Apikorus

The Josiah/Hyrcanus stuff seems a will-o'-the-wisp.

Job is a bit of a mess and the latest parts I presume are Hellenistic.

Hard to tell really since 3:21 is so spotty. For the purposes of argument, I can agree with your count of ten generations from Zerubavel. If lineage is recounted through first born sons, and if a father sired his first son at age 18 (perhaps too conservative, but then again some people had to have daughters; not every first son survived but presumably infant mortality was lower among the monarchy), then 10 generations = 180 years, and counting from 515 BCE (rough guess at date for Haggai and proto-Zechariah) one would arrive at a date of 335 BCE. It seems clear that the descent in 1 Chr 3 is not solely through first sons, though. So maybe a mid-3rd c. terminus?

We want ideas, not paranoia and self-pity.

spin

Don't you think the destruction of the high place at Samaria is a notable event in both careers?

On what grounds the latest parts? Why not the bulk? or all?

OK, now one of the most interesting things about Chronicles is that, in comparison with Sam/Kings, the amount of comment about priests is relatively the same, yet the amount of comment about [BLevites[/B] is multiplied by a hundred. If we are dealing with a text that was written under the theocracy and the priests had control of what the scribes were writing, what is going on??

(Do take a little time checking out the Levite content of Chronicles. It's one of the many links with Ezra and Nehemiah.)

Haven't you had enough ideas already from me?

You get a grin for "defense" of ostrich-conservative analysis.


spin

Apikorus

Notable, yes. Compelling enough to lead me to think that Josiah might be a refracted image of Hyrcanus? Not even close.

You're leaning a lot on the Davidic line in 1 Chr 3 in order to assign a Hasmonean terminus post quem to Chronicles. This in turn presupposes the integrity of 1 Chr 1-9, which many have argued is secondary. If the genealogies are secondary, then chapter 3 imposes no serious constraints at all. Not that it's an insurmountable problem otherwise, since 3:21 is quite corrupt and it is hard to know how many generations to assign to that verse - anywhere from two to six. 3:22 also is problematic since the MT says Shemiah had six sons but lists only five. Cross takes WBNY #M'YH as secondary there, which then assigns the six sons to Shekaniah. This seems to make sense in light of Ezra 8:2-3, which is itself corrupt in the MT, but the LXX of which, along with 1 Esdras 8:29, lists Hattush as Shekaniah's son. (Note also 1 Chr 3:22 says WBNY #KNYH and not WBn.) Ezra has Hattush coming up out of Babylon during the reign of Artaxerxes, so he's born in the early 5th century. That would put the end of the recorded Davidic line - Elioenai's sons - born in the mid-5th century. One of those sons, Anani, might also be mentioned in one of the Elephantine papyri, dated to ca. 410 BCE. (In the papyrus Anani has a brother with the Persian name Avestana, which doesn't conform with any of the names in 1 Chr 3:24.) This all suggests a TPQ of mid-late 5th century.

spin

I can't hold your hand.

Naaa, just one indicator. I've already given you a few others. But is there any point in tossing more, when there is no sign of actually contemplation of the idea? You'll note that I usually have evidence up my sleave.

(And just how would you go about showing that it is secondary?)

Well, what would he make of Num 26:8 or 1 Chr 1:41 (and probably others)? Secondary? Cross, as usual, doesn't have much to stand on. What we are looking at is scribal expectation shown to be wrong: usually there's more than one son, so you write BNY. Oops.

(This adds to my argument that 1 Esdras is a better text than Ezra, despite translation into Greek.)

Ezra also has Ezra as the uncle of Jeshua ben Jehozedek (7:1ff) during the reign of an Artaxerxes, when Jeshua was during the reign of Darius. Ezra therefore already a generation older than Jeshua in the reign of Darius, crops up two generations later, assuming we are dealign with Artaxerxes I.

Gosh, Ezra is as good as Daniel with regard to history. You can understand why scholars just can't get the "historical" relationship between Ezra and Nehemiah right.

(The comparison between Daniel and Ezra is interesting, both with a historical context that is questionable, both being strangely half translated into Aramaic... -- yeah, I know the mainstream thinks they were each written half in Aramaic.)

The parenthesis should rather tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree.

Incidentally, what's your source for all this?

It suggests to me that you might get a few better sources.


spin

Apikorus

And you can prove that one of Anani's brothers did not also adopt a Persian name?

Ezra uncle of Jeshua?

It also supports Cross's argument regarding 1 Chr 3:22 (that WBNY #MY'H is secondary, or due to haplography). This reading also fixes up the five names for six sons problem.

Well for starters the genealogies in 1 Chr 1-9 are stylistically different from the following narrative. The latest Davidide in 1 Esdras is Hattus, while in 1 Chr 3 the Davidic line goes on for two more generations. Nehemiah 12:23 refers to $PR DBRY HYMYM, and the latest Persian king in Nehemiah is Darius II.

Incidentally, as Cross points out there is no hint of Alexander's conquest in Chronicles. This is a general defect of the minimalist approach which tries to push the composition of much of the HB into the Hellenistic era. Aside from Daniel, there's hardly a shred of Greek language, cultural institutions, science, philosophy, literature, religion, arts, etc. to be found in the HB. As Dever points out, the HB knows nothing of the multi-ethnic and multicultural mix of Hellenistic Palestine.

By the way, when I say "Cross" here, I am referring to his article "A Reconstruction of the Judaean Restoration".

Anyway, why don't you just skip to the part where you find Alexander in Chronicles. If Chronicles is post-Hellenistic, he and his conquest should appear in some way. I've heard both were sort of important.

spin

How do you relate the two Ananis other than by appearances?

Yeah, look at the genealogy at 7:1f.

I've looked at the Greek and that is strange, with a nominative article before a genitive name... ek twn uiwn david attous o sexeniou

I guess you also want to argue that those verses I cited previously are also secondary or due to haplography.



Bad implied assumptions. 1) that Chr must be of a consistent text type; 2) that a different sourced Chr 1-9 was later.

So? Your dating of this Hattush is compromised and you have to ignore the generations in v21.

Sorry, what do you mean here? I don't see the point in mentioning the book of the words of the days.

This is the usual useless argument from silence.

So the Dead Sea Scrolls were written before the Greek period were they??

I suppose that the analysis of the Joseph novella following Greek literary traits, or the Greek genealogical ideas of the table of nations, or the Greek symposium of Job don't fit the bill.

Thanks, I wondered.


spin

Celsus

Apikorus and spin,

I feel the two of you are beginning to talk past each other. Perhaps you could introduce more information in your discussion? I know you (spin) are severely curtailed by lack of resources, but it's just a suggestion that might lead to more productive avenues.

Joel

Apikorus

Sorry if I am being obtuse, spin, but could you please clarify this Ezra uncle of Jeshua relationship? The genealogy directly following 7:1 is going backward to Aaron.

You're not dealing with the five names for six sons problem.

spin

Ezra is the son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, just as Jehozedek is the son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah (1C6:14). Jehozedek is the father of Jeshua.

(One aside is that the Ezra genealogy is an earlier version than that of Chr, being shorter. I wrote a paper once about the evolution of the high priestly genealogy, but never published it.)


spin

spin

By saying that the text of 1 Chr doesn't agree with you and that the text of 1 Chr is clarified by the other texts I cited, I thought I had.

The text is problematical. I've shown that there is reason to suspect the Greek of 1 Esdras.

A thought just occurred to me that the YOD in BNY repeated in 3:21 could easily be a confusion of the WAW and should be read BNW, ie "his son". This is a late confusion of orthography found in the scrolls. I've already seen it when names such as Toi and Hyram in Sam/Kings are Tou and Huram in Chronicles.

Why is the W-BN XNNYH in 3:21 always translated in the plural? It should be "the son of Hananiah is Pelatiah, and Jeshaiah his son, Repaiah his son, etc."


spin