Did Moses write the frist 5 books of the bible?

sam1008

sam1008

Established Member
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey dudes, I'm writing an essay on this subject and my guess is that Moses did receive from G-d and wrote the core of the 5 books of Moses but that they were then developed and added to by priests before being finally written down in the form they are now.

Any comments and/or resources would be great.
 
It depends who you ask. Those applying the same criteria to the Torah as they do to other texts and observing from a detached perspective generally say no, not by Moses, although they may suggest that there was something that went back to Moses to which the myth of the revelation is linked.

The traditional Jewish myth does not suggest that priests added to and developed the Torah but that there is an accompanying oral Torah which has been and still is applied to allow Torah to fit new situations.
 
I, Brian, it is pretty much accepted within all movements except for Orthodoxy which is not to say that it's treated as a foundational principles but that it appears in liberal chumashim and is sometimes referenced as one possible understanding of History within the statements of principles for the liberal movements. For example in Emet Ve-Emunah which is the Conservative movement's statement of principles it lists different views on revelation among Conservative Jews. The first is much like Orthodoxy, that it's a personal encounter that has "propositional content" and is "immediately normative, as defined by rabbinic interpretation." The other views are much different:

Some believe "...that revelation consists of an ineffable human encounter with God. The experience... inspires verbal formulation by human beings of norms and ideas... continuing the historical significance of the revelational encounter."

You can see how that middle one is a bit nuanced and allows for some varying views within it. And then finally we have the view of "revelation as the continuing discovery, through nature and history, of truths about God and the world. ... always culturally conditioned... nevertheless seen as God's ultimate purpose for creation. Proponents of this view tend to see revelation as an ongoing process rather than as a specific event."

For an even more clear statement, see the foreward of said document regarding the committee that came together to draft it: "We all accepted the results of modern scholarship. We agreed that historical development of the tradition had taken place, and that the tradition continues to develop."

That is all from the publication Emet Ve-Emunah by the Conservative movement, Conservative Judaism being the liberal movement furthest to the right. Orthodoxy, in rejecting the findings of modern scholarship, is the odd one out and by no means a yardstick by which to define what is normative for Judaism, if there even is such a thing.

Dauer
 
Thanks very much for the replies guys and the link to Bob X's article. I'll have a proper read of that in a bit. I've worn myself out for the moment reading an article in the Catholic encyclopedia about Mosaic authorship. My lecturer Rabbi Dan seems to believe in the redaction theory by the way - its just i haven't found evidence of the idea that the kernal of the books come from Moses in what i've read in his works - which is what seems to me to be the most likely thing.
 
Oh my, I haven't re-read "Torah Torah Torah" since I scribbled it off (Jan. 2001 I think that was?). I was meaning to rewrite it, organizing all those tangential offshoots that are jammed into parentheses, in some more readable fashion; but I never got around to it.
 
Yes, Moses received the Torah from G-d, it was not added to or edited by
the kohanim.

As someone above mentioned, the Oral Torah was also given to Moses....
it fully explains the mitzvot that are mentioned in the Written Torah,
among other things.
 
wil said:
So you don't buy into the Y, E, P, D authorship?
Click to expand...


No. I remember studying about that many many years ago.....I thought
that theory had been debunked? Although I must admit it is not
something I have kept up with.....
 
it hasn't been debunked as such, it's just split off into about 5 or 6 different schools of thought, some of which are actually quite close to the traditional way of thinking and others which are far more obsessed with identifying tiny little fragments of individual authors. needless to say, my views on this are on record - i describe my disenchantment with the documentary hypothesis in a number of places, from that individual statement i was asked to make a few weeks ago as well as that discussion "tilting at windmills" that i had with bob_x a couple of years back.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Could his death be a metaphor? His death was upon a mountain top (up high), whether of natural causes I cannot know. His burial was not done by mere men, and his body was hidden from men. He also wrote about his own death, which is unusual even for a prophet. It is similar to Elijah and Enoch's exits from normal life and they were never described as dying at all. So could it be a metaphor?
 
no, he's dead all right. some of the commentators explain that his grave was hidden so that it would not become a place for pilgrimage and therefore potentially idolatrous worship, a big issue at the time. we know where some of the other prophets (e.g. ezekiel) are buried, but there's no chance of them becoming the centre of idolatrous worship nowadays.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
I'm not sure I understand how you are so sure "he's dead all right", when you are perfectly willing to swallow violations of common sense like him writing down his death. Do you buy Chavak's bit about him "crying" as he wrote it? (as attributed to the passive-voice non-source, "it is said...")
 
how is it a "violation of common sense"? doesn't that mean that the whole Torah is "a violation of common sense" (due to supernatural or non-scientific events)? either that or it's perfectly feasible for a prophet. what is difficult to understand about foreseeing the events of one's own death? i can foresee that i'll die. if i was talking to G!D before going up on top of a mountain to die, why couldn't i write that down? besides, the tears bit is rashi, probably based on tanhuma or something.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bananabrain said:
doesn't that mean that the whole Torah is "a violation of common sense" (due to supernatural or non-scientific events)?
Click to expand...
Lots of it, yes. What I was inquiring about is what makes you accept one thing rather than another. The notion that the Torah was written by Moses, for example, is not a claim made anywhere in the Torah; what is it that inclines you to it?
 
Moses definitely did not write the Pentateuch

I've casually studied the Documentary Hypothesis, its nuanced views (such as whether J and E should be treated as separate, or whether P is pre-exilic, post-exilic, or both), and competing theories (like the Fragmentary Hypothesis as suggested by Whybray). But generally in scholarship Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is not a good theory. It's a tradition, possibly originating in 2nd Temple Judaism, and has no support from the Pentateuch itself. The evidence from the Pentateuch, on many grounds, is actually against Mosaic authorship. There's a plethora of consilient evidence from many disciplines--linguistic, historical, etc.--that undercut Mosaic authorship. The Pentateuch is demonstrably post-Mosaic (filled with anachronisms), contradictory in many respects, and interspersed with confused traditions. There's little doubt that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.

Thanks,
Eric
 
Re: Moses definitely did not write the Pentateuch

bob_x said:
What I was inquiring about is what makes you accept one thing rather than another. The notion that the Torah was written by Moses, for example, is not a claim made anywhere in the Torah; what is it that inclines you to it?
Click to expand...
trust. faith is very much related to trust, of course. what i am saying is that the sages and the other custodians of the tradition to the present have proved their trustworthiness over centuries, over millennia - compared to the level of trust i feel is deserved by some nebulous academic consensus. i actually attended a lecture recently on the current state of scholarly thinking on redaction and biblical crit by hugh williamson, regius prof of oriental languages at christchurch college, oxford and came away from it with the surprising but distinct impression that consensus was quite a lot more fragmentary than i had previously thought. of course if you a priori exclude the supernatural, it's never going to stack up, but i don't do that, so there's no serious issue here for me. the tradition is perfectly happy with reading things into the text in the same way that there aren't any Torah laws for getting married (as opposed to divorce) so i don't have a problem with the tradition's position on mosaic authorship.

Wavy Wonder1:

i'm so pleased that your casual study of the DH has led you to such a comfortable conclusion. don't mind us jews, we've only been delving into this text for 2500 years - and that's if it's only post-exilic! how about casually delving into traditional interpretation and learning a little bit about it before you so blithely dismiss it?

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Re: Moses definitely did not write the Pentateuch

bananabrain said:
Wavy Wonder1:

i'm so pleased that your casual study of the DH has led you to such a comfortable conclusion. don't mind us jews, we've only been delving into this text for 2500 years - and that's if it's only post-exilic! how about casually delving into traditional interpretation and learning a little bit about it before you so blithely dismiss it?

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...

I dismiss the tradition because it does not hold up in the pungent face of criticism and the irrefutable manuscript evidence. There's little that can be taken to remotely support Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The evidence against Mosaic authorship is simply overwhelming.

Thanks,
Eric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top