While some fans loved this unabashed display of French camp and kitsch, others — particularly those who espouse conservative or Christian beliefs — were not happy with it.
There’s actually a lot of interesting stuff in the text when you learn how to spot it between the lines of the revisionism. Both OT and NT.
The problem is you basically only have two camps.
One, that thinks the text as it exists today represents an unadulterated divine transmission.
And the other, that thinks anything to do with it is worthless nonsense.
So there’s very few people actually looking at it in between those two extremes, with most engaged with the material clustering around the former, or at very least with an anchoring and survivorship bias around the former cluster.
We’re left with audiences for the text that on both sides would be incredulous at the idea that, say, the Exodus narrative was in part an appropriation of the LBA/Early Iron Age sea peoples history when they were forcibly relocated into cohabitation with the Israelites, or say, that Jesus was taking about evolution with the sower parable.
Even though both those things have very compelling cases that can be made given emerging available evidence, the discussion is all about the acceptance or wholesale rejection of canon with little to no discussion of what actually exists in the absence of the BS.
It’s most disappointing for the latter group though. While I kind of get the way the trauma of proselytizing and indoctrination turns minds off to anything connected with the material, it’s very frustrating that what should be the healthy opposition cedes so many claims of authenticity to the faithfully blind.
I strongly, vehemently disagree. I could probably count the number of “good” stories. I.e.: actually make sense, aren’t just complete idiocy, aren’t in the Old Testament because everything that happens in that part is somehow simultaneously horrific, disgusting, incestuous, genocidal… And yet still so goddamn fucking boring… I can count those ones on one hand.
It’s almost entirely complete nonsense. Even the parts that are meant to be historical records “x beget y blah blah” are bullshit. Dozens of pages of alleged family trees, and none of it adds up. Oh yeah and people lived well into their mid -100s because why not. What the fuck is that?
The entity that we’re meant to want to worship after reading is described with such petty human emotions as jealously and rage. He is responsible for numerous genocides, child murder (large and small scale). The book of Job is an awful story of ruining the life of his most loyal follower (including murdering his family) just to prove to the devil that he’d remain faithful. So fucking stupid. Noah’s Ark has to be one of the most nonsensical stories ever and so many fucking people think it’s literally true.
Meanwhile, the “adversary,” the ultimate evil killed how many in the Bible again? What did he do other then just tell Eve that she actually could eat a piece of fruit from a tree if she wanted (the fact that the forbidden fruit would allow humans to discern good from evil isn’t sketchy at all). Who’s the bad guy again?
And these are the “interesting” parts. The other 95% is just garbage.
And no, Jesus isn’t any better. Unless you’re cool with slavery I guess…
Actually, the book of Job is nearly verbatim a combination of the opening of the Canaanite A Tale of Aqhat where Anat petitions El to kill the son of Danel as the lead in to a near copy of the dialogue on suffering of the Babylonian Theodicy. With what appears a sloppy edit to make it monotheistic later on, changing Anat from being a different god to simply ‘adversary’ and spawning fanfiction for millennia.
Understanding the context helps a lot in meaningful analysis.
Without the context, yeah, a lot can go over your head and it just seem pointless.
Edit: And Noah’s ark was likely originally a famine story before being turned into an adaptation of the Babylonian flood mythos.
Edit 2: And the eating of the fruit by the first two people was probably adapted from the Phonecian creation myth around the first man and woman with the woman discovering the technology of eating fruit from the trees.
The interesting context, I appreciate. The subtle condescension, not so much… I’m well aware that Christianity was cobbled together like Frankenstein’s Monster using various parts of existing religions and pagan traditions. I assure you that these stories have not gone over my head.
You seem to think that the main issues I have with these stories are:
the questions of historical veracity; or whether they were original stories. It’s really not. Sure, for stories like Noah’s Ark, where we know for certain it didn’t happen.
Or how we can say with near-certainty that Moses never parted the Red Sea, and crushed “Pharaoh’s’” army (side note: it’s funny to me how they always just call them that in the Bible. Just, “Pharaoh”. And I guess we’re supposed to pretend that we don’t know they had names and histories known to us?).
How do we know? Because their remains would be all over the bottom of the sea. Also, I’m pretty sure that Egypt, during the times when Pharaohs ruled, was known for keeping pretty good records. No historical record that the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt even exists. In fact, there’s no record of these Hebrew slaves, period.
Anyway, I digress…
And Noah’s ark was likely originally a famine story before being turned into an adaptation of the Babylonian flood mythos.
Throwing these claims out with zero sources or backup? Like c’mon guy (or gal, etc.) that’s quite the stretch. Let’s see the the sources.
I guess all of this was to say that I find the meanings and lessons of these stories to be downright appalling. Whether or not Job was a real bloke isn’t really the point.
No historical record that the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt even exists. In fact, there’s no record of these Hebrew slaves, period.
As I said in my earlier comment, this narrative was probably appropriated from the forced relocation of the sea peoples into the southern Levant. The Egyptians do have extensive records of conflict with them, who they note in that conflict were without foreskins (as opposed to the partial circumcision more common at the time), and there’s an emerging picture of Aegean cohabitation with the Israelites in the early Iron Age along with Anatolian trade with an area where the Denyen were talking about their founding leader Mopsus.
You’re welcome to find the material as you like, but I’m telling you that there’s a lot more value to careful analysis of it within it’s broader context than you (and many others) seem to think. Whether you find that stance condescending or not.
Why did you just focus in on that one part when I literally say that I don’t really care about that? My issue isn’t that the stories are borrowed or stolen. Read the rest of my comment maybe.
There’s actually a lot of interesting stuff in the text when you learn how to spot it between the lines of the revisionism. Both OT and NT.
The problem is you basically only have two camps.
One, that thinks the text as it exists today represents an unadulterated divine transmission.
And the other, that thinks anything to do with it is worthless nonsense.
So there’s very few people actually looking at it in between those two extremes, with most engaged with the material clustering around the former, or at very least with an anchoring and survivorship bias around the former cluster.
We’re left with audiences for the text that on both sides would be incredulous at the idea that, say, the Exodus narrative was in part an appropriation of the LBA/Early Iron Age sea peoples history when they were forcibly relocated into cohabitation with the Israelites, or say, that Jesus was taking about evolution with the sower parable.
Even though both those things have very compelling cases that can be made given emerging available evidence, the discussion is all about the acceptance or wholesale rejection of canon with little to no discussion of what actually exists in the absence of the BS.
It’s most disappointing for the latter group though. While I kind of get the way the trauma of proselytizing and indoctrination turns minds off to anything connected with the material, it’s very frustrating that what should be the healthy opposition cedes so many claims of authenticity to the faithfully blind.
I strongly, vehemently disagree. I could probably count the number of “good” stories. I.e.: actually make sense, aren’t just complete idiocy, aren’t in the Old Testament because everything that happens in that part is somehow simultaneously horrific, disgusting, incestuous, genocidal… And yet still so goddamn fucking boring… I can count those ones on one hand.
It’s almost entirely complete nonsense. Even the parts that are meant to be historical records “x beget y blah blah” are bullshit. Dozens of pages of alleged family trees, and none of it adds up. Oh yeah and people lived well into their mid -100s because why not. What the fuck is that?
The entity that we’re meant to want to worship after reading is described with such petty human emotions as jealously and rage. He is responsible for numerous genocides, child murder (large and small scale). The book of Job is an awful story of ruining the life of his most loyal follower (including murdering his family) just to prove to the devil that he’d remain faithful. So fucking stupid. Noah’s Ark has to be one of the most nonsensical stories ever and so many fucking people think it’s literally true.
Meanwhile, the “adversary,” the ultimate evil killed how many in the Bible again? What did he do other then just tell Eve that she actually could eat a piece of fruit from a tree if she wanted (the fact that the forbidden fruit would allow humans to discern good from evil isn’t sketchy at all). Who’s the bad guy again?
And these are the “interesting” parts. The other 95% is just garbage.
And no, Jesus isn’t any better. Unless you’re cool with slavery I guess…
Actually, the book of Job is nearly verbatim a combination of the opening of the Canaanite A Tale of Aqhat where Anat petitions El to kill the son of Danel as the lead in to a near copy of the dialogue on suffering of the Babylonian Theodicy. With what appears a sloppy edit to make it monotheistic later on, changing Anat from being a different god to simply ‘adversary’ and spawning fanfiction for millennia.
Understanding the context helps a lot in meaningful analysis.
Without the context, yeah, a lot can go over your head and it just seem pointless.
Edit: And Noah’s ark was likely originally a famine story before being turned into an adaptation of the Babylonian flood mythos.
Edit 2: And the eating of the fruit by the first two people was probably adapted from the Phonecian creation myth around the first man and woman with the woman discovering the technology of eating fruit from the trees.
The interesting context, I appreciate. The subtle condescension, not so much… I’m well aware that Christianity was cobbled together like Frankenstein’s Monster using various parts of existing religions and pagan traditions. I assure you that these stories have not gone over my head.
You seem to think that the main issues I have with these stories are: the questions of historical veracity; or whether they were original stories. It’s really not. Sure, for stories like Noah’s Ark, where we know for certain it didn’t happen.
Or how we can say with near-certainty that Moses never parted the Red Sea, and crushed “Pharaoh’s’” army (side note: it’s funny to me how they always just call them that in the Bible. Just, “Pharaoh”. And I guess we’re supposed to pretend that we don’t know they had names and histories known to us?).
How do we know? Because their remains would be all over the bottom of the sea. Also, I’m pretty sure that Egypt, during the times when Pharaohs ruled, was known for keeping pretty good records. No historical record that the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt even exists. In fact, there’s no record of these Hebrew slaves, period.
Anyway, I digress…
Throwing these claims out with zero sources or backup? Like c’mon guy (or gal, etc.) that’s quite the stretch. Let’s see the the sources.
I guess all of this was to say that I find the meanings and lessons of these stories to be downright appalling. Whether or not Job was a real bloke isn’t really the point.
As I said in my earlier comment, this narrative was probably appropriated from the forced relocation of the sea peoples into the southern Levant. The Egyptians do have extensive records of conflict with them, who they note in that conflict were without foreskins (as opposed to the partial circumcision more common at the time), and there’s an emerging picture of Aegean cohabitation with the Israelites in the early Iron Age along with Anatolian trade with an area where the Denyen were talking about their founding leader Mopsus.
Here’s the source for the Noah’s Ark as originally a famine narrative: https://scholar.harvard.edu/dershowitz/publications/man-land-unearthing-original-noah
You’re welcome to find the material as you like, but I’m telling you that there’s a lot more value to careful analysis of it within it’s broader context than you (and many others) seem to think. Whether you find that stance condescending or not.
Why did you just focus in on that one part when I literally say that I don’t really care about that? My issue isn’t that the stories are borrowed or stolen. Read the rest of my comment maybe.