Birth of Shmuel
The book of Shmuel (Samuel) begins with a very common biblical motif. A woman can't give birth, she makes a deal with God that she'll devote the child to him, and God causes her to give birth to a son (always a son). Children that were born in this way include Shimshon (Samson), arguably Yitzchak (Isaac) and here, Shmuel.
The story goes that Shmuel's mother Hannah promised her son to God if she could have one. God acquiesced, and she gave birth to Shmuel. However, the naming of the child is very bizarre. As with many biblical characters, Shmuel is given an etiological reason for the name. The verse in question is 1 Sam 1:20
And it came to pass, when the time was come about, that Hannah conceived, and bore a son; and she called his name Samuel: 'because I have asked him of the LORD.'And here it is in Hebrew
וַיְהִי לִתְקֻפוֹת הַיָּמִים, וַתַּהַר חַנָּה וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן; וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ שְׁמוּאֵל, כִּי מֵיְהוָה שְׁאִלְתִּיו.The reason why this is strange is that the name and the etiological reason don't match up at all. Shmuel means the name of "El", it has nothing at all to do with the word, to ask sha'al. Traditional commentators noticed this discrepancy, but they don't offer any amazing resolutions. For example, Rashi says (my translation) "Shmuel: In the name of El and in the name of the deed he is called, because he was asked from God." where Rashi is using the wordplay Al Shem to explain where the name Shmuel comes from. Al Shem literally means in the name of, but figuratively is an idiom for because. So he translates it as "because of El." Of course you need to add the word Al for that to make sense, and still it seems fairly weak.
The Old Switcheroo
The naming discrepancy has caused people to wonder if maybe there was a switch between the naming of two individuals. In other words, maybe the original story was about someone else, but was later sloppily switched to Shmuel. Is there an obvious candidate, someone around the same time period who's name would fit better there? Of course. What if it originally read:
וַיְהִי לִתְקֻפוֹת הַיָּמִים, וַתַּהַר חַנָּה וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן; וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ שָׁאוּל, כִּי מֵיְהוָה שְׁאִלְתִּיו.If you switch Shmuel with Shaul (Saul) then the wordplay is exact. "Shaul" literally means "asked for" and the name fits the birth story perfectly. Shaul is in my mind one of the more interesting characters in the Tanach, not so much because of the stories about him, but because of how he ended up on the bad side of the Biblical propaganda machine. Here, the argument, is that they literally crossed his name out of the birth story and wrote in Shmuel.
Why they did this is a question for another week (probably next week in fact).
Shkoyach! Pass the chopped liver... yom zeh mechubad....
ReplyDeleteThanks, these are fun! Can't say these over at my table though, my family's all frum ...
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't think any of us can. My family certainly knows better than to ask me for a Dvar Torah on those rare occasions where we are sharing a Shabbat meal together.
DeleteI have actually used some of your "vorts" in my divrei torah at shabbos meals. If you're careful and vague enough about ramifications, it is amazing what you can get away with.
DeleteOf course, we know why this was done: To elevate the Davidic dynasty, and downplay the significance of Saul whose rulership was usurped.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I'll talk about this in more detail next week.
Delete@e: shhhhh, let the rebbi finish the dvar toirah. My family is frum too, but I try to ask these questions in a non-threatening way... many frum scholars are becoming more open to the idea of laater editing especially in the Naviim
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if claiming that there was a mix-up is Kefirah per se.
ReplyDeleteBut your case is actually a good example where biblical criticism makes more problems than it resolves.
There is no report regarding Saul's birth, so it's highly unlikely that there would have been a mix-up of this sort. Furthermore, later in the chapter the idea of Samuel connected to the concept of "Shaul" repeats itself, so your arguing, essentially, that the sloppy redactor made the same mistake in the same chapter (1:27-28).
The Radak and Malbim and others give a more plausible explanation. Samuel is a combination of Shaul M'El, asked from God, as the name Samuel contains all the letters of that two-word phrase.
In fact, I may be wrong, but you misunderstood Rashi. Rashi is saying exactly the point of the Radak, that Samuel is named "Due to El [God's name] and due to the story [the request in the temple]. The word "Due to" or "Al Shem" isn't part of the name. That's Rashi's own words, saying that Shmuel's name is based on God's name on the request, Shaul.
@Anonymous - this is not about mistakes. Actually the fact that the same chapter keep harping on the origin of the name Samuel is somewhat suspicious in and of itself. The majority rules like Kefirah's post.
Delete>There is no report regarding Saul's birth, so it's highly unlikely that there would have been a mix-up of this sort.
DeleteThe idea is that this *was* the birth story of Shaul, and some later author went in and switched it to Shmuel. The verse in 1:27 also support this.
I think the Radak, Malbim and your interpretation of Rashi all would be better explanations etiologically for Shaul than for Shmuel. Shaul literally means exactly what they are describing Shmuel's name should mean (but doesn't).
Anyway, this is not meant to be a standalone topic. Next week I'll have a broader discussion of the ways that the authors of the book of Shmuel systematically denigrated and removed positive aspects from Shaul and elevated David. It's really a fascinating topic and one of my favorite sections of Tanach.
If there was originally a story regarding Saul's birth (and this is the story), why aren't we told anything else regarding Saul's youth. Regarding Samuel, the story continues that he apprenticed under Eli.
DeleteIt seems odd to have a story regarding Saul's birth, and then nothing is told about him until he gets older. Why no intervening myths? (And Samuel was the one who is Levi (See 1 Chronicles 6:22-23), so he would be in Shiloh. Although, the first pasuk states that his father was from Efraim, that is because they lived in the mountains of Efraim. This makes sense in light of the fact that the Kehasim received some cities in the portion of Efraim (Joshua 21:20), as Moshe had commanded that the Levites be provided with cities throughout the land (Numbers 32, See also Leviticus 25).
Regarding your final point, of course he couldn't have been called Shaul, since we need the "mem" to connote that it was "M-el," as the pasuk clearly points out.
>If there was originally a story regarding Saul's birth (and this is the story), why aren't we told anything else regarding Saul's youth?
DeleteWe aren't told anything between the birth narrative of Shimshon and his adult life either. That is the most obvious parallel. This issue doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me.
Here's what I'm proposing to make it clear. There was a story of the birth of Shaul, and a story of the childhood of Shmuel. When the compiler of Shmuel went through and assembled the sources, he scratched out Shaul's name from the birth story and replaced it with Shmuel. And then organized it appropriately in the story. We already have pretty good evidence that Shmuel was assembled from multiple sources, so this kind of editing is at least plausible. However, we do need a good motive, and we'll get to that next week, if you can be patient enough!
>Regarding your final point, of course he couldn't have been called Shaul, since we need the "mem" to connote that it was "M-el," as the pasuk clearly points out.
Uh, that's not how these things work. There's no need for the mem. And even if there was then Shmuel *still* doesn't fit, it should be something like Shalme'el or similar. You aren't going to convince me that Shmuel fits the etiological reason in the text better than Shaul. The best you can do is convince me that Shmuel can reasonably go there. And I just don't think that the answers that the Rishonim give are convincing.
Samuel - the probable origin of the name is 'His name is El'; the name Samuel probably did not derive from saul, even on the basis of fanciful etymology. Also there are some important points of contact between Shimshon (Samson) and Saul - warrior exploits that are more fitting for Saul.
DeleteSaul wouldn't be an appropriate name since it doesn't imply "from E-l." Furthermore, and this is somewhat speculative, we can conjecture that Hannah might have avoided the name Saul (in addition to the fact that it wouldn't imply her intention of incorporating God!), since Saul ben HaCannanis was a villounous person, according to the oral tradition (Sanhedrin 82b), and we try to avoid naming after those people.
DeleteRegarding you point that he should have been called Shaul-me-el, is your argument that whenever a parent applies an etiological name it automatically most be a full caption of the event? Would you drop your argument if I cite to you tens of names that aren't a full description of the event?
Yes, the book of Samuel had a few authors (1 Chronicles 29:29), and it may have been subsequently redacted as well. But I don't know how you can look at an ancient book, and an ancient name and -- contrary to the nation's tradition regarding their own history -- make outlandish and conspiratorial claims based on the slightest amount of evidence. That's what conspiracy theorists do. Instead of following the bulk of the evidence, they sniff out a motive and then try to piece together "arguments." Indeed, I wonder whether the sources that you looked at even quote the approach of the commentators, which seems so much more straightforward than your bonanza.
@Anonymous Shmuel = "His name is El" per experts is the most likely origin of the name.
Delete>Regarding you point that he should have been called Shaul-me-el, is your argument that whenever a parent applies an etiological name it automatically most be a full caption of the event?
DeleteNo, my argument is, and always was, that the etiological reason in the pasuk makes more sense for the name "shaul" than it does for "shmuel." This is obvious from just reading the pasuk.
>Yes, the book of Samuel had a few authors (1 Chronicles 29:29), and it may have been subsequently redacted as well. But I don't know how you can look at an ancient book, and an ancient name and -- contrary to the nation's tradition regarding their own history -- make outlandish and conspiratorial claims based on the slightest amount of evidence.
The book of Shmuel is filled with propaganda designed to make Shaul look bad and make Shmuel/David look good. We've seen some of it the past, and we'll see more of it in a few days.
Yes, of course I realize that your overarching argument is that the story is about Saul. But your specific point that Shmuel's name -- if based on the word Shaul -- should be Shaul-mi-eil is incorrect.
DeleteI know that your propaganda is that the Book of Shmuel is filled with propaganda. But here you are looking at a specific story and completely tearing it out of the intent understood by the audience of the book and your proof for it is completely nonexistent. If your goal is to make biblical criticism look fantastical, you are doing a good job at that.
While writing your next post about how the Sefer Shmuel is filled with propaganda be very careful to acknowledge counterarguments. If you don't, I will force you to acknowledge them. For your own sake, when you present arguments, and you neatly avoid the counterarguments, you come across as biased.
Indeed, I will ask this question again: Do the biblical criticism sources you rely on, do they even present the approach of the classic biblical commentators? If not, why?
@alter The name Samuel (even ignoring the verses' etiological report) probably isn't related to "His name is El." The first is that El isn't per se a name of Hashem. Rather, Y-H-V-H is His name, while El simply means "God" (and pagan gods are also called El, as are powerful leaders). So, probably, he should he been called Shemoya, not Shemuel. Second, the Vav is a millipum-vav, not a cholem. If the root of this millipum is from the word Shaul, it makes sense. But if the source is from the word Shemo, it should have been a cholem. If this sounds like Chinese to you, just imagine how foreign these concepts would have been to German bible critics whose knowledge of Hebrew matches a remedial fifth-grade yeshiva boy.
@ anonymous: I used to employ the 'German bible critic who doesn't understand hebrew ' argument when I was in the kiruv movement. It stopped working for me when I discovered scholars like Friedman and Hayes and others in bible academia, who are required to master not only modern hebrew, but biblical hebrew, aramaic, ugaritic, akadian and 5 other languages and dialects that the torah reflects.
DeleteAs far as Kefira being forced to cite the rishonim's best efforts to reconcile the myriad of contradictions in Tanach, what would be the purpose of that exercise? We've all studied them for decades. I am extremely impressed by their efforts to reconcile the problems they faced, although sadly, they would have been spared most of their time had they known what we know today.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete(BTW, it's Are Roster. I guess I should have pointed that out. I have been having trouble logging into that account)
DeleteYes, modern scholars are required to know many languages. But those who set up this system of doubting the historicity and reliability of the Torah's text was established by German bible critics (many who were anti-Semites; not that their anti-Semitism caused them to make their theories, but it may have ALLOWED them to reach their conclusions which presuppose an unmatched barbarism among the ancient Jews.)
Furthermore, the modern scholars, if you read their arguments, all presuppose HUMAN AUTHORSHIP. Doublets, contradictions and and commandments that weren't relevant until centuries later make up the backbone of their arguments. These arguments aren't relevant in the case against DIVINE authorship. So their efforts, while appreciated, simply isn't relevant to any who took the bible seriously in the first place.
Why don't they accept the possibility of divine authorship? It's hard to tell. But the following comment made by Bart Ehrman is telling. Toward the end of a debate between him and and William Craig, when Craig said that while it's possible that Jesus' resurrection is a myth, it's probable that it took place. Ehrman said, "If you claim that miracles are likely in any university, you'd be hooted off the stage. So I don't take your claim seriously either." (This isn't an exact quote). But if this is the case - if the atmosphere in the university is so atheistic that if a scholar implies that miracles took place, he's hooted at, that means that universities aren't places that are open to all arguments.
Kefira doesn't need to cite the Rishonim's approach. But Bible critics are, especially when their fantastical theories are patently absurd. Why aren't they willing to present all the arguments, especially when those commentators (especially talmudic commentators) lived much closer to the event under question.
Yes, the rational approach is to presuppose human authorship, until proven otherwise that the authorship is Yahweh, Jesus, or the flying spaghetti monster. The onus is on you, the believer, to prove otherwise. To say that Bible critics harbor 'fantastical theories that are patently absurd' is ludicrous. Bible critics go where the evidence leads them, and all the evidence leads to human authorship.
DeleteYes, the rational approach is to presuppose human authorship, until proven otherwise that the authorship is Yahweh, Jesus, or the flying spaghetti monster. The onus is on you, the believer, to prove otherwise. To say that Bible critics harbor 'fantastical theories that are patently absurd' is ludicrous. Bible critics go where the evidence leads them, and all the evidence leads to human authorship.
Delete@e: why do we need to presuppose anything? Just read the torah without any preconceived ideas... that's what Christine Hayes, Friedman and other professors beg their students to do. The rest becomes blatantly obvious!
DeleteSo regarding the difference of Shmo-el and Shmu-el. If you want to make the argument that it is easier to go from something like Sha-al me'el to Shmuel than it is to go from Shmo-el to Shmu-el then you need to provide some strong linguistic evidence. Because, all the linguistic evidence that I know say that vowel changes, especially in names in languages where the orthography does not include vowels are incredibly common.
DeleteAlso I am certainly not going to do a full recapitulation of everything that's ever been written on Sefer Shmuel. Such broad approaches are not my design and never were. My design has always been to provide information on things that I thought were interesting. Oftentimes I provide significant supporting evidence. The evidence regarding the book of Shmuel is the book itself. I'm merely just going to point out the relevant parts and where it leads.
@m rose: You actually do need certain presuppositions in order to make certain arguments. For example, if you want to make probabilistic (i.e. Bayesian) arguments you need to presuppose that the world works in a certain way and always has. In other words, miracles cannot be a part of the analysis, because they have undefined probabilities. So all Bayesian analysis ignores miraculous explanations. By miracles, I mean things events that completely disregard the physical laws of the universe.
DeleteThis problem cuts both ways. Are Roster can criticize the arguments of academic scholars regarding the lack of evidence for say, the desert wanderings, as he has before, because the academic methods do not include miracles. However, he can never make any claim about what is or isn't probable, since the whole determination of probability of an event only makes sense in a "miracle free" framework. Overall, the reliance on miracles makes an argument incredibly weak. And the existence of many miracles would make scientific progress impossible.
Based on the success of science it's pretty obvious that we live in an almost entirely miracle-free world. And there's no good reason to believe that the past was any different.
@kefira: spoken like a true scientist! I understand your explanation. I was saying (kal vachomer) that even without any presuppositions we would arrive at the logical conclusion of human authorship! Although, I understand that if we started of by accepting the possibility of multiple ongoing miracles, coupled with a god who has a penchant for screwing with language and for some reason wrote a book to look like a bunch of people with varying dialects, in different eras, from various locals wrote it!
Delete@Are Roster - we have been thru this before - If there are likely falsehoods in the Torah it strongly suggest the Torah is not Divine. Most people, religious philosophers etc: would concur with this view.
DeleteFYI - EL can be the actual name of a God, just like YHVH can be.
@Are Roster - I have not done an in depth study of the origin the name Samuel. From what I have read academic scholars note problems with all versions, including "His name is EL". Based on all the evidence they conclude what is most likely. You can try the Anchor Bible Samuel for a somewhat brief and technical discussion of the issues. They consider the 'ask' origin fanciful.
Delete@are: you are correct that Wellhousen and others may have had antisemetic leanings and may have been less knowledgeable than current scholars. It's false however that today's scholars are 'atheistic' and biased. In fact, many frum scholars have concluded that the torah was authored by humans with 'divine inspiration'. I can't speak for the others on this blog, but when I discovered the overwhelming evidence that the rambam's 8th is wrong, I was shocked and tried (perhaps like you) to use the rishonom, achronim, and every frum rabbi and scholar I could email to reconcile the evidence. I was saddened ultimately to find that orthodox Judaism doesn't have a defense for torah misinai! I applaud your efforts and have been carefully reading your replies, but don't hear a cogent defense. In fact, I see you slipping into the all-familiar territory of character assassination and anger that I've witnessed from most frum people who are overwhelmed by the facts.
ReplyDeleteSorry if I sound a bit ignorant here, but is it really normative in Orthodox circles to assume divine origin of the Book of Samuel?
ReplyDeleteThe way I was taught was the following.
DeleteThe Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) is literally the word of God, no interpretation.
The Nevi'im, which include the historical books (Judges through Kings) and the prophets (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the 12 minor prophets) were divinely dictated. God told them to the prophet, and the prophet wrote them down. There may have been some interpretation involved.
The Ketuvim (everything else) is divinely inspired. Although that's ill defined.
There is so much to respond to, and I will only have the time to respond to a fraction of it:
Delete@e I can understand the approach of presupposing human authorship . But, the point I was making is that biblical criticism attacks single HUMAN authorship—by arguing that multiple human authorship is more likely than single human authorship. Thus, for one who assumes (rightly or wrongly) that the Pentateuch was divinely composed, the arguments simply aren’t relevant. If someone says, “I went OTD because of the arguments of biblical criticism,” I simply cannot understand how that’s even remotely logical.
Furthermore, we do have evidence for divine authorship. Our evidence is from the fact that the Jewish national history testified that a) Moses, who claimed to be prophet of God, performed divine miracles in presence of our ancestry; b) Moses wrote the entire Torah in the presence of our ancestry; c)Moses claimed that he received his prophecies from God. (I am not rearguing Kuzari; you can look at the Modern Kuzari post if you care to). (There are other proofs for Divine authorship, such as certain prophecies).
The claims of contemporary bible critics are patently absurd. They claim that the Torah was cobbled together from various sources that have all mysteriously gone extinct (and the method itself seems absurd—where the author jumps back and forth, sometimes mid-verse, from one source to the next) . The record of such an event has disappeared from Jewish tradition as well. In the thousands of pages of Talmud and Midrash there isn’t the slightest hint that anyone had other versions of the Torah, or that the Torah was stitched together (AND THEY LIVED SOON AFTER THE EVENTS). Nor is there any report from ancient writers—even pagan writers— claiming that there are (or were) Jewish groups that had different versions of the Torah. Indeed, the Samaritans, who appear to have broken off from Judeaism (that’s not a typo) quite early, have virtually the same Torah that Jews do.
There’s another point. The Jews, at least many of them, were devoted to religion (read the Psalms to see just how devoted the Jews were to God—just as the pagans were devoted to their gods). But bible criticism claims that Jews would rewrite their texts for the most sinister and selfish reasons. How can this be the backbone of a sane theory?
No Jew living during the Second Temple (let along the first temple) period could seriously claim that the source of the entire Torah wasn’t Moses (indeed, the bible unanimously a repeatedly claims that Moses wrote the Torah). Thus, the common belief amongst skeptics was that Moses WROTE THE TORAH ON HIS OWN, rather than God. Thus, the arguments of biblical criticism actually (indirectly) POINT TO DIVINE AUTHORSHIP (since they argue that one human author wouldn’t have written the Pentateuch, thus increasing the possibility of one divine .
author).
Delete@M Rose I don’t presuppose anything. I am merely following the evidence. However, unlike you, I refuse to presuppose that God WOULD NOT write “a book to look like a bunch of people with varying dialects, in different eras, from various locals [sic].” Why do I refuse to make such presumptions? Because I have no way to predict what type of book an Omniscient God would write. Thus, I have no way of disproving divine authorship and I can’t fathom what such evidence would even look like. [BTW, all your points are based on EXTREME speculation, but even if we accept your arguments…]
Regarding your point that some frum scholars accept the Wellhausen theory, there are a couple of possible reasons for this. It’s possible that they are overwhelmed by the “argument from authority” (even when the authority’s arguments are patently irrelevant). Furthermore, “frum” and “atheistic” isn’t necessarily an oxymoron—just as “frum” and “adulterer” can refer to the same person.
To your claim that I’m slipping into “character assassination and anger,” I apologize if I engaged in that. I certainly try to avoid anger. In fact, there’s no need for me to get angry or emotionally invested in this debate since I actually don’t have a horse in this race. Even you’d convince me that all your arguments were true, I’d still follow Judaism with the same zeal as I currently do—due to Pascal’s Wager. So, at least for me, this debate is merely academic. If I do get frustrated, I apologize for that.
@Colin Normative Judaism accepts that God told Moses to write the entire Pentateuch—as dictated by God— though there’s some debate regarding the last 8 to 12 verses of the Torah (see Marc Shapiro’s “The Limits of Orthodox Theology” for further info and other examples). The Book of Deuteronomy was composed by Moses, though God told Moses to include it in the Torah. However, God was involved in the composition of Deuteronomy in the sense that the Deuteronomic commandments were from God and Moses had the help of the “Holy Ghost” while composing Deuteronomy (Malbim claims that the prose sections were composed by God as well, although that isn’t clear).
Regarding the subsequent books of the Bible, things are much trickier. The Talmud isn’t clear, as far as I’m aware, the extent that God composed the subsequent books. It’s certainly not one of the fundamentals of faith to believe that God composed, or was even involved in, the rest of the Bible (although obviously the Jewish tradition is that the PROPHECIES recorded in the Bible were issued by true prophets). We simply trust the Talmudic Sages who determined that these books are part of the canon. However, at least according to the Abarbanel (who admits that his approach is somewhat speculative), the Prophets were a) composed by people who happen to have been prophets, b) God commanded that the prophet write the book, AND c) after the prophet composed the text (based on historical documents, at times) God would “fact-check” to determine that it was factually correct (this is the Abarbanel’s opinion; this isn’t binding dogma). GOD, IN OTHER WORDS, DID NOT COMPOSE THE PROPHETS. The Kesuvim [writings] are merely books that were written by men who were under divine inspiration. What that exactly means, as Kefirah pointed out, is not entirely clear (The Redak’s introduction to Psalms describes the difference between prophecy and Holy Ghost). Note, I am not an expert in this field and there are probably hundreds of opinions out there, so quoting one source (the only I know of, in addition to Morah Nevuchim, which is quoted by Abarbanel) might actually be somewhat misleading.
@Alter I simply can’t understand how “his name is e-l” would make sense. I am aware of MANY verses which state “his name is Y-H-V-H,” but I’m not aware of a single verse which states that God’s name is “e-l” (although, obviously, I don’t know the bible by heart). Thus, it is much more likely that Shmuel is merely a shortening of “asked from God.” The fact that the book claims that “asked from God” is the source of the name makes perfect sense.
Without opening a chumash: beis El, El elohay yisroel, El Elyon, El shaddai, and in the siddur: El melech ne'eman, toras El...
DeleteI think one of the major differences between us is that I was brought up to believe in a perfect god, one which doesn't make human type errors. A god that is coherent, moral and logical. While you're open to a god that is erratic, nonsensical and somewhat whimsical. So whatever the outcome of biblical discussion, you 'have no horse in this race' because you'll just adapt your understanding of what a god is or isn't. I'm not sure if you're being intellectually dishonest or perhaps my ideas of what a god would be like (if there are indeed such beings) are too rigid. As a hypothetical mind game, if I were forced to accept that the torah and the world were and are being authored by a god; I would say that he/she definitely has a bizarre sense of humor, irony and most of all a sado-masochistic, psychopathic nature.
Without opening a chumash: beis El, El elohay yisroel, El Elyon, El shaddai, and in the siddur: El melech ne'eman, toras El...
DeleteI think one of the major differences between us is that I was brought up to believe in a perfect god, one which doesn't make human type errors. A god that is coherent, moral and logical. While you're open to a god that is erratic, nonsensical and somewhat whimsical. So whatever the outcome of biblical discussion, you 'have no horse in this race' because you'll just adapt your understanding of what a god is or isn't. I'm not sure if you're being intellectually dishonest or perhaps my ideas of what a god would be like (if there are indeed such beings) are too rigid. As a hypothetical mind game, if I were forced to accept that the torah and the world were and are being authored by a god; I would say that he/she definitely has a bizarre sense of humor, irony and most of all a sado-masochistic, psychopathic nature.
@Are Roster
DeleteMay there is a defect in your logic. Spinoza said something to the effect it is as clear as sunshine in noon the Torah was not authored by Moshe. And that was hundreds of years ago before so many of the new discoveries in the ANE.
You have no evidence of divine authorship - Kuzari, Jewish Survival, Prophecy are all full of holes. Please check out my recent Kuzari post part 7, Prophecy post and Jewish Survival-Suffering-Predictor post. You have pseudo philosophical arguments full of holes and sophistry.
“In the thousands of pages of Talmud and Midrash there isn’t the slightest hint that anyone had other versions of the Torah, or that the Torah was stitched together (AND THEY LIVED SOON AFTER THE EVENTS). Nor is there any report from ancient writers—even pagan writers— claiming that there are (or were) Jewish groups that had different versions of the Torah. Indeed, the Samaritans, who appear to have broken off from Judeaism (that’s not a typo) quite early, have virtually the same Torah that Jews do.”
I think there is Talmud evidence of different versions of Torah - check out Daat Emet.
Why would ancient pagan writers discuss or write about Torah versions ?
Also ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE Is NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE, for something like that.
“There’s another point. The Jews, at least many of them, were devoted to religion (read the Psalms to see just how devoted the Jews were to God—just as the pagans were devoted to their gods). But bible criticism claims that Jews would rewrite their texts for the most sinister and selfish reasons. How can this be the backbone of a sane theory?”
You are guilty of confirmation bias. All the Idolatry in the Tenach. Also, ancient people glorify their Gods and State. It involves propaganda, attempts to convert, unite etc: etc: Much of ancient writing involves propaganda.
“No Jew living during the Second Temple (let along the first temple) period could seriously claim that the source of the entire Torah wasn’t Moses (indeed, the bible unanimously a repeatedly claims that Moses wrote the Torah).”
Nah. See Daat Emet - were some sections allegedly not written by Moshe. Also see Spinoza and Ibn Ezra. HOW DO YOU know that there did not exist groups of Jews claiming the entire Torah was not from Moshe ? Even if you can show they did not exist, it would just mean many Jews thought TMS, not that TMS actually happened.
"(indeed, the bible unanimously a repeatedly claims that Moses wrote the Torah).”
OK - Are Roster please cite me some pasukim.
A Omniscient God could not write false statements unless he was lying to us.
Pascal’s Wager- never found this argument convincing - probably should write a blog post on it. Anyway, some Christians tell me I will burn in hell forever if I don’t accept Jesus. Maybe I should become Christian ?
.
.
“EL” was used by Canaanites for a name of a particular God, but I am not sure if the Tenach uses EL alone. Per my recollection Samuel is a combination and contraction of the Hebrew word for ‘name’ and El. See Anchor Bible Samuel for more details.
Additionally @are: "I have no idea what kind of book a god would write". That is correct! But we do know what kind of books (tablets) humans were writing for thousands of years before the composition of the torah. Enuma Elish is one where you can clearly see verbiage of Bereishis and Oz yoshir, and Eshnuna and Hamurabi that predate Mishpotim and are almost verbatim to many of the torah laws :
Deletehttp://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm
http://www.commonlaw.com/Hammurabi.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@M Rose We simply can't have any presumptions about God, especially regarding what type of book he'd write, or what style he'd use. The Gemara states that "the Torah speaks in the language of men," even to the point of being unnecessarily redundant. So the Torah is written to guide us. Maybe God feels that using various styles and stories can inspire us, but these are ad hoc justifications that, while they may be true, are speculative and unneeded. Even if we take the illogical approach that we are entitled to have certain presumptions about what God is, if the Torah contradicts that presumption it isn't a reason to throw out the Torah. Rather, it's a reason to throw out our presumptions about God.
ReplyDeleteRegarding God's sadistic (God forbid) nature, I can go on for days discussing this matter, but since you don't believe in God, and you wouldn't believe in God even if I'd be able to persuade you that the biblical God is supremely moral, it wouldn't be worth the effort, at this point.
I would point out, however, an interesting point made by Rabbi Avraham Ben HaRambam. He, like his father, claims that the human emotions and actions exhibited by God are allegorical, as an omnipotent God can't have human emotions. Rather, the human emotions and actions exhibited by God are meant to display his perfect attributes. Thus, he argues, the bible never described God as eating. He explains that eating is an inherently imperfect act, since it implies a need, or a sense of lacking something, on part of the eater. This much is well known. He continues that all the emotions exhibited by God although they aren't literal, also display God's perfection (justice and vengeance are attributes of perfection). But, he asks, we find God getting angry. This is a problem, Rabbi Avraham argues, since anger is inherently imperfect -- AND NOT FOR THE REASON THAT WE'D EXPECT! He claims that anger is essentially a lack of control over oneself, and that is an inherent imperfection. So, he asks, why does the bible claim that God gets angry? He answers that if people would never see God's angry side (although it isn't really anger) people wouldn't resist the temptation to do sin. Is it only through seeing that picture that we can be morally just. So bear in mind that when God acts in what you'd deem psychopathic it might be calculated to inspire fear. And fear is a good thing.
@M Rose In the bible, God has a frightening side and a loving side, and people are often confused by these two approaches. But Jews know that he's "avinu malkeinu," our father and our dictator. He has two middos, Midas Harachamim and Midas Hadin. We are thus required both to love and fear God. For this reason, we never find the bible stating that we "love elokim," since it's impossible to love his dictatorial side. Similarly, in the five Books of Moses (and especially the first four books) we never find the concept of fearing y-h-v-h, since it's nearly impossible to fear his loving side (unless both names are used, which is common in devarim), the only exception being when they feared y-h-v-h after the splitting of the sea, which the commentators explain was a higher form of fear (yiras haromimus, since they weren't being punished, but rather were in awe of God's majesty).
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, I can go on for days about the morality of God or lack thereof. And I'm sure you'll respond with hundreds of cases, but I won't respond to your point because, at this point, that's not what's holding you back from belief.
As to your point about 'el' being the name of God, I agree that the bible calls God el, but that's a title, not a name. Thus, although there are many verses which states "His name is y-h-v-h," I'm not aware of a singe verse which states "his name is el" or "his name is elokim," as it merely means the title 'God,' which explains why even pagan gods are called that. That is why Samuel simply CAN'T mean 'his name is el.'
Regarding your final point, there's no need for me to dispute your point (although, I think, if anything, it actually proves the antiquity of the Torah text). I have no reason to presume that an infinite God wouldn't either: a) refuse to inspire other cultures with similar ideas or b) try to incorporate ideas from other cultures into His text. I have no need, nor any right, to make ANY assumptions about God. I merely follow the evidence.
I appreciate your lengthy answers, and understand your position (correct me if I'm wrong):
Delete1. you have emunah in hashem and the torah that is unshakable, so any argument against it is invalid. Hence, your only responsibility in these discussions is to find some way to justify this emunah.
2. Any proofs brought against your beliefs only need to be justified if the person you're arguing with will change their beliefs as a result of your justifications.
If these are true, I can't figure out why you put so much time and effort into reading and responding to these discussions. You've even read one of my favorite books by Goldstein on Spinoza, why? You say you are a skeptical person, but stop short of being skeptical about the biggest leap of faith you have taken.
I must conclude that the only difference between me and you is that I questioned everything and you stop questioning when it may bring out the wrath of yahwe.
(as a side note, the son of rambam couldn't be more wrong : yahwe identifies himself as a jealous, angry vindictive god many times, and behaves in a manner that is impulsive, furious and moody at almost every turn in the torah. I challenge you to justify every 'vayichar af yahwe' or 'vechara appi' in the torah)
1) I don't have "unshakable emunah in Hashem and the Torah." I wish I did. Rather, I happen to think that there's overwhelming evidence for the miracles in the Torah. Specifically, at least for me, the Kuzari argument speaks to my core. I find it logically, emotionally and theologically satisfying, especially the numerous commemorations that the Torah provided for the events. On the other hand, Iv'e yet to see a single good argument against the divinity of the Torah (all the arguments, as far as I can tell, make tons of assumptions about what type of books Hashem would write and what type of evidence Hashem would surely leave). I'm being honest. I don't have "faith"; I am simply overwhelmed by the evidence.
Delete2) My skepticism leads me to reject atheistic arguments as well. Thus, I subject the claim that "nationally commemorated history is fallible" to the same scrutiny you would to those who claim that the moon landing never happened.
3) Yes, of course the Torah refers to Hashem getting angry. But that's in order to scare us. Regarding the vindictiveness, R' Avraham would argue that it's a good middah, since bad people need to be punished.
Are: I also found the kuzari argument pretty convincing until I found out that many cultures and religions have mass revelation myths. In fact there's one that took place just just 100 years ago by the British army (Angels of mon).
DeleteWhat happens though, once I introduce this fact to kuzari supporters, is a desperate, intellectually dishonest game of qualifying Sinai revelation to make it unique.
Our argument was never from mass revelation. In fact there are hundreds, if not thousands, stories in the Talmud which contain public miracles. Iv'e never heard any Kuzari argument from the Talmud's miracles. Rather, is was from national (the Torah claims that millions of our ancestors witnessed the event), coupled with the numerous immediate and perpetual commemorations (which explains why the Ramban and Sefer Chinuch claim that the commemorations can "quiet those who claim that the world doesn't have a creator."
Delete@ACJA Spinoza, according to a recent biography of him, was more effected by anti semitism than by rational investigation (according to Rebecca Goldstein, a card-carrying atheist). Furthermore, he held that miracles and creation were impossibilities, as they violated the immutable and divine laws of nature. Modern physics tells us that anything is possible, including alternate universes which have wildly different laws of nature and a big-bang which claims that the universe we live in didn't always exist, and its laws of nature didn't exist either. Had Spinoza been aware of these two crucial facts, he surely would have been open to miracles and creation, and he probably would have been more willing to accept mosaic authorship as well.
ReplyDelete@ Are Roster - I was informing you about Spinoza's discussion that Torah authorship not being from Moshe. It had nothing to do with antisemitism or modern cosmology theories, miracles, creation ....
DeleteI guess it's the old chicken and egg question. As far as I can tell, his rejection of miracles and the possibility of creation led to his rejection of mosaic authorship (since he rightfully held [I suspect] that once we accept mosaic authorship, it's impossible not to believe in miracles).
Delete@ Are Roster have even read spinoza's discussion of why he concludes the Torah was not written by Moshe ? Based on what you insinuate - it seems not.
DeleteYes, a while ago. I just perused his points on an online version of his points. Of course he presents literary-historical reasons for why he doesn't accept Mosaic authorship. But we need to speculate what motivated his arguments, arguments that were known centuries before he was born. He relies, for example, on Ibn Ezra. Why no quote the approach of other commentators? Why not quote the fact that Ibn Ezra himself only applied his methodology to a few verses, not entire chapters? Why not discuss the Samaritan Torah, a group that Ezra HaSofer didn't get along with? Why not discuss hundreds of others issues? That answer of course - and this isn't meant to disparage Spinoz (I wonder if I'd be any different when facing the anti-Semitism that he did) is that he had underlying motivations for his hyper-skeptical approach.
Delete@ Are ROster "Perused" an online discussion is not the same as reading what Spinoza actually writes. If a few Torah chapters may not be from Moshe, maybe much more is not either. You are inventing underlying motivations for Spinoza. Evaluate his discussion on it's merits not alleged motivations. Other commentators themselves admit they are speculating. It is fairly obvious other commentators ad-hoc twisted kvetching explanations are to preserve an apriori dogma of TMS. Regarding Samaritans and their version of their version of Torah - to the extent it mirrors our version - it will lead to the same conclusions that Spinoza found for our version.
DeleteI can't respond to all your points due to lack of times.
DeleteI focus on the Samaritans in a different post, where I sparred with Kefirah. The Samaritan Torah implies that Ezra didn't write the Torah (ein kan makom l'harich). Spinoza, who claimed that Ezra wrote the Torah (and then, presumably, convinced the Jews of Egypt and Babylon to accept is newfangled text from a distance) doesn't account for the Samaritan Torah. I am not saying that the Samaritan Torah is absolute evidence. My point is that the fact that Spinoza didn't address it implies that he had underlying motivations. We all have underlying motivations!
@ Are Roster writes - “I focus on the Samaritans in a different post, where I sparred with Kefirah. The Samaritan Torah implies that Ezra didn't write the Torah (ein kan makom l'harich). Spinoza, who claimed that Ezra wrote the Torah (and then, presumably, convinced the Jews of Egypt and Babylon to accept is newfangled text from a distance) doesn't account for the Samaritan Torah. I am not saying that the Samaritan Torah is absolute evidence. My point is that the fact that Spinoza didn't address it implies that he had underlying motivations. We all have underlying motivations! “
DeleteMy Response
I have no recollection if Spinoza knew about the Samaritan Torah nor how he would respond to it if he knew about it. Nor is it important who Spinoza thinks wrote the Torah. What is important are Spinoza’s arguments why the Torah was not likely from Moshe and why the Torah was written at a much later date. Your insinuations regarding Spinoza not addressing the Samaritan issue are all speculation and without foundation. Nor is it relevant to the textural arguments of Spinoza.
I can stop my response to you here but will go -
The DH in general does not claim a single person (Ezra or whoever) concocts the Torah. Rather there were predating scrolls, oral traditions etc: that are getting adjusted/redacted over time with a ‘final’ redaction occurring at a much later date than Moshe.
Regarding Samaritans - From 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]”
That the “samaritans’ have a similar torah like us does not imply our Torah or theirs are from Moshe. It just means both groups accepted a similar text . Scholars also think the Samaritan text was redacted. Given the wiki info above why cant the Torah be redacted around the time of Ezra and the Samaritans adopting/adapting it ?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ACJA
ReplyDeleteRegarding your argument against our evidence, I didn't want to rehash old arguments; I was merely explaining that religious Jews have good reasons, or at least they think they have good reasons, for believing in a divinely authored bible. I, for one, remain very skeptical of your argument that nationally commemorated history is a fallible form of evidence, as I haven't seen the slightest evidence of that, other than your intuitions about how nations may act. I happen to be skeptical by nature, so maybe that's skewing my ability to accept your intuitions. Others who are less skeptical by nature, who'd be willing to accept your intuitions without empirical data, might be more open to your arguments.
I glanced at the daat emet site and I didn't see anything of note. His central point, which I alluded to in the initial post, is that it's possible that slight changes or additions could have developed over time. Thus, his claim that there are fourteen (!) word differences between our Torah and those common in Babylon is of no relevance to our discussion, which tears the torah text to shreds.
Regarding your point about Ibn Ezra, the sage who was most open to slight changes in the Torah text, at one point he refers to a karaite scholar who claims that ONE CHAPTER of the Torah was added after Moses's time that his book 'should be burned.' So even Ibn Ezra was only open to slight changes, not major ones.
My proof that there weren't Jews who rejected mosaic authorship is from the fact that the Talmud, when referring to the various types of apostates, talks about those who believe that Moses wrote parts on his own (the Talmud even talks about Zoroastrian beliefs!) If there ever was a group that believed that it wasn't written by Moses, the Talmud would have either rejected or vilified that belief, or possibly sanctioned it. The Talmud is completely silent about this point. This proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that post-mosaic authorship was never an issue amongst ancient Jews.
Regarding your point that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence it obviously depends on the situation. If you look out your window and don't see your car there, that absence of evidence would be evidence that your car isn't there. In other cases, absence of evidence arguments aren't appropriate (e.g., the mere fact that we haven't located Akkad, doesn't prove that the hundreds of ancient texts, including the bible, are lying about that city). If in this gigantic earth-shattering change In the Torah took place, we'd find thousand of Talmudic texts talking about this change,and there would be festivals and commemorations of this event. What do find, when looking at the jewish tradition which focuses on and cherishes its history? NOTHING. What about the Samaritans, does their tradition, which may have predated even davidic times, say anything about any egregious torah change? NOTHING. Do we have any mention in any ancient pagan historical texts (some that even refer to Moses by name) regarding earlier versions of the Torah text? NOTHING.
This isn't merely an absence of evidence argument. This is two parallel traditions which confidently claim that the entire torah was written by Moses and Joshua IN FRONT OF THE NATION and make no mention of the bible critics' claim. It is more than obvious, if you are willing to look at the evidence without preconceived 'rationalism' or absurd notions that science has disproven miracles, that the Torah was authored by Moses. The bible critics' claim that one human couldn't have authored the Torah merely proves what we always knew all along: God composed the text of the Torah.
All this, especially since there's no direct evidence of post-mosaic authorship, is enough to prove that the Torah was not post-mosaic. But these aren't the only proofs. There are many others as well.
Are Roster - will try to get back to you next week Shabbas fast aproaches.
DeleteARE ROSTER YOU WROTE "(indeed, the bible unanimously a repeatedly claims that Moses wrote the Torah).”
OK - Are Roster please cite me some pasukim.
Kocker, TMS arguments will often quote the verses in devarim that say 'god said to moshe write the words of this torah...'. Although they obviously are referring to a particular set of laws or verses, most scholars believe that's what mislead early scholars to believe that moshe wrote the entire torah.
DeleteP.s. 'shabbos is fast approaching'. Kocker atheist does shabbos??
@ Are Roster you wrote “@ACJA
DeleteRegarding your argument against our evidence, I didn't want to rehash old arguments; I was merely explaining that religious Jews have good reasons, or at least they think they have good reasons, for believing in a divinely authored bible. I, for one, remain very skeptical of your argument that nationally commemorated history is a fallible form of evidence, as I haven't seen the slightest evidence of that, other than your intuitions about how nations may act. I happen to be skeptical by nature, so maybe that's skewing my ability to accept your intuitions. Others who are less skeptical by nature, who'd be willing to accept your intuitions without empirical data, might be more open to your arguments.”
My Response
NOT MY INTUITIONS. See my Kuzari post 6 and 7 and others - national traditions, collective memory, social memory are not considered reliable - this is based on empirical evidence. You are just special pleading that TMS is an exception. Sorry - no cigar.
@ Are Roster - U write “I glanced at the daat emet site and I didn't see anything of note. His central point, which I alluded to in the initial post, is that it's possible that slight changes or additions could have developed over time. Thus, his claim that there are fourteen (!) word differences between our Torah and those common in Babylon is of no relevance to our discussion, which tears the torah text to shreds.”
I suggest reading ALL of the pamphlets, not glancing at just one or two. There are others you have missed.
@ Are Roster U write “ My proof that there weren't Jews who rejected mosaic authorship is from the fact that the Talmud, when referring to the various types of apostates, talks about those who believe that Moses wrote parts on his own (the Talmud even talks about Zoroastrian beliefs!) If there ever was a group that believed that it wasn't written by Moses, the Talmud would have either rejected or vilified that belief, or possibly sanctioned it. The Talmud is completely silent about this point. This proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that post-mosaic authorship was never an issue amongst ancient Jews....”
Does not prove it all. At best it strongly suggests that AFTER a certain point in time the belief that most of the Torah text actually came from Moshe was accepted by the Talmud and many Jews. (‘was accepted by many Jews’ - this is an educated guess on my part - I have no hard survey data to justify my claim. I think the Talmud does claim TMS - but I have to research further, and research what the Talmud meant by TMS. )
Also, I am not sure why you assume the Talmud would open this can of worms for discussion - sometimes silence is golden.
Just so you know - collective memory, national traditions, social memory is not considered reliable.
@ Are Roster you wrote “Why would ancient pagan writers discuss or write about Torah versions ?”
My response to this is ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE Is NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE, for something like that. Anyway why assume pagan writers should discuss the Torah ?
I know of many verses which refer to Mosaic authorship. I will paste the first ten that appear in the Bible (as far as I'm aware; I know of forty pesukim that refer to Mosaic authorship):
ReplyDelete1) Exodus 17:14 -- Hashem said to Moshe, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it.
2) Exodus 24:4 -- And Moshe wrote down all the words of Hashem.
3) Exodus 34:27 -- And Hashem told Moshe, write down these words...
4) Numbers 33:2 -- Moshe recorded their departures in their travels as Hashem commanded
5) Deuteronomy 4:8 -- And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?
6) Deuteronomy 4:48 -- These are the decrees, statutes, and ordinances Moshe proclaimed to them after they came out of Egypt.
7) Deuteronomy 31:9 -- Moshe wrote down this Torah and gave it to the Cohanim.
8) Deuteronomy 31:22 -- Moshe wrote down this song.
9) Deuternomy 31:24 -- Moshe wrote this Torah from the beginning to the end.
10) Joshua 8:31 -- as Moses the servant of Hashem had commanded the Jews. He built it according to what is written in the Sefer torah of Moshe.
@ Are Roster 1) Exodus 17:14 -- Hashem said to Moshe, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it.
DeleteVerse is saying write about the Amalek issue on a scroll. How can you conclude this scroll refers to the OT ?
2) Exodus 24:4 -- And Moshe wrote down all the words of Hashem.
Verse refers to the laws that were just enumerated. How can you conclude it refers to the whole OT ?
Same comment applies to every one of your list that I checked, which is almost every one - No place are the 5 whole books of OT ever claimed to be written by Moshe or from G-d. It may have a vague reference to a book here or scroll there or book of laws (Torah) someplace else. None of which imply the whole 5 books.
1) So do you admit that Moshe wrote at least some parts of the Torah? That would conflict all bible critics, as far as I'm aware. Furthermore, my point was that the writing of the book by Moses was so strong that his writing is referenced numerous times.
Delete2) What about Deuteronomy 31:24? You'd respond, I'm sure that the definition of "the entire Torah" changed over time. But what compels you to say that? Why not just accept that he wrote the Torah?
It is 'claimed' that Moses wrote a part here and a part there of the Torah. How in the world does that conflict with bible critics? Just because an author claims that George Washington cut down a cherry tree doesn't mean he really did.
DeleteIt is 'claimed' that Moses wrote a part here and a part there of the Torah. How in the world does that conflict with bible critics? Just because an author claims that George Washington cut down a cherry tree doesn't mean he really did.
Delete@Are Roster There is no evidence Moshe wrote any part of our version of the Torah. However, our Torah does write XYZ section is from G-d telling Moshe to write it. That is not evidence though. BUT YOU MISS MY POINT. You have not have not supplied that the entire Torah we have is from Moshe. That is what you claimed. At best - maybe some parts of our Torah are from Moshe, even according to the Torah text itself.
DeleteDeut31 24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished..
DeleteThe verse is referring to specific laws - 'words of this law' that were just discussed in the prior pasukim,. It is a kvetch to claim it is referring to Genesis 1:1 and on.
This is consistent with the other pasukim you supplied. A list of laws are provided and then Moshe is told to write them down.
Briefly, the next two verses refer to "this book of the Torah"; this means that Moses was believed to be the author of "the Torah." As I said before, "the Torah" could have evolved over time to mean something else. Indeed, even if the verse would say "Moses wrote from the beginning of Genesis" you couldn't conclude that Moses wrote all the subsequent verses (unless each verse contained a footnote reminding the reader that this verse was also authored by Moses). My point, therefore, as I said before, is that Moses was considered to be the author of "the Torah." I have no reason to assume that the definition of "the Torah" evolved over time. All I said, to quote myself "the bible unanimously [and] repeatedly claims that Moses wrote the Torah." I respond to your further points over the next couple of days.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ Are Roster Deut 34: 24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, 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, 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.
DeleteVerse 24 _ “THIS” law is referring to the laws just written in the previous pasukim. This is consistent with all the other pasukim you supplied.
Verse 26 - is referring to verse 24, so it probably does not include from Geneses 1:1 on.
Torah means law - instruction. It does not mean the five books of the OT. However, we gave the name Torah to the 5 Books of the OT because as you have pointed out there are pasukim that refer to specific sections being recorded.
You not have not supplied pasukim to support the notion all 5 books of OT are from Moshe or G-d. Only that certain sections of laws were recorded.
When it comes to ancient books claiming authorship, there is overwhelming evidence that late editors took the liberty of invention. We see this in both the old and new testaments. Some examples are Shmuel, Koheles, Esther, Paul (and almost the entire Gospel). The torah claiming that part of itself was written by Moshe isn't in any way proof of Mosaic authorship.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@M Rose and @e The proof for mosaic authorship is a two-prong argument (or a two-tiered) argument. The first is the fact that the book claims that it was written by him. This means that unless we have evidence that it wasn't written by him, we accept that it was written by him. However, if we have evidence that it wasn't, we can suspect that it wasn't written by him, Indeed, there are many books which claim to have been written by someone and that turns out not to be the case.
DeleteHowever, the argument for mosaic authorship is stronger than that. The point is that the Torah claims that the Torah claims that it was written in the presence of the nation of Israel, and Joshua also wrote the Torah in the presence of the nation. Thus, the writing of the Torah was national event, which increases the likelihood that it was written by Moses, and it would have been harder for subsequent generations to make massive changes to the text.
As a side point, for sake of comparison, let's consider Islam. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that Mohammad was a prophet. Indeed, I don't think that it's absurd that he was a prophet. He surely seems sincere in his claim that he's a prophet. The problem is that he didn't write the book in a public forum. Rather, "his" book passed through (if I remember correctly) four other hands before being widely distributed, so we have reason to assume that major changes weren't made to the text by these individuals. The Torah, written in public (especially Joshua's writing) may have prevented these sort of changes.
(To your point: If Washington was believed to have cut the cherry tree down in the presence of the millions of ancestors of the entire nation, then we would have stronger reason to believe this legend.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ Are Roster u write "The proof for mosaic authorship is a two-prong argument (or a two-tiered) argument. The first is the fact that the book claims that it was written by him."
DeleteNo it does not. Only certain sections are claimed to be recorded by Moshe.
@ Are ROster u write "This means that unless we have evidence that it wasn't written by him, we accept that it was written by him."
We do have evidence strongly suggesting it was not written by him - check out Spinoza’s reasons and others by the DH. But even if that evidence did not exist we would need not accept a claim as to who wrote a book It is possible the book was written at a later date. But to give the book credibility it is claimed from an ancient hero - Moshe
As far as the claim of a ‘national event’ - you are back to something like the Kuzari argument. But it has been repeatedly shown to you the Kuzari argument is defective. Moreover, I can provide Torah pasukim, and accepted Orthodox Rabbinic commentary that all but says the nation did not hear all that much Torah at Sinai. Do you really think an entire nation witnessed Moshe giving the entire Torah ? Of course you do. Because the Torah (according to you says so) or because the national tradition (according to you) says so. This is circular reasoning.
1) I read Spinoza's reason (an online version, a translation of his works. To me it seems that he's just repeating all of the Ibn Ezra's hints (plus a couple of ideas about Ezra which even he'd admit are speculative). Why did Ibn Ezra hint to non-Mosaic authorship, rather than openly claim it? One reason, according to Marc Shapiro (regarding the Ramban, but it applies even more-so to the Ibn Ezra), was that if Ibn Ezra would openly admit that a few sentences in Torah weren't of mosaic authorship the Muslims who claim that the Jewish Torah was altered would have field day with that info. Ibn Ezra was acutely aware of Muslim polemics because it seems that his son converted to Islam, which Ibn Ezra had trouble coming to terms with (his son claimed that he still observed the mitzvahs, although that might have been as deference to his father's beliefs). So Spinoza, in short, didn't present any ideas that people didn't know beforehand.
Delete2) All I am saying is that the Torah claims that (a direct quote) "this book of the Torah was written by Moses." Could that have meant a smaller version of the book we have? Possibly. In fact, even if the Torah would have said, "Moses wrote all the five books" it could have meant a smaller part, but I have no reason to assume that the definition of "the Torah" changed over time. I do, however, have some evidence that "the Torah" wasn't a small set of laws: a) if Moses wrote a bunch of small snippets, why it should be called the bookS of the Torah (in plural). In other words, God commanded Joshua to learn "the book of Moses' Torah" why didn't Joshua ask "which book of Moses Torah?"; b) the fact that it's called THE Torah implies that its the well-known book of the Torah (rather than just a list of laws previously mentioned in the chapter); c) Moses promises that "even curses not mentioned in this book of the Torah" will punish the Jews (Deuteronomy 28:61). Clearly, the list of curses is also in the Torah that was present before Moses; d) the king was required to carry a Torah with him and to follow the "chukim" (decrees that aren't apparently logical) hat are mentioned in it and that it would inspire him to to fear God (Deuteronomy 17:19). This doesn't refer to the small list of laws mentioned earlier, since those aren't chukim and there's nothing in them that would inspire one to fear God; e) God told Joshua to constantly study Moses' Torah "day and night"' (Joshua 1:8) if it was a small list of laws, why would Joshua need to spend so much time on those few verses?
3) True, I was merely using the Kuzari argument to point to Mosaic authorship. But even if you aren't convinced of the Kuzari argument's ability to prove miraculous events, there's nothing miraculous about about Moses writing this book. So even a critic of Kuzari might be willing to accept Mosaic authorship.
@ Are Roster writes “1) I read Spinoza's reason (an online version, a translation of his works. To me it seems that he's just repeating all of the Ibn Ezra's hints (plus a couple of ideas about Ezra which even he'd admit are speculative)...”
DeleteSo you accept Ibn Ezra's hint of non mosaic origin ? Do you accept Spinoza’s comment that Moshe likely did not write the Torah ? If you do not, you have to come to terms with the points Ibn Ezra and Spinoza as well as what modern Bible scholarship have found. You will have to invent all sorts of ad-hoc explanations. Are the ad-hoc explanations better than what a plain reading strongly suggests ? You will have to invent miracles, prophecies etc: etc: - At the end of the day do you find that intellectually honest ? Do you find it intellectually satisfying ?
@ Are Roster writes “3) True, I was merely using the Kuzari argument to point to Mosaic authorship. But even if you aren't convinced of the Kuzari argument's ability to prove miraculous events, there's nothing miraculous about about Moses writing this book. So even a critic of Kuzari might be willing to accept Mosaic authorship. “
One of the key problems of the Kuzari argument is reliance of ‘national tradition’ regardless of what that tradition contains. ‘national tradition’ is not reliable.
@ Are Roster “2) All I am saying is that the Torah claims that (a direct quote) "this book of the Torah was written by Moses." Could that have meant a smaller version of the book we have? Possibly. “
DeleteNot just possibly - very likely considering th similarity to all the other verses.
Also - please provide chapter and verse for "this book of the Torah was written by Moses." And - please provide chapter and verse for “ bookS of the Torah (in plural)"
Then I will try to respond to the rest of point 2. Thanks.
Are Roster writes “In fact, even if the Torah would have said, "Moses wrote all the five books" it could have meant a smaller part, but I have no reason to assume that the definition of "the Torah" changed over time.”
Torah just means law or instruction. So Moshe wrote this law/instruction on a scroll or that law/ instruction. on a different scroll. I.E. many torahs. Assume for sake of argument Moshe actually exited and recorded certain scrolls. Eventually at a much later date all of Moshe’s scrolls and other scrolls become combined and called the 5 books of Moshe or THEE TORAH. There is no change of definition.
Are: you are going further than even the most literal fundamental readings of the torah. Even Rashi doesn't claim the entire nation heard the torah from moshe. Even in the most orthodox yeshivos they claim that only particular laws were given at particular locations in the desert. In fact, even Pirkei Avot (probably written in the 6th century) doesn't make that claim.
ReplyDeleteI will try to get the specific verses. I will have to check it up. I hope I have the traditional view of TMS. Went to regular places, BMG (for six months), etc.
DeleteThe 'regular places and BMG' generally teach that the 1st commandment wwas said by God to the entire nation, the remaining 9 were said by Moshe. After that, at particular stops in the desert (Marah, kadesh etc.) moshe taught the 70 zekeinim certain halachos (shabbos, mishpatim, etc) then they taught it to the israelites. No yeshiva that I'm aware of (and I was in 5 of the 'ivy leagues') claims that moshe taught the entire 5 books of the torah to the entire nation. Additionally, your basing your entire emunah on the kuzari argument is also unheard of in 'the regular places and BMG '. In fact, I hadn't heard the kuzari argument until I was trained by the professional kiruv moguls at Aish and Ohr sameach.
Delete@are: I'm curious, would you be willing to share what your judaic education background is? Of the dozens of believers I've seen trying to defend the indefensible, you seem to have a very unorthodox understanding of the traditional rabbinic view or TMS (and other beliefs).
ReplyDeleteI have been lurking around here for a while and following most of the back and forth between Are Roster and others. A year or so ago I would have been on Are's side and made most of the same points. Now... not so much. A couple of thoughts, if I may:
ReplyDelete1) @Are, you make a point that is difficult/frustrating to argue against but is nonetheless logically valid: you can't disprove from the Torah's text that the Torah is written by God because nobody can say what an omniscient, omnipotent being would choose to write. This is similar to the argument that you can't disprove a 6000-year-old earth on geological or cosmological grounds, because maybe an omnipotent God created an 'old-looking' earth. Logically valid. But maybe take a step back - once you ALREADY believe in God the geology and cosmology are meaningless. But they still go in a pile of 'things that would make more sense if I did not believe in God'. And once that pile gets big enough, it can indeed be strong enough to make you reevaluate why you believe in God in the first place. So I would suggest that you take a closer look at Biblical scholarship (read Kitchen if you don't like the DH) and honestly add things to that pile if they belong there.
2) Re Pascal's Wager - I am sorry, but you are just fooling yourself here. You do realize that strictly speaking Pascal's wager should compel you to follow ALL religions, right? Yet you don't accept Jesus as your lord and savior - why not? I would venture to guess your answer - 'I am 100% convinced that christianity is not true, thus Pascal's wager doesn't apply. It only applies if there is some chance that the religion is true.' Well in that case you must allow for the possibility of being 100% convinced that Judaism is not true either. So please stop saying that you would follow halacha whether or not you believe it is true.
@ throwway613 Are Roster and I had a long discussion at a different kefirah post. Assume for the sake of argument there are falsehoods in the Torah. If G-d intentionally put falsehoods in the Torah I think it would conflict with traditional understanding of G-d.
Delete@ throwway613 Some Christians tell me I will burn in hell forever unless I accept Jesus. But Judaism does not preach anything terrible like that. Maybe I should become a Christian ?
Delete@ Are Roster - from your statements I get the impression you may be a gentile convert or perhaps a non orthodox Jew who has since 'converted' to Orthodoxy. Maybe you were searching for the true religion and thought you found it. I admit Orthodox kiruv presents slick 'proofs'. But they rely on the target's ignorance. They oversimplify complicated topics. They over rely on so called 'common sense'. Once you are hooked it is hard to renege.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ throwway613 People asserting a text is divine have the burden of proof. Skeptics have no burden of proof to demonstrate the text is of human origin. Nevertheless, a good case can be made the Torah is most likely of human origin.
DeleteBriefly (due to lack of time I need to respond only to fraction of your arguments): @ACJA
Delete1) I don’t necessarily accept Ibn Ezra’s ideas that A HANDFUL OF VERSES (though not any chapters) aren’t from Moses. But Ibn Ezra is clear that the entire Torah, except a few verses, are from Moses (why do you stretch that to refer to the entire concept of mosaic authorship?). Rather, I’m agnostic regarding his point, leaning against it. But his ideas aren’t relevant to our discussion. I quoted the verses that refer to Mosaic authorship. To add to the list: Joshua 1:7-8 refer to "this book of the Torah" which requires that "this book of the Torah" was written at the time of Moses' death. True, the word “Torah” means teaching—but nevertheless the term “Book of THE Torah” is only applied to Moses’ book. Thus, when I stated that “the Torah states that it was written by Moses,” that is of course correct. Similarly, if say “I was reading tehillim last night” which translates as “I was reading praises last night,” you’d correctly concluded that I was reading “Sefer Tehillim,” rather than a different book of praises. Though the word Torah means guidance, it evolved that “the book of the Torah" refers to Moses’ book, and only Moses’ book. Is it possible that the definition of that phrase changed, of course. But it is similarly possible that “the five books of Moses” also evolved from a totally different text. I do find it interesting, though, that it seems that I hit a nerve with you regarding this point. I parenthetically (both literally and figuratively) stated that the Torah repeatedly claims that it was written by Moses, and you took this as some sucker punch against atheism, requiring you to marshal a desperate response! (You misunderstood—thanks to my typo—my point regarding the “books of Moses.” I was arguing that if all the times that the Torah states that Moses wrote the Torah refers to a plethora of distinct fragments, why does is it always a singular BOOK, rather than books [I know this is a relatively weak point, but when coupled with the other arguments it does add to the probable case that Moses wrote the entire Torah we have today).
Furthermore, you do realize that Deuteronomy (or at least many parts of it, in addition to most of the commandments of the Torah) is Moses’ speech to the entire nation. Thus, even if you’d claim that Moses didn’t “write” the Torah, he did speak it. Bible critics claim that NONE OF THE TORAH was composed, authored or written by Moses.
@M Rose
2) Regarding your point that Rashi never states that Moshe read from the entire Torah, I assume that you are referring to the First Four Books of the Torah. Obviously, Devarim (or at least many large portions of it) is Moshe’s speech to the entire nation. Regarding the First Four Books, Rashi states in
Shmos 24:6 that Moshe read to “the nation” the Torah “from Bereisis until the giving of the Torah.”
Many of the commandments state clearly that Moshe was required to relay the info to the entire nation. This leaves just parts of Bamidbar, at most, that Moshe didn’t necessarily tell the nation. All the commandments were given to the entire nation (except the commandments that only were relevant to the cohanim). Furthermore, during Moshe’s speech to the entire nation (Devarim) he refers to the Torah that is laying in front of him, so they had at least some access to it. Finally, Yehoshua wrote the Torah (or at least all the mitzvahs of the Torah) in the presence of the nation (Yehoshua 8). Also, Moshe commanded Yehoshua to read the Torah seven years after coming into Israel.
DeleteRegarding the Kuzari argument, this can refer to two things. I refer to Kuzari as “the argument from national tradition.” This idea is found all over the sefarim, and even in Tanach itself. The modern kuzari argument is a defense of the “national tradition” argument, and it’s a weak one at that. The defense is a response to the critique—a national tradition about the Sinai events could be corrupt—by displaying to the critic just how hard it would be to foist this belief upon the nation. But this response is weak because how can we be sure that it would be impossible to foist such a belief upon the nation? Isn’t it theoretically possible that this leader used stun guns or Tasers in order to force the Jews to believe in this false history? Of course it’s possible. Thus, it’s best to avoid the Kuzari defense entirely. Rather, we are merely presenting an argument from national tradition. True, it’s THEORETICALLY possible that it’s corruptible, but we have no reason TO ASSUME that it’s corruptible. And even if we assume that it’s corruptible, our ancestors were holy and therefore their testimony is more reliable than the testimony of some other barbaric nation (See Ibn Ezra to Psalms 78).
I happen to disagree with the notion of presenting the Kuzari argument to yeshiva students. Most of them can't think straight. Just imagine if we'd go to yeshivas before Tisha B'av and present them an argument that the Second Temple existed. We present the Kuzari argument for the Temple (you can't convince the population that their entire ancestry saw the Temple and then commemorated that Temple with numerous commemorations). After that presentation, would students be more or less convinced that there was a Temple? Obviously, the students would be less convinced. Why? Because before the presentation no students (rightly or wrongly) had the slightest doubt about the Temple. Once you start presenting rational arguments (even airtight arguments!) you automatically stir their irrational skepticism! Thus, arguments for God's existence and the Torah need to be available, but I disagree with what Rabbi Mechanic does in schools, presenting demonstrations to all the students. That you never even heard of the Kuzari argument while in school is somewhat surprising, I must admit.
@throwaway
3) I have no reason to assume that when God makes a miraculous makes a young earth he would have made it look like a young earth. Why should I make that assumption?
I don’t have the strength or stamina to argue Pascal’s Wager against you. You might be intimately aware of someone who admitted that if he’d have even a five percent chance that the Torah is true, he’d believe in the Torah.
There's a five percent chance that Jesus is the Son of God. Why don't you become a Christian?
DeleteAnd why do you say yeshiva students can't think straight? Surely students of God's Torah should command superior intellect?
עדות השם נאמנה מחכימת פתי
@Are
DeleteYou did not respond to either of my points. If you like, you can go back and read them.
Which is more important to you, emunah or intellectual honesty? Obviously right now you believe you can have both, but if you had to choose, which one would it be?
Are Roster writes “Rather, we are merely presenting an argument from national tradition. True, it’s THEORETICALLY possible that it’s corruptible, but we have no reason TO ASSUME that it’s corruptible.”
DeleteNational tradition is not a reliable source of evidence. Basing an argument on it provides a weak argument.
We have good reason to claim the entire Exodus and Sinai story is not reality. 1) Very unlikely 600000 plus escaped slaves etc: etc: 2) The entire story involves miracles galore. The default position is miracles do not occur. Why ? Because science has not confirmed a single alleged miracle being real. 3) We know myth and legends are not reliable. It is special pleading to claim otherwise for the Torah story. 4) Nation - Gods boasting was common in ancient history. The default assumption is the same was true in Ancient Israel.
Happy Turkey Day
Are Roster writes “1) I don’t necessarily accept Ibn Ezra’s ideas that A HANDFUL OF VERSES (though not any chapters) aren’t from Moses. But Ibn Ezra is clear that the entire Torah, except a few verses, are from Moses (why do you stretch that to refer to the entire concept of mosaic authorship?).”
DeleteWell for one you claimed entire Torah from Moshe. Ibn Ezra hint that is not true. And if some parts are not, then MAYBE other parts are not as well.
Are Roster writes “Rather, I’m agnostic regarding his point, leaning against it. But his ideas aren’t relevant to our discussion. I quoted the verses that refer to Mosaic authorship.”
The verses from the Pentateuch are referring to Moshe recording specific laws - instructions that had just been enumerated. It is kvetch to claim it is referring to the entire Pentateuch.
Are Roster writes “ To add to the list: Joshua 1:7-8 refer to "this book of the Torah" which requires that "this book of the Torah" was written at the time of Moses' death. “
Joshua 1
Verse 1 “Now it came to pass after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, that the LORD spoke unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying..”
We are no longer in the Pentateuch. No place in the Pentateuch does it imply all Gen thru Deut are all from Moshe or all from G-d.
It is clear the book Joshua is the recording of a an alleged narrative. The recording is taking place some time after Moshe is dead.
Verse 7 Only be strong and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded thee; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest. 8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein; for then thou shalt make thy ways prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. “
This “book of law” - it could refer to a compilation of ALL the scrolls that Moshe is said to have recorded. Or it could be referring to a specific scroll or set of scrolls. Who knows ? Even so, why should the book refer to the entire Pentateuch ?
Here is are 2 clues “..that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein...”; “...turn not from it to the right hand or to the left...”
However if the scroll(s?) had narratives about talking snakes, miracles etc: these are not things you observe and do according to them. That you not turn from the right or left. The verses actually imply the scrolls are solely about laws and commandments to obey and would not include extraneous narratives.
Are Roster writes “Furthermore, you do realize that Deuteronomy (or at least many parts of it, in addition to most of the commandments of the Torah) is Moses’ speech to the entire nation. Thus, even if you’d claim that Moses didn’t “write” the Torah, he did speak it.”
Please cite me chapter and verse.
Are Roster “Bible critics claim that NONE OF THE TORAH was composed, authored or written by Moses.”
IMHO - Moshe may have existed and may have recorded portions of the 5 books (specifically the portions that the Torah actually say’s he recorded). But is possible later authors attributed the material to an alleged hero - Moshe. Recall collective memory - national traditions are not reliable. It is also very likely parts of the Pentateuch are recorded at a much later date - after Moshe is long dead. Why ? Because of anachronisms. Also doublets, contradictions, and triplets all strongly suggest multiple traditions - multiple authors. If Torah records an event happens one way. Then in another place the Torah writes it happens in another way. It makes more sense Moshe did not write both records. If Moshe records a certain practice is to be done one and then records it to be done another way - that also strongly suggests Moshe did not record both ways of performing the practice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI am open to slight changes in the Torah text since, although a population wouldn't purposely alter their holy texts, some slight changes could develop over time. Thus, there are some slight differences (a few words?) between our Torah texts and those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course, however, there aren't any major changes, which makes sense -- since no sane religious person wouldn't ever purposely add or alter his texts. As Josephus said, "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another: [as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine. And of them five belong to Moses: which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind, till his death. . .And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do. For during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold, as either to add any thing to them; to take any thing from them; or to make any change in them. But it is become natural to all Jews, immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines; and to persist in them: and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. For ’tis no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure wracks, and deaths of all kinds, upon the theatres; that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them. Whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account: no nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed" (Against Apion, I).
DeleteI believe that the Five Books of Moses were written by him not because of the verses which state that "he wrote the Torah." Rather, it's because of our national tradition (as well as the Samaritans tradition) that states he wrote the five books of Moses. The verses merely confirm that he wrote large portions of it, at the very least.
Regarding why the Five Books of Moses are all called Torah, guidance, the Ramban in his intro to the Bible exlplains, based on a verse (Exodus 24:12) which distinguishes between the law and the Torah, that even the book of Genesis teaches us how God creates the world and many other details which guide us through life. The Redak on Psalms 19 makes the same point.
Deuteronomy is written in first person, and that person is clearly Moses (he refers to himself and things that he did in previous books), and he is talking to the entire nation:
Deuteronomy 1:1: "These are the words that Moses spake to all the Israelites...4:1, 4:45, 5:1, He is clearly talking to the entire nation. See, also, 7:6-7, 27:11, 28:62, 28:69, 29:1, 31:1-2. I was going to put down all the verse in all the verses that point to the concept, which I assumed was obvious, that Moses was believed to have delivered this message to the nation. I highly recommend that you read through Deuteronomy, the entire book.
I have nothing against miracles. Once the evidence for miracles presents itself, and it's a form of evidence which I have no reason to presume is fallible, I will trust that evidence. If there's one thing we can do in life, err on the side of taking evidence seriously.
@e @ throwaway
DeleteI don't believe that there's a five percent chance that Jesus performed miracles. I believe that the odds are a LOT higher than that. Indeed, Jesus' miracles can be an additional proof to the existence of God. Thus, I have no position on whether Jesus performed miracles or not.
However, as orthodox Jews, we follow the authority of chazal. If a woman just had a baby, she eats on Yom Kippur, thanks to the authority of chazal, though the Torah claims that one gets kares for that crime. We accept the authority of chazal for a myriad of commandments. Even Jesus accepted their authority, when stating that a bris milah is performed on shabbos if it's the eighth day. WE DON'T DISREGARD THEIR CONCLUSIONS MERELY BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH THEM. They concluded that Jesus was a fraud. Had they concluded otherwise, we'd probably be Christians. There are many other reasons why we disagree with Christianity, and it's not because we don't think that he performed miracles. In fact, after Jesus performed a miraculous healing, but then stated that the cured individual perform an act forbidden by chazal (carrying on shabbos), the crowd of Jews rightly told him to ignore Jesus' command, and subsequently tried to KILL JESUS because of this story (See John 5).
I didn't ask you about miracles, i asked you if there's a five percent chance that Jesus is the Son of God. Of course Chazal is going to say no, just like Christian apologists will deny that Muhammed was a prophet and received the Koran from the angel Gabriel. I'm pointing out to you that Pascal's wager is worthless, because you using it to embrace Orthodox Judaism is silly, since you might be embracing the wrong religion.
DeleteYour quoting Josephus just means that the tradition of attributing the first five books of the OT to Moses had already been established in his day, which is not surprising since the roots of Orthodox Judaism was already being laid at that time. That doesn't mean that view was always held. I'd be fascinated to get a hold of opinions from 500 BC, but unfortunately the farther back you go, the murkier the record.
Again you keep regurgitating your statement on how Devarim is in first person, so obviously Moses wrote it. Why is it so hard to accept that some priest in Hezekiah's or Josiah' court wrote it and simply attributed it to Moses? I'm no linguistic expert, but Devarim is relatively easy to read, and simply from the Hebrew it would appear to be of relatively late coinage, perhaps even post-Exilic.
Whether I believe that he's the Son of God is irrelevant. I am required to follow chazal's ruling that he's a fraud and that his teaching are fraudulent and forbidden.
DeleteI am curious, though. How certain would you need to be in order for you to keep the commandments of the Torah? Would 10% be sufficient? 50%? 90%?
I was quoting Josephus not to prove Mosaic authorship. My point, rather, was to show that Jews devotion to the Torah was so that "during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold, as either to add any thing to them; to take any thing from them; or to make any change in them."
I do wonder, however, why do you assume that Josephus was written "when the roots of Orthodox Judaism was already being laid" -- in other words the late Second Temple era. The earliest manuscripts are only from the 11th century. Shouldn't we simply assume that Josephus wasn't written until a thousand years later?
I argued mosaic authorship in various posts (e.g., the Devarim post) that I don't feel the need to present my arguments again.
Whether I believe that he's the Son of God is irrelevant. I am required to follow chazal's ruling that he's a fraud and that his teaching are fraudulent and forbidden.
DeleteI am curious, though. How certain would you need to be in order for you to keep the commandments of the Torah? Would 10% be sufficient? 50%? 90%?
I was quoting Josephus not to prove Mosaic authorship. My point, rather, was to show that Jews devotion to the Torah was so that "during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold, as either to add any thing to them; to take any thing from them; or to make any change in them."
I do wonder, however, why do you assume that Josephus was written "when the roots of Orthodox Judaism was already being laid" -- in other words the late Second Temple era. The earliest manuscripts are only from the 11th century. Shouldn't we simply assume that Josephus wasn't written until a thousand years later?
I argued mosaic authorship in various posts (e.g., the Devarim post) that I don't feel the need to present my arguments again.
Are Roster writes “I believe that the Five Books of Moses were written by him not because of the verses which state that "he wrote the Torah." Rather, it's because of our national tradition (as well as the Samaritans tradition) that states he wrote the five books of Moses.”
DeleteMy REsponse
National traditions are NOT RELIABLE. We can stop here. But I will go on.
There was not always a National tradition for the Torah among the Jews. See 2 Kings 22-23 and Radak commentary on 22:8. Nehemiah 8:14 - And Ramban commentary Numbers 15:22 - at the time of Jeroboam the masses forgot the Torah. Kuzari (article 3, section 54) Also see "Reish Lakish said, 'at first the Torah was forgotten by Israel; Ezra came from Babylon and established it'" (Sukkah 20a). There are other Tenach and Talmud verse strongly implying the masses forgot the ‘torah’, and then having it reintroduced.
There is no continuous chain amongst the masses. If such a chain amongst the masses ever existed it was broken more than once, with the Torah being reintroduced to the masses more than once.
@Are Roster writes “Deuteronomy is written in first person, and that person is clearly Moses (he refers to himself and things that he did in previous books), and he is talking to the entire nation:
DeleteDeuteronomy 1:1: "These are the words that Moses spake to all the Israelites...4:1, 4:45, 5:1, He is clearly talking to the entire nation. See, also, 7:6-7, 27:11, 28:62, 28:69, 29:1, 31:1-2. I was going to put down all the verse in all the verses that point to the concept, which I assumed was obvious, that Moses was believed to have delivered this message to the nation. I highly recommend that you read through Deuteronomy, the entire book.”
We are discussing two separate issues - was Gen 1- Deut actually all from Moshe ? No verses you have so far supplied supports that notion. Nor do the new verses that so far I have examined - as will be explained. The second issue - did the OT ever claim moshe spoke to the ‘nation’ of jews about commandments and also some history ? I don’t think we have been discussing that issue.
Deut:1:1 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.
2 It is eleven days journey from Horeb unto Kadesh-barnea by the way of mount Seir. 3 And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spoke unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them;
We have a narration - somebody telling us what the author thinks Moshe said in the past. This is not written in first person. Read carefully - ‘spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan’ This implies the Jews are no longer beyond the Jordan !
Deut4:1 And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, giveth you. 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Specificaly refers to ordinances and statutes. This strongly implies it is not referring to from Gen 1:1 thru Deut.
Deut: 4:44 And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel; 45 these are the testimonies, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which Moses spoke unto the children of Israel, when they came forth out of Egypt;
These verses are again referring to the just previously cited ordinances. It does not at all suggest Gen1 thru Deut.
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.
Again back to statutes. Also it is very likely a third person report.
Time permitting will get back to the rest of Deut you cite.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@are it's ironic that you chose shmos 26 as proof of mosaic authorship, when that chapter is one of the most glaring doublets that doesn't seem to fit with the narrative! The rashi there says nothing of Moshe teaching the entire torah to the israelites. What he's struggling with, is what Moshe is writing at that point, and is confused by the placement and repetition of this chapter. You'll note, that rashi also is forced to claim that this event (of Moshe writing from breishis to shemos) happened before matan torah, which is ridiculous. It seems that yeshiva guys can't think straight after all!! The reason they taught us not to think straight is because twisted logic and docheik is the only way to continue to believe in what's already been scientifically, linguistically, archaeologically, historically, and most of all logically disproven.
ReplyDelete@ are: I have to thank you because your quote of exodus 26 got me to look again at the meforshim on that puzzling chapter. What struck me, is how they sound very much like your defensive comments on this blog. I often feel sorry for how much fruitless efforts rashi and the other rishonim expended to try and make sense of the confusing document they received. I'll bet most of them would have been relieved to learn that exodus 26 and other parts of the torah are simply other versions of the mount Sinai revelation. I'm sure some of them (like you) would have refused to accept the obvious, and would be left to try and explain away the contradictions. When you get a chance, go through the rashis (and other meforshim) and honestly ask yourself if (being intellectually honest) they make any sense. They are forced to argue amongst themselves when this chapter took place, what it's doing in this bizarre location, why the story is so different from the other Mt Sinai stories (6 day revelation, yehoshua, the blood ritual, the visualization of yahwe, and numerous others). Your conclusion will tell you if you can think straight or are still a yeshiva bochur at BMG.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that I don't accept mosaic authorship. I accept divine authorship. When I say "mosaic authorship," I mean that he put God's text to parchment. The fact that verses repeat Moses' role in that effort, show how central the idea of mosaic authorship was to Jews.
DeleteThe Gemara puts great effort to disprove mosaic authorship. Their arguments were relatively weak (e.g., the fact that the Torah knows the animals which chew its cud could prove that Moshe, who wasn't a hunter, wasn't the author of the text). The apikoris of old probably would have responded that Moshe read an Egyptian text while in the Pharaoh's palace, which allowed him to know zoological info. As I told kefirah, it's a shame that the apikoris of old didn't live long enough to see the developments of bible criticism. Your argument regarding doublets and the overall "puzzling" and "bizarre" nature of the text should serve as an absolute proof that Moshe wasn't the author. Why would Moshe, a human, write such a chapter? It's sad that so many generations of apikorsim didn't live long enough to read your arguments.
#are you must be kidding! This is your response? A gotcha on the word mosaic instead of divine??
DeleteYou claim to be able to think straight, then use exodus 24! So basically we don't understand hashem's wisdom, and it's very tricky and complicated. Therefore hashem may or may not have written a chapter about har Sinai in mishpotim, with a totally different set of occurrences, because he's hashem and we don't understand him?! I see why kefira and others stopped talking to you, I gave you more credit. My mistake
Cognitive Dissonance was intolerable for me. Some people can live with it. A modern day version is plenty of Lubavitch thought the Rebbe was Moshiach. Then he dies - do they recant ? Many do not. They invent excuses - he really is not dead or he is in suspended animation or the fact that he died does not disqualify etc: etc: This the thinking of a Fundamentalist or Cargo Cultist. They have an apriori dogma and come up with rationalizations and excuses galore. Fundamentalism can poison the mind.
DeleteFirst no name calling. "BMG bachur" ?? Plz !!
DeleteSecond of all I'm pretty interested in having this debate on several of the kefirah posts not only on these points.
Third of all and most important this specific back and forth is getting repetitive. Roster is not saying there is irrefutable proof to divine authorship. Rather he feels that there is strong reason to believe that it's so. Additionally he points out that DH has many questions on it also; to the extent that if that was the religion it would make even less sense than saying its from God.
At the same time Rose is saying that if u can't prove 100% divinity then forget it and besides at the end of the day there are some good questions on the belief so it must not be true or necessary to believe .
It's almost as if both are agreeing on the facts just arguing on what the conclusion should be. Which if u think about it is probably the difference between many people. Depending on where they are coming from or what they want they can look at the same thing differently.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@M Rose
DeleteAll I meant, as you are aware, is that the Torah was never meant to be a simple text. That's why God commanded Yehoshua to study it "day and night." You are demanding that God produce a text that's absolutely clear, that has no incongruousness, contradictions or vagaries. But if God wants us to delve into his text, as the Rambam writes in his perish hamishnah based on the pasuk in Tehillim, "Gal Einai V'abita Niflaos B'Torasecha," then we should expect difficulties.
@ACJA I never meant that those verses I mentioned in Deuteronomy point to mosaic authorship of the entire five books (I did argue that previously, that if the Torah states that "Moses wrote the Torah" we should presume that the definition of "the Torah" didn't evolve over time to mean something else)." At this point, I was merely presenting the fact that the verses in Deuteronomy are written in first person (from the context, it's clearly Moses, as he refers back to things he did previously) and that he is talking to the entire nation. Obviously, this doesn't prove that he composed the text. It merely means that whoever wrote the text believed that Moses composed these verses, or at least wanted others to believe that he composed these verses.
Regarding your point about dogma poisoning my mind, I'm actually more open to your side than you are to my side. I never claimed that my evidence is surely infallible; I never claimed that I am certainly right. I am merely stating that, looking at all the evidence, I see a lot of evidence for divine authorship, and for miracles in Sinai, and I don't really see any evidence against it. Call me crazy, if that helps you cope.
@anonymous Thanks for the moral support. The Abarbanel writes that when debating an apikoris, it can be difficult, draining and exhausting. He says, despite that, one should forge ahead. I am not trying to convince M Rose or the other atheists that are here. I am merely presenting another side of the argument, so that a "BMG bochur" who comes here will see that there are two sides in this debate, that he doesn't need to abandon his family, his traditions and his nation. I once spoke to an atheist and he told me that the hardest thing for him when he stopped keeping shabbos wasn't the feeling that he was abandoning God (since he didn't believe in God!). Rather, it was the feeling that he was abandoning his people, who by the thousands killed themselves for their traditions. So, even atheists (at least some of them) have a certain bias towards following the Torah, or at least to keeping shabbos. So as long as I present some slight counterargument, that might be good enough.
@ACJA Regarding your arguments that you ripped from the Daat Emet site, here's where skepticism is a useful tool against atheism. For example, they quote (as you do), the Gemara which states that Ezra reestablished the Torah once it was forgotten, they purposefully only quote the rest of that passage much later in their post. Why? Because that would have placed the forgetting of the Torah in Ezra's day in the proper context. The Gemara, in one sentence compares states that Ezra, Hillel and Chiya reestablished the Torah after it was forgotten. No one in their right mind can conclude that the Torah was completely forgotten in Chiya's days (which would have required Chiya to remind even the Christians living in Ancient England about the Torah!). Thus, from its context, it's obvious that all the Gemara is saying, as Rashi explains, is that some laws were forgotten. Regarding the Ramban, which states that "the masses forgot the Torah," he actually only states that the majority of the nation forgot the Torah. There were always scholars who maintained knowledge of the Torah. Regarding the Radak, he only claims that the Torah was eradicated for 55 years. Thus, as I explained previously, King Josia could have easily asked the elders to either confirm or deny the reliability of the Torah. Finally, my discussion regarding the Samaritans implies that the Torah was preserved through their traditions, even if we suppose that our traditions were disrupted. (Regarding your earlier comment regarding the Samaritans, I don't want to go through it again, but you can read through my comment regarding the Samaritans in my comments here: http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-book-of-devarim.html)
DeleteRegarding your point that the first verse of Devarim implies that it wasn't written by Moses, even if that's the case, that doesn't imply that the rest of the Torah wasn't written by him. I am open that some verses aren't of mosaic origin. BUT THIS VERSE, WRITTEN IN THE THIRD PERSON, doesn't imply anything. As the Malbim explains, these verses were composed by God (or possibly Moses) in order to provide that proper context of the speech. The fact that it states that it was in "Ever Hayardein" doesn't imply that it was written once in Israel. The Hebrew language refers to the eastern side of the Jordan as "ever hayardein," and the Torah was written for those who would eventually cross the Jordan (the Jews had spoken Hebrew straight through from the times of the Avos down to Moses time and further).
If, however, you'd be open to looking for clues to mosaic authorship, you don't have to go to far. For example, when the Torah describes the lushness of Sodom and Gomorrah it states that is was "like the land of Egypt as you travel toward Zoar (Genesis 13:10). This implies that the initial audience of this verse was more familiar with Egyptian geography than with Canaanite geography). Similarly, when the Torah records the founding date of Hebron it states that it was build "seven years before Zoan" (Numbers 13:22), implying that the populace was more familiar with Egyptian history than with Canaanite history. As the Chezkuni points out," The Torah contrasts the importance of the Land of Israel specifically with Egypt, because they had just left Egypt and were therefore familiar with it an were aware of its splendor and importance."
@Are Roster writes “At this point, I was merely presenting the fact that the verses in Deuteronomy are written in first person (from the context, it's clearly Moses, as he refers back to things he did previously) and that he is talking to the entire nation. Obviously, this doesn't prove that he composed the text. It merely means that whoever wrote the text believed that Moses composed these verses, or at least wanted others to believe that he composed these verses.”
DeleteActually - you ignore Deut 1 though already cited for you. Ok here it is again.
Deut:1:1 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.
2 It is eleven days journey from Horeb unto Kadesh-barnea by the way of mount Seir. 3 And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spoke unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them;
We have a narration - somebody telling us what the author thinks Moshe said in the past. This is not written in first person. Read carefully - ‘spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan’ This implies the Jews are no longer beyond the Jordan ! It also implies Moshe was not speaking first person.
Are Roster writes "Regarding your point about dogma poisoning my mind, I'm actually more open to your side than you are to my side. I never claimed that my evidence is surely infallible; I never claimed that I am certainly right. I am merely stating that, looking at all the evidence, I see a lot of evidence for divine authorship, and for miracles in Sinai, and I don't really see any evidence against it. Call me crazy, if that helps you cope."
DeleteDo you have a guilty conscience ? I never mentioned you by name. I was referring to fundamentalists. Are you one ?
Are Roster you are missing the point - even though I stated it clearly for you. Here it is again:
DeleteFor the sake of argument lets go with your interpretation - Per Are Roster - "Regarding the Ramban, which states that "the masses forgot the Torah," he actually only states that the majority of the nation forgot the Torah. There were always scholars who maintained knowledge of the Torah. Regarding the Radak, he only claims that the Torah was eradicated for 55 years. "
Do you see the problem ? The Torah was eradicated. Most people forgot Torah. There were always some scholars maintaining Torah.
THERE WAS NO LONGER A NATIONAL TRADITION ! The Torah was reintroduced.
@ Are Roster - I have been trying to point out to you - 1) The claim that moshe wrote the whole 5 books is refutable and 2) The claim that there was a always a national tradition that he did is refutable. 3) The claim that the Torah was always a national tradition is refutable.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAre Roster writes “If, however, you'd be open to looking for clues to mosaic authorship, you don't have to go to far. For example, when the Torah describes the lushness of Sodom and Gomorrah it states that is was "like the land of Egypt as you travel toward Zoar (Genesis 13:10). This implies that the initial audience of this verse was more familiar with Egyptian geography than with Canaanite geography). Similarly, when the Torah records the founding date of Hebron it states that it was build "seven years before Zoan" (Numbers 13:22), implying that the populace was more familiar with Egyptian history than with Canaanite history. As the Chezkuni points out," The Torah contrasts the importance of the Land of Israel specifically with Egypt, because they had just left Egypt and were therefore familiar with it an were aware of its splendor and importance."”
DeleteGood grief. First I never claimed Moshe did not write any parts of the Torah. Second - We have no evidence or valid reason to conclude he wrote Gen 1- Deut. In fact there is much evidence strongly suggesting he did not. To my recollection Kitchen argues some parts of Torah suggest a Mosaic period, so what. Information found in oral traditions and ancient Israelite scrolls find there way into the Torah.
Are Roster writes "I see a lot of evidence for divine authorship, and for miracles in Sinai, and I don't really see any evidence against it. "
DeleteYou mean the Kuzari argument ? If so that is not EVIDENCE. It is a pseudo-philosophical argument. Just so you know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAre Roster writes “The fact that it states that it was in "Ever Hayardein" doesn't imply that it was written once in Israel. The Hebrew language refers to the eastern side of the Jordan as "ever hayardein," and the Torah was written for those who would eventually cross the Jordan (the Jews had spoken Hebrew straight through from the times of the Avos down to Moses time and further). “
DeleteI think I see your point. You are treating “ever hayardein” as a noun ? However, the translations I have seen treat it as a direction. For example - 1 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
Can you clarify for me what support can you provide a noun is meant as opposed to a direction ?
@ARE ROSTER PLEASE EXPLAIN to me how the entire 5 books fit on the alter. Also do you think the entire 5 books were read as verse 35 writes ? Joshua 8::30 Then Joshua built an altar unto the LORD, the God of Israel, in mount Ebal, 31 as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of unhewn stones, upon which no man had lifted up any iron; and they offered thereon burnt-offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace-offerings. 32 And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote before the children of Israel. 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. 35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that walked among them.
DeleteDoes this not all strongly imply the Torah did not consist of all 5 books ?
Are Roster Please see Numbers 36:13 - the term used is 'al yarden' . SO WHY does Deut 1:1 change the term to 'ever yarden' ? Also Deut 4:21-22 uses 'ever yarden' to refer to west of jordan. Deut 1:1 THe word 'ever' is most likely meaning direction. Now one verse alone may not convince you the whole Torah was not likely from Moshe. But see Spinoza - there are many such verses - all this strongly implies non mosaic authorship of the entire torah.
DeleteAre Roster see Deut 11:30
DeleteAre Roster and Deut 3:8
Delete** Correction exodus 24, my mistake
ReplyDeleteI still want to know why pascal's wager doesn't require me to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Just because chazal said he was a fraud is meaningless, the church elders would likewise accuse chazal of being fraudulent.
ReplyDeleteAnd josephus has been definitively placed as being an authentic author from the first century AD. Just because we only have the earliest copy from the early middle ages doesn't change anything, just like our first copies of the ilead were only written much later than the original.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@e I don't want to get too far off topic, thus I won't defend to you why we accept chazal's authority rather than the church father's authority. If this is an issue for you, I apologize. I am just saying that, assuming we accept the authority of chazal, we have no reason to accept Jesus as the Son of God, even if we are absolutely convinced that he's the Son of God. I am curious, though, how sure of the truths of the Torah would you need to be in order to feel sufficiently compelled to observe the mitzvahs?
DeleteJosephus "has been definitively placed" mostly because he describes himself as being the author at the late Second Temple era. For the same reason, Kenneth Kitchen, an academic archaeologist, accepts that Moses wrote the five books of Moses (although, to be sure, the evidence for Mosaic authorship is much stronger than the argument for Josephus' authorship of his books).
@Are
DeleteYou are misrepresenting Kitchen. I have a copy of his 'On the Reliability of the Old Testament' if you would like to borrow it.
In fact, the main reason Kitchen finds it reasonable that Moses existed is due to the striking parallels between the Ten Commandments and Egyptian/ANE treaties, which would require someone who was familiar with such treaties to be the author. Hardly an endorsement of your position.
Iliad, my bad. And "bmg bochur" is hardly name-calling.
ReplyDelete@are, i respect your valiant defending what to me seems indefensible, i aint no scientist or professional so i cant say nuthin bout kitchen et al, i just look at what appears to an am haaretz like me as common sense, namely, you're coming to the table with preconceived notions about x, y, and z, and thus shaping the indisputable facts with what your preconceived notions demand. Like coming already with the position that chazal are arbiters of truth, and thus since they reject Jesus, accepting the claims of Christianity are rejected out of hand forthwith. But like Dawkins once said to a member of his audience, "What if YOU'RE wrong", i.e. what if the god you're worshipping is the wrong one. That comes back to the pascal wager, and all other derivatives of it, like "what do you have to lose, even if the chances of chazal being right are only 5%, or 1%, what do you have to lose?", etc. The preponderance of evidence is on you, my friend. Like carl sagan obm used to say, incredible claims require incredible evidence.
ReplyDeleteI don't presume that chazal are the arbiters of truth. Thus, when I tell my wife that, two days after Yom Kippur she should eat despite the fact that I don't think that there's any health risk if she eats, I am not doing so willy-nilly. I believe that I can justify my reliance on chazal, although I don't have the time or energy to do so right now.
Delete@are, i respect your valiant defending what to me seems indefensible, i aint no scientist or professional so i cant say nuthin bout kitchen et al, i just look at what appears to an am haaretz like me as common sense, namely, you're coming to the table with preconceived notions about x, y, and z, and thus shaping the indisputable facts with what your preconceived notions demand. Like coming already with the position that chazal are arbiters of truth, and thus since they reject Jesus, accepting the claims of Christianity are rejected out of hand forthwith. But like Dawkins once said to a member of his audience, "What if YOU'RE wrong", i.e. what if the god you're worshipping is the wrong one. That comes back to the pascal wager, and all other derivatives of it, like "what do you have to lose, even if the chances of chazal being right are only 5%, or 1%, what do you have to lose?", etc. The preponderance of evidence is on you, my friend. Like carl sagan obm used to say, incredible claims require incredible evidence.
ReplyDeleteAre Roster has never responded to my simple question. A Christian warned me to convert or I will burn in hell forever. Should I become Christian ?
DeleteYou should not become a christian, since the evidence for Judaism is much stronger than the evidence for Christianity. If you believe that the evidence for Christianity is stronger, you'd have to be crazy not to become a christian.
Delete@ Are Roster - so now you talking about evidence issues not Pascals wager. Lets suppose you are correct that the evidence is stronger for Judaism. But surely the Christians have some evidence and proofs. So I need to weigh eternal damnation and torture + 'weak evidence for Christian' against 'stronger evidence for Judaisim'. Judaism does not teachI suffer eternal damnation and torture. The better bet is become a Christian.
Delete+1 Alter Cocker, exactly right.
DeleteMathematically christianity is a better wager even if Judaism has a million times more evidence.
Only way to get out of that is to say that Christianity has literally zero evidence, which is not the case.
@are: thanks for clarifying that you don't actually believe in the strength of your arguments, but are merely hoping a BMG bochur who stumbles on this blog will see some effort to defend. Well, it didn't work when I set out to find the truth. I BEGGED every qualified rosh yeshiva, kiruv professional and oj scholar I could find to help me defend these points. Unfortunately, like yourself, they fell short, very short. So perhaps a gullible BMG bochur may find comfort in your attempts, but I'm afraid that they'll only be discouraged by your weak arguments.
ReplyDeleteP.s. I apologize if my BMG comments were taken as insults, I merely meant them to interject humor. I was once a proud BMG bochur and yungerman myself.
@anonymous: I appreciate your comment, but you couldn't be more wrong. The logic, science, archaeology, linguistics all point to multiple authors of a man-made document that was compiled around the 2nd century BCE. The only people who actually believe the torah is a divine document are orthodox Jews (of whom many don't even believe anymore) and fundamentalist Christians. What's most shocking is that neither of these 2 groups have yet to produce aa book that outlines a cogent defense to the above mentioned sciences. Are says he'd like to be the author of that book, but from what I've seen from him, it's probably not going to sell many copies.
I'm going to back away from this conversation, and watch from the sidelines as I've already expended too much energy already.
The 5 books never say they are from G-d or Moshe. They essentially tell you it is third party(s) report. Perhaps some portions are claimed to be from G-d just like other ANE laws. THen perhaps other portions cae to be claimed to be inspired by G-d. This all evolves into the whole"Torah" is divinely inspired. Then it becomes it was all written by G-d/Moshe.
DeleteThe thing is that this book was believed to have been written in public, unlike all (or the vast majority of) other books.
Delete@M Rose I just started a new job, so I am crazy busy and stressed. I will respond sunday. Hatzlacha.
Delete@Are Roster - Deut does claim that portions of it (maybe all of Deut ?) is spoken before the people. No way that implies 1) It happened or 2) the people actually believed in it.
DeleteBut again this is besides the point. You have not shown the whole 5 books was given to Israel.
And you yourself must now admit based on our holy sages writings the alleged national tradition was broken at least once, and the 'Torah' was reintroduced at least once. Nor have you provided any pasukim that clearly write that what we understand today as Torah (5 books) was always meant to include all 5 books.
It's Are Roster,
DeleteBriefly, there is no source which states that the entire nation forgot about the Torah. Only a majority. Thus, your claim is that, at worst, we have a tradition from a minority of the nation, such as the tribes of Levi (who devoted their lives to Torah) and Yissachar (who were members of the Sanhedrin). Why isn't the tradition even from the minority of the nation sufficient? For example, it's possible that a majority of secular Jews aren't aware that there were two temples in Jerusalem. Does that mean that our tradition, the minority of the Jewish people who are learned, isn't reliable?
Furthermore, I am not sure why you trust the Ramban? He doesn't mention that he has a particular tradition, so why is his opinion more reliable than anybody else's. You might argue, "Well the concept of niskatnu hadoros or the concept that the Rishonim had Ruach Hakodesh makes their parenthetical statements more reliable." But of course, you don't believe that. If so, the Ramban's opinion that a MAJORITY of the nation forgot the Torah is of little value.
Furthermore, we don't know what the Ramban meant when he said that people "forgot" about the Torah. He might mean in the same vein that the Rabbis in the Talmud did.
Are Roster write “Briefly, there is no source which states that the entire nation forgot about the Torah. Only a majority. “
DeletePlease see Ramban Numbers 15:22 9 - In the days of the wicked Kings such as Jeroboam MOST PEOPLE forgot the TORAH and COMMANDMENTS COMPLETELY.
Here is what you informed me is the proper reading of Radak, “ he only claims that the Torah was eradicated for 55 years.”
Both of these sources imply very widespread eradication and forgetfulness of the Torah.
Are Roster writes “Thus, your claim is that, at worst, we have a tradition from a minority of the nation, such as the tribes of Levi (who devoted their lives to Torah) and Yissachar (who were members of the Sanhedrin). Why isn't the tradition even from the minority of the nation sufficient?”
If the Torah was forgotten by a majority and according to Radak eradicated, then it was not a national tradition during that period.
Are Roster write “ For example, it's possible that a majority of secular Jews aren't aware that there were two temples in Jerusalem. Does that mean that our tradition, the minority of the Jewish people who are learned, isn't reliable?”
It was you who argued the Torah was a national tradition. You now raise a separate argument.
Are Roster writes “Furthermore, I am not sure why you trust the Ramban? He doesn't mention that he has a particular tradition, so why is his opinion more reliable than anybody else's. You might argue, "Well the concept of niskatnu hadoros or the concept that the Rishonim had Ruach Hakodesh makes their parenthetical statements more reliable." But of course, you don't believe that. If so, the Ramban's opinion that a MAJORITY of the nation forgot the Torah is of little value.
Furthermore, we don't know what the Ramban meant when he said that people "forgot" about the Torah. He might mean in the same vein that the Rabbis in the Talmud did.”
Ramban writes In the days of the wicked Kings such as Jeroboam MOST PEOPLE forgot the TORAH and COMMANDMENTS COMPLETELY. Please read that again. And it is not just Ramban, Radak also.
We are talking about major loss of Torah national tradition not a few isolated things.
Ok - so you don’t accept Ramban or Radak.
What evidence do you have of an unbroken national tradition of Torah ? None really. Even according to accepted Orthodox Jewish sources there is not such a national tradition. But go ahead believe what you want.
Are Roster writes “Furthermore, I am not sure why you trust the Ramban? He doesn't mention that he has a particular tradition, so why is his opinion more reliable than anybody else's.”
DeleteIf there was a Jewish claim of an unbroken national tradition of Torah - don’t you think Radak and Ramban would know of it ? Thus Ramban and Radak comments would be contrary to the Jewish claim, something I don’t think they either would have done.
Can you show me a source that there is an unbroken national tradition of Torah, contrary to Ramban’s and Radak’s claim ?
I never claimed that we have an unbroken tradition that the Torah was written by Moses, just as I don't claim that we have an unbroken tradition that there was a Temple. I don't need to claim that. I am merely stating that a national -- or, if you trust the Ramban -- semi-national tradition regarding the authorship of one of its books is a form of evidence which has never shown itself to be false. Why do I have the burden of showing that this chain was never broken?
DeleteBut, once again, I need to ask you: Why do you assume that he Ramban is a reliable source? Unless you admit that he had ruach hakodesh [WHICH I WOULD ADMIT HE DID], why is his claim about something that happened 2,000 years before his day of any evidential value (once again, he never claims that the masses forgot the Torah, just that a majority of the nation, also he never claims that they forgot about the miracles)...
@M Rose I don't believe the strength of my arguments? I merely stated that a slight argument would be enough. Let me be clear: I believe that it is completely irrational not to believe in the historicity or divinity of the Torah. I am intrigued by your statement that you've expended too much energy. I am the only religious believer here, arguing simultaneously against numerous atheists -- and YOU are the one who has expended too much energy?!
Delete@ Anonymous There isn't a single argument from linguistics, logic, science, or archeology against the divine Torah. These arguments are based on circular reasoning and making unsubstantiated claims about God. For example, there's nothing in the field of linguistics which states that how a divine Torah would look. Similarly, we have no way of determining whether God, when miraculously creating the universe, wouldn't decide to make it look old (M Rose seems to assume that if God make the world 6,000 years ago, he also would have surely made it appear 6,000 years old. This assumption is completely unfounded.) Similarly, each and every one of the arguments are vacuous. They aren't even weak arguments; they are non-arguments.
Are Roster writes “I never claimed that we have an unbroken tradition that the Torah was written by Moses, just as I don't claim that we have an unbroken tradition that there was a Temple. I don't need to claim that. I am merely stating that a national -- or, if you trust the Ramban -- semi-national tradition regarding the authorship of one of its books is a form of evidence which has never shown itself to be false. Why do I have the burden of showing that this chain was never broken?’
DeleteWe have good reason to believe the chain was broken, - per radak Torah was eradicated.. This implies the ignorant masses at some future time were told this here “Torah” was from Moshe/G-d and they came to believe it. They did not accept it based on a national tradition. Hence your argument based on national tradition is useless.
Also , for the umpteenth time - national traditions are not reliable,
I am fairly certain the Hindus claim at least one or more the their holy book(s) are from supernatural - you accept that ? If you argue the Hindus are different because maybe their claim is not based on a national revelation - you are back to Kuzari argument which has already been shown to be a very weak argument. And if the Jew situation is the only case of a divine revealtion of a book, on what basis do you say the claim is reliable ? See my Kuzari posts.
Are Roster write “But, once again, I need to ask you: Why do you assume that he Ramban is a reliable source?... “
I already responded in my prior comments
Are Roster writes "@ Anonymous There isn't a single argument from linguistics, logic, science, or archeology against the divine Torah. These arguments are based on circular reasoning and making unsubstantiated claims about God. For example, there's nothing in the field of linguistics which states that how a divine Torah would look. Similarly, we have no way of determining whether God, when miraculously creating the universe, wouldn't decide to make it look old (M Rose seems to assume that if God make the world 6,000 years ago, he also would have surely made it appear 6,000 years old. This assumption is completely unfounded.) Similarly, each and every one of the arguments are vacuous. They aren't even weak arguments; they are non-arguments. "
DeleteBalderdash and you know it because I demonstrated it to you in a long discussion about it. . What you do is move goal posts by redefining G-d in your own way, ignore evidence and make up excuses. But the point is moot. The onus is on you to demonstrate the Torah can not be a human text and so far you have failed miserably.
@Alter I am not redefining G-d. I have no preconceived notion about God. All I am saying is that the arguments against divine authorship presented by M Rose have preconceived notions about God. This is illogical.
DeleteI don't see how you effectively responded regarding why you trust the Ramban. The Ramban is making a claim about an event that happened 2,000 before his era. Why do you trust him? (And, again, the Ramban doesn't disprove Kuzari, since he maintains that only a majority forgot about the Torah).
Regarding the Radak, he states that it was lost for 55 years. When they found the Torah, they could have checked with the elders to confirm whether this is the Torah of their youth. Hence, the chain was never broken. Furthermore, the Samaritans had the Torah before Josiah's era (as the book of Kings, which you rely upon, clearly states). Their traditions confirm this. So your arguments regarding the broken chain don't apply to the Samaritans, who numbered in THE MILLIONS during the Second Temple Era (if I remember correctly).
@ Are Roster
DeleteI need to add a couple things to my prior comments to you.
Even one word in the Torah can make all the difference in dating it. You cant dismiss this evidence by saying well it is only one word. Examples are found in Spinoza’s write up.
I cite Ramban and Radak to demonstrate to you there is no Jewish claim there is an unbroken national tradition of Torah amongst the Jews. It has nothing to do me my opinion of their reliability
Anonymous writes “I'm also not so interested in having a back and forth about this for many reasons but multiple authors is an answer to the many problems found in the Torah or the obvious source if one does not believe in a god.”
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I will add even if someone believes in the G-d of Israel it does not follow the whole Torah Gen thru Deut is from Moshe and or G-d. Per my recollection the Orthodox Kugel writes to the effect he has reservations that whole Gen thru Deut is from Moshe and or G-d.
Anonymous writes “A contradiction from one verse to the next, like by Noach is so obvious that it should have been and would have been edited when placed together. “
Not at all. The Torah authors were compiling multiple oral and written traditions. They very often had no intent to reconcile them.
Are Roster [ to clarify: I am not arguing that Moshe did not write any portions of the Torah. I am merely arguing that there is strong evidence that all 5 books are not likely from the Moshe.
ReplyDeleteI am going to respond now to the most recent post. So if you respond here, I probably won't read this for a while.
ReplyDelete@ Are Roster
DeleteI need to add a couple things to my prior comments to you.
Even one word in the Torah can make all the difference in dating it. You cant dismiss this evidence by saying well it is only one word. Examples are found in Spinoza’s write up.
I cite Ramban and Radak to demonstrate to you there is no Jewish claim there is an unbroken national tradition of Torah amongst the Jews. It has nothing to do me my opinion of their reliability