We begin the last book of the Torah this week. The book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) is one of the first sections that people noticed was significantly different from the rest of the Torah and let to the hypothesis, standard today in academic circles, that multiple authors were involved in the Torah. This week we'll look at some of the reasons that they came to that conclusion. We will provide the academic theory about who actually wrote this book. We will also briefly discuss the relationship between Devarim and the histories that follow in the books of Yehoshua (Joshua) through Melachim (Kings), and how this relates to the correspondence between the rest of the Torah and Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles). We'll finish with some questionable passages in Devarim. As a warning, this post will be longer than usual.
On the Other Side of the Jordan
The book opens with the following verse:
These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab.One clause, "on the other side of the Jordan" or in this translation "beyond the Jordan" has an implication that the author of these verses is standing on this side of Jordan, as in the land of Israel, a location that the Torah is very clear that Moshe (Moses) never went to. There are other similar clauses in the Torah that indicate that the Torah was written by and for an audience living in the land of Israel at a later time.
These types of verses need to be contrasted with the verses that traditional Judaism uses to claim that Moshe wrote the entire Torah. When you look at all the supporting verses and contradicting verses (like this one) you'll find that it's not clear at all that the Torah even claims that Moshe wrote it. We don't have time to go through it in this post, but I discussed a little about it here, and we'll see some of the supposed supporting verses later.
Indicative Phrases
The book of Devarim has a bunch of phrases that are almost exclusively used in that book. Some of these are.
תַּאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל-הָאֲדָמָה - "Lengthen your days on the land" appears 11 times in some form in Devarim but only once outside of it.
בְּכָל-לְבַבְכֶם, וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁכֶם - "With all your heart, with all your soul" appears only in Devarim, 9 times in all
Various forms like, "וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים" "serve other gods" or worship other gods, or other similar phrases appear only 13 times, always in Devarim.
תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְהוָה - "Listen to the voice of God" only appears in Devarim, 12 times [1].
Also many variations of לָשׂוּם אֶת-שְׁמוֹ שָׁם, לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם, are endemic to Devarim
Additionally a lot of these verses seem to occur in some later works. For example, "with all your heart, with all your soul" also appears in Yehushua (Joshua) once, and "with all your heart" alone appears three times in Shmuel (Samuel) and once in Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah). "Serve other gods" appears twice in Yehushua, four times in Shoftim (Judges), twice in Shmuel a bunch of close phrases in Melachim (kings) and some variation of serving other gods appears a whopping 18 times in Yirmiyahu. There is no "other gods" phrase in either Yehezkel (Ezekiel) or Yishaiyahu (Isaiah).
What does it mean? Is all this mere coincidence, or is something else afoot. Keep this in mind while we discuss the next section about when we think the book was written.
A Discovered Scroll
There is a section in the book of Melachim which is well known to anyone with even a passing interest in Academic scholarship, but is usually hidden from religious students. Indeed our study of Nach in day school conveniently never reached this chapter. It is worth reading all of chapters 22 and 23 of Melachim Bet (2 Kings) if you are unfamiliar with the story. I'll produce a short excerpt of the important bit (2 Kings 22:8-14)
8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe: 'I have found the book of the Law (Sefer haTorah, סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה) in the house of the LORD.' And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9 And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought back word unto the king, and said: 'Thy servants have poured out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen that have the oversight of the house of the LORD.' 10 And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying: 'Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book.' And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the Law, that he rent his clothes. 12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant, saying: 13 'Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.'What book did they find? They call it Sefer haTorah. Religious commentators, wary about the problem of having lost the physical Torah for hundreds of years, claim that this could be any book. This is despite using even vaguer references to Torah to further specific claims, like that of the oral Torah or Mosaic authorship, but that's a side point. Academic scholars suggest that the book that was found was the vast majority of the book of Devarim.
Why do they associate Devarim with the book discovered in Yoshiyahu (Josiah)? One reason is that the reforms enacted during Yoshiyahu's reign, the centralization of worship in Jerusalem, and the removal of all idolatry and worship locations outside Jerusalem align with commandments in Devarim. As we've noted above, there are many discussions about worship in the place where God decides to settle his name, and that being the sole place where worship is allowed. The idea that worship at the bamot (high places) was bad is a central idea in the book of Melachim. Each king is criticized after his reign for not removing them, only Yoshiyahu and Hizkiyahu (Hezekiah) escape the critique. After Yoshiyahu these criticisms disappear, along with other changes indicated a possible change of authorship, which would make sense if the rest of the history was written during his reign. However, as we've noted, worship in alternate locations was not criticized by other authors in the Torah and the older sections of the histories.
Also, with regard to the words Sefer haTorah. These words appear elsewhere in Tanach. Can you guess where? Yup, in Devarim. Deut 31:24-26 says
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law (haTorah) in a book (sefer), until they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 'Take this book of the law (Sefer haTorah), and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.It's not clear what exactly the claim is that Moshe wrote. It doesn't appear to be the Torah as we know it, since these verses describe what happens after he finishes writing it. In other words the narrator of the text is watching Moshe write the Torah!
The phrase also appears in other places in Devarim like in Deut 29:20
and the LORD shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that is written in this book of the law (Sefer haTorah).and Deut 28:61 (not quoted). Also, Deut 17:18, regarding the duties of a king (kings only appear in Devarim by the way.)
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law (haTorah) in a book (sefer), out of that which is before the priests the Levites.There is one other appearance of Sefer haTorah in Yishayahu (Joshua) and besides that we don't see that phrase again until the discovery in the time of Yoshiyahu.
There are other indications that link Devarim to Yoshiyahu and that link it to the rest of the historical narratives from Yehushua to Melachim, we'll look at one contrast in the next section.
Parallel Books
There are two histories written about the kings of Judah and Israel. The first one is in part of Shmuel and all of Melachim. The second is Divrei HaYamim (Chronicles). The two books overlap significantly, and often the exact same words are used in both narratives. However, there are places where they differ. We've seen a couple of these differences in the past. For example, when describing the feast after the dedication of the temple during Sukkot , Melachim does not include the Atzeret. Divrei HaYamim does include an Atzeret. Similarly, when the holidays are described in the Torah, the section in Devarim does not include an Atzeret, the sections in Bamidbar (Numbers) and Vayikra (Leviticus) do.
Another example we've discussed has to do with the question of priesthood. The idea that priests are descendents of Aharon (Aaron) alone does no appear anywhere in Shmuel or Melachim (or Yehoshua or Shoftim for that matter). However, additional sections in Divrei HaYamim make it clear that the priesthood is confined to the descendents of Aharon. When David's priest Zadok is introduced in Shmuel no lineage is given for him. An explicit lineage tracing him to Aharon is provided in Divrei HaYamim. Again this parallels the split in the Torah. Devarim repeatedly refers to the Kohanim HaLeviim, indicating that the priests are descendents of Levi. The same idea is found in sections in Yehoshua through Melachim. However, Shmot (Exodus) - Bamidbar (Numbers) makes it clear that priests are only descendents of Aharon.
Originally I had a plan to go through all the differences between Divrei HaYamim and Melachim, but it took far too long to complete this task. Instead, I'll leave the task to an interested reader. Otherwise, take my word that these are representative differences. Whenever you find a difference between these two books, the Melachim version always aligns with Devarim and the additions in Divrei HaYamim always align with the middle three books of the Torah.
But this isn't the only parallel. We've also noted the fact that similar language appears between Devarim, the section of books between Yehoshua and Melachim and the book of Yirmiyahu. What to make of this? Yirmiyahu was writing during the reign of Yoshiyahu! If we suspect that Devarim and the historical books were also composed during this time, we should expect overlap between those books, and sure enough, they are there. This was noted even by traditional scholars who ascribed the authorship of the book of Melachim to Yirmiyahu. Academic scholars go further and suggest that he, or someone close to him, probably penned all the works starting with Devarim itself continuing through Yehoshua, Shoftim, Shmuel and up to the reign of Yoshiyahu in Melachim.
Problems With Single Authorship in Devarim
While it's useful and indeed generally reasonable to ascribe all of Devarim to a single author. There are a couple places where problems arise. One of these places is the beginning of the fifth chapter which starts (Deut. 5:1):
Another issue relates to problems in Melachim. During the end of the Yoshiyahu pericope, after it discusses the various reforms he did, it concludes with (2 Kings 23:24-25)
How well you trust the conclusions of modern scholarship on this matter is up to you. There's a lot more going for it than I can squeeze into this post, which is already growing way too long. But before I go, I'll mention one more vexing problem in Devarim which I have no good answer for.
Devarim is written as the sayings of Moshe before he died. Throughout the book, the author is very clear about when Moshe is speaking, and when the third person author is speaking. There's one place where this fails though. The first 12 verses of chapter 11 are written as if they were spoken by Moshe. It speaks of God in the third person, "his signs and doings" and so forth. However, there's an abrupt shift in verse 13 which begins the middle passage of Shema.
Conclusion
Devarim is probably one of the best starting points if you want to look at theories of multiple authorship. Even severe critics of the Documentary Hypothesis, like Whybray, admit that Devarim appears to be separate, and they thus limit their critiques to the first four books. Hopefully I've given some reasons why they have come to this conclusion, although reading through what I have written, I can't help but feel that I wasn't able to give the argument the full justice it deserves.
Parallel Books
There are two histories written about the kings of Judah and Israel. The first one is in part of Shmuel and all of Melachim. The second is Divrei HaYamim (Chronicles). The two books overlap significantly, and often the exact same words are used in both narratives. However, there are places where they differ. We've seen a couple of these differences in the past. For example, when describing the feast after the dedication of the temple during Sukkot , Melachim does not include the Atzeret. Divrei HaYamim does include an Atzeret. Similarly, when the holidays are described in the Torah, the section in Devarim does not include an Atzeret, the sections in Bamidbar (Numbers) and Vayikra (Leviticus) do.
Another example we've discussed has to do with the question of priesthood. The idea that priests are descendents of Aharon (Aaron) alone does no appear anywhere in Shmuel or Melachim (or Yehoshua or Shoftim for that matter). However, additional sections in Divrei HaYamim make it clear that the priesthood is confined to the descendents of Aharon. When David's priest Zadok is introduced in Shmuel no lineage is given for him. An explicit lineage tracing him to Aharon is provided in Divrei HaYamim. Again this parallels the split in the Torah. Devarim repeatedly refers to the Kohanim HaLeviim, indicating that the priests are descendents of Levi. The same idea is found in sections in Yehoshua through Melachim. However, Shmot (Exodus) - Bamidbar (Numbers) makes it clear that priests are only descendents of Aharon.
Originally I had a plan to go through all the differences between Divrei HaYamim and Melachim, but it took far too long to complete this task. Instead, I'll leave the task to an interested reader. Otherwise, take my word that these are representative differences. Whenever you find a difference between these two books, the Melachim version always aligns with Devarim and the additions in Divrei HaYamim always align with the middle three books of the Torah.
But this isn't the only parallel. We've also noted the fact that similar language appears between Devarim, the section of books between Yehoshua and Melachim and the book of Yirmiyahu. What to make of this? Yirmiyahu was writing during the reign of Yoshiyahu! If we suspect that Devarim and the historical books were also composed during this time, we should expect overlap between those books, and sure enough, they are there. This was noted even by traditional scholars who ascribed the authorship of the book of Melachim to Yirmiyahu. Academic scholars go further and suggest that he, or someone close to him, probably penned all the works starting with Devarim itself continuing through Yehoshua, Shoftim, Shmuel and up to the reign of Yoshiyahu in Melachim.
Problems With Single Authorship in Devarim
While it's useful and indeed generally reasonable to ascribe all of Devarim to a single author. There are a couple places where problems arise. One of these places is the beginning of the fifth chapter which starts (Deut. 5:1):
And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them: Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them.This seems to be a fresh beginning that has no recollection of the four chapters that precede it. This has led scholars to wonder if two different accounts got put together back to back.
Another issue relates to problems in Melachim. During the end of the Yoshiyahu pericope, after it discusses the various reforms he did, it concludes with (2 Kings 23:24-25)
24 Moreover them that divined by a ghost or a familiar spirit, and the teraphim, and the idols, and all the detestable things that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might confirm the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD. 25 And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.This looks like a conclusion, it finishes with a description of Yoshiyahu which echoes how the author of Devarim described Moshe. Academics propose that this is where the histories of the account ends [2]. However, that's not where the book ends. The next two sentences:
26 Notwithstanding the LORD turned not from the fierceness of His great wrath, wherewith His anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations wherewith Manasseh had provoked Him. 27 And the LORD said: 'I will remove Judah also out of My sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city which I have chosen, even Jerusalem, and the house of which I said: My name shall be there.'That initial word, translated here as Notwithstanding, is Ach in Hebrew, it's the same keying word we saw with regard to the holiday of Sukkot that was an indicator of redaction. Modern scholarship suggests the following sequence events. After the book of Devarim - Melachim was completed up to the reign of Yoshiyahu, all hell broke loose in Judah. Yoshiyahu was killed in an ill-advised war with the Egyptians, despite God's promise to him that he will die in peace. The kingdom of Judah gets destroyed shortly afterwards by internal strife and eventually a conquest by Babylon. What were the exiled Judeans to make of the eternal promise of kingship that God gave to David? Modern academicians suggest that another author, D2, went back and added in specific clauses into the text that claimed that destruction would come if they worshiped idols. A post-hoc explanation to justify the calamities that befell the Judeans. The two verses from Melachim above are emblematic of these kinds of redactions. To D2, the destruction of Judah had nothing to do with the fact that Yoshiyahu probably pissed off allies by removing their idols from the Jerusalem temples, and instead he hangs it all on the evil Menashe who came before and ruled for fifty-five years of peace. Similarly, there are sections in the Torah where a second, later author, is thought to modify the text to provide "prophecies" of the exile.
How well you trust the conclusions of modern scholarship on this matter is up to you. There's a lot more going for it than I can squeeze into this post, which is already growing way too long. But before I go, I'll mention one more vexing problem in Devarim which I have no good answer for.
Devarim is written as the sayings of Moshe before he died. Throughout the book, the author is very clear about when Moshe is speaking, and when the third person author is speaking. There's one place where this fails though. The first 12 verses of chapter 11 are written as if they were spoken by Moshe. It speaks of God in the third person, "his signs and doings" and so forth. However, there's an abrupt shift in verse 13 which begins the middle passage of Shema.
13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, 14 that I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.This can't be Moshe speaking anymore, he can't actually claim to be providing rain. While it's possible he is referring to his commandments, the next verse is clearly God speaking. There's no preamble, no "God told me," nothing. I have no good explanation for this anomaly, but thought I should point it out.
Conclusion
Devarim is probably one of the best starting points if you want to look at theories of multiple authorship. Even severe critics of the Documentary Hypothesis, like Whybray, admit that Devarim appears to be separate, and they thus limit their critiques to the first four books. Hopefully I've given some reasons why they have come to this conclusion, although reading through what I have written, I can't help but feel that I wasn't able to give the argument the full justice it deserves.
1. The preceeding claims and similar ones come from the introduction to Friedman, "The Bible with Sources Revealed"^
2. It probably includes verse 28, which is the generic formula forhow melachim concludes the reign of each king. The two verses that come in between are likely an insertion.^
Classic bible criticism clearly defined!
ReplyDeleteSome questions:
Why didn't we, and thousands of intelligent orthodox Jews over thousands of years realize these obvious trends?
How is it that we poured over each and every word, verse and chapter (like yourself, I was also a ba'l korei, and I even taught chumash and navi for years) and missed these obvious anomalies!?
Do you think there will be a mass haskalah movement within orthodox Judaism, or will we remain a small blogosphere movement?
Well, I actually didn't miss them. I constantly brought up anomalies like this to my Rabbi as questions, who would usually say something like, "I'll look into it." It probably meant he would go look at mikraot gedolot, and found nothing (which I knew because I already did that before asking him.)
DeleteOther anomalies do have traditional explanations. And that's usually satisfactory for most religious people.
There were things that I wasn't aware of. Not one of my teachers in the many years of Yeshivah talked about Yoshiyahu or the nature of the differences between Divrei Hayamim and Melachim. Divrei Hayamim is all but ignored in religious environments.
It's funny because I never looked at divrei hayamin, even as a scholar and a teacher. I imagined (and gathered from when the gemara quotes it) that it was some obscure scripture that counted generations and genealogy.
ReplyDeleteYes, I also noticed the anomalies, but only as a 'dvar torah' to be answered by Rashi or meforshim. I guess we never had any reason to question the premise that there's a single author.
Looking forward to some great chiddushim on sefer devarim!
1) The Book of Kings records that the Jews were aware of he Book of Devarim before it was "found" by Joshia (See, 2 Kings 14:6).
ReplyDelete2) Furthermore, it appears from the text, that when the Torah was found, Hilkiah immediately knew what the book was. It wasn't a book that was entirely foreign to the entre population. "I found a the book of the law..." (the king's ignorance didn't necessarily apply to the entire population.)
3) The Samaritans are a group who broke off from Judaism much before the days of Joshia. This group were taught the five books of Moses from priests who lived in the area of the Ten Tribes. Therefore, the Samaritans didn't acquire the subsequent books of the Torah, nor do they show ANY respect to Jerusalem (Northern Israelites rejected the Temple and David). Do the Samaritans have the Book of Devarim? Of course they do. But if they broke off from Judaism before the days of Joshia, why do they have Devarim?
4) The story of the finding of the Torah isn't hidden from religious Jews. Any Jew who listened to the Haftorah (or is ma'aver haftorah, which is recommended according to halacha) is aware of the story.
5) The different phraseology found in Devarim can be explained one of two ways. First, since Moses was giving a speech, the phrasing would be different from a book that wasn't meant to be read aloud (the first four books). Second, one opinion in the Talmud states that Moses composed the final book. So it isn't surprising that the phrasing of Devarim is different from the book which was composed by God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJust so you know - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Pentateuch "Modern scholarship connects the formation of the Samaritan community with events which followed the Babylonian Captivity. One view being that the Samaritans are the people of the Kingdom of Israel who separated from the Judaites (people of Judah).[9] Another view is that the event happened somewhere around 432 BCE, when Manasseh, the son-in-law of Sanballat, went off to found a community in Samaria, as related in Neh. 13:28 and Josephus Antiquities XI.7.2; 8.2. Josephus himself, however, dates this event and the building of the temple at Shechem to the time of Alexander the Great. Others believe that the real schism between the peoples did not take place until Hasmonean times when the Gerizim temple was destroyed in 128 BCE by John Hyrcanus.[10] The script of the Samaritan Pentateuch, its close connections at many points with the Septuagint, and its even closer agreements with the present Hebrew text, all suggest a date about 122 BCE.[11]"
Delete1) This shows that the author of this section of kings knew about that section of Deuteronomy. Both traditional and academic sources put the authorship of Kings until after or at Yoshiyahu. Note that this aside appears in the post-king evaluation of how good such a king was. There is no inconsistency in the academic hypothesis here.
ReplyDelete2) On the contrary, it does appear that many of the things, like proper observance of Passover were unknown to the entire population.
3) There has always been significant interaction between the Samaritans and kingdom of Judah. At the point of Josiah they were worshipping the same religion. Note that the Samaritans object to Jerusalem in general, while Devarim always uses phrases like, "in the place that god chooses" which works for them as well. The Samaritans didn't fully split off until the second temple period.
4) Isn't it interesting that the Pesach Haftorah specifically skips verses 10-20 where the discussion of finding the book appears. It's almost like they are hiding it. I wonder why.
5) As I noted, the phraseology also appears in the "prose" sections of the book that are not Moshe's speech.
1) The point is that the author of Kings didn't believe it's a new book that never existed before. He believed that the book was known to the kings a century earlier. Thus, if we trust the book of kings (which is what your argument presupposes), we also need to trust that the memory of the Book of Devarim was extant when the scroll was found.
ReplyDelete2) It doesn't say that they didn't know about Pesach. It means that they, like Sefardim whose emunah is stronger then mine, were lax in their observance. As the Gemara warns, "kol ha'omer hakadosh baruch hu vatran, yivatru ma'ohu" = whoever claims that God is forgiving (or lax), may his bones wither. Many people believe that even if they don't observe, God won't punish them.
3) Apparently, there has never been significant interaction. They accept Devarim, because the Northern Tribes taught it to them (THAT IS WHAT THE BOOK OF KINGS STATES!!!). If they were taught Devarim after Joshia, why didn't they accept the centrality of Jerusalem as well? . Indeed, it is interesting that Devarim NEVER mentions Jerusalem. If the point as to make Jerusalem a central area, or if the Torah was written after the times of King David, this is utterly impossible. Face the facts: The Five Books of Moses were written by Moses.
4) Yes, I must correct what I said about the Haftorah. Shortly after I posted, I checked and indeed the part about finding the Torah isn't (it only discusses the Pesach, which is relevant to the yom tov). I am not sure what you mean about skipping verses (You might be right, I don't have a chumash with me. Are you sure that the haftorah skips verses?)
5) Which prose verses are you referring to?
1) Yes the author of kings claims the book is attributable to Moshe, because it's the same author that writes about discovering Moshe's Sefer Torah in the first place. He's justifying a previous king, and he justifies him positively because he did something that aligns with that book. He may very well be implying that the book was "lost" between Amatzyahu and Yoshiyahu, but you that implication is not necessary.
Delete2) The concepts you're referring to are ideas from nearly 1000 years later. There's no indication of any of this in the Torah itself.
3) The Tanach's claims about the Samaritans are not trustworthy. It's pretty obvious from my perspective that 2 Kings 17:24-28 is propaganda. It's much more likely that the Samaritans *were* refugees from the Northern kingdom.
4) Yes, nearly all versions of the Haftorah purposefully skip the part about discovering the Torah and go directly from verse 9 to verse 21. The Vilna Gaon disagrees with this, but I'm not sure if any nusach follows him.
5) 27:9, see this post for more information http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/03/whos-kohen.html
1) The point is that the Book of Kings displays that its author didn’t believe that the Book was a new Book; it believed that it was COMMON a mere century earlier. True, the young Josiah and his posse weren’t aware of it, as his possibly-psychotic grandfather had reared him on paganism. However, once Josiah found out about the Torah, he still could have checked with the elders who yet knew his great-grandfather Hezekiah (and the Book of Kings claims that Hezekiah was fully devoted to the Torah that Moses wrote). So, even according to the book, the Book of Devarim, let along the entire Torah, was never missing from the entire nation, G-d forbid. You can't, on the one hand, trust the book regarding certain fact, and then completely reject it regarding other facts. That's mere bias.
Delete2) When Hilkiah found the Torah, he immediately knew what the Torah was. How? How did he know that it was the book of THE Torah? Apparently, because the memory of this book was not totally forgotten even from those who were under the shadow of Manasseh and his cohorts.
3) The Samaritans, according the Book of Kings, were a separate form of Judaism. They were taught all of the laws of the Torah from those from the Ten Tribes. If they were willing to accept changes from King Josiah, why didn’t they fully embrace all his reforms? Why didn’t they fully embrace Jerusalem, for example, maintaining, instead, a place of worship far away from Jerusalem? The obvious answer is that they only accepted the Torah from the Ten Tribes, not from those who believed in Jerusalem. I'm not saying you have trust every detail of the story, but the Book of Kings is describing a parallel form of Judaism that existed in it's time and was believed to have been a separate form since a few centuries earlier. If you reject this, you have circumvented any and all historical research.
4) Once discussing Jerusalem, it is utterly bizarre that a Torah written after the days of David wouldn’t mention that God told the Jews that they should worship in Jerusalem. If that fact doesn’t keep you up at night, it seems certain that no fact could.
5) While the haftorah doesn’t specifically discuss the finding of the Torah (which is mentioned in the earlier chapter), it does refer to it in passing. The point of the haftorah is to teach about Pesach. I’m not sure what you mean about the haftorah skipping verses. While some have the custom to skip those verses, those don’t have anything to do with finding the Torah.
1) I've already explained this. Your verse does not support your assertion.
Delete2) Maybe because it starts with, "these are the words of Moshe." The "Torah" meaning Bereishit-Devarim does not exist as a concept until much later.
3) The book of kings account of the Samaritans is clearly propaganda as I've said earlier. It contradicts the Samaritan's own account in which they are descendents from Ephraim. Blindly accepting the Tanach's description of rival societies is not "historical research." Even Genesis Rabbah 94:7 says that Rabbi Meir thought the Samaritans were descendents if Yissachar. Genetic analysis confirms that the Samaritan lineage is strongly from the Levant and not from Arabia (as claimed in Assyrian sources). This is what historical research is like.
4) Only if you accept the Tanach's story that Jerusalem was the central city at the time of David. Of course, as you know, the northern kingdom didn't put much stock in Jerusalem being God's chosen city.
5) Sorry, it's only the Temani nusach that read from 2 Kings 22. Regardless, your original assertion that people would just have to listen to the Haftorah to know the story of the "found" Sefer Torah is false. No haftorah includes it.
Are Roster writes "3) Apparently, there has never been significant interaction. They accept Devarim, because the Northern Tribes taught it to them (THAT IS WHAT THE BOOK OF KINGS STATES!!!). If they were taught Devarim after Joshia, why didn't they accept the centrality of Jerusalem as well? . Indeed, it is interesting that Devarim NEVER mentions Jerusalem. If the point as to make Jerusalem a central area, or if the Torah was written after the times of King David, this is utterly impossible. Face the facts: The Five Books of Moses were written by Moses."
DeleteIf there was a complete 5 books why was only Deut taught to the Samaritans ? Where in Kings does it describe a book being taught to the samaritans ?
1) The point is that according to the author of Kings 1) Devarim was known to kings who lived a century earlier (2 Kings 14) and that 2) Josiah's great-grandfather devoted his life to the Torah written by Moses. If we trust the Book of Kings, we have no reason to reject these two RECENT facts. Yes, I'm open to the possibility of propaganda, but we also have to trust a book that records recent facts, unless we don't trust the book at all.
ReplyDelete2) Hilkiah seems to be somewhat familiar with the Book. That's the impression that the verses give.
3) Of course we don't have to trust every detail about the Samaritans recorded in Kings. Thus, we can't be absolutely sure about their origin. However, when a book claims that an alternate or enemy form of Judaism exists in their time, and, later, we see a million (literally) Samaritans in the time of chazal, we have no reason to reject the claim that this alternate form of Judaism existed then. If, as Kings states, this alternate form existed and believed in the laws of the Torah (whether they were from the Ten tribes or converts), and yet rejected the reforms of Josiah, we have a right to conclude that the Torah was written before the days of Josiah. Do we have mathematical proof? No. But this seems to be the most reasonable conclusion when looking at the entire historical record.
4) The fact that the centrality of Jerusalem was such a contentious issue is all the more reason for the verses to say that Jerusalem will be a (or the) location for future sacrifice. The fact that the verses refuse to do this point clearly to the fact that the Torah was written before the times of David and before the Temple was built.
5) I already wrote earlier that I was mistaken. Correct, the haftorah is the following chapter, but it does refer, in passing, to the Torah which was found. But your knee-jerk reaction about us trying to hide the truth is telling, and I think it's the central flaw of the non-Mosaic authorship argument. All the reasons given by the skeptics paints the neanderthal Judeans as selfish people who wrote books to get power and to fool the masses (maybe I am exaggerating a bit). But why would these devoted people, who loved God and His Torah with such devotion (as the Psalms, especially chapter 119 and other chapters as well) write a book and pin it to some mythical patriarch? And the evidence for such a fantasy is nowhere to be found.
Most of the comments I've already dealt with, so I'm not going to repeat myself again.
Delete4) Have you ever considered that the idea of Jerusalem being the central location of worship does not date to the time of David, but may itself have been a retrojection from a later period? Perhaps from the time of Hizkiyahu. Once you start opening your eyes to these possibilities, not only do the narratives start making more sense, but you being to actually treat the Tanach as a far more interesting document.
Are Roster writes "3) Of course we don't have to trust every detail about the Samaritans recorded in Kings. Thus, we can't be absolutely sure about their origin. However, when a book claims that an alternate or enemy form of Judaism exists in their time, and, later, we see a million (literally) Samaritans in the time of chazal, we have no reason to reject the claim that this alternate form of Judaism existed then. If, as Kings states, this alternate form existed and believed in the laws of the Torah (whether they were from the Ten tribes or converts), and yet rejected the reforms of Josiah, we have a right to conclude that the Torah was written before the days of Josiah. Do we have mathematical proof? No. But this seems to be the most reasonable conclusion when looking at the entire historical record."
DeleteActually, even allowing for the assumptions you are making - you only have the right to claim the samaratins and jews had a set of some similar laws. That does not mean that both had something like entire 5 books or even a single whole book at the time.
@ Kings 17:25 And so it was, at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which killed some of them. 26 Wherefore they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying: 'The nations which thou hast carried away, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land; therefore He hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.' 27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying: 'Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land.' 28 So one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Beth-el, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.
DeleteBack then god(s) are associated with a particular land. The Samaritans are saying we dont know how to worship the god of this new land they are in. Ergo, ask a priest from that land to tell them how to worship. What makes you think this involves the whole 5 books or even one of the books ?
I don't think you have adequately responded to my earlier points, but let's focus on jerusalem if you'd like
ReplyDeleteYes, modern scholarship - and the tanach as well - claim that many disregarded jersuslem. But I have never seen a mainstream scholar claim that it wasn't built BEFORE the days of hezekiah. Indeed, the rest of tanach refers to it as David's house. So we'd have to agree that the Torah was written in the days of David or shortly thereafter. Furthermore the Torah, especially devarim, envisions a future central location of the temple. So we have to decide. When was it written? If before the idea of a central location become common, why does the Torah refer to a central location? If after the use became common, why does it not refer to jerusalem. Apparently, the idea of a central location was pre-Davidic, before Jerusalem was built by David or shortly thereafter.
You have a very confused view of history (even the Tanach's history) which is probably why you don't understand the things I write.
DeleteDavid did not build Jerusalem according to the Tanach. He conquered it from the Jebusites. The historicity of this is highly questionable, since we have no external indication of any group calling themselves Jebusites.
The city itself is far older, it appears in the Amarna letters and as far back as the Execration Texts in the 19th century BCE. The name is "the city of Shalem" Shalem being a deity in the Canaanite pantheon. Archaeological remains go back even further.
When did Jerusalem become the center of the Judean kingdom? It's not clear, but we can say at that it was centralized at the time of Hizkiyahu. Again we know this not just from the Tanach but from some of the archaeological results from that period. Prior to this, the city was probably minor.
So the question, "why doesn't the Torah mention Jerusalem specifically, if it was written after Jerusalem was centralized." There are lots of conceivable answers to this. One I can offer is political. The goal of the authors of the text is centralization in general. They want to remove the local worship (bamot). But at the same time, they don't want to piss off various other groups who have their own holy city. So they write a text that is acceptable to everyone, with the assumption that Jerusalem will win out eventually.
Another option is that the authors of Deuteronomy weren't actually arguing for Jerusalem as a centralized location. Perhaps they supported another location, but at this time Jerusalem was the holy city. So they write something that is acceptable to the Jerusalem government, with the idea that they're favorite location (Shiloh, har gerizim, bethel, whatever) will eventually become recognized as God's chosen city.
1) I of course know that David didn't build it. But he inspired Solomon to build it.
ReplyDelete2) You can always give "conceivable" and not-so-conceivable explanations to any phenomenon. Thus, the point is PROBABILITY. If a book is written after the centrality of Jerusalem had become a contentious issue, it ALMOST certainly would have dealt with this controversy by mentioning Jerusalem. You claim, for example, that they felt that mentioning Jerusalem would have offended some people. Yet, the Torah prohibits Bamos after the central location is determined. So obviously they weren't concerned about offending people. Furthermore, shouldn't they at least have said, "Jerusalem is one of God's chosen places." You can give a million explanations. But you can't avoid the obvious reality that had the Torah been written after the Temple was built by Solomon, it ALMOST certainly would have mentioned that city.
You want to accept the most probable explanation? Great. We're pretty much done here then.
Delete@ Are Roster - If the Torah was from G-d, why did he not write where the central location would be ? This would have helped prevent inviting amongst the North and South Israelites. It seems likely it was a sensitive issue - so when the verses describing the location are vague it is for good reason. The Torah is being composed from Northern and Southern traditions and scrolls are giving deference to both.
Delete