Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13607SV: SV: [ANE-2] Elephantine Aramaic papyri

Expand Messages
  • Niels Peter Lemche
    Oct 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      dear David,

      Not Hazor, but Samaria. It is, however, contested that this was the reason. After all, it seems that Samarua was not destroyed, but a total of some 20.000 persons were taken away. However, in the south the falkl of Lachish in 701, and Sennacherib's destruction of the built-up areas of Judah may have coursed the changes.

      As to Sanballat, it is an Assyrian name: Sinuballit. Which is interesting and should be kept in mind as something remembered.

      Niels Peter Lemche




      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af David Hall
      Sendt: den 1 oktober 2011 16:44
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] Elephantine Aramaic papyri

      Niels,
       
      I have read Finkelstein about the theory of a late Iron II expansion of Jerusalem after the fall of Hazor and the northern cities to the Assyrians.  There is a theory northern refugees moved into Jerusalem to avoid the Assyrian armies marching towards them.  There was a broad wall discovered on the slopes of Zion that is dated to pre-exilic times and is evidence of a much larger city than the Iron I Jerusalem of the SE ridge above the Kidron Valley.  This broad wall is a short distance from the Armenian Quarter and modern city wall of Old Jerusalem. 
       
      http://www.gojerusalem.com/discover/item_11470/The-Broad-Wall
       
      The old city was not exceedingly large in the 2nd century BCE.  The city growth was limited to the fact it had one spring at Gihon, cisterns, and at some time a well outside the city walls to the south.  The early first century Jerusalem had not yet expanded to the NE and its first NE wall was likely near the Via Dolorosa of modern times.  The Romans built an aqueduct from the south and Jerusalem expanded again out to the third wall.  Josephus wrote Pilate stole the temple korban (funds) in order to build an aqueduct to Jerusalem.
       
      It may be of interest; the book of Nehemiah and the Elephantine Island community both recorded the name Sanballat. 
       
      David Q. Hall
      Falls Church, Virginia
       
       
       
       


      ________________________________
      From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
      To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com" <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 6:59 AM
      Subject: SV: [ANE-2] Elephantine Aramaic papyri


       

      Before I start: My forgot my glasses in my office in Copenhagen yesterday. It is an 80 miles drive! So if spelling etc is more compromised than usual, that's the reason.

      And to Gardner's mail:

      first, before we get to far from the subject, the Elephantine papyri: This list is not about biblical historicity.

      Second, the argument is wrong: It is nowhere to be proven that the mentioning of the names of Ezra and Nehemiah makes them historical. I could mention Tarzan without making him historical. Gilgamesh was probably in the hoary past a king from Lagash, but that will be the only historical part of the epic, etc etc.

      Third: Jeremias has nothing to say about Elephantine. a) can we date Jeremias? except from conventional beliefs that be belonged where he is said to belong? b) the context of Jer 44 and 46 is N.E Egypt. Migdol, as one of the place names mentioned there could be everywhere (meaning "tower"), the other names is about something in the eastern delta. How long is the distance from, say the present Suez canal to Elephantine?

      Fourth: The geography of Jerusalem in the Persian and Hellenistic periods is definitely a hot subject today. Some leading archaeologists like David Ussishkin would say that there was really nothing here before c. 200 BCE, making this discussion totally redundant

      Fifth: The post-exilic period is a concept, an ideological one, that comes from the Old Testament. We are investigating whether or not the concept is meaningful, as the Jewish society persisted in Iraq until 1951.

      Sixth: the term "Jew" in this connection is ideological and certainly not very precise. Which also means arguing that the Elephantine sociewty was Jewish is already presupposing something that is far from secure.

      Seventh: Bill Dever did not find out that Iron Age Yahweh of Juda/Samaria was a bachelor -- although he would be happy to be reckoned so. Here it would be more precise to quote the specialized literature by Tilde Binger, Paolo Merlo, Wiggins and more.

      But again, this is not the place to discuss the historicity of Ezra and Nehemiah. Such questions really belongs in biblical lists like Biblical studies. A remark like this "Rejection of biblical testimony per se has little critical merit and risks
      seeming ideologically-driven, perhaps after the minimalism of the age" has nothing to do here.

      Niels Peter Lemche




      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af drbrucekgardner@...
      Sendt: den 1 oktober 2011 12:16
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Elephantine Aramaic papyri


      Leaving aside the debated Ezra Memorial, Ezra-Nehemiah makes specific
      reference to historical figures that must constitute a kind of historical
      comment, however cautiously they be used. As Schurer's History of the Jewish
      People in the Age of Jesus Christ points out (III; 38-40) Elephantine
      references to the establishment of Passover at an imperial level are consistent
      with the biblical accounts of Nehemiah's mission. A Jewish settlement in the
      6th Cent BCE is mentioned in Jer. 44:1 and 46:13-14, from which literary text
      (Jer 44:1-23), also, we have the condemnation of "the Queen of Heaven",
      which appears to be a reference to a consort of Yhw. See also W. G. Dever Did
      God Have A Wife? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 2005). Nehemianic stories of
      Sanballat the Horonite and other local enemies of the land also make the point
      about a stricter Judaism founding itself in post-exilic Jerusalem,
      determined to be the norm in the midst of what may have been wide theological
      variations. All such references point to the same concept of normative,
      monotheistic Jerusalem and, while one may wish to be cautious in their
      application, their relevance as evidence seems undeniable.


      To ignore all biblical testimony, therefore, merely on grounds of uncertain
      dating, seems to be excessively dismissive. Besides, by what standard of
      logic do we deny the probity of biblical writers, while automatically
      ascribing the highest level of probity to non-biblical writers? We know of
      Elephantine what a writer in a highly-politicised climate told someone else. If
      one is going to be consistent one must maintain reserve about the
      reliability of non-biblical witnesses. All reconstructions are tentative, as the
      history of criticism reminds us.



      To favour one source, apparently uncritically and unreservedly, while
      excluding another one in the same way,
      risks prejudice in sources. One accepts the cautious argument, therefore,
      but one must reserve the right to cite biblical sources. And in those
      sources there appears a reason for a distance between the Jerusalemite and
      Elephantine perspectives that should not, be ignored, namely a centralist and
      monotheistic ideology in Jerusalem. By all means let that theory be tested,
      but let it not be shut out of possibility, merely because the sources are
      "literary". What does that mean, in real terms, when writing letters is a
      literary endeavour?


      Rejection of biblical testimony per se has little critical merit and risks
      seeming ideologically-driven, perhaps after the minimalism of the age. Gam
      zeh ya'avor. In the meantime, let us keep a level head on all sources.



      Bruce Gardner
      Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.



      In a message dated 30/09/2011 22:02:16 GMT Daylight Time,
      RUSSELLGMIRKIN@... writes:





      Yes, but at least we know what was known at Elephantine in the fifth
      century. We do _not_ know what was known in Judah in the fifth century,
      unless
      we make unwarranted assumptions about the historical value of undated
      texts
      such as Ezra or Nehemiah or the Prophets. Surely contemporary non-literary
      evidence from Elephantine that is secure in date should be given priority
      over literary texts of unknown date.

      Best regards,
      Russell Gmirkin

      I do not think it possible to generalize from what was known at
      Elephantine to what was known in Judah at the time.

      Liz Fried
      Ann Arbor

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic