Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by DCHindley »

Ishmael (austendw),
The text of Genesis shows so many fragmented/contradictory elements and signs of cumulative supplementation and amplification, that the notion of a complex, layered, messy chain of transmission looks to me far more likely.
I would agree that the Pentateuch contains a great many signs that point to use of previous sources, and have always liked JEDP as an analysis of these sources, but have not been as happy with the attempts to put dates to these sources and redactions. That latter process seems to include a good deal of eisegesis.

DCH
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by austendw »

DCHindley wrote:I would agree that the Pentateuch contains a great many signs that point to use of previous sources, and have always liked JEDP as an analysis of these sources, but have not been as happy with the attempts to put dates to these sources and redactions. That latter process seems to include a good deal of eisegesis.
I agree that the original absolute chronology that Wellhausen proposed is now utterly untenable. But there have been many, many developments in textual criticism and chronology since then, which have refined, revised, even unpicked the documentary hypothesis. It may be appropriate here to repeat most of what I posted on Neil Gregory's Vridar blog a few days ago (edited for grammar):
One of the problems I have ... is that Russel Gmirkin presents it as a contest between Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis 1878 and his own position 2006, as if there has been little or no relevant scholarly developments, or alternatives worth engaging with, in between.

He does mention some different post-Wellhausen chronological schemes, sort of , but he doesn’t seriously discuss any of the supplementary and fragmentary theories of the compostion of the Pentateuch (or Tetrateuch) that have developed in the second half of the 20th Century – Rentdorf, Van Seters, Kratz. For example, there are significant issues raised by, say, Van Seters, who downdates J to the Exilic period. But that could have a crucial impact in Chapter 5, where Gmirkin pits his own theory of the writers of Genesis deriving Mesopotamian myths from Berossus as against the Wellhausen’s chronology, which demands that those myths entered South Syria in the 1400s BCE and were transmitted orally for centuries – which is indeed highly implausible. But Van Seter’s argument broadly speaking now puts both the Yahwist & P within a strongly Mesopotamian orbit and offers a quite different scenario that Gmirkin doesn’t remotely address (This is not to say that I necessarily agree with Van Seters, I should add.) This raises the possibility that there are other theoretical constructs which might prove to be more robust rivals to Gmirkin’s theories than Wellhausen’s 19th Century option.

While he certainly rejects Wellhausen’s chronology, Gmirkin doesn’t reject the division of sources as such (at least in principle); he flattens out the chronology entirely, seeing the sources as contemporary alternative narratives – presumably written separately but then brought together by an overall editor. But will Wellhausen’s theory really survive this flattening? Isn’t there a relationship between sources that necessitates a (relative) chronology? Does a certain polemical or revisionist attitudes of one source towards another not demand a more extended chronology than this theory allows?

Gmirkin seems to come at the issue primarily from the viewpoint of the classical texts – Hecataeus, Berossus, Manetho etc – scrutinising them with great care and sensitivity (eg Chapter 3 on Hecataeus and Theophanes of Mytilene is beautifully and elegantly argued – it’s where the book is at its best)… but I don’t think he is anywhere near as careful with the Biblical text, which too often is simply alluded to in broad bullet-point summaries; problems and inconsistent elements are ignored (e.g. – why is the Babylonian Nimrod a son of Cush in Gen 10:8? Is it significant that the MT of Exodus 1:11 mention two “store-cities” Pithom and Ra’amses, but the LXX has three “secure cities”, Pithom, Ra’amses and On (Heliopolis)?)
Even the traditional J source in Genesis 2-11 has many, many narrative fractures: why does the Tree of Life only appear at the very end of the Garden of Eden narrative (Gen 3:22-24)? Why does Cain the wandering outcast suddenly become Cain the respectable city builder (Gen 4:11-17)? Would the writer of Gen 4:19-22 declare that Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-Cain as the fathers of, respectively, nomads, musicians and smiths if he was planning to describe the Deluge (within a single generation, if we discount P's Sethite genealogy and go directly from Cainite Lamech to Noah)? Gmirkin doesn't take any of this detailed primary evidence (in a textual, not historical sense) into account.
Call me Ishmael...
Bertie
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:21 pm

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by Bertie »

To repeat the same comment I wrote on the Vridar site about this book: is it reasonable to think that Greek speaking Jews immersed in and favorable to Greek culture could have produced the Hebrew Bible somehow avoiding any Greek loan word outside of Daniel (which is the one book everyone agrees is post-Alexander)? Remember, historical linguistics or linguistics period doesn't really exist in these times: how could they possibly avoid linguistic anachronism with so much text being produced?

One objection might be that the standard theory has the Pentateuch completed post-Exile, but those five books contain no Persian loanwords, so maybe avoiding anachronistic loan words wasn't so hard as you think. A reply to that might be that the standard theory has the Pentateuch getting its final edition post-Exile but the overwhelming majority of the text is pre-Exile, so the post-Exilic editors only contributed a small portion of the text. And we don't necessarily know how Persian-ized those editors were, while in the case of the hypothesis under question, the authors are supposed to be heavily Greek influenced and living in a Greek city.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by neilgodfrey »

Bertie wrote:To repeat the same comment I wrote on the Vridar site about this book: is it reasonable to think that Greek speaking Jews immersed in and favorable to Greek culture could have produced the Hebrew Bible somehow avoiding any Greek loan word outside of Daniel (which is the one book everyone agrees is post-Alexander)? Remember, historical linguistics or linguistics period doesn't really exist in these times: how could they possibly avoid linguistic anachronism with so much text being produced?

One objection might be that the standard theory has the Pentateuch completed post-Exile, but those five books contain no Persian loanwords, so maybe avoiding anachronistic loan words wasn't so hard as you think. A reply to that might be that the standard theory has the Pentateuch getting its final edition post-Exile but the overwhelming majority of the text is pre-Exile, so the post-Exilic editors only contributed a small portion of the text. And we don't necessarily know how Persian-ized those editors were, while in the case of the hypothesis under question, the authors are supposed to be heavily Greek influenced and living in a Greek city.
How far back can we trace our Hebrew Bible?

Don't the DSS indicate some considerable fluidity in the text before we arrive at our Masoretic text?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Bertie
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:21 pm

Re: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

Post by Bertie »

I can't claim much knowledge of OT textual studies.

My limited understanding is that the Pentatuch doesn't actually vary all that much among the sources, and much of what variation there is comes down to the inherent ambiguity of vowel-lacking Hebrew plus words whose meaning is disputed.

The prophetic and wisdom books vary more, wildly so in Esther, Job, and a few others, but as I understand it even there it is more a matter of added/deleted text rather than many, many different readings at the micro level.
Post Reply