Does the OT Predate the Jews?

[Root_Hog]

I’m looking for any resource in response to some troubling assertions in a book I’m reading (Will Durant’s “Our Oriental Heritage”, though it’s likely similar research exists elsewhere).

The book suggests that much of the Old Testament is not unique to the Jews, that similar legends in several and more ancient civilizations predate their culture; that Moses and David are more myth than men; that much of Jesus’ teachings had been offered by others before Him; and that even the story of the Nativity has parallels to older legends, including the birth of Confucius (i.e. born of a virgin in a cave).

I’m not interested in “authorship” of the Bible itself. Rather, it’s in understanding whether the OT is the Word of God to the Jews, or a mere collection of stories that were in existence even prior to that culture. Ditto with the questions regarding Jesus’ birth and life.

PLEASE, if anyone can direct me to resources that address these topics, it’d be appreciated. I’m not in “crisis of faith” mode, but one can certainly see how these assertions might raise any number of doubts.

 

[canne]

I am not familiar with the author, although I do beleive he wrote a number of books and was a pultzier prize winner…that does not make him a biblical scholar or authority on Christianity however.There are theories that Jesus was a copycat …sometimes called the Jesus Myth …athesist arguements usually that Jesus was only a myth , a copycat, taken from other mythical persons etc…I had not heard that about the OT and the Jewish people.

Perhaps you might want to Take a look at this site and see if you find it helpful, you will find many of the Jesus myth theories refuted here as well as others. Holdings site is good and he gives alot of footnotes and information to back up his rebuttals.

tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

This one is on biblical cultural and japanese cultural which may prove interesting based on what you are reading.
tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html

 

[davidv]

Be careful that you don’t take an either or approach. Some of the OT speaks of the time before Abraham. When Abram was asked to go to the land of Canan, this was the first time in linear history that there is any indication of a “chosen people” that become identify as the Jews.

 

[ABiii]

Or it could be the other way around… that because of the distinction and blessedness of the Hebrew nation, other cultures taught that their myths ressembled that of the Hebrews… I am not saying that such is the case, just that it is a possibility with some.

samples what you are looking for.

Dec 25, Ishtar and Mithra’s birthday…

The familiar Christian scene of the Virgin and Child is a copy of a common and abundant Ancient Egyptian statue—such as the 6th century BCE statue of Auset (Isis) and her son Heru (Horus), now in the Turin Museum. It was such a statue that inspired the 15th century painter Masaccio, in his presentation of The Virgin and Child. We can easily find one or several such Ancient Egyptian statues in museums throughout the world.

Auset’s (Isis’) role in the Egyptian Model Story and the story of the Virgin Mary are strikingly similar, for both were able to conceive without male impregnation. Heru (Horus) was conceived and born after the death of Auset’s husband, and, as such, Auset was revered as the Virgin Mother. [More details in chapter 11 of our book, The Ancient Egyptian Roots of Christianity.]

Heck, even the papal hat ressembles the Babylonian fish hat.

Actually, the reason why I am unfazed by this, is not because of emotion, but rather the philosophy (metaphysics) and theology of Christianism. The teachings are so good that it just makes sense.

Also, God is also the author of the world as much as he is the owner of the bible… what if God gave signs of what is to come, and that previous civilizations forsaw ‘the virgin mother’, ‘the messiah’, etc, and attributed them to their Gods…? What I mean to say is what if it was meant to point that way anyway… which makes sense.

 

[rwoehmke]

Almost all these myths and stories have counter parts in other Eastern cultures or civilizations. The Hebrew versions are fairly unique in that they attribute all this to one God. Considering that a lot of the book of Genesis is pre-historic it should not be a surprise that a particular group of Eastern people, the Hebrews have similar stories based in prehistoric happenings from that part of the world. Unlike others they were able to see the hand of God in these happenings.

 

[Stillkickin]

Weren’t the Jews actually the 2 tribes from the southern kingdom (tribes of Judah and Benjamin?) and Israel referred to all 12 tribes?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Or it could be the other way around… that because of the distinction and blessedness of the Hebrew nation, other cultures taught that their myths ressembled that of the Hebrews… I am not saying that such is the case, just that it is a possibility with some.

samples what you are looking for.

Dec 25, Ishtar and Mithra’s birthday…

That’s an urban myth - as is the mitre thing ​

Not that anything is changed even if the Church had taken these things over from Babylon; but in these cases it did not. There are genuine similarities, but those are not among them.

The familiar Christian scene of the Virgin and Child is a copy of a common and abundant Ancient Egyptian statue—such as the 6th century BCE statue of Auset (Isis) and her son Heru (Horus), now in the Turin Museum. It was such a statue that inspired the 15th century painter Masaccio, in his presentation of The Virgin and Child. We can easily find one or several such Ancient Egyptian statues in museums throughout the world.

Auset’s (Isis’) role in the Egyptian Model Story and the story of the Virgin Mary are strikingly similar, for both were able to conceive without male impregnation. Heru (Horus) was conceived and born after the death of Auset’s husband, and, as such, Auset was revered as the Virgin Mother. [More details in chapter 11 of our book, The Ancient Egyptian Roots of Christianity.]

Isis could conceive Horus only because Osiris was put back together & temporarily resuscitated.​

The myth is a kinghip-myth - she is the throne, Osiris is the departed Pharaoh. Their joint activity brings about the new Pharaoh, Horus on earth. No throne joined with Pharaoh = no legitimate succession over the “Two Lands”; which means instability in the universe. To have Pharaoh, the living Horus, enthroned, both his divine parents are needed.

Heck, even the papal hat ressembles the Babylonian fish hat.

Actually, the reason why I am unfazed by this, is not because of emotion, but rather the philosophy (metaphysics) and theology of Christianism. The teachings are so good that it just makes sense.

Also, God is also the author of the world as much as he is the owner of the bible… what if God gave signs of what is to come, and that previous civilizations forsaw ‘the virgin mother’, ‘the messiah’, etc, and attributed them to their Gods…? What I mean to say is what if it was meant to point that way anyway… which makes sense.

IMO, the use of pre-Israelite & extra-Israelite ideas is evidence of the unique status of Israel, & of the catholicity of the Church. Abraham was not an Israelite - the father of the faithful was a Gentile. So why must all things in the Bible come only from within Israel ? The theological statement “Israel has a unique status before God” is true, as a judgement of value - but how does that require us to treat its history as completely self-contained & influence-free ? The OT does not suggest that it was uninfluenced by its environment, so why must this be supposed ? As historically conditioned entities, nations do not exist in that way - why should Israel be an exception ? Its status is that of the Chosen People - but that does not mean that it occupies a private reality free from all historical connections & influences. Jesus did not; He is not humanity-in-general, but a specific human being in a specific context: Israel is no different, so it is to be expected that its books will reflect their origins. Their origin (an historical issue) does not stop their being true (a theological issue).​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m looking for any resource in response to some troubling assertions in a book I’m reading (Will Durant’s “Our Oriental Heritage”, though it’s likely similar research exists elsewhere).

The book suggests that much of the Old Testament is not unique to the Jews, that similar legends in several and more ancient civilizations predate their culture; that Moses and David are more myth than men; that much of Jesus’ teachings had been offered by others before Him; and that even the story of the Nativity has parallels to older legends, including the birth of Confucius (i.e. born of a virgin in a cave).

I’m not interested in “authorship” of the Bible itself. Rather, it’s in understanding whether the OT is the Word of God to the Jews, or a mere collection of stories that were in existence even prior to that culture.

This choice over-simplifies - parts of the OT are stories, but much is not; it contains different kinds of literature.​

It is the word of God to the Jews - this does not mean it has no roots outside Israel. It does mean that when the Psalms use imagery applied to Baal (Psalm 29 is an example of this) it is applying to its own God imagery applied by the Canaanites to theirs.

The OT was formed in a specific culture - it did not come from (say) ours, or from China or from Renaissance Italy: it’s a body of Semitic literature, in two Semitic languages, cast in Semitic forms of thought. It did not come from out of the blue. And what it is made of, is not the same as what it is: so although it is historically conditioned, as a particular sort of thing (a body of texts) from a particular culture (that of Israel & Judah in the last 13 or so centuries BC), its meaning & value are not the same as the materials which express them. It is more than what it is made of.

So a literature which is influenced by non-Israelite thought can mean more than the influences that are to be found in the texts - & it can be the Word of God, even though those influences are not. So there is nothing to stop proverbs in Proverbs being from a known Egyptian source, & being also God’s word. Jesus is definitely & recognisably & genuinely a first-century Jewish man - that is the way in which He is God Incarnate; it is not a barrier to His being God Incarnate.

So with the Bible; its meaning & power are “incarnated” in a specific historical setting, because that was the setting in which the people who became Israel & among whom the OT & the Incarnation took place existed. If God had chosen Babylon instead of Israel, & Hammurabi instead of Abram - the OT would probably have been a very different literature.

Ditto with the questions regarding Jesus’ birth and life.

PLEASE, if anyone can direct me to resources that address these topics, it’d be appreciated. I’m not in “crisis of faith” mode, but one can certainly see how these assertions might raise any number of doubts.

The question of originality must on no account be confused with that of value - they are completely different issues. Neither implies the other - & these issues in turn must not be confused with that of ecclesiastical legitimacy.​

C. S. Lewis deals with this in “Miracles”, a really excellent book.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It is important to remember that the pre-Abraham portion of Genesis - First parents, fall, flood, etc, - are common to all mankind. It is to be expected that all will have tales of this.

 

[Root_Hog]

Thanks to all for your time and insights. It’s been very helpful and much appreciated.
Blessed Advent to all.