...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[andrewcriddle]

I think we may have to clarify what exactly a Hellenistic origin for the Pentateuch means.

I agree that the present canonical form of the MT of the Pentateuch is Hellenistic, not just in trivial points but in that the detailed chronology of the MT which is important in final form exegesis is Hellenistic in origin.

What I have been rejecting is the idea that a brand new historical self understanding was imposed on Israel in the early Hellenistic period.

The proposal that during the Persian period Priests at Jerusalem and Israelites in Palestine as a whole had developed their ancient traditions into two different extended narratives and that in the very early Hellenistic period after the breakdown of Persian overlordship both these narratives were combined together to produce something like our Pentateuch is IMHO probably wrong. But I regard it as much more of a legitimate option than I do the brand new historical self understanding idea.

I'm genuinely not sure whether you would regard the above as a version of your Synchronic mode proposal or as a rejection of it.

Andrew Criddle

What I'm meaning is that I can identify more evidence for not only the collation of various materials to put together the shape of the Pentateuch as we know it today but also the authorship, the initial composition of the various sources in the Hellenistic era.

The material evidence we have for the Persian era not only contradicts any knowledge of the narratives and ideologies found in the Pentateuch, but the Hellenistic culture explains so much of the contents, genre and ideologies that we find in the Pentateuch's narratives -- whether read as a P or a JE or a D etc document. I don't mean that every detail comes from Hellenistic times. Yahweh himself goes back many centuries prior.

I am cautious in the face of wording like, "a brand new historical self understanding was imposed on Israel". We know brand new historical self-understandings can and have been "imposed" or indoctrinated into populations within a generation or two at most -- not without critics along the way, but they are soon forgotten.

But more to the point in this case, I don't know what "new historical self-understanding" would mean? What kind of self-understanding in historical terms would many ordinary people have had, exactly? Certainly there are direct appeals to "historical self-understanding" of certain priestly classes in the Pentateuch. If identities focused around a cult (as opposed to 'historical national heritage' in the sense we are familiar with with our modern education and propaganda programs) and if we have very localized group identities (illustrated, in my understanding, by the evidence for the "cantonization" of different Hebrew dialects from region to region throughout Palestine) then I am still to understand what process was involved in inculcating a new understanding of what it meant to be people of Yahweh. The term "Israel" is itself problematic. I am continuing to look at other instances of changes in group identities.

You seem IIUC to be requiring a lot of things to happen very quickly. After the beginning of the Hellenistic period a new understanding of the origins of Israel arises. Two or more groups develop this understanding in related but independent extended narratives. These extended narratives are later put together to form our Pentateuch. Shortly afterwards a version of this Pentateuch is translated into Greek. We are still in the early Hellenistic period. IMO things don't happen like that.

Andrew Criddle

[StephenGoranson]

I agree with what Andrew C. wrote, just above, Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:12 am.

Neil G. wrote, Sat Mar 02, 2024 3:18 pm, in part:
"....The material evidence we have for the Persian era not only contradicts any knowledge of the narratives and ideologies found in the Pentateuch,...."
Not so. That is trying to prove a negative based on insufficient evidence, because, for one thing, material evidence--that is extant and may or may not be fully known nor properly interpreted--does not reveal ALL that ALL people knew.
That fallacy is somewhat similar to claiming that there were more men than women in that period, because men are mentioned, and evidenced, more often.
Or claiming that a disproportionate amount of what a typical household owned was mostly pottery, because that may be the profile of extant "material evidence."
Furthermore, what counts as exclusively Hellenistic is not agreed, at least not fully, here. Years ago, I described Sigmund Freud as a Hellenized Jew; after all, where did he get the Oedipus complex from? Yet that characterization, silly or not, would not be useful for dating his era.

[neilgodfrey]

...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[StephenGoranson]

Egypt was, for a time, part of the Persian Achaemenid Empire.
I'm no Egyptologist, but was the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" translated into Aramaic for the benefit of Persians?
The Persian Empire, as is well known, by some, compared to some other empires, let local religions be.
And, anyway, the Egyptian "Book" was certainly older than the Persian Empire. Hmm.

[neilgodfrey]

...

[StephenGoranson]

"...was the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" translated into Aramaic for the benefit of Persians?"
Why deflect from your prediction?

[StephenGoranson]

Above, from NG:
"....By contrast, what had happened in Persian times was for the Persian ruler to authorize local religious traditions that had been drawn up by the locals and publishing those codifications in the local native language as well as the official language of the Persian empire, Aramaic. If the Pentateuch was a Persian era creation, by comparison with how Persians supported other local religious cults, we would expect to see the Pentateuch translated not into Greek but into Aramaic....."