Pendaric

I've been doing a bit of background reading in to the archaeological record and evidence for the OT, and the following which I posted in GRD just now reflects my current understanding of the material I've read. I wonder if some of you guys who specialise in this sort of thing could tell me if I'm correct in my summation below, or if I'm wrong where I am wrong:

================================================== ======
The archaeological evidence would seem to contradict the bible up until the Israelites were well established in Canaan. There is no Egyptian record of Israelite slavery, no Egyptian record of the sudden excess food and massive infrastructure changes that would have occured if 400,000 slaves had left, no artefacts in the desert to show any evidence of a large population wandering for 40 years, no mention of Noah, Abraham, Moses or Joshua in any contemporary writings outside of the OT. There is no archaeological evidence to support the widescale sacking of Canaanite cities during the time period supposedly involved - a lot of the cities purportedly attacked didn't even exist then.

The OT was compiled in written format during the Babylonian exile, several hundred if not thousands of years after the events it describes. It is the collected mythology of the Jewish people, in the same way that Rome was supposedly founded by Romulus and Remus, or any other civilisation has it's mythical roots.

It shows Yahweh as a war god because that is what the priests who wrote it needed for the people at that time. The Jews were dispirited - they had been conquered by the Babylonians and they needed to believe that they had a glorious past that they could hark back to in order to give them hope that they could survive the exile and reclaim their lands. They didn't need or want a God of forgiveness and love - they needed a God who could wage war and devastation on their enemies, and so they made up stories which reflected that.

Do you remember Boney M and the song 'By the Rivers of Babylon'? That's a musical version of Psalm 137, which is a lamentation about being taken in to exile:

The archaeological evidence would suggest that the Israelites, far from conquering Canaan, were actually the indigenous population of the mountain regions. There is no archaeological support for anything earlier than King David, and there is precious little evidence for his existence either.

Ruhan

You are certainly in agreement with Israël Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University who since 2001 has been producing papers supporting your view. Check his work out.

Chris Weimer

The only thing would be the debate on when, exactly, the OT was written, some positing earlier, some later, but usually a middle ground...

mikem

I'm no expert, but I think that Yahweh began as chief of Gods in Israelite mythology, and only later became exclusively Israel's god, the other gods eventually becoming angels or demons. At the time of the exile, Yahweh became more explicitly the god of all the earth, and it is round about then that you start getting the writings of Isaiah, (actually a composite work) that look forward to not just the restoration of Israel as a political entity, but a source of spiritual enlightenment for all peoples. To be a bit simplistic it is also about the time when Yahweh also becomes less of a war god, (he clearly failed in that department) to an ethical god who demands righteusness in the individual. So the jewish religion is having an introspective turn. The exile produces the great prophetic literature with it's visions of peace and prosperity. So Yahweh actually evolves from being a warlike tribal god to something more like an ethical god, although the mighty avenging god is never far from the surface.

It is prior to the exile, probably during the reign of Josiah (640 to 609), that the historical books of the Old Testament went through an overhaul, at the hands of someone scholars called the Deuteronomist, or it might have been a group rather than an individual, who created the myth of the united kingdom under David being divided following Solomon's death, and then after the exile the narrative was brought up to date, to justify the centrality of Jerusalem and it's temple as the only legitimate religious cult.

That is to greatly simplify a highly complex process I'm afraid.

On archaelogical matters, and historical reconstruction I recommend "The Bible unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, if you have not already got it.

Hope some of the above is useful!

Ruhan

In addition to the above, there is also emerging arguments about a female deity (Asherah) being worshipped alongside Yahweh. Originally Judaism was not a monotheistic religion but later developed into one.

premjan

Asherah == Astarte?

Lugubert

Astarte (Gk.), fertility and heaven goddess, = Phoenician Astoret/Athtart. Similar to Babylonian Ishtar. In Ugarit she was close to goddesses Anat and Ashera (Athorat). The ancient Greek identified her with Aphrodite.

Short note from R. Dussaud: `Anat (daughter of Ašerat and Ba`al); `Aštart not = `Ašerat.

Ishtar is identified with Sumerian Inanna. Several localized versions, like Ishtar of Arbela, I. of Nineve etc. On one hand, she’s goddess of love and fertility, on the other hand a war goddess.

In a discussion on YHWH on ebla, Asherah and her family is discussed as well.

Pendaric

In this post, which is in the thread where I initially posted the OP piece, I said this to Fisher:

She responded with:

So I'm going to invite her over here to join in the discussion. I don't pretend a deal of expertise in this area, so I'm keen to learn myself from the input of you guys who know what you're talking about.

Fencesitter

Could you post some cites please, so those of us who want to learn along with you can try to follow along? Did I miss the cites?

Sauron

It goes further:
Ashtoreth = Ishtar = Ašerat = Istarte = *istara = aster (star) = star