Talk:Elephantine papyri and ostraca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled][edit]

Why is there nothing about Elphantine worship being non-monotheistic? Or about the temple at Elephantine being destroyed, and the letters that were written soliciting support for permission to rebuild it? AnonMoos 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is calling for the touch of your hand. --Wetman 14:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read some material about this at least five years ago, but I have no idea where I read it, and what I read might not have been very up to date, either. AnonMoos 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the links at the bottom of the page both refer to the same website - I've removed one. ronch 10:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a link here at Wiki:

"The 'Elephantine papyri are caches of legal documents and letters written in Aramaic, which document a community of Jewish soldiers, with perhaps an admixture of Samaritans, stationed here during the Persian occupation of Egypt. They maintained their own temple (also see BYT YHWH), evincing "polytheistic beliefs", which functioned alongside that of Chnum" (my emphasis added)

Why does it seem that 99.9% of the articles pertaining to Jews and Judaism are historically skewed in favor of the Jewish purported historic record. This article claims the temple was destroyed as a result of "antisemitism" when in fact that was not the case at all. Quite simply the Jews were not singled out for the reasons associated with the term until much later. Manson48 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't all that much later in historical terms; fairly elaborate forms of antisemitism existed in the Ptolemaic period, such as the works replied to in Josephus' Contra Apionem (Osarseph etc.) ... AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference backing up the "antisemitic" claim seems like a reasonable one, and we have no others. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pictures[edit]

some papyrus pictures with descriptions. someone should add this images to the artice. i do not know how to do this!

http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ElephantinePapyrus.htm

http://www.oligopistos.com/oligopistos/_215_495002216_7a93408725.jpg 78.106.126.165 (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"anti-Semitic rampage"[edit]

This is mentioned above in a comment from a few years back. Firstly, the kent.net link in the reference leads to a dead link. Secondly, "...had recently been badly damaged by an anti-Semitic rampage on the part of a segment of the Elephantine community" is a bit of an exaggeration. The letter dates to the 5th century BCE. For comparison sake (taken from Wikipedia's own article on Antisemitism): "The first clear examples of anti-Jewish sentiment can be traced back to Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE"

The Elephantine Jewish community may not have been entirely monotheistic so it isn't clear that they would be singled out on account of their Jewishness which is what an "anti-Semitic rampage" would imply. That "part of a segment of the Elephantine community" was specifically a group of priests devoted to Khnum. The letters mentions construction activities by the Khnum priests alluding to tension which also involved the temple being looted at one point along with beams being taken to construct the Khnum temple (on a different occasion prior to it being destroyed). It's also mentioned that the Persians initially destroyed all the other temples except for the the Jewish temple. Rival religions destroying idols and temples (and using the material to construct other temples) is common in the ancient world and in Egypt. Calling it an "anti-Semitic rampage" implies being singled out because the attackers didn't like Jews placing the incident in the same category as pogroms. It's a little too early in history for antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.58.82 (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment. To call it an "anti-Semitic rampage" is at best anachronistic. The motives for the damage should be described in the terms supported by the original sources. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of Bagoas, Persian governor of Judah[edit]

Verify the date of the letter to Bagoas. This article says it was dated to 407 BC, but the Bagoas that it links to is stated to have died in 336 BC and was not old, but was ordered to drink poison by the Shah of Persia. The letter to Bagoas either should be dated later, or another Bagoas needs to be linked to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:480:14:25A1:491E:4A91:C0B6 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elephantine papyri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1939 source[edit]

Some of the key questions regarding Elephantine papyri were sourced by 1939 outdated and worthless source. If the claim is correct it needs proper source, otherwise will be removed. Tritomex (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1915, not 1939. "The temple at Elephantine was destroyed around 410 BCE at the instigation of the priests of the local god Khnum. One possible hypothesis explaining the Egyptian aversion to the temple of Yhwh is that the Jews made sacrifices of sheep there while the god Khnum was represented with a goat’s head." "The Jews ot Elephantine were still polytheists. Alongside the name of Yhwh (written normally in the form yhw) we find the names of the divinities ‘Anat Betel and Asham Bethel. These gods must have still existed in the homeland too, since mention is made of offerings for them sent to Palestine."[1]

"Even before this, the Jewish colony had established its own temple where the national God Yhw (an abbreviation of YHWH) was worshipped in association with a female counterpart (Anat-yhw) and other deities of the Canaanite pantheon. In the temple, meal offering, incense, and animal sacrifices were performed by the local Jewish priesthood. Initially, the mode of worship of the Elephantine Jews (so manifestly opposed to Deutero-nomistic rules) was a peculiar development of possibly North-Israelite syncretistic elements in a polytheistic Egyptian environment. A reassessment of the largely polytheistic nature of the Israelite religion before the Babylonian period has led modern scholars to reconsider the Elephantine experience as a vestige of preexilic Yahwism, which the Bible would label in retrospect as Canaanite corruption. The findings at Elephantine are strikingly similar to what was discovered in other preexilic Jewish sanctuaries, notably at 7th-century Kuntillet 'Ajrud. The religious conservatism of Elephantine was not the mere consequence of geographical isolation; it testifies to the historical process through which the Babylonian exiles struggled to impose their authority and their ideal of exclusive mono-theism on Jews in and outside Jerusalem during the 5th century."[2]

" In the fifth century, a small Jewish colony lived on the island. Archaeologists have discovered a quantity of papyri at this site. These writings indicate that the Elephantine Jewish community remained unaffected by the monotheistic reforms that had taken place in Palestine. Although Judean kings based in Jerusalem had suppressed religious shrines throughout the country, this group of Judeans had built their own temple in which they worshiped Yahweh. They worshiped other gods as well, although Yahweh was stronger and more important."[3]

There are of course more. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this references. They should replace the 1915 or 1939 sourceTritomex (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theories[edit]

I would like to point out that the first paragrapher ("Historical significance") is mainly based on the book Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch by Russell Gmirkin, which argues that the Pentateuch was written during the Hellenistic Period. However, this theory is rejected by most scholars, who believe that the Pentateuch was written in the Persian Period. Since Wikipedia does not accept fringe theories, I believe references to Gmirkin work should be removed or, at least, it should be clarified his is a minority one.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes are from Arthur Cowley, what on earth makes you suggest it's 'Gmirkin bias'? Ogress 23:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: The problem isn't Cowley, it's the fact that Cowley is used to support Gmirkin's theories. Most scholars believe that the Elephantine Jews were simply a remnant of pre-Exilic Yahwism and these papyri are usually not even considered when studying the Pentateuch. -Karma1998 (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should cite works such as in the header above us that discuss that it is pre-Exilic Yahwism. But it's not inaccurate to observe that the extant texts don't include crucial material such as Deuteronomy nor Pesakh, nor references to Moses, is it? Ogress 05:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Karma1998 and @Ogress: This work already discusses the origins of the Elephantine Jews as descendants of pre-Exilic Samarians and Judeans [1]. Can we rework the section of the "Historical significance" so that it covers more information related with the maistream academic interpretation of the papyri while leaving other fringe theories a more marginal subsection? I'll wait for any response. Potatín5 (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, uh, I added that citation without remembering any of this conversation, the plague swallows all time and memory, but I agree. He writes an entire chapter that discusses, "By the evidence of their language, their official ethnic identity, and their literary and religious culture, the Jews were as much Aramean as Jewish" and then covers the question of their origin as from the region of Samaria and from Samarians who moved to Judah first. It's a good resource and we don't cover how they were essentially "Judaeo-Aramaeans residing in Egypt". Ogress 15:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lower case/upper case[edit]

The article's title is Elephantine papyri and ostraca but it starts The Elephantine Papyri and Ostraca. Should one or the other be changed for consistency? Mcljlm (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elephantine_papyri_and_ostraca&oldid=1213703995"