Foundations of early Hebrew religion and relations to Cannite deities

[tanachanswers]

No it isn’t evidence because the people who argue those facts will not accept the Bible as God’s word and you saying well it is doesn’t make your argument any better.

Which people do not accept the Word of G-d as evidence, who believe the bible. I count the bible as evidence, and i argue from what the bible states.

 

[meltzerboy]

My evidence is simple, i believe the TaNach word for word. G-d created the universe in six days and 13,500,000,000,000 years old. He revealed the Torah to Mosheh and His message through His prophets.

When you say you believe the Bible word for word, do you mean a literal interpretation in line with the Karaite Jews, who do not follow the Oral Law? Or do you accept other literary styles of the Bible such as didactic, metaphorical, and poetic? (It doesn’t sound like you have a truly literalist viewpoint if you believe the earth is so many years old.)

 

[Zimm3r]

Which people do not accept the Word of G-d as evidence, who believe the bible. I count the bible as evidence, and i argue from what the bible states.

The people this thread is about! The people who argue for Judaism originating from Canaanite syncretism. Those people!

 

[tanachanswers]

When you say you believe the Bible word for word, do you mean a literal interpretation in line with the Karaite Jews, who do not follow the Oral?

No one who rejects the Oral Torah keeps the Written Torah. The Oral Torah was handed down from Mount Sinay to explain the Written.

Or do you accept other literary styles of the Bible such as didactic, metaphorical, and poetic? (It doesn’t sound like you have a truly literalist viewpoint if you believe the earth is so many years old.)

Amen !

 

[tanachanswers]

The people this thread is about! The people who argue for Judaism originating from Canaanite syncretism. Those people!

In my opinion that is as silly as stating that Iesus moved to England or central America after he survived the crucifixion.

Why would G-d have originated from the Canaanite gods when the Bible tells us how much He hated the Canaanites and wanted to destroy them. In fact the Bible ridicules the gods of the seven nations.

 

[Zimm3r]

In my opinion that is as silly as stating that Iesus moved to England or central America after he survived the crucifixion.

Why would G-d have originated from the Canaanite gods when the Bible tells us how much He hated the Canaanites and wanted to destroy them. In fact the Bible ridicules the gods of the seven nations.

Because it was a myth. Thats why. And there is no God anymore in that theory so scratch that out.

 

[tanachanswers]

Because it was a myth. Thats why. And there is no God anymore in that theory so scratch that out.

The ole G-d is dead nonsense that refuses to die.

 

[Zimm3r]

The ole G-d is dead nonsense that refuses to die.

Ok I am done because that is not at all what “God is dead” and Nietchze are referring to.

 

[Mark86]

Because it was a myth. Thats why. And there is no God anymore in that theory so scratch that out.

I don’t think you really want our opinions on this issue as much as you want to just pepper us with links that ultimately point to the irrationality of belief in the Christian God from a historical perspective.

Like others have also said, I still don’t understand how the Jewish belief couldn’t have been influenced by its neighbors in its “form” but also be the result of direct revelation from God in its “substance.” I simply don’t understand why these two things have to be mutually exclusive. Why can’t both be true? How is God reportedly incapable of influencing human belief systems via both their form and substance over time? Without the direct revelation from God at Mt. Sinai, according to the Bible, the Jews would’ve just fallen into worship of the “golden calf” (Baal, most likely) just like everyone else around them. The point is, God intervened and set them apart, despite being no different than their neighbors.

This is not a controversial thing to claim about the Jews. This is what the Bible says. They were no different than their neighbors.

 

[levinas12]

As Mark86 and others have pointed out, it’s the differences that need explanation. And the real question is: what type of evidence would be sufficient to definitively account for the differences.

Somehow, the Jews came to be differentiated from the Canaanites and Egyptians (as well as from the Assyrians and Babylonians and Persians). How did this happen?

Again, Mark86 has made a convincing case that something “new” happened.

This what makes history so fascinating - “novelty”, paradigm shifts, discontinuities . History isn’t just same old, same old.

But how does one go about “explaining” novelty?

This is where “assimilation” theories collapse. For example, some scholars speculate that some Canaanites mutated into Jews by going into the hill country after a slave revolt. There’s no historical evidence for a slave revolt. But let’s assume there was a slave revolt. Just how would that produce specifically a Jewish worldview?

This, by the way, illustrates the weakness in Marxist arguments that material changes result in ideological changes. It’s not that there might not be a connection but what’s lacking in the Marxist argument is specificity. Just how did this material “change” produce this specific ideology?

.

.

 

[Zimm3r]

I don’t think you really want our opinions on this issue as much as you want to just pepper us with links that ultimately point to the irrationality of belief in the Christian God from a historical perspective.

You can believe that, you’re wrong but you can believe that. Clearly I’m just a troll because clearly I have not look for research and evidence into this issue.

Like others have also said, I still don’t understand how the Jewish belief couldn’t have been influenced by its neighbors in its “form” but also be the result of direct revelation from God in its “substance.” I simply don’t understand why these two things have to be mutually exclusive. Why can’t both be true? How is God reportedly incapable of influencing human belief systems via both their form and substance over time? Without the direct revelation from God at Mt. Sinai, according to the Bible, the Jews would’ve just fallen into worship of the “golden calf” (Baal, most likely) just like everyone else around them. The point is, God intervened and set them apart, despite being no different than their neighbors.

This is not a controversial thing to claim about the Jews. This is what the Bible says. They were no different than their neighbors.

Because at a fundamental level there are generally two general views of how Israel came to be:

1. Divine revelation through Abraham and Moses.
2. Historical syncretism and adoption of neighbors beliefs.

If you accept 2 (as you seem to do) there is NO reason to say they actually got it right, the explanation works both ways, with or without a god and at the point the law of parsimony would seem to indicate the one without.

My issue with this explanation is that it is devoid of the fundamental point that Israel was “set apart” and unique. It destroys the uniqueness totally. Also I think I have support on this when Akin expressly rejects all but monotheism in his post on the issue. So I do think I have some support that monolatry isn’t a valid explanation as 2 would require.

Again, Mark86 has made a convincing case that something “new” happened.

This what makes history so fascinating - “novelty”, paradigm shifts, discontinuities . History isn’t just same old, same old.

But how does one go about “explaining” novelty?

I have never denied this novelty I have only stated that if you accept syncretism as an explanation there is no novelty and so it is in conflict. Either the syncretism has to be wrong or the novelty has to be wrong. Those who take the position of syncretism (Denver, Albright, Alt, Cross, Oxford, and Cambridge all of which I have posted) reject the novelty they embrace that Israel really WASN’T that novel. Because thats what their evolutionary expansion requires, a slow change, not an abrupt one. I have simply rejected the explanation that the two can go together and rejected denying it a priori.

 

[Zimm3r]

A summary of views of Israelites origins can be found here adath-shalom.ca/israelite_religion.htm#alternate2

 

[tanachanswers]

Like others have also said, I still don’t understand how the Jewish belief couldn’t have been influenced by its neighbors in its “form” but also be the result of direct revelation from God in its “substance.” I simply don’t understand why these two things have to be mutually exclusive. Why can’t both be true?

It is simple, as soon as influence came into the beliefs of individuals from the pagan worship of their gods; the individual ceased to be Jewish and became pagan.

How is God reportedly incapable of influencing human belief systems via both their form and substance over time?

He absolutely is, but it is for the pagans to see the example of the Jews in their holiness. The problem is the Jews slipped into pagan practices and ceased to be holy, until G-d could set up a situation to bring them back to Him.

Without the direct revelation from God at Mt. Sinai, according to the Bible, the Jews would’ve just fallen into worship of the “golden calf” (Baal, most likely) just like everyone else around them. The point is, God intervened and set them apart, despite being no different than their neighbors.

Yes, G-d set them apart, but there was one slight difference between them and their neighbors. They were largely the descendants of the forefathers. And as G-d stated:
*(Exo 20:6 BBE) And I will have mercy through a thousand generations on those who have love for me and keep my laws.
*
And the forefathers loved G-d and kept His Laws.

Btw, it is not ba’al, and it is plural.

This is not a controversial thing to claim about the Jews. This is what the Bible says. They were no different than their neighbors.

Give me chapter and verse, please.

 

[levinas12]

Either the syncretism has to be wrong or the novelty has to be wrong. Those who take the position of syncretism (Denver, Albright, Alt, Cross, Oxford, and Cambridge all of which I have posted) reject the novelty …

This may be a false alternative, either syncretism or novelty. Nobody denies the similarities. But I don’t think you can ignore the differences which Mark86 so aptly pointed out.

And I’m not so sure that all scholars you mentioned (e.g., Albright) would deny the differences.

You might want to take a look at Michael Coogan’s book on the Old Testatment. While Coogan points out the similarities between pagan theologies and the Jewish worldview, he also cites crucial differences.

Coogan is at Harvard and has an impressive bibliography (e.g., his work on the Oxford annoted Bible).

I don’t think there is a scholarly consensus (at least today) that Judaism is simply an amalgam of pre-existing pagan components.

Again, the similarities are relatively easy to explain. It’s the differences which are puzzling.

 

[levinas12]

Zimm3r, if syncretism means absolutely no novelty, I would agree. But how many scholars today subscribe to that kind of syncretism?

Scholars do point out borrowing but this does not mean syncretism with no novelty.

 

[levinas12]

This may be a false alternative, either syncretism or novelty. Nobody denies the similarities. But I don’t think you can ignore the differences which Mark86 so aptly pointed out.

And I’m not so sure that all scholars you mentioned (e.g., Albright) would deny the differences.

You might want to take a look at Michael Coogan’s book on the Old Testatment. While Coogan points out the similarities between pagan theologies and the Hebrew Bible, he also cites crucial differences.

Coogan is at Harvard and has an impressive bibliography (e.g., his work on the Oxford annoted Bible).

I don’t think there is a scholarly consensus (at least today) that Judaism is simply an amalgam of pre-existing pagan components.

Again, the similarities are relatively easy to explain. It’s the differences which are puzzling.

 

[tanachanswers]

You might want to take a look at Michael Coogan’s book on the Old Testatment. While Coogan points out the similarities between pagan theologies and the Jewish worldview, he also cites crucial differences.

Coogan is at Harvard and has an impressive bibliography (e.g., his work on the Oxford annoted Bible).

I can guarantee that they are not as similar as modern Christian scholars claim, as i’ve seen the models and they are garbage.
The Rabbinic commentaries paint a different model from the scholars. The Rabbinic models from the 13th century agree with modern cosmology theories, some seven centuries before the scientists came up with the modern theories.

 

[Zimm3r]

A documentary on PBS titled The Bible’s Buried Secrets also features this theory of evolutionary monotheism youtube.com/watch?v=qalTJzk4kO0

Again this thread was to see if people have ACADEMIC sources and books that directly deal with this issue from a Catholic view point. Thank you to all those who have contributed but please give reasons and sources! This is why I have posted so many sources of information, both to get different views and also give people who want to learn about this issue plenty to read!

 

[Zimm3r]

Of note is also this catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5785

It has, indeed, been suggested by critical historians that the religion of the Jews was at first monolatry, i.e., the worship of a tribal god, specially concerned with the fortunes of his own people, and existing side by side with a number of other tribal gods, his rivals; that it only developed by gradual stages into monotheism, i.e., belief in one God as the only God, with the accompanying conviction that rival “gods” had no existence except in the imagination of their votaries. Of any such development there is little proof, except what can be derived from an “ad hoc” manipulation of the evidence.

 

[Zimm3r]

Karen Armstrong is quoted as saying the following (from globalizati.wordpress.com/2006/12/20/abraham-the-polytheist/ )

We can go further. It is highly likely that Abraham’s God was El, the High God of Canaan. The deity introduces himself to Abraham as El Shaddai (El of the Mountain) which was one of El’s traditional titles. Elsewhere he is called El Elyon (The Most High God) or El of Bethel. The name of the Canaanite High God is preserved in such Hebrew names as Isra-El or Ishma-El. They experienced him in ways that would not have been unfamiliar to the pagans of the Middle East.