Oh no, now Israel's Moses being questioned by one of their own?

He ought to have his head examined, you might say; ‘Nuts’ says one book review!  

Who would have thought  the founding father of psychoanalysis, Austrian neurologist of Jewish descent—Sigmund Freud— would write a book claiming Moses was not an Israelite but an Egyptian?  Well, that is exactly what he did in his book:

  Moses And Monotheism [Freud,Sigmund. : Free Download. archive.org › Ebook and Texts Archive › Universal Library]

One of the his reasons for claiming so is the point that Moses is an Egyptian name, something we have pointed out ourselves in our discussions on the book of Exodus.  But why indeed should Moses not bear an Egyptian name? Was he not adopted by the Pharaoh’s daughter?  Was he not raised as a prince of Egypt?  Had his life not taken a different path because of a crime he had committed against an Egyptian taskmaster, might he not have lived and died as an Egyptian?  Ah, but as the Exodus story recounts, the Hebrew-Egyptian circumstances prepared Moses who was ‘handpicked’ for a divine purpose.

 

Before you read your downloaded book, read through the editorial reviews provided by amazon.com; often,  reviews are just as interesting as books, you get educated besides meeting some interesting people with whom you might agree, or not.

—————————————————————–

Amazon.com Review

“To deny a people the man whom it praises as the greatest of its sons is not a deed to be undertaken lightheartedly–especially by one belonging to that people,” writes Sigmund Freud, as he prepares to pull the carpet out from under The Great Lawgiver in Moses and Monotheism. In this, his last book, Freud argues that Moses was an Egyptian nobleman and that the Jewish religion was in fact an Egyptian import to Palestine. Freud also writes that Moses was murdered in the wilderness, in a reenactment of the primal crime against the father. Lingering guilt for this crime, Freud says, is the reason Christians understand Jesus’ death as sacrificial. “The ‘redeemer’ could be none other than the one chief culprit, the leader of the brother-band who had overpowered the father.” Hence the basic difference between Judaism and Christianity: “Judaism had been a religion of the father, Christianity became a religion of the son.” Freud’s arguments are extremely imaginative, and his distinction between reality and fantasy, as always, is very loose. If only as a study of wrong-headedness, however, it’s fascinating reading for those who want to explore the psychological impulses governing the historical relationship between Christians and Jews. –Michael Joseph Gross

From the Inside Flap

Freud’s speculations on various aspects of religion where he explains various characteristics of the Jews in their relations with the Christians.
———————————————-
let my people go – all of them, August 17, 2006
This review is from: Moses and Monotheism (Paperback)

Reading through the many wonderful reviews here, one gets the picture of what it is with this book: love it or hate it, believer or skeptic, even telling people the gist of the thesis and the story (the book is magnificently both), this work never fails to evoke a strong reaction. Look at the reviews. What is evident is that the book is truly provocative – rare for any book – no less a slight, speculative work of less than 200 pages, written somewhere in the middle of the twentieth century. Who would really care? But as you can see from this representative sample, people do.

 

Despite the ongoing controversy regarding, increasing skepticism towards, and perhaps dismissal of his major ideas, Freud still engages us as one of the most influential thinkers of the past century, and this work, which, surprisingly, may come to be regarded as his masterpiece (it is a masterpiece – do not doubt that), written as he was dying of cancer of the jaw and fleeing from the Nazis (Freud was Jewish – and among all the things that it is, the book is his response to that singular experience), is his signal contribution to religious studies.

 

The story is that:

1) Moses was an Egyptian, likely of royal birth, that he learned monotheism from the renegade Egyptian monarch, Akenaton, who, during his brief and probably aborted reign, unsuccessfully attempted to displace the long-standing polytheism and its attendant institutions with a unitary sole deity – a sun god – not represented in any form or art .

2) – That he may have been the proprietor or governor of a fringe province, the Biblical “land of Goshen” with a population of Hebraic or Semitic descent, to whom he taught the new religion. At some point during the exodus, Moses was murdered by his followers. The new God was rejected in favor of a tribal deity, a bloodthirsty, local lunar God, Jahve. However, his immediate entourage, also of the Egyptian court or priesthood, were established as the Levites, or priestly caste, and their descendents eventually revived the ancient monotheism, which we know as the religion of the ancient Hebrews.

 

The thesis (more complex) quite briefly is:

Akenaton possibly adopted monotheism as adjunct to Egypt’s imperialist expansion in the 18th century B.C. Circumcision, which first evolved among the Egyptians (there is the pictoral evidence, as far back as it goes), is rooted in the idea of prehistoric enforced fidelity to the clan father under threat of castration thus symbolized (the primal “covenant” between father and sons). Moses was murdered because he restricted access to the women of the tribe, in repetition of the totemic archetype. The Pentateuch is a palimpsest, references the original monotheistic religion inscribed under references to the later religion of Jahve, and then again, the revival, written over those references in the Levitical Law. The revival was spurred by long, pent up guilt over the collective memory of the death of Moses. And well, Papa don’t take no mess! The religion of the Levites, developed during the Babylonian exile, represents a return to the Father dominance. The Messianic trend represents yet another turn away from this father dominance toward the Son, away from circumcision, and toward social decentralization, eventually a priesthood of all believers. There’s a lot more to it – but these are the bare bones.

 

I don’t believe anyone would want to make absolute claims as to what went down thirty-eight centuries ago – but, all considered, Freud’s thesis has its moment, and that moment is now. Could it be that the Jews and Arabs are one people – Semites – who have been divided over time by those with ulterior motives? Resoundingly, yes, the possibility must be considered. Freud wrote this remarkable text at a time when the Nazis were beginning to fund the Islamic Brotherhood (after they themselves had been funded by Prescott Bush and the Union Bank). Ironically, Freud’s thesis suggests that the current situation in the Middle East has apparently brought this world to the edge of annihilation, may involve combatants who have no conception of their true origins or the basis of what they are fighting for, but, from the standpoint of carefully fostered illusions, merely believe, in an all too human way, that they do. Freud argues closely and pervasively enough to raise and honest doubt in our minds. Well worth the read.

——————————————–
“Could it be that the Jews and Arabs are one people – Semites – who have been divided over time by those with ulterior motives? Resoundingly, yes, the possibility must be considered.”Everytime I hear the expression “anti-Semitic” in the press, I wonder why, even now in 2012, English speakers continue to be blatantly unaware of this fact.
——————————————————-
Neurotic Book, April 21, 2012

I still don’t know how I could have finished reading the book after the part or theory where the sons kill and eat the father of the tribe, and then wanting to relate this, psychologically, to Judaism and Christianity, which I find it pretty absurd. The whole book is based on the author theories and unfounded ideas, or founded on his new discovered ideas, and few times trying to back up himself and his ideas with other writings. Is as if the author is in free writing for the whole process of the book; without even bothering to make a brainstorm or something, and just leaving the grammar to an editor. In conclusion, all I could say about the book is that I perceive as if the author was in a neurotic state on his whole writing. Who knows, he might had been, as he was having real bad personal experiences in the course of his writing. 0 stars was not an option.

—————————————————–
Really impressive for something that is essentially unprovable conjecture, March 14, 2012

An intriguing premise, Freud uses his theory about the origin of Judaism as a way of showing how his conception of the consciousness can be transferred to humanity, writ large. Historically, it seems far fetched (which he openly acknowledges), but what Freud really succeeds at here is showing how any attempt to really examine the history of a major abrahamic religious figure means reassessing a great deal of what we think about how monotheistic religion works and how its developed since it first came about. I was confused by some of his terminology, but overall, I found it to be a fairly easy read.

———————————————————
Thinking outside the box., December 27, 2011

The writer, Sigmund Freud, is a household word. This author is never trivial and, although sometimes controversial in his thinking, it is because he is so original and outside the box that most of us feel so comfortable being locked in.

 

His hypothesis about the origins of Moses, whose teachings go without being fully tapped to this very day, are well supported by as much evidence as was humanly possible to dig up at the time of Freud’s writing, in the late 1930’s, the first copyright being 1939.

 

The Torah, or Pentateuch as it is often referred to, has been authored by Moses, although many modern academics claim it was written by multiple authors, because of the several styles of writing one might identify in the work — this gets a bit lost in translations, the most commonly found at this time being in the King James version of the Bible. It is not uncommon to look for multiple authorship when it comes to works so profound that it makes even the most erudite among us pale with the discomfort of inadequacy — consider, for example, similar allegations regarding the works of Shakespeare, again vastly above the highest ambitions of most mere mortals.

 

Given this unique standing of the work (the five books known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), the origin of its purported or fictional author is of great interest, since it bears directly on the development of human thought and human civilization.

 

To make a long story short, the Torah writing states that Moses was a Jew, son of slaves fated for execution as a newborn, who was circumstantially brought up as a prince of Egypt, educated as a prince of Egypt, who then left his princedom when he discovered the suffering of the Hebrew slaves and became their leader who, with the help of the Almighty, led them to freedom and responsibility into the promised land three and a half thousand years ago, of which today’s State of Israel is but a small fraction.

 

In antithesis to the preceding paragraph, Freud’s thesis is that, in fact Moses was an Egyptian who became a monotheist in the midst of and in spite of the powerful Egyptian polytheism and emphasis on the hereafter, in which cult the afterlife took on a central role and major preoccupation in this life. The Egyptian Moses, in Freud’s hypothesis, then found himself a people, the Hebrews, who could follow his monotheistic teachings, a teaching totally devoid of any mention of afterlife, a teaching totally focused on this life — this teaching attributed to Moses is not to be confused with common practices of Judaism, even though the Torah remains the major rallying point of Judaism.

 

While surprisingly few people are conversant with the five books of Moses, even fewer people are familiar with the Egyptian culture that has given human civilization so much. It is this culture that is revealed in modern terms by Freud, in a way that is unique to Freud in its clarity and cogency. Whether Moses was born a Hebrew or an Egyptian is not really the relevant issue; the relevant issue is to see how the father of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud, delves into the available evidence for monotheism and the departure from Osiris, the god of the after-world, in the history of Egyptian civilization.

 

True to Freud, the educational, thought providing and informational value of this book is second to none.

——————————————————
 Freud’s Hypothesis., June 8, 2011
This book is an important read for anyone interested in the Egyptian/Israelite interface polemic. Not because Freud’s hypothesis is correct necessarily, but because he was, to the best of my knowledge, the first person to bring up the Akhenaten Aten worship (which was the first known monotheism) and try to connect it to the monotheistic worship of YHWH by the Israelites. I think his ideas in this book are not supported well. They are interesting hypotheses, but that is all. Several other books on the subject include Moses and Akhenaten by Osman and The Mystery of the Copper Scroll of Qumran by Feather. I believe some of the observations made in the latter are more valid than either Freud’s book or Osman’s. I am an amateur biblical/religious scholar and believe there is a connection between the two religions but it is very complex and not fully understood yet. I believe the first fallacy in Freud and Osman’s books is to think that the early Israelite religion was monotheistic. It was not. It was henotheistic. That is to say acknowledged other gods but held one god above the others. Reading The Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Talmud and other ancient Near Eastern works carefully will show this to be true. I believe that the Israelite religion only became monotheistic after the Babylonian Exile (6th C. BCE) and that perhaps the monotheism of the Zoroastrian Persian King Cyrus may have been a more immediate influence. I will not ramble on…… sorry! The book is an interesting read and an interesting hypothesis, but I would not hang my history on it. There have been many new discoveries since this book was written that make this subject of research more rich, complex and interesting.
——————————————————–
 incredibly personal, September 30, 2010
By  Bruce P. Barten (Saint Paul, MN United States) – See all my reviews (REAL NAME)
On a scale from stillborn to born with a brain, Freud lived too long to be pleased with the ideas of his own society and went searching though the information we have about antiquity to see why societies behave like the father has been killed, eaten, and anyone with a sure plan to usher in a new world can find followers who will burn books and people like Freud. Freud sure was thinking, and hundreds of years or a thousand years might illustrate how empires have been twisting in the wind. Freud had learned so much about the behavior of individuals with neuroses that he could classify stages of religious development with the way new ideas are first rejected. Then what? TV never gets mentioned, and Freud never got to play video games.
—————————————
real insight into religion, September 29, 2010
By Bruce P. Barten (Saint Paul, MN United States) – See all my reviews
Europe was such a mess when Freud wrote Moses and Monotheism that the “badly Christened” barbarically polytheistic German National Socialist revolution Freud was complaining about reminds me of the polymorphously perverse nature of our financial system based on hyperbolic cyberpower. Freud considered the adoption of Christianity by bloody compulsion the kind of hostile treatment that makes picking on the chosen people like the trauma produced by wars. Anyone who has not comprehended books like this is likely to end up in a ball park watching some sport.
————————————————-
 
FREUD’S FINAL BOOK, RETURNING TO THE SUBJECT OF RELIGION
, August 13, 2010
By  Steven H. Propp (Sacramento, CA USA) – See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)
Freud wrote this book, his last, in 1939 (when his own Jewish people were undergoing the beginnings of the Holocaust), and it continues the themes he took up earlier in his 1913 book Totem and Taboo: Resemblances Between the Psychic Lives of Savages and Neurotics and his 1927 book The Future of an Illusion.

 

Here are some representative quotations from the book:
“I have tried to strengthen by a new argument the suggestion that the man Moses, the liberator and lawgiver of the Jewish people, was not a Jew, but an Egyptian… I added to this consideration the further one that the interpretation of the exposure myth attaching to Moses necessitated the conclusion that he was an Egyptian whom a people needed to make into a Jew.”

 

“I have never doubted that religious phenomena are to be understood only on the model of the neurotic symptoms of the individual, which are so familiar to us, as a return of long-forgotten important happenings in the primeval experience of the human family, that they owe their obsessive character to that very origin and therefore derive their effect on mankind from the historical truth they contain.”

 

“The Mosaic religion had this effect (1) because it allowed the people to share in the grandeur of its new conception of God, (2) because it maintained that the people had been ‘chosen’ by this great God and was destined to enjoy the proofs of his special favor, and (3) because it forced upon the people a progress in spirituality which, significant enough in itself, further opened the way to respect for intellectual work and to further instinctual renunciations.”
—————————————————–
 Classic Freud, September 11, 2009 By  Ruhama “Bibliophilia” (Houston) – See all my reviews

This translation of a classic publication of Freud offers timeless observations and theories as to the origins of religion, specifically, monotheism. Students of comparative religion will find this a thought-provoking treatise. As an erstwhile “Bible Scholar” I find “Moses and Monotheism” fascinating, reminding me to examine the writings of the Hebrew prophets.

 

Some of Freud’s hypotheses are a product of his generation, following his contemporaries’ theories on Biblical Criticism, yet his musings based on his arena of psychoanalysis still ring true. This little tome is well worth your time to read.

——————————————————-
Terrific Insights, March 27, 2007
By P. Schumacher (atlanta, GA United States) – See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Like all of Freud’s books, this one will change the way you look at things.
In the first part (written in Vienna as the Nazis approached), Freud essentially analyzed Judaism into 2 component parts.
 
First was the Moses religion–a strict monotheism deriving from Egypt (via Moses, who was an Egyptian) and Ikhnaton: this monotheism was universal, ethical, stripped of priestcraft and magic, retaining circumcision (an Egyptian custom).
 
Second was the tribal religion of Jahve (Yahweh)–a volcano god of one of the Canaanite tribes: not monotheistic, punitive, exclusivist, loaded with incessant in-group rules and rituals.

 

Naturally, these two don’t fit together well, and this explains why the Old Testament presents such a crazy picture of God: sometimes impersonal and ethical and absolutely fair; most times homicidal (even genocidal), bad tempered, vindictive, given to human sacrifice, obsessed with punctilious rules.

 

In the second part of the book (written in Freud’s last year–after he had escaped to England), Freud talks about the psychodynamics of such a religion, mainly in terms of father-murder.

 

While I don’t agree with some of Freud’s assumptions (particularly the idea that monotheism is an “advance” on polytheism), this is still brilliant work.

Reading Freud is always an education (he knows so much) and always a pleasure (he is a wonderful writer).

——————————————————
Freud’s Last Act, March 29, 2006

Who founded Judaism and monotheism is indeed a tricky but nevertheless intriguing question? Tom Cahill, in his wonderful and lyrical piece “The Gift of the Jews,” lists monotheism as an important Jewish contribution to civilization. On the other hand, Dr. Frances Cress Welsin, in the Isis Papers, and others of her Africanist cohorts, suggest that Judaism — as well as Christianity — are but off-shoots of well-established Egyptian myths, rituals and religions.

 

While it is one thing for free-lance interlopers on either side of this issue to speculate on these matters, it is quite another when the father of modern psychology himself, Sigmund Freud, does so — even if it is done as his last professional act.

 

Using his earlier work, Totem and Taboo as the psychological foundation and backdrop, Freud in his final book, spins out a not altogether unconvincing tale that Moses was an Egyptian Prince who was killed by his sons, and that monotheism was the necessary cultural invention and outcome that ultimately prevented the cycle of fratricide from continuing.

 

It is a fascinating read even if not up to Freud’s normal high standards of analytical rigor. Despite its speculative nature, this thesis has global implications for contemporary religion, the Western worldview, and for how our current structure of morality was established and continues to work. Five stars

—————————————————————
Kemet-Moses & Akhenatens religion, February 6, 2005
By TheoGnostus “Encycoptic” (Sketes,Theognostic America) – See all my reviews

Who founded Judaism is a tricky question. More tricky is, who founded Monotheism, Moses or Akhen-Atun? There are several people who were essential to the creation of Judaism, Egypt served as a womb, in a nascent stage, where the Jewish people were formed as a nation, within four centuries of their soujourn in the land of Goshen (North-eastern Egyptian province), by training in civilized traditions and worthy articrafts.

 

The Bible shows Moses as the founder of the faith, while Abraham was the root of the nation. Moses, the greatest of the Hebrew prophets, has protected the Jews from the wrath of God, and negotiated with God on their behalf, according to the Torah, is an Egyptian Princely sage, according to Sigmund Freud.

 

Philo to Assmann’s Moses:

Philo Judeas of Alexandria mentioned that some Jews doubted the historical reliability of their scriptures and considered part of their content as myth. Aristobulus, Philo’s Alexandrian predecessor moved beyond the literal to the hidden meaning, allegorical and philosophic, similar to the treatment of texts of classical mythology, as was the tradition in their megalopolis (Great City).

 

Origen, who wrote Contra Celsius, refuted Celsius argument that the Mosaic book of Genesis was based on borrowed sources like the Ducalion narrative for the flood story, known as such to the Greeks.

 

Assmann starts with the definition of Egyptian thought construction as Mnemo-history, a ‘Suppressed history of Repressed memory’ of Akhenaten in Moses conscience. His ultimate thesis, srarting from Spencer’s findings as ‘before the Law,’ is based on his analytical review of eighteenth century historical discourse on Moses. Freud shows up in his spear headed psychological idea; ‘the Return of the repressed.’ The roots of Egyptian monotheism of the enlightened elite, was conceived in the ‘One,’ Amon-Ra’e, and Aten, consecutive masters of Theban and Heliopolitan Pantheons, which echoes in Psalm 82, Concluding into what JH Breasted elaborated eighty years ago. freud followed him in abolishing Mosaic primacy of monotheistic revelation.

 

Revelation to Akhen-Atun:

Freud is drawn to confirms his discovery of Moses origin and role, in the Jewish traditions, preserved in the Pseudo epigraphic writings, that Moses was murdered by Joshua, who buried him in the wilderness*. “The ‘redeemer’ could be none other than the one chief culprit, the leader of the brother-band who had overpowered the father.” Concluding thatl; “Judaism had been a religion of the father, Christianity became a religion of the son.”

 

The Jewish inter-testiment writing, on the occasion of Moses’ impending death, by the rebelling congregation (Numbers 14), and doubting exodus generation with calmination into the revolt of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (numbers 16), support the same concept of authority rejection of a non-Hebraic Moses.

* The Assumption of Moses: Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha

—————————————————-
Freud’s Moses & Moses Monolatry, February 3, 2005

“One will not easily decide to deny a nation its greatest son because of the meaning of a name,” (Moses is an Egyptian name) Sigmund Freud’s original draft

 

Moses & Monotheism:

* Moses of Exodus 2:10, is presented as a derivation from the Hebrew Mashah (to draw) is implied, while Josephus and Church Fathers assign the Coptic mo (water) and uses (saved) as the constituent parts of the name. Contemporary views widely patronized by Egyptologists, tracing the name back to the Egyptian mesh (child), is dominating but nothing could be established as decisive.

*Monotheism:(Gk. monon: single, Theos: Deity.) the belief in a single, an all-encompassing universal, deity.

*Monolatry: The worship of only one god, while admitting the existence of other gods.

 

What is Your Name?

There are many Jews & Christians alike, who are upset by Martin Buber’s interpretation of Moses inquiring from YAHWEH, as showing the influence of the Egyptian ‘name magic.’ This may have been the reason beyond the strange inquiry of the learned Moses, who may have asked the encountered God of the ‘Unconsumed Bush’ for His identifying name, and the Lord’s mysterious answer, explained in ‘The Egyptian Book of the Dead in which (?)-Moses could have been initiated into by the priests of the solar cult of Heliopolis, whose predominant cosmological world view, Moses has presented in the book of Genesis, describes multiple names for Atum, Master of its divine Pantheon, and creator deity, “whose name has been variously interpreted as meaning ‘the Completed One,’ ‘He Who is Entirity,’…or ‘The Undifferentiated One.’ the last rendering seems the most probable.., i.e., an undifferentiated unity,” (The Book of Going Forth by Day, translation by Dr. Raymond Faulklner, with introduction & commentaries by Dr. Ogden Goelet)

 

Freud’s Moses:

In his last written book, completed just before the holocaust, Freud was not the first to argue that Moses was an Egyptian Prince, and that the Hebrew religion that developed into monotheistic Judaism was but an adapted Egyptian thought carried back into Palestine. Freud confirms Jewish traditions found in the Pseudo epigraphic writings (The Assumption of Moses, which echoes in New Testament writings) that Moses was murdered by Joshua who buried him in the wilderness.

 

Sigmund Freud’s controversial and ingenious multi leveled psychological treatise, on the Egyptian roots its and relation with Akhenaten’s monotheistic, short lived revelation and Akhetaten’s revolution against Amun’s polytheistic representation of the Loving and sociable Deity, there overshadows a typically complicated Freudian thesis which endeavored to explain a multi purpose and very complex theory of every thing: all human atrocities and Jewish calamities.

 

For those who want to explore the psychological impulses governing the historical relationship between Christians and Jews. “The Christ whom Moses foreshadowed seemed eclipsed by him in the minds of the learned. It was, humanly speaking, an indispensable providence that represented him in the Transfiguration, side by side with Elias, and quite inferior to the incomparable Antitype whose coming he had predicted.” New Advent

 

Assmann’s Moses:

Assmann starts with a parapsychological definition of Egyptian thought construction as Mnemo-history, advancing into Suppressed history of Repressed memory of Akhenaten in Moses conscience, proceeding to Spencer’s findings as ‘before the Law.’ The crux of his advancement to his ultimate thesis lies in a historical review of eighteenth century discourse on Moses. Freud shows up in a psychological spear head idea; ‘the Return of the repressed,’ the roots of Egyptian monotheistic theology of the elite was conceived in the ‘One,’ the master of Egyptian Pantheons, Aten, or Amon-Ra’e. Concluding into what breasted initiated eighty years ago: abolishing the Mosaic monopoly of revelation. Marvelous!

 

Moses Reinterpreted:

“interpretation and critique of ‘Moses and Monotheism’ are wide and varied,” from Jan Assmann to Yosef Yerushalmi, in 1986 Columbia University Lectures.

Yerushalmi argues forcefully and almost convincingly that “Moses and Monotheism is ‘a work neither of negation nor degradation but affirmation and pride in belonging to a people from whom, there rose again and again men who lent new color to the fading tradition, renewed the admonishments and demands of Moses, and did not rest until the lost cause was once more regained.”

 

Anti-Semitism Psychosis:

Freud’s analysis is amazingly original though extremely imaginative, and his distinction between reality and fantasy, defies his psychological conclusion, and common sense logic. However, his theory is fascinating, and converts this subject to a ‘DaVinci Code’ type of reading, 50 years ahead of his time.

 

Freud’s genius has failed him in his thesis of what he presented as a discovery of Hebrew Christian evolution as an analogy with the primitive father/son tribal succession rather than an advancement in Cosmic consciousness from Egyptian liturgical (People Worship) to Hebrew Temple sacrificial Worship. That Rabbinical post Temple Judaism transformed into Messianic Judaism which is Christianity.

Those which emigrated into Arabia developed an Ebiobnite Judaism which reflected a deformed disbelief in Israel’s hope in a Davidic kingdom rather than a Kingdom of God that no doubt prevailed, a Kingdom of the Loving Lord.

 

The undying guilt for Moses killing, proposes Freud, is the basis of Christians conception for Jesus’ death as a sacrifice to the Father, Thus the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity becomes; “Judaism had been a religion of the father, Christianity became a religion of the son.”

——————————————————
Imaginative historical fiction, January 11, 2005

Freud engages here in an act of self- denial similar to the one which led him to so worship one student of his , the sole Gentile Jung who later betrayed him. Perhaps it was difficult for Freud in his old age and dying at the time that his own people were helpless before the Nazi murderers to see power and potency in his own people. Moses is of course a symbol of Law and Might and Justice and for the Jews direct contact with God in a way no other human being will ever have. Freud finds a way to deny Moses’ Jewishness perhaps as a way of suggesting that if real salvation is to come real power to enter the world it must come through other human beings, not Jews.

 

In any case I see no real evidence for Freud’s fiction. The Tannakh the Hebrew Bible certainly clearly and definitely states who Moses and Aharon and Miriam’s parents were. It gives their line of descent also as princes of the Tribe of Levi. To deny all this and simply invent an Egyptian prince tale seems to me the height or perhaps depth of historical responsibility. This is a last word of Freud and unfortunately far from a credible one.

———————————————–
Brilliant, but not for its accuracy., December 24, 2003
By  LEs (Houston, Texas United States) – See all my reviews

My title sums up my feelings about this book. I’ve read a bit of Freud, but this book, so far, is the most interesting, engaging, and engrossing of the lot. Perhaps this is because Freud occasionally acknowledges the tenuous nature of his argument. What is that argument? I wish not to give away the entire book, but its crux is that Freud begins with the proposition that Moses was an Egyption, a follower of Aton religion, and when that religion vanished after the reign of one king, he passed it on to the Jews. It must first be said that Freud is not the only one to claim that Hebraism/Judaism developed monotheism out of the Egyptian milieu. The most interesting thing is that Freud claims to find this, psychoanalyticaly, in the very myth of Moses’ birth, which he argues in an archetypal heroic one. Be that as it may, I cannot give this book 5 stars because the last chapter, though he introduces, quite lucidly, the ideas of the Ego, Superego, and the Id, I came away feeling that the argument could have been made in half the space. Nevertheless, a hearty recommendation.

————————————————————-
Religion as the manifestation of the collective unconscious, April 22, 2003

This is the last book written by Freud. Moses and Monotheism was published in totum in 1939, the year Freud died in London, where he got residence along with his family to scape the Nazi persecution against Jews in Austria, where he thought he was safe.The hypotheses raised in the book are polemical, and this seems to be a kind of a Freudian trademark, and they are nothing less than:

1- Moses was in fact Egyptian and worked as a general in the staff of the Egyptian pharaoh Ikhenaton, who urged the untill then polytheists Egyptians to adore Aton as only God and to adopt monotheism. When the pharaoh died, Moses tried to convince the Jews working at the northeast region of Egypt that they were the chosen people and to follow him. Many of the theories present in this book are in fact development of a hypothesis already raised by Freud in his earlier book “Totem and Taboo” and represents a serious attempt at demolishing the foundations of both the Mosaic religion as Christianity. The idea is that a band of brothers opressed by the father in fact killed him, and out of a guilty feeling payed tribute to him in a series of disguised primitive rituals to honor him in group.

2 – The circuncisiom was already practise at Egypt and was not something invented by Jeovah as a sign of the alliance (covenant)between Him and the Jewish people. Also, in Freud’s hypothesis, Jeovah was a demi-god of the Volcanoes and many of his later carachteristics were later adoptions of Egyptian religious tendencies by means of the Levites, who, again in Freud’s view, were not the son of Levi (one of the ten tribes of Israel) but rather were also of Egyptian origin and followers of Moses, who in fact was killed by the Egyptian jews, etc…
 
If you think this is all the book portrays, you are pretty much wrong. There are still a lot of pretty much original and polemical hypotheses raised by Freud which would astound anyone unprepared for such a reading, specially the Jewish and Catholic community . One has to remember also, that Freud was of Jewish origin, and this, to say the least, adds salt to the whole story.
 
The book follows Freud trademark, not exactly a surprise for the man who said that he was “to disturb the nights of the humankind.” Good reading.

——————————————————–

Admit it! You hate your Dad!, January 11, 2002
By  the wizard of uz (Studio City, CA United States) – See all my reviews
This is my favorite nut book of all time, principally because it was written by THE most original thinker of the 20th century.

 

To fully understand M&M one has to be somewhat conversant with Totem and Taboo, and Freud reiterates those basic premises here as well. Briefly they are as follows:

The origin of society begins with a tribe in which the dominant male gets all the women, including his sisters and Mommy.

 

His sons are understandably upset at being left out of the fun and complain, so Dad kills or castrates them. Or makes the mistake of being lenient and simply drives them off.

 

The sons, unable to find females of their own, band together go back and murder dad. Then, of course, they eat his body.

 

There being too many sons (and feeling repressed guilt at killing their old man) they make taboos against incest thus establishing the rule of law.

 

(Bet you didn’t know this was the origin of Magna Carta, et al).

 

This keeps the gene pool safe from inbreeding but leads to all sorts of guilt feelings which get acted out politically– not the least of which is a worshipping of Mommy, which leads to LHM -a Literal Historical Matriarchy.

 

(And to think feminists dislike Freud)

 

Next, they get fed up with being bossed about by Mom (and who wouldn’t?) so they re-establish the patriarchy; only this time they stick to the rule of law, because they can’t afford further fraticidal bloodshed and they invent polytheism to boot.
 
But deeply repressed father hatred looms within, which leads to the final step: monotheism, in which God is an avenging Father who must be appeased before he starts castrating again. .

 

(Naturally there are sub-plots–Christianity belongs to the religion of The Son who becomes more important than The Father, Islam is a attempt to restore The Father, etc.)

 

I forget what all this has to do with Moses, and halfway through the book, so does Freud who goes off on a tangent about how the Catholic church failed to protect him in Vienna against the Nazis, so he was forced to flee to England, where things are now better, and though he thought of destroying the manuscript he figured he was old, so what the hell, might as well publish it.

 

Freud refuses to use the ‘s’ word –speculate–Or rather he waffles. At one point he admits that all he’s writing is conjecture and the reader should know that and not force him to repeat it in every paragraph. But a couple of paragraphs later, he appeals to his clinical material (his patients and his own fantasies) and his deductive powers in a manner that could only be described as objective–or, to be less kind, dogmatic. Will the real S.G please stand up?

 

In any case, the speculations/objective deductions regarding Akhnaten, the case for there being 2 Moses’s -one got murdered and presumably eaten by his children. The myth ‘in reverse’ of the childhood of Moses (don’t ask) and what it all REALLY means make for fascinating and compelling reading.

————————————————————–

Moses Legend Revealed, November 11, 2001
By  Mario Porto “Mario Porto” (Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro Brazil) – See all my reviews (REAL NAME)   

An outstanding and audacious book.
Not to many people have knowledge of this subject on Freud’s writings.It is amazing to notice the author’s courage exposing thesis where he attempt to prove or at least to demonstrate that Moses was an Egyptian and not a Jew.
 
The argument of the existence of two Moses the one from Egypt and the other from Midia, a Medianite, is also surprising although in any way fanciful.

 

In some bookstores this book is incorrectly classified in the psych area. This is truly a Bible history research, of course using an approach that places, in his words, religion phenomena as a model of neurotic symptoms of the individual.

 

As I mentioned in other book comment, this kind of study always carries some dose of speculation. Freud was not an exception but without lost of plausibility.

———————————————————–

Understanding an image of God, October 9, 2001
By “sheshet” (NH, USA) – See all my reviews

I feel this short book is well worth reading. Freud, at the time, was debating whether to leave Nazi-occupied Austria and was deeply afraid that the public would misinterpret him. He accepts that Moses was a composite character and that Jewish history was compressed for the sake of clarity and on this premise he explores the psychological underpinnings of the religious story. He does link Moses and Judaism with Akhenaten’s religion and he does it in a believeable way that should stand up against modern criticism. All in all, this is a very valuable book.

—————————————————–
 Freuds lamest book, July 22, 2001

Freud speculated two Moses: an Egyptian nobleman who lived near the time of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaton, the founder of the world’s first monotheism, who gave the Hebrews a modified version of that religion and was killed by them as a result; and a Midianite who resurrected this religion, modified it still further, and coupled it with the Egyptian rite of circumcision, thereby setting the Hebrews apart as a chosen people.Sounds weird, doesn’t it? It is.

 

Freud has an uncanny habit of failing to interpret the symbolism of his own theoretical work. The split Moses, based on the primal father (see Totem and Taboo) killed and eaten by rebellious sons: what more accurate picture could the reader want of the fate of Freud’s Wednesday Psychological Society and its rebellious offspring?

 

Stylistically, however, Freud reads a bit like Conan Doyle, and the interest he creates with his detective-story reasoning is matched only by his immense lucidity and command of the written word.

——————————————————-

 fascinating but very speculative, December 22, 1999
By A Customer
This is a fairly obscure and especially speculative work of Freud’s, published originally in the year he died. The argument is fascinating. Its exposition, however, (as Freud himself concedes within it) is repetitive and at times tedious. There were two particular sticking points for me: 1) It assumes one has read Freud’s “Totem and Taboo” (I hadn’t). 2) The larger argument is contigent on (extra-somatic) racial memory, a biological impossibility. Defending this notion Freud makes several remarks that tarnish his philosophy and psychology as a whole, and this is unfortunate.

 
I’d prefer you read Freud’s “The Question of Lay Analysis” (a lucid and engaging account of the basic tenets of psychoanalysis), his “Civilization and its Discontents”, and his “The Future of an Illusion”. (And while I’m recommending things, there is also, for musicians, “Pentatonic Scales for the Jazz Rock Keyboardist” by Jeff Burns.

————————————————–

A brilliant and capitivating essay on monotheism., October 13, 1998
By A Customer
 

This is one of the best books I have ever read. It’s a page turner — a brilliant uncovering of the historical Moses. This book is also so affecting because Freud wrote it right before and during the holocaust. The background that he is writing from is part of the drama of the book. Read this book!

————————————————–
 Intellectual but pleasant confusion, March 27, 1998
By A Customer

Reading Freud is always a pleasure, especially his essays on Religion and Culture. His style is so refined and clear, that I have often wondered if it wasn’t one of the reasons for the wide approval he received. The strange thing in reading about the origin of a religion is that it confuses and forces you to start from ‘tabula rasa’. Being raised a Catholic, I can’t help but ‘subconciously believing’ Jewish religion older than Moses, whereas Freud claims that he started it. But the confusion is very enlightening and intellectually tantalizing. Although much of his views on the Egyptian origin of the name ‘Moses’ have been scientifically doubted, the book is still powerful enough to make you think. And that, I believe, is a rare quality.

The Names of God —- Perspective of a Noahide

[This article is found in one of our links:  http://noahide-ancient-path.co.uk/.  The website has many other interesting articles, in case you wish to check it out.  We are featuring here, Prof. Mordochai ben-Tziyyon’, Universitah Ha’Ivrit, Y’rushalayim.  Interestingly, the actual existence of this professor has been challenged in another website, Mordochai ben-Tziyyon. Refuted www.tektonics.org/qt/tzzzt.html.    Featuring these articles does not mean S6K is agreeing or endorsing their views; we believe in presenting two sides of any issue, as we encourage open discussion.  How else can we learn to be discerning if we listen to only one side?]

—————————————————-

The two principal “Names”: Elohim and Adonai

God is called by many “names” in the Scriptures. For example, throughout the “Creation” chapter of B’réshit, the Creator is called Elohim, usually translated as simply “God”. Elohim is by far the most common “Name” used for God in the twenty-four Books of the Scriptures and occurs more than four times as frequently as the Four-Lettered “Name”, often prefixed by the definite article: ha‘elohim (“the God”).

 

The word elohim is grammatically the plural form of elo’ah, a “god”. It is also used in the sense of “gods”, frequently with the adjective ahérim (“other”), i.e.elohim ahérim, “other gods”—that is to say, other false gods, or idols (and note that an “idol” does not have to be a sculpture or a statue—the English word idol is derived from the Latin idolum, itself borrowed from the Greek eidolon, a “phantom”). It is almost always immediately obvious from the context whether a specific instance of the word elohim is being used as a “Name” for God (treated grammatically as a singular “proper noun”), or as denoting “idols” (an ordinary plural “common noun”).

 

The word elohim is also used in the Scriptures in a third sense: there are many examples of this, but I shall present just one here. Sh’mot 22:6-7 deals with the situation that arises if “A” gives money, or goods, to “B” for safe-keeping, and they are stolen while still in B’s possession. The Torah prescribes that, if the thief is not caught, B must appear before the judges in a Court of Law, and must swear on oath that he has not misappropriated B’s money or goods, as the case may be—

כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים לִשְׁמֹר, וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ… אִם לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב, וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ.

ki yittén ish el ré’éhu kesef o kélim lish’mor, v’gunnav mibeit ha’ish… im lo yimmatzé haganav, v’nikrav ba’al habayit el ha’elohim, im lo shalah yado bim’le’chet ré’éhu…

“If A gives money or goods to B for safe-keeping, and they are stolen from B’s house… if the thief is not caught, then B shall appear before the judges [and swear an oath] that he has not laid his hand on A’s property…”

In this connection, it is appropriate to mention one particular passage in B’réshit that has probably given rise to more misunderstandings than any other passage in that entire book, namely verses 1-4 of chapter 6—

וַיְהִי כִּי הֵחֵל הָאָדָם לָרֹב עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה וּבָנוֹת יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם, וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה, וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ. וַיֹּאמֶר ה’, “לֹא יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם, בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָשָׂר; וְהָיוּ יָמָיו מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה”… (הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וְגַם אַחֲרֵי כֵן)… אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם: הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם.

vay’hi ki héhél ha’adam larov al p’nei ha’adamah uvanot yull’du lahem, vayir’u b’nei ha’elohim et b’not ha’adam ki tovot hénah, vayik’hu lahem nashim mikol asher baharu. vayo’mer adonai, “lo yadon ruhi ba’adam l’olam, b’shaggam hu basarv’hayu yamav mé’ah v’esrim shanah”. (han’filim hayu ba’aretz bayamim hahém, v’gam aharei-chen)… asher yavo’u b’nei ha’elohim el b’not ha’adam v’yal’du lahem, hémah hagiborim asher hayu mé’olam, anshei hashém.

When Mankind began to increase in numbers and spread throughout the World, daughters were born to them; and when the sons of the “elohim” saw that the daughters of the common people were real cute, they took [by force] whichever of them they wanted as their wives.
So Adonai said “I will not allow My Nature to struggle within Me indefinitely because of Mankind—after all, he is mortal—I will allow him another 120 years”.
(There were n’filim in the world at that time, and also afterwards.)
So the sons of the “elohim” slept with with the daughters of the common people and they gave birth to their children—these were the famous mighty men of old.

The word elohim is being used here in a very similar way to the way it was used in the passage I mentioned previously, although here the intended meaning is probably somewhat wider, i.e. “princes” or “rulers” rather than merely “judges”. But in any event the general sense is connected with rulership, authority and justice. The Divine “Name” Elohim also has the same connotation, because it is only used in contexts where God is exercising His “Attribute” of strict Justice.

 

It is worthy of note that in verse 3 of this passage, where God speaks, He is called by the Four-Lettered “Name” (usually read aloud as Adonai, or “my LORD”—see below for the question of whether it is permitted to actually use this “Name”), which is associated with God’s Quality of “Attribute”—and in that verse, He decrees that Mankind is to be allowed a period of 120 years to renounce their wickedness and mend their ways. Similar usages of the two principal “Names” are found in the opening chapters of B’réshit, where it will be seen that the whole of Creation was performed by Elohim (strict Justice), whereas in chapter 2, where the Creator begins His dealings with human beings, He starts to be called by the Four-Lettered “Name” (Adonai) because His “Attribute” of Mercy now has to come into play (since Man, being by his nature imperfect, cannot exist under strict Justice alone).

 

Does God actually have a “Name”?

The answer to this question may surprise you—No, He doesn’t! Think about it: we human beings need names to distinguish us from each other: a mother with several children needs to have a different name for each of them so if she calls one, the one being called knows he/she is wanted. But God is unique, the Only One of His “Kind”, so He does not need a “Name” to distinguish Him from any “other”—there simply aren’t any others.

 

Many christians will point to the conversation God had with Mosheh at the “Burning Bush”, claiming that He stated His “Name” was “I AM”—and some even refer to Him as “THE I AM”. This is totally absurd and shows a complete ignorance of Hebrew language and grammar, because Hebrew does not even have a word for “am”. The passage (Sh’mot 3:13-14) reads as follows—

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים, “הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָא אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתִּי לָהֶם אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם, וְאָמְרוּ לִי מַה שְּׁמוֹ–מָה אֹמַר אֲלֵהֶם?” וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה, “אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה”… וַיֹּאמֶר: “כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם”.

vayo’mer mosheh el ha’elohim: “hinneh anochi ba el b’nei yisra’el v’amarti lahem elohei avoteichem sh’lahani aleichem v’am’ru li mah sh’momah omar aléhem?” vayo’mer elohim el mosheh: “eh’yeh asher eh’yeh”… vayo’mer: “koh to’mar el b’nei yisra’el, eh’yeh sh’lahani aleichem”.

…then Mosheh said to the Elohim, “When I come to the Yisraelites and I tell them ‘Your ancestors’ Elohim has sent me to you’—what should I tell them if they ask me ‘What is His Name’?”
Elohim answered, “[Tell them I am the One who says] I shall be [with them when they need Me now,] just as I shall be [with them whenever they need Me in the future]”;
and then He said: “Tell the Yisraelites ‘[the One who says] I shall be [with them when they need Me now] has sent me to you’.”

In this passage, Mosheh does not ask the Elohim directly “What is Your Name?”, and the Elohim does not say “My Name is… “Mosheh seems to have known that the Elohim does not have a “Name”, and merely asks what he is to say if he is asked what the Elohim‘s “Name” is—and the reply he receives is rather evasive: “Tell them I am the One who says ‘I will be with them…’.”

 

Nonetheless, the limitations of human language make it necessary for some kind of “designation” or “title” to be used in the written text of the Scriptures to refer to God where He features in the narrative, and it is for this purpose alone that the two principal “Names” I have been discussing here (and also several others that occur much less frequently) appear in the text.

 

Are we allowed to use the Four-Lettered “Name”?

This is a vexed and very contentious question: it is widely known that Hebrews never pronounce the Four-Lettered “Name”, but many christians sneer at the Hebrew attitude and some (especially the members of one particular crackpot christian sect) make a point of insisting on using their own made-up versions of how they claim it “should” be pronounced.

 

One absurd assertion that is continually thrown at me is that “the ancient Hebrews used the ‘Name’ ALL THE TIME”. To those who make this claim, I say: HOW DO YOU KNOW? Those who say this can never adduce one shred of evidence to support it, and yet they are so insistent about the matter; but it is not enough simply to repeat the claim ever more loudly: if they are so sure, let them demonstrate where they get this “knowledge” from, and what makesthem so sure about it. I am constantly amazed by the arrogance of christians who think they know more about our culture and history than we do!

 

So, first of all, why don’t Hebrews ever pronounce this most sacred of Divine “Names”? Contrary to popular belief, this is not connected in any way with the so-called “third commandment”, which forbids “taking Adonai‘s ‘Name’ vainly”. That commandment is actually a prohibition against swearing oaths falsely using Adonai‘s “Name”, or swearing unnecessary or pointless oaths (such as swearing an oath to do something that you must do anyway, even without swearing an oath).

 

There are several reasons why Hebrews never attempt to pronounce the Four-Lettered “Name”. The most obvious is that it is impossible to pronounce it, because it consists of four consonants only, without any vowels, and so any attempt at pronouncing it must of necessity be an incorrect pronunciation, and there is nothing more insulting than mispronouncing anyone’s name—do you really want to insult God?

 

Another very good reason for not addressing God by His “Name” is the matter of simple respect: do you call your parents by their given names? Regardless of your political views, if you got to meet the President of the United States, would you walk up to him and say, “Hi there, George!”—or if you happened to be presented to the Queen of England, would you call her “Lizzie”? No you would not, that would be most impolite and disrespectful—the President of the U.S.A. is correctly addressed as “Mr President”, and the Queen of England (or indeed any other King or Queen) should be addessed as “Your Majesty”. So doesn’t the Creator of the Universe deserve at least as much respect as you would show to your parents, a human president, a human king or a human queen?

 

There is more to this issue than just that, though. A most unfortunate incident is recorded in Vayikra 24:10-12—

וַיֵּצֵא בֶּן אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְהוּא בֶּן אִישׁ מִצְרִי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּנָּצוּ בַּמַּחֲנֶה בֶּן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית וְאִישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי. וַיִּקֹּב בֶּן הָאִשָּׁה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית אֶת הַשֵּׁם וַיְקַלֵּל; וַיָּבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל מֹשֶׁה… וַיַּנִּיחֻהוּ בַּמִּשְׁמָר, לִפְרֹשׁ לָהֶם עַל פִּי ה’.

vayétzé ben ishah yis’r’élitv’hu ben ish mitz’rib’toch b’nei yisra’el; vayinnatzu bamahaneh ben hayis’r’élit v’ish ayis’r’éli. vayikkov ben ishah hayis’r’élit et hashem vay’kallel, vayavi’u oto el mosheh… vayannihuhu bamish’mar, lif’rosh lahem al pi adonai.

The son of a certain Yisraelite woman (who was the son of an Egyptian man) went out among the Yisraelites; and this son of a Yisraelite woman got into a fight in the camp with a Yisraelite man. Then the son of the Yisraelite woman spoke “The Name”, and cursed It—so they brought him to Mosheh… and he was confined in detention, until the matter could be clarified for them from Adonai‘s Mouth.

The sentence passed on the “son of the Yisraelite woman” was severe (Vayikra 24:13-16)—

וַיְדַבֵּר ה’ אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר: הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה, וְסָמְכוּ כָל הַשֹּׁמְעִים אֶת יְדֵיהֶם עַל רֹאשׁוֹ; וְרָגְמוּ אֹתוֹ כָּל הָעֵדָה. וְאֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר: אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו, וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ, וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם ה’ מוֹת יוּמָת, רָגוֹם יִרְגְּמוּ בוֹ כָּל הָעֵדָה, כַּגֵּר כָּאֶזְרָח, בְּנָקְבוֹ שֵׁם יוּמָת.

vay’dabber adonai el mosheh lémor, “hotzé et ham’kallel el mihutz lamahaneh
v’sam’chu kol hashom’im et y’deihem al rosho, v’tagmu oto kol ha’édah; v’el b’nei yisra’el t’dabber lémor: ish ish ki y’kallel elohav v’nasahet’o, v’nokev shem XXXX mot yumat
ragom yirg’mu bo kol ha’édahkagér ka’ezrahb’nok’vo shém yumat.”

Adonai spoke to Mosheh and said, “Take the one who cursed outside the camp and have every one who heard him press their hands onto his head; then the entire community is to execute him. And tell the Yisraelites this: Any man who curses hisElohim commits an unforgivable sin; and anyone who speaks the Four-Lettered Name must be put to death—the entire community is to execute him—the same applies to a foreigner as to a citizen—he must die for speaking the Name.”

The “son of the Yisraelite woman”—whose name is not recorded, although his mother’s name (Sh’lomit daughter of Div’ri, from the tribe Dan) is—actually committed two offences: (1) he spoke the Four-Lettered “Name”, and (2) he cursed it. He was executed for the first of these. The sin of “cursing God” (verse 15) is so serious that no “atonement” is possible for it: the person committing a sin of such seriousness must “bear his guilt”, i.e. it remains with him for the remainder of his life, and is dealt with by God Himself after the person’s death.

 

I should mention that those christians I referred to earlier, who think it is smart to be so disrespectful as to address or refer to God using His Four-Lettered “Name”, argue about the meaning of the verb nakav that is used in verses 11 and 16 and claim it means to “blaspheme”—even though not one of them actually speaks any Hebrew. And their “bibles” translate it as “blaspheme”, too—but only in this chapter. It’s a very strange thing that they do not translate this verb as “blaspheme” in any of the other places where it is used in Scripture: for example, they do not have “And he said, Blaspheme to me thy wages, and I will give it” in B’réshit 30:28, or “And Moses and Aaron took these men which are blasphemed by their names” in B’midbar 1:17, or “And the gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall blaspheme in Y’shayahu 62:2, even though all three of those verses use exactly the SAME verb.

 

In the final analysis, when so much is at stake, is it really worth taking a chance of being wrong? Wouldn’t it be the smarter course of action to err on the side of caution? Ah, those christians say, but God repeatedly talks about wanting His “Name” publicised and made known throughout the World! Well yes, He does say things like that—but what they are forgetting is that the word name has more than one meaning. When one speaks of a person “making a name for himself”, name means fame, or a reputation, and the Hebrew word shém can also have this meaning too. Doesn’t it make a lot more sense for God to want all people in the World to know about Him and all the amazing things He has done, rather than wanting them to know the group of four letters that is used as a “Name” for Him in the Hebrew Scriptures? I think it does.

 

The bottom line is this: is it really worth the risk of being wrong about this? There is no direct command anywhere that the “Name” must be used, so one loses nothing by not doing it. On the other hand, just suppose that we Hebrews have been right all along, and God really does not want any human being to ever speak His “Name”—why take the chance of committing such a grievous sin? The sensible man will always err on the side of caution, especially when infringement may lead to the Death Penalty. There are many examples of Hebrew Law erring on the side of caution, the most obvious being the times that shabbat and the holy days begin and end: the Torah says only that they are to be celebrated mé’erev ad erev, “from evening until evening” (Vayikra 23:32)—but does “evening” mean sunset (when twilight begins) or full darkness (when twilight ends)? The answer is that we just don’t know, so we err on the side of caution and shabbat and the holy days begin at sunset, but do not end until full darkness arrives the following night.

 

One final word: it is only speaking the Four-Lettered “Name” that is forbidden by the Torah, but there are very good reasons for not writing it either. For one thing, a person who makes a habit of writing it freely will become so accustomed to using it that he may very well speak it without thinking, even if he doesn’t mean to—and remember how serious a matter it is. But perhaps even more serious are the possible consequences of writing it… what will become the eventual fate of the piece of paper it is written on? Most likely, it will end up in the garbage—and what greater insult to God could there be than for His Sacred “Name” to be lying among all the refuse and the filth? If we truly honour and respect Him, we should want to take great care to make sure such a terrible thing does not ever happen, and cannot ever happen. We can make sure of this by never writing the Four-Lettered Name on any paper, for any reason.

 

Insights on the book of ESTHER

The events recorded in Esther took place primarily in Shushan, the capital of King Ahasueraus‘ empire. 
  • Shushan, is the Hebrew form of the name Susa, which is in the area known as Eilam, in what is now Iran.  
  • Back then, it was called Bavel (Babylonia).  
  • It was part of the empire of Persia and Media.  

It happened between Ezra 6 and 7, which was in the third year of Ahasueraus’ reign, that would be the year 483 B.C, placing it during the exile of the Jews  into Babylonia, after the destruction of the First Temple.  

 

It must be noted that “Ahasueraus” is the title of the Persian ruler, just as Pharaoh was the title of the Egyptian ruler. His name was Xerxes.

 

The Jews did not all stay in Babylonia during this exile period.  They wandered all over the map and settled in many areas.  

 

We find that the Book of Esther says that the decree affected Jews in all of the empire, so Jews must have lived in many far-flung provinces of the empire.
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Book of Esther tells how the Jewish nation was rescued from extinction.  
  • It explains the origin of one of the Jews most festive holidays, the Feast of Purim.  
  • The word Purim means lots and refers to the casting of lots by Haman to determine the day of the slaughter of the Jews.  
  • Purim is held the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the last month of the Jewish calendar our February -March).  
  • It is usually preceded by a fast on the thirteenth day in memory of Esther’s fast. (4:16)  
  • That evening the book of Esther is read publicly in the synagogue.  
  • Each time the name of Haman is read, the Jews stamp on the floor, hiss, and cry, “Let his name be blotted out.”  
  • The next day, they again meet at the synagogue for prayers and the reading of the Torah.  
  • The rest of the day and the next day are given over to great rejoicing, feasting, and giving gifts.  
  • This is one feast where the Jews are allowed to drink and get drunk.  

This is not a biblical feast, but the Jews have been observing it faithfully for centuries.

 
The purpose of the book of Esther is to demonstrate the providential care of God over His people.  
  • It is of utmost significance to see this for here lies the the living significance and permanent value of the book.  
  • The  great thing here is the fact of providential preservation; “providential” as distinct from  what we call the “miraculous”.  
  • We are meant to see providential overruling  as distinct from supernatural intervening.  
  • In God’s providential care of the universe, He governs in precise detail all that He has created.  
  • He is the God who sees, but also the God who exercises sovereign control over the means and the end.
  • By His sustaining and redeeming activity, every thought , intention, and action throughout history have been orchestrated for the purpose of bringing glory to Him.
 
There is no mention of God in the book of Esther, which is quite puzzling.  There is no reference to worship or to faith.  At least on the surface, there is nothing religious about it.   The story is a a gripping story that we would expect in the pages of the Reader’s Digest than in the bible.  
So, why is it in the bible?  
  • Because though God may seem distant
  • and though He is invisible to see,
  • He is always invincible.  

This is the main  lesson in the book of Esther.  

Though absent by name from the pages of this particular book, God is present in every scene and in the movement of every event until He ultimately and finally brings everything to a marvelous climax as He proves Himself Lord of His people, the Jews.  It gives a graphic and classic illustration of the hidden workings of God in providence.  
Consider these:
1.   Esther being chosen queen over all the other candidates; (2:15-18)
2.   Mordecai discovering the plot to kill the king.( 2:21-23)
3.  Casting of lots for the day to destroy the Jews resulting in a date late in the year, giving time for Mordecai and Esther to act; (3:7-15)
4.  The king’s welcome to Esther after ignoring her for a month;(5:2)  
5.  The king’s patience with Esther in permitting her to hold another banquet;( 5:8)  
6.  the king’s insomnia that brought to light Mordecai’s deed of kindness; (6:1ff)  
7.  The king’s apparent lapse of memory in 6:19-14, that led him to honor one of the Jews he had agreed to slay;  
8.  the king’s deep concern for Esther’s welfare, when he had a harem to choose from; 7:5ff.

 

God’s name  is nowhere seen in this book, but God’s hand is nowhere missing.  He is standing somewhere in the shadows, ruling and overruling.
 
The book of Esther is an eye-opener to us that our God, Yahweh, is able to use ordinary events to produce extraordinary results.  
  • It calls us to a life of walking by faith not by sight.  
  • God can use the lowliest and most insignificant person and by providence control the circumstances around them to allow them to be a mighty instrument of His salvation.  
  • There are no coincidences in God’s economy.  
  • We see God in the forefront of every single detail of our life from the time, place and family we were born into and even till the time and place of our death.  
  • The micro as well as the macro details of our life are subject to His purpose.  therefore, there is a true meaning and purpose to every aspect of our life.  
  • All is in submission to God’s will.
 
It follows that as we read and study the book, we seek not for great miraculous movement of God,
  • but carefully observe His orchestration of events seemingly behind the scenes,
  • but always in complete control.  
This truth should encourage us that—-
  • the invisible God but invincible God of the book of Esther
  • is the same God in our lives,
  • working in the seemingly mundane, humdrum circumstances of our lives,
  • whether they be good or bad.    
If the story had specifically explained, that it was God who was bringing about all those happenings which are recorded, the dramatic, force and moral impact of the story would have been reduced, for above all, we are meant to see in the natural outworking of events,
  • how without violating human free will and  without interrupting the ordinary ongoing of human affairs,
  • a hidden Power unsuspectedly but infallibly control all things.  
God is able to use ordinary events to produce extraordinary results.
 
BAN@S6K

Where was God when . . . .

When our family survived a 7.8 magnitude earthquake on July 16, 1990, we were thankful to God for sparing every member of our extended clan.  While we were in the process of reconstituting some semblance of normalcy in our lives and homes and workplaces, the peace restored to our collective lives was shattered 3 weeks later,  when our youngest sibling in his 40s was brutally murdered senselessly by henchmen of a small time politician who travelled from one region to another to rob and victimize anyone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

 

Unable to process the meaning of such a tragedy in our family life, we asked a pastor the same question grieving families affected by such tragedies ask:  “Where was God when this was happening to our loved one?  Why had He not chosen to intervene?” The stock answer Christian pastors are taught to give is this: “God was in the same place He was when His Son was crucified.”  You can understand why that answer was not satisfying then as it is not satisfying today in the face of senseless tragedies, although the consolation is— it is not as cold and perplexing as the other stock answer:  “It is God’s will.”

Image from vimeo.com

Image from vimeo.com

An article appeared in several different web publications that gives a different answer to the same question; written by an author whose book [Kosher Jesus] we featured recently on this website as MUST READ or MUST OWN; we are reproducing the article here in case you missed reading it in other publications, specifically [http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/america-rabbi-shmuley-boteach/where-was-god-when-sandy-hooks-children-died/2012/12/20/]:

 

Where Was God When Sandy Hook’s Children Died?

Challenging God in the face of suffering is not blasphemous.

 

By: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Published: December 20th, 2012

 

I know he was trying to be comforting, but President Obama’s comments at Sandy Hook about God perpetuates the myth that we humans ought to always see God in the role of comforter. God is supposed to be our protector and, Biblically, we’re supposed to challenge God in the face of suffering rather than believe that innocent people dying is somehow His will.

 

After reading the first names of all the twenty children who were murdered, here is what President Obama said:

God has called them all home… May God bless and keep those we’ve lost in His heavenly place.  May He grace those we still have with His holy comfort.  And may He bless and watch over this community, and the United States of America. 

 

Called them home? What? Their home is with their parents in Connecticut, not at the divine throne in heaven.

 

“His holy comfort”? Who wants that? We want these kids alive and well, not in some substitute comfort.

May God “bless and watch over this community.” Wait a second. Was he watching when Adam Lanza shot each of these children multiple times? And if He was, which I, as a religious man firmly believe, then why didn’t He stop it?

 

Obviously, this isn’t about President Obama. It’s about a prevalent and fraudulent belief in world religion, captured in the President’s otherwise moving speech, that when tragedy strikes our first impulse should be to defend God rather than rail and thunder against the injustice of it all. God’s first role is not supposed to be as our consoler-in-chief. Rather, He’s supposed to be our foremost guardian. If He could split the Red Sea than He can stop a .223-caliber Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle’s bullets. If He could bring down the walls of Jericho then He could have made the walls of the Sandy Hook school impregnable to monsters. And if he could revive the dead with Elisha, then He could preserve the life of these small children.

 

Why God is silent and seemingly absent in the face of so much suffering is the real question about the Sandy Hook massacre. These kids were innocent. Does God not promise to protect the innocent? The Lord will protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul (Psalm 121). These kids were vulnerable. Does God not promise to guard the defenseless? The Lord is the keeper of little ones: I was humbled, and he delivered me (Psalm 116:6). These kids deserved long lives. Does God not promise to safeguard humanity? I long to dwell in your tent forever and take refuge in the shelter of your wings (Psalms 61:4).

 

Judaism gave rise to the defiant man of faith, the man who, like Jacob, spars with angels and defeats them. The Jew is a child of Abraham who went so far as to accuse God of injustice when the Almighty sought to the destruction of both the righteous and the wicked of Sodom and Gomorrah at the same time. The Jew is the disciple of Moses, who thundered to God that he wished his name to be taken out of God’s holy Torah if the Creator would proceed with His stated intention of wiping out the Jewish nation after the sin of the Golden Calf. The Jew is like King David, who declares in the Psalms, I shall not die for I shall live. The Jew has achieved immortality through an impudent insubordination in the face of historical inevitability, daring to defy fate and forge an audacious destiny.

 

Our role in life should not be to offer empty platitudes in the face of suffering, about how the murdered children are in heaven. Rather, we have a right to demand from God that He abide by the same values and rules that He commanded us to uphold. Through Moses, He commanded us to always choose life. This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live (Deut. 30:19). Must God not also choose life? Are we human beings just so much cosmic chaff that when our children are slaughtered? Are we meant just to bow our heads in silent submission?

 

No. The role of religion is not to make us compliant. Rather, faith galvanizes us to make the world a better place. That means fighting evil and protecting life. It means building hospitals and developing medicines. And it also means demanding of God that He show Himself in history and help us to make the world a safer place.

 

We can’t stop every monster-psycho like Adam Lanza. But He can. And spare me the arguments that say if God were to stop evil we would not have any freedom of choice. When Adam Lanza grabbed his mother’s guns and started over to the Sandy Hook school, he could easily have been hit by a bus and none would have been the wiser. It would not have compromised anyone’s freedom of choice.

Challenging God in the face of suffering is not blasphemous. Rather, it is deeply religious and the ultimate sign of faith. It means we believe that God controls the world, controls human fate, controls the world’s destiny, and has it in His unlimited power to make the world a happier place.

 

President Obama is an eloquent speaker. But rather than let God off the hook, in the face of tragedy, I would rather hear him say, “Lord, we Americans are a righteous people. We spend endless blood and treasure around the world to untie the hands of the oppressed, to protect the rights of women, and to safeguard children from terrorists. We give huge amounts of charity and Synagogues, Churches, and Mosques. We have Your holy name printed even on our money, and we have a national day of Thanksgiving to show our gratitude for Your bounty. We deserve better than to see twenty tiny, precious souls slaughtered so brutally. In the name of all that is righteous, and as the Chief Magistrate of this great nation, I ask You, I implore You, I demand of You, to protect our children, Your children, from harm, so that all the peoples of the world will see Your great hand in history and how the innocent are allowed to flourish, prosper, and grow old with children of their own.

 

About the Author: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, “America’s Rabbi” whom the Washington Post calls “the most famous Rabbi in America,” is the international best-selling author of 29 books, including The Fed-up Man of Faith: Challenging God in the Face of Tragedy and Suffering. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

 

 

Sig-4_16colors

 

AIbEiAIAAABDCNPkvrXuucmdeSILdmNhcmRfcGhvdG8qKGJkZTc0YTk3NmUxMGM4OTAzZjk5MDhkMjdkZDI2ODQ3OTliYmQ2MDkwAe5UdNp0lvYvCf8bjAFEJOY_fdsj

Help for February Searchers

Image from www.stlucasucc.org

Image from www.stlucasucc.org

[UPDATE 2017:  This monthly “aid” for searchers has been replaced first by “Yo Searchers!  Need Help?”  Then to use a word closer to our cultural Filipino/Tagalog word for strangers, we resorted to “Hoy” shortened to “Oy!”  And it  became — “Oy Searchers!  Need Help?” for every month of every year. The original intention was to help web visitors find the topic (search term) they entered that made them land on many websites including this website.

Rather than figuring out a witty title for every month such as–

we resorted to a uniform title after running out of ideas and confusing searchers.  It is not surprising the visitors still click this link in past years, there is much to learn from answers provided to past searches.  Go check!—Admin1]

 

———————————–

 

 

Search Engine Terms: These are the terms that web surfers/searchers enter which land on our website; some successfully locate the appropriate posts, others fail, so here’s a boost—most recent added at the bottom of the list, updated as search terms are entered:

If the Creator modeled it Himself by resting from His creative work, we should do the same, because He said so and besides, it’s good for our overall health and there is blessing in obedience. Shabbat Shalom!

Discourse: Sinaite/Messianic [VAN/RW] Yeshua in Tanakh . . .?

[This is a resurrected post, one of the earliest ones we published when we started this website.  The exchange began when our messianic teacher wrote VAN the following email on the occasion of VAN’s birthday, April 16, 2011.  Edited for post.]

Shalom [VAN],

Now that you’ve turned ____ . . .  I expect more wisdom from you and clear thinking.

Check out Isaiah 48:16.

(LITV)  Come near to Me; hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From its being, I was there; and now the Lord Jehovah, and His Spirit, has sent Me. (“i” and “Me” all refer to the Son, Yeshua.)  I looked at this in Hebrew and the translation seems correct.  I do not see any way to twist it to mean anything other than Father & Spirit sent the Son.

 

Check out the context – God is speaking, which we easily identify as Yeshua.

Isa 48:12-13  “Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he;

I am the first, and I am the last.  My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.”

 

Now as far as, “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”

The Burnt Offering sacrifice, total dedication to God, is the #1 sacrifice that includes all others.  This is the morning sacrifice and the evening sacrifice, every day, and a Lamb is the sacrificial animal.  This is why Yeshua was put on the cross about 9am, the time for the morning burnt offering sacrifice, and dismissed His spirit about 3pm, the time for the evening burnt offering sacrifice.  Yeshua was the Totally Dedicated to God voluntary sacrifice that encompassed or included all the others, THE LAMB of God, which satisfied the Justice of God against all sin of the entire world.

 

If interested, you can get the book “Yeshua, The Name of Yeshua revealed in Code in the Tanakh,”  . . . . 

Shalom,

RW

 

Must Read: Misquoting Jesus

Image from amazon.com

Image from amazon.com

[Bart D. Ehrman chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  he is an authority on the history of the New Testament, the early church, and the life of Jesus.  He has taped several highly popular lecture series for the Teaching Company and is the author of Lost Christianities:  The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew and Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament.  He lives in Durham, North Carolina.

 

This is on our MUST READ/MUST OWN category.—Admin1.]

 

———————————–

 

Misquoting Jesus:  

The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

 

In the inside cover of this book is this write up:

 

WHEN WORLD-CLASS BIBLICAL SCHOLAR Bart Ehrman began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that had been made by earlier translators.  In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today.  He frames the account with personal reflections on how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once ultraconservative views of the Bible.

 

Since the advent of the printing press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy of Jesus’s words or Saint Paul’s writings.  And yet, for almost fifteen hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes of their day.  Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to reconstruct.  For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the original words of the New Testament as closely as possible.

 

Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes—alterations that dramatically affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Introduction

  1. The Beginnings of Christian Scripture
  2. The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings
  3. Texts of the New Testament:  Editions, Manuscripts, and Differences
  4. The Quest for Origins:  Methods and Discoveries
  5. Originals That Matter
  6. Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text
  7. The Social Worlds of the Text
  8. Conclusion:  Changing Scripture—Scribes, Authors, and Readers

————————————————–

 

Here’s are excerpts from Chapter 7, Subtitle:  Jews and the Texts of Scripture

 

 

Jews and Christians in Conflict

 

One of the ironies of early Christianity is that Jesus himself was a Jew who worshiped the Jewish God, kept Jewish customs, interpreted the Jewish law, and acquired Jewish disciples, who accepted him as the Jewish messiah.  Yet, within just a few decades of his death, Jesus’s followers had formed a religion that stood over-against Judaism.  How did Christianity move so quickly from being a Jewish sect to being an anti-Jewish religion?

 

This is a difficult question, and to provide a satisfying answer would require a book of its own.  Here, I can at least provide a historical sketch of the rise of anti-Judaism within early Christianity as a way of furnishing a plausible context for Christian scribes who occasionally altered their texts in anti-Jewish ways.

 

The last twenty years have seen an explosion of research into the historical Jesus.  As a result, there is now an enormous range of opinion about how Jesus is best understood—as a rabbi, a social revolutionary, a political insurgent, a cynic philosopher, an apocalyptic prophet: the options go on and on.  The one thing that nearly all scholars agree upon, however, is that no matter how one understands the major thrust of Jesus’s mission, he must be situated in his own context as a first-century Palestinian Jew.  Whatever else he was, Jesus was thoroughly Jewish, in every way—as were his disciples.  At some point—probably before his death but certainly afterward—Jesus’s followers came to think of him as the Jewish messiah.  This term messiah was understood in different ways by different Jews in the first century, but one thing that all Jews appear to have had in common when thinking about the messiah was that he was to be a figure of grandeur and power, who in some way—for example, through raising a Jewish army or by leading the heavenly angels—would overcome Israel’s enemies and establish Israel as a sovereign state that could be ruled by God himself (possibly through human agency).  Christians who called Jesus the messiah obviously had a difficult time convincing others of this claim, since rathe than being a powerful warrior or a heavenly judge, Jesus was widely known to have been an itinerant preacher who had gotten on the wrong side of the law and had been crucified as a low-life criminal.

 

To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews complete ludicrous.  Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews.  He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.  Christians, however, insisted that Jesus was the messiah, that his death was not a miscarriage of justice or an unforseen event, but an act of God, by which he brought salvation to the world.

 

What were Christians to do with the fact that they had trouble convincing most Jews of their claims about Jesus?  They could not, of course, admit that they themselves were wrong.  And if they weren’t wrong, who was?  It had to be the Jews.  Early on in their history, Christians began to insist that Jews who rejected their message were recalcitrant and blind, that in rejecting the message about Jesus, they were rejecting the salvation provided by the Jewish God himself.  Some such claims were being made already by our earliest Christian author, the apostle Paul.  In his first surviving letter, written to the Christians of Thessalonica, Paul says:

 

For you, our brothers, became imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus, because you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and persecuted us, and are not pleasing to God, and are opposed to all people. (I Thess. 2:14-15)

 

Paul came to believe that Jews rejected Jesus because they understood that their own special standing before God was related to the fact that they both had and kept the Law that God had given them (Rom. 10:3-4).  For Paul, however, salvation came to the Jews, as well as to the Gentiles, not through the Law but through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom. 3:21-22).  Thus, keeping the Law could have no role in salvation; Gentiles who became followers of Jesus were instructed, therefore, not to think they could improve their standing before God by keeping the Law.  They were to remain as they were—and not covert to become Jews (Gal. 2:15-16).

 

Other early Christians, of course, had other opinions—as they did on nearly every issue of the day!  Matthew, for example, seems to presuppose that even though it is the death and resurrection of Jesus that brings salvation, his followers will naturally keep the Law, just as Jesus himself did (see Matt. 5:17-20).  Eventually, though, it became widely held that Christians were distinct from Jews, that following the Jewish law could have no bearing on salvation, and that joining the Jewish people would mean identifying with the people who had rejected their own messiah, who had, in fact, rejected their own God.

 

As we move into the second century we find that Christianity and Judaism had become two distinct religions, which nonetheless had a lot to say to each other.  Christians, in fact, found themselves in a bit of a bind.  For they acknowledged that Jesus was the messiah anticipated by the Jewish scriptures; and to gain credibility in a world that cherished what was ancient but suspected anything “recent” as a dubious novelty, Christians continued to point to the scriptures—those ancient texts of the Jews—as the foundation of their own beliefs.  This meant that Christians laid claim to the Jewish Bible as their own.  But was not the Jewish Bible for Jews?  Christians began to insist that Jews had not only spurned their own messiah, and thereby rejected their own God, they had also misinterpreted their own scriptures.  And so we find Christian writings such as the so-called Letter of Barnabas, a book that some early Christians considered to be part of the New Testament canon, which asserts that Judaism is and always has been a false religion, that Jews were misled by an evil angel into interpreting the laws given to Moses as literal prescriptions of how to live, when in fact they were to be interpreted allegorically.

 

Eventually we find Christians castigating Jews in the harshest terms possible for rejecting Jesus as the messiah, with authors such as the second-century Justin Martyr claiming that the reason God commanded the Jews to be circumcised was to mark them off as a special people who deserved to be persecuted.  We also find authors such as Tertullian and Origen claiming that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman armies in 70 C.E. as a punishment for the Jews who killed their messiah, and authors such as Melito of Sardis arguing that in killing Christ, the Jews were guilty of killing God.

 

. . . . Clearly we have come a long way from Jesus, a Palestinian Jew who kept Jewish customs, preached to his Jewish compatriots, and taught his Jewish disciples the true meaning of the Jewish law.  By the second century, though, when Christian scribes were reproducing the texts that eventually became part of the New Testament, most Christians were former pagans, non-Jews who had converted to the faith and who understood that even though this religion was based, ultimately, on faith in the Jewish God as described in the Jewish Bible, it was nonetheless completely anti-Jewish in its orientation.

 

Anti-Jewish Alterations of the Text

The anti-Jewishness of some 2nd and 3rd-century Christian scribes played a role in how the texts of scripture were transmitted.  One of the clearest examples is found in Luke’s account of the crucifixion, in which Jesus is said to have uttered a prayer for those responsible:

 

And when they came to the place that is called “The Skull,” they crucified him there, along with criminals, one on his right and the other on his left.  And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:33-24)

 

As it turns out, however, this prayer of Jesus cannot be found in all our manuscripts; it is missing from our earliest Greek witness (a papyrus called P75

 

Scholarly opinion has been divided on the question.  Because the prayer is missing from several early and high-quality witnesses, there has been no shortage of scholars to claim that it did not originally belong to the text.  Sometimes they appeal to an argument based on internal evidence.

 

Excerpts from  CONCLUSION:  CHANGING SCRIPTURE – Scribes, Authors, and Readers

In many ways, being a textual critic is like doing detective work.  There is a puzzle to be solved and evidence to be uncovered.  The evidence is often ambiguous, capable of being interpreted in various ways, and a case has to be made for one solution of the problem over another.

 

The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.  To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us.  It would be wrong, however, to say —as people sometimes do — that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusion that one draws from them. . . . In some instances, the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending on how one resolves a textual problem.

 

. . . . The Bible is, by all counts, the most significant book in the history of Western civilization.  And how do you think we have access to the Bible?  Hardly any of us actually read it in the original language, and even among those of us who do, there are very few who ever look at a manuscript—let alone a group of manuscripts.  How then do we know what was originally in the Bible  A few people have gone to the trouble of learning the ancient languages (Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc.) and have spent their professional lives examining our manuscripts, deciding what the authors of the New Testament actually wrote.  In other words, someone has gone to the trouble of doing textual criticism, reconstructing the “original” text based on the wide array of manuscripts that differ from one another in thousands of places.  Then someone has taken that reconstructed Greek text, in which textual decisions have been made (what was the original form of Mark 1:2 of Matt. 24:36? of John 1:18? of Luke 22:43-44? and so on) and translated it into English.  What you read is that English translation—and not just you, but millions of people like you.  How do these millions of people know what is in the New Testament?  They “know” because scholars with unknown names, identities, backgrounds, qualifications, predilections, theologies, and personal opinions have told them what is in the New Testament.  But what if the translators have translated the wrong text?  [Ehrman then cites an example, the complicated problems with the King James Version alone].

 

Reality is never that neat, however, and in this case we need to face up to the facts.

[There’s much more to this concluding chapter but you get the picture . . . . best to secure a copy of the book, or borrow from our Sinai library; or download as ebook from amazon.com on any kindle app.]

The Prophets of Israel – Christian Perspective

[NSB@S6K:  This is another book purchased by a collector of old books from estate sales; I’ve never met him but he has lent me to date about 10 books on Israel/Jews which are about half a century old; you can tell from the yellowish pages and the old style book covers and the copyright date—read intro in The Jewish Mystique.  This one, as it turns out is a perfect example of how Christians read the Old Testament as mere preparation and foreshadowing of the ‘good news’ about the Savior of the New Testament. Author Curt Kuhl sees Jesus in writings of the Prophets of Israel, of course though thankfully,  in his final paragraph he concedes that reading the Prophets without Jesus leads us to the “lofty and exceptional knowledge of God.” We’re featuring only the concluding chapter here, though you get an idea of the discussions that precede it through the Table of Contents. Reformatting and highlights added.]
CURT KUHL
THE PROPHETS
OF ISRAEL
Translated by
Rudolf J. Ehrlich and J. P. Smith
CONTENTS
I.               Prophecy in the Ancient Near East
II.              The Prophet and His Ministry
III.             The Words and Works of the Prophets
IV.             Prophets of the Early Monarchy
Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Jehu, Micaiah
Ben Imlah, Elijah, and Elisha
V.                The Eight-Century Prophets
Northern Kingdom: Jonah, Amos, Hosea
VI.             The Eight-Century Prophets
Southern Kingdom: Isaiah, Micah
VII.          The Seventh-Century Prophets
Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Nahum
VIII.       Prophets of the Period of the Downfall
Jeremiah
IX.             Prophets of the Period of the Downfall
Ezekiel
X.                The Prophets of the Exile
Deutero-Isaiah and the ‘Ebed Yahweh Songs
XI.             The Prophets of the Restoration
Haggai, Zechariah, Trito-Isaiah, “Malachi”
XII.          The End of Prophetism
Shemaiah, Nodaiah, Jonah, Joel, Deutero-Zechariah,
Trito-Zechariah, Daniel
Conclusion
Chronological Table
Bibliography
Index of Principal Scripture References

 

CONCLUSION
Basing ourselves on the scriptural sources, we have sought to make the several prophets of Israel and their destinies stand out in relief, to understand them in the perspective of their environment and the events of their times and also to evaluate their religious thoughts and ideas. Such being the nature of our undertaking, we have had to refrain from any detailed discussion of the problems that arise in its course. The observant reader, however, will find indications of these problems everywhere.

 

Those who seek more information about them are referred to the specialized literature on the subjects. The lack of precise data for the dating of individual prophets, and still more for the dating of the many isolated utterances, has rendered our task all the more difficult. On the other hand the defective nature of what has come down to us has become all the more perceptible. For long periods of time, sources are lacking. There are thus entire ages of which we have no knowledge. The origin of Israelite prophecy remains veiled in obscurity. All the information we possess on many a prophet (especially in the earlier monarchy) consists either in brief utterances or in narratives of a legendary nature which are insufficient to give us a true picture of the prophet and his work. Many utterances were in after years made to refer to contemporary situations and amplified; many anonymous oracles were added to or incorporated in already existent collections. Far too frequently, therefore, we depend on internal evidence or on mere conjecture for our knowledge of the original’s provenance and date.

 

Constructing a picture of Israelite prophecy is like restoring a severely mutilated mosaic which entails the laborious resetting of every individual fragment of stone in its place. The loss of many of the stones and the lack of any pattern to follow makes the task of correctly resetting the available stones a difficult one, especially when they are, as they are in fact, entirely detached the one from the other. Were this undertaking to be entrusted to another his eventual arrangement might in some respects be entirely different. We must then always bear in mind that the classification of many of the prophesies, especially of the anonymous oracles standing in isolation is, in the last resort, doubtful and contingent.

 

We are not in a position to furnish a history of the evolution of Israelite prophecy, but we can show how the prophets differ one from the other. We are faced by a manifold diversity, against the background of which only certain phases stand out in relief:
  • the bands of ecstatics in the days of Samuel
  • and the prophetic guilds of Elisha’s time;
  • the prophets of the earlier monarchy,
    • such as Samuel
    • and Nathan
    • and, especially, Elijah
    • and Elisha;
  • the flowering of prophetic proclamation in the eight century,
    • in the persons of Amos,
    • Hosea,
    • Isaiah
    • and Micah;
  • the announcement of judgment in the short writings of the seventh century,
    • i.e. Zephaniah,
    • Habakkuk
    • and Nahum;
  • the proclamation of the period of the downfall and finally–even though it were not expressly confirmed by Zechariah (I. 5-6)–the manifest post-exilic decline of prophecy, its hardening into legalistic formalism and its ultimate merging into the apocalyptic.
    • represented chiefly by Jeremiah
    • but also by Ezekiel, whose activity overlaps into the Exile where the centre of gravity passes from the doom-oracle to the consolation and hope found in the confident message of Deutero-Isaiah;
When we consider the field as a whole we are struck by the varied and often contradictory characters of those who are to be regarded as “the prophets of Israel.”
To cite only a few examples of this;
  • we meet with instances of mass-prophetism and of individual activity;
  • cultic prophets and free;
  • proclamation of weal and of woe;
  • fanatic nationalism and burning zeal for Yahweh;
  • dire threats of the downfall,
  • sustaining words of comfort;
  • despair and the hope of salvation;
  • blind adherence to the cult and true devotion;
  • casuistry and care for men’s souls;
  • political narrowness and breadth of spiritual vision;
  • restricted patriotism and global universalism;
  • a national God and a Lord over all the earth;
  • popular religion and personal faith.

The Epistle to the Hebrews very justly says that “in many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets (Heb. I.I). Any attempt to synthesise all these modes of prophetic pronouncement into a single system is doomed from the outset to fail since the character of the proclamation is too diversified.

Nevertheless one thing is common to all the prophets:
  • through them God uttered His word.
  • In spite of all their differences in detail they were steeped in and supported by the consciousness that by word and symbolic deed they were fulfilling the commission of their God.
  • What is involved is no human word but the word of God given to them by Him.

Nevertheless the divine word always bears a human impress and is conditioned by time, and has to do with the immediate present or proximate future. This temporal relationship subsists even when the eschatological, the end of the age, is involved which is envisaged–as it is in, for instance, Haggai and Zechariah–as imminent and sometimes even as already in process of coming.

 

Here we find vivid pictures of the future, full of intense hopes though these at times are only set on very mundane and material ideals. The declarations about the King and Governor who is expected to come, the Anointed One (Messiah) are of special significance for the Christian. Even these are historically conditioned and arise out of a definite historical situation, though we are no longer able to distinguish background and context.

 

From of old the Christian Church, as the use of “proof-texts” in the New Testament shows, has realized that the relationship between the two Testaments is one of “prophecy” and “fulfillment” and so has interpreted all the Old Testament prophecies on the expected King as “Messianic prophecies” and has applied them to Jesus. And in fact statements like those about the suffering Servant of the Lord (Is. LIII) are among the deepest and most spiritual things that can ever be said about Jesus’ suffering and the meaning of His death on the Cross.

 

Yet the greatness of the prophets of Israel and their significance for religion and spiritual life does not lie in these prophecies but in the lofty and exceptional knowledge of God that the best of them possessed. Their call and their other mysterious spiritual experiences bring them to the knowledge of God as a living powerful Person, the One whose almighty will rules in righteousness and love over the lives and destinies of nations and men. His holiness and majesty bring home to man what a vast distance separates him from God. It is true that the prophets were unable to save their people from downfall and could not prevent its religion from degenerating into cultic religiosity and legalism. Yet they preserved the faith of their people during and after the Exile. Form of worship, moral action and social sensibility–the particular expression of these is not fundamental. What is authoritative and decisive is a new vision and knowledge of God leading the nation and men one by one into a new spiritual attitude to Him which must then be expressed in their life and their faith.

"Quid est veritas?" – Gospel Truth – 3

Image from www.azquotes.com

Image from www.azquotes.com

The previous article Gospel Truth? – 2  featured excerpts from the Introduction of the book FORGED by Bart D. Ehrman.

 

For further information of our readers, the Table of Contents of the book include:

 

  1. A World of Deceptions and Forgeries
  2. Forgeries in the Name of Peter
  3. Forgeries in the Name of Paul
  4. Alternatives to Lies and Deceptions
  5. Forgeries in Conflicts with Jews and Pagans
  6. Forgeries in Conflicts with False Teachers
  7. False Attributions, Fabrications, Falsifications: Phenomena Related to Forgery
  8. Forgeries, Lies, Deceptions, and the Writings of the New Testament

In case you’re wondering if the author has questioned only the New Testament, he has questioned the Old Testament as well, but not in this book.  This book is downloadable on a kindle app from amazon.com.

NSB@S6K

 

——————————————————-

 

Featured here are excerpts from Chapter I where Ehrman defines certain terms:

  • “Orthonymous” (literally, “rightly named”) writing is one that really is written by the person who claims to be writing it.  There are 7 letters of Paul, out of the 13 in the New Testament that bear his name, that virtually everyone agrees are orthonymous, actually written by Paul.
  • “Homonymous” (literally, “same named”) writing is one that is written by someone who happens to have the same name as someone else.  In the ancient world, the vast majority of people did not have last names, and a lot of people had the same first names.  This was as true among Christians as it was for everyone else.  Lots of people were named John, James, and Jude, for example.  If someone named John wrote the book of Revelation and simply called himself John, he wasn’t necessarily claiming to be anyone but himself.  When later Christians assumed that this John must be the disciple John, the son of Zebedee, it wasn’t really the author’s fault.  He just happened to have the same name as another more famous person.  The book is not forged, then.  It is simply homonymous, assuming that John the son of Zebedee did not write it, a safe assumption for most critical scholars.  It was included in the canon because of this mistaken identity.
  • “Anonymous”  literally “having no name.”  These are books whose authors never identify themselves.  That is, technically speaking, true of 1/3 of the New Testament books.  None of the Gospels tell us the name of its author.  Only later did Christians call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and later scribes then added these names to the book titles.  Also anonymous are the book of Acts and the letters known as 1,2, and 3 John.  Technically speaking, the same is true of the book of Hebrews; the author never mentions his name, even if he wants you to assume he’s Paul.
  • “Pseudonymous” (literally, “falsely named”) is a little more slippery, and I need to explain how I will be using it.  Technically it refers to any book that appears under the name of someone other than the author, but there are two kinds of pseudonymous writings.
    • Sometimes authors simply take a pen name.  When Samuel Clemens wrote Huckleberry Finn  and signed it “Mark Twain,” he was not trying to deceive his readers into thinking that he was someone famous; it was just a pen name to mask his own identity.  So too where Mary Ann Evans wrote Silas Marner and signed it “George Eliot.” This use of a pen name did not happen a lot in the ancient world, but it did happen on occasion.
    • The other kind of pseudonymous writing involves a book that is circulated under the name of someone else, usually some kind of authority figure who is presumed to be well known to the reading audience.  For this  particular kind of pseudonymous writing I will be using the technical term “pseudepigraphy” (literally, “written under a false name”).  A pseudepigraphal writing, then, is one that is claimed to be written by a famous, well-known, or authoritative person who did not in fact write it.
    • But as it turns out, there are also two kinds ofpseudepigraphal writings.
      • Sometimes a writing was published anonymously, with no author’s name attached, for example, the Gospel of Matthew.  But later readers and copyists asserted that they knew who had written it and claimed it was by a well-known, authoritative person, in this case the disciple Matthew.  In writings of this sort, which are wrongly attributed to a well-known person, the author is not trying to deceive anyone.  He or she remained anonymous.  It is only later readers who claimed that the author was someone else.  This kind of pseudepigraphy, then, involves a “false ascription”; a work is “ascribed” to someone who didn’t write it.
      • The other kind of pseudepigraphy does involve a kind fo intentional deceit by an author.  This is when an author writes a book claiming to be someone else.  This is what I am ehre calling forgery.  My definition of a forgery, then, is a writing that claims to be written by someone (a known figure) who did not in fact write it.

 

Over the years I have had several people object to my use of the term “forgery,” and I well understand the hesitancy of other scholars to use the term.  In modern times, when we think of forgery, we think of highly illegal activities . . . . Ancient forgers were not as a rule thrown in jail, because there simply weren’t laws governing the production and distribution of literature.  There were no copyright laws, for example.  But ancient authors did see this kind of activity as fraudulent, they recognized it as deceitful, they called it lying (and other even nastier things), and they often punished those who were caught doing it.  So when I use the term “forgery,” I do mean for it to have negative connotations, in part because, as we will see, the terms used by ancient authors were just as negative, if not more so.

 

"Quid est Veritas": Gospel Truth? – 2

No comment, will just let the book speak for itself through excerpts that should make you think of getting a copy of the book for yourself.  It is downloadable from amazon.com on a kindle, or kindle app on your computer device.—NSB@S6K

 

————————————————————

 

Image from amazon.com

Image from amazon.com

FORGED by Bart D. Ehrman

 

Subtitle:

Writing in the Name of God — Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They are.  

 

 

The back page cover adds: The Untold Story of Forgery in the Bible:  “In Forged, leading Bible authority Bart D. Ehrman exposes one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition: the use of deception to establish the truth.  With the scholarly expertise and provocative claims for which he’s known, Ehrman reveals which texts were forged in the name of Jesus’s disciples and considers how the deceptions of an unnamed few have prevailed for centuries.  The untold story of widespread forgery in the ancient world sheds new light on how documents of scandalous origin became part of the Bible we have today.

 

—————————————————–

 

From the INTRODUCTION: Facing the Truth

 

We were heavily committed to the truth at Moody Bible Institute. . . . Truth to us was as important as life itself.  We believed in the Truth, with a capital T.  We vowed to tell the truth, we expected the truth, we sought the truth, we studied the truth, we preached the truth, we had faith in the truth.  “Thy Word is truth,” as Scripture says, and Jesus himself was “the way, the truth, and the life.”  No one could “come to the Father” except through him, the true “Word become flesh.”  Only unbelievers like Pontius Pilate was confused enough to ask, “What is truth?”  As followers of Christ, we were in a different category altogether.  As Jesus himself had said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

 

Along with our commitment to truth, we believed in objectivity. Objective truth was all there was.  There was no such thing as “subjective truth.”  Something was true or it was false.  Personal feelings and opinions had nothing to do with it. Objectivity was real, it was possible, it was attainable, and we had access to it.  It was through our objective knowledge of the truth that we knew God and knew what God (and Christ, and the Spirit, and everything else) was.

 

One of the ironies of modern religion is that the absolute commitment to truth in some forms of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity and the concomitant view that truth is objective and can be verified by any impartial observer have led many faithful souls to follow the truth wherever it leads—and where it leads is often away from evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity.  So if, in theory, you can verify the “objective” truth of religion, and then it turns out that the religion being examined is verifiably wrong, where does that leave you?  If you are an evangelical Christian, it leaves you in the wilderness outside the evangelical camp, but with an unrepentant view of truth.  Objective truth, to paraphrase a not so Christian song, has been the ruin of many a poor boy, and God, I know, I’m one.

 

Before moving outside into the wilderness (which, as it turns out, is a lush paradise compared to the barren camp of fundamentalist Christianity), I was intensely interested in “objective proofs” of the faith:  proof that Jesus was physically raised from the dead (empty tomb! eyewitnesses!), proof that God was active in the world (miracles!), proof that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, without mistake in any way.  As a result, I was devoted to the field of study known as Christian apologetics.

 

The term “apologetics” comes from the Greek word apologia, which does not mean “apology” in the sense of saying you’re sorry for something; it means, instead, to make a “reasoned defense” of the faith.  Christian apologetics is devoted to showing not only that faith in Christ is reasonable, but that the Christian message is demonstrably true, as can be seen by anyone willing to suspend disbelief and look objectively at the evidence.

 

The reason this commitment to evidence, objectivity, and truth has caused so many well-meaning evangellicals problems over the years is that they—at least some of them—really are confident that if something is true, then it necessarily comes from God, and that the worst thing you can do is to believe something that is false.  The search for truth takes you where the evidence leads you, even if, at first, you don’t want to go there. . . .

Eventually I came to realize that the Bible not only contains untruths or accidental mistakes.  It also contains what almost anyone today would call lies.  That is what this book is about.

—————————————————-

Truth in the History of Christianity

Most people today don’t realize that ancient religions were almost never interested in “true beliefs.”  Pagan religions [polytheistic] . . . did not have creeds that had to be recited, beliefs that had to be affirmed, or scriptures that had to be accepted as conveying divine truth. Truth was of interest to philosophers, but not to practitioners of religion . . . ancient religions didn’t require you to believe one thing or another. Religion was all about the proper practices: sacrifices to gods  . . . set prayers . . . all of these religions allowed, even encouraged, the worship of many gods, there was very little sense that if one of the religions was right, the others were wrong.  They could all be right! There were many gods and many ways to worship the gods, not a single path to the divine.

 

This view—the dominant view of antiquity—stands completely at odds with how most of us think about religion today . . . . Among the many things that made Christianity different from the other religions of the Roman Empire, with the partial exception of Judaism, is that Christians insisted that it did matter what you believed, that believing the incorrect things could make you “wrong,” and that if you were wrong, you would be punished eternally in the fires of hell.  Christianity, unlike the other religions, was exclusivistic.  It insisted that it held the Truth, and that every other religion was in Error. Moreover, this truth involved claims about God (there is only one, for example, and he created the world), about Christ (he was both divine and human), about salvation (it comes only by faith in Christ), about eternal life (everyone will be blessed or tormented for eternity), and so on.

 

The Christian religion came to be firmly rooted in truth claims, which were eventually embedded in highly ritualized formulations such as the Nicene Creed.  As a result, Christians from the very beginning needed to appeal to authorities for what they believed. . . . they insisted that God had revealed his truth in earlier times through Christ to his apostles.  The apostles at the beginning of the church were authorities who could be trusted.  But when the apostles died out, where was one to go for an authority? . . . . a reality that early Christians may not have taken into account, but that scholars today are keenly aware of: most of the apostles were illiterate and could not in fact write.  They could not have left an authoritative writing if their souls depended on it.

 

. . . . writings started to appear that claimed to be written by apostles, but that contained all sorts of bizarre and contradictory views.  Gospels were in circulation that claimed to be written by Jesus’s disciples Peter, Philip, and Mary and his brothers Thomas and James. . . . Some writings emerged that claimed to be written by Jesus himself.

 

In many instances, the authors of these writings could not actually have been who they claimed to be, as even the early Christians realized.  The views found in these writings were often deemed “heretical” (i.e., they conveyed false teachings), they were at odds with one another, they contradicted the teachings that had become standard within the church.  But why would authors claim to be people they weren’t? Why would an author claim to be an apostle when he wasn’t?  Why would an unknown figure write a book falsely calling himself Peter, Paul, James, Thomas Philip, or even Jesus?  . . . . if you wanted someone to read it, you called yourself Peter. Or Thomas. Or James. In other words, you lied about who you really were.

 

. . . . Many early Christian writings are “pseudonymous,” going under a “false name.” The more common word for this kind of writing is “forgery” . . . The crucial question is this:  Is it possible that any of the early Christian forgeries made it into the New Testament?  That some of the books of the New Testament were not written by the apostles whose names were attached to them?  That some of Paul’s letters were not actually written by Paul, but by someone claiming to be Paul?  That Peter’s letters were not written by Peter?  That James and Jude did not write the books that bear their names? Or—a somewhat different case, as we will see—that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

 

Scholars for over a hundred years have realized that in fact this is the case.  The authors of some of the books of the New Testament were not who they claimed to be or who they have been supposed to be.  In some instances that is because an anonymous writing, in which an author did not indicate who he was, was later named after someone who did not in fact write it.  Matthew probably did not write Matthew, for example, or John, John; on the other hand, neither book actually claims to be written by a person named Matthew or John. . . .

 

Let me conclude this introduction simply by saying that I have spent the past five years studying forgery in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, especially but not exclusively within Christianity.  My goal all along has been to write a detailed scholarly monograph that deals with the matter at length.  The book you’re reading now is not that scholarly monograph.  What I try to do in the present book is to discuss the issue at a layperson’s level, pointing out the really interesting aspects of the problem by highlighting the results of my own research and showing what scholars have long said about the writings of the New Testament and pseudonymous Christian writings from outside the New Testament. The scholarly monograph to come will be much more thoroughly documented and technically argued. The present book, in other words, is not intended for my fellow scholars, who, if they read this one, will be doing so simply out of curiosity.  It is, instead, intended for you, the general reader, who on some level is, like me, interested in the truth.

 

Next:  Early Christian Forgeries