by jimwalton » Sun Nov 06, 2022 11:02 pm
I do not consider Moses to be a mythical figure. The Jews and Samaritans of the 5th c. BC, as confirmed by the Samaritan Pentateuch, consider that Moses was the author. This conclusion would be more than strange if Genesis weren't written until just prior to the 5th century.
The Jewish traditions of subsequent centuries regarded Moses as the author, with no competing hypothesis.
Jesus and the NT writers consider Moses to be the author of the Mosaic books.
The early Christian Church considers Moses to be the author of the Mosaic books.
Most biblical scholars until the 19th century regarded Moses as the author of the Mosaic books.
To deny Mosaic authorship rejects the perspective of all of history in the interest of a modern theory.
It is not at all unreasonable to expect that Moses, if he was the author, used many sources of oral tradition and written records to select, arrange, and edit his books, all of which could easily be attributed to the inspiration of God. It is still reasonable, even in this day and age, to assert that the principal inspired, purposeful, and creative mind behind Genesis was Moses.
Walton and Sandy, in The Lost World of Scripture, write: "That Moses is the authority whose words are represented and that he was generating documents can be readily accepted. Moses was generating information (sermons, rulings, narratives) that would be considered important enough to preserve in written documents. Some undoubtedly would have been recorded in his time and under his supervision. Others may have been produced by later generations after some time of oral transmission. It matters neither how much material is in each category nor which portions are which; the authority derives from Moses and he is inseparable from the material."
It was claimed by some that there is no extra-biblical evidence of Moses. I would ask honestly: What are you expecting? First, he was a rebellious and "disgraced" prince of Egypt. There is no reason to believe Egypt would preserve his record. Secondly, he was a shepherd in Midian. What archaeological evidence do we have to ANY shepherd in Midian from more than 3000 years ago? Third, he was the leader of a nomadic people for 40 years: no cities built. What archaeological or documentary evidence do you expect for such a person from more than 3000 years ago?
> I’m convinced personally that these stories were borrowed from cultures around them. Joel Baden has talked about this in some lectures. Also points out that there is 2 creation stories. Also 2 flood stories.
We'd have to talk more specifics than generalities. Remember that similarity doesn't mean derivation.
2 Creation stories? The writings of John Walton ("The Lost World of Genesis 1") points out clearly and convincingly that Genesis 1 and 2 don't tell two creation stories. Walton writes, "What is the relationship between what comes before this literary introduction (v. 4) and what comes after? This chapter is not synoptic (doubling back to explain what came before, which in Genesis such strategy is always concerning brothers); it’s sequel. That means chapter 2 doesn’t have to do with Day 6, but with a later time period, and that chapter 1 is not talking about Adam and Eve."
2 Flood stories? We'd have to talk about specifics.
I do not consider Moses to be a mythical figure. The Jews and Samaritans of the 5th c. BC, as confirmed by the Samaritan Pentateuch, consider that Moses was the author. This conclusion would be more than strange if Genesis weren't written until just prior to the 5th century.
The Jewish traditions of subsequent centuries regarded Moses as the author, with no competing hypothesis.
Jesus and the NT writers consider Moses to be the author of the Mosaic books.
The early Christian Church considers Moses to be the author of the Mosaic books.
Most biblical scholars until the 19th century regarded Moses as the author of the Mosaic books.
To deny Mosaic authorship rejects the perspective of all of history in the interest of a modern theory.
It is not at all unreasonable to expect that Moses, if he was the author, used many sources of oral tradition and written records to select, arrange, and edit his books, all of which could easily be attributed to the inspiration of God. It is still reasonable, even in this day and age, to assert that the principal inspired, purposeful, and creative mind behind Genesis was Moses.
Walton and Sandy, in [u]The Lost World of Scripture[/u], write: "That Moses is the authority whose words are represented and that he was generating documents can be readily accepted. Moses was generating information (sermons, rulings, narratives) that would be considered important enough to preserve in written documents. Some undoubtedly would have been recorded in his time and under his supervision. Others may have been produced by later generations after some time of oral transmission. It matters neither how much material is in each category nor which portions are which; the authority derives from Moses and he is inseparable from the material."
It was claimed by some that there is no extra-biblical evidence of Moses. I would ask honestly: What are you expecting? First, he was a rebellious and "disgraced" prince of Egypt. There is no reason to believe Egypt would preserve his record. Secondly, he was a shepherd in Midian. What archaeological evidence do we have to ANY shepherd in Midian from more than 3000 years ago? Third, he was the leader of a nomadic people for 40 years: no cities built. What archaeological or documentary evidence do you expect for such a person from more than 3000 years ago?
> I’m convinced personally that these stories were borrowed from cultures around them. Joel Baden has talked about this in some lectures. Also points out that there is 2 creation stories. Also 2 flood stories.
We'd have to talk more specifics than generalities. Remember that similarity doesn't mean derivation.
2 Creation stories? The writings of John Walton ("The Lost World of Genesis 1") points out clearly and convincingly that Genesis 1 and 2 don't tell two creation stories. Walton writes, "What is the relationship between what comes before this literary introduction (v. 4) and what comes after? This chapter is not synoptic (doubling back to explain what came before, which in Genesis such strategy is always concerning brothers); it’s sequel. That means chapter 2 doesn’t have to do with Day 6, but with a later time period, and that chapter 1 is not talking about Adam and Eve."
2 Flood stories? We'd have to talk about specifics.