4 ms·

> most people agree that the Torah had multiple authors Source? From what I can tell, most religious people disagree with this point.

duaneb 11y ago
I have no firm source as the arguments are scattered over the last three decades. I can summarize the current viewpoints: Pro-JEPD camps point towards style analysis, dividing the pentateuch into four distinct dictions, each with their own (hypothesized) time frames. Anti-JEPD camps tend to a) pick apart style arguments (with mixed success) and b) argue for a cohesion of content. I tend to give the Pro-JEPD camps slightly more credit for their empirical approach; this is entirely my point of view. In any case, "most religious people" will argue for Moses himself writing the Torah in its entirety. AFAIK there is absolutely zero evidence for a historical Moses. In fact, the strongest evidence is put forth by the Anti-JEPD camps themselves. Contrast this to the Quran, which has cohesion of support around authorship by Muhammad (or in a religious context, transcription of the word of God via Muhammad) in its entirety; argument around authorship tend to revolve around modifications during oral propagation between Muhammad's lifetime and the earliest fragments we have (notably the Sana'a manuscript and the slightly later Uthman standardized version). There is simply not as much evidence for multiple authorship of the core text here, though not as much textual analysis has been performed here as the time period for revision is tiny compared to the bible and the torah.
- davemel37 11y ago
  > AFAIK there is absolutely zero evidence for a historical Moses. Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence. > "most religious people" will argue for Moses himself writing the Torah in its entirety It always amazes me how many people have opinions about the Torah without studying the Talmud in it's entirety. Why not defer to those Rabbis who have spent their lives studying the talmud instead of scientists who choose to ignore a massive body of research and discourse that is highly relevant.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    > Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence. I agree completely! But the claim that Moses wrote the Torah doesn't hold any water either, as you just argued, due to ZERO contemporary evidence. The same problem applies to e.g. the figure Lykourgos forming the pugnacious culture of Sparta: he's called out a few places, including Plutarch via Aristotle, but no contemporary evidence of him exists. Most likely he (Lykourgos) is a myth. > It always amazes me how many people have opinions about the Torah without studying the Talmud in it's entirety. What does the Talmud have to do with the Pentateuch authorship? I was not commenting on the authorship beyond Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus. The Talmud also wouldn't present any contemporary evidence as it dates to several centuries after the earliest Pentateuch fragments and ~1.5k years after Moses would have walked around. I'm very open to arguments that the Talmud IS relevant (it'd be pretty exciting to me, I'm a big fan), but I don't see it off hand. The Rabbis had every reason to present a coherent narrative regardless of its accuracy, and they were certainly not in a position to verify it themselves. If they did, I'd love to see how.
    - davemel37 11y ago
      >What does the Talmud have to do with the Pentateuch authorship? As someone who spent 10 years studying and only covered about 10% of the talmud, I can assure it that there is deep and complicated discourse on everything you can think of including the authorship of the Torah. There is nothing taken for granted. No one is given a free pass to "maintain a consistent narrative". There is constant dispute about every single letter written in the Torah (in fact, dispute on grammar, sentence structure, etc.. to the point that there are rules compiled for how to interpret every single word choice, letter, phrase, etc... in the Torah.) It is highly relevant and these discussions are beyond my capabilities to address fully other than to know to defer to the several dozen people alive today that are truly deep experts, or the several thousand others who at least completed the entirety of the talmud. It's simply ignorance to have an opinion on the Torahs authorship without being a talmud expert. (Too many people dismiss it because they have no idea whats actually in it!)
baldfat 11y ago
Religious people and Academic Study are two different things. Technically this is Biblical Criticism (AKA the study of authorship, origin and sources). I am one of the people who love this stuff and still religious and that isn't as common as you would think. Deut 34:5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. I think it is pretty clear someone also had their hand in writing that line and the rest that followed :) Most hyper-religious stances are relatively new. Heck their is very little literal 7 day creation support through most of the history of Jewish and Christian theology.
- davemel37 11y ago
  Deut 34:5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. http://ohr.edu/3201 http://ohr.edu/3201 It is a talmudic discussion about this question. The talmud literally covers every question people have, yet they dismiss the opinions of those who spend their lives studying the Talmud... and instead rely on lack of evidence...without actually studying the discourse around these issues.
davemel37 11y ago
I stand corrected, it is a talmudic argument. http://ohr.edu/3201 http://ohr.edu/3201

duaneb 11y ago

I have no firm source as the arguments are scattered over the last three decades. I can summarize the current viewpoints: Pro-JEPD camps point towards style analysis, dividing the pentateuch into four distinct dictions, each with their own (hypothesized) time frames. Anti-JEPD camps tend to a) pick apart style arguments (with mixed success) and b) argue for a cohesion of content. I tend to give the Pro-JEPD camps slightly more credit for their empirical approach; this is entirely my point of view. In any case, "most religious people" will argue for Moses himself writing the Torah in its entirety. AFAIK there is absolutely zero evidence for a historical Moses. In fact, the strongest evidence is put forth by the Anti-JEPD camps themselves. Contrast this to the Quran, which has cohesion of support around authorship by Muhammad (or in a religious context, transcription of the word of God via Muhammad) in its entirety; argument around authorship tend to revolve around modifications during oral propagation between Muhammad's lifetime and the earliest fragments we have (notably the Sana'a manuscript and the slightly later Uthman standardized version). There is simply not as much evidence for multiple authorship of the core text here, though not as much textual analysis has been performed here as the time period for revision is tiny compared to the bible and the torah.

davemel37 11y ago
> AFAIK there is absolutely zero evidence for a historical Moses. Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence. > "most religious people" will argue for Moses himself writing the Torah in its entirety It always amazes me how many people have opinions about the Torah without studying the Talmud in it's entirety. Why not defer to those Rabbis who have spent their lives studying the talmud instead of scientists who choose to ignore a massive body of research and discourse that is highly relevant.
- duaneb 11y ago
  > Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The scientific method is good for eliminating the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence...not the lack of evidence. I agree completely! But the claim that Moses wrote the Torah doesn't hold any water either, as you just argued, due to ZERO contemporary evidence. The same problem applies to e.g. the figure Lykourgos forming the pugnacious culture of Sparta: he's called out a few places, including Plutarch via Aristotle, but no contemporary evidence of him exists. Most likely he (Lykourgos) is a myth. > It always amazes me how many people have opinions about the Torah without studying the Talmud in it's entirety. What does the Talmud have to do with the Pentateuch authorship? I was not commenting on the authorship beyond Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus. The Talmud also wouldn't present any contemporary evidence as it dates to several centuries after the earliest Pentateuch fragments and ~1.5k years after Moses would have walked around. I'm very open to arguments that the Talmud IS relevant (it'd be pretty exciting to me, I'm a big fan), but I don't see it off hand. The Rabbis had every reason to present a coherent narrative regardless of its accuracy, and they were certainly not in a position to verify it themselves. If they did, I'd love to see how.
  - davemel37 11y ago
    >What does the Talmud have to do with the Pentateuch authorship? As someone who spent 10 years studying and only covered about 10% of the talmud, I can assure it that there is deep and complicated discourse on everything you can think of including the authorship of the Torah. There is nothing taken for granted. No one is given a free pass to "maintain a consistent narrative". There is constant dispute about every single letter written in the Torah (in fact, dispute on grammar, sentence structure, etc.. to the point that there are rules compiled for how to interpret every single word choice, letter, phrase, etc... in the Torah.) It is highly relevant and these discussions are beyond my capabilities to address fully other than to know to defer to the several dozen people alive today that are truly deep experts, or the several thousand others who at least completed the entirety of the talmud. It's simply ignorance to have an opinion on the Torahs authorship without being a talmud expert. (Too many people dismiss it because they have no idea whats actually in it!)

baldfat 11y ago

Religious people and Academic Study are two different things. Technically this is Biblical Criticism (AKA the study of authorship, origin and sources). I am one of the people who love this stuff and still religious and that isn't as common as you would think. Deut 34:5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. I think it is pretty clear someone also had their hand in writing that line and the rest that followed :) Most hyper-religious stances are relatively new. Heck their is very little literal 7 day creation support through most of the history of Jewish and Christian theology.

davemel37 11y ago
Deut 34:5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. http://ohr.edu/3201 http://ohr.edu/3201 It is a talmudic discussion about this question. The talmud literally covers every question people have, yet they dismiss the opinions of those who spend their lives studying the Talmud... and instead rely on lack of evidence...without actually studying the discourse around these issues.

davemel37 11y ago

I stand corrected, it is a talmudic argument. http://ohr.edu/3201 http://ohr.edu/3201