Quotes About Pentateuch

the Pentateuch really intended to teach faith and belief in God and his promise. Obedience to the law, then, was the natural evidence that one had really trusted the Lord and believed his promise.

In all of this portion of the book (1:1–2:25), Moses carefully avoided mention of the divine name Yahweh (the LORD) which he does not reintroduce until 3:2, even though he used it 175 times throughout Genesis. His purpose for this is almost certainly a desire to heighten for the reader the significance of the rerevelation of the divine name to the people of God, the centerpiece of chap. 3)14 and the focus of the covenantal theology that dominates the rest of the Pentateuch.

Il peut sembler extraordinaire, étant donné les circonstances dans lesquelles nous vivions, de penser que nous nous réunissions fréquemment chez moi pour traduire le Pentateuque, plus un commentaire, en roumain. (p. 124)

That is, the only reason salvation is necessary is to get us back to the garden. The Pentateuch not only presents where we began but also why we are not there any more, and why and how we need to get back.

When the Greek translation of the Pentateuch was made, /Ä¢/ was still a distinct phoneme, but when the remaining books were translated, it may no longer have been pronounced, surviving exclusively in public reading of the Bible before finally disappearing completely.

In Israel the sections of the Pentateuch that have in the past been considered as laws could now be considered as not carrying the obligatory force of legislation (if it is true that in conjunction with the literature from the ancient Near East these are not laws or legislation). They nevertheless do carry obligatory force for Israel as stipulations of the covenant.[1]

Jews seek to cleave to the will of God as set forth in the Bible and, particularly, the Pentateuch, with its rabbinic commentaries, the Mishnah and Talmud.

Yet all agree that the Pentateuch is not a single, seamless composition but a patchwork of different sources, each written under different historical circumstances to express different religious or political viewpoints.

suddenly both parties have become theologians, the one side quoting the Pentateuch to justify slavery, the other side quoting the gospel to condemn it:... the people of the thirty-three United States, who are eminently and essentially political, cannot discuss a political matter without quoting the old and New Testa- ments!"97

We found nothing grand in the history of the Jews nor in the morals inculcated in the Pentateuch. I know of no other books that so fully teach the subjection and degradation of woman.

Another misapprehension, shared alike by the followers of "pietism" and "scientism," was that the recognition of the non-unitary origin of the Pentateuch must be destructive of faith and inimical to religion. But is it not to circumscribe the power of God in a most extraordinary manner to assume that the Divine can only work effectively through the medium of a single document, but not through four? Surely God can as well unfold His revelation in successive stages as in a single moment of time.

The Pentateuch was not authored out of whole cloth by a second-millennium Moses but is the end product of a complex literary process—written, oral, or both—that did not come to a close until the postexilic period.

It is only to admit that what we have cannot be explained as an early (second-millennium-BC) document written essentially by one person (Moses). Rather, the Pentateuch has a diverse compositional history spanning many centuries and was brought to completion after the return from exile.