Misogyny (part 1)

Parshat Ki Teizei

This week's topic is one that I've pushed off a couple times.  It's one of the hardest ones to write for me.  Although, since this issue was one of the major moral areas that I disagreed with the Torah (and Orthodox Judaism as a whole), I would be remiss if I didn't discuss it.

One of the difficulties I have with talking about this topic, is that I often butt up against a standard religious response.  If I'm talking to a guy, he will say, "My wife/sister/daughter doesn't think Judaism is misogynous.  Who are you (a male) to tell her otherwise?"  Of course, a similar response is often offered by women, except they're able to use themselves as the example.

To this I have two responses.  First, misogyny is not the sole domain of men.  Women can be misogynous too!  If I had time I could point our various psychological studies that point this out, but this is not the area I wish to discuss, so you reader, will have to do your own research if you don't believe me.  The second response is specifically for the male religious people.  I would say, perhaps they do think Judaism is misogynous, but they won't tell you because you are dismissive of their issues, as you currently are being dismissive of my issues.  Then, if needed I can mention various female scholars, such as Rachel Adler who left Orthodoxy for the explicit reason of its misogynistic tendencies.  Nevertheless, it is with some trepidation that I write about this topic, but I feel that I must.

While writing this topic it kept growing longer and longer.  As such, I decided to split it into two weeks.  In this week, we will look at the view of women in the Torah, and a little bit in the rest of Tanach. We will see that the Torah reflects a previous era of thinking in which women are automatically a lower class than men, a way of thinking that only has been overcome very recently and never completely. We will see numerous examples of women as lower class citizens.  Next week, we will move into how traditional Judaism treats women.  We will look at some Rabbinic statements on the matter and discuss some of the basic apologetic answers for the poor treatment of women.  Then, we'll look at the treatment of women in various sects of Judaism today.  I will note that while these posts will both be substantial, there is no way I can be exhaustive in any of these areas.  I am guaranteed to miss some statements, even possibly highly relevant ones.  Feel free to point them out in the comments!

Women are Subservient

We begin this topic, well, at the beginning.  In the story of Adam and Chava (Eve) the Torah gives it's first value judgment for women as a whole.  After they get kicked out of Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden) God tells Chava:

Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

Clear and succinct, men shall rule over women.  This type of subjugation is made clear throughout the Torah. For example, we will look at the laws of vows, which make it clear that women are the property of their husbands.  First we look at what happens when a man makes a vow (Num. 30:2-3)

2 And Moses spoke unto the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying: This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded. 3 When a man voweth a vow unto the LORD, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. 

Seems what you might expect.  Surely one might expect the same behavior for a woman.  Let's see what the Torah says on the matter (Num 30:4-7)

4 Also when a woman voweth a vow unto the LORD, and bindeth herself by a bond, being in her father's house, in her youth, 5 and her father heareth her vow, or her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father holdeth his peace at her, then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 6 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth, none of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her, because her father disallowed her. 

Basically a woman's father has the right to overrule any vow a woman makes.  After all, she is his property according to Torah law.  But maybe this is only talking about a young girl who isn't mature enough to know what she's saying.  The next verses shows that the right of revoking a woman's vows transfers from the father to the husband upon marriage (Num 30:7-9)

7 And if she be married to a husband, while her vows are upon her, or the clear utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul; 8 and her husband hear it, whatsoever day it be that he heareth it, and hold his peace at her; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 9 But if her husband disallow her in the day that he heareth it, then he shall make void her vow which is upon her, and the clear utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul; and the LORD will forgive her.

The husband also has the ability to overrule a woman's vows.  The next couple verses indicate that a widow or divorcee can actually have agency over her own vows, and then it repeats the married woman laws (Num 30:11-14)

11 And if a woman vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath, 12 and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not, then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 13 But if her husband make them null and void in the day that he heareth them, then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips, whether it were her vows, or the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD will forgive her. 14 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may let it stand, or her husband may make it void.

There is only one reasonable conclusion in these verses.  A woman is not an equal partner in marriage, but a minor one.  Her husband enjoys significant control over her actions.

Another view showing the inequality between men and women in the Torah, comes from this week's parsha.  Specifically with regard to rape, and rape victims.  The following verses are oft quoted in the context of misogyny (Deut 22:28-29):

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

Religious apologists are quick to point out that "forcing" the guy to marry his rape victim is actually a positive situation for the rape victim.  They assume that she has some choice in the matter and can nix the arrangement if it's not to her liking.  This is the standard interpretation in Judaism today, but is not clear from the Torah. However, the biblical context is easily recoverable. In the iron age Israelite society, the rapist is treated as someone who stole something from the woman's father.  And what he stole was his daughter's virginity. According to the Torah, the virginity was worth 50 shekels.  There is no indication that the Torah cares at all what the woman lost with regard to her own well-being; the Torah only cares about the financial implications of a father who can no longer command a large dowry for his daughter!  We'll look a bit more about the worth of virginity in the next section.

Indignities towards women

This week's parsha offers us a view to how the authors of the Torah were often oblivious to the plight or embarrassment of women.  For example, let's look at the story of what happens when a man dislikes his new wife (Deut 22:13-19)

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 and lay wanton charges against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: 'I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity'; 15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders: 'I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 and, lo, he hath laid wanton charges, saying: I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. 19 And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. 

The first thing to notice is that the Torah attaches high value to virginity, specifically the physical virginity (which based on an intact hymen).  There is a specific value of a woman that is tied to her status as a virgin or not.  The test requires "tokens of virginity" the Hebrew word used for this is simlah or garment.  They're actually looking for a bloody bedsheet in the literal meaning. The next thing to notice is that there is no indication that the law cares about how the woman feels in the matter. The issue here is a breach of contract between the husband and the father of the bride. If the bride is wronged, it's the father that gets recompense.  However, if the husband is wronged, the daughter is killed. It doesn't take an expert in biology to know that virginal sex will not always result in a bloody sheet. Yet the Torah would kill a woman over the absence of this sign.

I've probably already belabored how disgusting these verses are, but before we move on, we should probably directly compare them to the other story about a "cheating" wife.  This is of course, the story of the sotah.  I won't quote it in full, but it appears in Numbers 5:11-31.  The basic story is that a woman is suspected by her husband of cheating, and she is forced to undergo an embarrassing public "witch-trial" on nothing but the husband's accusation.  No evidence required. The trial results in the woman having to drink a magic potion, with the results that a cheating woman will die from it and a non-cheating woman will get pregnant from it.  Again, the Torah doesn't even care if the woman even wants to be pregnant. Nor does the Torah provide any punishment for the husband who forced his wife to undergo the embarrassing ordeal. Several times it indicates that just jealousy is sufficient cause for this trial. Finally, as just a last jab at the absurdity of this all, if you happen to not believe in magic potions, you realize that only a cheating woman actually gets the "positive" outcome!  The non-cheater will be under suspicion because she didn't get pregnant!

Moving on, it's necessary to discuss some of the laws of menstruation.  It says (Lev 15:19-20)

19 And if a woman have an issue [i.e. menstruation], and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days; and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the evening. 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her impurity shall be unclean; every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.

This sections goes on for a while, it requires women to separate themselves from society for a week when they are menstruating, and another week afterwards.  It finishes with (Lev 15:31-33)

31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile My tabernacle that is in the midst of them. 32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him from whom the flow of seed goeth out, so that he is unclean thereby; 33 and of her that is sick with her impurity, and of them that have an issue, whether it be a man, or a woman; and of him that lieth with her that is unclean. 

The JPS translation is a bit lacking here, but it is possible to see that the Torah authors view menstruation as a negative stigma on a woman.  Perhaps in a time period when women were always pregnant this wasn't such a burden on women, but in later times the idea of a woman having to completely isolate herself during half of her adult life is obviously problematic.  Even today there is a fear among the right wing of coming into contact with a woman who is menstruating, so much so that far right wing individuals insist on separation of genders in all situations. We'll see some examples of this next week.

Finally, we'll look at one more instance of misogyny before moving on.  Later in this week's parsha we learn what happens if a woman grabs another man's testicles during a fight (Deut 25:11-12)

11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets (i.e. testicles); 12 then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity.  

According to the Torah, the sanctity of a man's balls are of such importance that a woman who grabs them in self-defense loses her hand.

The Worth of a Woman

We've already seen that the Torah attaches a specific value to the virginity of women, but what about women in general?  What assets or qualities does an ideal woman have according to the Torah authors?

The short answer is that the Torah authors, unfortunately in line with today, are always eager to attach physical attractiveness to their female heroes.  Nearly every positive woman in the Torah is described as beautiful.  These include Sarah (Gen 12:11), Rivka (Rebekah) (Gen 24:16), Rachel (Gen 29:17), or Esther (Est. 2:7).  It's hard to come up with more examples, because prominent women are so rare in the Tanach. There is one notable exception here but we'll get to her later.

The second characteristic in which a woman's worth is important is in her ability to bear children, specifically male children.  That there is a marked preference for male children is fairly obvious. The story of women struggling with infertility and feeling inadequate because of it is a common biblical theme, it occurs to Sarah, Rachel, Hannah (mother of Shmuel (Samule)). Of course, when a couple fails to conceive the blame is always attached to the woman and never the man. The usual biblical solution to infertility is to provide an additional woman for your husband to sleep with.  This is the solution employed by Sarah and Rachel.

I noted there was an exception, and the exception I was thinking of is Devorah the Shofet (Judge).  She is not described in physical terms, nor does the story really care about her child-bearing capabilities.  Devorah is a leader, and while she only gets a brief time in the spotlight, we should acknowledge that she's there.  In the next week we'll see how the Rabbis of later days ensured that it'd be impossible for another leader like Devorah to appear to the Jewish people.

Finally, there is another "possible" exception, Miryam.  I say she's a possible exception, because in the story we have in the Torah, she doesn't really do anything exciting.  She sings at Yam Suf (Red or Reed Sea) and she gets leprosy for badmouthing Moshe (Moses) but besides that she's not mentioned. However, being that in some Psalms and other places she's equated with Moshe and Aharon (Aaron) some have thought that she once played a more prominent role but was later removed from the story by authors with more misogynistic aims.  Erasure of women's accomplishments in history is something that we see all too often, and while I'm not sure there's sufficient evidence to claim that happened with Miryam, I wouldn't at all be surprised if it happened.

In Perspective

When taken as a product of its times the Torah represents a view of women that is about what you might expect for an iron age middle east society. It was more progressive than some societies, but less progressive than others. We'll see something similar next week with Talmudic statements that fit well as a product of their time.  The problem is when religions today take these proclamation as an ideal of how societies structure themselves, essentially reversing any societal progress we have produced since then. According to fundamentalists of all stripes, we should revert back towards a society we have since evolved from.

Next week we'll look at some views of Judaism from Talmudic times to today.

Eschatology

Parshat Shoftim

The topic this week unfortunately bears little correlation with the parsha.  However, the reason is obvious.  The topic is with regard to Jewish eschatology, that is, what happens at the end of times, both with regard to the individual soul's post-mortem journey, and for humanity as a whole.  The reason why this is unrelated to this week's parsha is because even though these ideas are central to Judaism today, the topic does not appear in the Torah at all.  In fact, it is pretty much absent from the Tanach altogether.

There will be two main topical areas.  The first will examine an assertion I made way back at the beginning of the blog, which stated that the Jewish ideas of life after death and a Messianic "Age" were adapted from Zoroastrianism.  We'll look at that assertion in a bit more detail.  The second will talk about how the idea of Moshiach (Messiah) came about and how it evolved to its present form.

Jewish beliefs derived from Zoroastrianism

Before we begin, I will note that I am far from an expert on Zoroastrianism.  So, to craft this blog post, I took out a few books on the religion from the library and all the information on these posts comes from those books.  You can find similar ideas online if you look, and as far as I know, everything I've written here is not controversial.  However, I am far less learned on this topic than I am on Judaism.  Ok, enough with the caveats.  Let's begin.

There are a lot of similarities between the later theology of Judaism and 6th century Zoroastrianism. These include things like a supreme deity that has subsumed all other deities into it.  To the Zoroastrians the deity was named Ahura Mazda [1].  Zoroastrianism also includes the idea of ministering angels [2], an idea that does appear in biblical texts, but gained a lot more specificity in the apocryphal literature and the Talmudic period.

In a previous post I mentioned that the idea of a personalized reward and punishment after death derived from Zoroastrianism.  Indeed, this kind of post-death judgment of the soul doesn't appear anywhere in Tanach.  However, it is a standard feature of Zoroastrianism.  Dhalla writes:

The doctrine of reward and retribution in the other world forms the chief part of the ethical teachings of Zarathustras Gathas [writings].  All precepts in the sacred stanzas are generally accompanied by a repeated mention of reward or retribution in this or the next world [3].

This divine judgment allowed for rectification of wrongs in this world [4] which was a superior solution to the "why do bad things happen to good people" question than those offered in Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and Iyov (Job).  It included a judgment of the individual where they were required to cross a bridge, Zaehner writes:

The good man's guide across the bridge is Zoroaster himself.  He leads the souls of his followers across the dreaded Bridge and conducts them into the House of the Good Mind where they will come face to face with their creator [Ahura Mazda] who dwells together with Truth and that same Good Mind.  The wicked meet a different fate: 'their souls and conscience trouble them when they come to the Bridge of the Requiter, guests for all eternity in the House of the Lie' [5]. 

Here we see strong echoes to the Jewish idea of a judgment of the soul where a person is judged based on his good deeds, with the righteous entering Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden).

In addition to these ideas, there are other Zoroastrian ideas that seemed to find more following in Christianity than Judaism.  These included the idea of a "holy spirit" to allow communication between Ahura Mazda and men [6] and a evil counterpart to Ahura Mazda, "angra mainyu" which is similar to Christianity's Satan [7].

However, there is one other major ideological area where Judaism appears to have nicked heavily from Zoroastrianism.  That is with regard to the end of the world.  First we'll look at how Zoroastrianism describes the end of the world, and then we'll look at how Judaism's ideas evolved.

For Zoroastrianism, the end of the world involved a pitched battle between good and evil, with good eventually winning and ushering in a new peaceful era.  In Dhalla's words:

The Gathas speak of a period when the progress of creation will stop, the evolution of the universe will reach its destined goal, as the cycle of the world will then be completed and creation and life will end.  Ahura Mazda will come at this time with his Holy Spirit and with Khushathra and Vohu Manah to accomplish this great work [8].

The later texts give a systematic account of the final struggle between the good and the evil powers, and relate in detail how every one of the heavenly beings will smite his own particular opponent evil spirit...The Gathas speak of the victory of Asha, or Righteousness, and the defeat of Druj, Wickedness [9].

The great world drama will then be over, the final curtain will fall on the tragic element in creation; the ultimate triumph of good over evil will be secured, the divine Kingdom of Righteousness will be established...Man will then enter into the everlasting joy of Ahura Mazda [10].

If this sounds like a "Messianic Era" well, it's not surprising.  Before we go on, I want to quote Zaehner's conclusions on whether Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism and Christianity in these matters:

Zoroaster's doctrine of rewards and punishments, of an eternity of bliss and an eternity of woe allotted to good and evil men in another life beyond the grave is so strikingly similar to Christian teaching that we cannot fail to ask whether here at least there is not a direct influence at work.  The answer is surely 'Yes,' for the similarities are so great and the historical context so neatly apposite that it would be carrying scepticism altogether too far to refuse to draw the obvious conclusion...[T]he theory of a direct Zoroastrian influence on post-exilic Judaism does explain the sudden abandonment on the part of the Jews of the old idea of Sheol, a shadowy and depersonalized existence which is the lot of all men irrespective of what they had done on earth, and the sudden adoption, at precisely the time when the exiled Jews made contact with the Medes and Persians, of the Iranian Prophet's teaching concerning the afterlife...Thus from the moment the Jews first made contact with the Iranians they took over the typical Zoroastrian doctrine of an individual afterlife in which rewards are to be enjoyed and punishments endured [11].

Messiah in Judaism

The idea of a savior deity in Judaism is ingrained in the earliest strata.  However, this kind of deity always saved the Israelites in real tangible ways.  The most obvious mention is with regard to redeeming the Israelites from their period of slavery in Egypt.  Whether the actual exodus from Egypt occurred in some significant way, or even if it was just a myth grafted on to the Israelites gaining independence from Egyptian hegemony after the Bronze Age Collapse is irrelevant for this. Either way, God is credited for delivering the Israelites from larger powers than they.

It is no surprise that the same type of redemption language is found with regard to the second sojourn in a foreign land, the Babylonian exile.  When the Israelites were allowed to return after the Persians conquered Babylon, the Persians were seen as divine instruments of redemption.  It is no surprise that after the second temple period ended with destruction, the same type of redemption language appeared. The idea that God would redeem the Israelites a third time is found all throughout the post-second temple period.

However, the third redemption, as described in the Tanach was fundamentally different than the first two.  It would have a global character to it.  The third redemption would be heralded by a Messiah, who would bring a global kingdom of God.  The same kind of ideas that we saw in Zoroastrianism eschatology are found in Judaism as well.

In reality, these fragments were found in the Exilic and post-Exilic sections of Tanach.  For example, Deutero-Isaiah has a description of the global messianic development (Is. 40:3)

3 Hark! one calleth: 'Clear ye in the wilderness the way of the LORD, make plain in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the rugged shall be made level, and the rough places a plain; 5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Yehezkel also describes a pitched battle.  In reality all of chapter 38 is worth reading, but here's a small excerpt (Ezek. 38:3-4, 16)

3 and say: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; 4 and I will turn thee about, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed most gorgeously, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them handling swords: 16 and thou shalt come up against My people Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the end of days, and I will bring thee against My land, that the nations may know Me, when I shall be sanctified through thee, O Gog, before their eyes. 

Other ideas don't really seem to appear until later.  An example of this is the resurrection of the dead. Even though it doesn't appear in Tanach, it becomes an explicit part of Judaism.  A famous Mishnah in Sanhedrin 90a states (my translation)

And these do not have a portion in the world to come, a person who says that the resurrection of the dead is not from the Torah, Torah did not come from God, and an Apikoros (heretic, e.g. me).

In case you're curious where the Talmudic Rabbis derive the resurrection of the dead, the Gemara a bit later on 90b offers two possibilities (my translation)

Where do we see resurrection of the dead in the Torah?  From Num 28:28, and you should give the terumah offering to Aharon, the priest.  But Aaron died before they even entered Israel! We learn from here that Aharon will be resurrected so we can give him the offering. [R. Ishmael disagrees and thinks that Aharon here means someone like him, i.e. a Cohen. This is a more reasonable conclusion in my opinion]...Where do we see resurrection of the dead in the Torah? From Exod. 6:4 where it says, I will also establish my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan.  It says to them and not to you, [So we see that they must be resurrected so that they can be given the land. Clearly this is the only reasonable interpretation.]

If these Talmudic explanations seem like post-hoc justifications, then that's because they clearly are. The truth is that the idea of resurrection of the dead doesn't appear until much later than the Torah, and these verses are trying to find a justification for the practice, something that is the bread and butter of the Talmud.  Furthermore, it's also clear from this Mishnah that there is tension between the Rabbinic supporters and their precursors, the Pharisees, and those who disagreed with them on these doctrines, namely the Karaites and their precursors, the Sadducees.  The Sadducees rejected this resurrection of the dead. They felt it was a clear manifestation of foreign influence [12]. It's obvious that such a schism could not be allowed, so the Rabbis cast the Sadducees out of the divine Messianic age and essentially dared people to side with them at the cost of losing the possibility of everlasting life as well.  Half a millennium or so after the Talmud, the Rambam (Maimonides) would include belief in resurrection as one of the fundamental beliefs of Judaism, where it remains to this day.

The belief in a Messiah that would usher in a divine age has led to many different schisms in the history as many people claimed to be the Messiah, or at least people who had followers who made that claim.  The most famous of these, and the first to really hit it big was Jesus.  Around that time also was Bar Kochba, hailed as the Messiah by the preeminent Rabbinic sage, Rabbi Akiva.  About 1500 years later, another movement gathered around a would be Messiah named Shabtai Tzvi; a movement which fizzled out after he was forced to convert to Islam.  In modern times, a sizable movement claims that the last Lubavitcher Rebbe is the Messiah, and is somehow still alive, even though most Jews are sure he's very much dead.  It's not clear how long this movement will last.

Conclusion

The fact that the ideas behind a divine ressurrection and personal reward and punishment are central to Judaism today indicates the the religion evolved in significant ways from what was practiced by the first temple era Israelites. When Jews today consider themselves practicing a 3500 year old religion, the claim is fairly laughable. While Rabbinic Judaism is old, it is only about 2000 years old. In other words it's only slightly older than Christianity, and far younger than Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.

Furthermore, the fact that the ideas clearly look like they were adapted from Zoroastrianism indicates that the early Jews were certainly willing to adapt other religious practices into their own. It makes it a bit humorous when right wing Jews rebel against modern culture and values and criticize Christian influence. Of course, they will never admit that ideas regarding eschatology were derived from Zoroastrianism, but that's ok. The evidence is plain for everyone else to see.

---

1. M.N. Dhalla History of Zoroastrianism, Oxford Univ Press, 1938, p. 31, 70.^

2. Ibid p 39.^

3. Ibid p. 101.^

4. Ibid p. 100.^

5. R. C Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism" G.P. Putnam & Sons 1961, p. 56.^

6. Ibid p. 36.^

7. Ibid p. 89.^

8. Dhalla p. 108.^

9. Ibid p. 109.^

10. Ibid p. 112.^

11. Zaehner p. 57-58.^

12. Just because I can, I'm going to use Mark 12:18 as the source here. You can find the same sort of stuff in Josephus though.^

Har Grizim and Har Eval

Parshat Re'eh

After some long posts, this one will be a little shorter.  However, we'll look at one of the possible late emendations in the Torah that was likely made for political reasons.


A Blessing and a Curse

Near the beginning of this week's parsha, Moshe (Moses) gives the instruction to provide a blessing and a curse on two nearby mountains in Canaan (Deut 11:29-30)

29 And it shall come to pass, when the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt set the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal. 30 Are they not beyond the Jordan, behind the way of the going down of the sun, in the land of the Canaanites that dwell in the Arabah, over against Gilgal, beside the terebinths of Moreh?

Later in Yehushua, this event is carried out (Josh 8:33-34).

33 And all Israel, and their elders and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, as well the stranger as the home-born; half of them in front of mount Gerizim and half of them in front of mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel. 34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law.

Both sections are very clear, the blessing is on Har Gerizim and the curse is on Har Eval.

An Altar on Eval

Later in Devarim (Deuteronomy) there is a commandment to build an altar on one of these mountains.  You might suppose that they chose the mountain of blessing, Har Gerizim, but you'd be wrong (Deut 27:4).

And it shall be when ye are passed over the Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them with plaster.

Why did they choose the mountain of "cursing" instead of the mountain of "blessing" for the alter?  There are traditional answers to this, but perhaps there is a non-traditional answer as well?

Samaritans

The Samaritan version of the Torah is mostly similar to the Masoretic version used by all denominations of Rabbinic Judaism, however there are a few key differences.  The main content difference is that the Samaritan Torah specifically calls out Har Gerizim as God's chosen place of worship.  It is included in their "10 commandments" and indeed they worship on that mountain still today.  As you might have guessed, the Samaritan version of Deut 27:4 doesn't say to build the altar on Har Eval but rather on Har Gerizim.


It's obvious why the non-Samaritan denominations of Judaism might object to having God commanding the building of an altar on Har Gerizim.  If the Torah said that God did indeed as for an alter on Har Gerizim, then it provides justification for the Samaritans' practices.  On the contrary, changing the commandment from Har Gerizim to Har Eval leaves the Samaritans in the wrong. There's no commandment to worship on that mountain anymore.

To the Dead Sea Scrolls

These kinds of arguments are the biblical equivalent to "he said - she said."  There's no way to tell which is the original, unless, perhaps, you can find an early version of the text that has the mountain in Deut. 27:4 as Har Gerizim.  It turns out that we have found such a version.

You can see the fragment from one of the Dead Sea Scrolls here, (note 2018/12/25: this link has since been removed, I'm not sure if I can find another one in public domain) where we are lucky to have enough legible text to clearly identify that this scroll had Har Gerizim in Deut. 27:4.  Could it have been that the Samaritan version is the "original" one here and the Masoretic one is the one that changed the text.

These kinds of political changes make a lot of sense in the second temple period.  The Torah was becoming the key document to describe the Jewish outlook at this time, and there were several rival factions that were trying to claim the supremacy of their specifically cultic outlook.  The disagreements between the Samaritans and the other factions are well known here.  It seems obvious that the Jewish sects that centralized worship at the temple of Jerusalem would object strongly to those who centralized worship on Har Gerizim, and thus would do everything they could to eliminate any divine command to build a place of worship there.

Genocide

Parshat Eikev

This week we'll look at one of the moral issues that was one of the most troublesome when I was religious.  It was an issue I never was able to square with my own sense of morality.  To this day I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of why such commandments were ever in the Torah.  Let's jump right in.

Commandments in the Torah

In this week's parsha we read about one of the commandments of genocide.  We read (Deut 12:16)

And thou shalt consume all the peoples that the LORD thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them; neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

The word "consume" is literally eat.  It's an odd word for the context.  Later verses explain a bit clearer what exactly you should do to these nations.  For example (Deut 12:23-25)

23 But the LORD thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and shall discomfit them with a great discomfiture, until they be destroyed. 24 And He shall deliver their kings into thy hand, and thou shalt make their name to perish from under heaven; there shall no man be able to stand against thee, until thou have destroyed them. 25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire; thou shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God. 

In last week's parsha we read (Deut 12: 1-2.5)

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 and when the LORD thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them... 5 But thus shall ye deal with them: ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.

Later we'll read about the laws of conquering a city outside of Canaan.  We see (Deut 20:10-14):

10 When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee. 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. 13 And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; 14 but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

We see that if you want to conquer another nation just go to war with it.  If it capitulates, fantastic, you now have enslaved the entire populace.  If it doesn't, you kill every male, and keep the women as property.  We'll get to slavery and misogyny later, but we're on genocide this week.  The thing is, if you thought this was cruel, you need to read further (Deut 20:15-18).

15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16 Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, 17 but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; 18 that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods, and so ye sin against the LORD your God. 

The Torah commands nothing less than complete annihilation of the entire populace of the Canaanite nations.  In fact, according to the author in Kings, it was specifically because they failed in this matter that they were ensnared by idolatry and God eventually caused the destruction of their lands.  Of course, this is revisionist history, as we've seen (and will discuss a bit in the rest of the post).  The point for this week is that God is commanding the Israelites to commit genocide.

Carrying out the Divine Will

The destruction of the Canaanite nations is described in the book of Yehoshua (Joshua)  For example (Josh 11:10-12)

10 And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms. 11 And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed; and he burnt Hazor with fire. 12 And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and he smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded. 

Note that Yehoshua only destroyed those nations because God told him to.  Later with regard to Ai (Josh 8:26-28):

26 For Joshua drew not back his hand, wherewith he stretched out the javelin, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. 27 Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which He commanded Joshua. 28 So Joshua burnt Ai, and made it a heap for ever, even a desolation, unto this day.

Later we what happens when you transgress the commandments and have pity on a nation you are supposed to annihilate.  Let's look at why Shaul (Saul) was stripped of his kingship.  First Shmuel (Samuel) commands Shaul to kill the Amalekites. (1 Sam 15:2-3)

2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' 

Shaul dutifully carries out the commandment of killing the people, but doesn't quite kill everything (1 Sam. 15:7-9)

7 And Saul smote the Amalekites, from Havilah as thou goest to Shur, that is in front of Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, even the young of the second birth, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but every thing that was of no account and feeble, that they destroyed utterly. 

Shmuel questions Shaul why he didn't kill everything.  Shaul answers (1 Sam. 15:15)

And Saul said: 'They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.' 

Shmuel is pissed (1 Sam. 15:18-19,23)

18 and the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said: Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. 19 Wherefore then didst thou not hearken to the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst that which was evil in the sight of the LORD?' 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, He hath also rejected thee from being king.'

And he personally disembowels Agag. (1 Sam 15:33)

33 And Samuel said: As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

When God says kill everything, you damn better well kill everything.  And for the modern commentaries who like to reinterpet the commandment to kill Amalek as some sort of allegorical commandment to destroy whatever philosophy Amalek is supposed to stand for, be aware that there is no such allegorical explanation available in this story.

Moral Relativism

A common thing you'll hear as one attempt to defend the indefensible is these kind of genocidal situations were standard for the time.  In this, I completely agree.  The Torah's commandments to commit genocide are exactly what you might expect to see in any of the cultures of the time period.  In fact, the very first extra-biblical appearance of Israel, on the Merneptah Stele, describes the Egyptians committing genocide on the Israelites

Israel is laid waste and his seed is not;

It's not clear what "his seed is not" is supposed to mean, but we could probably assume it means that the Egyptians thought the Israelites were utterly destroyed.

However, this kind of moral relativism should provide no solace to those who would uphold the Torah as a divinely gifted document.  If it is no different than all the documents of the surrounding nations on key issues, then what extra appeal does it possess?  Keep this in mind as we look at some of the moral issues of future weeks.

Also of little solace is the fact that these conquests didn't actually happen.  Although, I should point out that Hazor, mentioned above, is one of the cities that do actually show a destruction layer during this time period.  The Tanach itself admits that the genocide failed (Judges 3:1,5-6)

1 Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, even as many as had not known all the wars of Canaan;  5 And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites; 6 and they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods. 

However, in this the Torah is describing the ideal, not what happened.  In the Torah's ideal world, the Israelites would succeed in not only committing mass genocide on the inhabitants of Canaan, but completely cleansing the land of their culture.

My Own Difficulties

Learning about Jewish history is learning about nation after nation that wanted to kill us or get rid of us somehow.  We were cultural and genetic pollutants.  Evil at its essence.  The language used by each generation of Anti-Semites to describe how bad the Jews mimics all-too-closely the language that the Torah uses to describe the Canaanite nations.  The desired result is similar.

So, how am I to feel, as a Ba'al Korei reading these commandments to genocide?  I distinctly remember one year, feeling no different from any demagogue riling up a population to commit atrocities on its neighbors.  So, like any good religious Jew, I searched for ways that scholars and exegetes before me rationalized the moral problem here.  I had little success.

Sometimes, people said that the nations were free to convert to Judaism.  This is despite the Torah giving no such indication that it was an option.  Yet, how is this any better than something like the Spanish Inquisition, a dark period in Jewish history?  Some commentators said that the nations could flee the land, but how is this any different from the myriad Jewish expulsions such as from Britain and Spain, or more recently from various Arab countries.  How is this option any better?  Is it truly possible that we, a people often on the short end of the stick when it comes to ethnic atrocities can't recognize when we ourselves are the perpetrators of those same atrocities?  We should be disowning these verses; scrubbing these commandments from our books.  We should recognize that these commandments are the result of heinous propaganda, and no divine being would ever encourage such actions.

Shouldn't God have Foreseen?

Again, Judaism supposes an omniscient God, one who sees the future.  Couldn't that God have foreseen how throughout history nations would commit vile deeds against others?  Even if the nations of Canaan were somehow superbly evil and the world would be far worse if they were allowed to worship their asherot, wouldn't God know that other nations would use the divine sanction of genocide to justify carrying it out against peoples that were not superbly evil, you know, like the Jews?  Apparently not.

The end result is that the biblical morality is far different from my own.  In the biblical world, genocide is ok.  In my world it is not.  For this reason, and a few others we will see in later weeks, I have rejected the Torah as a good source for morality.

The Modern Kuzari Argument

Parshat Va'etchanan

The "Modern Kuzari" argument is one of the most standard arguments used by modern day apologists in favor of Judaism.  While it has its roots in the Kuzari, a 12th century apologetic work, the modern incarnation has really only been popular recently.  I'm not sure exactly when it first became formulated, but I do know that it was around 15 years ago when I was religious.  Like many thoughtful and religious Jews, I used the argument to defend Judaism.  In a sense, the argument was the last plank that I hung on to when my belief in the rest of the religion started falling away all around me.  However, after a lot of deep introspection, and a little bit of research, I concluded that the argument was false.


I will only briefly touch on the reasons that I came up with for rejecting the Kuzari argument.  There are a lot of posts online, ones that didn't exist fifteen years ago, that essentially make the logical arguments I used at that point.  I'll put a list of them at the end.  Instead, I want to focus on two specific counter-arguments.  One of which, I've seen posted in many places, but never with the level of detail I tend to desire, so I'll shore up that argument to the best of my ability.  The second argument is one that I think is entirely new.  Or at least, it's one that I haven't seen before.  First we need to describe what I mean by the modern Kuzari argument is.

The Argument

Here is the most succinct formation of the Modern Kuzari that I could find, it comes from Rabbi David Gottlieb:

Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.

Earlier he applies this to Judaism in the following way:

Again, oversimplifying, (this is only the outline): There are two broad possibilities. One: the event at Sinai took place and people witnessed it, and that caused their belief. Or two: the event did not take place. If the event did not take place, then someone invented the story and convinced the people to believe it. 

The Kuzari's argument proceeds by investigating the second alternative, that the event didn't happen, that the story was made up and was sold. The argument shows that the second alternative is not credible. It is not credible to believe that the story was made up and then sold. If you can defeat the second alternative, that leaves only the first alternative, that it happened and was witnessed. That is the structure of the argument. 

Most refutations, and the one I came up with some 12 years ago, point out that this is a false dichotomy.  There are many other alternative paths besides the invention of the argument at a later point.  You can read about these in some of the sources below.  Some other refutations, like this one, mention that it's actually fairly easy to get people to believe in myths and legends and provides a modern example.  There are tons of examples like this, one of my favorite being the Angel of Mons.  But this is not what I wish to discuss.

Before we get to the two main points, we need to examine one issue as a preamble.

How Many People?

One of the claims of the Kuzari argument is that its the size of the population at the Sinai revelation that lend credence to its believability.  The Torah claims a very large number of people, well over 100,000, experienced direct revelation from God.  However, as we've seen here, that number conflicts with every single archaeological survey of the region.  In other words, if you are relying on the large number claim as a piece of supporting evidence, you must first explain why that claim is deemed impossible by archaeology.

In that discussion in Parshat Bamidbar, I also noted that most modern apologists seek alternate explanations for the impossibly large numbers quoted in the Torah.  If you go this route, but still maintain that the Sinai revelation happened, then you must agree that it's possible to increase the number of people involved in a mass revelation claim.  Because, even if you think that the Torah actually is talking about lower numbers, for the next 2000 years afterwards, everyone thought it was talking about large numbers.

The point in this preamble is to show that the large number of people cannot be a prerequisite for acceptance of national revelation.  And if you wish to rely on it, you have a lot of work to do with regard to explaining the archaeological evidence.  (I recommend not using this argument!)

Refutation One - Wohpe

The first refutation is essentially a counter-example, one that supposedly does not exist according to Kuzari supporters.  It's a case where another group of people experienced a national revelation, that was instrumental to their religion and culture.  As with Sinai it claimed to involve the entire group, and it includes a large number of parallels.  An adherent to the Kuzari argument must also, if they're being honest, conclude that this story must also be true.  Either that or the main argument falls apart.

First let's see where this myth comes from.  Between 1896 and 1914, James Walker was a US appointed physician to the Lakota Indian tribe.  While there he recorded many of the oral traditions of the culture.  During one of his conversations, he recorded a discussion from one of the village elders named "Finger" who was about 80 at the time. He discusses the tribe's encounter with Wohpe, the White Buffalo Calf Woman.  While I've seen this referred to with respect to the Kuzari in other sites, I've never been satisfied with how it was presented.  That's why I dug up the original source as best I could.  You can read the full account here, complete with reference.  In case you don't want to read the full thing, I'll summarize now.

The story begins with Wohpe encountering two individuals.  One of them attempts to capture the woman and is killed.  The other is instructed to prepare the rest of the tribe for her arrival.  Compare this to the initial encounter between Moshe (Moses) and God with the burning bush.

After the tribe preparation, which is similar in idea to the preparation of the Israelite nation at Har Sinai, Wohpe arrives and teaches the nation important rituals.  She teaches them to smoke the peace pipe and informs them that she will protect the tribe as long as they practice this ritual.  Compare this to the Sinai story, where the Israelites essentially sign a contract with God.

Finally, after Wohpe finishes visiting the tribe, she instructs all the people to gather together and build a fire, which she vanishes into.  At this point the tribe knows that she is Wohpe, a divine god.  Here we have a display of supernatural powers, similar to the Sinai narrative.

The story of Wohpe includes all the important ideas described in the modern Kuzari argument.  It includes, a national event with the entire tribe, a transference of divine commandments, and a public display of supernatural powers.  This represents a perfect example of a Sinai-like narrative at one of the early stages. A legend passed down among a tribe orally, by tribal elders.  Had the Lakota tribe lasted another hundred years, who knows what this legend might have evolved into. 

Refutation Two - From the Tanach Itself

The Kuzari argument is in actuality a weak argument because it claims that there is no other way for a story like the revelation at Sinai to arise without the event actually occurring in a manner very similar to what is recorded in the Torah.  Instead of refuting it by showing one of the many alternate paths, we can instead look at what the Kuzari argument's positive claims are, things that would have to be true for the very premises to make any sense.  These are:

1. The Sinai revelation story was known to every generation from the original event until the modern day.
2. The Sinai revelation was considered "foundational" for every generation until the modern day.

It's pretty clear why if the first is false, the Kuzari argument falls apart.  If it could be shown that a generation did not know the Sinai revelation story, then it must have been introduced later regardless of the actual truth of the event.  If the second statement is false, that the event was not foundational to Judaism, the Kuzari argument also fails.  This is mainly because the "foundational-ness" is what is generally used to reject similar mythical stories of other cultures.  In actuality, this winds up being weasel words.  However, what we're getting at here, is that every generation would consider such a thing so important that they would have expected to hear about it from a previous generation.  For example people might believe a myth, such as the story of Samson or Hercules, without actually having an oral tradition because these are not foundational.  This foundational nature of the myth under discussion is at the heart of the Kuzari argument.  If it could be shown that the Sinai narrative was not foundation for any given generation, then it's easy for anyone, even staunch adherents to this argument, to see how a myth could have been generated.

How do we go about attacking these arguments?  The answer is to look at the Tanach itself. Specifically we will look at the Nevi'im (prophets).  Here I mean the actual writings of the prophets, Yishayahu (Isaiah), Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah), Yehezkel (Ezekiel) and the 12 minor prophets.  I'd normally remove Yonah (Jonah) from the twelve, since it's a different type of book, but we'll see that it's not relevant.

I think looking at the prophets is a good approach because they're the best witness to the Israelite culture in the latter half of the first temple period and the exile. They are attempting to persuade the Israelites to worship God properly, and in doing so, they use everything at their disposal.  For example, a great many of them describe a sojourn in Egypt, or a time in the desert.  Some reference stories about the patriarchs.  From the great many references to an Egyptian exodus, we can conclude that this was a well known origin story to the Israelites.  If a prophet said, "remember when we left Egypt," as many of them did, all the population would presumably know what he was talking about.

So, the question is, what do the prophets say about Sinai?  The answer is, nothing.  They don't even mention the word.  Yishayahu mentions it zero times in his work. Yirmiyahu mentions it zero times in his "jeremiad".  You might think that Yirmiyahu, when trying to convince people not to worship other gods might say something like, "Hey, remember that time where you head God specifically tell you not to do worship idols?"  But he doesn't.  Yehezkel, despite talking a lot about the exodus from Egypt and the desert sojourn, and despite describing a great many laws like those of festivals and sacrifices, somehow fails to mention Sinai even once.  There are no references to Sinai or its alternate name Horeb in those major prophets or, in fact, in any of the minor prophets until a single mention in the very last sentence in the very last prophet, Malachai.  But it's even worse, some of the prophets seem to even know the contents of the "ten commandments" (Amos 4:2)

Swearing and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery! they break all bounds, and blood toucheth blood.

yet, Amos makes no attempt to tie these laws to any sort of Sinai revelation.  The closest we get to anything resembling Sinai is in Yehezkel (a late prophet, we should note) who says (Ezek 20:10-13):

10 So I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. 11 And I gave them My statutes, and taught them Mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them. 12 Moreover also I gave them My sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. 13 But the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness; they walked not in My statutes, and they rejected Mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them, and My sabbaths they greatly profaned; then I said I would pour out My fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

But even here, Sinai is not mentioned by name.  All that exists is a vague claim that God gave his ordinances somehow.  No mass revelation described.  No mention of Sinai or Horeb.  This account doesn't even align with the Torah since there is no description of the Israelites desecrating the "Sabbaths" as a nation.

What to make of this? Here are some options.  Neither the prophets nor the people knew about the Sinai revelation.  In this case assumption 1 above is false and the Kuzari argument falls.  Another option: the prophets knew about the Sinai revelation but the people didn't, in which case both 1 and 2 are false and Kuzari falls.  How about: the prophets knew about it, but didn't think it was important, in which case assumption 2 is false, the revelation just wasn't all that important and Kuzari falls,  Perhaps you can salvage something by saying that both the prophets and the people knew about it, and thought it was foundational, but the prophets didn't mention it for some ulterior motive.  For example, they didn't want to encourage people to think that they too could experience prophecy, so they just elided this mass revelation idea from their narratives.  To save the Kuzari, you throw the prophets under the bus.  But if you go this route, you lose far more in Judaism than you gain from the Kuzari.  Furthermore you still have to explain why the prophets didn't decide to focus on a revelation at Sinai but only to a specific prophet, like Moshe.  What other options are left?  How to explain this glaring absence of this purportedly foundational event in every one of the prophets?

To conclude, while this isn't the best refutation of the modern Kuzari, it is at least one that I don't think has been mentioned before.  If you want additional refutations, I've cataloged some below.

---

List of some of the Kuzari refutations that I've come across throughout my days on the internet.  If only these had been around fifteen years ago.

Larry Tanner's refutation (multiple parts, link is to index)

Avi Norowitz's refutation (comparison to Irish myths)

Martin Winer's refutation (the fallibility of mass experiences)

Naftali Zeligman's refutation (Judaism has no mass revelation tradition)

Alter Cocker's refutation (multiple-parts, link is to first one)

Jewish Atheist's refutation

Baruch Pelta's refutation (Uses Aztec revelation mythos)

Some criticisms from religious Jews

Eliyahu Fink's critique (Argument only useful if you believe in God in the first place)

Dov Bear's critique

The Book of Devarim

Parshat Devarim

We begin the last book of the Torah this week.  The book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) is one of the first sections that people noticed was significantly different from the rest of the Torah and let to the hypothesis, standard today in academic circles, that multiple authors were involved in the Torah.  This week we'll look at some of the reasons that they came to that conclusion.  We will provide the academic theory about who actually wrote this book.  We will also briefly discuss the relationship between Devarim and the histories that follow in the books of Yehoshua (Joshua) through Melachim (Kings), and how this relates to the correspondence between the rest of the Torah and Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles).  We'll finish with some questionable passages in Devarim.  As a warning, this post will be longer than usual.

On the Other Side of the Jordan

The book opens with the following verse:

These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab. 

One clause, "on the other side of the Jordan" or in this translation "beyond the Jordan" has an implication that the author of these verses is standing on this side of Jordan, as in the land of Israel, a location that the Torah is very clear that Moshe (Moses) never went to.  There are other similar clauses in the Torah that indicate that the Torah was written by and for an audience living in the land of Israel at a later time.

These types of verses need to be contrasted with the verses that traditional Judaism uses to claim that Moshe wrote the entire Torah.  When you look at all the supporting verses and contradicting verses (like this one) you'll find that it's not clear at all that the Torah even claims that Moshe wrote it.  We don't have time to go through it in this post, but I discussed a little about it here, and we'll see some of the supposed supporting verses later.

Indicative Phrases

The book of Devarim has a bunch of phrases that are almost exclusively used in that book.  Some of these are.

תַּאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל-הָאֲדָמָה  - "Lengthen your days on the land" appears 11 times in some form in Devarim but only once outside of it.

בְּכָל-לְבַבְכֶם, וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁכֶם - "With all your heart, with all your soul" appears only in Devarim, 9 times in all

Various forms like, "וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים" "serve other gods" or worship other gods, or other similar phrases appear only 13 times, always in Devarim.

תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְהוָה - "Listen to the voice of God" only appears in Devarim, 12 times [1].

Also many variations of לָשׂוּם אֶת-שְׁמוֹ שָׁם, לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם, are endemic to Devarim

Additionally a lot of these verses seem to occur in some later works.  For example, "with all your heart, with all your soul" also appears in Yehushua (Joshua) once, and "with all your heart" alone appears three times in Shmuel (Samuel) and once in Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah).  "Serve other gods" appears twice in Yehushua, four times in Shoftim (Judges), twice in Shmuel a bunch of close phrases in Melachim (kings) and some variation of serving other gods appears a whopping 18 times in Yirmiyahu.  There is no "other gods" phrase in either Yehezkel (Ezekiel) or Yishaiyahu (Isaiah).

What does it mean?  Is all this mere coincidence, or is something else afoot.  Keep this in mind while we discuss the next section about when we think the book was written.

A Discovered Scroll

There is a section in the book of Melachim which is well known to anyone with even a passing interest in Academic scholarship, but is usually hidden from religious students.  Indeed our study of Nach in day school conveniently never reached this chapter.  It is worth reading all of chapters 22 and 23 of Melachim Bet (2 Kings) if you are unfamiliar with the story.  I'll produce a short excerpt of the important bit (2 Kings 22:8-14)

8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe: 'I have found the book of the Law (Sefer haTorah, סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה) in the house of the LORD.' And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9 And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought back word unto the king, and said: 'Thy servants have poured out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen that have the oversight of the house of the LORD.' 10 And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying: 'Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book.' And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the Law, that he rent his clothes. 12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant, saying: 13 'Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.'

What book did they find?  They call it Sefer haTorah.  Religious commentators, wary about the problem of having lost the physical Torah for hundreds of years, claim that this could be any book.  This is despite using even vaguer references to Torah to further specific claims, like that of the oral Torah or Mosaic authorship, but that's a side point.  Academic scholars suggest that the book that was found was the vast majority of the book of Devarim.

Why do they associate Devarim with the book discovered in Yoshiyahu (Josiah)?  One reason is that the reforms enacted during Yoshiyahu's reign, the centralization of worship in Jerusalem, and the removal of all idolatry and worship locations outside Jerusalem align with commandments in Devarim.  As we've noted above, there are many discussions about worship in the place where God decides to settle his name, and that being the sole place where worship is allowed.  The idea that worship at the bamot (high places) was bad is a central idea in the book of Melachim.  Each king is criticized after his reign for not removing them, only Yoshiyahu and Hizkiyahu (Hezekiah) escape the critique.  After Yoshiyahu these criticisms disappear, along with other changes indicated a possible change of authorship, which would make sense if the rest of the history was written during his reign.  However, as we've noted, worship in alternate locations was not criticized by other authors in the Torah and the older sections of the histories.

Also, with regard to the words Sefer haTorah.  These words appear elsewhere in Tanach.  Can you guess where?  Yup, in Devarim.  Deut 31:24-26 says

24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law (haTorah) in a book (sefer), until they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 'Take this book of the law (Sefer haTorah), and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

It's not clear what exactly the claim is that Moshe wrote.  It doesn't appear to be the Torah as we know it, since these verses describe what happens after he finishes writing it.  In other words the narrator of the text is watching Moshe write the Torah!

The phrase also appears in other places in Devarim like in Deut 29:20

and the LORD shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that is written in this book of the law (Sefer haTorah).

and Deut 28:61 (not quoted).  Also, Deut 17:18, regarding the duties of a king (kings only appear in Devarim by the way.)

And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law (haTorah) in a book (sefer), out of that which is before the priests the Levites. 

There is one other appearance of Sefer haTorah in Yishayahu (Joshua) and besides that we don't see that phrase again until the discovery in the time of Yoshiyahu.

There are other indications that link Devarim to Yoshiyahu and that link it to the rest of the historical narratives from Yehushua to Melachim, we'll look at one contrast in the next section.

Parallel Books

There are two histories written about the kings of Judah and Israel.  The first one is in part of Shmuel and all of Melachim.  The second is Divrei HaYamim (Chronicles).  The two books overlap significantly, and often the exact same words are used in both narratives.  However, there are places where they differ.  We've seen a couple of these differences in the past.  For example, when describing the feast after the dedication of the temple during Sukkot , Melachim does not include the Atzeret.  Divrei HaYamim does include an Atzeret.  Similarly, when the holidays are described in the Torah, the section in Devarim does not include an Atzeret, the sections in Bamidbar (Numbers) and Vayikra (Leviticus) do.

Another example we've discussed has to do with the question of priesthood.  The idea that priests are descendents of Aharon (Aaron) alone does no appear anywhere in Shmuel or Melachim (or Yehoshua or Shoftim for that matter).  However, additional sections in Divrei HaYamim make it clear that the priesthood is confined to the descendents of Aharon.  When David's priest Zadok is introduced in Shmuel no lineage is given for him.  An explicit lineage tracing him to Aharon is provided in Divrei HaYamim.  Again this parallels the split in the Torah.  Devarim repeatedly refers to the Kohanim HaLeviim, indicating that the priests are descendents of Levi.  The same idea is found in sections in Yehoshua through Melachim.  However, Shmot (Exodus) - Bamidbar (Numbers) makes it clear that priests are only descendents of Aharon.

Originally I had a plan to go through all the differences between Divrei HaYamim and Melachim, but it took far too long to complete this task.  Instead, I'll leave the task to an interested reader.  Otherwise, take my word that these are representative differences.  Whenever you find a difference between these two books, the Melachim version always aligns with Devarim and the additions in Divrei HaYamim always align with the middle three books of the Torah.

But this isn't the only parallel.  We've also noted the fact that similar language appears between Devarim, the section of books between Yehoshua and Melachim and the book of Yirmiyahu.  What to make of this?  Yirmiyahu was writing during the reign of Yoshiyahu!  If we suspect that Devarim and the historical books were also composed during this time, we should expect overlap between those books, and sure enough, they are there.  This was noted even by traditional scholars who ascribed the authorship of the book of Melachim to Yirmiyahu.  Academic scholars go further and suggest that he, or someone close to him, probably penned all the works starting with Devarim itself continuing through Yehoshua, Shoftim, Shmuel and up to the reign of Yoshiyahu in Melachim.

Problems With Single Authorship in Devarim

While it's useful and indeed generally reasonable to ascribe all of Devarim to a single author.  There are a couple places where problems arise.  One of these places is the beginning of the fifth chapter which starts (Deut. 5:1):

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them: Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them.

This seems to be a fresh beginning that has no recollection of the four chapters that precede it.  This has led scholars to wonder if two different accounts got put together back to back.

Another issue relates to problems in Melachim.  During the end of the Yoshiyahu pericope, after it discusses the various reforms he did, it concludes with (2 Kings 23:24-25)

24 Moreover them that divined by a ghost or a familiar spirit, and the teraphim, and the idols, and all the detestable things that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might confirm the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD. 25 And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.

This looks like a conclusion, it finishes with a description of Yoshiyahu which echoes how the author of Devarim described Moshe.  Academics propose that this is where the histories of the account ends [2].  However, that's not where the book ends.  The next two sentences:

26 Notwithstanding the LORD turned not from the fierceness of His great wrath, wherewith His anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations wherewith Manasseh had provoked Him. 27 And the LORD said: 'I will remove Judah also out of My sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city which I have chosen, even Jerusalem, and the house of which I said: My name shall be there.'

That initial word, translated here as Notwithstanding, is Ach in Hebrew, it's the same keying word we saw with regard to the holiday of Sukkot that was an indicator of redaction.  Modern scholarship suggests the following sequence events.  After the book of Devarim - Melachim was completed up to the reign of Yoshiyahu, all hell broke loose in Judah.  Yoshiyahu was killed in an ill-advised war with the Egyptians, despite God's promise to him that he will die in peace.  The kingdom of Judah gets destroyed shortly afterwards by internal strife and eventually a conquest by Babylon.  What were the exiled Judeans to make of the eternal promise of kingship that God gave to David?  Modern academicians suggest that another author, D2, went back and added in specific clauses into the text that claimed that destruction would come if they worshiped idols.  A post-hoc explanation to justify the calamities that befell the Judeans.  The two verses from Melachim above are emblematic of these kinds of redactions.  To D2, the destruction of Judah had nothing to do with the fact that Yoshiyahu probably pissed off allies by removing their idols from the Jerusalem temples, and instead he hangs it all on the evil Menashe who came before and ruled for fifty-five years of peace.  Similarly, there are sections in the Torah where a second, later author, is thought to modify the text to provide "prophecies" of the exile.

How well you trust the conclusions of modern scholarship on this matter is up to you.  There's a lot more going for it than I can squeeze into this post, which is already growing way too long.  But before I go, I'll mention one more vexing problem in Devarim which I have no good answer for.

Devarim is written as the sayings of Moshe before he died.  Throughout the book, the author is very clear about when Moshe is speaking, and when the third person author is speaking.  There's one place where this fails though.  The first 12 verses of chapter 11 are written as if they were spoken by Moshe.  It speaks of God in the third person, "his signs and doings" and so forth.  However, there's an abrupt shift in verse 13 which begins the middle passage of Shema.

13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, 14 that I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.

This can't be Moshe speaking anymore, he can't actually claim to be providing rain.  While it's possible he is referring to his commandments, the next verse is clearly God speaking.  There's no preamble, no "God told me," nothing.  I have no good explanation for this anomaly, but thought I should point it out.

Conclusion

Devarim is probably one of the best starting points if you want to look at theories of multiple authorship.  Even severe critics of the Documentary Hypothesis, like Whybray, admit that Devarim appears to be separate, and they thus limit their critiques to the first four books.  Hopefully I've given some reasons why they have come to this conclusion, although reading through what I have written, I can't help but feel that I wasn't able to give the argument the full justice it deserves.

---

1. The preceeding claims and similar ones come from the introduction to Friedman, "The Bible with Sources Revealed"^

2. It probably includes verse 28, which is the generic formula forhow melachim concludes the reign of each king. The two verses that come in between are likely an insertion.^