These are just some of the names of the first five books of the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible.
In English we have the Five Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
In Hebrew we have the Five Books of בְּרֵאשִׁיתBeresith, שְׁמוֹתShemot,וַיִּקְרָא Wayiqra, בְּמִדְבַּר, Bamidbar, and דְּבָרִים Devarim
In Greek we have the Five Books of γένεσις Genesis, ἔξοδος, Exodos, Λευιτικόν Levitikon, Ἀριθμοί Arithmoi, and Δευτερονόμιον Deuteronomion
In Latin we have the Five Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, and Deuteronomii
As can clearly be seen from this quick run down of the names of the first Five books in the traditional Biblical Languages (I didn't include Aramaic because it uses the exact same square script as Hebrew, and is very similar to Hebrew, and is the least used Biblical language. I did include Latin because Latin was a common language spoken in the Western Roman Empire in Jesus' day; it was one of the languages his "crime" was written in on his titulum, and there is clear usage of Latin loan words transcribed into Greek especially in the Gospel of Mark, to such an extent that some older Catholic divines suggested Mark was possibly originally written in Latin - they reasoned because it had a possible origin of Rome, was written down at the command of St. Peter by his interpreter St. Mark, and the many instances of Latin transcribed in the Greek - but this theory is widely discredited and only very few believe in it to this day.), we get our common English names for them from the Greco-Roman lineage, and not a straight Hebrew-English translation.
Genesis comes from Greek and means "origins"
Exodus comes from Greek and means "going out"
Leviticus comes from Greek and means "instruction of priests[Levites]"
Numbers comes from Greek and means "numbering"
Deuteronomy comes from Greek and means "second Law"
If the ancient translators such as St. Jerome or even early modern English translators of the Douay Rheims and KJV decided to translate the Hebrew titles, we would have the five books of:
Beresith - or "In the beginning"
Shemot - or "These are the names"
Wayiqra - or "He [God] called"
Bamidbar - or "In the desert"
Devarim - or "These are the words"
As you can see, the Hebrew titles for the first five Books are simply the first word or two in the Hebrew, and the Aramaic would be similar. The Greco-Roman and later English assigned titles to the Books instead of simply calling them by their Semitic original names.
I just wanted to start this post with a little background on what we call the Pentateuch (which is a Greek word meaning five books) or Torah (a Hebrew word meaning Law), and to discuss a topic which I have thought, prayed, meditated, and studied about to a great extent.
My personal belief is the belief held by all the Children of Israel and all the Jews, all of the Prophets, Sages, Kings and Saints of the Old Testament believed, what the Priest-Prophet-Saint Ezra and Governor-Prophet-Saint Nehemiah believed. My belief is what the Maccabees believed, my belief is what St. John the Baptist believed. My belief is what the Blessed Virgin Mary believed, what the Lord Jesus Christ believed, and what St. Peter believed. My belief is what St. Paul, who was a most-learned Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus before becoming the most prolific New Testament writer, Apostle to the Gentiles, and great Saint Paul the Apostle believed. My belief is what St. Ignatius, St. Justin, Origen and Tertullian believed. My belief is what Pope St Evaristus believed.
My belief is what Pope-Saints Alexander I and Zephyrinus believed in the second century.
My belief is what Pope-Saints Callixtus I, Marcellus I, Gelasius I, and Pope St. Gregory the Great believed in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries.
My belief about the origin of the Torah, the time and place it was written, who wrote it, where he got it from, and What and Who its true origin and Author were, is the same belief held by Blessed Pope Pius IX and St. Pope Pius X believed in the 19th and 20th centuries.
My belief in the origin of the Pentateuch is the same belief held by the Apostles, Popes, and Doctors of the Church, from the first century with St. Peter, St. James, St. John, all of the Twelve, all of the Seventy Two Apostles, St. Pope Clement I - to the Apostolic Fathers, Church Fathers, Popes, Doctors and Saints of the second, third, fourth, fifth centuries, sixth, and seventh centuries St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Leonides, St. Plutarch, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Jerome, St Augustine, St. Anselm, St. John Chrysostom, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Pope Leo the Great, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Basil the Great, St. Bede the Venerable.
My belief is the same as the Prophets, Priests, Kings, Sages and Scribes held before Christ, the same as Our Lord Jesus, Our Blessed Mother Mary, and Holy St. Joseph, all of the 12 Apostles and 72 Disciples, and all of the Popes, Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, Doctors of the Church and Saints held unanimously until the 19th century.
My belief is that of 100% of the Doctors of the Church, from St. Athanasius the Great born at the end of the third century, to St. Therese of Lisieux, born and died just before the dawn of the 20th century.
My belief is what the Pontifical Biblical Commission addressed in a series of questions on June 27th, 1906.
My belief is this - Genesis is an account which Moses wrote at the command and inspiration of God while on Mt. Sinai. It also contains earlier oral and possibly written traditions which Moses may have had access to. It was written by Moses and Aaron, either around 1,450-1,400 B.C. (my personal belief and the more traditional belief) or around 1,250-1,200 B.C. (a tenable and orthodox belief, but more modern). After Moses had substantially authored what we have as the Book of Genesis today, it was passed down through Joshua and his successors, through the Judges and down through the Kings and the Prophets in the Courts of the Kings of Israel and Judah. It would have originally been written by Moses in either Paleo-Hebrew script (one of two traditional Jewish beliefs - the other and less popular being it was originally written in the Aramaic square script). I personally believe Moses would have written it in Paleo-Hebrew, but it's also possible he originally wrote it in an Egyptian or some other Canaanite, Sinaitic, or Phoenician script, but I think these are all much less likely.
My belief for the authorship of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is the same as my belief in the authorship of Genesis - with a few differences. Moses would not have used any prior oral or written sources for these four books, as the Revelation contained in them came straight through Moses from God. The only questionable part, and again this is spoken of in Rabbinic tradition, is the ending of Deuteronomy which records Moses' death - some Rabbis believed Joshua wrote it, some believed God revealed it to Moses and he wrote it. My personal belief is that Moses wrote it, but to believe either Moses or Joshua wrote it is perfectly traditional, Catholic and Orthodox.
So we've established what 100% of the Doctors of the Church, 100% of the pre-Christian Prophets, 100% of the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, and Nicene Fathers believed. We've established what the vast majority of all Popes down to the present day have believed, and most importantly we know what Our Lord and Our Lady believed. These all believed that the first Five Books, the Torah, were written by Moses. Whether Moses used previous oral or written sources for Genesis, what Script he wrote in, and whether he wrote the end of Deuteronomy have always been debated - but the fact of Mosaic authorship never was.
Fast forward to the Year of our Lord 1753. The place is Paris, France. The person is a French Priest named Jean Astruc. In the previous century, atheistic philosophers of cultural Protestant English and Jewish backgrounds - Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza - had started propagating a radical new theory. Baruch believed that Moses was not the author of the Torah and instead if was Ezra, and Hobbes believed certain passages must have been added later. Spinoza and Hobbes planted the seeds which led Fr. Jean Astruc to come up with the theory that there were at least two sources used by Moses, determined whether the Divine Name of Elohim was used or whether the Ineffable Name of YHWH was used. Fr. Astruc arranged these differences in four columns, and said it was a type of prefiguring the four gospels. Fr. Astruc I believe was a good, orthodox, holy, Catholic Priest. But he took ideas from previous people who certainly did not believe in the Revelation to Moses at Sinai, and he laid the framework for something in the middle of the 18th century which was bound to become an unstoppable train in the 19th century.
In the 19th century, with the advent of Charles Darwin, and naturalistic Darwinian scientism in its infancy, a liberal Protestant German Bible scholar named Julius Wellhausen, in the Year of our Lord 1878, published his book Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels ("Prolegomena to the History of Israel"), in which he proposed his still used "JEDP-R" or "Documentary Hypothesis" of the origin of the Pentateuch. This JEDP theory is what is taught to seminarians in all Catholic universities as far as I know - except maybe FSSP or SSPX, I am not sure. In the 20th century, other theories emerged like the "supplementary hypothesis", but none has caught on or replaced JEDP. What is still being taught is essentially what Wellhausen taught, with some variations.
Some scholars believe J - the "Jahwist", for his/her/their use of the Divine Name YHWH, was either a man, a woman, or a school of priests/prophets/sages - depending on which scholar you ask, you will get a different answer, because these scholars are not proclaiming Gospel Truth - they are proclaiming scholarly conjecture based on educated guesses. Some believe this Jahwist wrote in the southern Kingdom of Judah sometime between the 10th and 8th centuries, some placing him/her/them in the court of David, some placing them/her in as late as King Hezekiah.
Next up we have E -the "Elohist", for his/her/their usage of the Hebrew word Elohim - the plural word which can be translated either God or gods, depending on context - or sometimes even divine beings or strong/mighty. The "Elohist" whoever he, she, or they were, supposedly wrote sometime in the middle of the 9th century, although again, some say they could have written as late as the 5th century.
Moving right along, we have D - the "Deuteronomist". This one is my favorite. The Deuteronomist, whoever he, she, or they were, supposedly wrote in the 7th, 6th, or 5th century during a period of religious reform, either under Josiah when he supposedly found "the book of the Law" in the temple - although many of these scholars claim Josiah directed his "prophets" to forge a document so he could gain political power - or sometime directly before, during, or after the exile. Again, you can see how accurate these scholarly theories truly are.
The last two "authors" we have are the Priestly author(s) and the Redactor(s). The Priestly source was supposedly written by a Priest of the Kohanim while the Jews were in Exile in Babylon in the 6th century - most place the date closer to 500 B.C., though it can range from 600 - 300 B.C., depending on scholar. Also, depending on the scholar, it can be one Priest, which some have speculated could have been Ezekiel or Ezra, or it could have been a school of Priests. As far as I know, it has not yet been suggested it was a group of Priestesses of YHWH's "wife" Asherah - although I am certain some "scholars" probably believe this.
And finally, we have the Redactor(s). This person, or persons, this group of men and/or women or this man/woman, supposedly took all the previous works written between the 10th-8th and the 6th-4th, and sometime in the 4th, 3rd or 2nd century compiled them and circulated them in the form we have them in today.
Now that I have actually explained what these scholars actually believe and teach, and which Saints and Doctors of the Church have believed, what are you more inclined to believe?
Now, the Church, in Her infinite wisdom, beginning with Pope Leo XIII, was aware of these developments in scholarship. The Church at first vehemently opposed historical-critical scholarship, but Pope Leo XIII was somewhat open to it - though on very reserved terms. Pope Leo XIII released his encyclical Providentissimus Deus "On the Study of Holy Scripture", on November 18th, A.D. 1893. This encyclical was very guarded and conservative, and mainly critical of the critics, but also slightly opened the doors a little wider for historical criticism.
Then came Pope St. Pius X, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and the Oath against modernism, and it seemed as though JEDP and historical-critical scholarship would be forever stamped out from Catholic scholarship...
Then came the Venerable Pope Pius XII. This venerable and holy Pontiff was so sure of the Divinity and Sanctity and Truth of the Sacred Scriptures, that he essentially said "bring it on" to the world. He issued his groundbreaking encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu - "Inspired by the Divine Spirit" - on September 30th, A.D. 1943 - on the feast of St. Jerome. This encyclical opened the doors for scholars of all stripes, from liberal leaning borderline heterodox such as Father Raymond Brown (God rest his soul, and reward him for his labors), to staunchly traditional and conservative scholars such as Lawrence Cardinal Shehan (God rest His Eminence's soul and reward him for his labors), to choose to either use the historical critical method to pick at and, seemingly sometimes, disprove the Scriptures, or some to use the historical-critical method how Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has used it - to try to understand what may have happened and how the Scriptures may possibly have developed.
The year of Our Lord 1943 and Divino Afflante Spiritu were only the beginnings of a new era in Catholic Biblical scholarship however - Catholic Bibles in America did not start seriously incorporating historical-critical inspired commentary until after the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the Infallible Magisterial Document Dei Verbum - the Word of God.
There have been many more developments in the decades since Vatican II, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) has changed very much from it's early days, with major changes occurring in 1971 and 1988 under the Pontificates of St. Pope Paul VI and St. Pope John Paul the Great. The Church has fully embraced historical criticism, and I have no problem with the Church, in Her Infinite Wisdom and Absolute Authority, doing so.
My issue with it is this however - when you pick up a Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible or New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) - you are presented with commentary, introductions and footnotes, which are often presented as though they were gospel truth or the only reasonable thing to believe. My wish and prayer for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the Catholic Biblical Association (CBA), and the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) - the three entities responsible for the translation, editing and authorship of commentary, and copyrights and publishing of the New American Bible - which is the only Bible authorized for use in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite in Diocese of America - would be for them to either revise the notes and introductions in the Bibles they release to American Catholics, or to offer two different versions.
Instead of simply saying "Matthew is not the author of the Gospel given his name", and then presenting the Marcan priority and Q-theory, two source hypothesis as though they were gospel truth, they should run a quick outline of what the traditional Catholic theory of authorship is - which is basically the Augustinian hypothesis - then offer up alternative modern theories.
Likewise, they ought to do the same for the Old Testament, specifically the Pentateuch, but also the Prophetical books, especially Isaiah and Daniel.
There have been volumes upon volumes written on this subject, but I hope I have given you at least some food for thought with this blog post.
I will end with posting some links - some are to Protestant websites which can contain some good scholarship and/or apologetics of traditional Catholic belief - some to Catholic websites discussing the history and current state of Catholic Biblical scholarship.
Modern Catholic answer to the question of Mosaic authorship of the Torah
Arguments for Mosaic authorship from a Christian Apologetics website
More arguments and apologetics in support of traditional biblical authorship belief
Article dealing with scholarship of Father Raymond Brown (RIP)
Detailed article on Catholic Biblical Scholarship
I hope this article has been thought provoking and will be a blessing to someone,
God bless us all, and please pray for me,
+Yours in Christ,
Jason Michael Spyridon Prewara+
No comments:
Post a Comment