Authorship of the Pentateuch and Mormon Doctrine
 

I am rereading Richard Elliott Friedman's excellent book Who Wrote the Bible (1997 edition). Friedman convincingly argues that the Five Books of Moses were "composed by combining four different source documents into one continuous history". He identifies the documents by alphabetic symbols. The document linked with the divine name Yahweh was called J. The second document referring to deity as Elohim was E; the third document (legal sections dealing with Priests) was called P. The source only found in Deuteronomy is D.

Friedman repeatedly points out that "the challenge that this investigation presents is not to the belief in the revealed or inspired character of the Bible, but to traditions about which humans actually wrote it on the parchment" (p. 244). There are still unanswered questions (e.g. the authors of J and E); however, Friedman's analysis is thorough and compelling. Based on the historical evidence, there is little doubt the Pentateuch was written by multiple authors.

The dilemma posed by this book is predictable. Friedman contradicts traditional Mormon Doctrine which implies the Pentateuch was found intact on brass plates (1 Nephi 5:10-14). I found this quote in a Maxwell Institute article written in 1995 by Sidney Sperry:

"But the Book of Mormon affirms the truth of the old Hebrew tradition that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, or the Pentateuch as we call it (1 Nephi 5:11; 2 Nephi 2:15–19; 3:4–10; Moses 1:40–41). The Nephite record (together with the book of Moses) shatters—for Latter-day Saints at least—current "critical" views regarding the date, authorship, and composition of the Pentateuch. Even the book of Deuteronomy, which many critics especially contend was written in the days of Josiah (ca. 621 BC), is of Mosaic origin, according to the Book of Mormon (see 1 Nephi 22:20–21; 3 Nephi 20:23; cf. Deuteronomy 18:15, 18–19)."

In the spirit of this forum, which I believe is intended for scholarly discussion, I am interested in your thoughts regarding this apparent contradiction between Mormon Doctrine and authentic scholarly findings supported by an abundance of empirical evidence. Lest you tend to favor a "shoot the messenger" approach, allow me to conclude with Friedman's closing statement:

"For those who hold the Bible as sacred, it can mean new possibilities of interpretation; and it can mean a new awe before the great chain of events, persons, and centuries that came together so intricately to produce an incomparable book of teachings. And for all of us who live in this civilization that the Bible played so central a part in shaping, it can be a channel to put us more in touch with people and forces that affected our world. The question, after all, is not only who wrote the Bible, but who reads it."

Actually, this isn't just Friedman "arguing." Friedman purporsts only to survey mainstream academic research and thought on this issue, supported by more than 200 years of empiricism and analysis. At least among scholars this is not really any longer an open question.

We call it the "Book of Mormon" even though it is an abridgement of multiple sources, combined with commentary by Mormon.

How is that any different than calling the Pentateuch the "Books of Moses"? Couldn't have Moses simply aggregated some of the source material that is in the Pentateuch and then the remainder of the Pentateuch was either written by him or about him? As such, they can be generically referred to as the Books of Moses since he had varying degrees of involvement with them.

There is also a timing probelm involved.

Well, you can also consider the possibility that Jewish tradition (rightly or wrongly) from Moses up to circa 600 BC held the Pentateuch as the "Books of Moses" and Nephi adheres to that oral tradition.

Does that somehow make the Book of Mormon questionable in its veracity because Nephi was not privvy to modern Biblical textual research?

Classic - "We know the Book of Mormon is true because of my emotional response, so therefore I can logically prove the Pentateuch was written by Moses."

Not to detract from your fine points, but IMO, BoM defenders have bigger fish to fry - like how 2nd Isaiah (thought to be written during the Babylonian captivity after 586) shows up in the BoM (e.g. Mosiah 14)

Not IMO, but the other side wold argue that it is evidecne of the BOM being a product of the 19th century and not of ancient origin.

Well, they could argue that, but that fact in and of itself is hardly convincing.

If you're saying that Nephi was merely continuing a long tradition of Mosaic authorship, then sure - there was no way for him to know. But it's tougher to explain if indeed Deuteronomy was written during the reign of Josiah (ca. 621) and attributed to Moses to give impetus to the reformation of Hebrew worship. Not impossible, but problematic.

Friedman contends that time and geography do not support the thought of Moses as an "aggregator". For example, the evidence suggests that the author of Deuteronomy most certainly wrote the following six books as a single continuous work, and lived during the reign of King Josiah.

Interestingly, Friedman also posits there is a very real possibility that the author of "J" may have been a woman. The "J" stories are more sympathetic to women (e.g. the story of Tamar in Genesis 38). This particular story references the wrong done and describes her plan to combat injustice and "concludes with the man in the story (Judah) acknowledging her rights".

Guess which side of that argument I favor...

Two answers:

1. Charlesworth said Mormon may have done some major editing and "Christianizing" to the text, as was often done to the OT pseudepigrapha.
2. [answer with a question] Do we have a scholarly consensus that there is a 2nd Isaiah? My OT professor, David Rolph Seely, said that scholars believed there was a 2nd Isaiah because the prophecies came true.

As for 2nd Isaiah, we have the people of Mulek:

I throw this out as a wild theory: what if 2nd Isaiah was brought over by the Mulekites? Verse 15 says they "came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah..." Does "at the time" necessarily mean simultaneously? Could it be just a rough time reference and the Mulekites actually left at a future date, with 2nd Isaiah in their possession?

Verse 16 states

How long did they journey? How far away did they journey? How long after the journey was undertaken before they came across the great waters?


Am I hitching my wagon to this theory? No, but it serves at a minimum to show that other peoples besides Lehi & Co. could and did make the journey from the Middle East to the New World and does not preclude the possibility that something like 2nd Isaiah could have made the journey after Lehi hitched his wagons.

I know Seely (but doubt he knows me) - he's a fine man and very sharp. Nevertheless, I think the consensus among Hebrew scholars is that there are indeed two authors, if not three, of the book we call Isaiah. Open the book -there is quite a difference between Isaiah 39 and Isaiah 40. Isaiah's name never occurs after ch. 39.

IMO, the best tack for an LDS apologist would be to place second Isaiah before 600 BCE, not to deny his existence altogether.

what about Charlesworth's explanation? If people can add stuff to Isaiah, why can't Mormon add stuff?

There are myriad theories that could explain 2nd Isaiah in the BoM - but they're just theories - just as unproveable as any personal spiritual witness.

Maybe Mulek's folk did take off from Babylon 40 years late (2nd Isaiah seems to have been written ca. 540 BCE). I don't begrudge you the theory. However, it seems more likely (to me) that whoever wrote the 2nd Isaiah sections of the BoM put them in much later than the mid sixth century BCE.

I understood that to be a separate consideration. Sure, why couldn't Mormon edit as he saw fit?

This, however, doesn't explain why the author of Mosiah 14 quotes "Isaiah" 53 nearly verbatim.

There are multiple theories that could explain this away - Joseph Smith just used the language he was comfortable with - another group of Hebrews came over the pond - Jesus brought 2nd Isaiah with him on his Blackberrry - whatever. In the end, they're all theories, unsubstantiated by facts. That's okay - that's what religion's for - to believe in something that contravenes natural occurrences. But those experiences - along with these types of theories - might be better suited for the other religion category.

The Documentary Hypothesis which Friedman is summarizing has its supporters, but also legitimate detractors.

Take for example an old one but legitimate one, Umberto Cassuto, who endeavors to explain away the Jawist versus Eloihist usage into distinctive types of usage.

Take for example Kitchen, a noted biblical scholar who defends the authenticity of the OT based on real good work.

I'm not stating I accept these positions, only that if we read a summary we will receive a distorted view of what the scholarship really is. For example, in NT scholarship, Q is generally acceptd but Mark Goodacre makes a convincing argument without Q.

I understand the Deutor Isaiah argument, but don't some of the Nag Hammadi findings throw into doubt the Post-Exilic nature of the Isaiah writings, creating a possibility that the existence of a unified Isaiah existed before the time we generally attribute thereto?

I don't know enough about the debate, to be honest. I do know that most consider there to be multiple authors, but - as you note - the trick would be to nail down more precisely when the writings were combined, not to argue for a single author.

The wiggle room I see is twofold.

First, a letter exists wherein the first presidency still claims much of the material was at one time compiled by Moses but that it has passed through many hands.

This acknowledgement leaves enough room for multiple authors if Moses generated an oral tradition of several aspects with details filled in my subsequent authors.

Second, finding the starting date for Deutero Isaiah, once thought easy, is becoming increasingly difficult to nail down as more transcripts are discovered which tend to show an earlier compilation of Deutero Isaiah.

I will note that I at one time held out some belief in the Seeley theory, that scholars discounted prophecies because they came true. I didn't exactly discount it for that reason but for the reason that some believed you couldn't predict the future.

In reality, scholars' opinion is more sophisticated and appealing. Why would a prophet spend a lot of time talking to a people about an event so distant it had no bearing or apparent bearing upon his people? That makes a lot of sense. If I'm a prophet I'll mostly foretell the future of near future events, not distant future.

They also critisize Isaiah by the reference to Cyrus, but it seems the name could have been a later addition, once the prophecy was fulfilled.

Once you dig into these arguments, no side has a clear victory, unless one takes a simplistic fundamentalist approach.

And I have only read one third of what you have probably read, so the "I don't know enough" is probably a diversionary poker player technique. I'm not buying it. If uninitiated me knows this stuff, I'm certain a real scholar such as yourself has a good handle on it.

Cassuto was a rabbi, Kitchen is an evangelical.

I'm not a historian, but historians posit alternative theories all the time, don't they?

Of course, but the quality of their scholarship is undisputed even if you dispute their conclusions.

I don't necessarily agree with all the tenets of Cassuto's arguments, but if you have read them, and I have, at least the English translations, they must be addressed if you want to engage in a meaningful modern discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis. If you want to remain mired in the turn of the 20th century debate then remain with the simplistic explanation of the Documentary Hypothesis.

You cannot ignore Kitchen if you wish to discuss certain archaeological and linguistic arguments as to OT historicity.

Dismissing somebody because they may have bias, may be a lawyer's parlor trick, but it's not always the best route to ensure an examination of truth or a review of scholarly work.

I agree. Religious apologists are so aften borderline fraudulent and/or hair splitting and clinging to such specious grounds that on the rare occastion when one or two of them generates quality scholarship that arguably supports orthodoxy it always surprises. FWIW Bloom is mired in the turn of the century.

Thanks for the info. Admittedly I am a neophyte regarding this topic. Do you have any titles of works by either Cassuto or Kitchen?

Cassuto wrote in the thirties and forties and later, an Italian Jewish Rabbi. If you google his name with Documentary Hypothesis, you will be able to find a link. I have it at home.

Kitchen still lives, I believe, and is a chair at one of the English universities. His work centers around verifiable names, dates, events based on archaeological discoveries and existing liturgical and nonliturgical evidences. His work is quite technical, and for the most part, difficult to read, unless one is well-versed in the technicques of archaeology.

There are others that address these others, but they are notable because their scholarship is of good quality, and in Cassuto's case helped cause scholars to relook at how the Documentary Hypothesis should be accepted.

At first, scholars fell in love with the DH, using four sources, and the splitting into almost dozens of sources. Cassuto uses rabbinic traditions and an intimate understanding of the ancient languages to arrive at a conclusion supporting the Orthodox Jewish view that Moses compiled the Pentateuch.

Here is a recent work by Kitchen that I have.

http://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Ol.../dp/0802849601

In some respects, the arguments are too technical for me to comment upon, other than to observe what they are.

Here's a blog on him.

http://biblicalstudiesorguk.blogspot...nt-in-its.html

Here is a review critisizing Kitchen for his late dating of the Exodus.

http://www.opc.org/review.html?review_id=41

Here is a review.

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2004/0100/0102

An outline of Cassuto.

http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comment...Hypothesis.htm

The book I have.

http://www.amazon.com/Documentary-Hy.../dp/9657052351

wiki article on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Cassuto

One feel no shame in citing his work in one's arguments.

I believe Cassuto addresses the issue about how scientific theories become the favorite godchildren of their originators and it requires the death of the originators before future scholars will adequately challenge them or reexamine them. We fall often beholden to our pet theories, even if the evidence around us suggests otherwise.

You know, rarely does a committee generate a lasting work of literature. Scholars have speculated for a long time that the Iliad and Shakespeare's works were written by multiple people. But the overwhelming consensus has endured that they weren't. It wouldn't suprise me if the Pentateuch was the same; one fellow or woman (Bloom believes J was a woman) just made up all the fantastic stuff at some point.