Lubab No More: Kings of England

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Kings of England

[LNM: Here is this week's devar Torah from guest poster TheCandyMan.]

Hi guys, your friendly shul candyman here. LNM has graciously handed me the mic, in order to bring you a little piece of Torah. It might be one of the forgotten secrets of the Torah. Or it might be a bissel heresy. Who knows? When you come to the candyman, you don't get to choose which candy you get. Sometimes you get a mint. Other times, it's a butterscotch.

Buried in the back of this week's Torah portion, Vayishlach, is one of the ten verses every Jew should know. It goes like this:

And these are the kings that ruled in the land of Edom, before a king was appointed in the land of Israel. (Gen. 36:31)

For clarity, let's recast the verse in terms we can understand:

And these are the kings of England, before a president was first elected in the United States.

Say you encounter such a sentence out of context. When might such a sentence have been written? Well, the author speaks of a U.S. president. She refers to this presidency as historical fact, accepted by everyone. We, the audience, know that there have been U.S. presidents since Washington took office in 1789. So, it stands to reason that this sentence was written sometime after 1789 (we can't know exactly when), and refers to the kings of England prior to 1789.

Similarly, when Gen. 36:31 refers to a time "before there were kings in Israel" the simplest explanation is the times before Saul, the first king of Israel. If so, the verse must have been written after the time of Saul. In this little corner of Vayishlach, buried beneath a pile of obscure names, the Torah dates itself to post-monarchy Israel.

The clincher is that the same exact verse (and a very similar passage) appears in I Chronicles 1:43. In Chronicles, the verse was obviously written after the Israelite monarchy had become established. After all, the author of Chronicles speaks of kings Saul, David, and Solomon by name. It's only natural that this author/historian should put the Edomite kings in historical context for his post-monarchy Israelite audience. It is just like putting the kings of England in historical context for us by making a reference to the presidents of the United States. Now, if you agree that the verse in Chronicles was written after the time of Saul, shouldn't you apply the same logic to the verse in Vayishlach?

64 comments:

Anonymous said...: You’re a liar and a fool, dangerous, real dangerous.
And these are the kings that ruled in the land of Edom, before a king was appointed in the land of Israel. (Gen. 36:31)
This is the real translation:

וְאֵלֶּה, הַמְּלָכִים, אֲשֶׁר מָלְכוּ, בְּאֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם--לִפְנֵי מְלָךְ-מֶלֶךְ, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
It says Meloch-Melach, meaning before any king was anointed by Israel it could have been written by Moshe and still be accurate, since there had not yet been a king, but there were already kings of Edom.
Quite in fact it could have been written ten seconds after there was a king of Edom.
Please note that you added a few non-existent words to the posek.
It does not state land of Israel, rather over the children of Israel; I assume it was a clear lie since you have a Chabad education and background and know how to read, or do you?
A fool for actually thinking you could get away with it.; November 23, 2007 at 4:24 AM
DrJ said...: Anonymous,

"It says Meloch-Melach, meaning before any king was anointed by Israel it could have been written by Moshe and still be accurate, since there had not yet been a king, but there were already kings of Edom."

Who is the fool and liar? What difference does your translation make? Why would Moshe speak in past tense to the people of his time about kings of Israel? We all know what the meforshim say (like that it was prophecy, Moshe was like a king, etc) , but their explanations are obviously forced and not consistent with the plain meaning.

This is no different than the dozens of other anachronisms in the text of the Torah, phrases like "to this day", and names of places that couldn't have been known to Israel at the time of the Torah.

No, he's not a fool, but I agree with the "dangerous" part, he's a danger to the claims of brainwashed fundamentalists whose faith subdues their reason and rational thinking.; November 23, 2007 at 5:57 AM
Baal Habos said...: Anonymous, Big deal. So he mistranslated (too much sugar in the Candy). His point stands. It's a clear Anachronism. You can answer, that the Jews at Mattan Torah were already told in other context that there *would be a king*, but "before there reigned any king" is still not accurate.

I checked out Divrei Hayomim and not only is that verse similar there are other verses that are word for word. I don't know what to make of that except that it appears to be same author, or copied from similar sources. Richard E. Freidman claims that Gen 36:31 is J.; November 23, 2007 at 8:26 AM
The Candy Man said...: Anonymous writes,
>It does not state land of Israel, rather over the children of Israel; I assume it was a clear lie...

Actually, it was just me being dumb. What I *meant* to write is exactly your translation: "before a king was appointed over the children of Israel." My whole argument actually depends on this (correct) translation. For if the text does not specify an Israelite king, how can I argue that it must be talking about Saul (as opposed to a Canaanite king, e.g.)?

I need to learn how to put the Hebrew in. Translating things causes errors. Anyways, sorry about the mistake. But it's important to recognize that your correction only strengthens my argument.

drj writes:
>This is no different than the dozens of other anachronisms in the text of the Torah, phrases like "to this day", and names of places that couldn't have been known to Israel at the time of the Torah.

drj, thanks for making this important point. Every armchair Bible critic has his favorite prooftext. But it's the totality of these, in addition to the contradictions within the Bible, that force the conclusion of human authorship.

baal habos, yeah the passages are practically identical. I think they must be two very similar versions of a single tradition or source. And thanks for the defense!; November 23, 2007 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: "The clincher is that the same exact verse (and a very similar passage) appears in I Chronicles 1:43. In Chronicles, the verse was obviously written after the Israelite monarchy had become established. After all, the author of Chronicles speaks of kings Saul, David, and Solomon by name. It's only natural that this author/historian should put the Edomite kings in historical context for his post-monarchy Israelite audience. It is just like putting the kings of England in historical context for us by making a reference to the presidents of the United States. Now, if you agree that the verse in Chronicles was written after the time of Saul, shouldn't you apply the same logic to the verse in Vayishlach?"

That part is nonsense on your part. The Torah can be first here.

II Kings 14:6 But the children of the murderers he did not kill; according to that which is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, because the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

II Chronicles 25:4 But he did not slay their children, but did as it is written in the Torah, in the Book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, nor shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

The nonsense on the part of your first part is that the Torah can have later additions and still be from an earlier time. Also you slipped and said "Kings of Israel." The verse says King of Israel.; November 23, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Something interesting. If the verse was written the same time as Chronicles why does it say "before there reigned any king over the people of Israel." When Chronicles was written there had been Kings over parts of the Israelites at the same time. Wouldn't it be more natural to write "before there reigned any king in Israel" rather than over the people of Israel which implies kingship only over all of the Israelites at once. The more natural conclusion is that Chronicles is quoting Genesis.; November 23, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Anonymous said...: If it is going to be copied why the parts that are starkly different.

From Genesis:
50. And when Baal-Hanan died, Hadad reigned in his place: and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
51. (K) And Hadad died. And the chiefs of Edom were: chief Timnah, chief Alvah, chief Jetheth,
52. Chief Aholibamah, chief Elah, chief Pinon,
53. Chief Kenaz, chief Teman, chief Mibzar,
54. Chief Magdiel, chief Iram. These are the chiefs of Edom.

From Chronicles:
39. And Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
40. And these are the names of the chiefs who came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names; chief Timnah, chief Alvah, chief Jetheth,
41. Chief Oholibamah, chief Elah, chief Pinon,
42. The chief of Kenaz, the chief of Teman, the chief of Mibzar,
43. The chief of Magdiel, the chief of Iram; these are the chiefs of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their possession; he is Esau the father of the Edomites.; November 23, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Whoops the quotes from Genesis I gave were from Chronicles and vice versa; November 23, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Before a king was appointed in the land of Israel, would have made more sense to write if Genesis had been written the same time as Chronicles. Your mistakes were slips based on your conclusions.; November 23, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: "This is no different than the dozens of other anachronisms in the text of the Torah, phrases like "to this day","

If every time an expression like "to this day" indicates a whole book is from a certain period then what do you do with this?

Joshua 6:25. And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had; and she lives in Israel even to this day; because she hid the messengers, whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

Are we to say Joshua was written way before the Torah? Joshua refers to the Torah more than once. One very stricking example:

Joshua 8:31 As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the people of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Torah of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man has lifted up any iron; and they offered on it burnt offerings to the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings.; November 23, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: I suspect that the first anonymous commentator meant to suggest that the jewish king referred to here is Moshe and this is why he objected so strenuously to the insertion of "the land Israel" since that mistranslation precluded the verse from applying to Moshe. The idea that this refers to moshe is from a traditional commentator (Ibn Ezra? I don't have a chumash handy). The same commentator "proves" that moshe was referred to as a king by referring to the posuk at the end of devarim "Vayehi bishirun melech behisasef rashei am yachad shivtei yisrael." (And there was a king among the rigteous, when the leaders of the people gathered, the tribes of Israel together.) This is a somewhat circular proof, since it presupposes that the latter verse refers to Moshe when of course someone who maintains a position of later authorship would read that verse as also applying to the real first monarch rather than moshe.

RG says: The nonsense on the part of your first part is that the Torah can have later additions and still be from an earlier time.

As you well know, this hardly the only anachronism in the Torah. Once you posit that the Torah includes significant additions from a later time, then how can you determine which parts are original and which are later additions? More importantly, once you acknowledge that the claim that the Torah in its present form came from Sinai is wrong, how can you have confidence in the other claims of the mesorah?; November 23, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: RG wrote:

>If every time an expression like "to this day" indicates a whole book is from a certain period then what do you do with this? Joshua 6:25. And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had; and she lives in Israel even to this day; because she hid the messengers, whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. Are we to say Joshua was written way before the Torah? Joshua refers to the Torah more than once. One very stricking example:
Joshua 8:31 As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the people of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Torah of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man has lifted up any iron; and they offered on it burnt offerings to the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings.

I think you've proven two things here: (1) the book of Joshua was written much later than the events it describes (this is why it uses terminology such as "to this day); and (2) the book of Joshua was written after the Pentateuch since it quotes from the latter. The standard model of the DH in fact holds that Joshua was probably written by the same person who wrote Deuteronomy and that both of these books were written in the sixth century CE.; November 23, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: "Once you posit that the Torah includes significant additions from a later time, then how can you determine which parts are original and which are later additions?"

By examining the material. The Torah includes details that would not have been known at the time of the Chronicles and as Richard E. Freidman himself points out the language of the Torah generally points to an earlier point in time. An interesting side benefit of the wording is that "before there reigned any king over the people of Israel" implies a united Monarchy and it is dubious to imply that it is good enough to reveal that Israelites had kings but not good enough to prove a united monarchy with the same exact words.

As to your claim that the expression "to this day" means something is being expressed much later besides being gramatically an untrue rule what do we do with this?

Judges 1:21. And the sons of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites live with the sons of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

The book of Judges is from the time period of Joshua.; November 23, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: That certainly was not true when King David conquered the city from the Jebusites.; November 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: RG, again I agree with your general point that just because a particular passage dates from a later period doesn't prove the whole book was written then. In the case of the reference in Joshua regarding Rahab Hazona I concede that the phrase "to this day" in that context implies an earlier date for that passage than scholars have attributed to the book of Joshua as a whole (though it is possible that the intended reference was to her descendents rather than to Rahab herself).

My main point was and is that you can't use quotes from Joshua to prove when the Torah was written because there is just as much uncertainty about the dating of the former as there is about the dating of the latter. All you can prove is that the author of Joshua was familiar with the Torah.

Regarding the implication of a united monarchy, I don't know what you get out of that since the reference is to the first king (presumably shaul) when the monarchy was united, but I don't see how that suggests that it was still united when the author wrote it.

I don't share your confidence in our ability to discern exactly when particular parts of the Torah were written based on the narrator's point of view being expressed. I think that once you concede that the anachronisms, which are scattered all through the text, represent later insertions you have to admit to some level of doubt as to when the insertions being and end and even whether any part of it really predates the tenth century. For example, if one concedes that the phrase "asher yaamor hayom" in the account of the akeida suggests that those words were written later, how can you be certain that the whole akeida narration was not written at the same later date, etc.

The worst part of it that chazal seem to have been oblivious to the anachronisms so you have to question how reliable their views are when it comes to determining the authorship and dating issues.; November 23, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Anonymous said...: "RG, again I agree with your general point that just because a particular passage dates from a later period doesn't prove the whole book was written then."

Then in this case you and I argue with our friendly Candyman.

"Regarding the implication of a united monarchy, I don't know what you get out of that since the reference is to the first king (presumably shaul) when the monarchy was united, but I don't see how that suggests that it was still united when the author wrote it."

I didn't say it implies it for sure. I am more conservative than critics in jumping to definite conclusions. What I did was say that it implies a United Monarchy. This is despite revisionist theorizing to the contrary.

Whatever issues of anachronism there is evidence both ways and in general the language of the Torah and Joshua and Judges is enough to establish them as being older than say Jeremiah as they use older Hebrew.; November 23, 2007 at 1:17 PM
The Candy Man said...: I'm enjoying the discussion. I hope more people will chime in and let us know what they think is the true meaning of the verse. How many of you have never heard this verse before? Come get some candy.

I have a few things to add. First, although later books refer to the Torah of Moses, we actually don't know what book they are referring to. The critical view is that the Pentateuch came into being over a long period of time. It itself is clearly a compilation of five distinct books.

Second, it's important to keep in mind that the text of the Pentateuch makes no claim of divine authorship or Mosaic authorship. Nor does it make any claims of being a single unified work. Some passages describe "this Torah (lit. teaching)," or "these words" (e.g. the Sh'ma), but do not mistake this for referring to the entire Pentateuch! The plain meaning is that it refers simply to the passage at hand.

Third, I was struck by Mikeskeptic's comment about chazal. It's true that they were not exactly bible critics. But I believe the Talmud cites opinions that the last verses in the Torah were written by Joshua. As for Ibn Ezra, I'd be surprised if he offered an apologetic on this verse. He seems to have noticed a lot of the anachronisms and makes a cryptic suggestion that "he who understands the secret will understand" (or something along those lines... I'm citing from memory. Google it). I am still waiting for the OU's response to biblical criticism. When Orthodoxy finally responds to these issues in a serious way, I believe the Ibn Ezra will be the foundation of that response.; November 23, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: The Torah of Moses whatever the exact text implies that Moses wrote "the teaching of G-d." This we see even in the Torah itself. The plain meaning of Torah of Moses is exactly what we picture namely that Moses wrote "The Teaching of G-d." The question of text is another question.; November 23, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: >As for Ibn Ezra, I'd be surprised if he offered an apologetic on this verse. He seems to have noticed a lot of the anachronisms and makes a cryptic suggestion that "he who understands the secret will understand" (or something along those lines... I'm citing from memory. Google it).

Actually, even though I don't remember whether this particular apologetic is the Ibn Ezra's, I'm pretty certain that in his commentary on this passage he quotes a contemporary commentator who referred to this passage as an insertion by a later prophet and says that his book deserves to be burned! So notwithstanding his apparent suspicions, he stuck to the party line.; November 23, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said...: "Second, it's important to keep in mind that the text of the Pentateuch makes no claim of divine authorship"

Exodus 24:12. And the Lord said to Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give you tablets of stone, and the Torah, and commandments which I have written; that you may teach them.; November 23, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: "Actually, even though I don't remember whether this particular apologetic is the Ibn Ezra's, I'm pretty certain that in his commentary on this passage he quotes a contemporary commentator who referred to this passage as an insertion by a later prophet and says that his book deserves to be burned! So notwithstanding his apparent suspicions, he stuck to the party line."

He stuck to the party line only sometimes.; November 23, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Orthoprax said...: RG,

""Judges 1:21. And the sons of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites live with the sons of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

The book of Judges is from the time period of Joshua.

That certainly was not true when King David conquered the city from the Jebusites."

Of course it can be true. 1 Kings 9:20-21 clearly states that they were still around and made serfs by Solomon.; November 23, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Orthoprax said...: Deut 3:

"12 Of the land that we took over at that time, I gave the Reubenites and the Gadites the territory north of Aroer by the Arnon Gorge, including half the hill country of Gilead, together with its towns. 13 The rest of Gilead and also all of Bashan, the kingdom of Og, I gave to the half tribe of Manasseh. (The whole region of Argob in Bashan used to be known as a land of the Rephaites. 14 Jair, a descendant of Manasseh, took the whole region of Argob as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites; it was named after him, so that _to this day_ Bashan is called Havvoth Jair."

To this day? This happened according to the Torah's chronology, what, a month before?; November 23, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Any man that reads my post again and Candy Man’s post will clearly see how "land of Israel" is needed in his thinking.
(Simple, the point of reference is of people and of land. One would say there were English kings before the Americans (which means people residing in the united stated) anointed a president.
Regarding Israel, we are children of Israel not marked by land. We can have a king in India or Iraq, therefore the point of reference is not equal. So you decided to add “land”.
“And these are the kings of England, before a president was first elected in the United States”
“It stands to reason that this sentence was written sometime after 1789 (we can't know exactly when”.
Again as anyone can plainly see the logic revolves around the face that WE LIVED IN THE UNITED STATED ONLY AFTER 1789. Had we lived there since the Stone Age, it would have been able to be written at any point in history.
The fact that it did not state those words imply that it was saying we don't have a king yet even before entering the land of Israel, as us being the children of Israel.
Again we are talking about a true kind where he was anointed, so I doubt it was referring to Moshe. (As Rashi clearly states)
Edious; November 23, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: "Orthoprax said...
RG,

""Judges 1:21. And the sons of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites live with the sons of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

The book of Judges is from the time period of Joshua.

That certainly was not true when King David conquered the city from the Jebusites."

Of course it can be true. 1 Kings 9:20-21 clearly states that they were still around and made serfs by Solomon."

Ok but assuming any Jebusites still dwelled in Jerusalem in the days of Solomon but that verse as well as this one yet from Joshua are referring to the Jebusites as the inhabitants and not the Israelites.

Joshua 15:63 As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the sons of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites live with the sons of Judah in Jerusalem to this day.

Here is a verse from that shows preexilic history was composed before the Exile:
I Samuel 27:6. Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day; therefore Ziklag belongs to the kings of Judah to this day.; November 23, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: "Orthoprax said...
Deut 3:

"12 Of the land that we took over at that time, I gave the Reubenites and the Gadites the territory north of Aroer by the Arnon Gorge, including half the hill country of Gilead, together with its towns. 13 The rest of Gilead and also all of Bashan, the kingdom of Og, I gave to the half tribe of Manasseh. (The whole region of Argob in Bashan used to be known as a land of the Rephaites. 14 Jair, a descendant of Manasseh, took the whole region of Argob as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites; it was named after him, so that _to this day_ Bashan is called Havvoth Jair."

To this day? This happened according to the Torah's chronology, what, a month before?"

Yes but written later.; November 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Orthoprax said...: Anon,

"The fact that it did not state those words imply that it was saying we don't have a king yet even before entering the land of Israel, as us being the children of Israel."

Yes, but it seems to presume that the readers are from a time when they are familiar with Israel having kings. Otherwise it would be like some modern Mexican document saying, "And these were the space stations of America before there was a Mexican space station."

If Israel never had a king yet, why would they refer to a non-existent institution? However, it is true, that in many places the Pentateuch refers to the future existence of Israelite kings.; November 23, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Orthoprax said...: RG,

"Here is a verse from that shows preexilic history was composed before the Exile:
I Samuel 27:6. Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day; therefore Ziklag belongs to the kings of Judah to this day."

How so? Oh, you mean the Babylonian Exile? No one really contest that. The typical idea is around the 8th-6th centuries BCE.

"Yes but written later."

That was supposed to be Moses speaking by the Jordan River. Why would he make a big deal of "to this day" about what he would see to be virtually current events?; November 23, 2007 at 3:19 PM
The Candy Man said...: Mikeskeptic,
>Actually, even though I don't remember whether this particular apologetic is the Ibn Ezra's, I'm pretty certain that in his commentary on this passage he quotes a contemporary commentator who referred to this passage as an insertion by a later prophet and says that his book deserves to be burned!

LOL! Nothing new under the sun :)

RG,
>Any man that reads my post again and Candy Man’s post will clearly see how "land of Israel" is needed in his thinking.

Nope, not even. I wrote that passage a few weeks ago and just cut and pasted from my notes late last night. When I wrote it the first time I was in a rush and I think I just followed "land of Edom" with "land of Israel" to make it symmetric. Maybe there's some kind of Freudian thing going on, but I think the "too much candy" explanation is probably closer to the truth.

As I've pointed out already, my argument was based not on the translation that I posted, but rather on the correct translation ("before a king was appointed over the Israelites"). I was thinking of the Hebrew quote the whole time. Still, next time I'll quote from a Bible instead of doing my own translation.

Good convo here. But I'm worried we're leaving out the non-experts. Don't be afraid to speak up, even if you're not an expert. Does it even matter when the Torah was written?; November 23, 2007 at 3:59 PM
badrabbi said...: There are many religions whose holy books suffer from from fatal flaws. Take, for example, Christianty, in whose New Testament is the information that Joseph's lineage traces to King David. On the one hand, the Gospel of Mathew argues that Jesus is the legitimate Messiah because his father, Joseph, decended from King David. On the other hand, the same gospel claim Mary to e a virgin and her son a product of Mary's marriage with God. Such flaws deal a fatal blow to any logical discourse about Christianity.

When it comes to Judaism, though, if the best we can do is to find fault with phrases such as "before a kind was appointed to the children of Israel", then Judaism is not doing too bad. Consider these voluminous and ancient writing of the Hebrew withstanding intense scruity and coming out relatively unscathed.

As the authenticity of religions goes, Judaism aint too shabby!; November 23, 2007 at 4:05 PM
DrJ said...: In these debates I think that you have to distinguish between "forced" explanations and those that are not.

"forced" explanation= that which originates from a pre-conceived conclusion and assumption of the truth of the text and of the traditional rabbinical explanations. These explanations deviate from the plain meaning and logic of the text in order to make the verse "fit" the preconceived notion.

Not forced= an open-minded objective analysis of the text, taking into account the plain meaning of the verse, in the context of similar usage of the words elsewhere in the Bible. It assumes neither the truth or falsehood of the text, and would more accurately reflect the intent of the writer.

"ad hayom hazeh" plainly means the writer, speaking to his contemporaries, is referring to events long ago. Similarly in Dvarim 34:10, the writer makes a statement about no other prophet like Moshe arising in Israel. Clearly, this is something being said by somebody who would have been able to make such an observation, long afterwards, to his contemporaries.

I don't understand anon's distinction between kings of land or people. In any case, why would a contemporary of israelites in the desert (Moshe, God, whomever) use an event far ahead in their future (kings of Israel) as a reference point for delineating past events? In past tense! Yes, one can stretch the text to make the traditional explanation fit, but it is forced and not the plain meaning.; November 24, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: "RG,
>Any man that reads my post again and Candy Man’s post will clearly see how "land of Israel" is needed in his thinking."
CandyMan's attribution to me.

Candyman that's not my quote. You've had too much candy.; November 24, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...: "That was supposed to be Moses speaking by the Jordan River. Why would he make a big deal of "to this day" about what he would see to be virtually current events?"

It was written then about four decades later.

About Even Ezra he noted that there is an opinion which acknowledges with Candyman an anachronism in Candyman's example but said it was prophesy.; November 24, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Anonymous said...: ""forced" explanation= that which originates from a pre-conceived conclusion and assumption of the truth of the text and of the traditional rabbinical explanations. These explanations deviate from the plain meaning and logic of the text in order to make the verse "fit" the preconceived notion."

But your definition fails to take into account secular forced explanations.; November 24, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Orthoprax said.” Yes, but it seems to presume that the readers are from a time when they are familiar with Israel having kings.”
DrJ said.” In any case, why would a contemporary of israelites in the desert (Moshe, God, whomever) use an event far ahead in their future (kings of Israel) as a reference point for delineating past events?”
Or since we were taught the laws of anointing a king, it would make sense to make a historical fact known there were already kings of Edom.

Edious; November 24, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Orthoprax said...: RG,

"It was written then about four decades later."

From when? You mean 40 years _after_ Moses' death? Look up when the Israelites conquered the Bashan. It was practically the last thing they did before Moses' last speech and death.

Edious,

"Or since we were taught the laws of anointing a king, it would make sense to make a historical fact known there were already kings of Edom."

Huh? I'm sorry, I don't even know how that's relevant.; November 24, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...: "RG,

"It was written then about four decades later."

From when? You mean 40 years _after_ Moses' death? Look up when the Israelites conquered the Bashan. It was practically the last thing they did before Moses' last speech and death."

No first came it, then came Bilaam. Years later came Moses' death.; November 24, 2007 at 10:10 PM
The Candy Man said...: drj,
>I think that you have to distinguish between "forced" explanations and those that are not.

Another excellent point.

RG,
>But your definition [of forced interpretations] fails to take into account secular forced explanations.

Agreed. We need a better definition of p'shat. I say, if you want to know the plain meaning of the text, ask 100 people on the street what the verse means. P'shat is what 99 out of 100 people says.

>Candyman that's not my quote. You've had too much candy.

Hehe, risk of the business. The quote was anon's. That makes more sense.

V'talmid chacham modeh al ha-emet... the wise man acknowledges the truth. (Fathers 5:10); November 24, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...: "Agreed. We need a better definition of p'shat. I say, if you want to know the plain meaning of the text, ask 100 people on the street what the verse means. P'shat is what 99 out of 100 people says."

No especially when people are so used to popular interpretations. Also Biblical language has allusions to many things that a modern pshat would miss.

"V'talmid chacham modeh al ha-emet... the wise man acknowledges the truth. (Fathers 5:10)"

If only everyone would follow that.; November 24, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Orthoprax said...: RG,

"No first came it, then came Bilaam. Years later came Moses' death."

No, it really was during the 40th year. And at most only ~5 months before the speech at the river. There is simply no debate here.

Aaron dies in the 5th month of the 40th year at Mt. Hor. It is after that they go traveling northward and fight different peoples and conquer the Bashan. Moses then speaks in the 11th month by the Jordan.

"To this day" would be a time only a few months later - at most.; November 25, 2007 at 1:08 AM
Anonymous said...: "RG,

"No first came it, then came Bilaam. Years later came Moses' death."

No, it really was during the 40th year."

You are right. Bilaam's incident occurred after Aharon's death. Still Ortho "to this day" needn't mean a long time afterwords. I would be wary of making too much of an equivalence between how something would seem surprising in modern English and Biblical Hebrew.; November 25, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Orthoprax said...: "Still Ortho "to this day" needn't mean a long time afterwords. I would be wary of making too much of an equivalence between how something would seem surprising in modern English and Biblical Hebrew."

Um, sure.; November 25, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...: "Orthoprax said...
"Still Ortho "to this day" needn't mean a long time afterwords. I would be wary of making too much of an equivalence between how something would seem surprising in modern English and Biblical Hebrew."

Um, sure."

Genesis 26:33 And he called it Shebah; therefore the name of the city is Beersheba to this day.

Deuteronomy 2:22 Like he did to the sons of Esau, who lived in Seir, when he destroyed the Horim from before them; and they succeeded them, and lived in their place even to this day;; November 25, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Anonymous said...: While grammatically correct this would seem funny to write in Modern English. Not so in Biblical Hebrew.; November 25, 2007 at 1:28 PM
badrabbi said...: The argument about the Edomite Kings was first brought by Isaac ibn Yashush, who pointed out not only what the Candy man has been saying, but also that The Edomite Kings listed lived long after Moses' death!

Of course, for this, Ibn Ezra called him "Isaac the Blunderer". I feel that with comments in this blog, the contributors admirably mentally wrestle over whether the phrase "before a king was appointed in the land of Israel". However, I hear no discussion about the other half of Isaac Ibn Yashus's comment, namely that the list of Edomite kings occured long afer Moses's death.; November 25, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Orthoprax said...: RG,

"While grammatically correct this would seem funny to write in Modern English. Not so in Biblical Hebrew."

None of your examples seem funny. They sound like they were written from a distant future vantage point.

BR,

"However, I hear no discussion about the other half of Isaac Ibn Yashus's comment, namely that the list of Edomite kings occured long afer Moses's death."

How would we know either way? None of the names are found anywhere outside of these passages.; November 25, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: "Orthoprax said...
RG,

"While grammatically correct this would seem funny to write in Modern English. Not so in Biblical Hebrew."

None of your examples seem funny."

How would the below equivalent sentences sound in Modern English?

And he called it Philadelphia; therefore the name of the city is called Philly to this day.

Like he did to the Mexicans who lived in Texas, when he destroyed the Mexicans from before them; and they succeeded them, and lived in their place even to this day;; November 25, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Beno said...: >The argument about the Edomite Kings was first brought by Isaac ibn Yashush, who pointed out not only what the Candy man has been saying, but also that The Edomite Kings listed lived long after Moses' death!

Do you know what his proof is that these Edomite kings lived after Moses' death?

I find it interesting that this kind of discussion has been going on in the commentators since the time of the Rishonim. But why isn't a similar discussion going on in the classrooms of Orthodox day schools and high schools?; November 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Orthoprax said...: RG,

Your first English corrolary really doesn't sound strange. Your second one is just poor fidelity on your part, but otherwise it also would sound fine.

Naturally it's manner of writing is archaic, but there's nothing there which is beyond normal comprehension.; November 25, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Anonymous said...: "Orthoprax said...
RG,

Your first English corrolary really doesn't sound strange. Your second one is just poor fidelity on your part, but otherwise it also would sound fine.

Naturally it's manner of writing is archaic, but there's nothing there which is beyond normal comprehension."

So is is saying till this day after even five months within normal human comprehension how much more so when this expression was so prevalent in Biblical Hebrew.

Jeremiah Chapter 35...
13. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will you not receive instruction to listen to my words? says the Lord.
14. The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, have been kept; for to this day they drink none, but obey their father’s commandment; however I have spoken to you, from early in the morning; but you listened not to me..."; November 25, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Orthoprax said...: RG,

Yes, you continue to give examples where "to this day" means that it's being written from a distant future point. All of your examples work that way. It's prevalence is given in every case in order to demonstrate the long history of a given institution, name, practice, or people.

I don't think you understand how giving quotes to that regard helps _my_ point and not yours.; November 26, 2007 at 12:18 AM
badrabbi said...: I am by no means an expert on the subject, but from my limited reading, it is speculated that the Kings of Edom are of a later period compared to Moses. A general entry in the encyclopedia writes thusly:

"Not only is Edom as a nation recognized as older than Israel, but a list of eight kings, who reigned before the Israelite monarchy, is preserved in Gen. xxxvi.

The first Bela, son of Beor, is often identified with Balaam, but the traditions of the Exodus are not precise enough to warrant the assumption that the seer was the king of a hostile land in Num. xx. 14 sqq., which in Deut. ii. 1-8 appears to have been peaceful; see Balaam; Exodus. In Husham, the third king, several scholars (Gratz, Klostermann, Marquart, &c.) have recognized the true adversary of Othniel (q.v.; Judg. iii.). The defeat of Midian in the land of Moab by his successor Hadad has been associated with the Midianite invasion in the time of Gideon (q.v.; Judg. vi. sqq.). The sixth is Shaul, whose name happens to be identical with Saul, king of Israel, whilst the last Hadad (so I Chron. i. 50) of Pau (or Peor in Moab, so the Septuagint) should belong to the time of David. The list, whatever its value, together with the other evidence in Gen. xxxvi., implies that the Edomites consisted of a number of local groups with chieftains, with a monarchy which, however, was not hereditary but due to the supremacy of stronger leaders. The tradition thus finds an analogy in the Israelite "judges" before the time of Saul and David. "; November 26, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Orthoprax how far into the future? You just have not proven your case with the verse you gave.; November 26, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Anonymous said...: "I am by no means an expert on the subject, but from my limited reading, it is speculated that the Kings of Edom are of a later period compared to Moses."

Numbers 20:14. And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, Thus said your brother Israel, You know all the adversity that has befallen us;; November 26, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Anonymous said...: II Chronicles 8:8 And of their children, who were left after them in the land, whom the people of Israel did not wipe out, Solomon raised a levy of them until this day.

The levy was only good as long as those Canaanites had still a separate identity. We have here evidence of parts of Chronicles being made before the destruction and of course it was continued to afterwards.; November 26, 2007 at 2:08 AM
badrabbi said...: RG,

Good point. But if you read the next paragraph, it does acknowledge that "Bela son of Beor" was probably Balaam, who was obviously contemporaneous with Moses. However, the other kings appear to have bee in existence long after Moses.

Again, I am not an expert on this, but it appears that the above is true.; November 26, 2007 at 2:14 AM
Orthoprax said...: RG,

"Orthoprax how far into the future? You just have not proven your case with the verse you gave."

If the intent is to show the longevity of something from a long time ago then a few months doesn't cut it. I'm not out to prove anything - I let people decide the reasonable conclusion.

If you can find references in Tanach that use the term to mean less than a generation maybe then I'll reconsider.; November 26, 2007 at 2:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Joshua 6:25. And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had; and she lives in Israel even to this day; because she hid the messengers, whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.; November 26, 2007 at 2:36 AM
Orthoprax said...: RG,

Ok, fair enough. But I think that's a special case demonstrating the survival of an individual. It still doesn't really make sense for Moses to demonstrate the longevity of a name change which was only a few months old.

BR,

For the record R' Yose b. Haninah is recorded as saying, "When the one party [Edom] was ruled by kings, the other party [Israel] was ruled by judges..." from Genesis Rabbah. Thus he puts those Edomite kings during the Judges period of Israel.; November 26, 2007 at 3:15 AM
Anonymous said...: OK First of all it is a major principle that the torah is a book of laws not a history book and it doesn't follow events chronologically.

Second of all doesn't anyone out thee learn kabbalah besides the Hollywood crowd? The section of kings of Edom each dying before the reign of the next and the whole lot being before the reign of king over bnai yisroel refers to the indivudality of the sefirot and no overlapping between them.; November 26, 2007 at 11:31 AM
badrabbi said...: "Thus he puts those Edomite kings during the Judges period of Israel."

If this is so, then Moses' statement would be in the future, talking in past tense. Again, the problem with the list of kings of edom is two fold:
1. The wording of gen 36:31, AND
2. Moses' listing of future kings; November 26, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: On a side note we see the book of Joshua having been written apparently over time without the modern day need felt for a complete unified dating for the whole work down to the last verse.

Here Rachav is alive.

Joshua 6:25. And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had; and she lives in Israel even to this day; because she hid the messengers, whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

Here she is dead.

Joshua 24:31. And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, and who had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel.; November 26, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Lori said...: How do we know Saul was the first king?; November 27, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...: There's no reason not to believe that. If we doubt that perhaps we should look for Babylonian records before we believe in any Egyptian Pharaoh.; November 28, 2007 at 11:07 AM