I finished Giovanni Garbini's History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. In this post, I will comment on aspects of chapters 11-13.
In Chapter 11, "Joshua's Exploits", Garbini dates the Book of Joshua to the third century B.C.E., a time when political power "was in the hands of the priestly class" (page 130). For Garbini, the Book of Joshua was composed in the "spirit of the Chronicler" rather than that of the Deuteronomist, and so he disagrees with Martin Noth, who considered the Book of Joshua to be part of the Deuteronomistic History (page 199). Garbini states on page 130:
"...Joshua is...credited by the biblical narrative with exploits as it were of a religious nature, like the circumcision of the people and the celebration of the Passover (ch. 5), the copying and the reading of the law (ch. 8), and the renewal of the covenant (ch. 24)...Certainly in Joshua there are elements which make him resemble Josiah; however, this is not the 'Deuteronomistic' Josiah (of the book of Kings) but the 'Priestly' Josiah (of the Book of Chronicles). The careful reader will also note the stress which the book of Joshua puts on the presence of priests in the episode of the crossing of the Jordan and the conquest of Jericho; a delight in liturgical description quite alien to the narratives of the Book of Kings but typical of that of Chronicles; think of the descriptions of the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem and of the Passover celebrations of Hezekiah and Josiah, of the levitical ordering attributed to David. Here, then, are the 'scribes' who advise the people on the passage of the ark across the Jordan; Joshua appears as a pious rabbi who meditates on the law 'day and night' (1.8). All in all these are features which recall the Judaism of the fourth-third century BC. Here we have by no means negligible (though neglected) ideological differences which oblige us to make a connection between Joshua and the Josiah of Chronicles rather than the Josiah of Kings."
Moreover, according to Garbini, the Chronicler's story about Josiah in II Chronicles 34 does not mention Josiah's destruction of Bethel, which II Kings 23 highlights, for, unlike the Deuteronomist, the Chronicler was not hostile towards Bethel, for Bethel was once the seat of the ark and a branch of the Aaronide priesthood (Numbers 25:10-13). And, "According to an acute textual conjecture which restores the Hebrew original of the text of the Septuagint of Joshua 24:33a, Joshua, too, found a place among the writings of those who did not have a particular aversion to Bethel", which "confirms the affinity of Joshua with Chronicles and not with Kings" (page 131).
Garbini also reads the story of the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 in light of Israel's post-exilic period, saying that it "reflects the situation of the post-exilic period when those who had returned from Babylon assumed an attitude of superiority towards the 'people of the land', those who had escaped deportation and did not share all of the religious ideas developed during the exile" (page 132).
What is interesting is that Garbini ties to the Chronicler elements in Joshua that John Van Seters attributes to a priestly redactor, P. And there are scholars who have posited a connection between the Chronicler and P! But Van Seters doesn't say that P wrote all of the Book of Joshua, for he holds that the Deuteronomist wrote the essence of the story, and that J and P added some things. Van Seters seems to think that the Book of Joshua manifests more layers than Garbini thinks it has.
In Chapter 12, "Between Egypt and Babylon", Garbini presented a scenario that reminded me of one of Niels Peter Lemche's discussions in The Canaanites and Their Land, in which Lemche posited that the biblical narrative was shaped by the post-exilic relationship between the Jews of Jerusalem and the Jews in Egypt and in Babylon (see here). Indeed, there are differences between the scenarios of Lemche and Garbini, but both consider the interactions among the post-exilic Jews of Jerusalem, Egypt, and Babylon to be explanatory for the shape of the biblical narrative.
According to Garbini, Jewish authorities of Jerusalem who had returned from Babylon did not like Egyptian Judaism, or certain other traditions. There were traditions within Hellenism Judaism that regarded Moses as an Egyptian, and Hellenistic Jews before the third century appear to have had no knowledge of the Book of Genesis. There were extra-biblical sources that placed the origin of Abraham in Syria rather than Babylon, as well as people who portrayed Abraham as an astrologer. There are also many places in the Bible in which Egypt is presented positively---as a place of refuge (and, as Garbini notes, this motif even occurs as late as the Gospel of Matthew).
Jewish authorities of Jerusalem did not like these things. They believed that only the Jews who came from Babylon to Jerusalem should have authority, and so they tried to hide traces in the Hebrew Bible of Abraham's Syrian origin in order to place Abraham's place of origin in Babylon, portrayed Egypt as a place of bondage rather than of refuge, made Genesis more anti-Egyptian and "philo-Babylonian", and transformed Moses into a non-Egyptian who nevertheless could not enter the Promised Land on account of his Egyptian background. They were not successful in every area, for some traditions were quite strong or occurred in sources that had attained a degree of authority. But they tried. And the Septuagint in the third century B.C.E. was their attempt to "put into circulation in the Greek-speaking world the latest 'edition' of the Law" (page 146). According to Garbini, "the third century BC marks the first great victory of Jerusalem, over both Egypt and Babylon" (page 150), and the "Memoirs of Nehemiah" are symbolic of the restoration of fallen Jerusalem.
In Chapter 13, "Ezra," Garbini argues that Ezra was not a real historical figure, but rather a symbol for a movement of religious inclusivism. To challenge Ezra's historicity, Garbini notes historical errors in the Book of Ezra (e.g., the book leaves out Persian kings in its sequence), as well as asks why "no Jewish work, whether in the Bible or not, shows knowledge of the great Ezra before Flavius Josephus" (page 152), which is odd, if there indeed was a historical Ezra who was as prominent as the Book of Ezra says that he was. That brings me to another point: the Book of Ezra isn't even Garbini's main source for understanding the theme of Ezra, for he states that I Esdras has priority and that the canonical Book of Ezra was a revision of I Esdras. For Garbini, that is why I Esdras is quoted far more often than the Book of Ezra in antiquity---as we can see in Josephus and the Greek and Latin church fathers. The Greek church fathers start to quote Ezra in the fifth century, and the Latin church fathers (except for Jerome) in the sixth century. Before those respective times, they quoted I Esdras.
Garbini makes a point on pages 160-161 that will serve as a bridge between his argument on I Esdras' priority and his overall thesis in the chapter---that Ezra represented a move of religious inclusivism. In I Esdras 5:61-63, the priests, the Levites, and the Israelite people shout and blow trumpets. In Ezra 3:11-13, however, only the priests blow trumpets. The Book of Ezra moves in the direction of restriction, whereas the earlier source (for Garbini), I Esdras, presents a degree of equality among the priests, the Levites, and the Israelite people.
And we see this move towards equality elsewhere in I Esdras. In I Esdras 7:10-11, the priests and the Levites are purified together. In I Esdras 9, the priest goes out into the midst of the people, consisting of both men and women, which, according to Garbini, was "quite revolutionary" (page 161). As Garbini notes, this is different "from Ezekiel 44:19, where there is a prescription that the priests shall take off their liturgical garments 'lest they communicate holiness to the people'" (page 162). In this Ezra reform, "for the first time the people, including women, is called to take an active part in the celebration of the cult, which was hitherto reserved to the priestly class" (page 162). In the process, the Israelite people become regarded as "sacred seed" (I Esdras 8:67), a special nation. Garbini appears to maintain that Chronicles contained the roots of this trend in its challenge of the Zadokites, and yet Chronicles and Ezra differ on the "position and function of the Levites", which is why Garbini disagrees with scholars who try to unite Ezra with Chronicles (pages 158, 160, 162).
Garbini traces the Ezra reform to the second century B.C.E. high priest Alcimus, who, according to I Maccabees 9:54-56, tore down a wall in the Temple. On the basis of Mishnah Middoth 2, Garbini contends that Alcimus tore down the wall separating the priests from the other Israelites. There were people who were not too happy about Alcimus' move. The author of I Maccabees didn't care for it. And, according to Garbini, the self-proclaimed Zadokites who became the Essenes at Qumran despised Alcimus' reform. Garbini thinks that the "man of lies" who opposes the "Teacher of Righteousness" in the Dead Sea Scrolls was Alcimus. Garbini also notes that, "although the library of Qumran is so rich, the Hebrew original of I Maccabees has not been found in it nor have the books of the 'sons of Aaron', Chronicles and I Ezra: the books of hostile parties were not admitted" (page 168). And, according to Garbini, the Temple Scroll also avoids the word 'zrh for "court", presumably because it sounds like "Ezra."
That brings me to the next point: From were did we get the name "Ezra"? Garbini states that the name is similar to the word 'azarah, which "in the later priestly texts (Ezek. 40-48 and Chronicles), in Ben Sirach and in rabbinic Judaism means 'inner court of the temple'" (page 166). And that was what Alcimus' reform addressed: the innter court of the Temple.
I thoroughly enjoyed this chapter, but I wished that, somewhere in the book, Garbini would have addressed the Pentateuchal texts in which the sons of Aaron are elevated above the Levites and the other Israelites. Why was this the case, if the Aaronides were more inclusive than the Zadokites, as Garbini suggests? And I must point out that I Chronicles 6 actually traces the line of Zadok to Aaron through Phinehas, the very priest who is said to have an everlasting office in such passages as Numbers 25 and Psalm 106:30-31. In my opinion, the Chronicler is not challenging the Zadokites, as Garbini asserts, but is affirming their authority---and perhaps Numbers 25 does so as well. But Garbini may be correct to note that Ezra promotes some inclusivist religious reform. Even sons of Aaron could differ from one another, plus, in the post-exilic period, perhaps there were people who wanted all Israelites to be considered sacred, for that would encourage their national identity and their separation from other nations, thereby preventing assimilation.