True Authorship of The Old Testament?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
[quNorse, Sumerian, or Egyptian mythology/religion. Take your pick--they're all the same characters, just different names.

That's quite an oversimplification.

Pantheons sometimes overlap when different cultures come into contact, but not always.

Deities from different religions are not mere "same characters with different names". Everyone studying mythology and occult traditions know that.




For example, Zeus, since we are talking about him, is not a supreme deity, creator of the heavens and earth. Zeus is the ruler of the Olympians, incarnations of the forces of order and reason, representation of the human strengths and weaknesses.

Zeus is still the son of Titans. Titans being the chaotic powers of nature and the universe they are more powerful and unpredictable than Olympians.

Even Titans themselves are only children of Uranus and Gaia, the heaven and the earth.



The primeval gods in the Greek mythos aren't Zeus, it's Chaos, Chimera, Uranus, Gaia, Aether, Erebus, Nyx and all the other ones.

No, gods from various religions are not the same characters with different names. They represent different orders, different characteristics and different powers. Based on the culture worshiping them and their beliefs.

The Greek mythos for example represents the force of the universe (primordial gods), giving birth to earth and the forces of nature (titans), themselves giving birth (and being defeated by) the forces of reason (Olympians) which would later become mankind.

It's a very specific cosmogony, full of wisdom for those who take the time to read it, and it's quite ignorant to call Zeus the same character as a Sumerian or Norse god.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Who then, specifically, were those authors and why can it not be the divinely inspired word of God?

Religion can't even answer that question (about who the authors were), so why try and ask a random ATSer?

As for the reason it can't be the divinely inspired word of God...well, that can't be proven that it wasn't, but it can't be proven that it was. But if it was inspired by the Jewish god, then it's the same god as many other religions predating it, because many of the stories are not exactly unique to the stories of YHWH (they are just condensed into a monotheistic approach to the stories). Not to mention the many incorrect things in the bible would imply that it is not an omniscient God, or that it is a very poor judge of scribes, as they must have written things down inaccurately if God really is infallible (but making poor choices of scribes would negate the infallibility, would it not?).

a reply to: JUhrman

I know it was an oversimplification--I wasn't trying to be specific. I was generalizing known similarities between differing "religions" which speak to the fact that they borrow and plagiarize from prior religions.

Of course they make changes here and there and make the gods their cultures' 'own,' but when you research the history of religions, there is an obvious copyright infringement going on throughout the cultures. Everybody studying mythology and occult traditions--and is looking at the big overall picture across regions and the world--should understand that.

Again, that's a generalization (obviously), so please don't feel a need to tell me that there are one-off mythologies and that not all ancient religions overlap. I'm speaking in the context of Middle Eastern and European religions, since we're discussing the Old Testament.

I should not need to inundate my comments with specifics for people (or you) to get the gist of my point.

ETA: You're missing the point completely (I just read your entire post...I thought it ended after the first couple paragraphs for some reason). Like I mentioned in this response, nations and peoples obviously add to and put their own beliefs into systems that already exist (at least the structure and attributes of many of the characters), but that doesn't mean that they don't expand on or take from previous religions and their structures/underlying reasons for existence. Yes, there are differences, but there are also glaring similarities that are not worth ignoring and that are more than coincidental...and can be compared between gods of similar status and importance between religions, enhancing the similarities (and also noting the differences). But, again, most of this is too similar to write of as mere happenstance, and if your really taking the stance that all of these religions/mythologies are stand-alone and don't borrow and steal from prior religions, I'm going to have to dismiss your comments altogether.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: JUhrman

I know it was an oversimplification--I wasn't trying to be specific. I was generalizing known similarities between differing "religions" which speak to the fact that they borrow and plagiarize from prior religions.

Then if you knew it you shouldn't say Zeus is the same character with a different name as Odin or Enki because it is spreading misinformation through ATS.

It's true that in some case, like around the Mediterranean, different religions borrowed some stories from each other, but they still have independent origins and very different mythos/pantheons/orders.

Any serious comparative study of these religions would show their similarities but most importantly their vast differences.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
and if your really taking the stance that all of these religions/mythologies are stand-alone and don't borrow and steal from prior religions

Never said that.

But there is a huge difference between borrowing a few stories and copying a whole mythos and just changing the names.


The Greek, Sumerian, Egyptian, and all the other pantheons of the Mediterranean share some similarities but far more differences, depending on the cultural and oral tradition of these people (where they came from, where they settled, what they grow, what the eat, etc, etc, etc).

It can be as different as comparing a monotheistic and polytheistic religion. Similarities exist but to claim one is a rehashed version of the other is missing their respective points entirely.

a reply to: JUhrman

you already responded, so nevermind

originally posted by: bartholomeo

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: WarminIndy

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

Yes you are right on Warminlndy.
And i have also read that all 70 Translators from Hebrew to Greek were separated from each other and when finalized all agreed with one another.

The Hebrew manuscripts that were used to translate into Greek involved just Torah from the onset (two to three hundred BCE) and gradually involved the Tanahk in the years preceding Jesus. As Jesus came upon the scene there were two approved Torah's in use which were the Hebrew and the Greek. The Jerusalem Temple did use Hebrew even in the days of Jesus but the Greek was used for the majority of the common people.

This was one of the main reasons that James the Just and his congregation used only Hebrew liturgy and forbid Greek influence into the first church.

Also the original Septuagint is highly debatable as to its authenticity and the Hebrew manuscripts have been destroyed by the vipers who murdered the Jews and burned their literature. I believe today we have six or more renditions of the LXX.
That is one reason that most all rely upon the Masoretic texts of the Hebrews. The dead sea scrolls verify Torah as almost word for word and over 1000 years older than what we use today.

To parrot the rants of bible bashers is to not know the facts of the Torah.

You would look better to do your own research instead of following blindly what others say in here. Once you are done present your research for all to see; and no! the wrath of yaweh is not going to come and destroy you once you do that.

I think you don't know Seede....Seede has been researching longer than I have been alive, and I'm not young.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Yes, there are differences, but there are also glaring similarities that are not worth ignoring and that are more than coincidental...and can be compared between gods of similar status and importance between religions, enhancing the similarities (and also noting the differences).

These things happen later, after the different religions are established, and when they come into contact inside various metropolis. A uniformization of cults happen because of practical and political reason.

We can still see this happen today. Everywhere Christian missionaries spread their religion, new modern version of the old local deities appeared, to reconcile the two different traditions.

It doesn't mean the two traditions had a similar origin or that one copied everything from a previous one.

All it means is that some blending took place as different culture meets inside large empires.

It's a mistake to consider this as a proof of religions being copies of older ones with some slight changes.

a reply to: JUhrman

*sigh* I already made mention of those points.

But a major point where you and I seem to differ is that monotheistic religions can be argued to be a condensed version of some polytheistic religions, just giving the one god all the powers of the many. You may not agree with that point, but it's valid nonetheless.

Apsu, Tiamat, Lahmu, Lahamu, Saturn, Uranus, Gaia, Atum, Khepri, etc. (ad naseum) suddenly become a single creator god, responsible for everything from the farthest speck of galactic dust to the face mites living in our eyelashes.

We don't have to agree on this issue, but it certainly is not without merit and in depth study with quite good reasoning and evidence.

But, alas, I must get to work. I appreciate this back and forth, even if it is a bit frustrating at times.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You may not agree with that point, but it's valid nonetheless.

I don't agree and I don't think it's valid

It shows (IMHO) a misunderstanding regarding these different pantheons and how they work.

Polytheistic gods have human traits, they make mistake, they can be fooled, they can be killed.

A monotheistic god is none of this.

He's playing on another level.


But I do understand what you try to say. I just think your conclusion are incorrect and that such claims lead people reading the thread to misunderstand the complexity of these different religions and make shortcuts like the one you did here, even if you admitted it was oversimplification.

Nice exchanging with you too

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
The Old Testament was written by various authors at various times. Even some of the books that are ascribed to a single author were written by various authors. Where prophecy is concerned and "fulfilled", the texts were written after the fact. In some places it gets important historical details wrong.

The Authenticity and Authorship of the Old Testament

It cannot be the divinely inspired word of god!

Actually the Old Testament is out of order, chronologically, but there are many who lived at the same time who wrote at the same time. You have to remember that it was finally canonized during the Babylonian captivity when Amos the scribe formalized the Hebrew letters we know today.

Job is the oldest book. Enoch is missing today and so is the Book of Jasher. Those two are mentioned in the Bible but we don't have them, well, I think the book of Enoch today might be the same. But no Jasher that I know of.

Esther was written in Babylon and it is the only book that doesn't mention Yaweh by name nor even does it say Lord or God, Jews today celebrate Purim from that time.

The Apocrypha is still part of some churches' Bibles, that includes The Song of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. The original KJV contained it.

Jesus even quoted from the book of Enoch

But the mere fact that they still celebrate the holidays and festivals since the time it was instituted, that says quite a lot for them.

Moses didn't write all of the Pentateuch and certainly Moses did not write the rest of the Tanahk. There were a thousand years of history between Moses and Jesus. Abraham didn't write Torah, but his life was written by the descendents of Abraham. Now that may be the confusion, the OT is chronologically out of order, but it doesn't mean that perhaps whoever wrote Job wasn't divinely inspired.

Moses is credited with some of the Psalms, people think only David wrote them. The Psalms are songs and they probably were sung over and over again in the tabernacle and that is where David might have heard them and then wrote some of his own.

Josephus records the plundering of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. And if you want Jewish history, read Josephus' books.

Antiochus Epiphanes

This is also found in the Maccabees, which are older than the Gospels.

The OP asked who wrote the Old Testament, he didn't specifically mention the Pentateuch, he included the whole megillah, his assumption then is that the Old Testament in all its many authorships and books of minor prophets, poetry and history are all by one author.

My answer was that a bunch of Jews wrote it over time.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: WarminIndyWhere did they get the idea of Zeus?

Norse, Sumerian, or Egyptian mythology/religion. Take your pick--they're all the same characters, just different names.

What if I told you that Elder Futhark runes and the Hebrew Bible have something in common?

I believe that God is God of the whole earth. His dominion is over all, including philosophies and religions. I think that is something I have said many times on ATS, perhaps you missed by posts previous to this.

How about this one....

Elder Futhark runes

Kenaz Kenaz Sound: “k” Stands for: Torch Color: Yellow Casting meaning: Kenaz is a rune of knowledge, understanding, learning and teaching. It allows us to view situations with more clarity than we normally would.

Kenaz, now where have we heard this before? Oh yes, Ashkenaz is a grandson of Noah. Ashkenaz is the Hebrew word for Germany. But Kenaz is also found in Genesis as the son of Eliphaz. Why is this important to note?

Meaning of Hebrew name Kenaz, so here we have a name, Kenaz in Elder Futhark means torch, Kenaz in Hebrew means bright.

Etymology of Ashkenaz actually means "torch fire spreading". Is the light from torches not bright? Ah, the meaning is too similar. And where did Ashkenaz settle? Germany. Interesting isn't it?

The bright torch fire found in the antiquated story of after the flood shows up in the Elder Futhark runes. By the way, the torch and light have always symbolically represented knowledge in many cultures. Do you suppose the Jewish scribes were casting rune stones or could it just be possible that the Hebrew writers knew where all the people went after the flood?

a reply to: windword

HAHA! Oh I'm sure! Just like Kim Jong Un got 100% of the North Korean Vote last election! I can't imagine 70 scholars agreeing on where the sun rises, let alone the translation of 1000s of scrolls.

What can I say? If you choose not to believe then so be it. Actually there are some scholars who number the translators as seventy two but nevertheless in the theological aspect it was quite an achievement. I am pleased that you have corrected your mind into realizing that the these men were indeed translators.

originally posted by: JUhrman
Polytheistic gods have human traits, they make mistake, they can be fooled, they can be killed.

A monotheistic god is none of this.

He's playing on another level.

Right--rewritten, adapted, and altered to better suit the society using the religion as a guide (or, as I surmise, as a tool of control and power...what lends itself more to near-guaranteed subjugation under the guise of religion that edicts from a god who no longer has human traits and weaknesses?).

Take care, sir.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Besides the flood, and maybe a few other stories from the whole book, I hardly see how the Bible is "rewritten" from previous texts but that might just be me being blind

a reply to: bartholomeo

You would look better to do your own research instead of following blindly what others say in here. Once you are done present your research for all to see; and no! the wrath of yaweh is not going to come and destroy you once you do that.

I guess I hit a nerve bart. I am not out to look better but thank you for the advice. As far as research is concerned? Simply look at Wikipedia and get your own free research. Here is an excerpt --

"Legend
These titles refer to a legendary story, according to which seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek, for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.[11]

This legend is first found in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates,[12] and is repeated, with embellishments, by Philo of Alexandria, Josephus[13][14] and by various later sources, including St. Augustine.[15] A version of the legend is found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud:"
en.wikipedia.org...

Another very easy portion of research is --

Quote
b Talmud - Mas. Megilah 9a
"And it goes on to state, ‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’.14 This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy,15 as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate16 for me the Torah of Moses your master.17 God then prompted each one of them and they all conceived the same idea and wrote for him,"
Unquote

I have many other references but not available to you. Reason is that you only destroy knowledge but do not build on that foundation. Please read the letter of Aristeas which is available on internet.

a reply to: Seede

I am pleased that you have corrected your mind into realizing that the these men were indeed translators.

Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned here and there by them whatever we consider important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow the appropriate passages from ancient writers, we shall endeavor to embody the whole in an historical narrative, content if we preserve the memory of the successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.

Eusebius on compiling the cannons of the New Testament....www.newadvent.org...

I suppose that you trust Eusebius, and his son Jerome, who gave us the translation of the New Testament cannon that we know today, to also be free from bias?

If you think that 70 - 72 scholars, under the edict of the King of Egypt, tasked with compiling their ancestry and religious myths and beliefs, aren't going to cherry pick and insert biases, and that they all agreed on the final product without issue, I think you're very naive.

a reply to: JUhrman

Remember...I keep saying "added to" and "altered" as well

originally posted by: windwordIf you think that 70 - 72 scholars, under the edict of the King of Egypt, tasked with compiling their ancestry and religious myths and beliefs, aren't going to cherry pick and insert biases, and that they all agreed on the final product without issue, I think you're very naive.

Funny how that works...I still come across people who are literally surprised to hear that not all of the founding fathers completely agreed on the final draft of the Constitution.

I think the notion of 'compromise' is dying out in our modern society.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: chr0naut

Did you read the link?

My knowledge is limited so I would suggest you do some research on your own time to gain a better understanding. However, it is my understanding that the authors are unknown. As for Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, most scholars agree it was composed over centuries. The sources that comprise those books are called the Jahwist source, the Elohist source, the Priestly source, and the Deuteronomist source.

Anyway one reason I don't see it being divinely inspired, besides textual criticism of authorship, has to do with the various inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies (as well as scientific ones, but many believers can ignore those in place of faith in god's omnipotence).

The Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP authors/editors) was largely discredited over 100 years ago. It is no longer accepted by the "majority of scholars".

I looked at your linked website and am still reading through its content. However, it is totally unattributed. The few academic references it does have are not to any current scholarly works.

Most of the 'issues' identified are due to annotations being included in the text and are fairly standard for ancient and revered documents. The core account is consistent with what we know of the times of Moses. We have discovered significant corroborating archaeological and anthropological data in the last 100 years that supports the historicity of the traditional understandings of the Tanach.

As to the inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies, there are some things WE don't know, but after some years of personal study, I can assure you that they are due to misinterpretation of the text by those who propose that they are inconsistent. A good study tool in this regard (although now becoming somewhat dated) is the book "An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" by John W Haley. The book is now in the public domain and can be downloaded or viewed online at this link.