Metahistory of Old Testament origins

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Metahistory of Old Testament origins

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

Take for example the first five books. What is their origin? What is the evolution of belief in their origin in the minds of believers. Admitting of course there are believers today who still hold the oldest origin belief.

Two centuries ago the books were written by Moses personally, scribbled in his tent while wandering the desert 3400 years ago, refusing to ask passing merchants for directions to the land that was promised to Abraham. No question. Anyone who doubted that certainly must have hated Jews.

Then when the more educated believers were able to digest the knowledge that Moses was a myth they "discovered" evidence that it was really written in the time of Solomon only 3000 years ago. Presumably it was written by prophets, the folks who went into hysterical fits, jumping around naked and babbling. And this later date included all books written before this time.

As failure to discover any evidence for Solomon and his Israel became unavoidably, bleeding obvious the idea that these stories were written after the return from the mythical captivity in Babylon a mere 2600 years ago. Oddly this invention came with an entirely new theology of exposure to Zoroastrianism and financing its spread in an entirely different form by Cyrus. As above this creation time included all books written before this time.

In barely more than a century the creation date of the Torah lost eight centuries among believers.

Question. how many more years will it take before the believers knock of a few more centuries and agree to the 2nd c. BC that I propose? They have been heading in the right direction for centuries.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Metahistory of Old Testament origins

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

This reduction of eight centuries in the date of creation leads to its own problems which beg a comprehensive theory explaining everything in one go not an ad hoc here and an ad hoc there which are not consistent with each other. Unfortunately the latter is generally all believers have to offer.

Take for example Moses wrote the Torah. When that was the belief a lot of "evidence" that they were in an older form of "hebrew" was introduced. One defense I read even went so far as to declare the hebrew of Exodus was older than the hebrew of Genesis. Fine with me. All well and good. But when the consensus of written at latter dates appeared, Solomon or post-Babylon, those differences were still there. An entirely new explanation for those differences is required.

Much has been made of the inconsistencies in later books such as some king making sacrifices in different towns around the kingdom centuries after sacrifice was only permitted in Jerusalem. There is a lot of ad hoc handwaving to explain this but anyone can do that. What happens when everything is written after the return from the (mythical) captivity in Babylon.

We have a bunch of writers sitting around in the same building, maybe even in the same room. They all know each other. They are probably drinking buddies. When they talk shop they are talking about what they are writing. How is it possible these people are creating contradictory material without knowing they are? And not just in the details. One set of stories has the Ark and twelves tribes as major thematic components. Another group is writing another set of stories without an Ark and only two tribes. And not a single word to bridge these differences.

In addition another group working on the Big Five is inventing several 800 year old dialects and ways to write the words for no apparent meaning. Yes, anyone can invent campfire tales as an explanation but no one can rationally claim the stories continued using an unknown dialect from 800 years earlier. That would be like claiming the oral knowledge today of William the Conqueror is only told in the Norman language. (nb, There is zero evidence the contents of oral traditions has anything to do with real history so the whole idea is risible from the start.)

On top of all of this these drinking buddies -- perhaps wine is the explanation -- were knowingly making things up. But it did not matter really as nothing in the stories they were making up claims they are truthful or accurate much less sacred.

There are many more problems with the changes in the dates believers assign to the creation of these stories. Believers have a simple answer believe it or not. It is all divine inspiration and up to them to understand why it is all the truth. Maybe it is the wine again.

Clearly a consistent theory explaining everything is needed. Every attempt by believers raises more problems than they answer and often turn out to be mutually exclusive.
Last edited by A_Nony_Mouse on Thu Dec 26, 2013 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Metahistory of Old Testament origins

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

If history tells a story it is not real history.
If history conveys a moral lesson it is not real history.
If it bores you out of your skull it is real history.

So beyond the OT being nonsense because of the magic it fails as history because real history does not tell stories nor convey moral lessons. Anyone telling a story containing magic is a liar therefore whomever wrote the OT stories were liars. Of course we do have an entire class of highly revered liars called fiction writers. As no bible story claims to be fact they satisfy the criteria of deliberate, intentional fiction.

And they often had a sense of humor. Starting with the Greek prophets, aka oracles, we do have rather staid with only speaking in tongues. If that is what you expect when reading about oracles then when it comes to Samuel's band of prophets getting naked and going into a frenzy is a quite funny parody. It is still used in comedy today.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Metahistory of Old Testament origins

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

There is an atheist tangent to the metahistory. In the simplest form it is take away all the god parts of the OT and the rest really happened. This is largely the political view spawned by Zionism. It lead to the Invention of the Jewish People as recounted by Sand in the 19th c. inspired by the development of German nationalism. Going much further would lead to conflict over modern politics and is best ignored in this discussion.

See book by Sand of the same title for further information.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Metahistory of Old Testament origins

Post by arnoldo »

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:. . . See book by Sand of the same title for further information.
You mean this book?

Image
Sand began his work by looking for research studies about forcible exile of Jews from the area now bordered by modern Israel, and its surrounding regions. He was astonished that he could find no such literature, he says, given that the expulsion of Jews from the region is viewed as a constitutive event in Jewish history. The conclusion he came to from his subsequent investigation is that the expulsion simply didn't happen, that no one exiled the Jewish people from the region, and that the Diaspora is essentially a modern invention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invent ... ish_People
Does this mean that Josephus invented the whole account of the Romans kicking the jews out of their homeland in 70 A.D.?
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Metahistory of Old Testament origins

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

arnoldo wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:. . . See book by Sand of the same title for further information.
You mean this book?

Image
Yes. There is also a similarly debunking Invention of the Land of Israel by the same author.
Sand began his work by looking for research studies about forcible exile of Jews from the area now bordered by modern Israel, and its surrounding regions. He was astonished that he could find no such literature, he says, given that the expulsion of Jews from the region is viewed as a constitutive event in Jewish history. The conclusion he came to from his subsequent investigation is that the expulsion simply didn't happen, that no one exiled the Jewish people from the region, and that the Diaspora is essentially a modern invention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invent ... ish_People
Does this mean that Josephus invented the whole account of the Romans kicking the jews out of their homeland in 70 A.D.?
To the best of my knowledge from reading what Josephus wrote on the subject Josephus does not say any such thing happened. If he did then it has to be rejected in the face of recountings of events in the time of Emperor Hadrian specifically the revolt 60 years later. Who was revolting? Were Bar Kochba and the high priest who anointed him the messiah Syrians? How about the competing high priest and the other warlord squabbling over the title?

The myth of expulsion is old. It is sort of the way the real story would be told to children. The "expulsion" under Hadrian was only a prohibition of Jews from living in Jerusalem after it was rebuilt to Roman standards -- after rebuilding, don't ban your labor pool. Somewhere in my notes I have which document from the 5th c. debunks this weekend school exaggeration of the actual event. There is a variation on this story saying the prohibition was on Jews being close enough to be "in sight of" the city. (Noting expulsion from the land falls into the current category of political history not real history.)

We can also look to an edict by Emperor Julian (the Apostate) specifically lifting the ban on Jews entering Jerusalem known as Aelia Capitolina since Hadrian. That would have been sort of a meaningless gesture if they were not allowed into Judea to get into the city. I have read an author claiming to have found indications that the prohibition was disregarded in practice shortly after the death of Hadrian but I have not found such material myself.

Another story I have not found in the original, probably from the Mishna, is of Constantine's mother Helen torturing Jews to reveal places and things sacred to Christians. If they had been expelled who was she torturing? Not to give particular credence to such stories rather their contents had to be congruent with facts at the time they were written else people would have considered the author a whack job. I ask who did she torture if there were no Jews. People back then would have asked the same question in much less polite terms.

Even bringing in religious tradition for the political school of history, the toast is, Next year in Jerusalem not Next year in Judea.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
Post Reply