Pentateuch (was Re: another heresy?)

As Gordon noted, there are passages in the Pentateuch that certainly read as
if they were written well after Moses' death. Gen.12:6 is one example. (Of
course the Canaanites were still in the land throughout Moses' life.) There
are also verses whose geographical references indicate that they were
written after the conquest - e.g., for the writer of Dt.1:1 Moses was
"beyond the Jordan in the wilderness." Such passages are integrated closely
with the rest of the text & can't be considered just minor editorial
additions.

In addition, there are indications in the historical books of the OT that
some of the ritual laws of the Pentateuch were either unknown or totally
disregarded. The clearest example is the requirement that sacrifices be
made only at a central sanctuary (later Shiloh or Jerusalem) in Dt.12:1-14,
a requirement often disregarded without any indication that anything was
being done wrong. This is consistent with the view that some of the laws in
Dt. come from the time of Josiah rather than that of Moses.

The original question here was about JEPD. Very few biblical scholars today
would maintain (if anyone ever did) a simplistic scissors & paste theory
with some scribes just putting together pieces of documents in a mechanical
way circa 500 B.C. The process of development & redaction of the Pentateuch
was undoubtedly more complicated than this, & whether we should refer to
actual "documents" corresponding to J, E, P & D or simply "sources," & what
the history of those sources themselves was, can be & is debated.
Nevertheless, JEPD does provide a rough classification of pentateuchal texts
that is helpful in thinking about the structure of the whole. The JEPD
hypothesis is "wrong" only in the sense that Newtonian physics has been
shown to be "wrong" by observations that demand relativity & QM.

That there are different sources for the Pentateuch is strongly suggested by
the fact that in a number of cases we have different texts dealing with the
same events and different versions of the same story. The two creation
stories are of course the first example. (& the distinction doesn't just
rest on the different divine names.) The different flood stories (2 pairs
or 7?), the 3 stories of a patriarch saying his wife is his sister (2 of
them to a king in Gerar named Abimelech!), & 2 versions of the call of Moses
(Ex.3:1 ff & 6:2 ff) are just a few examples. They could be multiplied. Of
course it's possible to say that Moses wrote all of these & that might seem
plausible for any given example. But when there are numerous doubles (&
triplets), often with characteristically different diction, that argument
becomes extremely forced.

Some of the material in the Pentateuch no doubt goes back to the historical
Moses. But the description of the whole of torah as the books of Moses
belongs properly not at the stage of initial composition of the texts but at
a later stage of biblical criticism, that of canonical formation. It's
after we've done the analytical work & tried to figure out when individual
texts were written, what their setting in life was, &c that we have to put
it all back together & recognize that it's part of a unified whole, "Moses,"
which in turn is part of the larger whole of the Bible.

Those who appeal to NT attributions of texts to Moses as proof of authorship
should consistently argue that the well known Book of Enoch was actually
written by the antedeluvian patriarch Enoch because of Jude 14-16. But this
is, to say the least, highly unlikely.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

> However there is still some obvious editing. This no more detracts from
> viewing the Pentateuch as inspired than do the editors' insertions in
> Psalms and Proverbs. No truly humble person would proclaim himself to be
> the humblest person on earth (Numbers 12:3). The many references to
> something being there to this day would have been written after the
> Israeli occupation of Canaan. Surely someone else wrote the account of
> Moses's death, and the statement of Deuteronomy 34:10 had to have been
> written considerably later in order to have any impact. Genesis 36:31
> would have been written after the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Your recent reply to Chris, published in this - a Christian forum - is
>> IMO
>> a matter of great concern, and warrants clarification.
>>
>> (1) Apparently you doubt the Lord's veracity and sincerity in respect of
>> the
>> parable recorded in Luke 16:19-31. Did you really mean to say that? If
>> so,
>> wouldn't that imply that we are under no obligation to believe anything
>> he
>> ever said, or did?!
>>
>> (2) "Jesus' statement has nothing to do with historical facts about
>> authorship." But you must agree that that is how the message comes
>> across
>> to the unbiased reader! Why are you so sure that Mackay is wrong?
>>
>> (3) "This is latching on to a tree and missing the forest." I find this
>> statement completely incomprehensible. Can you please elucidate?
>>
>> (4) "One of the frustrating things about people like that is that they
>> just
>> don't get it." As a person 'like that' what, precisely, don't I get?
>>
>> Vernon Jenkins
>> www.otherbiblecode.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
>> To: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA list"
>> <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:30 PM
>> Subject: Re: another heresy?
>>
>>
>> > Chris, I would say to Mackay, "What else would any believer expect
>> > Jesus
>> > to say to his fellow Jews?" Jesus' statement has nothing to do with
>> > historical facts about authorship. This is latching on to a tree and
>> > missing the forest. One of the frustrating things about people like
>> > that
>> > is that they just don't get it.
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
>> > To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
>> > Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA list"
>> > <asa@calvin.edu>
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:45 AM
>> > Subject: Re: another heresy?
>> >
>> >
>> > I concur that we don't need Moses to have been the author. But it's
>> > clear that for the creationists Mosaic authorship is, if not a
>> > necessary argument, at least a useful hammer. I saw John Mackay of
>> > Creation Research talk a few weeks ago, and he made a big deal out of
>> > Moses writing Genesis so he could cite Luke 16: "If you won't believe
>> > Moses, you won't believe even if someone comes back from the dead"
>> > etc.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 12/7/05, Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> Michael writes:
>> >>
>> >> "That view I have long held but cant see why it matters when the
>> >> Pentateuch was written and it may well have been modified many times
>> >> before
>> >> the final form."
>> >>
>> >> I agree. Historical questions of authorship, composition, etc., are
>> >> interesting, and may provide hermeneutical aids, but in the final
>> >> analysis
>> >> it is the text as we have it that matters. What are its stories and
>> >> what
>> >> do
>> >> they mean theologically and spiritually?
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>> >> To: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>; "ASA list"
>> >> <asa@calvin.edu>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:50 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: another heresy?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Theological students in the 50s had four coloured pencils and
>> >> > coloured
>> >> > the
>> >> > Pentateuch according to whether it was JEP orD! When I did theology
>> >> > in
>> >> > the
>> >> > 70s my non-conservative OT teacher said JEPD didn't work and
>> >> > combined J
>> >> > and E.
>> >> >
>> >> > There is much question about this now , but still it is taught .
>> >> >
>> >> > The likes of Gordon Wenham dispense with it and reckon the
>> >> > Pentateuch
>> >> > was
>> >> > collated in about 1000BC thus dispensing with both JEPD and Mosaic
>> >> > authorship. That view I have long held but cant see why it matters
>> >> > when
>> >> > the Pentateuch was written and it may well have been modified many
>> >> > times
>> >> > before the final form.
>> >> >
>> >> > Mathematicians will be interested to know that Euclid's geometry
>> >> > only
>> >> > partially derives form Euclid and was collated over centuries. Does
>> >> > that
>> >> > disprove geometry?
>> >> >
>> >> > Michael
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
>> >> > To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:51 AM
>> >> > Subject: JEDP: another heresy?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hello all,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've been wondering lately what the status of the JEDP documentary
>> >> >> hypothesis should be in light of its "evolutionary" character. It
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> cited approvingly in plenty of Bible commentaries and is lambasted
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> Answers in Genesis (see
>> >> >> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moses.asp) so my
>> >> >> assumption is to treat it with some plausibility. But I don't
>> >> >> really
>> >> >> know much about it, so I thought I would ask experts on the list if
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> is a firm explanation of "textual origins" or something weaker.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Chris
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Fri Dec 9 15:28:10 2005