invert_nexus said:
Who was Lazarus?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
Medicine Woman,
I posted earlier about how to use the quote tags, maybe you missed it, it was between your question and your next post. I'll repeat it. Quoted material must end with a [/quote] and begin with a
I posted earlier about how to use the quote tags, maybe you missed it, it was between your question and your next post. I'll repeat it. Quoted material must end with a [/quote] and begin with a
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
And the evidence for this silliness would be what?Medicine Woman said:
What do you think about it, Consequent? When was the Torah put together? As I've said, the two likely times for these oral traditions to have been rendered onto paper are when the books of law (pentateuch) are found in the the temple during the reign of Josiah. And from the way the books are written, there seems to be a drastic shift of writing style following the return from Babylon. Past tense to present tense. I find it highly likely that this is when it was written.
Of course, I realize that it may not have been "The Torah" then, I saw a thread or web site that said it wasn't officialized until much later, but it is obvious that up until a certain point things could be introduced into it but not after. I feel the torah after Babylon was greatly changed. I mentioned my thoughts about Egypt as a metaphor for Babylon. I find this to be a likely scenario. What are your thoughts?
Of course, I realize that it may not have been "The Torah" then, I saw a thread or web site that said it wasn't officialized until much later, but it is obvious that up until a certain point things could be introduced into it but not after. I feel the torah after Babylon was greatly changed. I mentioned my thoughts about Egypt as a metaphor for Babylon. I find this to be a likely scenario. What are your thoughts?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I would concur that the Torah is a post-exilic construction weaving together various traditions, but how do you assert "a drastic shift of writing style following the return" absent some verified instance of the "style" prior to that return?invert_nexus said:
Simply. By noticing that after the exile it is written in present tense (for the most part) while before the exile it is written in past tense (for the most part.) Simple as that. I came to this conclusion, not by reading of others thoughts on the matter, but reading the bible itself. It strikes you (me anyway) like a brick in the face.
invert_nexus said:
ConsequentAtheist said:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Medicine Woman said:
You might consider learning how to discern rational argument and then reading something other than fringe speculation. See, for example:
- Who Wrote the Bible?, followed by
- The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible
Perhaps to discover if the "reference or evidence" can be successfully refuted, i.e., to determine whether or not your view is based on faulty argument. As I mentioned above, you might consider learning how to discern rational argument as a necessary precondition for you (or anyone else) "learn[ing] things like this".Medicine Woman said:
Now, do you have any evidence demonstrating a link between 'Akhenaten' and 'Aaron'?
Are you petitioning to have me banned?Medicine Woman said:
Go for it! But first, do you have any evidence demonstrating a link between 'Akhenaten' and 'Aaron' or, for that matter, indicating that Moses wrote the Torah?*************ConsequentAtheist said:
M*W: Why do you ASSUME "fringe" is the only material I read? I am clearly able to discern between rational argument and what you call "fringe." That's why I am an EX-XIAN.
*************
*************
M*W: On this forum, just about all the references and evidences presented can be refuted. "Rational argument" and "discernment" make-up subjective reasoning. And exactly how much "evidence" could anyone possibly have on the subjects we've been discussing/arguing/debating on this forum? Demanding "evidence" for ancient schools of thought and transmigrations of early peoples is just about as valid as demanding evidence for the tooth fairy. Unless someone on this forum is an archeologist who's been there, none of us would have "evidence." Therefore, the best that we can do is read about the subjects we are interested in discussing on this forum. With that said, I don't see how any reference we may acquire would provide an actual authority of "evidence" on the subject we are discussing.
*************
*************
M*W: To answer your redundant question, I have not been archeologically exploring the ruins of the Middle East, so I do not have any personal "evidence" per se. What I do have is a "reference" which I cited earlier. In fact, I probably have several other references confirming your question about Akhenaton and Aaron, but I cannot get to those books just now.
*************
*************Are you petitioning to have me banned?
M*W: Until earlier today, I had always thought Moses wrote the Torah. Perhaps I never gave this question any thought until invert_nexus brought it to my attention. Most of the members of this forum have a lot to offer when expressing their ideas and knowledge. It's up to the reader to discern what may be fact or fiction. As far as your demanding to see "evidence" in support of some of our posts, your "evidence" is no more valid than anyone else's on this forum. No one has adequate "evidence" of the topics we discuss here, but we can come up with tons of "references." References cannot be considered to be evidences. Just because people have believed something that's been written, preached, and perpetuated for some 2000 years doesn't make it out to be the truth nor does it make it any kind of reliable "evidence."
Since you want the members to see you as the all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful, ConsequentAtheist, why don't you offer some intelligent references or evidences (LOL--assuming you have any!) to this forum instead of using sciforums as you own personal whipping post. Since you are so hateful and condescending to those who post here, go find yourself a website that caters to other pseudo-intellectual arrogant assholes like yourself.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I'll take that as a "no".Medicine Woman said:
ConsequentAtheist,
I would enjoy contributions to the thread beyond attacking a point here or there. You seem to have read widely on the subject and would have some interesting points to add. It is a pity that you don't add them. I guess you figure you had to buy the books, so we should too? Well, there's only so much time and so many books one can read. That, to me, is the point of forums such as these, to gain insight from others who have read material or come up with ideas that differ from my own. Thank you for the book list, if I come across them, I will give them a read.
I note that on the site you linked to as a good summary, my views were backed up. I had mentioned two authors of the pentateuch earlier. There were five listed on the page (including the Redactor). I had forgotten about the J (YHWH) and E (Elohim) split. J from the south (Judah) and E from the north (Israel), both from early times, 722 BCE at the latest.
D (about 622 BCE) I had never heard of. "wrote almost all of book of Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. ... was probably a Levitical priest - perhaps Jeremiah." It also mentions the story of Hilkiah "conveniently" finding the books of law in the temple as the probably date of D, which makes sense, because the book was found in Kings so it would make sense that Kings was written at the time it was found. It also, to my mind, makes Hilkiah the probable author. Even though it mentions "perhaps Jeremiah." Here's a point someone can perhaps clear up without forcing me to read the bible again, what was Jeremiah's time period? Before or after the reign of Josiah? Or was he a prophet who existed at that time? It say's priest not prophet... but... Don't make me read the bible again, I've got too much to do right now.
The latest date mentioned was for P, who was thought to have lived in 587 BCE, before the captivity in Babylon. It doesn't speculate at all about a date for R. Do you find it likely that R was after the return from Babylon? R would be the least destructive of the three, because his intent seemed to be to join the conflicting accounts into one. So, it's doubtful (to my mind) that new material was added at this time (actually, according to the first ten chapters of genesis, he seemed to have added genealogical data, funny for the latest author to add such details). Do you think R is later than the "editor" mentioned below? It would almost have to be, I think, because if it was compiled earlier, then the "editor" would have edited all the works rather than just D.
There is this about alteration of texts after Babylon, it is referring to D's work:
About the "editor", he is only mentioned in the works of D. Without a breakdown of Exodus, it is impossible for me to say whether D had a hand in any of Exodus. So, why would the editor stick to editing D's work rather than all the works (at least one of the earlier accounts)? There are too many similarities in bondage in Egypt and bondage in Babylon for the editor to have not been tempted to add his own contributions to Exodus. There is much dispute over whether the Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt and it would be interesting to find out whether this was material that was added or changed later.
The article only specifically speaks of the Pentateuch, although it does refer to later books, but none after the return from Babylon. I assume that this is because the later books are obviously written by the prophets for which they are named. Which explains the use of present tense rather than past (which you never commented on, by the way).
And, I still find the absence of any Babylonian chronicles provocative, in the extreme.
Medicine Woman,
A lot of your material is speculative, but I see nothing wrong with that. The material on Lazarus as being a distortion of earlier Egyptian myths is very interesting. However, I do find the connection between Aaron and Akhenaten to be highly doubtful, in the extreme. I'm no expert in Egyptian history, but I am relatively sure that Akhenaten was killed for his heresy. And I know that his successor was Tutankhamen. Which would make Pharoah in Exodus a boy. And wasn't Tut Akhenaten's son? Or was he a nephew or something? That would put an interesting spin on the story, that's for sure. I guess I could look it up, but I'm too lazy right now.
I would enjoy contributions to the thread beyond attacking a point here or there. You seem to have read widely on the subject and would have some interesting points to add. It is a pity that you don't add them. I guess you figure you had to buy the books, so we should too? Well, there's only so much time and so many books one can read. That, to me, is the point of forums such as these, to gain insight from others who have read material or come up with ideas that differ from my own. Thank you for the book list, if I come across them, I will give them a read.
I note that on the site you linked to as a good summary, my views were backed up. I had mentioned two authors of the pentateuch earlier. There were five listed on the page (including the Redactor). I had forgotten about the J (YHWH) and E (Elohim) split. J from the south (Judah) and E from the north (Israel), both from early times, 722 BCE at the latest.
D (about 622 BCE) I had never heard of. "wrote almost all of book of Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. ... was probably a Levitical priest - perhaps Jeremiah." It also mentions the story of Hilkiah "conveniently" finding the books of law in the temple as the probably date of D, which makes sense, because the book was found in Kings so it would make sense that Kings was written at the time it was found. It also, to my mind, makes Hilkiah the probable author. Even though it mentions "perhaps Jeremiah." Here's a point someone can perhaps clear up without forcing me to read the bible again, what was Jeremiah's time period? Before or after the reign of Josiah? Or was he a prophet who existed at that time? It say's priest not prophet... but... Don't make me read the bible again, I've got too much to do right now.
The latest date mentioned was for P, who was thought to have lived in 587 BCE, before the captivity in Babylon. It doesn't speculate at all about a date for R. Do you find it likely that R was after the return from Babylon? R would be the least destructive of the three, because his intent seemed to be to join the conflicting accounts into one. So, it's doubtful (to my mind) that new material was added at this time (actually, according to the first ten chapters of genesis, he seemed to have added genealogical data, funny for the latest author to add such details). Do you think R is later than the "editor" mentioned below? It would almost have to be, I think, because if it was compiled earlier, then the "editor" would have edited all the works rather than just D.
There is this about alteration of texts after Babylon, it is referring to D's work:
About the "editor", he is only mentioned in the works of D. Without a breakdown of Exodus, it is impossible for me to say whether D had a hand in any of Exodus. So, why would the editor stick to editing D's work rather than all the works (at least one of the earlier accounts)? There are too many similarities in bondage in Egypt and bondage in Babylon for the editor to have not been tempted to add his own contributions to Exodus. There is much dispute over whether the Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt and it would be interesting to find out whether this was material that was added or changed later.
The article only specifically speaks of the Pentateuch, although it does refer to later books, but none after the return from Babylon. I assume that this is because the later books are obviously written by the prophets for which they are named. Which explains the use of present tense rather than past (which you never commented on, by the way).
And, I still find the absence of any Babylonian chronicles provocative, in the extreme.
Medicine Woman,
A lot of your material is speculative, but I see nothing wrong with that. The material on Lazarus as being a distortion of earlier Egyptian myths is very interesting. However, I do find the connection between Aaron and Akhenaten to be highly doubtful, in the extreme. I'm no expert in Egyptian history, but I am relatively sure that Akhenaten was killed for his heresy. And I know that his successor was Tutankhamen. Which would make Pharoah in Exodus a boy. And wasn't Tut Akhenaten's son? Or was he a nephew or something? That would put an interesting spin on the story, that's for sure. I guess I could look it up, but I'm too lazy right now.
invert_nexus said:D (about 622 BCE) I had never heard of. "wrote almost all of book of Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. ... was probably a Levitical priest - perhaps Jeremiah." It also mentions the story of Hilkiah "conveniently" finding the books of law in the temple as the probably date of D, which makes sense, because the book was found in Kings so it would make sense that Kings was written at the time it was found. It also, to my mind, makes Hilkiah the probable author. Even though it mentions "perhaps Jeremiah." Here's a point someone can perhaps clear up without forcing me to read the bible again, what was Jeremiah's time period? Before or after the reign of Josiah? Or was he a prophet who existed at that time? It say's priest not prophet... but... Don't make me read the bible again, I've got too much to do right now.
Maybe this website will help.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html
Thanks, SVRP. That was a good article.
After reading that and going back over the bible somewhat, I realize that I was in error about the past tense - present tense. There are some books set at the same time period as earlier books but speak with a present tense. It's been a while since I read the whole thing, and it's such a chore to read that it's impossible to do in one fell swoop, so I lay my forgetfulness to that. So that lays that theory to waste.
Also, while checking the bible I found that Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah who found the lost books. So that answers that question. I would believe that Jeremiah was D. It still might have been Hilkiah though. But, I'm sure the researchers have a reason for pointing to Jeremiah.
Hmmm, so what else lies unanswered in here? Well, there's the possibility of revisionalism as regards to Exodus. I've always found this one to be "out there," as they say, but is still up for grabs. The fact that there are present tense writings from earlier times belies a complete revision at the time of the return from Babylon and makes it even more "out there" that slavery in Egypt would be manufactured. But one never knows.
Also, on the link given above, they put a speculative date of the exodus at 1280 to 1250 BC. I did a quick search on Akhenaten and Tutankhamen. Akhenaten's reign was speculatively placed in 1350 to 1332 on the site I looked at. That certainly puts him close in time to the supposed Exodus. So, again, who knows?
By the way, I was also wrong about Tutankhamen following Akhenaten. There was actually a ruler in between that ruled a short while, Smenkhkare. There is much speculation about familial bonds between the three. It's possible that Smenkhkare and Tut were brothers, sons of Akhenaten.
One thing is certain, if the hebrews were indeed in Egypt and the Exodus did occur between 1280 and 1250, then they would have been in Egypt during the Aten heresy. Even if Aaron wasn't Akhenaten, it's possible that Aten was Moses' god. Of course, it's also possible that it's not.
Edit: I'd like to further amend my statement on past tense and present tense. I didn't explain this properly. While reading further on the link given above, it makes reference to the fact that ancient hebrew verb forms didn't differentiate between past and present. At this point, I realized that it wasn't past or present that I had noticed, but person. The later books of the bible are written in the first person. I did this, I saw that. The earlier books are third person, they did, he did, she did. By later, I don't mean chronologically (as I had first thought) but by placement in the bible.
After reading that and going back over the bible somewhat, I realize that I was in error about the past tense - present tense. There are some books set at the same time period as earlier books but speak with a present tense. It's been a while since I read the whole thing, and it's such a chore to read that it's impossible to do in one fell swoop, so I lay my forgetfulness to that. So that lays that theory to waste.
Also, while checking the bible I found that Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah who found the lost books. So that answers that question. I would believe that Jeremiah was D. It still might have been Hilkiah though. But, I'm sure the researchers have a reason for pointing to Jeremiah.
Hmmm, so what else lies unanswered in here? Well, there's the possibility of revisionalism as regards to Exodus. I've always found this one to be "out there," as they say, but is still up for grabs. The fact that there are present tense writings from earlier times belies a complete revision at the time of the return from Babylon and makes it even more "out there" that slavery in Egypt would be manufactured. But one never knows.
Also, on the link given above, they put a speculative date of the exodus at 1280 to 1250 BC. I did a quick search on Akhenaten and Tutankhamen. Akhenaten's reign was speculatively placed in 1350 to 1332 on the site I looked at. That certainly puts him close in time to the supposed Exodus. So, again, who knows?
By the way, I was also wrong about Tutankhamen following Akhenaten. There was actually a ruler in between that ruled a short while, Smenkhkare. There is much speculation about familial bonds between the three. It's possible that Smenkhkare and Tut were brothers, sons of Akhenaten.
One thing is certain, if the hebrews were indeed in Egypt and the Exodus did occur between 1280 and 1250, then they would have been in Egypt during the Aten heresy. Even if Aaron wasn't Akhenaten, it's possible that Aten was Moses' god. Of course, it's also possible that it's not.
Edit: I'd like to further amend my statement on past tense and present tense. I didn't explain this properly. While reading further on the link given above, it makes reference to the fact that ancient hebrew verb forms didn't differentiate between past and present. At this point, I realized that it wasn't past or present that I had noticed, but person. The later books of the bible are written in the first person. I did this, I saw that. The earlier books are third person, they did, he did, she did. By later, I don't mean chronologically (as I had first thought) but by placement in the bible.
Last edited:
invert_nexus said:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Medicine Woman said:
Everything? How can you possibly say such a thing with a straight face. What have you read by any professional Egyptologist affiliated with any reputable university? Good grief!
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Feel free to think so. We can address it again if and when you choose to read something substantive about the Documentary Hypothesis. Or not.invert_nexus said:
I didn't mean to cast aspersions, I realize that a lot of what I have said is speculative as well. Speculation isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it is presented as speculation so that some won't take it as truth.
That aside, I reread the thread and saw that I missed this in your original post:
I missed the Pharoah implication and was taking it merely on the benefits of the story of Lazarus and the Osiris similarities. So it seems that it was your intent all along to connect Moses or Aaron with actually being Pharoah at some point. Kudos to Consequent for catching that. One word makes a big difference.
So, looking at the article with that in mind, I see that you go from the story of Lazarus and Osiris to the 18th dynasty. You don't mention Akhenaten in your original post, but I can now see how it was your intent all along.
In Consequent's rebuttal, I see now (don't know how I missed the Pharoah Moses again) that his real objection is in this proposition. I can see his point. This is a mighty claim to make without some kind of backup other than a nameless article. The author of the article must have had some source for his original claim. I'd like to see it as well.
As I posted before, the speculated date for the Exodus was 1280-1250 BCE while the 18th dynasty ended in 1295 (according to <a href="http://www.touregypt.net/kings.htm">here</a>). So it's entirely possible that the Exodus did occur in the 18th, though current speculation places it later. The Hebrew slaves would very likely have been affected by the Aten heresy (which occured in 1350-1344). And it's entirely possible that Moses (possibly Egyptian and not Hebrew at all) was originally an Aten worshipper. Is anything known of the Aten religion and how it was practiced? Are there any similarities with the Moses era of Judaism? More research is required on this point.
Personally, I think we could do without more religions. We have more than enough as it is. What we need is a "Moses" that will lead us out of the religious trap. It's hard to say what Moses' original religion was like, but it is easy to see what it has become and what it has done to the earth. I realize that there are many religious types in here that will dispute this, but religion hasn't done us any good. It brought a loss of knowledge to the west in the middle ages and it threatens a new dark age from the east in the modern era. Time and time again it has been shown that religion is about suppression of heresy rather than support of reason.
Consequent, on Medicine Woman's behalf, I'll offer this. Often, when I have come across something that I find interesting but unsubstantiated, I'll offer it up on a board such as this and see if anyone else has heard about it and might offer up some further insight and sources. And anyway, it's no worse than the way Judaism and Christianity were assembled to begin with. Scattered sources of dubious origin amalgamated into one central theme. It's the story of life.
This is understandable, but if you take some of the causticness from Consequent's replies, he's offering good advice (not about the topic, but on research in general). Always take it with a grain of salt. Ask for references and source material. It is especially easy in the internet age to come across reams and reams of useless unsubstantial "facts." That's the greatest difficulty in searching for anything, discarding the wheat from the chaff.
On the other hand, my problem seems to be in retention of relevant data. I often get things turned around through faulty memory. For instance, ever heard of the saying, "feed a cold, starve a fever" or is it "feed a fever, starve a cold"? See, that's my problem. Which is it? I can never remember. Which is why I try to refer to reference materials whenever possible. So that the confusion might be clarified. I don't try to make my brain a mighty reference library, merely a cross-referencing tool. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. But, I can always go back to the source material to clear it up. If it's available, that is.
That aside, I reread the thread and saw that I missed this in your original post:
Medicine Woman said:
I missed the Pharoah implication and was taking it merely on the benefits of the story of Lazarus and the Osiris similarities. So it seems that it was your intent all along to connect Moses or Aaron with actually being Pharoah at some point. Kudos to Consequent for catching that. One word makes a big difference.
So, looking at the article with that in mind, I see that you go from the story of Lazarus and Osiris to the 18th dynasty. You don't mention Akhenaten in your original post, but I can now see how it was your intent all along.
In Consequent's rebuttal, I see now (don't know how I missed the Pharoah Moses again) that his real objection is in this proposition. I can see his point. This is a mighty claim to make without some kind of backup other than a nameless article. The author of the article must have had some source for his original claim. I'd like to see it as well.
As I posted before, the speculated date for the Exodus was 1280-1250 BCE while the 18th dynasty ended in 1295 (according to <a href="http://www.touregypt.net/kings.htm">here</a>). So it's entirely possible that the Exodus did occur in the 18th, though current speculation places it later. The Hebrew slaves would very likely have been affected by the Aten heresy (which occured in 1350-1344). And it's entirely possible that Moses (possibly Egyptian and not Hebrew at all) was originally an Aten worshipper. Is anything known of the Aten religion and how it was practiced? Are there any similarities with the Moses era of Judaism? More research is required on this point.
Medicine Woman said:
Personally, I think we could do without more religions. We have more than enough as it is. What we need is a "Moses" that will lead us out of the religious trap. It's hard to say what Moses' original religion was like, but it is easy to see what it has become and what it has done to the earth. I realize that there are many religious types in here that will dispute this, but religion hasn't done us any good. It brought a loss of knowledge to the west in the middle ages and it threatens a new dark age from the east in the modern era. Time and time again it has been shown that religion is about suppression of heresy rather than support of reason.
ConsequentAtheist said:
Consequent, on Medicine Woman's behalf, I'll offer this. Often, when I have come across something that I find interesting but unsubstantiated, I'll offer it up on a board such as this and see if anyone else has heard about it and might offer up some further insight and sources. And anyway, it's no worse than the way Judaism and Christianity were assembled to begin with. Scattered sources of dubious origin amalgamated into one central theme. It's the story of life.
Medicine Woman said:
This is understandable, but if you take some of the causticness from Consequent's replies, he's offering good advice (not about the topic, but on research in general). Always take it with a grain of salt. Ask for references and source material. It is especially easy in the internet age to come across reams and reams of useless unsubstantial "facts." That's the greatest difficulty in searching for anything, discarding the wheat from the chaff.
On the other hand, my problem seems to be in retention of relevant data. I often get things turned around through faulty memory. For instance, ever heard of the saying, "feed a cold, starve a fever" or is it "feed a fever, starve a cold"? See, that's my problem. Which is it? I can never remember. Which is why I try to refer to reference materials whenever possible. So that the confusion might be clarified. I don't try to make my brain a mighty reference library, merely a cross-referencing tool. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. But, I can always go back to the source material to clear it up. If it's available, that is.