Conference taveng::bagels

    Harriet,
    
    I think this is a perfect spot for Judaic Studies 101A.  
    Thank you for offering it and I'll look forward to your
    communications.  
                     
    Best Wishes,
    Bernice

Heck! One of the great themes in Judaism is finding the anachronisms and
inconsistencies in the Torah and extracting hidden meaning from them. I would
bet that anything you find has already been found and discussed at great
length in the Talmud. Personally, I think it's great fun when someone points one
of these out to me.

Dave

    Finding apparent inconsistencies and contradictions has long been a
    Jewish tradition.  What has changed over the course of the last several
    centuries (and especially in the twentieth century) is the way we
    explain them.

    For a period of perhaps two millenia, most Jews accepted the Torah as
    the literal word of God, but since the enlightenment, as we have looked
    more critically at the text, many Jews and non-Jews have come to
    question that tradition.  At this point, most Orthodox and some
    Conservative Jews adhere to the literalist tradition, as do
    Fundamentalist Christians.  Since most Jews are not Orthodox and most
    Christians are not Fundamentalist, I think it is fair to say that the
    bulk of the people you are addressing will not take offense.

    You might find it interesting to read Friedman, _Who Wrote the Bible?_,
    which summarizes much of the scholarship in this area.

                                        Aaron

    Whew! That's a load off my mind. Thanks for the reponses. With comments
    like that I better get an "A" in the course.   I have
    the class every Tuesday and Thursday from 9:30-11:00 a.m. 
    
    Only a few students could find examples of possible anachronisms.
    It was a difficult assignment for me because one had to take into
    account chronological comparisons. The Rabbinic theory infers that
    the Torah was written by one author, Moses, during his lifetime
    (the 13th century, b.c.e.). We were instructed to look at the Torah
    as literature. Cohen professes that the entire Torah could not have
    been comprised in its entirety in c. 13 b.c.e. since at least some
    portions must have been comprised at a later date. Also, it could
    not be comprised by one author because of the divergent and often
    intentional contradictions that come from different schools of thought.
    
    Anachronisms in Gen. (Whoops, I left the bible at home):
    In the theory of creation first story: Man and woman are created
    on the 6th day. In the second story -  Man, everything else, and then
    woman is created. [Notice the different uses of divine names also.
    Why would they be different when Hebrew words for each offer a
    different translation.]
    
    Gen. 12.6 "Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem.
    A the [] of Moses. The Cannanites were then in the land."
    The clue here is the word 'then'.  Ibn Ezra was one of the first
    men who noticed this verse. He said it's possible that Canaan (sp?)
    conquered the land from another people; if not, there is a secret here. The
    one who knows it should remain silent.     
    History states that the Canaanites were natives of Canaan. 
    
    In Gen. 24.14, references domesticated camels. According to present
    archaeological finds camels were not known to be domesticated until
    the 11th century b.c.e.
    
    Deutronomy 34.5: Is it possible that Moses could have written of
    his death? Verse 10 is also problematic - Never again would there
    be a prophet like Moses. Would Moses, a humble man, state that
    about himself? 
    
    There were a few more contradictions, but I didn't place all the
    cites down (e.g. Flood story endings, and numbers of animals from
    ark). I was the lucky one chosen to read allowed all the quotations 
    throughout the class [Socratic method] so wasn't able to take many
    notes. 
    
    We've been learing about an E tradition and a J tradition. I haven't
    yet grasped that concept enough to write about it. It seems that
    Abu Ibu Ibrahim Ibn Yashush, a rabbi who lived in 11th century A.C.E.
    has had something to say about anachronisms.
    
    Well, sorry I can't be too specific. Must rush home and write a
    paper. Our homework assignment is to read/study Exodus 20-23, and
    Deut. 12-26. 
                                                     
    
     
    

>    Our professor is C. Cohen, on loan from a university in Israel (the
>    name escapes me at the moment).

Harriet:

If your professor is Chaim Cohen then you are lucky indeed!

Since he happens to be a friend of mine please say "Hi" to him
for me, ok?    

-Alan Zaitchik

    Righto, It's Chaim Cohen (also goes by Harold), of Ben gurion
    University of Negev.
    
    I will say hi for you.
    
    Harriet

    I did, by the way, look up Friedman's book "Who Wrote the Bible?".
    Unfortunately, someone else had signed it out. The good news is
    that I noticed quite a few books on theological diversity, 
    criticism and analysis. The teaching assistant mentioned that it
    was likely we would end up writing an exam essay on anachronisms.
    So, I'm quite thankful for the reference. The professor is also
    a stickler for dates (this is a student's nightmare). I have the
    opportunity to relive the lecture by listening to tape recordings
    of the classes. 
    
    The book "Jewish People, Jewish Thought", is thorough
    and enjoyable (has pictures!). Seltzer is an "associate professor
    of history at Hunter College of the City University of New York.
    He holds degrees from Washington University, Yale University, the
    Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion, and Columbia
    University, and has studied at Harvard University and the Hebrew
    University in Jerusalem."
    
    A short apology is in order for my rough notes, cliffhangers, 
    and a few typos. I don't know how to use a spell check in NOTES. 
    I have not had Judaic Studies before (I'm a Legal Studies 
    undergraduate). I hope you will bear with me.  
    
    Regards until next week, Harriet.
                                                         

re .4:

>   The Rabbinic theory infers that
>   the Torah was written by one author, Moses, during his lifetime
>   (the 13th century, b.c.e.).

    Not quite.  The traditional view is that the Torah was dictated to
    Moses by G-d.


>   In the theory of creation first story: Man and woman are created
>   on the 6th day. In the second story -  Man, everything else, and then
>   woman is created. [Notice the different uses of divine names also.
>   Why would they be different when Hebrew words for each offer a
>   different translation.]

    Rashi explains that the reason for the second story is to expand
    on the first (i.e. fill in the details).  The reason the animals
    are mentioned between man and woman is to introduce man's naming
    of the animals (which he did before woman was created).

    Each name of G-d represents a different aspect or quality.  Elokim
    represents justice.  The Tetragrammaton represents mercy.
    

>   Gen. 12.6 "Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem.
>   A the [] of Moses. The Cannanites were then in the land."
>   The clue here is the word 'then'.  Ibn Ezra was one of the first
>   men who noticed this verse. He said it's possible that Canaan (sp?)
>   conquered the land from another people; if not, there is a secret here. The
>   one who knows it should remain silent.     
>   History states that the Canaanites were natives of Canaan. 

    I didn't understand this (I think that Moses should be Moreh, a place
    name).  Could you explain?


>   In Gen. 24.14, references domesticated camels. According to present
>   archaeological finds camels were not known to be domesticated until
>   the 11th century b.c.e.

    I can see how archaeology can determine when camels *were*
    domesticated, but how can it determine when they *weren't*?

    
>   Deutronomy 34.5: Is it possible that Moses could have written of
>   his death? Verse 10 is also problematic - Never again would there
>   be a prophet like Moses. Would Moses, a humble man, state that
>   about himself? 

    There are two views on this.  One is that G-d told Moses to write
    about his death and the aftermath, and he did so in tears.  The
    other is that G-d had Joshua write down this section.



    I'm curious as to whose translation of the Torah you're using.
    The ones I'm familiar with are JPS, Hertz (I think this is JPS
    with Hertz's commentary; BTW, he refutes many of the "Bible critics"
    arguments), Soncino, S.R. Hirsch (translated from German into
    English by Hirschler?), and Aryeh Kaplan's "The Living Torah."

    Gerald, 
    
    Thank you for your points (h'mn, is this badgering the student or
    some way of trying to open my inquiring mind). 
    We were told about the Torah being dictated, but also written by
    Moses. I'll have to ask the professor about this because we have
    been comparing contradictions to things that happened in Moses' 
    life time. We did go over that Moses "received" the Torah from Sinai
    (through some sort of mystical means - qbl) and delivered it to
    Joshua, & Joshua to the elders, elders to prophets, prophets to men 
    of the great Synagogue, etc.
    
    The professor has also mentioned Rashi. I don't want to bomb the
    professor with too many questions, perhaps you would be kind enough
    to tell me who Rashi was (at this stage I'm lost without my reference
    books but could find out tomorrow when I reference the J.P.J.T book). 
    
    I haven't learned about "Moreh" yet. Another one for the professor.
    I was sure I heard him reference 'Moses'. The theory upon "The 
    Cannanites were THEN in the land" infers that the Cannanites were
    no longer in the land at the time the document was written. Then
    again, the author could have been contrasting to a period earlier
    than Abraham. Ibn Ezra alludes that this is evidence that this
    could not have been written in 13th century b.c.e. The Cannanites
    were indigenous to Cannan.
    
    Okay, onto camels - you had pointed out that you could "see" how
    archaeology can determine when camels were domesticated, but how
    can it determine when they weren't. Archaeologically, one can
    determine whether a camel was domesticated or wild because it's
    horns change in shape (they become more elliptical as their species
    evolves from domestication). I think that J. Thomas Meyers, in his
    "Combined Theory of Agricultural Origins" would agree with this.
    Of course, it is possible that camels may have been domesticated
    as soon as their potential domesticators were familiar enough
    with them to manipulate them. You can also tell a domesticated
    animal by the remains of female/male ratios. Usually, disproportions
    were made by breeding the animals. Then, again, I suppose we could
    argue the 4 major groups that make up camels: Llamas, Apacas, Guanaco,
    and Vicuna. Guanaco and Vicuna were usually hunted. But, REALLY,
    the reference to camels in the Torah was probably the familiar 
    dromadary type. 
    
    Wouldn't you agree Gerald - that determining that a camel is
    domesticated as above, clearly differentiates it from being wild.
    
    I think I'm using the translation of the Torah by JPS but I can't
    quite recall at the moment. I'll get back to that subject if
    its not by JPS.
    
    Well, I've got another paper to write, so I must depart.
    
    Harriet

Harriet:

    My purpose isn't to badger, but to present (as best as I can) the
    traditional viewpoint, since your professor doesn't seem to be
    doing that.  I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me
    would take up the gauntlet, but no one did, so I'll do my best.

>              We did go over that Moses "received" the Torah from Sinai
>   (through some sort of mystical means - qbl) and delivered it to
>   Joshua, & Joshua to the elders, elders to prophets, prophets to men 
>   of the great Synagogue, etc.

    This refers to the Oral Law as well as the Written Law.  This is
    mentioned in Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot).

>   The professor has also mentioned Rashi. I don't want to bomb the
>   professor with too many questions, perhaps you would be kind enough
>   to tell me who Rashi was (at this stage I'm lost without my reference
>   books but could find out tomorrow when I reference the J.P.J.T book). 

    Rashi was Rabbeinu Shelomo ben Yitzchak.  He lived in Troyes, France
    in the 11th century.  He is generally considered the greatest
    commentator on the Bible and Talmud.

>                 Ibn Ezra alludes that this is evidence that this
>   could not have been written in 13th century b.c.e.

    I don't understand this.  Ibn Ezra certainly believed in the
    divine origin of the Torah.

>   Okay, onto camels ...

    Wow, you sure know a lot about camels!  I'm out of my depth here.

    Hello - thought I would respond in a quick note while taking
    dinner break (I won't have time this evening because I have another
    class).
    
    Gerald, I meant to put a smiley face on my comments about badgering.
    I have to stand up for my professor though - he is quite knowledgable.
    Please don't put a total reflection of the professor through my
    summaries. I'm the one who is negligent for not mentioning all his points.
    Your points were all valid (er, except the camels). 
    
    I did have a transcription error in reference to "Moses" instead of
    "Moreh". Ah ha - that brings me to a point in disputing the rabbinic
    theory. Think of all the scribes that made errors like mine when
    rewriting the Torah.
     
    We had another baffiling but somewhat exciting lecture today. 
    We went over more contradictions in Exodus, Kings
    II, and Deuteronomy (in particular to the laws of the Bible).
    I did have a chance to finally ask, "If these contradictions 
    are true, then what did Moses receive at Mt. Sinai?".
    I was rather confused because I thought we were 'suppose' to believe
    that Moses was the one who wrote the Torah; then, why were we 
    questioning how many authors there were. The professor answered
    that we don't have one complete document of evidence of what Moses
    received at Sinai. And, as Gerald had pointed out, we should 
    understand that Moses received a written and oral Torah (as written
    in the Talmud in the ethics of the fathers). The Torah 
    should be considered an anthology.  Therefore, the oral parts
    were transcribed into written parts, and retranscribed through time
    so people could understand it.  
    
    I'll check my references on Ibn Ezra.
    
    I'll have to relisten to my tapes and extract the evidence on 
    contradictions. Unfortunately, this week is a busy week for me.
    I will be leaving for a Friday seminar on Thursday evening so
    I am unable to write Thursday's class notes this week. 
    
    I am using the JPS translation of the Torah (copyright 1985, updated
    in 1988). There isn't a personal commentary but an overall commentary.
    The professor is going to give his theory to the solution of the
    documentation hypothesis later this week.
    
    Regards, Harriet.

    RE: Note 636.10

    >Ibn Ezra certainly believed in the divine origin of the Torah.

    But not necessarily in the tradition that it is the literal word of God
    written down by Moses.  There are allusions in his writings to other
    ways of interpreting it, but he seems to have been careful never to be
    explicit about these ideas.  In those days, herem meant something!

    As later scholars followed up some of Ibn Ezra's ideas, they began to
    suspect that he was sceptical of the tradition that the Humash was a
    single document.  Some of these scholars were Jewish and some were not.
    One of the latter, Julius Wellhausen, was quite anti-Semitic, and his
    distortions of his research findings tended to discredit critical
    analysis in the eyes of most Jews.  If you read Hertz's biblical
    commentary you will find many passages in which Hertz attacks
    Wellhausen's position.  Refutation of Wellhausen's biases, however, is
    not a refutation of critical analysis.

    The problem is that where you end up depends on where you start out.

    If you start with the belief that the Torah was dictated by God to
    Moses (and possibly a little bit to Joshua), then analysis and
    explanation must focus on the question of "What is it really telling
    us?"  Those apparent contradictions and conflicts cannot be mistakes in
    the writing, but gaps in our understanding.

    If, on the other hand, you start by not assuming a direct divine origin
    or a single document, then the evidence of the text suggests a process
    of accretion over quite a long period of time.  The conflicts and
    contradictions are exactly that and reflect different points of view
    and different interpretations of history.

    I submit that both of these approaches can be rewarding and provide a
    valuable understanding of Judaism.

                                                Aaron

    Anachronisms, eh?
    
    In Genesis 2:10-14 is a description of four rivers, made confusing
    for us because we think of "it divided" as something that only
    happens in going from upstream to downstream.  Not so the ancients.
    The "Hiddekel" is the Tigris, and it never joined/divided from the
    Euphrates until about the fifth century b.c.e., so that's an
    anachronism.
    
    The entire story of Adam, Eve, the Tree, the Fruit and the Serpent
    is anachronistic.  (Eh? you ask.)  You see, this very colorful and
    compelling story is mentioned nowhere else in the Old Testament;
    it only shows up in the New.  On the other hand, it might have been
    doctrine that was ignored by most people, just as most Babylonians
    held to Mammitu even when they were supposed to worship Marduk,
    but this is less likely.
    
    You did notice that Noah (sometimes) distinguished between kosher
    and unclean animals, didn't you?
    
    More suble is Moses' basket.  It was made of bulrushes, caulked
    with bitumen and pitch.  However, bitumen was unknown in Egypt until
    the second century b.c.e..  The story is actually cribbed from a
    legend about Sargon of Agade (who started the Tower of Babel).
    
    						Ann B.

    I'd be very cautious about some of those dates.
    
    1.  As far as I know, even wild camels don't have horns.
    	Did you possibly mean sheep?
    
    2.	Because all domesticated camels currently have feature X,
    	it does not follow that early domesticated camels had feature
    	X.  Further, if all wild camels had feature Y, the first
    	domesticated camel woulds also have had feature Y, and it
    	would take several generations to breed that trait out.

    3.	"Bitumen" is asphalt/crude oil, which in ancient times
    	was widely available at seeps on the surface in the Middle
    	East.  But that's today's definition.  I doubt we can rely
    	on a ancient text to carefully distinguish between imported
    	asphalt, imported resin, native resin and native wax-oil
    	mixes.  "Sticky and waterproof" is about all we can
    	know about the "bitumen" of Moses' basket.
    
    	In Indo-European linguistics, there are long argument about
    	the exact meaning of tree and fish names.  Some of them
    	presume that the Indo-Europeans were keener observers of
    	nature than current-day taxonomists, and that migrants did
    	not apply old terms to similar but not identical species in
    	the new lands (e.g. as English settlers in New England did
    	with "robin").
    
    	My doubts about the linguistic work lead me to doubt the
    	equally picky use of "bitumen" to date a document.
    	
			-John Bishop

    A question.  If the Torah is considered to be a sometimes-flawed,
    sometimes-self-inconsistent human document that evolved over centuries
    over many authors and editors, then to what extent can we consider
    the events recorded in them to be historical?  I'm thinking of events
    like:  the "fall" of Adam and Eve, the Flood, the Exodus from Egypt,
    with all the accompanying miracles, etc, etc.
    
    This question is of more than historical interest.  These events
    recorded in the Torah have tremendous theological implications.
    In fact, most events in the biblical narratives are included with
    the intention of illustrating a point concerning G-d and His
    relationship with man and His chosen people.
    
    For example, the expulsion from Eden shows G-d's justice (and mercy
    as well -- that's a topic for another day), as does the Flood story.
    The entire Exodus recounts tremendous miraculous acts by G-d to
    deliver His people.  The purpose?  To show the nations the power
    and glory of G-d.  (The exact verse references elude me).  Whether
    or not you believe this, these are the stated purposes in the text
    of the narratives.
    
    So the question is, if the accounts are flawed, then to what extent
    is there still a basis for our knowledge of G-d Himself?  What is
    the source of our knowledge about the G-d of the Bible, then?  Does
    it come from our rational faculties only?  Does that suffice?
    
    I have tried to pose these questions as fairly as I can.  I hope
    the responses will be in the same spirit!
    
    Morgan

    re .15:
    
    Paraphrased and made more general, the question is "if a holy
    writing is produced and maintained by a flawed process (and
    flawed people), how can it be believed?"
    
    The usual answer is that the "flaws" are inspired as well as the
    original writing.
    
    I once knew a Christian Fundamentalist woman, who maintained that
    the King James Bible was true and holy, despite being translated
    from Latin and Greek, which themselves were often translations 
    of other languages.  This did not bother her, as she believed that
    both the original authors and the translators had been inspired.

    This a perfectly consistent posture, but now you have exchanged
    the problem of picking a scripture ("which one of these books
    claiming to be true is actually the true one?") for the larger
    problem of picking a set of authors and editors ("which historical
    sequence of authors, translators and editors was inspired to
    create the true book?"), and added the new problem of knowing
    when the process is over ("How will we know when the book is done?
    How do we know whether the next inspired translator still has to
    come along?").

    Theology is still trying to integrate textual analysis, and
    I don't think there are a lot of definitive answers.
    
    One other attempt at an answer is a more pragmatic one: if
    your document says that there is a city at location A, go to
    A and dig.  If you find a city there, then you know something
    about the date of the document, and you've also discovered that
    the document is telling the truth in that area.  The more such
    confirmation you can get, the more trust you can place in the
    document.  This is a reason for much of the interest in 
    archaeology.
    
    The Old Testament has been a good guide for archaeologists,
    and much of its history and geography has been confirmed by
    excavation and by reference to other documents written at
    about the same time.  Such confirmation of the more "everyday"
    parts may make you happier about the more remarkable parts.
    Or again, it may not.
    
    			-John Bishop

    John,
    
    Whether the term means bitumen, tar, pitch, or asphalt does not
    matter.  Sticky-but-not-water-soluble-stuff-that-comes-out-of-the-
    ground was entirely unknown in Egypt before the Ptolomys.
    
    What was known was "Moses", which is an Egyptian word meaning "child",
    and which is part of such pharaohs' names as Ra-moses and Thut-moses.
    
    You should read the stories about Sargon of Agade someday.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re:.15
    In the Jewish tradition (which of course may differ from those
    religions which may have chosen to adopt certain text of Judaic
    origin), literalness is not important.  You don't have to understand
    every detail to get the message!  Every detail has a meaning, but
    it doesn't mean that the meaning is clear to every reader, or for
    that matter to any reader!  Adam and Eve, for example, aren't
    necessarily (or likely to be) historical people, but the story is
    rife with meanings.

    Of course, translations are taken with a grain of salt, too.
    They're useful, but real scholarship takes place in the original
    language. 

    I like to think of it as a perfectly valid mythology.  (Of course,
    the semantics of "myth" have gotten slurred, so people think of
    other peoples' myths and insist that they don't have any, but I
    use the concept to refer to a type of non-literal truth.)

    Re .17:
    
    Ann, the leap of faith I'm objecting to is the "comes-out-of-the
    ground" part.  If you know that the "bitumen" referred to really
    did come out of the ground, and you know that such substances did
    not occurr in pre-Ptolemaic Egypt, then the Moses story cannot
    be really about Moses.
    
    A skeptic however would have to ask some questions.
    
    How do you know that the stuff used wasn't a mixture of wax
    and oil (like a stiff version of facial cream without the water),
    or pine pitch?
    
    Just the name "bitumen" alone is insufficient, as presumably
    that part of the story was extracted from the servant who made
    the basket, who might have spoken Egyptian, Nubian or some random
    language (if a foreign slave).  The story requires that it be
    sticky and waterproof, but not that the stuff come out of the
    ground.
        
    How do you know that asphalt-type bitumen was not known during
    the time of Moses?  Archaeological evidence can only tell us
    when something did exist, not when it did not (thus if you find
    stone tools in Scotland in a layer ten thousand years old, you
    know that there were people there ten thousand years ago.  But
    if you find no stone tools in Iowa in a layer ten thousand years
    old, that does not prove that no people were there, only that 
    if there were people there, they did not drop stone tools in the
    place you were looking).
    
    On the other hand, if your proof of non-existence is some document
    from Ptolemaic Egypt saying "Yesterday I saw some stuff called
     'bitumen' which I have never heard of before," that does not 
    prove that it had not been know before that time to some Egyptians,
    but the knowledge was lost or local.
    
    Now, I suspect that the story parallels with Sargon of Akkad (I
    assume "Agade" = "Akkad", and it's just a variant spelling) are
    real.  But if you're going to be skeptical of revealed scripture,
    you should not respond by excessive veneration of the critics.
    
    I don't wish to nit-pick about "bitumen" until all the readers are
    asleep.  I trust however it is an instructive example of some of the
    troubles in using a document to date itself.
    
			-John Bishop

    RE 636.15

    >If the Torah is considered to be a...human document...then to what 
    >extent can we consider events recorded in them to be historical?

    The answer is, we can't.  They were not written down as history.  They
    were written (as stated in .15)
    >                                                         with
    >the intention of illustrating a point concerning G-d and His
    >relationship with man and His chosen people.

    For me, they represent the human search for the divine rather than
    divine revelation to humanity.  Specifically, the Tanach records part
    of the search by the people of Israel--my people--to understand the
    world and their place in it.  Over time, as we learned more and became
    more sophisticated, our ideas developed and changed, and we edited our
    texts to reflect this changed understanding.

    We invented a way of representing the divine that fulfilled our needs
    at the time.  As our needs changed, so did our concept.  Even our
    liturgy reflects this, for the traditional amidah (standing) prayer
    starts with reference to the "God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the
    God of Jacob," not "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."  This was
    the rabbinical recognition that each person can have a different
    understanding of what God means.
         Note:  I am not asserting anything about the existence or
         non-existence of God in this paragraph.  I _am_ asserting that
         our descriptions of God and God's attributes are human
         inventions with which we try to deal with our understanding
         of divinity.

    Because of my concept of the origin and development of these documents,
    I regard them as a sacred legacy of my people, containing much wisdom
    and historical lore.  Frankly, the fact that I don't believe in the
    literalness of the creation story, in no way lessens my regard for the
    moral/religious truth it teaches (e.g. that we should regard the saving
    or destruction of one human being as equivalent to the saving or
    destruction of the all of humanity).  The fact that I may "know" more
    about the world because the sum total of human knowledge has increased
    over time does not mean that I regard my predecessors as stupid.

    At the same time, because I do not regard these documents as being of
    divine authorship, I do not feel that I am limited by them.  Where
    appropriate I feel that we can--indeed we are obligated by our
    tradition--to build on them and develop further.  In short, they are
    not something to discard lightly, but neither are they necessarily the
    repositories of unchanging truths.  They are, if anything, approaches
    to Truth.

    Now, as far as historicity is concerned, the Tanach may tell
    me more about the situation of the editors than about the ostensible
    object of the story.  For instance, as I study the texts, I find myself
    increasingly skeptical that Abraham ever existed, but feeling that the
    circumstances of the Judaism of the later monarchy and Babylonian exile
    required the hypothesizing of an Abraham-type in order to "explain"
    what was happening.  (BTW, the same examination gives me the feeling
    that Jacob was a real historical character, although not necessarily
    the same person as Israel.)  For me, these writings are an extremely
    valuable part of my history and their study is important as a way of
    identifying my place in that history.

    Aaron

re .20:

>         Note:  I am not asserting anything about the existence or
>         non-existence of God in this paragraph.  I _am_ asserting that
>         our descriptions of God and God's attributes are human
>         inventions with which we try to deal with our understanding
>         of divinity.

    For those who do accept the divine authorship of the Torah,
    the parallel is that G-d is presented in anthropomorphic terms
    for the same reason.

>                          For instance, as I study the texts, I find myself
>    increasingly skeptical that Abraham ever existed, but feeling that the
>    circumstances of the Judaism of the later monarchy and Babylonian exile
>    required the hypothesizing of an Abraham-type in order to "explain"
>    what was happening.  (BTW, the same examination gives me the feeling
>    that Jacob was a real historical character, although not necessarily
>    the same person as Israel.)

    Could you explain further?

    More on the bitumen rathole:

    Ibn Ezra (and others) say the stuff was "red clay."  The same word is
    used in Genesis in the story the building of the Tower of Babel
    (it was used as mortar), and in the story of the war with the
    kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (they fell into pits of it while trying
    to escape).  Asphalt pits existed around the Dead Sea.  The Romans
    called it Mare Asphaltum.

    Since I doubt that you'd use asphalt as mortar, my guess is that
    it's a generic term for sticky stuff.

    re: 636.21

    >For those who do accept the divine authorship of the Torah,
    >the parallel is that G-d is presented in anthropomorphic terms
    >for the same reason.

    Yes.  Even though we approach this from different sides, I think we
    understand each other.

    With respect to my comments on Abraham, let me try to give a thumbnail
    response for now.

    One of the things that I find striking in the Neviim (Prophets) and the
    Ketuvim (Writings) is the frequent mention of Jacob and Israel and the
    relative paucity of references to Abraham.  Comparing the descriptions
    of Abraham and Jacob/Israel in the Bible, I am struck by the
    three-dimensionality of the latter compared to the former.  The
    outstanding characteristic of Abraham is his faith.  Beyond a few minor
    lapses, he is portrayed as virtually perfect.

    In the later stages of the monarchy, and especially during the Exile,
    there must have been serious questioning of Israel/Judah's position in
    the world and whether it had any future.  The signs, after all, pointed
    to our being abandoned by "our" deity.  In this context, two things
    became important:  universalizing our concept of God, which enabled us
    to attribute our misfortune to "our" deity, since He controlled
    everything (i.e. the universal God, not one or more of the Babylonian
    deities, did this), and providing hope for the future by finding
    promises in our past that guaranteed that, despite everything, we would
    not be abandoned.  Both of these were essential for our survival as a
    people.

    The Abraham stories provided both these elements, and reading them
    repeatedly, I find myself wondering if they provide anything else.  In
    short, the more I examine them, the more they strike me as something
    that may have started out as a kind of midrash specifically to account
    for conditions in the exile, and only later have been incorporated
    directly into the text.  (Actually, it is more complicated than that,
    since elements of the stories probably existed prior to the Exile, but
    not in the form we have them now.)

    I realize that this is a pretty superficial summary, but it's all I
    have time for right now (and perhaps all anyone else wants to read :^) ).
    If there is interest in discussing this further, I'll try to expand on 
    it.

    Aaron

    Harriet,
    
    Thank you so much for starting this note...It has been years (many)
    since I have been so priveleged to 'eaves-drop' on one of my favorite
    topics of discussion.
    
    THe people who have been responding  have not been 'showing off',
    but rather in the true tradition of my people discourse and discuss
    [much as your legal training] to sharpen the mind and dig deeper
    for the truth.  What you did NOT realize was that you were really
    creating anoather seminar [my personal thanks again] ina the truest
    tradition of the course you were studying...And I bet you thought
    you would get some answers to problems!
    
    Please continue this note...MY education has been sadly neglected
    for a very long time. [And no comments from the 'rabbinic gallery'!]
    
    Keep up the good work.
    
    Betty
    

    Thanks to everyone (Betty). It's all pretty interesting. I've been out for
    the last couple of days. I have to rewrite and look over some more
    notes. One great thing about being at UMASS is the exposure to
    diverse professional people. I talked to an anthropologist this morning
    and said I feared I made a mistake as to a ancient camel's physique.
    He did reiterate that it was a camel's new boundary
    other than wild environment, and gender ratio that could determine
    whether the wild beasts were domesticated (and no, camel's don't
    have horns of course).  
    
    So, if you really need this Bitumen discussion ended I could dig
    up an archaelogist's opinion next Monday or Wednesday. I'm also taking 
    an Ancient Civilizations Course which helps me correlate some of 
    things I learn about in Judaic Studies. 
            

    Okay - on to another lecture: Biblical Theory, Wellhausen, etc.
             
    CLASSICAL CRITISM OF BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP, by J. Wellhausen
    
    Religion is popular		J&E		9-8 b.c.e
    not repressive		|		no law against Bamot
    				|		Canaanite influence
    				|
    				|      622/1 b.c.e. written under influence
    				|      of Amos (1st monotheist). Just
    Religion is more		D      as there is only 1 G-d, there's
    formalistic & monotheistic  |      one place to worship - temple in
                                |      Jerusalem
    				|
    				P
    				|
                                Christ
    
    Wellhausen was a 19th century scholar from Germany. J&E traditions
    were based on the use of divine names (YH-H would start off with
    the J sound in German, hence the J tradition: Eloh-m - tradition E).
    One school would date the Bible by stating divine name was used
    at the very beginning of time, the other tradition
    states it came into use only at the time of Moses.  One author would
    use the name consistently "L-rd" and the other "G-d". So, scholars
    separated the verses into columns according to divine names and
    called them documents J & E (this was before Welhausen - Spinoza
    was the first one to notice contradictions in the divine names,
    Astruc was the first who correlated and talked about 2 different
    documents). Dewitt (1805) related the lost book of Deuteronomy to
    the one written in II Kings 22,23. He called it "Document D". Dewitt
    thought that someone in 7 b.c.e wrote the entire book of Deuteronomy.
    [By the way scholars today use the words "traditions" or "sources" instead
    of the word "document"].  So we now how 3 documents (J, E, D) of
    the entire Torah.
    
    In approx. 1853 Hupfeld took a look at the verses included in the
    E document and said they had a different character. So he took a
    subsection and called it "Document P", the priestly code. He contended
    they had a priestly nature (e.g. laws, genealogy, etc). 
    
    Graf (1865) attempted to deal with historical questions of how he
    could use the documents to determine the history of Israel (of events
    and religion). Graft thought about dating the documents. He said
    the order JEPD is wrong; and the order JEDP is right.  Graft claimed
    Doc. P had to be dated after the destruction of 1st Temple (after
    587/6 b.c.e. in the beginning of the 2nd Temple 538. The first Temple
    period is 621/622 b.c.e.).
    
    O.K. we haven't reached Wellhausen yet. Wellhausen worked with the
    theories of the other scholars. In the 19th and early 20th century
    new disciplines had to have a major theory (e.g. Physics: Plutonium,
    Evolution: Darwin). Biblical Scholarship did not have a theory so
    was not recognized as a discipline. Wellhausen came up with a theory.
    
    When we look at the timeline of Judaic religion we see that the
    further back you go, the more liberal the religion was. As one
    advances, the more repressive the religion became (e.g. based on
    Hegel's application of Darwin's theory on through philosophy and
    social sciences). Wellhausen used Hegel's approach in Biblical studies.
    The historical value of the documents of the Torah is not with respect
    to the period described in the document but rather only in respect
    to the period of the author of the document. Wellhausen came up
    with the supposition that Israel's history begins only in the period
    of the Judges 1200 b.c.e.
    
    The 2nd Temple was destroyed in 587/586 b.c.e. The religion survived
    among the exiled. But it continued as a different religion. It is
    here that Wellhausen adopts his hypothesis with respect to Document
    P. Everything expressed in Document D was seen as wrong. When G-d
    allowed the Babylonians to destroy the Temple then it must mean people
    had sinned a great sin. They needed to find a new way - Document
    P. The government state became a theocracy. Document P is laden
    with guilt. Religion is repressive. 
    
    This is what gave the Church what it needed to replace Judaism with
    Christianity. There had to be a new chosen people. [Wellhausen did
    not like the church of the day.  Wellhausen thought that only the
    shipwreck of national pride (destruction of Temple) could have given
    rise to individual retributions of the books of Job, Proverb...
    etc.] 
    
    P.S. We will have another theory tomorrow that shoots down Wellhausen's.
    
         
    				

    I assume your professors have mentioned to you the "competing"
    temples?  There was (for example) a temple on Elephatine Island
    at Aswan, Egypt.  The temple served a community of Jewish
    mercenaries who manned the border guard there.  At the time
    (alas, I can't remember the date) the Jewish soldiers clearly
    thought there could be more than one temple.
    
    There were other temples in Palestine competing with the one
    in Jerusalem.  Samaria sticks in my mind in this connection,
    but I'm fuzzy on the details.
    
    Isaac Asimov has written _Isaac_Asimov's_Guide_to_the_Bible_
    (or some similar title), which is a readable and clear presentation
    of the current standard set of ideas about the history and
    politics behind the texts.
    
    				-John Bishop

    John, the professor did not mention "competing" temples. He alluded
    to the destruction and rebuilding of the "Jewish" temples to clarify
    other points (e.g. that all the temples were destroyed and later
    one was rebuilt). When you mentioned the community in Egypt, perhaps
    they were exiled from Israel at the time or you were referring to
    a time before the destruction of the first temple. I don't have dates to 
    reference at the moment. I don't have an argument without references
    to dates. I think it would be likely for competitive temples during
    the period of the 12 tribes of Israel/Juda.
    
    I was told that in 538 b.c.e. Syrus issued a proclamation that allowed
    Judeans to return to Israel and rebuild temple (Chron. II, last
    verse).    
    
    I need to read more history before I can comment effectively.
    
    Harriet

    John,
    
    I managed to do some reading in Jewish People, Jewish Thought over
    the weekend. The author states tht Jeroboam I built two shrines
    to compete with the Jerusalem Temple, one at Dan in the far north
    and one at Bethel in the south.
    
    It's amazing that the Jewish religion survived through the time
    periods when other national powers (e.g. Rome, Egypt...) were
    pushing their religions on the Jewish people. 
    
    Harriet

    Please excuse my absence. I have been studying for midterms.
    
    I still intend to get back to theories of the authors of the
    Bible, however we are now covering something else that sparks
    an interest. We have been comparing the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)
    with other documents from the Ancient Near East. We are trying
    to correlate and proove the Bible has some historic authenticity.
    
    Thus far we have been comparing the Mesopotamian (?Akkadian) epics
    of Enuma Elish and The Epic of Gilgamesh. I'm absolutely dumbfounded
    over the similarities in Genesis. Enuma Elish is an epic which,
    in part, describes the story of creation. The creation of the 
    world and gods. Gilgamesh, in part, tells the story of a flood
    and a hero Utnapishtin who builds an ark, fills it with animals,
    and later gets stuck on a mountain top. I can give you exact quotes
    if you would like. 
    
    As an example, G-d said "let there be light". Marduk, of the epic
    said "Let it appear" and the constellations appeared. That's not
    a very good example. The concept is important - "Ex-nihilo creation"
    which means creation from nothing.  The authors had a logical 
    problem to describe nothing and existence from nothing. 
    
    The overall scope is to imagine that there are similar traits in
    most of the Ancient Near East texts and to question how they
    came about to be similar.  Perhaps with so many similarities it
    may be proof that some Biblical events did actually take place
    and have divine intervention (for the skeptics out there).
    
    Harriet
          

    We talked about Gilgamesh in religious school classes when I was
    a tyke.  Indeed many Jewish legends have corresponding ones in other
    traditions.  Correlating these to history is an interesting exercise
    for the historian or anthropologist.  But it's not particularly
    relevant to a Jewish analysis; Judaism is not fundamentalist.
    
    Disregarding the Jewishness of it, you might find interesting "Joseph
    Campbell and the Power of Myth", which has been running on public
    TV (WGBH) this week.  Last night, for instance, he discussed human
    sacrifice around the world, which persisted in some places (New
    Guinea comes to mind) into this century.  (Of course it still persists
    in many places, but that's getting into politics.)  Cultures from
    many places told the same myth in different ways, and Campbell drew
    close analogies to Christian mythos as well.  That's not to say
    that the cocoanut tree _really_ came about from a water snake who
    became a boy and asked the young woman to kill him and plant his
    head (note the eyes on the cocoanut?), but human experiences tend
    to have a lot in common worldwide, and similar stories do pop up
    rather independently.