Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

[andrewcriddle]

I am not suggesting that Plato wrote, And the Demiurge named the great light "sun" etc. Just do a word search for "name" in any English translation and we see that Plato comments regularly on each newly created thing the appropriateness of the name it was given -- or the appropriateness of it not being given a name.

Much later Platonists eg. Proclus clearly did regard the Demiurge as the name-giver. See Philosophy Commentators I'm dubious about this as an idea in early Platonism.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

I am not suggesting that Plato wrote, And the Demiurge named the great light "sun" etc. Just do a word search for "name" in any English translation and we see that Plato comments regularly on each newly created thing the appropriateness of the name it was given -- or the appropriateness of it not being given a name.

Much later Platonists eg. Proclus clearly did regard the Demiurge as the name-giver. See Philosophy Commentators I'm dubious about this as an idea in early Platonism.

Andrew Criddle

As we see from that linked page those later Platonists were attributing the notion to Plato himself. It's how they interpreted Plato's words.

I started to do a quick search and copy for the words "called" and "name" in Timaeus but it very quickly became too much to quote at once for now --- maybe I can return to it. But there can be little doubt that Plato understood that the names assigned to all things and used by the Greeks were originally given by God at their creation and they were carefully selected on the basis of the appropriateness of their meaning or sounds. Later Platonists may have discerned other or additional meanings and powers or original rationales in the names of things.

[rgprice]

Seems this got off track talking about Plato.

Back to the OP. If we consider the Pentateuch, it would seem that this story, minus Genesis 1-12 (which I consider a later addition by someone with a different ideology), is highly nationalistic, xenophobic and militant. Much of the Pentateuch serves as a constitution and legal code. It is a framework for the establishment of a state, a state that is exclusive.

Does it make sense that such a work would be produced during a time when subject people are living peacefully under the rule of another power? The Jews, presumably, during the Persian era, would not have been capable of fulfilling the expectations of the Pentateuch. Would a priesthood produce a work that they would have been unable to fulfill and satisfy? Why would a priesthood set expectations that they could not meet?

Either, A) argue for why it was possible for the priesthood to meet these the expectations of the Pentateuch or B) why they would have set expectations that they couldn't meet, perhaps as goals.

Would the Persians have endorsed or permitted the dissemination of the Pentateuch, given its content? Obviously some have argued that the writing of Pentateuch was actually supported by the Persians. I find this hard to imagine.

It seems to me that the writing of the Pentateuch fits more coherently into the period following the downfall of the Persian empire. That after the fall of the Persians, this narrative was put together as part of the efforts to form a new independent Jewish society from the ashes of Persian ruin.

And again I cite the fact that among these civilizations, there was a practice of granting autonomy and respect to ancient and established civilizations. Deference was given to established laws and tax codes. Lines of royalty were respected. But, if a group of people was thought not to have any great history, achievements, or accomplishments, they were seen as barbarians who would come more fully under the rule of the conquerors. With no established laws of their own, people would be expected to follow the laws of the rulers. However for civilizations that had established legal codes, those codes often remained in place or were respected. So this would have provided an incentive to create the Pentateuch in the wake of the Persian collapse, so that the Jews could point to a history that would have granted them some measure of respect among the Greeks, with the expectation that it could be used to support Jewish autonomy.

But such autonomy would not have been warranted under the Persians, who would have seen the Pentateuch as a challenge to their authority.

[StephenGoranson]

The Persian Empire was relatively tolerant of local religions.
E.g., A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (U. Chicago Press, 1948) page 465.

[rgprice]

The Persian Empire was relatively tolerant of local religions.
E.g., A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (U. Chicago Press, 1948) page 465.

Tolerance of local religions is one thing. The Pentateuch outlined something much more than a "local religion". It sets out a whole code of laws, serves as a constitution, establishes many markers that will separate the Jewish community from everyone else and essentially indicates that the Jews should not live in harmony with any other inhabitants of the region. It also indicates that the worship of all other gods should be forbidden in the region and that the Jews should not tolerate any other religions or other gods.

None of these things are conducive to peaceful coexistence within the Persian empire.

Numbers 33:
50 Then the Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan opposite Jericho, saying, 51 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 52 you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from you, and destroy all their idolatrous sculptures, destroy all their cast metal images, and eliminate all their high places; 53 and you shall take possession of the land and live in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it. 54 You shall maintain the land as an inheritance by lot according to your families; to the larger you shall give more inheritance, and to the smaller you shall give less inheritance. Wherever the lot falls to anyone, that shall be his. You shall pass on land as an inheritance according to the tribes of your fathers. 55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from you, then it will come about that those whom you let remain of them will be like thorns in your eyes and like pricks in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live. 56 And just as I plan to do to them, I will do to you.’”

The Pentateuch establishes the border of a territory. What purpose would this serve for a subject people? This makes more sense as the aspirational goal of rising power. It would seem that the territory identified by Moses in the Pentateuch was that of the aspirational kingdom intended to be held by the Jews after the fall of the Persians.

Numbers 34:
1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Command the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you enter the land of Canaan, this is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance, that is, the land of Canaan according to its borders. 3 Your southern region shall extend from the wilderness of Zin along the side of Edom, and your southern border shall extend from the end of the Salt Sea eastward. 4 Then your border shall change direction from the south to the ascent of Akrabbim and continue to Zin, and its termination shall be to the south of Kadesh-barnea; and it shall reach Hazaraddar and continue to Azmon. 5 Then the border shall change direction from Azmon to the brook of Egypt, and its termination shall be at the sea.

6 ‘As for the western border, you shall have the Great Sea, that is, its coastline; this shall be your western border.

7 ‘And this shall be your northern border: you shall draw your boundary from the Great Sea to Mount Hor. 8 You shall draw a boundary from Mount Hor to the Lebo-hamath, and the termination of the border shall be at Zedad; 9 and the border shall proceed to Ziphron, and its termination shall be at Hazar-enan. This shall be your northern border.

10 ‘For your eastern border you shall also draw a boundary from Hazar-enan to Shepham, 11 and the border shall go down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain; and the border shall go down and reach to the slope on the east side of the Sea of Chinnereth. 12 And the border shall go down to the Jordan, and its termination shall be at the Salt Sea. This shall be your land according to its borders on all sides.’”

13 So Moses commanded the sons of Israel, saying, “This is the land that you are to possess by lot, which the Lord has commanded to give to the nine and a half tribes. 14 For the tribe of the sons of Reuben have received theirs according to their fathers’ households, and the tribe of the sons of Gad according to their fathers’ households, and the half-tribe of Manasseh have received their possession. 15 The two and a half tribes have received their possession across the Jordan opposite Jericho, eastward toward the sunrise.”

The wandering in the wilderness would seem to be allegory for the state that the Jews found themselves in after the fall of the Persians. We have the past being used as a guide for the present. The people are stateless, without a territory of their own. They need inspiration from the heroes of the past, who suffered through the same issues yet ultimately found success.

The writer(s) of the Pentateuch are using some fabricated history about Israel as inspiration for their own generation. Undoubtedly many people from Yehud, i.e. the land of Palestine under the Persians, were descendants of the Israelites, but much of their real history had been lost over the hundreds of years since that civilization's collapse. So here these myth makers were re-inventing an ancient Israel intended to inspire the people to the goals and objectives of the current leaders.

But such an inspiration makes no sense under Persian rule, it only makes sense after Persian rule, when they have an opportunity to build their own state and obtain their own independence.

[StephenGoranson]

But
they did have "peaceful coexistence within the Persian empire."

[neilgodfrey]

But such an inspiration makes no sense under Persian rule, it only makes sense after Persian rule, when they have an opportunity to build their own state and obtain their own independence.

I would keep in mind that there were not just the Judeans but the Samarians and people of "Jehud" -- and that soon after Alexander's conquest the Samaritans are said to have rebelled and Samaria itself destroyed. It was rebuilt along with Macedonian colonists. One thinks of a situation of the founding of a new colony.

[neilgodfrey]

Tolerance of local religions is one thing. The Pentateuch outlined something much more than a "local religion". It sets out a whole code of laws, serves as a constitution, establishes many markers that will separate the Jewish community from everyone else and essentially indicates that the Jews should not live in harmony with any other inhabitants of the region. It also indicates that the worship of all other gods should be forbidden in the region and that the Jews should not tolerate any other religions or other gods.

Just one more point -- a few have argued that the Pentateuch was not written by priests but that it was addressed to priests, and the evidence for this is said to be found in the Book of Sirach --- the priests were a target of the Laws, the authors hoping for priests to adopt the Pentateuch. So there was some gap between the time it was composed and the time it became authoritative, at least according to a few scholars.

[neilgodfrey]

G. Granerød suggests that the Chronicler (1 Chron 36:23) makes the Pentateuchal religion acceptable to the Persians by identifying Yahweh with the "God of Heaven" -- the same title as the Persian god Ahuramazda:

Granerød, Gard. “‘By the Favour of Ahuramazda I Am King’: On the Promulgation of a Persian Propaganda Text among Babylonians and Judaeans.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 44, no. 4–5 (2013): 455–80. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700631-12340387.

[neilgodfrey]

But
they did have "peaceful coexistence within the Persian empire."

rgprice is arguing that the fact of peaceful coexistence is evidence that the Pentateuch was not "the religion" of Jehud in the Persian era.