True Authorship of The Old Testament?

There seems to be a lot of material going around with the theory that the Italian Piso Family wrote the new testament in response to the many uprisings of the jews against the roman empire throughout the 1st century A.D. and the jews calling the leader of each uprising "The Messiah".

There is not however any material I can find on who really wrote the OT, except for the usual "It was written approx. between 1400 B.C and 450 B.C. by various authors."

The problem with this is that many scholars don't accept the official authorship of the bible.

The new testament seems to throw a shot at the OT in Timothy 1:3-4.

3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

If anyone knows, please tell, and if you have any theories please share. I have a theory of mine, however I want hear other people's first.

a reply to: bartholomeo

Boy, a hornets nest to say the least! Oh what the heck, here is my take. I think religious text of all kind are hoaxes for the masses designed by various cultures and furthered through time by people that want to instill fear through the use of fictional characters. Alice in Wonderland probably has more truth in it!

originally posted by: spiritualKat33
a reply to: bartholomeo

Boy, a hornets nest to say the least! Oh what the heck, here is my take. I think religious text of all kind are hoaxes for the masses designed by various cultures and furthered through time by people that want to instill fear through the use of fictional characters. Alice in Wonderland probably has more truth in it!

Okay, so your theory is pretty broad, but I get that you think it may have been written for mass control. I think your theory has the "why".

We still need the: when, how, by whom?

Thanks anyway

a reply to: bartholomeo

I don't think it has any significance to know the when, the where and the whom if it is a fictional rendering of fictional characters and there is nothing broad about my feelings on religion. I have no esteem for any religion of any kind for the simple reason I was not affiliated with any of them when I entered this body I possess at the moment. Religion is and always has been an affliction of monumental portions induced by various cultures. So, tell me why it matters when and where and whom, your answer to those questions are pointless since it happened so many places, written by so many different people, at so many different times.

a reply to: bartholomeo

I think Mario Liverani's take on the matter and other shoclar of the sort is quite spot on.
According to his studies the books composing the bible have been writte after 1100BC, ahile the newest text could very well be from the 6th century BC(599-500BC).
The ancient testament takes on the history of israel and the hebrew people. The book is clearly propaganda, a composition by the scribes, the elite classes, to legitimate their power and status. But take into account these texts weren't suppose to be read by the broad masses, who were illiterate, but rather by other powerful families of the time.

Pretty much most stuff in the bible has been proved to be fiction. For example, when Israelies arrrive from Egypt, it said they destroyed many cities and defeated a number of tribes and nations. But thanks to a wide array of sources, we now know that most of those cities and many of the tribes mentioned in the bible, had stopped existing by the time the hebrews established themselves in canaan. Scholars believe this was made on purpose, the fact that there was no trace of these people and cities, would be evidence of their destruction by the israelies. Take for example jericho, by 1000bc it had ceased to exist for thousands of years. The fact that there was no trace of the city, made the scribes story more credible.

I can't remember any of the nations names right now though. But some have been thoroughly studied and documented.

Here's a link to a book by Liverani on the matter.
Liverani

The hittities, supposedly defeated by the hebrews, never managed to established themseves so deep in the levant, they barely made it to Qadesh. By 1000BC, the empire had been lost long ago, and there's no trace of them is the region for about 200 years. The neohittites, contemporaries to the reign of Judah and Israel were further up north, in northern Syria.
The amorrites, they ruled the babylonian empire until around 1300-1200bc. And babylon never had territorial control of the canaan. There's no trace of ammorrites in the Levant either. They were a group of people who settled in the lower mesopotamia region mainly

a reply to: bartholomeo

I read that linguists etc found 5 different styles within the writing of the old testament, one being a woman (J) around Soloman's time, but that the one called the redactor was reckoned to have done the last changes - obviously to his own tune.

Another factor was that the bible was not put together until some considerable time later, somewhere around the 13th century I think.

Also when reading the gnostic gospel stuff from Nag Hamaddi I read that Eusebius, was so shocked by what he found in the jewish religious texts which obviously christianity had come from, that he had to rewrite a lot of what christianity was to be about. If you want to look into what probably blew his sandals off, the Torah is the place to look for a good few shocks.

In truth although its used as such a holy book, most have never read it and would not find it 'holy' at all but more shocking, its actually a mess of politically decided cannons for rulership of the masses who have been indoctrinated as small children to accept it, rather than question it.

originally posted by: spiritualKat33
I think religious text of all kind are hoaxes for the masses designed by various cultures and furthered through time by people that want to instill fear through the use of fictional characters.

You are pretty much completely off the mark (probably because of some anti-religious bias).

In all cultures and traditions, there is a need of a founding texts that helps to form society and bond people together with a common sense of purpose.

Texts like The epic of Gilgamesh (which inspired some parts of the OT), Greek myths, the Ramayana, the Norse Eddas, the Old Testament all belong to a writing genre called the Epic and contains all the knowledge of an oral tradition summarized in one book.


It's not about fear it's about a sense of belonging to a common culture.

So basically your theory is wrong.

originally posted by: Shiloh7

In truth although its used as such a holy book, most have never read it and would not find it 'holy' at all but more shocking, its actually a mess of politically decided cannons for rulership of the masses who have been indoctrinated as small children to accept it, rather than question it.

True that.
Its main objective was to impose an ideology. The story about the 12 tribes that settled in Canaan, is believe to originate in the 8th century BC. It was an invention, with the sole purpose to help unite the different communitites that formed the israelite kingdom.

originally posted by: JUhrman
It's not about fear it's about a sense of belonging to a common culture.

So basically your theory is wrong.

Is that why it's a badge of honor for Christians (at least in the South in America) to be considered "God-fearing?"

You call spiritualKat33's assessment of religion an incorrect theory, but when one looks at how religion and religious documents (until the invention of the printing press) were available to and written down for the elites in society while the rest of the culture and society was kept in the dark other than what kings and chiefs and rulers allowed the religious leaders to tell the masses, one must, at the very least, question your conclusion as to the historic intent of religion.

I could easily argue (but will not commit the time in this thread) that religion was a way to instill the fear of eternal damnation in an otherwise dumb, ignorant populace in order to further the directives of those in power and to be used for national propaganda when needed. The amount of historic wars waged in the name of this or that god is, while not necessarily proof, pretty damning evidence against religion being just a benign way to bring about "a sense of belonging to a common culture."

I'm not saying that it's not evolving into that out of necessity (due in large part to a growing level of intelligence in most societies), but we're discussing original intent here.

You can't go around telling people they are wrong and assuming that they have a religious bias, and then pretend to prove them wrong with theory and conjecture that suits your apparent religious bias. I've played both sides of the card--I was really religious growing up, then got really into religious research and history, and found myself on the non-believing side of the world. I looked at religion objectively (and the origins and histories of the major ones), and what I found did not shine an optimistic light in the least.

But, that's just me, I guess...and a growing number of people.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Is that why it's a badge of honor for Christians (at least in the South in America) to be considered "God-fearing?"

As you pointed at it, it's indeed something from the Bible belt where the number of Christian fundamentalists is the higher.

They do not represent traditional Christian values and their beliefs started around the 19th century in the US.

Traditional religious texts are a mix of cultural epic and spiritual teachings. If you can't see it you read them wrong or did not read them at all.

That some control freaks used religions or really any other kind of belief to manipulate people doesn't make religious texts "hoaxes written to control people".

That's just a really short-sighted and uneducated guess. And I'm not even trying to defend religions, I'm not religious. Just to dispel the BS.

originally posted by: bartholomeo
There seems to be a lot of material going around with the theory that the Italian Piso Family wrote the new testament in response to the many uprisings of the jews against the roman empire throughout the 1st century A.D. and the jews calling the leader of each uprising "The Messiah".

There is not however any material I can find on who really wrote the OT, except for the usual "It was written approx. between 1400 B.C and 450 B.C. by various authors."

The problem with this is that many scholars don't accept the official authorship of the bible.

The new testament seems to throw a shot at the OT in Timothy 1:3-4.

3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

If anyone knows, please tell, and if you have any theories please share. I have a theory of mine, however I want hear other people's first.

The Old Testament is TORAH and TANAHK. Did you not know this?

Did you know that if you go into any synagogue they have a giant..wait for it....Torah scroll, which is the Old Testament. Who wrote Torah? A bunch of Jewish people.

originally posted by: JUhrmanTraditional religious texts are a mix of cultural epic and spiritual teachings. If you can't see it you read them wrong or did not read them at all.

That some control freaks used religions or really any other kind of belief to manipulate people doesn't make religious texts "hoaxes written to control people".

First off, I never said anything about hoaxes (I don't know from whom your quoted phrase originates), but what you're doing here is twisting what I said or meant.

The fact that religions and belief systems are used by those in power to control or manipulate--and that people in the highest religious positions were/are complicit in those actions--speaks volumes about religion itself.

But we'll agree to disagree--I've followed your 'debates' on quite a few religious threads, and there is no debating you, or even discussing a different side that doesn't align to your opinion. That's why I mentioned I wasn't going to devote any time to support anything I claim with historic fact, because it would be a waste of time.

My original reason for responding to you was to point out that your opinion does not make another's opinion false, just because you believe it. Religious texts have been so bastardized over the millennia that neither you nor I can fully prove with any degree of certainty the "why" behind most of the world's religions. You can keep your opinion, I'll keep mine, and life will go on.

a reply to: JUhrman

Traditional religious texts are a mix of cultural epic and spiritual teachings. If you can't see it you read them wrong or did not read them at all.

THIS ^^

The Old Testament was also know as the Septuagint. It means that there were at least 70 authors.

The Septuagint derives its name from the Latin versio septuaginta interpretum, "translation of the seventy interpreters",

The traditional story is that Ptolemy II sponsored the translation of the Torah (Pentateuch, Five Books of Moses). Subsequently, the Greek translation was in circulation among the Alexandrian Jews who were not fluent in Hebrew but fluent in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of Alexandria, Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean at the time.
The Septuagint should not be confused with the seven or more other Greek versions of the Old Testament, most of which did not survive except as fragments (some parts of these being known from Origen's Hexapla, a comparison of six translations in adjacent columns, now almost wholly lost). Of these, the most important are those by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
en.wikipedia.org...

Ptolemy wanted to unite his kingdoms through a commonality of religion and philosophies. Here's another example of that effort.

Serapis (Σέραπις, Attic/Ionian Greek) or Sarapis (Σάραπις, Doric Greek) is a Graeco-Egyptian god. Cult of Serapis was introduced during the 3rd century BC on the orders of Ptolemy I of Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm. The god was depicted as Greek in appearance, but with Egyptian trappings, and combined iconography from a great many cults, signifying both abundance and resurrection.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JUhrman

Traditional religious texts are a mix of cultural epic and spiritual teachings. If you can't see it you read them wrong or did not read them at all.

THIS ^^

The Old Testament was also know as the Septuagint. It means that there were at least 70 authors.

The Septuagint derives its name from the Latin versio septuaginta interpretum, "translation of the seventy interpreters",

The traditional story is that Ptolemy II sponsored the translation of the Torah (Pentateuch, Five Books of Moses). Subsequently, the Greek translation was in circulation among the Alexandrian Jews who were not fluent in Hebrew but fluent in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of Alexandria, Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean at the time.
The Septuagint should not be confused with the seven or more other Greek versions of the Old Testament, most of which did not survive except as fragments (some parts of these being known from Origen's Hexapla, a comparison of six translations in adjacent columns, now almost wholly lost). Of these, the most important are those by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
en.wikipedia.org...

Ptolemy wanted to unite his kingdoms through a commonality of religion and philosophies. Here's another example of that effort.

Serapis (Σέραπις, Attic/Ionian Greek) or Sarapis (Σάραπις, Doric Greek) is a Graeco-Egyptian god. Cult of Serapis was introduced during the 3rd century BC on the orders of Ptolemy I of Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm. The god was depicted as Greek in appearance, but with Egyptian trappings, and combined iconography from a great many cults, signifying both abundance and resurrection.
en.wikipedia.org...

There was not 70 authors, that was 70 TRANSLATORS, the Septuagint was merely the Greek translation of Torah, that is all.

The KJV uses the Masoretic text.

Masoretic text

The Masoretic[1] Text (MT, 𝕸, or \mathfrak[M]) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism. However, contemporary scholars seeking to understand the history of the Hebrew Bible’s text use a range of other sources.[2] These include Greek and Syriac translations, quotations from rabbinic manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch and others such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of these are older than the Masoretic text and often contradict it.[3] While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah.

This pdf also explains the Masoretic vs. Septuagint.

More Septuagint vs. Masoretic

The Septuagint derives its name (derived from Latin septuaginta, seventy, hence the abbreviation LXX) from a legendary account in the Letter of Aristeas of how seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Egyptian pharaoh Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the 3rd century BCE to translate the Torah for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.

There were not 70 different writers, they were translators. The Jewish canon is Torah and Tanahk, it always has been.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
First off, I never said anything about hoaxes (I don't know from whom your quoted phrase originates).

From the second post in the thread. The one I was replying to saying it's not true religious texts are "hoaxes".

We can debate the origins and purpose of religions if you want, it's an interesting topic.


But if one thing is certain through the comparison of all religious texts worldwide is that they are key cultural components of various societies. Usually putting down on paper what was ancient oral tradition.

Oral tradition covering important topics for the society at the time (making them more coherent):

- An allegory about the origin of the world and of the culture writing the text
- A bunch of social rules
- Various tales illustrating the typical questions anyone faces during his life, and how to react to them



Obviously they are not hoaxes to control people through fear, but very important cultural texts from which all the different cultures worldwide have structured themselves.

a reply to: WarminIndy

There were not 70 different writers, they were translators.

Po-tay-toes...po-tah-toes.

If you don't there were arguments between the translators and political agendas to be met in order to suite the Ptolemaic edicts, you are sorely naive!

i was reading this the other night, dont know if theres anything to it...

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story. Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art" (ibid.). "These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36). They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Most people know the Roman Christian faith is an amalgamation of other beliefs.

Romans have been doing that since the beginning to unify their empire more.


Doesn't say much about the OT and the other religious texts that inspired it though. Nor does it prove that religious texts are forgeries.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Most people know the Roman Christian faith is an amalgamation of other beliefs.

Romans have been doing that since the beginning to unify their empire more.


Doesn't say much about the OT and the other religious texts that inspired it though. Nor does it prove that religious texts are forgeries.

reverse inductive reasoning. if it happened this way at this point then that is reason to suggest it happened this way at this other point also. not infallible but certainly worth exploring.