• 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!

JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Early settlements showed goddess figurines that said Yahweh and his Ashera.
Nope. They didn't say that, Joel. Same source as above: Judean Pillar Figurines

Your souce didn't say it, these firgurines didn't say it, and one of your sources makes conclusions based on hairstyle. Keep going!
That would be one line of evidence.
That line is a fail. No figurines have been found with inscriptions.
. It's how history is done
By inventing and misquoting?
Don't tell me you believe in a deity from a book and you are talking about weak evidence.
Ad hominem is the sign of a weak argument. Keep going!
You are talking about evidence and I haven't seen anything about Canaanite language except things that suggest the language was familiar and the name of the supreme deity was not in question. Please post a Phd explaining the language is not possible to parse and "El" is a fabrication.
Please post a PHD showing how El and Yahweh are derived from the Canaanite written text including how the ugarite alphabet was decoded?

Besides, it's a bit silly to claim that a normal person who is familiar with semetic languages cannot identify a weak point in a linguistic claim.

I brought you some information, I showed you that I didn't make it up. Now, if you can't bring a PHD yourself, then please show me where what I brought is faulty logic, or a misinterpretation of the facts.
"Mycenaean, Cretan, Hurrian, and Mesopotamian. Most of what is known about Canaanite religion is derived from a series of tablets discovered at Ras Shamra. The principal god was El, but the jurisdiction over rainfall and fertility was delegated to Baal, or Hadad. Other important deities included Resheph, lord of plague and the nether world; Kothar, the divine craftsman; Asherah, consort of El; and Astarte, goddess of fertility.
Congrats on the copy-paste! It's "derived" how was it derived? What assumptions were made?
Based on later evidence from scripture and early finds it looks like Yahweh had a consort Ashera during the polytheist times before monotheism became important to them.
Uh-huh. Scripture showing a consort. Please bring this scripture.
And it looks like a consort if a bunch of assumptions are made.
Yahweh was a national deity and a warrior deity so this was a different concept than supreme God of everything.
Please refer to Exodus, the story of the plagues, what is communicated by this? Yahweh is God supreme, God of everything. Keep going!
Well first, - "
“The fact that they are publishing it in the news before being published scientifically is a bit off,” said one established academic. Another cautioned that since he hasn’t been able to view the inscription himself, it was impossible to know whether the claims were factual or a case of “overdeveloped imagination.”

"However, the researchers have not yet published the find in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Likewise, they are not yet releasing clear images and scans of the inscription for other academics to weigh in on."

"Also challenging the secure dating of the object is the fact that the tablet was not discovered during a carefully excavated stratified context. Rather, it was found during a 2019 re-examination of earth from a dump pile formed during 1980s excavations at Mount Ebal that were held under Prof. Adam Zertal. The earth had been dry-sifted then, and in 2019 Stripling’s team resifted it using a wet sifting technique that was developed at the Temple Mount Sifting Project, where Stripling once worked. Stripling current heads ongoing excavations at biblical Shiloh."

and


"Archaeologists approached by The Times of Israel were unwilling to comment on the record until they viewed the hopefully forthcoming academic paper and scans."
Well, this time you did snip out the parts that explain why it was brought to press early.
Why would you be looking for an explanation of something not yet reviewed by scholars?
It's new. That's all. You ignore it because it's new. OK. That's fine. No it hasn't been fully researched yet, that's fair.
Something is off here. You are accusing me of a non fair and balanced approach yet I'm just going by William Dever, Fransesca Stavrakopoulou, Dr Josh Bowen and a few other Phd academics. This is their opinion?????
What I'm saying is, you're parroting their opinion like gospel. And when confronted with this, you just post more opinion without addressing the issue. Hopefully you will post some PHD material showing the way EL and Yahweh are derived from the ugarite texts. Or instead you'll look at the information I brought and show me where this information is lacking.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I don't know why you keep saying this even after I addressed this? No one is saying who the original authors are. Just not the Israelites because they emerged from Canaan around `1200 BCE. The Mesopotamian myths are far older and possibly taken from Sumer. How would Israelites be around in Sumer?
The mesopotamian myths are older than Hebrew myths because????? I know, I know, because the scholars say so, right? But that's only based on who wrote it first, right?
Yes once I read some of the flood myth I see it isn't related to Noah.
The point is, we know when foreign people arrived on Hawaii.
Gilamesh and Noah are obvious matches. If it's vague then why would syncretism be suspected? All scholarship agrees Noah and Gilamesh are a match, why are you opposed to this?
Hear me. They are similar, but the direction of influence is not esablished. The. Direction. Of. INFLUENCE.
Gilamesh.
The Epic of Gilgamesh (/ˈɡɪlɡəmɛʃ/)[2] is an epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia, and is regarded as the earliest surviving notable literature and the second oldest religious text, after the Pyramid Texts. The literary history of Gilgamesh begins with five Sumerian poems about Bilgamesh (Sumerian for "Gilgamesh"), king of Uruk, dating from the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2100 BC).[

No one in historical scholarship believes the Israelites were around during this time. What are you even talking about?
Judaism began as an individual. So, saying "The israelites weren't around" is irrelevant.
The Hawaii myth is a flood myth but not much like Gilamesh or Noah. The similarities between those are too much to be coincidence. This is a known fact.
So, they're similar. They're also different.
Yes but the prediction of a coming savior and general resurrection at the end of the world is PErsian. It was during the 2nd Temple Period the OT was canonized and revised. They borrowed Persian myths.
A coming savior is Christian. And the Hawaiin myth has coincidences, but the Hebrew bibe can't? :rolleyes:
Belief in a world Saviour (Mary Boyce)

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil.c and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6
Another irrelevant paragraph! There is nothing here about the Hebrew bible or ancient Judaism
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism.

Here she is pointing out that the Jewish writers changed Yahweh to be just like Ahura Mazda. Yahweh becoming supreme is from Persian mythology.

These paragraphs explain what was taken by Judaism and Christianity from Zoroastrianism. Christianity took more. So Judaism was syncretic with the Persian religion, so what? What is the big deal?
Where's the change? This is precisely how i has always been described.
No, we need a Hebrew Bible PhD here. At 3:45 Professor Stavrakopoulou will explain that during the Persian period the OT was canonized and re-branded into a new Judaism. They did indeed use Persian mythology. Again, so what?
In order to show "re-branded" and "new" you'll need evidence of the old. I'll watch the video and see if its there.
Not really. They did not have Persian beliefs, then the Persians invaded and they canonized the OT and suddenly they adopt all these Persian ideas. Messianic saviors, freewill, resurrection at the end of the world.
We'll see if the "old" beliefs are somehow described and how they were discovered. Please remove the "messianc savior" from the list.
No, as F.S. says and Boyce, they were influenced by them. The Persian period is when they decided to also focus on monotheism and blamed Yahweh for "sleeping" during the invasion. Monotheism was also a Persian theology.
Monotheism



presenting Zoroastrianism to Muslim Iran he was naturally happy to stress the theory of Zoroaster's rigid monotheism, without any taint even of theological dualism. 'The contest is only between the spirits of goodness and evil within us in the world .... Good thoughts, good words, and good deeds, stand as the fundamental principles of the religion of Zarathustra. And this is a perennial source of glory and pride to Iran and the Iranians, that once in that land one of its sons gave this grand message to humanity, to keep themselves aloof even from bad thoughts' (pp. 48, 50-1). The Zoroastrians warmly welcomed Pur-Davud's efforts to win recognition for the nobility of their faith among those who had so long despised it as polytheism and fire-worship.

Other scholars have written about this as well, Hundley, Sanders, Wright:

During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.

Heaven - Wikipedia
And yet, the only evidence of these ideas is in commentary, not scripture, with the exception of free-will and the ressurection of the dead. I am not arguing that people say these things. people have been saying things about Jews for what feels like forever.
She is explaining why the Persians were liked and why their theology became part of Judaism.


Boyce says it directly here:
Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence, since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of the material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice. According to him, - salvation for the individual depended on the sum of his thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine Being to alter this. With such a doctrine, belief in the Day of Judgment had its full awful significance, with each man having to bear the responsibility for the fate of his own soul, as well as sharing in responsibility for the fate of the world. Zoroaster's gospel was thus a noble and strenuous one, which called for both courage and resolution on the part of those willing to receive n.( pg 29 Zorastrians Their Beliefs and Practices)
Again, the claim is it is borrowed. I hear you, there's a claim.
This is standard historicity? Many many scholars write about this, it's not disputed. Fundamentalists dispute it, who are not historians but cannot admit their religion isn't direct from a God. That is the only reason to object to scholarship. Not a valid reason. Unless you have evidence of God.
The reason to dispute it because the underlying assumptions are weak.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
@dybmh, some good point of view on your last several posts. but was not the OT writers influenced by God himself, especially concerning prophecies? yes, or no.

the reason why I ask is this, if some of the prophecies are fulfilled, and some are not, is it's because our "OWN" influences that prohibits us from understanding the TRUTH.

for example, in another topic, concerning "Shiloh" was not that prophecy fulfilled in parts as with in his comings and returns? yes Returns with an "s" at the end of returns.

point, Genesis 49:10 "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." Genesis 49:11 "Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ***'s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:" Genesis 49:12 "His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk."

question, "if the Lord Jesus is the Ordinal Last, THE ONE TO COME, (THE MESSIAH, SHILOH), did this verse say when he come then the GATHERING OF THE PEOPLE BE...... WAS IT AT HIS FIRST COMING, OR HIS SECOND COMING IN FLESH?".

it has to be at his second coming in Glorified flesh. because verses 11 & 12 was fulfilled, and being fulfilled as we speak ... verse 11, has been fulfilled. and verse 12 even while we speak... ongoing until his return in his Parousia.

remember, Jacob said these things take place in the LAST DAYS, "s" on the end of Days. Hebrews 1:1 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets," Hebrews 1:2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

so, the Son is the END TIMES. verse 11, fulfilled, and verse 12 is being fulfilled by the Holy Spirit, the Lord Jesus himself in his eyes darker than wine, and his teeth white with milk...... the church age. and according to Hosea 6:2 we are near the END of DAYS, "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight."

but take this in effect, Matthew 24:16 "Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:" Matthew 24:17 "Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:" Matthew 24:18 "Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes." Matthew 24:19 "And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" Matthew 24:20 "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:" Matthew 24:21 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." Matthew 24:23 "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not." Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Matthew 24:25 "Behold, I have told you before."

winter has ARRIVED. if one knows the Spiritual meaning.

so, is it not Jesus the Christ who is the Messiah? the Ordinal Last..... Who is the END, who also is the Beginning? yes, as Ordinal First he is Father, but as the Ordinal Last he is "SHILOH" to come, the Son.

read this post carefully again. if you have any question, just ask.

101G
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
the point of the lines is verbatim. She returned.
I'm not sure you know what verbatim means.
No, they both use 7.
Oh, so you're ignoring all the differences, but see the number 7 in both, and that's verbatim?
Verbatim, sweet savour
sweet savour. What is up with this denial?
Not as much as sweet savour
Your faithful devotion to these two words is noted. But, sweet savour isn't in the Hebrew bible. That's not what the story says.

Here's the Hebrew, where's the word sweet?

כאוַיָּ֣רַח יְהֹוָה֘ אֶת־רֵ֣יחַ הַנִּיחֹ֒חַ֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶל־לִבּ֗וֹ לֹ֣א אֹ֠סִ֠ף לְקַלֵּ֨ל ע֤וֹד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ בַּֽעֲב֣וּר הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֠י יֵ֣צֶר לֵ֧ב הָֽאָדָ֛ם רַ֖ע מִנְּעֻרָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־אֹסִ֥ף ע֛וֹד לְהַכּ֥וֹת אֶת־כָּל־חַ֖י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִֽׂיתִי

The aroma was *comforting*.

BDB, נִיחֹחַ 1

What is up with this denial? Are you a fundamentalist?
What's with the lack of attention to detail?
This is the same. Day 7 the storm ended. Exact same thing.
No, you're wrong. Everyone knows it rained for forty days and forty nights.

I told you this before, but, somehow you missed it.

Genesis 7:12

12 And the rain was upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
The stories are verbatim in terms of lines, plot and some wording.
Sure, verbatim if one ignores all the differences.
:rolleyes:
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
But in the version that was copied he died. So not immortality. The version they copied from he died.
Riiiight, you get to pick the version of the myth that fits your theory, but I can't pick the version of the Hawaiian myth that matches my theory. Classic hypocrisy.
By all means, write a paper and get it peer-reviewed and change everyones mind if you don't agree.
Nothing you've brought is peer reviewed.
The
rabbinic scholar in the quote below has said what you are saying, both stories probably draw from another flood story that was in Mesopotamia.
Yup, so why the repeat post? You already brought this, I already commented that this refutes your claim, it says that Noah's flood wasn't copied from Gilgamesh.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Because if it's modern it was changed after missionaries went there with the Bible. Which is what happened.
This makes absolutely no sense. In order to show something changed, the before and after needs to be compared. There is no early version to compare to, Joel. That's why this whole notion that Judaism was "rebranded" after Babylonia is a fail. It doesn't matter if the ugarites wrote first, that doesn't mean Judaism borrowed nor adapted, nor changed anything.
Every scholar says Noah was written with Gilamesh as a source.
Nope. Not every. You just brought a scholar that said it wasn't. See below.
In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition
So, no, not every scholar says Noah was written with Gilgamesh as a source. You just flip-flopped in consecutive replies.
Why do you keep saying that Gilamesh could be influenced by Jewish anything? This is bizarre? They came from Canaanites around 1200 BCE, Mesopotamian myths are 1000 years older? Why would you say this?
Who was the first person to believe in:
  1. One solitary god
  2. A law giver god
  3. A creator god
  4. A god who reveals itself to people
Honest answer: you don't know. No one really knows.

Prove me wrong. Bring a peer reviewed anything that claims to know who came up with these ideas first. They might say who wrote the down first, they might say when the idea became popular. But no one can claim to know who's idea it was, and when that idea was conceived.

That's why keep saying it, because, the first person with those ideas, we might as well label them a Jew.

Whether the story is true or not is irrelevant. Judaism began when a person believed in a single creator god, who gave a law / laws, and believed this creator revealed itself to them.

Someone believed this first. Maybe it was first conceived late, and written after the Babylonian exile. Or maybe it was an old story passed down orally. You don't know, no one knows. That's the point.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
No it isn't. Genesis is known to be using older myths. It doesn't matter what myth and who. It's syncretic religious mythology. That is all.
It's a theory. You've made your claim. The flood stories are similar, but you're ignoring the details.
My claim is Genesis and many other parts of scripture are syncretic myths. That is all.
Your claim was Genesis was originally conceived by the Sumerians. Good to see you've rolled that back.

Your watered down claim is noted. But there's nothing showing a direction of influence. All of Genesis may be coming from one oral tradition. And those others simply copied elements from this tradition.

Any other conclusion is ignoring that ancient myths begin as orally passed stories, and is over reliant on who wrote the story first.
Genesis stories were borrowed. Eden, man from clay, Noah, all borrowed. Job has a Babylonian counterpart
The direction of influence is assumed.
No religion isn't syncretic?
No one comes up with innovative ideas? Never heard of an epiphany?
The only peoplke who believe that think a God in the sky dictated the stories.
And you have esp and can read everyone's mind, and you are all knowing. That's the only way for someone to claim that. :rolleyes:
And there are no Gods.
Please try to stay on topic.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
This is a bunch of crank.
No it's not. You can't refute it, so you copy paste without addressing the issue.
The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.
Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.


Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.
Another copy paste without addressing a single thing I said.
The Mesopotamian writings are dated to FAR before the Israelites. Your suggestion about the Sumerians copying Jewish people is ridiculous.
Please source a historical scholar who says the Israelites were writing the same time as the Mesopotamians or around when the Sumerians were?
Look at that! You admitted it. Your conclusion is based on who wrote it first! Good for you.

I never claimed the Jewish people were writing their stories, I said it was oral story telling. That's a straw man.
That is complete crank. You keep talking about sources yet come up with wildly bizarre concepts (Jews in Sumer) and NEVER source anything
Not true. I sourced the Hawaiian myth, I sourced the story of Noah's flood and showed you the details you're ignoring. I use your own sources to refute you. And I sourced the assumptions made to come up with El and Yahweh in ugarites writing. I also sourced criticism of Dever's conclusion about the figurines. You just copy paste so much, it takes a long time to go through it and point out the flaws.
Then you attack actual summaries of the consensus of scholarship. These are cheap fundamentalist tactics.
It's just critical analysis. Most people probably ignore your posts, so you're not accustomed to someone actually reviewing what you're saying.

You're reactions and personal attacks are understandable.
Psuedo-scientific crank apologetics. You ask for sources then make wild claims based on fantasy mythology concepts.
I'm not asking for sources, I'm asking for engagement of grey-matter. I'm asking for attention to detail.
Then claim I haven't addresses a "logical "problem, as if saying the word "logic" means you are making sense.
Yes, there's a logical problem assuming direction of influence. That problem has not been addressed. It makes perfect sense. Ancient myths begin as oral story telling. Everyone knows this. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.
Gilamesh was a Sumerian story translated to Babylonian. Again you suggest there were Jewish people? There were not? which PhD historian said this?
Sure I suggest it depends on how Jewish is refined. I'll see if I can find something.
The Mesopotamian writings are dated, do you think scholars who study this for a living don't know what they are doing?
I think it's always good to examine assumptions. The reliance on the date of the writing is noted. Thank you for confirming the flaw I have been talking about.

Let me say it again. Everyone knows that ancient myths began as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.
Oh Christianity is syncretic but your religion isn't. Wow, so convienant!
Your inability to address my examples are noted.
Christianity has a motive for syncretism. Judaism does not and it has a substantial list of unique practices. Your own source confirms Jews staunchly stick to our traditions.
I'm guessing you think Yahweh called down from space and told these stories to people? Is that what the issue is?
My beliefs are irrelevant.
Genesis, messianic predictions and other Persian myths I touched on as well as other writings. It isn't all copied? No religion is completely just a copy of older religions, you just set up a huge strawman here. I have mentioned what is syncretic.
The words and doings of Yahweh are also syncretic. Everything said about Yahweh and his action, words, doings, are all similar of Gods thousands of years before. A mezuzah is a Jewish invention. This isn't complicated.
Similar, yes But who borrowed from whom is still just guesswork.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh, the legendary subject of the Epic of Gilgamesh, is said to be Lugalbanda’s son. Gilgamesh is believed to have been born in Uruk around 2700 B.C.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is considered to be the earliest great work of literature and the inspiration for some of the stories in the Bible. In the epic poem, Gilgamesh goes on an adventure with a friend to the Cedar Forest, the land of the Gods in Mesopotamian mythology. When his friend is slain, Gilgamesh goes on a quest to discover the secret of eternal life, finding: "Life, which you look for, you will never find. For when the gods created man, they let death be his share, and life withheld in their own hands."

King Lugalzagesi was the final king of Sumer, falling to Sargon of Akkad, a Semitic people, in 2334 B.C. They were briefly allies, conquering the city of Kish together, but Lugalzagesi’s mercenary Akkadian army was ultimately loyal to Sargon.
More copy paste without addressing the issues.
I have never ever seen historical or archaeological information putting the Israelites before 1200 BCE and there is no reason to suspect they were around.
Please source a historical expert who would find a reason to find them in Sumer.
The Babylonians and then Hittites were around, then Israel. Never heard anything that contested this without proper evidence.
It depends on how one defines a Jew. Who was the first Jew? The person who believed in 1 creator lawgiver god who revealed itself to them. No one really knows who first came up with the idea or when.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Dr. Ehrman's so called contradiction. Concerning who was High priest when David ate the showbread. Was Ahimelech the father or the Son of Abiathar? - BibleAsk

101G.

Bibleask isn't sourced, not PhD historical scholars at all. You cannot debunk scholars with amateur Pastors. Ehrman brings up some interesting theological contradictions in the lecture.
The Composition of the Pentateuch is a scholarly work on early narrative problems.

"
Contradictions in the pentateuchal narrative come in a variety of forms, from the smallest of details to the most important of historical claims. On the minor end are ostensibly simple disagreements about the names of people and places. Is Moses’s father-in-law named Reuel (Exod 2:18) or Jethro (Exod 3:1)? Is the mountain in the wilderness where Yahweh appeared to the people called Sinai (Exod 19:11) or Horeb (Exod 3:1; Deut 1:6)? Of somewhat more significance are disagreements about where, when, and even why an event took place. In Numbers 20:23–29, Aaron dies on Mount Hor; according to Deuteronomy 10:6, however, he dies in Moserah. In Numbers 3–4, after Moses has descended from the mountain and is receiving the laws, the Levites are assigned their cultic re- sponsibilities; but according to Deuteronomy 10:8, the Levites were set apart at a site in the wilderness called Jotbath.10 In Numbers 20:2–13, Moses is forbidden from crossing the Jordan because of his actions at the waters of Meribah, when
he brought forth water from the rock; but then according to his own words in Deuteronomy 1:37–38, Moses was prohibited from entering the promised land not because of anything he did, but because of the sins of the people in the epi- sode of the spies. Major contradictions, with important historiographical and theological ramifications, are also present in the text. The premier example of these is the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2: in what order was the world cre- ated? was it originally watery or dry? were male and female created together, or was woman made from man’s rib? is man the culmination of creation, or the beginning? Other examples are equally problematic. For the cult: was the Tent of Meeting in the center of the Israelite camp (Num 2–3) and did Yahweh dwell there constantly (Exod 40:34–38), or was it situated well outside the camp (Exod 33:7), and does Yahweh descend to it only to speak with Moses (Exod 33:8–11)? For prophecy: could there be other prophets like Moses after his death (Deut 18:15), or not (Deut 34:10–12)? These contradictions, from minor to major, are difficult, and frequently impossible, to reconcile.


The second category of narrative inconsistency is doublets: stories that are told twice. In order to qualify as a literarily problematic repetition, two passages must not only tell a similar story, but do so in a way that renders them mutually exclusive: they must be events that could not possibly happen more than once. Thus one of the most often cited doublets in the Pentateuch, the patriarch pass- ing off his wife as his sister in a foreign land (Gen 12:10–20; 20; 26:6–11)—which is actually a triplet—does not count. As hard as it is to believe that Abraham would pull the same trick twice, and that Isaac would do the same a generation later, there is nothing in these stories that prohibits such a reading. The two stories about Abraham and Sarah are set in different regions (Egypt and Gerar), with different characters (Pharaoh and Abimelech), while the story about Isaac and Rebekah, although set in Gerar with Abimelech, obviously features differ- ent protagonists at a different time. On the grounds of narrative alone, all three stories could well belong to a single author.

There are truly problematic doublets, however. The city of Luz is renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 28:19, as he is on his way from his father’s house to stay with his uncle Laban. The city of Luz is again renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 35:15, on his way from his uncle Laban’s house to rejoin his father in Canaan. (Not to mention that Abraham had already built an altar at Bethel, already not called Luz, in Gen 12:8.) Similarly, the site of Beersheba is given its name on the basis of the oath sworn (nišba ̄ ‘) between Abraham and Abimelech in Genesis 21:31. It is named again by Isaac in Genesis 26:33, on the basis of the oath sworn between him and Abimelech. Jacob’s own name is changed to Israel when he wrestles with the divine being in Genesis 32:29. Jacob’s name is
changed to Israel again by God at Bethel in Genesis 35:10. These doublets are mutually exclusive: in each case, the naming or renaming is recounted as if it is happening for the first and only time.

More striking are the narratives relating the thirst of the Israelites in the wil- derness. In Exodus 17:1–7, just after they have crossed the sea and before they arrive at the mountain in the wilderness, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to strike a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named Massah and Meribah. In Numbers 20:2–13, well after the Isra- elites have left the mountain, in the midst of their wilderness wandering, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to speak to a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named “the waters of Meribah.” In these stories not only is the same name given to two different places, and for the same reason, but the stories themselves are remarkably similar.

In fact, all of these doublets, and others not discussed here, overlap with the previous group, that is, narrative contradictions. For the double telling of a single event entails two competing historical claims about, at the very least, when that event happened. As we have seen, not only when, but also the char- acteristics of where, who, how, and why may vary from passage to passage, even when the central “what” remains the same.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
There is no critical analysis of these sources. I am asking a simple question, how do these souces determine the direction of influence? Answer, it's assumed that the ones who wrote it first were the original source, and the ones who wrote it later borrowed from the first.

I can say the same thing about you, Joel. You don't like the question, because it sinks the whole theory, so you hand wave it away saying "but they're scholars, they must have considered this and ruled it out". No, it doesn't appear that they have.

[/QUOTE]

This is all a strawman and other fallacies at once. You demand scholarship yet your main point is that why didn't the Israelites influence the Mesopotamians.
Which no scholar said ever. There is no evidence the Israelites existed before 1200 BCE. The Mesopotamian myths are from around 3500 BCE.
And STILL you have no evidence.
So first we need more scholarship. I'm not writing long sections of books so worldhistory will have to summarize.



age of mesopotamian cuneiform

around 3500 BC

c. 35th century BC

LanguagesSumerian, Akkadian, Eblaite, Elamite, Hittite, Hu


Cuneiform

Cuneiform is a system of writing first developed by the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia c. 3500 BCE. It is considered the most significant among the many cultural contributions of the Sumerians and the greatest among those of the Sumerian city of Uruk, which advanced the writing of cuneiform c. 3200 BCE and allowed for the creation of literature.

All of the great Mesopotamian civilizations used cuneiform until it was abandoned in favour of the alphabetic script at some point after 100 BCE, including:

When the ancient cuneiform tablets of Mesopotamia were discovered and deciphered in the late 19th century, they would literally transform human understanding of history. Prior to their discovery, the Bible was considered the oldest and most authoritative book in the world and nothing was known of the ancient Sumerian civilization.



Many biblical texts were thought to be original until cuneiform was deciphered. The Fall of Man and the Great Flood were understood as literal events in human history dictated by God to the author (or authors) of Genesis but were now recognized as Mesopotamian myths which Hebrew scribes had embellished on from The Myth of Etana and the Atrahasis. The biblical story of the Garden of Eden could now be understood as a myth derived from the Enuma Elish and other Mesopotamian works. The Book of Job, far from being an actual historical account of an individual's unjust suffering, could now be recognized as a literary motif belonging to a Mesopotamian tradition following the discovery of the earlier Ludlul-Bel-Nemeqi text which relates a similar story.



The concept of a dying and reviving god who goes down into the underworld and then returns to life, presented as a novel concept in the gospels of the New Testament, was now understood as an ancient paradigm first expressed in Mesopotamian literature in the poem The Descent of Inanna. The very model of many of the narratives of the Bible, including the gospels, could now be read in light of the discovery of Mesopotamian naru literature which took a figure from history and embellished upon his achievements in order to relay an important moral and cultural message.

Prior to this time, as noted, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world, and the Song of Solomon was thought to be the oldest love poem, but all of that changed with the discovery and decipherment of cuneiform. The oldest love poem in the world is now recognized as The Love Song of Shu-Sin dated to 2000 BCE, long before The Song of Solomon was written. These advances in understanding were all made by the 19th-century archaeologists and scholars sent to Mesopotamia to substantiate biblical stories through physical evidence, but, in fact, what they discovered was precisely the opposite of what they had been sent to find.

Along with other Assyriologists (among them, T. G. Pinches and Edwin Norris), Rawlinson spearheaded the development of Mesopotamian language studies, and his Cuneiform Inscriptions of Ancient Babylon and Assyria, along with his other works, became the standard reference on the subject following their publication in the 1860s and remain respected scholarly works into the present day.

The literature of Mesopotamia significantly informed written works which came after. Mesopotamian literary motifs can be detected in the works of Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, and Roman works and still resonate in the present day through the biblical narratives which they inform. When George Smith deciphered cuneiform he dramatically changed the way human beings would understand their history.

The accepted version of the creation of the world, original sin, and many of the other precepts by which people had been living their lives were all challenged by the revelation of Mesopotamian – largely Sumerian – literature. Since the discovery and decipherment of cuneiform, the history of civilization and human progress has been radically revised from the understanding of only 200 years ago, and further revisions are expected as more cuneiform tablets are discovered and translated for the modern age.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
No, that's not what she says. She says there are "distorted refractions" "not direct" to the Canaanite pantheon. She says, "when we find *bits* of archeological evidence" it makes more sense to apply it to the canaanite pantheon even though the written Hebrew bible is vehemently opposed to it.

Why does it make sense? It's not said. If you watch though, and pay attention, it's obvious that she has affection for the canannite myth, calling one of their gods "kick-***". She talks a bit about how cool the pantheon is. That's the nice thing about video. One can tell if the speaker is infatuated with an idea. So it makes sense for her to see "bits" and apply them to a favored fun concept.

So, what are the "lots" of evidence? She says that many burial sites have inscriptions including both Yahweh and Asherah. Not that they are consorts, only that many people included them together. But there's examples where Yahweh is alone. So some people assimilated, some people didn't. That's a much more moderate and accurate statement.

Nope. She doesn't say that. You are misquoting. Watch it again. The host says it, but she does not.

At 36:19 she speaks on Ashera arrows found at Israelite sites, Ashera is found in the OT only a few times but her "signature moves", smashing skulls, trampling corpses are put onto YAhweh.


Hee-hee. Translation: YOU haven't researched this yourself. Let me help you.

Here's the proto-canaanite alphabet:
So, I'll accept your apology at anytime for claiming I made it up, simply because you didn't know this, or bothered to look it up.


Complete nonsense. Submit that for peer-review please. You keep using words like "critical analysis" as if googling some Hebrew means you have proven scholarship all wrong. You ask critical historical methods from me and then make outlandish claims about the ISraelites being around to influence the Sumerians.
Total inconsistent nonsense.
As if A Hebrew Bible professor doesn't know Hebrew?

Yes "His Ashera" is there, why do you think Dever would say that?
One paper - "Yahweh and His Asherah": The Goddess or Her Symbol?
explains what many of the historical books do, the third person masculine singular pronominal suffix - his Ashera is in a form I do not know and looks like syth asera with symbols above it? I don't know Hebrew and I understand these OT scholars and archeologists who make claims hat are peer-rerviewed are telling accurate information in english.
That paper is published from Brill and is on jstor.org, it's also in other books on the subject.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
T
Well, it's an exaggerated claim about my religion. The same would happen, and does happen, when people make an exaggerated claims about atheism.

.

Not exaggerated at all. Consensus scholarship. Please stop calling the consensus an exaggeration. You are simply wrong.
Let's just use a journal paper and some highlites:
Cultural Borrowings
and Ethnic Appropriations in Antiquity

Genesis 1-11 and Its Mesopotamian Problem RoNer-o HeNonr.

-
The situation of ancient Israel in relation to Mesopotamian culture was both similar to and distinct from such modern colonial situations. For much of its history, including the time when the major biblical texts were composed, Israel lived under the indirect or direct authority of powerful Mesopotamian empires - first the Assyrian Empire (esp. 8th-7th centuries B.C.E.), then the Neo-Babylo- nian (7th-6th centuries B.C.E.) - and suffered massive destructions when the kings of Israel or Judah chose to rebel. For the most part, as far as we can tell, imperial authority over vassal states was relatively benign as long as the vassal state paid taxes and tribute and maintained poltical loyalty to the Mesopotamian king.


-
The biblical flood story (of which two versions, from the J and P sources, are edited together in Genesis 6-9)e appears to be an appropriation ofthe first type, in which the originally foreign character of the story has been effaced.

-
It is likely that the P writer (or the tradition on which he drew) appropriated the Mesopotamian concept of the king as the "image" of god and revised it for a new purpose.


-
The J stories seem also to revise the Mesopotamian tradition of the mythic ascent from nature to culture in primeval times. In Mesopotamian literature, the first human is a lullfi-amElu, "primitive human," living a natural life, who only becomes fully human when he learns the arts of human culture and comes to dwell in the city.18 The fullest example, though displaced from primeval to historical times, is the transformation of Enkidu in the first tablet of the Gil- gamesh epic. Enkidu is created as a lullft-amElu, "primitive human," then is initiated into human sexuality and the cultural arts of clothing and cuisine by a prostitute, and completes his ascent to full humanity when he enters the city of Uruk, where he meets his royal counterpart, Gilgamesh. Later, on his deathbed, Enkidu comes to see that the prostitute gave him the greatest boon - civilized life. As the god Shamash counsels, Enkidu owes her a blessing:


-
The ascent of humans from nature to culture is qualified by the eastern and Mesopotamian character of the first cities, and as such they are dangerous places of hubris and impiety. Because Israel does not yet exist, the ancient city is necessarily foreign and, in the case of Babylon, clearly Mesopotamian. In this appropriation and revision of the themat- ics of the ascent from nature to culture, the ancient city becomes a site of human rebellion rather than a place where human life is most complete.



In the J primeval narrative, the movement of humans from the Garden of Eden to the Tower of Babel is strikingly similar to the movement of "primitive humans" in Mesopotamian tradition from their initial innocent existence among the animals to civilized life in the city. Both transformations are accompanied by new knowledge, including sex, clothing, human food, and (ultimately) con- sciousness of mortality. In both traditions, the transformation brings humans to a higher state of knowledge, and they become, to some extent, "like gods."





The Tower of Babel story appropriates and inverts the Mesopotamian ideology of the ziggurat (temple-tower). The ziggurat was the most visible part of the Meso- potamian temple complex and served as a cosmic axis, linking heaven and earth.



In Babylonian tradition the temple-tower of Babel was a cosmic and holy place, built by the gods, where Marduk's presence was manifested on earth.

The biblical story clearly appropriates the Mesopotamian tradition and ideol- ogy of the temple-tower of Babylon, but reverses its meaning by placing the plan to "build a city and a tower with its top in heaven" (Gen 11:4) in the mouths of humans, and coloring this desire as an act of hubris and rebellion.


The Hebrew Bible acknowledges that Israel was a relative latecomer in the ancient Near East.
The first era of human civilization was in the ancient east, in and around Mesopotamia. According to Israel's collective memory, the human ascent from nature to culture had to go through Mesopotamia. This temporal priority ought to have given Mesopotamia the glory of cultural origins. For latecomer Israel to be exalted, the temporal priority of Mesopotamia had to be depreciated.





According to the Hebrew Bible, history comes out of Mesopotamia, but it was a dubious and shameful history until the call and migration of Abraham. However, as the Israelites knew well, Mesopota- mian power did not remain in the distant past. Its empires held sway at the time the primeval stories in Genesis 1-11 were cast into writing. The ancient past in these stories offers implicit commentary on Mesopotamian civilization and em- pire in the present, colored by transgression, hubris, and a desire to rebel.


-
The biblical story of the Garden of Eden could now be understood as a myth derived from the Enuma Elish and other Mesopotamian works. The Book of Job, far from being an actual historical account of an individual's unjust suffering, could now be recognized as a literary motif belonging to a Mesopotamian tradition following the discovery of the earlier Ludlul-Bel-Nemeqi text which relates a similar story.
(worldhistory)
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Nope. They didn't say that, Joel. Same source as above: Judean Pillar Figurines

Your souce didn't say it, these firgurines didn't say it, and one of your sources makes conclusions based on hairstyle. Keep going!

Says the person inventing a new world where the Israelites wrote myths in 3500 BCE with the Mesopotamians and might have influenced them. A view no scholar EVER has taken.
And you are wrong. Dever -
One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.
In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."



That line is a fail. No figurines have been found with inscriptions.
Dever:
Is there other evidence linking Asherah to Yahweh?
In the 1970s, Israeli archeologists digging in Kuntillet Ajrud in the Sinai found a little desert fort of the same period, and lo and behold, we have "Yahweh and Asherah" all over the place in the Hebrew inscriptions.

Then the figurines you are talking about without names:

Are there any images of Asherah?
For a hundred years now we have known of little terracotta female figurines. They show a nude female; the sexual organs are not represented but the breasts are. They are found in tombs, they are found in households, they are found everywhere. There are thousands of them. They date all the way from the 10th century to the early 6th century.

They have long been connected with one goddess or another, but many scholars are still hesitant to come to a conclusion. I think they are representations of Asherah, so I call them Asherah figurines.



By inventing and misquoting?

not yet. Speaking of inventing however, Israelites influencing the Mesopotamians? That is truly an invention. Why would you sling ad-hom when it's you who is the one doing it?

Ad hominem is the sign of a weak argument. Keep going!

I know, exactly, good timing. Please stop.

Please post a PHD showing how El and Yahweh are derived from the Canaanite written text including how the ugarite alphabet was decoded?


LOL, now you have requests. I'm waiting on all my requests. Historical scholarship that puts the Israelites influencing the Mesopotamians.


I brought you some information, I showed you that I didn't make it up. Now, if you can't bring a PHD yourself, then please show me where what I brought is faulty logic, or a misinterpretation of the facts.

Yes, you left out some of Fransescas words, seem to think scholars would make the claim about Yahweh and his Ashera and it's not true and expect the Israelites would influence Sumer and Mesopotamia.



Congrats on the copy-paste! It's "derived" how was it derived? What assumptions were made?

Oh I have to explain all scholarship but you get to make up the Israelites being in history at any point you find suitable to dismiss claims of syncretism? Despite it's consensus opinion. That isn't enough, I have to walk you through it?
Sorry, consensus is the Israelites used Mesopotamian and Egyptain myths in the OT. Every religion is syncretic.

Another irrelevant paragraph!

No, it shows Ashera was a Canaanite deity first. Giving more evidence to the fact that Israel came from Canaan and Exodus is a national-myth.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The mesopotamian myths are older than Hebrew myths because????? I know, I know, because the scholars say so, right? But that's only based on who wrote it first, right?


Cuneform and Mesopotamian mythology is far far older than Israel. I have posted enough scholarship to verify this. You have not. Funny how you "don't have to" (you do) and just think you are making a valid point based on lack of knowledge while I post credible scholarship saying Israel was influenced by Mesopotamian myths. The you want further break-downs of dating methods and how this was established when you have provided NOTHING. As if historical academia is like "oh wow, we never thought to check..."??


Hear me. They are similar, but the direction of influence is not esablished. The. Direction. Of. INFLUENCE.

But it is. Every source, journal paper, historical book I read is clear on this. Because you don't understand it isn't a valid point and continues to be a waste of time.
Judaism began as an individual. So, saying "The israelites weren't around" is irrelevant.
No, Judaism began with a story about an individual. It did not start with a person who said "I am a new nation:". Genesis was written around 6 BCE, 2 sources were made and later combined and a myth about a founder who first spoke to their God was created.

A coming savior is Christian. And the Hawaiin myth has coincidences, but the Hebrew bibe can't? :rolleyes:
I suspect the stories were changed after Christian missionaries showed up. There are no strong connections. The Hebrew Bible is long since known in academia to be influenced by Mesopotamia.



Another irrelevant paragraph! There is nothing here about the Hebrew bible or ancient Judaism

Messianic saviors being predicted relates to Judaism. The general resurrection at the end after God beats the devil, Persian. And other theologies adopted during the 2nd Temple Period.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Where's the change? This is precisely how i has always been described.
The Iranian Impact on Judaism

excerpted from N. F. Gier, Theology Bluebook, Chapter 12



It was not so much monotheism that the exilic Jews learned from the Persians as it was universalism, the belief that one God rules universally and will save not only the Jews but all those who turn to God. This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah, which by all scholarly accounts except some fundamentalists, was written during and after the Babylonian exile. The Babylonian captivity was a great blow to many Jews, because they were taken out of Yahweh's divine jurisdiction. Early Hebrews believed that their prayers could not be answered in a foreign land. The sophisticated angelology of late books like Daniel has its source in Zoroastrianism.3 The angels of the early Hebrew books were disguises of Yahweh or one of his subordinate deities. The idea of separate angels appears only after contact with Zoroastrianism.



The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4

Saosyant, a savior born from Zoroaster's seed, will come and the dead shall be resurrected, body and soul. As the final accounting is made, husband is set against wife and brother against brother as the righteous and the damned are pointed out by the divine judge Saosyant. Personal and individual immortality is offered to the righteous; and, as a final fire melts away the world and the damned, a kingdom of God is established for a thousand years.7 The word paradis is Persian in origin and the concept spread to all Near Eastern religions in that form. “Eden” not “Paradise” is mentioned in Genesis, and paradise as an abode of light does not appear in Jewish literature until late books such as Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon.



Satan as the adversary or Evil One does not appear in the pre-exilic Hebrew books. In Job, one of the very oldest books, Satan is one of the subordinate deities in God's pantheon. Here Satan is God's agent, and God gives him permission to persecute Job. The Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, the Evil One, the eternal enemy of God, is the prototype for late Jewish and Christian ideas of Satan. One scholar claims that the Jews acquired their aversion to homosexuality, not present in pre-exilic times, to the Iranian definition of the devil as a Sodomite.8



In 1 Chron. 21:1 (a book with heavy Persian influences), the Hebrew word satan appears for the first time as a proper name without an article. Before the exile, Satan was not a separate entity per se, but a divine function performed by the Yahweh's subordinate deities (sons of God) or by Yahweh himself. For example, in Num. 22:22 Yahweh, in the guise of mal'ak Yahweh, is “a satan” for Balaam and his ***. The editorial switch from God inciting David to take a census in 2 Sam 24:1, and a separate evil entity with the name “Satan” doing the same deed in 1 Chron. 21:1 is the strongest evidence that there was a radical transformation in Jewish theology. Something must have caused this change, and religious syncretism with Persia is the probable cause. G. Von Rad calls it a “correction due to religious scruples” and further states that “this correction would hardly have been carried out in this way if the concept of Satan had not undergone a rather decisive transformation.”9



The theory of religious influence from Persia is based not only on the generation spent in exile but the 400 years following in which the resurrected nation of Israel lived under strong Persian dominion and influence. The chronicler made his crucial correction to 2 Sam. 24:1 about 400 B.C.E. Persian influence increases in the later Hebrew works like Daniel and especially the intertestamental books. Therefore Satan as a separate evil force in direct opposition to God most likely came from the explicit Zoroastrian belief in such an entity. This concept is not consistent with pre-exilic beliefs.



There is no question that the concept of a separate evil principle was fully developed in the Zoroastrian Gathas (ca. 1,000 B.C.E.). The principal demon, called Druj (the Lie), is mentioned 66 times in the Gathas. But the priestly Jews would also have been exposed to the full Avestan scripture in which Angra Mainyu is mentioned repeatedly. His most prominent symbol is the serpent, so along with the idea of the “Lie,” we have the prototype for the serpent/tempter, in the priestly writers' garden of Genesis.10 There is no evidence that the Jews in exile brought with them any idea of Satan as a separate evil principle.



In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil. As we have seen, the religion of Zoroaster may have been the first to discover ethical individualism. The first Hebrew prophet to speak unequivocally in terms of individual moral responsibility was Ezekiel, a prophet of the Babylonian exile. Up until that time Hebrew ethics had been guided by the idea of the corporate personality – that, e.g., the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons (Ex. 20:1-2).



In 1 Cor. 15:42-49 Paul definitely assumes a dual-creation theory which seems to follow the outlines of Philo and the Iranians. There is only one man (Christ) who is created in the image of God, i.e., according to the “intellectual” creation of Gen. 1:26 (à la Philo). All the rest of us are created in the image of the “dust man,” following the material creation of Adam from the dust in Gen. 2:7.



Nick Gier. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy University of Idaho Senior Fellow Martin Institute of
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Where's the change? This is precisely how i has always been described.

And yet, the only evidence of these ideas is in commentary, not scripture, with the exception of free-will and the ressurection of the dead. I am not arguing that people say these things. people have been saying things about Jews for what feels like forever..

Then those are 2 things taken from the Persians.



Again, the claim is it is borrowed. I hear you, there's a claim.

The reason to dispute it because the underlying assumptions are weak.


The assumption is not weak. It happened when the Persians moved in, Cyrus was well liked. The evidence is very strong. Also all religion is syncretic. You cannot claim a God . Syncretism is the only actual option.

What is in question here? Boyce is saying (Isaiah 42. I, 4) is evidence of syncretism from the Persians. But Isaiah 53:5 is a prediction of a messiah?? That is a Persian concept? So is monotheism????

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil. Zoroaster's followers, holding ardently to this expectation, came to believe that the Saoshyant will be born of the prophet's own seed, miraculously preserved in the depths of a lake (identified as Lake K;tsaoya). When the end of time approaches, it is said, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child by the prophet; and she will in due course bear a son, named Astvat-ereta, 'He who embodies righteousness' (after Zoroaster's own words: 'May righteousness be embodied' Y 43. r6). Despite his miraculous conception, the coming World Saviour will thus be a man, born of human parents, and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.





Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6)

Monotheism



presenting Zoroastrianism to Muslim Iran he was naturally happy to stress the theory of Zoroaster's rigid monotheism, without any taint even of theological dualism. 'The contest is only between the spirits of goodness and evil within us in the world .... Good thoughts, good words, and good deeds, stand as the fundamental principles of the religion of Zarathustra. And this is a perennial source of glory and pride to Iran and the Iranians, that once in that land one of its sons gave this grand message to humanity, to keep themselves aloof even from bad thoughts' (pp. 48, 50-1). The Zoroastrians warmly welcomed Pur-Davud's efforts to win recognition for the nobility of their faith among those who had so long despised it as polytheism and fire-worship.


1st Persian influence on Judaism

Cyrus' actions were, moreover, those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper, in that he sought to govern his vast new empire justly and well, in accordance with asha. He made no attempt, however, to impose the Iranian religion on his alien subjects - indeed it would have been wholly impractical to attempt it, in view of their numbers, and the antiquity of their own faiths - but rather encouraged them to live orderly and devout lives according to their own tenets. Among the many anarya who experienced his statesmanlike kindness were the Jews, whom he permitted to return from exile in Babylon and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was only one of many liberal acts recorded of Cyrus, but it was of particular moment for the religious history of mankind; for the Jews entertained warm feelings thereafter for the Persians, and

this made them the more receptive to Zoroastrian influences. Cyrus • himself is hailed by 'Second Isaiah' (a nameless prophet of the Exilic period) as a messiah, that is, one who acted in Yahweh's name and with his authority. 'Behold my servant whom I uphold' (Yahweh himself is represented as saying). '(Cyrus) will bring forth justice to the nations. . . . He will not fail . . . till he has established justice in the earth' (Isaiah 42. I, 4). The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Riiiight, you get to pick the version of the myth that fits your theory, but I can't pick the version of the Hawaiian myth that matches my theory. Classic hypocrisy.

The version that is closest he also dies at the end. Not hypocracy, it's the standard version believed to be used.
Nothing you've brought is peer reviewed.
Yup, so why the repeat post? You already brought this, I already commented that this refutes your claim, it says that Noah's flood wasn't copied from Gilgamesh.

It does not say that. If they both copied from a common source then that is also syncretism. I don't care which version they copied from, the point is they are using syncretism and not getting God messages.

Many of these sources are peer reviewed or sourcing peer-reviewed material.
The papers are reviewed for the journals.
world history is sourcing scholarship. Fransesca has only peer-reviewed work.

This paper on jstor
"GILGAMESH" AND GENESIS: THE FLOOD STORY IN CONTEXT on JSTOR

covers several other papers and appears to believe they both come from an older source. This is the same thing. Religious syncretism. Does not need to be Mesopotamian. Just not what is claimed, a story which is true and involving a true God. It's a myth taken from other myths.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
This makes absolutely no sense. In order to show something changed, the before and after needs to be compared. There is no early version to compare to, Joel. That's why this whole notion that Judaism was "rebranded" after Babylonia is a fail. It doesn't matter if the ugarites wrote first, that doesn't mean Judaism borrowed nor adapted, nor changed anything.was first conceived late, and written after the Babylonian exile. Or maybe it was an old story passed down orally. You don't know, no one knows. That's the point.

Early OT studies support the Documentary Hypothesis, 2 sources J and P which were combined to get the version we know.
The Mesopotamian influence is not denied, ever. Historical scholars. Not theologians with apologetics writing for answers in Genesis.




So, no, not every scholar says Noah was written with Gilgamesh as a source. You just flip-flopped in consecutive replies.

Who was the first person to believe in:
  1. One solitary god
  2. A law giver god
  3. A creator god
  4. A god who reveals itself to people
Honest answer: you don't know. No one really knows.

Prove me wrong. Bring a peer reviewed anything that claims to know who came up with these ideas first. They might say who wrote the down first, they might say when the idea became popular. But no one can claim to know who's idea it was, and when that idea was conceived.

That's why keep saying it, because, the first person with those ideas, we might as well label them a Jew.

Whether the story is true or not is irrelevant. Judaism began when a person believed in a single creator god, who gave a law / laws, and believed this creator revealed itself to them.

Someone believed this first. Maybe it was first conceived late, and written after the Babylonian exile. Or maybe it was an old story passed down orally. You don't know, no one knows. That's the point.



Yes we know the first recorded human author. Edheduanna writing about Inana.


The Hymn to Inanna (also known as The Great-Hearted Mistress) is a passionate devotional work by the poet and high priestess Enheduanna (l. 2285-2250 BCE), the first author in the world known by name. The poem is significant as one of the oldest works of literature extant and for its content elevating the goddess Inanna above all others.



Hymn to Inanna
from The Hymn to Inanna by Enheduanna | Poetry Foundation
 
Top