Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Stephan wrote:

"People don't even notice for some reason that Jerusalem isn't even referenced in this supposedly "Jewish" book!"

I thought that might be the case (at least in the sense that Deuteronomy doesn't specify Jerusalem as "the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling" (12:5). But I was still surprised to not find a single reference to Jerusalem in the Torah (http://biblehub.net/searchlaw.php?q=jerusalem). However, Gen. 14:18 does mention Salem (if not as "the place the Lord your God will choose" then at least as a place with priestly and peaceful connotations), and this is seen as being Jerusalem in Ps. 76:2, "His tent is in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion." http://biblehub.com/psalms/76-2.htm

The Samaritans identify Salem as being near Shechem. Why is a pagan priest (Melchizedek) associated with Jerusalem in a supposedly 'Jewish book'? The world is mad. Hasn't anyone else noticed that Jerusalem doesn't appear in the Torah? Obviously not.

Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Torah. The Jewish tradition that associates Mount Moriah with Mount Zion in Jerusalem goes way back to the Book of Chronicles, which states (2 Chron 3:1): Solomon began to build the House of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.

Ezekiel says : Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite. (Ezek. 16:3).

The Samaritans do not accept Jerusalem as the proper place of worship, nor do they canonize any biblical book other than the Torah. The Samaritan Pentateuch spells the place name as “Moorah ” instead of “Moriah”. They thus connect this land of Moorah with the place name “Elon Moorah”[Moreh]. This latter place is associated with Shechem in the Bible (12:6); thus, this tradition claims, the Akedah took place on the Samaritan holy mountain, Mount Gerizim in Shechem

The Samaritans don't use the term Akedah FWIW and of course it occurred on or in the environs of Gerizim. PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING DOES IN THE PENTATEUCH!

The ancient site of Shechem, Mount Gerizim, Mount Ebal.



[

Significant Events: Abraham camped at Shechem (Gen. 12:6–7). Jacob camped here and bought a parcel of ground (Gen. 33:18–20). Mount Gerizim was the mount of blessing, while Mount Ebal was the mount of cursing (Deut. 27–28). At Mount Ebal, Joshua erected a monument bearing the law of Moses and then read the law to the Israelites (Josh. 8:30–35). The bones of Joseph are buried in Shechem (Josh. 24:32). (See BD Gerizim and Ebal.)

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bible-ph ... 7?lang=eng

There's more than that

Jacob’s Gift to Joseph

48:22 And now, I assign to you one shechem more than to your brothers, which I wrested from the Amorites with my sword and bow.

Did Jacob conquer the land of Shechem ?.Were there Multiple Origin Traditions .? Was the wilderness tradition separate from the exodus tradition.?

Secret Alias wrote:The Samaritans don't use the term Akedah FWIW and of course it occurred on or in the environs of Gerizim. PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING DOES IN THE PENTATEUCH!

I was going to mention in the appropriate recent thread that the site of Jerusalem for the Akeidah is far from clear. However, that is more reasonable than the other two examples.

And Isaac went out walking in the field toward evening and, looking up, he saw camels approaching.

(Gen 24:63 TNK)

The Rabbis twist that into an allusion about the second temple (and the afternoon minchah service). In any case, it doesn't look like Gerizim because

Isaac had just come back from the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi, for he was settled in the region of the Negeb.

(Gen 24:62 TNK)

Of course, walking around in, no doubt, a stupefied daze from the Akeida trauma is far from a clear justification for building a temple there unless it was the same place where the Akeida took place. More than anything it seems sad.

The third case is Jacob's ladder which is clearly in a different spot than Jerusalem.

He named that site Bethel; but previously the name of the city had been Luz.

(Gen 28:19 TNK)

And Luz is arguably sort of the same place as Gerizim.

Perhaps Iskander is to blame, but lately I've been wondering how important the original intent of the Bible's authors is compared to a supposedly more recent (refined) interpretation. Still, there must be some virtue in calling a spade a spade. Call_a_spade_a_spade

iskander wrote:Jacob’s Gift to Joseph

48:22 And now, I assign to you one shechem more than to your brothers, which I wrested from the Amorites with my sword and bow.

Did Jacob conquer the land of Shechem ?.Were there Multiple Origin Traditions .? Was the wilderness tradition separate from the exodus tradition.?

Jacob, in Genesis, is a kvetcher and has few obvious admirable qualities.

In his blessing, he assigns himself a more active role at Shechem than the usual kvetching we see in the Genesis account. Maybe there was another tradition, but why go with one that makes him seem like a douche? Could be that he was just over-emphasizing his role in his old age.

semiopen wrote:

iskander wrote:Jacob’s Gift to Joseph

48:22 And now, I assign to you one shechem more than to your brothers, which I wrested from the Amorites with my sword and bow.

Did Jacob conquer the land of Shechem ?.Were there Multiple Origin Traditions .? Was the wilderness tradition separate from the exodus tradition.?

Jacob, in Genesis, is a kvetcher and has few obvious admirable qualities.

In his blessing, he assigns himself a more active role at Shechem than the usual kvetching we see in the Genesis account. Maybe there was another tradition, but why go with one that makes him seem like a douche? Could be that he was just over-emphasizing his role in his old age.

Perhaps it is as you suggest, but...

The lost book of the patriarchs?

I have given you one shechem more than your brothers, which I took with my sword and my bow.
Modern scholarship has struggled with this problem in various ways.41 Erhard Blum and Nahum Sarna both suggested that the verse reflects a tradition about Jacob making war on Shechem which was not preserved in the biblical corpus.42 A more radical hypothesis was offered years earlier by John Skinner:

http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_192.pdf

Manifest Destiny?

Yet the hints to a warlike Jacob saga noted by Skinner point to the probability that the early patriarchal accounts may very well have been military in character. Skinner’s insight demonstrates just how hard the editors of Genesis worked to erase most traces of military spirit from its account, creating the relatively passive and peaceful character of that book.