lpetrich

Sorry, Haran, I could not resist a chortle at the idea of stars as anthropomorphic beings who get tossed into some jail for dawdling. It seemed to me very strange, because to me at least, a logical pre-modern-science cosmology would be for the stars to be tiny lamps attached to a giant overhead upside-down bowl that slowly turns, with some stars slowly moving on that bowl.

However, as you point out, 1 Enoch does well in more readily-observable astronomical feaures.

In response to RyanS2, what he mentions seems to me like offhand mentions; there isn't the sort of detail that the 1 Enoch goes into. And certainly nothing like what one sees in Mithraism, for example.

RyanS2

"In response to RyanS2, what he mentions seems to me like offhand mentions; there isn't the sort of detail that the 1 Enoch goes into."

I know that, and I commented that perhaps they didn't understand it as well, (they weren't the richest, most well-educated race of the ancient times), or as another theory proposes, they moved away from it as they reacted to Chaldean religion. (Since Babylonian religion was full of astrological references, they came to view it as bad.) However, I believe you were asking whether it was there or not, and to reference any claims about it.

Another thing I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia of interest, here's what they believe are reliable astrological references in the Old Testament:

"Kimah, the Pleiades;

the Kesil, Orion;

Ash, or Ayish, the Hyades;

Mezarim, the Bears (Great and Little);

Hadre theman -- "the chambers of the south" -- Canopus, the Southern Cross, and a Centauri;

Nachash, Draco."

Almost all of this is found in the Book of Job. What I found interesting about this is that if we believe the author of the Book of Job, the Book of Job is supposed to be the earliest written book in the Bible, as almost all accounts, (except those who think it is a forgery), account it as being the first book of the Bible. Arguments for it being early:

(Source: Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)

"EUSEBIUS fixes it two ages before Moses, that is, about the time of Isaac: eighteen hundred years before Christ, and six hundred after the Deluge. Agreeing with this are the following considerations:

1. Job's length of life is patriarchal, two hundred years.

2. He alludes only to the earliest form of idolatry, namely, the worship of the sun, moon, and heavenly hosts (called Saba, whence arises the title "Lord of Sabaoth," as opposed to Sabeanism) (Job 31:26-28).

3. The number of oxen and rams sacrificed, seven, as in the case of Balaam. God would not have sanctioned this after the giving of the Mosaic law, though He might graciously accommodate Himself to existing customs before the law.

4. The language of Job is Hebrew, interspersed occasionally with Syriac and Arabic expressions, implying a time when all the Shemitic tribes spoke one common tongue and had not branched into different dialects, Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic.

5. He speaks of the most ancient kind of writing, namely, sculpture. Riches also are reckoned by cattle. The Hebrew word, translated "a piece of money," ought rather be rendered "a lamb."

6. There is no allusion to the exodus from Egypt and to the miracles that accompanied it; nor to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (PATRICK, however, thinks there is); though there is to the Flood (Job 22:17); and these events, happening in Job's vicinity, would have been striking illustrations of the argument for God's interposition in destroying the wicked and vindicating the righteous, had Job and his friends known of them. Nor is there any undoubted reference to the Jewish law, ritual, and priesthood.

7. The religion of Job is that which prevailed among the patriarchs previous to the law; sacrifices performed by the head of the family; no officiating priesthood, temple, or consecrated altar."

As per the idea that monotheism and the creation events described in Genesis were a reaction against the Babylonians, the notion is that the earliest book of the Bible clearly speaks of astrotheology, and though not up to Mithraic standards, it shows the recognization of the astral bodies in astrology. The other source outside of Job that shows astrotheology is Amos (v, 8), which are Kimah (Pleiades) and Kesil, (Orion).

lpetrich

First off, the Book of Job is not one of the older books in the Tanakh, but a relatively young one, as determined by internal linguistic evidence.

I'll let Apikorus or Devnet handle the constellation names, but of the ones mentioned, only the Hyades is in the Zodiac. And it's interesting that these are mentioned only in an offhand sort of way.

By contrast, in Mithraism, astrological symbolism was embedded in some important features of that sect.

Although the twelve tribes of Israel might conceivably be linked to the twelve signs of the Zodiac, I'm not aware of any attempt to do so in the Bible.

And of the celestial bodies other than the Sun, the Moon, and the "fixed" stars, the Bible says very little, in strong contrast with Mithraism. Where does the Bible discuss Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn? It mentions Venus a bit, but I don't recall anything else.

I don't know where RyanS2 gets his "Bible astrology" theories, but those theories are pure nonsense.

RyanS2

That's interesting, and I'm open to suggestions. Could you please reference me a site or a book which discusses this at length? From all commentary I've heard on Job, the Hebrew used was described as "archaic", (this is from Christian commentary however), not newer.

Really? I thought Pleiades was a part of Taurus? That is "in the zodiac", but not the actual constellation Taurus. I'm somewhat confused by what you mean here. You are asking about astrology, I gave you references. Are or are not these astrological? If you don't think they are astrological, I'm at a loss. Also, are you denying that Mazzaroth means, "signs of the Zodiac"? Astrology isn't just limited to the zodiac. For instance the Egyptians used to follow Sirius quite a bit as their sacred saviour, (The nile floods when Sirius moves east before sunrise), they even based their calendar on this event.

Where do I deny that?

Again, you're repeating what I've already stated.

The Bible also doesn't say that "Jesus was a mythical hero", yet you say so, based upon a comparison scheme between Jesus and other mythical hero's. If we're going by, "The Bible doesn't directly say it", I'm afraid most of the theories atheists have developed over the years go out the window. The Bible also doesn't mention that the books written thereof are not written at the time which they are purported.

Venus is mentioned as "Heylol", (bright star), a reference to Venus, though it wasn't a star. (It's in the verse to Nebuchadnezzar where Daniel is supposedly speaking of Lucifer's fall from heaven). Nebuchadnezzar was being compared to Venus, because Venus is the brighest "star" visible in the early day, yet when the sun comes up, it is no longer visible at all. Thus the prophecy was that if Nebuchadnezzar didn't do whatever it was Daniel wanted, Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom would be engulfed by the Kingdom of God. You're applying a double-standard here, in that you state initially that most of the Bible was post-written, and I'm pretty sure you believe it was largely done to conceal the polytheistic origins of the Hebrews, in reaction to the Chaldeans. So far, that's the most popular atheistic belief. Also, in your profile on Yeshua, you use apocryphal documents and legends of Yeshua, not in the Bible. This is a bit of a double-standard.

Using "inference" we think this is what was meant by Daniel. Another example of an "inference" is in Theodore Reik's, "pagan rites in Judaism", where he discusses the dream of Joseph about hte Sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowing before him:

"Jacob understood the meaning of the dream because he, Jacob, had once been called the sun. The moon stood for Joseph's mother, the stars for his brothers. Jacob was so convinced of the truth of the dream that he believed in the resurrection of the dead, since Rachel, his mother, was then dead. Jacob thought that she would return to earth."

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Saturn is no less certainly represented by the star Kaiwan, adored by the reprobate Israelites in the desert (Amos, v, 26). The same word (interpreted to mean "steadfast") frequently designates, in the Babylonian inscriptions, the slowest-moving planet; while Sakkuth, the divinity associated with the star by the prophet, is an alternative appellation for Ninib, who, as a Babylonian planet-god, was merged with Saturn. The ancient Syrians and Arabs, too, called Saturn Kaiwan, the corresponding terms in the Zoroastrian Bundahish being Kevan. The other planets are individualized in the Bible only by implication. The worship of gods connected with them is denounced, but without any manifest intention of refering to the heavenly bodies. Thus, Gad and Meni (Isaias, lxv, 11) are, no doubt, the "greater and the lesser Fortune" typified throughout the the East by Jupiter and Venus; Neba, the tutelary deity of Borsippa (Isaias xlvi, 1), shone in the sky as Mercury, and Nergal, transplanted frorn Assyria to Kutha (IV Kings, xvii, 30), as Mars."

Shucks, I'll have to go against experts on the field who claim that the mosaics themselves had references to the zodiac:

<a href="http://www.isjm.org/jhr/nos3-4/sepmos.htm" target="_blank">http://www.isjm.org/jhr/nos3-4/sepmos.htm</a>

While it's true this is a third-century find, there are other documented discussions between early Rabbi's on whether or not Jews revolved around astrotheology. Here's another site that discusses the impact of this:

<a href="http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/helios.htm" target="_blank">http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/helios.htm</a>

lpetrich

Sorry, I goofed about the Pleiades.

And the pet theories of many who believe in the Bible also. Jesus Christ's biography resembles those of many mythical heroes, but there isn't anything in the Bible that says this tribe is Aries, this tribe is Taurus, this tribe is Gemini, etc. and deriving each tribe's attributes from features associated with each sign.

There being 12 canonical tribes might be some sort of association with 12 months of the year -- which is the likely reason for there being 12 signs in the Zodiac. However, I don't recall any association of which tribe with which month.

The number 12 being a magic one may also account for Jesus Christ's 12 canonical apostles, but that connection is not made explicit (which apostle equals which month or which sign).

Marduk

Jesus must be Pices "I will be with you always, even onto the end of the age" the 2250 year 'age' of Pices began near the time of his birth and will end in 150 years or so, "I will meet you in the house of the man who bears water" (Aquarius) as the song says "This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius, the age of Aquarius," and so on.

RyanS2

We're all human, we make mistakes.

True, but the Bible also doesn't say that the names of the hero's can be found in Ugaritic texts, in similar myths. For instance, cunieform tablets at El Mardish list personal names like: Ab-ra-mu, E-sa-um, Ish-ma-ilu, Sa-'u-lum, Da-'v-dum. Further names found throughout are Is-'ra-el-u', along with place names like Urusalim, Hazor, Gaza, Lahish, Meggido, and Sinai. Lots of very important details about the Bible are not found in the Bible.

Let me show you one example of an inference we make not using the Bible, but using a loose scriptural reference to it.

W.F Albright talks about the 'demythologizing of pagan myths.' What he proposes is that the ancient Israelite religion emerged from a set of Canaanite Proto-Hebrew traditions which were stripped of specific polytheistic elements. The most notorious element of all polytheistic religions is astrology. Like the "plurality of dignity" argument, it is mostly true. Most of the times, when the plural noun "Elohim" is used, it is coupled with a singular form of the verb. However, there are a few slip-ups which passed through editing:

"When elohim [gods] caused [plural: hith-u] me to wander from my father's house" (Gen. xx, 13).

That's a plural noun, plural verb agreement. Likewise, when Jacob builds an altar at Luz, "and called the place El- bethel"; because there ha-elohim [the gods] were revealed [plural: nigl-u] unto him" (Gen. x-xxv, 7).

David also does this as well: "Israel, whom gods [elohim] went [plural: balk-u] to redeem ... from the nations and their gods [elohim]" (2 Sam. vii, 23).

We thus conclude that though the later editors were very good at what they did, there were a few times it slipped through. Likewise, we find from observing stories that were later "demythologized", certain key characteristics.

Examples of such can be of the account of God's triumph over the deep (Tehom) in Genesis 1:2. Since in verse 21, God creates the sea-monsters (the Hebrew 'taminim which is plural form of the singular for 'dragon of chaos' in Canaanite myth) it follows that there must have been a reference to God's subduing of the deep (tehom.)

The Jews had a lunar calendar, (still do), the names for which are taken largely from Canaanite and Babylonian names. (For instance, one of them is Tammuz, for whom the women of Israel wept. That's one of the dying sun-gods in old lore that was beloved by his people. The Queen had to kill him for the fertility of the land. The Hebrews celebrated this with the "fast of Tammuz", on the Gezer calendar.)

The lunar calendar is either 12 or 13 months long, 7 times out of a 19 year cycle, the 13 month known as "second adar". The Roman calendar was likewise lunar, with extra months added. Thus it makes the theory more precocious.

Well, I don't know about that, but there are some allegorical relations to the zodiac and Christ.

This revolves around Saint John's day, June 25th, which would be precisely the opposite of December 25th. (The Gospels suggests that the Precursor was born about six months before Christ.)

From December 25 to June 25th, the Sun gains strength, (daylight hours), but on June 25, it stars decreasing sunlight. Thus John has John the Baptist in John 3:30: "He must increase, but I must decrease."

(This isn't to say that John the Baptist didn't exist, but "John" of apostolic fame has quite a few different twists on how he perceived Jesus and other people versus the "Synoptic" gospels.)