[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hosea & Pesher
>Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>I was just wondering if all the text of Hosea has been covered by finds
>among the documents. If so, what is the distribution of the finds? If not
>what exactly has been found? And I hope some kind soul can tell me if there
>has been more of the Hosea pesher than what relates to 2:8-12 been found
>and, if so, the extent.
>(This follows a posting on ioudaios relating to the possibility that
>chapters 5-14 may concern the Oniad problem of the second century.)
>Here is my posting to Ioudaios:
> In Ps. 78, I would actually take a bigger chunk to examine than just
>9-12. Take a look at 9-20. I think that it is an Oniad addition to the psalm,
>attacking the Pharisees. The psalm actually flows better without lines 9-20.
I, personally, do not see a problem with the flow of the Psalm. Verse 8
makes a transition between the exortion to listen to the commands of G-d and
those who did not listen, namely the people of the northern kingdom. The
people of the northern kingdom followed after the gods of the Canaanites and
the Phonecians, they did not, for the most part, keep G-d's covenant.
>The Pharisees, as I noted in a previous post, may be seen as the "Wicked of
Highly doubtful. In the DSS, the Wicked of Ephriam may refer to the people
who opposed the teacher of righeousness, who was, perhaps, the rightful High
Priest. This does not take away from its earlier literal meaning in the
Scriptures. The people who were most opposed to their claim to the High
Priesthood would have been the Roman appointed High Priesthood and his
party, the Sadducees, not the Pharisees (who, BTW, direct their own scathing
rebuke to the Roman appointed High Priesthood in the Talmud).
>found in the Nahum Pesher. It was this group, who "turned their
>backs" (line 9), did not keep God's covenant (line 10- by not defending his
>rightful priesthood), refused to walk according to his law (again line 10 and
>for the same reason), and before whose "fathers" he worked marvels in Egypt
>(perhaps a reference to Leontopolis). Most connected of all, however, is line
>19, which I may need to add to my thesis (thanks for pointing this passage
>out), which states a question that Ephraim spoke against God (which I take
>here to include God's priesthood). They said, "Can God spread a table in the
>wilderness?" While this is an obvious reference to food, might not it also be
>a statement questioning the validity of a temple in the wilderness, in Egypt?
See the event in the Numbers 11:4 "And the mixed multitude that was among
them had a strong craving; and the people of Israel also wept again, and
said, Who shall give us meat to eat?". The Psalm is refering to an event
that occured in the wilderness, not the temple that was built in Egypt.
Numbers was written much before that temple was built.
>This is exactly, in my view, what probably split the Pharisees from the
>Oniads, the issue
>of the validity of a temple in Egypt and here is such a statement attributed
>to the appropriate party, "Ephraim."
> With regard to Psalm 80, I would bring into question lines 1-2 and
>These also seem like possible Oniad additions to a text which would work
>perfectly well without them. The terms Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh are
>easily explained. Ephraim is the elect, the priesthood. Benjamin is
>representing the Kingdom, David.
The kingdom reseted with Judah, not Benjamin. David was from the tribe of
Judah. The tribes of Ephriam, Benjamin and Manasseh were all decended from
Rachel (Ephriam and Manasseh being the sons of Joseph). Joseph is used to
represent the northern kingdom, since the 2 principle tribes came from
Joseph. They had succeeded from the rule of the southern kingdom, whose
principle tribes were Judah and Benjamin. The three tribes of Rachel, long
to be united again. It is likely that the psalm was written after the exile
of the northern tribes or their succesion.
>Manasseh represents the non-elect. Thus,
>these three terms encompass the priesthood, nobility, and the massess. Lines
>14-18 make sense in connection with the fall of the Oniads if one assumes
>that the "vine" in question is the High Priesthood. Though while the argument
>in relation to lines 1-2 is reasonably clear, I myself think that the
>argument relating to lines 14-18 is questionable. I only state it as a
> As for Hosea, I think that Ian picked out some of the crucial
>statements. Hosea 11 is even clearer. I think that it is possible, not that a
>few lines here and there are Oniad additions to Hosea, but that from 5:1 to
>the end is an Oniad addition. The use of Ephraim in relation to Egypt and to
>Assyria is much more logical in the post Oniad collapse circa 159 BCE than at
>any time before.
Actually, the northern kingdom of Israel, to which Hosea was addressing his
prophesies, were often refered to as Ephriam, just as the collection of
souther tribes (Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, and some of Levi) were refered to
as Judah (as well as Israel). As to the reference to Egypt, it is there
because the northern kingdom asked Egypt to help them against the Assyrians
instead of turning to G-d.
>Moreover, the address "Here this O priests...For the
>judgement pertains to you," may be seen as commentary and not prophecy.
>Furthermore, it is only beginning in chapter 5 that Ephraim is mentioned and
>Ephraim remains important through the rest of the text. You will note that
>the Hebrew of Hosea 12:1 is suprisingly close in comparison with a number of
>references to the "wicked of Ephraim" in the DSS. They tell lies.
> I don't yet know what to make of the lines in Zechariah, concerning
Gretchen A. Shapiro Haas