There were Elephantine Papyri from the Persian Empire times (fifth cent. B.C.) from a Jewish colony on Elephantine Island, Egypt indicating the Passover was being observed.
I have read the term Goshen that was used to describe a geographical location in the Nile delta in the book of Exodus is a Persian era word. This might support the theory that these writings may have been edited and codified during the time of Ezra or another of the post-exilic group, however earlier documents may or may not have existed.
David Q. Hall
--- On Thu, 6/25/09, Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...> wrote:
From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
Subject: SV: [ANE-2] The First Historians?
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 1:25 PM
Although you keep on quoting Hus, you may not escape being fried! And you are not really funny because your remark is flowing in the air. We have a certain date ante quo for most of the OT literature: The Dead Sea biblical manuscripts. It is impossible to get lower in time than these. It is as simple as that. Anything else as to an earlier date is guesswork some of it educated some of it not so educated. Solid evidence mein herr.
Niels Peter Lemche
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af George F Somsel
Sendt: den 25 juni 2009 19:04
Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
Emne: Re: [ANE-2] The First Historians?
We've been through the Berossus and Manetho bit before. One problem with that view is that even Niels Peter Lemche and friends acknowledge that there was an exile and a return in which they would have gained first-hand knowledge of the myths and legends of mesopotamia without the benefit of any 3rd c. writer on the subject. The time-line simply doesn't work out either. I thought we had lampooned this idea sufficiently before that it might never again raise its head, but apparently not. It seems that the tendency is to pretend that the writers of the biblical texts never had an original thought in their lives but must always be dependent upon some other people. They were, of course, dependent upon other peoples for many ideas, but once in a while they just might have had a thought or two of their own. perhaps these thoughts were even highly significant. With the tendency to make the bibical writings dependent upon later and later sources,
it would not surprise me someday to hear someone pronouce that they got it all from Arnold Toynbee!
... search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
____________ _________ _________ __
From: "RUSSELLGMIRKIN@ aol.com" <RUSSELLGMIRKIN@ aol.com>
To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:26:12 AM
Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] The First Historians?
There is a problem with the theory sees direct influence that sees direct
influence of Herodotus, namely, that the Hebrew Bible nowhere quotes or even
indirectly alludes to Herodotus. One sees the influence of Greek
historiography, but not the Histories of Herodotus in specific. By contrast, one
sees not only a close relation in structure and style between the Primary
History and third century historians such as Manetho and Berossus, but
direct borrowings on Berossus in Gen. 1-11 and Kings, etc. The influences of
Herodotus are thus indirect, with these later Hellenistic historians as
intermediaries. The literary dependencies on various 3rd BCE Greek sources, some
written at Alexandria, point to a date of c. 273-272 BCE for the
composition of the Pentateuch, the same approximate date as the LXX (c. 272-269 BCE).
As I argue in Berossus and Genesis, the date, the use of Hellenistic
sources found at the Great Library, and other factors point to the identity of
the authors of the Pentateuch with the seventy Jewish grammarians later
tradition credits with the LXX translation, much as you suggest. The
simultaneous production of a Hebrew and Greek edition is paralleled by the
compilation of the 8 vols. of Egyptian law in both Aramaic and demotic by Darius (a
famous literary project known to the early Ptolemies through their reading
of the Aegyptiaca of Hecataeus of Abdera).
I agree with you on Van Seters, who curiously uses Alexandrian scholarship
to make his case about the non-redaction of the HB, rather than say the
Epic of Gilgamesh, whose literary evolution is well documented through
Meaning that the Redactor (just to annoy van Seters -- I don't think his
big recent Eisenbrauns book shows what he says it does; it's not about the
ancient writers, but about recent/modern attitudes toward the writers) either
had read Herodotus (and maybe even Thucydides) and proposed to do
something similar with the relevant traditions, more of them written than in H's
case? And yet to leave out all the "editorial comments" like "this I saw,
this I got from Egyptian priests, this is Athenian tradition, this is
Corinthian tradition, this I find incredible but it's a good story anyway" that
Thomas points out as marking H's divergence from any prior storytellers?
Does that require the redaction to have been done at Alexandria, where H's
book might have been found? Did the redactors then hand their brand-new
mss. over to the translators to turn into the LXX?
Peter T. Daniels _grammatim@verizon. gra_ (mailto:grammatim@ verizon. net)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------ --------- --------- ------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]