Israel as "occupiers" and other bull poop

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The professor quoted by Sooner is not doubting there was "an Exodus." It's more likely than not that a leader who came to be called Moses if he was not then so called led a branch of Hebrews formerly under Egyptian control into the Sinai where they wandered for some years, finally winding up in Canaan. And that this event turned out to be momentous in terms of establishng ancient Israel. But what was probably more much momentous is the generation of the mythical interpretation of that event.

The analogy to the Iliad is quite precise and is actually an acknowledgement of the Pentateuch's limited historicity. There's no reason to not believe there was not a "Trojan war" (maybe not called that then) or several similar wars between Greeks and more sophisticated and culterally advanced inhabitants of Asia Minor, probably bronze age proto Hellenistic peoples like the barbaric long haired "Greeks" or Achaeans themselves who laid siege to Troy in the Iliad. There is even substantial archeological and geographic evidence to corrorate the Iliad (compare the Book of Mormon, for a contrast).

But Achilles and his personality and interactions with the Greek gods are not historical, nor is even his character as we know it, and the same is true for Agamemnon, Odysseus, Helen, Paris, and the others. They are demonstraby mythical, just as are the specifics of Moses' and Aaron's and Joshua's characters and personalities, parting of the Red Sea, the burning bush, etc. are mythical by any empirical standard available.

The Iliad and The Old Testament have very similar claims to historicity. Some three-thousand years later, the comparison seems quite exact. Moreover, at this snapshot in history they are neck and neck as to which is the most important book ever written in terms of its influence and as a result the cultures that it begat.

I trust and Oxford educated young man is not a Biblical literalist. That would be really freakish.

SU -the 'purest' orientalist of CougarGuard.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

SU -the 'purest' orientalist of CougarGuard.

Corrected typos.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

So what means do you believe are justified in exercising the "divine claim" on the land?

The Palestinians believe they have a divine claim also. Are you not bothered by the concept of a "My God is greater than your God" game resulting in violence?

Before I answer, let me make clear that I wasn't trying to apply the 'divine claim' as a justification for ANYTHING Israeli's have done.


Since I don't believe a current prophet resides in Israel, I don't believe violent means are justified in exercising their Divine claim on the land. Does that answer your question?

I am, indeed, bothered by violence in the name of religion. At the same time, as a Mormon, I accept the God of Israel is my God. Further, I believe that He did indeed give the Holy Land to Israel, and I therefore believe Israel does indeed have a "more correct" claim to the land.

Still, I recognize that to the Palestinians, their claim is "more correct", and I don't believe violence is the way to resolve the dispute.


Am I conflicted on this issue? You bet.

[Oxcoug]

"believes every point in the Biblical narrative to be an accurate technical recounting of every thing that happened" - then no.

If you mean "accepts that the general Biblical narrative reflects a historical sequence of events which did, in fact, occur and characters which did, for the most part, exist" - then absolutely.

That position is as defensible as any other.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

"believes every point in the Biblical narrative to be an accurate technical recounting of every thing that happened" - then no.

If you mean "accepts that the general Biblical narrative reflects a historical sequence of events which did, in fact, occur and characters which did, for the most part, exist" - then absolutely.

That position is as defensible as any other.

So the earth is 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve were the first humans, and Arabs are all descendants of Ishmael? That position is as defensible as any other?

[Oxcoug]

I explicitly said that I do not accept that it is an "accurate technical recounting" in the details.

The creation narrative is the easiest to poke technical holes in.

But do I accept that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Jonathan were real historical figures? Absolutely. Give me any defensible reason not to.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

But do I accept that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Jonathan were real historical figures? Absolutely. Give me any defensible reason not to.

You have no more objective reason to believe these characters existed than that Achilles existed. When the events in question occurred or purportedly occurred the Jews didn't even have the written language that would ultimately be required to reduce the OT to writing. The OT emerged over time as stories handed down, a highly inaccurate mode of transmission. In fact that process itself gave them a fully developed written language. The demonstrably false elements in the OT such as the creation story and magic world view cast doubt on (create credibility problems concerning) the veracity of the specific characters. The creaters of the OT didn't even appreciate empirical truth or value it as we do. We learned that from the Iliad's posterity.

The only thing the external evidence corroborates is the general sweep of the Jews' history, not the individual OT characters doings or even their existence (as I read even Nibley ackowledge at one time).

The Iliad is a very precise analogy.

[Oxcoug]

dates written Hebrew to the time of David - i.e. the 10th century B.C.

Meaning that at least two of the figures I mentioned (David and Solomon) would have lived inside of known written tradition.

That aside - Moses is far more credible as a historical figure than Achilles. His narrative reveals an utterly human portrait that can exist independent of a mythology. Achilles' narrative is mostly battle-fed quasi-divine mythology.

Very different.

That said -I have zero reason to believe that a figure, a warrior leader, like Achilles didn't exist. In fact, given that Troy itself has been validated there is good reason to assume (unless proven otherwise) that there is some basis as well for the principal characters mentioned in the legend.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

dates written Hebrew to the time of David - i.e. the 10th century B.C.

Meaning that at least two of the figures I mentioned (David and Solomon) would have lived inside of known written tradition.

That aside - Moses is far more credible as a historical figure than Achilles. His narrative reveals an utterly human portrait that can exist independent of a mythology. Achilles' narrative is mostly battle-fed quasi-divine mythology.

Very different.

That said -I have zero reason to believe that a figure, a warrior leader, like Achilles didn't exist. In fact, given that Troy itself has been validated there is good reason to assume (unless proven otherwise) that there is some basis as well for the principal characters mentioned in the legend.

Solomon and David are in a different category from Abraham and Isaac and likewise the principal characters of the Iliad. Perhaps some names coincide. Who knows? We don't have anything but the texts to support that the characterizations are anything other than literary characters. Historical fiction. Who cares anyway?

[Oxcoug]

constitutes a continuum.

At one end you have Solomon and David - pretty high on the historicity scale. On the other you have Abe and his immediate progeny - high on the visibility but low on the clear footprint.

In the middle is Moses who is too close to written history, in my estimation, to be a pure invention - but far enough from it that there are almost certain to be abundant embellishments and exaggerations and convenient adaptations.

But the tradition for all of them is far too rooted, far too strong to be pure national imagination. And do not underestimate the ability of verbally transmitted traditions to stay relatively true to their original form.