Page 3

Barrick, The Authorship of Deuteronomy 34

ETS Annual Meeting, November 14-16, 2001

While many evangelical scholars today argue for at least a more nuanced

understanding of the book's origins, virtually all critical scholars reject this
interpretation.

Someone might well ask, "If this is the generally accepted view of the vast

majority of evangelicals, what's the issue?" In response, I would suggest that the
evidence for Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy 34 has been neglected and even
mishandled and abused. In the process, "scholars who operate by a more conservative
hermeneutic and try to let ancient documents speak for themselves are regularly
marginalized."

I would invite us all to take another look at that evidence. After all, the

foundational principle of evangelical biblical scholarship is (or, ought to be)

filalh/qeia

(love of truth). If the pursuit of truth leads to overwhelming evidence that Moses could
not have authored Deuteronomy 34, the position of OT scholars like Wolf would appear
to be confirmed. If, however, there is substantial evidence pointing to Mosaic authorship,
a revival of the debate would be justified. For too long evangelical scholarship has treated
Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch as if it were delusional and unworthy of
consideration.

Procedure

Rather than organizing this paper topically (focusing on subjects of dispute within

Deuteronomy 34), it will be presented textually (focusing on the text itself). Logical
block diagrams will first be presented so that the structure and flow of the Hebrew text
can be observed firsthand. Then a translation

of each section will initiate the

examination of that block of text. The translation will be followed by a repetition of the
logical block diagram with footnotes providing a detailed comparison of vocabulary,
phraseology, and grammar with identical or similar vocabulary, phraseology, and
grammar elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Lastly, pertinent discussion will conclude the
treatment of each section of the text.

A detailed examination of the internal evidence of Deuteronomy 34 reveals that

the vast majority of it was certainly within Moses' linguistic and compositional
capability. It is not just the vocabulary, grammar, and phraseology, however, that Moses
had the capacity to produce--the knowledge content is the real issue. After all, it could
be argued (as Driver did long ago) that "the phraseology displays so little that is
characteristic that it might have been used by any narrator."

Block, "Recovering the Voice of Moses," 387. By contrasting the views in the pulpit and pew with the

view in academia, Block has touched upon a significant aspect of the debate. Is the division a matter of
unschooled preachers or unsound scholars? Block's reference to the view that God "dictated" the Torah
needs clarification. The facts concerning the burial of Moses did not need to be "dictated," they only
required a simple revelatory explanation for Moses to be able to pen the words.

Ibid., 389.

All translations in this study are mine unless otherwise noted.

S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., International Critical

Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973 reprint of 1895 ed.), 401.