Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:A tad off topic, Ish, but you may find this interesting given your fascination with mythology.

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_92.pdf

In his seminal essay “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History,” Nadav Na’aman has reminded us that the “written transcription of presumed oral tales may be more informative in regard to the period in which these tales were transcribed than to the time in which they were presumed to have been composed.”1 In this paper, I will apply this methodological reflection to some stories about Moses inside and outside the Torah, in order to show that these stories do not help us in reconstructing the ‘historical Moses’ but in understanding the diversity of nascent Judaism in the Persian period.
The present debate about the composition of the Torah is at times confusing.2 Since the majority of scholars abandoned the traditional documentary hypothesis, no new consensus about the formation of the Bible’s first five books has emerged. This said, there is a widespread agreement that the first publication of the Pentateuch—or of a Proto-Pentateuch—took place in the middle of the Persian period.3

Thanks, Min. It's not off-topic and I think it looks interesting, especially about the Proto-Pentateuch.

Minimalist wrote:

But I believe there was enough human respect for the content, as well as Devine guidance, that when the copies were made, they were accurate.

That is why you have to read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus."

You will find that they are not accurate at all.

Actually Min, I hate to have to admit this, but Bart Ehrman is very complimentary about those two scholars:

More than anyone else from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
it is to two Cambridge scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott
and Fenton John Anthony Hort, that modern textual critics owe a debt of gratitude for developing methods of analysis that help us deal with the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Since their famous work of 1881, The New Testament in the Original Greek, these have been the names that all scholars have had to contend
with—in affirming their basic insights, or in tinkering with the details
of their claims, or in setting up alternative approaches in view of
Westcott and Hort's well defined and compelling system of analysis.

The strength of the analysis owes more than a little to the genius of
Hort in particular.

Westcott and Hort's publication appeared in two volumes, one of
which was an actual edition of the New Testament based on their
twenty eight years of joint labor in deciding which was the original
text wherever variations appeared in the tradition; the other was an
exposition of the critical principles they had followed in producing
their work. The latter was written by Hort and represents an inordinately
closely reasoned and compelling survey of the materials and
methods available to scholars wanting to undertake the tasks of textual
criticism. The writing is dense; not a word is wasted. The logic is
compelling; not an angle has been overlooked. This is a great book ...

I still still maintain, though, they that cannot have had manuscripts any earlier than c 300 CE, and that means 300 years of mainly scribal error and some political interference.

More importantly the original letter writer is unknown nor do we really know his intent. Was it fiction, fraud, farce?

Actually Min, I hate to have to admit this, but Bart Ehrman is very complimentary about those two scholars:

But he isn't complimentary at all about the textual accuracy of the NT in general. Hundreds of thousands of errors, as I recall, most minor but still impacts on the idea of any sort of "divine hand" in the writing and copying.

seeker wrote:More importantly the original letter writer is unknown nor do we really know his intent. Was it fiction, fraud, farce?

Yes, there is much controversy over the author of John. One theory - I don't know how reliable - is it was was originally called the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple (aka Mary the Supreme Mags).

Some writers suggest that the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John really was originally Mary Magdalene, claiming that Mary's separate existence in a few common scenes with the Beloved Disciple, such as in John 20, were later modifications, hastily done to authorize the gospel in the late 2nd century. In the Gospel of Mary, part of the New Testament Apocrypha, a certain Mary who is commonly identified as Mary Magdalene, is constantly referred to as being loved by Jesus more than the others.[5] In the Gospel of Philip, also from Apocrypha, the same is specifically said about Mary Magdalene.[6] For example, compare these passages from the Gospel of John and the apocryphal Gospel of Philip:

Philip There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary (NHC II.3.59.6-11) (Robinson 1988: 145).

John Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said... (John 19:25)

It is said that there is a correlation between these two texts.[citation needed] Arguably it is possible that an early canonical version of the Gospel of John directly influenced later Gnostic traditions. The three women mentioned at the foot of the cross are the exact same women mentioned in Philip, with Mary being Jesus' "companion" or beloved disciple.[citation needed] Clearly the Gnostic text is confused in its grammar, stating that Mary's sister was also Jesus' sister in the same passage, obviously an error.[citation needed].

Minimalist wrote:

Actually Min, I hate to have to admit this, but Bart Ehrman is very complimentary about those two scholars:

But he isn't complimentary at all about the textual accuracy of the NT in general. Hundreds of thousands of errors, as I recall, most minor but still impacts on the idea of any sort of "divine hand" in the writing and copying.

Yes agreed ... and I did make that point. I don't think there was any divine intervention in the compiling of either the Old or New Testaments. Well, either that, or God is a terrible muddlehead.

I could probably go along with the last part.

Does sort of undermine the All-Knowing, All-Wise routine, though.

kbs2244 wrote:
Meanwhile, polytheism, while wide spread, was not universal.

"There is an overwhelming testimony to the boundless polytheism of the mass of people, even in Jerusalem, the special seat of Yahweh, just before the Captivity. Monotheism did not really gain a hold in the sacred city until a long series of political pressures and convulsions had built up a special fanaticism for one cult ....Monotheism of this type is, in any case, morally lower than polytheism since those who held it lacked sympathy for their neighbours. Most of the Jewish kings were polytheists. What I am concerned to challenge is the assumption — due to the influence of Christianity — that Jewish monotheism is essentially higher than polytheism, and constitutes a great advance in religion ... If the mere affirmation of a Supreme Creator God is taken to be a mark of superiority, certain primitive tribes that practiced human sacrifice must be considered to have a higher religion than the late Greeks and Romans.”

J M Robertson, Pagan Christs.

That the Hebrews were polytheistic is evident by the many references to Elohim (which is plural for the Canaanite El meaning ‘god’).

There were many Elohim gods that were worshipped by the Hebrews and Canaanites alike: El Elyon (god most high), El Sabaoth (god of heavenly hosts), El Chay (living god), El Neqamah (god of vengeance) El Ma’al (the god above) and El Shaddai, the god of Abraham (god of the fathers) who was replaced by Yahweh in Exodus 6.

The Canaanite El was also known as the day star and was associated with the planet Saturn. This is why the Jews’ Sabbath falls on Saturday, the day dedicated to Saturn.

But the translators tried to cover all this up by giving all these references to different gods just one name - Lord (in Greek, Adonai). As Higgins states:

“In the original, God is called by a variety of names, often the same names which the ‘heathens’ give to their gods. To disguise this, the translators have availed themselves of a contrivance to render the word ...Ieue (YHWH), and several of the other names by which God is called in the Bible, by the word ‘Lord’.

“The fact of the names of God being disguised in all the translations tend to prove no dependence can be placed on any of them....The fact that Abraham worshipped several gods, who were, in reality, the same as those of the Persians, namely the creator, preserver and destroyer, has been long asserted.”

Godfrey Higgins, Anacalypsis.

Minimalist wrote:I could probably go along with the last part.

Does sort of undermine the All-Knowing, All-Wise routine, though.

Well, maybe he started off that way .... but then the senile dementia kicked in.

Omniscient, omnipotent and omni-senile, He knows all see all and just can't find his car keys.

Regarding the historical Jesus, there is plenty of attested evidence he existed, though scholars can debate ad infinitum about whether all of the accounts given about his life are completely accurate.

Ishtar wrote: But what they fail to realise is that a a real, historical Jesus who died on the cross for our sins cannot be attested to at all ... ever... let alone in the first century. And there is no evidence of a belief within orthodox Christianity (if it even existed then) in any kind of a Messiah who was born in a manger in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph and who walked on water and who fed the five thousand from five loaves and two fishes and yada yada yada until the gospels were canonised by Iraneus (180 CE). And the slightly earlier Polycarp, whose letter to the Philippians yes Monk - does attest to orthodox Christianity then; but it also attests to the 'heretical' groups (Adoptionists, Docetists and Separationists) at the same time, because Polycarp attacks them in the letter

Many of the events of his life can never be proven. How can one prove Jesus walked on water, healed particular people or even so much as visited his mother on Sunday evenings, if indeed he ever did, except that someone, somewhere, wrote about it. For the most part, the only accounts we have which describe the events of his life and his works are the gospels, canonical and noncanonical. Nevertheless, it is important to note, that even the gnostics attest to the fact that Jesus, walked on the earth and spoke to men and women. The gnostic leader, Valeninus, is said to have taught that Jesus was the physical manifestation of the Son. According to Valeninus, Jesus was born of Mary and Joseph and was virtually a normal human being in most respects until the time of his baptism. None of the early christians and gnostic christians were questioning the physical existence of Jesus.

belief within orthodox Christianity (if it even existed then)...And the slightly earlier Polycarp, whose letter to the Philippians yes Monk - does attest to orthodox Christianity then

Your comments are contradictory unless in the first instance you are questioning the existance of orthodox christianity during the life-time of Jesus. Certainly it did not exist, but emerged under the teachings of the apostles and somewhat later Paul between 30 and 70CE. This latter date is when Polycarp was born who claimed to be a student of the apostle John. If Polycarp attests to a christian theology, certainly it corresponds to the time when the first gospels were written, thus an orthodox christianity was established by the fall of Jerusalem in 70.

Polycarp, whose letter to the Philippians... also attests to the 'heretical' groups

Yes, this is indisputible and so one can see the so-called 'heretical' sects emerging nearly simultaneously. No doubt, while the orthodox christians were busy documenting their theology in letters and such for distribution to their various centers of activity, the gnostic christians were doing the same. While the core theologies of each have some common elements (as I have said all along) it does not obscure the fact, the each evolved separately as evidenced by the attested documents which have survived. What happened, later, in late third and fourth centuries is not my issue. The establishment of the politcal church, and its wholesale repression of heretics, and absorbtion of pagan rites (if indeed they did so) is a topic for another thread, in my opinion. Reading the writings, it seems the orthodox christians have taken the saying of Jesus and built a theology on a hebrew religious foundation (as evidenced by many OT references) while the gnostic christians have taken the sayings of Jesus and built a theology on a foundation of mysticism and greek philosophy.

Ishtar wrote:

kbs2244 wrote:
Meanwhile, polytheism, while wide spread, was not universal.

"There is an overwhelming testimony to the boundless polytheism of the mass of people, even in Jerusalem, the special seat of Yahweh, just before the Captivity. Monotheism did not really gain a hold in the sacred city until a long series of political pressures and convulsions had built up a special fanaticism for one cult ....Monotheism of this type is, in any case, morally lower than polytheism since those who held it lacked sympathy for their neighbours. Most of the Jewish kings were polytheists. What I am concerned to challenge is the assumption — due to the influence of Christianity — that Jewish monotheism is essentially higher than polytheism, and constitutes a great advance in religion ... If the mere affirmation of a Supreme Creator God is taken to be a mark of superiority, certain primitive tribes that practiced human sacrifice must be considered to have a higher religion than the late Greeks and Romans.”

J M Robertson, Pagan Christs.

That the Hebrews were polytheistic is evident by the many references to Elohim (which is plural for the Canaanite El meaning ‘god’).

There were many Elohim gods that were worshipped by the Hebrews and Canaanites alike: El Elyon (god most high), El Sabaoth (god of heavenly hosts), El Chay (living god), El Neqamah (god of vengeance) El Ma’al (the god above) and El Shaddai, the god of Abraham (god of the fathers) who was replaced by Yahweh in Exodus 6.

The Canaanite El was also known as the day star and was associated with the planet Saturn. This is why the Jews’ Sabbath falls on Saturday, the day dedicated to Saturn.

But the translators tried to cover all this up by giving all these references to different gods just one name - Lord (in Greek, Adonai). As Higgins states:

“In the original, God is called by a variety of names, often the same names which the ‘heathens’ give to their gods. To disguise this, the translators have availed themselves of a contrivance to render the word ...Ieue (YHWH), and several of the other names by which God is called in the Bible, by the word ‘Lord’.

“The fact of the names of God being disguised in all the translations tend to prove no dependence can be placed on any of them....The fact that Abraham worshipped several gods, who were, in reality, the same as those of the Persians, namely the creator, preserver and destroyer, has been long asserted.”

Godfrey Higgins, Anacalypsis.

Ishtar -

Referred to parenthetically and elliptically

In the fable of Joseph

And "The coat of many colors".

Remember that the original myth/cosmology cycle,

Which was an oral tradition

Depended on the spoken word

As specific, symbolic, structure.

I would argue that the allegory of the coat of many colors

Represents the tag-end of a polytheistic oral tradition

And its concomitant societal stability

Being replaced by the (fictional, from the git go)

Written monotheistic assertion by the freakin' power mongers.

And the moral of the tale is

That Joseph sold out.

Sorry, became "Very Successful".

Have you heard this drift before?

Call me lunatic,

But also give me argument against.


hoka hey

john

Regarding the historical Jesus, there is plenty of attested evidence he existed,

Come on, Monk. be serious. There is nothing but the "testimony" of christians written at who-knows-what-late-date about him. The Greco-Roman historians of the period are completely silent except where some christian has tried to forge a reference. This tells me that they were so embarrassed by the lack of such references that they had to invent them.

Fox News swore that we found WMDs in Iraq, you know. Them saying it did not make it true. Kind of similar for your christian sources.

Anyway, if you have a non-canonical reference from the first century I'd love to see it.

Minimalist wrote:

Regarding the historical Jesus, there is plenty of attested evidence he existed,

Come on, Monk. be serious. There is nothing but the "testimony" of christians written at who-knows-what-late-date about him. The Greco-Roman historians of the period are completely silent except where some christian has tried to forge a reference. This tells me that they were so embarrassed by the lack of such references that they had to invent them.

Fox News swore that we found WMDs in Iraq, you know. Them saying it did not make it true. Kind of similar for your christian sources.

Anyway, if you have a non-canonical reference from the first century I'd love to see it.

Minimalist -

Agreed.

There are no reliable historical references to the actual

Existence of Jesus as a living, breathing Homo sap.

What we do have

Is a bunch of pulp fiction.

Damn near anyone can write a bible.

To what effect?

Power, politics, profit.

Once again, I'll refer you to Mark Twain's

"Letters from the Earth".

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm



hoka hey


john

Forum Monk wrote:Regarding the historical Jesus, there is plenty of attested evidence he existed, though scholars can debate ad infinitum about whether all of the accounts given about his life are completely accurate.

Really FM? I've spent some time looking into this, I've not found one. There are a few very spurious references like the one supposedly made by Josephus but then it doesn't take much analysis to see that most of them are...let's just say exaggerated. What I don't get though is why should it have mattered? Certainly the message should have been more important than the man.