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

Re: Time out of joint

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... cuz it weren t part of the story line when dt. was composed. jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 31, 1998
      At 11:54 PM 12/31/98 +0100, you wrote:

      >And I'd still like to hear ideas about why Deuteronomy knows nothing about
      >the day of atonement!

      cuz it weren't part of the story line when dt. was composed.


      jim

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++

      Jim West, ThD
      Quartz Hill School of Theology

      jwest@...
    • Ian Hutchesson
      ... Really, Jack! They ve been selling Dec 31, 1999, for quite a while. You all are obviously right about midnight, December 31, 2000 , but who are all those
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 31, 1998
        >> TWENTIETH..ends.............at the end of year 2000
        >
        >I thought everyone knew that the new millennium begins at
        >midnight, December 31, 2000.

        Really, Jack! They've been selling Dec 31, 1999, for quite a while. You all
        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.


        Ian

        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!
      • Ian Hutchesson
        ... Oh, very definitely, Jack! Josh is even later. ... What a shame! Some people have all the fun. Ian (It s a war zone outside.)
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 31, 1998
          >> And I'd still like to hear ideas about why Deuteronomy knows nothing about
          >> the day of atonement!
          >
          >Maybe Deuteronomy was written before Joshua

          Oh, very definitely, Jack! Josh is even later.

          >and all the killing, looting
          >and plundering of Canaanite cities...therefore they didn't have anything
          >to atone for (g)

          What a shame! Some people have all the fun.


          Ian

          (It's a war zone outside.)
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... Maybe Deuteronomy was written before Joshua and all the killing, looting and plundering of Canaanite cities...therefore they didn t have anything to atone
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 31, 1998
            Ian Hutchesson wrote:
            >

            > And I'd still like to hear ideas about why Deuteronomy knows nothing about
            > the day of atonement!

            Maybe Deuteronomy was written before Joshua and all the killing, looting
            and plundering of Canaanite cities...therefore they didn't have anything
            to atone for (g)

            Jack

            --
            ______________________________________________

            taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

            Jack Kilmon
            jkilmon@...

            http://www.historian.net
          • Ian Hutchesson
            Jim West responded to my... ... Is there any way to locate Deuteronomy in historical time? Perhaps the prophecy in Dt28:68 about Jews being brought back to
            Message 5 of 6 , Jan 2, 1999
              Jim West responded to my...
              >>And I'd still like to hear ideas about why Deuteronomy knows nothing about
              >>the day of atonement!

              thus:
              >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?


              Ian
            • Ian Hutchesson
              ... I was arguing that the Pentateuch was not a unified body in the times of the DSS: each book circulated separately. Therefore the notion of the book of
              Message 6 of 6 , Jan 3, 1999
                Phil wrote (quoting me):

                >"What was Aristeas talking about that was translated by the seventy?"
                >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.

                I was arguing that the Pentateuch was not a unified body in the times of the
                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 particularly
                >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.

                Deuteronomy was the big hit at Qumran amongst a body of literature that was
                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
                literary efforts).


                Ian
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.