OT series takeaways - so far

[Richard Stanley]

OK, as requested, here is my first cut at providing a summarized list of takeaways. I did this off the top of my head, so it's quite possible that I've missed something. I've also combined elements from the Intro and the Abraham post.

• Originally Jewishness, was only a typical tribal ethnicity of the much, much wider Semitic identity, here a relatively poor tribe of the southern Canaanites, the Judeans. Perhaps having a mythic or real patriarch named Judah, and the people of whom were typically polytheistic in line with their fellow Canaanite neighbors, the Israelites, Ugarites, etc..
• Being a Canaanite becomes bad, by suggesting a fictionally drunk and naked Noah and Ham do something perverse. But don't worry, we're all 'Judeans' (and always have been - wink, wink) who came from, umm 'Ur', God knows where originally, except we're very suspicious that ... Sabians were involved.
• Thus the entire use of the Jewish (and Semitic) identity is an identity scam of the highest order, perpetrated by wily and elite others as a cover. Various religio-psychological ploys are used to make the low level participants (either former real Judeans or converts) into being righteous victims for the 'divine' cause.
• The related secular and priestly elites were already expressing moves away from polytheism (e.g. Aton, Ahura Mazda, Marduk) before the recruitment of the obscure Yahweh.
• The OT narratives frequently use the typology of the younger son (e.g. Judah, Joseph) ascending, contra primogeniture, to familial or tribal leadership, in order to symbolize the otherwise curious circumstances of primitive Judea rising to pre-emanance amongst vastly greater neighboring powers, ultimately to rule the world and all of other humanity (via the proverbial Winds of Moriah).
• However, even this identity (of Judea) is later increasingly conflated with that of Israel, the latter's entire population is relocated by the Assyrians as a form of convenient 'ethnic cleansing'. Even the name Israel (equated with Isaac - yitzaq) means (cynical IMHO) laughter - also related to the 'knowing' laughter of Abraham and Sarah at her implausibly giving birth to an actual human being at her age.
• Because the laughter really refers to the synthetic creation of a nation, one ultimately meant for global hegemony - as the canons constantly reiterate. The birth/creation requires the intervention of the Lord (aka important human leaders, most likely Egyptian and in league with such as the Hittites.
• Between the times of the military campaign of pharaoh Necho II (ostensibly against Urfa/Edessa) and the immediate period after the so-called Babylonian Exile, the various pre-existing local historical narratives and earlier regional mythos were redacted into the synthetic and propagandic narrative of a people who now must come to believe that they are the descendants of fictional divinely enabled (Providence) territorial Conquest. And at the same time they inherit a new belief in an amalgamated single god, made up of the names of their previous gods (most names converted to the respective attributes of the new god).
• With the campaign of Necho II, the Judean canon states that Yahweh was 'with' Necho and the loyal (to Yahweh) Josiah curiously gets killed. No good deed goes unpunished apparently, as Josiah's high priest had 'discovered' the missing holy texts that would cleanse the unpure practices from the Temple and Judea and Israel. The opposite of "my dogod ate the homework". But, how did these unpure practices, such as the goddess wife of Yahweh, Asherah, reside in the Temple in the first place? Because it was originally her and her husband's house, that's why
• That many people objected to the new paradigm was then recorded as their being constantly tempted towards the neighboring Canaanite culture's practices and gods via intermarriages and such. Ironically, the term 'backsliding' is closer to the truth, because these 'conservative' people were wanting to hang onto their original cultural beliefs and practices.
• The creation of the Jewish identity and synthetic puppet state forms an ongoing dialectic foil juxtaposed with so-called Gentile society. However, the textual forms share a common source with both the Ugarites and the Homeric Greeks. Some beneficial moral aspects are mixed in with rather arbitrarily and otherwise unnecessary high standards and practices (the latter of which Christianity comes to make definitional hay with).
  
• The Romans, whose elite Sabine tribe arrives onto the Italian peninsula, dubiously as claimed refugees from the Homeric battle of Troy, after making a romantic pit stop in Phoenicia (i.e. part of greater Canaan). They seem to have rather 'Judaic' cultural sensibilities, all the while paying cultural homage to the Greeks whom they will come to enslave, however. They insinuate themselves into political control using the legendary "Rape of the Sabine Women" ploy.
• Sabians, Sabines, ... coincidence?

 

[Jerry Russell]

OK, I'm going to try to paraphrase, simplify, amplify, add questions, and jump to conclusions where I see the opportunity.

1. Originally, the Jews (or Judeans) were a relatively poor tribe of southern Canaanites, perhaps named after a mythic or real patriarch named Judah. They were polytheistic, similar to their Canaanite neighbors such as the Israelites, Ugarites, and so forth. All Canaanites were Semites, a much broader classification including most Middle Eastern peoples.

2. The Old Testament creates a special racial identity for the Judeans (and Israelites?), claiming that they descend from Abraham, and Shem before him. Their Canaanite neighbors were demonized as descendants of Ham, who (fictionally) did something perverse with his naked and drunk father, Noah. Abraham, allegedly the ancestor of all, actually doesn't seem to be of the same racial or ethnic heritage as his subjects. Instead, he is portrayed as a Hittite from Edessa. We suspect that perhaps he may also be a Sabian.

3. The national exceptionalism of the Judeans was whipped into a frenzy by the Biblical identity scam, making them into righteous victims for the 'divine' cause. (But is it possible that the 'victim' role came after the initial development of the nationalist narrative?)

4. Theologians (and probably their sponsors) were expressing the idea that many gods could be subsumed into one (that is, Aton, Ahura Mazda or Marduk), probably before the cultural experiment of national monotheism in Judea was undertaken.

5. In the Old Testament, there are several examples of a younger son ascending to the throne. Examples would include Judah and Joseph. This departs from the usual expectation that the oldest son will inherit the kingdom. This typology symbolizes the (promised) rise of the Judeans to regional and then global preeminence. (At what time do these prophecies of global dominance emerge, and when is the metaphor of the Winds of Moriah invented?)

6. The Old Testament tends to conflate the identity of the (southern) Judeans and (northern) Israelites. However, much of the population of Judea was relocated by the Neo-Babylonians, and replaced by newcomers (from Assyria?), in a form of ethnic cleansing. The name Isaac (yitzaq) means laughter, which is possibly a cynical reference to this Assyrian purge. The story of the laughter of Abraham and Sarah at Isaac's birth to the elderly Sarah, might have been invented as a rationalization. [But isn't there evidence of the name of the Israelites dating to before the exile? And wasn't the national identity initially created by the Egyptians and Hittites (and/or Hyksos) long before the Babylonian exile?]

7. The laughter refers to the synthetic creation of a nation. This was accomplished by Egyptian, Hittite and/or Assyrian rulers, also known as 'the Lord'. [The designation of this nation as one ultimately meant for global hegemony, probably emerged later, under the Achaemenid dynasty?]

8. The final redaction of the Old Testament narrative probably happened during the period after the Babylonian Exile. This represented the unification of several pre-existing local narratives, and several pre-existing local Gods (including El and Yahweh).

9. Josiah, king of Judah, allegedly discovered "the missing holy texts" of the Torah, approximately 20 years before Judah fell to the Neo-Babylonians. Josiah then perished in battle against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho II. Confusingly, the entire process seems to have cleansed the Judeans of impure practices. Such impurities might include the worship of Asherah, wife of Yahweh. In other words, Josiah was really no monotheist, and the story of the discovery of the Torah under his reign is most likely a crock.

To be continued...

 

[Richard Stanley]

2. The Old Testament creates a special racial identity for the Judeans (and Israelites?), claiming that they descend from Abraham, and Shem before him. Their Canaanite neighbors were demonized as descendants of Ham, who (fictionally) did something perverse with his naked and drunk father, Noah. Abraham, allegedly the ancestor of all, actually doesn't seem to be of the same racial or ethnic heritage as his subjects. Instead, he is portrayed as a Hittite from Edessa. We suspect that perhaps he may also be a Sabian.

The new combined identity for the pre-existing Judeans and Israelites was the 'Hebrews', albeit that some forms of this apparently common Semitic name can be found widespread in such names like Hibernia, Iberia, etc..

BTW, the town Hebron, the city Abraham came to and was supposedly buried at, was originally called Luz by the Hittites living there. I wonder if it would be 'illuminating' to see what Luz means in PIE?

All so-called Canaanites (and even the Egyptians) were demonized by the Noah and Ham episode. However the main focus was on the Judean's prior polytheistic Canaanite 'identity' being demonized so as to make them accept their new identity. Perhaps the Israelites took some of this attention for a while, depending on the timing of the story being presented, but the Assyrians permanently transplanted them far to the east.

3. The national exceptionalism of the Judeans was whipped into a frenzy by the Biblical identity scam, making them into righteous victims for the 'divine' cause. (But is it possible that the 'victim' role came after the initial development of the nationalist narrative?)

It may be that the Atonement victim role was not officially assigned till the Talmudic period, but for most all of the time prior to that the histories are proclaiming that they are being continually punished by their god for not behaving, by doing such things as 'going back' to the old gods. Thus, they are being constantly conditioned for this role.

4. Theologians (and probably their sponsors) were expressing the idea that many gods could be subsumed into one (that is, Aton, Ahura Mazda or Marduk), probably before the cultural experiment of national monotheism in Judea was undertaken.

Not probably.

5. In the Old Testament, there are several examples of a younger son ascending to the throne. Examples would include Judah and Joseph. This departs from the usual expectation that the oldest son will inherit the kingdom. This typology symbolizes the (promised) rise of the Judeans to regional and then global preeminence. (At what time do these prophecies of global dominance emerge, and when is the metaphor of the Winds of Moriah invented?)

The assertions for global dominance emerge in Isaiah, and in the various Genesis covenants, and Psalms. Of course we should then date them to the redaction period, and we must wonder why the Persians would allow such statements if they didn't approve.

Psalms 72:
8. He [King David - son of Jesse] shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
11. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.
19. And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen.
20. The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.

Isaiah 11:
9. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
10. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
12. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.​

Not sure when the Winds of Moriah came into use, but at least by the time of the musical Oklahoma.

6. The Old Testament tends to conflate the identity of the (southern) Judeans and (northern) Israelites. However, much of the population of Judea was relocated by the Neo-Babylonians, and replaced by newcomers (from Assyria?), in a form of ethnic cleansing.

The Israelites (the so-called Lost Tribes) were completely transplanted by the Assyrians before the Babylonian Exile. It is likely that only the elites were 'exiled' to Babylon, and this is what the text states, thus leaving the common man there for the period (doing what?).

The name Isaac (yitzaq) means laughter, which is possibly a cynical reference to this Assyrian purge. The story of the laughter of Abraham and Sarah at Isaac's birth to the elderly Sarah, might have been invented as a rationalization. [But isn't there evidence of the name of the Israelites dating to before the exile? And wasn't the national identity initially created by the Egyptians and Hittites (and/or Hyksos) long before the Babylonian exile?]

Abraham's and Sarah's laughter took place at God's suggestion to them that she would get pregnant at age 89. Yes, the name Israel pre-existed the exile. So what? This is part of the inside joke in the birth of the nation. The name existed from before but the original people were gone.

9. Josiah, king of Judah, allegedly discovered "the missing holy texts" of the Torah, approximately 20 years before Judah fell to the Neo-Babylonians. Josiah then perished in battle against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho II. Confusingly, the entire process seems to have cleansed the Judeans of impure practices. Such impurities might include the worship of Asherah, wife of Yahweh. In other words, Josiah was really no monotheist, and the story of the discovery of the Torah under his reign is most likely a crock.

Again, if Josiah was really a devout monotheist for Yahweh, why would the Judaic canon state that Yahweh was with Necho and not Josiah?

 

[Jerry Russell]

I wonder if it would be 'illuminating' to see what Luz means in PIE?

Not a bad guess. PIE *lewk = light. Cognates include: Greek leukos, Hittite lallukes, Latin lux, Luwian luha-. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots/l

for most all of the time prior to that the histories are proclaiming that they are being continually punished by their god for not behaving, by doing such things as 'going back' to the old gods.

That's what the OT proclaims. But aren't we going to be suggesting that the Exodus was basically a projection of Egyptian (or Hyksos) power into Palestine? And that the elite rulers of the Exodus, at least, were Atonist monotheists? Could this credibly be the beginning of Jewish tribal nationalism, but not necessarily with the 'victim' role, much less 'world domination'?

The Israelites (the so-called Lost Tribes) were completely transplanted by the Assyrians before the Babylonian Exile.

OK, the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by Sargon II after being severely weakened by earlier campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser II and Shalmaneser V. All of this was ~150 years before the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian conquest of Judea.

Wikipedia says the number of (northern) Israelites deported, and the number remaining behind, are controversial; "it has also been suggested that the numbers deported by the Assyrians were rather limited and the bulk of the population remained in situ." The link to this "suggestion" is dead, but does it seem reasonable? The current inhabitants of this area are called 'Samaritans'; where did they come from? I have a copy of "Samaritans & Jews" by R J Coggins around here somewhere, but never read it.

The name existed from before but the original people were gone.

OK.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Paraphrase of the points in the OP, continued...

10. As polytheistic Canaanites, many citizens of Palestine rejected the externally imposed religion of Yahweh. They continued their old Canaanite cultural practices, and continued to intermarry with neighboring Canaanite cultures. This was bitterly denounced as sinful idolatry, as recorded in the Biblical texts. Ironically, the term 'backsliding' is close to the truth, because these 'conservative' people were wanting to hang onto their original cultural beliefs and practices.

11. Ever since the Neo-Babylonian conquest, there has never been a truly independent Jewish state. During ancient times it was always a puppet state, whether under the Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Seleucids, or Romans. (We dispute whether the Hasmoneans were ever independent from their Roman allies.) And in its modern incarnation, we maintain that the Jewish state is vassal to the Anglo-Americans. (Again, we dispute any claims that the tail is now wagging the dog.)

This Jewish puppet state has always retained its victim stance, as well as its pretensions of being destined for global domination. This makes it an ongoing dialectical foil for (so-called) 'Gentile' society. In other words, the Jews are alternately an irritant, a target for blame, and a source of inspiration for the global aims of the 'Gentiles'.

The ancient textual basis of Judaism, however, shares a common source with the Ugarites and Homeric Greeks. [Is this referring to the creation myths, flood stories, etc? Or something more than that?]

Although Judaism has some beneficial moral aspects, these are mixed with arbitrary and unnecessarily high standards and practices. Christianity gained an advantage over Judaism by relaxing some of the excess demands.

12. According to the Roman foundation narrative, their elite Sabine tribe insinuated themselves into power in the aftermath of the "Rape of the Sabine Women". This unlikely tale was probably offered as ethical justification for a more brutal seizure of power by the newcomers. Later, the Romans paid cultural homage to the Greeks even as they enslaved them.

These Sabines claim to have arrived as refugees from the Homeric battle of Troy. We have no reason to doubt this, as we regard the 'Trojans' as coming from Anatolia, home of the Hittite empire. The Sabines seem to have had rather 'Judaic' cultural sensibilities, which makes sense if the Jews and Sabines share common origins, and an affinity with Hittites such as Abraham.

Also, we are told that the Sabines made a 'romantic' pit stop in Phoenicia before their arrival in Italy. At this time, before the cultural divide between 'Israelite' and 'Canaanite' culture was created, Phoenicia would have been simply another part of the Canaanite world. This seems to betray that the 'Sabines' had strong 'Canaanite' ties, regardless of the extent they were also linked to the Anatolian Hittites.

13. Sabians, Sabines, ... coincidence? Probably not. (Though Item 12 isn't really well covered in either of our posts so far.)

 

[Richard Stanley]

Not a bad guess. PIE *lewk = light. Cognates include: Greek leukos, Hittite lallukes, Latin lux, Luwian luha-. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots/l

'lewk' 'leukos' 'lalukes' - Luke?

That's what the OT proclaims. But aren't we going to be suggesting that the Exodus was basically a projection of Egyptian (or Hyksos) power into Palestine? And that the elite rulers of the Exodus, at least, were Atonist monotheists? Could this credibly be the beginning of Jewish tribal nationalism, but not necessarily with the 'victim' role, much less 'world domination'?

Too late, we've already suggested that, and whether it is direct or indirect projection is pretty much left to textual analysis and such as the pre-existing external trends. But I don't understand what your question has to do with my statement about what the 'histories' ( i.e. the propagandic account) say about what the backsliding shellfish were doing at the time.

BTW, this format is terrible for discussing all this, as the threads keep getting broken up. I really only meant this as a work in progress 'guide for the perplexed.'
Would the 'Luz' theme be suggestive that the Hittites (aka Hyksos Shepherd (saba) Kings and such as Lord Saboath) be aligned with Atonism?

At this point I don't know how to definitively separate (or connect) the beginnings of Jewish tribal nationalism from the 'victim' role or the 'world domination' motif. That gets into the squishyness of dating and just how many later redaction sessions have occurred, as is known to have occurred with the NT texts. After this, I can only suggest that from the subtext, and the argument we are building is that if people like the greater powers wanted to create an artifice, a completely synthetic construct (a meta-Golem?) to globally advance behind as a veil, then why wait to assert those items later. I would want to be driving Victomology as deep as possible into their mindsets. I wonder how many centuries it took the Ashkenazi to believe they were 'ethnic' Jews? First most probably understood that they had been converted, and then, after being told so often, many generations later they came to believe that they were ethnic Jews as well.

I don't think that such a program would have been launched if the original goal was merely to produce a varnished set of Jews - whose only purpose was to sit still and come to believe that they were Jews, albeit monotheists now. And also to despising everyone else and believe that their own god was punishing them for not despising everyone else properly. And that their own god would use the very people (as God's iron rod) they were supposed to despise to punish them.

OK, the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by Sargon II after being severely weakened by earlier campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser II and Shalmaneser V. All of this was ~150 years before the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian conquest of Judea.

Wikipedia says the number of (northern) Israelites deported, and the number remaining behind, are controversial; "it has also been suggested that the numbers deported by the Assyrians were rather limited and the bulk of the population remained in situ." The link to this "suggestion" is dead, but does it seem reasonable? The current inhabitants of this area are called 'Samaritans'; where did they come from? I have a copy of "Samaritans & Jews" by R J Coggins around here somewhere, but never read it.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that the percentages are that important. But in any case, I think there are several arguments to say that the percentages of the Israelites deported were pretty high, and that likely some, as a remnant (Isaiah 9 and 10), were allowed return. These would only have been those approved as being compliant IMHO. Also, I believe that the Samaritans were brought in as replacements, for Samaria, leaving the rest of 'Israel' to be re-occupied by former Judeans.

Of course, leaving such a territory completely devoid of people would ruin the tax farming for the elites. This was the argument that Shlomo Sand made about the mythos of the Roman caused Judaic Diaspora. The Romans were only interested in getting rid of Zealots, by replacing shellfish with fish.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Rick,

BTW, this format is terrible for discussing all this, as the threads keep getting broken up. I really only meant this as a work in progress 'guide for the perplexed.'

I appreciate the effort, and I'm sorry if the process is awkward. It's just that as a 'guide for the perplexed', I felt that some readers (such as myself) might remain perplexed. Accordingly my goal was to keep developing the exposition, with the goal of eventually using it on the wordpress site. I got the readability score up from 35 to 48, and hopefully answered a lot of the questions that would usually come up on first reading of such a document.

Here's my latest version. Note, especially, the revisions to 6, 7 and 7a.

_________

1. Originally, the Jews were a poor tribe of southern Canaanites. They might have been named after a mythic or real patriarch named Judah. They were polytheistic, similar to their Canaanite neighbors such as the Israelites, Ugarites, and so forth. All Canaanites were Semites, a much broader classification including most Middle Eastern peoples.

2. The Old Testament demonizes these Canaanites as children of Ham, who (fictionally) did something perverse with his naked and drunk father, Noah. However, the Hebrews were told that they were not Canaanites. Instead, the Bible created a special (fictional) racial identity for the Hebrews (Judeans and Israelites). They were told that they descend from Abraham, and Shem before him. Their Canaanite ancestry was denied, and their Canaanite neighbors were to be enslaved.

Abraham, allegedly the ancestor of the Hebrews, actually doesn't seem to have been of the same racial or ethnic heritage as his subjects. Instead, he is portrayed as a Hittite from Edessa. We suspect that perhaps he may also be a Sabian.

3. Thus, the Biblical view of the Hebrew, Canaanite and Semitic ethnic identities is a scam. We believe this was deliberate on the part of the authors and redactors. The national exceptionalism of the Hebrews was whipped into a frenzy by this Biblical identity scam, making them into righteous victims for the 'divine' cause.

4. The invention of monotheism began when priests in Egypt, Iran and Assyria, began expressing the idea that many gods could be subsumed into one. That is, Aton, Ahura Mazda and Marduk began to be seen as the greatest of the gods. Other gods were seen as parts of their bodies, or as their servants. This happened before the cultural experiment of national monotheism in Judea was undertaken.

5. In the Old Testament, there are several examples of a younger son ascending to the throne. Examples would include Judah and Joseph. This departs from the usual expectation that the oldest son will inherit the kingdom. This typology symbolizes the (promised) rise of the Judeans to regional and then global preeminence.

6. The Old Testament tends to conflate the identity of the (southern) Judeans and (northern) Israelites. However, the Israelites (the so-called Lost Tribes) were conquered and allegedly dispersed by the Assyrians, about 130 years before the start of the "Babylonian captivity". This northern area was ultimately held by the hated and mysterious Samaritans. Judea was conquered later by the Neo-Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar. Again, much of the population of Judea was relocated by the Neo-Babylonians, and replaced by newcomers, in a form of ethnic cleansing. Finally, the 'Judeans' were returned from Babylon by the Persians, and the redaction of their religious texts was completed at that time.

The name Isaac (yitzaq) means laughter, which is possibly a cynical reference to the re-invention of the Jewish identity by the Persians. (Or, the laughter might have been because Pharaoh was Isaac's father, not Abraham.) The story that Abraham and Sarah laughed because she was too old to have children, seems to be a rationalization.

7. The synthetic creation of the Jewish national identity was accomplished by Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian and Persian rulers, collectively known as 'the Lord'. Ultimately this vassal nation is allegedly destined for global hegemony, as discussed in Isaiah 11 and Psalms 72. However, it is the parent nation that really aims for hegemony.

7a. This probably happened in several steps. First, the native Canaanites were dominated by the arrival of an external elite, as recalled by the Abraham story. Next, this elite established an alliance with Egypt. Perhaps, as Hyksos, they came to dominate northern Egypt as well. After the failure of Akhenaten's monotheistic experiment in Egypt, missionaries from Amarna were sent to Canaan with a mission to impose monotheism on the Canaanites. This became the basis of the Noah legend, as well as the Judean view of themselves as a former slaves. Finally, the Judeans were conquered by the Assyrians, Neo-Babylonians and Persians in turn. All we have is the final redaction, making it difficult to establish the results of each step independently.

8. The final redaction of the Old Testament narrative probably happened during the period after the Babylonian Exile, and under the Persians. This completed the unification of several pre-existing local narratives, and several pre-existing local Gods (including El and Yahweh).

9. Josiah, king of Judah, allegedly discovered "the missing holy texts" of the Torah, approximately 20 years before Judah fell to the Neo-Babylonians. Josiah then perished in battle against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho II. Confusingly, the entire process is said to have cleansed the Judeans of impure practices, and Yahweh was said to be fighting with Necho. Such impurities might have included the worship of Asherah, wife of Yahweh. In other words, Josiah was really no monotheist, and the story of the discovery of the Torah under his reign is most likely a crock.

10. As polytheistic Canaanites, many Judeans rejected the religion of Yahweh. They continued their old Canaanite cultural practices, and continued to intermarry with neighboring Canaanite cultures. This was bitterly denounced as sinful idolatry, as recorded in the Biblical texts. Ironically, the term 'backsliding' is close to the truth, because these 'conservative' people wanted to hang onto their original cultural beliefs and practices.

11. Ever since the Neo-Babylonian conquest, there has never been a truly independent Jewish state. During ancient times it was always a puppet state, whether under the Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Seleucids, or Romans. (We dispute whether the Hasmoneans were ever independent from their Roman allies.) And in its modern incarnation, we maintain that the Jewish state is vassal to the Anglo-Americans. (Again, we dispute any claims that the tail is now wagging the dog.)

This Jewish puppet state has always retained its victim stance, as well as its pretensions of being destined for global domination. This makes it an ongoing dialectical foil for (so-called) 'Gentile' society. In other words, the Jews are alternately an irritant, a target for blame, and a source of inspiration for the global aims of the 'Gentiles'.

The ancient textual basis of Judaism, however, shares a common source with the Ugarites and Homeric Greeks. This includes their similar creation myths and flood stories.

Although Judaism has some beneficial moral aspects, these are mixed with arbitrary and unnecessarily high standards and practices. Christianity gained an advantage over Judaism by relaxing some of the excess demands.

12. According to the Roman foundation narrative, their elite Sabine tribe insinuated themselves into power in the aftermath of the "Rape of the Sabine Women". This unlikely tale was probably offered as ethical justification for a more brutal seizure of power by the newcomers. Later, the Romans paid cultural homage to the Greeks even as they enslaved them.

These Sabines claim to have arrived as refugees from the Homeric battle of Troy. We have no reason to doubt this, as we regard the 'Trojans' as coming from Anatolia, home of the Hittite empire. The Sabines seem to have had rather 'Judaic' cultural sensibilities, which makes sense if the Jews and Sabines share common origins, and an affinity with Hittites such as Abraham.

Also, we are told that the Sabines made a 'romantic' pit stop in Phoenicia before their arrival in Italy. At this time, before the cultural divide between 'Israelite' and 'Canaanite' culture was created, Phoenicia would have been simply another part of the Canaanite world. This seems to betray that the 'Sabines' had strong 'Canaanite' ties, regardless of the extent they were also linked to the Anatolian Hittites.

13. Sabians, Sabines, ... coincidence? Probably not. The Roman Sabines were probably linked to the Biblical Sabians, either by way of the Hittites, or Phoenicians, or both.

 

[Richard Stanley]

2. The Old Testament demonizes these Canaanites as children of Ham, who (fictionally) did something perverse with his naked and drunk father, Noah. However, the Canaanite cum Hebrews were told that they were no longer Canaanites. Instead, the new propagandic texts created a special (fictional) racial identity for the Hebrews (Judeans and Israelites), the grossly exalted nature of which would appeal to their vanity while generally incurring enmity from all others - especially men with intact foreskins. The Hebrews were told that they descend from Abraham, and Shem before him. Their Canaanite ancestry was denied, and their Canaanite neighbors were to be enslaved, because by the stroke of a pen they now descended from someone outside of the exalted family tree.

Abraham, allegedly the ancestor of the Hebrews, actually doesn't seem to have been of the same racial or ethnic heritage as his subjects. Instead, he is subtly yet definitively portrayed as a Hittite from Urfa/Edessa. We suspect that perhaps he may also be a Sabian.

3. Thus, the Biblical view of the Hebrew, Judaic, Canaanite and Semitic ethnic identities is a scam. We believe this was deliberate on the part of the authors and redactors. The national exceptionalism of the Hebrews, particularly focused on the Jews, was whipped into a frenzy by this Biblical identity scam, making them into righteous victims for the 'divine' cause.

4. The invention of monotheism began when priests in Egypt, India (or Bharat rather), Iran and Assyria, began expressing the idea that many gods could or should be subsumed into one. That is, Aton, Ahura Mazda and Marduk began to be seen as the greatest of the gods. Other gods were seen as parts of their bodies, aspects of their natures, or as their servants. This happened before the cultural experiment of national monotheism in Judea was undertaken. From thousands of years of accumulated experience, the priests would have realized that in moving forward, in imperial expansionist terms that is, that it would be easier to eventually have people come to embrace a singular god who seems to rise from virtually nowhere, rather than a well known one widely having been associated with a particular regime or ethnicity that may have some dirty laundry coming with it. Better to be converted to a new god, one who is so righteous that he even brutally punishes his Chosen People when they go astray. What better demonstration of seeming fairness can there be?

5. In the Old Testament, there are several examples of a younger son ascending to the throne. Examples would include Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. This immediately and starkly departs from the usual expectation that the oldest son will inherit the kingdom. Albeit that Isaac (the laughing metaphor for Israel) was the firstborn of Sarah, each of these cases involves some morally dubious behavior, thus ensuring future drama, i.e. "No Justice, No Peace". This typology symbolizes the (promised) rise of the Judeans to regional and then global preeminence.

6. The Old Testament tends to conflate the identity of the (southern) Judeans and (northern) Israelites. However, the Israelites (the so-called Lost Tribes) were conquered and allegedly dispersed by the Assyrians, about 130 years before the start of the "Babylonian captivity". This northern area was ultimately taken over by those willing to accept the new paradigm, including the region of Samaria held by the hated and mysterious Samaritans, who seem to have been brought in from outside (as was common practice then and even much later). Judea was conquered later by the Neo-Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar. In this case, at least, mostly the elites of the population of Judea was relocated by the Neo-Babylonians, and replaced by puppets, in a form of ethnic cleansing. Finally, the 'Judeans' were returned from Babylon by the Persians, and the redaction of their religious texts was completed at that time.

The name Isaac (yitzaq) means laughter, which is possibly a cynical reference to the re-invention of the Jewish identity by the Persians. (Or, the laughter might have been because Pharaoh was Isaac's father, not Abraham.) The story that Abraham and Sarah laughed because she was too old to have children, seems to be a rationalization and/or that the redactors want to make it plainly clear to a critical reader that the surface narrative is to be ignored in favor of the subtext.

7. The synthetic creation of the Jewish national identity was accomplished by Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian and Persian rulers, collectively known as 'the Lord'. Ultimately this almost constantly (before and after the redactions) vassal nation is allegedly destined for global hegemony, as discussed in Isaiah 11 and Psalms 72. However, it is really the veiled parent nations' collective leadership genepool that really aims for hegemony. The elite genepool moves forward through such as alliance marriages involving conquered tribes and such. This is how Europe became Romanized, both before and after Christianity.

7a. This probably happened in several steps. First, the native Canaanites were dominated by the arrival of an external elite, as recalled by the Abraham story. Next, this elite established an alliance with Egypt. Perhaps, as Hyksos, they came to dominate northern Egypt as well. After the failure of Akhenaten's monotheistic experiment in Egypt, missionaries from Amarna's swiftly but peaceably abandoned city were sent widespread including to Canaan with an eventual mission to impose monotheism on the Canaanites, once all the wider necessary geopolitical elements and operatives were in place. This became the basis of the Noah/Ham legend, as well as the Judean view of themselves as a former slaves cum righteously flawed conquerors. Finally, the Judeans were conquered by the Assyrians, Neo-Babylonians and Persians in turn. All we have is the final redaction, making it difficult to establish the results of each step independently.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I had to chop this reply in two, because it exceeded 10,000 characters. Another pain.

8. The final redaction of the Old Testament narrative probably happened during the period after the Babylonian Exile, and under the Persians. (Cyrus, the very first emperor of the first expansionist empire, is clearly down with the monotheizing plan, even to the curious point of allowing the Jews to assert their superiority over everyone, including the Persians. Hence Cyrus is the first Jewish messiah, to be followed by Julius Caesar.) This completed the unification of several pre-existing local narratives, and several pre-existing local Gods (including El and Yahweh).

9. Josiah, king of Judah, allegedly discovered "the missing holy texts" of the Torah, approximately 20 years before Judah fell to the Neo-Babylonians. Josiah then perished in battle against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho II. Confusingly, the entire process is said to have cleansed the Judeans of impure practices, and Yahweh was said to be fighting with Necho. Such so-called impurities are stated in the OT to have included the worship of Asherah, wife of Yahweh, and who is rudely booted out from her home in the Jerusalem temple. In other words, Josiah was really no monotheist, and the story of the discovery of the Torah under his reign is most likely a crock.

10. As polytheistic Canaanites, many Judeans rejected the religion of Yahweh. They continued their old Canaanite cultural practices, and continued to intermarry with neighboring Canaanite cultures. This was bitterly denounced as sinful idolatry, as recorded in the Biblical texts. Ironically, the term 'backsliding' is close to the truth, because these 'conservative' people wanted to hang onto their original cultural beliefs and practices that were to their view, divinely ordained.

11. Ever since the Neo-Babylonian conquest, there has never been a truly independent Jewish state. During ancient times it was always a puppet state, whether under the Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Seleucids, or Romans. (We dispute whether the Hasmoneans were ever independent from their Roman allies.) And in its modern incarnation, we maintain that the Jewish state is vassal to the Anglo-American, cryptoVenuto-Vatican alliance. (Again, we dispute any claims that the synthetic Judaic tail is now wagging the dog.)

This Jewish puppet state has always retained its victim stance, as well as its pretensions of being destined for global domination. This makes it an ongoing dialectical foil for (so-called) 'Gentile' society. In other words, the Jews are alternately an irritant, a target for blame, and a source of inspiration for the global aims of the gentil 'Gentiles'.

The ancient textual basis of 'epic' Judaism, however, shares a common (mostly Mesopotamian) source with the Ugarites and Homeric Greeks. This includes their similar creation myths and flood stories, albeit morally inverted where profitable. The later, rather detailed, annalistic history, the first known to exist in this fashion, has revealed itself, via such as archaeology and textual analysis to be blatant propaganda to support the expansionist ambitions of the then extant, and likely related, elites. It was specifically for this reason that the later synthetic edifice of Jesus, as the veiled Sabine Caesars, was built atop the Old Testament.

Although Judaism has some beneficial moral aspects, these are mixed with arbitrary and unnecessarily high standards and practices. Christianity gained an advantage over Judaism by relaxing some of the excess demands.

12. According to the Roman foundation narrative, their elite Sabine tribe insinuated themselves into power in the aftermath of the "Rape of the Sabine Women". This unlikely tale was probably offered as propagandically inverted ethical justification for a more brutal seizure of power by the newcomers. Later, the Romans paid cultural homage to the Greeks even as they enslaved them.

These Sabines claim to have arrived as refugees from the Homeric battle of Troy. We have no reason to doubt this, as we regard the 'Trojans' as coming from Anatolia, home of the Hittite empire. The Sabines seem to have had rather 'Judaic' cultural sensibilities, which makes sense if the elite Jews, at least, and Sabines share common origins, and an affinity with Hittites such as Abraham, and other related elites as well.

Also, whether fact or fiction, we are told that the Sabines made a tragically 'romantic' pit stop in Phoenicia, with Aeneas and Dido, before their arrival in Italy. At this time, before the cultural divide between 'Israelite' and 'Canaanite' culture was created, Phoenicia would have been simply another part of the Semito-Canaanite world. This seems to betray that the 'Sabines' had strong 'Canaanite' ties, regardless of the extent they were also linked to the Anatolian Hittites.

13. Sabians, Sabines, ... coincidence? Probably not. The Roman Sabines were probably linked to the Biblical Sabians, either by way of the Hittites, or Phoenicians, or both.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Rick,

Do you think we should have a larger limit on post size, or no limit at all? It's pretty easy to make this limit whatever we want.

The additional comments are interesting & helpful, but on the other hand the readability score is down to 43.5, and we're creeping up in word count: your original was 747 words, my revision was 1,288 words and your latest upgrade here is 1,799 words. Also, the various points are starting to bleed into each other.

Specific comments:

From thousands of years of accumulated experience, the priests would have realized that in moving forward, in imperial expansionist terms that is, that it would be easier to eventually have people come to embrace a singular god who seems to rise from virtually nowhere, rather than a well known one widely having been associated with a particular regime or ethnicity that may have some dirty laundry coming with it. Better to be converted to a new god, one who is so righteous that he even brutally punishes his Chosen People when they go astray. What better demonstration of seeming fairness can there be?​

It might have been a collective insight on the basis of thousands of years of recorded and accumulated experience, but then again it might have been a moment of brilliant insight on the part of some unknown sage, who successfully promulgated his ideas at the historical equivalent of a Bilderberg conference? Or anything in between?

Albeit that Isaac (the laughing metaphor for Israel) was the firstborn of Sarah, each of these cases involves some morally dubious behavior, thus ensuring future drama, i.e. "No Justice, No Peace".​

Isaac seems like a dubious example, being the first "legitimate" son. Any other notable examples? Cain and Abel? (I forget which was firstborn). The idea of "morally dubious behavior" etc. is interesting, but another digression, and invites expansion into another paragraph.

This northern area was ultimately taken over by those willing to accept the new paradigm, including the region of Samaria held by the hated and mysterious Samaritans, who seem to have been brought in from outside (as was common practice then and even much later).
​

Does the area of the Kingdom of Israel, conquered by Assyria, encompass other regions besides Samaria? It seems dubious to say that the Samaritans accepted the "new paradigm": I thought that they had their own version of the Pentateuch, and that they reject much of the rest of the OT on a wholesale basis. It seems to be controversial whether the Samaritans represent a holdover of the original Israelite population, or whether they were substitutes brought in by the Assyrians, or some mix of the two.

Maybe our nutshell summary doesn't need to say anything about the fate of the Lost Tribes? Besides being highly controversial, it's not obvious that it's important. If you look back at your original bullet point, we might have gotten way off the thread.

The later, rather detailed, annalistic history, the first known to exist in this fashion, has revealed itself, via such as archaeology and textual analysis to be blatant propaganda to support the expansionist ambitions of the then extant, and likely related, elites. It was specifically for this reason that the later synthetic edifice of Jesus, as the veiled Sabine Caesars, was built atop the Old Testament.​

By "The later" you mean the entire OT, or just the part derived from Mesopotamian or Egyptian creation myths & flood stories? And wouldn't we say that Christianity was built as much on Homeric myth & Greek philosophy, as it was on the OT?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Hi Rick,

Do you think we should have a larger limit on post size, or no limit at all? It's pretty easy to make this limit whatever we want.

The additional comments are interesting & helpful, but on the other hand the readability score is down to 43.5, and we're creeping up in word count: your original was 747 words, my revision was 1,288 words and your latest upgrade here is 1,799 words. Also, the various points are starting to bleed into each other.

There should be some limit I think, maybe double the present size? Hopefully we'll be done with this soon, but I still need to comb through the two posts to see if we missed anything, and we've still got the rest of the OT posts to finish off. To stop the bleeding, maybe we should not use red letters?

From thousands of years of accumulated experience, the priests would have realized that in moving forward, in imperial expansionist terms that is, that it would be easier to eventually have people come to embrace a singular god who seems to rise from virtually nowhere, rather than a well known one widely having been associated with a particular regime or ethnicity that may have some dirty laundry coming with it. Better to be converted to a new god, one who is so righteous that he even brutally punishes his Chosen People when they go astray. What better demonstration of seeming fairness can there be?​

It might have been a collective insight on the basis of thousands of years of recorded and accumulated experience, but then again it might have been a moment of brilliant insight on the part of some unknown sage, who successfully promulgated his ideas at the historical equivalent of a Bilderberg conference? Or anything in between?

Yes, it could be any of those, but the time span between the Babylonian period and the Amarna period is considerable already.

Albeit that Isaac (the laughing metaphor for Israel) was the firstborn of Sarah, each of these cases involves some morally dubious behavior, thus ensuring future drama, i.e. "No Justice, No Peace".​

Isaac seems like a dubious example, being the first "legitimate" son. Any other notable examples? Cain and Abel? (I forget which was firstborn). The idea of "morally dubious behavior" etc. is interesting, but another digression, and invites expansion into another paragraph.

Ishmael was not really illegitimate in terms of the period that he is supposed to have been born into. But in such cases it was customary for the later first child of a first wife to still have precedence. But there were plenty of other snarky moral aspects to this story. Need to research if there are any other such brothers, maybe David.

This northern area was ultimately taken over by those willing to accept the new paradigm, including the region of Samaria held by the hated and mysterious Samaritans, who seem to have been brought in from outside (as was common practice then and even much later).
​

Does the area of the Kingdom of Israel, conquered by Assyria, encompass other regions besides Samaria? It seems dubious to say that the Samaritans accepted the "new paradigm": I thought that they had their own version of the Pentateuch, and that they reject much of the rest of the OT on a wholesale basis. It seems to be controversial whether the Samaritans represent a holdover of the original Israelite population, or whether they were substitutes brought in by the Assyrians, or some mix of the two.

Israel's boundaries did occasionally vary over time, at one time extending to include Damascus. Samaria was only a small portion of Israel, at any time. Good points otherwise.

Maybe our nutshell summary doesn't need to say anything about the fate of the Lost Tribes? Besides being highly controversial, it's not obvious that it's important. If you look back at your original bullet point, we might have gotten way off the thread.

I think that it lends to the concept that there was a significant project to weed and seed the populace.

The later, rather detailed, annalistic history, the first known to exist in this fashion, has revealed itself, via such as archaeology and textual analysis to be blatant propaganda to support the expansionist ambitions of the then extant, and likely related, elites. It was specifically for this reason that the later synthetic edifice of Jesus, as the veiled Sabine Caesars, was built atop the Old Testament.​

By "The later" you mean the entire OT, or just the part derived from Mesopotamian or Egyptian creation myths & flood stories? And wouldn't we say that Christianity was built as much on Homeric myth & Greek philosophy, as it was on the OT?

I mean the whole OT, but particularly the annalistic portion. Yes, the NT was also built using Homeric typology and neo-Platonism fused with the OT elements.

 

[Richard Stanley]

The Old Testament demonizes these Canaanites as children of Ham, who (fictionally) did something perverse with his naked and drunk father, Noah. However, the Canaanite cum Hebrews were told that they were no longer Canaanites. Instead, the new propagandic texts created a special (fictional) racial identity for the Hebrews (Judeans and Israelites), the grossly exalted nature of which would appeal to their vanity while generally incurring enmity from all others - especially men with intact foreskins. The Hebrews were told that they descend from Abraham, and Shem before him. Their Canaanite ancestry was denied, and their Canaanite neighbors were to be enslaved, because by the stroke of a pen they now descended from someone outside of the exalted family tree.

Abraham, allegedly the ancestor of the Hebrews, actually doesn't seem to have been of the same racial or ethnic heritage as his subjects. Instead, he is subtly yet definitively portrayed as a rather elite Hittite from Urfa/Edessa rather than a mere shepherd and/or caravan merchant. We suspect that perhaps he may also be a Sabian.​

I have looked through the posts and while there are a few items that could be included, they are relatively minor and are generally already subsumed within the existing items.

Maybe we should place this summary as a static page, as a living document that will grow with the subsequent posts?

 

[Jerry Russell]

a rather elite

I think anybody who can walk right in and get an audience with the Pharaoh, is a member of the elite without qualification.

Maybe we should place this summary as a static page, as a living document that will grow with the subsequent posts?

Static pages are hard to find on our site. It could be a post, or part of the introduction, as you suggested. Also, perhaps we should delete this entire thread once we're done? Our readers in the future might not be that interested in seeing our process, though I had been thinking perhaps Gilius would follow along.

 

[Jerry Russell]

1356 words, readability score =46, and I tried not to leave anything completely out.

____________________________

1. Originally, the Jews were a poor tribe of southern Canaanites. They might have been named after a mythic or real patriarch named Judah. They were polytheistic, similar to their Canaanite neighbors such as the Israelites, Ugarites, and so forth. All Canaanites were Semites, a much broader classification including most Middle Eastern peoples.

2. The Old Testament demonizes these Canaanites as children of Ham, who (fictionally) did something perverse with his naked and drunk father, Noah. However, the Jews were told that they were no longer Canaanites. Instead, the new propagandic texts created a special (fictional) racial identity for the them, as descendants of Abraham, and Shem before him. Their Canaanite ancestry was denied, and their Canaanite neighbors were to be enslaved.

Abraham, allegedly the ancestor of the Hebrews, actually doesn't seem to have been of the same racial or ethnic heritage as his subjects. Instead, he is portrayed as an elite Hittite from Urfa/Edessa. We suspect that perhaps he may also be a Sabian.

3. Thus, the Biblical view of the Judaic, Canaanite and Semitic ethnic identities is a scam. We believe this was deliberate on the part of the authors and redactors. The grossly exalted nature of the Jewish national identity appealed to their vanity while generally incurring enmity from all others. Misfortunes were interpreted as divine punishment.

4. The invention of monotheism began when priests in Egypt, India (or Bharat rather), Iran and Assyria, began expressing the idea that many gods could or should be subsumed into one. That is, Aton, Agni, Ahura Mazda and Marduk began to be seen as the greatest of the gods. Other gods were seen as parts of their bodies, aspects of their natures, or as their servants. This happened before the cultural experiment of national monotheism in Judea was undertaken.

5. Jacob and Joseph were younger sons who rose to the throne. This departs from the usual expectation that the oldest son will inherit the kingdom. The typology symbolizes the (promised) unexpected rise of the Judeans to regional and then global preeminence. However, each case also involves some morally dubious behavior, thus ensuring future drama.

6. The Old Testament tends to conflate the identity of the (southern) Judeans and (northern) Israelites. However, the Israelites (the so-called Lost Tribes) were actually a distinct nationality. They were conquered by the Assyrians, and their very name was cynically taken over by the Jews and their sponsors, long after the Israelites had ceased to exist as a people.

The name Isaac (yitzaq) means laughter, which is possibly a cynical reference to the re-invention of the Jewish identity by the Persians. (Or, the laughter might have been because Pharaoh was Isaac's father, not Abraham.) The story that Abraham and Sarah laughed because she was too old to have children, seems to be a rationalization , or even a signal to a critical reader that the surface narrative is to be ignored in favor of the subtext.

7. The synthetic creation of the Jewish national identity was accomplished by Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian and Persian rulers, collectively known as 'the Lords'. The redacted Old Testament states that the vassal Jewish nation is allegedly destined for global hegemony, as discussed in Isaiah 11 and Psalms 72. However, the veiled human 'Lords' are the ones truly destined for hegemony.

7a. The creation of Judaism probably happened in several steps. First, the native Canaanites were dominated by the arrival of an external elite, as recalled by the Abraham story. Next, this elite established an alliance with Egypt. Perhaps, as Hyksos, they came to dominate northern Egypt as well. After the failure of Akhenaten's monotheistic experiment in Egypt, missionaries from Amarna were sent to Canaan with an eventual mission to impose monotheism on the Canaanites. This became the basis of the Noah/Ham legend, as well as the Judean view of themselves as former slaves who became righteous (if flawed) conquerors. Finally, the Judeans were conquered by the Assyrians, Neo-Babylonians and Persians in turn. All we have is the final redaction of the texts accumulated during this process, making it difficult to establish the results of each step independently.

8. The final redaction of the Old Testament narrative probably happened during the period after the Babylonian Exile, and under the Persians. This completed the unification of several pre-existing local narratives, and several pre-existing local Gods, including El and Yahweh.

Cyrus, arguably the first of the great emperors with hegemonic designs, was solidly behind the monotheizing plan. He even allowed the Jews to assert their superiority over everyone, including the Persians. Hence Cyrus became the first Jewish messiah, to be followed by Julius Caesar.

9. Josiah, king of Judah, allegedly discovered "the missing holy texts" of the Torah, approximately 20 years before Judah fell to the Neo-Babylonians. Josiah then perished in battle against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho II. The entire process was said to have cleansed the Judeans of impure practices. Yahweh was said to be fighting with Necho and against Josiah. The so-called impurities included the worship of Asherah, wife of Yahweh. In other words, Josiah was really no monotheist, and the story of the discovery of the Torah under his reign is most likely a crock.

10. As polytheistic Canaanites, many Judeans rejected the religion of Yahweh. They continued their old Canaanite cultural practices, and continued to intermarry with neighboring Canaanite cultures. This was bitterly denounced as sinful idolatry, as recorded in the Biblical texts. Ironically, the term 'backsliding' is close to the truth, because these 'conservative' people wanted to hang onto their original cultural beliefs and practices that were to their view, divinely ordained.

11. Ever since the Neo-Babylonian conquest, there has never been a truly independent Jewish state. During ancient times it was always a puppet state, whether under the Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Seleucids, or Romans. (We dispute whether the Hasmoneans were ever independent from their Roman allies.) And in its modern incarnation, we maintain that the Jewish state is vassal to the Anglo-American alliance. (Again, we dispute any claims that the synthetic Judaic tail is now wagging the dog.)

This Jewish puppet state has always retained its victim stance, as well as its pretensions of being destined for global domination. This makes it an ongoing dialectical foil for (so-called) 'Gentile' society. In other words, the Jews are alternately an irritant, a target for blame, and a source of inspiration for the global aims of the gentil 'Gentiles'.

The ancient textual basis of 'epic' Judaism, however, shares a common (mostly Mesopotamian) source with the Ugarites and Homeric Greeks. This includes their similar creation myths and flood stories, albeit morally inverted where profitable.

Although Judaic law has some beneficial ethical aspects, these are mixed with arbitrary and unnecessarily high standards and practices. Christianity gained an advantage over Judaism by relaxing some of the excess demands.

12. According to the Roman foundation narrative, their elite Sabine tribe insinuated themselves into power in the aftermath of the "Rape of the Sabine Women". This unlikely tale was probably offered as propagandically inverted ethical justification for a more brutal seizure of power by the newcomers. Later, the Romans paid cultural homage to the Greeks even as they enslaved them.

These Sabines claim to have arrived as refugees from the Homeric battle of Troy. We have no reason to doubt this, as we were told that the 'Trojans' came from Anatolia, home of the Hittite empire. The Sabines seem to have had rather 'Judaic' cultural sensibilities, which makes sense if the elite Jews and Sabines share common origins, and an affinity with Hittites such as Abraham.

Also, we are told that Aeneas, the Trojan hero, wooed and then rejected the Phoenician queen Dido of Carthage, before traveling on to Italy. This seems to betray that the 'Sabines' had strong 'Phoenician' ties. Aside from the later 'identity scam' -- the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Jews were all the same people.

13. Sabians, Sabines, ... coincidence? Probably not. The Roman Sabines were probably linked to the Biblical Sabians, either by way of the Hittites, or Phoenicians, or both.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I think anybody who can walk right in and get an audience with the Pharaoh, is a member of the elite without qualification.

But 'most' people today don't have that experience to infer from.

Static pages are hard to find on our site. It could be a post, or part of the introduction, as you suggested. Also, perhaps we should delete this entire thread once we're done? Our readers in the future might not be that interested in seeing our process, though I had been thinking perhaps Gilius would follow along.

It should be part of the intro post opening only by an optional short cut link to near the Abraham post conclusion. It is very dry reading as a condensed summary, which the posts elaborate upon. And don't forget it will have to be appended several times.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Regarding the 'good' Samaritans:

From Gordon's The Bible and the Ancient Near East, pp. 257, 258:

Sargon's reprisals were severe. Israel was put under a governor and had to pay permanent tribute. Samaria was strengthened as an Assyrian stronghold and the land was settled by an alien population.

After the fall of Israel, one Merodach-baladan, aspiring to the throne of Babylonia, went to Babylon for the New Year (= the first of the month of Nisan) 721 B,C.E. and grasped the hands of the Marduk idol there. This was the way to claim kingship over the country for the year to come. He found allies in the Elamites and in tribes that had been suppressed by Assyria.

Hamath was sacked in 720. Babylon was crushed in 709, although Merodach-baladan escaped and lived to stir up future rebellions indefatigably. Exiles from Hamath and Babylon were sent to Israel (2 Kings 17:24). So not only were the deported Israelians being punished for their rebellion, but the new settlers were being punished for theirs. The new population in Israel accounts for the founding of the Samaritan nation, which was to play a considerable role in local history and to figure prominently in both Testaments. The new settlers reacted to difficulties in the land by turning for protection to the local authentic religion, which they recognized to be Yahwism. They shared the widespread idea that only the god of a particular area could be effective in that area. Accordingly, they requested a genuine Yahwistic priest to teach them the religion of Yahwe. Such a priest was sent by the Assyrian government and he set up headquarters in Bethel. But the fact that numerous other priests were appointed from various strata of society constituted one of the offenses of the Samaritans, according to the Bible. Yet the adherence of the Samaritans to Yahwe has been constant throughout their subsequent history, although at this early time the accusation is made in Scripture that they mixed their Yahwism with the cults they had known before their advent to Israel.​

Well, this pretty much gets to the central issue of just how Yahweh gets insinuated into becoming Canaan's New Boss. If Yahweh was already the top godly dog, as was El originally, then why would the Samaritans need to get a Yahweh priest assigned to them by the Assyrians. The sentences just before and after my highlighting are telling.

The practice prior to the impositions of the central Temple Cult(s) in Jerusalem and the Samaritan's parallel temple cult on Mt. Gerazim was that the local communities had their own community priests and congregations. Even the incoming Samaritans would have brought, by default, their prior local priests along with them on the forced migration. In any case, whether Samaritan or indigenous, for control purposes and to make the imposition of Yahweh ultimately stick these priests were all pagan (conservatives) and had to be eliminated (by the liberals).

 

[Richard Stanley]

In addition to the younger son motif episodes of Isaac (which Gordon counts as being one), Jacob, and Joseph, the motif gets repeated with Judah's sons: Perez and Zerah, and then again with Joseph's sons: Ephraim and Manasseh.

The following is what Gordon states (pg. 130) about both the younger son and the barren wife motifs:

In the Bible these motifs have an additional value; they gain a theological overlay. The Patriarchs represent a microcosm of Israel. God's intervention in their personal lives is akin to the role He plays in the life of Israel. Moreover, Israel is not a powerful nation like Egypt or Babylonia; instead it is a "barren" country, and a "younger son" among the nations of the world. God has made Israel prolific and He has made it His firstborn (Exodus 4:22), ideas reflected in the Patriarchal narratives.

There are also other themes shared by Ugarit and the book of Genesis. The most important of these is the "Helen of Troy" motif. ...​

In the Isaiah verses I laid out elsewhere regarding the Samaritans and Hameth, in regards to population swaps and similar activities that we call 'ethnic cleansing' today, we can see the reason why Israel can be termed "barren". And even why a metaphorical younger son, natural or adopted, ends up gaining favor with the veiled powers (posing as God) granting such 'blessings'.

The first sentence in the excerpt shows that the motifs gain a different quality than as they were applied in their parallel usages from such as Ugarit, and that is that this new god is orchestrating the matters. And so note the semi-paradox in that while we are discussing the 'younger son' motif, the resulting outcome is the new god's 'firstborn'. Hmmm, what happened to all those prior to Abraham, such as Shem? As stated in the posts, Yahweh (Ja've) himself was a younger son, among many sibling gods, who must assert himself from out of obscurity to usurp the throne and identity of his father El. Just like 'youngest son' Zeus (Jo've) does to his father Cronus (our avatar for Time), who in turn usurped his father Uranus by castrating him (metaphorically), arguably worse than circumcision.

22And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: Exodus 4 KJV​

This verse is also in concurrence with our assertion that Abraham is not really the father of Isaac (Israel) in the narrative, but the veiled powers that be. That the then 'Pharaoh' (at or near the time of the redactions) was likely in on the scam makes it all even more humorous from the insider's perspective.

These and other epic aspects disappear from the OT narrative after the account of David, similar to the occurance of OT miracles (disregarding Daniel which is really from the time of the Maccabees), which also helps for dating purposes. Once more realistic historical annals are being presented, the fantastical epic and the supernatural miracles must be sufficiently in the past such that there is no one left to challenge their authenticity. Miracles pop again with Jesus, but the gospels (and their miracles) surface many decades after Jesus of Nazareth has supposedly ascended to heaven. And, of course, supposed miracles and similar staged magic shows were then all part of the then in vogue mystery cult phenomenon.

 

[Richard Stanley]

BTW, the town Hebron, the city Abraham came to and was supposedly buried at, was originally called Luz by the Hittites living there. I wonder if it would be 'illuminating' to see what Luz means in PIE?

Oops, Bethel was originally Luz, not Hebron.

 

[Richard Stanley]

There are also other themes shared by Ugarit and the book of Genesis. The most important of these is the "Helen of Troy" motif. ...

Regarding Helen of Troy, her brothers were the Dioscuri twins, Castor and Pollux. In my recent researching on the latter, it seems that the scholar J.Rendel Harris (from his The Cult of the Heavenly Twins), and another, had discovered traces of their cult in ... Jerusalem, where the twins had been converted into angels. This conversion taking place long before the Catholic Church would later convert their local cults to respective pairs of saints around the Mediterranean and beyond.

Rendel also asserts that Esau and Jacob are retellings of dioscuric twin stories, as well as the two angels visiting Lot in Sodom having such classic behavioral characteristics.

This dovetails with the claims of Moses Hadas about other commonalities between Greek and Semitic cultures.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I struggled with where to post the following and decided maybe this is the best thread overall.

Recently, on a new thread, forum member Sgt Pepper provided us some interesting links to an analysis on the "Spookians" by 'Gerry', a colleague of Miles Mathis. Gerry has provided some valuable insights that dovetail with much of my thinking and work so far. His focus is on the Phoenicians, as the spooky "merchant-princes" of history and how they have been submerging [sic] their historical visibility over long periods of time. In fact, I had recently asked the question of what was going on with them, in this regard, and I think that Gerry's analysis provides some good answers, albeit that I don't think that this view is the complete picture.

Gerry, and Miles, are getting to the true identity issue of the Jews, and they discuss names such as Tamar and Solomon's mother, Deborah (presumable a Hittite woman, the widow of the Hittite Uriah). Amazingly, they missed that yet another Tamar was the matriarch of the tribe of Judah, via the Levirate marriage into Judah's family, whereby she had to trick father-in-law Judah into procreating the line, by pretending to be a hooker. As I have discussed before, Hosea (Hosea 1:1) married the figurative hooker, Gomer, so as to repopulate the valley of Jezreel (the area around Megiddo). The first Biblical Gomer was the (non-Semitic according to the Genesis genealogy) father of Ashkenaz, albeit that the 'kenaz' in Ashkenaz might refer to the term Canaanite or Kenite. Whereas, many today believe that the Ashkenazim are the Slavo-turkic Khazars that make up approximately 95% of today's Jewish self-identifiers.

Gerry discusses the concept of the "merchant-kings" of Phoenicia, and this appears quite correct going both backward and forward in time, till today even. And, that their veiled "spooky" behavior is fitting with the concept of building ever new operating 'regimes' in new locals and then centuries later moving on. This is consistent with our cyclical notion of Conquest, Colonization, Consolidation, and Schism. Gerry mentions, in Part 3, the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, and this, to me, is indeed a classic fin d'siecle example - in this specific context. From that the age of the 'Jewish' kings, or their legends at least, were born, dialectic literary mirror to the Homeric story of the Trojan War. All this to be followed by the romance of (Trojan-Hittite) Aeneas and (Phoenician) Dido in the Aeneid, the foundation narrative of Rome.

And to make this all work, without others catching on that is, is that names and such are cleverly changed, to protect the guilty. And that, such shenanigans as having various important people appear to die, usually by some form of assassination, helps grease the skids considerably to whatever new paradigm is desired, whether it be a geographical or political shift. For instance, once JFK (and RFK) were killed, the 'fake' Protestant Reformation was effectively dead in the water as a political power. The USA is now effectively in the hands of Roman Catholics, nominally at least.

As such, my view of the tribe of Judah, from start to finish, is that of a front, similar to what Gerry and Miles discuss, but different. Gerry provides a discussion of historical kingship as being fronts for the underlying associations of merchant-princes, and that this appears to have been always the case, for the most part at least. As such, this all provides the correct lens, IMO, of why we see today the war profiteering of 'merchant' players on both sides of practically every conflict. Because as Gerry discusses, this has been the modus operandi from time memorial, by generally the same elite peoples.

When the Holocaust of WWII occurred, by default, it was the sacrificed individuals of the 'front', whose ancestors were told to convert to Judaism about one millennium before. Yes, note my 'new' penchant for millennialism (and that the Nazis were explicitly a millennial, 'apocalyptic' movement). But, beside the numerous Jews of 'relative' prosperity, just how many of the real 'players' were sacrificed? One can see the cynical machinations in such as Black's The Transfer Agreement (and where he mentions the proto-Mossad collaborating with the Gestapo) in identifying European Jews that will be good pioneers in the new Israel).

This last gets to the issue of the the structure of the family of Jacob (as described at the end of Genesis), which I see as an org chart. Judah, from the 'hated' wife Leah, is assigned the 'ruler' symbol of the lion. And, Judah is assigned to be subservient to Ephraim, of whom the latter is the blessed son of Joseph (the blessing is that of Abraham's received from God himself). Joseph was wed to the daughter of an Egyptian high priest, picked for him by the pharaoh himself. As Gerry mentioned, in his Part 1, Joseph had colluded with pharaoh to rig the Egyptian markets, the result of which was that the previously free Egyptian peoples had 'happily' sold themselves to Joseph and pharaoh as slaves. Joseph then had all these people moved to new locales and this becomes the model for later European feudalism, imposed by the Roman Imperium and its creation 'front', the Catholic (universalized paganism) Church.

The late Cyrus H. Gordon had discussed in his books that Abraham is described in terms that would indeed make him an exemplar of a traveling merchant-prince, traveling from place to place with his armed household retinue of 318 tsabians, that guard and guide his caravans. The Bible states his starting point as Harran, later known for its association with Sabean star watchers and wizards (viziers?), and the moon god, Sin. Gordon also discussed that Harran, via its proximity to Urfa (aka Edessa) would have been a traditional trading colony of the great Mesopotamian city, to the south, of Ur. In his Part 1, Gerry mentions Ahmose and his wife, the founders of the great 18th Dynasty, and that it seems that they should properly have their names prepended with an 'I', making the names looked suspiciously like 'Yah' names.

Here, we also have the information, provided by the Sabbah brother rabbis, in their Secrets of the Exodus, that the 18th Dynasty's Amenhotep III had a private prelature priesthood (the Yahud) dedicated to Yah, as inscribed in his temple (Soleb?) now in northern Sudan. I believe that Amenhotep III is also the first such king to have explicitly declared himself to be a god, while living that is. And as Cline noted in his book on the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, that Amenhotep III, or a top diplomat at least, had made a unique trip to Mycenae and back, corroborated by the findings of faence plaques found in cities along the way, such as on Crete, and by the names of the same cities, in order, found inscribed on the bases of Amenhotep III's statues. We also know that Amenhotep III had a wife from the royal family of the Mittani, suspected by Sweeney, I believe, of being the same as the later Medes. And suspected by some of being the 'final hidden resort' of Akhenaton, using the favored MO of Miles Mathis.

While Gerry is, as I stated prior, focused particularly on the Phoenicians, it seems to me that the royals of all these great nations and empires were generally related, just as the more contemporary Euro-royals are. For instance, evidence was discovered of high ranking Mesopotamians in a cemetery dating to 1st Dynasty Egypt. And we still must contend with the pale faced, green-eyed, red heads alluded to by the twins Jacob and Esau. Only Esau's (Edomite) red and rough complexion is discussed, while silence over the complexion for the 'urbane' twin, Jacob. We must also confront the veiled impact of Becca, or the Edomite trading site of Petra. Becca was the first Mecca before it was moved to the current site. The Talmud also accounts the Romans as being 'Edomites', while they are more commonly accorded as being the Kittim.

The 'Jewish' OT also accords that Esau will regain his inheritance, stolen from him, at birth, by Jacob. Of course, this is all metaphor, telling the veiled story of the relationships of the various elites, their hierarchy and roles. And, as I have stated several times here, John XXIII, after WWII, told the Jews that he was their 'Joseph' (via Ephraim). Remember that Ephraim's land in Israel encompassed Bethel and Shiloh, the prior capitols and home of the 'Lord' before Jerusalem. Jacob had an "all-night wrestling match" with God at Bethel, where this was likely some kind of negotiation for the foundation of the new enterprise.

Gerry mentions the notion of colonists taking old names to new places (e.g. York to New York), and there was prior Ur to Urfa, and here it is likely that merchant-prince Venice is a paean to Phoenicia as well. Webster Tarpley has worked on this notion of power spreading from there, but as well that the Roman elites fleeing decaying Rome, fled to Venice and its surroundings. This is not a problem for me, as I see it all as part of the larger construct. Livy, was accused in his day, of being a Levite, Horace was said to have Jewish parents, making him, if true, a .... Roman? But again, this term and identity of 'Jew' is a synthetic construct, to veil, or 'shield' the real elites.

Enough for now, but we'll have to deal with DeVere's thesis on the real Arya, as pasty faced, red/orange haired Normans. And that they were not Semites, and yet the real 'players' of the Bible.