Well, he's back, so all I can do is give him a little more rope to help him in his determination to hang himself. The title of Hutchinson's latest excursion into Never-Never Land referred to a "twist" that I had given to the issue of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but the only twist I can see is Hutchinson twisting in the wind. We are even getting a double dose of him in this issue, because he has also sent a reply to Stephen Van Eck, which begins on page 6 and is followed by replies from Van Eck and me.
Hutchinson began his article with the incredible claim that the Pentateuch says that Moses is its author, so I will preface my reply with a challenge for him to produce the book, chapter, and verse in the Pentateuch that says that Moses was its author. In his initial reply to Van Eck, Hutchinson claimed that "we find [in the Pentateuch] clear, consistent statements to the effect that Moses is the author," but the clear, consistent statements that Hutchinson quoted (Ex. 24:4-7; 34:27; Num. 33:2) say only that Moses wrote certain things; they do not claim that he wrote an entire collection of books. An examination of the passages cited by Hutchinson will show that the only "clear" thing about them is that they could not be claims that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Exodus 24:4-7: And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.... And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Common sense will tell any reasonable person that this passage cannot be construed to mean that on this occasion Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch, because that interpretation would require one to believe that Moses wrote all five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) in a single night, then rose up early in the morning, and read it to the people, an audience that would have numbered about 2.5 to 3 million people (if we are to believe census figures in the book of Numbers). Anyone who thinks that this could have happened should sit down and try to copy the entire Pentateuch in a single night. Furthermore, if 2.5 to 3 million people stood and listened to the reading of the entire Pentateuch in a time when there were no public address systems to amplify sound, audiences must have had a lot more patience back then than they do now. So perhaps Hutchinson will want to test his theory that passages like this were claiming that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses. He could do this by trying to copy all five books in one night and then finding a large audience that would sit and listen to him read the entire thing. An additional challenge would be to read the Pentateuch before an audience of 3,000, which would be only one thousandth the size of the Israelite group, and see how many of them could understand him without a public address system. If inerrantists would ever stop to consider just what some of these biblical claims would have entailed, perhaps they could see the absurdity of believing that they are historically accurate accounts.
The most that can be concluded from a text like this is that it claims that Moses wrote some kind of document that was short enough to write in one night and then read to an audience. This particular passage calls that document "the book of the covenant," a term that perhaps meant what is contained in Exodus 20-23, which would have been just the ten commandments and the accompanying ceremonial and tribal laws that Yahweh had allegedly spoken to Moses on Mount Sinai. Certainly, this passage could not be distorted into a historically accurate claim that Moses had written the entire Pentateuch on this occasion. Even the other passages that he quoted show that the first quotation cannot mean what Hutchinson is trying to make them mean.
Exodus 34:27: And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
Numbers 33:2: And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the LORD: and these are their journeys according to their goings out.
The context of Exodus 34 will show that Yahweh had told Moses to cut two tablets of stone like the ones that he had cast down and broken when he descended from Mount Sinai the first time and found the people worshiping the golden calf Aaron had made. After Moses had cut the new tablets, he carried them in his hand (v:4) up the mountain, where Yahweh descended in a cloud and told him what to write on the stones. Verses 10-26 contain the words that Yahweh presumably spoke to Moses on this occasion, so when Yahweh told Moses in verse 27 to "write these words," he was referring to these 16 relatively short verses. It is absurd to think that this verse was claiming that Moses was told to write everything that is in the Pentateuch on just two tablets of stone. If Hutchinson thinks otherwise, I challenge him to make two stone tablets that are small enough to carry up a mountain and then, using only tools that would have been available in biblical times, engrave on those stones the entire text of all five books in the Pentateuch. If he can do that, I'll concede that the passages he has quoted were claiming that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. The Hebrew alphabet had no vowels, so to make Hutchinson's task easier, I'll even allow him leave out all vowels as he undertakes to engrave all of the Pentateuch on his tablets of stone.
Beyond the Jordan: There are many internal evidences that dispute the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Writer perspective is one of them. Deuteronomy, for example, begins with a statement showing that this book was written from the perspective of a person who lived somewhere west of the Jordan River and therefore thought of the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites as events that had happened "beyond the Jordan in the wilderness."
These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan--in the wilderness on the plain opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Di-zahab (1:1).
According to the book of Numbers, the Israelites reached the plains of Moab, east of the Jordan after having wandered in the wilderness for 40 years (35:1), and it was from here that they crossed the Jordan and invaded Canaan (Josh. 3). The book of Deuteronomy purports to be a speech that Moses gave to the Israelites in Moab just before they entered Canaan.
Beyond the Jordan in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound this law as follows... (1:5).
Moses, however, never entered Canaan, because he died on Mount Nebo in Moab and was buried in an unknown place (Deut. 34:1). From his perspective, then, the location of where he made his speech to the Israelites would not have been "beyond the Jordan," because he was never in Canaan to think in terms of Moab as a place that was "beyond the Jordan." Unconsciously, then, the real author of Deuteronomy used a simple expression that identified himself not as someone who had never lived in the land Canaan but rather someone in Canaan from whose perspective Moab would have been "beyond the Jordan."
Some versions, apparently recognizing this problem, have tried to translate it away by making the passage read that these were the words that Moses spoke "on this side of the Jordan," but consulting literal translations will be sufficient to establish that the Hebrew text used the word `heber, which meant "beyond," "across," or "on the opposite side." The writer was clearly stating that Moses made the speech beyond or on the opposite or other side of the Jordan, and this would be a statement made from the perspective of someone who lived in Israel and thought of the region of Moab as a place "beyond the Jordan."
There are other passages that inadvertently betrayed the perspective of the real writer(s) of the Pentateuch, but I don't have the space to discuss them here. In the rest of my reply, I will respond to Hutchinson's three attempts to rebut my arguments against his claim that the king [who] reigned over the children of Israel (Gen. 36:31) was an Egyptian pharaoh.
Point One: As Hutchinson seemed to agree, the Edomite kings in Genesis 36 were apparently descendants of Esau, Jacob's twin brother, so it would have been unlikely that all nine of them could have reigned before Jacob entered Egypt. Trying to circumvent this problem, Hutchinson questioned "whether we can logically conclude that Pharaoh began to rule over the Israelites when Jacob moved his family to Egypt." Of course, we have seen enough of Hutchinson's semantic games to know that he is never willing to logically conclude anything that will be unfriendly to his biblical inerrancy position, but let's take a look at his quibble to see what, if any, merit it has.
He argued that Pharaoh gave Jacob's family prime land on which to graze their cattle (Gen. 47:4-12), but I fail to see how this act of kindness to Joseph's family meant that pharaoh did not expect them to respect his edicts and other laws of Egypt as much as he would have required this of those who were Egyptians by birth. Hutchinson said that "Jacob freely entered Egypt, and he was free to leave Egypt at any time," but the biblical text hardly supports this view. Jacob was 130 when he entered Egypt (Gen. 47:9), and he died 17 years later (v:27). As he was dying, Jacob asked Joseph to take his body out of Egypt and bury him "with [his] fathers" (vs:29-30). After a long, unlikely speech on his deathbed, Jacob died, and to honor his request to be buried "with his fathers," Joseph had to go before "the house of Pharaoh" and ask whoever these officials were to get permission from Pharaoh to let him go to Canaan to bury his father (50:4-9). That hardly sounds like the complete freedom that Hutchinson claimed the Israelites enjoyed in their early years in Egypt.
Hutchinson may argue that Joseph asked permission only for himself, but the text certainly implies more, for after Pharaoh gave permission for the funeral, the text says that all the brothers of Joseph and "his father's household" went to Canaan. "Only their children, their flocks, and their herds were left in the land of Goshen" (v:8). Leaving children or close relatives as sureties or guarantees was a custom of the time that was alluded to in Genesis 42:33, 37-38; 43:9, so there is at least an implication here that the Israelites demonstrated to Pharaoh their intention to return to Egypt by leaving behind their children and their possessions.
Regardless, the Israelites certainly didn't think that they were as free as Hutchinson seems to believe they were, because when their father was dead, the brothers of Joseph feared for their safety: "Perhaps Joseph will hate us," they said, "and may actually repay us for all the evil which we did to him" (50:15). They then sent messengers to Joseph to renew their apology and ask for his forgiveness. Upon receiving reassurance from Joseph, the brothers went to him in person and said, "Behold, we are your servants"(v:18). All of this hardly depicts the Israelites as being free as birds during their early years in Egypt.
Point Two: Hutchinson cited two objections to my reference to Eerdmans' claim that the Hadar in Genesis 36:39 was a contemporary of Saul. Astonishingly, Hutchinson argued that this can't be right, because "Genesis 36:31 says that the kings of Edom reigned before a king reigned over the Israelites," so for my point to be valid, "Hadar would have had to rule before Saul became king." His objection, however, is based on an assumption that Genesis 36:31 is inerrant, and so he is apparently arguing that if the "king that reigned over the children of Israel" was indeed a reference to Saul, the first king of Israel, then Eerdmans can't be right in claiming that Hadar was a contemporary of Saul, since Genesis 36:31 says that these Edomite kings reigned before any king reigned over Israel. Hence, he is trying to prove that Genesis 36:31ff is inerrant by assuming that it is inerrant. That's not news to any of us who know Roger Hutchinson. He can hardly write a sentence in defense of The Bible without begging the question of its inerrancy.
The whole point of the statement in Eerdmans was that historical facts about the kings of Edom appear to contradict the claim in Genesis 36:31. Maybe it will help Hutchinson see this if I quote a larger context from Eerdmans' discussion of these Edomite kings.
The first biblical references to the Edomites are found at Gen. 36, which mentions Edomite chiefs (vv:15-19, 40-43) and kings (vv. 31-39; cf. 1 Chr. 1:43-51), both descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob. Though Gen. 36:31 claims that these rulers reigned before King Saul, Hadar (or Hadad), mentioned in v. 39, was actually a contemporary of the Israelite monarch. (1987, p. 305)
Whoever wrote this for Eerdmans obviously thought that Genesis 36:31 referred to Saul the first king of Israel, a fact that seems to faze Hutchinson not in the least, but the writer also thought that the chronology of the Genesis writer was incorrect, because one of the Edomite kings listed was a contemporary of Saul and not a predecessor. The fact that Eerdmans doesn't agree with the claim in Genesis 36:31 that all of these kings reigned before Saul is irrelevant, because the whole question being debated is whether the text in Genesis is inerrant. Hutchinson wants to assume that it is, but he doesn't have a lot of company on his side. Certainly, I'm not going to allow him to assume what he is obligated to prove. The issue on this point, therefore, is not whether Eerdmans' dating of Hadar's reign is consistent with Genesis 36:31 but whether Eerdmans was correct in identifying Hadar as a contemporary of Saul. I won't allow Hutchinson to beg the question of inerrancy by simply declaring that Eerdmans has to be wrong because it disagrees with Genesis 36:31.
His second objection to Eerdmans' identification of Hadar as a contemporary of Saul was that Eerdmans describes Hadar as a tribal chieftain and not a king." This is a quibble that is petty even by Hutchinson's standards, because words like "king," "pharaoh," "emperor," "chief," etc. are simply words used to designate the principal ruler of a nation or territory. "Chief" or "chieftain" would likely be used to denote the ruler of a small territory occupied by a tribe not yet large enough to have organized itself into a nation or confederation of tribes. The fact that Eerdmans used the term "tribal chieftain" in its discussion of the kings of Edom listed in Genesis 36:31ff in no way supports the quibble that Hutchinson has resorted to. The Eerdmans' writer had just said that although Genesis 36:31 claimed that these "kings" had reigned before any king reigned in Israel, at least one of them (Hadar) was a contemporary of the first king of Israel, so his point was that the chronology in Genesis 36 doesn't agree with what is known about Edomite history. Then the writer went on to point out another problem in the Genesis passage: the Genesis writer used the word kings in reference to these rulers in Edom, but chief or chieftain would probably have been a more appropriate designation. In a word, the Eerdmans' writer was simply pointing out reasons why the accuracy of the passage in Genesis should be questioned, but Hutchinson can't just brush all of these objections aside only because they are "not consistent with the text in Genesis." To do so is to beg the very question that Hutchinson must prove. Nobody twisted his arm to make him defend the inerrancy of Genesis 36:31. He voluntarily undertook the task.
Hutchinson attempted to shore up his quibble by pointing out that Genesis 36 listed "various men" who were identified as "dukes." (This is a KJV term; other versions used "chiefs.") Hutchinson argued that "Eerdmans was "not consistent with Genesis," because it had concluded that "Hadad [Hadar] was a tribal chieftain or duke instead of a king," so again we see that Hutchinson wants to beg the question he obligated himself to prove. Instead of proving that Genesis 36:31ff is inerrant in its claim, he spends his time arguing that any biblical reference book that disagrees with the Genesis text must be rejected because of its inconsistency with the text being discussed. Besides this, Eerdmans didn't conclude that Hadar was a tribal chieftain instead of a king. It merely said in reference to the list of kings in Genesis 36:32-39 that "(m)ost likely their role was that of tribal chieftain" (emphasis added). Hutchinson may see this as a statement that is "inconsistent" with the Genesis text, but inconsistency with a biblical text doesn't automatically make a statement incorrect, except, of course, in the narrow confines of the mind of a biblical inerrantist.
Hutchinson further argued that if Hadar was just a "tribal chieftain," this would "suggest that Edom was not an established nation at the time King Saul began to rule." I had to wonder what his point was. Is he arguing that unless a ruler was called a king, the region that he ruled over must not have been an "established nation"? If so, is he claiming that Edom had been an "established nation" that was ruled by "kings" before the "king of Egypt" reigned over the children of Israel during their bondage, but by the time of Saul, Edom had become "disestablished" as a nation and had only "chieftains"? If this is what he is arguing, what is his evidence for this?
Certainly, he won't find much evidence for this quibble in the Genesis text. Keep two points in mind: (1) The Edomites were descendants of Esau, Jacob's twin brother. (2) Hutchinson has agreed that the descent of the Edomites from Jacob's twin brother would have made it unlikely that all nine kings of Edom in the Genesis list could have reigned before Jacob's descent into Egypt, but he apparently thinks that all nine of them could have completed their reign within the estimated 90 years between Jacob's entry into Egypt and the time of the new pharaoh who knew not Joseph and imposed heavy burdens on the Israelites (Ex. 1:8-14). So I have to wonder if Hutchinson thinks that before the advent of the king of Egypt who "reigned" over the Israelites, "Edom" had existed first as an "unestablished nation," which was ruled by the 21 Edomite chiefs listed in Genesis 36:15-30, after which Edom had become "established" sufficiently as a nation to call its ruler a "king," nine of whom completed their reigns before the time of the pharaoh in Egypt who knew not Joseph, but then later Edom had become "disestablished" as a nation and was ruled only by chieftains, one of which was Hadar III. This certainly seems to be Hutchinson's line of reasoning. If I have misunderstood him, he can clarify his position in a response.
An obvious problem for Hutchinson is that 1 King's 11:14 refers to the Hadar who was an Edomite adversary of Solomon as being "of the king's seed." That expression was surely intended to convey that this Hadar was a descendant of an Edomite king. Of course, it isn't impossible that this person was given the name of an Edomite king who had reigned several centuries earlier (before the advent of the pharaoh who knew not Joseph), but I wouldn't consider it very likely. The fact that the Bible identifies an Edomite ruler named Hadar, who lived in the time of Solomon, is certainly an implication that the chronology in Genesis 36:31ff is far from inerrant regardless of whether the king who "reigned over the children of Israel" is seen as Saul or, as Hutchinson has wildly speculated, the pharaoh who brought bondage upon the Israelites.
Point Three: I never seem to have enough space to say everything that needs to be said in response to Hutchinson's ventures into Never-Never Land, so I must be brief in replying to his third point. As humorous as it is, coming from him, he said that I had "manipulated the verse [Genesis 36:31] to get the conclusion I seek" by suggesting that the term "reigned over Edom" suggested kings who had reigned over an established nation, but look who's talking. I just finished replying to his quibble about the Edomite "dukes" and "kings" in Genesis 36 in which he said that Eerdmans' description of Hadar as a chieftain rather than a king "suggests that Edom was not an established nation at the time King Saul began to rule," so apparently Hutchinson wants to have it both ways. Edom was an established nation when it suits his purpose, but it wasn't an established nation when it doesn't suit his purpose.
I'm going to stick to my original position. If the reference to kings who reigned over Edom meant kings who reigned over a territory or country that was inhabited by a people known as Edomites, then the expression "any king [who] reigned over the children of Israel," used in the very same verse, would surely have been intended in the same sense, i. e., a king who reigned over a territory or country inhabited by people known as Israelites or "children of Israel." I stated that I could find no biblical examples of where a foreign king was said to "reign over the Israelites" when they were in a state of captivity or bondage, which seemed to have been a fairly common condition that the Israelites found themselves in. Hutchinson didn't volunteer any such examples, so I assume that he too doesn't know of any. Why, then, should we not assume that the word "king" in Genesis 36:31, used in reference to the Israelites, conveyed the same sense that it did in reference to Edomites?
Hutchinson quibbled that Genesis 36:31 didn't refer to a king who "reigned over Israel" but to one who reigned over "the children of Israel." He said that the author of the Pentateuch "used this term consistently throughout the Pentateuch" but that it was only "later in the historical books after Israel has become an established nation do we find the term, `Israel,' used predominantly instead of children of Israel." At least, he knew enough to qualify this quibble with the word "predominantly," because there were many times in the books of history that the Israelites were called the "children of Israel." If space permitted, I would look at several examples. If Hutchinson doubts that I can cite them, let him challenge me to do so, and I will accommodate him in a later issue. He isn't going to challenge me on this point, however, because he knows I am right. That's why he used "predominantly" in his statement above. This was a quibble of desperation, and he knows it.
He could help his case considerably if he would cite an
example in the Bible of a king who was said to "reign" over the
Israelites while they were in a state of foreign captivity.
