truthseekar

does anyone now were I can get some info from an encyclopedia atleast that dosn`t say moses wrote the first five books ? or did he?

this is abit of what the cathlic encyclopedia says and I`m finding it hard to find something that contradicts this from modern suases.


C. VOICE OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE
The possibility of producing a written record at the time of Moses is no longer contested. The art of writing was known long before the time of the great lawgiver, and was extensively practised both in Egypt and Babylon. As to the Israelites, Flinders Petrie infers from certain Semitic inscriptions found in 1905 on the Sinaitic peninsula, that they kept written accounts of their national history from the time of their captivity under Ramses II. The Tell-el-Amarna tablets show the language of Babylon was in a way the official language at the time of Moses, known in Western Asia, Palestine, and Egypt; the finds of Taanek have confirmed this fact. But it cannot be inferred from this that the Egyptians and Israelites employed this sacred or official language among themselves and in their religious documents (cf. Benzinger, "Hebraische Archaologie", 2nd ed

Thus far it has been shown negatively that an historic and legal document claiming to be written at the time of Moses involves no antecedent improbability of its authenticity. But the internal characteristics of the Pentateuch show also positively that the work is at least probably Mosaic. It is true that the Pentateuch contains no express declaration of its entire Mosaic authorship; but even the most exacting of critics will hardly require such testimony. It is practically lacking in all other books, whether sacred or profane. On the other hand, it has already been shown that four distinct passages of the Pentateuch are expressly ascribed to the authorship of Moses. Deut., xxxi, 24-9, is especially noted; for it knows that Moses wrote the "words of this law in a volume" and commanded it to be placed in the ark of the covenant as a testimony against the people who have been so rebellious during the lawgiver's life and will "do wickedly" after his death. Again, a number of legal sections, though not explicitly ascribed to the writing of Moses, are distinctly derived from Moses as the lawgiver. Besides, many of the Pentateuchal laws bear evidence of their origin in the desert; hence they too lay an indirect claim to Mosaic origin. What has been said of a number of Pentateuchal laws is equally true of several historical sections. These contain in the Book of Numbers, for instance, so many names and numbers that they must have been handed down in writing. Unless the critics can bring irrefutable evidence showing that in these sections we have only fiction, they must grant that these historical details were written down in contemporary documents, and not transmitted by mere oral tradition.

{This quote is taken from here.}

wat is the truth????
the truth is out there???

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'dib ]

oriecat

Here's some info:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm

Quatermass

I think the part where he writes about his own death was definately Mosaic.

Nomad

For a brief overview of the current scholarly consensus on this question, take a look at The Authorship of the Pentateuch. For a very good book on the topic, I would recommend Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman. Don't be fooled by the title of the book. Friedman only discusses authorship of the Pentateuch and history books from Joshua up to 1&2 Kings. It is a very good introduction to the questions of authorship of the OT Books however, and I recommend it very highly.

For what it is worth, I do not see any evidence that Moses wrote any of the books of the Bible. I do accept that he may well have been one of the authors of earlier sources, however, especially regarding the laws.

Nomad


[amazon clickthrough edited --MT]

[ August 30, 2001: Message edited by: turtonm ]

truthseekar

Quatermass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the part where he writes about his own death was definately Mosaic.
----------------------------------------

yea , I noticed that to.

excreationist

The answer: (according to fundies) of course!

from ChristianAnswers.net:
Also, from Answer In Genesis:
Anyway, I've read a bit of a book that was about the multiple authors theory and it is very convincing. Maybe Moses was the main person who weaved those accounts together.

Kosh

"Don't be silly! If he was dying, he
wouldn't have written 'Aaaaaauuuuugggggg',
he would have just died!"
- Monty Python

Fairfield Porter

This is an edited paper I wrote in college about this topic. Skim it if it gets too long. The footnotes and works cited are not included here.


There are reasons to believe that Moses was the author of the Law. Setting aside the internal testimony of Mosaic authorship in Scripture itself, there are other ways to vindicate the Torah. Egyptologists and archaeologists have recovered many important documents and artifacts from the ancient Near East. These studies can bear light on the biblical text, and as will be shown, this light is a positive one. The aim of the present work is to show how the record of the Ten Plagues, the structure of Deuteronomy, and a variety of Egyptian load-words bear witness to Mosaic authorship.

The Ten Plagues as a Polemic

A careful study of the confrontation between Moses and the Pharaoh reveals that the ten plagues were not just mere demonstrations of Yahweh’s power, but a direct confrontation with Egypt’s theological system. Each plague was a direct attack upon a specific deity, who’s being was integral to the Egyptian’s religious, political, and agricultural systems. "I will bring judgement on the gods of Egypt" (Exodus 12:12b). The details in this narrative allude to an author who was both an eye witness and knowledgeable in Egyptian theology. But John Van Seters claims that

"there is no mystery about the form and history of the plagues tradition. The Yahwist [J author] created it … In other words, the plagues narrative is a literary creation by the Yahwist that made use of the varied traditions of Hebrew prophecy … The plagues narrative did not exist as a specific tradition before the Yahwist’s work and is, therefore, no older than the exilic period."

Although Seters claims that there is no mystery about the form and history of the plagues tradition, a new mystery seems to have been created. How did the author from the exilic period know so much about ancient Egyptian theology? It is not altogether clear how an author, removed from this context by place and time, could have composed such a penetrating narrative. Those who affirm Mosaic authorship do not have to struggle with the same mystery that Seters does. Each plague reveals both the nature of Egyptian religious practice and the author’s first hand insight into them.

John Currid, associate professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, has studied and written on Israelite history as it is connected with that of Egypt. The following will be a summary of his work on the subject of the ten plagues, as found in his book Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament. The first plague, the plague of blood (Exod. 7:15-25), is against the Nile river, the life source of the Egyptians. The Nile had been deified by the Egyptians and was worshiped as the god, Hapi. This god was responsible for keeping Egypt alive. This god was often portrayed as a bearded man with breasts, which symbolized fertility. Hymns were sung to Hapi in hopes for its blessing.

The "Hymn to the Nile" says, "O all men who uphold the Ennead, fear ye the majesty which his son, the All-Lord has made, (by) making verdant the two banks. So it is ‘Verdant art thou!’ So it is ‘Verdant art thou!’ So it is ‘O Nile, verdant art thou, who makes man and cattle to live!" The first plague was one against the source of Egypt’s fertility, the Nile, which had been deified in spite of Yahweh’s Lordship over all there is.

The second plague, the plague of frogs (Exod. 8:1-6) is against this creature who had been worshiped by the Egyptians as a symbol of divine power. Hekhet was a main goddess in the land, who’s image was one of a woman supporting a head of a frog. As her husband, Khnum, created human bodies, she would breath life into them. By producing the multitude of frogs across Egypt, God has forcefully demonstrated his power over the imitative of Hekhet’s.

According to Currid, the third and fourth plague involve insects (Exod. 8:16-24). Regarding the third plague, the Hebrew term, kinnim, probably refers to gnats. Other suggestions include lice, vermin, or maggots. The forth plague can be regarded as involving a stinging insect, perhaps the mosquito. It is suggested that these plagues are a polemic against Kehper, the self-generated god of resurrection. He was symbolized in the flying beetle.

The fifth plague on livestock (Exod. 9:1-7) might have largely been against the Bull cults which were widely popular among Egyptians at this time. The bull symbolized fertility and potency. Apis was the most important of the sacred bulls, while others included Buchis of Hermonthis and Mneuis of Heliopolis. These bulls were the embodiment of the Egyptian gods Ptah and Re. Other deities which resembled livestock include Isis, a queen with cow horns, and Hathor with the bovine head. Livestock gave the Egyptians food, clothing and transportation. The plague of the livestock as recorded in Exodus is clearly connected with Egyptian religious practices.

The plague of boils (Exod. 9:8-12) is directed against the goddess of plagues in Egypt, Sekhmet, who also had the ability to heal those who sought her. Priests of this goddess represent one of the oldest medical fraternities in history. They were doctors and veterinary surgeons. Other gods of healing included the Theban god Amon-Re who could heal the human eye and lengthen or shorten a human life depending upon his will.

The victim of the seventh plague of hail (Exod. 9:13-35), goddess Nut, was a heavenly deity. Among the victims are Shu and Tefnut. One upheld the sky and the other ruled the phenomenon of moisture. The eighth plague (Exod. 10:1-20), the plague of locusts, attacked the god who was in charge of protecting the Egyptian people from pests, Senehem.

The plague of darkness was Amon-Re who has already been mentioned. This god was a personification of the sun, and since the sun rose and fell daily, it was associated with resurrection. But as the sun fell in the west, it was also associated with death and the underworld. There was a universal worship of this particular god. This plague prevented him from rising in the morning, thus overpowering this god before all of Egypt. The last plague (Exod. 11) was against the hierarchical authority structure in Egypt, with Pharoah himself at the top. The last plague was against him, the one who’s heart was hard.

As has been shown, the way in which God manifested his power was in a way that contradicted a specific deity’s sovereignty. From the Nile to the sun, the Egyptian theological system was directly overturned. Are such details found in the biblical text to be regarded as fiction, even when clear connections have been drawn? What has been shown in this section is that the writer of the text had a firm understanding of Egyptian theology.

The Suzerain-Vassal Treaty

The Hebrews, after having been liberated from oppressive slavery in Egypt, found themselves in need of a new order for social and religious life. Not having to bear the yoke of labor once forced upon them, the Hebrews entered into a contract with God designed to protect them from losing their hard won-autonomy. Instead of entering into a contract with another power in the ancient Near East, at Mount Sanai they became servants of Yahweh. George Mendenhall claims that the "covenant relationship itself may very well be regarded as a guarantee of freedom from every other political suzerainty." God was protecting his chosen people, But, it is these other political suzerainties made among the neighboring peoples that bear light on the issue under consideration, the issue of Mosaic authorship. Raymond Brown claims that

[o]ne of the most interesting aspects of Old Testament study over the past few decades has been that of comparing key passages in the Old Testament with the literary structure of political treaties or covenants in the ancient Near East. These agreements were frequently made between two kings, when a stronger ruler (the suzerain) agreed to provide military protection and economic resources to a threatened one (the vassal) in return for the promise of submissive loyalty. These covenants generally follow a predictable literary pattern and are of special interest when compared with the structure of Deuteronomy.

Such comparative studies in the literary structure of ancient treaties generally began with work of Mendenhall in the 1950s. What is important to examine, as Mendenhall has shown, is the form and content of these ancient texts. His work in this area has lead Clifford Wilson, the one time Director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, to claim that the "Hebrew covenants as recorded by Moses make sense only when they are seen as a unity, a unity dating back to the time of Moses. Mendenhall’s hypothesis has again demonstrated that the Book of the Covenant does not endorse the documentary hypothesis with its patchwork of strands, supposedly brought together over hundreds of years."

Mendenhall’s work compares the Israelite texts with the Hittite treaties made in the 2nd millenium. Some have argued that the Hittites were too far north for the Israelites to know about their way of making treaties, but they have not been successful. Many of the Hittite treaties were made with Syria and even one with Egypt, putting the legal form in direct proximity to Moses and the Israelites. Other objections claim the Israelites were not educated and too primitive a group to know or understand such a document form. But this is only conjecture, and not a very strong one. Moses was adopted by the Pharaoh’s daughter and educated in the Pharaoh’s court. If the biblical text is not rejected out of hand, the connection fits easily in view of Moses’ background.
The form and content of the Sanai covenant made with God, found in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua 24, do not lend themselves to theories which allegedly date their composition any later than 1200 BC. "This covenant type … cannot be proven to have survived the downfall of the great Empires of the late 2nd millenium BC. When empires arose again, notably Assyria, the structure of the covenant by which they bound their vassals is entirely different … [E]ven in Israel the older form of the covenant was no longer widely known after the united monarchy." The following is the general structure of the Hittite treaty texts according to Mendenhall.

1. Preamble: Begins with formula "thus saith…the great king, king of Hatti land…" This identifies the author of the covenant, giving his titles and attributes, as well as his genealogy. The emphasis is upon the king’s power and majesty.

2. The historical prologue: This describes the relationship between the two. Emphasis is placed upon the benevolent deeds which the Hittite king has performed for the benefit of the vassal. Rather than being a boastful and stereotyped narrative, it is a careful description of actual events. This section is the most important for historians. The vassal exchanges future obedience to specific commands for past benefits which he has received without any real right. The covenant form is thought of as a personal relationship, rather than as an objective, impersonal statement of law.

3. The stipulations: This section states in detail the obligations imposed upon the and accepted by the vassal. First, it prohibits other foreign relationships outside the Hittite Empire. Second, there is a prohibition of enmity against anything under the sovereignty of the great king. One cannot be a slave or dependent of another. Third, the vassal must answer any call to arms sent by the king. To fail to respond is a breach of covenant (cf. Judges 21:8 ff.). Fourth, the vassal must hold lasting and unlimited trust in the king. Fifth, the vassal must not give asylum to refugees. Sixth, the vassal must appear before the Hittite king one a year, probably on the occasion of annual tribute (cf. Exodus 23:17). Last, the controversies between vassals are to be submitted to the king for judgment.

4. Provision for deposit in the temple and periodic public reading: This was to familiarize the all of the people with the obligations they had to the king, as well as remind them of their warm relationship they had with him.

5. The list of gods as witnesses: Just as legal contracts were witness by a number of peoples in the community, so the gods acted as witnesses to the international covenants. This list includes deities from both the Hittite state and the vassal state, as the gods of the vassal state were to help enforce the treaty (cf. Ezekiel 17:12-21). Also, included were (deified) mountains, rivers, springs, sea, heaven and earth, the winds and the clouds (cf. Deuteronomy 32:1; Isaiah 1:2).

6. The curses and blessings formula: In case of breach, the Hittite king would use military force against the vassal. The curses listed in this section are very similar to that of Deuteronomy 28.

Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen reminds us that Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua 24 are not themselves covenant documents. Rather, they are historical documents which record the giving and renewing of the original covenant. As such, these documents are once removed. Therefore, there is a partial reconstruction in the ordering of the Hittite outline. Nevertheless, there is an undeniable correspondence between the Hittite treaty structure and the Biblical text. Specifically for our purposes, Deuteronomy will be in view.

1. Preamble: (Deuteronomy 1:1-5)
2. The historical prologue: (1:6-3:29)
3. The stipulations: (4; 5-11; 12-26)
4. Provisions for deposit in the temple and periodic public reading: (31:9; 24-26; 31:10-13)
5. The list of gods as witnesses: (31:16-30, 26; 32:1-47)
6. The curses and blessings formula: (28:1-14; 28:15-68)

The parallels between the text of Deuteronomy and the Hittite treaty structure of the 2nd millenium is hard to miss. Kitchen claims, "[t]he form of the covenant found in Exodus-Leviticus and in Deuteronomy (plus Joshua 24) is neither arbitrary nor accidental. It is a form proper to the general period of the exodus, current in the 14th/13th centuries BC, and neither earlier nor later on the total available evidence." Therefore, there is "no warrant factually to date the Sanai covenant and its two renewals any later than the time of the data to which they are most related, i.e. to the thirteenth century down to c. 1200 BC at the very latest." This of course goes against the hypothesis which places the composition of Deuteronomy somewhere between the 9th and 6th centuries BC. Along with Clifford Wilson, we might think "it is strange that writers or redactors would so easily reproduce the biblical covenant form that had fallen out of customary usage some three to six hundred years earlier." Even if the strange claim is still made, the evidence will nevertheless side with the biblical account. What has been shown in this section is (1) the book of Deuteronomy is a unity which (2) is in the form of a Hittite treaty (3) from the 2nd millenium. And all of these testify that (4) the Hebrew author must have been educated in the ways of international political treaties in that era. Whether one chooses an early or late date for the exodus, Mosaic authorship fits naturally.

Egyptian Loan Words

As has been shown, the author of the Torah was acquainted with Egyptian theology and international political treaties. Such familiarity with Egypt is also apparent in certain words found in the Torah, especially Genesis. This would be expected from an author who has participated in the exodus, but such word usage would not be expected to come from an author who did not have first hand knowledge of Egyptian life. Gleason Archer has located several words in the Torah which are of interest to us.

Archer first identifies several Egyptian names which include "On as the native name (hieroglyphic ’mnw) for Heliopolis; Pithom for Pr-;tm (The House of Atum –a god); Potiphera‘ for P;-d’-p;-R‘ (the Gift of Ra –the sun-god); Asenath for Ns-N’t (the Favorite of Neith -a goddess), Joseph’s wife; Moses for Mw-s; (Water-son) … Zaphenathpa‘neah (Gen. 41:45), which probably represents the Egyptian df;w n t;p; ‘nh –‘Nourisher of the land of the living one [Pharoah}."

Furthermore, there are Egyptian words borrowed such as "the expression ’abrek (Gen. 41:43 –translated, bow the knee) is appearently the Egyptian ’b rk (O heart, bow down!) … weights and measure, such as zeret (a span) from drt –"hand"; ’ephah (tenth of a homer) from ’pt; hin (about five quarts volume) from hnw; gome (papyrus) from Kmyt; qemah (flour) from kmhw (a type of bread); ses (fine linen) from ssr (linen); yor (Nile river) from ’trw –"river" (which becomes eioor in Coptic)."

These words do not exhaust the list. Nevertheless, the Egyptian influence on the text is abundently clear. Moses had the education and upbringing to be suited for authoring the first five books of the Bible. As has been shown in the previous sections, the author (1) was well acquainted with Egyptian theology. Furthermore, (2) the book of Deuteronomy is a unity which (3) parallels the form of Hittite vassal treaties (4) of the 2nd millenium. (5) The wording of the Pentateuch, especially in Genesis, is especially indebted to Egyptian words. All of this combined alludes to the author of the text having (6) a first rate Egyptian education sometime in the 2nd millenium BC. This evidence leads to Mosaic authorship.

[ August 30, 2001: Message edited by: Fairfield Porter ]

[ August 30, 2001: Message edited by: Fairfield Porter ]

truthseekar

I`m very quickly coming to terms with the fact that it was most likely moses that wrote the first 5 books.
not just from two exallent posts from Fairfield Porter and JohnClay but dew to many other studys on this subject over the last week.

I didn`t excpect that as I was under the impresion it was writen by jews after the exile into babylon in 450 bc but now it apears highly likely that moses was responsible for the torah.

truthseekar

quoted:Fairfield Porter
----------------------------------------
The plague of darkness was Amon-Re who has already been mentioned. This god was a personification of the sun, and since the sun rose and fell daily, it was associated with resurrection. But as the sun fell in the west, it was also associated with death and the underworld.
----------------------------------------
Fairfield Porter ,
you seem to now alot about egyptian mythology, I was wondering if you could help me with something if you can as I`ve been thinking about this alot lately to?

from my understanding ( a very limited one ) osiros was the original god of egypt and that osiros set up all of the worship of ra and isis and the rest of the eliments and when osiros was killed he was resurected and taken to the neatherworld.

I don`t now how acourate that is but my questian is , " could osiros have been a man or an alien that was left hear by his kind and he taught man of all that he new ( allthough that means he taught a bunch of lies by intruducing nature worship as gods )
???????????????????????????????????????

the reason I ask is because of this documentry I saw on the KGB files and in the 60 s thay had a project Isis that was based in Egypt (allot of archaeologists dressed as military uniform) and the things I saw concerning Egypt. blew me away.

I.e. after a tomb being reported the KGB got to it and apparently it was the tomb of the visitor and once the tomb was opened (all on old film with experts to testify to its likely authentisity) it was an alien in side. Thay believe this tomb of the visitor was osiros as Egyptian myth says he came from the stars with his kind and thay left but osiros stayed to teach all that he new. (So the doc says anyway) this body was mummified in the traditional way with salts not cloth. It was dated very early in the first dynasty.

According to the book of the dead osiros was resurrected and sent to rule over the neatherworld under the earth.

Another point was that thay x-rayed the levels of dirt under the great pyramid and found a massive chamber under the ground about 1 kilometre (or so it seemed from the x-rays thay show).not the first chamber under it,this one was far deeper and 10 times larger.

The Russian experts disided not to open this up as thay believed strongly that it would alert these aliens that were apparently in the Orion system and thay would return to occupy the earth again and some of them believed that it would open a gateway like stargate (I wonder if thay got the story from the KGB files as the governments of the world are directly involved in these aliens now and things are hotting up (do you no much about area 51 and other us air force bases and secret projects? How thay are all under ground now?

In project Isis the Russian astronomers were looking for a star system that matched the Egyptian Plato , thay couldn’t find it (as thay believed that if you put gold capstones on these 3 pyramids that thay would become a mass conductor (used for becoming a becon) as a creatin star caused a shaft of light to come down onto the sarcophagus and energise this so called machine (I wander if the underground chamber has anything to do with the machine)
So the scientists wound the clock of the stars back until thay could find something that would do this.
Thay found that 10500 BC there was the constellation of Orion that exactly matched the whole set out of the pyramids (not just the 3 big once) and the sphinx. Not just the 3 stars of orions belt but the whole area and from this apparently every point crossed the sphinx which the KGB concluded that this was the plaint of osiros

This is all according to the KGB file on project Isis in the 60`s.

do you now much about mythology because that`s what will prove or disprove this clam in my mind although it was all on tape I`m not so shore it was osiros???


[ August 30, 2001: Message edited by: truthseekar ]