Authorship of the Pentateuch and Mormon Doctrine

[Requiem]

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."

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Requiem

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.
[/I]

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.

[Indy Coug]

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

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?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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?

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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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

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.

[Indy Coug]

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

14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.
15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.

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

16 And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.

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.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

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.