No he sounded perfectly ratiuonal and he agrees with the consensus.
OK, if he sound perfectly rational, please explain in your own words how the differences between two stories show that one was borrowing from the other.
They were debunking an amateur apologist video saying the same as you and explaining why a cursory reading like that misses the point entirely.
A cursory reading ignores the details.
In
post#583, you misquote the Baal Cycle twice and remove all the surrounding words exaggerting the strength of the example. The Baal Cycle does not say "Leviathan", it's "LTN" which as I showed you could be "litan" though it seems most call it "lotan" and it could even be "litanu". Also, it's not Baal who defeats "LTN" in the story it's Anat. See here (
link ) and here (
link ).
Conflating Baal and Anat is standard in your conclusions, it fits that pattern of ignoring the details. By doing this, the comparisson between Yahweh and Baal is exaggerated because Yahweh is imagined to be a storm god, and Baal in the story is a storm God. Yahweh defeats leviathan ( in 1 verse ) and if Baal is incorrectly attributed to defeating "LTN" then that is a manufactured similarity. But, when the details are examined, it's not true.
Then when the claim is made that Yahweh defeats the same "monsters" as Baal does, that is also false on multiple fronts. The only similarity is the name. And it's not Baal is Anat. And Mot isn't a monster in the Hebrew bible. Even if Mot in the Baal Cycle is understood as "death", which isn't quite correct, Death is not eliminated just banished. The theme of the Baal Cycle is a cycle of seasons, Mot will certainly return. In the Hebrew bible, death is permanently and forever destroyed.
Further, we don't really know what some of these words mean. Even "BRH" which is translated as "fleeing" is a guess, I showed you two different translations which indicate this word's meaning is unknown. Translating it as "fleeing" is borrowing from the Hebrew bible. So, as stated, the meaning of these words are borrowed from Isaiah, then a claim is made based on this that Isaiah is instead borrowing. That is duplicitous scholarship.
The proper way to analyze this is to look at the actual text and compare them side by side. And I'll do that in response to your later posts. Doing that, it is clear there are 2 words that match, just two. And maybe a similar name.
Dever has dozens of peer-reviewed papers. Female Goddess, name isn't important. Evidence suggests this. Leading biblical archaeologist feels the evidence easily supports this.
Dever's conclusions are not agreed on, there is no concensus. And evidence doesn't suggest it. I went through the video pointed out the flaws.
- Similar iconography does not exist, these are imagined
- The crescent moon is not a crescent moon
- The lion throne is not a lion throne
- The inscriptions are forgeries
- The source of one of the inscriptions is not known, it was purchased
- The location of pagan artifacts are not in the temples
- Bamot are allowed, Dever doesn't know Jewish law
- Animal figurines are allowed, Dever doesn't know Jewish law
- The inscription on the arrowhead "lion lady" is incorrect
- The examples of other goddesses don't match the pillar figurines
- And most important, there is no concensus, this was repeated 5-10 times
What do you mean "admitting"? What is the evidence for early monotheism?
Yes. You admitted it twice. Let's be clear. I have said from the beginning that Judaism has always been minority position. You have now admitted twice that it existed as a minority position.
"Now, as to these temples, a leading biblical archeologist says these are not typical examples of what the religious climate was like.
file:///Users/joelrivard/Downloads/religions-10-00106.pdf
Still, a detailed study of the archaeological evidence on Israelite cult reveals that Israelite cultic buildings were extremely rare, both in absolute terms and when compared to other ancient Near Eastern societies, suggesting that cultic activity in temples was the exception rather than the norm and that typical Israelite cult was practiced in the household and in other, non-temple settings. Hence, the evidence suggests that ratherthan viewing temples, like the one in Arad, as exemplifying typical cultic activity, they should be viewed as exceptions that require a special explanation"
And also here:
"There is no evidence that monotheism was a big part of the religion. "
So, yes, you have admitted that monothesim existed as a minority position.
The other thing this shows, is that I have brought archeological evidence of monotheism repeatedly. And here you are asking for it again. That's fine.
The evidence is:
Temple Tel Arad
The Temple at Megiddo
The Elah Fortress
Notice now there's 3 good examples. I have already provided links for Tel Arad and Megiddo. So I only put links to the Elah fortress.
What's beautiful about the Temple Tel Arad and the Elah fortress are the Hebrew inscriptions that are found dating to around 950bce. At Tel Arad, there is evidence suggesting a scribal school at that location. See the link to the excavation report below.
More and more evidence of a distinct people with a distinct language prior to the Babylonian exile. Distinct written languages don't just magically poof into existence. Distinct people, with distinct language, and distinct religious practice would also likely have a distinct oral tradition.
Devers position was Judaism was what was written in 600BCE by temple religious leaders who re-imagined what Judaism should have looked like.
And yet Dr. Bowen and Dr. Davis said this is NOT what happened. It wasn't that at 600bce all of a sudden a group of elite gathered around and decided to "write" Judaism.
As he says the Temples do not reflect Judaism, they have art, often depictions of Gods and even female Gods.
Error, error, this isn't true. You are mushing together the details.
The temples in Israel do not have depictions of gods and female gods. The examples he showed in the video are not from Israel.
And the only art he brought was a lion figurine in the prone position. Here is the excavation report for the Temple Tel Arad. (
Link ). What you'll see is a good sample of pottery, some Hebrew inscriptions dating to around 950bce. And 1 single male lion figurine.
The other important detail is relating to the so-called matzevot. You may not have noticed this detail in Dever's presentation, so I won't dwell on it. But essentially, these stones were not actually "standing stones", the mistake is understandable based on the plaster. It appears that the stones were moved and plastered to potect them, but they were originally incense altars, not a designation for multiple deities.
Now, about the single, individual, lion figurine. Lions are 100% ok. Having it in the temple is a little concerning, but it's not a sign of idolatry. It's not pagan. It's certainly not evidence that multiple gods are being worshipped there.
Drawing or Sculpting Forbidden Images - Halachipedia
If you read this carefully, the concern is if the images are literally on the walls, on the ark ( aron kodesh ), on the curtain to the ark ( parochet ), or on the windows.
If one looks at the scriptural prohibtion, this is easy to see. In Exodus and Deuteronomy the prohibition is on a graven image. In other words, engraved, in Hebrew, a "pesel". The little figurine would not be a "pesel". It would be an "eeleel". Literally an idol. This is prohibited in leviticus 19:4. But a careful reading will see that the prohibition is making something which is worshipped.
If one researches the lion gods in the region, they are 1) overwhelmingly female 2) they are depicted standing or elevated 3) they are most often a hybrid human with a lion head. So a small figurine of a *prone* male lion which is in defference is not an idol.
Further, as I stated previously, Judah is known as the lion. And Lion iconography is certainly allowed, it's easy to find examples.
Obvious example is the lion on the Jerusalem crest:
Here's examples from Jewish tombstones:
The other example is on menorahs. The first image is a little difficult to see, but the other examples are much easier.
