Did Moses write Genesis?

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Actually, you’re taking English translations as definitive. Christ often talked symbolically – for example, there was no actual Good Samaritan, and no real Prodigal Son.

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

Funny, I thought you included a cite from the Gospels.

Again, isn’t Genesis part of the Torah?

Yup, which is why I say evidence that other books of the Torah were written very late militates against the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis – since it is part of the Torah.

But parenthesis in today’s Scriptures indicate stuff that was added later on.

No, it doesn’t. It only means that some modern translators see fit to put those words in parentheses.

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.

And how is that relevant to the issue under discussion?

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually, you’re taking English translations as definitive. Christ often talked symbolically – for example, there was no actual Good Samaritan, and no real Prodigal Son.

But there WAS a Moses and this is not a parable … .

BTW, did John even use any parables?

Funny, I thought you included a cite from the Gospels.

I cited Psalms, John, and Matthew. All of which had additions put in later. Daniel and Ezra (or Nehemiah - I can never remember which one) also have two distinct versions. What does this mean? Editing, perhaps?

Yup, which is why I say evidence that other books of the Torah were written very late militates against the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis – since it is part of the Torah.

No, it doesn’t. It only means that some modern translators see fit to put those words in parentheses.

Then may I redress? Putting some words in parenthesis CAN indicate that something was added later, for example John 5:3.

And how is that relevant to the issue under discussion?

How is it relevant? Why it’s my whole stinkin’ point!
A) There are verses that are put in parenthesis to show that they were added later, by someone other than the original authors.
B) The part in parenthesis, if it is a Moses-written Genesis, than this would follow the same pattern of being placed in parenthesis since it was probably added later than Moses’ time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But there WAS a Moses and this is not a parable … .

That doesn’t mean he wrote a word of the Torah.

I cited Psalms, John, and Matthew. All of which had additions put in later. Daniel and Ezra (or Nehemiah - I can never remember which one) also have two distinct versions. What does this mean? Editing, perhaps?

Which in the case of John and Matthew was done by non-Jews.

Then may I redress? Putting some words in parenthesis CAN indicate that something was added later, for example John 5:3.

Funny, in my copy of the NAB, John 5:3 isn’t in paretheses.

Let’s make it clear – parentheses were invented more than a thousand years after John wrote. The people who choose to use parentheses in a particular translation have no idea if the chosen words are in the original or not.

How is it relevant? Why it’s my whole stinkin’ point!

Which should tell you something.

A) There are verses that are put in parenthesis to show that they were added later, by someone other than the original authors.

You haven’t proven that – and you can’t because it’s not true.

There is no convention among translators to put parentheses around things believed to be added after the orginal was written down. To make your case you’d have to prove that, and also prove it is an invariable rule – that parentheses always and only mean material added later.

B) The part in parenthesis, if it is a Moses-written Genesis, than this would follow the same pattern of being placed in parenthesis since it was probably added later than Moses’ time.

Except there is no such pattern or convention. There is no rule that says parentheses always and only mean material added later.

On the other hand, there is material in the Torah (I cited Leviticus 4:22 and following as an example) that clearly describes a society much different from Moses’ day. And there are no parentheses around those pericopes.

 

[NotWorthy]

That doesn’t mean he wrote a word of the Torah.

So, when Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him, he was telling a parable? What was Jesus talking about. Scripture tells us that the Old Testament should be read in the light of Christ.

Which in the case of John and Matthew was done by non-Jews.

Yes, you’ve made that point very clear, while just as clearly ignoring the Psalms, Ezra (or is it Nehemiah?), and Daniel.

Funny, in my copy of the NAB, John 5:3 isn’t in paretheses.

So that means none of them do it? BTW, I meant John 5:4. My bad.

Let’s make it clear – parentheses were invented more than a thousand years after John wrote. The people who choose to use parentheses in a particular translation have no idea if the chosen words are in the original or not.

Yes, it’s abundantly clear. But that doesn’t prove your point. The Bibles that we read have (in some cases, clearly not the NAB) do put parenthesis.

Which should tell you something.

You haven’t proven that – and you can’t because it’s not true.

There is no convention among translators to put parentheses around things believed to be added after the orginal was written down. To make your case you’d have to prove that, and also prove it is an invariable rule – that parentheses always and only mean material added later.

No. I simply need to show that it IS used in Scripture, even if it is varying.

On the other hand, there is material in the Torah (I cited Leviticus 4:22 and following as an example) that clearly describes a society much different from Moses’ day. And there are no parentheses around those pericopes.

And I believe you have not shown that someone was EITHER private or a prince. I’ve shown that by indicating the king killed “brother” and “princes”, then princes may not mean what you and I think it means, for in our view of monarchial society, brothers always are princes. The inspired author shows that brothers are different than princes.

What gives?

 

[vern_humphrey]

So, when Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him, he was telling a parable? What was Jesus talking about.

Jesus frequently follows the tradition of his audience – for example, when speaking with Saducees, He only quotes from the books they accepted. There was never a reason for Him to explain the authorship of the Torah in detail, and He knew it would be counter productive.

Scripture tells us that the Old Testament should be read in the light of Christ.

I suppose you consider that statement relevant to this discussion?

Yes, you’ve made that point very clear, while just as clearly ignoring the Psalms, Ezra (or is it Nehemiah?), and Daniel.

Because it’s irrelevant at best, and most likely a smokescreen.

So that means none of them do it? BTW, I meant John 5:4. My bad.

Once more, punctuation was added thousands of years after the Old Testament was written, and there is no convention that says “Parentheses always means something added later on.”

Yes, it’s abundantly clear. But that doesn’t prove your point. The Bibles that we read have (in some cases, clearly not the NAB) do put parenthesis.

It’s not meant to prove my point – but it adeqately disproves yours.

No. I simply need to show that it IS used in Scripture, even if it is varying.

That is hardly acceptable debate. You made the claim, now you must prove it – or admit it is irrelevant. There is no middle ground.

And I believe you have not shown that someone was EITHER private or a prince.

Actually, I have. Read Leviticus.

I’ve shown that by indicating the king killed “brother” and “princes”, then princes may not mean what you and I think it means, for in our view of monarchial society, brothers always are princes. The inspired author shows that brothers are different than princes.

He shows no such thing. You’re making an irrelevant argument. Stick to the Torah, to Levicitus, and it is crystal clear society was divided into royalty (the princes) and ordinary people. That’s what you have to wrestle with – not go hareing off and trying to distract us with irrelevant quotations from other books.

What gives?

What gives is you have a bogus argument.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus frequently follows the tradition of his audience – for example, when speaking with Saducees, He only quotes from the books they accepted. There was never a reason for Him to explain the authorship of the Torah in detail, and He knew it would be counter productive.

Quoting from the Torah for the Sadducees is NOT denying the rest of the Scriptures. It’s simply playing in the opponents ball court. We have that same dilemma when faced with Maccabees for proof of Purgatory.

But choosing not to use the rest of the Torah, is not continuing a false statement, as you are claiming that Jesus is doing.

I suppose you consider that statement relevant to this discussion?

Yes, I do.

Because it’s irrelevant at best, and most likely a smokescreen.

Vern, I don’t throw up smokescreens. I don’t have time to throw up smokescreens nor do I care to mis-lead you in order to “be the right one”. I hoped you knew me better than that.

I’m throwing up these examples to show that some of the texts in the OT are not the same texts that the original authors of these texts wrote. For example, we know that there were 5 doxologies added to the Psalms, that the original authors of those Psalms didn’t have in them. We know that there was either text taken out of Daniel, or text put in, for there are several versions that circulated. Since we’ve established that some text was edited without losing the original intent of the author, then this little “pericope” (as you aptly put it) could easily have been inserted later in the life of the document. Scholars noting this, could have put parenthesis around it to show that it was added later in order to explain to our friends in Israel that Canaanites used to live there.

Once more, punctuation was added thousands of years after the Old Testament was written, and there is no convention that says “Parentheses always means something added later on.”

Sigh… I never claimed “it always meant” I did say that “it sometimes meant”. With that, in the NASB, it shows

ohn 5:3-4 (New American Standard Bible)

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, a]waiting for the moving of the waters;
4for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.]
Footnotes:

1. 
   *]John 5:3 Early mss do not contain the remainder of v 3, nor v 4

1. 
   

   It’s not meant to prove my point – but it adeqately disproves yours.

   That is hardly acceptable debate. You made the claim, now you must prove it – or admit it is irrelevant. There is no middle ground. I’m not sure if I’m making a claim, so much as showing you that there is a difference in “princes” and “brothers”. Hence, I think your sole point for the fact that Leviticus is later than Moses time simply by pointing to this one phrase, then you haven’t convinced me.
   

   Actually, I have. Read Leviticus.

   Nope, not again.
   

   He shows no such thing. You’re making an irrelevant argument. Stick to the Torah, to Levicitus, and it is crystal clear society was divided into royalty (the princes) and ordinary people. That’s what you have to wrestle with – not go hareing off and trying to distract us with irrelevant quotations from other books.

   Again, I don’t think my questions are irrelevant or smokescreens.
   
   You’ve tried to claim that Jesus is continuing with a Tradition under false pretexts, and you use an irrelevant analogy to prove it. That’s the smoke screen.
   
   What gives is you have a bogus argument.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Quoting from the Torah for the Sadducees is NOT denying the rest of the Scriptures. It’s simply playing in the opponents ball court. We have that same dilemma when faced with Maccabees for proof of Purgatory.

"denying the rest of the Scriptures?’ Where did that come in?:whacky:

But choosing not to use the rest of the Torah, is not continuing a false statement, as you are claiming that Jesus is doing.

Ah, the old false representation of someone else’s argument, eh?

Let’s face it, you haven’t made a case here. You cannot deal with the evidence, so you make up claims about my argument.

 

[japhy]

The term “prince” in Lev 4:22 of the DR and NAB is rendered “princeps” in the LV, “ruler” in the KJV and RSV (and RSV-2CE, I assume), “נשיא” (nasi’) in the Hebrew, and “ἄρχων” (archon) in the Greek.

It does seem to represent a leader of the people – not just a “private” (or “common”) person (as in Lev 4:27). Whether it is to be understood as a prince in a hierarchy of kings, princes, dukes, etc., is questionable. Another meaning of the word is “chieftain”, which makes sense in a tribal context.

God did promise Abraham that he would be the father of kings (cf. Gen 17:6ff). The Hittites called Abraham “a [mighty] prince” (Gen 23:6).

 

[NotWorthy]

"denying the rest of the Scriptures?’ Where did that come in?:whacky:

It came from your argument, Vern. Focus.

The reason the Sadducees (which you brought up) only use five books of Scripture is because they deny the rest is Scriptural. Jesus only taught from these five books when arguing with the Saduccees because he wanted to use the books that they held fast to. It’s your argument, Vern, but using this is different then continuing a false statement when Jesus claims that Moses wrote about Him. If Moses didn’t write it, it would be a false staemtent.

Ah, the old false representation of someone else’s argument, eh?

If you claim that Moses did not write Genesis (and the rest of the Torah), and I show that Jesus said that Moses was writing about Him, what conclusion am I supposed to come up with?

 

[NotWorthy]

The term “prince” in Lev 4:22 of the DR and NAB is rendered “princeps” in the LV, “ruler” in the KJV and RSV (and RSV-2CE, I assume), “נשיא” (nasi’) in the Hebrew, and “ἄρχων” (archon) in the Greek.

It does seem to represent a leader of the people – not just a “private” (or “common”) person (as in Lev 4:27). Whether it is to be understood as a prince in a hierarchy of kings, princes, dukes, etc., is questionable. Another meaning of the word is “chieftain”, which makes sense in a tribal context.

God did promise Abraham that he would be the father of kings (cf. Gen 17:6ff). The Hittites called Abraham “a [mighty] prince” (Gen 23:6).

Would “judges” be termed princes, then?

Finally, someone to talk to who doesn’t stick his tongue out at me.

 

[japhy]

"denying the rest of the Scriptures?’ Where did that come in?:whacky:

Ah, the old false representation of someone else’s argument, eh?

Let’s face it, you haven’t made a case here. You cannot deal with the evidence, so you make up claims about my argument.

Don’t be obtuse about this, please.

NotWorthy’s “denying the rest of Scriptures” comment means this: Jesus, by only using the resources the Sadducees accepted, did not implicitly approve their notion that the other books of Scripture weren’t canonical (or however you would phrase the Sadducees’ position).

NotWorthy’s “continuing a false statement” comment ties directly into the previous one. Simply by using the books the Sadducees held as canonical (which happens to be a subset of the books Jesus knew were canonical) Jesus did not condone their error. So NotWorthy is saying that if Jesus referred to works “written” by Moses, he could not have done so if he was condoning an erroneous belief.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It came from your argument, Vern. Focus.

No, it came from your imagination, Not. Stick to the truth.

The reason the Sadducees (which you brought up) only use five books of Scripture is because they deny the rest is Scriptural. Jesus only taught from these five books when arguing with the Saduccees because he wanted to use the books that they held fast to. It’s your argument, Vern, but using this is different then continuing a false statement when Jesus claims that Moses wrote about Him. If Moses didn’t write it, it would be a false staemtent.

“False statement?” That’s begging the question – you have yet to prove anything, and you want me to accept your argument so you can proceed to "prove "it.

If you claim that Moses did not write Genesis (and the rest of the Torah), and I show that Jesus said that Moses was writing about Him, what conclusion am I supposed to come up with?

I suppose common sense and gentlemanly debate would be asking too much?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Don’t be obtuse about this, please.

Follow your own advice.

NotWorthy’s “denying the rest of Scriptures” comment means this: Jesus, by only using the resources the Sadducees accepted, did not implicitly approve their notion that the other books of Scripture weren’t canonical (or however you would phrase the Sadducees’ position).

And Jesus, by using the traditional attribution to Moses did not state that Moses actually, personally wrote the Torah.

NotWorthy’s “continuing a false statement” comment ties directly into the previous one. Simply by using the books the Sadducees held as canonical (which happens to be a subset of the books Jesus knew were canonical) Jesus did not condone their error. So NotWorthy is saying that if Jesus referred to works “written” by Moses, he could not have done so if he was condoning an erroneous belief.

And NotWorthy is wrong.

 

[japhy]

Would “judges” be termed princes, then?

I would not say the terms are used interchangeably, but they are both not “commoners”:
He answered, “Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” Then Moses was afraid, and thought, “Surely the thing is known.” (Ex 2:14)

“‘So the Lord confirmed his word, which he spoke against us, and against our judges who judged Israel, and against our kings and against our princes and against the men of Israel and Judah.’” (Bar 2:1)

Their hands are upon what is evil, to do it diligently; the prince and the judge ask for a bribe, and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul; thus they weave it together. (Mic 7:3)

Solomon spoke to all Israel, to the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, to the judges, and to all the leaders in all Israel, the heads of fathers’ houses. (2 Chr 1:2)

The nobleman, and the judge, and the ruler will be honored, but none of them is greater than the man who fears the Lord. (Sir 10:24)

Her officials within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves that leave nothing till the morning. (Zeph 3:3)
But at the same time, there is that characteristic of Hebrew writing (found particularly in Zeph 3:3 here) that might equate the two as a term. The book of Leviticus does not speak specifically of “judges”, as do other books of the Pentateuch (cf. Ex 18:13-22, 21:22; Num 25:5; Deut 1:9-17, 16:18, 17:8-12, 19:16-19, 21:1-2, 25:1-2, 29:9).

However, pay attention to Ex 18:13-22; Lev 19:1-2,15; and Deut 1:9-17! They seem to be referring to the same or very similar incidents:

In Exodus 18, Moses’ father-in-law (Jethro) suggests that Moses appoint judges “as rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens” to “judge the people at all times”, ruling over the simpler cases which arise among the people of Israel, and bringing the harder ones to Moses.

In Leviticus 19, God tells Moses to tell “all the congregation” (not just judges or rulers) “of the people of Israel”, among other things, that “[they] shall do no injustice in judgment; [they] shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall [they] judge [their] neighbor”.

And in Deuteronomy 1, Moses says he asked the people to choose “wise, understanding, and experienced men” to lead the tribes as “commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, commanders of fifties, commanders of tens”, and they consented, and he appointed them, and said to the judges: “Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien that is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God’s; and the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.”

Finally, someone to talk to who doesn’t stick his tongue out at me.

I don’t consider you worthy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s review the bidding. There is strong evidence for oral composition for much of Genesis – the menmonic tags (e.g., “evening came and morning followed”) are a strong indicator. Of course, the repitition of key stories – the Creation, Noah loading the animals in the Ark, and Abraham claiming Sarah is his sister – are typical of oral literature that over time assumed slightly different forms in different clans.

Then we have the “Toledoths” of Genesis – originally offered as proof of Moses’ authorship.

Whoops!!

When we actually read the “Toledoths” of Genesis, we see Suginis is offering solid evidence of multiple authorship long before Moses’ time. He argues for multiple authorship of te toledoths (generations) in the Mesopotamian scribal tradition, and goes on to point out that the story of Joseph is from a differenht, Egyptian, scribal tradition.

Then we have the anachronisms – from the Canaanites living in the land passage, to the description of Moses’ funeral, to the sophisticated desriptions of ritual and accoutrements, to the depiction of a Davidic society in Leviticus.

All of this points to a much later final composition, and away from a single-author, all-at-once writing.

 

[buffalo]

Let’s review the bidding. There is strong evidence for oral composition for much of Genesis – the menmonic tags (e.g., “evening came and morning followed”) are a strong indicator. Of course, the repitition of key stories – the Creation, Noah loading the animals in the Ark, and Abraham claiming Sarah is his sister – are typical of oral literature that over time assumed slightly different forms in different clans.

Then we have the “Toledoths” of Genesis – originally offered as proof of Moses’ authorship.

Whoops!!

When we actually read the “Toledoths” of Genesis, we see Suginis is offering solid evidence of multiple authorship long before Moses’ time. He argues for multiple authorship of te toledoths (generations) in the Mesopotamian scribal tradition, and goes on to point out that the story of Joseph is from a differenht, Egyptian, scribal tradition.

Then we have the anachronisms – from the Canaanites living in the land passage, to the description of Moses’ funeral, to the sophisticated desriptions of ritual and accoutrements, to the depiction of a Davidic society in Leviticus.

All of this points to a much later final composition, and away from a single-author, all-at-once writing.

I did not offer the Toledoths as proof of authorship. I offered it as proof of Moses compiling it from ancient records in his possesion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I did not offer the Toledoths as proof of authorship. I offered it as proof of Moses compiling it from ancient records in his possesion.

Where’s the proof in your “proof?”

 

[buffalo]

Where’s the proof in your “proof?”

Vern wrote:

When we actually read the “Toledoths” of Genesis, we see Suginis is offering solid evidence of multiple authorship long before Moses’ time. He argues for multiple authorship of te toledoths (generations) in the Mesopotamian scribal tradition, and goes on to point out that the story of Joseph is from a differenht, Egyptian, scribal tradition.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern wrote:

When we actually read the “Toledoths” of Genesis, we see Suginis is offering solid evidence of multiple authorship long before Moses’ time. He argues for multiple authorship of te toledoths (generations) in the Mesopotamian scribal tradition, and goes on to point out that the story of Joseph is from a differenht, Egyptian, scribal tradition.

So we agree – Moses is not the author of Genesis. Its various parts were composed long before his time, and pulled together in a coherent whole after his time.

 

[buffalo]

So we agree – Moses is not the author of Genesis. Its various parts were composed long before his time, and pulled together in a coherent whole after his time.

So we agree – Moses is not the author of Genesis. Its various parts were composed long before his time, and pulled together in a coherent whole by Moses