Pentateuch

by Pippa 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  What does anyone make of the hypothesis that much of the OT was compiled under the Hasmonean rule?

  I really don't know what you are alluding to. Can you be more specific? Who says what about which texts, and on which grounds? The book of Daniel is clearly connected with the Antiochus IV / Maccabean crisis (167/164 BC) which was before the Hasmonean period, and in its Hebrew/Aramaic form it only made it into the last part of the Jewish canon (ketubim), which marks it as a comparatively late book. At that time most of the Torah (= Pentateuch) was probably already translated into Greek. I see little room in the Hasmonean period for anything but marginal additions (e.g. in the Chronicles genealogies, some of which are very late indeed). Or perhaps by "compiled" you mean the formation of the collection itself, rather than the writing of individual works?

  Also what do people here make of the prefix 'El' that occurrs in so much of this literature?

  'El in some older fragments of OT works is distinct from Yhwh and points to the supreme deity of the Canaanite pantheon, but then "merges" with Yhwh in Israelite henotheism and later Jewish monotheism which are the background to most "Biblical" literature. It appears as a "prefix" and as a suffix in theophoric names of both early and late periods... Again I'm not sure what you are getting at.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Pippa

  Did you come across that idea of such a late date (the Hasmonean period) from the book The Mythic Past? I read that book quite some time back, and if I remember it right, the thrust of the book was about the nation of Isreal being a complete myth. And how to galvanize the people against the hellenizers the bible was redacted to suit their ends. It was talking about alot more than just the first 5 books though. It also had a blurb about olive production being important in the land. Irrelevant to this thread, but that sticks out to me too now from that book cuz of my heritage. :)

  If thats the book you're thinking of, then read Friedman's book too if you haven't yet. Its an easy read. A big plus for me, although I appreciate being exposed to terms like "preterite"....honestly I do :)...and the points he makes come off as stronger than the bible being maccabean propoganda. There's some intertestamental books that do that anyways. I can easily see the exiles from Babylon needing a redacted collection of texts bringing together the Samaritan traditions and the Judean ones to have the new leadership be validated to some legitimate past. To form an identity. The Hasmonean period, to me anyways, was more about maintaining an already existing identity against an assimilating threat.
• 

  Pippa

  Hi Narkissos and Sasquatch

  You are obviously serious scholars whereas I'm really just a beginner.

  Yes, I do mean compile rather than actual writing per se. Compilation means just that - compiling writings from earlier works/canons. Obviously for political purposes, which is the main thrust of the OT from what I can see. Thanks though for the information. You can probably tell that mine is quite hazy and in its infancy. But I'm really a beginner who is absolutely fascinated by all that I'm garnering so far.

  The prefix/suffix El comes as a complete surprise to me. Think of all the angels whose names end in 'el' Not to mention the famous 'Elohim' of Hebrew scripture.

  I am currently reading a book (What else does one do on a summer break!!!) called The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom. Authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. I'm NOT swallowing all that they have to say. But a whole LOT of it makes very good sense. Their perusal of the history of the three main religions makes very dark reading.

  Certainly I will look at Friedman's book just as soon as I can get a copy of it. And no, I haven't read the Mythic Past. Will check for these at my local library.

  Thanks guys!

  Pippa
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Pippa,

  I'n nowhere near being a scholar of any kind. And darn glad I'm not like the "celebrated scholars" of the WT. (You had to be on this board way back to probably get that reference).

  Anyways, Leolaia and Narkissos are extremely well read on these matters and they're very understandable, for the most part (meant in good fun there guys). Just keep on asking and there's alot one can learn. I've had several things clarified for me. I found Friedman's book more persuasive than the other one by Thomas Thompson. Friedman's book is primarily concerned with the Documentary Hypothesis, while the other one touched on the idea of a redaction during the Maccabees, but was mostly about showing how archeology speaks against any real state of Isreal having existed before the Hasmodeans.
• 

  Leolaia

  The idea that the Pentateuch was written under Hasmonean rule seems like an extreme version of what was already a radical hypothesis. The Hellenistic dating of the Pentateuch (pursued by Niels Lemche and Thomas Thompson in particular, who date its composition to the second half of the third century BC) has an interesting response in the book Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (ed. by Lester Grabbe, 2001). Some weighty arguments against this late dating include: (1) The oldest Qumran fragments of the Pentateuch are paleographically dated to the middle of the third century BC, (2) the oldest fragment of the LXX Pentateuch dates to the middle second century BC — both the translation and the earlier composition and copying of the Pentateuch would have to precede this, (3) The Hebrew of the Pentateuch is not Late Biblical Hebrew filled with Aramaisms and Persian loanwords, as would be expected for a work dating to the third or second centuries BC, (4) the Pentateuch gives a prominent and positive role to the northern tribes, in contrast to the attitude of Jews in the Persian and Hellenistic periods towards Samaritans, (5) The Greek writer Hecataeus (c. 300 BC) in his description of the Jews shows familiarity of the exodus narrative and Pentateuchal laws, suggesting that such laws were already in practice during the Persian period, while showing himself to be wholly unfamiliar with the Deuteronomistic History, (6) The Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 6-36), written in the third century BC and attested in the first half of the second century BC at Qumran, is literarily dependent on Genesis 6-8, (7) the Chronicler (fourth century BC) drew directly on Genesis and Exodus in his genealogical framework and also revises the Deuteronomistic History in light of Pentateuchal laws, (8) Ezra-Nehemiah similarly refers to the existence of the "books of the law" and alludes to some of the Pentateuch's content (e.g. Ezra 9:11-12 = Leviticus 18:24-15 and Deuteronomy 7:3-4), (9) The Pentateuch (as well as most books of the OT) show no engagement with Hellenistic philosophical ideas like divine providence, anthropology of the soul, or ethics, as readily found in many Jewish books written in the Seleucid and Hasmonean eras; rather the religious ideas are closer to those in Ugaritic, Hittite, Assyrian, and Neo-Babylonian texts, (10) Anachronisms in the Pentateuch (or indeed almost the entirety of the OT) do not betray a provenance as late as the Hellenistic period, as do later texts like the LXX which refers to a "hippodrome" in the Joseph story of Genesis, etc. I am sure there are many other relevant points, but these stand out to me.
• 

  cskyjw.sun

  moses and joshuah