Son of God...pagan influences

[gnostic]

As you know, in the Christian scriptures (New Testament), Jesus is mentioned as the “Son of God”, being of divine origin, God, with a mortal mother, Mary, so biologically part god and part human. His conception “supernatural” or “unnatural”, while his birth natural.

In Genesis 2, Adam was created from dust, and given life from God’s breath, hence a living soul, human. But Adam is usually seen as god’s creation, not as god’s son in the (literal) biological “reproduction” sense.

With Jesus, there are simply no precedence in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor in Judaism, where God fathered an offspring upon a mortal woman.

But in other (polytheistic) religions and myths, from other ancient civilizations and cultures, such children were born from divine and mortal parentage, and were called demigods.

Gilgamesh was such a one, whose father was Lugalbanda and mortal, while his mother was the goddess.

Dionysus, Minos, Perseus, Heracles (Hercules), Polydeuces (Pollux), Helen and many others, were all children of Zeus and mortal women. Poseidon, Ares, Hermès and Apollo have many children with mortal women.

Achilles was son of Peleus and goddess Thetis, while Aeneas was son of Anchises and goddess Aphrodite. Far fewer goddesses would have have children with mortal men.

The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As you know, in the Christian scriptures (New Testament), Jesus is mentioned as the “Son of God”, being of divine origin, God, with a mortal mother, Mary, so biologically part god and part human. His conception “supernatural” or “unnatural”, while his birth natural.

In Genesis 2, Adam was created from dust, and given life from God’s breath, hence a living soul, human. But Adam is usually seen as god’s creation, not as god’s son in the (literal) biological “reproduction” sense.

With Jesus, there are simply no precedence in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor in Judaism, where God fathered an offspring upon a mortal woman.

But in other (polytheistic) religions and myths, from other ancient civilizations and cultures, such children were born from divine and mortal parentage, and were called demigods.

Gilgamesh was such a one, whose father was Lugalbanda and mortal, while his mother was the goddess.

Dionysus, Minos, Perseus, Heracles (Hercules), Polydeuces (Pollux), Helen and many others, were all children of Zeus and mortal women. Poseidon, Ares, Hermès and Apollo have many children with mortal women.

Achilles was son of Peleus and goddess Thetis, while Aeneas was son of Anchises and goddess Aphrodite. Far fewer goddesses would have have children with mortal men.

The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?

What does pagan man to you?

I keep seeing it used as a dirty word.

 

[Brian2]

As you know, in the Christian scriptures (New Testament), Jesus is mentioned as the “Son of God”, being of divine origin, God, with a mortal mother, Mary, so biologically part god and part human. His conception “supernatural” or “unnatural”, while his birth natural.

Biologically all human.

In Genesis 2, Adam was created from dust, and given life from God’s breath, hence a living soul, human. But Adam is usually seen as god’s creation, not as god’s son in the (literal) biological “reproduction” sense.

With Jesus, there are simply no precedence in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor in Judaism, where God fathered an offspring upon a mortal woman.

But in other (polytheistic) religions and myths, from other ancient civilizations and cultures, such children were born from divine and mortal parentage, and were called demigods.

Gilgamesh was such a one, whose father was Lugalbanda and mortal, while his mother was the goddess.

Dionysus, Minos, Perseus, Heracles (Hercules), Polydeuces (Pollux), Helen and many others, were all children of Zeus and mortal women. Poseidon, Ares, Hermès and Apollo have many children with mortal women.

Achilles was son of Peleus and goddess Thetis, while Aeneas was son of Anchises and goddess Aphrodite. Far fewer goddesses would have have children with mortal men.

The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?

I wonder if these pagan demigods were inspired by real life.
Genesis 6:1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend (remain) with humans forever, for they are mortal (corrupt); their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

As for the question, Christianity did not choose to follow foreign pagan examples.
Why make up a story like that without evidence?
I guess you have not heard that the parallels between the life of Jesus and those of some demigods are not true.

 

[gnostic]

What does pagan man to you?

I keep seeing it used as a dirty word.

Not a dirty word...not to me.

All I am saying that such a concept - “son of god” - was foreign to Judaism and to the Jews of that time.

 

[Brian2]

Not a dirty word...not to me.

All I am saying that such a concept - “son of god” - was foreign to Judaism and to the Jews of that time.

Son of God was not foreign to Judaism or in the Hebrew scriptures. It is just that the Jews did not see the Messiah as being the Son of God in the way Jesus presented Himself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not a dirty word...not to me.

All I am saying that such a concept - “son of god” - was foreign to Judaism and to the Jews of that time.

Look up the Hebrew word 'Ben Elohim'.

 

[gnostic]

Look up the Hebrew word 'Ben Elohim'.

If I remember correctly, Ben Elohim refereed to angels, not offspring of part god, part human.

The thread is about demigods, not angels.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If I remember correctly, Ben Elohim refereed to angels, not offspring of part god, part human.

The thread is about demigods, not angels.

I asked you to look it up because your memory is flawed. To give you a hint, the Hebrew word 'Ben' means 'Son'.

 

[gnostic]

I asked you to look it up because your memory is flawed. To give you a hint, the Hebrew word 'Ben' means 'Son'.

I know what Ben means, but like I said, Ben Elohim were applied to angels.

Angels are not the subject of this thread. I don’t know how angels were created, and I don’t think any of Jewish texts ( though I could be wrong) would show how, and I am pretty they were made through impregnating mortal women.

And the thread is about deities getting involved with mortals, to reproduce children.

The question is why Jews (who became “Christians”) in the 1st century CE, would follow examples of Sumerian/Babylonian or Greek/Roman religions/myths, for Jesus?

 

[74x12]

As you know, in the Christian scriptures (New Testament), Jesus is mentioned as the “Son of God”, being of divine origin, God, with a mortal mother, Mary, so biologically part god and part human. His conception “supernatural” or “unnatural”, while his birth natural.

In Genesis 2, Adam was created from dust, and given life from God’s breath, hence a living soul, human. But Adam is usually seen as god’s creation, not as god’s son in the (literal) biological “reproduction” sense.

With Jesus, there are simply no precedence in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor in Judaism, where God fathered an offspring upon a mortal woman.

But in other (polytheistic) religions and myths, from other ancient civilizations and cultures, such children were born from divine and mortal parentage, and were called demigods.

Gilgamesh was such a one, whose father was Lugalbanda and mortal, while his mother was the goddess.

Dionysus, Minos, Perseus, Heracles (Hercules), Polydeuces (Pollux), Helen and many others, were all children of Zeus and mortal women. Poseidon, Ares, Hermès and Apollo have many children with mortal women.

Achilles was son of Peleus and goddess Thetis, while Aeneas was son of Anchises and goddess Aphrodite. Far fewer goddesses would have have children with mortal men.

The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?

All of it is rooted in truth. According to Genesis ch. 6 the "sons of God" went in to the daughters of men and had children with them. This is speaking of angelic beings known as the sons of God who had children with earth women. Their offspring became "men of old, men of renown".

The connection is easy to make with demigod like figures of "renown" such as Hercules and Gilgamesh.

Jesus we believe is different and is the "real deal" this time. The others were certain fallen angel's attempts to hinder God's redemptive plan. The plan being that God would come in human form to redeem mankind. But if they could corrupt he human race enough then they could stop it.

Why did they want to stop it? Because it was prophesied that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head. (Genesis 3:15) So the real Son of God born of a woman would defeat Satan. It wasn't good news for the fallen angels. This is the most likely reason they desired to corrupt the "seed of the woman" by impregnating women themselves.

This is actually on going phenomenon however; so they likely have other reasons as well.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I know what Ben means, but like I said, Ben Elohim were applied to angels.

Angels are not the subject of this thread. I don’t know how angels were created, and I don’t think any of Jewish texts ( though I could be wrong) would show how, and I am pretty they were made through impregnating mortal women.

And the thread is about deities getting involved with mortals, to reproduce children.

The question is why Jews (who became “Christians”) in the 1st century CE, would follow examples of Sumerian/Babylonian or Greek/Roman religions/myths, for Jesus?

Gnostic, you should know better than that, the actual title Ben Elohim means Son's of God. That they are referred to as angels by traditional standards is a different matter, perhaps Jesus Christ may be equated with the angel class in the future?

What is also interesting is the title 'Elohim' which is equated with God by most Christians and Jews. In fact it does not mean God, it is better translated as Watchers, plural. They created Adam and Eve at the same time in Genesis.1. Genesis 1 comes from the Northern tribal tradition while Genesis 2 comes from the Southern where Jehovah God is referred to as Lord, and where Eve was created from Adam. When the Northern Tribes were driven to the south, the two traditions were joined with Genesis 1 Elohim being the creators, and for Genesis 2 YHVH Lord the creator. By referring to both of them as God is to make the bible seem consistent and more credible for the followers.

 

[gnostic]

All of it is rooted in truth. According to Genesis ch. 6 the "sons of God" went in to the daughters of men and had children with them. This is speaking of angelic beings known as the sons of God who had children with earth women. Their offspring became "men of old, men of renown".

The connection is easy to make with demigod like figures of "renown" such as Hercules and Gilgamesh.

Jesus we believe is different and is the "real deal" this time. The others were certain fallen angel's attempts to hinder God's redemptive plan. The plan being that God would come in human form to redeem mankind. But if they could corrupt he human race enough then they could stop it.

Why did they want to stop it? Because it was prophesied that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head. (Genesis 3:15) So the real Son of God born of a woman would defeat Satan. It wasn't good news for the fallen angels. This is the most likely reason they desired to corrupt the "seed of the woman" by impregnating women themselves.

This is actually on going phenomenon however; so they likely have other reasons as well.

In much older Sumerian texts, the gods and goddesses that exist in their religions , were never described as angels, because angels don’t exist in this culture, or in successive culture that followed the Sumerian culture, eg the mid-3rd millennium Akkadian, the Amorite and Kassite dynasties of Babylon in the 2nd millennium BCE (these 2 dynasties coincided with respective Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian languages), the 7th & 6th centuries Chaldean dynasty in Babylon (Neo-Babylonian).

The neighboring Persian in the Zoroastrian religion did introduce angels and the concept of hierarchy of angels.

The problem with history of the Hebrews, Israelites or Jews, that although writing existed in the regions, starting with middle and late Bronze Age in Canaan with cuneiform, there are no Hebrew writing until transitional period to the Iron Age, where the late Canaanite began to adopt Phoenician alphabet.

What we called Hebrew alphabet is the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, around the 10 century BCE. By that time, there were two Hebrew kingdoms, Judah and Israel.

Early Hebrew inscriptions were inscribed on stones, like the 10th century BCE Gezer Calendar and the Zayit Stone showed knowledge of Moses’ Torah or the reigns of kings like Saul, David and Solomon.

You will only find the instituting of strict monotheism of Judaism starting from the middle of Josiah’s reign (late 7th century BCE), followed shortly by the Exile in Babylon and their returns, that Hebrew writings started to flourished in the 6th century BCE, and that you began to find biblical texts.

The oldest textual evidence was found in the Ketef Hinnom cave where passage from Numbers 6 were inscribed on tiny scrolls made out of silver, hence they became known as the Silver Scrolls. The scrolls and other objects found in the cave were dated between 620 and 590 BCE, hence just before capture of Jerusalem.

My points that Hebrews were already in contact with the Assyrians through trades and wars before the Babylonian empire and Persian empire that followed, so they would have known about the creation and flood myths from the Assyrians and then Babylonians, and they would have known about Gilgamesh, and they would have known about angels from Zoroastrians.

So incorporating angels into biblical narratives aren’t so far-fetched.

By 300 BCE, the Macedonians would have Greek culture to the Levant and Egypt, including stories of heroes, especially those of demigods, part man, part god.

By the time of 1st century CE, Christians would have known about various foreign religions, so I don’t think it is beyond comprehension to adopt the notion of a God fathering a child with mortal woman. After all, a large population of Christians were Greeks, with Paul and other disciples starting churches throughout the Greek speaking regions of the eastern Mediterranean.

All four gospels were originally composed in Greek, not in Hebrew.

 

[Wildswanderer]

As you know, in the Christian scriptures (New Testament), Jesus is mentioned as the “Son of God”, being of divine origin, God, with a mortal mother, Mary, so biologically part god and part human. His conception “supernatural” or “unnatural”, while his birth natural.

In Genesis 2, Adam was created from dust, and given life from God’s breath, hence a living soul, human. But Adam is usually seen as god’s creation, not as god’s son in the (literal) biological “reproduction” sense.

With Jesus, there are simply no precedence in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor in Judaism, where God fathered an offspring upon a mortal woman.

But in other (polytheistic) religions and myths, from other ancient civilizations and cultures, such children were born from divine and mortal parentage, and were called demigods.

Gilgamesh was such a one, whose father was Lugalbanda and mortal, while his mother was the goddess.

Dionysus, Minos, Perseus, Heracles (Hercules), Polydeuces (Pollux), Helen and many others, were all children of Zeus and mortal women. Poseidon, Ares, Hermès and Apollo have many children with mortal women.

Achilles was son of Peleus and goddess Thetis, while Aeneas was son of Anchises and goddess Aphrodite. Far fewer goddesses would have have children with mortal men.

The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?

Even a broken clock is right two times a day.
Even the pagans got a little bit right.
You are looking at it backward.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, you should know better than that, the actual title Ben Elohim means Son's of God. That they are referred to as angels by traditional standards is a different matter, perhaps Jesus Christ may be equated with the angel class in the future?

What is also interesting is the title 'Elohim' which is equated with God by most Christians and Jews. In fact it does not mean God, it is better translated as Watchers, plural. They created Adam and Eve at the same time in Genesis.1. Genesis 1 comes from the Northern tribal tradition while Genesis 2 comes from the Southern where Jehovah God is referred to as Lord, and where Eve was created from Adam. When the Northern Tribes were driven to the south, the two traditions were joined with Genesis 1 Elohim being the creators, and for Genesis 2 YHVH Lord the creator. By referring to both of them as God is to make the bible seem consistent and more credible for the followers.

But El and Elohim were originally Canaanite name.

Yes, I know that in Hebrew Elohim is expressed in singular word/name, but the original Elohim was expressed by the Canaanites and those in Ugarit as plural as children of El.

Canaanite stories survived in Ugarit, in the middle to late 2nd millennium BCE, long before Hebrew writing began flourishing in the 6th century BCE.

No Hebrew writings, nor Hebrew stories, existed in the 2nd millennium Bronze Age.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But El and Elohim were originally Canaanite name.

Yes, I know that in Hebrew Elohim is expressed in singular word/name, but the original Elohim was expressed by the Canaanites and those in Ugarit as plural as children of El.

Canaanite stories survived in Ugarit, in the middle to late 2nd millennium BCE, long before Hebrew writing began flourishing in the 6th century BCE.

No Hebrew writings, nor Hebrew stories, existed in the 2nd millennium Bronze Age.

Btw, have you ever came across a book written by Isaac Asimov, here are his opening statements on Genesis and if you like, here is a free pdf download. https://holybooks-lichtenbergpress....e-to-the-Bible-The-Old-and-New-Testaments.pdf

"Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The Hebrew word, translated here as God, is "Elohim" and that is a plural form which would ordinarily (if tradition were defied) be translated "gods."

It is possible that in the very earliest traditions on which the Bible is based, the creation was indeed the work of a plurality of gods. The firmly monotheistic Biblical writers would carefully have eliminated such polytheism, but could not perhaps do anything with the firmly ingrained term "Elohim." It was too familiar to change. Some hints of polytheism seem to have survived the editing. Thus, after the first created man disobeys God's injunction not to eat of the tree of knowledge,

God is quoted as saying: Genesis 3:22. Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil . . .

Then, too, still later, when God is concerned over mankind's arrogance in attempting to build a tower that would reach to heaven, He is quoted as saying: Genesis 11:7. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language . . , It is possible to argue that this is not true evidence of early polytheism. God might be viewed as using the royal "we"; or as speaking to an angelic audience; or even, in the Christian view, as speaking in the persons of the Trinity. Nevertheless, as far as we know the history of religion outside the Bible, early beliefs were always polytheistic and monotheism was a late development in the history of ideas.

 

[74x12]

The oldest textual evidence was found in the Ketef Hinnom cave where passage from Numbers 6 were inscribed on tiny scrolls made out of silver, hence they became known as the Silver Scrolls. The scrolls and other objects found in the cave were dated between 620 and 590 BCE, hence just before capture of Jerusalem.

I could point out the Siloam tunnel inscription from the time of Hezekiah 715-687 BC. This predates your own date. With research I believe you can find even older dates.

In any case the scribes of Israel would have often written on parchment rather than clay. This means that you won't find as many writings as compared with Nineveh or Babylon.

This also means they would have adopted an alphabet or at least pictographs earlier than other cultures. The reason they would prefer parchment is their nomadic origins. First being a pastoral people they would prefer sheep or goat skin because they had lots of it. Secondly it's a lot lighter than clay tablets which would have been very heavy to carry around. So I don't see cuneiform working very well for them.

The proto-Canaanite text didn't evolve from cuneiform; it evolved from Egyptian pictographs. So I think it was an obvious choice for ancient Hebrew.

In much older Sumerian texts, the gods and goddesses that exist in their religions , were never described as angels, because angels don’t exist in this culture, or in successive culture that followed the Sumerian culture, eg the mid-3rd millennium Akkadian, the Amorite and Kassite dynasties of Babylon in the 2nd millennium BCE (these 2 dynasties coincided with respective Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian languages), the 7th & 6th centuries Chaldean dynasty in Babylon (Neo-Babylonian).

"Angel" is just a messenger. The angels of ancient Hebrew beliefs weren't necessarily like the ones we imagine now. In fact some of them described in the Bible did not even appear fully human. Sumerians and Akkadians did in fact believe in lesser heavenly beings who were serving the will of the gods and could in fact serve as messengers etc. You can even find images of them with wings. This was not an idea invented by Zoroastrians. The Sumerians also believed in many demons who had names. These demons were the apparent cause of many problems. Such as illnesses, stillbirths etc. These demons would be the same thing we would call fallen angels in Biblical terms.

So the theory that Hebrews just borrowed various beliefs from others to cobble together their own religion because apparently they had no originality doesn't make much sense to me. This implies that Hebrews previously had no culture of their own ... which means they were living under a rock and must have been idiots.

The Bible itself gives us ideas where the culture and beliefs of Israelites come from. First Abraham was living in the city of Ur and he traveled from there to Haran and many of his relatives decided to stay in Haran. So it seems the Hebrew culture was at that time one with first Ur which was basically a Sumerian city and then Haran which was in Syria. And the patriarchs continued to identify somewhat with Syria including taking wives from that land.

So their own history was complex and extensive. It's wrong to think they borrowed their beliefs from others; even if you assume all their beliefs are just myths and fake. Because even in that case their beliefs should be viewed more as a divergent branch of widely popular beliefs of the time; rather than them just suddenly deciding to make things up based on other culture's beliefs. So I think this idea that Hebrews borrowed things from other cultures is a modern fiction based on an unrealistic premise.

So in conclusion the Hebrew origins of the world and the flood are just as valid as anyone else's from the time and I believe more valid and correct. Basically those other accounts of the flood don't make me believe less in the Bible but actually confirm it and make it more trustworthy in my opinion. If these things really happened then why would only the Hebrews talk about it? Everyone would talk about it.

The problem with history of the Hebrews, Israelites or Jews, that although writing existed in the regions, starting with middle and late Bronze Age in Canaan with cuneiform, there are no Hebrew writing until transitional period to the Iron Age, where the late Canaanite began to adopt Phoenician alphabet.

Cuneiform is only really convenient on clay. I've already covered why the Hebrews would have been early adopters of the phonetic alphabet and possibly used pictographs before that.

 

[74x12]

In much older Sumerian texts, the gods and goddesses that exist in their religions , were never described as angels, because angels don’t exist in this culture, or in successive culture that followed the Sumerian culture, eg the mid-3rd millennium Akkadian, the Amorite and Kassite dynasties of Babylon in the 2nd millennium BCE (these 2 dynasties coincided with respective Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian languages), the 7th & 6th centuries Chaldean dynasty in Babylon (Neo-Babylonian).

The neighboring Persian in the Zoroastrian religion did introduce angels and the concept of hierarchy of angels.

Besides what I already said about the Akkadians and Sumerians believing in lesser heavenly beings who served the gods. Yet it's also irrelevant because if my original premise is correct then the Sumerians would not have thought of the Benai ha Elohim as "angels" (a completely modern term) but they would have seen them as gods.

 

[gnostic]

could point out the Siloam tunnel inscription from the time of Hezekiah 715-687 BC. This predates your own date. With research I believe you can find even older dates.

While I understand the significant of the tunnel and inscriptions been dated to around Hezekiah’s time, and Hezekiah is a real historical person, as the Assyrian annals independently indicated as contemporary to Sargon II and Sennacherib, the inscriptions is more about the construction of the tunnel, not inscriptions of biblical passages.

I am talking about the oldest surviving passage from Numbers 6, the Priestly Blessing, actual reference to the biblical work. The Siloam inscriptions quoting nothing from scriptures.

The Silver Scrolls aren’t the oldest writing ever, but they are the oldest evidence that have quoted passage from biblical book.

 

[gnostic]

The Bible itself gives us ideas where the culture and beliefs of Israelites come from. First Abraham was living in the city of Ur and he traveled from there to Haran and many of his relatives decided to stay in Haran. So it seems the Hebrew culture was at that time one with first Ur which was basically a Sumerian city and then Haran which was in Syria. And the patriarch

You are right that Ur was a “Sumerian city”, but by 2000, it was no longer important, because the Sumerians were weakened by repeated invasions. It had collapsed when the 3rd dynasty of Ur ended around 2004 BCE.

Just because Genesis can named some cities in Mesopotamia, doesn’t mean who wrote them know history around that time.

That “Ur” you talked about, Genesis 11 say:

28 Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans.

The fact is in -

1. the Old Babylonian period (c 1894 -1595 BCE) or Middle Bronze Age, which coincided with the Amorite dynasty or the 1st dynasty of Babylon,
2. and Middle Babylonian period (1595 - c 1155 BCE ) or late Bronze Age, which coincided with the Kassite dynasty or the 2nd dynasty of Babylon,

- there were Chaldeans living in Babylonia, around these times.

The Amorites lived in the land of what called Syria, and the Sumerians have known of their existence as far back as 2400 BCE. The Amorites were partly responsible for the end of 3rd dynasty of Ur, and established originally minor Akkadian city of Babylon into their capital.

The Amorite dynasty ended with the Kassite invasion of Babylonia.

The Kassite dynasty didn’t end until the Assyrians invaded Babylonia and captured Babylon itself a few years later.

The Chaldeans, originally known as the Kalhu, didn’t migrate into marshy region, southeast of Ur, to the Persian Gulf, until early 9th century BCE. Ur was still in Assyrian hand when the Chaldeans arrived.

So what Genesis say “Ur of the Chaldeans” around the time of Abraham, this anachronistic.

It is clear that whoever wrote Genesis, didn’t know Chaldean history, let alone the history of Ur.

 

[gnostic]

In any case the scribes of Israel would have often written on parchment rather than clay. This means that you won't find as many writings as compared with Nineveh or Babylon.

This also means they would have adopted an alphabet or at least pictographs earlier than other cultures. The reason they would prefer parchment is their nomadic origins. First being a pastoral people they would prefer sheep or goat skin because they had lots of it. Secondly it's a lot lighter than clay tablets which would have been very heavy to carry around. So I don't see cuneiform working very well for them.

The proto-Canaanite text didn't evolve from cuneiform; it evolved from Egyptian pictographs. So I think it was an obvious choice for ancient Hebrew.

First, you are the impression that Moses’ did happen, and you believed that invasion of Canaan, as narrated in Exodus and Joshua...

...neither of these belief in these events happen, because there are no evidence that either happen

And 2nd the most popular form of writing in much of the 2nd millennium BCE in the Levant, including Canaan, were cuneiform. The palace archive in Megiddo in the mid-2nd millennium BCE (c 1700 - c 1250 BCE) were all in cuneiform, including the discovery of fragments of Epic of Gilgamesh (clay tablet fragments dated to about 1400 BCE).

So your argument against cuneiform being used in this region around this time is seriously flawed.

And the paleo-Hebrew alphabet evolved from Proto-Canaanite alphabet were developed by the Phoenicians, not from Egyptian hieroglyphs, nor hieratic.

The Zayit Stone and Gezer Calendar are evidence from the 10th century BCE.