JimLewandowski Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> [...] Just because Moses may have been
> a real person, doesn't mean that God is
> "real".
No kidding?
> Remember, the reader can take the story in a
> literalist way or in a symbolic way.
I'm not convinced I really needed reminding of that fact, but never mind ...
> Next questions. Seeing that the OT is a political
> book [...].
The OT is many things, Jim, including being made up of a variety of different books, composed/compiled in different places at different times for a variety of different purposes.
> [...] do you think the writers who are
> creating history would choose a real flesh/blood
> person? Or, would they CREATE a character to fit
> the political philosophy/motivation (i.e.
> patriarchal)?
Hmmm, a simple choice between 'choosing' or 'creating'? Sorry, but you'd have to convince me of your assumption that these 'writers' are consciously and wilfully "
creating history" in the first place ...
"Basically, it seems to me, it has been a mistake to suppose that ideology can or could initiate historical narrative. Ideology is a set of ideas. It can affect historical narrative and bias it, but it does not originate it. Ideology has characteristically non-story
character. The story has to come from somewhere else - from memories, from traditions, from older books - and then ideology may build upon it, revise it, embellish it. Ideology is characteristically described as a system, and scholars have often emphasized that system is very different from narrative, and this is quite right in its way. Excessive reliance on the concept of ideology in modern times has caused quite improbable credulity towards notions of what it can accomplish [...]" - James Barr (2000)
> The larger point is: is it probable that one
> writer borrowed the story from the other? If so,
> WHY would this be done when one's writing
> intrument can write down anything the scribe
> wants.
No, the larger point is that your reasoning is flawed here, and your attempt to draw conclusions hampered by the fact that whatever conclusions you're drawing are purely speculative. Hint: read the Redford article.
> Or, as I have read, BOTH stories are archetypes.
> Why would that be? Hint: beliefs.
Hint: I don't have a great deal of faith in the idea of archetypes.
> Having a face shine because of looking at the
> backside of God DOES confer mythical status (in
> more ways than one).
I'd recommend ...
Haran, Menahem. 1984. The Shining of Moses' Face: A Case Study in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography. In
In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlstrom, edited by W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer. Sheffield: JSOT Press (pp. 159-173)
Sanders, Seth L. 2002. Old Light on Moses' Shining Face.
Vetus Testamentum, LII, 3: 400-406.
... but doubt you'd show much inclination to track them down.
> Why is water/rivers so common an element in
> religious writings. That is the big question.
> Hint: it's not because of the Nile or other REAL
> rivers nearby. We're talking beliefs here.
Hint: cultural beliefs don't operate in a vacuum.
Anyway, must admit that I've got no particular interest in discussing your fascination with symbolism/literalism ad nauseum. You might remember that we've been there once or twice in the past ([
www.hallofmaat.com], for instance), and I certainly don't fancy going down that route again (particularly given your rather simplistic understanding of the purpose and composition of the numerous biblical texts).
All I was really interested in doing on this particular thread was addressing your particular insistence that the story of the birth of Moses has to be a direct borrowing from the birth legend of Sargon. The evidence suggests that the situation is a tad more complicated than you seem prepared to acknowledge. But that's life, I guess.
Damian
