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
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      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 2 of 6 , Jan 2, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 6 , Jan 3, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          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.