Inerrancy defined

I also believe that Moses is the real author of the Pentateuch, but that does not mean that he wrote every word in the canonical edition that we have today. The text we have today is not even in original Hebrew script but rather Aramaic script.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Just because one doesn't believe that Moses wrote every word in the canonical edition of the Pentateuch we have today does not mean that he believes in the views of Wellhausen and other German higher critics. One thing I hate is people painting others into a position they do not hold and then demonizing them for it.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Paul33 wrote,

No, I do not lightly dismiss Archer’s view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch—indeed, I believe that he was. But as Bluefalcon has very well illustrated in his posts, it is exceedingly difficult to reconcile a number of passages in the Pentateuch with Mosaic authorship, and the very large majority of Old Testament scholars today believe that the Pentateuch was redacted to one extent or another. Anyone who has studied the views of Old Testament scholars on the authorship of the Pentateuch knows that Bluefalcon barely scratched the surface as far as the difficulties go. My specialty is the New Testament, and I am not familiar with how Archer dealt with all of these difficulties individually—if he did so at all. I am much more familiar with his view of the atonement of Christ and I find it to be severely inadequate. However, the New Testament is my specialty, and not his, and had he spent the time with the New Testament that I have, it is very possible that his view of the atonement of Christ would have been more adequately developed. My point here is that, like all of us, Gleason Archer was a human being and therefore fallible. Moses, also, was fallible, and made a horrific mistake that cost him the realization of a goal for which he had labored diligently for 40 years against indescribable opposition from the very people that he was attempting to lead across the Jordan River. And not only was Moses fallible, but so were the human beings that redacted the Pentateuch.

Bluefalcon has written that he believes that both Moses and his redactors performed their work under the superimposition of the Holy Spirit causing their work to be totally free from error. I, however, do not find this to be either taught or implied in the Bible.

 

Paul33 wrote,

You seem to have me confused here with Bluefalcon. It was he, a fundamentalist, who has been arguing for the redaction of the Old Testament. However, I do agree with him that the Old Testament has been redacted, and that view is by far and away the view held by most Old Testament scholars today. And of course Bluefalcon posted several examples of the evidence that clearly points to the redaction of the Old Testament, but you incorrectly wrote, “There is no evidence for numerous redactors of numerous books of the OT. Pure speculation on the part of CBTS.” (Very convenient of you to have written there “CBTS” rather than “Bluefalcon.” I suppose that you did that because you see me as a more vulnerable target even though it is another clear misrepresentation of the facts).

Bluefalcon has posted the names of two possible redactors, but the redaction took place so long ago that the records have been lost. I have a friend who lives in an old house that over the span of more than 200 years has been remodeled several times, but he cannot name the persons who did the actual work. But by taking a very close look at this house, one finds very clear evidence of the modifications. This home is an historic place with a plaque on the front of it that provides the name of the builder, but the names of those who did the remodeling are not mentioned. Is the information on that plaque that give the name of the builder lies or distortions? Is that plaque inaccurate just because all of the details are not there?

And neither can my friend name the sources of the building materials with which his home has been remodeled. Does that in way lessen the evidence that his home was remodeled?

My friend can name the builder of his house, but he cannot name the names of those who did the remodeling over the past 200 years. The name on the plaque does not tell the whole story, and I find no evidences that the so-called “proof-texts” of Mosaic authorship tell the whole story either.

 

Gn. 13:18: "Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD."

(Note in bold the explanatory note by an (inspired) editor after the name became Hebron after the death of Moses.)

Gn. 35:27: "And Jacob came unto Isaac his father unto Mamre, unto the city of Arbah, which is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac sojourned."

(Here the old name is kept, but the explanatory note is inserted here by an (inspired) editor to let people know that Arbah is actually now called Hebron.)

Gn. 37:14: "And he said to him, Go, I pray thee, see whether it be well with thy brethren, and well with the flocks; and bring me word again. So he sent him out of the vale of Hebron, and he came to Shechem."

(Here only Hebron is kept.)

Jo. 14:13-15: "And Joshua blessed him, and gave unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh Hebron for an inheritance. Hebron therefore became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite unto this day, because that he wholly followed the LORD God of Israel. And the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war.

It is fairly certain that from the notes here in Joshua that Hebron's name originally was Kirjatharba, but later, after the Hebrews conquered the land, it became known as Hebron. Some say the original name was Hebron before it was changed to Kirjatharba, and that the Hebrews just changed the name back to the original name. At any rate, here is one of the talking points of those who claim a later "updating" or "editing" of places in the Pentateuch.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

This is no proof that anything was "updated" or "edited". The fact that a place could be know by more than one name is not uncommon in the Bible. This is also true of some of the names of people in the OT. You may refer to England as part of the "United Kingdom", and I may say "Great Britian". Both are correct.

 

Sorry if I implied you were in the Higher Critics' Corner.

My response to you was a way of addressing claims by the HC, not necessarily you, because there are followers of the HC on the BB.

I think Joshua could have written Moses' death into Genesis, but I do believe that pretty much everything else in the Pentateuch was by Moses, and that there are no redactors.

 

Geisler states on p.588 of The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics that this could have been a copyist update. Most of us who believe God's word to be inerrant in the original autographs and that Moses wrote the Pentateuch admit there are some copyist udpates like this and also copyist errors. But these are usually identifiable, not that much in number compared to the text, and pose no problem to believing that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

I also believe there is only one author of Isaiah (I just had to write a whole apologetics paper on that topic!) and that God supernaturally inspired all the biblical authors.

If God can supernaturally create the universe and create people, and incarnate His son and resurrect Him, why is it hard to believe that the Bible is supernaturally inspired through fallen men? It's such an easy one for me.

(I am not necessarily addressing you, bluefalcon).

 

Sorry if I implied you were in the Higher Critics' Corner.

My response to you was a way of addressing claims by the HC, not necessarily you, because there are followers of the HC on the BB.

I think Joshua could have written Moses' death into Genesis, but I do believe that pretty much everything else in the Pentateuch was by Moses, and that there are no redactors. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Marcia, I agree. It is even possible that Joshua could have written all 5 books of the Law, as other did for some of Paul's Epistles. However, this would have been done at the time of Moses, and under his authority. Joshua could have been Moses' scribe. Something like Mark's Gospel, which many believe to be the words of Pater. We cannot allow for any revisions and updates of what was originally written, as this would land us with the problem of trying to then discover which is and which is not part of the original autographs. I am not one who likes to conjecture, especially when it comes to God's Inerrant Word.

 

That's why we need to use textual criticism to get back to the text of the canonical edition, not earlier, not later. Wellhausen's problem was he wanted to tear apart the OT text to get to the most bare and ancient source texts, while some on this board would want to throw out inspired prophetic updates and exegetical glosses to get back to what they think was "originally" written. Both are wrong directions in my opinion. The idea of progressive revelation is also involved here.

Yours, Bluefalcon