Wie was die Skrywer van die Boeke van Moses?

[Die Ou Man]

Volgens tradisie is die Joodse Torah (Pentateugh), wat bestaan uit die eerste vyf Boeke van die Bybel deur Moses geskryf. Daarom staan die Torah in die algemeen bekend as die Boeke van Moses.

Dit is egter bekend dat Moses nie die skrywer kon wees nie. Die volgende artikel ontleed hierdie aangeleentheid.

Who Wrote the Torah

John W Loftus

Genesis makes reference to the city of Dan (Gen 14:14) and uses the phrase ?unto this day? (Gen 22:14). These sections could not have been authored by Moses. Genesis also mentions the Chaldeans and several Edomite kings, none of which existed anytime near Moses? lifetime. The Edomite king list from Genesis 36, in fact, lists known historical figures who lived well after Moses? lifetime. Genesis was not written by Moses or anyone who lived close to his lifetime.

The evidence also indicates Genesis and the rest of the Torah was not written by a single individual. The text is convoluted and conflicting. For instance, the internal timeline of Genesis (Gen 12:4; 16:3; 17:1; 21:5) would indicate that when Hagar was expelled by Sarah, Ishmael was fifteen years old. This makes the story of him later being put on Hagar?s shoulder and then being cast under some shrubs to die, only to cry until being saved by an angel, quite silly. Ishmael is clearly presented as an infant in that story.

The chronology of Genesis also makes Isaac a grown man of about 30 when he is almost sacrificed by Abraham. The sacrifice pericope, however, clearly treats Isaac as a child.

The two creation accounts from Genesis 1?3 conflict, as do the two versions of the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

In Exod 6:2?3 God tells Moses that he appeared to Abraham but was not known by the name Yahweh to him, but in Gen 15:7 God tells Abraham, ?I am Yahweh.?

In the flood story cattle and fowls were supposed to be gathered by twos, but a couple verses later fowls and ?clean animals? (cattle are clean animals) are supposed to be gathered by sevens.

For one author Amorites inhabit the Promised Land and Horeb is the mountain where the law was received. For another author Canaanites inhabit the Promised Land and Sinai is the name of the mountain where the law was received.

These conflicting accounts show multiple authorship and lead to certain conclusions. First, single authorship is absolutely precluded. Second, redaction of the text is absolutely unquestionable. Other evidence supports that conclusion. For instance, the kings that fought in the battle of the kings in Gen 14:2 have names like ?His Name is Lost,? and ?His Name is Unknown.? These aren?t names anyone would actually be given, but are names someone far separated from the events would come up with to fill in gaps in information, and revelation is precluded. Elsewhere names have been similarly changed. Eshbaal (Man of Baal), Saul?s son, is so named in Chronicles (1 Chr 8:33), but in Samuel (2 Sam 4:8) his name has been edited to Ishbosheth (Man of Shame). This was not his name, but a name provided by a redactor who did not want to write about the son of Israel?s king having a theophoric Baal name. During Saul?s day Baal was not a particularly offensive epithet, and by the time of the Chronicler the significance of it had been lost. Mephibosheth, Molech, and Ashtoreth are other examples of the bo?et (?shame?) consonants and/or vocalization interpolated into a name to indicate ?shame.?

These are clear indications of late redaction, and they preclude a pristine text. Errors also indicate a lengthy transmission history. For instance, 1 Sam 13:1 claims that Saul was one year old when he began to rule (ben ?ānāh ???l bĕmālḵ?). The text is actually just corrupt, the number of years of Saul?s age having been lost over time. Third, specific traditions can be isolated in the text and can be shown to appeal to specific ideologies, which form the basis of the JEDP theories.

My Own Perspective

While these facts preclude a theory of single authorship or a pristine text, I?m not fully convinced by much of the contemporary JEDP scholarship. I don?t think D and P are conceptually distinct enough to be able to accurately delineate between the two in every instance. I also don?t believe variation in style or nomenclature necessarily indicates unique authorship, nor do I think the Pentateuch preserves enough distinction between Yahweh and El to detect authorship in every instance. An early distinction is detectable, however, and is a very important part of the Hebrew Bible. I?ll discuss that briefly.

Yahweh and El were originally conceived of as different deities. [3] Exodus 6 introduces the question. Why would God tell Moses in Exodus 6 that he had revealed himself to Abraham and others previously, but never by the name Yahweh? It only makes sense if this name were new or unknown. The fact that the received text of the Hebrew Bible previous to Exodus 6 repeatedly refers to God as Yahweh, and even has God telling Abraham ?I am Yahweh? leads to the inescapable conclusion that something has been added that wasn?t there before, specifically the name Yahweh. Someone retrojected Yahweh into a text that originally lacked mention of him.

The Kuntillet ?Ajrud inscriptions refer to El and Yahweh as distinct individuals, Yahweh coming from Teman in the south, and later from Samaria. [4] Deut 32:8?9 presents Yahweh as one of the sons of El/Elyon. Verse 8 originally finished, ?according to the number of the sons of El.? [5] The Septuagint and more clearly the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that reading. The MT changed it to avoid reference to El?s children. Yahweh is given Israel as his inheritance of the nations, which number seventy (see Genesis 10, specifically v. 32, which references Deut 32:8?9). This identifies him as one of the ?sons of El,? since they were the ones being given this inheritance. This is a reminiscence of the seventy sons of El from the Ugaritic literature. In Ps 82 those other gods are condemned for their negligence, and Elohim (identified with Yahweh, but still distinct from El/ Elyon [6]) is commanded to take over stewardship of the remaining nations. [7]

The manipulation of Genesis to include Yahweh indicates El was originally the only name of God mentioned. The lack of Yahwistic theophoric names in early Israel, combined with the sole use of the name ?El? in the name ?Israel? indicates El was originally the national God, not Yahweh. The divine council type scenes that present El as the leader of the council and Yahweh as one of the members supports that understanding. The later emphatic identification of Yahweh with El (for example, Exod 6:2?3), and the addition of the name Yahweh to Genesis indicate an attempt was made by a subsequent editor to replace Elohistic ideologies with a conflated ideology that identified Yahweh with El. Later other titles were conflated, including Elyon, El Shaddai, and so on. While I don?t believe all the original Elohistic texts can be recovered, large portions of Genesis are conspicuously reticent when it comes to using the name ?Yahweh,? indicating it was unknown or avoided by a redactor. All these fact support the conclusion that an editor with a Yahwistic prioritization was redacting a text with an initially Elohistic perspective. This supports the Newer Documentary Hypothesis.

1 - A good introduction to source criticism is found in Pauline A. Viviano, ?Source Criticism,? in Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes, ed., To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, Revised and Expanded (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 35?57. A good history of the Documentary Hypothesis is included in that article, but an important supplement to that is John Van Seters, ?The Pentateuch,? in Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham, ed., The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 3?52.

2 - R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1987). Whybray makes the most respectable argument against DH.

3 - Recently this has been argued by Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel?s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 49; the argument has been made many times before. See, for instance, O. Eissfeldt, ?El and Yahweh,? JSS (1956): 25?37 and John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 13?41. Michael S. Heiser is the only scholar of which I know to argue against this interpretation (see Heiser, ?Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 32:8-9 and Psalm 82?? Hiphil 3 [2006]), although his refutations only refute specific interpretations of Deut 32:8 and Psalm 82, and he does not recognize the redaction of Deuteronomy or the importation of literary motifs.

4 - See J. A. Emerton, ?New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ?Ajrud,? ZAW 94 (1982): 2?20 (3?9).

5 - See I. Himbaza, ?Dt 32, 8, une correction tardive des scribes. Essai d?interpr?tation et de datation?, Biblica 83 (2002): 527?48. A good bibliography accompanies that article. For an interesting recent theory, see J. Joosten, ?A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8,? Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007): 548?55. Joosten holds that the text originally read bny ?r ?el, which would become bĕnē yisra?el through dittography of the yod. Joosten?s theory is one of the only ones that views the variant as an accident.

6 - Yahweh/Elohim is not the head of the council, but merely one of the members. Elyon is the head of the council. See Simon B. Parker, ?The Beginning of the Reign of God ? Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy,? RB 102 (1995): 534?35.

7 - Several things need to be said about these verses. First, ?ĕloh?m can never refer to human judges. The genesis of that interpretation is a small collection of rabbinic paraphrases of scripture that are refuted not only by other contemporary rabbinic commentaries, but by the Hebrew language itself. LXX never translates ?ĕloh?m as anything other than theos, or sometimes kurios. The traditional interpretation also ignores the evidence from Ugaritic literature, which uses the phrase ?sons of El? (bn ?ilm in Ugaritic) numerous times exactly as it is used in the Hebrew Bible. It never refers to humans in Ugaritic. For a comprehensive evaluation of the term, see Joel S. Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim (SBLDS 183; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001). Second, their quotation in the New Testament tells us how they were interpreted during New Testament times, which is consistent with general Second Temple Jewish ideologies. It does not tell us what the authors originally intended. Third, bĕnē ?ĕloh?m does not refer to angels. This is a Second Temple Period interpretation of the term that relies exclusively on the conclusion that it cannot refer to children of God. The cognate literature as well as an internal evaluation absolutely precludes this interpretation. Angels are always obedient messengers in the Hebrew Bible. The ?sons of God? are rarely obedient and are never messengers (see Genesis 6 and Psalm 82). Angels were originally on the bottom level of a four tiered pantheon of divine beings. El occupied the top tier and his seventy sons occupied the second tier. Yahweh was originally part of the second tier. Craftsmen deities occupied the third. The Hebrew Bible rarely references these deities. The bottom tier was angels, seraphim, cherubim, and so on. During the eighth century BCE these tiers were collapsed. Yahweh and El were conflated, and everyone else was demoted to the bottom tier and conflated with angels. This is why Lucifer, originally presented as one of the ?sons of El,? is described as an angel in the Second Temple Period literature, and why rebellious angels were such a large part of that literature despite their utter absence from literature prior to that time period.

8 - Joel S. Baden, ?Rethinking the Supposed JE Document? (PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 2007).

9 - For a full discussion of this emendation, see Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim (G?ttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1981), 198?205.

Bron

Vir JEPD sien Julius Wellhausen.

[amichaEL]

Re: Wie was die Skrywer van die Boeke van Moses?

Naand Ou Man.

In Exod 6:2?3 God tells Moses that he appeared to Abraham but was not known by the name Yahweh to him, but in Gen 15:7 God tells Abraham, ?I am Yahweh.?

Bogenoemde is n vertalings fout en moet lees: "I-AM not yhwh" met die onderstaande as stawing

Yahweh and El were originally conceived of as different deities. [3] Exodus 6 introduces the question. Why would God tell Moses in Exodus 6 that he had revealed himself to Abraham and others previously, but never by the name Yahweh?

Yahweh and El were originally conceived of as different deities.

Dankie vir die ter stawing van betrokke gedeelte in my Proefskrif.

The manipulation of Genesis to include Yahweh indicates El was originally the only name of God mentioned. The lack of Yahwistic theophoric names in early Israel, combined with the sole use of the name ?El? in the name ?Israel? indicates El was originally the national God, not Yahweh.

So sal die ander bedrog rondom die ware israEL, Sem, Gam en Jafet mettertyd ook die lig begin sien. Die yhwh is gepas in die nuwe testament want dit is die bybel van satan saam 1 en 2 Konings, Kronieke, SamuEL ens.

Moses was onderrig deur Jetro die ismaEL/Medianiet priester en het n afskrif van Die Wet by hom gekry waarmee hy terug Egipte toe is om israEL uit te lei. Die Wet en Genesis Boeke het hul oorsprong heel moontlik uit die 365 Boeke van Henog aangesien skrif deur die gevalle engel, Penemue, in die tyd van Henog se vader, Jered, vir die adamiet geleer is.
Moses het die herbevestiging van die verbond op Sinai gekry, Die Tien Woorde(Exod.34v28)
BoereGroete

[Stefanus]

Re: Wie was die Skrywer van die Boeke van Moses?

In Exod 6:2?3 God tells Moses that he appeared to Abraham but was not known by the name Yahweh to him, but in Gen 15:7 God tells Abraham, ?I am Yahweh.?

Bogenoemde is n vertalings fout en moet lees: "I-AM not yhwh" met die onderstaande as stawing

Yahweh and El were originally conceived of as different deities. [3] Exodus 6 introduces the question. Why would God tell Moses in Exodus 6 that he had revealed himself to Abraham and others previously, but never by the name Yahweh?

Moses was onderrig deur Jetro die ismaEL/Medianiet priester....Moses het die herbevestiging van die verbond op Sinai gekry

Kan mens net aanneem dat alle "probleme", vertalings voute is wat ingesluip het net om 'n dogma gestand te doen? of is daar logiese verklarings met stawende bewyse wat 'n ander lig op die onderwerp bring.
Sover alle redelikheid in ag geneem word, aanvaar ek dat Yahweh aan die woord was toe hy aan Moses in die brandende bos homself bekend gestel het.
Die rede hiervoor is dat die Christus dit beaam het deurdat Hy bekend gemaak het dat Niemand God ooit gesien het nie, waar Yahweh inteenstelling gereeld waargeneem was.

Jetro die Medianietiese priester was 'n Yahwehistiese priester, die Bybel beaam dit, die geskiedenis van die era beaam dit, daarom dat Moses 'n herbevesiging van Yahweh op die berg ontvang het.

[Stefanus]

Re: Wie was die Skrywer van die Boeke van Moses?

So sal die ander bedrog rondom die ware israEL, Sem, Gam en Jafet mettertyd ook die lig begin sien. Die yhwh is gepas in die nuwe testament want dit is die bybel van satan saam 1 en 2 Konings, Kronieke, SamuEL ens.

amichaEL dat die waarheid moet uit is gewis, ons moet net daarteen waak om een valsheid met 'n ander te vervang, hierdie verangingsteologie gaan niemand iets baat nie.

Nerens in die Nuwe Testament word die Joodse stamgod Yahweh as die Christus se Vader of God aangegee nie, die vroe? Christene het die ook nie so gesien nie, die is egter later ingevoer om die Joodse stamgod gelyk te stel aan Die Vader, die Boere val nie onder hierdie stamgod uit die Midde-Ooste nie, Yahweh is die stamgod van die Jode (gelees "ware israEL"), broer van Ba?l en seun van El. Die Boer aanbid soos Die Christus dieselfde God, nie 'n seun van EL, genaamd Yahweh nie.

Daar is egter die pseudo Israeliete wat hulself voordoen as Boere van Midde-Oosterse afkoms, hierdie Boere-Jode kaap ons Ariese psige en besmet Boermanskap met volksvreemde Joodse gewoontes.

lees gerus: Boervroue Skeur Bybels Stukkend

Boermanskap beteken dat ons moet terugkeer na die God van hemel en aarde en die Joodse stamgode uit ons psige verwyder, ons voorvaders was vanuit Germaanse volke wat van Jafet afgestam het, en hulle het in Europa gewoon lank voordat die paar duisend Israeliete in die 8ste eeu v.C. na Assiri? weggevoer is.

Die Israeliete en die Arabiere is Semitiese volke wat van Sem afstam, daarom is Noag ons naaste gemeenskaplike voorouer met hulle.

Ongelukkig kon die Romeine nie daarin slaag om hierdie Joodse denke heeltemal uit hul gebruike te hou nie en het die weer onder Konstantyn met alle wreedheid sy terugkeer gekry wat die mensdom vir eeue getreiter het.

[Stefanus]

Did Moses write the Torah?

DID MOSES
WRITE THE TORAH?

The evidence that Moses did not write
the first five books in the Bible
called the Pentateuch, or the Torah,
based on the evidence taken from the Torah


It has been a traditional belief that Moses was the author who wrote the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah (the law) or the Pentateuch. No one was present at the time to verify that Moses did indeed write the entire law, however this belief can be tested by examining the books in question. Even a cursory investigation is enough to conclusively demonstrate that no single individual, Moses or not, wrote them, but that rather they are composed of a conflation of conflicting and diverse source materials with the component parts composed over a span of many centuries. Finally these divergent sources were edited and then conflated in a single set of manuscripts.

The following essays employ the techniques of source criticism, redaction criticism, and form criticism to demonstrate both how to employ these techniques in analyzing the Bible, and also to demonstrate that the books of the Torah are composed of diverse source materials that were then edited together, usually by being chopped into small pieces, with the inconsistencies in the different traditions left intact, thus accounting for the fact that the Bible is contradictory. It is not the case that it was simply Moses who wrote the Bible, or better said, it was not Moses who wrote the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah. There is also ample evidence that in earlier times, when other books of the Bible were being written, that other authors either did not believe that Moses wrote the Torah, or they did not consider the fact that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, to be a limitation on their own ability to contradict what we find recorded in earlier manuscripts, supposedly written by Moses and imputed with the greatest authority as a result.

The evidence indicates that it was the Levite priesthood who wrote the Levitical laws in the Bible, and that these were not simply the laws of God brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses. This can be demonstrated to the satisifaction of anyone who wants to follow the links below and make a careful and objective investigation of the matter free from the bias or prejudice of religious dogma. It was the Levites who had the most to gain by propagating the myth that Moses wrote the Bible, and that Moses brought Levitical laws down from Mount Sinai on the orders of God. That such a belief still holds sway is an affront to the truth, because it can be demonstrated to be false, and in this way the political interests of the Levitical priesthood of ancient Israel can be seen to remain of political and religious importance long after they themselves passed from the scene...

Brent Herbert

[Stefanus]

Early traditions that reject Moses as the author of the Torah are found in the Bible - Part I

DID MOSES
WRITE THE TORAH?

Early traditions that reject Moses
as the author of the Torah
are found in the Bible

Did Moses write the Torah in the Bible. The radical school of Jewish prophecy did not think so. Christ as portrayed in the gospel of Mark did not think so, and Paul also did not think that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible, and neither did many of the earliest churches believe that Moses was the author of the Levitical laws found in the Pentateuch. Rather they called these Levite regulations human commandments, and even went so far as to call some of the laws found in books like Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, 'the doctrines of demons'.

The Bible is contradictory, and presents variant records of both historical events and doctrines, which on examination prove to be mutually exclusive. This is most obvious when considering "history" as it is presented in the Bible. If one record of events said that I went out to buy milk on a specific Friday, and another record of events declares that on that same Friday I did not leave the house, the two records are mutually exclusive in that if one proves to be accurate, it excludes the other. Both cannot be true.

There are similar conflicts in doctrine found in the Bible, and they are also mutually exclusive. The Bible actually presents a range of positions on almost every issue. What passes for 'Bible based teaching' then consists of a process of selection and selective nullification, with the process of nullification submerged under the weight of polemical argument. Verses which contradict a certain dogma can be said to be 'misunderstood' or 'to be taken as 'metaphor' rather than literally (while the favored verse is always to be taken literally). In this way the process of creating these 'theologies' can be seen as one of attacking and destroying certain offending Bible verses. All theologians nullify the Bible, and the process of exegesis is one of upholding certain verses while destroying the authority of others. All theologians destroy Bible verses, but some are up front and direct in their attacks, while others attempt the slippery task of destroying Bible verses by way of subterfuge.

One perfect example would be in this belief in 'infallibility of scripture' and in particular this belief that 'Moses wrote the Torah,' any deviation from this belief then held to clearly demonstrate a turning away from the authority of 'God's word.' Moses 'brought the law of God' as scripture states. After all, could 'scripture be any clearer on the matter?" It is that this point that 'the evidence' of apostasy will be clearly presented in the form of 'crystal clear bible verses' and 'the meaning of such passages is unmistakably clear.'

However it turns out that much is submerged, nullified and rejected in order to maintain this obviously erroneous position. Keeping the Torah means nullifying prophets, Christ, and Paul. There are also early traditions, which are also found in the Bible itself, rejecting authorship of the law books by Moses.

In the book of the prophet Jeremiah we read that not only was Moses not the author of the Torah, but that the sacrificial system was a form of rebellion against God, and that the laws of God represented as coming from Moses were actually forged by the priesthood.

"Thus says YAHWEH of hosts, the God of Israel, "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.But this is what I commanded them, saying, ?Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.? Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward." (Jeremiah Chapter 7 verse 21)

A common 'apologetic' dodge is to insist that 'animal sacrifices were not ordained when the people came out of Egypt, but rather later. But the law books specifically state that the laws of sacrifice were part of the Laws of Moses which Moses supposedly received while on Mount Sinai.

"This is the law of the burnt offering, the grain offering and the sin offering and the guilt offering and the ordination offering and the sacrifice of peace offerings, which YAHWEH commanded Moses at Mount Sinai in the day that He commanded the sons of Israel to present their offerings to YAHWEH in the wilderness of Sinai." Leviticus Chapter 7 verse 37

This statement clearly conflicts with the version of events given by Jeremiah. Jeremiah makes his condemnation of the law books explicit in the passage that follows:

"My people do not know The ordinance of YAHWEH. How can you say, ?We are wise, And the law of YAHWEH is with us?? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie. The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of YAHWEH, And what kind of wisdom do they have?" Jeremiah Chapter 8 verse 7

This rejection of Mosaic authorship is echoed in the book of Isaiah.

"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says YAHWEH; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and calling of convocation? I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them." (Isaiah Chapter 1 verse 11)

Everyone of the practices condemned as abominations by Isaiah in the following passage is advocated in the law books and supposedly commanded by Moses.

"But he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man; He who sacrifices a lamb is like the one who breaks a dog?s neck; He who offers a grain offering is like one who offers swine?s blood; He who burns incense is like the one who blesses an idol. These people have chosen their own ways and their souls revel in their abominations." (Isaiah Chapter 66 verse 3)

Isaiah refers to these practices as 'abominations' and, like Jeremiah, equates them with rebellion. They are all advocated in the law, supposedly delivered to Moses by God, the same God who then delivered messages condemning such practices to the prophets.

"...and an ox and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before YAHWEH, and a grain offering mixed with oil; for today YAHWEH will appear to you.?" Leviticus 9:18 Then he slaughtered the ox and the ram, the sacrifice of peace offerings which was for the people; and Aaron?s sons handed the blood to him and he sprinkled it around on the altar."

"When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall remain seven days with its mother, and from the eighth day on it shall be accepted as a sacrifice of an offering by fire to YAHWEH."

"The other lamb you shall offer at twilight, and shall offer with it the same grain offering and the same drink offering as in the morning, for a soothing aroma, an offering by fire to YAHWEH."

"Now when anyone presents a grain offering as an offering to YAHWEH, his offering shall be of fine flour, and he shall pour oil on it and put frankincense on it." (Leviticus Chapter 9 verse 4, Leviticus Chapter 22 verse 27, Exodus Chapter 29 verse 41, Leviticus Chapter 2 verse 1)

The tradition of rejecting Mosaic authorship of the law books is also found in the psalms.

"I shall take no young bull out of your house Nor male goats out of your folds. For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, For the world is Mine, and all it contains. Shall I eat the flesh of bulls Or drink the blood of male goats?"

"Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened; Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required."

"For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering." (Psalm Chapter 50 verse 9, Psalm Chapter 40 verse 6, Psalm Chapter 51 verse 16)

And in the prophet Micah we read:

"With what shall I come before YAHWEH, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will YAHWEH be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does YAHWEH require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah Chapter 6 verse 6)

This prophetic tradition is carried on the Church Testament. For example, consider first the traditions surrounding the Sabbath found in the earlier law books, and ascribed to Moses.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to YAHWEH your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates." (Exodus Chapter 20 verse 8)

"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to YAHWEH: whosoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath forever throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever." (Exodus Chapter 31 verse 15)

"And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which YAHWEH hath commanded, that ye should do them. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever does work therein shall be put to death. You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day. And Moses spake unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which YAHWEH commanded." (Exodus Chapter 35 verse 1)

In just this way the matter has been 'proved' beyond all reasonable doubt by consulting the Bible. And notice that the commandment is permanent and is 'to last forever'. Failing to observe this instruction is reason enough to impose the death penalty.

"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day ... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as YAHWEH commanded Moses." (Numbers Chapter 15 verses 32, 36)

In the Church Testament we read the following regarding Joshua's attitude towards the Sabbath tradition:

One Sabbath Joshua was going through the cornfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pick ears of corn. And the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" And he said to them, "The Agatha was made for man, not man for the sAgatha ... And they watched him, to see whether he would heal on the saAgathaso that they might accuse him ... And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabAgatha do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out, and immediately began plotting with Herod's men to bring about Joshua's death." (Mark Chapter 2 verse 23)

Before I continue, I will point out two errors in the above passage. As I have been writing I have learned through embarrassing experience just how important it is to check your facts as you write. I have found that 'writing freeform' from memory alone is the best way to mix up facts and introduce factual errors. It is obvious to me that Mark was writing 'freeform' and due to human error two erroneous facts are found in the passage above. The incident referred to is related in the book of 1 Samuel, and in the passage that follows the italics indicate the relevant facts:

"Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said to him, "Why are you alone, and no one with you?" And David said to Ahimelech the priest, "The king has charged me with a matter ... Now then, what have you at hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here." And the priest answered David, "I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread." (1 Samuel Chapter 21 verse 1)

The name of the priest was Ahimelech, not Abiathar, and while Mark points out that after David ate the forbidden bread he "also gave it to those who were with him" in the original story it explicitly states that David was alone "and no one is with you." (How embarrassing.) By the way, I am not judging Mark for his all to human error, for I have done similar things myself.

Corn does not have to be picked on the Sabbath. If one was unconcerned about the Sabbath, but wished to show respect for the traditionally religious, a person could, for example, make a point of picking all corn on the day before or the day after, thus avoiding controversy. However, as Mark's story goes on to insist, Joshua was deliberately provocative, and on a such a matter as the holiness of the Sabbath, of all things. After all, they were 'watching him' knowing full well that he would 'profane the Sabbath' and he certainly knew they were watching. And the Sabbath law was 'permanent' which was what one would expect since it was of 'divine origin.' If a man could be put to death for gathering a few sticks on the Sabbath, then certainly corn pickers and healers were guilty enough to die, especially when they were being provocative and flirting with death."

The Gospel of John picks up on this theme and is even more explicit. Joshua healed on the Sabbath.

"Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath."
"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father." (John Chapter 9 verse 16, John Chapter 5 verse 18)

This theme is picked up in the book of Romans.

"One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for YAHWEH." (Romans Chapter 14 verse 5)

It is common to find in the law books the phrase "this law must be obeyed forever."

"It shall be a perpetual statute throughout all generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood." (Leviticus Chapter 3 verse 17)

It turns out that this ordinance was another that was rejected by Joshua, according to the gospels.

"For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'" Immediately he turned to the people and said to them, "Hear and understand: It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a person." Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" He answered, "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us." And he said, "Are you as dull as the rest? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts." (Matthew Chapter 15 verse 6)

This incident is appears in Mark's gospel as well. Indeed, it is a common refrain in Mark's gospel that Joshua broke the 'Law of God' again and again, and each time Mark writes, "and they began plotting to kill him."

"How right Isaiah was when he prophesied concerning you, saying, 'this people pays me lip service, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, for they teach as doctrines the commandments of men.' You neglect the commandments of God, in order to maintain your human traditions. How clever you are at setting aside the commandment of God in order to maintain your traditions...In this way by your traditions, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void. And you do many other things just like that. After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He *said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)" (Mark Chapter 7 verse 6)

In this passage then to follow the food laws showed that one was 'lacking in understanding' and merely following a human tradition. By the way, such a doctrine should be obvious and the only reason, for example, a rabbit could become an 'unclean animal' is if were found mentioned as such in what is purported to be 'the law of Moses, given by God on Sinai'. There is nothing in human reason to make one think that a rabbit is in and of itself unclean. The reference to the passage in Isaiah referring to 'human commandments' is set beside the condemnation of laws about food and ritual washing to make the point these laws, though they were found in the Torah, were actually human commandments and human traditions. In Isaiah we also find a condemnation of religious rote, and rule after rule (a little taken from here, a little taken from there, rule after rule) as a form of worship, which, when understood in the context of the teachings of the prophets, is obviously, once again, a condemnation of the law books, in this instance combined with an explicit mockery of the religious authorities of his day.

"To whom would He teach knowledge, And to whom would He interpret the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just taken from the breast? "For He says, ?rule on rule, rule on rule, Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there.?" Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue, He who said to them, "Here is rest, give rest to the weary," And, "Here is repose," but they would not listen. So the word of YAHWEH to them will be, "rule on rule, rule on rule, Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there," That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive. Therefore, hear the word of YAHWEH, O scoffers, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem, Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we have made a pact. The overwhelming scourge will not reach us when it passes by, For we have made falsehood our refuge and we have concealed ourselves with deception."Therefore thus says YAHWEH GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed. I will make justice the measuring line And righteousness the level; Then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies And the waters will overflow the secret place. Your covenant with death will be canceled, And your pact with Sheol will not stand; When the overwhelming scourge passes through, Then you become its trampling place. As often as it passes through, it will seize you; For morning after morning it will pass through, anytime during the day or night, And it will be sheer terror to understand what it means. The bed is too short on which to stretch out, And the blanket is too small to wrap oneself in. For YAHWEH will rise up as at Mount Perazim, He will be stirred up as in the valley of Gibeon, To do His task, His unusual task, And to work His work, His extraordinary work. And now do not carry on as scoffers, Or your fetters will be made stronger." (Isaiah Chapter 28 verse 9)

[Stefanus]

Early traditions that reject Moses as the author of the Torah are found in the Bible - Part II

DID MOSES
WRITE THE TORAH?

Early traditions that reject Moses
as the author of the Torah
are found in the Bible

The following list rules regarding ?unclean' (prohibited) foods is found in the books of the law:

"You shall not eat any abominable thing. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, (etc.) Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these .. because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you. And the swine, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. (Etc.)" (Deuteronomy Chapter 14 verse 3)

One of the letters of Paul picks up on the theme of the two gospel writers in summary form:

"Everything I know about Messiah Joshua convinces me that nothing in itself is unclean (prohibited); but only if someone gets the idea into their heads that a thing is unclean' (prohibited) then for them it becomes unclean." (Romans Chapter 14 verse 14)

The idea is expressed again in the epistles, but this time in more radical form. You will notice in the following passages that 'the demands of the law books' are considered the work of 'powers in high places' and are even equated with 'elemental spirits' (some sort of demon), and, as in the gospels and in the prophet Isaiah, the specific laws being referred to are called 'human commandments.'.

"Having canceled the law which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a commandments. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human commandments and doctrines? ... Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth." (Colossians Chapter 2 verse 14)

The book of Colossians is written in a style of Greek totally unlike that of Paul (as recorded in Romans and Galatians, two letters that use the same vocabulary and terminology, and are unique in this way in the New Testament). It was common practice during New Testament times to write 'pseudepigraphical' works in the name of a teacher, with the goal being to summarize the teachings and thought of the person being emulated. This practice was common among the Greeks, and the early church as well, and did not carry with it the negative connotations such practices would have today. The author of Colossians borrowed his terminology from the book of Galatians (elemental spirits, etc.)

"So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years! I am afraid I have labored over you in vain."

"Everything I know about Messiah Joshua convinces me that nothing in itself is unclean (prohibited); but only if someone gets the idea into their heads that a thing is unclean' (prohibited) then for them it becomes unclean."

"To write the same things to you is not irksome to me, and is safe for you. Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh. Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith ...Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained." (Galatians 4:3, Romans 14:14, Philippians 3:1, 13)

The Torah law was a subject of hot debate within the early church, and both Joshua's rejection of the Torah regulations and the teaching of the prophets on the matter are echoed in these passages. In the following passages the dispute appears to center around 'clean and unclean' regulations. The 'Cretans' were apparently teaching an opposing doctrine, and are roundly condemned (and this passage is the source of the popular appellation that states that someone is a 'cretin' if they are stupid or foolish.)

"He must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth. To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed. But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine ... The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men. But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned."

"If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth."

"As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith; whereas the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith. Certain persons by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions ... hold faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith."

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. Train yourself in godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, but especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things."

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their teaching will eat its way like gangrene."

"They hold the form of religion but deny the power of it. Avoid such people. For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men. Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all YAHWEH rescued me. Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (Titus Chapter 1 verse 8, Titus Chapter 3 verse 8; 1 Timothy Chapter 6 verse 3, 1 Timothy Chapter 1 verses 3, 19; 1 Timothy Chapter 4 verse 1; 2 Timothy Chapter 2 verse 15, 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 5)

As these letters record, the church was involved in a struggle with those who either accepted or rejected the prophetic tradition and the traditions handed down about Christ which rejected the Torah and its regulations. The Church Testament is not a cohesive whole, any more than the rest of the Bible, and it is the case that while Paul, the Gospel of Mark, and the followers of these traditions had much of their material preserved, a counter tradition upholding the Torah, and nullifying Paul and Christ and the prophets on this matter is also preserved in the Church Testament, and will not be considered here, but rather separately. (The Gospel of Luke purges all anti-Torah references from the earlier gospels, the book of Acts purges and cleanses Paul on the matter, and the book of Hebrews also purges the teachings of the prophets on this subject. These works belong to a separate tradition and are reactionary in nature.)

According to the Church Testament writers, those who wrote in the Pauline tradition, and followed the tenets laid out in the gospel of Mark, there were quarrelsome, dogmatic types who insisted on the divine nature of the law of Moses (and no doubt would have had to have made an argument in favor of 'the infallibility of the Bible' to support this position' - as the writers noted they were always quarrelling with people about words, a practice which only ruined everyone's faith). This conduct was not confined to certain schismatics, however, as Paul testifies in describing the hypocrisy of Peter. Note, first, that a contradictory and cleansed version of this event Paul describes in Galatians appears in the book of Acts, and will be considered separately. (For example, in Acts, Paul humbly agrees to perform the Torah rites, and consents to having Timothy circumcised, and graciously gives way to the authority of Peter, and acknowledges that 'Peter was sent to the Gentiles', when in Galatians it was agreed that 'Peter was sent to the Jews', both statements conflicting with doctrines in Acts, which seem to be in line with the emerging doctrine of "Peter as the first pope', and in sharp contradiction to the version of events given in Galatians, among other contradictions present in the Acts version of the life of Paul). Paul begins by referring to the controversy stirred up by those holding to 'the divine status of the Law of Moses,' and the demands they were making on the early church, saying,

"But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek." (Galatians Chapter 2 verse 3)

He then points out how previously Peter and the group around in him in Jerusalem had been following the traditions of Joshua, and no longer 'living like Jews' but then had hypocritically caved in to the demands of the Torah crowd. He reminds everyone that the Torah demands had been 'torn down' and to build them back up again makes one a sinner, not keeping them, and that to turn back again is a demonstration of lack of faith in Christ (and further insists that to uphold the Torah is then to suggest that Christ promotes sin in that he promoted turning from the Torah regulations, suggesting then after this that to keep the Torah is the sin not faith in Christ on the matter).

"But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again those things which I tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God." (Galatians Chapter 2 verse 11)

Paul's letter is addressed to the Galatians, and after reminding them of how he opposed Peter and the church in Jerusalem, he then notes that the same thing was going on the Galatian church. He reminds the church that Christ was crucified for his resistance, and he reminds them that God had already blessed them for having faith in Christ on this matter, so what ever made them decide to turn aside to falsehood (the falsehood in this case is the doctrine that the 'the bible is infallible' and thus 'the law of Moses was written by Moses, and is eternal and binding'.) He next employs a metaphor of slavery (to the Torah and the elemental spirits, and compares this to freedom through having faith in Christ on the matter). He then reminds them that those who are trying to get them to keep the law of Moses are only doing so in order that they can escape the kind of persecution that Joshua endured (for being 'heretics').

"O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so many things in vain? ?if it really is in vain. Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham."

"I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now. But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in YAHWEH that you will take no other view than mine; and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!"

"It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh. But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." (Galatians Chapter 3 verses 1, 20, Galatians Chapter 6 verse 12)

The belief that Moses was not the author of the Torah, and that the Bible was never 'infallible' is (ironically) one of the traditions that compose the Bible itself. It weaves its way through the Bible, in the books of the prophets, in the gospels, and in the letters that compose the Church Testament. It is not a novelty, nor is it a 'heresy' but as the record indicates, believing that the Bible WAS NOT infallible was one of the (hotly contested) core doctrines of the very earliest church. To silence these voices is to support a position that cannot be supported (it is easy to demonstrate that the Bible is both fallible and errant). While such zealotry might carry a superficial gloss of piety, as the earlier writers noticed, such quarrelling over words RUINS PEOPLE'S FAITH, and in this case it would seem that the best way to honor the Bible, and to treat it with reverence, is to acknowledge the ideological conflicts in its pages, something that is never done by either those who claim to be defending the Bible (by 'proving' it is 'inerrant') or by those who attack the Bible (who never treat the diverse voices on its pages with any sort of respect, but, then, this is not their goal, and so why should they). To restate Paul's argument on this matter, the righteous will live by faith, and it is ironic that in the context in which he says this, what he is really saying is that the righteous will live by faith (in Joshua, in the prophets) and will believe that the Bible is not infallible, it is not inerrant, and that Moses did not compose the Torah.

[Stefanus]

The late date of the Torah composition

WAS THE TORAH COMPOSED
IN THE TIME OF MOSES

Evidence from the Bible indicates
that many Torah laws were written
later than the time of Moses
The late date of the Torah composition


When did the authors write the Bible? How can we date the Levitical laws in the first five books of the Bible? Were these laws in the Bible written down during the time of Moses? Is there evidence for a later date for the composition of the legal code in the Pentateuch? The time of the writing of the Bible can be determined by comparing history books like Samuel and law books like Leviticus, and this analysis, among others, reveal that the Torah was composed later than the time of the earliest history books in the Bible. If principle characters in the Bible were law breakers, then Moses composed the entire Torah. If these characters did not follow Torah regulations because they were unfamiliar with the rules (the rules being composed later than their time, by Levites) then it becomes obvious that the Torah evolved gradually over time.

The evidence of the contradictory nature of history and doctrine on the pages of the Torah indicates that the documents did not come from a single source. The Bible is found to be edited in a very strange manner, with variant traditions submerged and blended in an attempt to create the impression that the documents did not contain sources, but rather represent a single source. That it was considered imperative that the Torah be considered to have originated from a single source is obvious, for religious and political reasons (the single source being God who told Moses).

We find that the editing technique that is characteristic of the Torah (submerging, hiding, harmonizing, disguising) is also characteristic of the rest of the Bible. The Levite scribes had the most to gain by propagating the myth of divine authorship, and were the final editors of Biblical manuscripts. They did not allow variants to coexist, since this would undermine the divine authority that they wished to impute to the documents, and thus we find in the Bible the most peculiar form of editing. Sources were preserved, indicating that a dynamic was at work that compelled the Levites not to dispose of sources, even when that would have been more convenient. While sources were preserved, they could not be openly displayed, without revealing the true nature of the documents in question, and thus they were "chopped up" and edited together and submerged in the finished manuscripts. The fact that the sources were inconsistent and contradictory allows us to make note of both the sources and the strange editing process.

Evidence is abundant both that the laws and regulations did not come from a single source, that history in the Bible is hardly consistent with the theory of a single source, and the evidence also reveals that in the earliest manuscripts little is known of Levitical regulations and the Torah.

For example, in the early works of Samuel, we are told that "David's sons were priests.' (2 Samuel Chapter 8 verse 18) This is only one of many indications that the authors of the Samuel accounts knew nothing of Leviticus, for example. It was a law, formulated later in the self interest of the Levitical temple priests, that only Levites from the tribe of Levi were allowed to be priests (and there is an even narrower interpretation, formulated by one small faction of Levites, that stated that only Levites who were linear descendants of Aaron were allowed to be priests). The author of Samuel knew nothing of such matters, and allowed David's sons, were from the tribe of Judah, and also of "mixed origins" (Moabite-Israelite) to serve as priests.

"No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of YAHWEH; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of YAHWEH for ever ... You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days for ever." (Deuteronomy Chapter 23 verse 3)

The regulations then specify that an Egyptian or Edomite could enter the assembly after a few generations. (But Moabites were banned forever.)

"You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land. The children of the third generation that are born to them may enter the assembly of YAHWEH." (Deuteronomy Chapter 23 verse 7)

Mixed marriages were banned, and the book of Ezra looks back on the law, and makes a specific point of mentioning that marriages with Moabites were banned. (Ezra Chapter 9 verse 1)

"You must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons." (Deuteronomy Chapter 7 verse 2)

David's sons were disbarred from the priesthood both by being from the tribe of Judah, and by being of mixed origins, and were also barred, by Levite regulations, from even participating in the assembly of the people at the Temple, much less being priests, for the reasons of being both of mixed origins, and specifically of Moabite lineage. (Moabites were banned forever, according to Deuteronomy.) By the time that Chronicles was composed (after the return from exile) Levitical regulations were in force, and these sections of the Torah had been composed (accumulating over centuries of Temple practice) and so the Chronicler edited the Samuel account to read that "David's sons were high officials in service to the King." (And not priests, a violation of the later Levitical law code.) (1 Chronicles Chapter 18 verse 17)

This is not the only example of editing in Chronicles which reveals a knowledge of Torah regulations that was unknown in earlier manuscripts. You might recall that the law forbid despising an Edomite.

"You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother." (Deuteronomy Chapter 23 verse 7)

According to (2 Samuel Chapter 8 verse 13) David killed 18,000 Edomites in the valley of Salt and stationed garrisons throughout Edom. Once again this is edited (the Chronicler always portrays David in a positive light, and law breaking is out). According to the edited version in Chronicles, it was Abishai son of Zeruiah who killed those eighteen thousand Edomites in the valley of Salt; and he stationed garrisons throughout Edom. (1 Chronicles Chapter 18 verse 13) A few verses later the Samuel account mentions that David's sons were priests and this is also edited. This reveals the late dating of these particular laws (known to the Chronicler, unknown in David's day, or in the later times even, when the David stories were recorded.) As I mentioned in my commentary on Edomite prophecy, on the page false prophecy in the prophets the Edomites were viciously attacked by a certain school of prophets (faring even worse than Sodom) and this law was introduced into the law code to restrain this hateful conduct.

The earlier historical accounts provide abundant evidence to support the testimony of the prophet Jeremiah who testified that the laws concerning burnt offering and sacrifice were not brought by Moses. He was an honest man, and he was actually present to watch the Levitical system develop and to listen to the claims being made by the temple Levites that their expanding universe of rules and regulations were of "divine origin, and came down from God." He was there, and he is a witness. He also testified that the Levites were forging the laws of God and his testimony is consistent with the evidence that the Bible itself provides.

There is abundant evidence that Levitical regulations were unknown early in the period of the two kingdoms, as recorded particularly in the books of Samuel, the earliest "historical" manuscripts in the Bible.

For example we know that the judge and prophet Samuel was from the tribe of Ephraim. The lineage of his father was described in the opening passage of the books.

"There was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim of the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephraimite." (1 Samuel Chapter 1 verse 1)

Anyone familiar with the Bible in its finished form knows that the rules regarding the priesthood and priestly duties, such as sacrifice or burning incense restricted the practice to only Levites, from the tribe of Levi. If you read the page on the book of Numbers you will also be familiar with the later concept that narrowed the definition of a priest even further, by restricting it only to those Levites who were considered linear descendants of Aaron the Levite. The law code is quite explicit and clear on these matters. As I point out on the page discussing the book of Numbers, the "Aaronite" stand taken in Numbers is rejected in Deuteronomy, and in the following passages all Levites are considered priests. It is their job to do perform the priestly functions.

"And of Levi he said, Give to Levi thy Thummim, and thy Urim to thy godly one. They shall teach Jacob thy ordinances, and Israel thy law; they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt offering upon thy altar." (Deuteronomy Chapter 33 verse 8)

The book of Leviticus, closely connected to the Aaronite cult in the Jerusalem temple, defines a priest more narrowly, as an Aaronite, and also describes their duties.

"And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire; and Aaron's sons the priests shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire upon the altar." (Leviticus Chapter 1 verse 7)

Deuteronomy contains evidence that it is a post temple composition (centralization of worship is emphasized, demonstrating knowledge of the temple system in the constant refrain "the place which YAHWEH your God will choose." The temple, of course.) When the time comes to make the cereal offering you seek out a priest.

"When you come into the land which YAHWEH your God gives you for an inheritance, and have taken possession of it, and live in it ... you shall go to the place which YAHWEH your God will choose, to make his name to dwell there. And you shall go to the priest who is in office at that time. Then the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and set it down before the altar of YAHWEH your God." (Deuteronomy Chapter 26 verse 1)

The regulations are so strict that any "non Aaronite" Levite who tried to perform the priestly functions would be put to death (in the Aaronite Numbers source).

"And you (Aaron) and your sons with you shall attend to your priesthood for all that concerns the altar and that is within the veil; and you shall serve. I give your priesthood as a gift, and any one else who comes near shall be put to death." (Numbers Chapter 18 verse 7)

The reasons for this strictness is then "made clear" by showing just how ferocious God was when priestly regulations and protocol were violated. Interlopers attempted to offer incense, a priestly job.

"And fire came forth from YAHWEH, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense ... the censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives; so let them be made into hammered plates as a covering for the altar ... Thus they shall be a sign to the people of Israel. ... to be a reminder to the people of Israel, so that no one who is not a priest, who is not of the descendants of Aaron, should draw near to burn incense before YAHWEH." (Numbers Chapter 16 verse 35)

Only priests could do the job of priests. Furthermore, the utensils and required instruments were all so holy that the altar, attended to by the priests required constant service to maintain its holiness.

"You shall also anoint the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and consecrate the altar; and the altar shall be most holy." (Exodus Chapter 40 verse 10)

"And every day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement. Also you shall offer a sin offering for the altar, when you make atonement for it, and shall anoint it, to consecrate it. Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar, and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy; whatever touches the altar shall become holy. Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar: two lambs a year old day by day continually. I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar; Aaron also and his sons I will consecrate, to serve me as priests." (Exodus Chapter 29 verse 36)

Because of the constant service the altar required to maintain its holiness, it was necessary that worship be centralized. The manuscript shows an awareness of the fact that this state of affairs was not being observed previous to this time (a polemical reference to the fact that Levite laws were unknown in the times described by the Samuel manuscripts, a point I will demonstrate.)

"But you shall seek the place which YAHWEH your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitation there; thither you shall go, and thither you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices ... You shall not do according to all that we are doing here this day, every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes." (Deuteronomy Chapter 12 verse 5)

We know that Samuel was from the tribe of Ephraim. He was not a Levite, and he certainly was not an Aaronite Levite (depending on how strict you want to get about those rules.) Nevertheless he proceeded to build an "unholy" altar. Given the divine regulations and the large numbers of animals to sacrificed everyday just to keep that altar holy, one must wonder where Samuel found the cash to keep that altar holy. But then one must wonder what an Ephraimite was doing building an altar in the first place.

"Then he would come back to Ramah, for his home was there, and there also he administered justice to Israel. And he built there an altar to YAHWEH." (1 Samuel Chapter 7 verse 17)

And of course, what is an altar without sacrifices being offered on it? Samuel did not restrict himself to sacrificing on his personal altar in Ramah, but he also sacrificed at the High Places in Gilgal.

"And you shall go down before me to Gilgal; and behold, I (Samuel) am coming to you to offer burnt offerings and to sacrifice peace offerings. Seven days you shall wait, until I come to you and show you what you shall do. When he had finished prophesying, he came to the high place." (1 Samuel Chapter 10 verse 8)

Now, just in case someone might try employing some of those torturing of Bible verses (called apologetics) and try to suggest perhaps that Samuel was merely sinning against God, perhaps, it is worthy of note that Samuel is portrayed as knowing God personally and in very good favor with God, in spite of all his "law breaking ways"

"And Samuel grew, and YAHWEH was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground. And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established as a prophet of YAHWEH. And YAHWEH appeared again at Shiloh, for YAHWEH revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of YAHWEH." (1 Samuel Chapter 3 verse 19)

So you can see that God was with Samuel, the Ephraimite, and the fact that he had a personal altar, or that he went up to the high places to sacrifice made no difference.

"So Samuel (the Ephraimite) took a sucking lamb and offered it as a whole burnt offering to YAHWEH; and Samuel cried to YAHWEH for Israel, and YAHWEH answered him. (Not a problem.) As Samuel (the Ephraimite, who was not put to death) was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to attack Israel; but YAHWEH thundered with a mighty voice that day against the Philistines and threw them into confusion; and they were routed before Israel. So the Philistines were subdued and did not again enter the territory of Israel. And the hand of YAHWEH was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel." (1 Samuel Chapter 7 verse 9)

Samuel's "law breaking" included going up to the high places to sacrifice.

"Samuel answered Saul, "I am the seer; go up before me to the high place, for today you shall eat with me, and in the morning I will let you go and will tell you all that is on your mind." (1 Samuel Chapter 9 verse 19)

"They answered, "He is; behold, he is just ahead of you. Make haste; he has come just now to the city, because the people have a sacrifice today on the high place. As soon as you enter the city, you will find him, before he goes up to the high place to eat; for the people will not eat till he comes, since he (Samuel, the Ephraimite) must bless the sacrifice; afterward those eat who are invited. Now go up, for you will meet him immediately." So they went up to the city. As they were entering the city, they saw Samuel coming out toward them on his way up to the high place." (1 Samuel Chapter 9 verse 12)

Needless to say Samuel's conduct was condemned by the priests later in the Torah (who did not want any religion that was not strictly under their control, as you can tell by reading their propaganda.)

"And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols; and my soul will abhor you. And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute vengeance for the covenant; and if you gather within your cities I will send pestilence among you, and you shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. And if in spite of this you will not hearken to me, but walk contrary to me, then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and chastise you myself sevenfold for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols; and my soul will abhor you. And I will lay your cities waste, and will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your pleasing odors. And I will devastate the land, so that your enemies who settle in it shall be astonished at it." (Leviticus Chapter 26 verse 30)

Samuel (the Ephraimite) also practiced the priestly rites of consecration.

"And he said, "Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to YAHWEH; consecrate yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice." And he consecrated Jesse and his sons, and invited them to the sacrifice." (1 Samuel Chapter 16 verse 5)

Now it turns out that Samuel, the Ephraimite, was not the only one offering sacrifices. Everyone was offering sacrifices. All the people offered sacrifices.

"So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before YAHWEH in Gilgal. There they sacrificed peace offerings before YAHWEH, and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly." (1 Samuel Chapter 11 verse 15)

David's family of course sacrificed as well, every year.

If your father misses me at all, then say, "David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem his city; for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family." (1 Samuel Chapter 20 verse 6)

He (David, the half Moabite Judean) said, "Let me go; for our family holds a sacrifice in the city, and my brother has commanded me to be there. So now, if I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away, and see my brothers." For this reason he has not come to the king's table. (1 Samuel Chapter 20 verse 29)

Of course, with every Tom, Dick and Harry sacrificing, David (the Moabite Judean) also sacrificed. He also wore the priestly ephod.

"And it was told King David, "YAHWEH has blessed the household of Obededom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God." So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obededom to the city of David with rejoicing; and when those who bore the ark of YAHWEH had gone six paces, he (David) sacrificed an ox and a fatling. And David danced before YAHWEH with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod." (2 Samuel Chapter 6 verse 12)

And Absalom sacrificed (and why not. Everybody else did.)

"And while Absalom was offering the sacrifices, he sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counselor, from his city Giloh." (2 Samuel Chapter 15 verse 12)

King Solomon sacrificed. He also burned incense, which, if you remember the priestly polemic described above, was a good way to get burned yourself.

"Three times a year Solomon used to offer up burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the altar which he built to YAHWEH, burning incense before YAHWEH. So he finished the house." (1 Kings Chapter 9 verse 25)

Of course with everybody sacrificing, wearing ephods, and consecrating people, well, those Levites in the Jerusalem temple were not going to stand for that for very long. (Keep in mind that the reference to "the Tent of Meeting" supposedly built by Moses was a polemical reference to the both the Temple and the Levites there, and also a reference to that myth of divine origins of the Torah.)

"If any man of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as a gift to YAHWEH before the tabernacle of YAHWEH, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people. This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they slay in the open field, that they may bring them to YAHWEH, to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting, and slay them as sacrifices of peace offerings to YAHWEH; and the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of YAHWEH at the door of the tent of meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasing odor to YAHWEH. So they shall no more slay their sacrifices for satyrs, after whom they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations. And you shall say to them, Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice, and does not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting, to sacrifice it to YAHWEH; that man shall be cut off from his people." (Leviticus Chapter 17 verse 3)

The Levite regulations were not immune to the intrusion of political polemic and political propaganda. We can see varying portraits of King David in the historical accounts (which are not actually "history" but rather political polemic, accounting for the inconsistencies and contradictions found in the manuscripts.

These politically motivated controversies can then be found reflected in sections of the Torah regulations, that both introduce conflicts into the Torah itself and reveal a political agenda at work that corresponds to the political agenda revealed in an analysis of the propaganda presented as history. The reasons for these controversies are found when you consider that David was of mixed origins, coming from Moabite descent. There were elements in this ancient society who were hostile to the fact that "a Moabite half breed" was sitting on the throne of Judah, and that a dynasty of "Moabite half breeds" then ruled over Judah for centuries.

Evidence for both support for David's cause and the hostility against a Moabite on the throne would bring out in people is found on the pages of the Bible. For example, the book of Ruth is the story of David's grandmother, and most likely was a pro-Davidic monarchy political composition. Ruth was a Moabite. She was (supposedly) banned by the Torah regulations forever, for this very reason. No one was to be concerned for her welfare, forever. No one descended from her would be allowed into "the assembly" forever, and certainly not allowed as a priest (as David's sons were), and, it goes without saying, certainly not allowed to sit on the throne or establish a dynasty in Judah. Boaz, a Jewish man, obviously violated this law in Deuteronomy, and is presented as showing constant concern for the welfare of Ruth. Boaz was presented as a righteous man, and Ruth was presented as the epitome of a righteous woman. The laws banning both their marriage and the ban on Moabites in particular were later politically motivated compositions and their target was the Davidic monarchy.

That such zealous bigots could be found in Israel and Judah at the time, is best evidenced when you compare the story line in the book of Ruth, with the rabid racism of Ezra-Nehemiah. One of the principle themes of these two manuscripts is the crackdown on mixed marriages, like that of David's grandfather and grandmother. In these manuscripts the people had not separated from "the natives". The "holy race" had been intermarrying with the banned, "unholy races," including, as you can see, the unclean, unholy race of Moabites. This is political diatribe and just as the book of Ruth is pro-Davidic political composition, these conflicting racist compositions reflect the anti-Davidic political movement, and encapsulate the view point of certain passages we find in the Torah (which were themselves anti-Davidic political compositions).

"No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of YAHWEH; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of YAHWEH for ever ... You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days for ever." (Deuteronomy Chapter 23 verse 3)

These regulations are explicitly referenced again and again in the manuscripts, and the political position stated that to allow this "foreign intermarriage" (or to allow "half breeds Moabites" to rule as a dynasty over Judah) brings social and political disaster to the nation. There is an explicit reference to the ban on being concerned for Moabites found in Deuteronomy quoted above (and this is once again a thinly disguised referent to the "half breed Moabite" David dynasty. The highest officials are presented as the ones most guilty of the offence, another indication of the political nature of the polemic. Keep in mind that the entire book of Deuteronomy takes place in Moab, and that the Moabites were friendly with the Israelites, indicating that the anti-Moab polemic in Deuteronomy is a later addition. The italics are mine.)

"Therefore give not your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.'" (Ezra Chapter 9 verse 12)

"Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law." (Ezra Chapter 10 verse 3)

"After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost." When I heard this, I rent my garments and my mantle, and pulled hair from my head and beard, and sat appalled. Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the faithlessness of the returned exiles, gathered round me while I sat appalled until the evening sacrifice. And at the evening sacrifice I rose from my fasting, with my garments and my mantle rent, and fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to YAHWEH my God, saying: "O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift my face to thee, my God, for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has mounted up to the heavens." (Ezra Chapter 9 verse 1)

The political polemic continues, and emphasis is placed on both the "sin" of mixed marriage, and the need to separate (a veiled reference to the need to rid the nation of the "half breed" Moabite dynasty of David) in order to "avert the fierce wrath of God" kindled by this matter. (This is all, of course, just one more Biblical contradiction, as you can tell by reading Ruth and then reading these racist, politically motivated polemics in Ezra-Nehemiah. The story is political polemic.)

"And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now then make confession to YAHWEH the God of your fathers, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives." Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, "It is so; we must do as you have said ... till the fierce wrath of our God over this matter be averted from us." (Ezra Chapter 10 verse 10)

The political polemic is also carried on in the book of Nehemiah.

"And the Israelites separated themselves from all foreigners, and stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers. And they stood up in their place and read from the book of the law of YAHWEH their God for a fourth of the day; for another fourth of it they made confession and worshiped YAHWEH their God." (Nehemiah Chapter 9 verse 2)

As the polemic builds towards its conclusion (another condemnation of "half breeds"), all of it couched in praise for Torah regulations, a reference is made to "appointing a leader to take them back into bondage to Egypt" (David, "the half breed Moabite" is the target of these polemics). It was only because "God was merciful" that the nation did not come to immediate disaster (a polemical excuse).

"But they and our fathers acted presumptuously and stiffened their neck and did not obey thy commandments; they refused to obey, and were not mindful of the wonders which thou didst perform among them; but they stiffened their neck and appointed a leader to return to their bondage in Egypt. But thou art a God ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and didst not forsake them." (Nehemiah Chapter 9 verse 16)

This is followed by many racist remarks about "the natives of the land" and then a reference to "treating them any way you like" is found. (These passages in Ezra and Nehemiah are some of the ugliest scriptures in the Bible, extolling and celebrating the most arrogant form of racism, extermination, genocide, plundering and robbery, and the Holy War ideology of the Levites.)

"So the descendants went in and possessed the land, and thou didst subdue before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and didst give them into their hands, with their kings and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would." (Nehemiah Chapter 9 verse 24)

One of the differences between the Nehemiah and the Ezra manuscripts is that in Nehemiah the attack on David is muted, by including a positive reference to Solomon, David's son. This is evidence for later editorial redaction in the manuscript, recognizable, as is always the case, by the bizarre inconsistencies in doctrine that such intrusions always bring with them. In context, the reference is somewhat idiotic, for Solomon himself was one of those unwanted "half breeds" and the product of an Israelite-Moabite union, condemned just verses previous to this, as being a cause of great evil and conduct worthy of a really good beating. After praising the half breed Solomon, Nehemiah then attacks the son-in-law of a Horonite, which is equally downright idiotic in the context of the passage, indicating that the later editor of Nehemiah understood the anti-Davidic nature of the polemic in Ezra-Nehemiah and was trying to mute the critique and shift the focus to condemning racial mixing in general. As I said, the passage is dimwitted, but then only a dimwit could hold to such an offensive and repulsive ideology, so that isn't surprising to me. He then claims to have "purged them of everything foreign", well, everything except the influence of that half breed Davidic monarchy. But you do have to make some exceptions, even when it comes to the previously vaunted "Law of Moses," and sometimes show partiality and favoritism to the right half breed family, of course, right?

"In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab; And I contended with them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair; and I made them take oath in the name of God, saying, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless foreign women made even him to sin. Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?" And one of the sons of Jehoiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; therefore I chased him from me. Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign." (Nehemiah Chapter 13 verse 23)

The Torah can be examined in many ways, as history, as consistent law, by considering the testimony of the radical stream of Jewish prophecy, prophets, remember, who lived in the times they describe and were the ones who knew the truth about what was going on, and, in this case, by examining the date of the Torah composition. Taken together, all this evidence is overwhelming that the Torah did not come down from heaven from God to Moses on the mountaintop, but rather that it represents the interests of the Jerusalem Temple Levites. Its Holy War ideology, was their ideology, its ideology of sacrifice created in their self interest. For these reasons Christian theology must be rebuilt from the ground up because it was built on the foundation of a falsehood (Christ as a Levitical sin sacrifice). The TRUTH shall set you free!