Two Temples

Lisbeth Fried discusses two temple plans: one Near Eastern, one Greek. In the Near East, a temple is where the god makes his real home on Earth. This is somewhat the theory behind the Christian martyrion, or merthyr in Welsh. Most Greeks, instead, understood the gods to live in Olympus. Men communicated with those gods via altars in the open. It follows up this piece.

Fried sees the Deuteronomy-based literature and the Holiness Code, and Priestly literature generally, to be classically Near Eastern. If there wasn't a Temple, at least there could be a tent with the Ark set up in the place of glory. This is the tabernacle.

Fried distinguishes between the Deuteronomic / Holiness view; and 1-6 Ezra. Fried thinks 1-6 Ezra / 1 Esdras was Hellenistic. Ezra 3:6 has that Zerubbabel on return to Zion built an altar but did not (re)build the Temple. Supposedly Zerubbabel was a Babylonian who should have just got to building.

I've already asked if the Greek way - permanent altars, with temples as afterthought - be (east)IndoEuropean. Although this might exclude the Persian (and Avestan) respect for fire thus refusal of holocaust.

Either way, it's postExilic. Fried points out the innumerable tales in our Torah where some patriarch sets up an altar and not a temple. These are typically allotted to "J", or maybe sometimes "E". Most would say that this was a means for the Temple societies of king Josiah and certain stray northerners to claim the land but not yet the temples, which temples were inaugurated by the post-Torah kingdoms. Fried thinks that the means which the Torah chooses to lay this claim, be Greek like Ezra (or at least not Semitic).

I get the impression that Arabs, also, preferred the outdoor altar - at first. But then our records cluster around Nabataea, and surrounding Safa and Hisma (once Moab and Edom). The Nabat was quite Hellenised, by the time those Arabs' ancestors trickled through aforementioned Moab and Edom. Not for them, the reactionary record-keeping of the Jews and Samaritans.

The Athribis surge

Davila reports: 3000 more ostraca are found in the upper Nile city Athribis.

Not to be confused with the Delta city, this Athribis is in the Sohag region, which came to host a monastery complex. It is very close to Akhmim which has its own monastic tradition. It hosted its own dialect of Coptic, related to Sahidic.

The ostraca now number the highest collection in Egypt. Most of them are, naturally, Egyptian. I don't know exactly how they estimate 60-75% Demotic though, as compared with the 15-30% Greek. We know why there's Greek here: Ptolemy VII Euergetes ("Benefactor" in Latin) did a lot of work on the temples, as the family must, as known from Rosetta. Some demotic might be hard to distinguish from Arabic; some Greek is assuredly hard to distinguish from Coptic. Because Arabic and Coptic do round it all out, along with some hieratic and hieroglyphic. Also some of these are writing exercises: what's the difference between a Coptic "A" and an alpha?

Most valuable may be the scraps of hymnody, assuredly part of the writing exercises, or maybe just crib sheets (lol).

KBo 18.151 again

Last July, we brought an Old Hittite tablet, KBo 18.151. Most documents in Hattus(as) and Sapinuwa got written in "Nesili", the Anatolian language of old Kanesh. Hattusa and Sapinuwa, however, were not founded by the men of Kanesh. They occupied a nonAnatolian space - and the Hittites knew it, calling that language "Hattili". But Anatolians lived there too, whose language ended up taking on more Hattili than their descendents believed they should.

A lot of that was because of the history. The first kings of Hattusa were booted out, during the Thera era. On the glorious procession of the later kings back through the Lion Gate, they seem less-interested in local colour. Less Hattic; more Luwian and Hurrian.

Petra Goedegebuure has a followup. In her view KBo 18.151 is a draft. The king - Hattusili I - had asked a wise woman for divinations. The wise woman dictated her response. The draft was in poor Nesili. So a better edition (perhaps in proper dialect) was made for the king. We own only this draft. Goedegebuure is mostly using Soysal's work from the 2000s.

This new article argues for a Hattic case-system, suffixing. It's not just Indo-European, or that Anatolian sister-branch; Etruscan did this too. There are also genders. It is just that the genders differ, between Hattili and Nesili. Goedegebuure argues that KBo 18.151 - drafted in ostensible Nesili - is behaving too much like Hattili here.

Goedegebuure thinks the wise woman was a Nesili-as-a-second-language speaker. Alternatively, this draft was a team effort: the woman spoke her native Hattic whence her translator did a patchwork job, their scribe basically transliterating. The scribe then went home and fixed it up (this is the edition we don't got).

Back to the Mesolithic

For Mardin / Tur Abdin: the 10000s-8000s BC. Scholars slot these millennia into the Mesolithic-now-called-Epipaleolithic, and beyond. In Turkish, since this language has displaced the native Syriac, the complex is "Şika Rika". We don't know what the locals then spoke, maybe Hurri.

The Şika Rika culture, or cultures, number about twenty nearby villages. Cities wouldn't be a thing until later. Their existence looks to start with Younger Dryas 10900 BC, which they outlasted past 9600 BC. Their tools were flint and whatever pottery they had was aceramic. Among this pottery were stone pestles; some mortars were carved from the bedrock directly.

This means the culture made porridge, maybe even tortilla. It also means they were sedentary, at least seasonally, when cereals could be gathered. This is all too early for millet and I don't think they were farming, as such; plucking local barleycorn seems likely (and avoiding rye, that weed). Herding goat be possible.

For reference, Göbekli Tepe sprouts up ~9500 BC after the Earth warmed back up. This is what kicks off the Neolithic.

For the Younger Dryas epoch, though... might we be seeing the term "Mesolithic" return to grace? One (reasonable) argument for knocking it off was that we simply didn't have the data for that timespan leading to the Neolithic agriculture. Now, we might.

The New Jerusalem

Since the DJD deigned publish Aramaic content from Qumrân 2001 and 2009, over the last couple decades scholars have gathered a genre. This genre gathers "Aramaic Levi" and "Tobit". Among these texts as did not escape Qumrân is the "New Jerusalem".

People like to say that the Aramaic literature is not "sectarian". This holds for this literature's relationship with the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll and the Community Rule - sectarian, all. More-correct would be to assert the Aramaic content for its own sect. These were Levides (not just "Levites"!), making the case for their Divine vocation as an inbred priestly caste. It is just that this sect invited other Jews to join them - in the laity; the Qumran sect had given up on wider Jewry.

Yesterday I brought Predo for Babylonian Jewry's dismissal of the Levi case, who rallied around Ezekiel. But Ezekiel's book got interpolated, to except the Zadok clan (or "exempt" maybe). "New Jerusalem" hits Ezekiel's beats on the new Temple. Admittedly the Aramaic text is in fragments, but I don't know that it mentions Zadok.

It may be that the Levi tribe wrote this text to steal from Ezekiel's own case. If it were revealed to, oh, Noah or to Levi himself; the Levites / Levists could turn around to accuse Ezekiel of conducting the plagiary.

Thus saith the Lord

Since we've mooted ol' Zeke, Dr Lenny Predo for TheTorah reports on the controversy over the Levites. Ezekiel relayed a command כֹּה אָמַר יְ־הוָה: the Levites had failed. They should not hold any priestly authority upon the return of the Temple.

Readers of Torah will be perplexed to hear this, on account Levi were the great stalwarts, the Phineas Priests avant-la-lettre, at the Sinai.

Ezekiel used the Holiness Code now in Leviticus 17-26; Ezekiel was also a Deuteronomist in his view of history (which to me makes sense; the HC was Deuteronomist itself). Although Ezekiel may have read all of these texts; these texts may not have (yet) been assembled into one Torah, in which case Ezekiel was resisting that assemblage. Nathan MacDonald is writing that Ez 44 takes time to trash our Isaiah 56 as well; again, all "Isaiah" might be open to him, but Ezekiel refuses their assemblage.

Somewhere around here, Predo brings Ez 44:15-16. This exempts the Zadok clan from the Lord's ban against the Levite tribe. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not extend to chapter 44 - except when they quote it. Papyrus 𝔊967 is a Greek translation of a different edition (Ez 36-40 are scrambled; although 41-8, with which we deal, seems not, and readers could still use 37 and 38-9 by any other enumeration).

As a Zadokite, the famous Damascus Document cites Ez 44:15. I think this may be the first external reference to our Ez 44.

The Levites clearly survived the Exile and felt no real desire to canonise Ezekiel. The Maccabees, aiming to usurp the priesthood from them toward their own (Hasmonaean) family, had more motive to raise Ezekiel's profile. I wonder if, however, some Levites pondered the utility of appealing to the cheap-seats in a play for primacy within that priesthood, against the Hasmonaeans. Ezekiel with these verses' interpolation could serve.

Charles Cutler Torrey a century ago suggested that our Ezekiel is just that: a post-Maccabean production to lay claim to the Temple. For Torrey, our "Ezekiel" adapted an earlier Ezekielian apocryphon, which we no longer own.

I dunno. The rabbis used to warn against studying Ezekiel too hard until we got to our forties. (Kind of like how Catholics warn about John's Revelation.) Ez 44:15-16 does look sus tho'.

Chabad, and stuff

Chabad, which means "Chariot" in Ezekiel, has been coming under some scrutiny. Some would see it as something of a gurdwara for Jews, which Semitic subgroup would include me by their own law. We may ignore Tucker Carlson; I am unsure we may ignore Vrillium.

These guys came out of mediaeval messianism, and feel alien to me. But if, like me, you prefer ℭ𝔥𝔯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔲𝔪; the two of us may have to step back and ponder if Christianity itself is some outgrowth - of Roman-era messianism. Suppose a parallel Europe had embraced, oh, the Mandaeans. If you were some basic Episcopalian or megachurch evangelical dropped into that world; would you fare better than a Chabadnik would?

I feel somewhat bad for my brethren-by-blood, as compared against the Catholics (or Orthodox). My brethren-in-faith haven't changed all THAT much since Ignatius of Antioch, architecture aside. When some holy man (or woman!) shows up, we tend either to recognise him(/her) as a saint or to kick it out, like Mani. Jews have followed some supreme weirdos, like Shabtai Svi.