As you know, I do not subscribe to the idea of Judaism/the Torah "developing" over time, nor do I subscribe to Biblical criticism. Even in "apocalyptic Judaism" (at least the non-heretical version as recorded in the Bible) there is no figure like the chr*stian version of Satan.
Now for your points on the letters themselves. Personally, I am surprised more people haven't brought that up, but you seem to be the first one in the ten years of my being here who has.
I once bought an entire book just to read the afterword because it dealt with this very issue. The book is The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet by Rabbi Michael L. Munk and the afterword (which runs from pages 232 to 236) was written by Rabbi Nosson Sherman. It gives the various Tannaic and Amora'ic sources for the various opinions. I can't sit here and type out the entire thing, but I'll try in my clumsy way to digest the contents.
Mar Zutra in Sanhedrin 21b says that the Torah was originally given in the Hebrew language and in Ketav `Ivrit (archaic Hebrew script), but in the time of `Ezra' the Jews chose to keep the Torah in the Hebrew language but in Ketav 'Ashurit ("Assyrian script") while the Samaritans kept the old alphabet but translated it into Aramaic. Rabbi Sherman notes the troubling theological implications and then delves into the Sages for the answer. He records three different Tanna'im, each with a distinct opinion.
1)Rabbi Yose says that Ketav 'Ashurit was introduced as the new script of the Torah by `Ezra', citing the expression mishneh HaTorah hazo't in Deuteronomy 17:18 as an authorization/prophecy of this (mishneh from the root word for "two," can mean to repeat, to copy, to make two of something; but it can also mean "to change").
2)Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi' was the compiler of the Mishnah. He said that the Torah was originally given in Ketav 'Ashurit which means not "Assyrian script" but "blessed script." When Israel began to sink into sin toward the end of the First Temple period G-d caused them to forget this script because they were no longer worthy; instead they used the mundane Ketav `Ivrit.
3)Rabbi Shim`on Ben 'El`azar, invoking two older authorities, said that the Torah was given in Ketav 'Ashurit and no other script had ever been used. This view is endorsed by four different 'Amora'im (Rav, Shemu'el, Yochanan, and 'Ashi).
However, the original opinion of Mar Zutra' still has to be explained. Rabbi Sherman says that "the preponderance of major commentators" explain Mar Zutra' in this way: The original script of the Ten Commandments was Ketav 'Ashurit. After the Golden Calf incident these tablets were smashed and the second tablets were written in Ketav `Ivrit. Until the time of `Ezra' the knowledge of the exalted Ketav 'Ashurit was reserved for pious sages who kept knowledge of it alive while the mass of Jews used theKetav `Ivrit. At the time of the Second Temple, when Israel was purified from idolatry, the Ketav 'Ashurit was restored to the people as a whole and it has been used exclusively ever since.
This is a mere summation. Orthodox Jewish FReepers will be able to give you much more information.
Again, if you are committed to traditional liberal critical studies of the Torah and of Judaism you simply are not going to accept this.
You are trying to tell me that the HEBREW writings and oral history is unchanged, down thru history and yet you give examples of four OPINIONS?
I am confused as to just WHAT is supposed to be RIGHT about your argument.
As you know, I do not subscribe to the idea of Judaism/the Torah "developing" over time, nor do I subscribe to Biblical criticism...
I am aware of that. However, Judaism is not a magisterial faith, and different beliefs are held by different individuals, which means that none ca really claim "orthodoxy."
Clearly, apocalyptic and dualistic Judaism that developed in the 2nd century BC is not the same Judaism of earlier times. Historical developments affected developments or changes in the beliefs as a struggle to explain why, all of a sudden, the Jews were being persecuted for being righteous instead of unrighteous and why would God allow it.
Clearly, God promised Israel success and his protection if they were obedient to him and his commandments. Now, that the Jews learned their lesson through centuries of their unrighteous, for which they received God's punishment (deservingly), they were at a loss to explain the wrath that fell on them by the Hellenic Syrian king.
To inform an occasional lurker, bu the middle of the 2nd century BC, a Hellenic Syrian ruler decided to Hellenize all his subjects and started to persecute Jews who were under his rule, for circumcising their children. To the Greeks, circumcision was something silly at best and outright barbaric at worst.
The pogroms were unbelievable. Those who performed circumcision were killed. The mothers of the circumcised children were killed. The circumcised infants were hanged on their dead mother's necks, etc. This culminated in the Maccabbean revolt.
The Jews were dumbfounded. While they could see the reason for their previous misfortunes, their idolatry, sin and disobedience being the cause, they simply could not explain the pre-Maccabean revolt terror the people of God were subjected to. Why would God do this to them?
It made no sense. So, little by little, a belief developed that there was actually a resident evil in the world and that suffering of the righteous is brought on not by God's rigtheous anger but by this personified enemy of God, the "devil."
Of course, the Jews were exposed to Zoroastrian dualism by their Persian liberators from Babylonian captivity, and probably realized that maybe there was some truth to the idea of resident evil (obviously residing among Gentiles), which traditional Judaism does not teach, know or believe in.
Along with this newly discovered source of wrath for the rigtheous came, by necessity, the belief that God will eventually defeat this evil presence by sending a warrior-king (meshiyah) who will defeat the Gentile oppressors and establish peace in God's Kingdom on earth (Israel), and all nations will know the power of Adonai.
Thus was born messianic apocalyptic Judaism—as a revelation that bad things don't just happen to the misbehaving Jews by God, but also to the observant Jews by the resident evil, an enemy of God, and that a God-sent anointed wariror-king will bring about the lasting peace.
The major party to these beliefs were none other than our friends the Pharisees, of whom Jesus would have certainly be one. They shunned any contact with the evil Gentiles, even Samaritans, couldn't eat with them, couldn't fraternize with them, etc. probably for fear that God will get angry.
On the other hand, the Sadducees, who held on to the Pentateuch as the Bible, did not see any reason to shun the Gentiles as it is obvious the pre-Babylonian Jews didn't. Rather, intermarriage with Gentiles was common. Even Moses' wives were not Hebrew. The Sadducees, likewise, did not believe in the "resident evil" (devil) either, nor did they see any need for a messiah, resurrection of the dead, etc because none of ti is in the Mosaic books.
When the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and 2nd Exodus began, the surviving Judaism was the rabbinic Judaism of the Pharisees who to this day represent mainline Judaism., obviously heavily secularized to the point that some are accusing Judaism of becoming Sadducee-like in character more than Pharisaical.
Indeed, some of the elements of modern Judaism are Sadducean. It is my understanding that Jews still refuse to believe in satan as the personification of resident evil (i..e the "devil"). But some modern Jewish sect do subscribe to the idea of a messiah and the resurrection of the dead.
Now, I do realize that you don;t believe in "evolving" Judaism, but Judaism did evolve into various sects, and ultimately each Jew is free to believe what he or she wants. So, it's not as if there is some prescribed set of beliefs one must follow to the "t" except the very minimal core and then some.
I am sure the sages would come up with a wise opinion why there is no evolution even though there seems to be one, as they explained why is Ketav 'Ashurit the "true" and theological alphabet (without which one apparently can never understand properly the scriptures) and Ketav `Ivrit is not. I would be curious, though, to find out when and where did these rabbis come up with these opinions, just for context.
And I wonder how could prophets like Isaiah write and read in Ketav `Ivrit and properly interpret when Ketav `Ashurit is critical. Indeed, maybe the latter was the reason why the Jews just "couldn't get it" until Ezra reintroduced the Ketav `Ashurit...
And I wonder how would non-messianic Jews explain the pre-Maccabean pogroms. Why was observant Israel being punished and by whom? Why would God, who promised otherwise, allow his people to be persecuted for their rigtheousness?