[Dormant] moved to !historymemes@piefed.social

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

One of the first things that scholars noted about the Torah/Old Testament was different texts using Yahweh vs El to refer to the monotheistic God of Judaism.

As you point out, that line that is translated as Gods is Elohim, the plural of God.

Fast forward through hundreds of years of linguistic and archaeological research and the picture now looks something like this:

The ancient Canaanite patheon is headed by its primary leader and father El, or El Elyon (God Most High).

Ashera: the female goddess of fertility, consort of El, 'mother of all living'.

Ba'al / Hadad: El's most beloved son, associated with lighting , wind, rain, and also fertility. He is later referred to as Beelzebub in the Torah.

Mot: Another son of El, god of death and the underworld. Later biblically referenced as Molech.

Anat: Goddess of hunting and war, either sibling, lover or both of Ba'al / Hadad.

Shapash: Sun goddess, messenger of El.

...

Yahweh appears much later (8th or 9th century BCE, compared to 18th century BCE for El, 12th century BCE at the latest for the rest of the pantheon) in Israel/Palestine/Canaan.

He is referred to as Yahweh, but also as Adonai (literally meaning My/The Lord), which was previously usually a title for Ba'al / Hadad, but Yahweh also has many of the attributes of El and is sometimes referred to as El (God) or El Elyon (God Most High).

...

Basically, Yahwism started as a cult or sect of Canaanite religion in the 8th or 9th century that variously cobbled together the some of the Canaanite pantheon of Gods into one grand and only God, while declaring those who worshipped the pantheon of Gods individually as idolaters and followers of false gods (the Bull is the symbol of El, Beelezebub and Molech are now demons).

Yahwism seems to have become much more popular after the Israelites captured by the Babylonians were allowed to return to Israel by the Persians (who conquered Babylon) in the 5th century BCE.

The theory is that this exposure to Persian Zoroastrianism, which basically has one powerful good god and one powerful bad god, further oriented Yahwism toward becoming the monotheistic Judaism.

parent

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Ok wow. That is above and beyond, and downright fascinating as Hell (no pun intended).

This is the kind of stuff that blows me away, since modern Christianity (at least them Southern Baptists) seem to gloss over. My (lack of) religious beliefs would probably be a lot different if they taught all of this stuff and not that crap from the King James.

parent

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A11-31&version=NIV

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 years ago*

My favorite bit of absolute nonsense from a whole bunch of American Christian groups is that they developed their own theology to explain how/why abortion is evil.

Problem: The New Testament never mentions abortion. You cannot find a direct mention of it there, you have to go to extra biblical sources or non canonical writings from the first few centuries AD/CE.

Modern American Christian Theologians will say that it didn't need to be mentioned, because they just carried forward the common Jewish beliefs of the time.

But uh... most modern Jews believe that life begins at first breath, ie, birth, and generally do not have anywhere near as hard a line against abortion, and they mostly claim theological descendancy from those Jews the Christians are referring to.

Oh, and the Old Testament actually directly spells out when you are supposed to force a woman to miscarry, ie, perform an abortion.

Basically the set up here is: What if a man suspects his wife cheated on him?

Well, you bring her before the priest, complete with proper offerings, and the priest concocts a potion of dust, holy water, (referred to as bitter water) and the ensuing ritual:

19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.

20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water.

24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her.

.. The priest then takes the ritual offerings, does some more steps with them in the ritual...

27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

...

Yeah so basically the Bible, in the Old Testament, actually specifically ordains and condones abortion when a woman is suspected of infidelity.

Some will argue that this is a mistranslation and what is actually being described is uterine prolapse (which would almost certainly kill the woman), or that this is all metaphorical or something, that its too vague and only refers to an inflammation of the thigh or belly...

But it seems kind of obvious (to me and the NIV translators) what its referring to in this context, and ancient Hebrew very often relies on greater context for words to have more specific meanings.

parent

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world [S] 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

That's an interesting point - the thing is that early Judaism is considered by many scholars to have been henotheistic (believing in other gods, but not worshipping them), but that interpretation of Judaism was no longer dominant by the time Christianity formed, and even early Christians write of pagan gods as either 'demons' or figments of human imagination.

parent

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I also find it interesting that the Holy Trinity skirts the rule against worshipping other gods by loopholing that God is actually three “persons”.

Then there’s the Catholic Church’s use of idolatry with their worship of Mother Mary and other saints. But now I’m really nitpicking and probably going off the reservation.

parent

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

God probably just gives them a pass since they invented the most metal idolatry with the skulls embedded everywhere and such. Think about it for just a second.