The basic problem with this debate is, as was written in Ecclesiasties:
Arguing about what particular cultural group did something “original” is ultimately pointless - almost everything has antecedants, and other groups who did whatever (if less known).
The importance of the Hebrew scriptures is not that they demonstrate the invention of ethical concepts - it is that they are from whence our particular culture happens to derive them.
Just as the Greeks did not "invent’ democracy - they “merely” articulated its principles in a manner which has influenced us - the Hebrews certainly did not “invent” ethics - they “merely” articulated its principles in a manner that heavily influenced world culture, for better or worse; and that influence is direct, as people still read the actual words today (unlike say the Code of Hanurabi, which is only read by specialist scholars).
Dio’s position (and presumably that of the book he criticises) is essentially meaningless, because it is aimed at the wrong target: originality.
The Bible Unearthed, yes, exactly. That book has been discussed around here enough that I thought most GD regulars were pretty conversant with the conclusions by now.
Interesting cite about Phoenician democracy. I did not know that.
That’s why I say “and presumably that of the book he criticises”. I use the word “presumably” merely because I haven’t read that particular book myself.
In short, the debate is IMHO misconceived - and if the account of the book is accurate, so is the book.
To my mind, the important aspect is not originality (something generally impossible to determine anyway), but influence. The redactors of the Hebrew Bible were immensely influential. They certainly had historical antecedants - but who has not? Nothing new under the sun, when it comes to ethical positions.
If challenged to state what is most unusual about the ethics expressed in the Hebrew Bible, I’d probably go with the notion of a diety who is, in essence, un-knowable - see for example the Book of Job. Other cultures are more likely to have dieties who are, basically, much like humans, only more powerful. The Hebrews over time transformed their diety from a typical powerful angry tribal chieftan into something that was genuinely alien to humanity, an unknowable ‘other’ - of course Christianity attempted to inject humanity back in through the trinity, and both Christianity and Judaism were influenced by the greco-roman notions of god as platonic ideal.
There is certainly a flavour of this in other cultures (see the “Viśvarūpa” vision in the Bhagavad Gita), but it is probably strongest in the Hebrew scriptures.
Actually I think this concept is expressed most strongly in the Upanishads in the conceptof Neti Neti.
The Zorastrian conception of Ahura Mazda may be the origin of the concept of God as abstract and unknowable; no doubt this had a deep influence on the Jewish idea of God as well.
Interesting stuff - I don’t know all that much about Zorastrianism, but my impression was that it was more strictly dualist - with if you like a “good god” roughly analogous to the OT deity and a “bad god” roughly analagous to the Christian notion of Satan.
The god of the Hebrew scriptures, it would seem, obtained his “good god” atributes at some point in the development of the religion, becoming in rabinnical literature more or less a platonic ideal of justice and mercy - but lurking underneath that is the notion of god as basically beyond human conceptions of good and evil, something unknowable (yet worthy of worship).
The notion of a clash between good and evil is a strain that becomes more evident in Judaism over time (reaching a greater development in Christianity), but I don’t know to what extent Zorastrianism contains concepts similar to that of the Hebrew deity.
Zoroaster originated the view that life and the universe were about a cosmic battle between good and evil, that good would eventually prevail and that there would then be a day of judgement with punishment and reward. That gave Judaism it’s eschaton, its cosmic view of good vs evil, its so-called “linear” view of history and its concept of an afterlife. Those things were obviously all very influential on Christianity and world culture, and it was the Hebrew Bible that really communicated those ideas to western culture, but I think Zoraster kind of tends to get shafted on the credit.
Except that most of that stuff isn’t, in fact, in the Hebrew scriptures.
The Hebrew scriptures have no great struggle between the cosmic principles of good and evil (there is a “satan” mentioned in Job but he does not resemble the Christian Satan - he’s more like a devil’s advocate than the devil), its afterlife is not very well developed - and much more similar to the Greek than the Christian notion of the afterlife (to the extent it is mentioned at all Sheol is more a place of gloom than a place of punishment and reward), and Jewish millenialism is based around the figure of the messiah who is supposed to be a human ruler of a just state.
What appears to have happened is that many of these concepts migrated into Judaism at some point prior to 0 AD (you get reference to the battle between the sons of light and darkness appearing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a more complete afterlife in the non-canoniocal Book of Enoch) and therafter influenced Judaism and Chistianity alike, the latter much more strongly than the former - most Jews still don’t conceive of the afterlife as a place of reward or punishment, but do believe in a millenium in which the dead will be resurrected.
All these ‘myths’ being talked about… who do you think actually heard them? The vast majority of the planet’s population back then were illiterate and wouldn’t be picking up these ideas at the local library.
Did the writers of ancient scriptures write them with the intention of them being read by as many as possible? Not from what I’ve read and heard; only the elite and the priesthood were privy to these transcripts.
Why are these myths seen as any more important to our progress as thinking human beings, than a series of “Sex In The City”, for example?
Do we really think that myths were created at the time to instill fear in, or educate peasants and slaves, or is it more likely they were made up by so-called wise men to try and answer their ruler’s queries about the great mysteries of the universe?
Certainly such concepts were imported into Judaism and are found in the talmud and in other writings - not surprising given the fact that Jews often lived among people such as Christians and, later, Muslims with very well developed notions of an afterlife - but they are neither as important in Judaism as they are in these other religions, nor is there any unanimity in Judaism as to the form of the afterlife (most Jews today don’t believe in the literal existence of a “hell”), nor are they present in the Hebrew Scriptures without a lot of creative “reading in”.
Even if most people couldn’t read they would have absorbed religious ideas from sermons and from family.
But ultimately I don’t think religious ideas are that important anyway. Was the life of the average Christian in say 800CE significantly better than that of his non-Christian ancestor. Very different religious beliefs but ultimately a pretty miserable life in a brutal society.
Technological and economic progress along with secular ideas like democracy and civil liberties are vastly more important than the details of religious belief.
In the case of the Hebrew scriptures, there was probably no one source; some bits were probably oral legends common among the population, others were chronicles kept by the elite priests and the like. Some may indeed have been basically popular erotic poetry (see “Song of Solomon”).
Whether the texts were read by the common population or not is impossible to say. This varies a lot - in medieval Christianity they were not; the Protestant revolution was, in part, fueled by a popular desire to read the texts themselves; and in post-diaspora Judaism being literate and able to read scripture was a general expectation, even in medieval times. What it was like in the Hebrew kingdom is anyone’s guess.
Yes the Jewish scriptures don’t talk much about the afterlife but my understanding is it became pretty important in Judaism later and remains so in Orthodox Judaism today. More modern schools of Jewish thought tend to underplay the importance of the afterlife. Apparently beliefin reincarnation is quite common among Orthodox Jews as well .
That seems to derive from the mystical tradition as found in kabbalistic writings such as the Zohar. I dunno if that is really indicative of Orthodox Jewry, though. But again, as with so many things Jewish, there is no one authentic viewpoint - I certainly never heard anything about reincarnation, even in passing (but then, I’m not familiar with the Orthodox tradition).
One thing can be said with certainty - none of these concerns are in any way central to Judaism as a religion. In general, and for the most part, the afterlife simply is not a priority as the focus of the religion is on living life in this life - hence easy toleration for all sorts of positions regarding what the afterlife looks like, if it exists, reincarnation, etc.
Basically I was reacting to your statement that “most Jews still don’t conceive of the afterlife as a place of reward or punishment”. This statement is accurate for non-Orthodox Jews but many Orthodox Jews seem to believe in heaven and hell. How widespread this belief is and how important it is in Orthodoxy I can’t say. Maybe some Orthodox Jew on the board can clarify the issue.
Coming back to Zorastrianism one important issue I am interested in is the notion of social justice and the idea that believers have a duty to uphold a cosmic order through their actions. This appears to be a new idea in religion and one that seems to have influenced Jews, Christians and Muslims. In particular I am interested in Zorastrian teachings on issues like slavery on which I am getting conflicting stories. Certainly when it comes to religious tolerance the Persians under Cyrus the Great seem to score pretty well.
While this is a popular modern Jewish and Christian approach to rationalize God’s orders (and the Jews’ behaviour), it seems particularly unsatisfying to justify a conqueror’s slaughter of a baby by arguing the conqueror needs to ethnically cleanse tribes whose sin is slaughtering babies.
What is missing from some of the broader academic arguments is the visual of an Israelite deliberately hacking an apostatized conquered baby to death.