Reconstructed should be "reconstructing." 
begone evil spirit :P
Did the rabbi say what he thought about it?
Wow, Cassuto... let's not get too crazy.
>Did the rabbi say what he thought about it?
About the book, or about the course that he is teaching?
>Wow, Cassuto... let's not get too crazy.
Would you rather Breuer?
It was interesting. The best part of the book, were the appendices in which he blasted some other non believers for their chronlogy.
> other non believers for their chronlogy.
Can you give some specifics?
I felt that the intro and conclusion, which were only a fraction of the book, were worth reading. The actual book of J itself was tough for me because I am used to the Bible in Hebrew.
I would borrow it rather than buy it unless your following biblical criticism closely (and if that's where you are at, you may as well buy Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed.
>Would you rather Breuer?
I'd rather he started with Genesis Chapter 1, then moved on to Genesis Chapter 2... etc. No need for a commentary, the truth is out there.
>I'd rather he started with Genesis Chapter 1, then moved on to Genesis Chapter 2... etc. No need for a commentary, the truth is out there.
But how can we be sure ANY approach to the text is coming from an objective standpoint?
>it looks as if Friedman has done a good job at reconstructing the "book of J"<
ooh, ooh, did he reconstruct how kennedy was REALLY murdered as well??
How bout the real secret of how the piramids were built?
Does he reveal the real reason behind the bermuda triangle?
when is he going to finish the Jewish da Vinci code? Does he know that a secret kabal of kohanim have been hiding a J and D document for 2000 years now so that the "truth" about the bible will not come to light?
Isn't it a little strasnge to claim such detail for a book no one has seen but only postulated as a hypothesis?
we "learned" about DH and cassutto in my high school tanach class. but this was in 12th grade so we were all fast asleep by then anyway
In regards to people like chardal...
Doesn't it seem ironic that believers think postulating the author of an ancient text is as ridiculous as a conspiracy theory, yet they claim to know the author of all the mysteries of the universe.
A biblical scholar makes a hypothesis as to the authors of the bible. Crazy talk!
A believer claims to know who created the universe, why gravity works, how life began, why atoms act like particles sometimes and like waves other times, who actually wrote a 2500 year old book. Simple as 1+1!
FedUp you are mistaken as you are comparing apples and oranges. With human authorship we are talking of history. It either happened or didn't. With these other matters we can only postulate and not fully see anything. You can say what you feel is moral and it based on what yopu think. With what you ate for breakfast you can't do that and have to base yourself on what you see or others saw.
Don't you feel free to postulate except in matters of history? So what are you doing that the believer doesn't?
But how can we be sure ANY approach to the text is coming from an objective standpoint?
It's a fair question. Luckily, most texts are very easy to interpret and analyze.
First, start with no assumptions at all. Then read the text with as little commentary/translation/modification as possible. Take a survey. See what 99 out of 100 people think it means or who wrote it. Those 99 are probably right.
>First, start with no assumptions at all.
Everyone started with assumptions
>Take a survey. See what 99 out of 100 people think it means or who wrote it. Those 99 are probably right.
99 out of 100 people today are influenced by different things then 99 out of 100 people 500 years ago.
>First, start with no assumptions at all. Then read the text with as little commentary/translation/modification as possible. Take a survey. See what 99 out of 100 people think it means or who wrote it. Those 99 are probably right.
That is a great point. We have been so conditioned to think that everythings needs interpretation. Well of course it does, because if you twist one thing then everything else needs to be manipulated as well. Just read the texts and they tell a very different story.
I agree. I think the best way to tackle scripture is to be just you and the text, but that does not mean if one reads gen. 1 and 2, they will automatically say "Oh, of course. Two traditions"
That's hardly how it works. A candle means one thing today and it meant an oil that was lit in the days of the Talmud and Bible. Lucifer means Satan today but meant Venus in the past. Isaiah 14:12. How are you fallen from heaven, O bright star, son of the morning! how are you cut down to the ground, you who ruled the nations!
can be written with equal justice: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, thou which didst rule the nations!
The burden is on us to bother to realize that material from another culture and time needs some subtlety rather than a naive belief in a contexualess translation. It's a fine line and not easy as CandyMan asserts. Sure you try and see what the literal pshat is but you also try to take into account what differs in our experience and the experience of another time and place and sometimes just place. If I read an Australian poem about a Black man I will have to understand that it means an Aborigine. If I read about corn in an English Bible I will have to realize it is British corn. If I think the Bible is mentioning a violin I had better realize it is a harp. If I think the Bible is mentioning Blacks I had better realize it is mentioning ancient Ethiopians who were very dark but not Black in our sense. If Yaacov is being said to be the son of Avraham I had better realize that it means descendant too in the proper context. How can 99 out of 100 get all of this right if they are dealing only in their own country's culture?
Further I challenge you to find DH if you just let the text speak on its own. DH doesn't do that. Not by a long shot.
I think the best way to tackle scripture is to be just you and the text, but that does not mean if one reads gen. 1 and 2, they will automatically say "Oh, of course. Two traditions"
I think they'll notice the contradictions, and (as long as they started with no assumptions) consider it a possibility. 99 times out of 100.
The burden is on us to bother to realize that material from another culture and time needs some subtlety rather than a naive belief in a contexualess translation.
Oh, I'm a big fan of context. Although most passages don't require a greater context for understanding.
The only true "key" to understanding an ancient text is the text itself. If you don't understand a passage in Tanach, what do you do? Do you consult Rashi? Or do you consult the Tanach itself?
Just read the texts and they tell a very different story.
Exactly. Just keep reading. In the *rare* event that you don't understand a passage right off the bat, the 99/100 will probably also not understand it. In those cases, just keep reading. Just keep reading Tanach. If you do that, you'll learn the secrets of the Torah. It all makes sense. No commentaries required.
>I think they'll notice the contradictions, and (as long as they started with no assumptions) consider it a possibility. 99 times out of 100.
Everyone notices it. The point is, in this day and age will the average joe come to a conclusion that it is two traditions woven into one story? I don't think so, unless he lives in an evironment that has already been exposed to it. You won't find anyone that has not come into it with any assumption. But lets hypothetically say you did find someone, he will MORE than likely think it is man written, but the idea of haveing two seperate texts won't come into mind unless he is told. Then he will say "Oooooooh, of course"
Everyone notices it. The point is, in this day and age will the average joe come to a conclusion that it is two traditions woven into one story? I don't think so
Oh, I think if that average Joe actually READS it, he'll consider the possibility that these are two different accounts of Creation, stitched into one. The problem is that no one's actually READ it.
Now, will that person come to a hard and fast conclusion after two chapters? Probably not. I sure didn't. But I kept reading, and kept an open mind.
So that's how I would teach the shiur.
The bottom line is, if your interpretation isn't something that arises naturally out of the text, it's probably false.
> In regards to people like chardal...
Doesn't it seem ironic that believers think postulating the author of an ancient text is as ridiculous as a conspiracy theory, yet they claim to know the author of all the mysteries of the universe.<
Um, I don't make many claims. and give me a break. If I was to make an empirical statement with as little data and as much conjecture as Friedman, you would correctly call me a quack. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If your primary (and only) value is empirical truth found through scientific method and reason - then the correct answer to any question regarding what happened 3000 years ago is 'heck if I know.' political analyses of priests and kings from 2500 years ago and speculations about multiple texts that have never been found is just substituting modern drush for old drush. Since I like the older drush, I will stick with it.
>A biblical scholar makes a hypothesis as to the authors of the bible. Crazy talk!<
Yes, to 'find' a hidden book in the bible without any real data is crazy talk. If you deny believers the term knowledge, then you are completely inconsistant if you then go and use the term knowledge/know to people like Friedman.
>A believer claims to know who created the universe,
Easy! it was the creator. You see, I like my tautologies much better than your tautologies.
>First, start with no assumptions at all. Then read the text with as little commentary/translation/modification as possible. Take a survey. See what 99 out of 100 people think it means or who wrote it. Those 99 are probably right.<
This is very protestant of you. However, I think Jacques Deridda successfully demolished the illusion of objective reading of text being possible. We all darshen the text - believers just admit it while academics, well ... don't.
>The bottom line is, if your interpretation isn't something that arises naturally out of the text, it's probably false.<
exhibit number 1:
projection of modern textual concepts onto ancient texts denying the possiblity of essoteric layers (and relax all you Hume fundies, essoteric layers can exist even if you posit human authorship)
>That is a great point. We have been so conditioned to think that everythings needs interpretation.<
Actually, for all you fans of academic concensus. Since every literaray criticism department in the world today is run by either deconstructionists or deconstructionist sympathizers, the accademic concensus is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to read ANY text without a layer of interpretation. The only question is if you are concious of your layer of interpretation or not. I would argue that the average believer, positing an oral tradition from the very begining is much more concious of their own intermediary layer than people who think they are reading the text without such a layer (for them the layer exists only in their subconscious)
"The only true "key" to understanding an ancient text is the text itself. If you don't understand a passage in Tanach, what do you do? Do you consult Rashi? Or do you consult the Tanach itself?"
You consult whatever helps. If you don't as language changes so will your interpretation. It is the same with any text. If I read the word car in a text from the 1800s I had better take into account that it doesn't involve an automobile. You can rely on the text but you have to take into account possible context. Just as you need a dictionary you need a wider context too. Dictionaries give also outdated meanings as well to let people see changes in language. How in the world would 99 out of 100 people not make the same mistakes again and again if they are consulted for their opinions in the absence of them checking up. In America football is football. In England it is soccer. Could Americans ever know that from their own experience. At best they can make room for wider interpretations and then study it. What Biblical Scholars do as you propose? What legal experts do as you propose? No one.
"Just read the texts and they tell a very different story.
Exactly. Just keep reading. In the *rare* event that you don't understand a passage right off the bat, the 99/100 will probably also not understand it. In those cases, just keep reading. Just keep reading Tanach. If you do that, you'll learn the secrets of the Torah. It all makes sense. No commentaries required."
Rare instances? No commentary required? So King David had a violin? Pharaoh saw maize in his dream? That's what your method produces.
"Everyone notices it. The point is, in this day and age will the average joe come to a conclusion that it is two traditions woven into one story? I don't think so
Oh, I think if that average Joe actually READS it, he'll consider the possibility that these are two different accounts of Creation, stitched into one. The problem is that no one's actually READ it.
Now, will that person come to a hard and fast conclusion after two chapters? Probably not. I sure didn't. But I kept reading, and kept an open mind.
So that's how I would teach the shiur.
The bottom line is, if your interpretation isn't something that arises naturally out of the text, it's probably false.
Shul Candyman"
Since when did postulating two traditions for contradictions become the literal interpretation of a text? The literal interpretation is to say that whatever contradictions in the text is if written by man a mistake and if by G-d on purpose but in any event you see how it really should be read. If all you do is postulate multiple traditions that's not reading the text before you but reducing it to contradictions that tell you nothing of what the text is saying but only supposedly of what some supposed prior texts were saying. With the Talmudic text you sometimes have contradictions and it is recognized that there was a corruption in the text as opposed to claiming there were multiple traditions instead of simply acknowledging textual error.
Since every literaray criticism department in the world today is run by either deconstructionists or deconstructionist sympathizers, the accademic concensus is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to read ANY text without a layer of interpretation.
It's a fair point, but those deconstructionist schools are more about making old texts relevant than understanding its original intent. There is a whole other school devoted to original intent.
In other words, deconstruction would say, sure the pop psychology Bible explanation is not the authors' original intent. But it's still important.
Now, when you're talking about truth in religion, the authors' original intent is a pretty important concept. And waaaaaaaaay overlooked in Bible, be it Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.
exhibit number 1:
projection of modern textual concepts onto ancient texts denying the possiblity of essoteric layers
Hey, I got no problem with esoteric layers. Don't I argue that the character of Joseph is a metaphor for resurrection? That resurrection is itself a metaphor for redemption?
The Bible has secrets. But they arise naturally from the text. That's where you're going off the derech.
>Now, will that person come to a hard and fast conclusion after two chapters? Probably not. I sure didn't. But I kept reading, and kept an open mind.
I see. And when you kept on reading, were you already skeptical? Had you already heard of DH? Or were you raised orthodox in a locked vault and discovered DH on your own?
Chardal,
You fail to differentiate between likely hypothesis, based on critical analyis, with supporting evidence coming from other ancient texts, archeology, linguistics and more versus a dogmatic knowledge based on NOTHING.
The Documentary Hypothesis has its flaws but Torah MiSinai... is just insane.
However this was not my point. Believers assert absolute knowledge based on nothing. Skeptics assert hypotheses based on critical analysis.
Yet for some reason, believers think that believing in the incredible is better then believing in the tentatively possible.
"You fail to differentiate between likely hypothesis, based on critical analyis, with supporting evidence coming from other ancient texts, archeology, linguistics and more versus a dogmatic knowledge based on NOTHING."
Yeah you are right we Jews just made up our whole history. FedUp in truth what you said now is exactly applicable to DH and the opposite is more applicable to our own claimed history. It doesn't occur to XGH type skeptics that believers would find so much evidence for themselves and I have noticed that the price of trusting in the orthodoxies of the surrounding culture as a skeptic is to do unconsciously what the believers do consciously that is see contrary evidence and say that it is not enough. We all see whether in science or whatever contrary evidence but we weigh which evidence is a red herring and which not. No one has all the evidence lining up with them with no contrary evidence. If someone claims that he has all the evidence lining up his way he is covering up insecurities.
"The Documentary Hypothesis has its flaws but Torah MiSinai... is just insane."
How is it insane? It was claimed by us. DH wasn't. All that Torah MiSinai requires is a belief in Torah coming from Mt. Sinai. You want to say Moses made it up, fine. But the most likely hypothesis between two claims, all claims being equal is an older claim. Torah MiSinai is that claim. The burden of another historical claim is to reach the level of a claimed historical event. Our history at least has the attribute of having been claimed so the burden is on a contrary claim. If our history was made up an altertnative has to be forthcoming. Lacking that our history has a presumption level of truth to be dealt with. Simply denying our history without an alternative of better weight being made leaves questions and is weak.
"However this was not my point. Believers assert absolute knowledge based on nothing. Skeptics assert hypotheses based on critical analysis.Yet for some reason, believers think that believing in the incredible is better then believing in the tentatively possible.
FedUp"
That's not true. You've given what you claim is the basis for believers, giving the weakest argument. That's only fooling yourself with a strawman and whoever else wants an easy claim against believers. You talk as if skeptics are all so critical thinkers before becoming skeptics but in reality most aren't and are just ordinary people with a built in bias to accept orthodoxies from the surrounding culture. Look how insecure you are with the bans you make on your site and the people you ignore. If you were so secure you wouldn't ban.
And you wouldn't ignore.
Or give the weakest arguments for believers. You give them weak arguments and then say see it makes no sense. If you were more secure you would address their real arguments head on. In logic class the above is exactly what is taught. It is the "principle of charity."
And when you kept on reading, were you already skeptical? Had you already heard of DH?
No. I was in a black-hat yeshiva, trying to memorize chumash (the whole thing).
Incidentally, I don't know what your guys' obsession with DH is. I personally have never read Wellhausen and don't care to. I'm more of a Spinozan or something... well I'm a CandyMan, that's what I am.
The question is not whether you saw a contridiction, everyone sees one. The question was whether without ANY outside influences you were able to come to a conclusion that it IS two seperate authors coming from two seperate traditions.
> The question is not whether you saw a contridiction, everyone sees one. The question was whether without ANY outside influences you were able to come to a conclusion that it IS two seperate authors coming from two seperate traditions.
I don't think that would be automatic. From what I understand, for centuries, no one was thinking in terms of multiple authorship, it simply wasn't on the table.
There were ideas of extra authorship for certain things but based on close observation of the text.
It is the exact opposite of claiming to go according to the literal meaning without any external interpretation if you feel you need DH's interpretation. It is an act of faith on your part if you think Dh will conform to your reading of the pshat.
The Talmud may be an interpretation but it has the strength of actually having been believed not as a hypothesis of having been believed and the Talmud was closer in time and space and culture and mores to the Biblical period.
Not that every interpretation of the Talmud is correct.
I feel like a Rishon. I post one comment and RG responds with 4.
when is he going to finish the Jewish da Vinci code? Does he know that a secret kabal of kohanim have been hiding a J and D document for 2000 years now so that the "truth" about the bible will not come to light?
Chardal: I can't believe you mention this top secret information HH's blog.
>I don't think that would be automatic. From what I understand, for centuries, no one was thinking in terms of multiple authorship, it simply wasn't on the table.
Thank you, that is exactly my point. If Candyman was simply talking about seeing something screwy with the text that should make you think twice, then he is absolutly right. If he mean't you will see multiple authorship, then I beleive he is wrong.
"I feel like a Rishon. I post one comment and RG responds with 4.
Baal Habos"
LOL 
Just think of yourself as the skeptical Rashi and I'm the Vilna Gaon ready to strike even you.
Rashi? Skeptical? Maybe Ibn Izra, but Rashi?
Baal you are not the ibn Ezra in temperament.
Or knowledge. Sorry.
I feel like a Rishon. I post one comment and RG responds with 4.
LOL
If Candyman was simply talking about seeing something screwy with the text that should make you think twice
YES
DH believer:Ha Ha you believe the Torah was given at Mount Sinai.
Believer:Yes I do.
DH believer:And the evidence?
Believer:It was always said.
DH believer:Ha Ha Ha! So you say. And the proof?
Believer:It's all over the Bible. It's so embedded in our history.
DH believer:No it was made up. I can prove it from the Bible using DH theory.
Believer:Ha Ha you believe the Torah was made according to DH's version.
DH believer:Yes I do.
Believer:And the evidence?
DH believer:It is just overwhelming. The DH is based on careful textual study and everything backs it up.
Believer:Everything? It has never been dug up. Gods are referred to by more than one name in other cultures. Elohim means a god. YHVH only is the name of the Israelite G-d. You are relying on parts of the Bible to back you up by exclusion of other parts. It is all arbitrary nonsense.
DH believer:DH's proof is all over the Bible. It's so embedded in it.
Believer:No it was made up. I can prove it from the Bible.
DH believer:Ha Ha Ha! Big deal. Look how circular you are. You believe the Bible because the Bible says something.
DH believer... LOL. RG you are too funny.
I love when believers try the comedy skits on skeptics. There's a couple on youtube and they just make me laugh hysterically.
I'm glad you are laughing. My model here was XGH.
Ok, I have to ask.
For the DH crowd, What is up with the upside down Nuns?
Oh that's from the book of N. And then it was combined whith JEDP but since DH people don't have a place in their hearts for the letter N they refuse to recognize my theory!
Ok, so while I was in my year after highschool of Yeshiva being told to learn Talmud all day I decided to reach the tanach all the way through. Nothing in depth, just a straight read like a novel.
I came to three assumptions during that read, without any in depth knowledge of tanach study.
1. The Chumash, as we have it, must have been written in the time of Joshua, before the conquest, after the crossing of the Jordon, but not in the desert. I took this opinion based solely on the numerous times the phrase "until this day" is mentioned. The first time I saw the phrase I asked myself, "who were the first people to read that phrase."
I believe, that until that point, Moshe wrote down what the chumash says he wrote down (i.e. specific documents) and if you really want to argue it, we can, but I believe my understanding of the events does not break with the important points in traditional understanding. (I'm not going to claim to know that there is nothing in the traditionally excepted commentaries to contradict this claim. But from the well known things, nothing contradicts this.)
2. The mentioning of miracles in the tanach should probably be prefaced in translations with the phrase "as if" (i.e. It was as if the sun stood still) (i.e. It was as if all the first born were killed) This was based on my understanding of literature that I learned in high school, and the ways in which stories are told, and the importance of a "confident argument" If the chumash actually said "as if" then too much would have been ignored and lost over the years before the modern understanding of literature.
3. The Anshei Kenest hagadol (or some similar group of Jews who had national authority) made many edits to the text which they documented as "kra vs Kri" and the difference in the two is an important difference, not just a scribal error issue.
After reading all the various DH books in College, my assumption could not be shaken. Nothing to me suggested that my vision of the Chumash was definitly wrong.
"Oh that's from the book of N. And then it was combined whith JEDP but since DH people don't have a place in their hearts for the letter N they refuse to recognize my theory!
Rabban Gamliel | Homepage | 06.20.08 - 2:31 pm | # "
I was hoping for a real official answer. I can't imagine that something as obvious as that has gone without being mentioned in an "academic" paper.
Seriously, it bothers me.
I will admit however that DH, did teach me some things.
i.e. the importance of the difference between 4 different paths to life.
The legalist/intelectual
The spiritual
The communal/emotional
The class structure of society./recognizing that positions of authority matter
These are things that people like to dismiss in various ways, and Chumash really shows how all are important, and all have a unique view of the world. The DH really shows this well, and sometimes people are lucky enough to be in positions where they can recognize that from experience, but sometimes you just have to take Judaism's word for it.
If DH wasn't so caught up on these different view points being different authors, we could all really benefit from the DH books. But the refusal to recognize that these various viewpoints fight with each other within us, I think leaves people with missing tools for self awareness.
"I was hoping for a real official answer. I can't imagine that something as obvious as that has gone without being mentioned in an "academic" paper.
Seriously, it bothers me.
Daganev"
I don't know of any response from DH. The letter Nun hanging upside down has no place in its meaning to DH theory.
Whoops Anoymous was me.
1. The Chumash, as we have it, must have been written in the time of Joshua, before the conquest, after the crossing of the Jordon, but not in the desert. I took this opinion based solely on the numerous times the phrase "until this day" is mentioned. The first time I saw the phrase I asked myself, "who were the first people to read that phrase."
Well that is interesting. I was reading Joshua the other day and before he died, it mentions "he wrote these laws B'TORAH." Now the Stone chumash interprets it as NEXT to the Torah.
"Well that is interesting. I was reading Joshua the other day and before he died, it mentions "he wrote these laws B'TORAH." Now the Stone chumash interprets it as NEXT to the Torah.
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 06.20.08 - 3:41 pm | # "
Do the laws they are referring to appear in the chumash?
Gotta check. But its still interesting that it is included. Because either he actually wrote laws IN the Torah, or, he wrote additional ones. I understand your question still stands whether what he wrote appears in the Torah, but then if it appears in the Torah, whats the point of writing it again and placing it next to the Torah?
"but then if it appears in the Torah, whats the point of writing it again and placing it next to the Torah?
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 06.20.08 - 4:13 pm | # "
Well, I looked up the verses, Joshua 24:10 - Joshua 24:28 and those laws are in fact in the Chumash.
However, the plain meaning of the text is that he wrote the conversation of the people on a stone tablet and placed it near the Mishkan.
Another understanding of it, is that he took the 10 commandments, and added this conversation to it.
Holy Hyrax this is an interesting demonstration of how if you follow a literalistic viewpoint DH is not what emerges.
There is no one interpretation here but DH will not allow you Holy Hyrax your fun or mine in any event.
http://www.tanach.org/navi/yeho12.txt
A great dvar torah about this section of Yehoshua
The plain meaning of the text is that he wrote in the book
Joshua 24: 26
וַיִּכְתֹּב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהִים; וַיִּקַּח, אֶבֶן גְּדוֹלָה, וַיְקִימֶהָ שָּׁם, תַּחַת הָאַלָּה אֲשֶׁר בְּמִקְדַּשׁ יְהוָה.
The stone is also there, besides him writing in the book, as a witness the covenant. The questions remains, what did he right in the book? And if he only wrote the law in a seperate book, NEXT to the book of the law, then whats the point of that since he is simply repeating the laws.
So I was reading a bit of that article you linked to. I don't think he really deals with the issue of what Joshua wrote in the book. He is telling us to compare this incident with Joshua to what Moses said in Dvarim 27: 1-8. But there it only tells them to write the laws on plastered rock. Ok, Fine, So joshua did that too, but it does not explain the book question.
Holy hyrax you realize this is heresy to DH. I'm not sure you care. I don't.
RG
I wasn't discussing DH, but what do you mean?
Your theorizing on this verse has no place in DH.
Well, I have to think about it, but why not? It's not like they believe that the book of Joshua was written during that time.
Holy Hyrax they don't have a theory involving such an extrad dimension to their JED and P.
Isn't it strange that we are denied any books being written earlier in time? Did people of earlier Israelite generations have nothing to say?
When things were written down nobody knows for sure. The questioning is regarding it being compiled together. So as a quick and easy example, in Ruth the story all of a sudden is cut into the practice of Halitzah and how it used to be done. This is clearly someone writting it much later.
You have many instances where there is commentary within the text showing perhaps a place USED to called so in so during a particular point in the story, but now (according to the author) its called something else.
וַיִּכְתֹּב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהִים; וַיִּקַּח, אֶבֶן גְּדוֹלָה, וַיְקִימֶהָ שָּׁם, תַּחַת הָאַלָּה אֲשֶׁר בְּמִקְדַּשׁ יְהוָה.
The stone is also there, besides him writing in the book, as a witness the covenant. The questions remains, what did he right in the book? And if he only wrote the law in a seperate book, NEXT to the book of the law, then whats the point of that since he is simply repeating the laws.
So your problem here is in the translation of the term "B'Sepher Torat Elokim."
In one of Aryeh Kaplan's book about sephirot, he explains that the word Sepher means "counting" and that is why the word is translated as story, or book, and is the root word for number. i.e. a story or a book is just a recounting of events. So you might translate this text to mean:
Yehoshua wrote these things in the recounting of the laws of the divine, he took a large stone and stood it up there.
I would wonder if the phrase "torat l'elokim" actually means, "written in stone".. i.e. pernamently.
Obviously that isn't the traditional way to understand these things, but since we are playing the game of "what if" and "what it really means" and we are assuming all these levels of meaning need to be erased, then I say, why not?
All the text is saying, is that he made the conversation permanent, by writing it in stone. It becomes the words of G-d, cause you can't erase stone.
But the problem is it doesn't say he wrote anything on the stone. It says he wrote it "B'sefor Elohim."
The text pretty much distinguishes between the book and the stone.
Anyways, we can continue next week. Time to go home
Shabbat Shalom
"but now (according to the author) its called something else.
Holy Hyrax"
The author aught to be correct as people reading the book would know if hewas right in their time period. People don't write books to not be understood.
Inverted Nun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mas...nverted_letters
What's the kashia?
The Kashia is on DH. If the inverted Nuns represent an out of place text that is a Kashia on DH. DH doesn't recognize that.
Now the Stone chumash interprets it as NEXT to the Torah.
Artscroll Tanach is always good for a laugh.
b'sefer torat elohim
Apparently a book contemporaneous with the authors of Joshua. From the stories mentioned in the passage, sounds like parts of Exodus and Numbers.
תַּחַת הָאַלָּה אֲשֶׁר בְּמִקְדַּשׁ יְהוָה.
Ah. So this was the famous elah in Shechem (Gen. 35:4), familiar to the authors of Genesis. Never noticed that.
Same place Jacob buried his famiy's idols. Ma'aseh avot siman l'banim...
There's a couple [apologist skits making fun of skeptics] on youtube and they just make me laugh hysterically.
references PLEASE
תַּחַת הָאַלָּה אֲשֶׁר בְּמִקְדַּשׁ יְהוָה."
Ah. So this was the famous elah in Shechem (Gen. 35:4), familiar to the authors of Genesis. Never noticed that.
Same place Jacob buried his famiy's idols. Ma'aseh avot siman l'banim..."
Not so. It says:
25. So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.
26. And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Torah of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under a terebinth, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord.
Whereas in Genesis it says: 4. And they gave to Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.
Different place. While in Genesis it was near Shechem in Joshua it is in Shechem.
RG, both cases use the same preposition: the bet with a sh'va underneath.
Please look up the original Hebrew. Next you'll be telling me it was a terebinth and not an oak!
RG, both cases use the same preposition: the bet with a sh'va underneath.
I take it back, it does say "IM schechem" in Genesis, not "Bishechem". That's what I get for quoting things by heart.
I do think they were the same tree, however. IM and B' are not fundamentally different.
Please look up the original Hebrew.
Physician, heal thyself!
Honest of you. good. I don't think it was the same tree. It was near the other tree assuming it was still around.
That is both were near Shechem. I don't know how close the trees were.
I mean one tree was near Shechem and the other was in it.
Candy Man,
littlefoxling did a post with a list of a few of them here From them you should be able to find a few more. Plus the creationist preachers on youtube are always good for a laugh.
Their understanding of evolution, the documentary hypothesis, and the scientific method in general is just highlarious.
The same can be be said for some scientists.
"Inverted Nun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Mas...nverted_letters
What's the kashia?
BaalHabos | Homepage | 06.22.08 - 12:26 am | # "
Yes, that is how we Jews who believe the Chumash was written by a single author understand it.
But how does DH explain it? If the entire chumash is pieces of "text" moved from place to place, why aren't there markers all over the chumash?
"But the problem is it doesn't say he wrote anything on the stone. It says he wrote it "B'sefor Elohim."
The text pretty much distinguishes between the book and the stone.
Anyways, we can continue next week. Time to go home
Shabbat Shalom
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 06.20.08 - 7:38 pm | # "
Ok, lets ask this. What material was the "book" written on?
We have lots of archeological evidence that at that time, books were written on stone. Particularly large ones.
When the stone is blank, it is just a large stone, but once Joshua writes on it, it becomes "written in stone" and thus a "sefer Elokim"
Its just one possible way of reading it is all.
>Its just one possible way of reading it is all.
Sounds like pure conjecture. I don't see any reason to assume that they both mean the same thing once one is written on. The text makes it pretty clear that there are two things in the story.
"Sounds like pure conjecture. I don't see any reason to assume that they both mean the same thing once one is written on. The text makes it pretty clear that there are two things in the story.
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 06.26.08 - 7:38 pm | # "
Each time they mention sefer/torat Elokim they mention things being written in stone. On top of that, we don't actually have any other records of such a book existing.
It may be pure conjecture, but it makes more sense to me than to believe this "book of god" was completely lost to history.
>Each time they mention sefer/torat Elokim they mention things being written in stone. On top of that, we don't actually have any other records of such a book existing
Each time??
I believe in the torah sporadically you have it saying Moses wrote down what God told him to. Nowhere does it say he wrote them on stones?
"I believe in the torah sporadically you have it saying Moses wrote down what God told him to. Nowhere does it say he wrote them on stones?
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 06.27.08 - 3:52 pm | # "
On the contrary, each time he writes something down he writes it on stone.
10 commandments,
12 pillars
laws before the giving of the Torah at har sinai.
yes, and those are specific to rocks. Are they ever mentioned as sfarim?
The 12 pillars are , as are the laws before matan torah, but I'm not 100% on the luchot.
(I didn't just base this theory because of this one post)
I'm guesssing it isn't 100% consistant, otherwise you probabbly would have heard this theory before, but its more common than one might imagine.
Commenting by HaloScan
