If the writers of Exodus really did use Manetho ...
I'm sorry but ... this is a burning question in scholarship? That's like reading Genesis and saying "if these aren't references to space aliens ..." No one thinks that Exodus was written with Manetho as a source.
The text is what it is. There a hundreds of theories. Why is a third century date for a Persian infused Hebrew text more believable and compelling than a fifth century date for the text WHICH HAS MASSIVE SUPPORT IN ANTIQUITY? How does it explain the situation better?
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 10:43 am
In my opinion we have dozens of sources including Jewish ones which say or imply that Ezra wrote the Pentateuch. There are those who deny the Persian origin of the Pentateuch. Fine. But it is clear that IF you're going to accept 'a late(r) date' for the Pentateuch the evidence is overwhelming for the identification of Ezra as the author. Why go with the latest date possible? It has a 'mountainman feel' to it. Overstepping out of hate or enmity.
I kind of agree with you here, though I think Ezra "created" the Torah-as-we-know-it using earlier sources more than he wrote it outright. Prophets like Amos seem older to me and know of some kind of Torah (e.g., 2:4-16) and pre-Persian era things (like the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah). And it doesn't seem like there's enough time for the Torah-as-we-know-it and supporting writings to have been written (and for all the textual variants to exist, as per Qumran) and for the Samaritans to exist starting only from Ezra's time or later.
I mean obviously untimeliness was the objective. So we shouldn't expect obvious clues as to its provenance. But there are enough to connect the Pentateuch to the Persian period.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:37 am
So--now--instead of claiming that the first five books of Hebrew Bible "were composed in their entirety about 273-272 BCE" in Alexandria, and that other TaNaK books were later, RG is starting to accept the reality that some Bible writings are older than c. 273-272.
That is a change worth underlining.
"Now... RG is starting..."
LMAO. I'm sorry, but why are you posting on this topic when you clearly haven't read any of my easily-available books or articles since 2006? Why do you scrounge all your information off the internet? I thought you worked in a library.
Besides being self-contradictory--claiming older traditions were both preserved and erased--the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis might have additional problems.
Does it defame Jews as fools?
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 11:48 am
I'm not sure what you mean here, sorry. Can you clarify?
What I meant was that when stories of the Torah were read/told to Jewish laypeople, I can imagine that they would have sounded much more like Jubilees than like the original. Would they really have read out the differences between Elohim, El Elyon, YHWH, etc. or just simply used a single name/title consistently? Would they really have read out and highlighted the two different creation accounts, or simply harmonized them like Jubilees does, etc.
If the writers of Exodus really did use Manetho ...
I'm sorry but ... this is a burning question in scholarship? That's like reading Genesis and saying "if these aren't references to space aliens ..." No one thinks that Exodus was written with Manetho as a source.
The text is what it is. There a hundreds of theories. Why is a third century date for a Persian infused Hebrew text more believable and compelling than a fifth century date for the text WHICH HAS MASSIVE SUPPORT IN ANTIQUITY? How does it explain the situation better?
We're talking about "the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis". That is precisely central to the "the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis". And I think Gmirkin makes a good case for it as we as Berossus.
The similarities between the Jewish scriptures and Manetho and Berossus have been noted for millennia. It is clear that there are significant parallels between them. In my mind, one either has to accept that Manetho and Berossus copied from the Jewish scriptures or vice versa. That those writers copied from the Jews makes far less sense.
rgprice: "In my mind, one either has to accept that Manetho and Berossus copied from the Jewish scriptures or vice versa. That those writers copied from the Jews makes far less sense."
Not really. A Greek using a Jewish text ("scripture" in some canonical sense, or not, in whatever language) is not unthinkable, as history provides examples, Gmirkin conspiracy theory aside.
Exactly. No one thinks Manetho 'invented' the history. There was an Egyptian historical record. It was copied into Greek by Manetho. It's like Josephus and the Jewish War. There was a Jewish War. Josephus and Justus wrote histories (there must have been others). The fact that Josephus and Justus agreed on certain facts doesn't mean one 'copied' the other (it could have happened but that's not the only inference).
Firstly, have you read Gmirkin's book, because he addresses these very issues? He notes that Manetho makes claims that have no basis in history. Those claims are also reflected in the Jewish narrative. So we can't point to a common understanding of history because parts of what Manetho states are not based in history.
And as for Berossus, again, how would the Jews have compiled all of these stories that also appear in Berossus in Greek, when prior to that they aren't known from any other non-Babylonian accounts? My understanding is that Berossus collected together a variety of ancient Babylonians tales and compilated them into a single narrative. And he was able to do this because he had access to and knew how to read the old writings. How would the Jews have done this prior to Berossus' presentation of these tales in Greek? We could suppose that the stories were simply known orally or that they contain common themes, but there are several pretty distinct literary parallels. Were the Jews reading ancient cuneiform in the 5th or 4th century BCE?
I mean, if you want to do a point by point dispute of Gmirkin's works I'm all ears. I'd love to see it. I haven't read any really good criticism of this work, other than broad statements like those made by you here. What I haven't seen is anyone that addresses the specific points made by Gmirkin.