Who Wrote the Bible?

by Richard Elliott Friedman

The contemporary classic The New York Times Book Review called "a thought-provoking [and] perceptive guide," Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman is a fascinating, intellectual, yet highly readable analysis and investigation into the authorship of the Old Testament. The author of Commentary on the Torah, Friedman delves deeply into the history of the Bible in a scholarly work that is as exciting and surprising as a good detective novel. Who Wrote the Bible? is enlightening, riveting, an important contribution to religious literature, and as the Los Angeles Times aptly observed in its rave review, "There is no other book like this one."

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Christianity, Judaism, Theology, Jewish

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

About the author

RICHARD ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN is one of the premier bible scholars in the country. He earned his doctorate at Harvard and was a visiting fellow at Oxford and Cambridge, a Senior Fellow of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, and a Visiting Professor at the University of Haifa. He is the Ann & Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia and the Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization Emeritus of the University of California, San Diego.

He is the author of Commentary on the Torah, The Disappearance of God, The Hidden Book in the Bible, The Bible with Sources Revealed, The Bible Now, The Exile and Biblical Narrative, the bestselling Who Wrote the Bible?, and his newest book, The Exodus.

He was an American Council of Learned Societies Fellow and was elected to membership in The Biblical Colloquium. His books have been translated into Hebrew, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Polish, Hungarian, Dutch, Portuguese, Czech, Turkish, Korean, and French.

He was a consultant for the Dreamworks film "The Prince of Egypt," for Alice Hoffman's The Dovekeepers, and for NBC, A&E, PBS, and Nova.

Reviews

[فؤاد · Rating 5 out of 5]

چه کسی تورات را نوشت؟
اسپویلر آلرت: جواب موسی نیست.

مقدمه: دیاتسارون



حوالی سال ۱۵۰ میلادی، یک الهیدان سریانی به نام تاتیانوس اومد و چهار انجیل متّی، مَرقُس، لوقا و یوحنّا رو به شکل منظّم و دقیق در هم تنید و با هم تلفیق کرد و یک متن واحد ازشون ساخت. اسم این انجیل تلفیقی، «دیاتسارون»ـه که به یونانی یعنی «[ساخته شده] از چهار» ولی در زبان سریانی به عنوان مطلقِ «انجیل» شناخته شد و در طول چند قرن در شام و خاورمیانه جای چهار انجیل رو گرفت تا این که ربولا، اسقف شهر الرُّها، دوباره چهار انجیل رو جایگزین دیاتسارون کرد. بعضی‌ها احتمال دادن که وقتی قرآن از «انجیل» با لفظ مفرد یاد می‌کنه، منظور همین دیاتسارون باشه.


۱. اسپینوزا
در قرن هفدهم، باروخ اسپینوزا توی کتاب رساله الهی-سیاسی، فصلی نوشت ذیل عنوان «مصنّف واقعی اسفار پنجگانۀ تورات». اسپینوزا توی این مقاله (که ترجمه‌ش رو از اینجا می‌تونید بخونید) با دقّت توی جملات ریز تورات، و البته با استفاده از اشارات پوشیده و رمزگونۀ محقّقان قبلی، نشون می‌ده که بر خلاف اعتقاد سفت و سخت یهودی‌ها و مسیحی‌ها، موسی نمی‌تونسته مصنّف پنج کتاب تورات (پیدایش، خروج، لاویان، اعداد، تثنیه) بوده باشه. تورات از موسی به صورت سوم شخص صحبت می‌کنه و ماجرای مرگ موسی رو روایت می‌کنه. در تورات عبارات زیادی هست که «در آن زمان [یعنی زمان موسی] هنوز فلان چیز برقرار بود» یا «فلان چیز تا امروز برقرار است». این عبارات و عبارات دیگه‌ای که اسپینوزا بررسی کرده، به وضوح نشون می‌دن که نویسنده متعلّق به زمانی بعد از زمان موسی بوده. همین طور تورات می‌گه تورات موسی روی دوازده لوح سنگی نگاشته شد، کاری که با حجم فعلیِ اسفار پنجگانه ناممکنه و نشون می‌ده حجم تورات موسی خیلی کمتر بوده.

اسپینوزا، مثل خیلی دیگه از محقّق‌هایی که حول این موضوع نوشتن، تکفیر شد، هر چند بر خلاف محقق‌های دیگه، جون سالم به در برد.


۲. فرضیۀ مستند
این اولین سرنخی بود که پیدا شد. اما مطلقاً آخرین سرنخ نبود. به خاطر تکفیر و مجازات محقق‌هایی که حول این موضوع تحقیق می‌کردن، کار خیلی کند پیش می‌رفت. اما وقتی فضا آزادتر شد، کم کم پژوهشگرهای مختلف، سرنخ‌های هیجان‌انگیز دیگه‌ای پیدا کردن که به تحقیقات سمت و سوی جدیدی داد.

مهم‌ترین سرنخ این بود که دیدن توی تورات، داستان‌ها تکرار می‌شن، و این تکرارها گاهی هم‌دیگه رو نقض می‌کنن و دو روایت مختلف از یک ماجرا نقل می‌کنن. این تکرارها گاهی پشت سر هم اومدن، یعنی مثلاً یک آیه دو بار تکرار شده، مثلاً خدا در یک آیه به نوح دستور می‌ده از هر حیوون چه حلال‌گوشت و چه حرام‌گوشت یک جفت سوار کشتی کنه، و در آیۀ بعد دوباره دستور می‌ده از حیوانات حرام‌گوشت یک جفت و از حیوانات حلال‌گوشت هفت جفت سوار کشتی کنه.
گاهی هم این تکرارها با فاصله اومدن، مثلاً موسی دو بار عصاش رو به سنگ می‌زنه و آب از سنگ فوران می‌کنه، یک بار توی کتاب خروج، یک بار توی کتاب اعداد و ظاهراً سال‌ها بعد از واقعۀ اول، با این که جزئیات ماجرا و حتی اسم اون منطقه هم یکیه که نشون می‌ده هر دو روایت دارن یک ماجرا رو نقل می‌کنن.

وقتی آیات تکراری رو مثل دو رشته نخ در هم تنیده، به دقت از هم جدا کردن و مطالعه کردن، متوجه شدن که توی این آیات تکراری اتفاق عجیبی می‌افته. اسم خدا توی یکی از دو روایت یک چیزه، و توی روایت دوم، یک چیز دیگه. توی یک دسته آیات، خدا «یهوه» نامیده شده و توی دستۀ دیگه، «اِلوهیم». و این فقط یه تفاوت ساده توی اسم نیست. توی هر آیه‌ای که خدا یهوه نامیده شده، خدا انسان‌ماننده، توی باغ عدن قدم می‌زنه، برای آدم و حوا لباس درست می‌کنه، درِ کشتی نوح رو با دست خودش می‌بنده، با یعقوب کشتی می‌گیره، از کارهاش پشیمون می‌شه، از بوی قربانی سوختنی لذت می‌بره و میاد پایین و و و...

اما توی هر آیه‌ای که خدا الوهیم نامیده شده، هیچ کدوم از این خصوصیات رو نداره، و خدایی کاملاً متعالی و دسترس‌ناپذیر و غیر انسان‌ماننده.



و این چیزی نیست که فقط در یک یا دو آیه اتفاقی رخ داده باشه. در سرتاسر کتاب پیدایش و خروج این دو رشته آیات با نظم عجیبی تعهّدشون به خصوصیات خداشون رو حفظ می‌کنن.

محقق‌ها به این نتیجه رسیدن که تورات نه نوشتۀ یک نفر، بلکه نوشتۀ دو نفره، که از دو سنّت مشابه، ولی متفاوت اومدن، و همون طور که تاتیانوس، ویراستار دیاتسارون، چهار انجیل رو با هم ترکیب کرد و یک کتاب واحد ساخت، یک ویراستار اومده و این دو روایت مجزا رو با هم تلفیق کرده و یک کتاب واحد ساخته. وقتی این دو دسته آیات با دقت از هم جدا بشن، هر کدوم روایت کامل و بدون نقصی از اول تا آخر نقل می‌کنن که نشون می‌ده هر روایت در اصل یک کتاب کامل بوده.

این دو روایت به نام خدای هر روایت، منبع «یهوهی»* و «الوهیمی»* نامیده شدن. بعداً با همین روش، معلوم شد در حقیقت نه دو، بلکه چهار روایت مستقل در تورات وجود داره. یک روایت که به خاطر نویسنده‌ش که یک کاهن بوده، منبع «کهانتی»* نامگذاری شد، و آخرین روایت که چون تقریباً کل کتاب تثنیه رو نوشته، روایت «تثنیه‌ای»* نامیده شد.

این آغاز فرضیۀ معروفی شد که رشتۀ مطالعات کتاب مقدس رو قبضه کرد و به «فرضیۀ مستند» شناخته می‌شه.

* به ترتیب:
Jehovah
Elohim
Priestly
Deuteronomy
که با حروف اختصاری
J, E, P, D
نشون داده شده می‌شن.



توضیح تاریخ‌ها:
سال ۹۲۲ قبل از میلاد: تجزیۀ اسرائیل به دو کشور شمالی و جنوبی.
سال ۷۲۲ قبل از میلاد: سقوط پادشاهی شمالی توسط امپراتوری آشور.
سال ۵۳۹ قبل از میلاد: سقوط پادشاهی جنوبی توسط امپراتوری بابل.
سال ۴۰۰ قبل از میلاد: بازگشت از تبعید بابل به اورشلیم.


۳. این کتاب
اما این فرضیه تا قبل از این کتاب هم موجود بوده.

کاری که این کتاب می‌کنه، علاوه بر توضیح روشن و واضح فرضیۀ مستند برای خوانندۀ ناآشنا، اینه که سعی می‌کنه با مطالعۀ دقیق هر روایت، با بررسی موضوعات مورد علاقۀ هر روایت، شهرهای مورد علاقۀ هر روایت، پادشاهان و شخصیت‌های تاریخی مورد علاقۀ هر روایت، و و و... کشف کنه که نویسندۀ هر کدوم از این چهار منبع، و در نهایت، ویراستاری که این چهار منبع رو با هم تلفیق کرده و یک کتاب واحد به اسم تورات پدید آورده، کی بوده؟ و در مورد دو نفر از این پنج نفر، یعنی نویسندۀ روایت تثنیه‌ای و ویراستار نهایی تورات، نویسنده رو به صورت دقیق و با اسم و رسم شناسایی می‌کنه.



نویسندۀ روایت تثنیه‌ای، احتمالاً ارمیا یا کاتبش باروخ بن نیریا بوده، کاهن-پیامبرانی که در اصلاحات مذهبی یوشیا نقش پررنگی داشتن و بعد از سقوط اورشلیم به مصر فرار کردن. ویراستار نهایی، احتمالاً عزرا بوده، کاهنی که بعد از تبعید به فرمان اردشیر یکم هخامنشی به همراه تورات خودش به یهودیه رفت و نسخۀ تورات خودش رو، که بنا به شواهدی که کتاب نقل می‌کنه همین تورات فعلی بوده، به عنوان قانون یهود به اجرا درآورد.

هر چند راجع به سه نفر دیگه، یعنی نویسندۀ روایت یهوهی، اِلوهیمی و کهانتی، کتاب فقط موفق می‌شه زمان و محل زندگی، گرایش‌های سیاسی، و سنّت مذهبی‌ای که بهش تعلّق داشته رو شناسایی کنه.
نویسندۀ روایت یهوهی، در زمان تجزیۀ اسرائیل به دو کشور شمالی و جنوبی، در کشور جنوبی و در دربار رحبعام از خاندان داود زندگی می‌کرده. نویسندۀ روایت اِلوهیمی، در همون زمان در کشور شمالی زندگی می کرده، اما متعلّق به دربار پادشاهی نبوده، بلکه متعلّق به گروه کاهنان موسوی شمال بوده که بعد از اصلاحات مذهبی یربعام، از صحنۀ قدرت طرد شدن. و در نهایت نویسندۀ روایت کهانتی گروه کاهنان هارونی جنوب بوده که در اصلاحات مذهبی حزقیا نقش پررنگی داشتن.

کتاب بسیار خوش‌خوانه، و بسیار ضروری برای هر کسی که به مطالعات کتاب مقدس علاقه داشته باشه. به قول خود نویسنده، امروزه دیگه تقریباً هیچ سؤالی راجع به کتاب مقدس نمی‌شه پرسید که جوابش به نحوی به فرضیۀ مستند ربطی نداشته باشه. حتی برای کسی که به طور مستقیم علاقه‌ای به این موضوع نداشته باشه، خوندن و فهمیدن تورات بدون در نظر داشتن نویسنده‌ها و گرایش‌های مختلف سیاسی و مذهبیشون ناقص یا حتی ناممکنه.

[Tyson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a pleasure to read and I had a hard time putting it down. Friedman, a Harvard trained Biblical scholar, concisely walks us through the history of Old Testament scholarship while arguing for his own theories on who wrote specific portions, when, what their motivations were, and how and by whom the book was compiled. His purpose is not to debunk or criticize the Bible, but simply to solve the puzzle; and the book reads this way, like you are in on the quest to solve it. All along Friedman provides insightful and essential historical, political, and religious context of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, pivotal to solving the mystery of authorship.

For over two thousand years it was assumed that Moses was the author of the Torah - the first five books of the Old Testament. Over past centuries a few individuals were bold enough to question this assumption, based on contradictions in the narrative - such as the problem of Moses narrating his own funeral, observations on his personal character describing him as the "humblest man that ever walked the earth," and many other issues. Because of dogmatic opposition these issues could not be fully explored until the 19th century, when scholars began to discover that there are actually several different writing styles, and even several different versions of Old Testament stories throughout the text. For example, there were originally two creation stories written by two separate authors. The person/s who compiled the bible took each version and compiled them into one, in the form that we have now. There are also two versions of the flood, of Abraham and Moses stories, and many others. In some cases these stories tell very different things depending on the motivations of each author. Friedman attempts to sort all of this out for the reader and includes his own theories on authorship. He even gets specific enough to name individuals he thinks wrote specific portions and why they did it.

Friedman does not suggest these facts should lead people to dismiss the bible. He believes scholarship can enhance appreciation for these writings, whether or not that appreciation is in the form of faith or belief. I think the book helped me gain an appreciation for the Old Testament as far as understanding why and by whom it was likely written. The historical context of ancient Israel/Judah is ultra fascinating to me. However, it is clearer to me than ever that the stories of the bible are mostly myth. Many of the individuals in the stories may actually have existed, and some of the events may have happened. To be sure, the bible was shaped and molded in the real historical context of ancient Israel and Judah. But the stories about creation, Abraham, Moses - the bedrock of Judaism and Christianity - were written by individuals with specific political and religious motivations. The different versions of these stories are sometimes contradictory. The compiler of the bible mashed these separate versions into one narrative, and for two thousand years Christians and Jews have read them as one story when they were not intended to be read as one. But above all, these stories represent the cultural and religious heritage of a people that lived almost three thousand years ago, on a tiny little slice of land in the Middle East.

It blows my mind that the stories of this tiny, ancient population, have profoundly influenced the history of the world. It is almost comical that we attempt to apply and interpret these stories as the narrative for all of humanity and to try to interpret and incorporate them into our daily lives. Sure, there is always something valuable to be learned from the human experience - even if those experiences are of ancient peoples. But I think it is nonsense that western civilization takes these stories literally as an explanation for who we are and where we came from. And especially for modern Americans to want to enshrine the Ten Commandments on the walls of public institutions.

I'll stop preaching and get back to the book. You should read it. You'll find it hard to put down.

[Penni · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman with such angst! It was life changing for me. It has opened up a world for me in as much as the bible is a work of history and literature, open to literary analysis and not a divine document given by god to Moses.
I repeatedly went back to the early chapters for reference again and again.
To understand the book, a lot of biblical background is necessary, which I had almost none at the time, and I needed to plow thru slowly.
The book sparked an interest in the DH that I wouldn't have pursued otherwise.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow, this is a remarkably readable and relevant exploration of the authorship of the Pentateuch and historical books of the Old Testament. It's easy for biblical scholarship to get stale pretty quickly, as currents change and leave certain theories behind; it's a credit to Richard Elliott Friedman that the most dated-feeling part of Who Wrote the Bible? is its lousy title.

That's not to say there aren't things to disagree with here – the dates and identities of the various sources are always debatable, and I would quibble with pieces of it myself – but the basic thrust of Friedman's thesis remains salient: that the historical record of the Old Testament reflects the conflicting opinions of at least two, and likely more, schools of thought who cobbled together oral traditions and ancient writings into what we know as the Pentateuch and the books of Joshua, Judges 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings (also known as the Deuteronomic History). The final compilation – and therefore the overriding perspective – likely occurred after the Babylonian exile of Judah. Subsequent scholarship and archaeological finds have only cemented this hypothesis, and the exile has long made sense to my mind as the hermeneutical key for the entirety of the Old Testament; the collection of books overwhelmingly attempt to explain why their Yahweh allows bad things to happen, and there was nothing worse to the ancient Hebrews than the national catastrophe of Babylon's invasion and destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Davidic monarchy.

Although Friedman sees the exile as important – how could it not be? – he downplays it in favor of earlier events he views as historic; I would object on the basis of subsequent archaeology, which has been admirably detailed in The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. Friedman, writing thirty years ago, gives more benefit of the doubt to the biblical portrayals of David, Solomon and the division of their kingdom. I'm more inclined to view those stories as largely mythological, told in retrospect to explain current events (namely the rise of Judah and a "united" kingdom under Josiah and its almost immediate collapse and destruction after his death). That said, Friedman's insights on Hezekiah and Josiah and the development of Deuteronomy and other sources under their reigns is worth the price of admission alone.

I would wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone interested in the question posed by the title, or anyone looking to learn more about the Bible or biblical scholarship generally. Agree with the Documentary Hypothesis or not, it's not going away, even if it has been weakened among today's scholars (as with any work relying on the DH, conservative critics will find plenty of reasoning that sounds circular, which has been a primary criticism of the hypothesis, and liberal postmodern critics will bridle at the certainty with which Friedman allocates dates and sources); anyone wanting to understand today's debates about the Bible and its origins needs to understand how we got here. Friedman's book is an excellent entree into that world.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

First, a little title clarification: the title should be "Who wrote the Old Testament, but we're mostly going to talk about the Pentateuch."

That being said, it was an interesting take from a foremost bible scholar into the latest academic research into the authorship of the Bible. Intuitively, I've wondered about the question. We find it essential to learn about the founding fathers in order to understand the Constitution. Ditto for the works of Tolstoy and Dickens. But, not a lot of time in Sunday School is spent on Bible authorship. Mostly, I suspect, because we have close to zero knowledge.

Reading this book confirmed that we know with 100% certainty very little about who wrote the Old Testament. I learned that there is general agreement that there were at least 4 authors, with 2 of them playing a compiling/editing role of some kind. At least 2 of the authors had a political ax to grind and might have had reasons for including certain stories or shading events a certain way. The actual date of compiling the Old Testament in the form we have today probably happened around 700-500 BC. Jeremiah is a likely compiler/author and Ezra is another likely compiler/editor/author.

But, so much of the research is supposition on top of a guess on top of another supposition. If even one of the foundational assumptions is incorrect, the whole hypothesis falls apart.

In the end, I suppose from a theological point of view the answer to the question of authorship is interesting but not essential. In fact, the majority of world religions both Jewish and Christian easily reconcile the authorship questions with their theological views. From a literary or historical perspective, it's a question that provides a lot of insight.

An additional word of warning: the author is an academic. He tries to write in an accessible way to the layperson (me). Points for trying hard.

[A.J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

When you look at the bedrock texts of civilization, there is one we continually come back to. It is the bible. No one can have a serious discussion about ancient history without it making an appearance. The same goes for Monotheism or the Western world. Some people believe it was given by God, others by men who thought they spoke for God. It contains discussions and themes on almost every topic: origins, history, divinity, philosophy, eternity, and the meaning of life. For a book so read and analyzed, what continues to puzzle us even at this very hour is a staggering question: Who the hell wrote it?

Richard Friedman's popular treatment of biblical scholarship cracks open the lid on this mystery. Tradition tells us many things about the authorship of the bible, but few facts. They say Moses wrote the five books of the Torah. Joshua wrote Joshua. The list goes on. What we began to notice some three hundred years ago is that there was massive problems with these theories. Moses wrote the Torah, yet it includes his funeral. He calls himself "the humblest man on earth" and references places that did not exist in his day. Many books contain uses of speech like "to this day" which connote a large gap of time between the writing and the events it describes.

The years wore on. We began to wonder about other things. Why is it that the same stories appear twice, three, or even four times, sometimes back to back (Gen 1), and usually the stories aren't a perfect match? Occasionally it appears as if there are two stories being crammed together in the same narrative (ie: the flood). As our questions grew and fermented, so did our abilities in linguistics and archaeology. As the 1700s bled away into a new century, and another that followed, a theory grew that began answering many of these questions. The theory is the Documentary Hypothesis, reigning champion of historical-critical biblical scholarship.

This book is a beginner's guide to this area of research. I have had a passing acquaintance with it for awhile, but this book was very helpful in narrowing down they whys and wherefores behind the hypothesis. Essentially it has been determined through exhaustive research that there are at least four sources and one redactor that have produced the Torah and histories of the old testament. As for who they were, and why they wrote, you might find yourself surprised by where the evidence points. You'll find the stories of dueling kingdoms, rival priesthoods, and religious reforms that spurred the formation of the bible. Friedman opens up the world of ancient Israel, and provides the much needed context in order to extract the authors from the source.

Biblical literalists will no doubt get a nosebleed contending something like this, but for those of you who are interested in the history behind the world's unrivaled bestseller, take a look at the core modern theory of where it came from.

[Shira · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was absolutely fascinating, and also very well-written!! It deserves a place on the bookshelf of any serious student of Biblical or even just ancient near-eastern history, imho.

Five authors: the J, E, P, D and R are found in a great summary of modern Higher Literary criticism of the Biblical texts known to Christians as the Old Testament, and just the Bible or TNaCH to Jewish readers. The J and E are roughly contemporary, from the time of the Northern kingdom and the Kingdom of Yehuda (Solomon's kids southern kingdom): J=Jehovah vs E for Elohim via the Hebrew names for God: two ancient texts combined into one. The P was a priestly document which accounts for the various 'where he shall place his name' lines coming up seemingly randomly in sacrifce laws, D=Deuteronomist, and the Redactor edited it all together into one document, apparently without dropping a line, and coherent enough to inspire a national narrative going forward after the Babylonian exile! Now that is beautiful genius!

Overall, I found it reassuring that various groups of writers show different but clear motivations for writing the books that began as separate works. It was quite interesting to see why and when those books could have been combined due to changing historical circumstances.

It was also surprising for me to learn of the Judean refugees in Egypt. But this does explain the presence of the Jewish mercenaries on the Nile island of Elephantine. I loved his phrase on page 144: "from Egypt to Egypt" and also possibly related to that is a reference on page 146 that I must look up: Baba Batra 15a from the Talmud Bavli (I just found this note with no other context... but here is a source ref: https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Batra.15a ).

I found it thrilling to see the idea of Jeremiah as writing Deuteronomy, and of Ezra or his scribe Baruch as the redactor. These findings closed for me what had previously been gaping wounds based on my own problems with the inconsistencies within the Biblical texts. Now I can read and study these texts in the knowledge that it is no secret that these writings were put together for a purpose by multiple people, yet serve a purpose greater perhaps than even the redactor himself could have forseen at the time. Hope, inspiration and magnificence all come from the pages written and redated into one whole, and this is an amazing example of the Divinity that human cooperation can produce.
27 June, 12017 HE
(Holocene or Human Era)
Shira

[Vheissu · Rating 5 out of 5]

I now better understand why I didn't really understand the Old Testament.

As a non-Biblical scholar, I can't really judge the veracity of Friedman's analysis, but it seems convincing to my untrained eyes. His argument is that, at least the Pentateuch, was written at different times by different scribes/priests whose views were shaped by their own political and economic interests in relation to the times in which they lived and then later combined and edited by someone else (Ezra?), all of which resulted in contradictions, inconsistencies, and a fusion that included implications intended by none of them! Whew!

At the risk of oversimplification, Friedman argues that some of the authors of the Bible viewed God as just and vengeful ("you get what you deserve"), while others viewed God as merciful and forgiving ("repent and be saved, sinner!"). The fusion gives us a God that is both just and merciful without explaining why He is occasionally one and sometimes the other. Without so intending, the ultimate editor ("Redactor") created one of the central mysteries that has confounded Jews and Christians for two-thousand years!

Friedman also makes a point with which I can relate, and that is, the Bible was the first history book ever written, and so the intrinsic problems of writing history could not have been fully appreciated by the authors and editor. That their work produced a history whose consequences could not have been anticipated makes a lot of sense to me.

So, I may take another crack at reading (actually, finish reading) the Bible. My one regret is that Friedman didn't include the New Testament in his analysis. Maybe somebody can recommend a good book on that matter.

[B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

BEFORE READING THE BOOK:
I am using this book for a class at my church. It has made me want to continue on my quest of learning about my religion and so forth.

AFTER READING THE BOOK:
This is the best book on how the Old Testament came to be. The facts were presented to me clearly and straight to the point. The author tells you how J, E, D, P, and R were discovered. If you approach it with an open mind, I think the reward would be great! I loved how he explained the politics behind why the J and E writer wrote a particular type of book. It also helps me learn about the contradictions in the bible. We all this, instead of making me decrease my respect for the bible, it actually increases my respect. It will make lovers of the bible gasp as the revelations are revealed!! Lastly it will have you read the Old Testament in a different light. If you choose to believe what the author is saying or not, this book will fuel you to modify your view of the Old Testament.

[Sameh Maher · Rating 5 out of 5]

الكتاب اكثر من رائع ومفيد جدا فى فهم كيف كتب الكتاب المقدس ومن كتب هذا الكتاب الذى اثر فى الملايين على مدار ألاف السنين
يستعرض الكاتب بطريقة مشوقة جدا العالم الذى كتب فيه الكتاب ومن كتبه بطريقة استنتاجية من خلال على الاثار وتحليل اللغة والمنطق
فقدم عرضا شيقا جدا وقويا لنظرياته
الكتاب يبدأ من البداية الاولى من الاسفار الخمسة لموسى وحتى لحظة جمعها فى اطار مشوق لم استطيع ان اتركه حتى انتهى
من الكتب القليلة التى تتركها وتتمنى ان تعود لقرائتها مرة اخرى
قد لا يكون مناسبا للبعض قراءة الكتاب فى ظل غياب مفهوم الوحى المسيحى حيث البعض يعترض على النقاط الواردة فى الكتاب رغم انها لا تمس اسس الايمان
رؤية كيف ابدع الله الكتاب المقدس وكيف استخدم كل حدث وكل رغبة فى داخل كاتب لكى يكون فى النهاية الكتاب الذى بين ايدينا الان هى تجربة تشير لا لشئ الا لعظمة هذا الاله
كتاب انصح الجميع بقرائته
وميزته ان الكاتب جمع فى النهاية ميزات هذه النظرية وليس بهدف النقد او التقليل او هدم الكتاب بل لاظهار عظمته الحقيقية

[Leemaslibros · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un análisis excepcionalmente claro y accesible sobre quién escribió el Pentateuco (no la Biblia en su totalidad) y la historia de cómo llegó a ser el libro que es. Dada la abrumadora relevancia de la Biblia en nuestra civilización (historia, costumbres, lenguaje, ...), este ensayo podría considerarse imprescindible.

Es cierto que para mí convierte la Biblia en el más humano de los libros, pero estoy seguro de que para los creyentes, sin que sea contradictorio, también lo transforma en un hecho divino.

Fabuloso.

[Shaye Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve had this one on my #MustRead list for a long time, but I was admittedly intimidated by the topic. I believe that’s a big reason why I avoided it the first time around. I actually started it two or three times in the past. But this year, I finally dove right in and honestly… it was so hard to put down once I got into it!

Documentary Hypothesis is pretty complicated, and I realize that not all scholars completely agree on the finer points of it. Nevertheless, I can say that, as a layperson, I was right with Friedman most of the way. He made very convincing arguments, at least for me with my limited access to and experience with these discussions. I admit I had to stop to look up vocabulary just a few times. Nevertheless, it didn’t keep me from understanding the major points and seeing where the conversation was going throughout. This reading experience only makes me want to read more and see other perspectives on the topic.

Anyway, it’s New Year’s Eve and I’m currently just tiding up my Goodreads account before heading into the new year. So I’m not even going to attempt to share a summary or all my thoughts on this one right now. I definitely need time to digest all that I’ve learned and sort through my notes before blabbing ALL. THE. THINGS. But I’m very pleased that I placed this book on my #MustReadin2021 list!

NOTE: The book is about 300 pages long, but the back matter (Appendix, Notes, Bibliography, and Index) takes up the last 53 pages.

[Nate · Rating 3 out of 5]

A secular breakdown of the Pentateuch commonly known as the Torah or the five Books of Moses.
Basically after most of the original stories were completed, alternate versions of the stories were written with the aim of favouring Aaronic priests who were descendants of Moses’ sidekick Aaron.
Then deuteronomy was independently conceived as a “pious forgery” later all of the contradictory material was meshed together into the first bible and fully attributed to Moses.
The many blatant contradictions leave the work open to a plethora of interpretations.

While this was interesting and well presented, I had assumed that it would include the New Testament as well so I was disappointed because that was where most of my curiosity about the subject was.

[Adam Glantz · Rating 5 out of 5]

A scholarly detective story, written in a lucid, engaging, and enthusiastic style, and uncluttered with reference notes, that lays out a cogent theory of authorship of the various documents that make up the Torah (Pentateuch) of the Hebrew Bible. Friedman is intellectually honest throughout, beginning with due reverence for the pioneers of Higher Criticism and admitting that the messy and tortuous path to his conclusions has been excised from the narrative. And having pulled apart the biblical text into five constituent sources (J, E, D, P, and R), he returns to meditate on why they were ultimately edited together and the value of this blended finished product. Alas, I don't think many traditionally-minded believers will be mollified by his arguments for how Higher Criticism enhances one's appreciation for the Bible, but I'm certain it comes from a place of sincerity.

Friedman utilizes both literary and archaeological resources in his analysis, but the balance seems to lie with the former and I'm curious as to what a more archaeology-dependent approach would do to his conclusions. But my sense is that his arguments are copper-bottomed, given their strong grounding in both theory and evidence.

[Xavier · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short book presenting evidence that the Bible was written by many different authors, each adding passages that corresponded to their social and political environments at their time of living. Friedman does an excellent job presenting the evidence for this by showing differences in language and syntax found in the most famous stories, like Noah's Ark or Moses receiving the 10 commandments. These stories show up multiple times in the Bible but with different lines or certain words added, signifying that someone (or a group) changed the story around slightly. These have become known as the J, E, and P texts (Jahweh, Elohim, and Priestly).

I find it fascinating that so many people swear by it, follow it, praise it but know absolutely nothing about its history. It contains so many contradictions. I don't understand why people still continue to use the Bible as an authoritative text rather than use it as a means for spiritual guidance (although many parts of it that I've seen quoted are rather violent and primitive). I plan to read parts of it strictly as literature and for historical context, only because I find the Near East so interesting.

[Corinne Blackmer · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I first read this book, I was quite impressed with its deft argument that several different "authors" (or voices or schools of thought) had written the Torah (which are the books with which the author is concerned) but, after some consideration, I cannot say I find these "findings" all that interesting and, anyhow, they could have other origins. Rather than two different (or more) authors arguing about the right to the priesthood, a single author could be chronicling a debate amongst various factions, and this point applies to other arguments he makes. Obviously, the traditional argument for Mosaic authorship of Torah is ridiculous, but there is probably more to be said for a canonical approach to these books, and, after all, what we have is a final text whose textual history we cannot exactly recount.

[Michele · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recommended to anyone who is interested in the origin of the Old Testament.

[David Galloway · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the main modern book on the 'documentary hypothesis', originally formed in the 19th century, that the Torah was composed not by Moses as tradition teaches, but by four various groups over a span of centuries. Also known as the JEDP theory for each of the four authors: Jawists, the oldest group who referred to God as Jahweh and wrote much of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers circa 850 BC; Elohists, who referred to God as Elohim and covered similar material as the J author around 750 BC; the D author is the Deuteronomist, the author of Deuteronomy, which is dated to circa 621 BC; and the P author is a member of the Priestly cast of the tribe of Aaron and wrote sections of Genesis 1:1 through Moses' death at the end of Deuteronomy. I won't spoil for you the individuals Friedman has claimed as the identity of the D and P, but they are very interesting for people who are well versed with the Old Testament.

The JEDP theory has been very divisive in many theological, especially Evangelical circles. I personally know more than one person who was a faithful Christian until they encountered the theory which shook their belief in the inerrancy and divine inspiration of scripture and after a few years of struggle were no longer believers. While at the time I encountered this theory in my early 20s, it was considered a boogeyman that atheists used to steal away your faith and I dismissed it entirely without once reading any of the material behind it other than the very brief (at that time) wikipedia entry.

I have encountered the theory again roughly 20 years later at my Orthodox seminary as the first book we read in our Old Testament class, balanced alongside the biblical hermeneutics of St. Isaac of Syria. My professor taught that it (JEDP) is nothing more than a lens that can provide an extra magnification of the historical and cultural details of the Torah, but if we use that lens as a microscope through which to view all of scripture, we are likely to spend so much time microanalyzing the textual sources that we miss the forest for the trees. From this point of view, with JEDP as one of many tools, I have found an appreciation for the theory and no longer see it as a boogeyman. Indeed, if Friedman is correct about his hypothesis for the identity of the Redactor, the one who wove together the four J, E, D, and P accounts into the Torah we have today, I can see that process of editing as equally inspired by God to the process of the writing itself.

The Church maintains that the Torah are the five books of Moses and are liturgically proclaimed as such, but if we use this proclamation as understanding the Church as teaching the literal authorship of Moses, I think we are making a mistake of historical revisionism by injecting a frame of modern materialism and source analysis into an ancient frame where traditional authorship was meant as a pedagogical tool and not a historical proclamation. We call the Psalms the 'book of David' but for two thousand years we have known that not all of them are composed by David's hand. We've known for over a thousand years that not all of the Pauline letters were written by St. Paul's hand. In neither of these circumstances have those facts of authorship shaken the faith of adherents, so I think likewise if JEDP is true, it should not be a loss of faith. I think the reason it has served as a faith-breaker for many in the past few generations is the conceptual framework of Sola Scriptura as a defining doctrine, that in a sense elevates scripture into a form of idolatry without questioning the canonization process or the variety of meanings that can be found through the process of translation. When this false god fails to stand up to image for which it was worshipped, the idol is broken along with the faith of the former adherent.

Should you read Who Wrote the Bible? It's an interesting theory and it could possibly be true. It is written in an entertaining, page-turning whodunit style reminiscent of a Dan Brown novel. If you are biblically literate and understand the limitations of such an interpretive lens, I think it is a profitable read.

[Carl · Rating 5 out of 5]

I discovered this book on my mission and found it very enjoyable. Friedman does a good job of writing complicated biblical scholarship for the layman, and even though I've since had academic training in the field of biblical studies, this is still a great refresher for me.

Basically, Friedman argues a slightly more complicated version of the Documentary Hypothesis, that the 5 books of Moses were written by 4 different people over several centuries, and then those different accounts were all spliced together by Ezra or someone like Ezra, giving us the text that we now have as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

As a Mormon, I have a firm belief in God and in his dealings with man. However, Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly" (our 8th Article of Faith). This book made me realize that we need to be a little more liberal with what we mean by "translated," because Friedman has convinced me that there are different voices with different, sometimes competing, agendas present in the biblical text. However, as he himself puts it, the question is not really "who wrote the Bible?" in the end, but "Who inspired the Bible?" I learned much from this book, and highly recommend it to anybody seeking to delve a little deeper into the Old Testament (The Hebrew Bible). It's a great start, and even if you don't agree with some of its conclusions (and I do not myself), it will force you to analyze the text in more detail than you have before, and that can't be a bad thing, because the Bible is inspired, however it got to us in its present form.

[Silas Kukaewkasem · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a Christian who grew up with a very conservative view of the Bible, I was not sure what to expect from this book. Would the Bible lose all meaning? Would my reverence for the “word of God” be swept away? To my surprise, I left this book with a deeper appreciation for the Bible and it’s authorship.

Friedman writes that the perception of God communicated by the combination of sources may have been, “more successful than perhaps he [the redactor] even intended to be.” On this point, I disagree with Friedman. I think the redactor knew exactly what they were doing. I have no clue if the redactor was Ezra or God himself but the creative culmination of the four sources points to some higher powers involvement. Rabbi David Fohrman points out that it would be spectacular for the Torah to simultaneously be constructed of multiple sources and maintain intricate literary themes throughout the text. He suggests for this to be possible you would need a beyond brilliant redactor or God himself would have to be that Redactor.

I recognize that the documentary hypothesis has been superseded by other theories, but Friedman’s book remains a good introduction to the J, E, D and P sources. Friedman may misplace the sources as far as chronology, but his description of Israel’s ancient history is captivating. Even if academia has concluded that much of the Torah may be embellished stories or myth, Friedman gives readers a great crash course on how the authors of the scripture may have perceived there history and current events. I leave this book with a much better understanding of the southern and northern kingdoms and priestly politics .

[Austen · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s been widely accepted that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Old Testament, known as the Pentateuch or the Torah. Friedman questioned this, and built on the work of several researchers, most notably Julius Wellhausen, who suggested that the Pentateuch was written by four different sources (which he nicknamed “E,” “J,” “D,” and “P”) and possibly a fifth source who did compiling and editing. Delving further into textual analysis and historical data, Friedman sets out to identify each of the writers and to explain the relationship of the authors to each other.

What he concluded was that the way in which each of the four authors wrote or interpreted stories was indicative of, and formed by, their place and time. He grounds each writer in the history of Israel and Judah, and explains why they wrote some of things they did (ex: why sacrifice at a central temple was important during Judean law reform). He also puts forth evidence for more controversial arguments such as the assertion that the writer "D" was the prophet Jeremiah, and that the final editor of all four documents was the prophet Ezra.

While Friedman did provide logical evidence for his theories, because of the nature of textual analysis it’s hard to find any definitive proof. Given the history that we do know, however, his analysis gives great insight into the world that created the Bible.

[Candice · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read.
And probably re-read a few times after that 😅

[Joshua Lawson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having been a student of scripture for nearly two decades, I'm a little embarrassed to admit that it took me so long to really start exploring the documentary hypothesis. I suppose I don't have to bear full responsibility for this lamentable fact, however, since no one in my native evangelical community ever bothered to mention it to me. For all I know, none of my early teachers even knew about it. Alas, but oh well. Here's to a brand new day in Biblical studies.

[Brandon · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am not convinced by the Documentary Hypothesis. I think that Friedman (and the other scholars that he is referencing) do not take evidence to their proper conclusions. I think it's kind of hard to overturn 2000 years of tradition.

[Patricia Woodruff · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found Friedman's book a great balance of academic knowledge put into an easy-to-understand format. This covers the first five books of the Bible and he does a great job of explaining the history around the area which puts the various writers into perspective.

[Ramon4 · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Sunday school, we are taught that the first 5 books of the Old Testament were written by Moses. But scholars have long noticed some anomalies that question this tradition: stories report events in a particular order, and later it say that those same events happened in a different order. As far back as the third century, scholars have noticed these anomalies.

Richard Elliott Friedman presents the most current beliefs of bible scholars. Friedman says that the first five books were not composed by Moses, but by at least 4 different writers, and then later combined into what we now have, by an Editor, or Redactor.

The first two writers were pulled out by separating the stories by the name of God in the stories. Sometime God is called Yahweh and sometimes God is called Elohim. (You don’t notice this in an English translation because Elohim is translated as ‘God’ and Yahweh is translated as ‘Lord God’.)

Scholars have pulled apart the sentences where God is called Elohim, and the sentences where god is called Yahweh, and the results are interesting. The two resulting stories are coherent and do not have the contradictions found in the combined story.

Friedman says that the story where God is called Elohim seem to be associated with and concerned with the northern Kingdom of Israel. The story where God is called Yahweh seems to be associated with and concerned with the southern Kingdom of Judah. So scholars have dubbed the northern writer E (for Elohim) and the southern writer J (for Yahweh). In other words, the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom had their own different religions, similar but different.

Sometime after the fall of the northern Israel, refugees from Israel moved south to Judah, and they brought their E documents with them. Over time, the two separate stories began to combine themselves. Sometime before the fall of Judah, the two stores were officially combined to form a single story dubbed JE, which we know today.

But further study of E suggests that there are doublets and contradictions within E. This leads to a proposal that E is actually the result of two writers, E and P. P because it appears that his additions concern themselves with priestly matters.

It is easy to see this yourself if you take a look at the first two chapters of Genesis, a doublet creation story. In chapter 1, the northern god, Elohim, an anthropomorphic god who enjoys a walk by the cool stream, creates the earth, then plants, then animals, and then man and woman at the same time.

In chapter 2, the southern god Yahweh, a cosmic non-anthropomorphic god, creates the earth, then man, then the plants, then the animals, and then the woman.

The two gods are very different; Elohim has a body. He does physical work in creating man with his hands, forming man from the clay of the earth, and then breathing life into his nostrils. Yahweh is a cosmic god without a body. He makes things happen by simply willing it so; no hands.

Scholars have also noted that the book of Deuteronomy does not fit this pattern. It appears to be an independent work by a writer dubbed D. But even here there are problems. It appears that there were two writers of D: Dtr1 and Dtr2,, or one writer who later went back and updated his first edition. Then it appears that P later added his thoughts to Deuteronomy.

I enjoyed this book very much and recommend it if you are interested in this kind of stuff.

[Stringy · Rating 4 out of 5]

What an interesting book! Friedman presents the evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis of authorship of the first 11 books of the Bible, which is the leading and most commonly accepted theory. It was easy to read, and the sections titled "The World That Produced The Bible" gave a lot of history of the region which was new to me. It reads like the part of a detective novel where the detective gathers the suspects and explains the process of their deductions, including the red herrings and mistakes.

The title may be slightly misleading to Christians, as it refers to the Pentateuch plus the next 6 books of the Christian bible. I wasn't expecting that, but I like Friedman's reasoning for this choice: these 11 books are common between Jewish, Christian and Muslim heritages, and other books from each tradition were written in relation or in response to them. Plus, I suspect these books have the most interesting mystery of authorship while the rest are more certain.

Friedman has contributed some research to this Documentary Hypothesis. But in this book he's summarising the work of many people over a couple of hundred years, and is writing for a mainstream audience. He draws on evidence from literary analysis, linguistic analysis and archeology. I read the most recent edition which includes details of recent proofs from archeology that weren't available when he initially wrote the book. The footnotes and bibliography are written in a user-friendly style so you can actually use them to look up more details and proofs if you like, instead of your eyes glazing over at endless tiny text.

If you're curious about how something as culturally important as the Bible began, this is well worth a read.

[Naama · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It was riveting. You don’t have to be into biblical criticism to enjoy it. JEDP theory has been around forever, but this book goes well beyond Wellhausen. Friedman combines some linguistic analysis with history and just a little bit of archeology, but it’s mostly just about a very close readings of the text with an open mind. Some of those close readings lead to very compelling theories, some less. There’s not much evidence-based science here, yet I thought there were tons of great insights here into the stories of the bible by a scholar who took the time to think about things from a different perspective. After finishing the book I looked for more materials by Friedman. He not only seems like a scholar and a good storyteller, but also a bibliophile. I’m very curious what he’s been up to since he wrote this book, and I’m sure at least some of what he wrote back in 1987 has been since revised.
However, a close reading of the text can never get old.
As Friedman explains in the end of his book, people can walk away from this book with all kinds of conclusions, but this is not a book about the end of faith or about discarding Juedo-Christian traditions. In some ways it’s about delving into them even deeper in order to gain more of an appreciation for these traditions.

[Laurel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is FANTASTIC. If you know your Bible, it's very easy to keep track of the context and significance of the findings. The Bible is an intertwining of the political and spiritual (and literary). The times that I read the old and new testament, I was viewing it from a strictly spiritual context, which was really doing it a disservice, as it tells a lot about world history and politics. People who have a literal belief in the Bible may be uncomfortable reading this book, as the evidence indicates that that the writings come from different authors, sources, and are sometimes contradictory. In other words, the Bible is not a prophetic, revelatory, or true document. Excellently written!

[Linda Cirillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first five books of the bible are the hardest to read, and while reading this book I began to understand why. Tribal rivals, different groups of priests, various cultures, all had a hand in changing the traditional stories around a bit, just enough to glorify their heroes and defame those of the other guys. And the different versions are cut and pasted. There is plenty of historical background as well, and I think it may be easier to read Deuteronomy now.