Any case for Chronicles being before the Pentateuch?

[Russell Gmirkin]

There is the divergent treatment of the sons of Ephraim being born in Israel rather than in Egypt in 1 Chron. 7:20-29 but that seems to be a one-off and seems very suspect to me.

1 Chron. 7:20-21a (the sons of Ephraim) is taken directly from Num. 26:35-37. But then these sons were said to be slain (and their cattle slain) by the people of Gath, which implies they were in Israel, not Egypt. 1 Chron. 7:23-27 then says Ephraim had another son Beriah [meaning disaster], and traced his descendants 12 generations down to the famous Joshua the son of Nun.

It seems to me the story of the sons of Ephraim being slain was a post-Pentateuchal midrashic expansion to explain why there was an ancestry of Joshua to a son of Ephraim nowhere mentioned in the Pentateuch. This 12-generation ancestry seems sus to begin with, given that his contemporaries Moses and Aaron had only a 4-generation ancestry within the same time span. So I don’t give this story in Chronicles much weight.

[rgprice]

Ok, I guess that makes sense. I question that arise then is, if the writer of Chron seems to be against the Samaritans is their lack of interest in Exodus and Genesis indicative of an association of those traditions with the Samaritans? Again, maybe this is going nowhere, but it just struck me as interesting that Chron is so disinterested in this material.

[Secret Alias]

This is so fucking stupid. You know the Nazis made gay people move a pile of rocks from one place to another and back all day all night forever. Sounds productive compared to this discussion.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/On ... frontcover

[Russell Gmirkin]

Ok, I guess that makes sense. I question that arise then is, if the writer of Chron seems to be against the Samaritans is their lack of interest in Exodus and Genesis indicative of an association of those traditions with the Samaritans? Again, maybe this is going nowhere, but it just struck me as interesting that Chron is so disinterested in this material.

Chronicles is very interested in the genealogical content of Genesis (and also Numbers). Genealogy seems to be a priestly / royal preoccupation. But the primary focus seems to be with Jerusalem and its temple, and their Davidic (rather than Mosaic) foundation story. It's possible there was a conscious shift of attention away from the wilderness tabernacle to the temple. There is no authorization of Jerusalem's temple in the Pentateuch. So this could factor into the relative lack of interest.

[Russell Gmirkin]

This is so fucking stupid. You know the Nazis made gay people move a pile of rocks from one place to another and back all day all night forever. Sounds productive compared to this discussion.

It's called working through the evidence. Not your deal, I get it.

[Secret Alias]

Sure. Like evaluating the 2022 election by immediately "investigating" voter fraud. Everyone works through things in different ways I guess.

[Secret Alias]

Or testing gravity by jumping off a cliff.

[Secret Alias]

Why isn't there a similar "investigation" into the Pentateuch being written by Moses, being written by Ezra, being written by the Samaritans, being written by the Sadducees, being written by any number of people, things, times and places that don't reinforce a particular theory? I forgot. It's "real scholarship."

[Russell Gmirkin]

Why isn't there a similar "investigation" into the Pentateuch being written by Moses, being written by Ezra, being written by the Samaritans, being written by the Sadducees...

Um, I've read investigations into all these subjects...

[neilgodfrey]

Why isn't there a similar "investigation" into the Pentateuch being written by Moses, being written by Ezra, being written by the Samaritans, being written by the Sadducees...

Um, I've read investigations into all these subjects...

Is SA still stuck in his rut of repeating the absence of critical studies investigating the questions of Ezra and Samaritan authorship of the Pentateuch?

I had expected (being a little sarcastic, I know) that at least the question of Samaritan authorship as a serious contemporary study among scholars was no longer on his radar ever since you, RG, posted a list of current sources at viewtopic.php?p=145487#p145487 Surely everyone interested in learning what scholarship has to say about Samaritan involvement in the authorship of the Pentateuch would no longer be suggesting that the question is of no interest in the academic field.

Samaritan involvement, even dominance, is now well and truly established. How is it that we still have long-timers on the forum unaware of that fact?