neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:35 am
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)
Regardless, Gmirkin needs to do more to address this issue than simply pointing at Lemche. If Nehemiah is widely considered authentic and Nehemiah undermines his thesis, then he needs to demonstrate that Nehemiah is not authentic and put forward some kind of proposal for the development of Nehemiah. Why would a narrative like Nehemiah's have been written after 270?
[/quote]
The first external reference to Nehemiah is Sirach 49.13, "The memory of Nehemiah also is lasting: he raised our fallen walls, and set up gates and bars, and rebuilt our ruined houses." Sirach wrote in ca. 185 BCE. He only knows of the Nehemiah Building Account. He evidently knew nothing of Ezra the Scribe, despite Sirach himself being a scribe and extolling that profession. It is apparent that Ezra was composed after 185 BCE, as well as major portions of Nehemiah that mention Ezra. I did an extensive source-critical analysis of Ezra and Nehemiah for a chapter in Gmirkin 2006, but Thompson cut it due to book length, and I haven't subsequently put it into article form for separate publication. My conclusions are that the Nehemiah Building Account was written ca. 198 BCE or a little later, and Ezra ca. 175 BCE. The issues regarding Tobiah, the Samaritans, and foreign marriages all strikingly mirror contemporary issues of ca. 175 BCE. I don't see any Late Biblical Hebrew text (which incidentally include Sirach) as composed before ca. 200 BCE. Finkelstein, by the way, calls into question the Nehemiah Building account as authentic on archaeological grounds, claiming that the features of Jerusalem's wall don't appear in the archaeological record before the late Hasmonean period.
In addition, the autobiographical genre of Nehemiah is not found in Ancient Near Eastern Literature, but seems to reflect the Greek institution of the "scrutiny" of officials, where they routinely had to give an accounting of their public service and were potentially punished for mishandling their responsibilities.
I do regard some of the official letters in Ezra as reflecting Persian Era correspondence housed in the temple (though highly reworked in Ezra).
Russell Gmirkin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 12:12 pm
The first external reference to Nehemiah is Sirach 49.13, "The memory of Nehemiah also is lasting: he raised our fallen walls, and set up gates and bars, and rebuilt our ruined houses." Sirach wrote in ca. 185 BCE. He only knows of the Nehemiah Building Account. He evidently knew nothing of Ezra the Scribe, despite Sirach himself being a scribe and extolling that profession. It is apparent that Ezra was composed after 185 BCE, as well as major portions of Nehemiah that mention Ezra. I did an extensive source-critical analysis of Ezra and Nehemiah for a chapter in Gmirkin 2006, but Thompson cut it due to book length, and I haven't subsequently put it into article form for separate publication. My conclusions are that the Nehemiah Building Account was written ca. 198 BCE or a little later, and Ezra ca. 175 BCE. The issues regarding Tobiah, the Samaritans, and foreign marriages all strikingly mirror contemporary issues of ca. 175 BCE. I don't see any Late Biblical Hebrew text (which incidentally include Sirach) as composed before ca. 200 BCE. Finkelstein, by the way, calls into question the Nehemiah Building account as authentic on archaeological grounds, claiming that the features of Jerusalem's wall don't appear in the archaeological record before the late Hasmonean period.
In addition, the autobiographical genre of Nehemiah is not found in Ancient Near Eastern Literature, but seems to reflect the Greek institution of the "scrutiny" of officials, where they routinely had to give an accounting of their public service and were potentially punished for mishandling their responsibilities.
I do regard some of the official letters in Ezra as reflecting Persian Era correspondence housed in the temple (though highly reworked in Ezra).
Thank you for that. But the question remains: Why would Hellenistic era Jews write so much about Persia, and be so flattering to the Persians? This goes for Isaiah as well.
This is additionally complicated by the fact that, from my perspective, the most reasonable way for Jews to have advocated the Torah in the Hellenistic era would have been to claim that it was a lost history that contained the traditions that had been oppressed under the Persians. In such case, they would have presented the Persians as villains that had almost wiped out their heritage. If, on the other hand, the Torah, etc. was produced during the Persian era, then it would make sense to present the Torah as a restoration of their traditions that had almost been wiped out by the Babylonians. In that case they would vilify the Babylonians, which they do.
So why, under your thesis, did the Jews praise the Persians so highly, when writing in the Hellenistic era?
Russell Gmirkin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 12:12 pm
The first external reference to Nehemiah is Sirach 49.13, "The memory of Nehemiah also is lasting: he raised our fallen walls, and set up gates and bars, and rebuilt our ruined houses." Sirach wrote in ca. 185 BCE. He only knows of the Nehemiah Building Account. He evidently knew nothing of Ezra the Scribe, despite Sirach himself being a scribe and extolling that profession. It is apparent that Ezra was composed after 185 BCE, as well as major portions of Nehemiah that mention Ezra. I did an extensive source-critical analysis of Ezra and Nehemiah for a chapter in Gmirkin 2006, but Thompson cut it due to book length, and I haven't subsequently put it into article form for separate publication. My conclusions are that the Nehemiah Building Account was written ca. 198 BCE or a little later, and Ezra ca. 175 BCE. The issues regarding Tobiah, the Samaritans, and foreign marriages all strikingly mirror contemporary issues of ca. 175 BCE. I don't see any Late Biblical Hebrew text (which incidentally include Sirach) as composed before ca. 200 BCE. Finkelstein, by the way, calls into question the Nehemiah Building account as authentic on archaeological grounds, claiming that the features of Jerusalem's wall don't appear in the archaeological record before the late Hasmonean period.
In addition, the autobiographical genre of Nehemiah is not found in Ancient Near Eastern Literature, but seems to reflect the Greek institution of the "scrutiny" of officials, where they routinely had to give an accounting of their public service and were potentially punished for mishandling their responsibilities.
I do regard some of the official letters in Ezra as reflecting Persian Era correspondence housed in the temple (though highly reworked in Ezra).
Thank you for that. But the question remains: Why would Hellenistic era Jews write so much about Persia, and be so flattering to the Persians? This goes for Isaiah as well.
This is additionally complicated by the fact that, from my perspective, the most reasonable way for Jews to have advocated the Torah in the Hellenistic era would have been to claim that it was a lost history that contained the traditions that had been oppressed under the Persians. In such case, they would have presented the Persians as villains that had almost wiped out their heritage. If, on the other hand, the Torah, etc. was produced during the Persian era, then it would make sense to present the Torah as a restoration of their traditions that had almost been wiped out by the Babylonians. In that case they would vilify the Babylonians, which they do.
So why, under your thesis, did the Jews praise the Persians so highly, when writing in the Hellenistic era?
I do not normally think about or answer subjective “why” questions or make arguments from plausibility. I am more concerned with objective primary evidence and conclusions that reasonably and rigorously follow from that evidence.
That said, here is my recent thinking on the positive presentation of Persian in several texts.
The main objective detail of relevance that we know is that the temple appears to have housed a small archive of Persian Era documents mostly relating to the circumstances associated with its foundation. The book of Haggai appears to be an authentic oracle collection with authentic prophetic oracles dating to ca. 520 BCE. It is possible the Cyrus oracle in Isaiah is also authentic, although the book of Isaiah itself, which belongs to the late genre of literary prophecy, is rather late (third century BCE).
So the Persians were treated in a positive manner pretty much exclusively in connection with their authorizing the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, or other related benefits given to Jerusalem as a temple city. Otherwise I simply don’t see that favorable an attitude, bearing in mind that Daniel doesn’t portray the Medes and Persians particularly favorably, and Esther’s Persian king Ahasuerus was poised to be the worst, most genocidal foreign king in the entire Hebrew Bible, save for the miracle of Purim.
rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:37 am
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)
The chapter is The Nehemiah Memoir Clines seems to accept that large parts of the book of Nehemiah were written by the historical Nehemiah. What he is primarily questioning is Nehemiah's honesty and objectivity in recounting his experiences.
Russell Gmirkin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 5:36 pm
I do not normally think about or answer subjective “why” questions or make arguments from plausibility. I am more concerned with objective primary evidence and conclusions that reasonably and rigorously follow from that evidence.
That said, here is my recent thinking on the positive presentation of Persian in several texts.
The main objective detail of relevance that we know is that the temple appears to have housed a small archive of Persian Era documents mostly relating to the circumstances associated with its foundation. The book of Haggai appears to be an authentic oracle collection with authentic prophetic oracles dating to ca. 520 BCE. It is possible the Cyrus oracle in Isaiah is also authentic, although the book of Isaiah itself, which belongs to the late genre of literary prophecy, is rather late (third century BCE).
So the Persians were treated in a positive manner pretty much exclusively in connection with their authorizing the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, or other related benefits given to Jerusalem as a temple city. Otherwise I simply don’t see that favorable an attitude, bearing in mind that Daniel doesn’t portray the Medes and Persians particularly favorably, and Esther’s Persian king Ahasuerus was poised to be the worst, most genocidal foreign king in the entire Hebrew Bible, save for the miracle of Purim.
But the Cyrus prophecy in Isaiah includes statements about Yahweh being the one and only God, the Creator of the universe. Its kind of central to the prophecy about why Cyrus should be accepted as the Lord's messiah.
24 This is what the Lord says, He who is your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb:
“I, the Lord, am the maker of all things,
Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth alone,
25 Causing the omens of diviners to fail,
Making fools of fortune-tellers;
Causing wise men to turn back
And making their knowledge ridiculous,
26 Confirming the word of His servant
And carrying out the purpose of His messengers.
It is I who says of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be inhabited!’
And of the cities of Judah, ‘They shall be built.’
And I will raise her ruins again.
27 I am the One who says to the depth of the sea, ‘Dry up!’
And I will make your rivers dry up.
28 It is I who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd,
And he will carry out all My desire.’
And he says of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built,’
And of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.’”
Russell Gmirkin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 5:36 pm
The main objective detail of relevance that we know is that the temple appears to have housed a small archive of Persian Era documents mostly relating to the circumstances associated with its foundation. The book of Haggai appears to be an authentic oracle collection with authentic prophetic oracles dating to ca. 520 BCE. It is possible the Cyrus oracle in Isaiah is also authentic, although the book of Isaiah itself, which belongs to the late genre of literary prophecy, is rather late (third century BCE).
But the Cyrus prophecy in Isaiah includes statements about Yahweh being the one and only God, the Creator of the universe. Its kind of central to the prophecy about why Cyrus should be accepted as the Lord's messiah.
24 This is what the Lord says, He who is your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb:
“I, the Lord, am the maker of all things,
Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth alone,
25 Causing the omens of diviners to fail,
Making fools of fortune-tellers;
Causing wise men to turn back
And making their knowledge ridiculous,
26 Confirming the word of His servant
And carrying out the purpose of His messengers.
It is I who says of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be inhabited!’
And of the cities of Judah, ‘They shall be built.’
And I will raise her ruins again.
27 I am the One who says to the depth of the sea, ‘Dry up!’
And I will make your rivers dry up.
28 It is I who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd,
And he will carry out all My desire.’
And he says of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built,’
And of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.’”
One must distinguish oracles, which are spoken responses to a question or other prophetic utterances, usually emanating from a temple where the deity resides, from literary prophecy, a late literary genre in which the prophecy originates as a written text, of which our first examples from the Near East are from Egypt around the time of Alexander the Great or a couple decades before. About 90% of the Prophets are of this late literary type, including Isaiah. Martti Nissenen and other experts on Neo-Assyrian (oracular) prophecy scoured the pre-exilic Prophets (including Isaiah) for traces of older oracles that would confirm their ancient date, but came up empty. Zero, zilch, nada. My own view is that, among all the so-called pre-exilic prophets, the single verse Isa. 44:28 has the characteristics of an oracle, and is similar in content to the authentic oracles preserved in Haggai. The surrounding text built around this oracle is of course late and literary and displays much later theological themes.
It is possible the Cyrus oracle in Isaiah is also authentic, although the book of Isaiah itself, which belongs to the late genre of literary prophecy, is rather late (third century BCE).
Some here might be interested in a recording of "The Composition of the Pentateuch as a Historical and a Hermeneutical Problem," by Konrad Schmid, the presidential address at the 2022 meeting of IOSOT in Zurich. Schmid, properly, starts with the Hebrew text, rather than improperly importing Greek presuppositions.
The reason I bring up the Samaritans so much is that they challenge ALL our inherited notions.
For instance. The Samaritans use(d) the Pentateuch and Joshua but a different Joshua.
How did that take place? It would suggest that 'the canon' unfolded at a very early period.
A Tetrateuch
Then a Pentateuch
And then at some period later a Hexateuch essentially.
But was there division regarding the canonicity of Joshua?
Does Philo even cite from Joshua?
The Samaritans currently don't think Joshua is 'canonical.' It's a book they accept but it's not holy scripture.
Some Samaritans in Alexandria MUST HAVE thought it was scripture.
The Samaritan Chronicler also seems to know Judges.
With every wrinkle there had to be a historical 'wrinkle' a pocket as it were of a new orthodoxy and a period of time that these debates developed.