Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2311
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

The argument above by rgprice is not convincing, given the known tolerance of different (e.g., non-Zoroastrian) religions in areas of the Persian Empire.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

@StephenGoranson

The supposed tolerance of the Persians has nothing to do with it.

If we compare the Pentateuch to other religious works of the region and time, it is very different. Works such as Orphic works, Pythagorean works, and even Zoroastrian works, are nothing at all like the Pentateuch. Other religious works are much more concerned with philosophical and spiritual issues than the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch has a very significant focus on law, organization of the state, priestly regulation, national history, territorial definitions, and designations that separate the Jewish people from other people. The Pentateuch goes to great extents to outlines ways that Jews are to separate themselves from everyone else, make themselves different, and to discourage mixing of Jews with non-Jews. And of course, Jews are forbidden from worshiping any god except the one single God of the Jews.

The Pentateuch is #1 outlining a very intolerant "religion" that, regardless of the Persian position, would not have been conducive to Jews living in harmony within the Persian empire. Even if the Persians would have been totally tolerant of the Jews, Jews following this religion wouldn't have been tolerant of them! And it is a fact that the region of Yehud was not exclusively "Jewish". There were non-Semites living there. There were Persians, there were Assyrians, etc. It was a multi-ethic region. Tolerance is one thing, would the Persians have allowed the Jews to destroy the temples of tother religions, etc.? No, that would have been allowing intolerance. The concepts of the Pentateuch would not have been conducive to the Jews living in harmony with other people within the Persian empire, that's the point.

Statements such as these would not have been conducive to living within the Persian empire:

Exodus 31: 14 Therefore you are to keep the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it must be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15 For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 So the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to celebrate the Sabbath throughout their generations as a permanent covenant.’ 17 It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

Again, "religious tolerance" is one thing, but this would require that Jews not engage in labor, which may have defyed Persian expectations. The Sabbath requirement was a major point of conflict between Jews and Greeks and Romans.

But also goes far beyond religion. The Pentateuch lays out an entirely alternative legal code. It defines territorial boundaries. It lays out how the state is to be organized and run.

Now, most people have viewed this as simply records or accounts from the past, and so presume that these things had nothing to do with when the works were produced. But this is very naïve. Regardless of when these types of works were written, especially in ancient times, works such as this were always produced in the context of the present.

Stories written about the past were created as guides for the present. I think the suggestion that the Pentateuch may not have been written by priests, but rather for priests, has some merit. Much of the Pentateuch isn't directly religious. It deals with a lot of practical subjects. The main narrative of the work is military. Laws of warfare are laid out in the Pentateuch. What need does a society living peacefully within an empire that is run and protected by the Persian army have for rules of war?
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »


Deuteronomy 6: 1 “Now this is the commandment, the statutes, and the judgments which the Lord your God has commanded me to teach you, so that you may do them in the land where you are going over to take possession of it, 2 so that you, your son, and your grandson will fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. 3 Now Israel, you shall listen and be careful to do them, so that it may go well for you and that you may increase greatly, just as the Lord, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey.

4 “Hear, Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 5 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 7 And you shall repeat them diligently to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, when you walk on the road, when you lie down, and when you get up. 8 You shall also tie them as a sign to your hand, and they shall be as frontlets on your forehead. 9 You shall also write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

10 “Then it shall come about when the Lord your God brings you into the land that He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give you, great and splendid cities which you did not build, 11 and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and carved cisterns which you did not carve out, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and you eat and are satisfied, 12 be careful that you do not forget the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 13 You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name. 14 You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, 15 for the Lord your God who is in the midst of you is a jealous God; so follow Him, or else the anger of the Lord your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth.

The question to ask is, why would someone write this and in what context?

What possible purpose would an account like this have within a society that is peacefully living as subjects of a multi-ethic and religiously diverse empire?

Again, this strikes me as the type of narrative that would be created in an environment where the society is in disarray, there is a need to enforce conformity, there is a need to focus the actions and motivations of the community, there is a strong need for cohesion.

The stories of the Pentateuch are all about the development of cohesion and unity in the face of chaos, dismay and unsure times.

The overall message of the Pentateuch is: come together, obey, do what you're told, do not mix with other cultures, set yourself apart, be ready to fight, be prepared to fight against overwhelming odds, seize the land, take what is your God given destiny.

This in no way makes any sense in the context of a subject population peacefully living within a multi-ethnic empire.
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 »

One attempt to give a relevant context for that type of literature was the work of Bernard Barc -- do a word search on this forum for previous references to his ideas.

I wouldn't think that the laws to execute anyone breaking the sabbath were ever carried out comprehensively -- on gentiles living as neighbours, for example -- since the theories I have seen point out that the Pentateuch and other literature written at the time demonstrates that Israel fell short of the "ideal". It was with the Maccabees that we seem to have had the first attempts to enforce those kinds of laws rigorously.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2311
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

rgprice wrote above, in part:
"The supposed tolerance of the Persians has nothing to do with it...."

On "supposed tolerance," it is not just my (SG) view: "In matters religious, Persia was tolerant...." (Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, as cited above.)

Of course Persia did not tolerate armed rebellion, as, for example, elsewhere in the Empire, during the Satraps' Revolt of 366 to 360 BCE.

Aspirational writings in regions were not a top priority.
The Bible gave pretty good press to Cyrus.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:58 pm One attempt to give a relevant context for that type of literature was the work of Bernard Barc -- do a word search on this forum for previous references to his ideas.

I wouldn't think that the laws to execute anyone breaking the sabbath were ever carried out comprehensively -- on gentiles living as neighbours, for example -- since the theories I have seen point out that the Pentateuch and other literature written at the time demonstrates that Israel fell short of the "ideal". It was with the Maccabees that we seem to have had the first attempts to enforce those kinds of laws rigorously.
Exactly, exactly. And hence we go back to the title of the OP. What scholars have done over and over is come up with excuses about how and why the Pentateuch wasn't followed until Hasmonaean times. But this begs the question: Did the Pentateuch actually exist prior to Hasmonaean times?

My point is this: Why would anyone write this account during the Persian era? Why would priests or leaders or anyone lay out this grand epic that contains all of these laws, defines territorial boundaries, and establishes expectations for Jewish behavior, if none of this stuff was actually attainable?

In other words, it was not until AFTER the fall of the Persian empire that the POSSIBLITY of fulfilling the precepts of the Pentateuch was present.

Look at the Russian Revolution. Look at the works of Marx and Engels contrasted to the works of Lenin, Trotsky and others that were produced after 1905. The works of the actual Russian Communists are far more prescriptive and specific than those of Marx and Engels.

Why would someone write a declaration like, "whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death" at a time when it couldn't be enforced? All that would do is make the Jewish God and Jewish leadership look weak and ineffectual. My point is that a statement like, "whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death" would only be written at a time when it was possible to actually enforce it.
Last edited by rgprice on Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2311
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

rgprice wrote above, in part:
"The supposed tolerance of the Persians has nothing to do with it...."

On "supposed tolerance," it is not just my (SG) view: "In matters religious, Persia was tolerant...." (Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, as cited above.)

Of course Persia did not tolerate armed rebellion, as, for example, elsewhere in the Empire, during the Satraps' Revolt of 366 to 360 BCE.

Aspirational writings in regions were not a top priority.
The Bible gave pretty good press to Cyrus.
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: Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:19 am Why would someone write a declaration like, "whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death" at a time when it couldn't be enforced?
I've mentioned it before but I still think it's worthwhile having a closer look at what we label "ancient law codes" -- were they "real" law codes or propaganda or idealistic or even a kind of wisdom literature --- all of those have been used to describe certain ones of them, including the code of Hammurabi.

If you look at the Pentateuchal laws and even the code of Hammurabi, there are significant gaps that make them inadequate as standards to apply to any city or region.

One quote that comes easily to hand:

Historically, the various collections have commonly been referred to as “codes” (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi).[1] J. Bottéro, joining many other voices, explains that this is a misnomer. Codes are (1) comprehensive, and (2) prescriptive. Ancient collections are neither, but represent anthologies. Bottéro demonstrates that they are not comprehensive through his discussion of significant areas that are not addressed. He demonstrates that they are not prescriptive law by showing their “illogicality” and their “manifest inefficiency.”[2] Closer to the mark is the approach that views this literature in the context of wisdom. We know that part of the wisdom enterprise in the ancient Near East focused on compilation—the ancients loved compiling lists. In place of “codes” Bottéro suggests that these pieces of literature be understood as belonging to the category of “treatise.
In the eyes of its author the “Code” [of Hammurabi] was not at all intended to exercise by itself a univocal normative value in the legislative order. But it did have value as a model; it was instructive and educative in the judicial order. A law applies to details; a model inspires—which is entirely different. In conclusion, we have here not a law code, nor the charter of a legal reform, but above all, in its own way, a treatise, with examples, on the exercise of judicial power.[3]
Excerpt From: Walton, John. “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible.” Apple Books.

Walton is quoting from Bottéro's Mesopotomia, which is available at http://archive.org/details/mesopotamia00jean

If the laws of Deuteronomy, for example, are not meant to be literally applied as practical "real" daily laws then that changes the direction of your main question somewhat, I think.
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 »

One more point --- if I have understood you correctly, you are hinting at the time of the Hasmoneans for the composition of the Pentateuch's laws. Russell Gmirkin has posted a neat little summary of the data that sets a lowest possible date for the Pentateuch at viewtopic.php?p=148963#p148963
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:42 pm One more point --- if I have understood you correctly, you are hinting at the time of the Hasmoneans for the composition of the Pentateuch's laws. Russell Gmirkin has posted a neat little summary of the data that sets a lowest possible date for the Pentateuch at viewtopic.php?p=148963#p148963
Not necessarily. But I am suggesting that it would be after the fall of the Persian empire. It seems that the most logical time to wrote something like the Pentateuch would be as a result of the fall of the Persian empire when there was a power vacuum, and a desire to create a Jewish state in the presence of this power vacuum. But actual implementation of the precepts of the Pentateuch would had to have waited until the Hasmonean era.

So surely the Pentateuch was aspirational, but the point is, these aspirations would seem absurd under Persian rule. The aspirations of the Pentateuch are for a Jewish state. Surely Jews living in 5th century Yehud would not have considered such aspirations. The fall of the Persians offered an opportunity, which the Hasmoneans ultimately seized.
Post Reply