6 ms·

Not sure what the quote has to do with anything here, but it's a as good an opportunity as ever to say that large parts of the "Old Testament" draw most of its

by bambax 1y ago

Not sure what the quote has to do with anything here, but it's a as good an opportunity as ever to say that large parts of the "Old Testament" draw most of its inspiration from the code of Hammurabi ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"), the Epic of Gilgamesh (which gave us, notably, the story of the deluge, and the dark role of the serpent) and Ancient Egypt, to which it owes, among many others, the concept of eternal life and the idea that man was made in God's image. To be "in God's image" was one of the titles of Pharaoh. And about the staff: early depictions of Jesus often have him holding a magic wand [0], as he was considered by followers and ennemies alike to be a magician. The "Three Wise Men" or "Three Kings" (?!) that show up at his birth are just "magi" (magicians) in the original text [1]. [0] https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/jesus-holding-a-magic-wand/ https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi

williamtrask 1y ago
If truth is defined as beliefs which lead one to make decisions that cause you/your society to thrive, this is a good thing (that the Old Testament has similarities to other major works). Implies a kind of evolutionary algorithm for truth. Likely implies these stories are more true because they’re more tried and tested. Societies who believed them became strong. If truth is about repeated experimentation or journalistic records (a very new concept in history of writing - less than 500 years), then perhaps this is of concern. I accept both definitions, but when they’re in conflict, the former tends to be more end-to-end, while the latter tends to overfit to the moment. Mostly because data is scarce and life is a very complex distributed system. On the other hand, the former changes slowly while the latter perhaps keeps up with the pace of change. Except the point of life is probably to thrive more than to collect a list of facts. So when in conflict, I lean towards the former. Personal choice tho. I expect most of HN leans the other way.
- chris-orgmenta 1y ago
  To expand not refute, > If truth is defined as beliefs which lead one to make decisions that cause you/your society to thrive This is 'metaphorical truth' to be precise. But it's only a part of the virality of memes, not the whole. Propagation can occur not just due to usefulness, but to other factors such as simplicity/replicability, human susceptibility / 'key in a lock' etc. If survival was purely metaphorical truth, then all surviving lifeforms would be 'the most true' (including viruses being 'true' to us). Which can be argued, at a philosophical level - But then we've expanded the definition so much as to lose relevant meaning at the pragmatic level. Porcupine throwing quills, and all that.
  - williamtrask 1y ago
    Nice comment! I had forgotten about metaphorical truth. Sent me on a nice rabbit hole. I think 'metaphorical truth' is correct but slightly too narrow. Pragmatic truth includes metaphorical truth but is slightly wider. And while I agree with your assertion in the short run, I'm inclined to doubt its correctness in the long run. Most things eventually have consequences.
throw__away7391 1y ago
I think it’s just intended as a pun, “staff” == “staff”, and not as a religious statement, but I could be mistaken.
danhau 1y ago
These depictions can probably be dismissed, just as any other depiction of Jesus. That painting has been made long after his death. The only clues to his likeness are deductions from biblical texts and historical context. For example, he most likely didn‘t have long hair (1. Corinthians 11), and he also wasn‘t European looking (should be obvious).
- barry-cotter 1y ago
  > he also wasn‘t European looking (should be obvious). Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines all look very similar and Jesus was definitely of the Levant. I hope you won’t deny Spaniards and Greeks are European.
  - krapp 1y ago
    In this context, "European" means "white." Jesus probably did not look like the bearded white hippie commonly depicted in Western (primarily American and British) iconography. Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines may or may not look similar (seems a bit broad, like the geographical definition of "European") but they also don't often look like "white people." Especially not in Egypt or the Levant.
    - jibal 1y ago
      Weird which of these two comments was downvoted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#Historical_appearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#H... > in terms of physical appearance, the average Judean of the time would have likely had brown or black hair, honey/olive-brown skin, and brown eyes This entire digression has been brought to you by someone who didn't understand an obvious pun.
    - watwut 1y ago
      As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Likewise, not counting Spaniards into white is weird too, but at least it does not betray complete lack of knowledge about what counts as Europe.
adrian_b 1y ago
While the serpent had a dark role in the Epic of Gilgamesh too, it is extremely sad how the Genesis has twisted completely the beautiful story of how Shamkhat has civilized the wild Enkidu, whom God had made from clay (by showing him the pleasures of a city, as opposed to the harsh life in the wilderness: eating bread, drinking beer, being massaged with oil and making love), into the ugly story of how Eve has committed the unforgivable sin with Adam, of seeking knowledge on par with God, and her descendants shall be for ever punished for it.
- bambax 1y ago
  I don't know if it's sad; it's a different story, it's a kind of riff on the same themes. In Genesis III, it's necessary for Adam and Eve to acquire knowledge and leave the garden, because in so doing they have sex and make children. While in the garden, they didn't know they were naked, and presumably didn't have sex or reproduced. Also, when God finds out, he fist asks the man, who accuses "the woman you gave me". So then God turns to the woman, who says the snake deceived her. But here God stops his inquiry. We know the snake can talk because he talked to the woman, so why didn't God ask the snake why he did what he did? An interpretation is that the snake ("the most clever of all animals God had made") is in fact God's instrument. He works for the boss.
  - adrian_b 1y ago
    It is a different story but which is without any doubt derived from the Enkidu story and modified to suit different conceptions about the role of women in society and about what is valuable for mankind. While in the Enkidu story the role of the woman was positive, because she has taught Enkidu about the advantages of civilized life, making him leave the wilderness where he lived since being created by God, in the Genesis story Eve was despised for the same thing, i.e. for teaching Adam more than his creator did. I certainly side with the anonymous author of the Old Babylonian story about Enkidu and not with the editor of the Genesis book who has transformed it.
    - krapp 1y ago
      Like Pandora's box, it's a just so story about why women are the source of all mens' problems and why patriarchy is just and necessary. And why women have pain in childbirth. And why people are afraid of snakes. And why we die. But mostly about why women suck (from the point of view of ancient Hebrew culture.) And that attitude transfers to Christianity in 1 Timothy when Paul says women should not be allowed to teach or have authority over men, but should remain quiet because it was Eve who was deceived by the serpent, and who then deceived Adam.
schrectacular 1y ago
"Magi" were priests of Zoraster. It is true that our current word for magic is derived from this root but that doesn't mean that the text is saying they were _magicians_.
- bambax 1y ago
  > "Magi" were priests of Zoraster That's the etymology of the word, but there is no indication in the gospel of Matthew (the only one to even mention this) that it's a reference to Persia. That would be like saying when anyone who mentions "algorithm" is really talking about Uzbekistan, because al-Ḵwārizmī means 'the man of Ḵwārizm' (now Khiva).
  - wahern 1y ago
    AFAIU, in Ancient Greek culture Magi were often considered like Plato's Philosopher Kings. Greeks didn't have an accurate understanding of Zoroastrianism or the structure of Persian government, but for some reason they saw Persian leaders, and Magi in particular, as possessing a synthesis of political, religious, philosophical and scientific virtues. For example, they thought Persian leaders' grasp of astronomy meant the laws they promulgated were what we might call today, science-based. Magi represented idealized leadership rooted in reason, similar to the way today people of one country like to point at some other country du jour as an exemplar of rational governance, especially when critiquing their own government or society. Aristotle and others specifically said that the Magi did not practice metaphysical sorcery. They believed the Magi could, for example, divine the future, but doing so through their study of astronomy (i.e. their science-y astrological knowledge). The biblical account of the Magi and the star they followed perfectly matches the mythos of Persian Magi in Greek culture. The story itself tells the reader not only that those rational leaders over yonder were convinced about the importance of Jesus, but that they knew because "science" revealed it to them.
    - nivertech 1y ago
      I don't think there was a distinction between science, magic and religion (or rather, cults, since there were no organized religions in the modern sense).
velcrovan 1y ago
Not that great of an opportunity, to be honest
ch4s3 1y ago
> Not sure what the quote has to do with anything here It's a pun on the staff ate.
jibal 1y ago
The staff ate the rest of the staffs.
swat535 1y ago
There are at least 2 ancient pagan flood stories: The Gilgamesh Epic and the Atrathasis Epic, both originating in ancient Mesopotamia. Because both sources predate the source of Noah's story, many scholars have concluded that Noah's flood story was borrowed from these. However, consider the following objections: - When a historical event is retold to different audiences over time, the story generally becomes more mythical and embellished, and poetry and exalted language are used. It is the opposite when Noah's and the pagan stories are compared. Noah's story is simpler and told in a straightforward narrative, while the pagan stories are told in a more mythical and embellished style. - Noah's story is monotheistic, and the characters are ethically moral. The pagan stories are polytheistic, and the characters are ethically capricious. The pagan gods are implied to be selfish, jealous of each other and lie to each other. Moreover, in the Atrathasis Epic the gods discover that due to the flood, they have wiped out their only source of food (people's sacrifices) implying that they depend on humans. - The shape of the ark in Noah's story is the only one that can be considered seaworthy, being rectangular and in dimensions similar to more modern cargo barges. The pagan stories describe an ark that is round or cubic, which would make an ark less stable for floatation and also more vulnerable to damage/overturning by wave impact. It is therefore more likely that Noah's story with its later source is faithful to the actual historical event; while the pagan stories are versions modified to suit the polytheistic religion/culture of their audiences. At the same time, it is remarkable that the pagan stories confirm that a history changing flood did occur.
- lolc 1y ago
  > faithful to the actual historical event What event? I understand you saying that a flood actually happened, and that Noah's story is based on that. Well that may be, but with a quibble: that flood is prehistorical. We have no records to say when and where it happened. Unless I'm behind on research. To me, flood stories serve to show how powerful gods are. The stories are likely based on several floods experienced by different people over time. Imagine you see the Nile flood your general area every year with varying intensity. It's easy to worry that one year it just won't stop rising. To people living in those times, a flood story is gripping in ways we don't follow today.
- bambax 1y ago

by bambax 1y ago

williamtrask 1y ago

If truth is defined as beliefs which lead one to make decisions that cause you/your society to thrive, this is a good thing (that the Old Testament has similarities to other major works). Implies a kind of evolutionary algorithm for truth. Likely implies these stories are more true because they’re more tried and tested. Societies who believed them became strong. If truth is about repeated experimentation or journalistic records (a very new concept in history of writing - less than 500 years), then perhaps this is of concern. I accept both definitions, but when they’re in conflict, the former tends to be more end-to-end, while the latter tends to overfit to the moment. Mostly because data is scarce and life is a very complex distributed system. On the other hand, the former changes slowly while the latter perhaps keeps up with the pace of change. Except the point of life is probably to thrive more than to collect a list of facts. So when in conflict, I lean towards the former. Personal choice tho. I expect most of HN leans the other way.

chris-orgmenta 1y ago
To expand not refute, > If truth is defined as beliefs which lead one to make decisions that cause you/your society to thrive This is 'metaphorical truth' to be precise. But it's only a part of the virality of memes, not the whole. Propagation can occur not just due to usefulness, but to other factors such as simplicity/replicability, human susceptibility / 'key in a lock' etc. If survival was purely metaphorical truth, then all surviving lifeforms would be 'the most true' (including viruses being 'true' to us). Which can be argued, at a philosophical level - But then we've expanded the definition so much as to lose relevant meaning at the pragmatic level. Porcupine throwing quills, and all that.
- williamtrask 1y ago
  Nice comment! I had forgotten about metaphorical truth. Sent me on a nice rabbit hole. I think 'metaphorical truth' is correct but slightly too narrow. Pragmatic truth includes metaphorical truth but is slightly wider. And while I agree with your assertion in the short run, I'm inclined to doubt its correctness in the long run. Most things eventually have consequences.

throw__away7391 1y ago

I think it’s just intended as a pun, “staff” == “staff”, and not as a religious statement, but I could be mistaken.

danhau 1y ago

These depictions can probably be dismissed, just as any other depiction of Jesus. That painting has been made long after his death. The only clues to his likeness are deductions from biblical texts and historical context. For example, he most likely didn‘t have long hair (1. Corinthians 11), and he also wasn‘t European looking (should be obvious).

barry-cotter 1y ago
> he also wasn‘t European looking (should be obvious). Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines all look very similar and Jesus was definitely of the Levant. I hope you won’t deny Spaniards and Greeks are European.
- krapp 1y ago
  In this context, "European" means "white." Jesus probably did not look like the bearded white hippie commonly depicted in Western (primarily American and British) iconography. Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines may or may not look similar (seems a bit broad, like the geographical definition of "European") but they also don't often look like "white people." Especially not in Egypt or the Levant.
  - jibal 1y ago
    Weird which of these two comments was downvoted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#Historical_appearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#H... > in terms of physical appearance, the average Judean of the time would have likely had brown or black hair, honey/olive-brown skin, and brown eyes This entire digression has been brought to you by someone who didn't understand an obvious pun.
  - watwut 1y ago
    As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird. Likewise, not counting Spaniards into white is weird too, but at least it does not betray complete lack of knowledge about what counts as Europe.

adrian_b 1y ago

While the serpent had a dark role in the Epic of Gilgamesh too, it is extremely sad how the Genesis has twisted completely the beautiful story of how Shamkhat has civilized the wild Enkidu, whom God had made from clay (by showing him the pleasures of a city, as opposed to the harsh life in the wilderness: eating bread, drinking beer, being massaged with oil and making love), into the ugly story of how Eve has committed the unforgivable sin with Adam, of seeking knowledge on par with God, and her descendants shall be for ever punished for it.

bambax 1y ago
I don't know if it's sad; it's a different story, it's a kind of riff on the same themes. In Genesis III, it's necessary for Adam and Eve to acquire knowledge and leave the garden, because in so doing they have sex and make children. While in the garden, they didn't know they were naked, and presumably didn't have sex or reproduced. Also, when God finds out, he fist asks the man, who accuses "the woman you gave me". So then God turns to the woman, who says the snake deceived her. But here God stops his inquiry. We know the snake can talk because he talked to the woman, so why didn't God ask the snake why he did what he did? An interpretation is that the snake ("the most clever of all animals God had made") is in fact God's instrument. He works for the boss.
- adrian_b 1y ago
  It is a different story but which is without any doubt derived from the Enkidu story and modified to suit different conceptions about the role of women in society and about what is valuable for mankind. While in the Enkidu story the role of the woman was positive, because she has taught Enkidu about the advantages of civilized life, making him leave the wilderness where he lived since being created by God, in the Genesis story Eve was despised for the same thing, i.e. for teaching Adam more than his creator did. I certainly side with the anonymous author of the Old Babylonian story about Enkidu and not with the editor of the Genesis book who has transformed it.
  - krapp 1y ago
    Like Pandora's box, it's a just so story about why women are the source of all mens' problems and why patriarchy is just and necessary. And why women have pain in childbirth. And why people are afraid of snakes. And why we die. But mostly about why women suck (from the point of view of ancient Hebrew culture.) And that attitude transfers to Christianity in 1 Timothy when Paul says women should not be allowed to teach or have authority over men, but should remain quiet because it was Eve who was deceived by the serpent, and who then deceived Adam.

schrectacular 1y ago

"Magi" were priests of Zoraster. It is true that our current word for magic is derived from this root but that doesn't mean that the text is saying they were _magicians_.

bambax 1y ago
> "Magi" were priests of Zoraster That's the etymology of the word, but there is no indication in the gospel of Matthew (the only one to even mention this) that it's a reference to Persia. That would be like saying when anyone who mentions "algorithm" is really talking about Uzbekistan, because al-Ḵwārizmī means 'the man of Ḵwārizm' (now Khiva).
- wahern 1y ago
  AFAIU, in Ancient Greek culture Magi were often considered like Plato's Philosopher Kings. Greeks didn't have an accurate understanding of Zoroastrianism or the structure of Persian government, but for some reason they saw Persian leaders, and Magi in particular, as possessing a synthesis of political, religious, philosophical and scientific virtues. For example, they thought Persian leaders' grasp of astronomy meant the laws they promulgated were what we might call today, science-based. Magi represented idealized leadership rooted in reason, similar to the way today people of one country like to point at some other country du jour as an exemplar of rational governance, especially when critiquing their own government or society. Aristotle and others specifically said that the Magi did not practice metaphysical sorcery. They believed the Magi could, for example, divine the future, but doing so through their study of astronomy (i.e. their science-y astrological knowledge). The biblical account of the Magi and the star they followed perfectly matches the mythos of Persian Magi in Greek culture. The story itself tells the reader not only that those rational leaders over yonder were convinced about the importance of Jesus, but that they knew because "science" revealed it to them.
  - nivertech 1y ago
    I don't think there was a distinction between science, magic and religion (or rather, cults, since there were no organized religions in the modern sense).

velcrovan 1y ago

Not that great of an opportunity, to be honest

ch4s3 1y ago

> Not sure what the quote has to do with anything here It's a pun on the staff ate.

jibal 1y ago

The staff ate the rest of the staffs.

swat535 1y ago

There are at least 2 ancient pagan flood stories: The Gilgamesh Epic and the Atrathasis Epic, both originating in ancient Mesopotamia. Because both sources predate the source of Noah's story, many scholars have concluded that Noah's flood story was borrowed from these. However, consider the following objections: - When a historical event is retold to different audiences over time, the story generally becomes more mythical and embellished, and poetry and exalted language are used. It is the opposite when Noah's and the pagan stories are compared. Noah's story is simpler and told in a straightforward narrative, while the pagan stories are told in a more mythical and embellished style. - Noah's story is monotheistic, and the characters are ethically moral. The pagan stories are polytheistic, and the characters are ethically capricious. The pagan gods are implied to be selfish, jealous of each other and lie to each other. Moreover, in the Atrathasis Epic the gods discover that due to the flood, they have wiped out their only source of food (people's sacrifices) implying that they depend on humans. - The shape of the ark in Noah's story is the only one that can be considered seaworthy, being rectangular and in dimensions similar to more modern cargo barges. The pagan stories describe an ark that is round or cubic, which would make an ark less stable for floatation and also more vulnerable to damage/overturning by wave impact. It is therefore more likely that Noah's story with its later source is faithful to the actual historical event; while the pagan stories are versions modified to suit the polytheistic religion/culture of their audiences. At the same time, it is remarkable that the pagan stories confirm that a history changing flood did occur.

lolc 1y ago
> faithful to the actual historical event What event? I understand you saying that a flood actually happened, and that Noah's story is based on that. Well that may be, but with a quibble: that flood is prehistorical. We have no records to say when and where it happened. Unless I'm behind on research. To me, flood stories serve to show how powerful gods are. The stories are likely based on several floods experienced by different people over time. Imagine you see the Nile flood your general area every year with varying intensity. It's easy to worry that one year it just won't stop rising. To people living in those times, a flood story is gripping in ways we don't follow today.
bambax 1y ago