Eikev - Deut 7:12-11:32

There are a lot of words in the Torah that we really don't know what they mean. Some of them have meanings applied to them because the context seems to imply a meaning, and others are assigned a meaning because that is what tradition from the ancient sages has passed down to us.

Sort of.

But I'll get to that.

In this week's Torah portion there are several obscure words. in verse 7:13 it speaks of the "ashterot of your flock". Is ashterot based on the number ten (eser)? Does it infer a wealthiness of the owners (ashir)? Is it associated with the Canaanite Goddess of that name? Many just translate it as "lambs", even though there are existing words for it.

Another in verse 7:15 speaks of the "medavei of Egypt". It in in the plural form, but even the singular form is unclear. The Aramaic Targum replaces it with a word to mean "pestilences". But is it really referring to the plagues? One could make a case for it in that instance, but when comparing the only other two uses in the Tanach (2 Sam. 10:4 and 1 Chron. 9:4), that case falls apart.

So we have a lot of words where interpretation is based on tradition, and not textual criticism.

As I explained in this post about the word tzitzit, accepting the meaning of words that are not explained in the Torah can have some lasting consequences, such as arguing what it is, how to wear it, the rules about wearing it, forbidding women from wearing them, and everyone feeling as though this is a commandment from God, while imposing their interpretations upon the rest of the public.

This brings me to a similar word in this week's portion: totafot.

"And you shall wear them as a totafot between your eyes, and as a sign (ot) upon your arm." (Verse 11:18).

According to the rational reader of the text, such as the Rashbam, this is simply an expression to keep the commandments of God (he argues that it meant the "10 commandments", and there is evidence that many segments of Judaism held the same opinion) always before you, and always be thinking about them, not for a literal wearing of something that is not defined.

But no, the ancient sages declared that "totafot" means "tefillin", those leather phylacteries that Jewish men wear on their head and arm.

Except one is not told to wear a totafot on the arm, but a "sign", which is the word "ot". So how does one justify calling both tefillin?

They just do.

Rashi, the 12th century French Apologist and commentator wrote that the word is "African in origin" but doesn't tells us (1) why God would use an African word and (2) what is the evidence that this word is African?

The myth that there is an "Oral Torah" that came from Moses (things that he talked about but never wrote down) and that the only way to understand the "written Torah" is through the "oral Torah" is how Jewish men got to wear boxes. If you read the Talmud, almost never does any sage admit "we don't know what this means". They argue about meaning, they vote on it, and the majority wins.

Tefillin is no different.

There are assorted opinions as to when Jews started wearing these. Was it to counter the Greek culture that wore amulets? Was it a remnant from Egyptian culture? Were they seen as charms?

In the Cairo geneiza, it was discovered that Jews didn't always wear square tefillin, but round or conical tefillin was the norm:

And as to what commandments were to be put into the tefillin and in what order, what Jews wear today was affirmed in the 12th century CE, by Rashi who had no issue with his daughters wearing them, and set the standard that most Jews used.

That is, until Rashi's grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, decided that the contents needed a bit of an adjustment.

And so, today you have Jews who will own TWO sets of tefillin: one approved by Rashi, and one by Rabbeinu Tam, and they will do the first half of their prayers wearing one set, and the second half wearing the other set.

Of course, then you have the zealots who don't want to have half of their prayers invalid because they were wearing the wrong set, and so you have Jewish men who will wear BOTH SETS at the same time!

You will have most men wear them only during morning prayers (prayer: tefillilah) but some zealots will wear them all day long.

And then you have the misogyny issue with wearing tefillin.

In Orthodox Judaism, there is a statement that if something is "time based", then women are exempt, and in modern days, "exempt" has become synonymous with "forbidden". And so, you have women who also want to pray wearing these leather boxes as God supposedly commanded, according to those who determined that totafot meant something else.

And so you have an internal battle over such nonsense.

One last thing, which has to do with the modern design and symbolism of these phylacteries which has another layer of superstition over them.

Of the tefillin contains the letter "ש" on the outside. The tefillin itself is in the modern shape of the letter dalet (ד), and it is worn on the had, or yad which was represented by the letter yud (י). There is a teaching that this spells Shaddai, or a name of God which designates protection and fertility. This is also written on the outside of most mezzuzah scrolls (also a Rabbinical invention and mentioned in this weeks Torah portion). And the belief is that wearing such things, are a form of protection.

But only if they are valid. So this means that religious Jews will bring their tefillin and mezzuzot to a scribe who will check them, because some believe that a crack in a single letter will have supernatural consequences. Imagine if a letter broke and the word changed and the meaning indicated that your son would die, that would be horrific! There are people who will take their tefullin and mezzuzot to also be checked when disasters are taking place in their lives. After all, all tragedies are supernaturally based!

Summary

There are a lot of words in the Torah that we don't know the meaning of and rather than admit "we don't know" the typical reaction is to just make things up, which is dishonest.

We don't know what totafot really meant, but based on the context, it could be several things, but leather boxes isn't one of them.

Religion uses such positions of power to control the lives of its adherents. And to put women into second-calls positions, it forbids them from participating in a ritual that men have determined is for them alone.

Va'Etchanan (Part 3) - Deut 3:23-7:11

What is the REAL Decalogue?

Verses 5:6-18 is technically and traditionally called aseret haDibrot, or the "10 sayings/statements" and usually, albeit erroneously, "the 10 commandments". I say "erroneously" because there are more than 10 commandments in the text, although, to be fair, there are disagreements as to how many there are, especially if you want to reconcile them with the version in Exodus 20:2-14, as we will see below.

It should be noted that chapter 5 of Deuteronomy does not call these rules aseret haDibrot, and that term won't appear until Deut. 10:4 with no list of what those commandments are. This is also true with Exodus 20:2-14 - the list is not called aseret haDibrot, and when that term does appear (Ex. 34:28), the expected list of commandments (e.g., "don't steal", etc.) is not there, and the ones that are there are rejected as being the real list:

So based on tradition, the aseret haDibrot in Exodus 34:13-26 is not the real one, but only the ones found on Exodus 20:2-14 and Deut. 6-18.

So let's focus just on those. But before I show the differences between the two versions, I want to cover just a bit of history on the aseret haDibrot has changed as part of the lifestyle of its fans.

The "10 Commandments"

So where does the first commandment begin?

Apparently, there is disagreement on that as well.

When writing the aseret haDibrot in a Torah scroll, the tradition is to put a bit of blank space just before it to indicate a new segment of the text that stands alone. The place where it is done today is just before "I am Yahweh, your God...", but according to Ibn Ezra, it should be as the Masorites decided, which was what is commonly seen as between the second and third commandments. At some point, the Masoretic tradition changed, and the spacing changed to have "I am Yahweh, your God..." to be the first commandment, even though it is not technically a commandment, some include it in their count.

There was a period in history where reciting the aseret haDibrot every morning was a requirement for every Jew. And even today, most prayer-books will include it in the section for preliminary prayers. But for some reason, and there is no universally accepted reason for it, that tradition was stopped even though the text still remain in the prayer-books. One reason given is that Christians used that to show that the "10 commandments" and not the entire Torah was the most important thing. Another is that it made the morning supplications too long. Nobody is completely certain, but it isn't recited like it used to.

Finally, there reading of the Torah portion where the accepted "10 commandments" are listed is considered to be a great honor. Some reserve that honor for the Rabbi. Others have their own ways of deciding who will get to stand before the Torah as the Decalogue is being recited. And there are different communities who have different traditions concerning standing when the Decalogue is being read. Many do, and some don't.

The Differences

I will present non-commandment portions in italics and note the differences in red.

1. I am Yahweh, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery.

No differences. All second-person references are in the singular, and the Targum changes that to the plural as well as changing "slavery" to "servitude". There is a debate as to whether or not this is a commandment: "Acknowledge that Yahweh is God".

2. There will not be for you other Gods in My presence. (literally, "face").

No differences. Given the Deuteronomist's monotheistic views, it is likely that he was repeating this as it was traditionally known, but held that "other Gods" did not mean that other Gods actually existed. The  author(s) of Exodus obviously did hold that such Gods existed. Many people render "in My face" as "besides me" based on a more monotheistic view and justify the rendering based on how על used in this verse is rendered as "beside" in Numbers 28:15, Genesis 28:9, and Genesis 31:50. It does make it less anthropomorphic.

3. You shall not make for yourself a sculptured-image of any likeness of what is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters below the earth.

No differences. Saadiah removed "for yourself" in his translation in order to eliminate the idea that you could make a sculpted image (pesel) for someone else. One key bit of text that is often ignored is that the Genesis 1 text has the earth floating on the lower waters, with the upper waters held back by the FIRMament. This verse echoes that view.

4. You shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I am Yahweh, your God, am a jealous God, Who causes the sin(s) of the fathers to fall upon the children unto the third generation and unto the fourth that hate me, but doing kindness to the thousandth generation to those who keep my mitzvot (commandments).

No difference. The first line that is not in italics is the actual commandment. Which is actually two commandments: do not bow down to idols (1) and do not serve idols (2). Prior to this you have (3) do not make idols and (4) have no other God. There are those who claim that the first verse represents (5) Acknowledge that Yahweh is God is a commandment. Some do not. Few see "keep my mitzvot" as a commandment, but you might include it as well.

5. You shall not (swear) take the name of Yahweh, your God, in vain, for Yahweh will not hold guiltless anyone who takes His name in vain.

No difference. However, notice that the speaker switched to the third person, saying "His name" rather than "My name". It is generally taught that this refers to making oaths, such as "I swear to Yahweh that it will rain three weeks from today", or on Monday someone says "I swear to Yahweh that today is Monday". Saying, "This dinner is so good, even Yahweh would love it" would not fall under this category. Nor would, "Jesus Christ, that's stupid!"

6. Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it as Yahweh your God has commanded you.

The Exodus version has Keep instead of Remember. This difference as caused a lot of apologetics, such as "God said both at the same time" to which the rationalists have responded, "How can you hear two different things at the same time?" Jews have two loaves of bread, light two candles, and, depending on the traditions of that family, will do other forms of "two" to justify having two different terms of keeping the Sabbath. One could also argue that "sanctify it" and "keep/remember it as God commanded" are two commandments, and not one. As for why Christians keep Sunday instead of Saturday as the Sabbath and still claim to keep it in the manner that Yahweh commanded...I cannot explain that.

7. [For] six days you will labor and do all of your work (malachot).

No difference. Some hold that this sentence joins the previous one and the next one, while others hold that this is a commandment in and of itself, which is that you have to work for six days and complete it, which could be one or two commandments. This also means that one cannot spend all six days simply learning and not doing a single bit of malacha (work), but must also do something each day and complete all of the necessary preparations prior to the Sabbath.

8. But the SEVENTH day is for Yahweh, your God. You shall not do any work (malacha); [Neither] you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant nor your ox nor your ass nor any of your cattle, nor the [non-Jewish] stranger who is within your [city] gates so that your male servant and your female servant may rest like you do.

No difference. The Hebrew term ger means "stranger" or "outsider". It is typically an abbreviation for a ger-toshav, an outsider who dwells among the Jews, and who isn't Jewish. Later, when conversion became a thing, which is post-Biblical, the Septuagint used a form of proselyte and that term has found its way into many translations, but one should not read that it is talking about converts.

The variant that is missing the "and/nor" prefix could be a simple scribal error or preference. The addition of "ox and ass" in the Deuteronomy version, which is missing in the Exodus version might indicate a more prosperous period of time. Of course, these commands are being addressed to prosperous men who have servants and property.

In either case, it does increase the number of commandments in this version.

It is at this point that the text diverges as to why one needs to follow the previous commandment. According to Exodus, the ger is irrelevant, but you need to keep the Sabbath as a symbol of Yahweh creating and working for 6 days before ceasing from all work.

The Deuteronomist sees that as irrelevant and instead focuses on why the ger should also be permitted to rest which is to ensure that your servants rest as well, which is not in the Exodus text.

Here are the different views:

9. Exodus: For in six days, Yahweh made the heavens, earth,sea, and all that is in them. Therefore, Yahweh, your God, blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

9. Deut.:  And you must remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and Yahweh your God took you from there with a strong hand and and an outstretched arm Therefore Yahweh, your God, has commanded you to make the Sabbath day.

And then the two texts come back together. So the Deuteronomist has added another commandment, but the Exodus text has not.

 10. Honor you father and your mother as Yahweh, your God, commanded you, so that your days will be lengthened and so that it will be good for you in the land that Yahweh, your God, is giving you.

 

No differences.  It is interesting to note that one who does this should have a long life, and there have been legends created to explain why this doesn't really happen ("the land" means "the World to Come"). Of course, the context of this verse, just before the Jews are to go into the land, dismisses such nonsense.

11. You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not be a lying witness against your fellow.

In these 4 commandments the only difference is that the Exodus version tells one not to be a witness for a vain reason, which likely means to get something out of it. This could infer lying, but it is not explicitly stated.

Adultery refers to a married woman. A married man could have multiple wives, concubines, and conjugal slaves.

Stealing is understood to mean "kidnapping", rabbinically.

12. You shall not covet your fellow's house nor field. You shall not covet the wife of your fellow, nor his male servant nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your fellow's.

While the Exodus writer put the wife first, the Deuteronomist put the house first and added the field as well. This could be each one's personal priorities, which makes for a fun interpretation. And as we can see, this is speaking to the male elites of the time who were property owners, telling them not to covet the stuff of other male elites.

Summary 

The "10 commandments" is more than 10 commandments, has two (or three) versions, and depending upon the period that it was written, there was a different focus concerning the strangers who dwelled among the Jews and how the wealthy property owners of their day should treat their peers.

Of course, one can read a lot into these words, and many people do.

And hopefully you will have learned something new from this.

Thanks for reading! 

Va'Etchanan (Part 2) - Deut 3:23-7:11

Preliminary

In the previous post, I explained how the beginning of this parashah had finished the recap portion from the previous parashah. I then stopped because there is something significant that takes place in verses 4:23-31 that deserves it's own explanation. It's a segment of text that appears to be a later insert, and if not a later insert, then a fragment from another text from the same late period.

Let's look at a portion of the text without those verses:

21. Yahweh became angry with me because of you (plural), and He swore that I would not cross the Jordan and not come to the good Land that Yahweh, your God, is giving to you as an inheritance.

22 For I will die in this land. I am not crossing the Jordan. But you are crossing and you shall possess this good land.

[insert]

32. So inquire now regarding the early days that preceded you, from that day when Yahweh created man on the land, and from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven. Has there ever been like this great thing or anything like it been heard?

In short, this text is talking about the miracle of a people who came out of the fires (metaphor) of Egypt (3:20) and were about to accept their inheritance, a land that Yahweh had promised them.

The insert after verse 22 suddenly goes off on a tangent, telling the people that Yahweh hates idolatry, and they will succumb to it in a few generations, they will lose their land and be cast among other nations, but they will seek Yahweh with all of their heart, He will remember His covenant with them and return them.

When Was it Written?

Verses 23-31 are not part of a prophecy, but of a reminiscence.

As I have already noted, we see that the Book of Deuteronomy is a late text based on the following verses:

• 1:1 - Written in Israel after Moses, who never went there, had died.
• 34:10 - Written in Israel, after the end of the period of the Prophets.
• 4:20 - Written during the Iron Age
• etc.

It's apparent that whoever wrote this text lived long after all of the events in the book had finished. And it is easy to fulfill a prophecy when you write the prophecy after the fact.

Except, it isn't a prophecy in that there is no condition given, such as "IF you serve idols, then...", but rather, "You WILL serve idols, and...", which emphasizes that there is no choice, because to choose otherwise would make this a false prophecy, if it were a prophecy at all.

Supplementary Approach

There are those who hold that chapter 4 consists of one author as a series of stitched together fragments. For chapter 4, the breakdown is verses 1-4, 5-8, 9-14, 15-22, 23-31, 32-40, and 41-49.

Other's who embrace the "documentation hypothesis" hold that there was more than one Book of Deuteronomy, and that at a later date, an editor joined the different texts.

Still others hold what is called the "supplementary approach" within Biblical Criticism, which is that there was a single author of the chapter, but over a period of time additional segments were inserted by other contributors (scribes), and that approach uses the same breakdown of verse number groupings.

(For a review of each of these approaches, see "Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy" A. D. H. Mayes - Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Published in the "Journal of Biblical Literature", 100/1, 1981)

The Supplementary Approach is a position that appears to be very strong, based on the structure of the texts as a whole (or rather, in their parts).

So we have a fragment that may or may not have been part of the original, but is certainly a deviation from the flow.

But there's a key component to this that many people miss.

Who is Missing?

Remember that this insert speaks of the Jews will seek Yahweh with all their heart while in exile, that He will not forget them, for His is compassionate, and they will return to Him and He will not forget His covenant to the patriarchs.

But like the rest of the Pentateuch, there is no mention of a Messiah, but only of Yahweh.

Could it be that the author of this insert was writing during a period when the idea of a redeeming Messiah was not even considered? Or if this was after the Babylonian exile, as it appears, was the view of Cyrus non-Messianic and the Messianic link to him was created solely in the Book of Isaiah?

It is very possible, and it seems quite plausible.

Conclusion

Chapter 4 of Deuteronomy consists of 7 different sections, and these sections likely have expanded from a smaller number to their current number of 7 over a period of time. It is a later written text that was written centuries after the supposed events took place, and there is good reason to state that, at least verses 23-31, portions or all of it were written after the end of the Babylonian exile.

The fact that our 23-31 fragment contains a promise of a return of the Jews from exile when they will seek Yahweh with all of their heart, but no mention of a Messiah, provides a lot of food for thought concerning the time-frame as well as the historical view of redemption being solely Yahweh and none other.

This text was certainly never written by someone in the Bronze Age 3500 years ago. Of that we are quite certain.

Va'Etchanan - Deut 3:23-7:11

As I noted in the previous post, there are a number of issues and contradictions with the Book Deuteronomy when compared to the other books, and this segment is no different.

Last week I covered the preamble, the recap of the story of how the Jews were coming to the Promised Land, and the differences in the narratives. In Deuteronomy, the author created a different Moses, one who was proactive, strong, and reactive rather than the passive leader that few people wanted who "fell on his face" when he was faced with any form of crises.

This week, that recap ends, there's an introductory segment, and then the rules begin, with a new version of the "10 commandments" (as it is typically called) that the Deuteronomist updated for his later audience.

But let's look at a few of the quirks of the text.

3:25 - Moses' plea

Rather than a passive Moses in Numbers who accepts his fate quietly, the Deuteronomy version has him requesting to be let across to the new land, to have Yahweh change His mind. The Hebrew word na has been translated as "Now!" and "Please!", so depending on which commentator you read, this could either be a demand (Onkelos), or begging (Rashi).

And, of course, this new Moses, is denied. Yahweh responded with, "Enough!" while the old Moses never bothered asking.

3:28 - Joshua

In Numbers 27:18, just before Yahweh tells Moses to attack the Midianites after the Hebrew men dared to have intercourse with the Moabite women and participated in idolatry with Baal-Peor, God tells Moses to put Joshua into the leadership position.

Here, in Deut. 3:28, the same demand for a Joshua leadership occurred, but there's no mention of any genocide, and Midian isn't even worth mentioning. One possibility for this omission is a change in political alliances during the time that this late text was produced. Another could be that the story of wiping out the wrong nation was not a good idea, and just punishing the Jews for their actions was good enough. I wrote about "the wrong genocide" at this blog post.

3:29 - Peor

At the end of the recap of the story, Beth-Peor is mentioned. It's the first time that this location is referred in this manner. In the Balaam scroll (Num. 23:28) Balaam brings Balak to the top of Peor, which seems to be a mountain. And the only other reference in Numbers is of Baal-Peor, which we can assume is the Lord/God of Peor, whomever that God would happen to be.

This description is close to that of Yahweh, who dwelled atop "Mt. Elohim" when Moses first met Him, a God to whom He would be eventually referred to as "Lord".

Gods will often have temples, and places that are referred to by their name. Think of it as a modern equivalent of having a "St. Mary's Church" or calling your town "Corpus Christi". So the Israelites camping by the base of this mountain, at Beth-Peor, could have been by that God's temple, or a place that the worshipers named after Him to honor Him.

As to who this "Peor" was, we don't know. Keep in mind that Scripture often has names whose meanings were lost, obscure, and in some instances, polemical, especially when it came to other Gods.

4:3 - Imperfect Eyes

In Biblical Hebrew, perfect verb forms which speak in the past tense, is the norm. To write such a verb form in the future, a grammatical technique called vav conversive is often used to switch the tense, or else the tense is directly changed. Writing in the present, or imperfect tense, wasn't the writing style of the Book of Genesis, for example.

Deuteronomy, being from a much later period uses imperfect tenses occasionally, which admits to its later period. In this case, what is normally, and incorrectly translated as though it were in the perfect form, as "Your eyes have seen" is actually written imperfectly as "Your seeing eyes" or "Your eyes that are seeing".

It's a grammatical indication of a very late authorship of this text and it's interesting that most translations refuse to use it.

4:7 - Them God

This verse literally reads where foreign nations will say of Israel, "[saying] 'For what nation is so great, that has Elohim They-who-are-close to them' like our God, Yahweh...". You can see how clumsy that would look in a literal translation. When I am getting at is that, in this case, Elohim is followed by a plural form of "close", making it plural.

Given that the Deuteronomist is on-point about there being only one God, albeit an anthropomorphic one, and those who see themselves as monotheistic fans of the Torah always point to Deuteronomy and avoid the other four books of the Torah as proof-texts of there being one God, the most likely explanation here is that the other nations who believe in many Gods are seeing the Israelite God as one of many and referring to Him in this way.

But it is an interesting grammatical point that most people miss.

4:10 - The Threat of the Mountain

The Deuteronomist has been presenting a Deity who is consistent in his actions. And while the earlier books has Yahweh telling Moses to bring the people upon His mountain to meet with Him, another author has Yahweh threatening to kill any living thing that even touches the mountain, Moses excluded, of course.

The Biblical form of "die a death" I render as "fucking die!" since it is more in line with how that expression, a verb-noun combination with the same root, was used in Biblical Hebrew.

The Deuteronomist doesn't have such a disorderly God, and so omits the threat altogether, and instead, the people elect to stand at the bottom and let their strong prophet go and meet with Yahweh in their stead.

4:12 - The One Man Show

The Deuteronomist paints some great imagery, of fire and a booming voice echoing down through the darkness and the clouds for all the people to hear...

But that's not the Exodus version of the story. Yahweh tells Moses "Tell the people this", He never shouts "Hey people, do this!" Instead he talks to Moses about a lot of things, most of which were sacrificial minutiae that would have bored the two million people below, who were not only not the people who were being told these things, but who hadn't heard a peep for weeks and decided that Moses was dead. And Yahweh complains, not to the people who couldn't hear anything, but only to Moses, threatening to kill them all.

The Deuteronomist decided that he needed a more powerful and awe inspiring God, and rewrote that part of the story.

4:20 - Blast it!

The Deuteronomist has a great metaphor for a people who, no matter how strong they may be, will eventually succumb to the outside pressures and become part of the melting pot of society. In this verse, the Deuteronomist refers to Egypt as an "iron blast-furnace" (מכור הברזל). Some translators call it an iron smelting furnace and other such references.

Keep in mind, that iron was considered to be the hardest metal of the time, and melting it was a great simile for assimilation.

Except, of course, that if Moses was saying this, you have a problem since the iron age was many centuries later. Yes, they may have found and used iron meteorites for basic tools, but they weren't into forming them into bed frames (Deut. 3:11) or melting them (Deut. 4:20).

This is another anachronism left by the Deuteronomist which points to his later period of authorship.

The next section deals with a supposed prophecy, which is actually a reminiscence, one that I will cover in the next post.

Thanks for reading!

Devarim (Part 6) - Deut. 1:1-3:22

It's a Feature, not a Bug!

Preface

It is unreasonable to continue to hold the position that one person wrote the entire Pentateuch when so many segments contradict one another. It is equally unreasonable to continue to resist the idea that the text is not a chronicle of historical facts rather than national folklore. And it is incredibly dogmatic to maintain the position that these texts were either authored by or inspired by an omniscient supernatural Entity.

In another blog post, I wrote one hypothetical possibility as to why the Book of Deuteronomy, which was previously known as the mishneh Torah by the Jews, and later, simply Devarim. There are several equally good possible reasons why it was written. 

This week's portion focuses on most of the preamble of Deuteronomy, which continues through 4:43. The beginning verses are written in such a way that it is almost as if the author is giving a wink, saying, "This is going to be more than just reboot of older stories, but before we can continue, let's first wipe away what we know about them.

So let's look at the verses in Deuteronomy that undo that which we read in the other books of the Torah. While this is likely to not be a perfect list, it will provide you with enough information to consider the motivation of the Deuteronomist(s).

Feature List

1:1 - Authorship

"These are the words that Moses spoke...on the other side of the Jordan..." - Moses never made it to Israel, but the author was writing from there, indicating, "Moses didn't write this - I did!". Unlike the stories after the preamble where the author is putting words in Moses' mouth by speaking in the 1st person, this opening statement is written in the 3rd person, setting it off from the rest of the text. The end of Deuteronomy follows a similar style, wrapping it up by saying that no other prophet rose up in Israel who was like Moses, indicating that Deuteronomy was written very late in the game.

This "other side of the Jordan" statement also appears in verse 1:5, and future acts in 2:12.

1:4 - Og's Place and Species

We read that Og of Bashan dwelled in Ashteroth. But the earlier texts don't say that. So what's going on? Well, the Deuteronomist is going to change Og into one of the Rephaim as well as a giant, which isn't in the earlier texts. In fact, the author is quite enamored with giants and they appear more in this book than the previous four combined. In Genesis 14:5, we read of the Rephaim fighting in a war at/with "Asteroth of the horns", which is either the Goddess, or a place named after her. Since Og needs to become one of the Rephaim (Deut. 3:11), he has to live among them. 

1:12 - Delegating

In verses 9-19, Moses tells the Jews that he came up with the idea to delegate some authority. This was one of the changes in the Moses character that the author made to make him more proactive than he was viewed by the earlier authors who had a Midianite (Jethro) and even Yahweh tell Moses that he couldn't do it all himself.

The system that the Deuteronomist established for Moses was quite good, ending with Moses being the supreme arbitrator when they could not come up with a solution, making him a far more competent character than how the Exodus or Numbers authors depicted him.

1:22 - Sending the Spies

The Deuteronomist has Moses bringing the people to the place and telling them to take it, with the people having a reasonable idea: spy out the place before attacking. However, Numbers 13:1-2 doesn't have Moses telling the people to attack, but passively waiting for Yahweh to tell him what to do, and it was Yahweh who told Moses to send in spies. The Deuteronomist made Moses a stronger and more commanding character.

1:25 - The Report of the Spies

In Numbers 12:27-29, when the spies return, the mention the flowing of milk and honey and show the giant fruit, but they then follow by giving a disastrous warning about giants and Amalakites, and warn the people that the enemy is far too strong to defeat.

The Deuteronomist gives the spies a short amount of dialogue, only 7 Hebrew words: "Good is the land that our God, Yahweh, is giving to us!" 

After the people shout that Yahweh must hate them (something that they don't say in the Numbers version) they go on to exclaim that their brothers have also said that "A people greater and taller than us, cities great and fortified up to the firmament, and even children of giants!"

The adding of great imaginary cities extending to the firmament (aka "heavens") is a nice touch. Since the Numbers version of Moses is quiet and incompetent, the people want to replace him, whereas in the Deuteronomy version, that doesn't happen because we have a stronger Moses to contend with. Also, the Deuteronomist trims away some other unnecessary details that muddies things up, such as warning that the Amalakites were near.

1:29 - Moses' Reaction

The Deuteronomist has Moses give an impassioned speech (1:29-33) to convince the people to overcome their fears and to enter the land. The version in Numbers (14:5) has Aaron and Moses simply falling on their faces and being silent. The meek character of Numbers has been strengthened in the Deuteronomy version.

1:34 - Yahweh's Reaction

Not only Moses, but Yahweh get's a makeover in Deuteronomy. In Numbers, after hearing that the people don't want the land, but want to get a new leader and return to Egypt, Yahweh decides to kill them instead, but Moses convinces Yahweh that it's a bad idea because the other nations would gossip bad things about Him.

The Deuteronomist did not want Yahweh to be changing His mind, and so drops out that part of the story altogether. 

But he adds a twist to it, including the story of Moses not going into the land of Israel, but changing why that happened by moving it to the Spy Report rather than having it happen after Miriam dies (who is never mentioned by the Deuteronomist) in Numbers 20:12.

1:37 - Moses' Punishment

In Deut. 1:37, we read that it wasn't Moses' fault that he didn't enter Israel, but the people's fault! They made God so angry that He turned on Moses and told him that he would not be entering the land of Israel either. As to why Aaron was included in God's reneging, the story doesn't say.

In Numbers 20:11, we read that God reneging on His promise to Moses didn't happen due to the report of the spies, but long afterwards, by the waters of Meribah after striking a rock twice to bring forth water.  However, nowhere in Numbers does it specifically tell us what the sin was that Moses and Aaron did, only that it took place at the waters of Meribah.

The Deuteronomy version is more satisfying in that it specifically details why Moses was nout going to enter the "promised land".

1:39 - The Little Children

The Deuteronomist didn't like the idea that God would punish innocent people. Had he rewritten the story of Sodom or Noah's Ark, he would have had the innocent children survive as well! In this version of the punishment, Yahweh specifically indicates that the children, those who don't know right from wrong, the innocents, would not die because of the sins of the elder people who should have known better. They would grow up and would enter the land.

This is not the view of the authors of Numbers, where everyone of that generation would die, except for Caleb and Joshua. 

The description of the people wanting to go fight, but Moses refusing to go and keeping the Ark by his side, and the people arming themselves and going off to battle and losing is far better in the Deuteronomist version. The use of "...they pursued you in the manner of bees..." is a great visual of being overwhelmed and trying to flee.

2:4 - Edom

The weaker Moses in Numbers 20:18-21 asks the people of Edom for food and water, offering them money. The Edomites threaten the Israelites, and start to attack "with a strong hand", and the Israelites turned away to save themselves. 

The Deuteronomist didn't like the idea of Yahweh not helping His people get food and water, so rather than having them run away because Edom was too strong for them, he has Yahweh tell them not to attack Edom, for that land is promised to them, but that the Israelites should purchase food and water from the Edomites. There is no mention that the Edomites refused to sell food and water for more than two-million people!

2:9 - Moab

There's this weird problem with Moab i the Book of Numbers. The Moabite women bring idols to the Israelites to worship and seduce them, and there is a violent reaction with Moses commanding the death of all participants. And there is a mention of a single Midianite girl who did not bring an idol, but was having sex with a prince of the tribe of Shimon. And Yahweh's reaction?

Yahweh commands the genocide of Midian. Not Moab, but Midian.

The Deuteronomist has Yahweh telling the people to leave Moab alone and makes no mention about their involvement with the Miainites. His reason for leaving them alone is because He gave that land to Lot and his descendants. Although none of the other authors made mention of that covenant.

2:12 - Israel did What?

This verse initially tells us that the children of Esau drove away the Horites, who were the original inhabitants of that land to make it their own just as the people of Israel did in the land of their inheritance which Yahweh gave them! 

This is another anachronism within the text where the author reverted back to his point of view, long after Israel came to the land and settled it.

2:19 - Ammon

As with Edom (2:4), the Deuteronomist avoids the problem with the Israelites failing to conquer Ammon (Numbers 21:24). In the earlier version of the story, we are told that the Israelites were defeating one village after another, but when they got to the border of Ammon, their people were too strong. Here, the Deuteronomist has Yahweh keeping His covenant with Lot and his children, which the previous authors neglected to mention.

2:29 - Edom Revisited

Moses makes the claim that the people of Edom let the Israelites pass through their country and sold them food and water. If you read Numbers 20:18-21, that never happened. But it is consistent with the Deuteronomist rewrite as noted in Deut. 2:4. Moses also claims that Moab did the same thing for the Israelites which isn't mentioned in the Numbers version as well.

3:20 - He said/They said

In order to make Moses a much stronger character, the Deuteronomist has Moses commanding everyone to take part in the war to claim the land, and that they can return after the fighting is over, to dwell as they see fit, keeping their wives, children, and livestock safe from the battles to come.

In chapter 32 of Numbers (32:16-26), however, it is the people who are telling Moses their plans to do exactly that, with Moses simply listening and, we can assume, agreeing with their plans.

Conclusion

The Deuteronomist gave us a stronger Moses, a more commanding character, omitting his weaknesses and the losses of the Israelite battles in the Book of Numbers. Where Moses was silent, he is outspoken, and where he was meek, he is taking charge.

The narratives of the battles and of the giants are for more interesting than those of the earlier writers, and some of the other details are trimmed or moved around to make the story a better read.

All in all, I can see why the Deuteronomy Scroll was the most popular one, with the most copies, found in Qumran.

Devarim (Part 5) - Deut. 1:1-3:22

Rewriting Nationlism

This week's Torah portion has three chapters that talk about all of the battles that Israel had, how they were undefeated, and how nothing could stop them.

There is this image of the Hebrew, marching, all two-million-plus of them, with the special golden box, upon which there were images of a pair of supernatural beings, and upon, within, or over (depending upon the verse), Yahweh was there, leading them to war. (see verse 3:22, the last verse of this week's portion).

The portion lists a lot of their conquests, but one that we read in Numbers 20:20-21 is that when the Hebrews approached Edom, they were told to go away, and the Edomites came out and the Hebrews left, feeling discouraged (21:5).

The Deuteronomist wasn't comfortable with Yahweh not fulfilling his job as a "man of war" (Ex. 15:3), and so changed the story a bit, and in verses 2:4-2:7, we read that they didn't run away because they were afraid, but, instead Yahweh told them not to attack Edom, and told them to interact nicely and buy food and water from them. And while Numbers 20:19 does have the Hebrews offering to pay for food and water, the only response that we read is "Go away!", or more accurately (Numbers 20:19-21):

And Edom said to him, You shall not pass by me, lest I come out against you with the sword.

And the people of Israel said to him, We will go by the high way; and if I and my cattle drink of your water, then I will pay for it; I will do you no injury, only pass through by foot.

 And [Edom] said, You shall not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand.

The Deuteronomist changed the nationalistic folklore to be more of "We were undefeated! Oh, Edom? Well, God wouldn't let us, so technically, we were still undefeated!"

It should be noted that Edom would eventually be subdued and forced to convert by the High Priest Yochanan Hyrcanus in the 2nd century BCE, and the view of the Edomites in Numbers (fierce, unwelcoming) and in Deuteronomy (brothers whom God does not want harmed) is likely politically motivated.

And this brings us to Moab, which is also a rewrite. In Deut. 2:9, Yahweh tells them not to bother the Moabites. This is likely a response to the story in numbers where the Moabite women bring their idols and have sex with the Hebrew men, and Yahweh's  response is to harass and wipe out Midian!

I explained in another blog post that it is more likely that Moab was the original target, and for political reasons, certain portions were changed as political landscapes changed, to make Midian the evil one in the post-Balaam story.

So, the Deuteronomist seems to be explaining why the Hebrews traveled from Moab all the way south to Midian, and then came all the way back north to Moab because a single Midianite woman, who was not participating in idolatry, and whose only "crime" was having sex with the prince of the tribe of Shimon.

After justifying why Edom and Moab were spared from Yahweh's otherwise perfect record of defeating other nations, the narrator goes on to tell how they defeated giants, and then, explained why they left Ammon alone, because, again, Yahweh said so. (Deut. 2:9)

In Numbers 21:24, it tells us that while the Israelites were taking over this city and that town, when they got to the border of Ammon, they stopped "because the border of the sons of Ammon were strong".

They must have been very strong, since Deut 2:10-11 tells us that the land of Ammon was previously be the home of a nation of giants.

A final note about Ammon - the apocryphal text, "The Book of Judith" tells the odd story of the Jews defeating an army of Nebuchadnezzar with the help of an Ammonite (who converts at the end of the story), and it depicts a more cooperative relationship between Israel and Ammon. 

Summary

The Deuteronomist has written a completely different narrative, updating the stories to be applied to a newer and more nationalistic expression, where the nationals can declare "We are great! Our God is the Greatest! We are unstoppable! He can do anything!" And as for the earlier stories where the other nations were tougher, well, they weren't really that tough, and the only reason that they weren't defeated is because God didn't want them to be subdued.

Why?

Mysterious ways, I suppose!

Devarim (Part 4) - Deut. 1:1-3:22

GIANTS!

The author of the introductory portion of Deuteronomy loved giants, and mentions them more than any other place in the Torah. Not only are there giants, but there are several different kinds of giants. These giants have nations, and a  social structure. And while the Book of Genesis mentions Rephaim, and they were not considered to be giants by the Canaanite texts, the Deuteronomist puts all that to bed, telling us, yes, they were giants too.

Giants, giants, everywhere!

The Hebrew word for giant is "anak", and the plural is "anakim".  

One could read this verse as the there were giants in the land, and the Rephaim were also accounted for, meaning, perhaps the Rephaim were not so gigantic.but verse 21 tells us that they were tall, like the anakim.

In any case, the Deuteronomist lived giants, many different kinds, creatures that were huge.

But how huge did the writers imagine that they were?

In Numbers 13:33, the text compared the men to the Nephillim (who also became giants) akin to comparing men to grasshoppers. Some calculate that to be 30 feet or more. And others, the more rational ones, consider that verse to be simply hyperbole, an expression by people panicking. Although, they are never corrected.

The Deuteronomist, in order to be more exacting gives us the dimensions of a bed, whose frame was made of iron, that their king had (3:11), which was 9 cubits by 4 cubits.

Several things that stand out here.

1. The frame is made of iron, which indicates something of great weight is needed to be supported.
2. The description is an anachronism given that furniture with iron frames in the bronze age did not exist. Yes, they could fashion a meteorite into a tool if it did not need much modification. But a bed frame? 
3. A cubit is considered to be about half a meter long. So the dimensions of this bed were about 4.5x2 meters, or about 6.5 feet wide, and about 14.5 feet long.

That's rather disappointing, but it is still beyond the range of anyone that we have ever seen.

So was Og, the King of Bashan who was one of the Rephaim, a true giant? They were with the giants, like the giants, and tall like the giants.

So let's call them giants.

Chapters 2-3 of Deuteronomy is obsessed with giants, the cities of giants, and their tall walls and doors that they had to get through.  It's a fun read of the text.

The Rationalists

Then you have those who read the Torah as actual history and have a problem with giants. They will either try to shrink down the size of a cubit, which causes a lot of problems with the Noah's Ark story, or will dismiss the size of Og's bed ad being relevant and reduce the Deuteronomy giants to half their size, say 7-8 feet tall.

The Irrationalists

And you have those who read the Torah as actual history. Period. And if you Google GIANT SKELETON, you will find a lot of photoshopped and falsified pictures that "prove" that ancient giants exists.

The Literaryists

And then, you have those, like myself, who read the story as it was likely intended: a bit of fun entertainment about and impossibly large number of men attacking and defeating many impossibly large beings with the help of their prophet and his Supernatural companion.

Devarim (Part 3) - Deut. 1:1-3:22

Since this week's Torah portion has another very odd break, terminating the story early, I thought that it would be good to address the placement of these breaks as well as the naming of the chapters of the Torah.

Parashah Names

Nobody is really certain when the tradition to name a Torah portion based on, usually, a word or two from the first sentence. 

But the fact that there are names and not simply numbers, which were applied later, is very telling.

For example, the Book of Matthew was designed to be a linear story, with a beginning, middle, and end. And so, having a book composed of sequentially numbered chapters makes sense.

The Talmud (Bava Batra 14a-14b) tells us that there was a portion called "Balaam", which we can assume is speaking of the lengthy story of King Balaak in the Book of Numbers summoning and working with Balaam until the King wants nothing more to do with him and they go their separate ways.

This is a stand-alone story, and it is likely a single scroll of it's own. And it is also quite likely that the Book of Numbers was composed of a number of separate scrolls and at some point, they were arranged into an order, and eventually unified into a single scroll. The scribes would use gaps and indicators to show when one scroll ended and another began.

Because of the way that the Torah developed, and because it was never a linear text (hence the Rabbinical saying that "there is not before and after [order] in the Torah"), and so having named scrolls made sense. And who knows, perhaps each scroll had a title, such as "The Story of Balaam, by Alexander, the son of Jannai" or some such thing.

It is likely that when these stories were stitched together in a single scroll, that having the names of the stories became unworkable since the decision was made to combine some stories under a single chapter number.

Chapter Numbering

Later, when small scrolls were joined into a larger one, the story was still referred to by name.

And still, later, the story was only referred to by a word or two found in, usually, the first verse of that story.

And even later still, the story, now that it has been made linear and joined with other stories, would be referred to by chapter and verse.

And the Septuagint was created using the format of chapter and verse.

And afterwards, that Masorites changed many of the chapter positions, and Christians would accepts some of these, and reject others, which is why the Christian numbering system often doesn't match up exactly with the Jewish texts produced today.

Parashah Devarim

Given all of that, each of the five books of the Torah is named after the first parashah name in that book. And each parashah name is based on a word or two, usually, of the first sentence.

So what about this week's portion?

The first 5 verses is the Narrator setting the stage for Moses speaking. And unlike the other books, the narrator will be speaking primarily from the point of view of Moses, speaking in the first-person, most of the time, starting in verse 6.

But the actual scroll seems to have been from, what is now called, Deuteronomy 1:1 to 4:43 rather than what we use today, which is 1:1-3:22. Others contend that it could have been from 1:1-3:29, since that portion is a recount, and 4:1-4:43 seems to be a preamble to the Torah that Moses is going to be presenting.

Either way, 3:22 seems like an odd place to break the story, which would be before the end of the initial scroll. It is obviously for ideological reasons, and we can only conjecture the reason why.

Summary

The naming of the Torah portions has changed over time as well as the inclusion and changing of chapter delimiters. Initially composed of several scrolls, the Torah would eventually become assembled as a non-linear collection of folklore that, in turn, would be rendered into Greek, adding chapter and verse numbers that the Masorites would later modify, giving us the Torah that we have today.

This is not a changeless text, which explains why the ancient sages had a problem trying to determine where the middle of the Torah actually began.

Devarim (Part 2) - Deut. 1:1-3:22

The following, like all Biblical accounts, is a mixture of fact and fiction, but with a greater degree of plausibility.

The Making of Deuteronomy

Menachem the Scribe was hurrying to his meeting with Be'eri, the Chief Priest. His collection of scrolls were bouncing against the back of his lean frame as he ran, fearing the possibility of being even a minute late for his appointment, one that required pulling every favor he had, including the large sum, the he could little afford, to Judith the Prostitute, who used her renown skills to get Be'eri to agree to a short meeting with this little known scribe.

These were the days when the priesthood was also the elite ruling class. They loved their food, which the rest of the populace, many of whom could barely feed their own families, provided for them, holy food that only the priesthood could eat. They also loved music, and the Levites, who were related to the priests and were also provided for, created songs for the delight of their masters.

And they loved stories.

Menachem's grandfather, Jannai, made his fame by writing the "Judah Scroll", which was high in demand by the elites, those who could read and afford the prices of a hand-written text on the finest leather. The sex and violence and humor about Judah being tricked into impregnating his widowed daughter in-law had become a classic.

And Menachem's father, Alexander, made a name for himself by writing the "Balaam Scroll", which was in even greater demand during his day, which including a talking she-ass, an angry angel, and a humorous plot twist. As for the sex, well, it was subtle enough to make it the story that everyone who could read, wanted.

Menachem had very little money, for while the priests paid well for the scrolls, they also extracted taxes, "holy portions" for themselves, and the cycle kept the priesthood wealthy, and the average person...less than wealthy. But then, that's the way that The Lord decreed that it should be.

Or at least, that's what the illiterate believed. Those who wrote the stories for a living knew better.

The scribe approached the guards at the door, said, "Menachem the Scribe to meet with Be'eri, the Holy Priest of the Lord".

The chief guard, a Levite, remembering the schedule grunted something, and nodded his head toward the entrance. Menachem gave his expected thanks, and hurried into the main eating area where Be'eri was reclining on a couch, his well adorned garment covering his corpulent frame, and eating one of the largest and delicious looking portions of meat that Menachem had ever seen.

Menachem's stomach rumbled inaudibly, for he had not eaten yet that day. He did not expect any food to be offered to him, for this was holy food, for the priesthood only.

"Yes, yes, I see you. Tell me what you have, Scribe. Show me your very best. But I am warning you, this had better not be the same old stuff that other scribes have tried to sell me. You see that?" The priest waved his plump hand towards several open cabinet, each one full of scrolls. "I have all of the old stories. And while the old stories were fine for the old times, these days are not the days of your grandfather. Something fresh is needed. Something new. Something..." and his voice trailed off, and as if he had forgotten what he had just been saying, the priest returned to his meal.

Menachem walked forward to the eating table that was a bit low, and surrounded by several couches. The Chief priest normally ate alone, and today was no exception. So Menachem took out each of his newly competed scrolls and put them others on the empty couches. He realized that he needed to be a bit dramatic in order to sell the Chief Priest his stories. And if Be'eri bought his stories, the other priests, wanting to emulate him, for that was the way of the priests, would follow.

He pick up one of the scrolls, carefully, as though it were a newborn infant, and place it before the priest, who was now curious. Menachem slowly opened it for effect. The perfectly formed letters with his special formula of ink that glistened even though it was dry, had the desired effect. The leather he used was cured and scraped and buffed by himself by hand, using only the palest of leather. It was a work of art.

"Yes, granted, it's very pretty. Much prettier than most. I'll give you that. But what about the story?"

The priest waited for an answer. Menachem calmed himself, as best he could, and presented his sales pitch, as he had practiced every day since he received the invitation.

"Gracious one, we all know the old stories, of Moses and his people. And for another audience, at another time, the idea of a leader who was quiet in the face of danger, who fell upon his face when confronted, and who cried and was silent when opposed, is not the type of hero that is relevant for today's more discerning reader, such as yourself."

The priest exhaled, and made a non-committal pass of his hand for Menachem to continue.

"What I have her, what I have brought to you, is an updated version of the old stories."

The priest frowned, but Menachem continued, predicting that response.

"But these are not simply the retelling of the stories, but an improvement of the old tales."

Be'eri looked interested, as Menachem picked up the scroll that was before him, unrolled  it, and held it over his head so that the entire text could be seen.

"For example, in this scroll, the worn out story of the spies, where Moses fell on his face and did not try to convince the people to ignore their fears, and where the spies spoke badly about the land, in this version, we have a powerful and dramatic leader who chastises them, with a wonderful monologue, if I may say so myself, and the spies only speak well about the land."

"What about the giants?"

Menachem puts down the scroll and quickly picks up another, holding it open and over his head to show the fine craftsmanship, "Giants? Yes, we have giants. In fact, we have even more giants than the original. People love the part about the giants, and even the Rephaim are gigantic."

Menachem put the scroll away and repeated the process with another.

"And as for songs, and who doesn't love a good song, Moses doesn't simply die quietly, but I have a written special song, dedicated to the life of Moses, a song that I guarantee will excite the reader. Just before he dies, Moses calls out to the heavens, to the land itself, for all of creation to hear the song of his very soul"

Menachem did't bother mentioning that a couple of the other scrolls were not written by him, but were unsold scrolls that his father had written long ago. He didn't bother unfurling them to show the difference in styles. He didn't need to. The priest sat up, and Menachem knew that he had him hooked.

And the 10 minute meeting went on for nearly an hour.

Later...

Menachem arrived home, exhausted. His wife greeted him. His children shouted to him, but continued to play outside.

She asked her husband how it went.

He poured himself a cup of wine that he took from the clay pot on his shelf. He draped his empty sack over the end of his couch and felt the weight of his purse that was tied to his belt and handed it to her.

She cried out, happily, and already started thinking about how this money could be used.

He walked to his front entrance, and looked at his garden.

He raised his cup to the heavens, made a blessing to the Gods.

His wife, standing beside him, asked, "So it went as well as you expected, then?" 

Menachem looked at his small stack of leather sheets, drying outside and replied, "I'm going to need a lot more leather!"

Life was good.

Afterward

This fictional account of Menachem the Scribe is based on the hypothesis that it was the scribes who wrote the stories, who enthralled their elite audiences. And while many scribes were simply literate copyists, and others, based on the evidence found in the remnants of the Dead Sea Scrolls, would tweak the stories to appeal to a different audience, making a verse here and there that put David in a very negative light, to counter that view, perhaps for his own personal bias towards that character, or perhaps for a specific client who was a Davidic fan.

The Book of Deuteronomy is not simply a retelling of the earlier stories, but is a massive rewrite, completely changing what was presented in the narratives by others. It is also more monotheistic, in places.

I am suggesting that this fictional account of Menachem, has far more probability and likelihood than the tale that Moses wrote it himself, especially given how the story opens and ends, telling us that the story was written in the land of Israel, centuries after the death of Moses.

There is a Jewish legend that tells us that the first four books of the Torah were dictated by God, letter for letter, but as for Deuteronomy, Moses wrote that himself and God simply approved.

The story of Menachem is more likely.

Devarim - Deut. 1:1-3:22

The text of Deut. 1:1 begins as follows:

...אֵ֣לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּעֵ֖בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֑ן

These are the words/things that Moses spoke to all of Israel on the other side/beyond the Jordan;

If someone has been studying Torah, then this first sentence should hit him/her right between the  eyes.

The first problem is, of course, that it would be impossible for Moses to speak to all of Israel, especially without loudspeakers and a series of giant screens that spread around the wilderness for miles. It is likely a simple hyperbolic statement, that word got out to the 2-million+ people who were with him.

But the other part of this statement is incredible.

The author of this text is indicating that he resides in the land of Israel, because, from his point of view, Moses was on the other side of the Jordan along with his audience who had not yet crossed it. Furthermore, even though much of the later part of Deuteronomy is all in the first-person form, this introduction is in the third-person past-tense form.

In other words, the author is saying, "Moses didn't write this, and I am chronicling what has been reported that he had said, so long ago."

And what do I mean by so long ago?

After Moses dies, which is several verses prior, Deuteronomy 34:10 tells us:

...וְלֹֽא־קָ֨ם נָבִ֥יא ע֛וֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל כְּמֹשֶׁ֑ה

And there never arose another prophet in Israel like Moses... 

This tells us that the author(s) of this text lived long after Moses, and long after the end of the prophets, where he could write with confidence, that no other prophet in Israel that followed was like Moses.

In other words, the Mishneh Torah, or in Greek, the book of "Deuteronomy", is a late product that was joined to the other four books, none of which claim to have been written by Moses, and one which never mentions him, around the period of the writing of the Septuagint. And this is is one reason why Deuteronomy has some moments of monotheism which the other four books are lacking.

And it's the first line of this book which is rarely cited, but should be, in all religious schools that teach it.

The "5 books of Moses" is not a valid expression. If he existed, he certainly did not write these 5 books, and as a character, he only appears in 4.

It's an interesting tidbit to notice.

 

Masei - Numbers 33:1-36:13

A Less-Than-Omnipotent God

This week, it's a double portion in that the Book of Numbers is completed with the reading of Mattot and Masei.

But before we leave this book, I want to address something that a lot of religious people who believe that the Torah is literally from God will parrot, which is "God is omnipotent, omniscient, and exists outside of time and space".

If you have been following my commentaries, you will have see that if this is true, then the primary God of the Torah is not the God tat they are speaking about. And it certainly wasn't the view of the ancient writers and believers.

And that brings us up to something bizarre in Masei, which is the dictate to build "Cities of Refuge".

As we read in Exodus, someone who had unintentionally harmed a pregnant woman while he was fighting with her husband, and if she miscarried, then he pays a fine. The death of the fetus was considered a financial loss and the father would determine the value. That is the Jewish reading of the text, and it should be noted that abortion is not considered a sin in Judaism, although it is also not encouraged.

Furthermore, if the pregnant woman died as a result, then the man will pay with his life.

Yet, in Numbers we are told that someone who commits manslaughter, unintentionally killing someone, can escape and not fear for his life.

The Exodus verse is a direct lift from the Code of Hammurabi. And if you think that the Numbers verse about the establishment of a City of Refuge is any more ethical when dealing with manslaughter, think again.

In the Exodus verse, the man is put to death by the court - a life for a life.

In the Numbers verse, a relative of the deceased can chase down the person who accidentally caused the death and kill him, providing that he doesn't make it to the City of Refuge in time. And the relative can wait outside for as long as he wants, and if the runaway steps outside, or even (according to the Rabbis) hangs over the top of the wall to pick a piece of fruit that is growing right outside the wall, a spear or an arrow by the relative can kill the runaway and it is perfectly fine.

So the runaway has to reside within those walls for the rest of his life, or until the High Priest dies. And if the High Priest dies, then he can leave and nobody is permitted to kill him.

There is a common trope delivered by many fans of the Torah, which is, "God knew that if He was too strict, that the people wouldn't obey Him, so he permitted some unethical behavior."

Putting someone to death for lighting a fire on the Sabbath isn't strict? Beheading those who lived in a community who refused to be a servant of Yahweh isn't strict? Stoning someone to death for saying something bad about Yahweh isn't strict?

Please!

So God permitted revenge killings because if he prohibited them, people wouldn't want to keep His Torah?

And there are those who will shout "Free will trumps everything!", without reading the Torah where the idea is something that Yahweh stomps upon again and again. According to the text, not only does He interfere with free will repeatedly, and He gets angry practically every time someone exercises it.

God permits a relative to kill someone who accidentally killed his father, for example, because His hands are tied, but God help you if you complain about His food!

The "free will" argument is a red herring invented by modern theists who have to answer the question, "If Yahweh was so involved in everyone's lives where He micro-managed almost everything and would occasionally throw tantrums...where did that God go?

Answer: "God removed Himself so that mankind could exercise free will."

So when did Yahweh become so obsessed with free will? This obsession is not mentioned in the Tanach at all.

So why didn't Yahweh forbid revenge killings?

Like so many odd things in the Tanach, the real answer is: "Because the storytellers and the scribes were making those decisions, and Yahweh was but a character in their stories."

Those who embrace theodicy, however, need an answer to feel better about their God. A typical response is, "God knew it was bad, but He also knew that one day, mankind would reject revenge killings, and so He didn't forbid them at that time."

This is, of course, claiming that the person saying this knows the mind of God and has inside information about His impulses - which he doesn't.

And that leaves us with the final question: Would a God that killed thousands for complaining about His food be incapable of enforcing the prohibition against revenge killings? 

And since he also killed thousands who exercised their free will to demand that Moses be replaced with someone more competent, or wiping out Sodom because He didn't like their behavior, or tweaking Pharaoh to act in ways that were destructive - let's not use the "free will" argument, because if we are talking about Yahweh, that argument falls flat.

The commandments that endorse revenge killings and turn it into an game of cat and mouse are unethical, which is why modern society considers a revenge killing as what it really is - murder.

God permitted some murder because "that's just how things were back then"?

That's not a God.

And today, we're better than that.

Mattot (Part 2) - Numbers 30:2-32:42

There are a few key points that I want to discuss in this week's parashah.

Some Location Issues

In national folklore, as relationships between nations changes, so do the stories. And depending on the scribe of the time, details of the original stories may change, and this is an example.

Remember, Moses has seen the promised land from the other side. The people had already confronted a number of nations, including the Moabites in the Balaam story.

But there's something a bit odd, because, well, look at this map:

If you look at the map, the star is where the Hebrews were. The black line shows their path to Canaan, having to bypass Edom because the king of Edom refused to allow the Israelites passage (historically, Edom was very resistant to the Judeans, and would be forced to convert to Judaism in 125 BCE). I modified the map somewhat to indicate that Aram Naharaim is north of the Euphrates and this is where Balaam lived. The distance between Moab and Midian was about 1,500 kilometers.

I am bringing this up because the Moabites and the Midianites were not exactly neighbors, and yet, in one portion of the story, the Moabites are the ones causing the problem, and yet in another, it's the Midianites who are the hated ones. And while in Midian, the Hebrews, who have no idea who Balaam is, kill him with a sword when he was more than 2,000 kilometers to the north at the time.

And the narrative tells us that when the battle was over (not a single Hebrew died), the 12,000 Hebrew soldiers marched back with 32,000 human captives, 61,000 donkeys, 675,000 sheep, and approximately 150 kilograms of gold. 

What is more likely, that women from Midian made a multi-day travel to meet up with and frolic with the Hebrews by Moab, or that this was fully a Moabite operation with no Midianites involved?

The Moab-Midianite Swap

In three successive Torah portions, the Balaam episode, the Pinchas story, and this week, while the Hebrews are up by Moab, the story keeps bringing up the Midianites. 

With Balaam, you have the Moabite king sending Midianite elders with the Moabite elders (22:7) up north to find Balaam. And while the Moabite elders will be mentioned later with Balaam (22:8), the Midianite elders are never mentioned again.

With Pinchas, it begins by saying that the Hebrews were involved with the Moabite women (25:1). Only in 25:6 is a Midianite woman mentioned, and there are no other mentions of Midionite women. After mentioning this single Midianite woman, a princess, Moses commands the Hebrews to harass and kill the Midianites.

And not a single mention of the involvement of the Moabites. And the Moabites are not mentioned again  for the rest of the Book of Numbers, while the Midianites are being destroyed, killed by the sword, wiped out.

Sort of

A Different Midian

In chapters 6-7 of the Book of Judges, we read that the Midianites were defeating the Hebrews, and that they aligned themselves with the Amalakites (Judges 6:3).

Eventually, with the help of God, the Hebrews are successful, but it is fascinating that the storyteller would have the Midianites not only be referred to as Israel's enemy, but having it join forces with Israel's eternally most hated enemy - the Amalakites.

In the Book of Exodus, Midian is a place where Moses had enjoyed 40 years of his life, and had   no problem that his father in-law was a priest of their God (perhaps Chemosh). And he married a Midianite, and his children were from that stock. His father in-law was his consul for a time, and the God of Israel chose the location of Midian to have His mountain, where Moses would find Him.

What is likely is that, as national folklore, the relationship between Midian changed, and became more adversarial. And so, in contrast to the story in Judges where the Midianites are powerful and tough to beat, in the Book of Numbers, the Israelites easily defeat them, kill everyone, and those that they didn't kill, (32,000), the took back with them, only to have Moses command them to kill a large number of them. To hack the boys to death, and to kill an female who might carry the seed of a Midianite.

These were a people to be hated. In the Book of Numbers, there is absolutely no reason given to hate them all except that a single princes had sex with a Hebrew prince in front of Moses.

That's it.

But as for the Moabites, their women brought idols, and they arrived in large numbers.

And against them, nothing is said.

Not a word.

Conclusion

It is likely that one or more scribes updated the interactions with the Moabits to include the Midianites, and replaced acts that were solely from the Moabites to make them appear as if they were initiated by the Midianites as part of a nationalistic update of the folklore.

The scribe(s) didn't consider the geography problems, nor the inconsistency issues with having Midianites being part of the Moabite story. It didn't matter. 

As for the Moabites, their relationship with Israel would get a boost by having a Moabite descendant become the king of Israel (David), and so ignoring their acts of idolatry and promiscuity wwas simply part of the nationalistic narrative.

In other words, the stories were updated to include nationalistic propaganda.

In the world of politics, some things never change!