Welcome

I am not much of a blog person. I dont read too many of them and the ones I do read I read only occasionally. This blog was started mainly as a way to organize my thoughts about the various subjects I am studying.

Feel free to comment or just read! Suggestions are always welcome.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Philosophy and the Ancient World

In chapter one of Before Philosophy: The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, Henri Frankfort makes a really good attempt at understanding the rational mindset of ancient humans, particularly inhabitants of Mesopotamia. Frankfort does not do this lightly, realizing that there are no extant treatises on philosophy like the Greeks leave us in Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. In fact, there are virtually no discussions in extant texts from the Ancient Near East describing any sort of philosophical understanding of deities, creation, and humans. However it is presumptuous of us to believe that the Ancients did not think about such things or even that they lacked a so-called “rational” mindset that has so dominated Western thinking for the last 2500 years. The fact is, philosophical questions are, at their core, a way of “speculating” about the nature of the world around us. Greek philosophy has an excellent example in Aristotle and Plato who argue about the “thingness” of objects. In the modern world, philosophical forays into the nature of cosmology and the physical world has largely been taken over by the sciences. Yet even the scientific method is a “speculative” exercise as it has postulates and hypotheses that theorize a reason behind the workings of the world.
The Ancients engaged in similar postulating but their mindset was different than that of the Greeks. Like the Greeks, the Mesopotamian Ancients knew that the world functioned and events occurred because certain forces acted upon other forces. Yet the Mesopotamians (and early Greeks) expressed this not in the form of treatise but of myth. Myth, in this context, is a poetic form of truth and reasoning that attempts to enact truth, rather than simply comment on it. Evidence of speculation concerning cosmology appears in Egypt (e.g. Atum created Geb and Nut: Earth and Sky), Meospotamia (e.g. Marduk rends Tiamat and uses her corpse for the earth), and Greece (Geia mates with Ouranos). The source of these speculations is observation, but also dreams and hallucinations. Through these “visions” ancient man would often see people who were not present or even dead. Symbolism is also a large part of the Ancients’ “speculative” understanding of the world. The coalescence of these parts of a symbol is foundational for ancient societies. When an action was performed on a symbolic object, that action was thought to have real consequences. This leads the author to discuss the notion of causality. The author posits that the Ancients had no way of viewing cause and effect in the same scientific way that we do. They observed an event, such as the rising or lowering of a river, and sought answers through some medium – usually the actions of a god. These divine actions may or may not be an effect of another cause, and so further speculation is needed. This logic also applies to notions of sin/illness and forgiveness, ultimately the place of the cult and religion.
Several preliminary observations can be made based on the Frankfort’s work. The first is a realization that ancient people’s had a complex way of relating to their environment. They sought answers for the many diversified experiences of life and, more importantly, sought a way in which to express their thoughts in a rational and ordered way. They used mythic texts to construct worlds and beings of which they likely had no physical contact. This was done so that events, like the rising of a river or the appearance of a plague, might be explained, and then be dealt with. The second is that speculation about creation gave rise to the types of society, economics, and ethics that these cultures had. Hierarchies of society, both noble and ordinary, were formed on the basis of cosmological speculation.  Economic issues, such as what plants could be harvested at what time of year, or how meat was to be processed and cooked, were all part of a larger understanding of the interactions between deities and creation; humans and nature. Even the ethics, religion, and morality of ancient societies were founded on speculation about illness, disease, and prosperity. Ultimately, mythic texts help the modern reader to see how peoples of the ancient world used their own forms of logic to understand the world and speculate about their surroundings. Indeed, though they are markedly different than the scientific nature of the modern discussion, they are nevertheless a valuable contribution to our understanding of humanity as a whole.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Textual Criticism - Exodus 1:1-7

There are several textual issues in play in Exodus 1:1-7 that make it difficult to ascertain what the "early" text was. I say "early" because it hard to say in this instance what the "earliest" version of this text was. Because of this, I should quickly sum up my intent in this critical exercise.


I have no illusions that what I am doing is arriving at an "original" text. Textual issues and recensions abound and make any judgement that would call a text "earlier" almost impossible to make with any academic integrity. What I am looking for in these verses is a version of the text that might be called "early," but what I am content with calling "whole." That is, I am looking for a text that is prior to the MT and has little complex 
history behind it that we, with our extent MS evidence, can prove. With this in mind, I go to the text.


Exodus 1:1-7
The MS found in BHS is as follows. (each line is a verse)


ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה את יעקב איש וביתו באו
ראובן שמעון לוי ויהודה
יששכר זבולן ובנימן
דן ונפתלי גד ואשר
ויהי כל נפש יצאי ירך יעקב שבעים נפש ויוסף היה במצרים
וימת יוסף וכל אחיו וכל הדור ההוא
ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו וירבו ויעצמו במאד מאד ותמלא הארץ אתם

1 Now these are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob; they came each one with his household:
2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah;
3 Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin;
4 Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher.
5 All the persons who came from the loins of Jacob were seventy in number, but Joseph was already in Egypt.
6 Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation.
7 But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them.

Extent manuscript evidence from the LXX, Targumim, DSS, and Peshitta reveal several differences but I will focus on one in particular that I believe has the most significance. In one instance in the DSS (4QExodus), the discernable text reads the name Joseph between what appears to be Benjamin and Zebulun.

[...] יששכר זבולון יוסף ובני [...]
The text is broken after this including the part in 1:5 where the MT mentions that Joseph was already in Egypt, thereby explaining his absence in such an important list. 4QExodus does, however, contain the first word from verses 6, ימת, which, in the MT, is connected with a statement concerning the deaths of Joseph, his brothers, and all "that" (הדור ההוא) generation.

The question now is which reading is preferred. Since, as I have stated, I am looking for a reading of the text that seems "whole" or without known recension, there are several options available to me.

1) The MT is earlier and the DSS reading is based on a variant edition that is not extant - presumably disposed of because of its errors.

2) The MT is later and based on a version that has already moved Joseph from his place beside Benjamin and Zebulun to a mention in verse 5.

3) Neither is earlier but each is based on separate traditions that develop in different places.


After a great deal of thought I decided to go with #2 and my explanation is as follows. While #3 might be preferred it is nearly impossible to prove with the extant mss. Therefore I cannot posit this as a viable option at this time. Option #2 is a good option and the LXX agrees with it in regards to Joseph. Yet there is also a difference between the two in verse 5 where the MT states that the number of people going down to Egypt was 70 (שׁבעים נפשׁ), and the LXX states there were 75 (πεντε και εβδομηκοντα). The LXX here shows an interesting Hebraism in how is forms the number 75, evincing that this text was copied from a Hebrew source (this is to be expected). However it seems unlikely that the LXX and the MT should have the same parent tet for one verse (1:3) and an entirely different one for a different verse (1:5). Thus we can posit yet another source which is not extant that serves as the parent for the LXX in Exodus 1:1-7. In other words, that the LXX and the MT agree on verse 5 is only secondary evidence since their agreement cannot be linked to a common text.


The main question is why a text WOULD include Joseph in a list with his brothers and NOT include Joseph in verse 5. The answer, I believe, is that the text that 4QExodus is copied from does not know the Joseph stories where he is already in Egypt. That version of the text might have been written before the Joseph stories coalesced and were placed into mainstream Judaic tradition. 4QExodus seems based on a source that only knows Joseph as a son of Jacob and, thus, one who entered Egypt with his brothers to escape a famine. Using common text critical rules we can assume that the text went from less complicated (with Joseph merely appearing in a list of Jacob's sons) to more complicated (with the scribe/source seeking to emend the text to show Joseph in Egypt).


Take up the issue. What does common sense tell you? What is a good read on this text?