The Construction of Judaism

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

No.

 

They clearly DID .

 

Originally the date was  2300-2000.  Then, this date was made more specific:  2150-1700.  That's not a major shift.

 

It is enough to prove your unqualified statement wrong though .

 

The article is describing the challenges of carbon dating.

 

and supplying proof that your assertion was mistaken .

 

I suppose you now try to assert that  you meant that  claim .... . aside from any technical  discrepancies or improvements in technology and / or method . 

 

Now, if one knows anything at all about archaeology ......

 

 

 

Do you see it?  The carbon dating for the archeological evidence in support of the 2300-2000 range is conflicting and less reliable. 

 

 

 

Quote

The article is reporting new evidence with more reliable carbon dating.

 

 

The beginning of the iron age is not the same as the dating the conception of ideas or the construction of a religion. 

 

Apples =/= Oranges

 

 

I never cited this paper as   a demonstration of how the dating of Judaism might be different , but as a demonstration of how  one of your 'red herring' claims was wrong .

 

22 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

  Later discoveries can push the date backwards, but not forwards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

Edited August 14 by Nungali

[Daniel]

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

It is enough to prove your unqualified statement wrong though .

 

The article you brought is about the challenges of carbon dating.  The article reports that the unreliable outlier is being excluded.  New evidence brought specificity.

 

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

and supplying proof that your assertion was mistaken .

 

It's very simple.

1. An arrowhead dated to 300BCE is discovered.  That means arrowheads were created 300BCE or before.
2. An arrowhead dated to 200BCE is discovered.  It changes nothing.  Arrowheads were created 300BCE or before.
3. An arrowhead dated to 400BCE is discovered.  This is significant.  New conclusion:  Arrowheads were created 400BCE or before.

That's it.  TAQ.  Terminus Ante Quem.  The Latest Beginning.

 

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

your 'red herring' claims was wrong

 

The red herring is trying to use "who wrote it first" as a relevant data point for evaluating the construction of a religion in that era.  Stories were told and passed by word of mouth.  Few knew how to read or write.  But the critics of Judaism and the YouTube atheist community consistently push this idea on the overly eager audience who gratefully laps it up. 

 

in regard to Dr. Adler's research you're misinterpreting it.  He's even stated that explicitly in an interview.  I'll see if I can find it.

 

 

Edited August 14 by Daniel

[Daniel]

On 8/10/2024 at 8:21 PM, 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

 

Here's an interview of Dr. Adler on the "MythVision" YouTube channel.  This channel is a favorite among atheists and critics of Judaism and Christianity, and, it's good entertaining YouTube content. Whatever faults you may find in me, what cannot be stated honestly is that I avoid the other-side.  I listen and I understand what the critics are saying about me, my religion, my faith, and my culture.  I am not afraid of the criticism.

 

At approx. the 1 hour 30 minute mark, the interviewer asks Dr. Adler to comment on the construction of Judaism in the manner which you are describing in this thread.  Dr. Adler uses the words "super-conjectural" to answer the question.  It's a huge mystery.  There's evidence which shows when the ideas became a national way of life. But it's impossible to go further than that through rational scientific inquiry.

 

Also note?  1:31:53  Terminus Ante Quem is invoked, by Dr. Adler.  Nungali, it's a very important concept which is neglected by every internet , DIY, critical-researcher I have ever encountered.  And I've encountered many.

 

Hopefully, the simple fact that I am posting this video will show that I am being fair.  I'm not hiding anything.  I'm very happy to present both sides of this debate and discuss them both.  The difference between us, is, my approach includes both sides.  That's the only way to to make a wise judgement.

 

I've queued the video to the appropriate spot towards the end of the interview.

 

 

Edited August 14 by Daniel

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

The article you brought is about the challenges of carbon dating.  The article reports that the unreliable outlier is being excluded.  New evidence brought specificity.

 

 

It's very simple.

1. An arrowhead dated to 300BCE is discovered.  That means arrowheads were created 300BCE or before.
2. An arrowhead dated to 200BCE is discovered.  It changes nothing.  Arrowheads were created 300BCE or before.
3. An arrowhead dated to 400BCE is discovered.  This is significant.  New conclusion:  Arrowheads were created 400BCE or before.

That's it.  TAQ.  Terminus Ante Quem.  The Latest Beginning.

 

 

 

The red herring is trying to use "who wrote it first" as a relevant data point for evaluating the construction of a religion in that era. 

 

NOPE ... the red herring was you saying archeology can never be redated backwards .

 

So thats a red herring on top of the other red herrings .

 

 

 

Stories were told and passed by word of mouth.  Few knew how to read or write.  But the critics of Judaism and the YouTube atheist community consistently push this idea on the overly eager audience who gratefully laps it up. 

 

 

 

 

I am glad you wrote that for all to see here .

 

" The youtube athiest community .   "

 

How idiotic .... to get the PROFESSOR'S  youtube I had to sift through about 30 youtubes that claim exactly what you do and most where in the form of simplistic cartoons  !

 

  

 

There are of course many professors that say what you do ... but they made youtubes too .

 

and you are still beating your dead donkey as well .

 

Edited August 15 by Nungali

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, Daniel said:

in regard to Dr. Adler's research you're misinterpreting it.  He's even stated that explicitly in an interview.  I'll see if I can find it.

 

 

 

I would love to see  an interview of Dr Adler  stating explicitly in an interview that I misrepresented his research . 

 

No doubt you can find one where he explicitly shows misinterpretation of his research  that you   TRY TO claim is my viewpoint and interpretation .

 

But regarding the form of such evidence

 

 

it will not be one of those 'atheist you tubes ' will it  ? 

 

Edited August 15 by Nungali

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Here's an interview of Dr. Adler on the "MythVision" YouTube channel.  This channel is a favorite among atheists and critics of Judaism and Christianity, and, it's good entertaining YouTube content. Whatever faults you may find in me, what cannot be stated honestly is that I avoid the other-side.  I listen and I understand what the critics are saying about me, my religion, my faith, and my culture.  I am not afraid of the criticism.

 

At approx. the 1 hour 30 minute mark, the interviewer asks Dr. Adler to comment on the construction of Judaism in the manner which you are describing in this thread.  Dr. Adler uses the words "super-conjectural" to answer the question.  It's a huge mystery.  There's evidence which shows when the ideas became a national way of life. But it's impossible to go further than that through rational scientific inquiry.

 

Also note?  1:31:53  Terminus Ante Quem is invoked, by Dr. Adler.  Nungali, it's a very important concept which is neglected by every internet , DIY, critical-researcher I have ever encountered.  And I've encountered many.

 

Hopefully, the simple fact that I am posting this video will show that I am being fair.  I'm not hiding anything.  I'm very happy to present both sides of this debate and discuss them both.  The difference between us, is, my approach includes both sides.  That's the only way to to make a wise judgement.

 

I've queued the video to the appropriate spot towards the end of the interview.

 

 

 

Just as I thought ... there is NOTHING in there at all    that  indicates   " in regard to Dr. Adler's research you're misinterpreting it. " 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

I am finished with you and your tactics now Daniel .

 

Just as  others on Daobums  have declared . I answered a few of your fake claims  and  twists on things but that just leads to more of them in your attempts to draw the converse away from the subject matter ... a common internet debate tactic .

 

Soon I shall post more about other areas that  support my view .... and when they are all added up together , the puzzle will be clearer that the parts .

 

However I won't be indulging you anymore  ... so that makes me yet another one .  AND if you want to dispute THAT is happening , would you like a list of names ?  ... nah, you would probably dispute that too .   Daniel Denial  is an apt nickname .

Edited August 15 by Nungali

[Nungali]

AND  I suggest anyone that wants to watch the above video does not watch it from where Daniel ' helped us to start ' ... but from the beginning  , including the professor's education background  and field .

 

His whole trip  is about the origins of Judaism .... does he  state the  Hebrew Bible stories are a  true  continuous record of stories   from the history of Judaism , without borrowing and snaffling other  stories from other cultures  ?

 

 

 

 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

the red herring was you saying archeology can never be redated backwards .

 

If that's what I wrote, it's not what I meant.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

in regard to Dr. Adler's research you're misinterpreting it. " 

 

Dr. Adler says attempts to hypothesize the construction of Judaism are super-conjectural and are not data driven.  Super-conjectural and not data driven means they are little more than guessing.  The question is asked and answered starting at 1 hour and 30 minutes.  The link in my post advances to the correct spot automatically.

 

Edited August 15 by Daniel

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

I suggest not to watch it from where Daniel ' helped us to start ' ... but from the beginning  , including the professor's education background  and field .

 

The Dr's credentials are not disputed.  What I've shown is that his research, just like all scientific research, has its limitations. You don't seem to understand what those limits are, and as a result, you're exaggerating.

 

Edited August 15 by Daniel

[snowymountains]

On 8/12/2024 at 1:01 PM, Apech said:

.....

 

Do they?  Or do they seem to?

 

I think it is perhaps more about narrative construction around 'something' inexpressible.  If I have a transcendental experience say and I want to tell others about it - and they ask where did you get this knowledge - then you might say 'it spoke to me' ... just as on hearing great music you might say the same thing.  Then this is written down as 'God spoke to him' because it is a way of communicating the source of knowledge to people who have not had transcendent experiences.  

 

If it's phrased as spoke to him, it may well be taken as a dialogue, which is with a projection

It can also be that someone is speaking from a "ground state" close to the source and they mean "spoke to" in that sense.

One can only make an estimate of what is what in each religious experience, but there's plenty of the former, not only the later.

 

On 8/12/2024 at 1:01 PM, Apech said:

If one was to actually project Self onto this ineffable presence, say, then actually you are having a filtered and lesser experience of the divine.  If you see what I mean.

 

Agreed, that's exactly what I'm saying

[snowymountains]

On 8/12/2024 at 1:51 PM, Daniel said:

 

Why the "but"?

 

If the individual is talking to a projection of Self, not to YHVH, then YHVH is not the Self.  There is a correspondence, but it is not equivalent.  We're in agreement?  

 

 

 

IF YHVH corresponds to the Self but is not limited to the Self ...

THEN when they report they talked to God in the context of a spiritual experience, they talked to a projection of Self.

 

 

 

All communication is the product of adoption-and-projection.

 

 

Let's assume this is true.  If so, then, there is nothing that can be rationally asserted about YHVH.  Agreed?  If there is no way, then YHVH is not bestowing a way.  If what you write is true, then, YHVH's will is not to reveal itself to its creations.  This is the opposite of Abrahamic scripture, and that's fine.  There is nothing wrong with taking this point of view.  Agnosticism is the rational choice here, if what you wrote it true. 

And, IF what you wrote is true, then, the entire Abrahamic construct and our literature is false.  Again, that's a perfectly fine approach. A person can do everything they need to do, and more, without anything relating to Abraham or the Jewish stories.  Perhaps, one reads the stories for inspiration and illumination, but, none of this is actually describing a God that exists outside the human mind-and-heart.

 

I wouldn't say it is false in it's entirety. Like all religions, it probably has a mix of people speaking from being close to the ground state and others who had dialogues with projections, I do not underestimate the later btw.

 

On 8/12/2024 at 1:51 PM, Daniel said:

The aspects of the story which resonate with the individual are nothing more than projections of their own self ( individual soul ).  The aspects of the story which resonate as universal truths are still nothing more than projections of the individual's perception of the world which is being shaped by their own life experiences as they are perceived in their mind-and-heart.  Again, this is a completely self-centered, self-contained approach.  

 

Self... contained...

not resonate personally, but instead make sense as inner analysis of the experience/symbolic analysis.

 

On 8/12/2024 at 1:51 PM, Daniel said:

Let's suppose that you're an unlimited God and you would like to help a finite human mind escape from the limitations of self/Self projections.  OK?  Would that outcome be encouraged by a revelation of divinity in human form?   Would that outcome be encouraged by revelation of divinity as a "Self"?

 

It's also the case that someone may sometimes speak from a position that's close to the source, my personal belief is that e.g. Christ or the Buddha sometimes made statements from that position.

If you mean revelation of divinity in a vision where the divinity takes human form, then this would be a projection, this sort of experience is not to be underestimated btw, but it's something else.

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

It's also the case that someone may sometimes speak from a position that's close to the source, my personal belief is that e.g. Christ or the Buddha sometimes made statements from that position.

If you mean revelation of divinity in a vision where the divinity takes human form, then this would be a projection, this sort of experience is not to be underestimated btw, but it's something else.

 

I hear you, but, how is this related to the question I asked?

 

Let's suppose that you're an unlimited God and you would like to help a finite human mind escape from the limitations of self/Self projections.  OK?  Would that outcome be encouraged by a revelation of divinity in human form?   Would that outcome be encouraged by revelation of divinity as a "Self"?

[snowymountains]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I hear you, but, how is this related to the question I asked?

 

Let's suppose that you're an unlimited God and you would like to help a finite human mind escape from the limitations of self/Self projections.  OK?  Would that outcome be encouraged by a revelation of divinity in human form?   Would that outcome be encouraged by revelation of divinity as a "Self"?

 

I am lost a bit regarding "revelation of divinity in human form". What do you refer to by this ? I'm not sure whether it's a reference to a divinity within a human body / in flesh and bones in the real world ( exclusive ) or a reference to a dream/vision type of scenario like we were discussing before.

Edited August 15 by snowymountains

[Daniel]

10 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

I am lost a bit regarding "revelation of divinity in human form". What do you refer to by this ?

 

I'm referring to any form which is a projection of the human self or psyche.  Yes that includes physical characteristics, but, I was thinking more broadly to also include personality traits and archetypes embedded in the shared human consciousness.

 

May I rephrase the question?

 

Here and now, in this material realm, if deities exist, they are completely concealed from view.  There is no concrete supporting evidence of any Gods.  Because of this, if an individual has an encounter with a deity, it will be a result of the deity choosing to come out of hiding and reveal itself to that individual or individuals. 

 

If the deity is infinite then it will have infinite options in the manner which it can reveal itself.  The manner it chooses is an expression of its will.  Given the following 3 cases what, if anything, can be inferred about the will of infinite deity?

1. Reveals itself in a form which resembles a physical human body or psyche.
2. Reveals itself in a form which does not resemble a physical human body or psyche.
3. Reveals itself in multiple forms including human physical forms, aspects of a human psyche, non human forms, and not aspects of a  human psyche.

Or more simply:

1. Human form
2. Not human form 
3. Both human and not

What can be inferred about an infinite deity revealing itself in each of these cases?

 

 

[snowymountains]

11 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I'm referring to any form which is a projection of the human self or psyche.  Yes that includes physical characteristics, but, I was thinking more broadly to also include personality traits and archetypes embedded in the shared human consciousness.

 

May I rephrase the question?

 

Here and now, in this material realm, if deities exist, they are completely concealed from view.  There is no concrete supporting evidence of any Gods.  Because of this, if an individual has an encounter with a deity, it will be a result of the deity choosing to come out of hiding and reveal itself to that individual or individuals. 

 

If the deity is infinite then it will have infinite options in the manner which it can reveal itself.  The manner it chooses is an expression of its will.  Given the following 3 cases what, if anything, can be inferred about the will of infinite deity?

1. Reveals itself in a form which resembles a physical human body or psyche.
2. Reveals itself in a form which does not resemble a physical human body or psyche.
3. Reveals itself in multiple forms including human physical forms, aspects of a human psyche, non human forms, and not aspects of a  human psyche.

Or more simply:

1. Human form
2. Not human form 
3. Both human and not

What can be inferred about an infinite deity revealing itself in each of these cases?

 

 

 

There's a big difference between these, a God in human form, or someone claiming they are one with God, e.g. Christ by definition was not a projection.

Christ in a dream, or Christ is our imagination is a projection though.

 

If you go deeper in that "some dreams are sent to us by nature", if dreams are e.g. followed by synchronicities. Then I see what you're saying, and it gets more complex to confine Self strictly in the personal psyche

[Nungali]

As the Yahwists of Elephantine in c. 410 to 390 are completely unaware of their own tradition yet do communicate with their counterparts in Shechem and Jerusalem as equals the process that leads to Abrahamic religions starts after the destruction of the Elephantine temple. 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.

 

 

 

[Nungali]

Basically two different traditions fuse temporarily to become separate religions in a later stage.

[Nungali]

Update for the scheme presented above  Clustered groups of deities from Ur and Harran were promoted by the last Babylonian ruler Nabonidus and their godheads and depending deities are all attested in or near Jerusalem. These clusters are included as it's by far the fastest and easiest way to explain the influence of Sumerian and especially Babylonian mythology on the first seven books of the OT. The following model may need an Egyptian column as symbols like the ankh show on related Mesopotamian seals [Sin, Marduk, Nabu etc] from the Levant in Iron III  till 500 BC.

 

[Nungali]

Attermpt to convert scheme into (some kind of) a timeline. Including the Enūma Eliš and a small but crucial portion of Assyrian mythology where Ashur takes the role of Marduk in the Enūma Eliš. The model still needs an Egyptian column for the synchronization of El with Osiris in Ugarit, the Amman citadel etc.

 

[Nungali]

The idea here is  that the god later know as 'Yahweh' labeled above  as 'yahweh elohim' is a composite of many entities ;
Vawter translates genesis 49:24-26 as below:

His bow stayed taut,
His hands were agile,
By the Bull of Jacob,
By the strength of the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel,
By El, your Father, who helps you,
By Shadday who blesses you
With the blessings of Heavens, from above,
The blessings of the Deep, crouching below,
The blessings of Breasts-and-Womb,
The blessings of your Father, Hero and Almighty,
The blessings of the Eternal Mountains,
The delight of the Everlasting Hills,
May they be on the head of Joseph,
On the crown of the chosen of his brothers

Authors argue that in here, we would be distinguishing multiple sets of different gods.

To understand the development of the composite god yhwh, its necessary to understand how the the political entities where the worship of Yahweh took roots arose at some point of iron age I.

The bronze age collapse did not mean that all people living in the levant were somehow wiped out and their beliefs erased from earth. far from it, we can probably say the ancient levantine system of belief was pretty much alive, and carried on by the scattered population. via archeology, we know that in the highlands small villages start to dot the landscape in north and south, sometimes clearly showing some process of sedentarization of nomadic herders.

In the bible, polemics of yahweh's surrogates against other gods are frequent, common and infamous. curiously enough, there's no polemics against the semitic god el, old head of the levant pantheon, who was depicted in his elderly magnificence sat on a cosmic throne, presiding the divine council of stars and heavenly being (similarly to isaiah's description of yahweh and his divine council).

So this absense of polemics has been interpreted as a sign of how early the amalgamation (or absorption) of yahweh and el happened. how did they come to identify? this is shrouded within a dark mist.

We have insights on the origin of both these gods:

1- El, as described above, was the ancient semitic pantheon chief - so we can say it was pretty much local, with his traditions kept up by semitic populations scattered/nomadized after bronze age collapse.
2- A number of authors now depict Yahweh as a desert god. under this scheme of things, Yahweh was probably a god/entity worshiped at high places and hills in the northern deserts of Arabia, and was transmitted to the Levant via traveling metal smiths from those regions - the culture and iron crafts of these metal smiths appearing as magical, divine, ritualistic to the earliest population of the dotted villages from above, adopting the cult either via learning or some of the smiths settling in.

We can speculate what happened afterwards;  if you were a Semitic villager, and during your childhood your grandpa who had been a herder told you about the powerful El, chief of the gods presiding over the stars and now you found yourself participating in the cult of this new god brought by these mysterious yet powerful metal smiths, providing you with formidable iron weapons to defend the village, maybe the natural thought going through your mind was: Yahweh is powerful, he is giving us these weapons to defeat our enemies and defend our families. he shall be the chief of the gods.

 

[NaturaNaturans]

Nietzche had a very fiery take on it. I recently read the genealogy of morals. I hesitate to qoute this as it might come off as hatefull, but If nothing else it is interresting and has historical value:

 

that priestly nation which eventually realised that the one method of effecting satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the cleverest revenge. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!" We know who it was who reaped the heritage of this Jewish transvaluation. In the context of the monstrous and inordinately fateful initiative which the Jews have exhibited in connection with[Pg 31] this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I remember the passage which came to my pen on another occasion (Beyond Good and Evil, Aph. 195)—that it was, in fact, with the Jews that the revolt of the slaves begins in the sphere of morals; that revolt which has behind it a history of two millennia, and which at the present day has only moved out of our sight, because it—has achieved victory.