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.
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.
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.
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.
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.