Disclaimer: This article can not change the reader’s nature, character attributes, behaviour, or belief systems.
The church/religious establishment is supposed to be ‘the body of Christ’, yet one of its doctrinal pillars directly contradicts or ignores the position of Jesus Christ, according to the gospel accounts.
In order to lay the ground for this article, the authorship of the Pentateuch is objectively approached. The academic position that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) was written by multiple authors over several centuries is the overwhelming consensus in modern critical biblical scholarship.
Rather than viewing the text as a single, unified work dictated or written directly by Moses—the traditional view—scholars examine it as a composite document assembled from various distinct source materials, oral traditions, and editorial layers.
Core Evidence for Multiple Authorship
Scholars base the multi-author position on internal textual evidence within the narrative:
- Textual Doublets and Triplets: The Pentateuch contains repeated accounts of the same event with different details, perspectives, or vocabulary. For instance, there are two distinct Creation accounts (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), two woven narratives of Noah’s Flood, and multiple versions of God establishing a covenant with Abraham.
- Variations in Divine Names: Different sections consistently use different terms for God—such as Elohim (a general Hebrew word for God/deity) versus Yahweh (the specific, proper name revealed in Israelite tradition).
- Stylistic and Theological Shifts: Abrupt changes in vocabulary, sentence structure, and theological emphasis suggest different writer profiles. Some sections emphasize spontaneous, anthropomorphic interactions with God, while others focus heavily on formal rituals, laws, genealogies, and temple order.
- Anachronisms: Passages reference events or realities that occurred long after the traditional time of Moses, such as lists of Edomite kings who ruled “before any king reigned over the Israelites” or references to the death of Moses at the end of Deuteronomy.
Key Models of Multiple Authorship
Over the last two centuries, several models have emerged to explain how these diverse texts came together:
1. The Classical Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP)
Formalized by German scholar Julius Wellhausen in the late 19th century, this model posits that the Pentateuch was compiled by combining four distinct, continuous source documents:
- J (Yahwist / Jahwist): Originated in the Southern Kingdom of Judah (c. 10th–9th century BCE). Characterized by its anthropomorphic view of God and narrative-driven style.
- E (Elohist): Originated in the Northern Kingdom of Israel (c. 9th–8th century BCE). Uses Elohim for God and focuses on prophets and fear of God.
- D (Deuteronomist): Associated with the religious reforms under King Josiah in Jerusalem (c. 7th century BCE). Comprises most of Deuteronomy and emphasizes centralizing worship and covenant loyalty.
- P (Priestly Source): Written by or after the Babylonian Exile (c. 6th–5th century BCE). Highly structured, focusing on genealogies, ritual laws, purity codes, and Sabbath practices.
According to this theory, these four documents were woven together over time by editors known as redactors (R).
2. Fragmentary and Supplementary Hypotheses
While the basic four-source model remains widely taught, modern scholars often modify or challenge the idea of four fully intact, independent documents:
- Supplementary Model: Assumes there was a core original document (such as an early non-Priestly narrative) that was continually expanded by later authors who added new layers, stories, and legal codes.
- Fragmentary Model: Proposes that the Pentateuch began not as long, continuous narrative sources (J or E), but as a collection of independent shorter texts, legends, and law codes that were later gathered into larger blocks during the Persian period.
Current Scholarly Consensus
While scholars still debate the exact dating of individual passages and the precise editorial processes used to combine them, the fundamental premise remains firm: the Pentateuch is an anthology created by multiple writers, priests, and editors working across different historical periods to synthesize Israel’s legal, liturgical, and historical traditions.
Jesus explicitly addresses the priority of caring for one’s parents over religious financial contributions—specifically vows, tithes, and offerings—in Matthew 15:1–9 and its parallel account in Mark 7:1–13.
In these passages, Jesus directly confronts the Pharisees and scribes for using religious traditions as a loophole to evade the moral obligation to support aging parents.
1. The Core Conflict: The Practice of Corban
In Mark 7:9–13, Jesus highlights a tradition where individuals dedicated their assets or income to God by declaring them Corban (a Hebrew/Aramaic term meaning a gift or offering set aside for God/the Temple):
“He said to them, ‘All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother”; and, “He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.” But you say, “If a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban’—that is to say, an offering, then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down.”‘” (Mark 7:9–13)
By declaring money or property as dedicated to religious purposes, individuals were considered legally exempt from using those funds to support their parents, even if the parents were in financial distress or poverty.
2. Jesus’ Alignment with the Decalogue Over Human Tradition
In Matthew 15:3–6, Jesus places the foundational commandment to “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16) above man-made ceremonial rules and religious vows:
“He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, “Honor your father and your mother”… But you say, “Whoever says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God’—then he need not honour his father or mother.” Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.'” (Matthew 15:3–6)
Jesus asserts that using religious offerings as a justification to abandon filial duty:
- Hypocritical: It uses the pretence of piety to commit neglect.
- Invalidating: It cancels out the direct, weightier command of God in favour of legalistic human traditions.
3. The Broader Context: Weightier Matters of the Law
This specific incident aligns with Jesus’ broader critique of religious authorities regarding tithes and offerings in Matthew 23:23 (and Luke 11:42):
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.” (Matthew 23:23)
While Jesus does not abolish tithes or temple gifts outright, he establishes a strict hierarchy: moral and ethical duties rooted in love, mercy, and familial care (justice and mercy) hold absolute precedence over external ritual duties, temple vows, and financial offerings.
Conclusion
According to the Gospels, Jesus firmly prioritizes taking care of one’s parents over paying tithes or making religious vows/offerings. To him, any system that allows religious giving to undermine moral obligations to family is a distortion of divine law.
