Granted, I realize that scholarship has not room for the supernatural, divine foreknowledge and all, but couldn’t most of these ‘reason’s be explained away by accepting some form of supernaturalism?
I took an honors course or two at the university, and one of them was the Bible as Literature. Granted, I approached it as a fundamentalists, KJVO only, etc… but during a discussion on Josiah and Deuteronomy, my point then is my point now – perhaps the Author of the Book knew what was going to happen when he was writing.
1. The monarch plays no role in the Urdeuteronomium, which would be “exceptional” for any lawcode expected to be enforced (as apparently narrated in 2 Kings 22-23).
2. Connected with (1), the laws do not imply “any state infrastructure and organization”, but instead “are written as if the author were implying a stateless religious community.”
3. There are no references to Judah in Urdeuteronomium, and in fact the status of Judah is challenged by the reference to “Israel”, by which is meant “a religious community rather than… the inhabitants of a state”.
4. There is no reference to the Temple in any core law of the Urdeuteronomium, even though many of the laws are concerned with the centralization of the sacrificial cult – suggesting that the context was one in which “there was no temple” and the author “was not sure if there ever would be one”.
5. Connected with (4), there is no reference to Jerusalem, the reference to “this place” in Deut 12 suggesting a context “when the future of Jerusalem as a center of the cult would have been uncertain” leading the author “to use a more vague formulation and leave many options open.”
6. Connected with (4) and (5), the “place” of Deut 12 is vaguely connected with “one of your tribes”, such vagueness being unlikely “if the setting was the kingdom of Judah during monarchic times.” Furthermore, the reference to 12 tribes, as pointed out by many scholars, likely reflects a later development.
7. The implementation of the law is set in a time in the future, using the imperfect (Deut 12.14) and referring to “the place that Yahweh will choose”. But this future timeframe, within the Urdeuteronomium (which does not yet have the Mosaic context of the final form of Deuteronomy), does not suit the kingdom of Josiah . Furthermore, the very setting of this temple foundation myth – in the middle of the desert, rather than at the temple – reflects a non-monarchic setting.
8. The shem (name) theology in Deut 12.21, the core idea of which is that Yahweh’s name rather than physical presence or cult image (ark) dwells in the temple, “points to a situation where the temple had ceased to be the actual dwelling place of Yahweh, his cult image or his Presence”.
9. The external evidence indicates that there was no cult centralization at Jerusalem at least before 400 BCE. The Elephantine papyri shows that the Egyptian Jewish community was unaware of cult centralization and that their requests of the governors of Jerusalem and Samaria to build a temple at Elephantine (ca 407 BCE) and to sacrifice on the altar were asked without any such awareness, and were approved without the issue being raised. “This suggests that even as late as the late fifth century BCE the political elite in Jerusalem and Samaria was not influenced, restricted or even aware of a prohibition to sacrifice outside Jerusalem (or Mt. Gerizim),” contrary to Deut 12. Furthermore, the so-called Passover Letter (ca 419 BCE) provides instructions for celebrating Passover at Elephantine that appear to contradict Deut 16.
10. The laws of Urdeuteronomium are not realistic, but idealistic laws that were unlikely ever to have been followed. The laws suit the ideals of a community “visioning a new society should the state be reestablished.” In particular, the idea that the people had to attend Jerusalem for sacrifice (Deut 12.13-14) and offer a whole tenth of the agricultural products and livestock (14.22-26) are “completely unrealistic”.
Juha Pakkala, ‘The Date of the Oldest Edition of Deuteronomy.’ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 121.3 (Sep 2009): 388–401.
HT.
December 1st, 2009 1:36 pm
Look I can only feel that you have not read the Torah at all. The Israelites were brought into the land and the center was in Shechem (Gerizim) this is attested in Torah and also witnessed by evidence discovered. While I agree that Jerusalem was not a center of Israel, but after David and Solomon. Jerusalem never should have happened, It says you shall worship in the place I will show you and that place was picked from the beginning.
Shema is still used as the word indicates “the Name” and is also attested. The instructions or laws that the Israelites lived by were also similair in many ways to that of the areas
December 1st, 2009 1:38 pm
Larry, I can only feel that you did not read my post at all.
December 1st, 2009 1:45 pm
Oh yes I read your words. Also I would like to add that in Samaritan Torah, the words are the place that Yahweh chose (perfect) not like the Jewish text at all.
December 1st, 2009 1:46 pm
Larry, exactly what do you think my point of the post was? Do you think I was advocating a late date for Deuteronomy?
December 1st, 2009 2:39 pm
Hey Polycarp. Long time, no see!
Some of these reasons are good, some not so good. What I want to focus on in my comment here is what you say before you list the reasons: the author of Deuteronomy knew what would happen when he was writing. I don’t exclude that, but I also think that we should date writings by trying to determine when they would have been directly relevant. Why write a book right now that will only be relevant 100 years from now? Such a book wouldn’t make a lot of sense to its audience.
December 1st, 2009 4:04 pm
By author, James, I mean of course the Divine Author.
Some of the reasonings – that Jerusalem wasn’t center, no centralized cult, no monarch – could very mean that Dt. was written while Israel was still a commonwealth of tribes, not that it was written long after the Kingdom had been destroyed.
Dt was, I believe relevant before the Monarchy when Israel was moving into a self-governing anarchy, being warned not to be like other nations.
December 1st, 2009 3:07 pm
1. The monarch plays no role in the Urdeuteronomium, which would be “exceptional” for any lawcode expected to be enforced (as apparently narrated in 2 Kings 22-23).
I personally do not except the books of Kings, just the Torah. The monarch or king was responsible for protecting the nation and to help enforce Torah.
2. Connected with (1), the laws do not imply “any state infrastructure and organization”, but instead “are written as if the author were implying a stateless religious community.”
Whether state or stateless it was a total religious community.
3. There are no references to Judah in Urdeuteronomium, and in fact the status of Judah is challenged by the reference to “Israel”, by which is meant “a religious community rather than… the inhabitants of a state”.
Correct Judah was only mentioned as to having a territory and that is it.
4. There is no reference to the Temple in any core law of the Urdeuteronomium, even though many of the laws are concerned with the centralization of the sacrificial cult – suggesting that the context was one in which “there was no temple” and the author “was not sure if there ever would be one”.
Correct no stone Temple was ever mentioned to be built. Only the tabernacle was to be.
5. Connected with (4), there is no reference to Jerusalem, the reference to “this place” in Deut 12 suggesting a context “when the future of Jerusalem as a center of the cult would have been uncertain” leading the author “to use a more vague formulation and leave many options open.”
There were no options for Jerusalem as a capital or as a central worship place, according to Torah
6. Connected with (4) and (5), the “place” of Deut 12 is vaguely connected with “one of your tribes”, such vagueness being unlikely “if the setting was the kingdom of Judah during monarchic times.” Furthermore, the reference to 12 tribes, as pointed out by many scholars, likely reflects a later development.
According to 12:5 (Samaritan Torah) But the place which Shehmaa your Eloowwem HAS CHOSEN from all your tribes, to put His name there for His Dwelling, you shall seek and there you shall come. 12:11 confirms this statement. Even 13 says ‘Becareful that you do not offer your burnt offerings in all the place you see, 14 But in the place which Shehmaa HAS CHOSEN in one of your tribes…” Is is so easy to understand that the Israelites used this place after entering the land till right after the death of Samson.
7. The implementation of the law is set in a time in the future, using the imperfect (Deut 12.14) and referring to “the place that Yahweh will choose”. But this future timeframe, within the Urdeuteronomium (which does not yet have the Mosaic context of the final form of Deuteronomy), does not suit the kingdom of Josiah . Furthermore, the very setting of this temple foundation myth – in the middle of the desert, rather than at the temple – reflects a non-monarchic setting.
I agree that it was written in a future tent but it is also attested that this is what the Israelites did concerning 12:14. but again HAS CHOSEN.
8. The shem (name) theology in Deut 12.21, the core idea of which is that Yahweh’s name rather than physical presence or cult image (ark) dwells in the temple, “points to a situation where the temple had ceased to be the actual dwelling place of Yahweh, his cult image or his Presence”.
The words in Samaritan Torah are ‘Shehmaa your Eloowwem” who presence dwelt in the tabernacle until Israel divided and Shilo was set up by a jealous priest.
9. The external evidence indicates that there was no cult centralization at Jerusalem at least before 400 BCE. The Elephantine papyri shows that the Egyptian Jewish community was unaware of cult centralization and that their requests of the governors of Jerusalem and Samaria to build a temple at Elephantine (ca 407 BCE) and to sacrifice on the altar were asked without any such awareness, and were approved without the issue being raised. “This suggests that even as late as the late fifth century BCE the political elite in Jerusalem and Samaria was not influenced, restricted or even aware of a prohibition to sacrifice outside Jerusalem (or Mt. Gerizim),” contrary to Deut 12. Furthermore, the so-called Passover Letter (ca 419 BCE) provides instructions for celebrating Passover at Elephantine that appear to contradict Deut 16.
There was no other place to be as the place of the Tabernacle, but may have been a gathering place only, but for the faithful of Samaria to agree with the cult at Jerusalem, The term using an Egyptian Jewish community would in fact show that there was a cult difference and centralization since there were to nations, the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judea.
10. The laws of Urdeuteronomium are not realistic, but idealistic laws that were unlikely ever to have been followed. The laws suit the ideals of a community “visioning a new society should the state be reestablished.” In particular, the idea that the people had to attend Jerusalem for sacrifice (Deut 12.13-14) and offer a whole tenth of the agricultural products and livestock (14.22-26) are “completely unrealistic”.
The fact being that Moses and the creator knew well that all of Israel would not be faithful to the instructions. The instructions were set to be followed by those that loved the creator and would show him by following the instructions. The offering were for the Levites so that they might eat and help the people keep Torah. This was not unrealistic at all.
December 1st, 2009 4:04 pm
Larry, you still don’t get it do you?
Again, go back and reread the post to make sure you understand my point before you comment any further.
December 2nd, 2009 11:37 am
I do understand, and always have. So you want me to say it concerning “that scholarship has not room for the supernatural, divine foreknowledge and all, but couldn’t most of these ‘reason’s be explained away by accepting some form of supernaturalism.”
So what is supernaturalism to begin with? If scholars appear to have no idea of the elements that are in and around us. The word supernatural is just a term for the unknown. Because most people do not know the source or the origin. If people were to begin educated themselves by reading other known sources such as from physics they would see the real amazing facts of everything. Experiments that have been undertaken by (scholars)such as Einstein, Ervin Laszlo, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, Ervin Laszlo, etc. show amazing facts of us and the universe. Every thing is energy, all atoms to the zero-point field. The origin of this energy is unknown to some, for me it is the creator, since as Torah points out, in the beginning was nothing, everything was created from a source. To me the source is the creator, since everything was created from this source. The most powerful source in the universe is thought that effects everything from inside organisms to their cells, molecules, atoms, protons, and then the quarks, bosoms, mesons, photons, leptons. Bohr and Heisenberg’s experiments show that thought influences the subatomic particles, which can be seen as compared to Torah, and God spoke and it began, but the word ’spoke’ in Hebrew is really, ‘thought,” God thought and it was there. This the most powerful of all that exists. Supernatural is just a word that people need to use. If they cannot or want not to see what is really there, it is their loss. I know, many people that preach words from writing and most do not even believe what they preach. But they have never seen nor experienced and it is a shame, it is all there, everywhere.
The creator set forth laws of the universe, physics show this many times over and the Torah that was set for man is still existing today as from the beginning, nothing has changed, just man, not withstanding the expansion of the universe.
The worst thing I see today is the indoctrination of people by so called scholars in their field, but see that is the issue, they teach their field which was instructed to them. I known many professors around the world and top scholars in their field but do they believe in the Creator, NO. They are to busy to take time out and learn.
I also find it hard to believe that so many people say they have read the Bible and understand it. First the translations are terrible, second, people do not understand what is written and third, they think that words that come after chapters take precedence over the first. Any words that contradict words from before should be considered corrupt. Look at the foundation of the Bible, the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible, how many books after them contradict them, Everyone of them. Look at Torah, God is not a man, yet many think he was, LOL
I just do not understand how people can teach stuff like that, oh I guess it was as I said, indoctrination.
December 2nd, 2009 7:58 pm
Larry, I really don’t understand what you are trying to say here with your propaganda.
I still don’t think you get my point here, but I’ll leave it that.
December 3rd, 2009 9:52 am
I believe I did address your point. Your point, ‘but couldn’t most of these ‘reason’s be explained away by accepting some form of supernaturalism?”
And I did see you only use the KJVO. Is that truly the way to go since interpretation of the Hebrew is somewhat different as other versions. I would also like to add this. When I asked a question to a friend of mine, scholar in Israel (works on the dead Sea Scrolls) concerning a couple words, he informed me that there are Hebrew words that they really do not know what they mean, which is a concern. The Samaritan Version is different in some cases as to the words.
My propaganda, no my opinion
December 3rd, 2009 10:00 am
Wow, Larry. See, this is what I mean. I am steadfast against the KJVO doctrine. If you cannot get this simple point, which is spread across my blog, then who do I except you to get the other points?
December 3rd, 2009 10:38 am
I admit I have not wasted my time to read any of your other writings on your blog, Christian information does not appeal to me. I took a short time looking at a couple things here and found nothing new here that I have not seen before.
I do see that you are a strong believer in what you know, but my friend, it is wrong. I know you think that I am wrong, but you must some day see if you read Torah, that no man will save you (D. 28:29), The Creator told the Israelites, that if you do love me, than you will keep my commandments and statues. So even the gentile can keep them. This has never changed. The words that are written plainly and they last forever as Torah says and nothing, nothing will ever change them as the laws of the Creator. And nothing should be added to the words (D 4:2, 12:32)
The only atonement for sin is on the day of Atonement, Passover is a remembrance of the Exodus, nothing else, like the 4th of July. Did the Israelites sin after the Exodus, yes many did. The words are our righteousness (D 6:25) Do not despise the words (N 15:31) Love the Creator (D30:10-20)
Good luck to you!
December 3rd, 2009 11:55 am
In others words, you have failed to read the blog, on any level, to make a sufficient argument, but are here only to share with me just how right you are about everything, you know, except any point that you’ve tried to make.
December 3rd, 2009 12:34 pm
What is the matter with you? I did not fail to read the blog, I chose not to read most of it wasting my time as I said. Me being right, all I did was give some verses that it appears you are offended by, I did not write the words in Torah!!!! It is not me you have to ague with but the Creator. Some of your words sound like some Jesuits I know, LOL, been there! If you have a point make it short!
December 3rd, 2009 11:37 am
Joel,
How early of a date are you suggesting here?
December 3rd, 2009 12:07 pm
Not sure. I am a traditionalist, of course, but I don’t have to accept that DT was penned by Moses. I do think, however, that it is wrong to dismiss an early date merely for the reasonings found here.
December 3rd, 2009 12:18 pm
Regardless of specifics, I don’t think supernaturalism does what you want it to here. The question is: If Deuteronomy was written early why does it reflect the needs of a later society at all? Shouldn’t it reflect the specific needs of an earlier community if it was written early?
BTW, the author of that article goes a little later than my own persuasion.
December 3rd, 2009 12:24 pm
Couldn’t supernaturalism, divine foreknowledge, have seen the needs of the community?
We know that much of the OT history was written in Babylonian Exile, so why couldn’t DT have been as well?
December 3rd, 2009 12:32 pm
The Babylonian Exile? You’re not a traditionalist! LOL!
I suppose the author of Deuteronomy could have been inspired by divine foreknowledge to write a law code that reflected the needs of those living in a future society. Yet that is not why you write law codes. You write law codes for the current society in which you are living.
December 3rd, 2009 12:35 pm
True, but perhaps before the Kingdom came, as with any society not overly burdened with government, it was ideal!
Pish-posh, I am a traditionally a Traditionalist!
December 3rd, 2009 12:51 pm
Larry, um, well, when you accused me so stating the opinions expressed above as my own and then accused me of being KJVO, yeah, you were wrong. Further, while the Torah was sufficient for a while, Christ has come and He is all.
December 3rd, 2009 1:02 pm
You say I was wrong about the KJVO, sorry about that. But there is on other besides the Creator, non to the left or to the right and the Creator is not a man.
Now as far as your deity, his real name is Dusis, not what is written today. When you have found and read about Dusis and his book which he wrote in the 3rd century CE that is used as the foundation of your New Testament , then get back to me. Have a good day!
My the way, the Jewish version of Torah was changed by Ezra after the exile, you are correct in that.
December 3rd, 2009 1:18 pm
Oh my, you are one of those…
December 3rd, 2009 1:34 pm
Generalization, come on, you can do better than that.
December 3rd, 2009 1:50 pm
Not buying.
Traditionally a Traditionalist? … I think you’ll come around.
December 3rd, 2009 2:28 pm
No need. You have proven yourself as, well, one of those…
December 3rd, 2009 2:48 pm
One of those, come on. Let me ask you have you read ‘Pronaos to Holy Writ, by Isaac M. Wise, Robert Clarke & co. publishing 1891 or Pentateuchal Criticism by DC Simpson, Oxford 1924 or anything from Avraham Tal or Emanual Tov, or do you just read books like who wrote the Bible? אתה יכול לקרוא עברית
December 3rd, 2009 2:29 pm
Here’s my opinion – if we remove the supernatural completely, even in scholarship, what then do we do with Christ?
I might…I used to believe the Samuel wrote, well, Samuel.
December 3rd, 2009 2:53 pm
Larry, my interest is not in conspiracy theories or silliness.
December 3rd, 2009 3:33 pm
There are no conspiracies. As far as silliness, I too have no time for such things, I am a very busy person but I always put aside for important matters as Torah. I am VP for 2 corporations with another company I own. I read alot and writing 2 books and editing for a couple of friends on their works, well it goes on and on.
Have you ever heard of the Abisha scroll that the Samaritans have? Have you heard of Yityzhak Magen from Israel Antiquities and his work on Mount Gerizim and what he discovered there? Which University did you attend?
Do not think I do not understand, I was raised in a Christian family in Indiana, went to a Messianic synagogue. I have lots of friends that are priests, pastors and Rabbis.
December 3rd, 2009 3:38 pm
Larry, I have a difficult time, based on your writings here, believing much of what you said about yourself.
Silliness, plain and simple
December 3rd, 2009 4:02 pm
I have not edited any information that I have wrote here, it is placed plain simple, I agree. You are right, excuse me, this is a silly waste of time with you. Shalom
December 3rd, 2009 5:32 pm
I don’t think the issue is either critical scholarship or Christ. There are good examples of scholars trying to hold these commitments in a proper tension.
December 3rd, 2009 7:05 pm
Very true, just as we are here.