Celsus

You'll have to be much more specific about what you mean by an "idea of a hereditary priesthood," because it could presume all manner of things, including a centralised cult-practice, an essentialist denial in the historical evolution of El, a pre-existing asymmetry in the Baal-Yahweh contestation, (all of which are deeply problematic in comparison with the archaeology) and even would seem to go against the grain of the traditions of prophets of Israel/Judah, who are rarely Levite by identification, with some exceptions (whose Levite identity is problematic in their own way).

When I say the priesthood was invented in Persia, I am saying that the social authority of this particular priesthood that is described in the Torah originates here (but only reached a final form of social organisation well after Ezra), not that there were never hereditary groups or social classes of mystic men (women?), perhaps even relating to a Yahwist cult, that existed prior to the exile.
Lots of populations came out of Egypt over the centuries - it would be a pretty foolish assumption to assume populational purity between neighbouring groups - hell our 20th century idea of 'borders' applied to the ancient world are problematic enough. Given ancient social organisation, lots of these population groups probably had single leaders (or a very small group at the top of the heirarchy; such a Moses-(Miriam)-Aaron-Joshua triumvirate). That doesn't get us any closer to anything at all, and regardless of its "truth" its likely significance would have been irrelevant until an exile (especially since its narrative undermines the authority of kings), which would have had its own implications about the degree to which such mythic memory was protected from contamination.

andrewcriddle

I've only got time for a quick response, but it is IMHO likely that narratives undermining the authority of kings were of social importance in pre-exilic Israel, (presumably among groups other than kings and their close associates).

Andrew Criddle

Celsus

On what evidence do you reach such a conclusion?

wavy_wonder1

I've decided to drop out of this discussion. I don't think it's worth it, and I think there is too great a disparity between spin's apparently minimalist approach to the issue and my own. When you dismiss such great writers like Cross as an Albrightian 'ex-acolyte' and even claim that no one cites Albright himself except (as Celsus said) to 'laugh at him', I can hardly take this discussion seriously. (I concede that Albright's archaeological views are superannuated, but I did not cite him in that scope, and he's cited all the time...without being laughed at)

In short, I think spin's position is absurd, and I'm sure the feeling is something close to mutual. Therefore nothing is to be gained, and I'd rather not waste my time.


Finis,
ELB

Celsus

Fair enough, if you wanted me to put that in scholarspeak I would have said "Who cites Albright except as a point of departure in order to set forth their own arguments (while chortling mischievously in the background)?" The point is that you've a mix of positions there without a coherent whole.
No, I believe the problem is that "minimalist" contentions orbit a completely different set of archaeological (not just literary) problems than you were prepared to deal with, and your straw man deconstructed, you're lost as to how to proceed. The problem is the plausibility criterion rests around situating a theory in an appropriate socio-cultural context, for which the traditional views of authorship and historicity are becoming increasingly tenuous, more remarkable for what they choose to omit than what they are able to explain.

wavy_wonder1

Whatever you feel you need to tell yourself or anyone else. Exactly why I can't take this seriously.


Finis,
ELB

andrewcriddle

Material somewhat hostile to royal authority is widespread in the OT including material that I regard as mostly pre-exilic eg Amos. The whole narrative of Samuel and his times is definitely dubious about the monarchy and I would again regard large parts of this as pre-exilic although here the issue of post-exilic material hostile to the monarchy is probably a larger problem.

Andrew Criddle

Celsus

Why are Amos or the Samuel narratives pre-exilic? (Sorry for pushing you, just asking )

andrewcriddle

Most scholars IIUC would date at least most of the more poetic portions of Amos as pre-exilic on grounds of language. (I am aware that some on this forum are sceptical of this sort of argument and lack the Hebrew to argue the case myself.) Also the situation presumed by Amos assumes the existence of the Northern kingdom. (This could be fictitious but I can't see the point and if it is a much later fiction I would expect a much clearer pro Jerusalem and anti Northern kingdom agenda.)

In the case of Samuel my views may be dismissed as arguments from personal incredulity but IMO we have evidence from the Books of Chronicles and other late works of the sort of narratives that post-exilic writers created or expanded on the basis of earlier material. The books of Samuel just don't seem that sort of narrative material. (NB an argument for the largely pre-exilic nature of the books of Samuel is not necessarily an argument for historicity.)

Andrew Criddle

Celsus

Fair enough but what I want to emphasise is that you use almost a purely internal literary gauge for your dating. Regarding the existence of the northern kingdom in Amos, Daniel (to use an uncontroversial example) presupposes a Persian setting but is regarded as Hellenistic - there is no issue with that for scholarly consensus though. To me, northern Israel plays an important theological-rhetorical role in the different post-exilic outcomes between Israel and Judah, and potentially a role in theologically subjugating the natives as the Judahites returned from Persia (to me Ezra is very clear on this). The archaeological evidence for the northern kingdom suggest it was nothing like how the Bible portrays, though both the Deuteronomist and Chronicler obviously had access to a king list (or they relied on each other, as is actually more apparent than would appear - with the Deuteronomist representing a possibly later, fully expanded redaction than the Chronicler, according to some theorists). spin can probably set us straight on that though (hey where'd you run off to slacker! )

And while there's not enough evidence to pin Amos down anywhere (in my opinion), Samuel and the kingly narratives have obviously gone through heavy redaction and with the David-Solomon cycle so problematic with the archaeology already, the Samuel portions are no less so. What pre-exilic period might Samuel have originated in? I'd have difficulty placing it at all - given that it most definitely was not written around the turn of the first millenium BCE.