Re: Time out of joint
- At 11:54 PM 12/31/98 +0100, you wrote:
>And I'd still like to hear ideas about why Deuteronomy knows nothing aboutcuz it weren't part of the story line when dt. was composed.
>the day of atonement!
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
>> TWENTIETH..ends.............at the end of year 2000Really, Jack! They've been selling Dec 31, 1999, for quite a while. You all
>I thought everyone knew that the new millennium begins at
>midnight, December 31, 2000.
are obviously right about "midnight, December 31, 2000", but who are all
those other people who have been hooked on the wrong year? ... all those
other people who believe the "midnight, December 31, 1999" hype?
I guess for those few, the iconic turnover of the year 2000 and leaving the
19s behind are too much for logic.
And 1999 is arriving here. (They'll be letting off fireworks around here in
a few minutes. Good thing no-one is asleep.)
And I'd still like to hear ideas about why Deuteronomy knows nothing about
the day of atonement!
>> And I'd still like to hear ideas about why Deuteronomy knows nothing aboutOh, very definitely, Jack! Josh is even later.
>> the day of atonement!
>Maybe Deuteronomy was written before Joshua
>and all the killing, lootingWhat a shame! Some people have all the fun.
>and plundering of Canaanite cities...therefore they didn't have anything
>to atone for (g)
(It's a war zone outside.)
- Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>Maybe Deuteronomy was written before Joshua and all the killing, looting
> And I'd still like to hear ideas about why Deuteronomy knows nothing about
> the day of atonement!
and plundering of Canaanite cities...therefore they didn't have anything
to atone for (g)
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
- Jim West responded to my...
>>And I'd still like to hear ideas about why Deuteronomy knows nothing aboutthus:
>>the day of atonement!
>cuz it weren't part of the story line when dt. was composed.Is there any way to locate Deuteronomy in historical time? Perhaps the
prophecy in Dt28:68 about Jews being brought back to Egypt by the Lord to
sell themselves as slaves, referring to the Jews who escaped from Jerusalem
to Egypt to avoid the wrath of the Babylonians... ?
Do we have other indications that Deuteronomy has priority over the other
Pentateuchal books? I argued for numerous reasons in an earlier post that
the decalogue is more likely originally from Deuteronomy. And the role of
Aaron in this book is extremely minimal (Ex 103, Lv 59, Nm 95, Dt 3) -- if
original --, yet Aaron has such an important position in the legitimation of
the Aaronid priesthood, being the archetype of the priest.
Deuteronomy claims to be the words of Moses, and that gives it a good chance
of being the Book of Moses, a phrase found in MMT. But what was Aristeas
talking about that was translated by the seventy?
- Phil wrote (quoting me):
>"What was Aristeas talking about that was translated by the seventy?"I was arguing that the Pentateuch was not a unified body in the times of the
>Supposedly, he was talking about the Pentateuch which, of course, is
>included in the Septuagint. General opinion, I think, is that only Torah
>was involved in the original translation.
DSS: each book circulated separately. Therefore the notion of the book of
Moses did not comprise all five, hence the discussion about Deuteronomy
being the book of Moses referred to in MMT, as it was self-described as the
words of Moses. The question was rhetorical, as it would be probable that it
was not the torah as we know it that was translated, but perhaps only
Deuteronomy. Genesis was perhaps still undergoing construction: it is
surprisingly poorly attested to in the DSS fragments -- though there are
numerous fragments, very little of the text is covered in comparison to the
other pentateuchal books.
>And I believe it is correct to hold that Deut. was not as particularlyDeuteronomy was the big hit at Qumran amongst a body of literature that was
>concerned about priestly praxis as was Exodus and Leviticus. It was the
>norm for "lay" praxis and IMO was the work-a-day torah for 1st century Judaism.
decidedly priestly in nature, a literature which places the sons of Zadok at
the apex and the sons of Aaron just below them. (The priestly and temple
oriented nature of the DSS should not be underestimated.) I therefore find
the notion of Deuteronomy not being "particularly concerned about priestly
praxis" somewhat deceptive. Deuteronomy does seem however to have been
written before the priestly efforts to preserve their practices and doesn't
make the Levites second class sacerdotes (underlining the pre-priestly