Original Torah lost?

[YHWH_Christ]

I have been debating a Muslim and he claims the entire original Torah was lost. Further he believes most of the Old Testament was destroyed in the Babylonian captivity. He believes it was Hilkiah and Ezra who authored our current Hebrew Bible and that, since it is not original, it cannot be trusted. How do I debate him regarding to rediscovery of the Book of the Law under Josiah as well as the many traditions concerning how Ezra rewrote much of the Old Testament?

 

[LateranBasilica]

Ask him if he knows of the first or oldest text of Hebrew Biblical script we have. This means simply it survived, not that it is the oldest written text. It contains the 10 Commandments and the Shewa. It is thought to be a daily prayer scroll for an Egyptian Jew.

Ask him what he means by Torah, get him to define Torah. The Jewish word תּוּרָה means teaching, law, Torah.
The Hebrew Bible used today is from middle ages AD, ask him how it was complied and the history behind it.

He should know of the Masoretes and Vowel Pointing. I can write more about that later if you wish.

 

[HeDa]

The scrolls that were found in Qumran are about 2000 years old. One of the scrolls is the Book of Isaiah and it is almost identical to those copied today. What differs is tiny tiny. Have him look into the cleaning ritual for the scribes who copied the Torah and other texts needed for the Jewish liturgy.

 

[Niblo]

I accept without question that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta’āla) has revealed certain Books to certain prophets, and that these include the Book given to Moses; what I will call the ‘Original Taurat’ to distinguish it from the Taurat we have today.

Here are some quotes taken directly from two Jewish sources. The first is from an article by Emil G Hirsh and Joseph Jacobs found in the Jewish Encyclopaedia:

‘Ancient Jewish tradition attributed the authorship of the Pentateuch (with the exception of the last eight verses describing Moses’ death) to Moses himself. But the many inconsistencies and seeming contradictions contained in it attracted the attention of the Rabbis, who exercised their ingenuity in reconciling them .’

‘Spinoza, in his "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus" (1671, viii., ix.), goes so far as to attribute the composition of the Pentateuch not to Moses, but to Ezra, which view appears to have existed even in the time of the Apocrypha (comp. II Esd. xiv. 21-22). This and other denials of Mosaic authorship led to a new line of defense by Richard Simon, who regarded the Pentateuch as being made up by Moses from earlier documents. This was followed by the hypothesis of Astruc, that the book of Genesis was made up by Moses from two sources, one of which used the word "Elohim" for God, and the other "Yhwh." This method, applied to the other books of the Pentateuch chiefly by De Wette, Ewald, and Hupfeld, led finally to the definitive attribution of the contents of the Pentateuch to five different sources. Allowing, however, for editorial redaction, no less than twenty-eight different sources are distinguished by the latest analysis of Carpenter and Battersby ("The Hexateuch," p. xii., London, 1900).’

And so we progress, from one source - Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta’āla) - to two……then to five….then to twenty-eight!

Continuing quote:

‘As regards the age of these various sources there is considerable discrepancy of opinion, especially with regard to the Priestly Code and its accompanying narrative. While the older school, represented mainly by Dillmann, who is followed by Renan and Kittel in their histories of Israel, regarded this as the earliest source, to be placed in the ninth century B.C., Kuenen and Wellhausen place it later than any other and connect it with the recovery of the Law by Ezra. Both schools agree in regarding the legal portions of Deuteronomy as identical with the book of the Law discovered by Hilkiah 622 B.C. The differences in the views of the two schools as regards date and provenience are indicated in the table on following page.’

 

[Niblo]

Do we really need to go on? Okay….…this final quote is taken from Reformed Judaism.org:

‘In its broadest sense, Torah is sometimes used to refer to the vast library of Jewish text. More specifically Torah usually refers to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These books make up the story of the Jewish people.

‘These ancient stories touch upon science, history, philosophy, ritual and ethics. Included are stories of individuals, families, wars, slavery and more. Virtually no subject was taboo for Torah. Running through these stories is the unique lens through which the Jewish people would come to view their world and their God.

‘We cannot talk about Torah without saying something about revelation. By revelation, we mean ways in which God is revealed to people. The basic underlying difference between the Orthodox and non-orthodox approaches to Judaism hinges on this very issue. The Orthodox view is that everything in the Torah (both the material in the Five Books of Moses and the ancient rabbis’ interpretations of that material) was revealed directly by God. The non-Orthodox view is that the Torah contains the understanding of many people about God. It evolved over a long period and was written by numerous individuals. Some like to say that these individuals were divinely inspired. Some rabbinic scholars speak in terms of “progressive revelation” (the idea that God is revealed differently in every age); other scholars teach that Torah contains the words of God rather than is the word of God.’

If the Jews cannot agree who wrote the current Taurat, and over what period, who can blame the Muslims for saying that it cannot be the Original; that it cannot be the one referred to in the Qur’an?

There would be a problem if the Muslims were saying that the Taurat of today is wholly corrupt; wrong from front to back; utterly false. But that is not what the Muslims are saying. What we are saying is that it contains genuine revelations; but that these are hidden in a mass of writings that are entirely man-made.

‘Do not kill’; ‘do not steal’; ‘do not bear false witness against others’, and so on; these are genuine revelations; and not to observe them would be a sin. But are we to believe that the Exalted wanted the Caananites exterminated - every man, woman and child; or that stubborn and rebellious children should be stoned to death? Are we to believe that the Exalted could be that vile? Are we to believe that He was so incompetent a Revealer as to include in His Taurat two interwoven accounts of the Flood; two accounts of His covenant with Abraham; two interwoven accounts of Joseph and his brothers; two accounts of the calling of Moses; and many other inconsistencies and anachronisms? They are there…in the Bible; and we can read them for ourselves.

I repeat: If the Jews cannot agree who wrote the current Taurat, and over what period, who can blame the Muslims for saying that it cannot be the Original; that it cannot be the one referred to in the Qur’an?

 

[LateranBasilica]

These scrolls, in fact none of the Dead Sea Scrolls had any vowels. The Old Testament pre and through Babylonian time had no vowels. After the Babylonian Exile there were a few different translations of the Old Testament. The Babylonian translation was favoured. AS it was considered to be the best match to the oral traditions of the Old Testament.

These texts had Consonants. It was up to those reading to place the word in context without the vowels. The Masoretes were concerned that the oral traditions would be lost and set out to give Hebrew a vowel pointing system, which it did.
The person the OP refers to is way off in his history of the Hebrew Bible.

 

[LateranBasilica]

one of which used the word “Elohim” for God, and the other "Yhwh.

Terms or words or names for God had a few forms in Ancient Hebrew. Elohim is plural for El, and means God, gods. El means God, god. Yhwh is the Divine name, and Lord and Jhvh, the latter having roots that wind through latin and germany. It is the tetragrammaton and has certain rules, one of which is it should never be pronounced, so is mostly translated as LORD. El Shaddai is another term for God used the Hebrew Bible- The Old Testament.

 

[Niblo]

Terms or words or names for God had a few forms in Ancient Hebrew. Elohim is plural for El, and means God, gods. El means God, god. Yhwh is the Divine name, and Lord and Jhvh, the latter having roots that wind through latin and germany. It is the tetragrammaton and has certain rules, one of which is it should never be pronounced, so is mostly translated as LORD. El Shaddai is another term for God used the Hebrew Bible- The Old Testament.

Agreed. But the argument is that Moses acquired knowledge of these terms from different sources. A Muslim would argue that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta’āla) was his only source.

 

[LateranBasilica]

The question is about the Old Testament which is the Hebrew Bible. To answer it, a person has to have some understanding of how it was developed from oral into written tradition, and the time frame. This also includes the various exiles and destructions of the Jewish peoples and the desire of those survivors to place the oral traditions into writing etc.

This isn’t about what a Muslim would argue, as that is not historical. As we all know, Allah was not around when Abraham or Moses were wandering around in their respective deserts. However God was around and actively interacting with both Moses and Abraham.
God gave Moses His name. God gave Abraham His name. And there were many different gods being worshipped in those times. The God of Abraham had several specific names people were using.

And its time Muslims, Christians and Jewish reflected on what we have in common, not our differences. We all have the God of Abraham in common.

 

[Niblo]

And its time Muslims, Christians and Jewish reflected on what we have in common, not our differences. We all have the God of Abraham in common.

Exactly. Arabic speaking Jews and Christians have referred to the God of Abraham as ‘Allah’ long before the coming of Islam. There is only one God, and He - according to the Muslims - was the One who gave the ‘Original Taurat’ to Moses; and not the corrupted (man-made) one we have today.

Read the quotes I have provided (from non-Muslim sources) and decide for yourself where the truth lies. That is for you.

Thank you for your time.

 

[TMC]

I believe that the only religion which has copies of the “original” text of its holy books is Mormonism - because those were not written very long ago. All other religions are working with copies of copies of copies.

 

[Dovekin]

Moses then turned and came down the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant in his hands, tablets that were written on both sides, front and back. The tablets were made by God; the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets.
As he drew near the camp, he saw the calf and the dancing. Then Moses’ anger burned, and he threw the tablets down and broke them on the base of the mountain.
Exodus 32:15-16, 19

The Torah, written by God, was lost. Moses went back up the mountain and spent another 40 days writing down what God said.

In place of the tablets God wrote on, we have a Law that was written down by a man and handed down by people for many generations. This may differ in some ways from the original tablets, but the Law was handed down faithfully by men and women to their children. What we have may not be hallowed like the first tablets, but it was enriched by those who have handed it down to us, enriched by commentaries and understandings that could never have come from outside. And when we hear this Torah, it is the real Torah which we hear. Our human ears may not hear it as clearly as we should, but our efforts are required to honor what God has given us.

 

[Dovekin]

Joseph Smith gave the golden plates with the original text back to the angel Moroni. We have only his translation of the Egyptian text.

 

[TMC]

Joseph Smith gave the golden plates with the original text back to the angel Moroni. We have only his translation of the Egyptian text.

Fair point, but we do have what Joseph Smith wrote - which is essentially the original text (depending on whether one credit’s the authorship of Moroni, I guess). None of the ancient faiths have any original texts. Note - I am not arguing that makes the Mormon scripture more reliable or more authentic. My real point is that none of the ancient religions have the “original” texts, so it makes no sense for any one of them to point out that fact about another.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Read the quotes I have provided (from non-Muslim sources) and decide for yourself where the truth lies. That is for you.

Spinoza? Really? He was thrown out of the Synagogue in his own day for his blasphemies.
Reform Judaism? Really? They are as murky and amorphous in their beliefs as it is possible to imagine. Many are atheists!

Your argument hinges on the belief that God allowed His Word to become corrupt and flawed in important ways. That does not sound like the God we worship. There are far more convincing arguments for the Word of God remaining basically True, then the paltry weak ones you supplied against it, like the post by HeDa, regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls. You can’t just dismiss those.

 

[Dovekin]

we do have what Joseph Smith wrote - which is essentially the original text

Do we? Is it on display anywhere? I will have to look for it.

This discussion has really not been about the historic first version of the Torah. It has been about the “text” created and written by God, as opposed to man made, man interpreted copies. In that sense, the gold plates are the original text.

The Koran is the original text that Mohammed received from the angel Gabriel. Depending on your philosophy, we may have ‘accurate’ versions of that, and even inaccurate copies may still be considered incarnations of the original. It is difficult to find the proper words to say this. In Platonic language, the idea of the Koran is still with God, but every instance of the Koran is the original.

Judaism is similar, but very different at the same time. The “original text” was written by God and destroyed when Moses threw the tablets at the golden calf idol. Moses then wrote the “text” himself while conversing with God. I hope I am not going too far by saying that the “text” has been handed over to us. The real “text” is not the letters on a page, but what has been drilled into our sons and daughters. The text is in our hearts and in our lives when we obey the 613 laws and the law is not burdensome. (I do not know who “we” is. Jews I think, but I am not Jewish so Idk why I wrote it that way.)

Catholics also see the text as something given to us. Understanding it is inseparable from living it. Christ, not Torah and not Koran, is the presence of God’s Word.

Three very different ways of understanding the Word of God, and the words of God. Each of us accordingly hears something different when we discuss the Torah.

 

[Niblo]

Spinoza? Really? He was thrown out of the Synagogue in his own day for his blasphemies.
Reform Judaism? Really? They are as murky and amorphous in their beliefs as it is possible to imagine. Many are atheists!

I can see you don’t like my sources. But where is your argument that proves them wrong. Please do share it with the rest of us.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I can see you don’t like my sources. But where is your argument that proves them wrong. Please do share it with the rest of us.

What I have already done is prove your assertion doubtful if not false.

You are guided by an entirely different set of first principles than me. Until we can acknowledge that, there is nothing that I can say to “disprove” to your satisfaction, this question.

What do I mean?
My first principle: Scripture are the Inerrant Word of God

Your first principle: Scriptures are corrupt and untrustworthy.

What is a first principle?

It is a “given.” Something you believe unquestionably, with no proof.

 

[Niblo]

You have no need to satisfy me.

The invitation – should you wish to accept it – it to present a counter-argument to that provided by my sources. This will enable folk to decide where the truth lies.

Let me help you out:

Albert Barnes writes:

‘The Book of Genesis can be separated into eleven documents or pieces of composition most of which contain additional subordinate divisions……Whether these primary documents were originally composed by Moses, or whether they came into his hands from earlier sacred writers and were revised by him and combined into his great work, we are not informed.

‘By revising a sacred writing, we mean replacing obsolete or otherwise unknown words or modes of expressing as were in common use at the time of the reviser, and then putting in an explanatory clause or passage when necessary for people of a later day. The latter of the above suppositions is not inconsistent with Moses being reckoned as the responsible “author” of the whole collection.

‘We think that such a position is more natural, satisfactory, and consistent with the phenomena of all Scripture. It is satisfactory to have the recorder (if not an eye-witness) to be as near as possible to the events recorded. And it seems to have been a part of the method of the Divine Author of the Scripture to have a constant collector, conservator, authenticator, reviser, and continuator of that book which He designed for the spiritual instruction of successive ages. We may disapprove of one writer tampering with the work of another, but we must allow the Divine Author to adapt His own work from time to time to the necessities of coming generations.’

On Exodus:

‘The narrative is closely connected with that of Genesis, and shows not only that it was written by the same author, but that it formed part of one general plan.’

On Leviticus:

‘The authorship of Leviticus is ascribed in the main to Moses. The book has no pretension to systematic arrangement as a whole, nor does it appear to have been originally written all at one time. There are pre-Mosaic fragments, together with passages probably written by Moses on previous occasions and inserted in the places they now occupy when the Pentateuch was put together; insertions also occur of a later date which were written, or sanctioned, by the prophets and holy men who, after the captivity, arranged and edited the Scriptures of the Old Testament.’

 

[Niblo]

On Numbers:

‘As regards the authorship and date of composition, the notes of time, the tenor of the contents, no less than the direct assertions of the text itself, lead to the conclusion that Moses is properly spoken of as the writer of the Book of Numbers. It is in substance his work; though many portions of it were probably committed to writing many years before the whole was completed; and the concluding chapters were not written until toward the close of the 40th year after the exodus.’

On Deuteronomy:

‘The bulk of Deuteronomy consists of addresses spoken within the space of 40 days, and beginning on the first day of the 11th month in the 40th year. The speeches exhibit an unity of style and character which is strikingly consistent with such circumstances. They are pervaded by the same vein of thought, the same tone and tenor of feeling, the same peculiarities of conception and expression.

‘They exhibit matter which is neither documentary nor traditional, but conveyed in the speaker‘s own words.

‘Moses had before him not the men to whom by God‘s command he delivered the law at Sinai, but the following generation which had grown up in the wilderness. Large portions of the Law necessarily stood in abeyance during the years of wandering; and of his present hearers many must have been strangers to various prescribed observances and ordinances. Now, however, upon their entry into settled homes in Canaan a thorough discharge of the various obligations laid on them by the covenant would become imperative; and it is to this state of things that Moses addresses himself. He speaks to hearers neither wholly ignorant of the Law, nor yet fully versed in it. Much is assumed and taken for granted in his speeches; but in other matters he goes into detail, knowing that instruction in them was needed. Sometimes little opportunity is taken of promulgating regulations which are supplementary or auxiliary to those of the preceding books; some few modifications arising out of different or altered circumstances are now made; and the whole Mosaic system is completed by the addition of several enactments in Deuteronomy 18: 18 had no doubt its partial verifications in successive ages, but its terms are satisfied in none of them. The prospect opened by it advances continually until it finds its rest in the Messiah, who stands alone as the only complete counterpart of Moses, and as the greater than he.’ (‘Barnes On The Old Testament: Albert Barnes’ Notes On The Whole Bible’).