Is Judaism based on earlier religions?

[kenan]

It seems awfully likely that Judaism was based upon earlier religions such as atenism (some Psalm 104 seems to be based off The Great Hymn to the Aten), and it draws upon the mythologies of various cultures surrounding the region of the Levant, such as Babylonian (the whole Epic of Gilgamesh thing). What do people here think of that?

 

[Vince]

God had given Divine truth to other groups besides the Jews, and the corrupted remnants of that truth survived in various false religions.

A good example is the flood myths. The Flood literally occurred, and as Noah's descendants became more corrupt, the true story was twisted into their new religious beliefs.

Incidentally, the Gilgamesh Epic is so different from the Creation story that the two can't even be related.

 

[kenan]

God had given Divine truth to other groups besides the Jews, and the corrupted remnants of that truth survived in various false religions.

A good example is the flood myths. The Flood literally occurred, and as Noah's descendants became more corrupt, the true story was twisted into their new religious beliefs.

Incidentally, the Gilgamesh Epic is so different from the Creation story that the two can't even be related.

Can that be argued historically, or is it speculation? What about the similarities between Atenism and Judaism?

 

[Vince]

The flood myths were widespread, while most myths were only local. This indicates that the Flood actually occurred, and the story later got corrupted.

 

[Vince]

Akhenaten made worship of Aten the sun god the state religion for twenty years. He eventually banned worship of any other gods, teaching that the sun god had given him total authority over Egypt. After his death, the old religion was restored. The Jews never believed that the sun was God, nor did they believe that the worship of God centered around Pharaoh.

 

[stovebolts]

On other thing to consider is that after Noah, Abram was "Called out" from Chaldea and Israel did not become a nation until over 430 years of bondage in Egypt, and even then only after wandering in the desert for 40 years. Think of it like this. About 70 people entered Egypt (Gen 46:27) and I've heard estimates of around 4 million who were part of the Exodus.

As far as being considered a legitimate Nation, this was not fully established until Saul became King. (1 Sam 11:15)

So you see, it's not that Judaism was based on earlier religions, rather, Israel was called out of other religions to be a light for all nations.

 

[wavy]

There is no evidence for Noah's Flood scientifically, and literarily speaking it's demonstrably dependent upon a Babylonian version of the myth.

The widespread notion of a flood sent by the gods would only show two things: 1) A flood of some proportions occurred. 2) All flood myths go back to the same myth, or perhaps a few.

Either way, there is zero support for the biblical account and if there is a historical basis for a cataclysmic flood of some sort in the ANE region, the biblical account holds no priority.

And yes, the religion of Israel evolved out the religions of the ANE.


Finis,
E.L.B.

 

[Vince]

Scientific evidence for the Flood includes the different strata (layers) of dirt. Scientists tell us that these strata were laid down separately. I have seen a photograph of a portion of strata that had been cut away, with a tree extending through more than one strata.

The strata were laid down by a universal Flood.

 

[cyberjosh]

It seems awfully likely that Judaism was based upon earlier religions such as atenism (some Psalm 104 seems to be based off The Great Hymn to the Aten), and it draws upon the mythologies of various cultures surrounding the region of the Levant, such as Babylonian (the whole Epic of Gilgamesh thing). What do people here think of that?

Descriptions of God as seen in Psalm 104 had entered common cultural and even political parlance in Canaan early on and can be seen in the language of the el Amarna Letters (ca. 1400 B.C.). Similar imagery may show cultural similarity/sharing of terminilogy but not necessarily dependance. Other Psalms that use similar terminology to descriptions of Ba'al have been shown to be polemical in style, in a sense saying "No, the true God Yahweh has these attributes, not the false god Ba'al," for example (a theme that is also especially prominent in the story of Elijah & the prophets of Ba'al). Read this article (with the example of Psalm 29 half-way down the page, the cultural factor, and the "similarity, not dependance" argument) for more discussion of such literary similarities with the surrounding culture as seen in the Psalms.

I hope that addresses some of your questions.

~Josh

 

[wavy]

Scientific evidence for the Flood includes the different strata (layers) of dirt. Scientists tell us that these strata were laid down separately. I have seen a photograph of a portion of strata that had been cut away, with a tree extending through more than one strata.

The strata were laid down by a universal Flood.

Uh...no, I don't think so.


Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

It seems awfully likely that Judaism was based upon earlier religions such as atenism (some Psalm 104 seems to be based off The Great Hymn to the Aten), and it draws upon the mythologies of various cultures surrounding the region of the Levant, such as Babylonian (the whole Epic of Gilgamesh thing). What do people here think of that?

Descriptions of God as seen in Psalm 104 had entered common cultural and even political parlance in Canaan early on and can be seen in the language of the el Amarna Letters (ca. 1400 B.C.). Similar imagery may show cultural similarity/sharing of terminilogy but not necessarily dependance. Other Psalms that use similar terminology to descriptions of Ba'al have been shown to be polemical in style, in a sense saying "No, the true God Yahweh has these attributes, not the false god Ba'al," for example (a theme that is also especially prominent in the story of Elijah & the prophets of Ba'al). Read this article (with the example of Psalm 29 half-way down the page, the cultural factor, and the "similarity, not dependance" argument) for more discussion of such literary similarities with the surrounding culture as seen in the Psalms.

I hope that addresses some of your questions.

~Josh

Wow, I must say I think that article is horrible. Snippets of quotes here and there and a simplistic, almost naive-like handling of the data. I find this quote particularly annoying:

Consistent with this observation, Alexander Heidel argued that “since the Old Testament was intended also for the gentile world, it is but natural that the biblical authors availed themselves of figures of speech and imagery with which also Israel’s neighbors were familiar, or which were at least easily understandable to themâ€Â

Wozwers, I don't even know how one would respond to this outlandish claim.

But unfortunately I have come to expect as much from the literature of apologetic organizations. There's just so much wrong about that article.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Vince]

Incidentally, it is difficult to find any historian who believes that Atenism, a short-term state religion, produced Judaism.

One time I saw a creationist on TV showing a lump of coal with a hammer imbedded in it. The coal had been formed by dead plants and animals under pressure and chemicals, settling around a man-made object as the Flood waters settled.

 

[kenan]

I really appreciate your posts guys; I have a hard time arguing the authenticity of the Bible elsewhere with people who are more familiar with ancient history. If I have any other queries, I'll post here instead of making a new thread.

Again, thanks for your input guys ;)

 

[wavy]

Incidentally, it is difficult to find any historian who believes that Atenism, a short-term state religion, produced Judaism.

Of course not. No single influence is responsible for Judaism.

One time I saw a creationist on TV showing a lump of coal with a hammer imbedded in it. The coal had been formed by dead plants and animals under pressure and chemicals, settling around a man-made object as the Flood waters settled.

My advice to you would be to quit watching TV and read up on geology. And by that I mean to read peer reviewed science.


Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

I really appreciate your posts guys; I have a hard time arguing the authenticity of the Bible elsewhere with people who are more familiar with ancient history. If I have any other queries, I'll post here instead of making a new thread.

Again, thanks for your input guys ;)

See the red highlight. That should tell you something right there. What you're doing is trying to defend something you yourself admit you are not equipped to defend; in other words, you're looking for ways to support a presupposition by not taking a neutral stance on the evidence to follow it where it leads.

This is very important. Because there is no such thing as the 'authenticity of the bible' . The bible is a variegated collection of ancient writings, some historical and others not so much. So everything has to be examined on a case by case basis.

Finis,
Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

Wow, I must say I think that article is horrible. Snippets of quotes here and there and a simplistic, almost naive-like handling of the data. I find this quote particularly annoying:

Consistent with this observation, Alexander Heidel argued that “since the Old Testament was intended also for the gentile world, it is but natural that the biblical authors availed themselves of figures of speech and imagery with which also Israel’s neighbors were familiar, or which were at least easily understandable to themâ€Â

Wozwers, I don't even know how one would respond to this outlandish claim.

But unfortunately I have come to expect as much from the literature of apologetic organizations. There's just so much wrong about that article.

Well, I think you would have to point out exactly which points you disagree with, but I pointed out the article not because of any presumed expertise which the writer may have had, but rather to glean the idea for the point I was making. Mr. Brantley has written a book which I own where he spends a entire chapter on these issues, not that it matters though since you appear to disagree with the premise (respectfully).

I sent you a page scan one time from my Archaeology Bible on the topic of the composition of the Song of Solomon which argued that from internal earmarks and literary style that it was written early and most likely was written during a time when literature flourished in the ANE. An excerpt from the page said:

"Oftentimes great literature flourishes during a period of national power and prosperity (e.g. Virgil wrote the Aeneid at one of the high points of Roman history, the Augustan Age). Thus the association of the Song of Songs with Solomon's era makes sense.
During the latter part of the second millenium B.C. a distinctive style of love poetry flourished in Egypt, in some ways strikingly similar to the Song of Songs. Although the message of the Song is different from that of the Egyptian material, it is clear that the Hebrew poetry uses some of the same literary conventions as that of the Egyptian poetry. First Kings 9:16 indicates that Solomon, had good relations with Egypt. It is reasonable to assume that this was a time of close communication and commerce between the two nations. Thus the Solomonic era is the very time at which we could most plausibly suggest that Egyptian love poetry came to be read and appreciated in the royal court of Israel."

The issue this time is not its dating but the fact of similarity and cultural influence. That is the basic point I wanted to make. Similarity, but not dependence.

As for the quote you take exception to: I have no idea of the context from which that quotation was taken, and I know the OT was primarily written for the Jews who were in covenant with Yahweh, but a case can be made within a defined scope for the message of many OT prophets having an international message and impact to/on surrounding nations. Once again, I would have to know your specific objections. It is actually a topic of interest to me, but perhaps warrants its own thread for a discussion in any depth.

Regards,

~Josh

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Zoroastrianism. It predates Judaism in recorded history and originated in the middle east around the same area as Judaism .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

 

[cyberjosh]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Zoroastrianism. It predates Judaism in recorded history and originated in the middle east around the same area as Judaism .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Don't believe everything on wikipedia. Judaism and Zoroastrianism did not develop in the same area. Zoroastrianism developed around Persia/Iran, and Jews would have had only late contact with them during the Exile. Your point about recorded history is also debatable if one accepts the traditional authorship of the Pentatuech by Moses (along with other early books like 1 & 2 Samuel) which would have been written hundreds of years before Zoroastrianism's founding. In Israel's times of apostasy they exhibited syncretic beliefs far more similar to the local Canaanite religion than some religion far beyond Babylon on the other side of Mesopotamia.

Do you have a specific theory of influence or any examples, or were you just musing? In short my thoughts are that it is unlikely that the OT Jewish religion was impacted in any real way by Zoroastrianism. I am aware that some mystery sects developed in late Judaism, but far too late to claim origins for seminal and foundational ideas of the Jewish faith.

Regards,

~Josh

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Zoroastrianism. It predates Judaism in recorded history and originated in the middle east around the same area as Judaism .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Don't believe everything on wikipedia. Judaism and Zoroastrianism did not develop in the same area. Zoroastrianism developed around Persia/Iran and Jews would have only had late contact with them during the Exile. Your point about recorded history is also debatable if one accepts the traditional authorship of the pentateuch by Moses which would have been written hundreds of years before Zoroastrianism's founding. In Israel's times of apostacy they exhibited syncristic beliefs far more similar to the local Canaanite religion than some religion far beyond Babylon on the other side of Mesopotamia.

I don't believe everything on wiki. I have had world religion and philosophy classes ( by Christian Theists no less). Zoro and Judaism are practically the same religion zoro even mentions the flood and the coming of a messiah. Satan even appears in their religion. Also the inclusion of Syncristic beliefs didn't surface until the take over of Persia by Islam. mainly because the churches of Zoro where ransacked and they had to rebuild their culture.

Do you have a specific theory of influence or any examples, or were you just musing? In short my thoughts are that it is unlikely that the OT Jewish religion was impacted in any real way by Zoroastrianism. I am aware that some mystery sects developed in late Judaism, but far to late to claims origin for seminal and foundational ideas of the Jewish faith.

Regards,

~Josh

I was mostly bringing it up because its the first recorded monotheistic religion and had a massive following in the middle east before recorded Judaism. I don't think to much of it though.

I actually find the similarities of the Egyptian god Horus and Jesus more interesting. :yes

 

[wavy]

Setting aside the conspiracy theorist tone characteristic of apologists (e.g., 'They just don't want to accept divine inspiration and want to find ways to disprove it!') and the begged question of divine inspiration itself, the first thing I noticed is the problem of leaving terms undefined. Like 'dependence'. What is this supposed to mean? And how does it contrast with 'similarity'?

The author of that article is pretty foggy on this; scholars already attribute the parallels to similar backgrounds and thus similar forms of expression between Israel and other ANE civilizations. In Psa xxix, for instance, that doesn't eliminate its uniqueness as its own literary piece, but at the same time it doesn't mean we don't have here an example of an understanding of Yahweh in a similar way the storm god Baal was understood; sort of a syncretism or assimilation from the contact of Baal and Yahwistic cult. The article dismisses this by treating the Hebrew bible as a monolithic work, making generalizations about what's in reality a diversity of material and confusing all sorts of chronologically and ideologically separate passages in the Hebrew bible. The methodology is just poor. And the quotes are misleading, but apologists stack them because the unwary reader wouldn't know otherwise. Apologists don't write for the scholar community, they write for church-goers. It's really ridiculous and lacks sophistication.

And yes, some of the prophets preached a universally significant message, but that has nothing to do with the prophets or anything else in the Hebrew bible being written 'for gentiles'. That assertion is obviously inspired by the Christian conviction that there's a god (namely, Yahweh) who himself inspired the bible for the world to read...and that's just not scholarship.

In the case of the poetical erotica (which is what the Song of Songs is: a poem about sex cast in metaphor) and wisdom literature of Egypt, this was shared by several ANE cultures. There are cases of direct literary dependence though, like the Proverbs on the much older teachings of Amenemope. The Solomon-Egypt connection, btw, seems to me to be superficial and weak. None of the biblical wisdom literature we possess dates from that time.

You can tell I just don't like apologists.