A couple of posts ago I talked about the account of creation in Genesis 1 (with respect to the first two verses, the creation of the “heavens and the earth” and the “Spirit of God” hovering over the water). One question I repeatedly get asked by blog readers is what we can say about the author of that creation account and of the Pentateuch (or the “Torah”; the first five books of the Old Testament — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). It’s been years since I’ve talked about it on the blog.
Historically, it was always said (as it is still often said by avid Bible readers today) that these books were written by Moses, the great leader of the Israelites in the 13th century BCE, and main figure of all the books of the Pentateuch, except Genesis (the story of his birth is given at the opening of Exodus, and much of the rest of the Pentateuch is about him). But scholars came to doubt it. That’s what these posts will be about. Why doubt such a solid tradition of authorship?
Here’s how I begin answering the question in my textbook, The Bible: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
******************************
Periodically over the course of history, during the Middle Ages, there were readers, students, and scholars of the Torah who raised significant questions about whether Moses did, or could have, written these five books. The questions increased among European scholars during the seventeenth century; the questions came to be raised systematically in the eighteenth century; and they came to a head in the nineteenth century, when an entirely different view of authorship came be expressed and popularized, so much so that it now dominates scholarship. This is the view that no one person was
The rest of this post is available to members of the blog. So if you’re not a member, why not join? It doesn’t cost much and gives tons. And every dime raised goes to charity. Everyone wins! Click here for membership options
I think we’re fairly certain that Jericho wasn’t inhabited at the time. People must have seen the ruins and made up a story about it.
I suspect traditionalists might have countered with arguments such as Julius Caesar wrote in the third person and someone else could have added the verses in Deuteronomy about Moses death. But the various anachronisms cited by Dr Ehrman are far more difficult to explain away.
I don’t believe Julius Caesar recorded his death and its aftermath. 🙂
I don’t believe Julius Caesar recorded his death and its aftermath. 🙂
Yes, Bart. And Baruch Spinoza, a child prodigy being groomed as a Rabbi in 17c Amsterdam got excommunicated (and cursed forever) for noticing these points — which just goes to show how dangerous literalism is in worship communities. His life story is well-told by Rebecca Goldstein, in her book, Betraying Spinoza. (She grew up as an Orthodox Jew, before departing, and becoming a professor of philosophy, now at Princeton.)
YEs, I know her. TErrific scholar and novelist.
I think the doublets are a dead give away of multiple authors. Gen. 15:5 Abraham is promised many descendants, and in Gen. 17:2 the promise is needlessly repeated. I guess my question is what is the scholarly consensus of Documentary Theory based on the Graf-Wellhausen analysis? Are these mutually exclusive writings, completely independent of one another, or a continual stream of literature representing a pattern of progressive interpretation of traditions and history
Is there even any reason to believe that a Moses actually existed? Is Moses nothing but a folk hero, like Paul Bunyan?
My view is that he’s a folk hero. THe only evidence is the biblical accounts, and they were written many centuries after he allegedly lived.
How do mainstream scholars today view the Documentary Hypothesis?
As completely right in essence but as way too simplified. THe situation is actually much more complicated. But the idea that there are sources behind these accounts is held by almost everyone (every critical scholar — not fundamentalists/conservative evangelicals.)
Do you think much of the law was written later and inserted into the Pentateuch to give it Moses’ authority? When I read the history books of the OT the Israelites don’t seem to know or follow much of the Law. Where are the high priests? How do David and Solomon get away with offering sacrifices instead of the priests? And so on. So it really seems to me that much of the Law was a later development but attributed to Moses to give it authority, much like New Testament pseudepigrapha written in Paul’s name.
I think the laws developed over time, came to be codified, were attributed to a great authority figure, were added to all sorts of narratives about the figure and his predecessors the patriarchs, and came down in various sources that were then made the Torah. And yup, lots of inconsistencies internally.
Do we have any sense of how far back the religious thinking in the Pentateuch goes? You mentioned 13th century BCE Moses. Any chance that the religious ideas of that century made into Pentateuch or does it reflect the time at which it was written?
I very much doubt it. THe rather generous dating of the earliest source puts it about 300 years after Moses allegedly lived, and lots of scholars think it was nowhere near that early.
Here’s another piece of evidence: Outside of the Torah itself and the book of Joshua, there are very very few references to Moses or to “Torah” – a word which can meaning “teaching” in general.
On those last verses describing the death of Moses, the rabbinic story is that Moses wrote those verses as God dictated them to him, with tears streaming down his face.
Excited for posts on this topic. Joel Baden has been doing a daily Twitter commentary through the Pentateuch for almost a year now so these will be fun to read in tanedem!
Do we know if certain ancient Jews/Israelites understood the creation story, Noah, etc. as myths or as history, i.e. events that actually happened in the past?
THe only sources that refer to it appear to take it as something that actually happened.
Was Moses mythical or did he really exist?
Depends whom you ask, of course; but since you’re asking me, I think he’s legendary, not an actual historical figure. Or if there *wsa* some kind of historical figure behind his stories, the figure was nothing like what you find in the stories.
Moses was probably legendary figure, I’ve always understood Abraham to be based on a probable real person. Although not exactly what we read about.
I agree with Dr. Ehrman, if there is a real person “behind” Moses the figure was nothing like what you find in the stories. My take? Pharaoh Ahmoses I, who expelled the Hyksos, was probably recast as Moses. The proof? Moses’ Israelites burn Jericho after its walls collapse. Kenyon found the collapsed wall and burned city and attributed the event to Ahmoses I and his Egyptians in hot pursuit of the Hyksos. Moses’ Israelites set out to conquer Canaan, and so too, does Ahmoses I. Israel worships the Golden Calf at Mt. Sinai, at Serabit el Khadim Asiatic devotees of Hat-Hor (an Egyptian cow-goddess and patroness of miners), honor her with naked, drunken, song and dance, like Israel. Ahmoses I cartouche is in Hat-Hor’s Temple. Nearby is Jebels Ghorabi and Saniya, Horeb and Sinai? Shattered tables of stone exist with Proto-Sinaitic writing AT THE FOOT of nearby mounts, near mining tunnels (Moses’ Shattered Ten Commandments AT THE FOOT OF MT. SINAI?). EL is the god invoked by Asiatics, God is called EL in the Mt. Sinai account. Dr. Eric K. Hoffmeir has 600+ years elapsing from the Exodus to Solomon’s Temple, aligning it with Hyksos Egypt.
Perhaps you’re coming to this, but would you recommend Friedman’s “Who Wrote the Bible” or Kugel’s “How to Read the Bible” for their discussions on OT authorship?
I wasn’t, but I will now. I recommend both highly. ANd also Finkelstein and Silverstein The Bible Unearthed
To me the clearest indication of the author being later than Moses is Gen. 12:6 (and 13:7): “At that time the Canaanites were in the land.” In Moses’ time, the Canaanites “are” in the land, not “were”. This would have been techically true after Joshua’s invasions at the earliest, and even then not really true as the Canaanites persisted among the Israelites for centuries according to various Bible passages.
What authority or situation allows followers of the 10 Commandments to ignore the many hundreds of other commandments or laws given to Moses?
Usually the authority of their preacher who says so….. (And they don’t follow the 10 commandments either, as a rule, since they don’t believe it is important to observe the Sabbath!)
So instead of seeing the Pentateuch as Mosaic, we should view it as a mosaic.
Hey that’s not bad….
Hahaha
What was the traditional reasoning of dating J to the 10th C, and E to the 8th (or so, and in the north)?
Israel Finkelstein really takes issue with this traditional dating… he leans toward all of it coming from the 8th C, J/E at least. His argument is based more on his estimation of their abilities to have a scribal class in… they don’t have one until like the early 8th in the north, and late 8th in the south. How do you see it? 😊
I probably lean more toward Finkelstein, but I’m not enough of an expert to say. J is seen as having courtly influence from the ealry monarchy, E from northern traditions after the kingdom was split, etc….
I don’t think the presence of the account of Moses’ death by itself rules out his authorship of the rest of the Pentateuch. It could be that he wrote everything but his obituary, and that that was added by a later editor. I’m not saying that happened, or that Moses existed.
Yes, this is the view that fundamentalists have long had (I had it once). But when you read the text itself, there is nothing to suggest that the ending is an addition by a later editor. (Any more than the rather humorously ironic claim in Numbers that Moses was the most humble man ever to have lived — as written by Moses?! — was added by a different editor… My view is that these are simply attempts to reconcile the text with views that people have coming into the text, not views that arise *from* the text itself.
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
My question is the following. In Luke’s Acts, when Paul meets with the Pillars of the Nazarene community for the last time they say to him we have heard from our brothers who are believers in Jesus and zealous for the Laws of Mosesthat you are telling Jews in the Greek world not to follow the Laws of Moses and not to keep their customs ie you are not being a Jew. But, then in the next paragraph they send him to the Temple to show the Brothers that he is a Jew and a follower of the Laws of Moses.
Any idea of what happened between these two paragraphs. Did the Pillars not beleive there Brother or did Paul say that he was a Follower of the Law and repent of his teachings
THey have *heard* that Paul is not fully committed to keeping the requirements of Judaism or told others to do so, and they want him to demonstrate publicly that in fact he is indeed committed to Judaism in every way; and so ask him to take the Nazirite vow.
Does your book you are quoting from cover only the Hebrew bible?
No, it is both OT and NT: The Bible: A Historical and LIterary Introduction.
Thanks.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Which version of the Bible is the most “neutral” or least controversial to cite? I lean towards KJV because of its age and popularity but I’m told that NIV is better. I want to cite certain passages and not have the version be a distraction.
The KJV would be a distraction because it’s language is so dated now and scholarship has advanced significantly, to the point that it’s the BEST translation as a LITERARY CLASSIC but one of the worst for serious study. The NIV is the most popular one, but in my view has a needlessly evangelical slant (some verses are mistranslated so as to avoid contradictions with other passages). My preference is the NRSVue. It’s the one most critical scholars prefer, I believe. But if you’re writing for an evangelical crowd, the NIV would probably be better.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I haven’t seen any analysis by you on Gen. 1:29, et al., and the fate of nonhuman animals.
It seems to me that the Jews and earlier cultures had a conscience about the treatment of animals but still wanted to use them for labor, food, etc. Their conscience made kind references to them, such as Gen. 1:29, but for their own practical or selfish reasons, they justified disobeying their conscience, such as Gen. 9:3.
I’d enjoy reading your thoughts on the subject.
Within the scope of the biblical narrative humans were first given just plants to eat; but after the flood, animals were allowed. After Moses, only *some* animals were allowed…
What is a fair interpretation of Gen. 9:3 then?
I have interpreted it this way: Biblegod says “eat only plants, but humans are sinners and need a break, so while I am immutable and you should not eat animals, I give you permission because you are weak.”
Others interpret it this way: Biblegod says “eat only plants, but I feel bad for killing so many of you so you can eat animals now. And, by the way, their burned flesh smells good.”
Is my interpretation sound? I mean, why would an immutable god mandate eating only plants (Gen. 1:29) then reverse itself and say that their burned flesh smells good so go ahead and eat them? It seems more likely that eating them is a compromise, like, “I don’t want you to drink, so if you are going to drink, I give you permission to drink wine.”
It seems to me further that the author of this passage tried to reconcile the apparent evil of eating animals with the human habit of eating animals. The compromise was that omnibenevolent Biblegod doesn’t want us to so a compromise was reached.
I don’t think there’s any one good explanatoin; sometimes it’s thought that hte author was trying to explain why humans became omnivores (maybe on the asusmption that they wouldn’t originaly eat the creatures that God had made to “help” them and that Adam named in Genesis 2)?
Within the scope of the biblical narrative humans were first given just plants to eat; but after the flood, animals were allowed. After Moses, only *some* animals were allowed…