Mosaic Authorship Called Into Question Religion Essay

The inquiry of Mosaic Authorship is a scholarly and theological spaghetti junction. It contains a myriad of arguments, confederacy theories and scientific and historical speculations. As yet there is no unvarying and world-wide entree or cogent evidence of the reply to this inquiry – what is nevertheless interesting and of import are the arguments and theories that have evolved throughout the centuries, these in themselves open the door to farther theological and scholarly arguments, the country is immense and there will ever be different and fluctuations readings brought in to reply the inquiry – in the terminal it is the belief of the individual reading and geting the cognition that finally keeps this peculiar argument alive.

There have been many publications refering the inquiry of Mosaic Authorship, authors range from theologists and scientists to archeologists and professors of spiritual surveies. Each author has his/her ain reading of the events recorded in the bible and known as the Old Testament. The first five books are known as the Old Testament, Torah, Pentateuch, the five books of Moses and other fluctuations of theses same words.

A expression into the history of the argument shows that legion efforts have been made to recognition or discredit the writing, many theories surround this mystery, nevertheless Mosaic writing and its credibleness remained dead for many, many old ages. The argument foremost raised it caput in the wake of what is known as the enlightenment.

Science and its evolvement made the genuineness of the books come into discredit. Scientist were able to look at how the books were made up – there were archeological findings and theological arguments – people were now non afraid to talk out and voice concerns and so their captivation with such a topic. The Bible was seen to be a prevailing and fixed canon that would non and could non up to that clip be dared to be questioned.

The contents of the Pentateuch can be seen as a partially historical and partially legal word picture ; the five books cover the history of the ‘chosen people ‘ from the creative activity of the universe to the decease of Moses.

The contents of the Pentateuch are basically the footing of the jurisprudence, worship and the life of the chosen people of God. The importance of this work is besides vilified in the authorship of other sacred texts – these books in portion or whole are revered in other spiritual texts and organize a portion of the canon or holy Bible. Therefore the writing of these plants, the clip and mode of its beginning and its historicity are of importance – the belief of Mosaic writing or deficiency of it can consequence the edifice blocks on which faith is structured – belief in Moses composing at least portion of the books is portion of the beginning of the history of Israel and harmonizing to the tendency, what are the concerns so of the theological and historical effects of the writing of the Pentateuch in relation to the Judaic and Christian religions.

We do non cognize who wrote the completed Pentateuch. The Pentateuch makes no claim that Moses wrote all of it. Many theories and hypotheses have been advanced to explicate its beginning. The classical literary critical theory is associated with the name of Julius Wellhausen, a 19th century German bookman. He popularized and synthesized the positions of many Old Testament bookmans and said that the Pentateuch was a digest of four basic literary paperss identified as J, E, D, and P. J stood for Jehovah or Judah and purportedly was written in the Southern Kingdom about 850 B.C. E stood for Elohim, a favourite Hebrew name for God in this papers. It was purportedly written about 750 B.C. D stands for Deuteronomy and was written harmonizing to this hypothesis about 621 B.C. P stands for the Priestly papers and was written about 500 B.C. The Priestly author might hold compiled the whole Pentateuch harmonizing to this theory.

Many other theories and alterations of older theories have arisen in the 20th century. Critical scholarship ‘s earlier understanding on the four beginnings has disappeared in the 1980s. Some day of the month P early. Some day of the month J really tardily. Some see D as the dominant writer. Many are more interested in the literary art of the Pentateuch than in literary beginnings. Scholars are therefore no closer to a solution to the job of the writing of the Pentateuch than they were when they foremost asked inquiries about it.

Even the most conservative bookmans who defend Mosaic writing of the Pentateuch admit that Moses did non compose every word of the Pentateuch. All accept the possibility of subsequently minor changes and add-ons to the work of Moses in the Pentateuch. Many discuss some development of the stuff in the Pentateuch along independent lines, after Mosaic composing. This is particularly true linguistically. There is no ground why conservativists can non frequently use such symbols as P and H as a convenient stenography to mention to certain blocks of stuff. Recent conservative bookmans speak of beginnings Moses may hold used.

Until relatively recent times, the practically cosmopolitan position among both Jews and Christians was that “ Moses wrote the Pentateuch. ” Josephus, the Judaic historiographer, in speech production of the sacred books of the Jews declares: “ and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his Torahs and the traditions of the beginning of world till his decease. “ [ 3 ] That these words refer to the Pentateuch, that they attribute it to Moses, and that they represent the recognized sentiment of Judaic bookmans of the yesteryear is undeniable. The credence of this belief in the Christian Church is shown by the fact that in Luther ‘s interlingual rendition of the Bible each of the books of the Pentateuch is entitled a “ book of Moses, ” and that a similar statement appears in the 1611 Version of the English Bible. The inquiry whether a tradition which is so ancient and so cosmopolitan is right is of import in itself. But it becomes particularly of import when we consider the three affairs closely connected with it which have already been alluded to: ( I ) the footing of this tradition, ( II ) the effects of rejecting it, and ( III ) the methods used by the critics to confute the Mosaic writing.

Since the higher critics do non deny the antiquity and practical catholicity of the tradition that the Pentateuch is Mosaic, [ 10 ] but instead affirm that their ain position is basically a modern find, it is non necessary to turn out this in item. A few facts, nevertheless, may be noted. The earliest extra-canonical informant to the Old Testament canon is Ecclesiasticus ( written about 250 B.C. ) . There we read, “ He [ Jehovah ] made him [ Moses ] to hear his voice and brought him into the dark cloud, and gave him commandments before his face, even the jurisprudence of life and cognition, that he might learn Jacob his compacts and Israel his judgements. “ [ 11 ] Second Maccabees speaks of the “ commandment of the jurisprudence which was given. . . by Moses ” ( 7:30 ) . Philo, who was an older coeval of Josephus, attached such importance to the books of Moses that he assigned the Pentateuch a alone topographic point among the Old Testament books. In the Talmud it is declared that any going from the instruction that Moses wrote the Pentateuch would be punished by exclusion from Paradise. [ 12 ] Among Christian bookmans, one of the first to mention to the “ five books of Moses ” is Melito, Bishop of Sardis ( cir. 175 AD. ) . In all of the lists of the Canonical Scriptures given by the Church Fathers the Five Books of the Law are given a alone place ; and they are often called the “ books of Moses. “ [ 13 ] The simplest account of this tradition is that it represents the instructions of the Bible itself.

II. The Consequences of the Rejection of the Claim that the Pentateuch Is Mosaic are Very Serious

a. The first effect is the rejection of all the positive external grounds, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, as to the writing of the Pentateuch. This is to be done, non on the authorization of older and better grounds, as no such grounds has been produced. It is to be done in the involvement of a theory, the rightness of which has ne’er been proved. And since this rejection of external grounds needfully involves and includes the rejection of the testimony of the New Testament and, most of import of all, the testimony of Jesus as recorded in it, the inquiry of the Mosaic writing of the Pentateuch becomes a affair of really critical concern to the New Testament Christian. Unless he is prepared to handle it as of no importance whether Jesus is right quoted in the New Testament, or whether He accommodated Himself to Jewish biass and accepted traditions which He knew to be false, or whether He was in such a sense a adult male of his age ” that He was every bit nescient as were His coevalss of the “ facts ” which the critics claim to hold discovered, the Christian of today must see the inquiry of the Mosaic writing of the Pentateuch as no less of import than it was held to be before the rise of the higher unfavorable judgment foremost called it into inquiry, and so positively rejected it.

B. The 2nd effect of the rejection of the Mosaic writing of the Pentateuch is the admittance that the history of the “ ‘Mosaic ” age given us in it is a basically erroneous one. Moses is the outstanding figure. He is mentioned more than 500 times in Exodus to Deuteronomy. But, if all the legal codifications of the Pentateuch day of the month from long after Moses ‘ clip, and if the history is late and undependable, Moses becomes a unquestionably elusive figure ; and it becomes hard if non impossible to account for the outstanding function assigned him. His repute is huge, but the workss which serve as the footing for it are no longer to be regarded as his. He becomes a sort of legal fiction.

c. The 3rd effect of the credence of this theory is the acceptance of a low position of the authorization and credibleness of the Bible as a whole. For, as will look in the class of the treatment, it is merely by rejecting or amending the statements of Bible that the grounds cited above can be overthrown.

III. The Method Employed by the Critics Is Responsible for These Radical Consequences

a. It is characteristic of this method that it is dissentious and destructive of the integrity and harmoniousness of Scripture. The slightest fluctuations in enunciation, manner, point of view or capable affair are seized upon as declarative mood of difference in writer, day of the month, and beginning. Differences are often magnified into contradictions. A book which is full of contradictory statements can non talk with the authorization of truth and can non be in a unique and particular sense the Word of the God of truth.

B. It is characteristic of this method that it mostly rejects the claim of Bible that the kids of Israel were in a alone sense the object of godly counsel. The inclination is to replace for the singularity of God ‘s traffics with Israel, the singularity of Israel herself, her particular mastermind for faith.

c. It is characteristic of this method that it minimizes or rejects the redemptional supernaturalism of Biblical history and enterprises to retrace it in footings of realistic development. The marvelous component is viewed with intuition and regarded either as grounds of the late day of the month and unre-liability of a narrative, or as cogent evidence that it represents a crude and unscientific history of phenomena in which a modern author would see merely the operation of natural procedures.

In position, hence, of the strength of the Mosaic tradition, the serious effects of rejecting it, and the drastic methods made usage of by those who do this, the inquiry whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch should be of critical concern to everyone who has any cognition of the Bible or any involvement in it

The Five Books Of Moses. Oswald T. Allis. The Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co. 1943. Pages 5-12

Chapter II

THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH

During the last one-fourth of a century an influential school of critics has deluged the universe with articles and volumes trying to turn out that the Pentateuch did non arise during the clip of Moses, and that most of the Torahs attributed to him did non come into being until several centuries after his decease, and many of them non till the clip of Ezekiel. By these critics the patriarchs are relegated to the kingdom of myth or dip fable and the history of the Pentateuch by and large is discredited. In replying these destructive contentions and supporting the history which they discredit we can make no better than to give a brief sum-up of the statements of Mr. Harold M. Wiener, a immature orthodox Jew, who is both a good established barrister in London, and a bookman of the widest attainments. What he has written upon the topic during the last 10 old ages would make full a thousand eightvo pages ; while our condensation must be limited to less than 20. In nearing the topic it comes in topographic point to see

I. THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The Mosaic writing of the Pentateuch has until really recent times been accepted without inquiry by both Jews and Christians. Such credence, coming down to us in unbroken line from the earliest times of which we have any information, gives it the support of what is called general consent, which, while possibly non perfectly conclusive, compels those who would discredit it to bring forth irrefutable opposing grounds. But the grounds which the critics produce in this instance is entirely circumstantial, dwelling of illations derived from a literary analysis of the paperss and from the application of a damaged evolutionary theory refering the development of human establishments.

Now the fact is that while the current Hebrew text, known as the Massoretic, was non established until about the 7th century A.D. , we have abundant stuff with which to compare it and transport us back to that current a thousand old ages nearer the clip of the original composing of the books.A ( 1 ) The Grecian interlingual rendition known as the Septuagint was made from Hebrew manuscripts current two or three centuries before the Christian epoch. It is from this version that most of the citations in the New Testament are made. Of the 350 citations from the Old Testament in the New, 300, while differing more or less from the Massoretic text, do non differ materially from the Septuagint.A ( 2 ) The Samaritans early broke off from the Jews and began the transmittal of a Hebrew text of the Pentateuch on an independent line which has continued down to the present day.A ( 3 ) Besides this three other Grecian versions were made long before the constitution of the Massoretic text. The most of import of these was one by Aquila, who was so meticulous that he transliterated the word Jehovah in the old Hebrew characters, alternatively of interpreting it by the Grecian word significance Lord as was done in the Septuagint.A ( 4 ) Early Syriac stuff frequently provides much information refering the original Hebrew text.A ( 5 ) The interlingual rendition into Latin known as the Vulgate preceded the Massoretic text by some centuries, and was made by Jerome, who was noted as a Hebrew bookman. But Augustine thought it blasphemous non to be content with the Septuagint.

All this material furnishes ample land for rectifying in minor specifics the current Hebrew text ; and this can be done on good established scientific rules which mostly eliminate divinatory emendations. This statement has been elaborated by a figure of bookmans, notably by Dahse, one of the most superb of Germany ‘s younger bookmans, foremost in the “ Archiv fuer Religions-Wissenschaft ” for 1903, pp. 305-319, and once more in an article which will look in the “ Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift ” for this twelvemonth ; and he is following up his onslaught on the critical theories with an of import book entitled, “ Textkritische Materialien zur Hexateuchfrage, ” which will shortly be published in Germany. Although so long a clip has elapsed since the publication of his first article on the topic, and in malice of the fact that it attracted global attending and has frequently been referred to since, no German critic has yet produced an reply to it. In England and America Dr. Redpath and Mr. Wiener have driven home the statement. ( See Wiener ‘s “ Essaies in Pentateuchal Criticism ” , and “ Origin of the Pentateuch. ” )

On conveying the visible radiation of this grounds to bear upon the topic some singular consequences are brought out, the most of import of which relate to the really foundation upon which the theories refering the fragmental character of the Pentateuch are based. The most outstanding hint to the documental division is derived from the supposed usage by different authors of the two words, “ Jehovah ” and “ Elohim, ” to denominate the divinity. Jehovah was translated in the Septuagint by a word significance “ Lord ” , which appears in our authorised version in capitalized signifier, “ LORD. ” The redacts of 1880, nevertheless, have merely transliterated the word, so that “ Jehovah ” normally appears in the alteration wherever “ LORD ” appeared in the authorised version. Elohim is everyplace translated by the general word for divinity, “ God. ”

These facts, which are now richly verified, absolutely destroy the value of the hint which the higher critics have all along showily set frontward to warrant their division of the Pentateuch into conflicting E and J paperss, and this the critics themselves are now compelled to acknowledge. The lone reply which they are able to give is in Dr. Skinner ‘s words that the analysis is right even if the Clue which led to it be false, adding “ even if it were proved to be so wholly unsound, it would non be the first clip that a incorrect hint has led to true consequences. ”

But even on the premise of the practical inerrancy of the Massoretic text the statements against the Mosaic writing of the Pentateuch drawn from the literary analysis are seen to be the consequence of misdirected scholarship, and to be absolutely unsound. The long lists of words adduced as feature of the authors to whom the assorted parts of the Pentateuch are assigned are readily seen to be occasioned by the different objects aimed at in the parts from which the lists are made.

Here, nevertheless, it is necessary to add that besides the E and J paperss the critics suppose that Deuteronomy, which they designate “ D ” , is an independent literary production written in the clip of Josiah. Furthermore, the critics pretend to hold discovered by their analysis another papers which they Call the Priestly Code and denominate as “ P ” . This provides the basis of most of the narrative, and comprises the full ceremonial part of the jurisprudence. This papers, which, harmonizing to these critics did non come into being till the clip of Ezekiel, mostly consists of particular instructions to priests stating them how they were to execute the forfeits and public ceremonies, and how they were to find the character of contagious diseases and insanitary conditions. Such instructions are needfully made up mostly of proficient linguistic communication such as is found in the libraries of attorneies and doctors, and it is easy plenty to choose from such literature a long list of words which are non to be found in modern-day literature covering with the ordinary personal businesss of life and taking straight at promoting the tone of morality and exciting devotedness to higher religious terminals. Furthermore, an thorough scrutiny ( made by Chancellor Lias ) of the full list of words found in this P papers attributed to the clip of Ezekiel shows perfectly no indicant of their belonging to an age subsequently than that of Moses.

IV. THE POSITIVE EVIDENCE

Before continuing to give in decision a brief sum-up of the circumstantial grounds back uping the ordinary belief in the Mosaic writing of the Pentateuch it is of import to specify the term. By it we do non intend that Moses wrote all the Pentateuch with his ain manus, or that there were no column add-ons made after his decease. Moses was the writer of the Pentateuchal Code, as Napoleon was of the codification which goes under his name. Apparently the Book of Genesis is mostly made up from bing paperss, of which the history of the expedition of Amraphel in chapter 14 is a celebrated specimen ; while the history of Moses ‘ decease, and a few other transitions are obviously subsequently editorial add-ons. But these are non plenty to impact the general proposition. The Mosaic writing of the Pentateuch is supported by the undermentioned, among other weighty considerations:

The Mosaic epoch was a literary era in the universe ‘s history when such Codes were common. It would hold been unusual if such a leader had non produced a codification of Torahs. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets and the Code of Hammurabi testify to the literary wonts of the clip.

A

The Pentateuch so absolutely reflects the conditions in Egypt at the period assigned to it that it is hard to believe that it was a literary merchandise of a ulterior age.

A

Its representation of life in the wilderness is so perfect and so many of its Torahs are adapted merely to that life that it is unbelievable that literary work forces a thousand old ages subsequently should hold imagined it.

A

The Torahs themselves bear beyond doubt Markss of version to the phase of national development to which they are ascribed. It was the survey of Maine ‘s plants on ancient jurisprudence that set Mr. Wiener out upon his re-investigation of the topic.

A

The small usage that is made of the countenances of a future life is, as Bishop Warburton competently argued, grounds of an early day of the month and of a curious Divine attempt to guard the Israelites against the taint of Egyptian thoughts upon the topic.

A

The skip of the biddy from the lists of clean and dirty birds is unbelievable if these lists were made tardily in the state ‘s history after that domestic poultry had been introduced from India.

A

As A. C. Robinson showed in Volume VII of this series it is unbelievable that there should hold been no hint in the Pentateuch of the being of Jerusalem, or of the usage of music in the Holy Eucharist, nor any usage of the phrase, “ Lord Of Hosts, ” unless the digest had been completed before the clip of David.

A

The subordination of the marvelous elements in the Pentateuch to the critical occasions in the state ‘s development is such as could be obtained merely in echt history.

A

The whole representation conforms to the true jurisprudence of historical development. States do non lift by virtuousness of built-in occupant forces, but through the battles of great leaders enlightened straight from on high or by contact with others who have already been enlightened.

The guardian of the Mosaic writing of the Pentateuch has no juncture to flinch in presence of the critics who deny that writing and discredit its history. He may boldly dispute their scholarship, deny their decisions, resent their haughtiness, and keep on to his assurance in the well authenticated historical grounds which sufficed for those who foremost accepted it. Those who now at 2nd manus are popularising in periodicals, Sunday School lessons, and volumes of greater or less pretenses the mistakes of these critics must reply to their scrupless as best they can, but they should be made to experience that they assume a heavy duty in seting themselves frontward as leaders of the blind when they themselves are non able to see. The Fundamentalss

A Testimony to the Truth

“ To the Law and the Testimony ”

Isaiah 8:20

MLA commendation. Maas, Anthony. “ Pentateuch. ” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 23 Dec. 2009 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm & gt ; .

Well, the first thing we must be clear on is what we mean by ‘Mosaic writing ‘ …

During these undertakings of transliteration, Scribes would hold added some explanatory stuff and updated some arcane mentions — to assist the reader understand. These editorial ‘annotations ‘ are by and large ( non ever ) really seeable ( as the ref. in Joshua illustrates ) , and would hold been helpful to any readers. Mosaic writing of the Pentateuch does NOT asseverate that Moses wrote these rubrics ( or the history of his ain decease in Deut 34! ) .

This general place is stated good by the really conservative bookman Duane Garrett [ OT: RTG:85-86 ] :

“ The averment that Moses is the chief writer of the present text of Genesis need non intend that it came from his manus precisely as we have it now. To the contrary, one may confidently presume that the work has undergone post-Mosaic editing. The chief ground such a editing would hold taken topographic point was non to well alter the book in any manner but instead to do it apprehensible to a ulterior coevals of readers.