possessed its own theology, politics, language and style.3

The J or Yahwist source is the earliest of the four sources and is presumed to have been written by scribes in the court of the southern Kingdom of Judah in the early monarchal period, in about 950 BCE. It is characterized by vivid, anthropomorphic descriptions of God. It uses YHWH as the name of God from the very beginning of the Torah, and the second creation account is considered a J source.

The E or Elohist source arose later in the Northern Kingdom of Israel and is dated by most scholars to the eighth century BCE. It was probably woven together with the J source after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE, possibly by scribes from the southern Kingdom of Judea. This fusion of E and J sources has been termed by some scholars the JE narrative. The E source emphasizes divine majesty and focuses on prophecies, dreams, angels, and divine promises. It considers the name of God YHWH to have been first revealed to Moses, the name of Elohim being employed prior to this time. Genesis chapters 20 to 22 where Abraham interacts with God using mainly the name Elohim are considered an E source. The sections that feature Moses' encounters with God at the burning bush and the revelation of the divine name YHWH in Exodus chapter 3 are frequently considered Elohist.

The D or Deuteronomist source comprises the main part of the Book of Deuteronomy, and it emphasizes religious reform and law codes. It is thought to have been composed by scribes in the southern kingdom of Judah during the reign of King Josiah in the late seventh century or early sixth century BCE. A copy of this book was discovered in the Temple at that time.

The P or Priestly source is thought to have been written by Temple priests in about the sixth century BCE during the Babylonian Exile (587–539 BCE), although some scholars suggest it was compiled and completed in the early Second Temple period when the exiled Jewish community returned to Judea under Persian rule. The P source focuses on ritual, genealogy and priestly matters and reflects a concern for order and ceremony. It emphasizes the transcendent and majestic nature of God. The name YHWH is not mentioned until the time of Moses.

The P source is evident in the creation account of Genesis 1, which presents a structured and orderly depiction of God's creation over six days. The Noah account is a blend of J and P sources. The P source is prominent in the detailed instructions for construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25-31) and the description of its rituals and furnishings (Exodus 35-40). These passages focus on the importance of proper worship and the role of the priests. The entire book of Leviticus is heavily influenced by the Priestly source with its detailed laws and regulations concerning sacrifices, rituals, purity, and the responsibilities of the priests, as are sections of Numbers, particularly those dealing with census data, genealogies, and rituals related to the priesthood such as the consecration of the Levites and laws governing the priesthood. Scholars have identified elements of the P source throughout the Torah where there are detailed legal or ritualistic instructions, covenants, lists of genealogies, and narratives that emphasize the importance of proper worship and adherence to religious laws.

The documentary hypothesis assumes that the Pentateuch was redacted during or shortly after the Babylonian exile (586–539 BCE), although the process may have continued over an extended time. A need was felt at that time for consolidation of the traditions and sources of Israelite history and law so as to provide a coherent religious narrative and legal foundation for the Israelites. Earlier dates for the redaction have also been suggested.

It needs be mentioned that over the last century some scholars have raised questions about the viability of the documentary hypothesis, and a modified version of this hypothesis has been suggested that looks only at problem areas rather than the totality of the Torah text.4

Initial critiques of the redaction and composition of different Torah sources

Biblical criticism is a highly imaginative hypothesis that reflects a total misreading of biblical format and poor knowledge of the evolution of Jewish tradition.

Why, for example, would the two Jewish kingdoms possess compositions for some of the early parts of Genesis, say for the Noah stories, that are somewhat similar? It is suggested in these pages that both Noah stories are allegories that are loosely based on mythology. And why should both allegories be considered equally authentic that it was felt necessary to combine them?

Moreover, it is highly improbable that the Judean Kingdom would have agreed to join manuscripts from the Northern Kingdom with their own. From the time of the separation of the Ten Tribes and their worship of golden calves at Beit El and Dan, the religious level of the Northern Kingdom was at a lower level than that of the southern kingdom of Judah and Benjamin.

The documentary hypothesis also assumes that when the redactor finally completed his composition, the entire Jewish nation readily accepted it. A creative writer could perhaps have composed a new version of the Torah relatively easily, but that the entire Jewish people would readily accept his new composition is highly improbable. Moses relied on a sound-and-light show on Mount Sinai and the appearance of God Himself within smoke and accompanied by thunder and lightning and the drawn-out sound of the shofar to convince the people of the authenticity of his revelation.

Tellingly, there is no mention in any early Jewish source, such as the Bible, Mishnah or the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud, of different circulating versions of the Torah. It is not as if the Talmud does not discuss the authorship of various biblical books. It does.5 But no mention is ever made of the Torah having different authors, other than for its last few sentences. These sentences could not have been written by Moses as he had already died. Moreover, none of the presumed sources has been found as a separate document, including among the Dead Sea scrolls.

It is also inconceivable that a redactor would have worked on such a major project during or sometime after the return from the Babylonian exile without there being some mention in the Mishna or Talmud of a redaction. The Talmud does discuss the fact that Ezra changed the Torah from an Ivrit to Ashuric script early in the return to Judea so that the people could more readily read it. But this is minor league compared to joining manuscript sources together to form a totally new Torah.6

Torah tradition in the early biblical period

It is clear from the Bible that a book containing the Torah was familiar to Israelites in the period of the Judges and early monarchy. The beginning of the book of Joshua quotes a speech by Joshua that explicitly makes this point:

O that you will strengthen yourself and persevere very much in order to observe, to do, according to all of the Torah that Moses my servant has commanded you. Do not deviate from him to the right or to the left that you may succeed wherever you may go. This book of the Torah is not to leave your mouth (Joshua 1:7-8).

Also, when the Children of Israel were on Mount Ebal:

Then Joshua built an altar to YHWH the God of Israel on Mount Eval as Moses, the servant of YHWH, commanded the Children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the Torah of Moses (Joshua 8:31).

And

He [Joshua] inscribed there on the stones a copy of the Torah of Moses, which he wrote before the Children of Israel” (ibid 8:32). Afterwards “he read all the words of the Torah, the blessings and the curses, according to all that is written in the book of the Torah (ibid 8:34).

There are other examples. 2 Kings 14:6 and 2 Chronicles 25:4 refer to a law written in “the Book of the Torah of Moses” and they cite Deuteronomy 24:16 regarding children not being put to death for their parents.

Ezra is described as being “a scribe skilled in the Torah of Moses” (Ezra 7:6). In Nehemiah 8, Ezra reads from “the Book of the Torah of Moses” in a public Torah reading. In Nehemiah 13:1 “The Book of Moses was read in the ears of the people,” and this section quotes Deuteronomy 23:4–5 regarding an Ammonite and Moabite not being able to enter forever the congregation of Israel. Daniel 9:11 and 13 refer to curses written “in the Torah of Moses the servant of God,” corresponding to Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. Malachi 3:22, the last of the prophets, states: “Remember the Torah of Moses My servant, which I commanded him at Horeb.”

All these quotations assume just one Torah, and there is never any mention of multiple versions. Aspects of the Torah were also practiced during this period, suggesting the existence of a transmitted tradition.

A few examples:

The prophet Samuel wished to eradicate the tribe of Amalek as proscribed in Exodus 17:2-16 and Deuteronomy 25:17-19. He was also aware that this was to be more than a vengeance attack and that everything that belonged to Amalek needed to be destroyed as an offering to God:

And Samuel said to Saul: “. . . So said the Lord of Hosts: ‘I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, what he did to him on the way, when he came up out of Egypt. Now go and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him; and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass’” (1 Samuel 15:1-3).

It is apparent from excavations at Shilo in Samaria that the courtyard of the Tabernacle had the same dimensions as that in the desert. The courtyard of the Tabernacle is described in Exodus 27:18 as measuring 100 cubits long by 50 cubits wide, with the Tabernacle being contained within it. On the northern plateau of the tel at Shilo was found a large rectangular, flat, rock-cut area measuring 50 meters × 27 meters (roughly 100 × 50 cubits, assuming a cubit equals 0.5 meters), corresponding strikingly to the dimensions of the Tabernacle courtyard.7

It is evident from 2 Samuel 24:1–10, and the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21:1–8, that King David’s general Joab knew that it was forbidden to take a direct census of the Israelite nation, and he protested when David ordered him to do so:

And Joab said to the king: “May the Lord your God add to the people a hundredfold, as many as they are, while the eyes of my lord the king still see it; but why does my lord the king desire this thing?”

1 Chronicles 21:6 relates that Joab refused to count the tribes of Levi and Benjamin, apparently recognizing their special status and attempting to minimize the risk involved. The census did indeed result in a plague that killed 70,000 Jews (2 Samuel 24:15). The Torah does not forbid a census outright, but sets a strict condition on how it should be done, using a donation of a half-shekel per person instead of direct counting:

YHWH spoke to Moses saying: “When you will take a census of the Children of Israel to count them, each one must give to YHWH an atonement for his soul at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come upon them when counting them. This is what they shall give — everyone who passes among the counted — half of the shekel. . . (Exodus 30:12-13).

A final example:

Ruth gleans fallen stalks (leket) during the harvest from Boaz’s field. Leket is described in the Book of Leviticus:

“…neither shall you gather the gleanings (leket) of your harvest” (Leviticus 19:9)

and also:

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the edge of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger (Leviticus 23:22).8

Nevertheless, one could well ask as to whether extra sections were added to the Torah by prophets or priests, particularly in the narrative sections and especially at a time when there was little general knowledge of the Torah text and few people would have been aware of what was happening?

According to the Torah itself, revision of the text is prohibited. The following is the primary biblical verse cited in halakhic sources that forbids textual alterations:

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you (Deuteronomy 4:2).9

Even if this verse was interpreted differently, any textual revisions of the Torah during the Babylonian or Persian periods would have had to be approved by The Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei HaKnesset Hagdola). This was a group of 120 sages who led the Jewish people at the very end of the biblical period and the beginning of the Rabbinic period, roughly from the late 6th century BCE to the early 3rd century BCE. They were responsible for reestablishing Jewish religious life in Judea after the exile. It is generally agreed that they finalized and canonized the Hebrew Bible (the Tanach) as we have it. It is unimaginable that they would have configured different texts without there being some mention of this in Jewish sources.

Critique of the documentary hypothesis based on the names of God

According to the documentary hypothesis, God’s names serve as a key marker for distinguishing Torah sources. The Yahwist (J) source consistently uses the divine name YHWH from the beginning of the Torah and portrays God in personal and anthropomorphic terms. The Elohist (E) source uses the name Elohim until the divine name YHWH is revealed and depicts God as transcendent and communicating through dreams or intermediaries. The Priestly (P) source also uses the name Elohim prior to God’s second recruitment speech in Exodus 6:2–3, although from this point on the name YHWH is revealed to Moses, reflecting a structured theology of progressive revelation. Thus, alternations between YHWH and Elohim are not random but provide a central clue for identifying each source’s distinctive theology and narrative style.

I introduced in the previous chapter an alternative reason as to why the Torah uses different names for God based on the work of Cassuto.10 I discussed that the names of God reflect the nature of the relationship between God, the forefathers and Israelite nation. In brief, YHWH is an immanent God who desires close relationships, while Elohim is a transcendent God Who is more distant is His relationships.

An example in the Torah that illustrate this is in relation to sacrifices. A sacrifice is a means of drawing close to God, and is invariably offered to YHWH. Thus, Noah builds an altar to YHWH (Genesis 8:20), even though it was Elohim who instructed him to leave the ark several sentences earlier (ibid 8:15).

There is, however, a single exception to this in the Torah:

Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, took an olah-offering and peace-offering for Elohim, and Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread with the father-in-law of Moses before Elohim (Exodus 18:12).

The entire passage in Exodus 18:1–27 recording Jethro’s visit is widely recognized in the documentary hypothesis as a non-Priestly narrative that is primarily E (Elohist), with some editorial touches from the J (Yahwist) source or the redactor (R). Other scholars consider the original E story to have ended at v. 12 and the subsequent judicial advice (verses. 13–27) to have been added later by the redactor, possibly using J or Deuteronomic material to connect the episode with later Sinai legislation.

There is, however, a much simpler way of looking at this passage. Following the general rule, this sacrifice should have been offered to YHWH. However, as a priest of Midian, Jethro’s approach to God was as a universal, transcendent God, characteristic of Elohim. This is why Jethro greeted Moses by saying: “Now I know that YHWH is greater than all the deities, for with the thing that they planned, [He came] upon them” (Exodus 18:10).11 Would it not have been more appropriate if he had said that YHWH is the only deity? Jethro’s concept of the deity he worshipped was so foreign to his son-in-law Moses, a prophet of YHWH, that he did not attend this first recorded ecumenical event in human history. This is why Moses’ name is not mentioned as being among the guests at the sacrificial meal —" only Aaron and all the elders of Israel.”12

Critique of the documentary hypothesis based on the Torah’s literary structure

The documentary hypothesis also falls short based on the literary aspects of the Torah.

As subsequent chapters will show, there is continuity to the stories in the Book of Genesis that transcends their presumed sources. In other words, the early stories in the Torah are always heading somewhere.

As will shortly be explained, the first creation story constitutes an introduction to holiness and God’s institution of the Sabbath. The documentary hypothesis suggests that the first creation story is a P source. One might anticipate, therefore, that further elaboration on the Sabbath would continue to be written by the P source. However, the laws of the Sabbath are mentioned subsequently several times in the Torah and are considered a mixture of E and P sources. The Ten Commandments, which is an E source, even contains words found in the creation account – “YHWH blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.” This can be summarized as follows:

However, it is more logical to say that although the Ten Commandments are introduced by Elohim, all else in the Torah about the Sabbath following the first creation story, including the details of the Ten Commandments, relate to YHWH. This is because YHWH is now the national God of the Jewish people who is always referred to as YHWH, and the Sabbath is the sign of His covenant.

Another literary example. According to the documentary hypothesis, the body of the Noah story is primarily a P source, although it has J verses mixed within it. Each of these two sources can be prized apart and each is more or less the same story, although with notable gaps (which are filled in by the other source). There are also a few contradictions between these sources, for example in the number of animals brought to the ark.

As will be discussed in the chapter on “The Noah story and the names of God,” there are chiastic structures within this story that are made up of presumed J and P sources:

And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. (Genesis 7:10, P source ). . . . And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights” (Genesis 7:17, J source) . . . . And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days (Genesis 7:24, P source).

When the flood subsides, everything is in reverse, including its timing in days, and comprising the same mixture of J and P sources:

And the waters then receded from upon the earth, receding continuously; and the waters diminished after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated (Genesis 8:3, P source). . . . And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made (Genesis 8:6, J source). . . . And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark (Genesis 8:10, J source). . . . And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which did not return back to him anymore (Genesis 8:12, J source).

More than this, the entire Noah story constitutes one big chiasmus, with a complete mixture of presumed J and P sources with 15 items in each direction (see also “The Noah story and the names of God”).

Could a skillful redactor have joined his sources together to make these types of chiasmi? It is certainly possible. However, it is far more logical to say that the Noah story was composed exactly as we find it today, with God displaying two of His relational aspects in this story, primarily that of Elohim, but also that of YHWH.

There is another example which seems at first glance to be a convincing passage in favor of the documentary hypothesis, but in actuality turns out to be exactly the opposite. In a recruitment speech made by God to Moses, the Torah relates:

And Elohim spoke to Moses and said to him. I am YHWH. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but through My name YHWH I did not become known to them (Exodus 6:2).

However, we know that God appeared to the forefathers many times by the name YHWH!

The continuation of this speech in Exodus is regarded by the documentary hypothesis as one of the clearest examples in the Torah of a Priestly (P) passage, and it plays a crucial role in distinguishing Priestly theology from Yahwist (J) and Elohist (E) sources. There were indeed many previous conversations with the forefathers by God, many were by YHWH, but all these were presumed to be from a J source.

However, we know that a “name” in the Torah means a lot more than just a label. For God, it also has the meaning of attributes. I suggest that YHWH in this context means the national God of Israel, which could not yet have been known to the forefathers. Traditional suggestions as to how this sentence can be interpreted are discussed further in the chapter “God’s two speeches of redemption.”

Now let us look carefully at the section that follows.

God made two covenants with Abraham. The Covenant Between the Pieces is considered a combination of E and J sources and uses the name of God YHWH, while the Covenant of Circumcision is a P source and uses the names of God El Shaddai and Elohim.

As discussed in detail in the chapter “God’s two speeches of redemption,” this recruitment speech in Exodus contains wording from both covenants. There is logic to this since the role of Moses is to bring about the fulfillment of both covenants made to Abraham through the aspects of God YHWH and Elohim, but this mixing is illogical according to the documentary hypothesis.

If the Torah is not a human composition who wrote it?

The documentary hypothesis has been accepted by many biblical scholars, but is an anathema to Orthodox Jews since it removes divine authority from the Bible and replaces it with, at the most, divine inspiration. No longer is God the source of the ethical imperatives of the Torah. Rather, its ethics are cultural and human-derived.

Proving that the Torah is God-written is an impossibility and this assertion is a matter of faith. Nevertheless, it is possible to frame the question a different way and ask — is it feasible that God wrote the Torah? If it is unlikely that He wrote it as described in the Torah, then Divine authorship is an unreasonable belief. However, if there is no logic that contradicts it, then there is no challenge to faith. Clearly, this is far from being a proof, but should be sufficient for many believers.

This is the reason that I focus in a later chapter on the historical veracity of the Exodus from Egypt. If there truly was an historical Exodus, then a revelation at Mt. Sinai could have happened. If the historicity of the Exodus is in doubt, then we are in murky territory. The topic is discussed in an essay “The Egyptian Exodus – fact or fiction?”

Another point. If the only script available to Moses with which to write his book was hieroglyphics, then it is unlikely that the Torah could have been transmitted from generation to generation. In my essay “With what script did God write the Ten Commandments?” I advance the notion that the Israelites at that time were familiar with the phonetic proto-Sinaitic script and it was the Israelites who transmitted this script to Canaan. This script was easy to read and enabled the creation of a literate Israelite society.

Furthermore, the fearful display at the time of the giving of the Torah was designed to impress the people and authenticate Moses as God’s spokesman. The tradition that the entire people left Egypt, then witnessed a revelation of God, and that Moses was His spokesman has been handed down from generation to generation. This is why so many of the rituals of Judaism are specifically related to either the Exodus or the revelation at Mount Sinai, including the Passover, which is observed every year and the Sabbath which is observed every week.13 Made-up manuscripts describing imaginary events could never have been successfully transmitted in this way.

Another indirect way of assessing whether the Torah is Divine or made-up is from an analogy with a false prophet. The Torah indicates that one can assess the authenticity of a prophet on the basis of the accuracy of his prophecies:

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods — that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?”. . . When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the word the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously (Deuteronomy 18:20, 22).

The Torah is a prophetic book. It follows, therefore, that the authenticity of the Torah can be judged on the basis of its predictions:

In the Covenant of Circumcision, God promises that His covenant will be “everlasting” and the area of the land of Canaan will be an “everlasting possession” for the Jewish people (Genesis 17:7-8). In the tochacha (covenant warnings) in the Book of Leviticus, the Torah promises that God will remember His covenant with the Patriarchs and after any period of exile the people will return to their land:

Then I will remember My covenant with Jacob… and I will remember the land… I will not reject them… to annihilate them… for I am the Lord their God (Vayikra 26:42–45).

Similarly, in Deuteronomy:

The Lord your God will return your captivity and will gather you from all the nations. . . (Devarim 30:3).14

The second return after the Babylon exile (the first exile was in Egypt) began in 538 BCE when the Persian monarch Cyrus the Great issued a decree allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Judea and rebuild the temple. In our time, we are in the unique position of being able to judge the Torah’s predictions in real time, since we are now witnessing a third redemption.

The Jewish people are the only nation in history that has returned to its ancestral land on three occasions and reestablished a culture almost identical to that from over 3,500 years ago. It is almost as if the land has been waiting for the Jewish people to return. Moreover, no other nation has been able to bring out the fertility of the land as the Jewish people are now doing.15

Noteworthy about the current redemption of the Jewish people and reinforcing its divine nature is that many of the steps in the formation of the State of Israel could not have been predicted to be successful. In fact, one could well have guessed that the odds were against success. None of these steps can be said to have been miraculous, in that they can all be explained in a rational way, but looking at them all in sequence one can say that the formation of the State of Israel can truly be regarded as miraculous.

Two examples among a myriad:

The fate of the Middle East hung in the balance between October and November 1942 during the Battle of El Alamein in the Second World War. A German victory by Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps would have meant the end of hopes for a Jewish state. The SS was already patiently waiting in Greece to destroy the remnant of the Jewish people in Palestine. Yet, the outcome of this battle may have been very different if Germany had postponed its invasion of Russia and provided Rommel with sufficient men, ammunition and fuel to win this battle. Yet destroying Russian Jewry was of the upmost importance to Hitler.

The Six-Day War expanded Israel territorially and provided it with strategic depth. Never before in the history of warfare has a battle against three nations been won in just six days. Israel made a tremendous gamble by carrying out a preemptive attack on Egyptian airfields with almost its entire air force. A number of “coincidences” helped make this successful.16 The Israeli planes were detected by a new Jordanian radar, but they were unable to transmit the code to Egypt about this Israeli attack. The code had been changed that very morning and the code was no longer valid. All Egyptian anti-aircraft units had been ordered to cease any fire between 7.00 to 8.00 in the morning because of an air tour arranged over Sinai together with an Iraqi army delegation. This was precisely the time that Israeli pilots set off on their mission. On the evening before the Israeli attack, the Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian Air Force held a party for his pilots until the early hours of the morning. This delayed a routine reconnaissance mission the next morning. By the time the Deputy Commander got to his planes it was too late.

In sum, the value of the Pentateuch is that it is God-written and can therefore function as the basis of ethics for all humanity. The documentary hypothesis was an attempt to turn the Torah into a human effort. This leaves civilization with only a relative guide to good and evil and thus a relative moral code.

I have also shown that there is no external evidence whatsoever for different sources for the Five Books of Moses. The documentary hypothesis is based entirely on textual features. I also suggest that these textual matters can be readily explained on the basis of the relational aspects of the names of God. Thus, the documentary hypothesis is irrelevant.

More details about the names of God are provided in the next chapter.

References:

According to Rashi, based on the Mechilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the source in Exodus refers to the text of the Torah from the beginning of Genesis until the giving of the Torah and the commandments given at Marah. The second quote from Deuteronomy refers to the entire Torah. Other references in the Torah to Moses’ writing a book are Exodus 17:14, Numbers 33:2, and Deuteronomy 31:9 and 31:24. The commentator Chizkuni wrote on Exodus 34:32: “The Torah was given [to Moses] in individual scrolls [on Mount Sinai]— for whenever Moses would hear a commandment from God, he would record it in a separate scroll — then [forty years later] when it was time for him to die — he organized the Sefer Torah and set its “parshiot” based on fitting juxtapositions, as our Rabbis have expounded.”
Wellhausen, Julius. “Prolegomena to the History of Israel: With a Reprint of the Article “Israel” from the Encyclopaedia Britannica.” Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies; Preface by W. Robertson Smith. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885. A French physician, Jean Astruc, suggested that the two names of God came from two different sources and were combined by Moses to form the Book of Genesis. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn applied this idea to the rest of the Torah, but also thought that Moses was the redactor of the Torah, although Eichhorn later changed his mind. Herman Hupfeld pointed out that that the Elohist source comes from two sources, and he termed the source that focuses on priestly matters P and the non-Priestly source E. The proposition that Deuteronomy is a separate source could be accepted by traditionalists, since the Torah does not claim that it was dictated by God, although it does claim that it was written by Moses.
Introduction by Joshua A. Berman in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York, 2006.
What Happened to the Documentary Hypothesis? in Biblical Archeology Review, p67, Fall 2024, volume 50, number 3.
The following is a summary of the Talmudic discussion in Bava Batra 14b–15a: Moses wrote his own book (the Torah), the section about Balaam, and the book of Job. Joshua wrote his own book and the last eight verses of the Torah (describing what took place after Moses’ death). Samuel wrote his own book and the books of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms in collaboration with ten elders (Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heiman, Yedusun, Assaf, and the three sons of Korah). Jeremiah wrote his own book, Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his assistants (Rashi — members of his generation who outlived him) wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. The Men of the Great Assembly wrote (or edited) Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, and Esther. Ezra wrote his own book, and together with Nehemiah wrote Chronicles.
TB Sanhedrin 21b states: "Originally, the Torah was given to Israel in Ivrit script and in the sacred language. It was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Ashurit script and the Aramaic language; they selected for Israel the Ashurit script and the sacred language, and left the Ivrit script and the Aramaic language for the common people."
It needs be mentioned that no walls or post-holes were found at this site in Shilo, which would have shown more definitively that a tent or structure stood here. Thus, while the dimensions match, the archaeological evidence is not fully conclusive.
Midrash Ruth Rabba 4:9 and TB Peah 6:1 point out that Boaz went beyond Torah law in that he allowed Ruth to glean among the sheaves. Gleaning is only allowed after the reapers pass and only from dropped stalks. He also instructed his workers “Pull out for her from the bundles and leave them for her,” which also exceeds the Torah law. Ruth, a Moabite convert, received full access to the social safety laws given in the Torah for “the stranger, the orphan, and the widow” (e.g., Deut. 24:19).
TB Sanhedrin 99a–100a explains that someone who deliberately alters the text of the Torah is included among those who “have no share in the World to Come.”

The Talmud discusses those who change the meaning or wording of Scripture and treats it as a grave violation. Maimonides in Hilchot Sefer Torah 1:2 explains that the Torah we have today is the same Torah given to Moses at Sinai, letter for letter. In Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:1–2 he states that a Torah scroll missing even one letter or that has even one incorrect letter is invalid. This applies equally to scribes — writing, altering, or correcting in a non-halachic manner is forbidden.
The Divine Names in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York, 2006. He wrote in Lecture 1: “It is not our intention here to inquire into the theological question of the origin of the Torah, but only into its literary composition,” and more pointedly in Lecture 7 “The Pentateuch is a work of ancient Hebrew literature, the product of the spiritual and national life of Israel.”
Based on Jethro’s comment “Now I know that YHWH is greater than all gods. . .” (Exodus 18:11), there is a Talmudic opinion that Jethro converted to Judaism (see TB Zevachim 116a). However, if this was the case, his offering should have been to YHWH and not Elohim.
To explain the absence of Moses’ name in this party, Rashi to Exodus 18:12 suggests that Moses was the waiter for the meals.
In his commentary to Exodus 13:16, Nachmanides lays out his thesis that the Exodus is the foundation of Jewish faith, and that many commands exist to remind the Jewish people of the miracles of the Exodus. The purpose of such mitzvot as tefillin, mezuzah, Shabbat, holidays, and sacrifices is to keep the memory of the Exodus alive. He explains that the Exodus proved the existence of both a Creator and Divine providence, and these mitzvot are therefore “signs” that reinforce the memory of these great miracles and the truth of these postulates.
Another source in Deuteronomy is: “And you will seek the Lord your God from there, and you will find Him. . . For the Lord your God is a merciful God; He will not abandon you. . .” (Deuteronomy 4:25–31). The return to Israel in this instance is accompanied by repentance.
“I will make the land desolate, and your enemies who live upon it will be astonished [at its desolation]” (Leviticus 26:32). Rashi points out, based on Toras Kohanim perek 6:5, that “This is a good measure for Israel: that the enemies will not find contentment in Israel’s land for it will be desolate of its inhabitants.” It is in the nature of this promise that the land will refuse to flourish until Israel returns.
The Six-Day War Scroll by Hagi Ben-Artzi. Translated by Danny Verbov. Sifriat Beit-El, Jerusalem, 2016.