Normal Person: Don't be stupid of course they couldn't.
Fundie: How dare you disrespect Chazal!
I need to keep reminding myself that the Chareidim (or even the Orthodox) are not the people who really respect Chazal. Chazal were sensible, keen observers of the reality around them, and were not afraid to make sweeping changes to their religion to keep it real and relevant. Chazal believed in TMS (and other strange things) because back then that was normal. There was no evidence against it. To say TMS has been disproven no more disrespects Chazal than saying they couldn't have built a spaceship. I'm not going to go so far as to say 'If Chazal were alive today they would believe in the DH' because the premise of such a statement makes no sense. But we have really no idea what Chazal would have done had good evidence of multiple authorship presented itself.
Posts
25 comments:
You have a point. The "respect" shown to Chazal makes them into cartoon characters, more or less.
>>>>> Chazal were sensible, keen observers of the reality around them,
My very same view every time I learn Gemorrah, and yet when I hit a piece of “aggaditeh” or read a medresh, too often, i find these “greats” of Chazal spewing apparent non-sense.
I wonder: was medresh possibly written much later, containing sayings attributed to earlier Chazal to provide credibility, sort of like the Zo-har?
"There was no evidence against it"
Still isn't.
"and yet when I hit a piece of “aggaditeh” or read a medresh, too often, i find these “greats” of Chazal spewing apparent non-sense."
"Ein meishivin al hadrash" What makes for a great sermon in one context may very well appear to be nonsense in another.
Actually, a good deal of midrash is chazal dealing with multiple authorship issues - ie. trying to deal with different or conflicting texts. For example, the whole midrash about Lilith is a way of reconciling "zachar u'nekeivah barah otam" of Genesis 1 and the man/rib-woman version in Genesis 2.
Chazal were sensible, keen observers of the reality around them
That's too generous. A select few had some intellectual honesty, but the majority were more or less like today's "gedolim", at least intellectually.
You let them off the hook when you write "Chazal believed in TMS (and other strange things) because back then that was normal." What does normality have to do with it? These people obsessed over every word but it never occurred to them that it was written by people rather than God? They bent over backwards to make sure that the stone age punishments in the Torah (eye for an eye, the death penalty for breaking shabbos, ben sorer u moreh, etc.) weren't actually carried out, but yet they honestly believed that God wrote those words? Come on.
Even the Rambam, who was at least curious enough to find out what all the non-Jewish scholars were saying doubled down with his 13 principles that he MUST have known were largely false. Rationalizers, kiruv clowns, and those who just didn't think, the lot of them.
JA, I think it would only be appropriate if you could find a Rishon that agrees with your position. Only then will your words carry any legitamate meaning. Only someone that lived in the 1200s know whats true.
:)
Chazal are the ones who tell us that the Torah WAS written by multiple authors... You need to read your Gomorrah more closely.
According to the Gemorah, the Torah as they had it, was finalized at the end of Yehoshua's life.
Anonymous 2:10
You are silly. 8 sentences from Yehoshua at the end of Devarim is hardly MA.
Zaphod, you need to read more Talmud if you think that is all it says on the topic.
First, there is the cities of refuge which Joshua wrote into the Torah. Then there is the Torah that Joshua wrote under the command of God at the end of his life.
It also says that Joshua asked god how he should stitch together the words of Moshe, and he was told with animal gut, and not with linen.
Those who know will understand.
You are still silly. The whole commentary on this blog that refers to multiple authors assumes that the Torah was compiled and edited over hundreds of years; that Moshe and Yehoshua may or may not be myths but are certainly not the authors; and that TMS is just a fairly tale. Chazal's admission of a few Yehoshua-based tweaks does nothing to address this. I would think it pretty clear that all those subscribing to the MA comments here would be considered full-fledged kofrim by said Chazal.
If you really feel bold - I refer you to an essay called "Archeological Findings Help Determine the Era in which the Torah Was Written" (thank you Solomon for the initial reference). While it doesn't discuss multiple authorship specifically, it gets to the heart of the point - no TMS, no Mosaic/Yehoshuic authorship etc.
That said - I think we all agree that the Torah is indeed a Great Book.
"If you really feel bold - I refer you to an essay called "Archeological Findings Help Determine the Era in which the Torah Was Written" (thank you Solomon for the initial reference). While it doesn't discuss multiple authorship specifically, it gets to the heart of the point - no TMS, no Mosaic/Yehoshuic authorship etc."
The premise of the book is off. The archaeological findings do not tell us when the book was written, the archaeological findings tell us when the events happened. The fact is, most events in the Torah are supported by Archaeology. However, the date of those events, as understood by Jewish tradition is wrong.
Apart from that, that specific essay has wrong information, (such as the issue of camels for example)
Actual archaeological research tells a very different story than that essay.
But to begin with, the whole notion of starting with the timeline as traditionally understood, is really, and I mean really bad science. To repeat myself in another way, Dates of events are established via evidence, not rumor.
The idea that the Torah was only first written during the Persian period, ignores the fact that strong Jewish communities still existed in Israel which were unable to communicate with the schools in Persia until Ezra. Hence you have the Samaritans, and as would be expected, you have two versions of the Torah. The Samaritan version and the Jewish version. That split could not have occurred, if the chumash was only first written during the Exile like so many scholars like to claim.
Rather the historical, sociological, and archaeological evidence actual points to the Torah being written just before the period known as the "shoftim"
>>>>> The premise of the book is off. The archaeological findings do not tell us when the book was written, the archaeological findings tell us when the events happened.
The issue is much more complicated than that. One must take into account that it is quite likely that a goodly portion of what was eventually written down was initially transmitted orally , and the likelihood that this oral transmission was changed or became maculated as it was passed down. To me, this most reasonably explains many problems.
For example, how is possible that one of the most important set of verses in the Torah, the Asseret Hadibrot has 2 different versions. And it’s more than the 2 versions of text, if one objectively reads the description of events surrounding Matan Torah, we find 2 versions of scenes and even to some degree the actual events.
obviously 2 sources possibly branching out of one original oral tradition.
So, to ask when was the Torah “written”, first define what is meant by “written”.
As for archaeological findings, they are building a very strong case that without a doubt, the author(s) of the Torah did not have all their historical facts right, even if not every assertion by the archaeologists is necessarily right.
Which, if you follow david a's commentary, means there were multiple authors (or at least multiple sources) for what was eventually compiled/redacted as what we call Torah. Bye bye TMS (+Yehoshua edits).
"For example, how is possible that one of the most important set of verses in the Torah, the Asseret Hadibrot has 2 different versions. And it’s more than the 2 versions of text, if one objectively reads the description of events surrounding Matan Torah, we find 2 versions of scenes and even to some degree the actual events."
If you actually, objectively read the verses, you find a disjunctive story-line which very clearly assumes that the reader knows the story and is just being reminded of some facts, or if the reader is not assumed to know the story, then the text itself is not intended as the source for what the story is.
To suggest that you see two different scenes, is to assume that you know the actual point in time the narration is given. Is the story at the end of Mishpatim supposed to have happened, before misphatim was recited, or is it used as a bookend to declare that these are the "rest of the words" that G-d spoke to moses, and the people could not fathom. There is no way to know how one is supposed to understand or "objectively" read the words.
If something is written first does that really mean it happened first? That is an assumption that the Torah frankly does not support. (Such as Yehoshua, and not Hoshea, being Moshe's goto man in Shemot) Or the events in Shimini happening before the events in Naso.
One of the best scholarly works I've ever read supporting the multiple author theory is:
http://bit.ly/l95erP
"Roots of Rabbinic Judaism" by Boccaccini
>>> If you actually, objectively read the verses, you find a disjunctive story-line which very clearly assumes that the reader knows the story and is just being reminded of some facts, or if the reader is not assumed to know the story, then the text itself is not intended as the source for what the story is.
Pardon my being dense, but I don’t get your point.
So, where or what is the source for the actual story??
>>>>> To suggest that you see two different scenes, is to assume that you know the actual point in time the narration is given.
At the moments just prior to Revelation. Simply look at the description provided in Shemot 19:16 + which clearly refers to these moments. The scene is described as thunder, lightening, shofer blasts, mountain shaking and smoking. Yet, none of this is given in Devarim, the text there also clearly refers to the moments of Revelation. On the other hand, the author of Dev. is “obsessed” with God communicating “m’toch Ha-aish”, this phrase being mentioned half a dozen times or more, and the fact that no "Temunah" was spotted.
>>>>> There is no way to know how one is supposed to understand or "objectively" read the words.
All the more reason to believe that many cooks were involved in this broth.
I repeat my oft asked question to you.
Should archaeologists ever find the Tablets, which version of the Aseret Hadibrot will be on it?
BTW, IMHO, archaeologists won’t ever find them, for reasons that are obvious to me
>Should archaeologists ever find the Tablets, which version of the Aseret Hadibrot will be on it?
Probably the first set.
Maybe after 40 years of the tablets being in the ark, Moses simply forget what it actually said word for word :-)
>>>>> Maybe after 40 years of the tablets being in the ark, Moses simply forget what it actually said word for word :-)
You make light of it.
But, except to those suffering from some king of cognitive handicap, to others, the two versions of the AHaD is a powerful argument that the author(s) of D. and the author(s) of the rest of Torah could not be one and the same unless they wished to be deceptive.
to be honest with you david, I really don't care if there was one or two authors. I am more intrigued that there WAS a tradition of a decalogue. How it got to written form for the people is a secondary to me.
"Should archaeologists ever find the Tablets"
didnt harrison ford already find it? if i recall it was just sand...
"At the moments just prior to Revelation. Simply look at the description provided in Shemot 19:16 + which clearly refers to these moments."
This just proves that you haven't actually carefully read the text. Read Shemot Chapter 24.
Also compare Shemot 20:15 with Devarim 5:5
"Probably the first set."
Don't be silly, the first set was destroyed and broken by Moshe. :)
"TW, IMHO, archaeologists won’t ever find them, for reasons that are obvious to me"
I'm not sure why it is obvious to you, but it is obvious to me, because what was actually written on the tablets is not clear. It could be all of shemot 20-23, some variation of it, or perhaps. As an aside, Vayikra is likely to be the "original" Torah given to Joshua to expand upon, as it is the only book to be full of the word "Torah". And the midrash says it is what we teach first. The idea that the 10 commandments, and only the 10 commandments were written as a separate tablet, isn't really supported by the text.
"Pardon my being dense, but I don’t get your point.
So, where or what is the source for the actual story??"
Memory. Which means today, we know nothing of the story, and any story that we do know will come from archaeology.
If you read law books, you will not get a good history of how the law was formed, or the events surrounding it, even if its mentioned in passing.
The Chumash is a song, a poem, of life and law. It is not straight up prose. It can't be read front to bank, with any assumed order. Sections double back on each other, refer to each other, subtract and add to each other. Some sections are very close and it's easy to tell, some are books apart, some are chapters apart. Chapter breaks, and Parsha breaks aren't helpful and sometimes they are deceptive. You have to look at the paragraph breaks, and the format and layout of the Hebrew itself.
I find that when reading the torah in a tikkun, the "dance" is easier to follow.
>>> Also compare Shemot 20:15 with Devarim 5:5
I failed reading comprehension in grade school, but to my limited skills, these 2 verses seem to describe two different scenes and yet both seem to be referring to the moments before matan torah.
>>>> This just proves that you haven't actually carefully read the text. Read Shemot Chapter 24.
Chapter 24 is irrelevant, especially since even the classical commentators can’t agree on when this is supposed to be taking place, before or after matan torah. Plain reading seems to be that these verses took place post-matan torah
>>>> The idea that the 10 commandments, and only the 10 commandments were written as a separate tablet, isn't really supported by the text.
Agreed. Actually Exodus chapter 24, and then 34, when read plainly are a total confusion of who wrote what and when. Simply, this confusion just supports the notion that many of these chapters (or partial chapters) were stitched together by different people and that the editor was not that meticulous or that the text that he incorporated came from other documents that he held were too sacred to be dropped..
>>>> Vayikra is likely to be the "original" Torah given to Joshua to expand upon,
You do concur with multiple authorship, although its unlikely Joshua wrote anything (not even his own book).
>>>> as it is the only book to be full of the word "Torah"
The word “Torah” in Vayikrah translates to law(s) NOT book of laws.
"(Chazal) were not afraid to make sweeping changes"
"Sweeping" is in the eye of the beholder.
"Fundie: Chazal knew everything, they could have built a spaceship had they wanted.
Normal Person: Don't be stupid of course they couldn't."
As can be expected, you didn't make it clear whether you thought this "Fundie" represented all Haredim or most or just a handful.
Your failure to avoid generalizations is getting worse and worse.
Post a Comment