Dating the Pentateuch

[spin]

Whether or not it is conservative the facts are the facts.

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.

There was an altar at Gerizim from the Persian period. Fact.

Does anyone doubt that? Really? Is it relevant? No.

The Pentateuch in its original form understood that God himself decreed that Israel was to establish a covenant at Gerizim. 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.

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.

"At the heart of the pentateuch"! That's impressive rhetoric... nothing more.

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.

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.

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.

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?

This is good question. An obvious idea is that it reflects a later writing, controlled to avoid any anachronism.

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.

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.

The Samaritans still had to embrace this new book and the new book still has Persian language (dat = law)

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.

And "new book" raises a smile. What is the old book (or old books)? You seem to have a lot of baggage.

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?

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.

This is still doesn't allow for Exodus to be written from Manetho.

Don't see any reason why not.

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?

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]

As I said, I couldn't care less either way when the Pentateuch was written. You have to admit though that incorporating the Samaritans into the development of the Pentateuch complicates matters for the Hellenistic origins argument. Here are some Jewish arguments for Deuteronomy being a later text.

Jews call the Book of Deuteronomy - mishneh Torah (= second Law). In the rabbinical writings there is always the sense that Devarim has a special status with respect to the other books.

The Mishnah says "One does not create a break in the curses." That is, during the reading of the Torah Jews are forbidden to divide the section known as the Admonition into two sections which could be read by two different people The Amora Abbaye however wrote "The Mishnah refers only to the curses in Leviticus; however, one may divide the curses in Deuteronomy. What is the reason for this? The former were framed in the plural, and Moses transmitted them from on high, whereas the latter were framed in the singular, and Moses delivered them by his own mouth." The words of Abbaye, that the curses in Deuteronomy were delivered by Moses on his own and the distinction between the curses in Leviticus and those in Deuteronomy is fixed in Jewish practice. Rashi as well, in his commentary on accepted Abbaye's point of view.

Heschel has chapter after chapter on this stuff and the division and subdivision of the Torah according to different ages. I am not sure still how all of this fits together. The Dosithean position is interesting to because it shows (a) a subdivision within the Samaritan which (b) was closer to the Jewish point of view in many respects. Have a busy day to day.

[spin]

As I said, I couldn't care less either way when the Pentateuch was written. You have to admit though that incorporating the Samaritans into the development of the Pentateuch complicates matters for the Hellenistic origins argument. Here are some Jewish arguments for Deuteronomy being a later text.

I'm glad you're no longer peddling this line: "the Pentateuch is IMO is firmly dated to the Persian period." This early dating was somehow causing you to make claims about the split between Jerusalem and Gerizim.

I see no difficulty at all regarding the Samaritans and a Hellenistic development of the pentateuch. In fact, the DSS feature proto-Samaritan versions of pentateuchal works, so those Jews had no problem either.

Here are some Jewish arguments for Deuteronomy being a later text.

Jews call the Book of Deuteronomy - mishneh Torah (= second Law). In the rabbinical writings there is always the sense that Devarim has a special status with respect to the other books.

The Mishnah says "One does not create a break in the curses." That is, during the reading of the Torah Jews are forbidden to divide the section known as the Admonition into two sections which could be read by two different people The Amora Abbaye however wrote "The Mishnah refers only to the curses in Leviticus; however, one may divide the curses in Deuteronomy. What is the reason for this? The former were framed in the plural, and Moses transmitted them from on high, whereas the latter were framed in the singular, and Moses delivered them by his own mouth." The words of Abbaye, that the curses in Deuteronomy were delivered by Moses on his own and the distinction between the curses in Leviticus and those in Deuteronomy is fixed in Jewish practice. Rashi as well, in his commentary on accepted Abbaye's point of view.

Heschel has chapter after chapter on this stuff and the division and subdivision of the Torah according to different ages. I am not sure still how all of this fits together. The Dosithean position is interesting to because it shows (a) a subdivision within the Samaritan which (b) was closer to the Jewish point of view in many respects. Have a busy day to day.

Thing is, none of this has any historical relevance to the actual dating of the production of the pentateuch in any recognizable form, does it?

[stephan happy huller]

I am not conceding that the Pentateuch wasn't dated to the Persian period. I still think it was. I am merely trying to have a constructive conversation rather than arguing over details which don't decide the question either way. The more evidence we bring forward in fact points to an extremely complicated development for the Pentateuch which is difficult to understand. Anyone who claims otherwise is engaging in unnecessary polemics.

I would argue for the following development

1. a proto-Samaritan text reflecting Gerizim primacy and exclusivity perhaps with only four of the five books
2. the addition of Deuteronomy to this canon perhaps in the late Persian period, possibly in the early Hellenistic age
3. the split between the two communities in the Hellenistic period

I don't see how Genesis and Exodus could have been written any later than the Persian period. But I am open to any evidence you have for that argument.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I will readily admit that I am not an expert on the Book of Enoch. Nevertheless there are some obvious difficulties with dating the Pentateuch later than the Persian period. How do you explain the Qumran material which identify Gerizim as the original holy place? The adoption of Jews and Samaritans of the same text(s) = the Pentateuch, Joshua had to have occurred before the split between the two communities. When do you propose that happened?

The conquest and forced conversion recounted by Josephus readily explains that. I think it was by John "mad dog" Maccabe, John Hyrcanus to the rest of us. The question of interest is what were the gods of the Samaritans (and Galileans and Idumaeans) before the forced conversion?

Odd fact. Hyrcania was the name of a Persian province conquered by Alexander who set a Spartan general to rule. See the Maccabe letter to Sparta as their brothers in Abraham. Was John/Judah Maccabe (John the Hammer) a Spartan who married into Judea?

I see no evidence for the Samaritan use of Enoch but the Pentateuch being originally written with Gerizim in mind, a point shared in Joshua. I don't see how that all of this gets reconciled in the Hellenistic period.

Another point. Manetho claimed that he was drawing from pre-existent Egyptian records. Is it certain that there weren't Manethos before Manetho?

How about the religious practices of the Judeans changed when exposed to civilization by the Persians and Greeks? Let us be serious. The hillbillies were so illiterate just about the only writing found are merchant contracts on broken pieces of pottery. They didn't even have a standard writing material like clay tablets which, I point out, are dirt cheap. There is no way to create lengthy documents and copy them over centuries without a literate culture. That does not appear in hillbilly land until the 2nd c. BC. Therefore it could not have been written before then.

And then we know of many literate cultures and the type of material they produced. The vast majority is legal and business documents. The next most common is government decrees and judgements. The least common is religious material. If in fact this religious material were produced in hillbilly country we would expect to find thousands of times more material of the business and government type or at least evidence it once existed. We do not.

Let be real here. We all should know and acknowledge the high civilization of bibleland told of in the Septuagint is as believable as the Land of Oz and not just because both are loaded with magic. It just was not there. It didn't happen. Once that is agreed who knows what they did for a religion? But when they civilized they adopted practices the same as everyone else, loving to see blood flow and learning to tolerate the smell of burning flesh. In my opinion that is hardly a step up from anything but human sacrifice but it hardly matters as it was the standard of the world at that time.

So arguing or assuming the Judeans never changed is foolish to say the least. Scurrilous perhaps but also perhaps true. What does it matter? It is only in the last few hundred years that an ethical component started by added to Judaism and then mainly in the Reform movement looking for something left to justify a claim of being Jews. Without that it is purely ritual/taboo of the kind found in far away places where they eat explorers.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

The story Josephus attributes to Manetho (see C.Apion 1.26, 28) is a rewriting of the expulsion of the Hyksos, such that it represented the Jews in the place of the Hyksos in the expulsion as lepers led by one Osarsiph who changed his name to Moses. When can you imagine this rewrite attributed to Manetho having been done?

However in that same book Josephus claims the Judeans WERE the Hyksos who ruled Egypt for a hundred years. And while the majority went back to their homeland a group broke off and founded Jerusalem. And they made it such a great city it was the envy of the Egyptians.

Now lets be serious here. That is what Josephus claims is the truth. He also claims only people who hate Jews refuse to believe it. It follows that those who believe Exodus recounts the real events also hates Jews.

The only rational conclusion here is that what we would recognize as Judaism did not codify until long after Josephus. This should not be surprising. Judaism was a ritual/taboo religion and mostly still is. Belief is immaterial. I mean I want to read the jewish equivalent of the Apostle's or other Creeds not just be told there are required beliefs. I want to read them; the ones all Jews agree to.

Further the idea of dogma and doctrine first appears in history among Christian writings in the late 2nd c. AD. All through the world stories were told about the gods and no one cared about their contents only about the quality of the story. And it was not until Constantine that Christians got serious about core dogmas and required beliefs. Why should Jews have been anachronistic by centuries in caring about things other than the rituals and taboos?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Interpreting the Eden narrative in terms of sin and "fall" is a very Christian and stretched approach to the text.

Else they eat of the Tree of Life and live forever and become gods like US.

[spin]

The story Josephus attributes to Manetho (see C.Apion 1.26, 28) is a rewriting of the expulsion of the Hyksos, such that it represented the Jews in the place of the Hyksos in the expulsion as lepers led by one Osarsiph who changed his name to Moses. When can you imagine this rewrite attributed to Manetho having been done?

However in that same book Josephus claims the Judeans WERE the Hyksos who ruled Egypt for a hundred years. And while the majority went back to their homeland a group broke off and founded Jerusalem. And they made it such a great city it was the envy of the Egyptians.

Now lets be serious here. That is what Josephus claims is the truth. He also claims only people who hate Jews refuse to believe it. It follows that those who believe Exodus recounts the real events also hates Jews.

There is nothing serious about that.

The only rational conclusion...

This is usually a signal that something rather loopy is about to be said...

...here is that what we would recognize as Judaism did not codify until long after Josephus.

The "as" clause doesn't parse. The verb is transitive, making Judaism the agent, but the verb lacks an object. I'm trying to resist talking about the elephant in this room, but what follows makes it difficult.

This should not be surprising. Judaism was a ritual/taboo religion and mostly still is. Belief is immaterial. I mean I want to read the jewish equivalent of the Apostle's or other Creeds not just be told there are required beliefs. I want to read them; the ones all Jews agree to.

Further the idea of dogma and doctrine first appears in history among Christian writings in the late 2nd c. AD. All through the world stories were told about the gods and no one cared about their contents only about the quality of the story. And it was not until Constantine that Christians got serious about core dogmas and required beliefs. Why should Jews have been anachronistic by centuries in caring about things other than the rituals and taboos?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

The story Josephus attributes to Manetho (see C.Apion 1.26, 28) is a rewriting of the expulsion of the Hyksos, such that it represented the Jews in the place of the Hyksos in the expulsion as lepers led by one Osarsiph who changed his name to Moses. When can you imagine this rewrite attributed to Manetho having been done?

However in that same book Josephus claims the Judeans WERE the Hyksos who ruled Egypt for a hundred years. And while the majority went back to their homeland a group broke off and founded Jerusalem. And they made it such a great city it was the envy of the Egyptians.

Now lets be serious here. That is what Josephus claims is the truth. He also claims only people who hate Jews refuse to believe it. It follows that those who believe Exodus recounts the real events also hates Jews.

There is nothing serious about that.

Serious does not seem to apply. I merely recount what he wrote, Against Apion Bk I.

The only rational conclusion...

This is usually a signal that something rather loopy is about to be said...

What might be your conclusion? Josephus was a fraud and not a priest perhaps?

...here is that what we would recognize as Judaism did not codify until long after Josephus.

The "as" clause doesn't parse. The verb is transitive, making Judaism the agent, but the verb lacks an object. I'm trying to resist talking about the elephant in this room, but what follows makes it difficult.

Show of hands folks. Is there anyone else who could not figure out what I wrote?

But just for you, the Yahu cult of Josephus would not be recognized as Judaism today. He clearly rejects the Torah.

This should not be surprising. Judaism was a ritual/taboo religion and mostly still is. Belief is immaterial. I mean I want to read the jewish equivalent of the Apostle's or other Creeds not just be told there are required beliefs. I want to read them; the ones all Jews agree to.

Further the idea of dogma and doctrine first appears in history among Christian writings in the late 2nd c. AD. All through the world stories were told about the gods and no one cared about their contents only about the quality of the story. And it was not until Constantine that Christians got serious about core dogmas and required beliefs. Why should Jews have been anachronistic by centuries in caring about things other than the rituals and taboos?

[stephan happy huller]

You've been here five minutes and you think you can turn the way things are done around here upside down. If you have evidence to support your point of view please bring it forward. If you think that this forum is a great platform to spout your veiled anti-Semitic propaganda you are quickly going to find your ass thrown out of here. Bring forward some evidence for your claims. You've been posting things like a madman here without so much as making one substantive reference. My guess is that you don't have anything. But the way things are done around here is that we expect members to present evidence and have at least a half dozen relatively smart people take it apart and see if there is any merit to the particular claims being made from that evidence.