JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[dybmh]

The Origins of Judaism | Yonatan Adler PhD

Well.... right off the bat, the discussion is, when was Judaism "commonly" practiced as a "way of life". Not the beginning of the religion. Not the beginning of the concepts. Not the beginning of the theology.

That's in the first 30 seconds of the video.

5:58 - the host says: paraphrasing, so many scholars that I respect do not agree on when Jewish practice became common. ( IOW No concensus.)

24ish - The Torah might be very ancient, the guest is not concenred with that

28:10

1st and 2nd century good evidence of Biblical Judaism

Which was defined as the "common" practice. And, if we listen further, this is the benchmark. This is the starting point of the investigation.

27:45 - Very important note here. The earliest archeologicl evidence is not the beginning of Jewish practice. It's the latest to which it could have begun. It's a little hard to explain, but, it makes perfect logical sense.

If we find a set of tefillin, and date those to 100bce. I'm just guessing. That doesn't mean that tefillin began in 100bce. That is the latest beginning. The practice could be much older, but we ony have evidence at a certain point. So that's the latest when it could have started.

If say for example, we have evidence of monotheism at 600bce. That doesn't mean it started there. That's the latest beginning, and it could have been much earlier. Same with a written Torah, same with anything.

And then if we think, how long does it take for these things to be established. Tefillin for example, who's making the klaf, and the battim, and the scribes, who's teaching them, etc...

Terminus ante quem is the term, I think, the speaker used. It's a little hard to hear the detail.

29minutes-ish - The punchline is, no evidence of common Jewish knowledge of the law or Torah before 200bce. But, that's the latest beginning. The speaker just spent a few minutes explaining that.

33ish - the question was, why do you think there was Judaism prior to 200bce without evidence. the answer, paraphrasing was, because this was the first time the jewish people were free with a priestly family in charge.

41:56 - "I wouldn't expect to find anything" to validate the bible stories. The stories are about non-observance.

50ish - there was a later interpretation of the law against graven images which was more liberal. ( That means that the previous imagery isn't a sign of non-Jewish practice ) He even mentions the lions. See, Joel, I was right about that. And Dever was... wrong. And again, this is in the Torah, when the tabernacle was constructed, there were angelic/animal figures in the decorations. Precisely what figures they were is unknown. But they were divine beings, and one of those happens to be the face of a lion.

51ish - "Jewish law is dynamic"

53ish - the host asks, "they were eating pig in Judea"? Answer: "In the northern kingdom".

between 53 and 1:30:00 there's a facinating discussion of pig bones, currency, all kinds of reasons to believe that the common Judeans were not practicing Jewish law, o that they even knew about it. Of course I have a few questions about it. But, it's a great informative 40+ minutes.

1:30:00 - the speaker says, "the problem with all the theories about when the Torah was written, when it was spliced together, who wrote it, how it was influenced, is that it's all conjecture. And that's why there's no many views and so many opinions about all of this"

Well... there goes the concensus about when it was written, who influenced it, etc.

Also, the speaker says too often scholars who speak about the origins of the written torah don't tell you what is actual fact compared to what is conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Great video, BTW.

 

[dybmh]

We don't know when monotheism started.

Correct! You can cross that off the list of things borrowed.

The rest are all strawmen.
Noahs flood?
Canaanite myths, what?????

You're just not remembering the claims made by grier, boyce, and the the pastor talking about a lack of oral tradition for noah's flood.

You didn't show Bowen was wrong at anything. It doesn't say Yahweh inherited names, you were corrected on that. So you will just make stuff up to save face? Exactly why I no longer am interested. I have shown what I said is true.

Ummm, yes, Bowen was speaking in the video and reading the statement about inheritting names. I've shown you the screenshot twice.

And, I'm not the one who went and found an anonymous quote from a Christian website and falsely claimed it was Daniel Eisenbud to save face. You claimed he was an apologist for no other reason than you didn't like the article he wrote. Then conjured up a false quote about it. That's pretty bad.

Then you tried tired old apologetics that no historical scholar agrees with.

Nope, Yonatan Adler agrees that any attempt at dating the Torah is conjecture. An opinion based on incomplete information. And Christine Hayes agrees that there is no syncretism. The host on the Yonatan Adler video admits that the documentary hypothesis has problems.

After the exile they adopted Persian theology as well.

And yet, everytime you copy-paste, there is no similarity except for the english word "messiah" and the english word "apocalyse". The actual details are so so different. It's a rejection of the persian ideas, not an adoption.

 

[dybmh]

Which is what I said, Mesopotamian origin, I was correct.

But before, you were certain that Noah's flood was copied from Epic of gilgamesh. Remember the "sweet savour"? And you insisted it was verbatim?

The consensus is Genesis was written 600 BCE and sources as a response to older flood stories. No doubt whatsoever. The basics come from even older flood stories.

Nope, that's false. Not written. The final editing and redaction. I know details aren't your thing, and aparently neither is accuracy.

Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method

And now you're repeating... again.

14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story

But, not syncretic, at all. They're opposites.

25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons

Who cares?

26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)

Not syncretic.

They were sourced and re-written for Israelite needs. Yahweh, Eden, are Near Eastern theological ideas.

Which rejected those theologies.

Lecture 2. The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting

More repeats...

0:22 - Bible shares cultural heritage of Near Eastern mythology but has it’s own take.

not syncretic

39:42 in all likelihood, going by archaeology and scripture, Hebrews of an older time were not much different than it’s Near Eastern neighbors. Archaeology would suggest this.

Judaism has always been a minority position.

Worship of household idols, fertility deities, engaged in various syncretistic practices, PROBABLY

But this doesn't represent Judaism, as stated in the video.

40:49 Yahweh was probably very similar to the other gods of Canaanite religion - evidence suggests

Yahweh is not referred to as bull. A father of gods is not similar to God of your fathers. Yahweh guides and leads the people... ummm, so do plenty of other gods. Yahweh doesn't live on a mountain, that's just one episode. All these similarities are bogus.

40:52 continuities with Canaanite AND ancient Near Eastern religions are apparent in the worship practices and cult objects of ancient Judah and Israel as they are described in biblical stories and as we find in archaeological finds.

continuties aren't syncretic, aren't borrowing

Bible contains sources of polytheism. Genesis 6, Nephilim - divine beings who descend to Earth and mate with humans.

ut you snipped out the part immediately following this where she said this is the 1 and only place where that occurs. And its not a source of polytheism. She said it wa a fluid example.

Psalms - descriptions of meetings and conversations between multiple gods.

It's the same 1 psalm that makes no sense translated that way. God is rebuking the other gods, then tells them to rise at the end?

 

[dybmh]

Yes Judaism is syncretic, I know.

No, it's not. Other cultures that are geographically distant have similar creation stories. That shows it's not syncretic.

Like I said, they were influenced by the Persians. There is no way to know the exact time monotheism became a thing. Dever seems to think it was a minority but was around. He is the only expert here.

Influenced and it galvanized a pre-existing belief, and they rejected the persian theology. Not syncretic, not borrowing.

As I said, it isn't about Ashera, the discussion began about the Bible being incorrect. Interesting on how hard you focus on details like this as if you finally can claim to have had a win. The debate is over. Your amateur interpretation on Devers finds are meaningless.

You still haven't answered the simple question about Dever's imagined crescent moon. Can't do that, can you? because it shows Dever sees things that aren't there.

Your denial of the historical consensus doesn't change it.
Yout focus on mundane aspects - Ashera, a few slaves from Egypt, doesn't help. Of course the truth is more complicated. Exactly why scripture is wrong.

I focus on details which refutes your claims. That's why you've had to drop your claims about Asherah and many others to focus on the strawman of biblical accuracy.

Now, this nonsense about Persian writing. Mary Boyce is the leading expert.

It's true. None of the details about the Persian messiah or end times were written until 900-1000CE. They were alluded to, but no details.

"
The language of the Gathas is archaic, and close to that of the Rigveda (whose composition has been assigned to about 1 700 B. c. onwards); and the picture of the world to be gained from them is correspon,dingly ancient, that of a Stone Age society. Some allowance may have to be made for literary conservatism; and it is also possible that the 'Avestan' people (as Zoroaster's own tribe is called for want of a better name) were poor or isolated, and so not rapidly influenced by the developments of the Bronze Age. It is only possible therefore to hazard a reasoned conjecture that Zoroaster lived some time between 1 700 and 1 500 B.C"

And.... nothing here about anything related to Judaism

"
An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil. Zoroaster's followers, holding ardently to this expectation, came to believe that the Saoshyant will be born of the prophet's own seed, miraculously preserved in the depths of a lake (identified as Lake K;tsaoya). When the end of time approaches, it is said, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child by the prophet; and she will in due course bear a son, named Astvat-ereta, 'He who embodies righteousness' (after Zoroaster's own words: 'May righteousness be embodied' Y 43. r6). Despite his miraculous conception, the coming World Saviour will thus be a man, born of human parents, and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

Did you read this? It literally says the belief in the messiah only included 1 detail, the persian messiah fights against evil. then the followers later developed this whole story around that. BTW, the Jewish Moshiach is not fighting evil. So like I said, the only similarity is the english word "messiah"

Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6)

"

Yes, the persian messiah was magnified later. And you'll notice, none of that stuff matches Judaism either.

Well denial can protect you. I am not interested in your denial, just what is true. You listened to 5 PhDs say Genesis is sourced from older myths and still can't say it. This is how it goes with apologists, if all else fails just say no.
Yeah, ok, that says a lot.

Kind of like you just say no to any flaw in any of your sources. You can't seem to answer a simple question about a picture of a imagined crescent moon. You can't seem to give any reason at all why "differences show borrowing" sounded rational to you.

Anyway, the only links that have been brought to support the Genesis myth copying nonsense are:

1. A similar word "t'hohm" in genesis 1
2. A mistranslation of the first word of Gen 1
3. The spirit of God in Gen 2 should be wind, and the rationale is faulty
4. The enuma elish has a person splitting a fish, and creating a palace for themself above the heavens and that's supposed to mimic the creation of the firmament, but it doesn't

That's it.

And the scholars are not saying sourced. They're saying similar motifs, not syncretic, but a rejection of those myths.

16:00 John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.

“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.

And there is archeological evidence tracing ancient ISraelites to mesopotamia. And "Much language and imagery" seems false. So far there's a word here, a word there.

16:28 2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson

“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……

And we know that the flood story showed up much later. 1000-1300 bce.

17:24 - The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan

“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”

so not syncretic

17:55 God in Translation, Smith

“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”

so not syncretic

18:19 THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer

“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

And yet whenever we examine those details, it always turns out to be weak.

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr

“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”

complex juxtaposition... meaning opposite and not syncretic

41:00 The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith

“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

Nope. Did not inherit the names. There are no cosmic enemies in the Hebrew bible.

 

[joelr]

You said it sounded perfectly rational. But you can't explain it even a tiny bit. Do you know what rational means? It means "reasoned", it means, there are reasons for believing that it's true. Someone says up is down and black is white, beleiving it based on PHD alone is not rational.

And, it doesn't appear that this intertexuality is a concensus at all. For good reason.
No, it demonstrates that you believe without really knowing why.
Correct. In the video you posted, they claim that Yahweh inherits the names of Leviathan, the sea, death, and taninim. Then they give a series of bible verses, and none of them say that at all.
And this is a misquote of the Baal cycle. Baal doesn't kill here, and it doesn't say leviathan, it says, LTN. And naturally cutting out all the other words that don't match is exaggerating the claim. if it was string evidence, it wouldn't need to be exaggerated.Well, if you could keep the details straight, it wouldn't need to be repeated. They 100% did say it. I gave you a screenshot. It's directly from the video. Here it is again.
.

Now this is just getting weird. I corrected your mistake and you still brought it up and now again you are acting like it's incorrect. For the 3rd time:
It does not say Yahweh inherited the names.
What it says is:

41:01
"The Biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm God, but God inherited the names of Baal's cosmic enemies. With names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim."

Yahweh doesn't inherit the names? THE ENEMIES OF YAHWEH HAVE THE SAME NAMES AS BAAL. It took you 3 times to get this (or maybe more, which is why I am so uninterested in this discussion)

Not only that but you went on a big rant about how nothing matched and gave language lessons and had an entire dance party. For. Nothing. Unless you are just throwing garbage around to see what I'm too tired to answer. Which will work eventaully. I guess you can pretend like you finally made a good point?

Bible - Leviathan, the felling serpent, Leviathan, the coiling serpent
Baal - Litan the fleeing serpent, Litan the coiling serpent.

One small example, which matches.

And, it doesn't appear that this intertexuality is a concensus at all. For good reason.

Dr Baden, agrees
Kipp Davis, Bowed,
Professor Christine Hayes
John Collins - all agree

Dr. Aren Maeir , agree

also in the video:
16:00 John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.

16:28 2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”


17:24 - The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
17:55 God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
18:19 THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”
19:30 Subtle Citation, Allusion, and Translation in the Hebrew Bible, Zevit
\Methods for identifying intersexuality and understanding borrowing
The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”

41:00 The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

And, it doesn't appear that this intertexuality is a concensus at all. For good reason.

"doesn't appear"? This debate is over.You have shown when proven wrong you will just make bold face, blatantly incorrect statements, which speaks volumes. Making stuff up is a massive verification of what's happening here.
And yes, the Yale Divinity lectures also include the Mesopotamian influence on Genesis.
Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University -
Lecture 2. The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting

0:22 - Bible shares cultural heritage of Near Eastern mythology but has it’s own take.

Bible written by elites (7th to 4th century) had a specific radical new worldview and imposed it on the earlier Israelite religion - monotheism.


Talks about Kaufmann and his apologetics that Israels monotheism is completely different than Near Eastern polytheism

38:30 Same as Dever, Israelite/Judean religion was not what is portrayed in Bible. Bible is written later and re-tells story of Israel.

39:42 in all likelihood, going by archaeology and scripture, Hebrews of an older time were not much different than it’s Near Eastern neighbors. Archaeology would suggest this.

Worship of household idols, fertility deities, engaged in various syncretistic practices, PROBABLY

40:49 Yahweh was probably very similar to the other gods of Canaanite religion - evidence suggests


40:52 continuities with Canaanite AND ancient Near Eastern religions are apparent in the worship practices and cult objects of ancient Judah and Israel as they are described in biblical stories and as we find in archaeological finds.

Bible contains sources of polytheism. Genesis 6, Nephilim - divine beings who descend to Earth and mate with humans.

Psalms - descriptions of meetings and conversations between multiple gods.


43:08 literate and monotheistic circles within Israelite society put a monotheistic framework onto the stories and traditions of the nation. They molded them into a foundation myth to shape Jewish identity. Possible start at 8th century. Projected their monotheism onto an earlier time. Monotheism is represented as beginning with Abraham - historically speaking it most likely began MUCH LATER. Probably as a minority movement. This creates the impression of the Biblical religion.


44:54 apologetics forces scripture to be monotheistic, the text is actually contradictory and inconsistent


45:27 - Creation story added to Pentateuch in one of the last rounds of editing, probably 6th century.


46:00 Genesis used and adapted themes from Near Eastern mythology

 

[joelr]

"Everything Dever says is concensus"? No. "His Asherah" is not concensus. God has a wife. Is not concensus. Matzvot at the temples is not consensus. Prohibtion on animal figurines is not concensus. The function of the Pillar figurines is not concensus.Hee-hee. And you accuse me of playing games. This isn't *actually* from Yale divinity. It's an editted version. The title of the video from Yale is NOT "The Stolen Canaanite Gods..." It's "Israel in Egypt: Moses and the Beginning of Yahwehism". Also, the video is clipped and snipped together like a propaganda video. The actual video is pretty interesting. ( link ).

At minute 33ish, she says something very important. in 1928 they discovered a library of tablets in a language very very similar to Hebrew. So, how do you think these tablets were deciphered? They look to the Hebrew bible to do so. Is it a surprise that similarities of names are going to occur? No! Of course the names are going to be similar. That's because the canaanit tablets were read using Hebrew.

And yet, some of things she says is true, and some of the things she says aren't true. For example, she says that Yahweh is poetically described as "bull". She says it twice. But that's not in the Hebrew bible. Not really sure where that comes from. These other similarities are all kind of silly. Yahweh is on a mountain, but that's not the only place he is. That's just one episode in the Bible. El is the father of other gods. Yahweh is the "God of your fathers". That's not really the same thing. Yahweh guides and protects, and so does El? Um so what? That's common for deities. Anyway.
And I think you know what I think about the Documentary Hypothesis. It's based on contradictions. Most of which are completely bogus.Yes. this was an interesting video.Not sure if you noticed, but the entire video refutes Judaism as syncretic.BUZZZZZZZ! That's a misquote. She doesn't say written. I know, I know you don't really care about details. You care about what's "true". The truth is, she says it was the final editting and redaction. Not "written". Details, details.Another misquote! She never calls Kaufmann an apologist. She has a ton of respect for what he says, spends, as you can see from the timestamp, 35+ minutes discussion all the merits of what he says. And, AND, if you watch more of the lecture series, she refers back to Kaufmann repeatedly. She says Judiasm was not an evolution from polytheism, it was a revolution. IOW.... pay attention Joel, it's not syncretic. It's the opposite of syncretic.She is very clear to distinguish between "Israelite" and the Biblical religion. She also doesn not say "written later". That's a misquote again! She's not even talking about that at that point in the video.

Some of the things the Yale Divinity professor says are "not true". HA!. Just like the "not consensus" on Mesopotamian sources? You have zero credibility.
This is all strawman. I don't care what you call early Israelite religion???? My original point is the Bible is not correct. Everything here backs that up.

Bogus contradictions = apologist, no historical scholar agrees with that. I do not care about apologetics and cognitive bias. All scholars recognize the contradictions. Some religious people who cannot have contradictions because they need this to be the word of a deity are using confirmation bias to force beliefs.
These ideas are not supported by any historical scholarship.
The Bible WAs written later, one reference was at"

45:27 - Creation story added to Pentateuch in one of the last rounds of editing, probably 6th century.

and here which also confirms the consensus about Mesopotamian myth:
0:22 - Bible shares cultural heritage of Near Eastern mythology but has it’s own take.

Bible written by elites (7th to 4th century) had a specific radical new worldview and imposed it on the earlier Israelite religion - monotheism.

She backs up Dever here:

39:42 in all likelihood, going by archaeology and scripture, Hebrews of an older time were not much different than it’s Near Eastern neighbors. Archaeology would suggest this.

Worship of household idols, fertility deities, engaged in various syncretistic practices, PROBABLY

40:49 Yahweh was probably very similar to the other gods of Canaanite religion - evidence suggests
46:00 Genesis used and adapted themes from Near Eastern mythology

and here:

40:52 continuities with Canaanite AND ancient Near Eastern religions are apparent in the worship practices and cult objects of ancient Judah and Israel as they are described in biblical stories and as we find in archaeological finds.

Bible contains sources of polytheism. Genesis 6, Nephilim - divine beings who descend to Earth and mate with humans.

Psalms - descriptions of meetings and conversations between multiple gods.


Bible was written later, confirmed here:

43:08 literate and monotheistic circles within Israelite society put a monotheistic framework onto the stories and traditions of the nation. They molded them into a foundation myth to shape Jewish identity. Possible start at 8th century. Projected their monotheism onto an earlier time. Monotheism is represented as beginning with Abraham - historically speaking it most likely began MUCH LATER. Probably as a minority movement. This creates the impression of the Biblical religion.

and the inconsistencies:

44:54 apologetics forces scripture to be monotheistic, the text is actually contradictory and inconsistent

 

[joelr]

And yet she just finished saying that the "actual practices" are "irretrievable", but there are clues.Probably what? Monolartist. Soft monotheism. Nice of you to clip that part out.

Another lie. My post says PROBABLY.

Similar in many ways... OK, similar is fine.Ancient Judah and Israel, but not Judaism. Continuties isn't borrowing.

The sourcing is consensus.

I know. People quote this same 1 psalm, but as I said, it makes no sense to translate it that way. Yes! But do you understand what she just said?

Your amateur apologist reading is of no interest to me. Find a historical scholar to agree.

Listen carefully. Starting in 800bce montheistic circles, ( people who were monotheists already ) put a monotheistic framework ( preexisting monotheistic ideas, strict monotheism, if you're paying attention to the lecture ) an projected it backwards. They say it started with Abraham, but it probably started much later.

It's not that these monotheistic ideas started much later, but the formation of a monotheistic majority started much later.[/QUOTE]

No,
43:08 literate and monotheistic circles within Israelite society put a monotheistic framework onto the stories and traditions of the nation. They molded them into a foundation myth to shape Jewish identity. Possible start at 8th century. Projected their monotheism onto an earlier time. Monotheism is represented as beginning with Abraham - historically speaking it most likely began MUCH LATER. Probably as a minority movement. This creates the impression of the Biblical religion.

POSSIBLE START and it's REPRESENTED AS BEGINNING WITH ABRAHAM. He is a myth.

But yeah, keep changing stuff to fit your needs. Now watch, next you take issue with me misquoting after 2 posts full of non-truths and bending words.

Hee. here you are misquoting. She doesn't say apologetics. And she doesn't say "forces scripture to be monotheistic". That's a huge misquote. If you had a strong argument, you wouldn't need to misrepresent. She says the biblcal record is conflicted. Parts of it a strongly monotheistic, and parts of it are reflecting a past polythiestic practice which the biblical writers are rejecting.
She says, probably but we don't really know.... to make them into something completely different. Something which strongly rejects polytheism and the culture around it. So not syncretic.
Dever sees things that aren't there. A crescent moon that's not there, a lion throne that's not there.

I don't need a strong argument. Scholarship has made it for me.
You can disagree with Dever all day. What is your degree in archaeology?

And here you are ignoring the disticntion between Ancient Hebrew/Israelite/Judean and Judaism. Just because you claim it, doesn't make it so.

You've said a lot more than the bible is not correct.About the strawman of an inerrent bible? Amazing. It's not just the pictures. That refute what he's saying.[/QUOTE]

The Bible is not correct. The goddess may not be Ashera, but female deities were worshipped. Every point you have raised means nothing to the overall point.

The pictures show that YOU are unable to admit the flaws in Dever. YOU and anyone can look at these pictures and see something is wrong.

The only flaws are in your twisting of the narrative.

You're refusal to answer a simple question about what is in these pictures shows your mindset.And it has the same flaw. The people who had those statues, how do we know they were israelite and not canaanite. Answer: we don't.But somehow, you can't admit when they make a mistake that's as simple as looking at a picture. And you claim things sound rational, but can't even begin to explain why.Yes, you seem to want people to accept, without thinking, without questioning, without thinking.

Because they were found in Israel with Israelite artifacts and Israel occupied the towns the temples were in. At least one says Yahweh and has female deity figurines. 8th century.



Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel

Dever


21:00 Israel, Dan, Bamah at Dan (mentioned in Kings), associated with Canaanite rituals


Next to building is building similar to temple at Jerusalem, altar, animal sacrifice, shovels

This temple would not be allowed in Biblical terms.


25:25, Dan, scepter, temple precinct, priestly rites, full temple, Bible opposed to this practice.

Female figurines at Dan site.

26:30 Taanach site, cult stand with deities, female deity, terracotta figurine, thousands, every household likely had one. Dever believes these represent goddess,

29:44 they represent a goddess, most scholars agree


31:00 arrowheads found near Jerusalem and Bethlehem at el-Khadr. “The servant of the lion lady”, symbol of goddess in Canaanite religion.


31:55 - Tell el-Farah 1st capitol of the northern king - goddess figurines


Model temple, doorway features palm trees (recognized by scholars) and crescent moon associated with gods/goddess.


Italian Naos - temple model with palm trees on door, male/female gods in temple

Naos from Transjordan, temples with palm trees, lions


Sulcis - temple design, doorway imagery, goddess in door


Cypris temple design - goddess in door, goddess with big wig, many examples in Egypt

37:50

Arad Temple, in Israel, fits biblical description of temple. Lion figure in temple

Temple at Arad should not exist.

Standing stones, one shorter, appears to be pair of deities.


46:25

Kuntillit Ajrud shrine. Inscription, 8th century . Bowl in Hebrew “blessed be he by Yahweh” Israelite bowl.

Fertility Canaanite art in shrine, on bowls

Drawing of Egyptian god Yes and female deity


51:40 drawing of male deity on chair, Ugarit drawings of goddesses on chair

Israelite drawing is similar to these drawings.

Inscription says “…be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera”.


CEmetary at Khirbet el Qom, inscription reads “blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera”


Figurines from Jerusalem, female, possibly fertility figures


Examples in other cultures of similar figures.


1:03:00 female figures on lion from different culture


1:04:15 female figurines from Jerusalem

 

[joelr]

Sure they do. Have you actually researched it?
I actually listened and understand the explanation.Yes, you can't explain it in your own words, because, you don't understand it, and therefore you can't identify it's faults.Well, first of all, this isn't quantum anything. Second, you're the one who said that "differences are evidence of borrowing" sounds rational. Bt YOU can't even begin to explain why. The reason of course is because you have a religious style faith in these scholars.What can I say, you can't seem to bring a single good exmaple of intertexuality from the bible. Not one.Meh. Your opinion is no very valuable to me either.
.

Garbage in garbage out. I'm tired of correcting desperation and shock at being unable to handle losing a debate.
1)you cannot identify faults, you are not a POhD, your superficial reading is just denial
2) your red herring about explain a complex process in lay terms rather than accept a consensus in a field or the consensus isn't valid is truly conspiracy theory nonsense
3)you still think the example of intertexuality you botched meant anything? YOu were wrong. There were parallels and th eexample was valid. Yahweh did not inherit names, his enemied did, you must be so caught up in trying to find a way out of this that you can't see a simple example
4)not only were the examples fine, there was an entire book recommended for further study. As well as several textbooks all saying the same about the consensus. Which I've had to state over and over, at one point you denied, then switched to attacking the intertextuality example, then went back to denial, like you have an Exel sheet of tricks to keep trying.
yes, MEH.

But heck, let's use a more conservative scholar who is more cautious with things, even he agrees there are fertility statues used in early Israelite culture. And Yahweh is not some God who gave revelations to people but is a conflation of other deities..
My original point continues to be correct. This is a complicated MAN MADE story, happened just as one would expect a man made mythology to form. And blending Gods, blending myths is syncretism.

The Origins of the Israelites

Dr. Aren Maeir


1213-1203 BCE - Merneptah Inscription (mentions people in Canaan)

No other evidence.


11:08 most scholars reject any other evidence until after 1000 BCE


18:18 - when you look at the material culture of the early Israelites, a lot of it is VERY SIMILAR to the Canaanites. A few possible non-local objects.

By and large most of the early Israelite culture, religious and cultic objects, names, Gods, writing, etc.. - seem to be coming out of the Canaanite culture.


19:00 The current status that Israelites come from Canaanites fits the evidence the fullest manner. Portions of the Israelites may have come from other nations, Egypt, Siria, Iran, Trans-Jordan.


Same explanation as Joel Baden.

Same as Dever.


The Origins of the Ancient Israelite Religion | Canaanite Religions | Mythology

1:38 most of what we know about Israelite religion shows it was heavily influenced by Canaanite religion. El and Baal’s attributes and names are incorporated into the attributes and even the name of the Israelite God.


2:53, there is evidence of depictions of Israelite God, figurines, male and female. Although less than other cultures.

3:33 in artifacts there seems to be more than one God. Yahweh and perhaps Ashera or another goddess.

Appears that polytheism and then monolatrist ideas were part of Israelite culture.


5:26 Egyptian God Aten may have been first monotheism.

5:45 monotheism may have started with the Persian theology, possible influence.


6:25 archaeology shows there were other beliefs besides monotheism in Israel.


8:28 Up to end of Iron Age it’s often called Israelite religion, Judaism is from Persian period onward.

12:35 The name “Israel”, the “El” ending is another God. Yahweh took on names and attributes of other Gods into his identity. Over time Yahweh became the important deity.


13:20 our vision of Yahweh as a single God may be very much influenced by later understandings projected back into the Iron Age.


13:45 Is there a link between Persian religion and Israelite beliefs?

Persia controlled Israel and exiles.

Monotheism, good vs evil, …Persian traditions did come into contact with Israel but determining influence on these is difficult.

(Apocalyptic literature is Persian) -

 

[joelr]

Well.... right off the bat, the discussion is, when was Judaism "commonly" practiced as a "way of life". Not the beginning of the religion. Not the beginning of the concepts. Not the beginning of the theology.

That's in the first 30 seconds of the video.


.

Wow, way to ignore every point that backs up what I'm saying in the video, I already posted last time: The Bible is not correct, it's an interpretation and the Gods are made up. The evidence points to this nicely.

The Origins of the Israelites

Dr. Aren Maeir


1213-1203 BCE - Merneptah Inscription (mentions people in Canaan)

No other evidence.


11:08 most scholars reject any other evidence until after 1000 BCE


18:18 - when you look at the material culture of the early Israelites, a lot of it is VERY SIMILAR to the Canaanites. A few possible non-local objects.

By and large most of the early Israelite culture, religious and cultic objects, names, Gods, writing, etc.. - seem to be coming out of the Canaanite culture.


19:00 The current status that Israelites come from Canaanites fits the evidence the fullest manner. Portions of the Israelites may have come from other nations, Egypt, Siria, Iran, Trans-Jordan.


Same explanation as Joel Baden.

Same as Dever.


The Origins of the Ancient Israelite Religion | Canaanite Religions | Mythology

1:38 most of what we know about Israelite religion shows it was heavily influenced by Canaanite religion. El and Baal’s attributes and names are incorporated into the attributes and even the name of the Israelite God.


2:53, there is evidence of depictions of Israelite God, figurines, male and female. Although less than other cultures.

3:33 in artifacts there seems to be more than one God. Yahweh and perhaps Ashera or another goddess.

Appears that polytheism and then monolatrist ideas were part of Israelite culture.


5:26 Egyptian God Aten may have been first monotheism.

5:45 monotheism may have started with the Persian theology, possible influence.


6:25 archaeology shows there were other beliefs besides monotheism in Israel.


8:28 Up to end of Iron Age it’s often called Israelite religion, Judaism is from Persian period onward.

12:35 The name “Israel”, the “El” ending is another God. Yahweh took on names and attributes of other Gods into his identity. Over time Yahweh became the important deity.


13:20 our vision of Yahweh as a single God may be very much influenced by later understandings projected back into the Iron Age.


13:45 Is there a link between Persian religion and Israelite beliefs?

Persia controlled Israel and exiles.

Monotheism, good vs evil, …Persian traditions did come into contact with Israel but determining influence on these is difficult.

(Apocalyptic literature is Persian) -

 

[joelr]

Correct! You can cross that off the list of things borrowed.

Nope. Funny how if something is unknown then it's automatically an Israelite creation. That is confirmation bias. Funny how you like to use "probably" when they are on things that you feel will back you up.
Well, there is more on monotheism - probably -
2:53, there is evidence of depictions of Israelite God, figurines, male and female. Although less than other cultures.

3:33 in artifacts there seems to be more than one God. Yahweh and perhaps Ashera or another goddess.

Appears that polytheism and then monolatrist ideas were part of Israelite culture.


5:26 Egyptian God Aten may have been first monotheism.

5:45 monotheism may have started with the Persian theology, possible influence.


6:25 archaeology shows there were other beliefs besides monotheism in Israel.


The Origins of the Ancient Israelite Religion | Canaanite Religions | Mythology

So, we have yet another false statement.

The host on the Yonatan Adler video admits that the documentary hypothesis has problems.
And yet, everytime you copy-paste, there is no similarity except for the english word "messiah" and the english word "apocalyse". The actual details are so so different. It's a rejection of the persian ideas, not an adoption.

Adler doesn't think there are no contradictions he has issue with figuring out who wrote what.

As to apocalypticism, it's Persian and there is reasonable evidence that they influenced the Jewish writers.
Apocalypticism | theology
apocalypticism, eschatological (end-time) views and movements that focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention of God in history; the judgment of all men; the salvation of the faithful elect; and the eventual rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and earth. Arising in Zoroastrianism, an Iranian religion founded by the 6th-century-BC prophet Zoroaster, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islāmic eschatological speculation and movements.


The Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature: Prophecy, Babylon, and 1 Enoch

the Book of Watchers, 1 Enoch 1-36, was written as a result of the Babylonian Exile and its authors syncretized the Hebrew prophetic books with Babylonian elements.

While there is ample evidence that Jewish apocalyptic literature draws from many wells from the cultural milieu of the ancient Mediterranean and Near East, the earliest, the Book of the Watchers (Enoch 1-36), seems to date from the Babylonian exile or shortly thereafter



Dr Collins is the expert, David is considered to be in this genre.
Old Testament Interpretation

Professor John J. Collins

12:10 a possible inspiration for Ezekiel treatment of dead (valley of bones) was Persian myth


14:20 resurrection of dead in Ezekiel, incidentally resurrection of the dead is also attested in Zoroastrianism, the Persians had it before the Israelites. There was no precent for bodily resurrection in Israel before this time. No tradition of bodies getting up from the grave. The idea of borrowing can be suggested.

In Ezekiel this is metaphorical.

The only book that clearly refers to bodily resurrection is Daniel.

17:30 resurrection of individual and judgment in Daniel, 164 BC. Prior to this the afterlife was Sheol, now heaven/hell is introduced.

Resurrection of spirit. Some people are raised up to heaven, some to hell.

 

[joelr]

But before, you were certain that Noah's flood was copied from Epic of gilgamesh. Remember the "sweet savour"? And you insisted it was verbatim?

Nope, that's false. Not written. The final editing and redaction. I know details aren't your thing, and aparently neither is accuracy.

And now you're repeating... again.But, not syncretic, at all. They're opposites.Who cares?Not syncretic.
Which rejected those theologies.More repeats...not syncreticJudaism has always been a minority position.But this doesn't represent Judaism, as stated in the video.
Yahweh is not referred to as bull. A father of gods is not similar to God of your fathers. Yahweh guides and leads the people... ummm, so do plenty of other gods. Yahweh doesn't live on a mountain, that's just one episode. All these similarities are bogus.continuties aren't syncretic, aren't borrowing
ut you snipped out the part immediately following this where she said this is the 1 and only place where that occurs. And its not a source of polytheism. She said it wa a fluid example.
It's the same 1 psalm that makes no sense translated that way. God is rebuking the other gods, then tells them to rise at the end?

1. The gods smelled the sweet odour of the sacrificial animal and gathered like flies over the sacrifice. Gilamesh translation

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; a Noah translation

14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story


25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons

26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)


I don't care if you don't accept the concensus. Attempting to trivialize a few examples of something all scholars are beyond convinced of, especially when you haven't done a detailed study of this and do not have the skills to properly make the comparisons, it's just another apologist whining about how it's "not really that similar"
If you are that dedicated to Yahweh dictating the story to Moses then confirmation bias your way to whatever truth you need to believe.
I have already demonstrated scholars who specialize in this material have zero doubt. I'm not going to find a word by word scholarly breakdown just so at the end you can switch from doubt to straight denial. It's already out of the bag.
Remember all those times you rejected evidence because it wasn't a PhD. That was on purpose.
"there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia."


Flood Myths Older Than The Bible - Dr. Joshua Bowen

Assyriologist who specialized in Sumerian literary and liturgical compositions


1:25

OT scholars will say Genesis is using a Mesopotamian background and apologist will say

“Well no, there is no literary evidence that shows it borrowed, we cannot show literal evidence”…”it was in the air”….”how do you know it wasn’t true”…….somehow downplaying the Mesopotamian background…

2:57 Dr Josh Bowen - there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia.

References monograph - Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible by Z. Zevit. Explains intertexuality and what Hebrew Bible is doing. Not seen as plagiarism in the ancient world.

21:00

Enuma Elish, Babylonian creation myth Genesis 1 borrows from, is recited every year at the New Years festival. Exiled Israelite kings were in captivity in Babylonia. Genesis was written after the Exile.

Genesis demythicizes the Babylonian stories.

23:22

“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A……”

 

[joelr]

No, it's not. Other cultures that are geographically distant have similar creation stories. That shows it's not syncretic. Influenced and it galvanized a pre-existing belief, and they rejected the persian theology. Not syncretic, not borrowing.You still haven't answered the simple question about Dever's imagined crescent moon. Can't do that, can you? because it shows Dever sees things that aren't there.I focus on details which refutes your claims. That's why you've had to drop your claims about Asherah and many others to focus on the strawman of biblical accuracy.It's true. None of the details about the Persian messiah or end times were written until 900-1000CE. They were alluded to, but no details.
And.... nothing here about anything related to JudaismDid you read this? It literally says the belief in the messiah only included 1 detail, the persian messiah fights against evil. then the followers later developed this whole story around that. BTW, the Jewish Moshiach is not fighting evil. So like I said, the only similarity is the english word "messiah"Yes, the persian messiah was magnified later. And you'll notice, none of that stuff matches Judaism either.Kind of like you just say no to any flaw in any of your sources. You can't seem to answer a simple question about a picture of a imagined crescent moon. You can't seem to give any reason at all why "differences show borrowing" sounded rational to you.



And the scholars are not saying sourced. They're saying similar motifs, not syncretic, but a rejection of those myths.
And there is archeological evidence tracing ancient ISraelites to mesopotamia. And "Much language and imagery" seems false. So far there's a word here, a word there.
And we know that the flood story showed up much later. 1000-1300 bce.

so not syncreticso not syncreticAnd yet whenever we examine those details, it always turns out to be weak.complex juxtaposition... meaning opposite and not syncreticNope. Did not inherit the names. There are no cosmic enemies in the Hebrew bible.

Definitely syncretic.
Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion,
The Origins of the Ancient Israelite Religion | Canaanite Religions | Mythology

1:38 most of what we know about Israelite religion shows it was heavily influenced by Canaanite religion. El and Baal’s attributes and names are incorporated into the attributes and even the name of the Israelite God.


2:53, there is evidence of depictions of Israelite God, figurines, male and female. Although less than other cultures.

3:33 in artifacts there seems to be more than one God. Yahweh and perhaps Ashera or another goddess.

Appears that polytheism and then monolatrist ideas were part of Israelite culture.
2:35 The name “Israel”, the “El” ending is another God. Yahweh took on names and attributes of other Gods into his identity. Over time Yahweh became the important deity.


13:20 our vision of Yahweh as a single God may be very much influenced by later understandings projected back into the Iron Age.






The eden myth, flood story, typical Near Eastern deity, probably a mix of El and Baal?
Persian apocalyptism.

Every scholar showing religious ideas were incorporated into the mix. That is syncretic.

Yes Dever shows a crescent moon and then shows it in other cultures as well associated with the goddess. You think you caught Dever in a lie because you disagree with a photo? This is absurd?

Ashera??? It's one of 3 fertility goddesses? So? I dropped the inscription because I'm tired of apologetic denial, I'm completely done with this nonsense. You haven't raised one single reasonable point, you just pat yourself on the back on crank?

Yes the inscription on the arrow said blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera. At a cemetary in Israel from the biblical Kingdom of Judah. The evidence DOES back that up. I'm just done with amateurs asserting scholarship is "wrong" and going in circles. When things die down you go back to a subject and pretend like it was you who set it all straight. A feminine goddess is recognized by all these scholars. A look at all of the available evidence shows the inscription does say Ashera. And here we are back at this. Soon we will be back at Exodus and the few slaves who might have come up, even though Baden said the complete story is more complicated, the general story is what he explained. But still, that became a thing, even though he said NO EXODUS IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE.
Spin this stuff all day, I'm not interested.

"Yahweh and His Asherah": The Goddess or Her Symbol?

Hebrew “his Ashera”




A New Analysis of YHWH’s asherah


Conclusion

Through examining the various proposals that have been made for elucidating ʾšrth from KA and KQom we have been able to establish that it most likely has reference to a common noun denoting YHWH’s female partner: “his asherah.” This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent.

…we can begin by pointing out that the argument in favor of interpreting ʾšrth as a deity is in fact functional in nature and has fairly little to do with the lexical-semantic value of the term asherah as used in other NWS texts. The argument combines a number of factors both internal and external to the inscriptions, which can be listed in the order of their importance:


5) There is growing evidence for the worship of female deities in Iron Age Israel-Judah, including widespread use of pillar figurines, cultic dualism in the form of standing stones, and other pictorial imagery, such as an incised image of a god and goddess pair recovered from eighth-century Jerusalem (Kletter 1996; 2002; Uehlinger 1997; Köckert 1998; Keel and Uehlinger 1998; Johnston 2003; Dever 2005; 2014; Albertz 2008; Gilmour 2009; 2015; Bloch-Smith 2014; 2016; Römer 2015; L. Levine 2016; cf. Darby 2014; Stavrakopoulou 2016).


6) The lexeme asherah is often associated with female divinity in ancient Syria-Palestine, including in the Hebrew Bible (Day 1986: 385-408; 2002: 42-48; Wyatt 1999: 99-105; Merlo 2009a: 975-80).


Article sources over 200 peer-reviewed works

Harvard Divinity School and Hebrew University of Jerusalem.


Oh wow, look, yeah you DID NOTHING.

Messiahs? Hmmm, did the Jews reject Jesus> Why was that? Because they are expecting a MESSIAH to come? Hmmm, didn't the Persians start that, why yes they did.

Orthodox Judaism[edit]
Orthodox Judaism maintains the 13 Principles of Faith as formulated by Maimonides in his introduction to Chapter Helek of the Mishna Torah.[citation needed] Each principle starts with the words Ani Maamin (I believe). Number 12 is the main principle relating to Mashiach. Orthodox Jews strictly believe in a Messiah, life after death, and restoration of the Promised Land:[41][42]

I believe with full faith in the coming of the Messiah. And even though he tarries, with all that, I await his arrival with every day.[note 8]
Hasidic Judaism[edit]
Hasidic Jews tend to have a particularly strong and passionate belief in the immediacy of the Messiah's coming, and in the ability of their actions to hasten his arrival.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the last Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, declared often that the Messiah is very close, urging all to pray for the coming of the Messiah and to do everything possible to hasten the coming of the Messiah through increased acts of kindness.

And who occupied Israel from 500 BCE - 2ishBCE?

Belief in a world Saviour

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil.c and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.



it's almost like syncretism? Wait, what happens after the messiah comes? Is it a general resurrection and paradise on Earth in new bodies?

Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously,

 

[dybmh]

No, it hasn't. Maybe by you , using denial. You live in a nice world with other deniersI guess. Don't care. For those interested in truth:
Refuted...LOL!!!!!!! By you saying "no, uh-uh..."

Says the person who refuses to comment on a picture of a so-called crescent moon because it demonstrates that Dever is imagining things.

Says the person who refuses to give 1 single reason why it sounds rational to say "differences show borrowing".

You have been saying no uh-uh to anything that obviously undermines the credibility of these sources. And then just copypaste, copypaste the same cherry picked quotes from videos over and over, over and over...

Visions of the End: Daniel and Apocalyptic Literature

Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University -

Yale Divinity lectures

Ok. I watched the video. It confirms what I said. This is a literary genre. That's it. There's no borrowing or syncretic theology happening here.

19:10 Isaiah 3 - a doctrine of final things, end of days, differed from earlier prophetic ideas. This looks to a new time, an earthly paradise, no more sickness, no old age, immortality.

3rd Isaiah... poetic, talks about a new heaven and earth... but! It doesn't really talk about immortality. What's important about Isaiah is, it's poetry. The verses are in couplets. So an idea is introduced at the beginning, and then that idea is magnified, in this case to an extreme in the end. The example given in the lecture is: Isaiah 65:20.

20 There shall no longer be from there a youth or an old man who will not fill his days, for the youth who is one hundred years old shall die, and the sinner who is one hundred years old shall be cursed.​

So, you can see that this is not immortality. There is really just 1 verse and 1 verse alone in the entore Tanach that talks about immortality. You should know it because it's one of those "inherits the names..." verses. Isaiah 25:8

He will destroy death for ever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the insult of his people shall he take away from off all the earth; for the Lord has spoken it.​

Now, maybe you should ask yourself, why wasn't this the verse that was mentioned in the lecture? The answer is, this verse isn't apocalyptic. The main reason that 3rd Isaiah is considered apocalyptic is because it is written in the name of Isaiah, but, seems to have been written by someone else in his name. That's the common thread. It has nothing to do with Persia. That's something else entirely. If you listen to the lecture, and pay attention to what is being said. You'll see that this is simply a literary genre. And it makes perfet sense for the prophets of that time to use a popular literary style to make their case. And this case they;re making is not that different from Deuteronomy 28.[/quote]
eunuch and foreigners allowed in to paradise, different from old laws.

Ummmm... again, this isn't quite true. Ever hear of a ger toshav? Ger toshav - Wikipedia

And then there's this too: Exodus 12:49

One law shall be for him who is native born, and for the stranger who sojourns among you.
​

And Numbers 15:29

One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger who sojourns with you, an ordinance forever in your generations; as you are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord.
​

And regarding a eunich... that's pretty weird. I'm not familiar with anything like that. Maybe there's some confusion. There is a law about no priest being compromised in that way. But that has nothing at all to do with the world-to-come.

Apocalyptic deals with end times, revelation by angel, deals with figures from past, predict series of catastrophes, morally dualistic divide human into right/wicked, final public judgement, wicked destroyed.

OK.

25:51 shows influence of Persian thought, does seem to be some Persian influence, this is Persian period.

This is kind of cherry picked. She's introducing the idea. Then at 27:11, she says there's a few examples of this here and there in the Hebrew bible. We don't really see this until the very late writting of Daniel. But then in Dead Seas Scrolls and of course in the NT.

See, there you go Joel. All of this messiah/apocalyspe stuff in the conventional sense is not in the Hebrew bible.

27:29 belief in personal immortality and general resurrection. Marked break from Hebrew Bible about life and immortality.

Yes! She's stopped talking about the Hebrew bible and has started talking about the NT.

30:32 - Joel apocalyptic material

uh-huh. It's a literary style.

34:15 important difference between classical prophecy and apocalyptic prophecy, both speak about final things and end times. Classical did not expect things to end.

In apocalyptic prophecy history is a closed process, it will end and a new order will emerge. Present age is under power of evil force. New age will be free of moral corruption, God must initiate this new world order.

Great!

36:53 Daniel, some parts written 167-164 BCE, 7-12 fully apocalyptic

46:24 - last days of end times, time is at hand, birth pains of messiah, messianic age will begin. Only God brings in change, people await.

I really don't see the issue here. Each prophet brings a unique message. Do they all have to say exactly the same thing? I mean, history happens, each generation has its own challenges.

Resurrection of all dead who died under this rule.

Except that's not what happens in Daniel. I asked yuo before to look it up yourself. Naturally, you didn't. I know you really really want it to be everyone ressurecting so it matches the persian end-times. But that's not in Daniel.

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
​

So there you go... some will wake up. Some to everlasting life, some to everlasting contempt. Not everyone. Not even everyone will be judged. So it really, really, doesn't math the persian end-time myth. And that ignores that the persian myths were detailed 900-1000CE.

Daniel was written in response to 2nd century issues. Remain faithful, God will make all right. Fully apocalyptic ideas.

Yes. Just like all the prophets. They preach about what's happening currently and in their context.

Apocalypses and Apocalypticism

Pastor/Historian

I remember this guy! He's the one who claimed Noah wasn't mentioned in the prophets. And then I found 3 good examples.

33:50

Comes into Judaism from Persian religion. Messianic savior myths also come from Persia. Prior to this there also is no cosmic devil. This comes from Zoroastrianism. Physical resurrection of people and a new world at the end of times battle comes into Judaism from Zoroastrianism.

BUZZZZZZ! Misquote! he said Judeo-christian, not Judaism. And if you pay attention to the lecture, he's finding similarities in Christianity...

37:00 during the 2nd Temple Period God becomes more cosmic in scope, not walking around wrestling with people. Visions are attributed to angels and ancient authorities - Daniel, Enoch, Adam…

He's not talking about the Hebrew bible, Joel. He's talking about non-Biblical pseudepigraphical texts. He even puts a picture of the books hes talking about on the screen to show people.

Daniel

43:53 Daniel attributed to a prophet of the Babylonian period but actually written between 167 and 164 BC. Daniels visions from Gabriel are very specific and accurate up through the year 167 BC and then fail dramatically after 164 BC. Which illustrates the date.

So... you probably don't know this, but, Judaism doesn't assert the book of Daniel to be prophecy. So, this really isn't a big deal at all.

Daniel believes they are at the end times and are totally wrong.

So what? Christians are the ones who need Daniel to be true. Not Jews.

Ezekiel’s prediction of the worlds end failed so the author of Daniel reinterpreted the timeframe so the end would occur in his day.

Sure. Makes sense to me.

Danilel’s prediction failed so John the Revelator reinterpreted the timeframe so the world would end in his day. His failure resulted in ongoing recalculations.

And.... here we go... Christianity. Totally irrelevant.

Apocalyptic authors suffered from lack of perspective, falsely believing themselves to have been living at the end times.

Their readers share the same lack of perspective, falsely imagining that the text refer to the readers time (when they actually referred to the authors time)


For centuries people have been reading Revelation as future history. Often convinced the signs point to their own time. This is called temporal narcissism.

And why oh why do I care about Revelation?

1:03:40
Joachim of Fiore used Revelation to predict the world would end 1260 AD.

Irrrrrrrelevant.

1:08:03 Newton spent equal time studying the Bible to predict the future and inventing calculus. His future calculations were all wrong.

Jews are prohibited from calculating the end-times. You probably didn't know that, did you?

In Revelation - no mention of the Rapture, no anti-Christ, not a message of fear but hope

OK, so, this is YOU wasting your own time on this irrelevant christian nonsense. No more complaining about me wasting our time. Your the one choosing to take notes on something that has zero relevance to the topic.

Revelation is misread as future history. War, famine, pestilence and death are already loosed on Earth. Revelation envisions a world where they will be eliminated.

 

[dybmh]

I don't understand all of the points, I listen to scholarship to see what they say. Professor Hayes makes many more detailed points about the Persian influence with end times.

Thank you for your honesty. I'm just learning about this apocalypse thing too. It's not something that's much of a focus in Judaism. It's much more of a thing in Christianity and Islam. Although, I will point out that two of the scholars you recently brought said that the influence was not proveable. And one of them said the influence could have been in both directions.

J.S is a theological scholar:
Isaiah’s Benevolent Creator as the earliest Persian ‘Influence’ on Judaism | Changes in Sacred Texts and Traditions
Persian Influence on Creation.
Though the manner in which Isaiah describes Yahweh has often been discussed in connection with Persia, the Old Persian creation prologues have not received their due recognition. What does it imply for the discourse in Isaiah? One can dispense at once with any simplistic notion of Judaean “conversion” to Iranian religion.

Good....

Nor can it be seen as in polemical relation to the Persian religion. Nevertheless, the new context of being Persian rather than Babylonian subjects infuses the entire discourse of Second Isaiah.

OK, that's the claim.

In Isaiah, creation plays a key role. It serves as one of the prime aspects predicated of YHWH: he is a creator god more than a warrior or dynastic deity.

More than? Isaiah 45 is all about God being a warrior. And the whole point of that chapter is that God is the ultimate creator, and that means that there will be no retaliation.

I [God] will go before you, and make the hilly places level; I will break in pieces the gates of bronze, and cut in sunder the bars of iron;​

This use of creation thus has three relevant contexts that must be considered to be simultaneously significant: older Judaean traditions of a conflictual creator

Ummm, this doesn't seem true at all. A conflictual creator? This needs examples. Maybe it's talking about there being two divine names involved in creation? IDK.

Babylonian traditions of Marduk as creator

I need to find a good copy of this myth. Something accurate...

and the Achaemenid creation prologues.

Never heard of it.

With creation, Isaiah manages to select and adapt Judaean tradition in such a way that it not only provides a point of contrast with the surrounding Babylonian society—as often noted by scholars

Take note: it's not syncretic with babylonia. That means the enuma elish is out... At least according to this one person.

—but also in a way that is remarkably similar to imperial Persian presentations of the same.

Ok... similar.

Unlike the general conflictual pattern whereby a younger, martial deity shapes the cosmos from an opponent, creation is predicated as an inherent aspect of Yahweh. This use of creation in Isaiah is remarkably similar to that in the Achaemenid creation prologue: not only makes creation a divine attribute, it is a positive thing, and it functions as a justification of YHWH’s servant. By so doing Isaiah has reformulated received tradition—indeed, something new.

Ummm, reformulation? All of this is standard Jewish theology going back to Genesis.

Sadly, we can't read the entire paper. The link to academia.edu only has 1 page of the actual paper.

 

[dybmh]

No you are using a Wiki source that is wrong. I am only using
Mary Boyce,

Joel, I was quoting YOUR post. YOU brought wikipedia as a source. And Catherine Hayes says the apocalypse connection is just here and there in the Hebrew bible but it's clear in the NT, and, the last video you brought spent almost the whole video talking about pseudepigrapha and Revelation. So yes, Abrahamic religions is the appropriate grouping to be discussing a connection to apocalyptic connections in the conventional sense.

Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practice

Their myths were fully formed when they invaded Israel.

.... Based on the stories that Boyce was told? Based on oral-storytelling? That's the same thing I'm saying about Judaism.

Anyway, let's see if there's anything in this copy-paste that actually says what you're claiming.

The language of the Gathas is archaic, and close to that of the Rigveda (whose composition has been assigned to about 1 700 B. c. onwards); and the picture of the world to be gained from them is correspon,dingly ancient, that of a Stone Age society. Some allowance may have to be made for literary conservatism; and it is also possible that the 'Avestan' people (as Zoroaster's own tribe is called for want of a better name) were poor or isolated, and so not rapidly influenced by the developments of the Bronze Age. It is only possible therefore to hazard a reasoned conjecture that Zoroaster lived some time between 1 700 and 1 500 B.C

OK... the language is archaic.. and Zoroaster lived between 1700-1500BCE. Now, this isn't the concensus. This is the most optimistic estimate. See here: Zoroaster - Wikipedia. If you read the article, they discuss the various theories; they discuss Boyce's early dating, and the weak points of the argument. Some scholars date Zoroaster around 800-600BCE. They do that using the same techniques scholars use to apply a late date to the Hebrew bible. They look at historical evidence and try to match the story with events that actually took place and people who actually are known to have existed.

If you're going to be consistent, then you need to apply the same standards to the Zoroasterian dating that you are applying to the Hebrew bible. And, if you're going to deem the oral story-telling of the Zoroastarians as credible, then you need to accept the Jewish oral story-telling as credible as well. We Jews have a story that asserts Adam wrote a book. The Book of Formation. And it aludes to the the Genesis creation story. It's completely unique. Nothing like it anywhere in anyway.

Do we have any real proof that Zoroaster actually wrote the Gathas? No. It's a story. But I'll accept this very early very optimistic date.

This is from "The Early Days of the Religion"

Alright, the early days... Kind of vague.

Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7).

OK. This is a Gatha. According to the Zoroastarians, themselves, they're dating this to 1200bce. But, if you want to go with the earlier date that's fine with me. But if you notice, the detail here is they are relying on the Pahlavi to tell the story.

Here's what the Zoroastarians say this verse says:

And to him (i.e. mankind) came Dominion, and Good Mind, and Right and Piety gave continued life to their bodies and indestructibility, so that by thy retributions through (molten) metal he may gain the prize over the others.
​

Notice, there's nothing here about a "future body". This text is not literally talking about a bodily ressurection. Could it be alluding to it? Sure. But it's not literally there. To get there they need a different text, in a different language outside the Gathas.

The earliest reference to a ressurection is in the Zamyad Yasht.

19. It is they who shall restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and the world will be restored at its wish;​

What's a Yasht?

The Yashts are a collection of twenty-one hymns in the Younger Avestan language.

Yasht - Wikipedia​

What's the dating on this writing? 1000-600BCE

Also, no mention of bones in this actual verse. The description said: "when the earth will give up the bones of the dead". Ummm, that's not what this verse says. Now I know you simply trust the scholars, but you really-really need to go back and check the original sources. I'll also note, there are no other mentions of bones in the Gathas.

This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already.

As I pointed out, in the Hebrew bible, this isn't what happens. Some will rise, some won't, and it doesn't really talk about it as a final judgement.

 

[dybmh]

Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text...

Pahlavi text... again...

'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9).

OK. This is the Gbd. That's the Greater Bundahis. 900-1000CE. They mention a "Pahlavi text", that maybe pushes it back to 300CE. Common era.

Pahlavi texts

A collection of very rare titles written in or translated from Pahlavi, an Indo-Iranian language spoken and written in Persia from about the third to the tenth century A.D. Pahlavi is often restricted to the literary language of the Zoroastrian books.

Pahlavi texts | Brill​

In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual judgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

So, these names exist in the Gathas, but the end-time prophecy, does not exist in detail. There are 2 verses that mention it. Just 2. And there's really no detail. The concept exists, sure, but it's only alluded to in the Gathas.

16. To five do I belong, to five others do I not; of the good thought am I, of the evil am I not; of the good word am I, of the evil am I not; of the good deed am I, and of the evil, not.
To Obedience am I given, and to deaf disobedience, not; to the saint do I belong, and to the wicked, not; and so from this on till the ending shall be the spirits' parting. (The two shall here divide.)

And this:

10. Then truly on the (world of) Lie shall come the destruction of delight; but they who get themselves good name shall be partakers in the promised reward in the fair abode of Good Thought, of Mazda, and of Right.

The scholar crops out the last part of the verse, and only quotes the beginning. I can see that. Depending on the punctuation, it could be talking about the destruction of the "Lie". Then "Of delight but they wh get themselves good name..."​

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it.

There is no "white haoma" in the Gathas. There is a "Haoma", but its the name of a person. The 'white haoma' is mentioned in the Bundahishn. Thats 900 CE, common era.

Near to that tree the white Haoma, the healing and undefiled, has grown at the source of the water of Aredvisur; every one who eats it becomes immortal, and they call it the Gaokerena tree, as it is said that Haoma is expelling death; also in the renovation of the universe they prepare its immortality therefrom; and it is the chief of plants.​

The Bundahishn ("Creation"), or Knowledge from the Zand: chapters 24-28
​

The Gatha's certainly talk about immortality. But so do the Egyptians, so do the Chinese. But this specific story, it's not in there.

Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead.

OK. That's a lot of story... I can't find any of this in the Gathas...

As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).

And there it is again. To find it in writing, one has to go the Pahlavi text. At best that's 300 Common Era. Pahl.Riv.dd, I think that's the Denkard... I think. That's where "Frashegird" is mentioned. It's 1000CE. There is no Frashegird nor Ohrrnazd in the Gathas. But if you want, we can call it a Pahlavi text, which is 300CE at the earliest, that's fine.

Good vs evil

Harsh experience had evidently convinced the prophet that wisdom, justice and goodness were utterly separate by nature from wickedness and cruelty; and in vision he beheld, co-existing with Ahura Mazda, an Adversary, the 'Hostile Spirit', Angra Mainyu, equally uncreated, but ignorant and wholly malign.

Ah! There it is. Another uncreated entity. So it's not really that there is 1 god at all.

These two great Beings Zoroaster beheld with prophetic eye at their original, far-off encountering: 'Truly there are two primal Spirits, twins, renowned to be in conflict. In thought and word and act they are two, the good and the bad .... And when these two Spirits first encountered, they created life and not-life,

Bam! THEY CREATED. Plural. Two creators.

and that at the end the worst existence shall be for the followers of falsehood (drug), but the best dwelling for those who possess righteousness (asha). Of the two Spirits, the one who follows falsehood chose doing the worst things, the Holiest Spirit, who is clad in the hardest stone [i.e. the sky] chose righteousness, and (so shall they all) who will satisfy Ahura Mazda continually '----1\n with just actions' (Y 30.3-5).

Yes! All of this is in the Gathas. But this isn't Judaism, you know that, right? Judaism rejects these ideas.

essential element in this revelation is that the two primal Beings each made a deliberate choice (although each, it seems, according to his own proper nature) between good and evil, an act which prefigures the identical choice which every man must make for himself in this life . The exercise of choice changed the inherent antagonism between the two Spirits into an active one, which expressed itself, at a decision taken by Ahura Mazda, in creation and counter-creation, or, as the prophet put it, in the making of 'life' and 'not-life' (that is,death);

But, did Ahura Mazda create "not-life"? No. Maybe Ahura Mazda created "life", but it's not clear.

And when these twain Spirits came together in the beginning, they created Life and Not-Life, and that at the last Worst Existence shall be to the followers of the Lie, but the Best Existence to him that follows Right.
​

And, Ahura Mazda is just 1 of the Ahuras, plural.

If Asha is to be invoked and Mazda and the other Ahuras and Ashi and Armaiti, do thou seek for me, O Vohu Manah, the mighty Dominion, by the increase of which we might vanquish the Lie.
​

What's an Ahura?

Ahura - Wikipedia

In the Gathas, the oldest hymns of Zoroastrianism and thought to have been composed by Zoroaster, followers are exhorted to pay reverence to only the ahuras and to rebuff the daevas and others who act "at Lie's command". That should not, however, be construed to reflect a view of a primordial opposition. Although the daevas would, in later Zoroastrian tradition, appear as malign creatures, in the Gathas the daevas are (collectively) gods that are to be rejected.

The Gathas do not specify which of the divinities other than Ahura Mazda are considered to be ahuras but does mention other ahuras in the collective sense.

In the Younger Avesta, three divinities of the Zoroastrian pantheon are repeatedly identified as ahuric. These three are Ahura Mazda, Mithra, and Apam Napat, the "Ahuric triad". Other divinities with whom the term "Ahuric" is associated include the six Amesha Spentas, and (notable among the yazatas) Anahita of the Waters and Ashi of Reward and Recompense.
​

So, there's a pantheon. And somehow this i suppsed to be something which was adopted, borrowed, by Judaism? Pah-lease. So, we should ignore these younger writings about the pantheon, but only focus on the younger writings of the end-times, which don't match Jewish theology anyway. And if we read the Gathas there's worship of the sun, moon, starts, plants, animals, the works. But we should ignore that too...[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[dybmh]

for Ahura Mazda knew in his wisdom that if he became Creator and fashioned this world, then the Hostile Spirit would attack it, because it was good, and it would become a battleground for their two forces, and in the end he, God, would win the great struggle there and be able to destroy evil, and so achieve a universe which would be wholly good forever.

Nice story. Is it in the Gatha's? No.

God

t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.

BUZZZZZZ! That's a misleading statement. Not the 1 uncreated God. As has been shown. The Gathas have at least 2 uncreated gods. And Multiple Ahuras, one of which is Mazda. Maybe he is the one beneficient uncreated god, maybe. But it's not clear. The original spirits are known my a different name. Or perhaps are unnamed. They are "better" and "bad".

Belief in a world Saviour

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour.

OK. did you read this? Where ever you're copying this from, it's no longer the "early days". This is a development during the dark ages of the faith.

Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent

imminent? I don't think thats in the Gathas. Suggests? I mean, it sure would be good to see where this is supposedly suggested. I can't find a single thing the Gathas that suggests this. I know, I know, you believe it cause they say it...

and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle.

There are *multiple* Saoshyants... plural. There are a few verses that mention a single "Saoshyant", but these appear to be late additions, not written by Zoroaster. And even if they are written by him, they do not clearly indicate an end-time, nor a world saviour. Notice that there are no citations to the Gathas here for one to look to for confirmation.

Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti

There is no "Frashokereti/Frasho-kereti" in the Gathas. This is a Pahlavi word. And again, from the wiki-article:

The eschatological ideas are only alluded to in the surviving texts of the Avesta, and are known of in detail only from the texts of Zoroastrian tradition, in particular in the ca. 9th-century Bundahishn​

and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant.

OK, lets look at that verse. But we need to look at it in context.

1. To each several man, to whom Mazda Ahura ruling at his will grant after the (petitioner's) will, I will after his will that he attain permanence and power, lay hold of Right - grant this, O Piety, - the destined gift of wealth, the life of the Good Thought,

2. and it shall be for him the best of all things. After his longing for bliss may one be given bliss, through the provident most holy spirit, O Mazda, even the blessings of Good Thought which thou wilt give through Right all the days with joy of enduring life.

3. May he attain to that which is better than the good, who would teach us the straight paths of blessedness in this life here of the body and in that of thought - true paths that lead to the world where Ahura Mazda dwells - a faithful man, well-knowing and holy like thee, O Mazda.​

Ummmmm, this verse is not talking about a single individual at all. That's cherry picking to exaggerate a "world saviour". There are multiple Saoshyants in the Gathas.

The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil.c and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle.

Sure, no betrayal. It's a maybe. Not something which is detailed in the Gathas, but something which is detailed later.

Understand the point here. It's not to show that these ideas were fully developed early on. It's only to show a coherence between the later writing and theology and the early writing and theology. This seems to be a common ( relatively speakin considering there are very few Zoroastarians world-wide ) goal among fans of the Zoroastarian religion. Here's a very interesting write-up by a PHD ( in an unrelated field ) with pre-doctoral studies in Avesta/Pahlavi.Irainian languages. He does a very nice job of lining up the Gathas with the later writings trying to show coherence. Does it accomplish that? I don't know. But its clear that Zoroastarian theology is not clearly defined the early writings.

The Gathas and the Younger Avesta: by Dr. Pallan R. Ichaporia

The claim is that full theology was written and destroyed. Maybe that happened. The same stories exist in Judaism. So, again, if one is going to be consistent, if the oral tradition is considered viable in Zoroastarian mythology, then the oral tradition in Jewish mythology also needs to be considred viable.

The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah

which means "glory" or "fortune" It's not an individual in the Gathas.

, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him.

OK... not in the Gathas, confirmed. It's a Yasht 1000-600BCE.

​

it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence

Great, a later text details it.

When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.'

OK. That comes from Zamyad Yasht. 1000-600BCE.

This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

OK.

Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed.

... became magnified as centuried passed.

Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6

OK.

So, originally there were multiple saviours but no real details. And end-time was alluded to. No bodily ressurection anywhere. Early dating on this is 1700BCE. Then comes an idea of an individual savior and bodily ressurection. Early dating on that is 1000BCE. And then all the other details come from writing which at its earliest seems to be 300 CE.

Was the Zoroastarian mythology fully detailed at the time of contact with the Jewish people? No not fully developed. It was influx all the way up to the common era at least. Did they have a saviour concept? Sure. Did they have a ressurection concept? Sure. When was that developed? Early estimates has it before contact with the Jewish people. Late estimates has it at the same time as the contact with the Jewish people.

 

[dybmh]

In apocalyptic literature the angels began having names and delivering prophetic messages from God.

And yet, Angel's have names before the so-called apocalypic writing in the Hebrew bible. Remember the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel? Jacob asks it's name. Remember the story of the angel visiting Manoah in Judges? They ask its name. So This notion that the Hebrew bible borrowed the idea of Angels having names late in cannon is false. The notion that the Hebrew bible changed the way angels are portrayed at some point in the Hebrew bible is false.

Now, yes, there are 2 examples of angels giving detailed prophecies late in the cannon. The explanation is that the Jewish people no longer merited revelation from God. But even if not, it's just a literary style.

Is there an evil force that God will defeat?

Nope. God created evil. Isaiah 45:7. Sin is a human problem, for humans to subdue. Genesis 4:7. The problem that is defeated in the later prophets is disbelief. God coordinates and orchestrates persecution of the Jewish people. The righteous remnant suffers in silence bearing the sin of the other nations. Then God comes and miraculously rescues the Jewish people, the other nations who are attacking see this miracle and they are converted to belief in the Jewish God,and the righteous remnant are vindicated. That's the story.

Is there an end times where a resurrection happens and everyone is immortal and healthy?

Nope. Not everyone ressurects. And, like I said, deuteronomy 28 describes an era where there is no sickness. Long before the later prophets.

Does a messianic time begin?

Well, its complicated. Basically No, in Judaism there is potential for the messianic era in each and every generation. But some people speculate. That's not really in the Hebrew bible. On the other hand, the prophets perceived major catastrophic events, and major catastrophic events occured. Each prophet speaks in their own voice from their own context.

Persian.

Ummmmm, it's really not a very strong case.

Isaiah 3 heralds the beginning of the messianic age. As Professor Hayes demonstrates.

Is 3rd Isaiah prophecy brought by an angel? No.
Is there a real immortality described in 3d Isaiah? No, it's poetic, and exaggerated.
Is there a *new* world salvation described? No.
Is the new heaven and earth a literal new heaven and earth? No.

What does Hayes actually say? Apocalypse is here and there in the Hebrew bible, certainly in the late Daniel. but most clear in the NT.

And the whole point of the whole series seems to be, again and again and again, Judaism is not syncretic.

Yes any version of one who will herald a new age.
Apocalyptic prophecy obviously was syncretic with Christianity far more, however Jesus as a messiah is expected, just the wrong version. Messianism is Persian.

In Judaism God is the saviour and the Moshiach is a future king. That's not persian.

The comparissons are about a literary style. Not theology. And honestly, as I'm watching the videos, the scholars miss stuff, and then they conclude that these ideas are new in the late prophets.

For example. The bodily ressurection, is claimed to be a new addition. But, it's not. It's alluded to in the story of Joseph in Egypt. If allusions in Zoroastarian writing is accepted as evidence of an early concept. Then allusions in the Hebrew bible are also acceptable as evidence of an early concept.

If we look at the 1 other example of rising from the dead in Daniel, it could be literal, it could be figurative. and there are 2 other examples of people floating off to heaven, Enoch and Elijah. It's not that much different for these others to wake from their slumber. Maybe a little. But, still, Daniel is not a prophet, it's not a problem at all.

 

[dybmh]

To seal the deal..... LOL!!!! Like a Seinfeld episode......LOL!!!!!!
O.M.G., so I am done. I;m not looking at any more posts. This is so dishonest I cannot believe you would even type this out for people to see.

It's not dishonest, I'm showing the actual words of the stories and showing how they don't match the examples that were given in the video.

And it's not my fault, you can't remember the examples given in the video. Yes! they talk about the seinfeld episode. And, it's not funny, it's a great example. The seinfeld episode clearly borrows from the movie JFK. Since you can't remember and instead make false allegations. ( Like you did with the Jpost reporter ), I'll have to show you. Which is fine.

It starts at around 29 minutes in. they start by talking about the movie JFK.

Then they refer the viewer to an episode from seinfeld season 3. See here.

Not only is the story of the "magic loogey" approx the same in both the movie and in the seinfeld episode, but they both use the term "magic bullet" and "magic loogey", and the scene itself is similar, you can see it here. In the movie Costner's character is demonstrating with a long pointer how the bullet had to magically change direction. And Jerry does the same thing with a golf club. In the movie the words "up and to the left, up and to the left" are repeated. In the seinfeld episode they say the exact same thing in the exact same way "up and to the left, up and o the left". It's a very good example of intertexuality. The story matches, the context matches, the words exactly match and they're repeated.

Exactly match. More than similar.

And no, it's not dishonest. It's literally in the video you posted.

The head God is inheriting the same enemy, same description, same words or meaning, yeah this is very obvious this text was used to create a story for Yahweh, who was a storm deity at first.

No, that's not what happened at all. And that's what I'm showing. There's only 2 words that match. The story doesn't match. There's only 2 words that's it.

ISA 27:1
In that day YHWH will punish with his sword - fierce, great and strong- Leviathan, the fleeing serpent, Leviathan, the coiling serpent, and he will kill the monster in the sea.


Baal Cycle

When you killed Litan, the fleeting serpent, finished off the Twisting Serpent, the seven -headed monster of the sea.

And here you are misquoting the Baal Cycle. It doesn't say monster of the sea.

Similarities in the enemy -
Leviathan, the fleeing serpent, Leviathan, the coiling serpent,


Litan, the fleeting serpent,,the Twisting Serpent

Except, this is exaggerated because you removed all the other words which don't match. That's the point I was making. You need to at least include the words inbetween that don't match.

Isaiah: vhhzkh 'l lvytn nhsh brh v'l lvytn nhsh 'qltn vhrg 't-htnyn asr bym​

Baal Cycle: ktm e ltn btn brh tkly btn 'qltn šlyt d šb t r’ašm bxare μ Âm trp ym​

That ^^ is an honest representation. Not

Isaiah: lvytn nhsh brh lvytn 'qltn

Baal Cycle: ltn btn brh 'qltn btn
​

Now, IF the story matched, and the context matched, and LTN was an actual sea monster, which it isn't, and if Baal actually defeated LTN. Ok. Then you would have point. But none of those other things are true.

Not only that. This whole similar name thing is totally bogus. Yes all the cool kids like to make a big deal about the similarity of names. But like I've been saying. The ugaritic myths BORROW from the Hebrew. That's how the language was decoded. See here:

Cracking the Ugaritic Code

So obviously there's going to be similarities. That's because the translations are borrowing from Hebrew! Now, if there are narrtive similarites, OK. Maybe theres something to that. But names? We don't even know what vowels are being used. In the translation given in the article, they call LTN "Litanu". Which again, shows that there could be vowel sounds at the end of the name as well that are either being ignored, or guessed.

Is your name Jeel? how about Julie? Is that the same as Joel? NO! If one looks at most ugraritic translations, they say the head god is named Il. I-L. Not E-L. And definitely not Ayl, which is how its pronounced in Hebrew. El in Hebrew is a preposition.

What else do we learn from this article. the word they're translating as "serpent" doesn't even really mean serpent.

Since you like falsely claiming I'm dishonest, here's a picture:

So, if one actually understands how intertexuality is supposed to work, the verse in Isaiah 27:1 is a fail. the context is wrong, the story is wrong, the words don't match. they don't sound alike. There's no there, there. It's a nothing-burger.

What does the author say here. he doesn't say borrowing, he doesn't say intertexual. he says both stories were developed in the same region, same context.

And that's why this "intertexutality" argument isn't concensus. Other people aren't adopting this idea.

Yes, you have repeat posted and cherry picked out words from videos that say adapted and influenced, and such. But if someone actually watches the videos and listens, often they're not saying literal borrowing. They talk about motifs. Ok, that's a literary image, not theology. And the influence often seems to be a rejection. That the influence galvanized a pre-existing belief and made it stronger.

So you need to distinguish between intertexuality, borrowing a motif, and influenced in a way that bolsters their divergent world-view.

But, that will require paying attention to the details.

The political use made of the conflict between storm god and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. Yahweh inheritied the names of Baals enemies.
Yahweh is not only similar but gets an enemy with a similar description, worded in a similar way. It's copied. Both serpents, both fleeing, both twisting/coiling????

Not a sea monster, not defeated by Baal. Are they both fleeing? We don't even really know. Are they both coiled? We don't even really know. The english word fleeing is borrowed from Isaiah. The english word for coiled is borrowed from Isaiah. The whole translation is borrowd from Isaiah! Even the word for "serpent" is a guess. The word in the Baal Cycle is "BTN", the word in Isaiah is "NHSH". These are supposed to be very common languages to each other.

Since the stories don't match the only way to compare is to look at both languages side by side. If this is the best example they have... it's super weak.

And you make a post about how it's COMPLETELY DISSIMILAR AND LIKE A SEINFELD EPISODE?????

Yes and no. There are 2 similar words, and a similar name. that's all. And the Seinfeld episode is a much much better example of intertexuality. Each and every example of intertexuality in the video you posted is much much better than the example brought in Isaiah. The only way to make it somewhat close is to mistranslate the Baal Cycle, add words that aren't there, pretend that NHSH is the same as BTN, and ignore the story of the Baal Cycle, aka cherry pick.

Please go away. I have better things to do than correct tricks and games by an amateur apologist who wants to use sleight of hand and hopes no one actually reads the post.

I'm just watching the videos you're posting and commenting on them.

As I've said from the beginning these canaanite conections are weak. And yes, academics trot them out. It's become doctrine. And people don't question. They're in languages people don't understand. They don't know how the ugartic tablets were deciphered. The understanding of the canaanite myths borrowed from the Hebrew bible. Any similarities need to be examined fully. The potential for false positives is huge.

Exodus 15:3:

Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.

OK, good, at least you're trying to come up with something on your own. ( Maybe )

יְהֹוָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ מִלְחָמָ֑ה יְהֹוָ֖ה שְׁמֽוֹ

YHVH 'SH MLCHMH YHVH SHMV

Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.

Isaiah 42:13:

Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;

like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.

יְהֹוָה֙ כַּגִּבּ֣וֹר יֵצֵ֔א כְּאִ֥ישׁ מִלְחָמ֖וֹת יָעִ֣יר קִנְאָ֑ה יָרִ֙יעַ֙ אַף־יַצְרִ֔יחַ עַל־אֹֽיְבָ֖יו יִתְגַּבָּֽר

YHVH CGBVR YTZ' C'SH MLCHMVT Y'YR KN'H YRY' 'F-YTZRYCH 'L-'YVYV YTGBR

Yahweh shall go out like a hero; like a man of wars shall He arouse zeal; He shall shout, He shall even cry, He shall overpower His foes.

Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,

a warrior who gives victory.

יְהֹוָ֧ה אֱלֹהַ֛יִךְ בְּקִרְבֵּ֖ךְ גִּבּ֣וֹר יוֹשִׁ֑יעַ יָשִׂ֨ישׂ עָלַ֜יִךְ בְּשִׂמְחָ֗ה יַחֲרִישׁ֙ בְּאַ֣הֲבָת֔וֹ יָגִ֥יל עָלַ֖יִךְ בְּרִנָּֽה

YHVH 'LHYCH BKRBCH GBVR YVSHY' YSHYSH 'LYCH BSHMCHH YCHRYSH B'HVTV YNYL 'LYCH BRNH

The Lord your God is in your midst-a Mighty One Who will save. He will rejoice over you with joy. He will be silent in His love. He will jubilate over you with song."

Psalm 24:8:

Who is the King of Glory?

Yahweh, strong and mighty;

Yahweh, mighty in battle.

מִ֥י זֶה֘ מֶ֚לֶךְ הַכָּ֫ב֥וֹד יְֽ֖הֹוָה עִזּ֣וּז וְגִבּ֑וֹר יְ֜הֹוָ֗ה גִּבּ֥וֹר מִלְחָמָֽה

MY ZH MLCH HCVVD YHVH 'ZVZ VGBVR YHVH GBVR MLCHMH

Who is this King of Glory? The Lord, Who is strong and mighty, the Lord Who is a mighty warrior.

In these passages Yahweh is explicitly called a warrior or directly compared to a warrior. If one moves out from simple designations to actual functioning, the metaphor or image is even more extensively present. Yahweh is the subject of many verbs that belong to the sphere of warfare

Oh. You are still copying and pasting. These aren't your words or ideas are they?

This is a big, so what? How many deities are warriors? like 100 or more?

The simple question I asked you before, but you refused to answer was. Is LTN a water monster? Yes or no? Do you know this story at all? LTN breathes fire. The battle happens on a mountain. And BTW, it's not Baal that defeats it. It's Anat.

How many heads does Leviathan have? Does it have 7 heads? yes or no?

Is Yahweh a warrior? Sure. What's the point?

 

[dybmh]

looked at one darnit. endless streams of mis-information and tricks. Yeah, let's ignore the Yale Divinity speakers and correct career archaeologists.

Yes, let's believe what ever we hear and not engage our brains at all...

wrong is wrong regardless of who says it.

Is it a crescent moon? Still waiting on that answer. Is it a lion throne? Still waiting on that answer.

Are animal figures prohibited? Was Dever wrong about that? What about the matzevot? Were there actually 2 matzvebot at Temple tel adar?

What about the locations of these pagan artifacts, were they in the temple? he doesn't tell you, you have to go look it up.... but I did, and the answer is... Nope. They weren't there.

Are the inscriptions forgeries... pretty obvious looking at the pictures. But you won't look.

Biblical Archaeology Society Online Archive
It is time to clarify for BAR readers the widely discussed relationship between the habiru, who are well documented in Egyptian and Near Eastern inscriptions, and the Hebrews of the Bible. There is absolutely no relationship!

The first appearance of the term habiru (also ‘apiru1) surfaced in the late 19th century in the cuneiform archive from Egypt known as the Amarna Letters. Seven of the letters in the archive are letters of Abdi-Heba, king of Canaanite Jerusalem, to his overlord, the pharaoh (king) of Egypt.2 “I fall at the feet of my lord, the king, seven times and seven times,” Abdi-Heba’s letters often begin. A frequent complaint is that “habiru have plundered all the lands of the king.” And again: “the habiru have taken the very cities of the king.” If Pharaoh does not send archers, “the land of the king will desert to the habiru.”

Abdi-Heba complains that the pharaoh is not sufficiently helpful to him: “I am treated like a habiru.”

It was not long before some scholars suggested a relationship between “habiru” and the similar-sounding “Hebrew.”

Yes! This was addressed in my previous post. Explained in the paper I posted. The habiru is not an ethnicity. The archelogical evidence suggests the Israelites in Egypt were Shasu.

Say it with me... SSSSHHHHHHHASSSSSUUUUUUU S-H-A-S-U. Good! Shasu. Not Habiru. No

Here they are right next to each other so you can see the difference.

SHASHU
HABIRU

See how the letters aren't the same?

You know the post you replied to? The one that generated this reply... here it is: Why are you posting about Habiru? It's irrelevant... again.

I posted this previously. Seems you missed it.

Anson Rainey (d. 2011) is an Emeritus Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and Semitic Linguistics at Tel Aviv University. Over the course of his distinguished career, he has authored and edited innumerable books and articles on the cultures, languages and geography of the Biblical lands, including the 2005 atlas The Sacred Bridge (Carta), co-edited by Steven Notley.

Great! I agree with this scholar. And the paper I posted also agrees. The only person who can't seem to figure this out, is .... um.... YOU.