spin

Yeah, yeah. It's the only connection that is ever made, beside all the fantastication about Moses. It was brought up by Sheshbazzar last time we did this tango -- and got nowhere.


spin

Sheshbazzar

I'm well aware that holding to your opinion regarding Akhenaten's lack of significance is essential to maintaining your viewpoint, however I, as well as others are also able to read and reason about the impact and fallout of Akhenaten's reforms.
How extensive and powerful do you suppose that the priesthood of Baal was during the 13 c. BCE?
Would other nations likely have had any awareness of an Egyptian Pharaoh's attempt to suppress the worship of Baal and to persecute his priesthood?
It seems to me that it wouldn't take long for word of this type of action to make it through the grapevine, and that a good many of Baal's priest's would be quick to seek out friendlier climes.
Contrary to your assumption, I was not indicating any evangelical efforts on the part of Akhenaten or his priesthood (although such must have existed at least within the confines of Egypt, else the struggle would not have existed)
What I was indicating, (and what is assuredly true) is that ten's of thousands were directly impacted and involved in Akhenaten's decisions, and the entire Egyptian populace if nothing else, were at least the victims of his destabilizing 'mismanagement' of his countries spiritual and economic welfare.
And as far as Akhenaten's "sequestering himself" and "building his city", He most certainly did not build "his city" with his own hands, and the administration "by those who were." ("those who were." What?? his puppets carrying out his orders, for how else could the opposing factions and the priests of other gods be suppressed?)
Indeed spin, there are many more questions, but for the moment perhaps we could confine it to addressing these few?
You say; At what 'time' spin? as that is the crux of my questions here.
The call to the exclusive worship of ONE 'god' (el) and forsaking all others, (as indicated in the first Commandment, and in the Shema) the others would
(and still do,) need 'recognition' in order to be distanced from.
Did this occur prior to, during, or after the 8th c. BCE?
Really your answer will not trouble me, but it would make your opinion clearer to all who read.

Sheshbazzar

As much as am I enjoying this discussion, I must leave now for a few days of travel. Sheshbazzar

spin

And I'm well aware that you haven't read the history of the period. To start, you could try Redford's Akhenaten: the Heretic King and Cyril Aldred's Akhenaten: King of Egypt.

Akhenaten's reforms simply didn't make it past Tutankhamen. And those reforms were not reforms which directly impacted on anyone outside the closed coterie of high officials. It is significant that the backlash was so strong that Ai had to totally disguise the tomb of Tutankhamen and as no-one followed him who was likeminded, Ai's tomb was grossly desecrated. End of Akhenaten's reform.

Is this another non sequitur?

DId his religious activities have any effect outside Egypt? If so, where?

Sheshbazzar, would you stop crapping on? This is just purile conjecture.

Which assumption?

Yeah, the country seemed somewhat adrift and no little person knew what was happening.

More unstated implication going nowhere other than deeper into your imagination. Just break down and read some serious history on the subject, will you?

The comment which you ignored was highly pertinent, as you were trying to concoct a connection between the apparent monotheism of Akhenaten and the late monotheism of Judaism without contemplating the trajectory (yes, trajectory) which points in a very different one, one of polytheism followed by henotheism and finally with the Persian influence monotheism.

In the period between the emergence of the Jews as a population, if we can judge by the emergence of the language some time after the Phoenicians left the Canaanite linguistic fold, and the time when we have direct evidence of Judaism as a monotheistic religion. In the interim we have that question I asked which you ignored: Why is the first commandment, you shall have no other god beside the Lord your god? What was wrong with the other gods? Monotheism was clearly not an option at that time. We have the indications already mentioned of Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom with Yahweh and his consort to indicate the polytheism. Then there are the Jews of Elephantine with their polytheism. In fact there is no evidence of Jewish monotheism until the biblical texts emerged in the DSS.

You assume what you have always need to demonstrate: a monotheism prior to the time of the DSS and for the thousand or so years before that to get back to Akhenaten.

Still ignoring the henotheism in the first commandment, you shall have no other god than the Lord your god. Why not? What's wrong with the other gods??? Your evidence contradicts you, for it clearly indicates other gods.

It doesn't even matter, first because you're not interested, secondly because there are no indications that make it likely and thirdly you have no way of knowing.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Good, you are finally beginning to clarify your position, but could you make yourself just a little clearer on this point please?
Are you intending to make the declaration here that there was no 'Jewish' monotheism "until the biblical texts emerged in the DSS"?
Or is the qualifying prefix "there is no evidence of", to be understood, or is it to be taken, that you do accept that such monotheism may have existed prior to its emergence in the DSS, in spite of our present lack of evidence?

When do you allow as the earliest date for the emergence of a 'Jewish' monotheism?
No, while it is certain that as a believer, "I assume" a monotheistic line prior to the time of the DSS, (not that all of Israel was ever monotheistic) - and in an unbroken line all the way back to Adam, I have absolutely no need to prove nor "to demonstrate" the existence or the reality of that unbroken line of monotheism. Indeed, if I, or others were able to irrefutably 'prove' and 'demonstrate' such a thing, it would be a detraction from our faith, for our faith is evident in the holding unto a hope in things not yet seen, and in the of believing of the things established only by the word of promise.
Heaven forbid, that I should either demand, or attempt to tender a 'proof' of those things which must be, and may only be accepted on faith.
I heard and I believed through faith, you heard, and you believed not, rejecting the call of faith, you demand evidence.
Thus we differ in our views on the past, on the present, and in our hopes and in our expectations for the future.
As far as Akhenaten's influence or lack thereof, it is irrelevant to my faith, and only became a subject of discussion upon your demand for evidence of monotheism prior to the DSS. (or if I understood your statements in a prior thread, a monotheism that pre-dated Ezra? Nehemiah?)
I personally would rather that NO connection could ever be proved to exist between Akhenaten and the monotheism of Israel, For to reiterate my position, By FAITH I believe in an unbroken line of monotheism from the time of Adam, (and certainly NOT depending upon the borrowing the idea from an Egyptian Pharaoh as late as the 13th c. BCE)
If you could prove such a connection, then my faith would actually be weakened, rather than strengthened.
I am not ignoring anything about the first commandment (that I'm aware of)
I was the one that introduced that commandment into this thread, of course "it indicates other gods", as for the "Why not? and the "What's wrong with the other gods???" whatever it is that the Law and the Prophets clearly state with respect to these "other gods", is what I also have to say on the matter.
First, If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have posed the questions, show respect also to those who have who have taken the time to peruse this thread, and thus deserve to know of a certainty what your valued opinion on this matter is. (besides which you will be helping 'Answerer' to appreciate the comment about the question of his initial post "being known to generate considerable ire" )
Secondly, Yes spin,-Today-, "there are no indications that make it likely", but are you so lacking in faith in the correctness of your own thesis that you are afraid to make a clear statement that the science of archeology might prove to be in error tomorrow?
Thirdly, (and we have went through this before) while it is true that I 'have no way of knowing", neither do you, all of your assertions notwithstanding.

spin

I've always been clear on this issue. Perhaps you missed it or you read around it. I try to do history based on the evidence we have, not what the situation might have been.

Our first clear evidence is the first documentation.

Yep, "may".

It all depends on the dating of the documents. Remember that we have indications of polytheism all through the Hebrew bible. And signs all through it of reworking.

The big problem for me, once a "finished" text has been dated as early as possible, is: how long before the "finished" text was a monotheistic religion in operation?

And I bet you still look under the pillow the morning after you lose a tooth.

"You shall have no other god but the Lord your god." Otherwise you'll break the covenant. Note that it does not say that there is no other god. You just can't run after them.

You sound -- though not just you -- a little the schizophrenic, who won't put his/her "friend" to the test for fear that the friend will go away.

Yup, that's what makes your clinging to Akhenaten so strange. His activities are so divorced in time from anything in the Hebrew literature, that no reasoned connection can be made.

Well, Ezra is probably a fictive character, having as a father someone who went into exile (Seraiah), yet living in the time of Artaxerxes II... totally impossible. So, prior to Ezra doesn't have much meaning. Nehemiah is harder to track down. Josephus knew comparatively little of a book of Nehemiah, having only had some form of the "Nehemiah memoir" and the Ezra passage in Neh 8 was still connected to the book of (1) Esdras, for that's where Josephus has it, ie as it is found in the book of 1 Esdras. This means that the book ofNehemiah as we have it is exceptionally late. Yet Ben Sira acknowledges Nehemiah and not Ezra.

Well, why do you try to defend a connection, especially when it is obvious from the evidence that there wasn't?

So, you'll drop the incomprehensible stuff about Akhenaten?

Perhaps you might be interested in when Deut 32:8 was changed from

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the gods." (as found at Qumran)

to

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel." (MT)

Even the LXX has not "children of Israel", but "aggelwn Qeou" -- angels of God.

The original text clearly separated Elyon from the gods and clearly separated Elyon from Yahweh. Elyon divided humankind up for the number of gods and gave the section that was Jacob to Yahweh.

There's little ire, though lots of irony. Hopefully, you won't waste people's time dealing with a connection between Akhenaten's "monotheism" and that of Judaism, when you're not really interested in that either.

One of the beauties of a scientific approach is that it features the ability to correct its errors.

A statement of belief, be it christian, mithraean or that of the god Zarkon, has no errors, no verifiability and no falsifiability, making it functionally meaningless, except for its ability to distract.

Do you mean that I have no way of knowing that various parts of the biblical tradition are simply not correct? This is plainly wrong. Do you mean that I have no way of knowing about your god? This is plainly true, but then, as you say, neither do you.


spin

Dean Anderson

I was under the impression that Akhenaten's religion was monist(?) in that he believed that the other gods existed, but believed that they were all merely lesser aspects of his beloved Aten.

Of course, I could be wrong about this - is this supported by the archaeological research or is it only speculated by 'popular' egyptology books?

Sheshbazzar

Then are we to conclude that nothing at all has ever happened to mankind unless it got written down in a book or carved into a stone? and that an accurate history of human social development will only encompasses those things for which human artifacts or writings are to be found?
Entire nations and peoples have vanished from the pages of 'history' without leaving any trace at all of the reasons for their disappearance, not in their own records, nor in the records of the peoples with whom they had a real existence and interaction up until their complete disappearance from that 'record'.
Therefor legitimate historians do not "try to 'do' history based (only) on the evidence", but do normally take into consideration "what the situation might have been". If you make no concessions to "what the situation might have been" -except when it serves to support your personal theories- you are not 'doing' history, but are doing a discredit to yourself, to your readers, and to the discipline of history.
The majority of life's 'happenings', particularly to 'little people' still go unrecorded even with all the technology we have available today, how much more so in times past when there was little literacy, and the production and maintenance of intelligible and enduring records was difficult at best.
And as I pointed out earlier, the monotheistic viewpoint would need have predated that documentation.
The dodgy reply looks a little silly spin, because the opposite would imply that you are holding that a monotheism did not previously exist to give that strongly monotheistic flavor that is evident throughout the DSS.
That is the point that I was making about a monotheistic line of believers extending all the way forward from Adam, there need be but a single individual in each generation who held that persuasion (as in Gen. 28:21) and 'operation' of a monotheistic religion only requires the belief of a single individual. That 99.999% of the world was not monotheistic is not absolute evidence that monotheism was nonexistent.
And rather obviously I did not state nor imply that there is no other god, as Scripture hundreds of times gives account of these other gods, and explains exactly what they are. That "other gods" are admitted to both by the Scriptures and by believers in no way precludes the existence of monotheism, in fact the concept of monotheism could not be comprehended without the existence of alternatives.
I am hardly "clinging" to Akhenaten, but as he was the subject of this thread, I played somewhat the 'Devil's Advocate" against my own faith to present the conundrum, and of course unlike you, I make no claim that all of the evidence is presently -'in'- to be evaluated, for who knows, maybe tomorrow an excavation will turn up a stella or a tablet or a scroll that will prove beyond any doubt that a connection did indeed exist.
Personally I hope it never does, but being open to the possibilities in things not yet seen, prepare myself against that possibility no matter how unlikely.
As above, I am not trying to "defend a connection", only taking into account all of those possible factors which you are trying to pretend did not exist.
ie. It would have only taken one pissed-off powerful Egyptian priest or official to take his gripe into the land of the Canaanites, or the surrounding countries, to set a single stone rolling that could have resulted in a theological landslide. I am not saying it did happen this way, only that it remains a possibility. (and there are those adversaries who would like nothing better than to be able to prove that Israel's monotheistic religion did not exist until it was invented by a 13th c. BCE Egyptian, I have little doubt that if you had such proof, you would be quite happy to employ it.)

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
If you could prove such a connection, then my faith would actually be weakened, rather than strengthened.
No, probably not, if the subject arises yet again, and a limited view is presented that does a discredit to the subject.
Yes, there are variations in the text of this verse, and also in many others, Thus I find it interesting that you have managed to obtained an "original text" to become so dogmatic about, is the Qumran mss. older than the LXX? and what evidence do you have that the reading as given in Qumran mss. IS "The original text"? is there no possibility remaining that it was not "the original text" but a 'copy' varying from the wording of an even earlier text? re-quoting your earlier statement "-And signs all through it of reworking."

What I mean is that you assert things about history based on limited evidence, as though that evidence were complete, conclusive and not open to interpretation. And further, that you make assertions regarding possibilities, and unrecorded events of history that are unverifiable, (ie. "this didn't happen, that didn't happen") when you actually lack evidence in either direction, you assert your opinion as being the fact.
While my "possibilities" are also presently unverifiable, I am not employing your tactic of assertion to pass them off as being the only explanation.
Your choosing to ignore or mock every other possibility that is not convenient to your self limited 'version' of history reveals a working bias that makes your credibility suspect.
Now at the present this is only my own opinion, But as I suspect your credibility, and thus cannot accept your statements as to your credibility,
I'll leave it to other genuine historians who might someday examine your methods, and reasonings, and pass judgement on your impartiality.

spin

No.

Yes.

While this may be true, how would you know about it?

If it is not related to evidence, then you are shooting air.

History is about the reclaimable past.

So? What can you do about it if you don't know about it somehow?

As I pointed out this is not transparent, given the numerous revisions.

You'd prefer errors to be written in stone, immutable, rather than having indications that are more hestitant and less constraining, but with the possibility of adjusting to be more accurate as new data arrives -- and not be wrong through forced going beyond the data.

Have you actually found anything under your pillow after you lost a tooth?

You have no knowledge in the area. You are just talking through your hat.

But you are avoiding the polytheism within the religion, so one needs to start somewhere clear, ie the acknowledgement that there were/are other gods understood by the religion, which leads us looking at the indications of the range of gods.

So what was all that stuff in the previous thread about Akhenaten's religion surviving for?

Still on defending a connection between Akhenaten's monotheism and Jewish...
"pretend" here is such a rhetorical, but empty, word here. I often have to deal with bogus claims of connections between one thing and another based on the shallowest of similarities. Why pretend that such a connection exists? Because Kurt Vonnegut writes with a similar style to Lucian of Samosata, does it mean that Kurt was plagiarizing?

Back to the tooth fairy.

So does the tooth fairy, though I've never seen her.

I guess you can understand that I'm not one of them and the point is of no value in a conversation with me.

The subject of invented connections... between a religious view of the 14th c. BCE and that of another religious view of a millennium later?

On the polytheism of Deut 32:8:

1. The Qumran texts are 1000 years earlier, ie closer to the source;
2. There are two fragments from Qumran which support the reading and none for another reading;
3. The LXX supports the Qumran reading;
4. It makes more sense (and please show some signs of thinking about it if you deem to comment).

When Elyon divided up the sons of Adam, all the nations, based on the number of X, Yahweh's portion was Jacob.

The choices for X are "children of Israel" (MT) and "sons of El" (Q).

Who got the other portions, if not the other sons of El?

What is considered is based on evidence. If there is no evidence, it doesn't make it into the "considered" category. This way, I leave the epistemological problems on your shoulder. Your stronger at bearing them than I am.

Your possibilities might be a little more credible if they were somehow related to contemporary evidence.

I don't ignore evidence. Anything else is irrelevant, isn't it?

At present this is only your opinion, but...

This means that you won't deal with evidence, but perhaps eventually trust "genuine historians".

If you suspect my credibility (and why not?), all you need do is look at the hard evidence.


spin

andrewcriddle

Assuming (what is IMO probable) that the original of Deuteronomy 32:8 read 'sons of God' not 'sons of Israel' it would not necessarily mean that Elyon is regarded here as a distinct being from Yahweh.

The passage makes sense using the two terms as synonyms, and as meaning that when Elyon/Yahweh divided the nations among his angels he kept Jacob for himself under his direct care and supervision.

Andrew Criddle