the forgery of deuteronomy

in the bible, in the book of kings, a scroll comes to the attention of king josiah, who reforms the church and state to fit its precepts. these include limiting worship to one specific place (the temple in jerusalem) and destorying all sorts of things that could be idols (including the bronze serpent made by moses). it is clear by the reformations josiah makes, and the textual links, that he's reading deuteronomy. it is also clear that book of kings passes judgement on every king mentioned according to the standards set forth in the book of deuteronomy. because the israelites (northern kingdom) have split from the judeans (southern kingdom) and have erected their own places of worship starting with jeroboam, every northern king is judged as sinful.between two newly separated countries, it becomes increasingly obvious that these books have political motivation. and so when the priest find the scroll of deutoronomy, which validates their judgement of the north, it's all too convenient.deuteronomy also says a few suspicious things. the name for the book comes from this passage:

quote:

---

And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites:

---

copy of the law, or second law, in greek is "deuteronomy." it's the first time that hebrews have mention of a kingdom or throne in the bible. the book also contains the first (only?) mention that god can only be worshipped in one place. this means that people before the time of josiah didn't know about the text at all -- the system of provincial judges instead of kings, multiple temples -- all indicate no prior knowledge of the text. it also makes sure to mention the golden calf -- something duplicated by jeroboam.so, the question is: is deutoronomy a forgery from the time of josiah, designed to malign the north?and if so, does this affect its role in the bible, or its meaning?

i see, that must have been it. i'm a little behind on my reading, and it was just an idea i came across. probably should have studied it a bit more before posting.

well, if deuteronomy was written during the reign of josiah, i think the levite traditions were already established by then, so it might be other way around.but i'm nowhere close to sure on either (especially not on leviticus) so i could be wrong. either way, it's just a quibble.i don't think moses wrote either book.

well i was looking for either opinions or more information. the information i've seen strongly suggests that it is a forgery, but it's not impossible for it to be legit. i'm not entirely sure i agree, but i guess i'll come back to it. j,e,d,p. you forgot h, the holiness code (levitical authors). also, this is only my thought, but i think the places where god is called "el" or "el shaddai" are probably by a separate set of authors. they would probably fragments of the oldest form of judaism.it's also arguable that joshua should be included, based on style.i guess the more formal rendering of my question is "did the deuteronomist(s) write much later than previously thought?"

that logic doesn't actually hold up, because people are now allowed to become jewish. but something very similar does hold up:the ten commandment are not commandments, per se. they are terms of an agreement. it's a form ancient form of treaty, called a suzeranty treaty. the suzeran (god) is the more powerful individual/country, and applies its terms to the weaker power (israel).these agreements open with a statement "because i did this, you have to do this for me"in other words, the ten commandments don't even apply unless god brought your family out of egypt.

no, it's a subtle distinction. gentiles are not HELD to the law. the law is a set of terms that makes the israelites god's people, because he brought them out of egypt.and uhh, back on topic please. this has nothing to do with the date of deuteronomy.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-10-2004 02:26 AM

israelite: someone from israel.
jew: someone from judah.
hebrew: someone who follows the judaic faith: belief in yhwh. ever read the book of chronicles? kings? the two were separate nations for a long, long time.

i'm speaking strictly in terms of the bible, not modern times.words change meaning.

look harder.ezekiel has a word in it that in modern hebrew means "electricity." do you think ezekiel meant electricity? israel/judah used to be theocracies. the people who lead the country lead the religion as well. if you were an israelite, you were hebrew. the two took on the same meaning.now, there are athiest, christian, and muslim israeli's, but israelite still has the connotation of the older word, even though it just means someone from israel.both as just funny english translations anyways. the way to say "israelite" in hebrew is "ben'yisrael" or "son of israel" so LITERALLY an israelite is someone descended from jacob.

depends on how literally you read it.but i don't think the israelis would appreciate christians call themselves israelites. depends on which book you read. intensive study in what exactly? because this is pretty basic...

listen, you either believe the bible or you don't. the bible calls israel god's chosen people. respect that, or don't call yourself a believer. that wasn't the promise i read in genesis or exodus. and that's not the promise that's causing wars in israel and palestine even today.and his name is not jehovah. so you're saying that god broke his promise? that's blasphemy, buddy.

yes, thank you. that's what i'm getting at.it's silly that we have to quibble over the difference between and israelite, a judean or jew, and a hebrew. and george's remarks came off as somewhat anti-semitic on top of it.

no. you said that god broke his promise. that's blasphemy. and your reply was antisemitic and morally repugnant.and no, you are not my buddy.