Pentateuch Puns

I'm aware that Wellhausen helped people start moving away from mosaic authorship, but around what year did the majority of bible experts start acknowledgeing that Moses probably didn't write the Pentateuch?

##INTRODUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCH

##TERMINOLOGY, CONTENTS, AND TRADITIONAL VIEWS OF AUTHORSHIP

The word "Pentateuch," from the Greek for "five (penta) books (teuchos)," has entered English by way of Latin as the designation for the first group of books in the Bible, comprising Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Unlike other canonical divisions, where there is significant debate within and between different religious traditions, all Jewish and Christian traditions view these five books in this order as a single unit opening the Bible. The unanimity of tradition and the initial placement of these five books reflect their significance within both Judaism and Christianity.

These five books present a narrative beginning with the creation of the world and concluding immediately before the entrance of Israel into the land of Canaan. They do not, however, form a single book in the modern sense, with a single author; modern scholarship has persuasively argued that each of these books is composite, consisting of several sources and supplements from different periods in Israel's history (see below). Nor do the five form a single book in terms of plot. Although Moses is the central human character of much of the Penta teuch, he is not introduced until ch 2 of Exodus, the second book. Nor is the early development of Israel as a people the Pentateuch's unifying theme, as the first eleven chapters of the Bible are concerned with the world from creation to the birth of Abraham (Gen 11.27). Other suggested unifying themes for the Pentateuch, such as covenant, are also inadequate, since they do not explicitly appear at the beginning of the Pentateuch and also continue well beyond it. The suggestion that the promise of the land unifies the Pentateuch is especially problematic, since this theme, though introduced in Gen 12, is fulfilled only with the conquest of the land in the book of Joshua, in which case the Hexateuch ("six books": the Pentateuch plus Joshua) rather than the Pentateuch should be seen as the decisive unit. In fact, the story begun in the Hexateuch continues in Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings, leading some scholars to posit an Enneateuch, or nine-book unit starting with Genesis.

The Hebrew terms torah, torat moshe ("the Torah of Moses"), torat YHWH ("the Torah of the LORD"), and torat ha'elohim ("the Torah of God"), already in use in late biblical literature to describe what is later called the Pentateuch (e.g., 2 Chr 23.18;

Here's what he claims(sic), his own words, not mine:

>For what it's worth, the poetic seams in the Pentateuch show that the Messiah is: - a serpent-killer (Gn 3:15) - a devouring lion (Gn 49:8-10) - a man of war (Ex 15:1-18) - a conquering king (Nm 24:7-8) - an avenging vindicator (Dt 32:39-43)

Someone on Twitter said "Neither the Song of the Sea nor the Song of Moses concern a messianic figure."

Pounder replied:

>Yeah, except they do. (Read Sailhamer Cassuto, et al.) The author has recast these poems as eschatological anticipations of the Messiah’s forthcoming redemptive work. Note where they come in the books, note the patterns of narrative, poetry, epilogue. Observe how they function.

>He established a pattern: narrative, eschatological poetry, epilogue.
>
> N: Gen 1:26 P: 1:27
>
> E: 1:28ff N: Gen 2:4-22
>
>P: 2:23 E: 2:24-25
>
>N: Gen 3:1-13 P: 3:14-19
>
>E: 3:20-24
>
>N: Gen 1–48
>
>P: ch 49 E: ch 50
>
>Read them. Note the pattern. Then look at Ex 1–14, 15, etc.

In Matthew 19:7-8, Jesus quotes the provision on divorce in the Pentateuch and ascribes its source to Moses but reading Deuteronomy where we find that same provision (at chapter 24) Deuteronomy 4-6 gives the impression that all the ordinances to follow are sourced from God. So why is Moses mentioned at all when the same theme of God returning to original law would still be valid?

TLDR: "the Israelite God Yahweh was originally a Midianite/Kenite deity and that marginal groups related to the Kenites, such as the Rechabites, played a significant and dominant role in the preserving of a pre-exilic Yahweh-alone movement, as well as in the establishment of a post-exilic Yahweh monotheism." First, is this accepted in mainstream scholarship? Also, why are these groups only mentioned in passing in the biblical narrative?

Timeline based on Marlene E. Mondriaan's variationof the Kenite hypothesis regarding YWH's origins

1. Midianites and Kenites worshipped YWH from an early period

2. migrating peoples spread YWH worship in all directions; metalworkers possibly introduced Canaanite tribes to YWH

3. Moses archetype introduced YWH worship to peoples travelling from Egypt to Canaan

4. During the late second and early first millennium BC, certain tribes grouped together establishing an Israelite nation in a monarchical environment. Pentateuch begins to be written

5. Rechabites, living in a kind of symbiosis with the Judeans, eventually merged with them. Their strong Yahweh-tradition – probably acquired from the southern Kenites – advanced Yahweh worship in Judah

Not only were these southern tribes some of the first to worship YWH, they played an integral role in spreading Yahwism further north and in the development of monotheism in general. Minority groups also adopted YWH worship.

If this is true, why were these people (and other minority groups) excluded from the narrative and those who claimed to have descended from Abraham are the focus of the narrative? Why are the twelve tribes the focus of covenant in the narrative? Why are these marginal groups and their history represented well in the foundational patriarchal narratives?

Is this because the histories and even the pentateuch narratives are political in nature? Because they began to be written in the early monarchial period, was this an effort to establish the twelve tribes as the dominant cultural group in this Yahwist network?

Mondriaan posits:

The Hebrew Bible refers only sporadically to marginal groups; this could be ascribed to the vying among priests for a superior position in the recorded history of the Israelite nation and subsequent disavowing of minority groups. In the redaction process of the Masoretic Text – during the exilic and post-exilic periods – the history of Israel was fully or partially rewri

The story of Balaam is one of the most interesting presentations across the two testaments, generating a lot of thought. I hope I can get answers to a few questions

1. Why is the depiction of Balaam so different between the Old Testament and the New Testament? In Numbers, he's a pious prophet attentive to God, disregarding wealth and threat from Balak to obey God's instructions to bless Israel but in Revelations he transforms into an opponent of Israel teaching Balak use seduction against Israel. Is there a redacted or missing tradition that explains this turnabout?
2. Throughout the Balaam narrative in Numbers the impression is that both Balak and Balaam are familiar with the God of Israel. What exactly does the academic consensus say about that era what Balaam could have known and practiced about such a deity when he wasn't an Israelite? This is after Leviticus where the Law is expounded upon so what exactly is Balaam doing for God in the tradition available to scholarship? Also why is Balak seeking out a prophet who openly professes allegiance to the god of the very people he's fighting against? Was there some cultural subtext I'm missing?
3. Why is Balaam depicted as both able to communicate with God leaving only upon receiving approval and unresponsive requiring a donkey's intervention to catch his attention on the very task God has set him upon? The text looks like two different stories stitched together. Is there any discussion in that vein?

Edit: Let me try and make this more academic inquiry than theological.

Looking for commentary giving interesting, inventive, unconventional interpretation, even if questionable and inaccurate.

In the Gospel Library there are two things that, personally, I do not believe are accurate:

1. In “Guide to the Scriptures” under “Pentateuch” it claims that the Pentateuch was written by Moses (and then cites 1 Ne. 5:10-11… even though that scripture does not claim that Moses wrote the books of Moses. It only claims the books were named after Moses. By this same logic you’d have to claim that Ether wrote the book of Ether.) Anyway, any of you familiar with Biblical source criticism probably knows that Moses very likely did not write the Pentateuch. (Which, side point, need not cause any sort of faith crisis because (1) even if Moses didn’t write it, it can still be inspired scripture written down by a different prophet(s), and (2) even though Moses 1 says Moses was commanded to write down his vision in a book, that does not necessarily mean the Pentateuch is that book.)

2. In the “Introduction” of the “Joseph Smith Translation Appendix” it states that “the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded.” This, to me, is probably sometimes true. But I think some of it was also divinely inspired in that moment and had never been in the original text. (I don’t think I’m unique in this view. Blake Ostler takes this approach (specifically to the Book of Mormon translation), and I feel like I’ve read a BYU Studies article along these lines).

Anyway, I have certain friends and family members who think me a heretic for not accepting the above things as gospel truth. Because, after all, it’s official! It’s in the Gospel Library! I would like to (gently) point out to these people that these are probably not the Church’s official and final opinion. I think the best way for me to do that is to point to other resources that are also in the gospel library that say Moses probably didn’t write the Pentateuch, and not all of the JST is a restoration of what was originally in the Bible. Does anyone know if these exist in Gospel Library? And if so, where?

Thanks!

I recently came across Useful Charts' series on Who Wrote The Bible and for me it was very comforting and exciting to see that many people have examined the Bible through a lens of faith, but also historical analysis. Since then I've been looking up resources on the internet and at my local library about who wrote the bible, and how it was written, and honestly, it's renewed my interest in the old testament in ways I couldn't have hoped for a few months ago.

I'm curious how well other Christians will take to the idea of applying historical analysis to these books, considering them as myths and legends, wondering how ancient politics might have played into how certain stories were told, etc.. I was raised in a liberal Christian household, and I would describe myself as agnostic going back maybe a decade or so.

Is this old news to you? Do you consider it blasphemy? Do you know people who reject this type of biblical analysis? Are there reasons you or people you know have for not looking into this kind of biblical analysis?

Here's the usefulCharts video. The J and E stuff is in reference to the Documentary Hypothesis (link is to Wikipedia) about who wrote the Pentateuch.

edit: fixed link

edit/update: Thanks to everyone who replied! It seems like most people aren't as interested in this as I am, but it's good to hear different perspectives.

I remember a video from Lutheran Satire where the “Christians pick and choose” issue was presented and “countered” by explaining that the Old Testament laws were separated into moral and ceremonial categories, and the advent of Christ rendered the ceremonial laws(food restrictions, punishments for various crimes, etc) no longer necessary to enforce, but the moral laws(no gay sex) are still in effect.

It’s a cute apologetic, but does the Bible ever actually clearly describe the “moral” and “ceremonial” categories? I’m not entirely well versed on that topic.

I just read The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context by Egyptologist David Falk, and it seems like there is significant, specific, and widespread Egyptian cultural influence in things like the Ark of the Covenant, the dimensions and layout of the tabernacle, and other symbols in the “Books of Moses”. Where does this come from if the exodus is a cultural memory, and there wasn’t even a smaller exodus?

I was born, believed, participated and studied a lot of apologetics in Mormonism. I no longer believe the claims to be accurate. Just to get that out of the way because my question is very specific to Mormonism.

Within the book of mormon the first author returns to Jerusalem to get a record of his ancestors and what includes the first five books written by moses.

In my studies I have learned this is an anachronism. That the pentateuch as a coherent compiled written form pre exile wouldn't have existed.

So here is a claim, an apologetic I recently read.

"There's also fairly good reason to believe that Laban's brass plates had a different, more correct version of the scriptures (at least the Books of Moses) than were in current circulation among the Judahites.

Around 620 B.C., the priests in Jerusalem brought a ”Book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses" to King Josiah (see 2 Kings 22). Many modern scholars believe that this was actually a partial forgery created by the priests for their own reasons. Based on this book and the priests' guidance, Josiah instituted a number of changes in the political and religious structures of the kingdom, sometimes called the "Deuteronomist Reforms".

When the Nephites refer to Moses or quote from the first five books of the Bible, they do not quote the parts that modern (non-Saint) scholars identify as being from the "Priestly" or "Deuteronomist" sources. This is probably because much of our current books of Genesis through Deuteronomy are later additions, made up after the Lehites left Jerusalem."

End quote...

Now there are all sorts of issues here that deal with the Mormonism and the book of mormon. Like if this is true why do KJV translation errors appear if we have a pre exile, "more accurate version" of the pentateuch?

What I want to really understand is how likely is the scenario that before josiahs reform there was a written pentateuch, that was changed during the reform and as a result we today have some less accurate form of it?

1. How did we get the information from the time where there was no Jewish faith (Creation to Abraham)?
2. If it was Divinely Inspired why would God include stories that are allegorical?
3. Why does the first part of Genesis have so much info for a story?

Stories include stories/myths in the Torah that are considered to be history by many in the Judeo-Christian faiths. Stories like the creation story, the flood story, patriarchs, exodus and others.

Could the ancients have viewed facts and history differently back when writing the Torah?

What are the scholarly views on these?

What are the evidence that the Torah/Pentateuch was originally a single document without five divisions?

PS: Thank you for the comments. The key take aways are:

• The dead sea scrolls had the books of the Torah separated, which suggests that they were circulated separately around the c. 100 BCE.
• It is also likely that since the Torah scroll would have been too big, so they were separated.
• The Samaritan Pentateuch maybe evidence that the Torah was once circulated as a single sepher.
• The Jewish Tradition of keeping one whole Torah sepher in Synagogues likely dates back to the Maimonides in the middle ages.
• There are verses in the Hebrew Bible that mention, “בספר תורה” (In [the] Scroll [of] Torah), likely suggesting that the Torah was once a whole sepher.

Repost with alterations

Thinking about it in the perspective of the Israelites (I tried), they probably saw that the creation stories of the other “advanced” nations (Egyptian, Babylonian, etc.) that seemed to have more basis (well established, or “scientific” in ancient terms). So they just infused their monolatry or monotheistic views (along with Israelite traditions) into the well established views of the foreign super powers.

So hypothetically, if the Israelite Torah editors where in exile under some other empire (instead of the Assyrians and the Babylonians), and they thought that the creation story of that empire was advanced and most importantly relevant to their situation (or agenda), they would have adopted it with Monolatry or Monotheistic views.

If this is the case the Israelite editors would have even adopted a Monotheistic/Monolatry Israelite version of the Theory of Evolution (if it was hypothetically a well established concept in the ancient empires that exiled the Israelites and had been relevant to their situation)

What I am indirectly trying to learn from this is whether the editors of the Torah did not keep the factuality of these stories as their main focus, but used these stories (Pre-existing and unique stories) solely for etiologies, moral values, religious traditions, culture and for impressing people with the might of the LORD.

• What are your views on this?

• What are the scholarly views?

Please note: This is not a question about the Theory of Evolution. This has nothing to do with Creation vs Evolution.

Thank you.

I've heard references to theories that claim that final redaction was after the Babylonian exile (the final redactor commonly suggested to be Ezra). And even heard mention of theories that some of the J/E/P/D sources may have post-dated the Babylonian exile or be written during the Babylonian exile.

But the Samaritan Torah exists, uses the old Hebrew script (rather than the modern Hebrew script that was picked up during the Babylonian exile) and appears to mostly match other existing versions of the Torah/Pentateuch (from the Mazoretic Texts and Septuagint).

How is this explained by post-exilic theories of authorship and/or final redaction? Is the idea that the Samaritans saw the final version of the Torah, transcribed it from the new post-Babylonian Hebrew script back into the old Hebrew script, and then claimed that they had been using that version all along including while the rest of the israelites were in exile?

Don't get me wrong, I know there are plenty of groups throughout history who have falsely claimed biblical links (Mormons claiming links to the tribes of Israel jumps to mind). But the Samaritans seem to me to have decent claim to authenticity (using an older script, DNA tests showing they do have the male Levite line).

When theories suggest a post-Babylonian exile final redactor, or even post-Babylonian authorship of one of the sources, how is that explained?

Is there a literature discussing the quasi-Post-Modern, self-referential nature of the Torah? It is a narrative that describes its own creation/transmission and features characters who potentially could read about themselves in the text (even including things that had not happened to them yet, per some traditional interpretations). What other ancient texts are like this?

I’m looking for a resource that indicates the different views of which sections of the Torah are from which source (J, E, P, D1, D2, R). I have R.E. Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible? which includes his division of the texts in the back (about an 8 page long chart). But at times I’ve seen some verses in the Pentateuch identified differently by different scholars, and it’s not unusual that the alternative source identifications make more sense to me. But I’m not sure where to look for a complete division of the Pentateuch by source based on the other experts. Is there a resource that charts out the breakdown as per any other experts?

Popular level, anti-religion authors (eg. Christopher Hitchens in God is Not Great) argue that slavery is defended, condoned, and even encouraged in the Bible. Meanwhile, popular-level Christian authors (eg. Andy Stanley in Irresistible) suggest that slavery in the ANE was starkly different than North American slavery in the 17th century. Arguments are also made that the Pentateuch gives indications of a more "evolved" code of justice, allowing some protections against slaves for violence and time in service.

Of course, the academic literature on slavery and the ANE does not reflect either position. The academic approach sees the Bible as a historical text written in a culture where slavery was simply a part of life. In some casual research over the last couple of days I have been unable to find any serious critical work that suggests the biblical authors imagined that slavery was a positive part of the culture. The theme of liberation seems to be so ingrained in the biblical author's psyche that a "pro-slavery" reading would be incongruous. My first question is, are there any credible academics who argue that the biblical authors viewed slavery as a positive facet of life that should be encouraged?

In Trajectories of Justice, Robert Kal Gnuse argues for the evolution of slave laws and social reform throughout the progression of Jewish history. Moving from the covenant- Deuteronomic laws- Levitical legislation. My second question is, Do you see a clear evolution of social reform throughout the Old Testament (focused mostly on slave treatment)? What about moving from the Old Testament to the First Century literature (Jewish rabbinical and early Christian)?

Finally, my third question is related to the practice of slavery in the ANE and early centuries. Debt-slavery seems to be the most common form of slavery. Are there any extra-biblical sources that elaborate on the role of a debt-slave? Were they essentially serfs? Were they credited for hours worked? Is the Old Testament as progressive as some suggest in their treatment of slaves and protections provided?

I had not read any significant amount of the OT in ages so I decided to plow through the first five books. I had forgotten just how brutally violent God is portrayed and how backwards much of it is as to women and girls in particular. It seemed frankly like an entirely different God. Has anyone else had a situation where reading the OT caused them to struggle with their faith?

I'm again at my family's videoconference service, and they're talking about the veracity of the Bible. I've posted a text a couple weeks before about how my brother thinks that people shouldn't read the Bible with bias, despite him reading it with A LOT of bias. Today he made other remarks that made me cringe. The Hing is, I know my brother is a intelligent guy. He's a university professor and has a lot of degrees. But when it comes to religion it seems that it blinds him completely.

Today he said that christias should be cautious when discussing the pentateuch with people outside of the church, because there's a trend between modern day philosophers and historicists that say that Moses didn't wrote the first five books of the bible. He said that we should believe that Moses wrote the pentateuch because Jesus mentions Moses as the guy who wrote it. So yeah, we should not trust the various specialists that can find no evidence that Moses even existed, let alone wrote anything. We shouldn't trust the scholars that analize the five books of the pentateuch and find different styles of writing among them, showing that there's no way a guy alone wrote it. We shouldn't pay attention that the books always talk about Moses in the third person and even describes the guy's death and aftermath. No, we should believe what a book says that a first century rabbi said about how he believed in Moses, just because the book says this guy was God. It can't be that Jesus was a Jew that believed in Jewish tradition as much as any Jew in his time and did not have any transcendental knowledge about the truth of it. Then he said that we should believe in every other story that Jesus mention like Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah etc. I can't fathom how my brother can even fall into his crap. How can he not realize the freaking circularity of that?? It frustrates me so much.

I just bought the New Oxford annotated Bible and was curious about the above. Are there flaws to this theory that other theories have attempted to correct?

I'm looking for whatever seems most convincing to you.

Why was the Pentateuch/Torah written? Why did the people of Israel make this their central religious text?