Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Littlejohn · 07-26-2008, 06:11 AM

Quote:

The Study Bible of the Harper Collins:

By a remarkable act of theological reduction, the complex divine hierarchy of prior polytheistic religion was transformed into the authority of a sole high god in classical Israelite religion. YHWH was not, however, the only god in the Israelite religion.

Like a king in his court, YHWH was served by lesser deities, variously called "the sons of God," "the host of heaven," and similar titles. ... The tripartite hierarchy of the divine world - YHWH, the sons of God or heavenly host, and the angels - derives from the earlier structure of Canaanite religion.

According to the Ugarit and other Canaanite sources, the high god of the Canaanite pantheon was El (whose name means "God"), and his wife, the mother of the gods, was Asherah. The other gods of the pantheon are collectively called "the children of El" and are subordinate to El's authority, although some are prominent deities. ... On the level of high god, El seems to have merged with YHWH, who absorbs El's name and has many of his attributes. Asherah in Israelite religion becomes the name of a sacred pole or tree in local YHWH shrines, although there are hints in some texts that she was worshiped as a goddess in some times and places.

I did not know these studies, but this comforts me as I understand that I am not alone to think so. However, my conclusions differ for a little from those of Harper Collins, because for me the other deities of the ancient hebraic pantheon were, beyond "Yahweh", the god of Abraham and Asherat: ie Astharte, called Asherat by a certain denigrating religious class of various Jewish world ante-reform (Asherat, in fact, stands for "that of the pole", ie Astharte, owing to the fact that before her temples and in all places where the goddess was adored , were raised in her honor of the poles (clearly male sexual symbols!)

There is a clear reason for which Asherat was joined at the "trinity" of the origins' hebraism.

Littlejohn

.

Malachi151 · 07-26-2008, 07:00 AM

Quote:

This is a good summary statement of the present state of knowledge. Much better than the oversimplified claim.

Definitely agreed.

Minimalist · 07-26-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Finkelstein makes the case for a 7th century writing of the bulk of the Hebrew Bible, so where does this 6th century claim come from?

A very complex question but for a start I suggest "In Search of Ancient Israel" by Philip R. Davies.

Roland · 07-26-2008, 10:54 PM

I see the fundies came out in full force in the comments section of the latimes article. I live in L.A. and remember the Times doing a front page piece basically saying that archaeology all but disproved the exodus. This ran in the spring of 2000 or 2001 (not sure which one) and there were all sorts of critical letters stating how shameful it was that a "liberal" publication like the Times chose to spread its anti-religious propaganda during the Passover/Easter season! Some days despair seems the only viable alternative.

Minimalist · 07-27-2008, 01:26 PM

I presume you are referring to Rabbi David Wolpe's passover sermon which let the cat out of the bag....and the air out of the fundie balloon?

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...ativeTorah.htm

Quote:

The notion that the Bible is not literally true ''is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis,'' observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to ''Etz Hayim.'' But some congregants, he said, ''may not like the stark airing of it.'' Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that ''virtually every modern archaeologist'' agrees ''that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all.'' The rabbi offered what he called a ''litany of disillusion'' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have ''found no trace of the tribes of Israel -- not one shard of pottery.''

Joan of Bark · 07-28-2008, 05:38 AM

Great link, Minimalist. Thanks for that.

You know everyone, it occurs to me that most liberal Christians will embrace the idea that the OT, or at least the Torah and Joshua, is historical rubbish. One of the great obstacles to the spread of liberal Christianity is the horrors committed by the OT God. Let's face it, he's a sadistic, fascist jerk throughout most of it. If the liberals can dismiss the whole thing as folktales, they will have an easier time convincing fence-sitters that the God they worship really is loving and merciful. (Of course, I think TEGA negates even that view, but the liberals don't see it that way).

In fact, I think that as the world has generally become more educated since the 19th century, the OT has been steadily losing ground as a historical or moral treatise among everyone who claims to be a monotheist. If this trend continues, I can see the day (not in my lifetime, alas) when the OT will be stocked next to the Greek myths and the Icelandic sagas on library bookshelves.

Epitaph · 07-29-2008, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

I'm not sure if "stolen" is quite the right phrase, even in scare quotes. It is probably more a case of evolution. "Stolen" implies that the Israelite religion (whatever that was) already existed, and then, one sunny day, the Israelites decided to somehow incorporate Ishtar/Astarte/Whoever into their already existing religion. I think it is more likely that the Israelite religion slowly evolved, its ancestors including Phoenicia, Babylonia and (hence) Sumeria. So the pair Yahweh/Astarte (or whatever the names exactly were) would have been there from the beginning. During evolution, Yahweh's female companion was pushed back, finally into extinction.

Gerard Stafleu

Hi Gerard!

I do not believe that the Israelite religion (or hebraic, more correctly) was earlier than phoenician-canaanean. Surely it were two of its major components: that egyptian and that mesopotamian. However, the Jewish religion was a synthesis of these two components, "sincreticamente" mixed with elements of canaanean world. This allowed to "Eberim" (*) to govern at length on the restless canaaneans. In this way, canaaneans had their religious freedom, which, however, soon came into conflict with the religious dominant caste: namely that jewish. The recurrenting clashes between canaanean religious forces and Jewish religious forces, as reported by the same Bible (see Elijah), constitute the best evidence.

Quote:

So the pair Yahweh/Astarte (or whatever the names exactly were) would have been there from the beginning

Yahweh was a nickname for AMEN/AMON, the greater gods of Egypt, of which Moses was a high priest in "Diospolis" or Thebes. His "paredra" was Mut and their son (tebhean trinity) was Konshu (or Kenshu). More complex situation was the "family" of the God of Abraham.

Perhaps, for greater precision, it could be argued that the "Eberim" replaced in canaanean divine pair the figure of Baal, putting in its place that of Amen/Yaweh.

My best

_______________

Note:

(*) - whose strength was not capable of withstanding long a climate of intolerance on the part of submissive canaaneans, although "eberim" could rely on their alliance with the Egyptians, from which within one originated the first proto-hebraic nucleus .

Littlejohn
.

Any suggestions for reading up on this? But in short what is the evidence for this and how do we know it's reliable? I know that's kind of an oversimplified question. But I can just see mentioning this to someone and them saying "where did you get that? that's just a bunch of made up b.s." I guess I'm just looking for solid evidence. Or just a starting point for reading up on it would be nice. Thanks.

Minimalist · 07-29-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Any suggestions for reading up on this?

William G. Dever "Did God Have A Wife (or via: amazon.co.uk)." Should be available at Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

Epitaph · 07-29-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Any suggestions for reading up on this?

William G. Dever "Did God Have A Wife (or via: amazon.co.uk)." Should be available at Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

Thank you.

Littlejohn · 07-29-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epitaph

Any suggestions for reading up on this? But in short what is the evidence for this and how do we know it's reliable? I know that's kind of an oversimplified question. But I can just see mentioning this to someone and them saying "where did you get that? that's just a bunch of made up b.s." I guess I'm just looking for solid evidence. Or just a starting point for reading up on it would be nice. Thanks.

Hi Epitaph,

this is probably one of the few posts of mine that you read. What I am exposing is the result of over 11 years of research "locked", conducted by day as at night also (my work involved the continuous shift works).

With data I have collected, I have built summaries as what you read and you have quoted. For reasons related to copyright, I can not give all the explanations and data that I collected. Keep in mind that if I had already finished the book that I began to compose some time ago, now this news (complete, of course) you would read they on a copy of this book, after having purchased, of course. Reading they hour, albeit in reduced "format", do not cost you anything.

My aim is to communicate to whom are reading me, that there is (at least in my opinion) a more that likely alternative truth to that the Catholic clergy, for almost 20 centuries, are "spouting" to its little "sheeps". At the same time and as far as possible, try to provide a series of research ideas along with some data, to enable those who are moved from a minimum of curiosity, to undertake research themselves.

Please note that I have had to rely solely on my personal intuition, since I have not had any suggestion about the address to give to my research, since none so far, both a scholar by profession or an "outsider", has managed yet to unveil the mystery behind the birth of Christianity.

Following in the tracks of the Nazarenes, in the course of my long research, I managed to understand what is behind the real origins of the hebraism.

Of course what I expose is a truth that is not written in any book (otherwise both Judaism that Christianity would be finished for a long time ago!). This truth was built in large part in "apodeictic" manner, but using data that have found a solid "riscontro" (meet or finding of similar data) in various sources.

Best greetings

Littlejohn
.

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

07-26-2008, 10:54 PM	#24
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	I see the fundies came out in full force in the comments section of the latimes article. I live in L.A. and remember the Times doing a front page piece basically saying that archaeology all but disproved the exodus. This ran in the spring of 2000 or 2001 (not sure which one) and there were all sorts of critical letters stating how shameful it was that a "liberal" publication like the Times chose to spread its anti-religious propaganda during the Passover/Easter season! Some days despair seems the only viable alternative.

07-28-2008, 05:38 AM	#26
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Great link, Minimalist. Thanks for that. You know everyone, it occurs to me that most liberal Christians will embrace the idea that the OT, or at least the Torah and Joshua, is historical rubbish. One of the great obstacles to the spread of liberal Christianity is the horrors committed by the OT God. Let's face it, he's a sadistic, fascist jerk throughout most of it. If the liberals can dismiss the whole thing as folktales, they will have an easier time convincing fence-sitters that the God they worship really is loving and merciful. (Of course, I think TEGA negates even that view, but the liberals don't see it that way). In fact, I think that as the world has generally become more educated since the 19th century, the OT has been steadily losing ground as a historical or moral treatise among everyone who claims to be a monotheist. If this trend continues, I can see the day (not in my lifetime, alas) when the OT will be stocked next to the Greek myths and the Icelandic sagas on library bookshelves.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.