Zeitgeist Part 1

[neilgodfrey]

You guys are not even trying:

"Here we discuss the evidence for the motif of "the Twelve" in antiquity, including as concerns the Bible as well as in other artifacts and myths in numerous other cultures. . . . .

What is this? This was posted in another thread. I responded to it there so I guess I should respond to it here, too. Have you posted this again somewhere else? Let me know so I can post my replies to every place here you have repeated it.

For convenience I'll repeat my response here:

Maxmos helpfully supplies this link: - The Twelve in the Bible and Ancient Mythology.

Here we see a classic case of flawed reasoning, confusion of terms and hostile tendentiousness.

Murdock begins:

Were the 12 Tribes of Israel Based on the Zodiac?

This is a subject about which there is much disinformation, including attempts to claim that the zodiac postdated the founding of the Israelite nation with its 12 tribes and that, hence, the numbering of the tribes could not be based on the 12 zodiacal signs, as has been suggested by many people since ancient times.

From the get-go we have alternative viewpoints labeled "disinformation". Others are "attempting to claim" (as if there is something less than fully objective or above-board in their efforts) that the zodiac postdated the founding of Israel. Murdock's point is that all of this "disinformation" and "attempted claims" come together to argue that the number of tribes of Israel could not be based on the 12 zodiacal signs.

Murdock brings in her first witnesses:

Testimony of Josephus and Philo

The claim that the 12 tribes of Israel were identified with the 12 signs of the zodiac is spelled out clearly by the ancient Jewish writers Philo and Josephus, during the first century. During the first century BCE, Diodorus Siculus identified the 12 tribes with the 12 months.

Now that's a slightly different claim from the one Murdock began with. Murdock here says that Josephus and Philo "clearly" "spell out" the "claim" that the 12 tribes "were identified with the 12 signs of the zodiac".

But the original claim was that the 12 tribes were "based on" the zodiacal signs. Existing tribes being "identified with" zodiacal signs is not the same thing. But I could imagine the average reader might well be led along through the argument without being aware of the significance of this change in wording, and in the end mistakenly think that Murdock has supplied evidence for something when she has not.

Continuing:

As I relate in Christ in Egypt (261):

See Exodus 39:9-14: "...they made the breastplate... And they set in it four rows of stones... And the stones were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve...according to the twelve tribes."

As Josephus says (Antiquities, 3.8 ): "And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning." (Josephus, 75.)

Earlier than Josephus, Philo ("On the Life of Moses," 12) had made the same comments regarding Moses: "Then the twelve stones on the breast, which are not like one another in colour, and which are divided into four rows of three stones in each, what else can they be emblems of, except of the circle of the zodiac?" (Philo, 99.)

As we can see, by the first century it was well known that the theme of "the 12" was astrological in nature.

Look at what Josephus and Philo are quoted as saying. They do not support Murdock's original claim that the 12 tribes were (historically according to tradition) "based on" the zodiac. Josephus and Philo are saying that they, in their own day, they themselves as first century authors, see zodiacal symbolism in the 12 tribes of Israel.

That is not the same thing at all as saying that they believed the 12 tribes "were based on the zodiac" as if that were their origin. They are only saying they symbolize the zodiac. And even if they did believe that they 12 tribes originated as a result of some plan or design to reflect the zodiac, that would tell us nothing about the real origin of the tribes. It would only tell us what first century writers like Philo and Josephus thought.

Again we find that no alternative hypotheses are entertained. I find it far more plausible that the 12 tribes were a literary construct (from the Persian or Hellenistic times) based on Greek writings. There are a significant number of associations between the Pentateuch/Primary History and Greek works such as those of Herodotus and Plato. One hypothesis is that the Primary History (including the Pentateuch) was composed with Greek ideals in mind -- one of those was that the ideal state consisted of 12 tribes.

But I'm speaking here as a minimalist and I know not many will go that far, certainly not without a lot more evidence than I can give here. But there are yet more plausible explanations for the origin of the idea of the 12 tribes. One might even ask if the zodiac division into 12 (as opposed to 13, or 24, etc) was itself inspired by an interest in the magical powers of numbers: 3 and 4 relate to both 7 and 12. And one could go on and on with alternatives . . . .

[Thor]

But I'm speaking here as a minimalist and I know not many will go that far, certainly not without a lot more evidence than I can give here. But there are yet more plausible explanations for the origin of the idea of the 12 tribes. One might even ask if the zodiac division into 12 (as opposed to 13, or 24, etc) was itself inspired by an interest in the magical powers of numbers: 3 and 4 relate to both 7 and 12. And one could go on and on with alternatives . . . .

I agree with there being a far more complex elements that simply can not be ignored. And criteria used to reject/support some theories, must be equally valid to all other theories as well.

In relation to question about division of the Zodiac and it`s inspiration, understand that the Zodiac is a part of a larger observable phenomenon of change, measured by a system of intervals we today know as `time`. Considering recent discoveries of cognitive functions and relation to math, it is understandable that a biological internal systems was perceived as some external revelation from a kind of outer source. Language as internal system was discovered in the 1960`s by Noam Chomsky. All systems working within a shared human framework.

When we think of how different people have expressed their experience of reality by use of symbolic representations. The same system of collecting, interpreting and expression is a shared biological element relating to humanity itself, and not some humans alone. There are degrees of variations within humanity, but they are related to external factors. Here is something that reveals why the clock relates so badly with our number system that use 10.

The OT was redacted after the monotheistic redactions of King Josiah after 622 BC.

The 12 tribes legends go back much further in time, and it is stated 10 tribes were lost after Israel was conquered by Assyria in about 722 BCE.

While the 12 tribes are most likely a literary creation, the tradition goes back to far beyond what I quoted.

The thing is, not one aspect of any Jewish teaching in the OT promotes the nonsense of astrology being tied in any way, shape, or form to astrology.

Judaism did not mince words in their lessons, had they assigned any sort of astrology, they would have mentioned .......

Ohh... I did expect you would mention sources. You advised me to examine their own explanation, yet you end up elaborating why some other explanation is wrong. I find information leading and supporting hypothesis far more interesting than their conclusions. In other words you could say I find more knowledge by asking questions than accepting claims of having the answers.

Take 12 tribes legend going back .. insert source
Tradition going back far beyond... insert source

The thing is, not one aspect of any Jewish teaching in the OT promotes the nonsense of astrology being tied in any way, shape, or form to astrology.

It is not nonsense that astrology is tied to astrology . But I imagine you meant astronomy?

So I am to think that the people of Abraham. The Chaldean from Ur. This talking flame that is fed and kept burning. The many duels involving Egyptian and Babylonian priests/magicians with the ancestors of the Chaldean, and how they loose to the superior in interpretation of of dreams, prediction of signs and omens. How the moon must be observed to know when rites and rituals must be performed.

To me this becomes something like - if it quacks like a duck, walks like..... Well... we are not talking science to put it gently.

[outhouse]

Ohh... I did expect you would mention sources. You advised me to examine their own explanation, yet you end up elaborating why some other explanation is wrong. I find information leading and supporting hypothesis far more interesting than their conclusions. In other words you could say I find more knowledge by asking questions than accepting claims of having the answers.

Take 12 tribes legend going back .. insert source
Tradition going back far beyond... insert source

It is on someone making a claim to back their position with sources.

I do not have to defend my position.


The people claiming there is a connection do, and they have not. If the conection or tie was originated by Josephus, then yes the ball would be in my court.

But as it stands "they" are purposely using sources hundreds and hundreds of years old ONLY because it is their only connection.

Show me a conection when the original 12 tribes was created if you want to be taken credible and a thoughtful reply given.