Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus

He is from a different time period but this illustrates the real confusion about who believed what.

The Pharisees I repeat were not the hard liners they are portrayed as in the NT - note Alexander also crucified 800 Pharisees - they wanted to emphasise the spirit of the law.

This was a time of civil war that the Greeks and Romans were embroiled in - possibly four hundred years worth.

You will have alliances - my enemies enemy is my friend - but we must be careful that we do not confuse their basic stances.

The Hasmoneans were the proto Wahabbi. There is a huge amount of propaganda and very clever tactics going on. And the equivalent of Japanese comics were critical.

bacht

I agree. The Pharisees got a bad rap in the New Testament, maybe reflecting later conflicts between rabbinic Jews and Jewish Christians. During Maccabean times I think they were considered heroic by the masses.

I still don't see how the later Hasmoneans can be characterized as religious zealots. They never redressed the murder of Onias or the auction of the high priesthood in the days of Antiochus. The Zadokkite line was never re-installed.

It's true that expansionist rulers from Simon on imposed mandatory conversion on conquered territories, is this what you were referring to?

Clivedurdle

I am focussing on this period and reporting on a proposal that it was this lot who created the Tanakh.

Most of it are imports from the local culture - the priestly stuff is classic Babylon. Abraham is a diplomatic invention to please the Babylonians, Moses can attack the Egyptians because the current Egyptians are Greek.

The Joshua in Canaan stuff is invented out of whole cloth - remember the archaeology is conclusive that the reality was intermingled villages with many gods, some of whom had funny beliefs about pigs and similar.

The belief in one god may in fact be the clear evidence of Greek influence - Zeus.

Clivedurdle

Umm I did note above Alexander - this alleged moderate hasmonean - crucifying 800 pharisees who rightly were loved by the people because they wanted justice.

bacht

Well, you threw out a few things in the OP: one, that there was no return from the Babylonian exile; two, that there were no scriptures before Hellenistic times; three, that the Tanakh was created as some kind of backstory for the Hasmonean dynasty; four, that monotheism was a late import from Greece.

These all contradict the usual reconstruction of events, though the idea of scripture as dynastic apologia is interesting. One book I've seen suggests just this as the origin of the first Hebrew scriptures under the direction of king David, writing to legitimate his overthrow of Saul's house [Coote & Coote: "Power, Politics and the Making of the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk)"]

I have no doubt that some of the stories and characters in the OT are fictional, added for political or other reasons.

Your idea about the population of Judaea sounds like what happened in Samaria, where a few of the old Israelites were joined by other peoples from foreign lands after the Assyrian conquest (though a few kept a version of the Torah).

As far as monotheism, isn't it just as plausible to look at earlier Persian influence? The Greeks were polytheists and sexual perverts (compared to the Jews). Also, why would Judah the Maccabee endorse anything Greek, after defeating Syria and re-dedicating the Jerusalem temple?

Clivedurdle

Can we be clear about what is myth?

David and Solomon, if they actually existed, were only tribal war lords!

Dynastic write backs are very common. The Tudors, the history of Arthur - I was approaching this in the thread history of history.

When people were conquered and taken elsewhere there are no examples of them returning - we can test this genetically now. The alleged return in the Babylonian exile is very likely also fiction. Conquerors always attempt to show it was somehow natural or predestined for them to have won.

I know it might sound like Mountainman, but this version looks like there is some evidence for! Why did the Greeks not mention the Jews?

There is a continuing underlying assumption - created by Judaism - that Jerusalem is the centre of the universe! Maybe it was a tiny hill town until the Greeks came along!

bacht

I agree with your basic point, that Jewish history before Hellenistic times is somewhat unclear. I'm not qualified to comment on the evidence for an exilic return. I imagine there is enough archeological material to draw some conclusions about the habitation sequence in Jerusalem and Judaea.

Why did the Greeks not mention the Jews? Well, from about 500 to the mid-300s they were pre-occupied with the Persians. Herodotus was aware that the Persian empire contained many different ethnic groups. I'm not sure that a small nation like Judah would hold much interest when compared with folks like the Lydians or Medes.

Zion was probably a non-descript hill in Jebusite times. Solomon's temple may have been nothing special. There was probably more to see in Omri's Samaria than backwater Judah.

I agree that poetic descriptions of Israel probably exaggerated a lot of things. Does that mean it's all a hoax? I'm not that skeptical.

Clivedurdle

Hoax is an incorrect way of putting it - stories put about by the leaders to bolster their political position is better.

But in all these matters, let's go to the evidence.

What do we have?

Archaeology - these tribes were always intermingled, some had different dietary habits - no pig bones in the waste.

No evidence of invasions except well recorded ones by Egyptians, assyrians etc.

Not on radar pre Alexander! No Solomon!

Relationship to Cyrus doubtful - no evidence of any conquered people ever being returned to their homeland - this in fact breaks basic rule of conquest!

Jewish Fantasy Factory when Greeks in control.

Judaic nationalism - chosen people stuff - feels part of this much later time period.

I see every reason to see it being produced around 164 BCE and no evidence - only assumptions - against this!

semiopen

My point was that the Hasmoneans were not Aaronid, as Josephus claimed to be for example. The bible goes through a lot of trouble to resolve the priestly function in favor of the Aaronids. Here the Hasmoneans are usurpers, to my knowledge they were not even Levites.

This is a point against your argument, I'm not sure it is a deal breaker.

Clivedurdle

And your evidence that anyone had genetic records of their blood lines to fictional heroes of olde?

The fantasy factory did such a good job that you assume - like most people - that these are real characters!

Let's try someone more recent - Brigid.