Sadly, no. As I pointed out, I was dealing with a split between Gerizim and Jerusalem. The crank idea that there was some closer compact and some deeper split earlier is based on the whole fanta-history of Israel that they were effectively once one culture/nation/people and that is nonsense.stephan happy huller wrote:Whether or not it is conservative the facts are the facts.
Does anyone doubt that? Really? Is it relevant? No.stephan happy huller wrote:There was an altar at Gerizim from the Persian period. Fact.
By pentateuch here you mean some form of Deuteronomy, right? Deuteronomy which must needs include material from the Ptolemaic period. But I don't kn ow why you are talking about the pentateuch with this stuff about Gerizim. Let's just forget about the pentateuch. Your logic doesn't apply to it, just to part of Deuteronomy. And it deals with some time when Gerizim was significant, which means prior to its destruction at the hands of John Hyrcanus.stephan happy huller wrote:The Pentateuch in its original form understood that God himself decreed that Israel was to establish a covenant at Gerizim. Fact.
"At the heart of the pentateuch"! That's impressive rhetoric... nothing more.stephan happy huller wrote:This doesn't mean that the original recension of the Pentateuch dates from the Persian period in itself. It's possible at least theoretically that the Gerizim altar was associated with another worship using another text or another paradigm of worship. However you still have to imagine then that the Gerizim first and Gerizim only paradigm at the heart of the Pentateuch was written at the time Alexander set foot in the region.
We are looking for ways to date the pentateuchal books, because you make certain assumptions about them with regard to the Samaritans, but you aren't doing much about dating anything other than referring to a Persian phrase in Deuteronomy, which must be the heart of the pentateuch in your view.
The biblical tradition narrative has Gerizim as one step in a long itinerary. I'm certainly not convinced by your clinging to Deut 11:29. The discussion is not about Gerizim per se. There is a division of the legendary tribes of Israel on the two hills. Does this represent some obscure event from the time of the temple on Gerizim, which according to the Josephan narrative was built by Sanballat II at the end of the Persian era, or does it represent some earlier tradition. You must opt for some earlier thing, going by the conservative stuff you've referred to. That would make the temple on Gerizim irrelevant.stephan happy huller wrote:If you accept that there was a period where Jews and Samaritans accepted Gerizim then then a period where the Jews broke away later in the Hellenistic period.
This is good question. An obvious idea is that it reflects a later writing, controlled to avoid any anachronism.stephan happy huller wrote:Still I have a hard time figuring out a paradigm that allows for the 'Gerizim only' paradigm among Jews. Are you suggesting that the Pentateuch allowed for a second place of worship? Why isn't Jerusalem mentioned in the Pentateuch?
I've already indicated that the Genesis story of Adam and Eve is a competitor to the Watchers story of how the ideal past got perverted. That should put Adam and Eve in the Hellenistic era. The use of El Elyon in the Melkizedek story in Gen 14 relates it to securely dated 2nd century texts such as Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon. And the previously mentioned Greek modelled Joseph novella. I'd think Genesis is a good bet for a major effort in the Hellenistic period, obviously using a good percentage of earlier traditions.stephan happy huller wrote:Moreover, I am familiar with the argument that Deuteronomy was written in the Hellenistic period. That's a separate difficulty because the rabbinic tradition accepts the idea (or at least acknowledges the idea) that Moses might have written the text of Deuteronomy himself without divine assistance. In other words, that it could be conceived as a 'secondary' text added to the first four books. I don't know where such a concession leaves us with respect to four books written in the Persian period and then a fifth book added to the four in the Hellenistic period.
It seems the word you refer to is found several times in Daniel, so I guess we should date Daniel whenever it is that you want to date Deuteronomy. Lots of times in Esther. Maybe that should be early as well. Oh, wait. Those books are set in Persian areas, so we can use it there without any real significance. Just not in Deuteronomy.stephan happy huller wrote:The Samaritans still had to embrace this new book and the new book still has Persian language (dat = law)
And "new book" raises a smile. What is the old book (or old books)? You seem to have a lot of baggage.
Let's not talk about Ezra as though he acted in a specific historical context. Ben Sira shows no knowledge of the character. Besides he was quite popular rather late, with the construction of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah from the Vorlage to 1 Esdras and the Nehemiah memoir. Remember those pesky genealogies which show the evolution of the priestly line from 1 Esdras to Ezra to 1 Chronicles?? Interest in genealogies generally was certainly late. Just look at the variations in Josephus and those in the gospels.stephan happy huller wrote:and reinforced Gerizim as the god decreed sacred altar. Very early Hellenistic period? Who was this second Ezra who wrote this add on which was accepted by both Samaritans and Jews?
Don't see any reason why not.stephan happy huller wrote:This is still doesn't allow for Exodus to be written from Manetho.
I've already pointed to Ben Sira as someone who just should have known about Ezra. This is where we get some hypothesis about Ben Sira being in some faction that doesn't appreciate Ezra, the refounder of Judaism. (I have the inkling Ezra might be an early Pharisaic invention of a similar or slightly later era to the production of the Persianesque Daniel.)stephan happy huller wrote:What about the tradition that Ezra wrote the Pentateuch? Is that complete nonsense or did Ezra really live at a later date according to your conception?