Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JEST2ASK · 02-18-2008, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

First, in reply to DBTs above questions,

When reading ancient documents, texts, letters, and accounts, should everything that is written be taken at simple face value, with a total (or selective) neglect of, and disregard for, any other pertaining information that might affect or alter our understanding or comprehension of the intent of the material that we are reading?

I cannot give an answer to this question, -for anyone else-, but I am certain of my own answer.

I reiterate a few points.
Firstly,

I am not any longer a "believer". When I was a believer, however, it was then that I was accepting of that "simple" reading that you and others here have been endorsing.
It was only after my "deconversion" that I recognized and accepted the fact that this particular story was commonly being treated in a manner quite different than that which is employed when examining most other sections of the Bible.
* Normally, the contents of other, and earlier, passages of text are given a careful consideration in the determining if they have any influence or bearing on providing an accurate understanding of latter texts.
But in this case, there seems to be an unwarranted insistence on a "face value" simple reading, coupled with an adamant resistance to giving any real consideration at all to any such foregoing texts as might be found to be supportive of a different understanding.
Secondly, Again, from a non-believer, I do not "alter" the text in the least, I just don't read into it, those words and ideas that are being supplied by others to support their interpretation.

Thirdly, and relating back to the previous,

Again, as a NON-believer, The conclusion that I reached, was only reached after I became an atheist.
In all my previous years as a believer, I had been "taught" by the churches that I attended, and had accepted, the "accepted" simple reading and interpretation, The same one that you are still holding.
Funny thing here is, YOU are the one supporting that position and understanding advocated by my old religious teachers, while I have rejected and abandoned both them and their position.

----------------------------------------------

I do not even suggest that "this part of the Bible" is "wrong", my objections have never been about the actual Hebrew text, it says what it says,
and I accept that it was very carefully crafted.
I do not "change what it says", I only draw a different conclusion regarding the motivations and the INTENT of what was written.

My objection is to what is being "read into" (human sacrifice) the narrative, and that such "reading into" it, IS (always in the present tense) reflective of such biases and prejudices as are held by individuals.
This is why I have stated over and over that it is a trap, a snare, and a pitfall, DELIBERATELY fashioned in words, and laid for the unwary. It is a "SET-UP", made all the more subtle, by appealing to your pride, so seducing you into the disparaging and disregarding of any warnings.

*The ancient "mind" that contrived this, took a particular delight at the prospect of setting up traps, deviously "snaring" people "by their own words."

I can only ask here, that you take time to *look up some of those verses scattered throughout the entire OT, about "snares" and "traps" that reveal the "mindset" that was at work while engaged in the compiling much of the OT text. The Bible is often accused of "being a cleverly devised fable", Well, if you already know that, then why insist that it IS NOT "cleverly devised"?

This is not an easy thing to explain, or to convey even under the best of circumstances, and attempting to do so to an audience that has already reached an agreed "conclusion" and is hostile to the reception of, or consideration of, any additional information that might overturn their long held "article of faith conclusion" is doubly difficult. But I do try.

Very interesting thoughts, presented in a most informative and enjoyable fashion (sorry for adding additional emphasis) I do however have a rather big disagreement with your conclusion and I hope it is not simply because of my reluctance to incorporate new information which does not agree with my previously reached conclusions.

Just how are you able to determine that the section in question can-not stand alone, The section called the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) seems a good example where the "redactor / compiler " incorporates what appears to me to be a completely separate source. Just like the writer of the N.T. book Hebrews places Jephthah in a role based on their agenda / theology similar to what is done with Melchizedek.

How do you know that such sections are indeed part of a well devised snare / trap. Even granting if the later editor uses it in that way; how can you know the orginal intent of the oral tradition or earlier source was not more direct / simplier to convey the history of a sub-group tribe? I note how often it refers to Jephthah the Gileadite.

Sheshbazzar · 02-18-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

First, in reply to DBTs above questions,

When reading ancient documents, texts, letters, and accounts, should everything that is written be taken at simple face value, with a total (or selective) neglect of, and disregard for, any other pertaining information that might affect or alter our understanding or comprehension of the intent of the material that we are reading?

Obviously not, but 'interpertation' of a text should not be difficult if the writer intends the meaning to be understood. When I want to convey a meaning, I do not want it to be interpreted, I want it to be understood...Even though it may be in the form of a metaphor, satire, or sarcasm, it should be recognized as such, and understandable by anyone with average intelligence.

But that is the crux of the argument I am presenting, the "author" in this case, Knows that his writing will be read by a diverse audience, some of which will be receptive, and some of which will not be receptive.
Thus to carry out his agenda, he so crafts his story so that each of these parties will interpret it in the fashion that he has planned for.
The unbelievers, and the opposition, he does not want for them to properly understand his story, he does however want them to misapprehend his actual intent.
His excuse being that they, the enemy, can only be so entrapped by their own willful bias and blindness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

An account of events cannot logically mean something other than what it says because that obvious meaning does not happen to agree with other verses, as that just makes another contradiction.

It is a war, with opposing factions, in such conditions, "an account of events CAN, by apparent illogic, mean something entirely different than what the "obvious" meaning might be construed to indicate.

This is well illustrated by many of the communiques that were exchanged between the Allied Forces in WW2, where there were a lot of "contradicting" and "illogical" exchanges, But who was intended to able to interpret, WAS able to correctly interpret, and whom was NOT intended to be able to correctly interpret, WAS NOT able.
The "key" to the proper interpretation was the understanding of unique "insider information" and employment of a "code" Book.
Nothing new under the sun.

Sheshbazzar · 02-18-2008, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

Very interesting thoughts, presented in a most informative and enjoyable fashion (sorry for adding additional emphasis) I do however have a rather big disagreement with your conclusion and I hope it is not simply because of my reluctance to incorporate new information which does not agree with my previously reached conclusions.

Just how are you able to determine that the section in question can-not stand alone, The section called the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) seems a good example where the "redactor / compiler " incorporates what appears to me to be a completely separate source. Just like the writer of the N.T. book Hebrews places Jephthah in a role based on their agenda / theology similar to what is done with Melchizedek.

How do you know that such sections are indeed part of a well devised snare / trap. Even granting if the later editor uses it in that way; how can you know the orginal intent of the oral tradition or earlier source was not more direct / simplier to convey the history of a sub-group tribe? I note how often it refers to Jephthah the Gileadite.

I apologize that must be brief in answering this.
I don't regard any section of the Bible as "standing alone" everything is interrelated and integral to the culture which produced it, no matter how "minor" or "abstract" it might seem to be in regards to the "whole".
I include all contemporary "non-canonical" Books as well.

The question of "how do I know", will have to wait for another time.

Taking the last question, " how can you know the original intent of the oral tradition or earlier source was not more direct / simpler to convey the history of a sub-group tribe?"

As in my previous post, it would not matter where or how the "original" story originated or was earlier understood, It would be employed by and for, and adapted to, what ever purpose it was that the compiler was engaged in.
Back to the WW2 example referenced above, The U.S. employed the "Wind Talkers" to convey information that enemy had no way of decoding or "breaking". But did the words of these "Wind Talkers" need to be understood as remaining static or relevant only within the contexts of their old original legends, and thus of no consequence to the immediate conditions at hand?
Surely anyone here, who is not a religious fundamentalist can recognise and accept that many of these stories were "borrowed" from earlier, and surrounding cultures, and adapted to the needs of the Israelite national identity. That such adaption was calculated and purposeful in serving a religious/political agenda ought not be found very surprising.

mens_sana · 02-18-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I don't regard any section of the Bible as "standing alone" everything is interrelated and integral to the culture which produced it, no matter how "minor" or "abstract" it might seem to be in regards to the "whole".
I include all contemporary "non-canonical" Books as well.
. . .
As in my previous post, it would not matter where or how the "original" story originated or was earlier understood, It would be employed by and for, and adapted to, what ever purpose it was that the compiler was engaged in.
. . .
Surely anyone here, who is not a religious fundamentalist can recognise and accept that many of these stories were "borrowed" from earlier, and surrounding cultures, and adapted to the needs of the Israelite national identity. That such adaption was calculated and purposeful in serving a religious/political agenda ought not be found very surprising.

This sounds like an expanded "canonical criticism" approach, which recognizes that there have been a diversity of canons, e.g. DSS, LXX, HB, NT, with the "compiler" representing the appropriate believing community.

Please correct my misapprehension if I have misunderstood.

Sheshbazzar · 02-18-2008, 09:44 PM

In this particular instance when I wrote "I include all contemporary "non-canonical" Books as well." I intended to indicate that entire body of pre-"christian" literature, which was "integral to the culture which produced it", not necessarily "contemporary" as to time of production, but inclusive of ALL Jewish literature that written before the X-ian NT writings, and "church" doctrines and politics began to be an influence upon Jewish thought and writings.
I do not at all include the NT within this category.

I only use the word "canonical" because the readers familiarity with it, but in this context the term really is anachronistic, bearing to most who hear or employ it, a much latter developed concept of a strictly limited set of writings, whereas in its original sense it only indicated "that which is regularly read" within the congregations, and was yet without any implied pejorative sense against any such texts as were not so regularly read.

All this however, is getting quite distant in time from the Book of Judges and the story of Jephthah.

DBT · 02-18-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

An account of events cannot logically mean something other than what it says because that obvious meaning does not happen to agree with other verses, as that just makes another contradiction.

It is a war, with opposing factions, in such conditions, "an account of events CAN, by apparent illogic, mean something entirely different than what the "obvious" meaning might be construed to indicate.

This is well illustrated by many of the communiques that were exchanged between the Allied Forces in WW2, where there were a lot of "contradicting" and "illogical" exchanges, But who was intended to able to interpret, WAS able to correctly interpret, and whom was NOT intended to be able to correctly interpret, WAS NOT able.
The "key" to the proper interpretation was the understanding of unique "insider information" and employment of a "code" Book.
Nothing new under the sun.

A war about, or over . . . what?

If the OT is a war code of sorts, what is the true meaning and purpose of the Jepthath story?

What is it trying to achieve

How is it meant to be deciphered?

Sheshbazzar · 02-19-2008, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is a war, with opposing factions, in such conditions, "an account of events CAN, by apparent illogic, mean something entirely different than what the "obvious" meaning might be construed to indicate.

This is well illustrated by many of the communiques that were exchanged between the Allied Forces in WW2, where there were a lot of "contradicting" and "illogical" exchanges, But who was intended to able to interpret, WAS able to correctly interpret, and whom was NOT intended to be able to correctly interpret, WAS NOT able.
The "key" to the proper interpretation was the understanding of unique "insider information" and employment of a "code" Book.
Nothing new under the sun.

1. A war about, or over . . . what?

2. If the OT is a war code of sorts, what is the true meaning and purpose of the Jepthath story?

3. What is it trying to achieve

4.How is it meant to be deciphered?

1. On one level, the battle that raged for many generations between the Priests of Baal, and The Priests of YHWH.

2. The Jephthah story was composed as a propaganda tool by the YHWH faction,
The true meaning? to the YHWH faction; obey The Law YHWH, do not offer up your children, as do the the Priests of Baal.
To the non-YHWH faction; a deliberately misleading story, a trap set so that those who rejected The Law of YHWH will ultimately be condemned, exposed as frauds and humiliated in the sight of all men.

3. Still active, still "achieving", the end lies in the future, when men finally are able to analyze and understand its intents perfectly and beyond doubt. Some will be "cleared" and justified -"by their words"- and others will be "convicted" and humiliated -"by their words"-

This may entail the recovery of additional texts, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that the writers also took some extreme measures to make sure that a "clarifying" document would be preserved, so as to eventually surface.

4. First, by recognizing it as being a political/religiously motivated piece of Yahwist propaganda, secondly, by carefully comparing its contents with the restrictions of The Law. And so percieve that Jephthah was indeed innocent of the false charges brought against him and against YHWH his Elohim.

Nothing particularly "supernatural" here, just an ancient political/religious battle that was carefully crafted and "set up" to be played out over the ages.
Effectively, its intent would be to cause posterity, to in judgement, finally vindicate, and to praise and honor the cause of the Yahwist faction, and dispise both the ideas and the actions of their adversaries.

The "characters" within the story are "story book" characters, of less material substance than even the thinnest of soap bubbles, and have no impact upon, or interaction with reality,
beyond what is conceived in, and believed in, within the minds of men.

But of course what men believe and what they do, because of those beliefs, does have a great impact on reality, thus are simple stories made effective tools and levers, in the fashioning of real reality.

JEST2ASK · 02-19-2008, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I apologize that must be brief in answering this.
I don't regard any section of the Bible as "standing alone" * everything is interrelated and integral to the culture which produced it, no matter how "minor" or "abstract" it might seem to be in regards to the "whole".
I include all contemporary "non-canonical" Books as well.

The question of "how do I know", will have to wait for another time.

Taking the last question, " how can you know the original intent of the oral tradition or earlier source was not more direct / simpler to convey the history of a sub-group tribe?"

As in my previous post, *it would not matter where or how the "original" story originated or was earlier understood, It would be employed by and for, and adapted to, what ever purpose it was that the compiler was engaged in.

Back to the WW2 example referenced above, The U.S. employed the "Wind Talkers" to convey information that enemy had no way of decoding or "breaking". But did the words of these "Wind Talkers" need to be understood as remaining static or relevant only within the contexts of their old original legends, and thus of no consequence to the immediate conditions at hand?
Surely anyone here, who is not a religious fundamentalist can recognise and accept that many of these stories were "borrowed" from earlier, and surrounding cultures, and adapted to the needs of the Israelite national identity. That such adaption was calculated and purposeful in serving a religious/political agenda ought not be found very surprising.

Hello again:wave: and thanks for your response.
I find it hard to believe that I have been posting here now for 5 years during that time (in spite of myself) I have learned many new things (facts and concepts). To (I am sure poorly) use your examples of the Wind-Talkers and the OT redactors, many of my earlier posts (thoughts and conclusion) would be at seeming odds with my present mindset. For someone (even it is myself) to ignore the changes caused by so many factors and use my earlier posts in an updated context (IMO) would not be entirely valid.

Quote:

All this however, is getting quite distant in time from the Book of Judges and the story of Jephthah.

One of the things I have had to admit to myself is that some lines of thought / concepts / methods of logic are beyond my understanding due largely because I find the effort (investment of effort , time etc far outwieghs the precieved reward). I do not doubt that there was a war between the Priests of Baal, and The Priests of YHWH.. Nor do I doubt that there is deliberate propaganda left deeply imbedded in the OT by various YHWH and other factions. However I do think there are (many)sections of the Bible that not only can be examined as isolated but (IMO) and effort should be made to identify not just the core material but determine how, when (approximately) and why they were adapted.

Way out of my element here so don't laugh to hard.

Sheshbazzar · 02-19-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I apologize that must be brief in answering this.
I don't regard any section of the Bible as "standing alone" * everything is interrelated and integral to the culture which produced it, no matter how "minor" or "abstract" it might seem to be in regards to the "whole".
I include all contemporary "non-canonical" Books as well.

The question of "how do I know", will have to wait for another time.

Taking the last question, " how can you know the original intent of the oral tradition or earlier source was not more direct / simpler to convey the history of a sub-group tribe?"

As in my previous post, *it would not matter where or how the "original" story originated or was earlier understood, It would be employed by and for, and adapted to, what ever purpose it was that the compiler was engaged in.

Back to the WW2 example referenced above, The U.S. employed the "Wind Talkers" to convey information that enemy had no way of decoding or "breaking". But did the words of these "Wind Talkers" need to be understood as remaining static or relevant only within the contexts of their old original legends, and thus of no consequence to the immediate conditions at hand?
Surely anyone here, who is not a religious fundamentalist can recognise and accept that many of these stories were "borrowed" from earlier, and surrounding cultures, and adapted to the needs of the Israelite national identity. That such adaption was calculated and purposeful in serving a religious/political agenda ought not be found very surprising.

Hello again:wave: and thanks for your response.
I find it hard to believe that I have been posting here now for 5 years during that time (in spite of myself) I have learned many new things (facts and concepts). To (I am sure poorly) use your examples of the Wind-Talkers and the OT redactors, many of my earlier posts (thoughts and conclusion) would be at seeming odds with my present mindset. For someone (even it is myself) to ignore the changes caused by so many factors and use my earlier posts in an updated context (IMO) would not be entirely valid.

Our approach to, and our ethics relating to literary composition and the adapting by "incorporation" of others literary efforts into our own material, is much different than that which was in effect during the days when written language was first employed. Plagiarism was not even a recognized concept, and writers freely adapted others material, and incorporated and revised their older material to suit whatever their political/religious needs of the moment were.
To some extent this still goes on, even in these posts, "Johnny Skeptic", "Mountainman" and myself, Do not start a post with an empty mind and a blank page, "Johnny" particularly, posts his compositions over and over to reinforce a thought or a view, but incorporating numerous small "adjustments" to tweak and adapt his old text to fit the new argument, or the new context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

However I do think there are (many) sections of the Bible that not only can be examined as isolated but (IMO) and effort should be made to identify not just the core material but determine how, when (approximately) and why they were adapted.

I agree, however the early material is sometimes so heavily modified as to become almost an entirely different story. We can recognize for example that the creation and flood stories had their genesis in the mythos of earlier religions, and the hero stories of much earlier civilizations served as prototype material for the Israelite political/religious propaganda machine.
But it is very unlikely, that at this late dated, we will ever be able to put our finger on a particular spot, time, or place, and rightly declare; "This is where and when the story was borrowed and adapted"
It is sufficient to recognize and acknowledge that such adapting and modifying did take place. And bearing that in mind, that the greater bulk of the TaNaKa (Old Testament) was, and is nothing more, or less, than a blatant Yahwist Yisraeli political/religious propaganda production.
With a clearly stated goal of ultimately bringing all men everywhere, into an acceptance and worship of Yahweh the Holy one of Yisrael.

AS everything contained therein is dedicated to that purpose and to that end, there is little reason to try to analyze "out of it", other ideas, or purposes.

Later Christian "innovations of interpretation", and religious ideas only serve to "muddy the waters" and obscure this simple fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

Way out of my element here so don't laugh to hard.

Do me the same courtesy, and we will be able to laugh together.

DBT · 02-19-2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

1. A war about, or over . . . what?

2. If the OT is a war code of sorts, what is the true meaning and purpose of the Jepthath story?

3. What is it trying to achieve

4.How is it meant to be deciphered?

1. On one level, the battle that raged for many generations between the Priests of Baal, and The Priests of YHWH.

2. The Jephthah story was composed as a propaganda tool by the YHWH faction,
The true meaning? to the YHWH faction; obey The Law YHWH, do not offer up your children, as do the the Priests of Baal.
To the non-YHWH faction; a deliberately misleading story, a trap set so that those who rejected The Law of YHWH will ultimately be condemned, exposed as frauds and humiliated in the sight of all men.

3. Still active, still "achieving", the end lies in the future, when men finally are able to analyze and understand its intents perfectly and beyond doubt. Some will be "cleared" and justified -"by their words"- and others will be "convicted" and humiliated -"by their words"-

This may entail the recovery of additional texts, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that the writers also took some extreme measures to make sure that a "clarifying" document would be preserved, so as to eventually surface.

4. First, by recognizing it as being a political/religiously motivated piece of Yahwist propaganda, secondly, by carefully comparing its contents with the restrictions of The Law. And so percieve that Jephthah was indeed innocent of the false charges brought against him and against YHWH his Elohim.

Nothing particularly "supernatural" here, just an ancient political/religious battle that was carefully crafted and "set up" to be played out over the ages.
Effectively, its intent would be to cause posterity, to in judgement, finally vindicate, and to praise and honor the cause of the Yahwist faction, and dispise both the ideas and the actions of their adversaries.

The "characters" within the story are "story book" characters, of less material substance than even the thinnest of soap bubbles, and have no impact upon, or interaction with reality,
beyond what is conceived in, and believed in, within the minds of men.

But of course what men believe and what they do, because of those beliefs, does have a great impact on reality, thus are simple stories made effective tools and levers, in the fashioning of real reality.

Well, that's a possibility I suppose. But my knowledge of OT events and time scales is insufficient for me to say whether or not it is a valid proposition. Perhaps someone else can comment on this issue?

But still...the Jepthath story doesn't appear very useful as a tool of propaganda, that is, if it's aimed at the Baal hierarchy. As a pure construct, a fiction, it appears to fit a morality tale genre more, a tool for social control in its own society.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2008, 09:44 PM	#175
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	In this particular instance when I wrote "I include all contemporary "non-canonical" Books as well." I intended to indicate that entire body of pre-"christian" literature, which was "integral to the culture which produced it", not necessarily "contemporary" as to time of production, but inclusive of ALL Jewish literature that written before the X-ian NT writings, and "church" doctrines and politics began to be an influence upon Jewish thought and writings. I do not at all include the NT within this category. I only use the word "canonical" because the readers familiarity with it, but in this context the term really is anachronistic, bearing to most who hear or employ it, a much latter developed concept of a strictly limited set of writings, whereas in its original sense it only indicated "that which is regularly read" within the congregations, and was yet without any implied pejorative sense against any such texts as were not so regularly read. All this however, is getting quite distant in time from the Book of Judges and the story of Jephthah.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.