Section Five: The Babylonian Captivity
and the Torah
The Babylonian Empire
At its peak, the Babylonian Empire managed to rule most of the Fertile
Crescent. It dominated most of the same lands as the Assyrian Empire with
the exception of Egypt. When the Southern Kingdom of Judah was defeated
by the Babylonian Empire and the Temple of Solomon was destroyed, the
land was depopulated in much the same way as the Northern Kingdom of
Israel when it was defeated by Assyria. Unlike Assyria, Babylon did not
repopulate the land with people from other regions of the Empire
5.1
The Babylonian Captivity
• Judah became part of the Babylonian province of Samaria. In an odd
way, Babylon “reunited” the former Northern and Southern kingdoms.
Babylon decided to allow the land to remain barren. Raiders from Edom
and Ammon from time to time would pick at what little was left
• A Jewish community had already existed in Babylon so there was some
Jewish infrastructure in place to support the captives when they
arrived
• The devastation of the Babylonian Exile managed to accomplish what
Josiah tried to accomplish some decades earlier. The Jewish people, as
in the time of King Josiah, began to refocus on the basics of their faith;
- Religious practices such as circumcision and Sabbath observance
were emphasized maintaining a tight cohesion among the Jewish
community
- The newer books of scripture (Joshua-Kings, the Deuteronomic
History) along with the writings of the prophets may have been
collected and edited at this time
- The Prophet Ezekiel continued to preach about a future resurrection of
the nation. In anticipation of that future event, Temple practices were
codified
- Babylon, along with Jerusalem, remained a center for Jewish
scholarship for centuries
5.2
History and Prophets
History
The Torah tells the history of the Hebrew people from Adam to Moses. Their history
from Joshua the time to the Babylonian Captivity can be found in the following books;
-
The Time of the Joshua + Judges
The Time of the United Kingdom
-
The Time of the Divided Kingdoms
The Babylonian Captivity
The Time of the Restoration
Joshua, Judges, 1+2 Samuel
1+2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1+2
Chronicles
1+2 Kings, 2 Chronicles
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther
The Prophets of the Hebrew people;
From the Northern Kingdom of Israel
Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum (Minor Prophets)
From the Southern Kingdom of Judah
- Zephaniah, Habbakuk, Joel, Micah (Minor Prophets, pre-Captivity)
- Isaiah (Major Prophet 1st Is. 1-39, 2nd Is. 40-55, 3rd Is. 56-66)
- Jeremiah, Ezekiel (Major Prophets, during Captivity)
- Haggai, Zechariah, Malachai (Minor Prophets, during the restoration)
Note: The Book of Daniel is often thought of as a prophetic book however it was likely written long
after the time of the prophets and is placed in the Ketuvim (the writings) section of the Hebrew Bible
5.3
Historicity of the Torah Is Questioned
• As the 17th century CE began, it was almost universally accepted by both
Jewish and Christian scholars that Moses was the author of the Torah
and that he received the information for all five books of the Torah
(Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) directly from
God
• In the mid-17th century, a French Catholic priest, Richard Simon, wrote “A
Critical History of the Old Testament” questioning whether there was a
single author of the Torah.
• A century later , German Protestant scholars began a more
comprehensive investigation on the authorship of the Torah
• By the late 19th century, Biblical scholars, led by other groups of German
Protestant scholars, began to question the notion of a single source of
the Torah and also began to question the reliability of the historical
information found in the Torah
• By the middle of the 20th century, archaeologists began to raise similar
questions about other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures (and also about the
Christian Scriptures as we shall see later in this course)
5.4
Scholars Raise Questions About the Torah
There are a number of reasons why biblical scholars question the origin of
the Torah as well as the accuracy of its historical information
• Genesis has examples of doublets suggesting more than one author
2 creation stories; God is called YHWH in one and Elohim in the
other .
two stories of Abraham passing Sarah off as his sister
(Gen. 12:10-20 and Gen. 20:1-18)
• There are contradictions in the Torah suggesting more than one author
Genesis 15:7 God says to Abraham “I am the LORD (YHWH) that brought
you out of Ur of the Chaldees” but in Exodus 6:2-3, God told Moses that
He did not reveal Himself as YHWH to any of the patriarchs.
• There are anachronisms in the Torah suggesting later editors
Abraham encountered the Philistines who did not arrive in the region
until 500-600 years after Abraham’s death.
In Genesis 36, Abraham encounters Edomite Kings who did not exist
until after the time of Moses
Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldees but there were no
Chaldeans in the region for another thousand years
Deut. 34:1, Moses can see the promised land as far north as the city
of Dan but there is no city called Dan until well after Moses’ death
5.5
More Questions About the Torah
• We have seen that many different terms in the Torah are translated as
“God” (El, Elohim, El Elyon, El Shaddai, YHWH) and “Lord” (Adonai
which some consider a variant spelling of Aten) yet;
El, one of the Hebrew names for God, was both a common name
for God and also the name of the creator God in the Canaanite
religion.
Elohim is a plural form of El. It is true that, in the Hebrew
Scriptures, whenever Elohim is used to refer to the Hebrew God,
it takes a singular verb but some have speculated that this plural
form of a name may a collective term meaning the “Council of El”
• We have seen that Melchizidek was a priest of God Most High (El Elyon)
Some scholars question this odd passage from Deuteronomy
(32:8-9) which uses the name Elyon
“When the Most High (Elyon) gave the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the children of men, he set the borders of the peoples according to
the numbers of the sons (children) of Israel. For the portion of YHWH is His
people, Jacob, the lot of his inheritance.”
Some versions of this passage have “children of Elohim” instead of
“children of men”. Combine that wording with the last sentence of the
passage, the first Israelites could have been henotheists (each group of
people worship their own god) rather than monotheists
5.6
Additional Questions Concerning Deuteronomy 32 8:9
The fact that different texts of the Hebrew Bible vary the wording of this
passage may indicate some level of controversy. The Masoretic Text (9th10th century CE? ) of the Hebrew Bible has this passage for Deut. 32:8-9
‫יַצֵ ב ּגְּ בֹֻלת עַ ִמים‬
;‫ ְּבהַ פְּ ִרידֹו ְּבנֵי אָ דָ ם‬,‫ְּבהַ נְּ חֵ ל עֶ לְּ יֹון ּגֹויִ ם‬
.‫לְּ ִמ ְּספַ ר ְּבנֵי יִ ְּש ָראֵ ל‬
.‫ חֶ בֶ ל ַנ ֲחלָתֹו‬,‫ ַיעֲקֹ ב‬:‫ עַ מֹו‬,‫כִ י חֵ לֶק יְּ הוָה‬
“When the Most High (Elyon) gave the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the children of men, he set the borders of the peoples according
to the numbers of the children of Israel. For the portion of YHWH is His
people, Jacob, the lot of his inheritance.”
The Dead Sea Scroll fragment of Deut. 32:8-9 does not have ;‫ְּבנֵי אָ דָ ם‬
but rather ‫ בני אלוהים‬This changes the translation from “the sons (or
children) of men” to “children of Elohim”. Some scholars believe that the
phrase “children of Elohim” was later changed to “children of men”
intentionally to hide the fact that the original believers in YHWH were
originally henotheists. There are versions of the Septuagint that reflect both
wordings.
5.7
Biblical Criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures
Julius Wellhausen
Julius Wellhausen was a Protestant pastor who worked primarily at the
University of Gottingen from the end of the 19th century through the early 20th
century and perhaps the most famous of the biblical scholars of his era
Wellhausen believed that four separate sources contributed information to
Hebrew writings that later became the Torah. (Each source will be discussed
in slides that follow)
Wellhausen is probably the best-known of the early critics of the single-source
understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. His work opened the door to all sorts
of insights into the Hebrew Scriptures along with new insights into the
understanding of the Christian Scriptures
Wellhausen is most known for his claim that the Torah was actually an edited
blending of four sources of information. Wellhausen identified these sources
as; the Jahwist sources (J), the Elohist source (E), the Deuteronomic source
(D) and the Priestly source (P). His theory was called the Documentary
Hypothesis
In the next slides, we’ll give a brief overview of the Wellhausen’s ideas about
the contributions that each source made to the Torah
5.8
Source Criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures - J
The J (Jahwist) Source
The J source derives from the German spelling of the name Hebrew name
for God ‫( יְּ הוָה‬YHWH in English but JHWH in German) In J, God is earthly,
almost humanized. He interacts directly with his human creations
• God molded Adam from the dust of the earth.
• God created Eve from Adam’s rib.
• God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden “in the cool of the day”.
The Jahwist author was thought by Wellhausen to have been from the
southern kingdom of Judah and lived sometime around 900 BCE because
he is concerned largely with areas of the promised land located in that
kingdom. His description of the kingdom promised by JHWH to Abraham
also corresponds to the united kingdom at the time of David and Solomon,
whose capital city was in the Southern Kingdom
The Jahwist author seems to prefer to the call the mountain on which
Moses encountered God by the name Sinai.
5.9
Source Criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures - E
The E (Elohist) Source
In the E source, God is called Elohim (Gen. 1). Elohim is the opposite of
JHWH. He is majestic and transcendent.
While J created ha adam (man) from the adamah (earth), E created the
universe by simply speaking it into existence. Adam and Eve were the
pinnacle of that creation.
While J interacted directly with human beings, E interacted with them via
messengers or angels
As we have already seen, the word El and Elohim were common words for God
among the Canaanites many of whom who lived in the regions where the
Northern Kingdom of Israel had been established after the death of Solomon.
The Elohist author’s use of these words for God and his interest in the
important cities in the north led Wellhausen to believe that the Elohist lived in
the Northern Kingdom sometime around 850 BCE
For the Elohist, the mountain of God was called Horeb and not Sinai
Reminder: Elohim is a plural noun however when Elohim is used to refer to the God of
the Hebrews, the verb is always 3rd person singular. When the word is used to refer to
foreign gods, the verb is always 3rd person plural
5.10
Source Criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures - D
The D (Deuteronomist) Source
While the J and E sources are found all throughout Genesis and Exodus, the
product of Deuteronomist source in the Torah is almost exclusively limited to
the Book of Deuteronomy (the influence of D also can be found in the
historical books of the Ketuvim)
Many biblical scholars believe that the scroll of the law that Hilkiah found
while the Temple in Jerusalem was being refurbished during the reign of
Josiah (2 Kings 22:8) was actually the book of Deuteronomy (the second law)
and not a copy of the entire Torah
The scroll emphasized the need for many of the reforms put in place by King
Josiah (e.g. recommitment of the people to the worship of one God,
centralization of worship) Given that this “discovery” fit so well with Josiah’s
reform, it may well not have been found but written either by Josiah and
Hilkiah themselves or by a scribe under their direction
Another theory holds that the discovery was a genuine find. One version of
this theory speculates that refugees from the destruction of the Northern
Kingdom (Israel) fled to the Southern Kingdom (Judah) and brought the scroll
with them. The scroll was then deposited in the Temple and forgotten until it
was rediscovered by Hilkiah some decades later. This theory believes the find
was genuine because, while the scroll did mention the need for centralized
worship, it did not specify the Temple of Jerusalem. Perhaps this is because
Northern Kingdom also had a central location of worship at Mount Gerizim
5.11
Source Criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures - P
The P (Priestly) Source
Before the time of the Babylonian captivity, the position of King in the history
of the people of Judah had been well established for several centuries. The
role of the High Priest (Kohen ha-Gadol) also seemed well established.
Some critics, however, note that other passages in the Torah do not seem to
show the reverence that one would expect to be given to the Kohen haGadol. For example, Aaron was simply called ha-Kohen (the priest) as was
Eleazer, Aaron’s successor. They added that, during the reign of King David,
there were two men in Jerusalem who were simultaneously called ha-Kohen,
Abiathar and Zadok (2 Sam 8:17 and 19:12 along with 1Kings 1:7 and 4:4).
These critics suggest that passages such as Ex. 29, Ex. 40:15 and Lev. 8 and
9 that do stress the High Priest were inserted later by P to provide an historic
basis for the increasing importance Jewish cultic worship in the Temple and
the role of the High Priest among the people in the absence of a true King.
Biblical scholars suggest that the biggest impact of P can be found in the
Book of Leviticus and the non-narrative sections of the Book of Numbers.
Since P deals largely with themes of cult and ritual, Wellhausen, being a
Protestant scholar having no love for ritual or priesthood, believed that cult
and ritual are always a later, corrupted form of religious experience. For this
reason, he believed that P was the most recent source to be added to the
Torah and speculated that P might have been the final editor of the Torah
5.12
Archaeology Weighs In on the Topic
Biblical scholars were not alone in their criticism of the historical reliability of the
Hebrew Scriptures. Archaeologists also weighed in. In their book, “The Quest
for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel”
authors Israel Finkelstein (Prof. of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University) and Amihai
Mazar (Prof. at the Inst. of Archaeology at Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
describe how archaeologists seem to be divided concerning the history of Israel
as found in the Hebrew Scriptures:
Conservative
Though the early history of Israel as found in the Hebrew
Bible was not likely compiled until the time between Josiah
and the Babylonian Captivity, the information found
therein about the early history of Israel is fairly accurate
Minimalist
The Hebrew Scriptures were likely compiled sometime
during the Persian era (@ 450 BCE) or during the Hellenist
era (@300 BCE) that followed it. The early history of Israel
is nothing more than a collection of folk stories tied
together by one or more editors and is of little historic value
Centrist
The early history of Israel found in the Hebrew Scriptures
represents a view of late monarchic Judah (Josiah).
There are real facts and real characters to be found in this
history but the context of this history represents a
viewpoint of the 6th century BCE read back into the 12th
through the 7th century BCE
5.13
Yet Archaeology Also Confirms Scripture
While archaeology may question parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, it also confirms
much of what those scriptures contain
• Semi-nomadic tribes called ha-bi-ru by the Akkadians and a-pi-ru by the
Egyptians did wander the Fertile Crescent at the time of Abraham
• Canaanite peoples did migrate to Northeastern Egypt at the time of Abraham
• There were Pharaohs of Egypt (the Hyksos Kings) thought to be of Semitic
origin at the time of Joseph
• Pharaohs of Egyptian origin who “did not know Joseph” did manage to
regain control of Egypt from the Hyksos kings
• These Pharaohs did use forced labor to build the cities of Pi-Rameses and
Pithom (Pi-Thom)
• There was an upset of the internal order of the land of Canaan about the time
of Joshua
• Evidence has recently turned up verifying a Northern Kingdom (House of
Omri) and Southern Kingdom (House of David) in the city of Dan
It is also true that many long-held beliefs by archaeologists have proven to be way
off base. The recent finds at Gobekli Tepe in Turkey and Tel Qaramel in Syria show
evidence of significant culture dating back to around 10,000 BCE. For years.
archaeology held that civilization in the region began with Sumer around 4,000
BCE
5.14
Alternative Views
•
Wellhausen gave a time sequence to his JEDP theory. J wrote first (@950-900 BCE),
followed by E (@850 BCE), then by D (@640-600 BCE) and finally followed by P
(@500 BCE). Dr. Christine Hayes of Yale University disagrees. She believes that the
four sources represent threads of experience that ran in parallel in the experience
of the Israelite peoples from the time of Joshua through the Babylonian captivity
and perhaps to the time of the second temple.
•
Rabbi Harold Kushner (Why Bad Things Happen to Good People) had another view
concerning the proper understanding of the Torah and of the other books of the
Hebrew Scriptures. He believed that these Scriptures tell a story of the Jewish
people. It explains who they are, where they came from and why they are here. This
story emphasizes their ongoing experience with God. It is their story and, as such,
they get to tell it their own way and they get to say what it means to them. Try as I
may, I was unable to find Rabbi Kushner’s actual quote.
•
Pardon me as I inject my own view. The work of biblical scholars has been useful. It
allows us to look at the Hebrew Scriptures from a number of different perspectives.
Their insights remind us that the final written form of this book tries to tell about the
encounter of finite human beings with an infinite, transcendent God. As they began
to put what most likely started out as an oral tradition into written form, they had to
make the material readable and understandable as much as possible. Notice that, if
the written work was edited, the editors made no attempt to cover over the
inconsistencies. There seems to be no attempt to deceive. Scripture takes place in
history but is not written as history. It should be judged for what it purports to be;
the story of a human encounter with God
5.15
Another Thing to Keep In Mind
Since the JEDP hypothesis was first proposed, there have been any number
of variations on that theme among scholars and critics, both biblical and
archaeological. One thing should be kept in mind about all of these
theories. They are theories.
Consider another theory. Let’s assume that some critics are correct. Moses
was not the final author of the Torah. The Torah was edited in its final
written form during the Babylonian exile
There were no Chaldeans in Ur at the time of Abraham but there were
during the time of the Babylonian exile
There were no Philistines in Canaan at the time of Abraham but there were
during the time of the Babylonian exile
The city of Dan had not yet been established during the time of Moses but it
had been long established by the time of the Babylonian exile
You get the idea. When the Torah reached its final written state, it
referenced people and places as they would be recognized by the readers
of that time period not as they were at the time of the actual events
5.16
A Tale (somewhat mangled) with a Moral
A local painter, an artist of some renown, had always bragged that he could paint any scene with
even greater accuracy than the best photograph. Hearing the man brag, a second man, known
for his wealth (as well as for his eccentricity), challenged the painter to prove his talent.
A certain area of beach and a certain date and time of day was chosen. The wealthy man
challenged the painter to represent on canvas the beach scene exactly as it was on that date and
at that time. The wealthy man would take his own photo and, if the painter could produce a
canvas that accurately matched the detail of the scene as provided by the photograph, he would
make the painter a wealthy man
The painter set about his work. He took his paints, his easel and a blank canvas and walked out
onto the beach. At the appointed time, he took in the entire scene in his mind’s eye and then
went about putting that scene onto the canvas. When he was finished, the painter was certain
that his work would surely meet, if not exceed, whatever even the best camera could produce.
When the wealthy man saw the painting, he told the painter that his work was, indeed,
wondrously beautiful and full of detail. The wealthy man said that, despite the painting’s beauty,
the painter did not accurately depict that beach at that time. When the painter asked how that
could be, the wealthy man showed him the photograph that he had taken. The photo showed the
agreed upon beach and the painter standing there painting the scene. The artist asked how he
had failed. The wealthy man replied that the task was to paint the beach exactly as it was on that
day at that time. The painter agreed that was the task. The wealthy man replied “You were
standing on that beach. Where are you in your painting?”
Moral: A person should never forget that, in this world, the observer is always an integral part of
the process of observation. Only God, who stands apart from his creation, sees and understands
the entire length, width and breadth of what he set in place
5.17
Limits of Human Knowledge
Human beings claim to “know” a lot of things. Some scholars and critics have been
known to promote themselves and their ideas from the category of theory into the
category of knowledge. But there are limits about what human beings are capable of
truly knowing and the great minds of science and philosophy have recognized these
limits and approach their work with a certain humility
Bertrand Russell, a famous twentieth century philosopher and ardent atheist,
demonstrated a humility derived from honest self-reflection, which should be common
to all honest men of reason. In his work, The Problems of Philosophy, he stated that any
system that requires an unproven (and unprovable) set of universal “givens” can never
produce a set of universally reliable truths
The twentieth century mathematician, Kurt Gödel, put forth his theory of incompleteness
which stated that no method of describing a system that had even the smallest level of
complexity, could do so without ultimately being self-referential (i.e. relying on a set of
unproven universal “givens”)
Werner Heisenberg has given us his Principle of Uncertainty which says that we can
only speak about truths in degrees of probability
Kurt Schrödinger has proposed a cat who is both living and dead at the same time.
Probabilities only collapse into actualities upon looking
There is no such thing as settled science. While there may be limits to knowledge,
science is always seeking to push those limits as far as possible
5.18
The Best Approach to Biblical Criticism
Facts are facts. Be as certain as possible that what is stated as a fact is
provable but never be afraid of facts. They can be your best friend as you
pursue truth.
Systems that attempt to explain all facts in a type of universal setting are
inherently unreliable but are nonetheless useful so long as that system allows
for open and honest revision as more facts become available. There is no such
thing as “settled science”. Science is always subject to revision upon new
observations. That is the heart of the scientific method.
Since the observer will always be part of what is being observed, universal
explanations of truth will always be subject to change. Skepticism about claims
where words such as “likely” and “possibly” are used is always justified
Faith attempts to deal with truths which transcend the boundaries of science.
Faith is not based solely on reason but the revelations that lead to faith must
not contradict truth
Scripture, both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures, is a story of
faith. It takes place in the context of human history but is not meant to be taken
as history. It tells a greater story. It deals with greater truths
5.19
Other Torahs
While we are discussing the Torah, we should keep in mind that there are
several versions of the Torah
The Septuagint
As we have already seen, the Torah used by the Roman Catholic and Eastern
Orthodox churches, the Torah of the Septuagint has a number of differences
from the Hebrew Torah but none of any significant importance. Protestants
generally do not use the Septuagint
The Samaritan Torah
The Samaritans claim to be descendants of Joseph through Ephraim and
Mannaseh. While most of the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom were led
away by the Assyrian King Sargon II, the Samaritans claim that some remained
behind. Samaritans have their own version of the Torah originally written using
a paleo-Hebrew alphabet. There have since been a number of translations
including a Targum written in Aramaic.
Like the Septuagint, most of the differences in content between the Samaritan
Torah and the Hebrew Torah are insignificant but there are some interesting
variations. The most important of these is found in Deut. 27:4, “When you cross
the Jordan, on Mount Ebal you shall set up these stones concerning which I
command you today, ... and you shall build there an altar to the LORD, your God”.
The Samaritan Torah has Mount Gerizim instead of Mount Ebal. The few
Samaritans that remain today in Israel still worship on Mount Gerizim. The
Dead Sea Scrolls seem to support the Samaritan text
5.20
The Samaritan Torah (Paleo-Hebrew)
5.21
The Moabite Stone (Paleo-Hebrew)
The Moabite Stone (officially the Mesha Stele) is an inscribed stone (stele) set up
by King Mesha of Moab (near modern Jordan). Mesha tells the story of Moab’s
subjugation by Israel due to the anger of Moab’s god, Kemosh. The stone is
written using the Phoenician alphabet, the same alphabet that was the basis of
Hebrew writing before the 8th century BCE
5.22
Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet Comparison
‫ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל‬
l k y j x z v h
lahmed
kaf
yod
teit
‫ר ש ת‬
t w
tov
sheen
r
khet
d g
zayin
vav
‫צ ק‬
q c p [
reish
qof
tzadei
‫ג ד‬
‫א ב‬
b a
hay
daleth
‫ע פ‬
gimel
beit
alef
‫מ נ ס‬
s n m
pay
ayin
samekh
nun
mem
5.23
Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet Comparison
5.24
Jesus Meets the Samaritan Woman at the Well
Well, it was our fathers’ way to worship on this
mountain, although you tell us that the place where
men ought to worship is in Jerusalem. (John 4:20)
As Jesus traveled south from his home in Galilee to
Jerusalem, he had to pass through Samaria.
Samaria is the name given to what was the Northern
Kingdom of Israel. When the Assyrians conquered
that kingdom and drove many of the ten tribes of
Jacob that lived there out of the land, that gave rise
to the notion of the “Lost Tribes of Israel”
Not all of the tribes left. Many of the tribe of Joseph
(Ephraim and Manasseh), the tribes closest to
Judah, remained. When Josiah, King of Judah,
declared that all Jewish worship would be centered
in the Temple of Jerusalem, as Samaritans (i.e. not
subjects of King Josiah), those Israelites who
remained continued to maintain their local shrines,
their ancient alphabet and Mount Gerizim as their
principal place of worship and sacrifice
5.25