Jesus and the Books of Moses

[Baptist Believer]

Jesus saw the scriptures as without errors and mistakes, as the very word of God unto us.

Be careful about arguing about how Jesus "saw" things without quoting His words. You are interpreting what He said through a modern filter. For instance, Jesus apparently saw the Law (note, He is referring to the Pentateuch, not any other part of scripture) in terms of fulfillment or completion, not the modern ideas of error/mistake. It is a functional kind of inspiration:

Matthew 5:18
For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
​

There are grammatical errors/mistakes in the New Testament writings. The writings are expressions of lower formal education, Greek as a second language, etc., but that does not make them any less inspired.

 

[Yeshua1]

Be careful about arguing about how Jesus "saw" things without quoting His words. You are interpreting what He said through a modern filter. For instance, Jesus apparently saw the Law (note, He is referring to the Pentateuch, not any other part of scripture) in terms of fulfillment or completion, not the modern ideas of error/mistake. It is a functional kind of inspiration:

Matthew 5:18
For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
​

There are grammatical errors/mistakes in the New Testament writings. The writings are expressions of lower formal education, Greek as a second language, etc., but that does not make them any less inspired.

There were NO mistakes/errors at all in the Original docummets!

 

[Baptist Believer]

There were NO mistakes/errors at all in the Original docummets!

There are grammatical mistakes/errors in the earliest texts we have, and they almost certainly reflect the originals.

That's reality.

What is also reality is that grammatical mistakes/errors do not undermine the inspiration of scripture. The proper meaning is still conveyed.

 

[Yeshua1]

There are grammatical mistakes/errors in the earliest texts we have, and they almost certainly reflect the originals.

That's reality.

What is also reality is that grammatical mistakes/errors do not undermine the inspiration of scripture. The proper meaning is still conveyed.

The differences that we have in the original language source texts have NO bearing on ANY theology/doctrines, as there are known copying errors/mistakes, but the Originals were fully without any error/mistakes!

 

[Baptist Believer]

The differences that we have in the original language source texts have NO bearing on ANY theology/doctrines, as there are known copying errors/mistakes...

When the manuscripts we have agree with each other, and they still have grammatical mistakes/errors, then we should conclude that they represent the original manuscript.

...but the Originals were fully without any error/mistakes!

So you have copies of the original manuscripts that show that there are not grammatical errors/mistakes? If not, then you are making an assertion based on a certain brand of faith and not the clear textual evidence we have readily available to us.

If your faith can't handle that some of the writers of the New Testament knew Greek as a second or third language, and that they were not masters of it, then you are setting yourself up for a fall.

 

[Yeshua1]

When the manuscripts we have agree with each other, and they still have grammatical mistakes/errors, then we should conclude that they represent the original manuscript.


So you have copies of the original manuscripts that show that there are not grammatical errors/mistakes? If not, then you are making an assertion based on a certain brand of faith and not the clear textual evidence we have readily available to us.

If your faith can't handle that some of the writers of the New Testament knew Greek as a second or third language, and that they were not masters of it, then you are setting yourself up for a fall.

Cannot the Holy Spirit Himself have kept them from recording down any errors/,mistakes, or is he somehow limited in that role?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Cannot the Holy Spirit Himself have kept them from recording down any errors/,mistakes, or is he somehow limited in that role?

The Holy Spirit could have kept the original authors from making grammatical errors/mistakes, but apparently chose not to do so.

I think you need to do some serious thinking about the nature of inspiration - specifically whether perfection (in the modern sense of the term) is required for inspiration.

Here are some things to think about in related areas:

(1) Did Jesus pop out of the womb immediately walking, talking, teaching, and knowing the mysteries of God? If not, does that mean that Jesus was not Divine?

(2) If Jesus was working in Joseph's shop as a child and accidentally hit his thumb with a mallet while he was learning to join pieces of wood, would that mean He was not divine?

(3) If Jesus was asked about the time of the coming of the fullness of the Kingdom of God and He didn't know, would that be a sign that He was not the Messiah?

(4) If a biblical writer was not a seasoned writer in the Classical Greek tradition, and instead made clumsy use of a version of Greek that was used on the streets for trade and communication between cultures, does that mean his words are uninspired?

(5) If a biblical writer was writing a grand thesis on a doctrine and chases a rabbit in his writing and never actually returns to the subject at hand, does that mean his work is not inspired by God?

 

[Revmitchell]

The Holy Spirit could have kept the original authors from making grammatical errors/mistakes, but apparently chose not to do so.

I think you need to do some serious thinking about the nature of inspiration - specifically whether perfection (in the modern sense of the term) is required for inspiration.

Here are some things to think about in related areas:

(1) Did Jesus pop out of the womb immediately walking, talking, teaching, and knowing the mysteries of God? If not, does that mean that Jesus was not Divine?

(2) If Jesus was working in Joseph's shop as a child and accidentally hit his thumb with a mallet while he was learning to join pieces of wood, would that mean He was not divine?

(3) If Jesus was asked about the time of the coming of the fullness of the Kingdom of God and He didn't know, would that be a sign that He was not the Messiah?

(4) If a biblical writer was not a seasoned writer in the Classical Greek tradition, and instead made clumsy use of a version of Greek that was used on the streets for trade and communication between cultures, does that mean his words are uninspired?

(5) If a biblical writer was writing a grand thesis on a doctrine and chases a rabbit in his writing and never actually returns to the subject at hand, does that mean his work is not inspired by God?

Anyone would be a fool to try and answer these questions.

 

[Deacon]

(2) If Jesus was working in Joseph's shop as a child and accidentally hit his thumb with a mallet while he was learning to join pieces of wood, would that mean He was not divine?

Yeah, answer that and who's name he yelled out in pain.

Rob

 

[Baptist Believer]

Anyone would be a fool to try and answer these questions.

That's a weird response. All are perfectly valid things to think about to distinguish the nature of what is means to be divinity incarnate and one's presuppositions on perfection and inspiration.

 

[rlvaughn]

(1) I think that Moses did write (or dictate to a scribe) significant portions of the Pentateuch -- especially parts of the exodus experience where there were no other humans present. It would only make sense.

The references to Moses's writings in the book of Joshua would certainly be strange had not Moses already written significant portions of the Pentateuch. Dictating to a scribe is well within the principle of inspiration, though I'm not aware that there is any biblical reference to that one way or another.

(2) I think a case can be made that Jesus was simply referencing the Pentateuch as the commonly understood writings of Moses. The point had nothing to do with Mosaic authorship, but that Jesus was written about in the foundational story of the world and the Hebrew experience.

No, the point is not Mosaic authorship, per se, but I see no reason to question that Jesus agreed with Mosaic authorship. It would seem to me that there are three possibilities: [1] Jesus was aware that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT (with this might be included "with some editing occurring later"), [2] Jesus was not aware whether or not Moses wrote the first five books of the OT, or [3] Jesus was aware that Moses did not write the first five books of the OT. If Jesus were not aware whether Moses penned these writings, perhaps we could forgive him for referencing as if he did and wonder about just what he knew. If Jesus were aware that the Jewish understanding of Mosaic authorship was not correct, and yet referenced that with no disclaimer or explanation -- it might suggest Christians who don't accept Mosaic authorship could follow his example and stay out of the question of authorship. To me the simple explanation is that he knew and agree with what the Jews understood about it.

(3) It has never been completely clear to me (or a number of commentators and professors over the years) what passages Jesus might have been pointing toward. Obviously, we know that Jesus created the universe (John 1), so that could be a reference, but Jesus seemed to be pointing to one or more specific things. My best answer is Genesis 3:15 with Jesus being the One Who crushes the serpent's head. (I would be interested in hearing other interpretations - sounds like a good idea for its own thread.)

Yes, I think that could be a good discussion thread. I'm sure he had some things in mind that were relevant to his discussion with the Jews on this occasion, though I'm sure sure it had to be limited to one on two things. Genesis 3:15 would certainly be relevant.

 

[Baptist Believer]

To me the simple explanation is that he knew and agree with what the Jews understood about it.

This is my position as well.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Holy Spirit could have kept the original authors from making grammatical errors/mistakes, but apparently chose not to do so.

I think you need to do some serious thinking about the nature of inspiration - specifically whether perfection (in the modern sense of the term) is required for inspiration.

Here are some things to think about in related areas:

(1) Did Jesus pop out of the womb immediately walking, talking, teaching, and knowing the mysteries of God? If not, does that mean that Jesus was not Divine?

(2) If Jesus was working in Joseph's shop as a child and accidentally hit his thumb with a mallet while he was learning to join pieces of wood, would that mean He was not divine?

(3) If Jesus was asked about the time of the coming of the fullness of the Kingdom of God and He didn't know, would that be a sign that He was not the Messiah?

(4) If a biblical writer was not a seasoned writer in the Classical Greek tradition, and instead made clumsy use of a version of Greek that was used on the streets for trade and communication between cultures, does that mean his words are uninspired?

(5) If a biblical writer was writing a grand thesis on a doctrine and chases a rabbit in his writing and never actually returns to the subject at hand, does that mean his work is not inspired by God?

Jesus was fully God, but also fully human, so he could grow up and learn and know things he always knew before as God, but now learning as a Man, and in the same way, the Bible was both recorded down by Humans, but preserved and kept from all errors and mistakes by the Spirit!.

Did jesus ever say anything that was in error/mistaken, or wrong?

 

[Yeshua1]

The references to Moses's writings in the book of Joshua would certainly be strange had not Moses already written significant portions of the Pentateuch. Dictating to a scribe is well within the principle of inspiration, though I'm not aware that there is any biblical reference to that one way or another.

No, the point is not Mosaic authorship, per se, but I see no reason to question that Jesus agreed with Mosaic authorship. It would seem to me that there are three possibilities: [1] Jesus was aware that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT (with this might be included "with some editing occurring later"), [2] Jesus was not aware whether or not Moses wrote the first five books of the OT, or [3] Jesus was aware that Moses did not write the first five books of the OT. If Jesus were not aware whether Moses penned these writings, perhaps we could forgive him for referencing as if he did and wonder about just what he knew. If Jesus were aware that the Jewish understanding of Mosaic authorship was not correct, and yet referenced that with no disclaimer or explanation -- it might suggest Christians who don't accept Mosaic authorship could follow his example and stay out of the question of authorship. To me the simple explanation is that he knew and agree with what the Jews understood about it.

Yes, I think that could be a good discussion thread. I'm sure he had some things in mind that were relevant to his discussion with the Jews on this occasion, though I'm sure sure it had to be limited to one on two things. Genesis 3:15 would certainly be relevant.

It does seem that some type of accommodation theology is in play here by some, as jesus should know who wrote the books, as he was there when it happened!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Jesus was fully God, but also fully human, so he could grow up and learn and know things he always knew before as God, but now learning as a Man, and in the same way, the Bible was both recorded down by Humans, but preserved and kept from all errors and mistakes by the Spirit!

You have skated by the main question though. The simple fact is that there are grammatical errors/mistakes in the New Testament. If we insist that there can be no error (in the modern sense of perfection), then we have a major problem with scripture. If we assert that the scriptures are reliable and trustworthy for their purpose of revealing God and explaining His Kingdom through various forms and styles of writing, through various authors, then we stand on solid ground.

Did jesus ever say anything that was in error/mistaken, or wrong?

If we go with the hyper-literal scientific worldview that shapes our times, then I think we could make a case for it. For instance, when Jesus was telling a parable depicting the Kingdom of God, He used the image of a mustard seed, saying it "is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil" (Mark 4:31). Growing up, my parents grew orchids as a hobby, and I happen to know that orchid seeds are smaller than mustard seeds. But the point of the parable was not to give a lecture on botany, and it was likely that Jesus and His hearers were not familiar with orchids since they are usually found on other parts of the world. The point was that the mustard seed was extremely small, but within it was the potential for something huge.

If we go with the intent of what Jesus said, I think we can be confident that He did not err.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It does seem that some type of accommodation theology is in play here by some, as jesus should know who wrote the books, as he was there when it happened!

The incarnate Jesus did not necessarily know things that the normal human being does not unless the Father or the Spirit had revealed it to Him.

 

[Aaron]

The Documentary Hypothesis (the JEDP theory) does not require disbelief in the authorship of Moses or the authority of the Pentateuch.

LOL, even the name denies it. It divides the authorship between four main groups through four ages spanning centuries.

 

[Baptist Believer]

LOL, even the name denies it.

"The name" does not deny that Moses had a role to play in the Pentateuch.

It divides the authorship between four main groups through four ages spanning centuries.

Many modern views of the hypothesis usually believe that at least the book of Deuteronomy had its source directly from Moses, with the other books influenced or contemporary with the work of Moses.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It's probably relevant to point out that my view of authorship is based on my own experience as a professional writer.

I have extensive experience ghostwriting for other people, both in technical documents and for publication to the general reader. In the case of technical documents, the engineer, architect or planner provides technical expertise, while I organize the materials and write the information in a way that is more compelling and interesting than it might have been if it was written directly by the technical expert with little writing experience. In terms of ghostwriting for the general reader, an author will often tell me the kind of story they want to write with one or two of the elements they want to include, and then I will create a story under those guidelines, with the author reviewing drafts and working closely with me on revisions. At other times, I have been part of book projects where the "author" of the book simply gave me a genre and didn't want to read it until we were in the final stages of revisions.

In other cases, I have worked with teams of other writers and content experts, creating a larger work with so much back and forth and editing/refining of each other's materials, that is was difficult to figure out who wrote what, but everyone had a hand in the creative effort and the final product.

When I was in the magazine world, we would often use a number of freelance writers with variable levels of skill and expertise. On occasion, I would recruit a first-time writer to help with an issue because they had the connections and ability to get the story we needed. But when I would get their story, it would be a mess. I would often have to call the writer and interview them about their story and fill in some gaps, then completely rewrite the story with a new approach. In those cases, the person who brought me the story was still credited as being the author, but often very little of their original written work remained.

Therefore, I come to the question of authorship with a more nuanced view. For me, Moses did not have to write or supervise every aspect of the writing of the Pentateuch for me to consider him the author. Even if Moses did not write a single word, but the foundational materials were produced under his authority and supervision, I would still consider him the author. I would also still consider him the author if those materials were heavily edited and combined with other sources well after his death.

 

[Deacon]

Great post

We must remember we're reading a work written under the editorial rules of the ancient world

The words of Jesus remind us that the authority of Moses remained intact throughout whatever editorial work was involved.

Rob