Book Review: The Myth of Nazareth

[jw1815]

The "facts" are that we have no record of any biblical writings prior to the Greek "translation" called the Septuagint c 280 BC. IT contains only the first five books, which indicates that the Greeks were not aware of the rest of it in the early 3d century.

The Septuagint was produced at Alexandria, Egypt, where 2/5 of the population was Jewish. Since Koine Greek was the lingua franca of that part of the world at the time, Jews were losing fluency in Hebrew as they acquired fluency in Greek, especially at Alexandria, but elsewhere, too. Hebrew was still spoken, but differed somewhat from the earlier Biblical Hebrew, which also used an earlier, different form of writing. There were less people among the general population able to read the older Torah (aka Pentateuch, the first five books). Translation facilitated the ability of Alexandrian Jews to participate in reading and discussing the Torah. Only the Torah is considered sacred law, and is essential for any Jewish congregation to have. It would naturally be the first part of a Jewish community’s translation. The books of the prophets are included in the Septuagint, having been translated in following years, after the Torah. The Septuagint spread to Judea, too, where Koine Greek was also becoming the commonly spoken language, although Aramaic and Hebrew still were in use.

Instead of Greek culture being influential in Jewish religious development, the reverse seems to be the case. Besides Hellenized Jews, there were also Judaicized Greek intellectuals who admired Jewish theological and philosophical debates over morality, interpretations of the Torah’s instructions, arguments for monotheism, etc. Once translated into Greek, the Septuagint allowed the Jewish messianic prophecies to become widespread in the Hellenized world, picked up later by Romans, and early Christians. It forms the foundation of the OT for eastern Christianity.

I don’t think the fact that there aren’t any existing older versions in Hebrew has any special significance regarding the origins of the Torah and later OT books. A few factors easily account for that. One is that not only Hebrew, but other related Canaanite languages were beginning to fade in the region, being replaced by Aramaic and Koine Greek. Add to that the Jewish rebellions against Hellenistic rule and the Jewish civil wars, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and exile of Jews, and it would be surprising if the older Hebrew version did survive.

The portions of 1st century BC Jewish Biblical books found at Qumran in Hebrew were written in Hebrew, not translations from Greek. They suggest that an older Hebrew version did exist, from which they were taken.

Linguistic studies of the Septuagint show that it was a translation and not an original Greek work. The Greek syntax is awkward, but matches the syntactical patterns of a Hebrew to Greek translation. The later books, e.g. Macabees, were composed in Greek.

The oldest existing Hebrew version now is the Masoretic Text, from about the 9th or 10th century AD. It became the preferred version for Jews because of discrepancies between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. The Septuagint translators sometimes translated idioms literally and sometimes were much freer, to the point of altering meanings.

[Minimalist]

Does Davies say that Persians concocted Judaism?

Pretty much. The returning "exiles" were mainly Babylonians who were suddenly turned into citizens of the Persian Empire by Cyrus' coup d'main on Babylon. As such they were sent back with a story in which they were "returning" because Cyrus had restored them to rule over the region from they had been deported by the Babylonians. The purpose of the story was for them to be able to replace Babylonian administration with themselves without the populace saying "who the f*ck are you guys?" The Persians, distracted by serious revolts on their Eastern border, did not want to waste their army marching to an insignificant province such as Yehud.


The argument has been over the 'degree' to which the story was concocted. Davies originally seemed to say that the entire thing was created then and there but that seems unlikely. Had the OT been created as a unified work it would not be so poorly written with duplications and contradictions rampant. Instead it seems to have been cobbled together from existing legends/tales.

[Minimalist]

I agree that probablty most of the OT was backdated to an earlier time, and probably wasn’t written down until after the release from Babylon. But, I also think that there was some historical basis in the backdated stories, founded on traditional legends, possibly even on previous written versions, either in Canaan before captivity, or in Babylon during the exile.

Finkelstein makes a compelling case that the Exodus tale only makes sense in a 7th century BC context. It was the only time in the entire first millenium when Egypt and Judah were competitors for the same chunk of land which was then being vacated by the Assyrians.

That’s not to say that the old legends, whether oral or written, were accurate historical records. I don’t think they were. But I think that the main themes of them were true, given in allegorical form.

Two thoughts on this. One, which seems less reasonable, is that the Judahites took tales of the wealthier and more capable Israelites and wrote themselves into the story in place of the Israelites. Two, is that archaeological surveys show that the population of Judah grew rapidly after the Assyrians overran Israel. The implication is that the extra population came from Israel and these were legitimate memories of their own "history" transplanted to Judah.

It looks to me like a local, henotheistic segment of Canaanite population clung to its primary god, with whom it strongly identified even before the exile from Canaan. Then, as outsiders in Bablyon, they resisted assimilation by declaring their henotheistic deity to be their one and only god. Gradually this evolved into a monotheistic declaration of one god, not just superior to all others, but the only true god; all others are not even gods, but human creations.

Davies notes that the Persians would have had no trouble recognizing their Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazda, in the new vision of Yahweh that the "exiles" carried before them. Always good to kiss up to the king!

[Minimalist]

The Septuagint was produced at Alexandria, Egypt, where 2/5 of the population was Jewish.

Alexandria was only founded in 331 BC as a Greek colony. Even with later expansion by the Ptolemies it is unlikely that the insignificant former province of Yehud could have exported that many people in less than 50 years. We still have no texts pre-dating the Septuagint. It is just as probable that what the Greeks did was take down an oral version of the Torah and translate it into Greek as the Septuagint.

[jw1815]

Hi, min.

I needed time before responding because, besides giving attention to my offline life (and a minor injury that needed treatment), I also wanted to check some stuff that I haven’t read for a while on the evolution of Jewish identity. I remembered general impressions but needed to review specifics.

Religious evolutions and syncretisms have interested me for a long time, especially Jewish and Christian origins, because of their influences on modern western cultures. But, sorting fact from fiction about them is like trying to unravel a clump of very fine threads all knotted together in more than one place. I have some favorite hypotheses, some questions in my mind, and no definitive answers, of course.

The returning "exiles" were mainly Babylonians who were suddenly turned into citizens of the Persian Empire by Cyrus' coup d'main on Babylon.

What’s his basis for thinking that the returning exiles were mainly Babylonians?

Jews were only in exile for about 70 years and had their own identity before then. They probably didn’t lose it. Cubans in Florida haven’t and they’ve been exiles almost as long.

[jw1815]

As such they were sent back with a story in which they were "returning" because Cyrus had restored them to rule over the region from they had been deported by the Babylonians. The purpose of the story was for them to be able to replace Babylonian administration with themselves without the populace saying "who the f*ck are you guys?" The Persians, distracted by serious revolts on their Eastern border, did not want to waste their army marching to an insignificant province such as Yehud.

Again, the Jews were only gone from Judea for around 70 years. And only the upper ruling classes were taken captive. Would the people left behind have forgotten them during that time?

Persians are known for encouraging conquered people to retain their identities and self-rule (under Persian dominance) because it was expedient to gaining their loyalty and appreciation for protection within the Persian Empire. But, encouraging existing identities is not the same as creating one.

[jw1815]

Had the OT been created as a unified work it would not be so poorly written with duplications and contradictions rampant. Instead it seems to have been cobbled together from existing legends/tales.

Agree completely that it wasn’t created as a single work, that it’s a collection of legends and tales cobbled together from various sources, and that it’s full of duplications and contradictions.

To me, that’s evidence that the Bible stories are a mix of folklore, religion, history, and customs absorbed from other cultures into a core of proto Israeli/Jewish identity as it evolved over centuries. Ironically, that suggests that some kernel of truth exists in the tales of nomadic wanderings and assimilation of war captives from other tribes. This is supported by apparently separate cultural/ethnic/religious sources for the names El (Elohim, El Shaddai) and Yahweh. Then add the influences of their captors during Jewish exile periods.

I think it’s plausible that Persians assisted Jews in recovering lost or obscured portions of their past for a Biblical cannon, as Constantine did with Christians in cobbling together the NT. So perhaps Persians gave Jewish priests and scribes access to Assyrian and Babylonian archives, but I believe that the laws, legends, and customs depicted in the Jewish Bible came from the people themselves and evolved over a long time (centuries) before emerging briefly as a political identity in Canaan.

[jw1815]

BTW, I see parallels in Constantine and the NT. He didn’t create Christian orthodoxy himself, but convened clergy from the numerous existing Christian sects for that purpose. Like the Jews earlier, Christian legends and books had a variety of cultural founding influences, and both Jews and Christians had experienced the disruption of wars while they continued their beliefs “underground,” without official acceptance. Both the Jewish and Christian books had already undergone numerous changes in copying, some parts lost, original sources forgotten, insertions added to support later theological doctrines, etc., by the time they became an orthodox canon. The NT is just as riddled as the Jewish Bible is with multiple authors under one name, multiple names representing one author, the authenticity of authors in doubt, and numerous duplications, anachronisms, contradictions, and differing theological perspectives. There were several cultural and religious influences on the development of Christianity – Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, Judea – as I believe there were on the evolution of Judaism.

Syncretisms create a cobbled effect, full of inconsistencies.

“In this sign you shall conquer” was not a statement of faith inspired by a supreme god. It was Constantine’s political “aha” moment: “This is how to create a united, conquering empire.”

But Persians didn’t want Jews to become a conquering empire.

Under Persians, the Jewish hope for political independence turned toward a Judaic interpretation of Zoroastrian end times theology. Instead of Ahura Mazda’s agent resurrecting the dead for an eternity on earth with the Persian god, they conceived of a Jewish Messiah leading Israel and the rest of the world in eternity after end times battles that would re-establish the Israeli kingdom. Perhaps Persians encouraged this interpretation to forestall a contemporary revolt, giving hope in a postponed, indeterminate future time. “God will send you a leader at the end of the word, when the time is right.” (So don’t take it upon yourselves now.) When Persian rule was replaced by the foreign gods, customs, and languages of Greece and Rome, pious, nationalistic Jews believed that surely the messianic age was upon them.

[jw1815]

Finkelstein makes a compelling case that the Exodus tale only makes sense in a 7th century BC context. It was the only time in the entire first millenium when Egypt and Judah were competitors for the same chunk of land which was then being vacated by the Assyrians.

I can think of earlier periods when the Hebrew story of Egypt would make sense – actually close to the period usually attributed to the Exodus, but explaining it requires some detailed discussion of Canaanite and the larger Near East background history.

One, which seems less reasonable, is that the Judahites took tales of the wealthier and more capable Israelites and wrote themselves into the story in place of the Israelites. Two, is that archaeological surveys show that the population of Judah grew rapidly after the Assyrians overran Israel. The implication is that the extra population came from Israel and these were legitimate memories of their own "history" transplanted to Judah.

xc

The remaining population of Israel probably did migrate to Judah. I think the Eloist and Yawist texts reflect different, but related, cultures and beliefs between Israel and Judah that were incorporated into one in the Bible. But, I also think that Israel and Judah shared some older, common histories and beliefs before either group settled in Canaan. The differences might have come from pre-settlement differences in exposure to and absorption of other cultures, or from post settlement exposure and absorption from differing neighboring people. This is another area that would require detailed discussions of history, language, and cultures in the Near East to explain the possibilities.

[jw1815]

Alexandria was only founded in 331 BC as a Greek colony. Even with later expansion by the Ptolemies it is unlikely that the insignificant former province of Yehud could have exported that many people in less than 50 years.

The former province of Yehud didn't export Jews to Alexandria. Greeks took several thousand as slaves, many of whom later regained their freedom but remained. Other Jews went to Alexandria freely. There were three major divisions of the city – Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish.

We still have no texts pre-dating the Septuagint. It is just as probable that what the Greeks did was take down an oral version of the Torah and translate it into Greek as the Septuagint.

Although the Qumran texts don’t predate the Septuagint, they do have several of the same stories written in Hebrew, not as translations from Greek. They had to have had sources.

Jews were writing their own material for centuries before the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman conquests. The Hebrew alphabet comes from a much older writing system that Hebrew speaking people adapted to their language before the brief kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Israelites/Jews weren’t an illiterate group who discovered literacy during exile. I think that earlier Hebrew collections of written legends and of social and religious laws got lost and altered through their tumultuous history. Another area that could be explained in more detail with a discussion of the origins of the Hebrew alphabet.

[Digit]

I am a secular Jew. I have had little contact either with family or Jewish culture for almost 60 yrs.
BUT STILL I AM A JEW!!!
Many European Jews opposed the return to Israel fearing that the establishment of a Jewish state would loosen the tight knit religious and cultural bonds that have been the glue of my people for many many years, and in some ways, that is exactly what has happened.
One of the complaints by the Nazis was that we were Jews first and Germans second, despite many German Jews serving in WW1, both arguments have some basis in history.
My point? The Babylonian exile is most unlikely to have weakened the faith, our isolation, legally in most European countrys till recently, only served to turn us inward, this isolation, complete with its own language, made us what we are.
I doubt that the Exile would have been very different.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Hi, min.

I needed time before responding because, besides giving attention to my offline life (and a minor injury that needed treatment), I also wanted to check some stuff that I haven’t read for a while on the evolution of Jewish identity. I remembered general impressions but needed to review specifics.

Religious evolutions and syncretisms have interested me for a long time, especially Jewish and Christian origins, because of their influences on modern western cultures. But, sorting fact from fiction about them is like trying to unravel a clump of very fine threads all knotted together in more than one place. I have some favorite hypotheses, some questions in my mind, and no definitive answers, of course.

The returning "exiles" were mainly Babylonians who were suddenly turned into citizens of the Persian Empire by Cyrus' coup d'main on Babylon.

What’s his basis for thinking that the returning exiles were mainly Babylonians?

Jews were only in exile for about 70 years and had their own identity before then. They probably didn’t lose it. Cubans in Florida haven’t and they’ve been exiles almost as long.

Math, mainly. We now know that the Babylonians did not de-populate the land. They removed the upper classes and relocated them to Babylon while sending in their own overseers. Assuming that adults were exiled and they brought their children with them you have to look into average life span at the time. Someone who was 30 in 586BC would be 80 in 536BC and the odds of them making the long march back to Jerusalem are slim, at best. Even the young children would have been pushing 60 which in those times was advanced old age. Thus, for the most part, we are left with the grand-children of the exiles to make the return trip and they were born in Babylon and were strangers to Jerusalem.

I posted this over at Internet Infidels on the subject. The reply is to someone who suggested that the "Jews" were slaves in Babylon.

A common misconception. I quote from Amy Dockser Marcus' book The View From Nebo, published in 2000, pg 174.

Quote:
Historians have been examining cuneiform records found during digs at former city centers in Babylon and reexamining what exile was like for the Jews there. Some of the new research was presented in the fall of 1998 at a conference sponsored by the Babylonian Heritage Center in honor of Israel's fiftieth anniversary. The Book of Chronicles states that the deportees from Judah were servants in Babylon, but in fact that wasn't the case for most of the exiles. Instead, they obtained land from the state and were considered the king's tenants. Fathers were able to bequeath the land to their sons. Most positions in the empire were open to Jews. Some were engaged in crafts and commerce, others absorbed into huge state projects that paid salaries from the state treasury. Former Judaeans even got posts in the imperial administration and rose to senior positions. A huge bureaucracy was needed to run such a far-flung empire. Educated, literate exiles like the ones from Judah were quickly integrated into the civil service.

The only thing that tells us that the inhabitants of Jerusalem were "Jews" prior to 536BC is the OT itself. There is no archaeological evidence (with a special emphasis on the "no") or textual evidence to sustain that view. The handful of inscriptions we have which mention Yahweh also mention his "consort" Asherah. Thus, Jerusalem seems to be indistinguishable from any of the other henotheistic cultures in Canaan at the time. Yahweh may have been the boss hooter in Jerusalem, just as Marduk was in Babylon or Baal in Phoenicia.

Everytime scholars examine specific OT claims they are found to be lacking evidence. Is Davies' idea that Judaism was a later literary creation and that subsequent generations of priets and kings went back and wrote it onto the legends of their past so outrageous?

I suspect that the Cuban community in the US is far, far, different from their brethren still living in Cuba. Even though they are held together by the idea of some day returning to Cuba one does wonder how many of them will actually go when they finally get the opportunity. The "Jews" in Babylon had no such illusion. Cyrus sent them back to satisfy Persian needs not theirs.
As Marcus notes above, the "exiles" seem to have been absorbed into Babylonian society quite nicely.


P.S. I hope you're feeling better.

[Minimalist]

Would the people left behind have forgotten them during that time?

The people left behind were peasant farmers. Would they have really cared which hand was holding the whip?

[Minimalist]

I can think of earlier periods when the Hebrew story of Egypt would make sense – actually close to the period usually attributed to the Exodus, but explaining it requires some detailed discussion of Canaanite and the larger Near East background history.

Then start a new thread because it is worthy of discussion.

Finkelstein's point is that there are anachronisms in the text which date the story to the 7th century.

[Minimalist]

Persians are known for encouraging conquered people to retain their identities and self-rule (under Persian dominance) because it was expedient to gaining their loyalty and appreciation for protection within the Persian Empire. But, encouraging existing identities is not the same as creating one.

The Persians faced problems because when they took Babylon they suddenly inherited the rest of the Babylonian Empire. AT the same time there were serious revolts on their eastern frontier and Cyrus was killed in that fighting. One can look at Cyrus' decision as a fairly astute way of binding areas to Persia without having to send troops which he needed elsewhere. Politics, you know?