Did Moses write Genesis?

[NotWorthy]

Ok, here’s what I got on “Parenthesis-Gate”. This comes from the Agape Bible Study.

Biblical scholars do recognize that over the centuries copyists and editors have added information to clarify the text, as in the example of the passage in Genesis 12:6. We do not know who the copyist or editor was in this case; could the addition go back as far as Joshua, who according to tradition completed the work on Deuteronomy after Moses’ death and, who according to tradition wrote the book of Joshua? We do not know the answer to that question. Your debater is correct in his statement that this section of verse 12:6 could not have been written by Moses but that does not mean it was not included by another inspired writer.

 

[NotWorthy]

Vern, here’s some more information on “princes”, that I think tends to re-inforce an earlier post by (I think) Japhy:

In Hebrew there are several words which the English translators render as “prince.”
A. “nasi” is the most frequently used Hebrew word translated in English as “prince”; meaning according to Strong’s # 5387: "an exalted one, i.e… a king or sheik; also a rising mist–captain, chief, cloud, governor, prince, ruler, vapor. This Hebrew word which English translators render as “prince” is found in such passages as Genesis 23:6; 34:2. In Num. 7:11 -48; and in 34:23-28 “nasi” designates the firstborn sons (heirs) of the founders of the 12 tribes. 1 Kings 11:34; 1Chr 2:10; 5:6; Ezra 1:8; Ezek. 7:27; 12:10, 12; 21:25; 30:13; 34:24; etc. (many times in Ezekiel). These are just a few examples. This word is also translated as “ruler” in Ex. 22:28; Lev. 4:22; Num 13:2; etc.

B. “nagiyd” or “nagid” #5057: a commander;, civil, military or religious; captain, chief, excellent thing (chief), governor, leader, noble, prince, ruler. Job 31:37; 1Kings 14:7; 16:2; Prov. 28:16; Ezek 28:2; Dan. 9:25-26; 11:22 (“prince” of the covenant); etc. This word is also translated as “ruler” in 1 Sam 25:30; 2Sam 6:21; 7:8; 1Kings 1:35; 1Chr 5:2; 9:11, 20; 11:2; 17:7; 26:24; etc.

C. “nadiyb” #5081: a grandee (sometimes a tyrant), noble, prince, willing-heart. Job 21:28; Prov. 17:7; 19:6; 25:7;etc

D. “qatsiyn” #7101: magistrate (as deciding) or othr leader: captain, guide, prince, ruler. Prov. 25:15; Dan. 11:18; etc.

E. “razown” #7333: a dignitary: prince(least frequently translated as “prince”)Prov 14:28; etc.

And on Leviticus 4:22, here’s what M. Hunt from Agape Bible Study says:

The New Jerusalem Catholic Bible translates this passage as: “When a leader has sinned and inadvertently incurred guilt by doing something forbidden by the commandments of Yahweh his God (or if the sin which he has committed is drawn to his attention), he must bring a he-goat as his offering, an unblemished male.”

So, Vern, my assumption is the same as it was - you are trying to apply the modern meaning of “prince” to ancient Israel, ignoring the translation traps that make this a difficult task, in order to claim that Leviticus was written centuries later, in the Israeli Kingdom.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, here’s some more information on “princes”, that I think tends to re-inforce an earlier post by (I think) Japhy:

And on Leviticus 4:22, here’s what M. Hunt from Agape Bible Study says:

So, Vern, my assumption is the same as it was - you are trying to apply the modern meaning of “prince” to ancient Israel, ignoring the translation traps that make this a difficult task, in order to claim that Leviticus was written centuries later, in the Israeli Kingdom.

The multiple authorship of Genesis is clearly not explained by any of this.

None of this really addresses the anacronisms – there is no real scholarship here, merely attempts to shore up a failing theory by “explaining away” the problems.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by JoeyWarren
Well please do. And please provide that EXPLICIT BIBLICAL proof you keep harping on.

Originally Posted by justasking4 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Can’t do here on this topic otherwise they may shut it down.

Here’s a fresh thread. Just asking please provide Biblical proof that Moses wrote Genesis.
Thanks, will be waiting.

Still waiting on a non-Catholic to provide EXPLICT BIBLICAL PROOF that Moses wrote Genesis.

 

[NotWorthy]

The multiple authorship of Genesis is clearly not explained by any of this.

No, but showing that things put in parenthesis are biblical editors way of showing that it was added later is certainly a way of showing that somebody probably added to what MOSES wrote in Genesis. This passage was your proof that Moses couldn’t have written it, since this passage shows it was written after the Canaanites were defeated and left. By showing that this is a common technique (the parenthesis) to show that a passage was edited for clarification (another common technique), it means you need to have better proof of a later authorship. Until then, we should accept the common tradition that it was Moses who authored Genesis and the rest of the Torah, unless you have more solid proof.

None of this really addresses the anacronisms – there is no real scholarship here, merely attempts to shore up a failing theory by “explaining away” the problems.

No. It simply blows a hole in your theory. You introduced Leviticus 4:22 as evidence that it couldn’t have been Moses, or even during his time, that Leviticus was written. You claimed that the term “prince”, a term denoting royalty, couldn’t have been done in Moses’ time since there was no kingdom, and hence no princes.

You ignored two things:

1. “Prince” as evidenced by the shoring up of my failing theory, was not used strictly for royalty. If this is evidence of your absolute proof, then it has to prove it absolutely.
2. Why does Yahweh only feel the need to make laws for (royal) princes? Why not kings? Why not judges? Why not other groups of leaders. It looks like the Hebrew “Nasi” encompasses all of this.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, but showing that things put in parenthesis are biblical editors way of showing that it was added later is certainly a way of showing that somebody probably added to what MOSES wrote in Genesis.

But you’ve never shown that!!

It ought to be easy to find the person who put in the parentheses, and to find what he says about it.

This passage was your proof that Moses couldn’t have written it, since this passage shows it was written after the Canaanites were defeated and left. By showing that this is a common technique (the parenthesis) to show that a passage was edited for clarification (another common technique), it means you need to have better proof of a later authorship. Until then, we should accept the common tradition that it was Moses who authored Genesis and the rest of the Torah, unless you have more solid proof.

You haven’t shown the parentheses means any such thing.

On the other hand, a lot of evidence – including the “toledoths” of Genesis are overwhelming proof of multiple authorship over a looooooong time.

No. It simply blows a hole in your theory. You introduced Leviticus 4:22 as evidence that it couldn’t have been Moses, or even during his time, that Leviticus was written. You claimed that the term “prince”, a term denoting royalty, couldn’t have been done in Moses’ time since there was no kingdom, and hence no princes.

And it is – but only one of many things. Note the passages cited make a sharp distinction between “princes” and ordinary people.

You ignored two things:

1. “Prince” as evidenced by the shoring up of my failing theory, was not used strictly for royalty. If this is evidence of your absolute proof, then it has to prove it absolutely.

And you ignored the context, which shows a sharp distinction between “princes” and ordinary people.

Read in context, and it doesn’t matter how the word might be translated – clearely these “princes” are not ordinary people and are entitled to very special priviliges at the highest level.

And that is the proof that it does not reflect Jewish society as it was in the days of Moses, but rather a much later – Davidic – society.

1. Why does Yahweh only feel the need to make laws for (royal) princes? Why not kings? Why not judges? Why not other groups of leaders. It looks like the Hebrew “Nasi” encompasses all of this.

But the context does not. **These **“princes” are real royalty – as you yourself admit, Yaweh feels the need to make special laws for them.

 

[clmowry]

Sure, Moses COULD HAVE written the Torah. Since everyone else is going out on a limb, I will too: It’s obvious he did not. The same author wrote Genesis and Leviticus? Nope. Were they both inspired by God? Yep.

How long did it take folks realize that he obviously did not write the Torah?

 

[clmowry]

Then could someone please explain to me what Jesus meant when He said what He said?

Let’s see, I’m on post 37 and wonders if I’ll see an answer to this by the time he gets to post 137. I’m betting no. Let’s see.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How long did it take folks realize that he obviously did not write the Torah?

Maimonides realized it in the 12th Century.

 

[clmowry]

Maimonides realized it in the 12th Century.

So it wasn’t obvious for what ~3,000 years?

 

[Valke2]

And the LORD said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.” (Ex 17:14)

And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Ex 34:27-28)

"When you come to the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, **I will set a king over me**, like all the nations that are round about me'; you may indeed set as king over you him whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, You shall never return that way again.’ And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold.
“And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in the charge of the Levitical priests; and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them; that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left; so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.” (Deut 17:14-20)

I stand corrected.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So it wasn’t obvious for what ~3,000 years?

Closer to 2,000, since the evidence is that the tradition only goes back to around 800 BC.

 

[NotWorthy]

And it is – but only one of many things. Note the passages cited make a sharp distinction between “princes” and ordinary people.

And you ignored the context, which shows a sharp distinction between “princes” and ordinary people.

Other than my “ignoring”, I agree with what you are saying, but…

Read in context, and it doesn’t matter how the word might be translated – clearely these “princes” are not ordinary people and are entitled to very special priviliges at the highest level.

I agree that they are not ordinary people. I never claimed that, Vern. But your original point was that they were royalty, which didn’t exist in Moses time. And, yes, they were special, just as judges were in Moses time. Also notice that princes are the oldest son of the oldest sons of each tribe. THIS would make more sense than the misplaced time you are claiming.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree that they are not ordinary people. I never claimed that, Vern. But your original point was that they were royalty, which didn’t exist in Moses time.

No, my original claim was that the passage depicts a social and political order that did not exist in Moses’ time.

And, yes, they were special, just as judges were in Moses time. Also notice that princes are the oldest son of the oldest sons of each tribe. THIS would make more sense than the misplaced time you are claiming.

It woudn’t, you know. But you are quite free to show there was a social and political organization like that in Moses’ time, if you can.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, my original claim was that the passage depicts a social and political order that did not exist in Moses’ time.

There were no judges and oldest sons of the oldest sons in Moses’ time? I didn’t realize that, Vern.

It woudn’t, you know. But you are quite free to show there was a social and political organization like that in Moses’ time, if you can.

Let’s see, what about the 72 people that Moses appointed.

From the Toledoth of Matthew, there is certainly a seed that traveled in Moses group, which proves that at least Judah had one.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There were no judges and oldest sons of the oldest sons in Moses’ time? I didn’t realize that, Vern.

Nice try but no cigar.

I said the passage depicts a social and political order that did not exist in Moses’ time. You’re the one who claims it means “judges and oldest sons.”

Let’s see, what about the 72 people that Moses appointed.

From the Toledoth of Matthew, there is certainly a seed that traveled in Moses group, which proves that at least Judah had one.

Nevertheless the passage isn’t based on the toledoths, but on the social and political order – one which didn’t exist in Moses’ time.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, my original claim was that the passage depicts a social and political order that did not exist in Moses’ time.

It woudn’t, you know. But you are quite free to show there was a social and political organization like that in Moses’ time, if you can.

11 But the LORD said to Moses, “Let one prince a day present his offering for the dedication of the altar.” 12 The one who presented his offering on the first day was Nahshon, son of Amminadab, prince of the tribe of Judah.

Looks like Numbers 7 explains it rather well.

Cigars are on me!!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Looks like Numbers 7 explains it rather well.

Cigars are on me!!!

Okay, light 'em up. But the passage quoted earlier still doesn’t depict a Mosaic society. The society depicted is much later.

And again, the thread is “Did Moses write Genesis?” and it has already be indisputably demonstrated that Genesis had multiple authors and they wrote much earlier than Moses.

 

[NotWorthy]

Okay, light 'em up. But the passage quoted earlier still doesn’t depict a Mosaic society. The society depicted is much later.

So, let me get this straight. Vern, you are claiming that Leviticus was not only not written by Moses, but that the laws of Leviticus were not given to Moses. And your basis for this claim is the nomadic Israelites couldn’t have handled the artifacts of the tent, and the princes comment points to a different society.

And again, the thread is “Did Moses write Genesis?” and it has already be indisputably demonstrated that Genesis had multiple authors and they wrote much earlier than Moses.

No, not indisputable and earlier authors. Genesis was a series of stories that may have survived by Oral Tradition, but the inspired author of Genesis is the one to bring them into what we know as Genesis.

There is no archaeological evidence that supports your statement of any of Genesis’ stories being written down prior to the writing of Genesis.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So, let me get this straight. Vern, you are claiming that Leviticus was not only not written by Moses, but that the laws of Leviticus were not given to Moses.

Thank you for another clumsy attempt to put words in my mouth.

And your basis for this claim is the nomadic Israelites couldn’t have handled the artifacts of the tent, and the princes comment points to a different society.

Thank you for another clumsy attempt to create a strawman argument.

No, not indisputable and earlier authors. Genesis was a series of stories that may have survived by Oral Tradition, but the inspired author of Genesis is the one to bring them into what we know as Genesis.

Says who?

The Church position is that only the actual author – not the composer, editor, amanuensis, or translator – is inspired.

There is no archaeological evidence that supports your statement of any of Genesis’ stories being written down prior to the writing of Genesis.

Archeological evidence?

If that’s the standard, I suppose you have found Moses’ ink stand.