Huh? No, the story is about leaving Egypt, not Babylon. Also,
The ritual text of passover is clear that unleavened bread is normal, and what’s unusual is avoiding leavened bread. There are four questions traditionally asked by a child at the Passover service. Each begins, “why is this night different from all other nights?” And the first one continues:
On all other nights, we eat chametz (leavened foods) and matzah. Why on this night, only matzah?
It’s about Egypt. It was written in Babylon. So it’s to their circumstances in Babylon one should look for clues as to what the point was.
We know the “festival of unleavened bread” predates the Exile - that part is from the Covenant Code portion. But tying it to the (also pre-existing) Pesach animal sacrifice part - which brings the protection-from-danger narrative into it - and the tying both to the Exodus myth only happens in/just after Babylon. So that’s where you have to look for the reason for the commandment part, not the pre-Exile traditions. And the simplest reason is just narrative to tie the ritual together to the overall fleeing story - add a sense of urgency that wasn’t there when it was just the annual Aviv barley harvest festival.
So, you agree that the purpose is that “they had to leave Egypt quickly”. That’s the plot, whatever the source of the story, and “they didn’t have time to let their bread rise” ties in nicely with that, as well as incorporating the ancient custom of the feast of unleavened bread.
By which I mean “They had to add something to the narrative to convey the sense of urgency so they picked details from an existing festival” NOT “preserved a story of a time they were actually at some point in a rush ever”, yes.
If matzah used to be more like pita then what bread is most like that matzah would be if it were allowed to rise?
I didn’t think it was like pita, more like a wrap. And i don’t think that bread is expected to rise,
So more like lavash?
Pretty much. If you search for images of “soft matzah”, there are variations from different countries/traditions. Lavash might be allowed to have yeast in it, of course.
Just a speculation here, but maybe they didn’t have a specific departure date. They might have been planning on fleeing but were waiting for a day when the Egyptians weren’t around. So people would have been told to have the suitcases packed and the bread unleavened so they would be ready to leave at a moment’s notice when the circumstances were right.
Later, after the fact, there was a retroactive revision of history to make it look like there had been a master plan with God setting the schedule.
So a Mexican tortilla? Maybe the Aztecs were one of the Lost Tribes?
It’s where they learned to build pyramids.
The question is here NOT “was the Exodus a real story?” there is a thread for that in GD. The question is is what- within the frame of the biblical narrative- was the point of unleavened bread?
Not a question I answered, so that’s OK then.
The OP, of course, does not contain the phrase “within the frame of the biblical narrative” anywhere, nor does the OP’s single other post add that gloss at all..
Answering the question actually asked by pointing out what the point was to the people who actually wrote the story is a perfectly valid answer to that question. That is the only FQ approach.
The canonical version, which is more or less what the Jews and the Samaritans read today, was written during Babylonian exile, or possibly just after the founding of the second temple. But a lot of the pieces are probably older, and were written before that time. While i assume that the author of the canonical text (who i imagine to be Nehemiah “the scribe”) would have redacted away anything he thought wrong, and put his spin on the rest, I’m pretty sure the both the basic story of Exodus and the injunction to avoid leavened foods (bread and beer) predate him.
I think we ought to consider not only Nehemiah’s motives, but also what the Israelites and Judeans of the first temple period cared about. That is to say, “E” and “J”, as i think there’s way too much internal evidence for the documentary theory of Bible authorship to ignore it.
“Before that time” is 2-300 years before. And we have no evidence that the melded Exodus narrative is that old - pretty much the opposite, since it draws on all those earlier narrative streams. I’m not sure with which thread the haste gloss is most associated, or whether it’s entirely the purview of the combiners of the threads, but that latter is the view I lean to as it narratively serves a stitching-together function so well.
But I should add - the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer the hotness in Hebrew Bible studies, as I understand it. And just because a scholar is referring to the source streams doesn’t mean they’re a Documentarian - here, Dan McClennan explains the current status quite well.
Well, I’m one of the non-experts who careless lumps all theories about multiple source texts as “documentary hypothesis”. I was actually aware that there’s been a lot of work in the field, and the original “JEPD” theory is no longer the latest and greatest. But as your source says, most scholars still agree there were multiple documents woven together. And most of those are older than the Babylonian captivity.
It’s certainly plausible that “unleavened bread because haste” was added late, as it does work well to bind the narratives together. It’s also almost certain that the actual injunction against leavening predates the Babylonian captivity, and an ancient barley festival seems to be the most likely reason that injunction exists at all.
Agreed on both counts.
However, my understanding is that these were the oral histories of the tribe(s) since time immemorial. Oral histories can be subject to editing, redactions and writer embellishments, but generally are fairly accurate in general terms - listing the events leading up to and including the Baylonian exile, the kings and prophets of the time, battles with neighbours, etc. (With appropriate puffery, and “giving God top billing” etc.) For example, I think it was Hezekiah’s tunnel mentioned in the bible, that was found a few decades ago. OTOH, some details are scrambled and conflated, ambiguous or at odds with the details modern archeology and neighbouring histories assert. To be taken with a grain of salt, unleavened.
Parts were probably written down earlier. But i did say
But the question here is “why no leavened bread”. I don’t think we know for certain when that part was added or why. As a student, researching Torah for my bat mitzvah in my temple’s library, i read about the “barley festival” hypothesis, so i feel that’s got to be pretty mainstream. I don’t think Jewish establishments give 12 year olds far-out stuff that conflicts with the official story.
And whether the “to leave in a hurry” was part of the earlier story, or was an embellishment added later isn’t something we know, and it’s probably not something we can know, unless much much older texts turn up.
The best argument against that idea is that the ritual laws exist in earliest texts without the Exodus explanation, meaning the explanation is secondary.
In addition, the exodus layer reflects 1st Millennium theology (it reads as Yahwist not Elohist) and reflects Iron Age social realities like an Israelite ethnicity separate from Canaanite identity, that are definitely not borne out by the archaeology of Bronze Age Canaan.
Also, an actual oral history of that time wouldn’t feature camels at all.
You do know that Hezekiah is well within the period no-one is arguing isn’t historical, right? And that the difference in archaeological attestation between him and Moses is night and day.