The Origin of the Pentateuch. Part 2. Jerusalem

 

Hypotheses and the Silence about Jerusalem

The hypotheses I mentioned in Part One regarding the origin of the first five books of the Bible all share one common feature: they assume that the main parts of the Pentateuch were written in Jerusalem. Scholars differ only in the period and circumstances of composition. However, within the Pentateuch itself there is not a single (!) mention of Jerusalem. And this is quite strange.

The narratives unfold in other cities and regions of Palestine. The authors tell of the origins of various cultic sites, the histories of certain towns, and the etymology of some geographical names. Yet they never once mention Jerusalem. If the stories of the Pentateuch had been written in Jerusalem, one would expect their authors to show interest in Jerusalem’s history—perhaps in the stories of the patriarchs or in the conquest of Canaan. But nothing of the kind is observed. The authors stubbornly ignore Jerusalem.

This fact troubled many biblical commentators, who have offered various explanations. I will highlight a few of them.

Textual Criticism of Ancient Texts: The Origin of the Pentateuch. Part 1. Hypotheses

 

Canonical Version

For many centuries it has been believed that the first five books of the Old Testament were written by the prophet Moses. However, only one of them (the fifth book, Deuteronomy) is written in the first person. Most likely, the canonical claim of Mosaic authorship of all five books developed gradually. Initially, it referred only to Deuteronomy, and then it was extended to all five books, despite the fact that the first four are written in the third person and contain no direct claim that they were written by Moses.

Today, the hypothesis of Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch is supported by believers, theologians, and those for whom the Bible is not merely a book but the direct word of God.

Scholarly Hypotheses

Since the Middle Ages, biblical commentators have criticized the idea of Mosaic authorship. They noticed numerous problematic passages in the books, which indicated that:

• The Pentateuch could not have been written by one person, because it contains too many contradictions, duplicate stories, and variations in phraseology.

• It could not have been written in the desert, but rather in Palestine, where the Israelites had already lived for some time.

• It could not have been written during the time of Moses, since it contains hints that a long period had passed between Moses’ era and the time of writing.

Research Reveals Ancient Struggle over Holy Land Supremacy

By Matthias Schulz

The Jews had significant competition in antiquity when it came to worshipping Yahweh. Archeologists have discovered a second great temple not far from Jerusalem that predates its better known cousin. It belonged to the Samaritans, and may have been edited out of the Bible once the rivalry had been decided.
More

Samaritan Letter to Artaxerxes the King

According to the fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra Zerubbabel, the leader of the Jews, has refused the Samaritan’s help in rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem. Offended, the Samaritans began to interfere with the Jews in rebuilding the temple and seduce the king's officials to stop construction of the temple. Later, they wrote a letter to the Persian king Artaxerxes with denunciation of the Jews. In it Samaritans warned the king that if rebuilding of the temple and the city of Jerusalem would complete the Jews will raise revolt and stop paying tribute. In support of his words the senders of the letter asked the king of search in the royal archives of old documents from which it can verify the rebellious nature of the Jews. After receiving and reading the letter King Artaxerxes has raised the old documents and saw that message senders were right. In response Artaxerxes ordered a prohibition rebuild Jerusalem and its temple. As a result the construction of the temple has been stopped all the reign of Artaxerxes until the next reign of Darius king of Persia. This storyline draws us to the fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra.

The Qumran Excavations 1993-2004. Preliminary report. Summary

Yitzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg

Jerusalem 2007

Much has been written about Qumran, and endless theories have been proposed, some of which have attained the status of fact upon which archaeological research has built over the past fifty years. Here, we wish to clearly distinguish between various hypotheses concerning the site and the archaeological evidence that we have exposed in our excavations.

The first settlement at Qumran was established in the Iron Age. When the site was again inhabited in the Hasmonean period it was built in exactly the same place. This fact itself, together with an analysis of the topography and of the water regime of the area, provide clear evidence that this was the optimal—and perhaps the only—location on the upper plateau of the marl terraces next to the fault scarp in which a settlement would not be swept away by floods and would be able to collect flowing water and potters' clay. The claim that the location was chosen because of its isolation, for the purpose of establishing a first Jewish monastery or a community center for the Judean Desert sect, is groundless.

The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy

Prof. Dr. Stefan Schorch
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Since 1953, when Albrecht Alt’s famous essay “Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums” was published, the question about the historical origin of Deuteronomy became an important issue in the research on the Hebrew Bible. Pointing especially to conceptual parallels between Deuteronomy and the Book of Hosea, Alt argued that Deuteronomy was not composed in Judah or in Jerusalem, but in the North. Although this suggestion has been followed by important experts of Deuteronomy, Alt’s theory is today far from being generally accepted among Old Testament scholars. One of the main reasons for this situation seems to be one weak point: Alt’s study offers no explanation for how the idea of cult centralization, which is so prominently expressed in Deuteronomy (especially in chapters 12, 14, and 16), fits in the geographical context of Israel. Therefore, this issue seems to be worth reconsideration, and this will be the main focus of the following article.

The idea of cult centralization appears for the first time in Deut 12:5:

You shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes (םכיטבש לכמ םכיהלא הוהי רחבי רשא םוקמה) as his habitation to put his name there. You shall go there…

This or similar formulae appear in the Book of Deuteronomy no less than 22 times. From the perspective of the received Masoretic text as a whole, the chosen place is clearly identified within the so-called Deuteronomistic history. Accordingly, the chosen place is Jerusalem, as expressed in the extant narrative for the first time in 1 Kgs 8:16 (LXX//2 Chr 6:5‒6):

The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent Research: A Teaching and Study Resource

John E. Anderson

I.  Introduction

a.  A lack of consensus in the last 30 years of scholarship

b.  Both diachronic and synchronic approaches, documentarian and supplementarian approaches

c.  To understand where we are, it is important—briefly—to look at from where we have come

II.  Precursors to the Documentary Hypothesis: Working Towards JEDP (emergent source-criticism)

a.  Spinoza (1670): “it is thus clearer than the sun at noonday that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived longer after Moses” (also Hobbes)

b.  Jean Astruc (1753): isolates in Genesis an E and J source, with other independent material (yet did not challenge Mosaic authorship; Moses as redactor)

c.  Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780-1849) – decisive new phase in Pentateuchal investigations.

i.  Saw religious institutions in Chronicles as retrojection from time of writing in late Persian / early Hellenistic period

1.  thus reasonable that Pentateuchal legal material dates from time after monarchy

2.  Pentateuchal narrative traditions cannot be used as historical source material

ii.  1805 – identified law book discovered by Josiah as early version of Deuteronomy (dates to 7^th century)

d.  H. Hupfeld (1853): in Genesis, identifies earlier E strand (corresponding to P) and later one; also an even later J document

e.  K.H. Graf (1860s): Hupfeld’s E1 = Priestly and is latest, not earliest source (also Reuss prior and Kuenen after re-dating)

f.  Julius Wellhausen (Prolegomena to the History of Israel)

i.  J & E = earliest sources; not always clearly distinguishable by use of divine names

1.  combined by a Jahwistic editor

ii.  Q (quattuor, four covenants) provides basic chronological structure for P material fitted in

iii.  P

1.  ritual law in Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26), which is dependent on Ezekiel

2.  thus P is the latest stage in editorial history of 5x/6x, save for some late Deuteronomic retouchings

iv.  Deuteronomy

1.  comes into existence independent of other sources

2.  622 with Josiah = first edition

3.  familiar with JE but not P, so combined with JE prior to P ® JEDP

4.  end result = publication of Pentateuch in final form at the time of Ezra (5^th century)

v.  Reveals an evolutionary view of Israelite religion (sees Moses as at end rather than beginning of historical process)

1.  JE = nature religion, spontaneous worship arising in daily life and festivals tethered to agrarian calendar

2.  D = centralization of worship, ends spontaneity, seals prophecy with emphasis on written law

3.  P = denatured religion dominated by clerical caste that remade past in own image

vi.  This view of sources dominated largely for nearly a century

The Origin of the Samaritans

By Magnar Kartveit

Many Bible readers will think that chapter 17 of the second book of Kings refers to the origin of the Samaritans. According to the Authorized Version we read about “the Samaritans” in verse 29, and a number of translations reveal the same understanding. On closer inspection, however, it turns out that 2Kgs 17:29 does not refer to the Samaritans, but to the “people of Samaria,” whose relation to the Samaritans is not immediately clear.

The understanding of 2Kgs 17 as dealing with the Samaritans has its earliest attestation in the works of Josephus. He offers a story where he describes them as “Chouthaioi,” a group which was brought by the Assyrian king Salmanasser from “Chouthas” in Persia into Samaria after the occupation and subsequent depopulation of that area, Ant. 9.278f., 288–291.This version takes us back to the eighth century B.C.E., and it has led scholars and lay people to believe that the Samaritans were deportees from the East, brought into Samaria in this early period; in Samaria they remained through the ages, and perhaps they mixed with the local population—a situation which most likely resulted in syncretism. The story resembles 2Kgs 17 and this has led to reading the chapter as referring to the origin of the Samaritans.

Laying the Foundations of Jerusalem Temple by Zerubbabel

Third chapter of Ezra book tells us how after the return from Babylon the Jews led by Zerubbabel and Joshua built an altar and restored the sacrifice to God Yahweh. After celebration of religious holidays they began to rebuild the temple.

First, they brought wood from Lebanon according to the order of King Cyrus. The priests began construction of the temple and laid its foundations. After laying the foundations the priests and Levites with trumpets and cymbals began to praise the Lord and to thank him for establishing the foundations of the temple. There were also the people who have seen the previous temple of Solomon by their own eyes. They wept for joy and someone just loudly rejoiced. This noise has been heard by Samaritans who wanted to participate in the reconstruction of the temple. But Zerubbabel refused them. Consequently, Samaritans began to interfere with the Jews to build the temple and its rebuilding has been delayed from the reign of King Cyrus until the reign of King Darius.

Premature celebration

In the plot line of this story about laying the foundations of the temple there is a confusing thing. For what did the Jews celebrate so joyfully with trumpets and cymbals? For what did they so grateful to God? What did the elders compare with the previous Solomon Temple? According to the storyline of Ezra book, they merely laid the foundation but rejoiced as if the temple has already been built.

Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (pdf)

This is a book about ordinary people in ancient Israel and their everyday religious lives, not about the extraordinary few who wrote and edited the Hebrew Bible. It is also a book for ordinary people today who know instinctively that "religion" is about experience, not about the doctrines of scholars, theologians, and clerics who study religion dispassionately and claim authority. My concern in this book is popular religion, or, better, "folk religion" in all its variety and vitality.

This is a book that, although it hopes to be true to the facts we know, does not attempt objectivity; for that is impossible and perhaps even undesirable. One can understand religion only from within, or at least from a sympathetic viewpoint. As an archaeologist, I shall try to describe the religions of ancient Israel — not theoretically, from the top down, as it were, but practically, "from the bottom up," from the evidence on the ground.

This is a book mostly about the practice of religion, not about belief, much less theology. It is concerned with what religion actually does, not with what religionists past or present think that it should do. Beliefs matter, for they are the wellspring of action; and theological formulations may be helpful or even necessary for some. But archaeologists are more at home with the things that past peoples made, used, and discarded or reused, and what these artifacts reveal about their behavior, than they are with speculations about what these people thought that they were doing. As Lewis Binford reminds us, "archaeologists are poorly equipped to be paleo-psychologists."