Who wrote the books of the Old Testament? (Mainly the Torah)

  • Thread starter Thread starter dswearin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dswearin

Guest
The search function hasn’t been working right for me, so I haven’t been able to see if this has been answered. I’ve been reading from a St. Joseph edition NAB and in the footnotes it seems to advocate that the Torah was compiled by several editors. I’m somewhat familiar with this theory, but as a conservative Protestant I always held tightly to Moses as author. I know related theories place other prophetic books as being compiled or written by someone else. The footnotes also mention anachronisms, like the reference “Ur of the Chaldeans”. I thought that Catholicism believed the scriptures were inerrant? Or does this inerrancy only refer to the original manuscripts (I have no issue with that line of thought)?

My take on this issue recently has become this: Could those earliest manuscripts that we have be translations/updates of older manuscripts? For example, could the Isaiah scroll from the dead sea scrolls be an updated form of hebrew, updating the language for the reader of that time period? A modern day comparison would be the King James Version being updated in language in the New King James Version.

Also, what about the claims of historical anachronisms? If the OT is historically inaccurate or makes anachronisms, does that invalidate it as scripture? Are there any resources that explain Church standards/teaching/scholarship on this issue? Thanks.
 
dswearin said:
The search function hasn’t been working right for me, so I haven’t been able to see if this has been answered. I’ve been reading from a St. Joseph edition NAB and in the footnotes it seems to advocate that the Torah was compiled by several editors. I’m somewhat familiar with this theory, but as a conservative Protestant I always held tightly to Moses as author. I know related theories place other prophetic books as being compiled or written by someone else. The footnotes also mention anachronisms, like the reference “Ur of the Chaldeans”. I thought that Catholicism believed the scriptures were inerrant? Or does this inerrancy only refer to the original manuscripts (I have no issue with that line of thought)?

My take on this issue recently has become this: Could those earliest manuscripts that we have be translations/updates of older manuscripts? For example, could the Isaiah scroll from the dead sea scrolls be an updated form of hebrew, updating the language for the reader of that time period? A modern day comparison would be the King James Version being updated in language in the New King James Version.

Also, what about the claims of historical anachronisms? If the OT is historically inaccurate or makes anachronisms, does that invalidate it as scripture? Are there any resources that explain Church standards/teaching/scholarship on this issue? Thanks.
Click to expand...
I personally hold that the authorship of the Torah is largely Moses, though there may have been later additions. I do not accept the JEDP hypothesis due to lack of evidence.
 
This is from the Introduction to the Pentateuch in the New American Bible, found on the U.S. Catholic Bishops website (underlining mine):
The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historic traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. (They are conveniently abbreviated as J, E, P and D.) Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint–a rich variety of interpretation that the sensitive reader will take pains to appreciate. A superficial difference between two of these sources is responsible for their names: the Yahwist prefers the name Yahweh (represented in translation as Lord) by which God revealed himself to Israel; the Elohist prefers the generic name for God, Elohim. The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1. The Elohist is more sober, moralistic. The Priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. The Deuteronomic approach is characterized by the intense hortatory style of Deuteronomy 5-11, and by certain principles from which it works, such as the centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple.
Click to expand...
However, even this analysis of the Pentateuch is an over-simplification , for it is not always possible to distinguish with certainty among the various sources. The fact is that each of these individual traditions incorporates much older material. The Yahwist was himself a collector and adapter. His narrative is made up of many disparate stories that have been reoriented, and given a meaning within the context in which they now stand; e.g., the story of Abraham and Isaac in Gen 22. Within the J and P traditions one has to reckon with many individual units; these had their own history and life-setting before they were brought together into the present more or less connected narrative.
Click to expand...
This is not to deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not conceive of him as the author of the books in the modern sense. But there is no reason to doubt that, in the events described in these traditions, he had a uniquely important role, especially as lawgiver. Even the later laws which have been added in P and D are presented as a Mosaic heritage. Moses is the lawgiver par excellence, and all later legislation is conceived in his spirit, and therefore attributed to him. Hence, the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, “the LORD said to Moses.” One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallization of Israel’s age-old relationship with God.
Click to expand...
Inerrancy of scripture is not the same as being 100% certain of authorship. There are many books, in both the Old and New Testaments, for which we are not sure who the original author was (other than from tradition). The fact that Moses did not “write” every word of the first five books of the bible does not change their importance, nor mean that they are not the inspired word of God. I have no problem accepting the idea that these writings were developed over centuries; they really make more sense when understood that way.
 
chaunceygardner said:
Inerrancy of scripture is not the same as being 100% certain of authorship. There are many books, in both the Old and New Testaments, for which we are not sure who the original author was (other than from tradition). The fact that Moses did not “write” every word of the first five books of the bible does not change their importance, nor mean that they are not the inspired word of God. I have no problem accepting the idea that these writings were developed over centuries; they really make more sense when understood that way.
Click to expand...
My reference to inerrancy was not in reference to the authorship, but to the supposed “anachronisms” that the bible’s footnotes also mentioned right after the authorship stuff. Looking back, that’s probably a topic for another thread.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with JEDP, but those who advocate for it (for example, the Oxford Annotated Study Bible) also put Daniel’s writing well after Daniel lived, in essence negating any prophecy in the book. If I say Daniel was written in 200 BC, then opponents can make the claim that any prophecy contained therein was just added after the fact to make Daniel’s inspiration appear more authentic.
 
Even the Navarre Bible Commentary on the Pentateuch uses the multiple source theory in its notes.
 
dswearin said:
The search function hasn’t been working right for me, so I haven’t been able to see if this has been answered. I’ve been reading from a St. Joseph edition NAB and in the footnotes it seems to advocate that the Torah was compiled by several editors. I’m somewhat familiar with this theory, but as a conservative Protestant I always held tightly to Moses as author. I know related theories place other prophetic books as being compiled or written by someone else. The footnotes also mention anachronisms, like the reference “Ur of the Chaldeans”. I thought that Catholicism believed the scriptures were inerrant? Or does this inerrancy only refer to the original manuscripts (I have no issue with that line of thought)?

My take on this issue recently has become this: Could those earliest manuscripts that we have be translations/updates of older manuscripts? For example, could the Isaiah scroll from the dead sea scrolls be an updated form of hebrew, updating the language for the reader of that time period? A modern day comparison would be the King James Version being updated in language in the New King James Version.

Also, what about the claims of historical anachronisms? If the OT is historically inaccurate or makes anachronisms, does that invalidate it as scripture? Are there any resources that explain Church standards/teaching/scholarship on this issue? Thanks.
Click to expand...
One can find from Jesus within the four gospels particular citations of Moses in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The men on the road to Emmaus said that Jesus taught them beginning with Moses and all the prophets. Maybe it does not matter how the Torah was written, only that Moses is the source and the Spirit of God the revealer.
 
dswearin said:
My reference to inerrancy was not in reference to the authorship, but to the supposed “anachronisms” that the bible’s footnotes also mentioned right after the authorship stuff. Looking back, that’s probably a topic for another thread.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with JEDP, but those who advocate for it (for example, the Oxford Annotated Study Bible) also put Daniel’s writing well after Daniel lived, in essence negating any prophecy in the book. If I say Daniel was written in 200 BC, then opponents can make the claim that any prophecy contained therein was just added after the fact to make Daniel’s inspiration appear more authentic.
Click to expand...
Regarding the Book of Daniel, the great majority of bible scholars and historians that I have read believe that Daniel was written much later than it would appear. The NAB intro to Daniel says this:
This Book takes its name, not from the author, who is actually unknown, but from its hero, a young Jew taken early to Babylon, where he lived at least until 538 B.C. Strictly speaking, the book does not belong to the prophetic writings but rather to a distinctive type of literature known as “apocalyptic,” of which it is an early specimen. Apocalyptic writing enjoyed its greatest popularity from 200 B.C. to 100 A.D., a time of distress and persecution for Jews, and later, for Christians. Though subsequent in time to the prophetic, apocalyptic literature has its roots in the teaching of the prophets, who often pointed ahead to the day of the Lord, the consummation of history. For both prophet and apocalyptist Yahweh was the Lord of history, and he would ultimately vindicate his people.
Click to expand...
This work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167-164) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal.
Click to expand...
The Book contains stories originating in and transmitted by popular traditions which tell of the trials and triumphs of the wise Daniel and his three companions. The moral is that men of faith can resist temptation and conquer adversity. The characters are not purely legendary but rest on older historical tradition. What is more important than the question of historicity, and closer to the intention of the author, is the fact that a persecuted Jew of the second century B.C. would quickly see the application of these stories to his own plight.
Click to expand...
Apparently, the Book of Daniel was not so prophetic after all. Someone please inform the TV evangelists who love using Daniel.
 
chaunceygardner said:
Regarding the Book of Daniel, the great majority of bible scholars and historians that I have read believe that Daniel was written much later than it would appear. The NAB intro to Daniel says this:

Apparently, the Book of Daniel was not so prophetic after all. Someone please inform the TV evangelists who love using Daniel.
Click to expand...
Actually, Daniel was a prophetic book, and NOT written after the fact.
What is your evidence, other than insistence that the Fathers cant possibly be right.
 
StTommyMore said:
Actually, Daniel was a prophetic book, and NOT written after the fact.
What is your evidence, other than insistence that the Fathers cant possibly be right.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim for truth.
If what you say is truth, the burden lies on you.
 
StTommyMore said:
Actually, Daniel was a prophetic book, and NOT written after the fact.
What is your evidence, other than insistence that the Fathers cant possibly be right.
Click to expand...
I am not insisting on anything, and actually I had little knowledge and no opinion about Daniel until I started reading about the historical development of the Bible, which includes writings by various scholars, Catholic and otherwise. I also never said that the early Church Fathers could “not possibly be right”. Those are your words, not mine.

Really, the ECF would generally not have had better evidence than anyone one else, then or now. Most of what they said was based on tradition and acceptance of the writings at face value. It seems that biblical scholarship today is much more advanced than ever before, so why shouldn’t our knowledge and understanding be better? And truthfully, if asked to choose, I would have to go with the opinion of biblical scholars over yours.

Even more telling is that Daniel is not included in the canon of the Hebrew Scripture; at least that is my understanding from what I have read. Since the “Old Testament” comes from the Jews and it is their Bible, not “ours”, I find it interesting that Christians would tell Jews what books should be in Hebrew scripture.

I am a little suprised at the consternation created by the idea that Daniel was written later than originally thought and may not be true prophecy. To me, it has no effect on my faith at all. But perhaps to some it is critical to their’s. And it certainly fills a lot of time for the TV preachers.
 
chaunceygardner said:
I am not insisting on anything, and actually I had little knowledge and no opinion about Daniel until I started reading about the historical development of the Bible, which includes writings by various scholars, Catholic and otherwise. I also never said that the early Church Fathers could “not possibly be right”. Those are your words, not mine.

Really, the ECF would generally not have had better evidence than anyone one else, then or now. Most of what they said was based on tradition and acceptance of the writings at face value. It seems that biblical scholarship today is much more advanced than ever before, so why shouldn’t our knowledge and understanding be better? And truthfully, if asked to choose, I would have to go with the opinion of biblical scholars over yours.

Even more telling is that Daniel is not included in the canon of the Hebrew Scripture; at least that is my understanding from what I have read. Since the “Old Testament” comes from the Jews and it is their Bible, not “ours”, I find it interesting that Christians would tell Jews what books should be in Hebrew scripture.

I am a little suprised at the consternation created by the idea that Daniel was written later than originally thought and may not be true prophecy. To me, it has no effect on my faith at all. But perhaps to some it is critical to their’s. And it certainly fills a lot of time for the TV preachers.
Click to expand...
Why do you favor a Palastinian canon or do not favor a Palastinian canon?
 
chaunceygardner said:
I am not insisting on anything, and actually I had little knowledge and no opinion about Daniel until I started reading about the historical development of the Bible, which includes writings by various scholars, Catholic and otherwise. I also never said that the early Church Fathers could “not possibly be right”. Those are your words, not mine.

Really, the ECF would generally not have had better evidence than anyone one else, then or now. Most of what they said was based on tradition and acceptance of the writings at face value. It seems that biblical scholarship today is much more advanced than ever before, so why shouldn’t our knowledge and understanding be better? And truthfully, if asked to choose, I would have to go with the opinion of biblical scholars over yours.

Even more telling is that Daniel is not included in the canon of the Hebrew Scripture; at least that is my understanding from what I have read. Since the “Old Testament” comes from the Jews and it is their Bible, not “ours”, I find it interesting that Christians would tell Jews what books should be in Hebrew scripture.

I am a little suprised at the consternation created by the idea that Daniel was written later than originally thought and may not be true prophecy. To me, it has no effect on my faith at all. But perhaps to some it is critical to their’s. And it certainly fills a lot of time for the TV preachers.
Click to expand...
The Hebrews did not have a set canon. What was or was not included in the canon was dependent on which community was involved. Daniel was in the Septuagint, which meant it was canonical for the Jews of the Diaspora
 
StTommyMore said:
The Hebrews did not have a set canon. What was or was not included in the canon was dependent on which community was involved. Daniel was in the Septuagint, which meant it was canonical for the Jews of the Diaspora
Click to expand...
Which also means, the Jews did heavily rely on oral traditions.

Which appears to be a deathblow to modern chrisitanity.
 
StTommyMore said:
Ummm not really. How do you figure that?
Click to expand...
Oral tradition seems to be the only way that the Jewish people went by.
I could be wrong on this point, so please help me out here.
Oral tradition would have been the norm at that time, before a solid canon was set. One was a bit more hostile to Christianity than the other.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Oral tradition seems to be the only way that the Jewish people went by.
I could be wrong on this point, so please help me out here.
Oral tradition would have been the norm at that time, before a solid canon was set. One was a bit more hostile to Christianity than the other.
Click to expand...
It is only a dealthblow to Biblical fundamentalism, which seeks to separate Scripture form its proper context of the liturgy. I am not sure what you are getting at. Catholicism fully accepts the validity of oral tradition.
 
StTommyMore said:
It is only a dealthblow to Biblical fundamentalism, which seeks to separate Scripture form its proper context of the liturgy. I am not sure what you are getting at. Catholicism fully accepts the validity of oral tradition.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is you who does not understand my post # 15. Yet, I see you now find the value of my post.
 
StTommyMore said:
I personally hold that the authorship of the Torah is largely Moses, though there may have been later additions. I do not accept the JEDP hypothesis due to lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
Hard to know this. Maybe Moses in the author in the same sense that “Mark” is the author of the gospel. I seem to recall statement that Genesis, or the part of it down to the flood, is a recording of a vision experienced by Moses. It certainly seems to me to have some of the qualities of “Revelation.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top