The Construction of Judaism

[Daniel]

15 hours ago, Nungali said:

Therefore it is likely that El Shaddai is a composite deity

 

Right.  That is Judaism.  Our God is everything and more.  Good work.

 

The ancient Jewish philosophers saw the Pagan religions with their many Gods in conflict and we put them in order and and they are included as revelations of one and only one God with one and only one divine will.  All of those other gods are like sock-puppets, or gloves on a divine hand.  They are window dressing.  They are shells, husks, they are meaningless to us. 

 

Judaism was constructed from the other Pagan religions, yes, and we decided they were wrong.  Not wrong in that these other gods didn't exist, but they have no will of their own.  These other gods do not make choices, they do not grant favor, they do not answer petitions.  They are like electricity, like gravity, like wind. 

 

We Jews would never petition the wind.  We Jews would not ever scream at clouds and expect a response.   That is what was happening in Pagan religions.  They built idols of rock and stone.  The egyptians did all sort of strange things religiously, but none of it worked.  Judaism, therefore looked at what they were doing and rejected it.

 

That's the construction of Judaism.  Paganism doesn't work, we'll correct it.

 

Edited July 23 by Daniel

[Nungali]

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

. 

 

We Jews would never petition the wind.  We Jews would not ever scream at clouds and expect a response.   That is what was happening in Pagan religions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 23 by Nungali

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I watched that one a while ago.  Do you know what it's missing?  The Jewish perspective.

 

Have you watched this video?  Are you prepared to discuss it?

[Nungali]

 

 

Some history, influences, politics and reasons around the  formation of the religious ( political  )  movement  that 'reverse engineered'  the 'back story' of Judaism :

 

One   Book of the Law  ' found'  .... another 'bought with them from Babylon ' .     

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3136523?seq=12

 

Some archaeology regarding when the 'law' began to be practiced

 

(  Archaeological review finds no evidence that the Torah laws were commonly observed before the second century B.C.E., says Prof. Yonatan Adler )

 

 

[Daniel]

9 hours ago, Nungali said:

Archaeological review finds no evidence that the Torah laws were commonly observed before the second century B.C.E., says Prof. Yonatan Adler

 

For those who appreciate reading as opposed to watching YouTube:

 

https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/the-origins-of-judaism-an-archaeological-historical-reappraisal

 

• Adler nar­rows his focus to a spe­cif­ic def­i­n­i­tion of Judaism, one that empha­sizes prac­tices over beliefs.
• Adler homes in on “when and how these Judeans, as a well-estab­lished col­lec­tive, first began to adopt the Torah as the cen­tral reg­u­lat­ing prin­ci­ple of their shared way of life.
• he works back­wards in time, look­ing at the archae­o­log­i­cal remains and lit­er­ary sources until there is no evi­dence of a par­tic­u­lar prac­tice. Such a method is known as a ter­mi­nus antes quem - "the latest beginning"

 

[Daniel]

9 hours ago, Nungali said:

Archaeological review finds no evidence

 

"...Not exact­ly.

 

The prob­lem might be that Adler’s def­i­n­i­tion is too nar­row, pre­clud­ing beliefs and prac­tices that can’t be shown to direct­ly relate to the laws found in the Torah. Indeed, in the final pages of the book, Adler dis­miss­es evi­dence of Judean prac­tices from the Iron Age and Per­sian peri­od — includ­ing cir­cum­ci­sion, ven­er­a­tion of YHWH as the deity, cul­tic wor­ship of YHWH, and the cel­e­bra­tion of Passover at Ele­phan­tine — as Judean cul­tur­al norms rather than Judean adher­ence to “some kind of Torah law.” A def­i­n­i­tion of Judaism that pri­or­i­tizes the Torah to the exclu­sion of cul­tur­al and eth­nic com­po­nents of Judaism, how­ev­er, is too lim­it­ing if we want to tru­ly under­stand the devel­op­ment of Judaism through­out history. "

 

Chad Spigel, Ph.D.
Professor , Religion 

 

Edited August 11 by Daniel

[snowymountains]

On 7/21/2024 at 1:21 PM, Daniel said:

 

Yes.  The deity whom you are referring to as YHWH was included in the pantheon of other religions and cultures. 

 

Under what name was YHWH included in the pantheons of Egyptian and Greek religions?

Btw are there any historical cues of YHWH being Pan ?

Also it is interesting to track the periods, a lot of fusions between Gods of different cultures happened during Roman rule of Alexandria but what parallels between Gods of different religions existed before that?

 

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, nor do I currently have time to research them unfortunately, so throwing them here for debate 

[Daniel]

9 hours ago, Nungali said:

Archaeological review finds no evidence before the second century B.C.E., says

 

Nungali, are you aware of the archeological principle "terminus ante quem"? ( TAQ ) It's a very important concept when interpreting the dates associated with archeological evidence.

 

 

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103148443

 

When an archeologist finds an arrowhead, for example, and determines that the arrowhead was crafted in 300 BCE, they do not conclude that they found the first arrowhead of that kind.  Therefore the date is recorded 300 BCE TAQ ( terminus ante quem ).  Arrowheads of that kind originated some time prior to 300 BCE.  That's the archeological evidence.

 

YouTube atheists almost always omit thus detail because they're less concerned with accuracy and more interested in generating clicks.  Further, the viewer can find many YouTubers making the same mistakes, repeating the same exaggerated conclusions, and this produces an illusion of consensus surrounding the error. 

 

This is not the first time I've posted about this.  See below from 2023 - LINK

 

[Daniel]

5 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Under what name was YHWH included in the pantheons of Egyptian and Greek religions?

 

Not those.

 

The best example are the Shasu.  Although there are others.

 

6 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Btw are there any historical cues of YHWH being Pan ?

 

YHVH is formless.  So, I vote no unless you're referring to a different Pan.  However YHVH can take any form, and can reveal itself to whomever however it chooses.  If so, then it's theoretically possible, but unlikely.  There would need to be a very good reason for this subterfuge.  See Psalm 18 particularly verse 31, but , the entire Psalm would be good to consider for answering your question.

 

האל תמים דרכו אמרת־יהוה צרופה מגן הוא לכל החוסים בו׃

 

As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is proven; he is a shield to all those who trust in him

 

Does this sound like Pan to you?  What about the entire Psalm.  Is King David writing about Pan?

 

14 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Also it is interesting to track the periods, a lot of fusions between Gods of different cultures happened during Roman rule of Alexandria but what parallels between Gods of different religions existed before that?

 

I think once the word "God" is defined properly I think you'll agree with King Solomon:  "There's nothing new under the sun". - Ecclesiastes 1:9

 

All the other Gods are the same, they just different names.  It's how it was then, it's how it is now.  But there's only one YHVH.  There cannot be any others.  It's impossible.  The reason people get confused is because they don't understand what that name means.  Usually the individual is coming from a Christian background which stifles,  obscures, and discourages any cognitive exploration that doesn't begin and end with a God in-the-flesh.  Islam attempts ( and does a good job, imo ) of correcting this misconception and vigorously asserts none can be compared to Allah, the one and only God lacking all partners.

 

23 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, nor do I currently have time to research them unfortunately, so throwing them here for debate 

 

Thank you for asking.  I firmly believe that every question is an opportunity, not only for the questioner, but also for the one who attempts to answer. In my culture we call our learning still a chavrusa, from the root, chaver, "friend".  We're friends.  Working together.  Cooperating.  Sometimes I'm the teacher?  Sometimes I'm the student?  No.  I'm simultaneously learning while I'm teaching AND I'm simultaneously teaching while I'm learning. 

 

The same is true for questioning. Most simply stated:  The question is the answer.

 

Asking questions is, imo, the key to an intellectual attachment to the divine in all of its forms.  This is why you'll find great Jewish Prophets posing questions to themselves as part of a necessary component to their communion.  If you look at Psalm 18, it's there.  Isaiah does it.  Jeremiah does it.  It's a very good technique.

 

The question is the answer.

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

All the other Gods are the same, they just different names.

 

In my head at least, I break them down into 3 categories, so it kind of depends,

1) Gods which are part of a personality type system, their the projections of people of the era who projected parts of their personality onto Gods.

2) Archetypes or spirits if you prefer.

3) A monad/Godhead source.

 

Of course the name of a God may well be 1) for person A, 2) for person B and 3) for person C. Another person, D, could also have a bit of a mix of 1,2,3.

The 3 options are not incompatible but some Gods are a better fit for each of the three options.

 

The monad is kind of singular and of course different cultures will have given different names to it, but by definition it's one and the same. So specifically for the monad indeed it's just different names attached to it.

 

7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Does this sound like Pan to you?  What about the entire Psalm.  Is King David writing about Pan?

 

To phrase the question differently, it's not about whether King David was consciously referring to Pan when writing the Psalms, this I believe to be very unlikely. It's a question of whether elements attributed to YHWH have a historical origin or lineage in the worship of Pan - I don't have an answer to this btw

 

9 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Thank you for asking.  I firmly believe that every question is an opportunity, not only for the questioner, but also for the one who attempts to answer. In my culture we call our learning still a chavrusa, from the root, chaver, "friend".  We're friends.  Working together.  Cooperating.  Sometimes I'm the teacher?  Sometimes I'm the student?  No.  I'm simultaneously learning while I'm teaching AND I'm simultaneously teaching while I'm learning. 

 

The same is true for questioning. Most simply stated:  The question is the answer.

 

Asking questions is, imo, the key to an intellectual attachment to the divine in all of its forms.  This is why you'll find great Jewish Prophets posing questions to themselves as part of a necessary component to their communion.  If you look at Psalm 18, it's there.  Isaiah does it.  Jeremiah does it.  It's a very good technique.

 

The question is the answer.

 

In a way yes, it's a the same in dream analysis, one may well analyse a dream, it's a very good practice but ultimately a dream is a dream, its meaning may only be apparent a long time later, no matter how much time is spent analysing it the next day - it's still a good process to analyse to dive in deeper in a sense.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

To phrase the question differently, it's not about whether King David was consciously referring to Pan when writing the Psalms, this I believe to be very unlikely. It's a question of whether elements attributed to YHWH have a historical origin or lineage in the worship of Pan - I don't have an answer to this btw

 

Important preliminary questions:

1. What are the attributes of YHVH? 

2. Which sources are best suited for this for collecting of attributes?

I choose King David as a reliable source.  Which sources would you choose and why?

 

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

In my head at least, I break Gods down into 3 categories, so it kind of depends,

 

I agree.  It depends.  I'm not intending to equate Thor with Aphrodite, for example.  What I meant is that there will naturally be an equivalence, not just correspondence, because all humans are alike in certain key aspects.  We are all born, we all have parents, we all experience forces of nature which are beyond our control.  We all experience some form of corruption, some form of salvation, some form of trickery, some form of revelation, some form of comedy, some form of tragedy, etc... these common human experiences and the natural reactions to these events in the human heart-and-mind are the origins of "Gods". 

 

I prefer to use the word spirits, or even better forces.  This is because the mechanism is perfectly normal and natural.  It's not super natural.  The God is produced like a recipe.  The God has no choice in the matter.  No will of its own.  It's almost like an insect, a moth to the flame or an ant seeking a honey-pot.  Calling one of these forces is nothing more than creating a honey-pot for it.  It cannot resist.

 

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

In a way yes, it's a the same in dream analysis, one may well analyse a dream, it's a very good practice but ultimately a dream is a dream, its meaning may only be apparent a long time later, no matter how much time is spent analysing it the next day - it's still a good process to analyse to dive in deeper in a sense.

 

In these cases, it's not like a dream, because, the question is the answer.  Interpretation sabotages the technique.  The first step in dream interpretation is to isolate significance from the other flotsam and jetsam which is concurrent in the streaming of consciousness.  These questions are not like that at all.  Everything is significant in such a way that the question cannot be answered without undermining the question itself.

[Cobie]

(wrong thread)

Edited August 11 by Cobie

[snowymountains]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Important preliminary questions:

1. What are the attributes of YHVH? 

2. Which sources are best suited for this for collecting of attributes?

 

1. YHVH as the monad corresponds to the Self (with capital S) archetype

2. Mystical experiences of prophets, Jesus etc

 

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

I choose King David as a reliable source.  Which sources would you choose and why?

 

None, yet - this is a conjecture I want to explore, not something I know

 

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

I agree.  It depends.  I'm not intending to equate Thor with Aphrodite, for example.  What I meant is that there will naturally be an equivalence, not just correspondence, because all humans are alike in certain key aspects.  We are all born, we all have parents, we all experience forces of nature which are beyond our control.  We all experience some form of corruption, some form of salvation, some form of trickery, some form of revelation, some form of comedy, some form of tragedy, etc... these common human experiences and the natural reactions to these events in the human heart-and-mind are the origins of "Gods". 

 

Exactly

 

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

I prefer to use the word spirits, or even better forces.  This is because the mechanism is perfectly normal and natural.  It's not super natural.  The God is produced like a recipe.  The God has no choice in the matter.  No will of its own.  It's almost like an insect, a moth to the flame or an ant seeking a honey-pot.  Calling one of these forces is nothing more than creating a honey-pot for it.  It cannot resist.

 

It's the same, one may well conjecture archetypes come from nature.

I don't know if it cannot resist, tbh I have never called an archetype, whatever archetypal experiences I had, they just happened on their own. I do believe that things like true names, exposing the mythological manifestations of an archetype etc do help one connect to an archetype, but I really don't know if the archetype cannot resist, they do appear in a progression after all.

 

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

In these cases, it's not like a dream, because, the question is the answer.  Interpretation sabotages the technique.  The first step in dream interpretation is to isolate significance from the other flotsam and jetsam which is concurrent in the streaming of consciousness.  These questions are not like that at all.  Everything is significant in such a way that the question cannot be answered without undermining the question itself.

 

Intellectualisation can be a defence preventing fully experiencing, it can also be about setting a framework. So depends, there's no one size fits all answer to this.

In a sense e.g. all theology is intellectualisation of religious experiences through analysis of words of Prophets/Buddhas etc.

[Apech]

If a person experiences divine presence and/ or forms a relationship with the same - but in doing so draws on familiar religious themes and names from the culture he lives in  to describe his spiritual experiences does that make his religion constructed  or any less genuine?

 

We seem to be veering into mythicism territory here.  
 

 

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

For those who appreciate reading as opposed to watching YouTube:

 

https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/the-origins-of-judaism-an-archaeological-historical-reappraisal

 

• Adler nar­rows his focus to a spe­cif­ic def­i­n­i­tion of Judaism, one that empha­sizes prac­tices over beliefs.
• Adler homes in on “when and how these Judeans, as a well-estab­lished col­lec­tive, first began to adopt the Torah as the cen­tral reg­u­lat­ing prin­ci­ple of their shared way of life.
• he works back­wards in time, look­ing at the archae­o­log­i­cal remains and lit­er­ary sources until there is no evi­dence of a par­tic­u­lar prac­tice. Such a method is known as a ter­mi­nus antes quem - "the latest beginning"

 

 

Thats because it is  archaeology .  This is  the archaeological aspects  of the thread subject matter .

 

Archaeology deals with material evidence , not 'beliefs' unless they are backed up valid interpretation of material evidence .

 

if you watch the youtube ... which by the way is a lecture from a Jewish professor  ,  about a book he researched and wrote  he states his parameters from the very beginning . If one does not   like youtubes  one could always read the text .

 

[Nungali]

 

 The following scheme shows how the data structure of the oldest part of the OT is composed based upon surveys from the archeological and epigraphical record.

 

 

 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

If a person experiences divine presence and/ or forms a relationship with the same - but in doing so draws on familiar religious themes and names from the culture he lives in  to describe his spiritual experiences does that make his religion constructed  or any less genuine?

 

If a person has a mystical experience, how else will they describe it other than using motifs and allegory which are readily understood in that time and place?

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Nungali, are you aware of the archeological principle "terminus ante quem"? ( TAQ ) It's a very important concept when interpreting the dates associated with archeological evidence.

 

 

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103148443

 

When an archeologist finds an arrowhead, for example, and determines that the arrowhead was crafted in 300 BCE, they do not conclude that they found the first arrowhead of that kind.  Therefore the date is recorded 300 BCE TAQ ( terminus ante quem ).  Arrowheads of that kind originated some time prior to 300 BCE.  That's the archeological evidence.

 

YouTube atheists almost always omit thus detail because they're less concerned with accuracy and more interested in generating clicks.  Further, the viewer can find many YouTubers making the same mistakes, repeating the same exaggerated conclusions, and this produces an illusion of consensus surrounding the error. 

 

This is not the first time I've posted about this.  See below from 2023 - LINK

 

 

Of course I know about that .

 

See my above response to when you already mentioned it as some type of 'revelation'   The author clearly explains it himself as well .

 

Although you may not be seeing my above response as you keep informing everyone you have me on ignore .

 

 

[Daniel]

Just now, Nungali said:

Of course I know about that .

 

Then you know that archeological evidence is irrelevant to the construction of Judaism.  The dates are "the latest beginning", but could be much earlier.

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Not those.

 

The best example are the Shasu.  Although there are others.

 

 

YHVH is formless.  So, I vote no unless you're referring to a different Pan.  However YHVH can take any form, and can reveal itself to whomever however it chooses.  If so, then it's theoretically possible, but unlikely.  There would need to be a very good reason for this subterfuge.  See Psalm 18 particularly verse 31, but , the entire Psalm would be good to consider for answering your question.

 

האל תמים דרכו אמרת־יהוה צרופה מגן הוא לכל החוסים בו׃

 

As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is proven; he is a shield to all those who trust in him

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does this sound like Pan to you?  What about the entire Psalm.  Is King David writing about Pan?

 

 

I think once the word "God" is defined properly I think you'll agree with King Solomon:  "There's nothing new under the sun". - Ecclesiastes 1:9

 

All the other Gods are the same, they just different names.  It's how it was then, it's how it is now.  But there's only one YHVH.  There cannot be any others.  It's impossible.  The reason people get confused is because they don't understand what that name means.  Usually the individual is coming from a Christian background which stifles,  obscures, and discourages any cognitive exploration that doesn't begin and end with a God in-the-flesh.  Islam attempts ( and does a good job, imo ) of correcting this misconception and vigorously asserts none can be compared to Allah, the one and only God lacking all partners.

 

 

Thank you for asking.  I firmly believe that every question is an opportunity, not only for the questioner, but also for the one who attempts to answer. In my culture we call our learning still a chavrusa, from the root, chaver, "friend".  We're friends.  Working together.  Cooperating.  Sometimes I'm the teacher?  Sometimes I'm the student?  No.  I'm simultaneously learning while I'm teaching AND I'm simultaneously teaching while I'm learning. 

 

The same is true for questioning. Most simply stated:  The question is the answer.

 

Asking questions is, imo, the key to an intellectual attachment to the divine in all of its forms.  This is why you'll find great Jewish Prophets posing questions to themselves as part of a necessary component to their communion.  If you look at Psalm 18, it's there.  Isaiah does it.  Jeremiah does it.  It's a very good technique.

 

The question is the answer.

 

 " The 'formless' that can take on any form  "

 

 

[Daniel]

Just now, Nungali said:

The 'formless' that can take on any form  "

 

Yes.  That's included in omnipotence.

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, Apech said:

If a person experiences divine presence and/ or forms a relationship with the same - but in doing so draws on familiar religious themes and names from the culture he lives in  to describe his spiritual experiences does that make his religion constructed  or any less genuine?

 

All religions do that .  Thats 'religion'  .  Its the religious aspects that are constructed .  However in this case the construction is not primarily individual and based on divine presence but political, used as an instrument to gain political solidarity for an uprising and overtaking and perhaps some 'religious justification'  for rather  horrific acts .

 

So I would say yes it does make it constructed , in this instance  (but maybe not if 'a person'  does it ) .  Any less genuine ?  Not at all . if one considers the anthropological   view as the definition  of the function of religions .

 

It certainly makes it less genuine from a literal interpretation .

 

A look at how Christianity was constructed  is a similar process .

 

I will cite an opinion again which I have made many times regarding this subject ; when referring to a youtube ( I think called 'Kingdom of David ' - although I can not find it yet under that name , plenty of others but not this one )  I mention a Rabbi who holds the same opinion and have cited it a few times ; ' Of course its a made up story .  Found the Book of the Law during temple renovations ? Give me a break ! It is a story .... but , its a great story and one that has enabled the Jews to live together  and survive all types of oppression  and attempts to wipe us out throughout a very long history .'

 

And, as I have stated a few times here, I agree with him .

 

 

Quote

We seem to be veering into mythicism territory here.  
 

 

 

Mythicism ?  Yeah ?   ...

 

1. The scholarly opinion that the gospel is mythical.
2. The habitual practice of attributing everything to mythological causes; superstition, the opposite of rationalism, or of realism.
3. The creative potential for the creation of mythology; the faculty of mythopoeia.

 

I cant see it  I see it as more of  a 'political propaganda ' fuelled by  the creation of a religion ...  not an uncommon habit of humans  IMO .

 

1. It is not mythical but is a combination of  various other people's  cultural memories  and stories ....' borrowed into ' Judaism's early history (ie.  those people supposedly specially chosen by God to do a political task   )

 

2. Not much is being attributed to 'mythological causes' .

 

3. I dont see much original creative potential at all , its mainly borrowed  -  more plagiarism then creation .

Edited August 12 by Nungali

[Nungali]

47 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Then you know that archeological evidence is irrelevant to the construction of Judaism.  The dates are "the latest beginning", but could be much earlier.

 

Or could not be .

 

What I find more relevant is your statement that it is a constructed religion .

 

Maybe you are one of those that think the construction came earlier , after the  ' Persian period ' ? 

[Daniel]

56 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Or could not be

 

All archeological evidence is dated TAQ, "the latest beginning"

 

57 minutes ago, Nungali said:

your statement that it is a constructed religion .

 

I didn't write that.

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

that archeological evidence is irrelevant to the construction of Judaism. 

 

Archeological evidence is irrelevant to the topic of your thread.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

All religions do that .  Thats 'religion'  .  Its the religious aspects that are constructed .

 

No.  Not all.  See below.  Revealed religions don't do that.

 

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/revealed_religion

 

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

However in this case the construction is not primarily individual and based on divine presence but political

 

Confirmation bias.  Texas Sharp Shooter fallacy.