A name given to the first four Books of the Pentateuch (Gen.–Num.). It is argued that these Books were compiled from the same sources and on the same editorial principles, and that the main dividing line in the earlier part of the OT is to be placed at the end of Num.; Deut. is then regarded as the first volume of a ‘Deuteronomistic History’ extending it to 2 Kgs.http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10. ... 3103258577
So the ur-Torah would resemble (at least superficially) the canonical gospels. But the ending of the ur-Torah was:
The family heads of the clan of Gilead son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, who were from the clans of the descendants of Joseph, came and spoke before Moses and the leaders, the heads of the Israelite families. 2 They said, “When the Lord commanded my lord to give the land as an inheritance to the Israelites by lot, he ordered you to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. 3 Now suppose they marry men from other Israelite tribes; then their inheritance will be taken from our ancestral inheritance and added to that of the tribe they marry into. And so part of the inheritance allotted to us will be taken away. 4 When the Year of Jubilee for the Israelites comes, their inheritance will be added to that of the tribe into which they marry, and their property will be taken from the tribal inheritance of our ancestors.”
5 Then at the Lord’s command Moses gave this order to the Israelites: “What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right. 6 This is what the Lord commands for Zelophehad’s daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within their father’s tribal clan. 7 No inheritance in Israel is to pass from one tribe to another, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal inheritance of their ancestors. 8 Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father’s tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of their ancestors. 9 No inheritance may pass from one tribe to another, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits.”
10 So Zelophehad’s daughters did as the Lord commanded Moses. 11 Zelophehad’s daughters—Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milkah and Noah—married their cousins on their father’s side. 12 They married within the clans of the descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in their father’s tribe and clan.
13 These are the commands and regulations the Lord gave through Moses to the Israelites on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
There are a number of anomalies with Deuteronomy which are known to scholars. The Hebrew is different. Chapter 32 is odd - it seems to be a stand alone song, like Exodus chapter 15 but again with differences. The future look toward transgression in Israel is different. The doubling of the giving of the Law in Exodus 20.
Then there is the fact that portions of Deuteronomy were originally found in Exodus. I've noted before that in the Samaritan, Qumran text and the text of the earliest Jewish exegesis of Exodus from the circle of R Ishmael it is explicitly manifest that there were two powers. It is not inferred from the text in an uncertain manner but rather Israel and Moses see one god on the mountain and hear another god in heaven.
That the circle of R Akiva made efforts to reconcile this difficulty alongside textual emendations points to an effort in the second century toward the recognition of one supreme power in Israel. Already with Philo and bits from the circle of R Ishmael and early Christianity (and the reports about the 'minim' in rabbinic literature it is apparent that these efforts weren't completely successful until the latter half of the second century.
Some more interesting things.
The mekhilta of R Ishmael derives its origins from a group that had the variant text of Exodus (i.e. where Deuteronomy is not the sole 'depository' for the information that god spoke from heaven while another god stood in front of Israel). Why is the oldest surviving exegesis of the Pentateuch from a group of questionable orthodoxy (I can explain that statement later). I think there are good grounds for assuming that Ishmael was a Sadducee.
In Samaritan circles the earliest portions of the Mimar of Marqe deal exclusively with Exodus (Books 1 and 2). The Aramaic is very old. It is interesting then that in both communities built around the Pentateuch the oldest surviving - and seminal - exegesis of the Pentateuch is/are an explanation of the Book of Exodus. I even suspect that when Deuteronomy comes up in the mekhilta it is often times a reflection of the ur-text of Exodus that had the bits of Deuteronomy in it.
Why is that significant? If we assume that the ur-text of Exodus had many bits which are now found only in Deuteronomy in our present canon it would seem as if Deuteronomy's existence developed in part as a way of obscuring the two powers business. But that's a common meme in my posts
Another odd thing is the emergence of the concept of 'Torah' in Deuteronomy. As Heschel notes the way R Akiva reads the term it means 'Pentateuch' but in the proper reading according to the Hebrew it clearly means ten utterances (commandments). The concept of 'Torah' as five books of Moses hasn't emerged yet. Torah are the ten utterances from heaven. But eventually Deuteronomy's reference to Torah is taken to mean that Moses wrote the five books as they appear now before he died including the description of his eventual death in Deuteronomy. This seems a rather forced interpretation of the term 'Torah.'
But could there have been an early reading of Deuteromony that assumed that it - as a book - was not part of the Torah but rather a mere 'second Law' and the reference to 'Torah' assumed that Moses wrote the first four books and that Deuteronomy was something else - i.e. not 'the Torah.' This takes out the strange idea that Moses wrote the description of his death and the fact that he didn't manage to cross the Jordan before he died and did not cross the Jordan.
Heschel also brings up some things about Deuteronomy in the tradition. Also it would be useful to revisit Philo's and Josephus's references to Deuteronomy. So much to do so little time.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
You know, when I read this, I came to this from a completely different point of view. Who wrote this, when, and why? Why make it look as if the Lord had to reconsider in order to change some heritage laws? When were the old rules valid that needed this change?
My interest in your text snippet has to do with this blog post I recently read: The Story of Ezer and Elead (and What it Means for the Exodus). The entry deals with Ephraim and Manasseh. Yes, it's Chronicles, and you would usually discard this as unimportant. However, I found it interesting that such a late book could be written with complete disregard for the Exodus story.