Page 14 of 21

Re: Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2023 2:46 am
by neilgodfrey
rgprice wrote: Wed Jul 05, 2023 9:26 am
Almost all of Biblical scholarship is plagued by the same set of problems,
A salutary witness is Thomas L. Thompson's 1971 thesis denying the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. That thesis led to him being excluded from a teaching position in academia and forcing him to become a full time house-painter and handyman. Today, that thesis is now pretty much standard mainstream.

If the reaction to denying the patriarchs could be so strong, how much less can we expect a more favourable reaction to challenges to the historicity of Moses, the kingdoms of David and Solomon, the Ezra-Nehemiah tales. Look at the way people respond to Adler's archaeological finds -- or non-finds -- of material evidence for Pentateuchal practices prior to the Hellenistic era: they are quick to point out that Adler does not deny what has not been found, etc etc. Such quick qualifiers to try to make the best of having no independent evidence for one's position tell us how nervous people become when uncomfortable finds (e.g. comparing the Pentateuch with Mesopotamian AND Greek literature) and uncomfortable non-finds (Adler) are brought to our attention.

Re: Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2023 5:13 am
by StephenGoranson
There is evidence of pre-273 Torah, which some dismiss.

Re: Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2023 7:11 am
by Secret Alias
What evidence is there for the LXX pre-second century BCE? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re: Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2023 7:57 am
by rgprice
StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Jul 06, 2023 5:13 am There is evidence of pre-273 Torah, which some dismiss.
I'm curious as to what this is, because I just finished The Origins of Judaism by Yonatan Adler, and it seems pretty thorough, and he shows that there is essentially no evidence of Torah prior to the Hasmoneans.

Closing summary:

Throughout this book, in chapter after chapter, it has been shown that the earliest surviving evidence for a widely practiced Judean way of life governed by the Torah never predates the second century BCE. The aim of the present chapter has been to go beyond the data surveyed and analyzed throughout the book and to assess the likelihood that Judaism may have first emerged during one or another specific historical period of time. Our analysis in the present chapter has led us to conclude that the Judean way of life during the Persian period was more likely governed by cultural norms and traditions inherited from the Iron Age than by anything resembling some kind of Torah law. A central element of what it meant to be a Judean at this time was veneration of YHWH and participation in the cultic worship of this deity, although it remains unclear to what degree this might have excluded the possibility of veneration and worship of other deities. It does not seem unlikely that at least some of the practices that came to be legislated in the Pentateuch were part of Judean culture already in the Persian period, possibly including a taboo against eating the “hip sinew” and perhaps also circumcision. The origins of practices such as these may reach back to extraordinarily early epochs, possibly to before the emergence of any kind of distinct “Israelite” identity. The evidence from Elephantine that points to a Judean practice of some form of “Passover” ritual, as well as of a seven-day period probably coinciding in time with what we know of as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, may also reflect very early practices whose origins remain opaque. In all these cases, however, there is little reason to interpret the evidence as reflecting practices that were somehow legally mandated by anything akin to a Mosaic law. A conjectural Persian-period Judean way of life thus reconstructed, bereft of any sort of Torah as its regulating principle, can hardly be said to resemble Judaism in any meaningful way. The roughly two centuries between the conquests of Alexander the Great circa 332 BCE and the founding of an independent Hasmonean polity in the middle of the second century BCE remain a far more conducive epoch in which to seek the origins of Judaism. Various hypotheses may be proffered to explain how and why something recognizable as Judaism may have first emerged during this particular historical era. Here I have explored the possibilities that the Pentateuch came to be adopted as authoritative Torah by Judeans either during the Early Hellenistic period, when Judea found itself under foreign domination by the two great Hellenistic kingdoms, or during the Late Hellenistic period, after the Judeans had gained autonomy under the leadership of the priestly Hasmonean family. Both hypotheses identify the emergence of Judaism at a time when practically all Judeans—both in their homeland and throughout their diaspora—were deeply embedded in a world dominated by Hellenistic culture. In either case, it would not be wrong to view Judaism as having emerged out of the crucible of Hellenism, which dominated the cultural landscape of the time. In a poetic way, it seems only fitting that our English word “Judaism” itself is the result of a Hebrew/Greek hybrid, rooted etymologically in the Greek rendering of the Hebrew “yəhûdāh” merged with the Greek suffix “-ismós.” With this, we have come to the end of our journey. Stepping backward to gain perspective, we appreciate that this is by no means the final chapter in the story of Judaism—it is only its preface and introduction. From its earliest origins, Judaism emerged and developed in manifold directions. Rabbinic Judaism was one pathway by which Judaism continued to thrive and expand, but the centuries have witnessed the emergence of other, parallel and no-less-influential byways. Indeed, the roots of both Christianity and Islam are well sought in the Judaism whose origins we have explored throughout these pages. Viewed in this way, the emergence of Judaism was the catalyst for setting the course of much of world history over the past two thousand years—and probably also for centuries if not for millennia to come.

Adler, Yonatan. The Origins of Judaism (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (pp. 330-331). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.


Re: Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2023 8:00 am
by andrewcriddle
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2023 5:43 pm One could even use the silence of Herodotus as some kind of evidence against the Hecataeus account -- one of those occasional moments when silence is suggestive and deserves a "hearing".
Herodotus' visit to Syria is almost certainly before the time of Nehemiah. The account of Hecataeus is probably influenced by developments after Herodotus' visit.

Andrew Criddle

Re: Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2023 8:11 am
by Secret Alias
no evidence of Torah prior to the Hasmoneans.
This I assume would also include the LXX translation. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Re: Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2023 8:12 am
by Secret Alias
Here I have explored the possibilities that the Pentateuch came to be adopted as authoritative Torah
There is also a Jewish usage of "Torah" that goes beyond the literal name of a text of that name.

"Bible was eternally authoritative Torah were set against the Christian view that it was a temporary law superseded by the New Testament." https://press.princeton.edu/books/ebook ... adise-lost

The Jews have been in a habit of referencing all the laws, all the teachings, all the rules as "Torah" and rules as such with this word:

Aramaic (Jastrow):

תּוֹרָה f. (b. h.; יָרָה) 1) teaching, law, esp. ת׳(ה) the Law of Moses, Pentateuch; in gen. the Jewish law, Religion. Ber. 5ᵃ (ref. to Ex. XXIV, 12) ת׳ זה מקרא וכ׳ torah means the Pentateuch, ‘and the mitsvah’ means the Mishnah, ‘which I have written’ means the Phrophets and Hagiographa &c. Ib. כל העוסק בַּתּ׳ וכ׳ he that is engaged in the study of the Law &c., v. בָּדַל. Ib. 6ᵃ דינא נמי היינו ת׳ holding court is also considered a religious act, opp. שלמא בעלמא mere preservation of peace. Ib. 31ᵃ הי ת׳ והי מצוה וכ׳ where is the Law, and where the good deeds, that they may save us? Pes. 87ᵇ שקרוב לשונם ללשון ת׳ because their (the Babylonians’) language comes near the language of the Torah. Meg. 3ᵃ, a. fr. תלמוד ת׳ (abbrev. ת"ת) the study of the Law. Ned. 81ᵃ הזהרו … שמהם תצא ת׳ take heed of the children of the poor, for from them the Law goes forth; a. v. fr.—Gen. R. s. 9, a. fr. בתוֹרָתוֹ של ר׳ מאיר in R. Meir’s (annotated) copy of the Law. Y. Bicc. III, 65ᶜ bot. אין הת׳ עומדת מפני בנה the Torah does not rise before her son, i.e. he that is engaged in the study of the Law need not rise when a scholar passes. Sot. 47ᵇ הת׳ חזרה וכ׳ the Law goes around begging for students.—ת׳ שבכתב, ת׳ שבעל פה, v. כְּתָב.—ספר ת׳, v. סֵפֶר.—תּוֹרַת כהנים, v. כֹּהֵן.—Pl. תּוֹרוֹת. Sabb. 31ᵃ כמה ת׳ יש לכם how many laws have you? Sot. l. c. רבו … ונעשית תורה כשתי ת׳ differences increased in Israel, and the Law became like two laws; a. e.—2) definition, designation; character, nature. Bets. 10ᵃ דאיכא תורת כלי עליו because it bears the denomination of an utensil (v. תּוֹאַר). B. Mets. 62ᵃ בתורת פקדון אתא לידיה it came into his possession as a trust; ib. 62ᵇ בתורת זביני as a sold object. Kidd. 50ᵇ לא נחית לתורת קידושין he had not come down to any form of betrothal (had not done anything to intimate his intention of betrothal); a. fr.

Re: Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2023 8:30 am
by andrewcriddle
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2023 1:36 pm
andrewcriddle wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2023 7:15 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2023 5:12 pm
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:12 amFinally, there are also technical problems with the idea of the Pentateuch as a largely invented work of the Hellenistic period. It requires you to adopt improbable secondary positions such as dating Deutero-Isaiah to the Hellenistic period
Can you unpack that more?

I meant that (at least IMO) dating Deutero-Isaiah to the Hellenistic period is improbable. Gmirkin, however, is required to do so because Deutero-Isaiah shows knowledge of traditions also found in the Pentateuch (not necessarily knowledge of the Pentateuch in anything like its present form).
What I was curious about is what the reasons are for believing Deutero-Isaiah to be pre-Hellenistic. What is it about the work that is considered more pre-Hellenistic than Hellenistic?

(This is an area I have not read much about and you may give me a few good pointers for consideration to begin with.)
Firstly, at face value Deutero-Isaiah is about the deliverance of the Jews from Babylonian captivity by Cyrus. It uses motifs such as Israel's passage through the Sea in Exodus as types of Israel's coming deliverance from Babylon. There is no evidence that captivity in Babylon is being used as a metaphor for some other issue. (If it was Hellenistic it would presumably be really concerned with Egyptian authority over Palestine and the Jews but there is only modest explicit interest in Egypt and I don't see what Cyrus would be a metaphor for -the Seleucids ???) It predicts the rebuilding of Jerusalem apparently literally which seems to associate it with the Persian period. At face value the bulk of Deutero-Isaiah was written contemporary with the events it is speaking of, or maybe a few years before. The deliverance under Cyrus was not as drastic and wonderful in its immediate effects as Deutero-Isaiah anticipated.

Secondly, I've tried to avoid arguments based upon the type of Hebrew, because I am entirely dependent on what experts say, and this is an issue where there is disagreement among experts. However, if there is any solid basis for dating Old Testament texts by the type of Hebrew then Deutero-Isaiah is classical Biblical Hebrew not Hellenistic Hebrew. (This is, I am told, more straightforward than dating the Hebrew of the Pentateuch.)

Thirdly If one accepts that Trito-Isaiah is substantially later that Deutero-Isaiah and that Deutero-Isaiah is Hellenistic then the date for the completion of Isaiah becomes very late indeed. (I thought I would mention this argument although there are obvious counters like regarding Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah as the same person.)

Andrew Criddle

Re: Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2023 8:46 am
by Secret Alias
Also clear Akkadian loan words. Surely this counts as something https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... 84/1720117

Re: Why the Hellenistic era hypothesis should be taken seriously

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2023 8:55 am
by rgprice
Why would 2 Isaiah be written? It occurs to me that the fall or coming fall of the Persians may indeed have been what prompted its writing.

Rather than 2 Isaiah being written at the beginning of the Persian era, as many would claim, it may well have been written at the end of it. Perhaps before the end by someone hoping that the Persians would hold out. Or perhaps shortly after the end by someone hoping for a return of the Persians or to cement the Persian legacy.

Of course neither scenario is compatible with Gmirkin's thesis, but again, a "Hellenistic" origin of Judaism is not limited merely to Gmirkin's thesis.

And I'm not saying these are the only potential explanations for the writing of 2 Isaiah, I'm just presenting these as examples.