FOOD FOR THOUGHT: "Treat your ignorance. Start learning."
	YOU ARE IN DARKNESS.
old testament page 3

Prophet Ezekiel told us that Hittites were partly responsible for founding Jerusalem. Were they? Let us read Ezekiel 16:3 and 16:45 (God spoke to Ezekiel and gave a message intended for Jerusalem): "Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan: thy father was an Amorite and thy mother a Hittite." The places where the Old Testament speaks of Hittites appear to consign Abram / Abraham and consequently all the Patriarchs as well to a later period. Genesis 23 tells us that Abram / Abraham have negotiated with the locals of Hebron and acquired the burial place of his wife Sarai. These people are presented as the 'sons of Heth' and 'Hittite.' In this story we have Ephron, (the Old Testament calls him the 'Hittite') giving the cave of Machpelah to Abram / Abraham. Ephron the son of Zohar, according to the story, is a person 'dwelling among the children of Heth.' So Abram negotiated with whom? If the children of Heth are Hittites why did the writers of the Old Testament feel the need to present Ephron as a 'Hittite?' A person dwelling among a group of people is either one of them, in which case there is no need to specify his ethnic identity; or that person is not one of them, meaning he has a different ethnic identity, in which case the writers of the Old Testament could be seen as doing the right thing by specifying Ephron as a 'Hittite.' If this basic reasoning is correct then Hittite and Heth should be two different ethnic identities. Hittite empire came into being around 1600 BC. If that is right, some questions come to mind: Were Hittites living in Palestine before they established their Empire? Did they migrate from Palestine to Asia Minor between 1900-1800 BC. when Abram was supposed to have lived? Did Abram, Isaac and Jacob live in a later period? Around 1600 BC.? Who were these people called the sons of Heth, if they were not Hittites?

In the 9 th. and 8 th. centuries BC. writing was not developed sufficiently to write down the texts in the Old Testament. The first written document in the Old Testament on Abram and his family is Genesis, which was written 1500 years later then the time Abram and his family were supposed to have lived. Well, if Abram ever lived when could that be? Abram and the persons around him are believed to have lived about 1900-1800 BC. But there are those who say that they must have lived at a later date. To complicate the matters further, we do not know for sure if Abram, Isaac and Jacob (Father and sons - The Patriarchs) have really ever lived. If Abram ever lived, especially in the assumed period - 1900-1800 BC. - 'Neither the Arabs nor the Hebrews were existent then' (Max Dimont, Jews, God and History, New York, 1962), so their account must have come down through the generations by way of oral accounts. Consequently the Hebrews must have adopted these tales to their needs to become a nation. No documents were found, belonging to the era of Abram and his family, which could prove that they actually existed. The only testimony is the Old Testament which was written over a period of 800-900 years as I pointed earlier. The Old Testament has taken its final written form in the 4 th. century BC., following the Babylonian exile. This is for sure, because the myths of Creation, Adam, Paradise, and Flood - which belong to Sumer and Babylonia - do not exist in Canaan. Which is a further proof that the final form was given to the Old Testament following the Babylonian exile. It was translated into ancient Greek in Alexandria in the 3rd. century BC. To cut a long story short, Abram, after becoming Abraham as a result of the 'divine suggestion'(!) has come to be known as the 'Father Messenger' - Patriarch - of the Mosaic, Christian, and Islamic belief systems.

Well, back to the Hittites. If we accept that Abraham had lived about 1900 BC. then could these Hittites belong to one of the small early Hittite lands. But when the Hittites are mentioned as the founders or co-founders of Jerusalem, however, we are faced with a problem. Could these Hittites be the 'Children of Heth' who were probably a Canaanite mountain tribe. Here is Numbers 13:29 as an indicator: 'The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south; and the Hittites and the Jebusites (the original inhabitants of Jerusalem) and the Amorites dwell in the mountains; and the Canaanites dwell by the sea and by the coast of Jordan.' Could anybody claim that these peoples of Canaan had much to do with the Indo-European Hittites of history? We can be sure of one thing: Thanks to the Old Testament and with the discovery of the Hittite Empire in Asia Minor we now have two categories of Hittites: Those in the 'code book' of the Mosaic belief system and the Hittites whose existence is proved archaeologically.

The Old Testament as a book begins with the Genesis but the real beginning and the foundation of the Old Testament is contained not in Genesis but in Exodus. If the Old Testament is the Book of the sons of Israel - which it is - then the beginning of the story of Israel lies in the coming out of Egypt and Exodus. The Old Testament, in Genesis 47, tells us that '..Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt in the country of Goshen: And they had possessions therein, and grew and multiplied exceedingly.' There is a problem here. The Old Testament does not tell us anything about the period Israel spent in Egypt. In other words for a period covering 400 years the Old Testament is silent. The fact which makes this problem much more important is that the whole of the fertile crescent underwent a complete change in this period. But the Old Testament is silent. National groups were displaced, resettled, and an extensive rearrangement took place. This vast change in the region interrupted the history of the Semitic kingdoms which had maintained their influence on the Euphrates and the Tigris for 1000 years. For 150 years there is also silence in Egypt. Armies of Egypt and Hittites joined battle at Kadesh. Hittites and Egyptians concluded at Kadesh the first non-aggression and mutual defence pact in history in 1280 BC. Ramesses II married a Hittite Princess. Any of the children of Israel, and their ancestors who were in Egypt at that time - if they were there really - could have watched the ceremonial arrival of the Biblical procession in the city of Per-Ramesses-Meri-Imen (The House of Rameses the Beloved Amun). As the Old Testament description indicates however, their presence in this city was by no means of their own accord. It is at this point also that the Bible resumes its narrative. Four hundred years which the children of Israel had spent as immigrants in the land of the Nile have been passed over in silence. What happened in those years? Did Israel really went to Egypt? Was this 'stay in Egypt' invented to establish a beginning point? Was it a link? Was it introduced to fill a gap? Did they really come out of Egypt to have a land of their own? Only the writers of the Old Testament know. If Israel were happy and stayed in Egypt, there wouldn't have been the stories of Moses, Exodus, Mount Sinai, YHWH, the Covenant, and all the others. There wouldn't have been the Old Testament and the belief systems that followed. There wouldn't have been the Jewry. So! Isn't everything clear?

Exodus 12 gives the period the sons of Israel has spent in Egypt as 430 years. According to this, the migration to Egypt must have taken place about 1720 BC. And the Exodus then must have taken place around 1290 BC. The first time the name Israel was used in history was in a hymn written in 1229 BC. 'The people of Israel is desolate...' goes the hymn. So for the first time Israel is described as a 'people' and the Palestinian place names are mentioned in this hymn. Which may be taken as an evidence that Israel was already properly settled in Canaan in 1229 BC., and no longer completely unknown.

God YHWH / Jehovah who was presented to a new group of people by the 'Midianite' Moses (Check the pages on Moses in this Site) probably was an unimportant entity, just a narrow minded, despotic, jealous, and blood-thirsty local God promising to His believers 'a land of milk and honey' (Exodus 3:8); and pushing His believers to kill the inhabitants of this land (the 'Promised Land') by sword. Despite all the 'editing' done on the Old Testament it is amazing that there is still so much left over to enable us to see the state of affairs in the beginning. Furthermore it is not clear whether His belief system was monotheistic, and that He has rejected the divinity and sacredness of the Gods of other peoples. His people's acceptance of their God's superiority to other foreign Gods may have been sufficient. The only reason for the events taking a different course later on is the introduction of a different God by the 'Egyptian' Moses. This new concept is a 'sole' God, which is much more divine, universal, caring for the whole of mankind, all powerful, rejecting all kinds of ceremonies and magic; pointing to a 'Ma'at' (righteous and just) life as the highest aim.

Despite the very little knowledge we have on the moral aspects of the Aten / Aton belief system, the fact that Akh-en-aten describing himself as a 'person living a Ma'at life' presents us with a useful pointer as to where this new concept of God originated. (Check the page on Monoheism in this Site). The hymns of the Aton/Aten belief system emphasize the universality and the 'soleness' of God, and His love towards all the creatures; the possible killing of the 'Egyptian' Moses and his people rejecting his doctrine did not make a great difference in the long run. This 'tradition' lived on and eventually attained a level of influence which was not accorded to the 'Egyptian' Moses. In the meantime God YHWH/Jehovah, claimed the freedom which was accomplished by Moses and gained an undeserved prestige starting with the Kadesh-Meribah incident. (Check the pages on Moses for more information). YHWH has managed to replace the God of the 'Eyptian' Moses, but paid a heavy price for that. The influence of the God that YHWH had replaced proved to be very strong and turned out to be a dominant one. In the end of a period of evolution the God of the 'Egyptian' Moses, and His nature came to light. It is beyond doubt that the factor which kept Israel together and survive until this day is the concept of this 'other' God of the 'Egyptian' Moses.

All of you, Jews, Christians, Moslems and those people who are interested know the 'incident' at the 'Red Sea': A detachment of Egyptian chariots, which was attempting to recapture the Israelites fleeing the country, was swallowed up by the Sea, the horses and riders were drowned. This story most probably is the product of the memory of a natural phenomenon like a severe storm and the urge to invent a story for sons of Israel with the aim of creating a history peculiar to the people. The important thing is where it is supposed to have happened, if it ever did. It is impossible to be precise on this point. First of all, translation stands between us and the truth. The Hebrew words 'Yam Suph' are sometimes translated as 'Red Sea', at other times as the 'Reed Sea.' What a difference an 'e' makes! A difference between a natural event and a fairy tale which is one of the main incidents in the formation of a new religion. Modern translations recognise 'Yam Suph' as meaning Reed Sea or Papayrus Marsh. The Reed Sea is frequently mentioned. For we read in Joshua 2 ( Moffatt's translation) how the 'Eternal dried up the water of the Reed sea before you when you left Egypt'. It is called the 'Reed Sea' up to Jeremiah in the Old Testament. Whereas the New Testament speaks only of the 'Red Sea'. There are more mysteries to it. On the shores of the 'Red Sea' there are no reeds. And the 'Reed Sea' proper lays farther north. At the time of Ramesses II the Gulf of Suez was connected to Bitter Lakes. It is most probable that the connection extended up to Lake Timsah (Crocodile Lake). In this area, it is known that there was at one time a Sea of Reeds. On the other hand, Elmar R. Gruber & Holger Kersten, referring to the relevant sections of the Old Testament write in The Original Jesus, '...Expeditions set off from the harbour of Egeon-Gober (Ezjon Geber) near Elath on the shores of the sea of reeds in the land of the Edomites, a people already conquered by David because of the caravan route to the Red Sea...'

In Exodus 15:1-19 we are told the story of the 'miracle of the sea,' (Song of Moses) the language and style of which clearly shows that it was a later addition to the text. There is another short piece of text immediately following it in Exodus 15:20-21, which is definitely very old. It goes on like this: "And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the woman went out after her with timbrels and with dances.. And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea." Here we have a dance of thanksgiving to God. But the most important thing in it is the reference to a "prophetess" for the first time in the Old Testament. Peculiar to some Hebrew tribes there were certain people who had the ability to enter into ecstasy, and receive information from God on the future events and warning others by saying 'God has come to me.' Since the sister of Aaron is the sister of Moses (we are told in the Old Testament), was Moses a member of one of those tribes? The Old Testament is full of stories about prophets who converse with God and receive messages. If we are to go by what we are told in the Old Testament, Miriam who is said to be the 'step-sister' of Moses, must be one of these prophets. If we go back to the words of Miriam quoted above, one can say that these words are the origin of the fairy tale called the 'miracle of the sea.' The people chasing Israel could have been an Egyptian border commander and his soldiers; a natural phenomenon may have been behind the deaths of this commander and his soldiers; this natural phenomenon could have been a severe tide, a storm or a wave due to a volcanic eruption. The only pieces that Israel managed to keep in their minds, before the writing, were pieces of poetry and a number of stories. So, the short Song of Miriam may have become a long song with the additions over hundreds of years. It may have turned into the song of Moses. The song of Miriam could not have been anything but a memory of a storm. When Moses decided to take his followers out of Egypt he knew only too well that escape from the country in defiance of pharaoh's orders was impossible. They would have been intercepted right away, which would have made the attempt fruitless. That was the reason why, we are told, Moses chose another quite unusual route. Led the children of Israel southwards, supposedly as far as the Reed Sea where there was nothing to stop them.

Perhaps various incidents of the migration which took place in Egypt, on the Sinai peninsula and finally in the land on the banks of the Jordan, simply reflect different traditions of these various regions which have merely been brought into harmony with one another in the Old Testament and linked together to form a continuous narrative thus providing a mixture of traditions. When one comes across repetitions one can safely say that such a mixture is indicated. We have repetitions in the Old Testament. Miracle of the Sea is an obvious example of these repetitions. Exodus 14 tells us of the Miracle of the Sea, and Joshua 3:16-17 gives us the story of Israel crossing Jordan. This second story of crossing a body of water tells us that Israel passed the river Jordan without getting their feet wet beacuse, 'the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city of Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, failed and were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.' When the problem of the first crossing at the 'Red Sea' or 'Reed Sea' is still unresolved this new story of crossing should be a reason for skepticism. One has no choice but to jump to the conclusion that 'the writers of the Old Testament Books are giving us fiction and not the history when they are telling us the stories about Israel's journey from Egypt to the Promised Land.'

When Moses went up the mountain to take the Ten Commanments, 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 is a contract (covenant) with supposedly the same(!) God (as Abram's) on the one hand and mankind and Israel (in that order) on the other. According to some scholars it is 'the symbol of God's plan and purpose in history'. They maintain that 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, when 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 people (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 a tribal God again by revelations through Mohamed and eventually Islam will raise this God to a universal level.

And now a summary of the tale of the Deluge: The Sons of Israel adopted the Sumerian flood story almost entirely. It is in the Old Testament. But when they adopted monotheism they felt the need to declare that the one who caused the Flood and saved the creatures from a complete destruction was only YHWH and not the Gods. What is the original of this Deluge story? It is probably the most popular of the three basic Sumerian myths. In a nutshell, Gods are not happy about the mankind and they want to destroy the human beings, but they let their 'messenger' - prophet - know of what would happen: Gods would bring about a global deluge so he - the 'messenger' - should take a couple of every creature (only the best of each specimen please!), a male and a female, put them aboard a vessel which he (the 'messenger') should build in line with the measurements given by the Gods, and they all should wait for the rains to fall, stay on board throughout the deluge, and disembark when the waters recede so there would be ground again to settle on. By choosing a couple of every creature the 'messenger' made sure that the best of all survived the deluge, which was the end result of the wrath of the Gods. Noah was the 'messenger.'(A mythycal personality of course) His vessel is called the Ark. Where does this name come from? When the Old Testament was translated into Latin, the name of the vessel became 'Arca' (thus Arca Noé - Noah's Ark). (For the full story check the pages on Sumer in this Site).

Let us have look at the original of this story in the Sumerian tablets written by 'Lu-dingir-ra the Sumerian' (Spenta Mainyu refers you to the Glossary in this Site. Find the entry on Lu-dingir-ra): '..Another thing I cannot believe is this: How our forefathers thought our nation is this old? And this is only the period before the Flood! Thousands more years have passed since the Flood until my time. A very long time. Is it not? Following the first eight kings, such a disaster of flood happened in our country that it swept everything. As it is told, our Gods for whatever reason, have decided to wipe out the mankind they created from the surface of the earth. At that time there was a king in the city of Shuruppak called Ziusudra, who was extremely kind, God-fearing and able to receive divine messages. Our respected God of Wisdom Enki was upset upon the Gods' decision to destroy the mankind. Realizing that he could not change this decision all by himself, he whispered to King Ziusudra from behind a wall and instructed him to build a ship with the measurements he gave, load as much humans and animals as possible on this ship.. (after an inundation for seven days and nights) ...Upon realizing that the weather calmed down Ziusudra came out of the big ship and prostrated before our Sun God Utu, Sky God An, and God of Air Enlil. Made offerings to them. In return for the respect he has shown, our Gods gave him an immortal life like Gods and sent him to the Garden of Gods where the sun rises... Following the Flood kingdom was given down to our country again, and the first kingdom started in the city of Kish.' Lu-dingir-ra is dated to an era 4000 years ago. That is around 2000 BC. And he says that the Flood had happened thousands of years before his time. So when was this Flood? Much more important poiht is that, now you have the origin of the Flood story in the Old Testament. A Sumerian has related the story to us. He wrote his notes 4000 years ago!

We are told that there are 250 different narrations of the flood throughout the world. But, which one is the Flood written in the Old Testament? Vedas undoubtedly tell the oldest known traditions of mankind's history. That is why it maybe reasonable to accept the story told in the Vedas as the story of the flood passed down to us. Vedic flood lasted 40 days. This period is identical with the one given in the Old Testament (Genesis). The Flood in German is 'sintflut.' Authorities claim that this word comes from 'sint' (total) in old High German, but how about another etymological connection with the word 'sindh.' The name of the river which has given its name to the Indian sub-continent is Indus, which was called 'Sindhu' in the old times. This river flows north-south, and floods every now and then the 140.000 square kilometers of the Sindh province of Pakistan which is very densely populated. So here may be the original story of the Flood. Who knows? No one!

What about the human dimensions? This frightening event must have taken place at a time when there were human beings on earth who could experience it, live it and survive it to pass the account to the following generations. Therefore someone or a group must have written it down. Origin of the Flood myth is generally Mesopotamia. Euphrates and Tigris rivers have led to flooding throughout the history. It is believed that the 'global'(!) Flood myth is related to a flood in Mesopotamia. The people living in the region in those days must have told the story to the next generation and the interim generations must have passed down the story to us. Do you want an evidence? Here it is: A 'world' map which was drawn upon the orders of King Sargon in 2700 BC. (approximately 500 years earlier than the Flood) shows only the Mesopotamia region. In other words their 'world' was Mesopotamia, and there was nothing else beyond! That is why, it is thought, a local flood there was told as if it was a global event. This event passed on to Hebrews and from there to Arabs, and was included in their 'code books', the Old Testament and Qoran respectively. Magians say that the Flood was limited to the lands east of Babylonia.

Berossus / Bel-usur / Berossos / Berosus who was a Chaldean priest of Bel in Babylon in the 4th/3rd. century BC. wrote the history and culture of Babylonia. Where he tells us that Gods have set a date for the beginning of the Flood: 15th day of the month Daisios (Month of May according to the Macedonian calendar). Bar Hebraus (1226-1286) 'Son of the Hebrew,' - son of a Jewish physician - also known by the Arabic name Abu'l Faraj, gives the beginning of the Flood as May 27th. In the Old Testament it is written that Noah's Ark settled on dry land on the 17th day of the seventh month. The 'seventh month' is still debated. The number seven in the Old Testament is thought to have based on a mystical understanding (probably coming from Sumer and Babylonia). New years started in different months in the distant past. Assyrians started the new year sometimes in November, but considered April as the first month. The Flood has started in the month of Ayar (May) according to ancient Syriac documents, Greek sources and lots of others. There are some who think that the name Euphrates is a corruption of 'Burat' which is the Syriac word for flood, and another name for the Euphrates is Purattu. Turks call the river 'Fırat.' The Yahwist text of the Old Testament which is thought to have been written in 9th. century and the Rabbinical text which was written in the 6 th. century BC. are not in agreement in the stories they tell. The Yahwist writer has no idea on the date of the flood. The Rabbinical text, accepts that a global disaster of this size has occurred; but at a time when it couldn't have done so.

An unmistakable evidence of a flood appeared at the excavations of Ur, in Mesopotamia. A layer of clay 2 to 3 meters in breadth was actually discovered there. But this layer proves no more than that there once was a serious outbreak of flooding in the district around Ur... Archaelogists dated this flood to about 4000 BC. But the nomadic Semitic tribes and their herds had not reached the land of the two rivers then. So, they were not in a position to survive and relate their experience. Therefore the Flood in the Old Testament must be another flood. The extent of the deluge was calculated as an area north-west of the Persian Gulf, 400 miles deep and 100 miles wide. By our standards it is a 'local' occurrence, but for the people living there this area was their 'whole world'. A flooding like this happened about 4000 BC. Traces of the flooding were found in Kish, Shuruppak (today's Fara), Nineveh and Erech (Uruk). But the evidence formed by these traces were not where they ought to be if the whole of Mesopotamia was flooded. So this was not the Biblical 'flood.' The Biblical 'flood' still remains undemonstrated.

To complicate the matter further, two American geologists Dr. Walter C. Pittman III. and Dr. William B. F. Ryan claimed they had the evidence that the Flood had happened when the water in the Bosphorus broke the earth wall holding it and started emptying in to the Black Sea 7500 years ago. Melting down of the ice cap 11.000 years ago is thought to have precipitated this event. With this mighty flow of water the shores of Black Sea was flooded, people who lived and survived the disaster migrated to Mesopotamia, and when the writing was invented, the orally transmitted story of the Flood was written down. This is another proposition. Where is the reality?

Old Testament page 5