The Adamic Myth

[moralorel]

The Documentary Hypothesis is quite flawed. It starts off with the whole premise. Let's take parts of Genesis that mention Yahweh and make them one source. Take those that use Elohim and make that another source. Those verses that use a lot of repetition? That's another source. Those with interpolations? Another source. This logic is flawed and absurd.
Yes, solutions have been offered up to "fix the flaws" in the Documentary Hypothesis. But they have not been fixed.
Yet you continue with it.
So here are the issues once again.
1. It completely ignores any other indicators of writing style or authorship.
2. It contradicts what we now know. The early parts of Genesis follow an ancient Sumerian style of tablet writing. This was not known when the hypothesis was first drawn up and still has not been addressed. The splitting up of texts based on the logic of the Documentary Hypothesis would therefore sever the writings of these tablets. The DH offers no explanation for why the Hebrews would have used a writing style that predated them by about 2000 years. None of the sources are dated anywhere close to this age by the DH.
3. The hypothesis is based on a now debunked theory from George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel's beliefs about pantheism were infused into beliefs about the gospels being taken from Pagan religions. All of his points about authorship were eventually proven to be incorrect about the gospels. But his logic inspired the DH. The purpose wasn't to find truth. It was to prove pantheistic beliefs and to give credence to his philosophy.
4. The DH also claims that the Pentateuch had various old sources mixed in with newer sources. But the entire Pentateuch is written in standard Hebrew and doesn't show the differentiation that is seen in Genesis. There is no evidence for this claim.
5. The DH also claims that many parts of Hebrew scripture were just segments of older writings cut out and just glued into scripture. No evidence has ever been given to this claim.
6. There was never an effort to understand the culture that wrote the scriptures. As with the Native American community, nobody tried to speak with the Hebrew community about this hypothesis. There was absolutely no effort to study Hebrew history or culture when coming up with the DH.
7. It is based on a biblical interpretation that the Hebrews never knew the name "Yahweh" until Moses came along.
8. This leads into the absurdity concerning the use of Yahweh and Elohim. Some of the authors used both. Some used them at the same time. God has been referred to as Yahweh Elohim. No explanation given. The DH insists that authorship can be divided partially based on these two names. That fails miserably.
9. This logic about the two names is never used with other religions. As I mentioned before, if you tried using this logic with an Egyptologist they would laugh at you. Most religions have multiple names for individual gods.
10. The explanation for Elohim and Yahweh is very simple. Elohim is what God is and Yahweh is who He is.
11. The DH tries to explain the different versions of the stories by claiming different authorship. But this very same style of writing was very popular in the ANE. Nobody tries to claim that the Sumerians and Akkadians cut and pasted stories from different authors into these stories. Nobody does. But they do for the Bible. Even the Romans were still writing in this parallel writing style. The Greeks wrote in this style. It was very common to have a chronological story paired with a topical summary of the story.

The Hypothesis has no leg to stand on. It was based on scant evidence and becomes less likely the more we uncover. Soon it will be another silly hypothesis that people will want to forget.

 

[Thomas]

1. Consensus is NOT a process. It is a result that one would hope would come from a concise scientific process; a process that survived criticism and peer review.

Quite. My bad phrasing.

But often consensus is just a popularity contest. The loudest and most convincing people achieve a consensus and present it as a fact. They drown out those who are true critical thinkers. Consensus is often a fallacy used by bullies

OK, then it's bad. I'm not for a moment endorsing bad practice.

2. Why argue against consensus? For my professors they weren't going to make much money writing books about how they agree with consensus.

The trouble here is, many realise that by being SENSATIONAL they sell books, where as sound, scholarly works, well researched and well argued, tend to stay on the shelves.

But true science is skeptical. If we didn't argue against consensus, we would be so far behind today in so many fields of science.

I rather think we're both arguing about the same point.

I'm not saying consensus rules, I'm saying the 'scholastic method', the 'tried and tested' route, is the best one we have.

And if there's a better one, please let me know.

 

[Thomas]

The Documentary Hypothesis is quite flawed... This logic is flawed and absurd.

You make a number of unsubstantiated claims, offering them as 'facts', and some claims I consider overblown, so I find myself holding up a mirror?

There might be value to them, there might not, without a reasoned argument, I can't tell.

 

[moralorel]

Quite. My bad phrasing.


OK, then it's bad. I'm not for a moment endorsing bad practice.


The trouble here is, many realise that by being SENSATIONAL they sell books, where as sound, scholarly works, well researched and well argued, tend to stay on the shelves.


I rather think we're both arguing about the same point.

I'm not saying consensus rules, I'm saying the 'scholastic method', the 'tried and tested' route, is the best one we have.

And if there's a better one, please let me know.

Agreed. Nowadays a lot of professors publish sensational pieces just to sell books. Yet some of the most well-written books gather dust and don't get the proper attention they deserve.

The Documentary Hypothesis is not a good example of something coming from the scholastic method. I easily demonstrated that it has failed when it was "tried and tested".

My points definitely are substantiated. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them any less true.

You should start a thread about the scholastic method. I'd love to see it.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not sure we're arguing two different things – and that's my fault for allowing us down the rabbit hole.

To return to the point: The Adamic Myth.

Your contentions are, regarding the Documentary Hypothesis:
1. It completely ignores any other indicators of writing style or authorship.
I cannot comment, as I don't know what style or authorship you refer to.

However, I have offered that it does follow, and shows a dependence, upon early Mesopotamian myth, and these myths shaped the early chapters.

2. It contradicts what we now know. The early parts of Genesis follow an ancient Sumerian style of tablet writing.
Yes, that's my point – early Genesis was framed by, and incorporated data from, older texts.

I'm quite happy to let the DH go – as you point out, and I agree, the Wellhausen theory has been discredited, and current scholarship holds a variety of views, but nearly all agree on a much later dating of the texts, to the 5th-3rd centuries before Christ.

What is genius then, is that these older mythic strands survived at all, that the roots of Abrahamic polytheism remain visible in the texts, that strands like the mention of giants, floods and so on, initially part of the common history of a people, were incorporated, albeit under revision in light of more recent outlooks, in such a manner that their ancient roots remain.

Noah's account of raising an altar after the flood, for example, speaks of a far wiser, subtle and sophisticated deity than the ravening horde of gods who, driven mad by starvation, descended like a cloud of flies on the offerings of the earlier accounts.

That 'the sons of God (elohim) walked with the daughters of men' (6:2) and produced 'giants', the nephilim is about all that remains of the myths and legends of demigods and heroes that populated the ancient tales.

8. This leads into the absurdity concerning the use of Yahweh and Elohim. Some of the authors used both. Some used them at the same time. God has been referred to as Yahweh Elohim. No explanation given. The DH insists that authorship can be divided partially based on these two names. That fails miserably.
OK, but the evidence remains that Elhoim derives from those same ancient references, the plural form possibly in reference to the children of the Canaanite supreme deity El.

Jahweh is much more complicated and interesting, but again there are suggestions of an Arabian origin, a particular deity – as you point out – brought north along the caravan routes between Egypt and Canaan.

10. The explanation for Elohim and Yahweh is very simple. Elohim is what God is and Yahweh is who He is.
That's certainly elegant, but it doesn't explain origins.

As I say, I'm not wedded to the DH, but I do believe the ancient tales, carried orally and then written down, underwent a process of revision across the centuries as the people moved from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism, and a particular revision in the post-exilic period to affirm a cultural identity focussed on the Temple at Jerusalem.

How many hands, and how many schools, I'll leave for the scholars to work out.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What is genius then, is that these older mythic strands survived at all, that the roots of Abrahamic polytheism remain visible in the texts..

Abrahamic polytheism?
That looks like a major contradiction. Abraham was a monotheist.

OK, but the evidence remains that Elhoim derives from those same ancient references, the plural form possibly in reference to the children of the Canaanite supreme deity El..

That's the problem with language .. take the word God .. it is of Germanic origin..

The Germanic words for God were originally neuter, but during the process of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples from their indigenous Germanic paganism, the words became a masculine syntactic form.
- Wikipedia -

I think people confuse "names of gods" (such as El) with language.
People all over the world have their own words for the Abrahamic G-d, which does not
mean that they are all different gods.

I see that throughout history, ignorance caused people to worship idols, even though their ancestors
might not have done so.

 

[Thomas]

Abrahamic polytheism?
That looks like a major contradiction. Abraham was a monotheist.

Well, monolatry. Abraham worshipped one deity to the exclusion of all others, but monotheism as we understand it today, and as was understood later in Israel, took time to evolve.

The decalogue declares: "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). It notably does not declare HaShem is the only god, but rather that, in a field where every people had their deities and every town and village would have had their particular cultic observances (as we do today, and even in the secular world, 'brands' take on cultic significance, and products are fetishised), "I" am alone worthy of your veneration.

This exhortation is a consistent pattern in Scripture. Other gods are not denied, and in Egypt, for example, in the plagues and tribulations visited upon them, other gods are confronted and defeated. Yahweh, as the Gold of Israel, demands exclusive worship. Yahweh is the God above all other gods.

This consistent pattern also reflects Israel's consistent failure to observe this call to singularity, and Israel's unfortunate habit of turning to other gods – to ancient ways. This occurs right up to the post-exilic era (and possibly beyond).

The Issue:
Someone said: 'The Bible is written for all, but it was written to a particular people', it was written in a particular place and time, and addresses contemporary issues of those times. Those people thought about things very differently from the way we do. They are not exposed to the same assumptions and assertions we are.

+++

If you want to discuss the particulars, then there is lots of material to go over.

In reviewing extensive materials, discussing the cult of Asherah, a scholar said:
"On the basis of this historical information and these field archaeological finds, it is evident that, in the territory of ancient Israel, as well as the temple in Jerusalem, various other categories of cultic places must have existed. Excavations in and near these cult places have revealed ... figurines of female or animal shapes have been found together with other objects. On several sites, these cultic objects have been found in rooms with benches against the walls, which were apparently meant for votives and offerings to be placed upon (eg at Tell Qasile, Tel Lachish).

"Most of the female solid-pillar figurines, which are usually interpreted as a symbol of Asherah (in ancient days the consort of Yahweh), however, have been found in domestic settings ... (from the 9th-8th century BCE) ... in 45 percent of all the houses, one or more of these objects had beca used... In approximately 35 per cent of the houses in Tel Beer-Sheba and in Tell Beit Mirsim, a female solid figurine was discovered."
(Only One God Monotheism In Ancient Israel And The Veneration Of The Goddess Asherah, 2001, p97)

Despite biblical prohibitions, Asherah worship persisted, especially in the northern kingdom of Israel and during the reigns of kings like Ahab (9th century BCE) and Manasseh (7th century BCE), who allowed her cult to flourish – even within the Jerusalem temple.

Scholars argue that Asherah was once a central figure in Israelite folk religion, and her worship was not merely foreign idolatry but a deeply rooted cultural and spiritual tradition.

In summary, Asherah worship was a widespread and enduring religious practice in ancient Israel, reflecting a blend of Canaanite beliefs with Israelite faith, and its suppression marks a key moment in the development of Israelite monotheism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Abraham worshipped one deity to the exclusion of all others, but monotheism as we understand it today, and as was understood later in Israel, took time to evolve..

I don't think so. Prophets (sons of G-d) were continually sent to keep people "on track".
Idol worship was very common, and few people had access to education.
..so the faith of nations waxed and waned.

..so what non-believing scholars might conclude, is that monotheism as we have today,
simply evolved .. they don't believe in prophets and G-d.

The decalogue declares: "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). It notably does not declare HaShem is the only god..

Obviously not .. idols most certainly existed .. they still do today in some parts of the world.

In summary, Asherah worship was a widespread and enduring religious practice in ancient Israel, reflecting a blend of Canaanite beliefs with Israelite faith, and its suppression marks a key moment in the development of Israelite monotheism.

Mmm .. much like Sikhism is a blend of Hindu and Muslim culture.
..and I won't start on Christianity.

 

[Thomas]

Prophets (sons of G-d) were continually sent to keep people "on track".
Idol worship was very common, and few people had access to education.
..so the faith of nations waxed and waned.

Well, that's rather my point? The people were going off-message.

Exodus 34:13-16 (emphasis mine)
"For thou shalt worship no other god (el): for the Lord (Yahweh), whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God (el): Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods (elohim), and do sacrifice unto their gods (elohim), and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, (elohim) and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods (elohim)."

This text does not deny the existence of other gods, rather it is a statement of a god unwilling to share with other gods.

..so what non-believing scholars might conclude, is that monotheism as we have today,
simply evolved .. they don't believe in prophets and G-d.

The Jewish encyclopedia, under the topic 'monothesim', states:
"In the development of religious belief in Israel there are indications of a growth through various stages before the conception of absolute uncompromising monotheism was reached. Down to the eighth-century prophets, the religion of the people was monolatrous rather than monotheistic; they considered Yhwh to be the one God and their God, but not the one and only God. He was the national God of Israel as Chemosh was the god of Moab and Milkom the god of Ammon (Num. xxi. 29; Judges xi. 24; I Kings xi. 33). He was not yet the God of all the nations and of the universe. The existence of other gods was not definitively denied; even the second commandment does not disclaim the existence of other gods; it merely forbids Israel to bow down to them or serve them (comp. Deut. iv. 19). There was, in truth there could be, no other God in Israel; but this, it is held, did not affect the reality of the gods of other nations; though, in comparison with the might and glory of Yhwh, they were weak and powerless. A very early poem has the words, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods?" (Ex. xv. 11)—a sufficient indication that the idea that there were other gods was in the writer's mind. In a later psalm there is a reminiscence of this early state of thought—"there is none like unto thee among the gods" (Ps. lxxxvi. 8, R. V.)"

 

[muhammad_isa]

This text does not deny the existence of other gods, rather it is a statement of a god unwilling to share with other gods..

Well, why would G-d deny that people were worshipping idols?
..and naturally, G-d would not want people worshipping idols, as it leads astray.

The Jewish encyclopedia, under the topic 'monothesim', states:
"In the development of religious belief in Israel there are indications of a growth through various stages before the conception of absolute uncompromising monotheism was reached. Down to the eighth-century prophets, the religion of the people was monolatrous rather than monotheistic; they considered Yhwh to be the one God and their God, but not the one and only God. He was the national God of Israel as Chemosh was the god of Moab and Milkom the god of Ammon (Num. xxi. 29; Judges xi. 24; I Kings xi. 33). He was not yet the God of all the nations and of the universe. The existence of other gods was not definitively denied; even the second commandment does not disclaim the existence of other gods; it merely forbids Israel to bow down to them or serve them (comp. Deut. iv. 19). There was, in truth there could be, no other God in Israel; but this, it is held, did not affect the reality of the gods of other nations; though, in comparison with the might and glory of Yhwh, they were weak and powerless. A very early poem has the words, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods?" (Ex. xv. 11)—a sufficient indication that the idea that there were other gods was in the writer's mind. In a later psalm there is a reminiscence of this early state of thought—"there is none like unto thee among the gods" (Ps. lxxxvi. 8, R. V.)"

..so what?
It doesn't mean much to me .. I don't believe that G-d left mankind without guidance.
..and His guidance is based on the first commandment .. always was.

That doesn't mean that people didn't believe all sorts of things .. they still do.

 

[RabbiO]

The Jewish Encyclopedia, under the topic 'monotheism' states:.....

The only caveats I would mention about the encyclopedia are to keep in mind that it was published in 1906 and that to the extent of bias, if any, the encyclopedia was the work of non-Orthodox scholars.

 

[moralorel]

I'm not sure we're arguing two different things – and that's my fault for allowing us down the rabbit hole.

To return to the point: The Adamic Myth.

Your contentions are, regarding the Documentary Hypothesis:
1. It completely ignores any other indicators of writing style or authorship.
I cannot comment, as I don't know what style or authorship you refer to.

However, I have offered that it does follow, and shows a dependence, upon early Mesopotamian myth, and these myths shaped the early chapters.

2. It contradicts what we now know. The early parts of Genesis follow an ancient Sumerian style of tablet writing.
Yes, that's my point – early Genesis was framed by, and incorporated data from, older texts.

I'm quite happy to let the DH go – as you point out, and I agree, the Wellhausen theory has been discredited, and current scholarship holds a variety of views, but nearly all agree on a much later dating of the texts, to the 5th-3rd centuries before Christ.

What is genius then, is that these older mythic strands survived at all, that the roots of Abrahamic polytheism remain visible in the texts, that strands like the mention of giants, floods and so on, initially part of the common history of a people, were incorporated, albeit under revision in light of more recent outlooks, in such a manner that their ancient roots remain.

Noah's account of raising an altar after the flood, for example, speaks of a far wiser, subtle and sophisticated deity than the ravening horde of gods who, driven mad by starvation, descended like a cloud of flies on the offerings of the earlier accounts.

That 'the sons of God (elohim) walked with the daughters of men' (6:2) and produced 'giants', the nephilim is about all that remains of the myths and legends of demigods and heroes that populated the ancient tales.

8. This leads into the absurdity concerning the use of Yahweh and Elohim. Some of the authors used both. Some used them at the same time. God has been referred to as Yahweh Elohim. No explanation given. The DH insists that authorship can be divided partially based on these two names. That fails miserably.
OK, but the evidence remains that Elhoim derives from those same ancient references, the plural form possibly in reference to the children of the Canaanite supreme deity El.

Jahweh is much more complicated and interesting, but again there are suggestions of an Arabian origin, a particular deity – as you point out – brought north along the caravan routes between Egypt and Canaan.

10. The explanation for Elohim and Yahweh is very simple. Elohim is what God is and Yahweh is who He is.
That's certainly elegant, but it doesn't explain origins.

As I say, I'm not wedded to the DH, but I do believe the ancient tales, carried orally and then written down, underwent a process of revision across the centuries as the people moved from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism, and a particular revision in the post-exilic period to affirm a cultural identity focussed on the Temple at Jerusalem.

How many hands, and how many schools, I'll leave for the scholars to work out.

Yes, we probably agree more than disagree.

1. I am referring to the tablet style of writing in Genesis. This style was first noticed by Percy Wiseman. His writings inspired the Wiseman Hypothesis. He noticed that from 3000 BCE to 2000 BCE the Sumerians had a tablet style of writing and record-keeping. Many of these tablets were written by people who wanted their family history to be recorded and preserved by their descendants.
Each tablet ended with a "colophon". This colophon was separated from the rest of the words in the tablet by a few spaces. It often gave a date, let the reader know if there was another tablet, often gave the author's name, and often gave a quick summary letting you know that the story was finished. This same style exists in the beginning of Genesis.
Here are some examples in Genesis of the tablets:

Genesis 2:4: “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth ….”
Genesis 5:1: “This is the book of the generations of Adam ….”
Genesis 6:9: “These are the generations of Noah ….”
Genesis 10:1: “These are the generations of the sons of Noah ….”
Genesis 11:10: “These are the generations of Shem ….”
Genesis 11:27: “These are the generations of Terah ….”
Genesis 25:12: “These are the generations of Ishmael ….

His hypothesis also explained a question that has gone unanswered for quite a long time. Why does the Bible start talking about the generations of a patriarch yet not mention this patriarch in the generation list? For example: After reading "these are the generations of Jacob" we actually read all about Joseph. That's because the words "these are the generations of Jacob" are the colophon of a previous tablet. It is a summary NOT an introduction.
This style of writing was all but abandoned around 2000 BCE. Yet it reappeared almost 2000 years later in the book of Genesis. The proposed explanation is that the Hebrew people preserved old writings from that time period or earlier.
This would also mean that these people mentioned in the Bible very well may have been the original authors. This is strengthened by the fact that all of the authors lived during the events that they wrote about. None of the events happened past the life span of each author.

The Hebrews were the only ones who preserved this ancient style. There is no logical reason for doing so, that is unless someone is simply copying down an old story. The Babylonians and Assyrians didn't preserve this style of writing when they copied the stories of old. This is why it has been suggested that the Hebrews are citing an older story, not copying one from these other cultures.

You offer a proposal that the Hebrews' story is dependent on an early Mesopotamian myth. I'm giving you reason to believe that the story that the Hebrews preserved is older than the Epic of Gilgamesh. But I assume we both agree that the stories appear to have originated in that region. I argue that the Hebrews did a better job of preserving the original version of that story.

2. One thing you and I both agree on is how fascinating these stories truly are.

3. The earlier uses of Elohim could be its own thread as well. We both know that the Hebrews for quite a while worshipped pagan deities. We have evidence that some of them equated Elohim with Baal. We have evidence that they also worshipped Seth as a god (not the Egyptian Set). Scripture records their past pagan beliefs and doesn't hide their desire to return to these gods. Does this mean that "Elohim" was borrowed from pagan religions? Or could it mean that Elohim was converted into a pagan deity just like Cain, Seth, Eve, etc.?

I believe we will learn the truth soon. You can leave it to the scholars. I will leave it to the archaeologists.

 

[Thomas]

That doesn't mean that people didn't believe all sorts of things .. they still do.

That's rather the whole point?

 

[Thomas]

This style of writing was all but abandoned around 2000 BCE. Yet it reappeared almost 2000 years later in the book of Genesis. The proposed explanation is that the Hebrew people preserved old writings from that time period or earlier.

OK. And the Adamic Myth hypothesis suggests that the Hebrew people preserved the old stories as well as the old writings.

I've looked briefly at the hypothesis – thanks for introducing me to it – I see it is a viable theory, more attractive in some respects than the document hypothesis which seems to have had its day. But I see no reason to reject the idea that ancient Mesopotamian folk stories were incorporated into Genesis – they were 'their' tales as much as anyone else's?

I see it supports a theory of dependence (Hebrew set in a wider culture), but that does not necessarily infer a theory of origin?

Nor does it refute the idea of subsequent revision?

This would also mean that these people mentioned in the Bible very well may have been the original authors.

But may also not have been. We don't know. And again, this does not mean the narrative didn't undergo revision.

This is strengthened by the fact that all of the authors lived during the events that they wrote about. None of the events happened past the life span of each author.

That's a claim that cannot be validated – therefore it's not a fact at all.

As the Brave search engine states:
"An advantage over the documentary hypothesis is that the Wiseman hypothesis presents a list of falsifiable authors rather than a number of unnamed scribes. It also incorporates known conventions of ancient writing." (my emphasis)

Wiseman accepts that Moses, compiling the books, edited the materials, which had been translated from the original tongues as they were handed down over time. It cannot preclude other edits, either prior to, or subsequently.

The Hebrews were the only ones who preserved this ancient style.

Does not itself invalidate the dependence theory.

The Samaritan have their Pentateuch, and arguably, their version is the more original, as Biblical Hebrew evolved from interaction with the Babylonians during the captivity – Hebrew is from the Babylonian Ashuri script derived from their Aramaic alphabet, while the Samaritans use a Paleo-Hebrew in use by the Israelites prior to the captivity ...

... nothing big in difference, except:
"And when it so happens that LORD God brings you to the land of Canaan, which you are coming to possess, you shall set up there for you great stones and plaster them with plaster and you write on the stones all words of this law. And it becomes for you that across the Jordan you shall raise these stones, which I command you today, in mountain Gerizim. And you build there the altar to the LORD God of you. Altar of stones. Not you shall wave on them iron. With whole stones you shall build the altar to LORD God of you. And you bring on it ascend offerings to LORD God of you, and you sacrifice peace offerings, and you eat there and you rejoice before the face of the LORD God of you. The mountain this is across the Jordan behind the way of the rising of the sun, in the land of Canaan who is dwelling in the desert before the Galgal, beside Alvin-Mara, before Sechem." (Interlinear Pentateuch)

Wiki notes:
"... In 1946, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, which include the oldest known versions of the Torah. In Deuteronomy 27:4–7, the Dead Sea scroll fragments bring "Gerizim" instead of "Ebal", indicating that the Samaritan version was likely the original reading."

It goes on:
– In Numbers 12:1, the Samaritan Pentateuch refers to Moses' wife as kaashet, which translates as 'the beautiful woman', while the Jewish version and the Jewish commentaries suggest that the word used was Kushi, meaning 'black woman' or 'Cushite woman'. For the Samaritans, therefore, Moses had only one wife, Zipporah, throughout his whole life, while Jewish sources generally understand that Moses had two wives, Zipporah and a second, unnamed Cushite woman.
– The Samaritan Pentateuch uses less anthropomorphic language in descriptions of God, with intermediaries performing actions that the Jewish version attributes directly to God. Where the Jewish text describes Yahweh as a "man of war" (Exodus 15:3), the Samaritan has "hero of war", a phrase applied to spiritual beings.
– In Numbers 23:4, the Samaritan text reads "The Angel of God found Balaam", in contrast with the Jewish text, which reads "And God met Balaam."
– In Genesis 50:23, the Jewish text says that Joseph's grandchildren were born "upon the knees of Joseph", while the Samaritan text says they were born "in the days of Joseph".

– In about 34 instances, the Samaritan Pentateuch has repetitions in one section of text that was also found in other parts of the Pentateuch. Such repetitions are also implied or presupposed in the Jewish text, but not explicitly recorded in it. For example, the Samaritan text in the Book of Exodus on multiple occasions records Moses repeating to Pharaoh exactly what God had previously instructed Moses to tell him, which makes the text look repetitious, in comparison with the Jewish text.
– In other occasions, the Samaritan Pentateuch has subjects, prepositions, particles, appositives, including the repetition of words and phrases within a single passage, that are absent from the Jewish text.
Which suggests to me the original text was edited to cut out the repetitions. And also that errors crept in ...

The Babylonians and Assyrians didn't preserve this style of writing when they copied the stories of old. This is why it has been suggested that the Hebrews are citing an older story, not copying one from these other cultures.

I'm arguing the stories were generic to pre-Hebrew culture.

I'm giving you reason to believe that the story that the Hebrews preserved is older than the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I don't accept your reasoning. Too much assumption without evidence. Too much suggests otherwise.

The earlier uses of Elohim could be its own thread as well. We both know that the Hebrews for quite a while worshipped pagan deities. We have evidence that some of them equated Elohim with Baal. We have evidence that they also worshipped Seth as a god (not the Egyptian Set). Scripture records their past pagan beliefs and doesn't hide their desire to return to these gods. Does this mean that "Elohim" was borrowed from pagan religions? Or could it mean that Elohim was converted into a pagan deity just like Cain, Seth, Eve, etc.?

I followed the etymological trail? El was a term in use for God before Abraham?

You can leave it to the scholars. I will leave it to the archaeologists.

Archaeologists are scholars. They use the scholars' method of presenting their theories – thesis, antithesis, responses to objections, summation, peer review. Wiseman was an amateur – but according to his son, "he carefully checked his theories with competent scholars" (Foreword in Clues To Creation In Genesis, P. J Wiseman, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London, 1977, vii)

I don't see why you have a bee in your bonnet about scholars?

 

[moralorel]

OK. And the Adamic Myth hypothesis suggests that the Hebrew people preserved the old stories as well as the old writings.

I've looked briefly at the hypothesis – thanks for introducing me to it – I see it is a viable theory, more attractive in some respects than the document hypothesis which seems to have had its day. But I see no reason to reject the idea that ancient Mesopotamian folk stories were incorporated into Genesis – they were 'their' tales as much as anyone else's?

I see it supports a theory of dependence (Hebrew set in a wider culture), but that does not necessarily infer a theory of origin?

Nor does it refute the idea of subsequent revision?


But may also not have been. We don't know. And again, this does not mean the narrative didn't undergo revision.


That's a claim that cannot be validated – therefore it's not a fact at all.

As the Brave search engine states:
"An advantage over the documentary hypothesis is that the Wiseman hypothesis presents a list of falsifiable authors rather than a number of unnamed scribes. It also incorporates known conventions of ancient writing." (my emphasis)

Wiseman accepts that Moses, compiling the books, edited the materials, which had been translated from the original tongues as they were handed down over time. It cannot preclude other edits, either prior to, or subsequently.


Does not itself invalidate the dependence theory.

The Samaritan have their Pentateuch, and arguably, their version is the more original, as Biblical Hebrew evolved from interaction with the Babylonians during the captivity – Hebrew is from the Babylonian Ashuri script derived from their Aramaic alphabet, while the Samaritans use a Paleo-Hebrew in use by the Israelites prior to the captivity ...

... nothing big in difference, except:
"And when it so happens that LORD God brings you to the land of Canaan, which you are coming to possess, you shall set up there for you great stones and plaster them with plaster and you write on the stones all words of this law. And it becomes for you that across the Jordan you shall raise these stones, which I command you today, in mountain Gerizim. And you build there the altar to the LORD God of you. Altar of stones. Not you shall wave on them iron. With whole stones you shall build the altar to LORD God of you. And you bring on it ascend offerings to LORD God of you, and you sacrifice peace offerings, and you eat there and you rejoice before the face of the LORD God of you. The mountain this is across the Jordan behind the way of the rising of the sun, in the land of Canaan who is dwelling in the desert before the Galgal, beside Alvin-Mara, before Sechem." (Interlinear Pentateuch)

Wiki notes:
"... In 1946, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, which include the oldest known versions of the Torah. In Deuteronomy 27:4–7, the Dead Sea scroll fragments bring "Gerizim" instead of "Ebal", indicating that the Samaritan version was likely the original reading."

It goes on:
– In Numbers 12:1, the Samaritan Pentateuch refers to Moses' wife as kaashet, which translates as 'the beautiful woman', while the Jewish version and the Jewish commentaries suggest that the word used was Kushi, meaning 'black woman' or 'Cushite woman'. For the Samaritans, therefore, Moses had only one wife, Zipporah, throughout his whole life, while Jewish sources generally understand that Moses had two wives, Zipporah and a second, unnamed Cushite woman.
– The Samaritan Pentateuch uses less anthropomorphic language in descriptions of God, with intermediaries performing actions that the Jewish version attributes directly to God. Where the Jewish text describes Yahweh as a "man of war" (Exodus 15:3), the Samaritan has "hero of war", a phrase applied to spiritual beings.
– In Numbers 23:4, the Samaritan text reads "The Angel of God found Balaam", in contrast with the Jewish text, which reads "And God met Balaam."
– In Genesis 50:23, the Jewish text says that Joseph's grandchildren were born "upon the knees of Joseph", while the Samaritan text says they were born "in the days of Joseph".

– In about 34 instances, the Samaritan Pentateuch has repetitions in one section of text that was also found in other parts of the Pentateuch. Such repetitions are also implied or presupposed in the Jewish text, but not explicitly recorded in it. For example, the Samaritan text in the Book of Exodus on multiple occasions records Moses repeating to Pharaoh exactly what God had previously instructed Moses to tell him, which makes the text look repetitious, in comparison with the Jewish text.
– In other occasions, the Samaritan Pentateuch has subjects, prepositions, particles, appositives, including the repetition of words and phrases within a single passage, that are absent from the Jewish text.
Which suggests to me the original text was edited to cut out the repetitions. And also that errors crept in ...


I'm arguing the stories were generic to pre-Hebrew culture.


I don't accept your reasoning. Too much assumption without evidence. Too much suggests otherwise.


I followed the etymological trail? El was a term in use for God before Abraham?


Archaeologists are scholars. They use the scholars' method of presenting their theories – thesis, antithesis, responses to objections, summation, peer review. Wiseman was an amateur – but according to his son, "he carefully checked his theories with competent scholars" (Foreword in Clues To Creation In Genesis, P. J Wiseman, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London, 1977, vii)

I don't see why you have a bee in your bonnet about scholars?

I have been searching for the famous archaeologist who gave a summary of this matter. I can't find his name so I will have to paraphrase what he said. He claimed there are 3 explanations for the origins of the Hebrew faith. 1. They copied their beliefs from their neighbors, especially the Sumerians and Akkadians. He mentioned that this is the belief held by the majority. However, he brought up option 2. That the neighbors borrowed from the Hebrews. And then he brought up option 3. That ALL of these cultures' stories came from one original story. He claimed that there is EQUAL evidence for all three options. And his opinion was that it was some sort of a mix of all three options.

I agree with his conclusion. While I believe that option #2 is more likely, I also admit that his opinion is quite likely. It's a mixture of all 3 explanations.

I wasn't arguing that it is a fact that these authors were the patriarchs. In the other Mesopotamian writings the authors wrote of stories that were outside of their lifetimes. In Genesis the authors only wrote of events that happened during their lifetimes. This indicates that these tablets 1. were written by these authors and 2. Genesis follows this tablet style of record-keeping.

I don't accept the consensus because it is "too much assumption without evidence".

Yes Wiseman was an amateur. But his work has been subject to peer review and has been gaining momentum in archaeology. His work has been updated and revised. One of the new additions is the belief that Abraham compiled Genesis. It's a long story about how this conclusion came forward, but it explains why Abraham didn't have a tablet.

The Hebrews preserving an old style of record-keeping, one that wasn't even used by their home, does actually indicate that they held onto an old story. You are correct that it doesn't invalidate your opinion, but it sure does give evidence for the preservation of an old story. Feel free to explain how and why they had access to such an ancient style of record-keeping.

I am quite familiar with the studies of the evolution of the Hebrew language. We learn more every day about this matter. I already spoke about this earlier. The script is believed to have started as far back as the Akkadian empire. It bears no resemblance to Sumerian writing, which makes the mystery of why the Sumerian style of record-keeping was used.

While it is off subject, I'd like to add that it appears Moses's second wife may have been a princess. You may be familiar with that story. But that story is for another time. I have reasons for believing that Moses not only had a second wife, but that she was royalty. The Samaritans likely were incorrect. I was hoping to add a thread about this matter some time. I had to read about the effects Babylonian captivity would have had on their language and writings while researching the truth behind this discrepancy.

I think you forget that if I do have a specialty, it is languages. We do not know the etymology of the word "Elohim". Some have ASSUMED that it is related to the word "El". We don't know. And just in case you don't believe me, just go to etymonline.com. It's judgement on the origins is this:

Elohim​

a name of God in the Bible, c. 1600, from Hebrew, plural (of majesty?) of Eloh "God" (cognate with Allah), a word of unknown etymology, perhaps an augmentation of El "God," also of unknown origin. Generally taken as singular, the use of this word instead of Yahveh is taken by biblical scholars as an important clue to authorship in the Old Testament, hence Elohist (1830; Elohistic is from 1841), title of the supposed writer of passages of the Pentateuch where the word is used.

Sorry, no dice.

I don't have a "bonnet in my hat" concerning scholars. I have had to put up with the tons of college students who come out of their universities and who become experts on Hebrew and even Native American history. They became "scholars' by just repeating the same thing they were told over and over without asking questions. I have a problem with people who just listen to the consensus and don't think for themselves. It just so happens that so many scholars are fine with this approach to truth.
I love scholars so long as they are fine with questions about their own work and can answer those questions. I have a problem with suppression of critical thinking.

 

[moralorel]

This feels relevant.

"Hypotheses are basic to sound research and are eminently practical; they are constructed, not as a substitute for facts, but to suggest possibilities and to guide further investigation. They should not dictate conclusions." (George Mendenhall).

I have just been suggesting different possibilities to other scholars' hypothesis.

 

[Thomas]

... 3 explanations for the origins of the Hebrew faith. 1. They copied their beliefs from their neighbors, especially the Sumerians and Akkadians. He mentioned that this is the belief held by the majority. However, he brought up option 2. That the neighbors borrowed from the Hebrews. And then he brought up option 3. That ALL of these cultures' stories came from one original story. He claimed that there is EQUAL evidence for all three options. And his opinion was that it was some sort of a mix of all three options.

OK ... let me offer a response in reverse order:
Point 3: Original stories
This is how I see it – all the various cultural traditions derive from a common stock of stories handed down from unknown times.
If we look to the Ubaid Era (say 6500-4000BCE), we see temple structures and the worship of gods. We see main and side-chambers, cult niches and altars. The Uruk Era (say 4000–3000BCE) the emergence of Mesopotamian religion. Uruk was one of the world’s first urban centers. The E-anna temple complex was dedicated to Inanna (later Ishtar), patron of Uruk. Temples occupy the high ground and were seats of the Divine Presence. Priest-Kings serve as a divine intermediaries, the general belief being that humans were created to serve the gods.

Point 2: That their neighbours borrowed from the Hebrews
Biblical tradition has Abram born in Ur and receiving a divine calling to leave his homeland (c. 2000-1900BCE?) and travel towards Canaan.

Pharaoh Merneptah (1220BCE) refers to the Israelites, a people in Canaan. This suggests they emerged as a distinct group in Canaan during the late Bronze/early Iron Age (1200-800BCE), possibly as a subset of Canaanite-speaking pastoral nomads. The Gezer Tablet (c.1000BCE) is debatably Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew.

Hebrew traditions would have been shaped by their Mesopotamian cultural heritage. I'm not saying there was no interchange between the Hebrews and their neighbours, but to say that the Hebrews had widespread influence across cultures that pre-date them, and did so leaving next to no trace of their origins or influence (other than the Bible), is a hard road.

Point 1: They copied their beliefs from their neighbours, especially the Sumerians and Akkadians.
I see it as sharing these beliefs, the ownership of which was their common heritage.

I hold, contra to you I think, that these beliefs were written down by cultures that predate the Hebrews, however the ancestors of the Hebrews were of those cultures, and their ancestors brought their customs and practices with them, these tales being the raw materials with which the Hebrews shaped their own cultural and religious identity.

(Because a belief is held by the many, I do not assume it is thereby wrong. Nor does bad scholarship invalidate scholarship as such.)

In the other Mesopotamian writings the authors wrote of stories that were outside of their lifetimes. In Genesis the authors only wrote of events that happened during their lifetimes. This indicates that these tablets 1. were written by these authors and 2. Genesis follows this tablet style of record-keeping.

That's a huge assumption without support, and I would have thought impossible to prove.

The Hebrews preserving an old style of record-keeping, one that wasn't even used by their home, does actually indicate that they held onto an old story. You are correct that it doesn't invalidate your opinion, but it sure does give evidence for the preservation of an old story. Feel free to explain how and why they had access to such an ancient style of record-keeping.

I don't dispute that at all. I'm simply saying the Hebrews inherited a style and a story that pre-dates them, and adjusted the story to bring it into line with their own self-identity, as all cultures do – and this process of adjustment continued to the post-exilic era.

While it is off subject, I'd like to add that it appears Moses's second wife may have been a princess.

OK. Until I see the evidence, I'll stick with the older Samaritan text.

We do not know the etymology of the word "Elohim".

Nor El Shaddai, nor Jahweh, for that matter. All that the evidence does point to is that same old 'from the mists of antiquity'...

 

[moralorel]

OK ... let me offer a response in reverse order:
Point 3: Original stories
This is how I see it – all the various cultural traditions derive from a common stock of stories handed down from unknown times.
If we look to the Ubaid Era (say 6500-4000BCE), we see temple structures and the worship of gods. We see main and side-chambers, cult niches and altars. The Uruk Era (say 4000–3000BCE) the emergence of Mesopotamian religion. Uruk was one of the world’s first urban centers. The E-anna temple complex was dedicated to Inanna (later Ishtar), patron of Uruk. Temples occupy the high ground and were seats of the Divine Presence. Priest-Kings serve as a divine intermediaries, the general belief being that humans were created to serve the gods.

Point 2: That their neighbours borrowed from the Hebrews
Biblical tradition has Abram born in Ur and receiving a divine calling to leave his homeland (c. 2000-1900BCE?) and travel towards Canaan.

Pharaoh Merneptah (1220BCE) refers to the Israelites, a people in Canaan. This suggests they emerged as a distinct group in Canaan during the late Bronze/early Iron Age (1200-800BCE), possibly as a subset of Canaanite-speaking pastoral nomads. The Gezer Tablet (c.1000BCE) is debatably Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew.

Hebrew traditions would have been shaped by their Mesopotamian cultural heritage. I'm not saying there was no interchange between the Hebrews and their neighbours, but to say that the Hebrews had widespread influence across cultures that pre-date them, and did so leaving next to no trace of their origins or influence (other than the Bible), is a hard road.

Point 1: They copied their beliefs from their neighbours, especially the Sumerians and Akkadians.
I see it as sharing these beliefs, the ownership of which was their common heritage.

I hold, contra to you I think, that these beliefs were written down by cultures that predate the Hebrews, however the ancestors of the Hebrews were of those cultures, and their ancestors brought their customs and practices with them, these tales being the raw materials with which the Hebrews shaped their own cultural and religious identity.

(Because a belief is held by the many, I do not assume it is thereby wrong. Nor does bad scholarship invalidate scholarship as such.)


That's a huge assumption without support, and I would have thought impossible to prove.


I don't dispute that at all. I'm simply saying the Hebrews inherited a style and a story that pre-dates them, and adjusted the story to bring it into line with their own self-identity, as all cultures do – and this process of adjustment continued to the post-exilic era.


OK. Until I see the evidence, I'll stick with the older Samaritan text.


Nor El Shaddai, nor Jahweh, for that matter. All that the evidence does point to is that same old 'from the mists of antiquity'...

1. I don't see really anything worth arguing against in your first three points. I don't completely disagree. However there is one issue. The Hebrews, by their own accord, were a small group of people. So if this is true, which scripture illustrates, they were always a small group of people. The exceptions would be when Abraham was alive and when Jacob's family grew. So the amount of influence the Hebrews would have on their neighbors would be minimal. If Noah did exist then it would explain why the ANE stories mention rulers trying to gain favor from the Noah figure of the stories. Abraham explains Hammurabi. And despite the claims of scholars, Jacob along with Joseph and the Israelites appear to have made their mark in Egypt.
A note I'd like to add is something I found mentioned by an archaeologist. He pointed out that the stories we have found in the ANE were found in ancient temples and ancient libraries. We don't really start seeing the Hebrew stories until they started building temples and libraries. So who would have preserved these old stories of the Hebrews?

But this is speculation. So I'm really not trying to push it hard. But in summary, a small group of people would not have much influence on a huge culture like the Sumerians. But if I am to be objective, I would say the truth lies in a mixture of the 3 possibilities that I had mentioned earlier.

2. I think you're looking too much into my point about lifespans. If the authors had written about events that happened outside of their lifetimes the Wiseman Hypothesis would be unlikely. It's not a pillar of evidence. No need to go all Samson on these pillars.

3. I find it quite plausible that the Hebrews held onto stories that predated them. Not my point. I'm just confused how and why they did it. Secular scholars avoid trying to explain this point. I think they should look into this mystery instead of ignoring it.

4. Moses's wife is a subject that deserves its own thread. But supposedly, according to Jewish historians, Moses was sent to conquer Ethiopia (the Cushites). Egypt had suffered multiple defeats. So the Pharoah sent his adopted son to Ethiopia with the hopes that he would be killed. Moses was able to defeat the Ethiopians. An Ethiopian princess admired Moses and as part of a peace treaty with Egypt, she married Moses. As you may know the Ethiopians have a history with the Hebrews. You may also know that the Egyptians have record of a member of royalty who had the same experience with Ethiopia. This same member was not born into the royal family. In both instances the Cushite princess stayed in Cush to resume her royal duties. Hopefully someday I will start a thread on the matter. But I'm not trying to push the story. The story even has an explanation for how Moses knew how to deal with venomous snakes.

5. "Elohim" is actually part of the Sumerian problem. There are Sumerian words that were definitely not of Sumerian origin. These words are always names of people, places, landmarks, etc. There is zero archaeological evidence that someone occupied the Sumerian lands before the Sumerians arrived. So who inspired these words? We have no clue.

 

[TheLightWithin]

10. The explanation for Elohim and Yahweh is very simple. Elohim is what God is and Yahweh is who He is.

That's certainly elegant, but it doesn't explain origins.

@Thomas & @moralorel

What does this mean? Can you say more about this?
(I mean this specifically- you've both said a lot on closely related thoughts but I want to hone in on the who and what god is question)

 

[TheLightWithin]

You should start a thread about the scholastic method. I'd love to see it.

That would be great!