When I research a thing, I like to check what information is available. When it comes to researching history, I like to start at the oldest available sources. In my opinion, one of the most persistent areas of hubris for scholarship in our era is acting as though nobody before our era knew or said anything worth considering even when the question on the table involves ancient history. So with that in mind, I'd like to mention what the Jewish sages of the classical era had in their own awareness about the questions that puzzle us: changes in script or alphabet, changes in language / rewrites, what happened during the Babylonian era, was there any memory of a cuneiform script on baked bricks, all that. I'm not making any assertions about whether any current reader should take their comments at face value; I'm suggesting that if we're seeking answers to questions, it's at least worth considering what was reported among people who were closer to the source.
So I'd like to present some relevant excerpts from the Talmud without either vouching for them or disparaging them in their introduction. This excerpt discusses changing alphabet scripts and the role of Ezra around the time of the exile:
Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar ‘Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashshurith script*{footnote: Assyrian; modern Hebrew square writing} and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the hedyototh. Who are meant by the ‘hedyototh’? — R. Hisda answers: The Cutheans.*{footnote: ‘The Samaritans’, so called because they were brought by Sargon, king of Assyria, from Cuthea, to take the place of the exiled Israelites. (V. II Kings XVII, 24 ff.). The reason for the change from Hebrew to Assyrian characters, was to build a greater barrier between the Samaritans and the Jews. V. Weiss, Dor, v. I, 59.} And what is meant by Hebrew characters? — R. Hisda said: The libuna'ah script.*{footnote: Rashi: Large characters as employed in amulets. R. Tam, in Tosaf. s. v. c,f recognises in ‘libuna'ah’ an adjective from the name of some locality. (Lebanon, or Libya?) Another opinion is that libuna'ah is derived from ‘lebenah’, brick; hence writing found on clay-tablets. V. J.E. I, p. 445.}
It has been taught: R. Jose said: Had Moses not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah for Israel. Of Moses it is written, And Moses went up unto God, and of Ezra it is written, He, Ezra, went up from Babylon. As the going up of the former refers to the [receiving of the] Law, so does the going up of the latter. Concerning Moses, it is stated: And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments; and concerning Ezra, it is stated: For Ezra had prepared his heart to expound the law of the Lord [his God] to do it and to teach Israel statutes and judgments. And even though the Torah was not given through him, its writing was changed through him, as it is written:
| page break in Talmud |
And the writing of the letter was written in the Aramaic character and interpreted into the Aramaic [tongue]. And again it is written, And they could not read the writing nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. Further, it is written: And he shall write the copy [mishneh] of this law, — in writing which was destined to be changed. Why is it called Ashshurith? — Because it came with them from Assyria. It has been taught: Rabbi said: The Torah was originally given to Israel in this [Ashshurith] writing. When they sinned, it was changed into Ro'az. But when they repented, the [Assyrian characters] were re-introduced ...
(San Hedrin 21b-22a)
I find it interesting that in the middle of a discussion of changing scripts and religious boundary-marking with changed scripts, there's an extended discussion of Ezra as parallel to Moses, re-establishing the Torah. It's not the only time a connection like that is made in the Talmud:
For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it. Yet again was [some of] it forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and established it. (Sukkah 20a)
There are also some who assume that the ancient Israelites had never noticed that Moses died before the end of the Torah, and that his death had implications for who wrote the parts of the Torah after Moses' death. Give the ancients a little credit, folks:
The Master has said: Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch. This statement is in agreement with the authority who says that eight verses in the Torah were written by Joshua, as it has been taught: [It is written], So Moses the servant of the Lord died there. Now is it possible that Moses being dead could have written the words, ‘Moses died there’?
(Baba Bathra 15a)
I don't think that the complete history of the documents is kept in their archives. But I think there is enough that sheds light on our questions to merit consideration. As they say: Test everything; hold on to that which is true.
I like the ante part of game best, but you've moved on to the "call" portion, and that's cool too.
ReplyDeleteIt may be you don't have my last comment in mind with this post, and that's fine, but I brought up the problem of who wrote Genesis and that Moses couldn't have, so I'm going to guess this post shot in the air is intended to find me. If I'm wrong, it's not the first time. So now I need to either fold, show, or raise to keep the game going. I'm curious which it will be.
Your quotes, at first glance, seem to make my point from the position of the rabbis. I agree with them at first glance, so maybe you're just saying I have a winning hand?
My point is to bring fact back to the discussion among Christian Fundamentalists. You've copied here some rabbis who would also like to bring fact back, though I'm not sure what their point is. I'll get to that.
I referenced the the story about Jacob studying the Torah. Here's a quote:
"Jacob then fled from Esau, and went to the school of Shem and Eber, devoting himself to the study of the Torah. There he was hidden for fourteen years, and then returned to his father. He found that his brother was still purposing to kill him; whereupon he accepted the advice of his mother to go to Padanaram, (Gen. R. lxviii. 5; see also "Sefer ha-Yashar")."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8381-jacob
I don't have your Torah chops, so maybe this type of thinking is an outlier. If it is, that's great. If it's mainline, they have the same set of problems we have. It's not even reasonable Jacob could devote himself to the study of a thing their own document says could not have existed for another few hundred years. And yet, I came across that assertion more than once a couple years ago when I was studying this more closely.
The rabbit trial down which my research into these sources you want us to review led me was to this type of thinking:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/110124/jewish/How-Did-the-Torah-Exist-Before-it-Happened.htm
The article claims, among other things, "Moses was special in several regards. First of all, Moses was able to see all of the Torah with perfect vision, crystal clear."
That's exactly the kind of thinking I'm rejecting among my Fundamentalist brothers. Maybe that's rare in the Jewish world? I'll grant you it's deeply thought out, more deeply than the average Fundamentalist has ever dreamt to go. My people simply argue Moses wrote it all, and don't even know these questions exist. These people do propose an answer to the question, so I commend their willingness to confront the questions head-on. I found their reasoning deep. I just didn't like their answers.
(Sorry. I broke the 4096 barrier yet again)
ReplyDeleteYou quote some of those answers. I'm not sure what those quotes say, though. I'm not sure whether they support the magical thinking I've quoted or reject it, because the statements are ambiguous.
Your last quote seems to say Moses wrote all but the last 8 verses of the Torah. Of course, Fundamentalists have been quoting this answer for years, so I won't give it much time. It doesn't pass the smell test at all. Your first quote is more interesting:
"Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language;"
This quote says nothing about when it was given. Given to Moses? To some priest in David's time? I'm going to assume it's in line with what I usually hear, unless you know better. If I'm reading it right, they're saying the text was given in full form to Moses in Hebrew script, and Moses simply recorded it for the people...in a language that didn't exist. If I'm right, then it's in line with everything I found. I'll be interested if you find something more clear.
The later parts of your quote regarding the text being lost and found and in different scripts was interesting. I love the history there, and will reread that a few more times. I'm not sure I trust it, if it starts from the place in which it seems to start, but the perspective on the Samaritans, alone, is worth the price of admission, but I'll really give the cuneiform quote a look. Thank you for sharing it.
So, let's say I'm staying in the pot. I raise. If you find anyone who unambiguously says Moses could not have known Hebrew, or who shows a way the Hebrew script 1) could exist before the Phoenicians invented its parent script 2) without a miracle 3) that leaves it a clear linguistic descendant of older Canaanite 4) and that doesn't assume it existed before creation, then I'll be happy to go back to my people with your answer.
You'll enjoy stackexchange on the topic.
ReplyDeletehttps://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/15420/which-alphabet-were-the-original-torah-scrolls-in
Especially: https://www.academia.edu/6916402/Goldwasser_O._2010._How_the_Alphabet_was_Born_from_Hieroglyphs._Biblical_Archaeology_Review_36_2_March_April_40-53._Award_Best_of_BAR_award_for_2009-2010._Discussion_with_Anson_Rainey_http_www.bib-arch.org_scholars-study_alphabet.asp_
ReplyDeleteThank you for the recommended reading, which will have to wait til after work.
ReplyDelete2 quick notes for now:
1) I'm not moving to the "call" portion yet -- I'm showing that you, me, and some of the rabbis all essentially seem to have the same hand to work with. I put those quotes forward with you in mind, not on any "ready to call" kind of theory but in a "bet Kevin would enjoy these" (plus a chance to use my long-benched Mosaic/mosaic pun, and the fact that they know Ezra had a key place in the modern Torah).
2) The random possible-cuneiform-reference was interesting to me because, if I followed their discussion of scripts without getting lost, that is the original script they thought it was in.
Catch you again after I've had a chance to read up.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
That pun was epic!
ReplyDeleteThanks!
ReplyDeleteI've caught up on my reading now. Those were very good articles, glad you linked them.
Random note: A number of years back, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were on tour and I caught them when they came through one of the museums downtown. They pointed out how even a casual observer could see the different script being used for the Divine Name; sure enough it was pretty obvious. The Name was written in a very scratchy-looking script, as opposed to the relatively flowing, ornate, blocky look of the rest of the Hebrew.
If I were sizing up that piece of information without any other input, I'd lean towards the scratchy, unrefined letters being the older form because of their rough/raw/unfinished look. At the time I saw it, I wasn't thinking "gee this is cuneiform" but the shapes were clean and basic (stick-drawing-looking) enough for that use. And then the scratchy-looking script was being used basically only for the Divine Name; it's not as clear-cut what the implications are but I'd give odds to them wanting the Divine Name to be written in the script considered more ancient and holy, and less in common use. So a few lines of thought already lean towards "the scratchy-looking script is older" even before we weigh in "Hey, what if it's cuneiform? We have reason to believe it had cuneiform roots." Which means I'd give the odds to Mar Zutra in the discussion above, even before we reality-check some of the others about "did their favorite script even exist yet, or are the others advocating pure anachronism".
.....
Topic change: yeah there are places where their opinion of the Torah crosses over into what could generously be described as "mystical areas". I heard mention that Abraham was supposed to have mostly observed the Torah (possibly just by foresight and basic uprightness). Which, ok, pious thoughts but not really helping the quest for the historical Torah, y'know.
Anyway, my odds are on Ezra being one of the main editors of the modern Torah -- and there actually being some older document in an older script that goes back to older times.
I've seen in some of the ancient church's scholarship that they had some awareness of the Samaritan version of the Torah; I find myself wondering how long the Samaritans kept the older script (or did they ever change). But that's on my "haven't researched that yet" pile.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Good pun!
ReplyDeleteThank you! I'd been saving it for the right moment to post on this topic.
ReplyDelete