Who wrote the Pentateuch?

I’ve been asked to give my case is for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. I’m not going to take time to present a full-blown argument. I have 24 hours in a day, just like everyone else, and I’m not going to do what others can do for themselves. Rather, I’m going to sketch the basic outliens of the argument. An argumentative strategy.

i) In both the OT and the NT, the authority of the Mosaic law rests on the premise that Moses was a prophet of God. God spoke to Moses, and Moses, in turn, spoke the words God gave him to speak. Moses was God’s appointed mouthpiece.

ii) Not only does the Pentateuch depict Moses as a divine spokesman, but also as a writer. Moses wrote down what God told him.

iii) In addition, the Pentateuch is a literary unit. It’s interwoven with common themes. Foreshadowing and backshadowing.

Its literary unity is admitted by contemporary OT scholars ranging from liberal to conservative. The difference is the liberal scholars attribute this unity to a final redactor rather than a common author.

However, (iii), in combination with (i-ii), is an argument for common authorship–not merely common redaction.

There are ways of trying to get around this:

i) In theory, one might take the position that the Pentateuch is a record of what Moses said, or God said to Moses, written by someone other than Moses.

However, that move is inconsistent with (ii-iii).

ii) In addition, those who deny Mosaic authorship typically deny, not only that Moses wrote what the Pentateuch imputes to him, but that he spoke what the Pentateuch imputes to him. They regard the entire presentation as fictitious. The anonymous author or redactor is putting words in the mouth of a fictional character. Indeed, Yahweh and Moses are both fictional characters.

Of course, on that view, the Pentateuch instantly loses the authority which both OT and NT ascribe to it. Moses can’t speak for God unless God spoke to him. Imaginary conversations between Yahweh and Moses don’t command our deference. Unless he was a real person, who actually had the numinous encounters that the Pentateuch attributes to him, he can’t properly speak on God’s behalf.

Beyond the argument from the OT we have certain NT ascriptions. For instance:

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me (Jn 5:45-46).

And what is Jesus referring to? Within the confines of the Fourth Gospel, that denotes the various Pentateuchal allusions which undergird the story of Jesus. That’s what a literate reader would make of the statement, in the context of John’s unfolding narrative.

There are ways of trying to get around this:

i) One tactic is to treat NT ascriptions as conventional designations. But even if that’s consistent in some cases, that’s not consistent in this case. Jesus is making an argument from analogy. If Moses didn’t write about Jesus, then the argument falls apart.

ii) In response, one might try to say that this is a purely ad hominem argument. His Jewish opponents believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, so Jesus is playing on their own turf.

But a problem with that argument is the integrity of the testimonial theme in the Fourth Gospel. There are many different witnesses to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Multiple-attestation. It would be discordant for the Mosaic appeal to be purely ad hominem given role of testimony in John’s Gospel.

iii) A last-ditch tactic would be taking refuge in a kenotic Christology. Jesus was mistaken.

But whatever else we might say about that move, John’s gospel, with its lofty Christology, is a very inhospitable haven for kenoticism.