I'll answer the second question first. Sure pagan use of Jewish Scripture could be reflected in the tannum. But I think the case is stronger for Christian influence, as we know the Christians explicitly used the LXX in their texts, and in their supporting apologies, and not just a little. I'm not aware of such heavy usage by pagans. Can you give some examples? (that would be an interesting point of study)
Thanks for the full answers.
I think Christianity is a product of syncretism: Hellenization of Judaism and the Jewish Diaspora interacting with other religions outside Judea and Israel, and the other religions interacting with Judaism.
I think before Christianity developed to "explicitly use the LXX in their texts", some pagans were using the LXX.
Secret Alias wrote:
If I came into a lot of money I would devote a year to writing a demonstration that the evidence from Qumran regarding the primacy of the Samaritan text of Exodus (i.e. with the bits 'added' from other parts of Exodus and Deuteronomy during the Sinai Theophany) extended as far as the circle of R Ishmael. I think this can be successfully argued from the surviving bits of the Mekilata. But the key thing is that I think the reference to 'Samaritan' heresies and heretics being 'Samaritan' or kuthim comes from this context. At some point our Book of Exodus (the 'Jewish' version) was distinguished from the original text used by Sadducees and Samaritans and other 'sects' and which came to be known as 'the Samaritan' text type. This text makes plain that there were two powers on Sinai.
I wonder if some of the Jewish Diaspora in the mid-late 2nd C, and later, engaged more deeply with the Exodus stories, and if that was the fore-runner to development of some Christian theology.
I doubt it. Just look at the difference between the Samaritan and Jewish traditions. How much speculation is there in Jewish circles about Moses? Surprisingly little. That's odd because Moses is supposed to be everything. My suspicion (I should use stronger language) is that the raising of the writings outside of the Torah was not simply a natural development. It's a lot (IMO) like the expansion of the NT canon. In both cases you have a direct revelation from God being watered down by 'lesser shit' in some way.
In fact I should qualify that statement (because I write most of these statements with little in the way of a filter).
If we accept what the Jewish writings (and the Samaritan and early Jewish exegesis of the Torah) you have:
1. a direct revelation of God in the Ten Commandments
2. then the story of the giving of the Ten Commandments within a greater historical context (= the Torah)
3. all the lesser shit added later by the later sectarians
In Christianity you have Paul:
1. a direct revelation of God in the gospel
2. then the context of the giving of the gospel (according to the original Marcionite exegesis) in the Pauline letters (it's all about Paul and his relationship with Jesus through revelation)
3. all the lesser shit added later by the later heretics (including the Catholics)
The Jews themselves tell us there was some sort of a remembrance that only the Ten came from God. The Samaritans represent this view AND the acceptance on some level of the Torah as divine (but not given to Moses on Sinai). There must have been prophetic movements within and without Samaritanism and Judaism. But the originality of the Samaritan 'concept' or understanding of canon and scripture is evidenced in multiple ways at Qumran among Jews (hence Samaritan primacy underscored).
The point is that we have the same basic pattern - viz. single 'limited' canon expanding to 'lots of shit' and I don't believe this was necessarily an innocent development. Why? Because at the core of the Torah in its original form there is the recognition (explicit) that there were two powers. The 'lots of shit' muddies the water and allows for monotheism to develop. I think the Christian corruption of scripture either learned from the Jewish experience of was carried along by the same cultural/political currents.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“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
And Moses is to Ishu (the second God) what Paul is to 'Jesus.' They (Ishu, Jesus) are in some way the same beings albeit in some way 'Jesus' has undergone some change (either of heart or been affected by some revelation perhaps of the end times, perhaps like what Photius saw in the Hypotyposes of Clement there are two logoi in heaven and Jesus is somehow distinguished from Ishu - I don't know - but there is a relationship unmistakably). Both Moses and Paul are THE 'apostle' (the Samaritans use 'apostle' as a title of Moses). Both are 'THE evangelist' in the strictest sense of the terminologies (remember the Marcionite paradigm has Paul as the author of the gospel).
“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
And what is Moses exactly? He's not a high priest. He's not really a king (Joshua does the fighting for instance). He's all these roles but at the same time none of these roles in a very peculiar way. Who is the heavenly counterpart of Moses? The high priest = the logos is established as a pairing in Philo and he's probably correct. But who or what is Moses? Always curious. There's some sort of pattern or puzzle here but I can't figure it out.
“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
What if Moses originated simply as the fictional eponymous ancestor of the Mushites? This would have been some kind of early priestly caste associated with the Jerusalem temple and perhaps other sanctuaries (Gerizim?). It might have been responsible for whatever rituals focused on the Nehushtan. It would explain why early non-canonical stories of Moses have him founding the temple in Jerusalem.
Eventually, Mushites get eclipsed by Levites, and then by Aaronites, so the story has to be rewritten. Moses was a Levite, but still a priest. Then he's not a priest any longer, because Aaron is the priest. Then Moses gets stripped even of his arrival in Palestine, and instead gets turned into an Egyptian character based on Manetho and other legends.
I can't explain why the Samaritans venerated Moses more, because I haven't studied them enough. But traditions in the north would not have necessarily evolved the same way as those in the south, even if the two priesthoods (Jerusalem and Gerizim) managed to collaborate on a common Torah.
And then you have Christianity, which in some sense was an ecumenical religion that invited Greeks, Jews, and Samaritans back into the same fold.
Last edited by Tenorikuma on Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's one way of looking at things. It's not my approach. Doesn't mean it's wrong or inferior in any way. I see the Ten Commandments as having a pre-existence before the Torah and Moses fashioned in the image of Ezra (or whomever wrote the text). Maybe you've helped me find my answer. Moses was fashioned into a precursor for whatever Ezra was. At least that's a good working hypothesis. Now who or what was Ezra?
“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
Ezra (/ˈɛzrə/; Hebrew: עזרא, Ezra;[1] fl. 480–440 BC), also called Ezra the Scribe (עזרא הסופר, Ezra ha-Sofer) and Ezra the Priest in the Book of Ezra, was a Jewish scribe and a priest. According to the Hebrew Bible he returned from the Babylonian exile and reintroduced the Torah in Jerusalem (Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8). According to 1 Esdras, a Greek translation of the Book of Ezra still in use in Eastern Orthodoxy, he was also a high priest.
Curious that everyone seems to think Ezra wrote the Torah but Ezra wasn't a high priest. A parallel example is the Samaritan Marqe (Mark). The ultimate exegete for all things Biblical but not a high priest either. Curious that Ezra - like Moses - didn't occupy the highest office. Was Moses fashioned in the image of Ezra by Ezra himself (i.e. instructing the high priests as to how to sacrifice etc)? Curious.
“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
“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
