Finally got around to researching my own question: Methuselah’s father was Enoch, famous for reportedly having been caught up into Heaven rather than dying. This reportedly happened after only about 365 years, when those who came before and after were dying after eight hundred or nine hundred years. So neither he nor anyone before him saw the Flood. Methuselah’s son = Noah’s father Lamech died five years before Methuselah.
I’m admittedly still a long ways away from converting. I’m taking Intro to Judaism classes right now, but I haven’t actually started the process with my local rabbi yet. I don’t intend on broaching the matter with him until at LEAST next year, because I want to pay off some debts and be in a position to become a dues-paying member of the temple before I try to take that step.
The name I have picked for myself at this time is “Yochanan Akiva”, because Yochanan is the Hebrew version of John, and because Rabbi Akiva started studying at the age of 40, whereas I was 41 when I found myself on this path. I’m more wedded to the second part than the first. I suppose I could be “John Akiva” just as easily, considering that I’m gonna be joining a Reconstructionist community on the far-left end of the spectrum. Time will tell.
Lamech is one of those characters in the primeval history who gets two backstories, because of the intermingling of the J and P sources. He’s either the father of Noah and the son of Methuseleh, descendant of Seth, or he’s the son of Methusael, descendant of Cain, and father of Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-Cain, and Namaah, all of whom presumably perished in the Flood.
I’m inclined to believe that the Flood story was a late insertion into the primeval history, because frankly, a lot of the narrative makes more sense if there isn’t an extinction event that happens in the middle of it.
To be fair, everyone calls be “Josh”, both Hebrew and English speakers. although the vowel is pronounced differently: in English, it’s more like “Jah”, while in Hebrew, it’s something between
“Joe” and “Juh”. Like Brazil, Israel is very much a one-name country: everyone goes by either their first name, their last name or their nickname, and to most Israelis, “Josh” is just a nick. Many of them don’t know my name is actually Yehoshua, and don’t make the connection to Josh.
Now my dad, he was called “Jonathan” or “Jon” growing up in New Jersey, and after he moved to Israel at 23, people started calling him “Yonatan”. His entire life, his English-speaking friends would call him Jon while his Hebrew-speaking friends would call him Yonatan, sometimes even in the same conversation (may parents had a very bilingual circle of friends). The only exceptions would be his army buddies, who would call him “Yoni”, and my smartass of a father-in-law, who would call him “Jonatan”.
Wikipedia seems to think that the two are entirely separate characters who happen to share a name. Certainly the two accounts seem completely different.
There’s no particular reason to deny he Exodus. Egypt often dominated the Levant in that era, and its vaious campains probably brougt in quite a lot of slaves
I do wonder, however, if the Biblical story is oversimplified. There were probably many slaves beside Hebrew ones, and if Egypt had collapsed into chaos many slaves oof all ethnicities probably took the opportunity to escape. So the the people who followed Moses were probably a far more mixed lot than the Bible suggests. The readiness of so many to worship golden calves and he like wouldd point the same way.
Except for that little bit where it never happened in the first place?
There’s no archeological evidence to support it and there’s no Egyptian account of it.
That’s 2 reasons.
Richard Friedman (Who Wrote the Bible), I believe, is of the opinion that the stories have their origin in anchoring the authority of a set of priests who claimed to be descendants of Moses. If I recall correctly, the opposing group claimed to be descendants of Aaron.
And, he explains how the story of the golden calf is actually a reference to then-current practice. It’s a really interesting book, and a lot of the stories make more sense with the context he provides.
He has a more recent book, Exodus, which goes into more detail on this hypothesis, which I described upthread.
The golden calf narrative is definitely not historical - it’s a polemic against the Aaronic priesthood, composed during the First Temple era, drawing on the fact that the northern priesthood depicted the god El as a golden bull in their temples at Bethel and Dan, whereas the southern priesthood which controlled the Jerusalem temple and claimed descent from Moses held Yahweh to be incorporeal.
That’s simply not true. It’s a source. It has biases just like any source. Sure it might be a later invention but it could also be an account a historical event where traditionally monotheistic people decided to go back to polytheism. Hell, both things can be true, just because the telling of the story we have is by someone making a contemporary political point doesn’t make the story made up (the stories of the American revolution are constantly retold to make a contemporary political point, it doesn’t mean the American revolution is definitely not historical)
No, it’s definitely a later tradition. The First Temple Israelites were not yet strictly monotheist, which is reflected in the book of Kings frequently noting that Asherah poles and snake idols were an accepted part of Israelite practice up until the reign of Josiah and that at least one of the northern kings sacrificed his son to Moloch, and the golden calf narrative a retrojection of events that occurred during the reign of King Jeroboam, which is further demonstrated by the fact that the names of Aaron’s sons who are struck dead for “offering strange incense” are the same as Jeroboam’s sons.
Here’s an article that goes into more detail;
Though that doesn’t make it not based on a historical event. Just because there was wasn’t universal monotheism it doesn’t mean this event never happened. It’s basically a story about one group of people who were monotheistic objecting to another group of people who were practicing polytheism, there is nothing unbelievable about that.
Again doesn’t mean its definitely not historical. It’s pretty common for historical sources to describe events that are quite similar to later or early events. That can mean they are made up as a retroprojection but it can just be because history “rhymes” and you do get similar events happening again.
Yes, assuming the numbers are right- which is a huge assumption. Pare the numbers down by a tenth- not 600000 “men on foot” plus wives and children) but 60000, and 4 years, not 40, and it becomes more believable.
Something made the nomadic goat herders get more modern in warfare and start taking over the Holy land .An infusion of new ideas and people could account for that.
Yes, and the Book of Kings makes it clear that those who erected Asherah poles (Canaanite goddess) , were struck down by reformers. It does not necessarily mean a rejection of Monotheism, it could have been simply a way to appease the Canaanites.
Here’s the thing, though. In the internal chronology of the Bible, the golden calf incident in Exodus occurs about 300-400 years before Jeroboam erects his golden bulls. In terms of when they were written, though, Kings was written before Exodus. Kings, as part of the Deuteronomistic history, was written (probably by Jeremiah) during the reign of King Josiah, probably around the time of the religious reforms that were enacted around 620 BC. Exodus, as we know it today, was written about 200 years after that in an attempt to syncretize oral tradition with the priestly account of ancient history. The author would have been familiar with the story in Kings and, as a member of the southern Levite priesthood, would have had a theological reason to depict Aaron, the mythical founder of the northern priesthood, in a negative light, and so wrote the story of Aaron building a golden calf as a deliberate parallel to Jeroboam.
The story only really works as a polemic, because the exodus itself is ahistorical, and its insertion into the story doesn’t really make sense, because the building of the calf is depicted as an unforgivable sin even though Moses had not yet received the ten commandments with their ban on idolatry, and Genesis depicts the patriarchs engaging in idolatry without it being depicted as sinful.
Well there wouldn’t be an Egyptian account would there?
Pharaohs didn’t put up stelae to record defeats. And if Egypt was in a period of collapse not many would get built anyway.
Pretty much in line with my suspicions, ie that the early “Israelites” were quite a mixed bag religiously, but the monotheists won out and wrote most of what has come down to us.
Well, yeah. If you read Kings, which is really the book where the Bible transitions from mythology into history, with a critical eye, you can see that it describes a society where the cults of Yahweh and El were dominant, but there were also all kinds of other practices going on. Every major settlement would have a “high place” on the nearest hilltop where sacrifices were performed to multiple gods aside from Yahweh/El, with Asherah being one of the more important ones. One of those sites, Tel Arad, is of special archaeological interest because it has multiple altars which were installed and then concealed in a way that implies that it was initially dedicated to the worship of multiple gods and then just one - and then later the site was deliberately defiled, presumably as part of Josiah’s reform. There’s also archaeological evidence that cannabis was burned on the altars for the purpose of inducing psychedelic experiences, but that’s just an interesting aside to the main point.
There was probably a gradual shift from polytheism to henotheism over the centuries, but Josiah is where Israelism becomes specifically monotheist - he orders the high places and Asherah poles destroyed, dictates that animal sacrifice (and therefore pretty much all major religious rites) can occur only at the Jerusalem Temple, enacts the ban on idolatry specifically aimed at suppressing the cult of El in favor of the cult of Yahweh, and institutes the celebration of Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot as the three most important festivals of the year, which required all observant families to make pilgrimage to Jerusalem and offer sacrifices, thus strengthening Jerusalem’s rule over Judah in recollection of a mythic past under David (who the ancient Israelites probably thought of in the same way that medieval Brits thought of King Arthur).
Again its a historical source. Neither the story of the golden calf or exodus itself is definitely ahistorical and completely invented. Just because they are not the unerring word of god doesn’t mean they aren’t based on some actual historical event just as much the Illiad or the seven kings of Rome.
Irt also doesn’t mean they are.