"Yahwism under the Achaemenid Empire" (Haifa, Dec. 20-22) conference

[Secret Alias]

And with regards to the 14000 posts. I timed myself writing this post. 34 seconds. 34 x 14000 = not much time over 20 years. But yes (now we're past 34 seconds) there was a time I was looking after my 3 year old. And while he was watching Mickey Mouse or whatever I spent a lot of time here. And, I might add, owning my own business when my wisdom teeth hurt (like now because of the fires in the Northwest) it's a nice distraction from reality. True. (45 seconds)

[neilgodfrey]

So how do you reconcile:

1. accepting the legitimacy of a conference on Yahwehism in the Persian period

and

2. accepting that the Pentateuch was written in Alexandria in the Hellenistic period

Sounds like inviting mountainman Pete to a historical Jesus conference.

Because Yahwism is a fact of the Persian era. It is a fact established by the sources that are being discussed in the conference. (Read the abstracts.)

Why do you think there is any conflict with Russell Gmirkin's thesis? That's the strange question here.

No-one has ever suggested Yahwism was an invention of the Hellenistic era. That's a silly suggestion. It seems you are living in a fantasy world of smoke and mirrors and have not the slightest interest in removing yourself from it to find out what Gmirkin is talking about. Instead, it's easier for you to hurl insults at people who actually know a bit more about the evidence and scholarly methods and historical research than you do.

[Secret Alias]

Because Yahwism is a fact of the Persian era. It is a fact established by the sources that are being discussed in the conference. (Read the abstracts.)

But what is 'Yahwehism' without the Pentateuch? There are presentations involving 'the Samaritans' what are they 'samaratain-ing' (guarding, keeping) if not the Pentateuch? This is what is so baffling. Yahwehism is indistinguishable from 'guarding, keeping' the Pentateuch. And then this nonsense comes along and you invent a whole new category of 'Yahwehism' without explanation. And expect people not to notice, comment, criticize?

[neilgodfrey]

Because Yahwism is a fact of the Persian era. It is a fact established by the sources that are being discussed in the conference. (Read the abstracts.)

But what is 'Yahwehism' without the Pentateuch? There are presentations involving 'the Samaritans' what are they 'samaratain-ing' (guarding, keeping) if not the Pentateuch? This is what is so baffling. Yahwehism is indistinguishable from 'guarding, keeping' the Pentateuch. And then this nonsense comes along and you invent a whole new category of 'Yahwehism' without explanation. And expect people not to notice, comment, criticize?

I'm not sure you're serious. Are you really unaware of any of the archaeological evidence for the worship of Yah and cognates?

Worship of Yahweh alongside worship of his wife and other gods, "observing" the sabbath as a market day, multiple shrines . . . .

People that you consider to be "another species" actually note the details of the evidence and note -- again, read the abstracts -- that there is no evidence of a Pentateuch in Yahwist sites. None.

In your mind you have clearly cemented the concepts of Yahwism and the Pentateuch. But if you want to be a little more scholarly you need to actually register that those two concepts are actually quite distinct in the evidence, in the sources. Yahwism became incorporated into the Pentateuch. Synthesis is not about confusing concepts that are quite distinct into one.

If you actually read and comprehended what Gmirkin and I have said you would not respond with the silly criticisms and insults that you throw at us. But either you have subnormal levels of comprehension or you are not bothering to pay attention to the details -- a horrible word, I know -- of what we have written.

Here is something from a member of "another species" (your term for a scholar):

On the basis of these documents, it is possible to get glimpses of an Elephantine Yahwism. We could perhaps start with the contours of the temple foundation narrative with which the Judeans in Elephantine identified themselves and to which they connected their own history in Egypt. Although fragmentary, the narrative about the foundation and history of the YHW temple gives glimpses of milestones in the Elephantine Judeans’ own narrative about their history in Egypt. These glimpses give clues to how the Judeans in Elephantine understood the status and relationship of their own community in relation to the Egyptians and the Persian administration. They claimed that the temple of YHW was erected before the Persian king Cambyses conquered Egypt in 525 BCE. In addition, the alleged status of the temple can be deduced from the religious policy of Cambyses toward the Egyptian temples. Whereas he allegedly overthrew all of the Egyptian temples, he spared the temple of YHW (A4.7:13–14 par.; A4.9:4–5). Moreover, the temple was destroyed around 410 BCE by the priests of Khnum, the frataraka Vidranga, and his son Naphaina, the rbḥyl of Syene (A4.7:10 par.). Around 407 BCE the temple still lay in ruins (A4.7:30 par.) but may have been rebuilt around 402 BCE.30 The Judeans of Elephantine must have regarded the Elephantine temple not as a rival to or succession of that in Jerusalem, but rather as a complementary temple. In the temple of YHW in Elephantine, sacrifices were brought forward to YHW, probably to the mutual benefit of those of offered [sic] and of the deity who was the recipient, but also to the benefit of persons with authority who assisted the Elephantine community in rebuilding the temple (see A4.7:27–28 par.).

The Elephantine Judeans seem to have known psḥ, “the Passover,” but the documents never connect this to a religious myth, such as the biblical exodus narrative. If the so-called Passover letter from Hananiah (A4.1) is about the Passover in the first place (and not about a festival resembling the Bible’s Festival of Unleavened Bread), then it may have signaled a change in the social setting in which the Passover was observed. In the earlier Passover ostracon D7.6 the context was the family. Hananiah’s letter, however, clearly (?) puts the Festival of Unleavened Bread (and perhaps the Passover) in an official context, addressing the Judean community as a whole and providing a legal basis in a royal decree issued by King Darius and sent to Arshama, the satrap of Egypt.31 In Elephantine, a sabbath (šbh) was known and given a particular designation, but it was not observed in a strict sense as a day with certain taboos. There are no traces of any myths associated with the Sabbath comparable to those present, for example, in Exod 20:8–11 and Deut 5:12–15, and it remains uncertain whether šbh was a lunar sabbath (the day of the full moon) or the sabbath of the seven-day week.32

Regarding sacral kingship, it is noteworthy that a copy of the Aramaic version of the Bisitun inscription (DB Aram, C2.1)—which also contains passages from one of Darius I’s tomb inscriptions—can be closely connected to the Elephantine Judean community. In this text, Darius frequently claims that he is king “by the favor of Ahuramazda.” We may surmise, therefore, that the Elephantine Judeans not only knew the Achaemenid royal myths but perhaps also accepted them. After all, the myths were part of the Achaemenid empire’s power apparatus in Egypt.33 The Elephantine documents enable us to speak about an Elephantine-Judean pantheon. Even though the exact relationship and inner hierarchy of the members of this pantheon remains uncertain, some of its members may be identified, partly on the basis of the enigmatic Collection Account (C3.15:1, 123–128: YHW, Eshembethel, and Anathbethel); partly on the basis of oaths sworn by AnathYHW and perhaps Ḥ erem (B7.3:3), Sati (B2.8:5), and Ḥ erembethel (B7.2:7); partly on the basis of the Aramaic version of the Bisitun inscription (C2.1: Ahuramazda); and partly on the basis of the sapiential work Words of Aḥiqar (C1.1: “the Lord of the Holy Ones,” “The Holy Ones,” El, Shamash, and “the gods”). Summing up, in contrast to the Hebrew Bible, the Elephantine texts give us fragments of a Yahwism that was practiced in a concrete location at a concrete time in history.

That's from

• Granerød, Gard. “Canon and Archive: Yahwism in Elephantine and Āl-Yāḫūdu as a Challenge to the Canonical History of Judean Religion in the Persian Period.” Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019): 345–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/jbl.2019.0018.

Here is another one, (I have translated it for you)

The Sabbath is also documented on ostraka.29 However, unlike the biblical Sabbath commandment, which the Book of Nehemiah advocates, the Sabbath does not seem to have been a day of rest for the ״Judeans' of Elephantine. One of the ostraca is written specifically for an appointment to work on the Sabbath.50 Trade and commerce clearly did not stand still on the Sabbath at Elephantine. Here, too, the fact that the Sabbath is mentioned once in the biblical Decalogue, and the other time in ostraka, has nothing to say. For the decisive point is not the mention of the Sabbath, but the prohibition of work on the Sabbath, which is expressly commanded in the one case and not observed in the other. Whether in the latter case it is a transgression of the commandment or the usual, permitted practice cannot be decided on the basis of the one ostracon and depends on whether or not one may presuppose the validity of the decalogue for the ״Judeans' of Elephantine. However, since there is no evidence in any of the Elephantine documents for the validity of the Decalogue or the Torah of Moses as a whole, and since there is nothing in the ostracon in question to suggest an exception, one must assume that the practice attested to by the ostracon was the rule and had nothing objectionable about it.

Now one could object that the conditions of Elephantine were in no way representative of post-exilic Jewry in the country and in the rest of the Diaspora. Wellhausen (in the passage from his Israelite and Jewish History quoted above) already explains them as relics from ancient times, fossils that had been preserved in a remote corner of the world. But things are not quite so simple. The figure of Hananiah is striking proof that the conditions on Elephantine are representative for some, if not for large parts of Judean or even Babylonian Jewry. Although he came from Judah or the Babylonian Gola and here - according to the usual picture - would have belonged to the biblical Judaism of the post-exilic period, he calls the so completely unbiblical Jews of Elephantine his ״brothers' in the ״Passover Letter' without any reservations. Two conclusions can be drawn from this: Firstly, the Jewry of Elephantine was by no means in a ״remote corner of the world' , but was - in the matter of the building of the Temple as through the messenger Hananiah - in contact with the Jews in the land. On the other hand, the Jews in the land, who, as far as can be seen, did not object to their non-biblical brothers on Elephantine, may not have differed significantly from them either.

• Kratz, Reinhard G. “Zwischen Elephantine Und Qumran: Das Alte Testament Im Rahmen Des Antiken Judentums.” In Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, edited by Andre Lemaire, XVI, 640 Pp. ed. edition., 129–46. Leiden ; Boston: BRILL, 2009.

Russell Gmirkin has discussed such the archaeological evidence for Persian era Yahwism in his works. Read again the abstracts of the conference -- or at least the bits I highlighted earlier. There is no link between Persian era Yahwism and the Pentateuch in any of the archaeological evidence. Only Yahwism and a Yahwism that has no room for the ideas expressed in the Pentateuch.

[neilgodfrey]

SA, you should ask SG about what Russell Gmirkin has written about the Persian era evidence for Yahwism. SG has read Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus and a quick scan of that work brings up over 100 references to the Elephantine evidence (a major discussion point in the conference) and over 200 references to the Persian era. Don't worry about his posts indicating otherwise. He's just pulling our legs. He really knows Gmirkin's work relies heavily on engagement with the topics discussed at the conference.

[Secret Alias]

You know what the conference is about. Does anyone who attended the conference honestly believe there wasn't Pentateuchal Yahwehism in the Land? An example:

What was Judaean religion in the Persian period like? Is it necessary to use the Bible to give an answer to the question? Among other things the study argues that * the religion practiced in the 5th c. BCE Elephantine community and which is reflected in the so-called Elephantine documents represent a well-attested manifestation of lived Persian period Yahwism, * as religio-historical sources, the Elephantine documents reveal more about the actual religious practice of the Elephantine Judaeans than what the highly edited and canonised texts of the Bible reveal about the religious practice of the contemporary Yahwistic coreligionists in Judah, and * the image of the Elephantine Judaism emerging from the Elephantine documents can revise the canonised image of Judaean religion in the Persian period (cf. A. Assmann). The Elephantine Yahwism should not be interpreted within a framework dependent upon theological, conceptual and spatial concepts alien to it, such as biblical ones. The study proposes an alternative framework by approaching the Elephantine documents on the basis of N. Smart's multidimensional model of religion. Elephantine should not be exotified but brought to the very centre of any discussion of the history of Judaism.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

The conference attendees do not doubt that "Biblical Yahwehism" existed contemporary with the Elephantine variety.

[neilgodfrey]

You know what the conference is about. Does anyone who attended the conference honestly believe there wasn't Pentateuchal Yahwehism in the Land? An example:

What was Judaean religion in the Persian period like? Is it necessary to use the Bible to give an answer to the question? Among other things the study argues that * the religion practiced in the 5th c. BCE Elephantine community and which is reflected in the so-called Elephantine documents represent a well-attested manifestation of lived Persian period Yahwism, * as religio-historical sources, the Elephantine documents reveal more about the actual religious practice of the Elephantine Judaeans than what the highly edited and canonised texts of the Bible reveal about the religious practice of the contemporary Yahwistic coreligionists in Judah, and * the image of the Elephantine Judaism emerging from the Elephantine documents can revise the canonised image of Judaean religion in the Persian period (cf. A. Assmann). The Elephantine Yahwism should not be interpreted within a framework dependent upon theological, conceptual and spatial concepts alien to it, such as biblical ones. The study proposes an alternative framework by approaching the Elephantine documents on the basis of N. Smart's multidimensional model of religion. Elephantine should not be exotified but brought to the very centre of any discussion of the history of Judaism.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

The conference attendees do not doubt that "Biblical Yahwehism" existed contemporary with the Elephantine variety.

Okay. I'll bite. Where in that quotation do we learn of the prevalence of Pentateuchal or Biblical Yahwism "in the Land" or anywhere else in the Persian era?

[StephenGoranson]

Of course R. Gmirkin wrote about the Persian era and Elephantine; I did not claim otherwise.
About the difference between Gmirkin's 2006 book and the Uni. Haifa conference information,
I tried to point out the different views on dating Hebrew Bible composition.
There are, admittedly, other differences as well.
Of the two, the text by Gmirkin is, in assertion and tone, more absolutist. (And imo less in accord with history.)
Though it is not always the case, the saying sometimes does apply:
"Once a fundamentalist, always a fundamentalist."
Gmirkin and his follower merely switched from one extreme to another.

[billd89]

Pentateuchal Yahwehism in the Land? Maybe, maybe not.

The Semitic community at Elephantine are probably not "Judaeans" since they spoke Aramaic, venerated Aramean gods besides Yaho (polytheism!), and identified as Arameans (Syrians? Phoenicians?). They were affiliated w/ 'Jews' of their day, yet nothing supports the assumption they venerated Moses, Moses' books (the Pentateuch as we know it) or all that 'Moses-written' myth defining Biblical Yahwehism. Worship of Herem/Horon suggests they were 'Philistines' to me: Phoenician Quasi-Jews, marginal and therefore Not Judaeans.

No: Elephantine papyri don't prove Biblical Yahwehism existed, as late as 400 BC. (It may have, or not.) Evidence must be sought elsewhere, and the Absence at Elephantine is rather glaring.

[neilgodfrey]

Pentateuchal Yahwehism in the Land? Maybe, maybe not.

The Semitic community at Elephantine are probably not "Judaeans" since they spoke Aramaic, venerated Aramean gods besides Yaho (polytheism!), and identified as Arameans (Syrians? Phoenicians?). They were affiliated w/ 'Jews' of their day, yet nothing supports the assumption they venerated Moses, Moses' books (the Pentateuch as we know it) or all that 'Moses-written' myth defining Biblical Yahwehism. Worship of Herem/Horon suggests they were 'Philistines' to me: Phoenician Quasi-Jews.

No: Elephantine papyri don't prove Biblical Yahwehism existed, as late as 400 BC. (It may have, or not.) Evidence must be sought elsewhere, and the Absence at Elephantine is rather glaring.

On the contrary, the case that the Elephantine community identified as Judeans is strongly put by Gard Granerød in Dimensions of Yahwism in the Persian Period: Studies in the Religion and Society of the Judaean Community at Elephantine. Berlin ; Boston: De Gruyter, 2016 -- page 3f

First, the self-definition of the community in question shows that it considered itself a Judaean community. The Judaean community we meet in the Aramaic documents from ancient Egypt refers to itself as “the Judaean garrison” or simply “the Judaeans,” although its members also occasionally used the designation “Aramaeans.” This self-designation is used both by individuals in private letters and contracts and by the community as a whole in official letters. Moreover, particularly important is a letter sent by the leaders of the Elephantine community to various leading groups in the province of Judah ... [two drafts of one and the same letter]). In the letter sent to the governor of Judah, which refers to a previous letter to “the nobles of Judah/the Judaeans,” the leaders of the Elephantine community refer to themselves as “Judaeans,” that is, they use the same ethnicon. A student of Judaean religion in the Persian period should take this claim seriously. There is no reason to dismiss the community’s definition of itself as being Judaean, although the question of the origin of the community remains obscure. Quite to the contrary, an unbiased approach will have to regard the community and its members in accordance with their own self-definition: as Judaeans, who admittedly happen to be living in Upper Egypt, but who in spite of that call themselves Judaeans, and for that reason have to be treated as such.

I know of no archaeological evidence from any of the Judean or Israelite communities in the Persian era that witnesses to any knowledge of the Pentateuch or laws of Moses.