Ice Age Earth

[Metsfanmax]

I presume everyone is aware that there was a great flood, it just wasnt quite global. It was centred on the black sea at about the right time. Sounds like the entire "world" of those who wrote down the story did indeed flood.

I was not aware of that. Where can I read about that?

[tzor]

I was not aware of that. Where can I read about that?

You're not? Black Sea deluge hypothesis

The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC from waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosphorus strait. The hypothesis was headlined when The New York Times published it in December 1996,[1] shortly before it was published in an academic journal.[2] While it is agreed that the sequence of events described occurred, there is debate over the suddenness, dating and magnitude of the events. Two opposing hypotheses have arisen to explain the rise of the Black Sea: gradual and oscillating.[3]:15 The oscillating hypothesis specifies that over the last 30,000 years, water has intermittently flowed back and forth between the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea in relatively small magnitudes and does not necessarily presuppose that there occurred any sudden "refilling" events.

For cross reference: The Epic of Gilgamesh was written around 2100 BC. This has the flood tale that may have been the source for the flood narrative in the Bible. So even periodic events may have been grounds for the story, especially if one of them was larger than the others.

[Phatscotty]

I was not aware of that. Where can I read about that?

You're not? Black Sea deluge hypothesis

The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC from waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosphorus strait. The hypothesis was headlined when The New York Times published it in December 1996,[1] shortly before it was published in an academic journal.[2] While it is agreed that the sequence of events described occurred, there is debate over the suddenness, dating and magnitude of the events. Two opposing hypotheses have arisen to explain the rise of the Black Sea: gradual and oscillating.[3]:15 The oscillating hypothesis specifies that over the last 30,000 years, water has intermittently flowed back and forth between the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea in relatively small magnitudes and does not necessarily presuppose that there occurred any sudden "refilling" events.

For cross reference: The Epic of Gilgamesh was written around 2100 BC. This has the flood tale that may have been the source for the flood narrative in the Bible. So even periodic events may have been grounds for the story, especially if one of them was larger than the others.

I've come across a couple loose theories about cosmic objects hitting the Indian Ocean roughly 4,800 years ago and in the Mediterranean Sea roughly 7,000 years ago, but so far I haven't seen any evidence to back them up. Mostly they were about understanding what kind of energy would need to be generated, and then plugging in the only things we know of so far that are capable of producing that much energy.

March 5 2016 - 30 meter asteroid with an unpredictable trajectory could fly as close as 11,000 miles from earth. The Moon is over 236,000 miles from Earth.


The bolide that lit up the Russian sky in 2013 up to twice as bright as a full moon was estimated to be 20 meters

[jgordon1111]

Tzor you surprise, unusual a Catholic, would say the story of Gilgamesh and his apeman like friend enkindu, might in fact be the basis for the biblical flood story, that is very unique from a Catholics perspective to say the least.

[tzor]

Tzor you surprise, unusual a Catholic, would say the story of Gilgamesh and his apeman like friend enkindu, might in fact be the basis for the biblical flood story, that is very unique from a Catholics perspective to say the least.

Well sometimes you might not know Catholics. Here is a commentary from the NABRE - New American Bible - Revised Edition, which is a "Catholic" Bible.

* [6:5–8:22] The story of the great flood is commonly regarded as a composite narrative based on separate sources woven together. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned 6:5–8; 7:1–5, 7–10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22–23; 8:2b–3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–22. The other sections are usually attributed to the Priestly writer. There are differences between the two sources: the Priestly source has two pairs of every animal, whereas the Yahwist source has seven pairs of clean animals and two pairs of unclean; the floodwater in the Priestly source is the waters under and over the earth that burst forth, whereas in the Yahwist source the floodwater is the rain lasting forty days and nights. In spite of many obvious discrepancies in these two sources, one should read the story as a coherent narrative. The biblical story ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood, preserved in the Sumerian flood story, the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic, and (embedded in a longer creation story) the Atrahasis Epic.

I think the important thing to remember is not the things that are similar, but the things that are different. The whole Genesis story takes common stories and puts a unique twist on them. Instead of a war among the gods or angry gods being upset at mortals below, the writers tell a story of the Lord of Hosts who is constantly in charge and in control and the disobedience of the people as the reasons for various punishments.

[jgordon1111]

Tzor you surprise, unusual a Catholic, would say the story of Gilgamesh and his apeman like friend enkindu, might in fact be the basis for the biblical flood story, that is very unique from a Catholics perspective to say the least.

Well sometimes you might not know Catholics. Here is a commentary from the NABRE - New American Bible - Revised Edition, which is a "Catholic" Bible.

* [6:5–8:22] The story of the great flood is commonly regarded as a composite narrative based on separate sources woven together. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned 6:5–8; 7:1–5, 7–10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22–23; 8:2b–3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–22. The other sections are usually attributed to the Priestly writer. There are differences between the two sources: the Priestly source has two pairs of every animal, whereas the Yahwist source has seven pairs of clean animals and two pairs of unclean; the floodwater in the Priestly source is the waters under and over the earth that burst forth, whereas in the Yahwist source the floodwater is the rain lasting forty days and nights. In spite of many obvious discrepancies in these two sources, one should read the story as a coherent narrative. The biblical story ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood, preserved in the Sumerian flood story, the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic, and (embedded in a longer creation story) the Atrahasis Epic.

I think the important thing to remember is not the things that are similar, but the things that are different. The whole Genesis story takes common stories and puts a unique twist on them. Instead of a war among the gods or angry gods being upset at mortals below, the writers tell a story of the Lord of Hosts who is constantly in charge and in control and the disobedience of the people as the reasons for various punishments.

What you say might be true, but you are the first,that hasn't die hard defended every word of the bible as being ABSOLUTE truth, including all of my own family,even when shown evidence of obvious mistakes, but I digress, I hope there are alot more out there just like you, with the ability to see other than what is taught as being the only possibility.

[DoomYoshi]

My exile didn't last long before you two sucked me back in.

@tzor: I trust you are aware that the documentary hypothesis is a purely protestant invention. It featured heavily in the (Protestant) Interpreter's Bible but is so out-of-date that it is mentioned only in passing in the New Interpreter's Bible and the NIV Study Bible (also Protestant multi-faith).

@jgordon: Catholicism has never been about claiming absolute authority of the Bible... Biblical literalism is a recent (19th century... maybe 18th) Protestant thing.

Even John Calvin, who tried to claim the Bible was perfect, admitted of several errors.

EDIT: The Reason I don't like Documentary Hypotheses

The main thing is that it continued ad infinitum. It started with an analysis of the Torah, showing that half of the Torah refers to God as Yahweh, and half as Elohim. From there it branched out. Eventually, you could read stuff like Deutoro-Isaiah, commenting on proto-Isaiah, made it appear to be a genuine writing of Isaiah, or possibly a contamintation from Ezekiel. It just became downright ridiculous. As an alternate to the documentary hypothesis, I accept the author hypothesis. That the documents we have now (even though the modern translations show clear signs of being mergers of MSS.) were actually authored by people, not mere copies and mergers of documents. Imagine that! Even Job, the most brilliantly put together work of the OT (in terms of structure) was claimed to be the merging of several documents. Really?

In the NT, it became equally ludicrous. Matthew was posited to be the merging of three documents: Mark, Q source (the same source that Luke used) and M source. So, the author never authored anything, he just merged sources. Lame.

This trend of documentary hypotheses eventually reached it's breaking point when every single work in the Bible was claimed to be written by someone other than who is listed as the author. Paul didn't write the Epistles, Matthew didn't write Matthew etc. While I can see some evidence that Paul didn't write Ephesians, I don't see any over-arching reason to reject tradition on any of these points.

Imagine if someone took all the DoomYoshi posts. There are short quips, endless mafia diatribes, straight-up trolling, official proclamations from my time as a mod and event guy, suggestions, dick pics etc. One could easily argue that the mafia is proto-Yoshi, the official proclamations were inserted by some scribe trying to capitalize on the popularity (sic) of proto-Yoshi and eventually the legend came to be ascribed all the other stuff. It's nonsense. Of the post-NT Christian writers, we have evidence of changes in Theology, so there is no real reason to say that Paul couldn't have written Ephesians.

P.S. The best OT translation is OMGWTFBible, but it's still not complete.

[hotfire]

there is another topic for bible babel....let's get back to Scotty's deluge-ions (see what I did there).

[tzor]

@tzor: I trust you are aware that the documentary hypothesis is a purely protestant invention. It featured heavily in the (Protestant) Interpreter's Bible but is so out-of-date that it is mentioned only in passing in the New Interpreter's Bible and the NIV Study Bible (also Protestant multi-faith).

Yes, but it's a nice place to land the various styles in the Torah and a lot nicer starting place than the notion that everything pulled from their asses after the exile.

In the last three decades, the above consensus on the composition of the Pentateuch has come under attack. Some critics are extremely skeptical about the historical value of the so-called early traditions, and a few doubt there ever was a preexilic monarchy of any substance. For such scholars, the Pentateuch is a retrojection from the fourth or third centuries B.C. Other scholars postulate a different sequence of sources, or understand the sources differently.

Was there significant editing after the exile? It is a very interesting question.

[tzor]

For most of the food chain, deoxidation of the water as a result of nitrogen insertion poses a far more (orders of magnitude) significant damage. The Most Recent Mass Fish Kill in Riverhead, Long Island, NY

Just saw this in the local news. The fish kill due to nitrogen has been CONFIRMED. Last summer’s massive fish kill was caused by algal blooms, too much nitrogen, study confirms

A months-long collaborative effort between the state, the county and researchers at local universities determined that a spike in algal blooms, fueled by increased levels of nitrogen in the water, deprived the water of oxygen and caused “mass asphyxiation” in the river’s bunker.

A large population of predatory blue fish at the mouth of the river made matters worse, blocking the bunker from escaping the oxygen-drained river. The algal blooms also damaged the gills of the bunker, which are also known as menhaden, which may have exposed them to a virus.

The study discounted the possibility that illegal discharges, spills or the presence of toxic substances contributed to the kill.

Chris Gobler, a Stony Brook University research professor, identified algal blooms early on as the cause of the kill.

High levels of nitrogen in the Peconic River are believed to have fueled the algal blooms. Residential septic systems, pesticides and fertilizers all contribute to increased levels of nitrogen.

The study estimates that roughly 300,000 bunker were killed in the Peconic Estuary last summer due to the nitrogen-fueled algal blooms. Most of the dead fish washed up at the mouth of the river, near Indian Island County Park and in the waters between the Route 105 bridge and the Riverhead Yacht Club, according to the study.

[DoomYoshi]

@tzor: I trust you are aware that the documentary hypothesis is a purely protestant invention. It featured heavily in the (Protestant) Interpreter's Bible but is so out-of-date that it is mentioned only in passing in the New Interpreter's Bible and the NIV Study Bible (also Protestant multi-faith).

Yes, but it's a nice place to land the various styles in the Torah and a lot nicer starting place than the notion that everything pulled from their asses after the exile.

In the last three decades, the above consensus on the composition of the Pentateuch has come under attack. Some critics are extremely skeptical about the historical value of the so-called early traditions, and a few doubt there ever was a preexilic monarchy of any substance. For such scholars, the Pentateuch is a retrojection from the fourth or third centuries B.C. Other scholars postulate a different sequence of sources, or understand the sources differently.

Was there significant editing after the exile? It is a very interesting question.

I have one more reason against documentary hypothesis and two alternate hypotheses other than pulling out of ass.

The documentary hypothesis indicates intentional merging of 2 separate documents. Why would someone do such an intentional merging? Why would someone go out of their way to mash together contradictory accounts? It doesn't make any sense unless that person is a spastic, schizophrenic with a surrealist bent who is hopped up on glue (actually, that comment resembles me, but I wasn't alive then).

Alternate hypothesis A: accidental merger
there are indeed multiple source documents but after comically crashing into the secretary, the papers went flying and then were reassembled even though they were from multiple documents

Alternate hypothesis B: commentary
It could be that the yahweh writings were the source and the alleged Elohim writings were added later as a commentary, and then merged through the ages (we have evidence of this sort of commentary and subsequent mergings happening with the existing MSS of both old and new testaments). The distinction here is that there isn't a second document but there can still be a second, or multiple authors.

If the earth is flat and sits on a turtle, what does that turtle sit on? Another turtle... it's turtles all the way down. If a document can only be made from another document or a merger of documents then authorship is impossible. What created the first document? Another document... it's documents all the way down.

[tzor]

The documentary hypothesis indicates intentional merging of 2 separate documents. Why would someone do such an intentional merging? Why would someone go out of their way to mash together contradictory accounts? It doesn't make any sense unless that person is a spastic, schizophrenic with a surrealist bent who is hopped up on glue (actually, that comment resembles me, but I wasn't alive then).

But the notion of "merging" you present is somewhat rooted in the notion that there were two separate texts and that they were then "merged" in some sort of reconciliation process. I think a better explanation is that these were oral traditions that over the centuries managed to layer themselves on to the written scrolls as different generations of scribes attempted to make the tradition relevant to their own particular situation. It's not like they sat in a room and debated over this, but rather later scribes merely added verses into the narrative to promote their own particular agenda. (It's sort of the way people make notes in the margins of books today. A lot of Bibles have such notes included with them as footnotes and commentaries.)

[DoomYoshi]

The documentary hypothesis indicates intentional merging of 2 separate documents. Why would someone do such an intentional merging? Why would someone go out of their way to mash together contradictory accounts? It doesn't make any sense unless that person is a spastic, schizophrenic with a surrealist bent who is hopped up on glue (actually, that comment resembles me, but I wasn't alive then).

But the notion of "merging" you present is somewhat rooted in the notion that there were two separate texts and that they were then "merged" in some sort of reconciliation process. I think a better explanation is that these were oral traditions that over the centuries managed to layer themselves on to the written scrolls as different generations of scribes attempted to make the tradition relevant to their own particular situation. It's not like they sat in a room and debated over this, but rather later scribes merely added verses into the narrative to promote their own particular agenda. (It's sort of the way people make notes in the margins of books today. A lot of Bibles have such notes included with them as footnotes and commentaries.)

That's fine that you think it's a better explanation. That's not what the documentary hypothesis (DH) is though. It clearly states that there were multiple complete documents that were later merged by editors. That these editors revel in contradiction and ambiguity yet despise sense and order is not addressed by DH.

I know in stats your assumptions don't have to be met necessarily to still have good stats. Here's the DH though: Assume there were 4 complete proto-Torahs. I am not going to assume that, therefore the rest of DH is useless to me.

[Dukasaur]

The documentary hypothesis indicates intentional merging of 2 separate documents. Why would someone do such an intentional merging? Why would someone go out of their way to mash together contradictory accounts? It doesn't make any sense unless that person is a spastic, schizophrenic with a surrealist bent who is hopped up on glue (actually, that comment resembles me, but I wasn't alive then).

But the notion of "merging" you present is somewhat rooted in the notion that there were two separate texts and that they were then "merged" in some sort of reconciliation process. I think a better explanation is that these were oral traditions that over the centuries managed to layer themselves on to the written scrolls as different generations of scribes attempted to make the tradition relevant to their own particular situation. It's not like they sat in a room and debated over this, but rather later scribes merely added verses into the narrative to promote their own particular agenda. (It's sort of the way people make notes in the margins of books today. A lot of Bibles have such notes included with them as footnotes and commentaries.)

That's fine that you think it's a better explanation. That's not what the documentary hypothesis (DH) is though. It clearly states that there were multiple complete documents that were later merged by editors. That these editors revel in contradiction and ambiguity yet despise sense and order is not addressed by DH.

I know in stats your assumptions don't have to be met necessarily to still have good stats. Here's the DH though: Assume there were 4 complete proto-Torahs. I am not going to assume that, therefore the rest of DH is useless to me.

Why would they have to be complete?

There's no sign of any kind of unifying principle, so the idea that it was cobbled together from disparate sources makes perfect sense.

Two different and incompatible creation myths, then two different and incompatible stories of the Fall, then a bit of Gilgamesh, then a bit of this and a bit of that, then finally Exodus, the first book that looks like it may have a single theme, and then we go back to a bit of this and a bit of that. Some dry chronological telling of some family histories, interspersed with rantings of "prophets" and even an erotic poem thrown in, for no apparent reason than because the editor had it handy and liked it.

It's like a going-out-of-business sale at a used bookstore. The idea that one writer wrote all these disparate documents is far less plausible than the idea that they were written by many authors, and then somebody tried to jam them into a single anthology.

[DoomYoshi]

If the two stories are incompatible, why would any sane person put them in the same account, side by side with each other?

I might point out that one can just as well apply this approach even to shorter stories, such as "Goldilocks and the Three Bears." If the porridge was all made at the same time, obviously the father's could not be too hot, the mother's too cold, and the baby bear's just right. There were originally three stories, which we may call P, M and B, which have been edited into one story. The respect that the editor had for these ancient folk traditions of bear worship led him to preserve the inconsistency, which provides a clue for the keen eye of the critic trained in the documentary hypothesis who wishes to establish the lineaments of UrBear stories.

[tzor]

If the two stories are incompatible, why would any sane person put them in the same account, side by side with each other?

Did I ever tell you my great grandfather was Jewish?

While the thought of multi armed Goddesses from the Indian subcontinent may have been repulsive to the average Jewish person through antiquity, if you hear enough of their arguments with "on the other hand" you would think they all had at least six arms for the purposes of discussion. It's a mindset.

On the other hand ...

Consider the crossing of the Red Sea as another example. One is left with a distinct impression that a strong wind pushed away the water making dry land (over a period of time) and in that same period of time the water returned to its normal depth. There is no indication that the strong wind continued during the actual passage. Yet in the story there in the insistence that the water was like a "wall" to their right and to their left. Now it might be possible that an army might cross what is not clearly somewhat dry land, but with water like a wall to their right and left? I doubt it. Remember the story also states that the chariots were clogged in the mud so one doesn't need to have a complete collapse of a wall of water to drown cavalry troops that probably didn't know how to swim in the first place.

The crossing of the "Reed" sea wasn't probably anything like what you saw Charleston Heston do in the movies.

[Dukasaur]

If the two stories are incompatible, why would any sane person put them in the same account, side by side with each other?

I might point out that one can just as well apply this approach even to shorter stories, such as "Goldilocks and the Three Bears." If the porridge was all made at the same time, obviously the father's could not be too hot, the mother's too cold, and the baby bear's just right. There were originally three stories, which we may call P, M and B, which have been edited into one story. The respect that the editor had for these ancient folk traditions of bear worship led him to preserve the inconsistency, which provides a clue for the keen eye of the critic trained in the documentary hypothesis who wishes to establish the lineaments of UrBear stories.

The "why" is no mystery. The Hebrew people were originally polytheistic, like all Middle Eastern cultures. As the cult of Yahweh gradually became more powerful, it gathered all the disparate Hebrew traditions together. At first the Yahwists were content to merely be first among equals ("Thou shalt have no other gods before Me") but when they emerged from the Captivity with a license to rebuilt the Temple, they had the more ambitious goal of being not just the foremost religious cult in the nation, but the only religious cult in the nation. Thus everything ever written had to be recast as part of a single grand narrative that was all about Yahweh from beginning to end.

[DoomYoshi]

That's exactly the kind of bullshit hypothesis that feeds into DH.

Assume that all religions start as polytheistic and evolve into monotheism. This assumption has been refuted.
Assume that during the era of the events of the Torah, there wasn't much Hebrew writing. This assumption has been refuted.
Assume that everything the Jews write is a lie and therefore the Jews should be put in the gas chamber. This assumption has been refuted.

In either case, if that was the stated goal, why wouldn't they do it in a sensible manner instead of a schizophrenic manner?

[Phatscotty]

Devastating Asteroid Causes Flood 4.800 Years Ago

[Dukasaur]

That's exactly the kind of bullshit hypothesis that feeds into DH.

Assume that all religions start as polytheistic and evolve into monotheism. This assumption has been refuted.
Assume that during the era of the events of the Torah, there wasn't much Hebrew writing. This assumption has been refuted.
Assume that everything the Jews write is a lie and therefore the Jews should be put in the gas chamber. This assumption has been refuted.

I have seen no refutation of point 1. Everything I've read confirms that the Jews were originally polytheistic. The most telling evidence is in the Bible itself. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" says Yahweh, not "Thou shalt have no other gods." If the author of Exodus had anticipated that the Jews would become monotheistic, he would have skipped the redundant "before me."

Point 2 is not refutable, since "much" is a relative term, and will always be susceptible to redefinition. It's not important, anyhow.

Point 3 is typical DoomYoshi hyperbole. There's no need to assume that the Jews are more dishonest than members of other religions. Since the idea of god is patently absurd, all religious writings are technically works of fiction, but fiction can still contain great truths, so there's no need to condemn anyone. Unless you would put Tolstoy and Voltaire and Tolkien and Heinlein in gas chambers, there's no need to put the old Jews there, either.

There are a few lies in the Bible that I find particularly annoying, but I'm sure if I knew the Bhagavad-gita or the I-Ching as well as I know the Bible, there would be equally annoying lies there.

In either case, if that was the stated goal, why wouldn't they do it in a sensible manner instead of a schizophrenic manner?

You've obviously never served on a committee writing a manifesto. Based on my extensive experience with those, I have a pretty good idea of how the Torah was written.

Priest A comes from District A, where tradition A is commonly taught. From his point of view, the first creation story is the only creation story. Priest B comes from District B, and he learned tradition B, and from his point of view the only true version is the second creation story. When the committee sits to review the documents and come up with the "true" document, Priest A and Priest B both come, determined to have their way and see their truth validated in the final document.

As the subject is debated, Priest A and Priest B both become more heated and angry. There's a lot of screaming and swearing and insults thrown about, and dramatic pronouncements like "over my dead body will this villainous nonsense be included in my document!"

High Priest C doesn't give a shit about any of that. He's a sensible man who wants to get on with the serious business of tithing and inspecting the local virgins, and he thinks writing the manifesto is a bunch of bullshit. The only reason he's the Chair of the Committee is that his status requires it. From his point of view, he'd love nothing more than to see A and B and their respective factions fight it out an kill each other, but he knows he can't let that happen. Finally, he extracts his face from his palm and begins to speak.

"Learned gentlemen, I know that all of us hold the Document close to our hearts, and perhaps we need to step back and calm ourselves. I know that our God is the God of all of us, and there is definitely room in His House for both the Revered Brother A and the Revered Brother B. Perhaps we need to consider that both versions represent fragments of His Truth, and need to be included in our final Document."

With that, he proposes that Priest D (who is not the brightest bulb in the array, but has a history of not pissing off either side) form a subcommittee to combine version A and version B. The subcommittee meets, a smaller and less dramatic version of the argument is held, and in the end they put together the two incompatible stories in one package, with a few extra conjunctions to smooth over the gaps. The main committee passes the subcommittee's version without much comment. Priest A and Priest B both hate it, but they have lost valuable prestige because of their unseemly outbursts, so now they just sulk and vote in favour of the compromise without further ado.

[tzor]

I have seen no refutation of point 1. Everything I've read confirms that the Jews were originally polytheistic. The most telling evidence is in the Bible itself. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" says Yahweh, not "Thou shalt have no other gods." If the author of Exodus had anticipated that the Jews would become monotheistic, he would have skipped the redundant "before me."

You don't even need to go to the ten commandments. Genesis 1:26

* [1:26] Let us make: in the ancient Near East, and sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth (1 Kgs 22:19–22; Is 6:8; Ps 29:1–2; 82; 89:6–7; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). This scene accounts for the plural form here and in Gn 11:7 (“Let us then go down…”). Israel’s God was always considered “Most High” over the heavenly beings.

Micaiah continued: “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD seated on his throne, with the whole host of heaven standing to his right and to his left.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” “Here I am,” I said; “send me!”

Give to the LORD, you sons of God, give to the LORD glory and might;

Now let's look at Isaiah 6:3

וְקָרָ֨א זֶ֤ה אֶל־זֶה֙ וְאָמַ֔ר קָדֹ֧ושׁ ׀ קָדֹ֛ושׁ קָדֹ֖ושׁ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָאֹ֑ות מְלֹ֥א כָל־הָאָ֖רֶץ כְּבֹודֹֽו׃

Holy Holy Holy (the name of the Lord) of Hosts - צְבָא֑וֹת - ṣə-ḇā-’ō-wṯ; (Hosts/Armies)

It might be wrong to suggest that they went from multiple gods to a single god. Instead the evolution is that god is the first and lord of those in the heavens. Later those heavenly hosts were progressively demoted from near equals to mere servants. This goes along with a parallel evolution from the rejection of idolatry to the absurdity of idolatry.

[DoomYoshi]

There are several refutations of point 1.

First is the entire concept of the static "must" of this evolution of religion story. This means that the Greek polytheism MUST turn into monotheism. Except, it didn't, it turned into Roman polytheism and then into nothingness.

The second refutation is on the point of the Hebrews. Clearly, at various points they worshipped other Gods (Judges is full of it). However, the entire distinction of the Jews was their monotheism.

The final refutation is that a far more likely evolution is evidenced to take place. Most middle eastern religion started as monolatry (a term not even used in the 19th century) where every tribe had their own god. As tribes allied and kingdoms grew, pantheons came to accomodate them. To say the Hebrews had a pantheon in the Greek or Egyptian sense is pure conjecture.

Point 2 is important, because Wellhausen did all his work by using the dates he thought that it was written.

Point 3 can't be ignored. The fact that the Reich church embraced Wellhausen and this DH is the entire basis of Positive Christianity might be swept under the rug, but it shouldn't be.

-----------------

As to the entire second half of your post... it's a great story and a great "could". What actual evidence is there for it?

It used to be claimed that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare and Homer didn't write Homer and all this in the furor of 19th century literary analysis. No academics outside of theology still cling to this outmoded form of criticism. Why should we?

[Metsfanmax]

That's exactly the kind of bullshit hypothesis that feeds into DH.

Assume that all religions start as polytheistic and evolve into monotheism. This assumption has been refuted.
Assume that during the era of the events of the Torah, there wasn't much Hebrew writing. This assumption has been refuted.
Assume that everything the Jews write is a lie and therefore the Jews should be put in the gas chamber. This assumption has been refuted.

I have seen no refutation of point 1. Everything I've read confirms that the Jews were originally polytheistic. The most telling evidence is in the Bible itself. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" says Yahweh, not "Thou shalt have no other gods." If the author of Exodus had anticipated that the Jews would become monotheistic, he would have skipped the redundant "before me."

You are relying on a modern translation of the Bible for accurate historical information? Sigh.

[Dukasaur]

That's exactly the kind of bullshit hypothesis that feeds into DH.

Assume that all religions start as polytheistic and evolve into monotheism. This assumption has been refuted.
Assume that during the era of the events of the Torah, there wasn't much Hebrew writing. This assumption has been refuted.
Assume that everything the Jews write is a lie and therefore the Jews should be put in the gas chamber. This assumption has been refuted.

I have seen no refutation of point 1. Everything I've read confirms that the Jews were originally polytheistic. The most telling evidence is in the Bible itself. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" says Yahweh, not "Thou shalt have no other gods." If the author of Exodus had anticipated that the Jews would become monotheistic, he would have skipped the redundant "before me."

You are relying on a modern translation of the Bible for accurate historical information? Sigh.

Since I don't speak Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or Aramaic, it is most convenient for me to city Biblical scripture in its English version.

Obviously, I understand that translations and time both introduces uncertainties and errors. Nonetheless, the Bible is the most studied document of all time, and people spend entire careers comparing the many known versions and deriving from that which observations can be trusted and which cannot. The bulk of modern scholarship agrees that the version I have cited above is at least reasonably close to what the original was understood to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_have_no_other_gods_before_me#Ancient_understanding

As a physicist, you should recognize that it is possible to be reasonably sure about some things even if they are discernible only from very indirect evidence, and that it is possible to unravel the truth even when many sources of uncertainty fuzz up the data.

[Metsfanmax]

That's exactly the kind of bullshit hypothesis that feeds into DH.

Assume that all religions start as polytheistic and evolve into monotheism. This assumption has been refuted.
Assume that during the era of the events of the Torah, there wasn't much Hebrew writing. This assumption has been refuted.
Assume that everything the Jews write is a lie and therefore the Jews should be put in the gas chamber. This assumption has been refuted.

I have seen no refutation of point 1. Everything I've read confirms that the Jews were originally polytheistic. The most telling evidence is in the Bible itself. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" says Yahweh, not "Thou shalt have no other gods." If the author of Exodus had anticipated that the Jews would become monotheistic, he would have skipped the redundant "before me."

You are relying on a modern translation of the Bible for accurate historical information? Sigh.

Since I don't speak Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or Aramaic, it is most convenient for me to city Biblical scripture in its English version.

Obviously, I understand that translations and time both introduces uncertainties and errors. Nonetheless, the Bible is the most studied document of all time, and people spend entire careers comparing the many known versions and deriving from that which observations can be trusted and which cannot. The bulk of modern scholarship agrees that the version I have cited above is at least reasonably close to what the original was understood to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_have_no_other_gods_before_me#Ancient_understanding

As a physicist, you should recognize that it is possible to be reasonably sure about some things even if they are discernible only from very indirect evidence, and that it is possible to unravel the truth even when many sources of uncertainty fuzz up the data.

Allow me to rephrase this to get at the important part of what I was trying to say:

You are relying on the Bible for accurate historical information? Sigh.

I mean, really. The text containing the account of stories like Exodus was written a long time after the purported events had occurred. So anything that you read is coming through the lens of people at the time they wrote it, which is very different from the lens of the people at the time the alleged events occurred. Sounds at least as likely to me that phrasing this as "thou shalt have no other gods before me" occurred because the original Hebrews were monotheistic and it was only in later times, when the Torah was collated, that polytheism had developed and the story needed to be phrased to convince the people who were reading it then to abandon their newfound errant ways and return to the original monotheism.