Theories on Moses and the Old Testament

The Torah gives an oral account considered by conservative Christians and Jews to be an accurate record of history, though archaeology, paleontology, and other branches of science continue to find evidence that points to a very different past. Likely, it is a combination of mythology and history. What follows is my interpretation of what actually happened, though I cannot claim that it is made up entirely of my original ideas.

Moses (or more properly, Moishe) is generally regarded as the founder of Judaism. His story is similar in some ways to older myths from the region, as are many stories from the Torah. Many appear to come from the Canaanites, but other cultures also have their influence. The theme of the baby in a basket being drawn from the river is more ancient than he, for example. But for the sake of argument we can assume there really was a prince of Egypt who lead a group out and started a new religion.

I have come across several sources suggesting the Ramses II was the Pharaoh of Moses's story, but there is no evidence to support this. No records of any kind have been found in Egypt that describe such an event. It would therefore make sense that it occurred during the period in Egypt's history we know the least about: the reign of Akhenaten until Tutankhamen.

A quick search on Wikipedia shows Akhenaten's rein to be approximately 1353 to 1336 BC, and Rabbinical Judaism dates Moses from 1391 to 1271 BC. Moses would have been 42 when Akhenaten gained the throne, by this calculation.

Akhenaten was known as "the heretic king" because he attempted to convert Egypt from polytheism to the worship of a single god named Aten, a sun god.

Members of the royal family not destined for the throne usually joined the priesthood, a caste wielding great power of their own. Akhenaten's new religion posed a threat to that power, and they overthrew him. His legacy in heiroglyphs and relief was chipped from the walls, statues and paintings destroyed. Some claim that Akhenaten WAS Moses, and that he was banished from Egypt, but scientists have a mummy that appears to be the Heretic King, found in Egypt.



 It is unclear who succeeded Akhenaten on the throne, and possibly several people tried to take control. Eventually Akhenaten's son Tutenkaman was crowned, though not even a teenager, and intrigue continued in the background. One of these mysterious rulers may have been the one mentioned in Exodus, or possibly the changing opinion of the pharaoh in the story reflected the shifting political leadership.

 It is logical that a priest who had accepted the new monotheism would ask to lead his congregation out of the country rather than suffer persecution.

The Torah is attributed to Moses, but modern scholars agree that even the oldest portions of the text come from after his time. Until the resurgence of fundamentalism in the 1970's, an almost universal acceptance of the Wellhausen theory that four writers from different periods contributed to the modern Torah, with editors combining and redacting the source material  twice over the centuries.

The oldest material comes from a writer called the Jahwist, whose eloquent narrative supplies many of the familiar stories of the Old Testament in a classic mythological or parable style. A later writer titled the Elohist provided a parallel piece focusing on more mystical aspects of mostly the same stories. These were combined by the first redactor, who may have changed the ending of the sacrifice of Isaac.

 The Deuteronomist writer chronicles the history of the region, declaring the hardships of the peoples to be deserved punishment for not following the Law. He also authored other books from the Old Testament not included in the Torah. Lastly, the "Priestly" writer is responsible for the really boring parts, like long lists of names and dates and rules and punishments and rituals for every little thing.  You can learn more about the Wellhausen theory Here.

 The obvious conclusion is that the Jawist narrative represents the most accurate preservation of the teachings of Moses, but I think there's more to the story. The influence of Egypt has to be considered more deeply than as mere slave drivers. The Hebrews fled based on religious persecution from the power hungry priesthood, so in this new society a class of religious leaders wouldn't be trusted early on. The Jawist reflects this, with anyone being free to make offerings or prayers. The intention was to have a nation of priests- no one at the mercy of a holier-than-thou caste.

But spirituality is a complex thing. A person goes through waxing and waning phases of belief throughout their life, and even believers may have difficulty remaining consistent with the practices that don't, in fact, improve their lives. Thus, certain people are charged with the responsibility of maintaining said practices. It also became clear that not all lay people are cut out to be priests, lacking the understanding or sophistication and maturity required to achieve optimum results. So, as Jesus described centuries later, parables are for the masses, while the inner circle is taught the secrets (known in some cultures as Mysteries).

 The Jewish mystical tradition is called Kabbalah, from QBLH in Hebrew. The nature of God and the Universe is theorized in greater detail while the Torah stories are considered more metaphorical. I believe the Elohist writings were from QBLH tradition, and combined with the Jawist narrative in an attempt to make some of these concepts more accessible to the masses. The famed magic of King Solomon is connected to QBLH, and has similarities to alchemy (al-Khemet literally means "from Egypt").

 Incidentally, Alchemy is based on literature known as The Emerald Tablet, said to be in the possession of Akhenaten and attributed to Thoth. I have even heard rumor that it was carried in the Ark of the Covenant with the shattered tablets. Obviously we have to take the stories with a grain of salt, but there's no doubt that it was written in great antiquity. The Emerald Tablet's text is monotheistic in nature, and claims that if it's instructions are followed (the Magnum Opus or "Great Work"), all obscurity will leave you and all obstacles will be overcome.

In Egyptian philosophy and later alchemy, the mythology, rituals, "formulae and emblems... are to be taken primarily as allegorical symbols; for until their esoteric significance has been comprehended, their literal interpretation is valueless." (Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages)  This is also how QBLH views the Torah.

 But lay people tend to accept a literal interpretation of as story as the only one, and those charged with fulfilling a culture's spiritual needs are put into a position where they must choose how they use their knowledge and position, and not all can be trusted not to take advantage. This is how the priesthood of Egypt became so corrupt.

 Akhenaten tried to change the paradigm to empower his people, but it didn't last, and once the priesthood was back in power, what happened to those who converted to the new religion? While we have no real proof supporting the Exodus tale, the idea that a monotheistic priest would lead his congregation away from the persecution is so logical that one assumes it did happen.

The Wellhausen theory provides evidence of the priest class taking more control over time (and is consistent with Jesus's later warnings not to trust the Pharisees): the Jahwist grants the right to perform as a priest to anyone, the Elohist directs the people to respect prophets above others as the chosen priesthood, the Deuteronomist emphasizes priestly leaderdhip, Law, and God's punishment for misconduct, and the Priestly writer (and possibly another editor who tried to unify the whole shebang, may have even added Lev. 17-21) lays out thousands of rules to follow and sentences death to violators.

 No wonder Jesus didn't trust the Pharasees. The reason for the editing together of the various writings was to unite the people, who had become fractured into differing sects. It's clear to me that Jesus came from a sect heavily influenced by QBLH. To me, understanding his message requires the understanding of historical context, and this analysis tells me that Jesus would not have accepted many of the arguments made in his name that cite Old Testament passages. He was a renegade, and the Leviticus laws seem to be precisely what Jesus was preaching against in the Gospels. More on that later in my analysis of the New Testament.
































































































































theory that four writers

The War Against Christianity?

Just recently, lawmakers in Idaho proposed making the state officially and formally a Christian state. Thank goodness, most of the other lawmakers have brains enough to recognize the bill's unconstitutionality and immediately moved to shelve the suggestion. But bills like this have been popping up across the country, claiming to be a response to the "war against Christianity" supposedly being waged by humanists and homosexuals and freaks like myself.

It doesn't matter how many times we all explain that there is no war against Christianity, that we have no interest in taking their rights away, etc. They're convinced. So I thought about it, and maybe they're right: maybe the war Christianity started centuries ago against paganism and homosexuals and science never really ended, They just say it's our war against Christianity to justify their preemptive strikes.

 So if we ARE in a war (see http://www.afa.net/bigotrymap# for their "battle plans"), we need to consider things carefully. Ignoring and denying it is leaving minority rights vulnerable. There are a few groups who have taken this on, including the Satanist Church. I don't necessarily agree with their tactics, but they've been fairly successful at getting attention. Unless we're content for the Satanists to speak for all of us, which I'm not, more of us minorities need to be visible in our nation and communities. That's how we are normalized in society's eyes, and how we maintain a level of fairness for everyone.

Just as the U S is not at war with Islam, (except, apparently, the Christian right... Coincidence?) but religious extremism and terror, we need to make fully clear that we are at war with Christian special privilege. The constitution guarantees equal respect to all religions, and it's shameful that one group should get away with implying that they're the only group whose voice matters.

 To conclude, some
 thoughts I have in this line are:

• Christians do not get to define marriage when other religions have different opinions- we DO have a constitution. 
• Christians do not get to claim their religious rights are violated by gay marriage any more than Jews get to claim persecution by bacon. 
• Christmas is not the only winter holiday that matters.
• Christian creationism gets taught in schools as fact, so does Hinduism's creation story. 
• If you get proselytize me, I get to bless you by calling the four elements. 
• If you say abortion is an abomination to God, you better be damn well prepared to submit evidence that your God exists but mine doesn't, and it better hold more water than, "Because the Bible says so."

The Origin of Sacrifice

Rufus and I were talking when the subject of sacrifice in primitive societies came up. "I can't figure out where that came from, or why its so widespread," he announced, "The idea that some invisible being will somehow be appeased by bleeding an animal over an altar."

"I bet it goes way back in human history, to early man leaving his kill behind when the lion shows up," I replied.

 His eyes lit up as he mused. "Yeah... It was a survival tactic against the big cats... Throw one down so the rest of the tribe could survive, and when the cats became fewer, it was still an ingrained fear response."