OT Historicity 3: Elephantine

Okay I want to get to my bigger point about how I think Greek stuff is good, and how they developed very good stuff in line with Mormonism. But first I want to do a few more posts on OT historicity because I think it’s interesting.

One of the biggest issues related when the Pentateuch was written (there are other issues too that I’ll discuss in later posts) is the large trove of papyri found at the Egyptian isle of Elephantine in the Nile. A group of “Judeans” (what they called themselves, Adler, 202) had settled there in some time c. 600 BC and left a huge trove of correspondence dating from the years 495-399 BC. Much of the correspondence is back to family and leaders in Judea for news and for advice on how to properly practice their religion. Lots of the letters are dated adding to the value of the find.

As we know, the dryness of Egypt preserved documents like nowhere else, so we have so much more papyri there than anywhere else. The mass papyri find at Elephantine is like no other in Judean history of this era.

We know they were Judeans and had correspondence with Judean leaders including the high priest. And yet, their religion is VERY different than the Pentateuch. So much so that scholars dubbed them some kind of aberration from true Jewish practice: Wikipedia calls them “a polytheistic sect of Jews.” But as Wright points out, Judean “authorities surprisingly never condemned the community’s worship of Anat-Yahu or their labors on the Sabbath. This is therefore not a case of diasporic community backsliding from ‘orthodoxy’ and embracing a syncretistic form of ‘paganism,’ as some scholars claim” (211). Furthermore, as the Wikipedia page says, “The Elephantine papyri pre-date all extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible.”

The following are quotes from Wright and Adler on the significance of the Elephantine papyri.

Wright: “Habits, laws, and religious behaviors of the Elephantine community differ starkly from biblical teachings … they work on the Sabbath; the priests are engaged in intermarriage with outsiders; there is a temple to Yhwh (or “Yahu’); the community makes regular contributions to this deity in addition to a number of other deities (Anat-Bethel and Ashim-Bethel); and Yhwh/Yahu appears to have a wife (her names is Anat-Yahu.).”

“The biblical writings were not available on this island in the Nile. In fact, no one there seems even to know of their existence, nor do the leaders in Jerusalem ever refer to them!”

Those at Elephantine “clearly ascribed much honor to Jerusalem and Samaria, and they viewed the population of their homeland as ‘brothers/kin.’” (210).

They “never appealed to the Torah’s authority” (212).

“They were not cognizant of a body of authoritative ‘scripture’” (213).

Adler: “In summary, the Torah seems to have been unknown to the Judeans of Elephantine. The well-documented ritual and cultic practices of the Judeans at Elephantine appear to have been quite different from what the Pentateuch would have allowed, apologetic attempts to interpret this data in line with Pentateuchal norms notwithstanding. Importantly, there is little reason to think that the ritual and cultic practices followed by the Judeans at Elephantine differed in any substantial way from those followed by the average Judeans one would have encountered elsewhere within the Persian realm” (205).

Adler goes more in depth about the general lack of knowledge of the Torah all the way until c. 140 BC, and I’ll cover that in my next post. But Elephantine struck me as particularly significant.

Two papyri mention “Passover” and another seems to refer to a ritual that seems Passover related. That documents is kind of interesting and discussed by both Adler and Wright, and I can discuss that in a future post if people are interested. Otherwise, I’ll move onto Adler’s main thesis.


Comments

24 responses to “OT Historicity 3: Elephantine”

  1. Here’s a supplement on Elephantine which I haven’t acquired yet, but I’ve had my eye on it since release two years ago. Elephantine in Context: Studies on the History, Religion and Literature of the Judeans in Persian Period Egypt. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Bernd U. Schipper, published by Mohr Siebeck in 2022. Here’s the description from Amazon:
    The Persian period has long been considered a “dark era” in Israel’s history. For this reason, research has mainly focused on how it is depicted in the Hebrew Bible. A spectacular discovery of archaeological relics and epigraphic sources was hence hardly noticed: the military colony located on the island of Elephantine in the Nile, on the border between Egypt and present-day Sudan. The basic approach of this volume, which documents a three-year Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft project, is to break with a research tradition focusing on the Judeans (Jews) mentioned in the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine and instead investigate the military colony in a broader historical context also documented by Demotic and Egyptian-hieratic evidence found at Elephantine. The studies presented focus on three main subject areas: society and administration, religion, and literature. They show that historically the island of Elephantine hosted a multicultural society with several interactions between the Egyptians and the other inhabitants, and that it was also an important administrative centre for the Persian authorities. The Mohr Siebeck website usually includes a pdf of the Table of Contents, the introduction (or a good portion of it) as a preview for those interested since the books are typically more expensive.

  2. Stephen Fleming

    Yes, there are other books on Elephantine, and I DO find it a very important topic. Do you feel like this book summary contradicts my quotations from Wright and Adler in any way?

  3. A subsequent revisit to my shelves yielded, “Temple and Rival Temple–The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis” by Jorg Frey. Included in Gemeinde Ohne Temple Community Without Temple, edited by Beate Ego, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer, published by Mohr Siebeck in 1999. A notable passage from Frey is “We must suppose that the Jewish mercenaries of Elephantine understood themselves to be true worshippers of Yaho who is also called “Lord of Hosts” and ‘God of Heaven’. A large number of them had Yahwistic theophorous names. They knew of the Sabbath, practised the Passover and perhaps other cultic festivals as well. In their temple, they offered meal, incense and burnt offerings to Yaho.” pp. 175-176. He also comes to the conclusion that “the foundation and maintenance of the Jewish cult at Elephantine was -at least partly–a result of political, not just religious motives.” p. 180 (citations omitted)

    Another article is “The Religion of the Elephantine Jews” by Karel van der Toorn in Torah, Temple, Land, Edite by Markus Witte, Jens Schroter, and Verena M. Lepper, Mohr Siebeck, 2021. In this article, van der Toorn explains several aspects of the daily religious life at Elephantine and its differentiation from that at Jerusalem. Its clear that Elephantine was taking place during the Persian period, but I note that “It is no coincidence that the texts that mention the oath by Yaho are all from before the temple destruction in 410 BCE, whereas the cases of an oath by other gods are from the final decade of the fifth century.” pp. 88-89. The question this raises in my mind (along with the elements described by Frey), are where did these earlier practices (which comport with our understanding of some Mosaic law aspects) come from? I believe that its a far earlier tradition coming from the time of the Exodus.

    Another volume that

  4. Stephen Fleming

    Yes, those at Elephantine worshiped Yahweh, but again, their practiced differed markedly from the Torah, and all the correspondence gave no indication that the Pentateuch existed. Absolutely no reference to the Moses or the Exodus. Quite the contrary.

  5. As I’ve looked at Wright a bit more, I see that he recognizes some of these sources (or at least their authors). You and I certainly have differing points of view with regard to historicity, but I don’t wish to be disrespectful and I appreciate your posts. I feel a need to provide other sources for the readers than just Wright and Adler. They’ll make up their own minds, of course. Wright is on my shelf as a source to look at when my project gets to that point as an alternate view to my own. I think my later comment and citations provide some areas where I would raise a question about Wright’s interpretation. If the Elephantine temple had similar festivals, sacrifices and oaths in its original state (before it was destroyed and rebuilt), then where did those earlier traditions come from. My view is that they are some form of the Torah (Pentateuch). I also think that the Elephantine practice (later) of recognizing other gods in the temple and perhaps being at least partly from political motives as well as a multi-cultural society would show that there is quite a diversion from what we mainly have viewed as Judaism and that the later practices (which are more commonly described) are fruits of those influences and went away from what I would consider the original forms of worship. That being said, the worshipers at Elephantine clearly viewed themselves as not outside the mainstream. The temple at Elephantine, as well as Gerizim and Leontopolis (and perhaps others) are a separate issue of study as to how they should be considered. The centralization of temple worship (as to timeline and procedure) is another. I recommend the work of Paul Heger, who has written four volumes on the subject of schisms based on interpretations of the cult in the pre-70 environment. For me, there’s a lot of evidence that what we often view as Judaism of the period, wasn’t as uniform and monolithic as we often assume. I can’t always go with the failure of finding evidence to make final conclusions. Wright and Adler focus primarily on archeological records, but I believe there are textual and linguistic elements to be considered as well. In summary, there’s enough material for me that are outside of Wright and Adler to show that it will be some time before the majority of biblical scholars come to the same conclusions.

  6. Stephen Fleming

    I appreciate you giving this larger view, Terry, as I know there is quite a big world of biblical scholarship out there. Again, Wright and Adler are quite different in their conclusions, but I found them both useful. Again, Wright is more standard (perhaps rocking the boat a little in pushing some dates back) while Adler is the much more radical one.

    In terms of those at Elephantine performing rites at their temple similar to the Torah, I don’t think there’s much evidence for that. They did have sacrifices (that’s pretty common in all religions of that times and place) and there’s a claim that they performed a similar Passover. But the reality is that scholars literally filled in blanks on a documents that was only suggestive of a similar Passover rite. In reality the document DOES NOT support that claim they were doing a Passover rite similar to the Torah’s instructions.

    What the document ACTUALLY says vs. how scholars have tried to fill in the blanks with the Bible is interesting, I think. So I may post on that next if that would interest you (it’s too long for a comment).

  7. Stephen, filling in the blanks is what a lot of scholarship on ancient texts consists of. Look at the miserable state of preservation of most papyri. It’s great that we have anything at all, but the exercise of filling in all the gaps based on what you think you know is just how the game works. Particular reconstructions can of course be criticized, but there’s nothing inherently ridiculous about it.

    The problem that this part of your project is going to run into is that at this point you’re pretty far afield from your areas of expertise. So you can certainly point to important scholars who support your point, but you’re not going to be well positioned to declare them the winner in a scholarly dispute in their field. “While X posits this, Y disputes the claim” is about as far as you can go without much deeper background in Hebrew philology.

  8. Stephen Fleming

    I don’t think I used the word “ridiculous” but I do think the way scholars have done so with this particular document is very problematic. I’ll go ahead and post it here in this chain to illustrate (it will be a long comment).

    Some evidence does look pretty convincing and some arguments look pretty unconvincing. This Elephantine document looks pretty straight forward to me. I’ll post in a bit.

  9. Stephen Fleming

    So like I said, both Adler and Wright talk about an interesting document at Elephantine that describes some sort of feast/ritual.

    Adler notes that two letters in the Elephantine collection use the word “Passover,” but as Adler notes, “Neither of these letters provide any details as to what this ‘Passover’ involved, although the first may imply that the date for the Passover was not fixed” (153). (Like I quoted in a previous post, scholars argue there was a passover ritual that predated the belief in Exodus/Moses).

    Then there is another letter describing the ritual believed to have been sent around 419-18 BCE. This one does not use the word passover.

    Alder: “After invoking ‘the gods’ (elahaya) to ensure the welfare of the addresses, the critical portion of the fragmentary letter reads as follows:

    … Now, you thus count fou[r …]
    … and from the 15th day until the 21st day of …
    … you shall be, and take heed. Work …
    … drink, and anything which is fermented …
    … from sunset until the 21st day of Nisa[n?…]
    … [b]ring into your chambers and seal between [these?] day[s] (154)

    So that’s it. It really doesn’t say anything about Passover other than the possible dating to the month of Nissan. As Adler notes, “scholars have assumed that the content of the letter relates to Passover and to the Festival of Unleavened Bread–despite the fact that neither of these two terms appears in the extant portion of the letter” (154).

    Adler then goes on to note that many scholars stick stuff in the letter related to Passover that they “imagined” in the missing portion. Wright’s discussion of the letter demonstrates this tendency.

    This is how Wright “quotes” the letter:

    “Now, you thus count four[teen days in Nisan and on the 14th at twilight ob]serve [the Passover] and from the 15th day until the 21st day of [Nisan observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Seven days eat unleavened bread. Now,] be pure and take head. [Do] n[ot do] work [on the 15th day and on the 21st day of Nisan.] Do not drink [any fermented drink. And do] not [eat] anything of leaven [nor let it be seen in your houses from the 14th day of Nisan at] sunset until the 21st day of Nisa[n at sunset. And b]ring into your chambers [any leaven which you have in your houses] and seal (them) up during [these] days …. (211-12).

    Wright’s “quotation” has an absolutely shocking about of gaps filled in the text that is utterly irresponsible from a historians point of view. It’s completely unacceptable. It’s not history at all (I don’t mean to specifically call out Wright. Adler points out that this “quotation” is a larger tendency).

    So yeah, it’s pretty clear that Wright’s “quotation” is nonsense and that Adler’s is the correct one. And the correct one is pretty vague about what the ritual was. Sticking in aspects of the Passover (even the word “Passover”) into the brackets is completely unacceptable for a historian.

    If one wants to put up the REAL quote and then muse about how you think the quote is evidence for a ritual like Passover, that is fine. But the REAL quote gives very little evidence of similarities to the Passover other than the date. The kind of filling in the gaps that Wright’s quote has is extremely problematic. This looks pretty straightforward to me.

  10. Stephen Fleming

    Here’s an interesting recent article from Haaretz summarizing Barnea’s recent research on the Passover document. https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2024-11-04/ty-article/new-study-of-passover-letter-may-change-what-we-know-about-the-birth-of-judaism/00000192-dc36-ddcf-a7f7-dc76c3eb0000

    Key lines: “‘There is so much projection in our field, we project from the Bible onto archaeological findings instead of looking at the findings and letting them speak for themselves,’ Barnea tells Haaretz in a phone interview.”

    “Most scholars agree that through the First Temple Period, and possibly well into the Second Temple Period, the Israelite religion was very different from what we know today. Torah law was not yet observed and neither was monotheism: while the Israelites worshipped a god named Yahweh, they also believed in other deities.”

    “‘The long-lived scholarly consensus which has linked this papyrus with Passover or the Festival of Unleavened Bread is based entirely on highly speculative reconstructions of the missing portions of the document,’ comments Prof. Yonatan Adler, an archaeologist from Ariel University who was not involved in this study. ‘It is also rooted in the faulty assumption that the laws of the Torah were well-known and widely observed among Jews as early as the fifth century B.C.E. It is high time that this idea is finally laid to rest and Barnea’s work provides an important contribution toward dispelling the myth that Torah-observant Judaism existed so early.’

    “For his part, Adler has extensively investigated the archaeological evidence for the origins of Judaism. In a recent book he too presented data showing that the development of Judaism was a much slower and complex process than previously believed, and that many of the beliefs and rules we consider cornerstones of the religion were a relatively late evolution, coalescing into canon perhaps just about a couple of centuries before the birth of Jesus.”

  11. “So yeah, it’s pretty clear that Wright’s ‘quotation’ is nonsense and Adler’s is the correct one.”

    No, it’s pretty clear that Wright attempted a reconstruction and Adler did not. Shall we look at another reconstruction attempt?

    I read Barnea’s treatment of the Passover Papyrus: https://www.academia.edu/111614935/P_Berlin_13464_Yahwism_and_Achaemenid_Zoroastrianism_at_Elephantine.

    I won’t lie, I’m not very impressed.

    Let’s look at his discussion of “misalignments” with the Passover, for starters:

    – The Aramaic term psh is not mentioned in the papyrus
    – There is nothing related to “between the evenings” – though “sunset” is mentioned, which Barnea states “is not synonymous.”
    – No sacrifices, no gathering of the people, or any other such observance is mentioned
    – The type of food to be eaten is not mentioned
    – No clear prohibitions are elaborated
    – There’s no hint of a repitition.

    These would seemingly be dispositive omissions, except that over half of each line of the body of the text (leaving out salutations and introduction) is missing. We do not have a complete text here. Logically, it does not make sense to hold omissions in a text as dispositive when you cannot even produce a full sentence of the text. Furthermore, since this letter is from a local official to the Judean garrison of Yeb, why should we expect it to include all of these details? Omission is not evidential when the omission is unsurprising.

    What we do have is a reference the traditional Passover dates, including a reference to sunset. Leaven is mentioned, as is a component of drinking, and a requirement to be pure. That’s a fair amount of overlap, enough for me to think that it is referencing a proto-Feast of Unleavened Bread. It helps that the aspect of “no prohibitions” is based on his reservations about the presence of a tiny serif on a proposed ‘alep. The reconstruction he disputes is attested by scholars of similar gravity, and I think he rests far too much on the supposed absence of a serif that could very easily have flaked off. Still, for the purposes of argument, I will grant it. Even if that specific letter does not denote a prohibition, the fact that HALF THE BODY TEXT is missing means that Barnea’s comment about the omission of prohibitions is spurious.

    What really gets my goat is that Barnea does not seem to apply such careful thinking to his theory that the letter concerns a Zoroastrian feast. It cannot be escaped that this letter doesn’t say anything about preparation of the hoama drink. I found it especially hilarious that he discusses dron in the context of the reference to leaven – and admits that we don’t know what dron looked like in the Achaemenid era, but hey, it would become unleavened bread eventually and maybe it was already unleavened bread back then! The only clear evidence he uses is that there was a fire-altar in the Elephantine temple – which establishes a degree of syncretism but nothing else.

    The most telling evidence of the Passover reference – the precise Nisan dates given in the letter – is simply not addressed. Imo something like the “religious furlough” interpretation seems most likely: https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-passover-papyrus-orders-a-religious-furlough-for-judean-soldiers.

    I hope this is not representative of Barnea’s work more broadly.

    As for Adler, I think he is a little too dedicated to backdating the dominant interpretation of the Torah today and then, upon seeing that it is not observed X years back, declares that the whole thing was unknown. For instance, non-intermarriage is not the levitical standard – seven Canaanite tribes are listed with which marriage is forbidden, specifically due to their place in the promised land. The same is true of his treatment of iconography, when we have evidence that synagogues clearly aware of the biblical prohibition nevertheless use them. Furthermore, his analysis of fish bones does not give due weight to the single biggest repository of fish bones (the size of all the others he cites combined), a rock-cut pond in the City of David circa ninth-century BC where 96% of the bones are from kosher fishes. https://www.jpost.com/judaism/article-743505. That’s significant, in my view.

    More to the point of your OP – you talk about the absence of awareness of biblical figures in Elephantine. The thing is, how much should we expect? Should we really expect a community of Judean soldiers IN EGYPT, with a temple built mere feet from the temple of Khnum (and which was clearly in tension with said priests since they BURNED IT DOWN eventually) in the service of a foreign monarch to spend much time hyping a figure revered for defying and killing Egyptians? How much reference to biblical texts should we expect from this period in the first place?

    And also, while we’re at it, how many letters from the leaders in Jerusalem are actually extant in the Elephantine letters in the first place? There’s the letter requesting help rebuilding the temple, written to the Persian governor of Judea. How many more are there? How much ruminating on Moses should we expect to find?

  12. Stephen Fleming

    Perhaps I should move onto a summary of Adler’s remarks rather than simply referring to them vaguely.

    Bottom line, we have NO references to the content of figures of the Pentateuch during this time. My understanding is that Hecataeus of Abdera (died c. 290 BC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecataeus_of_Abdera) would seem to be the first reference we have to Moses, but his narrative shows no sign of any knowledge of the Pentateuch. Elephantine is just MORE evidence of the Pentateuch not being known before c. 300.

    “Of the over 160 Jews at Elephantine mentioned in the papyri, not one name comes from the Pentateuch. Nor is there any reference in the papyri to the Exodus or any other biblical event. Reference to the laws of Moses or other authoritative writings is entirely absent.” Gmirkin, 29.

    Again, there is no evidence of ANYONE have knowledge of the Pentateuch at this time.

    Gmirkin quoting Cowley’s ARAMAIC PAPYRI: “Among the numerous names of colonists [at Elephantine], Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, so common in later times, never occur, nor any other name derived from their past history as recorded in the Pentateuch, and early literature. It is almost incredible, but it is true.”

  13. Stephen,

    When you say that there’s no knowledge of the Pentateuch do you mean the five books as a collection? Or do you mean no knowledge of any of the books of Moses? The reason I ask is because there seems to be some agreement among scholars that the books where in existence separately long before they were joined together.

  14. Stephen Fleming

    It’s the CONTENT of the Pentateuch that scholars like Adler, Gmirkin, and Barnea argue there was no knowledge of before the 4th century BC.

    Again, scholars other argue that the Passover was based on a previous rite PRIOR to connecting it to Moses and the Exodus. There are some documents at Elephantine that perhaps had some similarities to the biblical Passover, but based on the fact that scholars believe the rite predated the adoption of the Moses narrative, those documents don’t provide evidence of knowledge of the contents of the Pentateuch.

  15. That’s interesting. Time will tell if they’ve got it right. But as things now stand a lot of scholars believe that most of the sources that comprise the Pentateuch were floating around in some form before they were redacted and cobbled together into the five books. And so, while it’s possible that the Passover itself may not have taken its final form until later–I think the scholars you point to would have quite an uphill battle winning a debate over when the content of something like the creation appears in Jewish history.

  16. I understand that Gmirkin’s hypothesis – that the Pentateuch was composed almost entirely in the 270s BC by a school of Hellenistic Judeans – is quite radical. Furthermore, I think his onomastic argument proves too much. Thanks to the Tel Dan stele, we know that the name David was associated with the legendary ancestor of the ruling house of Judah by at least 750 BC if not earlier. The fact that the name David is not used despite being known decreases the evidentiary value of Gmirkin’s observations regarding names. Furthermore, I located a source on JSTOR which goes into the usage of the name “Moses” by Jewish men. As it turns out, they weren’t using the name “Moses” even in Graeco-Roman times, centuries after the Torah and the Pentateuchal narratives were established beyond question. Early Christian men actually started using the name “Moses” before Jewish men!

    Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20189946

    In fairness, the paper also notes that the names Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham did pop up during the Hellenistic period. So it isn’t a total slam dunk for me. But it does go to show that the absence of the use of a name does not demonstrate that the name was unknown. This is just not that good of an argument.

    I just want to circle back around to this point – absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, but only if that absence is itself surprising! It’s why I find unpersuasive Barnea’s’ assertions that the Passover Papyrus contains no references to the biblical Passover. You can’t say that a lack of reference is dispositive when the original corpus is seriously fragmented! The only reason the Elephantine texts survived was the excellent preservation conditions of southern Egypt. Even then, the religious content of those texts is limited (for instance, they wrote to the high priest in Jerusalem but never got a response, and so wrote to the governor of Judea instead.) We don’t have texts from this period, aside from isolated ostraca, from Judah. Furthermore, the picture that the Old Testament presents is that of a people who are not particularly observant of whatever of God’s law they happen to have.

    I find the most convincing hypothesis is that various legends about the Pentateuchal figures were circulating in oral form (and perhaps written form, but this was not as widely circulated) in First Temple Judah in association with the Temple, YHWH, and Judah’s national origin. Furthermore, I find Joshua Berman’s thesis regarding the Song of Moses’ similarities with the Ramesside Kadesh poem to be credible and indicative of older origins. These narratives were collected and expanded on in the Pentateuch which assumed a larger and larger role throughout the Persion and Hellenistic period until full establishment a bit before Qumran.

  17. Stephen, I don’t think I can judge a reconstruction based on just an English translation. When I’ve worked with manuscript fragments (2000 years later and a continent away from Elephantine), sometimes you get eerie moments where what you can see physically is minimal, but you realize you can “read” words or even entire lines of text that don’t exist. But it comes down to minute details of script and language and context and codicology that are hard to assess unless you’re working on very similar material. In the case here, I can see good arguments for both sides, but since it’s far enough outside my field, I’d be hesitant to pick a side.

    If the traditional reading is that OT prophets were preaching monotheism and lamenting the people’s continued dalliances with other gods, and the Elephantine letters suggest that a group of Jews were polytheistic in practice, does that undermine or confirm the traditional reading?

    One other basic question on Wright and Adler etc.: Would allusions to people and events from the Pentateuch in other OT books imply that the other books were also composed relatively late? Or how do proponents of late composition address that?

    In any case, the Elephantine letters are interesting and I knew of them only by name before, so thanks for posting on them and the controversies around them.

  18. Stephen Fleming

    Jack and Hoosier, the more standard view linked to the Documentary Hypothesis is more like what you guys have laid out. Gmirkin challenges that dating, arguing the evidence for a later date for writing the books of the Pentateuch is what the evidence indicates. Adler’s research seems to back Gmrikin’s claim, and in my amateur opinion, Adler’s evidence looks pretty good (again, I’ll give a more thorough overview in a bit).

    Jonathan, the early editors of the document literally just used Exodus and Deuteronomy to “fill in” the missing portions. The Germans did this first, I think, but A. Cowley in his 1923 ARAMAIC PAPYRI OF THE 5TH C. B.C. (the first English translation, I think) flat out says he does so on pages 63-65. I agree with Barnea: filling in the blank spaces with biblical passages does not let the document “speak for itself.”

    My understanding is that scholars have long argued for there being a lot of overwriting and redacting of biblical texts that went on for centuries. Scholars have long argued for their being texts and verses later added to the biblical books.

    On terms of biblical prophets lamenting the people’s backsliding and the variant behaviors at Elephantine, again, those at Elephantine were in touch with leaders at Jerusalem. Such leaders offered no condemnation of the Elephantine people’s practice, made no reference to anything in the Pentateuch, or any reference to any kind of scripture existing. If the Jerusalem high priest and nobles were unaware of anything like the Bible, then who was aware of such a text? these scholars ask (seems like a good point to me).

    So the Elephantine papyri is just one piece of a larger corpus of a lack of evidence of the existence of the books of the Pentateuch prior to c. 300. Adler lays a lot more evidence.

  19. Speaking of Hebrew philology, I just ran across this article:

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/biblical-grammar-enters-the-culture-wars/

    “In his new book, Hornkohl maintains that the Torah displays the earliest linguistic profile of any of the books of the Hebrew Bible and that this is evident in hundreds of places across its five books. One of his examples concerns the oddity Ms. Korach taught us in day school. It turns out that evidence from comparative Semitic linguistics and typological language patterns can explain how the feminine pronoun he, could come to have two spellings. But why only in the Torah? By the time the later books were written, only the familiar form for he (heh yod aleph) survived. And although these later scribes knew only that form of the word, they may have hesitated to “correct” what they perceived as an anomaly in the Torah because of the great reverence they held for it.

    If Hornkohl is correct that the Torah uniquely preserves so many pre-monarchic linguistic features and presents a linguistic profile that is earlier than that found in the other books of the Hebrew Bible, the question stands: could that implicitly suggest that the Torah is the earliest of the Bible’s compositions? This flies in the face of what many Bible scholars today believe. Moreover, it touches on the hot-button question of chronology, as arguments for an early date for the Torah are often viewed with suspicion because they are thought to reflect a religious bias seeking to buttress the Torah’s authority. Nothing in Prof. Hornkohl’s prolific output to date would lead one to suspect him of such a bias.

    Some dismiss the work of historical linguists like Hornkohl, arguing that we cannot determine the relative composition date of a biblical book based on language. They contend that an author from a later period could easily mimic an earlier style to lend their work an air of antiquity and authenticity.

    However, the truth is that writers from later periods inevitably betray the language of their own time. They unintentionally slip in modern expressions and stylistic nuances – not occasionally, but pervasively and unmistakably.”

  20. Stephen Fleming

    Thanks, Ivan. Yes, we discussed a bit about archaic Hebrew and critics of that position on the previous post. I imagine these ideas will continue to be debated and think other evidence, like Elephantine, is noteworthy as well.

    I’ll post some more stuff, but I think there’s a couple of salient points: 1) strong evidence and consensus against the Pentateuch being historical (for the most part) whether it was written in the Persian or Hellenistic periods. 2) As Jonathan and others note, that claim creates theological issues.

    So again, I’m not a biblical scholar, but find the scholarship interesting. And it does seem useful to be aware of the scholarship. To repeat, I’ve seen a number of people cites such scholarship as playing a role in their faith crises, both Mormons and evangelicals.

  21. Stephen Fleming

    Just taking a quick look at the article you posted, Ivan, I have some questions. I don’t mean them for you specifically necessarily, only that a few things stood out to me.

    “Scholars like Prof. Hornkohl identify differences between the Hebrew found in the former prophets – early biblical Hebrew – and the Hebrew found in the books of the post-exilic era, such as Ezra, Nehemiah Chronicles and Esther.”

    Trying to use differences in Hebrew WITHIN the Bible leaves me a lot of questions about dating since we seem to have very little Hebrew from OUTSIDE the Bible for a very long time.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Oldest_Hebrew_inscriptions

    After these very few instances of pretty short script (lots that seem highly debated) almost all the examples they give are WITHIN the Bible.

    So, I get there’s some differences between the prophets and some other writings, but that seems a little vague to me as a dating technique with very little extra-biblical Hebrew to compare either of those kinds of Hebrew to.

    Just a few thoughts.

  22. Stephen Fleming

    One interesting little tidbit came off the Wikipedia page on the Hasmoneans (the Jewish group that rebelled against the Seleucids in the 2nd c BC). Adler argues they were very important for the dissemination of Torah practice.

    “Hasmonean coins usually featured the Paleo-Hebrew script, an older Phoenician script that was used to write Hebrew.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean_dynasty#Numismatics

    So this is one example of using a much older form of Hebrew.

  23. Stephen, I agree with your comment (on your OT 2 post) that we need a better reaction to historical issues than a binary, all or nothing response. At the same time, your concept of historicity is itself pretty starkly binary when it comes to the Pentateuch, and I think implausibly so, based on what we know of the history of texts and writing. Were the books of Moses given their current form relatively late? Yes, I can believe that, I’d even say it’s probable. But you treat them as if they were composed from whole cloth circa 300 BC, which I don’t think is credible. To be religiously acceptable in 300 BC, they would have had to have fit into pre-existing knowledge and traditions.

    It’s not going to be very convincing to treat all linguistic evidence of antiquity as archaizing flourishes, and all allusions in other OT books as late interpolations. And even if it is archaizing, then what were the models of archaic religious language? Archaizing would seem to imply that there were older religious writings.

  24. Stephen Fleming

    Again, what I’m trying to do here is understand the evidence and scholarship. Again, it looks to me like Adler makes a pretty good case (I’ll post that soon). All agree that there was a “religion” and traditions prior to the claims of a late Pentateuch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.