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

Re: Time out of joint

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.