Judaism & Christianity

From their book, The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein (director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University), and Neil Asher Silberman, Director of historical interpretation for the Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation in Belgium), we are given this on page 23:

Much of what is commonly taken for granted as accurate history—the stories of the patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and even the saga of the glorious united monarch of David and Solomon—are, rather, the creative expressions of a powerful religious reform movement that flourished in the kingdom of Judah in the Late Iron Age. Although these stories may have been based on certain historical kernels, they primarily reflect the ideology and the world-view of the writers.

"Creative expressions" can readily be seen in the book of Genesis where time and again "Philistines" are mentioned, a time supposedly in the days of the patriarch, Abraham (initially named Abram until God supposedly changed his name).

This use of the Philistines gives us irrevocable historical clues not only for when the Bible was written, or edited, but verification that the Bible is in error. The first historical knowledge of the Philistines is in the days of Rameses III, the son and successor of the Mighty Rameses II, Egypt's last great warrior Pharaoh. The mention is that several "Sea Peoples" which included Philistines, attempted to invade Egypt. This was in about the 1180s BCE.

In her book, The Bible, Ms. Armstrong writes:

"However, Israeli archaeologists, who have been excavating the region since 1967, have found no evidence to corroborate this story: there is no sigh of foreign invasion or mass destruction, and nothing to indicate a large-scale change of population. The scholarly consensus is that the story of Exodus is not historical. There are many theories. Egypt had ruled the Canaanite city states since the nineteenth century BCE, and had withdrawn at the end of the thirteenth century" [the end of the 1200s BCE]shortly before the first settlements appeared in the formerly uninhabitable highlands.

She continues:We first hear about a people called 'Israel' in this region in about 1200 BCE. Some scholars argue that the Israelites were refugees from the failing city-states on the coastal plains. They may have been joined there by other tribes from the south, who brought with them their god Yahweh, who seems to have originated in the southern regions around Sinai. Those who had lived under Egyptian rule in the Canaanite cities may have felt that they had indeed been liberated from Egypt—but in their own country.

As stated earlier, no one is sure exactly how these Israelites came to be though the authors of The Bible Unearthed feel that they were Canaanite to begin with (page 107):

"The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages—all apparently established within the span of a few generations—indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites."

No war, no senseless destruction of cities or slaughter of innocent women and children. No genocide.

What we have so far is a motley group of books from which have been derived the notion of the Jews introducing monotheism through God revealing himselfto Abraham. From Abraham on, the fables continue, but there is a great oddity in them that is very telling. In the book of Exodus, chapter 10, verses 2 and 3 we have what is called the first commandment given to Moses:

"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

I had always been taught that there is no other god. All other gods are false. Yet this commandment opens up a possibility of there being other gods. Yes, one can say that that's not how this should be taken.

But is that true?

Those who have read my previous stories and essays may recall my quoting Psalm 82's first two verses:

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?"

God in the congregation of the mighty? He judgeth among the gods?

How can this be if there are no other gods?

In the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy, chapter 32, verses 8 and 9, a portion of what it calls the Song of Moses, reads:

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

For the Lord's portion is his people: Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

The Most High separated out Jacob for the Lord's inheritance?

Surely there must be a mistake in the King James Version of the bible; this cannot be so. Or can it? Let's see what some other versions of these two verses read like:

NRSV (New Revised Standard Version):

8 When the Most High apportioned the nations,

when he divided humankind,

he fixed the boundaries of the peoples

according to the number of the gods;

9 the Lord's own portion was his people,

Jacob his allotted share.

That says the same thing, but more explicitly. It is saying that another, higher god split up humanity among the subservient gods; one has one group, another has another group, and each group having their own god to call upon.

"Thou shalt have no other god before me" now has a different ring to it, a new meaning, one that says that there are other gods, but Yahweh is the particular god of the Jews, thus, perhaps, for them, they aren't allowed any other gods("..for I the Lord, am a jealous God." Exodus, chapter 20, verse 5).

But what does another Bible version say?

NIV (New International Version) reads:

"8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,

when he divided all mankind,

he set up boundaries for the peoples

according to the number of the sons of Israel.

9 For the Lord's portion is his people,

Jacob his allotted inheritance."

Different words, but still the same thing and just as explicit.

The Catholic Family Connections Bible renders it:

"When the Most High assigned the nations their heritage, when he parceled out the descendants of Adam, He set up the boundaries of the peoples after the number of the sons of God;

While the Lord's own portion was Jacob, his hereditary share was Israel."

It's still the same thing: there was another god recognized as the greatest god, and there were many gods, or so says the Bible.

Whatever was that scroll of the Law that Hilkiah found, it may well have been Deuteronomy. Using the above scriptures with regards to other gods called The Song of Moses, and factoring in that Leviticus and Numbers may have been added later by the Priestly writers, as well as that all of these scriptures have been redacted, edited, several times, we may be able to work backward and extrapolate how it may have all begun.

For a fact, the second Isaiah (who wrote chapters 40-55 covering a later time period from the first Isaiah), as Ms. Armstrong writes, began touting the God of the Bible as the only god starting in chapter 45, verse 5 and for many times in that chapter.

When we take and extrapolate that this may well have been the first mention of monotheism—one god—and the fact of the commandment saying "...thou shalt have no other gods before me", then we may have our answer for when it all began.

There have been many instances where editing was known to have happened, as Ms. Armstrong attributes to Abraham ibn Ezra (1039-1164, a poet/philosopher from Spain) who recognized that the original Isaiah couldn't have written what is now known to be from the second Isaiah.

Also, the two different creations give credence to the "many writers" theory that is fairly well proven by textual critics, as well as a second Zechariah writing the last chapters (12-14).

By all of this, we can only conclude that the Old Testament is a series of stories that are pure fiction save for the sprinkling of some historical facts that they are woven around.

But why?

Let's revisit what I had written a little earlier:

"The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages—all apparently established within the span of a few generations—indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up.

Surveys led to this by the authors of The Bible Unearthed:

"Excavations of some of the small Iron Age I sites discovered in the course of the surveys showed how surprisingly uniform the sudden wave of highland settlement was. The typical village was usually located on a hilltop or on a steep ridge, with a commanding view of the surrounding landscape. It was in an open area surrounded by natural forests comprised mainly of oak and terebinth trees. In some cases, villages were found on the edge of narrow valleys between the mountains—presumably for easier access to agricultural fields. ... The entire population of these hill country villages at the peak of the settlement process, around 1000 BCE, could not have been much more than forty-five thousand." [Pages 107-109]

Further:

"The evolution of the highlands of Canaan into two distinct polities was a natural development. There is no archaeological evidence whatsoever that this situation of north and south grew out of an earlier political unity—particularly one centered in the south. In the tenth and ninth centuries BCE [900-800 BCE],Judah was still very thinly inhabited, with a limited number of small villages, in fact, not much more than twenty or so."

Israel, the northern kingdom, grew and prospered and fielded a large army able to withstand Assyria at one point. However, it is well known historically that in the due course of time, Assyria defeated Israel and relocated many of the surviving inhabitants. They ever incorporated many of the charioteers from the Israeli army and used them to bolster their own army, they were so good. The authors continue:

"Despite Judah's prominence in the Bible, however, there is no archeological indiction until the eighth century BCE [700s BCE]that this small and rather isolated highland area, surrounded by arid steppe land on both east and south, possessed any particular importance. As we have seen, its population was meager, its towns—even Jerusalem—were small and few. It was Israel, not Judah, that initiated wars in the region. ... On the international scene, Judah seems to have been just a rather small and isolated kingdom that, as the great conquering Assyrian king Sargon II derisively put it, 'lies far away.' "

They go on to say that after Israel's defeat by Assyia:

"But beginning in the late eighth century [700s BCE],something extraordinary happened. A series of epoch-making changes, beginning with Israel's fall, suddenly altered the political and religious landscape. Judah's population swelled to unprecedented levels. Its capital city became a national religious center and a bustling metropolis for the first time."

What the above leads us to is a goodly part of the "why" that many historians arrive at as the reason for establishing what we know as Judaism.

With all of their hearts, the exiles in Babylon longed for their native lands as they remembered it. With the knowledge of a Law, the Babylonian intellectuals that were scribes and priests, as well as others perhaps, they rewrote and in many ways, created a religion to keep the fires burning, to give hope to their people as an indigenous nation. It was to unify them, to keep them as they had been. In time, what was given to them by Ezra stuck: they were God's chosen people.

Many researchers do not believe that the Law was ever intended for any other reason. Perhaps their "books" being in scrolls had much to do with so many errors, contradictions, redactions, etc.

After Ezra, more sorrows befell the Jews for after Alexander the Great died, and his empire divided up by his generals, there were many wars between those generals and The Levant was much desired by them. This put the Jews right in the middle of it, and finally culminated in the desecration of their temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes that in short order ushered in the Romans. Just before, and during the time of the Romans, the Zealots came into being, as well as the Pharisees. With the writing of the book of Daniel in the second century BCE, the resurrection theology began. With the Jews still needing to hold onto something, they hoped for a messiah (actually, two of them for some, one Priestly, and one a King to deliver them from the Romans), the book of Daniel also ushered in apocalyptic beliefs. Those also took hold in many of the Jews.

What we've seen so far:

From archeological research, historical research, and biblical textual research, we have seen here, and in my previous essay, Which God, If Any, that there were Canaanites who lived apart from the cities such as Jericho. In a time those cities crumbled from within, and many groups were, or formed tribes with two main groups, the one that became the northern tribes of Israel, and the other that formed a loose confederation of small, simple villages in the highlands of Judea that became what was called Judah.

Israel prospered greatly, Judah stayed bucolic, pastoral, raising farm animals and small parcels of agriculture. Israel became large enough to have an army that was formidable, along with an estimated population of about three hundred-fifty thousand people.

Both worshiped many gods, including Yahweh. Yahweh is portrayed, initially, as a warrior god, and the scriptures bear this out. However, Egypt, long a power, began to share their great power with Assyria, and great wars were the norm as both, along with others, vied for dominance.

Tiglath-pileser III—(sometimes known as king Pul, circa 745 BCE) (per Richard E. Rubenstein, in his book, Thus Saith The Lord, 2006, Harcourt Books) was said to invent "...a new form of state terror: the mass deportation and resettlement of subject populations." (Page 58)

He goes on to write:"...the Assyrians wielded a terrifying new political weapon. For the first time in history, those facing superior military forces were threatened not only with defeat, domination, and possible loss of their national independence, but their extinction as a culture." (Page 59) Tiglath-pileser captured much of the rich lands of Israel.

In about 720 BCE, Shalmaneser V, Tiglath-pileser's successor, took Samaria and deported many Israelites. Many of those Israelites fled to Judah in the south.

As mentioned earlier, the Assyrians didn't pay any attention to Judah at that time. However, when the Babylonians defeated the Assyrians, and Judah's population had swelled enough, the Babylonians came twice, the second time destroying Jerusalem and their temple.

Not long before that is when the time of Josiah was, and the Law was "found".

That Law was expanded upon, and embellished more than it was before, and in time Ezra expounded that Law to the Jews in Judah. It took effect, and grew, and though defeated, subjugated, and in many ways demoralized, they clung to their Law—the created Law that was invented in order to unify them as a people.

As said in my earlier essay, Which God, If Any, clinging to that Law eventually saw it morphing in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanies in about 160 BCE, and the Zealots came into being with the war against him, and the Pharisees came into being also.

The end result was the world was too suffocating and squeezing them from all sides. They were located in a path that all traversed in their path to riches and war, including the Romans, which brought more wars over their religion that was by then firmly ingrained in them, though created by men. Dispersal, foolish wars, and misery was their lot for two thousand years, and adding insult to injury, as it were, was the bloodshed that was heaped upon them later by Christians that were born of them.

Yet they remained steadfast, or so it seems. For a long time, none questioned whether their religion was really true, or fiction, they simply accepted it all in great fear and hope. As far as they were concerned, it was true no matter that it was all created by the mind of men. Ignorance and illiteracy has a steep price.

Christianity's beginning

It is without question that the original Jesus believers were Jewish. Over the years it all slowly began to spread and grow, and basically all due to one person—Paul, who was himself a Pharisee as Jesus may well have been. As a Pharisee, Paul most likely, as other Pharisees, believed in the resurrection. Jesus expounded a resurrection as in the book of Daniel (where it all began), and maybe that's what fueled Paul's initial anger that he was said to have had for Jesus followers. I'll touch on Paul more shortly.

* * * *

There is a vast difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament the while they share many things in common. Those things they share in common are because Jesus was a Jew and freely associated his beliefs with those of the Old Testament.

One of the most visible differences though, can be found in the gospels according to Matthew and Luke. Both of those gospels contain some very exaggerated language designed to appeal to the illiterate and the very poor and downcast which, it can be said, was most of the then population. They both contain many "Gee whiz!" and "Oh, wow!" segments.

In Matthew, we have the so-called birth of Jesus. If you were as I was, and lived in the solid Christian world, the birth of Jesus was as if bred in you, as if innate and in your genes. It's easy to feel that way for it doesn't take many generations of like thought to have things feel as if they've been forever.

As rendered, Jesus' birth is a very heart-warming story as told in Matthew's gospel, one to elicit marvelous feelings of joy, and then there's Christmas Eve, and or Christmas day, and all the presents and gift giving, and merry making. Indeed, this tale has been with us for ages. Even the very poor loved it if only momentarily.

The problem is that it is false. There was no census called for, and there is no mention of it in Roman records. More, the tale of Herod the Great having all children of the age of two and under killed is only in Matthew's so-called gospel (chapter 2, verse16). There is no recording in history of anything such as this happening. As alike as the first three gospels are, it's telling that none of the those others mentions something as momentous as this supposed slaughter.

If you've read my essay, Jesus, Resurrection, and Rapture, you have seen that none of the gospels were actually written by those we're told that they're "according" to. We have no idea who wrote them, nor when. In fact, no book of the New Testament is known to have been written by anyone who actually knew Jesus. Not one!