The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Post by neilgodfrey »

austendw wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 1:04 am Gmirkin's understanding of the ancient world, on the contrary, seems to view Eastern Mediterranean cultural "consanguinity" as outlandishly implausible. His approach to the material actually presupposes a sort of cultural chasm between Greece and the Levant (East is East, and West is West?), which could only be bridged by scholars having direct access to Greek literature within a constrained (Hellenistic) time frame.
I am currently catching up with your criticism re Pummer-Gmirkin in another comment when I came across this in the same article you cited -- as if to make up for my failure to take the trouble to dig out citations earlier:
The Covenant Code at Ex. 20-23, usually assigned to E, shows influence from both Mesopotamian and Greek legal codes. . . .

The Covenant Code in E (Ex. 20.22–23.33) contained significant parallels in content and organization with the Hammurabi Law Code (LH) of ca. 1750 BCE (Ex. 21.2-4 cf. LH 117; Ex. 21.15 cf. LH 15; Ex. 21.16 cf. LH 14; Ex. 21.23-25 cf. LH 197; Ex. 21.28-36 cf. LH 250; Ex. 22.2-3 cf. LH 21; Ex. 22.7-9 cf. LH 120; Ex. 23.1-2 cf. LH 1-4). . . ..
Those are the words written by Gmirkin in Can the DH be Rehabilitated? I suggest they make it something of a slight overstatement to say Gmirkin's approach "actually presupposes a sort of cultural chasm", or that Gmirkin's "understanding of the ancient world .... is outlandishly implausible". -- just a tad off the mark.

(I know, you told me not to mention the DH in your presence earlier, but, well, if we are going to do justice to what Gmirkin is arguing and addressing.... ;-)
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 4:41 pm
austendw wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 1:04 am Gmirkin's understanding of the ancient world, on the contrary, seems to view Eastern Mediterranean cultural "consanguinity" as outlandishly implausible. His approach to the material actually presupposes a sort of cultural chasm between Greece and the Levant (East is East, and West is West?), which could only be bridged by scholars having direct access to Greek literature within a constrained (Hellenistic) time frame.
I am currently catching up with your criticism re Pummer-Gmirkin in another comment when I came across this in the same article you cited -- as if to make up for my failure to take the trouble to dig out citations earlier:
The Covenant Code at Ex. 20-23, usually assigned to E, shows influence from both Mesopotamian and Greek legal codes. . . .

The Covenant Code in E (Ex. 20.22–23.33) contained significant parallels in content and organization with the Hammurabi Law Code (LH) of ca. 1750 BCE (Ex. 21.2-4 cf. LH 117; Ex. 21.15 cf. LH 15; Ex. 21.16 cf. LH 14; Ex. 21.23-25 cf. LH 197; Ex. 21.28-36 cf. LH 250; Ex. 22.2-3 cf. LH 21; Ex. 22.7-9 cf. LH 120; Ex. 23.1-2 cf. LH 1-4). . . ..
Those are the words written by Gmirkin in Can the DH be Rehabilitated? I suggest they make it something of a slight overstatement to say Gmirkin's approach "actually presupposes a sort of cultural chasm", or that Gmirkin's "understanding of the ancient world .... is outlandishly implausible". -- just a tad off the mark.

(I know, you told me not to mention the DH in your presence earlier, but, well, if we are going to do justice to what Gmirkin is arguing and addressing.... ;-)
I think you entirely misunderstood what I was saying - perhaps the conceit was too condensed. I was proposing that Gmirkin believes there was a cultural chasm between Greece and the Levant prior to the Hellenistic period, so no shared culture in any meaningyl sense, and no way for Greeks to influence the levant (as he would say) and no shared culture (as I would say) before then. This is evident because he argues that the only way that Greece could influence (as he calls) the Levant was via a single bridge (ie of Greek literature) built (as it were) during the Hellenistic period. It is for this reason that he dimisses the possibility of influence (as he calls it) or shared culture (as I calls it) in the earlier period.

But influence (as he calls it) from Mesopotamia is not relevant to what I was talking about at all. Though even here, the cultural connexions seem slender before the Hellenistic period. The Hammurabi parallel (sounds like an airport novel) is the single anomaly. I'd guess that Gmirkin would explain the presence of this material in the Pentateuch as something to do with Babylonian elites bringing it to Samerina, and if that's so it would actually suggests a similar Levant/ANE cultural chasm (or perhaps cultural imperviousness is better), prior to... the Hellenistic period.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Post by neilgodfrey »

austendw wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 11:09 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 4:41 pm
austendw wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 1:04 am Gmirkin's understanding of the ancient world, on the contrary, seems to view Eastern Mediterranean cultural "consanguinity" as outlandishly implausible. His approach to the material actually presupposes a sort of cultural chasm between Greece and the Levant (East is East, and West is West?), which could only be bridged by scholars having direct access to Greek literature within a constrained (Hellenistic) time frame.
I am currently catching up with your criticism re Pummer-Gmirkin in another comment when I came across this in the same article you cited -- as if to make up for my failure to take the trouble to dig out citations earlier:
The Covenant Code at Ex. 20-23, usually assigned to E, shows influence from both Mesopotamian and Greek legal codes. . . .

The Covenant Code in E (Ex. 20.22–23.33) contained significant parallels in content and organization with the Hammurabi Law Code (LH) of ca. 1750 BCE (Ex. 21.2-4 cf. LH 117; Ex. 21.15 cf. LH 15; Ex. 21.16 cf. LH 14; Ex. 21.23-25 cf. LH 197; Ex. 21.28-36 cf. LH 250; Ex. 22.2-3 cf. LH 21; Ex. 22.7-9 cf. LH 120; Ex. 23.1-2 cf. LH 1-4). . . ..
Those are the words written by Gmirkin in Can the DH be Rehabilitated? I suggest they make it something of a slight overstatement to say Gmirkin's approach "actually presupposes a sort of cultural chasm", or that Gmirkin's "understanding of the ancient world .... is outlandishly implausible". -- just a tad off the mark.

(I know, you told me not to mention the DH in your presence earlier, but, well, if we are going to do justice to what Gmirkin is arguing and addressing.... ;-)
I think you entirely misunderstood what I was saying - perhaps the conceit was too condensed. I was proposing that Gmirkin believes there was a cultural chasm between Greece and the Levant prior to the Hellenistic period, so no shared culture in any meaningyl sense, and no way for Greeks to influence the levant (as he would say) and no shared culture (as I would say) before then. This is evident because he argues that the only way that Greece could influence (as he calls) the Levant was via a single bridge (ie of Greek literature) built (as it were) during the Hellenistic period. It is for this reason that he dimisses the possibility of influence (as he calls it) or shared culture (as I calls it) in the earlier period.
Gmirkin is certainly aware -- he writes about it -- of the arguments for Greek influence in the region of Syria and Palestine etc prior to the Hellenistic era. It is an argued case, not "an outlandishly implausible" "presupposition". I used to write about pre-Hellenistic Greek influence a fair bit before Gmirkin's work ever appeared on the scene.

Are you suggesting that there was Greek influence in the Pentateuch and that it predates the Hellenistic era? You would not be alone. Some would argue the influence was in the reverse direction. Where does the "hard evidence", the "concrete" evidence, mostly point?
austendw wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 11:09 amThe Hammurabi parallel (sounds like an airport novel) is the single anomaly. I'd guess that Gmirkin would explain the presence of this material in the Pentateuch as something to do with Babylonian elites bringing it to Samerina, and if that's so it would actually suggests a similar Levant/ANE cultural chasm (or perhaps cultural imperviousness is better), prior to... the Hellenistic period.
?? Again -- you lose me. The Hammurabi parallel was the "single anomaly"? Hardly. Again, I have no idea of the basis of your criticism.

It appears to me that the real chasm here is between the criticism of what one "guesses" would be "G's explanations" and what Gmirkin has written.

So you characterize G's "understanding" as "outlandishly implausible" on the basis of what you "guess" or "propose" is his argument?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Post by neilgodfrey »

Just once more on that imaginary "chasm" that is now surfacing here as a criticism of G's "outlandishly implausible" "understanding" of the relevant ancient world, ..... of course there was "Greek influence" of some kind in the Syrian region prior to the Hellenistic era and there were Syrian-Mesopotamian-Asia Minor sources finding their way by various routes to the Greeks. That is not news and no-one I know denies it.

The question, though, is what kinds of influences existed that could explain the generation of the kind of literature we find in the Pentateuch. When we focus on that question then all the simplistic claims of "traders" and "soldiers" and "tax administrators" suddenly seem inadequate.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:32 pm Just once more on that imaginary "chasm" that is now surfacing here as a criticism of G's "outlandishly implausible" "understanding" of the relevant ancient world, ..... of course there was "Greek influence" of some kind in the Syrian region prior to the Hellenistic era and there were Syrian-Mesopotamian-Asia Minor sources finding their way by various routes to the Greeks. That is not news and no-one I know denies it.
You are wielding your ellipses wildly. I did not say anything about Gmirkin's ""outlandishly implausible" "understanding" of the relevant ancient world." I said that he "seems to view Eastern Mediterranean cultural "consanguinity" as outlandishly implausible" by which I mean that he consistently downplays the possibilility of an Eastern Mediterranean Koiné prior to the Hellenistic period. He certainly makes no attempt to allow for it accounting for anything in the biblical literature and consistently quashes it (dismisses the Bruce Louden and Darshan model, every time) in favour of the single, simple Hellenistic age borrowing. I have a thing or two to say about his (and Wajdebaum's) notion of scholarly Parsimony/Economy, but that'll have to wait.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:32 pmThe question, though, is what kinds of influences existed that could explain the generation of the kind of literature we find in the Pentateuch.
Well, they say that the way you frame a question determines the answer and the above question presupposes that "the generation of the kind of literature" in a macro-sense (not motifs of the literature, but the literature in toto) can be explained primarily or essentially according to the model of influences or importation from outside. Add this to your comment earlier "when you look at it with Greek eyes" and it's no surprise that the Hellenocentric question gets back a fairly Hellenocentric answer.

And the same goes for Mesopotamian "influence" though this has become a bit confused - as recent Gmirkin somewhat undercuts earlier Gmirkin on this subject, to some degree at least. But I'll deal with that in a different post.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:32 pmWhen we focus on that question then all the simplistic claims of "traders" and "soldiers" and "tax administrators" suddenly seem inadequate.
Yes they do, because the pre-Hellenistic cultural koine is misunderstood if you think of it in linear fashion in terms of items of a copy of Hesiod carried in a soldier's backpack or a legal tract carried by traders in the hold of the ship, like an amphora of oil . One needs to think of it as a sort of cultural mycelium... and complex interaction, and complex relationships at many levels - both vertical and horizontal (ie chronologically vertical and geographically horizontal). It is in the nature of this cultural consanguinity to be more a "background" an environment rather than a "foregrounded" figure upon it (to go all Gestalt all of a sudden) so it's workings are not obvious... the results of it are evident, however. A propos of which, did you manage to read any of Guy Darshan's essays? Or Jonathan Ben-Dov's one on "Influence"? If so, any comments about them?
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 1:40 pm Are you suggesting that there was Greek influence in the Pentateuch and that it predates the Hellenistic era? You would not be alone. Some would argue the influence was in the reverse direction. Where does the "hard evidence", the "concrete" evidence, mostly point? [/quote[]Hard evidence is, I readily admit, difficult to give, because the nature of the beast. But again, Darshan discusses the visible signs in those essays. This isn't "concret" of course, it's necessarily sketchy. But then I don't believe Gmirkin's evidence is concrete, as I hope to show in yet another post.
austendw wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 11:09 amThe Hammurabi parallel (sounds like an airport novel) is the single anomaly. I'd guess that Gmirkin would explain the presence of this material in the Pentateuch as something to do with Babylonian elites bringing it to Samerina, and if that's so it would actually suggests a similar Levant/ANE cultural chasm (or perhaps cultural imperviousness is better), prior to... the Hellenistic period.
?? Again -- you lose me. The Hammurabi parallel was the "single anomaly"? Hardly. Again, I have no idea of the basis of your criticism.

It appears to me that the real chasm here is between the criticism of what one "guesses" would be "G's explanations" and what Gmirkin has written.

So you characterize G's "understanding" as "outlandishly implausible" on the basis of what you "guess" or "propose" is his argument?
I was wrong that the Hammurabi parallel was the "single anomaly". There were three items of cultural borrowing:
  • Babylonian traditions set in primordial times (Gen. 1-11).(which undercuts the Berossus book, which attributed the Babylonian traditions to Berossus, to the exclusion of all other routes.
  • Mesopotamian ancestors emigrating to the southern Levant (Gen.12-30 ish) (but no actual stories, which are Hellenistic)
  • Mesopotamian legal provisions from the Law of Hammurabi (Exodus 21-23) and calendrical previsions (but I'm not sure which he means)
So, three Mesopotamian elements, not one. These are all, without exception, understood as "cultural artifacts preserved by the Babylonian and Assyrian educated elites who still exerted a persistent influence in Hellenistic-era Samaria." This from his essay about Solomon/Shalmaneser III, which I haven't read (coz a free PDF isn't available) but which I know of through four Vridar postings, of which this is the fourth.

Don't get me wrong. I think that the notion of Baylonian traditions coming to the southern Levant via Assyrian elites in 722 BCE and the peoples tranported to Samerina opens up interesting avenues for research [1] However, G consistently merges the Mesopotamians as "Babylonian and Assyrian educated elites" which isn't right as the Babylonians weren't elites, they were deportees. And again, I have to disagree strongly with G's assertion that "Babylonian and Assyrian educated elite" still existed as a discrete ethnic group and exerted a persistent influence in Hellenistic-era Samaria" as Gmirkin's appeal to the essay of Mladen Popović referenced on that page involves a significant mis-reading of what he was discussing.[2]

Of course, Gmirkin implies that the attribution of all that material to the Mesopotamian elites in Samaria eliminates all earlier possibilities. G seems to think that Mesopotamian motifs, stories, legal material etc can only come to the Levant in the backpacks of actual Babylonians, which seems a bit one-dimensional and simplistic to me, given the other opportunities. After all, the Assyrian/Mesopotamian cultural spread was considerable from an earlier date: Bit-Humri was a vassal in the 9th Century and Judah itself had a pretty amicable relationship to Assyria some of the time (esp. Ahaz in the 8th Century and Manasseh in the 7th century) so why is it impossible for the Southern Levant during that period to have shared in the ANE "cultural mycelium" (as I'd put it)? 2 Kings 16:10-18 is a rare example of a narrative describing "foregrounded" cultural influence (an episode that surely isn't a later Deuteronomic concoction as there isn't a shred of disapproval in the text itself.) Yet Gmirkin pretty much ignores that as a possibility.

The Mesopotamian elites coming to Samaria also eliminate another unnecessary complication:
There is thus no need to invoke Jewish exiles returning from Babylonia to account for pervasive Mesopotamian influences on the Pentateuch
The good scholarly principle of Economy ("The Economical Choice?" as you put it) enables us to ditch that lot.

Here's the thing: Gmirkin's discussion of Mesopotamian deportees (or elite as he calls them) is I think a very helpful addition to the scholarly research. But why, when he opened that door, did he feel he had to slam another door shut and throw away the key?[3] I think that this desire for scholarly parsimony is, frankly, plain wrong. For me, this has detracted from the positive aspects of his theory - I mean his refusal to accept complexity - to insist that one avenue necessarily discounts another. The Babylonian Samarians allow us to eliminate the Babylonian Judean exiles from the discussion, just as the Hellenistic period borrowings allow us to dismiss the possibility of any pre-Hellenistic option. Scholarly range is narrowed and reduced to a single, economical/parsimonious theory.... Of course, if the Pentateuch really was a simple book, he might have a point. But it isn't, not by a long chalk. And Gmirkin's simplified theory doesn't adequately explain it. Not by a long chalk.

Now, this isn't entirely really relevant to the discussion at hand, but I want to squeeze it in this as a "side-bar" or else I'll forget all about it:
With all the Mesopotamian influence and Greek influence on Biblical literature, Gmirkin doesn't have much room for autochthonous literature. In the Berossus book he states that "there is no trace of Canaanite legend in Gen 1-11"(p. 90). That's wrong, because Garbini (1969), followed by Guy Darshan (2019), discuss the Phoenician (ie Canaanite) origin of the "Breath of god" in Genesis 1:2 - and I think that there may be good reason to locate the earliest version of the Garden of Eden story in Mt Lebanon too (see this intriguing essay by Ryan Thomas.

I'll get to the other stuff later or tomorrow, or the day after that. Because my brain aches now.

[1] I've been reading John S Bergsma lately who argues that the entire Pentateuch is pretty much a Samaritan document with virtually no Judean input at all, and a lot of what he says is surprisingly compelling. He dates the Pentateuch earlier than may be required, but I'm now thinking that a fruitful area of research might be the proposal that a lot of its Mesopotamian content comes from the deportees to Samaria. Thinking off the top of my head, the need to pull the disparate groups together cultically may be a plausible motive (sometimes difficult to establish) for the Deuteronomic centralisation theme: unite the various incoming "tribes" round the Yahwistic cult-centre of Mr Gerizim. Just a wild thought....

[2] Popović was discussing the Babylonian Akkadian/cuneiform elite in contrast to users of Aramaic in Babylonia. Gmirkin appears to have taken those comments about the scholarly society of Babylonia and transported it to Samaria even though Popović refers to Samaria once, I think, and tangentially at that.

[3] The same goes for the entire minimalist project actually (I told you I'd mention 'em again). The extending of the window of the composition of the Pentateuch right down to the Hellenistic period broadened the scholarly approach and was a significant plus. But at the same, post-Davies anyway, they seem to have slammed the door on any pre-Hellenistic theories at all. Hell, you did it yourself some days ago when you dissed Davies for not entirely ditching the old paradigm and embracing the new. I'm not exculpating maximalist rhetoric in the erection of the Berlin Wall between pre-Hellenistic and Hellenistic Pentateuchal composition theories, but the sad thing is that after the minimalists opened that new door, current Copenhagen school scholarship has seemingly slammed the door on any other option, and narrowed the range to within the Hellenistic period. As if it has to be an Either/Or situation, which I don't think is the right approach to this subject at all.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Post by neilgodfrey »

austendw wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 4:28 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:32 pm Just once more on that imaginary "chasm" that is now surfacing here as a criticism of G's "outlandishly implausible" "understanding" of the relevant ancient world, ..... of course there was "Greek influence" of some kind in the Syrian region prior to the Hellenistic era and there were Syrian-Mesopotamian-Asia Minor sources finding their way by various routes to the Greeks. That is not news and no-one I know denies it.
You are wielding your ellipses wildly. I did not say anything about Gmirkin's ""outlandishly implausible" "understanding" of the relevant ancient world." I said that he "seems to view Eastern Mediterranean cultural "consanguinity" as outlandishly implausible" by which I mean that he consistently downplays the possibilility of an Eastern Mediterranean Koiné prior to the Hellenistic period.
Which is "the relevant ancient world" to which I referred! ;-)

Maybe I misunderstand. Are you saying that you believe Gmirkin does not allow for borrowing from anyone other than the Greeks? Or that only Hellenistic era ideas are used, and nothing from earlier times?
austendw wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 4:28 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:32 pmThe question, though, is what kinds of influences existed that could explain the generation of the kind of literature we find in the Pentateuch.
Well, they say that the way you frame a question determines the answer and the above question presupposes that "the generation of the kind of literature" in a macro-sense (not motifs of the literature, but the literature in toto) can be explained primarily or essentially according to the model of influences or importation from outside. Add this to your comment earlier "when you look at it with Greek eyes" and it's no surprise that the Hellenocentric question gets back a fairly Hellenocentric answer.
n what way would you frame a question related to a finished product of literature? My question was/is:
what kinds of influences existed that could explain the generation of the kind of literature we find in the Pentateuch
Don't many scholars answer by saying that whatever the influences were they existed in the Persian period?

How can I reframe the question so it does not presuppose a Hellenistic provenance as the answer? Does not the question already allow for any period to be posited as the answer?
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 07, 2023 2:32 pmWhen we focus on that question then all the simplistic claims of "traders" and "soldiers" and "tax administrators" suddenly seem inadequate.
austendw wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 4:28 amYes they do, because the pre-Hellenistic cultural koine is misunderstood if you think of it in linear fashion in terms of items of a copy of Hesiod carried in a soldier's backpack or a legal tract carried by traders in the hold of the ship, like an amphora of oil . One needs to think of it as a sort of cultural mycelium... and complex interaction, and complex relationships at many levels - both vertical and horizontal (ie chronologically vertical and geographically horizontal). It is in the nature of this cultural consanguinity to be more a "background" an environment rather than a "foregrounded" figure upon it (to go all Gestalt all of a sudden) so it's workings are not obvious... the results of it are evident, however. A propos of which, did you manage to read any of Guy Darshan's essays? Or Jonathan Ben-Dov's one on "Influence"? If so, any comments about them?
Okay, sorry, but I find the very abstract terms difficult to imagine in real life historical instances. Can you give some specific examples that demonstrate in real events and moments how traders transfer the culture of elites from one place to another quite different place. If you could refer to other historians that would be okay, too, if they justify your proposition.
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Mon May 08, 2023 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Post by neilgodfrey »

austendw wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 7:47 am
So, three Mesopotamian elements, not one. These are all, without exception, understood as "cultural artifacts preserved by the Babylonian and Assyrian educated elites who still exerted a persistent influence in Hellenistic-era Samaria." This from his essay about Solomon/Shalmaneser III, which I haven't read (coz a free PDF isn't available) but which I know of through four Vridar postings, of which this is the fourth.
It might be preferable for you to take up any questions raised about about a summary of G's view with G himself where that summary appeared. Maybe you have --- I don't know, sorry.
austendw wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 7:47 amHowever, G consistently merges the Mesopotamians as "Babylonian and Assyrian educated elites" which isn't right as the Babylonians weren't elites, they were deportees.
It was usually the elites who were deported. The "peasants" were usually left behind. The elites transported back to Palestine looked down their noses at the local riff-raff and labelled them "people of the land", eventually "the sinners".

austendw wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 7:47 am. . .. Of course, if the Pentateuch really was a simple book, he might have a point. But it isn't, not by a long chalk. And Gmirkin's simplified theory doesn't adequately explain it. Not by a long chalk.
It would help us here, I think, if you could just mention some of the things about the Pentateuch that cannot be explained by Gmirkin's thesis -- or rather, what aspects can only be explained by what you prefer to call the diachronic perspective. That would help a long way, I think.

austendw wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 7:47 amNow, this isn't entire Gmirkin doesn't have much room for autochthonous literature. In the Berossus book he states that "there is no trace of Canaanite legend in Gen 1-11"(p. 90).
He has written of Canaanite gods and accounts being found in Genesis 1-11 in his latest book.

My posts on Vridar are not intended to convey the full argument in all its detail but to raise awareness. The books are expensive but interlibrary loans are usually less so.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 3:04 pm
austendw wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 7:47 amHowever, G consistently merges the Mesopotamians as "Babylonian and Assyrian educated elites" which isn't right as the Babylonians weren't elites, they were deportees.
It was usually the elites who were deported. The "peasants" were usually left behind. The elites transported back to Palestine looked down their noses at the local riff-raff and labelled them "people of the land", eventually "the sinners".
You're right, that was a silly thing for me to say. They were elites, but once the Assyrian administrators left when the Empire crumbled (pretty sure they hot-footed it back to the homeland when the funds and political clout dried up) the ones who remained were now Samarians. There is no evidence that the Babylonians in Samaria retained a separate Mesopotamian, explicitly non-Israelite identity into the Persian period - we never hear of a separate group in Samaria who identify as Babylonians. Nor is there evidence that they looked down their noses at the people of the land and came to think of them as sinners ..not in Samaria (unless there's some evidence I've missed). I suspect that this is a case of reading the situation portrayed in the biblical Ezra-Nehemiah account of Yehud (from a very partial point of view) into the neighbouring Samaria. But in the essay itself there may be more information, so I suppose I should try and get to read it in full one of these days.
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 3:04 pm
austendw wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 7:47 am. . .. Of course, if the Pentateuch really was a simple book, he might have a point. But it isn't, not by a long chalk. And Gmirkin's simplified theory doesn't adequately explain it. Not by a long chalk.
It would help us here, I think, if you could just mention some of the things about the Pentateuch that cannot be explained by Gmirkin's thesis -- or rather, what aspects can only be explained by what you prefer to call the diachronic perspective. That would help a long way, I think.
Oh brother! That is a huge ask. Before I even attempt to answer I'm going to ask a tactless question: How familiar are you with the contents of the Pentateuch? Have you read it and studied extensively? In fine detail? There are so many issues I don't know where to begin. Let's start with the weird repetitions (3 x wife-as-sister stories; 2 water-from-rock stories), the myriad contradictions (can;t start listing them here), the wild fluctuations of style and attitude. The multiplicies of law-codes: The Decalogue – two versions (Ex 20; Deut 5); The Covenant Code (CC- Ex 21-23); The Holiness Code (HC -Lev 17-27); The Deuteronomic Code (D - Deut. 12-28); The so-called Ritual Decalogue (Ex. 34). The sense that Leviticus say, seems to be of "different" from its surroundings; countless odd mismatches between the versions of an event in Deuteronomy and the narrative in Exodus or Numbers. Evidence that (say) an expression in Deuteronomy is an intentional quote and subversion of an expression in Exodus... the "loose-ish" connection between Genesis and Exodus. Clear evidence of supplementation. All of which gives the impression that disparate collections have been collected and edited... and added to. Some people say that a single author will quote different sources so there are contradictions, but since Gmirkin doesn't believe there are earlier documents, that argument won't apply to him. In a curious way, by reading Josephus you can tell precisely where the contradictions in the Pentateuch are because he irons them away editorially (well, in addition to removing "awkward" stories entirely). I could go on and on. I know that for centuries people believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (barring the last few verses) and that there are still people who hold to the single-author theory .. though Gmirkin is not one of them, though his sketchy theory of contemporary collaborators doesn't begin to account for all those massive contradictions and suplications I mentioned above. I think it's a slam-dunk case that the Pentateuch is - one way or another - a massive collection of disparate material brought together by editors and redactors over a period of time (not all the redactional elements are similar in nature - some macro-scale amalgamations, some redactions to re-emphasis or modify the preceding version; some very local changes etc etc). I'm all over the place with this answer because the subject is so huge.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Problem With The Theory That the Pentateuch Was Written in Alexandria

Post by Secret Alias »

The so-called Ritual Decalogue (Ex. 34). The sense that Leviticus say, seems to be of "different" from its surroundings; countless odd mismatches between the versions of an event in Deuteronomy and the narrative in Exodus or Numbers. Evidence that (say) an expression in Deuteronomy is an intentional quote and subversion of an expression in Exodus... the "loose-ish" connection between Genesis and Exodus.
Morton Smith characterized Deuteronomy as a forgery because of this. Native Hebrew speakers readily identify the differences. My Samaritan friend for instance, devoutly religious, admits Deuteronomy was not written by the same person. It's obvious from the Hebrew. Obvious. It's called another or a second Law for a reason. The counterfeit nature of Deuteronomy is only enhanced in the SP, Qumran and the Exodus text of R Ishmael's circle where huge tracts of Deuteronomy are literally copied out in Deuteronomy. Our surviving copies of Deuteronomy deliberately "dialed down" the copying especially around chapters 20 where let's remember the ten commandments are poorly copies of Exodus. I am literally amazed that Gmirkin and others don't see this. But maybe they have trained themselves to only see like and ignore dissimilarity.

I would argue that it is dishonesty or ignorance which accounts for this monolithic view of Pentateuch. For there is such a small window for the Hellenistic creation of "the Pentateuch" i.e. the Tetrateuch + Deuteronomy that it coerces dishonesty from otherwise erudite individuals. Why would Genesius over a century ago posit this? https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ol ... frontcover. The differences were known as early as the fourth century where R Abbaye imagined that Exodus was from by God and Deuteronomy announced by Moses (because of the different styles) https://www.google.com/books/edition/He ... frontcover Heschel goes so far as to read 2 Kings 14:6 as acknowledging this understanding "But he did not put to death the children of the murderers, according to what is written in the Book of the Teaching of Moses, where the LORD commanded, "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. But each one shall die for his own sin." It's not just "religious zealots" who exhibit dishonesty in the humanities. https://www.google.com/books/edition/He ... frontcover

Some of Heschel's other observations:

"the Lord spoke to Moses, saying" is not found in it and quite often we find the expression "I said to you." The book is written in Moses's voice and our Sages of Blessed Memory already expressed astonishment at it's beginning: "These are the words that Moses Addressed (Deuteromony 1:1) - "Did Moses then speak? Didn't the Holy and Blessed One command Moses to speak as it says "in accordance with the instructions that the Lord had given him" (Deuteronomy 1:3)?"
Post Reply