Leo Caesius said:Thus was monotheism born: from a sacred literature, a refined concept of orthodoxy, and a universalistic outlook. I personally feel that literacy is a necessary prerequisite for abstract concepts such as universalism or orthodoxy.
I assume you're joking, but those who don't know Karen Armstrong wrote that book years ago. She follows the more conventional view that monotheism was largely established among the Jewish elite by the end of the Exile. Among the less educated classes and particularly among the Samaritans, it probably took longer, but certainly by the Hellenistic Age it was pretty well established in both nations. The Maccabee Revolt wouldn't have been as fanatacial if Hellenistic gods were widely accepted. Now above all hold-over customs naturally continued for centuries, even to the present (see Christmas trees). That makes archeological evidence a bit tricky especially when it contradicts historical records.Faeelin said:You know, this would make an interesting book. The History of God, or somesuch.
Well, again, even in the Middle East you have polytheists, but they're relegated to the boonies. In some of the texts I've read a common theme is the city-dwelling priest coming out to the countryside only to find people backsliding into polytheism. This is as common among the Mandaeans as it is among the Jews.Martel said:In any event, this is the wrong question. The real question is why did exclusive monotheism develop in the Middle East? Most advanced societies develop some form of monotheism (China, India, the Yoruba, Rome, etc.), it's only in the Middle East were a single deity was to be worshipped to the absolute exclusion of all others.
fenkmaster said:Yes, indeed...it appears you skipped over the kajillions of references in the Old Testament histories to the Israelites where th people consistently sinned by worshipping other gods...I can't tell if you're implying that the idea that the Jews weren't at least in name monotheistic throughout their history or not.
Depends what is meant by monotheism. None of the religions you mentioned are strictly monotheistic because they all postulate the existence of evil as a separate divinity or at least a supernatural entity separate from the good one.
But doesn't the same scripture blatantly mention the supposed other gods as false idols?Tom Veil said:I'll can't find the rabbi who said it first, but the saying is, "if the Scriptures have to make it a sin to worship other gods, then our religion isn't monotheist yet, because who are these other gods?"
Imajin said:But doesn't the same scripture blatantly mention the supposed other gods as false idols?
fortyseven said:Excellent explanation Leo. I haven't seen it put all together like that before.
He might have meant Ezra....Leo Caesius said:But Ezekiel died before Cyrus conquered Babylon?
I don't necessarily consider these ethnonyms very useful; Cyrus claims, in the cylinder inscription, to be the King of Anshan, but nothing about his own ethnicity. Cyrus also explicitly identifies himself as a Mazdayasnian and therefore a follower of an Iranian religion, which would set him apart from the people of Anshan, who worshipped gods like Susinak and Nahhunte. Cyrus' inscription at Murghab (Pasargadae) identifies him as an Achaemenid (Haxamanishiya), and Darius' inscription at Naqsh-i Rustam identifies his father as an Achaemenid and a Persian. Whatever the precise ethnicity of the Achaemenids was, the fact remains that he and his successors used Old Persian, not Elamite, and identified themselves as being of Aryan stock (Ariya-cica) rather than Elamite stock.
If you believe that Darius himself was a usurper who had nothing to do with Cyrus, that complicates the picture, but I'm willing to believe that there was some family connection between the two, although obviously not very close.
fenkmaster said:Indeed, but that seems to have been entirely passed over.
To me it seems that revisionists take from the HB any passages that they think would suppoort their idea that the Hebrews aren't what they claim to be, that they're Canaanites, that they're polytheistic, etc., but when it really comes down to it there's no solid proof, archaeological or textual, that the basic outline of Israel's history, religious and secular, as laid down in the TNK is contradicted. To me, at least, it seems like we're trying to "fix" the mistakes of these poor, uneducated ancients, while passing over what they actually wrote as "poetry" or a "mythology" or an "epic history". Whether you believe in all the miracles and divine revelations of the HB or not, it seems fairly clear to me that nothing has been found to explicitly contradict the history of Israel as laid down by the OT writers.
fenkmaster said:Indeed, but that seems to have been entirely passed over.
To me it seems that revisionists take from the HB any passages that they think would suppoort their idea that the Hebrews aren't what they claim to be, that they're Canaanites, that they're polytheistic, etc., but when it really comes down to it there's no solid proof, archaeological or textual, that the basic outline of Israel's history, religious and secular, as laid down in the TNK is contradicted. To me, at least, it seems like we're trying to "fix" the mistakes of these poor, uneducated ancients, while passing over what they actually wrote as "poetry" or a "mythology" or an "epic history". Whether you believe in all the miracles and divine revelations of the HB or not, it seems fairly clear to me that nothing has been found to explicitly contradict the history of Israel as laid down by the OT writers.
I disagree. I can read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and am quite familiar with the archaeology of the ancient Near East. I've read the whole Bible both in my native language (English) and in the original languages. There's little "modern" in my suppositions and theories. If, of course, you have alternate evidence from the time period in question, I suggest that you produce it.fenkmaster said:Not to be combative, but I would say that it has indeed been "put together" all right. Its based on modern suppositions and theories and worldviews, but there's little from the time period itself to back it up.
MarkA said:There is NO archeological evidence or evidence from other civilizations for the existence of David or Solomon for example.
The nomadic Hebrews invade Canaan. They use the pottery left behind by the Canaanites. I fail to see the contradiction here...MarkA said:You are kidding right?
The pottery alone from the time of the supposed Hebrew invasion of the 'Promised Land' shows the Cannanites and Hebrews as the same people.
None of the claimed historical facts of the OT hold any credibility whatever. There may be coincidental similarities of names, but none can be linked to historical events. There is NO archeological evidence or evidence from other civilizations for the existence of David or Solomon for example.
I'd also add the links to previous discussion along these lines that we've had:MerryPrankster said:Wrong. The Moabite stelae describes a battle between an alliance of "Israel" and "The House of David" (which I assume means Judah) against the Moabites. There's also the Tel-Dan Stelae.
Here're some links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/i...rss&adxnnlx=1144854331-1SuGMwAZHO+qZkhHviYX4w
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David
Martel said:I assume you're joking, but those who don't know Karen Armstrong wrote that book years ago. She follows the more conventional view that monotheism was largely established among the Jewish elite by the end of the Exile. Among the less educated classes and particularly among the Samaritans, it probably took longer, but certainly by the Hellenistic Age it was pretty well established in both nations. The Maccabee Revolt wouldn't have been as fanatacial if Hellenistic gods were widely accepted.