Fernandes'
'EVIDENCES FOR THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH'
First, the entire Pentateuch displays a unity of arrangement. Even the documentarians concede this point by inventing a hypothetical editor to explain the unity of the Pentateuch. This unity of arrangement strongly implies that the Pentateuch had only one author.
There are numerous contradictions too, which disrupt the unity that allegedly 'implies' singular authorship. I'd like to quote a paragraph from Friedman again and then proceed with a few of my own examples, one of which has already been given above with the Priestly and Jahwist creations. This is what Friedman writes referring to beginning speculations against traditional Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch:
But the tradition that one person, Moses, alone wrote these books presented problems. People observed contradictions in the text. It would report events in a particular order, and later it say those same events happened in a different order. It would say there were two of something, and elsewhere it would say that there were fourteen of that same thing. It would say that the Moabites did something, and later it would say that it was the Midianites who did it. It would describe Moses going to a Tabernacle in a chapter before Moses builds the Tabernacle. People also noticed that the five books of Moses included things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave an account of Moses' death. It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out that he is the humblest man on earth. (
ibid. p.17).
Another example of contradiction is seen when trying to figure out who actually wrote the Ten Commandments: God or Moses. While I currently hold that the Elohist and Jahwist versions of the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exo xx and xxxiv, respectively) are two alternate accounts of what happened the first and only time Moses received them (the Ex xxxiv.1c clause being an editorial comment based upon the Elohist golden calf cipher, where Moses breaks the first set), I'll operate under the assumption that 'Moses' was the sole author and that both versions are sequential rather than alternate. We won't even deal with the fact that both sets of tablets as recorded in both chapters contain different commandments, contrary to Yahweh saying that the words on the second set of tablets would be the same as the first in Exo xxxiv.1. According to this verse and Deut x.2 God wrote on the second set of tablets, and yet Exo xxxiv.28 states that Moses wrote on the second set of Tablets. How could one writer, supposedly present and participative in these events, so flagrantly contradict himself? And while I could make an issue of when the ark was built (see Exo xxv.10 & Deut x.2), and where and by whom, I'll save that for another time.
There are also several passages Moses supposedly wrote that make little sense if he actually wrote them. Two examples are given in a thread I made entitled
'Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch' when I first wanted to discuss this topic with cybershark, but apparently it went ignored (only the user and moderator 'handy' answered, and then she didn't even address my points directly). I'll reproduce those points here:
Post-Mosaic comments and a contradiction said:
]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)?
...
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.
...
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.
Other demonstrably post-/non-Mosaic comments and anachronisms can be found in Gen xiv.14 (mention of 'Dan' as a tribal territory in northern Canaan before the tribe of Dan was actually settled there during the time of the Judges), Ex xvi.35, Deut ii.12 (mention of the entry and the conquest of Canaan as events of the past). There are several more.
Second, both the Old and New Testaments call Moses the author of the Pentateuch (Joshua 8:31; 1 Kings 2:3; Daniel 9:11; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:28; John 5:46-47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5). Even the Pentateuch itself declares Moses to be its author (Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1-2; Deuteronomy 31:9).45
The New Testament is far too removed from Moses' time as to be relevant. No one denies that in the NT era there was a belief that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. It should also be noted that certain passages in the OT (inlcuding the Pentateuch) that are often quoted by proponents of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch do not really say that Moses wrote the Pentateuch...only that he wrote down legislation (which the Pentateuch does
not claim to be; it only speaks of the 'book of the law'). This argument by Fernandes for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is simply erroneous.
Third, eyewitness details in the Pentateuch indicate the author was a participant in the events he was describing. The author at times is so precise in his details that he lists the exact number of fountains (twelve) and palm trees (seventy) in Exodus 15:27.46 The author even describes the appearance and taste of the manna from heaven for future generations (Numbers 11:7-8).47 These precise details make it unlikely that the author was other than an eyewitness of the events he recorded.
At first I thought about posting: 'this argument for Mosaic authorship is circumstantial, ridiculous, and isn't worth a rebuttal', but I promised a point by point rebuttal. I suppose 'Moses' also lived 400 years before his birth to be an eyewitness to Joseph's (Jacob's favorite son) appearance as well (see Gen xxxix.6). Simply put, these kinds of 'detailed' narrative comments are simply the work of an imaginative writer adding a bit of flavor and color to his story and is useless in determining who wrote the Pentateuch.
Fourth, the author of the Pentateuch was well acquainted with the geography and language of Egypt. He was familiar with Egyptian names and uses Egyptian figures of speech. There is a greater percentage of Egyptian words in the Pentateuch than in the rest of the Bible. This seems to indicate that the author had lived in Egypt and was most likely educated there as well. Moses was born, raised, and educated in Egypt. It is also interesting to note that the author does not attempt to explain these uniquely Egyptian factors. This probably indicates that his original readers were also familiar with the Egyptian culture, and, this is exactly the case with the Israelites that Moses led out of Egypt.
This is circumstantial evidence, like above, and is exaggerated (the Egyptian elements amount only to a few words, phrases, and a superificial knowledge of the Egyptian world). One also wonders why the author, supposedly the Egyptian-educated Moses, would not know that his name derives from the Egyptian language and instead erroneously traces it to an unrelated Hebrew root (Exo ii.10). Despite cybershark's objection below, most biblical scholars in general consider the name 'Moses' of Egyptian origin. I would refer cybershark to J. Gywn Griffiths in 'The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses' (
JNES, Vol. 12, No. 4,, 1953, pp. 225-31) for a concise survey. Several kings in the first millenium during the Israelite monarchy were also associated with the powerful nation of Egypt, during the time that DH proponents suggest these stories were most likely written.
Fifth, the author of the Pentateuch, although familiar with Egypt, shows himself to be unfamiliar with the land of Canaan.49 This is consistent with Moses. After leaving Egypt, he wandered through the wilderness of Sinai, but did not enter Canaan (the promised land). The author of the Pentateuch, though he describes with great detail the geography and vegetation of Egypt and Sinai, treats the land of Canaan as a place virtually uknown to him or his people.50 Therefore, the traditional view of Mosaic authorship is much more plausible than the documentary hypothesis.
I have yet to study this aspect of defense of Mosaic authorship in Pentateuchal studies (alleged unfamiliarity with Canaan), even though I believe the first six books of the bible (Genesis-Joshua) originally formed a Hexateuch (the author of Joshua, who I also believe to be the author of Deuteronomy and who wrote the Deuteronoministic History extending to the books of Samuel, Kings, and Jeremiah, was obviously familiar with the land of Canaan). But that notwithstanding, this fifth objection is easily explained by the the story itself--it was not yet concerned with Canaan in any significant depth. The Pentateuch concerns the exodus from Egypt and the wilderness trek, suspensefully awaiting the fate of Israel as they approached the border. One also wonders what constitutes alleged unfamiliarity with Canaan, as the allegedly singular author narrates several epics of the patriarchs in the Canaanite region (and even beyond in Mesopotamia).
Sixth, the setting of Exodus through Numbers is that of a desert atmosphere point of view. Even the laws concerning sanitation apply to a desert lifestyle (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). This would not be the case if the author or authors lived an agricultural lifestyle in their own land for nearly a thousand years (which is what the documentary hypothesis teaches). Even the tabernacle (a portable tent that was the Jewish place of worship) implies a nomadic lifestyle of the worshipers.
With the Judean wilderness within Canaan itself, the fact that nomadic lifestyles still existed in the first millenium, and the setting of the story, it comes as no surprise that the authors of the Pentateuch would narrate events in the desert as they would occur...in the desert. The authors of the Pentateuch did not live in isolation from the rest of the world.
Seventh, Moses was qualified to be the author of the Pentateuch. He was educated in Egypt, grew up there, and spent much of his later life in the Sinai desert (Acts 7:22).
This isn't really a serious point. Any number of people could be qualified to write the Pentateuch (also, see anachronisms and contradictions above).
Eighth, the customs recorded in the Pentateuch were genuine second millennium BC customs. This would not be expected if the Pentateuch was written much later. This point is even stronger when it is realized that many of these customs were not continued on into the first millennium BC. Some of these ancient customs were the legal bearing of children through maidservants, the legality of oral deathbed wills, the possessing of household idols in order to claim inheritence rights, and the way real estate transactions were practiced.
Nothing precludes a writer in the first millenium from writing about the past. This defense of Mosaic authorship must assume complete ignorance of Israelites during the monarchy about social customs, etc. of their ancestry and history. Even so:
Those who dated the patriarchs in the second half of the 2nd millenium B.C. (as well as some who dated them earlier) often appeal to alleged comparable social customs in the Nuzi texts in support of the historicity of the patriarchs and their setting in that period...However, these and other parallels are now seen to be unjustified, since in each case either the Nuzi or the biblical evidence has to be forced in order to make the equations fit properly.
Moreover, in recent years parallels to some of the patriarchal social customs have also been claimed for the first millenium B.C. and some scholars have argued that the patriarchal stories are completely unhistorical and simply reflect the conditions of the Iron Age (1200 B.C. onwards). It is certainly true that features of the stories reflect this period, e.g. excavations at Beer-sheba (which appears in the narratives, e.g. Gen. 21) reveal that there was no city there in the Middle or Late Bronze Age, and the Philistines, who are mentioned in the stories (e.g. Gen. 26) did not appear in Palestine till c. 1200 B.C. -- (
Oxford Bible Atlas, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1984, p. 108).
Similarly, Dr. Victor H. Matthews (who's contributed articles to prestigious and voluminous works like the
Layman's Bible Dictionary,
Biblical Archaeologist, and the
Anchor Bible Dictionary) writes:
The perspective of of many extrabiblical writings is secular, with no attempt being made to create a religious framework for them. Overreliance on parallels can therefore lead to incorrect interpretations and wishful thinking...Without more complete evidence caution must therefore be the watchword when using parallel materials to explain or clarify the biblical narratives. (
Manners and Customs in the Bible, Revised Edition, Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1991, p. xvi).
But again, I want to reemphasize: nothing precludes any writer from writing accurately (or in my opinion in the case of the Pentateuch, somewhat accurately) about the past.
Ninth, the Ras Shamra literature dates back to approximately 1400BC. Therefore, writing existed during Moses' time. Hence, it cannot be argued that written languages had not developed to the degree of the Pentateuch at such an early date, which is what the documentary hypothesis teaches.
This is an outdated and cheap remonstrance. No reputable, contemporary proponent of the DH argues that writing did not exist in the period Moses lived (fifteenth or thirteenth centuries B.C.). Besides, this isn't 'evidence' for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
Tenth, archaeological finds have confirmed much of the history and customs reported in the Pentateuch, whereas no archaeological find has refuted the history recorded in the Bible. Examples of this are the excavations of the cities of Bethel, Schechem, and Ur. Archaeology has shown that these cities were inhabited as early as 2,000BC (the time of Abraham). This had been denied by liberal scholars until archaeology proved them wrong and the Pentateuch right. The Hittite Legal Code, which dates back to about 1300BC, is another example. It was discovered by archaeologists between 1906 and 1912. It confirms the ancient procedure used by Abraham and several Hittites while engaging in a real estate transaction in Genesis 23.62 Another example of archaeological confirmation of the historical reliability of the Pentateuch deals with the use of camels. Genesis records that Abraham owned camels. However, since no nonbiblical references to domesticated camels had been found, liberal scholars assumed the Pentateuch had to have been written at a much later date. However, since 1950, several archaeological findings have shown that the domestication of camels in the middle east occurred as early as 2,000BC.
More outdated and irrelevant remonstrations. Also, see above. And while I could attack points at which the bible disagrees with archaeology, I'll save that for perhaps another time. There's no need to investigate that here (and this isn't evidence for Mosaic authorship either).
Eleventh, all the biblical evidence shows that the Jewish Faith was originally monotheistic, and that it later became idolatrous and polytheistic. This runs counter to the evolutionary view of religion. In fact, there is no historical evidence that any nation's religion ever "evolved" into a genuine monotheistic faith. A true monotheistic faith is unique to the Jewish religion and its offshoots (Christianity, Islam, and their offshoots).
This was addressed above in Fernandes' 'refutation'. Asserting your position is true and therefore concluding that your opposition is false is just illogical. This is irrelevant to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch anyway. It seems as if Fernandes' is running out of things to say.
Twelfth, liberal objections that the religious customs, writings, and legal code of the Jews were too advanced for the traditional fifteenth century BC date of composition have been shown to be unwarranted. Recent studies of ancient religions show that "primitive" peoples had technical sacrificial language. Also, the Code of Hammurabi (1800BC) is a legal code which is very similar in its sophistication to the Law of Moses. The census lists found in the ancient Semitic world (Mari, Ugarit, and Alalakh) between 2000 and 1500BC have much in common with the census lists found in the Book of Numbers. Finally, Deuteronomy follows the same basic format as the Hittite suzerainty treaties (latter half of the second millennium BC), a treaty agreed upon by a king and his people. Therefore, the Pentateuch appears to be a fifteenth century BC document, and not a much later writing.
I'd like to refer the reader to the quotes above concerning parallels between the bible and archaeological finds. I'd also wonder how far Fernandes and others would take those parallels (which are believed by some proponents of Mosaic authorship to be relevant enough as to date Pentateuchal material early), as with the CoH from the early second millenium B.C. For example, like Moses, Hammurabi also received his law from a god (Marduk, the chief Babylonian deity) and here we have a thematic, religious connection as mentioned by Matthews above. This is how one largely conservative scholarly work (67+ major contributors of the likes of F.F. Bruce, Glen R. Miller, Merril C. Tenney, the general editor, and John C. Whitcomb Jr.) treats the relation between the CoH and the Pentateuch:
Students of the Bible are especially interested in the comparison of Hammurabi's code with the Mosaic legislation of the Bible. There are many similarities...How are these similarities to be explained? It is obvious that Hammurabi's could not have borrowed from Moses, for the Hebrew lawgiver lived several centuries after the Babylonian. Direct borrowing in the other direction seems very unlikely. Most scholars agree today that the similarities are to be explained by the common background of the Hebrews and Babylonians. Both were Semitic peoples inheriting their customs and laws from their common ancestors. At first this explanation would seem to run counter to the Biblical claim that Moses' law was given to the legislator by divine revelation. A closer examination of the Pentateuch will show that the Hebrews before they came to Sinai followed many regulations set forth in the law (e.g. penalties against murder, adultery, fornication, Gen. 9:6; 38:24; the levirate law, Gen. 38:8; clean and unclean animals, Gen. 8:20; Sabbath, Gen. 2:3; Exod. 16:23,25-29). Moses' law consists of things both old and new. What was old...was here formally incorporated into the nation's constitution. (Dr. John B. Graybill,
Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 'Hammurabi', 1967, p. 322-33).
The similar customs are explained as originating from a common legal tradition when making apologetics about questions of divine inspiration and revelation, but it wouldn't be concluded that the Pentateuch was written 300-500 years before it was allegedly written by Moses. For one, why can't proponents of the DH explain the laws found in the Pentateuch as originating from a common tradition of laws dating before the the first millenium when the DH suggests the Pentateuch was written? How come Moses is allowed to know old traditions anterior to his time, but the first millenium B.C. authors suggested by the DH are assumed to be ignorant of anything in the past about the patriarchs (assuming that the laws resembling Moses' law in the patriarchal narratives aren't simply retrojections)? And finally, why is insufficient attention paid to the parallel between both legal codes being enacted by gods? (making them functionally similar religious myths)
I have yet to explore ANE census lists, but what possible connection could be made with the book of Numbers with other ANE census lists that could establish an early date? How varied could ANE census lists (from the mid-/late-second millenium to the early-mid first millenium) be? The correlations are simply too vague to establish an early, 'Mosaic' date for the Pentateuch.
I'd also like to comment on Deuteronomy being written in the form of ancient suzerainty treaty. While that's true for it's general outline (although I believe this claim is exaggerated), Deuteronomy has points of topical and syntactical match with all features of Assyrian vassal treaties dating to the seventh century...right at the time the DH proposes Deuteronomy was written. For example, the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon:
The interest of this treaty goes further back, however, because in form it partially follows a literary pattern now recognised in several other documents. This pattern is found not only in rediscovered ancient treaties but also in the Bible...According to it, the document begins with a Preamble or Title; [Deut i.1-5, for example];
this is followed by a Historical account of the past relations between the parties; [Deut. i ff]
then come the Provisions of the treaty, that is to say, what is expected of each of the parties; [the Deuteronomistic law code contained primarily in chs. xii through to xxvi]
there is often mention of the Placing of a copy of the treaty in the vassal's sanctuary and arrangement for periodic Reading of the provisions; [the correlation is obvious; see Deut. xxxi.10 & 26]
a list of Witnessing gods comes next; [in Deuteronomy they take the form of heaven and earth; see xxxii.1]
and there is a concluding section of Curses and Blessings for the degree of fulfillment of the provisions [occupying the bulk of Deut xxvii & xxviii] -- (T.C. Mitchell,
Biblical Archaeology: Documents from the British Museum, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 65, brackets mine).
Thirteenth, ancient legends of creation and the worldwide flood are universal among primitive peoples. These legends appear to perversions of the true biblical account. An example of this would be a comparison of the ancient Babylonian flood account (the Gilgames Epic) and the Genesis flood account. Whereas the boat in the Babylonian account would never float due to its dimensions, the ark's dimensions as listed in Genesis describe a vessel that would be virtually impossible to capsize.
Of course,
he's going to say the other legends are 'perversions' of the 'true' account, but while I could digress on attacking the Flood story and challenge his statement that a big wooden box (which is the meaning of the Hebrew for 'ark') with proportions as layed out in the bible would float, this has nothing to do with supporting Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. If anyone is interested, I'd advise them to go to talkorigins.org and investigate the problems with the Flood story from a scientific viewpoint themselves
Fourteenth, the Jews accepted the Law as Mosaic during King Josiah's reform in 621BC. It is therefore hard to believe that a large portion of the Pentateuch had just been written. The Jews of that day could not have been so naive. It seems more likely that they had good reasons to believe the documents they had were copies of the ancient writings of Moses and not recent creations.
Josiah instituted national repentance. Since Judah was a vassal state to Assyria at this time, with the threat of being conquered completely ever present, a treaty like the one mentioned above would serve as a model for writing the book of Deuteronomy to play upon the people's guilt (their current situation being attributed to sin). Anyway, we know nothing specific about this period other than what the Deuteronomist narrates, which is that a lost copy of the book of the law was found and was used politically to muster national reform.
Fifteenth, Moses had a good reason for using different names for the one true God. He used different names for God when dealing with different contexts. He referred to God as "Elohim" when discussing His act of creation or His infinite power. Moses seems to have called God "Jehovah" (Yahweh) when speaking of God in terms of His covenant relationship with His elect. It is therefore unreasonable to assume that the utilization of various names for God requires more than one author. In fact, compound names such as Yahweh-Elohim are often used to refer to God. Yahweh-Elohim occurs eleven times in the second chapter of Genesis. It is ludicrous to assume that one compound name for God is the work of two authors writing at different times.
This has already been addressed. The presence of doublets, which use different names for God, contradict this explanation. Doublets contain virtually the
same narrative material with slight twists. There is no pattern in the Pentateuch that uses the names for 'God' in this way. That portions of the bible contain the nominal form 'Yahweh-Elohim' and should, according to DH proponents, be written by two authors is a ridiculous straw man.
Finally, Moses also had good reasons for varying his diction and style. Good authors commonly vary their text to prevent monotony; Moses would have done the same. Moses would also have to vary his style due to the wide range of his subject material (genealogies, biographies, historical accounts, religious instruction, moral legislation, etc.). The varying of the diction and style of the Pentateuch is therefore no evidence for multiple authors. Even parallel accounts (such as the two creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2) were common by one author in ancient Semetic literature; it was often used as a type of poetic style.
This is just rehashed from above, and has been dealt with (and isn't evidence for Mosaic authorship anyway).
When all the above factors are taken together, the conclusion becomes obvious. There are extremely good reasons for accepting the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch between 1450 and 1410BC. There is absolutely no evidence for multiple authors of the Pentateuch (other than the case of Moses' obituary in Deuteronomy 34 which was probably penned by Joshua). Though Moses did apparently refer to written documents which predate him (especially while compiling Genesis), all the evidence favors the early traditional date for the Pentateuch, and not the later dates given by liberal scholars. The evidence points to Mosaic authorship. The liberal view is therefore based upon a bias against the supernatural; it is not based upon a scholarly consideration of the evidence.
Given my point by point rebuttals above, I can scarcely agree with this conclusion. And that Deut xxxiv was written by some one other than Moses just begs the question of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Nothing in this chapter indicates a shift in authorship to Joshua or anyone else. That's just plain grasping at straws with no evidence to back the assertion.
Finally, I would like to add that the Hebrew of the Pentateuch is written in standard or monarchial Hebrew. While proponents of Mosaic authorship explain this away by appealing to reworking and updating of the literature by later scribes (with no evidence), it remains that if the Pentateuch is written in standard Hebrew, then it's most likely that the provenance of the Pentateuch is to be found in this period.
Thanks,
Eric
