Who Wrote The Pentateuch?
Posted by Francesco Scinico on Saturday, October 27th, 2007
(11 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading ...Traditional Scholars and the Torah
According to Jewish and Christian tradition, internal evidences lead to think of Moses as the one and only author of the Pentateuch: first of all, the Pentateuch was written by a Hebrew familiar with Egyptian and Arabic cultures. Since strangers were not taught Egyptian learning, which was for priests and the royal family only, Moses was the only known Hebrew that met this qualification (Acts 7:22Acts 7:22
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.
; Hebrews 11:23-29Hebrews 11:23-29
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.
24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. of Christ: or, for Christ
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.
). Furthermore, a few circumstances seem to suggest that the writer of the books was not familiar with Palestine and knew of it only by oral tradition: for example, the crop sequence connected with the plague of hail in Exodus 9:31-32Exodus 9:31-32
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
31 And the flax and the barley was smitten: for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was bolled.
32 But the wheat and the rie were not smitten: for they were not grown up. not grown...: Heb. hidden or, dark
reflects familiarity with the Egyptian climate. Also, typically Egyptian are the trees and the animals mentioned in Exodus through Deuteronomy. They are also found in the Sinai Peninsula, but not in Palestine: for example, the shittim or acacia tree, whose wood was used for building the Tabernacle, is found in Egypt and the Sinai, but not in Canaan. The lists of clean and unclean animals of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 also reflect species not native to Palestine.
In support of Moses’ authorship of all the five books of the Pentateuch, the traditional Biblical scholars mention geographical references as well. In Genesis 13:10Genesis 13:10
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.
, for example, the writer compares the vegetation of the Jordan Valley with the eastern part of the Egyptian Delta region. This detail seems to indicate that he was writing to people not acquainted with the Geography of Palestine. The reference to Kirjath-arba (pre-Israelite name of Hebron) that in Numbers 13:22Numbers 13:22
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
22 And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were.
is placed “seven years before Zoan in Egypt” seems to imply that the readers were acquainted with the details about the founding of Zoan, but not with the founding of Hebron, destined to become one of the most important cities in Israel. Furthermore, Genesis 33:18Genesis 33:18
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
18 And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city. Shechem: Gr. Sychem
mentions “Salem, a city of Shechem in the land of Canaan.” Traditional scholars highlight the fact that people living in Palestine around 800 B.C. already knew that Shechem was located in the land of Canaan. Instead, the reference would be pertinent for people living at the times of Moses because they were not settled there yet. Also, the surrounding environment of the desert is a persistent trait from Exodus 16 to the end of Deuteronomy, and this together with the vast information given on the Tabernacle sound anomalous to people living in Palestine more than seven hundred years later, acquainted only with the temple of Solomon.
“It is strange for people living at the time of Ezra to be so interested in the details of the Tabernacle”
Traditional scholars point out that it is strange for people living at the times of Ezra to be so interested in the specific details regarding the Tabernacle to devote fifteen chapters of Exodus, three-fourths of Leviticus, and all the references in Numbers and Deuteronomy. No other literary work in history dedicates such careful consideration to a structure that had no connection with the generation for which it was written. But there is more; in the Pentateuch, there are more Egyptian names than in any other part of the Bible, which leads the traditional Jewish scholars to believe that the authorship of the Torah is to be attributed to Moses, who was brought up in Egypt. Another line of reasoning followed by traditional scholars is that if the Pentateuch was composed over a long period of time—usually between the ninth and fifth century B.C., according to the critical scholars—it would be reasonable to find a similarity of key pivotal terms. In fact, the very titles by which God is referred to (YHWH, ELOHIM) are used by the critical scholars to prove the existence of multiple authors for the Pentateuch. Traditional Biblical scholars reason that, following the same logic, the readers should find a correspondence or a parallelism of key terms between the first five books of the Bible and other subsequent books. For example, between 850-450 B.C., the title YHWH seba’òt (translated in English as “the Lord of Hosts”) is used several times. Isaiah (late eighth century, as recognized even by the critical scholars, at least for the first half of the book attributed to him) uses it sixty-seven times, Jeremiah (late seventh and early sixth centuries) uses it eighty-three times, Zechariah (late sixth to early fifth centuries) uses it fifty-one times. These authors cover more or less the span of time during which the Pentateuch was composed according to the historical criticism position. Yet, this title is never found once in the entire Pentateuch. Lastly, one more proof brought up by the traditional scholars in favor of Moses’ authorship of the Torah is the agreement in style and terminology of the five books, fact recognized even by the critical scholars.
Filed in Faith |
Frank,
Your initial post obviously provides some logical arguments. There may be a slight misspelling where you identify E (because he calls God ELHOIM) which is spelled ELOHIM.
One would be hard-pressed (and your examples didn’t cross that line) to state Moses was not responsible for at least part of the Pentateuch as our Lord said “Moses gave you circumcision, John 7:22 and Acts 15:1, which is given in Genesis 17. Since creation myths are basic to pagan religions, it’s natural that Moses would have included the creation account opposing the pagan myths.
Jesus said, “Moses … wrote of me” (John 5:46). Jesus explained to His disciples on the road to Emmaus what the scriptures said about Him “beginning with Moses” (Luke 24:27). The Pentateuch itself tells of Moses decisive contribution to it: he wrote the great legal case, the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:3-7) and the exposition of the law recorded in Deuteronomy (Deut. 31:24-26).
As time has moved on since the theory of “J”, “E”, “D”, and “P”, additional historical findings has diminished the number of followers to the “several author” concept. In fact, it’s possible that the editors themselves may have collected and arranged earlier materials.
Moses probably used literary sources such as those clearly identified in places like Gen. 5:1 and Num. 21:14. In other places they may be inferred by identifiable literary styles like Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Gen. 2:4-25. In later times prophets who succeeded Moses in mediating God’s authoritative word (Deut. 18:15-20) kept the text up-to-date linguistically and historically, adding some material such as Gen. 36:31 and Moses obituary (Deut. 34:1-12).
Since Jesus decided not to completely tackle the thought that Moses wasn’t responsible for the Pentateuch and at least parts of the Pentateuch claim (along with tradition) that Moses is the author, for the time being I rest the subject there. I know for certain that the ultimate author of the Pentateuch is God and wheather Moses’ hand was in the five books or not, the truth is those pages is on solid ground.
Dad
Good points, Dad. It’s unfortunate that the academic environment is still stuck on those old theories. They might be a thing of the past in the real world, but colleges teach them to this day. Thank you.
I have never given much thought to such things because I have always had faith that the ultimate authorship of the divinely preserved Word of God as read in the King James Bible as being God Himself. But I have heard comments and seen inferences to these critical examinations of the texts and read about their conclusions. I classify such things into the same circular file as the false sciences, which also teach contrary to that very word. The truth is that they are not really interested in the truth at all. Their only goal is to discredit the possibility that there is a God that they must answer to. The Bible probably does not credit the writer for just this reason. It is accepted by those who received it as the very Word of God and if we are to be children of that God then this is also how we should receive it.
So in short, I really appreciate your labors and I highly commend the scholarly effort involved in this study. I hope that it persuades some that have lost faith in the true authorship of the bible to flee this error imposed by men after the traditions of men. But for me personally I do not care how many men it took to write or to preserve God’s Words. But I believe that all true history and science will prove itself out by that Word.
Lee,
“… All true history and science will prove itself out by that word”. That is a very fitting (and strong) end to your post remarks. Amen to that.
Many people appreciate, and buy in to, your belief that the King
James Version is God’s special authorized version. I believe that God’s Word is totally infallible in the original Greek and Hebrew writtings and the manuscipts that followed are very accurate (prior to the King James Version). Copying by scribes was done with great care in those days and because the text was regarded as sacred, the copyists were extremely painstaking.That said I believe the KJV is extremely accurate. And personally while I enjoy the KJV, I’m starting to lean more towards the English Standard Version. You probably have noticed I’ll use the ESV on most of my MySpace posts.
Below are a couple thoughts from the ESV website; http://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy.
The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.
In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a “thought-for-thought” rather than “word-for-word” translation philosophy, emphasizing “dynamic equivalence” rather than the “essentially literal” meaning of the original. A “thought-for-thought” translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture.
Lee, the old English of the KJV makes me stutter a bit (not in a tongue,
) and, at times, results in me missing or misunderstanding the text flow; the ESV is kinder to my ignorance 
. But you know what? I’ve used the KJV for so long I’m comfortable with it when another translation causes someone else to get uptight.
One more cut-n-paste, this time from Wikipedia.com. Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (”Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
I believe the King James Version is covered by the definition above, but not exclusive in its’ standing as God’s only authorized word put into the English language. For His people who are English speaking, there are a few acceptable versions on the market today. Peace.