Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was a progression and adaptation of neighboring gods.
It's not nearly as nice and neat as that. Chapter 3 from one of my master's theses (here) discusses the origins of the Israelite deity profiles. It's not so much genetic and linear as it is just independent drawing from the same cultural matrix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
From the Phoenicians, Adonai,
Adonai is just the generic Hebrew word for Lord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Baali, a derivative of Baal,
Baali is just Baal with the first person pronominal suffix ("my Lord/Master/Husband").
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
El, Elah which is entomological
*etymologically
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
related to Allah, Eloah, the feminine version of Elohim,
Eloah is just a masculine singular form of elohim, which is morphologically plural. Elat would be the feminine form. The fact that they're cognates is really immaterial, though. Hebrew is a Canaanite language, just like Phoenician, Ugaritic, Moabite, Edomite, and the other languages spoken in the area. They're going to have a great deal of lexical overlap just because they're related languages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
of course Yahweh, and we can go on and on.
What cognate for YHWH are you suggesting exists in the surrounding cultures? You've just asserted that the words they have for "god" and "lord" are cognate. That doesn't show anything about borrowing or adapting gods at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
The point is, the Israelites adapted or adopted mythical characters from the neighborhood, including the gods that were prevalent.
I'm well aware of the point you're making, but I'm asking for examples. Simply showing lexical cognates doesn't show anything all about the gods and their character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Mose's Leviticus and Deutreonmical rules were an adaptation of the Code of Hammurabi.
The Covenant Code is an adaptation of the Code of Hammurabi. Deuteronomy was written centuries later, and is an adaptation of Aserhaddon's vassal treaties. It has nothing to do with Hammurabi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
As was the flood, an adaptation of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
No, there were several cultures and iterations between Gilgamesh and the flood tradition of Genesis. It's not as simple as just borrowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Not much original in the OT from that part of the neighborhood is there?
Actually there's not much original in any cultural tradition from anywhere. Everyone borrows from those who went before and those who said it better. I've not seen many actual examples of borrowing in your posts, though, just some generic cognates and some weak parallelomania that seems mediated by hobbyists on the internet.
I looked up your book. It appears to be something self-published by a bit a of a mythicist hobbyist. I've run into that author before, and she, like others in her camp, reproduces a lot of theories and models from the late 19th and early 20th century. The book is an odd mixture of poor writing, conspiracy theories, outdated scholarship, and a sprinkling of actual critical biblical scholarship, but these kinds of authors tend to try to overwhelm people with volume so they mistake it for erudition. I don't see how a lay reader could sift the valuable information from the worthless.
Yeah, Dionysus didn't have anything to do with Moses. There is some evidence for a genetic link with some aspects of the Christ tradition, but not for Moses.
If you want some actually informed and insightful discussions of the history of Israel and the biblical texts, the following are your best bets:
What cognate for YHWH are you suggesting exists in the surrounding cultures? You've just asserted that the words they have for "god" and "lord" are cognate. That doesn't show anything about borrowing or adapting gods at all.
To my understanding they have no real clue where the name comes from at this point. The most prevalent one is trying to connect the name to the shasu reference, but nothing is definitive at this point.
*Finkelstein, and actually, he's got a great new book out on the history of the Northern Kingdom that's available for free here. He's got a lot of good stuff, but the majority of it is quite technical and deals heavily with C14 dating and stuff like that.
To my understanding they have no real clue where the name comes from at this point. The most prevalent one is trying to connect the name to the shasu reference, but nothing is definitive at this point.
Nothing is ever really that definitive in onomastics, but we're as sure as we really can be about the use of the name in the shasu references. It's certainly a much better option than Cross' theory or any other etymology that's come forth since. A good paper on the topic is available here if you have access to academia.edu.
The Covenant Code is an adaptation of the Code of Hammurabi. Deuteronomy was written centuries later, and is an adaptation of Aserhaddon's vassal treaties. It has nothing to do with Hammurabi.
Good grief. Somehow I transposed the letters of that name. It should be Esarhaddon. Don't know how that happened.
I looked up your book. It appears to be something self-published by a bit a of a mythicist hobbyist. I've run into that author before, and she, like others in her camp, reproduces a lot of theories and models from the late 19th and early 20th century. The book is an odd mixture of poor writing, conspiracy theories, outdated scholarship, and a sprinkling of actual critical biblical scholarship, but these kinds of authors tend to try to overwhelm people with volume so they mistake it for erudition. I don't see how a lay reader could sift the valuable information from the worthless.
Well, I wouldn't call the book worthless, Dan. It has some interesting stuff in there. I haven't read it so I can't comment but I sometimes gauge a books' worth partly by the reviews it's gotten on Amazon and hers has a total of 336 reviews. That's more than what authors like Ehrman, Craig and Price get. 183 5 star to 60 1-star. As you know lots of smart people post reviews on Amazon, including Price himself (2 PhD's) and Anne Rice, who's a hell of a writer in her own right and has lately been researching this stuff. Now I've learned not to go toe-to-toe with you as you're too good a scholar, but re Moses let me repeat what I told jeffbase re Moses and get your reaction:
Quote:
According to Prof. Ze'ev Herzog who teaches in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University, in "Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho", states as follows:
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom...... Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells." (in an article in the Jewish magazine Haaretz, as republished on):
Are you going to disagree with a Jewish professor of archeology at Tel Aviv University?
Add to that fact that archeologists have never found any evidence that 3 million people wandered the Sinai for 40 years and Egyptian records from the period don't show any evidence of an exodus of 3 million people out of Egypt or that 3 million Israelites ever occupied Egypt. Such an exodus, archeologists and ancient civilization sociologists say would fracture the Egyptian empire's social and economic structure.
Now I know from your bio that you're Mormon. How committed you are and how able you are to separate your faith from evidence is something we all don't know. But my feeling is that you believe the Exodus to have taken place. Would that be a fair assumption? And if you do, do you also believe everything in Genesis right back to Adam and Eve? If you do, on what basis do you believe this? You may have addressed Adam and Eve in previous posts. I can't remember so forgive me if my memory fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
Yeah, Dionysus didn't have anything to do with Moses. There is some evidence for a genetic link with some aspects of the Christ tradition, but not for Moses.
You're probably right. I was speaking more figuratively in that Moses, according to some mythicists likely developed as a legend the way the Dionysius did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
If you want some actually informed and insightful discussions of the history of Israel and the biblical texts, the following are your best bets:
I'll check them but I'm trying to stay from apologetics. They have an agenda: to shore up a crumbling Christian faith and their opinions are always slanted. If you can say they have concrete historical proof that the Exodus took place, whether or not it was led by Moses, then I'm interested. But I would wonder why their proof conflicts with the general consensus among archeologists that the Exodus was not a real event.
Tying it with another thread (titled "What happens to innocent babies when they die"), it's hardly likely that a religion would survive for 2000 years and be adopted by billions if it didn't make sense.
I am not a Christian but it seems that the majority turns to the Bible for guidance and solace, and then there is the minority that. Takes. Every. Word. Literally.
About Peter, I don't think his memory was the problem. His instinct for self preservation overcame his loyalty to Jesus and the crow just reminded him even more forcefully of that. Just as Jesus had foretold.
The rooster thing is just one of thousands of contradictions that I could dig up. But let's have a look at the text:
Quote:
Jesus:“Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny three times that you even know me.” [Then later] But Peter denied it. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said, and he went out into the entryway. Just then, a rooster crowed.[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]b[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE]
A little later some of the other bystanders confronted Peter and said, “You must be one of them, because you are a Galilean.”
[SIZE=2]71 Peter swore, “A curse on me if I’m lying—I don’t know this man you’re talking about!”[/SIZE]
Now, not just two hours earlier Peter makes a solemn promise to Jesus. Jesus says the rooster will crow twice after Peter has denied him. Peter had to have heard the first crow. If he could hear the second crow he certainly could have heard the first. Now why didn't the rooster's first crow jar his memory of his promise to Jesus? Wouldn't it have jarred yours? "Oh, Oh! The rooster crowed...my promise to my master. I'd better honor it."
So where does Mark get two crows, and isn't it reasonable to believe that Matthew and Luke saw the stupidity of two crows and to make the account more believable they changed it to one crow?
How come this kinds of logic doesn't register with 2 billion people. If it can register with me, a person who's not that bright, certainly a few others can ask the same kinds of questions for ALL the errors in logic that the Bible is rife with.
What is it that you want us to say? Do you want to argue? Would it help? I've had these discussions with you. You have never given me any impression whatsoever that you're interested in truth -- but only what you want to see.
What do you want me to say, good pastor. I'm willing to look at the evidence besides what's in the Bible, which I wouldn't trust for veracity far as I could throw it. But show me some hard historical evidence in writings written by famous secular scholars like Philo of Alexandria who lived at the same time as Jesus and wrote of Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection and ascension and dead bodies coming out of the grave and appearing to thousands of people before being raptured to heaven and I will believe what you have to say.
The truth is you can't produce a single piece of secular writing. So why should I believe what you have to say? I know: because it's in the Bible and the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God. Same ol' stock answer from every fundamentalist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
