Stephen said
If you think Jesus was invented how do you know Lazarus or Eleazar weren’t?
Steefen
If you think the Biblical Jesus was invented, Eleazar in the Works of Josephus was also invented.
Answer:
Jesus, in the Testimonium Flavianum, in the Works of Josephus, was invented.
Jesus in the Bible was invented.
The raising of Lazarus only appears in the gospel of John. The biblical Lazarus is invented.
Lazarus in the Works of Josephus is a character Josephus’s historical accounts.
In the Works of Josephus, Josephus uses a variety of devices to get his points across.
Eliezer and Eleazar were the sons of Moses and Aaron respectively as well. Eleazar went on to guard the ark of the covenant after fire consumed his brother Abihu and Nadab. Eleazar in Samuel is found to guard the ark of the covenant, which has just killed people in another town. His father? Abinidab.
Eleazar the son of Aaron accompanies Joshua son of Nunn. When both are mentioned, Eleazar is always mentioned first.
Eliezer is also the one the may have inherited all of Abraham’s belongings in the original Bible. In an interpretation where Isaac is killed, Abraham and Sarah retire in a town to die childless, because of Abraham’s lack of faith. Note Abraham’s complaint before Isaac is even born that all his belongings would go to the leader of his household, the Damascene Eleizer. Considering the late authorship of Genesis (notice the late usage of the name Abraham as a name, missing in early Canaanite records), One can wonder if Damascene is figurative, meaning the spiritual and physcial wilderness where the Damascus Document was written.
My parallelomania now extends to your entries in this forum, Steefen…
What are you talking about?
Firstly, we have barely any Canaanite records at all, almost all are from Ugarit, which was in Syria, so it had no direct ties with any biblical characters, if they existed in that timeframe. Ugarit was also destroyed hundreds of years before Biblical writings were written down. I don’t know what your point is or how it is even remotely educated.
Secondly, your “original Bible” interpretation is just sheer conjecture, mostly based on a single set up passage. In the original, Abraham’s faith is being tested to see if he would kill his son for God, therefore, if he killed his son he would prove his faith. Thus, it makes sense God would perhaps reward him with another child. Also… why on earth is on with your Damascus document nonsense? The Damascus Document uses the term “Damascus” as a symbol for Babylon not “spiritual and physical wilderness where the document was written.”
Your parallelomania is making your amateurish nature extremely visible. Are you trying to not be taken seriously?
Chris_Hansen said
What are you talking about?Firstly, we have barely any Canaanite records at all, almost all are from Ugarit, which was in Syria, so it had no direct ties with any biblical characters, if they existed in that timeframe. Ugarit was also destroyed hundreds of years before Biblical writings were written down. I don’t know what your point is or how it is even remotely educated.
Secondly, your “original Bible” interpretation is just sheer conjecture, mostly based on a single set up passage. In the original, Abraham’s faith is being tested to see if he would kill his son for God, therefore, if he killed his son he would prove his faith. Thus, it makes sense God would perhaps reward him with another child. Also… why on earth is on with your Damascus document nonsense? The Damascus Document uses the term “Damascus” as a symbol for Babylon not “spiritual and physical wilderness where the document was written.”
Your parallelomania is making your amateurish nature extremely visible. Are you trying to not be taken seriously?
“Why Abraham killed Isaac” shows Abraham punished because of his lack of faith in being hosted by Abimelech (telling Abimelech Sarah was his sister out of fear). The book does not directly say Isaac was Abimelech actual son, but notes two things 1) Sarah was in his harem 2) Abimilech feels an urgent need to strike a peace pact with Abraham’s offspring and his own offspring.
It was completely my own addition to note that Abraham does cry out in despair that all of his family and belongings will be left to Eliezar the Damascene.
No, it is a test of his faith, not being punished for a lack of faith. The entire situation is analogous to the Book of Job. A faithful servant is tested. Also, the Abimelech episode is not directly tied to this one.
You are just inventing conjectures out of thin air with the Abimelech-Sarah nonsense too. You are just making crap up because you refuse to use a single ounce of logic and just sit here taking things out of context. Abimelech wants to make peace because God told him he would die for having another man’s wife. This is parallel to the episode with Sarah and the Pharaoh. Seriously, nothing you say makes an ounce of sense.
It’s in a book a recently read by a student of the methodology that is not JEPD. I forget the name. Some thing like accretion, where there was one original layer built on top of over and again. He studied in Jerusalem, not America, so JEPD is not the “gospel truth” over there (nor in Europe, BTW).
“Why Abraham killed Isaac” is the name of the book.
Towards the end of the book, which is a layman’s book and includes the author’s personal journey, he is trying to come to grips with the fact that the only Torah character likely to be real is Balaam!!
JEPD isn’t “gospel truth” in America either. The Documentary Hypothesis has been pretty much hammered in the last 30 years.
Also, I can’t find any academic literature making use of “Why Abraham Killed Isaac” so it seems to be a pop book, and it isn’t something used in academia. Also, there are probably more than just Balaam who were historical.
Chris_Hansen said
There has been an attempted revival, but no one ascribes to the classical Documentary Hypothesis, not even Dr. Baden. It has evolved drastically. Most scholars, even those ascribing to the Documentary Hypothesis, don’t think E existed, to my knowledge.
Well yes and no. (Sorry I couldn’t resist.)
Nobody still agrees with Wellhausen of course but nobody doubts we’re dealing with multiple sources and multiple editors rather than any unity of composition (except for fundamentalists who still think Moses wrote it). I don’t think it’s incorrect to talk about the “documentary hypothesis” because the problems are still the same even though the contemporary approach is more nuanced.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** is a really nice interview with Prof Baden where he sketches out the issues and the different views for those who don’t want to shell out the big bucks for the monographs.
Tzemah Yoreh, if I spelled it right, which is unlikely. He is always complaining about having to write technical papaers instead of Hebrew poetry, so I assumed thats how he made his living.
I questioned an instance where he says E has Moses defeating Sihon and going into Israel to do so. The question was if the story was based on the poetic sections which are ambigious as to which war and what foes were fought, but mention Yahweh a lot.
He replied that would be a technique of a much different and much later era.
So there it is, right in front of people who refuse to see it. Torah writers attempting to mimic Greek historiography. The style of Berossus was to write the actual myth, then explain it logically. The style of the Torah author was to write the actual myths as Judean, then explain it theologically. I still think a later P got ahold of it and added two passovers and dozens of commandments during the excitement of the Hebrews fleeing Egypt, lol.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)