HALF-BAKED

HALF-BAKED

(PART II)

A RESPONSE TO “THE ORIGIN OF PRESENT-DAY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AS PRESENTED BY THE AUTHORS OF THE URANTIA BOOK”

by Lee Cook

Getting Back to Business

Let us now pick up Ms. Cook’s critique of historic Christianity where we left off:

The authors of The Urantia Book describe in detail the evolution of worship, prayer, the God concept among the Hebrews, and many other topics relating to the nature and origin of our planetary religions. Although present-day Christianity is the best religion on our planet, the authors of this book believe the time has come to examine the beliefs contained in the Christian religion and to point out both their strengths and weaknesses.

We begin to see that Ms. Cook buys into the notion that the Judeao-Christian belief system belongs with all other world religions, having evolved through the ages from the human imagination and inspired by the personal sentiments of its authors.

Christians have long accepted the Old Testament as the infallible and inspired Word of God. Thus, it seems that the Old Testament is a logical place to begin our examination of present-day Christian beliefs. Just how reliable are the teachings in the O.T.? Unknown to the early Christian theologians the Jews had completely rewritten their history during the Babylonian captivity. As will be shown, this means that some of the teachings in the O.T. are resting on shaky ground, and other teachings are derived from completely erroneous statements. We will begin with an examination of the Old Testament after which we will examine the teachings in the New Testament.

The premise by which Ms. Cook makes her statement that “the Jews had completely rewritten their history during the Babylonian captivity” is based solely on the testimony provided by The UB authors. So also are Ms. Cook’s statements regarding the reliability of the Old Testament. Thus, if it can be demonstrated that the information provided in The UB on these topics is baseless or false, then it will be the foundation upon which Ms. Cook builds her argument that finds itself “resting on shaky ground.”

Split Personality

THE JEWS REWRITE THEIR HISTORY.

By the time of the Babylonian captivity, the morale of the Jews had fallen to new lows: Their nation had fallen before the armies of Babylon; their nationalistic Yahweh had suffered from the international preachments of the spiritual leaders. It was especially their resentment of the loss of their national god that led the Jewish priests to go to such lengths in the invention of fables and the multiplication of miraculous appearing events in Hebrew history in an effort to restore the Jews as the chosen people of even the new and expanded idea of an internationalized God of all nations.

In writing their fictitious history, the priests borrowed heavily from the Babylonian traditions and legends, but they unfailingly improved the moral tone and spiritual significance of the Chaldean stories which they adopted. They also invariably distorted these legends to reflect honor and glory upon the ancestry and history of Israel. The single idea of the priests and scribes was the rehabilitation of the Jewish nation, the glorification of Hebrew traditions, and the exaltation of their racial history. The contemporary Hebrews of around 500 B.C. did not consider these writings to be divine revelations; they looked upon them as mythological narratives.

Note: If there is resentment of the fact that the religious leaders of those days fastened these myths and legends upon such a large part of the Occidental world, it should be remembered that they did not intentionally do this; they did not claim to be writing by inspiration; they made no profession to be writing a sacred book. They were merely preparing a textbook designed to bolster the dwindling courage of their fellows in captivity. In later days these and other writings were assembled into a supposedly sacred text and labeled the complete truth and the infallible, inspired Word of God. [97:7.1-4]

The above paragraphs are derived almost verbatim from the first four paragraphs of Section 7 in Paper 97, entitled “The Second Isaiah.” In tandem with Section 7, Section 5 of the same Paper (“The First Isaiah”) provides us with a sordid clue to the author’s loyalty to the Documentary Hypothesis, which claims, among other things, that Isaiah was written by at least two different authors (and in different time periods).

With the rise of deism in the western world during the late eighteenth century, it was inevitable that men of anti-supernatural convictions would take exception to those passages of Isaiah that appear to exhibit a foreknowledge of future events. If the book was to be treated as having derived from merely human origin (as The UB authors are prone to do), it was an unavoidable necessity to explain these apparently successful predictions as having been written after the fulfillment had taken place, or at least when they were about to occur. By and large, the principal architects of the Two-Isaiah theory have simply assumed on rationalistic grounds the impossibility of predictive prophecy as evidence for divine revelation. It is from this philosophical a priori viewpoint that they approach the text, ultimately resulting in circular reasoning by relying solely on ancillary information within the text. If there can be no such thing as fulfilled prophecy, it becomes logically necessary to explain all apparent fulfillments merely as prophecies after the fact.

The first scholar to publish (in 1789) a systematic argument for a sixth-century date for the composition of Isaiah 40-66 was Johann C. Doederlein (1745-1792). He reasoned that since an eighth-century Isaiah could not have foreseen the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and the seventy years of captivity, he could never have penned the words of comfort to exiled Judah which appear in chapter 40 onward. Furthermore, from the rationalistic standpoint it was obviously impossible for anyone back in 700 B.C. to foresee the rise of Cyrus the Great, who captured Babylon in 539 B.C. and gave permission to the Jewish exiles to return to their homeland. But not only was his work foreseen, Cyrus was even referred to by name in two latter passages (Isa. 44:28 and 45:1). Obviously, then, the author of these prophecies must have been some unknown Jew living in Babylon sometime between the first rise of Cyrus as an international figure (around 550 B.C.) and the fall of Babylon to his expanding empire. This spurious author living in Babylon around 540 B.C. came to be known to the critics as “Deutero-Isaiah” (a.k.a., Isaiah II or the “second Isaiah,” as The UB puts it).

These arguments proved so persuasive in their time that other Old Testament scholars embraced the same view and expressed their agreement well into the nineteenth century. Even at this early stage of the theory, however, conservative scholars had objected to the exilic date assigned to Isaiah II on the ground that even in Isaiah I (such as Isaiah 13 and 14) impressive evidences could be found of a foreknowledge of the future importance of Babylon in Israel’s history.

Likewise, it became increasingly apparent that numerous passages in so-called Deutero-Isaiah could hardly be reconciled with a theory of composition in Babylonia. The references to geography, flora, and fauna found in Deutero-Isaiah were far more appropriate to an author living in Syria or Palestine. Arguing from this evidence, Professor Bernard Duhm (1847-1928) of Göttingen came out with a theory of three Isaiahs, none of whom lived in Babylonia. According to his analysis, chapters 40-55 (Deutero-Isaiah) were written about 540 B.C. somewhere in the region of Lebanon. Chapters 56-66 (Trito-Isaiah) were composed in Jerusalem in the time of Ezra, around 450 B.C. It was this school of criticism which George Adam Smith adhered to, for the most part, in his preachy commentary on Isaiah in The Expositor’s Bible.[1]

It should be added that this divisive criticism did not go unanswered, even in Germany, during the nineteenth century. Many notable European scholars upheld Isaiah as author of all sixty-six chapters.[2] And in America, Joseph Addison Alexander of Princeton Seminary published a very able commentary in two volumes in which he thoroughly refuted the divisive theories of liberal German scholarship.[3]

It should also be pointed out that even in the first 39 chapters of Isaiah, the greater emphasis is laid upon fulfilled prediction, and many future events are foretold. While some of these fulfilled prophecies took place within a few years of the prediction, other events were not to take place until long after Isaiah’s death. Take, for example, the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Isa. 13:17), and the eventual desolation of Babylon which would render it an uninhabited and accursed site forever (Isa. 13:19-20). Also, another long-range prediction was the coming of the glorious Light in a future generation (Isa. 9:1-2), which was fulfilled by the ministry of Christ seven centuries later (cf. Matt. 4:15-16; John 1:6-13). As for a foreknowledge of the Babylonian Exile, even Isaiah Chapter 6 points forward to the utter depopulation and devastation of Judah which took place under Nebuchadnezzar, followed by the promise that a remnant would return (6:13). To this should be added the clear prediction made by Isaiah to Hezekiah (Isa. 39:5-7) after the latter’s ill-considered display of all his treasure to the Babylonian envoys, that some day all of this wealth would be carried off to Babylon, along with Hezekiah’s own descendants, who would have to serve as slaves there. Babylon was only a subject province of the Assyrian empire at the time of this prediction.

There is also the internal evidence that Isaiah II was composed in Palestine, such as those references or allusions to contemporary events or surrounding conditions. A careful examination of such allusions in Isa. 40-66 points unmistakably to the conclusion that it was composed in Palestine rather than in Babylon. Isaiah 40-66 shows little knowledge of Babylonian geography, but great familiarity with that of Palestine. The writer’s geographical viewpoint is clearly Palestinian. Furthermore, the author assumes that the cities of Judah are still standing (cf. Isa. 40:9; 62:6), implying that these cities are in actual existence at the time of writing, rather than being uninhabited sites in the wake of widespread devastation.

Other internal evidence for a pre-exilic composition of Isaiah II abounds within the text itself. Many of the same evils that prevailed in the time of Isaiah I are evidently still current in the generation of the author of Isaiah II (cf. Isa. 1:15, 10:12 w. 57:7, 59:3-9). Both in Isaiah I and II, a revolting hypocrisy characterizes the religious life of the nation (cf. Isa. 29:13 w. 58:2,4; 1:29 w. 57:5). These similarities plainly represent vicious evils and degenerate pagan abominations among the Jews that were going on prior to the fall of Jerusalem, during pre-exilic times, the same time period that the prophet Isaiah composed these words.

On the basis of the internal evidence of the text alone, the entire argument for Deutero- or Trito-Isaiah falls flat on its face. However, we have just begun to scratch the surface.

Yet another substantial embarrassment to the Second Isaiah theory lies in the fact that the author’s name was not preserved. It is difficult to conceive that his name should have been forgotten had he been somebody other than the eighth-century Isaiah. By the admission of The UB itself, no passages more sublime regarding the nature of God are to be found in the entire Old Testament than are contained in Isaiah II: “No prophet or religious teacher . . . attained the high concept of God that Isaiah the second proclaimed during these days of the captivity” (97:7.5). And: “No more beautiful pronouncements about the heavenly Father have ever been made. . . . [T]he writings of Isaiah are among the most sublime and true presentations of the spiritual concept of God ever to greet the ears of mortal man . . .” (97:7.9). It is apparent, then, that the author of The UB’s Paper 97 regards Isaiah II as the greatest of all the Old Testament prophets. How could it have come about that such a preeminent genius should have diminished so rapidly in stature that his name should have been completely forgotten? The UB author also concedes that Isaiah II “was a full convert to the elder Isaiah’s God . . .” (97:7.4). It is scarcely conceivable that the pupil could have so far surpassed his master and yet remained anonymous. But this is the incredible assumption to which the advocates of this divisive theory are driven.

Proponents of the Isaiah II theory also assert that there are very definite and marked differences in writing style between Isaiah I and Isaiah II, and that these can only be accounted for by different authors in different time periods. As a study in the contrasts between the two alleged authors of Isaiah, Paper 97 of The UB follows the lead of the Deutero-theorists by inferring that the “first Isaiah” preached a God of “judgment” (97:5.2) during a time when schisms arose in both the northern and southern kingdoms. The “second Isaiah,” on the other hand, preached a God of “comfort” (97:7.12) during the Babylonian captivity of the northern kingdom while the priests were supposedly scrambling to reinstate their nationalistic pride by inventing fables and miracles designed to bolster Hebrew history and encourage their fellow captives. Isaiah “number two,” in his efforts to sway his misguided brethren, is credited as having written “chapters forty to fifty-five inclusive” (97:7.4). Not surprisingly, then, Section 5 of Paper 97 uses several Isaiah quotes all exclusive of chapters 40 through 55 to bolster the identity of the “first” Isaiah (incl. Isa. 1:18; 12:2; 14:3; 28:17; 60:1; 61:1,10; 63:9), while Section 7 of Paper 97 contains quotes within these chapters (incl. Isa. 40:11,15,29,31; 41:10,17; 43:1,2,4,7,21,25; 44:6; 45:12,18,21; 49:15-16; 51:6,8; 55:7,9). (One wonders why the author of Paper 97 curtailed second Isaiah to only chapters 40 through 55 inclusive, if a third candidate is not suggested for chapters 56 through 66.)

Other scholars, however, provide ample demonstration that the stylistic similarities between the two parts of Isaiah are even more significant than the alleged differences, and that these comparatively small differences are easily accounted for by the change in situation which confronted Isaiah in his later years, and by the maturing of his literary genius.[4] The strongest argument for the unity of Isaiah is the phrase “the Holy One of Israel,” a description of God given 12 times in chapters 1-39 and 14 times in chapters 40-66. Other than in Isaiah, this expression appears in the Old Testament only six times. Also, many striking verbal parallels between the two parts can be seen that cannot be attributed to by two different authors separated by time (e.g., 1:5-6 w. 53:4-5; 5:27 w. 40:30; 6:1 w. 52:13; 11:1 w. 53:2; 11:12 w. 49:22; 35:10 w. 51:11).

But if that is not enough to raise the reader’s suspicions, consider this: if the “second” Isaiah was author of chapters forty through fifty-five inclusive, then that implies that the “first” Isaiah was the author of all other chapters, including chapters 1-39 and 56-66. And if such is the case, then we have yet another conundrum on our hands, folks. Below are quoted some of The UB’s loftier impressions of the “second” Isaiah, with the verses cited from Isaiah in brackets:

“Listen to his [Second Isaiah’s] portrayal of Deity: ‘I am the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity [Isa. 57:15].’ . . . ‘And the Lord’s hand is not shortened that it cannot save, neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear [Isa. 59:1].’” (97:7.9)

“Hear this great Hebrew demolish the concept of a national God while in glory he proclaims the divinity of the Universal Father, of whom he says, ‘The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool [Isa. 66:1].’ . . . The concept of the angry, vengeful, and jealous Yahweh of the desert Bedouins has almost vanished. A new concept of the supreme and universal Yahweh has appeared in the mind of mortal man, never to be lost to human view. The realization of divine justice has begun the destruction of primitive magic and biologic fear.” (97:7.11)

“And this preacher of a supernal God never ceased to proclaim this God of love. ‘I dwell in the high and holy place, also with him who is of a contrite and humble spirit’ [Isa. 57:15]. And still further words of comfort did this great teacher speak to his contemporaries: ‘And the Lord will guide you continually and satisfy your soul. You shall be like a watered garden and like a spring whose waters fail not [Isa. 58:11]. And if the enemy shall come in like a flood, the spirit of the Lord will lift up defense against him [Isa. 59:19].’ And once again did the fear-destroying gospel of Melchizedek and the trust-breeding religion of Salem shine forth for the blessing of mankind.” (97:7.12; emphasis original)

Why is Isaiah Number Two attributed to penning these verses, and not Isaiah Number One? Did not the “Melchizedek of Nebadon” clearly state that the “second Isaiah” was the author of “chapters forty to fifty-five inclusive” (97:7.4)? It seems that the author of Paper 97 should have hired a better editor! Aside from the obvious lack of credibility regarding the “Two-Isaiah’ theory, such sloppy exegesis makes one also question the authenticity of Paper 79’s contention that Machiventa Melchizedek ever existed, much less have influenced any of the Hebrew prophets.

There is one last point I wish to make regarding Paper 97’s treatment of Isaiah at this time. Many passages of Isaiah also proclaim the coming of Messiah, a king of Davidic lineage who would restore the earthly kingdom forever, and of a desert wanderer who would announce the arrival of the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world. Matthew 12:17-21 indicates that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy found in Isaiah 42:1-4 regarding God’s chosen servant. Matthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4 iterate John the Baptist’s fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3. And John 12:38-41 recognizes Jesus as Messiah, in fulfillment of Isaiah verses 53:1 and 6:10, pertaining to the unbelief of the people. You will not find any of these fulfilled prophecies acknowledged in Part IV of The UB, as one of the overall themes therein is to distance Jesus of The UB from the role of Messiah. After all, this admission, too, would lend credence to the prophetic authority of Scripture, which runs counter to the position held by our alleged “celestial” authors.

Matchless Moses

The author of Paper 97, in Section 9, presents a brief history of the Jews which makes it clear that the historical events of the Jews as recorded in the O.T. bear little resemblance to the facts. In rewriting their history, the Jews turned their history into a fictitious and sacred history. A few examples of the stories in the Old Testament will illustrate their fictitious nature. [97:8.7]

Here is our cue for things to come. Let’s dig in! But before we do, take note: nothing that is to be presented below comes from Section 9 of Paper 97, as was cited above. Because this section is not addressed in Cook’s treatise, and for the sake of brevity, I will disregard the temptation to provide any discussion thereof in this treatise.

Moses and the Pharaoh. The Hebrews were understandingly bitter regarding their long period of enslavement in Egypt by the Pharaohs. While they had not the military means to satisfy their desire for revenge, they could create a story in which a Pharaoh was thoroughly humiliated, time after time, but during which the Hebrews, in every instance, were miraculously protected by the Lord. The following fictitious story depicts the total humiliation of a Pharaoh brought about by a conspiracy between Moses and the Lord. The Lord tells Moses to request the Pharaoh to permit the Hebrews to leave Egypt. But, says the Lord: “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.” The Lord continues: “I will then empower you to perform a miracle.” Moses requests the Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go. The Lord hardens the heart of the Pharaoh so that he refuses. Then follows the miracle in which the rods become serpents. The serpent produced by Aaron’s rod swallows the serpents produced by the rods of the wise men and sorcerers.

And so it goes for the remaining fictitious miracles designed to demonstrate the power of the Lord over the Pharaoh: In each instance Moses requests the Pharaoh to let his people go. In each instance the Lord hardens the heart of the Pharaoh so that he refuses. In retribution upon the Pharaoh the Lord enables Moses to smite the people with a series of plagues: the waters are turned into blood; the rivers bring forth frogs abundantly; the dust of the land becomes lice; a grievous swarm of flies corrupts the land; all the cattle of Egypt die; the boils upon man and beast; the thunder, grievous hail, and fire that ran along on the ground and upon every man and beast who did not take cover; the locusts that covered the face of the whole earth; the thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days; the death of all the firstborn of the Egyptians, but none of the firstborn of the Hebrews died because of the special instructions the Lord gave to the Hebrews [the Passover].

Other stories regarding Moses and the Hebrews are equally fictitious: The Lord did not part the Red Sea as the Hebrews were fleeing Egypt; the Lord did not come down among the Hebrews on a daily basis to provide them with food and water; there was no pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. [Exodus 7:1 - 14:31--KJV] [Exodus 16:1-35] [Exodus 17:2-6]

It should be duly noted that the various miraculous accounts described in the Book of Exodus and cited above as “fictitious” are not overtly denied in The UB. Ms. Cook is merely conjecturing that these miracles did not take place, nor were they necessary, based on the “true account” provided by the “celestial revelators,” as summarized below:

The true story of how the Hebrews escaped the Egyptians is: While the Egyptian military forces were distracted by invasions both from the south and the north, Moses, the intrepid organizer, led his compatriots out of Egypt in a spectacular night flight. [Exodus 14:13-31] [96:3:5]

Below is the verbatim account provided in Paper 96 regarding the Hebrews’ flight from Egyptian captivity under the “opportunistic” leadership of Moses:

“[W]hen the Egyptian military forces were fully occupied in resisting the simultaneous onslaughts of a strong Libyan thrust from the south and a Greek naval invasion from the north, this intrepid organizer led his compatriots out of Egypt in a spectacular night flight. This dash for liberty was carefully planned and skillfully executed. And they were successful, notwithstanding that they were hotly pursued by Pharaoh and a small body of Egyptians, who all fell before the fugitives’ defense, yielding much booty, all of which was augmented by the loot of the advancing host of escaping slaves as they marched on toward their ancestral desert home.” (96:3.5)

Alas, the Melchizedek of Nebadon is apparently in need of a simple lesson in geography.

It is perhaps from a popular book of the 1930s, now known for its propensity to weave tall tales regarding ancient Hebrew history, that we may derive the kernel from which sprouted the idea behind the covert escape of the Hebrews from the mighty grip of the Egyptian Pharaoh as told in Paper 96. Lewis Browne’s Stranger than Fiction reads with all the authenticity of a fairy tale written to sooth the restless spirit of a youth who is longing for some enchanting entertainment before bedtime. I leave it to the reader to decide whether its similarity is worth considering:

“Hordes of barbaric invaders came charging in from Libya, and bands of ravenous pirates sailed down from the islands of the Mediterranean Sea. Desolation and distress covered the face of all Egypt. . . . And in the confusion, while the Egyptians were straining with all their might to fight off the savage invaders, the Hebrew slaves got away.” (Browne, pp. 29-30)

Page 33 of Browne’s book provides a map depicting pirates from Crete invading Egypt from the northwest and Libyan savages invading from the west. And from this depiction, amusing as it is, we see the geographic error of a Melchizedek’s ways. Libya borders Egypt to the west. A Libyan army would not have attacked Egypt from the south, as the Melchizedek claims, but from the west. A circuitous southern route would take the army deep into the Sahara Desert and into Sudanese territory (formerly called Nubia), which was occupied by a strong Nubian kingdom at the time. And although Browne’s account at least gets its geography correct, it would still be extremely burdensome for a Libyan army to attack Egypt directly from the west, which would require the invading army to traverse hundreds of miles of open Saharan desert before reaching the populace of Egypt along the relatively narrow strand of the Nile Valley. The only way to avoid the desert would be to hug the coast, which would render the invading army extremely vulnerable to early detection.

Of course, when human authors such as Lewis Browne wrote their treatises on the evolution of religious thought, they were merely conjecturing what may have been, based on a limited scope of knowledge. But when the same information is repackaged and presented as a revelation from a group of celestial agents who have supposedly been tracking human history from an eyewitness perspective, the subject matter suddenly takes on an air of presumed authoritativeness.

Ghost Writer

On what basis does The UB deny the biblical account of these miracles and that Moses himself did not document these historic events? We have further Documentarian echoes from within:

“There is so little on record of the great work of Moses because the Hebrews had no written language at the time of the exodus. The record of the times and doings of Moses was derived from the traditions extant more than one thousand years after the death of the great leader.” (96:5.2)

If such is the case, then how did all the verses that are quoted in sections 94:4 and 94:5 (I count 7 and 14 verses cited, respectively) and given credit to Moses for having said them get documented verbatim if those who allegedly wrote these verses (most of them from Deuteronomy) did so more than one millennium later? Indeed, Moses’ authorship of Pentateuchal verses is implied as early as Paper 70, where a Melchizedek of Nebadon (the very same one who authored Paper 94?) informs us that “Moses taught that they [the Hebrews] should ‘take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death; he shall surely be put to death’” (70:10.12; citing Leviticus 21:9 and Numbers 35:31).

Authorship of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), or the Pentateuch, is attributed to Moses throughout the Old Testament, including Exodus 17:14, 24:4; Deuteronomy 31:9; Joshua 1:7-8; Second Chronicles 34:14; Ezra 6:18; Daniel 9:11; and Malachi 4:4. Moreover, Jesus quoted from the Pentateuch, attributing the source to Moses in Mark 7:10 and Luke 20:37. The UB, on the other hand, denies Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and organizes the writings around a much later group of priestly scribes and editors. The objective of this denial is apparently to avoid the Old Testament’s accounts of supernatural occurrences and divine authority. The outcome of said denial implicates the Old Testament as a wholly unreliable document and Jesus of the New Testament as a liar. Indeed, Jesus said in the Gospel of John:

“‘If you believed Moses, you would believe me. But if you do not believe his writings, how can you believe my words?’” (John 5:46-57; emphasis added)

Christ’s apostles likewise followed suit, claiming Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, including Peter (Acts 3:22) and Paul (Rom. 10:5). But The UB fervently denies that Moses ever wrote any of it, which implies that Christ and the apostles were totally mistaken in thinking that he did. Such an egregious error as this raises a serious question as to whether any of the theological teachings of Jesus and the apostles can be trusted. In fact, the very authority of Christ Himself is at stake, which makes the question of Mosaic authorship a matter of utmost concern to the Christian.

The denial of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch began as early as the late seventeenth century with Benedict Spinoza, a Portuguese philosopher whose leanings toward anti-supernaturalism prompted him to become one of the first modern intellectuals to engage in higher criticism of the Bible. Spinoza was joined by many other critical scholars throughout the “age of enlightenment,” including Julius Wellhausen of the nineteenth century, the principal inventor of the Documentary Hypothesis. One of the more popular reasons for dismissing Moses from authorship is that which is given by The UB above—that the Hebrews had no written language during Moses’ time.

However, conservative scholars have responded that none of the liberals’ arguments are strong enough to warrant the extraordinary claims and theories that have arisen from them in Old Testament studies, and are outweighed by the stronger reasons for attributing the Pentateuch to Moses. The notion that the Hebrews had no written language at the time of Moses flies in the face of all the archaeological discoveries made over the last century, which inform us that all of Israel’s neighbors kept written records relating to their history and religion from before the time of Moses.[5]

ENDNOTES