Overview: Evidence to demonstrate the antiquity of much of Torah yet showing how Moses couldn’t have been the only author of the Torah, as proven by a number of rabbinic sources, and the consequences of such a belief.
When it comes to the authorship of the world’s greatest best-seller, the Bible, two extreme stances were taken. The Bible Critic is adamant that the Torah (i.e., the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses) was written in several different stages throughout the Monarchy of the First Temple era and added upon in the Babylonian exile and afterwards. On the other extreme stands the theologically Orthodox Jew or Christian adamant that Moses wrote every word in the Torah and that God dictated to Moses exactly what to write. This religious view would date the Torah to sometime in the late second-millennium BCE.
In this article we will attempt to demonstrate how both of these views are ill-founded and that a middle-path seems much more courteous to the evidence available. There is ample evidence of an early composition of much of Torah, with even more evidence for a later date as well. This would indicate several hands in the authorship of Torah, one stratum dating to the late second-millennium BCE, with another to the Monarchial and exilic eras of the first-millennium BCE. Who is exactly these authors were remains impossible to determine at this point in time.
Mosaic authorship
The Torah speaks with much familiarity to the second-millennium BCE, the time that Moses would have written the Torah shortly after the Exodus from Egypt. We will go through a few points that demonstrate that at least parts of the Torah were written much before the Monarchy. Later, we will go through parts of the Torah that were are clearly of a later period in time.
The Torah seems to be a collection of different documents stitched together into a single book. Much of it is claimed to have been written by Moses (Ex. 17:14, 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9) and the detailed account of the Exodus seems to be an account of a contemporary to the events being described. Even if a later author would have wrote the story, or added thereon, the author definitely claims that the laws contained in this Torah are from Moses. Is there any credibility to this claim of Mosaic authorship to at least parts of Torah? That’s what we will now explore.
The evidence discussed here is sidelining the general argument for the divine-inspiration to Torah argued in “The Torah: Divinely-Inspired or Man-Made”, although that is certainly a strong argument in favor of Mosaic authorship. However, that argument isn’t included in this list since that is more about divine-inspiration rather than specifically Mosaic authorship. Also, there is ample evidence against a divinely-inspired Torah for others sections of the Torah documents – see here.
- The general background of the Exodus narrative and the aftermath seems to show a good familiarity with the Egyptian context of the second-millennium BCE, when the Exodus would have occurred. This is discussed at length in “Exodus on Trial: Were the Israelites Enslaved in Egypt.”
In fact, the Torah uses more Egyptian words than any other book in Tanakh, implying an Egyptian backdrop to time of the writing of the Torah.[i] It also describes Egyptian culture and environment with such clarity that it seems unlikely for scribes in Monarchal Israel to know of these details and to write of them.[1] It also uses Egyptian geographical markers[2] as well as the Levites having Egyptian names.[3]
- Deuteronomy’s Covenant structure is strikingly similar to the covenants/treaties made in the second-millennium BCE, and different in many ways from the later first-millennium BCE covenants.[4] The Suzerainty treaty[5] elements of the Deuteronomy Covenant indicate its antique origins to the second-millennium BCE treaty styles, whereas at later times – the era that the Bible Critic believes the Torah was written in – the treaties would have looked much different.[ii]
- Ancient memories are recorded in throughout the biblical narrative, suggesting an early composition or oral tradition from times preceding the monarchical era. One example is the memory of Sodom being destroyed in 1600 BCE and another is the dominance of Sidon – but not Tyre – in the Phoenician city coastal cities. Sodom was destroyed by a meteorite some 3,600 years ago, about the time of its biblical recording in Gen. 19.[6] Another ancient geopolitical reality described is in Genesis 10:15-18 which describe Sidon as the Phenician regional power with no mention of Tyre whatsoever. This reflects Moses’ times far better than it does the Monarchial era at which point Tyre was already a rivaling city-state (and mentioned numerously in the Monarchial era Prophets).
- The actions of the patriarchs in Genesis are greatly opposed to the biblical Law. Abraham marries his half-sister (Gen. 20:12 – which is prohibited in Lev. 18:11) and Jacob marries his sister-in-law (Gen. 29 – which is prohibited in Lev. 18:18). If this were all written later, then why would they write the story this way? It would contradict the legal system that they were trying to set up. This would obviously cause a political nightmare.
- The other books of Tanakh, including to the early books, make frequent mention of the Torah’s history of the Jews, implying ancient origins of these stories that were well-engrained in the Israelite culture. For instance, the prophets mention the Garden of Eden (Is. 51:3), Noah (Is. 54:9), Abraham (Ezek. 33:24; Is. 29:22), Sodom (Ezek. 16:46ff; Zeph. 2:9; Hos. 11:8), Jacob buying land (Josh. 24:32), the Exodus (Hos. 11:1; Mic. 6:4; Ezek. 20:5-7; Amos 2:10), Israel’s history (Ps. 78, 105, 106, 135, 136), plagues in Egypt (Amos 4:10), and many other aspects of the Pentateuch’s history. These are just throwaway, casual allusions to the Pentateuch, as though the authors took these events for granted.
- The names of biblical characters can tell us much about the time period that these figures existed in, or at least were written about in. Had a late author written the Pentateuch, we would expect him to integrate the names his society would have been familiar with. In Monarchal Israel, theophoric names – names that include some form of God’s name – were the most common names.[7] Yet, throughout the Pentateuch – as well as the later period of the Judges until about the times of King David – there are almost no theophoric names![8] This is very surprising, if the Torah was written at a time when those were the most popular names. This would suggest that these figures were indeed from a different time and era than Monarchal Israel.[9]
Furthermore, the names Abram, Levi, Zebulun, and perhaps Isaac and Jacob are Amorite in origin rather than Semitic. These Amorite names date to the early second-millennium BCE, the time that these figures are claimed to have existed. It would be rather surprising for a first-millennium BCE writer in Monarchal Israel to give these names to the patriarchs that would have been very rare at the time.[iii]
Post Mosaic additions to the Torah
This extremely popular subject is rarely addressed in Orthodox communities and the questions surrounding it are generally thrown under the rug. Mainstream Orthodox views the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses, as a product of Moses who wrote the words God told him to write. This view isn’t ill-founded and can be found in many major rabbinic works including opinions in the Talmud and later commentators like Rashi. But as surprising as this may sound to many, there are many proofs and rabbinic sources for the fact that Moses didn’t write the entire Torah. Other parts were added by unknown Prophets and leaders.
Orthodox fundamentalists are quick to reject this as heresy and unbiblical, but the sources would suggest otherwise. In this chapter we will prove how such views are not heretical and alien to rabbinic Judaism. In fact, we will show the likelihood of the Torah being written by others besides for Moses. Internal evidence shows over and over again the likelihood of other authors besides for Moses. These authors were prophets or sages of a later time. Of course there is no reason for this to change our understanding of the divinity of Torah which stands regardless if Moses was the sole author or not.
But before getting to the internal evidence for multi-authorship (i.e. that a few people wrote the Torah) versus Mosaic-authorship (i.e. that Moses alone wrote the Torah), we will first need to clear a few things out of the way.
First off, although tradition has it that Moses alone wrote the Torah, that bares no weight against internal evidence in the document that suggest otherwise. There are many misconceptions that can evolve into “tradition.” It is hardly objective to pay much heed to tradition alone. Sometimes we must put away our traditions and notions we were brought up with and look at the facts on the table.
Secondly, let’s see what the Torah itself writes about its author. Well, the problem is that it doesn’t write about its author. Like most documents of ancient times, the Torah does not bare the signature of its writer. At a few points, the Torah does say that Moses wrote “this Torah.”[iv] The problem, however, is that what we refer to today as “the Torah” was not called “the Torah” back then. When we say “Torah” nowadays we usually refer to what is known as The Five Books of Moses. But in biblical times it is clear that “Torah” meant a set of laws.[v] So whenever it says that Moses “wrote this Torah” it is going on a set of laws just spoken about—not the entire Torah. Overtime the term “Torah” developed to now include the entire Five Books of Moses since they contain many “Torahs”, meaning many set of laws.
In fact the Torah tells us to listen to “the Torah” being read at the Hakhel gathering every 7 years in Jerusalem.[vi] And the Mishna[vii] explains “the Torah” to be going on specific sets of laws described in the book of Deuteronomy—not the entire Torah.
So true, the Torah does state that Moses wrote down “the Torah” but that is only going on a specific set of laws described before that.[10] So it is clear that Moses wrote much of the Torah, specifically the laws and commandments. But exactly how much he wrote is unclear, but we can speculate, as we shall later discuss.
The Prophets and Writings do refer to the “Book of Moses”[viii] seemingly implying that Moses wrote the Torah. But that doesn’t have to be the case as we can easily explain this to mean the Torah that contains the laws of Moses. It doesn’t have to mean that he wrote the entire text of Torah.
The doctrine of Mosaic authorship in Judaism may, perhaps, be vaguer than we think. Such as when the Talmud[ix] states that one must believe torah min hashamayim, that Torah is from Heaven, it doesn’t mean that Moses wrote it but rather that the Torah is %100 accurate and divinely inspired. To that extent, the Talmud proceeds to exclaim that all “kal v’chomers” and “gezera shavas” are from Sinai, despite the obvious fact that these were rabbinically articulated derivations. Yet they are still regarded as being “from heaven” in the sense that they are divinely-inspired, being a part of the religiously-sanctioned rabbinic authorities (Deut. 17:9-12) and a part of the fundamental principles of derivation attributed to Sinai (see here).
Is this a heretical belief?
This cannot be regarded heretical since sages in the Talmud and later great rabbinic commentators are to adapt the multi-authorship approach.
The Talmud[x] asks how Moses could have described his own death in the Torah being that he already died. One opinion is that he wrote about his death prophetically. But other opinion is that indeed he hasn’t written about it. Instead, it was his student and successor, Joshua, who wrote the last 8 verses in the Torah describing Moses’ death.
The Talmud gives this suggestion only regarding the last 8 verses. But following the same logic, later rabbinic commentators extended this idea to other verses where Mosaic-authorship was problematic. The Talmud possibly only addressed those 8 verses since over there it is most clear how problematic the Mosaic-authorship was. But that doesn’t mean that there cannot be more examples.[11]
Later rabbinic commentators who suggested multi-authorship includes Ibn Ezra (who wrote that “many believe” in multi-authorship),[xi] Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid,[xii] Ramban as understood by Abarbanel,[xiii] R’ Shlomo ben Shmuel HaTzrafati,[xiv] and possibly Radak[xv] among others.[12]
So clearly this position cannot be regarded as heretical, especially since it has strong proofs from verses in the Torah itself, as we shall soon discuss.[13]
However, it can be argued that only narrative sections of Torah can be attributed to non-Mosaic authors. The law sections, however, must be of Mosaic authorship, according to Orthodox belief. This is because Deut. 12:31 prohibits adding to the Torah laws. Thus, claiming otherwise, may in fact be heretical. Yes despite its heretical nature, I do not shy away from the strong possibility that parts of the Law section of Torah are of non-Mosaic sources, based on various arguments (see here).
How much of Torah did Moses write?
If we assume at least partial Mosaic authorship, we still cannot determine exactly which parts he wrote. There are parts that are explicitly attributed to him (e.g. the laws at Sinai[xvi] and the end of Deuteronomy[xvii] among other chapters[xviii]). An Orthodox perspective must assume that he wrote all the laws and commandments which is why there exists a prohibition against adding or subtracting from the laws of the Torah.[xix]
Being that there’s a strong tradition for Mosaic-authorship—a tradition shared by Jews, Christians, and Muslims—we can suggest that perhaps major sections of it were written by him, although this would be more a matter of faith than evidence. Furthermore, this tradition of Mosaic authorship goes back even into biblical times of antiquity where the “Torah Law” is attributed to Moses.[xx] (However, to counter this argument is the point of traditional fallacies. Traditions often develop under mistaken assumptions until they become a widespread myth. One analogous example is the oft-cited authorship of Psalms attributed to King David. In reality, many Psalms are internally attributed to other figures. The same may be for Mosaic authorship for the entirety of Torah, despite the evidence that much of it couldn’t have been written by him.)
Moreover, the details provided regarding the Exodus narrative and the sojourn in the Wilderness suggests that it was written by a contemporary, possibly Moses, who witnessed the events. A later author would have a hard time knowing all those detailed pieces of information.
Based on all these reasons, it wouldn’t be ridiculous to suggest that Moses wrote at least large parts of Torah.[14]
Moses took from earlier documents
The Midrash implies that Moses took information from earlier works that were being preserves by the Israelites in Egypt and one of these books were called Bereshis (Genesis).[xxi] Also the Torah itself references an earlier work that it takes from. “This is the Book of the Begotings (toldoth in Heb.) of Man…” (Genesis 5:1). This would suggest that even Moses or whatever author wrote Genesis would have taken much of their work from earlier sources as the Midrash and the verse indicate. See Targum Yonatan on Exodus 17:14 where he describes Moses writing (seemingly part of the Torah) “in the book of the elders.”
Evidence for multi-authorship
First off, it’s important note that the practice of multi-authorship was very common in ancient times as authors wouldn’t sign their name in the document. The document would then go through generations of scribes each adding to the document.
Bible critics are often biased, with a clear anti-Torah agenda in mind. But despite that, they have done much scholarly work in analyzing the Torah’s text to realize that there are differences in terminology and style-wording. Much of their hypotheses are based on thin air but they do have a strong point for multi-authorship. Based on our multi-authorship approach, this poses no issue to a belief in Torah.
When the Five Books of Torah are compared to one another on linguistic grounds, it becomes clear that very different writing styles, writing preferences, and word usages are present in different sections in Torah.
For example, the books of Leviticus and Numbers consistently use the phrase “the priests, sons of Aaron,” whereas Deuteronomy uses “the priests, the Levites.” Similarly, the root words “k-t-r” “k-r-v” and “sh-ch-t” are consistently used throughout Leviticus and Numbers concerning sacrifices, whereas in Deuteronomy the term “z-v-ch” is exclusively used. If Moses was the sole author of Torah, why would he have different writing styles and word preferences?
For Mosaic-authorship, the apparent terminology differences can be explained by clarifying what “Mosaic authorship” means here. It could be that Moses had a number of scribes under his command, as did all kings back then while the document is still attributed to them. It can also be that Moses’ own way of writing developed over the years. Moses wrote the Torah throughout 40 years (see Talmud Gittin 60a). So the documents he wrote in the beginning may appear different than the ones he wrote after 40 years of developing his writing and changing his choice-of-words.
Now let’s get to the verses that imply a post-Mosaic authorship.
And Abram passed through the land, until the place of Shechem, until the plain of Moreh, and the Canaanites were then in the land.
(Genesis 12:6)
The Canaanites were then in the land implies that this is in contrast to now (i.e. the time of the author) when they are not in the land. However, in the times of Moses, the Canaanites were still inhabiting the future Land of Israel. It was only many generations later that the Israelites replaced the Canaanites in that land. Therefore, we must conclude, that the author was writing this well after Moses’ death, at a time when the Canaanites no longer inhabited the Land, and he therefore found the need to write that “the Canaanites were then in the land.”[15]
And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued [them] until Dan.
(Genesis 14:14)
The city of Dan was only named so at a later point in history after Moses’ death.[xxii] Therefore the author would have had to have been much after Moses’ times in order to reference the city of Dan.
However this may be answered by suggesting that this is referring to a different city with the name Dan, as some cities tend to share names with others. Therefore this is not a strong proof at all for multi-authorship.
And Abraham named that place, The Lord will see, as it is said nowadays: On the mountain, the Lord will be seen.
(Genesis 22:14)
This is a reference to Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem, the mount that was to eventually become the ground for the Holy Temple.[xxiii] This is why the verse describes that people nowadays (i.e. in the times of the author) describe the mount as the place that the Lord will be seen (i.e. when they pilgrimage to Jerusalem). Now, at Moses’ times, the Israelites still haven’t entered the Land and didn’t even know of a place called Jerusalem.[16] So this must have been written by another author who lived at the times of the Temple in Jerusalem.
And these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel.
(Genesis 36:31)
The wording seems to imply that there already is an Israelite king but that the kings of Edom preceded the kings of Israel. The problem is that at the times of Moses, there was no king for the Israelites. Therefore, we must conclude, that this verse/chapter was written by a later author.[17]
And the children of Israel ate the manna for forty years until they came to an inhabited land. They ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan.
(Exodus 16:35)
The Israelites stopped receiving the Manna when they reached the Canaanite border as described in Joshua.[xxiv] This was after Moses’ death, so it would be ironic for Moses himself to have written this.[18]
These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel on the other side of the Jordan [river], in the desert, in the plain opposite the Red Sea, between Paran and Tofel and Lavan and Hazeroth and Di Zahav.
(Deuteronomy 1:1)
Israel/Canaan is separated from Jordan by a river known as the Jordan River. The “other side of the Jordan [river]” was a reference to literally the other side of that river. Moses, for some reason, chose to write “the other side” of the river when describing the place where he was at that very time of his writing of the Torah![19] This would determine that evidently the Torah was written in Israel at a later time in history when the place the Moses spoke to the Israelites was actually “on the other side of the Jordan river.”[20] [21] [22]
And the Horites formerly dwelt in Seir, and the children of Esau were driving them out, and they exterminated them from before them and dwelt in their stead, just as the Israelites did to the land of their inheritance, which the Lord gave them.
(Deuteronomy 2:12)
This verse describes the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites in the past tense, implying that the conquest already happened. Being that the conquest only happened after Moses’ death, we can conclude that a different author, who lived after the conquest, wrote this verse.[23]
For only Og, king of Bashan, was left from the remnant of the [giant] Rephaim. His bedstead was a bedstead of iron; which can now be found in the city of Rabbah in the land of Ammon. Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the cubit of a man.
(Deuteronomy 3:11)
The author of this verse describes the giant bed of Og and says that it can now be found in the city of Rabbah in Amon. Now, this war against Og was waged during the 40th year in the Wilderness, the same year that Moses wrote the Torah. So how did this bed make its way to Amon in this short amount of time? Additionally, the Israelites were prohibited from entering the land of Ammon,[xxv] making it even more unlikely that the bed made its way there during Moses’ life. So it must be that this verse was added by a later author who lived at a time when the bed already made its way to Ammon.[24]
Jair the son of Manasseh took all the territory of Argob to the boundaries of the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and he called them, the land of Bashan, after his own name, villages of Jair, to this day.
(Deuteronomy 3:14)
The verse tells us that the land of Bashan, conquered by the clan of Jair son of Manasseh, was named after their patriarch Jair son of Manasseh. They called the land “the villages of Jair.” The verse continues that those lands still have that name until this very day.
Now, being that the conquest happened at the last year before Moses’ death, it would seem strange why Moses found the need to say that the villages still bare the name they were given a mere few months earlier. A simple implication of the verse is that the author is writing this at a much later period, and he tells his readers that even to this day it still bears the name given to it back in the days of Moses.[25] [26]
And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him. And the children of Israel obeyed him, and they did as the Lord had commanded Moses.
(Deuteronomy 34:9)
This past tense description of the Israelites accepting the leadership of Joshua seems to be a post-occurrence description of what happened. Being that Moses died before the Israelites took Joshua as their new leader it is unlikely that this verse was written by Moses himself.
“And Moses died… and was buried.”
“And no man knows the [area of] his burial to this day.”
“Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses — whom the Lord singled out, face to face”
(Deuteronomy 34:5-10).
These are the last verses of the Torah. They describe the death and burial of Moses. From the wording it seems that the author is writing about something that happened much before his times. This is why he uses the expression that no one knows his burial “to this day.”[27] Additionally, he writes everything in the past tense implying that they already happened. Also, the author seems to be saying that although so much time passed, still there was never a Prophet like Moses. If it was written only in the days of Joshua, this wouldn’t be a surprise that “never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses.” It therefore seems that these verses were written well after many generations since Moses’ passing.
Some might insist that Moses was writing this prophetically because God told him that he was going to die and be buried at a spot that people don’t know and that no prophet will surpass him. But there is no reason to insist on Mosaic-authorship when it forces us to interpret Torah unliterally. If the verses are written in the past tense, a sober literal understanding is that these events already occurred. As mentioned earlier, the Talmud[xxvi] brings up these verses and brings two opinions. One insists on Mosaic-authorship and the other suggests that Joshua wrote these verses.
As we have seen throughout this chapter, the Mosaic-authorship opinion has little scriptural support in contrast to the multi-authorship opinion. The multi-authorship opinion is sourced in the Talmud, has roots in major rabbinic commentators, fits the literary evidence brought by bible scholars and verses that prove that Moses alone couldn’t have been the sole author.
Joshua adding to the Torah
On that day at Shechem, Joshua made a covenant for the people and he made a fixed rule for them.
And Joshua recorded all this in the book of divine Torah. He took a great stone and set it up at the foot of the oak in the sacred precinct of YHWH.
(Joshua 24:25-26)
It is unclear what this is referring to and what Joshua would have written in the Torah. Two Talmudic opinions are psent on the matter. One says this refers to the last 8 verses of Torah describing Moses’ death, which couldn’t have been written by Moses himself. The other opinion is that it refers to the laws of the Cities of Refuge in Deuteronomy 19. Others suggest Deuteronomy 26 (which has more in common with what is written here in Joshua 24). Be as it may, this verse suggests that at least something in the Torah was written by Joshua, contrasting the view of absolute mosaic authorship.
Does this change our belief in Torah as divine?
There’s no reason for it to change anything since the evidence for the divinity of Torah has nothing to do with Moses being the author. The evidence lies in the prophecies in Deuteronomy 28 (which, incidentally, was written by Moses himself as evident from Deuteronomy 33:9 as understood in context), which was discussed here (see specifically the section titled “which part of Judaism do the prophecies validate”).
Although others besides Moses took part in writing the Torah, we can accept its content as legitimate since it’s God’s Torah and we can rely on Him that He protected it from any misinformation in the Mitzvos He expects to keep.[28]
A messy piece of work?
With all this in mind, we can now answer another question concerning the text of the Torah. If the text was written by humans – Moses, his scribes, and later generations – then there’s a human aspect to the text besides for its divine origins. Many verses are poorly written or have grammatical mistakes. This is no issue since there’s no reason to say that the Torah was written word-for-word by God through Moses. [Also grammatical mistakes are possible due to scribal error- see “Is the Torah’s Text Accurate.”] As for the laws derived from those grammatical mistakes, see “Re-approaching Rabbinic Interpretation.”
___________________
[1] Examples include (taken from here):
Egyptian Names: The name Pithom (“the house of Atum”), Potiphera (“the gift of Ra”), Asenath (“the favorite of Neith”), and Joseph’s title Zaphenath-pa’neah (Gen. 41:45 “Nourisher of the land of the living one”) are all Egyptian in origin. The expression “over the house” was used in ancient Egyptian (Gen. 39:4). The word “magician” (Gen. 41:8) is Egyptian –not Hebrew.
Egyptian Environment: The author of the Pentateuch writes about Egyptian –not Palestinian –seasons and weather (Ex. 9:31-32). The flora and fauna are Egyptian –not Palestinian. He mentions the acacia tree, tahash skins (Ex. 25:5; 36:19), antelope (Deut. 14:5), and the rock badger (Lev. 11:5).
(Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998. 122.)
Egyptian Culture: Joseph lives for 110 years, which was the ideal life span for an Egyptian –symbolic for wisdom or blessing. Hoffmeier writes, “More than thirty references are known from Egyptian texts in which a 110-year life span is mentioned. It was a symbolic figure for a distinguished sagely man. One such example is Ptahhotep, who left to posterity a wisdom text from c. 2320 BC. Another individual was Amenhotep, son of Hapu, who served Pharaoh Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BC). Often references to 110 years appear in prayers or wishes such as, ‘May I reach 110 years on earth such as every righteous man,’ and ‘May he [the god Amun] give me the 110 years as to every living righteous man.’ Could it be that Joseph’s age at death reflects the use of this Egyptian honorific number that represented the ideal life?”
(Hoffmeier, James Karl. The Archaeology of the Bible. Oxford: Lion, 2008. 48.)
Moreover, raising foreign children in the court nursery is spoken of in the 18th Dynasty (e.g. Moses).
For example, “. . . the expression ’abrēk (Gen 41:43—translated ‘bow the knee’) is apparently the Egyptian ’b rk (‘O heart, bow down!’), although many other explanations have been offered for this; weights and measures, such as zeret (‘a span’) from drt—‘hand’; ’ ēphah (tenth of a homer) from ’pt; hīn (about five quarts volume) from hnw; gōme’ (‘papyrus’) from ḳmyt; qemahi (‘flour’) from ḳm ḥw (a type of bread); . . . ye’ōr (‘Nile, river’) from ’trw—‘river’ (which becomes eioor in Coptic).”
(Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, exp and rev ed (Chicago: Moody Press, 2007), 95-96.)
For many more examples of Egyptian loan-words found in the Torah, see Dating the Old Testament by Craig Davis p. 153-162.
Perhaps an author during the Monarchy period purposely gave it Egyptian words to enhance the Egyptian background but a simpler explanation is that it was written by people coming from Egypt.
Genesis 13:10 describes the banks of the Jordan in Canaan as the beauty of the land of Egypt, implying the reader’s familiarity with the latter over the former. Likewise, Num. 13:22 dates the founding of Hebron in Canaan to the founding of Zoan in Egypt. This suggests an early writing of this verse since later on in Israelite history, the Israelites would have been well-familiar with Hebron and vaguely knowledgeable of Zoan of Egypt.
Similarly, Genesis 33:18 also implies the reader’s not familiar with cities like Shechem in Canaan, despite it being from the most prominent cities of the North of Canaan. This would make much more sense to have been addressed to a nation leaving Egypt rather than the to a nation dwelling in Canaan/Israel for many generations.
Moreover, the acacia wood used for the Tabernacle would have been a very popular wood in the Sinai desert but rare in ancient Israel. This would suggest a Sinai-desert backdrop to the building of the Tabernacle.
[2] See previous note.
[4] As argued extensively in Joshua Berman’s ani maamin book, the Deuteronomy treaty, or Covenant, is based off a common military alliance in the Ancient Near East. A superior empire would come to the aid of an inferior kingdom in their struggles against their adversaries. As an act of courtesy, the inferior kingdom would submit itself to the superior one and commit to various stipulations documented in a covenant. In ancient times, the covenant would lay out the historical lead up that resulted in the formation of the covenant. It would describe the aid provided by the superior resulting in the servitude of the inferior party.
The Book of Deuteronomy is by and large a Covenant between G-d and His people, Israel. Deuteronomy explains the historical lead-up to the treaty, records various stipulations, encourages commitment to the treaty, and describes consequences of obedience and disobedience.
[5] Suzerainty treaty is the historical prologue to a treaty, like that of Deuteronomy. It is distinctive from later treaties which lacked this historical leadup to the making of the Covenant between kingdoms. In addition, early treaties would include a “blessings” section for obedience, whereas later treaties were mostly missing this. The Torah bares this older feature.
[6] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/meteor-destroyed-ancient-city-inspired-sodom-2015505
[7] E.g. Yehoram, Yehoshafat, Yehoyakim, Yishayahu, Yirmiyahu, Yoel and so on. There are over 200 Yahwistic names from the period.
[8] The only exceptions are the names Joshua (although originally Hosea – see Num. 13:16), Judah, and Jochebed (although the yud and hei are in the beginning of the name as opposed to the end as they later were in Monarchal times).
[9] It would have been a genius scheme for the Monarchal writers to have purposely given them different names. That is a possibility but certainly not the most simplistic explanation. The simplest conclusion from the names is that indeed these figures exited at a time when the culture wasn’t to give theophoric names. This would suggest that these stories have much older origins than what Bible Critics claim.
Yet still, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Torah scribes were aware that the ancients did not have YHWH-theophoric names and therefore deliberately gave them different names. One indication of this may be from the similarities of Aaron and Jeroboam King of Israel. In what seems to be a polemic against Jeroboam’s Golden Calves in Bethel and Dan, the biblical writers inserted the story of the Golden Calf after the Israelites left Egypt. The similarities are so strikingly similar that there must be an association the Exodus account and the Jeroboam account. Yet when giving Aaron and Jeroboam the same names for their children, Aaron has Nadab and Abihu (with an aleph at the end – thus not theophoric) while Jeroboam has Nadab and Abiah (which is a theophoric name). Seemingly they were aware that earlier Israelites lacked yahu names.
[10] Similarly, when it says that he put a Torah scroll in the Holy Ark, it means a specific part he wrote or all the parts of Torah that he wrote, but not the entire Torah as we have it today.
[11] In fact the Talmud in Bava Batra 14b-15a adds to things omitted in the Beraisa, since omission doesn’t mean intentional exclusion. See there.
Besides, being that this is Midrash it is permissible to argue on it if logic dictates to do so. See Abarbanel in his introduction to his commentary on Joshua where he quotes the beraita that Joshua authored the Book of Joshua and he continues to disagree with it based on internal evidence found in the Book of Joshua. See Tosfos Yom Tov’s commentary on Mishnah Nazir 5:5 which says that we have the permission to interpret Scripture and Mishnah freely, even if it interferes with Aggadah—as long as it doesn’t interfere with Halacha.
But even if we will agree with the beraita here, as said earlier omission doesn’t mean intentional exclusion. The Talmud therefore doesn’t limit Joshua’s Torah writing to just these 8 verses.
[12] There is also a commentary of Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid on Gen. 36:39 and Num. 21 regarding the Men of the Great Assembly being the probable authors of various additions or even subtractions in which King David removed the Hallel from the Torah and placed it in his Psalms. His commentary was published by Rabbi Yitzchok Shimshon Langa in 1975 but was rejected by many in the Orthodox community, including Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in his response (Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 3, 114) where he rejects the possibility that Rabbi Yehudah HaChassid could have possibly written such a thing, regarding it as heresy. But the scholarly consensus is that it probably is a legitimate work of Rabbi Yehudah HaChassid and references to this belief of Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid can be found in the 14th century Sefer Tziyoni by Rabbi Menachem Hatziyoni. For more on this subject see To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 44-48. Also see https://seforimblog.com/2020/07/post-mosaic-additions-to-the-torah/ for a discussion on the reliability of this text.
[13] The one notable exception is Rambam, who in his 13 principles of faith (which can be found in his introduction to Perek Chelek in his commentary to the Mishna), asserts belief in Mosaic authorship as a key tenant in Judaism. He reiterates this in Mishneh Torah laws of T’shuvah 3:8 where he regards as heretical to claim that Moses hasn’t written even one verse in Torah. But as argued extensively in Joshua Berman’s ani maamin book, these statements of Maimonides may have been as a counter to the popular Muslim claim at the time that the Torah was corrupted. Surely Maimonides couldn’t have believed that the Talmudic sage in the Talmud would be a heretic for suggesting that Joshua wrote the last 8 verses of Torah.
[14] Also, we can assume that more than just the verses we are to discuss were added by later prophets or scholars. We cannot say that it was only those few verses that were added and the rest was written by Moses, since what is the irony that every single verse that was added later on would demonstrate a late-authorship. It’s clear that these are just select examples of the many verses they added, examples that demonstrate a late-authorship. In addition, it would seem strange that they would add just those verses. Those verses are mostly trivial details that they wouldn’t feel the need to add just these 20 or so verses to Moses’ Torah. Unless, of course, they felt free to add verses and historical context all over Torah, those verses with the trivial details included.
[15] Rashi, a believer in Mosaic-authorship, attempts to answer this by rewriting history. He says that prior the Canaanite occupation of Israel, a different nation inhabited the land. Therefore Moses writes “and the Canaanites were then in the land” to exclude a prior era in which a different nation inhabited the land.
But as Ramban points out (in his commentary on Genesis 14:18), this suggestion of Rashi is flawed. We cannot say that a nation other than the Canaanites occupied Canaan up until that point since in Genesis 10:19 we see that the Canaanites inhabited the land already from antiquity.
Although possible, it would seem strange that Moses wrote that line for the sake of future generations which for them the line would have made sense.
[16] In fact, Moses describes the place of the future Temple as “the place that G-d shall choose” since the Jews didn’t yet know the place G-d was to choose. See Deuteronomy 12:5-26, 14:23-25, 16:5-7, 17:8-10.
[17] Ibn Ezra says that Moses himself could have written this and he meant himself when writing king. Although he wasn’t a king in the literal sense, Moses was the supreme leader of the Israelites and was thus regarded as their king. He brings the verse in Deuteronomy 33:5 as proof that Moses is called a king. But the problem with this answer is that most commentators understand Deuteronomy 33:5 as referring to G-d. In addition, Moses cannot be regarded as a king in the literal sense.
A potential, though unfitting, answer is that Moses was writing prophetically since he knew that the Israelites were soon to have a king. But a small problem with this is that there is no need for Moses to display his prophecy in order to tell us such a trivial detail.
[18] Some will contend that Moses was writing prophetically, i.e. that he knew that the Israelites would eat the Manna until they reached the Canaanite border. He therefore wrote that they ate it until they reached Canaan. But this answer seems unfitting because the verse is written in the past-tense implying that the Israelites already stopped eating the Manna at the time of the writing of this verse.
[19] The Israelites only crossed over the Jordan river in the days of Joshua.
[20] Some suggest the following answer. The Jews were then coming from Egypt and the Wilderness and crossed over to the other side of the Jordan River. Now, even though they were already on the Jordanian side of the River when the Torah was written by Moses, Moses still preferred to write “the other side of the Jordan [River]” to describe the very location where he was at. The reason is simple: the location was known as such from the geographic locations of Egypt and the Wilderness (which are both west of the River just as Israel/Canaan is)—the places where the Israelites were coming from.
But this suggestion is debunked by the Torah itself. When Moses says “the other side of the Jordan river” he means literally the other side from where he is, i.e. the Land of Canaan on the west. See Deuteronomy 3:20, 25, 11:29-30. Whereas in the Book of Joshua, after they already crossed the Jordan river, they now referred to the eastern side as “the other side of the Jordan river.” See Joshua 1:14, 2:10, 7:7, 9:10, 22:4, Judges 5:17, 10:8.
Therefore when the verse here says “the other side of the Jordan river” it cannot be Moses speaking of himself since if that were the case he wouldn’t refer to his location as “the other side of the Jordan river.”
[21] Rashbam on his commentary to Numbers 22:1 also seems to hint to this.
[22] Gen 50:10 is another example in which trans-Jordan is used to describe a place that seems to be east of the Jordan River. Shadal, in his commentary on the verse, says that trans-Jordan here is referring to a Canaanite city which would have been opposite of Moses’ geographical location. However, there is an obvious issue with his explanation. By no other Canaanite city does Genesis refer to it as being in the trans-Jordan. We should therefore conclude that specifically this city was in the trans-Jordan – east of the river – indicating that Moses couldn’t have been the author of this verse, and likely much more of Genesis (and perhaps all of it).
However, there is a counter-argument to this. It is strange that the funeral procession of Jacob from Egypt en-route to Hebron, would take the detour and go east of the Jordan river. Therefore, some argue, that this must have been west of the Jordan river and Moses may have been that author.
[23] Some answer (see Sforno and Chizkuni on this verse) that the verse is not referring to conquest of Canaan but of the conquest of Sichon and Bashan, which did happen in Moses’ times. The problem with this is that those lands were never called the “Land of their inheritance.” Only the Land promised to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21 are considered the “land of inheritance” since it was the land promised to the Israelites’ forefather, Abraham. The only reason they fought and conquered the lands of Sichon and Bashan was for convenience proposes (see Numbers 32), not because they were promised the land by G-d to Abraham.
Another issue with this answer is that the verse describes it as the land of inheritance of all the Israelites, not just the 2 and a half tribes that settled in the lands of Sichon and Bashan.
It cannot be said that this verse was said prophetically since it is written in the past tense as to imply that the author was writing after the conquest of Canaan, after Moses’ death.
[24] It is unfitting to answer that Moses was writing prophetically, since this prophecy wouldn’t apply, say, nowadays when the bed no longer exists in Rabbah of Ammon. Additionally, it is written in the present tense implying that the author was writing that at his time the bed was already in Rabbah of Ammon. Moreover, it would seem unlikely that Moses would execute his prophecy ability for such a trivial detail. (Only a contemporary would find meaning in writing that the bed can now be found in Ammon.)
However, a somewhat good answer is provided by Ramban and Rashbam on this verse. They suggest that this bed referred to in the verse is the childhood bed of Og in his hometown of Ammon. Assuming Ammon to be his hometown, we can contend that Moses did write this verse.
[25] Some might attempt to answer that Moses was writing prophetically about the future. But there are two issues with this. The first is that Moses wouldn’t have flexed his prophecy abilities for a trivial detail as such. Another issue is that, being that the villages are no longer called by that name, this would be deemed a false prophecy. This answer might have worked if the villages were to forever be called by that name. But that is not the case.
[26] Another possible issue is the contradiction with Judges 10:4 which attributes the naming of the villages to the children of Jair the Judge, long after this account in Deuteronomy. There are two approaches to reconcile this. The first is recognizing that there may have been different traditions of events among the Israelites and the writer of Deuteronomy had a different tradition than the writer of Judges. But a more Orthodox approach would be that the original 23 villages of Havoth Jair (see I Chronicles 2:22) was expanded and renamed at the time of the Judges when it reached 30 villages (Jud. 10:4).
[27] Some suggest that the term “to this day” denotes an eternity and thus Moses was writing this prophetically. So besides for the issue that it’s written in the past tense, there’s another issue with this answer. The term “to this day” is used in other verses throughout the Torah and it’s clear that it cannot be an expression for eternity. See Genesis 47:26 and Deuteronomy 3:14. See Rashbam on Genesis 19:37. But see Talmud Yoma 54a which says that the term, at least in some contents, is an expression for eternity. We will leave this topic as is without trying to reconcile the contradictory sources.
[28] For a more broad discussion of the topic, refer to this link (Hebrew article) http://www.yahadut.org.il/maamarim/hosafot-batora.pdf
[i] Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998. 119.
[ii] Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998. 274. Ani Maamin by Joshua Berman p. 88-102. Hoffmeier, James Karl. The Archaeology of the Bible. Oxford: Lion, 2008. 61-62. The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History, by Kenneth Kitchen (can be found here)
See https://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2014/09/kol388003.shtml for a detailed discussion of the parallels of the Deuteronomy covenant and the Hittite Covenants of the second-millennium BCE.
[iii] To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 256-257.
[iv] Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26. See also Exodus 24:4.
[v] See for example Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 7:37, 14:54, Numbers 5:30, 19:2, 19:14.
[vi][vi] Deuteronomy 31:11-12.
[vii][vii] Sotah 7:8.
[viii] Joshua 1:8, 8:31-32, I Kings 2:3, II Kings 14:6, 21:8, Ezra 6:18, Nehemiah 13:1, Daniel 9:11-13, Malachi 4:4.
[ix] Sanhedrin 98b.
[x] Bava Batra 14b-15a; Menachot 30a.
[xi] Ibn Ezra on Genesis 12:6, Deuteronomy 1:2, 34:6. See tzafnas paneach on Ibn Ezra on Genesis 12:6 for an elaborative explanation of Ibn Ezra’s multi-authorship position. See also Abarabanel on Numbers 21:2 who quotes Ibn Ezra but disagrees. See Ibn Ezra on Numbers 21:2 that “many” believe that Joshua wrote that specific verse but he himself finds no reason to think this verse is different than most of the Torah which was written by Moses.
[xii] Can be found in his commentary on Torah entitled pirushei hatorah lerabbi yehuda hachassid in the first (and uncensored) publication of his work by Rabbi Yitzchok Shmishon Langa in 1975. See his commentary on Genesis 36:39, 48:20-22, Leviticus 2:13, Numbers 21:17-20.
[xiii] See their commentaries on Numbers 21:1.
[xiv] In his commentary on Leviticus 16:8-10.
[xv] See his commentary on I Samuel 21:1.
[xvi] Exodus 24:4.
[xvii] Deuteronomy 31:9, 19, 24.
[xviii] Numbers 33:2.
[xix] Deuteronomy 13:1.
[xx] Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezra 3:2; Nehemiah 1:7; Psalms 103:7; Daniel 9:11; Malachi 4:4.
[xxi] See Shemos Rabbah 5:22 and Midrash Aggadah on Shemos 5:9
[xxii] Judges 18:29.
[xxiii] II Chronicles 3:1.
[xxiv] Joshua 5:12.
[xxv] Deuteronomy 2:37.
[xxvi] Bava Batra 14b-15a; Menachot 30a.
Numbers don’t lie so here are some numbers to consider. It took me months to add these up but once I had the exact number the number was already out on the internet in 2012. According to the Bible and the Bible’s plagiaristic writers, the Yahweh figure if he really is one entity, has 2,476,633 recorded kills not including the flood or Sodom and gomorrah. Satan, in the first pages of the book of job working for the Yahweh character kill jobs 10 children. That’s what the Bible says. That’s why I’m not religious anymore. And I know that most of the Bible was plagiarized from the Egyptian Book of the dead, the Indus Valley creation texts and the Sumerian clay cuneiform tablets. There is a lot more Sumerian in the Old Testament than there is Hebrew. And Egypt is mentioned 700 times. I’ve done my work on that book.