Did Moses write Genesis?

[JoeyWarren]

Neither of these presuppositions (or conclusions) is correct. And if these are not the presuppositions and conclusions behind this debate, what on earth is the purpose of the debate?

See the OP.

Did Moses write Genesis?

If so, prove it Explicit Scripture Alone.

This verse proves nothing.
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

This does not prove Moses wrote Genesis at all. It does not even prove that Moses wrote anything at all.

 

[cpayne]

See the OP.

Did Moses write Genesis?

If so, prove it Explicit Scripture Alone.

This verse proves nothing.
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

This does not prove Moses wrote Genesis at all. It does not even prove that Moses wrote anything at all.

Okay, so I guess I’ve already given my answer to the OP: “Probably not all of it.” But I’d add another question: “If Moses did not write all of Genesis, is the Book of Genesis still inspired by God?” To that question my answer would be: “Of course. (Provable by Scripture, too.)”

 

[vern_humphrey]

There seem to be two presuppositions floating around here:

(1) Unless Moses wrote every word of Genesis, it is no longer inspired. People who don’t believe Moses wrote every word of Genesis therefore do not believe in the inspiration of Scriptures.

Which is, of course, not the case. Genesis (and the rest of the Torah) are part of the Canon, declared so by the Church, so no matter how they came about, no matter who wrote them, they are inspired scripture.

(2) When Jesus and Paul referred to the Law of Moses, they meant to imply that Moses wrote every word of the Law. People who don’t believe Moses wrote every word of the Law therefore do not believe the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

Which again is not the case.

Neither of these presuppositions (or conclusions) is correct. And if these are not the presuppositions and conclusions behind this debate, what on earth is the purpose of the debate?

It’s sort of like the question of evolution – “If you believe that, you’re a heretic!!”

To put it another way: Can someone believe the Scripture is inspired, and also believe in the teachings of Jesus and Paul, and still not believe Moses wrote every word of Genesis? This question, since the answer is so obviously “Yes,” seems almost ridiculous to me—but if this is not what the argument is over, what is it over?

It’s over being able to accuse other people of somehow not being true believers.

 

[JoeyWarren]

The purpose of this thread was for a Protestant known as JustAsking4 to provide Explicit Biblical Proof that Moses wrote Genesis.

Unfortunately he chickened out.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The purpose of this thread was for a Protestant known as JustAsking4 to provide Explicit Biblical Proof that Moses wrote Genesis.

Unfortunately he chickened out.

Chickened out, or showed wisdom?

As old Colonel Karl Brumbach used to say, “Second only to valor, caution is a soldier’s greatest virtue.”

 

[cpayne]

The purpose of this thread was for a Protestant known as JustAsking4 to provide Explicit Biblical Proof that Moses wrote Genesis.

Unfortunately he chickened out.

Gotcha. Well, I guess I’ve already weighed in on that question.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

It’s sort of like the question of evolution – “If you believe that, you’re a heretic!!”

You’ve said this twice now. Explain to me how trying to put the brakes on the destructive revisionism of the last 50 years is akin to denying Evolution? I don’t get it.

Saying I don’t see any compelling evidence for the ‘Jahwist’ or ‘Priestly’ sources does not make me a member of the flat earth society! Get a grip.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’ve said this twice now. Explain to me how trying to put the brakes on the destructive revisionism of the last 50 years is akin to denying Evolution? I don’t get it.

If you don’t see how attacking people for showing the multiple authorship of Genesis is akin to attacking them for accepting the possibility that the universe was not created in 6 literal days, I don’t see how I can help you.

Saying I don’t see any compelling evidence for the ‘Jahwist’ or ‘Priestly’ sources does not make me a member of the flat earth society! Get a grip.

Others have said far more than that.

And read your second sentence – If I am persuaded by careful study that Moses did not personally write all of Genesis am I guilty of “the destructive revisionism of the last 50 years?”

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

The problem Vern is that these theories - and that’s all they are - are presented to Catholics as if they are facts. “J”, “E”, “P” only exist within this theory. There is no external evidence whatsoever for them, and the internal evidence is definitely arguable. But somehow I’m a dumby, and a fundie if I don’t drink the kool-aid with you guys.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The problem Vern is that these theories - and that’s all they are - are presented to Catholics as if they are facts. “J”, “E”, “P” only exist within this theory. There is no external evidence whatsoever for them, and the internal evidence is definitely arguable. But somehow I’m a dumby, and a fundie if I don’t drink the kool-aid with you guys.

Would you say that anyone who looks into the structure and other issues is wrong to do so?

If I am persuaded by careful study that Moses did not personally write all of Genesis am I guilty of “the destructive revisionism of the last 50 years?”

Does the Church require me to leave off studying this issue?

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Vern,

The Historical Critical method does not allow for revelation in any of its theories. As Pope Benedict says in his new book, their methods are incompatible with examining the unreproducable events of revelation history.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern,

The Historical Critical method does not allow for revelation in any of its theories. As Pope Benedict says in his new book, their methods are incompatible with examining the unreproducable events of revelation history.

But none of that proves Moses wrote Genesis. And the evidence is solid that he did not.

From the New American Bible:

The Pentateuch

The Pentateuch, which consists of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), enjoys particular prestige among the Jews as the “Law,” or “Torah,” the concrete expression of God’s will in their regard. It is more than a body of legal doctrine, even though such material occupies many chapters, for it contains the story of the formation of the People of God: Abraham and the Patriarchs, Moses and the oppressed Hebrews in Egypt, the birth of Israel in the Sinai covenant, the journey to the threshold of the Promised Land, and the “discourses” of Moses.

The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historic traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. (They are conveniently abbreviated as J, E, P and D.) Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint–a rich variety of interpretation that the sensitive reader will take pains to appreciate. A superficial difference between two of these sources is responsible for their names: the Yahwist prefers the name Yahweh (represented in translation as Lord) by which God revealed himself to Israel; the Elohist prefers the generic name for God, Elohim. The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1. The Elohist is more sober, moralistic. The Priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. The Deuteronomic approach is characterized by the intense hortatory style of Deuteronomy 5-11, and by certain principles from which it works, such as the centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

However, even this analysis of the Pentateuch is an over-simplification , for it is not always possible to distinguish with certainty among the various sources. The fact is that each of these individual traditions incorporates much older material. The Yahwist was himself a collector and adapter. His narrative is made up of many disparate stories that have been reoriented, and given a meaning within the context in which they now stand; e.g., the story of Abraham and Isaac in Gen 22. Within the J and P traditions one has to reckon with many individual units; these had their own history and life-setting before they were brought together into the present more or less connected narrative.

This is not to deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not conceive of him as the author of the books in the modern sense. But there is no reason to doubt that, in the events described in these traditions, he had a uniquely important role, especially as lawgiver. Even the later laws which have been added in P and D are presented as a Mosaic heritage. Moses is the lawgiver par excellence, and all later legislation is conceived in his spirit, and therefore attributed to him. Hence, the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, “the LORD said to Moses.” One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallization of Israel’s age-old relationship with God.

(My emphasis)

Go to the US Catholic Bishops website and read the whole thing, if you don’t already have a copy of the NAB.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Go to the US Catholic Bishops website and read the whole thing, if you don’t already have a copy of the NAB.

I do have a copy. I restrained myself from burning it after I read the introductory notes to the four Gospels.

The intro the the OT from the NAB that you posted perfectly encapsulates the thoughts of the Historical Critical method “scholars”. They don’t mention Christ once, and they make a point of saying how important the Torah is to the Jews.

You’ll also notice the hedging, and the complete lack of any actual evidence. This is a literary criticism theory, and it should be presented as such. On the opposing side is 3000 years of tradition.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do have a copy. I restrained myself from burning it after I read the introductory notes to the four Gospels.

The intro the the OT from the NAB that you posted perfectly encapsulates the thoughts of the Historical Critical method “scholars”. They don’t mention Christ once, and they make a point of saying how important the Torah is to the Jews.s

Ahh - - - Christ is in the New Testament. You will find Old Testament references in the New Testament, showing how Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Testament, and how he fulfilled the Law.

And the Torah are the Jewish scriptures!

You’ll also notice the hedging, and the complete lack of any actual evidence.

Which is not say there is no evidence – merely that in this preface the conclusions are stated concisely.

And no, I don’t notice “hedging.” I see a concise layout of the scholarship behind the current edition.

This is a literary criticism theory, and it should be presented as such.

Note that Ribert Sugenis’ The “Toledoths” of Genesis, while attacking this analysis, arrives at the same basic conclusion – that Genesis was composed over a long time, with many authors.

On the opposing side is 3000 years of tradition.

Three thousand years would bring us back to the time of Solomon – which ironically is when the best evidence shows the final form of the Torah emerged.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Ahh - - - Christ is in the New Testament.

No. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in the entire bible. Just to give you two examples, the Spirit of god moved over the waters at creation, and we (humanity) are made in God’s (Christ Jesus) image. That is a literal and figurative statement.
If you’re a Catholic, you need to brush up on your catechism.

And the Torah are the Jewish scriptures!

They are Christian scriptures also. There is no valid reading, for a christian, of the “Old Testament” that excludes Christ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in the entire bible. Just to give you two examples, the Spirit of god moved over the waters at creation, and we (humanity) are made in God’s (Christ Jesus) image. That is a literal and figurative statement.

In retrospect, they are. But not explicitly. So when discussing Genesis qua Genesis, we don’t leap thousands of years forward to make that point. We make it at the appropriate point – when studying the New Testament.

If you’re a Catholic, you need to brush up on your catechism.

Since I an a certifled catechist, I think I can say I’m well up on it. But if you like, you can cite the paragraph where I’m lacking.

They are Christian scriptures also. There is no valid reading, for a christian, of the “Old Testament” that excludes Christ.

There’s an odd statement!

Tell me how reading Genesis qua Genesis somehow “excludes Christ.”

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Since I an a certifled catechist…

I admire the fact that you’re willing to give up your time and effort to teach kids. A+

But, I disagree with your view of the scriptures, and I would hope that you present the traditional view to the children in class.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I admire the fact that you’re willing to give up your time and effort to teach kids. A+

But, I disagree with your view of the scriptures, and I would hope that you present the traditional view to the children in class.

The overwhelming evidence is multiple authorship – beginning with orally compositions. If I don’t present that, how do I answer questions about the multiple versions of key stories?

How do I answer questions about the order of Creation – where there is light before the Creation of the Sun and Moon? How do I deal with questions about the fossils we find all around us in these hills?

 

[NotWorthy]

I found a commentary on the OT that addresses this passage from Haydock (1859). I’m curious if someone has the Navarre and see what that says about that.

Ver. 6. Sichem. At the foot of Mt. Garizim, where Abram offered his first sacrifice in the land, Deuteronomy xi. 30. (Kennicott) — Noble; on account of the many tall and shady oaks, whence the Septuagint have the high oak. Hebrew Elon more, the plain of Moreh, or of ostension, because God shewed Abram from this place, situated about the middle of the promised land, what countries he would give to him in his posterity, after having exterminated the Chanaanites, who then occupied the land as their own. The mentioning of these idolatrous nations here, gives us reason to admire the faith and constancy of Abram, who neither doubted of the fulfilling of this promise, nor hesitated to adore the true God publicly, ver. 7.** Hence there is no reason for accounting this an interpolation.** (Haydock)

I’m sorry, Vern, but it’s been awhile since I’ve held much water to the NAB’s commentary.

And on Levicitus 4:22

Ver. 22. A prince. King, magistrate, general, chief of a tribe, or great family; in a word, one elevated above the rest (Nasi); as appears, Numbers i. 4. and vii. 2.So, others hold to the opinion that this passage does not necessitate the belief that the author (Moses) is talking of royalty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The fact that you don’t like the NAB is immaterial. It is the bible of choice of the USCCB.

Note also in your quoted section, you claim Abraham offered sacrifice at Mount Garizim. In fact, that is Samaritan tradition.