I'm listening to a book to and from work. I know many people here are wonderfully good at fact checking. I don't feel like I should be surprised if it is true but the premise is the Hebrew people started as nomadic waring groups of people who basically stole from more settled societies. They stole goods at first and then graduated up to stealing the more agrarian peoples' myths and old stories.

The book says that Genesis is a mashup of other people's legends and that the first five books of The Old Testament are basically compilations of other peoples' stuff. There was no smooth sequence of patriarchs and the prophets are mostly madmen who wandered around and people wrote down their rantings.

Is this even close to accurate?

I feel stupid as a non-believer that I didn't go this far back in feeling out the nonsense of the foundations Mormonism is built upon. It had Old Testament polygamy for Peter Priesthood's sake!

And as an aside it details the "Elohim" and how they were just the "greats" who happened to be worshiped in a specific local as these really ancient Hebrews wandered around. Apropos for Mormonism - respecting and worshiping other people's gods as their own. Their Jesus, their Jehovah, Their Heavenly Father, Their Elohim, all stolen and used to craft a heavy handed patriarchy just like in olden times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2019 11:25AM by Elder Berry.

What is the book?

Might be a good idea to take what is in that book with a grain of salt.

Here is a link and some quotes from a Nova interview with that might help.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/archeology-hebrew-bible/

"The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others."

"So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically."

"So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2019 01:06PM by mikemitchell.

Thank you. I love the book but I don't know if I can trust all the history in it.

Also curious is the author's fundamental thesis that humans were not "conscious" until about 4,000 years ago. That seems dubious for a couple of reasons: first, there is no genetic or neurological change that occurred at that point and hence would explain such an abrupt development; and second, there is a ton of evidence of consciousness and rationality and empathy in what is left of the earlier Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Chinese cultures.

I find his thesis compelling. We look back and attribute consciousness to human cultures that if extant might not have been the same.

I'm of the opinion human consciousness isn't an attribute like speech. It might have been something as simple as a theory of other minds. It may or may not have been strong in ancient cultures. I think we modern people are obsessed with it and wouldn't it be interesting if it was only as old as say digesting lactose?

Also about it being an "abrupt development" I don't think we can say with assurance that our ideas of our own and others' consciousness is something that developed like a physical trait. Could it be an artifact of certain cultures with some having a radically different expression of the theory of self and other selfs?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2019 02:05PM by Elder Berry.

Aboriginal Australians have been passing down oral histories for tens of millennia.

Interesting.

And art as good as anything from contemporary artists -- or anything in history.

That gets at something I have wondered about as I read this thread. I am not sure I completely grasp the thesis of this book, but I *believe* art historians at least do not believe in a progression of human consciousness -- at least when it comes to making art. The first art was as good as art gets.

I always think of Sister Wendy standing in front of (no doubt a replica) the walls of Lascaux cave, lit by torches, and saying "Art starts at the top."

Science and other forms of knowledge build on the discoveries of the past -- art, just no. (Sister Wendy is a PBS series on the history of painting.)

That applies to some of the Bible. Poetry is never more sinuous, sensuous, and sexy than Song of Songs, short stories never more powerful more radically significant than Jacob and Esau (the story of civilization, in a nutshell).

Not saying that doesn't fit with this author's thesis -- as I am not sure I get what that is.

Perhaps. But I would bear in mind that his history of the Hebrews is way off the mark: the notion that they were raiders from the desert (Abraham) or the mountains (Issac and Esau) stems from the authors of the Bible trying to encorporate the various origin stories into their new national history. Archaeology indicates that the Hebrews arose autonomously from within their Canaanite society.

If the author can get something that basic wrong, he may well make other mistakes.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the author can get something that basic wrong,
> he may well make other mistakes.

I don't doubt it. He published it in 1976.

I'll take it with a grain of Lot's Wife's salt?

This idea of evolving consciousness and what we consider consciousness something transitory and possibly not at all intrinsic to us is fascinating me.

Imagine the conceit we have to consider it what humans have had for 10s of thousands of years? What did Neanderthal's have. Their brains were slightly bigger.

Yes, my friend, take it (and me) with a grain of salt. Always a good idea.

I am skeptical of anything claiming that there was a sudden change, especially when it comes to the evolution of species and intellect. We were told that only HSS used tools, till it became clear that other hominins and even some animals do. We were told that the development of speech some 30,000 years ago was what rendered HSS unique only then to be confronted with a lack of any evidence for that assertion and growing evidence that other hominins had that capacity as well. And art? Art and the underlying grasp of abstraction was what made us unique until it became clear that Neanderthals and others were also artists.

So I'm suspicious that there was a change 4-3,000 years ago since indicia of abstraction and consciousness goes back far before then. But yes, LW should always be read with a full shaker at hand.

An excellent book about archaeology and the Bible - whether or not there is evidence for OT stories - is

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's new vision of ancient Israel and The Origin of its Sacred Texts

by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

A great compilation of what the evidence says happened compared to what the Bible says. It's not a crackpot book. It's excellent, research, documented meticulously.

Looking it up. Thanks!

I saw a review that said I should read "Who Wrote The Bible?" First?

I agree.

I read The Bible Unearthed soon after it was published and loved it. But over time the book has garnered significant criticism. Who Wrote the Bible and some of the William Dever books (Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come from? Beyond the Tests, Did God Have a Wife? are three good ones) are all less ideological looks at the archaeology.

Excellent. I've got to get it.

Great reply.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also curious is the author's fundamental thesis
> that humans were not "conscious" until about 4,000
> years ago. That seems dubious for a couple of
> reasons: first, there is no genetic or
> neurological change that occurred at that point
> and hence would explain such an abrupt
> development; and second, there is a ton of
> evidence of consciousness and rationality and
> empathy in what is left of the earlier
> Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Chinese cultures.


If I understand the idea correctly, by saying humans weren’t conscious, he isn’t saying that nothing is ‘happening’ in the mind.

What he asserts, I think (correct me if i’m Wrong EB), is that humans in this pre-conscious time heard voices, inside themselves and also projected outside, which were taken as voices from gods, of which they felt obliged to obey. What was missing was a strong sense of the I, that the voices were “my” voices or inside “me”.

The switch from obeying a voice within as if from a god and obeying a voice within as one’s own voice would not necessarily require any different neuronal structure, nor does this pre-conscious state preclude art or other evidences of consciousness.

Reading Homer with Jaynes‘s theory in mind is illuminating. Also, I have a hunch Jaynes learned a lot from Bruno Snell’s The Discovery of the Mind.

Homer is fascinating in the context, is it not?

Epics in the old style, the heroic morality and relationship to the gods, etc. The Iliad and the Odyssey would seem to fit the pre-conscious stage in Jaynes' scheme, but they come to us in the form they assumed in about 800 BCE and describe events from about 1200 BCE--putting them squarely in the "conscious" era in perhaps the most "conscious" culture in the world.

Homer would therefore seem to comprise proof that "conscious" and "pre-conscious" expression co-existed in the first millennium BCE as they have ever since--witness Beowulf, Heart of Darkness, Dostoevsky, James Joyce, and the impulsive politics of totalitarianism right and left. But if that was the case then and now, why not in the period before 2,000 BCE? Aren't "conscious" and "unconscious," in his terminology, both constant elements of the human experience?

I think Jaynes is wrong in his characterization of history and cultural development, but the scheme is a provocative way to think about what humanity is.

I don’t know.

What I would say is that it isn’t implausible to think of these people as feeling their existence as part of a tribe rather than as a solitary, sovereign individual. No me, just us, if you’ll permit me a Bernieism.

Sappho, coming to me via the impeccable translation of Anne Carson, seems the first modern consciousness in the sense you pose.

Cool! Thanks for the reference. https://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Mind-Bruno-Snell/dp/0486242641

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cool! Thanks for the reference.
> https://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Mind-Bruno-Snell/
> dp/0486242641


It’s an excellent book. I don’t call many things excellent, especially books. But this one is just that, excellent.

Careful though, you just may end up wanting to learn Antique Greek.

This is the kind of book that is intellectually sincere, meaning it is free of tendentiousness. Therefore it isn’t about the destination, it’s about the journey. You learn many things even if some details are wrong.

If you ever get a yen on for the ancient Greeks, especially pre-Socratic literature and the art that pre-dates the “signing” of the artist, this is the companion to bring along.

I bought it for my old Kindle. I'm excited!

Seems pretty clear that the ancient Hebrews evolved from a variety of peoples including Bedouin type nomads, settled peoples, refugees from neighbouring civilisations, invaders etc. This is reflected in the Old Testament.

I find it curious that in reading Julian Jaynes' well-known book about consciousness, of which you state, "I love the book," that you focus on historical claims that in their details have little to do with Jaynes' theory of consciousness as presented in the book. I have not read this book for many years, but dusted off my copy and gave it a very sketchy review before responding here.

Jaynes is a psychologist and his theory is, by his own admission, radical and "preposterous." One only needs to know that the theory insists that language is prior to consciousness, which seems ludicrous on its face; particularly if you have a dog. He also claims that consciousness is a metaphor arising from the executive "God-like" functions of the "bicameral mind." (The other part being essentially non-conscious cognitive processes.) I am not at all sure this is even coherent, let alone compelling.

I readily admit that I could be misunderstanding Jaynes after all these years, but I know he is NOT taken seriously in 21st Century consciousness studies--except for a certain limited attraction he still draws from some eliminativists, like Dennett, who seem hell-belt on taking consciousness as non-seriously as possible in order to preserve their materialist views.

So, I would be very interested in why you like this book, and in particular why you feel Jaynes' theory is even interesting, much less compelling. In any event, if someone is interested in consciousness--which is, after all, the subject of this book--Jaynes is definitely not the place to start. Even his characterization of the history of the topic in his Introduction is questionable in many respects.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find it curious that in reading Julian Jaynes'
> well-known book about consciousness, of which you
> state, "I love the book," that you focus on
> historical claims that in their details have
> little to do with Jaynes' theory of consciousness
> as presented in the book.

Huh? I didn't know about the "well-known book about consciousness" and we are speaking about me, right?

I can't create a topic about "historical claims" for you? I suggest you stop with this post in following this thread.


> So, I would be very interested in why you like
> this book, and in particular why you feel Jaynes'
> theory is even interesting, much less compelling.

Maybe I'd start another thread if I were you. I find it very compelling but I would rather talk about it in my naivety than to be condescended to about it.

> In any event, if someone is interested in
> consciousness--which is, after all, the subject of
> this book--Jaynes is definitely not the place to
> start. Even his characterization of the history
> of the topic in his Introduction is questionable
> in many respects.

And you are the authority? Is it an organ of the body? It has a location and you've studied it enough to discount a fringe theory about it?

Seriously why did I even respond?

COMMENT: I apologize. I wasn't intending to offend you. I just wondered what you thought of the book itself. You said you loved the book, I just wondered why; what you found interesting about it. That's all.

Obviously, you can post about whatever you like, and if you do not want to talk about the book, that's fine. If I were knowledgeable regarding on the historical points you addressed, I would have responded. But, since I lack that background, I left it to others. __________________________________________

"Seriously why did I even respond?"

COMMENT: I really don't know why anyone responds to me. No matter what I say, or don't say, people somehow manage to get offended. In any event, sorry to intrude on your post.

I appreciate your apology.

I was trepidatious about posting the book. I didn't want to derail my own thread. Also, the thesis in the book is very controversial. I don't mind what I like about it being picked apart but in discussing it in real life with people, everyone seems to have 0 interest in it. It is either patently false to them and human consciousness came along with the Homo Sapiens Sapiens situation or they have nothing to say about it. I think any discussion of it would devolve into a defense of the status quo and my pathetic attempts to articulate these ideals of evolving consciousness and how they relate to my ever evolving personal philosophical ideas.

People have a hard time conceiving of human thinking in ancient times. I know I do.

When I went to church a member of my ward was an autodidact Bible scholar. He was trying to get into the minds of these ancient peoples. It was fascinating. All of our reading of them was wrong. People don't like being wrong in their picking "Proverbs" and Bible stories to like.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 12:27PM by Elder Berry.

The traditional date for the Exodus (1450 BC) does not work in archaeology, but 1150) works a lot better.

The Habiru/Apiru was a common nickname in the Middle-East for a "low-life". The Egyptians used it again Semites in the Nile Delta. Like some blacks embrace the "N" word as their own, it is quite possible that the Israelites eventually embraced the "H" word.

The book you listened to presents "theories" that have been around for a long, long time. No, they are not proven facts, they are theories, or good educated guesses.


Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm listening to a book to and from work. I know
> many people here are wonderfully good at fact
> checking. I don't feel like I should be surprised
> if it is true but the premise is the Hebrew people
> started as nomadic waring groups of people who
> basically stole from more settled societies. They
> stole goods at first and then graduated up to
> stealing the more agrarian peoples' myths and old
> stories.
>
> The book says that Genesis is a mashup of other
> people's legends and that the first five books of
> The Old Testament are basically compilations of
> other peoples' stuff. There was no smooth sequence
> of patriarchs and the prophets are mostly madmen
> who wandered around and people wrote down their
> rantings.
>
> Is this even close to accurate?
>
> I feel stupid as a non-believer that I didn't go
> this far back in feeling out the nonsense of the
> foundations Mormonism is built upon. It had Old
> Testament polygamy for Peter Priesthood's sake!
>
> And as an aside it details the "Elohim" and how
> they were just the "greats" who happened to be
> worshiped in a specific local as these really
> ancient Hebrews wandered around. Apropos for
> Mormonism - respecting and worshiping other
> people's gods as their own. Their Jesus, their
> Jehovah, Their Heavenly Father, Their Elohim, all
> stolen and used to craft a heavy handed patriarchy
> just like in olden times.

Conscience only been around for 4,000 years? Who said that? But I will say this, "good and evil" is looked at differently in different societies. Still, in New Guinea for example, murder, rape, or cannibalism is not looked upon as bad or sinful or evil unless done against your own family or tribe. I'm talking about the "tribal" people who lived in the hills, not all Papauns.

Please provide any credible source saying that 1) there were Semitic peoples in the Nile Delta at 1150 BCE, and 2) they moved into Palestine thereafter.

Egyptian is not a Semitic language. They are different branches within the Afro-Asiatic family.

I repeat: do you have any source for your assertion that there were Semitic peoples temporarily in the Nile Delta who then relocated to Palestine?

Whew! I see others have addressed a lot of my concerns here -- including the question -- WHAT ARE YOU READING?!?

I am not proficient in this part of history -- so I will let others tackle that -- but I can assure you -- you can't rip off stories. Wow. Did they think someone had copyrighted that stuff? And would sue in court?

Stories are stories. They are told, shared, they change with each retelling, with each generation. No one owns them. Someone in the tribe travels for trade. After the days bargain are struck, he sits around the campfire with others from other lands, and they tell -- stories. He goes back to his people and share the stories as well as the goods.

I SUPPOSE if you believe a book is from God, that this was the actual process might seem -- shocking, eye-opening -- or something. But yeah. I just can't remember believing the first -- ever -- so I am not shocked if various versions of these stories crop up in other cultures. Of COURSE they do. That's -- culture, art, the nature of stories.

Stop me if I'm wrong but isn't there a flood in Gilgamesh? And the basic storyline is quite recognizable as Jacob and Esau. (And what a great, enduring story that is!)

But I would never say the Romans stole those stories from the Greeks! (Who had them from the Minoans and Mycenaean -- who seem to have been influenced by Mesopotamians -- who wrote down Gilgamesh.)

Culture doesn't live in discreet and impenetrable borders.

Do you realize Cinderella is so universal that some theorize mankind carried it out of Africa with them?

So -- yeah -- elements of Bible stories, both testaments, can be traced to other cultures. That is proof of neither their truth -- nor their falsity. It's proof they are stories -- often some good ones.

There are great books on the creation of the Jewish national mythology. I've mentioned Norman Cohn's Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come before, a magisterial volume on the topic covering the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Iranian, and Canaanite origins of the various stories and their remarkably complex and successful integration into the YHWH vision of history. The evidence is all there for those who want to find it.

Regarding your broader issue of the permeability of borders to stories, you are absolutely right. And so much of it is readily apparent. Why is the Greek "Christ" so similar to the Indian "Krishna?" Why do both mean a god who took on human form and plays a role in the final apocalypse? Why do the Judeao-Christians and the Zoroastrians share a concept of a single God and a countervailing single Devil? Why is the word "Satan" so close in pronunciation and meaning to the Indian "Shaitan?"

There are two possible explanations. The first is the Mormon idea of the "golden thread," according to which the original Adamic religion devolved in different directions in different cultures but retained some common features. This only takes us so far, however, because the word "Satan" didn't enter the Hebrew/Jewish lexicon until quite late. The other explanation is that for the examples I raise is that the Greeks, Romans, Iranians, Hittites, Indians, and others were all cultural progeny of a single Indo-European culture that spread throughout the region between about 2,000 and 1,000 BCE and that the Hebrews came into contact with these ideas both from the Philistines and during the Babylonian Captivity.

The Jewish genius was not unique inspiration by God, nor was it the creation of new stories. That genius was a syncretic approach, the union of extant stories in a new and very powerful form. The YHWH endeavor was a very successful case of a more general human pattern: reliance on, and reinterpretation of, other people's histories and myths.

L'sW! Thank you for that brilliant reply! I am going to put that book on my list. It sounds fabulous.

I feel very vague in comparison.

She is our diamond in the RfM rough. I often don't know how to reply to her and not sound stupid.

No kidding!

"...you can't rip off stories."

In my recovery from Mormonism I've encountered this strange thing in myself - internal biases that I know shouldn't surprise me.

I shouldn't be surprised by this fact. It is clear borrowing is the rule more than the exception but for some reason when I read critical information from the arch of the Mormon narrative's viewpoint I'm taken aback. I wonder if I will ever "outgrow" this problem.

Thanks to the people posting to this thread I've got other perspectives to peruse.

Huh?

Very true. The Bible is obviously not literal history in the contemporary sense, and contains many fantastic elements (as does our contemporary culture, I'd like to point out) but it is a VERY real book -- produced by real people, many generations over centuries polishing and eventually recording the oral history of their people -- history that included little that turns out to be rooted in fact and much that is poetry, epics, songs, and stories that gave its people a cultural identity, that vividly communicated the values and norms of their society. It is the worldview of one people -- of where we came from, what our purpose is, how to conduct our lives, and a way to imagine what cannot be described.

There is a great deal in there that is worthless to us -- the strictures in Leviticus and Exodus so hilariously sent up in the famous letter to Dr. Laura, anyone? (Google that if you haven't read it. Wonderfully funny.)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/letter-to-dr-laura/

But there is some also plenty of world-class literature and an complex view of the ineffable force behind our world that is worth contemplating -- if only to intelligently reject it.

From Shakespeare to Bob Dylan to Toni Morrison the Bible has inspired writers working in English -- and in every other language it was translated into. It is simply the foundation of English literature.

Now -- on to Book of Mormon. Just no. It was written by a handful of men -- which wouldn't be so bad if THEY HAD HONESTLY SAID THEY WROTE IT. But yeah -- they made up this bad, bad story about angels and weird ocean-going rafts and a whole civilization THAT NEVER EXISTED. Again -- if they had announced they were doing fantasy -- it would have just been a really, really, REALLY bad fantasy novel. But nnnoooo. The story. And it's not a good story! It doesn't point to profound values or morals, it doesn't give us a God worth our time to dismiss!

The Hebrew really existed. The Lamanites? Just no. The Bible is a repository of language and culture that scholars and writers who do not believe in the religions attached can turn to. Book of Mormon? Supposedly written in a language that does not exist and of which there are few examples we can examine to learn from by people who didn't exist about a world that never existed.

I hope this gets to the bottom of the falsity of Book of Mormon.

Just by the way, I am an agnostic who sometimes drifts in and out of atheism. I am much more defined by what I studied, by what I love -- I am a lifelong English major -- in case anyone wonders.

"Ineffable."

As someone who was called an "effing b*tch" by one of our harridans a few days ago, I wish I had thought of that word at the time.

"Lot's Wife, you are an effing b*tch."

"No I am not. I am ineffable!"

Haha!

I like it!

"ineffable b*tch" sounds like a goddess.

From time to time I may post under that name!

How about Relief Society President? That has been my favorite. It is such a pathetic effigy.

That was fun, too. Eric K and Dave may have the best trolls, but the posters here at RfM definitely give me the best nicknames.

Relief Society President

ElderOldDog's Sockpuppet

Ineffable B*tch

I offer my sincere thanks to those who gave me those names!

I think your handle is the source of much male ire.

You call yourself with a man's name and are an extremely intelligent woman with the ability to cut through bullshit and explain things in a very easy to mentally digest fashion. I think you've penetrated their minds and they don't like the turnabout in their natural kingdom.

I think it influences some women here, too. Men aren't the only ones with unconscious presumptions about how some man's wife should behave.

Well at least you are a true woman and not some pseudo one without a man!

I am in a great relationship, a loving, rewarding one of which we are both very proud.

Good for you and if you weren't good for you too! The archaic notion that singlehood isn't as valid as couplehood just needs to die.

Yup.

You epitomize the ineffable effing ***** effect.

Don't ever change Lottie my dear.

Thank you, Shummy. That means a lot.