Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-12-2002, 12:35 PM

One of the things that comes to mind every time I now read Malachi is when was it written? The logic goes like this:

* the sacred texts of Judaism were the prerogative of the temple and its priests (not strange when you think that during the Persian and Greek period, Jerusalem was basically all there was with just a few outlying villages), for who but the rich could afford the scribes to write and maintain the texts?

* Malachi contains a scathing attack on the whole priesthood;

* Would a priesthood which controls all the sacred texts have written and maintained such a text?

* If, as it seems, it is unlikely that they would, then Malachi, or at least ch.1 and the 2:1-9 (the rest of ch.2 changes speaker and target of the harangue), had to have been written after the end of the priesthood.

Ironically, the text from 2:10 onward is known from Qumran, as well as what appears to be a reference similar to 1:10, yet in a very different context and therefore different implications.

I would think then that at least the first section of Malachi was not written until after the demise of the priesthood, which I gather means the demise of the temple.

ShottleBop · 03-12-2002, 04:22 PM

According to the research staff at "The Straight Dope" ( <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html</A> ):

Quote:

Malachi

Internal evidence indicates Malachi was writing a generation or so before Nehemiah was appointed governor, so during early 2nd Temple times, say 450 to 400 BC.

According to tradition, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all wrote during the same period, around 350 BC, and were all members of the Great Assembly that compiled several of the books of the Prophets

.

spin · 03-12-2002, 05:21 PM

"According to the research staff at "The Straight Dope" ( <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html</a> ):

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------
Malachi
Internal evidence indicates Malachi was writing a generation or so before Nehemiah was appointed governor, so during early 2nd Temple times, say 450 to 400 BC.

According to tradition, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all wrote during the same period, around 350 BC, and were all members of the Great Assembly that compiled several of the books of the Prophets"

ShottleBop, this stuff is straight from the sons of the Pharisees down to the mention of the great assembly, which I gather is Pharisaic aetiological mythology.

"Internal evidence" as I see it leads me to believe that Malachi (at least 1:1 - 2:9) wasn't maintained by the priestly maintainers of the Jewish holy texts. Can you see the problem I posed with regard to priests maintaining a text which straight out insults them? If Malachi was written at the same time as the other two, you'd expect them to have at least some shadow of the polemic launched by Malachi. They don't.

Perhaps the latter part of Malachi was original, I don't know. Remember that Zechariah has been added to (and Haggai's too short to get much out of).

ShottleBop · 03-13-2002, 01:02 PM

I also ran into some speculation that Malachi was really not a person:

Quote:

The word Malachi is generally translated "my messenger." "It may reasonably be regarded as an abbreviation of Malakhiyah which means 'messenger of Jehovah'" (George L. Robinson). "There has been considerable scholarly debate" over the centuries "as to whether or not 'Malachi' is a genuine proper name or a common noun" (Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia). If it is the latter, this book is by an anonymous writer referred to as "My messenger" or the "Messenger of Jehovah."

The LXX (Septuagint) regards the word as a noun rather than a proper name. The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel (an Aramaic paraphrase of the prophetic books dating from the 4th or 5th century AD, but containing many earlier traditions) has: "My messenger who is Ezra the scribe." Jerome (340-420 AD) and John Calvin (1509-1564 AD) both agreed with this view that the actual name of the author was Ezra. The Talmud (Megillah 15a) credits Mordecai with writing this book. Others feel it may originally have been a part of the book of Zechariah, which was cut off and made into another book "to make the Minor Prophets amount to the sacred number 12" (Eissfeldt). Matthew Henry points out that some in his day "conjecture that this prophet was indeed an angel from heaven and not a man."
. . .
It is impossible to date this work precisely, however by an examination of the material within the book itself one can determine the general time of this prophecy. The Persian term for governor ("pehah") is used in Malachi 1:8 (see: Neh. 5:14; Haggai 1:1, 14; 2:21), thus indicating this was written during the Persian domination of Israel (539-333 BC).

One can narrow it down more by examining the internal conditions existing in Palestine at this time. The Temple has been rebuilt and sacrifices are being offered in it. The priests are corrupt. The tithes and offerings are neglected. There is intermarriage with pagans and divorce is rampant. There is a spirit of skepticism. Financial abuses abound. Judah is under a governor, and Edom has been destroyed. It is agreed by most scholars that these are the same problems as those faced by Nehemiah. "It is therefore likely that the prophet and Nehemiah were active at about the same time and it would be well to study Nehemiah as a background for Malachi" (Jack P. Lewis). "A fair estimate as to date would be about 435 BC" (Gleason Archer).

From <a href="http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Proph13.htm" target="_blank">http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Proph13.htm</A> , which is a Christian site of some sort, for which I cannot vouch; neither, however, does this excerpt appear to be off the wall.

spin · 03-14-2002, 04:24 PM

Thanks ShottleBop.

There is interest in the citation, for me the major one being the Persian word pxh.

A few asides:

1) ml'k from which come Malachi is also the Hebrew word for angel.

2) The relation of Ezra to Malachi is amusing to me, because I date the final book of Ezra to the early rabbinical period, for amongst other things, Josephus only knows a version of what is preserved by the Christians as 1 Esdras. He also has a much reduced version of Nehemiah. The last chapter of 1 Esdras was later removed from its place and added to the middle of Nehemiah, yet Josephus has it in place at the end of his Ezra text. So, as Ezra for me is early rabbinical, the connection of Ezra to Malachi is ironic, for I was thinking of an early rabbinical dating for it as well!

But now I have to think about the use of pxh.

03-12-2002, 12:35 PM	#1
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	When was Malachi written? (Bib scholars out there?) One of the things that comes to mind every time I now read Malachi is when was it written? The logic goes like this: * the sacred texts of Judaism were the prerogative of the temple and its priests (not strange when you think that during the Persian and Greek period, Jerusalem was basically all there was with just a few outlying villages), for who but the rich could afford the scribes to write and maintain the texts? * Malachi contains a scathing attack on the whole priesthood; * Would a priesthood which controls all the sacred texts have written and maintained such a text? * If, as it seems, it is unlikely that they would, then Malachi, or at least ch.1 and the 2:1-9 (the rest of ch.2 changes speaker and target of the harangue), had to have been written after the end of the priesthood. Ironically, the text from 2:10 onward is known from Qumran, as well as what appears to be a reference similar to 1:10, yet in a very different context and therefore different implications. I would think then that at least the first section of Malachi was not written until after the demise of the priesthood, which I gather means the demise of the temple.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2002, 05:21 PM	#3
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	"According to the research staff at "The Straight Dope" ( <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html</a> ): quote: --------------------------------------------------------- Malachi Internal evidence indicates Malachi was writing a generation or so before Nehemiah was appointed governor, so during early 2nd Temple times, say 450 to 400 BC. According to tradition, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all wrote during the same period, around 350 BC, and were all members of the Great Assembly that compiled several of the books of the Prophets" ShottleBop, this stuff is straight from the sons of the Pharisees down to the mention of the great assembly, which I gather is Pharisaic aetiological mythology. "Internal evidence" as I see it leads me to believe that Malachi (at least 1:1 - 2:9) wasn't maintained by the priestly maintainers of the Jewish holy texts. Can you see the problem I posed with regard to priests maintaining a text which straight out insults them? If Malachi was written at the same time as the other two, you'd expect them to have at least some shadow of the polemic launched by Malachi. They don't. Perhaps the latter part of Malachi was original, I don't know. Remember that Zechariah has been added to (and Haggai's too short to get much out of).

03-14-2002, 04:24 PM	#5
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Thanks ShottleBop. There is interest in the citation, for me the major one being the Persian word pxh. A few asides: 1) ml'k from which come Malachi is also the Hebrew word for angel. 2) The relation of Ezra to Malachi is amusing to me, because I date the final book of Ezra to the early rabbinical period, for amongst other things, Josephus only knows a version of what is preserved by the Christians as 1 Esdras. He also has a much reduced version of Nehemiah. The last chapter of 1 Esdras was later removed from its place and added to the middle of Nehemiah, yet Josephus has it in place at the end of his Ezra text. So, as Ezra for me is early rabbinical, the connection of Ezra to Malachi is ironic, for I was thinking of an early rabbinical dating for it as well! But now I have to think about the use of pxh.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.