It so happens there is an article in the NYT today about Deuteronomy. It's paywalled, so you may not be able to read it. It's about a scholar with the unfortunate name of Dershowitz (no relation apparently) who thinks that a text found in 1883 and proclaimed to be an early version of part of Deuteronomy, and commonly believed to be a forger, was not a forgery after all. That's a complicated sentence. Anyway, if you're interested and you can read it, great. Meanwhile I thought I'd just excerpt this paragraph which briefly explains the common understanding of the nature of Deuteronomy, which is more or less as I described it earlier but is well-stated here.
Deuteronomy, as it appears in the Bible, contains Moses’ farewell sermon to the Israelites before they enter the Promised Land. In his address, Moses recalls their history, and emphasizes the importance of following the laws, including the Ten Commandments (first revealed in Exodus), which he then restates.
Ironically, Deuteronomy itself has been described as a “pious forgery,” as scholars call works created to justify a particular belief or practice. The Hebrew Bible states that during the reign of Josiah, around 622 B.C.E., priests discovered an ancient “Book of the Law” in the Temple in Jerusalem. Since the 19th century, scholars have held that Deuteronomy (or its nucleus of laws) was that book, which in fact had been composed shortly beforehand to justify the centralization of worship at the Temple and other priestly reforms.
2 comments:
That was a fascinating article to read. It raises really important questions about the nature and organization of the original books of the Hebrew Bible. And no matter what anybody may think about the veracity of the original source or the authenticity of the lost documents, I can't help but respect the tenacious, intelligent work of Dershowitz. It's also nice to know there's a decent person in the world whose last name is Dershowitz, instead of the putz we usually read and hear about in media.
Speaking of putzes, what a terrible betrayal Clermont-Ganneau committed. I truly hope one day to instead drive down Wilhelm Moses Shapira Street in Jerusalem.
From what I understand, there are parallels to Christian holy books that give more weight to the perspective of women. I think that, by definition, there must be a compression of time and events in historical documents that go way back in time. Only in the last 500 to 600 years have we had the ability to print documents, and only in the past century-and-a-half the ability to record photographically and then, later, with sound and digital media.
So who the hell knows what really happened way back when? And if we can't travel back in time, there's no point arguing about it. Unfortunately, we need proof or irrefutable logic. Idan Dershowitz goes a long way with his work in providing that kind of logic.
Yes, history consists of whatever documentation has survived. This is the big challenge of historiography.
Post a Comment