Thank you Stephan Huller

[Thor]

I noticed you said something between your flow of posts in the thread about laziness being reason for not seeing Judaism as origin for Christianity. Which seemed like the ordinary raging rant, until I found this beautiful little gem you had put in there somewhere. You mentioned the necessity of understanding Hebrew to understand the initial conceptualized meaning in words. I should have known this, as I have argued the same when I try to elaborate or explain Norse myths and traditional folklore where language and concepts simply loose value when translated.

So I took your advice and researched some words and concepts I always have struggled to comprehend in the context they are found. And what a revelation your advice turned out to be. I simply had to rethink so many stupid lazy perceptions I held, that I more or less feel like I am back at the starting line. But this is a good thing. I can only gain from confronting my ignorant views. As my goal is to understand things better, and not "win" debates. Therefore I feel you deserve my thanks, as I am grateful for you bringing the linguistic element to my attention. It might seem like some insignificant little detail. But it ripped apart much of my former understanding, as I see things in a completely different light than before.

Can you recommend a site or somewhere I can find linguistical aspects of the biblical concepts being discussed or examined. I am thinking of course about the more basic introduction as best place for me to approach this subject. I found it so interesting I simply must explore this some more.

Anyway, I thank you once more for reminding me about the linguistic element. I simply can not properly explain what some tiny details did to my views, but I assure you it had great impact. I imagine you would never expect to see a post like this in this life. But I felt it was important to show gratitude, and remind people of the value of information is why we should share. Even though it is perceived as some insignificant detail some, it can be of great value to others.

[Stephan Huller]

Great I am glad that I did at least one good deed here at the board.

[Thor]

Great I am glad that I did at least one good deed here at the board.

Well... I am here to pick up what I can.

Moses and "God in cloud" upon mount Sinai made sense in so many ways when I examined the concept Shekinah. With a broader understanding of the concept, the Lugalbanda stories suddenly seemed more comprehensible. Hell, even the signal to show the new pope have "descended" gained some deeper and revealing meaning.

Not that I am sure about much these days. But I can at least confirm my views have been challenged.

[Clive]

I understand the KJV arguably created English based protestant christianities, so that there have been later very significant changes in the stories.

https://libcom.org/files/[Christopher_H ... s.org).pdf

[Thor]

I understand the KJV arguably created English based protestant christianities, so that there have been later very significant changes in the stories.

Changes in the stories will always occur as ongoing process. When words and concepts migrate from one culture to another, or one language to the other, the contexts will merge as new synthesis.

Our present understanding of linguistics have revealed "literal" as misunderstood comprehension caused by lack of knowledge on language as overall system. In that sense the KJV could be argued as product of English synthesis, which is different from the KJV creating English based protestant christianities. This makes probably more sense if you look at this in connection with something like the Heliand http://www.wdl.org/en/item/4107/#time_p ... 499&page=4

To bring it back to Judaism, there is one interesting question I often revert to. How many different stories am I actually reading? Or to be a bit more specific. Am I actually reading many different stories at all?

[DCHindley]

To bring it back to Judaism, there is one interesting question I often revert to. How many different stories am I actually reading? Or to be a bit more specific. Am I actually reading many different stories at all?

Several. The problem is that each succeeding version of society has re-interpreted the traditions preserved by the preceding society, Hegelian style (thesis + thesis = synthesis, which in turn becomes someone else's thesis), and so it goes endlessly. The technical term for this when it deals with cultural traditions is "syncretism".

"Judaism" as we know it involves general Israelite traditions, mainly preserved by the more sophisticated northern kingdom until it was destroyed by the Assyrians, reworked by Judahites until their own captivity by Babylon, which in turn were reworked by the Judean elite exiled in Babylon, and established as the new "norm" by those allowed to return to govern Judah by the Persions, which in turn was reworked in Maccabean and early Hasmonean times in response to the challenge of Antioches IV, which remained the norm until they were again reworked after the destruction of the temple by the Romans.

1) "Hebrew" traditions + Cannanitish traditions = Israelite (Northern kingdom) tradition
2) Israelite tradition + Phoenician? tradition = Judaite (Southern kingdom) tradition
3) Judaite tradition + Babylonian traditions = Exilic tradition
4) Exilic tradition + traditions modified under Hellenic pressure to assimilate = Judean tradition (as we see it portrayed in the NT and Josephus, etc)
5) Judean tradition + sub-traditions modified under pressures imposed by loss of temple system = Rabbinic Judaism as we know it from Mishna, Tosephta and Talmud

Each succeeding synthesis modifies the traditions it incorporates, with some theses being sub-traditions completely reinterpreted under the pressures to accommodate changes in environment (results of war, threats from rivals, etc).

Fun, fun ...

DCH

[Thor]

To bring it back to Judaism, there is one interesting question I often revert to. How many different stories am I actually reading? Or to be a bit more specific. Am I actually reading many different stories at all?

Several. The problem is that each succeeding version of society has re-interpreted the traditions preserved by the preceding society, Hegelian style (thesis + thesis = synthesis, which in turn becomes someone else's thesis), and so it goes endlessly. The technical term for this when it deals with cultural traditions is "syncretism".

"Judaism" as we know it involves general Israelite traditions, mainly preserved by the more sophisticated northern kingdom until it was destroyed by the Assyrians, reworked by Judahites until their own captivity by Babylon, which in turn were reworked by the Judean elite exiled in Babylon, and established as the new "norm" by those allowed to return to govern Judah by the Persions, which in turn was reworked in Maccabean and early Hasmonean times in response to the challenge of Antioches IV, which remained the norm until they were again reworked after the destruction of the temple by the Romans.

1) "Hebrew" traditions + Cannanitish traditions = Israelite (Northern kingdom) tradition
2) Israelite tradition + Phoenician? tradition = Judaite (Southern kingdom) tradition
3) Judaite tradition + Babylonian traditions = Exilic tradition
4) Exilic tradition + traditions modified under Hellenic pressure to assimilate = Judean tradition (as we see it portrayed in the NT and Josephus, etc)
5) Judean tradition + sub-traditions modified under pressures imposed by loss of temple system = Rabbinic Judaism as we know it from Mishna, Tosephta and Talmud

Each succeeding synthesis modifies the traditions it incorporates, with some theses being sub-traditions completely reinterpreted under the pressures to accommodate changes in environment (results of war, threats from rivals, etc).

Fun, fun ...

DCH

Hegelian dialectics yes. Although it is thesis - antithesis = synthesis. Hegel forgot to exclude the religious concept of progression, thus imagined a kind of forward motion. Predestination that is. As if we are heading somewhere.

My question was essentially related to the historical value of OT. This "upper" and "lower" kingdom, Moses, joseph the "Vizier and so on. Are they the unique accounts supported by archeology. Or do they seem to be a repeated narrative found before and after. The conflict of two brothers. The God who created heaven and earth, Lord of lords in the heaven. King of kings on the earth. The mountain cave and God`s dwelling. Have these actually not been told before?