Recently, Stephen Van Eck presented his theory that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch (TSR, September/October 1999). I addressed one point he made concerning the identity of a king who reigned over Israel noted in Genesis 36:31 to which he then responded (January/February 2000). This article addresses further Van Eck's original arguments as well as his response to my analysis of a king that ruled over Israel.
Van Eck made several comments about my analysis of Genesis 36:31. He stated that my idea that Moses was referring to the pharaohs was pure conjecture. Of course, one can describe any theory about those to whom Moses was referring as pure conjecture. Van Eck had already offered his opinion (i. e., his pure conjecture) that the king was from a later time. How one labels ideas, whether as theories, hypotheses, or conjecture, means little. The real issue is proof.
From the Biblical record, we know that the pharaoh was a king with whom Moses was familiar because the text consistently describes Pharaoh as king of Egypt. In addition, the children of Israel, whom we must view as the immediate audience for the Pentateuch, would also have identified Pharaoh as the king who ruled over them. There is no reason to think that they would understand Genesis 36:31 as prophetic. Finally, the language we find in Genesis is consistent with the language used elsewhere in the Pentateuch. There is no basis for thinking that any of the Israelites at the time of the exodus would read Genesis 36:31 and not identify Pharaoh as the king in view. Context demands this conclusion. Should the skeptic really think differently?
The available evidence points to the pharaoh as the king in Genesis 36:31, and no other theory matches this evidence as well. The evidence also leads to the conclusion that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch as is plainly stated in the Pentateuch.
Van Eck also argued that one may assume that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch for purposes of concluding that Moses was not the author. If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, then, Van Eck says, one can conclude that what we find in the Pentateuch can be explained as intentional deceptions. If the Pentateuch consists of intentional deceptions, then Van Eck concludes that Moses was not the author. What Van Eck wants to avoid is the use of the Pentateuch itself to support an argument that Moses was its author. He basically objects to the consistent manner in which the Pentateuch describes Moses as its author. Were this any historical document other than the Bible, Van Eck would not raise this objection.
He extended this to say that we might also assume that Joshua was written at a much later time than that represented in the Bible. He used this tactic so that he can discount any references to Moses found in Joshua. These assumptions provide the foundation for his conclusion that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch. His argument relied on a logical fallacy, assuming what one wants to prove.
Van Eck also cited a Bible dictionary to support his point. When skeptics cannot disprove the Bible directly, they introduce explanations about the Bible from other sources, create a straw man with those explanations, and then argue against the straw man. Such digressions prove nothing except that nonbiblical sources can be wrong even when written by the Christian community. Nonbiblical sources can be valuable but not to generate additional speculation. Van Eck cannot prove his speculation with speculation. He needs to offer proof.
Van Eck lamented my failure to provide historical evidence from sources outside the Bible to show that Edomite kings ruled in the period prior to the enslavement of the Israelites by the Pharaoh. Unfortunately, little archaeological or other historical evidence exists that tells us about Edom except for that which we find in the Bible.
The Bible is an accurate source of historical information. Interpreting the Bible in its proper historical or prophetic context is key to understanding what the Bible says. This upsets Van Eck because he generally ignores context, and my ability to explain the context of Biblical events in a consistent and accurate manner shatters his argument that an anachronism exists.
Recognizing the frailty of his methods, Van Eck resorted to the skeptic's argument that quantity should rule over quality. He presented a number of points in his original article. He then argued that the sheer number of points he presented, even ignoring the one I had disproved, surely must mean something. Skeptics like to make up numerous points as if they can prove their theories by the number of points or volume of words in their arguments and not the quality of those arguments.
In presenting his opinion that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, Van Eck made several points but relied on logical fallacies and poor analysis to prove his case. Here are some examples.
Lack of Egyptian records about Moses: Van Eck, appealing to an argument from silence, reasoned that this must mean something. Van Eck does not tell the reader that relatively few historical records exist that describe people or events in ancient Egypt. We know very little about the pharaohs in ancient Egypt, much less other important officials. It also appears that pharaohs who fell out of favor would find their names deleted from official records by the next pharaoh. That makes it difficult to learn about some pharaohs. That practice would suggest that Moses would not have been a figure that the Egyptians would enshrine in their records. We do not find Moses identified in existing historical records, but this means no more than that archaeologists have not found many records. Arguments from silence only prove that we do not know enough to prove anything other than what actually exists.
In the historical context, Moses interacted with the pharaoh for less than one year. At the end, Pharaoh and the men who pursued the Israelites with him were all drowned in the Red Sea. None survived. Consequently, there was no one to report back to the Egyptians and describe what had happened. The only detailed record available, so far, is that provided by the Biblical historian.
Supposed failure of the Bible itself, outside the Pentateuch, to mention Moses: Van Eck claimed that because Moses is scarcely mentioned in the historical books of the Bible (Judges, Samuel, and Kings) this must mean something. Moses figured prominently in Israeli history and one need only scan the instances in which Moses is cited in the Old and New Testaments (or limit the search to the few books identified by Van Eck) to see that this is true.
In this instance, Van Eck first created a straw man: The Bible, outside the Pentateuch, should be replete with references to Moses. He then conveniently concluded that there are not enough references to meet his personal test for prominence. This is like arguing that American history books describing the Civil War or the World Wars should contain abundant references to George Washington. History books generally focus on the issues of the time and leave out references to people in other eras, no matter how important. The historian writing about the Battle of Gettysburg has no reason to mention George Washington. A review of the references to Moses in the Biblical historical books reveals that they properly cited Moses when the situation called for such a reference.
Coincidentally, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not mentioned very often in the early historical books. As with the name, Moses, we do not find people in the Bible having these names. Does that mean that they did not exist either? If not, then how does one explain the instances where these names do appear? It is not the relative number of times in which these names appear in any one book of the Bible that matters but the significance of those instances in which they appear. The problem for Van Eck, or any skeptic, is to explain why these men are cited at all. It is not enough to say that it was all a clever deception.
Alleged violation of the second commandment: Van Eck noted that Solomon, in constructing the temple, included images such as oxen cast in bronze. This, he says, shows that the laws contained in the Pentateuch did not exist at that time. If the Pentateuch had existed, Van Eck argued, then Solomon would have obeyed the second commandment and refused to have any images in the temple.
Van Eck misunderstands the second commandment. The second commandment did not forbid images in general. It only forbad the construction of images that would be used to represent God and that could then be used as objects of worship. The images placed in the temple did not represent God, and people did not worship them as God. They had nothing to do with the second commandment. What Van Eck needs to explain is why a temple was constructed and a sacrificial system carried out when he claims that the laws regarding sacrifices had not even been written that early in history.
The Ark of the Covenant: Van Eck argued that Hilkiah could not have discovered the book of the law in the house of Yahweh because the book had been placed in the Ark of the Covenant and had been carried off. Here, he failed to understand the verse. The book of the law was not put inside the ark. The two stone tablets upon which God wrote the Ten Commandments were placed inside the ark. The Book of the Law was placed outside the ark and could easily have been hidden or lost in the temple.
Van Eck cited Deuteronomy 31:24-26 to prove his point. Here we read: "Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee" (v:26). According to this verse, the Book of the Law was placed in (or on) the side of the ark. Other translations of the Bible help one to see this. Commentators generally agree that the Book of the Law was placed on a table sitting beside the ark. Van Eck simply failed to understand what the verse was saying.
Book of Jeremiah: Van Eck cited Jeremiah 7 where Jeremiah, speaking for God, says that "in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices." The Pentateuch, however, established a system of burnt offerings and sacrifices. Van Eck concluded that this means Leviticus did not exist at the time of Jeremiah but was conveniently crafted at a later date. However, one has but to read Jeremiah 7 in its totality to understand what was happening. The people were taking offerings and sacrifices to the temple but living any way they pleased. In other words, the sacrifices and offerings were the beginning and ending of their responsibilities toward God. In their minds, nothing else was required. So, God says, He did not command them to offer sacrifices. Instead, He commanded them to obey Him. Obedience involved many things, one small part of which was the giving of sacrifices and offerings. The people had reduced obedience to God to just the superficial and culturally proper giving of offerings to the church. The verses can be a little difficult to understand and easily confused Van Eck.
Many regard the New International Version of the Bible as a better translation for the modern reader. It has: "This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Go ahead, add your burnt offerings to your other sacrifices and eat the meat yourselves! For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you" (Jeremiah 7:21-23).
Ur of the Chaldees: Van Eck referred to an alleged geographical discrepancy in Genesis regarding citations about the existence of Ur of the Chaldees (or Chaldeans). Since secular historical documents do not mention the Chaldeans until about 800 BC, the Biblical account, according to Van Eck, must be wrong.
Secular history takes note of the Chaldeans primarily when they became powerful. It is obvious that there was a sect of people known as Chaldeans that existed before they ruled from Babylon. The Bible provides us additional information to the effect that the Chaldeans were a recognizable culture at the time of Abraham. Van Eck's conclusion, of course, is based on his bias that the Bible is not a reliable historical account in the first place.
Van Eck noted that available historical evidence identifies Ur as a Sumerian city. Ur, even as a Sumerian city, could be identified with the Chaldeans. Abraham lived in Ur when Akkadian influence was in decline. It would not be unusual for individual city-states to exist in this political climate. The Biblical account provides additional information to the effect that Ur was inhabited by, and perhaps under the political control of, a sect of people known as Chaldeans when Abraham lived there. Further support of the account in Genesis is provided in the recitation by the Levites of Israel's history as recorded in Nehemiah 9:7. This was at the end of the Babylonian captivity, so the Levites would have been familiar with the Chaldeans identified by secular historians. The account in Nehemiah indicates that they accepted the Genesis account. This is consistent with, and supports the validity of, the Genesis account.
There is also some evidence that even several cities called Ur existed. The reference I have seen cited is the series Repertoire Geographique des Textes Cuneiformes (Geographic Repertory of Cuneiform Texts). It supposedly identifies up to four cities named Ur. If true, the Biblical identification of Ur with the Chaldeans would distinguish this city from other cities with the same name.
Ten Commandments: Van Eck wants people to believe that there are several versions of the Ten Commandments in the Pentateuch. Here one must first sort out Van Eck's confused thinking. He referred to law codes, but much of Exodus and Leviticus provide us with the law codes. His citations indicate that he really seems to mean the Ten Commandments and not the entire code of law.
Exodus 20 records the Ten Commandments given by God in the first year after Israel left Egypt. Deuteronomy 5 takes place at the end of the fortieth year and describes Moses reviewing the events of the previous 40 years in a sermon to the people of Israel. Moses reviewed the laws found in Exodus 20. One need only put Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 side by side and compare what each says to see that they are the same. Some additional commentary was included, but it does not detract from the commandments that are given. The laws are the same in each case.
Van Eck also referred to Exodus 34. However, Exodus 34 tells us that God wrote the Ten Commandments on a second set of tablets to replace the first set that Moses broke. The chapter then recorded further instructions that God gave to Moses. There is no indication in the verses cited by Van Eck that more than one code (or more than one version of the Ten Commandments) ever existed. Van Eck provided no analysis to prove his point.
Conclusion: I have addressed significant points that Van Eck made. In doing this, I have shown that his arguments were ill conceived and lacked substance. There is no reason to take anything he says seriously. Van Eck appears to have a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible and of ancient history. He employs dubious logical methods to present his case. Skeptics need to do better than this.
(Roger Hutchinson, 11904 Lafayette Drive, Silver Spring,
MD 20902; e-mail, RHutchin@AOL.com)
