PART I: WHO WROTE THE BOOKS OF MOSES? A CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE

Transcription

1 PART I: WHO WROTE THE BOOKS OF MOSES? A CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE I. MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH: 1. INTRODUCTION. Prior to 17th cent, questions about the formation of the Pentateuch were not yet formulated. If the question was asked, Who wrote the Pentateuch? answer would be, Moses, of course. Such questions are really modern developments. 2. Internal (Biblical) Evidence i) In a number of places, we read of God commanding Moses to write down the Law : (1) Exod 24:4, "Moses wrote all the words of God, and rose up early in the morning, and built an altar under the Mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel" (2) Very clear text affirming full Mosaic authorship: Deut. 31:24-26: When Moses had finished writing down in a book the words of this law to the very end. Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, "Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you. (3) Four exegetical points about the above text; let s go through it bit by bit (a) v 24, Kekaloh, from kalah connotes finished action. Suggests a time when the Torah was written, perhaps codified and not merely an oral stage. (b) Sepher ( book ). Used to designate written texts not merely oral traditions. (c) Likewise, the verb form tum-mam (to the very end). Not necessary and reinforces the first point about finished action (d) v 26: Here, the words of God, written by Moses are held up as an edah - a witness against the people.

2 1) Term used elsewhere to describe some concrete thing that memorializes an important event in a perpetual way. (E.g. photograph, tattoo) 2) E.g. Joshua admonishes the Israelites that the stone in front of them was the witness (edah) which has heard the words of the Lord. 3) Stones, books, etc. are tangible touchable entities not abstract ideas. A stone will not change or fade, it remains. So is the testimony of a book. ii) Corroborating OT evidence (1) Neh 13:1 Law: Sefer Mosheh (Book of Moses). Isaiah, Jer & Dan use similar phraseology. (2) 2 Chron 25:4 expands this: According to what is written in the law // in the book of Moses. Phraseology quite clear; no mistaking that Moses is designated as author here: book of Moses in apposition to written in torah. (3) Addt l: Exod 17:24; 24:4; 34:27 iii) In sum, the OT traditions are unanimous in depicting Moses as the one responsible for authoring in fact, writing down, the law of God. 3. External evidence from early Judaism. Early Jewish view beyond OT equally strong: ii) Josephus: When [Moses] had spoken thus, he gave them the laws and the constitution of government written in a book. (Antiquities VI, 8.3; cf. Against Apion, I, 8). iii) Philo argued that the entire Pentateuch was the work of Moses and that even he wrote a prophetic account of his death (cf. Deut 34.7) through special divine inspiration (Life of Moses, 11. 2). iv) Babylonian Talmud (500 AD), The rabbis and the doctors of Israel confirm the tradition of Mosaic authorship for a thousand years. 4. Jesus and the NT; Early Church Fathers i) Throughout the NT, Moses is recognized as the author of the Torah: (1) Matt 22:24: Sadducees quote Jesus (19.1-8) re: marriage law of Deut 25:5. Jesus not only affirms Mosaic authorship, but appeals to Exod 3:6 as equally written by Moses (2) John 1:45: Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one about whom Moses wrote in the law (Jn 1:45). (3) Addt l: Matt. 8:4; Luke 2:22; John 5:46; Acts 3:22; Rom. 10:5, Heb. 7:14, etc. ii) Early Church Fathers likewise consistent in their affirmation. Just a few examples: (1) Justin Martyr, First Apology 59; Dialogue with Trypho 29 (2) Irenaeus, Against Heresies I, 2:6 (3) Epistle of Barnabas, 10, 1-12 (4) Clement of Rome, 1 Cor 41:1 5. Medieval period (11 th - 16 th Centuries) i) Christianity: Not much new here; Mosaic authorship holds. ii) Judaism. Affirmation but with new questions among some rabinnic scholars iii) Rabbi Isaac ben Jesus ( ) Allowed for a few post-mosaic additions (Deut. 34:7). Noted that Israelites in Gen. 36:31 pre-dates the existence of the nation of Israel iv) Ibn Ezra ( ) questioned difficult expressions such as Deut. 27.2: How could the entire Law be written on a few large stones, as Moses commanded before crossing the Jordan? 2

3 v) Moses Maimonides ( ). Major medieval philosopher. (Grave in Galilee.) Resolved such Q s in spiritual way, i.e., Torah never touched by human hands; from God in heaven. In his Misnaic commentary, compiles 13 Articles of Faith from 613 mitzvot in the Torah. Article 8 states that the Torah was of divine origin. II. SOURCE CRITICISM AND THE RISE OF THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS (DH) 1. The Origins of the DH i) Richard Simon: French Catholic priest (17th century) argued that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses; instead, it was composed centuries after his death. (1) In 1678, drew attention to: a) Textual inconsistencies and b) Multiple versions, Repetitions and Doublets: (a) Textual Inconsistencies: (E.g. Gen. 11:26-12:1) In 12:1, God tells Abram to leave Haran after the death of Terah, his father. In 11:26, we re told Terah has Abram at age 70. Yet, according to 11:32, Terah dies at age 205. Thus, Abram would have been 135 when God called him to leave Ur. Yet, 12:4 indicates that Abram was 75 (not 135) when he left Haran. Simon felt that this could be rectified if 12.1 originated from a distinct source from the genealogy in (b) Multiple versions, Repetitions and Doublets. In almost every narrative book of the OT, there are sequential difficulties in key events, and/or the same incident is told more than once. Simon was the first to call attention to these in a serious way: (1) Two Creation accounts. 1:1-2:3 = meta-narrative of creation, culminating in the creation of Adam & Eve on 6 th day; 2.4ff = 2nd creation (Man & Woman). (2) Flood Narrative (Gen 6-9). Some vv indicate a 40-day flood (7.4, 12, 17; 8.6); others indicate a 150-day flood (8.1b-5) (2) Simon believed that a number of chapters (not merely a few verses) were composed by later scribes. Highly controversial; not only to Rome but also to early Protestants. ii) Hobbes & Spinozza. Thomas Hobbes ( ), an English philosopher -- and Benedict Spinoza ( ), an unorthodox Jew, contested Mosaic authorship b/c of such textual difficulties. Postulate a much later date than 14th cent BC; suggested Pentateuch edited by Ezra, 5th century priestly placing the date of the Pentateuch nearly a 1000 years after Moses. iii) Jean Astruc: Decisive Turning Point ( ) Source-critical approaches originate w/jean Astruc. In 1793 this Catholic convert (Protestant) & physician in court of Louis XIV, defended Mosaic authorship against the sickness of the last century (Hobbes & Spinoza)! (1) Supporter of Catholic orthodoxy; Argued for Moses as primary author. (2) Yet, he suggested various names for God represented two distinct versions of Pentateuch; that Moses arranged Gen into columns (i.e. Gospel parallels): Elohim = Source A; Yahweh = Source B [He believed later Jews combined the columns; this is how he defended Mosaic authorship.] 3

4 (3) Opened the door for the new source theories in subsequent centuries, e.g. Three Source Hypothesis; The Fragmentary Hypothesis; The Supplementary Hypothesis and the biggie which I want to focus on, the DH iv) Julius Wellhausen ( ) German scholar; foremost proponent (1) Moses did not author Pentateuch at all; pieced together at later times (2) Documentary Hypothesis (DH). * Definition: Source theory popularized by Wellhausen suggests that the Pentateuch is a composite of four separate, complete, and independent documents over a period of centuries (4 sources are abbreviated J, E, D, and P. ) These independent sources were gradually brought together into what we know as the Pentateuch. It is the most accepted theory today, regarding the formation of the Pentateuch. (3) Based in part upon his evolutionary view of the history of religion, Wehhhausen and his students postulated that the earliest form of Judaism was a pure religion, and that it later grew into a sacrificial cult with Temple and priests. Indeed, he lamented this loss of purity and saw Judaism s evolution (as he understood it) as a deterioration. 2. Understanding the Documentary Hypothesis i) The Five Pillars of the Documentary Hypothesis 1 (1) The use of different names for the Deity ( Astruc s clue ) (2) Variations of language and style. (3) Contradictions and divergences of view (4) Duplications and repetitions. (5) Signs of composite structure in various sections. ii) J: The Yahwist Source (1) Date: 10th century B.C. (oldest of the four sources) (2) Provenance: Judah (3) Style: simple, using YHWH for the name of God (4) Theology: anthropomorphic view of God (e.g., Gen 2) iii) The Elohist Source (1) Date: 9th century B.C. (2) Provenance: northern kingdom of Israel (3) Style: moralistic, using name Elohim for God (4) Theology: viewed God as transcendent (e.g., Genesis 1) (5) History: after 722 B.C., northerners fled south with E; later joined to J by unknown redactor iv) D: The Deuteronomist Source (1) Date: 7th century B.C. (2) Provenance: Priestly / Levitical circles in Israel (3) Style: concerned with preaching Mosaic religion (4) Theology: emphasized centralized of worship in Jerusalem Temple (5) History: early form of Deuteronomy planted in Temple by Josiah (2 Kgs 22:8) 1 See: Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magness, 1983), 14. 4

5 (6) Later, D was joined to J and E by unknown redactor v) P: The Priestly Source (1) Date: 6th century B.C. (Babylonian Exile) (2) Provenance: Jewish priests in exile (3) Focus: genealogies, priestly rubrics of worship, holiness (e.g., Leviticus) (4) History: Authored by final editors of the Pentateuch; 4th-5th centuries B.C. III. Recent Critiques of the DH 1. Absolutely No External Evidence i) The existence of J, E, D, and P is purely hypothetical. ii) No one has ever found a manuscript of J, E, D, or P 2. No smoking gun: of internal evidence. I.e. The Bible never alludes to the J, E, D, or P documents, even though it frequently and refers to other literary sources. 3. Highly speculative and self-contradictory nature of the DH i) The theory is illogical, self-contradictory, and deficient in the very areas it sets out to explain. For example, the theory begins by assuming that the original sources were non-contradictory and without repetition. But when the sources were combined together, a repetitious and contradictory account resulted. If the early writers could not, and did not, tolerate contradiction and repetition, what changed to make the redactors who combined the sources to suddenly glory in what had been unacceptable? Or put the other way around, if the later writers did not mind such features, why should we suppose that the composers of the alleged original sources did? 2 2 W. Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001),

6 ii) We do not have not multiple sources (Compare w/ Synoptic Problem, where we actually have multiple sources) iii) No True Consensus among Biblical Scholars (1) Vigorous debate about contents of J, E, D, and P (2) Vigorous debate about dates of J, E, D, and P iv) Fresh evidence from Ezekiel: Ezekiel drew upon the Priestly source not the other way around. Yet, Ezekiel is a pre-exilic book (!), therefore Wellhausen s dating of the Priestly source does not work. (E.g. The Priestly source could not have developed after the exile, since Ezekiel has clear evidence of drawing from it. 4. Positive Indications of the Antiquity of the Pentateuch 3 i) Recent research suggests parallels with non-biblical sources reflect second millennium B.C. not merely first millennium B.C. 4 Example: The book of Deuteronomy parallels Hittite treaties from 2nd millennium B.C. (not literature from 6th cent. B.C.) Hittite Treaties ( B.C.) Deuteronomy 1. Prelude: ( These are the words of X ) 1. Prelude (Deut 1:1-5) 2. Historical Prologue (history of relations) 2. Historical Prologue (Duet 1-4) 3. Obligations of the Vassal toward Suzerain 3. Obligations (Deut 4-26) 4. Provision for Public Reading 4. Provision for Public Reading (Deut 27, 31) 5. List of Divine Witnesses to Treaty 5. Witnesses for Renewal (Deut 29-34) 6. Curses & Blessings 6. Curses & Blessings (Deut 27-28) IV. A Critical Test Case The Contradictory Nature of Gen Rampant and unfounded skepticism: It is impossible to reconcile the account [of creation] given here [in Genesis 1] with that which follows in Genesis 2-3, which suggests that even for ancient readers the two accounts of creation were not taken as literally true Apparent Contradiction: Genesis 1 Genesis 2 1. Plants (3rd Day) 1. Man 2. Animals (5th and 6th Days) 2. Plants 3. Man & Woman (6th Day) 3. Animals 4. Woman 3. Gen 1: Order of Creation i) 3rd Day: And God said, Let the earth put forth vegetation (deshe ) plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed... And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in 3 See Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), ; James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); idem, Israel in Egypt: the Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). 4 See Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), ; James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); idem, Israel in Egypt: the Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). 5 Michael Coogan, A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 31 6

7 which is their seed And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Gen 1:11-13) ii) 5th Day: And God said, Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures (sheretz nephesh hayah), and let flying creatures ( oph) fly above the earth... So God created the great sea monsters (taninim) and every living creature that moves with which the waters swarm.. and every flying creature (kol oph kanaph) according to its kind An God blessed them, saying, Fill the waters in the seas, and let flying creatures multiply on the earth. And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. (Gen 1:20-23) iii) 6th Day: And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle (behemah) and creeping things (remesh) and beasts of the earth (hayto eretz) according to their kinds. And it was so Then God said, Let us make man ( adam) in our image So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. (Gen 1:26-31) 4. Gen 2: Order of Creation i) In the day when that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field (siah hasadeh) was yet in the earth and no herb of the field ( eseb hasadeh) had yet sprung up for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground then the LORD God formed man (ha adam) of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life... And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree ( etz) that is pleasant to the sight and good for food (Gen 2:4-9) ii) Then the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a helper fit for him. So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field (hayath hasadeh) and every bird of the heavens ( oph hashamayim), and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman (Heb ishah) and brought her to the man. (Gen 2:18-22) 5. Gen 1-2 as Non-Contradictory: Gen 1: First Sixth Day = Panorama Gen 2: Sixth Day = Close-Up 1. Wild Plants (3rd Day) 1. Man Vegetation, Plants Yielding Seed, 2. Domestic Plants Fruit trees bearing fruit Plants of the field 2. Wild Animals (Fith + Sixth Day) Herb of the field Swarms, Sea Monsters Trees for Food Flying Things, Creeping Things 3. Domestic Animals 3. Man and Woman (Sixth Day) 4. Woman 7

8 6. Umberto Cassuto What is meant by the plant of the field and the herb of the field mentioned [in Genesis 2]? Modern commentators usually consider the terms to connote the vegetable kingdom as a whole; thence it follows that our section contradicts the preceding chapter [Gen 1], according to which vegetation came into being on the third day All interpretations of this kind introduce something into the text which is not there, in order to create the inconsistency. When the verse declares that these species were missing, the meaning is simply that these kinds were wanting, but no others Now we might be able to understand why the Torah emphasized in the previous section the seed and the yielding of seed in connection with the plants [in Genesis 1]. The purpose was to remove the discrepancy that might have been felt to exist between the account of creation given by the ancient poetic tradition and the story of the garden of Eden as recorded by the same tradition. To this end Scripture stressed again and again that the world of vegetation, as it was formed on the third day, was composed of those trees and herbs that naturally reproduce themselves by seed alone. Those plants that needed something else, in addition to seed, were exclude trees and herbs that naturally reproduce themselves by seed alone. Those plants that needed something else, in addition to seed, were excluded. 6 V. CATHOLIC TEACHING ON AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH 1. Pontifical Biblical Commission, On the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch (June 27, 1906) i) Are the arguments gathered by critics to impugn the Mosaic authorship of the sacred hooks designated by the name of the Pentateuch of such weight in spite of the cumulative evidence of many passages of both Testaments, the unbroken unanimity of the Jewish people, and furthermore of the constant tradition of the Church besides the internal indications furnished by the text itself, as to justify the statement that these books are not of Mosaic authorship but were put together from sources mostly of post-mosaic date? Answer: In the negative. ii) Does the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch necessarily imply a production of the whole work of such a character as to impose the belief that each and every word was written by Moses' own hand or was by him dictated to secretaries ; or is it a legitimate hypothesis that he conceived the work himself under the guidance of divine inspiration and then entrusted the writing of it to one or more persons, with the understanding that they reproduced his thoughts with fidelity and neither wrote nor omitted anything contrary to his will, and that finally the work composed after this fashion was approved by Moses, its principal and inspired author, and was published under his name? Answer: In the negative to the first and in the affirmative to the second part. iii) Without prejudice to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, may it be granted that in the composition of his work Moses used sources, written documents namely or oral traditions, from which in accordance with the special aim he entertained and under the guidance of divine inspiration he borrowed material and inserted it in his work either word for word or in substance, either abbreviated or amplified? Answer: In the affirmative. 6 Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 2 vols.(jerusalem: Magness Press, 1989), 1:

9 iv) Subject to the Mosaic authorship and the integrity of the Pentateuch being substantially safeguarded, may it be admitted that in the protracted course of centuries certain modifications befell it, such as : additions made after the death of Moses by an inspired writer, or glosses and explanations inserted in the text, certain words and forms changed from archaic into more recent speech, finally incorrect readings due to the fault of scribes which may be the subject of inquiry and judgement according to the laws of textual criticism? Answer: In the affirmative, saving the judgement of the Church. PART II / III: A CATHOLIC RESPONSE / CONCLUSION I. Additional CRITIQUES of the DH / Source Criticism a. Desmond Alexander b. Joseph Ratzinger II. III. IV. From Oral to Written Torah a. Beginning with Moses b. Oral Culture c. Evidence from the Development of the Hebrew Language / Dead Sea Scrolls d. A Catholic proposal THREE ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF UNITY IN THE PENTATEUCH a. Gen 1 2: Created for WORSHIP b. Gen 6 8 What is the Flood Narrative all about? (Palistrophes, Gen 8:1) c. Gen Seeing the Face of God Q & A 9