Especially important here is the topic of the Hyksos and the Exodus, as has been discussed in this Hebrew Bible section of the blog.
The biblical Exodus clearly does not represent the Hyksos we know from history. Manetho’s writing about the Hyksos also does not match what we see in archeology. But what we see in Exodus could be an polemic against Manetho’s writings. Where Manetho’s Hyksos oppressed the Egyptians, the Torah author has the Hebrews oppressed by the Egyptians. Where Manetho’s Hyksos left after a “blast” from God, the Torah author has Moses and YHWH send 10 plagues on the Egyptians. Where the Hyksos looted on their way out, the Torah telling is mixed, partly Egyptians giving, partly an allotment due, partly a looting requiring a chase by Pharaoh.
What Gmirkin does here is open up the entirety of bronze age Canaan, as told by Egyptian priests to Manetho (or possibly in other sources in the Alexandrian library) for speculation. No longer are we dependent on “cultural imprints”, “cultural memory”, or “oral tradition” to bridge the 600 year gap between the Bronze age events and later Iron Age literacy. The torah author(s) were writing a history to respond to Berossus and Manetho!
So disappointed. Its an excellent book, a lot of time and energy went into it, obviously. I have to wonder if the busy Erhman actually read it. It covers any objection I have heard of to a late date.
1) Paleography – lack of useful archeological sources to date various supposed types of writing, mainly only two dates by which to name something Early Hebrew or Late Hebrew. I would add to this that many authors have done great work casting doubt on the circularity of paleographic dating.
2) Most of the supposed early testimony, such as Hecateaus of Abdera. does not presuppose a Torah, only Pseudo-Hecateaus does. Manetho and Hecateaus both tell of Egyptian colonies being made and founders writing laws down, as in the traditional stories of colonies being founded by Greek writers.
Cleared of early testimony (which BTW is just before the proposed date of authorship), Gmirkin clearly shows the dependence.
ah, well. ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.” lol
Try and specify exactly what Hecateaus says about Moses! It’s exactly what Greek historiographers say about any colony founding.
Hecateaus and Manetho are in Egypt asking Egyptian priests questions. Moses is famously an Egyptian name. You do the math. 😉
For 2000 years Hecateaus’s account is thought to be a confused rendering of Exodus. It’s actually a normal Greek historiography. Hero leader founds colony (Jerusalem) and writes constitution. That’s pretty much all he claims!
FocusMyView said
Especially important here is the topic of the Hyksos and the Exodus, as has been discussed in this Hebrew Bible section of the blog.The biblical Exodus clearly does not represent the Hyksos we know from history. Manetho’s writing about the Hyksos also does not match what we see in archeology. But what we see in Exodus could be an polemic against Manetho’s writings. Where Manetho’s Hyksos oppressed the Egyptians, the Torah author has the Hebrews oppressed by the Egyptians. Where Manetho’s Hyksos left after a “blast” from God, the Torah author has Moses and YHWH send 10 plagues on the Egyptians. Where the Hyksos looted on their way out, the Torah telling is mixed, partly Egyptians giving, partly an allotment due, partly a looting requiring a chase by Pharaoh.
What Gmirkin does here is open up the entirety of bronze age Canaan, as told by Egyptian priests to Manetho (or possibly in other sources in the Alexandrian library) for speculation. No longer are we dependent on “cultural imprints”, “cultural memory”, or “oral tradition” to bridge the 600 year gap between the Bronze age events and later Iron Age literacy. The torah author(s) were writing a history to respond to Berossus and Manetho!
You are talking about Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible, paperback, $48.95
and
Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch, hardcover, $213.00?
Argumentation Specialist
Berossus was a Hellenistic-era Babylonian writer, a priest of Bel Marduk and astronomer who wrote in the Koine Greek language, and who was active at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. Versions of two excerpts of his writings survive, at several removes from the original.
Berossus published the Babyloniaca (hereafter, History of Babylonia) in three books some time around 290–278 BC, by the patronage of the Macedonian/Seleucid king Antiochus I Soter.
= = =
Berossus wrote History of Babylonia.
Tower of Babel, in biblical literature, structure built in the land of Shinar (Babylonia) some time after the Deluge. The story of its construction, given in Genesis 11:1–9, appears to be an attempt to explain the existence of diverse human languages.
= = =
I can see that but I do not see a connection to Jacob and Joseph.
I also looked at the free encyclopedia entry for Hecataeus of Miletus and do not see how a timeline can be developed that differs from Rohl’s timeline.
But, of course, you were not talking about that in reference to Hecataeus, specifically.
You are saying the Exodus timeline is incorrect because Genesis and Exodus were a reaction to Manetho and Berossus, not Hecataeus.
Try and specify exactly what Hecateaus says about Moses! It’s exactly what Greek historiographers say about any colony founding.
Hecateaus and Manetho are in Egypt asking Egyptian priests questions. Moses is famously an Egyptian name. You do the math. 😉
For 2000 years Hecateaus’s account is thought to be a confused rendering of Exodus. It’s actually a normal Greek historiography. Hero leader founds colony (Jerusalem) and writes constitution. That’s pretty much all he claims!
Mind you, I only have “Berossus and Manetho” downloaded on my laptop, and it’s broken for now, so this is by memory and on my cell.
It appears the Torah writer is trying to set the record straight. The author is in the court or the library of Alexandria, circa 270 BCE. He is trying to present a case that Judeans are wonderful people, unlike the Hyksos of Manetho. Manetho has Hyksos dominate Egypt and enslave them. Torah has the Hebrews enslaved by Egypt. It a response to Manetho’s specific (and incorrect) version of the founding of Judea.
I am not sure how much you would need for literary dependence, since the Torah author was trying to write an altogether superior version. I don’t remember similar language being an issue.
Robert said
FocusMyView said
Try and specify exactly what Hecateaus says about Moses! It’s exactly what Greek historiographers say about any colony founding.
Hecateaus and Manetho are in Egypt asking Egyptian priests questions. Moses is famously an Egyptian name. You do the math. 😉
For 2000 years Hecateaus’s account is thought to be a confused rendering of Exodus. It’s actually a normal Greek historiography. Hero leader founds colony (Jerusalem) and writes constitution. That’s pretty much all he claims!
Well, that is precisely the problem. We only have fragments of what Hecataeus wrote and a much later, brief, third-hand summary by Diodorus Siculus. You’ve now twice avoided my question; third time’s a charm:
If you do not think that Hecataeus/Diodorus were at least indirectly derived from the Torah, are you thereby proposing that they possessed an independent account of the deeds of Moses?
I do agree that his Egyptian name is the best evidence for some type of bare-bones historical seed of the much later Moses legends. But that hardly establishes that the Hebrew Torah was based on the Greek LXX written in response to Hecataeus. Have you read ** you do not have permission to see this link **? Hardly definitive, but it’s a much more credible account of the origins of such legends.
Richard Elliot Friedman would have Hagrid writing parts of Harry Potter, because ONLY Haggis was at the time and place and could have written it down. I have reread his Who wrote the Bible and why a few times, because it’s fascinating. But i think the Torah is written post Elaphantine papyri and imho probably just before the DSS.
I do not propose that Hecataeus had an independent account about Moses. I think Gmirkin says an oral tradition about the law concerning Moses might have existed.
Still Gmirkin insists both Hecateaus and Manetho only had Egyptian sources. So the adventures of Moses is simply founding a city, Jerusalem, and then writing a constitution, an explicitly Greek tale of Egyptian colonization. In Torah, Moses does not found Jerusalem, and the Law comes before Moses reaches the Jordan. Hecataeus tells a Greek tale. The Torah writer changes it significantly.
My take:
Much like european explorers asked natives European style questions about religions and thus by their questioning created religions – Hecateaus asked Greek style questions to the Egyptian priests send got Greek style answers – including the name Moses.
Diodorus Siculus 40.3
Okay, I have found a little time to convey the argument as best I can.
On the supposed testimony of Hecateaus of Abdera on Moses and Judea:
Diodorus Siculus 40.3 is often attributed to Hecateaus of Abdera, who wrote an Aegyptica while Ptolemy I Soter reigned in Alexandria. But Diodorus Siculus does not generally chop up his sources, quoting from them at length. The storyline Diodorus Siculus is quoting is the conquest of Pompey from Pompey’s personal biographer Theophanes of Mytilene before and after the supposed quote from Hecateaus of Abdera “This is what ** you do not have permission to see this link ** has related about the Jews.”
I looked for a better translation on the interwebs but came up empty. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
This quote in book 40 chapter 3 about Judeans is a mess of details, some reflect the Torah accurately, others clearly do not. But they do not reflect the Hecateaus of Abdera colonization from book 1, which is a positive account where EGYPTIANS colonized Judea under an EGYPTIAN leader named Moses. Instead, the 40.3 account frames the expulsion of FOREIGNERS from Egypt to Judea. So Theophanes of Mytilene is not getting his information from Hecateaus of Abdera, but rather from Manetho, whose account reflects the negative expulsion of foreigners (Hyksos) from Egypt and founding Jerusalem.
If you are going to read Diodorus book 40, read the entire piece, not just what is shown in wikipedai articles focusing on the mention of Judeans.
Steefen said
FocusMyViewHecateus of Abdea:
EGYPTIANS colonized Judea under an EGYPTIAN leader named Moses.
Meh, I am terrible at this. Probably just confusing people.
“2 They say also that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city in Greece, Argos, and that the nation of the Colchi in Pontus and that of the Jews, which lies between Arabia and Syria, were founded as colonies by certain emigrants from their country; ** you do not have permission to see this link **3 and this is the reason why it is a long-established institution among these two peoples to circumcise their male children, the custom having been brought over from Egypt.”
This is considered genuine Hecateaus, though it is Diodorus paraphrasing. So that is not even really Hecateaus. But it is positive in that it is Egyptians colonizing, not foreigners being pushed out.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)