# Authorship of the Pentateuch



## ColdSilverMoon (May 11, 2009)

I recently purchased a copy of the Reformation Study Bible, and love it. However, I was reading the intro section to the Pentateuch, and was surprised that they claim that while Moses provided the bulk of the original content, it was "updated" and "supplemented" by various editors at a later time, who also organized the content topically. They claim that all of these supplements were inspired.

This is the first time I have read Reformed scholars who claim that anyone other than Moses contributed to the Pentateuch (other than his obituary, of course, which I have always been taught was written by Joshua). Does anyone know of any good resources on the authorship/editing of the Pentateuch? Does the RSB represent the prevailing view in the Reformed community?


----------



## FenderPriest (May 11, 2009)

From Paradise to the Promised Land by Desmond T. Alexander devotes the first half of his this book to discussing the textual criticism issues of the Pentateuch.


----------



## Montanablue (May 11, 2009)

I don't have any answers for you - but I heard the same thing in my New Testament class (at a secular university). I'd also be interested to hear what the Reformed view is. 

Edit: We were only discussing the Pentateuch because a student had asked about its authorship. Since it was a NT class, the professor didn't really elaborate much, so I wasn't able to ask why scholars believed it wasn't written entirely by Moses.


----------



## chbrooking (May 11, 2009)

There are a few minor places where mosaic authorship seems problematic. For instance, Deut. 1:1 says, "these are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel *on the other side of the Jordan.* You will recall, of course that Moses never crossed. By saying "on the other side", the text is indicating a perspective from "this side"--the side Moses never saw, except from a distance. 

That said, it is impossible to prove that Moses didn't write this, the account of his humility or even his death. All inspiration is supernatural. But it is reasonable to come to the conclusion offered in your study Bible. 

I think, though, that any who would deny Mosaic authorship and still maintain inerrancy must reckon with Josh 8:32; 12:19; Luke 20:28; John 1:45; 5:46, etc. Saying the content is "essentially mosaic" probably isn't saying enough. And yet, if you are willing to grant an exception to his "obituary", then you probably won't have a problem with the handful of other minor amosaica either.


----------



## Archlute (May 11, 2009)

I have had, and have passed on from, a copy of the NKJV Reformation Study Bible for the very reason that although it has some helpful notes and essays it is also (at least in my opinion) marred by the influence/pressure of redaction criticism, and even a bit of classic higher criticism, in some of its notes.

I find the ESV study bible much better overall regarding notes and even the essays.

-----Added 5/11/2009 at 04:37:03 EST-----



chbrooking said:


> There are a few minor places where mosaic authorship seems problematic. For instance, Deut. 1:1 says, "these are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel *on the other side of the Jordan.* You will recall, of course that Moses never crossed. By saying "on the other side", the text is indicating a perspective from "this side"--the side Moses never saw, except from a distance.
> 
> That said, it is impossible to prove that Moses didn't write this, the account of his humility or even his death. All inspiration is supernatural. But it is reasonable to come to the conclusion offered in your study Bible.
> 
> I think, though, that any who would deny Mosaic authorship and still maintain inerrancy must reckon with Josh 8:32; 12:19; Luke 20:28; John 1:45; 5:46, etc. Saying the content is "essentially mosaic" probably isn't saying enough. And yet, if you are willing to grant an exception to his "obituary", then you probably won't have a problem with the handful of other minor amosaica either.



Clark, I would agree with the few passages often cited regarding editorial addition to the Pentateuch, such as what you cited, or the closing of the book as well, but from what I remember of my copy of the Reformation Study Bible it included a much broader view of redaction criticism than that with which we should be comfortable. And that not just with the Pentateuch, but other OT books as well.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 11, 2009)

You have to answer such questions as:

Who wrote the account of Moses death and burial?

Who included "glosses" referring to later place-names and such, which weren't named until Israel entered the Promised land, etc.? (e.g. Gen.27:2; 35:19; Num.32:38; cf. Dt.4:8 with 3:8-9)

Why might the Israelites in the wilderness need this explanation?
Exo 16:36 (An omer is the tenth part of an ephah.) 

These are the sort of issue that is being addressed. Moses might be responsible for all the words in the Pent., but is it absolutely necessary that he was to maintain faith in its accuracy and inspiration? I don't think so.


----------



## mossy (May 11, 2009)

They make it clear in that intro that that is not their position. They indicate that it is the position of recent scholars who do not accept the Bibles witness as to authorship. They state right before the paragraph you are referring to that Moses is the author. 

Terry


----------



## DMcFadden (May 11, 2009)

The *Reformation Study Bible* seems to have a fairly decent defense of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.



> These various headings *underscore the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and its binding authority*. That is, Israel’s divine King caused His commands to be written down through Moses (c. 1400 b.c.).
> 
> *Besides these titles indicating Moses’ authorship, Jesus said, “Moses … wrote about Me” (John 5:46), *and He explained to His disciples on the road to Emmaus what the Scriptures said about Him “beginning at Moses” (Luke 24:27). The Pentateuch itself tells of Moses’ decisive contribution to it: he wrote the great legal code, the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:3–7), and the exposition of the law recorded in Deuteronomy (Deut. 31:24–26).
> 
> Luder G. Whitlock, R. C. Sproul, Bruce K. Waltke and Moisš Silva, Reformation Study Bible, the : Bringing the Light of the Reformation to Scripture : New King James Version, Includes Index. (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1995).





> *It would be arbitrary to exclude Genesis from the New Testament testimony that Moses (fifteenth century b.c.) authored the Pentateuch. *More specifically, our Lord said that “Moses therefore gave you circumcision” (John 7:22; Acts 15:1), which is uniquely given in Gen. 17. It is not surprising that the founder of Israel’s theocracy gave this masterful foundation to the Law. Its historical narrative furnished the theological and ethical underpinnings of the Torah: Israel’s unique covenantal relationship with God (Deut. 9:5) and its singular laws (e.g., the Sabbath, 7:2 note). Moreover, since creation myths are basic to pagan religions, it is natural that Moses would have included a creation account opposing the pagan myths. This account is, in addition, foundational to the Law Moses mediated (1:1–2:3 notes).
> 
> *This Bible’s own witness to Moses’ authorship is supported by extrabiblical data. *
> 
> Luder G. Whitlock, R. C. Sproul, Bruce K. Waltke and Moisš Silva, Reformation Study Bible, the : Bringing the Light of the Reformation to Scripture : New King James Version, Includes Index. (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1995).



Since we do have evidence of non-Mosaic sections (e.g., his death, the perspective "across the river"), I thought that this was a pretty strong defense of the traditional view. Back as far as the mid 70s, my seminary profs at an "evangelical" seminary argued that the Pentateuch was "Mosaic" only in that it was a "mosaic" of bits and pieces cobbled together in the 7th century. I like the *Reformaton Study Bible *going against the grain of so much modern scholarship.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (May 11, 2009)

mossy said:


> They make it clear in that intro that that is not their position. They indicate that it is the position of recent scholars who do not accept the Bibles witness as to authorship. They state right before the paragraph you are referring to that Moses is the author.
> 
> Terry



No, that's not what they're saying, Terry. They refute the idea that the Pentateuch was written in equal parts by multiple authors, but they say explicitly that Moses' original writings were arranged and edited years later.

On the intro to Genesis they say this:



> Like the remainder of the Pentateuch, Moses gave the book its essential substance and later editors supplemented it, all by the Holy Spirit's inspiration. It would be arbitrary to exclude Genesis from the New Testament testimony that Moses (fifth century B.C.) authored the Pentateuch.



I'm not arguing one way or another, since I haven't really investigated this at all. I have always been taught that Moses was the sole author of the Pentateuch, and was somewhat surprised by this intro in the RSB (ESV version, by the way). As Pastor Buchanan said, these sort of minor updates wouldn't seem to harm the inspiration or accuracy of the original documents.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (May 12, 2009)

> These are the sort of issue that is being addressed. Moses might be responsible for all the words in the Pent., but is it absolutely necessary that he was to maintain faith in its accuracy and inspiration? I don't think so.





I don't understand why we have to pin ourselves in the corner on issues like this. Is it really that big of a deal if there was an editior. Paul used an amanuensis to write Romans. If God used someone to finish up and add editorial note, then that is what he did. Moses was still the author.


----------

