• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The time of Judeo-Christian writings

Tumah

Veteran Member
Not really a conspiracy theory since the Persian kings were Zoroastrians , the Book of Ezra itself is a Persian conspiracy, Ezra comes to Jerusalem with a letter of authority from the king of Persia whom introduced the Law and Festival of Booths (Zoroastrian holiday of Ayathrem )
The festival of booths is found in the Pentateuch multiple times. It bears little to no resemblance with the Zoroastrian Paitishahem (or Ayathrem, but at least Paitishahem shares a harvest theme with Tabernacles).

Ezra 5-6. A letter is sent to Darius and the decree of Cyrus found; the (1st=2nd)temple(Treasure house) is built and dedicated on the 3rd of the twelfth month in the sixth year of Darius.

I'm guessing you're trying to say that there was only one Temple and it was really a treasure house. Archaeology doesn't seem to point in that direction...

The Law of Moses ( Torah Mesha) was suppose to be lost, but somehow the Persians gave it to Ezra, Who gave the Persians the Torah-Mesha?
Mesha was a Moabite king. I think you mean Moshe and Torath Moshe. There is nowhere where it says the Persians gave the Torah to Ezra.

The Hebrew Language was created by the Persians too, when they implemented Imperial Aramaic, which was used to express Phoenician with an Armenian dialect.
The Hebrew language is a Canaanite language. Aramaic is not. Imperial Aramaic was what you get when you add Persian to the Aramaic language of the time.

What I think you might be referring to is the Phonecian Alphabet and the Aramaic Alphabet. Not the language. The Ashuri script was base on an Aramaic script. Its used to write Hebrew and replaced the previous paleo-Hebrew script.

It seems Jews ( who read fake Talmud not Torah)
I'm pretty sure that the Talmud we have today is the real Talmud. And we read the Torah too. Every week in fact. We finish all five books yearly.

are in serious denial as well as Christians, for the Messiah was Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1),
I don't think Jews disagree that the messiah mentioned in Daniel may refer to Cyrus.

Prophets are not Soothsaying fictional events in the 1st century.
This sentence is missing words to make it understandable.
Christianity and Messianic Judaism are bunk.
I don't think any Jews disagree with that either.

Ezra means 'Help' , so it's a synonym with יָשַׁע 'Yasha' and the first too return was Zerubabel ( 'Seed of Babylon' ) , anecdotal names, that's a sign of myth making.
This sentence is missing words that would have otherwise made it intelligible.

This is why Jews teach there kids to hate Persians.

That's libel.
 

Magus

Active Member
The festival of booths is found in the Pentateuch multiple times. It bears little to no resemblance with the Zoroastrian Paitishahem (or Ayathrem, but at least Paitishahem shares a harvest theme with Tabernacles).



I'm guessing you're trying to say that there was only one Temple and it was really a treasure house. Archaeology doesn't seem to point in that direction...


Mesha was a Moabite king. I think you mean Moshe and Torath Moshe. There is nowhere where it says the Persians gave the Torah to Ezra.


The Hebrew language is a Canaanite language. Aramaic is not. Imperial Aramaic was what you get when you add Persian to the Aramaic language of the time.

What I think you might be referring to is the Phonecian Alphabet and the Aramaic Alphabet. Not the language. The Ashuri script was base on an Aramaic script. Its used to write Hebrew and replaced the previous paleo-Hebrew script.


I'm pretty sure that the Talmud we have today is the real Talmud. And we read the Torah too. Every week in fact. We finish all five books yearly.


I don't think Jews disagree that the messiah mentioned in Daniel may refer to Cyrus.


This sentence is missing words to make it understandable.

I don't think any Jews disagree with that either.


This sentence is missing words that would have otherwise made it intelligible.



That's libel.

Phoenicians were using it's native script, were-as your Hebrew, it's written in an Aramaic script and you don't question why? It is the Script of the Persian empire, or province of 'Eber Nahar' , Persians made Aramaic the official language of diplomacy and Aramaic script replaced the Phoenician script , The oldest layers of the Old Testament are written in Aramaic.

Who gave Ezra the authority to appoint officials and introduce laws in the Persian province of Eber Nari ( Beyond the River) , Do you know anything about politics?

The Book of Ezra itself is chronologically corrupt, Ezra appears in Ezra 2 as Zerubbabel , coming out the captivity of Nebuchadnezzar

Ezra 7:1 * Artaxerxes II ( 405 to 358 BCE )
Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, Son of Shallum, Son of Zadok, Son of Ahitub..... Son of Phinehas, son of Aaron.

1 Chronicles 6:15 * Nebuchadnezzer ( 605 - 562 BCE )
And Jehozadak went into captivity, when the LORD carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

Zadok > Shallum > Hilkiah > Azariah > Seraiah > Ezra ( Ezra 7:1)
Zadok > Shallum > Hilkiah > Azariah > Seraiah > Jeho-Zadok (1 Chron 6:15)

And it's believed 'Ezra' also wrote 1 Chronicles.

Ezra 8
These are now the chief of their fathers, and this is the genealogy of them that went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of Artaxerxes(II) the king.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Phoenicians were using it's native script, were-as your Hebrew, it's written in an Aramaic script and you don't question why? It is the Script of the Persian empire, or province of 'Eber Nahar' , Persians made Aramaic the official language of diplomacy and Aramaic script replaced the Phoenician script , The oldest layers of the Old Testament are written in Aramaic.

Who gave Ezra the authority to appoint officials and introduce laws in the Persian province of Eber Nari ( Beyond the River) , Do you know anything about politics?

The Book of Ezra itself is chronologically corrupt, Ezra appears in Ezra 2 as Zerubbabel , coming out the captivity of Nebuchadnezzar

Ezra 7:1 * Artaxerxes II ( 405 to 358 BCE )
Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, Son of Shallum, Son of Zadok, Son of Ahitub..... Son of Phinehas, son of Aaron.

1 Chronicles 6:15 * Nebuchadnezzer ( 605 - 562 BCE )
And Jehozadak went into captivity, when the LORD carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

Zadok > Shallum > Hilkiah > Azariah > Seraiah > Ezra ( Ezra 7:1)
Zadok > Shallum > Hilkiah > Azariah > Seraiah > Jeho-Zadok (1 Chron 6:15)

Interesting description of the origins of the Aramaic and the linguistic and literary relationship to Persia with the OT text. I consider the evolution of Hebrew written language and literature to also include Canaanite/Ugarit origins. In fact much of the Psalms has literary relationship Canaanite/Ugarit literature. The Hebrew script evolved fairly late, and it is logical that Aramaic represented an earlier script used.

What do you consider the relationship of origins between the Aramaic and Hebrew script.

Can you suggest a reference that describes these linguistic and literary relationships.

And it's believed 'Ezra' also wrote 1 Chronicles.

Ezra 8
These are now the chief of their fathers, and this is the genealogy of them that went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of Artaxerxes(II) the king.



I consider this claim of authorship hypothetical and a bit of a stretch.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Archaeological and internal text evidence we have available is that much of the Book of Psalms and Proverbs are heavily influenced with origins from Canaanite literature in style and substance, incorporated, edited and added to later when if became Hebrew scripture. We have no other evidence for the origins of the Book of Psalms.

Example:

Source: Psalm 29: Give Yahweh, O Gods, Give Yahweh Praise.



Psalm 29: Give Yahweh, O Gods, Give Yahweh Praise.

Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. Ascribe to the Lord the glory of his name; worship the Lord in holy splendor. The voice of the Lord is over the waters; the God of glory thunders, the Lord, over mighty waters. The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars; the Lord breaks the cedars of Lebanon. He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox. The voice of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire. The voice of the Lord shakes the wilderness; the Lord shakes the wilderness of Kadesh. (Psa 29:1-8NRSV)

Psalms 29 is most interesting in that the wording is similar to that of Psalms 82. Here the Heavenly Council is addressed to worship Yahweh and proclaim his dominion. So where can we find such writings in the Ancient Near East? Psalms 82 is thought by some to be an adaptation of an old Canaanite hymn to the storm god Baal. From the research done by H.L. Ginsberg, every word in this psalm can be found duplicated in the older Canaanite texts. 1

A posting by Quartz Hill School of theology we find the following quote on the topic:

“Psalm 29 provides our final example of the potential of the Ugaritic texts for illuminating the Bible. The Psalmist praises God in powerful language, evocative of a thunderstorm; thunder, described as God’s voice, is referred to seven times. In 1935, H.L. Ginsberg proposed that Psalm 29 was originally a Phoenician hymn which had found its way into the Psalter. In support of his hypothesis, he noted several aspects of the psalm which suggested to him that it had been composed initially in honor of the storm god, Baal; he drew upon the Ugaritic texts to substatiate his hypothesis. Theodor Gaster took the hypothesis further in a study published in the Jewish Quarterly Review in 1947. Drawing on the evidence of the Ugaritic texts, he proposed that the psalm was originally Canaanite; it had been modified for inclusion in Israel’s hymnbook simply by the replacement of the name Baal with the personal name of Israel’s God.

Today, although debate continues on the details of the hypothesis, almost all scholars agree that Psalm 29’s background is Baal worship, as portrayed in the tablets from Ugarit. The psalm in its present form has a powerful effect; the power of nature and of the storm are not exclusively the domain of Baal; all power, including that of storm and thunder, is the perogative of Israel’s God. yet the Ugaritic background of the psalm reveals its sources. “ 2

© Copyright Original Source
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What is your point?

That there are valid objections to the Old Testament being corrupted and not equivalent to Hebrew scripture. As described by Tumah capitalization can corrupt the text, and change meaning. Also punctuation, as noted in the source can change the meaning and interpretation of the text.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Archaeological and internal text evidence we have available is that much of the Book of Psalms and Proverbs are heavily influenced with origins from Canaanite literature in style and substance, incorporated, edited and added to later when if became Hebrew scripture. We have no other evidence for the origins of the Book of Psalms.
Oh, my! Hebrew literature reflects the surrounding culture. I'm shocked ... simply shocked!
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
And therefore?
That there are valid objections to the Old Testament being corrupted and not equivalent to Hebrew scripture. As described by Tumah capitalization can corrupt the text, and change meaning. Also punctuation, as noted in the source can change the meaning and interpretation of the text, which you objected to . . .

. . . and considering all the source I have cited the literary origin of the Genesis myth.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Source: Torah, Ugartic Bible

Hebrews adopted the Syriac Civilization

Aryold J. Toynbee wrote: {p. 423} The Hebrews (including the Moabites) adopted not only the Canaanite language but also the Phoenician alphabet for writing it. ... The discovery of the Ugarit texts shows that the Biblical Psalms, whatever their date, are indebted to a Phoenician hymnology that had a long tradition behind it. The Phoenicians also seem likely to have been the intermediaries through whom some of the Egyptian proverbs of Amenemope found their way into the Biblical Book of Proverbs almost verbatim. And the Canaanite origin of chapters viii-ix of the Book of Proverbs, on the theme of Wisdom, is attested by echoes here of themes in the Phoenician literature disinterred at Ugarit. The Sumero-Akkadian story of the creation of the World must have found its way to Palestine long before the Israelites' advent there, and must have been learnt by them from the Canaanites on whom they imposed themselves. Canaanite elements have not been detected in the eighth-century B.C. prophetic literature of Israel and Judah. But they reappear thereafter. 'There is a veritable flood of allusions to Canaanite (Phoenician) literature in Hebrew works composed between the seventh and the third century B.C.: e.g. in Job, Deutero-Isaiah, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Jubilees, and part of Daniel.

© Copyright Original Source
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
I understand in general the problem of the reason why many if not most Jews reject the Old Testament as being Jewish scripture, therefore reject the designation of the Bible as Judeo - Christian.

I would like to here from you more on why the Jews consider the Old Testament a corruption of Jewish scripture.

Jayhawker Soule designates his belief as Judaism, but presents mostly Christian apologist arguments. Are there actually many Jews that support considering the Old Testament as Jewish scripture?

I don't know of any educated Jews that consider the christian bible to be Jewish scripture.

We have a far higher standard of text than anyone on the planet. If a single letter in the Tanakh differs from the Tanakh that it was copied from, then the recently made Tanakh is tossed away. Each Tanakh must be identical to the previous Tanakh to be considered authoritative. Comparing Tanakhs from around the world and from different times, show that they are identical to each other.

Christian texts are very sloppy in their transmission. Marginal notes are added as text, books are added and deleted, the order of the books are swapped around, verses are misquoted, mistranslated, or made up. Comparing christian bibles versions show that none of them agree with each other. The christian bible is very corrupted from the Original Testament.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
I don't understand what you're saying. The "Old Testament" is what Jews call the Tanach albeit in a slightly different order. The Tanach is Jewish Scriptures.

Are you talking about Christian translations of the Tanach? In that case, yeah I'd agree with him. Christian translations tends to capitalize words that don't bear capitalization or otherwise use translations to indicate Jesus in a text where he is not indicated.

Tumah, I don't know of any educated Jews that refer to our bible as the Old Testament. That is a christian term.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
Made in, I guess. The Talmud only discusses the translation of the Pentateuch. Rather it doesn't allow translation of other Books (which you may interpret as polemic against the available Greek translations of the time). Within that story it says that the translators incorporated 15 changes to the text for one reason or another and lists them. I once looked at the text available online and I recall that I only found a few of the changes.

They are continuing errors for the christian bible. When our sages were forced to copy the Torah to Greek, they purposefully put errors into the books, so that no knowledgeable Jew would use them. Since the Greeks were not knowledgeable, they passed these errors onto later copies.
 
Top