Who Wrote The Pentateuch?
Posted by Francesco Scinico on Saturday, October 27th, 2007
(11 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading ...Case Study: Divergent Interpretations of the Story of Balaam
So far we have broadly introduced the traditional and the critical interpretation of the biblical text. Now let’s take a specific case into account, and it will be interpreted in the light of both positions. Our intent will be to establish whether we are actually facing different and contradictory accounts of the same story, discrepancies, and duplications, or whether these accounts reflect only stylistic variations that can been reconciled in a uniform explanation.
For our case, we will first present a brief description of the context, then the comments and conclusions drawn by the scholars of Historical Criticism and by the Jewish and Christian tradition. Finally, we will try to establish which of the two parts holds the more convincing interpretation.
Our case is the story of Balaam. In Numbers 22, we read that King Balak of Moab is afraid of Israel because of what Israel has done to the Amorites. Thus, he sends his messengers to the prophet Balaam to ask him to curse Israel. Balaam informs them that he could never do or say anything contrary to the command of God. Later on, God gives Balaam permission to go with the messengers; so Balaam leaves (Numbers 22:21Numbers 22:21
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.
), but is stopped by an angel of the Lord (Numbers 22:22Numbers 22:22
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.
). After his conversation with this angel, Balaam expresses his intention to go back home; the angel replies that Balaam can go with the men, but he has to say nothing more than what he is told by the angel.
This seems to strongly indicate an intrusion of a different tradition into the original plot, as seen in the middle part of the account. Why does God send His angel to stop and kill Balaam after telling the latter he could go with the messengers? According to the traditional scholars, the middle part of the account might be in harmony with the rest of the story: it can be considered a frightening reminder that the prophet is never to speak any other message than what God is going to reveal him in the presence of Balak, the Moabites, and the Midianites. By agreeing to inquire again of YHWH after knowing already the will of God, he revealed a secret desire for reward and going as far as he dared, instead of definitely ending all negotiations.
“Why does God send His angel to kill Balaam after telling him he could go with the messengers?”
Incidentally, the author of 2 Peter 2:152 Peter 2:15
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
seems to confirm this interpretation since he speaks about “the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness,” Even the author of Jude 11 speaks about people who “ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward.”
Finally, Balaam is given permission to go down to Moab, but because of his struggle between duty and greed, God threatens him of death if he is not completely faithful. YHWH gives Balaam specific instruction to rise up and go to bless Israel if the men came to call him (v. 20). Balaam does not wait for this, but rises up, being anxious to go; this makes YHWH angry and leads to the dramatic scene at the mountain pass, where God uses the donkey as His mouthpiece to rebuke the stubborn prophet and warn him of his mortal danger. This experience with king Balak is the turning point in Balaam’s life. He becomes a backslider, degrading himself as a soothsayer. The very next mention of him classes him as an enemy of Israel who was slain (31:8). Joshua calls him a soothsayer (Joshua 13:22Joshua 13:22
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
22 Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword among them that were slain by them. soothsayer: or, diviner
). Once departed (Numbers 24:25Numbers 24:25
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
25 And Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place: and Balak also went his way.
), Balaam makes new plots against the people of YHWH and perishes (Numbers 31:8, 16Numbers 31:8, 16
English: King James Version (1611) - KJV
8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
).
On the other hand, According to the critical scholars, the story of Balaam, as narrated in Numbers, chapters from 22 to 24, forms an organic unity of its own, not related to the rest of the book. The first evidence is the contradiction in chapter 22, when God first allows Balaam to undertake a journey with Balak’s messengers (v. 20) and then tries to stop him two verses later.
There appears to be further evidence that Balaam’s story is an independent tale: at first, Balaam is seen as a faithful servant of God and then as a challenger of God, his ass brings him through fields and vineyards instead of the desert expected when coming from Balak’s home. But why is this episode inserted in the text? Critical scholars explain that its purpose is to humiliate the heathen seer Balaam, who was about to curse Israel. Many references in the text lead them to believe so: Balaam says he is a seer, but he cannot see what even his ass can see, the wise Balaam is engaged in a conversation with his ass, one of the stupidest among animals, Balaam claims he can kill people with his words and yet needs a sword to kill his ass, and so forth. Thus, according to the critical scholars, this is a folktale narrated with the purpose of downgrading a pagan seer, and inserted in text with artistic skillfulness.
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.