noticed his tirade as well.
i commented there that basically that either
1. the gedolim are lazy because none of them understand judiasm the way you do
2. you are lazy for not spending 40 years learning christianity or islam.
he is exactly the person who says you can not comment on the wings of a fairy because you are not a fairytaleologist.
i really dont want to spend 40 years to prove to myself something, that someone who has cant explain in a few hours.
I also dont understand why judiasm falls apart so fast from a few lazy questions.
ridiculous.
BJ, well said, I don't have the patience to put together a well constructed repsonse to David Guttman and his cohorts who recently have invaded our sanctuary.
David Guttman is one of the people you're talking about? It doesn't sound like him.
you also have to understand that David's views are far from mainstream orthodoxy.
Good post.
It's funny, I have the same problem. No one can answer my questions about atheism, so I've lost faith in it.
JP,
I'm not sure what atheism has to do with this. I didn't get the impression (from anything on this site) that BJ or TO are atheists.
Frankly, BJ's article sums up my issues, too, and I don't consider myself an atheist. However, the question of whether the Torah is "true" can be answered in the negative without recourse to atheism, can't it?
b spinoza
david came on the tfsg to see what all the fuss was about. he huffed and puffed about everyone being lazy and not spending the time on the sources.
would one dare suggest you cant ride in airplane until you spend years as a engineer, pilot etc.?
and my point in the first comment addresses your second. its ironic for him to call anyone lazy when the gedolim would laugh at his idea of judiasm.
> would one dare suggest you cant ride in airplane until you spend years as a engineer, pilot etc.?
wrote the above in haste.
i guess the nimshol should be: would one dare critque a airplane design without having completed years of engineering.
the answer is yes if the design proposed suggests being patched together with gum and spit.
and people can tell such things pretty easily.
Anon 10:33: I think I'd like to be a fairtytaleologist. Sounds like fun.
Seriously, though, good points.
BHB: thanks. I too feel invaded. TFSG is a lifeline for me, at least at times.
B Spinoza: His views might not be typical but he sure got defensive.
JA: Thanks.
JP: As Anon 6:53 said, this doesn't have anything to do with atheism. This has to do with how you treat skeptics. We all know very well your ideas on how that should be done.
Anon 6:53: Exactly.
Anon 8:00: Good summary.
Aren't we basically debating between Orthodox Judaism and materialismdeterminism? So I've got a lot of doubts about that philosophy. I am the super skeptic - I'm skeptical of the skeptics.
BJ, how would I deal with skeptics like you? Probably a good spanking. Don't make me come over there...
JP, you often bring up sex, so I see that spanking as a sexual reference. What's with you frum guys? Shouldn't that be a nono? Even if a sexual thought occurs to you, shouldn't you be supressing it with some ranting and raving at your nearest atheist neighbor? Instead of trying to hit on some progressive, yet spiritual, blogger?
And I told you many times, don't confuse Atheism with historicity of Judaism
JP,
Please don't take this as an insult. I can see that you're a sincere and observant Jew. However, to the extent that you view lack of belief as problematic or objectionable, you are contributing to the problem rather than ameliorating it.
What you miss is that many of us would be pleased as punch to be persuaded to believe. However, you persist in being not only smug, but (in the case of your last post to a married Jewish woman) sexually suggestive.
On top of that, you don't seem to answer any arguments or questions-- rather, you simply (mis)characterize and dismiss them. Most recently, you've labeled us all atheists or "materialists/determinists."
Well, I'm not a materialist. As to determinism, I'm not sure what's so objectionable about the belief that things should be explainable.
If the net sum of your position is a riff off of Tertullian's "credo quia impossibile est," that's your affair, but, obviously, it's winning no converts here. Try a different tack.
It's really simple. I'm not persuaded that the Torah is historically accurate, that the rabbis were supremely wise, or that God really cares about the amount of downtime between my last hamburger and my next Hershey bar.
Persuade me otherwise.
Morgan
Great post
I think that blogs are a support group and not necessarily looking to mirachek. You sort of have to be looking for trouble to begin with.
Compare all the budgets and manpower of all the kiruv organizations. On the other side you have a couple of a free yahoo group and some individuals blogging for on an irregular basis. Usually homophobic people are homosexual.
Hello. A strictly orthodox Jew is supposed to have unconditional faith. He/She should maintain a "naaseh vinishma' attitude. Orthodoxy comes in many shades. Personally I think it's a lifestyle devoid of any type of faith committmenet to a diety. You know what I mean. It has a lot of nice trappings. Friday night family/friends dinners. Kiddush (my fave) on shabbat morning. Loads of friends for the kids to play with etc.. But you know what- There's lot of Jews who do not have live the O-lifestyle and they also enjoy a nice social life and their kids have no shortage of friends. Frum people are under the misconception that they have a monopoly on Judaism. Lubavitchers thinks they have the monopoly of Orthododxy. They're all xexophobic. Maybe that's the way they should be. How else would they continue to exist!
Dear Morgan,
I'm not smug. Probably outraged is a better word.
What if I were to introduce you to a neo-Nazi anti-Semite who told you "I would be pleased as punch to be persuaded to believe that Jews are human. Persuade me."
That's how I look a previously Orthodox Jew who has become anti-Torah.
About sexuality, how do you know BJ is a married woman or even a woman at all? I've used the web long enough to take nothing for granted.
JP--
WOW! No, "smug" definitely isn't the word...
I'm having doubts about my faith, and in your efforts to prove to me the error of my ways, you have just:
1) Told me that I'm pretty much the same as a neo-Nazi who believes that Jews are sub-human.
2) Excused a sexually suggestive comment unworthy of a Torah Jew by claiming that the recipient might not be a woman, as you just can't tell on the web (never mind that plenty of women will read it).
3) Capped it off by claiming that you take "nothing for granted."
JP, isn't it odd that when BJ claims to be a woman married to TO, you won't take that for granted, but when I find that I'm unwilling or unable to simply take the Torah for granted, that makes me the moral equivalent of a nazi.
From a strictly logical perspective, even if we can't believe a word BJ says (note to BJ-- this is not my opinion!), there's about a 50% chance that she is a woman, and a more than reasonable chance that she's married. Now, from a strictly logical perspective, what are the odds that each statement in the Torah (e.g. universal flood, people living 800 years, 90 year old women giving birth, 600,000 men and their families wandering 40 years in the desert and being fed manna, God dictating a book to Moses, etc.)?
My point here is that, for a guy who doesn't take stuff for granted, you seem to have swallowed a lot of purple kool-aid.
Really, JP, you might want to read over your posts above and ask yourself one question: "If a Jew who is having doubts about his faith were to read my post, how would it affect his opinion of the Torah and its representatives?"
Food for thought!
Obersturmbannfuhrer von Morgan
>some progressive, yet spiritual, blogger
Well I'll take that as a compliment!
As for JP. My personal experience online is that if you wait long enough, people will show their ugly side if they've got on. With JP, you don't need to wait long. Of course, as soon as you make an argument he can't make an asshole reply to, he's gone.
OK, I won't spank BJ. But I want her to stop referring to my asshole, thank you.
And, yes, that's exactly correct. Just I like I don't believe that Nazis and Holocaust deniers are intellectually honest people who just need a little guidance, I don't believe that Orthodox Jewish apostates are either. There is something else going on there.
JP--
I think we're reaching a breakthrough!
Holocaust deniers (we can agree) are not intellectually honest, because they ignore a mountain of evidence, eye-witness testimony, photographs, videos, incriminating records maintained by the perpetrators, confessions, crematoria, camps, etc.
Folks like me (you would claim) are also intellectually dishonest, because we, too, are ignoring a mountain of evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Torah is historically accurate.
Now, if you will just produce this evidence and lay it out for discussion, we can resolve everything.
If you can't however, and you have nothing to offer but spite and name-calling (which is all you've done thus far), then perhaps we're not the ones who are being intellectually dishonest.
If something is true, JP, it should be easy enough to prove that it's true. If it's not so easy to prove that something is true, then doesn't it seem harsh to equate people who are unconvinced with mass murderers?
More food for thought. Chew it over.
Morgan
I think my blog includes a few arguments for Orthodox Judaism. Maybe take a peek.
There is actually a blessing regarding Orthodox Jewish apostates which is recited publicly three times each day. The original, uncensored version goes:
For the renegades let there be no hope, and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days, and the Jewish Christians and heretics perish as in a moment and be blotted out from the book of life and with the righteous may they not be inscribed. Blessed are you, YHVH, who humbles the arrogant.
Maybe chew on that one.
"Blessed are you, Lord, who humbles the arrogant."
Words intended to be spoken in prayer to God, not flung in the faces of your fellow Jews. You obviously missed part of the message of those words.
Jews here are asking questions and doubting what we've read (perhaps like Gideon who laid out a fleece...). Our doubt often occasions pain for us.
You, however, show no mercy or concern. Rather, you are doing all you can to offend people and drive them further away from Torah. If the beliefs you profess are true, then you will pay a steep price for your words.
Indeed, your rejection of Torah principles, as reflected in your attempts to embarrass other Jews, your sexually suggestive comments to Jewish women, your refusal to judge people favorably, your blindness to the suffering of your fellow Jews, and your repeated giving in to your own anger seem to me such a round rejection of the essence of Torah, that your conversion is halakhically suspect.
I may doubt the factual accuracy of the Torah, but, I can tell you this right now: even if every word of the Torah is perfectly true, I would not swap places in olam ha-ba with you.
You need to modify your tone, or, better yet, get a new act altogether.
Morgan
Oh, and by the way, JP-- I did take a look at your blog. Your "proofs" amount to linking to the utterly un-scientific ID business and rehashing the Kuzari.
We can argue those, if you like, but, as I've suggested earlier, you don't seem to be here to win any arguments.
Morgan
That prayer is a curse instituted by the Talmudic rabbis to be publically recited three times daily by all Jews against those who have abandoned belief in Torah. I think that should give you a little pause. But I guess not. To many of those on the Jewish blogosphere it's all a big game. "You know, today I don't think I believe Moses really existed..." blah blah blah
JP--
Let's see if I follow our argument thus far:
Me: I'm not sure I can accept the Torah as an historical document.
You: You're a nazi.
Me: Calling me a nazi really doesn't make your case, and might well alienate people you wish to persuade.
You: The rabbis put a hex on people who deny the Torah.
Me: Again, not likely to win friends or influence people.
You: A hex! A hex, I tell you!
Me: Have a nice day, JP. Don't choose a career in kiruv. Or that involves interacting with other people.
JP: If you don't want to be called an asshole, stop acting like one.
Morgan: great summary of the argument so far. When I started my blog I was not a clear cut skeptic. I think JP has a very big role in pushing me over the edge from confusion (hence the name of the blog) to out and out skepticism.
I just love the guilt trip and fire and brimstone, don't you? It really makes me feel inclined to rejoin the fold.
And he just doesn't get that if you don't believe, the threats mean nothing. Like the rest of the Jewish writings, they're just words written by men long dead, who can have no effect on me.
BJ--
Thanks; I do (alas!) share your skepticism.
As to the Dead White Middle Eastern Males (to coin a phrase) and their writings, I'd like to think that these do constitute a tradition that has some very positive aspects. Sometimes considering those aspects makes the skepticism a bit easier.
In any case, whatever my doubts about the rabbis, I'm going to charitably avoid ascribing JP's opinions to them (or, for that matter, theirs to him).
I look forward to reading your continued musings.
Morgan
notice how the jewish "philosopher" has no good reply to morgan, who noted how anti-torah is behavior is. if anything, the ideology espoused by jp has more in common with nazism (calling for the murder of gays, for example) than those of people he would so callously reject. in short, he is, indeed, an asshole.
Do I detect some slight lack of respect here for my Holy Eminence?
"Do I detect some slight lack of respect here for my Holy Eminence?"
I'd say you've been treated with at least the amount of respect you've shown to others, and far more than has been warranted by the tone and substance of your comments thus far.
Morgan
It's comments like these: "Do I detect some slight lack of respect here for my Holy Eminence?" (not to mention the ones that probably count as sexual harrassment) that make me think that JP isn't for real. He can't be. It's either all a big joke, or he's a "Jew for Jesus".
Still haven't decided which is more likely.
I am no more reviled than Jeremiah was in his time, and for the same reason. When you get a chance, read his book. Good stuff.
And when did spanking get so sexual? Is this an S&M blog??
I think my latest post might be of interest.
JP--
Read your "latest post."
Yeah, I get it. You're really angry at people who disagree with you, and are thoroughly convinced that our failure to see things your way renders us unworthy to continue occupying the same planet as you.
Have you got anything else to offer but variations on the theme of how evil we are for not accepting ideas you can't seem to defend?
To be honest, I really don't think you're making much headway on this subject. Since you're a fellow Jew (we'll assume) in distress, I'm going to try to help you once more.
Stop telling me that I am evil for holding a different opinion; instead, take this opportunity to change my opinion.
You can't do it with threats-- you don't scare me. You can't do it with promises-- you have no authority to make any. You can only do it with reason. Have you got any of that? If so, I'll listen.
Morgan
I have some proofs of Judaism on my blog too. If they don't convince you, you need a psychiatrist.
"If they don't convince you, you need a psychiatrist."
Actually, they didn't convince me. Your assertion that I need a psychiatrist (I presume) is based on my wilful refusal to believe something that is readily apparent.
Care to argue this point-by-point? Try naming just one obvious truth from your website that I would have to believe in order to escape the diagnosis of "delusional," together with a brief (surely, it can't be complex) proof of the obvious truth in question.
I'm eager to learn from you (and save big money on the shrink)! Bring it on!
Morgan
Try the Kuzari Principle.
JP,
I've gone so far as to purchase (from one of my local Jewish bookstores) the Kuzari, because I really am interested in the idea of a logical defense of Torah.
To be honest, I had high hopes when I purchased the volume. Sadly, I was very disappointed.
Some of the Kuzari's facts are just plain wrong (e.g., the Chinese did not get the 7 day week from Adam; they originally had a 10 day week, until the western notion of a week made its way to them; lots of other cultures had weeks of varying lengths).
Also, the Kuzari's reasoning is often circular-- giving of the Torah witnessed by 3 million people, therefore reliable; how do we know that 3 million people witnessed this? Easy! It says so in the Torah.
Regardless of your belief, that's a terrible argument, particularly in light of the fact that we don't have 3 million corroborating statements (or, indeed, any).
Kuzari postulates that the mere existence of a tradition over many generations is proof of the veracity of the tradition. I'm not so sure; generally speaking, his argument appears to be that compound hearsay, when carried to the nth degree, is reliable.
Moreover, very early on in his work, the Kuzari comes out and admits that the sage (whom he considers superior to the philosopher) will lose a logical argument with the philosopher. To my mind, that was simply an admission that the entire purpose of his book-- a rational proof of Jewish belief-- was a losing proposition from the start.
In a nutshell, the Kuzari only works if, before you read it, you have already made up your mind to believe.
For me, personally, I would like to believe. I keep kosher, put on tefillin, keep the Sabbath, etc.-- don't you think I'd like to erase my doubts that all those things are empty rituals?
Kuzari didn't help. But, for the record, I'm still listening.
I think the fundamental issue is: If there is no god, how was the Torah authored?
Did some anonymous shepherd and poet sit down in his tent in Palestine 3,000 years ago and write the Torah and then he came out and told all the other Israelites (who were in fact just regular Canaanites): “Here, look at this great book! Let’s pretend this is really true. Let’s teach it too our children as fact.” And everyone, unanimously said, “Oh, yeah, cool idea. Right on, let’s do that!”
That seems to be absurd.
So what exactly did happen?
I didn't say there wasn't a God; my personal feeling is that there is one. Personal feelings aside, however, I see no evidence that God wrote the Torah. So, who did?
I don't know. I doubt it was a shepherd in Palestine 3,000 years ago, if only because there is no extant Torah text that old (I think the Dead Sea scrolls are the oldest, and the oldest of those are only from the 2d century BCE, right?).
Of course, you believe that shepherds in Palestine would be capable of that sort of thing, don't you? Hint: King David, Tehillim...
In any case, as to authorship, Chapter 8 of Nehemiah offers an interesting suggestion (interesting that Nehemiah is one of only 2 books from Tanach that don't appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Maybe Ezra wrote it (or compiled it) at a time when the people, fresh from exile and looking for a connection to their land, needed something like that to believe. Indeed, a close reading of Nehemiah does give the impression that Ezra's reading of the Torah was the first time many of these folks had heard it (which, by the way, would completely put paid to the Kuzari's theory).
No, Ezra couldn't have written it. See my post.
I read your post. As I understand your theory, Ezra couldn't have written the Torah, since the Samaritans have almost the same Torah for the last 3,000 years.
Your argument is predicated on two significant assumptions: 1) that the Samaritans had this Torah for 3,000 years; 2) that the Samaritans and Jews had nothing to do with each other in the interim.
First off, there's no indication that anybody had a Torah 3,000 years ago.
Second, the link you provide indicates that the Jews and Samaritans probably had a common ancestor at the time of the Assyrian conquest, which is completed around 556 BCE (according to the chronology provided by Aish on their website).
Meanwhile, I gather Ezra led the people back to Israel somewhere in the vicinity of 538 BCE, only a very few years later.
Thus, according to your evidence, the Sams were just a subset of the Jews during Ezra's lifetime. Moreover, your article further indicates that the Sams (like Ezra) were from the Kohanim.
Thus, it seems to me that your article on the Samaritan Pentateuch strengthens the case for Ezra's authorship.
What else ya got?
First of all, according to Jewish chronology, Ezra came to Palestine in 348 BCE.
The Ten Tribes were descended from from Assyrian immigrants along with "one of the priests whom they had carried away from Sama'ria" 2 Kings 17:28 which seems to agree with the DNA evidence.
That priest had no common tradition with other Jews since the time of Solomon, when the ten tribes left the united monarchy.
And in fact, if the Pentateuch had been fabricated in the reign of Solomon, it would surely include mention of Jerusalem.
So seemingly it must date at least from Samuel's time, which takes us back to about 900 BCE, 400 years after the Exodus in 1313 BCE.
So the author of the Pentateuch lived no longer after the Exodus than we are living after the Mayflower. How did he manage to fool everyone?
Sorry, I meant "The Samaritans were descended from from Assyrian immigrants"
JP, you're confusing the issue, and you're now arguing against your own evidence.
Let's assume that Ezra did come to Israel on the date you give (although there is obviously some dispute about this, and I've seen various dates).
Returning to the DNA evidence which you cite on your blog, the common Jewish-Samaritan ancestors lived some time around the mid-6th century BCE; this contradicts what you're now claiming (i.e., that there was some priest from the time of Solomon who was involved with the Sams). Solomon, by most accounts, was a few hundred years earlier, in the 10th century BCE.
Moreover, the Bible appears to confirm that there was (at a minimum) interaction between the Sams and Jews in the Second Temple period, during the time of Ezra.
So, if Ezra wrote the Torah in the middle of the 4th century, I see no problem with the notion of that Torah having been adopted in whole or in part by a neighboring tribe with both linguistic and blood ties.
You can't have it both ways, JP. If you want to rely on the DNA evidence in question, you can't ratchet it back a few hundred years to suit your theory.
The bottom line is that you've got no evidence to push the writing of the Pentateuch (as a unified whole) farther back than Ezra (whenever he lived); indeed, the only scientific evidence you've produced thus far tends to work against you.
There are interactions between Jews and Samaritans today as well.
The priest who taught the Samaritans was from the ten tribes who broke away from Judah after the reign of Solomon. Why would he give the Samaritans the Pentateuch if Solomon didn't have it?
"The priest who taught the Samaritans was from the ten tribes who broke away from Judah after the reign of Solomon."
Says who? Assuming that this statement is true, then the assertion referenced on your website (that the Jews and Samaritans had a common ancestor who lived something like four centuries after Solomon) has to be false.
It doesn't make sense for there to have been a 10 century BCE priest who taught the Samaritans the Torah, since there's no evidence that there were any Samaritans at that time-- once again, I draw your attention to the fact that you have demonstrated that the Jews and the Samaritans were the same folks four centuries after Solomon.
So, are you wrong about the common ancestor, or are you wrong about the priest from the 10 tribes? Or is this one of those "eilu v' eilu" things?
The way it works is like this:
Moses gave the Torah at Sinai to all the 12 tribes 1313 BCE.
The Ten Tribes break off from Judah in 797 BCE. They have the Torah.
The Ten Tribes are exiled 556 BCE.
The Samaritans are imported, together with one priest from the Ten Tribes who teaches them the Torah. The Samaritans and the Samaritan Pentateuch are still there today.
However, if we say that the Torah was authored by Ezra, why do the Samaritans have it? According to the Documentary Hypothesis, they should possess only the E Document, which was allegedly written by an author in the 10 tribes.
Point by point:
"Moses gave the Torah at Sinai to all the 12 tribes 1313 BCE."
--No evidence of this.
"The Ten Tribes break off from Judah in 797 BCE. They have the Torah."
--No evidence that the Ten tribes have the Torah.
"The Ten Tribes are exiled 556 BCE."
--OK, let's assume that to be the case.
"The Samaritans are imported, together with one priest from the Ten Tribes who teaches them the Torah. The Samaritans and the Samaritan Pentateuch are still there today."
--When? Says who? What's your evidence that "one priest from the 10 Tribes" taught the Sams Torah?
"However, if we say that the Torah was authored by Ezra, why do the Samaritans have it?"
--Well, again, according to your own evidence, the Sams and the Jews were the same people not long before Ezra arrived on the scene, and continued to interact for some time afterwards. Since they share common ancestors who lived in the 6th century BCE, why is it surprising that, if they split around the time of Ezra, that they'd have a book not unlike the one used by Ezra. Moreover, since the Sams and the Jews continued to interact for long after Ezra's death, why couldn't the Sams have obtained the book after Ezra?
"According to the Documentary Hypothesis, they should possess only the E Document, which was allegedly written by an author in the 10 tribes."
--So what? I'm not arguing for the Documentary Hypothesis-- on the contrary, I said Ezra wrote the Torah.
Once again, you're slipping into your old habit of improperly characterizing the opinions of people who disagree with you. I suggested that Ezra may have written the Torah; I also suggested that the Sams got it around the time Ezra wrote it; I further opined that your own evidence seems to support my conclusions. Now you want to argue about the Documentary Hypothesis (which posits multiple authors).
You seem confused.
Samaritans are not Jews. They are descended from converts and priests [Josephus says plural - more than one] from the 10 tribes. Those priests would have taught the Samaritans only the religion which the 10 tribes practiced. Therefore, if the Samaritans have the Pentateuch, the 10 tribes did as well. The 10 tribes and other Jews did not share a common religious tradition after 797 BCE. Therefore since Jews and Samaritans both have the Pentateuch, this means it was written before 797 BCE. In fact, taking it a step further, I would say that since the Pentateuch includes no mention of Jerusalem, which was central in the times of David and Solomon, it must date from the time of Samuel at latest, or about 400 years after the Exodus.
JP,
Now, you're claiming (assertedly per Josephus) that the Sams are not Jews, but are descended from "converts and priests." Well, excuse me, but wouldn't that make them Jews? Converts are Jews, and so are Kohanim... how is it that their kids are goyim?
Leaving that aside, Josephus lived in the 1st century, CE. Citing him in a discussion about what went on (or didn't go on) in the fourth or fifth century, BCE (much less the 8th) is not going to advance your cause.
I'll make it really simple for you: your evidence shows a common Jewish/Samaritan ancestor in the 6th Century BCE. This fact--YOUR FACT-- renders it utterly impossible for you to use the Samaritan/Jewish split to support the idea that the Torah existed prior to that date.
You have two choices: 1) renounce and refute your DNA argument; or 2) adjust the rest of your claims to fit the facts as reflected in your DNA argument.
Thus far, all you're doing is cherry-picking from a collection of unsubstantiated assertions to try to make a point. Assertions are not proof; they're not even arguments. They're nothing.
OK, let's try this. If the Pentateuch was written after the reign of Solomon, why do the Samaritans consider it to be authentic?
I don't know. If "Dianetics" was written after the reign of King Solomon, why do the Scientologists consider it to be authentic?
If "Sesame Street" was produced after the reign of King Solomon, why do so many kids believe that the Cookie Monster is real?
What's your point? That I should believe something because the Samaritans do? If that were true, wouldn't I be a Samaritan? Come to think of it, in light of your argument, shouldn't you be a Samaritan?
Hey, BJ!! You got a closet Samaritan on your website!!!
Well, Samaritans are pretty interesting.
I hope you guys are having fun. I'll have a new post sometime or other... TO is meant to write one but he thinks too much before he writes.
Morgan, could you be a little more specific? If the Pentateuch was not taught to the Samaritans by a priest from the 10 tribes, who received it as part of a tradition going back at least to era of Solomon, then when and why did they adopt it?
My answer is that they would not have. Therefore I have proven that the Pentateuch dates back at least to the era of Solomon. And in fact, since the Pentateuch does not even mention Jerusalem, Solomon's capital, it is clearly even older. Based on this alone, we can clearly refute the Documentary Hypothesis and date the Pentateuch to at latest 400 years after the Exodus.
You've proven nothing; you seem confused on the distinction between evidence and assertion.
The only facts in evidence on this topic are: 1) the Sams have a version of the Pentateuch; 2) the Sams and Jews were intermixed and shared common ancestors around the 6th Century BCE; 3) they continued to interact after that, having some kind of falling out around the time of the 2d Temple.
And you want something more specific from me? How many times do you want me to repeat your own point to you?
The Jews and the Samaritans were-- according to the DNA evidence YOU provided-- the same group of people long after King Solomon, and not long before Ezra. Therefore, there's no need to go back to any tradition dating to Solomon to explain commonalities between the two.
Indeed, why should it be so surprising that they would share versions of a text that was written around the time of Ezra? Presumably, they got it in more or less the same way that the Jews got it, which appears to be described in Nehemia. Alternately, some believe that it was brought to them by Priests who left the Temple in Jerusalem for the one on Mt. Gerizim.
Either explanation is plausible. Yours, on the other hand, seems rather far-fetched, as it insists on a whole bunch of facts that: 1) are not in evidence; and 2) are unnecessary to explain the situation.
In my post, I pointed out that the Jews and Samaritans were enemies of the Jews during the time of Ezra. See Ezra chapter 4. Considering this, isn't it incredible that they would have adopted a new book fabricated by Jews during that period?
Not at all. Even if we assume that Ezra is reliable on the subject, it appears from the text that they only became enemies in connection with a falling-out over the re-building of the Temple.
It appears from Nehemia that the reading of the Torah by Ezra predates the completion of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (note that the text does appear to indicate that they'd been in Jerusalem a while before they got to work on the Temple).
So, considering the text and the DNA evidence, it would seem that our timeline goes as follows: 1) Jews and Sams inhabit Jerusalem as a mixed population; 2) Ezra produces Torah; 3) Work gets started on Temple; 4) Jews and Sams have falling out; they split, with each group preserving some version of the Torah.
I'd also remind you that, having abandoned reliance on your DNA evidence (which you haven't mentioned since it backfired on you), you're relying exclusively on Scripture to prove the truth of Scripture. This, obviously, is a bit circular.
Samaritans and Jews have always been in contact with each other and they still are today. However according to both communities, they have no common religious tradition since the time of Solomon at least. Whether the Samaritans are truly descendents of the Ten Tribes, as they claim, or merely converted by a priest from the Ten Tribes, why wouldn't they possess only the E Document, which according to the documentary hypothesis on the only part of the Torah originating in the Ten Tribes?
So, if both groups acquired a religious tradition around the time of Ezra, and this tradition purported to reach back to the Ten Tribes (or whenever), why wouldn't both groups agree on that common legend?
And if two groups share a common belief, does that make it true? Catholics and Protestants both believe certain things about Jesus...
In any case, why wouldn't both groups have pretty much the same document if both obtained it around the time that Ezra ginned it up?
By the way, there's no indication that Samaritans even existed at the time of Solomon, and whatever happened to your DNA evidence?
Why do you mention Ezra? The Samaritans, as far as anyone knows, had no connection with Ezra.
The DNA evidence seems to support the story in 2 Kings, that the Samaritans are descended from Jewish priests and Assyrian women.
The Samaritan tradition proves that the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong and the Pentateuch as a whole goes back at least to Solomon's time, if not earlier. How could the Jewish people have been completely fooled about events which supposedly happened only a few hundred years earlier?
1) Ezra: falling out between Sams and Jews comes in connection with rebuilding of Temple at time of Ezra.
2) DNA evidence cited shows common ancestry between Sams and Jews in 6th century, BCE. Your interpretation only works if that date is ignored.
3)There you go again with the DH. The Samaritans, as I've shown, could easily have obtained the Torah from Ezra at the same time as the Jews; indeed, differing intepretations over this new text could explain the falling out they had. Also, the Sams could have obtained the text from a priest who left the Jewish Temple for the one on Mt. Gerizim.
And, why should it be so hard to fool a group of mostly illiterate people about things that happened centuries before?
According to all accounts, the Bible, the Samaritans and Josephus, the falling about between Jews and Samaritans was well before Ezra. That's the whole point of my post.
The DNA has nothing to do with the sixth century.
"why should it be so hard to fool a group of mostly illiterate people about things that happened centuries before" Really? Have you ever tried?
Why don't you check out this post too.
Obviously, the falling out between the Jews and the Sams related to the building of the Temple. That's pretty much clear from the text (nobody's going to want to show up and help his enemies build a temple).
On the DNA, you can keep dodging if you like, but here's the quote from YOUR link: "Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel." Per Aish, the Assyrian conquest is complete in 556 BCE. Thus, most of the Samaritans living today are-- according to YOUR evidence-- descended from a single Jewish male Kohen who lived in the 6th Century, BCE. This pretty much refutes your argument about their origins and how they got the Torah.
The other post you reference contains no serious argument at all worth answering. Calling something "proof" doesn't make it proof.
According to Samaritan tradition, the Samaritans and Jews separated at the time of Eli. Eli was the teacher of Samuel, who anointed Saul and David.
According to Jewish tradition 2 Kings 17, the Samaritans and the Jews have always been completely separate peoples, other than a priest [or, according to Josephus, priests] who may have intermarried with them at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.
The DNA evidence indicates some intermarriage between Jewish priests and Samaritans in the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.
Ezra arrived in Jerusalem (Ezra 7:1), well after the Samaritans are described (Ezra 4:1) as being “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin”. This was two hundred years following the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.
You however maintain that the Samaritans and Jews “split around the time of Ezra”. Please tell me what evidence you have to support this. Or are you just making this up because you want to believe Ezra authored the Torah?
And while you’re at it, I would love to hear why you feel that my earlier post “contains no serious argument at all worth answering”. Or is it just an argument you cannot answer?
--Sam tradition is not authoritative on any point except Sam tradition.
--Jewish tradition proves nothing when contradicted by evidence.
--Once again, you mischaracterize the DNA evidence, which indicates more than "some intermarriage" in the 6th century, BCE, but rather that all Samaritans are descended from a Jew who lived at that time. That's more than "some intermarriage," toots.
My basis for postulating a split at the time of Ezra is simple. Ezra led the people back to Jerusalem; they were there (says Ezra) for more than a year before work began on the temple; the locals wanted to participate in building the temple with the Jews, indicating that they obviously felt some proprietary interest in the Temple. This has the advantage of explaining: 1) how the Sams got the Pentateuch (i.e., Ezra); 2) how they had a falling out with the Jews; 3) why they have a separate Temple.
This requires much less in the way of mental gymnastics than assuming that the polemics in the Bible on this topic are 100% reliable.
As to your other post, I don't see an argument to answer. As is your custom, you simply take everything in Jewish tradition as given, and then declare it proof of itself, without paying much attention to logic or reason.
In this case, you take a tradition of rabbinic Judaism (dating back about 2,000 years) and make the spectacular inductive leap that the same tradition held fast for an additional 1,300 years under entirely different circumstances.
You then declare this "proof of the great spiritual level" blah, blah, blah. Honestly, it's hard to even take that kind of thing seriously.
"Jewish tradition proves nothing when contradicted by evidence" How do you reach that conclusion? Wouldn't that depend on how strong the evidence is and how reliable the tradition is? And what evidence contradicts Jewish tradition?
My link says "Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel." To me that means "some intermarriage", not "all Samaritans are descended from a Jew".
"indicating that they obviously felt some proprietary interest in the Temple" How do you know? Maybe they wanted to sabotage the rebuilding. If a fanatic Muslim wants to get a job as an airline pilot does that mean that he feels a proprietary interest in the American transportation industry?
Ezra arrived in Jerusalem five years after the Samaritan offer had been rejected. By the time Ezra presented the Torah scroll to the people (Nehemiah 8:2), the Samaritans had already declared war on the Jews (Nehemiah 3:34). Your assumption that Samaritans and Jews “split around the time of Ezra” after enthusiastically accepting Ezra's Torah is nonsense.
Regarding my other post, I think I'm raising a very good question. Why is Judaic literature structured the way it is, unless this is showing, in effect, the diminishing "shockwaves" of the Sinai revelation? I guess you haven't got an answer to that one.
"'Jewish tradition proves nothing when contradicted by evidence' How do you reach that conclusion?"
--Because a "tradition" isn't very persuasive evidence as to historical fact; essentially, it's hearsay; Christians have traditions; Muslims have traditions. Why should I assume that Jewish traditions (with far fewer adherents) are so much more reliable? Genetic evidence is more persuasive. Unfortunately, yours isn't helping you.
On the Samaritan/Jewish issue, you can say what you like, but the statement that most Sams can "be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel" speaks for itself, and it speaks of a good deal more than intermarriage.
"indicating that they obviously felt some proprietary interest in the Temple" How do you know?
I don't. It's just far more plausible than reaching back several centuries for explanations that cannot be reconciled with genetic evidence, have no basis in archaeological evidence, and which are unsupported by anything but "tradition."
"Ezra arrived in Jerusalem five years after the Samaritan offer had been rejected. By the time Ezra presented the Torah scroll to the people (Nehemiah 8:2), the Samaritans had already declared war on the Jews (Nehemiah 3:34). Your assumption that Samaritans and Jews 'split around the time of Ezra' after enthusiastically accepting Ezra's Torah is nonsense."
Not necessarily. However, assuming that you're right on this point, your statement could just as easily support the view that the Sams acquired the Torah even later than I suggested. Indeed, this view is held by scholars who claim, as I've said earlier, that the Sams obtained the Torah from priests who left Jerusalem after Ezra; moreover, it is further supported by the fact that the Sams (like the Jews) originally had just one book that was later divided into 5.
It also bears noting that concrete evidence of Judaic ritual practice among the Sams doesn't go back any further than their temple, which dates to the 4th century, BCE.
Finally, if one believes (as you appear to) that the oral tradition, like the Pentateuch, goes back to Sinai, then one would, I'd think, be hard pressed to explain why this mysterious ancient rabbi who gave the Sams their Torah neglected to mention that part. No, even according to your beliefs, a renegade 5th or 4th century priest (or Ezra) makes more sense.
"Why is Judaic literature structured the way it is, unless this is showing, in effect, the diminishing "shockwaves" of the Sinai revelation? I guess you haven't got an answer to that one."
Claiming that your question is profound does not make it less silly. Essentially, it boils down to this: since Jews respect precedent, doesn't that prove that they were on a very high spiritual level at Sinai?
Fine. Since American courts maintain a respect for the common law, doesn't t
(continued...)
Fine. Since American courts maintain a respect for the common law, doesn't that show that Blackstone was greater than any jurist of the 19th or 20th Centuries?
No. There's no proof that the structure you describe existed prior to the Mishna. You cannot use a structure established 2,000 years ago to draw conclusions about spiritual conditions (or anything elsee) 1,300 years earlier.
There is no reason to believe that the Samaritans would have accepted a Torah authored by Ezra other than a preconceived belief that the Torah was authored by Ezra.
And your point about American law is exactly correct. The Supreme Court has no problem fabricating completely new legal concepts which clearly go against all previous traditions. Abortion, which was illegal for centuries, suddenly becomes a "right". School prayer, practiced for centuries, suddenly become "unconstitutional". Why haven't rabbincal authorities been similarly activist? Because rabbis respect the towering authority of rabbis from previous eras. Secular judges, on the contrary, consider past law makers to be barbaric.
"There is no reason to believe that the Samaritans would have accepted a Torah authored by Ezra other than a preconceived belief that the Torah was authored by Ezra."
And no reason to believe that Christians would have accepted the Gospels if they thought that those guys just made them up. And no reason that Muslims would have accepted the Koran if Mohammed just made it up. And no reason for the wide acceptance of the Buddha's teachings if... (etc., etc.). The argument that the fact that the Samaritans accepted (a version of) the Torah proves that it is true is ludicrous.
"Why haven't rabbincal authorities been similarly activist? Because rabbis respect the towering authority of rabbis from previous eras."
Sorry. Reactionary tendencies among religious fundamentalists as contrasted with lawyers does not constitute proof of the Torah. The courts use old principles to address new cases-- just like the rabbis.
Besides, who says that, prior to the Mishna, the authority of previous generations was sacrosanct? Oh, yeah... I know who says it.
Do you think that during the Cold War, Americans would have accepted Stalinism and claimed that they are the "true Russians"? Implausible, no? Likewise, the Samaritans did not adopt Ezra's new Torah. They have continued to revere a Torah given to them by priests from the Ten Tribes, whose tradition apparently went back to Solomon if not earlier. That is why all Jews and Samaritans have it.
The structure of Judaic literature, as I point out, is different from that of other "religious fundamentalists". Why?
The impression I get from you Morgan is that you have decided that the Torah is bogus. However, just for fun, you are willing to challenge a "rabbi" like me to a debate just to ridicule me. Or so you hope. Can I ask you a personal question? How old are you? I am guessing 17 to 20.
"the Samaritans ...continued to revere a Torah given to them by priests from the Ten Tribes, whose tradition apparently went back to Solomon if not earlier. That is why all Jews and Samaritans have it."
You keep saying that. And you keep insisting that tradition is proof; it's not. Analogies with regard to what some relatively modern group would or wouldn't do in unrelated circumstances are simply inapposite.
"The structure of Judaic literature, as I point out, is different from that of other "religious fundamentalists". Why?"
Why not? Didn't most other religions have central authorities at the time they developed their literature? Besides, can you tell me the specific way in which the structure of Jewish literature differs from (say) the structure of Koranic literature? Can you tell me the specific difference between the structure of Buddhist literature and Jewish literature? The answer is that you can't-- you have an assertion which is unsupported. In the end, however, even if you are correct in your observation, your conclusion simply does not follow. Proving that Jewish tradition is unique (which you could do, if you tried) does not prove that it is divinely ordained from Sinai.
"The impression I get from you Morgan is that you have decided that the Torah is bogus. However, just for fun, you are willing to challenge a "rabbi" like me to a debate just to ridicule me."
Really? Is that your impression?
My impression of you (not that it matters) is that you're a person whose faith is so shallow that you need to stoke it by accosting skeptics and launching into ad hominem attacks as a means of giving chizuk to your own emunah.
And, if you'll hop down off your cross for a moment and review our correspondence, you'll note that: a)you initiated the discussion by personal attacks; b) I responded politely and respectfully; c) you attacked me personally; d) you informed me that anyone who failed to be persuaded by your "proofs" was insane; e) when directly challenged, you failed to defend your proofs except through circular reasoning and inductive leaps; f) now, having failed to offer the irrefutable proof you claim to have had, you're trying to play some kind of victim card (I'm trying to humiliate you) while also suggesting that I'm still very young (and hence lacking in the wisdom that adorns your hoary head).
Pathetic.
Morgan, I'm really not sure what your problem is. All that I have noticed is that whatever I say, you simply brush it off with "that proves nothing" or some similar assertion.
If you really want to continue this, please email me.
Thanks for the offer; I'll keep that in mind next time I'm in the market for more unsubstantiated assertions on this topic.
Morgan, I've read your comments with amusement and admiration. You think clearly, write well, and have a wicked sense of humor. Do you have a blog, or other writings I could peruse?
Commenting by HaloScan
