The Gospel according to Moses

During Moses’s lifetime, neither the alphabet nor a fully functional language, such as Hebrew, even existed. Moses could not have possibly known all the content written in the Pentateuch that occurred long after he lived. Accordingly, the reason for anonymity is obvious. No one individual would take credit for a document pieced together over hundreds of years by various sources. In sum, the Pentateuch’s phrase “Moses wrote” must be discarded. So go the arguments of historical criticism. However, Daniel Block provides two other options. First, Deuteronomy’s anonymity is consistent with other books of the Old Testament.^[1] Second, Block also points out that, in order to accentuate the message, it is rare that any Mesopotamian document states the name of the author.^[2] If the ancient Israelites thought that the recognition of the author might, in some way, diminish the readers focus on the message, then one would expect that anonymity would be the norm.

The foundation for Block’s reconstruction of the book of Deuteronomy is built upon a framework established by three participants: Yahweh, Moses, and a narrator(s). Identifying these three voices, in some ways, is rather straightforward. For example, Deuteronomy 31:14 begins, “And the Lord said,” and Deuteronomy 32:44 states that “Moses came and recited all the words” thus, the textual sources are obviously attributed to Yahweh and Moses, respectively. However, a narrator referring to Moses at various times in the third person is evidence of a third participant.

Based on the framework established by the three participants, Block then asserts that the content from Deuteronomy provides the internal evidence necessary to understand the development of the text.^[3] Block provides three specific pieces of evidence. First, based on texts such as Deuteronomy 4:12-14, 5:22; 9:9-17, and 10:1-5, the Decalogue was “pre-existent canonical Scripture.”^[4] Second, the internal evidence also supports a first edition of the Torah with both an oral (cf. 1:5) and a written aspect (cf. 17:18-20).^[5] Third, evidence also exists for a second edition of the Torah, a supplement given to Moses and Joshua in the Tent of Meeting that was written and attached to the first edition.^[6]

Arising from the framework of participants and internal textual evidence, Block then reconstructs the development of the book of Deuteronomy in seven stages. According to Block, the Decalogue was Israel’s first canonical text, then Moses’s second speech was added, followed by the integration of the “Song of Yahweh” revealed through a theophanic visit.^[7] The two additional speeches of Moses were then placed into the corpus prior to a narrator integrating Moses’s benediction, several preambles and conclusions, and finally, the entire book of Deuteronomy into the Pentateuch.^[8]

Merits to Block’s proposal abound. First, Block takes the text seriously. Although the statement may sound naïve or condescending, it is difficult to understand how critical scholars, at times, seem to take the texts from authors like Homer more seriously than the text of Scripture. Second, Block avoids unnecessary extremes. Block acknowledges that the text points to authors that exist in addition to or in participation with Moses, and he avoids an all-or-nothing approach. Third, Block provides internal textual evidence to support his perspective. The evidence of a pre-existent canon and a progressive evolution of content within the book of Deuteronomy itself are compelling. Fourth, Block utilizes sound logic to reconstruct a proposed literary development of Deuteronomy. Based on the evidence supporting both oral and written content, Block not only provides a coherent reconstruction, but also an approach that is sensitive to the inerrancy of Scripture.

Block’s proposal differs from critical scholarship in several ways. However, first, the mention of a few themes relevant to a critical analysis of Mosaic authorship is in order. Questioning Mosaic authorship took off when Benedict de Spinoza highlighted the third-person references and anachronisms within the Pentateuch, which caused him to conclude that it is “clearer than the sun at noonday that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses.”^[9] As a result of the rejection of Mosaic authorship, the attempt to identify the anonymous authors began in earnest. In sum, repetition, potential contradictions, and anachronistic observations were considered evidence for a multiplicity of distinct authors.^[10] Efforts by Julius Wellhausen and others ultimately led to the scholarly acceptance of a late date of the Pentateuch written by various anonymous authors.^[11]

Block’s proposal avoids many of the pitfalls of critical scholarship. Block recognizes supplemental material exists without the necessity of moving the date of the original content centuries later than Moses. Block recognizes various sources without the need to reject Moses as an author. Block recognizes that third person and anachronistic content is due to the participation of a narrator, rather than undermining the integrity of Scripture or denying Moses’s historicity. Block himself asserts that he not only holds to the inerrancy of Scripture, but that he is in sharp contrast with historical criticism by dating Deuteronomy four centuries earlier, accepting Moses’s historicity, and taking the text seriously.^[12]

Block asserts that expressions such as the “‘Book of Moses,’ and ‘Torah of Moses,’ do not demand that Moses’s own hand produced the book.”^[13] In a sense, Block’s assertion is correct. Duane Christensen and Marcel Narucki provide an interesting analogy. They explain that someone highly interested in physics or chemistry may state that they looked up the word “nuclear fission” in Webster’s dictionary even though Noah Webster died in 1843.^[14] Would the person be lying? Christensen and Narucki suggest that the answer is negative and also claim that when Jesus refers to the phrase, words of Moses, He is simply saying, “It stands written in the books that you and I recognize as the Torah of Moses, the Pentateuch.”^[15] The analogy is not perfect, but the point is that a piece of intellectual property can be properly and correctly ascribed to an individual without exhaustive participation. Furthermore, if a scribe wrote the words of Moses’s speech down on a piece of papyrus, it seems that although Moses’s hand did not produce the written text, it would certainly be attributed to Moses. On the other hand, if Block suggests, which it does not appear that he does, that Moses’s hand did not write any of the book or that Moses’s figurative “hand” was not part of the composition as a whole, then Block misses the mark.

Block’s chapter has informed my understanding of Mosaic authorship in four ways. First, although I have never denied the inerrancy of Scripture, Block’s analysis affirms, confirms, and assures me of the doctrine, especially with regards to the book of Deuteronomy. Second, Block has enhanced my psychological flexibility regarding the application of the inspiration of Scripture, which moves beyond letters and encompasses a broad stroke of communicative activities, while simultaneously providing proper boundaries for the doctrine of inerrancy. Third, Block provides additional support for the sovereignty of God throughout history. Similar to God’s hand in the Pax Romana or the Jewish dispersions, the readers can see His perfect timing in humanity’s developmental utilization of letters, literacy, and language to reveal Himself to His creation. Finally, Block enhanced my cognitive abilities by encouraging creative thinking and interpretive integration of disparate topics and concepts in his analysis of Mosaic authorship.

___________________________________________________

[1] Daniel I. Block, The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene: Cascade, 2012), 22.

[2] Ibid., 23.

[3] Ibid., 31.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 33–38.

[6] Ibid., 39–40.

[7] Ibid., 41–42.

[8] Ibid., 42–43.

[9] Benedict de Spinoza, The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza: Introduction, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Tractatus Politicus, trans. R. H. M. Elwes, Revised., vol. 1, Bohn’s Philosophical Library (London: George Bell and Sons, 1891), 124.

[10] Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Authorship of the Pentateuch,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 32, no. 4 (1999): 94.

[11] Ibid., 105.

[12] Block, The Gospel, 51fn94.

[13] Ibid., 45–46.

[14] Duane L Christensen and Marcel Narucki, “The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32, no. 4 (December 1989): 468.

[15] Ibid.

Bibliography

• Block, Daniel I. The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy. Eugene: Cascade, 2012.
• Christensen, Duane L, and Marcel Narucki. “The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32, no. 4 (December 1989): 465–471.
• Dozeman, Thomas B. “The Authorship of the Pentateuch.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 32, no. 4 (1999): 87–112.
• Spinoza, Benedict de. The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza: Introduction, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Tractatus Politicus. Translated by R. H. M. Elwes. Revised. Vol. 1. Bohn’s Philosophical Library. London: George Bell and Sons, 1891.