Is the Jesus story an astrological allegory?
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Well, put like that, I think Mr Finkelstein's is a plausible theory. I like what I've seen so far of his research in terms of the 'what'. But often the 'why' (because none of us were there at the time) is dictated by more subjective factors. So does he have anything concrete to back up his view that the motivations were purely political and expansionist?
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
Here is the quote from the Jesus story about the use of allegory:
It's from Mark 4, 10-12
10. When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables.
11. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables.
12. So that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding ...
It's from Mark 4, 10-12
10. When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables.
11. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables.
12. So that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding ...
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16034
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Ishtar wrote:Well, put like that, I think Mr Finkelstein's is a plausible theory. I like what I've seen so far of his research in terms of the 'what'. But often the 'why' (because none of us were there at the time) is dictated by more subjective factors. So does he have anything concrete to back up his view that the motivations were purely political and expansionist?
After my hockey game I'll see if I can find the section in which he deals with this issue and scan it....if it will fit on one page. Too long to type out.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16034
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Okay, Ish, here goes nothing.
Now, the book in question is from a series of lectures delivered by Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar at Oxford in 2005. In spite of the fact that they were supposed to represent opposing views, Mazar makes this comment a few pages later in his comment about Exodus:
Now, the book in question is from a series of lectures delivered by Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar at Oxford in 2005. In spite of the fact that they were supposed to represent opposing views, Mazar makes this comment a few pages later in his comment about Exodus:
These are the representatives of the moderate faction of the issue....the Exodus story, one of the most prominent traditions in Israelite common memory, cannot be accepted as an historical event and must be defined as a national saga. We cannot perceive a whole nation wandering through the desert for forty years under the leadership of Moses, as presented in the biblical tradition..
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
Many thanks, Min, for the Finkelstein et al scan. I'll reply more comprehensively to it later. In the meantime, I couldn't help being reminded of the following poem, which I think, goes a long way to express our situation here: 
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Hiowever, I doubt that will stop us railing and prating, and so I'll prate on some more later about why I disagree with Finkelstein.
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Hiowever, I doubt that will stop us railing and prating, and so I'll prate on some more later about why I disagree with Finkelstein.
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
We are all in agreement that the story of Exodus, as it stands in the Bible, almost certainly never happened. We also agree that the sources of these stories were probably Sumeria, Akkad and Canaan. But we disagree about the motive for creating them.
I think Finkestein’s assessment of the motive being ‘political and expansionist’ is mainly based on his later dating of the writings. By dating them to the exile to Babylon (605 to 537 BCE) one can make a case that these stories were created to provide a morale boosting national saga at a difficult time.
Finkelstein, I believe, is mainly basing his earlier dating on places which have been proved to exist at this later time, but not earlier. But it would be good if you could let me know what these places are, and even, if you can, which verses they occur in - because my thinking is that they could be a later interpolations by P (or any number of Babylonian revisionists.).
(Friedman believes that the dating of P is to the time when the Levites were being superceded by the Aaronite priests, which is thought to be in the time of the reforming king Hezekiah (715 – 687 BCE). P is the only one in Exodus who writes about Aaron and his priests. E and J never mention him.)
But I also agree that there must have been further revisions in Babylon which would have been a melting pot, at the tiime, of Zoroastrians, Jews and Greeks - to name but a few.
However, the original story of Moses and the Exodus can be dated earlier, I believe, and here’s why:
No-one, so far as I know, has cast any doubt on the fact that E was writing in the northern kingdom of Israel before the Assyrian invasion of 722 BCE. One of the reasons scholars are convinced of this is because E’s writings allude to places and events that show an underlying resentment and prejudices against the people of Judah which were current at that time.
Then, as we know, the writings of E and those of J were brought together some time after the Assyrian invasion by the Redactor (RJE).
So if we agree that the E wrote before the Assyrian invasion of Israel, the Moses story must date to earlier than the Babylon diaspora. This is because E wrote whole chunks of Exodus and virtually all of the first chapter, setting the scene in Egypt:
Here’s E’s first offering:
As Finkelstein's case seems to depend on dating, I think it's important to look at who wrote what and when.
I think Finkestein’s assessment of the motive being ‘political and expansionist’ is mainly based on his later dating of the writings. By dating them to the exile to Babylon (605 to 537 BCE) one can make a case that these stories were created to provide a morale boosting national saga at a difficult time.
Finkelstein, I believe, is mainly basing his earlier dating on places which have been proved to exist at this later time, but not earlier. But it would be good if you could let me know what these places are, and even, if you can, which verses they occur in - because my thinking is that they could be a later interpolations by P (or any number of Babylonian revisionists.).
(Friedman believes that the dating of P is to the time when the Levites were being superceded by the Aaronite priests, which is thought to be in the time of the reforming king Hezekiah (715 – 687 BCE). P is the only one in Exodus who writes about Aaron and his priests. E and J never mention him.)
But I also agree that there must have been further revisions in Babylon which would have been a melting pot, at the tiime, of Zoroastrians, Jews and Greeks - to name but a few.
However, the original story of Moses and the Exodus can be dated earlier, I believe, and here’s why:
No-one, so far as I know, has cast any doubt on the fact that E was writing in the northern kingdom of Israel before the Assyrian invasion of 722 BCE. One of the reasons scholars are convinced of this is because E’s writings allude to places and events that show an underlying resentment and prejudices against the people of Judah which were current at that time.
Then, as we know, the writings of E and those of J were brought together some time after the Assyrian invasion by the Redactor (RJE).
So if we agree that the E wrote before the Assyrian invasion of Israel, the Moses story must date to earlier than the Babylon diaspora. This is because E wrote whole chunks of Exodus and virtually all of the first chapter, setting the scene in Egypt:
Here’s E’s first offering:
And now there’s an interesting interpolation by P – jiust to rub in the humiliation!
8. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:
10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.
11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.
12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.
... and now we’re back to E again.
13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour:
14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.
So I don’t know if Finkelstein has addressed the issue of E writing before 722 BC. To be honest, I didn’t find anything too concrete in the scanned page, but he may address this issue elsewhere?
15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.
21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses ....
As Finkelstein's case seems to depend on dating, I think it's important to look at who wrote what and when.
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
Whoa girl. Although I'm not really in this discussion, I'm still part of the collective "we". Yes we lack a lot of evidence, but the fact that it is being discussed is evidence in itself. That may require some pondering ,I know, but although there is not yet enough evidence for the Exodus, one must consider where the evidence is against it.We are all in agreement that the story of Exodus, as it stands in the Bible, almost certainly never happened. We also agree that the sources of these stories were probably Sumeria, Akkad and Canaan.
All there is is absense of evidence so far. What we have is evidence of Semitic presence in Egypt, and an ancient text that says it happened.
I count that as 2 for and zero against.
Sorry Beags, I should have made this clearer.
What I actually meant here is in reply to Min's article from Finkestein et al, in that they and we in this thread (until you came on, no-one has thus far disagreed!) are all in agreement that it probably never happened.
I'm also, obviously, not denying that the Canaanites were ever in Egypt, although none of the rest of the story works as history.
But I didn't mean 'we' to mean the whole world, or even this whole forum!
What I actually meant here is in reply to Min's article from Finkestein et al, in that they and we in this thread (until you came on, no-one has thus far disagreed!) are all in agreement that it probably never happened.
I'm also, obviously, not denying that the Canaanites were ever in Egypt, although none of the rest of the story works as history.
But I didn't mean 'we' to mean the whole world, or even this whole forum!
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
Well...yeah!
Or have some coffee first, anyway!
Why are you up so early? Have you got your grandson staying?
Or have some coffee first, anyway!
Why are you up so early? Have you got your grandson staying?
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16034
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Finkelstein, I believe, is mainly basing his earlier dating on places which have been proved to exist at this later time, but not earlier. But it would be good if you could let me know what these places are, and even, if you can, which verses they occur in - because my thinking is that they could be a later interpolations by P (or any number of Babylonian revisionists.).
For that you really need to read "The Bible Unearthed." It isn't just one site, it's virtually the entire geography of the region. And while I have not read Redford's work on the matter (from the Egyptian side) I have seen reviews of it which called it compelling.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16034
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
All there is is absense of evidence so far. What we have is evidence of Semitic presence in Egypt, and an ancient text that says it happened.
Gone With The Wind was written in the 1920's and there was a Civil War.... that does not make Scarlett O'Hara a real person.
The Hyksos were in Egypt prior to the 16th century BC and the OT was written in the 7th century. That's a long time for legend to grow.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
So you haven't read it?Minimalist wrote:
It isn't just one site, it's virtually the entire geography of the region. And while I have not read Redford's work on the matter (from the Egyptian side) I have seen reviews of it which called it compelling.
Min, I think that if you want me to come round to your side of the elephant, you're going to have to come up with something a bit more compelling than this.
I've pointed out the E problem, but you haven't yet addressed it. To say that 'it isn't one site" and that it's all over the region is no answer because P and his fellow revisionists were also all over the OT, at different times.
But E is key to Finkelstein's case.
E is totally bought into the whole Joseph/Egypt/Moses story. Two whole chapters in Genesis are given over to E on Joseph's dreams for the Pharoah. And then he virtually writes the whole of chapter 1 of Exodus, and then whole swathes of the rest of the Exodus.
He is writing this pre the Assyrian invasion of Israel, 722 BC at the latest. Some think he was writing even earlier, around 900 BC.
So the key stumbling block to Finkelstein's theory on the dating is E, and he most know this and have addressed it. If he hasn't, he's got a big hole in his argument and thus, with respect, yours.
Of course, what you could have is exiled revisionists taking an existing story and turning it into a national saga to raise morale. But then you have to ask the question, why was the original story told in the first place back in the days of E? And that takes us back to an allegorical teaching story.
Ishtar of Ishtar's Gate and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16034
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
But E is key to Finkelstein's case.
No. Geography and archaeology are the key to Finkelstein's case.
As for Redford, this is the best I can find on the web. Scroll down to #2.
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/arch ... bible.html
I like this line of Redford's!
One final irony lies in the curious use to which the Exodus narrative is put in modern religion, as a symbolic tale of freedom from tyranny. An honest reading of the account of Exodus and Numbers cannot help but reveal that the tyranny Israel was freed from, namely that of Pharaoh, was mild indeed in comparison to the tyranny of Yahweh to which they were about to submit themselves. As a story of freedom the Exodus is distasteful in the extreme - I much prefer the account of Leonidas and his three hundred at Thermopylae - and in an age when thinking men are prepared to shape their prejudice on the basis of 3,000-year old precedent, it is highly dangerous.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin