could moses have written the first five books of the bible

As Arachnophilia implies, rabbis aren't, in general, scholars. Neither are most Christian ministers. And just like Christian ministers, you'll find a range of opinion. Orthodox and reformed rabbis are likely to disagree on many points.On Sunday I can attend an early Baptist service full of literal interpretation, and then I can drive down the road to my own church and my pastor will as likely as not make a humorous reference at some point to the silliness of some literal interpretation. Naturally, one of the points these two ministers would disagree on is Mosaic authorship of the Penteteuch.Interestingly, I feel much more comfortable at a Baptist service than at my own church. I can sit back and observe the Baptist service objectively, as if from the perspective of an anthropologist studying primitive religious rituals. Attending services at my own church can often be a disquieting experience because of the mixture of acceptable and unacceptable views.--Percy

I think that very much depends on which church your minister is part of. To be ordained in the Church of England, for example, you must unergo a fairly rigorous passage of study.

What does your professor teach?

Hi Jack,The Church of Scotland is the same. I have a very large percentage of students in my seminar groups who are training for the Church of Scotland ministry, and they need to at least have a Bachelor of Divinity to proceed.Our uni does not teach Mosaic authorship, and encourages students to look at the text as literature.The USA appears to have a lot of 'pastors' who essentially need have no training whatsoever.Brian.

In general, the same is true here. My use of the word scholar in this context refers to someone, usually with an advanced degree, who is a researcher in the field of theology. Most ministers have been through a program of intense study, and I'm sure there are many with advanced degrees, but unless they're also publishing in research journals I wouldn't call them scholars.--Percy

Very true - lots have only "a calling." And lots more have a course of study at places like Marlow Bible College where they get only an ultraliteralist slant on things for a couple of months.

well, the class i'm writing a final for on tuesday is "the bible: introduction to the old testament." generally, he teaches classes on the bible, as aprt of the judaic studies department. (the bible being the prominent work of hebrew literature)we've been studying historical contexts, styles, backgrounds, comparisons with other cultures, and various textual problems, which i find the most interesting.i voiced my opinion the other day that the book of genesis points to an authorship date of about 600 bc, and i explained my reasoning. he said they were valid points, and my opinion is actually very common, but he doesn't agree -- on strictly religious terms. as believing jew, he has problems with that. but he conceeded that i probably was right on the matter.

it really doesn't depend much, actually. in general, people who preach, preach. and people who study, study. there's not a large overlap between the two.it has to do with a difference in attitude. preacher attempt to make other people believe the accepted standard way of view. there's not a lot of room for questioning the bible during a sermon, is there? scholars on the other hand try to get at the text itself and often treat it more as literature than somethign sacred.however, when overlap does occur, it tends to happen on the scholastic side. people who claim to be scholars, and works as scholars, and indeed have the education for it (i'm not talking seminary), but are really just preachers preaching to classes. this happens because it's easier for religion to get into the educational community than education to get into the religious community. scholars who study the bible tend to because of their beliefs, and that affects their opinions. some more than others. but i've seen a few shams before.saw one on tv once: he was in bible history, and working as an archaeologist. but he was maintaining the literal truth of the bible. i was watching this guy in utter disbelief. that amount of ignorance of the field you work in is ludicrous. i know enough history, archaeology, and the bible to disprove every word that came out of his mouth using any ONE of those areas, let alone all three.

Be it sufficient that Kasdim for the Hebrews was their reference to the Chaldaeans, as one can see in 2 K 25:13 -

quote:

---

And the pillars of brass that were in the house of Jehovah, and the bases and the brazen sea that were in the house of Jehovah, did the Chaldeans [Kasdim] break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon.

---

These Kasdim were in control of Babylon, ie they were Chaldaeans to use the Greek term. Then there's Ezr 5:12 which talks of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the Chaldaean (Kasdy).The people referred to as the Kasdim were in control of Babylon at the time of those we refer to as Chaldaeans, ie they were the same people, so shifting the problem to one of names doesn't change anything.The Kasdim were in charge of Babylon for a few hundred years before 550 BCE. Ur of the Kasdim is an anachronism. Attempts to explain away the anachronism brings one to fanciful conjectures about whether Ur really indicates the Ur we know of. There is no doubt that Ur refers to the one we know, just as Kasdim refers to the group who ruled Babylon in the first millennium BCE, ie those the Greeks called Chaldaeans. Ur was, after all, in their territory.

well, the logic of the point went that the kasdim got their name from the territory they came from, and the name pre-dates the people.but i think it does make more sense as an anachronism, seeing has how all of the other ones point to a similar date for genesis authorship.

Fair enough; that's a much higher standard than I was reading it at.

But what is the tangible evidence for that pre-dating?? I work on a much later date for Genesis. These days the Joseph tales are often referred to as the Joseph Novella and related to a newly emerged Greek literary form. The table of nations (Gen 10) is also seen to reflect Greek pre-cursors.The Hebrews in Egypt (and the exodus tradition) presuppose a tradition in post-exilic Egypt which involves the re-interpretation of the Egyptian overthrow and expulsion of the Hyksos as referring to the Jews. Josephus in Contra Apion cites Greek authors who use the Hyksos traditions against the Jews in their era.It's very hard to explain the idea that there were two separate exits of non-Egyptian peoples into Canaan at about the same time without them being the same. I go for it being the same event, re-used by polemicists against the Jews in Egypt, which then is taken as evidence by Jews for (clouded) evidence of their ancient past and on which the Jews speculated.

Spin,This is very interesting. I would really love to see you discuss it in the Exodus II thread.http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: InformationReally hoping to hear more about this over there!lfen

not sure, like i said, i just saw something breifly on the idea. i'm not defending it, just presenting what i heard from someone else. the date i have in mind is around 600 bc. what date does the greek influence put on it? we know genesis had to be complete prior to 300 bc, when the septuagint began to be compiled and translated. i'm not sure one has anything to do with the other. from what i've seen, the dates don't line up. it's a nice idea though. well, supposing the hebrew people were even there in the first place. i'm not totally convinced they were to tell you the truth. so what if the hyksos were expelled into canaan? it doesn't mean they were israelites, or that the exodus happened in some respect.

We are told that some Jews went to Egypt after the murder of Gedaliah (2 K 25:26). We know for certain that there were Jews at Elephantine over a century later -- their correspondence archive has been found. The Babylonians had already started flattening the Jerusalemites. Maybe some decades earlier, when Jerusalem had a high point under Manasseh and then Josiah.I tend to think that the exodus tradition is post-exilic, which should mean that Genesis is as well. There was racial tension between native Egyptians and the Jews in Elephantine and probably wherever the Jews lived in Egypt for the sacrifice of the ram was important in Jewish cultic practice, while the Egyptians had a goat headed god, Khnum, so there was bound to be strife.The material that Josephus records in Contra Apion is of Egyptian literature which packages the Jews in the image of the hated Hyksos with interesting twists such as the leader of the Jews was an ex-priest of Heliopolis called Osarsyph who changed his name to Moses, or that the escaping group all had a disease. Pretty contemptible stuff aimed squarely at the Jews. I think the Jews in Egypt accepted the notion that they'd been in Egypt before and sanatized the Egyptian polemic giving virth to a Jewish version which was the basis of the exodus.Of course one needs an exodus to have a Joseph sojourn in Egypt. Some of the other Genesis traditions are probably earlier. Jacob may be quite early as compared to Abraham who gets a lot less press and is not represented much at all in the prophets, whereas Jacob is ever present.