Torah: The Correct Definition

[Goose]

Klein's Etymological Hebrew Dictionary states Torah as:

BH = Biblical Hebrew
PH = Post Biblical Hebrew
NH = New Hebrew


BH - instruction, teaching.

BH - the Book of Laws, the Torah.

PH - the Five Books of the Torah, the Pentateuch.

NH - copy of a book of the Torah.

NH - theory, system.

NH - a book containing the principles of any branch of science.


Torah literally means instruction, and does not mean law. For the word law, the Hebrew word khoq(lit. law or decree) is used. Literarilly, Torah can also refer to the first five books of the Bible, among other things.

A modern example of the usage of the word Torah, is used in reference to the study of a particular field science. What is called Computer Science in America, would be called Computer Torah in Hebrew. Physics Torah, Biochemistry Torah, etc.

Much like a father that sets house rules, boundaries, etc. for his children and household, so does HaShem do through His Torah for instruction and teaching, and the ultimate goal of love and holiness. The khoqiym(plural for laws) of HaShem, like the house rules of a father, are just a small portion/subset of the Torah, or divine instruction.

Therefore, it's better to look at the Jewish bible not as just a set of decrees, but rather, as a divine book of instruction.

[Timothy Leary]

Sounds Good to me. However as far as I know Mulsims, Christians, Jews, and Bnei Noach all look at it as a book of Divine Instructionk, rather than just a boring set of decrees.

[Goose]

Sounds Good to me. However as far as I know Mulsims, Christians, Jews, and Bnei Noach all look at it as a book of Divine Instructionk, rather than just a boring set of decrees.Not all. From my experience, many uneducated types look at it as a black and white law book of carnality, where you're judged based on physical "works". However, Torah is more then that. It's also a realm of spiritual and heartfelt teaching.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Goose, well said! We'll give you a (kosher, of course) chocolate cee-gar! Torah is a cognate of the root h-r-h. The Hebrew words for "instruction/direction" (hora'ah), "teacher" (moreh) and "parent (horeh) are all cognates of the same root. One of our Sages (please don't ask me which!) once said that if the Torah was merely a statute book, we would have very little, if any, use for the Book of Genesis, in which we orthodox Jews count only 3 of the Torah's 613 precepts.

Aside from being just plain wrong, translating Torah as Law merely helps to perpetuate the canard that Judaism is a casuistic religion of laws, to be carried out in automaton-like fashion.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Menachem]

Hey everyone,

You all did a very good job on the definition. You all get three thumbs up!(thought: "where did the third thumb come from?" "Oy!")

[Goose]

Awesome input everyone. I'll have to make note of that.

[Cephas]

Hello,

Is the Torah beneficial (necessary?) for non-Jews?

[Goose]

Hello,

Is the Torah beneficial (necessary?) for non-Jews?
Torah benefits the whole Universe. Torah is the instructions for "Tikkun" - the fixing of the universe.

[Timothy Leary]

Hello,

Is the Torah beneficial (necessary?) for non-Jews?

Could you explain what you mean, exactly? Like if you're wondering if a non-jew is required to observe all of torah, the answer is no. One can, if he/she chooses to, do so of his/her own choice.

[Cephas]

I never had the impression that non-Jews *raises hand* were required to follow the Torah. But then again, I doubt a non-Jew can go wrong following it (except perhaps those in the entertainment and pornography industries profitting from very un-kosher practices).

Yoshiah, I love your current avatar.

[Goose]

I never had the impression that non-Jews *raises hand* were required to follow the Torah.
Who taught you about Torah, and what Torah is? What was their motivation, etc. I hope you read the first post of this thread to clear any questions up.

[Jezz]

Sounds Good to me. However as far as I know Mulsims, Christians, Jews, and Bnei Noach all look at it as a book of Divine Instructionk, rather than just a boring set of decrees.

Not all. From my experience, many uneducated types look at it as a black and white law book of carnality, where you're judged based on physical "works". However, Torah is more then that. It's also a realm of spiritual and heartfelt teaching.
I see where you're coming from, Goose. I agree that uneducated types probably understand Torah to mean that. But more educated types (yes, even Christians) know that Torah means what you said it means. So while what you say is correct, what yoshiah said is also correct.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

It is our (orthodox Jewish) belief that whereas the Torah contains 613 mitzvot (i.e. precepts, see the list at http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm) that are binding on Jews (only), there are only seven precepts which (we believe) are binding on non-Jews (see http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm). But, as I noted in my previous post:

One of our Sages (please don't ask me which!) once said that if the Torah was merely a statute book, we would have very little, if any, use for the Book of Genesis, in which we orthodox Jews count only 3 of the Torah's 613 precepts.

Since the Torah is far more than a mere statute book, its general moral & ethical lessons have a far broader application than the scope of its 613 mitzvot.

Yoshiah_ap, what does Karaite Judaism teach regarding non-Jews?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Solly]

Dear Mensch

Along with Torah being instruction, which also happens to contain 613 mitzvot, what is the context of Torah?
I am a Reformed/Calvinist Christian, and the idea of Covenant is a big thing in our theology. I have been looking into the fact that, contrary to the works righteousness idea that can replace our true understanding of humanity's relationship with the Lord, - and which has affected our understanding of Judaism at the time of Christ - rather, the Lord, even from the very beginning created humanity in a covenant relationship, and placed them in a place of blessing and obedience - Land/the Garden - and said, now this is how I want you to live [Torah]. Would you say there is a case for reading the specific Covenant relationship the Lord then went on to establish with Israel, placing them in the Land - the place of blessing and obedience - back into the Genesis account, and thus seeing the election of Israel as holding a specific position in the Lord's restoration/new creation to deal with humanity's departure from him.
My apologies if some of these terms stem from specifically Christian theology, and don't reflect Jewish theology.

[shunyadragon]

I think the Torah and its foundation the Pentateuch is over stated in its ancientness and claim as the 'Universal book of Instruction'. The earliest known text is only from ~250 BCE which is relatively recent as far as ancient texts of 'instruction' are known.

Every religion has had their own holy book(s) and traditions both writen and unwriten going back to the first human. After humans migrated to the corners of the earth they lost the memories of the universal brotherhood of the first family. These cultures evolved seperately as their spiritual traditions evolved. All considered themselves the civilization at the center of the universe and of course the only way of the 'Divine'. When we met again, we no longer considered our relatives as brothers and sisters. They were aliens, pagans and heathens.

Today we should know better and realize that all the writings and traditions of the ancients of the world are the mirror of ourselves, history and the 'instructions' and traditions handed down from our ancestors whether they are 'Divine' or not.

[Solly]

The earliest known copy of the text dates from 250 bce, would be more correct. The fact that we do not have the original autographs is nothing against the ancientness of the text, since the internal evidence suggests otherwise - ie knowledge of customs which later died out.

[Timothy Leary]

I think the Torah and its foundation the Pentateuch is over stated in its ancientness and claim as the 'Universal book of Instruction'. The earliest known text is only from ~250 BCE which is relatively recent as far as ancient texts of 'instruction' are known.

However, there is archeological evidence much older verifying Jewish texts that shows that they are older than such. For example, let's take events that happened in the reign of Hezekiah.

This confirms the tunnel that was built by Hezekiah's men under Jerusalem:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/1631/hez1.html

And this (a translation of which is avaliable in the link above, instead of below) confirms the reason for that tunnel's construction - King Sennacherib's seige on Jerusalem.

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/HIGH/OIM_A2793_72dpi.html

[Timothy Leary]

Yoshiah_ap, what does Karaite Judaism teach regarding non-Jews?

http://tinyurl.com/5naxa ;)

[shunyadragon]

However, there is archeological evidence much older verifying Jewish texts that shows that they are older than such. For example, let's take events that happened in the reign of Hezekiah.

This confirms the tunnel that was built by Hezekiah's men under Jerusalem:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/1631/hez1.html

And this (a translation of which is avaliable in the link above, instead of below) confirms the reason for that tunnel's construction - King Sennacherib's seige on Jerusalem.

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/HIGH/OIM_A2793_72dpi.html
I have no doubt that individual facts or parts of the text are older, but as a historical document or a coherent text nothing exists before ~250 BCE.

[Timothy Leary]

I have no doubt that individual facts or parts of the text are older, but as a historical document or a coherent text nothing exists before ~250 BCE.

So what's the point then?

[Timothy Leary]

I never had the impression that non-Jews *raises hand* were required to follow the Torah. But then again, I doubt a non-Jew can go wrong following it (except perhaps those in the entertainment and pornography industries profitting from very un-kosher practices).

Yoshiah, I love your current avatar.

Thanks :)

Could you clarify your question, if you didn't think it was required?

[shunyadragon]

So what's the point then?The Pentateuch lacks documentation in ancient history as I have said. The claim for the Torah is overstated and lacks historical documentation that would give it credibility as the only 'Instruction'. I believe many more ancient 'Instruction Books' are older than the OT and also represent the collective spiritual heritage of humanity. The Torah to me represents all the ancient texts of the world.

[{Tim}]

I believe many more ancient 'Instruction Books' are older than the OT and also represent the collective spiritual heritage of humanity. The Torah to me represents all the ancient texts of the world.
And I believe that you are wrong. Where does that leave us, then? Have you some solid evidence to support your belief, and show me that I am wrong, or shall we just agree to tolerate each other?
Besides, I think this really belongs in a separate thread... :offtopic:


Regarding the OP topic, I agree! Many Christians would benefit from realising this. :thumb:


{Tim}

[Timothy Leary]

What does OP mean?

[Menachem]

Here is what I think Torah means(to me personally):

Knowing G-d is supreme and knowing that he wants us to do good in this lifetime.

To many christians it means living in sin and death(which is the most incorrect notion ever) but to me as a Jew it means living a good life and doing good as G-d tells us to do all for the sake of G-d and His Torah.

As the Psalmist says " The Torah of HaShem is perfect renewing life, the precepts of HaShem are enduring making the simple wise." (Psalm 19:8)

[Orion]

I have no doubt that individual facts or parts of the text are older, but as a historical document or a coherent text nothing exists before ~250 BCE.

A considerable number of biblical scholars, including Richard E. Friedman (Who Wrote The Bible?), are of the opinion that the Torah was compiled and edited by Ezra circa 516 BCE, which he subsequently read aloud in the courtyard of the newly constructed Jerusalem temple. It's almost certainly the case that he was working with prior documents written by at least four different authors.

[shunyadragon]

A considerable number of biblical scholars, including Richard E. Friedman (Who Wrote The Bible?), are of the opinion that the Torah was compiled and edited by Ezra circa 516 BCE, which he subsequently read aloud in the courtyard of the newly constructed Jerusalem temple. It's almost certainly the case that he was working with prior documents written by at least four different authors.
This is conjecture. there is not one scrape of evidence to document this. I could accept that it is likely that some texts were read at this time and as I have said before in other threads. The Pentateuch is, of course, a compilation and patchwork of older texts. The date of the complete Pentateuch text as it is known today is unknown to scholars.

I do not consider 516 BCE a very early date. It is only a 300 years before the existing known parts of the Pentateuch found with the Dead Sea scrolls.

[Timothy Leary]

Your claim, and his claim, are equally conjecture. You can't prove it either way.

[Orion]

A considerable number of biblical scholars, including Richard E. Friedman ("Who Wrote The Bible?"), are of the opinion that the Torah was compiled and edited by Ezra circa 516 BCE, which he subsequently read aloud in the courtyard of the newly constructed Jerusalem temple. It's almost certainly the case that he was working with prior documents written by at least four different authors.

This is conjecture. there is not one scrape of evidence to document this.

I direct your attention to the following...

Ezr 7:6 This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses,

Ezr 7:10 For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.

Ne 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses,

Ne 8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women,

Ne 8:3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand;

Ne 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people;

[Goose]

It's interesting how Karaite, who considers Torah to be true, for Torah to be conjecturable. :shrug: Most Jewish sages even state that Ezra penned the Torah of Moshe and Jeremiah the Prophet had a hand in it too.

[Timothy Leary]

I consider the Torah to be guessed on Guesswork?! I have never stated such!

I don't doubt the Ezra wrote a copy of the Torah - after all, it says he was a scribe. What I dispute is the idea that he cannonized the Tanakh.

[Goose]

I consider the Torah to be guessed on Guesswork?! I have never stated such!You said Orion's statement was conjecturable, yet the Torah states otherwise. You therefore disagree with the Torah.Your claim, and his claim, are equally conjecture. You can't prove it either way.
I don't doubt the Ezra wrote a copy of the Torah - after all, it says he was a scribe. What I dispute is the idea that he cannonized the Tanakh. Heh...Considering that the books of the Tanach weren't all finished, or all their authors even born yet, I agree. But of course, canonization of Tanach wasn't what Orion was talking about. He was talking about Torah, which is a subset of the Tanach.

[Orion]

Your claim, and his claim, are equally conjecture. You can't prove it either way.

It's not a matter of proof, nor is it a matter of conjecture. Rather, it is a matter of informed, reasoned opinion laced with a degree of probability. There exists overwhelming evidence (Documentary Hypothesis) to suggest that the books which comprise the Torah had multiple authors (doublets, contradictions, differing literary styles, differing terminology, anachronisms, etc.). In all but the most conservative of scholarly circles, this is no longer an item of debate. Obviously, then, someone had to have put all this stuff together, and we can see evidence of a considerable amount of editorial work in the process. As but one example, it's pretty clear that someone attempted to merge the two Genesis flood stories into one narrative. It's probable that this was done for political purposes, assuming that one set of stories came from Israel and another set from Judah, and there exists considerable evidence for that as well.

Who did this redaction and collation? Scripture itself suggests that it was Ezra. Can we say with absolute certitude that it was Ezra? No.

I give you as references Richard E. Friedman's Who Wrote The Bible? and the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry for Torah.

[Timothy Leary]

As I said before, it's conjecture. You are guessing that something is such and such a way, but there is no historical evidence of it.

[shunyadragon]

Your claim, and his claim, are equally conjecture. You can't prove it either way.
We agree. How about that!

[Pitiricus]

As I said before, it's conjecture. You are guessing that something is such and such a way, but there is no historical evidence of it.
Actually there is... For instance the "finding" of a book of the Torah when renovating the Temple... Also the style of the Hebrew (words used etc.)

The Torah was probably written by four main authors... The two first probably used much ancient legends...

[Jezz]

I direct your attention to the following...

Ezr 7:6 This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses,

Ezr 7:10 For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.

Ne 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses,

Ne 8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women,

Ne 8:3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand;

Ne 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people;
This is what you call evidence that Ezra wrote the Torah? Basically, the above claims that Ezra was a scribe in the Torah, and that he read the Torah to the people. I know a couple of scribes who teach the Torah to men and women (they teach at the local seminary) - does this prove that they wrote the Torah? :teeth:

You're also being very selective in your use of scriptural evidence (as higher critics generally are). There are many references to the books of the Torah that show these books predate Ezra - eg, "Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan, who read it." (2 Kings 22:8)

It's not a matter of proof, nor is it a matter of conjecture. Rather, it is a matter of informed, reasoned opinion laced with a degree of probability. There exists overwhelming evidence (Documentary Hypothesis) to suggest that the books which comprise the Torah had multiple authors (doublets, contradictions, differing literary styles, differing terminology, anachronisms, etc.).
The evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis is hardly overwhelming. It is a house of cards, built on assumption upon assumption, and with zero hard evidence (read: manuscript support).

In fact, the founding hypotheses for the DH are all hypotheses that have long since been discredited. German theologians of the 19th century were caught up in the whole "evolution" craze, and assumed that the society of Moses' time would be too primitive to have done the things that they say they did. An example of some of the assumptions that lay at the base of the DH:

1. A society at the time of Moses (~1500BC) would be too primitive to have a system of writing.
2. A society at the time of Moses would be too primitive to have such a complicated law code.
3. A society of Moses' time or earlier would not travel the large distances that the Torah records them as travelling.

These are just three things that spring to mind off the top of my head - all of which have been disproven by subsequent archaeological discoveries. For example, clay tablets have been found that predate Moses (the Elba tablets), Hammurabi's Code (similar in structure in some ways to the Torah) predates Moses, and there are plenty of documented long trips that predate Moses too.

Funny how despite the fact that the foundation of the DH has long since crumbled, people are still under the illusion that the building still stands...

Much of the so-called "evidence" proving multiple authorship is explained just as well (if not better) by a principle author (ie, Moses or his scribe), with later redactors modernising the language and place-names, and inserting explanatory notes. Different "literary styles" are easily explained by the differing purposes that the different parts of the Torah make.

The DH also ignores the evidence that the book of Deuteronomy clearly has the literary structure of a suzerain-vassal treaty (with the LORD as the suzerain and the Israelites as the vassals) - a treaty format that was common in the days of Moses, but non-existent at the time when the DH proposes that Deuteronomy was written.

The problem is that the techniques of "higher criticism" that have been applied to generate the JEDP theory are untested. They have not been applied to "control" datasets to prove that they work - something that all good scientific processes should be subjected to first. And when you do apply them to control datasets, you can come up with interesting results. For example, I've seen the techniques of higher criticism used to "prove" that Winnie the Pooh was actually written by four different authors. Given that this conclusion contradicts the fact that Winnie the Pooh only had one author, one can only conclude that the techniques are not that reliable.

In all but the most conservative of scholarly circles, this is no longer an item of debate.
Heh, I suppose the conservative scholars are wrong by virtue of the fact that they are conservative? :lol: You didn't stop to think that maybe the reason that they are conservative is because they didn't find the arguments supporting the DH to be convincing?

Tell you what - you seem pretty interested in this JEDP stuff. Perhaps you might like to consider a proper debate on the topic? There is a guy here on this forum who goes by the name of jpholding who I suspect would be more than willing to challenge you to a debate on this topic.

[Orion]

The evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis is hardly overwhelming. It is a house of cards, built on assumption upon assumption, and with zero hard evidence (read: manuscript support).

The evidence on which the DH is based is contained within the Torah itself.

In fact, the founding hypotheses for the DH are all hypotheses that have long since been discredited.

You may wish that to be the case, but I assure you that it certainly is not the case.

German theologians of the 19th century were caught up in the whole "evolution" craze, and assumed that the society of Moses' time would be too primitive to have done the things that they say they did.

Serious doubts concerning a single authorship of the Torah go at least as far back as Spinoza (1632-1677).

An example of some of the assumptions that lay at the base of the DH:

1. A society at the time of Moses (~1500BC) would be too primitive to have a system of writing.
2. A society at the time of Moses would be too primitive to have such a complicated law code.
3. A society of Moses' time or earlier would not travel the large distances that the Torah records them as travelling.

None of the assumptions which you cite here have any relation to the DH. The evidence on which the DH is based consists of (among other things) 1) a considerable number of Torah doublets (a doublet is the telling of a story twice), 2) a considerable number of contradictions contained within those doublets, 3) differing literary styles, 4) differing terminology, 5) anachronisms. And what's interesting is that, in many cases, these differences fall consistently into one or another group of doublets.

Funny how despite the fact that the foundation of the DH has long since crumbled, people are still under the illusion that the building still stands...

Your repeating this does not make it so. From this and several of your previous comments, I get the distinct impression that someone has fed you the cartoon version of the Documentary Hypothesis. If you're interested in the subject, I suggest that you obtain a copy of Richard E. Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? as well as Israel Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed.

Perhaps you might like to consider a proper debate on the topic?

Thanks. That might be fun. But I doubt if I would be able to devote the time necessary for such a debate, at least for now.

[Jezz]

The evidence on which the DH is based is contained within the Torah itself.
No, the evidence on which the DH is based is contained within the imaginations of its proponents, who subsequently read it back into the text.

You may wish that to be the case,
So you're a psychology student as well as a student of comparative religion? Is that what qualifies you to know what I wish to be the case? :smile:

...but I assure you that it certainly is not the case.
"You may wish that to be the case, but I assure you that it is certainly not the case." See, I can play psychologist too! :smile:

Serious doubts concerning a single authorship of the Torah go at least as far back as Spinoza (1632-1677).
Serious doubts about it being authored by a multiple authors go back much further. If you want to play the "appeal to antiquity" card, you will lose...

None of the assumptions which you cite here have any relation to the DH.
Ahh, not in its modern form. But they did when the DH was first formulated... Of course, as archaeological discoveries started to invalidate these founding assumptions, they had to find new ones in order to salvage the theory...

The evidence on which the DH is based consists of (among other things) 1) a considerable number of Torah doublets (a doublet is the telling of a story twice),
The Torah contains doublets because history contains doublets. For example, a brief history of the 20th century would record two world wars where Germany invaded France, and engaged in war (and lost) against an alliance of the British, the Americans, and the Russians. I can just imagine the documentary hypotheticians 3500 years in the future trying to prove that these events in a book on the wars of the 20th century were "doublets" resulting from the redaction of multiple earlier sources...

2) a considerable number of contradictions contained within those doublets,
The contradictions I have seen are rather overblown. In my experience in life, stories that on the surface seem contradictory are often shown to be compatible upon closer inspection. Most people who claim contradictions exist in the Bible and other historical documents are, in my experience, jumping to conclusions that cannot be supported by the evidence.

The problem with the "contradiction" argument is that it leaves open the question: if the contradiction is so obvious as is supposed, why did the redactors not fix it? After all, the JEDP hypothesis supposes that they smoothed out many other contradictions over the years. We are thus forced to conclude that the redactors just happened to miss the ones that are left, or perhaps conclude that they aren't contradictions at all. The latter is far more likely.

3) differing literary styles,
Hardly surprising. Different parts of the Torah were written for different purposes. Different purposes call for different styles. We would hardly expect Deuteronomy (a document which, as I pointed out, is a suzerain-vassal treaty) to be in the same style as Genesis (which is primarily a historical record).

I mean, I am a single author and I use differing literary styles, depending on my purpose.

4) differing terminology,
Again, big deal. Single authors often use different terminology. Find one of my other posts on this forum, and have fun dividing up the bits where I refer to "YHWH" on the one hand, and "God" on the other, and attributing them to different authors. Such is the silliness that JEDP theorists engage in.

5) anachronisms.
I grant that later scribes modernised terms used by the original author, and added explanatory notes here and there. Anachronisms hardly prove multiple authors, though.

And what's interesting is that, in many cases, these differences fall consistently into one or another group of doublets.
And here's the kicker - sure, in "many" cases, the differences consistently fall into one or another group of doublets. But the fact remains that in many other cases, they do not. The differences do not fall as consistently into the same groups as you might have us believe.

Your repeating this does not make it so.
:lol: Neither does yours. Though you've repeatedly claimed that the existence of doublets is evidence of multiple authors, you've not actually given any examples. When I tried engaging you in specifics (ie, the scriptural "evidence" that Ezra compiled the Torah), you ignored it and retreated into the comparatively safe territory of arguing generalities.

From this and several of your previous comments, I get the distinct impression that someone has fed you the cartoon version of the Documentary Hypothesis.
There is a version of the Documentary Hypothesis that isn't a cartoon? :teeth: The "evidence" you put forward suggesting that Ezra compiled the Torah was certainly very cartoonish...

If you're interested in the subject, I suggest that you obtain a copy of Richard E. Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? as well as Israel Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed.
One of these days. My reading list is very long.

Thanks. That might be fun. But I doubt if I would be able to devote the time necessary for such a debate, at least for now.
Ok. But if you repeated make the broad-brush claims that you are making, expect me or someone else to call you on them and ask you for specifics.

[Orion]

This is what you call evidence that Ezra wrote the Torah?

I've never attempted to suggest that Ezra wrote the Torah. Most authoritative Bible scholars believe that the Torah had four authors designated "J", "E", "P", and "D". Evidence suggests that J and E were written during the period of the divided monarchy (J from Judah and E from Israel), D (Deuteronomy) was probably written during the time of King Josiah, and P was probably written during the time of King Hezekiah (after the fall of Israel but before the fall of Judah). Someone put all this disparate stuff together into a single document, and the likely suspect is Ezra.

No, the evidence on which the DH is based is contained within the imaginations of its proponents, who subsequently read it back into the text.

No, at one time, there were no proponents of the DH, given that the DH did not yet exist. The DH was the eventual result of a critical examination of the text of the Torah, an examination which was carried out over an extended period of time by a considerable number of scholars (Wellhausen, Graf, et. al.)

If you want to play the "appeal to antiquity" card, you will lose...

I was simply pointing out to you that doubts concerning a single authorship of the Torah did not originate with nineteenth century German scholars (as you seem to suggest), but that such doubts go at least as far back as Spinoza (1632-1677). Also, why do you frame this discussion in terms of winning or losing?

Of course, as archaeological discoveries started to invalidate these founding assumptions, they had to find new ones in order to salvage the theory...

But you've already made it quite clear (at least to me) that you are unaware of the "founding assumptions" behind the DH. Again, the (rather strong) evidence in support of the thesis that the Torah had multiple authors is contained within the Torah itself. Are you now suggesting that there exists archaeological evidence in support of a single authorship of the Torah? While we're on that subject, however, there appears to be virtually no archaeological or (extra-biblical) historical evidence in support of the biblical Exodus or conquest of Canaan stories (see for instance Israel Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed).

The Torah contains doublets because history contains doublets.

The fact that the Torah contains doublets (the telling of a story twice, often with variations or contradictions between the doublets) serves only to support the thesis that the Torah had multiple authors.

The contradictions I have seen are rather overblown.

The seriousness of the contradictions is not the issue (although a number of them appear to be somewhat more than trivial). The very fact that those contradictions exist, and the fact that they tend to consistently fall within one or another set of doublets is further evidence of multiple authorship of the Torah.

The problem with the "contradiction" argument is that it leaves open the question: if the contradiction is so obvious as is supposed, why did the redactors not fix it?

In many instances, they attempted to do just that. For example, the Genesis flood story was an obvious attempt to merge together two separate flood stories (J and P).

There is a version of the Documentary Hypothesis that isn't a cartoon?

I've provided you with authoritative references. I'm not going to purchase those sources for you nor am I going to read them to you. Understood?

Though you've repeatedly claimed that the existence of doublets is evidence of multiple authors, you've not actually given any examples.

I'll provide you with some examples sometime this week. Fair enough? Though, I have to say, if you're a serious student of the Bible, I'd expect that you'd be familar with some of this stuff. That aside, if you wish to discuss this subject with me in a substantive manner, I suggest that you 1) bone up on the DH using authoritative sources, and 2) that you approach the subject with a degree of objectivity, instead of simply attempting to throw rocks at it, as you seem to be doing here.

[Orion]

Though you've repeatedly claimed that the existence of doublets is evidence of multiple authors, you've not actually given any examples.

I apologize for the delay in responding. I've provided below a partial list of Torah doublets, a doublet being the telling of a story twice. But, before we get into that, with reference to your statement, I wish to remind you (as I've stated above) that the existence of these doublets is but one of many signatures pointing to multiple authorship of the Torah. I'm providing the following list to you only because you requested it. To understand the significance of these doublets, where they came from, and why they exist, you're going to have to explore the Documentary Hypothesis for yourself.

Creation - The account of creation in Gen. 1:1-2:3 is followed by a second creation story in Gen. 2.4b-25. The two versions duplicate each other in some respects but contradict each other in other respects (the order of creation, for example). Note also, that in this and many other following doublets, one of the pair of doublets consistently refers to God as "God" while the other refers to God as "Lord God".

Genealogy from Adam - Gen. 4:17-26 and 5:1-28.

The flood - Two complete versions of the flood story are intertwined: Gen. 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7, 10, 12, 16b-20, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6, 8, 8-12, 13b, 20-22 and 6:9-22; 7:8-9, 11, 13-16a, 21, 24; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 7, 13a, 14-19; 9:1-17. There exist significant differences between these two versions.

Genealogy from Shem - Gen. 10:21-31 and 11:10-26.

Abraham's migration - Gen. 12:1-4a and 12:4b-5.

The Abrahamic covenant - Gen. 15 and 17.

Joseph sold into Egypt - Gen. 37;2b, 3b, 5-11, 19-20, 23, 25b-27, 28b, 31-35; 39;1 and 37:3a, 4, 12-18, 21-22, 24, 25a, 28a, 29-30.

Manna and quail in the wilderness - Exd. 16:2-3, 6-35a; Num. 11:4-34.

Water from a rock at Meribah - Exd. 17:2-7; Num. 20:2-13.

The Decalog - Exd. 20:1-17 and 34:10-28 and Deut. 5:6-18.

Appointment of Joshua - Num. 27:12-23; Deut. 31:14-15, 23.

Centralization of sacrifice - Lev. 17 and Deut. 12.

Forbidden animals - Lev. 11 and Deut. 14.

[Jezz]

This is what you call evidence that Ezra wrote the Torah?

I've never attempted to suggest that Ezra wrote the Torah.
My apologies for the confusion.

What I meant to say was: This is what you call evidence that Ezra compiled the Torah?

The quotes that you provided do no such thing. The quotes that you provided showed that Ezra was a "scribe of the Torah" who read the Torah to the people when they returned from exile. That is a long way short of what you claimed of them, and I also pointed out that I know people who are "scribes of the Torah" and who have read the Torah to the people. This is not evidence that they compiled the Torah (thus, your argument fails the "control" test which is so important for all good scientific investigation). It also ignores other verses in the Tanakh which suggest that the Torah was already in a recognised form prior to Ezra. And it fails to explain how Ezra managed to pass off his new compilation/redaction as authentic.

Most authoritative Bible scholars believe that the Torah had four authors designated "J", "E", "P", and "D". Evidence suggests that J and E were written during the period of the divided monarchy (J from Judah and E from Israel), D (Deuteronomy) was probably written during the time of King Josiah, and P was probably written during the time of King Hezekiah (after the fall of Israel but before the fall of Judah). Someone put all this disparate stuff together into a single document, and the likely suspect is Ezra.

The "evidence suggests" no such thing, as I have repeatedly stated. I've seen the kind of thing that passes for "evidence" in the minds of such scholars. The "evidence" that Ezra was the final/principle redactor of the Torah is a perfect example. Such scholars continually overstate the strength of the evidence. I am more familiar with the arguments from the NT "higher critics", but from what I've seen the JEDP theorists make the same basic mistakes.

They also commit a number of methodological errors that a good scientist would never make. The main one that I pointed out is that they don't give examples of control data to prove that their methodology works. The whole methodology used to examine the texts to produce the JEDP theory has not (to my knowledge) really be tried on works whose authorship is beyond question - which makes the whole theory an exercise in question begging. On the other hand, I do know of examples of people applying JEDP principles do other texts, with rather amusing results (eg, see here (http://www.winnie-the-pooh.ru/online/lib/stud.html) for "proof" that Winnie the Pooh was actually written by four authors, and not by the single author A. A. Milne as is currently thought... :smile:).

No, the evidence on which the DH is based is contained within the imaginations of its proponents, who subsequently read it back into the text.

No, at one time, there were no proponents of the DH, given that the DH did not yet exist. The DH was the eventual result of a critical examination of the text of the Torah, an examination which was carried out over an extended period of time by a considerable number of scholars (Wellhausen, Graf, et. al.)
How exactly that deals with my point, I'm not sure. What I was claiming is that the DH is a case of bending the facts to fit the theory - not bending the theory to fit the facts.

I was simply pointing out to you that doubts concerning a single authorship of the Torah did not originate with nineteenth century German scholars (as you seem to suggest), but that such doubts go at least as far back as Spinoza (1632-1677).
I did not claim that doubts over the single authorship of the Torah originated with 19th century German scholars, which makes your retort a strawman. I claimed that the Documentary Hypothesis originated with 19th century German scholars. Wellhausen was the man primarily responsible for the DH, wasn't he? He was a German, wasn't he? He did live in the 19th century, didn't he? Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

At any rate, I don't believe in a "single authorship" of the Torah. I believe in its primary authorship by Moses. I believe that he used earlier sources (possibly both written and oral) in composing Genesis, and tradition for the early parts of Exodus. The rest he recorded (or a scribe recorded on his behalf) from personal experience. I believe that later scribes modernised some terminology, added explanatory notes, etc in order to keep it intelligible.

Also, why do you frame this discussion in terms of winning or losing?
The same reason you like to play psychologist by making comments along the lines of "You may wish that to be the case, but I assure you that it certainly is not the case." :teeth:

But you've already made it quite clear (at least to me) that you are unaware of the "founding assumptions" behind the DH.
Looks can be deceiving. :smile: The DH may not be a specialty area of mine, but I am not completely unaware of its alleged founding assumptions. That I see the real founding assumptions as something different is another story...

Again, the (rather strong) evidence in support of the thesis that the Torah had multiple authors is contained within the Torah itself.
And again, that is the whole problem with the DH. There is no external evidence to support it - no external attestation for the existence of any of these alleged authors, apart from Moses. They are figments of scholars' imaginations, which are subsequently read back into the text - a process in which every tiny agreement with the theory is emphasised far beyond what is warranted, and every disagreement is dismissed as "an attempt by a later redactor to smooth out a contradiction". Any arbitrary explanation in order to preserve the theory...

Are you now suggesting that there exists archaeological evidence in support of a single authorship of the Torah?
I have already told you about the suzerain-vassal treaty format of Deuteronomy. You simply ignored this point when I raised it last time - whether this was because you had no answer or because you didn't have an answer, or you didn't understand the significance, I am not sure. Allow me to explain again:

Archaeological findings have shown that the treaty format of Deuteronomy was in common use by Hittite and Egyptian kings around the 1500s BC, but that it fell into disuse by the 1200s BC.

This is a rather difficult one for JEDP theorists, because they propose that the Deuteronomist wrote in the reign of King Josiah - some 600 years after the treaty format it used fell into disuse. It would be like us writing a treaty format from the 1400s AD and expecting to pass it off as authentic. Even more problematic is that this is earlier than the monarchy itself - and given that JEDP theorists propose J and E were written in the time of the divided monarchy, this creates serious problems for that hypothesis too.

While we're on that subject, however, there appears to be virtually no archaeological or (extra-biblical) historical evidence in support of the biblical Exodus or conquest of Canaan stories (see for instance Israel Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed).
Arguments from silence are not strong arguments. That's as far as I wish to go on this off-topic argument (I've discussed this topic in much more detail with others elsewhere).

The fact that the Torah contains doublets (the telling of a story twice, often with variations or contradictions between the doublets) serves only to support the thesis that the Torah had multiple authors.
No, it doesn't. This is a founding assumption of the DH, and it is so obviously false that one wonders why people persist in making it. Doublets can be, and regularly are, produced by single authors - with or without apparent contradictions. It is not evidence for or against multiple authors. This is especially the case in oral accounts - of which the Torah is a prime example.

The seriousness of the contradictions is not the issue (although a number of them appear to be somewhat more than trivial). The very fact that those contradictions exist, and the fact that they tend to consistently fall within one or another set of doublets is further evidence of multiple authorship of the Torah.
No, the existence of (apparent) contradictions is not evidence of multiple authors. Contradictions can be just as easily overlooked by a single author as they can be overlooked by a single redactor. The inconsistency (one of many) in the DH is that it must admit the possibility of the latter, while denying the possibility of the former.

In many instances, they attempted to do just that. For example, the Genesis flood story was an obvious attempt to merge together two separate flood stories (J and P).
"Obvious"? I reckon you'd need to examine the text pretty critically before you could convince yourself of that conclusion. It's hardly obvious at all.

I've provided you with authoritative references. I'm not going to purchase those sources for you nor am I going to read them to you. Understood?
:huh: I didn't ask you to buy them for me or read them to me.

I'll provide you with some examples sometime this week. Fair enough?
Yes, fair enough. I'll get to them tomorrow. :smile: One comment: You've listed lots of doublets. But you've not addressed my contention that the mere existence of doublets does not prove anything, because single authors can (and do) record doublets.

Though, I have to say, if you're a serious student of the Bible, I'd expect that you'd be familar with some of this stuff.
And what makes you think I'm not familiar with some of this stuff? What if I told you that "J" stood for "Jehovah" - so named because this author supposedly liked to call God "Jehovah"? That "E" is for "Elohim" - the title that this alleged author supposedly liked to apply to God? "D" is for "Deuteronomy" - which had an author all to itself? "P" is for "Priestly" - as the guy who allegedly wrote this was a priest?

That aside, if you wish to discuss this subject with me in a substantive manner, I suggest that you 1) bone up on the DH using authoritative sources, and
I suspect I already know enough about DH in order to discuss this subject with you in a substantive manner, but anyway...

2) that you approach the subject with a degree of objectivity, instead of simply attempting to throw rocks at it, as you seem to be doing here.
For someone who complains about rock throwing, you've done your own fair share... but very well, if you wish to discuss this "objectively", I will do so.

[geebob]

It is our (orthodox Jewish) belief that whereas the Torah contains 613 mitzvot (i.e. precepts, see the list at http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm) that are binding on Jews (only), there are only seven precepts which (we believe) are binding on non-Jews (see http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm). But, as I noted in my previous post:

That is very interesting but as a Christian inclusivist (one who holds that God's supreme revelation is through Christ which the former scriptures prepared us for and the scriptures attributed to the apostles and saints recorded the stories of Christ but though his grace and revelation in more limited means can be found outside those bounds) I reject that God will judge the pagan nations harshly on the basis of that law against idolotry. For as the apostle paul said, In the past, God has overlooked their idolotry but now commands everyone to repent. But by "now", I believe that what is intended that the nations are commanded to repent as they come into contact with the Gospel.

But of course the Jewish audience won't find that compelling. So instead, I ask this. Is there a place in the prophets (or elsewhere, but it is primarily in the prophets where we read so much of judgement of other nations) where God sends calamity and thus judgment to the pagans because of and specifically for their idolotry? I know there are diatribes against pagan idolotry, but that is not the same.

I'm going to bet that there isn't, but I could be wrong.

[learning]

Here is what I think Torah means(to me personally):

Knowing G-d is supreme and knowing that he wants us to do good in this lifetime.

To many christians it means living in sin and death(which is the most incorrect notion ever) but to me as a Jew it means living a good life and doing good as G-d tells us to do all for the sake of G-d and His Torah.

As the Psalmist says " The Torah of HaShem is perfect renewing life, the precepts of HaShem are enduring making the simple wise." (Psalm 19:8)


'living in sin and death'? Oh no, that is not what G-d wants of us Christians. the Torah just shows us where we fail, and how much we need God to be good (that was the reason for the sacrifices, no? though I wonder if some were not a reason to rejoice and feast together, at those times, as part of the sacrifice was eaten by either the priests, Levites, or others, depending on the feast, etc.)

"More to be desired are they than gold, yea even much fine gold.
Sweeter also more than honey, and the honeycomb." Psalm 19:10
(I know that as a song, and I love it!)

Here is a favourite Psalm of mine, that helped me when I wondered how some could see G-d as an ogre, and I saw Him as my heavenly Father

Psalm 18:25,26
"To the faithful you show yourself faithful;
to those with integrity you show integrity
To the pure you show yourself pure,
but to the wicked you show yourself hostile."

Here's some more
"As for G-d, His way is perfect,
All the L-rd's promises prove true.
He is a shield for all who look to Him for protection." Psalm 18:30

"For who is G-d except the L-rd?
Who but our G-d is a solid rock?" Ps. 18:31

"You have given me the shield of Your salvation.
Your right hand supports me;
Your gentleness has made me great." Ps. 18:35

[learning]

What's the Tanach, and when was it canonized, and by whom?

(I assume that it is all the books of the Old Testament, but want to be sure here) and would like to know the dates and who canonized it, if you can tell me.

[learning]

Orion:
Serious doubts about it being authored by a multiple authors go back much further. If you want to play the "appeal to antiquity" card, you will lose...

Learning:
Hee hee, I'll 'appeal to antiquity' In my book of Deuteronomy, it says
Deuteronomy 31:24, 25, 26 "When Moses had finished writing down this entire body of law in a book, he gave these instructions to the Levites who carried the Ark of the L-rd's covenant: 'Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L-rd your G-d, so it may serve as a witness against the people of Israel."


Now, if a book says that someone wrote it, and that someone is in that book, I tend to believe that that someone DID write it.


Now I have a question for those who know about these things, if you can answer. 'What does it mean 'place it beside the Ark of the Covenant'?
in the verse above. (Please refer to Hebrew for that passage if it helps) Was there perhaps a special place on the side of the Ark of the Covenant? I just seem to remember that the Ark of the Covenant was alone in the holy of holies, and wonder 'where' the Book of the Law was placed. Just curious, and no worries if you have no answer.
I just know that it says later on that the Book of the Law was lost, and then found, and wonder if there was some special place for it on the side of the Ark or something?

[learning]

Orion:
While we're on that subject, however, there appears to be virtually no archaeological or (extra-biblical) historical evidence in support of the biblical Exodus or conquest of Canaan stories (see for instance Israel Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed

Learning:
Oh, yes there is, much evidence, as I've found out.:) Though one wouldn't expect to find much in all that dessert, with wind and sand and all. :)

Like in the land of Goshen, there is a palace found that appears to be Joseph's palace, and it is on a bay called 'The Bay of Yousef'

There is also, much evidence of some really neat rock carvings in a mountain area that has been known as 'Moses' Mountain' by tribes living there for years.
Here is a link to this last bit, check out the pictures on the side, where it looks like a carving of a staff beside a snake, and of ten tablets. :)

www.harkarkom.com/Anati.php?more=all

But for me, the greatest proof that the Exodus happened, is that in the book of Deuteronomy, that G-d said if the people of Israel failed to follow His covenant, G-d would send them away, BUT, that He would bring them back.
And.... they're back! They even have claimed Jersualem as their capital.
THEY are the greatest proof, for me.

[Menachem]

'living in sin and death'? Oh no, that is not what G-d wants of us Christians. the Torah just shows us where we fail, and how much we need God to be good (that was the reason for the sacrifices, no? though I wonder if some were not a reason to rejoice and feast together, at those times, as part of the sacrifice was eaten by either the priests, Levites, or others, depending on the feast, etc.)

Some of my Christian friends would disagree with you on the "living in sin and death" notion about the Torah. For us Jews it does not teach us wrong, It teaches us how to avoid doing wrong and doing to do the right...

No, that is not what sacrifices were for..

For us Jews the Torah does not show where we fail, it shows us that G-d is supreme and he loves us so much he gave us His Torah.

A person can be an atheist or a pagan and still be counted as a rightous person. Here is a story that might help you understand my reasoning a little better:

A doctor in africa who is of say of a native religion, a shamen or local holy man. He has devoted his whole life to helping others...he cared for them, nused others to health who were sick,poor and otherwise needy, donated his own time without pay 16, 18 and sometimes 20 hrs. a day just to help these people....He has all of his life been devoted to his traditional religion worshipping the god manooma, the god of eternal hope, and the god Nambasa, the god of the eternal sun. He has never once heard of jesus or of Christianity and has no clue as to what it is about ....Then one day he catches a disease from a boy he was trying to aid and dies from it....

This guy devoted his whole life to the Jewish and Christian ideals of 'love your neighbor as yourself,' helped the poor, sick, and needy. This guy was a saint. Now, he goes up to the Heavenly Gates.

In my religion(Judaism) he is accepted and welcomed into heaven by G-d...

What happens to this pagan man in christian tradition?



"More to be desired are they than gold, yea even much fine gold.
Sweeter also more than honey, and the honeycomb." Psalm 19:10
(I know that as a song, and I love it!)

Here is a favourite Psalm of mine, that helped me when I wondered how some could see G-d as an ogre, and I saw Him as my heavenly Father

Psalm 18:25,26
"To the faithful you show yourself faithful;
to those with integrity you show integrity
To the pure you show yourself pure,
but to the wicked you show yourself hostile."

Here's some more
"As for G-d, His way is perfect,
All the L-rd's promises prove true.
He is a shield for all who look to Him for protection." Psalm 18:30

"For who is G-d except the L-rd?
Who but our G-d is a solid rock?" Ps. 18:31

"You have given me the shield of Your salvation.
Your right hand supports me;
Your gentleness has made me great." Ps. 18:35


these are some good Psalms..All of them seem to represent the Torah beautifully....:thumb:

[learning]

eliyosef:

For us Jews the Torah does not show where we fail, it shows us that G-d is supreme and he loves us so much he gave us His Torah.

learning: I think I agree with you here :)




Here is the answer to your question about what happens to that person who was a Dr. but didn't know about Christianity.

Well, I do believe that Abraham was counted righteous, and the friend of G-d, because he believed G-d.

But here's an answer I think about your story

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink! When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you: When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

Matthew 25:31-40. New Living Translation

[Menachem]

eliyosef:

For us Jews the Torah does not show where we fail, it shows us that G-d is supreme and he loves us so much he gave us His Torah.

learning: I think I agree with you here :)

ok




Here is the answer to your question about what happens to that person who was a Dr. but didn't know about Christianity.

Well, I do believe that Abraham was counted righteous, and the friend of G-d, because he believed G-d.

But here's an answer I think about your story

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink! When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you: When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

Matthew 25:31-40. New Living Translation

and that does not answer the question....The african doctor does not believe in the G-d of Avraham...Nor does he know who jesus is....

so the question still remains unanswered

[learning]

No, I think it is answered. Because the 'righteous ones' answer the King, saying 'When did we ever do ...( all those righteous things that they mention), to you?'
At the time they are doing these righteous things, they have no intention of doing it to G-d or to Jesus/Yeshua, they are just doing it to fellow human beings. But, it does not matter. To the King, the fact that they did it to the 'least of these my brethren' is the reason that they enter the Kingdom of heaven. I wonder who are 'the least of these my brethren' if it means the Jewish or Israeli nation, fellow Christians, or anyone?But when I think of the Good Samaritan story, I think the 'King' means any human being. Though when I think of the present Pope being in Israel, and meeting the woman that he had carried on his back for three miles because she was so weak in Poland when he was a very young priest, a Jewish woman who had escaped somehow during WW2 and was coming into town, even though I disagree with many things about the Catholic faith, I cannot help but think that for that very act, he will be granted those wonderful words.

[learning]

eliyosef, could you please answer my ? on post no. 45 here?
thank you.

[Jezz]

Some of my Christian friends would disagree with you on the "living in sin and death" notion about the Torah.
Let me guess - they are Protestants...

Eli, I've been trying to tell you that Eastern Orthodoxy is much more like Judaism than Protestantism.... Please, try to forget what you think you know about Christianity. Much of what many Protestants say about Christianity is, quite frankly, embarassing... :wink:

A person can be an atheist or a pagan and still be counted as a rightous person.
And in Eastern Orthodoxy, a person can be an atheist or a pagan (or even a Jew :wink:) and still be counted as a righteous person, too! :smile:

Here is a story that might help you understand my reasoning a little better:

A doctor in africa who is of say of a native religion, a shamen or local holy man. He has devoted his whole life to helping others...he cared for them, nused others to health who were sick,poor and otherwise needy, donated his own time without pay 16, 18 and sometimes 20 hrs. a day just to help these people....He has all of his life been devoted to his traditional religion worshipping the god manooma, the god of eternal hope, and the god Nambasa, the god of the eternal sun. He has never once heard of jesus or of Christianity and has no clue as to what it is about ....Then one day he catches a disease from a boy he was trying to aid and dies from it....

This guy devoted his whole life to the Jewish and Christian ideals of 'love your neighbor as yourself,' helped the poor, sick, and needy. This guy was a saint. Now, he goes up to the Heavenly Gates.
In my religion(Judaism) he is accepted and welcomed into heaven by G-d...

What happens to this pagan man in christian tradition?
Quoting from the Orthodox Church of America web site (here (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Revelation.html)):

At this point it must be mentioned that although God's self-revelation in history through the chosen people of Israel--the revelation which culminates in the coming of Christ the Messiah--is of primary importance, it is also the doctrine of the Christian Church that all genuine strivings of men after the truth are fulfilled in Christ. Every genuine insight into the meaning of life finds its perfection in the Christian Gospel. Thus, the holy fathers of the Church taught that the yearnings of pagan religions and the wisdom of many philosophers are also capable of serving to prepare men for the doctrines of Jesus and are indeed valid and genuine ways to the one Truth of God.

In this way Christians considered certain Greek philosophers to have been enlightened by God to serve the cause of Truth and to lead men to fullness of life in God since the Word and Wisdom of God is revealed to all men and is found in all men who in the purity of their minds and hearts have been inspired by the Divine Light which enlightens every man who comes into this world. This Divine Light is the word of God, Jesus of Nazareth in human flesh, the perfection and fullness of God's self-revelation to the world.

In fact, an Orthodox priest who is a friend of mine told me just today that in a traditional Orthodox Church, the inner sanctuary will have icons (pictures) of the NT saints, whereas the outer sanctuary will have icons of OT saints (eg, the prophets, the patriarchs). But alongside the OT saints, they'll often have icons of certain monotheistic Greek philosophers like Socrates, Heraclitus, Plato and Aristotle - who are venerated as men of G-d alongside the OT prophets. In effect, they believe that the philosophy of these great men prepared the Greeks for the coming of Christ in a similar way that the Tanakh prepared the Jews.

So in answer to your question: What would happen to the hypothetical African man according to the Christian Tradition? Well, ultimately I can't speak for G-d. I would have to leave it up to His loving kindness, mercy, and justice - because of my faith in Him, I will trust that He will do the right thing. But unofficially, I would say: "yes", I think that your hypothetical African shaman would "go to heaven" (note: EO do not think of "heaven" and "hell" in the same way as Protestants conceive them, either - again, their view of the afterlife is more Jewish, whereas the Protestant view seems to have been influenced by Platonism).

[Menachem]

What's the Tanach, and when was it canonized, and by whom?

(I assume that it is all the books of the Old Testament, but want to be sure here) and would like to know the dates and who canonized it, if you can tell me.

Tanakh is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. The Torah came as it is From Sinai both Oral and Written. The Many of the prophetic books and writings were organized during the time of the Great Assembly(Ezra's time) and the Tanakh was finalized into its form today at Jamnia in 90 C.E.

If any other Jewish Tweber wants to add anything please do so...

[Menachem]

Let me guess - they are Protestants...

Eli, I've been trying to tell you that Eastern Orthodoxy is much more like Judaism than Protestantism.... Please, try to forget what you think you know about Christianity. Much of what many Protestants say about Christianity is, quite frankly, embarassing... :wink:


And in Eastern Orthodoxy, a person can be an atheist or a pagan (or even a Jew :wink:) and still be counted as a righteous person, too! :smile:

and your right they are protestants...OK we will make an exception for the Eastern Orthodoxy..:tongue:
My question was geared more for the nail biteing Protestants....Because according to many of them this doctor Goes to Hell because he does not have jesus...


Quoting from the Orthodox Church of America web site (here (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Revelation.html)):

At this point it must be mentioned that although God's self-revelation in history through the chosen people of Israel--the revelation which culminates in the coming of Christ the Messiah--is of primary importance, it is also the doctrine of the Christian Church that all genuine strivings of men after the truth are fulfilled in Christ. Every genuine insight into the meaning of life finds its perfection in the Christian Gospel. Thus, the holy fathers of the Church taught that the yearnings of pagan religions and the wisdom of many philosophers are also capable of serving to prepare men for the doctrines of Jesus and are indeed valid and genuine ways to the one Truth of God.

In this way Christians considered certain Greek philosophers to have been enlightened by God to serve the cause of Truth and to lead men to fullness of life in God since the Word and Wisdom of God is revealed to all men and is found in all men who in the purity of their minds and hearts have been inspired by the Divine Light which enlightens every man who comes into this world. This Divine Light is the word of God, Jesus of Nazareth in human flesh, the perfection and fullness of God's self-revelation to the world.

In fact, an Orthodox priest who is a friend of mine told me just today that in a traditional Orthodox Church, the inner sanctuary will have icons (pictures) of the NT saints, whereas the outer sanctuary will have icons of OT saints (eg, the prophets, the patriarchs). But alongside the OT saints, they'll often have icons of certain monotheistic Greek philosophers like Socrates, Heraclitus, Plato and Aristotle - who are venerated as men of G-d alongside the OT prophets. In effect, they believe that the philosophy of these great men prepared the Greeks for the coming of Christ in a similar way that the Tanakh prepared the Jews.

So in answer to your question: What would happen to the hypothetical African man according to the Christian Tradition? Well, ultimately I can't speak for G-d. I would have to leave it up to His loving kindness, mercy, and justice - because of my faith in Him, I will trust that He will do the right thing. But unofficially, I would say: "yes", I think that your hypothetical African shaman would "go to heaven" (note: EO do not think of "heaven" and "hell" in the same way as Protestants conceive them, either - again, their view of the afterlife is more Jewish, whereas the Protestant view seems to have been influenced by Platonism).

Well said and I agree this hypothetical african Shamen will go to heaven....But what do the protestants think?

[learning]

Tanakh is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. The Torah came as it is From Sinai both Oral and Written. The Many of the prophetic books and writings were organized during the time of the Great Assembly(Ezra's time) and the Tanakh was finalized into its form today at Jamnia in 90 C.E.

If any other Jewish Tweber wants to add anything please do so...

Thank you, but please bear with me with a few more questions.

I assume the Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, right?

What is 'Nevi'im' and 'Ketuvim'?
Are they the 'History' and the 'Prophets and Poetry books?'

What order do you put these books in?

Thanks for your help.

[learning]

One more question. I have learned a lot by getting some books to do with Biblical History, but these are from a Protestant or Christian point of view. Are there any books about the History of the Old Testament from the Jewish point of view, in English?
Books to do with life in the times of the Old Testament, etc. Books to do with the time up to say, 200 A.C.E. time. Say, books to do with Historical Atlases and the view of the culture at that time.
Also, anything from 200 A.C.E. up to the present would also be appreciated.
Sorry to bother you, but I love history, and I like to see it from the point of view of a person for whom it is important. So I would like to know the point of view of the history of Jewish people both from ancient times up to now. I have secular books that cover these from a children's point of view, such as the Usborne books, re: timelines of history, etc., and they are very helpful, but I would like to know your point of view of past history. Thanks.

[Jezz]

Thank you, but please bear with me with a few more questions.

I assume the Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, right?
Correct.

What is 'Nevi'im' and 'Ketuvim'?
Are they the 'History' and the 'Prophets and Poetry books?'
No, they are the Prophets (Nevi'im) and the Writings ('Ketuvim'). The Hebrew ordering is different to the English ordering, as the English ordering is based on the Septuagint ordering.

What order do you put these books in?
The order that they are listed - Tanakh, Nevi'im, Ketuvim. That is also the order of importance.

In more detail:

Torah: same as English/LXX.

Nevi'im: two groupings:
The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings.
The Latter Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hoshea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Kethuvim:
Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles.

Sometimes the sections were named after the first book contained therein (just as the books were named after the first word in the book). Some references to this structure in the Bible:

They said, "Come, let's make plans against Jeremiah; for the teaching of the law by the priest will not be lost, nor will counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophets. So come, let's attack him with our tongues and pay no attention to anything he says."

The "counsel from the wise" is the Writings.

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

This verse is a testimony to that three-fold division. Jesus was no doubt familiar with the structure of the canon, and expected his audience to be as well. :smile:

Note that the canon was one of the issues that divided the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The former only held the Torah to be authoritative, whereas the latter held all of them to be authoritative (though in decreasing order of importance). Rabbinic Judaism grew out of the Pharisaical Judaism - as did the Messianic sect of Judaism, aka Christianity. In fact, both Paul and the founder of Rabbinic Judaism (who narrowly escaped death in the seige of Jerusalem, and whose name escapes me at the moment) were students of the great Gamaliel.

Thanks for your help.
Don't mention it! :teeth: Hope you don't mind me butting in...

[learning]

Not at all, thank you.

[Pitiricus]

Tanakh is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. The Torah came as it is From Sinai both Oral and Written. The Many of the prophetic books and writings were organized during the time of the Great Assembly(Ezra's time) and the Tanakh was finalized into its form today at Jamnia in 90 C.E.

If any other Jewish Tweber wants to add anything please do so...
The last two books that were canonizes at Yavne were the book of Esteher and Kohelet...

[Goose]

.

[InChristAlways]

Iliyosef says In this way Christians considered certain Greek philosophers to have been enlightened by God to serve the cause of Truth and to lead men to fullness of life in God since the Word and Wisdom of God is revealed to all men and is found in all men who in the purity of their minds and hearts have been inspired by the Divine Light which enlightens every man who comes into this world. This Divine Light is the word of God, Jesus of Nazareth in human flesh, the perfection and fullness of God's self-revelation to the world.In fact, an Orthodox priest who is a friend of mine told me just today that in a traditional Orthodox Church, the inner sanctuary will have icons (pictures) of the NT saints, whereas the outer sanctuary will have icons of OT saints (eg, the prophets, the patriarchs). But alongside the OT saints, they'll often have icons of certain monotheistic Greek philosophers like Socrates, Heraclitus, Plato and Aristotle - who are venerated as men of G-d alongside the OT prophets. In effect, they believe that the philosophy of these great men prepared the Greeks for the coming of Christ in a similar way that the Tanakh prepared the Jews.Hi Eliyosef. Thanks for that enlightenment. Too bad they don't use the Word of the Bible to enlighten themselves. I love the way they use "venerated", just as the "psuedo judaism" catholic church venerates "Mary".
Is it any wonder why other religions view christianity as "pagan"? And yes I realize jews look down on I and others that worship the True God in the name of Jesus, but I don't "venerate" objects.
As far as where I worship, it could under a tree by a lake or even an old barn, as God is everywhere His people are.God bless

matt 18:19 "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."

5 " To whom will you liken Me, and make [Me] equal And compare Me, that we should be alike? 6 They lavish gold out of the bag, And weigh silver on the scales; They hire a goldsmith, and he makes it a god; They prostrate themselves, yes, they worship. 7 They bear it on the shoulder, they carry it And set it in its place, and it stands; From its place it shall not move. Though [one] cries out to it, yet it cannot answer Nor save him out of his trouble.

[mitzi]

Klein's Etymological Hebrew Dictionary states Torah as:

BH = Biblical Hebrew
PH = Post Biblical Hebrew
NH = New Hebrew


BH - instruction, teaching.

BH - the Book of Laws, the Torah.

PH - the Five Books of the Torah, the Pentateuch.

NH - copy of a book of the Torah.

NH - theory, system.

NH - a book containing the principles of any branch of science.


Torah literally means instruction, and does not mean law. For the word law, the Hebrew word khoq(lit. law or decree) is used. Literarilly, Torah can also refer to the first five books of the Bible, among other things.

A modern example of the usage of the word Torah, is used in reference to the study of a particular field science. What is called Computer Science in America, would be called Computer Torah in Hebrew. Physics Torah, Biochemistry Torah, etc.

Much like a father that sets house rules, boundaries, etc. for his children and household, so does HaShem do through His Torah for instruction and teaching, and the ultimate goal of love and holiness. The khoqiym(plural for laws) of HaShem, like the house rules of a father, are just a small portion/subset of the Torah, or divine instruction.

Therefore, it's better to look at the Jewish bible not as just a set of decrees, but rather, as a divine book of instruction.


Jude3b:

I thought this thread might be a good starting point for you to read. Please share some thoughts into this and let me know

Mitsi/Mitzi