Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

[wavy]

Gen.36.31(NASB)
Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.

Does any one care to explain how Moses listed a succession of Edomite kings in detail up until the Israelite monarchy half a millenium (or roughly 2+ centuries, depending on whether we date Moses to the 15th or 13th century) after Moses supposedly died by using 'reigned' (perfect tense)?

 

[handy]

Moses wrote and/or dictated the main narratives and themes of the books, while later editors added supplimental information. All, naturally, working under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[wavy]

Moses wrote and/or dictated the main narratives and themes of the books, while later editors added supplimental information. All, naturally, working under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So you're saying that you could put forward both Mosaic and non-Mosaic material? Where does it end and where does it begin?

 

[handy]

Probably by cross-referencing and comparing other scriptures to the texts. And, applying a bit of common sense. For instance, while it's clear that Moses either wrote or more likely spoke the words of Deuteronomy 33:2-29, it's also obvious that he couldn't have written Deuteronomy 34.

May I ask why it's important?

 

[wavy]

Probably by cross-referencing and comparing other scriptures to the texts. And, applying a bit of common sense. For instance, while it's clear that Moses either wrote or more likely spoke the words of Deuteronomy 33:2-29, it's also obvious that he couldn't have written Deuteronomy 34.

Unfortunately the Pentateuchal corpus does not claim for itself Mosaic authorship (a bad guess, I believe, of the Second Temple period that continues to this day traditionally among Jews and inerrantist/fundamentalist Christians).

As for your example that it is 'clear Moses...wrote or...spoke' pieces of Deut.33.2-29 but not Deut.ch.34, that's hardly provable, and there's no indication of a shift in literary style from ch.33 to ch.34.

According to my view Moses neither wrote nor spoke the words of anything in Deuteronomy, and this is demonstrable beginning with the very first words of the book:

Deut.1.1
These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel across the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel and Laban and Hazeroth and Dizahab.

'Across the Jordan' would be the east side of Jordan, and of course, Moses never crossed over from the east to the west. But the phrase 'across the Jordan' itself gives the perspective of an author who's already in Canaan (i.e. west of Jordan).

Deut.1.5; 4.41,46-49 continue to give the persepctive of the true author who's writing in Canaan. Respectively, the author(s) does attempt to properly quote Moses from Moses' perspective east of the Jordan:

Deut.3.19-20
But your wives and your little ones and your livestock (I know that you have much livestock) shall remain in your cities which I have given you, until the LORD gives rest to your fellow countrymen as to you, and they also possess the land which the LORD your God will give them beyond the Jordan [in Canaan] then you may return every man to his possession which I have given you.

Deut.3.25
Let me, I pray, cross over and see the fair land that is beyond the Jordan [in Canaan], that good hill country and Lebanon.'

Deut.11.30
Are they not across the Jordan, west of the way toward the sunset, in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, opposite Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh?

The author makes the effort to put Moses in proper perspective. However, he unwittingly and mistakenly reveals his own west of Jordan perspective and disconfirms that Moses' speeches are truly Mosaic:

Deut.3.8
Thus we took the land at that time from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, from the valley of Arnon to Mount Hermon

The land of which Moses speaks is east of Jordan. Moses is already east of Jordan, having never crossed west of Jordan, and he speaks as if the east of Jordan (his location) is across the Jordan.

May I ask why it's important?

I don't believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Traditionalists believe Moses wrote pretty much everything from Genesis--Deut.ch.33. The actual literary evidence shows something quite different.

 

[wavy]

bump for handy

 

[handy]

I'm back. (Been busy)

I must admit, I just don't see this as that big of a deal. Think of it this way, Bill Clinton wrote "My Life", an autobiography. Now, does anyone really believe that Bill spent the months and months required in verifing his memories with accurate dates and times, not to mention just the grind of sitting at the word processor to type in all the words of that book?

Of course not. I'm sure that Bill directed what things were included, and probably took a hand at personally writing and editing some of the stuff. But, I'm also sure that Bill had staffers that checked out sources and made sure that the information was being accurately presented and most of all ghost writers that did the grunt work of typing their little fingers to the bone while Bill was out galavantin' around as our Bill is so wont to do. Does this mean that "My Life" is founded on some kind of lie, and that it is not an essential work of Bill Clinton's? Again, of course not. If someone is interested in not only Bill's personal achievements, but also a good snapshot of American politics during the latter part of the 20th century, then I'd recommend "My Life" as an authorative work to refer to.

The Pentateuch is represented as Moses' work, because Moses was the central figure in Israel's formation as a nation. I simply don't have a problem with the work being attributed to Moses, as it was probably Moses who saw the need to have a written history of the Jews and directed most of what was included. Just because certain passages were most likely not written by him, but were included at later dates, doesn't affect the fact that Moses was largely responsible for not only the events recorded in the books, but the directive that those event's be recorded. If later scholars or kings or priests felt that the tail end of Moses' life should be included, or that some ancillary information was put in, no biggie. All was inspired by the Holy Spirit. He is the ultimate 'ghost writer' here anyway.

I'm guessing that your main issue isn't really who sat down with the papyrus and stylus or whatever, but rather whether or not the Scriptures stand as inerrant. Attributing the Pentateuch to Moses doesn't either prove or disprove the inerrancy of the Scriptures, you know.

 

[wavy]

Think of it this way, Bill Clinton wrote "My Life", an autobiography.

The autobiography names Clinton as its author. The Pentateuch does not name Moses as its author.

I simply don't have a problem with the work being attributed to Moses, as it was probably Moses who saw the need to have a written history of the Jews and directed most of what was included.

That's the very problem. You can only guess these things based off of tradition. But there's no written or historical evidence to support it.

Just because certain passages were most likely not written by him, but were included at later dates, doesn't affect the fact that Moses was largely responsible for not only the events recorded in the books, but the directive that those event's be recorded.

Again, that is your assumption. There is no proof or evidence aside from word of mouth that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. You cannot prove certain passages were written at later dates because you cannot prove any material in the Pentateuch is Mosaic.

All was inspired by the Holy Spirit. He is the ultimate 'ghost writer' here anyway.

I would beg to differ, unless you admit that the Pentateuch contradicts itself.

Attributing the Pentateuch to Moses doesn't either prove or disprove the inerrancy of the Scriptures, you know.

I must say you do hold a unique view. But my post was targeted towards those who believe that Moses wrote substantially all the Pentateuch(according to conservatives, Genesis-Deuteronomy 33), and that if anything contradicts Mosaic authorship, that it must be the work of 'later writers'.

Kind regards,

Eric.

 

[handy]

All was inspired by the Holy Spirit. He is the ultimate 'ghost writer' here anyway.

I would beg to differ, unless you admit that the Pentateuch contradicts itself.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding this statement of yours. How does attributing the Pentateuch to either Moses or "Moses et. al." or even leaving Moses out of the equation completely but ultimately to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit cause the Pentateuch to contradict itself? As you say, the Pentateuch does not name Moses as its author.

 

[wavy]

You said the words are inspired. Unless you concede 'inspiration' can contradict itself, then it is not inspired.

What I mean by 'contradiction' are the many contradictions within the Pentateuch itself, not in regards to assumed Mosaic authorship.

For example, Ex.21.2,7 with Deut.15.12. One says women cannot be released as slaves the same way as men. The other gives women the same right as men.

 

[handy]

Dueteronomy doesn't contradict Exodus. True enough, verse 12 starts by speaking of both male and female slaves, but if you read closely, the rest of the text, until verse 17, is speaking exclusively of male slaves. By the time we get to verse 17, the text is then on the matter of a slave who chooses to have his ear pierced rather than be released, and it's in the context of slaves that are NOT released that the text tells us, "You shall do likewise to your maid-servant."

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to tell you a fable which kind of sums up my attitude about issues like this. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to be deliberatly rude, just putting things into perspective.

Salvation and the Gnats at the Feast:
A man was lost and wandering without food, clothing and shelter during a severe winter storm. When he finally comes to a house, he's nearly dead. But, luckily for him, the owner of the house was no ordinary man, he was actually a king. The king, seeing how bad off the man is, calls for a feast to be prepared. The king takes the man in, personally washes him, puts balm on his wounds and clothes him in his own robes. When all is prepared, the king takes the poor man into his state dining room and sets him at his table, which was quite huge and could sit up to 40 people. There on the table is a feast the like of which has never before been seen. Every kind of good and nutritious food is there, all prepared by a master chef who can even make peas taste good. With each course the finest of wines are served, as well as ices and clear, cold water. The king begs the man to eat his fill of whatever he chooses. But, even though he's starving, the man looks disdainfully over each and every dish that is placed at that table. He inspects every platter, bowl and saucer. Suddenly, he gets up, leaves the table, puts his old rags back on and goes back into the storm. Why? Because as he was busy disdainfully inspecting the wonderful feast that the king placed before him, he noticed, underneath one of the grapes at the table, a little gnat. There was also a teensy, little gnat on the stem of a steamed broccoli, and one doing the backstroke in a glass of Chianti. He goes back out to the storm, gets pneumonia and dies, all because he rejected the king's hospitality for the gnats at the feast.

Eric, you seem to be smarter than the average bear, so I'll assume you'll figure out the moral to this fable. :wink:

 

[wavy]

True enough, verse 12 starts by speaking of both male and female slaves, but if you read closely, the rest of the text, until verse 17, is speaking exclusively of male slaves. By the time we get to verse 17, the text is then on the matter of a slave who chooses to have his ear pierced rather than be released, and it's in the context of slaves that are NOT released that the text tells us, "You shall do likewise to your maid-servant."

I think you are reading the text wrong. The use of the pronoun 'he' subsumes both male and female, the text just uses 'he' as an example. There are no '/' in Hebrew. It would not read 'he/she'. 'He' would have to refer to the nearest antecedent, which is 'man or woman'. If it is used exclusively only of male servants, there would be no need to mention 'woman'.

Why you have restricted 'likewise to your female-slave' to v.17 is obvious. The context and reading demands that everything from v.12-17 refer to both male and female, since the law begins with 'a Hebrew relative, man or woman'. Also, v.17 is read in context that the female has the option to stay after her six years or else 'likewise to your female slave' would make no sense. You are grasping at straws.

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to tell you a fable which kind of sums up my attitude about issues like this. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to be deliberatly rude, just putting things into perspective.

I haven't rejected the king. I reject anybody else in the house, however, who insist on telling me there is no gnat.

Kind regards,

Eric.

 

[handy]

You are grasping at straws.

No I'm not. I'm swopping at gnats. :-D

Seriously, I'm not really sure if you want this thread to be a tit-for-tat debate regarding what you believe to be contradictions and I believe to be discrepancies, or a more fundamental discussion on the whether or not the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures and the Scriptures as we now have them represent His inerrant (yes, inerrant despite the descrepancies) message to us.

I've studied this whole area of "contradictions" before, (actually several times) and have been satisfied that there are no serious misrepresentations in the Scriptures, nor are there any major contradictions. Sure there are some discrepancies, but none that fundamentally alter the inspired message of the Holy Spirit. Probably the most serious, (at least IMHO) discrepancy is the one found in 1 John 5:8, however even that one doesn't alter the fact that the Bible is trustworthy.

As I've studied the subject before, I'm not particularly interested in going over (and over and over) the supposed contradictions again. But, I'm always up for a lively discussion regarding inerrancy and the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. I think in this day and age, an ability to trust in the veracity of the Bible is key to being able to understand, believe and recieve the Word of God.