Did Moses Really Write the Torah?

Overview: Evidence to demonstrate the antiquity of much of Torah yet showing how Moses couldn’t have been the only author of the Torah, as proven by a number of rabbinic sources, and the consequences of such a belief.

When it comes to the authorship of the world’s greatest best-seller, the Bible, two extreme stances were taken. The Bible Critic is adamant that the Torah (i.e., the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses) was written in several different stages throughout the Monarchy of the First Temple era and added upon in the Babylonian exile and afterwards. On the other extreme stands the theologically Orthodox Jew or Christian adamant that Moses wrote every word in the Torah and that God dictated to Moses exactly what to write. This religious view would date the Torah to sometime in the late second-millennium BCE.

In this article we will attempt to demonstrate how both of these views are ill-founded and that a middle-path seems much more courteous to the evidence available. There is ample evidence of an early composition of much of Torah, with even more evidence for a later date as well. This would indicate several hands in the authorship of Torah, one stratum dating to the late second-millennium BCE, with another to the Monarchial and exilic eras of the first-millennium BCE. Who is exactly these authors were remains impossible to determine at this point in time.

 

Mosaic authorship

The Torah speaks with much familiarity to the second-millennium BCE, the time that Moses would have written the Torah shortly after the Exodus from Egypt. We will go through a few points that demonstrate that at least parts of the Torah were written much before the Monarchy. Later, we will go through parts of the Torah that were are clearly of a later period in time.

The Torah seems to be a collection of different documents stitched together into a single book. Much of it is claimed to have been written by Moses (Ex. 17:14, 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9) and the detailed account of the Exodus seems to be an account of a contemporary to the events being described. Even if a later author would have wrote the story, or added thereon, the author definitely claims that the laws contained in this Torah are from Moses. Is there any credibility to this claim of Mosaic authorship to at least parts of Torah? That’s what we will now explore.

The evidence discussed here is sidelining the general argument for the divine-inspiration to Torah argued in “The Torah: Divinely-Inspired or Man-Made”, although that is certainly a strong argument in favor of Mosaic authorship. However, that argument isn’t included in this list since that is more about divine-inspiration rather than specifically Mosaic authorship. Also, there is ample evidence against a divinely-inspired Torah for others sections of the Torah documents – see here.

1. The general background of the Exodus narrative and the aftermath seems to show a good familiarity with the Egyptian context of the second-millennium BCE, when the Exodus would have occurred. This is discussed at length in “Exodus on Trial: Were the Israelites Enslaved in Egypt.”

In fact, the Torah uses more Egyptian words than any other book in Tanakh, implying an Egyptian backdrop to time of the writing of the Torah.^[i] It also describes Egyptian culture and environment with such clarity that it seems unlikely for scribes in Monarchal Israel to know of these details and to write of them.^[1] It also uses Egyptian geographical markers[2] as well as the Levites having Egyptian names.[3]

 

2. Deuteronomy’s Covenant structure is strikingly similar to the covenants/treaties made in the second-millennium BCE, and different in many ways from the later first-millennium BCE covenants.^[4] The Suzerainty treaty^[5] elements of the Deuteronomy Covenant indicate its antique origins to the second-millennium BCE treaty styles, whereas at later times – the era that the Bible Critic believes the Torah was written in – the treaties would have looked much different.^[ii]

 

3. Ancient memories are recorded in throughout the biblical narrative, suggesting an early composition or oral tradition from times preceding the monarchical era. One example is the memory of Sodom being destroyed in 1600 BCE and another is the dominance of Sidon – but not Tyre – in the Phoenician city coastal cities. Sodom was destroyed by a meteorite some 3,600 years ago, about the time of its biblical recording in Gen. 19.[6] Another ancient geopolitical reality described is in Genesis 10:15-18 which describe Sidon as the Phenician regional power with no mention of Tyre whatsoever. This reflects Moses’ times far better than it does the Monarchial era at which point Tyre was already a rivaling city-state (and mentioned numerously in the Monarchial era Prophets).

 

4. The actions of the patriarchs in Genesis are greatly opposed to the biblical Law. Abraham marries his half-sister (Gen. 20:12 – which is prohibited in Lev. 18:11) and Jacob marries his sister-in-law (Gen. 29 – which is prohibited in Lev. 18:18). If this were all written later, then why would they write the story this way? It would contradict the legal system that they were trying to set up. This would obviously cause a political nightmare.

 

5. The other books of Tanakh, including to the early books, make frequent mention of the Torah’s history of the Jews, implying ancient origins of these stories that were well-engrained in the Israelite culture. For instance, the prophets mention the Garden of Eden (Is. 51:3), Noah (Is. 54:9), Abraham (Ezek. 33:24; Is. 29:22), Sodom (Ezek. 16:46ff; Zeph. 2:9; Hos. 11:8), Jacob buying land (Josh. 24:32), the Exodus (Hos. 11:1; Mic. 6:4; Ezek. 20:5-7; Amos 2:10), Israel’s history (Ps. 78, 105, 106, 135, 136), plagues in Egypt (Amos 4:10), and many other aspects of the Pentateuch’s history. These are just throwaway, casual allusions to the Pentateuch, as though the authors took these events for granted.

 

6. The names of biblical characters can tell us much about the time period that these figures existed in, or at least were written about in. Had a late author written the Pentateuch, we would expect him to integrate the names his society would have been familiar with. In Monarchal Israel, theophoric names – names that include some form of God’s name – were the most common names.^[7] Yet, throughout the Pentateuch – as well as the later period of the Judges until about the times of King David – there are almost no theophoric names!^[8] This is very surprising, if the Torah was written at a time when those were the most popular names. This would suggest that these figures were indeed from a different time and era than Monarchal Israel.^[9]

Furthermore, the names Abram, Levi, Zebulun, and perhaps Isaac and Jacob are Amorite in origin rather than Semitic. These Amorite names date to the early second-millennium BCE, the time that these figures are claimed to have existed. It would be rather surprising for a first-millennium BCE writer in Monarchal Israel to give these names to the patriarchs that would have been very rare at the time.^[iii]

 

Post Mosaic additions to the Torah

This extremely popular subject is rarely addressed in Orthodox communities and the questions surrounding it are generally thrown under the rug. Mainstream Orthodox views the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses, as a product of Moses who wrote the words God told him to write. This view isn’t ill-founded and can be found in many major rabbinic works including opinions in the Talmud and later commentators like Rashi. But as surprising as this may sound to many, there are many proofs and rabbinic sources for the fact that Moses didn’t write the entire Torah. Other parts were added by unknown Prophets and leaders.

Orthodox fundamentalists are quick to reject this as heresy and unbiblical, but the sources would suggest otherwise. In this chapter we will prove how such views are not heretical and alien to rabbinic Judaism. In fact, we will show the likelihood of the Torah being written by others besides for Moses. Internal evidence shows over and over again the likelihood of other authors besides for Moses. These authors were prophets or sages of a later time. Of course there is no reason for this to change our understanding of the divinity of Torah which stands regardless if Moses was the sole author or not.

But before getting to the internal evidence for multi-authorship (i.e. that a few people wrote the Torah) versus Mosaic-authorship (i.e. that Moses alone wrote the Torah), we will first need to clear a few things out of the way.

First off, although tradition has it that Moses alone wrote the Torah, that bares no weight against internal evidence in the document that suggest otherwise. There are many misconceptions that can evolve into “tradition.” It is hardly objective to pay much heed to tradition alone. Sometimes we must put away our traditions and notions we were brought up with and look at the facts on the table.

Secondly, let’s see what the Torah itself writes about its author. Well, the problem is that it doesn’t write about its author. Like most documents of ancient times, the Torah does not bare the signature of its writer. At a few points, the Torah does say that Moses wrote “this Torah.”^[iv] The problem, however, is that what we refer to today as “the Torah” was not called “the Torah” back then. When we say “Torah” nowadays we usually refer to what is known as The Five Books of Moses. But in biblical times it is clear that “Torah” meant a set of laws.^[v] So whenever it says that Moses “wrote this Torah” it is going on a set of laws just spoken about—not the entire Torah. Overtime the term “Torah” developed to now include the entire Five Books of Moses since they contain many “Torahs”, meaning many set of laws.

In fact the Torah tells us to listen to “the Torah” being read at the Hakhel gathering every 7 years in Jerusalem.^[vi] And the Mishna^[vii] explains “the Torah” to be going on specific sets of laws described in the book of Deuteronomy—not the entire Torah.

So true, the Torah does state that Moses wrote down “the Torah” but that is only going on a specific set of laws described before that.^[10] So it is clear that Moses wrote much of the Torah, specifically the laws and commandments. But exactly how much he wrote is unclear, but we can speculate, as we shall later discuss.

The Prophets and Writings do refer to the “Book of Moses”^[viii] seemingly implying that Moses wrote the Torah. But that doesn’t have to be the case as we can easily explain this to mean the Torah that contains the laws of Moses. It doesn’t have to mean that he wrote the entire text of Torah.

The doctrine of Mosaic authorship in Judaism may, perhaps, be vaguer than we think. Such as when the Talmud^[ix] states that one must believe torah min hashamayim, that Torah is from Heaven, it doesn’t mean that Moses wrote it but rather that the Torah is %100 accurate and divinely inspired. To that extent, the Talmud proceeds to exclaim that all “kal v’chomers” and “gezera shavas” are from Sinai, despite the obvious fact that these were rabbinically articulated derivations. Yet they are still regarded as being “from heaven” in the sense that they are divinely-inspired, being a part of the religiously-sanctioned rabbinic authorities (Deut. 17:9-12) and a part of the fundamental principles of derivation attributed to Sinai (see here).

 

Is this a heretical belief?

This cannot be regarded heretical since sages in the Talmud and later great rabbinic commentators are to adapt the multi-authorship approach.

The Talmud^[x] asks how Moses could have described his own death in the Torah being that he already died. One opinion is that he wrote about his death prophetically. But other opinion is that indeed he hasn’t written about it. Instead, it was his student and successor, Joshua, who wrote the last 8 verses in the Torah describing Moses’ death.

The Talmud gives this suggestion only regarding the last 8 verses. But following the same logic, later rabbinic commentators extended this idea to other verses where Mosaic-authorship was problematic. The Talmud possibly only addressed those 8 verses since over there it is most clear how problematic the Mosaic-authorship was. But that doesn’t mean that there cannot be more examples.^[11]

Later rabbinic commentators who suggested multi-authorship includes Ibn Ezra (who wrote that “many believe” in multi-authorship),^[xi] Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid,^[xii] Ramban as understood by Abarbanel,^[xiii] R’ Shlomo ben Shmuel HaTzrafati,^[xiv] and possibly Radak^[xv] among others.^[12]

So clearly this position cannot be regarded as heretical, especially since it has strong proofs from verses in the Torah itself, as we shall soon discuss.^[13]

However, it can be argued that only narrative sections of Torah can be attributed to non-Mosaic authors. The law sections, however, must be of Mosaic authorship, according to Orthodox belief. This is because Deut. 12:31 prohibits adding to the Torah laws. Thus, claiming otherwise, may in fact be heretical. Yes despite its heretical nature, I do not shy away from the strong possibility that parts of the Law section of Torah are of non-Mosaic sources, based on various arguments (see here).

 

How much of Torah did Moses write?

If we assume at least partial Mosaic authorship, we still cannot determine exactly which parts he wrote. There are parts that are explicitly attributed to him (e.g. the laws at Sinai^[xvi] and the end of Deuteronomy^[xvii] among other chapters^[xviii]). An Orthodox perspective must assume that he wrote all the laws and commandments which is why there exists a prohibition against adding or subtracting from the laws of the Torah.^[xix]

Being that there’s a strong tradition for Mosaic-authorship—a tradition shared by Jews, Christians, and Muslims—we can suggest that perhaps major sections of it were written by him, although this would be more a matter of faith than evidence. Furthermore, this tradition of Mosaic authorship goes back even into biblical times of antiquity where the “Torah Law” is attributed to Moses.^[xx] (However, to counter this argument is the point of traditional fallacies. Traditions often develop under mistaken assumptions until they become a widespread myth. One analogous example is the oft-cited authorship of Psalms attributed to King David. In reality, many Psalms are internally attributed to other figures. The same may be for Mosaic authorship for the entirety of Torah, despite the evidence that much of it couldn’t have been written by him.)

Moreover, the details provided regarding the Exodus narrative and the sojourn in the Wilderness suggests that it was written by a contemporary, possibly Moses, who witnessed the events. A later author would have a hard time knowing all those detailed pieces of information.

Based on all these reasons, it wouldn’t be ridiculous to suggest that Moses wrote at least large parts of Torah.^[14]

 

Moses took from earlier documents

The Midrash implies that Moses took information from earlier works that were being preserves by the Israelites in Egypt and one of these books were called Bereshis (Genesis).^[xxi] Also the Torah itself references an earlier work that it takes from. “This is the Book of the Begotings (toldoth in Heb.) of Man…” (Genesis 5:1). This would suggest that even Moses or whatever author wrote Genesis would have taken much of their work from earlier sources as the Midrash and the verse indicate. See Targum Yonatan on Exodus 17:14 where he describes Moses writing (seemingly part of the Torah) “in the book of the elders.”

 

Evidence for multi-authorship

First off, it’s important note that the practice of multi-authorship was very common in ancient times as authors wouldn’t sign their name in the document. The document would then go through generations of scribes each adding to the document.

Bible critics are often biased, with a clear anti-Torah agenda in mind. But despite that, they have done much scholarly work in analyzing the Torah’s text to realize that there are differences in terminology and style-wording. Much of their hypotheses are based on thin air but they do have a strong point for multi-authorship. Based on our multi-authorship approach, this poses no issue to a belief in Torah.

When the Five Books of Torah are compared to one another on linguistic grounds, it becomes clear that very different writing styles, writing preferences, and word usages are present in different sections in Torah.

For example, the books of Leviticus and Numbers consistently use the phrase “the priests, sons of Aaron,” whereas Deuteronomy uses “the priests, the Levites.” Similarly, the root words “k-t-r” “k-r-v” and “sh-ch-t” are consistently used throughout Leviticus and Numbers concerning sacrifices, whereas in Deuteronomy the term “z-v-ch” is exclusively used.  If Moses was the sole author of Torah, why would he have different writing styles and word preferences?

For Mosaic-authorship, the apparent terminology differences can be explained by clarifying what “Mosaic authorship” means here. It could be that Moses had a number of scribes under his command, as did all kings back then while the document is still attributed to them. It can also be that Moses’ own way of writing developed over the years. Moses wrote the Torah throughout 40 years (see Talmud Gittin 60a). So the documents he wrote in the beginning may appear different than the ones he wrote after 40 years of developing his writing and changing his choice-of-words.

 

Now let’s get to the verses that imply a post-Mosaic authorship.

 

And Abram passed through the land, until the place of Shechem, until the plain of Moreh, and the Canaanites were then in the land.

(Genesis 12:6)

The Canaanites were then in the land implies that this is in contrast to now (i.e. the time of the author) when they are not in the land. However, in the times of Moses, the Canaanites were still inhabiting the future Land of Israel. It was only many generations later that the Israelites replaced the Canaanites in that land. Therefore, we must conclude, that the author was writing this well after Moses’ death, at a time when the Canaanites no longer inhabited the Land, and he therefore found the need to write that “the Canaanites were then in the land.”^[15]

 

And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued [them] until Dan.

(Genesis 14:14)

The city of Dan was only named so at a later point in history after Moses’ death.^[xxii] Therefore the author would have had to have been much after Moses’ times in order to reference the city of Dan.

However this may be answered by suggesting that this is referring to a different city with the name Dan, as some cities tend to share names with others. Therefore this is not a strong proof at all for multi-authorship.

 

And Abraham named that place, The Lord will see, as it is said nowadays: On the mountain, the Lord will be seen.

(Genesis 22:14)

This is a reference to Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem, the mount that was to eventually become the ground for the Holy Temple.^[xxiii] This is why the verse describes that people nowadays (i.e. in the times of the author) describe the mount as the place that the Lord will be seen (i.e. when they pilgrimage to Jerusalem). Now, at Moses’ times, the Israelites still haven’t entered the Land and didn’t even know of a place called Jerusalem.^[16] So this must have been written by another author who lived at the times of the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

And these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel.

(Genesis 36:31)

The wording seems to imply that there already is an Israelite king but that the kings of Edom preceded the kings of Israel. The problem is that at the times of Moses, there was no king for the Israelites. Therefore, we must conclude, that this verse/chapter was written by a later author.^[17]

 

And the children of Israel ate the manna for forty years until they came to an inhabited land. They ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan.

(Exodus 16:35)

The Israelites stopped receiving the Manna when they reached the Canaanite border as described in Joshua.^[xxiv] This was after Moses’ death, so it would be ironic for Moses himself to have written this.^[18]

 

These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel on the other side of the Jordan [river], in the desert, in the plain opposite the Red Sea, between Paran and Tofel and Lavan and Hazeroth and Di Zahav.

(Deuteronomy 1:1)

Israel/Canaan is separated from Jordan by a river known as the Jordan River. The “other side of the Jordan [river]” was a reference to literally the other side of that river. Moses, for some reason, chose to write “the other side” of the river when describing the place where he was at that very time of his writing of the Torah!^[19] This would determine that evidently the Torah was written in Israel at a later time in history when the place the Moses spoke to the Israelites was actually “on the other side of the Jordan river.”^{[20] [21] [22]}

 

And the Horites formerly dwelt in Seir, and the children of Esau were driving them out, and they exterminated them from before them and dwelt in their stead, just as the Israelites did to the land of their inheritance, which the Lord gave them.

(Deuteronomy 2:12)

This verse describes the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites in the past tense, implying that the conquest already happened. Being that the conquest only happened after Moses’ death, we can conclude that a different author, who lived after the conquest, wrote this verse.^[23]

 

For only Og, king of Bashan, was left from the remnant of the [giant] Rephaim. His bedstead was a bedstead of iron; which can now be found in the city of Rabbah in the land of Ammon. Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the cubit of a man.

(Deuteronomy 3:11)

The author of this verse describes the giant bed of Og and says that it can now be found in the city of Rabbah in Amon. Now, this war against Og was waged during the 40^th year in the Wilderness, the same year that Moses wrote the Torah. So how did this bed make its way to Amon in this short amount of time? Additionally, the Israelites were prohibited from entering the land of Ammon,^[xxv] making it even more unlikely that the bed made its way there during Moses’ life. So it must be that this verse was added by a later author who lived at a time when the bed already made its way to Ammon.^[24]

 

Jair the son of Manasseh took all the territory of Argob to the boundaries of the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and he called them, the land of Bashan, after his own name, villages of Jair, to this day.

(Deuteronomy 3:14)

The verse tells us that the land of Bashan, conquered by the clan of Jair son of Manasseh, was named after their patriarch Jair son of Manasseh. They called the land “the villages of Jair.” The verse continues that those lands still have that name until this very day.

Now, being that the conquest happened at the last year before Moses’ death, it would seem strange why Moses found the need to say that the villages still bare the name they were given a mere few months earlier. A simple implication of the verse is that the author is writing this at a much later period, and he tells his readers that even to this day it still bears the name given to it back in the days of Moses.^[25] [26]

 

And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him. And the children of Israel obeyed him, and they did as the Lord had commanded Moses.

(Deuteronomy 34:9)

This past tense description of the Israelites accepting the leadership of Joshua seems to be a post-occurrence description of what happened. Being that Moses died before the Israelites took Joshua as their new leader it is unlikely that this verse was written by Moses himself.

 

“And Moses died… and was buried.”

“And no man knows the [area of] his burial to this day.”

“Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses — whom the Lord singled out, face to face”

(Deuteronomy 34:5-10).

These are the last verses of the Torah. They describe the death and burial of Moses. From the wording it seems that the author is writing about something that happened much before his times. This is why he uses the expression that no one knows his burial “to this day.”^[27] Additionally, he writes everything in the past tense implying that they already happened. Also, the author seems to be saying that although so much time passed, still there was never a Prophet like Moses. If it was written only in the days of Joshua, this wouldn’t be a surprise that “never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses.” It therefore seems that these verses were written well after many generations since Moses’ passing.

Some might insist that Moses was writing this prophetically because God told him that he was going to die and be buried at a spot that people don’t know and that no prophet will surpass him. But there is no reason to insist on Mosaic-authorship when it forces us to interpret Torah unliterally. If the verses are written in the past tense, a sober literal understanding is that these events already occurred. As mentioned earlier, the Talmud^[xxvi] brings up these verses and brings two opinions. One insists on Mosaic-authorship and the other suggests that Joshua wrote these verses.

As we have seen throughout this chapter, the Mosaic-authorship opinion has little scriptural support in contrast to the multi-authorship opinion. The multi-authorship opinion is sourced in the Talmud, has roots in major rabbinic commentators, fits the literary evidence brought by bible scholars and verses that prove that Moses alone couldn’t have been the sole author.

 

Joshua adding to the Torah

On that day at Shechem, Joshua made a covenant for the people and he made a fixed rule for them.

And Joshua recorded all this in the book of divine Torah. He took a great stone and set it up at the foot of the oak in the sacred precinct of YHWH.

(Joshua 24:25-26)

It is unclear what this is referring to and what Joshua would have written in the Torah. Two Talmudic opinions are psent on the matter. One says this refers to the last 8 verses of Torah describing Moses’ death, which couldn’t have been written by Moses himself. The other opinion is that it refers to the laws of the Cities of Refuge in Deuteronomy 19. Others suggest Deuteronomy 26 (which has more in common with what is written here in Joshua 24). Be as it may, this verse suggests that at least something in the Torah was written by Joshua, contrasting the view of absolute mosaic authorship.

 

 

Does this change our belief in Torah as divine?

There’s no reason for it to change anything since the evidence for the divinity of Torah has nothing to do with Moses being the author. The evidence lies in the prophecies in Deuteronomy 28 (which, incidentally, was written by Moses himself as evident from Deuteronomy 33:9 as understood in context), which was discussed here (see specifically the section titled “which part of Judaism do the prophecies validate”).

Although others besides Moses took part in writing the Torah, we can accept its content as legitimate since it’s God’s Torah and we can rely on Him that He protected it from any misinformation in the Mitzvos He expects to keep.^[28]

 

A messy piece of work?

With all this in mind, we can now answer another question concerning the text of the Torah. If the text was written by humans – Moses, his scribes, and later generations – then there’s a human aspect to the text besides for its divine origins. Many verses are poorly written or have grammatical mistakes. This is no issue since there’s no reason to say that the Torah was written word-for-word by God through Moses. [Also grammatical mistakes are possible due to scribal error- see “Is the Torah’s Text Accurate.”] As for the laws derived from those grammatical mistakes, see “Re-approaching Rabbinic Interpretation.”