Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by rgprice »

All valid points Neil, but I'm talking about the writing of the scriptures. Yes, it is true that many Jews found ways to live as a Jew is a tolerable way. But that has never come from adhering to the principles of the Torah, rather from finding ways to minimize aspects of the Torah.

But whoever wrote the Torah was laying out a religion of intolerance and conquest. That later Jews found ways to ignore parts of what the Torah says doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The question is, under what circumstances would one write a work like the Torah?

I hate to use this example and it is not meant to be in poor taste, its just an obvious example. Mein Kompf isn't a work that would have just been written "at any time". it speaks to a particular set of conditions. My argument is that the Pentateuch also speaks to a particular set of conditions, and those conditions are not the conditions of living under Persian rule.

Again, not to be crass, but I see the Pentateuch as a work like Mein Kompf, the Communist Manifesto, A People's History, Atlas Shrugged, Animal Farm, etc. It is an ideologically motivated work and it has an agenda.

I would argue that one should be able to locate roughly when each of these works were written, even if one had no knowledge of when the books were actually published.
Russell Gmirkin
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

rgprice wrote: Wed Mar 01, 2023 4:41 am The War Scroll and other such materials from Qumran are clearly derived from the ideas of the Pentateuch, they aren't the products of people trying to "twist" Judaism into something that it was not in order to deal with real-world conflicts. Instead, the Qumraric writings foment conflict where it did not need to exist.
For the record, the War Scroll is best dated to the second century BCE and has nothing to do with later Roman conflicts. The "Kittim of Ashur" / "king of the north" in 1QM 1 are clearly the Seleucids, not Romans, and the "Kittim of Egypt" the Ptolemies. In two articles from the 1990s I argued that the weaponry, formations and tactics of the War Scroll reflect Roman practices of the pre-Marius army of the second century BCE, and that the War Scroll makes such specific historical allusions in column 1 as to insure its date ca. 163 BCE. It appears to have been the official war manual of the Maccabean army and drew on contemporary Roman Tactica or military manuals.

Gmirkin, Russell E., “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered,” DSD 3 (1996) 89-129.
—“Historical Allusions in the War Scroll,” DSD 5 (1998) 172-214

Discussion of my research on the War Scroll took up about a third of Duhaime's later book. He (and many others) went along with a second century BCE dating (contrary to Yadin and other early scrolls scholars), although for reasons he doesn't actually state he preferred a date a decade or two after the Maccabean revolt.

Duhaime, Jean, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts. London-New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
rgprice
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by rgprice »

Russell Gmirkin wrote: Wed Mar 01, 2023 12:17 pm For the record, the War Scroll is best dated to the second century BCE and has nothing to do with later Roman conflicts. The "Kittim of Ashur" / "king of the north" in 1QM 1 are clearly the Seleucids, not Romans, and the "Kittim of Egypt" the Ptolemies. In two articles from the 1990s I argued that the weaponry, formations and tactics of the War Scroll reflect Roman practices of the pre-Marius army of the second century BCE, and that the War Scroll makes such specific historical allusions in column 1 as to insure its date ca. 163 BCE. It appears to have been the official war manual of the Maccabean army and drew on contemporary Roman Tactica or military manuals.

Gmirkin, Russell E., “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered,” DSD 3 (1996) 89-129.
—“Historical Allusions in the War Scroll,” DSD 5 (1998) 172-214

Discussion of my research on the War Scroll took up about a third of Duhaime's later book. He (and many others) went along with a second century BCE dating (contrary to Yadin and other early scrolls scholars), although for reasons he doesn't actually state he preferred a date a decade or two after the Maccabean revolt.

Duhaime, Jean, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts. London-New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
Interesting. If, on your theory, the War Scroll does pre-date the Maccabean revolt, it would certainly show this type of interpretation of the scriptures to be present at that time. It also forces the existence of many Jewish scriptures by that time, making for a fairly narrow period between your dating of the authorship of the Deuteronomistic materials and the creation of the War Scroll, which builds on many scriptures (or so it seems).

I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of dating the War Scroll to that period. It seems to require quite an explosion of scriptures and faith in a very short period of time. But maybe our concepts of these timelines is a bit skewed. When looking at more recent examples, I guess we could take something like Marxism as an example, or even "Trumpism". From the time of Karl Marx to the Russian Revolution was roughly what, 50 years?

Now the question is, how much Communist literature was produced in the 50 years prior to the Russian Revolution and how much after? Can we identify works from prior to the Revolution and after? These are of course known answers. How do Jewish works fit into such a model?

I think the Russian Revolution has certain parallels with the Maccabean Revolt that make the Russian revolution a useful model. We know of course that after the Revolution masses of propaganda were produced aimed both internally and externally. We can with some ease identify pre-revolutionary works and post-revolutions ones, both by Russians and non-Russians.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Wed Mar 01, 2023 12:15 pm All valid points Neil, but I'm talking about the writing of the scriptures. Yes, it is true that many Jews found ways to live as a Jew is a tolerable way. But that has never come from adhering to the principles of the Torah, rather from finding ways to minimize aspects of the Torah.

But whoever wrote the Torah was laying out a religion of intolerance and conquest. That later Jews found ways to ignore parts of what the Torah says doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The question is, under what circumstances would one write a work like the Torah?

I hate to use this example and it is not meant to be in poor taste, its just an obvious example. Mein Kompf isn't a work that would have just been written "at any time". it speaks to a particular set of conditions. My argument is that the Pentateuch also speaks to a particular set of conditions, and those conditions are not the conditions of living under Persian rule.

Again, not to be crass, but I see the Pentateuch as a work like Mein Kompf, the Communist Manifesto, A People's History, Atlas Shrugged, Animal Farm, etc. It is an ideologically motivated work and it has an agenda.

I would argue that one should be able to locate roughly when each of these works were written, even if one had no knowledge of when the books were actually published.
Are not the commands to undertake the genocide of the Canaanites set in the historical past? Is not the Torah and Joshua about past conquests, both successful and only partial, incomplete? DId not Joshua resign himself to the necessity of having to live with the remaining Gibeonites?

As for the circumstances under which one would write a work like that --- imagine people who identified with some kind of restored Israel living alongside others who they deemed outsiders. The Hexateuch explains why they have to live with the riff-raff. They damage was done when those who had been ordered to do the killing didn't finish the job.
rgprice wrote: Wed Mar 01, 2023 12:15 pm That later Jews found ways to ignore parts of what the Torah says doesn't really have anything to do with it.
Which parts in particular -- chapter and verse -- do you have in mind?
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:38 am The suggestion here is that the YHW worshipers got along fine because they either accepted Ahuramazda as the supreme god with YHW a subordinate deity or identified YWH with Ahuramazda as "the god of heaven". Granerød sees evidence for both.
Garbini suggested that the creation of Light in Genesis was reflective of the Persian desire to assimilate Yahweh with Ahuramazda in his essay - THE CREATION OF LIGHT IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23516509

I think this is right, but as I'm an arch-diachronist, I agree with the Herbert G May suggestion (1939), which was taken up by Westermann (1960) that the creation of light, slipped into the start of the creation account, is a (slightly) later elaboration of the P Creation account and that the original version of the start of the creation therefore read:
2 The earth was without form and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep; and the breath/spirit of God moved over the surface of the waters. 6 And God said, "Let there be a plate in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
... which I think sounds pretty plausible.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by neilgodfrey »

austendw wrote: Sat Apr 08, 2023 11:03 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:38 am The suggestion here is that the YHW worshipers got along fine because they either accepted Ahuramazda as the supreme god with YHW a subordinate deity or identified YWH with Ahuramazda as "the god of heaven". Granerød sees evidence for both.
Garbini suggested that the creation of Light in Genesis was reflective of the Persian desire to assimilate Yahweh with Ahuramazda in his essay - THE CREATION OF LIGHT IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23516509

I think this is right, but as I'm an arch-diachronist, I agree with the Herbert G May suggestion (1939), which was taken up by Westermann (1960) that the creation of light, slipped into the start of the creation account, is a (slightly) later elaboration of the P Creation account and that the original version of the start of the creation therefore read:
2 The earth was without form and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep; and the breath/spirit of God moved over the surface of the waters. 6 And God said, "Let there be a plate in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
... which I think sounds pretty plausible.
My local library does not have access to that article. Costs me $A30. Are you able to dot-point the key arguments?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by neilgodfrey »

austendw wrote: Sat Apr 08, 2023 11:03 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:38 am The suggestion here is that the YHW worshipers got along fine because they either accepted Ahuramazda as the supreme god with YHW a subordinate deity or identified YWH with Ahuramazda as "the god of heaven". Granerød sees evidence for both.
Garbini suggested that the creation of Light in Genesis was reflective of the Persian desire to assimilate Yahweh with Ahuramazda in his essay - THE CREATION OF LIGHT IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23516509

I think this is right, but as I'm an arch-diachronist, I agree with the Herbert G May suggestion (1939), which was taken up by Westermann (1960) that the creation of light, slipped into the start of the creation account, is a (slightly) later elaboration of the P Creation account and that the original version of the start of the creation therefore read:
2 The earth was without form and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep; and the breath/spirit of God moved over the surface of the waters. 6 And God said, "Let there be a plate in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
... which I think sounds pretty plausible.
I downloaded a copy of the Garbini article yesterday at the UQ library.

Comment: ---

Garbini refers to the Bundahishn:
‘Ohrmazd, surrounded by the light, was dwelling in the supreme height... that light is the throne and the dwelling of Ohrmazd and some call it uncreated light... Ahrim an was dwelling in the deep, surrounded by the darkness... Ohrmazd by his own essence created the earthly light, and by the earthly light the shapes of his creatures’
Gmirkin, I believe, would argue for the stronger probability of Genesis 1 being derived from Greek science on the basis of the following details:

1. light is created by an act of will, from the mind, of the creator in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought
2. light is formed by separating the elements, light from dark, in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought
3. light appears before the sun is formed in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought, though probably also consistent with the Bundahishn.
4. the light is given the name of "light" -- reflecting the importance of names in Greek scientific thought
5. lhe light is said to be good in Genesis -- again reflecting the Platonic idea that creation is the image of the Good.

In other words, it can be argued that the devils in the details of the Genesis creation account tilt the balance in favour of Greek influence.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm Gmirkin, I believe, would argue for the stronger probability of Genesis 1 being derived from Greek science on the basis of the following details:
I think that there is a danger in paraphrasing biblical accounts. It is all too easy to look at them through a particular, in this case Greek lens, then word the paraphrase by means of Greek-influenced concepts, or Greek-derived words. And then, if you then compare them with Greek texts, it's really no surprise that they look very Greek indeed. For example:
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm1. light is created by an act of will, from the mind, of the creator in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought
But in Genesis 1:3 Light isn't really created by an act of will, it is created by an utterance: "And God said 'Let there be light' and there was light." Less "from the mind" as "from the mouth" of the Creator.
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm2. light is formed by separating the elements, light from dark, in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought
Lots to say here: First, I'm not sure that Light and Dark were Greek elements, and in Plato, the elements were Fire, Water, Earth, and Air, as they appear in Timaeus. Now in Genesis, there really is no word in Hebrew that could possibly be taken to signify an element in the Greek sense, and there certainly aren't four elements (which is surely very significant in a book notionally modelled on Platos cosmogony). In fact in the entire Pentateuch, the four elements do not appear as such. And in any case, I can't see how "darkness" could be recognized as a created element at all in Genesis, since it actually pre-exist creation (1:2; or as Garbini puts it: "amorphous darkness is for the Jew only the premise to the creation").
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm3. light appears before the sun is formed in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought, though probably also consistent with the Bundahishn.
A case perhaps of shared cosmogonic tradition? Coincidence?
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm4. the light is given the name of "light" -- reflecting the importance of names in Greek scientific thought
In Genesis 1:5 light is given the name "Day" but can we really say that the importance of the naming is particularly Greek? Or even particularly scientific? All ancient cosmogonies explained the begining of things, so naming things may not be that significant. And after all, the next verse mentions "the first day" and perhaps an author felt that naming the light day was particularly appropriate. Having said that, the importance of naming may indeed have some sort of connection with Greek culture but it is pretty vague. Do you have particular instances in mind that particular tally with the namings in Genesis 1?
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm5. lhe light is said to be good in Genesis -- again reflecting the Platonic idea that creation is the image of the Good.
I can't see that Genesis contains a notion of "The Good", an ideal philosophic essence, and I fear that suggesting it is may be considered eisegesis. The text itself is far more concrete. It says that Mankind is made in the image of God (1:26), and that the entirety of creation is "very good (טוֹב מְאֹד)" (1:31 - a sort of accumulation of all the "good" creations that preceded it) but I still can't see that these two notions connected in the biblical author's mind to give the idealised philosophic assertion that Greeks would have made.
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pmIn other words, it can be argued that the devils in the details of the Genesis creation account tilt the balance in favour of Greek influence.
And for me, those same details tilt it in precisely the other direction. Chacun à son goût?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by Secret Alias »

If convention can't be overturned by innovation convention should and does win out. Case in point the Zune. Image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Post by neilgodfrey »

austendw wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:18 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm Gmirkin, I believe, would argue for the stronger probability of Genesis 1 being derived from Greek science on the basis of the following details:
I think that there is a danger in paraphrasing biblical accounts. It is all too easy to look at them through a particular, in this case Greek lens, then word the paraphrase by means of Greek-influenced concepts, or Greek-derived words. And then, if you then compare them with Greek texts, it's really no surprise that they look very Greek indeed.
I was not relying on paraphrases but the specific texts themselves, and pointing to the specifics.

austendw wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:18 am For example:
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm1. light is created by an act of will, from the mind, of the creator in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought
But in Genesis 1:3 Light isn't really created by an act of will, it is created by an utterance: "And God said 'Let there be light' and there was light." Less "from the mind" as "from the mouth" of the Creator.
Speech is a literary device that is used to express something in the mind or nature or intent of the speaker. In the Iranian comparison there is nothing even closely comparable. It is that comparison we are looking at. There was no "act" or "will" of any kind expressed in the Iranian instance. It was just the nature of things.

Let me change the original point and comment that Plato's Demiurge 'spoke' and "said" when he created.
austendw wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:18 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm2. light is formed by separating the elements, light from dark, in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought
Lots to say here: First, I'm not sure that Light and Dark were Greek elements, and in Plato, the elements were Fire, Water, Earth, and Air, as they appear in Timaeus. Now in Genesis, there really is no word in Hebrew that could possibly be taken to signify an element in the Greek sense, and there certainly aren't four elements (which is surely very significant in a book notionally modelled on Platos cosmogony). In fact in the entire Pentateuch, the four elements do not appear as such. And in any case, I can't see how "darkness" could be recognized as a created element at all in Genesis, since it actually pre-exist creation (1:2; or as Garbini puts it: "amorphous darkness is for the Jew only the premise to the creation").
There is a difference between the ultimate core elements and the various "elements" that appeared in the created world -- Some Greeks said there were 4, others 1, etc. But I thought the context of my use was clear -- that we are talking about the various "elements" or "things" that make up the universe. The Greek scientific accounts speak of light and movement itself as all needing explanation. Ditto for "birds", and "great lights" in the sky -- they are all part of the things being created and it was in that sense I was using the word "element". I thought that was clear. (Some natural scientists explained light as being composed of the "fire" element .... but they still spoke of the appearance of light in the larger process and generation of all created things.)
austendw wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:18 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm3. light appears before the sun is formed in Genesis -- as per Greek scientific thought, though probably also consistent with the Bundahishn.
A case perhaps of shared cosmogonic tradition? Coincidence?
Quite so and if that were the only point in common being noticed then it would not make a case. But it is one of a series of data points and it would be wrong to remove it because it has parallels with some unrelated culture as well.
austendw wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:18 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm4. the light is given the name of "light" -- reflecting the importance of names in Greek scientific thought
In Genesis 1:5 light is given the name "Day" but can we really say that the importance of the naming is particularly Greek? Or even particularly scientific? All ancient cosmogonies explained the begining of things, so naming things may not be that significant. And after all, the next verse mentions "the first day" and perhaps an author felt that naming the light day was particularly appropriate. Having said that, the importance of naming may indeed have some sort of connection with Greek culture but it is pretty vague. Do you have particular instances in mind that particular tally with the namings in Genesis 1?
Well, the importance and aptness of names is Greek and explicitly so. So it is a valid point to make. You say naming things "may not have been" that significant. But let's stick with the known evidence and sources. What is the evidence that nullifies the point I made here?

Plato, as you no doubt are aware, does discuss how the original names of things were singularly important. I didn't think that was a controversial point.
austendw wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:18 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:01 pm5. lhe light is said to be good in Genesis -- again reflecting the Platonic idea that creation is the image of the Good.
I can't see that Genesis contains a notion of "The Good", an ideal philosophic essence, and I fear that suggesting it is may be considered eisegesis. The text itself is far more concrete. It says that Mankind is made in the image of God (1:26), and that the entirety of creation is "very good (טוֹב מְאֹד)" (1:31 - a sort of accumulation of all the "good" creations that preceded it) but I still can't see that these two notions connected in the biblical author's mind to give the idealised philosophic assertion that Greeks would have made.
Okay, Genesis does not detour into a discussion on the philosophical nature of what is mean by "the good". But what it does do is specify that every thing created by God was "good" -- and that has clear narrative implications for the "second creation account" -- suggesting again a conflict there of a theological or philosophical kind, as per the conventional wisdom addressing those chapters.

One should also note that Plato did not detour into a philosophical discussion of the nature of "the good" when he said that the ultimate creator/deity was perfect and good and all he created was likewise perfect and good.

There is nothing comparable in Mesopotamian accounts. The notion that it was "good" being introduced into a creation account is something alien to the narratives in Mesopotamia and Syria etc. It is one of the data points that sets Genesis 1 apart from other creation accounts and make it "unique" in the eyes of many commentators.

The point is that when read in the light of Greek ideas it loses some of its unique status. There is explanatory power in reading it against the Greek literature that it otherwise lacks.

You yourself have said there are Greek influences. So is not the question to be asked: what is the best explanation for these apparent influences? -- common sources? shared cultural experiences? Phoenician traders? ....... ??
Post Reply