greyline

I was watching an SBS documentary this evening - unfortunately missed most of it - but I think it was called The Kingdom of David. It quite matter-of-factly described how the Jewish scriptures weren't considered inspired by God until a few centuries BC. Before that, although there were parts that were purportedly God's word (ie. when the prophets said so), the rest was simply a historical account.

I got the impression from my limited viewing that it was only in response to Greek culture (sort of in competition with the Greek religions) that the Jews hit on the idea that the entire shebang was inspired by God. It was at that point that they started delving into the histories to interpret them as God's word. Which, of course, caused all kinds of speculation (or "freedom", as the program nicely put it) because the meanings were so unclear and open to interpretation.

Can anyone fill me in on this idea? Do modern Jews think the Torah is God speaking directly, and was there a time when Jews didn't think so?

Magdlyn

There is no monolithic Jew. An Orthodox Jew will believe (and interpret rabbinical teachings, themselves differing on most issues) differently than a Reform.

And the Torah, or Tanakh is just one part of Jewish belief. They also have Talmud, Midrash and Kabbalah.

Here is an Orthodox site on What do Jews Believe?:

http://jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm

greyline

I was referring to Jews from that time, though, not what today's Jews believe about it.

Thanks for the link.

Magdlyn

You seemed to be asking about both groups.

Why don't you read the Hebrew Scriptures for yourself? There are countless times (OK, someone has probably counted them) when YHWH speaks to a prophet. Was your show suggesting that every time this or that book says, "YWYH [aka the LORD] spoke and said to so and so," this was a 300 BCE or later addition?

When you say Torah, do you mean the first 5 books of Moshe, or the whole shebang? Orthodox Jews do believe Torah (the law, the 613? mitzvot) are direct orders from their god, dictated to the people through Moshe.

Or did the show acknowledge the importance of the prophets and just downplay the idea that every word of the Bible is direct word of god?

greyline

I was but I kind of assumed that Jews hadn't changed their minds about it - ie. that modern Jews believed the same about this as their ancestors.

No, as I said in the first post, the words from the prophets were the exception. It was the bits in between that the show (actually the Jewish and other academics on the show) said were not considered to be the word of God.

Also, there wasn't a mention of "additions". The words didn't change, only the interpretations by the later Jews who decided it was all the word of God.


I'm not actually sure if the show was referring to the whole thing or just the first 5 books, but if it was just the first 5 books then the thesis still was that it wasn't considered all the direct word of God in ancient times.

Looking at the evolution of Judaism from a purely historical perspective (ie. on the assumption that a "God" had nothing to do with any of it), it does seem more likely that their stories were collected together over the centuries and, as with any other culture that keeps records, not considered to be more than what they were.

Magdlyn

But that didn't stop them from altering it, oddly enough.

Numbers reinterprets Exodus. Chronicles reinterprets (and changes) Samuel and Kings.

Etc.

Magdlyn

That would be incorrect, IMO. Define ancestors. 1200 BCE? 700 BCE? 300 BCE? 100 CE? Religious ideas evolve, as does everything else.

"The populace" in general? How do we know what the illiterate populace thought, except as how the chroniclers (those heavily invested in centralized worship) saw and depicted them? BTW, I think the reasons the Levi'im and Aaronim were so invested in Temple worship were political and economic, not noble or pious except on the surface. I think this might have been apparent to "the populace."

Or do we know by the recent archeological finds of thousands of small Asherah statues all over the area?

It seems to me the "populace" of ancient Judah and Israel (esp Israel) considered YHWH and "His" words a part of their Great Goddess worship. And if they were illiterate, too poor or involved in their farms, flocks or other businesses to travel all the way, on foot, to the great city several times a year for celebrations and "sacrifices" (ie: donating the best of the first fruits of flocks and fields to the upkeep of the idle upper classes), and having their local shrines periodically ripped down by "reformers," just how positive were they likely to feel about "official" Judaism and "the word of YHWH?"

Some Jewish lit, Song of Songs for example, seems to be inspired just as much by the Goddess as the God. IMO, it is a depiction of the Sacred Marriage, a central tenet of Canaanite and other area religions. YHWH is not mentioned in it, IIRC. Somebody stuck Solomon's name in there to make it seem "official." Of course, he was known to be a randy old goat. And ultimately a pagan.

spin

Sorry, you're right. The rider should have read, the populace who followed the traditional temple based religion. The entity is hard to discern, though there are lots of pointers in Mishnaic literature which point back to the period. (Some of the data can be found in Jeremias's book, Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, SCM, 1969.) We find for example people who made their meagre livings catching birds to sell to the poor as temple sacrifices.


spin

spin

But this is by those who had control of the literature not those souls who merely believed it.


spin

Magdlyn

Sigh. "Traditional?"

Reminds me of evangelicals in the US crying for the preservation of "traditional" marriage.

One of the traditions of the Temple was to have a statue of Asherah and qadesha housed in it.

"Souls?" And believed what? The Kings book or the Chronicles book? When did they believe which? As they contradict each other. And the populace would not be likely to have enough access to either (being illiterate in the first place) to really understand the nuances. So what and/or which were they aware of and/or believe in? And when?