Who wrote genesis?

[cubinity]

This thread has continued to interest and entertain me. Some posts have really got me thinking, while others have just left me empty. Here's my two cents for now...

Calling it “The Book of Moses” is not in any way plainly saying anything about the Torah's authorship. This thread has already addressed that reading a claim about authorship into Mark 12:26 is a pretext, and I would add that it is a pretext motivated by personal ideological reasoning.

Neither Luke nor Paul were 100% God, and any argument about their incapacity to error would be self-defeating. Maybe Jesus wasn't restrained by time and culture, but these two certainly were. That their words can be blindly accepted at face value as perfect evidence is also a perspective motivated by personal ideological reasoning. Clumping these two in with Jesus in a single comes off as just an attempt to disguise this reasoning.

Furthermore, an argument that ALL ancient Jewish and Christian scholars agreed on anything without dispute among them obviously needs to be substantiated.

I realize why some people need the Bible to be inerrant and true, and therefore capable of "proving" things, but I believe truly inquisitive minds and hearts are capable of setting aside their own needs and asking difficult questions, even to the point of entertaining "slippery slopes." After all, it's not as if a person's salvation is tied to the inerrancy of Scripture or the accuracy of their interpretations of it.

In my opinion, the insistence that unprovable things are true lacks humility and hurts evangelism. An evangelist's willing to admit that we simply don't know what is actually true, but that we do have some testimonies (both in and out of the Bible) that lead us to believe such and such is a very effective and unassuming reasoning that encourages dialogue on the subject.

These are my opinions, not authoritative statements on the subject.

 

[88Devin07]

We understand that the stories in Genesis, and much of the Old Testament were all oral traditions that were passed down generation to generation. Moses was the main one where these stories came from, but he most likely wasn't the one who actually wrote them down. I think the consensus from history, and early Christians is that Moses told these stories as oral tradition, and that later generations recorded them by writing them down.

This is one of the major reasons why we see things like two separate creation stories at the beginning of Genesis. It shows the blending of two oral traditions into one writing.

We must not forget that the point of Genesis and the Old Testament isn't to record the factual history completely, 100% accurately. We know for a fact that there are many errors in the Bible, including additions, textual differences, minor inconsistencies and even some slight inaccuracies in the exact historical facts. But that doesn't mean it isn't inspired and that doesn't mean it still isn't true. We often forget that the point of the Old Testament is to record Biblical History, or as the Germans put it, "Salvation History". The point of Genesis wasn't to record how the actual creation of everything took place, but rather to show that God is the source of all things, and that he created all things. It is also to show that man has disobeyed God from the beginning, but even from the beginning God has redeemed us.

It was men that passed down the Bible in oral tradition, and it was men that recorded it down in written form. But all the while, the Holy Spirit was working within them and inspiring them. It wasn't dictated word for word by God, nor was it God that wrote it, but it was man. Even so, the Bible is Holy, Inspired Scripture and is part of the sacred, holy tradition that we as Christians hold on to. The Bible shows us for who we are, and proves that God works to redeem us, despite our failings and our rebellion. The factual history isn't what is important and it doesn't matter who actually wrote the books, what matters is that they are still holy, inspired works, provided for our edification and guidance.

 

[Korah]

Quite a wholesome post. What you say about oral tradition can also be used to justify divine inspiration in the written texts of the JEDP Documentary Hypothesis. Or for my own theory as I presented in my Post #22.

 

[Redneck12]

We understand that the stories in Genesis, and much of the Old Testament were all oral traditions that were passed down generation to generation. Moses was the main one where these stories came from, but he most likely wasn't the one who actually wrote them down. [I think the consensus from history, and early Christians is that Moses told these stories as oral tradition, and that later generations recorded them by writing them down.

Moses grew up in Pharaoh's court and was certainly quite literate, probably in several languages. The idea he couldn't have written down Genesis is both ridiculous and historically inaccurate.

This is one of the major reasons why we see things like two separate creation stories at the beginning of Genesis. It shows the blending of two oral traditions into one writing.

What two different accounts are these?

The factual history isn't what is important and it doesn't matter who actually wrote the books, what matters is that they are still holy, inspired works, provided for our edification and guidance.

Actually it does matter, because if the historical facts are called into question, the spiritual aspect also becomes questionable.

 

[Korah]

Moses grew up in Pharaoh's court and was certainly quite literate, probably in several languages. The idea he couldn't have written down Genesis is both ridiculous and historically inaccurate.

He did not say that Moses could not have written Genesis, just that he didn't. And if Moses did write down anything, it would likely have been in a language that the later Hebrews did not understand. This would explain much of the confusion in the Pentateuch. See my Post #22.

What two different accounts are these?

Gen. 1:1 to 2:3 vs. 2:4 to 2:25.

Actually it does matter, because if the historical facts are called into question, the spiritual aspect also becomes questionable.

But a hard Fundamentalist line of defense also makes the faith questionable. Or more so, if the history can be shown not to be true.

 

[cubinity]

I'm going to agree that a hard fundamentalist approach calls into question the validity of Christianity, or any religion for that matter.

When someone says they need the world to have been made in seven literal days or Christ didn't die on the cross, or that the flood had to have covered the whole Earth or Jesus didn't die on the cross, or even David had to have killed Goliath as a kid or Jesus didn't die on the cross, well, I get a little dizzy with the circular reasoning.

Now, I'm not saying these things aren't true, but needing them to be true taints the lens with which one sees true, and that person can no longer objectively evaluate or report on truth. The need drives the decision, and all of the "facts" presented by that individual are called into question by their subjective approach to truth.

Therefore, I find it meaningful to compartmentalize available information, and objectively as possible assess the correlations between two or more issues. Sometimes things are simply mutually exclusive.

For example, if Adam and Eve are not the first humans ever, but perhaps the first humans in this new cycle (as Noah and his family are the first humans in that cycle), or perhaps simply the first "Jews," or even just parabolic characters, the spiritual truths and the groundwork being laid can all still be quite true and relevant. But, if I need Adam and Eve to be the first people ever, then I most likely also really need the spiritual truths of my religion to be true, too. In which case, I would not be objectively evaluating either, and the validity of both can easily be called into question.

*These are my opinions, not authoritative statements on the subject*

 

[marlowe007]

Calling it “The Book of Moses” is not in any way plainly saying anything about the Torah's authorship. This thread has already addressed that reading a claim about authorship into Mark 12:26 is a pretext, and I would add that it is a pretext motivated by personal ideological reasoning.

Yeah, well, you can't argue with John 7:19, John 5:46 or Matt. 19:8 - where Christ states more explicitly that Moses penned the Pentateuch.

 

[jacks]

I'm going to agree that a hard fundamentalist approach calls into question the validity of Christianity, or any religion for that matter.

When someone says they need the world to have been made in seven literal days or Christ didn't die on the cross, or that the flood had to have covered the whole Earth or Jesus didn't die on the cross, or even David had to have killed Goliath as a kid or Jesus didn't die on the cross, well, I get a little dizzy with the circular reasoning.

Now, I'm not saying these things aren't true, but needing them to be true taints the lens with which one sees true, and that person can no longer objectively evaluate or report on truth. The need drives the decision, and all of the "facts" presented by that individual are called into question by their subjective approach to truth.

Therefore, I find it meaningful to compartmentalize available information, and objectively as possible assess the correlations between two or more issues. Sometimes things are simply mutually exclusive.

For example, if Adam and Eve are not the first humans ever, but perhaps the first humans in this new cycle (as Noah and his family are the first humans in that cycle), or perhaps simply the first "Jews," or even just parabolic characters, the spiritual truths and the groundwork being laid can all still be quite true and relevant. But, if I need Adam and Eve to be the first people ever, then I most likely also really need the spiritual truths of my religion to be true, too. In which case, I would not be objectively evaluating either, and the validity of both can easily be called into question.

*These are my opinions, not authoritative statements on the subject*

Nicely put, although it may not be popular with some. Sometimes arguing over the minutiae blurs Christs message and seems more like empty ritual over spirit. It is interesting how the simplest question can lead to division among us, although this is what Jesus predicted. (Sorry I can't remember the verse.)

 

[cubinity]

Yeah, well, you can't argue with John 7:19, John 5:46 or Matt. 19:8 - where Christ states more explicitly that Moses penned the Pentateuch.

With all do respect, I can.

Just because something is arguable doesn't make it so. I am not contending that Moses did not write it, but that it is, in fact, debatable.

John 7:19 tells us Moses gave the Law.
John 5:46 tells us Moses wrote about Jesus.
Matthew 19:8 tells us Moses allowed his followers to divorce.

All of these verses has a context that can sway us to read them with either persuasion. While I respect the conclusion you've made, I still find any claim that Jesus accredits authorship to Moses arguable. Maybe he did believe Moses wrote it, but there is enough ambiguity to argue also that he did not.

 

[interested in life]

Double speak.

 

[wayseer]

Yeah, well, you can't argue with John 7:19, John 5:46 or Matt. 19:8 - where Christ states more explicitly that Moses penned the Pentateuch.

Of course Jesus would have made such an argument.

You and I would have made the same argument up to a couple of hundred years ago.

We now know a whole lot more than did Jesus, or John, or Matthew or anyone else living back in the 1st century.

There is the other glaring bit of evidence - how could Moses write about his death?

 

[88Devin07]

While I don't agree that Christ said Moses wrote Genesis, I don't understand why any of you are suggesting Christ didn't know as much about that sort of stuff than we did... You have to remember that Christ was fully God and fully Man.

 

[cubinity]

Double speak.

You didn't quote anyone, so we can't be certain what exactly you are calling double speak. We would be interested to know.

 

[cubinity]

While I don't agree that Christ said Moses wrote Genesis, I don't understand why any of you are suggesting Christ didn't know as much about that sort of stuff than we did... You have to remember that Christ was fully God and fully Man.

Thank you for your post.

There are other conversations going on about the omniscience of Jesus, so I don't want to bog this thread down with that. I will just point out that Jesus was not omniscient during his stay on Earth according to the Gospels. He learns, finds things out, and even admits to not knowing something God knows.

While I'm not denying the fully-God part, there are qualities of God he evidently did not possess while human. Therefore, while this is not my argument that Jesus did not know who wrote Genesis, as I would not argue such a point, it is my rebuttal against the implication that Jesus was omniscient while on Earth, which you seem to be making in your post.

 

[SkyWriting]

1. Who possibly recorded the creation of everything, if people weren't invented yet?
2. How did the population grow? we all know that incest leads to the offspring being disabled because the genetics are too close. so explain that one?

1. God was there and later walked with Adam in the Garden. They evidently chatted about such matters. Adam took notes.

2. God created Adam and Eve perfectly. The genetics of the first family had few, if any Genetic conflicts to cause problems. Though after the fall.....things have degraded to what we see today. Still, incest does not cause birth defects in 30 - 50%, even to this day.

 

[marlowe007]

There is the other glaring bit of evidence - how could Moses write about his death?

I think it would be more correct to say that Moses prophesied about his death.

 

[wayseer]

I think it would be more correct to say that Moses prophesied about his death.

Well I guess that is one way to side step the issue.

 

[SkyWriting]

This thread has continued to interest and entertain me. Some posts have really got me thinking, while others have just left me empty. Here's my two cents for now...Calling it “The Book of Moses” is not in any way plainly saying anything about the Torah's authorship. This thread has already addressed that reading a claim about authorship into Mark 12:26 is a pretext, and I would add that it is a pretext motivated by personal ideological reasoning.Neither Luke nor Paul were 100% God, and any argument about their incapacity to error would be self-defeating. Maybe Jesus wasn't restrained by time and culture, but these two certainly were. That their words can be blindly accepted at face value as perfect evidence is also a perspective motivated by personal ideological reasoning. Clumping these two in with Jesus in a single comes off as just an attempt to disguise this reasoning. Furthermore, an argument that ALL ancient Jewish and Christian scholars agreed on anything without dispute among them obviously needs to be substantiated.I realize why some people need the Bible to be inerrant and true, and therefore capable of "proving" things, but I believe truly inquisitive minds and hearts are capable of setting aside their own needs and asking difficult questions, even to the point of entertaining "slippery slopes." After all, it's not as if a person's salvation is tied to the inerrancy of Scripture or the accuracy of their interpretations of it.In my opinion, the insistence that unprovable things are true lacks humility and hurts evangelism. An evangelist's willing to admit that we simply don't know what is actually true, but that we do have some testimonies (both in and out of the Bible) that lead us to believe such and such is a very effective and unassuming reasoning that encourages dialogue on the subject.These are my opinions, not authoritative statements on the subject.

We can accept what you say as a true statement of your ideas and opinions, or we can rip it apart saying that you have no choice but to believe what you've written because you are young/old/rich /poor/well educated/not educated or whatever.

One is usually better off just accepting what you just wrote without digging to deep into your background and allowing errors, mistakes, and outright blunders to potentially surface later.

The Bible is the same way. MUCH better off taking it at face value FIRST, and giving all the secondary chatter the short shrift rather than the other way around.

The "slippery slope" is doubting the words you are reading are worthy. I believe the Bible to be "inerrant and true' based on TESTING to see if it's true. All tests I've done so far have proven it true. So much so that "inerrant" is very likely and has far fewer negative consequences than considering it "full of errors".

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course Jesus would have made such an argument.You and I would have made the same argument up to a couple of hundred years ago. We now know a whole lot more than did Jesus, or John, or Matthew or anyone else living back in the 1st century.There is the other glaring bit of evidence - how could Moses write about his death?

I think it's clear you know about 1/10 of what they knew (excluding the Son of God Himself).
That's a very generous estimation.

What did Jesus say about Himself?.....

English Standard Version (©2001)
If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

 

[wayseer]

The "slippery slope" is doubting the words you are reading are worthy.

The slippery slope begins when you do not doubt - when you claim that the words on the page are all there is.

We all read the biblical texts from our own perspective and experience. To suggest that we all come with some objective way of reading defies reality.

The real work begins in accepting that that there is a slippery slope and that the way to correct such slope is not achieved through denial but through the hermeneutics of suspicion of our own agenda. To counter this tendency a through methodological sound process of exegesis is employed using any of the recognised criticisms.