Did Moses write the Pentateuch?

[jegow]

In class the other day we were told that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. That there are many reasons why it is not him, which the person (our teacher) failed to mention. I was also told that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew (that he probably wrote the Q source), that St. Paul more than likely did not write 2nd Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy or Titus. We were also taught that Peter did not write 2nd Peter.

To me this did not feel like solid teaching. It is really hard to believe that so many books were not written by those who we think wrote them. What truth is there in this? And if there is not much, where can I turn to to read about what the truth of the matter is?

jegow

 

[jeffreedy789]

well, the answer you get to these questions depends on who you ask.

i assert that moses wrote the pentateuch, matthew wrote matthew, etc. many modern textual critics have pieced together this theory in which there is a primary source (most of mark), which was largely copied and embellished to make matthew and luke. these are the ‘synoptic gospels’, meaning they’re based on the same main text, called Q.

i think that’s all a bunch of ****.

anyway, ‘they’ also say that moses could not have written the pentateuch because A) it records his death, B) it calls moses 'the most humble man who ever lived, and C) ‘they’ like to challenge all of our preconceived and deeply cherished notions of Biblical scholarship for reasons i don’t quite understand, or hope i don’t.

so - the church has taught for many years that these books were written by the authors ascribed to them. today, i don’t think it’s a matter of dogma, and many catholic scholars reject the traditional authorship.

i, for one (with a degree in theology, mind you) accept the traditional authorship.

does that help?

 

[jeffreedy789]

by the way, the **** that was edited out of my post began with the letter c and ended with the letter p, just so you know.

 

[PilgrimJWT]

Not to worry about it. The specific identity of the writer (or writers) of the Pentateuch is something on the nature of a parlor game for students of Scripture to figure out. What is important is that the Church declared those works to be inspired (now, don’t ask me what THAT means–that is a whole other question!).

 

[rossum]

jegow,

If you want to get information on the standard academic explanation of the writing of the Bible, might I suggest Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E Friedman.

rossum

 

[OAB]

In all likelihood, moses did write it, but there is a few hundred year gap between the attributed age of the pentatuch and the date of the first collected torah. It was probably originally of mosaic origin but may have been altered unintentionally or intentionally as the years went by to reflect the culture of the times.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

Here’s a very simple way of looking at this…it comes down to WHOM are you going to believe?

Some jerk teacher or reprobate priest, nun etc…over 2000 years REMOVED from these historical events?

Or the teachings of the Church…which by the way are from the ancient documents and text…protected by the Church and traced directly right down to those in the bible?

Anybody who speaks a Gospel other than that of which the Church holds to be true…stand up and call them ANATHEMA! For THEIR choice is HELL should they persist in leading people astray.

 

[mlchance]

Faithful 2 Rome:

Or the teachings of the Church…which by the way are from the ancient documents and text…protected by the Church and traced directly right down to those in the bible?

I choose the teachings of the Church.

Interestingly enough, it is not Church teaching that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Interestingly enough, nothing in the Pentateuch itself claims Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

Considering the Pentateuch as we know did not get put into full written form until around the time of King David, Moses being the sole author of the Pentateuch is impossible.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[stumbler]

I’m no expert, but I have read some “historicritical commentaries” and “source criticisms” and “redactional analyses” and it seems plain to me it’s largely speculative bunk. Towering theories are built on the flimsiest bits of evidence. That 2 sections of a text have different styles is definitive proof that 2 authors were involved. Possibilities are piled upon probabilities upon potentialities. Mathematically the result is near zero, but in their minds it is all but a certainty.

 

[Melchior]

mlchance:

I choose the teachings of the Church.

Interestingly enough, it is not Church teaching that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Interestingly enough, nothing in the Pentateuch itself claims Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

Considering the Pentateuch as we know did not get put into full written form until around the time of King David, Moses being the sole author of the Pentateuch is impossible.

– Mark L. Chance.

Mark,

Simply not true. There is no evidence that the Torah was not written until the time of David. It is mere speculation that is bothe novel and cretaed by skeptics. You say something is impossible based on a speculative claim at best. Please show us the evidence that the Torah or at least portiions of it were not written as early as the time the Judges or even before? The Hebrews were a people who were committed to keeping a writeen record from the earliest times. To say otherwise is revisionist history.

Mel

 

[mlchance]

Melchior:

The Hebrews were a people who were committed to keeping a writeen record from the earliest times. To say otherwise is revisionist history.

In the earliest times, the Hebrew people were nomads. Nomad cultures do not keep extensive written records, if any written records at all. Hebrew nomadism didn’t come to a substantive end until the period of the kings, especially David. That’s not revisionist. That’s simple fact.

Interestingly enough, in an effort to divert attention from my post, you ignored several cogent points:

• It is not Church teaching that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
• The Pentateuch does not say that Moses wrote it.
• It is quite likely that the Pentateuch did not exist in its present state until around 450 B.C.

To quote the New American Bible, that radical work of skeptics ( ), regarding Genesis: “Despite its unity of plan and purpose, this book is a complex work, not to be attributed to a single original author. Several sources, or literary traditions, that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible.”

These conclusions are the results of extensive scientific study in the disciplines of form criticism, source criticism, et cetera, the use of which are all endorsed by the Church.

Now, rather than me waste my time trying to summarize over 150 years of Christian scholarship about the origins of Scripture, why don’t you prove that Moses any part of the Bible?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Melchior]

mlchance:

In the earliest times, the Hebrew people were nomads. Nomad cultures do not keep extensive written records, if any written records at all. Hebrew nomadism didn’t come to a substantive end until the period of the kings, especially David. That’s not revisionist. That’s simple fact.

Interestingly enough, in an effort to divert attention from my post, you ignored several cogent points:

• It is not Church teaching that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
• The Pentateuch does not say that Moses wrote it.
• It is quite likely that the Pentateuch did not exist in its present state until around 450 B.C.

To quote the New American Bible, that radical work of skeptics ( ), regarding Genesis: “Despite its unity of plan and purpose, this book is a complex work, not to be attributed to a single original author. Several sources, or literary traditions, that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible.”

These conclusions are the results of extensive scientific study in the disciplines of form criticism, source criticism, et cetera, the use of which are all endorsed by the Church.

Now, rather than me waste my time trying to summarize over 150 years of Christian scholarship about the origins of Scripture, why don’t you prove that Moses any part of the Bible?

– Mark L. Chance.

The burden of proof is on you, Mark. The NAB is well known for relying on liberal scholarship. A simple fact. And it is the Tradition of the Church, both East and West that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. To say it is not Church teaching is not really accurate. It is not dogma but it is most certainly Church teaching. And much older than 150 years.

Also, your one size fits all Nomadic tribe comment does not work either. The Hebrews were indeed known to both record events as well as having a sophisticated form of oral transmission that was word for word committed to memory. Not in a folk tale style either. But through intense inter-generational recitation that was transmitted from one generation to the next and verified by the grandparents generation and the wider community throughout their lifetime. Think of the way you know the Creed and imagine reciting and many other things daily for your entire life. Not much chance of screwing up the details. So it is actually a very accurate way of transmitting detailed accounts. All this and a written account too. At least according to the vast majority of Christian scholarship for the past two millennia.

Mel

 

[Melchior]

I can give you at least 17 passages in the Torah, elsewhere in the OT and in the NT that says Moses wrote… the Law, instructions etc…

You run into a problem when you say that Moseses did not write it or the majority of it. The problem being you have to insist that several other Biblical authors were liars ir wrong. And this of course brings the whole veracity of the bible into question.

Mel

 

[mlchance]

Melchior:

The burden of proof is on you, Mark. The NAB is well known for relying on liberal scholarship. A simple fact.

That’s not a fact. That’s thinly-veiled ad hominem. I can get a similar quote from the New Jerusalem Bible as well. But I guess those folks are all just a bunch of liberals, too?

Melchior:

And it is the Tradition of the Church, both East and West that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. To say it is not Church teaching is not really accurate. It is not dogma but it is most certainly Church teaching. And much older than 150 years

For my portion of the burden of proof, I offer up 150 years of Christian scholarship. There. That was easy.

Now: Prove Moses wrote the Pentateuch. No more dishonest statements that Tradition says Moses wrote it. Tradition (the authoritative kind with a capital T) says no such thing. Surely you can dredge up just one magisterial statement that demonstrates that Church teaching requires Catholics to believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Melchior]

mlchance:

That’s not a fact. That’s thinly-veiled ad hominem. I can get a similar quote from the New Jerusalem Bible as well. But I guess those folks are all just a bunch of liberals, too?

For my portion of the burden of proof, I offer up 150 years of Christian scholarship. There. That was easy.

Now: Prove Moses wrote the Pentateuch. No more dishonest statements that Tradition says Moses wrote it. Tradition (the authoritative kind with a capital T) says no such thing. Surely you can dredge up just one magisterial statement that demonstrates that Church teaching requires Catholics to believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

– Mark L. Chance.

Mark, Show me one prior to recent history (150 years), just one church father or scholar who did not believe it! Your view comes out of the highly skeptical higher criticism of the enlightenment period. It comes from a faithless movement.

Again the burden of proof is on you. I have 2000 years of church history that backs me up. Do a quick google search and prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you since I have 2000 thousand years of history to your 150. And there have been plenty of scholars in the last 150 years and indeed many living today who disagree with higher criticism.

But here is some evidence for you:

First the basis of your view: Higher Criticism:

It developed out of the Rationalism of Spinoza. He essentially claims the following:

*All truth must stand before the bar of reason since only reason is universal in time and common to all humanity

Therefore the Bible’s claim of special revelation and inspiration is repudiated or renounced.

Therefore, not all of the Bible can measure up to the demands of reason.*

J,E,D,P theories have been thoroughly repudiated and are frankly laughable when one looks at the evidence.

Jesus himself said the Law was given by Moses and it says all over scripture that Moses wrote it down. “The Law” in this context was the Pentateuch. St. Paul says: For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them’.

Further no documents even exist to support the higher critics theories. They never have.

Also, the earliest Jewish teachings are that Moses did write the Pentateuch. Those chronologically closest say he wrote it.

Exodus 24:4 “Moses wrote all the words…”

Joshua says Moses wrote it.

Jesus quotes the Pentateuch (Exodus 20:12) and prefaces by saying “Moses said”.

No Christian should ever by a theory that was created by athiests for the express purpose of undermining the faith.

Do you need anymore evidence?

Mel

 

[mlchance]

Melchior:

No Christian should ever by a theory that was created by athiests for the express purpose of undermining the faith.

Do you need anymore evidence?

Nice rant combined with more ad hominem and Scripture quoted out of context. Now, please provide just one magisterial teaching of the Church that requires Catholics to believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[otm]

mlchance: it is inherently unfair to do a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed…

 

[mlchance]

otm:

mlchance: it is inherently unfair to do a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed…

That’s not nice.

If there actually is genuine Church teaching that Catholics must believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch despite the fact that Scripture doesn’t make such a claim, I genuinely want to know.

On a related note, if there is genuine Church teaching that the various schools of historical criticism are nothing more than a vast atheist conspiracy to undermine the faith, I’d like to know that as well.

If, OTOH, there are no such teachings, or if the Church in fact endorses the use of historical criticism, then it certainly seems reasonable that people stop slinging around hoary accusations of heresy, et cetera, at people who agree with the Church on these points.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Melchior]

mlchance:

Nice rant combined with more ad hominem and Scripture quoted out of context. Now, please provide just one magisterial teaching of the Church that requires Catholics to believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

– Mark L. Chance.

Nice dodge. I did not rant. There was no ad hominem attack and I would love you to show me how the scriptures I quoted are out of context. Please show me where I attacked someone personally and the proper context of the passages I quoted or how they are not evidence for the historic position.

I also never claimed the magisterium requires belief in the historic understanding. I did say your understanding is novel and false and not in line with traditional Catholic teaching on the matter. Your view is allowed for now, but that does not mean it is correct. And all the claims I make about it’s origins are verifiable and have nothing to do with conspiracies.

You keep dismissing valid arguments, and even facts, by brushing them off with empty dismissals instead of actually engaging what I wrote. That is what someone does when they cannot argue with the facts. And then you argue against something I never claimed. I did you the courtesy of at least addressing the theories you are basing your opinion on.

Mel

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Melchior:

The burden of proof is on you, Mark. The NAB is well known for relying on liberal scholarship. A simple fact. And it is the Tradition of the Church, both East and West that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. To say it is not Church teaching is not really accurate. It is not dogma but it is most certainly Church teaching. And much older than 150 years.

Also, your one size fits all Nomadic tribe comment does not work either. The Hebrews were indeed known to both record events as well as having a sophisticated form of oral transmission that was word for word committed to memory. Not in a folk tale style either. But through intense inter-generational recitation that was transmitted from one generation to the next and verified by the grandparents generation and the wider community throughout their lifetime. Think of the way you know the Creed and imagine reciting and many other things daily for your entire life. Not much chance of screwing up the details. So it is actually a very accurate way of transmitting detailed accounts. All this and a written account too. At least according to the vast majority of Christian scholarship for the past two millennia.

Mel

What one says, depends on what one knows or does not know.​

The Fathers’ main source for the history of the period referred to in the OT, was the OT itself. They had next to nothing with which to compare it - no accounts of (say) the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib apart from those in 2 Kings and Isaiah. They did not have the Assyrian account of it - a comparison of the OT with the Assyrian account creates difficulties for the chronology in the OT.

They could take the OT account as it stood - because they had no reason to think it raised the sort of problems which have caused things like denial of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch; the allocation of Isaiah to at least two different authors; the denial of the historical character of the Book of Judith; and many more such matters.

Modern scholars do not have this luxury - they know too much to be able to. They do know Hebrew and Assyrian, so they can read the texts. So they see difficulties which the Fathers did not and could not.

The point being, that when the Bible is the context within which one finds difficulties, and solves them, one is reasonably comfortably off. Once the questions begin to come, not from within the Bible, but from comparing the Bible with something outside the Bible, there are problems.

Darius the Mede in Daniel 5.31, for example.

There is no room for Darius the Mede to reign as the text of Daniel has him doing: the Medes were conquered by Cyrus in c. 550; Cyrus became ruler of Babylon in 539, and was king there until his death in 529. His son Cambyses reigned from 529 to 522; was succeeded by the shadowy figure Smerdis the Magus for seven months; and he, was overthrown by Darius, who reigned from 521 to 486. Which fits neither the chronology nor the order of the book.

As for Babylon:

Nebuchadnezzar reigned from 605 to 562

Evil-Merodach (= Awil-Marduk) reigned from 562 to 559

Nergal-sharezer reigned from 559 to 556; his son Labashi-Marduk, a mere boy, succeeded him for a few months, only to be overthrown in a palace coup by Nabu-na’id (the “Nabonidus” of Latin authors) - who reigned from 556 to 539. And he was defeated by Cyrus. [cont’d]