Gmirkin is a game-changer. I saw his interview on Mythvision podcast about the OT and so much finally clicked in my head.
I wonder if he's considered Fomenko's alternative chronology and how far up that would push the writing of the OT. Maybe as little as a thousand years before our time.
Not sure if he's familiar with Fomenko. I'm guessing no, since he's been pretty focused on the OT and the classics for several years. I read the first volume of Fomenko's series and it was quite a ride. But I kind of despair of proving it for myself as the number of facts to have at your disposal to deal with chronology is so vast. It's definitely a fascinating theory, though.
But you're right about his work being a game-changer! I've had the same experience reading his books.
Well Fomenko simply opened the floodgates for historical revisionism. Now you have other thinkers, Germans mostly, who come at it with different methods. Like, for example, sediment analysis. They too conclude that much of what we know about the first millennium appears to be phantom stories about a time that was much closer to our own.
Interesting. If we take the paradigm case of defeating Hitler’s forces, we might be inclined to say that the end justified the means. Those who roasted Nazi soldiers with flamethrowers or ordered the fire-bombing of cities had clearly crossed all bounds of everyday ethics. They released animalistic and spiritual potentials for rage and killing necessary for the saving of other lives.
As we might imagine, many Bible scholars make similar points concerning the narratives you mentioned. Command ethics may not be the whole story, but may encompass a limited and inadequate scope of discussion after the supernatural context is discarded. See for example, The Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser.
Of course naturalistic assumptions imply naturalistic analyses, but I think these rule out a priori the ethical context assumed in the writing.
As I see it the same naturalistic frame rules out much of what wisdom humanity has accumulated around the subjects of ethical warrant and the understanding of evil generally.
The divide in perspectives is a normal situation based in metaphysics. But the interpretation of ethics in ancient sources should follow the worldview assumptions of the sources.
I do think there is such a thing as a just war, and even just warriors. But 'command ethics' and paramorality makes it much too easy to excuse and obscure pure psychopathy in the name of God, or even just "saving lives." Even in war it is necessary to weed out those who are just plain evil. The more a nation or army fails to so that, the most they lose their claim to being the "good guys."
I know many Bible scholars (and regular believers) justify the mass murder and genocide in the Bible on such grounds. I think that just proves the point made in the quote from Lobaczewski. Especially when you realize that all those narratives were pure fiction.
This sort of flexible ethical standard permeates the Israelite mindset: who/whom is the sole element determining whether an act is considered just or unjust, righteous or sinful, moral or immoral. It's not an accident that the Israelites were widely disliked in antiquity.
Gmirkin is a game-changer. I saw his interview on Mythvision podcast about the OT and so much finally clicked in my head.
I wonder if he's considered Fomenko's alternative chronology and how far up that would push the writing of the OT. Maybe as little as a thousand years before our time.
Not sure if he's familiar with Fomenko. I'm guessing no, since he's been pretty focused on the OT and the classics for several years. I read the first volume of Fomenko's series and it was quite a ride. But I kind of despair of proving it for myself as the number of facts to have at your disposal to deal with chronology is so vast. It's definitely a fascinating theory, though.
But you're right about his work being a game-changer! I've had the same experience reading his books.
Well Fomenko simply opened the floodgates for historical revisionism. Now you have other thinkers, Germans mostly, who come at it with different methods. Like, for example, sediment analysis. They too conclude that much of what we know about the first millennium appears to be phantom stories about a time that was much closer to our own.
Interesting. If we take the paradigm case of defeating Hitler’s forces, we might be inclined to say that the end justified the means. Those who roasted Nazi soldiers with flamethrowers or ordered the fire-bombing of cities had clearly crossed all bounds of everyday ethics. They released animalistic and spiritual potentials for rage and killing necessary for the saving of other lives.
As we might imagine, many Bible scholars make similar points concerning the narratives you mentioned. Command ethics may not be the whole story, but may encompass a limited and inadequate scope of discussion after the supernatural context is discarded. See for example, The Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser.
Of course naturalistic assumptions imply naturalistic analyses, but I think these rule out a priori the ethical context assumed in the writing.
As I see it the same naturalistic frame rules out much of what wisdom humanity has accumulated around the subjects of ethical warrant and the understanding of evil generally.
The divide in perspectives is a normal situation based in metaphysics. But the interpretation of ethics in ancient sources should follow the worldview assumptions of the sources.
I do think there is such a thing as a just war, and even just warriors. But 'command ethics' and paramorality makes it much too easy to excuse and obscure pure psychopathy in the name of God, or even just "saving lives." Even in war it is necessary to weed out those who are just plain evil. The more a nation or army fails to so that, the most they lose their claim to being the "good guys."
I know many Bible scholars (and regular believers) justify the mass murder and genocide in the Bible on such grounds. I think that just proves the point made in the quote from Lobaczewski. Especially when you realize that all those narratives were pure fiction.
This sort of flexible ethical standard permeates the Israelite mindset: who/whom is the sole element determining whether an act is considered just or unjust, righteous or sinful, moral or immoral. It's not an accident that the Israelites were widely disliked in antiquity.
Hellenistic Jewish mind-set. "Israelites" only exist in their ponergraphic(sic) fiction.