Jump to Page: 1 2
Morwen Oronor
Citizen
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 01-2008
Posts: 1912
Karma: 18 (+19/-1)

|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Monotheism "the ultimate revenge"
Thought you'd find this interesting:
Israel, like many other nations, had gone from polytheism to monolatry - the worship of one god in preference to others - primarily because kings could enhance their perceived power if they were closely identified with the primary god and then all other gods were subordinated. But what then brought about the next decisive and epoch-making step: Israel's transition from monolatry to true monotheism - the disappearance of other gods? Monotheism was the innovation that then became the basis for the three great and interrelated Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - that are embraced by half the world's population today. Some scholars suggest that monotheism was born out of the terrifying, hideous trauma of the Babylonian exile of the Israelites in 586 BCE:
"When King Zedekiah of Judah rebelled against the Babylonians, they captured him, killed his sons before his eyes, plucked out those eyes, then burned Yahweh's (Jehovah's) temple to the ground. And they completed a process they'd started years earlier, the transfer of Israel's upper classes to Babylon. Now, as of 586 BCE, the Babylonian exile - the most famous trauma in the story of ancient Israel - was in full swing. No doubt the Babylonians, following theological conventions of the day, took all this to signify Yahweh's humiliation at the hands of their national god, Marduk. ...
"The retributive impulse is universally human, almost certainly grounded in the genes of our species. And it is deeply, often hotly, felt. But, however laden with emotion, it has an intrinsic logic, and in terms of this logic Israel's monotheism makes sense. The core of the logic is, as the Bible puts it, an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth; punishment is proportional to the original transgression. And what was the magnitude of the transgression that Israel's exiles had suffered? The Babylonians hadn't just conquered their land and belittled their god. They had removed them from their land and, ostensibly, killed their god. Whereas [previously] Assyria had stripped Jerusalem's temple of its treasures, the Babylonians had destroyed the temple itself. And a god's temple was, in the ancient Middle East, literally the god's home.
"The ultimate transgression calls for the ultimate punishment. An apt response when a people kills your god is to kill theirs - to define it out of existence. And if other nations' gods no longer exist, and if you've already decided that Yahweh is the only god in your nation, then you've just segued from monolatry to monotheism.
"This isn't to say that monotheism followed from retributive logic as rigorously as four follows from two plus two. ... [Yet] there is a sense of humiliation so massive that counterbalancing it would require Yahweh's elevation to unprecedented heights - which meant the demotion of the world's other gods to unprecedented depths, perilously near the subsistence level. Monotheism was, among other things, the ultimate revenge."
Robert Wright, The Evolution of God, Little, Brown, Copyright 2009 by Robert Wright, pp. 165, 177-178.
--- The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.William Spencer Churchill
|
|
7/8/2009, 3:37 am
|
Link to this post
PM Morwen Oronor
Read Blog
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Head of Runboard staff
Registered: 11-2005
Province: YouTube/LesignerGirl
Posts: 6857
Karma: 101 (+115/-14)

|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Monotheism "the ultimate revenge"
Interesting article. I'd never heard it put that way before.
|
|
7/8/2009, 5:22 am
|
Link to this post
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
Morwen Oronor
Citizen
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 01-2008
Posts: 1912
Karma: 18 (+19/-1)

|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Monotheism "the ultimate revenge"
Neither had I, so I learned something today.
--- The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.William Spencer Churchill
|
|
7/8/2009, 9:53 am
|
Link to this post
PM Morwen Oronor
Read Blog
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Head of Runboard staff
Registered: 11-2005
Province: YouTube/LesignerGirl
Posts: 6857
Karma: 101 (+115/-14)

|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Monotheism "the ultimate revenge"
How does it fit in with what you already knew? I assume it sounds as feasible to you as it does to me?
|
|
7/8/2009, 11:26 am
|
Link to this post
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
Morwen Oronor
Citizen
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 01-2008
Posts: 1912
Karma: 18 (+19/-1)

|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Monotheism "the ultimate revenge"
From a 'factual' point of view, I have to look at the documented history and that I've repeated enough times and you also know enough about it not to have to repeat it here. Also from that history we know that the only people who worshipped Yahweh and according to the laws that orthodox Jews still use today, are the people who lived in Jerusalem and around the temple. The people who called themselves 'Israelites' and 'Canaanites' etc., although they revered Abraham and Moses, all had different ways of interpreting the laws and of worshipping the gods and because there was a lot of integration with other people who lived in the area, they also included the gods of those other people in their pantheon.
The destruction of the temple and the exile of the Jews to Babylon had a far greater unifying effect on those people than anything else in their history, in the same way that the Holocaust has had on modern Jews. And the one thing that emerged out of both these two major events in Jewish history is that they made Jews more 'Jewish' than they were before the events. In the first place, the Jews of the Middle East and in the second, the Jews of Europe and America.
In much the same way that 9/11 had the effect of making Americans more patriotic, the Holocaust, far from dissolving Jewishness, it made people who had even small amounts of Jewish ancestry more aware of that ancestry.
So yes, I can see that the destruction of the temple and the exile of the Jerusalem jews would have caused to them unify under the 'god' they took on as their personal deity. Had this even not happened, I believe that the worship of the god of the Jews and theories such as Christianity would have had a totally different face today.
--- The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.William Spencer Churchill
|
|
7/8/2009, 10:06 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Morwen Oronor
Read Blog
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Head of Runboard staff
Registered: 11-2005
Province: YouTube/LesignerGirl
Posts: 6857
Karma: 101 (+115/-14)

|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Monotheism "the ultimate revenge"
Your logic is impeccable, MO.
Many people have said that the Judaic writings weren't even written until the Babylonian exile. While it's feasible that earlier writings could have been destroyed in the invasion, it is also possible to determine a time period in which something was written, simply by the style it was written in.
Based on what you have read and deduced, (1) how old would you say are the oldest existing copies of Judaic texts, and (2) how long ago do you think the originals were written?
By "originals," I'm not referring to the Egyptian, Ugaritic, Homeric, Babylonian (Gilgamesh), etc. stories the Israelites borrowed from, but the ones that were written down by the Israelites themselves.
|
|
7/9/2009, 7:06 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
Morwen Oronor
Citizen
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 01-2008
Posts: 1912
Karma: 18 (+19/-1)

|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Monotheism "the ultimate revenge"
Thank you for the complement. I do try to look at things logically rather than emotionally. And I have to say that even to me, I never considered my own jewish ancestry until I learned of the real horror of the Holocaust. My parents were very protective of us. They avoided our learning anything truly horrible about any of the ugliness of adulthood, to the extent that we emerged from our little cocooned lives as naive and frightened when we had to deal with the real world. I knew that Jews had been 'persecuted' during WWII but my father refused to allow us to learn that history, hence the gaps in my formal youthful education. I was quite mature when I was finally confronted by the truth of it and the effect it had on me was to make me a little protective of my own Jewishness, not from the religious point of view but rather from the point of view that even my own diluted Jewish ancestry would have condemned me and my children to the gas chambers had we lived in Europe at that time. So from that point of view I sort of carry a bit of a banner about having Jews in my lineage.
To return to your question.
My deductions based on what I learned in my studies of ancient history make me believe that had there been anything formal written down in the 5th century BCE, or had there been a properly established civilization in the Middle East at the time when Herodotus wrote his histories, (around 440 BCE) he would've mentioned it. He doesn't. He talks about the Egyptians and their civilization and he writes extensively about the Persians and their confrontation with the Greeks. He writes about all the other people who lived in the area, but nothing about the Jews. Perhaps that part of the histories was included in the lost parts of his work, we don't know but what we do know is that we can deduce what those lost parts were about from the parts that we do have. Nothing in the parts of the work that we do have refers to the people of Palestine in any way.
Thucydides also wrote about the people who lived during the Peloponnesian War. His writing is mostly about the war itself and the Greeks fighting each other but if there had been an organised people living anywhere else in the area, there would've been some mention of them. There isn't.
So I conclude that the people who lived in and around Jerusalem up to the time that the Romans found and conquered the area were living in small disparate settlements and that the whole history as portrayed by the Old Testament was is not a lie than an attempt at aggrandizement.
I think that there might have been some scrolls in the temple when it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in the late 5th century BCE but I don't think that there was a combined 'book' as such at that time. Now consider that Herodotus wrote his histories less than 100 years after the supposed destruction of the temple. He would've known about it, it would've been a 'story' in the area during that time. It wasn't. I think that when they went home, and remember they were returning to Jerusalem at the same time that Herodotus was telling his stories, they also started writing down their own history.
I think that the writing of Herodotus' Histories was the even that incited other people to write their own stories, formally. So i would say around the middle of the 3rd century BCE after the return from Babylon.
Before that there were no formal written laws except what was written on stone stellae. Paper didn't exist and papyrus was expensive. things were written on vellum, a very expensive product to produce and inks that didn't wash out or fade were also pretty expensive to produce. So the idea that before the 400s BCE people in the Middle East, living in what was essentially a desert, were able to produce 'books' is a bit far-fetched.
My conclusion: the stories existed in a verbal form, handed down from what you refer to as:
Egyptian, Ugaritic, Homeric, Babylonian (Gilgamesh), etc
and that they were repeated so often that they developed a life of their own (like broken telephone) and then when the Jews went home from Babylon they decided that they'd better write them down before they were lost.
I think the middle of the 3rd century BCE spawned a flood of writing all over the eastern Mediterranean, and that that writing included Herodotus' history, Thucydides Hsitory and the Old Testament (and of course the formal writing down of the previous orally reported works of the Greek philosophers and playwrights).
--- The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.William Spencer Churchill
|
|
7/9/2009, 10:33 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Morwen Oronor
Read Blog
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Head of Runboard staff
Registered: 11-2005
Province: YouTube/LesignerGirl
Posts: 6857
Karma: 101 (+115/-14)

|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Monotheism "the ultimate revenge"
Not only is your logic impeccable, but your knowledge of ancient history in this area is quite extensive, as well. I knew bits and piece of that from elsewhere, and everything else you just said fits right in with that.
I think it would be interesting to develop a printable timeline of places, events, and written/carved/painted stories. By answersingenesis.com's own admission,
According to the extant clay tablets, scholars reckon the time of the first compilation of the Epic [of Gilgamesh] in Akkadian around the second millennium B.C. Since there is a Sumerian version behind the Akkadian, the Epic is, “…upon any view of the date of the Book of Genesis, considerably older than the biblical narrative.”
According to Wikipedia,
The earliest Sumerian versions of the epic date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BCE) (Dalley 1989: 41-42). The earliest Akkadian versions are dated to the early second millennium (Dalley 1989: 45). The "standard" Akkadian version, consisting of twelve tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh.
The timeline I envision would entail many other common themes as well, of course. Perhaps it would be nice to accompany it with a map that is marked with various colors, then list the events and stories in a grid, using those same colors as bullet points for easy geographical reference.
Now I'm about to sway from what we were just talking about slightly, by pointing out an excellent example of why people should not trust anything Answers in Genesis says at face value. From the same page where I obtained the above quote from their site, which they falsely refer to as a comparative "study" of the different flood "accounts":
This writer’s research question is this: what is the relationship between the flood accounts of the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis? Through this study, this research question is investigated by comparing five perspectives of these two accounts. The purpose of this thesis is to support the trustworthiness of the Bible in order to strengthen Christians’ faith in the Bible.
That's not a study. That is the use of mental gymnastics to convince people of something that is not only not supported by the known facts, but also blatantly contradicts them.
Their first fallacy is to assume something extraordinary is true until it can be proven false. Their second fallacy is to claim their assumption hasn't been proven false, when it has. But let's just concentrate on the first fallacy here.
I will make the claim right here, right now, that the Flintstones cartoon was based on real historical events, and Fred, Wilma, and the Rubbles were all real people. Further, I will assert that purple dinosaurs really did coexist with humans, and it was common for humans to keep these purple dinosaurs as pets.
Now, prove me wrong. If you can't prove me wrong, then what I assert must be true. And why not believe it? It's no more incredible than a talking snake, convincing a woman to eat a piece of magical fruit and then having all of humanity cursed as a result of that.
|
|
7/9/2009, 11:49 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
Morwen Oronor
Citizen
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 01-2008
Posts: 1912
Karma: 18 (+19/-1)

|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Monotheism "the ultimate revenge"
It would be interesting to do a timeline like that but it would take a lot of research and with all the research and time devoted to it would make a wonderful doctoral thesis.
What you're saying is perfectly right about the way people who want to believe something will defend their theory. A true scientist will announce a theory and then expect it to be attacked and questioned. This is the right way to eventually reach a point where your theory can become valid, the other way, i.e. assuming that your theory is correct because either your personal experience says it is or because your subjective bias says it is or because people who agree with you say it is or because you only look for supporting research, is not valid.
--- The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.William Spencer Churchill
|
|
7/10/2009, 2:46 am
|
Link to this post
PM Morwen Oronor
Read Blog
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Head of Runboard staff
Registered: 11-2005
Province: YouTube/LesignerGirl
Posts: 6857
Karma: 101 (+115/-14)

|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Monotheism "the ultimate revenge"
Exactly. Real research doesn't set out to prove something as true. Real research sets out to determine if something is true or not.
|
|
7/10/2009, 11:27 am
|
Link to this post
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
Add to this discussion
Jump to Page: 1 2
You are not logged in ( login) –
Board's time is: 2/9/2010, 6:24 pm EDT
|