Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
QuoteReplyTopic: Was Jesus a Buddhist? Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 04:19
Here, the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one, not Nirvana.Sorry DQ.... it questionably might merely be semantics on my part but the above... imo... infers a uniqueness established by yourself when ya state... the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one......it then follows logically that an assignment of superiority is thus also to be inferred if not directly..as you so state.... but ntl presents itself obliquely. As Christianity first and foremost.... remains essentially a Hebrew offshoot with later significant divisions and separations and even additons of other cultures to include the paganistic. No arguement there. And while I note it has been influenced by others thru the Hebrew development. I will continue to reject a significant or at this point even a moderate nexus of the Egyptian. As I remain not satisfied that a serious nexus between the Hebrew exists with the Egyptian given my understanding of the sources which would define the developement of Hebrew doctrine.
We agree but disagree.
But as usual, a fine discourse which I continue to appreciate.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
Here, the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one, not Nirvana.Sorry DQ.... it questionably might merely be semantics on my part but the above... imo... infers a uniqueness established by yourself when ya state... the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one......it then follows logically that an assignment of superiority is thus also to be inferred if not directly..as you so state.... but ntl presents itself obliquely. As Christianity first and foremost.... remains essentially a Hebrew offshoot with later significant divisions and separations and even additons of other cultures to include the paganistic. No arguement there. And while I note it has been influenced by others thru the Hebrew development. I will continue to reject a significant or at this point even a moderate nexus of the Egyptian. As I remain not satisfied that a serious nexus between the Hebrew exists with the Egyptian given my understanding of the sources which would define the developement of Hebrew doctrine.
We agree but disagree.
But as usual, a fine discourse which I continue to appreciate.
I found this to be particularly interesting when talking about connections between Egyptian and later beliefs.
Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient
Egyptian Creation Myths
Tony L. Shetter
This paper was
presented at the second annual Student Academic Conference held at Dallas
Theological Seminary in April 18, 2005.
Introduction
With the popularization of the documentary hypothesis
by Julius Wellhausen and the publication of the Babylonian creation and flood
stories by George Smith in the late 19th century, many critical scholars hold
to a Babylonian background of the Genesis creation accounts. This fits well, of
course, with their classification of Gen 1:1-2:3 as “P” and their dating of it
to the exilic/post-exilic periods. However, several more recent scholars
suggest that Genesis 1-2 reflects an Egyptian background: A. S. Yahuda, A. H.
Sayce, Cyrus Gordon, and James Hoffmeier. Their approach better respects the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the Egyptian background of Moses and
his original audience. The purpose of this paper is to survey the parallels and
differences between Egyptian cosmology and the Genesis creation accounts that
these four scholars have surfaced. It will also suggest that Genesis 1-2
reflects an Egyptian, not Babylonian, background and cosmology.
Brief
Survey of Scholarship: Egyptian Background of Genesis 1-2
In 1887, Sayce first noted the parallels between
Genesis 1 and the Egyptian cosmogony of Hermopolis: “the chaotic deep; the
‘breath’ moving on the waters; the creation of light; the emergence of the hill
‘in the middle of the waters.’”[1]
Unfortunately, his work was largely ignored.
In 1933 and 1934, Yahuda identified several
similarities between Genesis 1-2 and ancient Egyptian texts. He also identified
Egyptian influence throughout the Pentateuch.[2]
In 1982, Cyrus Gordon showed similarities between the
Egyptian and Hebrew traditions of the creation of man.[3]
He drew several parallels between the creation tradition of Khnum, the
potter-god, and Genesis 2:4-25.
In 1983, James Hoffmeier also identified several
striking parallels between Genesis 1-2 and ancient Egyptian cosmology.[4]
First, he discussed the state of the cosmos at the time when God began His
creation. The Egyptian and the Hebrew share similar concepts although the words
used are unrelated etymologically.[5]
Second, Hoffmeier mentioned similarities between “the initial acts of creation.”[6]
Third, Hoffmeier examined the similarities of man’s creation shared by the
Egyptian and Hebrew accounts.
Brief
Survey of Egyptian Cosmology (Creation Mythology)
The ancient Egyptian beliefs and concepts of creation
appear in various sources: Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, The Book of the Dead,
The Memphite Theology, as well as various hymns,[7]
Wisdom texts,[8]
and wall bas-reliefs.[9]
These sources show that Egyptian cosmology[10]
is both uniform and diverse.[11]
Although there are nearly one dozen Egyptian creation myths, the three most
dominate arose in the cultic sites of Heliopolis,
Memphis, and
Hermopolis.[12]
These three interconnect with one another as evidenced by the appearance of
some of the gods in more than one tradition. The cosmogonies of Heliopolis and Memphis
share more in common with one another than with Hermopolis. However, they all
feature the similar concepts of a primordial ocean, a primeval hill, and the
deification of nature.[13]
These three cosmogonies deal specifically with how the god(s) created the
world. They do not directly address the creation of humans and animals.[14]
“The earliest recorded cosmogonies seem more concerned with accounting for the
origin of the world than for that of mankind or of the animals.”[15]
The Egyptians developed a separate creation tradition to explain the creation
of humans and animals, namely the tradition of Khnum, the potter-god.
The
Creation of the World: The Three Major Egyptian Cosmogonies
Heliopolis
The Pyramid Texts contain the earliest known
cosmogonic expressions of the Egyptians.[16]
Priests of the temple in Heliopolis recorded these hieroglyphic texts inside
the pyramids of Unis, Teti, Pepi I, Merenre I, Pepi II[17]
(kings of dynasties 5 and 6, ca. 2375-2184 BC)[18]
From these texts comes the knowledge of the Heliopolitan cosmogony. In Heliopolis, nine gods
constitute the Great Ennead.[19]
Atum[20]
functions as the creator god from whom the other eight gods originate. Pyramid
Text 1655 lists the gods of the Great Ennead and acknowledges Atum as the
father of the other eight. It reads, “O you Great Ennead which is on Ōn[21]
(Heliopolis), (namely) Atum, Shu, Tefēnet, Gēb,
Nūt, Osiris, Isis, Seth, and Nephthys; O you
children of Atum, extend his goodwill to his child in your name of Nine Bows.”[22]
Atum arises first from the primordial waters (personified as Nun) from which
also emerges the primeval hill.[23]
He takes his stand on the primeval hill, and begins his work of creation. Not
having a consort, he masturbates to bring forth other gods to assist him in
creation. Pyramid Text 1248 graphically describes this event. “Atum evolved
growing ithyphallic, in Heliopolis.
He put his penis in his grasp that he might make orgasm with it, and the two
siblings were born—Shu and Tefnut.”[24]
However, Pyramid Texts 1652 and 1653a describe the event without erotic
language. “Atum Scarab! When you became high, as the high ground, when you
rose, as the benben in the Phoenix Enclosure in Heliopolis, you sneezed Shu, you spat
Tefnut.”[25]
From his emission or his spittle Shu and Tefnut originate who deify air and
moisture respectively. Then, Shu and Tefnut copulate and produce Geb, the
earth, and Nut, the sky. Geb and Nut in turn produce five offspring: Osiris,
Isis, Horus the Elder, Set, and Nephthys.[26]However, Horus the Elder does not become a
member of the Great Ennead. Instead, he, along with Thot, Maat, Anubis, and
other deities not clearly identified, constitute the Little Ennead.[27]
Memphis
The Shabaka Stone[28]
contains the famous Memphite Theology. Carved onto a black granite slab by
order of king Shabaka (716-702 BC)[29]
of the 25th Dynasty, this stone was to preserve the writing of a
worm-eaten document.[30]
Sadly, the stone later suffered severe damage. The names of Shabaka and of the
god Set were intentionally chiseled out, and the stone was used to grind grain.[31]
The Memphite theologians borrowed the Great Ennead of Heliopolis.[32]
Ptah replaced Atum as the creator god, but Atum did not disappear from the new
theology. According to Mercer, He “became the heart (understanding) and tongue
(word) of ‘Ptah the Great’, and in turn, Ptah was the heart and tongue of the
Ennead [sic]...Ptah (that is, Atum) was the ennead in emanation and
manifestation. Thus, the other eight deities of the Memphite ennead were merely
Ptah himself in manifestation.”[33]
Line 55 of the Shabaka Stone supports Mercer’s assertion, and reveals that Ptah
creates by divine word. It says, “His (Ptah’s) Ennead is before him as teeth
and lips. They are the semen and the hands of Atum. For the Ennead of Atum came
into being through his semen and his fingers. But the Ennead is the teeth and
lips in this mouth which pronounced the name of every thing, from which Shu and
Tefnut came forth, and which gave birth to the Ennead.”[34]
In this text, Ptah’s creation by word is contrasted with Atum’s creation by masturbation,
and Ptah’s method is shown to be the real cause behind Atum’s method of
creation. The Memphite Theology does not portray Ptah as using magic to call
the world into being. “The divine creator is not imagined as a magician
reciting his spells; he is seen as one who first conceived in his mind that
which should be created to form the world, and then brought it into being by
pronouncing the necessary command for it to be.”[35]
Hermopolis
In the city of Hermopolis,
the cosmogony of the Ogdoad arose. The Ogdoad of Hermopolis consists of four
gods and their respective consorts: Nun and Naunet, Keku and Kauket, Hehu and
Hauhet, Amun and Amaunet. Each of the four goddesses receives her name from the
feminine form of the name of her male counterpart.[36]
These deities represent the four conditions present at the beginning of
Egyptian creation. Nun and Naunet personify the primeval waters. Nun embodied
the primeval ocean, and Naunet, his consort, referred to the counter-heaven
lying under the primeval ocean.[37]
Keku and Kauket personify the darkness which attended the primordial state.
Hehu and Hauhet personify the boundlessness and formlessness of the primordial
condition.[38]
Amun and Amaunet present some difficulty in ascertaining their precise meaning.
Brandon suggested
that ‘Amun’ comes from the root ìmn which means
‘hidden’.[39]
Although Amun became identified with the sun god, Rē, during the Middle
Kingdom, he was originally known as the god of air and wind.[40]
One can see an association between air and wind, and the idea of ‘hidden’ or
‘unseen’. Thus, Amun and Amaunet personify the hidden air and wind that
attended the primordial state.[41]Frankfort
comments on Amun’s role, and explains the function of the Ogdoad. He states,
“Amon could therefore be conceived in later times as the dynamic element of the
chaos, the mainspring of creation, the breath of life in dead matter. But this
is not the original conception, which simply, by means of the Ogdoad, made the
chaos more specific, more apt to be understood. On the Isle of Flames the Eight
mysteriously made the sun-god come forth from the waters, and therewith their
function was fulfilled.”[42]
Differences
among the Three Egyptian Cosmogonies
The three cosmogonies of Heliopolis,
Memphis, and
Hermopolis exhibit both similarities and differences. At times the differences
create contradictions in the mind of the modern reader. However, these
contradictions among the three traditions and even within the traditions
themselves did not pose a problem for the ancient Egyptians.[43]
Similarities
among the Three Egyptian Cosmogonies
From studying the various pieces of evidence dealing
with the Egyptian understanding of creation, three common concepts bring unity
to the otherwise diverse creation stories. All creation stories share the
belief in a primordial ocean, a primeval hill, and the deification of nature.
These concepts find representation in each of the temple sites in ancient Egypt.[44]
The
Creation of Humans in Egyptian Cosmogonies
Egyptians viewed the creation of the world as a
separate creative act from the creation of man. While the cosmogonies of Heliopolis, Memphis,
and Hermopolis address the origin of the world, the creation of humans and
animals receives little attention.[45]
The three main Egyptian cosmogonies primarily focus on the condition of the
primordial state, the origin of the gods, and the creation of the heaven, the
earth, and the sun.
The
Creation Tradition of Khnum
While the creation of humans and animals receives
little attention in the main cosmogonies, Egyptian evidence concerning the
creation of man is not lacking. As Cyrus Gordon notes, “One of the most
familiar scenes in Egyptian art is Khnum, the ram-headed god, fashioning a
person out of the clay on the potter’s wheel.”[46]
In the Temple of Deir el Bahari, Hatshepsut had a relief
carved on one of the walls depicting Khnum fashioning her and her ka out of clay on his potter’s turntable.[47]
Khnum creates humans and animals on his potter’s wheel using the silt of the Nile, i.e., clay. After fashioning a person, his consort
Heket offers the “breath of life,” symbolized by the ankh,
to the nose of the clay figure. This animates the clay effigy and the person
receives an allotted life-span, personified as Shay meaning
“That-which-is-ordained.”[48]
Suggested
Parallels between Egyptian Cosmology and the Hebrew Creation Accounts of
Genesis 1-2
The following features of Egyptian cosmology share
similarities with the Genesis creation accounts: the ability of the Egyptians
to hold seemingly contradictory views of the creation events at the same time,
the means employed by the creator-gods in their creation, and the condition of
the primordial state at the beginning of creation.
Adherence
to Seemingly Contradictory Views of the Creation
The fact that the Egyptians held to at least three
different means of creation simultaneously without concerning themselves with
the contradictions may give an answer to the two different creation narratives
in Genesis. Old Testament scholars have long wrestled with the presence of two
creation stories in Genesis. For example, von Rad notes, “The long road in the
history of tradition which lies behind the present form of this account of
creation is in many respects recognizable. The exposition has dealt with the
tension between creation by act and creation by word.”[49]As
noted earlier, the Egyptians recognized creation by masturbation
(self-copulation), by divine word, and by fashioning.[50]Two of the three means of creation in the
Egyptian tradition show a parallel with the means Yahweh used. In Genesis
1:1—2:3, Yahweh creates by divine word; and in Genesis 2:4-25, Yahweh creates
by fashioning: God planted a garden, formed man, and formed animals. Creation
by masturbation (self-copulation) finds no parallel with the Hebrew tradition.
To picture Yahweh in such an act of creation would not be in keeping with His
character. Furthermore, in the Memphite Theology, Ptah’s creation by divine
word superseded Atum’s ‘self-copulation’ as being the cause behind Atum’s
activity. Interestingly, two forms of creation (divine word, and
self-copulation) find expression in the Memphite Theology without one
contradicting the other. Instead, they complement one another. Erik Iversen
sees the relationship between Ptah and Atum as creator and demiurge
respectively. Ptah inaugurated creation by thought and word, and Atum carried
out the sensible, i.e. material, creation.[51]
James Allen concurs and says, “Ptah’s theologians united the two concepts of
craftsmanship and the creative word into a single theory of creation.”[52]
A similar process occurs in the creation account in Genesis 1:1—2:3. In certain
instances throughout the narrative, God first declares his desire “Let there
be...” and then God makes that which he desired. The difference between Gen
1:1—2:3 and the Memphite Theology lies in the fact that God employs both means
of creation without the aid of another god. For example, in Gen 1:6, God says,
“Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water separating the water from
the water.” Then, in Gen 1:7, God makes the expanse. It says, “And God made the
expanse and separated the water which was below the expanse from the water
which was above the expanse; and it was so.”
The
Means Employed by the Creator-Gods
As mentioned above, Ptah creates the world by divine
word in the Memphite Theology. This forms a unique parallel between Genesis
1:1—2:3 and Egyptian cosmology. “While the doctrine of creation in response to
divine command is widespread in Egyptian literature, it is not to be found in
Babylonian cosmologies.”[53]
As Khnum creates man on his potter’s wheel,
Yahweh-Elohim creates man by forming him from the earth.[54]
While God is not explicitly called a potter in the Genesis narrative, the
presence of the verb rx^y` “to form, fashion” (which is the root of rx@y)
“potter”) implicitly suggests that God is viewed as a potter.[55]
Furthermore, Gordon argues that the “God as the potter and man as the clay”
motif occurs more explicitly throughout the rest of the Old Testament,
especially in Job. Therefore, he concluded that the Old Testament implies that
everyone has been formed out of clay by the Divine Potter.[56]
Both the Egyptian and the Hebrew texts use the phrase
“breath of life” to describe the life-giving force that the deity infused into
the nostrils of the clay figure.[57]
However, a difference exists between the two traditions. The Egyptian reliefs
usually portray two gods involved in the creation of man. One creates the man,
and the other puts the breath of life, represented by the ankh,
into the nostrils. In the Hebrew tradition, Yahweh-Elohim performs both
functions, an implicit polemic against ancient Egyptian mythology.[58]
It appears that the creation traditions of Heliopolis, Memphis,
and Hermopolis parallel the first creation account in Genesis by having as
their focus the creation of the world in general. The creation tradition of
Khnum parallels the second creation account in Genesis by focusing on the
creation of humans specifically.
The
Primordial Condition
The Egyptian view of the primordial state may help
inform the Hebrew understanding of the conditions mentioned in Genesis 1:2.
Creation scientists have long argued for the creation of a water canopy when
the waters were separated from the waters in Genesis. Envisioning the creation
of the world in Genesis from a modern scientific standpoint leads them to see
the world described in Genesis 1:2 as a ball of water from which a portion of
water is taken and placed above the atmosphere. However, if the Egyptian
worldview gives a closer understanding of the Hebrew worldview, quite a
different idea emerges. The Egyptians saw the separation of waters as an
air-bubble in the midst of the watery abyss of Nun.[59]
It was in this air-bubble that the earth (the primeval hill) arose. A closer
look at Genesis 1 reveals a similar (nearly identical) concept. The author of
Genesis 1:1—2:3 describes the placement of the expanse as <y!M`h^EotB= “in the midst of the water” i.e. in the middle of the water. This
gives the notion of an air-bubble in the middle of the deep. After making the
expanse, God commands the water under heaven to gather to one place and allow
the dry ground to appear.
The Ogdoad of Hermopolis appears to parallel the four
conditions present at the beginning of creation in Genesis 1:2.[60]
Hoffmeier[61]
and Wilson[62]
have noted the similarities between these deities and the four conditions
present at the beginning of creation in Genesis 1:2. Other Egyptologists concur
with the meanings Hoffmeier and Wilson assign to these four pairs of gods.[63]
Hoffmeier suggests the following parallels. Nun/Naunet, the personified
primordial ocean corresponds to the Hebrew <ohT= ‘the
deep.’ Keku/Kauket, personified darkness attending the primordial state
parallels the Hebrew Ev#j)‘darkness.’ Hehu/Hauhet, the gods reflecting
boundlessness and infinity correspond to the Hebrew Whb)w` Wht ‘formlessness’
and ‘emptiness.’ Amun/Amaunet, personified air and wind parallel the Hebrew <yh!l)a$ j^Wr‘mighty wind.’[64]
The involvement of Amun in the creation tradition at
Hermopolis appears to parallel the role of <yh!l)a$ j^Wr ‘mighty wind’ or ‘wind of God’[65]
in Genesis 1:2.[66]
At the beginning of creation, the
j^Wrhovers over the
waters. One could imagine a mighty wind blowing upon the primordial waters
stirring them into motion. Thus, the parallels between the Ogdoad of Hermopolis
and the conditions present at the beginning of creation in Genesis 1:2 reveal
that the Hebrews and the Egyptians shared a similar concept of the primordial
state. However, one stark contrast exists. While the Egyptians personified the
elements of nature, the Hebrews saw their God as distinct from the creation.
The elements of the primordial universe await the command of the Creator rather
than acting with independent volition. Furthermore, Atum-Re (creator-god and
sun-god respectively) evolved/created himself out of the pre-existent water. By
Contrast, Yahweh is eternally pre-existent, is distinct from the primeval
water, and did not create himself.
Genesis
Creation Accounts in Their Historical Context
The people who lived in the ancient Near
East all shared similar ideas concerning how the world came into
existence.[67]
Although the ancients shared many views in common with one another, differences
existed among them as well. In Babylon,
creation results from a bloody battle of the gods. Marduk slays Tiamat, and
splits her in two forming the heaven. However, in Egyptian creation, no violent
struggle exists among the gods. Hebrew creation introduces another difference.
Only one God exists who is distinct from his creation.
Historical
Relationship between Hebrews and Egyptians
Since the Hebrew and Egyptian concepts of creation
share more in common with one another than the Hebrew and Babylonian, this
suggests that the author or redactor of the Genesis creation accounts possessed
greater knowledge of Egyptian than Babylonian cosmology, or a the very least
held a worldview that was closer to the Egyptian than the Babylonian worldview.
If the Pentateuch was written by Moses who was educated in the courts of Egypt, the use
of Egyptian ideas in the Genesis creation account should not be surprising.[68]
Hatshepsut
and Moses
Omar Zuhdi, suggests Hatshepsut as the daughter of
Pharaoh who drew Moses from the water.[69]
While problems exist with his theory, as he admits, it remains as a valid
possibility.
As mentioned previously, Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir
el-Bahari in Thebes
contains a wall-relief which depicts Khnum fashioning her and her ka out of clay on his potter’s turntable. Khnum’s consort,
Heket, kneels by the potter’s wheel and offers the clay effigy the breath of
life, symbolized by the ankh.[70]
The assertion put forth by this wall-relief, namely, that Khnum personally made
Hatshepsut, validates her right to rule.[71]
If Hatshepsut adopted Moses as her son, he would have
known about the cult of Khnum since his stepmother’s right to rule depended
upon Khnum’s creation of her. Moses’ familiarity with Khnum may explain the
Egyptian imagery found in the second Genesis creation account (Gen 2:4-25).
Here, Yahweh-Elohim forms man out of the ground and breathes the breath of life
into his nostrils causing the man to become a living being.
Demythologizing:
The Historicization of Myth
As McCurley[72]
has shown, Yahweh often does in history the actions claimed by other gods in
the mythologies of Israel’s
neighbors. This process, known as ‘demythologizing,’ occurs in the Genesis
creation accounts. The first creation story in Genesis demythologizes the
cosmogony of Hermopolis. The four conditions present at the beginning of
creation in Genesis parallel those represented by the Ogdoad of Hermopolis.
However, rather than the elements of the creation having a volition of their
own, the text portrays them as inanimate objects which move according to the
direction of Yahweh’s word.
Genesis
Creation Accounts Written as History
The wayyiqtol
narrative structure of the Genesis creation accounts shows that the author/redactor(s)
intended their audience to understand the accounts as taking place in history.
Whether or not one chooses to accept the historicity of the creation accounts
makes no difference with this issue. The original audience understood the Genesis
creation accounts as describing a historical event based on the wayyiqtol narrative structure.
Polemical
Elements in the Genesis Creation Accounts
Certain parts of the Genesis creation texts not only
diverge from Egyptian concepts but they also form a polemic against the
Egyptian gods. The scope of this paper does not permit an exhaustive listing of
the polemical elements in the Genesis creation accounts. However, a few will be
mentioned.
God’s creation of light on day one before the creation
of the luminaries on day four forms a polemic against Atum-Re, the sun god.
This shows that the source of light does not originate with the sun or the moon
(i.e. Re, the sun-god or Thoth, the moon-god), but with the Hebrew God who is
distinct from the light and the creation.
Another polemical element is found in the fact that
the author does not name the sun and the moon. He simply refers to them as the
‘greater light’ and the ‘lesser light.’ If he intended to merely demythologize
the luminaries, he could have used the Hebrew vm#v#‘sun’
and j^r@y` ‘moon.’ By not naming the sun and the moon, he further distances
them from the deities attributed to them in Egypt.
The polemical elements in the Genesis creation
accounts imply that the author saw a need for his audience to understand that
Yahweh, and not the Egyptian gods, is the one true God and Creator of the
world. For example, a major component of the Exodus narrative concerns the
battle between Yahweh, and the Egyptian gods (Pharaoh himself being the sun-god
incarnate). In the context of the slaying of the first-born in Egypt Yahweh
declares in Exodus 12:12, “against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments.”
During the birth of Israel
as a nation, the Hebrews saw the Egyptian gods, not the Babylonian, as opposing
Yahweh. Therefore, a creation polemic that establishes Yahweh as creator in
place of the Egyptian gods seems more plausible than one that opposes the
Babylonian gods.
The presence of two creation stories in Genesis may
result from the need of the Hebrews to refute the two Egyptian creation
traditions, namely, the tradition of how the cosmos came into being, and the
tradition of how humans and animals came into being. One creation story would
not suffice to argue against the views in Egypt since the Egyptians saw the
creation of the universe and the creation of humans in two distinct ways,
namely, creation by divine word, and creation by forming. In order to
sufficiently argue against both, two creation accounts were needed.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 portrays Elohim as creating the cosmos
by his spoken word. Although the creation of man and woman becomes God’s
crowning achievement in his creation week, the specifics of how he made them
receives little mention other than their creation as the image of God. For a
more detailed account of man and woman’s creation, the reader must consult the
second Genesis creation account.
Genesis 2:4-25 shows Yahweh-Elohim creating man and
animals from the earth. Yahweh-Elohim forms man out of the earth and breathes
into him the “breath of life.”
Through the two creation accounts, Yahweh-Elohim is
shown to be superior to the gods of Egypt. He creates by divine word,
yet remains transcendent. Unlike Ptah, he does not have to embody the creation
to command it, neither does he require assistance from another god or demiurge.
He simply speaks and/or acts, and the creation is completed. He also creates by
forming man out of the earth. Unlike Khnum, he does not require the aid of a
consort. He creates the man and breathes life into him. Thus, through the two
creation accounts, Yahweh-Elohim demonstrates his ability to perform all the
creative acts of the Egyptian gods.
The evidence has shown the use of Egyptian creation
imagery within the Genesis creation accounts.However, rather than discrediting the Genesis creation accounts as a
direct borrowing of Egyptian beliefs, the evidence shows that the
author/redactor(s) possessed a knowledge Egyptian beliefs and argued against
those concepts that were contrary to truth.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, the author/redactor(s) of the Genesis creation accounts share
certain concepts of the makeup of the world with other ancient Near Eastern
cultures. However, it is especially with Egypt’s worldview that the
author/redactor(s) are familiar. Evidence for this lies in the many allusions
to Egyptian creation motifs throughout the Genesis creation accounts. But,
rather than being a case of direct borrowing, they demythologize the Egyptian
concepts and form a polemic against the Egyptian gods. Thus, they elevate
Yahweh-Elohim as the one true God, who is transcendent and who is all powerful.
He speaks his desire and it comes to pass. He does not require the assistance
of other gods to perform the acts of creation. He alone possesses the power and
means necessary to effect the creation of the world. This paper has compiled a
list of the more significant parallels between Egyptian cosmology and the
Genesis creation accounts, and has shown that Egyptian cosmology and the
Genesis creation accounts share more affinity with one another than the Genesis
creation accounts share with Babylonian cosmology.
Good stuff Alani and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.
I have perused.. in the past... several similar dissertations and opinions. Unfortunately, all this does is to confirm that which I and DQ for example can agree and disagree on. That outside influences have had an impact on Hebrew theology as it developed and subsequently effected Christianity. To include possibly Egyptian. The question remains to what degree. If at all.
It still does not however give me enough.... even with the purported (author's conjecture-analysis and opinion) similarities vs. dissimilarities to change my opinion at this time... if for no other reason then that stated in the conclusion: ''But, rather than being a case of direct borrowing, they demythologize the Egyptian concepts and form a polemic against the Egyptian gods.''
This remains an indicator, to me, that the Egyptian influence while certainly there for the taking was rejected as the Hebrews continued to develop their doctrine as prescribed by their founding patriarchs. On this the author and I can agree....even though I challenge the contention that he makes as to a dominant superiority over other theologies in the region.
That there will be periods of/in the then and now... that apostasies were to occur is immaterial... imo...to the development as a whole that was to eventually impact Christianity.
Thanks again.
Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 20-Oct-2011 at 05:21
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
Instruction of Amenemope (also called Instructions of Amenemopet, Wisdom of Amenemopet) is a literary work composed in Ancient Egypt, most likely during the Ramesside Period (ca. 1300–1075 BC); it contains thirty chapters of advice for successful living, ostensibly written by the scribe Amenemope son of Kanakht as a legacy for his son. A characteristic product of the New Kingdom “Age of Personal Piety”, the work reflects on the inner qualities, attitudes, and behaviors required for a happy life in the face of increasingly difficult social and economic circumstances. It is widely regarded as one of the masterpieces of ancient near-eastern wisdom literature and has been of particular interest to modern scholars because of its relationship to the biblical Book of Proverbs.
There has been a consensus among scholars that there is a crossover of some Egyptian and Assyrian nature in the proverbs from The Instructions of Amenemopet and Ahiqar.
The Words of the Wise: Introduction and Sayings About Wealth and Station (Proverbs 22:17?23:11)
Proverbs 22:17 marks a clear change in the book. Instead of the one-verse units of the major Solomonic collection, we now have multiple-verse units. With a new section, we would expect a new title or subheading. And verse 17 appears to give us just that in referring to what follows as "the words of the wise"?a general distinction for collected wisdom. This section appears to continue until 24:22, as 24:23 denotes yet another section, possibly an appendix to this section, with the words "These things also belong to the wise." Furthermore, this section of sayings from the wise (22:17?24:22)?mainly the first part (22:17?23:11)?bears some striking similarity to the Egyptian "Instruction of Amenemope." Amenemope, sometimes spelled Amen-em-opet, was a superintendent of agriculture and taxation writing to his youngest son on keys to success in life and in profession as a court official.
As noted in our introduction, it is not clear which writing came first, whether this section of Proverbs or the Egyptian work. In any case, one seems to have influenced the other. We will note some similarities along the way. In doing so, we should realize that the Egyptian wisdom text, mired in pagan references, is not inspired literature, as is the book of Proverbs. Nevertheless, the Egyptian text helps to demonstrate the ancient provenance of the biblical book as well as the relationship between Israelite wisdom and that of the wider region, just as the Bible describes of Solomon (see 1 Kings 4:29-34).
The introductory call to attention in Proverbs 22:17-21 "is laid out with the exhortation to learn and pass on the teaching (v. 17), followed by three motivations: (1) there will be a pleasing store of wisdom (v. 18); (2) there will be a deeper trust in the Lord?a distinctively Israelite aspect of wisdom literature (v. 19); and (3) it will build reliability?he will grasp the truth (v. 20) and see himself as a special envoy to keep wisdom in his heart and on his lips (v. 21)" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, note on verses 17-21).
The latter point here is stated in verse 21 this way: "That I may make you know the certainty of the words of truth, that you may answer words of truth to those who send to you [or 'to him who sent you,' NIV]." Likewise the purpose of Amenemope is: "To know how to refute the accusation of [or 'to return an answer to'] the one who made it, and to send back a reply to the one who wrote [or 'to the one who sent you']; to set one straight on the paths of life" (intro., 1:5-7, William Simpson, editor, The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, and Poetry, 1973, p. 242). Within brackets here are alternate translations as footnoted in the cited source. (The complete "Instruction of Amenemope," same translation but without footnotes, is online at http://touregypt.net/instructionofamenemope.htm.)
In verse 20, "excellent things" in the KJV and NKJV is apparently incorrect. The Hebrew word here, difficult because of the uniqueness of form, is shlshwm (consonants only), which some take to be a poetic or plural form of "three" (shlsh) or "third" (shlyshy). Most scholars, though, emend the text or consider the word another form of "thirty" (shlshym orshlwshym)?compare "thirty sayings" in the NIV. This is mainly because of the affinity of the text with Amenemope, which consists of an introduction followed by 30 short chapters, coupled with the fact that Proverbs 22:17?24:22 can reasonably be divided into an introduction followed by 30 sayings. It should be noted, though, that it is also possible to divide the text into three sections?the first, resembling Amenemope in content (22:17?23:11), and two other sections marked by the use of "My son." Some claim that "third" is meant to introduce the third section of the book?following the prologue (Proverbs 1?9) and Solomon's major collection (10:1?22:16). Still, 30 seems reasonable. Note the following apparent divisions, which should not be considered definitive (others group them slightly differently). Most of the 30 subject titles are from Expositor's:(View Table of "Thirty Sayings of the Wise").
We start, then, with ten sayings about wealth and station (22:22?23:11).
Saying 1: Treatment of the Poor (22:22-23). Personal prosperity must not come through the mistreatment of others. This first saying forms an inclusio with the 10th saying (23:10-11) in that both warn against plundering the poor with the threat that God will plead their cause, acting as their avenger. Amenemope makes numerous statements against dishonest gain and expresses special divine concern for treatment of the poor and downtrodden, saying, "Beware of stealing from a miserable [i.e., poor] man and of raging against the cripple [or the weak]" (chap. 2, 4:4-5) and "God loves him who cares for the poor, more than him who respects the wealthy" (chap. 28, 26:4-5).
Saying 2: Dangerous Associations (22:24-25). Friendship with a hothead is a bad idea. This concept is found throughout the Instruction of Amenemope. Indeed, "the contrast between the intemperate, hot-headed man and the tranquil, truly silent man is one of the main themes in the text" (Simpson, p. 241). Note, for example, "Do not fraternize with the hot-tempered man, nor approach him to converse" (chap. 9, 11:13-14).
Saying 3: Rash Vows (22:26-27). We mustn't be too quick to make deals?particularly when it comes to standing surety for others, as we've seen in other verses (compare 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18; 20:16). We could lose everything?one's bed here meaning his last possession (such as today speaking of "the kitchen sink" or "the shirt off one's back"). There is no parallel to this in the Egyptian material.
Saying 4: Respect for Property (22:28). As Expositor's notes on this verse: " The sage warns against appropriating someone else's property (see also Amenemope, ch. 6, 7:12-13 ['Do not displace the surveyor's marker on the boundaries of arable land, nor alter the position of the measuring line. Do not be greedy for a plot of land'])....(...see Deut 19:14; 27:17...Hos 5:10). The boundaries were sacred because God owned the land and had given it to the fathers as their inheritance; to extend one's land at another's expense was a major violation of covenant and oath. Of course, property disputes and wars ancient and modern arise because both sides can point to times when their ancestors owned the land." A specification of this point is made in the 10th saying (Proverbs 23:10-11).
Saying 5: Benefits of Skill (22:29). A person skilled in his work will be recognized and rewarded with advancement. Those who are the best at what they do will rise to the top?working even for rulers. Of course, as with other proverbs, this is a general principle. Other factors will bear on actual experience. The Instruction of Amenemope says: "As to a scribe who is experienced [skilled through practice] in his position, he will find himself worthy of being a courtier [i.e., one in attendance at a royal court]" (chap. 30, 27:16-17).
Saying 6: Caution Before Rulers (23:1-3). The previous saying spoke of promotion to standing before kings. The current saying gives a caution about being in such a position. Here a courtier at a banquet is told to keep his eyes on what's in front of him. This may literally mean not staring about the table or at the ruler with a view to feasting?though it could be a metaphor for keeping in mind what's really going on. "Put a knife to your throat" in this context means "curb your appetite" or "control yourself." The instruction here was perhaps a point of proper etiquette at court in ancient times, but the reason given goes beyond that. Deceptive food here probably implies more than the fact that too much rich food can make you ill. A ruler often draws a person in because he has ulterior motives. " The ruler's food may be 'deceptive'...it is not what it seems. So the warning is not to indulge in his impressive feast?the ruler wants something from you or is observing you....The Mishnah (Aboth 2:3) quotes Gamaliel as warning that a ruler only draws you into court for his purpose, but in your day of trouble he will not be there" (Expositor's, note on verses 1-3). The New American Commentary notes: "The rich do not give away their favors for free. They want something in return, and it is generally much more than what they have invested. One can lose one's own soul in the exchange."
As noted in our introduction, there is correspondence here to both the Egyptian Instruction of Ptah-hotep and Amenemope. Quoting from Ptah-hotep in Wilson's translation: "If you are one of the guests at the table of one who is greater than you, accept what he gives when it is set before you. Look at what is before you and do not pierce him / with much staring, for to annoy him is an abomination of the spirit. Do not speak to him until he calls, for no one knows what may be displeasing" (maxim 7, 6:13?7:3, p. 162). And from Amenemope, as translated by Trevor Longman, How to Read Proverbs: "Do not eat in the presence of an official and then set your mouth before (him). If you are sated pretend to chew. Content yourself with your saliva. Look at the bowl that is before you, and let it serve your needs. An official is great in his office, as well as rich in drawings of water" (chap. 23, 23:13-20, p. 75).
The eighth saying (Proverbs 23:6-8) also speaks of avoiding delicacies in certain company.
Saying 7: Fleeting Wealth (23:4-5). This saying about not striving too hard after wealth, because of its fleeting nature, is the closest in correspondence between the book of Proverbs and the Instruction of Amenemope, and perhaps best illustrates the influence of one work on the other. Note especially the end of this saying in Amenemope: "Do not set your heart on seeking riches....Do not exert yourself to seek out excess and your wealth will prosper for you [or 'your own property is good enough for you']; if riches come to you by theft they will not spend the night with you; as soon as day breaks they will not be in your household; although their places can be seen, they are not there. When the earth opens up its mouth, it levels him [or them] and swallows him [or them] up, and it drowns him [or them] in the deep; they have made for themselves a great hole which suits them [i.e., is as large as they are]. And they have sunk themselves in the tomb; or they have made themselves wings like geese, and they fly up to the sky" (chap. 7, 9:10?10:5). So very true?and thus it's foolish to be slave to this pursuit (see also Luke 12:20; 1 Timothy 6:7-10).
Saying 8: Unpleasant Hospitality (23:6-8). These verses show the worthlessness of cultivating friendship with a stingy person. (The word for "miser" here literally means "one who has an evil eye"?in contrast to the generous person, literally "he who has a good eye," in 22:9). In 23:6 we see repeated the phrase from saying 6 (23:3) that we not desire such a person's delicacies. A stingy person offering you anything has nothing to do with kindness toward you. He clearly must be using you. Your attempts at friendship are therefore wasted effort. This specific lesson is not related in the Egyptian literature. Some attempt to use the first colon of verse 7 as an example of "you are what you think," in the context of the power of positive thinking. Yet, as scholars acknowledge, the Hebrew here is difficult and probably should not be translated the way it is written in the King James and New King James Versions. In any case, there is nothing at all positive about the context here, as it concerns the deceitful intentions of the miser.
Saying 9: Wisdom Wasted on a Fool (23:9). This verse is related to the former saying in the sense of telling a person something being wasted effort. The wording here does not mean we should never say anything in a fool's presence. It is a caution to be sparing. Why take time for a lengthy explanation when you know the person won't care what you say? As Jesus told us, we should not cast our pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6). In this "there is no specific connection to Egyptian literature, but the general concept was there that a fool rejected discipline and instruction, often scorning the teacher who tried to change him" (Expositor's,note on verse 9).
Saying 10: Respect the Poor's Property (23:10-11). This is the closing frame of the inclusio opened in the first saying (22:22-23), warning against stealing from the lowly with the threat of God acting as their advocate, redeemer and avenger. In this case the mistreatment of the poor (here the fatherless) is perpetrated through removing ancient boundary markers to take possession of their fields. Saying 4 (22:28) explicitly concerns not removing such boundary markers. And regarding it we noted corresponding verses in Amenemope, as we do here again: "Do not displace the surveyor's marker on the boundaries of arable land, nor alter the position of the measuring line. Do not be greedy for a plot of land..." (chap. 6, 7:12-13). Moreover, Amenemope continues in the next line, "...nor overturn the boundaries of a widow" (7:14), tying in more closely with this 10th saying in Proverbs.
Continuing in the Egyptian text, consequences for taking over the fields of others are warned of immediately following: "To one who has done this on earth, pay attention, for he is a weak enemy; he is an enemy overturned inside himself; life is taken from his eye; his household is hostile to the community, his storerooms are toppled over, his property taken from his children, and to someone else his possessions given. Take care not to topple over the boundary marks of the arable land, not fearing that you will be brought to court; man propitiates God by the might of the Lord when he sets straight the boundaries of the arable land. Desire, then, to make yourself prosper, and take care for the Lord of All; do not trample on the furrow of someone else, their good order will be profitable for you" (8:1-16).
With the 10th saying of the wise the close correspondence with the Egyptian text ceases.
Words of the Wise Cont'd: An Obedient Son (Proverbs 23:12?24:4)
Saying 11: Attend to Learning (23:12). Some see this verse as a call to attention to hear the instruction in the next verse or in this section, which is cast as parental instruction. Yet this imperative likely applies to instruction generally throughout one's whole life.
Saying 12: Necessity of Discipline (23:13-14). As with other such verses, this one establishes the need for parental discipline but does not mandate the rod as a first recourse. Yet it does reassure parents that this can be an acceptable means of correction. The point ultimately is to save the child from wrong ways leading to death?the Hebrew word for "hell" in verse 14 being sheol, the grave. The Assyrian "Words of Ahiqar," written around 700 B.C. (in the time of King Hezekiah of Judah) as noted in our introduction, follows with similar instruction: "Spare not your son from the rod; otherwise, can you save him?" (quoted by Longman, p. 69).
Saying 13: Wise and Joyful Speech (23:15-16). Parents rejoice in their children's right words and conduct (see also verses 24-25). And pleasing parents is a good motivator for the young. The four lines in verses 15-16 are arranged in a chiastic structure?the outer lines parallel and the inner lines parallel (a-b-b-a), so that a wise heart equates to speaking right things. As Jesus said, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matthew 12:34).
Saying 14: Fear the Lord (23:17-18). A major concern of parents is their instruction being undermined by wayward peers or bad role models. So parents must, as in this verse, instruct their children in the fear of the Lord, which will keep them in the right way "all the day"?even when the parents aren't around. If in spite of the obstacles we develop this proper reverence for God, a wonderful future awaits us. Where the KJV has "end," the NKJV specifies "hereafter"?implying life in God's Kingdom. Other versions have "future," the translators arguing that Proverbs speaks of blessed life now, not in the hereafter. Perhaps both ideas are included?a great life in this age and on into the age to come.
Saying 15: Poor Associations (23:19-21). Drunkenness and gluttony are both condemned, representing the epitome of a lack of discipline. Wine and other alcoholic beverages in moderation are approved of in Scripture, but drunkenness is a sin?as is gluttony, though the former is certainly worse because of the impact it has on the brain and on others. Drunkards and gluttons are both bad influences and will most likely not cease to bring trouble and grief to associates, even those who disapprove of their behavior. If we are already friends with such people, we should try to help them to overcome their problem. But if they refuse or falsely repent again and again, particularly in the case of drunkards, it would be wiser to sever the friendship.
Saying 16: Learn and Keep Truth (23:22-25). Some take verse 22 as an independent verse on listening to parents, but the context here appears to continue until verse 25. Listening to parents corresponds to, in verse 23, striving for truth (including wisdom, instruction and understanding) and holding on to it. "Buy the truth, and do not sell it" is sometimes seen as a prohibition against selling religious books, even Bibles. But this is not the point of the verse. The meaning is that we are to expend all we must to gain true knowledge and, once gained, never sell it away?for any price. The New Century Version paraphrases this as "Learn the truth and never reject it." The Contemporary English Version renders the whole verse this way: "Invest in truth and wisdom, discipline and good sense, and don't part with them." Those who follow this counsel will bring great joy to parents?again given here as a motivator to do what's right (verses 24-25; compare verses 15-16).
Saying 17: Shunning the Temptress (23:26-28). Parental instruction continues here regarding sexual immorality. Compare similar warnings in the prologue of Proverbs (chapters 1?9) and 22:14, where the harlot's mouth is called a "deep pit." Some commentators believe the third and last section of the Words of the Wise begins with this saying or the next one?regarding the last section as miscellaneous in content.
Saying 18: Excessive Drinking (23:29-35). Saying 15 (verses 19-21) warns against associating with drunkards and gluttons. This saying warns against being a drunkard oneself.The New American Commentary says on this unit: "This poem is a small masterpiece; it is surely the most effective combination lampoon and lament over the sorry state of the drunkard....The text describes with profound accuracy and bite the pathetic physical and emotional decline of those addicted to alcohol. Wine [in excess] (and in modern society, illicit drugs) brings physical pain and debilitation, exhausts one's resources, takes away mental acuity, and yet leaves one craving for more of the same. 'Lingering over' alcohol (vv. 30-31) describes those who derive comfort and security in knowing that a glass of wine is at hand, ready to deaden the senses. In the end, however, it only leaves people more confused and in deeper pain than ever before (vv. 32-35a)."
Saying 19: Evil Associations (24:1-2). Whereas saying 14 (23:17-18) invokes the future in discouraging the envy of sinners, this saying just says not to envy them or want to be with them because they are up to no good. The point is to see what they're really all about?and to not want any part of that. A benefit of moral learning is that one comes to hate and reject evil simply because it is evil.
Saying 20: Reward of Wisdom (24:3-4). Verse 3 says that through wisdom a house is built. Some take this as a dwelling place or a household, a family. However, verse 4 says the rooms are filled with riches. While this could be a domestic abode, taken together the verses seem to speak of a treasure house. This may correspond to the conclusion of the first chapter of the Instruction of Amenemope: "If you spend a lifetime with these things in your heart, you will find it good fortune; you will discover my words to be a treasure house of life, and your body will flourish upon earth" (3:17?4:2). In both cases, it is most likely that the treasures are metaphorical for wonderful understanding and rich blessings in life?especially in light of saying 7 about not setting one's eyes on material wealth (Proverbs 23:4-5). Of course, as in other proverbs, the blessings may include material increase. And ultimately, as noted elsewhere, all of God's people will jointly possess all things?the whole universe.
Here, the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one, not Nirvana.Sorry DQ.... it questionably might merely be semantics on my part but the above... imo... infers a uniqueness established by yourself when ya state... the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one......it then follows logically that an assignment of superiority is thus also to be inferred if not directly..as you so state.... but ntl presents itself obliquely. As Christianity first and foremost.... remains essentially a Hebrew offshoot with later significant divisions and separations and even additons of other cultures to include the paganistic. No arguement there. And while I note it has been influenced by others thru the Hebrew development. I will continue to reject a significant or at this point even a moderate nexus of the Egyptian. As I remain not satisfied that a serious nexus between the Hebrew exists with the Egyptian given my understanding of the sources which would define the developement of Hebrew doctrine.
We agree but disagree.
But as usual, a fine discourse which I continue to appreciate.
No, I didn't infer uniqueness - in fact the idea for Paradise is a Mesopotamian one, with Eden, and most probably passed in Egypt from there together with the Dying God /Dumuzi/ who became Osiris in Egypt. I may as well say that the Egyptian Paradise is a copy of the Mesopotamian .just the Egyptians put it backwards - you get it after you die, and it you fit the bill - Mesopotamian didn't have this nuance/ - just an old idea that traveled back and forth in time.
Semantics can be very slippery surface in inter-cultural communication an bring major misunderstandings, so if the word "copy" bothers you I can use "borrowing' or "reused idea". I didn't mean any of the logical followings you mentioned as coming from the word "copy" - I used it in the meaning of "culturally borrowed idea".
Yes, Christianity is a logical continuation of Judaism - I said this several times, and Judaism is a offshoot of Mesopotamian mythology. As for which nexus exist - I'm not interested in nexuses only in inherited influences, random and equal. I don't even use the word "nexus" because it implies superiority of the influence.
When it comes to Christianity as a religious philosophy, the Greek element there is far stronger than the Hebrew one - as the Greko-Alexandrian philosophical schools like Agustin, Tertullian etc built a religious edifice out of 4 gospels that say what Jesus supposedly said; so, there is a big difference between Christianity as it's nut and the philosophy of it which I IMHO is more Greek that Jewish. This is not a nexus either - this is the fact that the message of 4 obscure gospels written in Greek to start with were taken by professional philosophers versed in Greek ways and moled according to those ways - there is more Plato in Augustine that anything else.
I beleive Jesus was real person, a morality teacher, who ended up crucified - but was divinized as part of what he really though about himself - which is not a news, the ressurrection had been around since the Babylonian Dumuzi, and had been rehashed and served in a Judaic context - there is nothing new to that. In the same way pagan god and holidays turned into Christian saints and Easter, Christmas, etc. So, what Jesus came up with wasn't new nor original - just an ordinary person was turned into a Dying God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_god because people are attracted to simple and hopeful answers to the basic question of the rapaciousness and ephemerality of life. people create gods, not vice versa - this is my opinion anyway.
He might have been a preacher, but to become martyr he needed more than just walking the streets and shouting slogans. He preached in Judea, but was a Galilean. He was crucified for preaching, but Judea around that time went through a series of rebellions against Rome. Why did he preach against rabbinic Judaism?
First opposition party in my country after socialism fail did the same Karalem!But heavens are so far away from here!Except for those that have passed away from here (dead indeed!)without posts on Facebook,Heavens department.
Here, the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one, not Nirvana.Sorry DQ.... it questionably might merely be semantics on my part but the above... imo... infers a uniqueness established by yourself when ya state... the Christian Paradise is a copy of the Egyptian one......it then follows logically that an assignment of superiority is thus also to be inferred if not directly..as you so state.... but ntl presents itself obliquely. As Christianity first and foremost.... remains essentially a Hebrew offshoot with later significant divisions and separations and even additons of other cultures to include the paganistic. No arguement there. And while I note it has been influenced by others thru the Hebrew development. I will continue to reject a significant or at this point even a moderate nexus of the Egyptian. As I remain not satisfied that a serious nexus between the Hebrew exists with the Egyptian given my understanding of the sources which would define the developement of Hebrew doctrine.
We agree but disagree.
But as usual, a fine discourse which I continue to appreciate.
No, I didn't infer uniqueness - in fact the idea for Paradise is a Mesopotamian one, with Eden, and most probably passed in Egypt from there together with the Dying God /Dumuzi/ who became Osiris in Egypt. I may as well say that the Egyptian Paradise is a copy of the Mesopotamian .just the Egyptians put it backwards - you get it after you die, and it you fit the bill - Mesopotamian didn't have this nuance/ - just an old idea that traveled back and forth in time.
Semantics can be very slippery surface in inter-cultural communication an bring major misunderstandings, so if the word "copy" bothers you I can use "borrowing' or "reused idea". I didn't mean any of the logical followings you mentioned as coming from the word "copy" - I used it in the meaning of "culturally borrowed idea".
Yes, Christianity is a logical continuation of Judaism - I said this several times, and Judaism is a offshoot of Mesopotamian mythology. As for which nexus exist - I'm not interested in nexuses only in inherited influences, random and equal. I don't even use the word "nexus" because it implies superiority of the influence.
When it comes to Christianity as a religious philosophy, the Greek element there is far stronger than the Hebrew one - as the Greko-Alexandrian philosophical schools like Agustin, Tertullian etc built a religious edifice out of 4 gospels that say what Jesus supposedly said; so, there is a big difference between Christianity as it's nut and the philosophy of it which I IMHO is more Greek that Jewish. This is not a nexus either - this is the fact that the message of 4 obscure gospels written in Greek to start with were taken by professional philosophers versed in Greek ways and moled according to those ways - there is more Plato in Augustine that anything else.
I remember in the past reading quite a bit about how Greek Philosophy has influenced Christianity, and have found something on it here:
Early Christians were slow to develop a distinctly Christian philosophy. When they did, their philosophical environment was Neo-Platonic. This mind-set directly influenced the historic development of Christian philosophy and theology.
Flavius Justinus (Martyr), ca. 100-164, admired Plato's philosophy and used some Platonic terms, but not necessarily with Platonic meaning. Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr, did not share his teacher's admiration for Greek philosophy; he believed that if the Greeks possessed any truth, they must have received it from The Scriptures.
Theophilus of Antoch, who wrote Ad Autolycum, esteemed Plato. Minucius Felix, a Latin apologist, held that the philosophers had at least recognized some truths.
It was in the catechetical school at Alexandria, however, that philosophy gained its greatest influence in Christian theology. Titus Flavius Clemens (Clement of Alexandria), born ca. 150 A.D., was the first of what might be called the Christian philosophers. Though he rejected the crude speculations of the Sophists, he held firmly to the belief that philosophy held an element of truth. He taught that the passages of Scripture that declare the insufficiency of human wisdom and that warn against being spoiled by philosophy applied only to empty Sophism and Epicureanism, but not to what he considered the best of philosophy. He maintained that philosophy brought the Greek mind to Christ, just as the Law brought the Hebrew to Him. To Clement, philosophy provided a natural framework for the expression of truth (Stromata I:3, 5, 11).
Having devoted most of Book One and some of the remaining sections of his Stromata to a defense of his philosophical approach, Clement proceeded to build on a Neo-Platonic metaphysical foundation what was intended to be a Christian philosophy. To him, the God of the Christians is the God of Plato, now worshiped by Christians more perfectly than by the Greeks. According to Clement, Plato plagiarized revelation from the Hebrews; this gave the Athenian's highest ideas a flavor of divine authority in the estimation of Clement.
What began in Clement was expanded in one of his pupils, Origen (ca.185 - 254). To Origen, sin is negative, a privation (which makes man the victim of sin rather than its responsible cause).
The prevalence of dualistic ideas provoked controversies in the Church. Tertullian (ca. 155 - 222) vigorously opposed the intrusion of Neo-Platonic philosophy into Christian doctrine. His cry was "free Jerusalem from Athens and the church of Christ from the Academy of Plato." Historically, it was the attitude of Clement, not of Tertullian, that won out in ecclesiastical Christianity.
In the Third Century A. D., Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, taught that God, being One, could not appear substantially on earth; therefore He could not have become man in Jesus Christ, but rather filled the man, Jesus, with His Logos and power. Lucian of Antioch, his follower, believed that the Logos became man in Christ; however, Lucian's Logos was a lower, created essence and not fully God.
Arius, one of Lucian's pupils, fully absorbed Lucian's Logos concept. In 311 A. D. Arius was ordained a presbyter in the church at Alexandria. After several years of controversy, Arius was excommunicated. Because many of the clergy sympathized with his views, a struggle was precipitated that threatened to split Christianity. The emperor Constantine became alarmed. The result was the Council Of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Christ was declared to be of the same substance as the Father. This settled the matter officially, but not historically.
Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 265 - 340) agreed with Clement of Alexandria regarding the value of philosophy. He believed that Plato had been enlightened by God and was in agreement with Moses....
Though highly unlikely, it is possible Christ survived being crucified. Indian fakirs can enter trances to appear dead (aided by intoxicants), sometimes for days. Jesus' family may have bribed the Romans to take him down then brought him to the tomb where he was revived by his most trusted disciple: not Peter or St Mark, but Mary Magdalene
Revisionism...secularisation attacks to destroy Christianity...Dan brown fantasy...did not work then... don't work now.
No data... no evidence.... merely speculation based on revisionist interpretation.
BUT....the reason why I admire my English moderator associate, fellow member of AE and friend.... is that he requires...desires... and deliberately chooses to make YOU think.
even me....
And for that, as far as I am concerned... he remains and continues to gain high marks.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
Well, the Romans developed the art of killing humans through crucifiction to a fine art, I doubt very much that anyone would survive it. Besides Jesus was pierced in the side, which punctures his lung, no one would survive such an injury in those times, he would die from infection even if surviving everything else. I don't think being crucified is survivable anyway; and he already had 40 lashes, which would bleed and infect him a great deal; so, if by some miracle he survived the wounds, and wasn't pierced in the side, he would die from infections anyway - he had too many injuries to cure without the help of antibiotics.
The only way that is plausible, IMHO, if is one adopt the Monophysite theory that he had only one nature, a divine one, so then he couldn't have died in the first place - but this is theological, not historical POV.
C.V., Were some concrete irrefutable evidence to be uncovered that the historical 'Jesus' traveled as far as the India of his time to study Buddhism, it wouldn't alter the fact that his followers founded a new religion, and that Jesus himself was a practicing Jew. Ergo, Christianity would go on as it is.
The problem with any subject that touches upon religion or religious figures is that posters are expected to respond using reason to debate or touch upon subjects based upon faith.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Yes, Jesus was a Buddhist and the Cult of the Virgin Mary was based on that of Isis and other mother goddesses because correlation equals causation – obviously. Really, why attempt to judge a thing on its own merits when we can base it on parallel origins? Historical accuracy and logical thinking be buggered.
Well, the Romans developed the art of killing humans through crucifiction to a fine art, I doubt very much that anyone would survive it. Besides Jesus was pierced in the side, which punctures his lung, no one would survive such an injury in those times, he would die from infection even if surviving everything else. I don't think being crucified is survivable anyway; and he already had 40 lashes, which would bleed and infect him a great deal; so, if by some miracle he survived the wounds, and wasn't pierced in the side, he would die from infections anyway - he had too many injuries to cure without the help of antibiotics.
The only way that is plausible, IMHO, if is one adopt the Monophysite theory that he had only one nature, a divine one, so then he couldn't have died in the first place - but this is theological, not historical POV.
The Romans used salt water to clean wounds: a very simple antibiotic. They also had primitive anaesthetics, most notably wine mixed with myrrh
Yes, Jesus was a Buddhist and the Cult of the Virgin Mary was based on that of Isis and other mother goddesses because correlation equals causation – obviously. Really, why attempt to judge a thing on its own merits when we can base it on parallel origins? Historical accuracy and logical thinking be buggered.
The cult of Mary being another aspect of mother goddesses is not based on correlation or causation, I wrote about this - it's based on human cultural-psychological archetypes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype , there is a big difference between one and the other. For the archetypes one can use Jung as a source. You may not accept this theory, this is your choice, but please don't simplify and change what I said and turn it in something else. I explained the difference between cultural borrowing and cultural-psychological archetype before addressing you, so it cannot be said I didn't make this distinction; so to bring my argument to a straw-men is not a valid argumentative technique. We are here to discuss with arguments, not to flare flame wars.
So, there is nothing in common between Jesus being Buddhist and the archetyping Mary on Mother-Goddess cult, don't put them in one bag. Let's keep on the OP here - if you have arguments against Jesus being a Buddhist, we are welcome to share them. Sarcasm is not a fruitful method of discussing anything and don't contribute to the positive atmosphere in any given conversation - just a suggestion.
Well, the Romans developed the art of killing humans through crucifiction to a fine art, I doubt very much that anyone would survive it. Besides Jesus was pierced in the side, which punctures his lung, no one would survive such an injury in those times, he would die from infection even if surviving everything else. I don't think being crucified is survivable anyway; and he already had 40 lashes, which would bleed and infect him a great deal; so, if by some miracle he survived the wounds, and wasn't pierced in the side, he would die from infections anyway - he had too many injuries to cure without the help of antibiotics.
The only way that is plausible, IMHO, if is one adopt the Monophysite theory that he had only one nature, a divine one, so then he couldn't have died in the first place - but this is theological, not historical POV.
The Romans used salt water to clean wounds: a very simple antibiotic. They also had primitive anaesthetics, most notably wine mixed with myrrh
On wounds and injuries of the type one has after being flayed with 40 lashes, his back torn apart in 40 places and the kidnes tenderized, and the hands and feet pierced with big thick nails - they weren't using some small thin things we use now, these were nails that took hand of your palm away. Look at the size of this nail, it will tear apart every bone it went into, and then the bone would split up to it's length /a far smaller nail tears a big plank apart if nailed at once, I had played a carpenter couple of times, let alone such thick thing in live tissue/: http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-stone-box-a-rare-trace-of-crucifixion/
The crucifiction thing was designed to kill, not just to injure or punish - it was a death sentence, nothing less, no one could survive it; if they could, it wouldn't be a death sentence.
Don Quixote, my response was not for you but for the people in this thread and many others that point to parallels and imply a causal relation, thereby committing a logical fallacy. (So I think your accusation of me simplifying and changing your words is unfair.) To avoid the fallacy of false cause and irrelevant conclusion (genetic fallacy) we have to ask ourselves these three questions:
Is the parallel dependent or independent?
Is it consequent or antecedent?
Is it accepted by its counterpart as positive, neutral or negative?
Originally posted by Don Quixote
For the archetypes one can use Jung as a source. You may not accept this theory, this is your choice, but please don't simplify and change what I said and turn it in something else.
I do not accept any theory of a collective unconscious, or collective dreams deriving from a collective unconscious, because, besides having no scientific basis, it is, more importantly, not needed as a theory of diffusion from a common source. Archeology and anthropology sufficiently explain human similarities.
Well, this is your choice to accept it or not; I do accept it exactly because I find it scientifically based, and locks up with anthropological info from other sources,plus religious psychology/mythopoetic perseption of sources like Joseph Campbell and Mircha Eliade; moreover it makes a case for we coming to the world with the idea of divinity already imprinted in our brains, so this a a possible case for creation; but this is another story. I can make a thread on it one day, because the question of archetypes, whether psychological or cultural, or both, is a very wide topic and requires much attention and sourcing.
I'm not attempting to convince you or anyone else in what I think, all I want is to be known that what I think is not because of simple case of causality; because I value you as a discussion partner and don't want gross misunderstandings from either side to obscure an interesting conversation. I suppose a direct communication with using a name would help to avoid such confusions in he future.
Hanging was also a death sentence, yet a few lucky people survived. Someone with a high tolerance of pain and friends in high places (like Jesus' rich uncle Joe) might have been able to cheat the executioner. No doubt Jesus would be horribly maimed (hence Thomas' ability to put his finger in the wounds) but through meditation and intervention by skilled surgeons (the men in white the women encountered in teh tomb) he would eventually heal and gain the strength to rejoin his disciples. Alternatively, someone else impersonating Christ (Judas, perhaps) might have been crucified in his place, while the real Jesus went into hiding
So, if we accept this as a working hypothesis, is will explain why Jesus's body "vanished", and the words of the angel/angels/men-in-white not to look for a living one among the dead. It may actually make sense, and sounds no mere conspiratorial than his disciples sneaking his body out of the tomb in the dead of night. There are some apocriphal works, like the letters of Pilate to Herod and to the Roman emperor, that claim that Jesus was around and preaching, and Pilat's wife and he himself went to see him and talked with him - this would explain who this could possibly happen.
This reminds of of Herodotus' story about the Getae/Thracian god Zalmoxis - Herodotus says that Zalmoxis feigned his death, and dug himself a home in the ground, where he spend 3 years /3 again/, and everyone thought he was dead, so when he returned back everyone believed he was resurrected, so they deified him. Zalmoxis was an aspect of Orpheus, and since the Orpheic cult was about resurrection - here it is. So, if the Swoon hypothesis is true, it wouldn't be the first case of feigned death, nor the "biggest cover-up in history" as Michael Baigent claimed, because it wouldn't be anything original to start with. I may really get and read his book - I have it but I haven't read it yet.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Was Jesus a Buddhist?
