Comprehensive coverage

Faith-na-na: This is how it started...

With the skeptics - the ammonists, who adhere to their faith, I have no argument, because I and they are like us as parallel lines. With the "believers" in my "theory" I will continue and develop the following theory. However, I would be happy to add to the circle anyone who comes to "take a look" and "get hurt".

The goose that laid golden eggs
The goose that laid golden eggs

In the book of Genesis, which was "written" in my spirit, it is explicitly stated - "In the beginning man created God".

is it possible Well, all religions and beliefs in the ancient world were born and developed against the background of various phenomena and circumstances, the dominant of which, and what is confirmed by anthropological studies, was the lack of sufficient and satisfactory answers to cardinal and mega-essential questions such as: day and night, tides, volcanic eruptions, eclipses of the sun and the moon, and especially And in particular - birth and death.

Naturally, since emptiness does not exist in nature, and the answer to these questions was found by groups of human beings and not by gods or supernatural creations that they are, there was Man-Dhua, wise and intelligent, who created the phenomenon of the supernatural/unnatural in the presence of mankind, in other words - everything is from God . Hella also developed the ritualistic, ritualistic idea that he-he stands at the center of it. We were - provide me with the proper sacrifices and I will give you proper answers and I will even change the order of Genesis for you.

With the skeptics - the ammonists, who adhere to their faith, I have no argument, because I and they are like us as parallel lines. With the "believers" in my "theory" I will continue and develop the following theory. However, I would be happy to add to the circle anyone who comes to "take a look" and "get hurt".

The Jewish and even the pre-Jewish ritual center undoubtedly served the leadership moves of the public. This is particularly evident from the days of Moses, the way of walking in the desert, the entry into Canaan, the leadership of Joshua and the phenomenon of the various religious centers, such as the one at Shiloh, where Ali worked at the time and after him Shmuel, the king of the first kings.

In the days of David, there was a dramatic turn in the essence of these centers, when the ambition of this leader was to centralize worship in Jerusalem through the plan to build the temple. The temple is no longer another ritual center, although large and magnificent, it was supposed to be the only one, the only one. The construction of the temple was accompanied by two central goals that are intertwined with each other - leadership and economic power. The connection between the ritual center and the City of David greatly strengthened the leadership, unlike in the days of King Saul - due to the lack of the ritual center - on the political level, and provided the royal house with a treasure trove of funds.

And David certainly had something to rely on, and what could be more sacred than hanging on the laws of the wilderness (probably written later), where we read: "And this is the contribution that you will take from them, gold and silver and copper... stones of Shoham and stones of Meluim for a vest and a vestment" (Exodus 8:1- XNUMX).

Even before the construction of the temple for the first time, the ark of Jehovah was mentioned in the captivity of the Philistines and with it gold vessels, and here you have the connection between the worship and the treasures.

And pay attention to the following process: the representatives of all the tribes make David king in Hebron, he takes control of the Citadel of Zion and it becomes the City of David, "And David went forth, and the Lord God of hosts was with him" (Shemoev 9:19), the king's palace was built of stone and the boxes of Lebanon, the Philistines Defeated, Jehovah's ark is brought up from the house of Abinadav while David dances, sings and carols in front of it, the ark finally settles in the city of David, David raises up and complete before Jehovah and finally blesses the people at the end of the blessing. One" (ibid., XNUMX:XNUMX).

There is no temple here yet, but the infrastructure for a temple does exist. David, unlike his predecessor, appropriates to himself the control over the worship, because he who controls the worship controls the people, and even "election bribery" exists there, which is expressed in the distribution of food and delicacies to the people. David conducts wars, David builds a palace and more in his city, and he distributes gifts to the people. Where is the money from? A wild guess?! After all, the proximity between the factories and the firing of the cornerstone of the temple is much more than a casual coincidence.

The next step: the prophecies were given by the prophet, through whom the word of God came to David: "You will build me a house for my Sabbaths" (Ibid. 5:XNUMX) in terms of a rhetorical question, when the reasoning for handing over the task of building the temple to his loins (Solomon) is not clear. In any case, David is comforted by the fact that the builder of the temple came from his house, and the house will be called the House of David. Under the apostate assumption that even before the sword of the temple prophecy was given only to fools, it seems that Nathan's prophecy is nothing more than an invitation, whether directly or indirectly, and control of the unlost treasure chest is guaranteed to David. In one of the following verses it becomes clear that the priesthood, the one entrusted with the work in the temple, is nothing more than a removal clerk for David's discipline and spite, and in this case it is about Zadok ben Ahitov and Ahimelech ben Avitar as high priests.

"Wonder-and-wonder", immediately after the appropriation of the pre-temple, David conducts many wars, and where does the money come from? A wild guess?! It is true that each victory, assuming it was a chain of successes, fueled the next battle, but anyway?!

And returning to Nathan, the skeptics will argue as follows: After all, the prophecy of bereavement that Nathan directs through Jehovah's words to David, that the son born to David and daughter Sheva will die because his father's marriage was in sin. And if so, how can I claim that Nathan's previous prophecy is mobilized in favor of David and his house. Well, no question: the other son of the union between David and Bat Sheva, namely Shlomo, was not harmed by any curse, even though Shabat Sheva remained the same Bat Sheva, in the previous pregnancy as in the current pregnancy. Solomon immediately took the name of her friend - "for the sake of Jehovah" according to the words of the scripture (Ibid. 25:XNUMX).

The sacred transition from David's kingdom to Solomon's kingdom could not have been fulfilled without the dominant involvement of Zadok the high priest.

King Hiram of Tire sends Shlomo cedar trees and cypress trees mostly for construction purposes and Shlomo pays him twenty thousand bushels of wheat and twenty bushels of virgin oil every year. And where does the money come from? A wild guess?!

With the completion of the construction of the temple, Yahweh turns directly and speaks to Solomon. He warns him that if the king does not follow God's laws and commandments, God will not abandon the people and vice versa. This statement, which was probably concocted by Solomon's publicists, was intended to position Solomon not only as king but as the only channel of communication between God and the public. It is worth noting, by the way, that in Solomon's temple there were statues of cherubs, which were monstrous mythological creations, as well as statues of lions and bulls, and how does this fit with the Ten Commandments? Only God knows!

Immediately afterwards, Solomon offers a prayer to God and enumerates his virtues and mega-virtues one by one, and the question arises - was Jehovah's power previously weak and feeble, and only the construction of a building of stone and wood made him enormous and possessing such virtues?! Solomon speaks in his prayer about God's virtues, but more indirectly, that is, directly, he praises the temple, such as - you have sinned, pray to God through the temple and he will forgive you; You fought in the war, we begged the gentle God of the sanctuary and have mercy on you and bring you the victory; In years of drought and famine raise your hand to the Lord and bring rains of blessing on the earth. The same applies to hunger, illness, various beatings, and more. At the end of his prayer, Solomon blesses all the people, because the building of the temple made it holy, the subject of Jehovah's word. At the end of the blessing, Solomon sacrifices no less and no more than twenty-two thousand cattle and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep. And where does the expense cover come from? - A wild guess! After that, at the end of the events of the special holiday, the people went to bless Shlomo and he returned to his tents happy and kindhearted.

Beyond the sanctified innocence that surrounded the event, it seems that Solomon turned the temple into an institution rooted in the hearts of the people, necessary for leading his normal life and in fact for his survival. In other words - you will not contribute to the temple, you will not exist, and this is indeed a unique phenomenon in the ancient world, which has no parallel in the kingdom of Egypt, nor in Mesopotamia, nor in the peoples of the desert. Solomon turns the temple into a magnet for all money and donations, and it is not for nothing that the next chapter opens its doors with this verse: "And Solomon's brides were to build the house of Jehovah and the king's house and all that Solomon desired to do" (Malachi 1:XNUMX).

And if Solomon's prayer and his blessing were not enough, the current chapter continues with God's words, and this is the second time that Jehovah appears to Solomon and speaks to him, this time in a firm and blunt tone, along the lines of: If you do not keep my commandments and my laws, "And I will know Israel from the face of the earth which I have given them and the house That which I have dedicated to my name (ie the temple) I will send before my face, and let Israel be an example and a reminder to all nations" (ibid., 8-7). Well, and what do you think, after these predatory and apocalyptic claims, won't the people open their pockets and their graves and chain the "liter of meat" tabin and tikilin to the temple (of Solomon).

Well, it's no wonder that Solomon is revealed later in the chapter, and from here on out as the owner of most assets, such as "And the weight of the gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and sixty-six gold shekels" (ibid. 14), and furthermore "And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen, and he had one thousand four hundred A chariot and twelve thousand horsemen, and he will comfort the cities of the chariot and the king in Jerusalem" (ibid. 26). So what - the pundits will say - and the kings of Egypt or Mesopotamia did not accumulate great wealth from taxes and economic activities?! Indeed, but when it comes to a small kingdom the size of Judah and despite the very exaggerated dimensions of the biblical information, it is difficult to ignore the conduit of economic wealth that is the Temple.

And how will we notice that the wealth was transferred to his mind and his religion? Quite simply: the Bible itself mentions Solomon's great love for foreign women - 700 plus 300 concubines, and more "And Solomon went after Ashtoreth, the God of the Zidonians, and after Milchom Shikotz of the Ammonites... Then Solomon built a platform for Chemosh Shikotz of Moab on the mountain that faces Jerusalem and in front of you the Shikotz of the Ammonites, And he also made all his foreign wives incense burners and altars to their gods" (Ibid. 8:7-XNUMX). Did we expect God's punishment? True, but only for Solomon's sons. Solomon cannot give up his wealth and power, and this does not quite agree with the above commands of Jehovah, because from the moment Solomon sins, the temple will be destroyed and implemented. God has solutions.

At Solomon's death, the kingdom splits between Rehoboam (Judah) and Jeroboam (Israel). And what does Jeroboam do? Right. He builds and establishes two temples (altars) - one in Bethel and the other in Dan, and each has a golden calf. In front of us is a parallel infrastructure in front of the temple in Jerusalem in order to pump funds through it to cover the expenses of the royal house.

In the fifth year of King Rehoboam of Judah, the king came up from Egypt to attack and attack Jerusalem, and what does the king do? Spends a lot of money from his treasures and the treasures of the temple to finance the necessary military expenses. As King Asa, Rehoboam's grandson, does, he takes out Jehovah's treasures and hands them over to the Syrian son Hadad in order to thwart the aggressive plans of King Baasha of Israel towards him.

Such a ritual is repeated throughout the First Temple period. Even after the destruction of the kingdom of Samaria-Israel by the Assyrians and the abandonment of the kingdom of Judah alone, the above picture did not change. King Hezekiah, who is attacked by the Assyrian Sennacherib, empties the treasures of the House of God for who knows how many times in order to hand them over to the Assyrians and thereby buy another temporary period of peace.

A very instructive episode is related to the personality and activities of Josiah, king of Judah. Hela, in the eighteenth year of his reign (622 BCE) instructs the high priest to accumulate "the money brought into the house of Jehovah which the gatekeepers collected from the people" (Mal 4:XNUMX) in order to carry out a house inspection in the temple and a comprehensive Yahwistic reform in Judah, but also to raise A large army to stop a crippled pharaoh who was hiding in order to fight the Assyrians. His successors, until the destruction of the first temple, often broke into the temple coffers and transferred money and gold from it to Pharaoh and after him to the kings of Babylon.

Exaggeration or not?! Even if the truth is nuclear, the bottomless barrel, that is, the treasure of the temple, has constantly fed treasures, the fruit of the people's contributions.

The temple was, therefore, a tremendous center for extracting funds from the Jewish population, which made the kings the masters of the treasury and gave them political power, not to mention economic power. Under these circumstances, we will not be surprised that they sinned by deviating from the purity of morals, since power corrupts.

More on the subject on the science website

47 תגובות

  1. The author of the article proves what a waste of public money is.
    If these are the doctors that the state finances, it is no wonder that university budgets are being cut.
    Just not worthy of a response
    And Solomon already said, 'You saw a wise man in his eyes, hope for a fool from him'

  2. Hello Hello,
    What do you know about King David?
    As part of my research, I have come across more than once the claim that King David did not exist and was not created. Since you show some knowledge in the history of his life and are probably convinced that he was, please enlighten me.
    How do you know that the story of King David is not just a myth?

  3. Blessed is the man who did not walk in the counsel of the wicked and in the way of sinners he did not stand and did not sit in the seat of the wicked.

    This quote was written by King David himself.

    If the theory written above wasn't so sad, it wouldn't be funny either.

    Really superstitious.

  4. To Yuval,
    It's hard for me to say that I was convinced by your arguments, but since I don't think you are convinced by my arguments, I suggest that at this point we end the discussion of Josiah and his work.

    Two final notes:
    First, the book of Chronicles does not say that Josiah went mad or any other criticism of the king. On the contrary, the book praises Yeshiahu over and over again for his work.
    Second, reading your words gives the impression that your coming out against Josiah is for the purpose of strengthening your hero - Hezekiah. I think that these two kings deserve their special place in history without bothering ourselves with the (in my opinion childish) question of who was greater.

    Thanks for the fun debate

  5. Thank you Dos Reformi. The facts you present are correct or acceptable. We have a disagreement about the conclusions you propose. I will answer some of your points:

    "The religious reforms of Josiah did not fit the purpose of the prophets". They didn't contradict either. Depends on how you define their purpose. They wanted it to become the main or even the only religion in Israel. For this they needed Josiah's divisions. Indeed, Josiah himself did not personally embrace all their ways, and in some cases he had to be restrained. They succeeded through improvisations here and there (cf. the example I gave (Kings XNUMX:XNUMX, XNUMX) to the point of being killed by the king of Egypt (which even if it was ordered by the priests, obviously they will not write it in the book).

    "Josiah was a pretty independent doll." True, but that's what they had and that's what they managed - with encouragement and restraint.

    "Josiah's main goal was to unite the people of the state of Judah with the rest of the exodus of Israel." This was one of his goals, and it matched well with the goals of the priests of Anat because they were originally Israelis and wanted to strengthen their power in Israel, especially against the Samaritan priests who were already established at that time.

    "If Josiah is indeed responsible for writing the book of Deuteronomy..." The Bible presents the finding of the Torah book as a gift that fell from heaven into the hands of the Hasidic king and his responsibility, if any, is ministerial. It is likely that the book that was found is indeed a Book of Deuteronomy, but it was not written at that time. This is because if it was new, it could be seen immediately by the fresh ink and the new pages. In my opinion, it was written about seventy years earlier for the priests of the resurgent Israeli religion in Samaria (known to this day as "Samaritans") with the help of Anat priests who hoped to regain their position in Israel after the destruction of the kingdom by Assyria.

    "In the blessing of Moses, the tribe of Judah does not receive an extraordinary blessing and the tribes of the northern kingdom receive good blessings." Very true, and this strengthens my opinion that the book was originally written for the Samaritans. But in Jacob's blessing to his sons, Josiah's writer hurries to correct the inglorious image of the tribe of Judah.

    "In Josiah's religious reform, he does not kill the priests of Beit El again." And this is perhaps a sign that the book of the Torah influenced him to correct his moral ways. He committed his atrocious acts before they brought him the Torah book found "by accident". As described, after hearing the contents of the book he tore his clothes and this can signify, among other things, remorse.

    "There are scholars who claim that the union between the two ancient sources XNUMX (the source of the Kingdom of Judah) and XNUMX (the source of the Kingdom of Israel) was also done during the time of Josiah." I am also one of these scholars, but with your permission I will expand a little. During Hezekiah's time, a large influx of Israeli refugees to Jerusalem began. That's when the great reform took place and the edition uniting the two sources began to be written. Its writing continued until the days of Josiah and after them.

    "If Josiah suffered from the Jerusalem syndrome, it would have been his last battle when he decided to go to war against the king of Egypt in Megiddo." The Book of Kings does not tell about a war and the Book of Chronicles claims that Josiah "disguised himself to fight". And perhaps Josiah intended to make an alliance with the king of Egypt and join him against Babylon in Carchemish. The Book of Kings was written for Josiah and in his honor, but not so the Book of Chronicles which does not shy away from portraying Josiah as mad. As a general rule, people suffer from the Jerusalem syndrome when they come to Jerusalem, and recover from it when they leave it. If Josiah went to war under the influence of madness, then it was instead of the Jerusalem syndrome or in addition to it.

    And thanks again

  6. To Yuval,
    As I have already written, I think that your "puppet king" theory suffers from one major weakness. Josiah's religious reforms did not suit the purpose of the prophets (priests of Anat in your language). Josiah's religious reforms went against the priesthood, reforms left by Jeremiah and his friends were directed against the wealthy of Judah. Almost like a prophet, he took care to point out that religious repentance without moral repentance is worthless (Isaiah XNUMX). The prophets could not take care of morality as you suggested because to take care of a moral society according to Isaiah and Co. you are forced to go against the rich (which is not an easy task at any time). The king of Judah is the only one who can do this. Instead, Josiah turned to war against the priests of the high places, who were, in the view of the prophets, a pointless goal without a move against the rich. In short Josiah was a pretty independent puppet.

    Let me offer you an alternative explanation for Josiah's work. In my opinion, Josiah's main goal was to unite the people of the state of Judah, if the rest of the exodus of Israel. For this purpose Josiah uses a series of gestures towards Israel in order to prove the sincerity of his intentions. The difference can be seen in the appeal of Hezekiah and Josiah to the remnant of the exile of Israel.
    Hezekiah offers the Israelites to unite with Judah because they had to learn from their evil ways that led to their downfall. In response, the Israelites laugh at his messengers. Josiah, on the other hand, offers the Israelites to join in celebrating the Passover. In Josiah's religious reform, he does not kill the priest of Beit El again, apparently so as not to cloud the relationship with the remnant of the exile of Israel.

    And here we come to the part of writing the Bible. If Josiah is indeed responsible for writing the book of Deuteronomy, then there is another important complication in the union between Israel and Judah. Deuteronomy is a book that sympathizes with Israel. Joshua, the hero of the people of the northern kingdom, receives first place in the book of Deuteronomy. In the blessing of Moses, the tribe of Judah does not receive an extraordinary blessing and the tribes of the northern kingdom receive good blessings and more.
    Beyond that, there are researchers (sorry for the use of the rude word) who claim that the union between the two ancient sources XNUMX (the origin of the Kingdom of Judah) and XNUMX (the origin of the Kingdom of Israel) was also done during the time of Josiah. If these researchers are right, then Josiah is also credited with combining the two Torahs into one Torah as we know it today.

    If Josiah suffered from the Jerusalem syndrome, it would have been his last battle when he decided to go to war against the king of Egypt at Megiddo (a plain where the iron chariots of the Egyptians have the greatest strategic advantage). This reckless act was Josiah's first and last mistake.

  7. Thank you Dos Reformi, and I addressed your words one by one:

    1) Josiah became a fanatical penitent of the most extreme type. He really believed that he was the representative of the King of Kings on earth. In my opinion, his case is a clear example of the Jerusalem syndrome. He was out of control and it took a verse of scripture to stop him. Such a verse is found in the Book of Kings, which was mostly written for the king: "An altar, an altar, thus said Jehovah: Behold, a son was born to the house of David, Josiah, and he will sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who mourn over you, and human bones will be burned on you" (Kings XNUMX:XNUMX, XNUMX). Indeed, Josiah stopped at that moment from the atrocious acts he had committed on the bones of the priests. The priests used his insane power to gain control. They took care of morality themselves.

    2) Hezekiah carried out a comprehensive reform in the temple court. He brought the Levites there, who were from the beginning Israeli priests and invited the priests of Anat, who are attributed to Abitar and Beit Itamar, to serve alongside the priests of Beit Eleazar in the ratio of one to two years.

    3) Menashe's rule was not hostile to religion. The tradition of the House of David, starting from the days of David himself (and not Solomon, as the Bible says) was to maintain good relations with the priests of all religions, including the priests of Anat - even though the latter were troublemakers who opposed the policy of the royal court. For hundreds of years they were not allowed to set foot in Jerusalem because of their hostile attitude. It seems probable to me that after being invited to the Temple by Hezekiah, they kept their anti-pagan tendency on a low heat until they found an opportunity.

    4) Amon, Josiah's father was murdered in the same way that Jehoash was murdered. We see this in Chronicles, while in Kings (written, as mentioned, for Josiah) the details of Jehoash's murder are blurred. It is not impossible that the priests of Anat are the ones who were behind the murder of Amon, since they were hired by him. They took in a small, orphaned and unhappy boy, and they could do with him whatever they wanted.

    In the end, there was no choice but to get rid of the cocoon that arose from its creator. Whether his killing at the hands of Pharaoh was accidental or whether a spy on behalf of the priests was the one who saw to it, the result was blessed, though too late. The damage caused to the temple could not be repaired. His coffers dwindled and Jerusalem weakened. Jeremiah, who believed in the tradition of the priests of Anat, continued to incite against the pagan worship practiced in the temple and advised all the people to be enslaved to the rising Babylonian kingdom. In the end, the way of the Anat priests was successful. In Babylon, Judaism (as a moral and non-pagan religion) became a world religion and gave birth to other religions.

  8. First remove worry from your foamy heart does not often come out easily in this period of my life and certainly not on a friendly discussion on the Internet.
    Second, regarding your claim that I am not delving into your words, I am forced to disagree with you. Here I am still debating with you about your first comment regarding the theory of "the influence of the child-king Josiah" on the writing of the Bible and you hurry and discuss with me about the theory of priests of Anat.
    So here are some of my thoughts (and at your request I will not cite the studies)
    First I must point out that this theory seems to me to be more successful than her previous theory but I think there are some difficulties:
    1) The identity between Josiah's reforms and the agenda promoted by the prophets is not absolute. The prophets promoted two main agendas: the cessation of the worship of idols and the moral behavior of the people. While Josiah's religious reforms promoted the first goal, they did not promote the second goal. The religious devotion in the days of Josiah was strictly the observance of the holidays and not the observance of mitzvot between a man and his fellow man. If King Josiah was a "puppet" of the priests of Anat, what would be the court of justice and the quarrel of a widow and an orphan?
    2) In order for Josiah to be ruled by the priests of Anat they are supposed to be in the king's court. You claim that Hezekiah brought them there. Do you have any basis for this claim?
    3) Even if we assume that the priests of Anat were brought by Hezekiah, how did they maintain their power during the long reign of Menashe, who certainly had goals contrary to theirs? How did 55 years of hostile rule pass and the priests of Anat kept their power?
    4) The king's court tends to stagnation, while Josiah's policy differs from his predecessors (and successors) in almost all areas.

  9. Dos Reformi Hello and have a good week

    What exactly is your foam about? And why don't you dig into what I'm saying before you run to attack?

    Right. I'm talking about texts from the Mesopotamian creation story that began unfolding at least in the third millennium. His name is "Anoma Elish" and you will surely find a lot about him with a quick scroll.

    Indeed, Jeremiah, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos and many other good ones represent the religion of the Book of Deuteronomy, and there is no escaping linking them with the priests of the house of Levi and the priests of Anat - these are the same priests that I claim took advantage of the opportunity that fell into their hands when Josiah came to power and he was a tender child.

    And if you don't like my claim about this family of priests taking over the soul of King Hinoka Josiah, in order to achieve important achievements through him (and I really believe that these are important achievements), you are welcome to bring your own explanations. But please don't quote the words of other researchers, because each such researcher has his own agenda. Be original, if you will.

  10. jubilee
    Your "Josiah theory" claims that:
    "They wrote for Josiah a version of the Bible that was convenient for them... because of the historical circumstances (exile in Babylon), the work of rewriting the Bible froze shortly after Josiah's death, and the Bible we have is mainly a collection of bedtime stories written for the ears of a young man, with an undeveloped sense of criticism."
    This argument is incorrect. According to most biblical scholars, the queen of writing the Bible continued with full vigor after King Josiah. More specifically, the appearance of "childish" stories in the Bible is not related to the character of King Josiah because the stories were not written at the time. That's why your thesis of my childhood Bible because my childhood king lacks a sense of criticism does not pass the test of science.

    The issue of Deuteronomy was raised to illustrate to you that "the book of King Josiah" is very far from being childish. The XNUMXth source (from the words) is usually identified with the circles of prophecy partly because of the great similarity in moral issues and the literary similarity with the books of Hosea and Jeremiah. A brief reading of these books will remove your concern about the childishness of this source and perhaps encourage you to reconsider the work of this king (which I personally think you are missing out on in a big way)

    Finally, since the topic of writing the Bible is a hobby of mine, I would be happy if you would direct me to pottery that mentions the story of creation and the story of Noah that preceded the destruction of the First Temple. As far as I know, the second creation story (the story of the Garden of Eden) is attributed to the XNUMXth source, which was supposed to be the oldest source of all (around the XNUMXth century BC), while the first creation story (seven days) is attributed to the priestly source that apparently worked after the destruction of the house. The main weakness of the certificate theory is that no ancient biblical texts have ever been found (the oldest biblical text is the Korman scrolls written in the Second Temple period). I think the texts you are talking about are texts from parallel creation stories (like the Babylonian creation story), please correct me if I am wrong.
    Have a nice week too

  11. To have a response 33 (a)

    I was glad to see the "wheels" in your words. Professor Adam Zertel, who discovered the series of giant footprints, is the one who suggested this name to them. Whether he was right or not, these are indeed places of worship that functioned until about the 11th century, which is the estimated period of the settlement (if indeed there was one), and of the beginning of the period of the judges as it is presented in the Bible.

    A very interesting connection to those footprints can be found in Deborah's song (Judges 12:11): "The great God [here he appears in the name of Jehovah, but it is not impossible because in the original song of Deborah he had a different name] when you went out of the hair from the field of red, the land of noise..." . The song of Deborah refers to events that took place, according to the Bible, in the north of the country in the XNUMXth or XNUMXth centuries, when the sites of the giant feet were active. Indeed, one can see in them signs of the Great God's march from the Edom Mountains to the northern region. It also strengthens the claim that the Bible (or parts of it) was written in an ancient period.

    Thank you for your words.

  12. To the owner of response 31 (Dos Reformi) have a good week.

    You did well to close the "Josiah theory" in quotation marks. My "theory" is not about Josiah but about the motives of the priests (and the prophets) when they wrote what they wrote. Josiah is only one episode, albeit a significant one, in this great work.

    I was ready to simply accept that the Bible was written in a late period as the researchers claim. However, much of the material that was put into it already existed hundreds and thousands of years before. That is why I prefer to be precise and say that the Bible was edited and rewritten in each generation and that the version we have is the one that was edited at the times you indicate. The story of the Tower of Babel is indeed an example of something that was first connected during the Babylonian exile, but the stories of creation and Noah's ark are found on pottery written thousands of years earlier.

    I didn't understand your question about what my parents said when I was eight or nine years old. The book of Deuteronomy was found, according to the biblical writers, when Josiah was already an adult.

  13. The question of whether God was created by man does not bother me. What bothers me is those who take and insist on your book as a true book. It is clear that the picture is much more complex than we can imagine. It is impossible to ignore strong finds that prove the period of the settlements such as: the Gilgals along the Jordanian and Israeli Jordan Valley, the finding of pottery pots in Simon B, the stage on Mount Hival in Shipilo, etc..

  14. Although the author of the article defined us as parallel lines, here I will try to find the diagonal connecting the two of us. And the slant I find is the recognition that even if the truth of biblical history is called into question, important lessons can be learned from it. And what is a more important lesson than recognizing the genius of the kings of the house of David who succeeded in creating a system in which the treasures of the temple are used as emergency savings. Time after time they manage to use this technique in order to save themselves and their people from a brutal occupation. If only nowadays the governments of Israel would discover just a comma of the long-term planning of the kings of Judah and then maybe we would get a subway in Tel Aviv.
    At the same time, as a complete commenter, I have a series of questions about parts of it. With your permission, I will raise two of the smallest of my questions:
    First, you write that the reasoning for handing over the building of the temple to Solomon is not clear. At the same time, the Bible provides us with a clear answer. According to what is narrated in the Book of Chronicles XNUMX, Chapter XNUMX, David says to Solomon his son:
    And the word of Jehovah came upon me, saying, You have shed blood for many, and you have made great wars: You have not built a house for my name, because of many bloods, you have shed earth before me. XNUMX Behold, a son has been born to you, he will be a man of rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies around: for Solomon will be his name, and I will give peace and tranquility to Israel in the day Yu.
    And I wonder how I will know which part of the Bible I can refer to when I come to analyze it and which part I cannot. Do you have something personal against the Chronicles or is it simply the message of peace that you are hostile to?
    And if we are dealing with David, I find the statement that Natan is a man of David to be extremely strange. First of all, the basis for this claim is sublime from my understanding. Why does the fact that the son of David and Batsheva Shlomo won the kingship indicates that Nathan is a supporter of David. The Bible says that a double punishment is imposed on David for stealing the Harsh sheep:
    1) His wives and concubines will be taken by other people in the sunlight.
    2) The child that will be born to him and the seven-day-old daughter
    Does the fact that there is no third punishment as the author demands (ie all the children of David and Bathsheba will be cursed) indicate that Nathan is a man of David? And if a monarchy had been given to Absalom, would Natan have become an oppositionist?
    Second, and perhaps even more puzzling, is the fact that a man of David's (Nathan Eliba, the author) finds it appropriate to prove him to a committee for his actions with Batsheva. If we accept that you were cut off because there was no prophecy in Israel, wouldn't Nathan have done a good thing for himself and David his patron if he had plastered over this story?

  15. jubilee.
    I have a problem with your "Josiah theory". You claim that the Torah is a story that was told to Joshua in his teenage years. I assume that this claim is based on the idea that the finding of the Torah in the days of Josiah (whether it was found or whether it was written down) refers to the Torah we know today about the five pentacles. However, according to scientific theories, most of the Torah was written long after the days of Josiah. For example, according to the theory of certificates (which is accepted in the USA and our small country) the priestly source was written at least 100 years after Josiah's death. The priestly source is responsible for about half of the Torah and among the rest are a few "childish" ones such as the creation story, Noah's ark and more. I want to say no, the child-king Josiah is responsible for the "childhood" stories in the Bible and in the absence of this connection, your Josiah theory collapses like a house of cards.
    The book that is associated (by most scholars) with the time of Josiah is the book of Deuteronomy. This book instructs on the softness of worship in Jerusalem in accordance with Josiah's reforms. Most biblical scholars claim that this is the book (or at least parts of it) that is found in the temple. Do you really think that Deuteronomy is a childish book? While lying down to sleep at the age of eight, do you fall asleep to the voice of your mother asking you to fight for the widow and the orphan? On your ninth birthday, did your father repeatedly emphasize to you the importance of justice?

  16. Complete,
    You come with the same indoctrinated education that puts a big hat on you that probably also covers your eyes, and pretends to break through sealed walls. You must, first of all, go beyond the frozen dogmas that guide you, before you can innovate anything.

  17. Lada Aka,
    As a semi-desired hitchhiker in this car, I have no intention of driving it, either from the front seat or the back. It is not practical, not polite and not decent. I'm not waiting for real answers either. All in all, I'm trying to stir up a bit of confusion and crack a bit of sealed walls in the hope that a little light will penetrate the cracks and some of the drivers of the car or its passengers will wake up from their dogmatic slumber, because according to my understanding, this can benefit both so-called science and many of its consumers. And as for the courage of the author of the article and his knowledge, three times he inhaled and exhaled.

  18. Why would you wait for them to answer you as usual when you know in advance that your expectations will be disappointed? Despite your fake compliments, you have to admit that the author of the article gathered courage and expressed an opinion, even though it is not acceptable to you, which you did not bother to do. You drive very well - from the back seat.

  19. Please don't listen to Yuval the Hikain.
    Our full justification for this land comes from the fact that it was promised to Abraham our father and to all his seed.
    Ishmael was also included in Abraham's seed, and for that reason we must live with the Palestinians in peace and share the land with them justly.

  20. Shlomo:
    Allow me to compliment you on the amount of your words.
    Unfortunately, they have no quality at all.

  21. to chirp a sparrow (response 19)

    First, we have enough reasons to stick to this one land and a lot of justification for it even without the biblical stories. There is a proven history supported by many archaeological evidences from the days of the Second Temple throughout its existence. It is also clear that the return to Zion had a justification that was based on hundreds of years of existence of a Jewish nation. Please remove worry from your heart.

    Second, if a scientific investigation undermines beliefs, it is permissible and even desirable to reconsider the undermined beliefs, to be picky, to mature and perhaps even come out of it strengthened.

  22. Yair, I did not claim that the Bible is a fantasy book.
    I just said that I think there is almost no archaeological evidence for the stories of the Bible until the period after David.
    One inscription that mentions David is unproven.
    Regarding the later period, I know there are more findings
    And of course a lack of findings does not rule out the stories, but I wanted to know if any archaeological evidence was known

  23. First of all, may I compliment Dr. Yechiam Sorek for giving us yet another fascinating article from the fruit of his thought. It's been a long time since I've read such a broad-minded and long work, so outstanding both in terms of quality and especially in terms of quantity. But here, precisely because of the width and length of the paper, I will not be able to refer to the entire article in the meantime, and therefore I will ask the doctor for clarification only regarding his premise. Namely - that God was invented by our ancestors because they were unable to find answers to "cardinal and mega-essential questions such as: day and night, tides and low tides, volcanic eruptions, solar and lunar eclipses and especially and especially - birth and death" (all quoted according to the brilliant wording of Dr. Sorek ), questions to which modern science has, as we know, found clear and unequivocal answers for a long time, thereby obviating the need for the invention of God. So from here on out we can all - apart from the stupid creationists - focus mainly, that is, on faith in science and its learned forerunners, of which Dr. Sorek is undoubtedly one of the most successful and greatest of them.
    And yet, may I raise another possibility - that is, that our ancestors were troubled even then, (in that dark time when God was invented by some greedy charlatans), also with questions like - what came first, the egg or the chicken? Or for example: are space and time finite - or infinite?
    And here, to the greatest wonder, these are questions that even modern science, with all its wonderful discoveries, does not even have a single answer in connection with them, and there are even some honest scientists who believe that this immanent inability of the human mind is enough to imply that there are some things that are sublime beyond our understanding, and that they will probably remain so forever ? And if so, and on the assumption that the world nevertheless exists despite our inability to understand and explain it - would it be so far-fetched to assume that there might be some entity for whom the world is not an unsolvable riddle?
    After the esteemed Dr. (or one of those who understand how to memorize his wise words in all their depth and number on this website) will answer me about these tiny and trivial questions, it will be possible to turn to the rest of the Dr.'s thoughts in the profound article above which is the cause of these things.

  24. Avi Blizovsky - nice answer
    Michael Rothschild - Regarding Nazism and Marxism I completely agree - these were religions after all and indeed the first thing they did was to fight the members of other religions.
    Zaratostra - the religion you believe in is a product of ancient Judaism and it has been so distorted by various people with interests that very little is left of it. The Jews did indeed develop a whole philosophy around the Bible like other nations developed philosophies. This should not detract from the philosophical-discursive value of the Talmud, etc. But in Judaism there is more than one current and Orthodox Judaism causes alienation between the various currents. For your information, half of the Jewish people are not Orthodox and most of them are secular, God willing.

  25. No matter what you claim, the moment you claim that the Bible is an invention, you have lost our right to exist in this country.
    The whole reason we got this land is that it was given to our ancestors, according to the Bible. Therefore, Mr. Sorek, please be respectful and remove the land from your presence, because without historical justification, you are undoubtedly taking it from its previous owners.
    See you in Oxford.

  26. S, Shay,
    The attitude that you gave this Harry Potter books is too exaggerated. In Tanach there are historical testimonies, alongside fiction, lies, poetry and stories. A significant part of the Tanakh stories are confirmed thanks to the historical discoveries.
    The name David is historical, it is recorded at the Tel Dan address.
    The Egyptian occupation at the time of King Rehoboam is found in Egyptian inscriptions.
    The name Achish found in the stories of David is punctuated erroneously, and should be Achish, but it is found (the name) in ancient Akkadian inscriptions.
    The wars of Israel and Moab are recounted in the Misha Monument.
    The name Jehovah is also found in this situation.
    And many more biblical stories are confirmed thanks to research.
    Even a significant part of the stories that do not have evidence so far may be reliable based on various considerations that make it possible to determine what is likely to be reliable, and what is false.

  27. Is it true that there is actually no archaeological evidence of biblical events even from David's time? And at the same time there is quite a bit of evidence from other cultures that lived at the same time in Egypt and in the region of Iraq and Iran?

    and think less:
    When you start counting the bodies left behind by secular dictatorial regimes, maybe you should first count how many people died in the religious wars. I think that such accounts do not say much about the ideologies but more about the people, but if you insist then go ahead.

  28. The truth is that the article is very flawed because it relies on biblical descriptions that do not have unequivocal historical evidence.
    You tell a nice story, but it doesn't really prove anything, just another story.
    You are trying to prove that the leaders of Israel invented religion and used it for the purposes of controlling the people, and for this purpose you bring examples from biblical characters that only God knows if they really existed - David, Solomon...
    Where is the historical evidence of their existence? And where is the historical evidence for their policy apart from the biblical stories?
    In short, if you want to disprove the claim of the existence of some entity (God), it is better not to do so by relying on the book that invented the character...
    It's like looking for contradictions in the Harry Potter books to prove that there is no Harry Potter...

  29. Yehuda,
    When Michael calls Nazism and Communism religions it is because these regimes were characterized by all the characteristics of old religions.
    Zaratostra
    You probably don't know how to read, maybe they don't teach it in yeshiva. Sorek's article interprets the Tanakh completely differently from the thousands of "sages" who did not dare to read between the lines.

  30. Mr. Whistles
    sorry what do you think you are re??!!
    Karaites have existed for a long time and so have Samaritans.
    What are you bragging about that you know how to read the Bible and interpret it as you see fit?
    After all, when you completely ignore the Talmud and the Torah that was created over thousands of years
    by thousands of sages.
    And you come and pretend that they didn't understand anything and only you, the smart one, understand.
    You are making a pathetic idiot out of yourself.

  31. To God
    It is not fair when something in secularism does not behave "nicely" you define it as religious and come to Zion Goel.
    This is exactly what the religious do, when someone commits a crime among them they immediately claim that he was actually secular in his behavior.
    I think the problem is the extremism of the news
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    secular

  32. Michael, it is very easy to sin with naivety.
    Without the religions, the Andralmosia would celebrate.
    The religions and alternatively, the entertainment, are good for the governments and that's it.
    This is the only way to preserve public order. And it is a scientific matter.

  33. It is worth noting that in the 20th century two systematic mass experiments were made to abolish the religious basis of Western civilizations: fascism and communism.
    The result was two cultures that caused the murder of millions of people, some of them members of the same culture and state as in the systematic murders of Stalin and the killing of millions of Russians and Chinese in labor and starvation camps.
    It is likely that the religions in the western culture have accumulated in their content characteristics that prevent this kind of behavior.
    It is advisable to be careful before trying to change human culture. It is especially not advisable to rely on the words of philosophers and thinkers of all kinds - people of the "sciences" of the humanities.
    Note: The writer of these words is completely secular.

  34. Our truth is fed up with the reactions of religious fanatics, that every time someone dares to write something that is not in line with their blind beliefs, they attack and slander and explode in our streets and claim that they are fed up and continue to religiously read the knowledge site. Religious duplicity is common.

  35. my son!

    Despite the great sorrow involved in the matter, I am forced to admit your righteousness. In science there is no place and no justification for fanaticism. And if here and there you come across the unfortunate phenomenon of fanatical anti-religious propaganda (and not in quotation marks) among scientists, it is possible that this is due to the fact that in a war, one of the parties is sometimes forced to resort to the wretched tactics of its opponent.

  36. How can an atheist be like a fanatical Muslim or a Jesuit-Messianic? After all, these too will eat the atheist for breakfast with the power of their violence.

  37. Priests versus prophets

    The sweeping claim that the priesthood was popular with the kings is inaccurate. The Bible tells of at least one case in which priests who worshiped the "right" God (Jehovah, according to the latest biblical version) were slaughtered by order of King Saul in the city of Neb. The only priest who survived the massacre, Avitar, enjoyed the protection of the royal court in Judah but was exiled to the city of the Book of Anatot and was restricted to the territory of his seat under the warning "because you are a man of death...". The purpose of such stories is to give an explanation for non-trivial phenomena. Whether the story about Avitar is true and lived or not, it reflects the reality in which Anatot priests were forbidden to approach Jerusalem.

    Jerusalem was a city of a thousand temples and tombs. A wise king does not slaughter the goose that lays golden eggs. The priests who influenced Josiah came from an anti-temple school. Although the Bible does not indicate that Hilkiah is one of the priests of Anat, Jeremiah is the son of Hilkiah and it is possible that this is the same person - what's more, people who are close to Josiah's parts are also close to Jeremiah. Lest you ask, how is it that the priests of Anat, who for hundreds of years were prevented from coming to Jerusalem, were allowed to be included in the senior team of the priests of Solomon's temple? Well, it happened following the reformation led by Hezekiah, Josiah's great grandfather. Anat priests who were persecuted in Israel and were unwelcome in Judah were professional "troublemakers". They opposed work in temples and argued that the right work for God is not through pagan rituals but through morality and justice between man and his fellow man and between the government and its subjects. Josiah, under the influence of those priests, destroyed temples in Israel and Judah and neither did Solomon's temple escape his hand.

    It is probably no coincidence that the activity of the priests who influenced Josiah is so similar to that of the prophets who worked and were persecuted in Israel. Those "prophets" were nothing but priests who underwent "professional retraining" because when they were not bound to the temple they could be mobile and escape persecution. They came from the Levitical school attributed to Moses, while the priests of the great temples (for example in Solomon's temple and Jeroboam's temples) came from the Aaronic school. Like any non-trivial phenomenon, here too the biblical writer is required to bring a story. The story of the union between the two schools (Dahino, Aaron and Moses brothers) was born at the time of Hezekiah's reformation when eight families from Beit Itamar (from which came Ali the priest and Abitar the priest and the priests of Anat) were invited to serve as priests in Solomon's temple alongside the sixteen families from Beit Eleazar and at the same time the Levites, who were probably prophets / Israeli priests who allowed themselves to be exposed with the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, were also invited to work in the temple in junior positions.

  38. The science website time and time again proves itself to be cheap fanatical-extreme atheist propaganda.

    You, the Muslim who entered in Gemini, and every fanatical Jesuit-Messianic = exactly the same.

    You are the same person who always wears a different color shirt.

    disgrace,

    I'm tired of being surrounded by fanatics!

  39. Peace to Yuval

    According to the biblical source, Josiah carried out the reform in the 18th year of his reign, that is, when he was 26 years old, and then he is definitely a man of opinion, although he swims in the waters of the Garsa Dinkuta, and will probably not be cleansed.
    Precisely the priesthood was popular with the kings, and I wrote about this in many places, unlike the prophecy which was non-conformist and dissident. The reform carried out by the king, after that process of finding the book, was intended to underpin and confirm his states, his kingdom and Josiah's vision, in terms of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  40. To the author of the article:
    Your claim that the Jews "invented" the system is fundamentally false. Even if I agree with the economic principles you brought, it would be ridiculous to say that there is any innovation here. Religious mythologies have always been used to control the masses, and if such stories are brought as an example, then the story of "life after death", heaven and hell, which appears in almost all of them, is the basis of the "method". This story was probably used as a spur to maintain social order and pay taxes as he promised reward or punishment to the masses so that even death would not escape the obligations to society, religion and the state. Considering the living conditions of the common people - dependence on the weather, poverty and lack of control over their destiny - in order to maintain order and prevent their rebellion, a spurring factor was needed in the form of an inevitable reward and punishment for every person.

  41. And income tax is a gift to the public? Or is it okay because it is with the approval of the Knesset and not with the approval of a synagogue?

  42. Hello Dr. whistle,

    I'm not comfortable with the things you bring up, and let me explain:
    In light of the fact that the Bible was written by interested parties with the aim of influencing various elements of the nation, in any period in which it was compiled, its writers could add and subtract as they saw fit. Since we know human nature, we have no reason to suppose that things were not so. Therefore, as a document, the Bible is very problematic.
    The example I like to use is the time of Josiah. He came to power at the age of 8 years and as a king Yanukovych he was in the hands of his educators and teachers as material in the hands of the creator. His teachers, it turns out, were priests, because they were the educated class. They had an ulterior motive, which was to take control of the territories of the Land of Israel in which the Assyrian hold had weakened. They wrote for Josiah a biblical version that was convenient for them, with miraculous characters whose names are similar to his name, such as Joshua and Isaiah, and completely fictional characters such as King Solomon. Because of the historical circumstances (exile in Babylon), the work of rewriting the Bible froze shortly after the death of Josiah, and the Bible we have is mainly a collection of bedtime stories written for the ears of a young man, with an undeveloped sense of criticism.
    The complete absence of extra-biblical evidence about the mighty King Solomon and the settlement of the tribes in the days of Joshua stands out. Therefore, it would be nice if you would indicate that the things you bring must be accepted with a limited guarantee.
    Temples all over the world have always been an important focus for collecting funds. There is no need to stick to the biblical stories to make this clear.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.