Haran

Really? Still sounds like sarcasm to me. Can you prove that it is not?

Haran

Haran

It raises questions for some.

Why do the books of Kings retain Ba'al, while in the prophets (more specifically, Chronicles) it is expunged?

Haran

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Marduk

"Finally, what do you think of "progressive revelation" which sort of nullifies the whole issue?"

I think it's time for an upgrade.

Haran

There's a new version out?!

Haran

Buchananeer

Yo,

Wasn't there, like, y'know, something in the first book there. Y'know, Genesis that had a word "Elohim" vs. "Eloah", and that even in the English translations, God there says "we" when speaking to some folks? We are the Borg?

Refresh my cloudy memory, if you don't mind. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Thanks,
Buchananeer

SmashingIdols

That is the whole point of the little gem that somehow survived in Kings II 23.

A process of orthodoxical revision took place throughout the religion - begining with removing evidence of other god's worship from the temples - ending ultimately with the removal and modification of the existing texts themselves, and the addition of the first 5 books (the Torah).

So today when we read about Solomon and David's God of Israel, we have no knowledge of their following "other" gods, as is evidenced by Kings II 23 chapter. This chapter however, clearly shows the Israelites expunging the evidences of said worship, from the groves of Ishtar (the processional equinox poles) to the horses dedicated to the Sun both placed by David and Solomon.

There is an excellent treatment of the ramifications of this chapter within Joseph Campbells Masks of God, Vol. 3, Occidental Mythology, Chapter III, after the analysis of which Mr. Campbell says, "...And more interesting is the revelation itself, namely that until this eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah, 621 BC, no one had even heard of this Book of the Law of Moses, and had all been worshipping false Gods."

So, there it is.

Haran

I see this as a problem. Why was Ba'al expunged from other places and not here? Personally, I think that people make a mountain out of a molehill with what you are pointing out. It is a conspiracy theory of great proportions that a book of fiction was worked up just for the occasion (which is what I assume you are making out of the account) and cannot be proved... To those who don't want to believe that the Bible might possibly have some truth to it, they will always find problems whether real or perceived...

Haran

SmashingIdols

Haran, actually read the above mentioned passages in the Bible. They are relevant to the conversation.

This record would, under the circumstances, remain, being a chronicle of the actual expunging begining with the temples and ending ultimately with the book itself (the addition and incorporation of the Laws of Moses, as indicated, and removal of references to other dieties as proscribed therein).

A revisionist would be very bold indeed to remove this pivotal moment, which to all appearances was an historical event, and is little more than the record of it taking place. It is what would be expected to remain after such a sweeping event, nothing more.

No Christian, Jewish, or any other religious or non-religious scholar has ever asserted this passage to be fictional.

Read it.

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

roshan

at the time that the jews got to babylon, there were a lot of zoroastrian priests there.

a lot of the beliefs of judaism, like the existence of satan, angels and demons, heaven and hell, the afterlife, and monotheism are all ripped off from zoroastrianism.

the priests who believed in these things were even caled pharisees(probably derived from the word meaning persian)

Haran

I have read the passage, many times. It is used by scholars today to support the late composition of the parts of the Bible. I find it an incredible theory.

BTW, have you read any reputable OT Textual Criticism sources? Which ones?

My statement must have been unclear. I did not mean to say that scholars find the passage you mention to be fictional. I mean that they use this account in Kings to say that the Book that was found was actually composed during this time and would therefore be mostly fiction. I find this an incredible conspiracy theory that cannot be proved...

Haran