Faith in Judaism

Roy, the Rabbi means that there is no certainty in any field, but rather probability (what is probable). Link to the notebooks:
https://mikyab.net/כטבים/מחברות-בעניניאי-עמון/

The fifth notebook talks about Judaism, but note that there is significance to the fact that we know that there is a God even before tradition (the first notebooks), this makes the revelation much more probable (certainly with morality).

Hello. Thanks for the answer Shmuel.
I read part of the fifth notebook. I also read about the ‘break in tradition’. The rabbi didn't really specify whether the tradition is continuous or whether there are breaks in it?
In addition, what is the book that Josiah found? I would be happy if the rabbi simply answered me here.
I have another question. As mentioned, there is the transmission of the Torah from Moses to Joshua, from Joshua to the elders, from the elders to the prophets, until the signing of the Mishnah by Shimon the righteous.
But is there really a basis for this transmission? How did the sages know that there was a transmission between them at all?
Thank you.

Both biblical scholars and Rashi explain that he only found the Book of Deuteronomy, so in any case it is not the entire Torah. Besides, imagine that today an ancient book has been found that says that we were commanded by God a thousand years ago to jump on our right foot every morning, and if there is no wrath upon us, is it conceivable that anyone would start obeying the book today? Of course not. From this it is clear that they had knowledge of the Torah and tradition, the patriarchs and the giving of the Torah, and we need to discuss what exactly shocked the king.

Perhaps M (one of the most knowledgeable commenters here) can help more with this.

The Book of Deuteronomy was known before the time of Josiah, that's for sure. You see this from the commandments of the Book of Deuteronomy that were kept before this discovery, from earlier quotations from it, from the language of the book, and many other reasons that appear among various scholars. So what did Josiah find? If the book was known before then it could have been the original manuscript that was lost, and this is a possible and plausible interpretation of the text. It certainly wasn't an initial discovery of the Torah scroll. This approach was once common in research but is not accepted today (except for a few atheist websites that like to quote 19th century biblical criticism and don't keep up with 20th century criticism).

Regarding the antiquity of the Toshveh, there is good evidence of the existence of ancient halakhic traditions among the people of Israel. Do they prove the specific chain? They don't. But they show that there was such a tradition.

We could go on and on, but for now, that's enough.

Regarding the “counter-evidence” lack of arguments or anything else you mentioned, here is a concrete claim and we'll move on from there.

The crossing of the moon by Muhammad, and we see today that almost all Muslims believe that Muhammad did indeed cross the moon in two.

So if such a significant event for which there is no supporting evidence but only contradictory evidence (in such a case where there is no supporting evidence, it is contradictory),
and they still managed to instill this lie into a huge group of several billion. From this, the argument of the tradition is proven to fall apart completely.

M
What you write is simply not true, but was written with excessive self-confidence. Even today it is accepted that the Book of Deuteronomy was composed in the days of Josiah (perhaps there were beginnings earlier, but then it was published as a book). You can read about it in Alexander Rofa, for example. Perhaps you refer to Cassuto as the biblical critic of the 20th century, but he is a minority opinion that is completely invalid (I am discussing here what the position of the research is, not what the truth is, and in this there is no doubt that his opinion is completely invalid).
I am also not clear about which early quotes of his you are talking about. Perhaps you are referring to what is called the Deuteronomistic editing of the books of the prophets. Your other claims are also vague claims that refer to unknown sources that have been proven.

My friend Yishai, I have a feeling that you don't know who you are talking to (it could of course also be the other way around)… according to the above excessive self-confidence, Mr. To the point: 1. I know Rofe as a doctor. 2. You can find the unknown quotes in the Biblical Encyclopedia, Hebrew or any other research literature and the question is whether their arguments hold up or not. 3. Of course, it's not just Cassuto but also Greenitz, Hoffenheimer, Lever, Lionstam, Segal, Hoffman and many more. As you said – only Cassuto (is it possible that you are saying this just because he is the only one Rofe refers to in his book?). 4. Indeed, the new study does not attribute Deuteronomy to Moses but to a later period, but the discussion was not whether the entire Book of Deuteronomy is prior to the days of Moses, but whether it was first written by Josiah. And here I argue that the statements that the entire book is from his time no longer hold water (for example, – does a doctor attribute the Azinu to the days of Josiah – we both know that it does not). Edits and additions are not of the essence because the question is whether this is an invention of Shephan and his ilk or is it an ancient book that existed before them. 5. The Deuteronomistic editing (which is of course structured as a complete tautology – every time there is something that refutes the theory, they say that only this part is late and ignore the argument. Nice proof) obviously has difficulty dealing with the linguistic layers of the book and the infinite literary parallels that no editing simply can handle. Regarding the claims that Deuteronomy was written late in the days of Josiah (edited from an article by my friend Gili Stern): 1. The Book of Deuteronomy never uses the name of Jerusalem, but mentions in all the numerous instances only "the place that the Lord will choose". If the Book of Deuteronomy was really written only towards the end of the First Temple period, it is very difficult to understand why it does not explicitly emphasize the choice in Jerusalem. 2. Although the book speaks a lot about the place of choice, there is not a single mention in it of the house of choice - the Temple. Although the ascent to the place of choice is conditional on "rest and inheritance", it is not conditional on the kingdom or the house of cedars, which is not mentioned in the Book of Deuteronomy even in a hint. 1 It is difficult to believe that a book written in the depths of the royal period would omit any mention of the Temple. Especially if it is its main focus. 3. DeWatt's hypothesis gives disproportionate weight to the issue of opposition to the worship of God outside the place chosen by God, compared to the minor position of the issue in Josiah's revolution, on the one hand, and in the Book of Deuteronomy, on the other. 4. The main concepts and terms of the "Josiah reform" and the Book of Kings do not appear at all in the Book of Deuteronomy. 5. There is no mention in the entire Book of Deuteronomy of the sin of apostasy to other gods, which occupies a place at the top of Jeremiah's rebukes and also in the prophecy of the prophetess Huldah, a contemporary of his. 6. The conquest of the land and the treatment of the natives: The scriptures that speak of the conquest of the land and command the boycott of the Canaanites are not appropriate for the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. Moreover, this command had no meaning even in the first generation of judges, and even less so in the days of David. 7. What is said about the hypothesis that the Mishneh Torah is relevant to the days of Josiah when its commandments to exterminate the Canaanites and Amalekites, who had long since become extinct, were out of date, like a law in New Jersey today that offered a reward for killing wolves and bears, or like a royal proclamation in Great Britain that commanded the expulsion of the Danes. 8. The geography of Canaan: The demand and promise to conquer the land from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates indicates that the book was indeed written in the era of the conquest of the land. Kaufman has already acknowledged that after Chapter 3 in the Book of Judges there is no mention of this border, and that this promise was not fulfilled even in the days of David (for he did not conquer the remaining Canaanite lands within the boundaries of the land, and he also ruled over lands whose conquest the Torah expressly forbade, such as Edom and Moab). In addition, according to the geographical record in Deuteronomy, the Amorites are the ones who live on Mount Senir (Deuteronomy 3:9) and the Arameans have not yet arrived. During the time of Saul and David, the Arameans live there. Hence, the description that Hermon is inhabited by Amorites also indicates the antiquity of the book. 9. Joshua, written in a deuteronomistic style, calls the area from Lebanon to the Euphrates River the “land of the Hittites” (Joshua 1:4), a term that had no meaning since the Philistines and their allies invaded and destroyed these lands, and even more so later, when the Arameans settled there. From this we can conclude that it was indeed written in the 12th-13th centuries BCE. 10. Ancient decrees: When Samuel commanded the war against Amalek (1 Samuel 15), he relied on the decree in Deuteronomy (25:17-19). The commandment that exists only in the Book of Deuteronomy, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, and children shall not be put to death for their fathers; a man shall die for his sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16), is fulfilled by Amaziah the son of Joash when he did not put to death the sons of those who struck his father, “as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord commanded” (2 Kings 14:6). Amaziah was much older than the days of Hezekiah and Josiah, and hence the Book of Deuteronomy, which is the source of the commandment he cites, predates their days. In the Book of Samuel (chapter 14), it is narrated that Israel slaughtered cattle and sheep after they were tired and hungry from the prolonged fast in their war with the Philistines. And wasn't the slaughter of profane meat permitted only in the Book of Deuteronomy - until then, all eating of meat was conditional on its being sacrificed whole before the altar. And Huzen and Kaufman claimed that according to what is narrated later, that Saul was angry with them and erected a large stone for them to sacrifice on, it is proven that at that time they were still sacrificing whole, and this is because the Book of Deuteronomy, which permitted the eating of profane meat, did not yet exist. But these scholars were wrong, since the described act takes place at night, and at night it is forbidden to offer a sacrifice, both in Israel and among the nations in general. From this it is proven that they did not intend their sacrifice to be a sacrifice but to eat profane meat, according to the permission of the Book of Deuteronomy - which therefore preceded the days of Saul (Shaul's anger stemmed from another reason - from the fact that they ate the meat with the blood, something that was forbidden in the Torah (Leviticus 19:26), and not from eating profane meat, which, as stated, was already permitted). 11. Geoffrey Tagay, in his scholarly commentary on Deuteronomy, Mikra LeIsrael, lists a number of decrees whose existence or absence refutes the hypothesis that the book was composed during the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah. He writes: “However, it seems that many elements of the book are much older than this. The laws of Deuteronomy reflect a society that was less advanced than that of Judah in the seventh century BCE, a society that was mostly farmers and shepherds (see 14:22-29; 15:19-23; 22:2; 10 and more). These laws do not contain instructions for merchants, artisans, a professional army, or those with other professions. There are no laws regulating trade, real estate, written contracts, or commercial loans (to the extent that loans are mentioned, these are individuals in financial distress who are forced to borrow for their livelihood; see 15:1-11; 23:21, and their commentary (2 Samuel 3:1-3). There is no mention of royal officials or of the authority of the monarchy to impose taxes, confiscate property, or conscript its subjects for forced labor, in contrast to the “law of the king” in 1 Samuel 8:11-17. Even the monarchy itself is mentioned only once, as a purely representative institution whose foundation is a matter of possession and which is devoid of any social authority or role (17:14-20). Even the expectations of justice and social justice that hang on the king according to 2 Samuel 23:3 are lacking. Isaiah 11:1-5; Jeremiah 22:2-5; Psalms 12. The government does not have strong enough enforcement powers to save an unintentional murderer from blood vengeance on the part of the victim's family, and therefore he must flee to a city of refuge in order to be saved (19:1-13). Nor does the legislation of Deuteronomy contain legal solutions for the disadvantaged and oppressed: in this regard, the book must be content with a recommendation to treat them with compassion and a warning that they may call upon God for help against those who oppress them (15:9; 24:15). These and similar lines are characteristic of all the collections of laws in the Bible. The society they reflect is primarily that of the period of the Judges. 12. In the law prohibiting the eating of unclean animals (Deuteronomy 14), there is no mention of the name of the horse. Horses were then only in royal chariots (“Pharaoh's chariot horse” – Exodus 14:9) and were completely foreign to the people. In other words, the horses that arrived in the land during the time of King Solomon were not remembered at the time these laws were given, because they preceded them. 13. In the book of Deuteronomy, the status of the Levite is still the status of the poor, the orphan, and the stranger (see 14:29; 16:11 and more), a situation that continued until the time of the Judges. We find the Levites in this status again only in Judges (17:7-13; 19:1) – during the time of the conquest of Laish by the Danites and during the time of Pelegash on the hill. After this period, the Levites established themselves in the high places and temples as priests, and remained priests forever. The attitude toward the Levite as a poor man reveals that the period of the book's composition is much earlier than the days of the monarchy and the established priesthood. 14. In addition, the entire book is designed as a covenant contract, but its construction only fits the agreed form of covenant contracts from before the 12th century BCE – only contracts from this period have a paragraph of blessings alongside a paragraph of curses, as in the Book of Deuteronomy. The language of some of the contracts in Deuteronomy is indeed problematic (I don’t know if you’re familiar with it), but that will be settled soon, and it certainly doesn’t indicate the generality. 15. The many textual parallels that simply don’t fit with the Deuteronomistic editing. I won’t delve into this point because it would require an article in itself, I assume you know what I’m talking about and how significant this claim is. 16. Avi Hurwitz’s linguistic layers that for some reason tend to be ignored. The above does not excavate as in point 15. 17. The concentration of worship that began in the days of Hezekiah and not Josiah, and this is without even going into the findings of Zertal on the altar of Mount Ebal, the lack of idol figurines on the mountain during the Iron Age, the disappearance of pig bones, and so on. The claims that Deuteronomy is the first to speak of the concentration of worship also encounter difficulties: 1. The verse in the Book of Exodus actually leads to the opposite conclusion from the accepted one: it does not permit building an altar anywhere, but in a specific place, where God, blessed be He, mentions His name. As Ibn Ezra interpreted the site – “in every place where I will put a memorial to My name, where My glory dwells, like Shiloh and Nob, where the ark stood.” Therefore, the contradiction between this verse and the command in Deuteronomy about the “place that God will choose” is obvious. It is a gimmick, since both books say that the sacrifice should only be in a place that God chooses and mentions His name there, that is, the place of the tabernacle, or the Temple in Jerusalem. After all, the Book of Exodus also speaks of a sacred place of worship that God chooses. 1 2. The Book of Deuteronomy itself contains the command to build an altar on Mount Ebal and to offer sacrifices there (Deuteronomy 27:4-7), and hence there is no problem with the book's principled approach to building altars and offering sacrifices in various places other than Jerusalem, as long as God also chose them. Well, the truth is that I am tired of dealing with the vanity of summarizing for you what you can simply read in the books. There are quite a few more arguments that could be brought forward, but I don't have time for all of that. Indeed, the researchers certainly think that some of the material is late, but the fact that the book was first invented by Josiah, as far as I know, is no longer agreed upon at all and many, many disagree with it, and it simply does not fit with the facts. Of course, I have no interest in the opinions of those who disagree with his introduction but do not address the counterarguments. In conclusion, Deuteronomy was definitely written in the days of Josiah. This is a theory that fits with Scripture, has no difficulties, and no one disputes it except Kasuto. Sources for expansion: Studies in the Book of Kings by Hoffenheimer, in the critical Bible on Deuteronomy, in Greenitz's book, the Hebrew and Biblical Encyclopedia, Until This Day, Hoffmann's Crucial Evidence, the Debate on Historical Truth in the Bible published by Bin Zvi, an unpublished article by Rabbi Yoel Ben Nun, the commentary of Da'at Mikra, Lionsthaum's article, in Batrebitz Ka'ah, and many more unknown sources that do not exist and were invented by me in favor of distorting reality this morning. Tel”H. N. B Regarding Muhammad – This has already been discussed here on the site. Search. In short – There is no such agreed-upon tradition (ask Muslim friends), it is not a founding tradition, it testifies to a detail from life (a specific miracle) and not to history (the very existence of Muhammad), so it has no meaning in terms of the argument of the tradition. It is certainly possible that because it is based on a historical event, it is completely different from the claim about the biblical tradition (founding testimony, collective tradition), and even if it turns out to be wrong, it has no bearing on the essence of our argument of tradition, just as the discovery that a particular witness lied in court should not disqualify all witnesses who appear to be credible. And I did not extend it.

Of course, I don't know who I'm talking to. Maybe you'll tell me who, and then I'll bow my head to you.
Come on, give a reference to one source. I'm not saying that the editing of Deuteronomy began earlier, but that it existed as an earlier book (in your words now, you added ‘all’ precisely to change your previous claim). The accusation of tautology can be blamed on either side here (although the editing of Jeremiah is something that is difficult to argue about, but of course those who don't like it can quibble), but that's not the discussion. The point is that most biblical scholars today definitely believe that there was a D school, to which most of Deuteronomy belongs, that it was edited as a book in the days of Josiah, and that the authors of the school edited the books of the early prophets and Jeremiah. To present the research otherwise is apologetic demagogy.
Of course, one can claim that the scholars are wrong and raise all sorts of arguments. I think that a critical researcher would respond to the arguments and refine his theory accordingly, and that is what some researchers try to do (some prefer to dig deeper), but I think that on the other side, there is no one who is prepared for an open discussion of the arguments, but only sees the arguments in favor of the Sinaitic Torah as evidence, and the counter-arguments as difficulties for which an excuse must be found. Of course, this does not lead to the investigation of the truth. (I am not saying that there are no people who were truly open to the arguments and came to an orthodox conclusion, but rather that those who come from the orthodox position do not engage in an open discussion, and in this academia has a great advantage.)

A. You say I don't know what I'm talking about and I claim to know these sources and your disparaging attitude is based on unfamiliarity.
B. The guy who probably read online was influenced by the old opinion that the book was first discovered in the days of Josiah and was the work of Shaphan and his ilk (De Weta's claim) a claim that you and I know is no longer accepted and yet is still quoted on atheist sites with complete dishonesty. That's what got all the fury and I referred to the sources for this specific claim. I definitely mentioned after that that scholars have not decided today that Devarim was indeed written in the days of Moses, but rather that the claim that it is all from the 8th century is incorrect. Really, go to the websites below and you will see that they present 19th century biblical criticism and not its latest versions.
C. There is no change in the claim here. He made De Weta's claim and I said that it is no longer accepted, which it certainly is. What change in claim is this? The question is whether this is the initial discovery of Deuteronomy and I argue that it is not because it is earlier. Are you really surprised that I think there are also later sections (as I wrote in one of the claims above)? And you don't think there are later sections in Deuteronomy even *after* Josiah? What does the integrity of the book have to do with the matter? I argued that the basis is not an invention of the days of Josiah to promote the concentration of worship and nothing more (again de Vetta). If you think I changed the argument, you are welcome to think so.
D. The discussion is not about the final editing but about the antiquity of the source, and therefore everything you wrote about sources is irrelevant. I did not argue otherwise.
E. The claims about lack of objectivity ignore pressure in academia against those who claim traditional claims and there is no doubt that it exists (will a scholar who writes against evolution not be dismissed from his position? (I personally accept evolution. This is just an example)).
F. There are scholars who do oppose the argument about the Deuteronomistic school. A school of scholars that gave rise to the theory of segments, layers, or traditions. These are indeed schools of thought that are more widespread in the world, but they exist whether we like it or not.
G. Unfortunately, you did not address the substance of the claims?

I don't know what is written on atheist sites (waste of time). The core of De Vita's hypothesis is still accepted today, and it is that the Book of Deuteronomy was composed as a book during the time of Josiah. No one here has claimed De Vita's claim (just read above), so you didn't answer it. A question was asked about the book that Josiah found, and you said, "The Book of Deuteronomy was known before Josiah's time, that's for sure," and that even today's scholars agree with this. This is completely untrue. Today's scholars believe that the book did not exist before Josiah's time, but only that parts of it, not as a book. It's not that today's people think that there was an early version of the Book of Deuteronomy before Josiah, but that there were materials that were compiled into the Book of Deuteronomy.
Some scholars argue against evolution. In any case, I did not claim that there is absolute freedom in academia. I claimed that there is much more possibility for free thinking there. Enough biblical scholars were not dismissed when they did not accept the documentary hypothesis.
I did not address the claims themselves because I do not pretend to determine anything about the time of the composition of Deuteronomy. And if you have already ignored the claims, then you have forgotten the editing of Jeremiah.

Yishai, if it was not known as a book, how would you justify this verse that M brought: ““As it is written in the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord commanded’” ??
Even if there were many additions and edits, it clearly seems that there was a core of the book of Deuteronomy.

DeVote's claim is about the Shaphan conspiracy that is still being voiced online. It is very important to be aware of what is going on on their sites because you will discover that controversial argumentation is everywhere. People don't ask about the book of Josiah because they found it when they did the fate of the graha in the Bible.

Regarding –
1. Do we agree that today, unlike before, most scholars agree that the book of Deuteronomy was not first written in the days of Josiah and that large parts of it (which are not 4-5 chapters) predate his time?
2. Do we agree that the discovery of the Torah scroll was not the first time that these scrolls were found?
3. Do we agree that this was said in the 19th century and today we think differently?
4. Do we agree that what I said about the antiquity of the book's basis is not just the opinion of Cassuto? Or of a few marginal scholars or unknown sources?

If so – We're done.

That there were later additions and edits is certainly possible (Iben Ezra) but Deuteronomy was not written by Shaphan (the canonization process continued after him as is known and see Menachem Haran).

Beyond that, I claimed that scholars brought various evidence for this and it was claimed that I was rambling so I brought some of this evidence and asked not for unknown quotes.

Regarding the claim about Jeremiah – it could be true. So what?

(Samuel – They answer this with the claim of tautological editing, its problem is the linguistic layers, parallelism, signs of introduction, Zertal's findings and more that I brought).

1. I don't know. 2. In my understanding, it is quite common that the discovery of the Torah in the days of Josiah is the first time that any sources were compiled for something similar to the Book of Deuteronomy in its current form. What came before was not the ancient Book of Deuteronomy but parts of the commandments that appear in it.
3. The change from the 19th century is not dramatic in my understanding. There is clearly a difference, but the question is whether it is relevant to our case. In my understanding, no (like someone coming along and saying that today no one thinks like Darwin. That is true, the theory of evolution, but as far as the question of the creation of the world, etc. is concerned, it doesn't really matter).
4. Again, this is not the basis of the book, but parts of the commandments in it. Even a doctor would agree with this.

You brought your own arguments. Apart from linguistic arguments, which you yourself wrote are not addressed (i.e. they are not accepted in research, regardless of the question of their correctness). Zertal's claim is also not really taken into account (even if [as far as I know] it has no rejection beyond the chatter of scholars who have no truth in their hearts [but it should be emphasized that evidence that has no other good explanation is not decisive on its own in such matters]).
When you say that the claim of the Deuteronomistic editing is a tautology, and then an ancient book without this editing is discovered, this constitutes confirmation of the theory.

1. The evidence I provided is incorrect only for the list of commandments (which is the majority of the book, as is well known). And the service is also prior to the opinion of a doctor.
2. Ignoring is not an argument. If they had explained that he was wrong, then great, but they simply ignored it.
3. I think there is an earlier editing of the Shephan. Certainly for those who date the Torah to the time of David at the most, such as Cassuto Greenitz Segal and others.
4. The change from the 19th century is significant. Volhozen's historical theory is no longer accepted and there is another theory, although it continues to be presented as the truth. If the book predates the time of Josiah, it is no longer possible to present it as a conspiracy to deceive the gullible king.

I claim that this is a tautology and there is no unequivocal proof that there was such an editing at all. Both here and here. I did not understand your argument

I'm not claiming anything. I don't know.
I just know that even today the theory that divides the Torah into four sources is very popular, and that even today it is very popular that the creation of Deuteronomy is related to the revolution in the days of Josiah (and this doesn't have to be a conspiracy against the king; one can think of reality in a slightly more complex way). Of course, one can disagree with this, and one can bring up the words of unacceptable scholars, and say that the mainstream did not properly address their claims. That's great. But if atheists want to present a picture of the research in which Deuteronomy was composed as part of the revolution in the days of Josiah, then that is a correct picture of the research.
Regarding Jeremiah, I didn't understand how you explain his short version. Surely there was editing, and the question is only whether from short to long or from long to short, and from my understanding there are not that many good arguments for the idea of long to short.

1. The theory of sources is indeed accepted, but it is not the issue here. I did not claim that biblical criticism has been refuted, but rather that the claim that the book was first composed in the days of Josiah is no longer accepted, and it seems to me that we have not found evidence that contradicts this statement.
2. I certainly still stand by the statement that writing the book for Josiah's revolution is not as accepted as it once was (and you can find evidence in the sources I referred to. The Biblical Encyclopedia was probably edited by the greatest biblical scholars in the country) and presenting it as the opinion of research today is a distortion. But it seems to me that we remain divided on this.
3. We started by claiming (among other things) that scholars have refuted this opinion, and you said that there are one and a half scholars and unknown arguments without real sources. We are now in a slightly different situation, aren't we? There are scholars and there are arguments.
4. It is also possible that the prophet shortened it, isn't it? Which of these is this evidence?

The only situation that has changed is that you have changed your argument. I have no interest in arguing about it.
I didn't understand 4. Are you claiming that the prophet himself shortened the composition or did you mean shortened? In any case, as I have already said, the argument (which seems correct, but I cannot subscribe to it because I have not really studied it) is that by examining the texts it is difficult to understand the logic in the abbreviation and it is actually possible to understand the logic in the expanded edition.
I would expect a great biblical scholar like you (for some reason you think I am being disparaging, and I am not; I simply refer to the content and not to the bragging in the criminal style of “You do not know who I am”), to be familiar with this basic issue of the two texts in Jeremiah.

No. See point 1 again but the reader will judge. We have finished.

Indeed I did not bother with Jeremiah (the canonization of the books of the prophets did not concern me).
The ”You do not know whom you are talking to” referred to the claim – You speak confidently but do not know. In any case – I think you did not understand my argument. I am not claiming that the prophet shortened but that he wrote the book in a short form in advance and there is no evidence here for the correctness of the canonization.

Indeed, there is no doubt that the question of whether there is a Deuteronomistic certificate should not be related to the question of whether there is such editing in other books. Truly a model for dealing with the issue.
The question of whether you are wrong or right is not related to the question of who you are. What you wrote was mistaken, and I commented on that. You are the one who introduced the question of who you are into the discussion here, meaning that your opinion should be accepted ad hominem, and even without knowing who you are, but only based on your testimony about yourself as an expert.
It seems that you do not really understand the situation in the book of Jeremiah. It has a short version and a long version. Indeed, it turns out that the prophet (or his scribe) wrote the short version, and a later editor added to the book. This editing is similar to the supposed Deuteronomistic editing of the early prophets. If there was indeed a Deuteronomistic editing of Jeremiah, it turns out that there was such an editing for the early prophets as well, and in any case it turns out that there was a school of Deuteronomistic writers, and then it turns out that they also wrote the book of Deuteronomy itself. Of course, your answer, which the prophet wrote in a short form, doesn't really answer the question (it's a good idea to understand the question before answering).

I was indeed not familiar with the issue of Jeremiah. You found a place for insult in this. Thank you. From the few that I have reviewed now (faculty and doctor), some of them can be explained by documents from which the book may have been compiled, or by a much later editing than the Deuteronomist one (such as additions to the Septuagint, which are certainly later than the days of the First Temple), and not necessarily by the type of editing you are talking about. Therefore, I still claim that this does not prove the late editing of the prophets, and I have already explained the difficulty in the lateness of the book and in that it is indeed not first dated to the days of Josiah. But I will look into the issue of Jeremiah in more detail and indeed I was not familiar (and therefore it is possible that what I said about it is mistaken. If I reach a different conclusion, I will update here).
Regarding my words about the opinions on the book of Deuteronomy, I do not repeat myself.

There is no echo hominem here, and I did not say to accept my opinion from an expert. I said about the sentence – “What you write is simply incorrect, but written with excessive self-confidence. Even today it is accepted... that I know exactly what I am talking about in terms of overturning the opinions about the writing of the book in the days of Josiah.

It doesn't matter when the editing was done. If its characteristics are similar to what is estimated as a Deuteronomy editing in the Early Prophets, then it is likely the same thing, and if you want to say that their editing dates back to the Second Temple period, that won't change that. Incidentally, in the Septuagint there are not only additions but also ‘missings’ some of which are probably the original text. For example, the first chapters in Judges, and here too they have a Deuteronomy character, so there is additional external evidence from this for the existence of such an editing. It is certainly not a mere tautology. It seems to me that the other side has no external evidence and is what you call a mere tautology.
Textual criticism is an important element in literary criticism, not only because you need a good text to study it (which I am not sure how significant this is), but because some of the texts do not reflect scribal errors or minor corrections, but significant editing. It is impossible to dismiss the claim of editing literary criticism without fully understanding textual criticism.

1. I didn't say that the editing was from a second hand, but rather that it was a later part or a consolidation of earlier texts, and not necessarily an editing in the style in question. See Segal's comments on the website.
2. I am familiar with the criticism of the text of the Torah and in general, I was not familiar with the duplication of Jeremiah specifically, and I have never denied that there are later additions (as I have written here several times).
3. Regarding the Septuagint - this is what I meant about the additions. The Septuagint is late, and this means that the specific editing is also later than the classical Deuteronomistic editing.

I don't know how we got to Jeremiah. The phenomenon of tautology and throwing out everything that is inconvenient for the editor exists, and I am sure you have encountered it, and I would be surprised if all of these cases exist in Jeremiah. In any case, this does not change the basis of my argument about the antiquity of the Book of Deuteronomy (and again, not only quotes that we accuse the editor of, but also parallels).

I propose to end here because I am already tired. The criticism I wrote in the first message is directed at the atheist websites that continue to present the old theories as the opinion of research and at the one who treated me as someone who distorts reality and finds claims and sources that do not exist based on ignorance. The arguments for the early Book of Joshua also exist and its writing in the days of Joshua is no longer accepted.

The Septuagint is not late! This is not the view in textual criticism. I even gave an example of a place where it is likely that it is early and the Masoretic text was compiled from it (i.e., from an earlier text that was more similar to it in this regard).

But let's not get into the discussion of the text here. The Septuagint itself is from the 3rd century BCE! And it's quite late. (More on its origin in a moment) The dating of the Masora is not of the essence (see in a moment). Your words about its accuracy can be interpreted as simplistic (for those who read it and don't know it) In general, with the exception of a few specific places, his version of the Torah is considered to be largely less reflective of the original text than the Masora, which is more accurate. In other books, each case is different.

Are both originally based on a single text, or on several parallel texts? Or on different stages of editing? This is a question that we already know is too complex to discuss here and how there is no agreed-upon or simplistic and uniform model (for all books) for anything. I don't intend to start writing Ahituv here.

My argument about Jeremiah and the Septuagint was that if in the 3rd century BCE there was a text with and without additions and they lived at the same time (say), then to say that the entire editing of Jeremiah was in the 8th century BCE sounds puzzling to me and probably there was a very late editing of the book (and perhaps even an early one). This is again a misinterpretation of my words. When I say that the Septuagint is later, it does not mean that the Masora is earlier, but that it was compiled at a much later date than the Deuteronomistic school, and I think you will agree with that.
But really. Enough.

Can I have links to all this information?

The question is what was the ancient text (in case there really was one). And in this context, to say that the Septuagint text is late (i.e. compiled from the Masoretic text) is incorrect. I do not think that in the Torah its version is considered less reflective, but rather each case is examined on its own merits. The question of when the translation was made is not very important to the matter.
I did not understand what is puzzling here. Certainly in the second century there were two Hebrew texts of Jeremiah at the same time. Probably also in the third century. Since the editing is similar to another editing, it can be assumed that it is from the same period. If you assume that the other editing is from the 8th century, then so is this one. Just understand that according to you, the Masoretic text of Jeremiah was compiled very late, and if so, you are of course undermining the credibility of the Masoretic text (of course, if it needs to be challenged, this should not bother any person of integrity).

And a case where the evidence points to the fact that there was editing in the Torah and the original text remained in the Septuagint is the censorship in the song "Listen".

The Septuagint version of the Torah is generally considered less reliable (again, only the Torah). See Emmanuel Tov, although each case is unique, but this is a general rule. I have no problem in principle with the Masoretic version of Jeremiah being compiled later.

I did not claim that the Septuagint was compiled from the Masoretic, but that it was compiled after the Deuteronomic period, which you will probably agree with, and therefore I doubt whether Jeremiah was compiled only in the Deuteronomic period. And again, if the issue is the short and long version in parallel that I saw, it could also stem from documents and not from an estimate of the type you talked about. In Jeremiah itself it is written that the prophecies were written twice before and after the burning of the scroll. See Segal.

For the guy who asked about sources, see the book Critique of the Bible Version by P. Emmanuel Tov.

I think we just confused the original guy.

Maybe you've read the previous edition of Tov. Since then, water has flowed in the Jordan. Stay up-to-date.

And yes to Mr. It's completely the opposite.
Well, in the new edition he actually wrote that he changed his mind and now he believes that as a rule (again, as a rule), the Masoretic text of the Torah is more accurate than the Septuagint. The book is not in front of me right now. Maybe I'll find it this evening.

Your example of the song of the Azinu is ancient and well-known, but one case does not prove the rule (under the assumption that its name is truly the original text) because my statement is that as a rule it is more accurate and not everywhere.

That's not what he says. He does say that the Torah has harmonizations in the Old Testament, but he doesn't say that as a rule, the Torah is accurate in the Old Testament, but rather that each case is unique.
Maybe in the evening you'll find out what he says and then you'll say that's exactly what you meant and I was actually referring to other claims that I didn't write, but atheist websites...
Of course, the example doesn't prove it. I just gave an example.

Okay, each case is unique. I don't deny that. I said about his statement that as a rule, in most cases, the one devoted to Torah is better in most cases.

Regarding my intentions on things – You are of course welcome to not believe it and the reader is the judge. I have no interest in your opinion regarding my hidden intentions.

Yishai

I am forced to be brief. I apologize for the lengthy discussion.

However, to your point against M: ”Scholars today believe that the book did not exist before the time of Josiah, but only parts of it, not as a book. It is not that today they think that there was an early version of Deuteronomy before Josiah, but that there were materials that were compiled into the book of Deuteronomy.”

He referred you to the comprehensive introduction by Jeffrey Tigay, one of the greatest scholars of Deuteronomic literature, in our time, but literally the life of his life - which was recently translated into Hebrew by Mikra LeIsrael Publishing - Deuteronomy, Part I. See there, which summarizes the compromising position of the current research, that Deuteronomy was probably written then between Hezekiah and Josiah, and was hidden - as a book - during the reign of Manasseh - and was rediscovered in the days of Josiah. It is impossible to ignore the school of concentration of worship (which preceded Josiah!) which gave a different interpretation to the commandment “in another place he shall choose” (according to some conservative scholars who claim the antiquity of the commandment – and the lateness of its interpretation at the time of Hezekiah-Josiah) or which invented this commandment (according to most scholars, whether by original intuition or under the influence of the school of holiness H which invented it near the time of Hezekiah, see Milgrom for more information).

Hezekiah's revolution is found again and again, and most recently in the very act of breaking the horns of the altars in the city of Lachish (as written at the end of Amos) and turning them into censers (as a description of Jehu's revolution).

Therefore, the statements of the cold clown Yigal Ben Nun, the mouthpiece of the newspaper Ha'aretz’ About Shafan the writer who invented the Book of Deuteronomy, not worth much academically. Recently, in his monumental book ‘A Brief History of Jacob’ he saw more and more arguments of this kind that are worth little - and these are the ones that are mainly quoted on atheist websites online. These are also the ones who buy strikes and advertising again and again in every journalistic platform - or in radio and television interviews. These are the voices with which M, as I understand it, has dealt.

Now, Ben Nun's words are not blown out of thin air, he is a doctrinaire, but he has a special talent for collecting with pseudo-intellectual insistence the extreme opinions in biblical studies and weaving them into a coherent manifesto. His weight in biblical studies is like the weight of Micah Goodman (the excellent one!) in the study of Maimonides” everyone in the field knows the beauty of his arguments and their academic weakness. His arguments are an expression of Micah's story of the Rambam. He too, like Ben-Hadag, gathered the extreme opinions throughout the literature on the Rambam and wove them all together to conclude that the Rambam was postmodern and sanctified doubt. The book is excellent, and God forbid that I should be heard to slander Micah, but the Rambam is not, and Micah himself recognizes this. What Micah knows, Yigal Ben-Nun does not know, because he does not come from within at all. Either way, woe to you if you cite Micah's book in an academic work on the Rambam, or Ben-Nun on biblical research. Both are good for hermeneutics and the history of interpretation.

There is no room here to discuss other scholars from the minimalist school.

My teachers and gentlemen,
Instead of addressing the prophet who opened this fruitful discussion, you are busy debating whether the Book of Deuteronomy was written during the time of Isaiah or Hezekiah and how much was Shaphan worth.

It would have been appropriate for you to address his overwhelming claims from the Science and Logic Channel, instead of engaging in internal ego games.

Noam, how do you know that Roy's question precedes our discussion? 🙂

A healthy intellect and understanding.

There are two solid lines of evidence that the Book of Deuteronomy was composed in the twentieth century CE:
A. It mentions that in the last days the Lord will return and gather the exiles of Israel from all corners of the earth and bring them back to the land - an event that only occurred in the twentieth century, and certainly not likely to have been foreseen.
B. Prof. Shlomo Zand of Tel Aviv University wrote two books to prove that the myths of the "People of Israel" and the "Land of Israel" were only invented in the nineteenth century. Regarding the "Torah of Israel", Zand did not write that it was invented in the nineteenth century, which is to say: that the Torah was not invented until the twentieth century.

In light of these unequivocal evidences, It must be stated that every text prior to the 20th century that mentions the Torah in general and Deuteronomy in particular has undergone a Deuteronomistic editing that has implanted the issues of Deuteronomy into it. The whole issue of centralizing worship stems from a Zionist attempt to appropriate Al-Aqsa and the other holy places in Al-Quds for Judaism.

Best regards, Dr. Schatzius von Loewenhausen, Birzeit University

My dear!
There are some participants in the discussion who will rejoice in your words here, please do not publish such heretical and slanderous words here because in the end some of them will utter such tweets from every corner and thread….
It is fortunate that the protector of colonialism and mysticism – the great master (the) father’ Michi, will be here to watch over them and censor them when necessary.

R. Rivlin – President of Zionism for regional rule.

A. The documentary hypothesis assumes that there were various Hebrew tribes roaming the land, each with its own Torah – Who was the magician who succeeded in uniting stubborn tribes into one people, to the point that it was not known that they had come to his aid? After all, there was no unified central government except for a short period of a few decades during the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon (whose religion is also questioned 🙂 and immediately after Solomon, the division returned?
B. If the Torah was invented during the time of Hezekiah or Josiah, how did the Samaritans who opposed the concentration of worship in Jerusalem also accept it? Why didn't the Samaritans adopt the Torah E of the northern tribes?
C. During the time of Hezekiah, most of the tribes of the Kingdom of Israel were exiled and scattered around the world, and shortly after Josiah, the people of Judah were also scattered around the world. How did communities not arise that were jealous of the heritage of the separate sources?
D. After all, family and royal laws are concentrated in S’ Deuteronomy, and the laws of sacrifice and sexual immorality in Leviticus - Where did they know how to manage family and state life and how to offer sacrifices before these books were invented?
The fact that there is a people with a common national consciousness and one Torah despite the political and geographical division – indicates the formation of the Torah and national consciousness common to all tribes before they entered the land. The foundation of unity that was built in the Exodus from Egypt and the forty years in the desert and the Torah that Moses left us – are what have preserved us for generations despite the political and geographical division.
With greetings, Sh”z Levinger

The discussion has indeed gotten out of hand. Let's get back to the original question. We will move the side discussions on the Book of Deuteronomy to the forum and you can follow along there.

Original questioner – Search the site's search engine for the miracle of Muhammad (there is no such agreed-upon tradition) and in discussions about the Oral Torah for evidence of the existence of ancient traditions.

Thanks for the original insight,
Is it really unlikely that a tradition would be created? I will make a suggestion and you will say.
Yes, there were all kinds of tribes in the Land of Israel who worshiped all kinds of gods, including one called YHWH and his wife Asherah. Yes, there was the tribe of the Semites that came out of Egypt and entered the Land of Israel. Of course, they had wonderful stories about the exodus from Egypt and the journey through the desert, and of course the gods were involved in these acts. According to the stories, the leader of the tribe at that time was one, Moses. That Semite tribe was of course in conflict with the local tribes, but eventually assimilated into them and even became the leading cultural factor, so that all the tribes adopted its story about the exodus from Egypt, but despite this, stories still remained that reflected the fact that those tribes had always lived in the Land of Israel.
Of course, all of these tribes had laws given by kings and scribes similar to the laws of Mesopotamia, and some of them were even influenced by or perhaps simply translated from the laws of Mesopotamia. As usual, the laws were attributed to the grace of the gods. One of the sets of laws was called the ‘Tablets of the Covenant’ and according to the story (or perhaps reality) it was presented on two tablets in a central place (similar to the sets of laws in Mesopotamia or the twelve Roman tablets).
It turns out that there was no theological consensus among all the inhabitants of the land. In some places, God X was more powerful and in others, God Y. This was of course also related to the political success of the believers of each god. One group saw YHWH as the most powerful god. Over time, two processes occurred: a. This group gained dominance; b. The theology of the group developed – Their god (the God?) changed from the king of the gods or the father of the gods (or both) to the only god whose servants the other gods are (except that sometimes they try to fight him as is customary between gods, but lose), after which the rest were demoted to the rank of angels and even disappeared, and a theology began to develop that denigrated the God (and thus he probably also lost his aforementioned wife) and his responsibility for nature and history and the whole of existence.
Of course, the members of this group adapted the prevailing stories to their beliefs. In this framework, they claimed that the one responsible for the exodus from Egypt was the God and turned the story of the miraculous exodus and journey into the story of the miracles he performed and the leader of the tribe, Moses, into his messenger. In this framework, they attributed not only the stories of the wonders to the God, but also the laws (the ones they adopted; of course, if there were laws they rejected, they did not attribute them to the God). In this context, it is said that the Tablets of the Covenant were given to Moses by the hand of God at Mount Sinai and that the entire nation saw this. The believers had no problem with the story because they already believed in a miraculous exodus from Egypt and they already believed that the laws were given by God, and all that was added was to link the two events.
It is important to note that the religious importance attributed to the status of Mount Sinai as the foundation of belief in God and the foundation of His worship was not so strong at that time. This argument waited many years until it was raised by Rachel. This greatly reduces the problem of convincing the people to accept another detail in the story of the Exodus that they already believed in. The things said about this in the Torah were not necessarily there at that time, but were written in the Book of Deuteronomy after the status of Mount Sinai had already been agreed upon.
(NB I did not write the proposal, but the idea is presented on many atheist websites)

I would be happy to hear why this is so illogical… And is it really any less logical than a fantastical miracle story!?

To the shepherds – Greetings,

And the unification between the tribes lacking a common ethnic origin and lacking a common religion, was done without a unified leadership and with political and geographical fragmentation, initially in the country itself and later throughout the world, and miraculously, no traces of the divided ethnic and religious groups remained, and everyone accepted the humiliating narrative of a people of slaves who came out of Egypt and 33 difficult commandments that entangled them in endless conflicts with all of humanity – Does that sound logical to you?

Best regards, Sh”ts Levinger

Of course, there are always narratives that take over, one group prevailing over the other. The rest
:https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%94%d7%94%d7%91%d7%93%d7%9c-%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9f-%d7%9e%d7%a2%d7%9e%d7%93-%d7%94%d7%a8-%d7%a1%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%99-%d7%9c%d7%a1%d7%99%d7%a4%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%99-%d7%94%d7%aa%d7%92%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%99%d7%95-3/

And regarding the 33 commandments These are among the easy questions about how they were founded (or more precisely why they already existed), see at length in the explanations of Adi Abir (founder of the website One Against All Religion). I am surprised that you recycle such anachronistic questions, as all research today already knows that the 33 commandments are nothing more than a transcription from the peoples of the region.

A view can crowd out other views and become dominant through the force of power and authority. This is how Christianity took over the Roman Empire when the emperor adopted it and made it the state religion, and this is how Islam took over the East and North Africa, creating an empire that lasted for centuries. A view can also be taken over by the assimilation of a minority into the majority culture, or by the influence of a more successful and developed culture.
Judaism had none of these factors. For almost the entire history of the First Temple period (and after the destruction) we were scattered and separated. We were always on the margins of powers stronger than us, and we were opposed to the beliefs and values of the environment. An island of monotheism in a pagan world. How difficult it was economically to shut down all economic activity one day a week when the whole world was working, and to maintain unique dietary laws that made it difficult to maintain relations with the surrounding Gentiles. We had every reason in the world to give up and submit to the majority culture, and yet in the test of generations we have held our ground as a people. Is it possible to hold our ground on a false foundation?
And what people would create for themselves a humiliating history of slaves from a foreign land? This fact also astonished a secular jurist like Professor Daniel Friedman, see his article ‘And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt’ (on the ‘Daat’ website;
With greetings, Sh”z Levinger

Even if my idea doesn't work out because of the X/Y factor, the idea I'm expressing here is very clear. All of Judaism (including the commandments) can easily be interpreted as a slow evolutionary development of the Jewish nation generation after generation, starting as a people with some kind of idolatry, also in common. Until a general monotheistic acceptance that came much later.
This understanding is also seen in the early Torah books chronologically, where there is an actual fulfillment of God. The site I referred to also deals with this. Regarding the commandments, again, a significant part of them were taken from the ancient tradition and from the idolatry of the peoples of the region (you can also see this on the aforementioned site).
I don't see any real reason to assume this idea.

What you mentioned in the second part about the tradition of my people as a people of slaves from a trusted foreign land, as I mentioned above, there is a kernel of truth in the Torah and this is one such example. But all the other additions are nothing more than a developing myth.
Best regards, o”c Roy

Food for thought:
It's possible that the question here is not philosophical but psychological.
After all, most of our beliefs are unproven, so why do you only demand proof for the Jewish faith?
I assume that you also have no proof that stealing is forbidden and yet you still don't think of stealing, why?
Ostensibly because you believe that stealing is forbidden because that's how you were raised and you never thought to ask what the philosophical basis for this is because you have no interest in questioning it.
I would find out what the psychological reason is for wanting to leave the religion, maybe the commandments are bothering you or maybe you grew up in an unhealthy religious environment and you experience religion as a threat to you.