Showing posts with label textual criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label textual criticism. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Samaritan Letter to Artaxerxes the King

According to the fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra Zerubbabel, the leader of the Jews, has refused the Samaritan’s help in rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem. Offended, the Samaritans began to interfere with the Jews in rebuilding the temple and seduce the king's officials to stop construction of the temple. Later, they wrote a letter to the Persian king Artaxerxes with denunciation of the Jews. In it Samaritans warned the king that if rebuilding of the temple and the city of Jerusalem would complete the Jews will raise revolt and stop paying tribute. In support of his words the senders of the letter asked the king of search in the royal archives of old documents from which it can verify the rebellious nature of the Jews. After receiving and reading the letter King Artaxerxes has raised the old documents and saw that message senders were right. In response Artaxerxes ordered a prohibition rebuild Jerusalem and its temple. As a result the construction of the temple has been stopped all the reign of Artaxerxes until the next reign of Darius king of Persia. This storyline draws us to the fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy

Prof. Dr. Stefan Schorch
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Since 1953, when Albrecht Alt’s famous essay “Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums” was published, the question about the historical origin of Deuteronomy became an important issue in the research on the Hebrew Bible. Pointing especially to conceptual parallels between Deuteronomy and the Book of Hosea, Alt argued that Deuteronomy was not composed in Judah or in Jerusalem, but in the North. Although this suggestion has been followed by important experts of Deuteronomy, Alt’s theory is today far from being generally accepted among Old Testament scholars. One of the main reasons for this situation seems to be one weak point: Alt’s study offers no explanation for how the idea of cult centralization, which is so prominently expressed in Deuteronomy (especially in chapters 12, 14, and 16), fits in the geographical context of Israel. Therefore, this issue seems to be worth reconsideration, and this will be the main focus of the following article.

The idea of cult centralization appears for the first time in Deut 12:5:

You shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes (םכיטבש לכמ םכיהלא הוהי רחבי רשא םוקמה) as his habitation to put his name there. You shall go there…

This or similar formulae appear in the Book of Deuteronomy no less than 22 times. From the perspective of the received Masoretic text as a whole, the chosen place is clearly identified within the so-called Deuteronomistic history. Accordingly, the chosen place is Jerusalem, as expressed in the extant narrative for the first time in 1 Kgs 8:16 (LXX//2 Chr 6:5‒6):

Monday, July 23, 2012

The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent Research: A Teaching and Study Resource

John E. Anderson

I.  Introduction
a.  A lack of consensus in the last 30 years of scholarship
b.  Both diachronic and synchronic approaches, documentarian and supplementarian approaches
c.  To understand where we are, it is important—briefly—to look at from where we have come

II.  Precursors to the Documentary Hypothesis: Working Towards JEDP (emergent source-criticism)
a.  Spinoza (1670): “it is thus clearer than the sun at noonday that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived longer after Moses” (also Hobbes)
b.  Jean Astruc (1753): isolates in Genesis an E and J source, with other independent material (yet did not challenge Mosaic authorship; Moses as redactor)
c.  Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780-1849) – decisive new phase in Pentateuchal investigations.
i.  Saw religious institutions in Chronicles as retrojection from time of writing in late Persian / early Hellenistic period
1.  thus reasonable that Pentateuchal legal material dates from time after monarchy
2.  Pentateuchal narrative traditions cannot be used as historical source material
ii.  1805 – identified law book discovered by Josiah as early version of Deuteronomy (dates to 7th century)
d.  H. Hupfeld (1853): in Genesis, identifies earlier E strand (corresponding to P) and later one; also an even later J document
e.  K.H. Graf (1860s): Hupfeld’s E1 = Priestly and is latest, not earliest source (also Reuss prior and Kuenen after re-dating)
f.  Julius Wellhausen (Prolegomena to the History of Israel)
i.  J & E = earliest sources; not always clearly distinguishable by use of divine names
1.  combined by a Jahwistic editor
ii.  Q (quattuor, four covenants) provides basic chronological structure for P material fitted in
iii.  P
1.  ritual law in Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26), which is dependent on Ezekiel
2.  thus P is the latest stage in editorial history of 5x/6x, save for some late Deuteronomic retouchings
iv.  Deuteronomy
1.  comes into existence independent of other sources
2.  622 with Josiah = first edition
3.  familiar with JE but not P, so combined with JE prior to P ® JEDP
4.  end result = publication of Pentateuch in final form at the time of Ezra (5th century)
v.  Reveals an evolutionary view of Israelite religion (sees Moses as at end rather than beginning of historical process)
1.  JE = nature religion, spontaneous worship arising in daily life and festivals tethered to agrarian calendar
2.  D = centralization of worship, ends spontaneity, seals prophecy with emphasis on written law
3.  P = denatured religion dominated by clerical caste that remade past in own image
vi.  This view of sources dominated largely for nearly a century

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Laying the Foundations of Jerusalem Temple by Zerubbabel


Third chapter of Ezra book tells us how after the return from Babylon the Jews led by Zerubbabel and Joshua built an altar and restored the sacrifice to God Yahweh. After celebration of religious holidays they began to rebuild the temple.

First, they brought wood from Lebanon according to the order of King Cyrus. The priests began construction of the temple and laid its foundations. After laying the foundations the priests and Levites with trumpets and cymbals began to praise the Lord and to thank him for establishing the foundations of the temple. There were also the people who have seen the previous temple of Solomon by their own eyes. They wept for joy and someone just loudly rejoiced. This noise has been heard by Samaritans who wanted to participate in the reconstruction of the temple. But Zerubbabel refused them. Consequently, Samaritans began to interfere with the Jews to build the temple and its rebuilding has been delayed from the reign of King Cyrus until the reign of King Darius.

Premature celebration

In the plot line of this story about laying the foundations of the temple there is a confusing thing. For what did the Jews celebrate so joyfully with trumpets and cymbals? For what did they so grateful to God? What did the elders compare with the previous Solomon Temple? According to the storyline of Ezra book, they merely laid the foundation but rejoiced as if the temple has already been built.

Friday, May 4, 2012

The Story of Zerubbabel (Origin of the Guards Story)

One of the main characters of the biblical Book of Ezra is Zerubbabel. He heads the list of exiles that returned from the Babylonian captivity. After returning core group of exiles in the reign of the Persian king Cyrus Zerubbabel led the process of rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem, he built an altar and laid the foundations of the temple. Despite the various obstacles Zerubbabel along with other exiles finished building the temple in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the King.

However, the book didn't disclose the figure of Zerubbabel absolutely. Who was he? How did he become the leader of Jews? For what achievements? What is its fate?

Zerubbabel in the Book of Haggai

The book of Haggai gives us some information about this hero. But this information is largely contrary to the events of the book of Ezra. The book of Haggai tells us that Zerubbabel was governor of Judea at the time of king Darius. In those days people lived in Judea, but their life was uncomfortable. The land gave poor yields. Then God Yahweh through the prophet Haggai addressed the Jews and explained them that the reason of calamity is that the people of Judah didn’t rebuild the temple of God in Jerusalem. If they would rebuild it God will bless the land and it will give generous yields. Then residents of Judea led by the governor Zerubbabel began to build the temple and a few weeks they resumed it in the second year of the reign of king Darius.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

List of Exiles Who Returned from Babylonian Captivity

In Ezra 2 there is a list of people who returned from Babylon to Judah by order of the Persian king Cyrus. In the list it is given the heads of Jews, division of people by genealogy, division of local origin, division of the profession. There is given total number of captives, the number of cattle and slaves. After returning to Judah the people donated gold and silver for the reconstruction of the temple and settled in their cities. The following start of the temple building described in the next chapter of the book.


Textual problems

This list is also located in the Book of Nehemiah and in 1 Esdras. Moreover, 1 Esdras states that these exiles returned not at the time of King Cyrus, but at the time of King Darius. These three versions contain significant differences. They are different genealogies, numbers in groups, the number of donated money, the number of animals, the replacing of some groups. These discrepancies are chaotic in nature. Only part of them can be explained by errors of copyists. Therefore impossible to determine what list is original and what is derived from the original list.

The list indicated the total number of captives, which are 42,360 people. But in none of the lists in both books of Ezra and Nehemiah the total number of people does not exceed 34,000 people. Thus the lists are incomplete in all three books, the total number of listed exiles is 30000 - 34000 people.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi? L’apport de la Bible Grecque ancienne á l’histoire du texte Samaritain et Massorétique

Adrian Schenker

1. La formule du Deutéronome : Le lieu que le Seigneur a choisi pour y établir son nom

L’étude d’un point particulier d’histoire du texte de la Bible hébraïque à la lumière de la Bible grecque ancienne est dédiée en hommage cordial à la collègue éminente Madame Raija Sollamo dont les echerches ont contribué si magnifiquement à la connaissance de la Bible grecque des Septante. Il s’agira d’une formule deutéronomique bien connue, différente dans la Bible massorétique et samaritaine. Qu’en est-il de son attestation dans la Bible grecque ancienne ? La formule elle-même se rencontre en trois formulations légèrement différentes 21 fois dans le Deutéronome. Voici la première forme : « le lieu que le Seigneur choisira (texte massorétique,  tm) ou a choisi (Pentateuque samaritain [Sam]) pour y faire habiter son nom». Elle se trouve six fois en Dt 12 : 11 ; 14 : 23 ; 16 : 2,6,11 ; 26 : 2. La deuxième forme est la suivante: « le lieu que le Seigneur choisira (tm) ou a choisi (Sam) pour y placer son nom ». Elle est attestée deux fois en Dt 12 : 21 ; 14 : 24. En Dt 12 : 5, les deux formes se cumulent : « le lieu que le Seigneur choisira (tm) ou a choisi (Sam) pour y placer son nom et le faire habiter ». La troisième forme n’a pas de complément d’infinitif et se borne à constater le choix que le Seigneur fait du lieu : « le lieu que le Seigneur choisira (tm) ou a choisi » (Sam). Le Deutéronome s’en sert douze fois en 12 : 14,18,26 ; 14 : 25 ; 15 : 20 ; 16 : 7,15,16 ; 17 : 8,10 ; 18 : 6 ; 31 : 11. D’autres éléments comme l’épithète « ton Dieu » ou «parmi toutes les tribus» peuvent entrer dans la formule. Il n’est pas nécessaire de s’y arrêter ici.

Monday, April 16, 2012

How Does One Date an Expression of Mental History? The Old Testament and Hellenism

Niels Peter Lemche, 
Professor of Department of Biblical Exegesis
Faculty of Theology
University of Copenhagen

In the good days of old—not so far removed from us in time—a biblical text was usually dated according to its historical referent. A text that seemed to include historical information might well belong to the age when this historical referent seemed likely to have existed. At least this was the general attitude. The historical referent was the decisive factor. If the information included in the historical referent was considered likely or even precise, the text that provided this information was considered more or less contemporary with the event—that is, the historical referent—although the only source of this event was often the text in question that referred to it.

In those days, everybody knew and talked about the 'hermeneutic circle'. It was generally accepted that the study of ancient Israel was from a logical point of view based on a circellus logicus vitiosum, a false logical circle, but nobody within biblical studies believed that it was possible to avoid this logical trap.

Monday, January 16, 2012

The Story of Sheshbazzar

The book of Ezra tells us how after 70 years of Babylonian captivity the Jewish people returned to Judah and rebuilt Jerusalem temple. Rebuilding of the temple was quite complex process. Due to various circumstances the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem permanently delayed. Starting at the first year of the Persian king Cyrus the rebuilding of the temple ended only in the sixth year of Darius the king.

In the first chapter of the book (so called Story of Sheshbazzar) the Persian king Cyrus the Great issued an order and allowed the Jews return to Judah and rebuild the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Then Cyrus sent to Jewish ruler Sheshbazzar the temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon brought from the temple of Solomon before its destruction. In the following chapters of the book is given a list of people who returned from captivity and described the beginning of the process of rebuilding the temple. But in following chapters nothing is said about Sheshbazzar. In the next chapters of this book the main characters are Zerubbabel the governor, Joshua the high priest and Ezra the scribe later. Nothing is said about what happened with temple vessels which the Persian king Cyrus gave Sheshbazzar through his treasurer Mithredath. Consequently, the book contains a puzzle. Whither did Sheshbazzar disappear? And where did he put the temple vessels that he brought from Babylon?

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Lester L. Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah (pdf)

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah have not been the most popular of the books in the Hebrew Bible. Yet they have had great influence on how the Jewish religion is assumed to have developed. They describe the reconstruction of the Jewish temple and state after their destruction by the Babylonians in 587/586 BCE and set the theme for the concerns and even the basis of Early Judaism which is usually seen as the Torah. The figure of Ezra has been profoundly associated with the origin or promulgation or interpretation of that Torah. The consequence is that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are in many ways the foundation of much scholarship, not only about the development of the Jewish religion but even of how the Old Testament (OT) literature emerged.

The aim of this book is to make a contribution to a better understanding of these two books which, in my opinion, are crucial writings in the Hebrew Bible. My study has implications for the history of Israel and Judah, the religion of Israelites and Judeans, the literary development of the OT, and OT theology. This is inevitable because of the importance of Ezra and Nehemiah for all these areas. All the various implications are not drawn here because of my focus purely on Ezra and Nehemiah. Some of the consequences were drawn in chapter 2 of my Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (1992a) and will be dealt with in more detail in my forthcoming Yehud: The Persian Province of Judah (in preparation).

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

The Two Recensions of the Book of Ezra: Ezra-Nehemiah (MT) and 1 Esdras (LXX)

Dieter Bohler

Abstract: Like Proverbs, Jeremiah and Daniel, the book of Ezra has been transmitted in two recensions: Ezra-Nehemiah in the Hebrew Bible and 1 Esdras in the Greek Bible. Each version has its own distinct literary shape. Both editions overlap in the account of Zerubbabel's temple building and Ezra's mission. In addition to this common material both versions contain special property: 1 Esdras starts with the last two chapters of Chronicles (Ezra MT only with the last verses) and includes the so-called guardsmen story, a Zerubbabel legend not found in Ezra-Nehemiah. On the other hand Ezra-Nehemiah contains the account of Nehemiah's city building lacking in 1 Esdras. The article shows that this last difference in literary shape is connected with a whole series of small textual differences between the overlapping material of two versions which therefore betray themselves as being part of an intentional recension rather than scribal errors. The Zerubbabel and Ezra account of 1 Esdras does not expect a coming Nehemiah story whereas MT's Zerubbabel and Ezra text is compatible with the following Nehemiah account.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Genesis and the Moses Story

Genesis and the Moses story were two competing myths of origin for Israel that were literarily and conceptually independent from each other. They both explained in different ways how Israel came to be.See also Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Siphrut 3; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010)

By Konrad Schmid
Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism
University of Zurich, Switzerland
October 2010

 
In the 20th century, the so-called Documentary Hypothesis with its four elements J, E, P, D was a commonly accepted explanation for the literary growth of the Pentateuch. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that there are three similar narrative accounts of Israel's history of the creation, the ancestors, the exodus, and the conquest of the land: J, E, and P. The story line of the Pentateuch was considered very ancient. J adapted the structure of the narrative from the old creeds of ancient Israel, and the structure of the narrative accounts of E and P were mere epigones or imitations of J. However, in the last thirty years, serious doubts have arisen concerning this model. Only P, because of its clear structure and its specific language, has remained generally uncontested.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

The Origin of Biblical Israel


Philip R Davies
University of Sheffield

 I

The most important development in recent years in the study of the history of ancient Israel and Judah has been, in my opinion, the interest in Judah during the Neo-Babylonian period, a period previously somewhat neglected, and strangely so, since it offers the most peculiar anomaly: for the entire period, a province called ‘Judah’ was in fact governed from a territory that, as the Bible and biblical historians themselves would describe it, was 'Benjamin’. The former capital of the kingdom of Judah, Jerusalem, was replaced by Mizpah. In the majority of modern histories of Israel/Judah that I have consulted, no explanation is offered for this choice.

How long this state of affairs continued remains unclear: the narratives of Ezra and Nehemiah are silent about this (as they are confused about the rebuilding of the Temple), and, as Edelman has recently argued (Edelman 2005), Jerusalem was probably not restored as the capital of Judah until the middle of the 5th century at the earliest (indeed, if Jerusalem had been the capital before the time of Artaxerxes, the story of Nehemiah would be largely pointless!).

Thus, for well over a century, the political life of Judah was centered in a territory which had once been part of the kingdom of Israel. How, when and why it became attached to Judah is unknown. The claim in 1 Kings 12:16-21 that Benjamin sided with Judah when the ‘kingdom’ was ‘divided’ is hardly to be taken as reliable. If, when the Assyrians divided the territory of the former kingdom of Israel into provinces, the territory we know as ‘Benjamin’ was allocated to Assyria’s vassal Judah, it seems not to have been involved in the campaign of Sennacherib—or had it been, it would  have probably been removed from Judah. Perhaps it was annexed by Josiah: but if so, why would it not have been reclaimed by Egypt or by Babylon after his death?). The reign of Manasseh looks more probable, given the favourable relations between him and Assyria.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

LIBRARY

ATLASES
BOOKS
Biblical History:

Biblical Archaeology:

History of Religions and Cults:

Biblical Criticism:

Dead Sea Scrolls:
  is where my documents live!