So as I went over my notes on the two books I wanted to discuss, I noticed that it would be good refer to a trend they both mention: that the books after the Pentateuch in the OT, especially the history books, don’t seem to know about the Pentateuch. My apologies if this is well known to other readers; both authors cite other books.
This point is significant for the theme of these posts since Adler’s focus in on the Pentateuch and not the OT as a whole.
Wright notes that the books of Samuel and Kings do “not know of an Exodus from Egypt. Instead it presupposes that the ‘Israelites’ had always lived in their homeland, albeit under foreign domination” (Wright, 66)
Adler observes a similar trend: “Most of the causes of impurity found in the Pentateuch are cited nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Outside the Pentateuch, the notion of impure species of animals is never mentioned, women who give birth are never said to be impure, sexual intercourse and semen are never spoken of as ritually defiling,” etc. (Adler, 80). Contrary to the Law’s proscription on graven images, Adler notes, “Solomon’s temple is said to have been filled with sculpted and embroidered images of bulls, lions, and winged cherubim—none of which seem to have provoked the ire of the biblical authors” (Adler, 102).
Wright argues for two different metahistories in the OT with varying theologies: the books of Samuel and Kings that Wright calls the “Palace History,” and that of Genesis and Exodus that he calls “the People’s History.” The palace history, Wright argues, focusses on the Yahweh’s covenant with David, while the people’s history turns away from monarchy and focuses on Yahweh’s covenant with Israel through the Law. Again, Wright and Adler note that Samuel and Kings seem unaware of the Pentateuch.
Thus in my upcoming posts, I’ll discuss historicity questions with the OT as a whole, but my main focus will be the Pentateuch. As Wikipedia points out, the evidence is pretty clear that the historical claims of the Pentateuch—Exodus and conquest—did not happen. But that still leaves the question of when the Pentateuch was written with considerable debate. Like I said in a previous post, Adler gives some pretty good evidence for a late date for the composition of the Pentateuch: c. 300 BC.
My next posts will discuss more of Wright’s and Adler’s claims, but differences between the Pentateuch and later parts of the Bible is an important point in both books.
“As Wikipedia points out, the evidence is pretty clear that the historical claims of the Pentateuch—Exodus and conquest—did not happen.”
As D&C 110 points out, the appearance of Moses to Joseph Smith did happen.
Does where you are going leave any space for Moses, or does he disappear with the Exodus?
I talked about those issues in previous posts, so I’ll review them here.
“Yes, I’m well aware that there’s a lot of debate about a lot of issues, but in my personal beliefs about God and theology, I’m on board with what scholars are able to demonstrate as the historical evidence. That is, I’m good with saying what the scholarly evidence demonstrates, as opposed to holding to scriptural claims of historical events without evidence.”
https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/10/believing-history/
“if there is consensus on something, I believe scholars have come to that position in good faith. I do not feel the need to hold doggedly to all scriptural historical claims, nor do I believe that God insists that I do so.”
https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/05/what-historical-claims-does-god-insist-that-we-believe/
I don’t believe there was a historical Moses that the Bible describes because my understanding is that the historical evidence indicates there was not. Again, see the above quotes. I’m happy to adjust my views if evidence suggested so.
We talked about DC 110 in the comment chain. Here’s something I said: “I think people are proposing minimal Moses as a way to make DC 110:11 fit with current scholarship, or the claim that a Moses could have appeared but one who left no historical evidence. I understand why that exercise may be appealing, but I okay with giving myself some flexibility around those claims.”
Add the Book of Mormon to the list of books that seems to be unaware of the current contents of the Pentateuch. Despite Nephi saying they had “the five books of Moses” (possibly a loose translation?) and multiple prophets saying they obeyed the Law of Moses, there’s no discussion of dietary restrictions or of things or people being ritually clean or unclean. Many of the people with physical disabilities that Jesus healed at the Bountiful temple would have been excluded from the Jerusalem temple. (I notice because I would have been excluded from the Jerusalem temple.) The prophets accuse the people of all kinds of wickedness, but only once are they accused of not following the Law of Moses, and that’s for violating the Ten Commandments.
Jesus didn’t treat parts of it as binding either–for himself or for others. For example, he did not say “By the way folks, this woman had an issue of blood, so if she touched you while she was pushing through the crowd to get to me keep in mind you’re ritually unclean for the rest of the day.” (Peter’s comment about physical contact in the crowd is not there for comic relief; it’s there to highlight the magnitude of the Law of Moses violation Jesus is endorsing. In terms of Haidt’s moral foundations, Jesus put caring for others above cleanliness/sanctity.)
So yes, most of the Law of Moses as we know it today being a late and unauthorized addition is something that’s seemed likely to me for a while.
Of course this argument rests upon the Book of Mormon being a reliable history (which is not to say it’s infallible) and the New Testament generally being more reliable than the Old. I’d add Joseph Smith’s accounts of his experiences to my list of reliable sources, which has implications for the existence of a man named Moses who did important spiritual things, if not what Exodus tells us he did. But I consider the question of Moses’s existence to be asked and answered in previous posts and don’t need Stephen to respond to it further here.
I thought that it was just Deuteronomy that was a later addition to the Old Testament. Something that was added after the Israelites returned from Babylon.
Yes, lots of historicity questions, RLD.
Jared, you’re referring to a more standard view of biblical construction that is still prevalent, but that the guys I’m citing on calling into question. It does appear to me that the evidence is more on these more recent guys’ side and will talk about that in future posts. Again, recents scholars are making what looks to me like a very good evidentiary case that the Pentateuch was written much later than the more standard view. Again, probably AFTER 300 BC and continued to be tinkered with for a couple more centuries. More to come.
“Again, recents scholars are making what looks to me like a very good evidentiary case that the Pentateuch was written much later than the more standard view.”
They comprise a pretty-small minority of their scholarly community–don’t they? I’m wondering if some folks might consider them “fringe.”
Stephen, one thing that I’ve finally understood with these recent posts is that your approach to historical issues isn’t to lower the salience of historicity, but to raise it. So with something like the Garden of Eden, for example, a typical approach might be deciding that it may not be historically accurate, but then treating Genesis as an inspired account that reflects deeper truths that help us understand our lives, etc., etc. In contrast, you seem to see devotional implications in the lack of documentary evidence, while you’re also interested in discovering what the documentable history would be, and this in turn would also have devotional implications.
So if you were Jewish and followed Wright and Adler, how would that affect your celebration of Passover and other holidays associated with the Exodus narrative?
The question has real implications for us because of Jesus’ celebration of the Passover, and the institution of the sacrament, and the Exodus and Passover imagery that shows up in the New Testament and elsewhere. So it’s not an issue that can be set aside.
In a way, though, the details of Pentateuch historicity seem superfluous. What I means is, it’s clear already that you’re approaching it as basically ahistorical. And that’s a defensible choice for books with a strong supernatural element. You could even see it as the default option. But once you’ve made that choice, the historical details aren’t super compelling.
But as a few people have pointed out in various ways, once you make that choice, it’s difficult to avoid a radical un-making of 2300(?) years of Western religious history, and I don’t see how an elevation of history can repair that. But you also don’t seem to be heading towards naturalistic atheism. So I still don’t quite understand how you get from point A to point C.