A REFUTATION OF THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS AND HIGHER CRITICAL
THOUGHT
BY
ROBIN SCHUMACHER
APRIL 2007
A REFUTATION OF THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS AND HIGHER CRITICAL
THOUGHT
Contradictory Belief
A 2004-2005 study done by the Barna group revealed that 60% of Americans believe
the Bible is 100% accurate and true in what it states and affirms. Yet it was stated that only 40%
of those in the same survey believe in a literal devil and that 55% think that a person can earn a
place in Heaven.1 How can a group of individuals declare the Bible to be completely correct and
then many of those same individuals disavow doctrines that are plainly spelled out in the pages
they say they believe to be true? Perhaps such rejection can be explained through a spiritualizing
of the text or a postmodern outlook that twists the true meaning of Scripture into something that
fits their own natural desires. The latter is particularly dangerous because, as R.C. Lensky has
pointed out, “The worst forms of wickedness consist of perversions of the truth.”2
The subtle and not-so-subtle undermining of God’s Word began in the Garden and
continues into modern times carried along by various vehicles. A primary strategy of the enemy
is to attack the divine authorship of the Bible, which in reality is many times just a smokescreen
to hide the true assault against the existence of a supernatural Creator and Sustainer of the
universe. One of these campaigns stands against the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of
the Bible known as the Pentateuch or Torah, with one of the best known of these theories being
the Documentary Hypothesis.
1
George Barna, “Religious Beliefs Remain Constant but Subgroups Are Quite Different”,
[http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160], 2004.
2
John MacArthur, “Foundational Truth for the Church, Part 4”,
[http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231405], 1996.
1
2
What is the documentary hypothesis and how does it seek to replace Moses as the
author of the Pentateuch? Further, what are the ultimate aims and goals of those who push such
theories and what end results are experienced when these declarations are seen through to their
logical conclusions? It can be proven that the documentary hypothesis is nothing more than
another failed attempt of those who wish to supplant the one true and supernatural God with a
religion of humanism. Seen through to its ultimate end, such a path leads only to nihilism and a
loss of everything the God of the Bible wishes for those He has created.
A Brief Look at the History and Evolution of the Documentary Hypothesis
The documentary theory’s origin is normally credited to a French physician named
Jean Astruc (1684-1766), who published a work on the subject in 1753. However, a protestant
priest, H.B. Witter, is actually the first to assert the theory. He noticed that two distinct names for
God (Elohim and Yahweh) were used throughout Genesis, and therefore he advanced the notion
that Genesis had been spliced together from at least two original documents. Over the next 100
or so years, other scholars followed Witter and Astruc in their theory. These included A. Geddes,
who stated that a mass of fragments was used to produce the Pentateuch some 500 years after
Moses’ death (the Supplementary Theory). Others that followed Geddes were Heinrich Ewald
who asserted that five narrators penned the Torah (the Crystallization Theory) and Herman
Hupfeld who believed four documents were used to form the Pentateuch (the Modified
Documentary Theory).3 Still, not much notice was taken of the theory until a man named Julius
Wellhausen (1844-1918) forcefully restated the documentary hypothesis with what appeared to
be logical arguments.
Wellhausen divided the Torah into four distinct sources, representing the first five
books of the Bible with the letters, J, E, D, and P. The “J” source was given its name for its
3
Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Publishing, 1999), 404-5.
3
supposed preference for the use of the Tetragrammaton (Yahweh), being more personal and
anthropomorphic, and was said to be written in the Southern Kingdom about 900 B.C. Source
“E” was named because of its supposed use of the name Elohim for God and was pegged as
having been written in the Northern Kingdom about 750 B.C. Others following Wellhausen
argued that an unknown editor combined J and E together to form the JE document.4
Source “D” was supposedly composed under Hilkiah in 621 B.C. and source “P”,
being allegedly authored by Ezra, was said to be composed anywhere from 570 to 445 B.C. and
was identified by its legislative nature along with genealogies, rituals, and sacrifices.5
In his book on the documentary hypothesis, Umberto Cassuto identifies five main
pillars that rationalized Wellhausen’s and other supporter’s division of the Pentateuch: (1) The
use of different names for God (2) Variations of language and style (3) Contradictions and
divergences of views (4) Duplications and repetitions, and (5) Signs of composite structure in the
sections.6 While proponents of the documentary hypothesis believed these pillars would support
their theory indefinitely, it did not take long for doubts to creep in, which were then finally
followed by the collapse of the hypothesis through the hands of both liberal and conservative
scholars.
The Sinking of the Documentary Hypothesis
What happens to a beautiful, but flawed, theory when it meets a brutal gang of
opposing facts? Simply, the theory loses. This is what has happened to the documentary
hypothesis as both liberal and conservative scholars alike have demonstrated that it suffers from
critical errors from top to bottom. The attacks against the documentary hypothesis include
4
Ibid, 393.
5
Ibid.
6
Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem,
Israel: Shalem Press, 2006), 17.
4
general rebuttals against higher critical thought, testimony from Scripture itself, specific proofs
that dismantle the supporting structures of the documentary hypothesis, and archaeological
evidence that attests to what the Bible confirms about Moses being the author of the Torah.
The Faulty Practices of Higher Critical Thought
The very logic and presuppositions of higher critical thought quickly betray the real
position that lies underneath its scholarly veneer. Gleason Archer outlines a number of
arguments that can be used to break down the positions held by those who hold to the
documentary hypothesis. First, Archer notes that such proponents employ circular reasoning and
commit the logical error of begging the question. They state that the Bible could not be a
supernatural revelation because an article of their faith is that there is no such thing as
supernatural revelation. Notes Gleason, “It is like the attempt of persons who are color blind to
judge the masterpieces of Turner or Gainsborough.”7
Next, critics of Moses’ authorship seem quick to use the text when it fits well with
their theory, but are equally swift at dismissing it when it runs contrary to their hypothesis. For
example, critics insist that the books of the Old Testament show no recognition of P legislation
or the written Mosaic code until after the exile, but when shown proof that numerous references
to both are indeed found in the historical books, they reject it as the work of some redactor who
reworked the books after the exile.8
A bias against Scripture is also clearly evident as critics almost always view a verse
from the Bible as suspect when it disagrees with a pagan document that may even be of a later
7
Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Bible Institute, 1994),
113-14.
8
Ibid, 114.
5
age. The heathen document is nearly always given preference over the Pentateuch even when
archaeological evidence and other evidence supports the Bible’s position.9
Proponents of higher critical thought also unfairly constrain a Hebrew author so that
he can not possibly use more than one name for God, not employ more than one style of writing,
not have the freedom to make use of more than one theme, and not highlight more than one
circle of interest. Using this line of argumentation, Milton could not have written joyous poems
such as L’Allegro, lofty poems such as Paradise Lost, and stimulating prose such as
Areopagitica – the critics would say it would have to have been three different people instead.10
Finally, the humanist higher thought critics build a foundation on the faulty
assumption that Israel’s religion was man-made, not revealed by God, and simply a product of
human evolution. Never mind the fact that there is no hint of animism or polytheism present in
the Hebrew faith, which instead, was monotheistic from start to finish.
More arguments can be made, however the above points are enough to highlight the
faulty foundations of the higher critical thought proponents. With these out of the way, the next
step of validating the authorship of the Pentateuch is to investigate what Scripture itself says
about its own creation.
The Bible as Witness
The Bible is not shy about revealing who authored the Torah. Both Old and New
Testaments supply evidence that Moses wrote the first five books of God’s Word. A quick
examination of some key verses should suffice to prove this point:
•
•
Exodus 17:14: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write this in a book as a memorial
and recite it to Joshua…”
Exodus 24:4,7: “Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD…Then he took the
book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people.”
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
6
•
•
•
•
Exodus 34:27: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write down these words…”
Numbers 33:2: “Moses recorded their starting places according to their journeys
by the command of the Lord, and these are their journeys according to their
starting places.”
Deuteronomy 31:9: “So Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests…”
1 Kings 2:3: ““Keep the charge of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, to
keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies,
according to what is written in the Law of Moses…”
Matthew 19:8: “He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses
permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this
way.”
Mark 12:26: ““But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in
the book of Moses…”
John 5:46-47: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote
about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My
words?”
John 7:19: “Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the
Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?”
Acts 3:22: ““Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me
from your brethren; to Him you shall give heed to everything He says to you.”
Romans 10:5: “For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness
which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.”
•
•
•
•
•
•
In addition to the outright testimony of the verses above, there is subtle evidence
within Scripture that a man such as Moses authored the Pentateuch. Only an eyewitness could
have provided such detail such as the number of fountains and palm trees at Elim (Exodus 15:27)
and the taste of manna (Numbers 11:7-8). Furthermore, the thorough familiarity with Egypt and
high percentage of Egyptian words used in the material fits with someone having a long
Egyptian background like Moses.11
Point-by-Point Refutations
In his book The Documentary Hypothesis, Umberto Cassuto deals the documentary
hypothesis an utter death blow by tearing down the five supporting pillars of the theory in stepby-step fashion. Regarding pillar one, which is the use of different names for God, Cassuto
11
Ibid, 119.
7
points out that Elohim and Yahweh are oftentimes used synonymously in Scripture such as in
‫אֱלֹה‬
Psalm 47:1-2: “Clap your hands, all peoples; Shout to God (‫ִים‬
joy. For the Lord (‫יְהוִה‬
- Elohim) with the voice of
- Yahweh) Most High is to be feared, A great King over all the earth.”
In addition, Cassuto points out that Elohim is oftentimes used to reference God as God of the
Gentiles, while Yahweh is used more to identify God as the one true God of Israel.12
With respect to differences in language and style, Cassuto shows that such changes
are based on subject matter and not on the reliance of different sources. Showcasing several
examples, Cassuto concludes that, “We are dealing not with linguistic idiosyncrasies peculiar to
various sources, but with general rules of the language, which apply equally to all writers and all
books.”13
On the subject of apparent contradictions and differing views, Cassuto disassembles
the most common critical argument in this area – that God appears sometimes as a distant God of
the universe who is just an abstract being, and other times as a close, personal God of the nation
Israel. Cassuto uses a simple analogy of a son writing a biography of his father who was a
notable scientist, a professor, and lastly, a loving dad. Using the logic of the documentary
hypothesis, someone finding the biographic book hundreds of years later would conclude the
work was written by three people instead of one just because the primary subject was spoken
about in one way as a scientist, in another as an academician, and finally as a father.14
Regarding duplications and repetitions, Cassuto references the creation account to
show that the author of the Pentateuch employed repetition to relay both general and detailed
accounts of the same event, and merely used a routine literary custom common to his era to pen
12
Cassuto, 22.
13
Ibid, 56.
14
Ibid, 69-70.
8
his work.15 Finally, with respect to signs of composite structures, Cassuto highlights a number of
Old Testament examples that prove parts of seemingly distinct narratives are complementary,
cannot be broken up, and do not make sense without the other, “just as the two parts of a pair of
scissors are not be detached, for neither blade cuts so long as it remains disconnected from the
other.”16
The Testimony of Archaeology and More
Gleason Archer documents a number of archaeological findings that give credence to
the antiquity of the Pentateuch. For example, the discovery of the Ebla tablets (2350-1600 B.C.)
in Syria provides very early documentation of names, places, and ideas presented in the Torah
(such as naming the father of Abraham). Further, an Egyptian reference to the Hebrew nation as
“Israel” was discovered on the Stela of King Merneptah in 1896, and dates back to 1229 B.C.
The City of Ur in Southern Sumeria was excavated in 1922 and found to be a large and
flourishing city at around 2000 B.C. – precisely the time in which Abraham lived. Finally,
Egyptian texts dating back to about 1820 B.C. speak of Palestine communities being bound
under Egyptian rule.17
In conclusion, the documentary hypothesis suffers from flawed, biased
presuppositions, weak foundations, and runs contrary to archaeological findings. But despite
such proof, proponents of the documentary hypothesis do not respond to such arguments and
instead steadfastly cling to their position even when their very writings testify to the contrary.
For example, commenting on the Pentateuch, Eduard Riehm writes, “They do not indeed all
come from one hand, and have not been written at one and the same time….However, they are
all ruled by the same principles and ideas, have the same setting, the like form of representation,
15
Ibid, 93.
16
Cassuto, 108.
17
Archer, 188.
9
and the same mode of expression. A multitude of definite terms appear again and again. In
manifold ways also the laws refer to one another. Apart from isolated subordinate differences,
they agree with one another, and so supplement each other as to give the impression of a single
whole, worked out with a marvelous consistency in its details.”
Only in the realm of macro-evolution can the same type of blindness be found. For
example, saying that one should not believe one’s own eyes, evolutionist Francis Crick has
argued against intelligent design, saying “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they
see was not designed, but rather evolved.”18
An Inside Look behind Higher Criticism’s Mindset
Commenting on the demise of the documentary hypothesis, Gleason Archer notes in
his book on the Old Testament, “Almost every supporting pillar has been shaken and shattered
by a generation of scholars who were brought up on the Graf-Wellhausen system and yet have
found it inadequate to explain the data of the Pentateuch. At the same time it must be recognized
that for the most part, even those scholars who have repudiated Wellhausen have shown no
tendency to embrace a more conservative view of the origin of the books of Moses … but they
have gravitated quite definitely into an even more implausible position than that occupied by
their predecessors.”19
While recognizing the flaws of the documentary hypothesis and helping to put it to
death, the members of higher critical thought still show no desire to acknowledge the possibility
of a supernatural inspiration for the Torah’s authorship. The scene is reminiscent of a line in the
2004 Movie The Chronicles of Riddick where one of the main characters says, “Sometimes the
best way to fight evil is with a different kind of evil.” But in this case, substituting one error for
18
Quoted in Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton,
IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 119. Emphasis added.
19
Archer, 111.
10
another still results in great loss. As Josh McDowell notes, the initial consequences of such
thought include reaching the conclusion that the Old Testament is essentially unhistorical in
nature and that Israel’s religion was totally natural and not the result of God’s intervention. The
end results of these conclusions are that the history and religion of Israel as presented in
Scripture are basically fraudulent.20 Once these inferences are reached, the slide toward worse
ends is inevitable.
The Aim of Anti-Supernaturalism
Behind the proponents of the documentary hypothesis, and higher critical thought in
general, lies the denial of a supernatural God who is separate from His creation and can act
within that creation. Science and naturalism are used to replace the true Creator inside the antisupernaturalist’s mind, with the only possible deity being open to them being one that is deistic
or pantheistic in nature. Why champion such a position – what spirit lies behind such a stance?
Two answers that immediately rise to the surface include the steadfast commitment to pluralism,
which cancels out Christianity’s authority, and a desire to swallow, hook-line-and-sinker, the
Garden lie that they can be like God.
Leveling the Playing Field
The elimination of a miraculous and inerrant Bible, along with miracles in general,
undercuts one of strong pillars of the Christian apologetic. Throughout human history, God has
used three distinct periods of time (the Mosaic, Prophetic, and Apostolic periods) in which He
utilized miracles to confirm His message through His prophets to His people. Miracles were used
to confirm and position God’s message above the false religious deities erected by Satan and the
fallen heart of man so God’s creation would know what voice to follow and what voices to
avoid. During this time, God divinely guided human writers to record these events and the
20
McDowell, 450.
11
overall plan of salvation in His Word. Once documented, the need for miracles ceased as God’s
acts and plan were now available for all to read and believe.
By denying miracles and a God who can act, man levels the religious playing field
and makes the plan of salvation outlined in Scripture no more authoritative than Islam,
Hinduism, or any other religion. With God’s true voice drowned out, the enemy of mankind can
maximize the causalities of those who choose to follow after blind guides.
Man – The Measure of All Things
With a supernatural God out of the way, man becomes the measure and standard of
all things. This frees him to do as he pleases. While it is important to note that not all involved in
naturalism have ulterior motives for clinging to their materialistic stance, others have openly
admitted that there are selfish reasons why they apply a double standard in their examination of
whether a supernatural Creator exists. As G. K. Chesterton once said, "behind every double
standard lies a single hidden agenda."21 In this case, the agenda appears to be morally based.
In an interview with Life magazine, evolutionist Stephen Gould stated plainly, "We
are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into
legs for terrestrial creatures . . . We may yearn for a 'higher' answer-but none exists. This
explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and
exhilarating."22 One may ask exactly what liberation and exhilaration Mr. Gould finds? Aldous
Huxley provides an answer: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning;
consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying
21
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (London: John Lane, 1909), 195.
22
S.J. Gould, "The Meaning of Life", Life magazine, (Dec. 1988), 84.
12
reasons for this assumption... For myself... the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an
instrument of liberation... sexual... [and] political."23
Having no God means that those with a material worldview can do as they please.
There is no accountability but to themselves, which is a chief but not generally publicly
broadcast aim among many atheists. But have the materialists and those in the higher critical
thought camp really thought out the end results of their desire? What happens when the dog
catches the car; when they have satisfied themselves intellectually that God does not exist?
What Happens after God’s Funeral
Having eliminated God, those with a materialist worldview who choose to actually
think their way through the decision begin to follow a path that ultimately leads to an end result
that is numbing and tragic. Try as he might, the materialist will never free himself from the
questions that dog him about his origin, morality, purpose, and destiny. But try he will. The path
begins with man replacing God, then follows with God abandoning man to his own depravity,
and ultimately ends with the complete loss of real meaning and purpose for the materialist.
Man Becomes God
It has been well said that if man eliminates God, then someone will have to take His
place. And that replacement, especially in today’s culture, is most often man himself. Or, more
practically speaking, some men will take the place of God. This is the aim of humanism, where
man becomes the measure of all things and the ultimate authority over good and evil. When
humanism reaches its goal of the imperfect usurping the seat of the Perfect on the throne, a
downhill slide into bondage and depravity is inevitable.
23
Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods
Employed for Their Realization (London: Chatto and Windus, 1937), 270-73.
13
The book of 1 Samuel tells the story of Israel forsaking God and requesting a king so
they could mirror the world around them. Even though Samuel warned them that a human king
would enslave their sons and daughters, take their money, and require them to become his
servants, chapter 8 says: “Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and
they said, ‘No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our
king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.’” (1 Samuel 8:19-20).
Israel paid the price for rejecting their Deliverer and putting man in the seat of
authority, and today mankind pays the price when it discards God and embraces an atheistic
humanism. It can be stated with certainty that if man rejects God today, God will honor that
request both in this life as well as the next.
God Grants Man’s Desire
The first chapter of Romans spells out the consequences of openly rejecting a God
who has made it very plain through general revelation that He exists. Verses 18-20 state, “For the
wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who
suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within
them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through
what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” The apostle Paul is saying that God’s
general revelation provides all the evidence one needs for proof that a supreme, all-powerful and
intelligent Creator exists. But, as Ravi Zacharias has pointed out, “The real tragedy, however is
the big difference between what is known and what is believed.”24 These verses make it clear that
man knows God is there, but chooses to disbelieve anyway.
24
Ravi Zacharias, A Shattered Visage (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 31.
14
The Holy Spirit, working through Paul, chronicles the terrible consequences of man’s
decision to dismiss God. First, verse 22 says that people profess to be wise, but instead God sees
them as fools. This is an especially applicable point today as modern higher thought critics cover
their eyes to the clear evidence and logic of God, and instead embrace ideas that are starved for
both evidence and logical thought. Speaking of these types of people, Malcolm Muggeridge has
commented that, “We have educated ourselves into imbecility.”
And what is God’s judgment upon those who reject Him? Simply giving them what
their heart desires – more of themselves. Verses 24 and 28 state that God ”gave them over” to
their naturally depraved mind with the end result being people, “filled with all unrighteousness,
wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers,
haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without
understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of
God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also
give hearty approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:29-32).
After man becomes God, and God withdraws from man leaving him to his own
natural desires, the end result is the loss of the most important things that this life has to offer.
Meaning and Purpose are Lost
John Templeton wrote, “Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose
accidentally created humans who are obsessed with purpose?”25 One only needs to look at the
blockbuster success of Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life and other such works that
are devoted to real meaning and purpose to see that Templeton is right. When those with a
materialist worldview have exhausted themselves with the feeding of the natural man, they end
up like Solomon being wearied by pleasure and arrive at a dead end that is devoid of meaning.
25
John Templeton, The Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God (Philadelphia: Templeton
Foundation, 1998), 19.
15
The ultimate consequence of denying the Creator is a complete loss of significance
and purpose. The materialist hears nothing but their echo as they ask themselves the three most
important questions in life: Where did I come from, why am I here, where am I going when I
die? A denial of a supernatural God leads them to live in doubt about all three, and when life is
finally over, they commit themselves to either the Great Perhaps or complete annihilation. Such a
life becomes completely unlivable.
What a contrast for those who embrace the true Creator of the universe and His
divinely written Word. Not only are they comforted by the fact that their position is more
evidential and logical than the materialist worldview, but they are gifted with real meaning and
purpose from the One who brought everything into existence for a purpose. They discover they
were created in the image of God and are not just a higher form of some animal. They uncover
that the Creator has answers to their origin, morality, and purpose. And they have peace knowing
that, after trusting in the finished work of Christ, they will spend eternity with the one who
created the universe out of nothing. (1 John 5:13)
Conclusion
Those participating in the 2005 Barna study on the Bible demonstrated that one can
give lip service to a belief in God’s Word while practically denying its message through an
unwillingness to submit to the facts plainly laid out within the pages of Scripture. Similarly,
those who participated in the origin and evolution of the documentary hypothesis exhibit a form
of religion that is devoid of true power, while other supporters openly display a commitment to
naturalism and outright deny the existence of a supernatural Creator.
It has been demonstrated that the various foundations upon which the documentary
hypothesis rests are cracked and flawed at many points. It has also been shown that the claim for
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is backed by strong biblical, archaeological, and logical
evidence. Finally, it has been shown that the unmasking of theories like the documentary
16
hypothesis reveal the real belief of its proponents, which is a total commitment to materialism
and naturalism, and a rejection of a theistic and supernatural God who has the right to call men
into account for their beliefs and lifestyle.
In the end, it is philosophy and not science that is the stumbling block of the
naturalist. The evidence is clear and available for all who will approach the apologetic arguments
of the Christian faith with bias being left at the door. As Lee Strobel concluded in his book The
Case for Faith, the real wrestling match is not found in the mind of those clinging to humanism
and rejecting God, but in their will.26 Paul says in Romans 8:7 that the natural mind is hostile
toward God and does not submit to His law, with this antagonism and anger being clearly seen in
those who espouse an anti-God worldview.
This is, unfortunately, how the truth of God is sometimes received. Paul asked the
Galatians whom he was correcting, “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?”
(Galatians 4:16). Rather than clinging to discredited theories such as the documentary hypothesis
and living in error, those with a humanist worldview need to open their eyes to the evidence of
God’s existence that is daily before their face and embrace the real and living hope that He offers
for their lives. Any other avenue ends only in a dead end of despair and loss of real significance.
26
Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 255.
WORKS CITED
Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute,
1994.
Barna, George. “Religious Beliefs Remain Constant but Subgroups Are Quite Different”,
[http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160], 2004
Cassuto, Umberto. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch.
Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2006.
Chesteron, G.K. Orthodoxy. London: John Lane, 1909.
Geisler, Norman and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Wheaton:
Crossway Books, 2004.
Gould, S.J. "The Meaning of Life", Life, December, 1988.
Huxley, Aldous. Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods
Employed for Their Realization. London: Chatto and Windus, 1937.
MacArthur, John. “Foundational Truth for the Church, Part 4”,
[http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231405], 1996.
McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Templeton, John. The Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God. Philadelphia: Templeton
Foundation, 1998.
Zacharias, Ravi. A Shattered Visage. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990.
17