I've often wondered about this as well. My thought is that the small excerpts would have carried far greater meaning back then to those who were familiar with the works. Kind of like saying "we the people" and everyone knows what follows or maybe "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and all that conjures up. Of course, that doesn't really explain why God did. You almost have to say the poetry and book were so entrenched that God figured it was already said best, so might as well crib it.
Another interesting point is the verses about the well. Seems like a whole section of Chukat is a cut and paste job.
For those of us saddled with a Torah-true perspective
There's the crux of the matter and why you're not taking the question to its logical conclusion.
I'm not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater, like GH does. I still believe in divinity of the text, but more along the lines of the divine inspiration model. It seems silly to ignore all the evidence that God didn't write this stuff directly.
These two bits of poetry are my favorite reasons to cite that God didn't write the whole Torah. These sections are explicit that they come from elsewhere.
The only Torah True responses that I can imagine are to either ignore it, or that these foreign sections were a divinely inspired text taken from an otherwise not inspired text.
I, personally, find the Torah and tradition much more accessible when I view it as my people's ancient documentation and mythology. This makes the narrative easier to explain, e.g. how were the two sections on the daughters of Tzelofehad given at Sinai if the sections say that Moses didn't know the answer and had to ask God. It makes the text too circular. And this view doesn't stop me from setting aside time each week to learn.
Am I missing something?
The Torah is loaded with statements made by Bilam, Pharaoh and many others, why are statements from a book different?
The same answer as to how the words of pharaoh became holy can be applied to this.
These two bits of poetry are my favorite reasons to cite that God didn't write the whole Torah
I don't think we're required to say he wrote the whole torah, and this opinion comes from my study of the classic sources. For instance, many say Yehoshua wrote the last 12 verses and the ibn ezra points to four other verses he suggests were added later. Deuteronomy is mostly Moshe's validictory speech. Its not prophesy, which means he's the author of the words (indeed any instance of reported speech could not, by definition, have been authored by God) And then we have these two enigmatic borrowed bits....
There's the crux of the matter and why you're not taking the question to its logical conclusion.
What's the "logical" conclusion? That these passages were added to the revelation later? Fine.
The fact of the matter is, if you read the verse “And Pharaoh said …”, you are obligated to make a Birchas Hatorah!
The same answer as to how the words of pharaoh became holy can be applied to this.
Ok, provide the "same" answere that can be "applied" to both questions.
What's the "logical" conclusion? That these passages were added to the revelation later? Fine.
OK, in the post it seemed like you were avoiding going there.
The fact of the matter is, if you read the verse “And Pharaoh said …”, you are obligated to make a Birchas Hatorah!
Yes, yes. SO? Telling me the halacha is not the same as telling me the origin of the text.
What's the "logical" conclusion? That these passages were added to the revelation later? Fine.
OK, in the post it seemed like you were avoiding going there.
That isn't the only logical conclusion, btw (and anyway, all of bamidbar and devarim were "added after the revelation" We stood at sinai in Year 1. The stories in Bamidbar and all of Devarim are from Year 40.)
In the post it seemed like you were saying that Hashem himself was the one who quoted from the other books.
(indeed any instance of reported speech could not, by definition, have been authored by God)
Not necessarily true. I always understood a "Va'yidaber xyz" as God summarizing. I imagine Moshe looked at the Torah and didn't see word for word quotes. After all, if they are word for word quotes then we have to accept they were incredibly precise with their language. Otherwise, what's the sense of a commentary on the quoted speech?
In the post it seemed like you were saying that Hashem himself was the one who quoted from the other books
Is that not the TorahTrue(tm) view?
so which is it?
BL"N I recuse myself from this thread.
Commenting priveleges are too precious to me. Have fun!
DB,
You haven’t explained your point.
The Torah is divine, but obviously it discusses people/places/events of the time. Why is this different?
“Ok, provide the "same" answer that can be "applied" to both questions”
1. They became holy because it was included in the Torah.
OR
2. It was always holy and this is the way G-d chose to reveal it to the world.
Kind of like saying "we the people" and everyone knows what follows or maybe "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and all that conjures up.
"We the People" - Those commercials for that legal document preparation company, with the guy who sings "bringing justice to life" who sounds just like Michael Bolton.
""the land of the free and the home of the brave" - Play ball!!!
Claiming that the entire Torah was given in scroll form to Moses at Sinai seems to be the prevalent Torah True view today, regardless of other views in the tradition.
On another note, much of the tanakh is about a prophet or god-chosen person telling the majority of the people that they're not doing things quite right. That is, either most Hebrew/Israelites/Jews were 'secular' up until Ezra or they didn't have the Torah or its teachings as we have it now.
I mean, what does this mean? That they weren't keeping Passover?
II Chronicles 35:18-19
יח וְלֹא-נַעֲשָׂה פֶסַח כָּמֹהוּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מִימֵי שְׁמוּאֵל הַנָּבִיא; וְכָל-מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא-עָשׂוּ כַּפֶּסַח אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם וְכָל-יְהוּדָה, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הַנִּמְצָא, וְיוֹשְׁבֵי, יְרוּשָׁלִָם. {ס} 18 And there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did any of the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. {S}
יט בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, לְמַלְכוּת יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ--נַעֲשָׂה, הַפֶּסַח הַזֶּה. 19 In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this passover kept.
Or I Kings 11 where Solomon marries many foreign women, has many horses, goes back to Egypt, and offers avodah zara.
א וְהַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה, אָהַב נָשִׁים נָכְרִיּוֹת רַבּוֹת--וְאֶת-בַּת-פַּרְעֹה: מוֹאֲבִיּוֹת עַמֳּנִיּוֹת אֲדֹמִיֹּת, צֵדְנִיֹּת חִתִּיֹּת. 1 Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, besides the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
Or I Kings 12 where Jeroboam of the Northern Kingdom puts Sukkot in the eigth month
לב וַיַּעַשׂ יָרָבְעָם חָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי בַחֲמִשָּׁה-עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ כֶּחָג אֲשֶׁר בִּיהוּדָה, וַיַּעַל עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ--כֵּן עָשָׂה בְּבֵית-אֵל, לְזַבֵּחַ לָעֲגָלִים אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה; וְהֶעֱמִיד בְּבֵית אֵל, אֶת-כֹּהֲנֵי הַבָּמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה. 32 And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he went up unto the altar; so did he in Beth-el, to sacrifice unto the calves that he had made; and he placed in Beth-el the priests of the high places that he had made.
לג וַיַּעַל עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה בְּבֵית-אֵל, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי--בַּחֹדֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּדָא מלבד (מִלִּבּוֹ; וַיַּעַשׂ חָג לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיַּעַל עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְהַקְטִיר. {פ} 33 And he went up unto the altar which he had made in Beth-el on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and he ordained a feast for the children of Israel, and went up unto the altar, to offer. {P}
Or Nehemiah 8:14-15 where they didn't know about Sukkot at all and celebrated it differently than we do today? And that this may be the first time the Torah is first publicly read.
יד וַיִּמְצְאוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה, אֲשֶׁר יֵשְׁבוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּסֻּכּוֹת בֶּחָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי. 14 And they found written in the Law, how that the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month;
טו וַאֲשֶׁר יַשְׁמִיעוּ, וְיַעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בְּכָל-עָרֵיהֶם וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם לֵאמֹר--צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי-זַיִת וַעֲלֵי-עֵץ שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַ
1. They became holy because it was included in the Torah.
OR
2. It was always holy and this is the way G-d chose to reveal it to the world.
This is speculative, and legal in nature. It doesn't tell us anything concrete about the history of the words.
Looks like this got chopped off....
Or Nehemiah 8:14-15 where they didn't know about Sukkot at all and celebrated it differently than we do today? And that this may be the first time the Torah is first publicly read.
יד וַיִּמְצְאוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה, אֲשֶׁר יֵשְׁבוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּסֻּכּוֹת בֶּחָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי. 14 And they found written in the Law, how that the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month;
טו וַאֲשֶׁר יַשְׁמִיעוּ, וְיַעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בְּכָל-עָרֵיהֶם וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם לֵאמֹר--צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי-זַיִת וַעֲלֵי-עֵץ שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת: לַעֲשֹׂת סֻכֹּת, כַּכָּתוּב. {פ} 15 and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying: 'Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.' {P}
Or my favorite, I Kings 18
כא וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלִיָּהוּ אֶל-כָּל-הָעָם, וַיֹּאמֶר עַד-מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל-שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים--אִם-יְהוָה הָאֱלֹהִים לְכוּ אַחֲרָיו, וְאִם-הַבַּעַל לְכוּ אַחֲרָיו; וְלֹא-עָנוּ הָעָם אֹתוֹ, דָּבָר. 21 And Elijah came near unto all the people, and said: 'How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.' And the people answered him not a word.
כב וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ, אֶל-הָעָם, אֲנִי נוֹתַרְתִּי נָבִיא לַיהוָה, לְבַדִּי; וּנְבִיאֵי הַבַּעַל, אַרְבַּע-מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים אִישׁ. 22 Then said Elijah unto the people: 'I, even I only, am left a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
And many more.
Claiming that the entire Torah was given in scroll form to Moses at Sinai seems to be the prevalent Torah True view today, regardless of other views in the tradition.
What about the view in the scroll itself, namely that the events occured AFTER the torah was given?
We've had some GREAT threads on the passages from the prophets you cite. Please google, and let us know the links!
Chukas and Balak are two of the most mystifying parshiot deliberately spliced together so we have time to delve into neither.
You mean the mechon-mamre links I used?
It won't let me add all the links
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2.../
pt25b35.htm#18
II Chronicles 35
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0...t/
pt09a11.htm#1
I Kings 11
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.../
pt09a12.htm#32
I Kings 12
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3.../
pt35b08.htm#14
Nehemia 8
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.../
pt09a18.htm#24
I Kings 18
(or linked up here
OJ,
In Ezra we read that the simple residents of Jerusalem had no idea intermarriage was as grave as sin as the great Babylonian scribe considered it to be. Instead they followed in the footsteps of the nostalgically remembered Judean monarchs who married out of faith.
“ It doesn't tell us anything concrete about the history of the words.”
I’m not arguing about the history of the words, lets assume you are correct.
Again, the fact that the words are from a book that predates torah, means what? The torah is full of man made statements (that are holy because they are quoted in the Torah)
I don’t understand how these quotes add to the conversation at all.
No OJ, the links to the great DB threads on those subjects!
I don’t understand how these quotes add to the conversation at all.
Why are they in the torah? How did they get there?
The human authors were quoting, period. Ocaam's razor.
Or how about the opening of Devarim 1
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0...pt/
pt0501.htm#1
א אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן: בַּמִּדְבָּר בָּעֲרָבָה מוֹל סוּף בֵּין-פָּארָן וּבֵין-תֹּפֶל, וְלָבָן וַחֲצֵרֹת--וְדִי זָהָב. 1 These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab.
I mean, it says the Moses spoke 'beEver haYarden'/On the OTHER side of the Jordan. That is, the author of that verse is living in Israel, not standing in the Aravah, so that Moses is on the other side from the author.
(This verse doesn't seem to get as much play as the famous Avraham Ibn Ezra on 'vehaKenani AZ baAretz'.)
Anyhow, the point is, that it's perfectly consistent with the Torah itself to read the Torah as a human document rather one that was used to create the world.
DB, I should probably get back to work now 
so I probably won't be looking up the links. Think, you up to it?
"Why are they in the torah? How did they get there?"
G-d put them there...what is it with these quotes that make them unique and deserving of this sudden question?
DB,
"No OJ, the links to the great DB threads on those subjects!"
That must of hurt!
... someone had to shoot a hole in your balloon that was fully inflated by e-fink's review...
What's the source for the idea that the entire Torah (or even part of the Torah) is written word by word by God through Moshe?
I can think of two verses, right near each other in Dvarim 31, but neither is remotely conclusive:
ט וַיִּכְתֹּב מֹשֶׁה, אֶת-הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, וַיִּתְּנָהּ אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי, הַנֹּשְׂאִים אֶת-אֲרוֹן בְּרִית יְהוָה; וְאֶל-כָּל-זִקְנֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל.
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.
יט וְעַתָּה, כִּתְבוּ לָכֶם אֶת-הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת, וְלַמְּדָהּ אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, שִׂימָהּ בְּפִיהֶם: לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה-לִּי הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת, לְעֵד--בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
19 Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach thou it the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel.
... someone had to shoot a hole in your balloon that was fully inflated by e-fink's review...
Think, if that's directed at me, I'm not familiar with the review. I've been following db for a while. I found him on the jblogging awards a number of years ago.
OJ...
"Think, if that's directed at me ...."
Yes, you shot a hole in DB's balloon!
"No OJ, the links to the great DB threads on those subjects!"
That must of hurt!
Why would that hurt?
G-d put them there...what is it with these quotes that make them unique and deserving of this sudden question?
because they are cited from another book, and entirely cryptic.
It seems obvious that some human author took them and added them in to gloss/explain the events being discussed. That's the straight reading.
Now, I am willing to concede the human author did this with permission/authority (as with the last 12 verses) but to ignore the very visible human fingerprints seems dishonest.
it says the Moses spoke 'beEver haYarden'/On the OTHER side of the Jordan. That is, the author of that verse is living in Israel, not standing in the Aravah, so that Moses is on the other side from the author.
or the more obvious and simple answer, that the book was written as moses's last will and testiment to a future generation whom he assumed would live in israel... duh. it makes much more sense that way, then you don't have many of the forward looking anachronisms like telling them that they had to exterminate all the caananites.
and anyone with half a brain knows how slowly the jews were to accept torah, its pretty obvious from both nach and chazal. . .
Jews were and are a "stiff necked people" whom continue to do things there way and always have.
*their
DB
“ but to ignore the very visible human fingerprints seems dishonest”
Not so,
What’s the problem with saying that G-d dictated those (pre existing) words to Moshe just as he dictated the words spoken by Pharaoh? You still haven’t answered.
Its self evident that g-d put things in the torah that have human fingerprints, but that doesn’t mean they were included in the Torah by humans!
or the more obvious and simple answer, that the book was written as moses's last will and testiment to a future generation whom he assumed would live in israel... duh. it makes much more sense that way,
This isn't the simple explanation at all. The narrator is writing from the perspective of someone who is already in Israel. You can offer explanations, and perhaps your explanation are histrorically correct, but they aren't the simple or the obvious reading.
forward looking anachronisms
Please explain. How is the commandment to eradicate the cannites a future anachronism?
What’s the problem with saying that G-d dictated those (pre existing) words to Moshe just as he dictated the words spoken by Pharaoh? You still haven’t answered.
Theologically? No problem. But its not what the text says.
take for instance the price given for a violated woman, its completely innapropriate for anything much after the 13th century bce, likewise would someone writing after 900 BCE write a command that was supposed to have been fulfilled by now and could not be properly rectified but obviously was not fulfilled?
also, consider the fact that the material in the chumash very strongly reflects the reality present in the 13th century, so are you going to say that they had a 4 to 7 century mesorah about this, and got that many details right? (this fact is attested to in almost all litturature about the subject post 1890 when most of the previously thought anachronisms were disproved.)
Yoni, biblical scholars deal with all of that. Read their explanations. They are compelling. Also, in general if you posit textual traditions that date to earlier times that were later redacted, your main problem is solved.
http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/au...g/audio-
shiurim
Check this out !! Rabbi David Bar Hayim talks about child abuse !!
Rabbinic Paralysis re: Child Abuse !!
"I mean, it says the Moses spoke 'beEver haYarden'/On the OTHER side of the Jordan. That is, the author of that verse is living in Israel, not standing in the Aravah, so that Moses is on the other side from the author"
It actually is talking compass points and not points of view. Moab was situated near the dead sea and Har Nebo was not on either side of the Yarden as the Yardend had ended its flow North of the Yam Hamelech. So from Moshes vantage point, Beyond meant East of the Yarden as it says Eastward in the Land of Moav.
anon, i happen to have a copy of britanica open in front of me now, most of what i read about modern "scholastic" views of the subject are nothing but politicaly driven waste... as i have always thought about it.
If nothing else i would have become frum on acount of the stupidity written in DH and its successors.
and dont get me started on how stupid religious people are about this either...
"l-rd what fools these mortals be!"
Isn't it cute how little yoni the blogger is so much smarter then the great, published biblical scholars? How adorable. You just have to pinch his pudgy cheeks.
and don't get started on how the bible could be written at that time and contain all those accounts of miracles, its nothing but anachronistic foolishness, as anyone who is remotely familiar with the customes of the egyptian courtiers.
actualy. if you compared my IQ with theirs i might very well be. nevertheless, more the problem with modern scholars is their refusal to think crticaly and instead toe the party line.
bty, your argumrent is the same one thats usualy given to at risk kids who say non- jewishly PC stuff in class.
"how can you dissagree with the gedolim, they're so much smarter than you'll ever be!"
... someone had to shoot a hole in your balloon that was fully inflated by e-fink's review...
AHEM....
So precious. Little yoni the blogger knows more than professional Egyptologists and challanges the agreed upon wisdom of the academy with quotes from his Jr. Encyclopedia Britanica. Adorable! Do you litke the pretty pictures Yoni? One day when you grow up perhaps you can be a scholar, too! You're off to such a fine start little man.
Yoni (Sanskrit: योनि yoni) is a Sanskrit word that means “womb, vulva, vagina, place of birth, source, origin.”[1]
Such a provocative name you chose for yourself little Yoni the blogger.
um, yoni is my actual name, its s yiddish affectionate for yonason, and i cant believe you're on this blog and are stupid enough not to know that.
sort of like tobie or rochi or esti or shimi or shloimi
or what may be more familiar to you,
Johnny, Tommy, Katie etc.
Pedant, no need for an ad hominem attack
Ok, little Yoni. Whatever you say.
Maybe when you get a little bigger, you'll come to realize that being unaware of ghetto nicknames isn't a mark of stupidity.
Meantime stay with your Jr. Encyc. Its so cute when you quote from the illustrations to challange published Ph.Ds.
anon, i happen to have a copy of britanica open in front of me now, most of what i read about modern "scholastic" views of the subject are nothing but politicaly driven waste... as i have always thought about it.
How is it all "politically driven waste"?
It seems to me that the attacks against Biblical scholarship are also politically driven nonsense.
The very same arguments and methods are used to show that the Koran wasn't divinely authored, and Jews and Christians are fine with the scholarship, and the Muslims reject the scholarship.
Apply the same methods to the "New Testament" to show that it wasn't divinely authored and suddenly, the Christians have problems with the scholarhip, but Jews can still use it to refute Christianity.
Going back to the original, when these methods are applied to the Torah, the Muslims accept the scholarship and the Jews and Christians reject it.
Biblical scholarship can't be right about how wrong everyone else's scriptures are, but wrong when it comes to one's own.
Seriously, the topic at hand is what it means for the divinity of the Torah for it to quote Moabite poets and insert an excerpt from a lost text. There's plenty of room for discussion without attacking people personally.
alas, getting a PhD in biblical criticsm isn't that difficult. (as long as you are politicaly correct.) Most of my professors have simply asked me where I plan to get mine. Honestly i'm not sure, hard sciences seem fun, no?
Cute! So you call your elementay school teachers "professor"? I hope the other kids don't beat you up, yoni the blgger.
42, one doesn't need biblical criticism to debunk the koran or the old testiment, there are enough readily avaibable historical sources to do that for you. (cheers!)
You realize that you can debunk the single author theory for whinnie the pooh with the method of biblical criticism?
sherlock holms too, as well as every other book ever written by mankind.
Ok, Pedant, In Bava Metzia 59a (I think) it says if you cause someone's face to blanche in public (in embarrassment) it is like you have shed blood, so please stop. The Torah also says not to slander.
OJ, little yoni the blogger can take care of himself. Maybe if he didn't call everyone stupid and moronic with no supporting argument we'd take him seriously. He's a dumb kid. Taking the piss out of dumb kids just builds their character.
Yoni, Biblical Scholars seek to understand the Tanakh on its own terms using philology, comparative literature, archeology, etc. It is an academic discipline, for the most part, like an other. In academia, God doesn't exist, since that is the realm of religion. Their goals are no different than Avraham ibn Ezra, David Kimhi, Moshe ben Maimon, or other rationalist interpreters in our tradtion, but they are approaching it from an academic rather than religious point of view.
42, one doesn't need biblical criticism to debunk the koran or the old testiment, there are enough readily avaibable historical sources to do that for you. (cheers!)
How come those historical sources that contradict the Torah don't count, but they count when its the NT, Koran, etc?
You realize that you can debunk the single author theory for whinnie the pooh with the method of biblical criticism?
Since Biblical criticism makes use of more than the text at hand ( historical documents, other manuscripts, archaeological data etc. are included) the critic in question would make likely use of all extant materials relating to A.A. Milne available for the research.
Therefore, since the researcher would be accessing Milne's notes, records, manuscripts and revisions, etc. said person would likely come to the conclusion that Milne wrote the story and not a collection of eight people redacting the story over generations.
Pedant,
You're so clever. And you've added so much to the conversation to boot. I hope you'll join us on each and every thread. I have to admit I am a bit jealous that you've reserved all your scorn and all your juicy insults just for yoni. Please share in the future.
JS, is Yoni your boyfriend? Or do you just feel big when you protect sad, little weaklings who get off calling everyone stupid and moronic? Next time you and Yoni are sharing an afterglow perhaps teach him lessons in proper arguing. Explain to him that facts and citations are what convince, not boasting about IQs and hurled insults.
Ahhhhh. Thank you for sharing. I feel much better now.
DNFTT!!!
BTW, I've noticed that a lot of midrashim are based on textual conflicts, lacunae, etc. that are later analyzed by academics. To some extent, it's a matter of approach.
What's interesting about treating the Torah as a contextual document (rather than one used to create the world in which every letter is sacrosanct) is that the text becomes more understandable, and for me, more holy.
I am disgusted that a ben sorer and more could be killed. However, in comparison with Ancient Near Eastern law, it becomes clear that the Torah is more progressive in that it requires the parents to take the kid to the court first.
Similarly, in Ancient Near Eastern law, if someone kills your daughter, you get to kill his daughter, eye for an eye. Or the murderer could ransom the price of the daughter to avoid punishment. Torah law says all human life is sacred. He who spills blood, his blood shall be shed. Torah law forbids the ransom. Did you ever notice that in parashat mishpatim the laws of the slave precede the laws of murder and goring oxen? Is the Torah implying that slavery is bad? It seems to be.
In any case, what's going on in this thread is, unfortunately, what often happens in an anonymous conversation where people feel free to say things they (hopefully) wouldn't say in person. It is quite unfortunate. A little respect goes a long way.
Yoni, Biblical Scholars seek to understand the Tanakh on its own terms using philology, comparative literature, archeology, etc
this may be useful for understanding the tenach, however most of it is not so useful for biblical criticism, which more often than not is confronted with the glaring lack of period sources for that time (mostly due to the fall of the numerous empires before this, and the still yet half a melenia or more before any of them would come back to anything resembling power).
as a result of this those engaging in DH style criticism are confronted with an enourmous lack of sources, which is why they start relying on "internal evidence" for their conclusions, an approach which can be used to hack up almost any extant book.
read the litturature on it, they mention this fact in every one. (ommiting the interesting tidbit that you can do the same thing to books that were most assuredly written by one author, and get the same results, ie multiple authors.)
(note, this specificaly concerns the torah its self, not the neviim, who have some sources, or alot depending on the period.)
essentialy, as a result of my reading on the subject, i have been forced to conclude that internal evidence, even if its possible to use it in an objective way, is way to prone to circular reasoning and virtualy impossible not to be tautological and thus bears absolutely no relationship to the rest of reality.
I do not accept any sort of internal evidence, barring the most offensive and glaring cases, which generaly are not present in any sort of liturature.
Yoni, you have faith in your views, and that's great, but there's lots of evidence from external sources. What there's not a lot of is evidence from the Israelites themselves, especially for the early stuff.
For example, the http://www.utexas.edu/courses/cl.../
sennprism.html
Sennacherib prism details his campaign against Hezekia. And they differ in certain ways. How would you approach that?
Persian records mention no Ahasveros. How would you aproach that?
There is no external evidence that David was king. How would you approach that?
Texts from Ugarit, Mari, Sumer, Egypt, etc have creation stories that seem to be referenced and polemicized against by Genesis 1. Does that interest you?
Regarding the documentary hypothesis, there is a lot of evidence for it if you're willing to see it. See the flood for example. Here's an article on the Bible Codes.
see my comment above:
note, this specificaly concerns the torah its self, not the neviim, who have some sources, or alot depending on the period.)
the material on the documentary hypothesis is familiar to me, and i will reiterate that i think its authors were wishful, stupid or both.
and the presentiation here of the flood is one of the least convincing exampkles of this i have seen... there are numerous obvious questions, such as the reference to 7 clean animals, what about the non-clean animals?
i will state cleary that DH is only convincing if you desire it to be convincing, the same with divine authorship of the torah.
Which means the jury is still out, and will likely remain out.
every single time i feel the least bit swayed, someone comes along and shows me something like that flood source that demonstrates what idiots the authors of DH were...
the one argument that i've seen that has the most promise is the suplimental argument, that the torah was written whole, but some portions were added later on. this may have alot of truth to it, but figuring out which ones is extremely difficult. . . if not impossible.
See this humorous Jewish Hermeneutics of the stop sign post about shivim panim le torah.
Also, did you know that Yemenite have a different textual tradition?
9 temani/yemenite difference in Torah
br 4:14 MNSh*W*'-MNSh'
br 7:11 M'YN*W*Th-M'YNTh
br 9:29 WYHY-WYHY*W*
sh 27:31 Th*Y*'ShH-Th'ShH
sh 28:26 H'F*W*D-H'FD
bm 1:18 BShM*W*Th-BShMTh
bm 10:10 ChDShKM-ChDSh*Y*KM
bm 22:5 B'*W*R-B'R
dt 23:2 DK*H*-DK'
(BT Meg 2b) Prophets “watchers” established final letters
(BT San 21b, 22a) Mar Uqvah: Torah first given in Hebrew script and text and given again to Ezra in Assyrian script and Aramaic. R’ Yosi: Ezra could have received the Torah and he changed the text to Aramaic with an Aramaic Targum. Rabbi says Torah originally given in Assyrian, at sin became “Roetz” and returned to original when they repented. R’ Elazar says nothing ever changed.
reuel (Ex 2:18, Num 2:14, 10:29) deuel (Num 1:14, 7:42, 47, 10:20) (different genealogy)
It is clear that the books that make up the Bible cannot possibly have comprised the whole literary production of ancient Israel. The Scriptures themselves bear testimony to the existence of an extensive literature which is now lost. The "Book of the Wars of the Lord" (Num. 21:14) and the "Book of Jashar" (Josh. 10:13; II Sam. 1:1
are certainly very ancient. Prophetic compositions are ascribed to Samuel, Nathan, and Gad (I Chron. 29:29) of the early monarchy period and to Ahijah, Jedo/Iddo, and Shemaiah from the time of the division of the kingdom (II Chron. 9:29; 12:5; 13:22). The references to the chronicles of King David (Chron. 27:24), of Solomon (I Kings 11:41), and of the Kings of Israel and Judah (ibid. 14:19, 29; I Chron. 9:1; II Chron. 16:11; 20:34; 27:7; 32:32; 33:1 all bear witness to royal annalistic sources no longer extant. A category of literature called "Midrash" (II Chron. 13:22; 24:27) is also ascribed to the times of the monarchy, and a book of dirges to the end of that period (II Chron. 35:25). While it is true that in many of these instances it is possible that the same work has been referred to under different titles and that the caption sefer might indicate a section of a book rather than the whole, it cannot be doubted that numerous other works must have existed which were not mentioned in the Bible. In fact, the very concept of a scriptural canon presupposes a process of selection extending over a long period.(EJ: canon)
From a doc I sketched out in 2001. Skip the rambling at the beginning and take a look at the categorized quotes I found.
Ok, I'm spending too much time posting increasingly off topic stuff to this thread (as Torah is one of my favorite topics).
Look, you don't have to accept the documentary hypothesis, but perhaps the Noah thing didn't make sense to you because it's in English. In the Hebrew, the sources actually have a different vocabulary. It is actually a really great example if you're willing to consider it. If you're not willing to consider it (i.e. that people aren't just making things up), then you are arguing from faith, and there isn't much point to the conversation.
Feel free to read Cassuto. You should like him.
and yerushalmi states in the begining of mesechet megila that the torah was given in caananite script, so?
(and in fact this is the case)
Nor was the torah written with space between words, or a whole host of issues. your point?
lol.
There are also statements that in the time of ezra they could not find two scrolls that were alike, and that indeed the state the scrolls were in was atrocious due to the longs standing custome of people copying their fathers sefer. (thats how sofrim got started)
the arguments about vocabulary are also circular. . . problem is most of those words that are described as synonyms are not actualy synonims and are used in different ways to mean subtly different things.
My favorite example os the difference between dirt and earth.
answer me, are they true synonyms, identical in denotation, conotation, implication and everyting else?
(dirt and earth in english that is.)
and i do indeed like cassuto.
I haven't actualy read him, i'm usualy too busy reading other things, but he is quite intelligent from the citations, and summations i have read in the course of reading other stuff.
and from my perspective the ikkar of the rambam is less intended as a statement of history than a piece of practical advice:
it is difficult if not impossible to correctly determine the correct reading of a book once it has been changed, and because of hashgacha klalit it is likely that we have recieved the text that hashem intended us to recieve, therefore we should not try to figure out what is the correct reading and which is not, aside from attempting to decide between conflicting scrolls, because the likelihood of being right is much less than the likihood of further degrading the text.
I mean, you can't be a learned man and argue that the torah its self is exactly as moshe recieved it, the talmud, midrashim and many other sources say explicitly otherwise.
Yoni,
There's 2 sides of biblical criticism:
1) The questions, which make it clear that it's impossible for the Torah to have been written by a single author 3,500 years ago (inconsistencies, anachronisms, external evidence contradictions, etc)
2) The answers, which claim the authorship of J, E, P, and D. Those theories are only intelligent speculation.
Side # 2, I admit, has gained an "orthodoxy" that is unwarranted in academic research. There isn't enough freedom of opinion in the field.
However, side #1 is indisputable, if you look at the evidence. So fine, don't accept the conclusions, but the questions are very, very valid, and preclude strict divine authorship.
with regards to the torah this is less true than with regards to the rest of the books, as i've mentioned, external evidence about the torah is skant, and most anacronisms in the torah its self date to the second melenium sometime. . . the anachronism argument was debunked a hundred years ago, and is spacious of you to repeat it.
the inconsistencies and contradictions, with all due resprect, are largely subjective, one person's inconsistancy is anothers alternative spin. furthermore, since people do not normaly tollerate actual inconsistencies in their texts, you can't use that criteria as evidence, only an after the fact resolution when all other explanations of inconsistancies fail.
(i know its hard to beleive in our times, but in our day of heavily editing everything we publish, our standards for contradictions are much more inclusive than they used to be, and if a redactor did not consider this a contradiction, then neither did a proposed author.)
and if you wanted to see some examples of glaring and outragous inconsistencies written by a single author then i would suggest that you look at my blog, but alas, the vast majority of that material has been taken down.
People look at the world and at events differently and at different times. Frequently both perspectives have a segnificant truth to them, from their perspective.
My favorite example os the difference between dirt and earth.
answer me, are they true synonyms, identical in denotation, conotation, implication and everyting else?
It depends on the definition.
If you're talking about soil, then yes. If you're talking about filth or a planet, then no.
Yoni (couldn't stay away) Let me ask you a very simple question
Judges 12
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0...pt/
pt0712.htm#6
ו וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אֱמָר-נָא שִׁבֹּלֶת וַיֹּאמֶר סִבֹּלֶת, וְלֹא יָכִין לְדַבֵּר כֵּן, וַיֹּאחֲזוּ אוֹתוֹ, וַיִּשְׁחָטוּהוּ אֶל-מַעְבְּרוֹת הַיַּרְדֵּן; וַיִּפֹּל בָּעֵת הַהִיא, מֵאֶפְרַיִם, אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנַיִם, אָלֶף. 6 then said they unto him: 'Say now Shibboleth'; and he said 'Sibboleth'; for he could not frame to pronounce it right; then they laid hold on him, and slew him at the fords of the Jordan; and there fell at that time of Ephraim forty and two thousand.
Do you accept that there were different dialects of Hebrew? There is ample other evidence, but this one is so straightforward that I don't see how you can deny it. If you accept that there were different dialects of Hebrew, then why can't you accept that different "sources" are identifiable by different language patterns (not to mention topical and content differences among the language patterns).
The rabbis were aware of these differences in language and said that YHWH is the attribute of mercy and elokim is the attribute of strict justice. Feel free to accept that different parts of the Torah use different language, and still believe that they are from the same source, but you cannot deny the different "voices".
However, it is not just vocabulary. It is also facts on some occasions. Another simple example.
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0...t/ pt0137.htm#25
Genesis 37
27 Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother, our flesh.' And his brethren hearkened unto him. 28 ..and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they brought Joseph into Egypt. 39:1 And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither.
but also
28 And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, 36 And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard. {P}
So was he sold to Ishmaelites or drawn out of the pit by Midianites? Yes, the rabbis were aware of the problem and dealt with it. But they acknowledged the problem.
Yoni, here is an article providing an empirical basis for the documentary hypothesis by seeing how the Samaritans redacted the masoretic text by Dr. Jeffery Tigay.
In any event, you should realize by now that biblical scholars are scholars with much evidence on their side. Whether you choose to accept their arguments is up to you.
the interesting tidbit that you can do the same thing to books that were most assuredly written by one author, and get the same results, ie multiple authors.
Keep telling yourself that and it will make it come true.
google it, there are some curious examples brought in the anals of this blog, including once when some people did it to whinnie the pooh to make a point.
If you accept that there were different dialects of Hebrew, then why can't you accept that different "sources" are identifiable by different language patterns
http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACc...dern2/
Pooh.html
If God had something to say, why didn't He put it in His own ordinary, easy to understand words instead of borrowing something impenetrable from someone else's book?
Well, R. Menachem Leibtag has an easy answer to that one - Torah is meant to be studied not just read. Therefore it is purposely cryptic!
http://wapedia.mobi/en/The_Amber_Witch
another example.
An then came a scholar who looked at the new Pooh studies and said, "Hey! Why are you only basing this on the text and not on the other evidence, such as Milne's own manuscripts?"
To which the reply came, "But . . . but . . . S.R. Driver said . . . "
To which the scholar said, "S.R. Driver? He published that book in 1913! We've had almost 100 years of Ancient Near Eastern archaeology added to our knowledge since then! We've found caches of clay tablets - we've TRANSLATED tablets that have been laying around for 150 years - and we're still translating them. We've developed newer and more varied dating techinques. We're excavating in new places every day! And you're relying on some quote from 1913. Come on. You can do better than that!"
Well, R. Menachem Leibtag has an easy answer to that one - Torah is meant to be studied not just read. Therefore it is purposely cryptic!
frumheretic | Homepage | 07.08.09 - 6:19 pm | #
Wow. That is genius.
What's the "logical" conclusion?
Bards have daat Torah.
scl, nearly 100% of that material does not speak even remotely directly to the torah its self. you are making the same ignorant error that many make, ie conflating the evidence we have about the monarchy and beyond, with what we know about moses's days.
which is still extremely little. as was repeated, it is still the case that virtualy ALL information to be gleaned on the torah proper (which in greek they call the pentateuch) is internal, however there are oodles of evidence that the torah proper is grounded very firmly in the material reality of the second melenium, and the trend in modern archeology has been to strongly confirm this.
However those details that make up the torah proper, we have almost no sources on.
which means, for these books, we STILL rely almost purely on internal evidence, which is basicaly circular and has no strong connection with reality, other than a restatement of a particular theory.
Does most of our knowledge about the time of Moshe come from the Torah or does there exist "oodles" of outside evidence?
OJ said -
"Claiming that the entire Torah was given in scroll form to Moses at Sinai seems to be the prevalent Torah True view today, regardless of other views in the tradition."
This is neither of the two views cited in Gittin 60A. So how could it be the prevalent view of Torah True Judaism. It is not found anywhere in the sources of Torah true judaism. For a full discussion of this based on Jewish sources like the gemorah and midrashim see http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet...t/
en_torah.html
It also talks about the book of the wars of the lord.
The passages from last week's parsha cited in the post aren't so mysterious. "Et Vaheb beSufa" presumably refers to some otherwise unknown incident at Wadi Zahav in the Sinai peninsula along the Red Sea. Vaheb is a poetic contraction of "V'di Zahav" (presumably the same place as the modern Wadi Dahab - with "d" replacing the "z"). The other incident occurred in the ravines of the river Arnon at some waterfall near the biblical Moabite border town of Ar. The fact that we no longer know about these incidents (other than some midrash) or that we aren't familiar with the geography of the region is not a reflection of some supposed confusion on the part of the writer or evidence for some great time difference between the incidents and the writing.
The above phrase is prefaced by the statement, "Therefore it is said when recounting (or in the book of) GOD's battles..". This reflects a then popular saying or song. which is recorded in the torah. The same holds for the song about the well that follows, and the victory song following the defeat of the Amorite forces of Sihon. These are all popular songs and poetry that was composed at that time (40th year of the sojourn in the desert. The torah also records other contemporary poetry such as the blessings and prophesies of Bilaam, not to mention that the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) is largely taken from Moshe's last speeches. The point is that regardless of origin, once admitted into the torah it has the same status as, "GOD spoke to Moshe as follows. Address the Israelites and tell them..".
Y. Aharon
From the Aish Das link:
The answer is simply that our forefathers Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov, and even those who preceded them like Adam and Noach, wrote down personal histories and theological works that were kept by their descendants. As prophets, their writings were sacred and treated like holy books. They were studied by their children and handed down from generation to generation. . . .
Throughout the stay in Egypt and the desert, the scrolls of the forefathers were treated as sacred books and studied. These books, which were written under prophetic inspiration, form the basis of the book of Genesis. Granted, they were highly edited so that the book would not be too long. Also, phrases and even verses were added to the texts that perhaps even these prophets could not have written. For example, Ramban explains (Genesis 8:21) "G-d said in His heart" as meaning that this was only revealed to Moshe at the time of the writing of the Torah.
The text of Bereshit orignially consisted of a number of books written by different authors, which were then edited down, with some later additions, into the book that we now have?
Why does this sound familiar?
Yoni there are many anachronism in the five book and also cruxes and also internal contradictions. They don't dispear when you wave your hands. Now I stop short of saying what they mean or how they originated but it must not be denied that they are there.
Anon, the only difference is the DH says that people without prophecy edited the books, whereas this idea is that people with prophecy, aka moshe, edited the books.
dovie, most of the material i've read states explicitly that they nolonger believe that the text contains much of any anachronisms, and is infact founded "very firmly in the material reality of the second mellenium" (britanica)
for instance, all prices (that i have heard of) found in the five books tend to reflect second milleinum prices (joseph, the bride price, etc). If there was any stretch of oral history between these points, these would have been reflected anachronisticaly.
Which means the earliest written sources for the torah stretch back into the 17th or 16th century when the price of yosef was then current.
and if that is so, most of DH's dating conventions go basicaly to pot. (not to mention his theory on the cultural development of the children of isreal is shear madness and ignorance, judging on the universal culteral maturity in the area, owing to its frequent contact with mesopotamia and egypt.
Additionaly, MOST of the biblical laws reflect 2nd millenium babylonian law codes, while the judicial system mirrors the egyptian. The former would be impossible if the law codes were instituted after about the tenth century.
your information, as i have told you before, is at least 80 years out of date. (although this is disgustingly common in this field of secular research.)
Commenting by HaloScan
