Copypasting here my response to a very fascinating Magic Monday thread topic ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jprussell started. His original question:
Here is my response (with some minor edits), which is actually to JMG's reply, but it very much expands on many of the things mentioned in the original question:
For starters, the Elephantine letters is slam dunk proof that polytheism was still quite normal among the Hebrews as late as the 400s BC. The letters even show friendly correspondence between the Elephantine community and the Jerusalem priesthood. So it seems Yahweh-only monolatry as a state-mandated policy in/around Judea would have been a rather late development, relative to the Hebrew Bible' internal chronology (which in the first place should be seen as legendary, rather than factual-historical).
The theory Jeff is referring to is a product of some rather recent developments in critical biblical scholarships, particularly the works of an academic by the name of Russell Gmirkin (as Jeff mentioned); he's published three extensive books so far which lay out his theory. In the first he makes a case, via comparative literary critique, that the Pentateuch has source dependency on the works of Berossus (Seleucid Babylonia), Manetho (Ptolemaic Egypt), and a number of Greek works. Now this is not to say that the stories within the Hebrew bible aren't ancient; many of them most certainly are. But the literary format and narrative those stories were encoded in are a product of the Hellenistic era, according to Gmirkin's thesis.
In his works he dated the penning of the Pentateuch to around 270-275 BC, and the whole affair was funded by the Macedonian-Egyptian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus; that he assembled all or most of the Jewish tribal elders in Alexandria and gave them access to the great library to help them compose their encyclopedic corpus. It was a known policy of the post-Alexandrian kings to employ local priests/scribes of newly conquered subject peoples to write extensive accounts of their own culture's history, lore, laws, and religious practices (see Berossus and Manetho I referred to above). So by this, the documentation Ptolemy wanted on his Jewish subjects is reflective of the same domestic policy other Macedonian Greek rulers implemented for their various other subject peoples. His other books (I only read his first so far) seem to go into extensive comparison between the Platonic corpus and the Hebrew bible.
Flavius Josephus in his histories of the Jews actually goes into vivid detail on how precisely the Septuagint was composed: in Alexandria and with the financial patronage of the Ptolemies, which coincides with Gmirkin's thesis (perhaps he got this idea from reading Josephus). I'll stop here because it would probably take me at least ten more paragraphs to fully flesh out the finer details of this theory.
From an esoteric standpoint, that 270s BC date seems quite interesting because this time period seems to coincide directly with the onset of the Age of Pisces. I believe this was also the approximate time of the Edicts of Ashoka in India (i.e. the first mass-deployment of religious missionaries). In the Middle East, this was also the time the first birth pangs of Magian religiosity, if we're to bring Oswald Spengler's theories into this equation.
Finally, I have to point out that the term "Judaism" needs careful consideration when used in the context of Greco-Roman antiquity. What we understand today as "Judaism" is merely one version of Hebrew religion dating to the Roman era. Particularly, it's a Roman-approved (after three failed revolts against the empire) form of Pharisee Judaism that later underwent considerable changes in the middle ages. There was actually a lot more ideological diversity in and around Hellenistic and Roman Judea/Palestine than most people today understand; the Gnostics, Essenes, and proto-Christians being prime examples (heck, we don't even know what the Sauducees actually believed). The Mandean religion that survives to this day may in fact be a preservation of older Judaic beliefs that have long been snuffed out everywhere else (perhaps an offshoot of the Essenes).
1700+ years of church propaganda asserting the Bible as a historical document (an infallible one at that!) has long made it politically incorrect to suggest that anything other than a literal reading of Biblical chronology is a historically-accurate version of the events that led up to the emergence and development of the Abrahamic religions. What the difference is today is that it's now finally permissible for researchers to propose and present alternative hypotheses.
jprussell started. His original question: I recently heard about a hypothesis that the Old Testament is consciously modeled on Plato and is essentially an attempt to do what he recommended in the /Republic/ and take the known myths of a people and rework them to create a body of belief that would help forge a unified and virtuous people. Advocates of this theory point to similarities in the content and ordering of the Old Testament and Plato's presentation of "the Law," to the fact that we have no textual record of the Old Testament earlier than the time of the Septuagint, and some of the archaeological and textual evidence we do have (like the Elephantine letters) that show the Hebrews being fairly normal eastern Mediterranean polytheists with multiple Gods, temples, harvest festivals and the like, with no mention of things that we now know to be central to the religion (Moses, the Law, the Exodus, and so forth). Have you, JMG, or anyone else here, heard of this theory, and what kind of credibility do you give it? I've heard it second hand from intelligent and knowledgeable people, but it strikes me as one of those theories that might appeal precisely because it is contrarian. Some sources the folks I'm talking to are drawing from: Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible by Russel Gmirkin and Biblical Interpretation Beyond Historicity edited by Ingrid Hjelm and Thomas Thompson
Here is my response (with some minor edits), which is actually to JMG's reply, but it very much expands on many of the things mentioned in the original question:
For starters, the Elephantine letters is slam dunk proof that polytheism was still quite normal among the Hebrews as late as the 400s BC. The letters even show friendly correspondence between the Elephantine community and the Jerusalem priesthood. So it seems Yahweh-only monolatry as a state-mandated policy in/around Judea would have been a rather late development, relative to the Hebrew Bible' internal chronology (which in the first place should be seen as legendary, rather than factual-historical).
The theory Jeff is referring to is a product of some rather recent developments in critical biblical scholarships, particularly the works of an academic by the name of Russell Gmirkin (as Jeff mentioned); he's published three extensive books so far which lay out his theory. In the first he makes a case, via comparative literary critique, that the Pentateuch has source dependency on the works of Berossus (Seleucid Babylonia), Manetho (Ptolemaic Egypt), and a number of Greek works. Now this is not to say that the stories within the Hebrew bible aren't ancient; many of them most certainly are. But the literary format and narrative those stories were encoded in are a product of the Hellenistic era, according to Gmirkin's thesis.
In his works he dated the penning of the Pentateuch to around 270-275 BC, and the whole affair was funded by the Macedonian-Egyptian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus; that he assembled all or most of the Jewish tribal elders in Alexandria and gave them access to the great library to help them compose their encyclopedic corpus. It was a known policy of the post-Alexandrian kings to employ local priests/scribes of newly conquered subject peoples to write extensive accounts of their own culture's history, lore, laws, and religious practices (see Berossus and Manetho I referred to above). So by this, the documentation Ptolemy wanted on his Jewish subjects is reflective of the same domestic policy other Macedonian Greek rulers implemented for their various other subject peoples. His other books (I only read his first so far) seem to go into extensive comparison between the Platonic corpus and the Hebrew bible.
Flavius Josephus in his histories of the Jews actually goes into vivid detail on how precisely the Septuagint was composed: in Alexandria and with the financial patronage of the Ptolemies, which coincides with Gmirkin's thesis (perhaps he got this idea from reading Josephus). I'll stop here because it would probably take me at least ten more paragraphs to fully flesh out the finer details of this theory.
From an esoteric standpoint, that 270s BC date seems quite interesting because this time period seems to coincide directly with the onset of the Age of Pisces. I believe this was also the approximate time of the Edicts of Ashoka in India (i.e. the first mass-deployment of religious missionaries). In the Middle East, this was also the time the first birth pangs of Magian religiosity, if we're to bring Oswald Spengler's theories into this equation.
Finally, I have to point out that the term "Judaism" needs careful consideration when used in the context of Greco-Roman antiquity. What we understand today as "Judaism" is merely one version of Hebrew religion dating to the Roman era. Particularly, it's a Roman-approved (after three failed revolts against the empire) form of Pharisee Judaism that later underwent considerable changes in the middle ages. There was actually a lot more ideological diversity in and around Hellenistic and Roman Judea/Palestine than most people today understand; the Gnostics, Essenes, and proto-Christians being prime examples (heck, we don't even know what the Sauducees actually believed). The Mandean religion that survives to this day may in fact be a preservation of older Judaic beliefs that have long been snuffed out everywhere else (perhaps an offshoot of the Essenes).
1700+ years of church propaganda asserting the Bible as a historical document (an infallible one at that!) has long made it politically incorrect to suggest that anything other than a literal reading of Biblical chronology is a historically-accurate version of the events that led up to the emergence and development of the Abrahamic religions. What the difference is today is that it's now finally permissible for researchers to propose and present alternative hypotheses.
