Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Title: RE: Monotheism was: "admittedly syncretistic..

> > Dear Liz,

I appreciate that you bite, when you do it in a scolarly way, as is the case. Your respectful suggestion that I am colored by Christian conceptions is probably correct; but hardly Hellenistic conceptions (I have criticized several fundamental Christian concepts where NT and Hellenistic thoughts are fused). However, who is not colored by something, and is another coloring better that a Christian one? The main problem is not that we are colored by something, but rather that we do not realize that we are; and in addition, when we sacrifice our scholarly integrity on the altar of a certain ideology. The point I tried to convey to Jonathan was that atheists may be just as dogmatic and religious as fundamentalists, and that critical scholarship can be just as colored as the scholarship that use "God" as a point of reference. I think that many list members will agree in the following words of Jesus that illustrate the case (John 9:41NIV):

"Jesus said,  "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

> >
> >  
> > The Babylonian gods are clearly the invention of men,
> > having all the degraded characteristics of men ##., while my
> > judgement is that the God in the Genesis account is  of a
> > completely different nature. 
> >  
> > OK, I'll
> > bite, What is the difference between the god(s) in Genesis and
> > the gods in the Atrahasis account?

I suggest that you read Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, and Inuma Elish again. The accounts are pure mythology. A God was slaughtered to create mankind, there are intrigues between the gods, some cheat others, and there is fighting and streaf; the great flood was caused by Enlil simply because mankind became so numerous and made so much noise that he could not sleep.

In Genesis we meet YHWH who creates the universe, the earth and mankind; we learn how the first men are allowed to decide their course, how they transgress, and how the great flood is caused because  of the vicked deeds of mankind. We also learn that YHWH has a purpose, and we learn about his sublime attributes such as love and compassion. This is a completely different account than Atrahasis, and you need not read the Tanach in the light of Christian values to realize that.

To bite back I ask a philological/linguistic question: Given the stock of phonemes and the use of consonants in Hebrew and Accadian, do you accept the popylar view that the Genesis TEHOM  is lent from Accadian TIAMAT ?

> >  
> > Some years ago we read the laws of Hammurapi in class and
> > it bacame evident for the students how different these are from the
> > laws in the Pentateuch, even though there are similarities as well.
> > So it seems to me that there generally is a clear quality difference
> > between the Hebrew documents of the Tanach and other documents of
> > antiquity. 
> >

        OK What differences do you see here

> >  
> > Since I'm
> > getting ready to teach all these subjects in a few weeks, I'd like to
> > know.

RF: Take a look at law 2;

        If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

Such a law where the river decided guilt is very different from the laws of the Pentateuch, also very different from the test for the adulterous woman. Please consider these other differences H= Hammurapi's law, M=The Mosaic law:

H."6.   If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.

M: Thief punished by making compensation to victim Ex 22:1-9

H. 15. If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death.

16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.

M. "You must not hand over a slave to his master when he escapes from his master to you." Deut 23.15

H. 229 If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

230. If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

M: "Fathers should not be put to death on account of children, and children should not be put to death on account of fathers." Deut 24.16

H. 154. If a man (of rank) be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).

M. Death penalty for incest Lev 18:6,29

H. Class distinction in judgement. Severe penalties for persons who harm others of a higher class. Mild penalties for harming memebers of a lover class Sect 196-205

M. "You must not treat the lowly one with partiality, and you must not prefer the person of a great one." Lev 1915

 The laws of Moses have a different quality than the laws of Hammurapi; I make a few excerps:

1. The life of men is holy Gen 20.13; Numb 35:9-34

2. Love your neghbor and forget offenses Lev 19:17,18

3. Take care of old people lev 19:32

4. Help vidows and orphans and those who have economic problems Lev 25:35-37; Deut 15;7-11; 24.19-21

5. do not treat deaf and blind persons in a bad way Lev 19:14; Deut 27:18

6. Be honest when you do business Lev 19:35,36; 25:14

7. Respect the ownership of others Ex 20.15;22.1,6; 223:4,5; Deut 22.1-3

8. do not desire something that belongs to another person Ex 20:17

9. Tell the truth Ex 20:16; 23:1,2

10. do not be partial. Exodus 23:3,6 Lev 19:15

Particularly 9. is interesting. because it could not be enforced by men but only by God. In addition to the ten examples there are sanitary laws, marriage laws etc. etc. that regulated the society in a fine way. You may find some of these in the Law of Hammurapi as well, but the difference between the two laws is veery great.

> >  
> >  
> > It seems to me that something like a dogmatic religion
> > has been built up around modern critical scholarship. Noth's theory
> > of a deuteronomistic history etc and many other speculative
> > hypotheses have almost been elevated to data, while the truth is that
> > hard facts regarding when the different books were written and who
> > were the writers are completely lacking. For instance,in my
> > linguistic analysis of the participles of the Tanach I found a use
> > which was uniform throughout the book of Isaiah but almost
> > non-existent in other books. I will not say that this proves that
> > there was one author of the books, but the evidence for two or three
> > authors is very weak indeed.  
> >  
> > P eople
> > do now argue for one author of the book of Isaiah but
> > they place him in the fifth century.

Could you please give me some references? Then I bite again: Isaiah says that he lived during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, so the book claims to have been written long before the fifth century B.C.E. This post-exilic date , is it built on something more than academic speculation and guessing? What kind of *evidence* do we have for this late dating?  Or, to illustrate the problems in an even greater way : Genesis 17:14;24:4;34:27 tells that Moses wrote down what he received from God. According to the chronology in the Tanach Moses lived in the 15 century B.C.E. No critical scholar accepts that the Pentateuch was written at that time, many even doubt that a person by the name of Moses has existed. What is the *evidence* against the Pentateuch being written in the 15 century B.C.E. and in favor of a later date? Is the *evidence* more than pure speculation?

> >  
> > As to my position, I am very positive to the text of the
> > Hebrew documents, because of all the single data I have found to be
> > of a higher quality that that of contemporaneous documents. It is my
> > impression that the concept of God in the Tanach is sublime and
> > elevated, in stark contrast to that of other nations around. Your
> > interpretations regarding the divine suzerain and polytheism are
> > possible but hardly the only alternative. I see no conflict between
> > Isaiah 41-- and Exodus 20 because the subject is addressed from
> > different angles. Isaiah does not deny the existence of the $EDIM,
> > but he points out to those who think that carved images have
> > intrinsic life and power that this is a false view. And similarly,
> > the writer of Exodus does not say that the carved images have life
> > and power. In view of the sublime descriptions of the one Creator I
> > take the implication of the writer of Exodus of other living gods to
> > refer to the $EDIM.
> >
> >  
> > I suggest
> > that you have a view of the god of the HB that is colored by
> > Christian and
> > Hellenistic conceptions. I suggest, respectfully, that you are
> > falling into the trap
> > that many
> > fall into, and you are not reading the text that is printed, but the
> > text that is
> > in your
> > head. I give a lecture called "What does God Look Like ? the
> > view from the
> > Bible."
> > It sure does wake people up to the text.
> > Best,
> > Liz
> > Fried

We are all influenced by our views and beliefs. True, I have a positive view of the text of the Tanach, but I strive hard to study the text itself and not a fiction of it.

Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo