Pagan origins of Judaism

[Adrift]

As someone who has read Kitchen's book, I'm perfectly comfortable saying it's a mess.

He needs to invent convoluted scenarios to develop the model he wants. It doesn't work.

But at least you have read it. I recommend checking out Richard Hess' Israelite Religions if you haven't done so yet.

[shunyadragon]

But at least you have read it. I recommend checking out Richard Hess' Israelite Religions if you haven't done so yet.

Richard Hess' Israelite Religions primarily deals with Biblical archaeology. I read a long review of it and find it worthy of reading. In the review it emphasized that Hess was using archaeology to bring a continuity of Judaism history from the periods before 1000 BCE to after the exile period. I have read many other references to Biblical archaeology including subscribing to the magazine Biblical Archaeology. I believe it is clear by the Biblical archaeology evidence that the Hebrews began as a Canaanite pastoral tribe in the hills of Judea. The Hebrew language evolved from from the Canaanite language later about 1000 to 700 BCE. When comparing the known Canaanite cuneiform writings to the earlier OT text Judaism religious beliefs evolved from Canaanite and Babylonian polytheistic/henotheistic beliefs to monotheistic beliefs, and the earliest known Hebrew scriptures are found in Canaanite and pre-Babylonian cuneiform tablets.

If you have a specific reference or references from Richard Hess' book that addresses the issue of polytheism versus monotheism in early Hebrew history, please cite them here.

As far as Kitchen's books go they deal more with supporting the historical evidence and Biblical scripture arguing that the Bible is more accurate historically than some scholars propose. If you feel that he addresses the issue of polytheism versus monotheism in early Hebrew history please cite this from his books.

[shunyadragon]

But at least you have read it. I recommend checking out Richard Hess' Israelite Religions if you haven't done so yet.

I have ordered Hess' book, but my review of Kitchen's book was not encouraging. If I want to read it further I will simply go to the library and read it further.

Actually some of the cuneiform Creation Babylonian tablets have been found similar if not the same as those found in Babylonia. This evidence adds confirmation of the origins of the Genesis Creation stories.

[Adrift]

I have ordered Hess' book, but my review of Kitchen's book was not encouraging. If I want to read it further I will simply go to the library and read it further.

Going by your posts history I honestly don't expect you to be able to comprehend anything you pick up regardless who it's by.

[shunyadragon]

Going by your posts history I honestly don't expect you to be able to comprehend anything you pick up regardless who it's by.

Again your posts have offered nothing of substance in response to my posts. References to a book without any citation relevant to the thread. Airball big time!

psstein agreed with my assessment of Kitchen's book.

I will read Hess' book and cite from it. If you have read it, what if anything does it say that has meaning to the subject of this thread?

[Adrift]

Again your posts have offered nothing of substance in response to my posts.

That's because I wasn't responding to your posts. I was responding to psstein's post. That should have been obvious to anyone who saw that I had put psstein's post in a quote box.

References to a book without any citation relevant to the thread. Airball big time!

Well no, it wasn't an airball, because I wasn't responding to anything you had requested. As I said, I was clearly replying to psstein. Also, please come up with some new catchphrases.

psstein agreed with my assessment of Kitchen's book.

I'm fine with psstein's assessment, but you haven't read Kitchen's book, so any assessment you offer means absolutely zilch. However, even if you had read Kitchen's book, you're severe lack of reading comprehension doesn't inspire much confidence that you'd understand what you've read.

I will read Hess' book and cite from it.

I honestly don't care if you read it or not.

If you have read it, what if anything does it say that has meaning to the subject of this thread?

He has literally hundreds of pages devoted to Israel and pagan worship. To cite all of it, or to randomly cite portions of it would be tedious and nonsensical. If a poster in this thread has a specific question on something, and he covers that issue, I'll be happy to share. Again, though, I don't expect you'll be able to comprehend anything any scholar has to say on the subject, so I'll likely ignore requests by you specifically.

[shunyadragon]

That's because I wasn't responding to your posts. I was responding to psstein's post. That should have been obvious to anyone who saw that I had put psstein's post in a quote box.



Well no, it wasn't an airball, because I wasn't responding to anything you had requested. As I said, I was clearly replying to psstein. Also, please come up with some new catchphrases.



I'm fine with psstein's assessment, but you haven't read Kitchen's book, so any assessment you offer means absolutely zilch. However, even if you had read Kitchen's book, you're severe lack of reading comprehension doesn't inspire much confidence that you'd understand what you've read.



I honestly don't care if you read it or not.



He has literally hundreds of pages devoted to Israel and pagan worship. To cite all of it, or to randomly cite portions of it would be tedious and nonsensical. If a poster in this thread has a specific question on something, and he covers that issue, I'll be happy to share. Again, though, I don't expect you'll be able to comprehend anything any scholar has to say on the subject, so I'll likely ignore requests by you specifically.

You referred to me indirectly in posts to psstein, and you asked me specifically concerning Kitchen's book. If you do not respond to my posts than there is very little of value in your participation in the thread.

The Bible text I cited and the scholars I cite speak for themselves.

[Adrift]

You referred to me indirectly in posts to psstein,

Right. Indirectly. I wasn't responding to you in post #31. What is it you don't understand about that?

and you asked me specifically concerning Kitchen's book.

Which had nothing to do with post #31, and I replied back to you in post #29. That was the end of that particular exchange. Why is it so hard for you to follow the course of this thread?

If you do not respond to my posts than there is very little of value in your participation in the thread.

It is not a requirement of any thread on Theologyweb that posters respond directly to the OP. If I choose to discuss matters associated with the thread topic to other posters that is my business. If you think I've violated some forum rule either ignore me or report me to the mods.

The Bible text I cited and the scholars I cite speak for themselves.

You haven't cited a single Bible scholar in this thread. All you've done (and all you usually do) is copy and paste text from lazy Google web searches. If/when you do actually end up citing a scholar, it's very likely (as history has shown) that you're not going to understand a single word they're saying.

[shunyadragon]

<snipe>

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The consensus view in modern scholarship is that Yahweh was originally a minor storm/warrior deity that was imported into
Israel from a southern region (Edom/Midian). He was then accepted into certain Canaanite/Proto-Israelite pantheons as a
subordinate or of Son of El as is evident from the editing of Deut. 32:8-9. He was then eventually promoted over a long
complex political/ideological process to the status of the "only God." Here's the latest scholarly treatment -
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z5...page&q&f=false

[shunyadragon]

The consensus view in modern scholarship is that Yahweh was originally a minor storm/warrior deity that was imported into
Israel from a southern region (Edom/Midian). He was then accepted into certain Canaanite/Proto-Israelite pantheons as a
subordinate or of Son of El as is evident from the editing of Deut. 32:8-9. He was then eventually promoted over a long
complex political/ideological process to the status of the "only God." Here's the latest scholarly treatment -
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z5...page&q&f=false

This fits the references in showmeproof's threads. This is the latest:http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...php?136-Ugarit

[psstein]

The consensus view in modern scholarship is that Yahweh was originally a minor storm/warrior deity that was imported into
Israel from a southern region (Edom/Midian). He was then accepted into certain Canaanite/Proto-Israelite pantheons as a
subordinate or of Son of El as is evident from the editing of Deut. 32:8-9. He was then eventually promoted over a long
complex political/ideological process to the status of the "only God." Here's the latest scholarly treatment -
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z5...page&q&f=false

That's more or less correct. There's some debate as to whether or not YHWH was the high god of whomever brought him into the land (call them the Midianites, for the sake of ease). As for the "storm/warrior god," there's been some debate on that as well. Some people have argued that YHWH was actually a volcano god or a sun god.

[Rational Gaze]

>Creates thread claiming there is evidence Judaism evolved from pagan religions.
>Provides zero evidence of those claims.

Yeah, you really got us all convinced.

[Rational Gaze]

That's more or less correct. There's some debate as to whether or not YHWH was the high god of whomever brought him into the land (call them the Midianites, for the sake of ease). As for the "storm/warrior god," there's been some debate on that as well. Some people have argued that YHWH was actually a volcano god or a sun god.

I think you mean more or less incorrect. There's absolutely zero evidence of any kind at all for any of it. I checked out the link and the authors have repeated claims that have been refuted for decades. Like claiming that the Torah is more recent than the 1st millennium BC when all the textual evidence points to a date of composition in the 2nd millennium BC.

[shunyadragon]

I think you mean more or less incorrect. There's absolutely zero evidence of any kind at all for any of it. I checked out the link and the authors have repeated claims that have been refuted for decades. Like claiming that the Torah is more recent than the 1st millennium BC when all the textual evidence points to a date of composition in the 2nd millennium BC.

You have provided zero evidence to support your assertion. Still waiting . . .

Your playing blind man's bluff and blur . . .

All the evidence for the Torah before the 1st millennium BCE is in Canaanite and Babylonian cuneiform tablets.

Can you cite any archeological evidence of the existence of evidence of actually Hebrew Torah text prior to ~1200-1000 BCE?

The oldest text known is the silver scroll ~600 BCE.