Skip to main content

Canon Formation II

map of alexander the great's empire


I'm continuing my discussion of Satlow's book, from yesterday's blog entry.


"The father of Hellenistic ethnography was Hecataeus of Abdera. A Greek working for Alexander's general and successor, Ptolemy I Soter (367-283 BCE), Hecataeus wrote a comprehensive account of the Egyptians....Hecataeus's Aegyptiaca influenced generations of later Greek ethnographers. Aegyptiaca contains an excursus on the Judeans, whom he identified as a distinct polity centered in Jerusalem ("Hieroslyma") and ruled primarily by priests."


Hecataeus was interested in the "politeia" of the Judeans. This Greek word, sometimes transliterated "politics" or translated "constitution" is wider than either of those terms. It means, "the social system" or "the laws" if that term is quite broadly understood.


A little later, Satlow tells us that Hecataeus was "aware of, and maybe consulted, a written source that he believed to contain the Judean politeia. He writes, 'At the end of their laws there is even appended the statement, 'These are the words that Moses heard from God and declares unto the Jews.'"


So ... what document was he referencing that ends that way?


Look at the final verse of Leviticus, chapter 27, verse34. "These are the commandments that the Lord gave Moses for the Israelite people on Mount Sinai."


The Septuagint, which became the 'official' version of Hebrew scripture in Greek, didn't exist yet. Hecataeus was presumably aware of something older that ends much the same way.


Leviticus is the third book of the Bible, after Genesis and Exodus. whether Hecataeus had in mind a collection of all three books, or Leviticus as a stand-alone. Satlow says that "nearly all the details" in Hecataeus' account of the Judeans could have been taken from Leviticus standing alone. But at any rate, he thought of this as "their laws" ending with that statement.


So: why is this account a big deal?


First, it indicates that when group A conquers group B, and plans to hold the territory of group B as a province, they often need to learn something about B. Even if all they want is to keep the peace and wring a lot of taxation out of the province at issue., they need to know how the people who've been living there live and talk and think.


So: the Greeks who had just conquered a lot of western Mediterranean and eastern Asian [see map above]. created new fields of study, and Hecataeus was among those who stepped into this scholarly/political opening.
What is more: Hecataeus isn't merely a source for us today, in the story of the canonization process. He may be a player in the story.
Because Hecateaus wrote it up this way, it eventually came to the attention of another Greek elite group, the librarians at Alexandrian, that there were Jewish law books that any truly comprehensive library should include. That in turn meant that they'd have to be translated into Greek.











Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak