andrewcriddle

As I tried to say earlier, if Amos is intended to impose post-exilic orthodoxy on the natives, then I would expect this to be much clearer. I can see little in Amos that plausibly serves this role and most of Amos doesn't seem related to such a function at all. Some redaction of Amos in the interests of later orthodoxy has probably happened but that is different from it being composed for such a purpose.
I'll just say here that on internal grounds the glories of the reign of Solomon as described in Kings, (which seems to be the heart of the current archaeological dispute), seems much more clearly Deuteronomistic than the David cycle, ie on internal grounds it is probably among the latest elements of the Books of Samuel and Kings.

Andrew Criddle

spin

What I'd be interested in is the gauge for pre-exilic language that was being used to say that Amos reflected that language. We've got some letters from Lachish and Arad, but no poetry that I know of. How does one talk about poetry, when there aren't any examples?

Whoa thar! It's not that easy to jump from Hebrew bible to christian bible and back again.

Not very many people would like my datings of either Chronicles or Sam/Kings. I don't think Chronicles was compiled before the Roman era. Anyone like to posit a context that explains the expanded reference to Levites in Chronicles, hmmm? Why would priests in control of the tools of transmission of belief expand the role of the Levites and not the priests? And why does it have the most evolved list of high priests in Hebrew tradition, as compared to Ezra, I Esdras, II Esdras and the records in Josephus? And there are many more markers for an extremely late Chronicles.

Sam/Kings also causes us problems: when were the names of various figures bowdlerized in Sam/Kings? Chronicles seems to preserve the names, so it isn't simply redacting the Sam/Kings we now have. Then again, why does Sam/Kings present us with histories of both Israel and Judah. The only time I know of historically in which the territory of both was of interest to Jerusalem was from the reign of John Hyrcanus, who was responsible, like Josiah for destroying the high places

There is a tiny fragment among the DSS attributed to Chronicles, though looking at it, it looks like no Chronicles we know. Comparing Josephus with Sam/Kings and Chronicles, I couldn't say that he favors one or the other (it wouldn't be strange that Josephus didn't favor Chronicles of the latter were written later). I doubt that the literary traditions found in both Sam/Kings and Chronicles were stable enough to say that there were (only) two favored forms at the turn of the era.

No doubt their origins were much earlier, but the current texts are certainly late.


spin

spin

But when would this post-exilic orthodoxy have been installed?


spin

Celsus

But Amos is not a historical text, but a prophetic one. Its "function" is necessarily vague to even the most careful scholar because we have little clue what early prophetic texts were for. There's some clues in the DSS with pseudo-Isaiahs and pseudo-whatnots that these were encoded in ways that may not be apparent to us, especially when we're unable to place a date on it.
More than the Samuel cycle too? You are suggesting that the Solomonic texts came after David, which came after Samuel in the Deuteronomistic history (i.e. it's essentially chronological, only displaced by some generations)?
The DSS corpus, but is it too late?
Welcome back :wave:
Sadly I haven't read Esdras for some years so I'm a bit lost but I don't like your date, you got that much right Do you mean reached final form, or really "compiled" as in assembled only in the Roman period? How does that reconcile with the LXX?
I prefer a theory of restoration that required Israel and Judah to be intertwined in order for the returnees to expand their 'rightful' region. They are clearly aware of a close historical relationship, and would have used such a 'history' in order to give them greater land, not necessarily needing to be as late as Hyrcanus. I know it sounds a bit to similar to a certain other modern historical example but I do think the contestation of what was their land was most intense at the time when they first returned.

spin

I think it shows a tendency for what was established at the time.

And I just went off to crap on about Tertullian...

Ezra was only cited because of its high priest genealogy, which was one of the shortest.

A lot of material has gone into the text that's not the royal chronicle tradition. The Levite additions for example (Levites mentioned 90 times in Chronicles, three in Sam/Kings), all the genealogical lists. LXX was translated over a long period, the pentateuch early. Josephus claims to have translated historical texts himself, suggesting that they weren't at that time translated.

What would make you think that?

If we can go on the traditions preserved in Zechariah, Haggai, Nehemiah and Ezra, Jerusalem seems to have seen itself as a little realm cut off from everyone around them, without mention of Samaria at all. No sign of close contacts with anyone. I can't see any indications to support them being clearly aware of anything much. (The priesthoods in Jerusalem and on Mt. Gerizzim got themselves entangled at one stage.)


spin

andrewcriddle

I'm uncertain about the relative dates of the texts of the David cycle compared to the Samuel cycle. The David cycle may be earlier.

However I would put the material about the glories of Solomon's reign, Solomons prayer at the Temple dedication etc as later than either. (There is material about Solomon as the wise/crafty King and ruthless settler of issues left over from David's reign that may be contemporary with the David cycle.)

Andrew Criddle

semiopen

Just curious...

What is the David cycle? The Samuel cycle appears to include Samuel and Kings.

Can someone provide a reference to cycles, this might be Christian and I haven't seen the term before.

Celsus

I just think that very clear the semi-literate Samarians were at a distinct disadvantage, having not been introduced to the wonders of historiography in Persia; and that the returning Judahites would have pressed home their advantage early and strongly. I do have some issues with the degree of preservation that would seem quite remarkable with too late a date as well.
Dammit now you make me want to reread the Bible again when I haven't done so for some years
I'd suggests dates are fairly irrelevant when treating them. Samuel seems to be a convenient tool to introduce priestly primacy onto the entire royal tradition - he may well have been one of the folk "judges" whose prominence is necessitated by a bridge between the kings and faintly-remembered tradition, and the entire Eli narrative/early kingly annointment is clearly a very late addition in order to retroject Levite authority over all the kings of Judah and Israel.
Cycles are just collections of stories around specific characters. A useful distillation from books that are late categorical impositions on what were clearly discrete stories (with many layers). So we talk about an Elijah cycle as a discrete tradition that got nested (in different ways) in Kings or Chronicles. It's a pretty theory-laden term though.

Petergdi

How exactly does it do anything of the sort?

Samuel is a Levite (a fact which takes some study of the text to discover, since it isn't explicitly mentioned) but his authority comes from being a prophet. It is clear that a prophet can, at the command of God, depose high priests and kings and annoint new ones in their place, but how does the story give any such power to Levites?

Peter.

wavy_wonder1

Unfortunately according to 1Samuel he is an Ephraimite, not a Levite.


Finis,
ELB