The Naked Bible

Posted By MSH on January 26, 2012

[Note: In the last post I presumed this post would be about the New Testament; I'm putting that off just a bit. For the first two posts on this topic, see here and here.]

In my last post concerning the authorship of the Pentateuch, I listed two observations that led me to propose what for me is a fundamental question. Here is a summary of those observations and the question:

1. There isn’t a single verse in the OT where the “law” references anything in the book of Genesis. For sure the patriarchal stories are known in Exodus through Deuteronomy, but they are never associated with the “law of Moses.”

2. There is no verse in the OT that (key word) unambiguously uses the phrase “law of Moses” comprehensively — i.e., referring to the five books of the Pentateuch. The same is true for other references to the law in connection with Moses.

Question: The above raises the possibility that at least some (many scholars would say “the entirety”) of the Pentateuch was written by someone other than Moses, and that the final form of the Pentateuch was referred to as the “law of Moses” mainly because so much of it (Exodus through Deuteronomy) has Moses as the central character.

In this post I want to draw your attention to some other features of the text of the Pentateuch that also suggest an author besides Moses.

If we assume Moses wrote the Pentateuch, it would be natural to assume that he would use the 1st person most of the time (e.g., “I said”).  While an author writing about history in which he participated could certainly use the 3rd person (e.g., “he said”) as self reference, it is far more natural to not do so. So, while I do not disallow the use of the 3rd person by an author as self reference, and don’t think it is an argument against Mosaic authorship per se, I would expect that to occur a minority of times in a historical narrative, and that the 1st person would predominate. This seems completely reasonable. So what do we find in the Pentateuch?

The Verbs of the Pentateuch: Grammatical Person and Number

This is the most basic search we could do for 3rd person references. The author would (normally) use the 3rd person to refer to someone other than himself doing something. Here is the search using the Andersen-Forbes syntactical database in Logos (Libronix) Bible software (the older version, 3.0):

The results are striking — 6,631 instances.

If we subtract the number of occurrences in Genesis (2,087), isolating the 3rd person verb references to only Exodus through Deuteronomy, the material covering the lifetime of Moses, we are down to 4,544.

When we search for 1st person verb forms, the results are dramatically less:  994 total 1st person verbs in the Pentateuch.

If we subtract the number of occurrences in Genesis (383), isolating the 1st person verb references to only Exodus through Deuteronomy, the material covering the lifetime of Moses, we are down to 611 occurrences of first person verbs.:

Consequently, we have the following proportions:

3rd person: 1st person verbs in all the Pentateuch: 6,631 to 994 (just under 7:1).
3rd person: 1st person verbs in Exodus-Deuteronomy: 4,544 to 611 (just over 7:1).

I think it’s reasonable to say that’s disproportional to what an author would do when writing historical narrative about events through which he lived.

We can be a little more focused, though.

Here is a search that asks for the number of instances where a 3rd person verb has Moses himself as the subject. That is, instance of where the author writes “and Moses did XYZ.”

The search informs us that there are 282 instances where Moses is the subject of a 3rd person verb in the Pentateuch — where the writer refers to Moses in the 3rd person as doing or saying something. All of them are naturally in Exodus through Deuteronomy.

Another search we can do is to look for instances where the subject of a 3rd person verb (any subject) does or says something with respect to Moses (i.e., Moses is the indirect object or the focus of address). These instances would have the writer saying something was done or said to Moses — as opposed to something being done or said “to me” (first person) if Moses was the author.

Again, it is obvious that the results will only range from Exodus through Deuteronomy. There are 187 occurrences where something is said or done to Moses (third person) — that is, where the writer saying something was done or said to Moses — as opposed to something being done or said “to me” (first person) if Moses was the author.

The Point

Now, you might be asking, “Why does Mike take the opportunity on his blog to bore people with things like grammatical person and number?” It’s pretty simple, actually. I want readers to realize four things:

1. It is reasonable to think that at least some of the Pentateuch, perhaps substantial portions of it, were written by someone other than Moses.

2. It is unreasonable to think that it’s “unbiblical” to think the above thought.

3. If we are going to discuss who wrote the text of the Pentateuch, then we ought to derive our arguments from the text of the Pentateuch.

4. The authorship of the Pentateuch is a whole lot more complex than saying, “Hey, I know this Bible verse over here that uses the phrase ‘law of Moses’ so that settles it.”

Not even close.

Stay tuned!

Technorati Tags: authorship, JEDP, Mosaic, Pentateuch, Torah

Category: Deuteronomy, Hebrew Bible, Numbers, Pentateuch | No Comments »
Tags: authorship, JEDP, Mosaic, Pentateuch, Torah

Posted By MSH on January 21, 2012

For those interested in the Talmud, here is a link to the Soncino edition translated into English in various PDF files. Some people are overly enthusiastic about the Talmudic material, but I post this anyway. The worldview of rabbinic Judaism is not to be considered synonymous with the worldview of the Bible (either testament). Sure, the rabbis have some good insights, especially into the laws, but even there they can literally just make things up. As many readers will know, my view is that one needs to understand the OT in its ANE context, then take that understanding to the Second Temple period material, and then take both of those to the NT to inform exegesis of that material. The OT isn’t informed by a Judaism that came centuries later (or by Greco-Roman paganism). Both have some value, but it is far more limited than the other contexts.

Technorati Tags: english, online, Talmud, translation

Category: Bible Study, New Testament, Research Tools | No Comments »
Tags: english, online, Talmud, translation

Posted By MSH on January 18, 2012

Readers know that my employer, Logos Bible Software, has been on the cutting edge of syntactical analysis for the Hebrew Bible and the Greek NT for a little over five years now. Recently our Greek database ninja, Rick Brannan, posted about a new pre-pub on the Logos blog that aims at finishing our project to have the entire Septuagint (LXX) analyzed syntactically. (For those unfamiliar with our pre-pub system, it’s synonymous with “huge discount”). The really great thing about it (other than the whole principle of being able to do research and searching above the word level) is that we’ll have the same (Cascadia) mark up for both the LXX and Greek NT when the LXX is done. That means being able to run searches for the same structures and syntactical features on both. One obvious result of this ability will be that researchers and Bible students will be better informed when seeking to draw exegetical conclusions in a given passage in the NT or evaluating what commentators have said about a given passage. Check it out and order it on pre-pub!

Technorati Tags: database, greek, Greek syntax, Logos, LXX, septuagint, software, syntactical, syntax

Category: Announcement, Greek NT | 2 Comments »
Tags: database, greek, Greek syntax, Logos, LXX, septuagint, software, syntactical, syntax

Posted By MSH on January 17, 2012

I received the following press release in my email today (no, I don’t recall subscribing). Another prophecy researcher who will set everything straight. He could start with the person who wrote this terrible press release (or perhaps have decided not to write it himself). It misspells the author’s name (twice) and has other grammatical and usage errors. (Granted, I make mistakes, too, since I write what I write in a hurry, or it’s only a draft –  but a press release *for a book* needs to be perfect.) Since I don’t know what astounding insights with which he’s blessing us, I can’t (yet) nominate him for the Harold Camping Bunkagesis award.  But it looks like an early possibility. I’ll just settle for grading the release (F).

Here’s the press release with my “grading notes” in blue:

(PR NewsChannel) / January 17, 2012 / ANN ARBOR, Mich./ The discussion of “end times” and Armageddon has been a prevalent topic [Should read: "have been prevalent topics" since end times and Armageddon are not the same items.] of conversation for some time. In his book “Ortho-Millennialism: Bringing Order to End-Time Chaos” (ISBN 1463773412), Reverend Gerald Haug [Note the spelling - "Haug"; this one is correct, assuming his signature is correct. It will be misspelled below, two times.] attempts to correct misconceptions that religious practices [How is a practice able to have a misconception?]  have in regards [regard] to end-time [end times, for consistency] doctrine.

Haug’s book presents a systematic way for studying the historical, literary and cultural contexts that should be understood when interpreting biblical prophecy [This is hardly novel - it's called "hermeneutics"]. His book is dissected into five sections [When you "dissect" something you take it apart without implying orderly arrangement of the parts, while suggesting minute detail; the word does not suggest the creation of large sections. Just use "divided" for clarity.] that help readers progress through the proper biblical interpretation, the background of Christ and the books of Daniel and Revelation.

Haug claims that many modern Christians are misunderstanding how the Rapturewill happen. Many think the Second Coming [The capitalization here is only appropriate to an audience that is thinking in specific terms; I guess I can let it pass.] is an Earth burning and heaven melting [these adjectival phrases need hyphenation] event. Haug wants to clear up the confusion, wrong thinking and wrong doctrine [Overuse of "wrong" and the symmetry of the nouns [two suggest mental activity, one does not] leaves something to be desired.] regarding the end times that have infiltrated ["Permeated" would be more appropriate; "infiltrate" implies sinister intelligence. He is suggesting a lack of intelligence in this "wrong" thinking.] the church throughout the past century. [Only the past century?]

Huag [author name misspelled] believes that, like ancient Jews, modern-day [use "modern"] Christians may be repeating history by expecting Jesus to set up an earthly kingdom like Caesar’s. Huag [author name misspelled again] argues that both groups have made similar mistakes when looking for signs and interpreting scripture.

Haug wants to empower and challenge believers through his book and through the Bible. He also argues the Rapture dating of Harold Camping and the false end of time speculations and predictions by many television preachers. [The preceding is the worst sentence in the release; it never tells us WHAT he argues; it's a fragment.] Haug feels [Does he provide an answer or not - or just "feel" like he does?] that he provides an answer on how modern Israel should be viewed from what he believes to be a proper biblical perspective. [Re-read this sentence and its over-qualifiers; awkward and milk-toasty. A press release should sell the reader on the book, not sound tentative.]

“Ortho-Millennialism: Bringing Order to End-Time Chaos” is available for sale online at Amazon.com and other channels.

About the Author: Reverend Gerald Haug started his collegiate studies at the age of 16, earning two degrees from Michigan State University, a master’s from the University of Michigan and his doctorate from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Haug has been employed as a computer hardware and software consultant for numerous companies including Bell Labs, IBM and EDS. During his studies, Haug underwent a search for truth, becoming at various times a Communist, Buddhist and an Existentialist. He is currently a licensed minister with the Assemblies of God with his wife and is actively teaching international students in the United States, China and Russia. [In other words, a smart guy who isn't a biblical scholar. Honestly, you really *do* learn a lot in graduate school in biblical studies. I know I did (and I had a lot to learn). But the Bible is perceived as one of those books everybody can understand or teach without rigorous training (all that book learnin'). It was written for everyone, right? I hope he wasn't the person who wrote the press release. When you give out a personal email and what looks to be a home phone number, and when you are your own media contact, that becomes quite possible. But if it was someone else, they should be fired for this mess.]

MEDIA CONTACT
Gerald Haug
Email:              ghaug@hotmail.com
Phone:             (517) 898-3912
Website:          www.orthomillennialism.com

REVIEW COPIES AND INTERVIEWS ARE AVAILABLE

Category: Announcement, Eschatology (End Times) | 16 Comments »
Tags:

Posted By MSH on January 16, 2012

In the wake of my earlier post on the Law of Moses, where Milgrom’s essay puts forth the issue of disagreements within the contents of the Torah and introduces the idea of later appliaction or adaptation of the Torah, I thought it would be good to survey where the phrase occurs — indeed, where the Hebrew word Torah occurs in the same verse as the name Moses. To that end, here is a PDF of those search results, along with very brief comments of my own — sort of initial musings about what “law” might be referred to. (The results only reflect the Old Testament since the search terms were Hebrew — before hitting the New Testament it would sure be nice to see how the OT uses the phrase).

Here are some preliminary observations / thoughts as we (still) are saddling up to the Mosaic authorship of the Torah issue.

1. There isn’t a single verse in the OT where the “law” references anything in the book of Genesis. For sure the patriarchal stories are known in Exodus through Deuteronomy, but they are never associated with the “law of Moses.”

2. There is no verse in the OT that (key word) unambiguously uses the phrase “law of Moses” comprehensively — i.e., referring to the five books of the Pentateuch. Same goes for other references to the law in connection with Moses. As you read you’ll note that there are a few that *could* speak of the Pentateuch (or Exodus through Deuteronomy, since there is nothing to link the phrase to Genesis). But it isn’t clear; just a possibility.

3. You’ll notice that several of my notes refer to the issue of the date of Deuteronomy (and, more peripherally, to the date of that book and its chronological relationship to the book of Joshua). This introduces what for me is a key issue:  Was any part (or all) of Deuteronomy post-Mosaic in its origin?  Those who hold JEDP are categorical in this regard — Deuteronomy was composed and edited during the reigns of Hezekiah and (especially) Josiah. That means the story of its discovery by Hilkiah the priest (2 Kings 22; 2 Chron 34) needs to be viewed in some respect as either fiction or “fictional license” on the part of of the writer of 2 Kings. If the book was created in its entirety after the lifetime of Moses, the story is basically fiction. If Deuteronomy was part genuine Mosaic material + part application of the Mosaic material by someone who wasn’t Moses, then “fiction” is too strong and inaccurate. I would argue that (if this is the case), whoever wrote the 2 Kings account probably knew Deuteronomy was late but wanted to make clear that the laws in it were tied to Moses (either as a historical and iconic figure or in terms of actual material written by Moses). The scribe is thus doing due diligence to make sure everyone knows that when the laws of Deuteronomy conflict with the laws of Exodus (e.g., the Passover rules), the later laws are still derivative from and consistent with the spirit of the original exodus laws.¹

4. Note that the “book of the law” that is identified with Deuteronomy does *not* contain Deut 31-34 (see the phrase used in Deut. 31:24–26).

5. The instances where “law” is referred to are, in the majority of instances, identifiable (specific passages or sections; e.g., the decalogue, or the curses in Deut 27-28). That is, the association of some law or laws with Moses is very often (nearly always might be fair) specific, not aimed at identifying whole books as the source of the reference.

I’ll let you mull all this over before we hit the New Testament in the next post. Again, by way of summary explanation, my goal in this post is singular:  to ascertain what can and cannot be said about how the OT itself uses the phrase “law of Moses,” and whether Moses is ever associated with all five books. We’re looking only at OT for now, and this is a first step.

Technorati Tags: Deuteronomy, Hilkiah, law of moses, Pentateuch

Category: Bible Study, Biblical History, Bibliology, Pentateuch | 7 Comments »
Tags: Deuteronomy, Hilkiah, law of moses, Pentateuch