3 ms·

Sure. I didn't mean to draw a hard line. The monarchic period, even David and Solomon, reads a lot more political writing. The region enters into a historical

by netcan 6y ago

Sure. I didn't mean to draw a hard line. The monarchic period, even David and Solomon, reads a lot more political writing. The region enters into a historical period. The biblical stories start to relate more definitely to known historical events. David and Solomon are kind of transitional, it's really just gradual. It gets more mythical as you go back. Immediately following from the solomon period, the bible is referencing known assyrian emperors, pharaohs, and reporting on conquests that are historically known. There are dates. By the end of the kingdom period, it's already the babylonian era... At that point it's basically modernity.

eternalban 6y ago
Actually, as a student of Iranian history, those "Babylonian" era records are rather intriguing, to say the least. It seems to me Judaism (and associated myths) are a product of an aborted imperial social engineering project of the aborted first Persian Empire. Even the historic divide of religious Jews and "Greek Jews" reflects the sudden collapse of the first Persian Empire and its replacement by the Greeks. A reading of relevant biblical texts strongly suggests that the 'returnees' from Babylon were alien to whoever was living in Jerusalem. And the religion they brought back smacks of Zoroastrianism in its theological contours. Heaven, hell, resurrection, judgment, angels, and good and evil: these are Iranian elements. (Egypt also had judgment, heaven, and hell.) It took a few attempts to get the inhabitants to change their religion -- it's in the book, as they say, so don't take my word for it. Those famous boundaries of lands promised to Abraham, for example, which stop right at the border of historic Greater Iran and Egypt, are basically the boundaries of the project 'temple state' the Persians attempted to create as a prepatory step to conquering Egypt. Heck, the Persian Emperor is even specially called "Messiah" (Divine King) in Isa. 45. It is my opinion (and just that) that the sudden cessation of [imported Jewish] religious leaders from Babylon -- a seat of Persian Empire at that time lest we forget -- due to the collapse of the empire, is the basis of the mutatation of the work-in-progress so that the "divine mandate" of the famous Abrahamic lands were now in fact given by none other than "GOD" itself. The irony of course, is the blowback of this Persian Imperial project 2500 years later. [minor corrective edits]
- ncmncm 6y ago
  I have seen suggestions that the early Hebrew kings are re-branded pharaohs: Akhenaten and Nefertiti as (sequence-displaced) mono-theistic Adam and Eve, Solomon's gold as southern Egyptian tribute, Song of Solomon cribbed from an Egyptian prayer, maybe even a pyramid as Ararat. Nothing conclusive that I know of, but intriguing hints.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    I'm entirely off the current mainstream interpretation of Akhenaten. Akhenaten, to me, was hardly a "monotheist". In fact, if I were asked to name a historic figure that was the famous pharoah of biblical lore (the anti-Moses) I would unhesitatingly point to Akhenaten. I suggest considering his treatment of 'temple' with the pre-existing Egyptian norm. His temple has no roof. The original Egyptian model reflected the canonical Macro-Micro duality and was in fact a 'closed' space. Akhenaten, per my reading, claimed that he was the incarnate 'one god'. No wonder the Egyptians erased all traces of his reign after his demise. They totally erased him from Egyptian records. Something to think about. (Egyptians were certainly 'godly'. Just review the Egyptian prayers of the dead.) O sole god, like whom there is no other! Thou didst create the world according to thy desire That is a prayer from ancient Egypt. That said, the idea that Hebrew mythological kings are in fact borrowings of Egyptian glory makes a lot of sense. Some of the imagery -- tributes being brought from far away lands to Solomon -- however is distinctly reminiscent of Persepolis. https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/relief-depicting-procession-apadana-darius-palace-perse-bas-relief-wall-persepolis-ancient-capital-achaemenid-103338045.jpg https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/relief-depicting-procession-...
    - netcan 6y ago
      My interpretation is more banal. The borrowings are more superficial. We know that language and style used to describe kings, emperors, and gods are very similar. The "I am Sargon, King of Kings" style occurs in political and religious writings all throughout the region... with roots going deep into the bronze age. Recurring imagery, writing style, motifs, titles, etc. are the norm. Lots of cultural elements are broadly found throughout the greater region. It's not surprising that they'd exist in any two traditions. All these traditions affected eachother. Take the Sphinx motif, Seraphim in temple judaism. It's a motif found very widely, over a very long period of time. The imagery is reused. The symbolism is reused. It's impossible to draw a clear path of progression though. On monotheism... I don't think monotheism is all that significant, per se. Whatever the origins of this were, canaanite cities and kings were clearly being closely associated to single deities. One king, one god. Maybe one temple. That was a typical mode. Is that monotheism? Why care, outside of theology? What is significant about monotheism is not monotheism. It's the "jealous god," the strict prohibitions on "foreign worship." This exclusionism is what made the religion so successful in the long term. We see this even in modern times. Religions that tolerate multiple belief systems give way to monotheism.

by netcan 6y ago

eternalban 6y ago

Actually, as a student of Iranian history, those "Babylonian" era records are rather intriguing, to say the least. It seems to me Judaism (and associated myths) are a product of an aborted imperial social engineering project of the aborted first Persian Empire. Even the historic divide of religious Jews and "Greek Jews" reflects the sudden collapse of the first Persian Empire and its replacement by the Greeks. A reading of relevant biblical texts strongly suggests that the 'returnees' from Babylon were alien to whoever was living in Jerusalem. And the religion they brought back smacks of Zoroastrianism in its theological contours. Heaven, hell, resurrection, judgment, angels, and good and evil: these are Iranian elements. (Egypt also had judgment, heaven, and hell.) It took a few attempts to get the inhabitants to change their religion -- it's in the book, as they say, so don't take my word for it. Those famous boundaries of lands promised to Abraham, for example, which stop right at the border of historic Greater Iran and Egypt, are basically the boundaries of the project 'temple state' the Persians attempted to create as a prepatory step to conquering Egypt. Heck, the Persian Emperor is even specially called "Messiah" (Divine King) in Isa. 45. It is my opinion (and just that) that the sudden cessation of [imported Jewish] religious leaders from Babylon -- a seat of Persian Empire at that time lest we forget -- due to the collapse of the empire, is the basis of the mutatation of the work-in-progress so that the "divine mandate" of the famous Abrahamic lands were now in fact given by none other than "GOD" itself. The irony of course, is the blowback of this Persian Imperial project 2500 years later. [minor corrective edits]

ncmncm 6y ago
I have seen suggestions that the early Hebrew kings are re-branded pharaohs: Akhenaten and Nefertiti as (sequence-displaced) mono-theistic Adam and Eve, Solomon's gold as southern Egyptian tribute, Song of Solomon cribbed from an Egyptian prayer, maybe even a pyramid as Ararat. Nothing conclusive that I know of, but intriguing hints.
- eternalban 6y ago
  I'm entirely off the current mainstream interpretation of Akhenaten. Akhenaten, to me, was hardly a "monotheist". In fact, if I were asked to name a historic figure that was the famous pharoah of biblical lore (the anti-Moses) I would unhesitatingly point to Akhenaten. I suggest considering his treatment of 'temple' with the pre-existing Egyptian norm. His temple has no roof. The original Egyptian model reflected the canonical Macro-Micro duality and was in fact a 'closed' space. Akhenaten, per my reading, claimed that he was the incarnate 'one god'. No wonder the Egyptians erased all traces of his reign after his demise. They totally erased him from Egyptian records. Something to think about. (Egyptians were certainly 'godly'. Just review the Egyptian prayers of the dead.) O sole god, like whom there is no other! Thou didst create the world according to thy desire That is a prayer from ancient Egypt. That said, the idea that Hebrew mythological kings are in fact borrowings of Egyptian glory makes a lot of sense. Some of the imagery -- tributes being brought from far away lands to Solomon -- however is distinctly reminiscent of Persepolis. https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/relief-depicting-procession-apadana-darius-palace-perse-bas-relief-wall-persepolis-ancient-capital-achaemenid-103338045.jpg https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/relief-depicting-procession-...
  - netcan 6y ago
    My interpretation is more banal. The borrowings are more superficial. We know that language and style used to describe kings, emperors, and gods are very similar. The "I am Sargon, King of Kings" style occurs in political and religious writings all throughout the region... with roots going deep into the bronze age. Recurring imagery, writing style, motifs, titles, etc. are the norm. Lots of cultural elements are broadly found throughout the greater region. It's not surprising that they'd exist in any two traditions. All these traditions affected eachother. Take the Sphinx motif, Seraphim in temple judaism. It's a motif found very widely, over a very long period of time. The imagery is reused. The symbolism is reused. It's impossible to draw a clear path of progression though. On monotheism... I don't think monotheism is all that significant, per se. Whatever the origins of this were, canaanite cities and kings were clearly being closely associated to single deities. One king, one god. Maybe one temple. That was a typical mode. Is that monotheism? Why care, outside of theology? What is significant about monotheism is not monotheism. It's the "jealous god," the strict prohibitions on "foreign worship." This exclusionism is what made the religion so successful in the long term. We see this even in modern times. Religions that tolerate multiple belief systems give way to monotheism.