Who Were the Levites

[Jayhawker Soule]

First a note:

I considered posting this in Scriptural Debates. That may well have been the better option.​

While reviewing the work of R. E. Friedman on the Levites and the Exodus I stumbled across an article in TheTorah.com by Prof. Mark Leuchter with the title Who Were the Levites. After some preliminary comments Leuchter writes:

Most critical scholars see the Torah’s explanations as attempts to explain the origin of a reality with which the authors were familiar – landless Levites as cultic functionaries. The biblical text is projecting the origin of this reality back into the formative period of the ancestors, the exodus and the wilderness. The Bible also, however, contains very ancient memories and details that recall the social function of Levites in Ancient Israel, and their emergence as a group of (quasi-)priests. Scholars have offered various different views of how these ancient memories might be used to reconstruct the historical origin on the Levites.​

He then proceeds to develop what I believe to be a well reasoned and fascinating reconstruction of his own.

Those of you who view Torah as the literal "Word of God" will likely disagree, but what I appreciate most about the article is the extent to which it serves as an informed effort at mining the biblical landscape for historical understanding.

 

[Harel13]

Those of you who view Torah as the literal "Word of God" will likely disagree, but what I appreciate most about the article is the extent to which it serves as an informed effort at mining the biblical landscape for historical understanding.

Just wondering: what's your view on the subject?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just wondering: what's your view on the subject?

My view is, first and foremost, that Torah is an evolved, multifaceted, fascinating and very human effort worth of study.

As for the question posed by the article, I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between that suggested by Leuchter and that suggested by R.E. Friedman (referenced by Leuchter). There's also the so-called Kenite Hypothesis to be considered. I really need more time -- and, perhaps, more acumen -- before coming to a provisional conclusion.

But of one thing I am absolutely certain: Torah is a complicated and valued treasure.

 

[Harel13]

I really need more time -- and, perhaps, more acumen -- before coming to a provisional conclusion.

Did you have a different view before studying these two?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did you have a different view before studying these two?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. I have always viewed Torah through a secular lens.

That said, this thread is really not about me.

 

[Harel13]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. I have always viewed Torah through a secular lens.

Thanks.

 

[dybmh]

From the article in the OP:

An important clue to the origin of the Israelites is reflected in the meaning of the word “Levite” (Hebrew lewi), which comes from Hebrew root ל-ו-ה, meaning “connect” or “attach”; lewi literally means “one who is connected/attached.”[5] But connected or attached to what? I suggest that it means “attached to local cult centers.”

This strikes me as rather weak evidence. And this suggests they were attached to local cult centers? ummmmm, no.

@Jayhawker Soule , as someone who is picky about their sources, doesn't this strike you as putting the cart before the horse? The author seems to have a preconceived notion about the Levites being "cultish" and now the root of the word Levi suggests what sounds like a massive cover-up? Not convincing.

{ Note to self, apparently TheTorah.com publishes biased articles.... }

 

[RabbiO]

{ Note to self, apparently TheTorah.com publishes biased articles.... }

So, can you provide examples of websites that you believe publish articles that have no bias?

 

[ManSinha]

Were the Levites not the priestly class that did not have a "home ground" of their own?
Sorry if I trespass

 

[dybmh]

So, can you provide examples of websites that you believe publish articles that have no bias?

No, however, @Jayhawker Soule recently criticized another thread for having this same degree of bias.

But it's a good fair point. Thank you for bringing it up. Hopefully Jay will reply as well.

 

[Jake1001]

Agreed!! The role of cult in Judaism is not significant.

Also, Torah.com Is a reliable source and should not be disrespected.

From the article in the OP:



This strikes me as rather weak evidence. And this suggests they were attached to local cult centers? ummmmm, no.

@Jayhawker Soule , as someone who is picky about their sources, doesn't this strike you as putting the cart before the horse? The author seems to have a preconceived notion about the Levites being "cultish" and now the root of the word Levi suggests what sounds like a massive cover-up? Not convincing.

{ Note to self, apparently TheTorah.com publishes biased articles.... }

 

[dybmh]

Also, Torah.com Is a reliable source and should not be disrespected.

It seems to me that they are a reliable source for Torah Criticism. The goal is to criticize, they do it well. If a person is seeking something negative to say about the Torah, probably going to TheTorah.com is a good idea.

 

[Harel13]

Were the Levites not the priestly class that did not have a "home ground" of their own?
Sorry if I trespass

The very same. They weren't a class, though, they were a tribe (the Tribe of Levi), split into two groups: the Levites and the Kohanim (priests).

 

[dybmh]

I think this is an excellent description of the point of view reflected in the articles on TheTorah.com:

Agenda-driven Judaism: Rather than surrendering (to use Rav Soloveitchik’s terminology) to the yoke and objective directives of Halacha, Open Orthodoxy first set forth its goals (feminism, egalitarianism, etc.) and then tried to fit the Halacha into them. Picking and choosing opinions and authorities that meet a predetermined agenda rather than submitting to the Torah’s values and dictates regardless of what they state, leads one to Reform his Judaism and eventually craft (or “Reconstruct”) it as he sees fit.

Source: From Openness to Heresy - Cross-Currents

For the record, I have no problem with attempting to reconstruct or revise Judaism as individuals see fit. However, I think it's dishonest to knowingly offer biased sources without disclosing it. When Jay links to TheTorah.com, he should disclose their bias attempting to discredit Torah.

It would be same if Chabad started a website about Moshiach and called it Judaism.com. It would be dishonest of me to link to Chabad sources on Moshiach without disclosing their bias. It's the same thing here.

 

[Jake1001]

Torah criticism is an important part of Torah study. Do you believe the Torah was written by G-d ?

It seems to me that they are a reliable source for Torah Criticism. The goal is to criticize, they do it well. If a person is seeking something negative to say about the Torah, probably going to TheTorah.com is a good idea.

 

[Harel13]

Torah criticism is an important part of Torah study.

I think that when looking to criticize part of the Torah, a few points need to be thought out beforehand:
1. Is what I'm doing inside the boundaries of Torah critique defined by the Torah?
2. Is what I'm doing out of awareness of the greatness of the authors?
3. Am I aiming with what I'm doing to make the Torah more understandable for myself and other individuals and to essentially make a kind of Kiddush Hashem or is my goal to desecrate it and/or an attempt to put to shame other followers of Torah?

 

[Jake1001]

It depends whether the author was G-d or man.

If G-d I agree.

If man, criticism is permitted.

You decide.

I think that when looking to criticize part of the Torah, a few points need to be thought out beforehand:
1. Is what I'm doing inside the boundaries of Torah critique defined by the Torah?
2. Is what I'm doing out of awareness of the greatness of the authors?
3. Am I aiming with what I'm doing to make the Torah more understandable for myself and other individuals and to essentially make a kind of Kiddush Hashem or is my goal to desecrate it and/or an attempt to put to shame other followers of Torah?

 

[dybmh]

Torah criticism is an important part of Torah study. Do you believe the Torah was written by G-d ?

Torah criticism begins with a premise ( The Torah is not from G-d ) and attempts to prove it. It's classic confirmation bias, just as biased as the Torah apologists.

And yes, I do believe that the Torah was written by G-d. Each letter, every scribal mark, all the white space. All of it from G-d. It's not something that I can prove, and I would never enter into a debate about it. My reasons for this belief are personal and rather dear to me. So I don't discuss them in public, because I know that most people would think these reasons are silly.

 

[Harel13]

It depends whether the author was G-d or man.

If G-d I agree.

If man, criticism is permitted.

You decide.

That's one of the clinchers for me. If the critic views the text as man-made, then we're already miles apart in our views. In which case I and many other Jews already regard the criticism with much less importance or worth. When a text is thought to be man-made, then any debate can become a free-for-all on dissing the subject matter, and that is something I am strongly opposed to when it comes to Torah. Now, the question is: how do the folks over at thetorah.com answer this question of authorship?

 

[dybmh]

criticism is permitted

Of course... but what you're talking about, I think, forgive me if I'm wrong... is *fair* criticism. When an individual takes a *fair* academic, scholarly approach to research they attempt to mitigate their own bias. Research both sides of an issue and present both sides. If one side is stronger, fine. Did you look at the article from the OP? It's ridiculous!

The author of the article claims that the Levites were connected to pagan cults on a whim. There's no evidence to support this pagan connection. The author provides no reasons. It makes far more sense to claim the Levites are connected to Torah, or G-d, or the Torah service, or its implements, or the Mishkan.... or... or.... or.... But the author chooses to claim the Levites are pagan. Why? because the author has a bias and a desire to discredit Torah.

No. Fair criticism is... Fair, good, useful, all of those. Unfair criticism is wrong, cherry picking is wrong. Hiding an agenda to discredit Torah is also wrong.