Judaism: Book of Exodus neither written by Moses nor dictated by him

[paarsurrey]

Your counter argument is that the use of third person, and statements which don't make sense to you prove the claim to be a lie. Then you deny the authority of the text as a whole. That's fine. You have your own document that I deny. So we're even.

All the quotes given are third person narratives; none in first person by Moses.
I never said that all the Exodus is a lie.
I never said that the third person narrative by anybody (some anonymous writer) is useless and good for nothing.
Regards

 

[rosends]

All the quotes given are third person narratives; none in first person by Moses.
I never said that all the Exodus is a lie.
I never said that the third person narrative by anybody (some anonymous writer) is useless and good for nothing.
Regards

Again, your claim is simply that because there is a particular style used, third person, the claims of the text must be a lie. That is because you think that the text written by Moses wouldn't be in third person. And if those claims by the text are a lie then the overall authority of the text is called into question. There is no compelling argument to support your position other than the passion of your belief in that position.

 

[Shad]

I'm a Stratfordian. I can't image an archaeologist turning me into a Baconian or an Oxfordian. Textual critique is based on text. There is no external evidence which counters the claims made which are internal to the text of the document which is the point of this thread.

If the story itself is fictional, which is it, then the point is irrelevant. It is no better than arguing over Tolkien and LoTR lore as history when it is known fiction. Textual critique is useless when coming from people that already accept the texts as authentic and historic only by their religion conviction. So not only do you stand in the fringe archaeology but also that of biblical scholarship.

If you think no evidence can prove a text wrong you merely stated that nothing external to your bias can prove you wrong. Thanks for clearly saying you have no standards but that of your subjective ideological whims. It would be like claiming stories of King Arthur are fact despite the complete lack of evidence for any of the stories....

Why would I quote archaeologists who have already decided that my views are false and have accepted their views as true? If I show you archaeological finds which seem to substantiate aspects of the biblical record that would have no bearing on the textual aspects of the document, would they? 4Q41 tells me nothing about its author. Finding an alphabet at Tel Zayit doesn't reveal anything about who used it.

If we are talking about history then no one assumes you are wrong. They look for evidence and follow where it leads. Unfortunately for you evidence is against your view and there is lack of evidence supporting your view. There is plenty of evidence supporting parts of the Bible but none supporting Moses or his stories involving him.


I never said to quote views which oppose your own. I said quote archaeological views which have evidence for you view. You have failed twice to produce such material instead of rely on theologians not historians or archaeologists. However, again, if the text is a fictional then the claim of Moses writing it or a discussion about is pointless if we are talking about historical facts.

Not so true. There are plenty of rabbis who argue aspects of the DH and higher criticism. And in fact, many of the sources say that science and religion are compatible and comment on each other. So rejecting them out of hand is not the best method.

All your sources were from those against such views. If you think science and religion are compatible then you are already on the fringe of not only history but science itself. This is evident for the last few centuries. Again all due to your ideology, nothing more.

I rejected your cited article since it rejected DH and takes the Torah as fact based on the "divine". This is to plainly say that the author holds a subjective standard and can not counter their own religious bias. This is enough to dismiss their views since history and archaeology already have evidence pushing theological views as unreliable nonsense.

That dismissal simply means you haven't researched their reasoning and are guessing that it is due to blind faith. That's your call but it signals a deficiency in your approach. You are fixated on archaeology and not literary analysis so you find experts who validate what you want to believe.

I have no need of researching their views when these views are not supported by both of my fields of expertise. Until they produce evidence their work only is confirmation bias of their religion, nothing more. Archaeology provides evidence when literary analysis can be made on a false basis if the story is not factual as your sources have done. Establish the story as historical fact before you even attempt to talk about who authored it.

Well, we are actually talking about a "religious debate" according to the name of this forum. But secondarily we are talking about the use of literary analysis to determine authorial authenticity. So you might want to stick to the relevant field in this thread.

Authorial authenticity of a story which is fiction undermines the whole topic. So before having this discussion one should provide evidence that the text is even reliable history before jumping into any analysis. You have failed to produce evidence from unbiased sources which do not already accept a priori conclusion as historical fact. You are talking about persuadeo-history, nothing more.

Again provide archaeological evidence since this is the only factor that will trump current theories. This is the difference between fields based on evidence and that of theology. Until you do so you can not even conclude what is fact, fiction, folklore, etc.

The text represents a "thing". Archaeology actually deals with the "thing". If you would like to discuss how and why these stories were made I am all for it. If you want to hold the view that the text represents historical fact then you must establish it is with evidence.

 

[Ingledsva]

Based on what I've read from various sources over the years, I have doubts that the writing of Torah was by Moses directly, as evidence suggests that it may have been written beginning with the 8th century forward (see this for example: NOVA | Origins of the Written Bible ). However, even though this would put it well past the time period of the Sinai Experience, there's always the possibility that what may have been written back then may have come from previous sources, oral and/or written.

Nor does it much matter, imo, who wrote it and when, because what I feel is more important is what one may do with what we have. Some will follow the Law as closely as possible, some will ignore it, but probably most will fall into an in-between bracket. IOW, like Joseph Campbell was fond of saying, "the myth became the reality" (a reminder that "myth" does not mean falsehood in this context).

I love watching the lectures, or reading the books of Joseph Campbell.

My local library has a set of his video lectures. Check your library.

*

 

[Kolibri]

On at least 2 different occasions, Jesus specifically said Moses was the writer of the Pentateuch.

(1)
"[Pharisees] said: 'Moses allowed the writing of a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her.' (Mark 10:4)

Here they are referring to Deuteronomy 24:1

"But Jesus said to them: 'Out of regard for your hardheartedness, he wrote that commandment for you." (Mark 10:5)

(2)
"In fact, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. (De 18:15) But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe me?" (John 5:46,47)

It is recorded as being accepted as fact by the Sadducees sect in the 1st Century as well.

"No the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came and asked [Jesus]: 'Teacher, Moses wrote us that if someone's brother dies and leaves a wife behind but does not leave a child, his brother should take the wife and raise up offspring for his brother.'" (Mark 12:18,19; referencing De 25:5,6 and possibly Ge 38:7,8)

This will by no means be proof to some, but it will be proof to others that Moses was literally used to write these books.

 

[Ingledsva]

On at least 2 different occasions, Jesus specifically said Moses was the writer of the Pentateuch.

(1)
"[Pharisees] said: 'Moses allowed the writing of a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her.' (Mark 10:4)

Here they are referring to Deuteronomy 24:1

"But Jesus said to them: 'Out of regard for your hardheartedness, he wrote that commandment for you." (Mark 10:5)

(2)
"In fact, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. (De 18:15) But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe me?" (John 5:46,47)

It is recorded as being accepted as fact by the Sadducees sect in the 1st Century as well.

"No the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came and asked [Jesus]: 'Teacher, Moses wrote us that if someone's brother dies and leaves a wife behind but does not leave a child, his brother should take the wife and raise up offspring for his brother.'" (Mark 12:18,19; referencing De 25:5,6 and possibly Ge 38:7,8)

This will by no means be proof to some, but it will be proof to others that Moses was literally used to write these books.

And Jesus - if he even existed - was not there to see whom wrote them, or when - they were written.

He merely quotes the texts, and claim to be the awaited Messiah by claiming Moses was talking about him.

*

 

[Desert Snake]

And Jesus - if he even existed - was not there to see whom wrote them, or when - they were written.

He merely quotes the texts, and claim to be the awaited Messiah by claiming Moses was talking about him.

*

So, according to you, fictional, and referencing fictional? Tomato tomahto?

 

[Nietzsche]

Kolibri likes how Popcorn used 3rd person style!

Is anyone convinced that an imposter wrote post #76?

Pftahahaha.

 

[Ingledsva]

And Jesus - if he even existed - was not there to see whom wrote them, or when - they were written.

He merely quotes the texts, and claim to be the awaited Messiah by claiming Moses was talking about him.

So, according to you, fictional, and referencing fictional? Tomato tomahto?

We are discussing what the texts say.

It is logical for me to answer with - If he even existed; - and as per the text - he is just quoting what he has been taught all his life, - and with the Moses quote - claiming to be the awaited Messiah.

The story is very obviously written by people after his death - if he even existed.

*

 

[Kolibri]

We are discussing what the texts say.

It is logical for me to answer with - If he even existed; - and as per the text - he is just quoting what he has been taught all his life, - and with the Moses quote - claiming to be the awaited Messiah.

The story is very obviously written by people after his death - if he even existed.

*

If he did existed, and his words are to be trusted, Jesus was around to see the truth of the matter. He claimed to be much older than his human years.

"Then the Jews said to him: 'You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them: 'Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.'
- John 8:56,57

"I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was."
- John 17:4,5

 

[rosends]

If the story itself is fictional, which is it, then the point is irrelevant. It is no better than arguing over Tolkien and LoTR lore as history when it is known fiction. Textual critique is useless when coming from people that already accept the texts as authentic and historic only by their religion conviction. So not only do you stand in the fringe archaeology but also that of biblical scholarship.

Authorship has nothing to do with if a text is fictional or not. I'm not sure why you would think that. Biblical scholarship exists on many levels (high and low being only one basic one). And the question of the authorship is central, regardless of any belief system. Textual evaluation of a text (any text) is a vital tool in assessing authenticity and provenance. Your reliance on archaeology simply reveals a horrible deficiency in your understanding of how one evaluates a text.

If you think no evidence can prove a text wrong you merely stated that nothing external to your bias can prove you wrong. Thanks for clearly saying you have no standards but that of your subjective ideological whims. It would be like claiming stories of King Arthur are fact despite the complete lack of evidence for any of the stories....

If you think that's what I said then you demonstrate an inability to read. I said that I can't imagine an archaeologist turning me into anything other than a Stradfordian. Unless that archaeologist turned up a signed document in Shakespeare's hand which attested to his not being the author, no relic is going to prove that the bard wasn't the bard. Can you cite some archaeology which would counter that? If you look, the argument over authorship of the texts in S-on-A is usually fixated on internal evidence, followed by assumptions about the authors and the historical pieces surrounding them.

Unfortunately for you evidence is against your view and there is lack of evidence supporting your view. There is plenty of evidence supporting parts of the Bible but none supporting Moses or his stories involving him.

Then you are arguing up the wrong tree. This is about the claim that textual evidence can show that a certain person was not the author. That was the ground rule of the OP. If you want to argue whether the entire set of events as retold in the bible are fallacious, feel free to do so. It just isn't germane here.

I never said to quote views which oppose your own. I said quote archaeological views which have evidence for you view. You have failed twice to produce such material instead of rely on theologians not historians or archaeologists. However, again, if the text is a fictional then the claim of Moses writing it or a discussion about is pointless if we are talking about historical facts.

Actually, I am relying on textual scholars because that's what this thread is about. Your archaeological fixation is ridiculously out of place.

All your sources were from those against such views. If you think science and religion are compatible then you are already on the fringe of not only history but science itself. This is evident for the last few centuries. Again all due to your ideology, nothing more.

Yes, my ideology and that of scientists and religious leaders who have demonstrated that they are not in conflict. You dismiss their science not because you find fault in it but because you dismiss them as a resource. That's fine with me. It just isn't relevant.

I rejected your cited article since it rejected DH and takes the Torah as fact based on the "divine".

So you reject anything that rejects the DH without reading it. OK. That seems like a reasonable way to test your beliefs.

I have no need of researching their views when these views are not supported by both of my fields of expertise. Until they produce evidence their work only is confirmation bias of their religion, nothing more. Archaeology provides evidence when literary analysis can be made on a false basis if the story is not factual as your sources have done. Establish the story as historical fact before you even attempt to talk about who authored it.

Archaeology provides bits of information from which conclusions have to be drawn. You feel free to draw the conclusions you want. I'm talking about textual criticism which is a field I am a bit more familiar with and archaeology is rejected because it is not supported by my field of expertise. I'm surprised that you can't see beyond your own biases when you are making blanket statements from within the cocoon of your beliefs while you accuse me of doing the same.

Authorial authenticity of a story which is fiction undermines the whole topic. So before having this discussion one should provide evidence that the text is even reliable history before jumping into any analysis. You have failed to produce evidence from unbiased sources which do not already accept a priori conclusion as historical fact. You are talking about persuadeo-history, nothing more.

Again, I don't know why you think that. Arguing who wrote something doesn't depend on the nature of what was written. You have failed to produce any textual evidence to support a claim that is based in the statements made about the particular text.

Again provide archaeological evidence since this is the only factor that will trump current theories. This is the difference between fields based on evidence and that of theology. Until you do so you can not even conclude what is fact, fiction, folklore, etc.

You say archaeology is the ONLY factor. That shows your bias. Bias isn't always bad it just has to be accepted as existing. The fact is the text exists. The claim is that the author is a person. The method of proof provided in the OP on this thread was textual. Jumping to whether that individual ever existed is not within the scope of this. You keep missing that.

The text represents a "thing". Archaeology actually deals with the "thing". If you would like to discuss how and why these stories were made I am all for it. If you want to hold the view that the text represents historical fact then you must establish it is with evidence.

I am not claiming that the text represents historical fact. I never claimed that. I don't actually believe that so I wouldn't have said it. I am claiming that the textual claim that a claim to authorship is invalid as evidenced by a certain reading of the words is flawed.

 

[rosends]

and BTW @Shad, you can feel free to review the work done by the IAA, by Mazar or whoever. They might be trying to prove the factual nature of the biblical texts. That's not what I am doing here.

 

[Desert Snake]

We are discussing what the texts say.

It is logical for me to answer with - If he even existed; - and as per the text - he is just quoting what he has been taught all his life, - and with the Moses quote - claiming to be the awaited Messiah.

The story is very obviously written by people after his death - if he even existed.

*

I don't know what point you were trying to make, is what i'm saying.

 

[paarsurrey]

Again, your claim is simply that because there is a particular style used, third person, the claims of the text must be a lie. That is because you think that the text written by Moses wouldn't be in third person. And if those claims by the text are a lie then the overall authority of the text is called into question. There is no compelling argument to support your position other than the passion of your belief in that position.

I didn't say it is all lies.
The narrator/s, scribe/s and clergy had been adding/deducting to the "anonymous narratives" ; so it is not in its original form.
Regards

 

[rosends]

I didn't say it is all lies.
The narrator/s, scribe/s and clergy had been adding/deducting to the "anonymous narratives" ; so it is not in its original form.
Regards

If you say that the text cannot be trusted and that what it says in its own text is not accurate then you have said that, well, the text cannot be trusted.

 

[Kolibri]

I didn't say it is all lies.
The narrator/s, scribe/s and clergy had been adding/deducting to the "anonymous narratives" ; so it is not in its original form.
Regards

If the original documents have been obscured to the point where we can't determine what was there and what wasn't, then Daniel 12:4 and all foretelling prophesy becomes useless.

"As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, (or "examine it [that is, the book] thoroughly.") and the true knowledge will become abundant."

 

[Ingledsva]

If he did existed, and his words are to be trusted, Jesus was around to see the truth of the matter. He claimed to be much older than his human years.

"Then the Jews said to him: 'You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them: 'Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.'
- John 8:56,57

"I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was."
- John 17:4,5

Not actually. He is not claiming to be old.

He is claiming to be the one God ordained as the Messiah long before, and mentioned by the Moses text.

They awaited him for a long time - and he still wouldn't be God.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't know what point you were trying to make, is what i'm saying.

He was a Jew - he grew up with the Jewish texts.

He knew the Moses text makes a prophecy about the Messiah.

And he claimed to be that Messiah - apparently.

Apparently - because all of the Christian texts were written by other people long after he was dead, if he even existed.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Here is a short, one page long, piece on the supposed Moses texts.

If this isn't enough - go to a REAL page dealing with this - a modern Jewish or other Scholar's work, not a religious page.

"Biblical scholars analyzing the different sections of Genesis now think that at least three textual traditions operate in the work. Based on the language, linguistic studies, the anthropomorphism, and the folkloric qualities, the section from Genesis 2:4-3:3 is thought to be actually the oldest textual tradition. Paleography and linguistics would date this section to about 799-700 BCE and locate its dialect in the northern kingdom of Israel around Ephraim. Scholars refer to this text as part of the the "E Text" or the Elohist Text because this tradition uses Elohim as the name of God. ..."

"The final editing--and the addition of the P Text (Priestly Text) material--occurred during or soon after the Babylonian exile (597 and 587/586 BCE)."

Texts of Genesis: J, E, and P

*

 

[Shad]

Authorship has nothing to do with if a text is fictional or not. I'm not sure why you would think that. Biblical scholarship exists on many levels (high and low being only one basic one). And the question of the authorship is central, regardless of any belief system. Textual evaluation of a text (any text) is a vital tool in assessing authenticity and provenance. Your reliance on archaeology simply reveals a horrible deficiency in your understanding of how one evaluates a text.

So the whole point of the thread is irrelevant by this statement alone. After all the Op is about who authored it. If the author is a fictional character, which Moses is, then any conclusion that makes this claims is nonsensical.

Reliance on a field which provide evidence is a strength. Relying on a text as history without external evidence is the flaw of all fundamentals that reject academia for the sake of their belief system. This how we develop factual knowledge rather than relying on primitive folklore for history. It is why fundamentalist like yourself have been relegated to the fringes while being the joke of academia

If you think that's what I said then you demonstrate an inability to read. I said that I can't imagine an archaeologist turning me into anything other than a Stradfordian. Unless that archaeologist turned up a signed document in Shakespeare's hand which attested to his not being the author, no relic is going to prove that the bard wasn't the bard. Can you cite some archaeology which would counter that? If you look, the argument over authorship of the texts in S-on-A is usually fixated on internal evidence, followed by assumptions about the authors and the historical pieces surrounding them.

Archaeology has evidence that the story is fictional as the events never happened. There is no need for a text made by Moses saying he never made the text when Moses is a myth. Your standards are nonsensical and illogical.

You assumptions are your issues hence why I pointed out the nonsensical priori, which is unsound, is a horrible basis for history.

Then you are arguing up the wrong tree. This is about the claim that textual evidence can show that a certain person was not the author. That was the ground rule of the OP. If you want to argue whether the entire set of events as retold in the bible are fallacious, feel free to do so. It just isn't germane here.

There is no such ground rule in the OP. Also my argument follows the OP as the stories is a mythical foundation charter written by scribes to give legitimacy to a group of people that in reality had none. So one was constructed for them for cultural and theological purposes.

Actually, I am relying on textual scholars because that's what this thread is about. Your archaeological fixation is ridiculously out of place.

Archaeology is very relevant since it is history. History which has evidence that the story is a construct. My fixation is on evidence based history not textual history which can not even prove itself to be historical.

Yes, my ideology and that of scientists and religious leaders who have demonstrated that they are not in conflict. You dismiss their science not because you find fault in it but because you dismiss them as a resource. That's fine with me. It just isn't relevant.

Such as whom?

So you reject anything that rejects the DH without reading it. OK. That seems like a reasonable way to test your beliefs.

No I reject it since none of these views have passed peer-review in the wider Biblical scholarship community. Hence it is a fringe view only endorsed by religious ideologies

Archaeology provides bits of information from which conclusions have to be drawn. You feel free to draw the conclusions you want. I'm talking about textual criticism which is a field I am a bit more familiar with and archaeology is rejected because it is not supported by my field of expertise. I'm surprised that you can't see beyond your own biases when you are making blanket statements from within the cocoon of your beliefs while you accuse me of doing the same.

Archaeology has provided more evidence than the current form of the texts used supply. Variant text, edits, recompilation, external influences such as Persia and Canaan. Heck people thought the Hittites were a myth until, /drum roll, an archaeologist found the ruins of their capital and the Karnak reliefs.

Again, I don't know why you think that. Arguing who wrote something doesn't depend on the nature of what was written. You have failed to produce any textual evidence to support a claim that is based in the statements made about the particular text.

Take a few archaeology courses. Read a few books by Beitak, Dever, Finklestein, Hoffmeier, Redford, Aren Maeir, Robert Mullins, and Avraham Faust

You say archaeology is the ONLY factor. That shows your bias. Bias isn't always bad it just has to be accepted as existing. The fact is the text exists. The claim is that the author is a person. The method of proof provided in the OP on this thread was textual. Jumping to whether that individual ever existed is not within the scope of this. You keep missing that.

It is the only factor in which one can differentiate myth from history. Much how archaeology has dismissed Romulus and Remus as fictional since none of their ancestor existed and were fictional characters as well. It is not a bias but a standard followed by biblical scholarship itself.

It is within the scope since the OP is about who wrote the text. If the authorship is a mythical character it is very relevant.... You know...the difference between fact and fiction..

I am not claiming that the text represents historical fact. I never claimed that. I don't actually believe that so I wouldn't have said it. I am claiming that the textual claim that a claim to authorship is invalid as evidenced by a certain reading of the words is flawed.

Your own sources did.... Perhaps you should check what your owns source's views are before providing links and citations.

Did you forget this comment? Opps /drum roll archaeology provides such evidence...

Again, your claim is simply that because there is a particular style used, third person, the claims of the text must be a lie. That is because you think that the text written by Moses wouldn't be in third person. And if those claims by the text are a lie then the overall authority of the text is called into question. There is no compelling argument to support your position other than the passion of your belief in that position.