Analysis of Traditions Concerning Mosaic Authorship

Analysis of Traditions Concerning arial mosaic Authorship mental hospitalThe Christian Holy news is non angiotensin-converting enzyme book, that a library of sixty six books recorded over galore(postnominal) centuries. inside its pages atomic number 18 literary genres that include Law, History, Wisdom, Poetry, Gospel, Epistles, omen, and Apocalyptic Literature. The Bible provoke be likened to other(a) belles-lettres in that it is made up of many types or kinds of language, but it goat distinguish itself from other books cognise to man, in that it claims to be a indite revelation of mans creator.1 The Bible as used in Christianity is made up of the whiztime(a) and New volitions, these ar combined and fate to compliment each other and form the endureon of the Christian church. It is the prototypal-year five-spot books of the Bible and their com status that lead be of concern to this thesis.The maiden five books of the Bible include Genesis, exodus, Numbers , Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. These volumes narrate the story of Israel from the creation of the k instanterledge domain through the period of the flood and the patriarchs, to the Exodus from Egypt, wanderings in the desert, and the giving of the jurisprudence at Sinai. The books conclude with Moses f argonwell to the masses of Israel.2 McDowell and Stewart (1980) assert that, Christianity believes and teaches that the Bible totally is the revealed word of deity, it is an anthology composed of His lyric and deeds and as a resultant role billets itself as Gods word3. McDowell emphasises that depict for this claim can be found deep cut back the Bible itself, he quotes directly from scriptures such as 2 cock 1214 and uses clauses like, And God spoke to Moses, as suggested severalize to back up the Bibles claim.5 The first five books are cognize by several pseudonyms, almost more common than others and oft dependent on the morality matchless follows. Expressions include the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses, the Torah and the Book of the Lawfor the purpose of this thesis the scriptures leave shtup be referred to as The Pentateuch.The contents of the Pentateuch can be seen as a partly historical, legal and recital portrayal the five books cover the tale of the elect people from chronicles concerning the creation of the world to the death of Moses and too en come downen us with the civil and religious legislation of the Israelites during the vitality of their great lawgiver.6 This literary grudge is besides a storya story that conveys the history of Israel. Pfeiffer (1957) describes the sexagenarian will as, the meagre surviving portion of the literature of the Israelites.7 Therefore the piece of these hightail its, the measure and fashion of their origin and historicity are of great importance the belief of photomosaic fatherhood or lack of it can affect the building blocks on which godliness itself is structured. The books a re non but of fundamental importance to matchless religion but check recognition in othersChristians put their faith in both the obsolescent and New volitions whilst Judaism holds the first five books of the Old Testament as the most important division of their Hebrew canon.8 Although Islam believes the Quran is Gods go bad word to the world it considers the Old and New testaments to also be divinely inspired.9The aim, therefore of this dissertation is to provide a amateural analysis of traditions that suffocate arial mosaic paper. It will discuss the deal from its infancy and will get rid of through, albeit briefly, three centuries, culminating in its relevance and status in the forward-looking world. This represent is not an attempt to conjure or and soce dis rebel mosaic makeup, it is however an endeavour to take a glimpse into the trash whilst attempting to record its relevance in an historical, scriptural and theological context.This work does not intend t o uncover or discover new knowledge per se, but intends to discuss contemporary contributions and hypothesis. Sources to be used and accessed will include primary and supplementary reservoirs such as the Bible, journal articles and a myriad of published work scholarly, religious and secular in temperament. A historical survey will include a review of relevant literature, some of which is dated, but hitherto relevant in placing the contestation in an historical setting. Much of the literature and indeed the hypotheses surrounding arial mosaic writing tend to remain in scholarly and academic distribution, it is inside these circles that the primary interest has remained.As we shall see, scriptural translations have been spring upn to be less than exact and it is this that provides the back set up for the keep debate. A breakthrough in authorship identity was put precedents in the eighteenth century and came to be known as the accusative Hypothesis. This hypothesis was and is however, s call for a theory of evolution not of man, but of mans recorded dealings with God.10Chapter 1Mosaic Authorship called into question diachronic SurveyHistory recognizes that there were a few problems with the handed-down view of Moses as author. Walton and Hill (2000) explain that although the early church fathers challenged the integrity and ancientness of the Mosaic Pentateuch their manners were deemed as pre- tiny. Furthermore they observe that, it was not until much afterward, that the come along of Reason spurned an era of critical study of the Bible and takeing handed-down understanding of the Old and New Testaments to be questi adeptd11 Challenges to Mosaic authorship were often explained as interlingual rendition or the introduction of additional narrative elaborate that did not appear in the text. Other expla countrys included the fact that Moses was Gods vaticinator and so was in receipt of His divine word.12 However as biblical expertise grew so di d the challenges and new answers to old questions began to emerge.As early as the el occurrenceh century, allusions and suggestions were existence tentatively voiced.13 Abraham Ibn Ezra, a twelfth century Spanish rabbi held the belief that the language used in several passages of the Pentateuch reflected another(prenominal) time and place than that of Moses, views that he was unwilling to say outright. In references to his own views of the passages he wrote, If you understand, accordingly you will recognise the accuracyAnd he who understands will keep silent.14 In the following centurys scholars such as Bonfils, Tostatus, Bishop of Avila, Andreas Van Maes and Thomas Hobbes put forward their own evaluations that questi stard the authorship of the Pentateuch. Their dislodgeings ranged from citing a few sentences, to Thomas Hobbes declaration that the absolute volume of the Pentateuch could not have been penned by Moses.15 In the seventeenth century, Deuteronomy, which reports th e death of Moses, and also describes Moses as the most humble man who ever lived16 was critically assessed by Benedict Spinoza, who concluded that, It is clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not scripted by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses.17 some(prenominal) of these scholars had attempts made on their lives, their works were placed on the Catholic magnate of Prohibited books or burned others were arrested and forced to recant their views.The history of this dispute therefore shows that many renowned writers, philosophers and historians succumbed to the enticing plethora of hypothesis concerning Mosaic authorship. Josephus, the Jewish historian, states, He (Moses) also set down in indite the form of their Government, and those lawsthe laws he ordained were such as God suggested to him.18 When look more closely at the sacred books of the Jews he further declares And of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the origins of mankind ti ll his death19 These manner of speaking echo down from centuries past, representing the view and opinion of Jewish Scholars in attributing the Pentateuch to Moses. Further along in time, Luthers translations of each of the five books of the Pentateuch are entitled a book of Moses so showing an acceptance of this belief in the historic Christian Church.20 oppose Josephus view and in contrast to Luther, the nineteenth century German critic Hartmann denied Mosaic authorship on the grounds that it was quite literally unimaginable because writing had not up to now been invented. MacDonald (1995), disagrees and asserts that, Archaeological discoveries of the past 100 eld have turn out once and for all that the art of writing was known not solitary(prenominal) during Moses day, but also long before Moses came on the scene.21 These facts do not help prove or disprove Mosaic authorship, however it does provide us with a time frame in spite of appearance which the debate became anthro pomorphized. An historic timeline in this debate is important in that it can be used as a reference point to work forwards or backwards from, fussyly as disputes over the chronological timeline concerning events from the Pentateuch remain relevant today.Genesis as the foundation of IsraelAs the first book of the Pentateuch, Genesis purpose is to tell how and why God came to exact Abrahams family and make a obligation with them. A covenant that is significant in that it is the foundation of Israelite theology and identity.22 Genesis also introduces us to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the three patriarchs of the people of Israel. The patriarchal stories depicted in Genesis are important in that they, lent expression to the fundamental importance of the family for all other forms of smart set in the period when the tribes were developing into a people and state.23 However, controversy surrounds them, many Biblical scholars and archaeologists debate well-nigh whether or not the Patriarchs actually lived. Placing the Patriarchs on an Old Testament timeline depends closely on ones dating (if any) of the Exodus event.24 Hendel (2001) believes that either kind of religious literature in the Hebrew Bible celebrates the Exodus as a foundational event it is seen as the main historical obiter dictum for the religious bond between Yahweh and Israel25 26 W. F. Albright was confident that the Exodus was an historical event and assigned a date of ca. 1297 BCE.27 In comparison the renowned microbe critic Julius Wellhausen asserted that the Pentateuch conveys no historicity for the Patriarchs but merely reflects patriarchal stories retold in later age. In contrast, Claus Westermann asserts that, Storytelling is the predecessor of all history. 28 He explains furtherStorytellers recounted what took place, what they observed, in order to care it with others. The original purpose of the stories was to allow new generations to share in the experiences and knowle dge of their ancestors.29Many biblical scholars and theologians would agree that Mosaic authorship is relevant, however for others it is seen to be irrelevant and convey a Does it really upshot? attitude. Yet there are references made inside the Bible itself that set apart the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses. These are often drawn upon in defence of Mosaic authorshipthere are about two dozen verses in the Hebrew Scriptures and one dozen in the Christian Scriptures which state or hardly imply that Moses was the author. 30Old and New Testament ScripturesThe Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is intrinsically connected to the question of Moses as the author or intermediary of Old Testament legislation.31 A Mosaic link between the Old and New Testaments can be found in spite of appearance the texts themselves. New Testament writers use references and quotes from the Old Testament just as Moses within the Old Testament prophesises of what was to comethus enable an affiliation of the Old with the New, creating a volume that merges into one complete tome. The books of the Bible can be likened to any group of books that share the same subject field they express a similarity in their subject roots and yet provide a contrast that is inherited from their author. As one writes in the contemporary world ideas and words need to have references to back them up, evidence and validation that others perhaps have considered your own words. The same could therefore be say of the New Testament writers, following the same pattern allow the different expressions of writers to be expressed.The burden of proofIf the authorship of the Pentateuch were ever to be unequivocally disproved the consequences could be devastating for the religions involved, DeHaan (1982) explains,Prove that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch and you prove that rescuer was totally mistaken and not the foolproof Son of God he claimed to be. Upon your faith in Moses as the writer of the five books attributed to him rests also your faith in Jesus as the Son of God. You cannot believe in Jesus Christ without believing what Moses wrote.32DeHaans view is made clear by this simple paradigm, however, closer inspection of the words and their implied significance opens up a chasm of queries and insinuations that require further investigation. When considering this statement one finds that the overarching subliminal message that appears within the text is the necessity of proof. Fundamentally this is a statement about the off-key relationship between Moses as author of the five books, and Jesus who within the New Testament attributes the Law to Moses. These words resound as a modern day echo of Jesus words as expound by New Testament Gospel writer John, For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words? 33 Moreover, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus makes the following statementDo n ot think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets I did not come to abolish, but to fulfil. For truly I say to you, until heaven and landed estate pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.34These words, ascribed to Jesus, show that Jesus himself acknowledges Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Furthermore He is sending out a strong message by stating that, in not believing what Moses wrote about Him, we will not believe anything He has to say each. What then is the bearing of the words talk by Jesus upon the question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch? In the New Testament Jesus references to Moses are ampleMoses commands, Moses said, Moses wroteare all used within its context by the authors of the Gospels. Stevens (1889), an early Old Testam ent authorship writer, suggests that Jesus speaks of the Pentateuch utilize popular designations of the time and was not in fact overconfident authorship.35Chapter 2 insight and the influence of Source criticismIt was not too long ago that Jews and Christians held the universal view that Moses alone wrote the Pentateuch. A dig into the history of the debate shows that although numerous attempts were made to credit or discount its composition and authorship, Mosaic authorship and its credibility remained stagnant for many years.The authorship debate first became apparent in the aftermath of what is known as the period of enlightenment. The Enlightenment is held to be the source of critical ideas and provided the cultural shimmy necessary for the emergence of a new confidence in the office staff of clement reason.36 Immanuel Kant (1784) in his essay What is Enlightenment? simply describes it as immunity to use ones own intelligence.37 Clarke (1997) describes Kants view of Enli ghtenment as the point at which a human being recognizes his or her autonomy.38 Whereas Ames (1925) depicts religion for Kant as being something a man lived and did not merely think about.39 Many scientists and religionists kindred would gladly accept such a simplification of their problems, 40 nevertheless the Enlightenment period was marked by increase empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism along with increasing questioning of religious orthodoxy.41 Questions regarding Pentateuchal authorship had led to rumblings and critical analysis by past Biblical Scholars, however it was French physician Jean Astruc who initiated modern literary or source analysis of the Old Testament.42 According to Pfeiffer (1957) when the Pentateuch was saint in 400 BCE, it was firmly believed that Moses was its author.43 He explains further that Biblical investigations and critical analysis passed through different stages here he cites Astruc (1753), Geddes (1798) and De Wette (1806) as command ment theorists. 44 The Enlightenment thus created a significant shift that resulted in the historical-critical method which suggested that we should accept as true only that which can be by trial and error proven.45 As a result by the 19th century, traditional views on Mosaic authorship had turn backd to be entertained by mainstream scholars and by the termination decades of the 19th century, a theory by Julius Wellhausen became a theoretical forerunner, with the major(ip)ity of critics coming to view his theory with accord.Julius WellhausenIn 1895 Julius Wellhausen gave an explanation of Pentateuchal origin, his hypothesis became known as the documentary or JEDP hypothesis.46 This hypothesis explains that the Pentateuch was compiled from quatern original source documentsdesignated as J, E, D, and P. These four documents supposedly were written at different measure by different authors, and eventually were compiled into the Pentateuch by a redactor (editor). The J is characteri zed by its authors use of the divine name Yahweh. Elohim is the divine name that identifies the E or Elohist document. The D, or Deuteronomist, document contained most of the book of Deuteronomy. The last incision to be written was the P, or Priestly, document, which would have contained most of the priestly laws. We are told these documents were then redacted (edited) into one work about 300 years later in 200 B.C.47Wellhausens timing was perfect, the public were open to new theories as religiosity began to be questioned textual criticism was able to find ground from which its roots could take hold and grow. Goshen-Gottstein explains, the rise of textual criticism depended on preconditions and on certain attitudes and dispositions, beyond the basic linguistic capabilities.48 Wellhausen attained his results by a faithful application of the uses of evidence he assembled relevant facts and build a reasoned construction upon them, this became the characteristic of the subsequent crit ical movement.49 Oswald T. allis (1943) explains Wellhausens method further,The slightest variations in diction, style, viewpoint or subject matter were seized upon as indicative of difference in author, date, and source. The miraculous element is viewed with suspicion and regarded either as evidence of the late date and unreliability of a narrative, or as proof that it represents a primitive and unscientific account of phenomena in which a modern writer would see only the operation of innate(p) processes.50The analysis of the written word became paramount in defining Mosaic authorship as well as adding to the longevity of the debate. Hill and Walton (2000) affirm, the numerosity and complexity of these literary forms that have been directly responsible for the ongoing debate over the composition of the Pentateuch.51 Furthermore they argue that the literature of the Pentateuch is considered to be a collection of rich and literary genres that enhance both the artistic nature and ke y theological themes that unify it.52This new modern world see the naissance of an innovative period of learning and technology this opened the door for a myriad of explanations to be proposed concerning Mosaic authorship. McDowell suggests that the very origin of modern science rests upon the truth of the scripture he goes further to explain that there is a God that created and designed an ordered universe this prompted men like northward to search for certain scientific laws to explain this order.53 It can be said then that science and the scriptures do not cancel each other out they simply look at the world from different persuasions, but are not finally contradictory.54Merrill Unger expresses concern about rejecting Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch in favour of the Documentary theory he suggests that buttoned-up lore should realise anew the essential unsoundness of critical hypothesis and cease trying to reconcile its potent unbelief with the tenets of historic evangel ical Christianity and conservative Judaism55 William Henry Green (1895) disagrees with this hypothesis and claims that the books of the bible have nothing to fear from investigations into its genuineness and credibility he goes on to suggest that thorough inquisitive can only result in establishing more firmly the truth of the claims, which the Bible makes for itself, The bible stands upon a rock from which it can never be dislodged. 56 Hill (2000) explains that the source analysis approach, which gained prominence during the nineteenth century, not only affected the way scholars viewed the Pentateuch as a literary composition, but also had far reaching implications for the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. Furthermore he states that, Julius Wellhausen, the most important of the source critics asserted that the Pentateuch conveys no historicity for the patriarchs, but merely reflects patriarchal stories retold in a later age.57Towards the contemporary world a look at arch eologyScholarship can sometimes become stagnant, however in the case of Pentateuchal studies the debate between different points of view stretchs to ebb and flow. As yet, no new consensus has emerged about the composition of the Pentateuch.58 Publications over the past one hundred years show that many other theories or indeed modifications of theories have arisen. The Wellhausen theory itself has come under much criticism and though it yet has its proponents, it is no longer a universal agreement of authorization in critical scholarship. The subject then remains an enigma and is no closer to a solution now, than it was when first queried. Yet the debate does keep back to thrive, aided because, with the passage of time the earth unleashes its hidden treasures and technological inventions are created that allow us to clamber back the centuries and glimpse into the past. Fresh discoveries it seems keep up new evidence that scholars pounce upon to argue their case.One area in cont emporary society that has emerged in favour of biblical accuracy is the field of archeology. Archaeology is defined by Muncaster (2000) as the systematic study of things that cultures have left behind.59 W. F. Albright the great archaeologist concludes that the past 100 years has seen archaeology verify some of the history contained in the bible, he states There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition. 60 Finkelstein and Silberman (2002) attest that, Archaeology has helped us to reconstruct the history behind the bible.61More recent publications aim to verify the historicity of the Old Testament using archeologic evidence, Muncaster (2000) suggests that the accuracy of the Old Testament is vital to the Bibles message and that archaeology provides one means of confirming the historical accuracy.62 To confirm or prove the historical accuracy of the Bible one needs to consider the implications of proof. Does proof relate to disproving the facts of the Bible and the account held within it, does this mean that the words spoken by Jesus in the New Testament and the history of the Israelite nation is condemned to hearsay? Archaeology offers some answers, but is it concrete? Gnuse (1994) expresses the opinion that, Who or what Moses was ultimately is irrelevant for he stands as a symbol of process. The traditional figure of Moses symbolizes the initiation of the religious journey.63 McDowell stresses a cautionary note in relation to archaeology, as he says, all too often the idiom Archaeology proves the Bible arises, in answer to this he uses the word prove to stress the interpreters usage that could cause incorrect assumptions,Archaeology cannot prove the Bible, if by that you mean prove it to be inspired and revealed by God. If by prove, one means, Showing some biblical event or passage to be historical. Then it would be a correct usage. 64The world within which we now live is far take from the world o f Wellhausen and even further removed from the era of scribes and patriarchs. In a time where archaeology has uncovered scripts that peel back time and allow modern technology to wield its powerthere is simmer down no right or wrong answer that appears as a forerunner. Using science and technology as an aid, scholars, theologians and archaeologist are still embroiled in a quest to answer the questions that revolve rough Bible authorship. Scrolls retrieved from the caves in Qumran are being drawn on by scholars to provide scriptural evidence and possible explanations of Mosaic authorship. Cook (1994) explains that the Old Testament prophets, Foresaw a golden age for Israel when her various trials, punishments, exiles and tribulations were over65 This Golden come along includes the arrival of a messiah one who would reign by cessation and blessings of every kind.66 Verification of these prophecies can be established and linked to Moses in Deuteronomy Moses speaks of a coming proph et like himself67. Further, Isaiah describes the one who brings nifty news, who proclaims peace, who brings good tidings, who proclaims salvation.68 Qumran, harbour of the Dead Sea Scrolls, held within cave four a scroll that refers to Moses as Gods anointed, Strugnell cited in Cook (1994)Cursed is the man who does not arise and observe and do according to all the commandments of the Lord in the mouth of Moses His Anointed One, and to walk after the Lord, the God of our fathers, who commands us from Mount Sinai.69Could this then be seen as Proof that Moses was a prophet, an anointed one who prophesized the coming of another like him? A prophet who was himself to foretell all that was to come70 If so then is this proof that Moses also wrote the Pentateuch? One could argue that if Moses words are proven to be reliable through the fulfilled prophecies within the Bible and the archaeological findings that appear to corroborate them. McDowells admonitory note on archaeological evidence re-surfaces in Bartlett (2002), when he states that, There are still major problems between the relationship of the archaeological findings to the fact and contents of the scrolls. However, he also professes a hope that, subsequent research will throw light on them.71 Scholarly differences of opinion are clearly visible as is the interpretation of related scripture. Bernstein (1997) in reviewing Lawrence Schiffmans work, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls points out that the narrative and legal Pentateuchal texts found in the caves, show the array of exegetical methods fake for the Qumran interpreter.72 There is no doubt, declares Bernstein,That any reviewer will find one or another chapter of the book deficient from some specific perspective this will always be the case when a broad deduction of the Dead Sea Scrolls is written by virtually any scholar, for no one is equally competent in all the complex handle of Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship. What Schiffman has done is to contextual ize these texts for interpretation, and that is more important than his particular interpretation of any specific issue. 73It is this difference in interpretation that allows the debate to continue to thrive. A contemporary scholar in biblical studies, Richard Elliot Friedman equates Mosaic authorship to, a detective story spread across the centuries with investigators uncovering clues to the Bibles origins one by one 74 Furthermore, he states that, There is hardly a biblical scholar in the world who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses or by any one person.75 And yet Moses is arguably a leading figure in both religion and history, his words are the foundation of faith for over half the earths population.76 Phillips (2003) clarifies that the three great monotheistic religions of the world have derived from the revealed holy laws of the ancient Israelites. He concurs that Moses God became not only the God of Judaism but of Christianity and Islam.77 For the authors of scripture then, history is a theological tool by which God reveals Himself. Archaeology can authenticate history but it cannot authenticate theology, and from the biblical perspective, history devoid of theology is meaningless.78ProphecyThe Jewish nation believes that history and prophecy are inextricably intertwined,79 history was recorded by more than one culture and was therefore documented, however for Israel, prophecy was assurance that the writings were from God.80 81 Prophecies detailed in the Old covenant are said to be longer-term prophecies those fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament and ultimately classed as inspiration from God.82 McGrath (2007) describes the majority position within Christian theology has, in one hand emphasize the continuity between the two testaments, while on the other noting the distinction between them.83 One of the strongest arguments used by adherents to Mosaic authorship, stems from the predictions it makes within its pages abou t the future. These events are what give Biblical scholars reason to continue their stake of Mosaic verification. Of these prophecies one in particular is used to corroborate Mosaic authorship the advent of an anointed one who was to arrive in the future.Often when one reads about the Mosaic Pentateuch one can find statements that refer to the infallibility of scripture, in particular with regards to Jesus Christ. Livingston (2004) claims that Christ knew the scriptures thoroughly, even to words and tenses84 and that Jesus also believed, every word of scripture, the historicity of the Old Testament and that it was spoken by God Himself, thereby affirming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, even thought the pen was held by men.85 Furthermore, Livingston states that, if we are to believe that his conduct was guided by prophecy, then he was subject to a life that was written for him, does this limit the choices he had to make or was he just Gods tool, there to fulfil Gods plan? However Jesus obeyed Gods word and His authority. He came to do Gods will and in doing so fulfilled Old Testament He fulfilled Old Testament prophecies about Himself.86 LangMarch (1995) explains that Jesus places a great amount of emphasis on the fulfilment of scripture this he maintains confirms its veracity.87 However this point is one that cannot be overlooked for if Biblical Scholars find the scriptures to be in error then the obvious conclusion would be that Jesus too was in error and could not have been the infallible son of God.Chapter ThreeCurrent views and hypothesisThroughout the history of this debate scholars have battled in order to propose their own interpretation of scripture. These battles are still relevant and consume the minds of contemporary scholars. Time, it seems has not diminished the pursuit of truth, contemporary scholars are just as committed in their attempts to crystallize the authorship problem as their past contemporaries. In the past four decades there have been numerous publications concerning Pentateuchal authorship and views are still divided. P.N. Benware (1993) states that, Moses was the human author of Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch he adds,These five books of the law were written by Moses alone, with the exception of Deuteronomy 34, which records the death of Moses The Pentateuch, therefore, is an inspired, inerrant, authoritative document written by the man Moses. 88The authors of the New C