Hermeneutics - Who [Re-]Wrote the Old Testament?

[Turtle]

i was wanting to get to some of the other books of the old testament, and found this rather by accident. good times. :singer:

 

... It is now time to p!ss-off the Orthodox Jews, Christians and Muslims as I promised earlier. All three of these religions claim to be adherents to "The Book" aka the Hebrew Bible, aka the Old Testament. For some reason, they seem to think that this book is the oldest book on Earth. Worse, as a rabbi once told me, "...as a Divine document, the Torah is not capable of being influenced by Ancient Egypt..."

 

Not only was the Torah/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament influenced by ancient Egypt, huge chunks of it were ripped-off from them and other civilizations who existed thousands of years before the "book" was written down for the first time.

 

The "Song of Songs" from the Hebrew bible and known as the "Song of Solomon" in the Christian old testament was taken almost word for word from a series of ancient Egyptian love poems between a brother and his sister written two thousand years earlier than the Hebrew version.

...

The creation story of Genesis was likewise ripped-off from the ancient Egyptians. Although the ancient Egyptians had two main versions of the story. [sic] In one, god "spoke" and the universe came into being. God's name, by the way, was Thoth, the Ibis headed god of ancient Egypt. In the other version, Thoth did not speak but instead lay an egg which cracked open and the universe spilled forth. The Hebrews obviously ripped-off the former version which became, by extension, the creation myth of the Christians and Muslims. I personally prefer the version where god lays an egg. It explains so much about the world. ...

DNA tests on King Tut confirm much, reveal little.

 

guess we better look for a copy of those egyptian [barrywhite]loooove[/barrywhite]poems. :shrug: . . . . :)

[Eclipse Now]

This Charles Nichols character seems to have some problems understanding what it is that modern theologians actually teach. I haven't met a single theologian, and I either know personally, or know of, most of the movers and shakers in the Australian Anglican scene, and this "bible must be the first book" myth is just a strawman of Charle's own creation.

 

One word:

Hermeneutics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Hermeneutics (English pronunciation: /hɜrməˈnjuːtɨks/) is the study of interpretation theory, and can be either the art of interpretation, or the theory and practice of interpretation. Traditional hermeneutics — which includes Biblical hermeneutics — refers to the study of the interpretation of written texts, especially texts in the areas of literature, religion and law. Contemporary, or modern, hermeneutics encompasses not only issues involving the written text, but everything in the interpretative process. This includes verbal and nonverbal forms of communication as well as prior aspects that affect communication, such as presuppositions, preunderstandings, the meaning and philosophy of language, and semiotics.[1] Philosophical hermeneutics refers primarily to Hans-Georg Gadamer's theory of knowledge as developed in Truth and Method, and sometimes to Paul Ricoeur.[2] Hermeneutic consistency refers to analysis of texts for coherent explanation. A hermeneutic (singular) refers to one particular method or strand of interpretation. See also double hermeneutic.

 

I haven't heard of the Egyptian incest poem being the basis of Song Of Solomon, and it 'smells' wrong... like dodgy archaeology. However, I have heard that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis form a distinctive literary unit of a totally different Hebrew style of writing to the rest of it, and that in those 11 Chapters are many rebukes and answers to the pre-existing creation narratives of Egypt, Babylon, and other Mesopotamian myths.

 

So, sounds like Charles has been hanging around some of the noisier 7 day Creationists. I know one or 2 who are nice people... as long as we steer the conversation away from that very first chapter of the bible. :)

 

(But then again, don't start denying Global Warming or Peak Oil around me, 'cause I've been known to get a little cranky as well. :phones: )

[Turtle]

This Charles Nichols character seems to have some problems understanding what it is that modern theologians actually teach. I haven't met a single theologian, and I either know personally, or know of, most of the movers and shakers in the Australian Anglican scene, and this "bible must be the first book" myth is just a strawman of Charle's own creation.

 

well, you ain't been to the US i take it. it's a logical fallacy aright, but it aint chuck's.

 

I haven't heard of the Egyptian incest poem being the basis of Song Of Solomon, and it 'smells' wrong... like dodgy archaeology. However, I have heard that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis form a distinctive literary unit of a totally different Hebrew style of writing to the rest of it, and that in those 11 Chapters are many rebukes and answers to the pre-existing creation narratives of Egypt, Babylon, and other Mesopotamian myths.

 

we'll get to the bottom of it. :) i only posted the article because of that single assertion, which i have never seen before.

 

So, sounds like Charles has been hanging around some of the noisier 7 day Creationists. I know one or 2 who are nice people... as long as we steer the conversation away from that very first chapter of the bible. :hyper:

 

(But then again, don't start denying Global Warming or Peak Oil around me, 'cause I've been known to get a little cranky as well. )

 

your bias is duly noted. by all means post anything you can find on charle's affiliations that bears on the issue. . . . . :phones:

[Turtle]

after a little hunting, i have a list of egyptian works that may contain the supposed sister/brother love-thang stories that song of solomon is copied from. will stay on it. >> http://www.bombaxo.com/cosanet.pdf

 

that aside for the moment, i went on another tack. having once read homer's iliad & odyssey i recalled somewhere in all that dust biting, someone said "spare the rod & spoil the child." we find this phrase in the old testament in proverbs 13:24. so proverbs is often ascribed to solomon, and solomon's "generally ascribed" reign ~900 bce.Solomon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

while some put homer's poems ~850 bce, there is some evidence for a date of ~1170 if he wrote them at the time of the trojan war.

 

The date of Homer's existence was controversial in antiquity and is no less so today. Herodotus said that Homer lived 400 years before his own time, which would place him at around 850 BC;[3] but other ancient sources gave dates much closer to the supposed time of the Trojan War.[4] The date of the Trojan War was given as 1194–1184 BC by Eratosthenes, who strove to establish a scientific chronology of events and this date is gaining support because of recent archaeological research.[citation needed] ...

Homer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

we may conclude it is possible homer writ it first. anyway, i'm thinking penelope said it in odyssey, but i haven't found it yet. searching here, as i have no hard-copy: >> Homer, The Odyssey, Scroll 1, line 1

 

now while searching odyssey there for that other whipping line, i found another of a similar nature. to whit, "everything in moderation". though not in the old testament, and not even in so many words in the new, this admonition is often mistakenly ascribed a biblical origin. first, here is the suspect in corinthians:

The phrase, "Moderation in all things," is common extrapolation of Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean (as presented in his Nicomachean Ethics).

...

But what about Scripture? Though there is no direct quotation matching the proverb, Paul does use a similar idea in his description of the successful athlete:

 

And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown (1 Corinthians 9:25).

Blue Letter Bible - Help, Tutorials, and FAQs

 

now here is homer:

"Menelaos," said he, "let me go back now to my own country, for I want to get home [nostos]."

And Menelaos answered, "Telemakhos, if you insist on going I will not detain you. I do not like to see a host either too fond of his guest or too rude to him. Moderation is best in all things, and not letting a man go when he wants to do so is as bad as telling him to go if he would like to stay. One should treat a guest well as long as he is in the house and speed him when he wants to leave it. Wait, then, till I can get your beautiful presents into your chariot, and till you have yourself seen them. I will tell the women to prepare a sufficient dinner for you of what there may be in the house; it will be at once more proper and cheaper for you to get your dinner before setting out on such a long journey. ...

 

>>Homer, The Odyssey, Scroll 15, line 2

 

so that bibley source gives an entirely different circumstance of the admonition's application, so hermenutically speaking, the motivation of the different authors is...erhm...different. :hyper: guess we would need to get to the oldest known written versions of each respective work & phrase. i'll get a shovel.

[Turtle]

 

given the spate of mistaken/misplaced biblical interpretation posts/threads here of late i thought i'd bump this thread and pyrotex's thread on the new testament that inspired me to start this. not only do these both have authoritive & informative information, they are models of what we who decided to have a theology forum had in mind. as a bonus i have also linked to the thread on biotheoly/neurotheology that gives material on real science of some how's & whyfor's of true believer minds.

 

 

 

new testament: Who [Re-]Wrote the Bible?

 

Biotheology

[dduckwessel]

What about the Apocryphal books of Adam and Eve and the Book of Enoch?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Adam_and_Eve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

 

The information itself pre-dates any others. However, the earliest copies of the books are the Ethiopian editions but where did they come from?

[dduckwessel]

 

while i have not probed genesis for the earliest known writing(s)/copy, i have looked into noah & knowa' (:rant:) that is is so similar in detail to the earlier epic of gilgamesh, as to be nothing more than a later re-write of a borrowed mythos. :phones:

 

Epic of Gilgamesh

 

 

discuss. :friday:

 

Wikipedia states: Textual criticism places the earliest date of the books within the 2nd millennium BC with Moses and the Exodus, although the compilation at that time could have been the result of earlier works.[1]

 

I believe those earlier works were based on The Books of Adam and Eve and The Book of Enoch that Moses quoted from (the information of which predates ancient Mesopotamian writings) because the Bible quotes those books.

 

The Epic of Gilgamesh is the re-write, retold poorly (as in Greek mythology) as it doesn't use the writing style of the books of the prophets, and the NT (which is a repeat of the OT).

[dduckwessel]

It's no secret that early cultures intermarried within their immediate families!

 

The "Song of Songs" from the Hebrew bible and known as the "Song of Solomon" in the Christian old testament was taken almost word for word from a series of ancient Egyptian love poems between a brother and his sister written two thousand years earlier than the Hebrew version.

 

The Song of Songs is not a love poem - it's a figurative allegory of God's realm, Paradise.

 

If there's any resemblance between it and this poem it's purely coincidental.

 

I would like to read that poem if you have a link please?

[dduckwessel]

 

Aparently the creation myth from Genesis 1 (Gen 1:1-2:3) - as opposed to the one in Genesis 2, which is compleatly different

 

 

Both Genesis 1 & 2 are the same story. If you slide verses from Gen. 2 into Gen. 1, we see a different picture:

 

 

Gen. 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen. 2:4 - These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created

 

Both verses speak of the creation of the heavens and the earth. However, we discover that the 6 day creation myth is wrong as the word 'generation(s)' is used in 2:4 instead of 'day' - thereby clarifying that day means generations.

 

Likewise in the creation of man:

 

Gen. 1:26-27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him (Adam came first - initially there is no mention of female because she came much later from him); male and female created he them.(afterwards it mentions male and female as if both originated from the same source, him).

Gen. 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (notice mention of only 'man' ('him' in the previous verse).

 

The verses however, are not in any chronological order but rather are pieces to a puzzle.

 

How is man made in God's image?

Gen. 2:8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden: and there put the man whom he had formed.

 

 

Eden is Heaven/garden of Eden = Paradise, therefore, the garden was not on physical earth.

[Turtle]

Wikipedia states: Textual criticism places the earliest date of the books within the 2nd millennium BC with Moses and the Exodus, although the compilation at that time could have been the result of earlier works.[1]

 

I believe those earlier works were based on The Books of Adam and Eve and The Book of Enoch that Moses quoted from (the information of which predates ancient Mesopotamian writings) because the Bible quotes those books.

 

The Epic of Gilgamesh is the re-write, retold poorly (as in Greek mythology) as it doesn't use the writing style of the books of the prophets, and the NT (which is a repeat of the OT).

 

well, your belief is not in line with the literature we have explored here, nor the methods that produced it. the written epic of gilgamesh predates any written...well, anything written, making it an earlier work to any work. there simply is no physical evidence to the contrary whether you care for the writer's(s') style in the epic or not.

 

those apocrypha are attributed to the 1^st century ad at your earlier wiki link so they aren't older than moses (:lol:) and if they aren't in a common bible then they aren't a topic for this thread.

 

on the reasoning side, since we don't have all the earliest writings included in the old testament -again the theme of this thread- one can't say that just because a mention of an earlier work is made that the mention was not added later. neither can one say how old the mentioned work is, as it may have been penned a mere decade before the mentioner mentioned it, or such a matter.

 

[dduckwessel]

 

those apocrypha are attributed to the 1^st century ad at your earlier wiki link so they aren't older than moses (:lol:) and if they aren't in a common bible then they aren't a topic for this thread.

 

What if I was to say that the Bible is the same information found in some books of the Apocrypha and that no doubt Moses got his inspiration from them? Just because the books were dropped by some Christian groups doesn't mean they're bogus. And at one time they were very much a part of the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

 

on the reasoning side, since we don't have all the earliest writings included in the old testament -again the theme of this thread- one can't say that just because a mention of an earlier work is made that the mention was not added later. neither can one say how old the mentioned work is, as it may have been penned a mere decade before the mentioner mentioned it, or such a matter.

 

Here I ask your indulgence. The Bible states that Adam and Eve came 'before' the ancient Mesopotamians, therefore (even though their writings appeared later) does not negate the fact their experiences would have had to occur prior to Mesopotamian existence.

 

The only evidence I have is to show examples of how the books of Adam and Eve, and Enoch are the same material as the Bible but I don't know if that would be considered admissible evidence here? Logically if Adam and Eve came first then their story would be the original and anything after, a copy and in the case of the Epic of Gilgamesh, a bad copy.

[Turtle]

What if I was to say that the Bible is the same information found in some books of the Apocrypha and that no doubt Moses got his inspiration from them? Just because the books were dropped by Christianity doesn't mean they're bogus. And at one time they were very much a part of the Bible.

 

moses lived, by best accounts before the first century ad so he could not have been inspired by the books of adam & eve from the first century. you have no evidence that it(they) was/were written earlier; none, nada, zilch. again we are talking about the old testament and its known authenticated written roots and we don't give a lambs bawl about what christians or muslims or hindus or yada yada yada think, drop, stop, or roll about it.

 

 

Here I ask your indulgence. The Bible states that Adam and Eve (also Enoch) came 'before' the ancient Mesopotamians, therefore (even though their writings appeared later) does not negate the fact their experiences must have occurred prior to Mesopotamian existence.

 

The only evidence I have is to show examples of how the books of Adam and Eve, and Enoch are the same material as the Bible but I don't know if that would be considered admissible evidence here? Logically if Adam and Eve came first then their story would be the original and anything after, a copy and in the case of the Epic of Gilgamesh, a bad copy.

 

erhm...no thank you. you've taken enough of my indulgence without asking and i'm fresh out.

[dduckwessel]

moses lived, by best accounts before the first century ad so he could not have been inspired by the books of adam & eve from the first century. you have no evidence that it(they) was/were written earlier; none, nada, zilch.

 

The books of Adam and Eve originally existed as oral tradition long before they were written and you have no evidence that Moses was not influenced by oral tradition.

[sineaste]

Dduckwessel hi,

 

You seem to be assuming that Adam, Eve, and Moses are historical figures and that the stories of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan are factual. On the contrary, there is absolutely no archeological or independent historical evidence that these events ever occurred. Rather, the archeological evidence contradicts these stories. I notice that elsewhere you expressed interest in the "Bible's Buried Secrets" series and I would encourage you to view this again as the scholarship is generally quite reliable and up to date on these issues.

 

Most scholars, apart from highly conservative or fundamentalist commentators, date the final redaction of the Pentateuch to the time of the Babylonian Exile or shortly after. Even if we allow the traditional date for a figure called Moses actually writing Genesis (the text nowhere claims this) around 1500 BCE, the Mesopotamian flood story in the Epic of Atrahasis (c1700 BCE, and reused in the Epic of Gilgamesh around 1300 to 1000 BCE) is clearly older. Please note that we have cuneiform manuscripts dated to the above periods, but the earliest manuscripts of the Pentateuch are no older than the first to second centuries BCE (the Dead Sea Scrolls).

 

Among Assyriologists and scholars of the Tanakh it is widely recognized that the Genesis story of the flood is based on the older framework of the Mesopotamian flood story. Similarly, there are numerous parallels between the story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve and prior Mesopotamian works such as Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh. If you have been following this thread you will have encountered the very useful observation that Genesis did not simply "copy" or "borrow" myths from other cultures, but modified them for specific theological and polemical purposes. If the present shape of Genesis came about during or just after the exile, then there is every reason to believe that it functioned as subversive, resistance literature designed to counter Babylonian national and mythological pretensions. We shouldn't forget that the Enuma Elish is essentially a paean to the supremacy of the warrior Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, over all other gods. It's message is clear: Babylon is now the seat of kingship - the ruling power in Mesopotamia - and the centre of Mesopotamian religion. Genesis rejects the sophisticated urban culture and religion of Judah's overlords and turns stories like the civilization of a primitive (Enkidu and Shamhat), a creation story (Enuma Elish) that concludes with the elevation of Marduk and the building of a Babylonian temple, and a flood myth in which the gods destroy their captive slave workers, on their heads. This tendency is further underlined in subsequent tales of the city and ziggurat of "Babel", a patriarch who abandons a great southern Mesopotamian capital, and a national hero who leads his people out of slavery and captivity.

 

In summary, the key issue in the question of the close relationship between the stories of Genesis and Mesopotamia is not priority or plagiarism or historical/scientific accuracy. It has nothing to do with relative literary merits and it is not about canon or authorship or inspiration or inerrancy. However, it has everything to do with real historical circumstances and a vital message that allowed Israel to retain its unique culture and religious convictions at a time when they were in danger of being completely obliterated. Once the question of genre is better understood, it becomes obvious that Genesis was never designed to convey dry, encyclopedic information about human or even national beginnings. The truths it teaches us are those that emerge from its stories and the way they are told. It is far more humanistic than many of the Babylonian myths and, from my perspective, like any human document it is also flawed. While I may shudder at the genocidal god who sends the flood, I also understand what is happening when we are told that this god sends a flood to punish the giants and mighty ones, and that it is not just generic "wickedness" but overwhelming "violence" that prompts such drastic action. When the primitive man Enkidu is seduced, clothed, fed and generally civilized by Shamhat in the Epic of Gilgamesh he is told that he has become "wise" and "like a god". In Genesis, these words are put in the tongue of the serpent, the creature that steals the king's last chance of immortality in the older Mesopotamian epic. One is a story told by the most powerful and advanced civilization of its day, the other is told by a race of migrants, aliens and slaves. Rather than simply reject any connection between these stories out of hand, it is only when we place them side by side that we begin to appreciate the real colour, depth and distinctiveness of the biblical texts.

[dduckwessel]

Dduckwessel hi,

 

You seem to be assuming that Adam, Eve, and Moses are historical figures and that the stories of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan are factual. On the contrary, there is absolutely no archeological or independent historical evidence that these events ever occurred. Rather, the archeological evidence contradicts these stories.

 

I have been looking at the archeological evidence and wondering... I don't know if you noticed on another thread (I will try to find it) someone presented a well-made documentary video. Recent archeological evidence was found (on a stone) mentioning Israelites specifically, as well as evidence for 'the house of David' and 'stone gates that Solomon had built'.

 

Most scholars, apart from highly conservative or fundamentalist commentators, date the final redaction of the Pentateuch to the time of the Babylonian Exile or shortly after. Even if we allow the traditional date for a figure called Moses actually writing Genesis (the text nowhere claims this) around 1500 BCE, the Mesopotamian flood story in the Epic of Atrahasis (c1700 BCE, and reused in the Epic of Gilgamesh around 1300 to 1000 BCE) is clearly older. Please note that we have cuneiform manuscripts dated to the above periods, but the earliest manuscripts of the Pentateuch are no older than the first to second centuries BCE (the Dead Sea Scrolls).

 

http://www.bibleorigins.net/Genesisarchaeologicalanomalies.html

 

Yes, 'the flood' appears to be a popular story of ancient history. :)

 

Among Assyriologists and scholars of the Tanakh it is widely recognized that the Genesis story of the flood is based on the older framework of the Mesopotamian flood story. Similarly, there are numerous parallels between the story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve and prior Mesopotamian works such as Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh. If you have been following this thread you will have encountered the very useful observation that Genesis did not simply "copy" or "borrow" myths from other cultures, but modified them for specific theological and polemical purposes. If the present shape of Genesis came about during or just after the exile, then there is every reason to believe that it functioned as subversive, resistance literature designed to counter Babylonian national and mythological pretensions. We shouldn't forget that the Enuma Elish is essentially a paean to the supremacy of the warrior Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, over all other gods. It's message is clear: Babylon is now the seat of kingship - the ruling power in Mesopotamia - and the centre of Mesopotamian religion. Genesis rejects the sophisticated urban culture and religion of Judah's overlords and turns stories like the civilization of a primitive (Enkidu and Shamhat), a creation story (Enuma Elish) that concludes with the elevation of Marduk and the building of a Babylonian temple, and a flood myth in which the gods destroy their captive slave workers, on their heads. This tendency is further underlined in subsequent tales of the city and ziggurat of "Babel", a patriarch who abandons a great southern Mesopotamian capital, and a national hero who leads his people out of slavery and captivity.

 

I think you misunderstand me. I use a brand-new method for interpreting Bible and some Apocryphal writings (see thread on Theology, 'Method for interpreting the Bible...').

 

Due to the interest here I have just begun to retranslate Exodus using this method. It has taken me almost 20 years to retranslate a tenth (I think) of the Bible so far and what I have discovered is nothing like what has always been taught in religious circles. As a result of that work I can state emphatically that the OT and the NT are the same information.

 

In summary, the key issue in the question of the close relationship between the stories of Genesis and Mesopotamia is not priority or plagiarism or historical/scientific accuracy. It has nothing to do with relative literary merits and it is not about canon or authorship or inspiration or inerrancy. However, it has everything to do with real historical circumstances and a vital message that allowed Israel to retain its unique culture and religious convictions at a time when they were in danger of being completely obliterated. Once the question of genre is better understood, it becomes obvious that Genesis was never designed to convey dry, encyclopedic information about human or even national beginnings. The truths it teaches us are those that emerge from its stories and the way they are told. It is far more humanistic than many of the Babylonian myths and, from my perspective, like any human document it is also flawed. While I may shudder at the genocidal god who sends the flood, I also understand what is happening when we are told that this god sends a flood to punish the giants and mighty ones, and that it is not just generic "wickedness" but overwhelming "violence" that prompts such drastic action. When the primitive man Enkidu is seduced, clothed, fed and generally civilized by Shamhat in the Epic of Gilgamesh he is told that he has become "wise" and "like a god". In Genesis, these words are put in the tongue of the serpent, the creature that steals the king's last chance of immortality in the older Mesopotamian epic. One is a story told by the most powerful and advanced civilization of its day, the other is told by a race of migrants, aliens and slaves. Rather than simply reject any connection between these stories out of hand, it is only when we place them side by side that we begin to appreciate the real colour, depth and distinctiveness of the biblical texts.

 

And you're quite correct, I shouldn't judge the Epic of Gilgamesh so quickly for there are obvious parallels between it and the OT. :) I spoke out of frustration as it seemed obvious to me that Turtle had started the thread to correct me. I had actually taken another look at the Epic of Gilgmesh and was intending to take a closer look at it and other related texts but re-translation work takes up much of my time.

 

As I mentioned in my thread 'Method for interpreting the Bible...', a distinctive feature is the obvious figurative meanings and it seems to me that all Bible writings and matching Apocrypha follow that rule. I will post my findings but honestly it won't be in the very near future for it took me 10 years just trying to understand the translation method itself as it appears to have a duality (figurative and non) to it. I get better at it as time goes on but it is very tedious work nonetheless.

[Turtle]

...And you're quite correct, I shouldn't judge the Epic of Gilgamesh so quickly for there are obvious parallels between it and the OT. :) I spoke out of frustration as it seemed obvious to me that Turtle had started the thread to correct me. I had actually taken another look at the Epic of Gilgmesh and was intending to take a closer look at it and other related texts but re-translation work takes up much of my time.

...

 

i started the thread to stop you & your ilk from trashing our board with this mystic crap. honestly, for all the insight you claim you don't understand this simple admonition!!?? :naughty: that you mention me specifically is a provocation i won't take with impunity. get out!! don't respond; just get out.