Unity and Diversity of the Pentatech

[Sam Jer]

Hello, I hope this question makes sense,
Should the pentateuch be seen as a single unit, or like any other collection of 5 books (say Issiah-Daniel or Romans-Ephesians)? Is the order of the books inspired or just the individual ones? Is it better to say the pentateuch is comprised of 5 books, or that there are 5 books collectively known as the pentateuch?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Why can't it be both? With equal insistence? The parts have never (to the best of our knowledge apart from guesswork as to pre-Mosaic elements) had independent existence. They are all the product of one basic author, from one time, in the form we possess the parts and whole. The internal elements reinforce each other, and are indispensable to interpretation. You should not interpret Gen.1 without considering the context of Ex. (the historical moment when all 5 books were delivered) or Num. or the rest of Gen. This, even more than when you take in the whole-Bible context when interpreting any passage, for reasons of unity already mentioned.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Why can't it be both?

My thought exactly.

 

[arapahoepark]

I'd recommend Sailhamer on the issue. His time The Meaning of the Pentateuch dives deep on this.

 

[MW]

Possibly the Greek word "Pentateuch" allows for some misunderstanding. The canonical term "law of Moses" is much clearer. Luke 24:44, "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

This is a good introduction:

Heidegger's Bible Handbook: Old Testament in General: Outline of the Pentateuch

10. The Law of Moses, the Pentateuch. The rationale of its name explained. The Author, Moses. The order of the writing of the books of the Pentateuch. The distribution and argument of the same. The Prophets, why they are specifically called Historical, and κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν/pre-eminently Prophetical...

www.fromreformationtoreformation.com

 

[TexasPuritan]

Possibly the Greek word "Pentateuch" allows for some misunderstanding. The canonical term "law of Moses" is much clearer. Luke 24:44, "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

This is a good introduction:

Heidegger's Bible Handbook: Old Testament in General: Outline of the Pentateuch

10. The Law of Moses, the Pentateuch. The rationale of its name explained. The Author, Moses. The order of the writing of the books of the Pentateuch. The distribution and argument of the same. The Prophets, why they are specifically called Historical, and κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν/pre-eminently Prophetical...

www.fromreformationtoreformation.com

i personally see Luke 24, as also showing the three-part division of the Old Testament. But i believe the Pentateuch should be understood according to each book first then, seeing the progression of themes through each book.

 

[MW]

i personally see Luke 24, as also showing the three-part division of the Old Testament. But i believe the Pentateuch should be understood according to each book first then, seeing the progression of themes through each book.

That is fair. I tried this myself but found it difficult. Understanding Genesis as Mosaic was a help to understand the mosaic (!). Genesis slips into a place as a prologue to what follows.

As Heidegger says, "As far as the order of writing is concerned, first Moses, by the Divine commandment, recorded the principal acts of his time in registers, Exodus 17:14, and from those he composed the סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית, Book of the Covenant, including both the promises of God, and the stipulations or laws, by which the people are put in mind of their duty toward God, as it is gathered out of Exodus 24:4, 7."