Sven

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Only one small side note:

I made this point already somewhere in this thread: Flooding the whole earth to get rid of humans seems a little bit disproportionate and ineffective from todays perspective. I (and an omnipotent deity certianly too) could think of other methods which are not such wasteful and more bearable for Noah, his family, and all the innocent animals (if we ignore the supposed cursing of the animals due to the fall for the moment). This is IMHO another sign that the flood is simply an invention of shep herders (bronze or iron age, make your choice ) who weren't able to think up something similar devastating (to mankind) but more efficient.

Stephen T-B

The Flood was a particularly good candidate as a tool to demonstrate the Jewish God's great power.
Many cultures in the Middle East (I understand) share a Flood myth, suggesting there was a local event which gave rise to it. We've heard theories as to what it was, but it seems reasonable to me that the Jews should have plumped for it.
Not only was it a ready-made occurrence, but the fact that other peoples spoke of it in their legends worked in its favour because the Jews were claiming it was their god which caused it, thereby enhancing its reputation for being amazingly powerful.
Indeed, for being all-powerful.

premjan

it was just a good yarn. that's why it caught on.

Stephen T-B

Such a good yarn that people believe it to this day! And some of them, as we've seen, have access to information about the world we live in which the people in earlier centuries were denied. Of course those folk believed the myth; they had no reason not to.

Sven

Let me ask: Is there anything in the Bible which suggests that the Jews of OT-times were actually thinking of their God as omnipotent? Or only more powerful than all the other Gods around? I also got the impression that these ancient Jews would have laughed at the idea that their God is supposed to be the God of all mankind - but that's only an impression.

Doctor X

Wow. Good question!

Unless . . . I misread that comma. . . .

Anyways, it depends on the time. Other gods were allowed and, indeed, worshipped. The story of King Mesha sacrificing his son to his god so his god will squish the Israelites is an example. Also, the often quoted problem of YHWH being unable to deal with iron chariots.

Such portrayals are very similar to any anthropomorphic deity.

There is evidence that Asherah was somehow worshipped--and biblical writers wrote against it. Finally, the whole "no gods before me" speaks to an allowance of other gods, but YHWH is "Big Daddy."

As things develop, you have syncretism, or blending of religions, ideas, and even deities. Conquering countries did this--"your gods are really OUR gods." Very devestating to a religion is defeat. Some of the psalms attack YHWH for this failure. Absent, of course, in the OT is any attempt to "convert" people to YHWH. In the Conquest you do not have cities "converted" or even given the option. Indeed, a nasty incident with David has him getting the men to get circumcised then slaughtering them whilst they are "incapacitated!"

So . . . depending on where in the development of Judaism, you have polytheism, polytheism with One Head God, a more monotheistic understanding but I am unaware of any attempt to convert/subvert other gods. What I mean by that is YHWH is very much a "locative" deity--deity for the Hebrews. There is no message of "he is everyone's god" which makes the whole "JudeoChristian" concept a crock in my opinion.

Perhaps someone can give me examples of Jews trying to convert Greeks or others--trying to prove that pagan gods are "false" and only YHWH exists; I am unaware of it.

--J.D.

spin

Well, someone got to the Galatians before Paul did, they knew various Jewish beliefs and stories that Paul had to deal with.

Also look at Mt 23:14.

But this is probably all only late effort. Earlier it was mainly, "and foreigners shall not drink the wine for which you have labored" (Isa 62:8c).


spin

Stephen T-B

It is reasonable to assume that non-Jews in much of the Ancient World would have known about the Jewish God thanks to the peregrinations of Jewish traders.
Such traders would have conserved their religious rituals and beliefs wherever they landed up; indeed worshipping this exclusively Jewish god ensured that they maintained their racial / tribal identity whilst in the lands of the gentiles.

(If the explanation some scholars provide for the invention of the Jewish god - as a socio-political device to create political cohesion and national identity – is correct, then we know why they did. And furthermore, why they still do.)

capnkirk

To answer that question, one must specify whether you are referring to the era before or after the Babylonian Exile, as Judaic religion underwent drastic changes during and after the Exile.

The short answer is: Pre-Exile = NO, Post-Exile = QUALIFIED YES

capnkirk

What got to the Galatians were most likely Jews of the Diaspora, perhaps refugees of the ten northern tribes deported by the Assyrians in the 7th Century BCE, perhaps Jews who had been left in Judea during the exile who chose to emigrate northward.

Galatia comprised basically the high central plain south of present day Ankara, Turkey. Isolated by mountains on all sides, only a single range of mountains separates it from Tarsus and Antioch. Settled by Gaulish invaders about 277 BCE, they were the dominant culture during Paul's time. Situated well off established trade routes, most anyone who went there was running away from something, hence the likelihood of Jewish refugees there.