The attribution of individual books of the Bible to certain authors, in many cases must be understood not in ours, and in the eastern sense. East did not know the literary property of individual creativity and writers in almost modern sense with sufficient clarity is seen only in the book-gah prophets.
Acad. BA Turaev
The Pentateuch is the story of the origin of Israel as a nation, intermittent arches its laws and commandments, and the revelation of God, who created this nation and defined by law (religious, ethical, liturgical, canonical and legal laws and commandments) the entire way of life. For this reason, the Pentateuch (Torah) is the foundation of the entire Old Testament. It teaches the wisdom, omnipotence and goodness of creative sample, who, encountering resistance from a man elected GOVERNMENTAL encourages people and gives them His will. He promises them a great future (promise), closely linked to his mysterious plans. He undergoes Vaeth-the faith of those who freely accepted His covenant protects them to danger and gives them the law of life. They must become “a kingdom of priests, defenseless, vetno loyal to God, ready to serve His providential intentions. As a visible sign of the future of the people of the Lord is given possession of the Promised Land, which was destined later to become Land of Salvation for all of mankind.
For nearly two millennia of Moses, nearly all recognized as the undisputed author of the Pentateuch. In the New Testament, the Law determined numerically called Moses (Matthew 19.7, Mark 10.3, 12.19, Luke 16.29, 24.27, John 1.17, Acts 15.21), so the church from ancient times recognized the Moses, author of the Pentateuch. The legend of Moses’ authorship of advocating a half-nym law and reason. Another thing – how to understand it Authorship: the beech-shaft the modern sense, or more widely – in spirit. There is no doubt-tions that the foundations of the Old Testament laws and teachings go back to Moses, but what exactly was written, and what passed in the oral tradition and written down later – set easy.
Unlike the book of the prophets, the Pentateuch nowhere does not contain direct indications that it belongs entirely to Moses. It only mentions the “book”, where he recorded the memorable events (Ex. 17.14, Num 33.2), and also fit the laws and commandments (Exodus 24.4, 34.27). However, in the Pentateuch there are places that explicitly refer to the time after Moses. So, speaking of Abraham in-progress in the vicinity of Shechem bytopisatel observes: “In this land of the Canaanites were living” (Gen 12.6). Consequently, in his time there was already inhabited by Israelis. Gen. 14.14 is referred to the city (or locality) Dan, who got his name after moving to Canaan, the Danites at Iisu-se Nun. Gen. 36.31 the kings of Edom said that they ruled, “first tsar-existence of the kings of the sons of Israel” – so St. the writer already knows about these kings (as they appeared 200 years after Moses). Next, about the prophet speaks in such reverent tones that can hardly be attributed to him these words (Num. 12.3; Deut 33.1; 34,10-11). And finally, not possible to assume that Moses narrated about his own death (Deuteronomy 34) .
All this has led theologians, biblical scholars to the conclusion that the prophet directly owns only part of the text of the Pentateuch, the rest is the same – My-seevo legend set forth in writing the other divinely inspired wisdom of particles. But when and where they lived, these wise men – the heirs and successors Maui seevoy tradition? For the understanding and interpretation of the Bible, this question is of great importance .
This paper aims to clarify the issue of authorship of the Five-knizhiya (composition of the Pentateuch). Relevance of the work is caused by differences of opinion of scientists on the question of the composition. The problem of the composition will be examined from three perspectives: first – the traditional theory of authorship of Moses, the second – “documentary hypothesis” critical school, and the third – the modern theory.
1.The traditional view
From pre-Christian times to the early nineteenth century, almost all acknowledged that Moses was the author of almost the entire Pentateuch. It is natural to venny conclusion which follows from a direct-reading Pyatikni zhiya from Genesis to Deuteronomy. Beginning with the Exodus. 2, Moses – the main thing of the live face of this story. Lord appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3), then Moses – persuaded Pharaoh to release Israel and led the people across the Black Sea to Sinai. There they personally received the Ten Commandments, other-Gia laws were proclaimed loudly before all the people, for the phenomenon of the Lord on the mountain was too daunting. Rather, they were open only to Moses (Exodus 20:19-21, Deut. 5:5), which is then ne-redan their people .
The role of Moses as mediator emphasized throughout the five-tiknizhiya. Laws now and then preceded by: “And the Lord said to Moses.” Behind this is a special closeness to God, implying that if God – the supreme source of law, Moses – his guide. This impressive representation further reinforced by the book of Deuteronomy, where Moses is reversed-the people, explaining the laws that granted in the Sinai, and calling upon Israel to abide by them to the promised land .
In Deuteronomy contains the last words of Moses to Israel before his death of Moses. Moses speaks of himself in the first person: “I call it me-like” (1:23), and sometimes he identifies with Israel: “And we were send-as the LORD our God” (1:19). In another place he contradicts himself supplies the nation: “I told you, but you did not hear” (1:43). In Sec. 1.11 describes most of the same events from the Exodus from Egypt to zavoe-tion of Transjordan, as in the books of Exodus and Numbers, but if these books are presented from the viewpoint of an outside observer, then in Deuteronomy-NII – in terms of Moses. Assertion that in Deuteronomy govo Rite Moses conclusively .
If it ends in Deuteronomy 31:8, it would be proposing, that Moses preached the law, but someone else might significantly later captured his thoughts in writing. However, Chapter 31:19 Sith: “And Moses wrote this law, and gave it to the priests,” and in 31:24 ska shown: “Moses wrote in the book all the words of this law until the end”, which seems to exclude such a vague conception of the authorship of Moses. But if Moses wrote Deuteronomy, it seems most probable nym that Exodus and Numbers were written by him earlier, and Genesis, as an indispensable introduction to the rest of the books, it could give them too. Those arguments, which led the ancient Jewish authors, the New Testament writers, and almost everyone who studied the Bible until about 1800, to the conclusion that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. As a result, Genesis is often called “the first book of Moses”, etc. However, in the nineteenth century, this initial agreement began to break down, and now we need to address this change in approach to this issue .
Already Tertullian, Chrysostom, and I. Augustine of Hippo have noticed that in the one-dimensional versions of the Torah constantly used the sacred name of God, Yahweh (JHVE), while others preferred the name Elohim . The same pattern noted French scientist Jean Astryuk. This prompted him to write Genesis Moses relied on at least two sources. This assumption is supported by the observation that some information is repeated in Genesis (eg, two stories of creation in Sec. 1 and 2) .
Tradition, which was used St. Name, in the Biblical studies of modern times became known as Yagvisticheskoy (J), but the one where God was called Elohim (God) – Elohisticheskoy (E). Has been expended enormous effort to the Department’s pouring in St. books of these traditions from one another. Were later identified two more within the tradition of the Pentateuch (P and D). In the late nineteenth century was even published, on “Rainbow Bible,” in which “four sources of” designated font-mi of different colors. But it is quite reliable results, these efforts have not been given. Detailed division into “sources” were often based on hypothetical-ray bases and probative value is not received. Nevertheless, the presence of four-bed St. tyreh Stories are now recognized by almost all biblical scholars .
Astryuk does not intend to deny Moses’ authorship, and he pro-hundred figured, what sources could use Moses. But his analysis of sources of thallium major factor in further criticism. During the 19 th century it was the analytical method was improved, and some scientists Vysk-showed the assumption that these sources appeared after Moses .
Approximately 50 years after Astryuka more radical hypothesis was put forward by De Wette, about that Deuteronomy was written at the time of Josiah (ie, after about seven hundred years after Moses). De Wette grabbed Vtorazakoniya insistence on the need to commit more of all-gosluzheny the place which the LORD. Deuteronomy forbids worship of nature sanctuaries on the tops of the hills and under the branches of trees by simple, but insists that the national holidays of Easter, Pentecost and Tabernacles were in the main sanctuary, which the LORD (Ch. 16). Study of books of Samuel suggests that-like strict rules were not introduced until the VII century before AD At approximately in 622 BC A.D. King Josiah destroyed all the natural sanctuaries and commanded to worship only occurred in Jerusalem (4 Kings. 22 – 23). If the principles of worship, as set out in Deuteronomy, were not enforced until the time of Josiah, it is not wiser to assume that these principles were developed later than believing that norms of Deuteronomy remained unclaimed since the days of Moses ?
Vellgauzen claimed that at an early stage Israeli religion was not strictly regulated. People made sacrifices, which, always wanted and where they wanted, without the mediation of priests. According to Vellgauzena, this situation is reflected in the books of Samuel. At the end of the tsarist period, Josiah changed this situation by concentrating all the theologian motion in Jerusalem, thereby significantly increasing the role of priests, co-torye now able to monitor all the details of worship. Having the one-kuyu power, the priests have strengthened it, and during the Babylonian captivity (587 – 537 years. Until AD) have developed all sorts of rules on the details of Bo gosluzheniya, the status of the priests, their right to tithes and part of the victim, etc. .
Recognizing the existence of the four sacred traditions laid down in a five-base tiknizhiya, exegete emphasize that the similarity and religious unity to stem from the fact that they go back to Moses (partially written, partially in oral form). In the era of kings with the development of Israeli culture was necessary to gather together the tradition of Moses. Most rank it as an attempt of this kind is the Holy History Yagvista .
Legend Yagvista (J). God-inspired author, known under the name of this symbol, lived, believed to be in Jerusalem. His attention to the tribe of Judah, and underscore the unity of the people (”all Israel”) point to the heyday of a unified kingdom under David and Solomon (tenth century. BC). Perhaps he was one of the scribes, the scribes, who worked with binary re-Solomon (3 Kings 4,3). According to its literary genre Yagvistichesky section tales belong to the prosaic epic (interspersed with poems-tvornyh parts). His language alive, clearly shaped. Proclaim the mystery of the proximity of God to man, St.. writer often resorts to anthropomorphism. Alien to abstract thinking, his paintings are saturated with meaning, dos, orally available, and the wise man and a child. In this outlook it is wide. “It is with love and tolerance – writes BA Turaev – collects stories, whether it’s Babel-ray or Chaldean origin. He is an artist of speech, which has subtle psychological flair, he inquired of the greatest problems of life and religion. This is – highly gifted Jew does not from among the clergy, the ve-ably, from the circle of the ancient prophets, full of deep thought and searching, MO noteisticheskogo and universal outlook , .
The narrative covers the history of Yagvista a man to the death of Moses. His theology is closely connected with the important biblical themes: revelation, covenant and promise .
Legend Elogista (E). After the collapse of Solomon’s kingdom (922) in the northern kingdom (Israel, or Ephraim), created a need for a proper interpretation of the Mosaic-term tradition. She was, according to biblical scholars, carried an unknown severoizrailskim sage (c. IX-VIII cc.). His tale this sage (conventionally referred to as Elogistom) begins with the Av-Raamah completes the death of Moses. This is the “representative of a more developed spiritual era, less tolerant and original, second Yagvistu and artistry, and style” (BA Turaev). Elogist avoids antropomor-phisms, he calls the prophet Abraham (Gen. 20.7), the phenomenon of God in his races, tales usually take place in a dream or vision. He emphasizes that the divine name “Lord” (Yahweh) was discovered only when Moses (Exodus 3). As a northerner Elogist pays great attention to the heroes of the northern co-linen: Joseph and Joshua. After the fall of the northern kingdom of Moses legend in elogisticheskom version was probably brought to Jerusalem (c. 721) and one of the scribes connected with Yagvistom into a coherent whole (JE) .
Priestly tradition (Code) (P). In a third embodiment Moses Island Tradition God, as in the second, called the generic concept “God” (Elo-GMM). But in style, language and purpose of this tradition is very different from the first two. She is strict, laconic narrative begins with the last day tvareniya (Gen 1) and brought to the death of Moses. Primeval history and the use of thorium-patriarchs described mainly by toldot, pedigrees, which are like historical scheme, the backbone of legends. Everything points to a fact that the originator belongs to the priestly medium: it most pays attention to the ecclesiastical ranks of Israel, ceremonies and divine-service, whose main task – to remove the “holy nation”, ie on Bo-gu, from the pagan world. Time when created priestly story is difficult to establish. On the one hand, the prophet Ezekiel (VI cent.) Completely it still does not know, but on the other – there are many parts, of course, very old. Anyway, finally formed the third St. History does not allow the same period of captivity. There is an assumption that it did not exist in the form of a separate book, and was once included as a supplement to two-lane curves St. Stories (JE + P) .
Vtorazakonnicheskaya history (D – Deuteronomy). The fourth tradition is traced in the Pentateuch, in style reminiscent of the prophets sayings, especially Jeremiah. It received its name from the fifth book of the Torah. Language of the author sublime, emotional, it sounds like a fiery sermon. Begins the story of the testament of Moses, who recalls the events of wandering in the desert and ends with the story of the prophet’s death. Most biblical scholars believe that this story was a prologue broader the product of the sacred writings, referred to as the ancient prophets, or historical books (Isaiah Naw, the Court, Kings). Work was completed during the captivity, but it included texts written much earlier (since the twelfth century. BC) .
Vellgauzen argued that D is known only to those data that can be detected in the J and E, and F-known source of data from the J, E and D. This allows the relative order materials Pentateuch J E D R. He then argues that the description of worship in the J and E corresponds to prac-tick of worship in the kingdoms of the period when the Israelis could make more-gosluzheniya anywhere. Description of D coincides with the objectives of the reforms of Josiah, that as always focus on the fine detail of the P service is consistent with the rule of the priestly caste, which, according to Vellgauzena, was set during the Babylonian captivity and in the subsequent period. He therefore suggested that J should be dated to 850 to AD, E – 750 BC AD After receiving a written design, these sources were gradually merges, resulting in the days of Ezra (V century up to AD) emerged modern Noah Pentateuch .
Such an approach to the Pentateuch led to far-reaching water-you. If the ancient sources, J and E, were created about six centuries after Moses, it is hardly possible to hope that they give an accurate description of this era, not to mention the age of the patriarchs. But if J and E are not reliable, then how much less reliable sources of the later D and P! Vellgauzen himself quite aware of the consequences of their a critical position. J & E does not represent us any historical information about the patriarchal period: they are only transferred from the religious situation in the period of the kingdoms of antiquity, like the “beautiful illusion”. Ret-nym as D and P represent the interests of its inception, not the era of Moses .
SR Driver, who unlike Vellgauzena really ve-reel bogduhnovennost in the Bible, claimed that the late dating of the sources of the Pentateuch is not affected their spiritual value, and you can take of critical theory Vellgauzena without changing the Christian faith and not become atheists .
Even more important role in strengthening the feeling that the recognition of document mental theory does not mean parting with any representation of the era of the Patriarchs, played a work of A. Alt (1929). He proved that the image of patriarchal religion in some portions of Genesis (31:5,29,53, 46:3, 49:25) corresponds to a nomadic lifestyle, with its important message about the films mennom God, protecting the tribe of wandering and bless their children . Despite the fact that Alt was based on a very limited number of tech-ists, his description of patriarchal religion in general coincides with the de-saniem, which could make the more conservative reader .
By focusing on those elements that occur in J, and E, M. Horn (1930) also was able to describe Israel on the eve of the era of kingdoms in the form of soy because tribes united covenant leading the holy war, and I do-ing service in the main sanctuary. Although Horn found in the five-tiknizhii not much historical evidence, he sketched a re-run by religious devices of Israel, which did not contradict the uncritical reading of Scripture from Exodus to Judges .
G. von Rad (1938) similarly showed that the ancient biblical symbol of faith-sky in the second. 26 with the passage of time gradually turned into the now existing Pentateuch. Confirming the continuity between the ancient Nation elements of the Pentateuch and the current text, and find in it a kind of historical core, these scholars helped to make up-kumentalnuyu theory more acceptable .
Archaeological approach of an American scientist the UV Albright and his school further reinforced the impression that the Pentateuch can be trusted, even if the components of its sources are of later origin. They proved that the names of the Patriarchs – a typical names of the second Millennium Goals, that migration and semi-nomadic lifestyle of the patriarchs corresponds to this period and that many rituals and tribal customs, mentioned in Genesis. (Eg, issuance of a dowry), attested in the ancient biblical texts. All this proves the fundamental historical reliability of Genesis .
Thus, the scientific community there some kind of agreement on the four main sources of the Pentateuch, written for the most part, much later than the second in 1000 before AD, but who, despite his age, provides a glimpse into the history of Israel between 2000 and 1300 he . to A.D. .
3.The collapse of the agreement
In 1970 was published a number of innovative works that marked the beginning of great confusion in the ranks of those engaged in the study of the Pentateuch. In 1974 TL Thompson presented a meticulous study of the arguments that are most often cited in defense of the historicity of the Patri-arhalnyh legends. He showed that many of these arguments prove far less than generally assumed, and that even the Bible and nebibley-parameter sources is sometimes misunderstood for the sake of maintaining confidence in the Book of Genesis. Were some of the details, gives the impression of the ancients, such as the names of the patriarchs, but if we accept that Genesis is written after 1000 to AD, as Thompson believed, then this could be explained with-all in a different way .
J. Van Seters (1975) went further in his mistrust of edinodu-Shiyu, tsarivshemu in the critical school. Unlike Thompson, he argued not that the patriarchal stories are not datable, but the fact that they actually reflect the conditions of life and the legal establishment of VI century AD Moreover, he questioned existed two hundred years of persuasion, that the variation in naming God (Lord / God), or repeat-schiesya stories (see: Life. 12 and Life. 20) certainly show of different origin or source of . In fact, Van Seters pretty long way to eliminate the source of the E Gen. 12-26, arguing that he did not exist as something, but only in the form of some ancient elements combined in J (Yagvistom), which was the principal author of this part of Genesis .
R. Rendtorf (1977), as Van Seters, despised by many-ples generally accepted criteria for determining the sources and mocked the majority of dovov. put forward by scholars in defense of the documentary analysis. He ut-approves that Genesis emerged quite differently. There was a certain group of stories about Abraham, Jacob, and another of Joseph. For a long of time, these stories have evolved independently, until some editor is not volume-dinil originally separate texts into a coherent narrative of a large volume .
Finally came the big comment Vestremana Ch, in which rum scientist strictly adhered to the dating of the source J tenth century (and not six, as Van Seters), more or less ignored the source of E. West Rehmann inclined to regard the patriarchal narratives as a whole, withdrawn from the source J, with occasional patches of much more recent source of P .
Another strand of biblical studies, has received a well-known sequence in the 1970’s. Recommends that relate to the Pentateuch as a whole. But HIGH literary criticism is engaged primarily interpretation tech-ists in its current form, rather than studying the process of their creation. It occupy-maetsya systematization works, their themes, stylistic devices-mi, who uses a narrator, including repeats, mimesis (mapping reality) and dialogue; depicting the characters and their inner motives of the narrative. On the other hand, the traditional criticism has focused on issues of authorship, creation, sources and historical circumstances of writing the text. Contemporary literary criticism has led to a significantly higher estimation techniques of the Hebrew writers, but as a consequence, to deny the criteria, which which are used to distinguish sources. For example, if traditional nye critics were inclined to regard repetition as a sign of blending of several sources, the latest critics see him as an important povestvova-tion technique that could be used by one author for amplification effect .
The latest criticism supports late dating of D and P documents fundamental theory, but denies the difference between J and E. It insists that the expanded J (roughly corresponding to the traditional J + E) does not allow a historical analysis of the ancient period (ie period Path riarhov, Moses and the judges), but rather reports on the beliefs of Jews during the Babylonian captivity .
4.The Conservative response
What can we say about the origin of the Pentateuch, in view of modern-ing critical discordance? At one time Astryuk suggested that the alternation of the word “God” and “God” (Elohim / Yahweh) shows of different sources. Today is general consensus that this criterion can not be sufficiently reliable in distinguishing the sources J and E, so many came to the conclusion that the source of E does not exist. However, the difference between the source of P and J are often set based on the inject-leniya divine names and the alleged stylistic differences between these sources. On this basis, the story of the Flood (Genesis 6-9) is often divided into versions of J & R. But there are some modern authors agree that there is no evidence of this. Many note that other ancient texts also use many names for one and the same God, why this phenomenon in the Jewish Torah must point to some sources? Che-alternation of names in Genesis is quite consistent. Where God acts as creator of the universe, God is not only Israel but all people who prefer wreath product is given to the word “God” (Elohim). But, where he serves as a member of the covenant with Israel – “the Lord” (Yahweh) is used more frequently .
Thus, the criterion of God’s names – it is doubtful indicated refractive to various sources. This does not imply that the Genesis – it’s kind of a whole, which was a ready-made from a single author. There is no doubt that in creating his work, the author used a variety of sources, genealogies, songs and stories, but the naming of God in themselves – this is an unreliable principle, principle of separation of sources .
“The main mistake hypothesis Vellgauzena was thought that each of the four Holy stories are entirely created by those who first wrote. This questioned the authenticity of the stories not only about the patriarchs, but also about the Moses. Even claimed that Moses is a fictional, MEPI-parameter figure. But the latest archaeological this view was refuted. It turned out that the life of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – as described in Genesis – is consistent with ancient Eastern customs and rules that prevailed in the early second millennium, and by the tenth century (the estimated date Yagvi-hundred) lost their significance “. “The closest analogues of Genesis 1 – 11 for its ancient Middle East – an epic of Atra-Hasis, the epic of Gilgamesh, Sumerian story of the flood and Sumerian king list – nachalovm date of the second millennium. Lifestyle and religion of the Patriarchs, depicted in Genesis 12 – 25, not like the lifestyle and religion of the period of Moses and the follow-ing times “. Found that the tradition of Joseph, Moses and the outcome is consistent with the data of Egyptology (the history of Joseph has features that make it possible to relate these events to the era of Rames-oxides, ie, about the time of Moses). The Book of the Covenant and the other of legislative parts of the Pentateuch, there are many laws that are similar to Sudebnik and codes of antiquity (eg, Code of Hammurabi, written ca. 1700, see § 23). Historical environment domoiseevyh and times of Moses de-san with such certainty that eliminates the idea that stories of the Five-knizhiya invented by the authors of the X or VIII centuries. In other words, Moses’ book is a record of very ancient tradition of genuine  .
Nevertheless, the text of Genesis is replete with allusions to the fact that even if this book was created much earlier, in the kingly period, it at least, has been redesigned. Concepts such as “Dan” (14:14), “Chaldean” (15:7), “Palestina” (21:32,34) and the title of Joseph “lord of all his house” (45:8), the impression of modernization undertaken for the sake of the greater availability of these stories readers Kingdoms period .
But in the history of the Holy Scriptures there is nothing accidental. If the Law of Moses-s were made fleeting religious and legal elements, it must have been providential significance .
Patriarchal religion, too, is described from the perspective of a later-her age. For the first time the name “Yahweh” (God) was revealed to Moses: God’s revered patriarchs under the name “El-Shad” (God Almighty; Ex. 3:13-14, 6:3). But Being knowledgeable in the fact that the God who spoke to Moses – a God who knew the patriarchs, the alternate names. The speeches of God pronounced the tendency to use the ancient names (El-Shaddai, El or Elohim), while the narrator speaks often of God, using the later terminal-Gia: “Lord” (Yahweh) [2
"On all sides strewed the scientific evidence, but based on the debate itself is a lot of outstanding prerequisites. As such, it should relate to the text - as a whole, or as related to the collection of fragments? The Bible is innocent until proven her guilt, or blame, for-ka will not prove her innocence? Determined whether our understanding of the inspiration and authorship of these books the teachings of Jesus and the apostles? Various scientists answer these questions differently, and their honesty, vaccination certificate honored respect ".
“The above considerations allow us to see a much greater internal unity of the Pentateuch, as critics say the sources, and recognize the historical authenticity of these books. But those who did not share the belief in the integrity of the text, or starts with the assumption of their guilt could easily dismiss these arguments. Therefore, without a doubt, disputes drag on for long. However, Christians who read the Old Testament, should remember that “all” (including the Pentateuch), “written to teach us” not to understand the various theories of authorship, and to give us “hope” (Romans 15:4), hope for the first time flashed in front of the Av-Sheba, partly dream come in times of Moses and even better – after him. If our ultimate concern is the sacred goal of Scripture (”on-representation in righteousness” 2 Tim. 3:16), we will not exaggerate the value of critical debate “.