Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are the first five books of the Bible. Collectively called the Pentateuch, they are the most important books of the Old Testament. They provide for the creation of Humanity, and describe the Fall of Man, and establish the foundation of god's law. Tradition asserts that these books were written by Moses at least in the year 1,450 BCE. Believers assert that Moses delivered the Pentateuch completely finished into the hands of the Hebrews sometime before his death. Is this an historical fact? How do biblical scholars know this with any certainty?
In the King James and other modern versions of the Bible, the first five books are each labeled as having been written by Moses, and the authority of these books rests upon that allegation. But how do we know this for certain? To disprove the claim that Moses wrote those books is to greatly impair (if not entirely destroy) the bible's authority as a religious foundation. No comment has been needed so far, as this has all been setup. However, we'll see that Harding doesn't make any distinction between that which was written by Moses and that which was penned by his authority -- a distinction with a difference in the ancient world when scribes were used to compose documents, even by the literate.
And this is exactly what modern criticism has done. Modern criticism! Yet we will see Harding using as primary sources such "modern" writers from the 19th century. Harding is apparently oblivious to the work that has been done since the 1800s -- from all sides. It has been shown that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, and that those books are not as old as they are claimed to be, having been written centuries later by unknown writers.
What is the main argument used to prove that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch? The following verses: "And it came to pass, that when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it inside of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee." (Deu 31:24-26). This actually only sets a claim of authorship for Deutoronomy -- not the other books of the Pentateuch.
This passage was written for a purpose-- the conclusion to it appears in 2nd Kings. During the reign of Josiah, Hilkiah the high priest discovered a "book of the law" in the temple. "And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord." (2 Kings 22:8) This book was the book of Deuteronomy-- but it was not written in the time of Moses, but in the time of Josiah, more than eight centuries later. Hilkiah needed the book and he "found" it... he simply "found it in the temple", lying around, presumably unnoticed until then. Honesty forces us to admit that either he wrote it, or it was written for him. "Honesty" my foot. To be fair, Harding will at least try to back this up with some details, but it's hard to hear the word "honesty" from the mouth of someone who is using badly outdated source materials. For example:
Holland's great 19th century critic, Dr. Kuenen, wrote: "There is no room to doubt that the book was written with a view to the use that Hilkiah made of it." [Kuenen's Hexateuch, p. 216]. Dr. Oort, another able Dutch scholar of the time, professor of ancient languages at Amsterdam, wrote: "The book was certainly written about the time of its discovery. It is true that it introduces Moses as uttering the precepts and exhortations of which it consists, just before the people enter Canaan. But this is no more than a literary fiction. The position of affairs assumed throughout the book is that of Judah in the time of Josiah." [Bible for Learners, vol. 2, p, 331] So far just a lot of "we say so" without backup, but thankfully Harding didn't stop there. Still, be aware of the placement technique, intended to get you convinced before the data is even presented. However, Tekton Research Assistant "Punkish" added this note: In Schaff's History of the Church (bibliography, 1910) we read H. Oort and I. Hooykaas: The Bible for Learners, translated from the Dutch by Philip H. Wicksteed, vol. III. (the New Test., by Hooykaas), Book III. pp. 463-693 of the Boston ed. 1879. (In the Engl. ed. it is vol. VI.) This is a popular digest of the rationalistic Tübingen and Leyden criticism under the inspiration of Dr. A. Kuenen, Professor of Theology at Leyden. It agrees substantially with the Protestanten-Bibel ... So, when Ken Harding speaks of Keunen and Oort, he's not using independant critical sources.
In support of this unanimous conclusion of the critics, Unanimous! Two people are cited and that's it. Apparently differeing scholarship, Evangelical or otherwise, does not exist. Dr. Briggs presents the following list of arguments [The Hexateuch, p. 261]: The reasons for the composition of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah are Well, finally!:
1) Expressions which indicate a
period prior to the Conquest (2:12; 19:14) No explanation here, but for 19:14 I once noted: It is argued that 19:14 is out of place, standing in "remarkable isolation" [May.Dt, 283, 288] from the surrounding chapters, which have to do with murder. Only a critic who has lived his entire life under the rubric of capitalistic property rights, deeds of sale, bureaucracy, and security fences would fail to recall that false appropriation of property was a common starting point for the crime of murder in ancient tines -- not only because of the support that the property provided agriculturally, but because of issues of inheritance as well. [Merr.Dt, 279] This law is not out of place at all. 2:12 is of the sort of updating anachronism we discuss here. Neither Briggs nor Harding seem to have a notion about this sort of thing but go for the "all or nothing" approach to composition.
2) the law of the king, which
implies the reign of Solomon (17:14-20) It does? Just look at all the kings listed in Genesis through Joshua and tell me with a straight face that the Jews could not have conceived of having one of their own even in the time of Moses. As I said elsewhere: Of course the basic answer is the same: There were plenty of kings in the ANE, and plenty of poor role models, with plenty of common vices (as if Solomon was the only one to put a harem together!), even as early as 1400 BC! Furthermore, since monarchy was the standard ruling paradigm, why would it be surprising that rules were set up in anticipation of Israel's own venture into the process? What do the critics expect? A republic? As Merrill [Merr.Dt, 265] puts it: ...(M)onarchy was the prevalent mode of government in the Late Bronze Age throughout the eastern Mediterranean world. It is inconceivable that Israel alone would embrace some other system even as a theocracy.
3) the one supreme judicatory of
the time of Jehosaphat (17:8) Same question. There were court systems like this all through the ANE. And if this were written late, why is the place God chose not specified?
4) the one central altar of the times of
Hezekiah (12:5) Here we go again. As I said: ...this is merely a case of "mirror reading" dependent on the presumption of the truth of the very hypothesis at issue is quite clear. Evolution of Israel's religious methodology from "many places of worship" to "one place of worship" is assumed rather than proved. I should add that one need not posit miraculous or special revelation to argue effectively that "one place" worship forms were an early and immediate development, no more so than monotheism had to have evolved first from polytheism. In purely human terms, why would this be a difficult step of thought? (The centralization command, at any rate, fits precisely with suzerain-vassal treaty demands that presentations of loyalty and tribute be brought to a single palace of the king in the capital city - Merr.Dt, 221.)
5) the return to Egypt in ships not conceivable before the
time of Manasseh (28:68) I'm asking myself, "Why is this inconceivable?" Did Egypt not have boats yet? Harding does not explain, though, so we'll have to move on.
6) the forms of idolatry of the middle period of
the monarchy (4:19; 17:3) I see. And so no one was worshipping stars, etc. back in 1400 BC? Harding doesn't bother to show us that these verses refer to types of idolatry that existed specifically and exclusively in the middle period of the monarchy, which he needs to do to make a case.
7) no trace of Deuteronomy in writings prior to
Jeremiah Hmm, what about Ps. 40:8 and other Psalms that mention "thy law"? I'll check for any other mentions, but in the meantime, we need to ask Harding where he thinks Deut. should be mentioned where it wasn't. How many "signs" of the Code of Hammurabi are there in Babylonian histories, by the way? As of when Mendenhall wrote in 1955, and to my knowledge continuing to today, "No legal document has been found which refers to the law of Hammurabi's code," nor is there any instance where an idiom is used that means "against the law" or "according to the law".
8) the point of view indicates an advanced style of theological reflection Wow, that was a specific mouthful. Sounds more like the provinicialst judgment of a 19th century critic who thought the Jews wore bones in their noses.
9) the prohibition of Mazzebah (16:22) regarded as lawful in
Isaiah (19:19) 16:22 forbids setting up a pillar; Isaiah predicts there will be one set up to the Lord in Egypt. One might ask whether Isaiah is predicting that something forbidden will happen -- not extraordinary as it would be in Egypt, if the Jews fell to syncretism -- but we'll look into this further. Given the history of setting up these pillars, and the implicit condemnation of this in Kings, the argument here is rather waxy.
10) the style implies a long development of the art of
Hebrew oratory, and the language is free from archaism, and suits the times
preceding Jeremiah Wow, another vague mouthful. Without specifics, what can we say? It sounds like more 19th century superiority complex to me.
11) the doctrine of the love of God and his faithfulness
with the term ‘Yahweh thy God ' presuppose the experience of the prophet
Hosea Um, any other time this would be understood as Hosea allluding to Deuteronomy...and we'll ask again, why is this no more than 19th century provincialism, assuming that the ancients were incapable of "love" or knowing it?
12) the humanitarianism of Deuteronomy shows an ethical advance
beyond Amos and Isaiah and prepares the way for Jeremiah and Ezekiel More specificity for us! Harding offers no actual comparison on this, so there's no way we can answer, but as a whole we expect a law code to have more humanitarian components than a prophetic oracle of judgment (!) and for moral reflection to occur in pieces like Jerry and Zeke that look close to, or back on, the judgment from a personal level
13)
ancient laws embedded in the code account for the penalties for their
infraction in 2 Kings 22 How about vice versa -- the penalties in 2 Kings 22 are accounted for by the ancient laws embedded in the code? Not that Harding explains this one very well, either.
14) ancient laws of war are associated with laws
which imply the wars of the monarchy, and have been influenced by Amos That was a run-on explanation full of specificity. How were the "laws of war" different under a non-monarchy in the ANE? What non-monarchy did Briggs compare to to make this assessment? If you ever wonder why I don't respect Skeptics, one reason is that they love throwing around these "non-explanations" so much. Meanwhile Tekton assistant Punkish has offered the following about Briggs: Charles Augustus Briggs. 1841-1913 (source: Gary North, Crossed Fingers [1996], chapter 3 online ed.) Tried for heresy over: (lost info, probably relates to his not believing the Word was inspired without error - yeah, not talking of translation errors
here!) The book Harding quotes from (and doesn't give its proper title) in his Deuteronomy argument is "The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch" (1892)....According to North, Briggs was exposed to German Higher Criticism in 1866 (six years after not completing his University education which North calls "suspicious behaviour" because of Briggs' insistance that everyone answer his arguments, and to his death claimed they didn't -- for an example of one who did, see JW McGarvey, Authorship of the book of Deuteronomy [1902] - a professor of Sacred History at Lexington College) and later formed a cooperative between Princeton, Union, and four other theological seminaries, having editor and co-editor - of differing methodologies - and able to veto each others' publications in the "Presbyterian Review" journal, where it had been agreed to espouse both higher and lower critical views of the Bible. When Briggs was tried for heresy in 1893 it was thus impossible for the journal to condemn his views, and he was acquitted (but upon appeal was found guilty by the General Assembly - how's that for higher criticism! - and suspended from the Presbyterian church ministry.) Briggs was a defender of W Robertson Smith's views, who had been sacked from his chair as Hebrew professor over the same issue. As an aside, since Harding likes to quote from
the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smith was an editor of this volume after his being removed from professorship. (1911 enc)
No book had been placed inside the ark as the writer of Deuteronomy stated. At the dedication of Solomon's temple the ark was opened, but it contained no book. "There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb." (1 Kings 8:5-9) If Harding refers to Deut. 31:26, this said to put the book in the side of the ark, not IN it. Wrong preposition.
It has been argued that Christ and some of the writers of the New Testament recognize Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Such expressions as "the law of Moses," "the book of Moses," "Moses said," etc., occur a few times. I would not use such an argument from an evidential perspective (it is of course a presupper that relies on the deity of Christ as an authority, which is another argument), but one comment anyway: This argument answered by the following:
1) It is not denied by critics
that Moses was the legislator of the Jews and instituted certain laws.
2)
An anonymous book is usually named after the leading character of the book. Um. So how about some examples and proofs of this? Harding gives none.
3) At this time of the writing of the New Testament material, the
tradition that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch was generally
accepted.
Arguments Against Mosaic Authorship
The position that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses-- that it is an anonymous work belonging to a later age-- is clearly proven by the following points:
1. Moses never claimed to
be the author of the Pentateuch. There is nothing in the work, neither is
there anything outside of it, to indicate that he was its author. How this proves anonymity I can't see. Harding would need to explain why this proves that the Annals are anonymous, since Tacitus never "claimed to be" the author and there is nothing inside it to indicate he was the author. There is plenty outside of the Pent. to say Moses was the author, but it's all too late for Harding's tastes.
2. The ancient Hebrews did not believe that he wrote it. Renan
says: "The opinion which attributes the composition of the Pentateuch to Moses
seems quite modern; it is very certain that the ancient Hebrews never dreamed
of regarding their legislator as their historian. The ancient documents
appeared to them absolutely impersonal, and they attached to them no author's
name" [History of Semitic Languages, Book 2, Chapter 1]. Oh, that told us a lot. Where did this "very certain" come from? Out of Renan's imagination based on non-evidence -- there is not one actual scrap of data in his comments. In other words Renan argues in a circle. Moses was given attribution for a book of laws in Kings and Chronicles; how's that?
3. The
Pentateuch was written in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew of the Bible did not
exist in the time of Moses. Ah. And this is based on, what assumption? That Deut. is late. And that Deut. is late is here based on...what assumption? Ah. Get out of that circle or you'll get dizzy. Not that it matters, for: Language takes centuries to develop. It took a
thousand years to develop the English language. The Hebrew of the Bible was
not brought from Egypt, but grew in Palestine. Referring to this language, De
Wette says: "Without doubt it originated in the land [Canaan] or was still
further developed therein after the Hebrew and other Canaanitish people had
migrated thither from the Northern country" (Old Testament, Part 2). Gesenius
says that the Hebrew language scarcely antedates the time of David. Four major commentaries on Deuteronomy say nothing about this; we would note anyway that we would expect linguistic updates to occur as a document was copied -- see link above.
4.
Not only is it true that the Hebrew language did not exist, but it is
urged by critics that no written language, as we understand it, existed in
Western Asia in the time of Moses. Prof. Andrew Norton says: "For a long time
after the supposed date of the Pentateuch we find no proof of the existence of
a book or even an inscription in proper alphabetical characters among the
nations by whom the Hebrews were surrounded." (The Pentateuch, p. 44)
Hieroglyphs were then in use, and it cannot be imagined that a work as large
as the Pentateuch was written or engraved in hieroglyphics and carried about
by this wandering tribe of ignorant Israelites. This objection is pathetically out of date, and is the result of Harding's inability to consult sources beyond the 19th century. The vast libraries of Ugarit (for example) long ago put paid to this argument, but Harding has yet to get out of his time capsule. Note as well the bigotry ("ignorant"). As an aside 95-99% of ALL of the ancient world was illiterate.
5. Much of the
Pentateuch is devoted to the history of Moses; but excepting a few brief
compositions attributed to him and quoted by the author he is always referred
to in the third person. The Pentateuch contains a biography, not an
autobiography of Moses. This canard has been addressed time and again: There is nothing about third-person presentation that says a word about authorship -- and the parts that are biographical about Moses are just a smattering from Exodus. And we still haven't got any idea about scribes as commissioned writers. IOW this objection just doesn't have any force. It doesn't even show us any pattern of "first-personing" for bios to begin with.
6. It contains an account of the
death and burial of Moses which he could not have written: "So Moses, the
servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab. . . . And he buried him
in a valley of the land of Moab" (Deut. 34:5-6). "And the children of Israel
wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days." (34:8) Orthodox
commentators attempt to remove this difficulty by supposing that the last
chapter of Deuteronomy belongs to the book of Joshua, and that Joshua recorded
the death of Moses. The same chapter, referring to the appointment of Joshua
as the successor of Moses, says: "And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the
spirit of wisdom." (Deut. 34:9) If Joshua wrote this, however full of the
spirit of wisdom he may have been, he certainly was not full of the spirit of
modesty. Joshua did not write this chapter. He's right about the Joshua argument, perhaps -- a scribe is just as good -- and way wrong about modesty. The ancients were forthright about their capabilities and a lack of the 19th century value of "modesty" is not an argument.
7. "No man knoweth of
his [Moses'] sepulchre unto this day." (Deut. 34:6) That this chapter could
ever have been attributed to either Moses or Joshua is unbelievable. The
language plainly shows that not just one, but many generations had elapsed
between the time of Moses and the time that verse was written. An example of an updating anachronism, as we note in the lined article above.
8.
While the advocates of the Mosaic authorship have, without proof, asserted
that Joshua wrote the book of Joshua and the conclusion of Deuteronomy, the
Higher Critics have demonstrated the common authorship of Deuteronomy and a
large portion of Joshua. As all the events recorded in Joshua occurred after
the death of Moses, he could not have been the author of
Deuteronomy. More wonderful specifics. It's impossible to answer such a broad and sweeping claim, which is probably why Harding took refuge in it.
9. "They [the Israelites] did eat manna until they came
unto the borders of Canaan." (Ex. 16:35) This passage was written after the
Israelites settled in Canaan and ceased to subsist on manna. And this was not
until after the death of Moses. At worst, an updating anachronism, but it need not be. It could have been written the very day after -- when Moses was still alive, and was for a while. In fact the time of his own impending death would have been the very time to put all this stuff in writing.
10. "The Horims also dwelt in Seir
beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed
them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land
of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them." (Deut. 2:12) This refers to
the conquest of Canaan and was written after that event. Here we would definitely have an updating anachronism of the sort referred to.
11. "And
while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man that
gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day." (Num. 15:32) When this was written the
Israelites were no longer in the wilderness. Their journey there is referred
to as a past event. As Moses died while they were still in the wilderness,
before they had entered the promised land, it could not have been written by
him. Wrong answer to begin with. The word here is midbar and can mean pasture, desert, or wilderness. It is used in contrast to "inside the camp".
12. "Thou shalt eat it within thy gates." (Deut. 15:22) The
phrase, "within thy gates," occurs in the Pentateuch about twenty-five times.
It refers to the gates of the cities of the Israelites, cities which they did
not inhabit until after the death of Moses. What gates did the Israelites have
in the wildnerness? Gosh. I guess they anticipated building cities that had no gates, unlike every other city of that era. It was the sort of city you built, and then no one could get inside.
13. "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my
judgments, . . . that the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it
spewed out the nations that were before you." (Lev. 18:26-28) When Moses died
the nations alluded to still occupied the land and had not been expelled. Oh my. So they couldn't anticipate taking the land at all, could they? Especially not after the Abrahamic covenant. This is the sort of one-dimensional runaround that seems to permeate liberal scholarship.
14. "And Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah-jireh: as it
is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen." (Gen. 22:14)
This is one of the passages adduced by the critics of the seventeenth century
against the Mosaic authorship of these books. It implies the conquest and a
long occupancy of the land by the Israelites. It does? Even if it does, another example of an update.
15. "And Sarah died
in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan." (Gen. 23:2) "And
Jacob came . . . unto the city of Arbah, which is Hebron." (35:27) Moses'
uncle was named Hebron, and from him the Hebronites were descended. After
the Conquest this family settled in Kirjath-arba and changed the name of
the city to Hebron. A clear example of an update; geographic designations especially would require updating in order to not become anachronistic.
16. "And Rachel died and was buried in the way
to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem." (Gen. 35:19) The Hebrew name of Bethlehem was
not given to this city until after the Israelites had conquered and occupied
it. Ditto. You would think that the critics would "get the point" that most of what they were citing were geographic issues, and figure out the pattern, but they never did.
17. "For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the remnant of
giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of
the children of Amman?" (Deut. 3:11) This is another passage relied upon by
the early critics to disprove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The
writer's reference to the bedstead of Og, which was still preserved as a relic
at Rabbath, indicates a time long subsequent to the conquest of
Bashan. In other words, it was another passage cited by those who could not imagine later writers adding notes of their own. To them this would have been an inconceivable offense against the original author -- under Western notions of intellectual property rights, and in the era of editorial footnotes below the text.
18. "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which
they of old time have set in thine inheritance." (Deut. 19:14) This refers to
the ancient landmarks set by the Israelites when they obtained possession of
Canaan, and was written centuries after that time. Landmarks of the sort, used by other cultures already even in 1400 BC? How does Harding think the ancients set out property lines, by magic marker?
19. "And Jair the
son of Manasseh went and took the small towns thereof, and called them
Havoth-jair." (Num. 32:41) The above is evidently a misstatement of an event
recorded in Judges: "And after him [Tola] arose Jair, a Gileadite, and judged
Israel twenty and two years. And he had thirty sons, . . . and they had thirty
cities, which are called Havoth-jair unto this day." (Jud. 10:3-4) Jair was
judge of Israel from 1210 to 1188 BCE, or from 241 to 263 years after the date
assigned for the writing of the Pentateuch. How about, an update aded to Numbers in the time of Judges, certifying property claims?
20. "And Nobah went and
took Kenath, and the villages thereof, and called it Nobah, after his own
name." (Num. 32:42) Referring to this and the preceding passage, Dr. Oort
says: "It is certain that Jair, the Gileadite, the conqueror of Bashan, after
whom thirty places were called Jair's villages, lived in the time of the
Judges, and that a part of Bashan was conquered at a still later period by a
certain Nobah." [Bible for Learners, vol. 1, p. 329] Ditto.
21. "Jair the
son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Qeshuri and
Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this
day" (Deut. 3:14). Even if Jair had lived in the time of Moses, the phrase
"unto this day" shows that it was written long after the event
described. And that particular sentence, probably was. But this no more proves a late date for the whole document than a footnote in a critical edition of Thomas Paine's works proves his whole work was written in the 1990s.
22. "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken
captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred
and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan" (Gen. 14:14). This passage could not
have been written before Dan existed. In Judges (18:26-29) the following
account of the origin of this place is given: "And the children of Dan went
their way; . . . and came unto Laish, unto a people that were at quiet and
secure; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city
with fire. . . . And they built a city, and dwelt therein. And they called the
name of the city Dan." This is placed after the death of Samson, and Samson
died, according to Bible chronology, 1120 BCE-- 331 years after Moses
died. Ditto. Geographic updating. This is one example we noted in our article on anachronisms.
23. "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" (Gen. 36:31). This
could not have been written before the kingdom of Israel was established; for
the writer is familiar with the fact that kings have reigned in Israel. Saul,
the first king of Israel, began to reign 356 years after Moses. Ditto. Think about it folks -- we have history textbooks with lists of Presidents; in a day before multiple editions could be easily reprinted, are there people going to not update the list the only way they can?
24.
"And his [Israel's] king shall be higher than Agag" (Num. 24:7). This refers
to Saul's defeat of Agag. "And he [Saul] took Agag the king of the Amalekites
alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword" (1
Sam. 15:8). The defeat of Agag is placed in 1067 BCE, 384 years after Moses. Ever occur to these guys that Agag is a dynastic name and that this refers to an earlier one? Nah, and of course there was only one Pharaoh named Ramesses...the name is the only data we have about this guy in Numbers, hence, this is a huge step by the critics.
25. "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, . . . until Shiloh
come" (Gen. 49:10). These words are ascribed to Jacob; but they could not have
been written before Judah received the sceptre, which was not until David
ascended the throne, 396 years after the death of Moses. Why? Jacob's whole oracle is full of prophecy; he can't be predicting Judah's holding of the kingship?
26. "And
the Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen. 12:6). When this was written the
Canaanite had ceased to be an inhabitant of Palestine. As a remnant of the
Canaanites inhabited this country up to the time of David, it could not have
been written prior to his time. And that particular sentence probably wasn't.
27. "The Canaanite and the
Perizzite dwelt then in the land " (Gen. 13:7). This, like the preceding
passage, could not have been written before the time of David. The Perizzites,
also, inhabited Palestine for a long period after the conquest. In the time of
the Judges "the children of Israel dwelt among the . . . Perizzites " (Jud.
3:5). Ditto. That's mostly what this list is all about, isn't it?
28. "The first of the first fruits of thy land thou shalt
bring into the house of the Lord thy God" (Ex. 23:19). This was not written
before the time of Solomon; for God had no house prior to the erection of the
temple, 1004 BCE, 447 years after Moses. When David proposed to build him a
house, he forbade it and said: "I have not dwelt in any house since the time
that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but
have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle" (2 Sam. 7:6). The tabernacle itself
was a tent (Tent of Meeting). During all this time no house was ever used as a
sanctuary. Hum. Why can't this be an anticipation of the building of the temple? These folks suffered some severe uni-dimensionalism. I guess there's no way someone can refer to a future construction project without being post-dated.
29. "One from among the brethren shalt thou set king
over thee. . . . But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the
people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses. . . .
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away;
neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deut.
17:15-17). "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses" (1 Kings 4:26). "
And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt" (10:28). "And he had seven
hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned
away his heart " (11:3). "The weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year
was six hundred three score and six talents of gold" (10:14). "And the king
made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones" (10:27). Nothing can be plainer than
that this statute in Deuteronomy was written after Solomon's reign. The
extravagance and debaucheries of this monarch had greatly impoverished and
corrupted the kingdom, and to prevent a recurrence of such excesses this law
was enacted. Excesses of the sort that were temptations and practices of all ancient kings even in 1400 BC. If anything Kings seems to be making the list specifically to show how Sol violated all the proscriptions.
30. "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in
judgment, . . . thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the
judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee the
sentence of judgment" (Deut. 17:8-9). This court was established by
Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 19:8-11). Jehoshaphat commenced his reign 914 BCE-- 537
years after Moses. IOW Jehosy was the first to follow this instruction like he was supposed to. 
At least that is recorded.
31. "But in the place which the Lord shall choose
in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there
shalt thou do all that I command thee" (Deut. 12:14). "Is it not he [the Lord]
whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah
and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?" (Is. 36:7). Up to the time
of Hezekiah the Hebrews worshiped at many altars. Hezekiah removed these
altars and established the one central altar at Jerusalem. This was in 726
BCE-- 725 years after Moses. IOW, they disobeyed the law. By this reasoning our laws against murder don't exist on the books because we now have people breaking them.
32. "And the Lord shall bring thee into
Egypt again with ships" (Deut. 28:68). This, critics affirm, was written when
Psameticus was king of Egypt. He reigned from 663 to 609 BCE Critics can affirm till their nose falls off, but it amounts to denying predictive prophecy, which begs the question.
33.
"Neither shalt thou set thee up any image [pillar] " (Deut. 16:22). This
proves the late origin of the Pentateuch, or at least of Deuteronomy. Isaiah
(19:19) instructs them to do the very thing which they are here forbidden to
do, and as he would not have advised a violation of the law it is evident that
this statute could not have existed in his time. Isaiah died about 750 years
after Moses died. And since people murder other people today, no law against murder has been on our books since 1776.
34. The worship of the sun, moon, and stars by
the Jews, is mentioned and condemned (Deut. 4:19; 17:3). This nature worship
was adopted by them in the reign of Manasseh, 800 years after Moses. See above. Like it didn't happen among the Canaanites and others in Moses' time?
35. "Wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord, what
he did in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon." (Num. 21:14) The author of
the Pentateuch here cites a book older than the Pentateuch, which gives an
account of the journeyings of the Israelites from Egypt to Moab-- from the
Exodus to the end of Moses' career. The redactor of a later edition would be a more obvious idea.
36. "And thou shalt write upon
the stones all the words of this law very plainly." (Deut. 27:8) "And he
[Joshua] wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses." (Josh. 8:32)
Christians affirm that the Law of Moses and the Pentateuch are one. That this
Law of Moses was not the one hundred and fifty thousand words of the
Pentateuch is shown by the fact that after the death of Moses it was all
engraved upon a stone altar. 150,000 words of the Pentateuch?? How about just the LAWS in Deuteronomy? Harding is anachronizing a modern error of distinction on the text.
37. "Now the man Moses was very meek,
above all the men which were upon the face of the earth" (Num. 12:3). No
writer would bestow upon himself, especially the meekest man on earth. This
was admirer of Moses, not Moses. See here.
38. "And this is the such fulsome
praise written by a devout was not written by blessing wherewith Moses the man
of God blessed the children of Israel before his death." (Deut. 33:1). There
are three reasons for rejecting the Mosaic authorship of this: Moses is spoken
of in laudatory terms; he is spoken of in the third person; his death is
referred to as an event that is already past. And most would say that Joshua or a later person wrote the epitaph. That doesn't wipe it all out of Moses' authority.
39. "And there arose
not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses." (Deut. 34:10) Not only is the
highest praise bestowed upon Moses, a thing that he would not have done, but
the language clearly shows that it was written centuries after the time he
lived. Centuries? How about decades? That phrase doesn't make much sense after the divided monarchy as it doesn't allow for Judah.
40. The religious history of the Hebrews embraces three
periods of time, each covering centuries. During the first period the worship
of Jehovah was confined to no particular place; during the second it was
confined to the holy city, Jerusalem; during the third it was confined not
merely to Jerusalem, but to the temple itself. There are writings in the
Pentateuch belonging to each of these periods. The Encyclopedia Britannica
declares that this fact alone provides overwhelming disproof of Mosaic
authorship. Isn't that special. It also is vague enough to be criminal.
41. The religion of the Pentateuch was not a
revelation, but an evolution. The priestly offices, the feasts, the
sacrifices, and other religious observances underwent many changes, these
changes representing different stages of development in Israel's religion and
requiring centuries of time to effect. Just as vague and just as much a non-argument.
42. The legislation of the
pentateuch was also the growth of centuries. Some of the minor codes are much
older than the documents containing them. There is legislation older than
David, probably as old as Moses. There is legislation belonging to the time of
Josiah, of Ezekiel, of Ezra. Wouldn't it be absurd to claim that all the laws
of England from Alfred to Victoria were the work of one mind, Alfred? And is
it less absurd to claim that all the laws of the Jews from Moses to Ezra were
instituted by Moses? Also vague and non-specific, with no examples given. I just love this.
43. The Pentateuch abounds with repetitions
and contradictions. The first two chapters of Genesis contain two accounts of
the Creation differing in every important detail. See here. In the sixth, seventh, and
eighth chapters of Genesis, two different and contradictory accounts of the
Deluge are intermingled. Which show a fundamental unity under a chiastic structure. Exodus and Deuteronomy each contain a copy of the
Decalogue, the two differing as to the reason assigned for the institution of
the Sabbath. See here. There are several different versions of the call of Abraham;
different and conflicting stories of the Egyptian plagues; contradictory
accounts of the conquest of Canaan. I love the lack of specifics -- can't comment without them, but Harding no doubt finds it convenient to let such vagueness lie.
Harding's next section is a generalized rah-rah for the JEDP theory. He offers summations of findings and no specifics, so we will completely pass on it and move to his next section, offering only the link to our material on the subject.
The book of Joshua, it is claimed, was written by Joshua just before his death, which occurred, according to the accepted chronology,in 1426 BCE This book for a time formed a part of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch). Well, let's drop that line from the start. We don't need to claim direct Joshuan authorship, actually. The model I subscribe to does see Joshua and later historical books as a mix of oral and written traditions compiled by a redactor/editor -- probably Jeremiah. JEDP theorists as it happens have a germ of the right idea -- where they become obnoxious is when they use the practical aspects to make ideological statements. In later times, to increase its authority, the Pentateuch was ascribed to Moses. Now here's a critical question. Doesn't this admit that Moses was an authoritative figure at this allegedly late date of attribution? And doesn't this open the question, "How did Moses become an authoritative figure?" The obvious answer -- it was he who was the Founder. The argument that it was attributed to him for authority is self-defeating. A recognition of the fact that Moses could not have written a history of the events that happened after his death caused that portion now known as Joshua to be detached and credited to Joshua. Many of the arguments adduced against the Mosaic authorship of the preceding books apply with equal force against the claim that Joshua wrote the book which bears his name. The book contains no internal evidence of his authorship; Nor does Tacitus' Annals, for that matter. he does not claim to be its author; Ditto. All we have is the initial subscription. the other writers of the Old Testament do not ascribe its authorship to him; As if they would have been concerned? They are not in situations where someone is asking questions of authorship. he is spoken of in the third person; A non-reason to de-subscribe authorship, though here I see that anyway as evidence of oral and written background tradition. it is clearly the work of more than one writer; I love these specifics, don't you? But I do allow for a redactor. the language in which it was written was not in existence when he lived; False, actually, or rather never proven. It's 19th century critics who said this, and were also oblivious to linguistic updates. It's like thinking we would never publish Chaucer or Shakespeare without explanatory notes. much of it relates to events that occurred after his death. Fine by my view, though "much of it: as Harding defines it turns out to be (we'll skip quoting this and just describe it) a few lines on Joshua's death, a line on the Jebusites being in Jerusalem until that day, and a comment on the Book of Jasher. All of five verses. That's "much" all right. Harding then addresses an idea that Samuel wrote Joshua's book, which we don't see a need to bother with. As far as we're concerned what we have here, between Joshua and Kings, is a collection of oral and written traditions compiled by Jeremiah, who added clarity notes and updated anachronisms. If you want to claim he did more, prove it. At any rate, this renders much of what Harding says further -- vs. Samuel writing his own books -- irrelevant. But let's get to something we are interested in, which has to do with ascribing Kings to Jeremiah:
Regarding the authorship of the last two, Smith's "Bible Dictionary" says: "As regards the authorship of the books, but little difficulty presents itself. The Jewish tradition, which ascribes them to Jeremiah, is borne out by the strongest internal evidence" (Kings). Is this true? If it is, Harding doesn't tell is what that evidence is, if the Dictionary offers it. Punkish adds: It doesn't. Besides, Harding missed out the last part of the sentence (which is a note on language), without ellipsis. The date assigned for Jeremiah's composition of the books is 600 BCE And yet a considerable portion of the work is devoted to a presentation of the forty years of Jewish history subsequent to this date. It records the death of Jehoiakim, the first siege and taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the elevation of Zedekiah to the throne, his eleven years' reign, the second siege and capture of Jerusalem, and a long list of events that followed. It records the reign of the Babylonian king, Evil-Merodach. This, according to the popular chronology, and according to the "Bible Dictionary," was from 561 to 559 --forty years after the date assigned, and long after the time of Jeremiah. Beg pardon? All of this relies on that 600 BC date, which Harding doesn't substantiate. Jeremiah lived until the time of the Exile and the events Harding lists. Who wrote Lamentations? He also had a scribe named Baruch who may have outlived him.
These books are a mixture of history and fiction. They profess to be a history of the Hebrew kings; and yet a dozen chapters are devoted to a fabulous account of the sayings and doings of two Hebrew prophets, Elijah and Elisha. First and Second Chronicles, which give a history of the same kings, refer to Elijah but once, and make no mention of Elisha. The confused character of their contents, especially their chronology, has often been referred to. They are simply a compilation of ancient documents, written at various times, and by various authors. The Encyclopedia Britannica expresses the almost unanimous verdict of critics respecting the authorship of the four principal historical books of the Old Testament: "We cannot speak of the author of Kings or Samuel, but only of an editor or successive editors whose main work was to arrange in a continuous form extracts or abstracts from earlier books." Nothing here but an "is so, is too" sound bite which doesn't prove a lick and doesn't tell us why any of these issues (i.e., Chronicles not mentioning Elisha) is a problem. It's enough to quote Britannica and run, apparently.
Isaiah
Isaiah, the chief of the prophetic books, and, next to the Pentateuch and the Four Gospels, the most important book of the Bible, purports to be a series of prophecies uttered during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Uzziah's reign began BCE 810, and ended BCE 758; Hezekiah's reign began BCE 726 and ended BCE 698. Isaiah's ministry is supposed to have extended from about 760 to 700 BCE, and toward the close of this period, the book of Isaiah, as it now appears, is said to have been written. In support of Isaiah's authorship of the entire work the following arguments have been advanced:
1. Its various prophecies exhibit
a unity of design.
2. The style is the same throughout the work.
3.
Messianic prophecies abound in both its parts.
4. No other writer claimed
its authorship.
5. The ancient Jews all ascribe it to him.
The above arguments for the authenticity of the work are partly true and partly untrue. So far as they conflict with the following arguments against its authenticity as a whole they are untrue: Harding offers here only vague comments and no substantiation. Our comments on Isaiah are here but to give all the answer that these deserve:
1. The work is fragmentary in
character. In what way, and how would this affect authorship? If it's a bunch of oracles delivered over a lifetime, I would think it would be fragmentary.
2. The style of its several parts is quite unlike. Again, in what way?
3. Many
of its events occurred aftier Isaiah's death. No examples given but these:
4. Much of it relates to the
Babylonian captivity.
5. It records both the name and the deeds of Cyrus. I.e., it makes prophecies, which are impossible. Hence it was written late. Bravo for the circular arguments of the naturalists. Only honest Skeptics like Tim Callahan admit that this sort of argument is not really useful.
Isaiah might very properly be divided into two books, the first comprising the first thirty-nine chapters; the second, the concluding twenty-seven chapters. Impartial I.e., those he agrees with and who have the same naturalistic worldview critics agree that while Isaiah may have written a portion of the first part he could not have written all of it nor any of the second. This is the conclusion of Cheyne, Davidson, De Wette, Eichorn, Ewald, Gesenius, and others. Name dropping as an argument. Nice. But we do get a few: That he wrote neither the first nor the second part of the book, as it now exists, is proven by the following passages taken from both: "Babylon is fallen, is fallen" (xxi, 9). I.e., he can't be a predictor of the future. "Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defensed cities of Judah, and Book them" (xxxvi, 1). "So Sennacherib king of Assvria departed, and went and returned and dwelt in Nineveh. "And it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the house of Nishrock his god, that Addram-melech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia; and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead" (xxxvii, 37, 38). Sennacherib ascended the throne 702 BCE and died 680 BCE Isaiah lived in the preceding century. He did? Not according to the book of Kings which has Isaiah, Hezekiah, and Sennacherib all in the same place. Where did Harding get this from? "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid". "Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus" (xlv, 1). "He shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives " (xlv, 13). Cyrus conquered Babylon BCE 538, and released the Jews from captivity and permitted them to return and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple BCE 536, nearly two centuries after the time of Isaiah. I.e., no predictive prophecy allowed. At least that one we can see how he got to it: naturalism assumed.
Regarding these passages, Dr.
Lyman Abbott, in a sermon on "The Scientific Conception of Revelation," says:
"If you take up a history and it refers to Abraham Lincoln, you are perfectly
sure that it was not written in the time of George Washington. Now, if you
take up the book of Isaiah and read in it about Cyrus the Great, you are
satisfied that the book was not written by Isaiah one hundred years before
Cyrus was born." Dr. Lyman Abbott, i.e., spun himself in a naturalistic circle. Prof. T. E. Cheyne of Oxford University, the leading modern
authority on Isaiah, says : "That portion of the Old Testament which is known
as the book of Isaiah was, in fact, written by at least three writers- and
possibly many more- who lived at different times and in different places."
Nearly all of the ninth chapter, which, on account of its supposed Messianic
prophecies, is, with Christians, one of the most valued chapters of the Bible,
Professor Cheyne declares to be an interpolation. That four of the middle
chapters, the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth, and thirty-ninth,
originally formed a separate document is evident. Nice assertion of their views, but it does not constitute an argument and does not deal with contrary data. Concerning these four
chapters, Paine truthfully observes: "This fragment of history begins and ends
abruptly; it has not the least connection with the chapter that precedes it,
nor with that which follows it, nor with any other in the book." [The Age of
Reason, p. 129] The Age of Reason! Now that's a great source for Biblical scholarship and certainly up on all the latest linguistic and other data.
If Isaiah wrote this book, and Jeremiah wrote the books of Kings, as claimed; then either Isaiah or Jeremiah was a plagiarist; for the language of the four chapters just mentioned is with a few slight alterations, identical with that of a portion of the second book of Kings. Uh, problem with that is, that "plagiarism" is a modern offense. The ancients didn't see any problem is reusing material from others, and didn't always care about citing a source. The integrity of this book cannot be maintained. It is not the product of one writer, but of many. How many, critics may never be able to determine; certainly not less than five, probably more than ten. The prophecies of Jeremiah, it is affirmed, were delivered at various times between 625 and 686, and a final redaction of them was made by him about the latter date. The book, as it now appears, is in such a disordered condition that Christian scholars have to separate it into numerous parts and rearrange them in order to make a consecutive and intelligible narrative. That's a very nice provincialist opinion, but in terms of actual data offers nothing. Dr. Hitchcock, in his "Analysis of the Bible" (p 1,144), says: "So many changes have taken place, or else so many irregularities were originally admitted in the arrangement of the book, that Dr. Blayney, whose exposition we chiefly follow, was obliged to make fourteen different portions of the whole before he could throw it into consecutive order. n The following is Dr. Blayney's arrangement of the book: Chapters i-xii; xiii-xx; xxii, . . . xX111; xxv, xxvi; xxxv, xxxvi; xlv-xlviii; xlix (l-33); xxi; xxiv; xxvii-xxxiv; xxxvii-xxxix; xlix (34-39); 1, li; xl-xliv. This disordered condition of Jeremiah indicates one of two things: a plurality of authors, or a negligence, if nothing worse, on the part of the Bible's custodians that Christians will be loath to acknowledge. Actually see here. The book, as a whole, was not written by Jeremiah. He did not write the following: "And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison" (lii, al). The release of Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach occurred 562 or 561 BCE Jeremiah had then been dead twenty years. This book is not the work of one author. He may be right. Baruch could read and write also. The thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth chapters were not written by the same person. Much of the thirty-eighth is a mere repetition of the thirty-seventh; and yet the two are so filled with discrepancies that it is impossible to accept both as the writings of the same author. They look different enough to me -- if subjective assertion is going to be enough in this context. Jeremiah, it is declared, wrote both Kings and Jeremiah. He could not have written the concluding portion of either. The last chapter of 2 Kings and the last chapter of Jeremiah are the same, and were written after the time of Jeremiah. Poor Baruch, he never gets any idea for credit. Or even one of Jerry's Kids (half pun) collecting his work and making an addendum. Oh well. So much for the wooden ideas of this crowd.
EzekieI
The period assigned for Ezekiel's prophecies is that beginning BCE 595 and ending BCE 573. Christians assert that the first twenty-four chapters of the work were written before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The whole work was undoubtedly written after this event. Undoubtedly, but don't look for reasons why. We don't get any. The Talmud credits its authorship to the Great Synagogue. If this be correct, Ezekiel had nothing to do with its composition; for he was not a member of the Great Synagogue. Ewald, while cIaiming for him the utterance of its several prophecies, believes that the book in its present form is not his work, but that of a later author. Referring to Ezekiel, Dr. Oort says: "In his case, far more than in Jeremiah's even, we must be on our guard against accepting the written account of his prophecies as a simple record of what he actually said" (Bible for Learners, vol. ii, p. 407). That sure tells us a lot about why, doesn't it? Zunz, a German critic, not only contends that the book is not authentic, but declares that no such prophet as Ezekiel ever existed. Good for Zunz. Can he explain why and can his arguments survive scrutiny? While it must be admitted that the internal evidence against the integrity and authenticity of Ezekiel is weaker than that of the other books thus far examined, it can be confidently asserted that Bible apologists have been unable to establish either. One damaging fact they concede: no other writer of the Bible ever mentions the book or its alleged author. How and why this is "damaging" is not explained. Harding has set an arbitrary parameter for damage here, otherwise, we'd like to know how this compares to comparable secular material like the works of Herodotus -- how's "integrity and authenticity" for that and how does it compare to Zeke?
Minor Prophets.
The twelve Minor Prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, require but a passing notice. Compared with the other Prophets, or even with the principal books of the Hagiographa, they are of little importance. A part of them may be genuine -- the writings of those to whom their authorship has been ascribed -- but there is no external evidence, either in the Bible or elsewhere, to support the claim, while the internal evidence of the books themselves is not convincing. Still a load of vague generalization. We want to know what tests are being used, how they apply to secular documents, and so on.
The date assigned for the
composition of Jonah, the oldest of the Later Prophets, is 856, according to
some, 862 BCE. He is said to have prophesied during the reign of one Pul,
"king of Assyria." But unfortunately Pul's reign is placed in 770 BCE, ninety
years after the date assigned for the book. Which is why others assign Jonah to that period. Punkish writes: Well that's not a primary source, is it! I've spotted this one being handed out uncritically around the 'Net, and now it's time to take it outside and shoot it - I've found the context for this, and it turns out to be a misquote (O'Hare, any last requests before the firing squad?) This is from Table talk, chapter DXLVII (sorry don't know Roman numerals!): "The majesty of the prophet Jonah is surpassing. He has but four chapters, and yet he moved therewith the whole kingdom, so that in his weakness, he was justly a figure and a sign of the Lord Christ. Indeed, it is surprising, that Christ should recur to this but in four words. Moses likewise, in few words describes the creation, the history of Abraham, and other great mysteries; but he spends much time in describing the tent, the external sacrifices, the kidneys and so on; the reason is, he saw that the world greatly esteemed outward things, which they beheld with their carnal eyes, but that which was spiritual, they soon forgot.
The history of the prophet Jonah is almost incredible, sounding more strange than any poet's fable; if it were not in the Bible, I should take it for a lie; for consider, how for the space of three days he was in the great belly of the whale, whereas in three hours he might have been digested and changed into the nature, flesh and blood of that monster; may not this be said, to live in the midst of death? In comparison to this miracle, the wonderful passage through the Red Sea was nothing. But what appears more strange is, that after he was delivered, he began to be angry, and to expostulate with the gracious God, touching a small matter not worth a straw. It is a great mystery. I am ashamed of my exposition upon this prophet, in that I so weakly touch the main point of this wonderful miracle." So much for Harding as a researcher!
Jonah is named in the Four
Gospels, named by Christ himself. This is adduced as proof of its authenticity
and in support of a literal instead of an allegorical interpretation of its
language. But Christ's language, even if his divinity be admitted, proves
neither the authenticity nor the historical character of the book; He taught
in parables, and certainly would have no hesitancy in using an allegorical
figure as a symbol. Sorry, but references to Jonah were not in "parabolic" format. Scratch that reason. No scholar now contends for its authenticity, and no sane
person believes its stories to be historical. Wow. So if you try counterarguing, you are already insane. Luther rejected the book. That's nice. What were his reasons? Did it make his toes itch? Tekton research associate Punkish notes has been looking for something where Luther sais this, and so far here is what he has: In his Galatians commentary Luther wrote, "'So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth.' They repented. Nowhere in the Book of Jonah do you read that the Ninevites received the Law of Moses, or that they were circumcised, or that they offered sacrifices." Later in like when he wrote his anti-Semitic work "The Jews and their lies", and discussing the issue of whether or not circumcision makes you right (and able to boast) before God, he says, "Furthermore, there stands the whole of the prophet Jonah, who converted Nineveh to God and preserved it together with kings, princes, lords, land, and people, yet did not circumcise these people..." No rejection so far. This may be the source:
The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible."
('The Facts About Luther, O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.).
Four other books, Hosea, Micah,
Zechariah, and Malachi, are quoted or supposed to be quoted, by the
Evangelists, and two, Joel and Amos, are mentioned in Acts. This proves no
more than that these books were in existence when the New Testament was
written-- a, fact which none disputes. Um. Well, they are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which dates them even earlier than that...Harding is way behind on his scholarship. And we're still waiting for explanations of how documents like these are dated. Matthew (ii, 6) cites Micah (v, ii) as
a Messianic prophecy. Micah lived during the reign of Hezekiah and wrote, not
of an event 700 years in the future, but of one near at hand, the expected
invasions of the Assyrians. The passage quoted by Matthew (ii, 15) from Hosea
(xi, 1) refers to the exodus of the Israelites which took place 700 years
before the time of Hoses. See principles here. Zechariah is the work of at least three writers.
Davidson says: "To Zechariah's authentic oracles were attached chapters
ix-xiv, themselves made up of two parts (ix-xi, xii-xiv) belonging to
different times and authors" (Canon, p. 33). Just summary, no reasons given, nor any defense. As far as Harding is concerned, he read it in one book and that settles the matter. But I find that no more than two writers are the norm for Zech, according to the commentators, and that often on ridiculous grounds like, "This part is positive in tone, this part is negative, etc" -- silly stuff that doesn't allow a writer to write in more than one way. The passage quoted by Matthew
(xxi, 5) is not from the authentic portion of Zechariah, but from one of the
spurious chapters, ix, 9..The Prophets. 91 Mark (i, 2,3) quotes a prophecy
which he applies to John the Baptist. The passage quoted contains two
sentences, one of which is found in Malachi (iii, l), the other in Isaiah (xl,
3). Whiston declares that both sentences originally belonged to Isaiah. If
Whiston is correct the Evangelist has not quoted Malachi. Try this instead. This, the last book
of the Old Testament, is an anonymous . work, Malachi being the name of the
book and not of the author. That's possibly true, but doesn't make a lot of difference. The period assigned for the prophecies of Amos is
from 808 to 785 BCE The book contains the following: "In that day will I raise
up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof;
and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old" (ix,
11). "And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they
shall build the waste cities and inhabit them" (14). Amos was not written
until after the captivity. This commenced 588 BCE and continued fifty years. I.e., predictive prophecy is begged to be impossible. But removal from the land was known to be a standard punishment gods could put on their people.
Joel, it is asserted, was written 800 BCE That this writer also lived after
the captivity is shown by the following: "I shall bring again the captivity of
Judah and Jerusalem" (iii, 1). This passage, it is claimed, was a prediction
made centuries before the event occurred. Ditto to above. Joel's ability to predict future
events, however, is negatived by his next effort: "But Judah shall dwell
forever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation" (20). In case Harding failed to notice, this verse comes after a comparative verse stating what Egypt's fate will be. At the same time, none of this negates Jewish violations of the covenant and removal from the land for punishment periods. See this debate. "Nineveh is laid
waste : who shall bemoan her?" (Nahum iii, 7). The composition of Nahum is
placed between 720 and 698 BCE Nineveh was destroyed 606 BCE, a century later. On denial of prophecy only. Good reason.
The first verse of Zephaniah
declares that the book was written "in the days of Josiah," in the seventh
century BCE; the last verse shows that it was written in the days of Cyrus, in
the sixth century B c. Predictive prophecy question-begging yet again! Every chapter of Habakkuk and Obadiah's single chapter
show that these books were written after the dates assigned. Reasons follow....NOT! The book of
Haggai is ascribed to Haggai, the last person in the world to whom it can
reasonably be ascribed. It is not a book of Haggai, but about Haggai. That made sense. So there's also no such thing as an autobiography.
Excepting a few brief exhortations, of which it gives an account, it does not
purport to contain a word from his tongue or pen. It needs to? Does Tacitus' Annals have any such indication aside from the same sort of titular attribution? This argument applies with
still greater force to Jonah. The greater portion of the Minor Prophets are
probably forgeries. The names of their alleged authors are attached to them,
but in most cases in the form of a superscription only. It's good enough for Tacitus -- why not for these guys? Each book opens with a
brief introduction announcing the author. These introductions were not written
by the authors themselves, but by others. Possibly yes, by scribes who wrote the material for the prophets, as Baruch did. Which makes no difference. The only authority for pronouncing
the books authentic, then, is the assurance of some unknown Jewish scribe or
editor. "The only authority for pronouncing the Annals authentic..." It's the same thing, folks, and the same level of evidence. A damaging argument against the authority, if not against the
authenticity, of the Prophets is the fact that while the historical records of
the Old Testament cover the time during which all of them are said to have
flourished, only a few of them are deemed worthy of mention. Huh? By who and where, and in how many documents left to us are they not mentioned that they should have been? Harding just throws this stuff in the air and expects us to eat it up.
The Hagiograhia
The Hagiographs comprises the remaining thirteen books of the Old Testament. It was divided into three divisions: 1. Psalms, Proverbs, Job. 2. Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther. 3. Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, First and Second Chronicles. The Jews considered these books of less value than those of the Law and the Prophets. In what way and why does it make a difference? The books belonging to the third division possess little merit; but the first two divisions, omitting Esther, together with a few poems in the Penateuch and the Prophets, contain the cream of Hebrew literature. That gave us some specific reasons, didn't it? After summing up the contents of Psalms Harding goes on:
Psalms...Smith's "Bible Dictionary," a standard orthodox authority, claims for David the authorship of the first book only. The second book, while including a few of his psalms, was not compiled, it says, until the time of Hezekiah, three hundred years after his reign. The psalms of the third book, it states, were composed during Hezekiah's reign; those of the fourth book following these, and prior to the Captivity; and those of the fifth book after the return from Babylon, four hundred years after David's time. There are psalms in the third, fourth, and fifth books ascribed to David, but they are clearly of much later origin. The "Bible Dictionary" admits that they were not composed by him, and attempts to account for the Davidic superscription by assuming that they were written by Hezekiah, Josiah, and others who were lineal descendants and belonged to the house of David. But there is nothing to warrant the assumption that they were written by these Jewish kings. They were anonymous pieces to which the name of David was affixed to add to their authority. He says it, and that settles it. Aren't we often rattled for using a bumper sticker that says much the same? Not that we expect Harding to have the wherewithal to analyze 150 Psalms for authorship clues. Harding goes on to offer some non-controversial reasons to date some of the Psalms later, which are all fine with us. (Punkish here adds: On Psalms I'm appalled at Harding's selective quoting. He writes, "Psalms...Smith's "Bible Dictionary," a standard orthodox authority, claims for David the authorship of the first book only." - the dictionary also adds Davidic compilation. On the second book: A few?? Let's quote the rest of the passage shall we? Regarding the second book: ' It would naturally comprise, 1st, several or most of the Levitical psalms anterior to that date; and 2d, the remainder of the psalms of David previously uncompiled. To these latter the collector after properly appending the single psalm of Solomon has affixed the notice that "the prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.' " Harding needs a 101 course in reading...But let's not stop there! There's more. On the third book: It actually says they were COMPILED in *Josiah's* reign - the bit about Hezekiah is in respect to interest in that period and beyond, yet composition is not ascribed to him - and states one psalm is by David, which Harding managed to omit! I also think he is confusing compilation with composition. On the fourth book: Again he manages to omit that the Dictionary states one psalm in this book is by (i.e. composed by) Moses, and two by David. The fifth: This one's the most absurd, the Dictionary states FIFTEEN of these psalms are by David and one by Solomon. Harding clearly tries to cause doubt in the readers' mind by omitting the facts before him....Of course, the omission of details could perhaps be explained by the above IF he had read the dictionary properly (shades of Robert Miller, the Jes.Sem apologist!) It nowhere ascribes composition to Hezekiah or Josiah, only compilation in the reign of these kings, while the authorship by Davidic descendants is correct - but only for the third book! For the fourth and fifth books it says they are either anonymous or by Moses (one), David and ONE by Solomon! Where does he get "others" from, of Davidic descent?? And why mention these books at all here? This is generalizing to the point of being decidedly misleading. And neither Harding nor the dictionary explains how they are "clearly of much later origin" it simply says there is "nothing to distinguish these two books from each other in respect of outward decoration or arrangement and they may have been compiled together in the days of Nehemiah." ) But then: Some of the more conservative German critics credit David with as many as thirty psalms. Dr. Lyman Abbott contends that he did not write more than fifteen. The Dutch scholars, Kuenen and Oort, believe that he wrote none. And this is probably the truth. Wow, case closed for overwhelming preponderance of evidence presented! While collections of these psalms doubtless existed at an earlier period, the book, in its present form, was compiled during the Maccabean age, about one hundred and fifty years before the Christian era. Many of these psalms are fine poetical compositions; but the greater portion of them are crude in construction, and some of them fiendish in sentiment. Nice place for subjective evaluations from a modern provincialist, too.
Proverbs
The authorship of Proverbs has
been ascribed to Solomon. He could have written but few of these proverbs, and
probably wrote none. Yay! We get to close another case early for reason of overwhelming presented evidence. It is a compilation of maxims made many centuries after
his time. Tradition represented Solomon as the wisest of men, and every wise
saying whose origin was unknown was credited to him. Hum. And the documented proof of this is, what? Zippo. As if they had documentation of ancient Jews gathering anonymous sayings, sitting around looking at them, and saying, "Eh, heck with it, let's just ascribe them all to Solomon." Dr. Oort says: "The
history of Solomon's wisdom resembles that of David's music. In either case
the imagination of posterity has given a thoroughly religious character to
what was in reality purely secular; and just as David was made the author of a
number of psalms, so various works of the so-called sages, or proverb-makers,
were ascribed to Solomon" (Bible for Learners, vol. 2, p. 75). Yay again! Oort's actual evidence for this? Count it on no fingers. The "evidence" is no more than the assumption of religious evolution. The book
consists of seven different collections of proverbs, as follows: 1. i, 7-ix;
2. x- xxii, 16; 3. xxii, 17-xxiv; 4. xxv-xxix; 5. xxx; 6. xxxi, l-9 ; 7. xxxi,
19-31. The first six verses are a preface. The first collection, it is
admitted, was not the work of Solomon. These proverbs were composed as late as
600 BCE. Admitted by who, and why? Don't expect the sound bite to be developed. The second collection is presented as "The Proverbs of Solomon." If
any of Solomon's proverbs exist they are contained in this collection. The
third collection is anonymous. The fourth begins as follows: "These are also
proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out"
(700 BCE). The fifth contains "The words of Agur the son of Jakeh." The sixth,
comprising the first nine verses of the last chapter, are "The words of King
Lemuel." The seventh, comprising the remainder of the chapter, is a poem,
written after the Captivity. Why? Don't expect an answer. Now here's something odd, Harding left out a subheading, but obviously goes on to talk about Job. It is remarkable that the book which, from a
literary point of view, occupies the first place among the books of the Bible,
should be the only one in the collection that was not written by a believer in
the religion of the Bible. It is almost universally conceded that the book of
Job was not written by a Jew, but by a Gentile. Most Christians ascribe its
authorship to Job himself; but there is no more authority for ascribing it to
Job than there is for ascribing the Pentateuch to Moses. Other than that he was there, I guess not. Ask the same of Tacitus. Job is the name of
the leading character of the book, not the name of its author. Its authorship
is unknown. The Talmud asserts, and probably correctly, that Job was not a
real personage-- that the book is an allegory. Luther says, "It is merely the
argument of a fable." And that settles that. We don't even need to do an internal literary analysis; Jews of the third century, and a German of the 16th, tell us all we need to know in just two sentences about a book written at least 1800 years before their (Talmud's) time even by Harding's admission. Tekton research assistant Punkish notes: I can't find this, in Table Talk Luther calls Job "admirable" (chap XXV)
along with other positive comments elsewhere which kinda weakens the
citation. How I wish Harding would say where he gets these things from, he
just likes to go "so-and-so says such-and-such". On the Talmud: This is a terrible misquote. He is correct in this sense: on a score
of 10 he gets 1 point. The Talmud gives nine opinions about Job, eight refer
to *when he lived* - giving various conjectures, and the last suggests the
book is allegory (as a lesson only - apparently basic Midrash teaching
practice). Ref: Bava Basra page 15a b.
Punkish also recommends PEREK YOMI -
The Book of Job.
Regarding its antiquity, Dr. Hitchcock says: "The first written of all the books in the Bible, and the oldest literary production in the world, is the book of Job." The date assigned for its composition is 1520 BCE Had Job been written a thousand years before the time claimed, it would not be the oldest literary production in the world. No one said that is was other than Hitchcock, and on no apparent basis. What of it? But it was probably written a thousand years after the time claimed. Why? "Eh. Just because." Or because: Luther places its composition 500 years after this time; Renan says that it was written 600 years later, Ewald and Davidson 900 years later. Grotius and DeWette believe that it was written 1000 years after the date assigned, while Hartmann and others contend that it was written still later. And just lavish praise of all those reasons they give for that. Especially Luther. Especially all these guys in the 19th century. While its exact date cannot be determined, there is internal evidence pointing to a much later age than that named. " Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south" (ix, 9). The use of these Greek astronomical names proves a later origin. It does? The words in Hebrew are 'ayish, keciyl, and kiymah. So, too, does the following passage: "The Chaldeans made out three bands" (i, 17). Of this people Chambers' Encyclopedia says: "The Chaldeans are first heard of in the ninth century before Christ as a small Accadian tribe on the Persian Gulf." This was seven centuries after the date assigned for Job, while the same authority states that Chaldea did not exist until a still later period. No, not "This makes Job the first to mention them..." Or it could be an updating anachronism. The poem of Job, as originally composed, comprised the following: Chapters i-xxvii, 10; xxviii-xxxi; xxviii-xli, 12; xlii, 1-6. All the rest of the book, about eight chapters-- nearly one fifth of it-- consists of clumsy forgeries. If we don't know who the author is, how can it be "forgeries"? How are they clumsy? Don't expect an answer, it's just Harding copying 19th century ethnocentrism uncritically. The poet is a radical thinker who boldly questions the wisdom and justice of God. To counteract the influence of his work these interpolations which controvert its teachings were inserted. Nor is this all. Our translators have still further mutilated the work. Its most damaging lines they have mistranslated or glossed over. Thus Job (xiii, 15) says: " He [God] will slay me; I have no hope." Yet they make him say the very reverse of this: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." Tekton research assistant Punkish notes: Clarke's commentary has, (Job 13:15) Verse 15. Though he slay me ] I have no dependence but God; I trust in him alone. Should he even destroy my life by this affliction, yet will I hope that when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold. In the common printed Hebrew text we have al ljya lo ayachel, I will NOT hope; but the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Chaldee have read wl lo, HIM, instead of al lo NOT; with twenty-nine of Kennicott's and Deuteronomy Rossi's MSS., and the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots. Our translators have followed the best reading. Coverdale renders the verse thus: Lo, there is nether comforte ner hope for me, yf he wil slaye me. Now this was available in the 19th century; if Harding's head is stuck in this period how come he doesn't know the issue is one of textual criticism not mistranslation?
The Five Rolls
The second division of the Hagiographa, known as the Five Rolls, or Megilloth, contains five small books-- The Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Ruth, and Esther.
The Song of Solomon, Song of Songs, or Canticles, as it is variously called, and Ecclesiastes, or The Preacher, are said to be the works of Solomon-- the former a product of his youth, the latter of his old age. It is quite certain that the same author did not write both, and equally certain that Solomon wrote neither. How certain? Why we have all we need; Ewald's affirmation: The Song of Solomon, Ewald affirms, is an anonymous poem, written about the middle of the tenth century after Solomon's time. It is doubtless of much later origin. It belongs to Northern, and not to Southern Palestine. This alone proves that Solomon did not write it. How Ewald arrived at all of this is not told. I'm sure he was well-trained, but this, sorry, is not an argument. The Talmud says, "Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs." Citation for this? None is given. Hengstenberg, one of the most orthodox of commentators, says that Ecclesisates was written centuries after the time of Solomon. Davidson believes that it was written as late as 350 BCE; while Hartmann and Hitzig, Uerman critics, contend that it was written still later. See here. Solomon's Song is an amorous poem, beautiful in its way.
The Preacher of Ecclesiastes is something of a Freethought preacher. He is a skeptic and a philosopher. Lamentations, it is claimed, was composed by Jeremiah. There is little evidence either for or against this claim. Oort affirms that its ascription to Jeremiah is a "mistaken tradition," that its five poems were written by five different authors and at different times. How nice for Oort. Anything behind that affirmation besides affirmation? We'll never be told. The habit of ascribing anonymous writings to eminent men was prevalent among the Jews. "Prevalent" based on the assumed truth of the declaration that they did in each case, with internal evidence occasionally cited, usually having to do with prophecy. Chase yourself in a circle. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Daniel, and probably Jeremiah, have been declared the authors of books of which they never heard, Ruth is the only book of the Bible whose authorship is generally conceded by Christians to be unknown. Dr. Hitchcock says: "There is nothing whatever by which the authorship of it can be determined." Many orthodox scholars admit that Esther's authorship, like that of Ruth, is unknown. Some credit it to Mordecai. It was written as late as 300 BCE, 150 years after Mordecai's time. As usual, Harding's say so is all the argument needed. Where's the challenge here? The Vulgate and modern Catholic versions include six chapters not found in our authorized version. False, says Punkish. The Vulgate Esther contains 10 chapters, so does the Authorized Version. There are many books in the Bible devoid of truth, but probably none so self-evidently false as Esther. It has been described as "a tissue of glaring impossibilities from beginning to end." Luther pronounces it a "heathenish extravagance." Good for him. See here. Always quote Luther over modern OT scholars. Tekton research associate Punkish adds: This is what Luther wrote (in Table Talk XXIV): "I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities. The Jews much more esteemed the book of Esther than any of the prophets; though they were forbidden to read it before they had attained the age of thirty, by reason of the mystic matters it contains." Luther says in his Introduction to Esther translation that it contains "much that is good". Harding doesn't even give an ascription to the other quote - he might as well have made it up himself, the only source on the Internet for this quote is...Ken Harding. So much for Harding's research capability!"
Daniel
Christians include Daniel with the Greater Prophets, and assign the authorship of this book to the sixth century BCE. It belongs to the Hagiographa and was one of the last books of the Old Testament to be written. A large part of the book relates to Belshazzar. Twenty times in a single chapter is he referred to as the king of Babylon... Stop here. All of Harding's objections are covered here; as usual he's content to quote people from the 19th century.
Ezra and Nehemiah
Ezra and Nehemiah for a time constituted one book: Ezra. This was afterwards divided into two books and called The First and Second books of Ezra. Both were ascribed to Ezra. Subsequently the names were changed to those by which they are now known, and the authorship assigned respectively to Ezra and Nehemiah. Will be checking into this -- it's not familiar. That both were not composed by the same author is shown by the fact that each contains a copy of the register of the Jews that returned from Babylon. Critics agree that Ezra did not write all of the book which now bears his name-- that it is the work of various authors and was written, for the most part, long after Ezra's time. Still waiting for actual reasons to be given, but in this last section Harding is content to quote summaries, with a bit of an exception: A portion of it was written in Hebrew and the remainder in Aramaic.
Nehemiah wrote, at the most, but a part of the book ascribed to him. He did not write the following: "The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers; also the priests to the reign of Darius the Persian" (xii, 22). Darius the Persian, began to reign 336 BCE; Nehemiah wrote 433 BCE An anachronizing update, as noted above. These guys think 1-2 verses make the whole thing late. "There were in the days of . . . Nehemiah the governor " (12:26). "In the days of Nehemiah" (47). These passages show that the book, as a whole, was not only not written by Nehemiah, but not until long after the time of Nehemiah. How about "redacted and edited"? Spinoza says that both Ezra and Nehemiah were written two or three hundred years after the time claimed. The later critics are generally agreed that neither Ezra nor Nehemiah had anything to do with the composition of these books. Bully for Spinoza. We're still quoting archaic pre-19th century commentators whose arguments Harding doesn't seem to want to share with us. Tekton research associate Punkish adds that this comes from Spinoza's A Theologico-Political Treatise - Part 2 and says, "This was published anonymously (!) - read through his interpretation of scripture section (plus useful footnotes), then read the stuff on Ezra (150) - this gives you the arguments behind Ken Harding's claims about dating Ezra. He also mentions the second book of Ezra - which appears to be Nehemiah. So this one goes back to the 17th century."
First and Second Chronicles
The concluding books of the Hagiographa, and of the Old Testament, if arranged in their proper order, are First and Second Chronicles. Theologians tell us that they were written or compiled by Ezra 456 BCE.
By carefully comparing the genealogy given in the third chapter of 1 Chronicles with that given in the first chapter of Matthew, it will be seen that the records of Chronicles are brought down to within a few generations of Jesus. Not necessarily, since genealogies were not always complete. These books are a compilation of documents made centuries after the time that Ezra and Nehemiah are supposed to have completed the canon of the Old Testament, and a hundred years after the date assigned for the Septuagint translation.
The fragmentary character of many of the books of the Bible, and particularly of Chronicles, is shown in the conclusion of the second book. It closes with an unfinished sentence, as follows: "The Lord his God is with him and let him go up-." That sure does show the fragmentary character of MANY books, doesn't it. It's quite normal to be missing lots from ancient docs, but the Bible is missing far less than, say, Livy. The concluding words may be found in another book of the Bible: Ezra (1:3): "To Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel," etc. The first verses of Ezra are identical with the last verses of Chronicles. The compiler of Chronicles had seemingly begun to copy the document which now forms a part of the book of Ezra, and in the middle of a sentence was suddenly called away from his work, never to resume and complete it. Or, Ezra continued it into the book that bears his name. Why does this simple answer escape Harding? Well, that's all of his arguing, such as it is: he closes --
We have now reviewed the books of the Old Testament. We have seen that the claims made in support of their authenticity are, for the most part, either untrue or incapable of proof. We've seen Harding quote outdated materials in summary and 90% of the time not their reasons for what they argue. When and by whom Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, First and Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Jonah, Haggai, and Malachi were written is unknown. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Zechariah wrote, at the most, but portions of the books ascribed to them. The few remaining books may have been written by those whose names they bear, though even these are veiled in doubt. There is not one book in the Old Testament whose authenticity, like that of many ancient Greek and Roman books, is fully established. Too bad Harding didn't make som comparisons to any of those Greek and Roman books showing us how to achieve certainty. Well, folks, we had 90% sound bites, 9% outdated arguments, and 1% bad news. That's the story of Kenneth Harding's critiques on the OT.