Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Thomas L. Thompson" <tlt AT teol.ku.dk>]

My problem is the spatial imagery and the assumptions of the suggestion. I
would assume that eacg variant of a tradition has its own perspective, so I
am uncertain that one can speak of one as 'closer' in contrast to other
independent variants, unless one means something like: 'having the
possibility of more detailed comparison or sharing similar ideology, etc.'
Similarly I am uncertain that one can measure the distance from 'starting
materials' that are not yet defined. I don't yet have a better way, but I
have some confidence that we should not follow a way that is going to
compound our ignorance on such problems. 
         Ian Hutchesson wrote: 
> I have in mind the fact that both Jubilees and GenAp have their own
> particular modes of transforming their source materials, the former
> imposing calendrical imperatives on the text while the latter shows the
> desire to have the protagonists experiencing the events so we have
> narratives in the first person and examples of the fulfillment of promises
> or actions (not found in Jub or Gen). This implies to me an editorial
> policy for each which takes them further away from the starting materials.
> If you are unconvinced, then perhaps you've got a more convincing way of
> dealing with the data? If so, I'd be glad to hear it.
> 
> 
        [Thomas L. Thompson]  As for multiple Judaisms, see the recent
discussions of Davies and Neusner rather t´han Smith. Certainly one can
point to at least 4 flavors (Elephantine, Shomronim, Dead Sea, Alexandrian)
without getting into defining the so-called mainstream traditions. this
variety stands opposed to assumptions that there is a single center. There
were after all several temples and even temple Judaism was not the whole of
the affair.
          

> I have always been dubious about the multiplicity of flavours of Judaism
> in
> the earlier second temple. The evidence I have seen is mainly based on
> undatable materials (think of Morton Smith's Palestinian parties as
> rewrites of Ezra and Neh.), though this seems to be less the case with the
> emergence of a liberal tradition given a chance to manifest itself from
> the
> time of Alcimus, ie the Hellenistic crisis which empowered many who then
> had the opportunity to express a religious position. Before that I can't
> imagine a chancelry, or at least a scribal, situation which could support
> the diversity *in Jerusalem*. We then have to think about the
> possibilities
> implied by the Tobiad family and the situation in Samaria, perhaps even
> the
> mountain of Edom. But if there is such a variety, I cannot see it fostered
> in a single centre, given the cost, and control, of scribal activity.
> 
> >But II Kings here is drawing on a literary trope, and must be so
> >understood, before we can talk about its historical uses. 
> An interesting opinion. Would you say the same thing about the fall of
> Samaria? While I can see the exodus put together far too late to have any
> constructive record of any possible events, you put formative Judaism(s)
> in
> development in the second temple period, say three centuries after the
> event in discussion, not long enough for traces of memories to be
> extinguished nor for the borrowing of such a tradition in my mind 
        [Thomas L. Thompson]  
        I find it difficult to talk about memories preserved over three
centuries without getting into the questin of whether these are memories of
events.
>  
        [Thomas L. Thompson]  Finally, I agree whole-heartedly on the
misprision implied in the use of massoretic for such early texts. I must
find an alternative.

        Thomas