Recently I got into an impromptu debate with a Muslim apologist. I've reformatted the exchange to improve the flow of argument:
Yusuf
Would you be keen on discussing the reliability and authenticity of the OT?
Hays
Kenneth Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003) is a standard monograph. Good place to start. In addition, conservative commentaries on the Pentateuch discuss particulars. Another good resource is Richard Hess, The Old Testament: A Historical, Theological, and Critical Introduction (Baker 2016).
Yusuf
Do you still subscribe to Moses being the author of the Pentateuch?
Hays
Aside from occasional scribal updating, yes, it's Mosaic.
Yusuf
This is an extremely non-scholarly perspective
Hays
You're attempting to shortcircuit the discussion by an illicit argument from authority ("an extremely non-scholarly perspective"). Why don't we stick with reason and evidence rather than fallacies?
Yusuf
Fallacies? Have you even considered the internal evidence.
Hays
I'm waiting for an argument.
Yusuf
I just posted the above textual references to support my position which speaks for itself.
Hays
So you don't have an argument. I can't refute a nonexistent argument. Nothing for me to respond to.
Yusuf
You really believe the most humblest man in earth would write he is the most humblest man on earth.
Hays
The authority of Moses was challenged by his siblings. But he's "humble" in the sense that he never wanted to be an authority-figure. That's the context. I've discussed this before:
Yusuf
You missed the whole point.
Hays
Demonstrate how my explanation of Num 12:3 is incompatible with Mosaic authorship.
Yusuf
Or that he authored his death in the past tense
Hays
Instead of raising canned objections, you need to pay attention to what I actually said. Remember what I said? "Aside from occasional scribal updating, yes, it's Mosaic."
In light of my qualified statement, demonstrate how Deut 34 disproves my position?
Yusuf
So Deuteronomy 34 represents scribal updating?...You concede that at least which is a start
Hays
The literary epitaph is a posthumous editorial postscript. That's not a concession since my stated position was qualified from the get-go.
Yusuf
Or repeatedly wrote in a stylistic rendering of a once upon a time narrative in the third person.
Hays
Are you laboring under the misimpression that an eyewitness narrator can't adopt the literary convention of a 3rd-person description? Illeism is a literary device in ancient historiography, employed by writers like Josephus, Julius Caesar, Xenophon, Herodotus, Polybius, Thucydides, and Hecataeus of Miletus. Cf. Christopher Pelling, "Xenophon’s and Caesar’s third-person narratives—or are they?" Anna Marmodoro & Jonathan Hill, eds. The Author's Voice in Classical and Late Antiquity (Oxford 2013), chap. 2; Rod Elledge, Use of the Third Person for Self-Reference by Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of Illeism in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Its Implications for Christology (T&T Clark 2017).
BTW, the narratological device of illeism is germane to the "anonymity" of the Gospels. The fact that Gospel writers generally speak in the third-person doesn't ipso facto imply that they rely on sources, does not entail that they weren't eyewitnesses, for there are notable Classical historians who adopt a 3rd-person voice even when recounting events from firsthand observation.
Yusuf
You've provided absolutely NO evidence on Moses being the author
Hays
There's a difference between making a case for Mosaic authorship and responding to objections to Mosaic authorship. You're moving the goalpost. Is that a backdoor admission that you lost the original argument?
Yusuf
I cited simply a few references internally in terms of stylistic rendering that belies the notion of Moses having anything to do with writing the present text...I'm still asking for substantive evidence that he did.
Hays
For instance:
Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven” (Exod 17:14).And Moses wrote down all the words of Yahweh (Exod 24:4).And Yahweh said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exod 34:27).These are the stages of the people of Israel, when they went out of the land of Egypt by their companies under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. 2 Moses wrote down their starting places, stage by stage, by Yahweh's command, and these are their stages according to their starting places (Num 33:1-2).Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and to all the elders of Israel (Deut 31:9).So Moses wrote this song the same day and taught it to the people of Israel (Deut 31:22)When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end (Deut 31:24).
Yusuf
But you subscribe again to the nonsensical motion that Joshua wrote Joshua
Hays
Asserting that Joshua authored the book of Joshua is nonsensical is not self-explanatory. Is your inchoate argument that statements about someone's death are made by someone other than the decedent? If so, so what?
Now you're changing the subject from your assertion that Joshua's authorship of the book bearing his name is nonsensical to whether I presented evidence that he authored the book. But those are two distinct issues. Is there some reason you don't stick with one issue at a time, even when you raise the issue?
Yusuf
I presented you albeit briefly evidence that Moses could not have authored the Pentateuch
Hays
i) I refuted your evidence that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. You're now equivocating over the epitaph. But my original statement already anticipated that objection. Try to keep up with the actual state of the argument.
ii) What's your evidence that the Quran consists of Muhammad's transcription of what Gabriel allegedly told him?
iii) If a book claims to be by X, that's prima facie evidence that the book was written by X. Some books are pseudonymous. Prima facie evidence can sometimes be overridden by counterevidence. But sometimes there's corroboration for prima facie evidence of authorship. I'm speaking in generalities about evidence for authorship, and not Scripture in particular. If a book claims to be written by Al-Ghazâlî, that's prima facie evidence that it was written by the person to whom it's attributed. Same thing with the Pentateuch or Joshua.
iv) You seem to be operating with the simplistic notion that unless 100% of a book was written by the same person, we can't attribute the book to that person. But I already made allowance for editorial updating in my original comment. Naturally an obituary notice will be written after the fact by someone else. That does nothing to disprove authorship prior to the decedent's demise.
For instance, in modern times there are critical editions of autobiographies in which an editor republishes someone's autobiography, but adds an introduction and footnotes. That doesn't mean the autobiography proper wasn't written by the named individual.
Take the Autobiography of Mark Twain. There's a scholarly edition (H. E. Smith et al. eds, UCP 2010) with an editorial introduction, footnotes, and appendices. The appendix includes a posthumous chronology of his life.
So the critical edition contains material that's not by Twain. But it also contains Twain's complete autobiography. The body of the text is by Twain. An annotated autobiography.
Or take The Study Quran (Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al eds, HarperOne 2017) . That's an annotated Quran. It contains non-Quranic material by the editors. Background information. Elucidatory supplements from the Hadith. But it also contains the complete text of the Quran. (Not counting all the variants.)
Yusuf
And that's where your defense totally shatters. Twain's autobiography is exactly that...an autobiography written by twain and can be identified internally as such..the Pentateuch is a BIOGRAPHICAL account.
Hays
i) You're deeply confused. To begin with, I wasn't making a point about genre, but the fact that there are critical editions of an author that contain the author's text along with editorial additions. Are you unable to absorb that distinction?
ii) And as far as genre is concerned, you're erecting a false dichotomy. If someone writes a personal history in which they were a participant, that will be both autobiographical and historical. Take accounts of WWII by Churchill and Eisenhower. Those aren't strictly histories or autobiographies: rather, they represent a composite genre since the narrator was a major participate in the events he recounts.
Yusuf
ABOUT Moses with the exception of Genesis which doesn't even mention him…"
Hays
i) Since Genesis antedates the life of Moses, he won't be mentioned as a participant.
ii) However, the Pentateuch is a literary unit and continuous history, which a great deal of stylistic unity (e.g. statements and events in Genesis which foreshadow the Exodus), so common authorship is assumed. And that's corroborated by OT and NT attributions.
Yusuf
It's an account allegedly about Moses in the past tense and nowhere do these books specific books claim to be written by him or bear his autograph.
Hays
i) Autobiographies are mostly written in the past tense since they look back over the life of the writer. Your objection is nonsensical.
ii) Does the Quran bear Muhammad's autograph?
Yusuf
And arrogantly dismiss the evidence I have presented!
Hays
I didn't "dismiss" your "evidence", but provided counterarguments.
Yusuf
And what criteria are you using to determine that?
Hays
i) Authorial attributions.
ii) A narrative that reflects firsthand knowledge of the time and place (during the life of Moses).
iii) Occasional editorial updates.
Yusuf
There is absolutely NO evidence within the text that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Hays
One of your besetting confusions is tunnel vision regarding what constitutes authorship. For instance, Jeremiah used a scribe. It was Baruch who actually wrote down the oracles of Jeremiah and collated them into a cumulative anthology. But his editorial activity doesn't obviate the fact that the content of the book is by Jeremiah.
Yusuf
And appealing to conservative tradition is simply that....But not evidence!
Hays
I didn't appeal to conservative tradition but the arguments and evidence they provide. Remember that your original objection was not about Mosaic authorship, but the reliability and authenticity of the OT.
Thank you. Most informative.
ReplyDelete