Revelation Restored

Divine Writ And Critical Responses

David W Halivni, David Weiss Halivni

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367317720
• eBook ISBN: 9780429977251
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

In this thought-provoking book, David Weiss Halivni asserts that the act of acknowledging and accounting for inconsistencies in the Pentateuchal text is not alien to the Biblical or Rabbinic tradition and need not belie the tradition of revelation. Moreover, the author argues that through recognizing textual problems in the scriptures, as well as e

1

The Compilers’ Editorial Policy

Traditional and Critical Perspectives

The religious scholar within the Jewish tradition takes it for granted that the book of Deuteronomy is the final chapter of the Pentateuch. The weight of tradition and the narrative of Deuteronomy itself have firmly established this book as the last segment in the Torah of Moses, representing the last words of the Prophet to his people in the wilderness. Most of those within the fold regard alternative chronologies as suspect in the extreme. Yet since the advent of that scholarship known as Higher Biblical Criticism, a debate has raged in the academy concerning the chronological relationship of “P,” the priestly code and textual tradition associated with the book of Leviticus, and “D,” the Deuteronomic scriptures. In fact, until recently, the favored arguments in this dispute have ascribed later authorship to “P,” making the priests of Jerusalem the final contributors to the Pentateuch, perhaps even accomplishing their work in the Babylonian exile of the sixth century B.C.E. Prominent theories of religious evolution, stressing the antecedence of narrative and miracle to law and ritual detail, have been called upon to ratify the claim that the intricate Levitical code represents the latest developments in the religion of biblical Israel.

Most recently, however, especially among a new generation of Israeli and Jewish critical scholars,¹ the traditional place of Deuteronomy as the last of the Pentateuch’s books has regained scholarly acceptance, albeit for reasons grounded in critical theory. As evidence for Deuteronomy’s late arrival, scholars point to the Jerusalem-based centrality of worship dominant in the Deuteronomic outlook, ascribing this phenomenon to a period in which the priesthood of Jerusalem was well established.

Neither side of this academic dispute has entirely vindicated itself. Without recourse to tradition, one can argue either way. In this book, I will not make claims of precedence for one textual element or another. The evidence of critical scholarship does not compel one to abandon the belief that the Pentateuch has its origins at Sinai. Therefore, we shall proceed from a later point in biblical history and from a conclusion that has been accepted by traditional and critical scholars alike. This point of departure is the accepted fact that the people of Israel, upon their return from captivity in Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E., embraced a scriptural Pentateuch in which all of the textual elements identified in the current scholarly debate had been consolidated.²

The Return from Babylonian Captivity

The biblical narrative describes the period of return from exile (following the conquest of the Babylonian empire by the Persian Cyrus in 539 B.C.E.) as a time of national and religious rebirth. According to the biblical accounts in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the return from exile was characterized in particular by two religious phenomena. In the first place, the returning Israelites collectively expressed repentance for the ages of idolatry and syncretism, which they saw as the cause of their ancestors’ expulsion from the Land. At the same time, the people expressed a zeal to embrace the Law of their God, the Torah of Moses, from Mount Sinai. Historians of biblical Israel concur that this period of return saw an unprecedented desire, in the renascent land, for scriptural religious law. Critical scholars of the Bible believe that this is the time in which the Five Books of Moses were arranged in their present form, the time of the Pentateuch’s canonization.

The notion of a “canonization” at any time subsequent to Sinai may initially appear disagreeable, even intolerable, from the traditional point of view. To speak of there having been “editorial policy” in Ezra’s day may seem to contravert the legacy of revelation. Therefore, it should be stressed at the outset that this “critical” perspective, which suggests a project of textual standardization in the time of return from exile, may draw support, not only from vague and disputable echoes of this project within the Pentateuch itself, but also from more explicit indications preserved in the later books of the Bible and in the earliest rabbinic traditions. As we begin this investigation, we may find theological encouragement in the fact that the notion of an “editorial” project in the time of Ezra was evidently not unpalatable to some of the earliest rabbis. In the course of this chapter, we shall encounter rabbinic opinions that ascribe to Ezra the role of editor, indicating that choices concerning the form and content of the canonical Pentateuch were made at the time of the return from exile. At the same time, we shall also see that the memory of this canonization has been almost entirely obscured throughout the subsequent centuries of Jewish commentary.

A Change of Heart

First of all, we must touch briefly upon the biblical evidence that documents Israel’s zeal to embrace the scriptural Torah in the period of return from exile. The prophetic books that predate Babylonian captivity uniformly address Israel as a backsliding nation, exhorting the people to forsake their wayward behavior and return to the Torah and God. Indeed, from the moment of revelation on Sinai itself, according to the traditional account, the Mosaic law and its champions—the judges, the prophets, and the priests—were obliged to wage a tireless and rarely successful struggle against the idolatrous tendencies of the nation. The episode of the golden calf, under the very clouds of Mount Sinai itself, is a dramatic illustration of Israel’s lack of religious resolve. Time and time again, the prophets take God’s part in a struggle between heritage and idolatry. The fine details of ritual and law are rarely the subject of these exhortations. Rather, the most basic concepts of fealty to tradition and the most general matters of observance are at issue in these “disputes” between God and his people, mediated through the prophets. The prophets lament Israel’s inability to remember its God and to observe his most fundamental precepts, and in essence, they do not demand much more. As long as the heart of the nation is averted from its God, the details of the Torah are not merely beyond the realistic expectation of the prophets. Observing these details would be a travesty without the right intentions. Nonobservance would be preferable to observing the Sabbath punctiliously in honor of Baal or Kemosh. One may go as far as to say that as long as the people of Israel were idol worshippers, they were better off not observing the law. To have observed the laws of Sinai, but not in exclusive allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would have been more sinful than neglect itself. The prophets of preexilic times did well to exhort the people to the most basic faith and covenantal fealty, leaving the more specific requirements for a later and more faithful age. Not that such details of the covenant were unknown to the prophets; they were known, but there was no sense in urging the nation to fulfill them so long as the observances might have been twisted to deepen the prevalent commitment to syncretistic idolatry.

The books that narrate and follow the return from exile tell of an extraordinary change of heart. The return to the Land itself is recounted in the Bible in terms of the nation’s enthusiasm to restore a covenant with the God of its ancestors. The returnees themselves are not merely eager to embrace the concept of a Torah from Sinai; they are equally zealous to translate its details into practice. The scriptural Torah itself, as an actual scroll, is presented dramatically in the biblical narrative at this point, and the people seem eager to make it their own. Where once it was the lonely and beleaguered domain of the prophets and the priests, the Torah of Moses, in the account of the return from Babylonian captivity, appears in popular demand—sought after by the people of Israel at large. The book of Nehemiah provides dramatic testimony. I shall quote the text at length so that the reader may envision the events as they are vividly described, and also because this citation, in its details, supports my frequent references to Ezra’s “entourage” as the group that facilitated the people’s embrace of the canon.

When the seventh month came—the people of Israel being settled in their towns—all the people gathered together into the square before the Water Gate. They told the scribe Ezra to bring the book of the Law of Moses which the lord had given to Israel. Accordingly, the priest Ezra brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding. This was on the first day of the seventh month. He read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand; and the ears of the people were attentive to the book of the Law. The scribe Ezra stood on a wooden platform that had been made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mittithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah and Maaseiah on his right hand and Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hash-baddanah Zechariah and Meshullam on his left hand. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. Then Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen,” lifting up their hands. Then they bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozaban, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites helped the people to understand the Law while the people remained in their places. So they read from the book of the Law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (Neh. 8:1–8)

The book of Nehemiah exemplifies the spirit and the vision of the post-exilic age. Exile in Babylon had entered the collective consciousness of Israel as the disastrous consequence of idolatry and syncretism. The success of the return to Jerusalem was acknowledged to depend upon Israel’s separating itself from the nations and their idolatry as the one people distinguished by its unique Torah. At this moment in the biblical account, perhaps even more than at Sinai, the people of Israel became the Nation of the Book. Again, Nehemiah sets the scene:

Then those of Israelite descent separated themselves from all foreigners, and stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers. They stood up in their place and read from the Book of the Law of the Lord their God for a fourth part of the day, and for another fourth part they made confession and worshiped the Lord their God. (Neh. 9:l`-3`-Neh. 9: 2–3.)

The Role of Ezra

In the account of Nehemiah, it was Ezra who brought the Torah to the people, and it was Ezra and his entourage who made the scriptures accessible to the nation with public reading and interpretation. The role of Ezra in furnishing Israel with its scriptures has been overlooked to a large extent,³ not only by critical scholarship, but also by the mainstream of Jewish religious thought. As we shall see in the pages to follow, centuries of exegesis and interpretation have led to a collective vision of history in religious Judaism of the Torah of Moses having been handed down from Sinai to the present day absolutely unchanged. For many religious Jews today, the Torah that is lifted up in the modern synagogue is the selfsame Torah that was handed to Moses on the mountain, both in appearance and in content. Moreover, according to rabbinic tradition, even the “crowns,” or ornaments, on the letters of the text are legitimate territory for legal exegesis.⁴ Jewish legend has it that God himself filled his time before creation attaching these “crowns” to the letters of the scriptures (B.T. Menahot 29b). Nevertheless, the editorial role of Ezra has not completely vanished from traditional Jewish sources.

A far less often cited passage, in the Talmudic tractate Sanhedrin (B.T. Sanhedrin 21b), raises the issue of Ezra’s involvement in shaping the canonical Torah. The fascinating text there reads:

Mar Zutra, or as some say, Mar ‘Ukba, said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashurith [Assyrian] script and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashurith script and Hebrew language.

It has been taught: R. Yose said: Had Moses not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah for Israel. Of Moses it is written, “And Moses went up to God” (Exod. 19:3), and of Ezra it is written, “He, Ezra, went up from Babylon” (Ezra 7:6). As the going up of the former refers to the [receiving of the] Law, so does the going up of the latter…. And even though the Torah was not given through him [Ezra], its writing was changed through him….

It has been taught: Rabbi said: The Torah was originally given to Israel in this [Ashurith] writing. When they [Israel] sinned, it was changed into Ro’atz. But when they repented, [Assyrian characters] were re-introduced….

R. Simeon b. Elazar said on the authority of R. Eliezer b. Parta who spoke on the authority of R. Eleazar of Modi’im: This writing [of the law] was never changed.

At issue in this Talmudic sequence of perspectives is Ezra’s involvement in the form of the canonical Pentateuch. At this point, it is sufficient and essential to note that the idea of Ezra’s involvement in the presentation of the Torah appeared in the Talmud as a rabbinic position. We also cannot help but notice that this involvement was an issue of dispute in the passages above. Yet even this difference of rabbinic opinion strengthens the probability that Ezra’s editorial role was more than a matter of legend and fancy. It is difficult to imagine why anyone would have thought to ascribe an editorial project to Ezra’s day had there not actually been such an undertaking. Some memory of a consolidation of the Pentateuch in the return from exile must account for this issue’s appearance in the Talmud.

True, the Talmud attributes a plethora of ordinances to a variety of biblical dignitaries, including Ezra. Such attributions are retroactive projections into traditional history, deemed by their authors as befitting the personages they involve—what the authors felt the biblical figures might have, or should have, done or what the authors felt should be done themselves. Even so, it is unlikely that R. Yose, for example, would have attributed to Ezra such basic editorial actions—which, from the point of view of R. Yose’s time, must have bordered on blasphemy—without lingering memories of such a reality. Some residual knowledge of the Pentateuch’s history would account for the attribution of editorial work to Ezra. Nobody would have attributed a change of scriptural orthography to Ezra without some basis in history, nebulous as that basis might have been. R. Yose and Rabbi would not have concocted this account on their own without some convincing precedent. Moreover, we should note that the Samaritans, too, have a tradition that Ezra had a hand in the consolidation of the scriptures.⁵

Nevertheless, the concept of editorial prerogative in Ezra’s time was clearly unpalatable to the last position in the Talmudic sequence cited above (that of R. Simeon b. Eliezer); and that is understandable. The suggestion that any person after Moses—even another prophet—was somehow involved in a matter as fundamental as the language and orthography of the scriptures is a challenging theological proposition. From the position of orthodoxy in any age, such a view threatens to compromise the sanctity of the written word. We may be encouraged by R. Yose’s tolerance toward the concept of Ezra’s editorial role; but, as we shall discover, the notion that the canonical Pentateuch was subject to an editorial policy of any sort has been almost thoroughly suppressed throughout rabbinic history, the quoted passage in Sanhedrin being one of a very few notable, and valuable, exceptions.⁶

We shall see that Ezra’s role in the canonization of the Pentateuch was not confined to presentation and orthography alone, but apparently included attempts to address the problems of the text. In the pages to follow, we shall touch upon the issue of the ten so-called puncta extraordinaria in the text of the Pentateuch. Briefly, in ten places in the scroll of the Torah, there appear scribal markings (dots above the line) that seem to indicate that the words and phrases to which they are attached are not to be understood according to their plain meanings. In fact, these markings seem to demarcate spurious or inappropriate words in the scriptural text. Tradition ascribes the introduction of these markings to Ezra; and a passage in Bamidbar Rabbah (3, 13) concerning the ten points ends with this remarkable addendum:

Some give another reason why the dots are inserted. Ezra reasoned thus: If Elijah [some read “Moses”] comes and asks, “Why have you written these words?” [i.e., Why have you included these suspect passages?], I shall answer, “That is why I dotted these passages.” And if he says to me, “You have done well in having written them,” I shall erase the dots above them.

Note that this passage from Bamidbar Rabbah does not merely impute the introduction of the puncta extraordinaria to Ezra. Far more astonishingly, this segment of rabbinic lore attributes to Ezra the decision to write (or not to write) sentences in the Pentateuchal text!

These implications have not been lost on subsequent rabbinic commentators. Indeed the sixteenth-century scholar Azariah de Rossi (1513–1578) concluded that this text must have been written by a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Foreword: Revelation Restored as Postcritical Theology
• Foreword: A Christian Perspective
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 The Compilers’ Editorial Policy
• 2 Overcoming Maculation
• 3 Revelation Restored: Theological Consequences
• Afterword: Continuous Revelation
• Notes
• About the Book and Author
• Subject Index
• Index of Textual References
• Index of Names