Pagan Religion

Continuing in The Religion of Israel, we focus upon pagan religion and what makes a religion uniquely pagan in scope.

~

Paganism in all its embodiments

involve one idea which is the distinguishing mark of pagan thought: the idea that there exists a realm of being prior to the gods and above them, upon which the gods depend and whose decrees they must obey. Deity belongs to, and is derived from, a primordial realm. This realm is conceived of variously- as darkness, water, spirit, earth, sky and so forth- but always as the womb in which the seeds of all being are contained. Alternatively, this idea appears as a belief in a primordial realm beside the gods, as independent and primary as the gods themselves. Not being subject to the gods, it necessarily limits them. The first conception, however, is the fundamental one. This is to say that in the pagan view, the gods are not the source of all that is, nor do they transcend the universe. They are, rather, part of a realm precedent to and independent of them. They are rooted in this realm, are bound by its nature, are subservient to its laws. To be sure, paganism has personal gods who create and govern the world of men. But a divine will, sovereign and absolute, which governs all and is the cause of all being- such a conception is unknown. There are heads of pantheons, there are creators and maintainers of the cosmos, but transcending them is the primordial realm, with its pre-existent, autonomous forces. This is the radical dichotomy of paganism; from it spring both mythology and magic. (Kaufman 21-22)

What is myth?

Myth is the tale of the life of the gods. In myth the gods appear not only as actors, but as acted upon. At the heart of myth is the tension between the gods and other forces that shape their destinies (Chana paraphrases: for example, fate). (Kaufman 22)

What is magic?

It is that which the pagan employs in order to "activate the forces of the metadivine" (Kaufman 24) which he must do because the gods themselves derive from a primordial force (hence a "more generalized power") and indeed "call upon forces outside themselves."

Why is being religious/ obedient to the will of the gods not enough for the pagan?

Because of the mythological nature of [paganism's] gods, because of their subjection to a primordial realm, paganism was necessarily and essentially magical as well. The sphere of the gods, the "religious" sphere, was always qualified by the sphere of powers beyond the gods. It is the mythological character of paganism's gods that provides the framework for its synthesis of magical and religious elements. (Kaufman 24)

What are examples of ways in which the gods are dependent upon that which lies outside them?

Their need for food and drink (milk from the breasts of goddesses, Indian soma, Germanic mead, the Greek nectar and ambrosia, magical foods and drinks that endow them with special powers, that heal them of sickness, that protect them against evil magic, that rejuvenate them, that act as aphrodisiacs and so forth). There are also magical objects that the gods employ for their needs and that are considered the source of their power. Babylonian "Tables of Destiny," Aphrodite's aphrodisiacal girdle, Hermes' magic wand, magic seals, crystals in which the future can be divined, magic weapons to ward off evil etc. (Kaufman 32)

What rules the gods?

Necessity: birth, procreation, growth, youth, age, death and the like. In Hindu thought, this is rita, the world order. In Persian, it's asha, with Greeks it's ananke (necessity) or moira (fate). The gods cannot control these things.

What does the wisdom of gods entail?

Not knowledge of itself and its effect on a world dependant upon it, but rather knowledge of the world and its mysterious properties, in which it only plays a part. (Kaufman 34)

Now let's talk about magic, divination and cult.

Magic, divination and cult are the three forms that practical religion takes in antiquity. The magician usually acts in the name of gods and spirits; his techniques have often been revealed to him by the gods, and he is effective through their power. From this viewpoint, magic may be counted among the phenomena of religion, and the magician regarded as a priest who acts with the sanction and help of a potent god.

MAGIC

But magic may also appear in a "pure" form in rites that have no connection with the will of the gods, but are viewed as automatically effective, or even capable of coercing the gods to do the will of the practitioner. There can be a magical basis even to rites involving an appeal to the gods- when they themselves are conceived as skilled magicians who know the secrets of the universe and how to put them to use. It is this ever present assumption of a realm of forces apart from the gods that makes pagan religion, even in its highest manifestations, amenable to belief in magic.

The distinctive mark of all pagan rituals is that they are not directed toward the will of the gods alone. They call upon self-operating forces that are independent of the gods, and that the gods themselves need and utilize for their own benefit. The ultimate symbol of divine subjection to transcendent powers is the god as magician or as diviner. (Kaufman 40-41)

DIVINATION

Divination is often defined as the discovery by various means of the will and decree of the gods. But this definition inadvertently imposes upon paganism a unified view of the universe that is foreign to its essence. It presupposes that both the disclosure (by means of a sign, or prophecy, etc) and the decree (the impending event) stem always from the will of the gods. But paganism was conscious of no such unity, for it did not attribute everything ot the will of the gods. Some events and conditions had nothing to do with the gods; others befell the gods themselves as decrees of overriding fate. Even where they reigned supreme, there was no necessary identity between the god who made decrees and the god who revealed them. Pagan divination does not assume, as a matter of course, that the disclosure to man comes from the same god who determines his destiny. Perhaps the most prevalent concept is that certain gods or spirits, who have a particular faculty for discovering what has been decreed, specialize as contacts with man. (Kaufman 43)

TYPES OF DIVINATION

INDUCTIVE DIVINATION- Works by observation of external signs, various phenomena of the external world.

INTUITIVE DIVINATION- The working of an inner power, a special faculty of the soul to foreknow or to see hidden things.

ONEIROMANCY- Characteristically practiced by means of the dream-riddle- while the dream is often a sign sent by the gods, it may also be a causal sign or a spontaneous premonition of things to come.

PROPHECY-Prophecy is a divine attribute in which man can share either by the favor of the gods or by his own magical efforts. It is grounded in a special psychic property which enables its possessor to know hidden things immediately. It is not necessarily dependent upon divine revelation; it may equally well represent a human faculty of sensing hidden things irrespective of the gods.

THE CULT

The characteristic mark of the pagan cult is not its plurality of worshiped beings, but its view of ritual as automatically efficient and intrinsically significant. The cult is not ordained by the supreme, free will of the deity; its end is not merely to express and embody man's adoration. It is rather a system of rites capable in themselves of working good and evil, whose potency derives from the realm above the gods. It sets into motion magical forces inherent in certain substances (the flesh of sacrifices, blood, incense, oil, water, fire, etc) certain activities (gestures, dances, processions, songs, dramas, prayers etc) and certain forms (numbers, figures, series of actions, pictures and symbols.)

There is always a magical element in the pagan cult, even when it aims at propitiating the gods. For the cult is regarded as playing a vital role in the life of the gods. Its purpose is to benefit man, but it achieves this by serving th eneeds of the upper realm. The pagan cult not only invokes the blessings of the gods, it also supports them and strengthens them through its rites.

SACRIFICE AND FESTIVAL- There are two main types. A) Those intended to propitiate and do homage to the gods B) Those that aim at acting upon or influencing hte life of the gods or the cosmos. (Both intentions can sometimes be mingled together.)

THE BATTLE OF GOOD AND EVIL- Paganism regards impurity or demonic evil as an autonomous, baleful realm as primary as the holy and the good. Death, disease, darkness and the host of evil spirits who seek to destroy gods and men are the domain of the unclean. The eternal struggle between these two realms is vividly reflected in the cult.

GODS AS PRIESTS- The fundamental idea of paganism is most strikingly set forth in the notion that the gods use the cult for their own benefit. Nothing illustrates so clearly the intrinsic value of the cult and the gods' dependence upon it (Kaufman 57). Example: Marduk is not only the arch magician, but also the "priest of the gods."

Let's conclude by talking about the pagan way to salvation.

Subjection of both men and gods to a transcendent realm is symbolized by myth and concretized in the cult. This common lot is what gives meaning to the magical, irrational cult; men share in the life and destiny of the gods, imitate their actions and rites, and commemorate events in their lives. These are the mythological foundations upon which the cult is grounded. And yet, it is a prevalent idea that the rites have autonomous value and innate efficacy. The groundwork is thus laid for bypassing the gods to address the ultimate realm upon which they themselves are dependent. This tendency does not represent a "magical stage" of religion; the notion of the intrinsic efficacy of the ritual is sufficient to turn attention to the meta-divine realm, and to arouse efforts to attain salvation directly through it.

The most advanced manifestations of paganism show a tendency to regard man as able to save himself by his own devices. The cult rises above the commonplace concerns of rain, produce, fertility, and victory to the vision of salvation. At this level, man may be viewed as the ally of the gods in their struggle with evil- that is, at bottom, as co-savior with the gods (Zoroastrianism). Or the tendency may be toward the magical, with the cult regarded as a system of rites capable of exalting man to divine rank and thus saving him from evil. Salvation, however, is his own concern, not the gods'; at most, they but help him find the hidden way (Brahmanism). But paganism may attain the philosophic and metaphysical level. Here, salvation is no longer a matter of ritual, but of knowledge of the secrets of being and non-being, life and death. Man liberates himself through his mind and spirit from the prison of the body and dreary cycle of death and rebirth (Gnosticism and Buddhism). The sublimest height is reached in the Platonic doctrine, which teaches man how to redeem himself through attachment to the realm of ideas.

Paganism in all its manifestations thus recognizes a transcendent, metadivine realm. There it seeks the key to the destiny of the world and the salvation of man. (Kaufman 58-59)

Pagan Mythology & Idolatry in the Bible

The Religion of Israel by Yehezkel Kaufmann, translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg, raises an interesting problem as its premise, namely, how is it that the Bible is filled with attacks on idolatry inasmuch as idolatry is a fetishism (creatures of stone, wood, gold and silver ought not to be worshipped) and yet does not include attacks on the mythology behind paganism? The problem is presented like so on page 20.

~

The Basic Problem

It seems incredible that Israel should have been totally unaware of the nature of pagan beliefs. For Israel was always in contact with its pagan neighbors, and moreover, had believing pagans in its midst. Certainly there were circles who knew about paganism more than is reflected in the Bible. What is shown by the fact that the Bible bases its whole polemic on the argument of fetishism is that the chief influence of foreign beliefs on Israelite religion did not involve mythological materials and that the age-long battle of the Bible with idolatry did not involve mythological polytheism. This compels us to examine anew the conventional views regarding foreign influences on Israelite religion during biblical times. Moreover, we shall have to re-examine fundamentally the nature of Israelite "idolatry" during this period.

It is clear now that the question as to the origin of Israelite monotheism has been erroneously formulated. We cannot ask whether it was during the preprophetic or prophetic age that the religion of YHWH came to deny the reality of the foreign gods. The Bible nowhere denies the existence of the gods; it ignores them. In contrast to the philosophic attack on Greek popular religion, and in contrast to the later Jewish and Christian polemics, biblical religion shows no trace of having undertaken deliberately to suppress and repudiate mythology. There is no evidence that the gods and their myths were ever a central issue in the religion of YHWH. And yet this religion is non-mythological. Fossil-remains of ancient myths cannot obscure the basic difference between Israelite religion and paganism. It is precisely this non-mythological aspect that makes it unique in world history; this was the source of its universal appeal.

The Bible's ignorance of the meaning of paganism is at once the basic problem and the most important clue to the understanding of biblical religion. It underscores as nothing else can the gulf that separates biblical religion from paganism. A recognition of this gulf is crucial to the understanding of the faith of the Bible. Not only does it underlie the peculiar biblical misrepresentation of paganism, it is the essential fact of the history of the Israelite religion.

The Biblical Texts Found in Qumran by Emanuel Tov

"The Biblical Texts Found in Qumran" in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanuel Tov

~

The cool background to the Qumran story: The thousands of fragments found near Hirbet-Qumran, some 15km south of Jericho near the Dead Sea, were deposited there, as it seems by the group of people who dwelled there. Even though this assumption appears to be the most plausible of various options, it remains problematic (see p. 102). Any explanation of the Qumran finds will have to account for two types of data: the enormous quantity of texts found at the spot (fragments of approximately 900 biblical and nonbiblical scrolls once complete) and the wide textual variety reflected in the biblical texts (see pp. 112-117). Supposedly the original scrolls comprised a collection of texts, possibly a library, deposited by the Qumranites, but we possess no information regarding the role of these texts, or their use, if at all, in the daily life of the community over a period of more than two hundred years. The term library is applicable to the collection, mainly in regard to the texts found in cave 4, only if defined in the limited sense of a collection of books maintained by a certain community and if it is not assumed that all the books contained in this library received the same amount of credence, authority, and use. In this connnection it is relevant to note that the individual caves contain different collections of texts, but these collections cannot be characterized in any special way.

About 900 texts were found in Qumran, of which many are copies of the same composition. It seems that some of these texts were written in Qumran while others were brought there from outside. There's criteria suggested by Tov regarding how to tell which one is which based on orthography, morphology and scribal practice. "All the special writings of the Qumran covenanters were probably written according to the same system of orthography, morphology and scribal practice which is named here the Qumran practice or Qumran scribal school."

This is important because the texts found in Qumran thus reflect the textual situation of the Bible not only in Qumran, but also elsewhere in ancient Israel.

What constitutes the Qumran practice?

-ORTHOGRAPHY: Distinctive, having no equal among the known documents from other places (108) which is characterized by the addition of many matres lectionis whose purpose is to facilitate the reading.

-MORPHOLOGY: lengthened independent pronouns, lengthened pronominal suffixes, words which serve in the Masoretic texts as pausal forms which occur in these texts as free forms, lengthened future forms, verbal forms with pronominal suffixes, etc

-CONTEXTUAL ADAPTATIONS which reflect a "free approach to the biblical text"

-SCRIBAL PRACTICES such as the occurrence of scribal marks in large frequency, especially cancellation dots, the use of initial-medial letters in final position and the writing of the divine names of God sometimes in conjunction with another divine appelation and together with their prefixes in paleo-Hebrew characters in texts written in Assyrian script

There are five different groupings to Qumran texts.

1. Texts Written in the Qumran Practice (20% of Qumran biblical texts)
2. Proto-Masoretic or Proto-Rabbinic Texts (35% of Qumran biblical texts)
3. Pre-Samaritan or Harmonizing Texts (no more than 5% of Qumran biblical texts of the Torah)
4. Texts Close to the Presumed Hebrew Source of Septuagint (5% of Qumran biblical texts)
5. Non-Aligned Texts - ones that agree sometimes with Masoretic text, sometimes with Septuagint and/or disagree with other texts to same extent so don't really lean in one direction exclusively(35% of Qumran biblical texts)

The Contribution of the Qumran Texts to Biblical Research (117)

The Qumran texts contribute much to our knowledge of the biblical text at the time of the Second Temple- a period for which there was hardly any Hebrew evidence before 1947. Until that year, scholars based their analyses mainly on manuscripts from the Middle Ages. The Qumran evidence enriches our knowledge in the following areas.

(1) Readings not known previously help us to better understand many details in the biblical text, sometimes pertaining to matters of substance (for example, see chapters 4, 6, 7). The Qumran texts, though early, are still removed much from the original texts as defined in 3B.

(2) The textual variety reflected in the five groups of texts described above provides a good overview of the condition of the biblical text in the Second Temple period (see the discussion in chapter 3c).

(3) The scrolls provide much background information on the technical aspects of the copying of biblical texts and their transmission in the Second Temple period (see chapter 4).

(4) The reliability of the ancient translations, especially Septuagint, is strengthened by the Qumran texts. Septuagint is one of the important texts for biblical research (below pp 141-142) but since it is written in Greek, its Hebrew source has to be reconstructed from that language. The reconstruction of many details is now supported by the discovery of identical Hebrew readings in Qumran scrolls. See, for example, the reconstruction of Septuagint in Deut 31:1, 1 Sam 1:23, 1 Sam 1:24, 2 Sam 8:7 and also the examples on pp 113-114. This evidence provides support for the procedure of reconstructing the Hebrew parent text of the translations. (117)

The Old Testament at Qumran by Frank Moore Cross

"The Old Testament at Qumran" from The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies by Frank Moore Cross

~

"The Essene manuscripts, biblical and non-biblical, contribute new data to several areas of Old Testament study: the history of the Hebrew canon, the development of Hebrew (and Aramaic) dialects, scripts, orthographies, and scribal procedures, and- the fields which will be selected arbitrarily for treatment here- the historical criticism of the Old Testament, and the history of the Old Testament text." (121)

Due to finding the Dead Sea Scrolls we learn/ know/ gain information...

- We must cease to date any biblical work belonging to the Former or Latter Prophets (not to mention the Torah) later than the early second century BC

-The collection of canonical psalms was fixed by Maccabean times, bearing out the current tendency to date the latest canonical psalms in the Persian period

-Psalm studies are strongly affected by "the appearance in Essene circles of collections of hymns of Maccabean and Hasmonaean date" which include "many categories of material of which the Thanksgiving Hymns are but a single type" (122).

-Analyzing these hymns' literary types, prosody and the language/ theological motifs therein will expand knowledge of "late Old Testament psalmody" and will also illuminate "difficult problems in the study of the literary types and prosodic canons of New Testament psalms"

(So far it seems that the psalms of the Maccabean period are "much developed beyond the latest of Old Testament psalms; their language is neoclassical, not classical; sapiential forms and language have profoundly influenced hymnic style" (123). Older patterns of meter and rhyme have been largely broken down or lost.

The Essene psalms/ hymns are "patchworks of phrases from the Psalter, and notably from the Prophets; yet the mood and theological structure differ strikingly from canonical psalms" (123). Suitable parallels can be found in the Apocrypha and New Testament hymns.)

-One cool thing which sheds light on the "oral, or possibly literary sources behind the fixed edition of an Old Testament book" is the Prayer of Nabonidus. In this prayer, Nabonidus comes down with a disease because of God and is set apart from men for a seven-year-period in the Arabian oasis of Teima. A Jewish diviner (presumably Daniel, the text does not give his name) intervenes and speaks of the king's worship of 'gods of gold, bronze, iron, wood, stone, silver.' This is strongly reminiscent of the story of Nebuchadnezzar's being driven from men for seven years during which he learns that 'the Most High rules the kingdom of men' ending with the king blessing God.

There's a lot of support for believing that the real legend is that of Nabonidus and the story later got transferred to Nebuchadnezzar because that name is more familiar/ more important. Extrabiblical data suggests Nebuchadnezzar never gave up his throne for seven years whereas it's known that Nabonidus "gave over the regency of his realm to his son Belshazzar in order to spend long periods of time in Teima". Also, the legend that follows where Nebuchadnezzar is substituted for Nabonidus as father of Belshazzar is "most suggestive" (124). The prayer is not necessarily the source text for the Daniel story; rather it may derive from a more conservative line of orally transmitted material.

-Old Testament textual studies are affected. The new scrolls "give evidence of the antiquity of the type of textual tradition which has survived in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible." They preserve "many new readings some of which are superior to received readings, some of which are inferior."

-The chief importance lies in the Dead Sea Scrolls' ability to yield data for the reconstruction of the textual history of the Old Testament (125)

To understand this, you have to see what the state of textual studies re: the Old Testament was prior to the Qumran and Murabba'at scrolls.

Paul de Lagarde stated that all medieval Hebrew manuscripts were descended from a common ancestor, a single master scroll. He dated it no earlier than the first century of the Christian era. That, according to him, was when the rabbis had fixed an authoritative Hebrew text and this official text destroyed all variant lines of tradition in normative Judaism.

The Pentateuch of the Samaritans preserved an alternate form of the Torah. It was not helpful to reconstructing the early history of the Hebrew text because it is a relatively late branch/ Hasmonean times. It's a derivative of Paleo-Hebrew script which was revived/ resurgent in the Maccabean era.

So they studied the Septuagint instead. They thought that maybe through reconstructing the Hebrew underlying this antique version, they might be able to reconstruct the Old Testament Bible. This was hard because a) they had to establish the original form of the Old Greek translation out of a maze of manuscripts belonging to Christian recensions of the Old Greek b) contamination of the transmission of the Septuagint by later Jewish Greek texts which had been revised back into conformity with the developing Hebrew text.

The question is, even if they could know the text of the Septuagint, can that be used as as witness to the archaic Hebrew text? Sharp debate in 19th century about this.

THEN came the Dead Sea Scrolls. "The recovery of more than one hundred twenty biblical scrolls from Cave IV came, therefore, as incredibly good fortune. Here at last was the material for sampling the textual types extant in virtually every book of the Old Testament. Here was a substantial basis for the establishment of the archaic, pre-Masoretic history of the Hebrew Bible" (132).

So they started studying. One of the first books they studied was Samuel. The text of Samuel contained "in the three scrolls from Cave IV is widely at variance with that of the traditional Masoretic Bible; it follows systematically the rendering of the Septuagint of Samuel." This helps to prove that the Septuagint's "divergent text was due less to 'translation idiosyncrasies' than to the type of text which it translated" (132).

More proof of this is found in the Jeremiah Qumran scrolls. Jeremiah is 1/8 shorter in the Septuagint and also has 4 verses omitted in chapter 10 with the fifth in a shifted order. The Qumran Jeremiah is exactly the same.

The texts demonstrate that the "proto-Masoretic tradition is sometimes old, and not merely the creation of the recensional activities of the rabbis, and that the appearance of one recension at Qumran does not exclude the presence of the other" (140). What this means in laymen's terms is like so: the Masoretic text refers to the uniform text of Tanakh as we have it today. Proto-Masoretic texts are those we have found that are dated earlier than the time when the Masoretic text was set down, canonized and uniform but which bear many features in common with the Masoretic text and are therefore its predecessors/ source texts. Alternative texts that differ can be the Samaritan texts, Septuagint and etc, which sometimes point to variant Tanakh text traditions.

Also proves that the text of Shmuel is a product of revision. Compare the Septuagint and Qumran scroll at 2 Samuel 3:7 which preserve the corrupt reading Mephiboshes with the text we have where the editor excised the corruption but did not replace it with Ishboshes, as he ought to have.

The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the "Alterations" Inserted Into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX

"The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the "Alterations" Inserted Into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX" by Emanuel Tov is a party and a half.

Okay, not really, but it's cool once you get past the fact that you don't understand what you are reading because it's academia and difficult to wrap your head around on no sleep. (And come on, which student actually sleeps?)

For newbies, the LXX is the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. If you're Jewish, you know Megillah 9a-b includes the story of 72 elders having been gathered by King Ptolemy, who placed them in 72 chambers and asked them to translate the Torah into Greek. Each scholar edited the text/ inserted certain variants identically.

Now, Emanuel Tov begins by telling you that various traditions (Megillah 9a, Yerushalmi Megillah 1,1,4, page 72a, Mek. Exod 12, 40; Midrash Hagadol Exodus 4,20; Abot de-R. Natan version B, chap 37; Sop. 1.7; Yalkut Shimoni Gen 3, Midrash Tanhuma Exodus para 22 and more) say 10, 11, 13, 15 or 18 alterations were made in the Greek translation of the Torah. You might think the shortest list is the "original formulation of the rabbinic tradition and that the longer list expanded it" (66) but this is not certain. The sources which state there were 13 or 15 alterations "are the most wide-spread and presumably reflect the central tradition." The lists having 16 or 18 alterations are the least reliable. 16 "came about as a result of the addition of biblical passages similar to those originally in the list, hence that list is secondary." When it comes to 18, it's influenced by "the list of 18 emendations of the scribes in the Hebrew text of the Bible" hence Tikkun Sofrim.

The base text is in Megillah and King Ptolemy's name is cited in all the sources. Now, these rabbinic texts suggest that the Greek translation was deliberately altered from the Hebrew. However, per the scholars, while "some of these differences do indeed stem from alteration" (72) others, which are in the majority, "stem from Hebrew variants, from translation technique and from an incorrect understanding of certain translation equivalents in the LXX" (72).

(As an interesting sidepoint, Christian tradition also focused on the differences between the Jewish and Greek Bibles, the Greek Bible being the Christian Bible from their point of view. However, in their case, a few Church Fathers "claimed the LXX reflects the true form of God's words, and that it was the Jews who had falsified them in their Bible" 72.)

Re: the list of alterations given in the Gemara, nine differ from the LXX and five agree with one passage being close. It could be that different translations stem from variant traditions that arose through the dissemination of the scrolls. There are no 2 scrolls nearly identical for any book of the LXX in pre-christian period. It seems that in many instances, changes were made to bring it more in line with Hebrew Bible, and so the list in the gemarah represents the original LXX.

The Background of the Differences between MT and the LXX Enumerated in the List (pages 82-83)

The lists in rabbinic literature speak of alterations that were inserted in the translation and it has already been stated above that at the time the sages regarded every difference between the Hebrew and Greek Pentateuch as a change inserted in the translation. In light of what has been stated above, the renewed discussion of the actual background of these differences now disregards the notion that they reflect alterations carried out by the translators). This renewed discussion is now made possible since the original text of the passages in the LXX (later corrected towards MT) has been reconstructed above.

The above-mentioned differences between the Hebrew Pentateuch and the LXX derive from the following factors: (a) translations deviating from MT based on Hebrew variant readings; (b) translations deviating from MT arising either from Hebrew variant readings or from exegesis; (c) exegetical translations; (d) Greek equivalents which were unjustifiably interpreted by rabbinic tradition as differences between the LXX and the Hebrew Pentateuch. This delineation raises most of the possibilities for the differences between MT and the LXX, both in the Pentateuch and in other books, aside from errors on the part of the translators and copyists.

The contents of lists of this type are largely a matter of chance, as is also the case with the list of the "emendations of the scribes" (see note 2). This list does not purport to represent the most conspicuous alterations and indeed the interested reader will easily find much more far-reaching differences between the LXX and MT, as for instance the order of chapters and subject matter at the end of Exod. On the other hand, what the biblical passages in the list have in common is that they pertain to some central issues. It is not hard to understand how post factum one would explain these differences as alterations (like the "emendations of the scribes", see note 2); however, this explanation holds true only in a few instances.

You'll have to read the whole article to see all the examples of the variants.

Introduction To Bible: The Order, Chapters, Text & Vocalization of the Bible

The Adept is a brilliant man who allows me to disseminate his Torah so long as I don't reveal his name. If you know his name, I'd appreciate it if you also refrained from revealing it. In order to understand the following notes, you MUST HAVE a copy of Tanakh with you (and an online Tanakh will not cut it.) It is preferable that you have the Koren Tanakh (the standard one, in layperson's English) in addition to another kind so that you can compare and contrast the two as indicated. As usual, these are my notes and any and all mistakes are mine. Prepare to have The Adept blow your mind. (And if you learn anything, you really ought to donate something to Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies, because they are flipping awesome.)

~

The Order of the Biblical Books

There's a passage in Mesechet Bava Basra where the Talmud details the order of the books of the Torah. Open up to Bava Basra 14b. Now, first they list the order of the books of Tanakh: Bereishis, Shemos, Vayikra, Bamidbar, Devarim. So far so good. But now notice this statement:

ת"ר סדרן של נביאים יהושע ושופטים שמואל ומלכים ירמיה ויחזקאל ישעיה

Now take a look at your Tanakh. What comes after Melachim (The Book of Kings) in your Tanakh?

*insert our minds boggling* Isaiah! Every Tanakh in our class is against halakha. Now I will cite you from the Rambam to Hilchos Sefer Torah 7:15:

טו מותר לדבק תורה נביאים וכתובים בכרך אחד, ומניח בין כל חומש וחומש ארבע שיטין, ובין כל נביא ונביא שלוש שיטין, ובין כל נביא ונביא משנים עשר שלוש שיטין--שאם בא לחתוך, חותך. וסידורן של נביאים, כך הוא--יהושוע, ושופטים, שמואל, ומלכים, ירמיה, ויחזקאל, ישעיה, ותרי עשר; וסדר הכתובים--רות, ותילים, ואיוב, ומשלי, וקוהלת, ושיר השירים, וקינות, ודנייאל, ומגילת אסתר, ועזרא, ודברי הימים.

There's no machlokes in the Gemara: the unanimous opinion is that Jeremiah comes before Isaiah. It's also in every edition of Shulchan Aruch. Look at Yoreh Deiah, RP"G, Chapter 283, Siman Hey (5). (רפג – שיכול לדבק תורה נביאים וכתובים יחד )

סדרן של נביאים יהושע שופטים שמואל מלכים ירמיה יחזקאל ישעיה תרי עשר וסדר הכתובים רות תהלים איוב משלי קהלת שיר השירים קינות דניאל מגילת אסתר עזרא דברי הימים - it's a pesak halakha that says Jeremiah, then Ezekiel, then Isaiah. And in every manuscript of haftoros ____.

The Adept is pointing out something that should trouble us! We have to figure out who preserved the manuscripts, printed Tanakh. etc.

The same beraita in Bava Basra says regarding Kesuvim that the order is: סידרן של כתובים רות וספר תהלים ואיוב ומשלי קהלת שיר השירים וקינות דניאל ומגילת אסתר עזרא ודברי הימים

Now look at Tehillim in your Tanakh. The class sees that at least some of us have Tanakhs which have the order of Tehillim, Mishlei and then Iyov. The Adept notes that only 2 major Tanakhs have a different order. He cites the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which has everything the way we said it (is based on the Leningrad manuscript.) And if you look at the order of Kesuvim in your Tanakh, what order do you have? Some people in the class (including me) have the Koren Tanakh. Thus, our order is Shir HaShirim, Rus, Eicha, Koheles, Esther but nothing that accords with the order we are supposed to have. Others in the class with fancier Tanakhs have different orders.

So even in terms of ordering the biblical books, there's significant variation. Now let's look at the chapters of the biblical books.

The Chapters of the Biblical Books

Please open your Tanakh to Genesis 31:55 in the Koren Tanakh. You have that verse. Others in the class have that as the first verse of Chapter 32.

Now look at Jeremiah 30:25 in the Koren Tanakh. You have that verse. Others in the class have that verse as Jeremiah 31:1.

Chazal, of course, knew no chapters. The Tanaim and Amoraim knew Tanakh by heart and thus knew where things were. These chapters are not of Jewish origin. They appear in no Hebrew manuscript. These are Christian in origin. There's much more in Tanakh that is Christian in origin, so you have to be careful (regarding what you are reading.)

The Adept gave us a handout, but there weren't enough copies so I don't have it. (This is a shame, as otherwise I could have scanned it. For the record, the edition I assume The Adept was using isn't in Gottesman Preserve (all the other volumes are) but only in the Rare Book Room, and currently that room's locked. Even if I come back before 5:00 PM on Monday, I'm doubtful they'll let me photocopy it. So someone else in my class should please provide me with the scan.) Thanks so much to the wonderful guy who scanned this for me! Courtesy of our anonymous friend, you can all understand what I am referring to now. Here is the handout:
Modah L'Bina Masoretic Summary Bereishis

In any case, this handout is a page from the end of Sefer Bereishis that comes from the Chumash Modah L'Bina in a rare & out-of-print 19th century version. And in the middle of the page on the right it gives you the sikkum pesukei d'sefer Bereishis. And it tells you as follows: There are 1534 verses in Bereishis. Now see how it gives you this statement: אך ל"ד סימן? So the gematriah of אך is 1000 for the aleph plus 500 for the chaf. And ל"ד is 34. So this is a סימן to remember that there are 1534 verses in Bereishis. And the middle point of these pesukim is Genesis 27:40. And there are 12 parshiyos. What do they refer to when they reference parshiyos? They mean: Bereishis, Noach, Lech Lecha, etc. Now it says: זה שמי לעולם is a סימן. You see, זה is the gematriyah of 12 and thus a sign for the 12 parshiyos. Next it states that there are 43 סדרים. What does that mean?

Those of you who have a Koren Tanakh, please open it up. Now, you will notice that there are two sets of chapter numbers in the Koren Tanakh. That's because one of these sets refers to the sedarim of the Baalei HaMesorah and the other refers to the Christian chapter divisions. The number of the sedarim of the Baalei HaMesorah in Sefer Bereishis is 43 (see how there's a מג there?)

(Adds The Adept: And that's why it's a mitzvah to own a Koren Tanakh even though it is far from the best edition.)

Returning to this page from Moda L'Bina: it says here that there are 29 peskitos. What's that? Look at Genesis 1:5. Look at the verse. You see that little vertical line after the words וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים ? What is that line? That's a pesikta.

And then it says (per the Baalei HaMesorah) that there are 50 chapters. And there they are referring to the Christian chapters!

Now look at the bottom of the page. The editor who is publishing this Tanakh is astounded by what he just read. His name, adds The Adept, is Wolf Heidenheim. He published the best Machzor & Siddur and is one of the great Baalei HaMesorah of Frankfort. So he said: "Many people have no idea how to read this paragraph. They don't know what sedarim are because no edition of Tanakh mentions this. Here I'll inform you of what it's all about." (He gives a history of where the chapters came from in the Latin Bible. Basically, Jews had to have public debates with Christians and had to respond to Christians with exact references, thus the use of Christian chapters.) Heidenheim discusses the true chapter divisions, aka the 43 sedarim that belong to the Baalei HaMesorah.

(The Adept went into a fascinating digression here about the mistakes people make when they assume things are from Sinai, but I can't repeat it without publicly shaming a Gadol. I don't think The Adept would like me to do that, so if you want to know about it, you can ask me to email it to you. I'm going to refrain from making the information available forevermore upon the Web.)

In case we are ever on a quiz show and need to know, Jerome helped invent biblical chapters and Stephen Langton perfected them. All of this is discussed in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible.

The Text of the Biblical Books

Please open to Deuteronomy 23:2. Look at the verse.

ב לֹא-יָבֹא פְצוּעַ-דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה, בִּקְהַל יְהוָה. {ס} 2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.

If you have the Koren Tanakh, you've got the word 'daka' spelled with a 'hey.' Everybody else has an aleph. The question is: Which one is right? This can make the Torah pasul! These aren't small matters.

Please open up to Mishlei 8:16. Look at the verse.

טז בִּי, שָׂרִים יָשֹׂרוּ; וּנְדִיבִים, כָּל-שֹׁפְטֵי צֶדֶק. 16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

Here, some of you have the verse ending with the word 'tzedek.' But others have the word 'aretz.'

Look at I Samuel 30:30- there's a list of towns there.

ל וְלַאֲשֶׁר {ר} בְּחָרְמָה {ס} וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּבוֹר-עָשָׁן, {ס} וְלַאֲשֶׁר {ר} בַעֲתָךְ. {ס} 30 and to them that were in Hormah, and to them that were in Bor-ashan, and to them that were in Athach;

If you have the Koren Tanakh, you will see that verse says 'BECHOR Ashan,' while others have 'BeVOR Ashan.'

Here's a fun one. Look at Joshua 21:35-36. Some of you have 'm'mateh Gad' but others have 'm'mateh Reuven.' And if you have the Lublin edition of the Mikraos Gedolos (aka the one with the navy blue cover) you have two whole extra verses there!

The Vocalization of the Biblical Books

Let's look at Jeremiah 11. The differences here are legion. Verse 11:2, for instance, either has v'dibartem or v'dibartam depending on your Tanakh. That's a difference between singular or plural! That's a tremendous difference!

~

So we've raised the issues. But how to resolve them? For that we have the readings on this section which will provide the background material to answer this. The first readings are:

1. C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London, 1897; reissued: New York, 1966), pp. 779-976.

2. M B. Cohen and D.B. Freedman, “The Snaith Bible -- A Critical Examination of the Hebrew Bible Published in 1958 by the Brtitish and Foreign Bible Society,” HUCA 45(1974)97-132.

3. M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ed., The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah — (Jerusalem, 1995), English section, pp. xi-xlviii.

4. M. Cohen, “(Hebrew) Mavo LiMahadurat HaKeter” appended to “Mikro'ot Gedolot HaKeter: Yehoshua/Shofetim”, Ramat Gan, 1992, pp. 1-100.

~

Since the advent of printing (which was approximately created in 1415), you would think the text would be frozen and yet you see that is not so! The ultimate goal of the Baalei HaMesorah was to preserve a perfect copy of Tanakh. Printing should have accomplished this goal but it didn't.

The most important reading of the four mentioned above is C.D. Ginsburg's. He was a meshumad and a pretty good scholar. It's worth reading his books. The late R' Yaakov Kamenetsky in his Emes L'Yaakov quotes C.D. Ginsburg. And don't think he didn't know he was a meshumad! R' Kamenetsky, whenever he had a doubt about vocalization, etc, looked at C.D. Ginsburg Bibles.

What Ginsburg properly recalls is that all printed bibles simply reflect the manuscripts. The manuscripts differed from each other (some were poor; others were better) and printers added printers' errors to add to the mess. There were many first printed editions of Tanakh that were based on terrible manuscripts. The great turning point came in 1524/ 1525 when the Venice Edition of the Mikraos Gedolos was published. It has masoretic notes (which are crucial.) There, for the first time, the editors made a deliberate effort to gather together many manuscripts of Tanakh in an attempt to publish the perfect copy. And that's the model for our Tanakh nowadays.

The Baalei Mesorah would write notes saying how many times certain words (like for example ays vs. es or David with a yud vs. without) would appear in Tanakh and the spelling thereof and would list the places for you. So a sofer writing every book of Tanakh will know that they did this for every word of Tanakh!

We are fortunate to be living in the 21st century. For the first time, Jews are becmoing independent, have their own printing houses (don't have to answer to the Russian cencor, etc.) They can try to publish the perfect copy of Tanakh. Of course, that means one must determine which manuscripts are trustworthy and which are not.

(For those of you who are going to say holchim achar ha'rov, the rule is that you ONLY follow the majority when you are not sure. You only do it when you are not certain. It is a last resort! When we do know which manuscripts are better, we want to focus on those. For example, if we had a manuscript authorized by Rambam, that would be much better than the majority. You could have a sofer who copies poorly who floods the market, etc, so majority means nothing.)

Deliberate attempts were made to produce perfect copies of Tanakh. The best editions of Tanakh are:

1. The Hebrew University Bible Project (they're publishing every book of Tanakh per the best manuscripts.) They read every manuscript just to check who is a sloppy scribe/ who are the best scribes (you can tell this by looking to see which manuscripts have correct or incorrect spelling, pesukim repeating or left out, etc.) They have columns giving every variant reading in Chazal, then every variant reading per the good manuscripts, etc. The one drawback is that they are functioning for about 60 years and yet they've only finished Isaiah, Jeremiah & Ezekiel. At this rate they will not be finished until the Messiah comes.

2. Bar-Ilan's הכתר which publishes a wonderful text of Tanakh, the masoretic text, and some of the mefarshim as well. (Menachem Cohen is in charge of this and they've put out about 15 volumes.)

The only thing that rivals these texts are actual copies of the Aleppo Codex or Leningrad Codex. (No other Tanakh, including Breuers, is based on one single text.)

History of the Jews' Creative Torah-Derived Literature

Rabbi Professor Elazar Hurvitz is brilliant. He is also a kind and grandfatherly person who makes me really happy. The stuff he taught was way too cool not to share, so here are the notes. (Notes and not quotes. I paraphrased parts.) Did you ever want to know who exactly the Amoraim/ Tannaim were and what they did/ why they did it? Here's a crash course. As usual, all mistakes are mine.

~
Tanakh

The essence of Israel is embodied through their creative capacity. Thus, throughout the ages, Israel has chosen to proceed in the field of literary study, always choosing to create. At the beginning, God gave us the Torah. By this we refer to the Five Books of Moses. But was that all? What about Nach? How did we receive Nach?

The Neviim said things and only later did they decide to write down their prophecies. The Anshei Kneses HaGedolah and Sofrim decided to put together what was said in some coherent way. And what of Kesuvim? In contrast to Navi, Kesuvim was given written down. When it came to Neviim, the transmission of prophecy was oral and then they made a record of it. Kesuvim means whoever created the book wrote it down.

Chazal decided that they were going to treat the whole Tanakh as one unit: everything is legitimate. What do we mean when we say everything is legitimate? That if they bring a proof of a certain point that they want to say, they can bring the proof from Mishlei to reflect upon Bereishis. They made everything one unit at the time of the end of prophecy. After the last Navi prophecied, that was the cutting line- nothing else can go into the text of Tanakh.

Torah She'Baal Peh: Tannaim

After Tanakh comes Torah She'Baal Peh. How? Well, the question of the time was: What can we get out of the Torah? Is it emotional points of view or laws? Well, narrative doesn't yield a composite of laws. So they said to themselves, "Let's see how practical we can be when studying the text of the Torah. What's the halakha from the pasuk? Can we dig up the halakha of the pasuk?" All the Tanaim were interested in was halakha. They were interested in halakhic consequences. So their desire was to find the halakha as a result of what we know till now.

At that point in time, they realized that when a person reads the Torah, he cannot tell which mitzvos are where and derived from what. So they decided to take all the mitzvos and classify them in an enyclopedic way in order to tell people the subject matter of the halakha. If you look at Shabbos, Berachos, Yuma, you will say that they are all arranged according to subject matter. Sometimes you encounter an argument but basically it's halakhos based on subject matter, which yields Mishnayos.

So Mishnayos are halakhos of the Torah classified according to subject.

When they finished this, that was the end. But the problem now was: they neglected the actual text of the Torah! Where are these halakhos coming from? The Chumash! So they said, now we must go to the Chumash and learn HOW the halakha was created. We must give you the process of recovering the halakhos from the Torah.

When you learn Mishna, the pasuk does not play a role in the Mishnayos. It doesn't say 'she'neemar' (or when it does, the percentage of 'sheneemars' is very low). That wasn't the issue here. When it comes to learning the text of the Torah, there they decided to figure out the origins. This is the distinction between Midrash Halakha and Mishna. The Midrash is the research on each pasuk: where the halakha stems from. Non-halakhic material was not of interest to then, though (which is why they did not cover Genesis.) When they finished the process of arranging everything and going through the text of the Torah, that was the end of Tekufas HaTanaaim.

Amoraim

Halakha was already arranged by subject matter. The Tannaim also showed you how they got to the idea. So what should the Amoraim do? They decided to go back to the Mishnayos and draw a comparative study between the Mishna and the Medrish. They were curious to see if the consequences of the halakha in Midrash Halakha will match the Mishna. You see, the Tannaim had done two different things separately:

1. First, they had created an encyclopedic assembly of halakhos (Mishnayos.)
2. Secondly, they had explained how those halakhos derived from the Torah (Midrash Halakha).

The Amoraim came to say: Can we compare those two texts to each other?

In the Mishna itself there was a Tosefta. It was a supplement rather than a major text. So the Amoraim re-check this. After that, they went to the baraita and want to see how Midrash Halakha quotes the halakha- how it got it. After the mishna comes the baraita to interrogate and see if what the Mishna is saying is a healthy consequence of the Midrash. Thus, they created the Talmud. The first layer of Gemara after the Mishna is the beraita, then questions and everything else. Everyone was adding until one day someone said, 'Enough.' That comparative study between Mishna and Midrash Halakha is the first layer of the Gemara.

Every Amora jumping on a mishna is trying to find a discrepancy between the mishna and midrash. Only in the Shas Vilna at the end of ___ meforah that makes a list of midrashim whenever talking about a beraita.

Now the question becomes: What did the Amoraim do with Chumash? Can they touch the Chumash or not?

Tannaim already did everything! So Amoraim decided to take the non-halakhic material and only dealt with Aggadah. So Sefer Bereishis they could do (because the Tannaim had not touched that.) The Amoraim tried to work with non-halakhic material. Their question was: Can we explain the Torah from the emotional/ philosophical point of view? That was the art.

Then added a pesikta on Chagim, Pirkei D'Rebbe Eliezer, etc, and the one guiding principle in all of these was: no halakha.

But who was the audience for everything the Amoraim were doing? Can this be taught in the classroom? No. You cannot put aggadah in a yeshiva environment. The reason why is because by aggadah anything goes. By halakha, we have machlokes. Therefore the Amoraim's main contribution was to the outside world of people who couldn't learn Chumash/ where halakha was not their piece of bread.

So Tannaim are operating for the elite students who are in the yeshiva/ classroom. The Amoraim are working with the Chumash to create something you can learn with people in the synogogue. So to get that clear:

Midrishei Tanaim: Halakha
Midrishei Amoraim: Aggadah

How did it work in the system in the community? Well, when a person's in shul, you have to give him variety. It can't just be gefilte fish in every dish. According to the Rambam, in very early times everyone used to daven what he felt. But then we got the nussach ha'tefillah (long subject we are not addressing right now) and what was the centerpiece of it? Kerias HaTorah. But someone is in shul, so why should he only know Torah and not Navi? So okay, we'll give you pieces every Shabbos of Navi, and that's how we get the Haftorah. (This is dedicated to the knowledge of the people.) What's missing? Kesuvim. Well, that too was given to us! Because the biur of the Parshas Ha'Shavua was based on Kesuvim.

(Take Bereishis Rabbah- you can see it yourself. [He pulls out a Bereishis Rabbah and gives it to us- sure enough, every opening statement is taken from Mishlei, Tehillim, Daniel, etc- all from Kesuvim.])

And in the Gemara sometimes the Amoraim would overflow. They would tell their students during the week what they gave as a derasha in shul, and that's how we get aggada in the Talmud Bavli. They include mashal, sippur, everything. So Talmud becomes an open door as long as it fits in somehow. So you have sections of Aggadah, sometimes united, sometimes not. Mesechet Megillah is a whole peirush on Megillas Esther.

So the Amoraim finish their job. What happens then?

Savoraim

The Savoraim polish things. It's like when someone digs up a diamond and transports it to a different place; it's the raw diamond and has to be polished. But you didn't create the diamond. So the Savoraim don't create- they just polish the text linguistically, etc. (R' Sherira says so.) They also may add a sugya to ask questions but no halakha.

Geonim

Then came the Geonim who start a new type of literature which is called 'Shaalos and Teshuvos.' Also Parshanut HaTorah in Arabic, Hebrew, etc- flood of parshanim until today. And what happened with the Talmud? Chiddushim (Ran, Nimukei Yosef, everyone until today.)

Today every Rav in the world, if he wants to exist on the map, has to write Shaalos and Teshuvos.

Today

Alas, today people are not creative anymore; they're just encyclopedic. It's all Kol Bo. Since the 2nd World War, creativity is going down- I'm not referring to literature. When it comes to literature, the poems and the books that we have! I'm talking about rabbinic texts. We need people to contribute, not to inform. To have something original. We are lacking this.

A Brief Introduction To Biblical Criticism & Orthodox Thought

Disclaimer: This is a brief introduction to biblical criticism & Orthodox thought as taught by The Adept. This is not for everyone. I cannot be more clear. If you have never heard the words 'biblical criticism' before, this is probably not for you. If this is not something that troubles you, don't read this. This is only for those who find themselves on winding paths they must travel. Be very careful before choosing to read. Of course, per usual, any and all mistakes are mine.

~
Books for the Interested Student To Read:

1. The Old Testament in Modern Research by Herbert F. Hahn (this will take you up to the 20th century- get the 2nd Edition)
2. The Hebrew Bible Today: Introduction to Critical Issues
3. The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters
4. Sources of the Pentateuch

He also suggested that I read Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah.

A Brief Introduction to Biblical Criticism

In the original literature dealing with the Bible, there was no doubt as to the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. The contention that was raised was that Moshe wrote the Torah of his own volition.

Late Antiquity: First doubts regarding the Mosaic authorship of the Torah appear in late antiquity. See Ibn Ezra to Deuteronomy 1:2 and commentaries to him. He speaks of a 'secret'- the intention is that some passages of the Torah may not have been written by Moses. However, no matter who writes them, Ibn Ezra states that it would have been done via divine inspiration. Various Rishonim already raise some doubts about verses in the Torah.

17th Century: This is when modern bible criticism begins. The two big names are a) Thomas Hobbes and b) Benedict Spinoza. Thomas Hobbes pens Leviathan while Spinoza writes his Theological-Political Treatise.

SPINOZA

* Claimed Ibn Ezra denied Mosaic authorship (which Ibn Ezra most certainly did not)

* Moses is spoken about in 3rd person. If he wrote the Torah, he ought to have written 'vayedaber Hashem eilai' rather than "l'Moshe."

* Is troubled by Numbers 12:3

ג וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה, עָנָו מְאֹד--מִכֹּל, הָאָדָם, אֲשֶׁר, עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. {ס}
3 Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth.--

Could a humble man really write that about himself?

* Is troubled by Genesis 14:14-

יד וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו; וַיָּרֶק אֶת-חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ, שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, וַיִּרְדֹּף, עַד-דָּן. 14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan.

Compare with Judges 18:29

כט וַיִּקְרְאוּ שֵׁם-הָעִיר, דָּן, בְּשֵׁם דָּן אֲבִיהֶם, אֲשֶׁר יוּלַּד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל; וְאוּלָם לַיִשׁ שֵׁם-הָעִיר, לָרִאשֹׁנָה. 29 And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel; howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.

This suggests that the verse regarding the fact that Abraham pursued as far as Dan was added to the text after the time of Judges.

Now, while Hobbes, Spinoza and those that followed cast doubt on Mosaic authorship, they had no idea who did write the Bible. Spinoza suggested Ezra.

JEAN ASTRUC

The groundwork for the literary approach to the Bible was laid by Jean Astruc, a Roman Catholic, who wrote a defense of the Torah (specifically of Genesis) in 1873. He noticed that the Shem Havayah (יְהוָה) and Elohim were both used and concluded that Moses drew material from two different documents, J and E. J stands for Jehovah (the Shem Havayah) whereas E stands for Elohim. Moses then fused these documents into one.

Astruct was thus defending Mosaic authorship of the Torah but introduced the Documentary Hypothesis as a defense thereof.

What's an example of how stating that there are two documents- J and E- solves problems? Well, let's compare Genesis 26:34 and Genesis 36:2. Here's Genesis 26:34:

לד וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו, בֶּן-אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה אֶת-יְהוּדִית, בַּת-בְּאֵרִי הַחִתִּי--וְאֶת-בָּשְׂמַת, בַּת-אֵילֹן הַחִתִּי. 34 And when Esau was forty years old, he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

Here's Genesis 36:2-3:

ב עֵשָׂו לָקַח אֶת-נָשָׁיו, מִבְּנוֹת כְּנָעַן: אֶת-עָדָה, בַּת-אֵילוֹן הַחִתִּי, וְאֶת-אָהֳלִיבָמָה בַּת-עֲנָה, בַּת-צִבְעוֹן הַחִוִּי. 2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite,
ג וְאֶת-בָּשְׂמַת בַּת-יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֲחוֹת נְבָיוֹת. 3 and Basemath Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebaioth.

These are not the same wives. These kinds of contradictions are solved by stating that one document is J and another is E.

That was Astruc in the 18th century. This was picked up by later writers as proof of different documents/ writers. The idea became that there were four documents in the Torah: J, E, P and D. They looked at Leviticus and Numbers and said, "Hmm, these look quite different from Genesis and Exodus." Leviticus is a priestly code. They examined Deuteronomy and determined that it seemed entirely different. By the beginning of the 19th century, all subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis. The problem was that they could not date the documents.

JULIUS WELLHAUSEN

Wellhausen lived in the 19th century; he died in 1918. He is the man who dated the documents. He was a Protestant professor of Bible and the first person to attempt to write a history of the biblical period based on J,E,P and D. After dating the documents, he would then be able to say what Israelite practice had been like in different centuries. He wrote the Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prolegomena to History of Ancient Israel) in 1878.

What Wellhausen said was that he could only date one document perfectly: Deuteronomy. Then he could look at the others and ask, "Are these pre or post-Deuteronomy?"

Wellhausen determined that Deuteronomy was written in 621 BC. This is based on 2 Kings 22. In this book of Kings, a Sefer Torah is discovered in the Temple:

ח וַיֹּאמֶר חִלְקִיָּהוּ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל, עַל-שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר, סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה מָצָאתִי, בְּבֵית יְהוָה; וַיִּתֵּן חִלְקִיָּה אֶת-הַסֵּפֶר אֶל-שָׁפָן, וַיִּקְרָאֵהוּ. 8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe: 'I have found the book of the Law in the house of the LORD.' And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

It seems like King Josiah institutes new halakhic practices based on finding this book. Upon looking to see what he did, Wellhausen determined that the book found was Deuteronomy. He postulated further that the scroll was planted in the Temple deliberately; it was a "pious fraud" planted in 621 BC so that it would be the new Jewish constitution.

Once Wellhausen had determined Deuteronomy was written in 621 BC, he then examined P, J and E and concluded J and E were older than Deuteronomy. P is post-Deuteronomy. Editors of P edited all four sources and that is what became the Torah of Moses in the 5th Century BCE. He says Ezra and Nehemiah are the people.

Wellhausen taught that "the law came in between." Judaism begins with the prophets. First came prophecy and afterwards came the Law for the Torah of Moses, that constricting, binding law. As a result of the prophets and law came Judaism which was not liberated till the 1st century when Christianity came. Wellhausen was a Christian theologian who desired to hail the success of Christinaity- the worst part of Judaism was the Torah, that binding, constricting Law, [and when Christianity came, it was no longer a concern.] So this is the key innovation of Wellhausen- that the "Law came in between." Judaism begins with Prophets, then follows with the Torah. Wellhausen then wrote a history based on thse assumptions of modern bible criticism. This became the backbone of modern bible scholarship.

Concomitant with the spread of modern bible criticism was the rise of skepticism regarding the Torah and Genesis especially. After all, if you are following Wellhausen's approach, the Torah comes after the Prophets and was constructed in the 5th century BC, presumably canonized in the time of Nehemiah. So you cannot reconstruct the history of Israel by looking at the imaginary constructs of Abraham and other figures in Genesis. And the laws and mores written in these texts are really 5th century laws and mores.

At this juncture it is appropriate to stress that Wellhausen's hypothesis remains a hypothesis. No archeologist has discovered J, E, P and perhaps you shall learn they have not discovered D, either.

There has been much wrestling with Wellhausen's hypothesis. Those who accept bible criticism are skeptical of aspects of it: dating of the documents, order of the documents, questioning whether indeed the scroll in 2nd Kings is really Deuteronomy and thus can be dated to 621 BC. Wellhausen posited that book was forged as well, a plant. Now, it is not at all clear that the book discovered by King Josiah was indeed Devarim. The way Wellhausen figured it out was to look at what King Josiah did in response to what he read in the scroll; he figured those laws came from Sefer Devarim. However, you will see that King Josiah also abolished Molech worship. See 2 Kings 23:10:

י וְטִמֵּא אֶת-הַתֹּפֶת, אֲשֶׁר בְּגֵי בני- (בֶן-) הִנֹּם: לְבִלְתִּי, לְהַעֲבִיר אִישׁ אֶת-בְּנוֹ וְאֶת-בִּתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ--לַמֹּלֶךְ. 10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.

Nowhere in Deuteronomy is Molech mentioned. So that does not support Wellhausen's contention at all. And we're certainly not sure that this sefer discovered by King Josiah was a "pious fraud"- we're not sure at all.

Modifications of the Documentary Hypothesis in Recent Times:

1) Wellhausen was an intellectual influenced by 19th century intellectual history. Thus, Hegel, Darwinian concepts of straight-line evolution (primitive to complex state.) Since the book of Leviticus is very detailed Wellhausen saw it as late. Modern scholars no longer subscribe to this rigid view of straight-line evolution. We have anthropological evidence for complex things appearing early.

2) Cultic act appears in early stages of most cultures- anthropology and archeology support this. (You will find bones and understand what was consumed in that society; if found by an altar, then these are the bones of sacrifices.) This appears before writing was invented. [I'm not sure what The Adept meant to prove by this contention but I assume he meant to say it undermines the idea of 'the Law came in between' since cultic would appear before the moral.]

3) Long periods of oral traditions being passed on preced written texts. The written text and the content of the text don't necessarily originate at the same time. If you look at the Anchor Bible you will see the book of Genesis dated to 2nd Millenium BC and describing life in those times as opposed to 5th century BC- and this is being written by someone who believes in the Documentary Hypothesis.

4) Archeological Discovery: When Wellhausen wrote, no one had ever heard of Hammurabi. Many scholars denied the antiquity of the Torah because they claimed no writing had been invented and thus Moshe would have been illiterate. (This is no different than the argument that psalms were Maccabean psalms until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and they are clearly pre-Maccabean. Thus there are no Maccabean psalms.) We also found Law Codes from the 3rd Millenium BC in writing, thus the illiterate argument does not stand.

Recent Developments in Last 1/4 of the Century

Bible scholars now fall into one of two schools:

1. Maximalists
2. Minimalists

Both cases move beyond Wellhausen.

Minimalists: They are generally skeptics. Their attitude is, "I will not move one iota beyond the evidence." Modern historians tend to take seriously only contemporary evidence. If asked why they believe George Washington lived, they will say we have documents, pictures, newspapers that we can radiocarbon date and that's why we believe he lived. You can't go beyond the evidence- so there is no archeological evidence that King Solomon ever lived so they will say there is no King Solomon. They said there was no King David either until recently! You will find minimalists especially in Israel.

Maximalists: Students of Albright, Speiser, more open to the idea of long process, oral history, questionable dating of the documents, etc.

Now, all this is extra-evidence (material outside of the bible.) What has been going on in our time is a reevaluation of the material as opposed to rejection. There are some who reject the Documentary Hypothesis but they tend to be thought of as mavericks. In the schools of higher learning in the USA, England, etc the Documentary Hypothesis will be taught. This is the accepted thought in Yale, Princeton, Harvard, etc.

Now let's looks at the Internal Bible Evidence.

Internal Bible Evidence: Roshei Perakim as explained by The Adept

If the Torah was a pious fraud perpetrated in 621 BC or even later, as only Deuteronomy is dated 621 BC whereas the rest, i.e. J,E and P could be written later, it's absolutely astounding to me what's missing in the Torah. Look at Deuteronomy 17. Remember, Wellhausen says this was planted in 621 BC! So look at this verse in Deuteronomy 17:14:

יד כִּי-תָבֹא אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ, וִירִשְׁתָּהּ, וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ; וְאָמַרְתָּ, אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ, כְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתָי. 14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say: 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me';

טו שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ: מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ, תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ--לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אָחִיךָ הוּא. 15 thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.

So it states that you cannot appoint an ish nachri. By 621 BC, after all the Kings of Judah and Israel, why do you need to tell me not a nachri? That seems totally illogical. Also, this scroll is planted for Josiah supposedly- so then why not write anything about the Davidic line? Also, from these verses the idea of a split kingdom is totally unknown.

Now, ordinarily we don't argue from silence- but here we have all the prophets speaking and they theoretically came first- "the Law came in between"- so why not mention these things?

Now let's talk about the Primacy of Morals over Cult.

There are many different categorizations of laws that we could make. We could categorize them as Lo Ta'aseh and Asei, as Chovos HaLevavos mentions, laws that involve mind vs. body but the categorization I will choose right now is Bein Adam L'Chavero vs. Bein Adam L'Makom.

In modern scholarship there are cultic laws and moral laws. Shaking a lulav is a cultic law. When it comes to the Ten Commandments, Anochi Hashem, Avodah Zara, keeping Shabbat are all cultic laws. Moral laws would be not killing, not stealing, etc. Now, interestingly, in the Ten Commandments, no distinction is made between morals and cult. There is nothing that says be more careful regarding the first five laws than the second set of five laws. Nowhere in the Torah does it say that one is more important than the other.

Now look at Isaiah 1:10 - Sedom and Gemorah in this context is referring to Bnei Yisrael. Isaiah is telling the Jews to listen to the Torah- God doesn't want your sacrifices and doesn't like your holidays or prayer! It's a clear message that the cult doesn't work automatically; you can't just bring sacrifices and expect it to work. The neviim are the ones who teach Teshuva. Ultimately, God is really concerned with His morals. Bnei Yisrael were careful about cult, never missed a sacrifice, but it's the morals that are the issue here.

Now look at the contrast! In the book of Judges, Shoftim, it is cultic sin, serving avodah zara, that brings national disaster. But in Neviim Rishonim it is overcharging, not caring for the poor, not caring for the widow that brings national disaster. God wants morals- the nitty-gritty of everyday such as using proper weights, etc. It is in Neviim where morals assume incredible significance but no weight is slanted toward that in the Torah.

What's missing in the Torah that was supposedly put together by J,E,P and D? The word 'Teshuva!' It never appears.

The fact that they don't utilize these themes of moral vs. cultic supremacy that are found in Neviim show that the Torah precedes the Navi, not vice versa.

And let's focus on inconsistencies. Look at Leviticus 18:18. This bans marrying two sisters yet at the same time the Redactor who supposedly edited J,E,P and D stated that Jacob (who for Wellhausen is a literary invention) marries two sisters! Now, if Sefer Bereishis preserves an ancient tradition, then there is no problem with that. But if I am creating an invention in the 5th or 6th century, why create a hero who violates the laws of history?

Or look at Deuteronomy 16:22:

כב וְלֹא-תָקִים לְךָ, מַצֵּבָה, אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ. {ס} 22 Neither shalt thou set thee up a pillar, which the LORD thy God hateth. {S}

And yet look at Genesis 28:18, 35:14 where Jacob sets up a matzeiva (pillar). You know what is interesting? No one after Deuteronomy (throughout Neviim, etc) sets up a matzeiva. Thus we see that Genesis is not written after Deuteronomy; Genesis must, in fact, pre-date Deuteronomy.

A student at the lecture questioned: And how do those who believe in the Documentary Hypothesis answer this (internal bible evidence)?

The Adept replied: Generally, they ignore this as opposed to addressing it. But it is certainly a matter that needs to be addressed.

Teshuva vs. Kappara: Repentance and Atonement In Jewish Intellectual History/ Why Do We Read Jonah On Yom Kippur?

This person permitted me to disseminate their Torah so long as I do not cite them by name. Therefore, from now on I will refer to them as The Adept. The Adept is an incredibly learned Torah scholar and the Torah they teach compares in quality to that of Rebbetzin Sarah Greer's, which is my highest compliment. Should I say anything untoward, assume it is my misunderstanding of The Adept.

The Adept decided to offer a lecture on Teshuva & Kappara (Repentance & Atonement) in Jewish Thought in honor of the upcoming Yom Kippur, Day of Atonement. Attached are the pages we shall make reference to throughout this lecture, with the understanding that it would also be helpful for you to have a Tanakh with you. Do not be daunted by the presence of this attachment or the supposed length of this post; The Adept's lectures are well worth any effort you may exercise. From now on, whenever I say 'I' in this post, assume it is The Adept who is speaking.

If for no other reason, you should read this in order to understand why we read the Book of Jonah on Yom Kippur.



Teshuva and Kappara in Jewish Thought

The general tendency in rabbinic scholarship is to focus on the end product of Jewish scholarship. It's crucial, however, to examine the issue's historical development through the course of Jewish intellectual history. There is much to gain if you study Jewish thought vertically, not horizontally. It is crucial to know the process that leads to these answers.

I am going to ask four questions.

1. Is there a biblical obligation to do Teshuva (repent)?

2. Why do we read Sefer Yonah (the book of Jonah) on Yom Kippur?

3. In the Shulchan Aruch (see passage 1 in the document above) there is a practice of doing Kapparot for every male in the house. However, the Rama says this applies to women as well and even to the unborn fetus within a pregnant woman! Why on earth does a fetus need a kappara (atonement)?

4. There is a compendium by Rambam called Hilchos Teshuva [Laws of Repentance]. (To digress, there is a famous Ramban where he praises the Rambam and says look, he wrote Hilchos Tehuva, an amazing piece of work!) In Germany, the Rokeach publishes Sefer Rokeach and has a section called Hilchos Teshuva as well. But there are huge differences between the two Hilchos Teshuva. How is it possible in the 12th century when we have 2 greats recording Hilchos Teshuva we have two totally different accounts? (Immediate thought: Foreign influence! But obviously we will not accept that.)

Let's address question 1. We want to look at the peshuto shel mikra of the Bible. In the peshat, is there a biblical obligation to do Teshuva? Now, to defend myself lest I am deemed a heretic for looking at the peshat, let's offer precedent for those who look at peshat.

1. Look at Sefer HaMitzvos, Mitzvah Chaf- The Rambam tells us it is a mitzvah asei d'oraita to build the Beit HaMikdash but also tells us he won't list separately everything included in the Beit HaMikdash (it's all subsumed under this mitzvah.) However, in the middle of the mitzvah the Rambam throws in a question.

The Mizbeach that we know of was made of copper; alternatively there was one made of gold. They were also made of stone. However, in Exodus 20:21 it states "Make me a Mizbeach [altar] of earth!"

כ מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה, תַּעֲשֶׂה-לִּי, וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת-עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת-שְׁלָמֶיךָ, אֶת-צֹאנְךָ וְאֶת-בְּקָרֶךָ; בְּכָל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת-שְׁמִי, אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ. 20 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee.

In Exodus 20: 21 there is the option of an altar of stone:

כא וְאִם-מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה-לִּי, לֹא-תִבְנֶה אֶתְהֶן גָּזִית: כִּי חַרְבְּךָ הֵנַפְתָּ עָלֶיהָ, וַתְּחַלְלֶהָ. 21 And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it.

The altar of stone is confirmed in Deuteronomy 27:6:

ו אֲבָנִים שְׁלֵמוֹת תִּבְנֶה, אֶת-מִזְבַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ; וְהַעֲלִיתָ עָלָיו עוֹלֹת, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ. 6 Thou shalt build the altar of the LORD thy God of unhewn stones; and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the LORD thy God.

Rambam regarding the mizbeach adama in Mitzvah Chaf questions: Maybe this is another mizbeach! He is trying to figure out the plain sense of the verse, the peshuto shel mikra. He does explain it, answering that this is not talking about the Beis HaMikdash but rather bamos- then you could build a mizbeach made of earth.

So Rambam, despite all the Chazals, still explains the plain sense of the verse.

2. The Maharal of Prague in the Tiferes Yisrael, Chapter 57 states: Many people are troubled as to why there is no mention in the Torah of Olam Haba? (There are endless Chazals but in the plain sense of the verse it is not mentioned.)

There's the problem of theodicy to which Olam Haba is the answer- so why isn't it mentioned in the Torah? The question has to be asked in the plain sense of the words- why?

Now, to find out his answer you should read the rest of what he says. But the point is that there is precedent for looking at the peshat and we have a right to examine Torah to figure out answers.

So let's proceed:

1. Do we see a biblical obligation to do Teshuva in the Torah (Five Books of Moses?)
2. Do we have dramatis personae who preach the need to do Teshuva?
3. Do we have dramatis personae who do Teshuva in the form the Rambam outlines (regret, confession and stating they will never do the sin again?) Or Baalei Teshuva in the Torah who are identified as such?

At this point everyone in attendance at the lecture began throwing out names and ideas. "Of course we have Teshuva," we figured. "Look at Kayin, the brothers of Joseph, etc." However, what we soon realized is that none of these is a biblical dictum or commandment to repent. Also, none of these characters preach the need to do Teshuva- you do not have someone in the Bible walking around saying, "Repent, o' ye sinners!" Indeed, the ideas of repentance appear in the Midrash but not in the plain text. Noah, according to the plain text, simply builds the Ark as God commands him, does not intercede and does not request that others do teshuva. Abraham bargains with God, searching for ten righteous people in whose merit to save the city. Whenever the Jews do something wrong in the desert, Moshe falls on his face and begs God to blast and smite him, but don't take it out on the Jews. We do have some elements of Teshuva in that the brothers of Joseph certainly feel regret and the Jews contribute their gold to build the Mikdash in order to make up for the Golden Calf, but it is not referred to by this name.

Ramban in HIlchos Teshuva, Perek Zayin, Halacha Hey states: We find Teshuvah in the Neviim (Prophets!) They all speak about it. The Torah promised us that after the Jews do Teshuva they will be redeemed. He cites Deuteronomy 30: 1-3 as his source. However, he notes these verses are a prediction, not a legal obligation. He is also the only one who points to V'shavta ad Hashem Elokecha as a source; everyone else disagrees with him.

Rambam pointed to Numbers 5:7 as the source.

וְהִתְוַדּוּ, אֶת-חַטָּאתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת-אֲשָׁמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, וַחֲמִישִׁתוֹ יֹסֵף עָלָיו; וְנָתַן, לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ. 7 then they shall confess their sin which they have done; and he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him in respect of whom he hath been guilty.

But even here we only have the element of confession as opposed to the three elements that the Rambam refers to! And this is cultic confession (doing so before offering the Korbanot) as opposed to individual confession.

There are various people who write lists of the 613 Mitzvot and they don't list Teshuva but rather Viduy as one of the mitzvot- and only within the cultic setting of bringing a Korban.

A 19th century Gadol B'Yisrael who has his finger on the pulse of Judaism is R' Joseph Babad, the Minchas Chinuch, commenting on the 613 commandments. And he was really surprised that Rambam brought Numbers 5:7 as a source! The Minchas Chinuch says the Rambam doesn't really believe there IS a mitzvas asei to do Teshuvah. Minchas Chinuch says Teshuva is only a means toward an end- Kappara.

Basically, his argument is that Rambam considered Teshuva like Gittin. There is no mitzvas asei to write a divorce document; all it is is an appropriate legal means to an end, namely if the parties want to remarry. The divorce document is not a mitzvah and is not even a mitzvah kiyumis. For Rambam, Teshuva is sound advice- a means toward the end of Kappara!

However, The Adept added, this cannot be right because it is very clear the Rambam says this is a mitzvas asei.

So nobody knows where Teshuva is from- it is not at all clear. Does the Torah require one to do Teshuva? Very hard to see where.

As for questions 2 and 3, it is very hard to find someone preaching Teshuva in the biblical text and we certainly do not have Baalei Teshuva in the Torah who are identified as such.

What DO I find in the Torah again and again?
The concept of Kappara [Atonement].

* The whole book of Leviticus, Deuteronomy 21: 8 (Egla Erufa), etc- many things that need to be atoned for. There is a strong idea within the biblical text that sin needs to be atoned for.

Now let's look at Neviim (the Prophets.) Let's use our three- question format again.

1. Does anyone preach Teshuva in the Neviim? Yes! Every Navi! The purpose of the Navi is to chastise people so that they will do Teshuva.

2. Do we have models in Neviim who do Teshuva?

Yes!

David (Samuel II, Chapter 12)
Achav (Kings I, Chapter 21)
Josiah (Kings 22, 22:19)
Menashe (Chronicles 2, Chapter 33)

Now, nowhere is the tension between the ideas of Teshuva and Kappara (Repentance vs. Atonement) more palpable than in Sefer Yonah. Let's discuss Sefer Yonah.

Firstly, what was the sin of the people of Ninveh? Chamas, violence.

Why did Yonah not want to go to Ninveh?

1. Rashi to Jonah 1:3 states it's because he didn't want to make the Jews look bad. He knew if he went to Ninveh and asked them to repent, they would, whereas the Jews had not been doing so. God would negatively compare the Jews to the gentiles. (Mechilta)

2. Abarbanel states: They're pagans! There were ovdei avodah zarah- so yes, they did Teshuva for chamas, but what about Avodah Zarah? (They worshipped Marduk, Ashur, etc.)

3. Rashi to Jonah 4:1- Yonah is upset because now the nations will say that I am a Navi Sheker, a false prophet. (Yonah had formerly said in 40 days Ninveh will fall.) (Pirkei D'Rabi Eliezer)

Now, let's look at the peshat. Jonah 4:2 tells you why he ran away!

ב וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֶל-יְהוָה וַיֹּאמַר, אָנָּה יְהוָה הֲלוֹא-זֶה דְבָרִי עַד-הֱיוֹתִי עַל-אַדְמָתִי--עַל-כֵּן קִדַּמְתִּי, לִבְרֹחַ תַּרְשִׁישָׁה: כִּי יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי אַתָּה אֵל-חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב-חֶסֶד, וְנִחָם עַל-הָרָעָה. 2 And he prayed unto the LORD, and said: 'I pray Thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in mine own country? Therefore I fled beforehand unto Tarshish; for I knew that Thou art a gracious God, and compassionate, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy, and repentest Thee of the evil.

Jonah ran away because "I knew that Thou art a gracious God, and compassionate, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy and nicham al ha-ra- have compassion upon evil."

Let's compare this to God's description in Exodus 34:6-7.

ו וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהוָה עַל-פָּנָיו, וַיִּקְרָא, יְהוָה יְהוָה, אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן--אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם, וְרַב-חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת. 6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed: 'The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;

ז נֹצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים, נֹשֵׂא עָו‍ֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה; וְנַקֵּה, לֹא יְנַקֶּה--פֹּקֵד עֲו‍ֹן אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים וְעַל-בְּנֵי בָנִים, עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים. 7 keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation.'

Let's focus on the words v'nakeh lo yenakeh. What does that mean? It's similar to mos yumas- verily, you shall die. You shall surely die! So v'nakeh lo yenakeh means 'but you certainly shall not be cleansed!"

Yes, Hashem is all these things and has all these qualities (Rashi says this) but the plain sense of the text is that God does not cleanse entirely. You sin? You pay! God remembers sins and punishes for sins (spread out over several generations.)

Now, Yonah knows what it says in the Torah and he is raised on the Torah (this is before the time of canonical Navi and Kesuvim.)

Indeed, look at Yonah's very name! He is Yonah ben Amitai- the son of Emes! Emes is the attribute of Din, Judgment. When Yonah talks about God's qualities in 4:2 the word 'Emes' is missing. 'V'nicham al ha'ra' is used instead, suggesting that God forgives the entire sin. There is nothing here about Emes. So what is Yonah saying to God? He is saying: Sin requires kaparah, atonement! It's the Neviim who came along and stressed this concept of Teshuva alone! The people of Ninveh need to atone, not just repent!

Look at passage 2 in the attachment above: It was asked to Wisdom, the sinner, what is his redemption? The evil a person does pursues him. The Prophets were asked and they said the nefesh ha'chotais hi tamus- the person who sinned shall die. David said that professional sinners will be wiped out. The Torah was asked and said to bring an Asham [guilt offering] and make atonement. They asked God and God answered that teshuva alone is the kappara [atonement].

Why do we read Sefer Yonah on Yom Kippur? Because Yom Kippur hangs upon the concept of Kappara! That was the whole Avodah in the Beit HaMikdash with the Kohen Gadol. But we don't have any of that! So we are despondent. In that case, that is why we read Sefer Yonah, because it shows that genuine Teshuva alone works! God is willing to accept repentance alone in place of atonement.

(See passages 3, 4 and 5) in the sheets above and you will see that yes, there was once a time where sin required kaparah, atonement, but nowadays Teshuva suffices.)

So why the differences between the two Hilchos Teshuva compendiums?

In Ashkenaz they preserve the tradition of Torah and Kappara- that's why we have penances of all sorts, etc.

In Spain the Rashba and Rambam banned Kapparos/ so the Mechaber who is Sephardi is very unhappy about Kapparos.

These two different strands of thought (atonement vs. repentance) were united by Chazal, then separated out into the two different strands once more. See passage 8 on page 2.

When and/or why does everything change? See Ezekiel 18.

There, God (in Navi) comes to say: I will change everything so the only people who are punished are those who do the sins (and not later generations.) The Gemara says that God's own teaching was overturned here (somewhere at the end of Mesechtas Makkos.)

[We have run out of time, but read through the rest of the sources on your own; they support this point.]

"The beauty of Judaism," concluded The Adept, "is that there are many different notions and ideas and during different time periods different ones rise to the top. It doesn't stay frozen. For example, the words mos yumas are all over the Torah but the Gemara says that never would have happened. How can that be? The answer is that times change. At the time of the Torah, the way to cleanse oneself of sin was through atonement. Later on it changed to repentance. In truth, there is basis for both ideas within the text; it is simply which one floats to the top depending on the generation. Judaism is not one size fits all."