Did these OT people write these books?

[erracht]

Moses is by tradition the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (see, however, my previous post about the last book). But there seems to be no proof for this. Indeed, one of the books describes Moses' death. So, do we really have an idea who wrote the books?

[Father Peter]

Is there any need to dispute the traditional authorship of these writings?

Both our Lord and the Apostles all refer the books of the Law to Moses. That seems proof enough to me.

[erracht]

Where does Jesus specifically say that the books were written by Moses?

I am not saying that Moses didn't write down laws from God, but do wonder if it's true that he penned all 5 books as we know them today.

[Father Peter]

Hiya

"Did not Moses give you the law"

"If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?"

"These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

This last passage especially divides the OT into the Pentateuch (the Law), the prophets and the psalms. The Law doesn't mean the 10 commandments, and doesn't mean the extended laws of the Pentateuch but stands for those 5 books. I am sure Br Max can expand with a great deal more insight and information.

Just as no Jew would have doubted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, so there was no doubt among the Lord and his Apostles.

[Doubting Thomas]

The part about Moses' death could have been added on by Joshua, his successor, as an addendum.  I too have seen no reason to doubt the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.  The testimony of Christ is good enough for me also.  

[Br. Max, OFC]

The only reason for picking at Moses as the Author of the Torah is to dispute the validity of the content there of.  Discredit the author - and you discredit his work.

[Asteriktos]

Is there any need to dispute the traditional authorship of these writings?

Both our Lord and the Apostles all refer the books of the Law to Moses. That seems proof enough to me.

Do you still believe this? Also, do you also believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter, John wrote 3 John, etc.?

[jckstraw72]

the Church knows what its talking about.

[Jetavan]

Moses is by tradition the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (see, however, my previous post about the last book). But there seems to be no proof for this. Indeed, one of the books describes Moses' death. So, do we really have an idea who wrote the books?

I think the ancients had a different, more expansive, idea of 'authorship' than literal-minded moderns.

[Asteriktos]

the Church knows what its talking about.

Does Fr. Peter?

[jckstraw72]

the Church knows what its talking about.

Does Fr. Peter?

i dunno, i dont know him. if he is in line with the Tradition of the Church, then yes, he does.

[Schultz]

Moses is by tradition the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (see, however, my previous post about the last book). But there seems to be no proof for this. Indeed, one of the books describes Moses' death. So, do we really have an idea who wrote the books?

I think the ancients had a different, more expansive, idea of 'authorship' than literal-minded moderns.

Bingo.  Authorship at the time of the writing of the NT did not mean that there was at one time an autographed manuscript by the person the writing is ascribed to but, rather, that the content and rhetoric employed in the writing could have come from the mind/mouth/hand of that person.  Two thousand years ago, I could have written a "Letter from Dave" (a very close friend of mine) that he would've gladly put his signature on, so to speak, because I know what he believes and would say about a given subject and I'm also rather adept at phrasing it in the same way he would put it.  It would not be considered fraud by anyone back then nor should it be. 

[Benjamin the Red]

Moses is by tradition the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (see, however, my previous post about the last book). But there seems to be no proof for this. Indeed, one of the books describes Moses' death. So, do we really have an idea who wrote the books?

I think the ancients had a different, more expansive, idea of 'authorship' than literal-minded moderns.

This. Frankly, I don't care who wrote anything in the Scriptures. Many of them we don't know, and a lot of it is disputed by "modern scholarship."

The point isn't that these books were penned by exactly who we say they are and haven't changed one bit since. The Bible is not a Qur'an. The point is that the books of Scripture are deemed to be Orthodox in their teaching and found profitable to be read in the divine services for the edification and instruction of the faithful.

[TheMathematician]

Moses is by tradition the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (see, however, my previous post about the last book). But there seems to be no proof for this. Indeed, one of the books describes Moses' death. So, do we really have an idea who wrote the books?

I think the ancients had a different, more expansive, idea of 'authorship' than literal-minded moderns.

Bingo.  Authorship at the time of the writing of the NT did not mean that there was at one time an autographed manuscript by the person the writing is ascribed to but, rather, that the content and rhetoric employed in the writing could have come from the mind/mouth/hand of that person.  Two thousand years ago, I could have written a "Letter from Dave" (a very close friend of mine) that he would've gladly put his signature on, so to speak, because I know what he believes and would say about a given subject and I'm also rather adept at phrasing it in the same way he would put it.  It would not be considered fraud by anyone back then nor should it be. 

and even fast forward that into (more) modern times. the majority of Shakespeare's plays were not his idea, and just remakes of prior stories and traditions

[Schultz]

Moses is by tradition the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (see, however, my previous post about the last book). But there seems to be no proof for this. Indeed, one of the books describes Moses' death. So, do we really have an idea who wrote the books?

I think the ancients had a different, more expansive, idea of 'authorship' than literal-minded moderns.

Bingo.  Authorship at the time of the writing of the NT did not mean that there was at one time an autographed manuscript by the person the writing is ascribed to but, rather, that the content and rhetoric employed in the writing could have come from the mind/mouth/hand of that person.  Two thousand years ago, I could have written a "Letter from Dave" (a very close friend of mine) that he would've gladly put his signature on, so to speak, because I know what he believes and would say about a given subject and I'm also rather adept at phrasing it in the same way he would put it.  It would not be considered fraud by anyone back then nor should it be. 

and even fast forward that into (more) modern times. the majority of Shakespeare's plays were not his idea, and just remakes of prior stories and traditions

Indeed.  People forget (or don't want to know) that Shakespeare's genius was not in the story, but the words with which he chose to tell it. 

Same goes for Chaucer.

[TheMathematician]

Moses is by tradition the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (see, however, my previous post about the last book). But there seems to be no proof for this. Indeed, one of the books describes Moses' death. So, do we really have an idea who wrote the books?

I think the ancients had a different, more expansive, idea of 'authorship' than literal-minded moderns.

Bingo.  Authorship at the time of the writing of the NT did not mean that there was at one time an autographed manuscript by the person the writing is ascribed to but, rather, that the content and rhetoric employed in the writing could have come from the mind/mouth/hand of that person.  Two thousand years ago, I could have written a "Letter from Dave" (a very close friend of mine) that he would've gladly put his signature on, so to speak, because I know what he believes and would say about a given subject and I'm also rather adept at phrasing it in the same way he would put it.  It would not be considered fraud by anyone back then nor should it be. 

and even fast forward that into (more) modern times. the majority of Shakespeare's plays were not his idea, and just remakes of prior stories and traditions

Indeed.  People forget (or don't want to know) that Shakespeare's genius was not in the story, but the words with which he chose to tell it. 

Same goes for Chaucer.

an interesting side fact. Shakespeare was only regarded as a good playwright until the wars(WWI/II), when his fame exploded, as a source of cultural identity and national pride

[Gamliel]

What is considered "proof?"  A DNA sample?

[biro]

the Church knows what its talking about.

Does Fr. Peter?

Oh, boy.

[Asteriktos]

the Church knows what its talking about.

Does Fr. Peter?

Oh, boy.

He's advertising himself as running/teaching at a school of Orthodox theology. I think it's perfectly valid to ask about what exactly he believes and is teaching. However, I thought it would be rude to start questioning him on the thread he made about the school. However, when I came across this thread shortly afterwards I figured it was a good chance to ask.

[Schultz]

Moses is by tradition the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (see, however, my previous post about the last book). But there seems to be no proof for this. Indeed, one of the books describes Moses' death. So, do we really have an idea who wrote the books?

I think the ancients had a different, more expansive, idea of 'authorship' than literal-minded moderns.

Bingo.  Authorship at the time of the writing of the NT did not mean that there was at one time an autographed manuscript by the person the writing is ascribed to but, rather, that the content and rhetoric employed in the writing could have come from the mind/mouth/hand of that person.  Two thousand years ago, I could have written a "Letter from Dave" (a very close friend of mine) that he would've gladly put his signature on, so to speak, because I know what he believes and would say about a given subject and I'm also rather adept at phrasing it in the same way he would put it.  It would not be considered fraud by anyone back then nor should it be.  

and even fast forward that into (more) modern times. the majority of Shakespeare's plays were not his idea, and just remakes of prior stories and traditions

Indeed.  People forget (or don't want to know) that Shakespeare's genius was not in the story, but the words with which he chose to tell it.  

Same goes for Chaucer.

an interesting side fact. Shakespeare was only regarded as a good playwright until the wars(WWI/II), when his fame exploded, as a source of cultural identity and national pride

True enough, but even before then, the effect his words had on the English language (turns of phrase/coined words) was second only to the KJV even if people didn't know it.  

[orthonorm]

Moses is by tradition the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (see, however, my previous post about the last book). But there seems to be no proof for this. Indeed, one of the books describes Moses' death. So, do we really have an idea who wrote the books?

I think the ancients had a different, more expansive, idea of 'authorship' than literal-minded moderns.

Bingo.  Authorship at the time of the writing of the NT did not mean that there was at one time an autographed manuscript by the person the writing is ascribed to but, rather, that the content and rhetoric employed in the writing could have come from the mind/mouth/hand of that person.  Two thousand years ago, I could have written a "Letter from Dave" (a very close friend of mine) that he would've gladly put his signature on, so to speak, because I know what he believes and would say about a given subject and I'm also rather adept at phrasing it in the same way he would put it.  It would not be considered fraud by anyone back then nor should it be.  

and even fast forward that into (more) modern times. the majority of Shakespeare's plays were not his idea, and just remakes of prior stories and traditions

Indeed.  People forget (or don't want to know) that Shakespeare's genius was not in the story, but the words with which he chose to tell it.  

Same goes for Chaucer.

an interesting side fact. Shakespeare was only regarded as a good playwright until the wars(WWI/II), when his fame exploded, as a source of cultural identity and national pride

True enough, but even before then, the effect his words had on the English language (turns of phrase/coined words) was second only to the KJV even if people didn't know it.  

?

Looking at the Romantic, this is a severe over-statement. In England, on the Continent, and in the US, Shakespeare was highly regarded to point of worship.

At this point only Neech saw World Wars pending and prior to him Goethe was literally trying to be the Shakespeare of the German language. He was glad that really most of Bill's work remained in English or rendered terribly in German, so that he a chance at achieving such an accolade.

"Shakespeare" by the time of the Romantic was among elite and hoi polloi synonymous with genius.

[Asteriktos]

Is there any need to dispute the traditional authorship of these writings?

Both our Lord and the Apostles all refer the books of the Law to Moses. That seems proof enough to me.

Do you still believe this? Also, do you also believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter, John wrote 3 John, etc.?

*bump*

[Asteriktos]

the Church knows what its talking about.

Does Fr. Peter?

That was quite rude!

[Severian]

My own Priest gave a sermon a few years ago about the authorship of the Epistle of Hebrews. He contended ardently (in a paraphrase) that "Saint Paul wrote fourteen Epistles, including Hebrews. This is why our Icon of Saint Paul has him holding fourteen scrolls. This is contrary to what some say. They claim that he only wrote thirteen."

Could someone please provide me sources concerning the authorship of this Epistle?

[orthonorm]

the Church knows what its talking about.

Does Fr. Peter?

That was quite rude!

Not really.

[orthonorm]

My own Priest gave a sermon a few years ago about the authorship of the Epistle of Hebrews. He contended ardently (in a paraphrase) that "Saint Paul wrote fourteen Epistles, including Hebrews. This is why our Icon of Saint Paul has him holding fourteen scrolls. This is contrary to what some say. They claim that he only wrote thirteen."

Could someone please provide me sources concerning the authorship of this Epistle?

That is too easy to google. He didn't write Hebrew nor all Pauline Epistles. That is absurd.

The 14 scrolls come from the ten epistles he wrote, the three Gospels he practically did, and the sequel to one of those Gospels, Acts.

[Agabus]

My own Priest gave a sermon a few years ago about the authorship of the Epistle of Hebrews. He contended ardently (in a paraphrase) that "Saint Paul wrote fourteen Epistles, including Hebrews. This is why our Icon of Saint Paul has him holding fourteen scrolls. This is contrary to what some say. They claim that he only wrote thirteen."

Could someone please provide me sources concerning the authorship of this Epistle?

If St. Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, he changed his writing style and theological vocabulary to do so.

[Achronos]

the Church knows what its talking about.

Does Fr. Peter?

That was quite rude!

Not really.

I've never understood why you dislike Fr Peter so much.

[NicholasMyra]

So, do we really have an idea who wrote the books?

As far as individuals, from a historical standpoint, no.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics > Topic: Did these OT people write these books?