the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

[rgprice]

This is from Lester Grabbe's highly respected work:

Two biblical books claim to describe the Jews of Palestine in the Persian period; these are Ezra and Nehemiah. One of the most accepted conclusions of today is that much of the book of Nehemiah is based on Nehemiah's personal account (the so-called `Nehemiah Memorial/Memoir'). Thus, we have some indication not only of Nehemiah's deeds but even of his attitudes and (private?) thoughts. This is valuable material; on the other hand, we must recognize that it is very one-sided and reflects the entrenched opinions and biases of a strong-willed willed man. We can hardly use it as a dispassionate chronicle of events. Nehemiah's own firmly held views shape the entire narrative. The material in Ezra is quite different. In it are a number of alleged documents of the Persian administration. Although these have been widely accepted as authentic in recent English-language language commentaries, their genuineness has been strongly questioned in Continental scholarship.
-Lester L. Grabbe. An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel, and Jesus (Kindle Locations 448-452). Kindle Edition.

Of course, Nehemiah makes references to the Torah. Nehemiah 8 in particular describes a presentation of the "Book of the Laws of Moses".

So it seems that Gmirkin has to have some extremely coherent explanation for this. I think much of Gmirkin's work makes a lot of sense, but there are certainly weaknesses that have to be addressed.

In his latest work Gmirkin states:

Lemche pointed out that this process was dependent on a credulous reading of biblical historiographical texts of unknown date or historical value, including the stories of the introduction or discovery of new Pentateuchal legal content under Josiah (1 Kings 22–23) and Ezra (Nehemiah 8–10). While earlier biblical critics had accepted these stories as written close in time to the purported events they recounted and substantially conveying historical fact, Lemche pointed out that biblical historiographies were of highly uncertain date and contained prominent theological content that undermined their value as historical sources. Consequently they were of no direct bearing to the dating of Pentateuchal writings to which they alluded.
--Gmirkin, Russell E.. Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts (p. 14). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

But that's all all he really says about it. This is not enough. In Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible, Gmirkin references Nehemiah 8, but fails to address Nehemiah's apparent reference to Exodus.

277 Levites were also given an explicit exegetical role in Nehemiah (Neh. 8.1–18). Levitical priests were brought onto the scene alongside judges and occasionally city elders wherever a homicide was committed (Deut. 21.1–9). They did not appear in a judicial capacity – judges were always mentioned separately – but instead seem to have been consulted on the proper rites to cure the pollution associated with acts of bloodshed.
--Gmirkin, Russell E.. Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible (Copenhagen International Seminar) (p. 37). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

It seems to me that if Gmirkin is going to persist in this thesis he has to do a better job of addressing Nehemiah.

[Secret Alias]

What's more troubling is that EVERYONE thinks in some form or other (except the Samaritans) that Ezra WROTE the Pentateuch. Why would the Jews go along with something patently nuclear like this?

[rgprice]

And what's interesting is that what is described in Nehemiah 8 essentially conforms to Gmirkin's hypothesis about the introduction of the Torah, its just set 100+ years too early. But surely we can see that Nehemiah 8 can essentially be read as a presentation of supposedly long lost documents that were introduced with the claim of restoration of a lost heritage. Essentially, priests going to the population and clamming that they had found a documented history of the people that had been forgotten because of subjugation. As far as I see it, that's really the best explanation for how something like this could have been achieved.

But the questions is, did this happen at the end of the Persian period or the beginning of the Hellenistic one?

But I think that Gmirkin's proposal that the Exodus story makes use of Manetho has a lot of merit, so this presents a challenge indeed. Of course Plato could have been used under either scenario, it just seems far more unlikely with an Ezra era dating.

[Secret Alias]

Here's the theological angle.

Gmirkin's idea works in a way because the Pentateuch doesn't end with settlement. There's a hope or an expectation of Gerizim. But no reality.

Why was that written? Surely the Israelites could have lied and said Moses conquered the land. Well Gmirkin could argue because the Jews were still in Egypt.

I think it has more to do with an unrealized messianic expectation (for lack of a better term). Even under Persian rule the Israelites were a subject people. They were essentially a priesthood and then losers who kept the priesthood afloat. That Moses became the figure through whom hope for self-rule would be actualized is noteworthy. It means the Pentateuch was only a temporary document. Remember as Heschel demonstrates the original understanding was that only the 10 commandments came from God. The Pentateuch was merely the story of the revelation of the divine Torah. That's why the Samaritans preserve the original focus of the liturgy - the heavenly status only for the 10. This was changed in Judaism because of its association with 'the Sadducees.' Eventually the Pharisees presumably made the Pentateuch holy. But the status of Gemara (= where Gemara and Torah disagree go with Gemara) illustrates that even the Jews didn't buy into the holiness of the Pentateuch. Explains why 'Scripture' was loose enough to include dozens of unholy books like Isaiah etc.

We shouldn't view the Jewish expansion of 'scripture' as any other than a by product of the traditional low estimation of the Pentateuch. All glory was given to the 10 commandments. This was the limit of divine authority. The early Karaites even think Moses is narrating the Pentateuch. Think about that. It's mind-blowing.

[Secret Alias]

Christianity assumes the perishability of the Pentateuch too. As I read it, the god who gave Moses the 10 commandments came to earth to essentially say 'enough with the false Torah or the temporary Torah.' No circumcision in the 10 commandments. Christianity doesn't circumcise etc. 'Honor the Sabbath' is the only problematic one.

[rgprice]

This brings up an interesting point, especially as it pertains to many of the apparent contradictions and problems in the Pentateuch, especially Genesis.

Certainly most people could not read. These work were not really open to inspection by critical scholars. Yeah, Genesis is a bit confusing, but who cared because it was being interpreted and told to people anyway. Jubilees is very interesting, because Jubilees smooths over many of the problems in the Pentateuch. All of these various little details that cause problems, why were they there?

Certainly it has to be because the actual original authors didn't hold the same views as later Jewish authorities.

The point this raises then is: Who was the intended audience for the Pentateuch or Quadrateuch? (Minus Deuteronomy)

[Secret Alias]

There was this book called the Secret System where the author noted that there were both lunar and solar calendars in the Pentateuch. https://books.google.com/books?id=t-MUA ... em&f=false

[rgprice]

There was this book called the Secret System where the author noted that there were both lunar and solar calendars in the Pentateuch. https://books.google.com/books?id=t-MUA ... em&f=false

Interesting book. Have you read the whole thing? Is it worth it? Does the author assume the Pentateuch was written in the late Persian period? He seems to lump it in with the timeframe of Manetho and Berossus, but he was writing in the 1970s.

[Secret Alias]

My genius professor friend I R M Boid really liked it. If Rory thinks its worthwhile it's worthwhile.

[neilgodfrey]

This is from Lester Grabbe's highly respected work:

Two biblical books claim to describe the Jews of Palestine in the Persian period; these are Ezra and Nehemiah. One of the most accepted conclusions of today is that much of the book of Nehemiah is based on Nehemiah's personal account (the so-called `Nehemiah Memorial/Memoir'). Thus, we have some indication not only of Nehemiah's deeds but even of his attitudes and (private?) thoughts. This is valuable material; on the other hand, we must recognize that it is very one-sided and reflects the entrenched opinions and biases of a strong-willed willed man. We can hardly use it as a dispassionate chronicle of events. Nehemiah's own firmly held views shape the entire narrative. The material in Ezra is quite different. In it are a number of alleged documents of the Persian administration. Although these have been widely accepted as authentic in recent English-language language commentaries, their genuineness has been strongly questioned in Continental scholarship.
-Lester L. Grabbe. An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel, and Jesus (Kindle Locations 448-452). Kindle Edition.

Of course, Nehemiah makes references to the Torah. Nehemiah 8 in particular describes a presentation of the "Book of the Laws of Moses".

I was surprised at Grabbe's naivety in appearing to assume that typical novelistic features in the story of Nehemiah are evidence of an imaginary diary as a source.

Eric Clines, to my way of thinking, patiently demonstrated the novelistic genre of our book of Nehemiah in a chapter in his book What Does Eve Do to Help? (link is to my series of 5 posts on that chapter)