www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Moses, the Humble One

Does anyone think that Moses really wrote the Pentateuch/TORAH known by many as the Books of Moses? It is written in one of the five books that Moses (don't have the quote handy) was the most humble man alive. Yet if Moses wrote this - I would think that was not a very humble statement.

Elias

My dear Father Elias:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Need humility mean a refusal to record the Word of God? Was St. Paul too a proud man because he allowed God to use him as a vessel? God recognized that his extraordinary revelations to Paul -- given so that the true faith might be spread throughout the world -- would cause him to become proud, and so Paul was given "a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan to beat me down"(2 Cor. 12:7).

If we accept that Holy Scripture is the Word of God, Moses' statement that he is the most humble man in the world is not his own observation, but God's. Why would God have wanted Moses to write this? So that the Israelites would follow his virtuous example, his submission to God's will. Gregory of Nyssa recognized this as God's intent: Moses is the prototype of the soul in the state of constant ascent towards God.

I find this post a bit odd since I fail to see how submission to God's will constitutes pride.

However, I also am intrigued by your question because I know that I am a very proud man and have much difficulty in willingly accepting the "thorn in the flesh" that God, in His merciful wisdom, visits upon me each day.

I look forward to your response.

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

Theophilos,

I apologize if I misled you or any other in thinking I am a Father (as in a priest). I am not a priest, just a slimebucket of a sinner made in the image of God.

Elias

Elias:

I'm sorry -- I thought someone, in a different thread, referred to you as "Father."

Theophilos

Theophilos,

My question about the authorship of Moses comes from several more points I would like to make:

1. Though 'authorship' is attributed to Moses, nowhere in the Pentateuch does it specifically state that Moses WAS the author - with quill or such in hand.

2. Can Moses write a story about his death?

3. Why is the stories in the Pentateuch not written in the first-person singular?

4. Why does Noah respond to God's command to take two of each animal into the ark (Gn 6: 19-20, 22) when later he is told to take seven pairs of clean beasts and only two pairs of 'unclean' beasts (Gn 7:2-3)? Why does Noah send out a raven in Gn 7:7 but Gn 7:8 mentions a dove? What was Moses drinking when he wrote Genesis? Couldn't he get the story straight?

Elias

Call me a moron, but I believe Moses wrote the Torah with probably the exception of the very last bit that discusses his death. That Moses wrote the Torah is the opinion of Jesus, the early church, and of the martyrs and the saints. That's a good enough testimony for me.

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me." (John 5:46)

Moronikus,

Then the publishers of the Jerome Biblical Commentary and Catholic bibles are misleading people when they claim that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch.

If you believe Jesus' words, then why do you think a part of the Pentateuch was NOT written by Moses? Which part did you decide was not written by Moses?

Elias


[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 07-27-1999).]

So modernist Catholic theologians are no better than modernist Protestant theologians?

I remember reading that Fr. William Most did not recommend either the Jerome or the Collegeville commentaries because of modernism.

For me, it comes down to the deposit of the faith. Is it the universal teaching of the church through the centuries that Moses wrote the Torah? Yes. That's good enough for me.

What is your real agenda?

Moronikos,

My 'agenda' is to become a partaker of the divine nature via theosis. In the meantime, I will post messages on Byzantine Catholic forums. Your comments are appreciated.

Peace!
Elias

I believe that Moses, under the ispiration of the Holy Spirit, "who spoke through the prophets," is the author of the Torah. We Orthodox Christians must be on guard against modernist commentators who try to undermine our faith with the latest academic fads.

Doulos,

I asked a few questions about some contradictory things found in Genesis. Why is this so? I am not trying to infuse confusion and fear in our beliefs from modernist academic fads. I have some questions. Can you answer them?

Also, should we as Eastern Christians also subscribe to the error of fundamentalism?


Elias


[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 07-27-1999).]

I'm wondering if it really matters who wrote the various books of the Torah. The Hebrew texts show fairly wide variations in language, idiomatics and vocabulary, indicating that a number of folks wrote/edited or 'cleaned up' the actual texts over several centuries..

For me, the telling point is that the early Church, speaking through the bishops assembled in Council, declared which texts were 'canonical', i.e, represent authentic teaching. Who wrote a particular paragraph is, in many ways, irrelevant.

I kind of agree with Martin Luther who suggested that those who wish to really study the Scripture should learn Greek and Hebrew. (He instituted these courses in Lutheran schools.) When these questions of scripture arise, I am reminded of a comment made by the Dean of Harvard Divinity School, (and my NT professor) Krister Stendahl, who warned about translational debates. He referenced those folks who declare: "If the Revised Standard Version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." Today, I saw a bumper sticker that said: "If it's not King James, it's not Bible."

Scary.

Elias, I did not know that there was a Fundamentalist movement that referenced Ecumenincal Councils. The American Fundamentalist movement originally was directed againt what was once called "Higher Criticism." These scholars or critics advocated the use modern critical methods used in the study of of ancient texts. As you can see from this debate the usefulness of such methodologies is problematic. The bottom line is that a man, an exegete, can use any approach he desires. He cannot come to a conclusion that will undermine the faith. Of course it goes beyond this. Why ought the hierarchy and the faithful tolerate an entire body of scholars at universities, seminaries, high schools, research centers, etc. who seem to constantly be employing their status to undermine the faith ? If you have questions about the author of the Law see St. Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses. Glory to Jesus Christ!

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, Doulos. Are you really condemning scholarship in terms of scripture studies?

While I can easily understand a problem with those folks who seem to get scriptural interpretations that suit their particular perspective, I'm afraid that this attitude will lead to the idea that I'm going to follow the 'traditional Christian' interpretation of Scriptures, i.e., what my grandma understood, and "to hell" (literally) with anybody who understands something else.

This is not a good perspective. For example, we have now learned that the NT passage about 'heaping burning coals upon the head...." (which completely contradicts all of the other teachings of Christ) is actually a scribal error. It's really: "to heap burning coals FROM upon the head....". Two Greek letters somehow got dropped, and the meaning was changed to something completely opposite. Scripture scholars had danced on their heads for centuries trying to make the "received" text congruous with all the other teachings of Christ. Now we know that there was a scriptural/transcriptional error, and the meaning of this parable fits perfectly with the 'forgiveness' theme that flows through the Gospels.

So, I think that there is a danger in condemning modern scripture scholarship as being detrimental to the faith. GOOD scholarship provides support to our belief.

(I'll freely admit that I am not a bible person because I too have suffered from being beaten over the head by the Bible-Nazis-- the folks who have a ready verse for every situation. I prefer to interpret my life and any Christian's life in terms of how well he or she loves God and loves their neighbors. Scripture is a guidepost for prayerful discernment about how to live one's life. It's not a law book; it's not a detailed 'recipe' book for Christianity. It's a guide; it's a tool; it's not the benchmark of salvation.

The folks who quote Bible verses to condemn others are, in my mind, guilty of the condemnation that Christ exacted upon the Scribes and Pharisees. They're too busy worrying about 'justifying' everything in the texts to be in love with God and our neighbors.

I'll stick with the loving and forgiving Christ, thank you, and take my chances at the Great and General Judgment. And I probably won't have a Bible in my hand.

[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 07-29-1999).]

"So, I think that there is a danger in condemning modern scripture scholarship as being detrimental to the faith. GOOD scholarship provides support to our belief."


Dr. John,

I agree. Analogous to the critical studies of scripture is the scientific approach to creation - which many thought undermined the belief in theism. Yet, today science has become a friend to theism by the simple fact that it discovers it cannot answer all the questions. Theism is on the rise not because of a fundamentalist backlash against scientific atheism, but the understanding that more fruit can be harvested when science is used properly. The same goes for critical studies of scripture. Many may believe it will kill religion and prove the God doesn't exist. Yet the more one dives into criticism the more one may find that there is just 'too much' there where one didn't see before. The beauty of it all is that it raises up more questions and more areas of study to gnaw on. For instance, look at how we have gotten to know more about Jesus, the Christ, by accepting the simple fact that he was a Jew. Some have a hard time with this - and a thread of antisemitism is nothing new to some in the Eastern church. Learning more about the Judaism of Jesus' day has brought us 'richer' appreciation for doing Christology. Look at our vesper services! Look at our Divine Liturgy! It is spooky when the Jewishness of our Judeo-Christian Tradition yells in front of our face where it was silent before. Look at how we worship. Rejecting the Jewishness of our heritage does damage to our fuller understanding in liturgical theology and scriptures. Some Eastern Church quarters have become Marcionists. Many thought that the Greek Church was nothing but a baptized Greek paganism until the Jewish critical studies turned that the other way. Now, we see how 'preservationist' we really are of our Old Testament past. This strengthens my faith and is something to be proud of. Yet if we ignored the 'fruits' of biblical studies, including higher criticism, we will miss the subtleties of those things that make our faith more genuine. Be not afraid! If contemporary cosmologists can turn to theism, then contemporary biblical critics can worship with conviction in the 'temple.' I have to find the article of an Orthodox priest who was originally a Jew. He stated how well the Byzantine Church liturgy preserved the Jewish-ness of the past. If I find it I will post it here.

Elias