Thread by @GeekJamesXtn

Who wrote the Pentateuch? Traditionally these first five books of the Bible- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, have been attributed to Moses; however in recent times some have suggested a variety of sources. (1/35)

Despite its current popularity, however, this is a relatively modern idea. The first major figure to question Mosaic authorship was the philosopher Spinoza in the 17th century, however the consensus remained that Moses was author well into the 19th century. (2/35)

So let’s weigh the claim and explore the evidence. The claim is that the Pentateuch (known to the Jewish community as Torah) was compiled from four different source documents over a period of around 500 years, (3/35)

then compiled into a single continuous document around 200BC by an unknown editor/redactor. So on what basis?Broadly speaking, the main argument for this hypothesis cites stylistic differences in certain passages, (4/35)

as well as the uses of ‘Elohim’ and ‘Yahweh’ to identify God. Yet, a brief survey of texts from regions such as Babylon, Egypt (where Moses was educated), Ancient Rome and even modern American authors yield examples of unified sources with varied styles. It is, of course, (5/35)

possible for an author to change their style or terminology- as such, this alone is a weak argument. Similarly, the differing names of God used is not a great line of argument for differing sources. After all, a British person might refer to “The King,” “Charles III, (6/35)

“King Charles” and “His Majesty;” while these may all be used interchangeably, they represent the same person. Thus it is perfectly feasible that the author of the Pentateuch did the same. (7/35)

There has been a growth in academic criticism in the concensus in the documentary hypothesis in the latter part of the 20th century, and some have posited additional sources, (8/35)

authors or even a great many fragments later edited into a single piece; few have gained a great deal of traction, however there are other reasons given for doubt in the Mosaic authorship. These include similarities to other ancient sagas, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, (9/35)

thus the Bible must be derivative. While both Gilgamesh and Genesis feature a flood narrative, that in itself proves nothing. It might merely be two cultures remembering an event and telling it within their own cultural framework. After all, (10/35)

there are also legends of a global flood in China, Vietnam, India, Scandinavia and the Americas; yet it is absurd to suggest the Biblical account is derived from those. (11/35)

Another idea which has become popular in the latter 50 years is that Moses is in fact a mythical figure and the historical details of the Pentateuch (such as the Sojourn of Patriarch Joseph in Egypt, the Exodus under Moses, (12/35)

time in the wilderness and conquest of Canaan) are fanciful stories of events which did not happen. This is wildly dismissive of a growing body of historical research- in particular the last 50 years which have brought astonishing breakthroughs in biblical archaeology. (13/35)

Furthermore, a key argument put forward in support of a later date for the Pentateuch by Julius Wellhausen is that writing was largely unknown in the Canaanite region when Moses is said to have lived. As such it cannot have been written in his lifetime. (14/35)

This has been roundly debunked by major archaeological discoveries such as Hammurabi’s Law and the Ras Shamra tablet which predate the lifetime of Moses by several hundred years. Occasionally, critics may also reference anachronisms in the text, (15/35)

suggesting that these indicate multiple sources or errors. The most frequently mentioned of these are the mention of the city ‘Ramsses,’ (Genesis 47:11, Exodus 1:11, Numbers 33:3) and Philistines (Genesis 21:32, (16/35)

34) who are not believed to have settled until considerably later. The latter is perhaps most easily addressed when one considers that ‘Philistine’ literally means ‘sea peoples,’ and thus isn’t tied to a particular civilisation at this time. (17/35)

The reference to Ramsses is possibly trickier, as when one looks into the city of Ramsses there is no evidence of an Israelite population, yet according to Exodus they built it! (18/35)

However consider that the Torah and other scriptures were taken into exile to Babylon in the 6th Century BC. Upon the return to Jerusalem the temple was rebuilt and the scriptures restored to their place of honour. (19/35)

It is generally held that Ezra the Priest had the role of curating this restoration, and it is a plausible if not likely explanation that the place names were updated- after all, in Ezra’s time they could tell where Ramsses is, (20/35)

whereas the city which Ramsses superseded was largely unknown by then- the city of Avaris, recently excavated by Manfred Bietak and found to have had a large Asiatic/Semitic population, who vacated an entire district en masse in the 13th Dynasty due to a plague. (21/35)

It is perhaps helpful to explore the historical context of the text including its transmission and curation. Far from Richard Dawkins’ assertion that the Bible is a “chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, (22/35)

distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries” (quote from The God Delusion), (23/35)

the Old Testament has been very carefully maintained and transcribed within the Jewish tradition since at least around the 6th Century BC after the period of Exile in Babylon ended, and we shouldn’t underestimate the practices in place before that. (24/35)

The materials onto which the scriptures could be copied and with which they could be written were specified, no two letters could touch, each word should be verbalised as written, each manuscript was reviewed and if errors were found it was to be redone; the words, (25/35)

letters and paragraphs were counted, the manuscript bearing God’s word was to be kept in a holy place and could not be discarded, and the pen and scribe were both to be washed before writing the name of God. (26/35)

The Old Testament internally identifies Moses as the author- a view which is later affirmed by Jesus, Peter and Paul. Similarly, (27/35)

outside the Bible this view has been near unanimously held by those in the Jewish faith (the Jerusalem Talmud and historian Josephus being examples)- and Christians throughout history from the Early Church Fathers through the reformers to present. (28/35)

Indeed in Islam it is generally held that Moses wrote the Torah following a direct revelation from God. Certainly there would be nobody more qualified to write it! (29/35)

There are other evidences of the plausibility of Moses’ authorship beyond the millennia of unbroken acceptance too- firstly, the accuracy of descriptions of life in Egypt and the wilderness; the passages are so well suited, especially laws, for the time and place. (30/35)

It seems remarkable that a later author might simply have cooked up the whole thing! Secondly, there is no reference to Jerusalem, the Psalmody or God as ‘Lord of Hosts,’ which indicates it is most likely to have been written prior to the building of Jerusalem, (31/35)

writing of the Psalms and common use of this title of God during the Israelite monarchy. The title, ‘Lord of Hosts,’ appears frequently in Zechariah, Haggai, Isaiah and Jeremiah- all of which were written in the 5-6 Century BC- yet not at all in the Pentateuch, (32/35)

which the documentary hypothesis suggests was contemporaneous to the prophets.From this, we can conclude that the unbroken tradition of Mosaic authorship remains to this day a plausible and reasonable alternative. (33/35)

Thank you for reading this far. I’d just like to conclude this thread by encouraging you to read the five books of the Pentateuch, as they are truly fascinating as both an historical and spiritual work.
(34/35)

Have a nice day!

(35/35)

@SammyOleka as promised! 🙂