Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

What evidence do we have, if any, of movements within Judaism that disputed the authority or validity, of Moses, but maintained a validity of the Prophets?

An interesting aspect of the development of the Jewish scriptures, is that the Torah was certainly actually composed later than most of the works of the Prophets. However, the way the scriptures are presented, it is/was claimed that the Torah predated the Prophets. Were there Jews who disputed the validity of the Torah/Moses, but instead placed emphasis on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, etc.? Do we see this in the Qumranic writings? I know that the Qumranic writing make a lot of use of Habakkuk. Is there a turning away from the Torah?

Is there a framework within which non-Torah Judaism makes sense?

Qumran manuscripts include many copies of books of Torah, especially Devarim/Deuteronomy.

Moses was God. Moses was the apostle, the spokesman of God. Moses's name = God. Moses represented the example of a man made after Adam being transformed into the heavenly Man. That is why the Samaritans refer to him as 'the Man' or the Man of God.

Anything the Samaritans say about Moses is almost certainly the original Israelite belief and the strange silence that exists in Jewish material regarding the status of Moses represents innovation. https://books.google.com/books?id=pzo6K ... es&f=false The Marcionites rightly note that the Biblical Moses is in fact superior to the God he encounters. The example of Moses forcing God to do what he wants is used. The argument is key to the 'heretical' understanding of a God above the being encountered by Moses. Only that can explain why Moses was better than God.

rgprice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:30 am An interesting aspect of the development of the Jewish scriptures, is that the Torah was certainly actually composed later than most of the works of the Prophets. However, the way the scriptures are presented, it is/was claimed that the Torah predated the Prophets.

Moses and the Exodus story predated all the prophets. The Original E source was written in the 9th century BC in response to King Jeroboam's Golden Calves in Bethel and Dan. The majority of the Book of Genesis also predates the prophets.

1) Why do the 'Jewish' papyri from Elephantine c.400 BC omit any reference to these supposed prophets?


2) Do you reject Russell Gmirkin's thesis - eminently logical, well-demonstrated, evident, etc. - that the Pentateuch was written c.272 BC?

3) Daniel Völter’s Jahwe und Mose im Licht aegyptischer Parallelen [1919] outlines dozens of 'points of correspondence' of the Exodus stories with ancient Egyptian myth. How does a rationalization of some 9th C BC 'saga' erase that clear dependence?

As someone wrote (on Sat Dec 11, 2021 9:09 am) "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

In Epiphanius, Panarion, one can read about some putatively differing views on Moses and/or prophets, though how accurately is debatable.

As to item 2), I was not persuaded, back when I read it, if I may say so without being called on to reread.

Moses is 'the man of God' ish-Elohim, or ish ha'Elohim. Prophets can take this name but the name applies to Moses because Moses is the paradigm for human deification. Moses = 345 = the Name (of God). This is the way the text was designed. Moses was the paradigm for the path to human deification and we must assume that the people for whom the book was written (the priestly class) saw a 'stairway' to heaven in the stories of the Torah. Philo explains it thus by the Abraham, Isaac, Jacob parallel to the three divine 'men.' Jacob is the lowest rank and accords with Yahweh (the god of 'bad men'). At one point Jacob 'sees' that there is a higher god than Yahweh (kurios) and he sings his acknowledgement that he will now swear by Elohim (theos). Abraham was always connected with Elohim (theos) but at the end of his life he is called by the name adonai which is the Master god. Isaac embodies perfection for Philo and is also connected with the absolute most high god. Moses embodies the ascension to the path of perfection in the life of one man. He begins as the meekest of all men on the earth (Deuteronomy) and eventually becomes god. But the prophets are below Moses.

On item 3) above, [Daniel Völter’s....].
I haven't read it, so this admittedly *may not* be applicable, but parallels--though sometimes interesting--do not *necessarily* establish dependence nor directionality nor date.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:46 am On item 3) above, [Daniel Völter’s....].
I haven't read it, so this admittedly *may not* be applicable, but parallels--though sometimes interesting--do not *necessarily* establish dependence nor directionality nor date.

I am well-aware of Parallelomania (basically: cherry-picking data, false analogies and wishful-thinking) and moreover the simple yet forgotten caution: to not be led astray by imagination to folly (aka 'Don't Believe Your Own Bullsh*t'). That certainly is a pitfall at one extreme, oblivious Self-Deception in contrived patterning.

At the other end of the spectrum, however, is smthg approaching the pathological, Denying Reality. The signs are there, but - for whatever reasons - you cannot or will not accept the evidence to see: she IS cheating on you, your son IS a drug addict, the employees ARE stealing from the company, etc. We also know that lawyers make good money denying the truth, framing (im)plausibility as 'Fact', and Groupthink often fails along this same line for varied and more complex reasons. Then some academics - well, perhaps a few lately - are outright dissimulators. No, the truth is NOT 'successfully promoting a theory' (i.e. convincing/duping others), the truth really is just the Truth. And that sometimes seems almost antithetical (heretical) in Biblical Studies, too. Untold millions have been murdered in the name of religion, the pretense of Truth.

To my mind, it is perfectly reasonable to examine and compare mythologies from a) neighboring/related peoples b) the same area, c) the same time. Correspondence of approximate myths in such a three-fold overlap should still be established by multiple factors, to be proven. But a 'preponderance of affirmative examples' should lead us --inexorably?-- towards the inevitable conclusion.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, etc., then it is what it is. So don't let any narcissist-psychopath convince you it's a platypus... or an ostrich.

Despite the crushing silence from his Anglo-American colleagues, Völter's theory remains quite compelling, if *necessarily* imperfect. It could be updated; his rhetorical style is emphatic but rather tedious.

I accept Gmirkin's thesis. Working from that, it makes sense that there would be Hebrews that retained pre-Deuteronomist views and did not accept Moses. They would have revered Isaiah and other prophets over Moses.

But do we find any evidence of that?