Skip to main content

I have better arguments than your arguments for Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy

     I'm working on a blog post for the Reformer where I will defend Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy (meaning I will defend the fact that Moses wrote it).  It should be a fairly thorough series of posts to first dismantle opposing scholarship on the point, and then provide the positive case for Mosaic authorship. It breaks my heart that anyone could read Deuteronomy, especially after they study and test the veracity of Genesis through Numbers, and end up concluding somehow that Moses was not the main contributor (so that is not to say there were not other redactors involved in the writing. I would support the "supplementary" point of view of Deuteronomy. Moses was the main writer). The book Deuteronomy is loaded with Moses's care, concern, and love for his people- a love from God indeed. I think people who read it and think that Moses did not write Deuteronomy have a very sinister problem with themselves that they should look at. Nonetheless, I am making somewhat an emotional argument. There is scholarship and study on my side, which when paired with logic, will produce arguments to tear the opposing points of view to shreds and to support and vindicate Mosaic authorship for once.
    I will start by first arguing against the documentary hypothesis which, historically, is the origin of criticism, the origin of current doubt over Mosaic authorship. Attacking the points which are the premises of the documentary hypothesis undermines most of the scholarship and thinking of people who believe Moses did not write Deuteronomy, because they use the same points of doubt, probably, to support whatever other model they are believing to be fact. So I will start with a post/article on the documentary hypothesis and move on from there.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nice Dissenting Opinion on the Fairness of the Criminal Justice System

   I was recently having a conversation with someone about the possibility for unreliability and/or unfairness in the criminal justice system. I was reminded of this quote from a Supreme Court case which is from Justice Harry Blackmun's dissenting opinion. The case was Darden v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1986). Obviously he's talking about the Supreme Court level, but if this could be said about their accuracy, then how shall we communicate about fairness at the trial court level? "JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Although the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant only "a fair trial [and] not a perfect one,"  Lutwak v. United States,   344 U. S. 604 ,  344 U. S. 619  (1953);  Bruton v. United States,   391 U. S. 123 ,  391 U. S. 135  (1968), this Court has stressed repeatedly in the decade since  Gregg v. Georgia,   428 U. S. 153  (1976), that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument

   There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood.  Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered.  Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam).  In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this.    The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

We Have Freedom of Speech, right?

   How come everyone seems so afraid to speak against the real politik in our country? We used to have lively political discussion and dissent, and now people with minority opinions seem scoffed at and outcast. This is a bad trend, don't go in that way. The first amendment was set up with one of the intentions being that people would be able to criticize those in charge. It is unbelievable that people could say that a scenario happened like Pearl Jams' "Dissident" describes, and these things happen on American soil?    The 1992 Presidential election is something to look to consider the way things used to be. Third party independent candidate Ross Perot was considered as having equal weight as the two other candidates. There was a strong freedom of the thought in the political spectrum. Perot's money went a long way for him. All things considered, though, billionaires still exist. Where are the Ross Perots of our time, then, who are not afraid to jump in and shake...
Post a Comment
Read more