Moses Myth: And You Thought Historizing Jesus Was Tough! (Christian, believers, heaven)
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.
I kings 18. 21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:
24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.
25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.
26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.
Now that looks to me like saying, the god that answers, exists, the one who doesn't, doesn't. What you think Mr McClellan? Anyone?
Not even close. It's saying that the one who answers has the rule over the land of Israel. You've got to stop reading the text through modernist theological lenses. You're basically adopting apologetic presuppositions about ancient Israelite ontology.
I see a pattern that may explain your outdated and hobbyist models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
but it is so useful as an accessible summary of this or that theory and the evidence.
The OT layering theory is explained well enough
the Yahwist source (J) : written c. 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
the Elohist source (E) : written c. 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
the Deuteronomist (D) : written c. 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
the Priestly source (P) : written c. 500 BCE by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.
That's an outdated and far too positivistic iteration of the Documentary Hypothesis (and see here for more current models).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
As I gathered (I use that term a lot to cover vague recollection of something I heard or read last year) there is internal evidence of various stages of the OT. It certainly struck me as explaining the 'Elohim' idea (first one god amongst others and the commandment was to the Israelites that they should worship only him as their God.
Later on, the idea (and a vague idea by me - sorry, I am not an OT expert and don't claim to be - that YHWH was said to be the king of the gods or words to that effect and, as in the Baal story that stuck in my mind the only one. The others did not really exist.
I posted evidence of the replacement in similar mesopotamian creation stories of the tribal god and merely suggested that idea as a common process that might have suggested to the Hebrews that they should do the same with their God. That suggested a date and maybe subject matter. That also reminded me of the Sargon of Akkad story which would be very handy indeed for someone writing up the Moses - exodus story. It is not fixed in stone and I am quite ready to revise the story is accordance with the evidence.
The video posted here mentioned David and Solomon as real but rather minor kings, Omri being the builder of works ascribed to them and the originator of the Rules, Law and the first OT text. I have no doubt that a final version could appear in Post exilic times, though I do associate it rather more with Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Obadiah, Micah, Amos and Andy.
I am curious about what the evidence is for what parts appeared when.
Now about other gods worship in Israel, I have an idea that the split into two kingdoms
There was never a split into two kingdoms. It was two kingdoms from the very beginning. The combination into one kingdom was a tenuous and short-lived attempt to consolidate two separate nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
had a rather strict Yahweist college centered in Jerusalem and they rather regarded as the Northern kingdom as a bit slipshod in allowing far too much tolerance of foreign creeds and foreign alliances instead of relying on their tribal god.
You're buying into the rhetoric of the Hebrew Bible's authors and editors. See part 3 here for a much better explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The pentateuch or books of law and the primacy of YHWH was already in place, but that does not in any mean that no other gods were tolerated. I am however, surprised to hear that the Mr and mrs God stone dated from Hezekiah's time. I had assumed it was really early in the Israelite nation. I am sorry if I am not up to speed with the whole of Holy land archaeology, but I have to cope with a lot of stuff as a self -appointed atheist polemicist on this board I have wished myself on.
This is long enough. The case against exodus will have to wait. maybe this relatively irrelevant stuff could be cleared away first.
If it's irrelevant, don't bring it up. We all agree the exodus never happened in anything even approximating the way it is described in the Hebrew Bible. The only stuff left to discuss is this "irrelevant stuff" you keep posting.
Not even close. It's saying that the one who answers has the rule over the land of Israel. You've got to stop reading the text through modernist theological lenses. You're basically adopting apologetic presuppositions about ancient Israelite ontology.
That is one way of explaining it, but the fact that Baal doesn't answer and can't send fire strongly suggests that he isn't there.
I see a pattern that may explain your outdated and hobbyist models.
I agree. That was just to point to what the laying of the OT was about. We already see with the Baal episode that we can't even agree whether Baal is portrayed as being weaker than YHWH or wasn't there at all. remember, while what the actual view was at the time (if we can find out) we are discussing what the view of the OT editors was.
Quote:
That's an outdated and far too positivistic iteration of the Documentary Hypothesis (and see here for more current models).
I will have a look but as you say, it is a bit of a digression.
...I'm always glad to get further clarifying information, but as a rule I do not respond to being told to go and read books. If you have a point to make, by all means, make it.
There was never a split into two kingdoms. It was two kingdoms from the very beginning. The combination into one kingdom was a tenuous and short-lived attempt to consolidate two separate nations.
Are you sure? The Merneptah stele refers to Israel, not Israel and Judah.
I know Wiki is regarded as not authoritative, but it is handy.
Israel first, Judah 'emerged'. That would suggest a split as the Bible suggests, but, if you have evidence that Israel did not occupy from the 9th c (it says, but the Stele is 11th c, isn't it?) land later becoming Judah in the 8th c, by all means share it. Until then i have to credit the view that Judah hived itself off from Israel.
Quote:
You're buying into the rhetoric of the Hebrew Bible's authors and editors. See part 3 here for a much better explanation.
Of course. If we are discussing the Bible, I'm going to look at their view. I'm happy to look at any valid evidence that sheds light on it.
Quote:
If it's irrelevant, don't bring it up. We all agree the exodus never happened in anything even approximating the way it is described in the Hebrew Bible. The only stuff left to discuss is this "irrelevant stuff" you keep posting.
Don't bring it up? This is what the thread is about. The irrelevant stuff may be irrelevant, and could be dropped, or it may have a bearing. You for instance was the one who picked up on the mention of 'Jews' rather than Israelites. or my in passing suggestion that YHWH as 'Top god' might have been derived from the replacing of one tribal god with another by the successive Mespootamian civilizations.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-25-2014 at 05:18 PM..
That is one way of explaining it, but the fact that Baal doesn't answer and can't send fire strongly suggests that he isn't there.
But that would undermine the rhetorical insistence on his impotence. What the author is appealing to is the rhetoric of incomparability, which is found in pretty much all the literature of the ancient Near East. Each god is praised with rhetoric along the lines of, "You're the best. Nobody can compare to you. You did everything and nobody else can do anything. Love you!" It's in Egypt, it's in Babylonia, it's in Assyria, it's in Anatolia. It's all over the place.
I agree. That was just to point to what the laying of the OT was about. We already see with the Baal episode that we can't even agree whether Baal is portrayed as being weaker than YHWH or wasn't there at all.
Ancient Israel didn't have the ontological framework to outright deny the existence of Baal at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
remember, while what the actual view was at the time (if we can find out) we are discussing what the view of the OT editors was.
I will have a look but as you say, it is a bit of a digression.
...I'm always glad to get further clarifying information, but as a rule I do not respond to being told to go and read books. If you have a point to make, by all means, make it.
see above.
Are you sure? The Merneptah stele refers to Israel, not Israel and Judah.
Yes, it referred to the Northern Kingdom. Judah did not exist as a polity at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I know Wiki is regarded as not authoritative, but it is handy.
Israel first, Judah 'emerged'. That would suggest a split as the Bible suggests,
No, what it means is that the Northern Kingdom was there, and Judah wasn't. A couple centuries later, a separate state formed in Judea. Judah emerged from nothing, not from Israel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
but, if you have evidence that Israel did not occupy from the 9th c (it says, but the Stele is 11th c, isn't it?)
End of 13th century. The people existed before an actual state. They were a loose confederation of tribes prior to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
land later becoming Judah in the 8th c, by all means share it. Until then i have to credit the view that Judah hived itself off from Israel.
Of course. If we are discussing the Bible, I'm going to look at their view.
No you're not. This whole discussion is about rejecting the view of the biblical authors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I'm happy to look at any valid evidence that sheds light on it.
Don't bring it up? This is what the thread is about. The irrelevant stuff may be irrelevant, and could be dropped, or it may have a bearing. You for instance was the one who picked up on the mention of 'Jews' rather than Israelites. or my in passing suggestion that YHWH as 'Top god' might have been derived from the replacing of one tribal god with another by the successive Mespootamian civilizations.
But that would undermine the rhetorical insistence on his impotence. What the author is appealing to is the rhetoric of incomparability, which is found in pretty much all the literature of the ancient Near East. Each god is praised with rhetoric along the lines of, "You're the best. Nobody can compare to you. You did everything and nobody else can do anything. Love you!" It's in Egypt, it's in Babylonia, it's in Assyria, it's in Anatolia. It's all over the place.
What convinces me is the Jeering of Elijah. getting no response? Perhaps he's asleep or inside. There is no idea that he is being kept from responding by the stronger god. The implication is that Baal isn't answering because he isn't really there.
God's response does of course show immense power igniting even a soaked altar. But the conclusion surely is that Baal isn't really there.
Quote:
Ancient Israel didn't have the ontological framework to outright deny the existence of Baal at the time.
Well, at what time? The whole layering thing (mods by the way are quite accommodating about digression if in the same ballpark and informative) suggests that the original idea of a tribal god amongst others went to a second phase where YHWH was the top God- King of the gods, in fact, and to a final phase where the other gods were false; just stone statues and only YHWH existed.
When those progressions were revised into the Bible is the question, isn't it? If Kings was written at a post exilic date (as I believe you suggested - that seems to late to me, but that could reflect a final revision of an earlier story - I believe you referred to earlier versions of Deuteronomy which I asked about and you haven't produced) then it could easily reflect a monotheistic view that wasn't actually held at the time that Omri and Ahab actually ruled.
Quote:
Yes, it referred to the Northern Kingdom. Judah did not exist as a polity at the time.....No, what it means is that the Northern Kingdom was there, and Judah wasn't. A couple centuries later, a separate state formed in Judea. Judah emerged from nothing, not from Israel.
Well ok, I am not going to dicker about self -justifying semantics. Israel was first and one can say either it split into two kingdoms later on or Judah emerged. Though in fact Judah was rather bigger and it was just two tribes Ephraim & Reuben was it? ( I'm doing all this off the top of my head) and a 'split' really looks more accurate than an emergence in the body of Israel like a Xhosa -state in S Africa
Quote:
End of 13th century. The people existed before an actual state. They were a loose confederation of tribes prior to that.
Ta. Yes, the present story I have in mind is that Israel was not at that time (Merneptah's campaign in Canaan) a state or kingdom but a loose group in early stages of formation. Of course even though it can be argued that this was after the Conquest of Exodus, it doesn't fit the Bible story where the Israelites swindled stole and occupied territory from the surrounding tribes without a mention of Egypt turning up and giving everyone a good licking.
Evidence in the Bible, as well as archaeology that the Exodus story just doesn't fit with the history as we can glean it from archaeology.
Quote:
originally Posted by AREQUIPA land later becoming Judah in the 8th c, by all means share it. Until then i have to credit the view that Judah hived itself off from Israel.
Of course. If we are discussing the Bible, I'm going to look at their view.
Quote:
No you're not. This whole discussion is about rejecting the view of the biblical authors.
Listen sonny. You obviously have some expertise in this subject though you are nothing like as smart as you obviously think you are and already I would say that this hobbyist has made you look pretty foolish.
Over the top gods in the creation epics,
over your claim of a sizeable Jewish community pre Ptolemaic times which you tried to justify with the irrelevant Elephantine inscription.
Over Baal not existing
Over the two kingdoms splitting from one.
You have something to learn about manners as well as (it seems) about your subject.
You do not tell me what I shall and shall not look at, post about and discuss.
Are we clear on this?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-26-2014 at 07:41 AM..
Reason: the usual tidy -up
While looking to see which were the two tribes of Israel, I came across this interesting summary of the archaeological basis of the idea of emergence of Israel from the Canaanite hill tribes. Yep, Wiki again, I'm afraid. It is the Pattern of hobbyist dabblers such as myself.
In The Bible Unearthed (2001), Finkelstein and Silberman summarised recent studies. They described how, up until 1967, the Israelite heartland in the highlands of western Palestine was virtually an archaeological 'terra incognita'. Since then, the traditional territories of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh have been covered by intensive surveys. These surveys have revealed the sudden emergence of a new culture contrasting with the Philistine and Canaanite societies existing in the Land of Israel earlier during Iron Age I.[7] This new culture is characterised by the lack of pork remains (whereas pork formed 20% of the Philistine diet in places), an abandonment of the Philistines/Canaanite custom of having highly decorated pottery, and the practice of circumcision. The Israelite ethnic identity had been created, not from the Exodus and a subsequent conquest, but from a transformation of the existing Canaanite-Philistine cultures.[26]
These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel. The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages — all apparently established within the span of few generations — indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites.[27]
And as to Israel splitting off from Judah rather that Judah 'emerging' out of Israel, this.
According to the Bible, the Kingdom of Israel (or Northern Kingdom) was one of the successor states to the older United Monarchy (also called the Kingdom of Israel), which came into existence in about the 930s BCE after the northern Tribes of Israel rejected Solomon's son Rehoboam as their king. Nine landed tribes formed the Northern Kingdom: the tribes of Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim and Manasseh. Ten Lost Tribes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ephraim and Reuben I was thinking of. But NINE tribes? Leaving only three to Judah? Surely not.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-26-2014 at 07:46 AM..
What convinces me is the Jeering of Elijah. getting no response? Perhaps he's asleep or inside. There is no idea that he is being kept from responding by the stronger god. The implication is that Baal isn't answering because he isn't really there.
God's response does of course show immense power igniting even a soaked altar. But the conclusion surely is that Baal isn't really there.
Because he's not "the God" in Israel (which is what the Hebrew says). It's not because he doesn't exist, it's because it's not his purview. I've explained this already, and I'm not going to get into a "Yu-huh!" "Nu-uh!" match with someone who can't even read the text in the original language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Well, at what time?
At any time prior to the Greco-Roman period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The whole layering thing (mods by the way are quite accommodating about digression if in the same ballpark and informative) suggests that the original idea of a tribal god amongst others went to a second phase where YHWH was the top God- King of the gods, in fact, and to a final phase where the other gods were false; just stone statues and only YHWH existed.
That's far too linear and reductive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
When those progressions were revised into the Bible is the question, isn't it? If Kings was written at a post exilic date (as I believe you suggested - that seems to late to me, but that could reflect a final revision of an earlier story - I believe you referred to earlier versions of Deuteronomy which I asked about and you haven't produced) then it could easily reflect a monotheistic view that wasn't actually held at the time that Omri and Ahab actually ruled.
Depends what one understands by "monotheism." As I've pointed out, there is no text in the Hebrew Bible that denies the existence of the other gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Well ok, I am not going to dicker about self -justifying semantics.
It's not semantics, it's the names and history of the nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Israel was first and one can say either it split into two kingdoms later on or Judah emerged. Though in fact Judah was rather bigger and it was just two tribes Ephraim & Reuben was it? ( I'm doing all this off the top of my head) and a 'split' really looks more accurate than an emergence in the body of Israel like a Xhosa -state in S Africa.
There is no evidence whatsoever for a "split." You only think there is because you're relying entirely on the biblical text and a very, very poor understanding of the archaeology. If you want a very good look at the rise of the Northern Kingdom, see here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Ta. Yes, the present story I have in mind is that Israel was not at that time (Merneptah's campaign in Canaan) a state or kingdom but a loose group in early stages of formation. Of course even though it can be argued that this was after the Conquest of Exodus, it doesn't fit the Bible story where the Israelites swindled stole and occupied territory from the surrounding tribes without a mention of Egypt turning up and giving everyone a good licking.
Evidence in the Bible, as well as archaeology that the Exodus story just doesn't fit with the history as we can glean it from archaeology.
Listen sonny.
No one reading this is going to buy attempts by you to speak down to me about these issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
You obviously have some expertise in this subject though you are nothing like as smart as you obviously think you are and already I would say that this hobbyist has made you look pretty foolish.
Yes, and Ken Ham thinks he made Bill Nye seem pretty foolish, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Over the top gods in the creation epics,
over your claim of a sizeable Jewish community pre Ptolemaic times which you tried to justify with the irrelevant Elephantine inscription.
It's a trove of letters, not an inscription, and it was indeed sizable. You're just trying to move the goalposts because you got caught making an ignorant and incorrect claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Over Baal not existing
Over the two kingdoms splitting from one.
You have something to learn about manners as well as (it seems) about your subject.
You do not tell me what I shall and shall not look at, post about and discuss.
Are we clear on this?
I'm not telling you what you are and aren't allowed to post. And you really need to stop pretending to speak down to me. It's not doing you any favors.
While looking to see which were the two tribes of Israel, I came across this interesting summary of the archaeological basis of the idea of emergence of Israel from the Canaanite hill tribes. Yep, Wiki again, I'm afraid. It is the Pattern of hobbyist dabblers such as myself.
In The Bible Unearthed (2001), Finkelstein and Silberman summarised recent studies. They described how, up until 1967, the Israelite heartland in the highlands of western Palestine was virtually an archaeological 'terra incognita'. Since then, the traditional territories of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh have been covered by intensive surveys. These surveys have revealed the sudden emergence of a new culture contrasting with the Philistine and Canaanite societies existing in the Land of Israel earlier during Iron Age I.[7] This new culture is characterised by the lack of pork remains (whereas pork formed 20% of the Philistine diet in places), an abandonment of the Philistines/Canaanite custom of having highly decorated pottery, and the practice of circumcision. The Israelite ethnic identity had been created, not from the Exodus and a subsequent conquest, but from a transformation of the existing Canaanite-Philistine cultures.[26]
These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel. The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages — all apparently established within the span of few generations — indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites.[27]
And all of this thoroughly undermines your claim that anyone "came down" from the hills to occupy abandoned settlements. You can't even remember what your own claims are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
And as to Israel splitting off from Judah rather that Judah 'emerging' out of Israel, this.
According to the Bible, the Kingdom of Israel (or Northern Kingdom) was one of the successor states to the older United Monarchy (also called the Kingdom of Israel), which came into existence in about the 930s BCE after the northern Tribes of Israel rejected Solomon's son Rehoboam as their king. Nine landed tribes formed the Northern Kingdom: the tribes of Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Ephraim and Manasseh. Ten Lost Tribes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is just a summary of what the Bible claims. This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my concerns with your model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Ephraim and Reuben I was thinking of. But NINE tribes? Leaving only three to Judah? Surely not.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
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.
