Did Moses write Genesis?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Thanks ​

Vawter is someone I want to read before too much more time goes by - I would also like to read some of Brown’s OT work There is so much to read, & if we Christians could only combine what the critics have done for the Church’s appreciation of Scripture, and Tradition too, with what the pre-critical parts of the Church’s Tradition have to teach us, I think it would be much easier to commend the message of Christ in Bible, Tradition, & Church to a great many people who are sympathetic to Christianity in one form or another, but find it does not feed their intellects as well as move their affections.

 

[buffalo]

Thanks ​

Vawter is someone I want to read before too much more time goes by - I would also like to read some of Brown’s OT work There is so much to read, & if we Christians
could only combine what the critics have done for the Church’s appreciation of Scripture, and Tradition too, with what the pre-critical parts of the Church’s Tradition have to teach us, I think it would be much easier to commend the message of Christ in Bible, Tradition, & Church to a great many people who are sympathetic to Christianity in one form or another, but find it intellectually shallow.

Remember, when you read that teaching authority stops at the Bishops. Theologians do much speculation and look back through a modern lens. Theologians musings are not Catholc teaching until the Chruch pronounces them as such.

 

[JoeyWarren]

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

L I B DARN, it is.

 

[JoeyWarren]

But that doesn’t make me or any other of the participants idiots, now does it?

No it does not. But idiot is not the point.

Now since you agree. Can you provide that “EXPLICIT Biblical proof” and not just implications?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Can we keep to the topic of the OP?

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

Is that really too much to ask?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Moses was the compiler.

As I have pointed out, internal evidence militates against that.

Why would Moses, who never entered the Promised Land, feel the need to tell his audience the Canaanites used to live in the land?

And since the Jewish tradition is that Moses wrote the entire Torah (and that is our only basis for saying Moses wrote Genesis), we must examine the other books, as well. Hoiw does Moses describe his own funeral? How does he portray a society with princes and ordinary people that did not exist for a thousand years or more after his own time?

 

[buffalo]

As I have pointed out, internal evidence militates against that.

Why would Moses, who never entered the Promised Land, feel the need to tell his audience the Canaanites used to live in the land?

And since the Jewish tradition is that Moses wrote the entire Torah (and that is our only basis for saying Moses wrote Genesis), we must examine the other books, as well. Hoiw does Moses describe his own funeral? How does he portray a society with princes and ordinary people that did not exist for a thousand years or more after his own time?

Toledoths
…- Moses was in possession of the ancient records of his forefathers, passed down from great antiquity via Noah and his sons in the Ark, to the family of Abraham, firstly in Mesopotamia, then in Canaan, and finally via Jacob to Joseph in the governorship of Egypt. Over the centuries these ancient records would doubtlessly have undergone translations, transliterations and editing. Moses, having access to the Egyptian archives, was thoroughly conversant with the histories of his forefathers even whilst still a prince in Egypt. These sacred texts would have served as his only ‘Bible.’

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Remember, when you read that teaching authority stops at the Bishops. Theologians do much speculation and look back through a modern lens. Theologians musings are not Catholc teaching until the Chruch pronounces them as such.

I hadn’t ​

Three points:

• 1. This is something that anti-critical Catholics also need to be reminded of at times; as quite a few posts on the value of the Imprimatur would seem to suggest.
• 2. There is a difference between heeding the proper authority of the bishops as the teachers of the faithful committed to their care, and, rubbishing the equally proper though different function of theologians & scholars.
• 3. My impression is that if one is “conservatively inclined”, one can be a theologian & get a respectful from anti-critical Catholics; Frs. Kelly & Most are theologians, not bishops; but there are no cautions when they are quited. The members of the RTF are not bishops either - both of us have quoted them. Yet, if a theologian is not anti-critical, if he is Fr. Brown, say, his lack of episcopal status is enough reason to ignore what he says. This is not just, & it is not sound as a method of studying theology - Fr. Most & Fr. Brown are equally entitled to be read, and what they say considered: whether one dislikes Fr. Most’s position regarding the Bible, or Fr. Brown’s, is irrelevant. Who they are, is less important than what they say. One reads them as theologians - not as though they were bishops: they were not; that does not mean they were not competent within their own function as Biblical scholars - if they had nothing to contribute, why were they both made members of the PBC ?
  I think it is too sad for words that the Protestant Fundamentalist suspicion of “the theologians” is present in Catholicism: it is not necessary to secure what is due to the episcopate, by denying the value of work done by those who are not bishops - it is not even logical. How can theology be healthy, & how can the mission of the Church be forwarded, in a climate of suspicion ?

What one is “comfortable with”, & one’s own understanding of the Faith, are not good enough as reasons for refusing to listen to what theologians say, no matter whether they are Fathers, Saints, Doctors, or modern exegetes. St. Augustine & Father Brown both have plenty to say which can enrich the Church’s understanding of the Faith - to dismiss either without hearing them, is to wound the Catholic Tradition One may at times disagree with either or both, for solid reasons - but to ignore those who can fill up the gaps in our own appreciation of the Faith we believe is a strange way of maintaining communion with them in Christ.

 

[buffalo]

I hadn’t ​

Three points:

• 1. This is something that anti-critical Catholics also need to be reminded of at times; as quite a few posts on the value of the Imprimatur would seem to suggest.
• 2. There is a difference between heeding the proper authority of the bishops as the teachers of the faithful committed to their care, and, rubbishing the equally proper though different function of theologians & scholars.
• 3. My impression is that if one is “conservatively inclined”, one can be a theologian & get a respectful from anti-critical Catholics; Frs. Kelly & Most are theologians, not bishops; but there are no cautions when they are quited. The members of the RTF are not bishops either - both of us have quoted them. Yet, if a theologian is not anti-critical, if he is Fr. Brown, say, his lack of episcopal status is enough reason to ignore what he says. This is not just, & it is not sound as a method of studying theology - Fr. Most & Fr. Brown are equally entitled to be read, and what they say considered: whether one dislikes Fr. Most’s position regarding the Bible, or Fr. Brown’s, is irrelevant. Who they are, is less important than what they say. One reads them as theologians - not as though they were bishops: they were not; that does not mean they were not competent within their own function as Biblical scholars - if they had nothing to contribute, why were they both made members of the PBC ?
  I think it is too sad for words that the Protestant Fundamentalist suspicion of “the theologians” is present in Catholicism: it is not necessary to secure what is due to the episcopate, by denying the value of work done by those who are not bishops - it is not even logical. How can theology be healthy, & how can the mission of the Church be forwarded, in a climate of suspicion ?

What one is “comfortable with”, & one’s own understanding of the Faith, are not good enough as reasons for refusing to listen to what theologians say, no matter whether they are Fathers, Saints, Doctors, or modern exegetes. St. Augustine & Father Brown both have plenty to say which can enrich the Church’s understanding of the Faith - to dismiss either without hearing them, is to wound the Catholic Tradition One may at times disagree with either or both, for solid reasons - but to ignore those who can fill up the gaps in our own appreciation of the Faith we believe is a strange way of maintaining communion with them in Christ.

I would submit it is just this climate of suspicion that keep outlandish ideas in check. For a Catholic, exposure to things not yet ruled on can weaken their faith substantially. This is not healthy for the Church and it takes a very strong and mature faith to “experiment” with these ides.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Yes, Bingo.

And you’re mixed up in your argument. It might be like Scott Hahn edited the Lewis and Clark Journals. He could not legitimately call himself the “author.”

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.

Then if someone else added it, what else did he add? And what else did he take away?

Remember my remarks that punctuation marks did not exist until well into the Middle Ages? In addition, the original authors of the Bible did not write inh verses – that’s an even later development. The structured order of the language in translations of ancient manuscripts is very much a product of modern standards of translations.

When referring to an ancient manuscript, words like “verse” or “sentence” or “paragraph” aren’t really appropriate. The proper term for a gramatically complete section (similar to those modern terms) is “pericope.”

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.

Then read the Bible – it makes it perfectly clear what the structure of Isralite society was at the time the Torah was redacted.

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

No, no. It’s your theory that “brothers and also princes” means something relevant here. The burden of proof is on you to show what it means.

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.

You seem to be confused. The question before the house is the authorship of Genesis, and by impliation of the Torah (since our sole source of tradition claims Moses wrote the Torah.) The evidence is that the Mosaic tradition was strong and alive, but the books as we have them now were complied much later.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, Bingo.

And you’re mixed up in your argument. It might be like Scott Hahn edited the Lewis and Clark Journals. He could not legitimately call himself the “author.”

No. If Scott Hahn went to multiple sources (early Indian legends of visitors from overseas), from multiple records (Spanish documents), and multiple other biographies (there are numerous biographies with varying details), and then brought them into one story, you could legitimately say that Scott Hahn wrote a book on Christopher Columbus. This is what Jewish Tradition, reinforced by Jesus’ words, convey to us.

Then if someone else added it, what else did he add? And what else did he take away?

I don’t know. But let me ask you something. Do you agree that:
a) John 5;3 was not in the original text?
b) the 5 doxologies were not in the original text of the Psalms?
c) The doxology was not in the original text of Matthew version of the Lord’s prayer?

If yes, then why couldn’t a later copyist of Genesis not feel the need to explain that at one time, the Canaanites inhabited the land. Do you really think that this never happened, at that we may have no idea how many times it may have happened?

Remember my remarks that punctuation marks did not exist until well into the Middle Ages? In addition, the original authors of the Bible did not write inh verses – that’s an even later development. The structured order of the language in translations of ancient manuscripts is very much a product of modern standards of translations.

When referring to an ancient manuscript, words like “verse” or “sentence” or “paragraph” aren’t really appropriate. The proper term for a gramatically complete section (similar to those modern terms) is “pericope.”

Ok, thanks for that information. My day is complete now!!!

Then read the Bible – it makes it perfectly clear what the structure of Isralite society was at the time the Torah was redacted.

Where does it make it perfectly clear? Once again, one must assume the Laws given by God in Leviticus must have been given centuries after Moses time for your thoughts to be true on this “Israelite Society”.

No, no. It’s your theory that “brothers and also princes” means something relevant here. The burden of proof is on you to show what it means.

Wouldn’t the sentence “brothers and also younger brothers” be identically non-necessary. If “princes always includes brothers, as it does in all the kingdoms that I’ve heard of”, why the need to say “brothers and also princes”? I’m not sure you’ve proven beyond reasonable doubt that this is the “princes” from the kingdoms that we think of.

You seem to be confused. The question before the house is the authorship of Genesis, and by impliation of the Torah (since our sole source of tradition claims Moses wrote the Torah.) The evidence is that the Mosaic tradition was strong and alive, but the books as we have them now were complied much later.

So now, the ball seems to be in your court. You claim that Jewish Traditions marks Moses as the inspired author (and I agree that JT says this). Is there any thing more than these two seemingly clerical errors to prove otherwise?

 

[vern_humphrey]

So now, the ball seems to be in your court. You claim that Jewish Traditions marks Moses as the inspired author (and I agree that JT says this). Is there any thing more than these two seemingly clerical errors to prove otherwise?

I’ve presented a lot more than clerical errors. What evidence have you got that Moses did write Genesis?

 

[NotWorthy]

I’ve presented a lot more than clerical errors. What evidence have you got that Moses did write Genesis?

Something that you haven’t got. Jewish Tradition and the words of Christ!!!

But, I noticed, you still didn’t answer my question. Among them:

I don’t know. But let me ask you something. Do you agree that:
a) John 5;3 was not in the original text?
b) the 5 doxologies were not in the original text of the Psalms?
c) The doxology was not in the original text of Matthew version of the Lord’s prayer?

If yes, then why couldn’t a later copyist of Genesis not feel the need to explain that at one time, the Canaanites inhabited the land. Do you really think that this never happened, at that we may have no idea how many times it may have happened?

What I’m establishing is that there is editing done, and not by the original writers. You yourself said that parenthesis were not in the original text. So why were they added? I say it’s because maybe it was added later on, and not by the original author.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Toledoths
…- Moses was in possession of the ancient records of his forefathers, passed down from great antiquity via Noah and his sons in the Ark, to the family of Abraham, firstly in Mesopotamia, then in Canaan, and finally via Jacob to Joseph in the governorship of Egypt. Over the centuries these ancient records would doubtlessly have undergone translations, transliterations and editing. Moses, having access to the Egyptian archives, was thoroughly conversant with the histories of his forefathers even whilst still a prince in Egypt. These sacred texts would have served as his only ‘Bible.’

Interesting account of how it could have happend if it did happen.

But where’s the evidence that it did happen?

And why would the early Hebrew accounts wind up in the Egyptian archives?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Something that you haven’t got. Jewish Tradition and the words of Christ!!!

But you don’t have "the words of Christ.’ No where does Christ say Moses wrote Genesis. What He does do is cite Moses as the Lawgiver – which he was.

But, I noticed, you still didn’t answer my question. Among them:

Your comments have no bearing on the issue – you’re talking about things written much later than the time of Moses – and some of the not even Jewish.

What I’m establishing is that there is editing done, and not by the original writers.

Which does not establish that Moses wrote one word of Genesis.

Nor does it address the anachronisms I have pointed out.

You yourself said that parenthesis were not in the original text. So why were they added? I say it’s because maybe it was added later on, and not by the original author.

Parentheses are punction marks, not added text.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I would submit it is just this climate of suspicion that keep outlandish ideas in check. For a Catholic, exposure to things not yet ruled on can weaken their faith substantially. This is not healthy for the Church and it takes a very strong and mature faith to “experiment” with these ides.

1. Caution is desirable, certainly - but not suspicion; they are not the same thing.​

1. “Outlandish” ideas have often (under God) been a powerful help in keeping Catholics Catholic. It is not difficult to find objections against critical scholarship - there must surely be many. Nonetheless, “outlandishness” is not a decisive objection: the message of the Cross was a scandal to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks. Something can be true, holy, good & “outlandish” - or downright wrong, false, unholy, & “outlandish”. Scandalousness cannot always be avoided; the principle of double effect comes into play here.

Are these ideas good & dangerous - or bad & dangerous ? This depends in large part, on how the individual reacts, as you suggest. It counts for something that the bishops - the Popes included - do not reject, but allow, encourage, accept & foster this approach. It is not all-sufficient, & that is no objection to it: no one branch of theology or method in theology is. If the teaching part of the Church allows it - why the attacks on the species of method adopted by those who teach theology in their dioceses ? It can be used to destroy faith - so can Aristotelian philosophy; as the Greek Fathers knew.

1. For some, such ideas can be ruinous - but:

• there is nothing in them that makes this a necessary or inevitable result
• Conversely, there is nothing to guarantee that rejection or ignorance of them will save a man from loss of faith.
• all of us can be tempted by something - if this issue is not a weak spot, something else will be.
• This method is not something to be ashamed of or defensive about - it is valuable & good, even though it can harm as well as help. So can penicillin: some people are allergic to it; that is not a reason to ban either, it is a reason to avoid giving it to those who cannot “take” it.
  There are many issues in this issue, & I don’t want to complicate matters by being polemical; there is a lot that needs saying on all aspects of it, whether one finds it destructive (as a Catholic mentioned on Robert Sungenis’ site is said to have done) or a great blessing (as many Catholics - & others - have). FWIW, I find it easier to believe that Moses may have had some part in composing the first books of the Bible after reading Father de Vaux, than before; & Father de Vaux made full use of critical methods. (Whether Moses did have anything to do with their composition, is another matter - but de Vaux does at least help to make the idea more credible.)

It is because the health of the Church is of such great importance that this clutch of issues should be addressed - we both know that what is said & thought on the subject has consequences for religious instruction, ecumenism, communion within the Church, the translation, study, & reading of the Bible, & so on That is why it is so important to avoid suspicion - an attitude of suspicion makes it very difficult for us to learn from another; & if we suspect one another, that is a grievous blow to the charity that should mark us out as Christ’s

Besides, suspicion imprisons people: that is the price of avoiding what might be harmful - & might not. It does not foster understanding: how can a reader of Westermann understand why St. Pius X & Leo XIII wrote as they did, if he refuses to read anyone but Westermann, Kraus or de Vaux ? To understand why people reject Wellhausen, etc., one has to read people such as Packer, Warfield, Most, Fehlner & so on - & the converse is true; no apology for including Evangelical Protestants is needed (AFAIK). We can all be suspicious of the motives of others - how will that help to heal suspicions of the current Pope, or of those who see no reason in Tradition, the Bible, or anywhere else to believe in the Mosaic authorship of Genesis ?

BTW - why use the word “experiment” ? That sounds frivolous; & there is nothing frivolous about the study of the Bible, no matter what one’s position. People think critically to open themselves more completely to what God is saying in these books; not because they are ill-disposed.

Apologies for the length of this

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

Not on the article - but I have the book somewhere ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

Granted - Geza Vermes presupposes as much, if you’ve seen his “The Authentic Gospel of Jesus”; & he was not trying to maintain that Jesus was “Lord and Christ”, either.​

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20031219/ai_n12717494

The weight to be attached to the ascription of this or that passage to Moses by the Lord depends on - among other things - what one believes is consistent with His being authentically human. Hence the question.

• Is His being a Divine Person to be seen as guaranteeing the truth of all His assertions, or at least of His assertions on (in this case) the Mosaic authorship of Genesis;
  or, to approach the question the other way around:
• Does the reality of the Incarnation include limitations on His knowledge on such matters ?

 

[NotWorthy]

But you don’t have "the words of Christ.’ No where does Christ say Moses wrote Genesis. What He does do is cite Moses as the Lawgiver – which he was.

Instead of simply denying that Christ says that Moses didn’t write the Torah (which included Genesis), why don’t you show me where in this passage he is simply cited as the Lawgiver - For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me.

Your comments have no bearing on the issue – you’re talking about things written much later than the time of Moses – and some of the not even Jewish.

I’m simply talking about Psalms among other. Most people would consider them rather Jewish.

Which does not establish that Moses wrote one word of Genesis.

Again, isn’t Genesis part of the Torah?

Nor does it address the anachronisms I have pointed out.

Parentheses are punction marks, not added text.

But parenthesis in today’s Scriptures indicate stuff that was added later on. I’m positing that this very well could have been added, simply by showing that elsewhere in Scriptures, later addition are now shown in parenthesis. The same people that gave us the OT translations, parenthesis included, gave us the NT translations, parenthesis included.

 

[NotWorthy]

The weight to be attached to the ascription of this or that passage to Moses by the Lord depends on - among other things - what one believes is consistent with His being authentically human. Hence the question.

• Is His being a Divine Person to be seen as guaranteeing the truth of all His assertions, or at least of His assertions on (in this case) the Mosaic authorship of Genesis;
  or, to approach the question the other way around:
• Does the reality of the Incarnation include limitations on His knowledge on such matters ?

Wow, you almost lost me, there. But to answer the question, one would assume, after reading of Jesus’ account in the temple when He was twelve, that He had a little “divine inside scoop”, if you know what I mean.