Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magus55 · 10-29-2003, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
That's a big assumption about books that were written at different times by different authors. The bible is not one book written by one (or two) authors that practiced a particular literary style - it's 66 books (in its Protestant Christian incarnation) written by 40 odd authors over a period of 1000 years or so, using many different styles. There's no rule that says a written myth must follow some poetic or parable literary style, or any particular literary style at all. It's the content, not the style, that indicates the stories are mythical.

Wrong its not the content, or every single theist on Earth, not just YEC's are 100% wrong since the content of the Gospels can't be explained by science either... oh wait, you and your superiority complex already assume that... my mistake.

DrJim · 10-29-2003, 11:33 AM

allegorical commentaries?

Try the Dead Sea Scrolls commentaries called "Pesherim". Not true allegories, but not literal interpretations either. They thought the prophetic books were being fulfilled in thier own time and were some kind of code for all the political/religious events affecting them.

Here is the Nahum Pesher. It quotes lines from chapter 1-2, and then adds its "pesher" (interpretation) to explain it.
The intepreter is not drawing out general moral axims from specifics in the biblical text, but is drawing out specific references to the Qumran community's struggles with foreigners and rival Jewish sects: All of the texts is adopted from M. Horgan's book on the Pesherim. bible quote is in "..."

4a "He rebukes the sea and makes it dry, and dried it up"
The interpretation: �The sea� that is, all the Kittim, whom God will rebuke � [Kittim are probably the Romans]
4b "he dries up all the rivers;"
The �rivers� are the Kittim, with all their rulers, whose dominion will end.

4c "Bashan and Carmel wither, and the bloom of Lebanon fades."
[scroll is damaged but reconstructed as:
The interpretation of it �Bashan and Carmel are �. and they will make many desolate at the height of wickedness �
Carmel, and regarding its rulers, Lebanon. And the �blossom of Lebanon� is the congregation of Seekers after Smooth Things {Pharisees?] and their partisans, but they will perish before the congregation of the elect of God and all the inhabitants of the world.

2:11 "What became of the lions' den, the cave of the young lions, where the lion goes, and the lion's cubs, with no one to disturb them?"
The interpretation concerns Demetrius, King of Greece, who sought to enter Jerusalem on the advice of the Seekers after Smooth Things, but God did not give Jerusalem into the power of the kings of Greece from Antiochus until the rise of the rulers of the Kittim; but afterwards the city will be trampled and will be given into the hand of the rulers of the Kittim.

JRL.

Mageth · 10-29-2003, 11:36 AM

And here is where we do not agree. My point of view is that those "just so stories" were actually believed and were intended to be believed. I have no way of demonstrating it, of course.

I think our disagreement is really just in whether the authors believed them or not themselves. I think it's quite possible that the authors intended the myths to be generally, if not specifically in the details, believed as history by their audience, though they probably realized they were not actually history themselves. And I also believe the intent of the myths differs from myth to myth - e.g. I don't think the author thought it was particularly important that the Creation myths were accepted as history (not much utility in that), but the Exodus accounts were intended to invent a history for the Israelites that was intended to be believed as actual history by the audience. (These sorts of stories might be better termed "legends" than myths, as they quite possibly have grains of true history sprinkled in them).

Again, that's my opinion, and I have no way of demonstrating it as fact either.

And thanks for the kudos, BTW. An interesting topic.

Mageth · 10-29-2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Magus55
Wrong its not the content, or every single theist on Earth, not just YEC's are 100% wrong since the content of the Gospels can't be explained by science either...

Umm, that's what indicates the Gospels as largely myth, or at best legends - possibly historical events embellished with mythical content.

oh wait, you and your superiority complex already assume that... my mistake.

Where did that come from? No, I don't think every single theist on earth is "100% wrong". And no, I don't consider myself "superior" to theists.

If you can't take some critical analysis of your beliefs, some alternative explanations, without this kind of ad hom response, then perhaps you're on the wrong board.

Calzaer · 10-29-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Only among liberals, but as usual, your witty repartee adds so much depth to the discussion.

This coming from a man who believes the moon causes the seasons and earthquakes happen because God is looking at the earth?

Doctor X · 10-29-2003, 03:54 PM

Magus:

Any reply to my friendly CHALLENGE?

--J.D.

Mathetes · 10-30-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrJim
allegorical commentaries?

Try the Dead Sea Scrolls commentaries called "Pesherim". Not true allegories, but not literal interpretations either. They thought the prophetic books were being fulfilled in thier own time and were some kind of code for all the political/religious events affecting them.

In this case it looks like the commentators are interpreting what really looks like a prophecy. It is a bit different of what I was looking for: an Old Testament story that was never described as allegorical. I hope I am making sense.

It is interesting nonetheless. I took a look at the Scripture that was commented. The first quotes are from Nahum 1, and the whole chapter seems to be a prophecy concerning Niniveh, not Rome. It looks to me that the commentator is reading too much into the text... Of course I am just following my gut feeling.

The second quote is Nahum 2, and now this really looks like a metaphore, but whatever it means it seems directed to Niniveh, not the Romans or Greeks. (Hey, who are these "Seekers after Smooth Things" guys?)

Interesting post, Dr. Jim. Too much stuff for me to learn, still.

Mathetes · 10-30-2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
I don't think the author thought it was particularly important that the Creation myths were accepted as history (not much utility in that), but the Exodus accounts were intended to invent a history for the Israelites that was intended to be believed as actual history by the audience.

My opinion is that the Creation myth writers indeed believed the myths. In this case, they were mostly reinterpreting pre-existing ones, possibly adapting them to their God.

In the case of Exodus, it probably has a bigger degree of willful myth-forging due to politican reasons, but it could also have been gradual, and consequently each of the transmitters was only inventing a small piece of the mosaic.

Mageth · 10-30-2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Mathetes
My opinion is that the Creation myth writers indeed believed the myths. In this case, they were mostly reinterpreting pre-existing ones, possibly adapting them to their God.

But it would seem to me that "reinterpreting" or "adapting them to their God" would be knowingly myth-forging.

In the case of Exodus, it probably has a bigger degree of willful myth-forging due to politican reasons, but it could also have been gradual, and consequently each of the transmitters was only inventing a small piece of the mosaic.

Agreed.

runnerryan · 11-15-2003, 06:13 AM

I think re-interpreting existing myths would imply they knew they weren't doing history in the strictest sense. They were using the language of their time to communicate an understanding of God. They used other religions vocabularly so that those they were arguing with would clearly understand they were teaching a rival theology. Using symbols like the garden and the flood, which were used in the myths of pagan religions of the time, would be like if someone wrote an anti-American song using the tune of the Star Spangled Banner. They were using story to communicate ideas like God created everything, humanity is somehow connected to God in a way the rest of creation isn't, everything was made good but our anscestors rebelled, etc. I think things like the fact that Adam isn't a name by means "the man" points to this. I've heard that in Hebrew the book of Jonah is really funny, it contains farsical (sp?) stuff that clearly indicates it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

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

10-29-2003, 11:33 AM	#12
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	allegorical commentaries? Try the Dead Sea Scrolls commentaries called "Pesherim". Not true allegories, but not literal interpretations either. They thought the prophetic books were being fulfilled in thier own time and were some kind of code for all the political/religious events affecting them. Here is the Nahum Pesher. It quotes lines from chapter 1-2, and then adds its "pesher" (interpretation) to explain it. The intepreter is not drawing out general moral axims from specifics in the biblical text, but is drawing out specific references to the Qumran community's struggles with foreigners and rival Jewish sects: All of the texts is adopted from M. Horgan's book on the Pesherim. bible quote is in "..." 4a "He rebukes the sea and makes it dry, and dried it up" The interpretation: �The sea� that is, all the Kittim, whom God will rebuke � [Kittim are probably the Romans] 4b "he dries up all the rivers;" The �rivers� are the Kittim, with all their rulers, whose dominion will end. 4c "Bashan and Carmel wither, and the bloom of Lebanon fades." [scroll is damaged but reconstructed as: The interpretation of it �Bashan and Carmel are �. and they will make many desolate at the height of wickedness � Carmel, and regarding its rulers, Lebanon. And the �blossom of Lebanon� is the congregation of Seekers after Smooth Things {Pharisees?] and their partisans, but they will perish before the congregation of the elect of God and all the inhabitants of the world. 2:11 "What became of the lions' den, the cave of the young lions, where the lion goes, and the lion's cubs, with no one to disturb them?" The interpretation concerns Demetrius, King of Greece, who sought to enter Jerusalem on the advice of the Seekers after Smooth Things, but God did not give Jerusalem into the power of the kings of Greece from Antiochus until the rise of the rulers of the Kittim; but afterwards the city will be trampled and will be given into the hand of the rulers of the Kittim. JRL.

10-29-2003, 11:36 AM	#13
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	And here is where we do not agree. My point of view is that those "just so stories" were actually believed and were intended to be believed. I have no way of demonstrating it, of course. I think our disagreement is really just in whether the authors believed them or not themselves. I think it's quite possible that the authors intended the myths to be generally, if not specifically in the details, believed as history by their audience, though they probably realized they were not actually history themselves. And I also believe the intent of the myths differs from myth to myth - e.g. I don't think the author thought it was particularly important that the Creation myths were accepted as history (not much utility in that), but the Exodus accounts were intended to invent a history for the Israelites that was intended to be believed as actual history by the audience. (These sorts of stories might be better termed "legends" than myths, as they quite possibly have grains of true history sprinkled in them). Again, that's my opinion, and I have no way of demonstrating it as fact either. And thanks for the kudos, BTW. An interesting topic.

10-29-2003, 11:43 AM	#14
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Magus55 Wrong its not the content, or every single theist on Earth, not just YEC's are 100% wrong since the content of the Gospels can't be explained by science either... Umm, that's what indicates the Gospels as largely myth, or at best legends - possibly historical events embellished with mythical content. oh wait, you and your superiority complex already assume that... my mistake. Where did that come from? No, I don't think every single theist on earth is "100% wrong". And no, I don't consider myself "superior" to theists. If you can't take some critical analysis of your beliefs, some alternative explanations, without this kind of ad hom response, then perhaps you're on the wrong board.

10-29-2003, 03:54 PM	#16
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Magus: Any reply to my friendly CHALLENGE? --J.D.

10-30-2003, 11:25 AM	#19
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Mathetes My opinion is that the Creation myth writers indeed believed the myths. In this case, they were mostly reinterpreting pre-existing ones, possibly adapting them to their God. But it would seem to me that "reinterpreting" or "adapting them to their God" would be knowingly myth-forging. In the case of Exodus, it probably has a bigger degree of willful myth-forging due to politican reasons, but it could also have been gradual, and consequently each of the transmitters was only inventing a small piece of the mosaic. Agreed.

11-15-2003, 06:13 AM	#20
runnerryan Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Mundelein, IL Posts: 23	I think re-interpreting existing myths would imply they knew they weren't doing history in the strictest sense. They were using the language of their time to communicate an understanding of God. They used other religions vocabularly so that those they were arguing with would clearly understand they were teaching a rival theology. Using symbols like the garden and the flood, which were used in the myths of pagan religions of the time, would be like if someone wrote an anti-American song using the tune of the Star Spangled Banner. They were using story to communicate ideas like God created everything, humanity is somehow connected to God in a way the rest of creation isn't, everything was made good but our anscestors rebelled, etc. I think things like the fact that Adam isn't a name by means "the man" points to this. I've heard that in Hebrew the book of Jonah is really funny, it contains farsical (sp?) stuff that clearly indicates it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.