A Hebraism In The Book Of Mormon

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

I told you that I would not agree to be dragged into an argument with you about biblical inerrancy. The reason is simple: you don't hold the Book of Mormon to the standard of inerrancy, and I'm not criticizing the Book of Mormon for failing to be inerrant. Therefore, demanding that I defend biblical inerrancy as part of the task of validating my criticisms of the Book of Mormon is fallacious. In fact, it puts you in the position of a double standard, since you won't hold the Book of Mormon to that standard.

Nowhere does the Bible claim that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy. Let's look at the verses you cited.

"Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel" (Deut. 31:9).

The expression "this law" cannot refer to the book of Deuteronomy, for two obvious reasons. (1) The book cannot be complete at this point because more happens that the book narrates. (2) Moses is referred to in the third person, as he is consistently throughout the narrative elements of the book -- a point I have made repeatedly that you have so far ignored. Additionally, it should be noted that the term "law" (torah) does not mean a book. It means instruction or law. The torah may be included in a book (or scroll), and Deuteronomy reports that Moses was writing down the torah that he first delivered orally to the people. What we have in Deuteronomy is a book that incorporates Moses' instruction from the Lord, the torah, in a narrative of Moses' last days.

"When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, 'Take this book of the law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you'" (Deut. 31:24-26).

The same points just made apply here. The "book" to which this verse refers cannot be our book of Deuteronomy, because at this point the events reported in Deuteronomy have not all taken place. It is the instruction or law, the torah, that Moses wrote in a book. The narrator clearly refers to Moses in the third person.

We can see quite easily that these verses cannot be referring to Deuteronomy by simply substituting "Deuteronomy" where it refers to what Moses wrote:

"Then Moses wrote Deuteronomy and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.... When Moses had finished writing the words of Deuteronomy to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, 'Take this book, Deuteronomy, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.'"

Obviously, this just doesn't work.

"While they were bringing out the money that had been brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD given by the hand of Moses" (2 Chron. 34:14).

As just explained above, the torah of Yahweh, the instruction of the LORD, had been given by the hand of Moses. That written instruction constitutes the bulk of the material found in Deuteronomy. However, Deuteronomy presents itself as a book that places the torah of Yahweh given through Moses in a narrative context of Moses' last days. 2 Chronicles 34:14 is not saying that the book of Deuteronomy per se was written by the hand of Moses; it is saying that the torah or instruction contained in Deuteronomy came by the hand of Moses.

No doubt you will claim, as you do repeatedly when you don't have a good answer, that I am "quibbling." But it is not quibbling to make an important distinction that is quite relevant as an answer to common criticisms of the authenticity of Deuteronomy. Let me refer you to an excellent article by an evangelical OT scholar that discusses the issue of the literary origins of Deuteronomy in more detail:

Block, Daniel I. "Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (2001): 385-408.

More later.

There's a whole lot of obfuscation going on here.

Answering two simple questions can help clear this up.

1- To what text does "this torah" refer?

2- Is there any part of Deuteronomy that is authentically Mosaic? Granted that the book has been edited, is there any part of the text that presents the actual teachings of Moses, as opposed to seventh century ideas placed in the mouth of Moses?

Note: I am not trying to make inerrancy the issue. I am simply noting what an inerrantist reading of Deuteronomy requires. If you want to abandon inerrancy, that's fine with me. But what Evangelicals often do is give lip-service to inerrancy, while abandoning its implications. They have a form of inerrancy, but deny the power thereof.

[Bill Hamblin]

Essays in the FARMS Review quite cheerfully compare and contrast patterns of evidence and models for both views. For instance:

That is Mark Ashurst McGee here:

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=513

Steven Harper's review takes a similar approach, comparing Palmer with material from the King Benjamin's Speech volume:

Harper writing here:

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=512

And there are others. In 1987, Blake Ostler reviewed such arguments in Dialogue. More recently, Duffy goes through the motions of doing comparing pro and con in Sunstone in The Mapping Mormon Issues essay on the Book of Mormon, though I'm not impressed with his efforts, for various reasons.

I've done side by side comparisons or pro and con arguments myself in 1995 with respect to King Benjamin's discourse in "Paradigms Crossed."

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=2&id=193

I should have also mentioned that LDS Mesoamericanist scholar, Mark Wright, who occasionally posts as Hashbaz, has pointed out the relevance of the San Bartelo murals, which date to around the same time as Benjamin's discourse, are located just outside of Book of Mormon lands, and depicts a similar coronation on a tower.

In all of the reading I have done of LDS defenses of the Book of Mormon, as well as of critical attacks, I have found that I consistently learn far far more about the critical arguments from the defenders than I learn of the defenders arguments from the critics. This is a natural result of the higher investment the LDS have. We live in the house, and therefore, take more time to tidy up, weed the gardens, and deal with the issues. Those engaged in boundary maintenance or self-justification often just want to close a gate and say, "Nothing to see here folks, move along." That was the point of the famous essay on "Loosing the Battle and Not Knowing it," that most Evangelical authors didn't bother to engage current LDS scholarship. The New Mormon Challenge tried to remedy that, and it looks like you are trying here. But the overall trend is clear.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Yup.

[Bill Hamblin]

zerinus,

You wrote:

A "character" in a book is not its author.

Only if the book is fiction. If the book is historical, then we must ask: is the author accurately quoting the first person words of Moses, or is the author inventing those speeches, and falsely claiming that the first person narratives were actually said by Moses?

Edited March 6, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Let me refer you to an excellent article by an evangelical OT scholar that discusses the issue of the literary origins of Deuteronomy in more detail:

Block, Daniel I. "Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (2001): 385-408.

On p. 403 Block says: "We do not doubt the historicity of Moses, the authenticity of his speeches, nor the fundamentally Mosaic authority behind the entire Pentateuch." Do you agree?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

It seems to me that you are not even trying to understand my position. I have been very clear that Moses was a historical person, that the speeches in Deuteronomy derive from Moses (but need not be viewed as the ipsissima verbi of Moses), and that the authority of God through his prophet Moses stands behind the entire Pentateuch. The speeches are not invented by the narrator; rather, the narrator has produced a narrative frame that faithfully represents the original context of the speeches. The text of Moses' speeches in Deuteronomy accurately represent Moses' teaching and are authentically Mosaic in that sense. Deuteronomy does not falsely attribute to Moses ideas originating in the seventh century BC.

Also, I am neither abandoning inerrancy nor am I trying to defend it. Your attempts to force me to choose between these two options won't work.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

I found your post helpful. You've provided some specific resources of relevance.

You wrote:

That was the point of the famous essay on "Loosing the Battle and Not Knowing it," that most Evangelical authors didn't bother to engage current LDS scholarship. The New Mormon Challenge tried to remedy that, and it looks like you are trying here. But the overall trend is clear.

You probably don't know this, but I sounded a similar alarm (though not in the same detail) about a decade before that essay, in an article published in Moody Monthly. I am finally in a situation where I can do something about it myself.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

It seems to me that you are not even trying to understand my position. I have been very clear that Moses was a historical person, that the speeches in Deuteronomy derive from Moses (but need not be viewed as the ipsissima verbi of Moses), and that the authority of God through his prophet Moses stands behind the entire Pentateuch. The speeches are not invented by the narrator; rather, the narrator has produced a narrative frame that faithfully represents the original context of the speeches. The text of Moses' speeches in Deuteronomy accurately represent Moses' teaching and are authentically Mosaic in that sense. Deuteronomy does not falsely attribute to Moses ideas originating in the seventh century BC.

Also, I am neither abandoning inerrancy nor am I trying to defend it. Your attempts to force me to choose between these two options won't work.

I note you are not answering my questions.

So, then, how did the authentically Mosaic teachings get from Moses to the scroll found in the temple in the late 8th century, 800 years after Moses? It seems to me however you answer the question, you create the same types of issues that you object to in the origin of the BOM.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I note you are not answering my questions.

I've just about had it with you, Bill. I most certainly did answer your questions. You asked me:

If the book is historical, then we must ask: {1} is the author accurately quoting the first person words of Moses, or is the author inventing those speeches, and falsely claiming that the first person narratives were actually said by Moses?

And you asked this:

{2} Is there any part of Deuteronomy that is authentically Mosaic? Granted that the book has been edited, {3} is there any part of the text that presents the actual teachings of Moses, as opposed to seventh century ideas placed in the mouth of Moses?

And you asked this:

On p. 403 Block says: "We do not doubt the historicity of Moses, the authenticity of his speeches, nor the fundamentally Mosaic authority behind the entire Pentateuch." {4} Do you agree?

I replied to all of these questions! Here's what I wrote:

"I have been very clear that {4} Moses was a historical person, that the speeches in Deuteronomy derive from Moses (but need not be viewed as the ipsissima verbi of Moses), and that the authority of God through his prophet Moses stands behind the entire Pentateuch. {1} The speeches are not invented by the narrator; rather, the narrator has produced a narrative frame that faithfully represents the original context of the speeches. The text of Moses' speeches in Deuteronomy {3} accurately represent Moses' teaching and {2} are authentically Mosaic in that sense. {3} Deuteronomy does not falsely attribute to Moses ideas originating in the seventh century BC."

I'm really getting fed up. You ask me questions and then proceed by either ignoring my answers and assuming contrary answers, claiming that my answers are quibbles, or claiming that I did not answer your questions at all. I won't go further with you until you acknowledge that I did answer the above questions.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

I've just about had it with you, Bill. I most certainly did answer your questions. You asked me:

And you asked this:

And you asked this:

I replied to all of these questions! Here's what I wrote:

"I have been very clear that {4} Moses was a historical person, that the speeches in Deuteronomy derive from Moses (but need not be viewed as the ipsissima verbi of Moses), and that the authority of God through his prophet Moses stands behind the entire Pentateuch. {1} The speeches are not invented by the narrator; rather, the narrator has produced a narrative frame that faithfully represents the original context of the speeches. The text of Moses' speeches in Deuteronomy {3} accurately represent Moses' teaching and {2} are authentically Mosaic in that sense. {3} Deuteronomy does not falsely attribute to Moses ideas originating in the seventh century BC."

I'm really getting fed up. You ask me questions and then proceed by either ignoring my answers and assuming contrary answers, claiming that my answers are quibbles, or claiming that I did not answer your questions at all. I won't go further with you until you acknowledge that I did answer the above questions.

Come on Rob. You've answered some questions, but are conveniently ignoring others--the more important ones.

I understand what you position is, but you are not willing to admit what the implications of that position are.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You had written:

"I note you are not answering my questions."

After I documented my answers to four of your most recent questions (in addition to the five or more questions I had answered previously), you replied:

"Come on Rob. You've answered some questions, but are conveniently ignoring others--the more important ones."

You appear to be constitutionally incapable of admitting you were wrong. I have clearly answered at least most of your questions, some of them several times because you kept asking them over and over even after I had answered them. In fact, I think I answered all of your questions. I have reviewed our exchange and cannot see any question from you that I did not answer. If there is some more important question you think I have not answered, I don't know what that is.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Let’s imagine that Deuteronomy was actually comparable to the Book of Mormon. What would that look like?

1. Deuteronomy would not have been “discovered” in Jerusalem, but rather someplace like Gaul, requiring its Jewish compiler for no particular reason to have wandered on foot thousands of miles from Jerusalem before burying the book. (Actually, Gaul is less than half the distance from Jerusalem that upstate New York is from Mesoamerica. Shanghai would be more comparable.)

2. Deuteronomy would not have been “discovered” in the seventh century BC but rather in the first century BC—fourteen centuries, not seven centuries, after it was supposedly written.

3. The earliest available version of Deuteronomy would not be written in Hebrew, but in Latin. Its “translator” would claim that he translated it from a text written in an unknown language that had features of both Hebrew and Gallic.

4. The “Reformed Gallic” text of Deuteronomy would not be available for anyone to examine, because it would have disappeared after the Latin “translation” was complete.

5. Close inspection of the Latin text of Deuteronomy would demonstrate that its lengthy quotations of material from Exodus and Leviticus are dependent on the Greek Septuagint translation of those books, despite claims by Deuteronomists that the translator could barely write a coherent paragraph in Greek.

6. Deuteronomy would be written in the first person singular as though Moses himself wrote it. The book would begin, “I, Moses, having led the children of Israel out of Egypt,” and would conclude with Moses announcing that he was about to die, not with a third-person account of his death.

7. Deuteronomy would command the Israelites to build a bridge (complete with arch) across the Jordan River and instructions for constructing aqueducts after settling in the land.

8. Deuteronomy would describe Western Europe as a new land of promise and claim that the Gauls were descended from the Midianites.

9. Deuteronomy would contain numerous prophecies by Moses referring explicitly and in detail to David—not merely predicting his name, but describing his career, quoting what Samuel would say about David (again in language dependent on the Septuagint), and so on.

10. Deuteronomy would have a great deal to say about issues of importance to Jews in the first century BC but say nothing about the coming of Jesus Christ or the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the first century AD.

11. Deuteronomy would excuse itself for any errors that readers might find in its pages. It would claim that if it could only have been written in Hebrew the text would be perfect. It would urge readers not to let any faults they find in it keep them from accepting it as God’s word.

12. Deuteronomy would contain not-so-veiled references to its discovery in Gaul and prophecies about the pivotal work of its translator in bringing a restoration of true Judaism through the book of Deuteronomy.

13. Less than fifteen years after producing the inspired Latin translation of Deuteronomy, the translator would be teaching that the true doctrine of Judaism was not monotheism (despite the apparent monotheism of Deuteronomy) but something much more like Gallic animism. Devoted Deuteronomists would insist that such animism is implicit in Deuteronomy and that there is no conflict between the book’s teaching and their Jewish animism.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[wenglund]

Let’s imagine that Deuteronomy was actually comparable to the Book of Mormon. What would that look like?

1. Deuteronomy would not have been “discovered” in Jerusalem, but rather someplace like Gaul, requiring its Jewish compiler for no particular reason to have wandered on foot thousands of miles from Jerusalem before burying the book. (Actually, Gaul is less than half the distance from Jerusalem that upstate New York is from Mesoamerica. Shanghai would be more comparable.)

2. Deuteronomy would not have been “discovered” in the seventh century BC but rather in the first century BC—fourteen centuries, not seven centuries, after it was supposedly written.

3. The earliest available version of Deuteronomy would not be written in Hebrew, but in Latin. Its “translator” would claim that he translated it from a text written in an unknown language that had features of both Hebrew and Gallic.

4. The “Reformed Gallic” text of Deuteronomy would not be available for anyone to examine, because it would have disappeared after the Latin “translation” was complete.

5. Close inspection of the Latin text of Deuteronomy would demonstrate that its lengthy quotations of material from Exodus and Leviticus are dependent on the Greek Septuagint translation of those books, despite claims by Deuteronomists that the translator could barely write a coherent paragraph in Greek.

6. Deuteronomy would be written in the first person singular as though Moses himself wrote it. The book would begin, “I, Moses, having led the children of Israel out of Egypt,” and would conclude with Moses announcing that he was about to die, not with a third-person account of his death.

7. Deuteronomy would command the Israelites to build a bridge (complete with arch) across the Jordan River and instructions for constructing aqueducts after settling in the land.

8. Deuteronomy would describe Western Europe as a new land of promise and claim that the Gauls were descended from the Midianites.

9. Deuteronomy would contain numerous prophecies by Moses referring explicitly and in detail to David—not merely predicting his name, but describing his career, quoting what Samuel would say about David (again in language dependent on the Septuagint), and so on.

10. Deuteronomy would have a great deal to say about issues of importance to Jews in the first century BC but say nothing about the coming of Jesus Christ or the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the first century AD.

11. Deuteronomy would excuse itself for any errors that readers might find in its pages. It would claim that if it could only have been written in Hebrew the text would be perfect. It would urge readers not to let any faults they find in it keep them from accepting it as God’s word.

12. Deuteronomy would contain not-so-veiled references to its discovery in Gaul and prophecies about the pivotal work of its translator in bringing a restoration of true Judaism through the book of Deuteronomy.

13. Less than fifteen years after producing the inspired Latin translation of Deuteronomy, the translator would be teaching that the true doctrine of Judaism was not monotheism (despite the apparent monotheism of Deuteronomy) but something much more like Gallic animism. Devoted Deuteronomists would insist that such animism is implicit in Deuteronomy and that there is no conflict between the book’s teaching and their Jewish animism.

This is all beside the point of your Step Two and your "working assumption" in cases where Step Two doesn't apply. In other words, this is yet more obfuscation.

And, the funny thing is, you have the gall to claim that Bill can't admit when he is wrong.

You, personally, are still losing the battle, and not knowing it, yet think you are in a position to do something about it. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You had written:

"I note you are not answering my questions."

After I documented my answers to four of your most recent questions (in addition to the five or more questions I had answered previously), you replied:

"Come on Rob. You've answered some questions, but are conveniently ignoring others--the more important ones."

You appear to be constitutionally incapable of admitting you were wrong. I have clearly answered at least most of your questions, some of them several times because you kept asking them over and over even after I had answered them. In fact, I think I answered all of your questions. I have reviewed our exchange and cannot see any question from you that I did not answer. If there is some more important question you think I have not answered, I don't know what that is.

I was wrong. I meant you have not answered all my questions. And you haven't.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Let’s imagine that Deuteronomy was actually comparable to the Book of Mormon. What would that look like?

1. Deuteronomy would not have been “discovered” in Jerusalem, but rather someplace like Gaul, requiring its Jewish compiler for no particular reason to have wandered on foot thousands of miles from Jerusalem before burying the book. (Actually, Gaul is less than half the distance from Jerusalem that upstate New York is from Mesoamerica. Shanghai would be more comparable.)

2. Deuteronomy would not have been “discovered” in the seventh century BC but rather in the first century BC—fourteen centuries, not seven centuries, after it was supposedly written.

3. The earliest available version of Deuteronomy would not be written in Hebrew, but in Latin. Its “translator” would claim that he translated it from a text written in an unknown language that had features of both Hebrew and Gallic.

4. The “Reformed Gallic” text of Deuteronomy would not be available for anyone to examine, because it would have disappeared after the Latin “translation” was complete.

5. Close inspection of the Latin text of Deuteronomy would demonstrate that its lengthy quotations of material from Exodus and Leviticus are dependent on the Greek Septuagint translation of those books, despite claims by Deuteronomists that the translator could barely write a coherent paragraph in Greek.

6. Deuteronomy would be written in the first person singular as though Moses himself wrote it. The book would begin, “I, Moses, having led the children of Israel out of Egypt,” and would conclude with Moses announcing that he was about to die, not with a third-person account of his death.

7. Deuteronomy would command the Israelites to build a bridge (complete with arch) across the Jordan River and instructions for constructing aqueducts after settling in the land.

8. Deuteronomy would describe Western Europe as a new land of promise and claim that the Gauls were descended from the Midianites.

9. Deuteronomy would contain numerous prophecies by Moses referring explicitly and in detail to David—not merely predicting his name, but describing his career, quoting what Samuel would say about David (again in language dependent on the Septuagint), and so on.

10. Deuteronomy would have a great deal to say about issues of importance to Jews in the first century BC but say nothing about the coming of Jesus Christ or the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the first century AD.

11. Deuteronomy would excuse itself for any errors that readers might find in its pages. It would claim that if it could only have been written in Hebrew the text would be perfect. It would urge readers not to let any faults they find in it keep them from accepting it as God’s word.

12. Deuteronomy would contain not-so-veiled references to its discovery in Gaul and prophecies about the pivotal work of its translator in bringing a restoration of true Judaism through the book of Deuteronomy.

13. Less than fifteen years after producing the inspired Latin translation of Deuteronomy, the translator would be teaching that the true doctrine of Judaism was not monotheism (despite the apparent monotheism of Deuteronomy) but something much more like Gallic animism. Devoted Deuteronomists would insist that such animism is implicit in Deuteronomy and that there is no conflict between the book’s teaching and their Jewish animism.

Obfuscation. I didn't say Deuteronomy was a perfect analogy to the BOM in all of its characteristics. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.

I said the textual issues surrounding Deuteronomy and its claims of Mosaic authorship parallel those surrounding the BOM. You refuse to engage that issue, instead offering obfuscation and distraction.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Ares]

Personal sniping or comments including personal sniping removed. Please avoid them.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I was wrong. I meant you have not answered all my questions. And you haven't.

CFR. Name one question I had not answered, please.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Obfuscation. I didn't say Deuteronomy was a perfect analogy to the BOM in all of its characteristics. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.

I said the textual issues surrounding Deuteronomy and its claims of Mosaic authorship parallel those surrounding the BOM. You refuse to engage that issue, instead offering obfuscation and distraction.

Of course I have engaged that issue. I have explained that Deuteronomy does not claim Moses as its author but rather claims Moses as the author of the instruction or law (torah) that is incorporated into that book. I have responded to each point of your analogy between Deuteronomy and the Book of Mormon. You dismissed those responses as quibbling and then wrongfully claimed I was not answering your questions. Although you finally admitted that claim was wrong, you are still trying to claim that I avoided engaging the issue you were raising, which really amounts to the same false claim in a different dress.

Deuteronomy is extant today in manuscripts written in an ancient language that is at worst a later form of the same language in which the book was originally written. The "textual issues" that plague the Book of Mormon have no parallel with Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy was not said to have been written in a language no one had ever seen. The high priest did not claim to have found the book of the law but then refuse to let people look at it except for a few individuals under controlled circumstances. The book was not "translated" and then mysteriously removed so that no one would be able to compare the "translation" with the supposedly translated text. The text was not "found" thousands of miles from the place where its scholarly defenders claim it supposedly was written. The period of time during which the text was lost or ignored was no more than about three centuries, not fourteen centuries. (If it was in the temple from the time of Solomon and immediately forgotten, ignored, or lost, it would then have gone "missing" for about three centuries.) These are serious objections to your argument that Deuteronomy has the same kinds of textual issues as the Book of Mormon. Dismissing them as quibbles or obfuscation or boldly claiming that I didn't address the issue at all won't wash.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

CFR. Name one question I had not answered, please.

#312

It says explicitly that Moses wrote this Law/Torah, meaning the book of Deuteronomy. If "this law" in these verses does not refer to Deuteronomy, to what does it refer?

repeated #326

To what text does "this torah" refer?

#315

By the way, 2 Chr. 34:14 says Hilkiah found "the Book of Torah of Yahweh given through Moses." Is that an inerrant text?

#316

If part is authentically Mosaic, were was that part for the 800 years before Josiah? Where in the Bible is Deut mentioned before the late seventh century?

2 Kings says everyone was shocked by its contents and they had never performed Passover as commanded by the book. How could that have happened if they had known of the book before?

#332

So, then, how did the authentically Mosaic teachings get from Moses to the scroll found in the temple in the late 8th century, 800 years after Moses?

[Bill Hamblin]

Of course I have engaged that issue. I have explained that Deuteronomy does not claim Moses as its author but rather claims Moses as the author of the instruction or law (torah) that is incorporated into that book.

So, do you believe that part of Deuteronomy was, in fact, written by Moses? If so, that portion of the text faces the same type of textual and manuscript issues as the BOM, correct?

[Bill Hamblin]

1. Deuteronomy would not have been “discovered” in Jerusalem, but rather someplace like Gaul, requiring its Jewish compiler for no particular reason to have wandered on foot thousands of miles from Jerusalem before burying the book. (Actually, Gaul is less than half the distance from Jerusalem that upstate New York is from Mesoamerica. Shanghai would be more comparable.)

Why does distance matter? How is that relevant? In fact, before the discovery of the DSS, the oldest complete copy of Deuteronomy was in the LXX Greek Codex Sinaiticus from the fourth century AD. That's a translation, and is 1800 years after Moses. Before the discovery of the DSS, the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript was the Leningrad Codex from 1000 AD.

[Bill Hamblin]

2. Deuteronomy would not have been “discovered” in the seventh century BC but rather in the first century BC—fourteen centuries, not seven centuries, after it was supposedly written.

So you are saying that if the BOM was only 800 after its purported date of writing, it would be acceptable to you? What is the break point? 800 years is ok, but 827 is too long? Now this is quibbling.

[Bill Hamblin]

3. The earliest available version of Deuteronomy would not be written in Hebrew, but in Latin. Its “translator” would claim that he translated it from a text written in an unknown language that had features of both Hebrew and Gallic.

Before the discovery of the DSS, the earliest complete available version of Deuteronomy was in Greek, not Hebrew. And the earliest quotations are in Greek (Philo, Josephus and the NT).

[Bill Hamblin]

6. Deuteronomy would be written in the first person singular as though Moses himself wrote it. The book would begin, “I, Moses, having led the children of Israel out of Egypt,” and would conclude with Moses announcing that he was about to die, not with a third-person account of his death.

Much of Deuteronomy is written in the first person by Moses. Have you read the book?

[Bill Hamblin]

12. Deuteronomy would contain not-so-veiled references to its discovery in Gaul and prophecies about the pivotal work of its translator in bringing a restoration of true Judaism through the book of Deuteronomy.

You mean like Deuteronomy prophesying of the "place where the Lord will choose to put his name"? (Dt. 12:3, 5, 11, 21, 14:23-24, 16:2, 6, 11).

The rest of your objections are irrelevant to the question of manuscript and textual issues comparing Deuteronomy vs. the BOM.

The question at hand is not any and every issue relating to the BOM, but this question:

If, as you claim, we should reject the authenticity of the BOM because it first appears in translation 1400 years after it was supposedly written, and we do not have the original manuscripts for the BOM, then we should likewise reject Deuteronomy, whose admitted origins, and actual textual evidence is parallels the situation in the BOM.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I had issued a CFR for your claim that I had not answered some of your questions. Your reply began by citing a question from post #312. However, in post #301, you wrote:

Just one more question.

Here is the first question you claim I didn't answer:

#312

It says explicitly that Moses wrote this Law/Torah, meaning the book of Deuteronomy. If "this law" in these verses does not refer to Deuteronomy, to what does it refer?

repeated #326

To what text does "this torah" refer?

Here was my response, from post #321:

The expression "this law" cannot refer to the book of Deuteronomy, for two obvious reasons. (1) The book cannot be complete at this point because more happens that the book narrates. (2) Moses is referred to in the third person, as he is consistently throughout the narrative elements of the book -- a point I have made repeatedly that you have so far ignored. Additionally, it should be noted that the term "law" (torah) does not mean a book. It means instruction or law. The torah may be included in a book (or scroll), and Deuteronomy reports that Moses was writing down the torah that he first delivered orally to the people. What we have in Deuteronomy is a book that incorporates Moses' instruction from the Lord, the torah, in a narrative of Moses' last days.

There you have my answer. "This law" means the instruction that Moses received from the Lord and that he delivered first orally to the people and then in writing. That written instruction was later incorporated into a narrative framework in the book that we know as Deuteronomy.

You wrote:

#315

By the way, 2 Chr. 34:14 says Hilkiah found "the Book of Torah of Yahweh given through Moses." Is that an inerrant text?

I replied, again in post #321:

I told you that I would not agree to be dragged into an argument with you about biblical inerrancy.

That was in reference to the following statement I made to you in post #275:

I won't allow you to drag me into a discussion where you change the subject to biblical inerrancy. That isn't relevant to the argument here, which has to do only with the authenticity of the scriptural writings in question.

Although I stuck to my guns and refused to allow the discussion to be derailed into a debate over biblical inerrancy, I did comment in post #321 on the meaning of 2 Chronicles 34:14, as follows:

"While they were bringing out the money that had been brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD given by the hand of Moses" (2 Chron. 34:14).

As just explained above, the torah of Yahweh, the instruction of the LORD, had been given by the hand of Moses. That written instruction constitutes the bulk of the material found in Deuteronomy. However, Deuteronomy presents itself as a book that places the torah of Yahweh given through Moses in a narrative context of Moses' last days. 2 Chronicles 34:14 is not saying that the book of Deuteronomy per se was written by the hand of Moses; it is saying that the torah or instruction contained in Deuteronomy came by the hand of Moses.

You wrote:

#316

If part is authentically Mosaic, were was that part for the 800 years before Josiah? Where in the Bible is Deut mentioned before the late seventh century?

Okay, I didn't answer these questions.

Where was the part that was authentically Mosaic? Written down on one or more scrolls and kept in the custody of the priests; at some point the book of Deuteronomy was written with Moses' instruction incorporated into that book, and the whole book evidently kept in the temple once it was built.

Where in the Bible is Deuteronomy mentioned before the late seventh century? Well, of course it is not mentioned by that name, but it is mentioned several times in connection with Joshua (Josh. 1:8; 8:31-34; 23:6). By the way, Joshua 24:26 indicates that statutes and rules were added by Joshua to the Book of the Law of God. This statement would appear to be as clear an indication as anything that the Torah was not understood to be a static text completed by Moses and unedited afterward. The verse may be referring to a written record of what was said by Joshua at that time, material that was later to become part of the book we call the book of Joshua. According to Kings, several kings were aware of the law found in Deuteronomy, including David and Solomon in the tenth century (1 Kings 2:3), Jehu in the ninth century (2 Kings 10:31), and Amaziah in the eighth century (2 Kings 14:6). If we accept these statements at face value, Kings does not lead us to believe that Deuteronomy was "lost" for centuries and then out of the blue discovered in the seventh century. Rather, it specifically tells us about kings who knew about that book in the tenth, ninth, and eighth centuries, and leads us to believe that the book was neglected in the temple for some time prior to Josiah but after Amaziah.

You wrote:

2 Kings says everyone was shocked by its contents and they had never performed Passover as commanded by the book. How could that have happened if they had known of the book before?

But I had already written in post #269:

You claim that "the people were shocked at its contents (2 Kgs. 22:11-13), and had never heard of some of the things found in it (2 Chr. 35:18)," but this is not what these passages say or imply.

As you can see, I had already replied to the first premise of your question by pointing out that 2 Kings does not say everyone was shocked by the contents of the book. Repeating it doesn't make it so. 2 Kings also does not say they had never performed Passover as commanded by the book, but that they had not done so since the time of the judges. So both of the premises of your question were false. Your question, in any case, is rather silly: people have been ignoring instructions and laws in the Bible and governments have been ignoring laws in their own constitutions and codes from time immemorial.

You wrote:

#332

So, then, how did the authentically Mosaic teachings get from Moses to the scroll found in the temple in the late 8th century, 800 years after Moses?

You asked that question in the same post in which you falsely asserted that I was not answering your questions. When I said I had been answering most or all of your questions, I was of course referring to questions asked in posts earlier than that accusation.

For my answer to that question, see above.