> But the nachash had no place in the Temple because it was a chaos creature.
it is not the chaos serpent of gen 1, psalm 74, and job, though. heiser sees a lot of similarity between the serpent and serafim, though i should not the actual bronze serpents we have unearthed do not have wings.
> Secondly, and possibly even more important, the tree of "knowledge" had absolutely no sexual consequences associated with it, and so no connection with the Asherah.
the woman is cursed with childbirth and desire for her husband, so i don't know how you can say that. these are obviously related to sex. further, the next chapter begins,
וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד אֶת-קַיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר, קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה
then the man knew chawah his woman, and she conceived and bore "gain", saying "i have gained a man with yahweh."
she took knowledge from yahweh, and she used knowledge, and gained a son.
> In the ancient world, God was often associated with the concept of wisdom, and "the knowledge of good and evil" is a idiomatic way that they expressed that concept of wisdom. For instance, in the Gilgamesh Epic, the primitive Enkidu becomes wise (possessing reason) not by eating the fruit of a tree but instead by engaging in sexual intercourse with the prostitute Samhat, who was sent to entice and capture him.
that seems like a sexual association to me.
> The tree in the biblical story, however, has no sexual association and therefore is to be associated with the wisdom that is found in God (Job 28.28; Prov. 1.7).
even hundreds of years later in the hellenistic period, the divine reasoning logos is thought to have been a creative power. philo calls this logos "second god". who would the second god have been in the iron age? note that stealing this tree makes chawah "the mother of all", a position occupied by guess-who in the ugaritic pantheon.
> With the tree, God was inviting them to acquire wisdom (godliness) in the proper way at the appropriate time by obedience to him.
there is no indication in the text that it was reserved for future use. i'm aware of midrashim that talk about that in later tradition though.
> "Good and evil" is a legal idiom meaning "to formulate and articulate a judicial decision
well, some of those uses are a little different. but this story is clearly an allegory. we shouldn't expect it to necessarily match all the literal uses.
> I don't think it's reasonable. The Jerusalem Temple was always unique.
based on what? there aren't exactly a lot of excavations there.
> The Arad temple was seen as renegade, and it was disassembled and "destroyed."
was it destroyed by hezekiah? i apologize, it's been a little while and i haven't had time to get back to this post, so i forget where exactly we left off. i recall hearing something about the altars and standing stones being buried. do you know about that? i know they weren't desecrated like the ones at lachish.
> I've already agreed that there associations made between YHWH and Asherah, but they were not sanctioned by YHWH.
historically we can't really treat yahweh as an actual actor in this story. we only have evidence of what people did, and that evidence points to yahweh being widely associated with asherah, even in the official religion, until pretty late. ultimately, "yahweh didn't approve" is a statement of your beliefs and not really something you can defend with historical evidence.
> It depends on the dating of the text (which is unknown) and whether one views the text as authoritative (I do.) In other words, I'm convinced we have 1000 pages (the Tanakh/the Old Testament) revealing YHWH to us and telling us what He sanctioned.
from a literary critical standpoint, i don't buy it. it's rather a lot to compress into this post, of course, but this is simply not an academic way to treat the text. and of course, the text also depicts yahweh sanctioning the construction of nechushtan, and keruvim, and at one point seemingly commands a sacrifice to another god, azazel. so, you not only have to reject the scholarly, critical view of the text, you have apply some kind of apologetic for why the text also says some things that go against your position.
> Possibly correct, but the point doesn't take us far. Since it is mostly an elaboration on the Book of the Law, "quotes" and references are not always clear. Also, the OT itself ascribes the bulk of Deut. to Moses (1.1, 5; 31.24; Josh. 1.7-8; 23.6; 1 Ki. 2.3; 8.53; Mal. 4.4.) But since we don't know when or by whom the historical books were written, that doesn't help us much, either. And Malachi was written in about 435-400 BC, so that doesn't help either.
yes, by then the tradition was solidified. as i mentioned above, jeremiah is a probable author for both the historical books and deuteronomy.
> Yes, I know there are sections of Deut. that come from another author than the main author. Other parts, as I mentioned, seem to betray an earlier writing.
well, no, the bulk of it compares to books like, uh, kings and jeremiah. there are obviously older inclusions, though -- we think deut 32:8-9 is pretty old.
> There is no particular reason, however, to question that the speeches in Deuteronomy are those of Moses, or that Moses is at the very least the primary tradent and source of the material. But I know that you don't believe in Moses, so this point won't go far with you.
i don't believe in moses because the whole historical context of the exodus is a fiction. i think that's a fairly compelling argument for rejecting him as the author of any of it. like, sure, samwell tarly wrote "a song of ice and fire" or whatever, but since this isn't westeros, and the actual dispute between the yorks and the lancasters was pretty radically different than the war of the four kings, and there's no giant ice-wall keeping zombies out... i think we can say that samwell tarly is probably a fictional character and someone else wrote "a game of thrones".
egypt owned all of canaan between about 1550 BCE and 1100 BCE. there's a pretty ridiculous amount of evidence for this, from records of the military campaigns in the area, to egyptian outposts, to the el amarna letters between the pharaohs and canaanite kings. this is a pretty big gaff to make, and a rather ridiculous oversight for someone supposedly living in that time
> The 4-roomed structures of the Israelites were unique enough to be able to mark them out as a separate people group.
they are not; they were built by every other canaanite culture too, even abroad.
> I disagree. The pottery style of the Israelites is unique, as well as their burial habits ... and worship practices.
all of this actually explicitly not unique, and there is a large degree of continuity between israelite and canaanite/phoenician cultures, because,
> There is a lack of imported goods, in contrast to the Canaanites,
they imported a lot of goods from the canaanites/phoenicians.
> lack of porcine ingestion
this is a distinguishing factor, but it is by no means unique to israelite culture. canaanite cultures tended to eat pig more regularly, but not all canaanite cutures did. a famous example is that we find no pig bones in hyksos settlements in egypts -- one reason people commonly misidentify them as israelites.
> and their sites were largely unfortified, with a general lack of public buildings.
this, frankly, is just incorrect. the best argument i've heard in support of a unified (davidic/solomonic) kingdom is a unified architectural style around the 10th century in public fortifications across both kingdoms of israel and judah.
> It seems that most of the similarity is in the sentence, "Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"
the sons of aaron and jeroboam also have the same names.
> That's it? That's "the language is identical" that makes your case?
read the article!
> The doubt comes in when one asserts that similarity = derivation
it's part of the narrative that seems written about a later time, like the temple language in gen 2/3.
> Yes, the map has some accuracy, but misses the important nuances. The Egyptians had a strong presence up through Canaan during part of that era. Lachish, Megiddo, and Beth-Shean all have some indication of at least partial Egyptian occupation, including taxation. But also through that era, the "invasion" of the Sea Peoples weakened Egypt's grip. In certain periods Egyptian sovereignty was only minimal, if at all.
yes, it weakened somewhat gradually after 1208 BCE, until around 1100 BCE, as the bronze age collapsed.
> The Hittites were also waning in power,
in 1250-ish BCE, ramesses ii fought them to a stalemate about qadesh, some 100 miles north of jerusalem.
> James Hoffmeier (Egyptologist) notes that Egypt had prevented the city-states from developing strong defenses in order to prevent rebellion, and their lack of strong defensive forces made them vulnerable to Israelite attack. The situation was ripe for Joshua's conquest.
i mean, except for the egyptian army that was there going around putting down rebellions.
> Hoffmeier also reports that the book of Judges doesn't mention the Egyptians despite the fact that historians tell us the Egyptians were involved in military activity there in that era. (Judges mentions mostly Philistines and other people groups.) Nor does Judges report any Egyptian military response to Israel's military movements. He argues that the Egyptians may have invaded Canaan to counter Israel’s successes (something not mentioned in the Bible).
no, they were there first. they took over the area around 1550, as the expelled and exterminated the hyksos. the theban kings just continued campaigns in the area after the hyksos were done.
> But the nachash had no place in the Temple because it was a chaos creature.
it is not the chaos serpent of gen 1, psalm 74, and job, though. heiser sees a lot of similarity between the serpent and serafim, though i should not the actual bronze serpents we have unearthed do not have wings.
> Secondly, and possibly even more important, the tree of "knowledge" had absolutely no sexual consequences associated with it, and so no connection with the Asherah.
the woman is cursed with childbirth and desire for her husband, so i don't know how you can say that. these are obviously related to sex. further, the next chapter begins,
[quote]וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד אֶת-קַיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר, קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה[/quote]
[quote]then the man knew chawah his woman, and she conceived and bore "gain", saying "i have gained a man with yahweh."[/quote]
she took knowledge from yahweh, and she used knowledge, and gained a son.
> In the ancient world, God was often associated with the concept of wisdom, and "the knowledge of good and evil" is a idiomatic way that they expressed that concept of wisdom. For instance, in the Gilgamesh Epic, the primitive Enkidu becomes wise (possessing reason) not by eating the fruit of a tree but instead by engaging in sexual intercourse with the prostitute Samhat, who was sent to entice and capture him.
that seems like a sexual association to me.
> The tree in the biblical story, however, has no sexual association and therefore is to be associated with the wisdom that is found in God (Job 28.28; Prov. 1.7).
even hundreds of years later in the hellenistic period, the divine reasoning logos is thought to have been a creative power. philo calls this logos "second god". who would the second god have been in the iron age? note that stealing this tree makes chawah "the mother of all", a position occupied by guess-who in the ugaritic pantheon.
> With the tree, God was inviting them to acquire wisdom (godliness) in the proper way at the appropriate time by obedience to him.
there is no indication in the text that it was reserved for future use. i'm aware of midrashim that talk about that in later tradition though.
> "Good and evil" is a legal idiom meaning "to formulate and articulate a judicial decision
well, some of those uses are a little different. but this story is clearly an allegory. we shouldn't expect it to necessarily match all the literal uses.
> I don't think it's reasonable. The Jerusalem Temple was always unique.
based on what? there aren't exactly a lot of excavations there.
> The Arad temple was seen as renegade, and it was disassembled and "destroyed."
was it destroyed by hezekiah? i apologize, it's been a little while and i haven't had time to get back to this post, so i forget where exactly we left off. i recall hearing something about the altars and standing stones being buried. do you know about that? i know they weren't desecrated like the ones at lachish.
> I've already agreed that there associations made between YHWH and Asherah, but they were not sanctioned by YHWH.
historically we can't really treat yahweh as an actual actor in this story. we only have evidence of what people did, and that evidence points to yahweh being widely associated with asherah, even in the official religion, until pretty late. ultimately, "yahweh didn't approve" is a statement of your beliefs and not really something you can defend with historical evidence.
> It depends on the dating of the text (which is unknown) and whether one views the text as authoritative (I do.) In other words, I'm convinced we have 1000 pages (the Tanakh/the Old Testament) revealing YHWH to us and telling us what He sanctioned.
from a literary critical standpoint, i don't buy it. it's rather a lot to compress into this post, of course, but this is simply not an academic way to treat the text. and of course, the text also depicts yahweh sanctioning the construction of nechushtan, and keruvim, and at one point seemingly commands a sacrifice to another god, azazel. so, you not only have to reject the scholarly, critical view of the text, you have apply some kind of apologetic for why the text also says some things that go against your position.
> Possibly correct, but the point doesn't take us far. Since it is mostly an elaboration on the Book of the Law, "quotes" and references are not always clear. Also, the OT itself ascribes the bulk of Deut. to Moses (1.1, 5; 31.24; Josh. 1.7-8; 23.6; 1 Ki. 2.3; 8.53; Mal. 4.4.) But since we don't know when or by whom the historical books were written, that doesn't help us much, either. And Malachi was written in about 435-400 BC, so that doesn't help either.
yes, by then the tradition was solidified. as i mentioned above, jeremiah is a probable author for both the historical books and deuteronomy.
> Yes, I know there are sections of Deut. that come from another author than the main author. Other parts, as I mentioned, seem to betray an earlier writing.
well, no, the bulk of it compares to books like, uh, kings and jeremiah. there are obviously older inclusions, though -- we think deut 32:8-9 is pretty old.
> There is no particular reason, however, to question that the speeches in Deuteronomy are those of Moses, or that Moses is at the very least the primary tradent and source of the material. But I know that you don't believe in Moses, so this point won't go far with you.
i don't believe in moses because the whole historical context of the exodus is a fiction. i think that's a fairly compelling argument for rejecting him as the author of any of it. like, sure, samwell tarly wrote "a song of ice and fire" or whatever, but since this isn't westeros, and the actual dispute between the yorks and the lancasters was pretty radically different than the war of the four kings, and there's no giant ice-wall keeping zombies out... i think we can say that samwell tarly is probably a fictional character and someone else wrote "a game of thrones".
egypt owned all of canaan between about 1550 BCE and 1100 BCE. there's a pretty ridiculous amount of evidence for this, from records of the military campaigns in the area, to egyptian outposts, to the el amarna letters between the pharaohs and canaanite kings. this is a pretty big gaff to make, and a rather ridiculous oversight for someone supposedly living in that time
> The 4-roomed structures of the Israelites were unique enough to be able to mark them out as a separate people group.
they are not; they were built by every other canaanite culture too, even abroad.
> I disagree. The pottery style of the Israelites is unique, as well as their burial habits ... and worship practices.
all of this actually explicitly not unique, and there is a large degree of continuity between israelite and canaanite/phoenician cultures, because,
> There is a lack of imported goods, in contrast to the Canaanites,
they imported a lot of goods from the canaanites/phoenicians.
> lack of porcine ingestion
this is a distinguishing factor, but it is by no means unique to israelite culture. canaanite cultures tended to eat pig more regularly, but not all canaanite cutures did. a famous example is that we find no pig bones in hyksos settlements in egypts -- one reason people commonly misidentify them as israelites.
> and their sites were largely unfortified, with a general lack of public buildings.
this, frankly, is just incorrect. the best argument i've heard in support of a unified (davidic/solomonic) kingdom is a unified architectural style around the 10th century in public fortifications across both kingdoms of israel and judah.
> It seems that most of the similarity is in the sentence, "Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"
the sons of aaron and jeroboam also have the same names.
> That's it? That's "the language is identical" that makes your case?
read the article!
> The doubt comes in when one asserts that similarity = derivation
it's part of the narrative that seems written about a later time, like the temple language in gen 2/3.
> Yes, the map has some accuracy, but misses the important nuances. The Egyptians had a strong presence up through Canaan during part of that era. Lachish, Megiddo, and Beth-Shean all have some indication of at least partial Egyptian occupation, including taxation. But also through that era, the "invasion" of the Sea Peoples weakened Egypt's grip. In certain periods Egyptian sovereignty was only minimal, if at all.
yes, it weakened somewhat gradually after 1208 BCE, until around 1100 BCE, as the bronze age collapsed.
> The Hittites were also waning in power,
in 1250-ish BCE, ramesses ii fought them to a stalemate about qadesh, some 100 miles north of jerusalem.
> James Hoffmeier (Egyptologist) notes that Egypt had prevented the city-states from developing strong defenses in order to prevent rebellion, and their lack of strong defensive forces made them vulnerable to Israelite attack. The situation was ripe for Joshua's conquest.
i mean, except for the egyptian army that was there going around putting down rebellions.
> Hoffmeier also reports that the book of Judges doesn't mention the Egyptians despite the fact that historians tell us the Egyptians were involved in military activity there in that era. (Judges mentions mostly Philistines and other people groups.) Nor does Judges report any Egyptian military response to Israel's military movements. He argues that the Egyptians may have invaded Canaan to counter Israel’s successes (something not mentioned in the Bible).
no, they were there first. they took over the area around 1550, as the expelled and exterminated the hyksos. the theban kings just continued campaigns in the area after the hyksos were done.