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.
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.
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.