the c. 273-272 Torah-creation hypothesis

[Secret Alias]

On Philo's non-mention of Joshua
Although both Earp,6 and Colson in the running text of the translation7 identify the citation in IV Conf. 166 with Josh. 1:5, this is mistaken. Josh. 1:5 (IV Conf. 166)

(166) And therefore, the merciful God has delivered an oracle (διπερ
λγιν τ? cλεω ε?… $πγρ -ν) of loving kindness, which has a
message of good hope to the lovers of discipline. It is to this purport:
“I will not let thee go nor will I abandon thee” (Josh. 1:5). For when
the bonds of the soul which held it fast are loosened, there follows the
greatest of disasters, even to be abandoned by God who has encircled
all things with the adamantine chains of His Potencies (Jς τ)ς Rλις
δεσμ,ς τAς Hαυτ? δυν μεις περι(ψεν 'ρρ!κτυς) and willed that thus
bound tight and fast they should never be loosed.
6 In his Scripture Index to Philo’s works PLCL vol. X.
7 Ad loc. PLCL IV, 101. 8 The translation is quoted verbatim from Colson, PLCL, including the ascription
to Josh. 1:5.
106 chapter five
True, a verse very similar to that cited here does appear in Josh. 1:5,
and it is even part of the Haftarah reading for the final portion of the
Book of Deuteronomy in virtually all current rites (
).9 At the
same time, as their juxtaposition clearly shows, the citation in Philo is
almost verbatim Deut. 31:6, while it is only a somewhat free paraphrase
of that found in Joshua. The only thing in Josh. 1:5 that is closer to the
reference in Philo, is that like in Philo, it is in the first person while
Deut. 31:6 is in the third.
Septuagint (Josh. 1:5): ;κ *γκαταλε"ψω σε ;δε $περψμα" σε
Septuagint (Deut. 31:6): ; μ! σε 'ν6( eτε μ! σε *γκαταλ"πη.
Philo IV Conf. 166: ; μ! σε 'ν= ;δ<I ; μ! σε *γκαταλ"πω
MT (Josh. 1:5):
MT (Deut. 31:6):
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the pentateuchal citations
given by Philo immediately preceding and immediately following this
verse are quoted virtually verbatim from the Septuagint.10 If, but only
if, this citation comes from Deut. 31:6 is this the case here, for as just
noted, it is no more than a paraphrase of Josh. 1:5.
Further, this is also reflected in the way the citation is introduced.
For as we have already shown, while the Pentateuch as a whole serves as his
frame of reference,11 when Philo quotes from other parts of the Bible,
he usually identifies the specific scriptural venue.12 For example: in IV
Conf. 128 Judg. 8:9 is identified as coming from The Book of Judgments.
13
But here, the Book of Joshua is neither mentioned by name, nor is
it alluded to in any other manner. This is even more striking, since
Philo does mention Joshua by name in both historical and allegorical
contexts. In VI Mos. 1.216 (Ex. 17:9) and in VIII Virt. 55–56, 66–69
(Num. 27:15–23), he refers to him as an historical person. And the

[MrMacSon]

On Philo's non-mention of Joshua

Although both Earp,6 and Colson in the running text of the translation7 identify the citation in IV Conf. 166 with Josh. 1:5, this is mistaken. Josh. 1:5 (IV Conf. 166)

(166) And therefore, the merciful God has delivered an oracle (διπερ λγιν τ? cλεω ε?… $πγρ -ν) of loving kindness, which has a message of good hope to the lovers of discipline. It is to this purport: “I will not let thee go nor will I abandon thee” (Josh. 1:5).

For when the bonds of the soul which held it fast are loosened, there follows the greatest of disasters, even to be abandoned by God who has encircled all things with the adamantine chains of His Potencies (Jς τ)ς Rλις δεσμ,ς τAς Hαυτ? δυν μεις περι(ψεν 'ρρ!κτυς) and willed that thus bound tight and fast they should never be loosed.

6 In his Scripture Index to Philo’s works PLCL vol. X.

7 Ad loc. PLCL IV, 101.8 The translation is quoted verbatim from Colson, PLCL, including the ascription to Josh. 1:5.

106 chapter five
True, a verse very similar to that cited here does appear in Josh. 1:5, and it is even part of the Haftarah reading for the final portion of the Book of Deuteronomy in virtually all current rites (..).9 At the same time, as their juxtaposition clearly shows, the citation in Philo is almost verbatim Deut. 31:6, while it is only a somewhat free paraphrase of that found in Joshua. The only thing in Josh. 1:5 that is closer to the reference in Philo, is that like in Philo, it is in the first person while Deut. 31:6 is in the third.

Septuagint (Josh. 1:5): ;κ *γκαταλε"ψω σε ;δε $περψμα" σε
Septuagint (Deut. 31:6): ; μ! σε 'ν6( eτε μ! σε *γκαταλ"πη.
Philo IV Conf. 166: ; μ! σε 'ν= ;δ<I ; μ! σε *γκαταλ"πω
MT (Josh. 1:5):
MT (Deut. 31:6):

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the pentateuchal citations given by Philo immediately preceding and immediately following this verse are quoted virtually verbatim from the Septuagint.10 If, but only if, this citation comes from Deut. 31:6 is this the case here, for as just noted, it is no more than a paraphrase of Josh. 1:5.

Further, this is also reflected in the way the citation is introduced.
For as we have already shown, while the Pentateuch as a whole serves as his frame of reference,11 when Philo quotes from other parts of the Bible, he usually identifies the specific scriptural venue.12 For example: in IV Conf. 128 Judg. 8:9 is identified as coming from The Book of Judgments.13

But here, the Book of Joshua is neither mentioned by name, nor is it alluded to in any other manner. This is even more striking, since Philo does mention Joshua by name in both historical and allegorical contexts. In VI Mos. 1.216 (Ex. 17:9) and in VIII Virt. 55–56, 66–69 (Num. 27:15–23), he refers to him as an historical person. And the

Does Philo use the Greek for Joshua? Ἰησοῦς : Iésous : https://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm
(where is that text from?)

[Secret Alias]

I really don't know. The non-use of Joshua is puzzling though. Could be coincidence. Or ...

[MrMacSon]

I really don't know. The non-use of Joshua is puzzling though. Could be coincidence. Or ...

Are you referring to Joshua the book?
or Joshua/s the human/s (in the Hebrew Bible or Tanakah) ?

[rgprice]

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.

Yes but, none of this stuff is documented or chronicled until like the 3rd century BCE at the earliest, if not later in many cases. Gmirkin addresses the Samaritans in Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus, Appendix C.

[StephenGoranson]

In "The Composition of the Pentateuch as a Historical and a Hermeneutical Problem," Konrad Schmid shows, imo, how Torah text came together in a centuries-long (not sudden) process of joining different, and sometimes contradictory, sections and editing the evolving combinations.

https://uzh.mediaspace.cast.switch.ch/m ... 0_sf6btr7d

[Secret Alias]

I think that's the point. And I can't believe how much I agree with Stephen. The conspiracy theory element is this "sudden" creation of a thing called the Bible or the Torah or the Writings. Look at the last chapter of Numbers. That was once the ending of a "Torah." Let's call it the Tetrateuch even though no one called it that. Then look at the last chapter of Deuteronomy. It seems like it's already making the bridge to a canon that included Joshua. And then you can see the chapter before has a feel of an original ending. And then there are the differences between the Samaritan and Jewish and Greek texts of Joshua (my friend Boid wrote a monograph on this). Then there is Judges etc. Then there are the differences between Masoretic Exodus and what came befofe. This can't have been "invented" as a one shot deal. This was a continuum in Samaria and Judea where "the canon" was being hammered out over centuries. There's no Bible-making factory in a warehouse in Alexandria. The process was carried out in Hebrew in "the Land" (Samaria and Judea). Philo doesn't even seem to know Joshua but clearly there were mainstream Samaritans in Egypt who must have taken Joshua to more significant than modern Samaritanism (which is likely more heavily influenced by Dositheanism than most recognize). It's a very fluid and complex situation that developed in the Land rather than Alexandria. And certainly not 'instantly.'

[Secret Alias]

You know what it's like? (I know I have tiresome analogies). When your making theories from solely OUR point of view = "the Bible." It's easy to think of things in monolithic terms. That's how we see "the Bible." But when you actually take time and care to incorporate all the sects and interpretation of what is "scripture" you become more sophisticated and you stop buying into unsophisticated theories.

Its like getting to know a family. Every neurotic member of a family's POV becomes a little clearer when you stop putting the "ought" of "how a family ought to function." In the same way if you are trying to understand the development of scripture you have to take the time to gather up all the sects all their understanding of "what scripture ought to be" and line them up and see how there is a clear succession from Tetrateuch to Pentateuch to Hexateuch to what we know as the Bible and other parallel "Bibles." Took place over centuries not weeks and years.

[Secret Alias]

And the biggest clue as to the uncanonical or disputed nature of the Pentateuch is the "undue" attention the Saducees paid to the Ten Commandments (at least according to later standards of orthodoxy). You know the rabbinic tradition sneered at the original liturgy. Why? Because only the Ten came from God. There was this original notion still surviving in the margins down to the 10th century that the Pentateuch and Joshua etc were written by men not God. I know this doesn't seem to be relevant but I think it is. Because the Tetrateuch wasn't divine someone could come along and add shit to it. They were just words on a page written by Moses or Ezra or whomever. You see among the Samaritans the accusation that the Scriptures (?) had massive corruptions in them. We see this in the Two Powers debate too. It wasn't just that heretics "interpreted" one and the same "Torah" to the effect that there "are two powers." The original text of Exodus PROVED this and was subsequently altered. We hear this with the two Torahs in Israel trope. I am not sure this originally pertained to oral and written traditions. There multiple Torahs, multiple canons, multiple holy places - even different holy places at Gerizim (some worshipped on the mountain others facing the mountain where Jacob saw God descend on the heavenly ladder which connected Gerizim to Pardes). The complexity is staring and it's only the ignorance of the underlying complexity that allows for these sort of mountainman theories to emerge and be influential.

[Secret Alias]

The bottom line become aware of all the sources before buying into untenable theories. The fact that "we don't have written sources" doesn't mean much. Josephus is our only real source for the Jewish War. This doesn't make his testimony more or less accurate than it originally was. There were likely many other testimonies (Justus) which didn't survive. Survivability doesn't prove anything. An army uniform is more durable than a silk dress. My wife looks better in a silk dress.