Talk:Nehustan

Opposition to the documentary Hypothesis
I can't see why the statement
 * The main problem with the documentary hypothesis in this case is that there consistent references throughout the Torah about there being one God. The ancient Jewish creed, the Shema, based on Deuteronomy 6:4 even states "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one."

refers to a problem with the documentary hypothesis. The documentary hypothesis does not state anywhere there is more than one God. It is only concerned with how the text came to be written, not about other gods. The statement may well be completely true, but it is not a counter argument, its a tangent.

The reason it is important is because if the traditional view is correct, then Israel and Judah did not have a disagreement over that and the temple really was the one place of worship at that time. The only ones to maintain otherwise were later Samaritans. ~Eltinwë

Opposition to the documentary hypothesis is discussed at documentary hypothesis. Contesting the hypothesis on every single article involving it, when it is the view of a very large majority of scholars in the field, is like contesting evolution in every single biology article, i.e. inappropriate behaviour.

There are several points to consider --User talk:FDuffy 12:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The documentary hypothesis does not assert monotheism, henotheism, monolatrism, or any other view of god, it merely states that there was more than 1 author/source-text composing the torah. The modern formulation merely makes this more precise - that there were 4 main sources.
 * The bible itself (see the Book of Kings) states that Judah and Israel had a disagreement over where the one place of worship was. Only 1 generations after it was supposedly built (by Solomon), Rehoboam built two rival places of worship, and placed a "golden calf" at each, which was bitterly disputed throughout the remainder of the Book of Kings, as well as amongst the writings of the "Prophets".
 * It is POV to state that the Samaritans were later. They believe they were earlier. Their copy of the torah also appears to predate the masoretic text, supporting their conclusion.
 * The documentary hypothesis considers deuteronomy to be one of the latest parts of the torah - written by the deuteronomist. Its opinions about the nature of God are, under the hypothesis, later than those of the other parts, and hence even if deuteronomy is monotheist, there is no reason, according to the hypothesis, to assume that other parts of the torah must be.

Easiest objections first. It is NOT POV in the case of the Samaritans. Check the old Assyrian records and see if they deported any tribes to the "House of Omri." You forget that the Samaritans, in part, were Israelites which means that some of their ancestors were in Israel before the Two Kingdoms actually split. It is plain to see that the documentary hypothesis completely ignores the Jewish religion since it does NOT admit that the calfs set up by Jeroboam (not Rehoboam) were idols which, as noted, were established to draw Israelites in the Northern Kingdom away from the Temple worship. However, that is a irrelevant point since the Samaritans were, and still are, monotheist. The weak point of their version of the Torah is how the the semantics and syntax reveal much later interpolation (post-Exilic period) and editing. Historically speaking, we also do not have nearly the number of documents required to ensure that it is an accurate document.
 * The definition of idols is not one which the documentary hypothesis proclaims [it doesn't make a POV judgement in either direction as to what the value of the calfs are with respect to God]. Biblical scholars, on the other hand see the two calfs set up by Jeroboam (sorry, I always get those two mixed up), as being Jeroboam's attack on the Jerusalem ark - the two cherubim upon it. The two cherubim act, in Judahite thought, as a seat for God, and hence are a statement that God is at the ark. Jeroboam was effectively stating "actually, the border's of God's seat are at each end of my kingdom, and God is thus within all of it, not cramped in some little box in Jerusalem in Judah".
 * I can agree with the political consequences of the calves, but it must be remembered that it was primarily religious since sacrifices were offered to them.
 * No that simply is non-sequitur. That's like saying Godwin's law is primarily about Nazi's because it mentions them dominantly, when it's actually about incompetant argument. --User talk:FDuffy 14:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The weak point of your argument about the Samaritan Torah is that their version predates the masoretic text. It also statistically agrees far more with the Septuagint than the masoretic text does with either. The New Testament quotations of the "Torah" that Jesus allegedly makes also have a far greater agreement with the Samaritan Torah (and the Septuagint) than the masoretic text. Some of the quotes which the New Testament attributes to Jesus actually aren't even in the masoretic text whatsoever, instead only being in one of the other two. Historically speaking, there is more evidence that the Samaritan Torah is accurate than there is for the masoretic text.
 * --User talk:FDuffy 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Might I ask your sources concerning the respective dating for the Samaritan and Masoretic Torah's. On the Septuagint, it was written in Ptolemaic Egypt by a group of affluent and semi-religious Jews.  I would be more inclined to accept something written by the Essenes (e.g., Qumran scrolls) or the Pharisees (e.g., Talmudim) than Alexandrian Jewry.  As for their closer similitude with the words of Jesus...that almost makes sense since the Gospels are written in Greek, like the Septuagint.  I think if we examined the Peshitta and Jesus' words translated into Aramaic (what He most likely used everyday), we would find even greater relationship.  And what statements are you talking about when you say "Some of the quotes which the New Testament attributes to Jesus actually aren't even in the masoretic text whatsoever, instead only being in one of the other two." ?  I'm very interested in seeing them.  Thanks! --Eltinwë 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Septuagint was written by 70 of the best scholars, much like the King James Version. The point is as to what they based it on. The Masoretic text matches all the others far less than they all match each other, i.e. it looks like a corruption. The similitude is not just down to the use of Greek; for example, the Septuagint has "Shebua" ("oath") as the name Isaac gives to the place that consequently becomes Beersheba, but the Masoretic has "Shibah" ("seven"), so if a new testament quote says that Isaac called it "Shebua" this has a greater degree of inherent similitude to the Septuagint than the Masoretic, regardless of the language they are written in.
 * That isn't one of the new testament quotes by the way, but an example to illustrate what is meant. As for exact quotes, and which version the correspond to better, see for example http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/LXX/NTChart.htm, which doesn't by any means contain all the correspondences. Here are two quotes as starters (emphasis added) - note that the Masoretic and Septuagint sometimes have verses not present in the other and so the numbering often doesn't quite match
 * The first:
 * NT Matthew 9:13 "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice"
 * Septuagint Hosea 6:7 "For I will have mercy rather than sacrifice"
 * Masoretic Hosea 6:6 "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice"
 * The second:
 * NT Matthew 13:35b "...I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world"
 * Septuagint Psalms 77:2b "...I will utter dark sayings which have been from the beginning"
 * Masoretic Psalms 78:22 "...I will utter dark sayings of old"
 * --User talk:FDuffy 14:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, both versions of the Bible that I have used (English Standard Version), have the Masoretic reading. As for the New Testament quotes, that's a matter of hermeneutics.  One thought is limited inspiration - that is, that what they said was a paraphrase of what was actually written - or how their Rabbi expanded upon or clarified it.  Also, it must be remembered that Hebrew of itself is very vague and many things that can be understood from context (implied) are often left unwritten.  That's just the way of it.  Jesus, in the very essence of his ministry, was a Rabbi (and was addressed as such).  The traditions of the Jews had long understood that Asaph had implied "before time" because the reference "of old" refers to such things. Eltinwë 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why on earth we can't just have a balanced presentation. Considering each historical theory in this article is not pointless. History is NOT governed by scientific laws since history can't be proved by scientific method.

--Eltinwë 18:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * NOTHING can be proved by scientific method. Only disproved. --User talk:FDuffy 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ditto to that...but wasn't sure what your take on that was...decided to stick with the safe statement. :) --Eltinwë 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus and the Nehustan

 * Some Christians also believe it to be a prefiguration of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

I've taken this out. Could whoever wrote this specify exactly which Christians believe it, and how, as, on its own, it reads as if it is nonsense (connecting Jesus's crucifixion to a metal snake on a stick is like connecting Jesus' crucifixion to canapes). --User talk:FDuffy 12:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is referenced in many traditional sources (some Church Fathers and later Reformers) as well as some contemporary (Conservative and usually Fundamental) leaders. The connection is really not that hard to believe. Actually, the New Testament even says in John 3:14-15 - "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life." Those are the words of Jesus there.

--Eltinwë 18:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh right, allegory, or more accurately simile. Writing it so that this was clear, with a link to allegory/simile, for example, would have explained that well. I'm not sure why the simile counts as noteworthy. We don't have a big discussion of the weather in the article cats, owing to the simile like cats and dogs, so I don't see a reason to include the simile like moses lifting the nehustan, unless the simile is noteworthy rather than once-off. And discussion of such a simile should really focus on the simile, not on a single instance of it being used. --User talk:FDuffy 21:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But it is a prefiguration...a sign, if you will. Jonah's three days in the belly of a fish were also used in that sense.  To most Christians, and as a sign to others, it is a significant reference. --Eltinwë 23:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)