Political Crossfire Forums

[psholtz]

OK, as has been (heavily) requested, here is the PDF of the rabbinical refutations to the assertions (made by some) that Deuteronomy was written in 500BC-or-later by the conquering Persians:

http://www.paulsholtz.com/deuteronomy.pdf

This is the PDF that was forwarded to me compliments of Duchi..

Let the debating begin! :-D

[John]

What loses me is if their was a state of complete loss of Torah, and then a copy was found in one of the walls of the Temple and presented to King Josiah and a revival happened.....well, wouldn't the "Oral Law" have had a space where it wasn't maintained as well as some would like to say? Nearly 100 years is a long time to expect an Oral Law to remain true without a written one.

[Mailech]

John wrote: What loses me is if their was a state of complete loss of Torah, and then a copy was found in one of the walls of the Temple and presented to King Josiah and a revival happened.....well, wouldn't the "Oral Law" have had a space where it wasn't maintained as well as some would like to say? Nearly 100 years is a long time to expect an Oral Law to remain true without a written one.

I didn't read the PDF yet, but I did read something yesterday that had to do with this. Remember the discussion we had between Ktav Ashuri and Ktav Ivri, well say the original one was written in Ashuri, it being a more beautiful and proper script, This Torah that Moshe wrote was in teh Beit Hamikdash, as it states in Deuteronomy (I think) that Moshe placed a copy of the Torah with the Ark. But because they didn't want the Ashuri to be misused, the rest of the Torahs where written in Ivri.
Because Ivri was more common, Ashuri was left for the priests and scholars. So the Torah that they found when they were cleaning was the original Torah of Moshe written in Ashuri, the king therefore could not read it and needed to bring a scribe in to read it. That is what moved the King so much, not because he never saw a Torah, but because this was the original Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu. The Rabbis say that it was opened to the rebuke, which King Josiah saw as a sign and repented.
So it was not that it was lost, it was just that it was an extrodanary thing for the king to behold.

[John]

Mailech wrote: John wrote: What loses me is if their was a state of complete loss of Torah, and then a copy was found in one of the walls of the Temple and presented to King Josiah and a revival happened.....well, wouldn't the "Oral Law" have had a space where it wasn't maintained as well as some would like to say? Nearly 100 years is a long time to expect an Oral Law to remain true without a written one.

I didn't read the PDF yet, but I did read something yesterday that had to do with this. Remember the discussion we had between Ktav Ashuri and Ktav Ivri, well say the original one was written in Ashuri, it being a more beautiful and proper script, This Torah that Moshe wrote was in teh Beit Hamikdash, as it states in Deuteronomy (I think) that Moshe placed a copy of the Torah with the Ark. But because they didn't want the Ashuri to be misused, the rest of the Torahs where written in Ivri.
Because Ivri was more common, Ashuri was left for the priests and scholars. So the Torah that they found when they were cleaning was the original Torah of Moshe written in Ashuri, the king therefore could not read it and needed to bring a scribe in to read it. That is what moved the King so much, not because he never saw a Torah, but because this was the original Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu. The Rabbis say that it was opened to the rebuke, which King Josiah saw as a sign and repented.
So it was not that it was lost, it was just that it was an extrodanary thing for the king to behold.

Come on now.

2 Kings 22
8 Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan who read it.

9 Shaphan the scribe came to the king and brought back word to the king and said, "Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD."

10 Moreover, Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it in the presence of the king.

11 When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes.

12 Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Micaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant saying,

13 "Go, inquire of the LORD for me and the people and all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found, for great is the wrath of the LORD that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."

[Mailech]

Yea so?

You have never read something before and then read it again and have it more moving the second time?

[cap'n queasy]

I'm going to have to do some studying before I weigh in my opinion and speculation, as this subject deserves it. But I'll be back.

Thanks for hosting the file, Paul.

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: OK, as has been (heavily) requested, here is the PDF of the rabbinical refutations to the assertions (made by some) that Deuteronomy was written in 500BC-or-later by the conquering Persians:

http://www.paulsholtz.com/deuteronomy.pdf

This is the PDF that was forwarded to me compliments of Duchi..

Let the debating begin! :-D

What about the other files? Genesis, etc? I think that would be a proper place to start our analysis. And the author of the work lays the foundations in those segments. Putting out Deuteronomy here alone won't do us much good.

Oh, and BTW, the debate is framed in a somewhat skewed fashion. We have always maintained that the Torah is was written in the desert. It is the Bible critics who came along trying to refute that. So the burden of proof that the Biblical authorship is something other than what it has always been believed to be really lies with them. That's VERY important.

And yes, thanks for hosting the files. :)

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: What about the other files? Genesis, etc? I think that would be a proper place to start our analysis.
Aww man... now I feel like.. :bang:

I only have so much space on my Web server, so I figured we could go through them one at a time .. I think I probably picked Deuteronomy b/c it was the first alphabetically in the series. I could take it down and put up Genesis, but that seems silly since we have a thread on Deuteronomy going.. Maybe we can try to discuss Deuteronomy to whatever extant possible, and then I'll post Genesis next?

(In the meantime I'll see about clearing out another 4 MB on my Web server to post Genesis, but I'm not promising any miracles! :lol:)

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: What about the other files? Genesis, etc? I think that would be a proper place to start our analysis.
Aww man... now I feel like.. :bang:

I only have so much space on my Web server, so I figured we could go through them one at a time .. I think I probably picked Deuteronomy b/c it was the first alphabetically in the series. I could take it down and put up Genesis, but that seems silly since we have a thread on Deuteronomy going.. Maybe we can try to discuss Deuteronomy to whatever extant possible, and then I'll post Genesis next?

(In the meantime I'll see about clearing out another 4 MB on my Web server to post Genesis, but I'm not promising any miracles! :lol:)

Well, if it's a logistical thing, that's of course your prerogative. But the way it's written, it makes much more sense to start with Genesis.

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: What about the other files? Genesis, etc? I think that would be a proper place to start our analysis.
Aww man... now I feel like.. :bang:

I only have so much space on my Web server, so I figured we could go through them one at a time .. I think I probably picked Deuteronomy b/c it was the first alphabetically in the series. I could take it down and put up Genesis, but that seems silly since we have a thread on Deuteronomy going.. Maybe we can try to discuss Deuteronomy to whatever extant possible, and then I'll post Genesis next?

(In the meantime I'll see about clearing out another 4 MB on my Web server to post Genesis, but I'm not promising any miracles! :lol:)

Well, if it's a logistical thing, that's of course your prerogative. But the way it's written, it makes much more sense to start with Genesis.
Genesis is up, on the other thread ...

Do you think we should we analyze Deuteronomy last, and do Exodus and Leviticus after Genesis?

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: What about the other files? Genesis, etc? I think that would be a proper place to start our analysis.
Aww man... now I feel like.. :bang:

I only have so much space on my Web server, so I figured we could go through them one at a time .. I think I probably picked Deuteronomy b/c it was the first alphabetically in the series. I could take it down and put up Genesis, but that seems silly since we have a thread on Deuteronomy going.. Maybe we can try to discuss Deuteronomy to whatever extant possible, and then I'll post Genesis next?

(In the meantime I'll see about clearing out another 4 MB on my Web server to post Genesis, but I'm not promising any miracles! :lol:)

Well, if it's a logistical thing, that's of course your prerogative. But the way it's written, it makes much more sense to start with Genesis.
Genesis is up, on the other thread ...

Do you think we should we analyze Deuteronomy last, and do Exodus and Leviticus after Genesis?

Definitely! If G-d arranged it that way, who are we to argue? ;)

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: Definitely! If G-d arranged it that way, who are we to argue? ;)
You mean, that's the way the ancient Persians arranged it.. :lol:

Let the debating begin!! :-D

[cap'n queasy]

This is going to give me a chance to break in my new book of the writings of Josephus. :lol: