I think a more useful terminology is that of Wellhausen, who contrasts Oral Torah from Written Torah. According to Wellhausen, Oral Torah represents a stage in which religious ruling did not derive from a written text, but instead from a direct consultation with a religious expert such as a priest or a temple oracle. You approach the expert with a question, you receive a direct answer. This may arise out of oral traditions within a priestly guild, for instance, but it does not involve written texts.StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:42 am I am aware of the terminology. I have written here--more than once--that MT (standardized) is much later than 270s bce. So, yet again, we agree on that point.
But that is not an answer to my question just above. To answer it: no. No, the two "proto" categories that I mentioned do not "exclude any pre-270s versions of a written Torah."
An aside on some definitions--not an accusation, but seeking clarity.
Sometimes "Torah" is used (passive voice, i.e., by some people, sometimes) for a teaching (or law, liturgy, etc.) text that is shorter than "versions" commonly printed today. (And even more broadly when oral torah in the rabbinic usage comes into play.) So when I, to take an example, say Torah existed before 270s, that may refer to what someone else might prefer instead to call proto-Torah, or shorter Torah, Torah-in-the-making, or somewhat different copies, textually, than some text other used as a comparison.
But, again, as we know, variety existed after the 270s, also. The 270s imo is not a watershed. Unlike, possibly--not my area of study, so I may be mistaken--the standardization of, first, Jerome's Latin Vulgate (compared to old Latin translations) and then the further, 1592, revision, official to the RC church. If so, then the RC church had, at least in 1592ff, more centralized authority over its text than anybody had in the 270s--a main difference, admittedly, being the printing press.
The word "versions" is sometimes used for (a) translations, such as Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, etc. Other times (b) "versions" is sometimes used in a broader generic sense, including differing Hebrew copies.
This same contrast between written and oral law is extremely well documented in classical Greece, where civic laws were written and published, whereas sacred law in the possession of certain guilds of experts (such as the Exegetes) was unwritten, and indeed was known among the Greeks as "unwritten law." These "unwritten" laws were finally written down in I think it was 404 BCE.
Something similar can/must be imagined among the Jews and Samaritans. Wellhausen said there was certainly a time when Jewish law was Oral Torah, and then a later time when it was finally written down. So there was always some form of Torah, that is not in dispute. Let's agree to move past that question, which was in actuality never an issue. The key question at any point in time is whether it was written or oral. Did the codification of the Jewish law codes in written form take place in 612 BCE? 458 BCE? 270 BCE? And to what degree did this final Written Torah reflect earlier Oral Torah, and to what degree did it contain innovations, and why?
The Elephantine papyri are clearly highly relevant as contemporary evidence from the period ca. 450-400 BCE. There is not the slightest hint of written laws. There is direct consultation of Jewish and Samaritan religious authorities. There are letters that convey official effectively oral responses on religious issues, such as the so-called Passover letter, which contains direct personal instructions regarding the observation of Sukkoth. It's technically written, but that is only/primarily because of the geographical distances involved. The essential point is that it does not cite an authoritative written text, and so is clearly operating within the oral rather than written paradigm. So it seems to me (and others) that the Elephantine papyri provide clear evidence that there was still Oral Torah as late as ca. 400 BCE, and that the practices current at that time were largely inconsistent with the later Written Torah we now possess.
