[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
At 08:52 AM 7/31/96 +0300, avigdor horovitz wrote:
>The passage underdiscussion fro Dt. 12 is of course the classic support
>for the notion that D demands cultic centralization, something that
>comes out when compared with the altar law in Exodus.
>Dt 12:5 mentions
>hammaqom asher ebhar mikkol shibtekem lasum et shemi sham.
>Vs 11 mentions
>hammaqom esher yibhar yhwh...leshakken shemo sham.
>There are numerous other passages with identical phraseology.
>Exodus 20:21 mentions
>bekol hammaqom asher azkir et shemi
>It is the kol in Exodus missing in Deuteronomy which is the basis for the
>claim that the law permits altars in all places while Dt. limits
>sacrifice to one place only.
>As you know, Deuteronomy mentions only Mt Ebal as a place where an altar
>is to be erected (27:5-7). The law seems to have been secondarily applied
>to Jerusalem. I would think that if the specific law is ambiguous, it
>should be removed from the center of discussion and be interpreted only
>after the rest of the evidence is examined. But, as Moses said Lo ish
Isn't there also a political dimension to this? In looking at the
development of the Pentateuch from a source-critical point of view, the
various editors lived in a particular political milieu. Some of them may
have lived during the United Monarchy when the undisputed cult center was in
Jerusalem. I think of the J and P sources in particular, but I could be
wrong about that. Others may have lived either before Jerusalem became
established as a cult center, or afterwards, during the period of the
Divided Monarchy, and could have conceivably been associated with rival
centers. I think of E and D, as possibilities, but again I could be wrong.
Of course, each of these 4 sources may also have evolved editorially,
through different political circumstances which might affect small details
such as the use of a kol.
At any rate, any such differences of opinion within the Torah regarding the
validity of cult centers in places other than Jerusalem would have been of
keen interest to the inhabitants of Qumran, even when based on such slender
threads as the presence or absence of a kol.
Is this a possibility?
Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
Northern Arizona University