Brent's general religion thread

[Brent]

There doesn't seem to be an active semi-all-purpose religion thread, so here's one. To give the thread some more specific direction if needed, it can focus mainly on monotheism in general. I'd like to learn a thing or two about Judaism, Islam, and Christian denominations other than my own, and if by some chance anyone wants to know anything about mine (that doesn't get any nastier than the poll thread or the Catholic or Jewish threads in recent memory), that's fine too, but I don't think people want to focus on mine (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism)) specifically and I don't think I'd want to try to proselyte any more directly than has been recently done around here by me or others even if it were allowed. And I'll try not to be too much the weird mystic I seemed like in the poll thread.

So I guess I should ask some questions or something... or otherwise specify some subtopics to start with, that as far as I know haven't had their own threads or otherwise been covered in memory.

How much of the Old Testament do you believe to be literal to what degree? Am I the only one around here who believes Adam and Noah existed?

To what degree do Muslims believe in or use the Judeo-Christian Bible? I thought they believed in it, but do they actually believe the Jews corrupted the text? From what little I know, it sounds like they don't use it much. Just wanting to know is all...

[Az]

Ok, I think it's a proper location to move my and LOTM's threadjack on the historical origin of the hebrews:

link:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3718158#post3718158

My version of the early events:

The probable picture that shows up through the mist of the old book is, IMHO, this:

A semi-nomadic family, that could've originated on the outskirts of mesopotamia, probably by a decision of the head of the family, given the extremely rigid patriarchal structure that these societies have, has decided to settle down in Canaan, in the town ( at the time probably nothing more than a small village surrounded by a rather low wall ) of Jerusalem, after having allied with the villagers previously, against fighting other kings ( other heads of villages. We're talking hundreds of people here, max, IMO). We're bordering prehistoric times here, btw. The priests of the village introduce the family to El, at which point the two communities merge ( I don't think that a violent takeover by the nomads is too possible, since we'd have some strong clues to it ) . The worship of El grows, and slowly, El displaces all the gods from the pantheon - won't be the first time such a thing happens. However, in other, smaller villages, that just got captured by a fledgeling kingdom, the cults of other canaanite gods are still going strong: the oh-so-hated Baal and Ashera, El's son ( one of 70, btw) and wife, are still a competition to El, and it's cult is being persecuted mercilessly.

Some **** hits the fan with Egypt - I am still not sure what, I am thinking about it, how to explain the whole Joseph capture, and ascent to the role of the first prime, or whatever. It's possible that Egypt actively captured the area, and instead of just asking for tribute, as usual, they appointed an administrator, who then climbed the imperial ranks, in some way. The whole "Joseph makes his dad to live in egypt, then people become slaves stripped of their culture for tens of generations, yet then come out as a united people" story is very thin. Plus if the were just 70 people, as Torah claims, when they arrived, how the hell was this a significant number to any slaving operation. Remember, only a couple of years passed from "70 Israelites coming to Egypt" to "Israelites building stuff and being flogged". doesn't hold water.

LOTM's version:

The canaanites live in the lowlands, and cities like Hazor, Jaffa, etc. Where commerce, including plantation agriculture prevails. Most people are peasants, whose corvee labor is exploited by a class of priest kings. The local kings, per the Amarna letters are subject to Egypt, adopt some egyptian culture, and even have contingents of egyptian troops present. At some point, as Egypt goes into its late Bronze age decline, many of the peasants flee to the hill country, where they establish a relatively egalitarian society where land reverts to the peasant owner every jubilee year. They pare down the Canaanite pantheon to a single god, who embodies there distinctive social views. They may absorb some seminomadic types from east of jordan, who have historic tendency to occasionally go sedentary anyway. They may even absorb some semitic slaves escaped from Egypt (who MAY bring with them tales of a monotheist king called Akenaton) These disparate groups join in a covenant, perhaps at Shechem, where a covenant between different groups is recorded in the book of Joshua, IIRC.

This would account for the continuity with Canaanite culture, but also the social ethic, and also the exodus story (Most of the exodus story referring in fact to life in the Canaanite cities, and to flight from them, getting confused with a parallel story of fugite slaves from Egypt).

Also ties in with later history - the kings of Israel, once they capture the low country, revert to trade and plantation agricutlure, and to corvee labor (to your tents, oh Israel!) and to an oppressive state, and to the Canaanite pantheon. The Prophets attempt to fight back and defend the old hill country ways, eventually triumphing during the Babylonian exile.

Only thing inconvenient is that the low country, with its international trade ties (Tel aviv, silicon wadi?) is the socially oppressive canaanite place, while the hill country - Judea and Samaria - is the authentic home of Jewish civilization

My problems with LOTM's version:

his is an interesting version: The El-Amarna letters sure shed a healthy dose of light on all of this, however they also raise even more questions.

Why don't I like your story, which is, admittedly around the concensus today?
-The miss on the importance of Jerusalem from the earliest of times.
-No emphasis on the nomadic nature of Abraham and the other ancients.

The egalitarian society is not a problem - It's actually the natural state of the semi-prehistoric canaanites together with the sedentary tribe. It's the overwhelming emphasis on the nomadic in the life of the ancients that puzzles me.

And the Geography as well - The coastal towns are not mentioned until some time into the Tanah. I think they don't appear in the Torah, at all. In the Torah period, I think they were Phoencian ( another bunch of well-developed Canaanites ) , and the Torah doesn't have any hostility towards them, at all.

Also, the later story always sircles around the environs of Jerusalem. This place has one of the most ancient agricultural terrace systems in the world - No place for a bunch of nomads - that's why Abraham always hung around Beer Sheva, on the frontier, on the border of the desert.

This complete blend between the frontier society and the agricultural settlement shows that the merger must've happened very early on, and that it was relatively peaceful. And the relative clarity of the detail, and the consistency ( yet implausibility) of the story means that there was a healthy doze of clerics rewriting this peace of paper many times - after all, at that time, this was one of the most literate places on the planet. Of course, the clerics could've rewritten the story a lot of time later ( think post split Judea), but I am sure that the core was correct. You can't completely rewrite a well known scroll.

[Spiffor]

I believe the Old Testament is the ancient lore of a population (the Hebrews). It was written at a time where people easily believed in the supernatural. As such, it's an interesting book for historians or antropologists, just like, say, the Epic of Sunjatta (Mali).

Useless to say, I don't think there is any shred of literal truth in it. Like most ancient epics, many depicted events are probably rooted in reality, but they show aggrandizement, exaggeration, and Deus-Ex-Machina plot twists that would characterize a bad novel in today's worlds (I am fully aware the standards of the time were vastly different).

I generally think it is misguided to look for literal truth in the Hebraic OT. But I think it is entirely idiotic to look for literal truth in its translations, especially the old European translations (such as King James'). No matter what you think of the divine origin of the Bible, the translators are neither God nor His prophets. The translators are flawed human beings, and even if the Bible was the actual word from God, the translations has to suffer from being mediated by man.

[Az]

I disagree: While the Deus-ex-machina is strongly present in all of this, It doesn't change the plot itself, i.e. "Judea was spanked? That's probably due to the King upseting god and not doing 'X' ". They history of Judea getting spanked is most certainly true, and the fact that the people thought it was the reason, also, the true reason is of course, something completely else ( lack of military resources on the side of Judea )

[Spiffor]

True dat. You're probably right

[Az]

man, arguing with you isn't fun.

[Spiffor]

Sorry

Geez, you suck Az! The OT is a pure bore, filled with crappy literature. How can you defend such a terrible work! You make me sick


Well, maybe I need to put more effort in it, shouldn't I?

[Az]

Seriously, though, just bring a new perspective on these things: we're now discussing the origin of the hebrews as canaanites. You do know the early old testament story, don't you?

[Spiffor]

Only sketchily. I know about the 12 sons of Israel (am I right when I remember the guy is Jacob?), and that they were somehow sent in Egypt, and that they became somehow a populous slave-population in one generation

[Az]

Read up. It's quite interesting, though reading it in hebrew is obviously superior.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Spiffor
True dat.

I can't describe how proud I am right now.

[Jon Miller]

I had heard that it was most probable that the Hebrews came into egypt during one of the times that egypt was conquered by a foreign group

and when egypt reinserted control, things were obviously not as good for foreign groups..

JM

[Az]

Jon: Yeah, this seems like another plausible theory.... However the numbers! the numbers in the bible don't make any sense!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az


Seriously, though, just bring a new perspective on these things: we're now discussing the origin of the hebrews as canaanites. You do know the early old testament story, don't you?

I seem to recall reading about how proscriptions on homosexuality had their origin in the institution of temple prostitutes in the Canaanite pagan religion....

[Brent]

Even in England, kings originally ruled fairly small groups of people.

Jerusalem wasn't posessed by the Israelites until David, I thought.

So people don't even think there's any literal truth in the end of the OT? with the Babylonian captivity and all?

I believe the King James traslation is fairly correct. It is what my religion mainly uses, although we do have a more recent translation, by a prophet. A major belief of ours is that people (mainly in the Middle Ages, I think) intentionally changed things.

I certainly don't find Genesis boring.

Jacob's name was changed to Israel, but I generally hear the name Israel referring mainly to his descendants and not so much the individual.

And if you're really talking about the early Old Testament story, what about the garden, the flood, and the tower?

Maybe some day I'll get somewhere with learning Hebrew (the written language is particularly tricky for me) and be able to read the Bible in Hebrew.