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).
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).
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).
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.
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)
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”).
There is no historical evidence for a Hebrew king of the name “David”. — Apollodorus
David and Solomon are legendary. — Apollodorus
was known throughout the region; this clearly validates the biblical description of Judahite kings in Jerusalem.
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
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
the notion that Jesus MUST have been “an ignorant peasant” who didn’t know what he was talking about — Apollodorus
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
I think it can be traced back to a growing animosity that develops with the followers of Paul. A question of birthright. — Fooloso4
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
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
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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.
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).
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).
there is also the glaring anomaly of David and Solomon as “sons of God”. — Apollodorus
Moreover, while divine kings were unknown to the Ancient Hebrews, divine kingship was a centuries-old institution in Egypt. — Apollodorus
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)
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).
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).
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).
[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 …
Unfortunately, people tend to be averse to anything that contradicts their preferred perception of reality. — Apollodorus
For example, some believe that a great Hebrew king named “David” existed — Apollodorus
We know that the OT authors suppressed information about the Omride dynasty. — Apollodorus
In any case, Jeroboam, Saul’s successor as King of Israel after David and Solomon — Apollodorus
Yet, unlike in Israel, this tension did not lead to open conflict. — Apollodorus
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
Moreover, if God is Truth, then the authentic revelation of Truth is nothing but a manifestation, embodiment, or creation of Truth. — Apollodorus
Jesus is a teacher in the authentic spiritual tradition initiated by Egypt’s divine kings — Apollodorus
... gave the timeless wisdom of Egypt to the world ... — Apollodorus
a universal religion for the whole of humanity. — Apollodorus
the Ineffable One (to Hen), the Sun of the noetic realm — Apollodorus
the more open-minded among Hellenistic Jews — Apollodorus
a universal religion for the whole of humanity. — Apollodorus
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
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)
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).
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).
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).
Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city (Life of Claudius, 25).
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).
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).
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.
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 …
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
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).
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).
And he shall be like the light of the morning when the sun rises, A morning without clouds … (2 Samuel 23:4).
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.