Who wrote the Bible? Was Moses the author of the first five books in the Bible? If the Pentateuch was written during the time of Moses, then we would expect a critical examination of the Bible to prove that Moses was the author. The following essays test the theory that Moses wrote the Bible.
It has been a traditional belief that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah (the law). No one was present at the time to verify that Moses did indeed compose the entire law, however this belief can be tested by examining the books in question. Even a cursory investigation is enough to conclusively demonstrate that no single individual, Moses or not, composed them, but that rather they are composed of a conflation of conflicting and diverse source materials with the component parts composed over a span of many centuries. Finally these divergent sources were conflated in a single set of manuscripts.
In the book of Genesis we are introduced to the people of Edom, a country bordering ancient Israel.
"The district of Seir is Edomite territory." (Genesis 32:3)
In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses is portrayed as giving a synopsis of the Exodus from Egypt, and states:
"The descendants of Esau who live in Seir granted us passage, and so did the Moabites in Ar...But King Sihon of Heshbon refused to grant us passage." (Deuteronomy 2:29)
The book of Exodus is in agreement with this version of events. During the Exodus,
"the chiefs of Edom were dismayed, trembling seized the leaders of Moab. Through the might of your arm they stayed stone still while your people passed, Lord, while the people whom you made passed by." (Exodus 15:15)
According to Deuteronomy the encounter with the Edomites and Moabites was uneventful and peaceful, for it was the plan of God to send the people to battle with the Amorites.
"And command the people, 'you are about to pass through the territory of your brethren the sons of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So take good heed; do not contend with them; for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on ... And YAHWEH said to me, 'Do not harass Moab or contend with them in battle ... and when you approach the frontier of the Ammonites, do not harass them ... Rise up, take your journey, and go over the valley of the Arnon; behold, I have given into your hand the Amorites ... contend with them in battle." (Deuteronomy 2:4, 9, 19, 24)
The book of Numbers was also allegedly composed by Moses (although, like most of the other books, Moses is referred to in the second person). In Deuteronomy we are told that the Edomites 'consented' and in Exodus we are told that they were scared to death, and 'stayed stone still while the people passed by.' In Numbers we are given a different version of what took place.
"From Kadesh, Moses sent envoys to the King of Edom, saying 'Grant us, we ask, passage through your country.' But the Edomites answered, 'you shall not cross our land. If you do, we will march out and attack you.' The Israelites said, 'But, we shall keep to main road. If we drink your water, we will pay for it. Ours is a trifling request. We would simply cross your land on foot.' But the Edomites refused and marched out with an army in full strength. Israel turned and went a different way." (Numbers 20:14)
The version of events given in the book of Judges also holds to this scenario and contradicts the versions presented in Exodus and Deuteronomy.
"When they came up from Egypt, they sent envoys to the King of Edom asking him to grant passage through his country, but he would not consent. The King of Moab also would not agree, so Israel remained at Kadesh. They then journeyed through the wilderness, skirting Edom and Moab." (Judges 11:16)
The account of the Exodus journey is given in conflicting versions. You can compare this to one description of an event that states that a certain party went to Bonn, Madrid and then Barcelona, and another which states that they went to London, Paris, and then onto Rome, and they avoided Madrid and Barcelona. This is the actual state of affairs in the Torah. The version in Judges summarizes the Numbers account, and it stands in sharp contradiction to the Deuteronomy narrative, in that the entire book of Deuteronomy takes place in the country of Moab. It is obvious that 'the Moabites consented' and far from avoiding the territory of Moab 'and going a different way' the people spent a considerable amount of time in Moab, and even buried Moses in Moab, according to Deuteronomy.
If the Bible came from a single source, and if the source was God, and if God told Moses and then Moses wrote the Torah in the Bible, it must be explained why we find that the story of Balaam and the Midianite women in the Book of Numbers in the Torah was edited for political reasons. King David and his grandmother Ruth were Moabites, and thus we find that certain stories about Moabites were edited for reasons of political expediency. As well the anti-Moabite laws in the Pentateuch and the laws banning 'half breeds' and mixed marriages indicate that there were sources in the Bible hostile to the monarchy David established in Judah. suggesting that these laws may have originated in the Northern Kingdom of Israel during the time of separation, and then became fused with the law books of Judah after the exile. Numbers appears to have been originally hostile to Moabites and thus hostile to David and his Moabite grandmother Ruth, and Boaz her Jewish husband, who apparently knew nothing of laws cursing Moab or laws banning mixed marriages. Deuteronomy was set in the territory of Moab, and Moses and the Israelites had friendly relations with Moab, suggesting that this composition was friendly to monarchy of David in Judah. Numbers may have been composed in Israel, and then the unfriendly portrayal of political relations between Moab and Israel can be understood in political terms in the original composition. In the book of Numbers it is suggested that both the Edomites and Moabites did not have friendly relations with the Israelites. Later the initial reference to Moabites is edited to refer to Midianites. There were political reasons for this revision of history, for in these manuscripts polemical arguments are justified by appealing to ‘historical injustices'. The Edomites, we are told, attacked them, and the Moabites plotted against them with Balaam, son of Beor. When Balaam failed to place a powerful curse on the Israelites, the Moabite women were sent in to seduce them, and Moses ordered a genocidal massacre of the Midianites in retaliation.
"Be hostile to the Midianites and strike them; for they have been hostile to you with their tricks, with which they have deceived you in the affair of Peor." (Numbers Chapter 25 verse 17)
It is interesting to note that the Midianites are then held to blame for what the Moabites are said to have done (seducing Israel) and as you will see later in justifying the massacre of the Midianite nation Moses states that the Midianite women were responsible for what the Moabite women are ealier said to have done. This suggests possible later editorial revision, due to the conflicts in scripture regarding Israelite and Moabite relations (it would be easier to edit the story to refer to Midianites instead of Moabites, especially when it turns out that a Moabite half breed was king of Judah, and the genocidal massacre of Ruth and her entire nation would look particularly stupid). There are numerous examples to be found of these separate traditions surrounding such things as the relations between Israel and Moab. First, consider once again the account given in Deuteronomy:
"The descendants of Esau who live in Seir granted us passage, and so did the Moabites in Ar...But King Sihon of Heshbon refused to grant us passage." (Deuteronomy Chapter 2 verse 29)
"When you reach the territory of the Ammonites you must not harass them or provoke them to battle for I will not give you any Ammonite land as a possession." (Dueteronomy Chapter 2 verse 19)
"You avoided the territory of the Ammonites, thus fulfilling all that YAHWEH God had commanded." (Deuteronomy Chapter 2 verse 37)
"And YAHWEH said to me, 'Do not harass Moab or contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land for a possession.'" (Dueteronomy Chapter 2 verse 9)
However a disparate tradition emerges in the Joshua.
"Moses allotted to the Gadites half of the country of the Ammonites as far as Aroer, which is east of Rabbah." (Joshua Chapter 13 verse 24)
"Moses allotted to the tribe of Mannessah, as their holding the lowlands of Moab east of the Jordan." (Joshua Chapter 13 verse 31)
The book of Joshua is clearly a compilation of divergent and contradictory sources, and in this instance the source diverges from Deuteronomy and aligns with the politics of Numbers. According to the book of Joshua Israel deserved Moabite land because it was given to them by Moses as instructed by God. This is political polemic and war propaganda in the book of Joshua.
The story of Balaam and the conflict with the Edomites and Moabites is unique to the Book Of Numbers. Any reference to Balaam is a reference to the book of Numbers. We are not being presented with history here, but rather with political polemics in competition which purport to describe events that had obviously taken place long before the time in which the authors lived.
The account in Numbers describes the genocidal annihilation of the Midianites and the complete destruction of their country.
"They warred against Midian, as YAHWEH commanded Moses, and killed every male. They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain ... and they also slew Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and they took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. All their cities in the places where they dwelt, and all their encampments, they burned with fire ... Moses was enraged ... 'So you spared the women ... kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man but keep the virgins for yourselves ... divide them up evenly.'" (Numbers Chapter 31 verse 7)
There is a clear conflict in the account, in that it the Midianites were slaughtered for what the Moabites did, and the Midianite women are held accountable by Moses for what the Moabite women are said to have done several chapters earlier.
"While Israel remained at Shittim, the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. For they invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and YAHWEH was angry against Israel ... Those who died by the plague were 24,000." (Numbers Chapter 25 verses 1 and 9)
"Be hostile to the Midianites and strike them; for they have been hostile to you with their tricks, with which they have deceived you in the affair of Peor." (Numbers Chapter 25 verse 17)
This suggests that the material may have been edited with a reference to 'Moabites' replaced by 'Midianite' since this would introduce fewer conflicts between the varying accounts given of Moabite relations in the separate manuscripts, and with the book of Ruth in the canon, indicating that Moabites were not slaughtered and wiped out in a genocidal massacre, and with King David himself a half breed Moabite, you can see how such a story would have to be edited. And one must always keep in mind the sensitive political nature of a criticism of Moabites given that David, and his descendants, who were the monarchs of Judah, were descendants of Moabites, making editorial revision of the story of Moabite massacres to refer to Midianite massacres politically expedient, even if it did introduce a bizarre contradiction into the manuscripts. (But then the entire Bible is found to be edited in the most bizarre fashion, so this is nothing new in and of itself.)
"And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the (Midianite) women? "Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against YAHWEH in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of YAHWEH."" (Numbers Chapters 31 verse 15)
As I mentioned previously, the story of Balaam and the conflict with the Moabites (and their proxies the Midianites) is a tradition unique to the book of Numbers. There is a cursory reference to Balaam found tacked onto the end of Deuteronomy, a conflation from a separate source in an attempt to ‘harmonize' the Deuteronomy account of events with the conflicting version found in Numbers. We are expected to accept that Moses, as portrayed in Deuteronomy, knew all about the conflict with Balaam, despite the lack of any mention of these events previously in the speeches of Moses.
"No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of YAHWEH; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of YAHWEH for ever; because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days." (Deuteronomy Chapter 23 verse 3)
Thhis would include Ruth, the Moabite, and King David the half breed Moabite-Judean. As well Deuteronomy is set in the territory of Moab, Moses was buried in Moab, and David had friendly relations with the Moabites, as you would expect, even sending his parents to live with the King of Moab. An attempt is made to reconcile these inconsistencies in Deuteronomy by recapitulating the version of events in Numbers and offering an alternative excuse. The Ammonites and Moabites did not ‘offer food and water' and so were cursed. No mention is made of this in the account of events in Deuteronomy, and this is a transparent attempt to justify the contradictory version of events in Numbers without seriously violating the integrity of the Deuteronomy narrative, where no mention is made of 'food and water' or Balaam. If we accept that Moses is just now mentioning the attempt to starve out the Israelites, then perhaps we might also accept that Moses is just now reminding us of the incident involving Balaam. This attempt to link Deuteronomy with Numbers is clearly unsuccessful, for in the Numbers account the conflict with the Moabites is far more serious than a simple matter of 'food and water.' The entire book of Deuteronomy takes place and Moab and Deuteronomy strictly forbids any conflict with the Moabites in earlier chapters. This attempted 'harmonization' was self defeating and useless.
It is obvious that the anti-Moabite laws did not originate with Moses. One must explain the pro-Moabite book of Ruth. Neither Ruth or King David should have been accepted according to this explicit ban in Deuteronomy, and it is obvious that what we are seeing here are writings produced by divergent traditions. David was also doubly banned, having been born not only from a Moabite, but as the result of a mixed marriage. The anti-Moabite diatribes were obviously politically motivated invective, and more than likely composed in the northern Kingdom of Israel. We also find that, in violation of this law, Boaz was concerned for the welfare of Ruth, a Moabite, when the law stated that you must never be concerned for the welfare of a Moabite 'forever'. the prophet Isaiah also violated this law.
"Give the exiles shelter, do not betray the fugitives; let the exiles from Moab find a home with you and a shelter from the oppressor." (Isaiah Chapter 16 verse 3)
Again this conflicts with the so called instructions from Moses saying you must never, ever help a Moabite.
We are told that the Midianites were wiped out, the Israelites 'Killed every male', including every male baby, and kept only a few female virgins alive for the purposes of raping them. However Midianites continued to exist well into the days of the Judges, and appear again and again in the 'historical' books. Moabites, who were the original targets of the genocidal polemic also continued to thrive long after this time, as should be obvious when reading the Bible. During the time that this parable was told this fact would have been self evident, as it still should be today. In no way could the belief arise that here we were reading 'an historical account of the events surrounding the Exodus.' The narrative in Numbers was clearly not historical, but rather political polemic, and the setting for the story was actually long, long after the time of Moses. It spoke to a certain political situation that existed during the history of the nation with characters such as Moses being used as proxies for the religious and political leadership of the day, and authorizing their war policies, which included plundering and the raping of virgins. If there is supposed to be a 'moral' to the story as it is told, it would be that when you go to war against those Midianites you must be sure to kill as many of them as you can, and carry off their plunder, with a thorough genocidal massacre held up as the ideal outcome of the conflict.
If we were to assume that the Pentateuch is a consistent whole, and that it was written by a single, undisputed authority (Moses) then we would not expect to find contradictions within the manuscripts, and we would also expect to find later manuscripts deferring to ‘the facts' as outlined in ‘the divine word.' This proves not to be the case. This demonstrates that in earlier times these manuscripts were not considered to have the unquestionable authority that was later imputed to them. Various authors working in various traditions felt free to nullify and contradict the authors of other manuscripts.
Where were the Patriarchs buried and from whom was this burial spot purchased? It depends on who you ask. If one wishes to ‘pilgrimage to the tomb of the Patriarchs' it would be important to nail down the facts, would it not? According to the Pentateuch,
"Then Jacob charged them, and said to them, "I am to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, in the cave that is in the field at Machpelah, to the east of Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite to possess as a burying place. There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah-- the field and the cave that is in it were purchased from the Hittites." When Jacob finished charging his sons, he drew up his feet into the bed, and breathed his last, and was gathered to his people." (Genesis 49:29)
"His sons carried him to the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field at Machpelah, to the east of Mamre, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite, to possess as a burying place. After he had buried his father, Joseph returned to Egypt with his brothers and all who had gone up with him to bury his father." (Genesis 50:13)
So then the Tomb of the Patriarchs was in Machpelah and it was Abraham who bought it from Ephron the Hittite. This version of events is contradicted in the book of Joshua. This indicates that at the time of these writings no one knew where ‘the tomb of the Patriarchs' was located, and, much as it is today, there are variant traditions concerning where such and such an event took place, and where the ‘official' spot of pilgrimage is located. At the time of the composition of the variant traditions no one considered the alternative version to be indisputable, as is demonstrated in their feeling free to expound their own version of events. In Joshua we read that the tomb of the Patriarchs was located in Shechem, and that Jacob bought the burial ground from the sons of Hamor, presumably before his sons slaughtered the entire town for the rape of their sister Dinah (a variant version of the relationship between the Patriarchs and Hamor).
"The bones of Joseph which the people of Israel brought up from Egypt were buried at Shechem, in the portion of ground which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money; it became an inheritance of the descendants of Joseph." (Joshua 24:32)
There is still another variant of the story found in the book of Acts. The Tomb of the Patriarchs is said to be in Shechem, in agreement with Joshua, but it was Abraham who purchased the tomb from Hamor, in agreement with Genesis. This could be considered ‘the middle of the road' approach to resolving disagreements among traditions, but in its own way it introduces more problems than it solves. According to Genesis, the encounter with Hamor took place long after the death of Abraham, during the days of his great grandsons.
"And Jacob went down into Egypt. And he died, himself and our fathers, and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem." (Acts 7:15)
"Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people ... the field which Abraham purchased from the Hittites. There Abraham was buried, with Sarah his wife. After the death of Abraham God blessed Isaac his son. And Isaac dwelt at Beerlahairoi." (Genesis 25:8)
" ... and buried him in the cave of the field at Machpelah, to the east of Mamre, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite, to possess as a burying place." (Genesis 50:13)
These differences indicate that the various books of the Pentateuch were not considered ‘authoritative' during earlier times, in that variant traditions existed and the authority of Genesis, for example, was not recognized as final. The evidence also suggests that the author of Acts took half from this tradition and half from that tradition, to weave together a less than satisfactory 'compromise', a compromise that no doubt would have pleased neither side of a divided camp. It does show that the writer recognized that the traditions were contradictory (how could he not notice) which is more than many in the pulpit are willing to confess, and in this case at least, he didn't put much work into 'harmonizing' inconsistent passages, a terribly bad habit picked up by later generations of theologians who labored intensively (to no purpose).
There are conflicts between manuscripts and conflicts within individual works. Genesis was composed of variant source materials. Numerous doublets occur (the same story told in different versions) and there are also clear indications of the spinning together of variant traditions. For the following, I tip my hat to Spinoza. The story of Judah and Tamar is found in Genesis chapter 38, and has been inserted awkwardly into the Joseph narrative (it interrupts the flow, and the difficulties it introduces indicates that it was appended from an entirely separate body of source material and that the choice of the spot of insertion was made arbitrarily).
Joseph was sold to the Egyptians by the Midianites.
"At about that time Judah went down from his brethen." (Genesis 38:1)
This cannot refer to what immediately precedes this statement, but something else.
Consider the following. From the time that Joseph was sold to when Jacob went to Egypt, 22 years passed. Joseph was 17 when sold as a slave to the Egyptians and he was 30 when Pharaoh called him from prison. Add seven years of plenty, and two years of famine before Jacob arrived and you get a total of 22 years. In this brief period the following events must have taken place ...
Judah married at the beginning of this period and had three children from one wife. The oldest then married, died, and his brother succeeded him (the famous Onan 'seed spilling' story). Then Judah had intercourse with his daughter-in-law. Having found her by the side of the road, he assumed she was a harlot. She bore twins from this union and then the oldest twin became a father, and all of this in 22 years. (Judah hypocritically decided that she should be burned to death for playing the harlot, but relented). When Jacob came to salute Pharaoh, he was 130 years old. Deduct 22 years of sorrow for Joseph, 17 years for his age, and 7 years of service for Rachel, and Jacob must have been 84 when he married Leah. Dinah would have been 7 when raped by Shechem and Simon and Levi would have been 11 and 12 when they spoiled the city in revenge. From all this Spinoza drew the OBVIOUS conclusion that the source materials were 'promiscuously' collected and tossed into a heap.
There are contradictory traditions of the patriarchs, once again demonstrating the existence of multiple authors and multiple sources for the first five books of the Bible, as is the case for any other Bible book. There are a number of these doublets in Genesis. The following is just one example. God made a covenant with Abraham promising him descendants like the number of the stars, and,
"Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness ... That day God made a covenant with Abraham." (Genesis 15:6, 18)
In chapter 17 Abraham is informed that God wanted to make a covenant with him. This is an alternative tradition to the one described in chapter 15, and the assumption is that no covenant was made with Abraham, in that the reason for God's appearance was to ‘make a covenant with Abraham.' God promised to make him the father of nations. Abraham did not believe God.
"Abraham bowed low and laughing to himself said, ‘Can a son be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah bear a child at ninety?'" (Genesis 17:17)
It is interesting to note that in the book of Romans in the Church Testament, Paul uses the former passage for the purpose of building a theological argument based on faith, and he clearly ignores the alternate tradition.
"In the presence of the God in whom he believed ... In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told ... He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what God had promised." (Romans 4:18)
The purpose of Paul's use of this passage is to demonstrate that 'righteousness comes to those who believe.' I, however, have an alternative interpretation of these two contradictory passages. Whether you believe God, and it is 'credited as righteousness,' or whether you don't believe God, and laugh, the baby is born either way. To be fair, I should acknowledge that there are passages in the Church Testament which acknowledge 'the two Abrahams.'
"What if some did not believe? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God. Certainly not." (Romans 3:3)
So don't worry about our unbelieving Abraham. That laughing will not nullify the faithfulness of God. The baby will born despite Abraham's obvious unbelief.
(But I digress.)"For God is the savior of everyone, but especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)
The famous story of creation (or I should say, both of them) is another example of the same sort of thing. It is obvious that we do not have a single source here, but rather two divergent mythologies. That myths diverge is not a concern, since the meaning of myth is found in that it is a myth, but when 'history' diverges this is a problem. This is important to keep in mind if one wishes to do ‘creation science' or have the book of Genesis taught in schools as ‘history' or as ‘an alternative'. First one must ‘scientifically' analyze the source materials.
The way the debate about ‘creation' is engaged it seems to be the case that certain people believe that if they can ‘destroy the theory of evolution' then the Biblical story of creation will be proved correct by default. As well, it is possible to believe in creation, without being what is termed ‘a biblical creationist'. Indeed, being ‘a biblical creationist' leads to bad science, for it is always bad science to start an investigation after coming to a foreordained conclusion, and it is particularly bad science to base 'science' on a pre-scientific faulty ancient manuscript in the first place. (Based on conflicting genealogies in a contradictory book one declares the world to be ‘6,000 years old' and then begins to look for evidence which must support the truth, the truth in this case being foreordained. Biblically based 'creation science' is not based on the Bible, but rather on traditional religious beliefs, which themselves are not based on the Bible in many cases, instead appearing out of thin air or consisting of selective appropriating and nullifying of scriptures, which is the only way one can construct doctrine from the contradictions in the Bible.)
Before looking for evidence to support ‘the Biblical account of creation' (on the grounds that Moses heard it from God) one should first verify the source material. There are two stories of creation, and they conflict.
The first version of creation (the priestly version with its echoes of the religious Sabbath tradition) is found in chapter one of Genesis and it is followed by the populist myth in chapter two. The order of creation in chapter one is:
On the first day the sky, earth, and light is created.
In this version it is interesting to note that days, with morning and evenings are created before the sun exists. As well there are traces of a polytheistic tradition in that ‘Elohim' (‘gods') plural is a term used.
In the second tradition found in chapter two, God is referred to as ‘Yahweh'. Creation is not described as a sequence of days. The order of creation is self evidently different. First God creates the earth and the heavens. Then God creates Adam who lives on a barren earth, ‘for God had not yet sent any rain.' Up to this time, we are told, moisture used to seep up from under the ground to water the earth. We are also specifically told that God had not yet created any plants for there was not yet anyone to till the ground. To rectify this God created Adam, and then went about the task of creating the first plants. After deciding that the man was lonely, God created all the animals one by one, and brought them to Adam to be named, but none of these animals were found to be suitable for mating with Adam. Therefore God put Adam to sleep, performed what would appear to be surgery, removed a rib, and created Eve.
The conflicts between this version of events and the former are obvious. Humans were created last in the version in chapter one, and humans were created immediately after a barren earth was formed in chapter two. They exist before the plants, animals and rain exist, all of which are described as preceding them in chapter one.
Contrasting the following passages should make the matter abundantly clear.
"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind ... And the evening and the morning were the third day ... Let the waters teem with life and let birds fly above the earth ... it was the fifth day ... And God said, Let us make man in our image ... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:12-31)
So in the priestly tradition the order was plants (third day), birds (fifth day), and the on the sixth day the animals (first) followed by humanity. In the alternate tradition you will notice that plants, rain, and birds are said to follow after the creation of Adam.
"There was neither plant nor shrub growing on the earth, for YAHWEH God had not sent any rain, and there was not a man to till the ground. . . And YAHWEH God formed man of the dust of the ground . . . And YAHWEH God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made YAHWEH God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food." (Genesis 2:5-9)
It follows that if birds and plants were created before Adam, then Adam could not have existed before birds and plants and rain, but it just this impossible to harmonize account of events that appears in the second tradition. In mythology you can have such inconsistencies, but they have no place in history or science.
"And YAHWEH God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground YAHWEH God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Genesis 2:18)
That Deuteronomy conflicts with Numbers is obvious, and it is also obvious that the priests who edited the material recognized this fact as well, as is shown by the clumsy attempt at harmonization. The fact that Numbers is obviously not an historical account, but rather a book of political polemics, does not automatically make Deuteronomy historical by default. Note that in the following passage Moses is not only spoken of in the second person, but also in the past tense .
"So Moses the servant of YAHWEH died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of YAHWEH, and (God) buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Bethpeor; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day ." (Deuteronomy 34:5)
Variant traditions and competing political polemics indicate a number of different authors were at work in various places and times. There are many passages that indicate the existence of authors other than Moses. In the opening of Deuteronomy we find the following line.
"Beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to explain this law." (Deuteronomy 1:5)
Moses died without ever being allowed to cross the Jordan, and the writer, who as the statement implies, is on ‘the other side of the Jordan' looking back. Similarly the writer surfaces repeatedly in the manuscript to insert commentary which clearly indicates a later date of composition. There are phrases such as
"the Canaanite was then in the land." (Genesis 7:6)
"...and the Canaanite and the Perizzites dwelled then in the land." (Genesis 3:17)
"And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem,...and the Canaanite was then in the land." (Genesis 12:6)
This excludes the time at which the author wrote. ‘The Canaanite was in the land' until well after the time that Moses is said to have died, and this excludes Moses as the author. The theme of the book of Joshua is 'expulsion of the Canaanites,' and this took place after the death of Moses, or, if we follow the alternative account in Judges, the Israelites 'dwelt among the Canaanites' even long after the death of Joshua. This excludes the time of Moses in either case. We also repeatedly find the phrase ‘as it is to this day' demonstrating a later date of composition.
"For only Og the king of Bashan was left as the sole survivor of the Rephaim; his bedstead of iron was nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth. It can still be seen in the Ammonite town of Rabbah." (Deuteronomy 3:11)
"All Bashan used to be called Rephaim. Jair son of Manasseh captured all the region of Argob as far as the Geshurite border. There are still tent villages there bearing his name." (Deuteronomy 3:13)
The reference to Manasseh is a reference to the conquest of the land as described in various ways in Joshua and Judges. Moses did not live to enter the land and these events took place after his death. The author is also writing about events in the past, for Manasseh is said to have captured these places at some time in the past, and now 'in the present time' there are 'still towns bearing his name.' The wording indicates that a considerable amount of time had passed, for it would not be remarkable or worth mentioning that 'towns still bear his name to this very day,' if the events described were not already part of distant history. Similarly the 'giant bed' could still be seen, another fact worth noting if one wishes to 'prove' that some historical event took place by directing readers to the location of a religious relic. It is the fact that the event occured long ago and 'towns still bear his name' or 'you can still see his bed' that is considered remarkable and worth pointing out. We also find the phrase 'as it is to this day,' indicating a later date of composition than that of the time at which the events described were purported to have taken place.
"To drive out nations from before you greater and mightier than you, to bring you in, to give you their land for an inheritance, as it is this day." (Deuteronomy 4:38)
Moses is referred to in the past tense and is also deceased at the time of certain writings.
"And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death." (Deuteronomy 33:1)
"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom YAHWEH knew face to face." (Deuteronomy 34:10)
"The man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 11:3)
"And if you have erred, and not observed all these commandments, which YAHWEH had spoken unto Moses, Even all that YAHWEH had commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that YAHWEH commanded Moses." (Numbers 15:22)
"And YAHWEH said to Moses..." (Numbers 1:1, 2:1, 5:1, etc., Leviticus 25:1, etc.)
"...as YAHWEH commanded Moses." (Exodus 39:57, 40:19, 40:27, 40:32, Leviticus 7:37, 26:46, 27:34 etc.)
In the following passage the author is writing after the time that Israel had conquered the land, long after the time of Moses.
"The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; As Israel did unto the land of his possession, which YAHWEH gave unto them" (Deuteronomy 2:12)
"And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." (Genesis 36:31)
"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come." (Genesis 49:10)
Both of these passages indicate a time of composition no earlier than the time of the first kings of Israel (Saul and David). The first lists the Kings of Edom who reigned 'before there were any kings in Israel', which implies that at the time of the composition there were kings in Israel, and the second assumes that Judah had 'the sceptre' (referring to a time no earlier than that of King David). Note that the following passage refers back to the time when the Israelites were 'in the wilderness' suggesting that the author was writing at a time when they no longer were there (and this could not have been Moses, who was not allowed to leave the wilderness with the people).
"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day." (Numbers 15:32)
It is then stated that no one knew what to do with the man who had gathered sticks on the Sabbath. Now, if we follow the traditions in Exodus, while Moses was on the mountain, and long before the Israelites went wandering through the wilderness, God had given Moses laws explaining exactly what to do in such a situation.
"Whosoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 31:15)
According to Exodus, the matter had been settled on Mount Sinai, and according to Numbers 'no one knew what to do,' and Moses had to go and find out. Therefore it is obvious that Moses could not have been the author of the Numbers account. The alternative tradition of the Sabbath law in the book of Numbers continues:
"Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Then YAHWEH said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as YAHWEH had commanded Moses." (Numbers 15:33)
There are also numerous passages that indicate knowledge of the existence of the temple. These are particularly numerous in Deuteronomy, where one of the main themes is centralization of worship, a concept that was unknown and not practiced in earlier manuscripts, where sacrifices and offerings were made in diverse places, and the practice presented no problem. Other examples include:
"The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of YAHWEH thy God." (Exodus 23:19)
No 'house' or temple, existed until after the time of King Solomon.
"I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle." (2 Samuel 7:6)
There are other conflicts in the accounts that indicate that Numbers and Deuteronomy represent alternative traditions. The account in the book of Numbers conflicts with the Deuteronomy version of events, and also with the story in the Exodus and with details in Genesis.
"And Aaron the priest went up Mount Hor at the command of YAHWEH, and died there, in the fortieth year after the people of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, on the first day of the fifth month. And Aaron was a hundred and twenty-three years old when he died on Mount Hor." (Numbers 33:38)
"The people of Israel journeyed from Beeroth Benejaakan to Moserah. There Aaron died, and there he was buried; and his son Eleazar ministered as priest in his stead." (Deuteronomy 10:6)
The account of the travels of Israel also varies. After Aaron died,
"The people of Israel journeyed from Beeroth Benejaakan to Moserah. There Aaron died, and there he was buried; and his son Eleazar ministered as priest in his stead. From there they journeyed to Gudgodah, and from Gudgodah to Jotbathah, a land with brooks of water." (Deuteronomy 10:6)
The variant version in Numbers suggests that the account was derived from a separate source.
"And Aaron was a hundred and twenty-three years old when he died on Mount Hor. And they set out from Mount Hor, and encamped at Zalmonah. And they set out from Zalmonah, and encamped at Punon. And they set out from Punon, and encamped at Oboth. And they set out from Oboth, and encamped at Iyeabarim, in the territory of Moab. And they set out from Iyim, and encamped at Dibongad. And they set out from Dibongad, and encamped at Almondiblathaim. And they set out from Almondiblathaim, and encamped in the mountains of Abarim, before Nebo. And they set out from the mountains of Abarim, and encamped in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho; they encamped by the Jordan from Bethjeshimoth as far as Abelshittim in the plains of Moab." (Numbers 33:39)
The separate traditions also disagree on such details as the lineage of Moses.
"Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian." (Exodus 3:1)
"And Moses said to Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law, "We are setting out for the place of which YAHWEH said, 'I will give it to you'." (Numbers 10:29)
In this matter the book of Judges follows the tradition found in Numbers.
"The descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses." (Judges 4:11)
It is characteristic of the narratives of the Exodus to give what must be inflated numbers of the Israelites who participated in the Exodus. In both Exodus and Numbers we are told that the number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus was more than 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of about 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt. Exodus 12:37; Numbers 1:45-46 Yet, in the book of Kings we are told that at a later time the Israelites number only 7,000.
"Then he mustered the servants of the governors of the districts, and they were two hundred and thirty-two; and after them he mustered all the people of Israel, seven thousand." (1 Kings 20:15)
Again in Ezra-Nehemiah the results of the census sit at around 30,000.
If Moses wrote the Bible, and the book came from God who told Moses who wrote the Torah to tell us, then it must be explained why there are conflicts and contradictions in the historical accounts in the manuscripts. These conflicts can be found even in a single story, like the story of Noah's Ark and the flood story in Genesis. The stories conflict in detail and the conflict in facts correspond to the two different names used for God in each version, Yahweh in one story, Elohim in the other story. This is no coincidence and indicate that the stories were composed of two separate stories, written by different, unknown authors, and that the stories were then chopped up and edited together in Genesis. It is a little known fact that famous stories in the Bible that we think we know are actually just one version of events. (See The Golden Calf story of the reception of the Ten Commandments, which demonstrates that there were actually two versions of the reception of the Ten Commandments, not just the famous story we are all familiar with from movies, and indicates that it was not simply Moses who wrote the Bible, or consider the multiple versions of the David and Goliath tale, both famous, and both a selective description of an event which on the pages of the Bible proves to be related in variant and contradictory forms.) Another example of the same sort of thing is the story of Noah's Ark. This story is quite interesting. If you consider both the story of David and Goliath and the story of the Golden Calf you will note that two contradictory traditions were spun and wove together in an attempt to weave one story out of multiple conflicting traditions. The effort fails, and the fact that it fails is interesting in and of itself. (Apparently nothing could be thrown out, which would have been simpler, but then again an attempt had to be made to submerge the obvious contradictions, which proves, on examination to be an exercise in futility. Why bother with such bizarre editing?)
The story of the flood consists of two separate traditions chopped into pieces and then spun together, with inconsistent passages intact. In one version God is referred to as Elohim, which is usually translated God in the Bible, but is actually plural, and means gods. In the other version God is referred to as Yahweh, which is usually translated YAHWEH. These two different names of God each correspond to the different details in the two conflicting versions of the flood story. Separate the names of God, and you will separate the two flood stories, each emerging with its separate details intact, making the story of Noah's ark and the flood one of the most famous examples of the practice of source criticism and redaction criticism in the Bible. In one version, the one we are all familiar with, it rained for ‘forty days and nights." But another version is also present, but is ignored.
"The flood lasted forty days on the earth." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 17)
"When the water had increased over the earth for a hundred and fifty days, God took thought for Noah and the beasts and cattle with him in the ark, and he caused a wind to blow over the earth, so that the water began to subside. The springs of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped up, the downpour from the skies was checked." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 24)
Similar conflicts are found in the story of the animals going onto the ark. In one version we are specifically told that all animals, ‘clean' and ‘unclean' went onto the ark two by two, and in the variant (priestly) version of the story the ‘clean' animals go on seven by seven. The reason for the variant is that Noah must be portrayed as offering up animal sacrifices upon leaving the ark in the priestly version, thus suggesting that priestly sacrificial doctrine had an illustrious history. Similarly in the priestly version the flood is said to last ‘forty days and nights' since it appears that ‘forty' was considered an illustrious number. (The Sinai mountain top expedition of Moses lasted ‘forty days and nights'. In the gospel account Joshua fasted for ‘forty days and nights,' and ‘afterward he was hungry,' which is another story altogether.)
"And to him on board the ark went one pair, a male and a female, of all animals, clean and unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, two by two, as God had commanded....Those which came were one male and one female of all living things; they came in as God had commanded Noah...the water had increased over the earth for a hundred and fifty days." (Genesis Chapter 7 verses 15, 24)
"Take with you seven pairs, a male and a female, of all ritually clean animals, and one pair, a male and a female, of all unclean animals; also seven pairs, male and female, of every bird-to ensure that life continues on the earth. For in seven days I am going to send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 2)
Divergent traditions are also revealed when we consider the bizarre editing surrounding the story of the Tower of Babel. First the peoples of the earth are described, with their various foreign languages.
"From these the coastland peoples spread. These are the sons of Japheth in their lands, each with his own language, by their families, in their nations ... These are the sons of Ham, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations ... These are the sons of Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations." (Genesis 10:5, 20, 31)
The story of the Tower of Babel begins with the following incongruous statement.
"Now the whole earth had one language and few words. And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there." (Genesis 11:1)
It should be obvious that we are faced with an ‘either - or' situation here, in that the two accounts are mutually exclusive, and it is particularly bizarre to find such a statement immediately following a separate tradition describing the many languages of the earth. But, as becomes obvious the more one investigates, the Bible is edited in a very odd fashion.
As an example of multiple traditions and strange editing, consider the traditions surrounding Jacob. We are told that God says that Jacob is to be called Jacob no longer.
"There he built an altar, and called the place Elbethel, because there God had revealed himself to him when he fled from his brother ... God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddanaram, and blessed him. And God said to him, "Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name." So his name was called Israel." (Genesis 35:7)
Their is a doublet of this story. After wrestling with an angel Jacob is renamed Israel.
"Then he said, ‘Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.'" (Genesis 32:28)
Later God calls him Jacob.
"And God spoke to Israel in visions of the night, and said, "Jacob, Jacob." And he said, "Here am I." (Genesis 46:2)
There is also a doublet relating a different tradition of the naming of Bethel. Jacob has a vision and sees the famous ‘ladder' stretching to heaven.
"Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "Surely YAHWEH is in this place; and I did not know it." And he was afraid, and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." So Jacob rose early in the morning, and he took the stone which he had put under his head and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the top of it. He called the name of that place Bethel; but the name of the city was Luz at the first." (Genesis 28:16)
However Abraham visits Bethel before it was ever called Bethel, long before Jacob or Jacob's father was born..
"Thence Abraham removed to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to YAHWEH and called on the name of YAHWEH. And he journeyed on from the Negeb as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai." (Genesis 12:8; 13:3)
Genealogies are a feature of both the Torah and later books, and usually indicate that priests were at work. Genealogies served a political purpose. For example, one could insist that a certain nation was born from the loins of some particularly unsavory character. One could also claim land by insisting that an ancient ancestor watered a camel on the spot, or purchased a cave there thus establishing precedence. It becomes apparent that these genealogies were later additions (as the need for them arose in changing political circumstances) and this is best demonstrated by the fact that later writers composed genealogies that conflicted with what we would be led to believe were 'the authoritative history of the world' as composed by Moses.
The Bible is full of conflicting and (therefore obviously) erroneous genealogical lists. A famous example are the the genealogies of Joseph in Matthew 1:1 and Luke 3:23 which conflict. (It will then be suggested that one is ‘the genealogy of Mary,' which might pass for an explanation if it were the genealogy of Mary, instead of the genealogy of Joseph as stated. Furthermore, it was not customary to denote a person's lineage through any but the father's line, and every other genealogy in the Bible is through the line of fathers and sons, since this was a very patriarchal society. This would be a first if it were true, and it would also be quite odd to give ‘the genealogy of Mary' without mentioning Mary and instead giving the genealogy of Joseph, which is what one finds. When one considers all the other conflicting genealogies of the Bible, what are two more in any case?) These genealogies are laborious to read and anyone interested can look these matters up for themselves. Ezra's genealogy of Benjamin's sons conflicts with that in Genesis and he also describes the Levites differently than in Joshua. The genealogy of Gibeon is described twice in different ways.
The book of Numbers conflicts with the version of events in Genesis on the subject of ‘giants'. In the book of Genesis we read that,
"the Nephilim (giants) were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." (Genesis 6:4)
The phrase 'and also afterwards' is a later addition in an attempt to harmonize the Genesis account with the book of Numbers and Samuel, for reasons which will become obvious. These ‘giants' appear to be an ancient Hebrew equivalent to the Greek myth of Hercules or Cyclops. Shortly thereafter everyone on earth, including all the giants, perish in the flood, with the exception of Noah and his family.
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark." (Genesis 7:21)
The Nephilim reappear again in the book of Numbers, and once again this disparate tradition is unique to this book. (It would appear that the books of Samuel are following the Numbers tradition in telling the tale of Goliath, the giant.)
"‘And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim); and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.' Then all the congregation raised a loud cry; and the people wept that night." (Numbers 13:33)
The passage is clearly contradictory for we are explicitly told that the sons of Anak were descendants of Nephilim, who perished in the flood. The reappearance of the Nephilim is a tradition unique to the book of Numbers. It is also interesting to note that these 'sons of Anak' are mentioned in Numbers and then in the event is mentioned in summary form in Deuteronomy. This indicates that either a reference to Nephilim was added later to Deuteronomy, or that the book of Deuteronomy was composed later than Numbers. If this was the case then the author of Deuteronomy was familiar with the Numbers narrative, and deliberately chose to contradict the story line presented there on a number of very significant points.
The law books contain clues that indicate that the five books we have today could not have been written by a single individual (Moses, or otherwise). If Moses wrote a book, it would not be the first five books we find in the Bible. Moses wrote the book of the law in one night and read it the next morning. (Exodus 24:4) One could argue that he was a fast writer. However, we are also told that the entire law code was carved into the sides of a single altar, and it is hard to imagine five books carved into the side of a single altar. (Deuteronomy 27, Joshua 8:37). Moses is referred to in the second person. We are told, 'this was a whole offering, as YAHWEH had commanded Moses,' and, 'Moses died and was buried,' excluding Moses as the author, and 'Moses was the humblest man who ever lived,' also excluding Moses as the author, if we assume that he was truly ‘the humblest man whoever lived.'
A long list of Kings of Edom who reigned in centuries after the death of Moses is found in Genesis 36:31. Place names are referred to that did not exist until long after the death of Moses. In Genesis, Abraham went to Dan, a place name given long after Joshua. The tribe of Dan migrated to the northern most part of the country and took over some land, which they then renamed.
"The Danites came to Laish, to a people quiet and unsuspecting, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and burned the city with fire. And there was no deliverer ... They rebuilt the city, and dwelt in it. They named the city Dan, after the name of Dan their ancestor, who was born to Israel; but the name of the city was Laish at the first." (Judges 18:27)
In the Genesis account Abraham goes to the city of Dan in chapter 14, but ‘Dan' is not born until a later chapter, which takes place after the death of Abraham.
"When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan." (Genesis 14:14)
"Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age." (Genesis 25:8)
"Then Rachel said, "God has judged me, and has also heard my voice and given me a son"; therefore she called his name Dan." (Genesis 30:6)
One way in which an attempt is made to ‘harmonize' these (futuristic) inconsistencies and account for the past tense, disposing of the evidence in favor of a false traditional doctrine, is to insist that ‘Moses was a prophet'. This is the methodology of ‘divide and conquer.' An attempt is made to ignore the mass of evidence and then attempt to ‘harmonize' a single passage, as though it stood in isolation from the rest of the Bible. The weight of the evidence demonstrates conclusively the contradictory nature of the Bible, and the preponderance of evidence also lays to rest the suggestion that the first five books were ‘a single source, penned by Moses on the mountain, as dictated by God.' As Spinoza concluded, "it is clearer than the sun at noonday that Moses did not author the Pentateuch," which should be obvious on considering these matters.
A Unified Field Theory
The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file -> unified.zip
Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.
