The Written Torah - How It Came About and Who Wrote It

[Ehav4Ever]

In this thread I will discuss the historical / traditional claim made by Torah based Jews / Orthodox Jews, Samaritans, and even Karaites that the written text of the Torah was dictated by the Creator of all things to Mosheh ben-Amram and that the current Torah texts of ancient Torah based communities is the same as the original text.

Concerning the authorship of the Torah there are a few issues that I will need address in this thread:

1. Is it possible for the Source of reality / creation to be able to create a universe but not give a set of instructions and a dictate a text to a particular individual?
2. Does it make sense for Hashem to “inspire” a text rather than just directly give the text to ensure that it starts out the right way rather than wait generations later to have the text come about?
   • In connection to this point, why would Hashem, through later inspiration, allow someone to write that Hashem gave the text, as a whole, at a time the Hashem did not give it?
   • What this means is, why not make it clear, by way of inspiration, that the text was not given at Mount Sinai to Mosheh ben-Amram and instead is the product of many generations' interpretations and not directly from Hashem.
3. Is it really true that the “Hebrew” text of the Torah contains different writing styles?
4. Does Hashem have a writing style that is similar to a human writing style?
5. Are there actual pre-Torah Yisraeli / Yehudi texts that prove what a correct writing style for a Yisraeli / Yehudi text at +3,000 years ago was?
   • Meaning are there texts on grammer, spelling, style, etc. from +3,000 years ago that denote how a Hebrew text is correctly written?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Before giving my comments on the above questions, the below baseline must be established in terms of what are the historical claims made about the Torah within the last 2,000+ years about the written text of the Torah.

Mesorah #1: The Torah that was and is – This view is best summed up by Ribbi Shimon, Rabbi Mosheh ben Maimon’s works, the introduction of the Ramban’s commentary on the Torah, Rashi, and others. These sources state that Hashem dictated the entire written Torah to Mosheh, initially in pieces over a period of 40 years. Prior to Mosheh’s death, he compiled all the pieces together, either from actual written texts he made based on Hashem’s instructions or from the oral teachings Hashem gave him before his death, and then transcribed 12 other copies which he entrusted to the leaders of each tribe. The structure of the Torah was a part of Hashem’s instructions and it serves to both instruct the simple of Am Yisrael as well as the more complex in a language that both can understand. All of these views agree that the Torah as we have it today is the product of the interaction between Hashem and Mosheh during the 40 year period from Har Sinai to the Yarden. These groups further agree that the process of transcription and transmission of the text was established by Hashem to Mosheh and passed down from generation to generation by numerous scholars and laymen.

Mesorah #2: The Torah was written by Hashem - According the late Samaritan High Priest Yaakob ben Aharon, circa 1913, the Torah was revealed in one roll/scroll by Hashem to Mosheh. It was written in the handwriting of Hashem, in characters that were well known, containing all the verses, divisions, commands, prohibitions, explanations and other knowledge from the very beginning to the end. This was according to what the most learned Samaritan high priest Hasam Assoory of Tyrus had written in his book, known as the book of "Tabach."

Mesorah #3: Torath Moshe until Mosheh’s death – This view is best summed up by Ribbi Yehudah and some believe it may have been Ibn Ezra's belief, although he only cryptically wrote about it. This position posits that everything, except for the description of Mosheh’s death, was transcribed by Mosheh. The last three sentences (pasukim) detailing the events about Mosheh’s death were dictated from Hashem to Yehoshua bin Nun (Moses's student Joshua) to add to the Torah; per Mosheh’s instruction. Note: It must be noted that Ibn Ezra did not base his commentaries on an ancient mesorah he received, but instead his analysis of the language of the Torah.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In this thread I will discuss the historical / traditional claim made by Torah based Jews / Orthodox Jews, Samaritans, and even Karaites that the written text of the Torah was dictated by the Creator of all things to Mosheh ben-Amram and that the current Torah texts of ancient Torah based communities is the same as the original text.

Concerning the authorship of the Torah there are a few issues that I will need address in this thread:

1. Is it possible for the Source of reality / creation to be able to create a universe but not give a set of instructions and a dictate a text to a particular individual?

Yes. God can do anything he wants.

1. Does it make sense for Hashem to “inspire” a text rather than just directly give the text to ensure that it starts out the right way rather than wait generations later to have the text come about?

It makes more sesnse to me. I simply apply the same reasoning I use for the Quran and Book of Mormon and Vedas. They all claim to have come from God.

1. • In connection to this point, why would Hashem, through later inspiration, allow someone to write that Hashem gave the text, as a whole, at a time the Hashem did not give it?

I'm not say he did or didn't. But its worth pointing out that myths and legends exist in every culture.

1. • What this means is, why not make it clear, by way of inspiration, that the text was not given at Mount Sinai to Mosheh ben-Amram and instead is the product of many generations' interpretations and not directly from Hashem.

Because that's just not how life works. If the Quran is not revealed by God, why doesn't its text simply say that? If you can answer that question, then you will have the answer to your question.

1. Is it really true that the “Hebrew” text of the Torah contains different writing styles?

Yes, that is absolutely true, whether you believe it came from God or not.

1. Does Hashem have a writing style that is similar to a human writing style?

Hashem has never picked up a pen and paper and written a book.

1. Are there actual pre-Torah Yisraeli / Yehudi texts that prove what a correct writing style for a Yisraeli / Yehudi text at +3,000 years ago was?

Not only did writing styles change over time as the language evolved, but writing styles vary from person to person.

1. • Meaning are there texts on grammer, spelling, style, etc. from +3,000 years ago that denote how a Hebrew text is correctly written?

Nope. The ancient world simply was not interested in correct grammar or spelling. Style is neither right nore wrong. Just as we can tell people apart by our voices, a good stylistician can tell us apart by our writing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Before giving my comments on the above questions, the below baseline must be established in terms of what are the historical claims made about the Torah within the last 2,000+ years about the written text of the Torah.

Mesorah #1: The Torah that was and is – This view is best summed up by Ribbi Shimon, Rabbi Mosheh ben Maimon’s works, the introduction of the Ramban’s commentary on the Torah, Rashi, and others. These sources state that Hashem dictated the entire written Torah to Mosheh, initially in pieces over a period of 40 years. Prior to Mosheh’s death, he compiled all the pieces together, either from actual written texts he made based on Hashem’s instructions or from the oral teachings Hashem gave him before his death, and then transcribed 12 other copies which he entrusted to the leaders of each tribe. The structure of the Torah was a part of Hashem’s instructions and it serves to both instruct the simple of Am Yisrael as well as the more complex in a language that both can understand. All of these views agree that the Torah as we have it today is the product of the interaction between Hashem and Mosheh during the 40 year period from Har Sinai to the Yarden. These groups further agree that the process of transcription and transmission of the text was established by Hashem to Mosheh and passed down from generation to generation by numerous scholars and laymen.

The Rabbis in the past, of blessed memory, simply did not have the same tools we have today, just as they didn't have scientific method. They had no concept of textual criticism, nor did they spend much time reflecting on how myths and legends evolve.

Mesorah #2: The Torah was written by Hashem - According the late Samaritan High Priest Yaakob ben Aharon, circa 1913, the Torah was revealed in one roll/scroll by Hashem to Mosheh. It was written in the handwriting of Hashem, in characters that were well known, containing all the verses, divisions, commands, prohibitions, explanations and other knowledge from the very beginning to the end. This was according to what the most learned Samaritan high priest Hasam Assoory of Tyrus had written in his book, known as the book of "Tabach."

I grew up with this belief as well. But now I know that this is simply not the case. It kind of rocked my boat when I first saw it, but amazingly, it did not destroy my faith. My childhood belief that the Torah was written by one person died, but God didn't, nor did the Torah become less important to me.

Hashem has no handwriting. Everything in the Torah scroll is copied by a Sofer. It is the Sofer that has a unique handwriting.

I find it very odd that you would quote a Samaritan, when a Samaritan Torah is different from ours. The fact that it is different is evidence that in those days, there was not agreement on what Moses said. So which version of the Torah is penned by God? You say ours. The Samaritan says his. It is only when you examine the nature of how religious texts come to be, and how they evolve, that this makes any sense.

Mesorah #3: Torath Moshe until Mosheh’s death – This view is best summed up by Ribbi Yehudah and some believe it may have been Ibn Ezra's belief, although he only cryptically wrote about it. This position posits that everything, except for the description of Mosheh’s death, was transcribed by Mosheh. The last three sentences (pasukim) detailing the events about Mosheh’s death were dictated from Hashem to Yehoshua bin Nun (Moses's student Joshua) to add to the Torah; per Mosheh’s instruction. Note: It must be noted that Ibn Ezra did not base his commentaries on an ancient mesorah he received, but instead his analysis of the language of the Torah.

Yes, this is the traditional understanding. But we know now that it is not the case.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, now to address the questions I presented earlier from the perspective of Torah based Jews from the communities of the Mizrah, North Africa, Asia, Ethiopia, and Orthodox Jews from Europe.

1. Question: Is it possible for the Source of reality / creation to be able to create a universe but not give a set of instructions and a dictate a text to a particular individual?
   • Response - Of course, it is not only possible but also logical for a Source to provide something that dictates elements of how reality work especially those elements of reality who have the logical capacity to understand such a thing.
     • Further, there are Torah based writings that describe that the purpose of reality is so that the Torah would be the basis of reality. If they are correct about this then it would require such a Source to provide the proper Torah to the correct generation and at the right time to guarentee that such a thing be upheld.
     • Lastly, to this point if one assumes that there is a source of creation and it can "inspire" someone to gather together a text of events, some of which happend and some of which did not, then it can be also assumed that the same Source can give a national revelation and then make sure that the pertanent events are written down and remain in the same format. This would of course require the right people to take the transmission of the text seriously and define rules for how such text is transmitted.
2. Question: Does it make sense for Hashem to “inspire” a text rather than just directly give the text to ensure that it starts out the right way rather than wait generations later to have the text come about?
   • Response - Since the claim, from a historical perspective, is that Hashem had the Torah as a part of reality from the start a direct revelation rather than undefined "inspiration" makes more sense. Especially given the ease with one can claim "inspiration" that they were never given rather the reality of trying to convince people, and later generations that something happened to them as a national group that didn't happen - or even that something happened to all of their ancestors that didn't happen. The risk with the indirect method is again that anyone can claim to have been inspired to write something that didn't actually happen.
   • Question: In connection to this point, why would Hashem, through later inspiration, allow someone to write that Hashem gave the text, as a whole, at a time the Hashem did not give it?
     • Response - Here it would make more sense for Hashem to guarentee that no one in the future could be fooled into thinking that their ancestors experienced something they didn't experience or that Mosheh "transcribed" a text that was never given to him rather than leave it open for someone to make a false report. Again, given the amount of people who would have to convinced that their ancestors received a text they never received - it would make more sense for Hashem to make it clear that he never gave Mosheh or anyone else a text, but instead that he inspired different people write down different parts.
   • Question: What this means is, why not make it clear, by way of inspiration, that the text was not given at Mount Sinai to Mosheh ben-Amram and instead is the product of many generations' interpretations and not directly from Hashem?
     • Response - covered in the above points. If Hashem planned on an inspiration at a later date through patching texts together over hundreds of years it would make more sense to only inspire what happened and not what did not. It would further make sense for a being who can create a universe to give a Torah in a way where it would hard to fake the circumstance with which it was given, rather than leave it completely up to anyone who claims to inspired.
3. Question: Is it really true that the “Hebrew” text of the Torah contains different writing styles?
   • Response - It is actually not true that there are different writing styles in the Hebrew text of the Torah.
   • The explaination for this is simple. If one takes the Hebrew text alone and wants to identify a writing style one has to have an example of a text from the same time period and prove that what is the correct way, based on the period, that such a text should be written.
   • Further to this point, the claim of various Torah based communities is that the text of the Torah was dicated from Hashem to Mosheh in a way so that the text would be understand by:
     • Analyzing the grammer used - in Hebrew.
     • Checking spelling used in different places for different reasons - in Hebrew.
     • Using PaRDeS to understand the reasons why Hashem gave information in a particular way - again in Hebrew.
     • Spacing of the text and the seperation of statements.
     • All of the above, according to Torah based communities, is a part of the style in which Hashem gave the Torah. So, what a person may assume to different writing styles is the style which Hashem commanded to the Torah to be written in for different elements of analysis by Jews holding by the Torah.
4. Question: Does Hashem have a writing style that is similar to a human writing style?
   • Response - The answer to this is no. Hashem not being human, would of course dictate a text in a way that doesn't go by the rules of what most people would assume should be written.
   • This of course goes back to the fact that every element of the written text of the Torah has a purpose, that Hasem gave.
5. Question: Are there actual pre-Torah Yisraeli / Yehudi texts that prove what a correct writing style for a Yisraeli / Yehudi text at +3,000 years ago was? Meaning are there texts on grammer, spelling, style, etc. from +3,000 years ago that denote how a Hebrew text is correctly written?
   
   • Response - The answer to this is no. There are no texts, that can be indentified as Yisraeli / Yehudi that would allow one to say what is the correct style of writing of a text. Scholars are often divided on what can be defined as Jewish Hebrew vs. Canaanite vs. Proto-Sinatic, etc. Thus, there is no definition of what is a correct writing style for Hebrew form +3,000 years ago.

So, now that I have addressed these questions - I will dive into a few issues.

1. I will take the actual Hebrew text in places where it claimed there are different writing styles and see if one can truly say that there is a difference in writing style that can't be connected to a specfic reason for it being written that way.
2. I will address the claims are from different communities who were seperated before and after Babylonian exile, as well as some who were not directly affected by it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that what I will be discussing in this thread are not personal faith or even relgious issue. Instead, I will be discussing historical claims - even if others want to define the claims are religious. So, sticking to the historical aspect of this thread - I would like to start addressing the issue of different writers in the "Hebrew Text." Let's start with the following example:

Below is a Hebrew text of the Torah in a Yehudi / Jewish Torah scroll from Yemen. Just based on the text as is, what proof is there that there are two different writing styles?

So, starting off - in order to determine what writing style even exists one obviously has to be fluent in Hebrew. Yet, how does one become fluent in the type of Hebrew would allow one to know if this text correctly represents how one single a "Yehudi" from +3,000 years ago would write such a text? Of course, it would require that one has examples of the same level of Hebrew to compare with to understand what was a standard writing style from the period.

For example, it is understand in Talmudic, Geonim period, and Rishonim analysis that the two different parts of the same text are not two different writing styles but instead two different descriptions that make different focus on what is described in the text. What this means is that given that Hashem is not a human, and does not abide by human writing styles and also knowing that the Torah was not given as a point A to point Z history book but instead to provide a particular type of instruction to the Yisraeli / Yehudi people it is widely recognized that based on the following points in the text the two different descriptions have one source (Hashem) but are present to provide two diffeent perspectives on the existance of reality.

Performing textual criticism using a knowledge of the Hebrew lanugage and the cultural context of the langaunge one finds the following.

Thus, there is an answer to the reason the text describes what it does. I.e. it is focusing on different topics for the sake of Hashem teaching a particular instruction / lesson to the Jewish people who learn Torah. This is something found in all Sephardic, Mizrahhi, Yemenite, and Orthodox Askenazi communities. Each Jew who studies this is expected to come away with different ideas of what they learn from this.

Yet, there is nothing apparent in the text that shows that two different Jewish writers wrote this and then later somone combined it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, now I would like to address the idea that the the Rabbis in the past did not have the same tools we have today or if they didn't have a scientific method. I will also address, the issue of if they did not have a concept of textual criticism, nor did they spend much time reflecting on how myths and legends evolve. I will show that:

• The rabbis weren’t the only ones performing research into the text of the Torah, thousands of years ago until the modern era. In many regions, the average Jew who knew Hebrew was performing this task.
• I will show that the concept of the scientific method did exist in various generations and the many areas of this type of methodology is displayed in the Talmud in other later writings.
• I will also address that since ancient times there has always been a concept of textual criticism, and that rabbis and laymen Jews alike spent lots of time reflecting on the history of the text, the ancestral “historical claims,” and also the more legendary areas that developed around certain issues and events.

So, starting with the claim that – The rabbis of old didn’t have a concept of textual criticism.

Rabbis, and average Jews in the past had a concept of textual criticism. Literally, Talmud Torah / study is based on the concept of textual criticism. Most of the Talmud deals with textual criticism (see also Mesechet Soferim) and this is literally the purpose of every commentary of the Torah that has ever been written. There are some rabbis who wrote commentaries to critique the connection between the Torah text and various midrashim, there are some rabbis who analyzed the text based on the simple meaning of the text, there are some who focus on the grammar - spellings – distinction in statements, there are also rabbis who approach their critique from the angle of the scientific method, and there are others who focus on the historical research into what is written.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that what I will be discussing in this thread are not personal faith or even relgious issue. Instead, I will be discussing historical claims - even if others want to define the claims are religious. So, sticking to the historical aspect of this thread - I would like to start addressing the issue of different writers in the "Hebrew Text."

Genesis 1: Highly structured, formal, poetic, macrocosmic in scope, impersonal, and emphasizes the sequence and order of creation.
Genesis 2: Less structured, detailed, intimate, microcosmic in focus, personal, and emphasizes the relational aspects between God and humans.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Now, getting back to the point of actually taking the Hebrew text and analyzing it directly and not through the lense of foreign translation or a foreign concept, i.e. a non-Hebrew based concept of how a text should be written I will continue to address "textually" what standards exist.

The first issue, as addressed earlier Torah based Jews of the Middle East, Africa, Spain, Asia, and Orthodox Jews of Europe all claim that that Hashem dictated to Mosheh ben-Amram the content, structure, grammer, and spellings to be used in the written Torah. Meaning that Mosheh did not decide how the text would be written, but instead transcribed what he was shown and what Hashem told him.

What this means is two things:

1. The text would display the characterisitcs that Hashem dictated.
   • I.e. if the text changes tone, uses different methods to describe a particular event, or presents information in different order it fits into Hashem's purpose for the text.
   • Based on the above, Hashem dictated the Torah in such a way - where even the written structure spelling, shifts in style, and word choices are a part of the instruction that Torah based Jews are to derive from the text.
2. What it also means is that if a foreign culture were to look at the text they may decide, based on their own liqustic choices that the text does not meet their own personal concepts of textual structure, content, etc.

Going back to the Beresheeth example - looking at the following again. If one want to say that the two sections, which in the original Hebrew have no chapter numbers, should fit a particular structure or writing one has to bring examples from the time period to denote either a) a consistant method from the Yisraeli /Yehudi Hebrew language of +3,000 years ago or b) a proof that no author would intend for the two descriptions to differ in their structure in order to present a particular instruction. Both of these issues, have been addressed for thousands of years within the Torah based Jewish communities of Middle East, Africa, Spain, Asia, and Orthodox Jews of Europe.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Concerning the above issue, Rabbi Mosheh ben-Nachman also known as the Ramban wrote the following in his commentary of the Torah.

Ramban The Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah The Book of Beresheeth
(Translation by Rabbi Ezra Bick with some linquistic adjustments on my part to match more closely the Hebrew text)

Mosheh [ben-Amram] our teacher transcibed this book of Beresheeth together with the whole Torah from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He. (Ehav4Ever note: meaning that Hashem dictated to Mosheh exactly what to write)​

​

It is likely that he wrote it on Mount Sinai for there it was said to him, Come up to Me unto the mount, and be there; and I will give thee the tablets of stone and the Torah and the commandment which I have written, to teach them.' The tablets of stone include the tablets and the writing that are the ten commandments. The commandment includes the number of all the commandments, positive and negative. If so, the expression and the Torah includes the stories from the beginning of Beresheeth [and is called Torah - teaching] because it teaches people the ways of trust / following [in Hashem]. Upon descending from the mount, he [Mosheh transcribed the Torah from the beginning of Beresheeth to the end of the account of the tabernacle. He wrote the conclusion of the Torah at the end of the fortieth year of wandering in the desert when he said [by. command of Elohim], Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Eternal your Elohim.​

​

This [view] is according to the words of the Talmudic sage who says that the Torah was written in sections. However, according to the sage who says that the Torah was given in its entirety, everything was written in the fortieth year when he [Mosheh] was commanded, Now write this song for you and teach it unto the Benei Yisrael; put it in their mouths, and, as he was further instructed, Take this scroll of the Torah, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Eternal your Elohim.​

​

In either case it would have been proper for him to write at the beginning of the book of Beresheeth: "And Hashem spoke to Mosheh all these words, saying." The reason it was written anonymously [without the above introductory phrase] is that Mosheh, our teacher, did not write the Torah in the first person like the prophets who did mention themselves. For example, it is often said of Ezekiel, And the word of the Eternal came unto me saying: 'Son of man,' and it is said of Jeremiah, And the word of the Eternal came unto me. Mosheh our teacher, however, wrote this history of all former generations and his own genealogy, history and experiences in the third person. Therefore he says And Hashem spoke to Moses, saying to him as if he were speaking about another person. And because this is so, Mosheh is not mentioned in the Torah until his birth, and even at that time he is mentioned as if someone else was speaking about him.​

​

Now do not find a difficulty in the matter of Devarim (Deut.) wherein he [Mosheh] does speak about himself - [as he says,] And I besought Hashem; And I prayed unto Hashem, - for the beginning of that book reads: These are the words which Mosheh spoke unto all Yisrael. Thus throughout Devarim (Deut.) he is like one who narrates things in the exact language in which they were spoken.​

​

The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and, needless to say, it preceded the birth of Mosheh our teacher. It has been transmitted to us by tradition that it [the Torah] was written with letters of black fire upon a background of white fire. Thus, Mosheh was like a scribe who copies from an ancient book, and therefore he wrote anonymously.​

​

However, it is true and clear that the entire Torah - from the beginning of Genesis to "in the sight of all Yisrael" [the last words in Devarim (Deut.)] - reached the ear of Moses from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, just as it is said elsewhere, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book. Hashem informed Mosheh first of the manner of the creation of heaven and earth and all their hosts, that is, the creation of all things, high and low. Likewise [He informed him of] everything that has been said by prophecy concerning the esoterics of the Divine Chariot [in the vision of Ezekiel] and the process of Creation, and what has been transmitted about them to the Sages. [Mosheh was informed about these] together with an account of the four forces in the lower world: the force of minerals, vegetation in the earth, living motion, and the rational soul. With regard to all of these matters - their creation, their essence, their powers and functions, and the disintegration of those of them that are destroyed - Mosheh our teacher was apprised, and all of it was written in the Torah, explicitly or by implication........​

​

Everything that was transmitted to Mosheh our teacher through the forty-nine gates of understanding was written in the Torah explicitly or by implication in words, in the numerical value of the letters or in the form of the letters, that is, whether written normally or with some change in form such as bent or crooked letters and other deviations, or in the tips of the letters and their crownlets, as the Sages have said: "When Moses ascended (Ehav4Ever Note: The Ramban uses the statement (כשעלה משה מרומם) which implies that Mosheh was raised to a type of existance above our normal existance) he found the Holy One, blessed be He, attaching crownlets to certain letters of the Torah. He [Mosheh] said to Him, 'What are these for?' He [Hashem] said to him, 'One man is destined to interpret mountains of laws on their basis.' " '"Whence dost thou know this?' He [Rabbi Akiva] answered them: 'This is a law given to Mosheh on Mount Sinai.' "For these hints cannot be understood except from mouth to mouth [through an oral tradition which can be traced] to Mosheh, who received it on Sinai.​

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Going by what the Ramban wrote above, it means that the differences in the Hebrew text, which I noted earlier, of Beresheeth have to exist the way they do in the text.

Thus, as the Ramban stated above,

Everything that was transmitted to Mosheh our teacher through the forty-nine gates of understanding was written in the Torah explicitly or by implication in words, in the numerical value of the letters or in the form of the letters, that is, whether written normally or with some change in form such as bent or crooked letters and other deviations, or in the tips of the letters and their crownlets​

In order for this to come through in the Hebrew text, using Beresheeth as an example, there have to be two seperate accounts with to different focuses - as I pointed out earlier and shown below.

Thus, the Torah based rabbis of old and new from the Torah based communities of of the Middle East, Africa, Spain, Asia, and Orthodox Jews of Europe all recognized / recognize that there is a necessary need in shift in the text in order for various messages of Torah to be derived from the shift. I.e. Hashem devised the style / styles in a way that deliverse numerous messages to those who read it in Hebrew.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Concerning this issue of style and, if you will, one author changing their writing style in the same text. Even from a human perspective this technique is known in the world of literature. The below brings an interesting dicussion on this topic.

Writing The Same Story Different Ways by
Julie Duffy Posted onApril 19, 2010

Writing The Same Story Different Ways - StoryADay

Stuck? Here's a secret weapon to keep you writing every day: Rewrite the same story in different styles. How?

storyaday.org

"Stuck? Here’s a secret weapon to keep you writing every day: Rewrite the same story in different styles."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Another example, when it comes to writing something in a non-standard way being known in the literary world.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Again, it is important to stress that is not a "religious" method of research but instead one that is standard in textual research.

Getting back to the concept of textual criticism or textual critique, one can ask the questinn of why I include the Samaritan Torah when I discuss the issues of historical analysis of the Torah. The reason is simple, when one is delving into the history of something one takes on every historical perspective that exists. For example, if one says written Torah produced by people who claim to be / descend from a group known as Benei Yisrael one would have to research every group who make such a historical claim and how far back those claims go in history. One would need to compare every form of anceint Torah source derived from every surviving group as well as from groups that no longer exist.

So, that being said the most ancient groups, that still exist today, that one would have to investigate would be the following.

In the process of investigation, one would need to consider the following style fo analysis. There are three styles of texts that would have to be taken into consideration.

Text Type #1 - Sefer Torah - Official Torah Scrolls (Complete Scrolls)

Text Type #2 - Humash - Official / Non-Official / Non Scroll (Includes Vowel MT versions)

Text Type #2 - Text Fragments

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Concerning the issue of whether or not the rabbis, by extension Torath Mosheh Jews, had a scientific method. It is actually false that there was no scientific method among ancient Yisraeli and Yehudi cultures.

In the Mishnah Torah – Hilcoth Qidush HaHodesh 17:24

(Translation) The rationales for all these calculations, and the reasons why this number is added, and why that subtraction is made, and how all these concepts are known, and the proofs for each of these principles are [the subject] of the wisdom of astronomy and geometry, concerning which the Greeks wrote many books. These texts are presently in the hands of the sages. ​

​

The texts written by the Sages of Yisrael in the age of the prophets from the tribe of Yissachar have not been transmitted to us.* Nevertheless, since these concepts can be proven in an unshakable manner, leaving no room for question, the identity of the author, be he a prophet or a non-Jew, is of no concern. For a matter whose rationale has been revealed and has proven truthful in an unshakable manner, we do not rely on [the personal authority of] the individual who made these statements or taught these concepts, but on the proofs he presented and the reasons he made known.​

*Commenting on I Chronicles 12:32, "From the descendants of Yissachar, men who had understanding of the times...," Beresheeth Rabbah 72:5 explains that the sages of the tribe of Yissachar were those responsible for the determination of the calendar. (See also the commentary of the Radak on this verse.)

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Also, concerning science and Torath Mosheh (rabbis and non-rabbis)

Rav Kook does not consider things from the "world outside the beit midrash" to be dangerous to religion. To him, scientific progress is part of the process of divine revelation in the world. Therefore, he views conflicts between science and religion in a completely different light than those who view science as the enemy of religion.

In Igrot Ha-Reiyah, Letter #134, second to last paragraph, Rav Kook writes:
​

In general, this is the principle in the conflict of ideas: That any idea which comes to contradict anything from the Torah must not at first be dealt with by us with opposition. Rather, we must build upon it the palace of the Torah. Thus we are uplifted by it, and for the sake of this uplifting are these ideas revealed. Afterwards, when we are not pressured by anything, we may also object to it [the idea] with a heart full of confidence. There are examples which prove this... ​

​

Every scientific discovery which appears to contradict the Torah, in truth, comes to strengthen our religious understanding; "to build upon it the palace of the Torah." This is similar to the idea of the kodesh kodashim being built on top of the kodesh and chol. Scientific discoveries actually contribute to the enhancement of the world of the "beit midrash." Once we have reached the level of kodesh kodashim, and we are comfortable with this principle regarding science, we can then give an honest criticism of scientific ideas. They may not yet be sufficiently developed (as was the case with evolution in Rav Kook's day), they may be inaccurate or primitive or merely incorrect, but in any event our criticism must not stem from feeling attacked by science. As Alfred North Whitehead believed, science leads religious men to better religious understanding. For example, in the past people had a more literal understanding of the statement "God lives in the heavens." However, after scientific discovery revealed the nature of the heavens, the idea is understood in a spiritual sense. His presence is not geographically defined; He is everywhere, but is hidden as if He were "in the heavens."​

​

Is it possible for a scientific theory to contradict the Torah?

Rav Kook and Rav Saadia Gaon are both of the opinion that ultimately it is impossible for there to be any scientific fact which contradicts the Torah. The Rambam deals with the Aristotelian idea of the eternity of the world along similar lines. While he does not accept Aristotle's static world, he does accept the possibility of the Platonic idea of eternal matter, which does not contradict the Torah (Moreh Nevukhim part 2, ch. 13-25). Rav Kook agrees with the Rambam's approach to science. Since both science and religion are part of Hashem's world, they cannot be opposed to each other. Furthermore, nothing can attack the foundations of Torah.

​

 

[Ehav4Ever]

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Another aspect about the claim that is made by some that the modern Torah is the result of various text fragments that were pieced together – there are a number of historical problems with this claim. Below are a few historical questions / statements that are historical challenges to the claim. I will be addressing them by giving an example of what historical answers are in the next post.

Note: these are questions that require actual factual responses and not simply making up some answers (assumptions) without any historical evidence, convergance of facts, with which to base on answera. I.e. historical names, dates, and events.

1. What is / are the name of the Jew(s) who pieced the various fragments together into a unified text?
2. Who provided the fragments?
3. Who created the scribal rules of the fragments which govern spelling, word choice, and spacing?
4. What tribes did they come from? Were there any members who were ancestors of the Samaritans?
5. What year (s) did they do it in?
6. What was the process they used to convince local Yehudim in their area to accept a text that had been unknown previously?
7. How did these same Yeududim then convince the Samaritans to accept a unified text, while at the same time the Samaritans have a long history of rejecting Yehudi texts outright?
8. How did they convince Jews in Yemen, North Africa, China, and Afghanistan to take on this text that they did not originally have? (What year (s) did they do it?)
9. How did they reach Jewish communities that only had outside contact within the last 200 years?
10. How did they convince communities of Jews with a natural culture to argue every point to accept this text with no recorded opposition?
11. Historically speaking, Jews in Yemen refused to accept 14 minor Torah Scroll alterations suggested by Rabbi Even Sapir, how is one supposed to believe that a mixture of Cohen’s, Levites, and Yehudim from the tribes of Yehudah to accept a text that would have had massive amounts of alterations to their historical texts?
12. How did they convince the Essenes to accept a unified text?

Now, be aware. In order to prove the “theory” of a group of fragmented texts one would require a historical account of:

1. The content of each fragment and its historical origin.
2. Textual proof that the claimed fragment was itself maintained as a accepted text from its claimed author (s).
3. A historical account of when the fragments were made into a unified text and the event that precipitated the introduction of the unified text.
4. Evidence for every Jewish community were “tricked / convinced” into the narrative that the unified text had always existed.

I will soon be addressing, by way of pictorial examples, some of the textual problems with the claim and how its origins were not based on a review of variant texts in Hebrew.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

As an eperiment, I will make up some fake answers to the questions below that would show at what level one would have to answer.

1. What is / are the name of the Jew(s) who pieced the various fragments together into a unified text?
   • (Example Answer - Menacham ben-Yishai, Benaiyah ben-Yoram, Amram ben-Uzzi, Eli ben-Shaul, Shelomo ben-Tal, Mosheh ben-Aharon.)
2. Who provided the fragments and where did the final unification of the text take place?
   • (Example Answer - Menacham ben-Yishai and Benaiyah ben-Yoram gathered the fragments form the others and unified the text in 200 BCE. They unified the text in Hutzal Bavel)
3. Who created the scribal rules of the fragments which govern spelling, word choice, and spacing?
   • (Example Answer - Benaiyah ben-Yoram in 180 BCE took the first draft of the unified text and added the spacing)
4. What tribes did they come from?
   • (Example Answer - Menacham ben-Yishai tribe of Lewi, Benaiyah ben-Yoram tribe of Benyamin, Amram ben-Uzzi tribe of Lewi, Eli ben-Shaul tribe of Yehudah, Shelomo ben-Tal tribe of Reuven, Mosheh ben-Aharon tribe of Lewi.)
5. Were there any members who were ancestors of the Samaritans?
   • (Example Answer - No the Samaritans were not involved because they composed their own fragment tradition.)
6. What year (s) did they do it in?
   • (Example Answer - They first met in 200 CE came up with the plan of combine the texts into one and worked on the project for fifty years.)
7. What was the process they used to convince local Yehudim in their area to accept a text that had been unknown previously?
   • (Example Answer - They put together an army of their followers conquered the local Yehudi leadership of Hutzal Bavel and then disposed of every Yehudi above the age of 2. They then went around in Bavel cities with Yehudim and were very meticulous to get rid of all leaders and Yehudim above the age of 2. They then raised the children under the false idea that the unified text had been what their parents received by way of masorah. They then convinced the children they raised to argue as a part of their regular culture.)
8. How did these same Yeududim then convince the Samaritans to accept a unified text, while at the same time the Samaritans have a long history of rejecting Yehudi texts outright?
   • (Example Answer - No comment.)
9. Which fragments did Jews who were in exile before the Babylonian exile possess prior to the unification?
   • (Example Answer - No comment.)
10. How did they convince Jews in Yemen, North Africa, China, and Afghanistan to take on this text that they did not originally have? (What year (s) did they do it?)
    • (Example Answer - No comment.)
11. How did they reach Jewish communities that only had outside contact within the last 200 years?
    • (Example Answer - No comment.)
12. How did they convince communities of Jews with a natural culture to argue every point to accept this text with no recorded opposition?
    • (Example Answer - No comment.)
13. Historically speaking, Jews in Yemen refused to accept 14 minor Torah Scroll alterations suggested by Rabbi Even Sapir, how is one supposed to believe that a mixture of Cohen’s, Levites, and Yehudim from the tribes of Yehudah to accept a text that would have had massive amounts of alterations to their historical texts?
    • (Example Answer - No comment.)
14. How did they convince the Essenes to accept a unified text?
    • (Example Answer - No comment.)

 

[Ehav4Ever]