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.