show_no_mercy

Not sure if it answers your question, but there are the Elephantine papyri that implicitly depict "Jews" in Egypt sacrificing to YHWH somewhere other than Jerusalem (and Samaria).

stephan huller

Good question, but one thing is certain - they would have been considered heretics by the Jerusalem authorities (cf. Exod. 20:24; Deut. 12:5-6; Ezra 6:12) presuming that there were sacrifices at the altar in Judea at the time of the Elephantine altar. But then again there is so much we don't know.

The Alexandrian altar of Onias however occurs at the same time as we see some of the documents associated with Qumran reject the sacrifices taking place in Jerusalem.

show_no_mercy

What about the idea that much of this legal code that declare sacrifices in places other than Jerusalem to be illegal was penned during the Hasmonean era? This would explain the sacrifices in Samaria, Egypt, and the Qumran dissidents.

stephan huller

I don't think so. I think the Persian period is the latest possible date for the Torah.

bacht

Thanks, I know about this one, it was destroyed ca 400 bce and not rebuilt, despite the requests of the Jews living there. This example is sometimes used to prove pre-Josianic polytheism (references to Asherah). The 'schism' of Onias seems a different phenomenon.

I was wondering about the eastern areas. I know there were synagogues and the later schools that produced the Babylonian Talmud. As Stephan says the official rule was no altar outside Jerusalem.

maryhelena

Stephen, it boggles the mind that the Jews would ever consider a son of Herod the Great in a messianic role. Even if such a son has Hasmonean/Herodian blood - the stigma of that horrendous 37 bc siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great and its slaughter of innocent children and old people - come on now - utterly impossible.

If there is a historical figure that was considered by the Jews to somehow fit into some interpretation of Daniel - and his name is Agrippa - then perhaps those Jews knew a thing or two about this Agrippa - perhaps they knew that he was not a son of Herod the Great - that he had no Herodian blood - that he was a full bloodied Hasmonean Jew - a descendant of that Priest/King tradition...their very own Melchizedek. (not of course suggesting that King Agrippa was living in Alexandria - but that if prophetic interpretations re this figure were being made - then Alexandria could well be the 'hot seat'...)

And you know what - perhaps that is the root of the whole Alexandria 'mystery'...and if that is what they did know - then the Jerusalem temple was already history long before 70 ce...

And is Josephus, whoever he is, in the know.....most probably. But his job is not to lay the early origins of christianity on the plate for all to see - his job is to deflect away from the real origins - and to support, be the backup, for the Jerusalem scenario of the gospel storyline...

stephan huller

No what boggles the mind is that Europeans can pretend that even a single Jew EVER considered Jesus to be the messiah. The messiah has to be secular ruler. Agrippa was a secular ruler. This is a massive hurdle which only handful of other people in the history of the Jews can clear.

I don't understand Europeans. It's like going to a series of Japanese restaurant and using OUR taste to decide which is the most 'authentically Japanese.' There are some contest which Europeans aren't fit to judge.

Let's leave aside Daniel 9:26 (the clearest reference to the messiah anywhere) and its obvious suitability to Agrippa. Let's just consider the BIGGEST messianic proclamation of all:

The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs (or 'until Shilo comes').

The interpretation of this passage was always connected with the end of the Jewish monarchy. Agrippa was the last of the Jewish kings. It would be impossible not to argue that he was Shilo especially owing to the fact that his given name was Mark which is the numerological equivalent of Shilo and Moses (= 345).

What's the matter with Europeans? How isn't Agrippa the most viable messianic candidate IN HISTORY?

Then you can say 'but the destroyed the Jerusalem temple!' Do you think the Samaritans were crying about that? Or did it confirm him as the one to come?

The same thing for the Alexandrian tradition and those of its temple. What isn't clear about this? Is this a mental limitation on the part of those who 'can't see it' or an unfamiliarity with the various religious paradigms at work here (i.e. Samaritan, Alexandrian Judaism etc.).

It's so ----ing obvious that I think I could explain it to my three year old son.

The real question is how ISN'T Agrippa the messiah for the Samaritans and Alexandrian Jews? How COULDN'T they have seen him as the one who was to come to justify THEIR tradition?

But no one asks that. It's just 'the Jews' meaning, what would your doctor, Dr. Schwartz think about Agrippa or your accountant.

Antiquity was more complex and varied than this ...

maryhelena

Stephen - I just gave you 100% in another post re your point about the gospel Jesus type figure ever being considered a Jewish messiah figure....100%.

And I am not arguing against King Agrippa being viewed in rabbinic literature as a messiah figure. I will argue re the identity of this King Agrippa - that he was not a Hasmonean/Herodian but a full bloodied Hasmonean Jew. Now, that, surely, is far more an interesting idea than a half Jewish messiah

Yes, you have problems re Josephus and your theory - but perhaps a re-consideration might be in order. A full bloodied Hasmonean Jew; a King/Priest messiah figure - a figure that is surely worth the effort? Forget the Herodian distraction - the Hasmoneans had one up on Herod....

show_no_mercy

I'm not saying that the entire Torah was written whole cloth after AtG.

Ten Reasons for Dating Deuteronomy to the Late Persian or Hellenistic Periods

Clivedurdle

Can we please be circumspect about national myths like the exodus?