Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
#51

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(09-04-2020, 02:57 PM)Aliza Wrote:
(09-04-2020, 02:46 PM)mordant Wrote:
(09-04-2020, 02:12 PM)Aliza Wrote: I get the logic of why that might be done, but how did they sell the story to everyone? There would have been no past generations to vouch for it being something they witnessed, or something that has been in their tradition for generations. In fact, the past generations would have needed to collaborate with one another to fabricate the story to their kids and grandkids so everyone is reinforcing the same story.

It was far easier to do in the ancient world, where the vast majority of people were illiterate (and uneducated, even by the standards of the day) and poor, and where the preservation of records was inconsistent at best. In such an environment, anything that harkened further back than the living memory of the locals would go pretty much unchallenged (and when you think of it, maybe not even that: grandpop might be happy to regale the young'uns with stories of his glorious youth). Add to that the fact that such narratives were something people would want, perhaps even need to hear, and it's not a hard sell at all. Particularly if it's concocted by the priesthood and committed to writing so that it's consistent once introduced.

This would still take the cooperation of all the educated people, and all of the people who they educated. So everyone who went to Sunday school (so to speak) would have to be in on it and vouch that the Solomon story was one they had heard about before.

I don't think you can really convince any group of people to collaborate on that level. Someone's gonna be the whistle blower, and when they blow the whistle on something that everyone in the older generation was thinking "didn't sound right to begin with," the house of cards would fall. 

If the story is faked outright, it makes more sense that there existed a Jewish king that the story was based on, and that it was embellished slowly over multiple generations.

Too much of all religious texts are clearly fiction.  Do you really think that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt?  Were there really Hindu godesses with 6 arms?  Was there a Zeus who could throw lightning bolts?   Big Grin
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#52

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(09-04-2020, 02:57 PM)Aliza Wrote:
(09-04-2020, 02:46 PM)mordant Wrote:
(09-04-2020, 02:12 PM)Aliza Wrote: I get the logic of why that might be done, but how did they sell the story to everyone? There would have been no past generations to vouch for it being something they witnessed, or something that has been in their tradition for generations. In fact, the past generations would have needed to collaborate with one another to fabricate the story to their kids and grandkids so everyone is reinforcing the same story.

It was far easier to do in the ancient world, where the vast majority of people were illiterate (and uneducated, even by the standards of the day) and poor, and where the preservation of records was inconsistent at best. In such an environment, anything that harkened further back than the living memory of the locals would go pretty much unchallenged (and when you think of it, maybe not even that: grandpop might be happy to regale the young'uns with stories of his glorious youth). Add to that the fact that such narratives were something people would want, perhaps even need to hear, and it's not a hard sell at all. Particularly if it's concocted by the priesthood and committed to writing so that it's consistent once introduced.

This would still take the cooperation of all the educated people, and all of the people who they educated. So everyone who went to Sunday school (so to speak) would have to be in on it and vouch that the Solomon story was one they had heard about before.

I don't think you can really convince any group of people to collaborate on that level. Someone's gonna be the whistle blower, and when they blow the whistle on something that everyone in the older generation was thinking "didn't sound right to begin with," the house of cards would fall. 

If the story is faked outright, it makes more sense that there existed a Jewish king that the story was based on, and that it was embellished slowly over multiple generations.

A conspiracy is not necessary. Just a ripping yarn and people embellishing it as they go.

We even have that today, in the form of things like QAnon, when you think about it. Does the pervasiveness of pizza-gate suggest that there's some substance to the notion that Democrats run sex rings with underage children and infants from the basement of a particular pizza joint? Is everyone conspiring to spread a story they know is false? Or are they just repeating something that they want or need, on some level, to be true?

Remember that religion's stock-in-trade is comforting lies. That people can earnestly believe in invisible sky wizards in the 21st century demonstrates that people will eagerly suspend disbelief for the right kind of personal validation.
The following 2 users Like mordant's post:
  • Minimalist, Alan V
Reply
#53

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(09-03-2020, 05:34 PM)Aliza Wrote: What exactly is it about Solomon's story that necessarily renders him a totally fictitious character?

We'll have to ask Paul Bunyan.
Don't mistake me for those nice folks from Give-A-Shit county.
The following 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post:
  • Fireball
Reply
#54

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(02-16-2021, 05:40 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Add in Romulus and Remus.


Quote:Romulus and Remus were born in Alba Longa, one of the ancient Latin cities near the future site of Rome. Their mother, Rhea Silvia, was a vestal virgin and the daughter of the former king, Numitor, who had been displaced by his brother Amulius. In some sources, Rhea Silvia conceived them when their father, the god Mars, visited her in a sacred grove dedicated to him.[2]

Seeing them as a possible threat to his rule, King Amulius ordered for them to be killed and they were abandoned on the bank of the river Tiber to die. They were saved by the god Tiberinus, Father of the River, and survived with the care of others, at the site of what would eventually become Rome. In the most well-known episode, the twins were suckled by a she-wolf, in a cave now known as the Lupercal.[3] Eventually, they were adopted by Faustulus, a shepherd.







Then add in Perseus.

Quote:The Oracle of Delphi tells King Acrisius that his daughter, Danae, will give birth to a son who'll kill him one day. Totally freaked out, Acrisius locks Danae in a bronze chamber that's open to the sky. Zeus sees Danae locked in the chamber and falls for her. The King of the Gods streams into the chamber as a shower of gold and impregnates Danae with little baby Perseus. Acrisius doesn't buy the whole Zeus-as-a-shower-of-gold story, so he locks his daughter and grandson in a chest and throws them into the sea. Luckily, it's a sea-worthy chest and the two float to the island of Serifos, where they're taken in by a friendly fisherman named Dictys.


Fucking "Moses" wasn't so special after all!

Sargon of Akkad (or Sargon the Great) reigned from 2334 - 2279  has the same baby-in-a-basket story except with him he was tossed into the Euphrades instead of the Nile.  He is found by a lowly palace worker and is raised by the royal family and becomes a great warrior and eventually a king.    Hummmmm, sounds familiar.

India also has a Baby-in-the-basket story of Karna who's mother is impregnated by a god and as an unmarried teenager she puts her baby in a basket in the Ganges river.  Karna's basket is found by an older couple who pull it out of the Ganges and raise him as their own.  Karna grows up to be a great warrior and eventually becomes a king.   There's a bunch of Indian prophecies involved in this story too. 

The Sargon birth story was found in the Library of Ashurbanipal which was unearthed in 1850 or thereabouts.  It contained 30,000 clay tablets. This is the same Library in which the Epic of Gilgamesh was found.  Many of these stories were circulating during the same time the Jews were exiled in Babylon which I'd bet my wonderful and spiffy Volvo car is how Moses and the flood story ended up in the damned bible.   Chuckle


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Ashurbanipal
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Alan V, Dānu
Reply
#55

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
So, either there were lots of babies being thrown in rivers.... where are the right-to-life jackoffs when you need them? - or people kept adapting stories to fit their own realities.

I lean towards "b."
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#56

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(08-11-2021, 04:06 AM)Minimalist Wrote: So, either there were lots of babies being thrown in rivers.... where are the right-to-life jackoffs when you need them? - or people kept adapting stories to fit their own realities.

I lean towards "b."

There were several stories of babies being put in rivers back then.  Most people lived near a river.  Even today a lot of people live near a body of water of some sort so "river stories"  are world wide and very ancient.  Part of the punishment for adulterous women in ancient cultures was to be taken down to the river and drowned.  It wasn't just a witch thing.   Then there's Baby Oedipus.   As a baby he is to be put in a river to drown to make darned sure the Oracle at Delphi prophecy doesn't come true but the servant instructed to do the deed can't bring himself to toss a baby in a river so he leaves baby Oedipus on a mountain side instead .....   and you know the rest of the story.  

There's a lot of traditional Amazon river stories from South America.  I'm not sure if there's anything similar to Moses, Sargon or Karna but I wouldn't be suprised if there was.
                                                         T4618
Reply
#57

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(09-03-2020, 05:02 AM)Minimalist Wrote: A take off on the Jesus thread above but this one with an OT slant.

Keeping in mind that there is no archaeological attestation for "Solomon" and that the only textual reference to him is in the OT this reduces him to little more than a character in a book of fiction.

Let the opinions fly!

Solomon features more prominently in ancient  books of the occult than he does in the Bible.
Reply
#58

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Hey, man.  You the same Huggy Bear from AF.com?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#59

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(08-16-2021, 03:16 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, man.  You the same Huggy Bear from AF.com?

Yup
Reply
#60

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(08-16-2021, 11:51 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote:
(08-16-2021, 03:16 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, man.  You the same Huggy Bear from AF.com?

Yup

Nice to see you here, Huggy. I hope you enjoy the forum.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#61

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Agreed.  It's been a while.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#62

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Thanks guys
Reply
#63

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(08-16-2021, 03:16 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, man.  You the same Huggy Bear from AF.com?

Yep. He's been "leaving" the other forum for a while.

He gets upset when called out on his idiocy. Be gentle
Praise be to FSM.
Reply
#64

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Aw, Huggy's okay.  We have worse around here.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#65

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(08-16-2021, 03:16 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, man.  You the same Huggy Bear from AF.com?

(03-25-2022, 08:44 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Aw, Huggy's okay.  We have worse around here.

I'm sure of that. I look forward to meeting them and offering them noodle-based salvation
Praise be to FSM.
Reply
#66

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Israel Finkelstein demolishes the "genealogies." 

In a paper the noted archaeologist applies modern archaeology to the question of when were the incredibly boring genealogical lists in 1 Chronicles 2-9 written and why.  Long considered some sort of post-exilic rationale for the re-assertion of Judahite rule over Jerusalem in the Persian period, Finkelstein took the place names ( toponyms) mentioned and compared them to the habitation of known sites - and there are many that have been excavated or surveyed - and reached the following conclusion based on evidence - not on holy horseshit.

Quote:The distribution of places in the core area of the genealogical lists perfectly fits the days of John Hyrcanus. It depicts the nucleus of the Hasmonean state (fromBeth-zur to Mizpah) plus the expansion in the days of Jonathan to the three toparchies in the north and northwest (Birzaith, Lud, Ono in the lists); the expansion in the days of Simon to Gezer; and the expansion in the days of John Hyrcanus to Mareshah, to other areas of Idumea (the Hebron hills), to the area of Shechem, and to the area of Madaba (Baal-meon, Nebo, and Aroer in thelist [1 Chr 5:8]). At that moment in history, the Hasmonean state ruled the entire area depicted in the core of the lists (appearance of towns): from the south Hebronhills in the south to Shechem in the north; to Marisa, Gezer, Lod, and Ono in thewest; and possibly to the area of Madaba in the east. 


III. Discussion

The genealogical lists were probably intended to legitimize Jewish rule over this area, part of which was inhabited by a large Gentile population, by giving it an ancient Israelite tribal pedigree. This seems to be in line with several Hasmonean pseudepigraphic compositions—the book of  Jubilees, which was written in the days of John Hyrcanus, and possibly the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs—which looked to the Scriptures in order to explain and legitimize the gradual territorial expansion of Judea in the second century b.c.e.

These books legitimized the Hasmonean conquests and addressed problems related to the relationship with non-Jews who lived in the new territories.

In other words, not something handed down from dim antiquity but a very late 2d century BCE work designed to cement the political reality of that particular time.  Not a reflection of the glorious ( if imaginary ) Davidic Empire but a justification for the conquests of the only period in the entire first millennium when Jerusalem was actually a state capable of oppressing its neighbors.


Finkelstein's paper is entitled :  The Historical Reality behind the Genealogical Lists in 1 Chronicles
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Dānu, Bucky Ball
Reply
#67

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
lets see.

They had cities back then. Some cities were behaving poorly or made unhealthy choices and paid the price. That seems ok. They didn't know squat back then so though some super thingie did it. "The city couldn't have been destroyed for no reason. They must of did something wrong.", silly by today's standards, but ok.

So there was probably a city that was destroyed by natural or man made disaster. They were making up stories back to pass the time. They didn't have the internet back then. But, as we do even today, fundy-ist type people get involved and mess the whole thing up.

I wonder how religions would look today if the romans didn't burn that big scroll storage facility they had?
Reply
#68

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
Yes.  There is even a term for what you are describing which archaeology has borrowed from medicine.

Etiology.

Quote:e·ti·ol·o·gy

noun
noun: aetiology; plural noun: aetiologies; noun: etiology; plural noun: etiologies
  1. 1.
    Medicine
    the cause, set of causes, or manner of causation of a disease or condition.
    "a group of distinct diseases with different etiologies"
    • the causation of diseases and disorders as a subject of investigation.
  2. 2.
    the investigation or attribution of the cause or reason for something, often expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation.

The most obvious example of this is the so-called Sodom and Gomorah cities.  In the 1920's two sites were discovered which were named Bab edh-Dra and Numeira and both are in modern Jordan.  Archaeologists date them to the Early Bronze Age and have concluded that Bab edh-Dhra, the far larger site was destroyed or simply abandoned c. 2350 BCE while Numeira was destroyed by fire c 2,600 BCE.

However some guy walking down the road centuries later and seeing these ruins may have dreamed up a story to explain what happened and eventually when the priests got hold of it they added in their god and a whole bunch of other shit and voila, we have an etiological myth which has no basis in reality.  Humans did that a lot.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#69

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(08-04-2022, 03:47 PM)Minimalist Wrote: However some guy walking down the road centuries later and seeing these ruins may have dreamed up a story to explain what happened and eventually when the priests got hold of it they added in their god and a whole bunch of other shit and voila, we have an etiological myth which has no basis in reality.  Humans did that a lot.

It helps to pass the time in between moments of sheer panic.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • Rhythmcs
Reply
#70

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(08-04-2022, 02:48 PM)Scoop Wrote: lets see.

They had cities back then.  Some cities were behaving poorly or made unhealthy choices and paid the price.  That seems ok.  They didn't know squat back then so though some super thingie did it.  "The city couldn't have been destroyed for no reason.  They must of did something wrong.", silly by today's standards, but ok.

So there was probably a city that was destroyed by natural or man made disaster.  They were making up stories back to pass the time.  They didn't have the internet back then.  But, as we do even today, fundy-ist type people get involved and mess the whole thing up.

I wonder how religions would look today if the romans didn't burn that big scroll storage facility they had?

"..must of did..."  Huh
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. 
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
Reply
#71

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
It's in our nature to look for and find signal in the noise, even when it isn't there. It's hypothesized that those myths and myth structures which persistently hold the attention of a culture are the ones which meaningfully - though not necessarily factually - convey some then-current relationship of of consequence. In that view, it's no surprise that natural appeasement beliefs waned as human populations became more and more urbanized - and the relationships of consequence in direct apprehension became less ones with the river and more ones with other personal creatures. So to, did the heavens above change, from ancient and fundamentally unaccountable forces of nature to the personal and intervening deities with moral codes and ethical demands which paint the rough picture of our societal organization, along with practical advice on how to arrange your kitchen and which color you should never...ever...paint your walls.
Reply
#72

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(09-03-2020, 06:01 AM)Cavebear Wrote:
(09-03-2020, 05:02 AM)Minimalist Wrote: A take off on the Jesus thread above but this one with an OT slant.

Keeping in mind that there is no archaeological attestation for "Solomon" and that the only textual reference to him is in the OT this reduces him to little more than a character in a book of fiction.

Let the opinions fly!

I expect there was probably a "Solomon" of some general name, but not all that he was credited to be.  I suspect there were prophets but not as special as considered they are considered by theists.  

But I also suspect that most of them are the hand-me-downs from previous beliefs, renamed and adopted.  Noah is Utnapishtim in older stories from Kish or Sumerians.  The Great Flood was probably about massive floods in the Black Sea.  local legends handed down through generations tend to assume the people there are the only ones who existed and so their world is "the whole world".

There may have been a "Solomon" but it's guaranteed he ruled over no kingdom.  The Israeli kingdom made no appearance in the history books until after the Babylonian captivity.  Before that, the Israelites were the punching bags at the edge of the fertile crescent, everybody ruled over them at one stage or another.
Factio Republicanus delenda est!
The following 1 user Likes Brian Shanahan's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#73

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(09-04-2020, 02:12 PM)Aliza Wrote:
(09-04-2020, 02:03 PM)mordant Wrote: My estimate is that Solomon was created to gin up a nationalistic pride / identity by citing a glorious, idealized (nay, fabulized) past that never existed. Failed states always appeal to past greatness as a justification of hope for future greatness. Manifest destiny by another name.

I get the logic of why that might be done, but how did they sell the story to everyone? There would have been no past generations to vouch for it being something they witnessed, or something that has been in their tradition for generations. In fact, the past generations would have needed to collaborate with one another to fabricate the story to their kids and grandkids so everyone is reinforcing the same story.

The "past" wasn't created, like much in the hebrew holy books until many centuries after it allegedly took place.  If you're creating a five or six hundred year old national creation myth, all you need is a few names.
Factio Republicanus delenda est!
Reply
#74

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
(08-09-2022, 11:08 PM)Brian Shanahan Wrote:
(09-03-2020, 06:01 AM)Cavebear Wrote: I expect there was probably a "Solomon" of some general name, but not all that he was credited to be.  I suspect there were prophets but not as special as considered they are considered by theists.  

But I also suspect that most of them are the hand-me-downs from previous beliefs, renamed and adopted.  Noah is Utnapishtim in older stories from Kish or Sumerians.  The Great Flood was probably about massive floods in the Black Sea.  local legends handed down through generations tend to assume the people there are the only ones who existed and so their world is "the whole world".

There may have been a "Solomon" but it's guaranteed he ruled over no kingdom.  The Israeli kingdom made no appearance in the history books until after the Babylonian captivity.  Before that, the Israelites were the punching bags at the edge of the fertile crescent, everybody ruled over them at one stage or another.

Minor point; it isn't "guaranteed"; there just isn't any evidence of such a person. There "could have been" Solomon. But in general, I agree. And it is up to claimants to prove his existence.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#75

Historical Solomon, Biblical Solomon
It is not so much why it was done, nor even when it was done.  Rather, it was when could it have been done.

Dismissing bible bullshit for the bullshit it is, what we know of that specific region is that from c 1500 BCE to 1150 BCE the whole region was under the control of the 18th and 19th Egyptian dynasties.  At that time the Sea Peoples, namely the Philistines, overran the coastal regions of what is now Israel and built or rebuilt a series of five cities.  The Egyptians withdrew and began their own long spiral down to oblivion which ended at Actium in 31 BCE.  From 1150 to around 900 various local rulers rose and fell  and one of the ones which seems to have risen spectacularly was the House of Umri, now known as the Northern Kingdom or Israel although that may be a mis-reading of Egyptian.  Whatever, while Umri and his son Ahab were fighting with Aram-Damascus, Moab, and possibly the Philistines the Assyrians were building up a formidable army to the east while the region known as Judah was an insignificant little shithole of about a dozen villages and a small bunch of nomadic shepherds.  This period ended in 722 when the Assyrians first overran Israel and later moved on to take Philistia.  Judah, reading the writing on the wall, promptly surrendered and became a vassal state.

They actually prospered as part of the Assyrian trade network to Arabia.  The population grew significantly and except for when Hezekiah got uppity the Assyrians were generally quite good masters.  But then Babylon rebelled against Assyria and Judah found itself betwixt and between warring powers.  Never a good place to be.  To make a long story short, Babylon defeated Assyria and their Egyptian allies and then took vengeance on Judah which had ended up on the wrong side of the war.  The whole exile story is well known as is the story of them coming "back."  Most of that seems to be bullshit, too.  What they were was a Persian province which they remained from 530 to 330 or so when Alexander marched by on his way to destroy Persia.  They didn't dare fight the Greeks.  Alexander died in 323 and his generals divided up his empire.  From about 300 to 170 the Ptolomaic Dynasty generally controlled Judah although they were in almost constant war with the Seleucid Empire based in Syria.  When those wars ended it was the Seleucids who had control of Judah exchanging the rule of one Greek for another, so to speak.  But both Egypt were Syria were worn down and it was only at this time, finally, that Judah was able to rebel against Seleucid rule with some chance of success.  The victory of the Maccabees, not quite as decisive as the bible depicts, was only complete when the Seleucids continued to wither and a truly, independent, "jewish" kingdom finally emerged under John Hyrcanus.  He died in 104 and the kingdom almost immediately dissolved in dynastic squabbling.  The period of independence ended when Gnaeus Pompey came rolling through and put Rome in charge c 64 BCE.  So, the only time when a national epic about how fucking great they were in the old days would have been of any use to them was in the roughly 40 year period beginning about 130 BCE.  That is where to look for the time when this shit was cobbled together in its final form.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)