History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Old testament monotheism and the larger context of the eonic effect…the israelite cargo cult…

April 17th, 2018 · No Comments


If we have critiqued marxism, we must be careful to see that christian/jewish old testament historicism is worse, despite its interest as historical anthropology of the ‘eonic effect’. However, and this is a curious state of affairs, we can see how the ancient israelites in the period of the axial age began to detect the historical transformation we call that very axial interval.

That is not necessarily even remarkable: many began to notice the rise of early modern’s transformation of medievalism and wondered at it. But unfortunately the israelites ascribed this to ‘god’ in their version of the terminology, and, further, that the israelites had a special relationship with this ‘god’ who was the real force behind history, and especially israelites. It is hard to believe now that anyone could concoct such a view, but, in fact, it is very hard to see how transformations in history could happen at all in causal terms: it would be easy to fall in the trap of thinking that only an omnipotent god could change history. the logic isn’t complex: for a big pile of dirt you need a bulldozer, for a really big pile dirt, like history over millennia, you need a really big bulldozer, jehovah the bulldozer. Unfortunately the idea doesn’t work, but it became the basis if an immense historical fallacy in the old and new testaments. But it leaves the question, what really did happen in ancient israel?
To approach, if not answer, that question we need to consider the larger picture of the ‘axial age’ and the way an historical transformation across all of eurasia changed the face of greater antiquity into the eras we see in the occident/orient for the next several millennia. It is not hard to see that the idea of ‘god’ is going to make a complete muddle of this complex data which, ironically, gives us a glimpse of what we have called the eonic effect.
The confusion of biblical historicism can be clarified by looking at the case of archaic greece and then noting the almost stunning correlation of effects in parallel of the two cases. That’s strange, almost spooky, but it is not evidence of god in history.
The confusion can be sorted out by noting that the israelites were trying to produce a new form of religion, a new monotheism, and that in fact occurred and in the interval (900 to 600, approximately) in correlation with greece. The israelites confused the ’emergent innovation’ of a new monotheism with the process that had produced the innovation. Scratch your head for a moment to see that odd outcome, logical in its own way. But a false analysis. This ‘jewish’ god is an incoherent set of concepts but we can’t be sure what the original version was: the era of the prophets shows an elusive religious vision that may be lost to us. The later distortions mounted up and in the end we have fanaticism of the ‘word of god’. I fear it is nearly the ultimate in blasphemous stupidity to call the primitive saga of the old testament the word of god.

Nonetheless we see that the old testament stumbles on one clue to the driving force of history. But their concepts were too primitive and their data far too thin to really grasp what was going on.
Calling the israelites primitive can be subject to reverse finger wagging: our study of the eonic effect is itself probably primitive in its own way, so who is calling who primitive?

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment