Did Moses write Genesis?

[NotWorthy]

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

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

Vern, what I’m clumsily trying to do is formulate your argument so that I can understand it. Instead of accusing me of putting words in your mouth, why don’t you reiterate your argument so that someone as clumsy as me can understand it.
BTW, this is what you said.

  			Originally Posted by **vern humphrey** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2796066#post2796066) 				
  		*Okay, light 'em up.   But the passage quoted earlier still doesn't depict a Mosaic society.  The society depicted is **much*** later.

How else am I supposed to understand your argument? You say the Laws of Leviticus depict a society long after Moses. The Laws of Leviticus are a series of laws that begin with:

The LORD called Moses, and from the meeting tent gave him this message:

Archeological evidence?

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

No, but I have two things. Jesus’ words and Oral Tradition. As was stated, it was about 2500 years (give or take a couple of centuries) since Moses’ time that the author’s authenticity was questioned.

And again, in the midst of your laughing off my argement, you continue to ignore that none of these stories can be found alone.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, what I’m clumsily trying to do is formulate your argument so that I can understand it.

And that is a dishonest debate tactic called “putting words in your opponent’s mouth.” Please stop doing it.

Instead of accusing me of putting words in your mouth, why don’t you reiterate your argument so that someone as clumsy as me can understand it.

Instead of putting words in my mouth, why don’t you respond to my argument as I set it forth?

No, but I have two things. Jesus’ words and Oral Tradition. As was stated, it was about 2500 years (give or take a couple of centuries) since Moses’ time that the author’s authenticity was questioned.

And Jesus used the Jewish tradition because to challenge it would be counterproductive to His mission.

And again, in the midst of your laughing off my argement, you continue to ignore that none of these stories can be found alone.

So what? No manuscripts of bibilical stories can be found from the time of Moses. The very oldest manuscripts we have date only to about 200 BC.

 

[NotWorthy]

And that is a dishonest debate tactic called “putting words in your opponent’s mouth.” Please stop doing it.

Vern, I"m tired of this. I’m not trying to be dishonest. I"m trying to make sure that I understand your argument so that I can refute it. If you choose to continue playing this game, so be it…

And Jesus used the Jewish tradition because to challenge it would be counterproductive to His mission.

I understand your point. But can you show me where he followed a Jewish tradition that was a falsehood? If Moses didn’t write Genesis and the Torah, wouldn’t this be a falsehood?

So what? No manuscripts of bibilical stories can be found from the time of Moses. The very oldest manuscripts we have date only to about 200 BC.

And they all are together, Vern. Where are bits and pieces of Noah’s story that aren’t a part of a larger collection of Genesis. We don’t see a bit or piece of Jacob’s family.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I"m tired of this. I’m not trying to be dishonest. I"m trying to make sure that I understand your argument so that I can refute it. If you choose to continue playing this game, so be it…

Then can I expect you will not do that again?

I understand your point. But can you show me where he followed a Jewish tradition that was a falsehood? If Moses didn’t write Genesis and the Torah, wouldn’t this be a falsehood?

No, it would not be a falsehood. Allow me to point out that He never said, “Moses wrote the Torah.” And no one disputes Moses’ role as lawgiver.

I should also point out in Christ’s time, people who “wrote” books often did not actually write them

21 Timothy, my co-worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my relatives.
22 I, Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord.

(Romans 16;21-22)
Saint Paul obviously did not write Romans, as we understand the meaning of that word.

And they all are together, Vern. Where are bits and pieces of Noah’s story that aren’t a part of a larger collection of Genesis. We don’t see a bit or piece of Jacob’s family.

Because they were put together much later, and over hundreds of years copied and recopied as earlier copies perished.

Do we have a copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Matthew’s own hand? No, we don’t.

 

[JoeyWarren]

(Romans 16;21-22)
Saint Paul obviously did not write Romans, as we understand the meaning of that word.

Others claim otherwise…The third, a Roman Christian whom Paul employed as his amanuensis in writing his epistle to the Romans (16:22).

amanuensis - fancy word for a person employed to write what another dictates

 

[vern_humphrey]

Others claim otherwise…The third, a Roman Christian whom Paul employed as his amanuensis in writing his epistle to the Romans (16:22).

Claim otherwise, how?

In more than half the Epistles of Paul, the amaneunsis is identified. And Paul sometimes deprecates his own writing.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Claim otherwise, how?

In more than half the Epistles of Paul, the amaneunsis is identified.

Examples?

And Paul sometimes deprecates his own writing.

deprecates is fancy word for To express disapproval of;

eh?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Claim otherwise, how?

Just protestant belief on Tertius being a secretary. Google search on Tertius.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Examples?

I’ve already quoted Romans, where Tertius himself says he wrote the letter.

Others include Collosians, where only the final greeting is in Paul’s “own hand.” and 2 Thessalonians, where again, he writes only the final greeting and says “This is how I write” indicating his own handwriting was not up to the standard of his amaneunsis

deprecates is fancy word for To express disapproval of;

Or to make little of – the opposite of boasting.

I followed your advice and googled Tertius. The first entry I found:

TERTIUS

tur’-shi-us (Tertios): The amanuensis of Paul who wrote at his dictation the Epistle to the Romans. In the midst of Paul’s greetings to the Christians in Rome he interpolated his own, “I Tertius, who write the epistle, salute you in the Lord” (Rom 16:22).

 

[JoeyWarren]

I guess I am missing the point.

On Romans.

Do you believe Tertius dictated and scribed it?

or

Do you believe Paul dictated and Tertius scribed it?

---

Do you think the scribes muddied what Paul was dictating.

The problem for me, is that Paul was a Pharisee and still possessed the Pharisee taint. Which why some of his stuff is hard to read, it is written with a Pharisee mentality. If he dictated everything, then his Pharisee taint was strong. Some of the early church thought his writings were heretical in nature.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I guess I am missing the point.

On Romans.

Do you believe Tertius dictated and scribed it?

How would that be possible? A man does not dictate to himself.

Do you believe Paul dictated and Tertius scribed it?

I gave the pericope where Tertius says he wrote it. Does it sound to you like Tertius made all that up, or that Paul dictated and Tertius wrote what he dictated?

IDo you think the scribes muddied what Paul was dictating.

I doubt it. After all, Paul frequently added a bit to the letter in his own hand. He clearly read it over before sending it.

I
The problem for me, is that Paul was a Pharisee and still possessed the Pharisee taint. Which why some of his stuff is hard to read, it is written with a Pharisee mentality. If he dictated everything, then his Pharisee taint was strong. Some of the early church thought his writings were heretical in nature.

They were, of course, wrong to think that.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

The only place that whole theory comes from is an a priori bias against both God and people of prior generations.

Yes!

But what shocks me is the number of Catholics willing to put forward and defend these German Protestant attacks on tradition.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes!

But what shocks me is the number of Catholics willing to put forward and defend these German Protestant attacks on tradition.

And how 'bout them people who support the concept of evolution!

 

[JoeyWarren]

How would that be possible? A man does not dictate to himself.

oh boy! We have literalist here. Yes it is possible. If you say your thoughts out loud before your write them, in essence you are dictating to yourself if not to your hand that holds the quill.

A Doctor dictates to a dictation machine. He needs this typed up but the secretary has gone home. He types it up himself. Has he not indirectly at the least dictated to himself?

 

[JoeyWarren]

I gave the pericope where Tertius says he wrote it. Does it sound to you like Tertius made all that up, or that Paul dictated and Tertius wrote what he dictated?

I asked you first.

I’ll try to be more plain about it. Pick one.

A. Paul thought it, Paul wrote it.
B. Paul thought it, Tertius wrote it.
C. Tertius thought it, Tertius wrote it
D. Someone else thought it, Tertius wrote it.
E. Tertius was a code name for Paul, since he was writing to the Romans.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

How do we know this ?​

He was capable of misidentifying a character in the OT - He confused Ahimelech the priest with his son Abiathar - so He was neither inerrant nor infallible. He was limited - otherwise He would not have been “a man like us in all things but sin” - He would have been God masquerading as a man. And that would utterly destroy the Incarnation: and all that flows from it.

He’s our Saviour - not a repository of inerrant information. His other limitations don’t hinder His being the Saviour - so why must this ?

If the Bible is to be trusted, He assumed the limitation of fallibility as well as that of creatureliness. To insist the Bible is inerrant while ignoring the realities of the Bible (such as what it says) is the same as rejecting it. If a fallible Christ & fallible Bible are what God has granted us, that is what we have to accept

 

[vern_humphrey]

I asked you first.

I’ll try to be more plain about it. Pick one.

A. Paul thought it, Paul wrote it.
B. Paul thought it, Tertius wrote it.
C. Tertius thought it, Tertius wrote it
D. Someone else thought it, Tertius wrote it.
E. Tertius was a code name for Paul, since he was writing to the Romans.

You’ve gotten yourself pretty thoroughly confused, haven’t you?

Paul is the originator of the thoughts, Tertius wrote them down. Paul did not write them – in some epistles, he adds a few words in his own hand and deprecates his unpracticed handwriting.

 

[NotWorthy]

Then can I expect you will not do that again?

The simple thing to do would be to articulate your position in a way that I could even understand it. You know small words and type slow, because I read slow. Instead you simply continue to accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Do you wish this conversation to continue to move forward, or do just want to dance around in circles like we have been.

No, it would not be a falsehood. Allow me to point out that He never said, “Moses wrote the Torah.” And no one disputes Moses’ role as lawgiver.

Yes, but how many of the “Laws” that Moses wrote were prophecies. As we see, in Luke 24 - Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures. As I said in a recent post (that you derided for straying off topic), Scripture must be read in the light of Christ. So many of the prophecies that pertain to Jesus were found in the Torah, including Genesis, Numbers, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. This is what Jesus meant when he said Moses was talking about Him. All the Torah.

I should also point out in Christ’s time, people who “wrote” books often did not actually write them

(Romans 16;21-22)
Saint Paul obviously did not write Romans, as we understand the meaning of that word.

Yawn. OK…

So what we have here are scribes writing what Paul told them to do. He wrote many of his books in prison, although I don’t know about Romans.

Because they were put together much later, and over hundreds of years copied and recopied as earlier copies perished.

Do we have a copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Matthew’s own hand? No, we don’t.

No, but every fragment of Matthew’s writings can be accounted to his book. Just as every fragment of the Creation account can be accounted to Genesis - not some tradition that originated in (let’s say) Sumeria and was later didacted by someone in Genesis. Instead, we have no hint of two separate origins of the creation account.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The simple thing to do would be to articulate your position in a way that I could even understand it.

No, the simple thing would be to stop playing silly games.

No, but every fragment of Matthew’s writings can be accounted to his book. Just as every fragment of the Creation account can be accounted to Genesis - not some tradition that originated in (let’s say) Sumeria and was later didacted by someone in Genesis. Instead, we have no hint of two separate origins of the creation account.

Now, there you go again.

In fact, we have already seen how much of Genesis bears the marks of havnig been written down first in Mesopotamia, but the story of Joseph bears evidence of having been written down much later in Egypt.

And, of course, the multiple versions of key stories – the Creatoion of Man, the loading of the Ark, and Abraham claiming Sarah is his sister, not his wife are all clear indications of multiple versions in circulation – which means, of course, oral versions, since written versions would hardly change themselves.

 

[cpayne]

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.

(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.

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?

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?