Did Moses write Genesis?

[japhy]

Just so we’re all on the same page, these are the attestations to Moses found in the New Testament:

And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to the people.” (Matthew 8:4; cf. Leviticus 14:2-9)

They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” (Matthew 19:7; cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses said, `If a man dies, having no children, his brother must marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’” (Matthew 22:23-24; cf. Deuteronomy 25:6)

“For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother'; and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’;” (Mark 7:10; cf. Exodus 20:12, 21:17)

“And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, `I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” (Mark 12:26; cf. Exodus 3:6)

Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44)

“Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man upon the sabbath.” (John 7:22)

“Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” (John 8:5; cf. Leviticus 20:10, which does not specify stoning)

Now, the question is a matter of personification of the author(s) of the Torah to Moses. The law of Moses was not his law, it was God’s law, given through Moses. Moses did not give the law of circumcision – that started with Abraham – but Jesus speaks as though he did (and clarifies himself) because the juxtaposition is between the Mosaic covenant and Jesus’ teaching.

It doesn’t seem that all the attestations to Moses are to his writing, but to his teaching. What I mean is, the Torah certainly contains the oral teaching of Moses written down, but that does not imply that Moses wrote all of it.

 

[NotWorthy]

Punctuation, including parentheses, did not exist in ancient times. All the punctuation you see in the Bible was added in modern times.

And indeed, this parenthetical phrase was not in the original – it was added later, when the oral stories were written down. And that came hundreds of years after Moses – as the addition indicates.

OK, now you’re not making sense. The “( )” part was added later on then the original text, which is what the “( )” part tends to indicate in Scripture. So this does in no way prove that the original text would have been does after Moses death.

Think about it, if the authors wrote this entire book centuries after Moses death, then why would they feel the need to put a parenthesis around the text.

The usage is the same as in English. Princes and Kings emerged among the Israelites long after the time of Moses.

You have a marvelous way of not answering the question that I asked. Maybe that’s why I always enjoy your posts!!!

Why, in Chronicles would the author say, “brothers and also the princes”? The brothers of the King would have been princes. This tends to indicate that princes were not brothers and sons of kings.

 

[NotWorthy]

He said it following Jewist tradition of the day – would you have Him say, “For if you had believed Whoever It Was Who Wrote The Torah, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me?”

I would think that rather then validating a false premise, Jesus would say, “For if you had believed the Torah, you would have believed me, because it was written about me”.

 

[DianJo]

Will anyone read this?

The Toledoths of Genesis

… For those biblical scholars who have had the unfortunate experience of having the JEPD theory of the Documentary Hypothesis jammed down their throats the past forty years in Catholic biblical scholarship, and as long since the time of Julius Wellhausen in the late 1800s, this will be a real treat. This article will show what an absolute sham Catholic biblical scholarship has been since the 1960s; how innocent Catholics have been deceived by these pseudo-scholars; and why Catholic students all over the world have lost the faith. After you read this article, if you own Raymond Brown’s “New Jerome Biblical Commentary,” it may come in handy this winter when you need kindling for the fireplace. I hear that liberal biblical scholarship burns especially well. I can just hear those pages crackling now!

more…

Wow - I was scouring the thread to see if anyone had psoted this link. If not, I was going to do it. I haven’t read past this post so I don’t yet know how everyone feels about it but I think it is certainly an interesting theory and really quite possible. It certanly explains where Moses got his info.

 

[vern_humphrey]

OK, now you’re not making sense. The “( )” part was added later on then the original text, which is what the “( )” part tends to indicate in Scripture. So this does in no way prove that the original text would have been does after Moses death.

Actually, it does – unless you are claiming that the Israelites came around and edited the Bible every so often!

Think about it, if the authors wrote this entire book centuries after Moses death, then why would they feel the need to put a parenthesis around the text.

Let’s take it slowly.

The redactors (the people who first wrote down these oral compositions) did **not **put in the parentheses. Parentheses and other punctuation did not exist in those days.

When they wrote, the Canaanites no longer lived in the land. They felt it necessary to add a short statement to explain to their readers that in those far-off days, the Cannanites did live in the land. This is proof that they wrote long after Moses’ time.

You have a marvelous way of not answering the question that I asked. Maybe that’s why I always enjoy your posts!!!

What question haven’t I answered. Re-post it.

Why, in Chronicles would the author say, “brothers and also the princes”? The brothers of the King would have been princes. This tends to indicate that princes were not brothers and sons of kings.

How is that relevant? During Moses’ time – and long afterward – there were no Israelite princes or kings. Therefore the use of the term, and the specific instructions for dealing with princes who sin, comes from a much later time.

 

[DianJo]

I’m with “Buffalo” - has anyone read the above link to the “Toledoths of Genesis?” What is your opinion?

I haven’t heard of any commetns on this theory - if it is a theory. After reading the article, it really seems to be a very plausible thing. I don’t think Moses actually “wrote” all the books that comprise the Pentatauch. I believe he could’ve “put it all together” but, how? He had to get his info from somewhere - that’s alot of history and geneology to cover. This, to me answers the question and the evidence is in your own bible.

I think it’s pretty cool, really. (Not a very scholarly comment, I realize, but, hey, I’m not a scholar!)

Any comments on the article?

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually, it does – unless you are claiming that the Israelites came around and edited the Bible every so often!

C’mon, you know that’s been done. If you study Tobit and either Ezra or Nehemiah, you’ll see that there are some editions more complete than others. This, of course, came from some type of editing.

Let’s take it slowly.

The redactors (the people who first wrote down these oral compositions) did **not **put in the parentheses. Parentheses and other punctuation did not exist in those days.

When they wrote, the Canaanites no longer lived in the land. They felt it necessary to add a short statement to explain to their readers that in those far-off days, the Cannanites did live in the land. This is proof that they wrote long after Moses’ time.

Unless, as I’ve indicated, the text was written, without the part in parenthesis, and then the part that is now in parenthesis was added later on. Look at John, chapter 5 - verse 3. This is exactly what happened there. Look at Daniel, there are different editions between the Protestant and Catholic versions. Someone edited it at some time.

What question haven’t I answered. Re-post it.

How is that relevant? During Moses’ time – and long afterward – there were no Israelite princes or kings. Therefore the use of the term, and the specific instructions for dealing with princes who sin, comes from a much later time.

Could the word that translates into English to be “prince” mean something other than the common English conception of priest. Look at Chronicles. When the author says “brothers and also princes” he is differentiating the two groups of people. Brothers must not be princes, or else the sentence would be redundant. In our common English usage of the word “prince”, brothers (of the king) are inclusive in the term “prince”.
Maybe I need to ask it differently.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Something I read some time back discussed that Deuteronomy was perhaps written closer to the prophet Isaiah’s time.

That’s about all I can add though.

 

[vern_humphrey]

C’mon, you know that’s been done. If you study Tobit and either Ezra or Nehemiah, you’ll see that there are some editions more complete than others. This, of course, came from some type of editing.

Bingo!!

The Old Testament, as we have it (and to a lesser extent the New Testament) was produced from stories and earlier sources. Ergo, Genesis was not written by Moses.

Unless, as I’ve indicated, the text was written, without the part in parenthesis, and then the part that is now in parenthesis was added later on. Look at John, chapter 5 - verse 3. This is exactly what happened there. Look at Daniel, there are different editions between the Protestant and Catholic versions. Someone edited it at some time.

Bingo!!

The pericope in question was written hundreds of years after Moses – further evidence that Moses did not write Genesis.

Could the word that translates into English to be “prince” mean something other than the common English conception of priest. Look at Chronicles. When the author says “brothers and also princes” he is differentiating the two groups of people. Brothers must not be princes, or else the sentence would be redundant. In our common English usage of the word “prince”, brothers (of the king) are inclusive in the term “prince”.
Maybe I need to ask it differently.

Read the sections in question.

Leviticus 4:22-26

22 "Should a prince commit a sin inadvertently by doing one of the things which are forbidden by some commandment of the LORD, his God, and thus become guilty,
23 if later on he learns of the sin he committed, he shall bring as his offering an unblemished male goat.
24 Having laid his hands on its head, he shall slaughter the goat as a sin offering before the LORD, in the place where the holocausts are slaughtered.
25 The priest shall then take some of the blood of the sin offering on his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of holocausts. The rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of this altar.
26 All of the fat he shall burn on the altar like the fat of the peace offering. Thus the priest shall make atonement for the prince’s sin, and it will be forgiven.

Leviticus 4:27-32

27 "If a private person commits a sin inadvertently by doing one of the things which are forbidden by the commandments of the LORD, and thus becomes guilty,
28 should he later on learn of the sin he committed, he shall bring an unblemished she-goat as the offering for his sin.
29 Having laid his hand on the head of the sin offering, he shall slaughter it at the place of the holocausts.
30 The priest shall then take some of its blood on his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of holocausts. The rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar.
31 All the fat shall be removed, just as the fat is removed from the peace offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for an odor pleasing to the LORD. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.
32 "If, however, for his sin offering he presents a lamb, he shall bring an unblemished female.

Note the sharp distinction between a “prince” (verse 4:22) and a “private person” (verse 4:27). This is a social, religious and government structure that did not exist in Moses’ time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We’ve had some discussion of the “Toledoths” of Genesis. Let’s take a look at a part of that (from the beginning of page 3):

Joseph’s History
The long last section of Genesis, that is, Genesis 37:2 to 50:26, does not conclude with a colophon. Why not? Because this last section of Genesis is mainly a history of Joseph in Egypt. At least the family history centers around him. This record begins with the words, “and Joseph being seventeen years old,” and ends with, “and he [Joseph] was put in a coffin in Egypt.” In this section we have passed from Babylonia (or, at least, from Babylonian influence) to Egypt, where in all probability the account would be written on papyrus. Since the Egyptians did not use the colophon ending, the lack of one at the end of the Joseph narrative is perfectly harmonious with our Toledoth theory.

If we accept this theory, it tells us the earlier part of Genesis was written before the Israelites came to Egypt – which is to say, long before Moses’ time.

In fact, the whole theory presents a picture of a series of tablets and stories slowly assembled to produce Genesis – quite at odds with a single writer, Moses or not, being the author.

 

[NotWorthy]

Bingo!!

The Old Testament, as we have it (and to a lesser extent the New Testament) was produced from stories and earlier sources. Ergo, Genesis was not written by Moses.

No, it’s not a bingo. When you consider that the story in Genesis is completed 400 years before Moses’ time, the theory that Moses wrote Genesis still fits your pattern of “stories from earlier sources”. It’d be like Scott Hahn writing the story of Christopher Columbus when you consider the time frame.

Bingo!!

The pericope in question was written hundreds of years after Moses – further evidence that Moses did not write Genesis.

No, it’s not a bingo. It’s simply evidence that someone, during some place and time after Moses, felt the need to add this clarification. If the same author wrote the preceding sentence, and the pericope (what the heck is a “pericope” anyway?!?) in question, there would have been no need to separate this out with parenthesis.

Your “Bingo” seems to be supporting my hypothesis, not yours.

Read the sections in question.

Leviticus 4:22-26

Leviticus 4:27-32

Note the sharp distinction between a “prince” (verse 4:22) and a “private person” (verse 4:27). This is a social, religious and government structure that did not exist in Moses’ time.

I wasn’t aware that someone was either a “prince” or a “private person”. Certainly there are other subsets, i.e. government officials, slaves, etc.

You still have not shown me why the author needed to write “brothers and also princes” for in your scenario, “brothers” are “princes”.

And along this same lines, it would seem that in your scenario (Moses didn’t write Leviticus), God didn’t instruct Moses in these Laws. They weren’t given to Israel until David’s time? Why would the author indicate that all this was said to Moses.

 

[Contarini]

That was a popular theory in the 1970s,

For alot longer than that.

but it’s losing ground now.

Unfortunately, it is losing ground by and large to more skeptical theories or to an abandonment of historical questions altogether (in favor of postcolonialism, feminist criticism, etc.). And I think its demise has been greatly exaggerated. Most professional Biblical scholars assume something like the JEDP theory–they are just interested in other questions.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Will anyone read this?

The Toledoths of Genesis

… For those biblical scholars who have had the unfortunate experience of having the JEPD theory of the Documentary Hypothesis jammed down their throats the past forty years in Catholic biblical scholarship, and as long since the time of Julius Wellhausen in the late 1800s, this will be a real treat. This article will show what an absolute sham Catholic biblical scholarship has been since the 1960s; how innocent Catholics have been deceived by these pseudo-scholars; and why Catholic students all over the world have lost the faith. After you read this article, if you own Raymond Brown’s “New Jerome Biblical Commentary,” it may come in handy this winter when you need kindling for the fireplace. I hear that liberal biblical scholarship burns especially well. I can just hear those pages crackling now!

more…

I’ve been reading Claus Westermann’s commentary on Genesis, which, like the “Early History of Israel” by Roland de Vaux O.P., was written from a critical POV, in the 1970s. ​

Neither of them saw the need to indulge in the language that article does - this is something I’ve noticed many times with attacks on critical scholarship It can be painful to become used to, certainly, but the trouble has been more than worthwhile If I find an intelligent anti-critical article, that addresses the issues rather than casting aspersions on others, I’d be more than happy to read it. But this endless vague ranting against “liberals” is not intelligent.

Westermann gives a 60-page account of the history of Genesis criticism at the end of volume 1. JEPD is not collapsing - far from it. (Westermann’s translator, FWIW, was an Australian Jesuit, Fr. John Scullion.)

As for Father Brown, his books on “The Birth of the Messiah” & “The Death of the Messiah” do great credit to Catholic NT scholarship in the US. They are magnificent, from all PsOV. So what is the problem ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I would think that rather then validating a false premise, Jesus would say, “For if you had believed the Torah, you would have believed me, because it was written about me”.

Is there any reason to think He did not share the beliefs about the Torah current in His environment ?​

 

[juliamajor]

I’ve been reading Claus Westermann’s commentary on Genesis, which, like the “Early History of Israel” by Roland de Vaux O.P., was written from a critical POV, in the 1970s. ​

Neither of them saw the need to indulge in the language that article does - this is something I’ve noticed many times with attacks on critical scholarship It can be painful to become used to, certainly, but the trouble has been more than worthwhile If I find an intelligent anti-critical article, that addresses the issues rather than casting aspersions on others, I’d be more than happy to read it. But this endless vague ranting against “liberals” is not intelligent.

Westermann gives a 60-page account of the history of Genesis criticism at the end of volume 1. JEPD is not collapsing - far from it. (Westermann’s translator, FWIW, was an Australian Jesuit, Fr. John Scullion.)

As for Father Brown, his books on “The Birth of the Messiah” & “The Death of the Messiah” do great credit to Catholic NT scholarship in the US. They are magnificent, from all PsOV. So what is the problem ?

Thank you Gottle of Geer!- I love Brown,Vawter also one of my favorites.

 

[Petergee]

Is there any reason to think He did not share the beliefs about the Torah current in His environment ?​

He is God. He did not believe anything which is not true.

 

[NotWorthy]

Is there any reason to think He did not share the beliefs about the Torah current in His environment ?​

Well, yeah, but he didn’t “go with the flow” simply because it was expedient. IMO. Jesus regularly rocked the world of those who thought they were doing right by following the Torah.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Well the idiot factor is running high on this thread.

The posts went off topic at the second post.

So let us review the Post #1.

Shall we?

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.

The originator is asking JustAsking4 to provide “EXPLICIT BIBLICAL PROOF” that Moses authored the book of Genesis.

JustAsking4 believes Moses wrote Genesis. He also believes if it is not EXPLICITLY stated in the Bible then it is not true.

This is an offshoot on a marian thread.

JustAsking4 has one of two possible answers to this challenge.

JustAsking4, we are waiting.

 

[buffalo]

We’ve had some discussion of the “Toledoths” of Genesis. Let’s take a look at a part of that (from the beginning of page 3):

If we accept this theory, it tells us the earlier part of Genesis was written before the Israelites came to Egypt – which is to say, long before Moses’ time.

In fact, the whole theory presents a picture of a series of tablets and stories slowly assembled to produce Genesis – quite at odds with a single writer, Moses or not, being the author.

Moses was the compiler.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well the idiot factor is running high on this thread.

As unofficial spokesman for the “idiot gallery”, evidently the “Arrogant Pompous” factor is now running high, too.

I don’t see anyone else complaining about the direction of this thread, Joey.

I happen to agree with JA4 that Moses is the author, and I’ve used some Scriptural text to bolster my case. Now, I know where you’re going with JA - If it ain’t in the Bible, then it must not be true - 4. But that doesn’t make me or any other of the participants idiots, now does it?