FOOD FOR THOUGHT: "Fear of asking questions is ignorance."
	YOU ARE IN DARKNESS.
moses page 1 moses page 2

The studies on the Old Testament point to the fact that there were two different writers of the Hexateuch, (The first five books of the Old Testament + the book of Joshua). In these six books we are presented with two different names of God: ELOHIM (Eloh is 'god', ' im ' makes the word plural in Hebrew. Therefore Elohim means 'gods'.But it may also mean 'god', 'false god', 'angels' or even 'man') and YHWH which is usually rendered 'Jehovah' or 'Lord' in English Bibles. Though the name was not changed in the Biblical texts, it is customary for those who read aloud the name YHWH substitute it with the Hebrew words ADONAI (this word may mean 'lord' in the sense of deity, or lord/master in the sense of human royalty) or HASHEM (literally means the 'name'). YHWH is the name first revealed to Moses. The God of Moses was the God of the Partiarchs, known to the Israelites as El Shaddai (god living on the mountain). According to some scholars YHWH-YAHWEH in the Old Testament is said to be derived from the verbal root 'to be,' 'to exist' and means 'HE WHO IS.' YHWH is said to have the meaning 'IAM THAT I AM' or 'I AM WHO I AM' which is 'Ehyeh asher ehyeh' in Hebrew. This expression could not have had the meaning of a 'self-subsistent Being' because the God of Israel acquired its metaphysical dimension 2000 years later. This Hebrew idiom, 'Ehyeh asher ehyeh' expresses a deliberate vagueness. When one meets an expression like 'they went where they went' one should understand that the writer 'hasn't the slightest idea where they went.' In this context God's declaration 'I am who I am' means something like 'Never mind who I am' (...just listen, or ...do as you are told) or 'Mind your own business.' No real parallel have been found Babylonian Pantheon.

But situation is different when we look at Egypt. There are those scholars who find the origin of the Sole God, the father-God of the code books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in Egypt, in the Aton/Aten belief system. Some western historians maintain that Moses had got the idea of a 'Sole God' from Akh-en-aton. Furthermore they believe that Moses was a historical person who lived in Egypt at the time of this religious reform attempt by Akh-en-aton and was influenced by this monotheism. We do not know much about the Aton/Aten belief system, but if Moses was an Egyptian, then the belief system he imposed on the Hebrews must have been nothing but the Aton/Aten religion. Around that period there was the Sun worship of Akh-en-aton in Egypt; and the process of blending many deities into a one Sole God and Ninurta (the God of war) appeared in Mesopotamia. These were preludes to monotheism. Among the peoples living in the 'fertile crescent' only the people of Israel awakened to this new idea of a God in all its clarity, purity, and certainty. A God who had nothing to do with magic. A God free of imagery.

Moses is not the initiator of monotheism. Monotheism existed in the tradition that became the Nordic Edda. The notion of a single, invisible and almighty God, the creator of the universe, a father of love and goodness, of compassion, sensibility and trust, had long been in evidence in the Vedas. Zarathustra, founder of Zoroastrianism, also proclaimed his God to be the 'one and only.' In the Papyrus of Prisse, dating from about 1000 years before Moses, God has following to say of himself:

"I am the unseen One who created the heavens and all things. I am the Supreme God, made manifest by Myself, and without equal. I am yesterday, and I know the morrow. To every creature and being that exists I am the Law."

How about this? It is very easy to detect the chief attributes of the God of The Old and New Testament, and Islam. Is it not? This One God without equal was referred to in Egypt as 'the nameless,' 'the One Whose name cannot be spoken.' The name of the God of Moses also cannot be uttered freely. That is why YHWH the 'tetragrammaton' (four letters) and eventually Jehovah replaced it in daily use. When the Egyptian God's name was 'unspeakable' Moses was not around. It was long before him. This Egyptian God called himself 'Nuk pu Nuk.'

YHWH-YAHWEH may be older than the time of Moses. Bible speaks of a much earlier institution of his worship. Let Spenta Mainyu repeat; It is absolutely logical, that Moses was an Egyptian, that he made the people around him accept his religion, which must be the ATEN religion of Akh-en-aton or a spin-off of it shaped by the 'man called Moses'. We do not know how the Mosaic belief system was thousands of years ago. What we know is only the last form of it, re-shaped by the Jewish priests in the 800-900 years following Exodus. But there seems to be a very important clue: The 'Shema' which is the Jewish confession of faith in Deuteronomy 6:4-9: "Shema Jisroel Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echod" or "Shema Israel Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Ehad" (Adonai replaces the unspeakable YHWH). The proper English translation of which should be: "Hear Israel, our Lord is Adonai, only Adonai." If the uncanny similarity of the Egyptian Aten/Aton, the Hebrew Adonai, and the Greek Adonis is not pure chance, and something which originates from a common root, or a common identity in the pre-history then replacing 'Adonai' with 'Aton' gives us the following confession of faith: "SHEMA JISROEL ATEN ELOHENU, ATEN ECHOD." The English translation of which is "Hear Israel our God is Aton, only Aton." There is no monotheism here. There is henotheism, which means, there are others but 'this one' is ours.

If Adonai is taken as 'master,' and 'eloh' as the 'supreme ruler' with no divine connotations then Shema becomes: 'SHEMA ISRAEL THE RULER IS OUR MASTER, ONLY MASTER.' Meaning is clear: There is the 'master' and there are other masters, but our master is THE 'master', the ruler of them all. Who is this 'master'? Could it be a memory of a distant past when an aristocrat, a strong-willed autocrat took a group of people out of Egypt, gave them their freedom, their law, and their land? Could all these descriptive words be about a human being? Could these honest and sincere statements about a human being have been transformed into a myth, with the addition of an invented supreme being choosing a prophet and a people and dictating everything with the 'sublime' purpose of creating a nation? In short, could it be all about a 'man called Moses'?

When Moses went up the mountain to take the Ten Commanments, the God spoke to him: "Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings and brought you onto myself. And you shall be unto me a kingdom (Mamlaka) of priests (Kohanim) and an holy nation (Goy kaddosh)" (Exodus 19:3-6). This contract called 'covenant' with supposedly the same(!) God on the one hand and mankind and Israel (in that order) on the other 'is said to be the symbol of God's plan and purpose in history.' This God's contract started with Noah in the primeval times with the purpose of an harmonious existence for the 'creation' including mankind. The second step was the contract between this God and Abram/Abraham here he promised protection to the people of Israel. Third step was the contract with Moses on Mount Sinai where this God revealed his will to 'his people' (Israel). So this supposedly universal God intervening for the whole of the mankind has become a tribal God and then the God of a nation (Israel). This forward movement of history was thought of and put into writing on purpose. The progress started from an approach to nature with Noah, then to an elect people with Abram, and in the end to the revealing(!) of the 'law' to Moses. This same God will become again a tribal God by revelations through Mohamed and eventually Islam will raise this God to a universal level.

This God 'chooses' the Sons of Israel as 'his people' among all the others in the area, and makes a contract with them. This is presented as a 'divine'(!) contract. According to the believers it may well be! But is it unique? It is not. It has precedents and parallels in the Ancient East, where a ruler used to sign treaties with the vassal kings he appointed to govern the peoples he subjugated. In those treaties the ruler used to define the relations between himself and 'them.' These treaties began with the enumeration of the names, titles and services of the 'great king' - the ruler of all of them. Let us read the Exodus 20:2 : "I AM THE LORD THY GOD WHICH HAVE BROUGHT YOU OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, OUT OF THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE". The name is there: 'LORD'. But it stands in place of the real name, 'YHWH', pronouncement of which was not permitted. The title is there: 'GOD.' The services is there as well: 'WHICH HAVE BROUGHT YOU OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT.' Therefore, the 'great king,' the ruler of them all is there: He is the 'heavenly'(!) great king, the 'LORD of Israel'. He is YHWH, the 'Sole God' of the 'contract' (He is the Sole God of Israel - not the world or universe). This 'heavenly lord' forbid the vassals to enter into any relationships with other 'rulers.' Who are, of course the other Gods: 'YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BUT ME' (Exodus 20). The imperatives, 'thou shalt' and 'thou shalt not' continually occur in the treaties with the vassals. So the imperatives in the Ten Commandments and the Biblical imperatives are not peculiar to the texts mentioned. This is a sentence from a treaty between the ruler and the vassal: 'Thou shalt not covet any territory of the land of the Hatti.' And now the Bible is speaking: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house." (Exodus 20). There are many more parallels: Treaties are deposited in holy shrines, and the tables of 'law' is kept in the Ark of the Covenant. Sealing of the treaties and the pronouncement of blessings and curses are like that. Moses did the same (Deuteronomy 11). He set before the people a blessing if they obey the God, and curses on the other if they did not. Roland de Vaux (A Catholic bible scholar) discovered in a number of Hittite treaties with vassals, the injunction that the text of the treaty to be read out in the presence of the vassal king and his people. And what do we read in Deuteronomy 31: "..and Moses commanded them by saying at the end of every seven years..you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing..that they may hear and that they may learn..and observe to do all the words of this law."

Ten Commandments, called 'aseret hadevarim' in Hebrew, 'deka logoi ' (decalogue - 'ten words') in Greek were supposedly engraved on two stone tablets. They were a list of religious observations said to have been divinely (!) revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. At least that is what is written in the Old Testament. Actually Moses on Mount Sinai had been instructed to hide many of the words he received. He was to issue publicly only a portion of the books that were dictated to him. The others were to be delivered 'in secret' to the wise. Apocrypha is said to have arisen from this tradition. We shall take that up later.

The term 'Ten Commandments' is applied to two different collections, those in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 are sometimes called the 'ethical decalogue,' (duties toward men) and that of Exodus 34:14-26 called the 'ritual decalogue' (duties toward God). The ritual decalogue prescribes ritual and cultic observances only and is probably to be assigned to the time of Solomon (Shlomo), though the practices themselves are much older. Placed after Amos and Hosea (after 750 BC.) It is also possible to argue for a very early date even pre-Mosaic times. Exodus and Deuteronomy connect the decalogue with the Moses and the Sinai covenant. This becomes plausible in the light of the formal characteristics of international covenants of pre-Mosaic times (Hittite, Canaanite and even Egyptian sources were usually suzerainty treaties). Ten Commandments were basically a contract - 'covenant', in which Israel was bound to obey the stipulations defined in the commandments and YHWH became its suzerain or protector. Covenants of this type were deposited in a sanctuary, just as the tables of stone were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (a portable sanctuary) and were supposed to be read publicly at stated periodic intervals. Original Commandments in Hebrew are admitted to have been two to four words, as the name 'decalogue' (ten words) suggests, but probably expanded considerably later on.

Ten Commandments according to Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, which are also called the 'ethical decalogue' are:

Exodus 34:14-26 give us the 'ritual decalogue':

Exodus and The 'Ten' Commandments must have been expanded later on with the writing and re-writing of the Old Testament. This expansion and the differences between the Deuteronomy versions show that there was a process of reinterpretation as it was transmitted through the generations during the Old Testament period. The particularly sacred nature of the Ten Commandments to postbiblical Judaism is indicated by the Nash Papyrus from Egypt. It was written about a century before the time of Christ, which consists of a single leaf containing the Ten Commandments. Its form is not identical with either the Exodus or the Deuteronomy versions. The Nash Papyrus contains also the Shema. In actual fact the Decalogue is nothing but the codified summary of the laws which were in use in the Near East and India long before Moses. The core of these laws exist also in the code of Hammurabi, the Amorite king of Babylon who lived 500 years before Moses. Hammurabi's reign began about 1800 BC. Code of Hammurabi was in cuneiform and written in Babylonian, comprising of about 300 laws. It is the most important work of law that we have on the Babylonian civilization. But it was not the first code of its kind. Some provisions of which could be traced back to the earlier legislation enacted by Uru-ka-gina of Lagash (c. 2370 BC.), Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BC.) and the laws of the Eshnunna. The first known 'code of laws' (a fragment only) is issued by Ur-Nammu, a king of the 3rd. dynasty of Ur (c. 2130 or 2113-2096 BC.) The clay tablets tell us that about 2000 BC. fines had replaced the corporal punishments. But 'eye for an eye' 'tooth for a tooth' punishments were still in force in the Jewish society ages later.

Ten Commandments contain little that was new to the ancient world. They were not the first or the only examples. Since both Hammurabi and Mosaic legislations include provisions common throughout the ancient near east it is not possible to judge how much, if at all, the latter was dependent on the former. Can you anybody detec a divine intervention in these coes of laws until the Mosaic legislation? No! No one can.

There were also other commandments in force in the region before Mosaic era. Here are some examples, judge or yourself! First, laws from Ancient Egypt, where we find the injunction in the 'teachings of Amenemope':

Furthermore according to ancient Egyptian belief, a deceased person had to make the following confession before 42 judges of the dead in a 'court room':

Here is another parallel of the Ten Commandments, this time from Assyria: An Assyrian priest who is trying to extract the evil spirit which entered a sick person had to ask the following:

According to the findings of the latest studies a 'crowd of Gods' certainly existed in Israel at one time. We can see this in the religion of the people during the early period. The sublime nature of royal Gods existed as a concept in the religions of the peoples living in the regions around the Holy Land. Rules of responsibility, and morality; law, order and ethics already existed in the region. The accepted norms of human behaviour, which were in harmony with Israel's divine code of laws in both letter and spirit were also current elsewhere. So if these Commandments have had earlier parallels, in the cultural and moral history of the ancient east who could claim that the Old Testament's code of laws was unique? All of these are the product of the human mind.

Following the events in Sinai the Land of Canaan was just 'over the horizon.' But Israel were not yet a community. They were not prepared to risk a clash with superior forces of the nations around. So Moses did not risk marching upon Canaan from the south and the people started roaming again. First they should become a compact national group which is able to fight. A new generation must emerge. There is very little that we know about this period which is almost 40 years - a time enough to mould a nation. This was the duration of their 'wandering in the wilderness.' But there are researchers who claim that this section of the Biblical chronology and topography sounds highly improbable, and with good reason. They say that there never was a 'wandering in the wilderness' in the proper sense. The Old Testament data for this period is vague but we can obtain a sufficiently clear picture from the few 'locations' that can be scientifically established: The Children of Israel with their flocks spent a long time in the Negev desert, near the two sources of water at Kadesh (Palestine). Once they went back again to the Gulf of Aqabah, into the area of Midian and the Sinai peninsula. This part of the world has never been a proper desert like the Sahara with its sand dunes. Examination of the terrain has showed that the region must have been like what it is today, as neither the irrigation nor the rainfall has changed significantly. Therefore the 'wilderness' must have been much more like a steppe country with possibilities for grazing and waterholes. Let us consult what Nelson Glueck of the USA found out as a result of his archaeological studies: These regions were inhabited about the 13th century BC. by semi-nomadic tribes who had brisk and flourishing trade and commercial relations with both Canaan and Egypt. Among them we should include the Midianites with whom Moses lived during his exile and one whom he married - Tsippora/Zipporah. 'Smiting the rock' and the 'burning bush' might well be occurrences which provided just the framework for a story which is a mere invention. The 'whole of Israel' did not leave Egypt. Only a number of groups of people - themselves or their descendants - left Egypt. They were later absorbed in Israel. All of them did not migrate, and all of those who arrived were not 'Israelites.' When they arrived in their destination, there were Israelites already residents of the land (Joshua 8). In other words at the time when the Israelites took possession of the land there were other Israelites already living there for some time, according to the 'Book.' Had they arrived with a previous migration? If they had, from where? Egypt again, or from somewhere else? If they were not migrants from other lands but locals, what this all indicates?

Various events of the migration which took place in Egypt, on the Sinai peninsula and finally in the land on the banks of the Jordan/Erden/Yordan, perhaps simply reflect different traditions of these various regions, brought into harmony with one another in the Old Testament and linked together to form a continuous 'invented' narrative - a mixture of traditions. How could we be so sure? Well, the experts say that such a mixture is usually indicated when there are repetitions. And indeed we have repetitions here. The most obvious example is the repetition of the 'miracle of the sea' In Exodus 14:9-17 we are told the story about how the Egyptians pursued the Israelites, and how the waters of the 'Red Sea' (or the 'Sea of Reeds' - we shall deal with that story later on) parted and closed and covered the Egyptians following the safe passage of the Israelites. The repetition is the story about the Israelites' crossing of the Jordan. This time Joshua 3:13-17 tells us the story: Again the flow of the water was stopped and the Israelites crossed Erden/Yordan/Jordan on dry ground. For the second time 'waves of the body of water failed and were cut off' on the one side, and 'they rose up upon an heap' on the other. When the attempts to make plausible the earlier crossing(!) of the Red Sea or the 'Sea of Reeds' were still fruitless. This second story about the crossing of the Jordan is too much! Not even a pinch of salt would help. The writers of the Old Testament must have assumed that the whole of the mankind is stupid. Could their assumption be right? What these writers are telling us cannot be the reality. What they relate about Israel's journeyings from Egypt to the Promised Land must be an 'invention' not history. Only the writers themselves knew the truth, but they have gone to the 'other side' long ago. Therefore we have no answers. Two ocurrences in the Old Testament's account of the wandering through the desert enjoyed archaeological confirmation recently.

Israeli archeologist Benno Rothenberg discovered a 'brass serpent' and a tabernacle in the copper mine area of Timnah (Wadi el Arabah). The brass serpent is a serpent idol to which the magical powers were attributed (Numbers 21:6: "..And the Lord sent fiery serpents.." Numbers 21:7: "..pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people." Numbers 21:8: "..And the Lord said unto Moses. You make a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looks upon it, shall live." Numbers 21:9: "..And Moses made a serpent of brass..." Can you imagine a situation like this? The 'Sole God' who is against all kinds of idols and images, and has banned magic and witchcraft, sends fiery serpents and orders his 'messenger' to make one himself, which will have a magical curing effect on those who were bitten by the "fiery serpents sent by the God." But we were told that the 'messenger' as well had banned all kinds of witchcraft and magic, weren't we?. A similar idol is said to have existed in the Temple at Jerusalem. It stayed there until it was broken to pieces by King Hiskia (Hezekiah) of Judah. This is what is written in 2 Kings 18: "..and break in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did not burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan" Now the same God wants the brazen serpent made by Moses upon orders from him broken to pieces. Amazing imagination! If we look back in history with a purpose of finding another serpent idol, the Sumerian serpent staff on a vase dedicated to the God of life Ningizidda; as well as the Aesculapius' staff of a later phase of classical antiquity or the numerous serpents of ancient Egypt come to mind. Already at the beginning of this century a German scholar H. Gressman, had asserted that "..the brazen serpent in the Old Testament must have been taken over from the Midianites with whom the Israelites came into contact during the journey through the desert." According to the Old Testament the Midianites have descended from Abraham's wife Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2: "Then Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah...And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.") The father-in-law of Moses, Reuel or Jethro or Hobab, is a priest of the Midianites, and an adviser and co-celebrant 'before the Lord' (What was the real name of this father-in-law? According to Exodus.2:16-21 it was Reuel the priest of Midian who gave his daughter Zipporah/Tsippora to Moses as wife. According to Exodus 3:1, the name of Moses' father-in-law is Jethro; and all through Exodus 18 the name of the father-in-law is given as Jethro the priest of Midian. In Judges 4:11, and Numbers 10:29 it is Hobab. Where is the truth? What was the name of the father-in-law? Only the writers of the Old Testament know, because they have invented all these stories, and names). The Israelites are supposed to owe the strange cult of the brazen serpent to Reuel the priest of Midian. The site where Benno Rothenberg found this serpent idol shows signs of Midianite occupation, and as though this is not enough this idol was found in the Holy of Holies of a tabernacle. What is the your opinion? Ask the right questions to get the right answers.

 moses page 4