Good posts (well, aside from the one by our resident Messiah). I would also strongly recommend the book Religious Texts From Ugarit by N. Wyatt (2nd edition) which is a comprehensive translation of all mythic, liturgical, and legendary texts found at Ras Shamra. I think of it as my "Canaanite Bible", and it is fully annotated as well with many OT parallels highlighted.
El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
by kwintestal 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
JCanon
Hello Narkissos:
WOW! Thanks for pointing to that reference. We don't particularly disagree. There is room for both of our views, just as a matter of semantics and detail. For instance, if someone said that the Jews worshipped Baal. I couldn't disagree, could I? Because some did. But we know from other references that that was a problem for the official religion. So it doesn't matter how many teracotta images of other gods are found all over Israel, we know they are the gods and goddesses of the rebels. But since the Bible mentions this worship of some of other gods doesn't mean there was not a group that believed in one specific god, YHWH with his own "pantheon" of other angels/gods, one chief being Michael, and a main adversarial woman being his now divorced wife, Satan.
Here's an interesting excerpt from the post you linked (thank you!):
When moving from polytheism to monotheism, Judaism came to understand the expression as meaning « son(s) of God », i.e. heavenly being(s) subject to the unique God: ?angels?, good and bad according to the context. So the Greek Septuagint often translates son(s) of (the) god(s) as angels of God. In this perspective the idea of one main, archetypal heavenly Son of Goddevelops, as a sort of chief-angel (or arch-angel). He may be seen as eternal, though not equal to God (cf. Mc 13,22); this tradition merges with another, that of the Wisdompersonified/hypostatized as ?daughter of God? (from Proverbes 8 on).
Now I'm going to try and do this without writing a book. But basically God/YHWH has four attributes, represented by four images in heaven, a man, a lion, a bull and an eagle. These in turn represent love, justice, power and wisdosm, respectively. But a subdivision of these atributes in heaven are attributed to two angels. These two angels are the "covering cherubs" who are on top of the Ark of the Covenant, which represents holy Mount Zion. It's a special place of holiness in heaven. The two angels are specific individuals though. Their images are alternated on the curtains of the sanctuary. One depicted as a cherub with a man's face and the other as a palm tree. These two angels are like husband and wife. The palm-tree angel figure is the feminine one. They represent Michael and who I'll call Lucifera (feminine for Lucifer). So yes Jesus and Satan were once married. Shocked! Don't be. We all know Jesus marries the Bride Class, the church, do we not? Technically, this wife becomes associated with the temple and God's holiness where he dwells, and so the Bride Class actually replace Satan's position in heaven on holy mount zion.
But getting back to the daughter with wisdom. The Mother Goddesses, whom is based upon Satan's identity is connected with focus to the two qualities of god most associated with the feminine side of the androgynous divine being, although all are incorporated in Michael. That is, if you were to sort of separate the four entities of gods qualities, then Michael would take on the masculine ones, that of the bull (power) and the man (love), and Satan would be associated with the other two, the Lion (Justice, legal) and the eagle (wisdom, knowledge).
Now in the garden of Eden, this symbolism of these two angels continue, just as it does in the cosmos. The Sun represents Michael and the the beautiful moon, Satan. In Eden, Adam reflects Michael, the man and lifegiver, and Eve reflects Satan, his helper. Likewise the two trees in the garden where Christ is the Tree of Life and Satan is the Tree of Knowledge. Which brings us back to Satan's core identity, that of being a woman and being beautiful and associated with WISDOM. That's the Mother Goddesses whole thing from the beginning. How knowledge transforms one from human form into a god. "If you eat, you will have knowledge of good and evil and be like god." Even some of her Goddess Figures deal with Wisdom Personified, such as Sophia, upon which the concept of "sophistication" is based.
Remember Satan approached Eve in the Tree of Knowledge. When Isis is depicted as a tree goddess, whe gives her breast as suck to her followers, representing she is the source of special knowledge.
And who could miss that message with the multi-breasted Diana of Ephesus! Those breasts representing her primary function as a goddess of wisdom and knowledge for her followers, based upon the personal identity of Satan in heaven as this incredibly beautiful (i.e. sophisticated) goddess with much knolwedge and wisdom, knowledge that transforms her followers away from the physical and toward the mental, suppressing the physical to attain higher and higher mental states, the whole foundation of the Mysteries.
Diana of Ephsus
But having said that, also in line with Satan being called "the woman and her seed" at Genesis 3:15, there is no way you can separate out that there was no precise concept of Satan in ancient times, since Satan is represented in the Mother Goddess as well as other false gods and goddesses, but emphasizing Satan's own personal spiritual attributes, among them being an angel of great wisdom and beauty.
Narkissos: Leaving aside your original yet anachronistic references to "Satan," I'd just point out that Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is not connected with Yhwh but with 'El `elyôn ("God Most High" in many translations), who is regarded as Yhwh's father in the polytheistic synthesis which forms the background of Deuteronomy 32:8ff (on this passage see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66342/1.ashx ).
But this now comes full circle. The academic propaganda wanting to claim late origin to the concept of "Satan" as well as the adaptation of the YHWH in later times based upon a previously polytheistic influence from Canaan. Some even taking that a step farther by saying there was no original 12 tribes but some of those who would become part of the Jewish nation were made up of Canaanite tribes already there. Now while I enjoy seeing just how may scenarios these scholars can come up with, it doesn't mean it really happened, especially when some of it cannot be proven one way or the other and there is direct written evidence in the Bible to the contrary with its own supporting historical confirmations. So my position would be firmly placed here that after Noah's time, it was quite clear in the minds of those worshipping especially the Mother Goddess that this was in rebellion to YHWH, religion inspired by Satan him/herself. The most ancient concept of the "woman and her seed" that of VIRGO testifies to that if little else.
Further, there are "the Mysteries" that have to be factored into this. Those Satanists who are in the woodwork who cannot make the direct connections to everything they propagandize on the public. Thus while even the Catholic Church follows the Bible and has a concept of Satan, this male force of Evil, with the folkloric and pop-culture concept always being this horned scary person, or the Red Devil with a tail and horns, etc. right there on the Sistine Chapel and in dozens of other paintings of the scene in Eden, Satan is a snake-woman! So in pictures Satan is this snake-woman, but where is the written connection with why this is so?
Look at how often and consistent this is here:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/Lilith/aNePics.html
HERE'S THE SCENE FROM THE SISTINE CHAPEL. WHY ISN'T IT TAUGHT THAT SATAN IS A WOMAN IN CHURCH DOCTRINE?
But again, we come full circle. Those in "the Mysteries" who made the paintings and depict Satan as this woman are more accurately representing the concept of who Satan is on a spiritual level in Heaven, that is as the wife of Michael/Jesus and the "woman and her seed" at Genesis 2:15. This snake-woman is the same "original serpent and DRAGON" mentioned in Revelation. Snake-person is Satan even in the Bible! So even to hint that the idea of "Satan" is a late development is rather humorous, though understandable because of his modern alter-ego representation as this horned Red Devil, etc. That modern image, of course, distracting from the fact that Satan is the personalification of the Mother Goddesses, likely the closest true concept of Satan's spiritual identity. The beautiful Goddess of Wisdom. Wisdom Personified.
So again, looking at the situation from Noah handing down what happened to Eden and how these basic elements concepts are clearly seen, even in Greek mythology, thought distorted, we are a long, long way from deciding because the Canaanites worshipped a God named "El" that that's the basis of Jewish doctrine and adaptation to YHWH. But that's what the Satanists would want people to believe, of course.
Further as you noted, the DETAIL of father and son and daughter and wife and all that is all mixed up and exchangeable. You must know this. So we can't take for face value those assignments at any given point in time, any more than finding teracotta goddesses of Asherah all over Palestine means this was the original Jewish religion and the Bible's history is thus totally invented. There is no way you can prove this. It's just a conflict on what happened between the interpretation of what has been found by archaeologists and the Bible itself. I err on the side of giving the Jewish historians the best benefit of the doubt before simply dismissing that history as made up because it can otherwise seem logically explained by scholars trying to harmonize the historyo of the Jews into everybody elses history without exception.
Finally one more complication. After the Exodus and the Ten Plagues, Egypt and Assyria and like some in Caanan converted to monotheistic Yawism for a time. This was during the time of Akhenaten. The altar Akhenaten built in the middle of Egypt, which he personally claims was from the inspiration of his god, is mentioned in the Bible (Isa. 19:19). So at some point, I myself am looking at this period for evidence of some type of worship of Yahweh or its influence in places like Ugarit (as you mentioned), which was one of the Caananite city-states under the Egyptian suzrainty at the time. So you can see my complication here. I fully allow for the possibility of some forms of YHWH/EL worship at various times in Canaan, and maybe indeed Abraham and others understood this to be the same god, sort of how the Jews and Christians understand they are worshipping the same god and I believe the Muslims are too. Isn't "Allah" Jehovah basically? Isn't there a connection to Allah historically with the YHWH of the Jews? The ultimate creator-god?
So there are lots and lots and lots of explanations and possibilities for the similarities and names and identities of all these gods and goddesses, so much so, a quick presumption that the Jews just invented this during later times to create some type of psychological rescue of the Jews in their current situation just doesn't come to the table until much later, IMHO.
So what? The Caanites worshipped EL/YHWH, the same god as the Jews? The Jews didn't thus invent YHWH? So what? That would explain why God had the Jews go in and execute them at the appointed time. They were rebels of Melchizdekian Yawism/El-ism from way back! ???
Thanks again for the reference!
JCanon
-
JCanon
Narkissos: Thanks again for sharing your comments:
His name/title and place may relate him to two other distinct Canaanite deities (equally attested in Ugarit), namely Zedeq (cf. Adoni-zedeq as another king of Jerusalem in Joshua 10, and possibly Zadoq as the eponym ancestor of the Jerusalem priesthood) and Shalem (Jerusalem = "city / foundation of Shalem"). It seems that the introduction of Yhwh worship in Jerusalem is quite late (as the divergent Biblical traditions about the city as "Jebusite" down to Joshua or David's times also confirm indirectly).
Your point is valid on the specifics, but I think that at some point the blurr between the gods and their identities and duplication and overlap are such that we can take little for face value and have to just compare the similarities to the Biblical scenario of what happened in Eden. Case in point, do you remember a book the WTS once put out called The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop? (Actually, I think it is available online now!) Well in that book as well in some alchemy symbolism, they reflect the concept of the peircing of the head of the serpent on one hand, and horus and his sickle cutting off the feet of Saturn or something. (Actually I should check the facts first). But point being, these original Edenic stories turned into fables and got all twisted around incidental to time, or were deliberately switched around just to make it more mysterious and complex to outsiders.
The Mysteries got reflected in Freemasonry as well so some of those symbolisms, like the sickle is connected with Satan because Satan is supposed to bruise Jesus in the heel. Even the story of Achilles being only vulnerable in his heel is considered to be related to Satan bruising Jesus in the heel, etc. So at some point, it all gets mixed up, so much so it doesn't matter if one god in one culture is a father-god and in another a son-god, or a wife becomes a daughter, though often they are BOTH. In fact, that is part of the trinity doctrine made up of Osiris, Isis and the child Horus, Horus being thought to be some reincarnation of Osiris come back to life, etc.
Even the prodigal son scenario shows up in the Mysteries, as the fretting Dementer mother-goddess crying over her dear Persephone who is now in Hades, like the father crying over his lost son who is dead when he leaves his father's house. Note the parable about the "woman" and the drachma coin, how when she loses it, she frets and cries and searches desperately to find it, like Dementer does with Persephone. So all of this was worked out in advance, the first and second coming, how Israel would reject god but be redeemed at the last minute, the ultimate prodigal son scenario, all mocked in the pagan cult religion.
Even one of Satan's key upsets by Jehovah when he turned the tables on Satan in Eden. You see, it was hard to get rid of Satan without SIN and DEATH attached to it. In heaven it's just DISCUSSION. It's just concepts. How could God execute an angel? and for what? Not liking God's policies. Challenging why he alone must be worshipped and none others? It was complex. So basically Jehovah said, "Okay, I've had enough, let's see you put your money where your mouth is." and God created the physical world where there would be man made in god's image but who would have laws to abide by and if he didn't abide by them there was the penalty of death. But ultimately it was trap since the angels were bound to obey these laws as well, thus Satan was condemned to death for his part in Eden. Still, that wasn't necessarily LEGALLY good enough, since a jury in the majority could be wrong about something, right? So what Jehovah basically did was said this. I'm going to kill everybody! I'm going to call in my lease on every life and that's it. I will kill all my children, including my favorite firstborn son. Now that is what did Satan in. Satan likely was glad he had accomplished that much as a result of his rebellion, the death of Christ. BUT... turns out death is really not that big of a deal if you come back the next day! Death is only a horror and a torment day and night like the fires of Gehenna if you are never to live again. So God turned the tables on Satan with the Ransom Sacrifice, whereby, after killing all his children in order to get rid of Satan, he instilled new rules about whom he could bring back to live again forever. And that new rule was basically, "Whomever I chose!" So God had the last word on that. God could get rid of Satan if he killed everybody, with no legal liability. It was his option since he gave life to take it away. But after killing everybody, obviously he wins if he brings back the ones he wants. That's why the Bible says those who try to hold onto their lives will lose it, that is, to have a life that does not recognize God's sovereignty. But if you decide to die for God's cause, like many people do in any war, then you have the promise you will get your life back. So those who love Jehovah enough to be willing to give up their own lives so that God wouldn't have to deal with Satan any more, get their life back! Case in point, Satan tries to make a mockery of God killing his children, or "passing them through the fire" like this by all that cultic infanticide that was going on in Canaan. Passing the children through the fire imitates how Jehovah passes his children through the fire, but only those that are true gems survive. If you're not spiritually fire-resistant material, then the fire consumes you.
Having noted that, once you study "the Mysteries" and Freemasonry and all that occult worship stuff, you know there is very little you can take for face value and so just because something found in one place where the pantheon was one way, we can't presume that's the case all over and at all times. Thus trying to superimpose that on trying to challenge the Bible's historical account just doesn't work. It doesn't even come close.
If you don't know a lot, then smart people with nice books and lots of fancy words seem convincing. But if you do your own investigation, you not only see other scenarios, you often find where those people are biased or deceptive, with their own anti-Biblical agendas.
JCanon
-
Narkissos
Hey JC,
You're quite fascinating in your own peculiar way...
I'm on a hurry right now because I must leave home in a few minutes and will be away for some time, so I'll just give the link to one old thread where much of the above was already discussed (credits to Leolaia).
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/73244/1.ashx
Cheers to all.
-
kwintestal
Thanks for all the comments. I'll start by seeing what books my local library have of the ones listed.
Kwin
-
Forscher
I own a copy of an interesting anthology Canaanite Mythology and Hebrew Epic; Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, edit. by Frank M. Cross, which has some interesting reading on the subject.
However, since I do not subscribe to much of the scholarship which has come out of the Documentary Hypothesis school of thought my thoughts on the matter should be fairly obvious. Using the internal evidence of the Bible itself, it would appear that God chose not to reveal a personal name for himself until just before the Exodus (Exodus 6:3). Since God is quote as saying to Moses on that occasion "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, but by my name the LORD (Jehovah, my note) I did not make myself known to them, RSV, ( ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????) it would appear that God chose for some reason not to use a personal name for himself with his worshipers prior to that time. Remember that el is not a name. It is a noun which may refer to a supernatural being, or even a powerful man, just as theos may also be used.
I realize that my rejection of documentary hypothesis thinking runs against the current here, but I feel its foundational atheistic assumptions are counter productive for the purpose of serious biblical scholarship. If one really does believe that there is no god and, hence, no god had anything to do with authoring that book in the first place, then just ignore it and stay out of the field of bible studies entirely. The real insights based on that line of thinking have been few and far between in my opinion, and those few insight only result from the incidental objectivity which resulted from that psuedo-scientific school of scholarship's rejection of any religious dogma's influence on its research. However, its not so objective premise that the Bible is merely another work of man, as well as its quest to prove that premise makes me wonder if those few insights are really worth it.
I realize that Leo and Narkissos disagree with my opinion, and I respect their right to do so. All I ask is that folks respect my right to reject scholarship I see to be based on seriously flawed premises.
Forscher
Respectfully
-
JCanon
I replied to some comments, but don't want to get too far away from "The Bible Unearthed." Thus one reason why this goes nowhere is because of the very foundation on which Finkelstein starts off in order to first archaeologically discredit the Bible and then come up with an explanation after the fact. But if you don't get to that qualified dismissal or there are errors or omissions in that original premise, then the whole argument falls down.
Thus Finkelstein gains momentum for his argument connected with David and Solomon he doesn't deserve. Now indeed, archaeologically, his position is quite convincing and firm. Key points are that the Canaanite pottery era as he says reaches well into the 10th century BC (999-900 BCE). This indeed conflicts with David who would have ended that period who is currently dated from 1010-970BCE by popular dating (i.e. the WTS is some 67 years earlier!) (page 341: "Both the ceramic and carbon-14 evidence suggests it was still in exitence several decades later--well into the tenth century BCE.") He then gets momentum by noting during the time of Solomon between 970-930BCE Palestine was not developed, there was no centralized government in place to build any great palaces, etc. So he dismisses him as an invention of the Jews later on in history, ostensibly needing the psychological boost. But notice how quickly all this falls through when you insert the original Biblical timeline, or one based on Martin Anstey's interpretation of the 70 weeks prophecy that dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. When you do that, then Solomon's rule is reduced 54 years down to 910-870BCE.
So you see, its not that the palaces themselves were myths here. The palaces were found, they just were not built in the era now assigned to Solomon from 970-930BCE. But, the archaeologist do indeed date these palaces, using RC14 dating. So for those following the Bible more closely for the Bible's own chronology and not the defective chronology of secular dating piggy-backed off the fixed Assyrian Period age based upon a single eclipse they date to 763BCE, then the story changes! Here's another quote from the book, Page 142:
"Finally, a series of samples from the destruction of a stratum at TEL REHOV near Beth-shean, which is contemporary with Megiddo's supposed Solomnic city, gave mid-ninth century dates--long after its reported destruction by Shishak in 926 BCE."
He is talking about Level IV destructive level at Tel Rehov. Here is the actual chart of the RC14 findings:
Now please note that Finkelstein isn't lying when he says it gives "MID-NINTH CENTURY DATES", since basically any dates from 975-925BCE could loose be considered mid-ninth century, with 950BCE and dates closer to that coming to mind. But at this point we question Finkelsteins motives just a bit since archaelogists usually break down the century into quarters, as Kenyon did when he noted that fall of Jericho occurring in the "third quarter of the 14th century BC." But of course, the lower the dating in the range the more dramatically he can dismiss the 925BCE chronology. But when you look at the chart, it clearly does not have a focus from the findings at Rehov in the mid-ninth century. The highest peak of "Relative Propability" stems from a broad range of dates from 918-823BCE, with the peak clearly pointing to dates from 874-867BCE. What is so valuable about this study is that they found when they tested a sample muliple times a random phenomenon occurred where the highest average finding fell near the center of the overall range. That is what we are looking at here. Thus the "true date" the closes to the event, also was closest to the middle of the range. If we find the exact center of the range, therefore of 918-823BCE, you get 870.5. (918 + 823 = 1741. Divide 1741 by 2 = 870.5, which is 871 BCE). So? So 871 BCE falls in the upper half of what would be call mid-ninth century, but Finkelstein contrasts that to 925BCE as being "nearly a century" later. I consider this suspicious, especially since it suggests he is looking at the lower mid-ninth century dating that might extend down to say 840-830BCE which would be nearly a century later than 925BCE. If we consider that, then Finkelstein himself is not focussing on the best available RC14 dating from Rehov from which he quotes. That is, if we use the primary date of focus here, 871BCE, then it really is only 54 years after 925, only a half century away from the 925BCE date.
Having noted that little detail of potential "dishonesty" or misrepresentation, we still have the direct scientific evidence he is speaking of. It is this evidence that we then test against the other chronologies from the Bible concerning this group. One being the date of Shishak's invasion per the witnesses in the 5th of Rehoboam, which would be 993 BCE (some 68 years earlier than 925BCE), and the dating by Martin Anstey based upon 455BCE as the 1st of Cyrus which dates the 5th of Rehoboam to 871BCE. That's right! The best averaged (mid-range) date from the RC14 from Rehov points right to the same year the Bible dates that event.
So what do we have here? We have a theory of revisionism based on the idea that the archaeology dating proves it was invented since the buildings of Solomon didn't appear later and we have RC14 evidence that Shishak's invasion didn't occur either until later closest to 871BCE, but that uses a Biblically incorrect dating for this event falling in 925BCE. When the correct Biblical timeline is used, or even just an alternative Biblical timeline, it lines up with the archaeology and chronology perfectly. David's rule would not begin until 950 BCE which is plenty of time for the Philistine pottery period to continue into the first half of the 10th century BCE as Finkelstein asserts. No problem. And it's not that the palaces claimed to have been built by Solomon was never found. They were indeed, confirming a time in Israel of a centralized government. Further Shishak's invasion listing over 150 cities destroyed isn't the invasion of some underdeveloped rural area of small towns! This is another confirmation that Israel was wealthy and highly developed at the time the buildings were built. The only problem is the DATING. Finkelstein's dating is too early for one thing, and it's not the Bible's timeline for another. The Bible's timeline dates Shishak's invaision in the 39th year of Solomon in 871BCE. (i.e. 455 BCE is a jubilee year that occurs as the 20th jubilee after the Exodus. Thus 19 jubilees earlier we can date the Exodus to 1386BCE. 19 x 49 = 931 years. 931 plus 455 = 1386BCE. Solomon's 4th year is 480 years after the Exodus = 906 BCE, 1386 - 480 = 906. Solomon's rule is thus dated per the Bible from 910-870BCE. Shishak's invasion mentions no Jeroboam and we find Rehoboam still consorting with the "princes of Israel" when they repent. We know that Rehoboam and Jeroboam were appointed together before Solomon's death, so obviously they began their official rules at that time, both of them, though the division of the kingdoms didn't technically take place until after Solomon's death. This explains why the attack on Rehoboam was of the northern cities as well since he was still over this region and the princes of Israel, yet another detail in the Bible that completely escaped Finkelstein's notice!) Therefore, there is no conflict with the chronology and the archaeology when you use the 455BCE dating.
Having noted that, however, with perfect harmony between archaeology and the Bible's true timeline, what basis is there for claiming revisionism now? NONE! You see, if you don't have the established conflict in the timeline, you have no need for a theory of revisionism. And remember this is two-part. It would be different is NO PALACES were found at all. Then you could go ahead and say that's a basis for a myth. But the Solomonic Era did occur, only later than they are dating Solomon! So if you move Solomon down to a later time, the history works and is true. Solomon did build those buildings. So Finkelstein's argument is entirely based on chronology not archaeology! If you believe in another dating system that dates Solomon at least a half century later, then a revisionism argument is groundless.
So in summary, Finkelstein's arguments only work if you use the revised chronology, or if you follow JW chronology which is also based on the revised chronology which adds another 67-68 years! (i.e. 539BCE is their "pivotal date" for the fall of Babylon, the same dating used by the 587BCE chronology for the fall of Jerusalem and found in the VAT4956). But if you believe in another chronology that lowers Solomon's rule to c. 910-870BCE, then there is no archaeological conflict as any basis for revisionism and so Finkelstein's arguments, however, logical if the facts were correct, evaporates for us totally. We like Finkelstein a lot because he develops a lot of the chronology for this period and lines up everything for us (and actually he's kinda cute!), but we can only use his archaeological assessments, the rest is just nonsense if its based on the wrong chronology which it is, or not the strict Biblical chronology, which it isn't. So he ends up a great archaelogist but definitely a Biblical historian lightweight.
Israel Finkelstein
JCanon
-
JCanon
Since some are recommending books, I recommend "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, which is why this concept will have a difficult time getting off the ground.
It's available online, amazingly, at several places, most without the graphics, but this site has some of them:
http://www.piney.com/HislopTOC1.html'
Here are some others on line:
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/
http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/index.htm
At any rate, this was once published and available through the WTS! Not sure if they still carry it.
This book is largely a basis for the WTS focus at one time on "Babylon the Great" and all the connections of ancient Babylon's religion found in modern religion, both pagan and Christian. It is a confused, jumbled mess! There is barely an ancient goddess in one culture that doesn't have a parallel or overlap in another. So identities get duplicated and crossed, distorting the original concepts. The result is different interpretations and variations on these themes. In that case, its hard to take a variation or adaptation, deliberate or otherwise, and then use that as a historical marker and basis for describing the origin of something else in another cultures, especially when that culture has its own well-documented record of its historical origins and traditions, which the Jews have. So if I might just get slightly off the topic a bit of Finkelstein and on the general concept of occult symbolism and how it relates to the Bible, I'd present the current Freemasonry illustration below, where a woman is crying over this pillar and behind her is an angel with a sickle and nearby the hourglass, which is also a Freemasonry symbol.
Explanation? Source? Remember all that stuff about the "dying king" that is reborn in the spring and all that. And how women were weeping over Tammuz, who was supposed to Nimrod? Crying over pillars and stones? That is no different than Mithraism where the young boy kills the bull and is sorry he did it. It's the same story. In other alchemy it shows the person with sickle cutting off the feet of another god and thus related to Satan bruising the heel of Jesus. Thus it is the sickle that has broken the column and Satan is pretending to be sorry about it only to make people not feel it is so murderous, though necessary. This is linked to Christ dying and by his death giving life and paradise to the world. Thus the "dying king" is related to Jesus' death. How everything dies when he dies but is then brought back to life. Very Edenic and Biblical themes, regardless of what the current concept might be.
Originally in Eden, Satan was represented by Eve and the Tree of Knowledge. Notice the book that is opened suggesting wisdom and knowledge. Adam and the tree of Life represented Jesus Christ. In the four living creatures representing Jehovah himself, when it is divided into the two covering cherubs, Christ focus is on the man and the bull, which is love and power, whereas Satan carried the images of the Lion and the Eagle, which were Justice (legal issues) and Wisdom (knowledge). The competition in Eden was smiple. Satan versus Jesus. In Canaan this got represented first as the Lion (Satan) killing the Negro child (Jesus). Another form of that was the Lion and the Bull fighting. In Persia we see the the Lion Killing the Bull, which simply represents Satan trying to Kill Jesus.
This then got converted to the Lion becoming a Persian boy though Mithras is clearly associated with the image of the Lion:
Here is Mithras as the LION GOD
Now some won't buy this at all, and some even criticize Hislop! But the fact remains anybody can interpret this stuff and find common threads. And if the common thread one finds doesn't agree with the same speculative common thread of some other author then that author's argument, which is no stronger than his weakest point of evidence will fall on deaf ears.
Someone mentione that "Satan" is a late invention, as if he isn't part of the Edenic setting from the very beginning. Yet that is only because that person doesn't recognize the cultic and occultic references for Satan in ancient history, and some of those forms emphasizing various themes. You think there are a whole lots of gods but really there are just varying themes of the same principal gods.
Thus even Yahweh, "El" in the Bible is the THUNDER GOD, the God of clouds. And I wonder if some concept of him isn't the basis of the Persian god Ahuramazda! That's because when God is said to ride his celestial chariot, it is carried on the wigs of angels who have wings on the side and also wings that cover their feet!
Is this a distorted, revised concept of Yahweh? The one "true god" who fights against Ahiram, the god of evil?
The Bible doesn't say no other people were worshipping YHWH just because he focussed on the Jews to bring the messiah through them. Other people knew of YHWH, even Baalam! So God talked to other mediums/prophets besides just the ones associated with the Jews! So the Bible just focusses on what is going on with the Jews.
In the meantime, the "deeper things of Satan" are going on, who wages a spiritual and psychological war against Jehovah and Jesus and the more confused he can make it the better!
So again, my position is that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SORT ALL THIS OUT SIMPLY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SIMPLE.
Finkelstein is welcome to give his own version, but it's invalidated for anyone using the 455BCE Biblical chronology, which has completely archaeological compatibility.
Finkelstein, however, loses credibility and is considered biased because of that same archaeological evidence. Kathleen Kenyon, for instance, long ago dismissed the current chronologies about the Exodus and thus the fall of Jericho 40 years later when she dated the fall of Jericho by the Israelites to 1350-1325BCE, getting back to the hard archaeology finally....
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
But Kenyon complicates matters for Finkelstein, because the Exodus is 40 years before the fall of Jericho. If Finkelstein were at least honest and open about it, he would have covered the pros and cons of the dating for the fall of Jericho in relation to the Biblical timeline. That is, using Kenon's earliest date for the fall of Jericho, clearly during or afer the reign of Amenhotep III, Finkelstein would have easily extrapolated the dating for the time of Solmon. That is using 1350BCE as the earliest potential date for the Exodus, the 4th of Solomon would have fallen in 910BCE and thus his rule from 910-874BCE. Even if you don't insert the 6-year co-rulership, he would have come up with the 5th of Rehoboam c. 879BCE, which is right in range with where the RC14 dating places Shishak's invasion!!
So you see, there is a lot of choices here and options that Finkelstein doesn't go into detail about at all, but that he could have and should have, just as a general background reference to his own position. By not doing this, he loses credibility as an un-biased archaeologist, not that it isn't clear he intends to take aim at Christians. Thus here you have an archaeologist drawing a direct reference to Jesus as the greater Solomon, who would be nobody if there was never any great Solomon! If Solomon wasn't anybody, then how could Jesus be? Now I wonder where he got that from? He's not Jewish, is he? If he were Jewish, it would be understandable why the bias would be there since Jews need to dismiss Christ in any way possible.
Further discrediting of Finkelstein also comes with the fact that the only extra-Biblical reference that exists of the pharoah of the Exodus agrees completely with the archaeology. That would be Manetho's reference that Amenhotep III was the pharoah of the Exodus. How did he miss that? Taking that reference as a historical marker, again, you get Solomon dated later to a time when there is no archaeological contradiction.
Thus Finkelstein is soooo far out on a limb, academically speaking and what we know about the Greek Period revisionis and what not, that he's bordering on being a joke (except for his archaeology) as far as his ideas about Biblical revisionism. Funny isn't it how so many people are so quick to claim the Bible is "revised" and there is "revisionism" when the Bible is concerned, but if you DARE even mention, the Babylonians or Persians revised one single thing they call you a raving lunatic fundamentalist! Oh no! Don't use the R-Word (Revisionism) except when discussing the Bible!
I've written Finkelstein and Mazar and that entire college by the way, so they know about the 455BCE chronology, not that they didn't know it before. Jewish rabbinical timelines long ago dated the 4th of Solomon precisely in 906BCE interestingly enough. So it's almost like the rest of the world might take things for face value, but if you're Jewish and thus presumably aware of the Jewish alternatives to the secular timeline, which they contradict (even covered in O. Jonsson's GTR3 where the Jews reduce the Pesian Period!), then it leaves little room but to presume this is just biased anti-Biblical and anti-Christian propaganda at the core, with some archaeology thrown in to help validate it.
Thanks for listening!
JCanon
-
Mum
I'm not sure whether this was brought up by anyone else, or if you have already researched it:
The Graf-Welhausen theory (JEPD) addresses the different names for G-d in the OT. Probably some of the books others have recommended would have information on it.
Regards,
SandraC
-
wherehasmyhairgone
Jcannon,
And so i understand you clearly, you reject the theory put forth in the 'The bible unearthed' and side solely with a biblical version of history correct?
regards
Steve
after thought:
after reading your post, isn't the point of evidence to follow it where it leads you rather than trying to shoe horn into a whatever holy book you need to validate?
His view is that the evidence fit a particular view of history that has come from this evidence, however their is no emotional vested interest, if he was completely proven wrong tomorrow, one man ego 'may' be hurt.
This is what i find so amazing, when seeing anyone ( i am not aiming this at you ) tyring to align evidence to fit their own holy book, and the reason are far more suspect than some one just putting a theory out there, what happens when history proves something in the bible wrong??... well huge emotional investments are at stake so we have comments like Richard Hess, saying
"However, it may be noted that the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 may be symbolic and not refer to a specific date"
which to me show the how the bible leaks.
You would think is a God was going to get a book penned about himself, it would show and prove in every light without fault and how greatly knowledge the author has, yet it fails time and again. But as a man-made book written for political end, it does pretty well.
