It is a dark stain across most of the Protestant denominations. — Paine

I think it can be traced back to a growing animosity that develops with the followers of Paul. A question of birthright.

It is generally accepted by scholars that, while Jesus was a historical figure, David and Solomon are legendary. And if David and Solomon are legendary, so must be their “kingdoms”.

Indeed, Finkelstein & Silberman write:

Many of the archaeological props that once bolstered the historical basis of the David and Solomon narratives have recently been called into question. The actual extent of the Davidic “empire” is hotly debated. Digging in Jerusalem has failed to produce evidence that it was a great city in David or Solomon’s time. And the monuments ascribed to Solomon are now most plausibly connected with other kings. Thus a reconsideration of the evidence has enormous implications. For if there were no patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan – and no prosperous united monarchy under David and Solomon – can we say that early biblical Israel, as described in the Five Books of Moses and the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, ever existed at all?
Until a few years ago, virtually all biblical archaeologists accepted the scriptural description of the sister states of Judah and Israel at face value. Yet as we have shown, the supposed archaeological evidence of the united monarchy was no more than wishful thinking. And so it was also with the monuments attributed to the successors of Solomon. Like the Solomonic gates and palaces, these royal building operations are now known to have taken place almost two hundred years after the reigns of those particular kings ….
David and his son Solomon and the subsequent members of the Davidic dynasty ruled over a marginal, isolated, rural region, with no signs of great wealth or centralized administration. It did not suddenly decline into weakness and misfortune from an era of unparalleled prosperity. Instead it underwent a long and gradual development over hundreds of years. David and Solomon’s Jerusalem was only one of a number of religious centers within the land of Israel; it was surely not acknowledged as the spiritual center of the entire people of Israel (pp. 124, 235).

Elsewhere, Finkelstein describes David’s supposed kingdom as “500 people with sticks in their hands shouting and cursing and spitting – not the stuff of great armies of chariots described in the text” (R. Draper, “Kings of Controversy”, National Geographic, 2010).

The large structures excavated at Samaria, Jezreel, Megiddo, and Hazor, turned out to be not from the time of David and Solomon (1010 – 931 BC) at all, but from the time of King Omri (884 – 873 BC) and his successors, whose capital city was Samaria. Moreover, the architectural style was that of North Syria, which shows the extensive foreign influence on the Kingdom of Israel at the time.

If kingdoms ruled by people named “David” and “Solomon” did not exist in Israel at the suggested time, what of the “religion of Israel”?

It is clear from the archaeological and historical evidence that the Israelites did not initially have a unified political entity with a uniform religion. They were divided into many seminomadic tribes each with its own tribal leader and its own religious observances that followed the general Canaanite pattern. A temple may have existed at Jerusalem, but religion was not centralized and, even in the Temple, as stated in the OT, the God Yahweh was worshiped along with other deities.

Biblical scholars have demonstrated that these are not arbitrary isolated pagan practices, but part of a complex of rituals to appeal to heavenly powers for the fertility and well-being of the people and the land. In their outward form they resembled the practices used by neighboring peoples to honor and gain the blessings of other gods. Indeed, the archaeological finds of clay figurines, incense altars, libation vessels, and offerings stands throughout Judah merely suggest that the practice of religion was highly varied, geographically decentralized, and certainly not restricted to worship of YHWH only in the Temple of Jerusalem …
The existence of high places and other forms of ancestral and household god worship was not – as the books of Kings imply – apostasy from an earlier, purer faith. It was part of the timeless tradition of the hill country settlers of Judah, who worshiped YHWH along with a variety of gods and goddesses known or adapted from the cults of neighboring peoples. YHWH, in short, was worshiped in a wide variety of ways – and sometimes pictured as having a heavenly entourage. As far as we are able to tell from the archaeological evidence of the northern kingdom, there was a similar diversity of religious practice in Israel (Finkelstein & Silberman, pp. 241, 247).

The situation only changed after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel and the conquest of its capital Samaria by Assyria in 720 BC. The southern kingdom of Judah, whose population had earlier amounted to barely a tenth of that of its northern rival, increased significantly with a large influx of refugees. Having escaped complete annihilation by paying tribute to Assyria, Jerusalem profited from Assyrian vassalage by integrating into the Assyrian Empire and transforming its economy from one based on the village and clan to cash-cropping and industrialization under state centralization. This enabled Judah to experience a period of unprecedented prosperity, to the point that King Hezekiah felt he could rise against his Assyrian masters. He was, of course, disastrously defeated.

The economic and social changes brought about by Judah’s integration into Assyria’s powerful empire, provided the conditions for the formation of a Jewish state centered on Jerusalem. With the development of a centralized administration and state bureaucracy also came increasing centralization and standardization of official state religion.

This doesn’t mean that the whole population immediately went over to Yahwist (or Yahweh-only) monotheism. This only happened after the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon in 587 BC and the construction of the Second Temple. But the trend toward state-imposed monotheism seems to have started in the late 700’s and early 600’s BC, especially with the sudden “discovery” of the book with the “laws of Moses” by high priest Hilkiah.

As pointed out by Finkelstein & Silberman, the sudden discovery of the “book of the laws of Moses” coincided with the equally sudden spread of literacy in Judah and, crucially, with Assyrian suzerainty or vassal treaties which outlined the rights and obligations of a vassal nation (like Judah) to its sovereign (the Assyrian king), and which may have served as a model for similar sections in the Book of Deuteronomy:

To sum up, there is little doubt that an original version of Deuteronomy is the book of the Law mentioned in 2 Kings. Rather than being an old book that was suddenly discovered, it seems safe to conclude that it was written in the seventh century BCE, just before or during Josiah’s reign … Thus, ironically, what was most genuinely Judahite was labeled as Canaanite heresy. In the arena of religious debate and polemic, what was old was suddenly seen as foreign and what was new was suddenly seen as true. And in what can only be called an extraordinary outpouring of retrospective theology, the new, centralized kingdom of Judah and the Jerusalem-centered worship of YHWH was read back into Israelite history as the way things should always have been … (Finkelstein & Silberman, pp. 249, 281).

Indeed, the very concept of a monotheistic worship of Yahweh could have been inspired by Assyria’s national deity, the God Ashur, who like Yahweh in Malachi 4:1-3, was associated with a winged Sun Disk.

Significantly, the winged Sun Disk appears on the seals of the kings of Judah dating from the 700’s and 600’s BC, i.e. in the period the OT was composed:

The winged solar disk appears on Hebrew seals connected to the royal house of the Kingdom of Judah. Many of these are seals and jar handles from Hezekiah's reign, together with the inscription l'melekh ("belonging to the king"). Typically, Hezekiah's royal seals feature two downward-pointing wings and six rays emanating from the central sun disk, and some are flanked on either side with the Egyptian ankh ("key of life") symbol. Prior to this, there are examples from the seals of servants of king Ahaz and of king Uzziah.

Winged Sun – Wikipedia

The winged Sun Disk on Hezekiah’s royal seal, excavated at the foot of the southern wall of the Temple Mount, is of particular interest as the OT account specifically ascribes the “reintroduction” of Mosaic monotheism to Hezekiah’s reign.

What is certain is that Hezekiah was an ally of Egypt (Isaiah 30:2) and the winged Sun Disk and Egyptian ankh symbol on his seal indicate Egyptian influence.

However, as shown earlier, representations of a winged Sun Disk occur on the cult stand from Taanach near Megiddo and other artifacts from across the country attesting to the prevalence of a solar cult already at the suggested time of David and Solomon (11th-10th centuries BC).

Commenting on the origins of the new monotheistic religion, Finkelstein & Silberman write:

Sometime in the late eighth century BCE there arose an increasingly vocal school of thought that insisted that the cults of the countryside were sinful – and that YHWH alone should be worshiped. We cannot be sure where the idea originated. It is expressed in the cycle of stories of Elijah and Elisha (set down in writing long after the fall of the Omrides) and, more important, in the works of the prophets Amos and Hosea, both of whom were active in the eighth century in the north. As a result, some biblical scholars have suggested that this movement originated among dissident priests and prophets in the last days of the northern kingdom who were aghast at the idolatry of the Assyrian period. After the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, they fled southward to promulgate their ideas … (p. 248)

Since, admittedly, “we cannot be sure where the idea originated”, it could have originated in Egypt as suggested by a number of leading Egyptologists and other scholars. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the possibility should be considered, not suppressed.

In fact, it doesn’t make sense to say that monotheism was introduced to the Hebrews in Egypt by an Egyptian (or Hebrew raised as an Egyptian), and at the same time claim that it has nothing to do with Egypt.

The truth of the matter is that Egyptian culture was highly influential in the region. Egyptian art, architecture, technology, and religion were certainly influential on Canaan where Egypt maintained garrisons and administrative centers and built cities with houses, palaces, and temples. Canaanite elites who, during periods of Egyptian domination, were in close contact with their Egyptian overlords, would have been particularly exposed to Egyptian influence and in turn would have been in a position to influence organized state religion. It was customary for Canaanite rulers to send their sons to Egypt as hostages from where they would return, having received an Egyptian education, to become loyal vassals of Egypt.

As a seminomadic people, the Hebrews would certainly have looked to culturally more developed nations who already had the institutions that Hebrew culture lacked, such as monarchy and the centralized religion that came with it. In the same way they borrowed kingship and the concept of divine kings, they also borrowed religious concepts and practices from traditions that already had monotheistic or henotheistic tendencies, such as Assyria and Egypt, from which they evidently borrowed religious symbols like the winged Sun Disk.

It is clear to archaeologists, historians, and other scholars that the original religion of the Jews was a form of Canaanite polytheism that later underwent a long period of various stages of henotheism, monolatry, and monotheism, and that “Rabbinic Judaism” only emerged in the third century AD and became mainstream in the sixth century. Before this, the main form of Judaism was Hellenistic Judaism which, by definition, was Greek-influenced. This was the main form of Judaism at the time of Jesus. Additionally, various subforms of Hellenistic Judaism existed, as there was no official canon.

It follows that the basic fallacy committed by those who take the OT narrative at face value, aside from believing that all of it is true, is to assume that because key protagonists like Moses, David, and Solomon were “Jewish”, they must have been followers of Judaism. This is a fallacy (a) because there is no evidence that all of them were ethnic Jews (or even that they actually existed) and (b) because Judaism as we know it today simply did not exist at the time, as amply demonstrated by Finkelstein (winner of the Dan David Prize for outstanding contributions to the study of history) and other archaeologists, historians, biblical scholars, and Egyptologists.

In any case, given that like other religions, much of Judaism was transmitted orally, there is no logical reason why Jesus couldn’t have followed an oral tradition within Hellenistic Judaism that contained both Greek and Egyptian elements. Indeed, as noted by leading Bible scholars like Moshe Weinfeld, the Book of Deuteronomy shows similarities to early Greek literature, in expressions of ideology within programmatic speeches, in the genre of blessing and cursing, and in the ceremonies for the foundation of new settlements.

It was customary among Greek tribes to found a city or country on the territory they settled by consulting the deity’s will (the Greeks had prophets specialized in interpreting divine will and communicating it to men, hence prophetes, “one who speaks for God”); by building an altar to the tutelary or tribal deity (see the construction of an altar to Apollo by the Greek settlers of Sicily, mentioned by Thucydides); by entering into a formal contract or covenant with the deity, etc., exactly as the Hebrews did at Sinai and Shechem:

It is indeed interesting that both types of public anathema — cursing the violaters of the oath and banning transgressors — are attested in Greek covenantal oaths. Thus, for instance, in the oath taken by the members of the amphictyony against Cirrha (the first «holy war», 590 BCE) we read:
‘If anyone should violate this, whether city, private man or tribe let them be under the curse ... that their land bear no fruit: that their wives bear children not like those who begat them, but monsters: that their flocks yield not their natural increase: that defeat await them in camp and court and their gathering place’
These blessings and curses are strikingly similar to the series of blessings and curses in Deut 28, 3-6.16-19 quoted above … (Weinfeld, “The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents”).

Moreover, it is a well-known fact that the Egyptian God Amun-Ra was worshiped by other nations outside Egypt, especially the Greeks, to whom he had been known for centuries as Amun-Zeus (Zeus-Amon or Ammon), while the Romans later adopted him as Jupiter Ammon. The otherwise obscure biblical reference to “Emmanuel/Immanuel” makes sense when interpreted as “Amun-El” (or “Amun is El”), all of which shows that a syncretistic tradition existed that equated the supreme God of Egypt with the supreme God of Greece and the supreme God of Israel.

Hyginus, who had been a pupil of the Greek historian and scholar Alexander of Miletus, clearly connects the Egyptian God Amun with a foundation narrative. Diodorus describes Amun (Ammon) as the universal spirit that creates all things in nature, and also relates an account according to which Amun begat a son named Bacchus by the virgin Amalthea, and that Bacchus founded the oracle of his father Amun. Amalthea (“Maiden-Goddess”) is not only reminiscent of the Bible’s amla (“virgin” as well as “hidden one”) but is also equated with the Goddess Adrasteia, the personification of Destiny (or divine power). Again, this unquestionably shows spiritual teachings coached in symbolic and mythic language as was common practice in antiquity.

Above all, in his aspect as Truth or Ultimate Reality that is “hidden” to ordinary men, Amun-Zeus (Ammon) was the God of the philosophers (mentioned by Plato) but not the God of fundamentalist temple priests and the philosophically untutored masses for whom God could be nothing more than an anthropomorphic being, with supernatural powers, but nevertheless similar to humans in many respects.

There is no doubt that all this is highly inconvenient to some, as can be seen here, but the notion that Jesus MUST have been “an ignorant peasant” who didn’t know what he was talking about, who should have kept his mouth shut, and who deserved to be executed for speaking the truth, is an anti-Christian stance that is totally untenable and unacceptable IMO.

There is no historical evidence for a Hebrew king of the name “David”. — Apollodorus

David and Solomon are legendary. — Apollodorus

The irony of your attempt to discredit Judaism is that you inadvertently discredit a central theme of Christianity. If Jesus is descended from David and David is a legendary rather than real historical person then the claim that he could trace his messianic role to David must be rejected.

Your selective quotes from Finkelstein and Silberman is evidence that either you do not read and understand the material you quote from or that is it a deliberate misrepresentation. They say that David’s dynasty:

was known throughout the region; this clearly validates the biblical description of Judahite kings in Jerusalem.

You go on and on with your "search and plaster", but to what end? The fact that Jesus was an historical figure tells us nothing about the historical accuracy of the gospels.

If kingdoms ruled by people named “David” and “Solomon” did not exist in Israel at the suggested time, what of the “religion of Israel”? — Apollodorus

We have no evidence that Mary was a virgin. If she was not a virgin what of the "religion of pagan Christians"? We have no evidence that Jesus was the messiah, and good evidence against it. If he was not the messiah, what of the religion of Christians? We have no evidence of Jesus' resurrection. If he was not resurrected, what of the religion of Christians?

I could go on. The gospels accounts are in many ways contradictory and historically suspect. The Jesus they depict is a legend, which is quite different than claiming he did not exist.

In any case, given that like other religions, much of Judaism was transmitted orally, there is no logical reason why Jesus couldn’t have followed an oral tradition within Hellenistic Judaism that contained both Greek and Egyptian elements. — Apollodorus

And exactly what does that oral tradition say? There is no logical connection between the oral tradition and your conclusion that it contained both Greek and Egyptian elements or specifically what those elements were. Your assertion offers no support for the claim that the pagan ideas in the gospels can be found in the Judaism of Jesus' time.

the notion that Jesus MUST have been “an ignorant peasant” who didn’t know what he was talking about — Apollodorus

You have completely misunderstood what is at issue. What is at issue is whether Jesus was educated. There is no evidence that he was. But this is not the same as your hyperbolic attack on what no one here has said. One can be uneducated and know what they are talking about. According to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas the knowledge of the uneducated Jesus far exceeded that of what the rabbis could tell him.

who should have kept his mouth shut, and who deserved to be executed for speaking the truth, is an anti-Christian stance that is totally untenable and unacceptable IMO. — Apollodorus

Again, no one here has said any such thing. No one has defended the actions of the Jewish authorities who called for him to be put to death. You are simply perpetuating the ugly accusation that "the Jews" killed Jesus.

I think it can be traced back to a growing animosity that develops with the followers of Paul. A question of birthright. — Fooloso4

That certainly must be the case. On the other hand, the experience of reading those texts directly after centuries of being told what it says may have had something to do with the strong emotions elicited. The scene had changed from when Paul was explaining why the narrative included Gentiles. Luther reacts as if he just watched the whole event on videotape and is beside himself with rage.

Pascal is an interesting counterpoint to that reaction. In the Pensées, he spends a lot of time on thinking about Judaism as different through the lens of Paul but goes further into texts outside of the Passion and ends up saying the differences did not place Judaism outside of the truth as Pascal understood it to be.

(To be clear, Pascal's role in the Reformation is much different from Protestants who broke from the Church altogether.)

A few of the many accounts that can be found.

Romans killed Jesus as a political threat, as they had killed many other prophets, brigands, rebels during the first century. Josephus the Jewish historian recounts many examples in his Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities.

Some (note “some’) Jewish leaders (Sadducees and Pharisees) owed their positions to their patron/client relation to the Roman authorities. The emperor appointed the procurator of Judea who appointed the High Priest. Other Jewish parties, including teachers and prophets in rural Galilee and the Dead Sea Scrolls community of Qumran, either rejected or rebelled against the Jerusalem leaders’ tainted relationship with Rome.

Mark, the earliest Gospel we have, was written ca. 60-70 CE. He shows Jesus’ death as a collusion between the compromised leaders and Pilate, kind of 50/50, but Mark 15:15 makes it clear that it was Pilate who had him crucified.

Matthew and Luke were written much later, ca. 80-95, and reflect different interests and viewpoints. Matthew portrays Jesus as a Super Teacher or Rabbi on the model of Moses. Being a Jewish follower of Jesus (the word “Christian” first occurs in Antioch), Matthew also reflects a period after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE when conflicts broke out between rabbinic Yavneh Jews and the Jewish followers of Jesus. Surviving rabbis at the Council Yavhneh (ca. 90) tried to exclude “Nazoreans” (followers of the man from Nazareth) from partaking in the synagogue. The rabbis may not have been too successful. Recent archeological research indicates that later Jewish Christians partook in the synagogue until the 7th century! (I always point out to my students that a Christian can go to any Jewish Sabbath service and say all the prayers with full religious sincerity.) Matthew goes to some length to remove blame from the Roman authorities. He has Pilate’s wife interceding for Jesus (many emperor’s wives interceded for Christians in Rome) and Pilate washing his hands as a sign of innocence. Probably because of intra-Jewish rivalry, puts the ultimate blame squarely on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities by adding the verse “His blood be upon us and our children” (Matthew 24:25).

In Luke, the “whitewash” of the Romans becomes nearly complete. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts should be read as one work. Luke/Acts is unfolds in ascending dyptychs and was written for a Roman audience, probably a noble audience. We can now use the word “Christian” which occurs at Acts 11:26 for the first time, but the term was almost certainly a pejorative epithet in origin. Luke/Acts unfolds according to the following pattern: from John Baptist to Jesus, from Galilee to Jerusalem, from Peter to Paul, and from Jerusalem to Rome. Luke is trying to justify Christianity in the face of criticism by the Romans who accused it of being “superstition.” Luke goes beyond Matthew to establish Roman innocence. The crowning with thorns and mocking of Jesus passages are removed. Then three times Pilate declares Jesus’ innocence to the crowd. Luke finesses Pilate’s responsibility: “But Jesus he [Pilate] delivered up to their [the crowd’s] will” (Luke 23:26). Perhaps I should say “Romanwash” instead of “whitewash.” Other souces tell us that Pontius Pilate was a particularly cruel govenor who brooked no opposition.

The Gospel of John, as most scholars maintain, stands by itself but one of the signs of its lateness in its present form (ca. 100-110 CE) is that John does not lay Jesus’ death so much on Pilate, or Pilate Jewish authorities, or even the Jewish authorities alone, but “Jews” as a whole (John 19:12). The break with Judaism is nigh complete. The stereotype is set for the later, fateful charge that “the Jews killed Jesus” although John does not say this. — Romans are to Blame

Jews, on the other hand, lacked a motive for killing Jesus. The different factions of the Jewish community at the time — Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and others — had many disagreements with one another, but that did not lead any of the groups to arrange the execution of the other allegedly heretical groups’ leaders. It is therefore unlikely they would have targeted Jesus. — Who Killed Jesus?

Jesus was crucified as a Jewish victim of Roman violence. On this, all written authorities agree. A Gentile Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, condemned him to death and had him tortured and executed by Gentile Roman soldiers. Jesus was indeed one of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans.

The New Testament testifies to this basic fact but also allows for Jewish involvement in two ways. First, a few high-ranking Jewish authorities who owed their position and power to the Romans conspired with the Gentile leaders to have Jesus put to death; they are said to have been jealous of Jesus and to have viewed him as a threat to the status quo. Second, an unruly mob of people in Jerusalem called out for Jesus to be crucified—the number of persons in this crowd is not given, nor is any motive supplied for their action (except to say that they had been “stirred up,” Mark 15:11).

Whatever the historical circumstances might have been, early Christian tradition clearly and increasingly placed blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews, decreasing the Romans’ culpability. — Crucifiction of Jesus and the Jews

Greek thought peaked roughly 2.5 centuries before Jesus preached his first sermons in the Levant. This puts Jesus in a time when Greek civilzation was breathing its last. Yet some of the oldest manuscripts of the gospels are in Greek!

What gives?

Romans killed Jesus as a political threat, as they had killed many other prophets, brigands, rebels — Romans are to Blame

So it was written, so shall it be. — Egyptian Intro, Rome Total War

In the ancient world, words and narratives had several levels of meaning. “Son of God”, for example, could be understood literally or metaphorically. The belief that a God could have children, including with humans, was widespread in ancient religions.

But “son of God” was also a title associated with royalty, especially in Egypt. As a tribal, nomadic or seminomadic society, the Hebrews originally had no kings. This is why, as the OT states, they asked for a king “like all other nations”:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, now make us a king to judge us like all the nations (1 Samuel 8:4-5).

Samuel, a prophet of the Hebrews, anointed Saul as king (1 Samuel 10:1) but there is no record of his coronation and under him the different tribes continued to rule themselves as before, Saul being their leader during military campaigns, only.

In contrast, David and Solomon were appointed kings by God himself (Psalm 2:6-7):

I have set my king upon my holy mountain of Zion. I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me [King David], ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten [i.e., created or appointed] You” (Psalm 2:6-7).

And when your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I [God] will raise up your descendant [Solomon] after you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he will be My son (2 Samuel 7:12-14).

As the Hebrews admittedly had no kings, they also had no tradition of divine kings. They must have borrowed it from one of their neighboring nations, most likely from Egypt where the institution of divine kings had been established for many centuries and whose kings or pharaohs actually ruled Canaan.

But what about the kings themselves? Who were they and what was their religion?

Though the general consensus is that there is no extrabiblical evidence for David and Solomon, or for their kingdoms, this doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist at all. It only means that they didn’t exist as, when, and where, described in the OT.

There are many anomalies in the OT narrative. For example, why were David and Solomon the only Israelite kings referred to as “sons of God”? If the Israelites were nomadic people, why would their king build a palace? If Egyptian pharaohs never gave their daughters in marriage to foreign kings, not even to the kings of powerful states like Babylon, why would they make an exception for a Hebrew king? Why did Solomon have many wives from different nationalities, but not a Hebrew one to bear him a Hebrew heir? Similarly, Moses married Zipporah, a Midianite (Exodus 2:21), and apparently also a Cushite or Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1).

These are just a few of the many inconsistencies and odd claims made in the OT. Regarding Moses, various versions of the narrative were in circulation at the time of Jesus. For example, the Greek philosopher and historian Strabo (64 BC – 24 AD) wrote:

An Egyptian priest named Moses, who possessed a portion of the country called the Lower [Egypt], being dissatisfied with the established institutions there, left it and came to Judæa with a large body of people who worshiped the Divinity. He declared and taught that the Egyptians and Africans entertained erroneous sentiments, in representing the Divinity under the likeness of wild beasts and cattle of the field; that the Greeks also were in error in making images of their gods after the human form. For God [said he] may be this one thing which encompasses us all, land and sea, which we call heaven, or the universe, or the nature of things. Who then of any understanding would venture to form an image of this Deity, resembling anything with which we are conversant? on the contrary, we ought not to carve any images, but to set apart some sacred ground and a shrine worthy of the Deity, and to worship Him without any similitude. He taught that those who made fortunate dreams were to be permitted to sleep in the temple, where they might dream both for themselves and others; that those who practised temperance and justice, and none else, might expect good, or some gift or sign from the God, from time to time. By such doctrine Moses persuaded a large body of right-minded persons to accompany him to the place where Jerusalem now stands … (Geography 16.2.35-36).

We don’t know what Strabo’s exact sources were, but he does not seem to have been familiar with the OT narrative and it is clear that many extrabiblical oral accounts existed, such as those recorded by Hecataeus, Manetho, Strabo, and others, going as far back as the fourth century BC, that agreed on Moses being an Egyptian, rather than a Hebrew.

Of particular interest are those versions of the narrative as recorded, for example, by Pompeius Trogus (Historiae Philippicae) and Apion (Aegyptiaca) that specifically refer to the cult instituted by Moses as “Egyptian”.

Apion’s (now lost) work is quoted by Josephus as stating:

I have heard of the ancient men of Egypt, that Moses was of Heliopolis, and that he thought himself obliged to follow the customs of his forefathers, and offered his prayers in the open air, towards the city walls; but that he reduced them all to be directed towards sun-rising, which was agreeable to the situation of Heliopolis; that he also set up pillars instead of gnomons, under which was represented a cavity like that of a boat, and the shadow that fell from their tops fell down upon that cavity, that it might go round about the like course as the sun itself goes round in the other (Contra Apionem II 2-3).

Not unnaturally, Josephus and other Jewish writers disagree with Apion’s account. But an earlier Jewish historian, Artapanos of Alexandria, in his lost work On the Jews, describes Moses as a follower of Egyptian religion and he himself is regarded by some scholars as a polytheistic Jew.

Artapanus of Alexandria – Wikipedia

As stated earlier, the scholarly consensus is that the Old Testament scripture was “extremely fluid” until its canonization around AD 100. Given that many oral traditions existed that were at variance with the “official” OT text, their existence cannot be simply dismissed. On the contrary, it seems proper for truth-loving persons to see which of those traditions are the most plausible ones.

In any case, in view of the fact that it is generally accepted that the OT text underwent heavy editing centuries after Moses, we cannot exclude the possibility that the movement introduced by a religious leader called Moses (or some other name) was, in fact, a form of Egyptian religion.

Indeed, as according to the OT, Moses was born and raised in Egypt, particularly at the royal palace, it would have been entirely natural for him to have been initiated into the cult of the royal household.

Assuming that the religion he introduced was (a) new and (b) monotheistic, the closest Egyptian cult would have been that of Aten, introduced by Pharaoh Akhenaten in the second half of the fourteenth century BC (c. 1340 BC).

According to the Wikipedia article on Moses,

Generally, Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE. Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE.

The rabbinical date would place Moses approximately within the lifetime of Akhenaten and raises the possibility that the historical Moses was Egyptian, which is consistent with the extrabiblical accounts mentioned above.

Interestingly, the order to construct a tomb for Akhenaten is inscribed on the cliffs demarcating the boundaries of Akhenaten’s capital Akhetaten, and reads:

Let a tomb be made for me in the eastern mountain [of Akhetaten]. Let my burial be made in it, in the millions of jubilees which the Aten, my father, decreed for me.

It can be seen that this is consistent with the OT statement to the effect that Moses was buried by God:

So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day (Deuteronomy 34:4-6).

Though the biblical Moses is said to have died “in Moab”, the statement “no one knows the place of his burial” may be interpreted as an attempt to cover up the true location. At the same time, however, Moab lies to the east of Judah, which is reminiscent of “the eastern mountain (of Akhetaten)”, and in both cases the burial place is outside the land of Israel.

Historians, Bible scholars, Egyptologists, mythologists, and psychologists, have long tried to solve this puzzle. Why was Moses, who had introduced the new religion and had led the new community for many years, not allowed to set foot in the promised land? And how is it possible that the Israelites, who remembered details of Moses’ birth and adult life, had no recollection of his place of burial? If “Moses” was an Egyptian who died and was buried in Egypt, this would solve the puzzle. As noted earlier, psychologists like Freud have suggested that he was murdered. In contrast, Egyptologists like Assmann believe that what the Israelites, who later composed the OT, buried was not Moses, but the memory of his true identity.

The case of King David seems a bit more complicated. The OT describes him as a shepherd who was appointed king. Therefore, he could have been the chieftain of a nomadic group. Yet he is described as “the son of God” which is an Egyptian royal title, and he is said to have built a large palace for himself. Certainly, as leader of a group of nomadic pastoralists, he would have been unlikely (a) to bear a traditional Egyptian royal title, and (b) to have built a palace when, as shown by the archaeological evidence, there was no Hebrew kingdom and therefore no need for such a building.

While it is possible that the story of an actual Hebrew chief was later embellished by the OT editors or redactors, it is equally possible to detect an Egyptian connection. Having seen that “Moses” was most likely an Egyptian, it isn’t out of place to see if any of the Egyptian kings would have been a more likely candidate for the role of “David”.

According to one OT account (Book of Joshua), the Israelites conquered Canaan in the thirteenth century BC in a swift military campaign led by Moses’ successor Joshua. According to another account (Judges), the conquest was gradual and involved many separate conflicts. After becoming “king of all Israel” in the eleventh century BC, David supposedly conquered the Jebusite stronghold of Jerusalem and defeated the Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, Amalekites, Ammonites and king Hadadezer of Aram-Zobah (a kingdom in southern Syria), establishing an unprecedented empire stretching from the Red Sea in the south to Syria in the north, so that his son Solomon came to rule “over all the kingdoms west of the Euphrates River from Tiphsah to Gaza" (I Kings 4:24).

This is contradicted by archaeological evidence which shows that in the twelfth century BC, the Hebrews were still a nomadic population living among the ruins of ancient cities (many of which had been destroyed by the Philistines) and other Canaanite nations, with the highlands of Judah at the supposed time of David consisting of only “about twenty small villages and a few thousand inhabitants, many of them wandering pastoralists” (Finkelstein & Silberman, pp. 135-6).

It was only in the mid-tenth and early ninth centuries BC that monumental structures, fortifications, and other signs of full statehood appear in the area under Assyrian influence, especially during the time of King Omri and his successors (c. 886-760 BC) who established a kingdom in the northern highland with the capital at Samaria. Having initially been no more than a typical highland hill village, Judah’s capital Jerusalem itself only began to expand in the eighth century and became a relatively large city in the seventh century BC.

To repeat, there is no extrabiblical evidence for David and even less for Solomon. There is a ninth-century BC stone slab (or stela) from Tel Dan in northern Israel with an inscription containing the word bytdwd that some have interpreted as “House of David” (Beit David) but as scholars have pointed out, could refer to a place, (-dwd as in Ashdod, for example) not necessarily to a person. In contrast, there is evidence for a “House of Omri”, for example, in the Obelisk of Shalmaneser III showing King Jehu of Israel bowing down to his Assyrian overlord in 841 BC.

Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III – Wikipedia

It follows that kings David and Solomon couldn’t have been the powerful monarchs reigning over a vast empire as claimed in the OT. In addition to the obviously wrong chronology, there is also the glaring anomaly of David and Solomon as “sons of God”. Neither their predecessor Saul, nor their successors Rehoboam and others, are referred to as “sons of God”. Therefore, we must look for two divine kings with a vast empire and sumptuous palaces and temples elsewhere. Following the clue of Solomon’s marriage to pharaoh’s daughter, we must look to Egypt for a possible solution.

Having seen that Akhenaten is largely consistent with “Moses”, we may note that Thutmose (Thutmosis) III is a good candidate for the role of King David. Though he lived before the time of David, Thutmose was known for conquering the northern city of Megiddo, for collecting tribute from vassal Canaanite kings, for his conquest of Syria, and for his monumental buildings. Thutmose also carried the image of God Amun-Ra as a battle standard at the head of his forces (in the same way the Israelites carried the Ark) and may have resided at Jerusalem where there was an Egyptian garrison, during his siege of Megiddo. All these were things attributed to “David” in the Bible.

How did Egyptian “Thutmose” become Hebrew “David”? Thut or twt referred to Thot, the Egyptian God of Wisdom, and ms simply meant “son of”. So, the pharaoh’s full name meant “Son of God Thot”. “David” (Hebrew dwd) may be a transliteration of Egyptian twt. But it also means “beloved”, an epithet commonly used in Egyptian royal titles: “Beloved of (God) Ra”, “Beloved of (God) Amun”, etc.

Similarly, in Arabic, David (Dawud) means “beloved” and in the Muslim tradition David/Dawud is associated not only with “beloved” or “favorite” (of God) but also with birds:

And indeed We gave knowledge to Dawud (David) and Sulaiman (Solomon), and they both said: "All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has preferred us above many of His believing slaves!" (27:15).
And Sulaiman (Solomon) inherited (the knowledge of) Dawud (David). He said: "O mankind! We have been taught the language of birds, and on us have been bestowed all things. This, verily, is an evident grace (from Allah)" (27:16).
Verily, We made the mountains to glorify Our Praises with him [Dawud (David)] in the 'Ashi (i.e. after the mid-day till sunset) and Ishraq (i.e. after the sunrise till mid-day) (38:18).
And (so did) the birds assembled: all with him [Dawud (David)] did turn (to Allah i.e. glorified His Praises) (38:19).

The Egyptian God Thot was not only the God of Wisdom, but he was also symbolized by the ibis bird. So, three key elements associated with Thutmose, namely “wisdom”, “beloved”, “bird”, are also associated with David in the Koran which, as we know, is a development of earlier Jewish traditions.

Additionally, Jewish tradition states that David’s original name, before he ascended to the throne, was Elhanan (“God gave”). For example, when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Aramaic, “Elhanan” was given as slayer of Goliath (2 Samuel 21:19). This is consistent with “David” being not a birthname but a royal title, comparable to “Thut(mose)”, which suggests that, as in the case of “Moses”, an effort was made by OT editors to conceal David’s true identity. This is why no trace of “David”, the Israelites’ most important king and hero, has ever been found in Israel but there is plenty of evidence for an identical figure in next-door Egypt, just as there is plenty of evidence for a religious founder there in the form of Akhenaten.

Similarly, while there is zero evidence for a Hebrew king and son-in-law of the pharaoh ruling over an empire stretching from Egypt to the Euphrates, there are such kings in next-door Egypt who were the overlords of Canaanite kingdoms and were naturally known to the population of Canaan, including the Hebrews. As pointed out by Egyptologists and other scholars (Assmann, Moses the Egyptian) if the histories of two nations overlap to some extent, it is entirely natural for their national memories to have elements in common. In fact, it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise.

As mentioned earlier, an Egyptian king that would fit the picture of “Solomon” particularly well, is Amenhotep III whose name or, rather, royal title means “Amun is at Peace” which is consistent with “Solomon” being traditionally derived from the Hebrew word for peace, shalom (shlm), or Semitic salam (slm).

As with “David”, the OT states that Solomon’s name was “Jedidiah” (Yedid-Yah, “beloved of God”) given to him as instructed by God (2 Samuel 12:25). Again, this is consistent with Egyptian royal practice.

Moreover, not only did Amenhotep rule over a vast empire that included Canaan, but he was married to pharaoh Thutmose IV’s daughter Sitamun, and built monumental palaces and temples, including a shrine at Jerusalem.

And, while there is no evidence of letter exchanges between a “King Hiram of Tyre” (the Phoenician city-state) and Solomon whom the former supposedly supplied with building materials for the Jerusalem Temple, there is extensive correspondence between King Abimilki of Tyre and the Egyptian king. In fact, Egypt had strong relations with Tyre, which for centuries had been supplying Egypt with cedar wood for the construction of royal boats, tombs, and temples.

The fact is that Solomon either existed or he didn’t. If he did exist and, as the OT claims, he was married to the pharaoh’s daughter and to many “foreign women”, then (a) he must have been Egyptian and (b) he had a number of sons who could have qualified as rulers of a small Canaanite kingdom.

Indeed, in addition to being married to the pharaoh’s daughter Sitamun, Amenhotep was also married to Tiye and several other foreign princesses, and produced at least two sons and four daughters.

Of particular interest is Amenhotep’s religious orientation. As his royal title indicates, he was initially a worshiper of Amun. However, one of his sons was Amenhotep IV who, on becoming king, introduced the monotheistic cult of Aten and renamed himself Akhenaten. Amenhotep himself seems to have adopted the new cult later in life, as he named his youngest daughter Beketaten (“Handmaid of Aten”), and had himself, his wife, and his youngest daughter depicted as worshiping Aten.

Amenhotep III with Queen Tiye and Princess Beketaten. Amarna tomb of Huya - Wikipedia

As the OT relates, Solomon in his later years took to worshiping the Sun which apparently scandalized later generations of Temple priests. Similarly, Amehotep III seems to have taken to worshiping a monotheistic God (symbolized by the Sun Disk or Orb) which equally scandalized the priests of Egypt.

Moreover, while divine kings were unknown to the Ancient Hebrews, divine kingship was a centuries-old institution in Egypt. The Egyptian king was physically the son of his father and spiritually the son of God, which is why on ascending to the throne he acquired the title “son of God”. This tradition was carried on into Hellenistic times and was adopted by Alexander the Great and his successors.

If Alexander could call himself “son of Amun-Zeus”, then so could Jesus, especially if he was a descendant of Egyptian and Hebrew royalty as suggested by the Talmud where he is referred to as “son of Joseph Pandira”, i.e., as having a physical father or ancestor (Joseph) and a spiritual one (Pa-Ntr-Ra, “The-God-Ra”). Likewise, the NT references to Emmanuel (Amun-El), Truth, Light of the World, etc., in connection with Jesus, suggest a new revelation of age-old teachings.

So, there is no contradiction there. Jesus’ teachings are a fusion of the highest elements of Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish religion conveyed in the universal language of the time, which was Greek.

It is generally acknowledged that while the OT seems to have some historical facts right, others are clearly distorted, made up, or borrowed from other traditions and adapted to suit the editors’ agenda. In any case, the “official” OT narrative doesn’t have to be the only correct one. But if we choose to believe that Egypt and Greece never existed and never had any influence on anything, then it’s a different story ….

If I didn't know better I would think that this is a parody. And since you don't know better you are unaware of how ridiculous this is.

If the stories of Solomon and David are fictional then it makes no sense to identify them as Egyptian or to claim that the stories are true but the names have been changed.

there is also the glaring anomaly of David and Solomon as “sons of God”. — Apollodorus

If the stories of Solomon and David are fictional then it makes no sense to say that it is an anomaly that they were were referred to as 'son of God'. They are in fact called son of God in the Hebrew Bible.

Further, if they did exist that does not mean that their stories are historical with a few changes to disguise the fact that they were Egyptian. You arbitrary choose what to take as historical and what to alter in order to make them Egyptians.

We might ask why you do this. The answer can be found here:

Moreover, while divine kings were unknown to the Ancient Hebrews, divine kingship was a centuries-old institution in Egypt. — Apollodorus

This is all a long runaround to avoid facing the fact that the Jewish Jesus was not a man-god.

But you equivocate. If 'son of God' is, as you say, someone who has a physical father as well as a spiritual one, then when Jesus is called a 'son of God' it does not mean what it does for pagan Christians. It does not mean, as you previously claimed, that he is one and the same as God or that God was his actual father.

It has taken you almost a year to get to this point. It is nice to see that you are still learning. There is hope for you yet.

The way I see it, philosophy and rational thinking in general, should be based on facts. Unfortunately, people tend to be averse to anything that contradicts their preferred perception of reality. This is why they dismiss history, archaeology, and other disciplines that might bring to light inconvenient facts.

This is particularly the case when it comes to religion. If people have been brought up to believe certain things, they will tend to reject anything that challenges those beliefs.

For example, some believe that a great Hebrew king named “David” existed, who ruled over a vast empire stretching from Egypt to northern Syria in the eleventh-tenth century BC. As Finkelstein & Silberman have demonstrated, some among those who subscribe to this belief not only are unconcerned with the total lack of supporting evidence, but are attempting to use any archaeological finds as “evidence” for their belief.

It will be recalled that the Philistines or Peleset (originally from Crete in the Aegean Sea), having invaded Canaan in the 1100’s BC, settled in the southwestern part of the country (known as “Philistia” from which the name “Palestine”) after which they gradually spread east- and northward, conquering Canaanite cities on the way. These Philistine conquests were apparently reinterpreted by the OT authors, and some modern archaeologists blindly following them, as the conquests of “David”:

The gradual spread of the Philistines’ distinctive Aegean-inspired decorated pottery into the foothills and as far north as the Jezreel valley provides evidence for the progressive expansion of the Philistines’ influence throughout the country. And when evidence of destruction – around 1000 BCE – of lowland cities was found, it seemed to confirm the extent of David’s conquests.
One of the best examples of this line of reasoning is the case of Tel Qasile, a small site on the northern outskirts of modern Tel Aviv, first excavated by the Israeli biblical archaeologist and historian Benjamin Mazar in 1948-50. Mazar uncovered a prosperous Philistine town, otherwise unknown in the biblical accounts. The last layer there that contained characteristic Philistine pottery and bore the hallmarks of Philistine culture was destroyed by fire. And even though there was no specific reference in the Bible to David’s conquest of this area, Mazar did not hesitate to conclude that David leveled the settlement in his wars against the Philistines.
And so it went throughout the country, with David’s destructive handiwork seen in ash layers and tumbled stones at sites from Philistia to the Jezreel valley and beyond. In almost every case where a city with late Philistine or Canaanite culture was attacked, destroyed, or even remodeled, King David’s sweeping conquests were seen as the cause …. (pp. 134-5)

Similarly, when disciples of “Emperor Solomon” found no trace of his supposed empire at Jerusalem, they dug up northern cities like Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer described in the OT as having been “rebuilt by Solomon” (1 Kings 9:15). There they found indeed large public buildings with massive gates and stables, as well as large palaces apparently fitting the OT description of Solomon’s Jerusalem palace.

As the structures discovered showed clear influence of north Syrian architectural style, it was conjectured that this confirmed the OT account of “King Hiram of Tyre’s” involvement in Solomon’s construction projects.

Unfortunately, as Finkelstein & Silberman explain, closer analysis of the architectural styles and pottery forms from the sites in question indicates that they actually date to the early ninth century, i.e., long after the suggested date of Solomon, and this is supported by carbon 14 dating.

Moreover, the appearance in northern Israel of monumental structures in northern Syrian style, coincides with the development of that style in the rest of the Levant when the northern kingdom of Israel established by King Omri in the 800’s BC was under Syrian influence and soon became a vassal of Assyria. Additionally, Omri’s capital was at Samaria and it had nothing to do with Judah and its capital Jerusalem which was still in an undeveloped stage at the time.

Omri seems to have been a significant military campaigner who built Samaria as his capital and expanded the kingdom of Israel. However, there is hardly any information on him in the OT.

Finkelstein & Silberman explain:

Out of a total of approximately forty-five thousand people living in the hill country [consisting of the tiny kingdoms of Israel and Judah], a full 90 percent would have inhabited the villages of the north. That would have left about five thousand people scattered among Jerusalem, Hebron, and about twenty small villages in Judah, with additional groups probably continuing as pastoralists. Such a small and isolated society like this would have been likely to cherish the memory of an extraordinary leader like David as his descendants continued to rule in Jerusalem over the next four hundred years.
At first, in the tenth century, their rule extended over no empire, no palatial cities, no spectacular capital. Archaeologically we can say no more about David and Solomon except that they existed – and that their legend endured.
Yet the fascination of the Deuteronomistic historian of the seventh century BCE with the memories of David and Solomon – and indeed the Judahites’ apparent continuing veneration of these characters – may be the best if not the only evidence for the existence of some sort of an early Israelite unified state.
The fact that the Deuteronomist employs the united monarchy as a powerful tool of political propaganda suggests that in his time the episode of David and Solomon as rulers over a relatively large territory in the central highlands was still vivid and widely believed (p. 143).

A united “kingdom of Israel” may or may not have existed. However, there is no extrabiblical evidence for its existence and archaeological and historical data suggest that it didn’t exist. Another important fact to understand is that the central highland area where the Israelites were based is about 80km (49mi) in length and 20km (12mi) across, the remainder of the lowlands and the coast in the west being controlled by Philistines and other nationalities. By comparison, the Babylonian Empire was six to seven times larger and the Egyptian Empire many times larger than both.

Royal chroniclers are notorious for the exaggerated image of their masters that they are trying to portray. But the notion of a local king who ruled over an extensive empire and was married to pharaoh’s daughter is risible. It follows that the “memory of an extraordinary leader” promoted by the OT authors is either (a) completely made up or (b) the memory of a different leader. If (b), then the most likely model for the OT narrative is a king that actually ruled over such a large area, and such a king could only have been an Egyptian pharaoh.

We know that the OT authors suppressed information about the Omride dynasty. And we also know why. The OT was composed by priests associated with the smaller Israelite kingdom of Judah centered on Jerusalem, to which the larger kingdom of Israel was a long-time rival. In addition, all the kings of Israel from Jeroboam to Hoshea had been following the traditional polytheistic religion, which is why the OT authors saw them as “wicked”. As a result, the OT seeks to play down the importance of the northern kingdom and its rulers, and to exaggerate the importance of Judah and its rulers.

To be sure, as stated in the OT, most of the kings of Judah had also been “wicked”. In fact, the very first “King of Israel and Judah”, Saul himself, had been “wicked”, and even Samuel, who appointed Saul king, had been “wicked”:

So Saul and his servant went up toward the city, and as they were entering it, there was Samuel coming toward them on his way up to the high place (1 Samuel 9:14).

“High place” (Hebrew bamah) is the OT term used for places of worship located in open areas or natural hilltops, where traditional religious rites were observed by Canaanites including Hebrews. In this particular case, the high place to which prophet Samuel is heading to attend the sacrificial feast, is inside the city. Interestingly, just the day before, Yahweh himself instructed Samuel, Israel’s “wicked” spiritual leader, to anoint Saul as king. This is duly done on the following morning, after Samuel blessed the sacrifice and participated in the meal with his guest Saul.

On his part, King Saul named his youngest son Eshbaal (“Fire of (God) Baal”) and is said to have turned against “the religion of the Lord”, for which he was slain by God (1 Chronicles 8:33, 10:13-14).

Significantly, he is also said to have killed the priests of Yahweh and to have fought David. Obviously, there was division and conflict among the Israelites – which is precisely why they split into two kingdoms – and the Judahites got to write the history of both kingdoms only because Israel was destroyed by Assyria, whereas Judah was saved from Babylon by Persia.

In any case, Jeroboam, Saul’s successor as King of Israel after David and Solomon, likewise “rejected the religion of the Lord” and as advised by his religious leaders, he “made golden calves” and “built shrines in high places”:

After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves and said to the people, “Going up to Jerusalem is too much for you. Here, O Israel, are your gods, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.”
One calf he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people walked as far as Dan to worship before one of the calves.
Jeroboam also built shrines on the high places and appointed from every class of people priests who were not Levites. And Jeroboam ordained a feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the feast that was in Judah, and he offered sacrifices on the altar; he made this offering in Bethel to sacrifice to the calves he had set up, and he installed priests in Bethel for the high places he had set up. So he ordained a feast for the Israelites, offered sacrifices on the altar, and burned incense (1 Kings 12:28-33).

Scholars have long recognized a connection between Jeroboam’s construction of shrines to traditional deities and making of golden calves, and Aaron’s making a gold calf to celebrate the God that brought the Israelites out of Egypt. This and many other references to traditional religion, mean that the objective OT reader cannot but conclude that the original religion of the Hebrews was a form of Canaanite polytheism which had many elements in common with other religions in the region from Egypt to Greece.

What becomes clear is that “righteous” kings “David” and “Solomon” were inserted into the Israelites’ long series of “wicked” kings in order to justify Jerusalem’s claim to religious and political authority. And because most of Judah’s kings from Solomon’s son Rehoboam to Zedekiah had been “wicked”, this was used to explain the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the deportation of its population, as well as to justify the centralization of spiritual power in the hands of the Second Temple priests after the return from Babylon and the reconstruction of the Temple.

However, strict monotheism seems to have been enforced centuries later and, even though the use of cult statues was eventually discontinued, the OT God remained an anthropomorphic deity associated with the Sun as can be seen from later Hellenistic synagogues.

Outside Israel, a similar tension existed between traditional, popular religion and the religion of the elites. Yet, unlike in Israel, this tension did not lead to open conflict. The masses kept their traditional religion, which continued to be promoted by the state, whilst spiritually evolved men and women turned their minds to the divine in its highest form of Truth or Ultimate Reality itself.

This, too, is consistent with Egyptian tradition. As explained earlier, the Egyptians already worshiped their supreme deity under two aspects, a visible one represented by the rising and midday Sun (Ra), and an invisible one represented by the setting and midnight Sun (Amun), hence the dual deity Amun-Ra. The monotheistic religion introduced by Pharaoh Akhenaten was merely a development of established religion, in which the invisible deity, iconographically symbolized by the Sun Disk or Orb (Aten), was worshiped as the sole God.

This uniquely evolved or refined form of religion was, of course, a royal cult. It never became the religion of the masses. Moreover, Akhenaten was succeeded by his son Tutankhaten (“Living Image of Aten”) who initially upheld the official monotheistic cult introduced by his father. However, Atenism did not prove popular with either his subjects or the priestly class. In the fourth year of his reign, Tutankhaten reinstated the old polytheistic religion, and changed his name to Tutankhamun (“Living Image of Amun”). Yet while he publicly promoted the old Amun-Ra tradition, privately he seems to have remained loyal to the Aten cult. This is supported by artistic representations of the deity in the form of the Sun Disk Aten, as can be seen from the back panel of Tutankhamun’s golden throne.

Tutankhamun’s Throne – Ancient Egypt

This also appears to be reflected in the Jewish tradition of vocalizing the written divine name YHWH as “Adonai” (i.e., Adon or Aten), though it seems that the true meaning and reason for this has been forgotten.

As the OT itself admits, the true religion originated in Egypt where it was revealed to Moses who had been brought up in the Egyptian tradition. Jesus himself is associated with Egypt both in the NT and in the Talmud where he is said to have practiced magic (or worked miracles) in Egypt. Moreover, if God is Truth, then the authentic revelation of Truth is nothing but a manifestation, embodiment, or creation of Truth. Therefore, Jesus, who represents the Truth of God is the “Truth become flesh” or “Son of God”.

It follows that the true meaning of “son of David (Dwd)”, “son of Thot, the God of Wisdom”, or “son of Ra” (ben Pa-Ntr-Ra), is that Jesus is a teacher in the authentic spiritual tradition initiated by Egypt’s divine kings and continued by a long line of kings, prophets, and philosophers especially (among the Greeks) Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato who are said to have studied the sacred mysteries of Egypt:

[Pythagoras] was also initiated into all the mysteries of Byblos and Tyre, and in the sacred function performed in many parts of Syria […] After gaining all he could from the Phoenician mysteries, he found that they had originated from the sacred rites of Egypt […] This led him to hope that in Egypt itself he might find monuments of erudition still more genuine, beautiful and divine. Therefore following the advice of his teacher Thales, he left, as soon as possible, through the agency of some Egyptian sailors […] and at length happily landed on the Egyptian coast […] Here in Egypt he frequented all the temples with the greatest diligence, and most studious research […] After twelve years, about the fifty-sixth year of his age, he returned to Samos …

Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras

As is well-known, Pythagoras was referred to as “son of God” in the Greek tradition, and according to Speusippus and others, so was Plato. As Strabo tells, Plato traveled to Heliopolis in Egypt where he spent thirteen years in the company of priests (Geography 17.1.29). Plato himself certainly refers to Egypt in his dialogues. Significantly, he demonstrates accurate knowledge of Egyptian sacred rites such as embalming and, in particular, of the special role of kings in Egyptian religion (Phaedo 80c; Stateman 290d-e).

Indeed, historical and archaeological evidence shows that the “Hidden God” Amun a.k.a. Ammon or Amen was not only known but actually worshiped among the Greeks (at Thebes, Sparta, and Aphytis) since at least the fifth century BC. The cult of Amun which is mentioned by Plato, was adopted by Alexander (who had been tutored by Plato’s pupil Aristotle) and other Greek kings in the Hellenistic period during which an influential and inspiring fusion of Egyptian and Greek spirituality emerged. Thus, while Jewish fundamentalists became increasingly embroiled in fruitless religious and political squabbles, this time it was the Greeks (and the more open-minded among Hellenistic Jews) who gave the timeless wisdom of Egypt to the world, not as a national cult but as a universal religion for the whole of humanity.

In this sense, Jesus a.k.a. “Emmanuel” (Amun-El) (or his teachings with which he is identical and from which he is forever inseparable) is the embodiment of Truth (Aletheia), Righteousness (Dikaiosyne), and Goodness or the Good (Agathon), which are attributes of the Ineffable One (to Hen), the Sun of the noetic realm, and therefore, the Light of the World (to Phos tou Kosmou) that enables those “who have eyes to see and ears to hear” to elevate themselves above the darkness of superstition and error, and perceive Ultimate Reality face to face in a life-transforming and ignorance-dispelling experience of eternal truth from which there is no return to untruth.

Unfortunately, people tend to be averse to anything that contradicts their preferred perception of reality. — Apollodorus

Which is abundantly clear from your posts.

For example, some believe that a great Hebrew king named “David” existed — Apollodorus

You have argued that Jesus is the messiah based in part on the alleged lineage from David to Jesus. There are two problems with this that you have refused to acknowledge. First, if David did not exist then there can be no lineage from David to Jesus. Second, if David did exist, there is no evidence of the geneology from David to Jesus.

We know that the OT authors suppressed information about the Omride dynasty. — Apollodorus

Once again you are confused about the difference between history and mythology. They did not "suppress information". They are telling a story not giving an historical account.

In any case, Jeroboam, Saul’s successor as King of Israel after David and Solomon — Apollodorus

You mean after the king you claim did not exist?

Yet, unlike in Israel, this tension did not lead to open conflict. — Apollodorus

Do you mean the conflict that you claim never actually happened? You go back and forth between the archeological theories of Finkelstein and Silberman and the stories in the Hebrew Bible, picking and choosing which way to go in order to put forth your own skewed account.

As the OT itself admits, the true religion originated in Egypt where it was revealed to Moses who had been brought up in the Egyptian tradition. — Apollodorus

"Admits"?! An odd choice of words.

According to Genesis Abraham was the progenitor of the Jews, not Moses. Moses's parents were descended from Abraham through Levi, a son of Jacob, who was Abraham's grandson. Once again you toggle back and forth, on the one hand denying Moses existed and on the other claiming "the true religion" originated in Egypt because Moses was raised by Egyptians.

You get the Biblical account wrong on another key point as well. Moses' upbringing has nothing to do with the Law given to him by the God who brought the people out of Egypt. The God who brought plagues upon the Egyptians and killed their first born sons.

To be clear, this is not an historical claim, it is theological. It marks a disjunction between Judaism and Egyptian beliefs and practices.

Moreover, if God is Truth, then the authentic revelation of Truth is nothing but a manifestation, embodiment, or creation of Truth. — Apollodorus

That is your conjecture. In the Hebrew Bible "authentic revelation" is from God through his prophets. An act of God is not an act of "Truth".

Jesus is a teacher in the authentic spiritual tradition initiated by Egypt’s divine kings — Apollodorus

Still trying your best to distance Jesus from Judaism. Why?

... gave the timeless wisdom of Egypt to the world ... — Apollodorus

And what is that timeless wisdom? What evidence do you have of it? Where in this timeless wisdom do we find the Law and prophets that Jesus admonished his follows to adhere to? Where does the ancient wisdom refer to the Sabbath or the laws of kosher (which are quite specific)? Where does it refer to the prophets?

a universal religion for the whole of humanity. — Apollodorus

As I have pointed out more than once, the Sermon on the Mount rejects the idea of a universal religion. Is your point that Jesus was a "Jewish fundamentalists"?

the Ineffable One (to Hen), the Sun of the noetic realm — Apollodorus

Where does Jesus say anything about "the noetic realm"? When Proverbs says that wisdom is fear of the Lord, this means obedience to the Law of God, not an ascent to an imagined noetic realm.

You begin by talking about facts but end with wild and careless conjecture that can only appear plausible when one ignores the facts. The facts in question are not those of archeology from centuries earlier but of theological claims, beliefs, and practices at the time of Jesus.

The talk of the 'timeless wisdom of Egypt' and mystery cults reminds me of Madame Blavatsky and the
Theosophical Society.

She, too, embraced Neo-Platonism and antisemitism. She did not, however, refer to Judaism as 'anti-Christian'. That has more of the tone of Marcion, as mentioned before.

I think Apollodorus suffers from the delusion of what Hegel called the Universal night where all cows are black. Under the guise of shedding light he casts shadows. He lumps together the Egyptians, the Greeks, and Jesus, as if they are all members of a continuous secret society. A society that excludes Judaism, but allows for:

the more open-minded among Hellenistic Jews — Apollodorus

That is Jews who look and act and think like neoPlatonist Romans. What he calls:

a universal religion for the whole of humanity. — Apollodorus

but is nothing more that a pretense to exclude everyone who does not accept his version of what he calls:

Ultimate Reality face to face in a life-transforming and ignorance-dispelling experience of eternal truth from which there is no return to untruth. — Apollodorus

What he hides behind is the fact that he knows nothing about "ultimate reality". It is nothing more than something he has read about and imagines to be. What is missing is the experience itself, without which it is all just empty words.

As shown by the archaeological and historical evidence, the Philistines invaded Canaan in the twelfth century BC, and settled in the south-west. Over the next few centuries they spread northward along the western coast and into the Judean hills where they came into conflict with the Hebrews. They were not conquered by the Hebrews. They fell under Assyrian domination along with the Hebrews and were finally destroyed as a power by Babylon in the 500’s BC. It follows that David and Solomon’s “empire” never existed and that the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value.

IMO there is nothing wrong with having religious beliefs. But I think those beliefs should (a) make sense and (b) be supported, or at least not contradicted, by the evidence.

Truth or Ultimate Reality either exists or it doesn’t. If it does, then it must manifest itself in some way in order to be known.

In religious terms, Truth or God manifests itself either directly, or indirectly, for example through a human being called the “son” of the deity.

There are several basic ways in which a person can be “the son of God”.

(1) As the product of physical or sexual union of God and a human being.
(2) As the product of a non-physical or non-sexual union of God and a human.
(3) As a human appointed as representative and spiritual offspring of God.

There are numerous instances from Greek and other religious traditions where the physical or sexual union between a divine being and a human results in the birth of a “son of God”, i.e., a semi-divine human, e.g., heroes such as Heracles, son of Zeus and princess Alcmene.

But “son of God” was also a royal title. Although some instances of this seem to occur in Phoenicia, e.g., Abibaal (“My Father is (God) Baal”) and Aram-Damascus, e.g., Ben Hadad (“Son of (God) Hadad”), this was not established practice anywhere (not even Assyria or Babylon) in the region except in Egypt where kings routinely bore the title “Son of (God) Ra” in official inscriptions.

So, referring to a king as “son of God” was definitely a very Egyptian practice that was later adopted by the Greeks and associated with the cult of Amun that was itself borrowed from Egypt.

The whole issue then revolves on where the new religion originated. And the evidence overwhelmingly points to Egypt.

The OT itself says that it was founded in Egypt by “Moses” who had been born in Egypt and brought up as an Egyptian, who did not speak Hebrew, and who, moreover, was unfamiliar with Hebrew religion. Moses’ religion, therefore, must have been Egyptian. However, as he had been raised at the palace, his religion was not the popular religion of the Egyptian masses, but a royal cult.

As rabbinical tradition dates Moses to about 1391–1271 BC, this is consistent with the time of Amenhotep III (1390–1352 BC) and his son Amenhotep IV a.k.a. Akhenaten (1352–1336 BC), when the Aten/Adon religion was officially introduced.

Though later OT accounts claim that the Ark was used only to house the Law tablets (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10), we are earlier told that when it was first built it was intended as the seat or throne of God (“mercy seat”) (Exodus 37:9), which is reminiscent of a portable shrine carrying the image of the deity in Egyptian tradition.

Moreover, we know that Egyptian kings used law books with instructions that they were obliged to follow, and that they had to listen to recitations from holy books in order to practice the fear of God:

In the first place, then, the life which the kings of the Egyptians lived was not like that of other men who enjoy autocratic power and do in all matters exactly as they please without being held to account, but all their acts were regulated by prescriptions set forth in laws, not only their administrative acts, but also those that had to do with the way in which they spent their time from day to day, and with the food which they ate.
In the matter of their servants, for instance, not one was a slave, such as had been acquired by purchase or born in the home, but all were sons of the most distinguished priests, over twenty years old and the best educated of their fellow-countrymen, in order that the king, by virtue of his having the noblest men to care for his person and to attend him throughout both day and night, might follow no low practices.
And the hours of both the day and night were laid out according to a plan, and at the specified hours it was absolutely required of the king that he should do what the laws stipulated and not what he thought best.
After he had bathed and bedecked his body with rich garments and the insignia of his office, he had to sacrifice to the Gods. When the victims had been brought to the altar it was the custom for the high priest to stand near the king, with the common people of Egypt gathered around, and pray in a loud voice that health and all the other good things of life be given the king if he maintained justice towards his subjects … And after reciting much more in a similar vein he concluded his prayer with a curse concerning things done in error …
After this, the sacred scribe read before the assemblage from out of the sacred books some of the edifying councils and deeds of their most distinguished men, in order that he who held the supreme leadership should first contemplate in his mind the most excellent general principles and then turn to the prescribed administration of the several functions. For there was a set time not only for his holding audiences or rendering judgements, but even for his taking a walk, bathing, and sleeping with his wife, and, in a word, for every act of his life …
And, speaking generally, their whole diet was ordered with such continence that it had the appearance of having been drawn up, not by a lawgiver, but by the most skilled of their physicians ….
Strange as it may appear that the king did not have the entire control of his daily fare, far more remarkable still was the fact that kings were not allowed to render any legal decision or transact any business at random or to punish anyone through malice or in anger or for any other unjust reason, but only in accordance with the established laws relative to each offence … (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, I.70-71)

The same idea is found in the OT where it is said:

When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees … (Deuteronomy 17:18-19).

Obviously, as a nomadic group of different and often rival tribes, the Hebrews had no comparable legal code and it makes sense for them to have adopted the legal system of their Egyptian overlords. Thus, Egyptian royal tradition was used as a model for the entire religion of Israel. Indeed, if “Moses” was an Egyptian (or adopted Hebrew) raised at the royal palace as claimed in the OT narrative, then he would have been familiar with the rules of ethical conduct as well as the religious ideas of the Egyptian royal house, which involved serving the main deity and adhering to strict ethical precepts.

To be sure, all established city-states, let alone empires, had similar laws. Suzerainty treaties and covenantal oaths were also common practice associated with the foundation of new cities or states throughout the region.

Among the Greeks, who had a long tradition of founding colonies, established practice involved the announcement of the will of God by a prophet or oracle, performing ceremonies accompanied by blessings and curses, erecting a stone inscribed with a covenantal oath before the deity, building an altar outside the city perimeter, etc. As related by Homer in the Odyssey (4.2 ff.), when King Nausithous settled on the island of Scheria, he surrounded the city with a wall, built temples to the Gods, and divided the land among the settlers, just as the Israelites are said to have done in the OT (Joshua 18:1 ff.).

Similarly, Plato writes:

The lawgiver must first plant his city as nearly as possible in the center of the country, choosing a spot which has all the other conveniences also which a city requires, and which it is easy enough to perceive and specify. After this, he must divide off twelve portions of land,—when he has first set apart a sacred glebe for Hestia, Zeus and Athena, to which he shall give the name “acropolis” and circle it round with a ring-wall; [745c] starting from this he must divide up both the city itself and all the country into the twelve portions. The twelve portions must be equalized by making those consisting of good land small, and those of inferior land larger. He must mark off 5,040 allotments, and each of these he must cut in two and join two pieces to form each several allotment, so that each contains a near piece and a distant piece,—joining the piece next the city with the piece furthest off, the second nearest with the second furthest, and so on with all the rest. [745d] And in dealing with these separate portions, they must employ the device we mentioned a moment ago, about poor land and good, and secure equality by making the assigned portions of larger or smaller size. And he must divide the citizens also into twelve parts, making all the twelve parts as equal as possible in respect of the value of the rest of their property, after a census has been made of all. After this they must also appoint twelve allotments for the twelve gods, and name and consecrate the portion allotted to each god, [745e] giving it the name of “phyle.” And they must also divide the twelve sections of the city in the same manner as they divided the rest of the country; and each citizen must take as his share two dwellings, one near the center of the country the other near the outskirts. Thus the settlement shall be completed (Laws).

The legend of Mose’s birth and adoption finds close parallels in the mythologies of other nations. A seventh-century text from Assyria relates how King Sargon of Akkad was conceived by a woman and an unknown father, placed in a basket of rushes made water-resistant with bitumen, set adrift on the river, after which he was found, adopted, and ruled as king.

However, though the story of “Moses” was embellished with elements from other traditions, it is clear that the core element is Egyptian.

When the kingdom of Israel was destroyed by Assyria in 732 BC, some Israelites fled to Egypt (Isaiah 11:11). So, though attempts were made to dissociate Judaism from its Egyptian roots, close links to Egypt were nevertheless preserved. Indeed, it is possible that the story of David and Solomon was brought back to Israel on the exiles’ return from Egypt when the OT was being written down or edited, and it was incorporated into the general narrative by the authors along with other new elements.

In any case, by that time, Egyptian religion had also found followers among the Greeks where elements of it fused with philosophy, and were adopted by Alexander and his Hellenistic successors.

This explains why the teachings of Jesus, from “Light of the world” and “Son of God” to moral perfection, resurrection, and eternal life in paradise, contain elements found in Greek and Egyptian traditions.

It also shows why the claim that Jesus is the “Son of God”, though allegedly contradicting Jewish religion, is perfectly consistent with the Hellenistic tradition of the time. As shown by Christian leaders like Justin Martyr, Christians were fully aware of this and made no attempt to hide it. On the contrary, they used it to show the similarity between Christian teachings and the teachings of Hellenistic religion:

When we say Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus (1 Apology 21).

Though consistent with Hellenistic tradition, Jesus was nevertheless a special case, as he was not only conceived by the power of God as clearly stated in the NT, but also inherited the royal title “Son of God”, and was the embodiment of the Word of God (Logos) by following which man can have a direct vision of Truth or Ultimate reality which is identical with the philosophers’ Ineffable One.

Of course, self-realized philosophers already had a direct experience and knowledge of the One, but the teachings of Jesus were intended to bring about the moral elevation and spiritual liberation of the whole population of the Roman Empire, indeed, of the whole world, the majority of which, like most Jews, were preoccupied with animal sacrifices, rituals, and all kinds of erroneous beliefs, superstitions, and fairy tales.

This is precisely why many, Jews and non-Jews, were naturally reluctant to give up their old ways and found it easier to oppose the new faith. Thus a conflict arose between those who believed and those who didn’t.

For example, we know from Suetonius, who as secretary to Emperor Hadrian had access to the imperial archives, that there were riots in Rome in 49 AD in connection with one called Chrestus:

Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city (Life of Claudius, 25).

In reality, the riots were not “instigated by Chrestus (Christus or Christ)” but were caused by the conflict among the Jews in Rome between those who accepted Jesus’ teachings and those who opposed them. This in itself suggests that there were substantial numbers of Jews in the diaspora who actually believed in Jesus already at that time.

Indeed, it is obvious from the NT text itself that most of Jesus' followers were Jews, despite attempts by anti-Christian activists and trolls to deny this.

However, as history shows, in addition to open-minded Hellenistic Jews like Paul, there were rising numbers of non-Jews who accepted the new faith, and Christianity eventually became the world religion that Jesus had wanted it to be. This is the truth that anti-Christians can't handle. They imagine that Jesus was a criminal who was rightly executed for his "unorthodox" or "infidel" beliefs, known as "shirk" (شرك ) or "riddah" (ردة,) among the Taliban and that Christianity is a criminal religion that should not have been allowed to exist.

In sum, I think it is clear that the “official” reading or interpretation of the Bible is based on the counterfactual hypothesis that Egypt and Greece never existed and never had any influence on anything. In contrast, authentic Christianity and fact-based biblical scholarship readily acknowledge the true roots of both Judaism and the Christian faith.

Greek philosophy (see Plato) draws a clear line (a) between belief and knowledge and (b) between false belief and true belief, i.e., belief contradicted and belief corroborated by evidence.

The general consensus among historians, archaeologists, Egyptologists, anthropologists, biblical scholars, and others, is that some key OT events cannot have happened as described in the “official” narrative. (It is essential to remember that as shown earlier, alternative narratives existed for centuries until the “canonization” of Hebrew scriptures.) To the extent that they are disproved by the evidence, such events belong to the category of false belief.

Obviously, we cannot prove or disprove that God appeared or spoke to any of the OT characters. This must remain a matter of faith, for now. However, we can prove or disprove, for example, the existence of a particular city or state at a particular time and at a particular geographical location.

The OT states:

For he [Solomon] had dominion over all the region on this side of the River [Euphrates] from Tiphsah even to Gaza, namely over all the kings on this side of the River (1 Kings 4:24).

By comparison, Egyptian inscriptions, copies of which have been found in Canaan, describe Pharaoh Amenhotep III as:

A mighty king whose southern boundary is as far as Karoy [in northern Sudan] and northern as far as Naharin [in northern Syria] (Ancient Records of Egypt 2:344-45).

The resemblance is striking. But while we have ample evidence for an Egyptian empire ruled by Amenhotep whom Canaanite and other vassal kings address as “my Sun”, “son of the Sun”, and “my lord, my God, my Sun”, there is nothing to support the belief that an “empire of David and Solomon” stretching from Thapsacus (Hebrew Tipsah) on the Euphrates to Gaza existed in Canaan.

So, the choice is between (a) blindly believing what the OT text says, and (b) looking at the alternative narrative as supported by the evidence.

Very briefly, what the evidence indicates is that the Hebrews were a pastoralist seminomadic Canaanite group with Canaanite language, culture, and religion. The designations “Hebrew” and “Israelite” may be connected with Habiru/Apiru, a term originally applied to a social group in the region, and with the Jezreel Valley (Hebrew Yizre'el) in the north of the country.

As the lowlands or coastal plains of Canaan were controlled by other groups and, increasingly, by foreign powers, the Hebrews gradually settled in the central highlands, founding villages, cities and, eventually, kingdoms. As the emergence of Hebrew institutions such as monarchy and organized state religion took place when Canaan was under Egyptian domination, they were naturally influenced by long-established Egyptian traditions.

Indeed, there is plenty of biblical and extrabiblical evidence for Egyptian influence on Hebrew religion and culture.

For starters, according to the OT narrative, Moses:

1. Was born in Egypt.
2. Was adopted by an Egyptian princess.
3. Was brought up at the royal palace.
4. Could not speak Hebrew.
5. Was unfamiliar with Hebrew religion.

In light of this, I think it stands to reason that if “Moses” introduced a religion to a group of Hebrews or Canaanites, this religion would have been Egyptian. Indeed, there is no logical reason why it shouldn’t have been. Nor is it necessary for it to have been a complete religion. It would have been sufficient for “Moses” to introduce elements of the Egyptian royal cult that were relevant to the establishment of a new state. References to God could have been simply part of a suzerainty or vassal treaty in which the vassal group pledged allegiance to the Egyptian God. In fact, the pharaoh himself was regarded as “God” and addressed as “my Lord” and “my God”, especially in official documents and diplomatic correspondence.

If “Moses” was an Egyptian royal (adopted or not) he may have been in a position to offer protection to a Canaanite group inhabiting a small territory like the central highlands, in exchange for submission to his rule. In a world of small warrying tribes and city-states in need of protection by a bigger power, this was common practice.

Extrabiblical sources show that Canaanite religion, which was initially similar or identical to that of Syria, became increasingly Egyptianized. Hebrew kings adopted Egyptian religious symbols (winged sun disk, ankh cross), the Egyptian calendar of three seasons with numbered instead of named months (which was later exchanged for the Babylonian one), Egyptian numerals, etc. Even the Hebrew script is derived from earlier forms of Egyptian writing.

As with many colonial ventures before and since, military conquest led to a new cultural order in the occupied lands. Across Israel, archaeologists have found evidence that Canaanites took to Egyptian customs. They created items worthy of tombs on the Nile, including clay coffins modeled with human faces and burial goods such as faience necklaces and decorated pots. They also adopted Egyptian imagery such as sphinxes and scarabs …
Written in Akkadian cuneiform, the diplomatic lingua franca of the day, the [Amarna] letters give a rich sense of how abjectly the Canaanite chieftains obeyed the Egyptian ruler and how they jockeyed for his favor. About 300 of the tablets were addressed directly to the pharaoh. One, written by the ruler of the city of Shechem to Amenhotep III, starts with the Canaanite vassal declaring himself “your servant and the dirt on which you tread. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord and my Sun.” He then offers to send his own wife to the pharaoh if asked …
Egypt’s power wasn’t felt only in mighty sculptures. It also wielded a strong cultural pull on Canaan’s elite, who were attracted to Egypt’s graceful jewelry and symbols. Archaeologists have found hundreds of Egyptian-style objects in Canaanite burials, including alabaster, glass, and carnelian jewelry, scarabs [beetles associated with Sun-God Ra] decorated with sphinxes and hieroglyphs, and clay pots. Wealthy Canaanites liked to stock their tombs with imitations of Egyptian ushabti, figurines of people who would tend to the dead in the afterlife. “There was an Egyptianization, so to speak, of Canaan’s material culture,” says Ben-Tor. “The Canaanites were burying their dead with objects imported from Egypt or with local imitations of them” …
Sometimes the Canaanites added their own twists to Egyptian customs. About 130 clay coffins, some decorated with naturalistic human faces, have been excavated near Beth Shean and Gaza. Such caskets were commonly used in Egypt, but in Canaan they were filled not just with Egyptian-style mortuary goods, but also Canaanite items. Sometimes two people were buried in a single coffin, which was unheard of in Egypt but a common practice in Canaan …
Along with adopting Egyptian burial practices, or their version of them, the Canaanites also came to worship the Egyptian goddess Hathor. Her distinctive look, with almond-shaped eyes, long curls, and the ears of a cow, appears on objects both plain and fine and in archaeological contexts ranging from houses to palaces … (“Egypt’s final redoubt in Canaan”, Archaeology, July/August 2017.

As described in the OT, the Canaanites, of course, were an unruly bunch. Their profession of subservience to Egypt must be read with caution. Lab’ayu, the same ruler of Shechem, above, who offered his wife to the pharaoh and wrote that he would put a bronze dagger into his own heart if the pharaoh so commanded (Letter EA 254), was also accused of being a collaborator of the Habiru. Rebellions, however geographically limited and short-lived, did occur. But the Canaanite use of the formula “my Sun” when addressing the Pharaoh, illustrates the importance of the Sun in both Egyptian and Canaanite culture, and cultural influence of Egypt on Canaan was certainly extensive. See also:

Egyptian culture influenced ancient Israel after Exodus, unearthed antiquities reveal – Jerusalem Post

This is entirely natural, given that Canaan was an Egyptian colony for several centuries, with Canaanite rulers pledging allegiance to Egypt by means of suzerainty treaties (which may have served as models for the Israelite’s covenant), and maintaining close commercial and cultural links with Egypt. After all, neighboring cultures do borrow from one another, and it is clear that ancient peoples had no problem whatsoever with accepting foreign influence in the spheres of culture, technology, and even religion.

While there is no doubt that the Egyptian Goddess Hathor was highly popular in Canaan, it is equally beyond doubt that archaeological evidence has brought to light solar symbols suggesting that a solar cult existed among Canaan’s royal elites. Indeed, Hathor herself was a solar deity, being none other than Sun-God Ra’s consort!

Hathor was a solar deity, a feminine counterpart to sun gods such as Horus and Ra, and was a member of the divine entourage that accompanied Ra. She was commonly called the "Golden One", referring to the radiance of the sun, and texts from her temple at Dendera say "her rays illuminate the whole earth."
At Ra's cult center of Heliopolis, Hathor-Nebethetepet was worshipped as his consort, and the Egyptologist Rudolf Anthes argued that Hathor's name referred to a mythical "house of Horus" at Heliopolis that was connected with the ideology of kingship.
She was one of many goddesses to take the role of the Eye of Ra, a feminine personification of the disk of the sun and an extension of Ra's own power. Ra sends Hathor as the Eye of Ra to punish humans for plotting rebellion against his rule. She becomes the lioness goddess Sekhmet and massacres the rebellious humans …

Hathor - Wikipedia

As shown by cult figurines from Ancient Canaanite temples, the Goddess Hathor was worshiped alongside a male deity. While the Goddess wears her hair styled in Egyptian fashion, the God wears a headdress or crown (Hedjet) associated with Egyptian deities and kings. Like Egyptian Gods (and pharaohs), the Canaanite God is depicted with a raised arm poised to smite his enemies, which later appears as a central feature of the OT God El/Yahweh or Yahweh-El. The God’s original name seems to have been El, his various forms or aspects being known as “El-Shaddai”, “El-Elyon”, “Yahweh-El” (Exodus 34:6, Psalm 10:12), etc., which are later replaced by the abbreviated epithet of “Yahweh” (which refers to his function of creator god). In any case, like his Egyptian and Canaanite counterparts, the Hebrew God El/Yahweh seems to have had a female consort referred to as Asherah both in the literature and in the OT:

Between the tenth century BC and the beginning of their Babylonian exile in 586 BC, polytheism was normal throughout Israel. Worship solely of Yahweh became established only after the exile, and possibly, only as late as the time of the Maccabees (2nd century BC). That is when monotheism became universal among the Jews. Some biblical scholars believe that Asherah at one time was worshipped as the consort of Yahweh, the national god of Israel – Wikipedia

The OT itself claims that “King Solomon” was married to Pharaoh’s daughter in addition to other women, and was persuaded by them to worship other Gods:

For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites … Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods (1 Kings 11: 4-8).

What seems clear from this is that:

1. Hebrew kings were not opposed to foreign influence.
2. Foreign, including Egyptian, influence was common.
3. If Solomon built a shrine or temple for his Egyptian wife, its deity may have been the Sun-God Amun-Ra, as corroborated by the OT statement to the effect that the kings of Judah had chariots and horses dedicated to the Sun:

And he [Josiah] took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the Sun, at the entering in of the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nathanmelech the chamberlain, which was in the suburbs, and burned the chariots of the Sun with fire. And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made … (2 Kings 23:11-12).

So, it wasn’t just Solomon but all (or most) kings of Judah and Israel. As shown by Finkelstein (The Bible Unearthed), Smith (The Early History of God), Taylor (Yahweh and the Sun), and other leading scholars, this is corroborated by the archaeological, epigraphical, and other evidence. Horse figurines with a sun disk above their head (that may be miniaturized representations of the originals), have been discovered at Iron Age levels at Lachish, Hazor, and Jerusalem.

Incidentally, Finkelstein is one of Israel’s top archaeologists and winner of several academic and writing awards including the Dan David Prize for his revision of the history of Israel in the 10th and 9th centuries BC. He revolutionized not only Israel’s archaeology by introducing the most accurate methods and technologies, but also its history. This doesn’t mean he is infallible, but it does mean that he has far more specialized knowledge and experience than the average person. The same is true of Smith whose book is extremely well researched and sourced, and Taylor. Their opinion and, above all, the evidence they are presenting, cannot be ignored.

Moreover, OT verses specifically refer to the Hebrew God as the Sun of righteousness (Shemesh sadaqah) with healing in his wings, i.e., WINGED SUN (Malachi 4:1-3), as well as “covering himself with light as with a garment”, and “riding on the clouds as on a chariot” (Psalm 104:2-3), and generally employ solar language in connection with the deity, such as “dawn”, “rise”, and “light”.

The king himself is compared to the rising Sun exactly as in Egyptian tradition:

And he shall be like the light of the morning when the sun rises, A morning without clouds … (2 Samuel 23:4).

As noted by many scholars, all this suggests a royal Sun cult followed by Israelite kings. Smith writes:

Solar imagery for Yahweh developed during the period of the monarchy, perhaps through the influence of monarchic religious ideology. It may be argued, however, that the “idolatry” was an indigenous form of Yahwistic cult. Psalm 84 and other evidence for solar language predicated of Yahweh militates against interpreting solar worship in the temple as non-Yahwistic. The theopolitical function of Yahwistic solar language may be further understood in the context of solar language predicated of the monarchy, both in Judah and elsewhere.
To summarize, solar language for Yahweh apparently developed in two stages. First, it originated as part of the Canaanite, and more generally Near Eastern, heritage of divine language as an expression of general theophanic luminosity. Yahweh could be rendered in either solar or storm terms or both together. Second, perhaps under the influence of the monarchy, in the first millennium the sun became one component of the symbolic repertoire of the chief god in Israel just as it did in Assur, Babylon, and Ugarit. This form of solarized Yahwism may have appeared to the authors of Ezekiel 8 and 2 Kings 23 as an idolatrous solar cult incompatible with their notions of Yahweh.

However, solar Yahwism is consistent with “Moses’” religion being a form of royal Egyptian cult that he would have been familiar with from his time at the Egyptian palace, and later criticism may be an attempt to cover up the Egyptian origin of the royal cult as a result of nationalist, anti-Egyptian polemic.

Tensions may have first arisen between an educated elite concerned with centralized state authority appealing to a male deity on one hand, and the general population concerned with fertility, birth, health, and other every-day issues, and focusing on a female deity, on the other.

Growing centralization of power next led to tensions between the political elite adhering to a monarchic theology and the priestly class which sought to impose its own ideology on the Jewish state. Thanks to the backing of the authorities, El/Yahweh or Yahweh-El became the dominant and, eventually sole, deity whose original solar character was subsequently replaced with a purely anthropomorphic one.

So, basically, the OT narrative is built on a Canaanite background to which Egyptian and other elements were later added.

This is why the OT should be re-written in order to bring it more into line with historical truth, especially in light of the fact that its authors themselves re-wrote it time and again for many centuries, and that their primary concern – as observed by numerous scholars - seems to have been not religious and spiritual but political.

If not monotheism, but nationalism, was the motivational factor behind the OT narrative, this would support the view that the true origins of the biblical belief in one divine being are to be found in Egypt, not in Canaan. This is consistent with the Egyptian connections described by ancient authors like Hecataeus, Manetho, and Strabo, and alluded to in the OT, NT, and Talmud.

Indeed, though Ancient Egyptians had no single codified account of creation, there are numerous texts referring to a self-created deity who at the beginning of time created all things and beings, including the Gods, by proclaiming their name and thus bringing them into existence, i.e., by verbal fiat.

In about 2000 BC Egyptian texts mention a solar Creator-God who makes humans in his own image along with plants and animals to nourish them, who watches over them by day and by night, listens to their prayers, and punishes them for rebelling against him. The same Creator-God (named as Amun-Ra) is later referred to as “sole King among the Gods, without his equal, who made all things that exist”. By the time of Akhenaten, the deity is described as “sole God, with no other beside him”.

Clear parallels occur in the OT where the Hebrew God is first described as “without equal among the Gods” (Exodus 15:11-12), later as having “no other God beside him” (Isaiah 44:6) and, eventually, as being “one” (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Thus we can see that, in spite of its apparent “polytheism”, Egyptian religion developed the concept of a supreme Creator-God long before Akhenaten introduced the cult of Aten, and many centuries before the Hebrews adopted monotheism proper. By the time of Moses, the religion found in the OT complete with covenant, ark, law tablets, and rules of conduct, was established Egyptian royal cult. Even the story of the Ten Plagues seems to be based on existing Egyptian tradition going back many centuries before Moses.

This doesn’t mean that there is no truth in the OT narrative. However, given that Israelite religion emerged in an Egyptianized environment, the truth can be discerned only when we are familiar with Egyptian history, culture, and religion, and we realize that political reasons led to historical fact being distorted and covered up by anti-Egyptian rhetoric.

Interestingly, the idea of an Egyptian origin also occurs among the Greeks. Herodotus states that the Egyptians introduced temples, processions, statues, ceremonies, even the names of the Gods, and that “the Greeks learned all that from them” (Histories 2.5, 2.58). While this may seem exaggerated, there is no doubt that the earliest forms of Greek religion entailed sacred groves, stones, caves, springs, and open-space altars. Cult statues and temple buildings made of wood and stone appeared later. Some Egyptian influence may be seen in temple architecture, and Egyptian concepts such as a supreme Creator-God who imposes order on the universe and is described as “Craftsman of the world” appear in Greek religion and philosophy.

After the decline of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, Persia became the dominant power in Canaan, followed by Greece. Due to Alexander’s empire that stretched from Macedonia and Egypt in the west to northwest India in the east, Greece became the main source of influence on language, culture, and religion throughout the region. This is precisely why Hellenistic Judaism (which is totally different from present-day Rabbinic Judaism) emerged in the 300’s BC and lasted into the 500’s AD.

Palestine at the time of Jesus was a Hellenized Roman province. King Herod I (72 BC – 4 BC) himself had been thoroughly Hellenized. He attended the Greek elementary school in Jerusalem, in which the sons of the Jewish aristocracy were instructed, and later pursued philosophical, rhetorical and historical studies under the direction of his friend and adviser, the Peripatetic philosopher Nicolaus of Damascus. Herod also had his sons and successors, including Herod Antipas (who sent Jesus to Pilate’s court) and Philip, brought up completely in the Greek style.

In addition to renovating and expanding the Jerusalem Temple, Herod also built large Pagan temples at Caesarea, Sebaste, and Omrit (or Caesarea Philippi, according to Josephus), as well as theaters and hippodromes, and introduced games and spectacles. He bore the Greek title of basileus and minted coins with Greek inscriptions and symbols including sunburst.

Under Herod, the high priests and the Sanhedrin lost much of their traditional power and influence, and even more so when Judea came under direct Roman rule in 6 AD, which is why they later resorted to inciting the crowds in order to get Pilate to execute Jesus. As the NT relates, Pilate offered to release Jesus from prison and execute a notorious prisoner of the name Barabbas instead. But the crowds, incited by the chief priests and members of the Sanhedrin, demanded that Barabbas be released and Jesus crucified (Matthew 27:20). It was not Jewish society in general, and even less the political rulers, that were hostile to Jesus and his teachings, but radical elements within the religious leadership.

At any rate, it is clear that Christianity emerged within the cosmopolitan, Hellenistic culture of first-century Roman Palestine, which is why it was a combination of various cultural and religious strands, including Jewish, Greek, and Egyptian, as is evident from the NT.

Though parallels may be found in other traditions, all the elements that are central to NT teachings will be instantly recognized as Hellenistic by the perceptive reader:

God as Truth, Light, Wisdom, Goodness, Justice.
God as Father.
God as Judge.
Divine Judgment.
Son of God.
Virgin birth.
Divine Family.
Resurrection (Anastasis).
Heaven (Paradeisos) and hell (Hades).
Eternal life in paradise a.k.a. Salvation (Soteria).
Cultivation of moral and spiritual perfection (Teleiotes) as a means to achieve eternal life in heaven, etc.

The fact is that Jesus is recorded as saying “I am the Way and the Truth” (Ego eimi he Odos kai he Aletheia) (John 14:6) and there is no evidence that his teachings are not the way to Truth. Of course, lower levels of truth may differ from person to person, and the above statement may have been understood differently, then and thereafter, by people of different religious persuasion, educational level, or intellectual/spiritual capacity. But there seems to be little doubt that at the highest level, Truth or Ultimate Reality is one and, therefore, identical with the Truth of the philosophers.

See also:

M. Smith, The Early History of God – Internet Archive

S. Smoot, Ancient Egyptian Monotheism

G. Rendsburg, “Moses the Magician” - Rutgers

Megiddo was an Ancient Canaanite city situated on a hill at the foot of the Samaria Highlands and overlooking the fertile Jezreel Valley of northern Israel.

Its location on a main trade route connecting Egypt with Mesopotamia made Megiddo a prosperous and strategically important city for many centuries. But it also attracted the attention of foreign powers like Egypt who sought to control the international routes that linked Egyptian economy to other key areas, and to acquire a share in the prosperity of city-states situated along those routes.

Archaeological excavations at the site have revealed many different strata of occupation which reflect Megiddo’s relations with regional powers. The following is a rough sketch:

Neolithic (Late Stone Age) period:
8300–5500 BC: the area is sparsely settled.

Early Bronze Age:
3300-2200 BC: the settlement gradually develops into a large Canaanite village (and later town) surrounded by a wall and with a temple complex.
2325-2275 BC: the region is invaded by Egypt (under Pharaoh Pepi I).

Intermediate Bronze Age:
2000 BC: Megiddo flourishes as a Canaanite city-state.

Late Bronze Age:
1479 BC to 1140: Egyptian domination (initiated by Thutmose III).

Iron Age I:
1100 BC: destruction by fire.
1000 - 926 BC: resettled and rebuilt as a Canaanite city.
926 BC: conquered by Egypt (under Pharaoh Sheshonk).

Iron Age II:
900 BC: destruction by fire (possibly caused by Israelites).
884 - 842 BC: occupied and rebuilt by Israelites (Omride dynasty).
842 – 800 BC: destroyed and occupied by Aram-Damascus.
800 BC to 747 BC: abandoned during this period.

Assyrian period:
732 – 610 BC: rebuilt by Assyria which makes it its provincial capital, followed by gradual decline and
Assyrian withdrawal.

610 – 600 BC: briefly held by Egypt.

Babylonian period:
600 – 539 BC: area under Babylonian control.

Persian period:
539 – 350 BC: Persian control and final abandonment.

Archaeology can identify different layers of truth or fact that can corroborate or contradict literary sources like the OT. This is how we know, for example, that the monumental structures found at Megiddo and elsewhere, belong not to the supposed time of “Solomon” (970-931 BC) but to the era of the Omride Dynasty who ruled over the northern highlands from their capital Samaria in the 800’s BC.

The critical analysis of biblical literature can be equally revealing. Biblical criticism has a long history. Already in the 1600’s scholars began to doubt the official account according to which the main OT books (Pentateuch) had been written by Moses. But it was only with the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mesopotamian cuneiforms in the 1800’s, that scholars were able to compare the OT text with other texts of the Ancient Near East.

By the time of Freud’s Moses and Monotheism (1939), it had become clear that many of the OT’s key narratives could not be taken at face value. There was growing suspicion that Moses and his story may have had more to do with Egypt than officially acknowledged, so much so that some scholars suggested that Moses may have been an Egyptian. Indeed, archaeological evidence not only raised serious doubts about the supposed “kingdom (or empire) of David and Solomon”, but showed significant Egyptian influence on Canaanite, including Hebrew, religion.

On the available evidence, it seems increasingly clear that the original religion of the Hebrews was a form of Canaanite polytheism that was replaced with an Egyptian-influenced royal cult and developed from monolatry to monotheism over the course of many centuries.

The next great influence on Judean religion after Egypt, was Greece. Following Alexander’s conquest of the Near East, Greek kings actively promoted Greek language, culture, religion, and customs. In Palestine (as the Greeks called the area between Syria and Egypt), this gave rise to Hellenistic Judaism.

Though sometimes thought to have obtained mainly among the diaspora Jews, this form of Judaism that incorporated many Greek elements was highly influential in Greek, and later Roman, Palestine itself.

Indeed, a growing number of scholars believe that Greek influence extended not only to Judaism but also to Jewish scripture. It is generally acknowledged that some OT books like the book of Wisdom and Maccabees show strong Hellenistic influence. With the exception of Maccabees 1, which was written in Hebrew, they were written in Greek, and this tradition was later followed by the NT.

Some scholars point out that Wisdom and Maccabees 2, 3, and 4 were composed in the diaspora, mainly in Alexandria, Egypt, and therefore they are not representative of Palestinian Judaism. But the fact is that Alexandria was the cultural center not only of the Hellenistic world, but also of Hellenistic Judaism which under Greek and Roman rule was the dominant form of Judaism.

Alexandria was particularly important not only because it was the home of the largest Jewish community outside Palestine, but because it was the home of the Mouseion (Latin Musaeum), a large, Greek-language research center dedicated to the Muses, which also housed the Library of Alexandria, and where many renowned scholars carried out research for their works, including Zenodotus of Ephesus, Callimachus, Apollonius of Rhodes, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Aristarchus of Samothrace, Apollodorus of Athens, and many others.

Alexandria is also where the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek. The translation, named The Translation of the Seventy (Hē Metáphrasis Tōn Hebdomḗkonta) and later known as The Septuagint or LXX, was made between the third and second centuries BC, and became the central text of Hellenistic Judaism. However, the exact date of the Hebrew original is unclear as the earliest manuscripts (Dead Sea or Qumran Scrolls) only go back to about 250 BC, i.e., the Early Hellenistic period.

The absence of manuscripts preceding the Hellenistic period raises the question of when the OT was actually composed. It is generally accepted that the OT was written by several authors and produced over a period of centuries. It is also suggested that the first five books - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy - reached their present form in the Persian period (538–332 BC), i.e., after the return of exiled temple priests from Babylon.

However, there are a number of problems with this suggested dating. One of them is the apparent Greek influence. To begin with, there are some striking parallels between the world described in the OT and what we know from Greek history.

The core of the OT narrative is a founding story or myth that serves to explain the birth of the Israelites as an ethnic and religious group. Such myths were common in the ancient world, especially among the Greeks who had a long tradition of settling in new territories and founding colonies and city-states throughout the Mediterranean. Plato’s Republic deals in great detail with precisely the founding of such a city-state.

In Greek tradition, the founding process began with the announcement of the will of God by a prophet or oracle, followed by a journey to the “promised land”, and, on arrival, the performance of ceremonies accompanied by blessings and curses, erecting a stone inscribed with a covenantal oath, building an altar outside the city perimeter, building a city with temples to the Gods and surrounded by a wall, dividing the land among twelve groups of settlers, etc. All these elements are found in the OT narrative.

Moreover, like the Hebrews, Greek society was organized by kinship, i.e., divided into tribes, brotherhoods, clans, and households, and was governed by very similar laws.

Lists of ethical precepts, especially in the form of advice from father to son, were very common and formed part of the wisdom literature of the Ancient Near East, for example, The Instructions of Shurrupak, a collection of admonitory sayings addressed by the Sumerian king Shurrupak to his son Ziusudra, in which the latter is advised against committing theft, adultery, rape, slander, cursing, lying, etc.

In the Egyptian tradition, such precepts were specifically linked to a happy after life. To insure that one was not found guilty by the divine tribunal and barred from entering paradise, one had to be able to truthfully assert that he had not committed murder, theft, adultery, perjury, blasphemy, that he had not told lies or cursed, or used evil thoughts, words, or deeds. Here we have at least eight equivalents to the biblical ten commandments.

If Moses was indeed an Egyptian, or Hebrew raised at the Egyptian royal palace as claimed in the OT, then he would have had knowledge of the rules of ethical conduct that were current among Egypt’s educated ruling elites.

However, the Greeks, too, had a highly developed ethical and legal system, that had been transmitted orally for many centuries before being put into writing by the lawgiver Draco (7th century BC) and reformed by his successors Solon, Cleisthenes, and Pericles.

Greek city-states had laws against murder, theft, adultery, perjury, blasphemy, and slander, and maxims or gnomic statements including “Honor the Gods” and “Honor your Father and your Mother.” A collection of such maxims, known as The Commandments of the Seven Sages, was inscribed on a wall in the temple precinct at Delphi, lending them a degree of divine authority.

The observance of religious festivals was a civic duty and the establishment of religions that were contrary to the official religion of the city-state (polis) was an act of impiety punishable under treason laws, as reflected in Plato’s Laws:

After the prelude it will be proper for us to have a statement of a kind suitable to serve as the laws' interpreter, forewarning all the impious to quit their ways for those of piety. For those who disobey, this shall be the law concerning impiety:—If anyone commits impiety either by word or deed, he that meets with him shall defend the law by informing the magistrates, and the first magistrates who hear of it shall bring the man up before the court appointed to decide such cases as the laws direct; and if any magistrate on hearing of the matter fail to do this, he himself shall be liable to a charge of impiety at the hands of him who wishes to punish him on behalf of the laws. And if a man be convicted, the court shall assess one penalty for each separate act of impiety. Imprisonment shall be imposed in every case … (907d-908a).

Like the OT, Greek laws dealt with such matters as the constitution, citizenship, homicide, assault, theft, marriage, inheritance, sexual offenses, slavery, livestock, property, agriculture, commerce, military service, treason, religion, and ethics.

Some OT laws, for example, concerning polygamy, bride-prices, and dowries, are clearly remnants of local Canaanite or Near Eastern customs. Among the Greeks, bride-prices had been customary in the time of Homer. Dowries were still common in Classical Athens, but legislation against the practice had been introduced (though not implemented) by Solon, and leading philosophers like Plato were opposed to it (Laws 742c, 77c-d). Athenian law allowed a man to have only one wife. An exception was made in the 5th century BC when war had greatly reduced the male population and men were permitted to have legitimate children by a concubine in addition to the official wife. The “law of retribution” (lex talionis) invoked in the OT is another example of dependence on Near Eastern (Babylonian) law codes.

But the vast majority of OT laws have close parallels to Greek legal tradition. From Athenian citizenship laws which conferred citizenship exclusively on legitimate offspring of Athenian parentage on both sides, flowed prohibitions against marrying foreigners. From kinship laws flowed the obligation of the next of kin to avenge murder. The blood of those slain unlawfully was said to cry out for vengeance and to arouse the Furies, making it necessary to avenge the killing. Even in later times, when the punishment was taken over by the courts, the responsibility for prosecuting the murderer remained with the next of kin.

Further customs that are common to both biblical and Greek tradition include: execution by stoning; punishment of animals; the belief that the shedding of blood constitutes pollution (miasma) and requires ritual purification (katharmos), etc.

Though stoning as a form of execution is currently associated with the fundamentalist Islamic regimes of the Near East (who have inherited the practice from OT law), it was established custom among the Greeks and is expressly mentioned by Plato:

If, however, any should be overtaken by a disaster so lamentable that they have the audacity deliberately and of free will to reave soul from body for father, mother, brethren or children, in such cases the ordinance of the law of the mortal lawgiver stands thus […] and if any man be convicted of such a murder, and of having slain any of the persons named, the officers of the judges and magistrates shall kill him and cast him out naked at an appointed cross-roads outside the city; and all the magistrates, acting on behalf of the whole State, shall take each a stone and cast it on the head of the corpse, and thus make atonement for the whole State; and after this they shall carry the corpse to the borders of the land and cast it out unburied, according to law (Laws 873a-c).

Plato’s Laws also provides the killing of animals found guilty of a human’s death:

If a mule or any other animal murder anyone,— except when they do it when taking part in a public competition,—the relatives shall prosecute the slayer for murder, and so many of the land-stewards as are appointed by the relatives shall decide the case, and the convicted beast they shall kill and cast out beyond the borders of the country (Laws 873d-e).

In short, while some biblical laws have very little in common with Ancient Near Eastern law, they clearly have elements in common with Greek law. Among these, some, such as judicial proceedings against animals, seem to have examples only in biblical and Athenian law and, in particular, in Plato’s Laws.

Contact between Greek and biblical law was already noted in Greco-Roman antiquity by Jewish and Christian historians such as Josephus (Apion 2.151-286) and Eusebius (Preparation for the Gospel 12.35-47), and the topic has remained a subject of scholarly study and debate ever since. Attempts to explain away the many indisputable points of identity or correspondence as “Greek plagiarism of OT material” had to be abandoned when modern research showed that the emergence of OT laws was not prior but contemporaneous with similar developments in Archaic and Classical Greece.

Indeed, further research has identified significant biblical dependence not just on Greek law but, specifically, on Plato’s Republic and Laws. A major breakthrough came with Russell Gmirkin’s excellent study, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible (2017), in which he writes:

The first reliable external evidence for the composition of the Pentateuch is the Septuagint translation at Alexandria ca. 270 BCE, well into the Hellenistic Era. The current volume therefore adopts the position that comparative methods used to illuminate the biblical text should include Greek literature and cultural institutions from the Classical and early Hellenistic Eras alongside those of the Ancient Near East. Striking parallels will be shown to exist between biblical and Greek constitutional and social institutions, laws, law collections and legal narratives that are for the most part absent from Ancient Near Eastern legal tradition.
Many of these points of comparison show a special relationship between biblical and Athenian laws and institutions as well as those described in Plato’s Laws. Such parallels are exceedingly difficult to explain under the hypothesis that biblical legal traditions developed in the Persian Era or earlier, when direct Athenian influence on Jewish legal writings can be ruled out, even under the theory of an Eastern Mediterranean cultural sphere.
However, Jewish access to the legal collections found in the Great Library of Alexandria provides a direct mechanism whereby the biblical authors could have become familiar with both Athenian laws and with Plato’s Laws. In Chapter 6, it is further argued that the Hebrew Bible as a whole was created in the third century BCE under the influence of Plato’s Laws, which featured instructions for creating a national library of approved texts with ethical content (§§ 1-2), and that the Jewish theocracy historically established in the early Hellenistic Era was directly patterned on the novel form of government under divine laws also laid out in Plato’s Laws (§§ 4-6).
A picture emerges in which Plato’s Laws, which describes how to establish a new government with its constitution, laws and other institutions, had a decisive influence on the refounding of the Jewish nation and the creation of its national literature ca. 270 BCE (pp. 4-5).

Plato certainly regards his dialogues like Laws as divinely inspired or conducted “under divine inspiration” (epipnoia Theon) and the discussions described as proceeding along the path along which God leads the speakers (811c, 968b). Moreover, he calls the supreme Hellenic God, Zeus, “the Patron of the State” (Zeus Poliouchos) and he says:

Let us invoke the presence of the God at the establishment of the State; and may he hearken, and hearkening may he come, propitious and kindly to us-ward, to help us in the fashioning of the State and its laws (712b).

It is clear that Plato envisages the City-State as a kind of enlightened theocracy or hierocracy modeled on established Greek tradition. Indeed, in addition to civil government officers from kings to judges, all of whom were democratically elected, Athens also had a number of religious officials such as priests, experts in sacred law, and prophets. According to Plato, these were to also perform civic duties.

Consequently, Plato proposes the establishment of a college of priests of Helios (the Sun-God) and Apollo, presided by a high priest (archiereus) and consisting of twelve examiners or judges (euthynoi) each responsible for examining a twelfth of all public offices, serving as members of the City-State’s supreme ruling council or divine synod (theios syllogos), and presiding over public ceremonies and functions (946c, 969b).

Thus, Athens not only had priestly families comparable to the OT’s Aaronites and Zadokites, and itinerant priests comparable to the Levites, but was to also have a ruling religious council presided over by a high priest, comparable to the Sanhedrin. As the exact date of the establishment of the Sanhedrin is not currently known, and the name itself is Greek (Synedrion), there is a strong possibility that it was formed in the early Hellenistic Era.

Gmirkin concludes:

The Great Library of Alexandria housed an extensive section on laws that prominently included books on constitutions, laws and politics by Plato, Aristotle and other notable Athenian philosophers. Jewish access to the Great Library with its comprehensive collection of legal writings is attested in The Letter of Aristeas in connection with the Septuagint translation at Alexandria, an occasion at which the biblical authors could have conducted legal research into Athenian and other political systems as they were devising the system of constitution and laws found in the Pentateuch.

Of course, contact between Greeks and Judeans goes back many centuries before. Greek pottery and tableware, among other products, were highly popular in 7th century BC Palestine and other parts of the Levant, and some elements of the Hebrew Bible must have originated during the Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and even Canaanite Eras.

But the fact remains that after Egyptian influence, Greek influence seems to have been significant, in any case, far more extensive than commonly assumed and that when Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17), he implicitly meant not only the law and prophets of Israel, but also the law and prophets of Greece, and - if Moses and his religion turn out to have been Egyptian - the law and prophets of Egypt.

This demonstrates that Jesus’ message is not only universal, but also philosophical and consistent with that of Plato and other great Greek thinkers.