More specifically, in the last post we saw where Moses was described in the Pentateuch as the subject of a 3rd masc singular verbs (“Moses did XYZ”) vs. when the 1st person singular was used, as though Moses himself was writing (“I did XYZ”). The ratio was 7:1, with the 3rd person instances far outnumbering the 1st person. The conclusion was that it is reasonable to suppose that someone other than Moses wrote some of that third person material — i.e., they are not all self-referential. Put more bluntly: Why would Moses use the third person in a self-referential way seven times more often than using the simpler first person to indicate he was the author? I think that’s not only a fair question; it’s a good one.

In this post I want to explore person and number a bit more precisely (stop yawning).

Think of the book of Acts. The book is addressed to someone named Theophilus (Acts 1:1), just as the Gospel of Luke (1:3). There is therefore virtually unanimous agreement that Luke was the author of both. However, Luke was apparently only an eyewitness for the events of the book of Acts. This conclusion derives from the fact that he was Paul’s traveling companion, as indicated by Paul’s notes in Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; and Philemon 24, as well as the author of Acts’ use of “we” when recalling events in Paul’s missionary journeys. It is this first person use that draws my attention at this point.

Under the assumption that Luke wrote Acts, one would expect there to be a number of 1st person usages in Acts 13-28, the space devoted to Paul’s ministry. If we do a search for the 1st person plural (“we: did XYZ) verb forms in Acts …

… we learn that there are roughly 82 instances in Acts 13-28 (110 overall). Here are the results. However, these 1cpl forms do not all read as though Luke is including himself in the group (e.g., the “we” may refer to conversation in another group Luke is writing about, such as Gentiles or Jews). If one looks through the search results, there are close to 50 instances where the writer uses the 1cpl verb form to include himself. (See the underlined instances in yellow highlighting). So, to put things in general terms, we have 50 good indications in sixteen chapters of Acts that are consistent with Luke as author of the book.

One wonders how many of these we might find in the Pentateuch — a much larger corpus.  I decided to look through the books of Exod-Deuteronomy, the books that encompass the lifetime of Moses — and, more specifically, the travels of Israel out of Egypt to Canaan under the leadership of Moses.  Here’s what the search looked like (I just changed the title of the book in the search range for each search):

The results are interesting. The numbers below represent the total number of occurrences of 1cpl verb forms in these four books — but remember, we’ll have to look through all of them to see which ones *specifically* show us the writer (presumably Moses in context) is including himself.

1cpl verb (total) in Exodus: 35
1cpl verb (total) in Leviticus: 3
1cpl verb (total) in Numbers: 64
1cpl verb (total) in Deuteronomy: 59

Here are the results in another PDF.  Once again I have gone through them and used yellow highlighting to mark the ones that clearly have the writer including himself in what is being written. Be advised that I exclude instances that are introduced by the THIRD person, as that reads like someone else is writing ABOUT Moses and then has Moses saying something in the first person. What we’re looking for is the kind of thing we saw in Acts with Luke — that is what we should expect from a known author’s narrative — first person and use of the first person to include himself since he was present. In other words, can we find 1st person self-references that aren’t introduced by the third person? I looked through these quickly, so if you want to make an argument for others, let me know.

Cutting to the chase, it was very difficult to find anything like we saw in Luke. It only happens when you get to Deuteronomy, and those “hits” are made somewhat questionable by Deut 1:1 (see my notes in the file).

So, I propose again — in view of the data, it seems reasonable to think that a lot of the Pentateuch was not composed by Moses. For me though (as you will see in the second PDF), there is evidence that suggests an original body of Mosaic first person narrative that was later woven into the larger book of Deuteronomy. And, as I noted at the very beginning of this series, the phrase “law of Moses” need not work only one way (as Moses being the author). The phrase seems entirely appropriate of the Pentateuch (or Exod-Deut) as meaning that the work is about Moses or intimately associated with him, so I don’t see any scriptural inconsistency in its use (only our own misuse). The fact that we moderns have misunderstood the phrase “law of Moses” does not mean it is an “errant” or illegitimate one. The problem is with our lack of precision, not the phrase.

Technorati Tags: authorship, documentary, JEDP, Mosaic, Moses, Torah

The third show is Coast to Coast AM, the world’s most-listened-to late-night talk show (close to five million listeners a night). I’m on this Thursday night. I’ve been on that show many times. It’s always fun and unpredictable. It’s also off-the-charts strange with respect to subject matter on most nights. On Coast you might here anything from a world-renowned theoretical physicist from MIT to someone who believes in a hollow earth. I’ll be trying to inject some sanity into the discussion of “ancient astronauts.” (I was hoping for a show on the recent lead codices hoax, but no dice on that yet; maybe later). If any of you follow my PaleoBabble blog, you know I’m the guy who tries to convince people there is nothing to the “mystery” of ancient alien visitation, along with believing UFOs can be found in the Bible. However, I’ve been on Coast before for topics like the Bible Code, the Jesus Tomb, the DaVinci Code, etc. We may get to those topics, along with divine council stuff, but who knows? It’s up to the host, and it’s live and unscreened (11p-2am Pacific). If you want to know what (literally) millions of people out there believe (some of whom are in your churches), tune in. And prayer is always appreciated.

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

Technorati Tags: english, online, Talmud, translation

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

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

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

The issue peripherally relates to the topic I began with my last post, Mosaic authorship of the Torah. Regardless of the answer, the question itself surfaces within the Torah — it says different things in different places about the land (something you’d think would be easy to maintain consistency on). Back to that this weekend.

Here are Bolen’s posts:

The Promised Land Does Not Include Transjordan

The Promised Land Includes Transjordan

Technorati Tags: covenant, end times, geography, Promised Land, Transjordan

It shouldn’t surprise you that my answer to the above question is “no” (to all parts). I really don’t think the two alternatives that people who ask the question present for consideration adequately represent the situation, and so, a coherent solution. I’m no fan of JEDP (I think it has serious circular-reasoning problems), but I don’t think Moses wrote all the Pentateuch either, as parts of it are demonstrably late. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

To start us off, I offer this short (only four pages) essay written by Jacob Milgrom, an expert in Jewish law (thirty years in the field, over 250 scholarly articles to his credit, along with some hefty commentaries in various books of the Torah, especially Leviticus and Numbers). Milgrom wrote this essay for the believing Jewish community as you will readily discern. Although I wouldn’t say some of the things he says in the essay, it’s a good start for introducing the fact that the question above about Mosaic authorship is a legitimate one. Most students of the Bible, especially those of the evangelical persuasion, are simply unaware that the issue isn’t “liberals versus Bible believers.” The question arises from the biblical text itself. But picking up on that requires a very close knowledge of the Old Testament text — that part of the Bible scarcely read (and quickly when it is) much less truly studied. Milgrom’s article, written for the lay person, will give you a couple clear cases in point that most readers would never spot and think about.  And they are the tip of the iceberg. The question is a real one.

So, please have a look. I’ll look forward to your comments. I’ll come back to the article in the next post and add some other material to get us started in how we need to think about this issue. Naturally, it will relate to how we think about inspiration (and perhaps inerrancy). Dig in!

Technorati Tags: authorship, documentary, JEPD, Moses, Pentateuch

Here’s the quick overview:

• I’ll be offering courses in biblical Hebrew, biblical Greek, Ugaritic, biblical theology, and Old and New Testament.
• Courses begin July 9, so you have plenty of time to register and plan. Right now students can register for either term in 2012.
• Tuition is 50% off until June 1

There are a number of new items pertaining to MEMRA for 2012. Briefly…

• The institute has a new website – very nice. Check it out! Its Moodle classroom site also has a new look.
• After feedback from students and various Naked Bible readers, I have decided to trim the course offerings, focusing on ancient languages and my own niche specialties and unique contributions. For example, the dozen or so biblical theology courses are more topic-focused (and will of course revolve around different aspects of biblical theology oriented by the divine council worldview of the biblical writers). There are several entirely new courses as well.
• There will be less reading in courses (in terms of page count) and (a lot) more video. This is one of the reasons for the July 9 start date. I basically want to have all the content on video when we start. Since I am redoing the Hebrew and Greek videos, that will be a challenge, but I think it’s obtainable.
• All vocabulary for Futato and Black will be on video. Same for grammatical forms. The videos will record me going through vocab “flashcard style” and going through paradigms with visual cues to aid memorization.  Students will also be given access to the original PowerPoint files that were used for download. I will also be doing video overviews of each chapter and all the exercises. See the new MEMRA website for samples.
• I have eliminated forums in the courses in favor of creating either Google groups for discussion or some other interactive network (I am reading about “BuddyPress” but can’t say I understand it. Google groups are quite manageable, though.
• Despite the retention of the above (some sort of discussion or Q&A element), I will also be answering student questions via audio this year. It will result in a faster turn around. I get the question, decide whether the Google group (typing) is the best way to answer, and if not, I record a verbal answer and then post the audio file inside the course web page.
• Note that I am offering Ugaritic, and actually have two years of Ugaritic in the course list. Last year the Ugaritic course fell short by a few people and was canceled. That won’t be the case this year (unless no one signs up) since I am already doing the videos for it. First year will be devoted to Schniedewind’s grammar, which is a bit unorthodox for typical language grammars, but less intense. Hebrew is recommended (it will be a help for sure), but not required. Second year will be devoted to going through Pardee and Bourdreuil’s grammar. But even in the first course we will be translating in the Baal Cycle.
• I have also added (though not offered this year) intermediate courses in Hebrew and Greek. They focus on reading and exegesis.

Other Notes:

• With the 50% discount, prices are basically the same as last year, and I aim to keep them that way.
• If you have already taken a Hebrew or Greek course, I will give you a password to the new MEMRA Moodle site so you can access and download the new videos … when the first term begins, and if you request it. Contact me by email
• Reminder:  The old MEMRA site will be taken off-line around January 15.
• The new MEMRA classroom will open shortly two weeks before the term begins. Anyone who signs up for a course will receive an email from me at that time with a guest user name and password to enter the site. Then you have two weeks to get oriented and start with anyone preliminary / warm-up reading or memorization, just like last year.
• You do not need a PayPal account to register for a course, though the payments go through PayPal.
• When 2013 rolls around I will announce a 2012 schedule. (I’ll probably do that on December 22 after the world doesn’t end).
• Please email me if you have questions, but please see the MEMRA FAQ first.

Some Requested Input

• I purchased the cool theme for the new MEMRA site, but I don’t know how to get rid of the “G” icon that appears in the URL line and in the tabs for pages. Any help in that regard would be appreciated it, but I can live with it if there is no solution.
• I have decided to ditch a donation link for the Naked Bible site. However, I am toying with the idea of offering recurring subscriptions of $5 per month. In exchange for your support of the Naked Bible, in addition to MEMRA I would hold a one hour (per month) webinar with subscribers. The focus would be research methods for biblical studies and various research tools (perhaps some hard copy, but mostly digital and internet). I’d basically introduce something along these lines each month. Still not sure about this. It costs money, and I’m no techie. I am thinking I could create a Facebook group (whatever they are called — I’ll ask my kids) to field questions while online for each webinar to cut that expense, but I have visions of seeing fifty popup questions on my screen all at once. All suggestions will be appreciated (including, “forget about it”). There is also the problem of scheduling this sort of thing relating to time zones (around the world, not just in the US/Canada).

That’s all for now. On to the Naked Bible podcast!  My goal is to have that ready Feb 1.

Technorati Tags: ancient languages, biblical studies, Biblical theology, courses, greek, hebrew, online, theology, Ugaritic