Author’s Comments on Modern Critical Thinking

1. Why This Discussion Matters

In this lesson we’re going to talk about how people read the Bible. We will focus on the first five books—Genesis through Deuteronomy, called the Pentateuch.

Modern critical scholars often treat these books very differently than most churches do. At the same time, some groups insist that the Bible is fully trustworthy and use that conviction to shape specific doctrines, like:

Keeping the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday), and

So we’ll do three things:

Explain the Documentary Hypothesis (a major modern critical theory about the Pentateuch).¹
Show how archaeology—especially the Code of Hammurabi—challenged some of those assumptions.²
Examine the impact of questions of biblical authority on real doctrines.

2. The Documentary Hypothesis in Plain Language

Let’s start with a simple question: Who wrote the books of Moses?

Traditional Judaism and Christianity have long said:

Moses is the primary human author of the Pentateuch, guided by God.

Modern critical scholarship has often said something very different.

2.1 What the Documentary Hypothesis Says

The Documentary Hypothesis is a theory that the Pentateuch is not one unified work written by Moses. Instead, it is a patchwork of several written sources. These sources were edited together over centuries.¹

You see the sources labeled like this:

J – the “Yahwist” source
E – the “Elohist” source
D – the “Deuteronomist”
P – the “Priestly” source³

According to classic versions of this theory:

These sources were written long after Moses—often after the Babylonian exile (6th century BC).
The laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are seen as late developments, not early revelation.
Stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses are often treated as theological legends rather than historically rooted accounts.

In other words, the critical view says:

“The Pentateuch reflects later religious development, not early divine revelation.”

2.2 Why This Matters Theologically

If you accept this approach fully, then:

Mosaic authorship becomes doubtful or only symbolic (“Moses” simply stands for “the law tradition”).
The unity of the Pentateuch becomes less about God speaking and more about an editor stitching sources together.
Some scholars say doctrine should be based mainly on what is “theologically useful,” not necessarily on what is historically true.

That leads directly into debates about biblical authority, inspiration, and inerrancy—which brings us to the Chicago Statement.

3. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

In the 1960s–70s, many Protestant churches were sharply divided over the Bible. Liberal theologians questioned whether the Bible was historically precise or completely trustworthy. In response, conservative evangelicals met in 1978 and produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. ²

Important Disclaimer: Quoting from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in this material is for reference and discussion only. It should not be understood as a blanket endorsement of all Evangelical doctrines, movements, or organizations. Nor should it be seen as full agreement with every point, implication, or application of the Statement itself. (See sections 8.1 thru 8.4 of this paper for clarification)

In other words, we’re going to use the Statement as a conversation partner. But, we’re not saying that everything in evangelicalism is automatically correct. We’re also not saying that everything in the Chicago Statement itself is automatically correct.

3.1 What “Inerrancy” Means

“Inerrancy” simply means:

The Bible, in its original writings, is without error in all that it affirms, because it is inspired by God.

The Statement basically says:

Scripture is God’s Word written.
Because God can’t lie, the Bible is trustworthy in everything it teaches—history, theology, morality.
Scripture, not the church or tradition, is the final authority.²

This is very akin to the description made by the United Church of God in its Fundamental Beliefs. It refers to Scripture as the Bible, calling it “God’s revelation” and “the foundation of all truth.”⁴

3.2 Affirmations and Denials

The Chicago Statement includes a series of articles that make things very clear. For example:

Article I affirms that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. It denies that Scripture gets its authority from the Church or any human source.²
Article XII affirms that Scripture is true in all it teaches, even though it is not a scientific textbook.

In short, the Statement insists that the Bible is not just a witness to God’s Word; it is God’s Word.

UCG’s literature strongly echoes this emphasis. One UCG Q&A article on the Trinity explains why its doctrines must be based on Scripture. It states that our beliefs must “rest solidly on the teachings of the Holy Bible.” They should not rely on later church formulations.⁵ This is the same basic instinct: Scripture first.

4. Archaeology Enters the Conversation: The Code of Hammurabi

Now let’s turn to something that really shook up the discussion: the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi.

4.1 What Was the Code of Hammurabi?

Around 1902, archaeologists working at Susa (in modern Iran) found a tall basalt stele from the time of Hammurabi, king of Babylon (c. 1792–1750 BC).²

On it were 282 laws written in Akkadian cuneiform—covering:

Property and theft
Slavery and debt
Marriage and divorce
Inheritance and adoption
Bodily injury and “eye for an eye” justice

Scholars realized this was a highly sophisticated law code from about a thousand years before the traditional date of Moses.

4.2 Why This Challenges Earlier Critical Assumptions

Before this discovery, many scholars claimed that:

Writing complex law codes was too advanced for Moses’ time.
Thus, the laws of Moses must be late (post-exilic) creations, placed back into the story as if Moses gave them.

But Hammurabi’s code proved that:

Complex, written law codes did exist long before Moses.
The idea that detailed law must be late and “evolved” is not required by the evidence.

For years, critics also argued that practices like surrogacy were not historically correct for the patriarchal period. For example, they doubted Hagar bearing a child for Sarai in Genesis. This skepticism continued for a long time. The change only began with the introduction of law codes like Hammurabi’s. These codes described in detail how surrogate wives were to be treated. They also detailed how their children were to be handled.⁶

So archaeology pushed back, saying:

“Actually, the world of Moses and the patriarchs have had sophisticated laws and customs like those the Bible describes.”

The discovery of the Code of Hammurabi reopened the door to viewing Mosaic law as historically plausible. It is considered not just a late religious invention.

5. Jesus, Moses, and the Authority of Scripture

Now let’s bring Jesus into the conversation.

Modern critical scholars say:

“When Jesus talks about ‘Moses,’ He’s just using the name of a tradition, not a real author.”

But in the Gospels, Jesus treats Moses as a real historical person who wrote real laws:

“If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46).
“For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’…” (Mark 7:10).

Jesus repeatedly corrects the traditions of the religious leaders. He does this when they contradict God’s commandments (see Mark 7 and Matthew 15). He clearly distinguishes:

God’s commandment, and
Human tradition.

He rebukes them: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” He later warns that their worship is “in vain.” It is futile when they teach human rules as if they were divine commands.

In John 8:44–47, He goes even further. He accuses some of His opponents of chasing the devil, “the father of lies.” They do this rather than listening to God’s Word. That’s strong language—but it shows how seriously Jesus takes the difference between God’s words and human religious systems.

That’s a crucial principle for everything that follows—especially when we talk about:

The Sabbath

This doctrine, and several others, are places where churches either follow Scripture closely or rely heavily on later tradition.

6. Scripture, Tradition, and the Catholic Catechism

We should be fair: not every church claims to follow Scripture alone as the final norm in the same way.

For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Divine Revelation comes through both:

Sacred Scripture, and
Sacred Tradition,

and that the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) is the official interpreter of both. ⁷

In that view:

The Bible is crucial, but not enough by itself.
Tradition has a binding role alongside Scripture.

From the standpoint of inerrancy this declaration poses a serious problem. If tradition can effectively override or reshape the plain teaching of Scripture, the practical authority shifts. It moves from the text to the institution.

7. Theological Implications of Modern Critical Approaches

When you put modern critical approaches, evolving tradition, and inerrancy debates together, several major theological questions emerge:

Authority of Scripture
- Is Scripture the final standard, or just one voice among others (tradition, culture, academia)?
Inspiration
- Is inspiration verbal and plenary? Does God superintend the words? Or is it more of a community process? Does the community find certain texts “useful” and call that “inspired”?
Christology and Fulfillment
- When Jesus speaks of “Moses,” is He pointing to real revelation from God through named prophets? When He refers to “the Law and the Prophets,” is He pointing to real revelation from God through named prophets? Or is He just adapting respected traditions?

The Bible is mainly a human, evolving, culture-reflecting text. Then those biblical warnings start to lose their bite. This happens when they warn about not conforming to the world (Romans 12:2). Instead of the Word judging culture, culture starts judging the Word.

Passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 (“All Scripture is God-breathed…”) and 2 Peter 2:20–22 or Isaiah 59:1–3 emphasize God’s Word. It stands over against human sin. It also stands against social drift. Likewise, Revelation 18:4–8 calls God’s people to “come out” of Babylon’s corrupt system, not blend into it.

8. The “Pearl String” and Why Inspiration Alone Doesn’t Unite the Church

At this point it’s worth pausing and asking a very practical question:

Many church organizations claim to believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word. Why, then, do they come to such different conclusions? Many church organizations assert that the Bible is God’s inspired Word. But why do they interpret it so differently?

This is where we can talk about what we call the “Pearl String” effect.

Think of Bible verses as pearls. Every group—Jewish or Christian—has access to the same basic “bucket” of pearls (the Scriptural text). But each group:

Picks which pearls to highlight,
Decides how to arrange them, and
Chooses which threads (traditions, assumptions, historical context) to use to tie them together.

The result? You get different pearl necklaces—different systems of doctrine—made from many of the same texts.

8.1 The “Pearl String” in Ancient Judaism

This isn’t a new problem. In Jesus’ day, Jewish groups all read the same Scriptures, yet reached very different conclusions:

Some believed in a resurrection of the dead (like the Pharisees).
Others denied that there would be any resurrection at all (like the Sadducee’s).
There was friction over the oral law, angels, spirits, and how to keep the commandments.

Same Scriptures, but very different “pearl strings”—different ways of selecting, joining, and interpreting the text.

So when Jesus confronts the religious leaders, He’s not criticizing them for reading the Bible. He’s criticizing how they string the pearls together. Their traditions twist or override what God actually said.

8.2 The “Pearl String” in the Church Today

The same thing happens in the Christian world.

Many churches sincerely say:

“We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God.”

Yet they still arrive at conflicting doctrinal systems. Why?

Because belief in inspiration by itself does not automatically:

Control which passages are emphasized,
Decide how those passages fit together, or
Resolve who has the final authority to define “what the Bible means.”

So you end up with:

Different views on baptism,
Different views on church government,
Different views on Sabbath vs. Sunday,
Different views on the Trinity,
and so on.

All of these are examples of different “pearl strings” created from the same biblical “pearls.”

8.3 Authority, Tradition, and Borrowed Pearls

One of the biggest dividing lines is how different churches answer this question:

“Who has the right to tell us what the text means?”

In the Catholic view, the Church has an inherent authority, through the Magisterium, to define the correct interpretation of Scripture. Scripture and Sacred Tradition are tightly tied together, and the Church’s teaching office is the final arbiter of doctrine.⁷
In contrast, many Protestant and independent groups reject Rome’s authority and insist on “Scripture alone” as the rule of faith.

But here’s the interesting part:

Many non-Catholic churches strongly disagree with Catholic theology in general. Nevertheless, they have often adopted major portions of Catholic tradition without realizing it. These have become part of their own “pearl string.” For example:

Sunday worship as a commanded assembly:
Sunday worship is considered a commanded assembly. The idea is that gathering for worship on Sunday is seen as an obligatory practice. It is viewed as God-ordained, serving as a replacement for the seventh-day Sabbath. This concept developed centuries after the New Testament was canonized. Yet today, Sunday observance is treated in much of Christendom as if it were the obvious “biblical” norm.
The Trinity as the test of orthodoxy:
The formal doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is one God. This God exists in three co-equal and co-eternal persons. This doctrine was shaped and codified in post-biblical councils and creeds. Over time, this doctrine became the measuring stick of who is “orthodox” and who is not. Many churches that reject Catholic authority in other areas still inherit and defend this particular doctrinal pearl string almost unchanged.

A church can say, “We don’t follow Catholic tradition.” Yet, they still adopt several Catholic-forged pearls. This includes Sunday as a commanded day of worship and a specific Trinitarian formula as the non-negotiable center of theology.

8.4 Why This Matters for Unity

All of this shows that:

Believing the Bible is inspired is necessary, but not enough, for unity.
Real unity would need agreement on:
- How to interpret Scripture,
- Which traditions are legitimate, and
- Who (if anyone) has final authority to settle disputes.

Until those questions are addressed, believers will continue to produce different “pearl strings.” These are different doctrinal systems. All will sincerely claim to honor the same inspired text.

This is why our case study regarding the Sabbath is so important. The study of which day Christians are commanded to observe serves as a window into how different churches string together the biblical pearls. These doctrines show how churches use or reject tradition and how they understand the authority of Scripture in real life.

9. Case Study 1: Sabbath teaching in the United Church of God

Now let’s bring all of this down to a very concrete doctrine: the Sabbath.

9.1 UCG’s Basic Sabbath Teaching

In its Fundamental Beliefs, the United Church of God states:

“We believe that the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath of the Lord our God. On this day, we must rest from our labors. We are commanded to worship God. This follows the teachings and example of Jesus, the apostles, and the New Testament Church.”⁸

Notice a few things:

They recognize the seventh day (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) as the Sabbath.
They connect it to:
- Creation (Genesis 2:2–3),
- The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5),
- The practice of Jesus and the apostles (Mark 2; Acts 13, 17, 18).

In the same article, they emphasize that the Sabbath:

Looks back to creation and God as Creator.
Reminds believers of deliverance from bondage (Israel from Egypt, Christians from sin).
Looks ahead to the future Kingdom of God, a full “rest” for humanity. ⁸

That’s a very biblical-Storyline way of thinking: past, now, future all tied together.

9.2 Tradition vs. Scripture: Sunday or Sabbath?

Historically, most of the Christian world shifted weekly worship from Saturday to Sunday. UCG argues that:

The Bible never authorizes changing the Sabbath to Sunday.
The change came later, through tradition and political/religious developments, not through the apostles. ⁹

So for UCG, the Sabbath is a test case of whether we follow Scripture or tradition.

If Scripture is the final authority (as the Chicago Statement and UCG both claim), then:

It matters that Jesus calls Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).
It matters that the New Testament never describes the Sabbath as abolished or replaced.
It matters that Hebrews 4 speaks of a Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God.

In this way, UCG’s teaching on the Sabbath becomes a practical application of a high view of Scripture:

“If it’s in the commandments, we should keep it. If Jesus kept it, we should keep it. If the apostles kept it, we should keep it—regardless of later tradition.”

9.3 The Sabbath and Critical Scholarship

Modern critical approaches say:

Sabbath laws emerged late in Israel’s history.
The strictness of Sabbath observance reflects a later priestly concern, not early Mosaic revelation.
New Testament writers were simply adapting an old tradition and giving it symbolic meaning.

But the combination of:

Archaeological evidence (like Hammurabi and other ancient law codes), and
Jesus’ own affirmation of the Law,

supports the idea that Sabbath law fits naturally in an early legal culture and has continuing theological weight.

So UCG’s Sabbath doctrine lines up with:

A belief in Mosaic authorship, and
A belief that God’s law still has meaning for Christian life, properly understood.

10 Pulling It Together: Modern Criticism, Moses, and Today’s Doctrines

Let’s step back and see the big picture.

Modern critical theories like the Documentary Hypothesis suggest that the Pentateuch is a late compilation. It is composed of multiple sources and is not primarily the work of Moses.
Archaeological discoveries like the Code of Hammurabi show that advanced legal codes existed long before the traditional time of Moses. This weakens the argument that Mosaic law must be late.
Jesus Himself speaks of “Moses” as a real author and treats Scripture as God’s Word, not just human tradition.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy responds to modern critical skepticism by reaffirming that:
- Scripture is inspired,
- True in all that it affirms, and
- Authoritative over tradition and culture. Our disclaimer stated that we are using it here for discussion. We are not endorsing everything in it.
The “Pearl String” idea helps explain why even those who affirm inspiration still disagree. Different groups select, arrange, and interpret the same biblical “pearls” differently. This is often under the influence of different traditions and views of authority.
The United Church of God then applies a strong, Scripture-first approach in very concrete ways:
- Affirming the seventh-day Sabbath as still binding and meaningful, and
- Rejecting the Trinity as an unbiblical, post-apostolic tradition.

We focus on deriving doctrine from the Bible. This is foremost in our minds, whether you personally agree with UCG or not. We strive to give clear examples of how a strong commitment to biblical authority shapes real-life beliefs and practices:

Sabbath: Do we follow the fourth commandment and apostolic example, or centuries of church tradition shifting to Sunday?
Trinity: Do we limit ourselves strictly to biblical language and patterns, or do we also embrace theological formulas developed later?

Ultimately, the question of Mosaic authorship concerns more than just ancient history. It also relates to modern critical thinking. It is about:

How we read the Bible,
How we trust the Bible, and
How we live out what we believe the Bible teaches.

As Jesus said, “Anyone who belongs to God listens gladly to the words of God” (John 8:47). The challenge for every generation, including ours, is to make sure we are truly listening. We must listen to God’s Word, not just to human tradition. We should not be swayed by scholarly theories or cultural pressure.

Notes (Chicago Style)

“Documentary Hypothesis.” Encyclopedia Britannica updated 3 November 2025; see also “Documentary Hypothesis,” Wikipedia, last modified 2025.
“Code of Hammurabi.” Wikipedia, last modified 2025.
Julius Wellhausen’s classic form of the Documentary Hypothesis, summarized in standard reference works like Encyclopedia Britannica.
“God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit,” is included in the Fundamental Beliefs of the United Church of God. These beliefs are central to the church’s teachings. This is by the United Church of God, an International Association.
“I am disappointed by your denomination’s teaching about the Trinity…,” Bible Questions and Answers, United Church of God.
Evan Andrews, “8 Things You Not Know About Hammurabi’s Code,” History.com, updated 28 is 2025.
“The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture,” Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp.80–84.
“The Sabbath Day,” in Fundamental Beliefs of the United Church of God, United Church of God.
“Was the Biblical Sabbath Changed to Sunday?” United Church of God.
“Is God a Trinity?” in Who Is God? United Church of God.
“The Holy Spirit Is Not a Person,” United Church of God.
“What Does the Bible Teach About the Nature of God? What Does It Say About the Trinity?” United Church of God.

Works Cited

Andrews, Evan. “8 Things You May Not Know About Hammurabi’s Code.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 17 Dec. 2013, updated 28 May 2025.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978.

The Holy Bible: Amplified Bible (AMP). Zondervan, 2015.

The Holy Bible: New Living Translation (NLT). Tyndale House, 2015.

The New Testament in Modern English. Translated by J. B. Phillips. Macmillan, 1958.

“Code of Hammurabi.” Wikipedia, Wikipedia Foundation, last modified 2025.

“Documentary Hypothesis.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., updated 3 Nov. 2025.

“Documentary Hypothesis.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, last modified 2025.

“Fundamental Beliefs of the United Church of God.” United Church of God, an International Association.

“The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican.va, §§80–84.

United Church of God doctrinal articles and booklets on the Sabbath, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the nature of God (ucg.org).