B
buffalo
Guest
Moses could have compiled the tablets he had in his possession that were written by others.
Does the Catholic Church teach that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Perhaps. However, take the creation account as an interesting example. In his collection of homilies entitled “In the Beginning”, then-Cardinal Ratzinger notes that “(i)t was in exile and in the seeming defeat of Israel that there occurred an opening to the awareness (of God) … vis-a-vis the seemingly victorious religion of Babylon … (and) vis-a-vis the great Babylonian creation account of Enuma Elish. … Only with this in mind can we appreciate the dramatic confrontation implicit in this biblical text, in which all these confused myths were rejected and the world was given its origin in God’s Reason and in his Word.”
In other words, Pope Benedict, back in 1981, was identifying that the creation account found in Genesis has its inspiration in refuting the Babylonian myths that the Israelites encountered in exile in the 500’s B.C. ! Now, to hold to a Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, you have to posit that Moses was prophetically addressing the experience of Israel hundreds of years in the future. Is it possible with God? Of course. Is it anything that, historically, anyone ever claimed – that Genesis 1 was a prophecy of later exilic experiences? Not that I’ve ever read or heard. Have you?
B
buffalo
Guest
Yeah - I read what the Pope said back then. I wondered if he was making the point that Moses was inspired to compile it to help refute the myths?
C
Contarini
Guest
It seems pretty clear that the Catholic Church does not officially teach Mosaic authorship. The standard position in the early 20th century was to affirm it, but that is clearly no longer the case.Hey all at the CAF,
I’m currently a sophomore in college earning a B.A. in Religious Studies, in hopes of being an apologistI’ve been learning a lot, but some of what I’ve been learning is troubling me a little. In my Hebrew Scriptures class, for example, the professor taught us that the Old Testament was not written by Moses (as is traditionally believed) but was instead compiled from four sources known as P,J,D, and E, sometime after 587 BC. This is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. However, I’ve also read things that promote Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, such as Introduction to the Bible by Fr. John Laux, M.A. Even though it was published in 1932, the arguments it made against the DH were very interesting. So now I’m wondering, does the Church have an official teaching concerning this? The closest I’ve seen is a statement from the Pontifical Bible Commission in 1906 reaffirming the traditional belief in Mosaic authorship. Any and all help is appreciated.
Thanks!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I can never see how the “toledoths” indicate anything about Moses at all. They are simply a structural feature, and there are many ways of explaining them.
There is an article popular in conservative Catholic circles on the Internet which asserts a particular interpretation in which the different sections were written by the person whose “toledoth” the particular section. If I remember rightly, the key argument is that the “toledoth” statement refers to the preceding section rather than (as most assume) the following section. It’s an interesting theory, but the most one can say for it i s that it may not be any more speculative and unfounded than many of the standard historical-critical theories. (But it fits the rest of our historical knowledge rather poorly.)
The typical historical-critical interpretation of the toledoth is that they are part of the redactor’s work, I believe.
Edwin
Edwin
R
Roy5
Guest
** The JEPD theory probably is far closer to the truth than the idea that Moses wrote the Penteteuch**. Not only is Moses’ death and burial recorded, but we also read (Num 12:3) that Moses was the meekest (or most humble) man on earth. Now, would a humble man write that about himself?
** The JEPD analysis, of course, comes from earnest study of the style of the original Hebrew**. J used Jehovah for God. E used Elohim. Etc.
Code:
** I certainly would prefer that Moses wrote the Penteteuch than that it be blamed on God. **Some of the laws are outrageous. Killing 'witches'. Killing people who don't worship Jehovah. Killing rebellions sons. Selling your daughter into slavery. A whole lot of other cruel laws that are clearly against elementary justice. Re-read Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23 among other passages,
Code:
**One of the problems with fundamentalist Christianity, whether in its Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox form. is that insists that this or that must be true, disregarding serious scholarship**. I have arrived at the point of disbelieving many things in the Old Testament. Did God really command Joshua to slay everybody (but a traitor) in Jericho? Did God insist that Saul murder all the remaining Amalekites? What about that 'great warrior" Gideon who collected the golden earrings of the slain Midianites and created a golden idol for the ancient Hebrews to worship? He also fathered 70 sons because he had many wives, but his successor was Abimelech, son of his slave concubine, who managed to kill 69 of the 70. Family values? Should Christians find acceptable the verse which says the crowds shouted "Saul has killed his thousands but David has killed his ten thousands!" Anything in the teachings of Christ that would suggest that God would approve of such genocide?
I don't think so. The New Testament tells us that God is love, that the Lord is quick to forgive. There isn't a lot of that in the violence that we find justified in the Old Testament. Frankly, much of the 'history' recorded there is nationalistic propaganda.
The Lord I worship doesn't demand or glorify vengeance, has no chosen people and wants us all to work for preace and reconciliation.
C
Cyklist
Guest
Someone is selling commentaries: christianforums.com/t7672959/
I was thinking of buying one, so if there’s someone who is not a member there who wants to buy, I can connect You two together.
The Gn Continental -commentary is the standard work on the JEPD -theory.
I was thinking of buying one, so if there’s someone who is not a member there who wants to buy, I can connect You two together.
The Gn Continental -commentary is the standard work on the JEPD -theory.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’m actually waiting for an opportunity to comment on your posts, and would kindly take leave to do so now.
You have a point: there does seem to be a glaring difference between the view of God in the Old and the New Testaments, and even within the different OT books themselves. It’s hard to stomach for a lot of people (not just ‘conservatives’, but also ‘liberals’) but it is there, no need to deny its existence. Mark Twain, in an essay fragment called Bible Teaching and Religious Practice, once compared the Bible to a drug store, where poison and cure can be found. We can’t deny that the Bible was, and is being, used both to justify different atrocities (like the Salem witch trials or the slave trade) and to attack and refute them. For Twain, the problem wasn’t simply that there are bad readers distorting the text - the problem was that the ‘poisonous’ texts are right there.
The Old Testament takes it for granted that slavery exists. In Exodus for instance we find detailed regulations for trading slaves and other possessions (including daughters!), as well as limits on how much physical abuse a slave owner may deliver. Now people may say, “oh, that’s just the old law; with Jesus, everything is different now.” Which is partly true: St. Paul declares in Galatians that “there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” But in Philemon, Paul by no means condemns the recipient of the letter for owning slaves; he simply requests that Onesimus be accepted back with a new status as a fellow Christian. So there’s still the fact that Paul, like Exodus, presumes the existence of slavery as an institution.
And then there’s the portrayal of Yhwh in the OT as a jealous/zealous, just, almost cruel Deity who would sanction warfare and violence against neighboring peoples and who would hand out very intricate laws - some of which would make us feel queasy - but at the same time is also a compassionate Father to His people, one who takes the side of the oppressed:
"You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.
“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. If ever you take your neighbor’s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down, for that is his only covering, and it is his cloak for his body; in what else shall he sleep? And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.”
(Exodus 22:21-27)
Jesus actually echoes this spirit of the Torah in Matthew 25:
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
(Matthew 25:41-46)
meltzerboy
New member
Thank you, Patrick, for offering a balanced view of G-d as He is portrayed in the Hebrew Bible. And even those passages that appear to be “poisonous” have several layers of interpretation. That’s where the study of the Oral Law (Talmud) comes in as a tool to decipher many, often misunderstood, Torah passages.
meltzerboy
New member
Yes, and especially a prophet of the stature of Moses.
P
patrick457
Guest
Related to this tension between the biblical toleration and condemnation of slavery is the Hebrew word for justice, mishpat. On the one hand, it stands for law and order, the thing which keeps people and things in their place within the social hierarchy. But on the other hand, it also refers to a new, socially transformative, an almost revolutionary kind of justice in which said structures of social power are overthrown.
“And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”
(Luke 1:50-55)
I think part of the problem here is the common mentality that the Bible is this closed book of ready-made answers and black-and-white morality, speaking with one voice, and that there is only one correct way of interpreting this book. But as Twain said, the Bible is both a curative and a poison, and these two are often inextricably intermixed. It is really a library of endless questions and perpetual ambiguity: no black-and-whites, but various shades of grey which is open to different readings. Simply put, the Bible (or literally, “the Bibles”; the Greek ta biblia ‘the books/scrolls’ was originally plural after all) is avery complex, rich, difficult, polyvocal collection. I mean, you can find different, even contradictory stuff which is difficult to reconcile at first glance (or even at the second or third glances). You have unsolved questions like: did Judas die by hanging himself or spilling his guts? Did David or Elhanan kill Goliath? How exactly did Paul see Jesus on the road to Damascus? How many women went to Jesus’ tomb? Is God a fierce warrior, a just judge, a powerful king, a jealous, demanding husband, a caring nurse, or a loving, merciful father? Is He an eagle, a rock, a fortress, a consuming fire, a strong wind, or perhaps a still, small voice? How could God condone violence and bloodshed and at the same time, still be described as compassionate? How did the world begin? Was man created first or last? Is God or hassatan (‘the Accuser’) responsible for various evils? Why do innocent people suffer? What is justice?
Now many people seem to think that the fact that these questions exist is bad and is something to be rectified or even whitewashed. This is actually why I believe that people who are dedicated to removing all potential biblical difficulties and people who use said difficulties to ‘debunk’ religion are really two sides of the same coin: they agree in that they think that Christianity (and Judaism) stands or falls in whether the Bible is found to be ‘inconsistent’. The question is whether it fails to answer questions, consistently and reliably. But the clincher is, the Bible itself doesn’t claim to be an almanac of answers to all of life’s questions; it doesn’t claim to interpret itself. That was just a view that was forced onto it by popular culture. You can’t really fail at something you’re not trying to do.
Let me just make it clear that I don’t think there’s any problem with attempting to study the Bible - the Scriptures are after all, the product of a different time and culture, and one shouldn’t expect them to read like the morning paper: you really need to have a grasp of the historical and cultural background, even if only a tiny bit, to understand and appreciate stuff more - but I do feel that there’s nothing wrong with ambiguity and unanswered questions. In fact, I might even say that the desire among many readers to establish univocality within duch a polyvocal collection stifles the rich complexity of the text and robs it of its beauty - in other words ‘beauty in ambiguity’ and ‘beauty in difficulty’.
In fact, it is precisely because the Scriptures are so grey that it is like excavating in a given archaeological site: the deeper you dig, the more you discover. In fact, there is a saying attributed to Rabbi Bag b. Bag Bag (funny name, that
) which goes: “Turn the Torah over and over for everything is in it.” The Torah is thus viewed here as a mirror-image of the universe, containing every shade of perspective, every viewpoint within it. A far cry from the stereotype of a univocal, crystal-clear instruction manual.
Now it might be a cultural thing: the West likes a clearly- and properly-defined “yes” and “no,” but in other cultures, like the Japanese and even the Middle-Eastern - more value is placed on “maybe,” since being ‘too’ blunt is seen as very rude and disrespectful. These two are both “honor and shame” cultures, where one’s own honor is so valued that preservation of it is highly crucial; an “honorable lie” is sometimes seen as necessary if only to keep social harmony, and doing things that disrupt that same harmony (which includes being frank and to-the-point) is seen as barbaric. Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, in his book The Syrian Christ, noted that Westerners will be frustrated by the tendency of people in the Middle East to not “say what he means.” It’s not that such people are being intentionally malicious: to avoid confrontation and disruption of harmony, being ambiguous is seen as necessary, a positive trait even. But the fact still stands: ambiguity is not bad, and neither is difficulty or having a question. In fact I’d encourage everyone (including myself) to keep asking questions, because “God is in the question” (Hebrew she’elah - note how the word contains 'El “God” within it).
“And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”
(Luke 1:50-55)
I think part of the problem here is the common mentality that the Bible is this closed book of ready-made answers and black-and-white morality, speaking with one voice, and that there is only one correct way of interpreting this book. But as Twain said, the Bible is both a curative and a poison, and these two are often inextricably intermixed. It is really a library of endless questions and perpetual ambiguity: no black-and-whites, but various shades of grey which is open to different readings. Simply put, the Bible (or literally, “the Bibles”; the Greek ta biblia ‘the books/scrolls’ was originally plural after all) is avery complex, rich, difficult, polyvocal collection. I mean, you can find different, even contradictory stuff which is difficult to reconcile at first glance (or even at the second or third glances). You have unsolved questions like: did Judas die by hanging himself or spilling his guts? Did David or Elhanan kill Goliath? How exactly did Paul see Jesus on the road to Damascus? How many women went to Jesus’ tomb? Is God a fierce warrior, a just judge, a powerful king, a jealous, demanding husband, a caring nurse, or a loving, merciful father? Is He an eagle, a rock, a fortress, a consuming fire, a strong wind, or perhaps a still, small voice? How could God condone violence and bloodshed and at the same time, still be described as compassionate? How did the world begin? Was man created first or last? Is God or hassatan (‘the Accuser’) responsible for various evils? Why do innocent people suffer? What is justice?
Now many people seem to think that the fact that these questions exist is bad and is something to be rectified or even whitewashed. This is actually why I believe that people who are dedicated to removing all potential biblical difficulties and people who use said difficulties to ‘debunk’ religion are really two sides of the same coin: they agree in that they think that Christianity (and Judaism) stands or falls in whether the Bible is found to be ‘inconsistent’. The question is whether it fails to answer questions, consistently and reliably. But the clincher is, the Bible itself doesn’t claim to be an almanac of answers to all of life’s questions; it doesn’t claim to interpret itself. That was just a view that was forced onto it by popular culture. You can’t really fail at something you’re not trying to do.
Let me just make it clear that I don’t think there’s any problem with attempting to study the Bible - the Scriptures are after all, the product of a different time and culture, and one shouldn’t expect them to read like the morning paper: you really need to have a grasp of the historical and cultural background, even if only a tiny bit, to understand and appreciate stuff more - but I do feel that there’s nothing wrong with ambiguity and unanswered questions. In fact, I might even say that the desire among many readers to establish univocality within duch a polyvocal collection stifles the rich complexity of the text and robs it of its beauty - in other words ‘beauty in ambiguity’ and ‘beauty in difficulty’.
In fact, it is precisely because the Scriptures are so grey that it is like excavating in a given archaeological site: the deeper you dig, the more you discover. In fact, there is a saying attributed to Rabbi Bag b. Bag Bag (funny name, that
) which goes: “Turn the Torah over and over for everything is in it.” The Torah is thus viewed here as a mirror-image of the universe, containing every shade of perspective, every viewpoint within it. A far cry from the stereotype of a univocal, crystal-clear instruction manual.Now it might be a cultural thing: the West likes a clearly- and properly-defined “yes” and “no,” but in other cultures, like the Japanese and even the Middle-Eastern - more value is placed on “maybe,” since being ‘too’ blunt is seen as very rude and disrespectful. These two are both “honor and shame” cultures, where one’s own honor is so valued that preservation of it is highly crucial; an “honorable lie” is sometimes seen as necessary if only to keep social harmony, and doing things that disrupt that same harmony (which includes being frank and to-the-point) is seen as barbaric. Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, in his book The Syrian Christ, noted that Westerners will be frustrated by the tendency of people in the Middle East to not “say what he means.” It’s not that such people are being intentionally malicious: to avoid confrontation and disruption of harmony, being ambiguous is seen as necessary, a positive trait even. But the fact still stands: ambiguity is not bad, and neither is difficulty or having a question. In fact I’d encourage everyone (including myself) to keep asking questions, because “God is in the question” (Hebrew she’elah - note how the word contains 'El “God” within it).
meltzerboy
New member
Terrific post, patrick! In psychology, there is a concept called cognitive complexity, which means the ability to see the world in shades of gray (not 50 shades, however) and to tolerate, even thrive on, ambiguity rather than certainty. Not everyone though has this ability, but it is an essential part of analyzing and interpreting the more challenging biblical verses. And one must strive to ask the right questions as well, because the answer is often found within the question itself.Related to this tension between the biblical toleration and condemnation of slavery is the Hebrew word for justice, mishpat. On the one hand, it stands for law and order, the thing which keeps people and things in their place within the social hierarchy. But on the other hand, it also refers to a new, socially transformative, an almost revolutionary kind of justice in which said structures of social power are overthrown.
“And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”
(Luke 1:50-55)
I think part of the problem here is the common mentality that the Bible is this closed book of ready-made answers and black-and-white morality, speaking with one voice, and that there is only one correct way of interpreting this book. But as Twain said, the Bible is both a curative and a poison, and these two are often inextricably intermixed. It is really a library of endless questions and perpetual ambiguity: no black-and-whites, but various shades of grey which is open to different readings. Simply put, the Bible (or literally, “the Bibles”; the Greek ta biblia ‘the books/scrolls’ was originally plural after all) is avery complex, rich, difficult, polyvocal collection. I mean, you can find different, even contradictory stuff which is difficult to reconcile at first glance (or even at the second or third glances). You have unsolved questions like: did Judas die by hanging himself or spilling his guts? Did David or Elhanan kill Goliath? How exactly did Paul see Jesus on the road to Damascus? How many women went to Jesus’ tomb? Is God a fierce warrior, a just judge, a powerful king, a jealous, demanding husband, a caring nurse, or a loving, merciful father? Is He an eagle, a rock, a fortress, a consuming fire, a strong wind, or perhaps a still, small voice? How could God condone violence and bloodshed and at the same time, still be described as compassionate? How did the world begin? Was man created first or last? Is God or hassatan (‘the Accuser’) responsible for various evils? Why do innocent people suffer? What is justice?
Now many people seem to think that the fact that these questions exist is bad and is something to be rectified or even whitewashed. This is actually why I believe that people who are dedicated to removing all potential biblical difficulties and people who use said difficulties to ‘debunk’ religion are really two sides of the same coin: they agree in that they think that Christianity (and Judaism) stands or falls in whether the Bible is found to be ‘inconsistent’. The question is whether it fails to answer questions, consistently and reliably. But the clincher is, the Bible itself doesn’t claim to be an almanac of answers to all of life’s questions; it doesn’t claim to interpret itself. That was just a view that was forced onto it by popular culture. You can’t really fail at something you’re not trying to do.
Let me just make it clear that I don’t think there’s any problem with attempting to study the Bible - the Scriptures are after all, the product of a different time and culture, and one shouldn’t expect them to read like the morning paper: you really need to have a grasp of the historical and cultural background, even if only a tiny bit, to understand and appreciate stuff more - but I do feel that there’s nothing wrong with ambiguity and unanswered questions. In fact, I might even say that the desire among many readers to establish univocality within duch a polyvocal collection stifles the rich complexity of the text and robs it of its beauty - in other words ‘beauty in ambiguity’ and ‘beauty in difficulty’.
In fact, it is precisely because the Scriptures are so grey that it is like excavating in a given archaeological site: the deeper you dig, the more you discover. In fact, there is a saying attributed to Rabbi Bag b. Bag Bag (funny name, that
Now it might be a cultural thing: the West likes a clearly- and properly-defined “yes” and “no,” but in other cultures, like the Japanese and even the Middle-Eastern - more value is placed on “maybe,” since being ‘too’ blunt is seen as very rude and disrespectful. These two are both “honor and shame” cultures, where one’s own honor is so valued that preservation of it is highly crucial; an “honorable lie” is sometimes seen as necessary if only to keep social harmony, and doing things that disrupt that same harmony (which includes being frank and to-the-point) is seen as barbaric. Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, in his book The Syrian Christ, noted that Westerners will be frustrated by the tendency of people in the Middle East to not “say what he means.” It’s not that such people are being intentionally malicious: to avoid confrontation and disruption of harmony, being ambiguous is seen as necessary, a positive trait even. But the fact still stands: ambiguity is not bad, and neither is difficulty or having a question. In fact I’d encourage everyone (including myself) to keep asking questions, because “God is in the question” (Hebrew she’elah - note how the word contains 'El “God” within it).
R
Roy5
Guest
I did not mean to imply that the Old Testament hasn’t some wonderful passages. Some of the Psalms (not all by any means - see Psalm 137:9, Psalm 139:19-22) and some passages from the prophets (Micah 6:8). On the other hand, then you have Isa. 3:16. We could go on and on quoting superb and vile verses. .
Code:
The basic problem is that too many Christians have deified a book, just as Orthodox Jews have - and Muslims, too. Our God is not a book. Our God does not have good passages and bad ones, and that's what we find in the scriptures.
There are problems in the New Testament, too. Paul told slaves to obey their masters and said that women should be silent in the churches and not instruct men. Then I think of Mother Angelica and some of the female saints. Yes, and I even have problems with some of Jesus' miracles, Did he really cast a legion of demons into swine which went pell-mell down a cliff to drown? Hm. For many, it's in the Bible, so that's the way it must have been. I'm not so sure.
I also reject the primitive and nationalist notion that God has a 'chosen people' - and I don't care how chosen is defined. We all are chosen or we wouldn;t be here. The parable of the Good Samaritan shows how Christ rejected bigotry against the Samaritans, who were 'heretics' and had intermarried. He deliberately made the Samaritan the good guy, not the priest nor the Levite.
P
patrick457
Guest
And that’s exactly the point I was making.
Which is a testament to the polyvocality of the Scriptures.
A
animalis
Guest
It seems John Paul II accepts the Yahwist text theory in his writings (including an encyclical) I’ll provide the links:
second sentence, “the yahwist text…”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/catechesis_genesis/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19791212_en.html
again, the second sentence, “the yahwist text…”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/catechesis_genesis/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19791024_en.html
Number 35 of evangelium vitae, “the yahwist account…”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
Still though, I would be careful to whom you give your money when you learn the bible from a academic institution. There are too many dangers in this field.
P
patrick457
Guest
The Wiseman hypothesis, I guess?
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes. It makes sense.
B
BibleCatholic1
Guest
The first point i would like to make is that the Pontifical Biblical Commision, in dealing with this question of Mosaic authorship of the Pentatuch, affirmed that Moses was the substantial author of the Pentatuch and there are good reasons for this:
a. The account of Moses’ death (e.g., Deut 34)
b. Glosses (e.g., Num 12:3, Gen 36:31)
c. Explanations
d. Words or Forms translated from ancient into more current languages
e. Faulty Readings attributed to the errors of copyists
Someone like Ezra for example may have inserted comments for the sake of his contemporaries.
Any theory must allow for “the influence of divine inspiration.”
The second point that I would like to make is that the documentary hypothesis is just that, a ‘‘hypothesis.’’ It is purely hypothetical, just like ‘‘Q.’’
There are some problems with the hypothesis:
The book of Jashar (Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18)
The book of the annals of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41)
The book of the annals of the kings of Media (Esth 10:2)
BibleCatholic1
- The Pentatuch tells us that Moses was the author.
Moses’ wrote about the battle with the Amalekites (Exod 17:14), the stages of the exodus journey (Num 33:2), he wrote “the words of the covenant” on tablets (Exod 24:4; 34:27), and he wrote the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:1, 31:9) - Jesus himself says that Moses wrote the Law.
Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses who accuses you, on
whom you set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me,* for he wrote
of me. But if you do not believe his writings*, how will you believe my words? (John
5:45-47) - The Saduccees believed that Moses wrote Deuteronomy
Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves
no child, the man must take the wife, and raise up children for his brother.” (Mark
12;19; citing Deut 25:5–10) - Pauls says that Moses wrote Leviticus
Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law.
shall live by it. (Rom 10:5, citing Lev 18:5)
a. The account of Moses’ death (e.g., Deut 34)
b. Glosses (e.g., Num 12:3, Gen 36:31)
c. Explanations
d. Words or Forms translated from ancient into more current languages
e. Faulty Readings attributed to the errors of copyists
Someone like Ezra for example may have inserted comments for the sake of his contemporaries.
Any theory must allow for “the influence of divine inspiration.”
The second point that I would like to make is that the documentary hypothesis is just that, a ‘‘hypothesis.’’ It is purely hypothetical, just like ‘‘Q.’’
There are some problems with the hypothesis:
- There has never been any manuscript found of J. E, D or P.
- The Bible never alludes to the J, E, D, or P documents, and yet it does allude to other sources such as
The book of Jashar (Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18)
The book of the annals of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41)
The book of the annals of the kings of Media (Esth 10:2)
- It is a modern hypothesis arising in the 17th century. The scriptures tell us that Moses wrote the Pentatuch, Jesus affirms Mosaic authorship, The constant tradition of the Church has always been that Moses was the substantial author and the Jews have always believed in Mosaic authorship.
BibleCatholic1
C
Contarini
Guest
But this view has not been reiterated by the Catholic Church more recently. It’s never been officially repudiated, true, but as others have pointed out it’s pretty clear that recent Popes don’t hold it.
Saying that Moses wrote certain things does not mean that he wrote the Pentateuch as a whole. It’s rather bizarre to argue that just because Moses is sometimes spoken of as writing down specific information, therefore he wrote the account which describes him writing down that information.
If a book says that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, that doesn’t make Jefferson the author of the book that gives this information, does it?
:shrug:Deuteronomy you have more of a case, I grant. I think there are excellent historical-critical reasons for denying the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy (as a whole), but one can make a more plausible argument that Deuteronomy presents itself as Mosaic.
There’s no doubt that this was the conventional view in the first century, and that this language is used in the NT. Whether that really constitutes a divinely inspired affirmation of Mosaic authorship, though, is pretty dubious.
That’s not even remotely a problem, given that we have no manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls.
This, like the preceding, is an argument from silence. And the first reference is a pretty clear indication that Numbers was written some time after Moses, using a source that itself postdated Moses but predated Numbers as we have it (and/or the strand of JEDP from which this bit of Numbers comes).
Yes, I know you can argue that this reference was inserted later, but I see no reason for that hypothesis except your dogmatic commitment to “substantial” Mosaic authorship.
Actually there have been Jewish scholars–most notably Ben Ezra–who pointed out the problems with Mosaic authorship.
But there’s certainly a pretty heavy weight of tradition in favor of it. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t hold up historically.
JEDP may well have flaws, but the basic idea that we have multiple documents edited over a long period of time is the best way to explain the evidence.
Edwin
B
BibleCatholic1
Guest
Edwin, thanks for your response. I pointed out that Jesus, Paul and the Jews of the first century believed in Mosaic authorship and you say:
‘‘There’s no doubt that this was the conventional view in the first century, and that this language is used in the NT. *Whether that really constitutes a divinely inspired affirmation of Mosaic authorship, though, is pretty dubious.’’
*
Jesus who is God himself in the flesh, believes in the Mosaic authorship of the pentatuch and you say that it is dubious to say that this constitutes a divinely inspired affirmation of Mosaic authorship?
Here are some other places where Jesus affirms Mosaic authorship
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus:
29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’” (Lk 16:29-31)
After his resurrection he said to his disciples:
“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.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, (Lk 24:44-45)
clearly in Jesus mind Moses was the author
45Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47*But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?” (John 5:45–47).
I don’t think it is at all dubious, I think that Jesus was divinely inspired indeed, he is God after all.
The Apostles who were taught by Jesus (God) himself also believed in Mosaic authorship:
Phillip
45*Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” (John 1:45).
Peter
22Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own peopleh a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. 23And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people.’ (Acts 3:22, Deut 18:15).
James
For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.” (Acts 15:21)
I would rather trust Jesus, he is the way, the truth and the life.
I agree with the PBC that Moses was the substantial author of the Pentatuch, I also believe that at a later date some editorial comments were added but i find the whole documentary hypothesis highly speculative. That is just my opinion.
Thanks
‘‘There’s no doubt that this was the conventional view in the first century, and that this language is used in the NT. *Whether that really constitutes a divinely inspired affirmation of Mosaic authorship, though, is pretty dubious.’’
*
Jesus who is God himself in the flesh, believes in the Mosaic authorship of the pentatuch and you say that it is dubious to say that this constitutes a divinely inspired affirmation of Mosaic authorship?
Here are some other places where Jesus affirms Mosaic authorship
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus:
29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’” (Lk 16:29-31)
After his resurrection he said to his disciples:
“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.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, (Lk 24:44-45)
clearly in Jesus mind Moses was the author
45Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47*But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?” (John 5:45–47).
I don’t think it is at all dubious, I think that Jesus was divinely inspired indeed, he is God after all.
The Apostles who were taught by Jesus (God) himself also believed in Mosaic authorship:
Phillip
45*Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” (John 1:45).
Peter
22Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own peopleh a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. 23And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people.’ (Acts 3:22, Deut 18:15).
James
For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.” (Acts 15:21)
I would rather trust Jesus, he is the way, the truth and the life.
I agree with the PBC that Moses was the substantial author of the Pentatuch, I also believe that at a later date some editorial comments were added but i find the whole documentary hypothesis highly speculative. That is just my opinion.
Thanks
- Status