I haven't asked you to barf up more rancid bites of pseudoscholarship that some "experts" have prechewed for you, such as "Most of Judaism mythology = Middle Eastern mythology that was prelevant among heathen peoples." For one thing, "most" =/= "all."
Nor is "none" as you asserted.
I haven't asserted a thing, except the facts that "most" =/= "all," and Judaism isn't an offshoot of paganism (a rather amorphous term).
Then where does Judaism come from?
Define Hebrew. And where does Hebrew monotheism come from?
The Bible says that Abraham came from the heathen? Oh, where does it say that?
Abraham's departure from Ur. We are later told that Abraham's relatives in Ur were worshipping idols(Rachel stealing the idols of he fathers). You can find Abraham's departure from Ur in the Jewish Scriptures, Christian Scriptures and Muslims Scriptures. Make your pick.
I'm from Chicago. Doesn't make me a Democrat.
Rachel and her father grew up in Harran, after Abraham departed from it.
Btw, Abraham's departure from Ur isn't in Muslim Scriptures. That would be enough to make me question your grasp of the material at hand, if it hadn't been evident before.
It doesn't matter. Paganism precedes any drop of Judaism and/or Christianity. The background where Abraham came from was most likely pagan.
Yes, it does seem that facts do not matter to you.
You have again repeated your assertion, but continue to refuse to offer any evidence of it. [/quote]
Already did. According to the narrative of the Bible, Abraham was called out of his people to follow a certain God. Later on we see that Abraham's relatives had different gods than Abraham (Laban, Rachel). The Talmud says Terach was an idol merchant.
Yes, I'm aware of the theory of a Yahweh-Astarte pair, and the meagre evidence twisted into such a narrative. The Biblical narrative of the Hebrews falling into Canaanite paganism and assimilating the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob into it fits better.
Scholars say that most of the Tanakh was written during the Babylonian captivity to explain the Jewish condition.
And even if true, and?
And it is a lie. It did not happen. What part of that reasoning don't you understand?
The lack of reason.
The crap you're reading was written over two thousand years after the Babylonian captivity, and yet you take it as the Gospel truth as to the condition of the Pentateuch. Rejecting evidence because it isn't contemporary isn't reason, it's a fallacy.
Btw, if you are going swallow something, you should at least know what is in it: the Documentary Hypothesis holds that the Torah (not
the Tanakh) was redacted/edited
during the Babylonian captivity from older sources that the Hyposthesis holds predated the captivity by half a millenium or so in composition.
To give you an idea of your problem with simplistic analysis: the earliest manuscript of the Rig Veda dates from 1464. The recension dates, however to the 1st century BC, the redaction about 1000 BC of oral material dating back to a half millenium before. The early date is confirmed by linguistic evidence-the glottochronology of the language (and subject matter) show links to the Iranian Avesta, and to the meagre contemporary epigraphic remains (found in Northern Mesopotamia, btw).
Well if it was invented then it is a lie. Actually the language of the Torah proves a late composition/redaction.
The Hebrew Language
The first and foremost reason for considering a much later date for the composition for the book of Genesis than is held by the Judeo-Christian tradition, is the fact that the Hebrew language was not yet in existence during the period in which the book was allegedly written. There are two major forms of script in Hebrew, the ‘Ketav Ivri’, which is derived from the Phoenician (ancient Lebanese) language and the ‘Ketav Ashuri’, rooted in the Acadian or Babylonian language. Neither Hebraic Scripts originate with the actual Hebrews themselves they are borrowed languages from people who worshiped other gods. Whether the original manuscripts of Genesis were penned in the Babylonian Hebrew or the Phoenician Hebrew, one thing is almost certain and that is, the earliest possible date that the book of Genesis could have been written is no earlier than 1000 B.C.E.
With regards to the relatively late development of the Hebrew language the ‘Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages’ relates that:
No extant inscription that can be identified specifically as Hebrew antedates the tenth century BC, and Hebrew inscriptions in significant numbers do not begin to appear before the early eighth century BC.
The next reason for questioning the traditional date of composition for the book of Genesis is the presence of camels in the narrative. According to Zoological Archeologists at Tel Aviv University, camels were not domesticated until after 1000BC. There is no evidence whatsoever of domesticated camels prior to this time and following this period there is a wealth of archeological evidence regarding the domestication of camels. So why is this important?
In Genesis 12:16 Abram is rewarded by the Pharaoh of Egypt for giving the Pharaoh his “sister,” who was actually his wife/half-sister. For this gift of prostitution, the Pharaoh rewarded Abram with sheep, asses, slaves, and a camel. However, as mentioned above camels were not domesticated until after 1000BC and this story is traditionally said to have taken place before 2000BC. Therefore, the author was living in a time when camels were domesticated, which according to the archeological evidence must have been some time after 1000BC. This pushes both the story of Abraham and the book of Genesis to after 1000BC at least.
The ‘Harper Collins Bible Dictionary’ corroborates the above point, whilst disagreeing only slightly on the date of the introduction of the Camel to Canaan and Egypt. It states:
There is however no archaeological corroboration for the camel being known in Palestine or Egypt at the beginning of the second millennium B.C., as the seventeen references to the camel in Genesis might suggest, and those references are therefore considered anachronisms.
In addition 2 Jewish Rabbis, Messod and Roger Sabbah, discuss this point in their bestseller, ‘Secrets of the Exodus: The Egyptian Origins of the Hebrew People’, arguing that the appearance of camels within the narratives found in the Book of Genesis are telltale signs that the book was composed much later than previously believed:
Biblical researchers believed that the presence of camels in the story of the patriarchs was an error of the scribes. However, the scribes went into great detail, as if they wanted to pass on a message. "He caused the camels to kneel ..." (Genesis 24:11). "Rebecca looked up and alighted from the camel ..." (Genesis24:64). Presenting Biblical characters alighting from camels' backs is an anachronism that the scribes apparently wished to present.
By the sixth century BC, the camel, a symbol of wealth and power, had already been domesticated in Babylonia.
Had they forgotten that camels did not exist in ancient Egypt?
Couldn't they have presented and described Abraham's power and wealth without camels? The camels give a Mesopotamian twist to the story, which would have been pleasing to their captors.
Further, the book of Genesis describes Abraham’s birthplace as being in Ur in Chaldea, which as previously mentioned, is more popularly known today as Babylon. At Genesis 11:28, 31 and 15:7, the Hebrew word ‘Kasdim’ (Eng. Chaldee) is used to describe the ancient region of Babylonia. The problem with the use of the word ‘Kasdim’ is that it was not used to describe ancient Babylonia until the 6th century BCE, which is known as the Neo-Babylonian Period. Before this it was known as ‘Sumeria’, yet the account given in Genesis refers to this region as Chaldea. This fact provides further evidence that the book of Genesis was more than likely written sometime during or after the 6th century BCE. According to Messod and Roger Sabbah, the story of Abraham was a 6th century composition constructed to pander to the Jew’s Babylonian captors and masters. They say:
Although the city of Ur existed in Sumeria, the name "Chaldea" (Chaldees) does not appear until sometime around the sixth century BC. Chaldea has never yielded any archeological proof of the existence of the great patriarch, Abraham. In order to survive and for their traditions to survive as well, the Yahuds introduced anachronisms into the history of the Patriarchs. They made the story compatible with sixth-century Babylon. They recast a large part of their history at that time, probably under considerable restrictions. The new text of the story had no historical reality at all.
Moreover, the ‘Harper Collins Bible Dictionary’ informs us that:
“In the OT, Ur is mentioned four times (Gen. 11:28, 31; 15:7; Neh. 9:7), in each instance as the home of the patriarch Abraham before his migration to Harran and Canaan, and in each instance the Hebrew phrase “Ur Kasdim” is used. Kasdim here almost certainly indicates the "Chaldeans" (cf. already the Septuagint), which suggests that the phrase as a whole refers to the southern Mesopotamia!! Ur of the period of the Neo-Babylonian/Chaldean Empire. To be sure, this period is much too late for Abraham…”
It appears that the accounts of Abraham’s birth and travels were created no earlier than the 6th century B.C.E, which seems to indicate that the writer was either in Babylon during the exile or had already returned to Israel. Either way, one thing is almost certain, and that is that the authors of the Hebrew Scriptures had ample opportunity to copy and re-script the mythologies of the ancient Babylonians to suit their own social and theological needs.
Kings in Israel
Genesis 36:31 says;
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
The obvious implication of this statement is that at the time the author was writing this passage, there had been numerous kings who had reigned in Israel as evidenced by the term used, ‘any king’.
The very first king of Israel was Saul and his reign has been dated from 1020BCE-1000BCE. Thus, the author must have been writing the account in Genesis following this period. There may well be good reason to suggest it was long after this period, due to the fact that the author says; “before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.” Use of the phrase, ‘any king’ implies that he was aware of more than one king. If only one king had reigned it would have made more sense for the author to name that king, or if there were two, to use the phrase ‘either king’, or ‘both kings’, or use their names, but it definitely seems as if there had been many kings which preceded the account. This evidence coupled with the textual and archeological evidence showing that Saul was the first king of Israel in the 10th century B.C.E, seems to indicate that the account in Genesis was written well after this date.
Bozrah in Edom
The next clue to the late composition of the book of Genesis can be found within the reference to an Edomite king by the name of Jobab ruling in place of King Bela who was reported to have died. Jobab’s father was Zarah, a king from Bozrah. (Genesis 36:33)
Recently Bozrah was excavated by Archeologists who discovered that it came into being no earlier than the 8th century B.C.E.
The archeologist responsible for excavating Bozrah, Bennet said:
"There is no archaeological evidence to support the story of the king of Edom refusing passage to Moses, or for a powerful kingdom of Edom in the time of David and his son Solomon. Biblical traditions such as Genesis 36:31 and Numbers 20:14 probably reflect 8th-6th century BC conditions. The evidence for a very impressive occupation and a city with all the appetencies of prosperity is overwhelming during the Neo-Assyrian period and is supported by the records in the Assyrian annals, and 8th century BC biblical references to Bozrah (especially Amos 1:12)."
The ‘Harper Collins Bible Dictionary’ supports this conclusion, stating:
Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett reveal that it flourished in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. and probably continued into the fourth.
As is the case with other Edomite sites, it does not appear to have existed before the eighth century B.C., which raises serious questions about the historical accuracy of the Edomite king lists in which it is mentioned (Gen. 36:33; 1 Chron. 1:44).
In providing evidence contrary to the alleged conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies discounts the existence of Bozrah, prior to the traditional date of Joshua’s alleged conquest, reporting:
Thus the traditional picture of Israel’s ‘conquest’ of Canaan has been dramatically revised as a result of archaeological excavation and survey in the hill country.
The evidence from Canaanite cities, formerly used to support the conquest theory, no longer works; certain cities named in the conquest narratives—Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, and Arad—were not Late Bronze Age cities. The kingdom of Edom, mentioned as an obstacle to Israel’s migration in Num. 20: 14–21, did not yet exist, as was shown by the excavations of Bennett at Umm el-Biyarah, TaWleh, and Busayra and the surveys of B. McDonald…
One clue which seems to suggest that the account was written in the post exilic period is that the author, if living within the 7th century would have known that, contrary to the account given in Genesis (36:31), there were kings in Israel before there were kings in Edom. Quite a lot of time would have to elapse before this fact would be forgotten by the people of Israel and the author or authors of Genesis. As a result of this historical inaccuracy, it may not be unreasonable to suggest that the book of Genesis could have possibly been written as late as the 6th to 5th centuries B.C.E.
Yet another piece of evidence which seems to show that Genesis was written in either the exilic or post exilic period is the primary reference to Nineveh, listed first and foremost amongst the cities of Babylonia. During the period in which Genesis was traditionally believed to be written, the capital city of Babylon was Asshur, yet there is no mention of this city, instead we see three major cities listed; Nineveh, Rehoboth and Calah.
Genesis 10:11-12 lists the cities of Babylonia as follows;
…Nineveh and the city Rehoboth and Calah.
And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.
The fact that Nineveh is the first mentioned city is of great importance from a literary point of view. It seems to indicate that it was the most significant city, probably the capital. Moreover, in verse 12 it is given first place again over the city of Calah. The issue here is that it did not become the capital city until the 7th century BCE.
According to the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary:
Ninevah was the capital of Assyria at its height from the time of Sennacherib, who assumed the throne in 705 B.C. to its fall in 612 B.C.
There is little doubt that the author of Genesis saw Nineveh as the chief city of Babylon, leading him to give it pride of place as the first city mentioned and that in so doing demonstrated that he belonged to a period later than the 6th century B.C.E.
Finally, with regards to the late composition of the book of Genesis, referring to the ‘Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies’, we are able to establish the probable truth that the book of Genesis was written during and more than likely after the 7th century B.C.E:
Attempts to identify Abraham’s family migration with a supposed westward Amorite migration at the collapse of the Early Bronze Age c.2100–1800 bce, or to explain personal names, marriage customs, or laws of property by reference to fifteenth century Nuzi or Mari documents have failed to convince. Abraham’s life-style is no longer seen as reflecting Intermediate Early Bronze/Middle Bronze bedouin, or donkey caravaneers trading between Mesopotamia and Egypt, or tent-dwellers living alongside
Middle Bronze Age cities in Canaan; rather, with its references to Philistines and Aramaeans, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites, Ishmael and his descendants Kedar, Nebaioth, and Tema, Assyria and its cities of Nineveh and Calah, camel caravans and spices, Genesis reflects the first millennium world of the Assyrian empire. With its emphasis on the southern centres of Hebron and (Jeru)salem (Gen. 14: 18) and the northern centres of Bethel and Shechem, the Abraham story reveals knowledge of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (cf. Gen. 49: 8–12, 22–6), in its present form probably deriving from Judah’s Floruit in the seventh century bce.
From all of the available evidence of which I have only canvassed a small sample, the authors of Genesis were more than likely living some time during or after the 6th century BCE. This places them in the exilic or post exilic period, thus affording them ample opportunity to copy the myths of their hosts, the Babylonians. The Book of Genesis Unveiled, Michael Shock
Have you not heard of the Deuternomistic association. Here are a few points :
Following the destruction of Israel (the northern kingdom) by Assyria in 721 BCE refugees came south to Judah, bringing with them traditions, notably the concept of Yahweh as the only god who should be served, which had not previously been known. Among those influenced by these new ideas were the landowning aristocrats (called "people of the land" in the bible) who provided the administrative elite in Jerusalem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomist
In 640 there was a crisis in Judah when king Amon was murdered. The aristocrats suppressed the attempted coup, putting the ringleaders to death and placing Amon's eight-year-old son, Josiah, on the throne.
Judah at this time was a vassal of Assyria, but Assyria now began a rapid and unexpected decline in power, leading to a resurgence of nationalism in Jerusalem. In 622 Josiah launched his reform program, based on an early form of Deuteronomy 5-26, framed as a covenant (treaty) between Judah and Yahweh in which Yahweh replaced the Assyrian king.
By the end of the 7th century Assyria had been replaced by a new imperial power, Babylon. The trauma of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586, and the exile which followed, led to much theological reflection on the meaning of the tragedy, and the Deuteronomistic history was written as an explanation: Israel had been unfaithful to Yahweh, and the exile was God's punishment.
By about 540 Babylon was also in rapid decline as the next rising power, Persia, steadily ate away at it. With the end of the Babylonian oppression becoming ever more probable, Deuteronomy was given a new introduction and attached to the history books as an overall theological introduction.
The final stage was the addition of a few extra laws following the fall of Babylon to the Persians in 539 and the return of some (in practice only a small fraction) of the exiles to Jerusalem.
The bible and the people of Israel are indications of historiography.
The documentary hypothesis is for one thing, plural: its partisans can't agree amongst themselves on it. Since the Pentateuch/Torah doesn't say that Moses wrote it, there doesn't seem to be much point on arguing it.
Then you got a problem. Because if Moses didn't write it then who did? There is little to no proof of the historicy of Moses or the existence of Israel in Egypt and the Exodus. What basis do you have for the inspiration of the Torah?
Since you haven't identified what problem I'd have, we have no basis to discuss your last question.
As for the existence of Israel, that is securely dated as a people c.1208 BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele#.22Israel_is_laid_waste.22
Dubious inscription to say the least and not a definite proof. No certain proof that that is actually Israel just because 3 letters from 6 match. It is a communality in manhood for cities to have similar prefixes or suffixes or whatever. There is an Arad in Israel and an Arad in Romania and they are diametrically opposed, having nothing to do one with the other.
Alas! for your narrative, not dubious in the least: there is no doubt at to its contemporary date. 6 letters from 6 letters match for the name of a people that the Stele (which has no dependence on the Hebrew Scriptures) locates where the Hebrew Scriptures (which does not know of the Stele) places them at the time, their neighbors also matching in both sources.
"It is a communality in manhood for cities to have similar prefixes or suffixes or whatever." You will have to edit this to even try to make sense-even then it seems it will have neither point nor evidence.
Arad in Palestine actually starts with a sound Romanian lacks. That it appears similar in English has no bearing on the truth, as their names in Hebrew and Romanian have nothing to do with one another.
Just because some entities share a common name or writing it doesn't mean that it is the same entity. But here it is not the same. Look at the semantics of countries cities around the world, many of them are borrowed names from different cultures, locations, etc. So even if it were the same name it still doesn't mean anything. Some people could just assume a given name or be inspired of it or use derivations of it. Like Romania for example. And here u only have 3 out of 6.
As for the Exodus, go find another monument that the Egyptians erected to commemorate their defeat by anyone. The Egyptian historian Manentho does record an expulsion of foreigners who, according to him, settled in Palestine and founded Jerusalem.
Hmmmm. Who could that be?
I'll need to see some quotations for that.
These people, whom we have called kings before, and shepherds too, and their descendants," as he [Manetho] says, "held Egypt for five hundred and eleven years. Then," he says, "the kings of Thebes and the other parts of Egypt rose against the shepherds, and a long and terrible war was fought between them." http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/manetho_hyksos.htm
He says further, "By a king, named Alisphragmuthosis, the shepherds were subdued, and were driven out of the most parts of Egypt and shut up in a place named Avaris, measuring ten thousand acres." Manetho says, "The shepherds had built a wall surrounding this city, which was large and strong, in order to keep all their possessions and plunder in a place of strength.
Tethmosis , son of Alisphragmuthosis, attempted to take the city by force and by siege with four hundred and eighty thousand men surrounding it. But he despaired of taking the place by siege, and concluded a treaty with them, that they should leave Egypt, and go, without any harm coming to them, wherever they wished. After the conclusion of the treaty they left with their families and chattels, not fewer than two hundred and forty thousand people, and crossed the desert into Syria. Fearing the Assyrians, who dominated over Asia at that time, they built a city in the country which we now call Judea. It was large enough to contain this great number of men and was called Jerusalem.
The work of Manethon was lost and all that was extracted from it are excerpts which have been embodied by former collectors, viz Julius Africanus and Eusebius in their compilations. These writers differ so much in several parts of their excepts that it is evident either that great errors have crept into the copies of Manethon or that one of them corrupted it by design.http://books.google.dk/books?id=i8-5RMSG31EC&pg=RA1-PA11&lpg=RA1-PA11&dq=manethon+authority&source=bl&ots=OTtmSYQm7W&sig=-_ShnoYfdV0yOxqLRfNEUCSJbbo&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=pJM1U5PFJqeV4wSr-4CoDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=manethon%20authority&f=false
"Some of the laws in the Torah and the stories in it are totally unappealing to intelligent ethics and values." I know that they don't appeal to the smug who think they know better, and don't want anything prove the contrary. Atheism-the opiate of the dissolute.
Actually the Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology is the one who appeals to smugs and trolls who find justification of criminal, obscure acts in their religion.
Considering that the laws are primitive and cannot be universally bind as ethical and that it had many authors and editor, what makes your "torah" inspired and authoritative? Where it's her authority drawed from?
Care to put some meat on that dry bone? as opposed to vague accusation? Otherwise, we have no basis of comparison to weigh your "claims."
Sure.. Animal sacrifice
so you're a vegetarian?
I'll have to deal with the rest of your nonsense later.
Hystorics recall that the Temple looked like a slaughter house during the Passover. No I am not a vegetarian, but animal sacrifices in the name of religion is just primitive, obsolete and if you ask the animal right people a repulsive crime.