After some long posts, this one will be a little shorter. However, we'll look at one of the possible late emendations in the Torah that was likely made for political reasons.
A Blessing and a Curse
Near the beginning of this week's parsha, Moshe (Moses) gives the instruction to provide a blessing and a curse on two nearby mountains in Canaan (Deut 11:29-30)
29 And it shall come to pass, when the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt set the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal. 30 Are they not beyond the Jordan, behind the way of the going down of the sun, in the land of the Canaanites that dwell in the Arabah, over against Gilgal, beside the terebinths of Moreh?Later in Yehushua, this event is carried out (Josh 8:33-34).
33 And all Israel, and their elders and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, as well the stranger as the home-born; half of them in front of mount Gerizim and half of them in front of mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel. 34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law.Both sections are very clear, the blessing is on Har Gerizim and the curse is on Har Eval.
An Altar on Eval
Later in Devarim (Deuteronomy) there is a commandment to build an altar on one of these mountains. You might suppose that they chose the mountain of blessing, Har Gerizim, but you'd be wrong (Deut 27:4).
And it shall be when ye are passed over the Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them with plaster.Why did they choose the mountain of "cursing" instead of the mountain of "blessing" for the alter? There are traditional answers to this, but perhaps there is a non-traditional answer as well?
Samaritans
The Samaritan version of the Torah is mostly similar to the Masoretic version used by all denominations of Rabbinic Judaism, however there are a few key differences. The main content difference is that the Samaritan Torah specifically calls out Har Gerizim as God's chosen place of worship. It is included in their "10 commandments" and indeed they worship on that mountain still today. As you might have guessed, the Samaritan version of Deut 27:4 doesn't say to build the altar on Har Eval but rather on Har Gerizim.
It's obvious why the non-Samaritan denominations of Judaism might object to having God commanding the building of an altar on Har Gerizim. If the Torah said that God did indeed as for an alter on Har Gerizim, then it provides justification for the Samaritans' practices. On the contrary, changing the commandment from Har Gerizim to Har Eval leaves the Samaritans in the wrong. There's no commandment to worship on that mountain anymore.
To the Dead Sea Scrolls
These kinds of arguments are the biblical equivalent to "he said - she said." There's no way to tell which is the original, unless, perhaps, you can find an early version of the text that has the mountain in Deut. 27:4 as Har Gerizim. It turns out that we have found such a version.
You can see the fragment from one of the Dead Sea Scrolls here, (note 2018/12/25: this link has since been removed, I'm not sure if I can find another one in public domain) where we are lucky to have enough legible text to clearly identify that this scroll had Har Gerizim in Deut. 27:4. Could it have been that the Samaritan version is the "original" one here and the Masoretic one is the one that changed the text.
These kinds of political changes make a lot of sense in the second temple period. The Torah was becoming the key document to describe the Jewish outlook at this time, and there were several rival factions that were trying to claim the supremacy of their specifically cultic outlook. The disagreements between the Samaritans and the other factions are well known here. It seems obvious that the Jewish sects that centralized worship at the temple of Jerusalem would object strongly to those who centralized worship on Har Gerizim, and thus would do everything they could to eliminate any divine command to build a place of worship there.
Oy Vey. More Mountains. No wonder so many Jews went up and still go to the Catskill Mountains. The pen can be mightier than the sword. Historically writing was the privilege of the priests and rulers and they knew how to use it to further their own interests. Still true to a large extent if you consider the so called 'free press' and media of the USA which is manipulated by the powerful.
ReplyDeleteRefreshing post, Kefira! I was unaware off this difference between traditional torah and samaritan. Like Kocker said, once you accept that our books are no different than any history book, written and edited as political needs changed, it all starts to make perfect sense.
ReplyDeleteAlso, excellent article you linked from OWU. A must read for any serious bible scholar! And as a baal korei, we need to start layning from the Samaritan torah, as it seems to be the true original.
ReplyDeleteThe Samaritan Torah isn't a "true original." That term doesn't mean much at all. For example, a vast majority of the differences in the Samaritan Torah are edits to a more modern form of grammar. It'd be hard to argue that such edits are more "original." All we know is that the Masoretic text, Samaritan Torah, the various DSS texts, and the one that got translated into the Septuagint all branched off from something at some (different) points. We can use comparisons between all four versions to figure out which text altered what. The Samaritans changed some things, and so did the Masoretic version.
DeleteI like that the samaritans keep the original ktav ivri.
ReplyDeleteThat the DSS concurs with the Samaritan Torah is obvious, but in no way suggests that it stemmed from an earlier variant than the one that eventually became the Masoretic text. The whole argument presupposes that the editor of Joshua changed Gerizim to Eval and that - later - an editor changed Gerizim to Eval in Deut. to harmonize with Joshua. And, of course, he was either unaware or unconcerned with the earlier verse that stated that Eval was cursed, or was somehow able to change one section and not another.
ReplyDeleteReally the entire (intriguing) theory that Eval was changed is based on the assumption that the author (did Moses even know about those mountains??) simply would not command an altar to be built there because it was cursed. Perhaps BECAUSE it was cursed that an altar was needed for expiation of sins; that's just something off the top of my head but it's why I feel that the theory is based on a very flimsy assumption...
You're right that I probably should have pointed out the reference in Joshua, that was just laziness on my part.
DeleteStill, I disagree that the DSS should concur with the Samaritan Torah. In many other cases various DSS scrolls do not include Samaritan innovations. I do think there's something to be said here.
Nevertheless, there is a good reason for the Samaritans to change the location from Eval to Gerizim, and there's a good reason for the proto-Pharisees to change it from Gerizim to Eval. There's little reason for the Essenes to change from Gerizim to Eval, so they must have been copying from an older version. Is there a good reason to assume that they'd have a Samaritan Torah lying around?
"I disagree that the DSS should concur with the Samaritan Torah."
DeleteNo, "That the DSS concurs with the Samaritan Torah is obvious" is just referring to this particular variation.
"Is there a good reason to assume that they'd have a Samaritan Torah lying around?"
No. There is paucity of DSS Pentateuchal samples and there is a danger of making too many assumptions from a single fragment. The most that one can say is that this fragment had a similar "mesorah" as that of a Samaritan Torah. Context is impossible (a heretical genizah fragment? a section of a Samaritan Torah? a library that possessed variant scrolls?) and really tells you nothing about what the Essenes believed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe link to the DSS is broken.
ReplyDeleteIs there any evidence that the particular fragment does not come from a Samaritan version? That would be interesting as it would show that the Eval wording can be found outside of the Samartian tradition. Otherwise as @zdub suggests, it could just be a section of a Samaritan Torah, and isn't particularly strong evidence for your theory.
I don't think it's possible to answer whether a fragment is generated from the DSS community or is scavenged from a Pharisaic or Samaritan community. Also, the Samaritan bible and the Masoretic text agree word for word for most of it. So when differences like this pop up, it's important to take note.
DeleteIt's generally thought that DSS are a separate strand from both the Masoretic and Samaritan lines. Unfortunately, I don't know enough to make a good case why scholars think this.