Re: The Samaritan schism.
Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 10:28 am
The first reference I can find to Jerusalem in the OT so far is Joshua 10:1. But even if it's not certain (or doesn't make sense) that Salem in Gen. 14:8 is Jerusalem, it was seen that way by Israelites since at least Ps. 76:2.
And the Wikipedia page for Jerusalem notes:
"The earliest extra-biblical Hebrew writing of the word Jerusalem is dated to the sixth or seventh century BCE and was discovered in Khirbet Beit Lei near Beit Guvrin in 1961. The inscription states: "I am Yahweh thy God, I will accept the cities of Judah and I will redeem Jerusalem," or as other scholars suggest: "Yahweh is the God of the whole earth. The mountains of Judah belong to him, to the God of Jerusalem."
But it wouldn't make sense to refer to Jerusalem as being a sacred place in the Torah because it didn't belong to Israel until it was conquered by David in 2 Sam. 5:6-7:
"The king and his men marched to Jerusalem to attack the Jebusites, who lived there. The Jebusites said to David, 'You will not get in here; even the blind and the lame can ward you off.' They thought, 'David cannot get in here.' Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion—which is the City of David."
I think Israelite Jerusalem could be foreshadowed by the Melchizedek episode though. His name means royalty and righteousness (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4442.htm), he was a king and a priest, and Abram gave him "a tenth of everything," like the Israelite priests to come were to receive (Gen. 14:20).
In the big picture though I see Deuteronomy as being part of a larger work called the Deuteronomistic History (http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vie ... 1-0028.xml), and in this it is clear that "the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling" is Jerusalem:
"Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen" (1 Ki. 11:13).
"I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name" (1 Ki. 11:36).
But Jerusalem wasn't (fully) conquered and God didn't "put his Name" there until long after the time period described in the Torah. And whether or not it is foreshadowed by Salem, it is clear that the place where God will choose "to put his Name" in Deuteronomy is Jerusalem in rest of the DH. That this "Torah" wasn't the Torah we have now and that part of it later became attached to other writings that became our Torah (and don't mention Jerusalem) doesn't matter; the rest of the DH considers the place that God would put his name to be Jerusalem.
And what does it say about the Samaritans that they use Deuteronomy but not the rest of the DH (if it was written as a whole)? Or do you disagree with the idea that Deuteronomy is part of a larger work including Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings?
And the Wikipedia page for Jerusalem notes:
"The earliest extra-biblical Hebrew writing of the word Jerusalem is dated to the sixth or seventh century BCE and was discovered in Khirbet Beit Lei near Beit Guvrin in 1961. The inscription states: "I am Yahweh thy God, I will accept the cities of Judah and I will redeem Jerusalem," or as other scholars suggest: "Yahweh is the God of the whole earth. The mountains of Judah belong to him, to the God of Jerusalem."
But it wouldn't make sense to refer to Jerusalem as being a sacred place in the Torah because it didn't belong to Israel until it was conquered by David in 2 Sam. 5:6-7:
"The king and his men marched to Jerusalem to attack the Jebusites, who lived there. The Jebusites said to David, 'You will not get in here; even the blind and the lame can ward you off.' They thought, 'David cannot get in here.' Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion—which is the City of David."
I think Israelite Jerusalem could be foreshadowed by the Melchizedek episode though. His name means royalty and righteousness (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4442.htm), he was a king and a priest, and Abram gave him "a tenth of everything," like the Israelite priests to come were to receive (Gen. 14:20).
In the big picture though I see Deuteronomy as being part of a larger work called the Deuteronomistic History (http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vie ... 1-0028.xml), and in this it is clear that "the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling" is Jerusalem:
"Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen" (1 Ki. 11:13).
"I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name" (1 Ki. 11:36).
But Jerusalem wasn't (fully) conquered and God didn't "put his Name" there until long after the time period described in the Torah. And whether or not it is foreshadowed by Salem, it is clear that the place where God will choose "to put his Name" in Deuteronomy is Jerusalem in rest of the DH. That this "Torah" wasn't the Torah we have now and that part of it later became attached to other writings that became our Torah (and don't mention Jerusalem) doesn't matter; the rest of the DH considers the place that God would put his name to be Jerusalem.
And what does it say about the Samaritans that they use Deuteronomy but not the rest of the DH (if it was written as a whole)? Or do you disagree with the idea that Deuteronomy is part of a larger work including Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings?