Archaeologica.org

The Dtr is also entirely lacking in the sort of anachronisms we would expect from a Hellenistic text.

Such anachronisms do turn up in the later "prophetic" books. I know that much.

rich wrote:Soo - what of the Sefer Yetsirah - would that also be influenced by the greeks then? Or a deeper look into Zoroastrianism?

That's a tough one only because we really don't know if it isn't hust a medieval creation or something older. I think its likely pretty late, like 8th or 9th century CE

I thought the Kabala was from the medievil ages but the Sefir Yetsirah from around the first century BCE.

Ishtar wrote:That's an interesting theory, Seeker. Care to expand on it?

For instance, are you one of those who believe that the temple at Jerusalem was solely set up by Cyrus to serve the Abarnahara satrap, that the Jews were actually a sect of Zoroastrianised priests and were never a nation until the time of the Maccabees?

I don't think Cyrus actually set up the temple. The temple probably doesn't get set up until Darius II around the same time he set up temples in Egypt to placate them (thus ending a series of Egyptian rebellions that sometimes saw Abarnahara as an Egyptian ally). I think that is when some of the anti-Egyptian stories about slavery and oppression by Egypt were created. Of course even those stories were later reworked on order to play up Jewish nationalism.

The descriptions in Kings invariably are of Jewish kings who are unable to keep focused on God and so end badly. The whole idea, along with the stories in Judges, was to create this sort of impression that Jews were better off being ruled by the priesthood. When you combine that with the notion put forth in Isaiah that Cyrus was chosen by God (it actually refers to Cyrus as the messiah) to restore the priesthood it really makes for a good situation for the Persians, a satrap who really doesn't care if they have an independant kingdom as long as they percieve their priesthood to be independant.

Later, when the Maccabees needed to promote Jewish nationalism they rewrote and added to the stories. Moses was probably invented by the Maccabees and inserted into one of the early anti-Egyptian stories the Persians had made up. Having the Jews be escaped Egyptian slaves (who still manage to come into Judah from the East by wandering in the desert) and hiving them a hero who talks directly to God was a way of explaining away those pesky ties to the Persian Empire.

The Conquest is very likely the story of the Persian conquest of the region (in fact one of the 'returnees' is named Joshua) and actually probably predates the Exodus story.

Basically Judaism was an isolated form of Zoroastrianism that was cut off and evolved separately from the Persian branch when the Persian Empire fell. I think its greatly telling that the major teaching sect was a group called the Pharisees, a word whose etymology seems inexact but a word whose closest root is the word Parese (which is hebrew for Persian) the plural of which is Parasee.

Min - Very likely the books of the prophets were written and redacted over the period from 500BCE to 200BCE (or so) in order to discuss doctrinal matters. Clearly there were a lot of factional fights over doctrine, especially during the Greek period.

One of Davies' best points is that the final canonization of the OT is that it was only completed very late, perhaps in the Maccabean era.

This is odd in itself as the Septuagint dates from at least a century earlier.

Perhaps the Alexandrian Jews and the Babylonian Jews had different books from the Jerusalem clan?

rich wrote:I thought the Kabala was from the medievil ages but the Sefir Yetsirah from around the first century BCE.

It's certainly possible. I know that convention puts it in the first or second centurybut I tend to think it is a product of Kabbalistic thinking in medieval times. The earliest references to it are in the 10th century (as far as I know) so I tend to go with that date.

I suppose you could make a case for it being inspired by Pythagoras but I tend to think that then we'd have seen Christian and Jewish references to it much earlier.

Minimalist wrote:One of Davies' best points is that the final canonization of the OT is that it was only completed very late, perhaps in the Maccabean era.

This is odd in itself as the Septuagint dates from at least a century earlier.

Perhaps the Alexandrian Jews and the Babylonian Jews had different books from the Jerusalem clan?

You have to be careful when dating the Septuagint, it was translated in stages, some bits as late as the 1st century BCE. The only consensus I know of is that the Pentateuch was probably the first bit translated somewhere around the mid 3rd century BCE. Since the oldest texts are mid-second century and the oldest references later than that we don't really know what form the very first mid 3rd century texts were. The oldest manuscripts of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and some of the Prophets are first century BCE while only bits of Deuteronomy and Leviticus have been found that are older (2nd century BCE).

I think the absence of older documents is quite telling and suggests that the ealiest documents fall nicely into the Hasmonean period. If there was a translation that was made earlier it was probably so heavily redacted later that it was better no copies existed at all.

it was translated in stages

Reasonable....if it was written in stages.

Minimalist wrote:

it was translated in stages

Reasonable....if it was written in stages.

One way or another a stage wa being set

seeker wrote:
Basically Judaism was an isolated form of Zoroastrianism that was cut off and evolved separately from the Persian branch when the Persian Empire fell. I think its greatly telling that the major teaching sect was a group called the Pharisees, a word whose etymology seems inexact but a word whose closest root is the word Parese (which is hebrew for Persian) the plural of which is Parasee.

Apart from the Pharisee/Parasee idea, what else makes you think that Judaism was an isolated form of Zoroastrianism?

A brief discussion of the pharisee/sadducee/essene division.

It seems odd that "Jesus" would have been an opponent of the pharisees as they seem the more modernistic (Hellenistic?) of the 3.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... senes.html

Ishtar wrote:

seeker wrote:
Basically Judaism was an isolated form of Zoroastrianism that was cut off and evolved separately from the Persian branch when the Persian Empire fell. I think its greatly telling that the major teaching sect was a group called the Pharisees, a word whose etymology seems inexact but a word whose closest root is the word Parese (which is hebrew for Persian) the plural of which is Parasee.

Apart from the Pharisee/Parasee idea, what else makes you think that Judaism was an isolated form of Zoroastrianism?

There are tons of parallels between Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Angelology, messianism, eschatology, rituals, rtc are all similar enough that tons of literature have been generated about them. We also know enough about theology in the Levant before the Persian conquest to identify much of Judaism as foreign to many of those beliefs.

The Archaeological evidence suggests a very normal Caananite society, perhaps with Egyptian influences, up until the Persian conquest. Outside of the bible there is no reason to believe that Judah was anything unique in the region. Now if we are going to consider the bible as a source of information we have to start by considering that the vast majority of stories in it are provably false. Stories of a Great Flood, Exodus, a United Monarchy etc are all not only not verified by archaeology but actually refuted. Why then should we think that much of the detail about pre-exilic Judah is true? We have a choice then, do we believe the archaeology that suggests a very typical Caananite site for pre-exilic Judah with Caananite beliefs that included polytheism or do we believe the claims of a bible many of whose claims are patently ridiculous?

If we go strictly with the reliable evidence we see a small Caananite kingdom absorbed by the larger Persian society. In situations where a smaller culture is absorbed by a larger culture one would expect to see the smaller culture replaced by the beliefs of the larger. In this case the Persians had a belief system that perfectly defines early Judaism, there is every reason to suggest it is most likely that Persian theology simply overtook pre-exilic theology in Judah and replaced it.

Minimalist wrote:A brief discussion of the pharisee/sadducee/essene division.

It seems odd that "Jesus" would have been an opponent of the pharisees as they seem the more modernistic (Hellenistic?) of the 3.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... senes.html

Actually you are a little turned around. From your own source

The Sadducees were elitists who wanted to maintain the priestly caste, but they were also liberal in their willingness to incorporate Hellenism into their lives, something the Pharisees opposed.

It was actually the Pharisees who eventually developed the more radical Zealot and Essene subgroups from which Christianity developed. The reason that the Pharisees are later demonized in the NT is due to the Christian need to demonize Judaism. [/quote]

From the same source, seeker.

The Pharisees also maintained that an afterlife existed and that God punished the wicked and rewarded the righteous in the world to come. They also believed in a messiah who would herald an era of world peace.

I'm no expert but isn't that the basic line of xtian thinking?

Minimalist wrote:From the same source, seeker.

The Pharisees also maintained that an afterlife existed and that God punished the wicked and rewarded the righteous in the world to come. They also believed in a messiah who would herald an era of world peace.

I'm no expert but isn't that the basic line of xtian thinking?

It is very Christian but also very Zoroastrian. In fact the Zoroastrian version of the afterlife involves both a heaven and a hell as well as a sort of trial by ordeal. Here is a brief discussion.

The Jewish Sheol seems to be based on the Persian legend of King Yima. It seems that when the world was threatened by ice (sent by Ahriman of course) Yima was instructed to build a var, a sort of cave, in which people would wait until the world was free of evil.