I need to keep that source in mind; it really does have fantastic stuff.
There’s the term I was trying to remember! – I italicized it.
I mean sure for the writings . As for the prophets well there are many parables and whatnot etc etc but I don’t count the book as history. The only historical book in the OT is Kings maybe.
It doesn’t matter to me anyway. At least to my theology.
I think that this is the crux of the matter. The word “myth” has fictitious undertones in modern parlance where as it probably had less so as you trace back the years.
What matters is not the historical accuracy but the meaning or belief that is being conveyed.
Richard
So it doesn’t matter if God never actually saved Israel from Egypt? Only that later Jews thought He did?
That is not what I meant/or said.
Of course God actually saved Israel but the precise details may not be historical. The meaning is not affected by the details.
Richard
1 Like
And if God didn’t actually intervene in history here and there really wasn’t an Exodus, would that be a deal breaker? If Moses didn’t really exist where does that leave Christianity?
There might not be evidence for Moses simply because it is lost as he lived so long ago. Or there might not be any evidence “for the same reason that there is no evidence of the ten year journey of Odysseus” or why “there is no evidence of the quest of Beren to recover a Silmaril from Morgoth.” These accounts have fiction written all over them. If there was any core we couldn’t possibly recover it and have no idea what it was actually like and who and when was involved. The Bible constantly says God delivered Israel from Egypt. If that account is largely fiction… I think it’s not so easy to dismiss the problems that entails.
And even if there is a historical core it doesn’t necessarily do what we want it to. We can tell a story about God delivering presents to all children down their chimneys on Christmas Eve through Santa Clause. Just because Kris Kingle was real does not justify this belief in anyway. God didn’t actually do the things scripture says he did and more than he delivered presents down chimneys.
Vinnie
Why are you misunderstanding me? I was talking about details and not the basic premis of the account. Yes God saves Israel. Yes God intervened. But all the padding? There may be exageratin or even legend but the basic facts still remain.
Robin Hood is a figure of English history but his exploits… have been added to. For =a biblical examle, take David. Again, his exploits were exagerated. "Saul killed his thousands and David his ten thousands. The number have meaning not accuracy.
Richard
1 Like
I’m not misunderstanding, I am seeking clarification. So the core of the account has to be historical. If it’s not then is that a deal breaker?
That is what I meant, yes.
Richard
Interestingly the core of the Tower of Babel is historical: there was a big tower, it would have been bigger than any other, it wasn’t finished, and the work force failed because of language issues. It’s just that the language issues were there already because they lacked enough homegrown laborers and so hired from ‘out of town’.
Though Western readers misunderstand the bit about a tower reaching the heavens.
2 Likes
I’ve asked you for sources on this in the past. And if none of the details of scripture are accurate, I don’t see how there being a core to the story is important.
If God didn’t confuse the languages like it says, the account is just as fictitious whether it was based on an event that happened or not.
All I remember is that the city was Eridu. I don’t know if I read it or if it was on a TV special I watched.
What I’ve learned while looking that I don’t think I knew before is that there is a class of ziggurats that aren’t pyramidal at the base but have vertical walls; these apparently originated from the practice of building a new temple on the remains of a prior one: the walls were built so when the old temple was demolished all its remnants would be contained within the walls, and then earth was added to make a solid base within the walls. From what I’ve read there was one ziggurat at Eridu which had sixteen iterations of this process, each with a wider and taller base. Sometimes rather than demolish the old temple it would instead be filled completely with tightly-packed brick. This made each new layer much taller since it began at the highest point of the previous one. Both practices made sure that material for a divine purpose was never used for anything else. Other ziggurats were constructed with high walls at the bottom to imitate these structures.
I also found a textual analysis arguing that the story doesn’t include all humans or even all Semites, and that the languages aren’t necessarily meant as all human languages; under this understanding it was one particular group of Semites who decided to settle in one place and build a ziggurat. (This is another place where translation of Hebrew eretz as “world” is incorrect; it should be “the land”.)
But no luck finding a source for what I know.
1 Like
One interesting aspect is that it is a little vague as to whether the confusion of the languages caused the scattering, or if they were scattered and that resulted in the divergence of the languages.
7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.
3 Likes
Yes – and from the information I remember about the Eridu ziggurat, the confusion of the languages was already present and when the project stopped it led to everyone scattering.
My thought on this is that any project where they were bringing in foreign workers would have had interpreters – so “confuse their language” could have just happened by taking away the interpreters’ ability to interpret.
I really wish I could find that source (or sources) again!
The last part there is interesting: the problem was the “tower” but they ended up abandoning the entire city. That fits historically as well, as Eridu was abandoned not long after the ziggurat project halted. Though “stopped building the city” is interesting because Eridu was already a city. BTW, the LXX has “they stopped building the city and the tower”, and the verb for “building” implies a dwelling place. “The tower” is likely an addition because just stating “the city” leaves a question to whether this includes the tower.
Just for the sake of flavor, the Hebrew word here is normally used to mean a watchtower. While most scholars maintain it was just the best word the Hebrews had available, I’m not so sure: In other instances when Hebrew had no good word for something they just took the word from the other language (which is how a good number of loan words made it into Hebrew – they were items acquired in trade that the Hebrews had never had before so they just used the names the traders did), so there should be a reason why they didn’t do that in this case. I wonder if they didn’t because the concept of a watchtower sort of fits here: a ziggurat provided a place for the gods to “come down” and meet with humans, but it was not a place where the gods were “on call”; they would come as they pleased . . . or not. So one of the functions of the priesthood at a ziggurat was to watch for a visit by one or more gods, thus making it a kind of watchtower.
= - = - = - = - = - = - = - =
Total trivia–
This is a portion of Eridu seen from the mound of the uncompleted ziggurat (that would have been the biggest ever if it had been completed). What caught my eye on this is the sand dune which is primarily eolian sand, i.e. formed by wind erosion. What’s interesting is that eolian sand is lousy for construction purposes since the grains are smooth, unlike coastal sand which is jagged. They had to deal with the same sand back then (though Eridu was a coastal city in 2500 BC), and one thing they did was to build a thick wall around a place they wanted a palace or temple, then fill it with sand and compact it. This accomplished two things at once: it got all that sand out of the way and it raised important buildings above the rest.
IIRC there are sites where this was done where the sand was made more firm by pouring muddy water onto it as it was put in place, and then compacted; the muddy water had microscopic flakes of clay that filled the cavities between sand grains and thus served to bind the sand together better. This was a very primitive sort of cement since the clay retained moisture which made the clay particles bind more strongly to the sand particles. This fascinates me because modern scientists have found that repeatedly flooding areas of eolian sand with water that bears clay nanoparticles increases the ability of the sand to hold water, which first of all keeps the sand in place much better but then also makes it possible to grow pioneer ground cover; the ground cover in turn effects biological activity in the nearby sand, which adds organic matter and begins turning sand to soil – beginning a cycle of ever-more-suitable soil supporting more plants which add more organic matter (to the point where trees can be planted which provide shade in which crops can be grown).
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.