Pagan origins of Judaism

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I think you mean more or less incorrect. There's absolutely zero evidence of any kind at all for any of it. I checked out the link and the authors have repeated claims that have been refuted for decades. Like claiming that the Torah is more recent than the 1st millennium BC when all the textual evidence points to a date of composition in the 2nd millennium BC.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Argument by weblink not allowed per forum guidelines.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[One Bad Pig]

The consensus view in modern scholarship is that Yahweh was originally a minor storm/warrior deity that was imported into
Israel from a southern region (Edom/Midian). He was then accepted into certain Canaanite/Proto-Israelite pantheons as a
subordinate or of Son of El as is evident from the editing of Deut. 32:8-9. He was then eventually promoted over a long
complex political/ideological process to the status of the "only God." Here's the latest scholarly treatment -
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z5...page&q&f=false

And this is why I think sometimes that modern scholarship can be a load of hooey. This is all one big argument from silence, courtesy of the History of Religions school. No one reading the text at face value would get anything like this.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

And this is why I think sometimes that modern scholarship can be a load of hooey. This is all one big argument from silence, courtesy of the History of Religions school. No one reading the text at face value would get anything like this.

Do you know what an argument from silence is? I'm sure the experts that are trained in the historical method don't rely on just mere arguments from silence.

[shunyadragon]

And this is why I think sometimes that modern scholarship can be a load of hooey. This is all one big argument from silence, courtesy of the History of Religions school. No one reading the text at face value would get anything like this.

Actually, your argument is more an 'argument from silence,' because responses like this are totally lacking of substance of any meaningful references or discussion as to what the actual text says. Your ignoring the fact that there are many literal references to a polytheistic descriptions of a hierarchy of Gods in the OT. You also fail to respond to the facts that much of the text of the older sections of the OT are clearly taken from Canaanite, Ugarite and Babylonian cuneiform tablets.

[One Bad Pig]

Actually, your argument is more an 'argument from silence,' because responses like this are totally lacking of substance of any meaningful references or discussion as to what the actual text says.

Good thing I wasn't trying to make an argument.

Your ignoring the fact that there are many literal references to a polytheistic descriptions of a hierarchy of Gods in the OT.

No, there aren't. There are merely references to other gods, none of them positive.

You also fail to respond to the facts that much of the text of the older sections of the OT are clearly taken from Canaanite, Ugarite and Babylonian cuneiform tablets.

Taken from? Hardly. People are conflating similarity of style with dependence because that's what they want to see.

[shunyadragon]

Good thing I wasn't trying to make an argument.

That is obviously an argument from silence.

No, there aren't. There are merely references to other gods, none of them positive.

Odd, the citations that mention Gods do so in a very positive polytheistic/henotheistic context.

Taken from? Hardly. People are conflating similarity of style with dependence because that's what they want to see.

Some are direct quotations from earlier cuneiform, others use specific Canaanite terminology and description of the hierarchy of Gods. There are no known Hebrew scripture before ~1000 BCE. There are examples of evolving Canaanite/Hebrew writing but nothing of Biblical scripture. The oldest known scripture is ~600 BCE.

[psstein]

I think you mean more or less incorrect. There's absolutely zero evidence of any kind at all for any of it. I checked out the link and the authors have repeated claims that have been refuted for decades. Like claiming that the Torah is more recent than the 1st millennium BC when all the textual evidence points to a date of composition in the 2nd millennium BC.

I'd really suggest reading some of the more modern stuff. You're bringing up arguments from W.F. Albright, when a lot of his work has not stood up to scrutiny since the late 70s. I strongly disagree with most of what minimalists say, though it's now a fairly mainstream view that the patriarchal narratives date from the 7th century BC or later.

There's painfully little textual evidence suggesting a 2nd millennium BC date and mountains against it. Almost all critical scholars think the Hebrew Bible a product of the Persian period.

[psstein]

You have provided zero evidence to support your assertion. Still waiting . . .

Your playing blind man's bluff and blur . . .

All the evidence for the Torah before the 1st millennium BCE is in Canaanite and Babylonian cuneiform tablets.

Can you cite any archeological evidence of the existence of evidence of actually Hebrew Torah text prior to ~1200-1000 BCE?

The oldest text known is the silver scroll ~600 BCE.

What silver scroll are you referring to?

The oldest texts we have are the Dead Sea Scrolls, from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st CE.

[psstein]

And this is why I think sometimes that modern scholarship can be a load of hooey. This is all one big argument from silence, courtesy of the History of Religions school. No one reading the text at face value would get anything like this.

One of the Hebrew names for God, "El," is the same as the name of the Caananite high god. Reading the Hebrew at face value gives you insights that English won't.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

In the Ugaritic texts we read in the Baal myth of ‘the seventy sons of Asherah (Athirat)’ (KTU 1.4. VI.46). Since Asherah was (Canaanite) El’s consort, this therefore implies that El’s sons were seventy in number. The Dead Sea Scrolls version (original rendering) of Deut. 32:8-9 casts Yahweh as one of the ‘sons of El’ -

‘When Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men,
he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God/El.
Yahweh's portion was his people, Jacob was the lot of his inheritance.

The later scribes of the MT altered the phrase "sons of El" to "sons of Israel" to avoid the obvious polytheistic implications.

The connection of the Ugaritic texts and the Old Testament can be found in Deut. 32:8-9 (70 sons of El) as well as the table of 70 nations in Genesis 10. The Jews believed there to be seventy nations on earth, so that the sons of El were accordingly also seventy in number. Each nation was believed to belong to a patron deity. Just as Chemosh was the patron deity to the Moabites and Milcom to the Ammonites, Yahweh was believed to be the patron deity of the Israelites. After monotheism had become absolute, the gods were demoted to the status of angels which is reflected in the later Jewish apocalyptic concept involving seventy guardian 'angels' of the nations (Targum Pseudo-Jonathon on Deut 32.8; 1 En. 89.59-77, 90.22-27).

[Adrift]

What silver scroll are you referring to?

The oldest texts we have are the Dead Sea Scrolls, from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st CE.

He's talking about the scrolls found at Ketef Hinnom.

[shunyadragon]

He's talking about the scrolls found at Ketef Hinnom.

correct

[One Bad Pig]

One of the Hebrew names for God, "El," is the same as the name of the Caananite high god. Reading the Hebrew at face value gives you insights that English won't.

Cognates do not necessarily have the same meaning.

[shunyadragon]

Cognates do not necessarily have the same meaning.

The argument for the relationship between Canaanite/Babylonian heritage of Judaism is not only based on cognates, but nonetheless the text and context of the cogmates establishes this relationship.

[psstein]

He's talking about the scrolls found at Ketef Hinnom.

Ah, yes, thank you. I'm revealing that I don't read as widely in Hebrew Bible as I do in NT/Second Temple Judaism.

I was referring to the complete texts we have from the Judean desert (often known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, though some were found outside of Qumran).