Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Thomas,

You wrote:

>I find dating generally very fragile and often misleading when we rarely
>have texts that are truly contemporary let alone written from a common
>perspective. Nevertheless, Elephantine, though itself not surviving into the
>Hellenistic period, offers us an interesting window into West Semitic
>military colonies in Egypt: 

There was no sign of any correspondence between Elephantine and any other
such military colony, not even a mention of another colony as far as I
know. Have you got any strong reason to believe that there were other such
colonies?

>...a social structure that is found at later
>periods. The patterns of local synchronism and the effects of intermarriage
>argue for the assumption of multiple forms of Judaism in the Egyptian
>diaspora, and undermine automatic assumptions that Mediterranean Judaism is
>of a single form. 

From my reading of the texts (not all of them, but the Mibtahiah texts and
the sanctuary destruction texts), I see no real indication of any
syncretism (if that's what was meant by synchronism, otherwise I don't
understand). Mibtahiah, for example, swears by a goddess Sati for some
legal obligation with a person called Pia. There is nothing in this to
suggest anything wandering from a back-home religion. I can't see any
reason for you to believe that the religion of Elephantine was anything
different from that of Kuntillat Ajrud. If you have anything to point at,
I'd be happy to hear about it. What makes you think that the state of the
religion at Elephantine was very different from that of Palestine as
evinced at Kuntillat Ajrud, and that what little difference you might be
able to specify was not merely the result of the isolation from mother
Palestine? Why can't Elephantine in some respect reflect a pre-"Zadokite"
Judaism?

>I would also say that this kind of Judaism can not be like
>that of what you seem to assume is a more original mother Judaism of
>Palestine. 

Why would you say that? During the sanctuary crisis Yedaniah wrote first to
Jerusalem and then to Samaria for help. One seeks help from one's "kin".

>Samaritanism is fundamentally different from Jerusalem based
>Judaism. These 'fundamentals' are not in creed or practice so much as in
>location and tradition. I moreover doubt that there ever was a 'split' on
>the basis that an original 'unity' is unlikely (see I.Hjelm, Samaritans,
>Sheffield, just out). My Samaritan flavor is found in the Pentateuch, which
>by the way is among the DSS!

I can't see that the distinction you are trying to make has that much
significance except for politics, theirs and yours. John Hyrcanus I, if we
can trust Josephus here, conquered Samaria, which was perceived to some
extent as having a filial relationship with Jerusalem prior to the
Hasmonean desires of grandeur. Any difference would have been played upon
for political gains -- a simple conquest of Samaria may not so easily have
been accepted until a propaganda war had first been waged.

>The deposits at Qumran do seem to be 1st cent. BCE, but the composition of
>the texts? 

You're talking about different contemporary flavours of Judaism. So far
I've seen very little evidence for such a thesis. And we cannot argue on
hypothetical dates of composition of texts.

Our interest here came out of a desire to understand the development of
Genesis-like traditions as found in texts such as Jubilees, GenAp, etc. If
we are to base most of the differences you outline on the differences of
pentateuchal texts found at Qumran, it would seem that the thesis is dead
in the water. There is much more variance between Gen & Jul than between
Gen and the Samarian related type found in the corpus.

>The jury is still out on Doudna's chronology. 

Let me clarify this matter here: I am using no chronology regarding Qumran
other than my own.

>Alexandrian Judaism
>is not so hard to date and 2nd cent bce to Philo is not hard to defend; nor
>is its distinction from what some think of as mainstream.

Thomas, I'm not arguing for a necessary singularity of religious tradition,
but merely for economy. There is no solid reason to expect that there was a
multiplicity of Judaisms as a root to the later variations of religious
position. While you correctly -- I think -- point out that any difference
between Samaria and Jerusalem was more a matter of location and tradition,
we must note that both positions accept forms of the Pentateuch that belie
minimal differences in content, ie they must have shared a common heritage
down to the time when very much of that material was finalised.

While it is possible that there was the party you claim, what I've seen so
far are doubts rather than evidence for a case.


Cheers,


Ian