The Shapira Scroll

by chriswhitby | Apr 20, 2025 | Deception, Lost Truth, Torah, Translation

The Shapira Scroll

The Shapira Scroll, also known as the Shapira Strips or Shapira Manuscript, was a set of leather strips inscribed in Paleo-Hebrew script. It was presented by Moses Wilhelm Shapira in 1883 as an ancient Bible-related artifact and almost immediately denounced by scholars as a forgery.

The scroll consisted of fifteen leather strips, which Shapira claimed had been found in Wadi Mujib (biblical Arnon) near the Dead Sea. The Hebrew text hinted at a different version of Deuteronomy, including the addition of a new line to the Ten Commandments: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart: I am God, your god.” The text also lacks all laws except for the ten commandments, which it renders consistently in the first-person, from the standpoint of the deity. Scholars took little time to reject it as a fake, and the shame brought about by the accusation of forgery drove Shapira to suicide in 1884.

Shapira’s widow had at least part of the scroll in 1884, which she sent to Konstantin Schlottmann. The scroll reappeared a couple of years later in a Sotheby’s auction, where it was sold for £10 5s to Bernard Quaritch, who later listed it for £25. Contemporary reports show Dr. Philip Brookes Mason displayed the “whole of” the scroll at a public lecture in Burton-on-Trent on March 8, 1889. The current whereabouts of the scroll, if it survives, are unknown.

Source :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapira_Scroll

Moses Wilhelm Shapira’s infamous Deuteronomy fragments – long believed to be forgeries – are authentic ancient manuscripts, and they are of far greater significance than ever imagined. The literary work that these manuscripts preserve – which Idan Dershowitz calls “The Valediction of Moses” or “V” – is not based on the book of Deuteronomy. On the contrary, V is a much earlier version of Deuteronomy. In other words, V is a proto-biblical book, the likes of which has never before been seen. This conclusion is supported by a series of philological analyses, as well as previously unknown archival documents, which undermine the consensus on these manuscripts. An excursus co-authored with Na’ama Pat-El assesses V’s linguistic profile, finding it to be consistent with Iron Age epigraphic Hebrew. V contains early versions of passages whose biblical counterparts reflect substantial post-Priestly updating. Moreover, unlike the canonical narratives of Deuteronomy, this ancient work shows no signs of influence from the Deuteronomic law code. Indeed, V preserves an earlier, and dramatically different, literary structure for the entire work – one that lacks the Deuteronomic law code altogether. These findings have significant consequences for the composition history of the Bible, historical linguistics, the history of religion, paleography, archaeology, and more.

There has been much debate regarding the authenticity of the Shapira scrolls and this debate continues to this day.

The problem is that the original rejection of the scrolls was based on an investigation using insight and methodologies of the late 19th century and coupled with this, the tarnished reputation of Moses Shapira at the time, influenced the decision.

In this present time the methods/technology used to analyse ancient texts, as well as the insight gleaned over centuries, has led to a different view of these scrolls. Clearly there is still much debate regarding the authenticity of the scrolls but there are some very well respected academics who have come around to suggesting that the scrolls could very well be authentic.

From my own analysis of the more recent findings and conclusions I believe that these scrolls are part of the original message given to Moses.

I say this because of my understanding and acceptance of theories such as ‘The Documentart Hypothesis‘ and ‘Interpolations‘, which are clear and obvious in the Bible when one has been schooled in the methtod of identification.

When one considers this and the statements in Scripture relating to the unwanted (by the Almighty) Temple, sacrifices and monarchy (i.e. kings), then it becomes clearer to the reader that the Torah as we know it today has been tampered with – refer to Jeremiah:

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. 8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

Jeremiah 8:8

One must also consider the words of our Messiah Yahushua when he time and time again rebuked the priesthood for their ‘leaven’ and being of the devil:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

John 8:44

I could go on but my purpose is not to convince you here but rather to provide you with a starting point for your own research and conclusion on the matter.

The Shapira Scrolls — Authentic or Forged?

Scholars debate the scrolls’ authenticity in Biblical Archaeology Review

Do the Shapira Scrolls contain an authentic biblical manuscript or forged text?

These scroll fragments surfaced at the end of the 19th century to much fanfare. In 1883, antiquities dealer Moses Shapira presented to the watching world several scroll fragments that he claimed were an ancient biblical manuscript, an early version of the Book of Deuteronomy. If authentic, this would be a proto-biblical text.

The discovery seemed too good to be true, and many leading scholars of the day said just that: They cried forgery and said that the scrolls did not contain an ancient text. Disgraced and discredited, Shapira and his scrolls went down in infamy.

Does this 19th-century verdict still stand today, or should it be overturned?

Earlier this year, biblical scholar Idan Dershowitz of the University of Potsdam gained international attention as he argued that the Shapira Scrolls do, in fact, preserve a genuine proto-biblical text, which he calls The Valediction of Moses. In his book The Valediction of Moses: A Proto-Biblical Book, he reassessed the Shapira Scrolls with the tools of modern biblical scholarship. Although he made a strong case, many scholars remained unconvinced. Two vocal dissenters were biblical scholars Ronald Hendel of the University of California, Berkeley, and Matthieu Richelle of the Université Catholique de Louvain, in Belgium. They believe the verdict of forgery still stands.

Watch this debate unfold in the Winter 2021 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. On one side, Dershowitz and archaeologist James Tabor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte defend the scrolls’ authenticity in their article “The Shapira Scrolls: The Case for Authenticity.” On the other side, Hendel and Richelle contend that the scrolls are 19th-century forgeries in “The Shapira Scrolls: The Case for Forgery.”

Both articles analyze the scrolls’ discovery, script, and content.

The Scrolls’ Discovery

The Shapira Scrolls were not found in an archaeological excavation—but rather appeared on the antiquities market in the late 1870s. Reportedly, Bedouin had discovered the 16 scroll fragments in a cave east of the Dead Sea, in biblical Moab in what is today Jordan. The fragments looked like dark lumps of leather with Paleo-Hebrew writing. Moses Shapira bought the fragments from the Bedouin. After analyzing them, he presented his findings and initial translation to the public in 1883.

This origin story of the scrolls caused many scholars—both in the 19th century and today—to approach the scrolls with skepticism. Artifacts that don’t come from controlled excavations (often called unprovenanced artifacts) are divorced from their greater context. Much information that could have been gathered about these artifacts is lost. Further, there is always the possibility that such artifacts are not genuine but, rather, fabricated for monetary or personal gain.

In their analysis, Hendel and Richelle point out that Shapira had peddled forgeries before. Whether intentionally or not, Shapira had sold artifacts, which later had been exposed as fakes, to collectors and institutions. Thus, the scrolls and their origin story deserve careful scrutiny.

Archaeologist James Tabor also digs into the scrolls’ origin story. He notes the strong similarities with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Heralded by many as the most important archaeological discovery of the 20th century, the Dead Sea Scrolls were initially found by Bedouin in caves west of the Dead Sea in the 1940s and 1950s, about a century after the Shapira Scrolls had surfaced. Subsequent excavation exposed more scrolls in these caves, and decades of analysis have proven the Dead Sea Scrolls to be authentic. Thus, Tabor posits that the origin story of the Shapira Scrolls should not immediately discredit their validity.

The Scrolls’ Script

Scholars should also assess the scrolls’ script and content. Unfortunately, the Shapira Scrolls themselves have vanished, so they cannot undergo scientific tests, which might provide a conclusive answer on validity. For their analysis, then, scholars must rely on 19th-century photographs, script charts, notes, and drawings of the scrolls.

If authentic, the script of the Shapira Scrolls should resemble that of ancient Hebrew inscriptions. There are indeed many similarities between the scrolls’ script and inscriptions from the ninth and eighth centuries B.C.E. Dershowitz believes these similarities point to authenticity. Hendel and Richelle, however, note key “differences of letterforms, stance, and cursive combinations,” as well as spelling and grammar. They believe these differences are sufficient grounds to dismiss the Shapira Scrolls as forgeries.

The Scrolls’ Content

The scholars also disagree about the scrolls’ content, which supposedly records Moses’s last words, an early version of the biblical Book of Deuteronomy. Dershowitz contends that the content lines up nicely—but, admittedly, not perfectly—with 21st-century theories about Deuteronomy’s composition. The content of The Valediction of Moses is what many scholars would expect an early version of Deuteronomy to look like. Dershowitz believes that this is the strongest line of argument in favor of authenticity.

Hendel and Richelle are convinced that the scrolls’ author was aware of the Book of Deuteronomy in its final form. They view the text not as an early version of Deuteronomy but a rewritten and abridged version with elements of the canonical book’s various compositional stages.

After analyzing the scrolls’ discovery, script, and content, the two sets of scholars come to dramatically different conclusions. Dershowitz and Tabor contend that the scrolls must be viewed as authentic biblical artifacts, whereas Hendel and Richelle maintain that the scrolls cannot. Since the scrolls themselves have disappeared, the debate likely will never be settled definitively.

source: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v7DvE5Bdkr29XPax-ZLJsyPhnNtm_lj4Jkqqof2nANE/edit?tab=t.

Did Shapira’s Manuscript Contain Ten or Eleven Commandments?

Ross K. Nichols

Some of the more unique features of the manuscript that Shapira presented to the world in 1883 are contained in its version of the Ten Commandments. From the very beginning of the Shapira saga, these unique features created a sense of interest as well as objections.

As it turns out, the sense of interest was deserved and the objections unwarranted. Nearly everyone has heard of the famed Ten Commandments. According to the biblical record, these words were spoken from the midst of fire by God Himself at Horeb/Sinai to an assembly of people and then written on two stone tablets. These words represent the covenant.

We have two primary records of these words in the Bible (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). While they are popularly known as the Ten Commandments, they are never called by that designation in the Hebrew Bible. The three references (Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13, and Deuteronomy 10:4) all record the name of these words of the covenant as ע ש ר ת ה ד ב ר י ם, literally, The Ten Words.

Anyone who carefully compares the two versions of the Ten Words contained within our Bible will notice differences between them. These differences are evident in English as well as Hebrew. 2 There are, for example, 172 Hebrew words in Exodus’s version of The Ten Words and 189 Hebrew words in Deuteronomy’s version. The two accounts are, of course, similar in many ways, but they also contain variants.

Both reports claim to present the words that God spoke (Exodus 20:1, Deuteronomy 5:19), and so the question is, what words did He say? Which version best represents the words spoken from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. Both accounts employ the third person when referring to God, suggesting that neither version is the original record of the Ten Words. And how are we to number the ten since the text provides little help in this regard?

In 1878, after nearly a month of careful study, Shapira produced a transcription of the sixteen leather strips. On 24 September 1883, he sent his transcription and a detailed commentary noting variations between the manuscript and the traditional texts of the Bible to Professor Konstantine Schlottmann at the University of Halle. There were notable variations in the order, arrangement, wording, and presentation of the Ten Words.

After consultation with Franz Delitzsch, Professor Schlottmann sent back a scolding reply to Shapira dated 7 October 1883. Shapira later wrote to Hermann Strack about this rebuke, reporting that among other criticisms, Schlottmann had said, “How I dare to call this forgery the Old Testament? Could I suppose for one minute that it is older than our unquestionable [sic] genuine ten commandments?”

3 Eduard Meyer, who examined and transcribed the manuscript in July of 1883 with Hermann Guthe wrote to his mentor Georg Ebers on 8 July 1883 informing him that when “Schlottmann … declared it forged, old Delitzsch made the indignant remark: ‘Don’t touch our Decalogue!’”

4 In an article titled, “A New Version of Deuteronomy,” which appeared in the 3 August 1883 edition of The Jewish Chronicle, it was reported, “It need scarcely be stated that if this turns out to be correct, these pieces of leather will possess a high value, not only in money, but also in a literary sense, for they contain some curious variations in the reading, among which we have an extra commandment, which is, ‘Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart.’”

The claim that this manuscript contained an extra commandment has been repeated in modern times. Examples include Aviva and Shmuel Bar Am’s article of 2 November 2013, which appeared in The Times of Israel with the title, “In the Footsteps of a Master Forger.”

The report begins, “In 1883, respected antiques dealer Moses Wilhelm Shapira claimed to possess ancient scrolls of Deuteronomy. The text differed slightly from the accepted version: It has an 11 th commandment.”

Later in the article, we read, “In 1883, while dwelling here in luxury, Shapira was involved in a highly publicized scandal. He claimed to have in his possession scrolls of Deuteronomy dating back thousands of years, whose text differed slightly from the accepted version and added an 11 th Commandment to the Decalogue.

The 11th Commandment, according to the Shapira scroll, was ‘Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: I am GOD, thy GOD.’ The report caused a sensation, since the earliest biblical manuscripts at that time were only a few hundred years old.”

5 Even more recently, Ryan Morrison, in his 10 March 2021 article titled, “Shapira Scroll: Ancient Manuscript May Be Oldest Known Biblical Script,” said, “There is also an 11 th commandment that reads: ‘Thou shalt not hate they brother in thy heart: I am God, they God.’”

6 The confusion over whether the manuscript had ten or eleven “commandments” seems to originate with the wording of that 3 August 1883 article in The Jewish Press.

While the article mentioned “an extra commandment,” the writer never said that the manuscript contained eleven commandments, but instead said, “by joining the first and second commandments into one, this becomes the tenth in the Phenician [sic] version.”

There are only Ten Words in the manuscript. Each of The Ten Words in this Decalogue began on a new line and ended with the exact phrase in Hebrew, namely, א נ כ א ל ה ם א ל ה ך[I am Elohim your Elohim].

This feature clearly shows how the words were to be counted. I would kindly ask readers of this paper to help me set the record straight; – the manuscript that I call The Moses Scroll, 7 and that Idan Dershowitz calls The Valediction of Moses, 8 contained only ten words in its version of The Ten Words and not eleven.

1 This paper was originally published on my Author’s Blog – https://themosesscroll.com/did-shapiras-manuscript- contain-ten-or-eleven-commandments/.

2 See for example Ross K. Nichols, A Comparison of the Ten Words in English with Explanatory Notes, https://www.academia.edu/43772655/A_ Comparison_of_the_Ten_Words_in_English_ with_Explanatory_Notes.

3 Moses Shapira, letter to Hermann Strack, Jerusalem, 9 May 1883, “Papers Relative to M.W. Shapira’s Forged MS. of Deuteronomy (A.D. 1883–1884).” Add. MS. 41294 (London: British Library).

4 Letter from Eduard Meyer to Georg Ebers, 8 July 1883, “Der Briefwechsel zwischen Georg Ebers und Eduard Meyer (1874–1898),” Vorbemerkung von G. Audring. https://www.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/de/bereiche-und- lehrstuehle/alte-geschichte/forschung/briefe-meyer/ebers

5 https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-the-footsteps-of-a-master-forger/

6 https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/shapira-scroll-ancient-manuscript-may-be-oldest-known-biblical- script/ar-BB1eswXJ

7 Ross K. Nichols, The Moses Scroll, (Saint Francisville: Horeb Press, 2021). For more information, visit https://themosesscroll.com. 8 Idan Dershowitz, The Valediction of Moses: A Proto-Biblical Book, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021).

https://www.academia.edu/67707696/Did_Shapiras_Manuscript_Contain_Ten_or_Eleven_Commandments

Below are a number of interesting articles providing further insight into the authenticity of the Shapira Scroll

The Case for Authenticity

BEFORE TAKING A CLOSER LOOK at the Shapira manuscripts and why we believe they are an authentic, pre-canonical version of Deuteronomy, I (Idan) will first present new evidence that undermines the consensus theory that Shapira forged his Deuteronomy fragments. I will also rebut some recent scholarly claims made against their authenticity.

The Authentic Dead Sea Scroll

Wilhelm Shapira astonished the European academic world in 1883 by offering for sale fifteen or sixteen leather fragments of an ancient Hebrew scroll containing parts of Deuteronomy, but in a version that deviated from the Masorah. The script of the scroll, known to us today as paleo-Hebrew, is an archaism of the pre-exilic Hebrew script. The sale offer was made to the British Museum and the asking price was one million British pounds. The British museum was willing to consider the offer and appointed Christian David Ginsburg to ascertain the authenticity of the scroll.

Ginsburg analyzed the fragments of the Shapira scroll for almost three weeks but it was Charles Clermont-Ganneau, the renowned French scholar, who publicly announced on 21 August 1883 that the scroll is a forgery. On the following day, Ginsburg wrote to Bond, the director of the British Museum, that the manuscript is in fact a forgery.

This article attempts to demonstrate that the Shapira scroll was an authentic manuscript by presenting circumstantial evidence in favour of the scroll. The evidence focuses upon physical characteristics of the scroll as well as upon paleographic aspects.

The Valediction of Moses

Wilhelm Moses Shapira’s infamous Deuteronomy fragments have long been deemed forgeries, with Shapira himself serving as the obvious suspect. I provide new evidence that Shapira did not forge the fragments and was himself convinced of their authenticity. Indeed, the evidence for forgery is illusory. In a companion monograph, I show that the Shapira fragments are not only authen- tic ancient artifacts but are unprecedented in their significance: They preserve a pre-canonical antecedent of the Book of Deuteronomy.

Idan Dershowitz

link to the complete book click HERE

for condensed summary:

The Documentary Hypothesis

by chriswhitby | Apr 9, 2025 | Deception, Lost Truth, Translation, Warning

The Documentary Hypothesis

The Documentary Hypothesis

Most believers today will argue that the Scriptures are the infallible Word of the Almighty – completely error free and totally trustworthy. I used to accept this thought but my journey has taught me to ‘test all things’ Believers, including myself, have accepted many strange teachings from the pulpit simply because they appear to align with Scripture. I have found that many translations often have to be tested and checked for accuracy and I have often come to the conclusion that the translations followed the bias and beliefs of the translators. It is therefore my conclusion that Bible translations are not reliable and one needs to cross-check as much as possible – mainly back to the Hebrew when possible.

If that was not enough of a concern I have discovered what are called ‘interpolations’ and ‘inclusions’ that conflict with the broader message of Scripture or at least pollute the Word. It is my belief that what is referred to as ‘JEDP or‘ ‘The Documentary Hypothesis‘ also has merit and triggers a red flag i.e. the need for caution.

What is ‘The Documentary Hypothesis’?

JEDP refers to ‘The Documentary Hypothesis’, a theory proposing that the Pentateuch (the first five books of Scripture was not written by Moses but compiled from four distinct sources: Jahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D), and Priestly (P).

This theory suggests that the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) was not written by Moses as tradition holds, but rather compiled from four different sources or traditions.

The Four Sources:

J (Jahwist): Characterized by the use of the name “Yahweh” (or “YHWH”) for God, and often portrays God with human-like emotions and actions.

E (Elohist): Uses the name “Elohim” (or “El”) for God, and emphasizes prophets and dreams.

D (Deuteronomist): Primarily responsible for the Book of Deuteronomy and some historical books, emphasizing morals and the importance of Jerusalem.

P (Priestly): Focuses on laws, covenants, and the priesthood, and is often considered to be the most widely recognized of the sources.

Wellhausen Hypothesis:
The JEDP theory is also known as the Wellhausen hypothesis, named after Julius Wellhausen, a German scholar who pioneered the theory.

Critiques of the Theory:
The JEDP theory has been criticized for being based on speculation and for contradicting the claims of the Bible writers themselves, who assert that the Torah was given by Moses.

There is a vast amount of information on this subject on the web for those who are interested. I believe that that there were different interest groups who amended and added to Scripture over time. Even translations sometimes reflect the theological bias and beliefs of the authors.

I have included both written and video content below for your review and consideration.

Interpolation

to insert (words) into a text or into a conversation

Cambridge dictionary.

‘the addition of something different in the middle of a text, piece of music, etc. or the thing that is added’:

Merriam Webster

to alter or corrupt (something, such as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter

to insert (words) into a text or into a conversation

An interpolation, in relation to literature and especially ancient manuscripts, is an entry or passage in a text that was not written by the original author. As there are often several generations of copies between an extant copy of an ancient text and the original, each handwritten by different scribes, there is a natural tendency for extraneous material to be inserted into such documents over time.

The known and suspected Biblical interpolations are too numerous to list, although it is possible to give examples and explain clues that have helped identify them. It seems that whenever the Bible needed updating, someone was always ready to make the required changes and present these as original to the text. Sometimes an interpolation is suspected because the text is not present in the earliest manuscripts now available, in other cases there is a clear change of style and in other cases the text seems inconsistent with the context.

The matter of interpolations requires a large amount of time to study. I have included a video from James Tabor at the end of this post which delves into the subject of interpolations and provides methods used to identify them and some examples.

You can review some listed interpolations here and decide for yourself:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation

The Death Of The Documentary Hypothesis

BY DAVID BOKOVOY

I’m surprised how often I read online someone making the assertion that the Documentary Hypothesis is dead. “The JEPD theory is no longer dominant,” remarked one recent commentator, “now biblical scholars look towards community authorship or single authorship of the Pentateuch with supplementation.”

I’m not sure where precisely this idea stems from, but it’s certainly not correct. My concern is that it seems to be expressed most frequently by religious commentators seeking to defend a type of inspired unity to the work that can be traced back to Mosaic authorship, or if not that far, the death of the DH at least supports a more traditional religious reading of the work.

The DH traces its intellectual roots to the rise of 17th century European rationalism. European rationalism transformed the traditional approach of interpreting the Bible as privileged text. During this era, several European philosophers who considered reason to be the ultimate source for human knowledge began questioning many long-held assumptions regarding the Bible, including the concept of biblical inerrancy.

Rather than reading the Bible as a scriptural text that requires its own special rules to explain or cover-up inconsistencies, philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza, Thomas Hobbes, and Thomas Paine interpreted the text according to the standard rules of logic. For example, a slave law in Exodus 21:6 states that some slaves should serve their masters “forever.” This statement, however, directly contradicts the slave law in Leviticus 24:40, which states that all slaves must be released every fiftieth year (the year of Jubilee).

Not wanting to see these laws as contradictions, later Jewish rabbis attempted to reconcile the two passages by stating that the word “forever” really means “practically, but not literally forever”—in other words, simply until the year of Jubilee.[1] In contrast to this approach, which had been adopted by Jewish and Christian interpreters alike, European rationalists began arguing that if a text like Exodus 21 said “forever,” it should be read as “forever,” and that the two laws were simply at odds with one another. In other words, they began to treat the Bible like a real book that could contain historical anachronisms and inconsistencies.[2] The Bible was not simply inerrant scripture that needed to be harmonized.

This new “enlightened” approach to reading the Bible produced a German school of interpretation in the theology departments of Protestant universities. The most influential member of this intellectual school was the German scholar Julius Wellhausen. In 1878, Wellhausen synthesized previous scholarly discoveries in Higher Criticism through the publication of his highly influential book Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel.[3] Ultimately, Wellhausen’s work did for biblical scholarship what Darwin’s Origin of the Species accomplished for natural science. As Darwin’s concept of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection has become central to modern evolutionary theory, so Wellhausen’s work on historical criticism provides the foundation for modern scholarly assessments of the Bible.

In order to take seriously the inconsistencies found throughout the Bible’s first five books, Prolegomena broke up the Pentateuch into separate sources that Wellhausen dated to specific times in Israelite history. He then put those sources back together again according to his own theory regarding the evolution of Israelite religion. Though in the years that followed, not all of Wellhausen’s interpretations of the development of biblical sources have been accepted, as of today almost all contemporary biblical scholars recognize that the first five books of the Bible were not written by a single author and that they are in fact a compilation of separate sources composed by different schools of thought.

When commentators speak of the “death of the DH,” they often draw this conclusion from criticism raised in recent years by European scholars. This new school of continental scholarship in part traces its origins to the work of Rolf Rendtorff, who raised important questions regarding the combination of tradition history and source criticism in the manner commonly assumed in critical Pentateuchal scholarship.[4] Rendtorff rejected the traditionally accepted premise of a Yahwistic author writing during the Israelite monarchal period. Similar arguments were then raised in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s by scholars such as Albert de Pury and Thomas Römer who likewise maintained that the original literary basis of the Pentateuch did not result from a Yahwistic source produced during the monarchy. Instead, de Pury and Römer suggested that the Pentateuch derived primarily from the writings of a Priestly author working in the post-exilic era.[5] In terms of European studies, these ideas have played a significant role in the development of various theories regarding the historical development of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.[6]

In recent years, many continental scholars have abandoned the traditional theory of documentary sources in the Pentateuch as a relevant model for explaining its development, and in its place adopted a “Fragmentary” or “Supplementary” Hypothesis.[7] These theories have called into question many previously held assumptions by source critics, including the nature and even existence of sources such as J and E. Continental scholars have differed lately in their views of documentary sources and fragmentary supplements within the Pentateuch, especially in relationship to Genesis 1-11.[8] They have mostly done away with J, E, and to some extent, even P.[9]

This does not mean, however, that continental studies have entirely rejected the basic premise of separate sources within the Pentateuch. “The newer contributions to Pentateuchal research from Europe do not aim at overthrowing the Documentary Hypothesis,” writes Konrad Schmid, “rather, they strive to understand the composition of the Pentateuch in the most appropriate terms, which… includes ‘documentary’ elements as well.”[10] Moreover, the documentary approach still has a strong following in North American and Israeli scholarship and new arguments have been put forward recently reaffirming its validity (Baden, Schwartz, Stackert, Hendel, and Friedman, among others).[11]

The truth is that the DH is far from dead. While there have been some important criticisms of the traditional DH presented in recent years, even European critics have not entirely abandoned the idea that the Pentateuch is a compilation of “documents.” P, for example, is now almost universally recognized as an independent source as is D. Hence, what we call these sources (for example, P, J, E, and D) really doesn’t matter. There will always be some differences in the way scholars divide them up (documents versus fragments, etc.).

To share my own feelings, rather than supplementary fragments, I’m convinced that J and E were also independent narratives. My view is based upon the fact that when these narratives are extracted from P, there is a readability factor that consistently ties the sources thematically and linguistically together as a unified whole. And, as biblical scholar William Propp has explained, the repetition of duplicative stories throughout the Pentateuch points towards separate, stand alone documents rather than supplemental insertions:

“Why must we be told twice of the corruption of the antediluvian earth (Gen. 6:5; 11-12)? Why should Noah be twice commanded to enter the ark (Gen. 6:18, 7:1), and why must he do so twice (Gen. 7:7,13)? Why must we be told twice that all life perished (Gen. 7:21, 22-23)? Why should Jacob twice receive the name Israel (Gen. 32:29, 35:10)? Why must Yahweh tell Moses twice that he has heard Israel’s cry (Ex. 3:7, 6:5)? Do we need a new plague of kinnîm [‘nats’] (Ex. 7:12-15) before ‘ārōb [‘swarm’] (Ex. 7:15-28), given the apparent synonymity (see Ps. 105:31)? Why should the spies twice describe the giants of Canaan (Num. 13:28, 32-33)? Why are the Israelites twice condemned to die in the desert (Num. 14:23, 28-35)? A few redundancies might be attributed to different sensibilities on the part of the supplementer, a few inconsistencies to absence of mind. A wholesale pattern of redundancy and contradiction is another matter.”[12]

The DH is not dead. And it’s not going anywhere.

For those interested in a recent academic defense of the Documentary Hypothesis, I would highly recommend Joel S. Baden’s work The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012).

……………………………………………………….

For well over two centuries the question of the composition of the Pentateuch has been among the most central and hotly debated issues in the field of biblical studies. In this book, Joel Baden presents a fresh and comprehensive argument for the Documentary Hypothesis. Critically engaging both older and more recent scholarship, he fundamentally revises and reorients the classical model of the formation of the Pentateuch. Interweaving historical and methodological chapters with detailed textual case studies, Baden provides a critical introduction to the history of Pentateuchal scholarship, discussions on the most pressing issues in the current debate, and a practical model for the study of the biblical text.

Source: Publisher

……………………………………………………….

[1] See Marc Zvi Brettler, How to Read the Bible (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005), 2.

[2] New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman expresses this notion of the Bible as “real book” rather than inerrant scripture with these words: “Since the Bible is a book, it makes better sense to approach it the way one approaches books. There are certainly books in the world that don’t have any mistakes in them. But no one would insist that a particular phone book, chemistry textbook, or car instruction manual has absolutely no mistakes in it before reading it to see whether it does or not. Rather than thinking that the Bible cannot have mistakes, before looking to see if it does, why not see if it does, and only then decide whether it could. . . . If God created an error free book then it should be without errors. If what we have is not an error-free book, then it is not a book that God has delivered to us without errors.” Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 117.

[3] Historically, the identification of textual duplicates led to the view of the Pentateuch as an amalgamation of separate sources. An early advocate of this position was Richard Simon (1638-1712). Simon maintained that the Pentateuch consisted of various documents, some of which derived from Moses, but most he attributed to Ezra in the post-exilic period. Following Simon, Jean Astruc (1684-1766) expressed the view that two separate sources appear in the book of Genesis, one that used Elohim (God) and the other the divine name Yahweh (Lord). In his articulation of source criticism, Astruc argued against the traditional view that Moses complied the Pentateuch. Astruc’s analysis prepared the way for further discussion concerning whether these sources were documents or simply fragments combined from other sources. These studies prepared the way for Wellhausen’s ground-breaking synthesis of the Documentary Hypothesis. For a basic history, see Anthony F. Cambell and Mark A. O’Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 1-9.

[4] Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977).

[5] Albert de Pury, “Le Cylce de Jacob comme légende autonome des origines d’Israël,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J.A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 78-96; idem, “Osée 12 et ses implications pour le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque,” in Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches (ed. P. Haudebert; LD 151; Paris: Cerf, 1992), 175-207; Albert de Pury, “Yahwist (“J”) Source,” ABD 6:1012-1020; Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990).

[6] See the collection of essays provided in Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid, eds., Farewell to the Yahwist?: Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SSS 34; Atlanta: SBL, 2006).

[7] The so-called Fragmentary Hypothesis was inaugurated by Johann Severin Vater in his work Commentar über den Pentateuch: Mit Einleitungen zu den einzelnen Abschnitten, der eingeschalteten Übersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddes’s merkwurdigeren critischen und exegetischen Anmerkungen, und einer Abhandlung über Moses und Verfasser des Pentateuchs (Halle: Waisenhaus-Buchhandlung, 1802-1805), see especially 393-394.

[8] Blenkinsopp, for example, maintains that Genesis 1-11 was originally conceived as a distinct composition with its own structure and that J is an addition to P; see Blenkinsopp, Creation Uncreation Recreation. For another continental critique of the Documentary Hypothesis arguing that pre-Priestly material was added by a subsequent redactor, see Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (trans. James Nogalski; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010).

[9] In the current European discussion, most scholars consider P a source document; see for example, Norbert Lohfink, “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte,” in Studien zum Pentateuch (SBAB 4; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 213-253; Walter Gross, “Bundeszeichen und Bundesschluß in der Priesterschrift,” TTZ 87 (1987): 98-115; Walter Gross, “Die Wolksule und die Feuersäule in Ex 13 + 14: Literarkritisäche, redaktionsgeschichtliche und quellenkritische Erwägungen,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel (eds. Georg Braulik et al.; Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 142-165; Peter Weimar, “Struktur und Komposition der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung,” BN 23 (1984): 81-134; Bernd Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 8-9, n. 51; Koch, “P-Kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an Zwei Eckdaten Der Quellenscheidung”: 446-467; John Adney Emerton, “The Priestly Writer in Genesis,” JTS 39 (1988): 381-400; Christian Streibert, Schöpfung bei Deuterojesaja und in der Priesterschrift: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zu Inhalt und Funktion schöpfungstheologischer Aussagen in exilisch-nachexilischer Zeit (Frankfurt A. M.: Peter Lang, 1993), 46-47; Ludwig Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 4-10, 34; Eckart Otto, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction-Reception-Interpretation (ed. Marc Vervenne; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 61-111. A major exception to this trend is Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990). For additional bibliography, see Konrad Schmid, “Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (eds. Thomas Dozeman et al.; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 17-18, n. 6.

[10] Schmid, “Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis?,” 17-18.

[11] See, for example, Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menachem haran (ed. Michael Fox; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 103-134; Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteornomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Richard Elliot Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 160-161; Ronald S. Hendel, “Leitwort Style and Literary Structure in the J Primeval Narrative,” in Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of R.E. Friedman on His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Shawna Dolansky; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 93-109.

[12] William H. Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?,” VT 46 (1996): 460; emphasis added.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/01/the-death-of-the-documentary-hypothesi

Regardless of how serious one takes the findings of researchers and academics with regard to JEPD and interpolation, let it simply serve as a warning to ‘test all things’ as stated in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and ‘hold fast what is good.’ This is a call for critical thinking and discernment.

The KJV states ‘prove all things’ which means to ‘examine, scrutinise to see whether a thing is genuine or not. To recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy’ (Outline of Biblical usage). The same Greek word is elsewhere translated as ‘discern’.

The Bereans were considered more ‘noble’ because they tested what they heard:

Act 17:11 KJV

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Act 17:11 NKJV

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

In Matthew 16:6 Yahushua warns his disciples ’Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.’ Yahushua clarifies that he is not talking about bread, but about the teachings and hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Leaven, or yeast, is used metaphorically to represent a corrupting influence, in this case, the Pharisaic and Sadducean teachings and hypocrisy, which could spread and contaminate their faith. See also Luke 12:1, Mark 8:15.

The Word is the bread of life. Yahushua was the bread that came down from heaven – John 6:51. He stated that in John 6:35 that he is the ‘bread of life’. Yahushua is the ‘unleavened bread of sincerity and truth’.

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 5:6 that ‘a little leaven leavens the whole lump’. See also Galatians 5:9

In Luke, Yahushua teaches that the Kingdom is like a leavened lump. Some teach that this somehow refers to the growth of the church. That teaching is false. One must be consistent with the meaning of leaven which represents wickedness and sin. What Yahushua is actually referring to is his warnings in Matthew 16:6 etc., to be aware of the corrupt doctrines of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. He was proclaiming that the religious practices under the leadership of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees were corrupt.

Luke 13:20-21

And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God?

21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

We must be aware then that a small amount of JEPD/interpolation in the Word, can corrupt the entire message. We should pay special attention to Yahushua’s words as he exposes some of this corruption.

Further evidence of corruption in the Word by scribes etc. is raised by the Prophet Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 8:8

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us’? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.

There are many critics of the The Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) with some suggesting that the conclusions are false and some saying that the methods used to identify JEPD are obsolete. I question the motives of these critics though. What is their agenda?

I embrace the idea that there are many contributors and sources put together to form the Bibles that we have today. It is also pretty clear to me, bearing in mind the warnings in the verses above, that there has been some tampering with the Word over the ages which has corrupted some of the message and meaning in certain places.

Many of our Bible translations have also contributed to the distorted message. This is a matter to be taken very seriously, as Christianity today teaches inaccurate theology and doctrines because of this.

Do not be deceived, if Yahushua was talking to us today he would be saying ’Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pastors and Priests.’

Let’s be clear, our Bibles warn us again and again that we risk being deceived. Read Matthew 24:24, 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10, Matthew 7:15, 2 Peter 2:1,1 Timothy 4:1

I awould also like to draw your attention to the fact that our Heavenly Father tests us to see if we love Him with all of our heart and soul:

Deuteronomy 13:2

1 If a prophet or dreamer of dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you,

2 and if the sign or wonder he has spoken to you comes about, but he says,“Let us follow other gods (which you have not known) and let us worship them,”

3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. For the LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love Him with all your heart and with all your soul.

I am motivated and encouraged to search for truth by the following wisdom from Proverbs:

Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

This verse suggests that our Father’s nature is to hold certain things hidden, perhaps to encourage deeper reflection and seeking.

Also, the words of Yahushua in John. We must worship the Father in spirit and truth:

John 4:23

“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.

24 “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

And the Spirit will teach us all things:

John 14:26

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

1John 2:26-27

These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.

27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will[fn] abide in Him.

The Fine Art of Identifying Bible Interpolations: The False Pen for the Scribes!
James Tabor

2ND TEMPLE JUDAISM JUNE 20, 2024

In this new series on my Youtube channel, to run concurrently with the present series, “Lost in Translation,” we work on learning how to spot and identify texts of the Bible, whether Hebrew Bible/O.T. or New Testament, that have been overlaid with what appear to be disjunctive interpolations inserted for polemical reasons.

The Four Sources of the Pentateuch

It was Julius Wellhausen in 1878 who broke down the narrative sources for the first five books.

A brief sketch of his work will show the proposed development in which the early and mostly oral traditions of Israel were gradually written down, preserved in four written documents, and then combined to make one Pentateuch.

JEPD and The Documentary Hypothesis

The theory that has struck fear into the hearts of Christian Theologians for almost 300 years, despite the fact that Yeshua taught it to Simon Peter almost 2,000 years ago. What has the Church hidden from you? Do you know the Truth or just what you have been told? Do you want the rest of the story? Can you handle it? Was Yeshua (Jesus) a Christian? Was He a Pharisaical Jew who died for our sins? Or was He teaching something radical and different than mainstream Judaism of his day taught, something different than Mainstream Christianity today? Something that got Him killed and His message hidden after His ascension? Is the Truth still out there, buried in long-forgotten books and vague historical references by the very men that wiped out the original faith and message once delivered to the saints? I invite you to join me as I search out the original Faith of the Yeshua and the 12 Apostles.

The Documentary Hypothesis

This video introduces students to the Documentary Hypothesis in the context of a course on Old Testament. It was produced for use in courses at Doane University in Crete, NE.

The Documentary Hypothesis explained:

Wellhausen and the formation of the Pentateuch

Old Testament Hermeneutics with Andy Judd

Since the 19th century scholars have been pretty confident in the Documentary Hypothesis: the idea is that the Pentateuch was a group work project, with four main sources dating from the 10th to the 5th centuries BC. Here’s a run down on the theory, and why scholarly consensus is breaking down.

Who Wrote the Old Testament?

Understanding the Documentary Hypothesis

Who wrote the Old Testament? Was it Moses? Perhaps the Documentary Hypothesis gives us better insight into the author(s) of the first five books of the Bible? Either way, this video seeks to educate by looking at the basics of the Documentary Hypothesis and a brief history of its transmission.

Is Grace From God

by chriswhitby | Mar 17, 2025 | Deception, Translation, Warning

Is Grace From God

In the Bible, the concept of grace is a fundamental and significant theological concept that is central to Christian belief. Grace is often defined as the unmerited favor, kindness, and mercy of God. But what does grace really mean and what is the historical origin of this English word. Would it matter if you knew the origin and found that it was in conflict with your faith relationship. What if I told you that there is a much deeper meaning to ‘grace’ hidden in plain sight in the original Hebrew language that reveals a beautiful love story. A story which the English language has hidden from you. What will you do when you know the truth? Will you simply dismiss the revelation as trivial and ignore the message or will you take heed and ‘hear’ the messenger.

The Septuagint

by chriswhitby | Aug 28, 2019 | Deception, Translation

The Septuagint

About a year ago whilst researching a New Testament topic I was motivated to consult the Greek translation of the Old Testament to do some ‘fact checking’. This research though led me into some investigation of the Greek translation commonly known as the ‘Septuagint’. I was under the impression that the Septuagint (Old Testament Greek translation) was the original, or at least a copy of the original translation.

To my surprise I discovered that the original undertaken by 70 or 72 elected Jewish scholars in the mid-3^rd century BCE was no longer available and is basically lost apart from some fragments. The word Septuagint is from the Latin word ‘septuāgintā’ and literally means ‘seventy’.

This original Greek translation – the ‘Septuagint’, was only a translation of the first five books (the Torah) of the Old Testament as well and not the whole Old Testament.

My conclusion and understanding from my research on this issue is that there are many Greek Old Testament Translations available today which incorrectly reflect the title ‘Septuagint’ which are in fact not. The word ‘Septuagint’ has been misleadingly used as a generic term to describe any Greek translation of the Old Testament

This is misleading many researchers and is resulting in many erroneous teachings. Many scholars are consulting these works as though they are accurate translations of the original Hebrew. These translations reflect many errors and as such should not be accepted as valid or suitable reference material.

These translations are not the work and effort of dedicated, meticulous Jewish scribes as believed.

One should consult the original Hebrew text for factual and accurate referencing and should, in my opinion, ignore these inaccurate translations. They are a not a source of Truth.

The Jewish Rabbis consider these works as detrimental to the message of the original Hebrew Tanach and I support their view in this regard. Yet again we are being deceived into accepting erroneous works as valid and true.

The original Hebrew is the only reference work that holds True value for any scholar in search of Biblical Truth. The Greek translations of the Old Testament available today and in fact the Greek New Testament documents as well have only served to mislead and confuse Christians and create the mess that exists today.

The following video will provide some insight into the view from a rabbinical perspective.