Old Testament and Documentary Hypothesis

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thanks for that scholarship. I agree with it that Apiru is the Egyptian equivalent of  Hebrew, but if Abraham was a Hebrew, then it seems Esau probably was too. Archaeological evidence shows an Egyptian presence in Edom around 1400 BC - and they probably used Edomites as slaves to mine and process copper. 

I personally now strongly discount the Ramesside period as being the correct period of the exodus. Certainly by the period of Merneptah the Israelites had established themselves as an independent people in the promised land as the Merneptah stele shows. I believe the exodus was much earlier,

I agree.  See my early date in “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu 

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

....................... Therefore, at the time the text was written (by David's scribes) the city they built was known as Pi-Ramses, and so was recorded as such by the scribes. If you do accept the Apiru as the Hebrew Israelites, you then have the issue of what Apiru were attacking the Caananite subject cities in the Amarna letters 200 years before Ramses II. 

The 'Apiru/Habiru were a semi-nomadic social class (perhaps like Gypsies in our time), sometimes viewed as troublemakers by Canaanite kings.  Think of a Venn diagram with a large circle of 'Apiru-Hebrews, and a smaller circle of Israelites within it.  Abram and his descendants were indeed Hebrews, but they were not the only ones.  All Hebrews may have been Aramaean or Amorite (West Semites).  The problem is that they did not leave any inscriptions at that early period.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

..........................  I can't always follow Adam Miller, he gets a little to philosophical .......................

He can be obscure in print or in person, but he can also be fun.  See my review of a book by him -- "Adam Miller’s New Hermeneutic?” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, 6 (2013): 1-7, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/adam-millers-new-hermeneutic/#more-3079 .

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Steve Thompson said:

It may be neither here nor there in terms of this discussion, but the idea of the democratization of the afterlife in ancient Egypt has fallen on hard times of late:

https://uee.cdh.ucla.edu/articles/democratization_of_the_afterlife

Thanks Steve. Reading through that paper it seems this argues primarily that there was no democratization of the afterlife because it was already open to non-royalty. Further the suggestion is that the function of writing on coffins was fulfilled by papyri. It also notes that the idea the coffin texts and pyramid texts were more similar than different so that the distinction was not really sustainable. In other words the main thrust is that there wasn't a change but that this later perspective was part of the earlier view. Is that how you read it too?

If that's the case as you alluded it seems somewhat irrelevant to the Book of Mormon since it's arguing about how much Egyptian religion changed 1500 years before Nephi. It might relate to Abraham I guess depending upon when one dates him, although I think he's typically dated to well after the Old Kingdom. But thanks for letting me know. I'll fully admit my knowledge of Egyptian things is pretty spotty at best. I'm a poser here while people who actually know what they are talking about can correct me.

Edited April 2, 2019 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree.  See my early date in “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu 

The 'Apiru/Habiru were a semi-nomadic social class (perhaps like Gypsies in our time), sometimes viewed as troublemakers by Canaanite kings.  Think of a Venn diagram with a large circle of 'Apiru-Hebrews, and a smaller circle of Israelites within it.  Abram and his descendants were indeed Hebrews, but they were not the only ones.  All Hebrews may have been Aramaean or Amorite (West Semites).  The problem is that they did not leave any inscriptions at that early period.

I am a little unclear as to the point you were trying to make, because you said: "The Pharaonic residence Pi-Rameses was located in the northeast Egyptian Delta at Khatana Qantir, to which West Asiatic ʿApiru (Hebrews) actually hauled huge stones for the main temple  (Papyrus Leiden 348, 6:6),* and Egyptian texts from that same Ramesside period speak both of the lack of straw essential to brick-making, as well as brick-making quotas which sometimes could not be met, both of which are directly reminiscent of biblical texts in Exodus.** "

I alleged that the city of Rameses in the Bible was anachronistic. That is because I believe there was no city of Rameses at the time of the Exodus. That is a name given to the new city after Rameses made it a capital. Then you cite works which place Apiru there in the Ramesside period. Then you agree with me that the exodus was much earlier. While I think the works you cite are relevant, I'm not too sure of their relevance to my alleged anachronism or exactly what you are trying to tell me. 

It does seem that the term Habiru arose around the time of Abraham and there is some documentation that various ethnic groups were called Habiru. For instance there were some early service men of various nationalities who were called Habiru, so that may have been a term used for mercenaries. It seems to me more a term used for servants - maybe servants for hire. Abraham may have called himself an Habiru because he considered himself a servant of God. Later, the term became somewhat a term of derision used by the Canaanites to refer to these invaders who called themselves Habiru. Perhaps, we can agree that the exact etymology is still uncertain.

[mfbukowski]

Sigh.

Will we EVER get over literalism and historicity issues?

The answer is staring everyone in the face- and we refuse to embrace that the scriptures are SPIRITUALLY true and their purpose is to allow us to fill the measure of our creation and have joy therein

The scriptures are neither a history nor science text.

Who wrote what when is irrelevant to their spiritual value and is an unknowable riddle anyway!

It's fun and interesting, yes, but what difference does it make?  Does it bring us closer to God and teach us how to live with joy?

My advice is to re-read Alma 32 until you get that the criteria for "truth" is this:

Quote

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

No mention of who wrote what when or if it is scientifically true or historically true

What's the deal?  Do we or do we not believe this as the final criteria for scripture?

Edited April 2, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I am a little unclear as to the point you were trying to make, because you said: "The Pharaonic residence Pi-Rameses was located in the northeast Egyptian Delta at Khatana Qantir, to which West Asiatic ʿApiru (Hebrews) actually hauled huge stones for the main temple  (Papyrus Leiden 348, 6:6), and Egyptian texts from that same Ramesside period speak both of the lack of straw essential to brick-making, as well as brick-making quotas which sometimes could not be met, both of which are directly reminiscent of biblical texts in Exodus."

Hebrews, not Israelites.  All Israelites are Hebrews, but all Hebrews are not Israelites.  Did you visualize that Venn diagram?

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I alleged that the city of Rameses in the Bible was anachronistic. That is because I believe there was no city of Rameses at the time of the Exodus. That is a name given to the new city after Rameses made it a capital. Then you cite works which place Apiru there in the Ramesside period. Then you agree with me that the exodus was much earlier. While I think the works you cite are relevant, I'm not too sure of their relevance to my alleged anachronism or exactly what you are trying to tell me. 

The biblical account of the Exodus telescopes a variety of early and later traditions, Josephus even seeing the exodus of the Hyksos from Egypt as the actual Israelite Exodus.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

It does seem that the term Habiru arose around the time of Abraham and there is some documentation that various ethnic groups were called Habiru. For instance there were some early service men of various nationalities who were called Habiru, so that may have been a term used for mercenaries. It seems to me more a term used for servants - maybe servants for hire. Abraham may have called himself an Habiru because he considered himself a servant of God. Later, the term became somewhat a term of derision used by the Canaanites to refer to these invaders who called themselves Habiru. Perhaps, we can agree that the exact etymology is still uncertain.

Frank Moore Cross, Jr., stated that the origin of the word “Hebrew” as an ethnicon is to be found in Egyptian ˁApiru and Akkadian Ḫabiru – low-class semi-nomadic peoples about which 14^th century B.C. Canaanite rulers complained so bitterly to Pharaoh in their so-called “Amarna Letters.”  As Abraham Malamat and others have argued, the Israelites were part of this larger group of SA.KAS (KU₆.KAŠ.RU)/ Akkadian Ḫabiru / Ḫapiru / Egyptian ˁApiru/ Hebrew ˁībrîyîm  / Greek Hebraios “Hebrew” class of people (Exodus 3:18), some of whom were in fact enslaved in Egypt.[1]  J. Hoffmeier says that ˁApiru also appear in the 19^th Dynasty Tomb of Intef.[2]  The common Hebrew folk-etymology is based on ˁībrîy “Hebrew”derived from Hebrew ˁābar “to cross over” (Genesis 14:13), and the derived Hebrew eponym ˁēber “Eber” (Genesis 10:25),  and “Heber” (1 Chronicles 5:13, 8:22), as in Old Akkadian and Neo-Babylonian eberu(m) “to cross over,” and which is evident in the Akkadian proper name Eber nari “Across the River” = Syria west of the Euphrates,^[3] an area known to be the north Mesopotamian homeland of Abram and his fathers and sometimes called Aram Naharaim or Paddan-Aram (Genesis  24:10, 25:20, Psalm 60:title). In other words, Hebrews could be found in Egypt both before and after the Exodus.

---

[1] A. Malamat in Frerichs & Lesko, eds., Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, 18; cf. A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 237,241,355; N. P. Lemche, “Hebrew,” in Freedman, ed., ABD, III:95.

[2] Hoffmeier, “Out of Egypt: The Archaeological Context of the Exodus,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 33/1 (Jan-Feb 2007):35, citing his Israel in Egypt, 114; see the very convincing examples and discussion by James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in the Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton Univ. Press, 1994), 60-63.

^[3] Block, George, and Postgate, eds., A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 1 (at abartu[m] “opposite shore, bank”), 64; cf. LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 699.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, churchistrue said:

..........................

Book of Mormon prophets before the time of Christ understood the gospel of Christ (fall, atonement, baptism, Jesus Christ to be born as Son of God, etc) due to visions and angelic visits where they were taught the plan of salvation. According to the BOM and the JST (and to some degree other conservative Protestant churches), prophets in the old world knew the same doctrines, presumably by the same method. Adam, Moses, Enoch, Zenos and Zenock of the BOM, Isaiah, etc, even though we don’t see this in the OT text. The traditional LDS view is that this is due to “plain and precious” parts removed from the OT, but modern scholarship seems to suggest that’s implausible. What's the "informed and faithful" view on this issue?

Both the OT and Book of Mormon share many elements of the so-called "Christianization" of the text.  Non-LDS scholar Margaret Barker deals with that whole issue in great detail, showing that the Deuteronomistic Historian removed the more explicit references from the OT.  However, an even bigger problem is the KJV translation committee which did the OT was different from the one doing the NT, and so used different terminology in their English translations.  A close examination shows that many Hebrew and Greek terms could have been translated the same way, but were not.  Also, some NT concepts are already present in the OT -- circumcision of the heart, a new covenant (new testament), etc., but most people just don't notice that.

As to an "informed and faithful" view on this issue, I don't think that there is one.  Most readers of the BofM and the Bible are completely unaware of the issue.

[CA Steve]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, an even bigger problem is the KJV translation committee which did the OT was different from the one doing the NT, and so used different terminology in their English translations.  A close examination shows that many Hebrew and Greek terms could have been translated the same way, but were not. 

Robert this is really interesting. I am not asking for a CFR here but I would like to read more on this. Can you suggest any further reading?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Robert this is really interesting. I am not asking for a CFR here but I would like to read more on this. Can you suggest any further reading?

One of my favorite examples is this quotation:
(MT) Psalm 2:2 ............................................................   (LXX and) Acts 4:26    
The kings of the earth set themselves,......................... The kings of the earth stood up,
and the rulers take counsel together,..............................and the rulers were gathered together
against the LORD,.............................................................against the Lord,
and against his anointed,   ..............................................and against his Christ. 

Another key term is Jesus = Hebrew Yēšûˁâ  “Salvation; He-Will-Save.”  Jesus is etymologized several times as “save; salvation” in the Bible (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:69, 2:11,21,27,30-31, 3:6 [Isaiah 52:10 yĕšûˁat ‘ĕlōhēnû  ǁMosiah 12:24, 15:31], where it clearly provides the soteriological etymology of his name) and Book of Mormon (Mosiah 3:8-9; cf. 3:17-18, 4:6-8); the same applies to “a Saviour, Jesus” in Acts 13:23.  Not only does the prophecy in Luke 1:31 to “call his name Jesus” hark back to Isaiah 52:10, however, but the name is clearly both divine and salvific: Isaiah 12:2 (ǁ2 Nephi 22:2) ʼēl yĕšûˁātî “God is my salvation, God is my Jesus”;  wayĕhî-lî lîšûˁâ “He has become my salvation (my Jesus),” i.e., LORD JEHOVAH.

Here is a short list:

Hebrew                            ......................................................................Greek

šaliah “messenger, one sent”        .....................................................αποστολος “apostle, messenger, one sent”
šnaym-aśar  “twelve”             ..............................................................δωδεκα “twelve”
šibʿim  “seventy”                ...................................................................ἑβδομηκοντα “seventy”
paqid  ∥mebaqqer  “overseer,”        ......................................................επισκοπος “overseer, bishop”
roʿe  “shepherd, pastor”        ................................................................ποιμήν “shepherd, pastor”
mebasser  ∥qohelet  “herald, preacher”    ...........................................ευαγγελιστης “herald, evangelist”
zaqen “elder”                    .......................................................................πρεσβυτερος “elder, presbyter”
kohen gadol   “high priest”        ..............................................................ἱερευς μέγας , ἀρχιερευς “high priest”
kohen  ∥levi  “priest, levite”        ..............................................................iερευς “priest”
more  ∥melammed  “teacher”        ..........................................................διδάσκαλος “teacher, instructor”

nabi “prophet, one called by God” ..........................................................προφήτης “prophet”

limmud, talmid “disciple, learner”  ...........................................................μαθητής “disciple, learner” 
ʿebed  ∥ʿozer  ∥mešaret “servant”  .........................................................διακονος “deacon; servant, minister, worker; priest”

See J. H. Charlesworth, ed., John and Qumran (1972); enlarged as John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Crossroad, 1990).

J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, Faith and Scholarship Colloquies (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1993).

James T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).

Margaret Barker, On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Temple Symbolism in the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1995).

Edited April 2, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He can be obscure in print or in person, but he can also be fun.  See my review of a book by him -- "Adam Miller’s New Hermeneutic?” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, 6 (2013): 1-7, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/adam-millers-new-hermeneutic/#more-3079 .

Thanks, I actually like Adam Miller a lot and own a few of his books.  I'll take a look at your essay as well.