Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Source Of Bible Covenant


Vixentrox

Recommended Posts

I love history and archeology.

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-17009-Freethought-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Source-of-Bible-Covenant-with-God-discovered

 

Archaeologists working in Turkey have unearthed an Assyrian tablet dating to around 670 BCE that "could have served as a model for the biblical description of God's covenant with the Israelites." What this fascinating discovery suggests, of course, is that the Bible tale of a divine pact does not represent "history" or a "factual" event, but is instead a fictional rewrite, borrowing or plagiarism of this older Assyrian treaty.

Over the centuries, many Bible critics, minimalists and mythicists have asserted that much of the Old Testament constitutes not factual history but a rehash of ancient myths and traditions dating to before the founding of the Jewish kingdom. This new find apparently adds more evidence to that theory, and it is quite refreshing that both the scholars and the media are spelling out clearly this possible "borrowing," without prejudice in favor of bibliolatry or upholding unprovable matters of faith.

Ancient treaty resembles part of the Bible

Canadian archeologists in Turkey have unearthed an ancient treaty that could have served as a model for the biblical description of God's covenant with the Israelites.

 

The tablet, dating to about 670 BC, is a treaty between the powerful Assyrian king and his weaker vassal states, written in a highly formulaic language very similar in form and style to the story of Abraham's covenant with God in the Hebrew Bible, says University of Toronto archeologist Timothy Harrison.

 

Although biblical scholarship differs, it is widely accepted that the Hebrew Bible was being assembled around the same time as this treaty, the seventh century BC.

 

"Those documents...seem to reflect very closely the formulaic structure of these treaty documents," he told about 50 guests at the Ottawa residence of the Turkish ambassador, Rafet Akgunay.

 

He was not necessarily saying the Hebrews copied the Assyrian text, substituting their own story about how God liberated them from slavery in Egypt on the condition that they worship only Him and follow His commandments.

But it will be interesting for scholars to have this parallel document.

 

"The language in the [Assyrian] texts is [very similar] and now we have a treaty document just a few miles up the road from Jerusalem."...

Science Daily provides more details about the tablet:

"The tablet is quite spectacular. It records a treaty -- or covenant -- between Esarhaddon, King of the Assyrian Empire and a secondary ruler who acknowledged Assyrian power. The treaty was confirmed in 672 BCE at elaborate ceremonies held in the Assyrian royal city of Nimrud (ancient Kalhu). In the text, the ruler vows to recognize the authority of Esarhaddon's successor, his son Ashurbanipal," said Timothy Harrison, professor of near eastern archaeology in the Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations and director of U of T's Tayinat Archaeological Project (TAP)....

The researchers hope to glean information about Assyria's imperial relations with the west during a critical period, the early 7th century BCE. It marked the rise of the Phrygians and other rival powers in highland Anatolia -- now modern-day Turkey -- along the northwestern frontier of the Assyrian empire, and coincided with the divided monarchy of Biblical Israel...

Notable is the fact "it is widely accepted that the Hebrew Bible was being assembled around the same time as this treaty," i.e., during the 7th century BCE. The case for this "late" dating of the Old Testament's compilation - with a significant part of it also written later, after the Jews' "Babylonian Exile" (597-538 BCE) - has been made by Israeli archaeologists, including and especially Israel Finkelstein in The Bible Unearthed.

Although the article states that the archaeologist Timothy Harrison "was not necessarily saying the Hebrews copied the Assyrian text, substituting their own story about how God liberated them from slavery in Egypt," it is nonetheless raising that very issue in a manner which breaks with the centuries-old tradition of bending all finds in the "Holy Land" and other places of biblical interest to fit the Bible, in attempts to prove the "Good Book" as "history." It is obvious that this sort of bibliolatry appeasement from the more scientific segment of society is losing ground precisely because of such discoveries - and the implication of this one is a doozy.

No historical covenant with God?

It needs to be emphasized that this intriguing development concerns not just any biblical event but the very covenant between God and the Israelites - here indicated as not something supernatural that actually occurred but, rather, as mere human propaganda based on older texts from other cultures. This discovery, therefore, would essentially negate the basic premise of the Old Testament: To wit, that the Hebrews, Israelites and Jews are the "chosen people" of the Lord of the universe.

Needless to say, for those of us who have been stating as much for many years - and getting pilloried for our efforts - this archaeological find is very exciting, as it adds to the growing body of hard, scientific evidence that the Bible is not "God's Word" but a manmade cultural artifact designed for propagandistic purposes.

Furthermore, as the Old Testament is thus apparently in significant part a rehash and rewriting of the traditions and myths of other cultures, so does the New Testament story of Jesus Christ represent a remake of the mythical motifs of pre-Christian cultures, combined with OT scriptures serving as "blueprints" for the gospel tale's creation.

D.M. Murdock is the author of controversial books and articles on comparative religion and mythology that can be found at TruthBeKnown.com, Stellar House Publishing and Freethought Nation. For more articles from the Freethought Examiner, be sure to subscribe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love history and archeology.

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-17009-Freethought-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Source-of-Bible-Covenant-with-God-discovered

"The tablet is quite spectacular. It records a treaty -- or covenant -- between Esarhaddon, King of the Assyrian Empire and a secondary ruler who acknowledged Assyrian power. The treaty was confirmed in 672 BCE at elaborate ceremonies held in the Assyrian royal city of Nimrud (ancient Kalhu). In the text, the ruler vows to recognize the authority of Esarhaddon's successor, his son Ashurbanipal," said Timothy Harrison, professor of near eastern archaeology in the Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations and director of U of T's Tayinat Archaeological Project (TAP)...."

 

This is the kind of thing that, in the late 80s, convinced me that the Hebrews had built a religion and culture on the foundations of the cultures and religions from around the region. And the significance of plagiarism blew me away. It meant that the false gods of the other people had words they supposedly said, deeds they supposedly did, and wisdom they supposedly imparted that were then taken by "God" and claimed to be original. It meant that God was a creation of man.

 

This tablet, if it does indeed provide the same kind of plagiaristic basis for the covenant between Israel and God, is another nail in the coffin of religion.

 

It's always odd to see the theists try to defend this because they scatter like cockroaches when the lights are turned on. Some say it's pure coincidence. Some say there is, upon closer inspection, not even the slightest similarity. Some say that, yes the events recorded (e.g. flood) happened, and that's why it's present both in the ancient texts and in the bible - and this proves the bible.

 

The last thing they will ever say is, "Well what do you know... The Hebrews faked their religion by stealing from other cultures and claiming it was original!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone *knows* the Jews came up from Egypt nearly 1000 years before this. These guys copied them. Trick of Satan!

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how much evidence is presented that shows the bible was copied and inspired from earlier sources, Christians will always argue the opposite.

 

Very interesting story though, thanks for posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how much evidence is presented that shows the bible was copied and inspired from earlier sources, Christians will always argue the opposite.

They have to. They already do actually.

 

When I was in (baptist) school I was taught (quite literally) that the whole "bible" up to that time was passed down orally (they love that oral tradition shit). So from Adam down to whoever it was passed on orally (and added on to as needed). Then when the first people started writing stuff down this became a problem but the proto-Jews (the group that passed on the tradition orally...I have no idea what they really may have been called since they weren't technically Jews or anything) still used the oral tradition. The written traditions proved to be corruptible and the Sumerians and all started worshiping the "wrong" gods and making up stories that were similar but not quite accurate compared to the "real" stories from the bible. Finally Moses came along and wrote it all down since the "real" god said to do it since the time was right (for some reason...oddly enough he decided this before a Hebrew language existed even though that was the original language of the universe or something). And that was that.

 

Then the same shit happened way later when "jesus" happened along. A bunch of stories. But the "real" story was passed on orally (for some unknown reason). The others got written down then, for no reason, the "real" story also gets written down but after then "false" stories are written down so that the "real" story is just one of the bunch...but it's the "real" one don't you know?

 

The first stories are the devils stories. The middle ones are the devils stories. The late ones are the devils stories. Only one of the stories, in the middle somewhere that is similar to one, or maybe more, of the first (devil) stories is the "real" story, but it was passed via "oral tradition" because we say so and that makes it 100% immune to corruption, verification or analysis.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

The entire Old Testament was just a hack job borrowed from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, Arabia, and mostly Canaan/Phoenicia. The biggest irony being that they borrowed most from the cultures they "hated the most". Kinda like muslims today want to live in the west and hate it at the same time. Or christians wanting to use western medicine while actively obstructing its developement with things like intelligent design.

 

Heck, they've even organized their holy books the way the mesopotamians did. Books of proverbs, psalms, priestly/ritual texts, myth codices, history books, prophecybooks, etc... And even the names for god: Yhwh, shaddai, Adonai, olam, eliyon, etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how much evidence is presented that shows the bible was copied and inspired from earlier sources, Christians will always argue the opposite.

They have to. They already do actually.

 

When I was in (baptist) school I was taught (quite literally) that the whole "bible" up to that time was passed down orally (they love that oral tradition shit). So from Adam down to whoever it was passed on orally (and added on to as needed). Then when the first people started writing stuff down this became a problem but the proto-Jews (the group that passed on the tradition orally...I have no idea what they really may have been called since they weren't technically Jews or anything) still used the oral tradition. The written traditions proved to be corruptible and the Sumerians and all started worshiping the "wrong" gods and making up stories that were similar but not quite accurate compared to the "real" stories from the bible. Finally Moses came along and wrote it all down since the "real" god said to do it since the time was right (for some reason...oddly enough he decided this before a Hebrew language existed even though that was the original language of the universe or something). And that was that.

 

Then the same shit happened way later when "jesus" happened along. A bunch of stories. But the "real" story was passed on orally (for some unknown reason). The others got written down then, for no reason, the "real" story also gets written down but after then "false" stories are written down so that the "real" story is just one of the bunch...but it's the "real" one don't you know?

 

The first stories are the devils stories. The middle ones are the devils stories. The late ones are the devils stories. Only one of the stories, in the middle somewhere that is similar to one, or maybe more, of the first (devil) stories is the "real" story, but it was passed via "oral tradition" because we say so and that makes it 100% immune to corruption, verification or analysis.

 

mwc

 

Funny, isn't it, how they'll argue that written sources are more easily corruptible than oral sources, which is complete garbage.

 

Out here I have seen a couple examples of how Indian oral traditions became corrupted by European missionaries to include flood stories (we've always told this story... sure you have) and even a Eucharist. The problem with oral stories is that once they're established and passed on, there's no way to fact-check like there is with earlier and different written versions.

 

The kids from the crashed plane in "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" come to mind with their "pockyclips."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.