Sacred Scriptures

[Lord Emsworth]

(i) diversity of authors: Who are the authors? Well, forty men from all walks of life including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, tax collectors, poets, musician, physicians, teachers, statesmen, lawyers and shepherds. Their writings took place over the course of some 1500 years on three continents, and in three different languages. These individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message would eventually be incorporated into such a Book.​

A lot of this is factually quite iffy though. (And part of it came through over the last couple of post, e.g. pseudepigraphy).

Take for instance this claim about the three different continents. It promises a lot (although I am not even quite sure what would be the relevance), but if you look a little closer the promise cannot be kept. Three continents, that suggests a huge, world-spanning area, much larger than the near East and-then-some actually is. In addition, isn't this factually incorrect at that? I mean, which of the Biblical books were for example written in Europe and Africa? Is this still held by modern scholarship?

 

[smaneck]

In addition, isn't this factually incorrect at that? I mean, which of the Biblical books were for example written in Europe and Africa? Is this still held by modern scholarship?

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not aware of any of the books of the Bible having been written in Africa. As for Europe, since the Roman Empire extended there I suppose parts of the New Testament were written in Europe. But we are talking about places like Greece and Anatolia, not England or France.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not aware of any of the books of the Bible having been written in Africa.

Read what I quoted. Oh wait I point you to what I mean:

Their writings took place over the course of some 1500 years on three continents, and in three different languages.​

I presume that the three different continents meant are Europe, Asia and Africa. Hence my inquiry.

But we are talking about places like Greece and Anatolia, not England or France.

Yes, exactly.

 

[smaneck]

Read what I quoted.

Whoops, sorry. I misread what you wrote.

 

[Deaver]

A lot of this is factually quite iffy though. (And part of it came through over the last couple of post, e.g. pseudepigraphy).

Take for instance this claim about the three different continents. It promises a lot (although I am not even quite sure what would be the relevance), but if you look a little closer the promise cannot be kept. Three continents, that suggests a huge, world-spanning area, much larger than the near East and-then-some actually is. In addition, isn't this factually incorrect at that? I mean, which of the Biblical books were for example written in Europe and Africa? Is this still held by modern scholarship?

My studiers have found that the Bible was written on three different continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe. Moses wrote in the desert of Sinai, Paul wrote in a prison in Rome, Daniel wrote in exile in Babylon, and Ezra wrote in the ruined city of Jerusalem.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My studiers have found that the Bible was written on three different continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe. Moses wrote in the desert of Sinai, Paul wrote in a prison in Rome, Daniel wrote in exile in Babylon, and Ezra wrote in the ruined city of Jerusalem.

Well a problem with this would be that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch. It's pretty well recognized by most scholars that the Pentateuch is the work of many authors and redactors and didn't take final shape for quite some time. That doesn't mean Torah didn't exist until hundreds of years after Moses, but it does mean that the texts we have today do post-date Moses by a lengthy amount of time.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Deaver]

A lot of this is factually quite iffy though. (And part of it came through over the last couple of post, e.g. pseudepigraphy).

Take for instance this claim about the three different continents. It promises a lot (although I am not even quite sure what would be the relevance), but if you look a little closer the promise cannot be kept. Three continents, that suggests a huge, world-spanning area, much larger than the near East and-then-some actually is. In addition, isn't this factually incorrect at that? I mean, which of the Biblical books were for example written in Europe and Africa? Is this still held by modern scholarship?

The relevance is that many authors from different times and places wrote books or letters that all fit together, forming a story with a common message, that fit together to form the Bible. That is but one thread that goes to make up the fabric of why I believe in the Bible. Which was the point of the OP.

 

[Deaver]

Well a problem with this would be that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch. It's pretty well recognized by most scholars that the Pentateuch is the work of many authors and redactors and didn't take final shape for quite some time. That doesn't mean Torah didn't exist until hundreds of years after Moses, but it does mean that the texts we have today do post-date Moses by a lengthy amount of time.

-CryptoLutheran

That is an opinion that you may share, but is widely disputed by more conservative Christian theologians. I agree that nowhere in the Bible is it specifically stated that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. However, there is a lot scripture that either implies or strongly suggests that Moses was the author.

From R.K. Harrison, "Introduction to the Old Testament," Page 497 [cited in R.B. Dillard & T. Longman III, "An Introduction to the Old Testament," Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, (1994) Page 39] we read "Ancient Jewish and Christian writers, such as Ecclesiasticus, Josephus, Philo, and Origen were essentially in full agreement that the Pentateuch was written solely by Moses. The Mishnah and the Talmud also confirm this. Tradition during the first millennium of Christian history agrees with this belief."

We can agree to disagree if you'd like.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

That is an opinion that you may share, but is widely disputed by more conservative Christian theologians.

Who sacrifice their scholarly credibility to what they perceive to be the demands of faith.
I see you use the word "opinion" a lot whenever you wish to somehow disqualify what somebody else has said. But the heart of the matter is: those scholars who hold that the Pentateuch was written and redacted over an extended period of time have virtually ALL the evidence on their side, while the "conservative" theologians can only appeal to tradition - which doesn't amount to much.

"Ancient Jewish and Christian writers, such as Ecclesiasticus, Josephus, Philo, and Origen were essentially in full agreement that the Pentateuch was written solely by Moses. The Mishnah and the Talmud also confirm this. Tradition during the first millennium of Christian history agrees with this belief."

"People living thousands of years ago believed it to be true, therefore it must be" is not a very good argument. In fact, it is the virtual opposite.

 

[smaneck]

delete

 

[Lord Emsworth]

My studiers have found that the Bible was written on three different continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe. Moses wrote in the desert of Sinai, Paul wrote in a prison in Rome, Daniel wrote in exile in Babylon, and Ezra wrote in the ruined city of Jerusalem.

Thanks. It is about Mosaic authorship then. I thought I maybe had forgotten something, which is by no means impossible.

And Philemon ... of course.

 

[Deaver]

Who sacrifice their scholarly credibility to what they perceive to be the demands of faith.
I see you use the word "opinion" a lot whenever you wish to somehow disqualify what somebody else has said. But the heart of the matter is: those scholars who hold that the Pentateuch was written and redacted over an extended period of time have virtually ALL the evidence on their side, while the "conservative" theologians can only appeal to tradition - which doesn't amount to much.

What evidence do the liberal theologians have on their side.

"People living thousands of years ago believed it to be true, therefore it must be" is not a very good argument. In fact, it is the virtual opposite.

So you are saying viewpoints which have expounded on over the last couple of hundred years are more valid than all of those supported for some 2 thousand years (approximately). Isn't it really the liberal viewpoint is easier to believe if you don't like the message Christians have been teaching for thousands of years.

 

[smaneck]

What evidence do the liberal theologians have on their side.

Well, let's see.

1. Deut. describes the circumstances surrounding Moses' passing. People don't write their own obituaries.

2. Deut. is written in exactly the same style as the book of Joshua suggesting a common authorship.

3. Other portions are written in a style which indicates at least three other authors. One of them favored the use of Yahweh as the name of God while the other preferred Elohim. Besides the difference in names used to refer to God, we also have doublet versions of various stories, suggesting at least two separate texts that were eventually combined.

4. Dating problems.

Genesis 11:31 This describes Abraham as living in the city Ur, and associates that location with the Chaldeans. Archaeological evidence indicates that the Chaldeans did not exist as a tribe at the time of Abraham; they rose to power much later, during the 1st millennium BCE. which would be well after Moses.

Genesis 14:14: This verse refers to Abram pursuing some surviving kings of Sodom and Gomorrah to the city of Dan. However, that place name did not exist until a long time after Moses' death.

Genesis 36 contained a list of Edomite kings which included some monarchs who were in power after Moses' death.

5. Numbers 12:3 states "Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth." Would a humble man write about himself this way?

6. Deuteronomy 34:10 This states "There has never been another prophet like Moses..." Sure sounds like a passage written long after Moses' death!

So you are saying viewpoints which have expounded on over the last couple of hundred years are more valid than all of those supported for some 2 thousand years (approximately)

.

You mean like believing the earth goes around the sun instead of the sun going around the earth?

Yes, I think we now know a good deal more than we used to know.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Also it has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal" scholarship. It has to do with good scholarship and bad scholarship, terms like "conservative" and "liberal" aren't helpful in that regard as one will find both "conservative" and "liberal" types on the same side as it concerns scholarship.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Deaver]

Who sacrifice their scholarly credibility to what they perceive to be the demands of faith.
I see you use the word "opinion" a lot whenever you wish to somehow disqualify what somebody else has said. But the heart of the matter is: those scholars who hold that the Pentateuch was written and redacted over an extended period of time have virtually ALL the evidence on their side, while the "conservative" theologians can only appeal to tradition - which doesn't amount to much.

"People living thousands of years ago believed it to be true, therefore it must be" is not a very good argument. In fact, it is the virtual opposite.

Yes, I use opinion but not to disqualify someone's comments; rather to point out that theirs is a belief based on information insufficient to produce complete certainty. Otherwise, there would not be conflicting viewpoints.

For example it is not my opinion that historical manuscripts support the accuracy of today’s Bible translations . It is a fact that is not disputed.

 

[Deaver]

Also it has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal" scholarship. It has to do with good scholarship and bad scholarship, terms like "conservative" and "liberal" aren't helpful in that regard as one will find both "conservative" and "liberal" types on the same side as it concerns scholarship.

-CryptoLutheran

The problem with using the terms "good" or "bad" is that someone must be the judge. Who should that be, and how will you remove the bias they bring to rendering their judgment.

While I am not one to hold to an absolute position on Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, I will argue that it is a belief which should be freely contested and discussed. There is plenty of data for either side to look at as a basis for their opinion. Mine is that there is sufficient evidence (both internal and external) to support that Moses wrote a significant portion of those books.

 

[Deaver]

Genesis 14:14: This verse refers to Abram pursuing some surviving kings of Sodom and Gomorrah to the city of Dan. However, that place name did not exist until a long time after Moses' death.

I just picked one of your points to show a different conclusion than you reached.

This is copied from Apologetics Press with their permission.
The City of Dan

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
According to Genesis 14, Lot, the nephew of Abraham, was captured by certain kings of the east. The Genesis record states that Abraham pursued the abductors “as far as Dan” (Genesis 14:14). Some writers claim that this city was not named “Dan” until the time of the judges (Judges 18:29), and thus this section of the book of Genesis must be dated at that time. Is such a charge correct?


We certainly are aware of this liberal approach to the authorship of the book of Genesis. One writer, commenting upon Genesis 14:14, has stated: “ Therefore, the date of the present final form of the book of Genesis cannot be earlier than that time [period of the Judges—WJ], although the events that it relates and the oral or written sources from which it was composed are much earlier” (Willis, 1979, p. 229).


The Mosaic authorship should not be repudiated upon such a flimsy basis. There are several ways of resolving the alleged difficulty.


(1) It is possible that the name was given by inspiration in anticipation of later historical developments (Thornton, 1887; Judges 18:29). Although this is not a popular view of this circumstance, who can absolutely prove that it is incorrect? Must the supernatural always be eliminated from the divine record?


(2) Some maintain that the name “Dan” actually was in use at the time of Abraham, but that it later was called Laish by the Sidonians, into whose hands it fell (Judges 18). Subsequently, it is suggested, in the time of the judges it received its original name again (Jacobus, 1:253).


(3) Another view is that there was another “Dan”—different from Laish Dan—(possibly referred to in 2 Samuel 24:6; 1 Kings 15:20; cf. 2 Chronicles 16:4), which was situated near the sources of the Jordan. It is, therefore, “in the highest degree probable that the Dan mentioned in Genesis 14:14 was a Phoenician town already existing in the time of Abraham, or at least in the Mosaic age.” The narrative in which the remark about Dan occurs “bears every mark of antiquity and accuracy, and such a blunder as making Abraham pursue the kings to a Dan that was not so called until five or eight centuries later is not to be thought of in such a connection” (Harman, 1878, p. 160).


(4) Finally, we must note that even some of the most liberal scholars have surrendered their argument on “Dan.” Cheyne concedes, with reference to Genesis 14:14, that “one of the supposed arguments for the late date of Genesis 14 must therefore be abandoned” (1899, 1:997).
REFERENCES
Cheyne, T.K., ed. (1899), Encyclopedia Biblica (London: A & C Black).
Harman, Henry M. (1878), Introduction to the Holy Scriptures (New York: Eaton and Mains).
Jacobus, Melancthon W. (1864), Notes on Genesis (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication).
Thornton, R. (1887), Commentary on the Old Testament—Historical Books (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge).
Willis, John T. (1979), Genesis (Austin, TX: Sweet).

 

[smaneck]

Yes, I use opinion but not to disqualify someone's comments; rather to point out that theirs is a belief based on information insufficient to produce complete certainty. Otherwise, there would not be conflicting viewpoints.

Differing opinions do not prove that information is insufficient. People believe all kinds of things regardless of how much information is available to them. To prove information is insufficient one has to demonstrate where the holes are. In any case, the scientific method does not give one 'complete certainty' because that method only deals with data which is theoretically at least, falsifiable. Any scientific proposition is subject to further investigation. That's why we speak of the "Theory of Evolution." A theory in science is something which has been thoroughly tested and fits all the known data. If new data arises, that theory is subject to modification. But there comes a point when the evidence becomes overwhelming.

For example it is not my opinion that

historical manuscripts support the accuracy of today’s Bible translations

. It is a fact that is not disputed.

[/QUOTE]

Huh? Translations are based on historical manuscripts by definition. But some translations are more accurate than others.

 

[smaneck]

The Mosaic authorship should not be repudiated upon such a flimsy basis.

Granted the reference to Dan by itself would not be sufficient to exclude the possibility that Genesis was authored by Moses, however when this is combined with all the other discrepancies, only some of which I mentioned, the possibility that Moses wrote the Torah becomes increasingly remote.

(1) It is possible that the name was given by inspiration in anticipation of later historical developments

That's about the weakest argument I can think of but it has the advantage of being unfalsifiable, meaning it can't be subjected to scientific scrutiny. But then it is for that very reason that it cannot be regarded as either scientific or scholarly.

Must the supernatural always be eliminated from the divine record?

Nope, but it can't be studied scientifically.

(2) Some maintain that the name “Dan” actually was in use at the time of Abraham, but that it later was called Laish by the Sidonians, into whose hands it fell (Judges 18).

And what is their evidence for this?

(3) Another view is that there was another “Dan”—different from Laish Dan

And what is there evidence for another Dan?

—(possibly referred to in 2 Samuel 24:6; 1 Kings 15:20; cf. 2 Chronicles 16:4), which was situated near the sources of the Jordan. It is, therefore, “in the highest degree probable that the Dan mentioned in Genesis 14:14 was a Phoenician town already existing in the time of Abraham, or at least in the Mosaic age.”

Let me get this straight. It is "in the highest degree probable" because it is possible?

(4) Finally, we must note that even some of the most liberal scholars have surrendered their argument on “Dan.” Cheyne concedes, with reference to Genesis 14:14, that “one of the supposed arguments for the late date of Genesis 14 must therefore be abandoned” (1899, 1:997).
REFERENCES
Cheyne, T.K., ed. (1899), Encyclopedia Biblica (London: A & C Black).

Funny, you should mention him. T.K. Cheyne became a Baha'i back in 1912. However, his scholarship is rather dated. Do more modern scholars endorse his opinion in this regard?

 

[smaneck]

The problem with using the terms "good" or "bad" is that someone must be the judge. Who should that be, and how will you remove the bias they bring to rendering their judgment.

It shouldn't be a matter of 'who'. It should be a matter of applying sound methodology.

There is plenty of data for either side to look at as a basis for their opinion.

Then it is the data we should be discussing.

Mine is that there is sufficient evidence (both internal and external) to support that Moses wrote a significant portion of those books.

So what is the evidence for Mosaic authorship?