THE AUTHOR OF TORAH---->6:-(THE CRITICS HISTORY)

"Gaddes" did not attack the auther of the "TORAH" like "Ilgen",or,"J.G Echorn" in his book "Einleitung"1780-1783 ,or,"Austrc", but he was famous, that he attracts"J.S Voter",and "DeWette" to argue with his thoughts,perhaps because he was a Roman Catholic and his authorized personality was a priest. At 1802-1805 "J.S Voter" wrote his book"Commentar uber den pentateuch,3 Vol.s and argued "Gaddes" proclaiming that[ from his point of view] there were 30 documents which have been used in the cultural media of the old civilizations. "DeWette"published his book "Beitrage aur Einleitung in das Alts Testament"at 1807 after "Voter", depending on a comparison studies, between what was recorded in the "TORAH", as legal subjects, and what was recorded in the different old civilizations, which were at "Moses"times, and thus he reached to a conclusion, that the writer of the "TORAH",have collected it, after "Moses" times It was strange situation, from our point of view, if a man finds some different subjects, using some different expressions[it may be different sure, because it deals with different situations], to suggest that, it refers to a different documents, as Voter did,that he also specify them, as 30 references, and called them documents !!! And also it is strange to find, some similarerities between the legal rules, during "Moses" times,and the other civilizations, to proclaim that a writer after "Moses",have written them, due to that past collected references ,If we know ,dears, that the Right,and the Religion Bases,also theLegal rules were older enough more than that times,"For the Invesable things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. "Romans 1.20 .And because God have given the human the mind, and the logic, which is the base of the legal bases, it was not up normal, if we find in the old civilizations some similarities, with the legal rules of the "TORAH",added to that it was a similarities, in the circumstances ,and reasons for establishing these rules ,therefore it was normal to find some similarities in the concluded rules.But, Are there any near similarity which urge us to prefere his opinion ?I am sure not , that is what we will see after 10 essays. " DeWette"'s opinion in concern of "TORAH"was begun when he was writing his researches to be qualified to the Doctorate degree, at 1805 and refers to the suggestion of "Jerom" 1400 years ago,who suspected in the story of "Josiah"622 BC .that the " Deuteronomy " was the book which written during his rign,and divided the origins of the "TORAH" according to his assumption, to three origins,J,E,D {D is a sign for" Deuteronomy" while"Ilgen"called it E2} But "Jerom"'s suspects, in concern of the date of writing the "Deuteronomy" were not right, because if we read the story of "Joshiah"in 2 Kings 22,23 and in Chronicles 34,35 we will not find any sign, about any new book's writing ,but in contrust,we will find that, they have found an old book,The theme that, that book was "Deutoronomy",is not accepted till now by all the scholars . What about the movement of the criticism during the middle of the nineteenth cetury that is what we shall see later. Rev.Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF TORAH--------------------->5:-( CRITICS HISTORY)

               At the end of the eighteenth century, the theme of "Austuc"developed by a Scottish Roman Catholic Priest Called "Alexander Gaddis" in concern of "The Memoires" at 1792-1800 and by another man called "Karl David Ilgen" who published his book "Die Urkunden des Jusalemischen Templarchivs" at 1798and adopted in his book both the opinion of "Hans Wetter"and the themes of "Jean Austrc" in concern of the origin of the "TORAH" ,but he added an assumption, that they were not 12 documents, but they were 17, also added that, the person who have collected them, was not one person as the suggestion of "Austrc", but they were three (Redactors) or writers,Thus "the deux memoires" of the one writer who was" Moses" according to "Austrc", became three main memories, for three distanguished redactors,He suggested that , these three persons have collected the documents of the "TORAH", one after another ,and called them J,E1,E2  but he failed to maintain the time of this process, Then he reached to a far conclusion than"Wetter"or "Autruc"      The Elohist " memory of "Moses" have belonged to two different persons E1 and E2 due to his imagination,.The third person was J ?????                                                                                                                                               We observe that, the history of the criticism ,at the end of the eighteenth century, distinguished by the argument between the Critics themselves, about the "Mosaic"authorship AND THEIR DIFFERENT THOUGHTS, AND THEIR DIFFERENT PROVES TO FACE EACH OTHERS were in itself a suitable replay, that shows us now, How it was the real size of their assumptions !!! until we will discuss their thoughts after 11 essays .                                                                                                                                                                                                                       But we want at last to comment on the opinions of the Roman Catholic Priest "Alexander Gaddis" because he did not develop the themes of "Austrc" and "Wetter" only, but he accepted the themes of the numerous redactors or writers also, ? to pave the way for the sever criticism ,during the nineteenth century., therefore our story will be later                              Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF TORAH------------------>4;- (THE CRITICS HISTORY)

 IN SPITE OF WE SHALL REVEAL WHAT WAS HIDDEN BEFORE THE SIGHTS OF THE CRITICS AFTER 12 ESSAYS,we must  reveal now their thoughts as it was, to avoid the historical interruption. We must not forget that "JeanLeclerc" fall in a great mistake when  he have suggested a human origin, this mistake was to maintain a date for that origin, It was due to his opinion, before the date of Ezra up to 722BC, And thus, he lost even the false base which the his previous critics refer to it ,                                                                   "Jean Astruc" was the man who used the expression"documentary  hypothesis" and employed it with a great ugly using, Although "Hans Witter" at 1711, was the first person who imagined two origins of "TORAH",due to what he have observed from the double stories of the creation, in Genesis Chapter1 comparing with Genesis chapter3,"Jean Astruc"at 1753 who was a French Roman Catholic[ALSO]Physician,published his theory, which imagined that, there were two groups or categories ,contained 12 documents, The first group called "Elohist" [which calls God "ELOHEEM"], The second group called "Yahwist " [which called God "YAHOH"] , he called the two groups.Les deux memoires [ a French expression means the two memories] His opinion in brief was, that "Moses" had collected some informations about the story of the creation,for example,and kept it in his memory, but these informations or knowledges, divided into two groups of more smaller sources ,. that when you read his logic about the suggested " memoires" you will find some confusion, because you can find inside the               "YAHOH " section, some forms of "ELOHEEM's names" and visa versa.                                                                                         Also what amazed you his sever defense in concern of the Mosaic writing to the "TORAH" ,some writers records as a joke, that he spent the rest of his life in attacking, who suggested that their was an human origin, but we haven't any separated writing related to him which dealt with this opinion, after publishing his completed theme                               and we will meet again      Rev. Joseph

THE AUTHOR OF TORAH---------------------->3:-(THE CDITICS HISTORY)

  We have said that "D F Payne"suggested that the first man who have begin the criticism was" Masius" But who is "Masius" ??            His name was "Andreas Masius",he was a Belgian Roman Catholic lawyer,who have published his book in "The Commentary on The Book of Joshua"at 1574,and said that Ezra added some contents to the books of " Moses." as the opinions of " Irenaeus", "Tertullian", "Clement of Alexandrea" (see 1:-the critical history) .He did not invented any real new thoughts, but he stressed on their wrong acceptance for the untrusted book, and the unworthy story ,as we proved previously. .what's make his thoughts new ,his attractive style, which admired "Benedict Spinoza" at 1632-1677 who wrote his book" Troctatus Theologico-politicus" ,at the same time the opinion of "Masius" attracts also, two of the famous ,Jesuit ,Scholars, Philosophers, "Jaque Bonfrere"and Benedict Pereira" .The false story of burning the" TORAH" were their real base added to them," Thomas Hobbes" at 1651 in his book "Leviathan"who deny the Mosaic Authorship in concern of some parts of the" TORAH", The last one in this category of the critics,who referred to the suspicious book ,was "Richard Simon" who was ALSO a Roman Catholic writer. I said also, because the attitude of the main group which they belongs to its teachings have some unbelievable thoughts, about these suspicious writings ,what "Simon" did ,is to collect the wrong thoughts during the 12 centuries before him , to pave the way for"Jen Leclerc" at 1685who added to the last opinion that    " The" TORAH" was compilation based on many documents,both divine and human origin".ALL OF THEIR THOUGHTS,WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY TREATED IN (1:-critical history)But the opinion of "Jen LeClerc"   paved the way for a new historical periods of criticism called" The "Documentary Hypothesis" -----------We shall discus it later .-------------------   Rev.Joseph                                                                                                                                    

THE AUTHOR OF TORAH----------------> 2:- (THE CRITICS HISTOTY)

       During the darkness period of the Middle Ages, the criticism movement of "Rabbi Isaac Ibn Jasos" was the major theory, on which all the Critics, established their critical attitude, toward the TORAH, The most famous group of them was, "Ibn Ezra" at 1167,"Carlstadt" at 1480-1541 even Spinoza at 1670                                                               In brief,His idea was to collect the similar names from the TORAH ,and suggests that , at the time of the later one, Some one re -write the old story, using his modern knowledge,with the modern data,so,"Hadad"of Genesis 36.35 is the same "Hadad" of 1Kings 11.14 {because he belongs to Edomite country-------------!!!!)  . Why his opinion is not logical from our point of view?                                  The answer is:- (1)We knew, as we are Eastern people, that our traditions, teaches us, that the people used to call their babies, from the first moment of their birth, by some of historical names, perhaps,the famous reputations of these historical names, urged them to use the name again, wishing that the baby becomes famous, as the real owner of that name----------------------- The similarity then is the normal base in the east , specially between the people of the same race or citizenship in the old times.                                                                                            (2)The first" Hadad " was "Hadad ben badad" who smote Midian in the field of "Moab" "Genesis"  36.35 , but the second was "Hadad Ezer ben Rehob" the king of "Zobah" one of the "Edomite" countries, he was an enimy against" David "the father of "Solomon" ,---------------Tthe different sites of their sovereignty capitals,the different accidents Which they were famous for,also the different fathers of the two similar "Hadad"s makes us quite sure that we are before two persons refers to different times                                                                                                                                                                             Similarly he discussed "Genesis "12.6 and tied it with "Genesis "22.14, also tied "Deuteronomy" 1.1 with" Deuteronomy" 3.11 and so on .                                                                                                                                    Even during the "Renaissance"we find "Carlstadt" discussing  the problem of the authorship, of the "TORAH",according to the wrong style of "Issac ben Jasos" ,which build its assumptions ,on the bases of" similarity or differentialy "between the parts, inside the "TORAH", His opinion was briefly, established upon the different sorts ,of the literature writings poetry, instructions, laws, history recordings.....etc, in spite of he confessed that, their are a unity in its style of writing through the book of " Deuteronomy".  But he added his logical assumption that, It was impossible for "Moses" to write about his death details---------from his point of view, it proves that the writer was not "Moses", but another one after him, perhaps his disciple "Joshua", or any other person, ,                    But ,(1) He confessed that the writer has one peculiar style in writing                                                                                                         (2) the story of "Moses"death does not contrasts with his being the real writer, because he was a prophet,which can till the future, according to the mighty power of the administrations of the inspiration. (3) the inspiration source is unlimited in knowledge , who can give his prophet many aspects of the learning, according to the real necessities,or needs of the people ,he wrote the history records,the laws ,the songs,the instructions ...etc,                                                         "The Renaissance"s coming, gave the Critics a new kinds of Criticism, as we shall discuss later                  Rev.Joseph                                                                      

THE AUTHER OF TORAH------------------> 1:- ( THE CRITICALS HISORY)

Attention :-   WE ARE SEARCHING AS ACADEMIC PERSONS,WE MUST LET OTHERS TOLD US THEIR THOUGHTS FIRST IN A REAL ACADEMIC ARGUMENT ATMOSPHERE TO REACH TO THE REALITY:--                             It was "Deorant " who gave us the idea that the history repeated itself as a repeatedly round circle,. that is the matter, in concern of  the authorship of the TORAH ,.In the book of numbers chapter 16, we find that Korah, Dathan and Abiram , when they have refused the prophetic personality of Moses, in order to gain a respectable place, among their people,They gathered some people around them, but at last the earth opened its mouth ,and swallowed them . It is the same matter ,which happened and still happens, in the case of the "Authorship critical" ,in the past and in the present time.                                                                                                                         To follow the history of the Authorship Criticism for Torah ,Young proclaims in his article about" the Authorship of Torah"referring that date,  to "Jen Astruc" at 1753,but "D.F Payne"has another idea, because he refers it to" Masius" at1573, while"F.F Bruce refers it to "H.B Witter at 1711 .We suggest that every one of those have created a special type of beginning-------------------BUT the real beginning in our suggestion refers back to "Irenaeus","Tertullian"and the Clement of Alexandria", in spite of they were not the Critical themselves, but they accepted a critical traditions, more older than their times, they have accepted whats said in The Second Book of Ezra 14.21,22 that "Nebuchadnezzar" the king of Babel ,took the books of the law and burned it, which urged Ezra to write it again .        That accident was not true, because                   (1)Ezra { I mean the real Ezra not who mentioned himself as Ezra,He was just a writer of that Apocryphal writings}lives in a different time which proves that, he was not an eye wittiness, also he did not mention that he has a document to prove that opinion                                                                                                                        (2)the books of the law, were not only in Babel, but there were some people who remains in the sacred lands, between them were some prophets, like Jeremiah, who wrote his prophecy about that time, it is not acceptable to think that these religious persons ,who live in the remains, have not the books of the law                                                                           (see Jeremiah25.12)                                                                                                                                                        (3)The writer of this passage did not refer to a trusted reference, to transmit this view to us,we may allow or accept his idea( if he has not a reference), in the case of, if he had a direct inspiration from God,but this assumption was not true ,according to the technical and historical reasons.                                                                     (4). If Ezra (this later Ezra writes the books of the laws after the king who burned it,thats means that the Torah was  in his mind or that he keeps the text in his mind thus the copy ( as he said ) were not the only copy but perhaps there were many of the Torah keepers, between the people(Nebuchadnezzer 605-562 BC-->the real Ezra458-398 BC)                                                         .                                                                        in spite of the  book was able to deceive some respectable men . These great men, were not have the right to report the facts as the inspired people, they were not prophets (with all our respect) they have some faults like what J.P Migne denotes in his "J.P Migne,PG,XCIV,688-89 about "John of Damasus"or Clement in his "Climent Homiletics, for example also the great "Anastasius the Sinait"who was the patriarch of Antioch at the seventeenth century,who said that he can not accept the "Torah" because in his point of view contains the book of "Genesis" which was full of mythologies(see J.P Migne,PG,LXXXIX,284,285) IT IS CLEAR that in spite of the real services which they have done for their churches, and for us, but they were, as all the people who repeat the views of others without some real study, in order to neglect what is said without a trusted bases,. Although we respect them very much, about some of their studies, but as we are Academic persons, we must not accept what did not established ,on the trusted resources------------------------------------------------we will continue the discussion later               Rev.Joseph.