Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 12.45 07/01/00 +0100, Thomas L. Thompson wrote:
>My problem is the spatial imagery and the assumptions of the suggestion. 

Think of it more DNA imagery, the number of traits that variants have and
the way those traits combine can tell how "close" the variants are to each
other. In Indo-European linguistics one can talk about kentum-satem
languages as though the trait variation is a fundamental separation
occurring relatively early in the going of the ways of the various
languages. I'd think that the plotting of the varieties of tradition here
would also be analogous to the I.-E. linguistic situation. (And of course I
feel a little happier when GenAp can be compared with Jub.)

>I would assume that each 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.'

While a variant will have its own perspective which will shape the
materials it is working with, it will present a selection of the available
traditions, a selection whose content and combination will be comparable
with other variants. Through such a comparison we should be able to say
that what one preserves of the traditions, traditions which are also
received by another and processed in an analogous fashion, may be closer
to, or further away from, one variant than another.

Let me try an example about Abraham coming out of Egypt using Gen13:2-3 as
a base:
----------------------------------------------------------
(G = Genesis; J = Jubilees; A = GenAp)

G  He journeyed on by stages from the Negeb
J  And he went
A  I camped in each of my former encampments

G  as far as Bethel, to the place where where his tent had been
   at the beginning
J  to the place where he had pitched his tent first
A  until I reached Bethel

G  between Bethel and Ai to the place where he had made
   an altar at the first
J  to the place of the altar. Ai was east and Bethel west. 
A  where I had once erected an altar. Now I rebuilt it

G  and there Abram called on the name of the Lord
J  And he blessed the Lord who brought him back in peace...
   And he offered up upon it a burnt offering and he called
   upon the name of the Lord
A  and offered up burnt offerings and a cereal offering to God
   Most High. There I called upon the Eternal Lord and praised
   the name of God. I blessed God and gave thanks... because
   he had returned me to this land safely.
----------------------------------------------------------

You'll see that first GenAp and then Jub supports the Genesis wording each
omitting what was not wanted or reworking. Then we arrive at the last
section in which it is Genesis that has the short version. Each has Abram
calling on the Lord, but then Jub and GenAp go further together with the
burnt offering and the blessing for the safe return.

I would think that we are using *written* source materials as a basis for
each of the three. Yet as there is a lot of agreement between Jub and GenAp
one should conclude that this was due to a written source either available
to Gen but not used or simply not available. It's material like this last
section that puts Jubilees and GenAp closer.

I think that an effort should be made to say what each text actually
contains in comparison to the others before starts dealing with the
perspectives of each variant tradition.

>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. 

It might be good if we actually deal with the texts.

>       [Thomas L. Thompson]  As for multiple Judaisms, see the recent
>discussions of Davies and Neusner rather than Smith. 

Oh, assuredly.

>Certainly one can
>point to at least 4 flavors (Elephantine, Shomronim, Dead Sea, Alexandrian)
>without getting into defining the so-called mainstream traditions. 

I have to call foul when you mix your periods so freely. Although the
Elephantine tradition a Yahwistic religion with a terminus of around 400
BCE, an Alexandrian variety can only at best be inferred from certain Greek
texts of dubious date some perhaps from the second century BCE. DSS come in
at about the first century BCE. How can you date the Samarian flavour (if
it is not found in the DSS)? You may as well include the Rabbinic religion.
There is no synchronic data, so what value is there in these four flavours
other than they existed without being able to relate them?

>This variety stands opposed to assumptions that there is a single center. 

This has not been substantiated. Elephantine gives indications that it was
related to mother Palestine with indications that they were in contact with
both Jerusalem and Samaria, but we cannot say what its relationship was,
though it may have faithfully reflected one or the other or both. Though we
don't have much of the religion we can see that its brand of polytheism
seems similar to that indicated in the small shrines such as Kuntilat
Ajrud. We have nothing to suggest that Elephantine was anything other than
a reflection of a single centre, which later changed course, lashing out at
the "Asherim".

Is there anything to indicate that the Samarian religion was different in
any substantial way from that in Jerusalem prior to the split, whenever
that was (post 2Mac6:2)? Was any difference anything but political?
Separation does induce variation, but big variations usually need external
inputs, as perhaps in the case of Alexandria. And I see nothing there to
suggest that we don't have a religion transplanted from Palestine which
adapted to its religious and philosophical environment.

>There were after all several temples and even temple Judaism was not 
>the whole of the affair.

This may be true, though can one imagine that temples at places which are
now in the outskirts of suburban Jerusalem had much independence?


Cheers,


Ian

(I had to look up "misprision".)