60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The Era

[Secret Alias]

Ummm. No. The same or similar "blending " is at Qumran. It's all a matter of perspective. Same with the gospel "harmonies." Deuteronomy was apparently built around retreaded pieces of Exodus.

[John2]

But the difference is that the Samaritans pre-date Ezra (according to 2 Kings 17). So why would their Exodus be blended with elements of Deuteronomy, and why would they use Deuteronomy at all, if Ezra wrote Deuteronomy (which is what I gather you are suggesting)?

[Secret Alias]

But is it "blending" or separating? The same question with respect to the gospel "harmonies." Are they a result of blending or the canonical gospels a result of separation (they are called "the separated" in Syriac).

[John2]

But is it "blending" or separating? The same question with respect to the gospel "harmonies." Are they a result of blending or the canonical gospels a result of separation (they are called "the separated" in Syriac).

My understanding is that the gospels are called "separated" in Syriac because up until the fifth century CE Syrians had been using a harmony. This doesn't mean that the gospels had previously only existed as a harmony, and it seems to me that they were "separated" long before this time (e.g., Ireneaus). As Wikipedia puts it (I'm at work and don't feel like looking for a different source):

How the Gospel text that was a standard in Syriac Christianity for possibly as long as two centuries should have utterly disappeared requires explaining. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus on the Euphrates in upper Syria in 423, suspecting Tatian of having been a heretic, sought out and found more than two hundred copies of the Diatessaron, which he "collected and put away, and introduced instead of them the Gospels of the four evangelists". Thus the harmonisation was replaced in the 5th century by the canonical four gospels individually, in the Peshitta version, whose Syriac text nevertheless contains many Diatessaronic readings. Gradually, without extant copies to which to refer, the Diatessaron developed a reputation for having been heretical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

[Secret Alias]

Oh come on you can't be this dense. Of course the reason why the people who used a single long gospel called the four western gospels types 'separated' was because they understood that the four were separated from their text. The same situation to a degree exists among the Samaritans today with respect to the book of Exodus. THEY DON'T THINK THAT SOMEONE ADDED THE MATERIAL FROM DEUTERONOMY. This is the main point. This is what drives me nuts with people in general. People seem only capable of seeing things from THEIR POV.

Even today I am driving in the car with my wife and we are talking about Trump and the Republicans. Yes to be certain I think Trump is an idiot. Yes to be sure I think that the Republican Party is an organized scam for the wealthy using white nationalism, abortion etc as wedge issues to make the rich richer. But at the same time I acknowledge that many of the people who vote Republican have 'good intentions' - they all aren't racist or maniacal demons. There are a number of issues facing the country and different groups with different priorities. Every time my wife (at least fro my POV) just blindly repeats Democratic 'spin' I remind her to (a) remember her POV but (b) at least try and see why about half the country is buying into the GOP message regardless if she agrees with it. It's an important mental exercise to avoid getting stuck in an echo chamber. It's also what distinguishes us from the other side.

In the same way the fact that (at least from our inherited POV) lines from Deuteronomy appear in Exodus has many possible explanations. So too the 'harmony' gospel explanation vs the single long gospel explanation. The key is not to proceed assuming that was is familiar is correct. It's just familiar.

[Secret Alias]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3261466?se ... b_contents https://books.google.com/books?id=-j4YA ... xa&f=false And the question is clearly - if 4QExa, 4Q158.6 and 4Q175 are the oldest surviving fragments of the Book of Exodus why do we consider the later textual examples the correct ones? Again what is familiar is not necessarily true.

When we put together the basic understanding that Deuteronomy was 'the second Law' (based upon not only the Greek name but also the natural succession from Genesis and the differences in Hebrew between it and the Tetrateuch among other things) it is quite impossible to start from any other position that Deuteronomy 'took over' bits of information from Exodus and later the duplication was 'corrected' to make the newly fashioned Pentateuch more streamlined. Indeed the 'correction' of the features of the Samaritan text goes far beyond this. Many sections of the Pentateuch in the SP seem redundant when compared to the Jewish equivalent. Much of the redundancy and the pedantic nature were 'corrected' in the Jewish model.

[Secret Alias]

And the broader context of Charlesworth's discussion (outside of whether the SP and Qumran texts were older than the MT and LXX) is worth reading for the OP. Clearly the expectation of a Moses-like figure was universal in the age - https://books.google.com/books?id=-j4YA ... xa&f=false

[Secret Alias]

And the broader context of Charlesworth's discussion (outside of whether the SP and Qumran texts were older than the MT and LXX) is worth reading for the OP. Clearly the expectation of a Moses-like figure was universal in the age - https://books.google.com/books?id=-j4YA ... xa&f=false

[John2]

And the broader context of Charlesworth's discussion (outside of whether the SP and Qumran texts were older than the MT and LXX) is worth reading for the OP. Clearly the expectation of a Moses-like figure was universal in the age

All this means is that by the time of the Maccabees there was an expectation of an eschatological prophet that included "proof texts" like Dt. 18. All I'm saying is that this interpretation of Dt. 18 as referring to a singular future prophet does not appear to be the plain meaning of the text or how Dt. 18 was understood in Jer. 26 and Rabbinic Judaism.

So to me it seems obvious now. There was a "blending" of "messianic" material from Deuteronomy added to the Samaritan and DSS Exodus because they are both associated with Moses and both groups were "messianic."

[Secret Alias]

does not appear to be ... how Dt. 18 was understood in Jer. 26 and Rabbinic Judaism.

Fuck the Pharisees. Charlesworth understands the text the way the Samaritans understand the text (I've seen pictures of Charlesworth with my friend Benny so he is intimately familiar with the older tradition). The understanding is the plain meaning of the text.