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.
The Single Place of Worship in Deuteronomy
The Book of Deuteronomy repeatedly alludes to one single legitimate place of worship for Yahweh. The text says that this place would be “chosen by God among all the tribes of Israel.” In the Book of Kings, this choice is said to have fallen upon Jerusalem. Thus, most readers and scholars have long assumed that Deuteronomy points toward Jerusalem, and therefore was composed there.
However, besides the Judean version, there is also a Samaritan version of Deuteronomy. In it, the text states that God has already chosen the place, and that place is Mount Gerizim, the sacred mountain of the Samaritans. For nearly two millennia commentators preferred the Judean version, dismissing the Samaritan one as a later adaptation. Only a small number of specialists noticed that the Samaritan wording was more natural and, in some respects, may have preserved the original.
Over time, old manuscripts were discovered that confirmed the priority of the Samaritan version, leading more scholars to conclude that the Judean version was in fact a correction of the Samaritan one.
Among modern scholars, the German biblicist Adrian Schenker emphasized this view in his article Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi?, noting that certain Greek manuscripts of Deuteronomy contain past tense verbs (“chose”) instead of future tense (“will choose”), aligning with the Samaritan version. Schenker argued that the Judean text had been altered from “he chose” to “he will choose,” but some instances were missed, leaving traces of the original reading.
Another German scholar, Stefan Schorch, openly affirmed that the Samaritan text is primary and the Judean one is a late correction made in the late 2nd century BCE. Thus, the original Deuteronomy proclaimed Mount Gerizim as the only legitimate place of worship, excluding all others—including Jerusalem. Schorch argued that the entire section emphasizing the “one chosen place” was written by proponents of the Gerizim cult. If so, Deuteronomy could not have originated in Jerusalem.
Abraham Blessed by Melchizedek, King of Salem
Some Jewish commentators claim that Jerusalem is indirectly mentioned in Genesis. In the story of Abraham’s victory over Mesopotamian kings (Genesis 14), Melchizedek, king of Salem, blesses Abraham. Jewish commentators equate Salem with Jerusalem, making Melchizedek its king.
The Samaritans, however, argue otherwise. They identify Salem with Shechem, pointing to the nearby modern village of Salim. Thus, Melchizedek could just as well have been king of Shechem.
In my view, Melchizedek was a figure of another tradition. In Genesis he appears only briefly to bless Abraham, disrupting the narrative flow and having no further role. Likely, a biblical author familiar with the Melchizedek tradition inserted this episode to enhance Abraham’s prestige. The city “Salem” may have no real connection to either Jerusalem or Shechem.
The Sacrifice of Isaac on the Chosen Mountain
Another narrative often tied to Jerusalem is the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22). Jewish commentators identify the mountain of sacrifice with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Yet the text itself speaks of the land of Moriah and a mountain later called “Yahweh-Yireh.”
The Samaritans claim the sacrifice took place on Mount Gerizim. To me, this story was composed to explain the origin of the name “Yahweh-Yireh” for a mountain in Moriah, whose exact location is unknown. It likely has nothing to do with either the Temple Mount or Gerizim.
Why then did Jews and Samaritans both claim it? In the last centuries BCE, Jews and Samaritans fiercely debated which place was the divinely chosen center of worship. Each side sought support in Scripture. The story of Isaac’s sacrifice was interpreted as divine election of a specific mountain, leading both groups to identify it with their own sacred site.
Absence of Jerusalem References Explained
Some commentators explain the silence about Jerusalem by arguing that the city did not yet exist. This makes sense if one assumes the Genesis traditions are very ancient. But most scholars see Genesis as literary constructions, where authors created stories to grant authority to various cultic sites. In this way, many places gained prestige—Shechem, Bethel, Beersheba, Hebron—but not Jerusalem. If the Pentateuch had been written in Jerusalem, one would expect its authors to highlight Jerusalem above all. Instead, it is completely ignored.
Consider examples from other writings:
-
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Genesis Apocryphon has Abraham passing near the future site of Jerusalem and referring to the “Holy Mountain,” showing the author’s pro-Jerusalem sympathies.
-
In the Prophecy of Joshua (another ancient text), Jerusalem is described as God’s chosen site where Joshua wanted to place the Tabernacle, but was prevented because the city was in enemy hands. The author here clearly favors Jerusalem, even though the Tabernacle ended up elsewhere.
Such cases demonstrate that authors’ sympathies toward certain holy sites naturally appear in their narratives. Yet in the Pentateuch, no such sympathies toward Jerusalem are found. Instead, loyalties are directed to other cultic sites—Shechem, Bethel, Beersheba, Hebron, and especially Mount Gerizim.
Conclusion
The firm conviction of most researchers that the core texts of the Pentateuch were written or compiled in Jerusalem may be mistaken. This assumption is shaped more by other biblical and extra-biblical texts than by the Pentateuch itself. Abandoning this “axiom” allows us to reconsider not only the origin of the Pentateuch, but also the origins of many other biblical books.
No comments:
Post a Comment