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?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I found this quote in a Maxwell Institute article written in 1995 by Sidney Sperry:

[I]"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)."

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)

[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.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

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...