I just realized found this little doozy today. Has anyone read the Book of Joshua? Check out the last chapter, chapter 24. The conquest is apparently all wrapped up and Joshua is speaking to the people to renew the covenant that they made at Sinai. But look what's written as he's finishing up:
כב וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל-הָעָם, עֵדִים אַתֶּם בָּכֶם, כִּי-אַתֶּם בְּחַרְתֶּם לָכֶם אֶת-יְהוָה, לַעֲבֹד אוֹתוֹ; וַיֹּאמְרוּ, עֵדִים. כג וְעַתָּה, הָסִירוּ אֶת-אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּכֶם; וְהַטּוּ, אֶת-לְבַבְכֶם, אֶל-יְהוָה, אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. כד וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָעָם, אֶל-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ נַעֲבֹד, וּבְקוֹלוֹ נִשְׁמָע. כה וַיִּכְרֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּרִית לָעָם, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא; וַיָּשֶׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט, בִּשְׁכֶם. כו וַיִּכְתֹּב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהִים; וַיִּקַּח, אֶבֶן גְּדוֹלָה, וַיְקִימֶהָ שָּׁם, תַּחַת הָאַלָּה אֲשֶׁר בְּמִקְדַּשׁ יְהוָה.
כז וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל-כָּל-הָעָם, הִנֵּה הָאֶבֶן הַזֹּאת תִּהְיֶה-בָּנוּ לְעֵדָה--כִּי-הִיא שָׁמְעָה אֵת כָּל-אִמְרֵי יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר עִמָּנוּ; וְהָיְתָה בָכֶם לְעֵדָה, פֶּן-תְּכַחֲשׁוּן בֵּאלֹהֵיכֶם. כח וַיְשַׁלַּח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת-הָעָם, אִישׁ לְנַחֲלָתוֹ.
"22 Then Joshua said, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the LORD." "Yes, we are witnesses," they replied.
23 "Now then," said Joshua, "throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel."
24 And the people said to Joshua, "We will serve the LORD our God and obey him."
25 On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he drew up for them decrees and laws.
26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the LORD.
27 "See!" he said to all the people. "This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the LORD has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.
28 Then Joshua sent the people away, each to his own inheritance. "
The first question is naturally why they would still have any foreign gods left with them to throw away, but that can be easily answered in a few ways. The really remarkable issue is what takes place in p'sukim 25-26 where Joshua is apparently making up a covenant and laws and recording them in the God's "Sefer Torah." It's mentioned so nonchalantly in the text, but it stands in direct conflict with the popular Orthodox belief that the entire Torah was fixed and written by Moshe.
Targum Yonatan makes no changes to the words and Rashi relates one view that this is referring merely to the last eight verses of the Torah, but there is no reason to presume that. It doesn't even make any sense in context. He also relates another view that Joshua chose this time to copy the chapter on refuge cities from the Torah to his own book. But that doesn't make any sense in context either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I was hoping there would be some comments to this post. It's amazing how the Orthodox world believes that God gave the Chumash to Moshe at Sinai when the Torah itself plainly contradicts the notion.
OP, I love your posts in general but this observation is not especially impressive. The fact is that the content discussed in Joshua 24 is nowhere to be found in the Five Books of Moses. So, if he added it in, where is it?
The simple answer is that "al" in the verse means "in addition to" - in other words, Joshua's writing was appended to the Torah in the sense that it became a part of the canon of holy books.
As to JA's comment above, I'm sure you know that the Torah explicitly states, "And Moses wrote all the words of this Torah in a Book until their completion". Hard to fudge around that one.
Where is that verse?
The fact that Moshe wrote the Torah is mentioned twice in Vayelech. First, Deuteronomy 31:9, "and Moses wrote this Torah and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, etc." Then in 31:24, "and it was when Moses was finished writing the words of this Torah on a Book until their completion."
The statement that it says nowhere in the Bible that Moses wrote the Torah is a flat-out error repeated again and again by Bible Critics. I have called many adherents of the DH on this and they have admitted their mistake. It is a clear example of an error repeated again and again by scholars who have not actually read the Torah but who rely on scholarly predecessors that they wrongly assume checked the facts thoroughly.
Unfortunately, even the best of them can't hold a candle to a Baal Koreh who practically knows the verses by heart.
What makes you think that the word "Torah" in those verses refers to the five books?
RJM,
"The fact is that the content discussed in Joshua 24 is nowhere to be found in the Five Books of Moses. So, if he added it in, where is it?"
My point would be that 'Sefer Torah' doesn't mean today what it meant at the time when the Book of Joshua was written. It just means a 'book of law' that in all likelihood is _not_ synonymous with the Pentateuch.
Likewise for Deuteronomy 31:24, Moshe 'wrote the words of the law into a book, until they were finished.' But those 'divrei hatorah' is not the meaning of the Sefer Torah today. It's turned from a general to a proper noun.
Moshe's sefer torah may just have been a relatively brief list of rules to which Joshua added his stuff.
"The simple answer is that "al" in the verse means "in addition to" - in other words, Joshua's writing was appended to the Torah in the sense that it became a part of the canon of holy books."
Hum? Where is 'al' in the pasuk?
'Vayichtov Yehoshua et-had'varim haeleh, b'sefer torat elohim'
Moshe's sefer torah may just have been a relatively brief list of rules to which Joshua added his stuff.
Since the term is used throughout Tanach including Ezra and Nechemiah, and no indication is given that its meaning changed, this view is totally baseless.
Hum? Where is 'al' in the pasuk?
My mistake, but the point remains the same. "B'" is also ambiguous in meaning.
RJM,
"Since the term is used throughout Tanach including Ezra and Nechemiah, and no indication is given that its meaning changed, this view is totally baseless."
Maybe, but it actually seems to me that the term is never used in any way that would give you any clue that it refers to the entire Pentateuch. If anything, throughout Tanach, if it referred solely to Deuteronomy + Joshua add-on then it would account for every used instance that I am aware of. In fact, the term 'sefer torah' is not even found in the first four books of the Pentateuch.
And Deuteronomy, as you are likely to be aware, is believed by scholars to have a rather late date for composition.
"My mistake, but the point remains the same. "B'" is also ambiguous in meaning."
Only if you're searching for ambiguity. I don't know what else it could mean except for 'in' given the context.
If anything, throughout Tanach, if it referred solely to Deuteronomy + Joshua add-on then it would account for every used instance that I am aware of.
Try Ezra and Nechemiah for starters. Not to mention that, from Deuteronomy alone, we would not know that Pesah is on the 14-15th of Nissan, since this date is only specified in Shemot, Vayiqra and Bemidbar. Nor would we know that there is any holiday on the first of Tishrei. Yet the Tanach speaks of the observance of these days based upon the Torah of Moses.
And Deuteronomy, as you are likely to be aware, is believed by scholars to have a rather late date for composition.
This is not the place to debate DH, but suffice it to say I'm not impressed.
In fact, the term 'sefer torah' is not even found in the first four books of the Pentateuch.
This makes sense, being that Moses is only described as committing it to writing in Deuteronomy anyway.
Only if you're searching for ambiguity. I don't know what else it could mean except for 'in' given the context.
On the contrary, only someone looking to sidestep several clear statements in Tanach to the effect that the Torah was written by "Moses, the man of God" would interpret the verse the way you do. In light of these sources, it is more than reasonable to read the verse as I am suggesting.
RJM,
"Try Ezra and Nechemiah for starters."
Yes, I made that statement inclusive to Ezra and Nechemia. Although, by that late date it is possible that the term may have already changed in meaning.
"Not to mention that, from Deuteronomy alone, we would not know that Pesah is on the 14-15th of Nissan, since this date is only specified in Shemot, Vayiqra and Bemidbar. Nor would we know that there is any holiday on the first of Tishrei."
Of course. I didn't say those texts didn't exist, only that they are not the "sefer hatorah" like Deeuteronomy is.
"Yet the Tanach speaks of the observance of these days based upon the Torah of Moses."
But always in a general, not specific sense.
"This is not the place to debate DH, but suffice it to say I'm not impressed."
Ok. I am fairly impressed, however.
"This makes sense, being that Moses is only described as committing it to writing in Deuteronomy anyway."
It is also interesting that Moses is said to have written stuff down previously, but it was given a different name, 'Sefer habrit.'
"On the contrary, only someone looking to sidestep several clear statements in Tanach to the effect that the Torah was written by "Moses, the man of God" would interpret the verse the way you do. In light of these sources, it is more than reasonable to read the verse as I am suggesting."
The grammar is clear. You are looking for an interpretation that has little to do with grammar based on other reasons.
Post a Comment