• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The time of Judeo-Christian writings

Akivah

Well-Known Member
Not by the definition in MW and that is the meaning that I am using.

"having historical roots in both Judaism and Christianity"

This is selective reading on your part. From your own linked article below:
Rabbi Jack Moline, president of the Washington-based Interfaith Alliance, called the term a “generalization” and said it is one “Christians in particular use to put a patina of universality on a certain Christian culture in the United States.” Moline argued that the term does a disservice to interfaith dialogue and cooperation.

theologian Arthur Cohen argued that it is historically inaccurate to think of Judaism and Christianity as a shared tradition. Thinking otherwise is “an artificial gloss of reason.”

Two central critiques of the current usage of “Judeo-Christian values” are that the terms excludes people of other religions and atheists, and that it is historically fallacious to talk about a unified “Judeo-Christian tradition.”


Are you saying the OT is not about Judaism? Is the OT included in the Christian's Bible?

The OT is about Christianity's effort to replace Judaism.

Yes, the OT is included in the Christian bible. It has nothing to do with Judaism.

"Daniel Lapin, an Orthodox rabbi, author and radio show host in 1998 wrote a book with the subtitle, “An Orthodox rabbi insists that Judeo-Christian values are vital for our nation’s survival.” In an interview, Lapin defined “Judeo-Christian values” as “those values that are held commonly by Judaism and Christianity. For him, these include the ideas that “wisdom comes from an external source rather than from our hearts” and that “the nuclear family is the fundamental unit of society.”

Correct. But Rabbi Lapin is talking about VALUES, not bibles. My criticism of your OP is that you are applying the term 'Judeo-Christian' to the OT itself.

You have every right to disapprove if you wish, however, you do not have the right to tell me that I am wrong.

On the contrary, I have every right to express my opinion that you are wrong. Applying the term 'Judeo-Christianity' to the OT is wrong, as this Christian book has nothing to do with Judaism.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This is dishonest. You did not simply claim a relationship between the two (and nowhere did I reject the existence of one). Rather, you claimed the Genesis account to be no more that the earlier narrative achieved by "simply editing, adding some Hebrew culture and names."

Not dishonest at all. This is a common belief in the Documentary hypothesis. In fact the following describes the source as specifically the Ugarit Creation myth.

From: Genesis of Genesis: Where did the biblical story of Creation come from?

"The Hebrew Bible opens with an account of creation, starting with what is arguably the most memorable line in the entire tome: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

But this iconic account of God creating the world is not the only account of creation in the Bible. If anything, it seems to be the most recent in a succession of creation myths held sacred by the ancient Hebrews over the eons.
Baal and the sea monsters

The oldest creation myth in the Bible isn't in the Book of Genesis at all. It is alluded to in the Book of Isaiah, in the Book of Job and in Psalms.

The clearest and fullest biblical account of this ancient myth appears in Psalm 74: “For God... Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness. Thou didst cleave the fountain and the flood: thou driedst up mighty rivers. The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun. Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter” (74:12-17).

An archaeological discovery made in the 20th century shed light on this strange account of creation, revealing it for what it is: an abridged version of the Canaanite creation myth."

You have yet to actually present your case on what you believe concerning the Documentary Hypothesis, and the origins and the authorship of the Pentateuch.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The following is an excellent citation from a Yale Course on the Old Testament With section covering the documentary hypothesis covering the origins of the Genesis creation myth.

From: Open Yale Courses

RLST-145: INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT (HEBREW BIBLE)
Lecture 5 - Critical Approaches to the Bible: Introduction to Genesis 12-50 [September 20, 2006]


Chapter 1. Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis and Characteristics of Biblical Sources
Gunkel began to focus on small little units. He was interested in small units within the four primary documents, and he identified genres or forms, what he called forms. The German word is a Gattung, Gattungen, forms. He would identify these small units, and that gave rise to the name of this approach, which is form criticism. He believed that what he was doing was identifying older, pre-literary forms that had been taken up and incorporated by the literary sources, by J, E, P and D.

Examples of the kind of form, or Gattung, that he would identify are things like a hymn, a proverb — we often have biblical texts quoting proverbs that seem to be folk sayings — laws, rituals, folk stories of a particular type, poems, legends, songs, fragments of mythology. So for example he says of Genesis 6:1-4, a passage that you've read:

When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, the divine beings saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them. The Lord said, "My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years." It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim [these giants of some kind] appeared on earth — when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring [these giants, these Nephilim]. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
That's just stuck in there, in Genesis 6:1-4. This is an older fragment of a mythology or a legend which is put into place here. It's explaining the origin of heroes and great men of renown in the old days.

He also says that there are etiological stories. We've talked about those — legends that give the origin of a name, or a ritual, or an institution. There are different types of etiological stories. He says there are ethnological legends that will give you the story accounting for the origin of a particular people: so the Moabites for example, and the Ammonites — not a flattering story at all following the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Obviously the Israelites didn't care for those people very much and gave them a pretty nasty origin.

We also have etymological legends, because they're explaining the name of something. It's given this particular name because of an etymomological connection with some event earlier.

So all of these things, he argues, are probably older existing traditions that have been taken up and adapted by the biblical writer, and they may preserve some historical reminiscence. More importantly, more important then the actual events that they might be reporting, is the fact that behind each of these is some sort of function. Each one of these did some sort of cultural work, it had some function or setting in life. That's what we can discover when we isolate these forms: this setting in life. That helps us learn something about ancient Israelite society or culture way before the tenth century. That's Gunkel's claim.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Actually no, among academic Biblical historians there is not a significant disagreement. They are by far dominantly Biblical Minimalists, and they seriously question the authorship and historical accuracy of the Pentateuch, and the gospels. They for the most part believe they are second and third source edited texts of unknown authorship.
This is what I meant. There are no indisputable facts when it comes to time and authorship, as we really don't know who the authors were.
The dominant view among Christian apologists is Biblical Maximalism, and they for the most part believe in the historical accuracy and traditional authorship of the Pentateuch and the gospels.
Well, unless they can present evidence backing these claims up, their opinions are next to worthless.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Thanks for the comments, those figures are close to what I believe with the exception of "NT =70-95AD". There are some Bible scholars that seem to think some of Paul's writings could be as early as 50-55 however, I have not seen anything that irrefutably proves that thought but I tend to agree with it.
Why do you believe that?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No, but to claim that the "OT" has nothing to do with Judaism is stupid at best.

I believe it is a legitimate rejection by Jews of the Christian Biblical Old Testament. I am not as harsh, but when you go through the process, and interpretive translation by Christians in developing their Old Testament it no longer is the Jewish Torah, The resulting interpretive prophesies and the Trinitarian interpretation looses the Hebrew text.

All I will acknowledge is the common heritage.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well, unless they can present evidence backing these claims up, their opinions are next to worthless.

I may modify my statement to make it clearer. It is ALL the 'fundamentalist' evangelists who believe in Biblical Maximalist view. I believe it is clear now. The other Christian 'moderate' apologists generally accept the Biblical Minimalist academic view.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I believe it is a legitimate rejection by Jews of the Christian Biblical Old Testament. I am not as harsh, but when you go through the process, and interpretive translation by Christians in developing their Old Testament it no longer is the Jewish Torah, The resulting interpretive prophesies and the Trinitarian interpretation looses the Hebrew text.

All I will acknowledge is the common heritage.

This was his claim.
Yes, you did. Point 1 of your OP.



Yes, that is incorrect. The Old and New Testaments are christian works, neither have anything to do with Judaism. Calling these books 'Judeo-Christian' is flat out wrong.

This was your acknowledgement:
I will acknowledge is the common heritage

This is the term that the argument was over: Judeo-Christian as used in the title.


This is the definition of said term
dictionary.com said:
of or relating to the religious writings, beliefs, values, or traditions held in common by Judaism and Christianity.

Having a common heritage is a relation.

Therefore, by your own admission the term is correct. This entails that Akivah's statement was an exaggeration at best. I don't know if you want to discuss whether an exaggeration can be a "legitamate rejection" or if you would like to discuss the definition of "stupid" in order to somehow qualify your post, but I think the general point was that nitpicking the use of Judeo-Christian with regard to the Old testament is not meaningful in the context of this discussion.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
@Ted Evans @Curious George @shunyadragon @Deidre

How the J source sought to create propaganda for the kingdom of Judah

During the time of the two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, the author of what is today called the J source in the pentateuch wrote his version of the shared origin myth of the Jewish kingdoms in a way to elevate Judah and position it as the preeminent kingdom. Much of the J sources motivativations come from this. Here are a few examples from the book "The Bible with sources revealed".

In J Abraham lives in Hebron/Mamre (Gen 13:18; 18:1). Hebron was Judah’s capital.
In J the scouts whom Moses sends see only Hebron and other locations in Judah; they see nothing of what became the northern kingdom of Israel (Num 17–20,22–24).


In J—and only in J—Judah is a significant figure. There is a narrative about him, the story of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38). It ends with the birth of Peres, ancestor of the clan from which the kings of Judah were traced. Jacob’s deathbed blessing favors Judah and promises his descendants the scepter. Judah’s wife is bat šûa‘ (daughter of Shua), paralleling the name of the wife of David (bat šeba‘—Bathsheba) and mother of all the kings of Judah through her son Solomon.In J Judah is the brother who saves Joseph from their other brothers’ plans to kill him (Gen 37:26–27; 42:22); it is Judah who assures Jacob that he will see that Benjamin will safely go to and return from Egypt (Gen 43:8–9), and it is Judah who speaks for his brothers and defends Benjamin to Joseph in Egypt (44:18–34).

In J the stories of the births and namings of the brothers cover only the first four: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. That is, it reaches only as far as Judah! Moreover, only Judah, out of these four, actually survived as a community with a land of its own. Also, in J there is a report that Reuben has sex with his father Jacob’s concubine; and in J there is a story in which Simeon and Levi massacre the men of Shechem. These acts are singled out in Jacob’s deathbed blessings when he bypasses these three oldest brothers and promises the monarchy to Judah.

In J the ark is important (Num 10:33–36; 14:41–44), but in E it is never mentioned. The ark was located in Judah, not in Israel. According to 1 Kings, the symbols of God’s presence in Judah were golden cherubs placed over the ark, whereas the symbols of that presence in Israel were two golden calves, erected by Jeroboam I. Cherubs are mentioned in J but not in E. And in J, in the Ten Commandments, the commandment against idols is stated as forbidding molten gods (Exod 34:17). The golden calves of Israel were molten and are thus forbidden; but the golden cherubs of Judah were not molten. (They were carved from wood and then gold plated.)


These are the kinds of evidence that convinces historians that the 5 books were a composite from earlier sources that were written more with a political and nationalist agenda rather than accurate recounting of the past from a single authority.
 
I have some ideas. If they were really prophets (and although it's possible I doubt it) they could have been written all by the same person, one of the first people. Here's another idea. None of the people can be verified because it's all made up (although again it's possible the characters in the Bible were types of people or a group of people or symbolic of something) . For example, the serpent in the new testament many call the devil but was never actually called that. I think (since snakes have between 200-400 ribs) it may have been subconsciously Included in the story by the author. I think many pairs were placed on earth at creation with their own language and land (or country as we would call it) but because they were all far apart from each other they assumed they were alone.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Show me how. You think Jews do not acknowledge a relation between the two religions?

I acknowledge a relationship as a Baha'i as in the relationship between all religions as a common spiritual heritage of humanity in progressive revelation.

You have to realize that Christians in turn reject a relationship and common heritage with Islam, and other religions of the world. In turn Islam rejects any relationship whatsoever with the Baha'i Faith.

Also the historical relationship between Judaism and Christianity is not good.


'Having nothing to do with' means unequivocally 'having no relationship.'

Actually, this is not a good description of the relationship problem. There is of course a historical relationship. Jews will not claim that they 'Have nothing to do with' Christianity.

Nonetheless there is a problem with the concept that Christian Bible with a Christian interpreted translation of Hebrew sacred literature called the 'OLD TESTAMENT' represents Judeo-Christian heritage when the Jews consider the Christian Biblical OT a corrupted document, and interpreted in a way that is heretical.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I acknowledge a relationship as a Baha'i as in the relationship between all religions as a common spiritual heritage of humanity in progressive revelation.

You have to realize that Christians in turn reject a relationship and common heritage with Islam, and other religions of the world. In turn Islam rejects any relationship whatsoever with the Baha'i Faith.

Also the historical relationship between Judaism and Christianity is not good.




Actually, this is not a good description of the relationship problem. There is of course a historical relationship. Jews will not claim that they 'Have nothing to do with' Christianity.

Nonetheless there is a problem with the concept that Christian Bible with a Christian interpreted translation of Hebrew sacred literature called the 'OLD TESTAMENT' represents Judeo-Christian heritage when the Jews consider the Christian Biblical OT a corrupted document, and interpreted in a way that is heretical.
Yet it is related to Judaism. So, it is Judeo-Christian. Objecting to a literal use of a word in favor of a figurative use while not conceding the literal use is not honest.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yet it is related to Judaism. So, it is Judeo-Christian. Objecting to a literal use of a word in favor of a figurative use while not conceding the literal use is not honest.

I am not going for a literal, figurative, or other selective use of the terminology. I am acknowledging the problems of the use from the Jewish perspective.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I am not going for a literal, figurative, or other selective use of the terminology. I am acknowledging the problems of the use from the Jewish perspective.
The use of the word Judeo-christian for the OT? The word means that the OT is related to Judaism and Christianity. That is all it means. And you literally aknowledged that it is related. To say it is not related because of differences in interpretation is a figurative use of "not related."
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I am not going for a literal, figurative, or other selective use of the terminology. I am acknowledging the problems of the use from the Jewish perspective.
Forget it, i am being pedantic, I am sorry.

And taking away from what is turning out to be an informative thread.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
You have failed to cite any contrary archaeological evidence. For example: There is not any archaeological evidence such as texts that date before ~600 BCE.

Appealing to logic is 'soft ground' and is always dependent on the presuppositions of a given logical argument. For this appeal to logic to be successful the presuppositions have to agreed by both sides, and this is unlikely.



Again, this fundamentally is an assertion that the authority of the text proves the authority of the text. Without any outside evidence this is a circular argument, and a classic fallacy.

1. It's not a circular argument as two texts by two different authors are under discussions. You of course would date Exodus to circa 600-250 BCE and the gospels hundreds of years later.

2. It's not a circular argument because Jesus Christ only speaks truth.

3. There are architectural details given for structures in the Tanakh that archaeology has confirmed as existing long before 600 BC. Being that you don't even believe Jesus Christ reveals the truth in the gospels, I have and had no desire to pull these citations for you so that you can claim coincidence.

Repent.
 
Top