2009/07/01

Clerical Quackery 1 - The Life-After-Death Lie


Every so often when climbing mountains, it’s useful to pause to assess how far you’ve come, how far there’s yet to go, and how to tackle the next phase of the climb. Similar seems useful here. I’ll therefore start by recalling that, way back (21 posts ago!), I introduced what I call The Mountainous God Lie, defined as follows.
The Mountainous God Lie – Lingering social evils from initial misunderstandings and then subsequent deliberate falsification of the records, plus manipulation of ignorant people by stupid or poorly educated or power mongering priests and politicians:

• That gods exist,
• That people have immortal souls imbued by the gods,
• That birth of children is controlled the gods,
• That the dead are ruled by the gods,
• That people have souls, which are judged by the gods,
• That stars and their constellations are signs from the gods,
• That movements of stars tell stories of gods,
• That dreams contain messages from the gods,
• That magic displays the mystery of the gods,
• That mysteries conceal the secrets of the gods,
• That sacrifices are needed to placate the gods,
• That rituals reveal knowledge of the gods,
• That mistakes are ‘sins’ against the gods,
• That sins offend and are punished by the gods,
• That clerics can forgive sins on behalf of the gods,
• That clerics are in contact with the gods,
• That clerics exercise authority on behalf of the gods,
• That clerics are spokesmen for the gods,
• That clerics preach the wills of the gods,
• That clerical “knowledge” is direct from the gods,
• That clerical hierarchies are established by the gods,
• That rather than serving themselves, the clerics serve the gods,
• That paying the clerics placates the gods,
• That prayers have power to persuade the gods,
• That tithes are collected on behalf of the gods,
• That “oracles” and “prophets” speak for the gods,
• That “truth” is told about prophets and gods,
• That a “race” of people was chosen by the gods,
• That oaths are binding when sworn to the gods,
• That covenants can be established with the gods,
• That morality is defined by the gods,
• That customs are created by the gods
• That laws are dictated by the gods,
• That leaders are chosen by the gods,
• That rulers know right by the grace of the gods,
• That justice is the jurisdiction of the gods,
• That order is ordained by the gods,
• That punishment is performed by the gods,
• That judges are judged by gods,
• That leaders rule by the grace of the gods,
• That kingdoms are established by the gods,
• That the fate of societies is controlled by the gods,
• That human rights are endowed by the gods,
• That people should put their trust in the gods,
• That believers gain grace as a gift of the gods,
• That wars are waged on behalf of the gods…
A more accurate analogy, however, is that the God Lie is not so much a single mountain of lies as multiple, mountain ranges of lies. Each organized religion (Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.) is a more-or-less-isolated mountain range of lies, but they all rest on the bedrock lie that gods exist.

In prior posts, I explored various peaks in at least one mountain range of clerical lies, specifically, those in Judaism. To begin the exploration, I tried to expose some of the lies contained in the first part of the Old Testament (OT). In turn, many of those lies were repeated from earlier cultures (particularly in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Persia) and, in turn, the same lies are repeated in Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc. The lies include the following (from the list given above):
• That gods exist…
• That mistakes are ‘sins’ against the gods,
• That sins offend and are punished by the gods,
• That clerics can forgive sins on behalf of the gods…
• That prayers have power to persuade the gods,
• That tithes are collected on behalf of the gods,
• That “oracles” and “prophets” speak for the gods,
• That “truth” is told about prophets and gods,
• That a “race” of people was chosen by the gods…
Next, in the preceding seven posts of this series, I explored what I call the Law Lie (a common formation in any religion’s mountain range of lies), namely (again from the first list above), the lies:
• That morality is defined by the gods,
• That customs are created by the gods,
• That justice is the jurisdiction of the gods,
• That judges are judged by the gods,
• That oaths are binding when sworn to the gods,
• That covenants can be established with the gods,
• That leaders are chosen by the gods,
• That laws are dictated by the gods,
• That order is ordained by the gods…
Now, for this and the remaining posts in this series, my goal is to at least partially address all the remaining lies in the first list given above, which collectively I’ll call “Clerical Quackery”:
• That people have immortal souls imbued by the gods,
• That the dead are ruled by the gods,
• That people have souls, which are judged by the gods,
• That stars and their constellations are signs from the gods,
• That movements of stars tell stories of gods,
• That dreams contain messages from the gods,
• That magic displays the mystery of the gods,
• That mysteries conceal the secrets of the gods,
• That sacrifices are needed to placate the gods,
• That rituals reveal knowledge of the gods…
• That clerics are in contact with the gods,
• That clerics exercise authority on behalf of the gods,
• That clerics are spokesmen for the gods,
• That clerics preach the wills of the gods,
• That clerical “knowledge” is direct from the gods,
• That clerical hierarchies are established by the gods,
• That rather than serving themselves, the clerics serve the gods,
• That paying the clerics placates the gods…
• That leaders rule by the grace of the gods,
• That kingdoms are established by the gods,
• That the fate of societies is controlled by the gods,
• That human rights are endowed by the gods,
• That people should put their trust in the gods,
• That believers gain grace as a gift of the gods,
• That wars are waged on behalf of the gods…
For this post, in particular, my goal is to provide at least a little evidence exposing a part of the first lie in the list immediately above, a lie that I’ll abbreviate to “The Life-after-Death Lie”.

In an earlier post in this series, I began to explore the origin of the Life-after-Death Lie by examining the source of the lies
• That gods exist,
• That people have immortal souls imbued by the gods…
Readers of that post might remember the suggestions (especially from the tremendous, online, 1921 book by the ex-Catholic priest Joseph McCabe entitled The Story of Religious Controversy):
1) That tens of thousands of years ago, primitive people seem to have developed ideas about souls, spirits, and gods from their observations of their shadows and their images (e.g., in pools of water) and from trying to understand their dreams, which in turn led to ideas of life after death (at least as “spirits”),

2) That people’s memories of their parents, grandparents, and tribal leaders probably led people to assume that their ancestors’ spirits were still present (which led to deification or “apotheosis” of ancestors and of especially powerful, deceased tribal leaders),

3) That the idea of spirits in everything (animism) eventually developed, led by tribal shamans (which in turn led to various priesthoods), and

4) That the especially powerful spirits (e.g., those “controlling” important natural processes, such as the winds, storms, volcanoes, etc.) were eventually identified and worshipped as gods, an identification consistent with the evolutionary lesson that taught people (and other animals) the survival value in trying to identify causes of all effects, a lesson that’s now apparently “hard-wired” in our brains.
From available myths, archeological data, and written records, it’s clear that by 3000 BCE the Life-after-Death Lie (i.e., originally, the mistaken, oxymoronic idea of “life after death”) was accepted as “true” in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India. Subsequently, the Life-after-Death Lie was incorporated into the foundations of Zoroastrianism (in Persia), some sects of Judaism (specifically, those that incorporated Zoroaster’s ideas), and all of Christianity, Islam, and similar con games such as Mormonism. Especially in Ancient Egypt and India, the resulting cacophonies of clerical rituals and the associated kaleidoscopes of gods developed in association with the Life-after-Death Lie must have been – and still are! – mind boggling. In these posts, I don’t plan to delve into the full pantheon of Egyptian (or Indian or Greek or Roman!) gods, but I’ll try to demonstrate the value in reviewing at least a little of the myth of the “holy trinity” of Egyptian gods, consisting of Osiris, his wife Isis, and their son Horus (“Horus the Younger”).

This “holy trinity” of Osiris, Isis, and Horus continued to be worshiped by many followers until about 400 CE. Probably such worship would have continued, but it was “outlawed” by Christian rulers of the Roman Empire. Yet, the Christians with their trinity of “father, son, and the holy ghost” didn’t really obliterate the earlier trinity of Osiris, Horus, and Isis, in part because the Christian “holy ghost” was commonly depicted as a bird (which was the symbol that the Ancient Egyptians commonly used to depict Isis) and also because many of the pictures and statues of the “virgin” Mary with baby Jesus [or “the Madonna (= mea Domina = my lady) and child”] were actually of the goddess Isis with her and Osiris’ son Horus. For an illustrative comparison, see the figure below – which, by the way, belies the claim of many Christians that at least their religion introduced reverence of mother and child.



In this post, I want to show a little about the Egyptian “holy trinity”, because details will reveal one of the most dramatic illustrations of clerical quackery that’s been thoroughly documented, namely, how the Mormon prophet (or better, “profit”!) Joseph Smith, Jr. duped his followers (who now total approximately 10 million people) into giving him even more largess (and more wives) by misrepresenting an Egyptian papyrus originally used as part of the Life-after-Death Lie promoted by ancient Egyptian clerics.

In the Egyptian creation myth (or, at least, in one of them – for there are several!), Osiris was the great-grandson of the creator god Nu (or Atum or Ra or Neb-er-tcher or Khepera!). The following is from the Papyrus of Nesi Amsu as given in the excellent, online, 1908 book by E.A. Wallis Budge entitled Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life. In the following quotation, the speaker is the alleged creator god.
I evolved the evolving of evolutions. [Who said Darwin was the first to propose the theory of evolution?! This myth is from ~5,000 years ago!] I evolved myself under the form of the evolutions of the god Khepera [or Khepri] which were evolved at the beginning of all time.

[The Ancient Egyptians imagined that Khepera pushed the Sun along. Later, he became identified with the Sun at dawn. Still later, Khepera became the same as Nefertum or Nefertem, literally “the beauty of Tem”, the rising Sun. Meanwhile, ‘kheper’ is the dung or scarab beetle, which the Ancient Egyptians thought was created from dead matter, with the word ‘kheper’ meaning “to come into being”.]

I evolved with the evolutions of the god Khepera; I evolved by the evolution of evolutions – that is to say, I developed myself from the primeval matter which I made, I developed myself out of the primeval matter. My name is Ausares (Osiris), the germ of primeval matter. [If the reader wonders how Osiris, later in the myth identified as Khepera’s great-grandson, was also Khepera, then I’d be glad to explain it – as soon as some Christian will explain how Jesus is also his father!]

I have wrought my will wholly in this earth, I have spread abroad and filled it, I have strengthened it (with) my hand. I was alone, for nothing had been brought forth; I had not then emitted from myself either Shu [the wind god; “the very old god of the cool and dry air, who separated the Earth from the sky”; his mother was the sky goddess Nut; his father was the earth-god Seb or Geb] or Tefnut [“the goddess for rain, dew, and moisture”, twin sister of Shu].

I uttered my own name, as a word of power, from my own mouth, and I straightaway evolved myself. [Recall the New Testament’s plagiarism:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (KJV, John 1, 1 or) "When all things began, the Word already was. The word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was. The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him.” (NEB, John 1, 1–3).]

I evolved myself under the form of the evolutions of the god Khepera, and I developed myself out of the primeval matter which has evolved multitudes of evolutions from the beginning of time.

Nothing existed on this earth then, and I made all things. There was none other who worked with me at that time. I performed all evolutions there by means of that divine Soul which I fashioned there, and which had remained inoperative in the watery abyss. I found no place there whereon to stand. But I was strong in my heart, and I made a foundation for myself, and I made everything which was made. I was alone. I made a foundation for my heart (or will), and I created multitudes of things which evolved themselves like unto the evolutions of the god Khepera, and their offspring came into being from the evolutions of their births.

I emitted from myself the gods Shu and Tefnut [other versions of the myth state this “emission” was his spit or his ejaculation], and from being One I became Three [the original trinity?!]; they sprang from me, and came into existence in this earth… Shu [the wind god] and Tefnut [the rain goddess] brought forth Seb [or Geb, the earth-god] and Nut [the sky goddess], and Nut brought forth Osiris [the grandson of Osiris!], Horus-khent-an-maa [Horus-the-Elder], Sut [known in Christianity as Satan and in Islam as Shaitan or Iblis], Isis, and Nephthya [or Nephthys or Nepthys] at one birth.
In reality, Osiris might have been an early ruler in Egypt (before 3000 BCE). Also, as mentioned in the previous post, his wife Isis might have ruled after his death and authored Egypt’s first laws, with the help of Osiris’ friend Thoth (who, later, was also worshipped as a god).

In any event, whatever the reality, what was recorded is a series of fantastic myths about Osiris, Isis, Horus, and others – myths almost as fantastic as the myths in the current “holy books” and “sacred scripture” polluting our planet! In particular, the Greek biographer and philosopher Plutarch (c.46 – c.120 CE) provided the following summary of the Osiris-Isis-Horus myth, copied here from Budge’s book (referenced above). I’ve also added some comments in brackets.

In addition, I want to add a more general comment, especially directed to any Christian, Muslim, or Mormon reader who might question, “Why do I want to read another old Egyptian myth?” To such a reader, I'd want to respond: “This myth was recorded about 2,000 years ago (by Plutarch), at the same time that the New Testament (NT) was being written (mostly by other Greeks), it describes another myth that had major influences on the stories told in the NT, and it tells a story that’s more than twice as old as the oldest story in the NT!"

Plutarch’s description follows, in which I’ve used Budge’s footnotes to provide [in brackets] the Egyptian names of the gods for whom Plutarch gave the corresponding Greek names (names that will be useful in later posts). If readers desire to read a version of the myth whose English flows more smoothly, a good one is available here.
Rhea [i.e., the Greek name of the Egyptian sky-goddess Nut, sister-wife of Geb, the earth-god], say they, having accompanied Saturn [i.e., the earth-god Geb (or Keb or Seb)] by stealth, was discovered [presumably having an affair with Geb] by the Sun [Ra], who hereupon denounced a curse upon her, “that she should not be delivered [i.e., give birth] in any month or year.” Mercury [the Greek’s “messenger of the gods”, known in Egypt as Thoth (or Tehuti), the advisor and scribe of the gods], however, being likewise in love with the same goddess, in recompense of the favors which he had received from her [Nut seems to have had sex with many gods!], plays at tables [i.e., games of chance] with the Moon, and wins from her [the Moon] the seventieth part of each of her illuminations [“causing” the Moon’s diminished illumination!]; these several parts, making in the whole five days, he [Thoth] afterwards joined together, and added to the three hundred and sixty, of which the year formerly consisted [and which then led to an undesirable calendar], which days therefore are even yet called by the Egyptians the ‘Epact’ or ‘super-added’ [days], and observed by them as the birthdays of their gods. [In other words: although Thoth couldn’t violate Ra’s order (that Nut couldn’t give birth during any month or year), Thoth managed a “work around”: he created five new days!]

For upon the first of them [the extra five days], say they, was OSIRIS born, just at whose entrance into the world a voice was heard, saying, “The lord of all the earth is born [similar to proclamations made about Jesus].” There are some indeed who relate this circumstance in a different manner, as that a certain person, named Pamyles, as he was fetching water from the temple of Jupiter [Horus-the-Elder] at Thebes, heard a voice commanding him to proclaim aloud that “the good and great king Osiris was then born”; and that for this reason Saturn [Geb] committed the education of the child to him, and that in memory of this event the Pamylia were afterwards instituted, a festival much resembling the Phalliphoria or Priapeia of the Greeks.

Upon the second of these days was AROUERIS born, whom some call [the Greek god] Apollo, and others distinguish by the name of the elder Orus [Horus-the-Elder; god of Upper Egypt, with Ra]. Upon the third [day] Typho [Set, god of the desert; the principal god of Lower Egypt; demonized by Upper Egypt, and as a result, Set became similar to the Christian’s Satan] came into the world, being born neither at the proper time, nor by the proper place, but forcing his way through a wound which he had made in his mother’s side. [The goddess] ISIS was born upon the fourth of them in the marshes of Egypt, as NEPTHYS was upon the last, whom some call Teleute and [the Greek goddess] Aphrodite, and others Nike.

Now as to the fathers of these children, the two first of them [Osiris and Horus-the-Elder] are said to have been begotten by the Sun [Ra], Isis by Mercury [Thoth], Typho [Set, Satan] and Nepthys by Saturn [Geb – revealing that Nut certainly slept around!]; and accordingly, the third of these super-added days, because it was looked upon as the birthday of Typho [Set, Satan], was regarded by the kings [especially of Upper Egypt!] as inauspicious, and consequently they neither transacted any business on it, or even suffered themselves to take any refreshment until the evening. They further add, that Typho [Set] married [his sister] Nepthys; and that Isis and Osiris, having a mutual affection, loved each other in their mother’s womb before they were born, and that from this commerce sprang Aroueris [Horus-the-Elder], whom the Egyptians likewise call the elder Orus [Horus], and the Greeks Apollo. [Notice the amazing amount of sharing of myths, both by the Greeks and the Hebrews, and which (as I’ll show in later posts) continued into Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.]

Osiris, being now become king of Egypt, applied himself towards civilizing his countrymen, by turning them from their former indigent and barbarous course of life; he moreover taught them how to cultivate and improve the fruits of the earth; he gave them a body of laws to regulate their conduct by, and instructed them in that reverence and worship which they were to pay to the gods. With the same good disposition he afterwards traveled over the rest of the world inducing the people everywhere to submit to his discipline; not indeed compelling them by force of arms, but persuading them to yield to the strength of his reasons, which were conveyed to them in the most agreeable manner, in hymns and songs, accompanied by instruments of music: from which last circumstance the Greeks conclude him to have been the same with their Dionysius or Bacchus.

During Osiris’ absence from his kingdom, Typho [Set, Satan] had no opportunity of making any innovations in the state, Isis being extremely vigilant in the government, and always upon her guard. After his [Osiris’] return, however, having first persuaded seventy-two other persons to join with him [Set] in the conspiracy, together with a certain queen of Ethiopia named Aso, who chanced to be in Egypt at that time, he [Set] contrived a proper stratagem to execute his base designs. For having privily taken the measure of Osiris’ body, he caused a chest to be made exactly of the same size with it, as beautiful as may be, and set off with all the ornaments of art. This chest he brought into his banqueting-room; where, after it had been much admired by all who were present, Typho [Set], as it were in jest, promised to give it to any one of them whose body upon trial it might be found to fit. [This would make a great movie, with Charlton Heston as Set!]

Upon this the whole company one after another, go into it; but as it did not fit any of them, last of all Osiris lays himself down in it, upon which the conspirators immediately ran together, clapped the cover upon it, and then fastened it down on the outside with nails, pouring likewise melted lead over it. After this they carried it away to the riverside, and conveyed it to the sea by the Tanaïtic mouth of the Nile; which, for this reason, is still held in the utmost abomination by the Egyptians, and never named by them but with proper marks of detestation. These things, say they, were thus executed upon the 17th [therefore, a triply unlucky] day of the month Athyr, when the sun was in Scorpio, in the 28th year of Osiris’ reign; though there are others who tell us that he was no more than 28 years old at this time.

The first who knew the accident which had befallen their king were the Pans and Satyrs who inhabited the country about Chemmis (Panopolis); and they immediately acquainting the people with the news gave the first occasion to the name Panic Terrors, which has ever since been made use of to signify any sudden affright or amazement of a multitude. As to [Osiris’ sister-wife] Isis, as soon as the report reached her she immediately cut off one of the locks of her hair [as a sign of her grief] and put on mourning apparel upon the very spot where she then happened to be, which accordingly from this accident has ever since been called Koptis, or the city of mourning, though some are of opinion that this word rather signifies deprivation.

After this she wandered everywhere about the country full of disquietude and perplexity in search of the chest, inquiring of every person she met with, even of some children whom she chanced to see, whether they knew what was become of it. Now it happened that these children had seen what Typho’s [Set’s] accomplices had done with the body, and accordingly acquainted her by what mouth of the Nile it had been conveyed into the sea. For this reason, therefore, the Egyptians look upon children as endued with a kind of faculty of divining, and in consequence of this notion are very curious in observing the accidental prattle which they have with one another whilst they are at play (especially if it be in a sacred place), forming omens and presages from it. [“Words of wisdom out of the mouths of babes.”]

Isis, during this interval, having been informed that Osiris, deceived by her sister Nepthys who was in love with him, had unwittingly united with her instead of herself [i.e., Nepthys tricked Osiris into having sex with her, pretending that she was Isis, leading to the child Anubis], as she [Isis] concluded from the melilot-garland [a wreath of clover], which he had left with her, made it her [Isis’s] business likewise to search out the child, the fruit of this unlawful commerce (for her sister, dreading the anger of her husband Typho [Set], had exposed it as soon as it was born), and accordingly, after much pains and difficulty, by means of some dogs that conducted her [Isis] to the place where it was, she found it and bred it up; so that in process of time it became her [Isis’s] constant guard and attendant, and from hence obtained the name of Anubis [the son of Osiris and Nepthys, always depicted with the head of a dog or jackal], being thought to watch and guard the gods, as dogs do mankind. [Ya gotta love this myth! It's great the way it "explains" why the Moon isn't so bright as the Sun and weaves in the friendliness of dogs and how (and why) five more days were incorporated into the 360-day year!]

At length she [Isis] receives more particular news of the chest, that it had been carried by the waves of the sea to the coast of Byblos [Budges adds the footnote that this Byblos was “not the Byblos of Syria” (or of Lebanon, which was a source of paper and after which is named the Bible) but was in the papyrus swamps of the Delta; other authors, however, suggest that it was the Byblos of Lebanon], and there gently lodged in the branches of a bush of Tamarisk, which, in a short time, had shot up into a large and beautiful tree, growing round the chest and enclosing it on every side, so that it was not to be seen; and further, that the king of the country, amazed at its unusual size, had cut the tree down, and made that part of the trunk wherein the chest was concealed, a pillar to support the roof of his house.

These things, say they, being made known to Isis in an extraordinary manner by the report of Demons [the world being full of demons, doncha know], she immediately went to Byblos; where, setting herself down by the side of a fountain, she refused to speak to anybody, excepting only to the queen’s women who chanced to be there; these indeed she saluted and caressed in the kindest manner possible, plaiting their hair for them, and transmitting into them part of that wonderfully grateful odor which issued from her own body. This raised a great desire in the queen their mistress to see the stranger who had this admirable faculty of transfusing so fragrant a smell from herself into the hair and skin of other people. She [the queen] therefore sent for her [Isis] to court, and, after a further acquaintance with her, made her nurse to one of her sons. Now the name of the king who reigned at this time at Byblos, was Meloarthus, as that of his queen was Astarte, or, according to others, Saosis, though some call her Nemanoun, which answers to the Greek name Athenais.

Isis fed the child by giving it her finger to suck instead of the breast; she likewise put him every night into the fire in order to consume his mortal part, whilst transforming herself into a swallow [at other times, Isis transforms herself into other birds], she hovered round the pillar and bemoaned her sad fate. Thus continued she to do for some time, till the queen, who stood watching her, observing the child to be all in a flame, cried out, and thereby deprived him of that immortality which would otherwise have been conferred upon him.

The Goddess [Isis] upon this, discovering herself [i.e., admitting who she was], requested that the pillar, which supported the roof, might be given her; which she accordingly took down, and then easily cutting it open, after she had taken out what she wanted [i.e., Osiris’ coffin], she wrapped up the remainder of the trunk in fine linen, and pouring perfumed oil upon it, delivered it again into the hands of the king and queen (which piece of wood is to this day preserved in the temple of Isis, and worshipped by the people of Byblos). When this was done, she threw herself upon the chest, making at the same time such a loud and terrible lamentation over it, as frightened the younger of the king’s sons, who heard her, out of his life. But the elder of them she took with, her and set sail with the chest for Egypt; and it being now about morning, the river Phaedrus sending forth a rough and sharp air, she in her anger dried up its current [i.e., Isis obviously performed some powerful magic, easily matching the stunts later claimed to be performed by Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, et al.]
I now terminate quoting Plutarch’s report, because there are at least two different versions of the Osiris-Isis-Horus myth describing subsequent events (e.g., how Isis had sex with the dead Osiris, leading to the birth of Horus-the-Younger), and Plutarch skims over both versions. But since the subsequent events are important for purposes of this post, I’ll therefore first jump to a brief description of the myth that's given at the Carnaval.com website and that mentions both possibilities for how Isis became pregnant:
Back in Egypt, Isis lay in the form of a hawk upon the dead body of Osiris and thus miraculously conceived her son Horus [the Younger]. Or she left the coffin at a place in Egypt while she went to see Horus [the Elder]. The evil Set found the body of Osiris and tore it into fourteen pieces, and scatted them. Isis painstakingly sought the parts of Osiris’s body and Isis and Horus [the Elder] put them together. As the wings of Isis fluttered over the corpse, Ra then reanimated him, and Osiris was resurrected. But, to confuse Set, Isis effected to have each part buried where she found it, which is why there were fourteen graves of Osiris in Egypt. But she could not find a penis which the fishes had swallowed, and had to make a synthetic one [out of gold] to conceive, in this version, their child Horus [the Younger]. Osiris then reigned as the king of the dead while Horus reigned on earth.
If Plutarch’s report was confusing and the above quotation too terse, then first I’d ask for even more patience from the reader: believe it or not, all this nonsense has had important ramifications, which persist to this day. To try to help the reader, what I propose to do, next, is try to eliminate (or at least acknowledge!) potential confusions, then provide a brief synopsis of the above myth, and then, try to show why “all of this nonsense” is still important, especially for Christians and Mormons.

One potential confusion arises because there are two Horuses, whom I’ve taken pains to identify as Horus-the-Elder (Osiris’ brother) and Horus-the-Younger (Osiris’ son), both of whom are usually depicted with the head of a hawk (or falcon) – or as just a falcon, alone. In the myths, it’s not always clear (at least to me!) which Horus is being described. In addition, it’s confusing (at least to me) that in some myths, Horus (which one?) is described not only as “the son of God” (i.e., the son of the deified Osiris) but also “the Sun god” (i.e., Ra). [A similar confusion occurs about Jesus, claimed to be “the son of God” but who is frequently depicted as “the Sun God”.]

Fortunately, the reader can clearly see the distinction between the two Horuses in the picture shown below (copyright Brian J. McMorrow). Thus, Horus-the-Elder is clearly on the left – and yes, I’m being facetious – although maybe Horus-the-Elder can be discerned, because apparently only he had sufficient funds to purchase a carrying case for his bowling pin – or whatever it is that’s depicted on their heads! Incidentally, the woman depicted leaving the scene at the left is Nephthys (not Isis, as can be discerned from her "head gear"), Horus-on-the-right is holding a powerful staff (just as powerful, no doubt, as the staff of Moses), but why both Horuses are holding "Christian" crosses in their left hands is far too long a story to describe in detail; suffice to say (at least for now) that the "Christian" cross predates Christianity by thousands of years.


In his book (already referenced), Budge provides the following “clarification” (in which it will be useful to notice his final sentence).
But, besides Rā, there existed in very early times a god called HORUS, whose symbol was the hawk, which, it seems, was the first living thing worshipped by the Egyptians; Horus was the Sun-god, like Rā, and in later times was confounded with Horus the son of Isis. The chief forms of Horus given in the texts are: (1) HERU-UR (Aroueris), (2) HERU-MERTI, (3) HERU-NUB, (4) HERU-KHENT-KHAT, (5) HERU-KHENT-AN-MAA, (6) HERU-KHUTI, (7) HERU-SAM-TAUI, (8) HERU-HEKENNU, (9) HERU-BEHUTET. Connected with one of the forms of Horus, originally, were the four gods of the cardinal points, or the “four, spirits of Horus,” who supported heaven at its four corners; their names were HAPI, TUAMUTEE, AMSET, and QEBHSENNUF, and they represented the north, east, south, and west respectively. The intestines of the dead were embalmed and placed in four jars, each being under the protection of one of these four gods.
For readers who feel that Budge’s explanation didn’t help, there are three obvious ways to deal with resulting confusions: 1) Ignore them, call whoever it is just “Horus”, and go-with-the-flow of the story, 2) Assume that Horus-the-Younger was one-and-the-same as Horus-the-Elder (just as Jesus was allegedly one-and-the-same as God-the-father), and 3) Have a Christian explain #2 to you!

With that straightened out [ :)> I’ll now turn to a synopsis of the Osiris-Isis-Horus myth (which is given at hundreds of websites). As described by Plutarch, Osiris was born of the Earth god Set and the sky goddess Nut, who in turn were created by the original god, who was also the Sun-god Ra at dawn. Importantly for the story, Osiris had two brothers, Horus (the elder) and Seth (or Set), and two sisters, his future wife Isis (with whom he had sex while they were still in Nut's womb – talk about intense incest!) and Seth’s future wife Nephthys (with whom he also had sex – but presumably not while still in Nut's womb).

There are a number of different stories about how animosity developed between the two brothers Osiris and Seth, an animosity similar to the one between the OT-brothers Cain and Abel (which Hebrew storytellers seem to have used to reflect the animosity between farmers and shepherds). The Egyptian myth-makers might have used Osiris and Seth (or Set, or Sut, pronounced “soot”, as in “black as soot”) to reflect the fundamental “animosity” between day and night, between good and evil, between the Egyptians and Ethiopians, or between Upper- and Lower-Egypt before they were united.

As for how the animosity allegedly developed, at least one of the myths discounts that Seth was jealous of Osiris’ accomplishments and, instead, attributes the rift to the behavior of their sister Nephthys, Seth’s wife. [As the mystic Pope John Paul II reportedly said in 1985 to Dr. Nafis Sadik, now Special Adviser to the UN Secretary General: “Don’t you think that the irresponsible behavior of men is caused by women?”!] In the Egyptian myth, when Nephthys found herself childless by the impotent Seth, she seduced Osiris (pretending to be Isis), leading to the child Anubis, who grew to become the jackal-headed god in charge of embalming. Upon learning about this double betrayal by his brother Osiris and sister-wife Nephthys, Seth seethed.

As illustrated by the above quotation from Plutarch, how Seth managed to murder his brother Osiris is a long and complicated story. The myth is made longer and more complicated by the story of how Osiris’ sister-wife Isis tracked down the coffin of her husband-brother buried in “the tree of life” in the town of Byblos. It then becomes even more complicated with Seth interfering again (cutting Osiris’ corpse into 14 pieces, and scattering the pieces over Egypt), Isis seeking, finding, and with the help of her sister Nephthys and Nephthys’ son Anubis, re-assembling the pieces (save for one piece, Osiris’ penis, which was eaten by a fish or a crocodile or crab – depending which myth one “believes”).

Although, thereby, Osiris was in pretty bad shape (dead and sans penis) his sister-wife Isis (who was the goddess not only of love but also of magic) made him whole again (with a make-shift penis), managed to have sex with the revived Osiris (eventually leading to the child Horus), and with the help of his and Nephthys’ son Anubis, Osiris went on to become the god of the underworld, judging the dead. Subsequently, Isis went on to give birth to Horus (on December 25, in a stable), who when he reached manhood, set out to kill his “wicked uncle” Set, lost at an eye in the process, became Egypt’s ruler, and went on to become “guardian” of all future Egyptian leaders as the god Horus.

Even today, Horus’ eye is quite famous, “protected by the eye of Horus”. It appears, for example, on the American one-dollar bill. How Horus’ eye ended up on U.S. currency is another complicated story (dealing with the Freemasons), some of which I plan to examine in a later post dealing with clerical rituals. If readers care to check that Horus’ eye is indeed on the American one-dollar bill, they’ll find it atop the depicted pyramid, to the left of the phrase “In God We Trust”. As for which god it’s thereby claimed that American’s trust, the picture speaks for itself!

In fact , given the old Chinese proverb that “a picture is worth more than ten thousand words”, it will have been useful (for later in this post, dealing with “the Mormon connection”) to illustrate how the dead Osiris with his artificial penis managed to impregnate Isis. Fortunately for readers who found the above synopsis to be either too confusing or two terse, many illustrations of the story are available, e.g., as vignettes on many papyri. As a case in point, the first figure below (from Budge’s book) shows Horus-the-Elder (hawk headed) and Anibus (jackal headed) “watching over the impregnation of Isis [in the form of a bird, possibly a hawk] by the dead Osiris.”


In the next figure (copied from the more risqué website “Sex and Ancient Egypt”) Osiris’ erect penis (his phallus) is displayed more prominently, with Horus-the-Elder and Isis’s sister, Nephthys, urging (?) them on. Not incidentally, Nephthys is sometimes depicted as (another) falcon or as a woman with falcon wings.


To this day, the affair is depicted on various temple walls in Egypt, as shown in photographs at many websites. For example, the first photograph shown below was taken at the Temple of Seti (or Sethos) I at Abydos, constructed during the time period from about 1290 to 1250 BCE; notice that it’s probably the same scene as is depicted, above, from Budge. The second photograph was taken at the Temple at Dendara, built during the first century BCE; notice that it seems to be the same scene as is depicted in the second sketch, above.





The reason why so many illustrations of the impregnation of Isis by Osiris are available is because the myth became a part of Egyptian rituals associated with burying their dead, preparing them to be judged by the god Osiris in their “afterlife”. Unfortunately, many of the associated papyri are damaged, such as the one shown below, commonly identified as the Joseph Smith Papyrus – Vignette #1. It’s called a ‘vignette’, since obviously it’s just a small scene within a larger, textual document. In this scene, notice the four “jars” beneath the bier (as mentioned in the above quotation from Budge) and also, notice that someone has unfortunately sketched in some lines behind the rips of the papyrus.


It might be useful to provide a brief introduction to Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805–44) and a summary of how the above papyrus came to be associated with him. Smith is described by Mormons as the (first) “prophet and seer” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons), he was a convicted “money digger” (who conned people out of money by using a “magic stone” that he claimed could identify buried treasures), and he finally did “hit pay dirt” by claiming that an angel had told him where to find “a golden bible”, written in “reformed Egyptian” (even though no such language exists), which he then claimed he translated (apparently by using the same “magic stone”). In 1830, Smith published the resulting Book of Mormon, which was probably (with probability of about 70%) a plagiarized production by the former Baptist priest Sidney Rigdon, who subsequently became “high priest” of Mormonism. In 1835, a traveling antiquities dealer sold Smith what’s now called “The Joseph Smith Papyrus”. The price tag for it plus some mummies was $2,500, i.e., more than $50,000 of today’s dollars! For over a century, this papyrus was thought to be lost (possibly in the Chicago fire), but in 1966 it was found at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art.

When Smith set himself the task of “translating” his purchased papyrus (which certainly would have been a daunting task, since he knew nothing about Egyptian hieroglyphics, Egyptian religion, or anything Egyptian!), one of his first undertakings was to complete the vignette shown only partially on the above ripped papyrus. The parts torn from the papyrus seem to “conveniently” avoid showing that the “man” on the left (Horus-the-Elder) had the head of hawk and that Osiris was holding his erect penis. The “completed” vignette (i.e., with extrapolations for the torn pieces), as commissioned by Joseph Smith, is posted at “the official website” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. There, it’s identified as “Facsimile No. 1”; it’s reproduced below; it’s now part of the Mormon’s Book of Abraham, which is one of the “holy scriptures” of Mormonism.


Immediately underneath “Facsimile #1” at the LDS website is the official EXPLANATION of each “figure” (see the items labeled 1 through 12 in the above). This “explanation” was written by Smith, himself; to it I’ve added some notes in brackets:
Fig. 1. [The bird on the right] The Angel of the Lord.
Fig. 2. Abraham fastened upon an altar [although with one foot and two hands up, it’s hard to see how he’s “fastened”!]
Fig. 3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah [the black person with a white head, complete with knife in his hand] attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice
Fig. 4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh. [Smith apparently decided that the four jars under the bier were four “gods” in the background.]
Fig. 5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.
Fig. 6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.
Fig. 7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.
Fig. 8. The idolatrous god of Korash.
Fig. 9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh. [The crocodile!]
Fig. 10. Abraham in Egypt.
Fig. 11. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.
Fig. 12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.
And for readers who just finished reading the profit Joe’s “explanation” and responded with something similar to “Hello?”, then I can assure them that the above “explanation” is as given by Smith: according to him, the essence of the vignette is not about Osiris having sex with Isis but a depiction of a incident in the life of the patriarch of all the Abrahamic religions, i.e., father Abraham himself! As readers have probably concluded, there’s no doubt that Smith’s “explanation” is pure, unadulterated balderdash – similar to what might be concocted by any imaginative six-year old.

Smith’s interpretations did, however, serve a purpose. According to Smith, one of the purchased papyri was written by the patriarch of the Abrahamic religions and another by the biblical Joseph when he was in Egypt. Smith wrote:
… I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. – a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.
In 1842, Smith revealed his “translation” to the world (at least, his “translation” of the “writings of Abraham”) with the following introduction, a part of the first of a series of articles in the Mormon’s magazine Times and Seasons:
A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus.
In the 1878 edition of this alleged “Book of Abraham”, the LDS Church deleted the words “purporting to be”, and in 1890, the Church “officially recognized [the Book of Abraham] as scripture”.

This “sacred scripture” of the LDS Church contains the idea, essential to the Mormon sham, that the priesthood wasn’t restricted to the Levites, claiming that Abraham held the Priesthood of God. As a consequence, Smith’s status as a “prophet and seer” and Rigdon’s as the high priest of Mormonism were validated by Abraham, himself – at least according to Smith’s Book of Abraham. The book also “explained” why black people couldn't hold the priesthood, that there are many gods, that God lived near the star or planet Kolob, and similar nonsense, including the unsurprising “revelation” that God approves of lying “when a righteous purpose is served” – such as protecting the Mormon priesthood and increasing the Church’s cash flow!

Meanwhile, as for what the undamaged “Joseph Smith Papyrus #1” actually showed, “the jury is still out.” On the one hand, it may be that this papyrus showed a picture of the “resurrection” of the dead person for whom the papyrus was created (namely, as shown below, the Egyptian priest Hôr, whose mother’s name was Taikhibit); if so, I’d suspect that Hôr wasn’t shown with an erect penis. On the other hand, it may be that whoever created this papyrus included (just as an illustration) the resurrection of Osiris, in which case, depending on various inclinations, Osiris may or may not have been shown with an erection. The attempt to complete the picture by Charles Larson, guided by the advice of Egyptologists and printed in his 1992, now-online book By His Own Hands Upon Papyrus, is shown below.


If I were required to put some money on it, I’d bet at least a small amount that the original vignette did show Osiris with an erection – solely because, to me, the rip in the papyrus (see the photograph shown earlier) seems too “convenient”, managing to just obliterate Osiris’ “personal parts”. That is, I wouldn’t be surprised if the relevant portion of the original papyrus was purposefully destroyed, either by its purveyor (Michael Chandler), so he wouldn’t be charged by “the authorities” with peddling “pornography” (as defined by the distorted views of sexuality with which Christianity has polluted the western world, courtesy the insane “Saint” Paul), or was destroyed by “profit” Joe, because he probably would have found it rather difficult to “explain” why Abraham was having an erection while he was being sacrificed!

But setting aside all Smith’s silliness and towards providing a little information about the Ancient-Egyptian silliness dealing with “life after death”, I now want to provide at least a few details to show what “the Joseph Smith Papyri” are “all about”. Certainly they have nothing whatsoever to do with what Smith claimed: definitely the subject papyrus wasn’t written by the Jewish patriarch Abraham (who, if he ever lived, lived more than a thousand years before the Joseph-Smith papyrus was created). Before the papyrus was “re-discovered” (in 1966), Egyptologists could comment only on Smith’s “translation” based on his “facsimiles”. For example, the following are some responses by Egyptologists to a 1912 request for their opinions from Franklin S. Spalding (Episcopal Bishop of Utah) and published in his 1912 book Joseph Smith Jr., As a Translator:
Dr. Arthur Mace, Assistant Curator for the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York explained: “The Book of Abraham, it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication… Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end… five minutes study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture.”

Dr. A. H. Sayce from Oxford, England concurred: “It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.”

Dr. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote: “They are copies of Egyptian subjects of which I have seen dozens of examples. They are centuries later than Abraham. The attempts to guess a meaning for them in the professed explanations are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations.”

Dr. James H. Breasted of the Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago, declared: “It will be seen, then, that if Joseph Smith could read ancient Egyptian writing, his ability to do so had no connection with the decipherment of hieroglyphics by European scholars…”
Later, in 1965, a microfiche of Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (which he allegedly used to translate the papyri) was “leaked” from a Mormon vault to the outside world. About it, Dr. I.E. Edwards, Head of the Egyptian Antiquities Department of the British Museum wrote:
…[It’s] largely a piece of imagination and lacking in any kind of scientific value…[it reminded me of] the writings of psychic practitioners which are sometimes sent to me.
When the original papyri were found in 1966, they finally could be studied in detail. Copies were published in the February 1968 issues of the Mormon magazine The Improvement Era. Below are quotations by two competent Egyptologists, quoted from a website created by James David. To these quotations I’ve added a few notes in brackets.
Statements made by Richard A. Parker, Wilbour Professor of Egyptology and Chairman of the Department of Egyptology at Brown University in the Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 3, no. 2, Summer 1968, p. 86:

This [Facsimile #1] is a well-known scene from the Osiris mysteries, with Anubis, the jackal-headed god [the son of Nephthys and Osiris] on the left ministering to the dead Osiris on the bier. The penciled (?) restoration is incorrect. Anubis should be jackal-headed. The left arm of Osiris is in reality lying at his side under him. [Actually, though, that statement doesn’t conform to the quotation that follows.] The apparent upper hand is part of the wing of a second bird, which is hovering over the erect phallus of Osiris (now broken away). The second bird is Isis, and she is magically impregnated by the dead Osiris and then later gives birth to Horus who avenges his father and takes over his inheritance. The complete bird [on the right, which Joseph Smith labeled as Fig. 1 and “explained” was “The Angel of the Lord”)] represents Nephthys, sister to Osiris and Isis. [Although the next quotation, below, suggests that this second bird is the soul (or “ba”) of Osiris, while other authors suggest that it represents the soul of whoever is on the “couch”]. Beneath the bier are the four canopic jars with heads representative of the four sons of Horus, human-headed Imseti, baboon-headed Hapy, jackal-headed Duamutef, and falcon-headed Kebehsenuf…

Statements made by Klaus Baer, Associate Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute in the journal Dialogue… Autumn 1968, pp. 118-119:

The vignette on P. JS I [i.e., Papyrus Joseph Smith #1] is unusual, but parallels exist on the walls of the Ptolemaic temple of Egypt, the closest being the scenes in the Osiris chapels on the roof of the Temple of Dendera. [Shown earlier in this post.] The vignette shows the resurrection of Osiris… and the conception of Horus. Osiris (2) [This “2” seems to correspond to Smith’s numbering of the twelve “figures”] is represented as a man on a lion-couch (4) attended by Anubis (3), the jackal-headed god who embalmed the dead and thereby assured their resurrection and existence in the hereafter. Below the couch are the canopic jars for the embalmed internal organs. The lids are the four sons of Horus, from the left to right Imset (8), Hapi (7), Qebeh-senuwef (6), and Duwa-mutef (5), who protect the liver, lungs, intestines, and stomach, respectively. At the head of the couch is a small offering stand (10) with a jug and some flowers on it and two larger vases on the ground beside it. The ba [soul] of Osiris (1) is hovering above his head.

The versions of [the] Osiris myth differ in telling how Seth disposed of Osiris after murdering him, but he was commonly believed to have cut Osiris into small pieces, which he scattered into the Nile, leaving Isis the task of fishing out and assembling the parts of her brother and husband so that he could be resurrected and beget Horus. In this she was helped by Horus [presumably Horus-the-Elder] in the shape of a crocodile, who is represented in the water (the zigzags) below the vignette (9). Below that is a decorative pattern derived from the niched facade of a protohistoric Egyptian palace.

There are some problems about restoring the missing parts of the body of Osiris. He was almost certainly represented as ithyphallic [i.e., having an erect penis] ready to beget Horus [-the-Younger], as in many of the other scenes at Dendera. I know of no representations of Osiris on a couch with both hands in front of his face. One would expect only one hand in front of his face, while the other was either shown below the body (impossible in P. JS I) or grasping the phallus. It the latter case it would be hard to avoid the suggestion of Professor Richard A. Parker that what looks like the upper hand of Osiris is actually the wingtip of a representation of Isis as a falcon hovering in the act of copulation.
As for the contents of the text surrounding the vignette, in 2003 the hieroglyphics (or “hieratic script, a cursive adaptation of hieroglyphic writing”) were translated by Egyptologist Robert K. Ritner of the University of Chicago. The following is a little of Ritner’s translation of the papyrus as given in his paper entitled “The Breathing Permit of Hôr” Among the Joseph Smith Papyri, which was published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 162–180, 2003) and his available here.
The true content of this papyrus concerns only the afterlife of the deceased Egyptian priest Hor [also apparently called “Osiris-Hor”]. “Books of Breathings,” such as this Joseph Smith example, are late funerary compositions derived from the traditional “Book of the Dead.” Like the “Book of the Dead,” the sole purpose of the later texts is to ensure the blessed afterlife of the deceased individual, who is elevated to divine status by judgment at the court of Osiris and is thereby guaranteed powers of rejuvenation. These powers, including mobility, sight, speech, hearing, and access to food offerings, are summarized in the term snsn, or “breathing,” which refers to the Egyptian expression t·w n ºnh “breath of life,” the fundamental characteristic that distinguishes the living. The title sº.t n snsn, literally, “Document of (or ‘for’) Breathing” employs the term for an official document or letter (sº.t), so that these “books” serve as formal “permits”—or perhaps more accurately “passports”—to the world of the gods…

Here follows the transliteration and translation of Hor’s papyrus. Broken sections are indicated by { }. For the sake of simplicity, optional diacritics have been dropped (Hor, not Hôr). Following proper Egyptological convention, Egyptian names are rendered in Egyptian format, not Greek approximations (marred by alphabetic deficiencies and irrelevant terminations)…

The Breathing Document opens with a vignette depicting the resurrection of the Osiris Hor on the customary lion-headed funerary couch, attended by the jackal-headed Anubis and (probably) the winged Isis, while the human headed ba-spirit of Hor hovers above his head…

Address to Hor…

{Osiris, the god’s father}, prophet of Amon-Re, King of the Gods, prophet of Min who slaughters his enemies, prophet of Khonsu, the {one who exercises} authority in Thebes, {. . .} Hor, the justified, son of the similarly titled overseer of secrets and purifier of the god, Osorwer, the justified, born by the {housewife and sistrum-player of } {Amon}-Re, Taikhibit, the justified!

May your ba-spirit live among them, and may you be buried on the west {of Thebes}.

{O Anubis {?}…} justification {?}. {May you give to him} a good and splendid burial on the west of Thebes as on the mountains of Ma{nu} {?}…

{Osiris shall be towed in}to the great lake of Khonsu… and likewise {the Osiris Hôr, the justified,} born of Taikhibit, the justified,… after his two arms have been {placed} at his heart, while… the Breathing Document, being what… is written on its interior and exterior, shall be wrapped in royal linen and placed (under) his left arm in the midst of his heart. The remainder of his… wrappings shall be made over it. As for the one for whom this book is made… he thus breathes like the ba-spirit{s} of the gods, forever and… ever.
For readers who desire more complete information about the entire ruse perpetrated by Smith, I’d recommend: 1) the (~1 hr) youtube video entitled The Lost Book of Abraham, 2) the report by Jerald and Sandra Tanner entitled “Solving the Mystery of the Joseph Smith Papyri”, and 3) the on-line book by Charles Larson entitled By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look At The Joseph Smith Papyri.

Those who choose to read the second and third references (listed in the previous sentence) may become discouraged, however, to find that the authors are pursuing (at least) two objectives: not only to demonstrate why the Book of Abraham is a “farrago of nonsense from beginning to end” but also to promote “the one true religion, Christianity.” For example, everything written at the Tanner website is devoted to the stated purpose:
… to document problems with the claims of Mormonism and compare LDS doctrines with Christianity.
Similarly, in the final chapter of his book By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus… Larson (with Floyd McElveen) wrote (along with multiple paragraphs of similar nonsense):
Dear reader, by a simple prayer of faith you can make the decision today to receive God’s free offer of salvation. Recognizing your own helplessness and the precious provision of Jesus on the cross, you only need to confess your sin and ask God to forgive you and save you through the shed blood of Jesus Christ…
It’s a pity that these alleged Christians apparently paid no attention to the teachings of their “savior” as given at Matthew 7, 5:
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye…
That is, in reality, all of it (all of Smith’s “translations”, all of Mormonism, all of Islam, all of Christianity, all of Judaism, all of Zoroastrianism, all of Hinduism, all of all organized religions, including the religions of all ancient peoples) was and still is a monstrous farrago of supernatural nonsense – or more bluntly, as I’ll try to continue to show in subsequent posts, they’re all mountain ranges of monstrous lies.

The most certain knowledge that we have been able to gain, even more certain than the knowledge that we exist, is that there are no gods and there never were any. Religious people have simply been chasing their own shadows, preening in their own images, and daydreaming – not only about the existence of gods but also about the possibility that they’d live forever. It’s time (in fact, it’s way past time) that everyone woke up to the naked knowledge not only that there are no gods (and never were any) but also that, after we die, we’re dead. That realization, however, needn’t be cause for concern, for as Epicurus (341–270 BCE) wrote:
[It follows that] death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consist in sensation, but death is deprivation of sensation. And therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the craving for immortality. For there is nothing terrible in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living… [Death should not] concern either the living or the dead, since for the former it is not, and the latter are no more.
www.zenofzero.net

2009/06/08

The Law Lie 6 – Law & Order – 2


My goal for this post is to continue to try to show at least a little of the history of the Law Lie, itself a part of the God Lie. In prior posts, the parts of the Law Lie addressed (at least partially) include the lies:

• That morality is defined by the gods,
• That justice is the jurisdiction of the gods,
• That judges are judged by the gods,
• That customs were created by the gods,
• That oaths are binding when sworn to the gods,
• That covenants can be established with the gods,
• That leaders are chosen by the gods,
• That laws are dictated by the gods,
• That order is ordained by the gods…

As a continuation of the previous post, in this post I’ll to try to outline differences and similarities between civil laws of the Hebrews, as described in the Old Testament (OT), and laws adopted by earlier groups.

I can provide only an “outline” of similarities in the civil laws; books have been written on the subject. They show that, generally, the civil laws contained in the OT are similar to those in the earlier laws codes of the Assyrians, Hittites, Babylonians, Akkadians, and Sumerians – although in some cases (to be indicated) the Hebrew laws were even more barbaric than laws established earlier. For reasons mentioned in the previous post, I’ll emphasize civil laws that contributed to what I described as the “hateful-mother/ despondent-daughter syndrome” and that illustrate my third claim (in the previous post), namely, that the OT laws contain no internal evidence that they were dictated by some god who was omnipotent and omniscient; instead, the laws suggest that they were dictated by someone who, today and by Western standards, would be judged as incompetent and obscene.

In this post, I’ll avoid comparisons of religious laws, even though the majority of the laws in the OT deal with religious rites. That OT laws primarily deal with religious matters is consistent with the almost-certain fact that the OT laws were written by priests, whom I’ve been identifying in these posts as Ezra and Co-Conspirators (Ezra & C-C). I include among the co-conspirators Ezra’s great grandfather, the high priest Hilkiah, who claimed that he had found the “Laws of Moses” after they had been “mysteriously” misplaced for many centuries!

There are several reasons why I plan to avoid emphasizing the OT’s religious laws. One reason is that I plan to address at least some aspects of such laws in a later post dealing with “religious rituals”, emphasizing the rituals practiced in Ancient Egypt (many of which the Hebrew priests probably copied). Another reason – a major reason – is simply that the OT’s religious laws and rituals are so astoundingly stupid! As an example, consider the following law, which fills the whole of Leviticus 1 (copied, here, from the digitized NET version of the Bible, as will be all biblical quotations in this post, unless noted otherwise).
Then the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the Meeting Tent: “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘When someone among you presents an offering to the Lord, you must present your offering from the domesticated animals, either from the herd or from the flock. If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd he must present it as a flawless male; he must present it at the entrance of the Meeting Tent for its acceptance before the Lord. He must lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. Then the one presenting the offering must slaughter the bull before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, must present the blood and splash the blood against the sides of the altar which is at the entrance of the Meeting Tent. Next, the one presenting the offering must skin the burnt offering and cut it into parts, and the sons of Aaron, the priest, must put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. Then the sons of Aaron, the priests, must arrange the parts with the head and the suet on the wood that is in the fire on the altar. Finally, the one presenting the offering must wash its entrails and its legs in water and the priest must offer all of it up in smoke on the altar – it is a burnt offering, a gift of a soothing aroma to the Lord.

‘If his offering is from the flock for a burnt offering – from the sheep or the goats – he must present a flawless male, and must slaughter it on the north side of the altar before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, will splash its blood against the altar’s sides. Next, the one presenting the offering must cut it into parts, with its head and its suet, and the priest must arrange them on the wood which is in the fire, on the altar. Then the one presenting the offering must wash the entrails and the legs in water, and the priest must present all of it and offer it up in smoke on the altar – it is a burnt offering, a gift of a soothing aroma to the Lord.

‘If his offering to the Lord is a burnt offering from the birds, he must present his offering from the turtledoves or from the young pigeons. The priest must present it at the altar, pinch off its head and offer the head up in smoke on the altar, and its blood must be drained out against the side of the altar. Then the priest must remove its entrails by cutting off its tail feathers, and throw them to the east side of the altar into the place of fatty ashes, and tear it open by its wings without dividing it into two parts. Finally, the priest must offer it up in smoke on the altar on the wood which is in the fire – it is a burnt offering, a gift of a soothing aroma to the Lord’.”
Did you really want to read all that crap? Can you imagine the density of flies around that altar, splattered with blood?!

The above is only the first of such stupid laws in Leviticus. In sum, it would be far too onerous to provide details about the OT’s religious laws: there are literally hundreds of such picayunish laws, specifying everything from the priests’ dietary desires to their clothing, let alone the construction of altars, tabernacles, and whatever. Meanwhile, all such laws distract from the real horror perpetrated by the priests, which though specified in multiple ways, amounts to: we are to be the only priests; representatives of all other religions and apostates from ours are to be killed – as are all who challenge our authority. The same continues in Islam today.

Still another reason for my not comparing religious laws of different groups is because comparable information doesn't seem to be available. To begin to see what I mean, consider the following religious laws contained in the Hittite law code. In total there are five such laws – not five hundred; five! I’ve copied these laws from the online, 1937 book by George Barton entitled Archaeology and the Bible. The Hittite laws were probably written sometime in the period between about 1650 and 1500 BCE (more than a thousand years before Ezra & C-C put the finishing touches on how to splatter Yahweh’s altar with blood!) and continued to be enforced (with few modifications) during most of the ~500-year Hittite (or Nesilim) Empire, which was centered in modern-day Turkey (the Anatolian peninsula).
If anyone goes to visit a divinity and has made him angry, he should offer as a sacrifice flour and wine.

Then he shall give 1 sheep, 10 loaves, and 1 jug of beer. Then afterward he shall offer a sacrifice for his house that the year may come around fortunately…

If anyone sows seed upon seed, they shall put him by the side of the plough and harness a pair of oxen, and place this one over against those and them over against them, and the man shall die and the oxen shall die, and he who had first sown the field shall take it. Formerly they did thus. Now 1 sheep shall be substituted for the man, 2 sheep shall be substituted for the oxen; he shall give 30 loaves, 3 jugs of beer; this is a purificatory sacrifice, and he who first sowed the field shall cultivate it.

[Note that the above Hittite law is similar to the OT’s law at Leviticus 19, 19 (and at Deuteronomy 22, 9): “You must not allow two different kinds of your animals to breed, you must not sow your field with two different kinds of seed, and you must not wear a garment made of two different kinds of fabric.”]

If anyone will establish the boundary of a field, he shall bring an offering: the owner of the field shall mark off 1 gipeshar and take it. He who would establish the boundary shall give 1 sheep, 10 loaves, 1 jug of beer; then afterward the field is sacrosanct.

If anyone acquires a field and he establishes the boundary, he shall take flour and throw it toward the sun-goddess and say: “Thou has planted my plants in the ground!” Then he shall say: “Sun-goddess and Teshub, be not angry!”
To be blunt, the sole insight that I gained from reading the religious laws in the OT is to get a clearer look at the underbelly of the religious beast. Thereby, in a way, the ancient Jewish priests deserve some credit, because (as far as I know) in no earlier law codes are the religious laws spelled out in such atrocious detail, e.g., specifications of the “sin offerings” to pay the parasitic priests.

A little of the clerical leeching that occurred in the ancient Sumerian city of Lagash in about 2350 BCE can be seen in Urukagina's "praise poem", quoted in an earlier post in this series. Here, I'll just re-post selected lines, showing how "the world's first [political] revolution", led by Urukagina, also constrained the clerics:
The incantation-priest measured out the barley rent (to his own advantage)…

In the garden of a humble person a priest could cut a tree or carry away its fruit. When a dead man was placed in the tomb, it was necessary to deliver in his name seven jars of beer and 420 loaves of bread… uh-mush priest received one-half gur {about fourteen gallons} of barley, one garment, one turban, and one bed… priest’s assistant received one-fourth gur of barley…

Everywhere from border to border there were the priest-judges {mash-kim}… Such were the practices of former days.

When the god Ningirsu, the warrior of the god Enlil, granted the lugal-ship [leadership or kingship] of Lagash to Urukagina, picking him out of the entire population, he [Ningirsu] enjoined upon him (the restoration of) the divinely decreed way of life of former days…

Everywhere from border to border no one spoke further of priest-judges (mashkim).

When a dead man was placed in the tomb, (only) three jars of beer and eighty loaves of bread were delivered in his name. The uh-mush priest received one bed and one turban. The priest’s assistant received one-eighth gur of barley…

The priest no longer invaded the garden of a humble person.
No doubt priests in other societies similarly leeched off those they duped, but unfortunately, complete records of religious laws in other, early cultures (e.g., in Ancient Egypt) apparently haven’t been found. Based on what’s known about the rituals of the Egyptian priests, however (a little of which I’ll review in a later post), there seems little doubt that the Egyptian priests were just as parasitic as were the Hebrew and earlier Mesopotamian priests – and as are Islamic “clerics” in most Muslim countries today, especially the Shiite clerics in Iran and the Sunni clerics in Saudi Arabia.

Thereby, the OT seems to be the first book in history that clearly documents the depths of depravity of the disciples of any deity. It reminds me of great quote in an op-ed article by Nicholas Kristof entitled "Overdosing on Islam", which appeared in the 12 May 2004 issue of The New York Times:
Another Shiite leader outside the club of power [in Iran], Ayatollah Jalaledin Taheri, has denounced the [Iranian] regime as “society’s dregs and fascists who consist of a concoction of ignorance and madness… [and] those who are convinced that yogurt is black.”
In my view, that’s a good description of clerics of all religions: a collection of “society’s dregs and fascists who consist of a concoction of ignorance and madness… [and] those who are convinced that yogurt is black.”

So, setting aside the OT’s religious laws, I’ll now turn to ancient civil laws, but because of time and space constraints, I’ll illustrate only a few such laws, emphasizing those dealing with (or led to subsequent) subjugation of women. Except when noted otherwise, all quotations of the ancient laws will be from Barton’s 1937 book. Incidentally, for readers who consult Barton’s book, you might want to notice that some of the dates Barton gives for the laws have been revised as a result of subsequent archaeological studies. In what follows, I’ve arranged the chosen laws in four categories, starting with:

1. Assault & Battery – Blood Revenge.
Probably one of the oldest tribal laws is the law of “blood revenge” (= the law of retaliation = the lex talionis). It was practiced by many if not most aboriginal tribes throughout the world, it’s commonly described in American literature with a metaphorical reference to the feud between the Hatfields and McCoys, and it’s one of the ugliest customs still prevalent in most Muslim countries. It’s “legalized” in the OT with the familiar “eye for an eye”, e.g., at Deuteronomy 19, 21:
You must not show pity; the principle will be a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, and a foot for a foot.
Yet, if the creator of the universe dictated the “Laws of Moses” (as is claimed in the OT), then wouldn’t he have been at least as perceptive as Mahatma (“great soul”) Gandhi, who said: “An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.”

If God wasn’t so perceptive as Gandhi, then couldn’t God have just copied laws from what for us is the oldest known law code, namely, that of Ur-Nammu? It was written in about 2100 BCE, ~800 years prior to when Moses allegedly wrote his laws, and ~1600 years before Ezra. The Ur-Nammu code includes (in its most complete version, which was found in 1965) the following laws, detailing not revenge but restitution:
If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver.

If a man has cut off another man’s foot, he is to pay ten shekels.

If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver.

If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.

If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
Instead of copying Ur-Nammu’s laws, God (aka Moses aka Ezra & C-C) apparently copied the idea of blood revenge from the laws of the Babylonian empire, written in about 1750 BCE (~300 years after Ur-Nammu, ~500 years before Moses allegedly lived, and ~1300 years before Ezra). In particular, King Hammurabi’s laws #196, 197, & 200 (of a total of 282 laws) state:
If a man destroys the eye of the son of a patrician, they shall destroy his eye.

If he breaks a man’s bone, they shall break his bone.

If a man knocks out the tooth of a man of his own rank, they shall knock his tooth out.
And if God were to try to defend his choice by saying that Ur-Nammu’s laws of restitution were superseded by Hammurabi’s laws of revenge, then perhaps he (or any of his defenders) would like to explain why he didn’t copy the Hittite laws, written c. 1650–1500 BCE: they superseded Hammurabi’s laws, and the Hittite Laws #7 through 17 (given below) are similarly void of tribalist, barbaric, laws of revenge:
If anyone blinds a free man, or knocks out some of his teeth, formerly he paid 1 mana of silver! Now he shall pay 20 shekels of silver and discharge the penalty…

If anyone strikes a person on the head, formerly they paid 6 shekels of silver; for the blow he gave 3 shekels; to the palace he gave 3 shekels. Now the king gives up (the fine) to his palace, and he shall give 3 shekels to the one struck.

If anyone strikes a person and makes him ill, and that one he makes unfit for work: he shall give a man instead of him. This one shall work in his house while he is convalescing; after he has recovered, then he shall give him 6 shekels of silver, and the doctor’s bill he shall pay.

If anyone breaks the hand or foot of a free man, then he shall pay 20 shekels and discharge the penalty…

If anyone breaks the nose of a free man, he shall give one mana of silver and discharge the penalty…

If anyone cuts off the ear of a free man, he shall pay 12 shekels of silver and discharge the penalty.

If anyone causes a pregnant free woman to miscarry, if it is nine months, if it is ten months, he shall give 10 shekels of silver and discharge the penalty.
Of course, if you’re a god similar to Yahweh (who apparently likes to spy on people and enjoys lots of blood and gore), retribution is a lot more entertaining than restitution.

2. Laws Prohibiting Witchcraft or Sorcery.
To this day, it has always been critically important for clerics to be the sole agents, spokesmen, and controllers of the supernatural: if they let others engage in magic, then the rug would be pulled out from under their con games. And thus the following rules from the indicated law codes (arranged progressively farther back in time) demonstrate that Yahweh wasn’t such an ass as otherwise one might think – or more realistically, the Jewish priests learned from earlier people how to keep their con game going.
The “Laws of Moses” (ca. 650–450 BCE):
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live (King James Version); You shall not allow a witch to live (New English Bible); You must not allow a sorceress to live (NET). (Exodus 22, 18)

A man or woman who has in them a spirit of the dead or a familiar spirit must be put to death. They must pelt them with stones; their bloodguilt is on themselves. (Leviticus 20, 27)

There must never be found among you… anyone who practices divination, an omen reader, a soothsayer, a sorcerer, one who casts spells, one who conjures up spirits, a practitioner of the occult, or a necromancer. (Deuteronomy 18, 10–11)
The Assyrians of northern Mesopotamia similarly prohibited sorcery. The ~1050 BCE law code of the Assyrians (a word derived from the name of their god Ashur) includes:
If either a man or a woman practices magic and is caught in the act, they shall arrest and try them; they shall kill one who practices magic.
From earlier, the Hittite Code (ca. 1650–1500 BCE) includes:
If with fire anyone casts a spell upon a man and he dies, he shall afterward give his son for him. If anyone purifies a man by deceit, casting upon him a spell, if he casts it on the field or barn or anyone – witchcraft is a case for the king.

If a free man kills a serpent and speaks the name of another, he shall pay 1 mana of silver; if a slave, he shall die.
Somewhat similar, in the Hammurabi’s Code (ca. 1750 BCE):
1. If a man brings an accusation against a man, that he has laid a death-spell upon him, and has not proved it, the accuser shall be put to death.

2. If a man accuses another of practicing sorcery upon him, but has not proved it, he against whom the charge of sorcery is made shall go to the sacred river; into the sacred river he shall plunge, and if the sacred river overpowers him, his accuser shall take possession of his house. If the sacred river shows that man to be innocent, and he is unharmed, he who charged him with sorcery shall be killed. He who plunged into the sacred river shall take the house of his accuser.
Barton adds (referring first to the Hittite law):
Probably killing the snake as one pronounced the name of another was believed to direct the wrath of the snake toward that other so that the snake should not be satisfied until he killed the bearer of the name. It would be equivalent to casting a death-spell upon the man so named. This law, then, should be compared with [laws #] 1,2 of the Code of Hammurabi and with Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:10, ff.
Still earlier, the Ur-Nammu Code (ca. 2050 BCE) states:
If a man is accused of sorcery he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels.
The “ordeal by water” referenced in both the Hammurabi and Ur-Nammu codes was another ancient custom that apparently intrigued Yahweh; I’ll emphasize such laws separately, immediately below, under the title

3. Trial by Ordeal (judicium Dei = judgment of God).
Poor old Yahweh: being jealous of other gods (as he admits in “his” Second Commandment), he apparently was piqued that other gods could test people’s guilt or innocence by using trials by ordeal. It’s understandable. If you were God (and assuming you could read), then what would you think if you read the following laws, this time arranged going forward in time.

Another trial-by-ordeal law in the Ur-Nammu law code (from ~2050 BCE):
If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver.
And imagine God’s jealousy when he read (assuming he could read) or heard about another trial-by-ordeal in the ~1750 BCE Hammurabi Code:
If the finger has been pointed at the wife of a man because of another man [i.e., if she is accused of adultery] and she has not been caught lying with the other man, for her husband’s sake she shall plunge into the sacred river.
Notice that, in the immediately preceding (typically brutal and misogynist) Hammurabi law (which Ezra & C-C apparently followed rather closely), if a wife was simply accused of being an adulteress (“she has not been caught lying with the other man”), then she had to “prove” her innocence by surviving being thrown into the river.

In the case of Hittites, I couldn’t find any laws dealing with cases that were judged by their god (or gods). Similarly, there seems to have been no trial by ordeal in Egypt. Thus, according to information at the amazingly thorough website of André Dollinger on law and order in Ancient Egypt:
Unlike other nations in the Near East, Egypt appears not to have known trials by ordeal, in which the accused in a criminal trial or the contestants in a civil litigation underwent an ordeal (often held in a river), the winner of which was supposed to be favored by the gods and therefore in the right.
In the Hittite code, however, there are several laws in which the king acted as if he were a god, such as the following:
If a man lie with a cow, the punishment is death. They shall bring him to the gates of the king. The king may put him to death, or the king may let him live, but he shall not come near to the king.

If a man lies with a hog or a dog, he shall die. They shall bring him to the gate of the palace, and the king may put him to death, or the king may let him live; but he shall not come near to the king.
I guess that the Hittites didn’t have such a dangerous river as the Tigris and Euphrates into which to throw the accused (sometimes bound, sometimes not). In the Assyrian code (~1050 BCE), in contrast, it’s back to the river:
If a man speaks to a man as follows, “they have violated thy wife”, and there were not witnesses, they shall throw that man into fetters and bring him to the river.
So, imagine the jealousy of Yahweh if he couldn’t have the fun of passing judgments on the accused (drowning those he didn’t like and permitting the others to swim to shore). Obviously, though, he had only himself to blame for his privations, since 1) The land he “promised” to “his people” might have been “flowing with milk and honey”, but he neglected to endow it with a sufficiently raging river, and 2) He had foolishly taught some of “his prophets” (Moses, Joshua, Samuel, et al.) how to part waters! So, what to do? Ah hah! Apparently he had heard about “ordeal beans” used in what’s now called Sierra Leone (but was then called Calabar):
…the E-ser-e or ordeal beans of the people of Old Calabar [were] administered to persons accused of witchcraft or other crimes. In cases where the poisonous material did its deadly work, it was held at once to indicate and rightly to punish guilt; but when it was rejected by the stomach of the accused, innocence was held to be satisfactorily established.
The result? Immediately below, in all its glory, is the “trial by ordeal” concocted by Yahweh (aka Moses aka Ezra & C-C), given at Numbers 5, 11–28:
The Lord spoke to Moses: “[Whereas I’ve heard tell about Calabar beans,] Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man has sexual relations with her without her husband knowing it, and it is hidden that she has defiled herself, since there was no witness against her, nor was she caught – and if jealous feelings come over him and he becomes suspicious of his wife, when she is defiled; or if jealous feelings come over him and he becomes suspicious of his wife, when she is not defiled [or, for that matter, any time he feels like accusing his wife of anything] – then the man must bring his wife to the priest, and he must bring the offering required for her, one tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he must not pour olive oil on it or put frankincense on it, because it is a grain offering of suspicion, a grain offering for remembering, for bringing iniquity to remembrance [and for any other mumbo-jumbo that the priests want to add].

‘Then the priest will bring her near and have her stand before the Lord. [Or, if he’s not present, just consider the priest as your lord and master.] The priest will then take holy water in a pottery jar, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle [and, unbeknown to the accused woman, add in some crushed Calabar beans], and put it into the water. Then the priest will have the woman stand before the Lord, uncover the woman’s head, and put the grain offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of suspicion. The priest will hold in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest will put the woman under oath and say to the her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you, and if you have not gone astray and become defiled while under your husband’s authority [your husband being your lord and master, in the absence of the priest and in the absence of the Lord, doncha know], may you be free from this bitter water that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had sexual relations with you….” Then the priest will put the woman under the oath of the curse and will say to her, “The Lord make you an attested curse among your people, if the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your abdomen swell; and this water that causes the curse will go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh rot.” Then the woman must say, “Amen, amen.” [Or, failing that, say “All men, all men, are women’s masters.”]

‘Then the priest will write these curses on a scroll and then scrape them off into the bitter water. [Just in case he didn’t sneak in enough Calabar beans with the dust from the floor.] He will make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and the water that brings a curse will enter her to produce bitterness. The priest will take the grain offering of suspicion from the woman’s hand, wave the grain offering before the Lord, and bring it to the altar. Then the priest will take a handful of the grain offering as its memorial portion, burn it on the altar, and afterward make the woman drink the water. When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, the water that brings a curse will enter her to produce bitterness – her abdomen will swell, her thigh will fall away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself, and is clean, then she will be free of ill effects and will be able to bear children. [For, after all, women are only good for bearing children.]

‘This is the law for cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when jealous feelings come over a man and he becomes suspicious of his wife; then he must have the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest will carry out all this law upon her. Then the man will be free from iniquity, but that woman will bear the consequences of her iniquity’.”
Ain’t that lovely? If a man wants not just to dump his wife (which he could easily do, according to Deuteronomy 24, 1-4), if in addition he wants to make her suffer, plenty, then what to do? Well, with no worry about repercussions from false accusations, he simply accuses her of adultery, passes the priest a few shekels under the table, the priest mixes in some crushed “ordeal beans” (or whatever) in a potion, and presto: the husband is not only rid of his nagging wife but she’d die a horrible death. Which therefore is one of many examples of

4. Laws Discriminating Against Women.
Although the above two topics (dealing with sorcery and trial by ordeal) contained cases of discrimination against women, they’re almost incidental when incorporated into the full range of such cases. I won’t describe all of them, not only because of space limitations (there are literally hundreds of such laws) but also because, in truth, it’s too painful to be reminded of the horrors tribal men have perpetrated against women for thousands of years – and similar continues in most Muslim countries today. Also, I’ll dwell neither on the reasons for such brutality (I mentioned some in the previous post and in an earlier post) nor on possible ways to help liberate women from such male chauvinism (for suggestions, see some of the “X-chapters” of my on-line book). Here, instead, I’ll provide just a few illustrations of such laws and add a few comments on them, starting with the oldest known laws and including brief mention of repercussions that persist to this day.

The full text of the ~2350 BCE law code of “the world’s first social reformer”, Urukagina, hasn’t been found. Clay tablets referencing the code, however, lead to the conclusions that “thieves and adulteresses [not adulterers!] were to be stoned to death [as in most Muslim countries, today] with stones inscribed with the name of their crime.”

The laws in Ur-Nammu’s code (~2100 BCE) dealing with women and marriage include the following:
If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.

If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin slavewoman of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.

If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver.

If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her half a mina of silver.

If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver.

If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought.
Although some of the above laws probably offend modern sensitivities, notice that divorced women did receive some alimony and that women could, perhaps, talk their fathers out of an arranged marriage. Subsequently, conditions for women deteriorated, as can be seen beginning with Hammurabi’s laws.

In the following laws from the Hammurabi code (~ 1750 BCE), I’ve included their numbers (as given by Barton) for reference to text that follows.
128. If a man takes a wife and does not execute contracts for her, that woman is no wife.

129. If the wife of a man is caught lying with another man, they shall bind them and throw them into the water. If the husband of the woman would let her live, or the king would let his subject live, he may do so.

130. If a man forces the betrothed wife of another who is living in her father’s house and has not known a man, and lied in her loins and they catch him, that man shall be put to death and that woman shall go free.

131. If the wife of a man is accused by her husband, and she has not been caught lying with another man, she shall swear her innocence and return to her house.

132. If the finger has been pointed at the wife of a man because of another man and she has not been caught lying with the other man, for her husband’s sake she shall plunge into the sacred river.

137. If a man set his face against a concubine who has borne him children or a wife that has presented him with children, to put her way, he shall return to that woman her marriage portion, and shall give her the income of field, garden, and house, and she shall bring up her children. From the time that her children are grown, from whatever is given to her children, a portion like that of a son shall be given to her, and the husband of her choice she may marry.

138. If a man would put away his spouse who has not borne him children, he shall giver her silver equal to her marriage gift, and the dowry which she brought from her father’s house he shall restore to her and may put her away.

139. If she had no dowry, he shall give her one mana of silver for a divorce.

140. If he belongs to the laboring class, he shall give her one-third of a mana of silver.

141. If the wife of a man who is living in the house of her husband sets her face to go out and act the fool, her house neglects and her husband belittles, they shall prosecute that woman. If her husband says: “I divorce her,” he may divorce her. On her departure nothing shall be given her for her divorce. If her husband does not say: “I divorce her,” her husband may take another wife; that woman shall dwell as a slave in the house of her husband.

142. If a woman hates her husband and says: “Thou shalt not hold me,” they shall make investigation concerning her into her defects. If she has been discreet and there is no fault, and her husband has gone out and greatly belittled her, that woman has no blame; she may take her marriage-portion and go to her father’s house.

143. If she has not been discreet, and has gone out and neglected her house and belittle her husband, they shall throw that woman into the water.

144. If a man takes a priestess and that priestess gives a female slave to her husband, and she has children; if that man sets his face to take a concubine, they shall not favor that man. He may not take a concubine.

145. If a man takes a priestess and she does not present him with children and he sets his face to take a concubine, that man may take a concubine and bring her into his house. That concubine shall not rank with the wife.

146. If a man takes a priestess and she gives to her husband a maidservant and she bears children, and afterward that maidservant would take rank with her mistress; because she has borne children her mistress may not sell her for money, but she may reduce her to bondage and count her among female slaves.

147. If she has not borne children, her mistress may sell her for money.

148. If a man takes a wife and she is attacked by disease, and he sets his face to take another, he may do it. His wife who was attacked by disease he may not divorce. She shall support her as long as she lives.

149. If that woman does not choose to live in the house of her husband, he shall make good to her the dowry which she brought from her father’s house and she may go away.

150. If a man presents his wife field, garden, house, or goods, and gives to her sealed deeds, after her husband’s death her children shall not press a claim against her. The mother after her death may leave it to her child whom she loves, but to a brother she may not leave it.

151. If a wife who is living in the house of a husband has persuaded her husband and he has bound himself that she shall not be taken by a creditor of her husband, her creditor may not hold her husband.

152. If they become indebted after the woman enters the man’s house, both of them are liable to the merchant.

156. If a man has betrothed a bride to his son and his son has not known her and he lies in her loins, he shall pay her half a mana of silver and restore to her whatever she brought from the house of her father, and the man of her choice may marry her.

157. If a man after his father’s death lies in the loins of his mother, they shall burn both of them.

158. If a man after his father’s death is admitted to the loins of his chief wife who has borne children, that man shall be expelled from the house of his father.

159. If a man who has brought a present unto the house of his father-in-law and has given a bride-price looks with longing upon another woman, and says to his father-in-law: “Thy daughter I will not take,” the father of the daughter shall keep whatever was brought to him.

160. If a man brings a present to the house of a father-in-law and gives a bride-price, and the father of the daughter says: “I will not give thee my daughter,” whatever was brought him he shall double and restore it.

161. If a man brings a present to the house of his father-in-law and gives a bride-price, and his neighbor slanders him, and the father says to the groom: “Thou shalt not take my daughter,” whatever was brought he shall double and restore to him.
Barton (who seems to have been religious) adds the following.
These Babylonian laws present numerous points of contact and of divergence, when compared with the Biblical laws on this same subject… The law (129) which imposes the death penalty upon a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife and upon the woman, finds an exact parallel in Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22, though the Biblical law, unlike the Babylonian, provide no way in which clemency could be extended to the offenders.

The laws in 130, 156, concerning the violation of betrothed virgins, are in a general way paralleled by Leviticus 19:20-22 and Deuteronomy 22:23-26, though there are such differences that, while the underlying principles are the same, it is clear that there was entire independence of development. A religious element enters into Leviticus that’s entirely absent for the Babylonian code.

The Bible contains two laws on this subject that are without parallel in the Babylonian code. These are found in Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29, and impose penalties for the violation of virgins who were not betrothed. In both codes the principle is manifest that the loss of a girl’s honor was to be compensated by money, though Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 recognizes that it has a value that money cannot buy.

The laws relating to a wife whose fidelity is suspected (131, 132) find a general parallel in Numbers 5: 11-28. The provision at the end of 132 that the wife should plunge into the sacred river is in the nature of trial by ordeal. The law in Numbers imposes on such a woman trial by ordeal, through it is of a different sort. She must drink water in which dust from the floor of the sanctuary is mingled – dust surcharged with divine potency – and if she does not swell up and die, she is counted innocent.

The laws which provide that a wife may present her husband with a slave-girl as a concubine (137, 144-147) are without parallel in the Biblical codes, but are strikingly illustrated by the patriarchal narratives. Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham (Gen. 16); Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to Jacob (Gen 30:1-13). The law (146) which deals with such a slave-girl who would rank with her mistress is closely parallel to the story of the treatment of Hagar in Genesis 16: 5-7 and 21: 9,10.

The laws on divorce (138-141) are really in advance of the one Biblical law on the subject (Deut. 24:1-4). The law in Deuteronomy permits a husband to put away a wife, who in any way does not please him, without alimony, while to the wife no privilege of initiating divorce proceeding is granted at all. The Babylonian laws secure to the divorced woman a maintenance, and, while by no means according her equal rights with the man, provide (142) that she may herself initiate the proceedings for divorce. The ordeal must have been an unpleasant one, but in Israel’s law a woman had no such rights.
The Hittite code (ca. 1650–1500 BCE) contains the following laws:
27. If a man takes a wife and brings her (to his house) and gives her dower rights therein; if the woman dies that man consuming the property, the goods, takes her estate, but if she dies in the house of her father, the property is for the children; that man shall not inherit that estate.

28. If a maiden is betrothed to a man and elopes with another, the bride price he escapes. Then the first man (may swear to it) in any manner whatever. The father and mother need not swear. If the father and the mother gave her to the other man; then the father and mother swear. If the father and mother say, “she is his” (i.e., the first man’s) they shall separate her from him (i.e., the second man).

29. If a woman is bound to a man and he has paid the bride price, and the father and mother afterward think ill of it and take her away from that man, then they shall return to him double the bride price.

30. If a man does not take a woman and refuses, then the bride price, which he had paid, he shall lose.

31. If a man likes a slave girl and afterward they get on badly and quarrel, they shall divide the house between them: the man shall take the children, and the woman shall take 1 child.

32. If a slave takes a (free) woman, their law is the same.

33. If a slave takes a slave girl, their law is the same.

34. If a slave pays the bride price for a woman, and takes her for his wife, and gives her (up), no one shall remit (it).

35. If an administrator (?) or a shepherd takes a free woman and does not pay the bride price, then he shall serve as a slave for three years.

36. If a slave pays the bride price for a free girl and as a husband lives with her, no one shall afterward take her away.

197. If a man seizes a woman in the mountain and commits the human crime, he shall die. If he seizes her in a house, the woman is at fault, she shall die. If the husband finds them and they are killed, there is no penalty.

198. If he brings them to the gate of the palace and says: “Let not my wife die,” he may let his wife live; he may also let the ravisher live, but in that case he shall scar his head. If he shall say: “Let the two die,” then they shall receive their punishment. The king may kill them; the king may let them live.
Barton adds:
The last two of these laws should be compared with Deuteronomy 22:22-17. The principles underlying the two codes are here the same, though the application is different. The Hittite code makes provision for sparing the life of the guilty man and woman, while the Hebrew law does not.
Similar misogynistic laws were included in the Assyrian code and were probably enforced during the ~400 years after ~1000 BCE:
11. If a man’s wife is going along the highway and a man seizes her without saying to her, “Let us embrace,” she does not consent, she defends herself, he is strong, he rapes her, whether he is caught on the wife of a man or witnesses see him; they shall kill the man; the woman was not to blame.

12. If the wife of a man goes from her house unto a man and goes to a place where a man lives and he has intercourse with her, and knows she is the wife of a man they shall kill both the man and the woman.

13. If a man’s wife and a man, either in a house of prostitution or on the highway, he knowing that she is a man’s wife, has intercourse with her, as if he were the man whose wife she is (and) they agree in the deed, the man has committed adultery. If not knowing that she was a man’s wife he had intercourse with her, the man is innocent of adultery. The husband shall take his wife and do with her what he pleases.

15. If a man’s wife deceives a man, there is no blame attaching to the man; the husband of the woman shall visit punishment upon his wife as he wishes…

37. If a man divorces his wife, he may give her whatever he pleases. If he does not wish, he may give her nothing and she shall go forth empty-handed.

38. If a woman is detained in the house of her father and her husband divorces her, anything which he has voluntarily settled upon her he may take. He may not touch her marriage portion which she brought; it is secured to the woman.
Barton adds:
Neither in the Code of Hammurabi nor in the Pentateuch nor the Hittite code have we as many laws relating to women as are found in this Assyrian code… Without going into great detail, we may note that the principles on which adultery and rape are punished are the same as those which underlie the Babylonian laws on chastity, marriage, and divorce. The same is true of the laws controlling the dowry rights of women (see Code of Hammurabi, 128-161). These principles are some of them also found in the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy… The death-penalty for adultery, for example, imposed in so many sections of the Assyrian code, is paralleled in Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22. The Assyrian law, however, commits the wife to the mercy of her husband in a way without parallel in the Bible. It also provides for mutilation of the face and hands in a way without parallel in Babylonia and Israel. Some slight parallel both to the power of the husband and to mutilation is found in the Hittite code, for example, 198, but of all these people the Assyrians were the most primitive in their attitudes toward such matters.
As I already suggested, however, Barton seems to have been religious. In contrast, I see little difference between the above “primitive” Assyrian laws and what’s given at Deuteronomy 22, 13-21:
Suppose a man marries a woman, has sexual relations with her, and then rejects her, accusing her of impropriety and defaming her reputation by saying, “I married this woman but when I had sexual relations with her I discovered she was not a virgin!” Then the father and mother of the young woman must produce the evidence of virginity for the elders of the city at the gate. The young woman’s father must say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man and he has rejected her. Moreover, he has raised accusations of impropriety by saying, ‘I discovered your daughter was not a virgin,’ but this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity!” The cloth must then be spread out before the city’s elders. The elders of that city must then seize the man and punish him. They will fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, for the man who made the accusation ruined the reputation of an Israelite virgin. She will then become his wife and he may never divorce her as long as he lives. But if the accusation is true and the young woman was not a virgin, the men of her city must bring the young woman to the door of her father’s house and stone her to death, for she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by behaving like a prostitute while living in her father’s house.
Think of those poor Hebrew girls with hymen ruptured by a fall, or maybe in play or during hard work in the fields, or whatever. What astounding evils have been caused by ignorance – and no one is so ignorant as the damnable clerics of the world!

Separately, one of the most interesting Assyrian laws (if for no other reason than its apparent uniqueness – but it seems to have had huge repercussions throughout the Muslim world) is the following (which has some portions missing):
40. Whether wives of men […] or women […] on the street (shall veil) their heads. Men’s daughters […] whether out-door (?) garments […] or […] garments, or […] shall be veiled […] their heads […] whether […] whether […] veiled, if she walk on the street by day she shall be veiled; the hierodule who has taken a husband shall be veiled […]; the foreign captive woman is veiled, the prostitute is unveiled, her head is uncovered; whoever sees a prostitute veiled shall seize her, he shall summon witnesses and take her to the portal of the palace. Her ornaments they shall not take away, but the garment in which she was seized they shall take. They shall give her 50 lashes and pour asphalt on her head. But if a man shall see a prostitute veiled and shall let her go and not bring her to the portal of the palace, they shall inflict on the man 50 stripes, his batikan and his garment they shall take, they shall pierce his ears, shall insert a cord in it, and bind it behind him and for one full month he shall perform work for the king. Female slaves are not veiled. Whoever sees a slave-woman veiled shall seize her and bring her to the portal of the palace; they shall cut off her ear. He who seized her shall take her garments. If a man sees a slave-woman veiled and lets her go and does not seize her, and does not take her to the portal of the palace, they shall arrest and try him; they shall give him 50 lashes, pierce his ear, insert a thread and bind it behind him, his batikan and garment they shall take, and for one full month he shall perform labor for the king.
As Jessica Bieda describes in “Women in Mesopotamia” (the references for which are given in the original article):
[The above] Middle Assyrian Law #40 [MAL 40] institutionalized a ranking order for women: at the top, the married lady or her unmarried daughter; beneath her, but still counted among the respectable, the married concubine, whether freeborn or slave or temple prostitute; at the bottom, clearly marked off as not respectable, the unmarried temple prostitute, the harlot, and the slave woman (Lerner 250). Before the creation of the law sacred prostitutes, who, as priestesses representing various goddesses, had been fairly autonomous, independent, and even respected (Passman 45). Under MAL 40 the sacral nature of sexual temple service was no longer the decisive factor in determining a woman’s “respectability”, for the temple prostitute was regarded in the same way as the commercial prostitute (Lerner 250). In ancient Mesopotamian society, there was a clear distinction between religious and commercial prostitution, however MAL 40 blurred this distinction. Such a law served to lower the social standing of certain groups of women, therefore dividing them, and was an early sign of the open intervention of the state into the realm of private sexual conduct (Passman 45).

The final civilization in Mesopotamian history that this essay will examine is Judea. June Stephenson summarizes the status of women during this time in her book, Women’s Roots:

“The social and legal position of an Israelite wife was inferior to the position of wife occupied in the great countries round about… all the texts show that Israelites wanted mainly sons, to perpetuate the family line and fortune, and to preserve the ancestral inheritance… A husband could divorce his wife… women on the other hand could not ask for divorce… the wife called her husband Ba’al or master; she also called him adon or lord; she addressed him in fact as a slave addresses his master, or a subject, his king. The Decalogue includes a man’s wife among his possessions… all her life she remains a minor. The wife does not inherit from her husband, nor daughters from their fathers, except when there is no male heir. A vow made by a girl or married woman needs (to be valid) the consent of the father or husband, and if this consent is withheld, the vow is null and void. A man had the right to sell his daughter. Women were excluded from the succession.” (Stephenson 70)

In Judea, religion instead of government was the law, and Jewish family life reflected the patriarchal structure of the religion (Stephenson 71). Because it was important for the population to increase, there was no room in society for unmarried men or women. When a woman got married, she had to prove her virginity in order to ensure that a man’s child was indeed his. Because the woman had been bought by her husband, adultery was a violation of the law of property and usually resulted in death to both parties (Stephenson 72). A woman’s first priority, and her greatest value as judged by men, was her ability to reproduce. Therefore, if a woman could not provide children for any reason, she was seen as a disgrace. For women, marriage was monogamous, though polygamous for men (Stephenson 72). It can be seen that women enjoyed very little, if any at all, freedoms during this time. Their lives (both public and private) were strictly controlled by their religion.

Throughout Mesopotamian history, women experienced different liberties and their role changed with each successive civilization. A patriarchal revolution took place that greatly affected women’s status; in general, women had a higher standing in the earlier Mesopotamian periods. The Code of Hammurabi was the beginning of the institutionalization of the patriarchal family as an aspect of state power (Lerner 253). It reflected a class society in which women’s status depended on the male family head’s social status and property. With the MAL 40, the state assumed control of female sexuality, which had previously been left to individual heads of families. From the middle of the second millennium BCE on, from the public veiling to the regulation by the state of birth control and abortion, the sexual control of women has been an essential feature of patriarchal power (Lerner 254). Unfortunately, the sexual control of women by outside forces is still a problem that is trying to be overcome today.
The above Assyrian laws dealing with veils probably led to the Islamic custom – and subsequent Islamic laws – requiring women to be veiled. Additional Assyrian laws that, even today, seem to have influence in tribal groups common in Islamic countries include the following.
55. If a man takes a virgin from the house of her father and does not return her to her father, if she has not been deflowered, or takes as a wife or held for a claim on the house of her father, and man who seizes the virgin, whether within the city or the country or by night on the highway or at a house of feasting or a city feast, and violates her, the father of the virgin may take the wife of the seducer of the virgin and give her to be ravished. To her husband he may not return her; he takes her. The father of the ravished girl gives her to the seducer as a possession. If he has no wife, the seducer shall give to her father 3 times the price of the virgin. The seducer who seized her shall not divorce her. If the father does not wish to receive 3 times the price of the virgin, he may give his daughter to whomsoever he pleases.

56. If a virgin of her own accord gives herself to a man, the man must swear (it). His wife they shall not touch. Three times the price of the virgin the adulterer shall give and the father of the girl do with her whatsoever he pleases.

59. On the correction of offenses (which are committed) which are written on (this) tablet, a man may (flog) his wife, pluck out her hair, may bruise and destroy her ears. There is no liability.
Remnants of those laws can be seen in the current, barbaric Muslim practice of “honor killings” (almost invariably of women). And probably the “right-to-life” advocates both in Islam and Christianity would be pleased if the following Assyrian law were still enforced:
53. If a woman by herself causes a miscarriage, they shall arrest her and put her on trial, they shall impale her on stakes and shall not bury her. If she dies in consequence of the miscarriage, they shall impale her on stakes and shall not bury her.
Unsurprisingly, then (given their historical setting), the “laws of Moses” were misogynistic. As pointed out by Shamshad.M.Khan and Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem, in an article by Muslims criticizing Jews (what else is new?):
‘Despatches’ would do well to attend an orthodox synagogue to listen to the daily prayer made: “Praised be God that he has not created me a gentile. Praised be God that he has not created me a woman. Praised be God that he has not created me an ignoramus.” [Religious Jews apparently praise God even when he grants only two out of three!]

Women were not allowed to bear witness at all in early Jewish society. The Rabbis counted women’s not being able to bear witness among the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall… Women in today’s Israel are not allowed to give evidence in Rabbinical courts. The Rabbis justify why women cannot bear witness by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where it is stated that Sara, Abraham’s wife had lied. The Rabbis use this incident as evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness…
Of course, it wasn’t just Judaism that adopted and promoted patriarchal misogyny. Some examples in other religions include the following.

In Hinduism, Manu’s laws include:
In her childhood, a girl should be under the will of her father; in her youth, of her husband; her husband being dead, of her sons. A woman should never enjoy her own will.

Though of bad conduct or debauched, or even devoid of good qualities, a husband must always be worshipped like a god by a good wife.
Christianity (or better, Paul’s Insanity) includes:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11, 3)

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, providing they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Timothy 2, 13-15)
And Islam contains similar laws discriminating against women, including that women have rights that are similar to men, but men are “a degree above them” (Koran 2:228), that a woman is worth one-half a man (2:282), that women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan (4:98), and that
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. (4:34)
But setting aside the “distractions” of subsequent religions until later posts, I’ll now rest my case. In this post, I’ve tried to present evidence supporting Item #3 in the previous post, namely
3) With respect to the “Laws of Moses”, themselves, they contain no internal evidence that the author was an omnipotent and omniscient god; instead, the laws that deal with religious matters are consistent with laws already proscribed by other parasitic priesthoods (especially by the Egyptian priesthood) and the laws that deal with civil matters are similar to tribal and community laws that had already been established elsewhere in the Middle East.
Although much more evidence is available and although I've deferred most comments on religious laws until later posts, I trust that, under existing time and space constraints, my point has been adequately made.

The same point has also been made by many others. As a current example, see the article entitled “God is merciful, but only if you’re a man” by Ophelia Benson in the 31 May 2009 of The Observer, which includes:
The God we have in the Big Three monotheisms is a God who originated in a period when male superiority was absolutely taken for granted. That time has passed, but the superior male God remains and that God holds women in contempt. That God is the one who puts “His” imprimatur on all those tyrannical laws. That God is a product of history – but taken to be eternal – which is a bad combination…
Actually, though, the root problem isn’t with the god of the Abrahamic religions. The root problem is tribalism (with its subversion of individual honor by group honor), patriarchy (with its devaluation of females), and the associated lack of basic human rights. The Abrahamic religions “merely” sanctified such behavior, claiming that it was ordained by their fictitious god.

During the past few centuries, humanists have managed to mollify the misogyny of most Christians. To make progress toward peace and prosperity in the world, similar must be done to eliminate the terrible problems caused by tribalism and patriarchy in Islam, Hinduism, and in China. Stated differently, to reduce physical violence and achieve sustainable development in the world, I think that one of our first goals should be to eliminate gender biases in births, nourishment, health care, education, employment, marriage, laws, etc., since I’m convinced that more progress towards peace and prosperity requires loving mothers and hopeful daughters.

www.zenofzero.net

2009/05/23

The Law Lie – 6 – Law & Order – 1


In the previous five posts, I tried to show at least a little of the history of some aspects of the Law Lie (itself part of the God Lie), including the lies
• That morality is defined by the gods,
• That justice is the jurisdiction of the gods,
• That judges are judged by the gods,
• That customs were created by the gods,
• That oaths are binding when sworn to the gods,
• That covenants can be established with the gods,
• That leaders are chosen by the gods…
In this post and the next, my goal is to show even less of the history of two additional features of the Law Lie, namely, the lie that laws are dictated by the gods and the lie that order is ordained by the gods. I’ve been forced to set my goals for these two posts even lower than in previous posts (“to show even less of the history”) simply because my time and my knowledge of the subject are limited while the subject is huge.

To give a hint of size of the subject, I’ll just mention that, during the past two thousands years and more, a huge number of books have been written (e.g., by philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli and Hobbs) describing (in some way or another) the “divinity” of law and order; during the past few centuries, a large number of books have been written about specific unsatisfactory aspects of such “divine laws” (e.g., dealing with political authority, slavery, private property, capital punishment, etc.); and especially during the past few decades, still more books have dealt with specific injustices in such laws (e.g., dealing with women’s rights, abortion, sexual orientations, etc.). In addition, many historians have written articles and books that compare law codes of different “divine authorities”.

In an attempt to constrain the extent of my own report (an apparently failed attempt, since the result is so long that I’ve split it into two posts!), I’ve restricted my focus. Specifically, the focus of these two posts is on aspects of the lies that law and order are ordained by the gods that I’m convinced are especially important if humanity is ever able to reduce physical violence and achieve sustainable development. As to how such goals have been thwarted by the God Lie, here I’ll provide only a brief outline of links.

Elsewhere, I’ve written 35 chapters on such subjects, starting here. I’ll summarize those chapters by stating my conviction that three of the most important challenges facing humanity are: 1) to liberate women from patriarchs, 2) to liberate men from tribalism, and 3) to promote children to continue to develop their critical- (or evaluative- or scientific-) thinking skills, skills that every child begins to develop while still an infant, but skills that are later thwarted by the authoritarianism rampant in patriarchy, tribalism, and in all Abrahamic religions, especially now in Islam. I agree with Lloyd deMause that a key to progress toward less violence and more sustainable development is “loving mothers; hopeful daughters”, and in these two posts, therefore, I’ll emphasize some hints that I’ve detected in the history of the God Lie that suggest the cause of the tragedy that’s now rampant in the world (especially in the Islamic world) of hateful mothers and despondent daughters.

I’ll begin by stating the obvious that, in reality, law and order aren’t (and never were) established by any god, because gods have always existed only as figments of people’s imaginations. Instead, law and order were first demanded by leaders of essentially all pack and herd animals: the alpha male “barked” some rule (e.g., “stay away from my females”) and members of the herd or pack that attempted to break the leader’s rule soon learned the meaning of “law and order”. In the case of “the human animal”, perhaps the first demand for law and order was when some human alpha-male similarly barked: “stay away from my females.”

Similar continues today. Yesterday (22 May 2009) a native Canadian living in a Toronto apartment, Matthew Coutts, reported that his immigrant Muslim neighbor demanded that he stop speaking to the Muslim's wife. The Canadian states that he merely exchanged pleasantries, such as "Good morning" as he passed the woman in the hallway. In a heated exchange between the two men, the Muslim "included allusions to my impending death." The Canadian's landlady recommended, in effect, that he should just cringe, adding that the Muslim "could be dangerous"; I'd recommend that he report the incident to the police and, if possible, obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

That the law and order demanded by alpha males dominate the “divine laws” proscribed in the “holy books” of all Abrahamic religions was described well in an article by Davidson Loehr entitled “The Fundamentalist Agenda”, the final paragraph of which is the following.
The only way all fundamentalisms [i.e., the fundamanentalist sects of all religions, be they in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, or whatever] can have the same agenda is if the agenda preceded all the religions. And it did. Fundamentalist behaviors are familiar because we’ve all seen them so many times. These men are acting the role of “alpha males” who define the boundaries of their group’s territory and the norms and behaviors that define members of their in-group. These are the behaviors of territorial species in which males are stronger than females. In biological terms, these are the characteristic behaviors of sexually dimorphous territorial animals. Males set and enforce the rules; females obey the males and raise the children…
I therefore suggest that the source of much trouble in the world, the cause of the hateful-mother/ despondent-daughter syndrome, is patriarchy/ tribalism/ male dominance/ fundamentalist religion. For these two posts, therefore, I plan to emphasize how “the divine laws” proscribed in the Old Testament (OT) attempted to cement male dominance. I’ll note, further, that most unfortunately, the attempt was successful, continued for much of the subsequent ~2500 years, and continues in most of the Muslim world almost as impervious to change as ever.

Many authors have suggested reasons ‘why’ and ‘how’ male dominance might have re-emerged from dormancy. That males dominated females during the hunter-gather phase of human development in most environments seems likely, if the strength of males was valuable for hunting animals and defending against marauding tribes. If male strength wasn’t so important (e.g., maybe in communities that gained protein from fish or small game), maybe the rules were more egalitarian. But in either case, as human tribes gained more members, as human societies became more complicated, their laws undoubtedly became more intricate – and more “civilized”, which originally meant simply that the people lived in cities. In addition, evidence suggests that when people initially became more civilized, male dominance diminished.

Possible reasons why the laws of the first civilizations suppressed male dominance seem self evident – and evidence supports the self-evident reasons. Thus, given that the first instances of city life (which, in the West, occurred in Egypt, Crete, and Mesopotamia) required an agricultural base and given that the agricultural revolution was probably led by women (whose gathering during the hunter-gather phase probably evolved into planting and harvesting crops), then it seem likely that, simultaneously, a change in culture occurred, from the male dominance of hunter societies (patriarchy) to cultures that provided more opportunities, freedoms, and respect for women. The result was not necessarily matriarchal societies (in which women would rule), but evidence suggests that many were matrilineal (in which children were named after their mothers and families were led by women). Evidence suggests, also, that during the early part of the agricultural revolution, goddesses (e.g., of fertility, such as Isis in Egypt and Inanna in Mesopotamia) were worshiped – again suggesting that women had earned and received respect from their communities. Given, also, the possibility that women invented writing (perhaps to keep account of their agricultural products), then women possibly defined and wrote the first laws.

That women might have produced the first “civilized” laws is consistent with the following speculation, written in about 50 BCE by Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily) in his book The Antiquities of Egypt (translated by Edwin Murphy and partially available at Google Books):
Moreover, they tell how Isis [who may have been an earlier ruler in Egypt and was subsequently “deified” as a goddess] established laws which encouraged men to deal justly with each other and to refrain from unlawful violence and outrage through fear of punishment; for which reason the earliest Greeks called [their earth-mother and goddess of grain; i.e., their Isis] Demeter [called Ceres by the Romans] “Law giver” (Thesmosphorus), since she gave men the first laws.
That the Egyptian goddess Isis (sister-wife of the god Osiris, who possibly was also a deified, earlier ruler) was assumed to be the original lawgiver perhaps explains why subsequent Ancient Egyptians (in contrast to the Ancient Hebrews) treated men and women equal under the law. Whether it be myth or history, after Osiris (called by the Greeks Dionysus) was killed by his brother Seth (or Set or Sut, called Typhon by the Greeks), then according to Diodorus, Isis ruled Egypt “in perfect justice and to excel all monarchs in kindness to her subjects.”

Diodorus adds the story that Isis was advised by the trusted, wise friend of Osiris, the god Thoth (or Tut) the “sacred scribe of the gods.” Thoth was called Hermes by the Greeks and possibly was another ingredient in the Hebrews’ myth about Moses. As is said to have been proclaimed by Thoth, himself:
I, Thoth, am the eminent writer, pure of hands… the writer of the truth, whose horror is the lie… the lord of the laws… I teach ma-a-t [order, universal law] to the gods, I test (each) word for its veracity… I am the leader of the sky, the earth, and the nether-world.
In other Egyptian myths, ma-a-t becomes Maat, Thoth’s wife and the goddess of law and order, or as Wallis Budge put it in his book The Gods of the Egyptians, the goddess Maat was “…the personification of law, order, rule, truth, right, righteousness, canon, justice, straightness, integrity, uprightness and the highest conception of physical and moral law known to the Egyptians.” In any event, after the deification of Isis, her and Osiris’s son, Horus (if he existed) may have become pharaoh, and as I mentioned in the previous post, essentially all subsequent pharaohs represented themselves as reincarnations or at least representatives of (the god) Horus.

Turning now to less myth and more history, on the left side of “the world’s oldest historical document”, the Narmer Palette shown in the previous post, the pharaoh who united upper and lower Egypt in about 3100 BCE (perhaps named Menes or Mēnēs, Mēnas, Mēnis, Meinis, Meni, Mēn, Mni – or the god Min – or the pharaohs Hor-Aha or Narmer) is shown establishing order with his club (or mace). Thereby, the most obvious information in the Narmer Palette is that a resurgent dynamic was occurring: the strength of men was again becoming “valuable”, in this case, to form a larger political unit. As I’ll mention later in this post, a similar dynamic apparently occurred in Mesopotamian; there, too, male dominance re-emerged, after apparently being suppressed for at least a thousand years before ~3000 BCE.

What laws the first ruler of the united Egypt (Menes) proscribed in about 3000 BCE seems to be unknown. With no available compilation of Egyptian laws, historians have been forced to infer the laws of Ancient Egypt from scattered records. For example, based on the ~2600 BCE Will of Prince Nikaure (or Nik’ure), which I quoted in an earlier post (as well as on other documents quoted in that post), it seems clear that the legal status of men and women in Ancient Egypt was essentially equivalent: women could inherit and dispose of their property, and children would sometimes be named after their mothers (i.e., partially at least, a matrilineal society).

The apparent lack of discrimination against women in the laws of Ancient Egypt is consistent not only with the respect given to the goddesses Isis and Maat but also with the likelihood that women continued to grow grains and work the land. In turn, as I’ve suggested elsewhere, perhaps the continued relative-respect given to Egyptian women and their role in society was based on the agricultural bounty of the Nile Valley. That is, with abundant food (in fact, Egypt was the “bread basket” of even the Roman Empire, thousands of years later), possibly with most of the food produced by women, and with few invaders (at least during the first 1,000 years of the unified Egypt), there was then little need for, first, population control, and later, for men as warriors. The main occupation of men in Ancient Egypt seems to be gazing at stars, concocting ideas of gods, dreaming about an afterlife, building pyramids, serving as administrators, and providing occasional stud services!

Similar seems to have occurred in the Minoan civilization, which is commonly called “the first known European civilization”. The Minoan civilization, named after King Minos, blossomed on the island of Crete. Archeologists date several epochs of the Minoan civilization during the time period from about 3500 to 1000 BCE: it flourished during the approximate time period 2700 to 1500 BCE and decayed relatively rapidly after the eruption of the island of Thera (or Santorini) and the associated ~150 m high tsunami that devastated the north coast of Crete. This eruption was “one of the largest volcanic events on Earth in recorded history” (comparable to Krakatoa in Indonesia) and possibly was the “inspiration” for the OT myth about Sodom and Gomorrah – which might even be mangled Hebrew names of the Minoan cities of Zominthos and Gournia!

My reasons for suggesting that the natural destruction caused by the Thera eruption may have led to the biblical story about a supernatural destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah include not only that the destruction actually occurred and evidence shows that Minoan traders traveled throughout the Mediterranean area (and no doubt told stories about the destruction) but also that, although records of Minoan laws are even more sparse than for the case of Egyptian laws, several lines of evidence suggest that Minoans openly practiced homosexuality. The Minoan society seems to have been much more peaceful than others of its time (or since!), there doesn’t seem to have been a warrior class, more goddesses than gods seem to have been worshipped, women participated in sporting activities, and possibly the limited availability of arable land on the island (plus the physical, economical, and spiritual liberation of the women) diminished desires for children – but not for sexual satisfaction, leading to acceptance of homosexuality. In foreign lands, if Minoan traders combined their stories about the destruction of their cities with invitations to participate in homosexuality, it’s easy to imagine that the result would be foreigners (especially foreign priests) concocting myths with the moral that their god took vengeance on such “immoral” people.

But setting the possible origin of the myth about Sodom and Gomorrah aside, the Minoan experience seems to have parallels in other cultures. Thus, similar to the likely agricultural constraints on Crete, limitations on Mesopotamian lands (especially its salinization caused by irrigation, as opposed to the flooding in the Nile Valley, which replenished the soil) seem to have resulted (by approximately 3,000 BCE) in desires 1) to control birthrates (which as I showed in an earlier post is the moral of the original “Noah” flood myth) and 2) to produce (male) warriors to defend against raiders (who in turn were probably driven by deficiencies of their own land to feed their growing populations). The result seems to have been a reduction in the esteem granted to fertility goddesses [such as Inanna, the Mesopotamian equivalent of Isis, subsequently called Ishtar by the Babylonians and Assyrians, Aphrodite by the Greeks, Astarte by the Phoenicians, and Asherah (Yahweh’s consort) by the Hebrews], an increase in the esteem given to warrior gods (such as Yahweh), an increase in the desire for sons (to serve as warriors), an increase in the assignment of women to bear children, restrictions on women’s sexual activities, and as result, laws that repressed women.

That suggested trend, however, seems to have been delayed in the southern cities of Sumer, since women there apparently fared much better under their laws than did women in the more northern Akkadian cities, until ~2,000 BCE. Around that time, Amorite tribes conquered Sumerian (and Akkadian) cities – and subsequently, they established the first Babylonian Empire. As Elisabeth Meir Tetlow describes in detail in her book Women, Crime, and Punishment in Ancient Law and Society, Vol. 1, The Ancient Near East:
At that time, as Amorite influence began to appear, punishments were determined on the basis of the gender of the victim and the gender of the offender. Women generally received harsher punishments than men. Such laws illustrate the widening gap between the increasing power and authority of men and the decreasing power of women in the late Isin/Larsa period, which developed parallel to the decreasing influence of the land culture of the high urban civilization of Sumer and the increasing influence of Amorite tribal customs.
Not incidentally, a similar dynamic may be occurring today, with Muslims attempting to have their tribal laws (called Sharia) supplement or replace the laws of the more civilized West.

The possibility that women in Sumerian cities may have faired better for longer (by ~1,000 years!) in southern than northern Mesopotamian cities may have been caused by the continuing productivity of the irrigated and frequently flooded lands of the south. Also, the migration of the Amorite tribes into Sumer may have been the result of a climatic warm-period that occurred ~2,000 BCE, decreasing agricultural production (also in Egypt, where widespread social unrest occurred) and causing nomadic tribes (such as the Amorites and the Hebrews) to invade other lands in search of better fodder for their animals. Similar migration and its consequences may occur in the near future, especially in Europe, if global warming causes even more economic hardships for Muslims.

In any case, what seems to have occurred in many ancient civilizations is that, after a bountiful time near the beginning of the agricultural revolution (probably led by women, who were then “equal before the law”), agricultural resources became constrained, the might and ferocity of men was needed for warfare, and men regained the dominance that they probably possessed during the much earlier hunter-gatherer period. With such male dominance, men again started to make the rules (establishing “law and order”), more gods (rather than goddesses) were worshipped, and of course, the men claimed that their laws were dictated to them by their gods. Diodorus summarized the result as follows:
For in primitive Egypt, after life had become settled… they say that the first person who convinced the people to use written laws was Menes, a man both lofty in spirit and the most altruistic in his way of life of any lawgiver in memory. He claimed that Hermes [Thoth] had given these laws to him as a source of many substantial benefits; and this, they say, is just what Minos of Crete did among the Greeks and Lycurgos among the Lacedaemonians [Spartans], the former asserting that he had received his revelations from Zeus, the latter from Apollo…
Thus, similar to the myth in the OT that Moses received his laws from his god – but much earlier – Egyptians had their myth that Menes received his laws from his god, and Minoans (and then the Greeks) had their myths that Minos received his laws from his god.

In the previous post I showed a little about similar claims by Mesopotamian leaders, including Urukagina’s claim (in about 2400 BCE) that he received his laws from the god Nignisur, Ur-Nammu’s claim (in about 2100 BCE) that he received his laws from the god Enlil, Lipit-Ishtar’s claim (in about 1900 BCE) that he received his laws from the gods Anu and Enlil, and Hammurabi’s claim (in about 1800 BCE) that he received his laws from Shamash. In fact, on the stele containing his law code, Hammurabi added the following figure depicting his receiving his laws directly from the Sun god, Shamash, shown seated:


It’s then incorrect to identify Menes (or Narmer) as the first lawgiver – as is done, for example, on the South Wall Frieze of the U.S. Supreme Court Building: the first human lawgiver was quite likely the first human male. Further, it's incorrect to identify the second and third lawgivers on the same Frieze as Hammurabi and Moses, respectively. Thereby the creators or approvers of the Frieze skipped over literally hundreds of other lawgivers, not necessarily more important than Hammurabi but certainly more important than the mythical Moses – reflecting a not untypical distortion of history by clerics and their dupes. In particular, for reasons to be addressed later in this post and the next, it’s clear that Moses wasn’t the author of the laws given in the OT.

Similar to the case for the laws of the Egyptian Menes, the Indian Manu (who was the alleged author, for example, of the horrible caste system, remnants of which persist in India today), and the Cretan Minos, details of any laws that the Hebrew Moses might have proclaimed are lost to us in mythology and manipulated manuscripts. Further, the similarity of the names Menes, Manu, Minos, and Moses suggests that there may have been substantial intermingling of myths, as has been speculated by many authors (as the reader can attest by searching the internet). In any event, certainly the OT’s claim that Moses received his laws from his God wasn’t a new concept: the same idea had already been widely dispersed in the ancient world for at least 2,000 years! As Diodorus wrote:
Thus it is recorded that among the Arians [Persians] Zathraustes [Zoroaster] claimed that the Good Spirit [the god Ahura Mazda] gave him his laws… and among the Jews Moyses [Moses] referred his laws to the god who is invoked as Iao [Yahweh]. They all did this [i.e., claimed that their laws were given to them by a god] either because they believed that a conception which would help humanity was marvelous and wholly divine, or because they held that the common crowd would be more likely to obey the laws if their attention was directed towards the majesty and power of those [gods] to whom their laws were ascribed.
It’s a pity that, ~2,000 years ago, Diodorus didn’t mention a third obvious reason why laws were claimed to be dictated by the gods, i.e., not only because 1) “a conception that would help humanity was… wholly divine” or 2) that “the common crowd” would be swayed by the “power of those [gods] to whom… laws were ascribed” but also because 3) the clerics thereby saw that promoting the lies that the gods dictated laws and ordained order would permit the priests to continue their parasitic existence, living off the producers of the world (as they do to this day). In particular, in the case of the clerics who concocted the Old Testament (OT) [whom I’ve been identifying in these posts as Ezra & Co-Conspirators (Ezra & C-C)], their claim that Yahweh gave Moses any laws is such a blatant lie that it’s amazing not only that the Ancient Hebrews believed it but also that, still today, most fundamentalist Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc. still believe such utter nonsense.

The nonsense of the claim that the “Laws of Moses” were given to him by the first symmetry-breaking quantum fluctuation in the original void (i.e., “God”) can be seen from many different perspectives. Below and in the next post, I’ll list illustrations of what I mean. I’ve organized the material into three categories.

1) Whereas the most certain knowledge that we possess (even more certain than the knowledge that we exist!) is that there are no gods (and never were any), then obviously, no god gave any laws to anyone.

I won’t provide further justification for that statement; I’ve dwelt on it (at length!) in my online book and in earlier posts in this blog.

2) Statements within the OT reveal that Moses [who, as I’ve suggested in earlier posts entitled “The Mythical Moses Monster”, is (almost certainly) mostly a fictional character] didn’t write the laws attributed to him; instead, the “Laws of Moses” were (almost certainly) written by Levitical priests centuries after Moses allegedly died.

Readers who desire support for that statement can find literally hundreds of thorough analyses on the internet, each quoting “chapter and verse”. Readers might want to start by examining the 2003 book by Andrew D. Benson entitled The Origins of Christianity and the Bible. Here, I’ll summarize with just a few points (made by Benson and other authors).

The essence of the argument that the OT, itself, demonstrates the “Laws of Moses” weren’t written by Moses but by later priests follows as an obvious, logical explanation for silly mistakes in the time sequencing of OT statements (i.e., anachronisms). Some examples follow.

• Similar to other groups, the Hebrews had their repertoire of myths, which Ezra & C-C modified to enhance the Levitical priesthood. I’ve provided many illustrations of such mangled myths in earlier posts in this series. Still another example is the priests’ silly addition to the Noah myth that Yahweh allegedly told Noah: “You must take with you [into the ark] seven of every kind of clean animal… two of every kind of unclean animal.” The obvious problem with that statement, however (as noticed by Thomas Paine), is that the distinction between “clean” vs. “unclean” animals would make no sense until after the Levitical priests made such a distinction, which even according to the Bible’s chronology was many thousands of years after Noah!

• According to Yahweh’s alleged covenant with Abraham, all Hebrew males were to be circumcised, but Ezra & C-C obviously inserted that requirement at a much later date, because in their fictitious story about the Exodus, neither Moses nor any of the Jews who allegedly wandered in the desert for 40 years were circumcised.

• According to one of the “Laws of Moses” (namely, the Second Commandment) the Hebrews were not to make any carved images (“You shall not make a carved image for yourself nor the likeness of anything in the heavens above, on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth”), but that’s obviously an addition to the OT later than the story about Moses, since in that story, he made an image of a snake, which the people allegedly used to cure themselves of snake bites.

• According to the OT, the Jews were in possession of the “Laws of Moses” (as given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) centuries before there were kings of Judah and Israel, but in the OT books of Samuel 1 & 2 and Kings 1 & 2, the kings and the people obviously knew essentially nothing of such laws, until the high priest Hilkiah (Ezra's great grandfather) “miraculously” found “the book of the law [of Moses]” in “the house of the Lord” (built by Solomon, approximately three centuries earlier). Hilkiah had “the book of the law” read to Josiah (king of Judah from ~640–609 BCE, beginning his reign when he was only eight years old), who then (no doubt under the high priest's guidance) started laying down the law, executing priests of competing religions and destroying figurines of Yahweh’s consort, the mother goddess Asherah.

In fact, the OT, itself, incriminates the Levitical priests of concocting the “Laws of Moses”. Thus, after the boy-king Josiah started laying down the law, “the prophet” Jeremiah (c.650 – c.585 BCE) recorded his opinions both about such laws and the “prophets” and priests who promoted them, allegedly saying (Jeremiah 8, 8–10):
How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord”, when scribes with their lying pens have falsified it?… For all, high and low, are out for ill-gotten gain; prophets and priest are frauds, every one of them.
As to how the “scribes with their lying pen falsified… the law of the Lord”, my relatively superficial studies of the research of archeologists and the writings of other authors (who have spent their lives studying details!) lead me to the following speculations.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some Egyptian priest, whose name was shortened to Moses, did move to the Egyptian colony of Canaan sometime during the time period from about 1400–1200 BCE and did have some influence on the natives, who didn’t know how to write. He might have inscribed on stone tablets some variation of what he remembered from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, e.g.,
Nor have I despised god… Nor have I killed… Nor have I fornicated… Nor have I despoiled the thing of the god… Nor have I defiled the wife of a man… Nor have I cursed god… Nor have I borne false witness.
The above “negative confessions” from the Book of the Dead already contain five of the “Ten Commandments of Moses”:
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain… Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery… Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
As for the significance of having written laws, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas make a good point in their book The Hiram Key:
The idea of messages materializing out of marks on stone amazed ordinary people and the scribes who could make “stone talk” were considered to be holders of great magic. This is easily appreciated when one realizes that the Egyptians called hieroglyphics “the Words of the God”, a term that would often be repeated throughout the Bible.
Centuries after Moses allegedly inscribed the Ten Commandments in stone, the Canaanites who were later called Hebrews learned how to write their language (in about 1000 BCE) and began recording their stories, legends, myths, and chronicles. As given in Chapter 3 (entitled “The Origins and Development of the Laws of Moses”) of Benson’s book (referenced earlier):
The development of the Mosaic law is clouded with obscurity. Other than the Ten Commandments (which were probably written in hieroglyphics), the Israelites began to write parts of the law of Moses in Hebrew after they acquired the Hebrew alphabet from the Phoenicians… Scholars estimate that parts of the first four books of the Pentateuch were committed to writing between about 900 and 800 BCE. Deuteronomy, they believe, was committed to writing in the 7th century… [Probably by or under the direction of the high priest Hilkiah, in about 620 BCE, who then informed King Josiah about the “Laws of Moses”.] They completed it [the Pentateuch] after the exile, sometime after 450 BCE in the time of Ezra the scribe and before the Samaritans separated from the rest of the Israelites (perhaps around 432 BCE).
For readers desiring a more thorough analyses of what might have occurred, I’d encourage them to start by reading Wikipedia’s excellent summary of the book by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman entitled The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.

3) With respect to the “Laws of Moses”, themselves, they contain no internal evidence that the author was an omnipotent and omniscient god; instead, the laws that deal with religious matters are similar to laws already proscribed by other parasitic priesthoods (especially by the Egyptian priesthood) and the laws that deal with civil matters are similar to tribal and community laws that had already been established elsewhere in the Middle East.

Now, under space and time constraints, I’m unable to give a full explanation and defense for the above claim. In an earlier chapter, I’ve illustrated what I mean solely in the case of the Ten Commandments. In addition, elsewhere I’ve gone through a substantial fraction of all the policies advocated in the OT (and in the NT, the Book of Mormon, and the Koran) and if the reader has the perseverance to go through all of that, I really don’t know how he or she could come to any conclusion than to agree that the clerics who wrote the “Laws of Moses” painted the Abrahamic god not as omnipotent and omniscient but as an impotent numbskull – with a bad attitude. Here, therefore, I’ll only outline the justification for my claim – an outline that, nonetheless, will continue for the rest of this post and the next!

In the case of the Ten Commandments, the purpose of the First Four is clearly just to fortify the priesthood, but imagine the insolence of the authors who claimed that an omniscient god would be “jealous” and that an omnipotent god would became tired after snapping his fingers (or whatever) to create the world in six days and therefore “rested” on the seventh? Talk about “taking the Lord’s name in vain”! Then, think of the incompetence of anyone (or any god) who would demand (command) that you love him (when love, like any emotion, can’t be “commanded”). Further, think of the injustice of punishing your children and grandchildren (out to “the third and fourth generations”) for something that you allegedly did wrong – such as “taking the Lord’s name in vain”; if it were true, it could explain why Jewish priests have had so much trouble during the past ~2500 years: anyone (let alone a jealous god) would be insulted by having his name associated with such laws!

As for inadequacies in Commandments Six through Ten:
• What if your father and mother don’t deserve to be honored?

• Define ‘murder’, define ‘adultery’, define ‘steal’!

• What if you “give false evidence” to deter someone from killing someone?

• There’s nothing wrong if you ‘covet’ something! What’s important is: what actions (if any) do you plan to then take?
And if the above isn’t enough evidence to support the claim that the Ten Commandments weren’t created by an omnipotent, omniscient god, then think of the incompetence of any legislator who doesn’t specify the consequence of breaking a proposed law, i.e., “Thou shalt not… [whatever]” or else… WHAT? He’ll take his ball and go back home?! Would that the little brat would!

Now, I admit, “defenders of the faith” would probably point out that their god did specify the penalty for breaking his commandments, e.g., in his (alleged) statement at Exodus 15, 26:
“If only you will obey the Lord your God, if you will do what is right in his eyes, if you will listen to his commands and keep all his statutes, then I will never bring upon you any of the sufferings which I brought on the Egyptians…”
But as any lawyer worth her fee would tell you: “That statement specifies the consequences if you obey the law; not if you don’t.”

And sure enough (according to the myth), almost immediately after Moses informed the people of “God’s laws”, Moses found that “God’s Laws” were inadequate. As a result, after people had Aaron create a golden calf idol, Moses had to ad lib the missing “punishment part” of the code (Exodus 32, 25):
[After coming down from the mountain] Moses saw that the people were out of control… He took his place at the gate of the camp and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come here to me”; and the Levites all rallied to him [Moses was a Levite; subsequent priests were to be Levites]. He said to them, “These are the words of the Lord the God of Israel [although there’s neither evidence nor even any suggestion that God said such words to Moses!]: ‘Arm yourselves, each of you, with his sword. Go through the camp from gate to gate and back again. Each of you kill his brother, his friend, his neighbor’.” The Levites obeyed, and about three thousand of the people died [i.e., were murdered] that day. Moses then said [to the Levites], “Today you have consecrated yourselves to the Lord completely, because you have turned each against his own son and his own brother [i.e., murdered them] and so have this day brought a blessing upon yourselves.”
And thus Moses (allegedly) completed the Ten Commandments, incompetently specified by his god, by defining the punishment for breaking the laws – after the “crime” had been committed!

Fortunately, such “retroactive” or “after-the-fact” or “ex-post-facto” laws are now prohibited in modern societies – and even in Iran and Pakistan! In fact, Article 11, paragraph 2 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits such evil as was allegedly perpetrated by Moses (or his god) of specifying punishment ex post facto.

Meanwhile, in reality, no evidence supports the above story about Moses defining the punishments for breaking a law after the law was broken, but the story, itself, provides many morals – beyond the hideous moral that the God of the Bible violates human rights by imposing ex-post-facto laws. Some examples include the following.
• To maintain “law and order”, warnings and threats from any tyrant (human or god) aren’t sufficient; instead, force is needed.

• To stay in control, a tyrant therefore needs a loyal police force (Levite priests or SS troopers or…) and needs to apply the law of the jungle: might makes right.

• Do not expect a tyrant to abide by “the law”; thus, even the law “thou shalt not kill” (or “you shall not commit murder”) is a law for the people, not for the tyrant and his police (or priests).

• Priests were (and still are) just primitive lawmakers and police – and, of course, great con artists, magically taming the supernatural for their own benefit.

• Priests will do anything to “protect their turf” (that is, to protect their source of livelihood): if people stray from the system of beliefs that they preach (for their daily bread), history shows that priests will do anything, including murdering “nonbelievers”.

• Never trust the words of any cleric, for with them (as Humpty Dumpty said), words mean whatever they want them to mean, “neither more nor less”. Thus, by murdering people, directly violating a “Thou shalt not…”, they “brought a blessing” on themselves.

• Clerics who follow the Bible (preaching Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.) have chosen an absolutely horrible “manual” to follow. It advocates the most extreme religious intolerance imaginable: worship our god or we’ll kill you.
Aren’t those lovely morals? Then, is there any wonder why, yesterday (22 May 2009), U.S. Congressman Paul Broun (R–Ga.) introduced a resolution to make 2010 “The Year of the Bible”? The resolution states, in part:
The president is encouraged… to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great Democratic form of government, as well as its rich spiritual heritage, and which has unified, healed and strengthened its people for over 200 years.
Glorious! I think that even more glorious, however, would be if a law were enacted requiring everyone to demonstrate to schoolteachers basic competence in evaluative- or critical-thinking before being permitted either to vote or to run for any office!

President Jefferson proposed something similar:
What is proposed… is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer, and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered.
But then, imagine the uproar from all religious fundamentalists who, unable to demonstrate rudimentary skills in critical thinking, would no longer be permitted to vote: no doubt they’d start screaming, like Moses and the Taliban, “Kill the infidels!”

In any case, the above example from the Bible is one of the best available to show how power mongers control the people. Setting an example for Constantine, Muhammad, Hitler, and Stalin to follow, this part of the Bible has Moses first form a squad of killers (his Levites were like Constantine’s loyal legionaries, Muhammad’s mujahideen, Hitler’s SS troopers, and Stalin’s Secret Police), who would murder anyone for their leader. And then, the leader “justifies” his actions by claiming that they served some “higher good”. Such power mongers maintain that “the end justifies the means”, ignoring the reality that “means are ends in themselves”.

In their completed form (stripped of nonessentials) the “Laws of Moses” became the simple rule: “Do whatever we clerics say – or die.” For later commandments, however, punishments were specified for breaking the clerics’ laws. In particular (although I’ve not bothered to verify the numbers), of the total of 613 (not Ten!) Commandments in the OT, the penalty for breaking 50 of them is death! Kill, kill, kill – not murder, mind you, because when the priests tell people to kill, then it’s “justified homicide”. It isn’t murder – even if you kill men, women, and children living peacefully on their own land – if they’re such horrible people as to think for themselves and worse: have a different priesthood. As Muslim clerics continue to claim, there’s room for only one con-game at a time.

When the stupidity of most of “God’s laws” is combined with the inappropriateness of the associated penalties for breaking the laws, the result is ripe for ridicule. As a great illustration, consider the following anonymous letter, possibly written by “Kent Ashcraft” and written as if it were a letter to the American “talk-show host” Laura Schlessinger.
Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

• When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

• I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

• I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

• Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

• I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

• A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

• Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

• Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?


• I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

• My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Still another way to see that no omnipotent, omniscient god dictated the “Laws of Moses” is to compare his alleged laws with laws established earlier in other cultures. When such comparisons are made, as I’ll outline in the next post, then once again it’s seen that the fictitious god of the Bible (and of the Koran and the Book of Mormon) wasn’t omnipotent and omniscient but incompetent and obscene.

www.zenofzero.net


2009/04/20

The Law Lie - 5 - Leaders


With the previous four posts in this series, I tried to show at least a little of the history of some features of the Law Lie (itself part of the God Lie), including the lies:

• That morality is defined by the gods,
• That justice is the jurisdiction of the gods,
• That judges are judged by the gods,
• That customs were created by the gods,
• That oaths are binding when sworn to the gods,
• That covenants can be established with the gods…

In this post, I want to show a little of the history of an additional feature of the Law Lie, namely, the lie that leaders are chosen by the gods.

In reality, closer to the truth is that social animals (such as wolves, monkeys, and humans) form groups, members of each group develop concepts of morality, justice, and customs through experience, and within each group, commonly a leader emerges. For most social animals, this leader (commonly called “the alpha male”) is usually the strongest member of the group, e.g., King Gilgamesh. As humans became more knowledgeable, most people probably hoped that the leader would be the most intelligent member of the group. Such a hope would be consistent with the Sumerian proverb (from more than 4,000 years ago!) that strength cannot keep pace with intelligence. There are, however, many forms of intelligence, and history has unfortunately shown that human alpha males have commonly excelled in deceit, evasion, and treachery.

In this series of posts dealing with the Mountainous God Lie, I’ve been trying to provide evidence to support the indictment that examples of such treacherous alpha males were those who fabricated the Old Testament (OT), whom I’ve been identifying as Ezra and co-conspirators (abbreviated to Ezra & C-C). Evidence suggests that Ezra & C-C collected and concocted fictitious stories (e.g., about Moses), assembled them to form the OT, and used the result to rule the Jewish people on behalf of their Persian masters. In subsequent posts I’ll try to provide evidence to support the indictments that Christian conspirators (primarily “Saint” Paul, “Saint” Constantine, and a host of popes), Muslim conspirators (particularly Muhammad and subsequent caliphs), and Mormon conspirators (especially Sydney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young) followed the example set by Ezra & C-C to rule those they had similarly duped.

It seems obvious why primitive people would conclude that their leaders were chosen by the gods. In the worldview of primitive people, the gods control everything; therefore, the people probably reasoned that, since some alpha male had become their leader, it must have been because the gods had chosen him to rule – illustrating, once again, how preposterous conclusions can logically follow from false premisses. In fact, the first examples in Western history suggest even more preposterous conclusions: given that their leaders had “life over death” power over the people, they apparently accepted their leaders’ claims that the leaders were gods, sometimes “resurrected” gods, or at least, part gods.

One example is the leader who united Upper and Lower Egypt in about 3100 BCE. His name is uncertain; he has been identified as Menes (or Meni or Min), but he may have been pharaoh Hor-Aha or his father Narmer. Whoever he was, he apparently claimed to be a re-incarnation of the god Horus (the son of the god Osiris and the goddess Isis, who in turn may have been “deified” earlier rulers). Horus was typically represented as a falcon, which soars so high “into the heavens” that it becomes invisible. He’s shown in many details in what’s been called “the world’s oldest historical document”, the Narmer Palette (shown below); the falcon Horus appears prominently in the left side of the figure (to the right of Narmer), but if details of the Palette are examined, many depictions of Horus can be found. And I’ll add that, as interested readers can find, interpretation of the Palette has been controversial during most of the century since it was found, and in fact, full interpretation of “the world’s oldest historical document” is still unsettled.


Subsequently, essentially all Egyptian pharaohs similarly claimed to be the resurrected or re-incarnated Horus, i.e., they claimed to be gods. Approximately 3,000 years later, Christian clerics claimed that their Jesus was the son of god (or even god, himself, in human form), and approximately 5,000 years after Menes, the Japanese were still claiming that their emperor was a god.

Returning to the ancient past, an example from Mesopotamia of a leader claiming to be a god or related to a god is “the shepherd king”, King Dumuzi (c. 2800 BCE). He was claimed to be son of the Lord of the Earth (Enki) and to be married to the fertility goddess Inanna (subsequently called Ishtar, Aphrodite, and in northern Europe, Oestre or Ester, from which the English word ‘Easter’ and its European celebration are derived). Later, in Ancient Babylonia (and in the OT), Dumuzi was called Tammuz; he was worshipped as the god of spring fertility, as was Osiris in Egypt.

For readers of these posts, a more familiar example of a leader claiming to be a god or related to a god is King Gilgamesh (c. 2700 BCE, king of the city of Uruk, spelled Erech in the OT). In The Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh is claimed to be “two-thirds god, one-third human”, which is genetically impossible. In his stimulating analysis of The Epic, Bob Trubshaw suggests that, with such a description, Gilgamesh is being depicted as the planet that we call Mercury, which the Greeks called “the messenger of the gods”, which moves through only two-thirds of the Zodiac, and which the Sumerians might have concluded spends the other third of its time on Earth, as King Gilgamesh!

But speculations aside, subsequent written records clearly show the lie (or, more generously for ancient people, “the mistake”) that leaders were chosen by the gods. The oldest surviving example seems to be the claim made by “the world’s first social reformer”, Urukagina, who became “lugal [ruler] of Lagash” in about 2400 BCE. In the depiction of conditions prior to his reforms (some of which I included in an earlier post in this series) clay tablets state the following, in which someone else (maybe the translator) has added the notes in parentheses and I’ve added the notes in brackets, […]:
When the god Ningirsu, the warrior of the god Enlil [En = lord; lil = wind; therefore Enlil = Lord of the Wind, similar to the wind god Odin, called Woden in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon versions of Norse mythology and whom many of us still honor every Wednesday = Wodnesdaeg = Woden’s Day], granted the lugal-ship of Lagash to Urukagina, picking him out of the entire population, he [Ningirsu] enjoined upon him (the restoration of) the divinely decreed way of life of former days. He [Urukagina] carried out the instructions of his divine lugal, Ningirsu.
Happiness is having the sky god’s warrior god chose you to rule! Incidentally, notice also that (consistent with my earlier post on the lie that customs were created by the gods) Urukagina described his community’s customs as “the divinely decreed way of life of former days.”

A second written example of the lie that leaders are chosen by the gods appears in the law code of Ur-Nammu, written in Sumerian in about 2100 BCE. Its prologue states:
…After An [king of the gods] and Enlil had turned over the Kingship of Ur to Nanna [sure they did!] at that time did Ur-Nammu, son born of Ninsun [a goddess, the “lady wild cow”], for his beloved mother who bore him, in accordance with his principles of equity and truth... Then did Ur-Nammu the mighty warrior, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad, by the might of Nanna, lord of the city, and in accordance with the true word of Utu [the Sun god and god of justice], establish equity in the land…
Still another example appears in the Law Code of Lipit-Ishtar, who ruled the first dynasty of Isin from about 1934–1924 BCE:
When Anu [same as An, the king of the gods] and Enlil had called Lipit-Ishtar, Lipit-Ishtar the wise shepherd whose name had been pronounced by Nunamnir [another name for Enlil], to the princeship of the land in order to establish justice in the land, to banish complaints, to turn back enmity and rebellion by force of arms, and to bring well-being to the Sumerians and Akkadians, then I, Lipit-Ishtar, the humble shepherd of Nippur, the stalwart farmer of Ur, who abandons not Eridu, the suitable lord of Erech, king of Isin, king of Sumer and Akkad, who am fit for the heart of [the goddess] Inanna [but, come to think of it, I’m not that “humble”!], established justice in Sumer and Akkad in accordance with the word of Enlil.
Probably the most famous example from Ancient Mesopotamia, however, is the claim by Hammurabi, king of Babylon from c. 1795–1750 BCE and the first king of the Babylonian Empire, who had the following written in the preamble to his law code:
When Anu the Sublime (King of the Anunaki [which seems to mean “King of the gods”]) and Bel (the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land) assigned to Marduk (the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness [for the Babylonians, Marduk replaced Enlil as the sky god]) dominion over earthly man and made him great among the Igigi [the host of gods], they called Babylon by his illustrious name [maybe that means that cities were “male” – whereas, nowadays, cities are commonly considered “female”], made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth. Then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak, so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash [similar to the Sumerian god Utu, the Sun god and god of justice], and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.
Many other examples are available, some of which I showed in earlier posts in this series. Thus, in earlier posts I quoted from tablets and stelae demonstrating: 1) that “the Alexander the Great of Ancient Egypt”, Thothmes III (c.1480–1425 BCE), claimed that he was chosen to rule by the chief Egyptian god of the time, Amen-Ra, 2) that the ruler of the Assyrian Empire from 1115–1077 BCE, Tiglath-Pileser I, claimed he ruled on behalf of his chief god, Ashur, and 3) that even Cyrus the Great, ruler of the Persian Empire from 559–530 BCE, claimed he conquered Babylon because:
…he [the god Marduk] pronounced the name Cyrus, king of Anshan, declared him… to be(come) the ruler of all the world.
Consequently, when Cyrus freed the Jews (permitting them to return from Babylon to “the promised land”) and when subsequent Persian Emperors gave power over the Jewish people to the Jewish priests (who in turn were under the Persian governor!), the priests certainly didn’t set a precedent by claiming (as they wrote in their OT) that their god (Yahweh) had chosen prior Jewish leaders: people had being doing similar for at least the previous 2500 years! The redactors of the OT (i.e., Ezra & C-C) did, however, take such silliness to an extreme: they apparently re-worked, re-invented, and re-wrote essentially the entire history of the Hebrews and their neighbors, claiming that everything was under control of their creator god, that he dictated and controlled both the past, present, and future, that he had “personally” chosen the Hebrews as “his people”, and wouldn’t you know, that he had chosen them as his priests.

Their rewrite of Jewish “history” (i.e., the resulting books in the OT, from Genesis up through Ezra and Nehemiah) is such blatant theological propaganda, such a pack of priestly fabrications, such a distortion of reality that to anyone whose mind hasn’t been warped by religious indoctrination, the result is simply one humongous pile of BS. Below, I’ll try to illustrate what I mean. First, though, I’d like to make a couple of general comments. Then, my plan is to ease into at least a cursory examination of the “humongous pile of BS” contained in the next seven “books” of the OT that follow the Pentateuch.

In my first general comment, I’ll try to diminish my criticism of Ezra & C-C. As a way of introduction, consider the final paragraph of an article by Daniel Lazare published in the March 2002 issue of Harper’s Magazine and entitled “Archaeology Refutes the Bible’s Claim to History” (more of which I’ll quote later in this post):
Does this mean that monotheism was nothing more than a con, a ruse cooked-up by ambitious priests in order to fool a gullible population? As with any religion, cynicism and belief, realpolitik and genuine fervor, all came together in a way that we can barely begin to untangle. To say that the Jerusalem priesthood intentionally cooked-up a phony history is to assume that the priests possessed a modern concept of historical truth and falsehood, and surely this is not so. As the biblical minimalist Thomas L. Thompson has noted, the Old Testament’s authors did not subscribe to a sequential chronology but to some more complicated arrangement in which the great events of the past were seen as taking place in some foggy time “before time”. The priests, after all, were not inventing a past; they were inventing a present and, they trusted, a future.
Stating it differently – and being as generous to the clerical authors of the OT as I can stomach – I’d say this. Similar to essentially everyone living at the time (except followers of Confucius and the Buddha, some atheistic Greek philosophers, and no doubt other atheists who had sufficient presence of mind to keep their views on “the god idea” to themselves – so they’d be able to keep their heads attached to their bodies!), the Jewish clerics who were living in Babylon during the fifth century BCE and who had learned from the Persians about their all-powerful creator god (Ahura Mazda) were certain that the creator god controlled everything – past, present, and future. Starting from that faulty premiss, Ezra & C-C apparently challenged themselves to understand why they were losers in Babylon rather than winners in their homeland. With their experiences (no doubt) of being punished by their own fathers when they were children and had done something contrary to his will, they concluded “the obvious”: the Jewish people must have done something that had offended the all-powerful creator god. Whereupon, given some fables, myths, songs, and similar known by the people and given that they quite likely possessed scrolls that they repeatedly describe in the OT as the “Annals of the Kings…”, the clerics then apparently filled in details with “explanations” of what they assumed the Jews had done wrong, “justifying” their current predicament. The result is the OT.

And in my other general comment I want to compare clerical vs. other leaders. Thus, although earlier Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian… leaders claimed that the gods chose them to lead, yet such (political) leaders undoubtedly backed-up their claims with their weapons and warriors, relying on the law of the jungle that “might makes right”. Clerics, however, are a breed apart. Just as Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Hindu priests had done for thousands of years earlier (and to varying degrees of success), the Jewish clerics in Babylon apparently agreed with the Sumerian proverb “strength cannot keep pace with intelligence.” In particular, Ezra & C-C apparently concluded that, instead of trying to rule the returning Israelites on behalf of their Persian masters by force (which would require bravery, a virtue deficient in essentially all clerics), they saw that they could rule the people by capturing their imagination. Again, the result is the OT.

Subsequent clerical con artists similarly concocted the New Testament (NT), the Koran, and the Book of Mormon. In times past, clerics were able to get away with fabricating such stories, because the majority of people were superstitious – and today, a horrible number of people still are. As a result, claims that God had chosen a particular person as leader (e.g., Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith) could be “corroborated” simply by fabricating stories of sundry supernatural stunts. For example, as given in the OT, God obviously chose Moses, for otherwise, how could he have caused the Egyptians so much trouble (including parting the Reed Sea, drowning the Egyptian army) and how could Moses have provided the Hebrews with so much (including water from rocks in the desert and manna from the heavens)? Similarly, and now moving on past the Pentateuch of the OT, Joshua parted the Jordan River (when it was in flood, no less), used trumpets to blow down the walls of Jericho, and to top it off, made the Sun stand still “for about a full day” – for in those days, doncha know, the Sun moved around a nonspinning, flat-plate Earth! And by the way, there’s no doubt that the Sun did stand still, because (Joshua 10, 13) The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One, and everyone who is anyone knows that “the Upright One” never lied.

Readers who can tolerate reading such silliness will encounter a continuous string of such supernatural nonsense throughout the Bible, both in the OT and the NT. Thus, similar supernatural silliness “supports” the claim that God chose Jesus, who (not to be outdone by Moses and Joshua) walked on water, turned water to wine, fed thousands with two loaves of bread, cured people of infirmities by driving out evil spirits, and brought people (including himself) back to life. As Marilla Young Ricker summarized:
Man has asked for the truth and the Church has given him miracles. He has asked for knowledge, and the Church has given him theology. He has asked for facts, and the Church has given him the Bible. This foolishness should stop.
Actually, though, Ricker’s criticism certainly shouldn’t be restricted to “the [Catholic] Church”. For more than 100 generations, people have been indoctrinated with the idea that the foolishness concocted by Ezra & C-C is “the truth”. That is, the OT is the foundation not only of Judaism but also of Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism. In the later religions, additional silliness is added, such as fictitious supernatural-beings called “angels” informing the mother of Jesus that she would bear a savior who was the son of the first symmetry-breaking quantum fluctuation in the original void that led to the Big Bang (i.e., “God”), informing “the prophet” Muhammad about the desires of the same omnipotent God (who, if he were omnipotent, could have no desires!), and informing Joseph Smith where the same omniscient God had hidden a “golden Bible” (who, if he were omniscient, would have known that the original inhabitants of the America were not the lost tribes of Israel and that his choice of Joseph Smith as his “prophet” would be a disaster, since even the people and police of New York State knew that he was a “gold digger”, a con artist, and a philanderer!).

Nowadays, for some strange reason, whenever such claimed supernatural stunts are investigated scientifically, they’re found to be fraudulent, apparently designed to increase clerical power. Further, when scientists propose to test such claims, “modern” Christian and Mormon clerics still commonly repeat the admonition reportedly made by Jesus (e.g., at Matthew 4, 7)
“You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.”
It’s understandable why Christian and Mormon clerics would advocate such a policy (and I certainly prefer their policy over the policy advocated in both the OT and the Koran, namely, “kill the unbelievers”), but perhaps clerics of all the Abrahamic religions would like to explain why it conflicts with the procedure allegedly followed by Gideon, who repeatedly required God to produce evidence, e.g., starting at Judges 6, 36:
Gideon said to God, “If you really intend to use me to deliver Israel, as you promised, then give me a sign as proof. Look, I am putting a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece, and the ground around it is dry, then I will be sure that you will use me to deliver Israel, as you promised.” The Lord did as he asked. When he got up the next morning, he squeezed the fleece, and enough dew dripped from it to fill a bowl. Gideon said to God, “Please do not get angry at me, when I ask for just one more sign. Please allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make only the fleece dry, while the ground around it is covered with dew.” That night God did as he asked. Only the fleece was dry and the ground around it was covered with dew.
I’d say: “Good for Gideon!” Unfortunately, though, his subjecting his god to such as test is about the only praiseworthy aspect of his bloody career (as described in the OT), and even that praise should be tempered, since he erred by not making his experimental-test public knowledge and by not waiting for independent confirmation of his experimental results before acting on them, e.g., as given at Judges 8, 17, by executing the men of the city of Penuel for not believing him.

Apparently, though (at least according to the authors of the OT), the test was sufficiently convincing for Gideon to lead his men to attack the Midianite army and to personally murder their kings (Judges 8, 21). In turn, according to the story, that “success” was sufficient for the Israelites to offer Gideon authority over them, saying (Judges 8, 22): Rule over us – you, your son, and your grandson. For you have delivered us from Midian’s power. But Gideon refused (at least, so the clerical authors claim), saying: I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The Lord will rule over you.

In essence, that’s the theme of The Book of Judges, a theme contained in its fictitious tales about Gideon, Samson, and other brutes (with the Samson myth being a Hebrew plagiarism of the myth about the superhuman and subsequent Sun-god Hercules, 'Samson' being a Hebrew word for 'Sun'). Thus, the reader is repeatedly told: In those days, Israel had no king. Instead, the priests ruled (as judges) – at least, according to the fantasies of Ezra & C-C.

In the next several books of the OT, we learn about the kings whom God allegedly chose to rule the Jewish people. To start the story, in Ruth we meet the great grandmother of King David, i.e., Ruth, over whom a lot of ink has been uselessly spilled. On the one side, detractors of the story point out that Ruth was a Moabitess, and therefore (consistent with one of the alleged proclamations by Moses), she wouldn’t have been permitted to join the Jewish religion [allegedly showing that the Laws of Moses weren’t known to the author(s) of Ruth or that the clerical authors were just sloppy]. But on the other side, defenders of (or “apologists for”) the OT point out that the Moabite restriction from Moses was applicable only to males. Yet, all that aside, the story of Ruth is one of the few stories (is it the only story?) in the OT showing love and cooperation between women; it’s therefore a most welcome relief from the male mayhem, murder, and misogyny that dominate the rest of the OT.

More of such mayhem, murder, and misogyny appears in the First Book of Samuel (i.e., 1 Samuel), in which we’re introduced to another of the real heroes of the clerics’ tales, i.e., fellow clerics (or prophets), such as Moses, Joshua, and now Samuel, who wasn't a king but a “prophet of the Lord”. I’ll skip some of the earlier supernatural stunts that Samuel allegedly performed and, instead, start with the story that when Samuel was old and his sons became judges who perverted justice, the elders of Israel reportedly said to him (1 Samuel 8, 5):
Look you are old, and your sons don’t follow your ways. So now, appoint over us a king to lead us, just like all the other nations have.
Samuel reportedly warned the people about the excesses of kings (that they weren't good people, like the priests!) and warned the people that Yahweh would abandon them if they chose to be ruled by a king rather than by the clerics’ god (i.e., in reality, by the clerics), but the people reportedly insisted and persisted.

Succumbing to the people’s will (so the story goes), we learn in 1 Samuel 10 how “the prophet” Samuel “anointed” Saul to be king and about Samuel’s prophetic abilities. A slight problem exists, however, in that prophets in the religious sense are all fakes: no one (not even a god) can foretell the future in the detail claimed by clerics, since even a god can’t overcome the inherent uncertainties of the nonlinear system called “the human system” (or more simply, ‘humanity’). For readers who desire details to support that statement, they should have at least a bachelor’s degree in math and then investigate what are called “positive Lyapunov coefficients”, which lead to exponential divergence of nearby states of nonlinear systems.

In essence, the results show that the detailed future of nonlinear systems isn't just unpredictable in practice; it’s unpredictable in principle. Thus, although general constraints on nonlinear systems can be prescribed, details can’t. For example, the future climate will continue to conform to the first and second principles of thermodynamics (conservation of energy and increase in entropy); therefore, the future climate (the 30-year average of the weather) can (in principle) be predicted – but not the future weather (i.e., the specific state of the atmosphere at a given place and time). Similarly, uncertainties in initial conditions (in the limit including quantum uncertainties) preclude exactly predicting the evolution of any nonlinear system (such as humanity): it’s not just that scientists and “prophets” can’t do it, even an omniscient god couldn’t do it – assuming that even such a god would be restricted by Nature’s requirement expressed in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

Meanwhile, though, anyone can guess the future (of course), and there’s a chance that the guesser will be lucky – but the more details guessed, the less likely that they’ll be correct. For example, someone might guess that I’ll die on August 27, and given that there’s 365 days in the year and ignoring variations in death rates with season, then there’s 1 chance in 365 that the guess will be right. Further, if that same someone guesses that I’ll die on the highway on August 27, then if the chance of anyone dying on the highway is one in 300 (pulling the number out of my hat), then the chance that the guesser would be right would be roughly 1 chance in 365 x 300 = 1 chance in roughly 100,000 = 1 / 10^5 = 10^(-5). And if the guesser further “prophesied” that I’d die on August 27 on the highway because a bridge will collapse, then if the chance of anyone being killed in such an accident is 1 in 10 million (again pulling the number out of my hat), then if it were to occur, then it would certainly be an impressive feat to have made such a call correctly, when there was only 1 chance in 10^5 x 10^7 = 10^12 (i.e., one chance in a trillion) that “the prophet” would be correct.

With that example in mind, consider “the prophet” Samuel’s prediction for the first king of Israel, Saul (1 Samuel 10, 1–6):
Then Samuel took a small container of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head [which was the “anointment” procedure]. Samuel kissed him and said, “The Lord has chosen you to lead his people Israel! You will rule over the Lord’s people and you will deliver them from the power of the enemies who surround them. This will be your sign that the Lord has chosen you as leader over his inheritance. When you leave me today, you will find two men near Rachel’s tomb at Zelzah on Benjamin’s border. They will say to you, ‘The donkeys you have gone looking for have been found. Your father is no longer concerned about the donkeys but has become anxious about you two! He is asking, “What should I do about my son”?’ As you continue on from there, you will come to the tall tree of Tabor. At that point three men who are going up to God at Bethel will meet you. One of them will be carrying three young goats, one of them will be carrying three round loaves of bread, and one of them will be carrying a container of wine. They will ask you how you’re doing and will give you two loaves of bread. You will accept them. Afterward you will go to Gibeah of God, where there are Philistine officials. When you enter the town, you will meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place. They will have harps, tambourines, flutes, and lyres, and they will be prophesying. Then the spirit of the Lord will rush upon you and you will prophesy with them. You will be changed into a different person.”
I invite the reader to estimate the probability that such a “guess” (complete with the exact words of the two men and exactly where Saul would meet the three men, where they were going, and what each was carrying) would be correct. And I’ll add that I won’t argue with anyone whose estimate is anywhere near 1 chance in 10^24 !

But, ‘lo and behold, Samuel guessed it right; in fact, he got it right on the nose! How do I know? It says so, right there at 1 Samuel 10, 9: All these signs happened on that very day. Isn’t that proof enough? I mean, if you can’t trust that the Bible is the unerring word of God, what can you trust? Would clerics lie? And if there’s some cynic who suggests that maybe Samuel staged the whole thing (telling the people where to be, what to say, what to be holding, etc., similar to the antics of the Mormon’s first “high priest” Sidney Rigdon), then I’m not even going to respond.

In any event, as a result of all that, the prophet Samuel anointed Saul as the first king of Israel. But Samuel did it (allegedly) with additional help from Yahweh: at 1 Samuel 10, 20 we’re told that Yahweh “fixed” the drawing of lots – which, as all gamblers know, is exactly what God does; i.e., he (or Satan) controls the outcome of every bet! Meanwhile, though, the people were apparently pleased with Yahweh’s choice of Saul, since: There was no one among the Israelites more handsome than he was; he stood head and shoulders above all the people.

In time, however, Saul did what was “evil in the sight of the Lord” (at least, according to the clerical authors), namely, 1) as described at 1 Samuel 13, 9, Saul took it upon himself to offer burnt offerings to Yahweh (rather than have a sacred priest do the job!) and 2) as described at 1 Samuel 15, 22, he didn’t obey some orders given him by Yahweh (i.e., by Samuel), exactly, to the letter. Specifically, so the story goes, the bloodthirsty orders (1 Samuel 15, 3) given to Saul were to entirely exterminate the Amalekites:
Put them to death – man, woman, child, infant, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey alike.
Foolish Saul: didn’t he know that when God says to kill everything, he’s to kill everything? Be a good little Nazi, Saul: follow orders! As Samuel reportedly said (1 Samuel 15, 22):
Does the Lord take pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as he does in obedience? Certainly, obedience is better than sacrifice; paying attention is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and presumption is like the evil of idolatry.
So, people, don't presume anything! Just do as you're told (by the clerics).

Anyway, with Saul failing to follow orders, Samuel, himself, did the Lord’s will: he had the army bring him the Amalekites’ King Agag, and then (apparently realizing that he was safe from harm), Samuel hacked Agag to pieces there in Gilgal before the Lord. Apparently, also, Samuel was unaware of one of the minor, nuisance commandments that the Lord allegedly gave to Moses: Thou shalt not kill. In fact, the commandments of Moses aren’t even mentioned, anywhere, in the first or second books of Samuel.

Following Saul’s failure to follow the orders of Yahweh (or Samuel), so the clerical authors contend, Yahweh regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel (1 Samuel 15, 35). Thereby, once again the reader learns that Yahweh certainly isn’t omniscient, since once again, Yahweh made a mistake (choosing Saul) – just as in Genesis Yahweh admitted that he made a mistake by making the first humans. Yet, apparently “the prophet” Samuel didn’t see that he was depicting Yahweh as a knucklehead; instead, Samuel kept proclaiming Yahweh’s greatness (1 Samuel 15, 29): The Preeminent One of Israel [i.e., Yahweh] does not go back on his word or change his mind. Assuming he has one!

The new king allegedly chosen by Yahweh to replace Saul (1 Samuel 16, 12) was David. Conveniently, the people’s choice was also David, because Yahweh had arranged (so the story goes) for the boy David to defeat the champion, the “giant” Goliath, of the coastal people, the Philistines. King Saul, however, wasn’t pleased with Yahweh's choice of David: Saul told his son, Jonathan, to kill David. Jonathan, however, loved David as much as he did his own life (1 Samuel 18, 1) and managed to convince his father to swear: As surely as the Lord lives, he [David] will not be put to death.

David wasn’t killed by Saul – though not for want of his trying (his oath to the contrary, sworn to “the Lord”, apparently being inconsequential). Simultaneously, David kept himself busy (of course with the Lord’s help) killing every man and woman in the cities of the Geshuites, Girzites, and Amalekites that he raided and then allying himself with Israel’s enemies, the Philistines (1 Samuel 27).

The reader is then provided with details of another supernatural stunt. At Saul’s request, a magician brings Samuel back from the dead (!) to inform King Saul that the Philistines would kill him and three of his sons the next day. And sure enough, they were – exactly as the Lord’s prophet, Samuel, said. Aren’t the prophets of the Lord amazing?!

Meanwhile, though, there’s a curious aspect to the story about Saul and his sons. Specifically, as pointed out by Frank Smitha in his online book:
The First Book of Samuel, 9:15, describes Saul as the Lord’s choice. And in Chapter 10 of the First Book of Samuel, Saul is described as one of Yahweh’s prophets. [Yet,] Saul appears to have been close to the worship of the Canaanite god Ba’al. He named one of his sons Eshbaal (meaning Ba’al exists) and another son he had named Meribaal (meaning Ba’al rewards)…
I’ll leave it to the reader to investigate questions such as: Were the clerical authors of these fanciful tales just careless or were they (who apparently were clerics primarily from the southern kingdom of Judah rather than the northern kingdom of Israel) purposefully undermining the “legitimacy” of the larger kingdom of Israel, by suggesting that the Israelites weren’t “true believers”?

In any event – at least according to the story – a civil war subsequently erupted (2 Samuel) between Israel and Judah in about 1000 BCE. Israel was led by Saul’s son Eshbaal (or Ishbosheth); Judah was led by David. As an outcome of the civil war, David became king of both Judah and Israel. Later, he led his army to defeat the Jebusites (or Amorites) and capture the old city of Jerusalem (first settled approximately 2,000 years earlier!), which for the next ~450 years was the capital first of the united Kingdom of Israel and then of the Kingdom of Judah, until the Babylonian conquest in 587 BCE.

Eventually, David fell out of Yahweh’s favor (wouldncha know) because of a woman (wouldncha know): after committing adultery with her (Bathsheba), and impregnating her, David had her husband killed and married her. Thus did David do “evil in the sight of the Lord”, and so (so the story goes) Yahweh cut short David’s rule. Later, when he was near death, David chose his and Bathsheba’s second son, Solomon, to be king – of course with the Lord’s oversight.

According to the clerics’ story, Yahweh communicated to Solomon in dreams (e.g., 1 Kings 3, 15), but (according to Homer’s tales about Agamemnon, the Koran’s tales about Muhammad, and the Mormon’s tales about Joseph Smith) relying on dreams can be dangerous, since sometimes gods apparently send “lying dreams”. But by proclaiming Solomon as king (with or without Yahweh’s involvement), David thereby adopted a practice that was probably initiated tens of thousands of years earlier, namely, leaders try to choose their successors.

The clerics claim that Solomon was wise, e.g., 1 Kings 4, 31–33:
He was famous in all the neighboring nations. He composed 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs. He produced manuals on botany, describing every kind of plant, from the cedars of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows on walls. He also produced manuals on biology, describing animals, birds, insects, and fish. People from all nations came to hear Solomon’s display of wisdom; they came from all the kings of the earth who heard about his wisdom.
In contrast to such claims about his wisdom, however, Solomon (or the authors of the story) apparently thought that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle, π, is exactly 3.

That error can be seen in the description of details of the temple that Solomon allegedly built. It states (1 Kings 7, 23, as given in the New English Bible):
He [Solomon’s craftsman, Hiram of Tyre] then made the Sea [a large bronze basin] of cast metal; it was round in shape, the diameter from rim to rim being ten cubits; it stood five cubits high, and it took a line thirty cubits long to go around it.
So, for the basin, π = 3. In contrast to such an estimate, the Wikipedia article on the history of π provides the following information.
The earliest known approximations [for π] date from around 1900 BCE [approximately 1,000 years before Solomon]; they are 25/8 [ = 3.13] (Babylonia) and 256/81 [ = 3.16 ] (Egypt), both within 1% of the true value.
Not incidentally, readers should be alert to biblical “apologists” and “revisionists”. As an illustration of what I mean, consider the following.

In the text of my book and in an earlier appendix, I almost invariably quote The New English Bible, not only because it’s relatively easy to read (compared, e.g., with the King James Version) but also because I found that the scholars who produced it were careful to show readers alternative translations (e.g., “Reed Sea” rather than “Red Sea” and “a young girl will give birth” rather than “a virgin will give birth”). The choice of the New English Bible, however, forced me to (laboriously!) type all the quotations.

In these posts, in contrast (which I’m also using as another appendix of my book) and in part because I’m older, lazier, and in truth, “sick and tired” of reading the stupid Bible, I’ve been copying and pasting the NET Bible, which is available here. It’s produced by Regent University, “the nation’s top online Christian university” – which already should cause concern, since “Christian university” is an oxymoron.

In particular, I’d call the reader’s attention to the fact that the same 1 Kings 7, 23 is given in the NET bible as:
He also made the large bronze basin called “The Sea.” It measured 15 feet from rim to rim, was circular in shape, and stood seven-and-a-half feet high. Its circumference was 45 feet.
That may initially seem to be a small change from the version given above (with ‘cubits’ changed to ‘feet’), but I’d ask the reader to notice that from the NET version, a reader might conclude that the OT is not saying π = 3, because in the NET, it’s unclear what diameter and circumference are meant: is one an inside dimension and the other an outside dimension? In contrast, in the New English Bible, since it’s extremely difficult to use a line (e.g., a string) to measure the length of the inside of a basin and since, with ‘rim’ meaning “the upper or outer edge of an object”, “rim to rim” would mean an outside measurement, therefore, the clerics are clearly contending that π = 3.

And to those biblical apologists who would say something similar to “What’s the big deal? π = 3 is close enough for religious purposes”, I think that the following two responses are appropriate. One response is to ask: if it’s not “a big deal”, then why do biblical apologists manipulate the text of the Bible to promote an ambiguity? And another response is to ask: since it’s claimed that the Bible is “the word of God”, then if God doesn’t know the correct value of π, who’s to say that his commandments aren’t similarly wrong? For example, is God correct in the details provided in the OT about how to beat one’s slave to death and how to sell one’s daughter into slavery?

But moving on with the story, Solomon’s downfall (according to the misogynist clerics who concocted the silly Bible) was also his women: not that he was a sex maniac, but eventually some of his 700 wives and 300 concubines got him to worship their gods. As a result, Yahweh allegedly abandoned Solomon, choosing Jeroboam to be the next king, to punish Solomon and the United Kingdom. In turn, Jeroboam “did evil in the sight of the Lord”, and so, with the help of some supernatural stunts, Yahweh ended Jeroboam’s rule.

According to the priests, Jeroboam’s unforgivable sin was to appoint common people as priests at the high place (1 Kings 13, 33). How Jeroboam could have been so stupid is unfathomable, when anyone who is anyone knows that only the established priesthood is permitted to assign priests. It was a sin that caused Jeroboam’s dynasty to come to an end and to be destroyed from the face of the earth, which (I trust) will be sufficient warning to anyone who tries to undermine any existing priesthood.

Interestingly (at least to me) is that, in the process of destroying Jeroboam’s dynasty, Yahweh lied to Jeroboam’s wife, saying (1 Kings 14, 8) that Jeroboam was “not like my servant David, who kept my commandments and followed me wholeheartedly by doing only what I approve” – unless, of course, Yahweh approved of David’s adultery and then his murdering the woman’s husband. Thereby, the clerics are apparently saying that Yahweh approves of lying. But I admit that it seems rather superfluous for the clerics to put such words in the mouth of their puppet Yahweh, since surely the entire OT adequately illustrates the clerics’ principle that it’s okay to lie.

Meanwhile, the list of kings goes on. After King Jeroboam comes his son, King Asa of Judah, who fought against a string of kings of the northern nation of Israel: Nadab, assassinated by Baasha, followed by his son Elah, who was assassinated by Zimri, who ruled for seven days, followed by Omri, the commander of the army, followed by his son Ahab. Ahab did more “evil in the sight of the Lord”, doing what his wife (Jezebel) wanted – which should be a lesson to all men who do what their wives desire: as anyone who read the story of Adam and Eve knows, women are to serve men, not v.v.

And in part, I added all that to point out that Yahweh lied not only to Jeroboam’s wife but also to Ahab. In particular, at 1 Kings 22, 19–23, another of the true heroes of these fictitious tales, “the prophet” Micaiah, relays the following.
That being the case, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, with all the heavenly assembly standing on his right and on his left. [The Lord sits on a throne like a tyrant king? Who would have thought?!] The Lord said, “Who will deceive Ahab, so he will attack Ramoth Gilead and die there?” [The Lord deceives people? Really?!] One said this and another that. Then a spirit stepped forward and stood before the Lord. [Spirits “step” and “stand”? Aren’t they supposed to float through the air?!] He said, “I will deceive him.” The Lord asked him, “How?” [God doesn’t already know? He needs to ask “How”? But, but, but… what about God’s claimed omniscience?!] He [the spirit] replied, “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.” The Lord said, “Deceive and overpower him. Go out and do as you have proposed.” [The Lord approves of deception? Who would have thought? Or is it that religious people don’t think?!] So now, look, the Lord has placed a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours; but the Lord has decreed disaster for you.
Talk about disaster! Once Yahweh approved putting lying spirits in the mouths of his prophets, all sorts of troubles started: Jesus told his followers that the world would end during their lifetimes (showing that he was a liar), Muhammad told his followers (in “the Satanic verses”) that it was okay to worship other gods at Mecca (and Salman Rushdie is still under a death “fatwa” for saying so in his book The Satanic Verses), and Joseph Smith damn near scuttled Mormonism by promising success to his followers who tried but failed to publish the Book of Mormon in Canada. And as bad as it is to see that God’s prophets are liars, to learn that God, himself, arranges such deception is enough to destroy a person’s faith in him and his various “holy books”.

Of course, rather than just having blind faith and belief, people can build trust and confidence in the scientific method by performing experimental tests – just as Gideon did (although his test left a lot to be desired) and just as we’re next told “the prophet” Elijah did (assuming he didn’t cook the experiment). Oh, true enough, the clerical authors claim that Elijah pulled off some “pure” supernatural stunts, such as at 1 Kings 17, where we’re told that he was fed bread and meat each morning and evening by ravens, and then he was fed by a woman whose “jar of flour was never empty and the jug of oil never ran out”, no matter how much she took from them. In addition, Elijah supernaturally outclassed the Baal priests by having fire come down from the sky to kill two captains and their fifty men (2 Kings 1, 10) and he parted the river Jordan with his cloak (2 Kings 2, 8). But supernatural-silliness aside, Elijah (budding scientist that he was) also tested god (again assuming he didn’t rig the experiment).

Thus, at 1 Kings 18, 20–25, we learn the following unquestionable “truth” from the “holy Bible”.
When [King] Ahab saw [the prophet] Elijah, he said to him, “Is it really you, the one who brings disaster on Israel?” Elijah replied, “I have not brought disaster on Israel. But you and your father’s dynasty have, by abandoning the Lord’s commandments and following the Baals. Now send out messengers and assemble all Israel before me at Mount Carmel, as well as the 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah whom [your wife] Jezebel supports.

Ahab [doing what he was told to do by the prophet Elijah – which, I suppose, is designed to tell us where the real power was] sent messengers to all the Israelites and had the prophets assemble at Mount Carmel. Elijah approached all the people and said, “How long are you going to be paralyzed by indecision? If the Lord is the true God, then follow him, but if Baal is, follow him!” But the people did not say a word. [At least according to the reporters on the scene.]

Elijah said to them: “I am the only prophet of the Lord who is left, but there are 450 prophets of Baal. [The prophet-hood business was obviously quite lucrative for the Baalists! No wonder the Yahwists were displeased!] Let them bring us two bulls. Let them choose one of the bulls for themselves, cut it up into pieces, and place it on the wood. But they must not set it on fire. I will do the same to the other bull and place it on the wood. But I will not set it on fire. Then you will invoke the name of your god, and I will invoke the name of the Lord. The god who responds with fire will demonstrate that he is the true God.” All the people responded, “This will be a fair test.” [I guess that, as numerous as they were, the prophets of Baal never learned the first rule of the prophet-hood business: no matter what the people say, don’t let some other con-artist set the rules of the game!]

Elijah told the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls for yourselves and go first, for you are the majority. Invoke the name of your god, but do not light a fire.” [It couldn’t be that Elijah said “do not light a fire” because he had hidden an incendiary device beneath the altar, could it?!] So, they took a bull, as he had suggested, and prepared it. They invoked the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “Baal, answer us.” But there was no sound and no answer. They jumped around on the altar they had made.

At noon Elijah mocked them, “Yell louder! After all, he is a god; he may be deep in thought, or perhaps he stepped out for a moment or has taken a trip. Perhaps he is sleeping and needs to be awakened.” [Oh, Elijah, you’re bad!] So they yelled louder and, in accordance with their prescribed ritual, mutilated themselves with swords and spears until their bodies were covered with blood. [Prophets of Baal, don’t listen to Elijah: he’s setting you up for a fall!] Throughout the afternoon they were in an ecstatic frenzy, but there was no sound, no answer, and no response.

Elijah then told all the people, “Approach me.” So all the people [being obedient, and tired of standing there all day!] approached him. He repaired the altar of the Lord that had been torn down. Then Elijah took twelve stones, corresponding to the number of tribes that descended from Jacob, to whom the Lord had said, “Israel will be your new name.” With the stones he constructed an altar for the Lord. Around the altar he made a trench large enough to contain two seahs of seed. He arranged the wood, cut up the bull, and placed it on the wood. Then he said, “Fill four water jars and pour the water on the offering and the wood.” When they had done so, he said, “Do it again.” So they did it again. Then he said, “Do it a third time.” So they did it a third time. [Which leads one to wonder: were the “water jars” filled with water – or were Elijah’s henchmen pouring a flammable fluid on the offering and the wood?!] The water [?] flowed down all sides of the altar and filled the trench. When it was time for the evening offering, Elijah the prophet approached the altar and prayed: “O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, prove today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, O Lord, are the true God and that you are winning back their allegiance.”

Then [after Elijah gave a signal to his accomplice to light the fluid!] fire from the Lord fell from the sky. [Did the fumes from the flammable fluid ignite first?] It consumed the offering, the wood, the stones, and the dirt, and licked up the water in the trench. When all the people saw this, they threw themselves down with their faces to the ground and said, “The Lord is the true God! The Lord is the true God!” Elijah told them, “Seize the prophets of Baal! Don’t let even one of them escape!” So they seized them, and Elijah led them down to the Kishon Valley and executed them there.
Apparently, Elijah had also never heard about the nuisance commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, but beyond that, surely one should question if it’s desirable for the moral of this little story to be promoted. Think about it. Obviously the Baal priests were quite certain that their beliefs were right – that their ideas were “true”. Otherwise, would they have carried on in such a manner, mutilating themselves until “their bodies were covered in blood”? Then, Elijah pulls off his little stunt (starting a fire), in essence saying: if your beliefs aren’t supported by experimental tests, then you deserve to die. But is that really what the people who promote the Bible believe: that all those who hold beliefs more strongly than relevant evidence justifies should be executed?

They might want to give such a policy a little more thought. In essence the policy is that those who don’t practice the scientific method in their daily lives (i.e., hold beliefs only as strongly as relevant and reliable evidence justifies) should be killed. Not only does that seem to be a very dangerous policy for any religious person to promote (!), it seems to be at the extreme of intolerance and hate: kill people whose beliefs are different from yours! Which then makes me wonder not only why Yahwists, Christians, Mormons, etc. complain when Muslims practice a similar policy (viz., kill the unbelievers of the one, true religion, i.e., Islam) but also why “we the people” permit, for example, the Gideons International to distribute the hideous Bible (as they do “in 80 languages and more than 175 countries”) when the Bible is the epitome of “hate literature” – although I admit that the Koran is a close runner-up for that title.

But setting such puzzlements aside let me continue with the story about Elijah. When he was near his death (so “the good book” tells us), he passed on his prophetic powers (and his failure to follow the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”) to Elisha, who “called down God’s judgment” on 42 boys for calling him “baldy”. As a result, the boys were ripped apart by two bears. Apparently neither Elijah nor Elisha (nor Yahweh) had heard of the expression: “Let the punishment fit the crime.” And obviously, too, Yahweh was with Elisha, since (so the story goes) he brought a child back to life who had been dead for multiple days (2 Kings 4, 32–37), he fed a hundred men with 20 loaves of bread – and there were leftovers (a prelude to a similar claim made about Jesus), and he cured a Syrian of skin disease (2 Kings 5, 8–19), made an ax head float (2 Kings 6, 1-7), blinded a raiding party, etc.

Meanwhile, though, getting back to reality, there’s relatively little reliably known about any of the “prophets” or kings of Israel or Judah. One exception is the Tel Dan Stele, which was found during the 1990s and is dated to the 9th or 8th centuries BCE. It was “erected by an Aramaean king in northernmost Israel to commemorate his victory over the ancient Hebrews; its author is unknown, but may be a king of Damascus…” The stele’s inscription has been translated (not without controversy) by André Lemaire as follows:
1’. [.....................].......[...................................] and cut [.........................]
2’. [.........] my father went up [....................f]ighting at/against Ab[....]
3’. And my father lay down; he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s-]
4’. rael penetrated into my father’s land[. And] Hadad made me – myself – king.
5’. And Hadad went in front of me[, and] I departed from ...........[.................]
6’. of my kings. And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha-]
7’. riots and two thousand horsemen. [I killed Jo]ram son of [Ahab]
8’. king of Israel, and I killed [Achaz]yahu son of [Joram kin]g
9’. of the House of David. And I set [.......................................................]
10’. their land ...[.......................................................................................]
11’. other ...[......................................................................... and Jehu ru-]
12’. led over Is[rael...................................................................................]
13’. siege upon [............................................................]
In contrast to the Tel Dan Stele, the only uncontested, extra-biblical reference to a Jewish king seems to be a caption on “the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III” found in 1846 at the ancient Assyrian capital of Kalhu. This Shalmaneser (whose name means “the god Shulmanu is foremost”) was king of Assyria from 858–824 BCE. One of the five scenes on the obelisk has the title: Jehu of Bit Omri [the name of ancient northern Israel], who presumably is the fellow prostrated before King Shalmaneser III in the figure below.


Written in Assyrian cuneiform, the caption states:
The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri: I received from him silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king [and] spears.
Someone seems to be mistaken or lying, however, because in the OT, Jehu isn’t the son of Omri. As readers can find from their own investigations, perhaps the obelisk is depicting Joram, grandson of Omri, or perhaps it does depict Jehu, and Shalmaneser is “legitimizing him” as a son of the former dynasty.

In any event, after spending much more time investigating the topic than I expected to (or wanted to!), I concluded that the following line from the Wikipedia article on the Archeology of Israel to be a concise and revealing summary of what I had found elsewhere.
Despite an on-going debate of the issue, the prevailing view still holds that the Bible is not wholly a work of fiction…
That’s quite a summary: “the Bible is not wholly a work of fiction”! If religious leaders would permit their followers to learn about that summary, I suspect that religious fundamentalists would be dissatisfied with such an assessment. In contrast, given the current problems in the world caused by such religious fundamentalists, I admit that I find it satisfying to speculate that, when Judaism collapses under its load of clerical lies, then so, too, will Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism.

But in particular, with respect to the subject of this post (dealing with lie that leaders are chosen by the gods), I’ve been unable to find any reliable historical or archeological evidence to support the claim made throughout the OT that Jewish rulers were chosen by their god. Such claims were made by Jewish clerics, but because their claims commonly appear along with various supernatural stunts allegedly performed by their god (commonly with the involvement of some alleged “prophet”), sensible people don’t take such claims seriously.

To summarize, the clerics provide (at 2 Kings 17) the following summary of “Israel’s sinful history”.
This happened because the Israelites sinned against the Lord their God, who brought them up from the land of Egypt and freed them from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They worshiped other gods; they observed the practices of the nations whom the Lord had driven out from before Israel, and followed the example of the kings of Israel. The Israelites said things about the Lord their God that were not right. They built high places in all their cities, from the watchtower to the fortress. They set up sacred pillars and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every green tree. They burned incense on all the high places just like the nations whom the Lord had driven away from before them. Their evil practices made the Lord angry. They worshiped the disgusting idols in blatant disregard of the Lord’s command.

The Lord solemnly warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and all the seers, “Turn back from your evil ways; obey my commandments and rules that are recorded in the law. I ordered your ancestors to keep this law and sent my servants the prophets to remind you of its demands.” But they did not pay attention and were as stubborn as their ancestors, who had not trusted the Lord their God. They rejected his rules, the covenant he had made with their ancestors, and the laws he had commanded them to obey. They paid allegiance to worthless idols, and so became worthless to the Lord. They copied the practices of the surrounding nations in blatant disregard of the Lord’s command. They abandoned all the commandments of the Lord their God; they made two metal calves and an Asherah pole, bowed down to all the stars in the sky, and worshiped Baal. They passed their sons and daughters through the fire, and practiced divination and omen reading. They committed themselves to doing evil in the sight of the Lord and made him angry.

So the Lord was furious with Israel and rejected them; only the tribe of Judah was left. Judah also failed to keep the commandments of the Lord their God; they followed Israel’s example. So the Lord rejected all of Israel’s descendants; he humiliated them and handed them over to robbers, until he had thrown them from his presence. He tore Israel away from David’s dynasty, and Jeroboam son of Nebat became their king. Jeroboam drove Israel away from the Lord and encouraged them to commit a serious sin. The Israelites followed in the sinful ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat and did not repudiate them. Finally the Lord rejected Israel just as he had warned he would do through all his servants the prophets. Israel was deported from its land to Assyria and remains there to this very day. [Which indicates when the story was written!]
My own summary (in the vernacular) is: what BS! Somehow or other it fails to mention that the real heroes weren’t the cloistered clerics and prophets (living off the producers), but the Jewish people – who struggled to survive in a brutal environment, fought off marauders and diseases, and tried to feed their families, keep their communities functioning, and understand the world.

In fact, as can be seen (for example) in the NOVA program The Bible’s Buried Secrets, there are hints that the Jewish people of the time were even more heroic than just to survive in such a hostile environment. Thus, archeological evidence suggests that the Jews were not only Canaanites, but Canaanites who rejected the feudalism of the time, seeking freedom. Their exodus wasn’t from Egypt but from Canaanite cities, to live in the hills, where at least some of them may have adopted some of the customs (e.g., circumcision and eating no pork) perhaps suggested by one or more Egyptian priests who lived among them (Canaan having been ruled by Egypt).

If that’s something similar to what actually occurred, then it’s not only an inspirational story for anyone seeking freedom, it’s also a story with an important moral: eventually the poor Jewish people struggled out of a feudal frying pan and fell into a clerical fire. As Daniel Defoe (the author of Robinson Crusoe) wrote in The True-Born Englishman:
And of all the plagues with which mankind are cursed
Ecclesiastic tyranny’s the worst.
And the reason, of course, is clear: civil tyranny can enslave and brutalize a person’s body; ecclesiastical tyranny (be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, or whatever) enslaves and brutalizes both body and brain.

But regardless of what actually occurred, the heroes of the stories in the OT are clearly neither the people nor the kings: every one of the kings (David and Solomon included) “did evil in the sight of the Lord” – which, then, doesn’t say much for the Lord’s ability to choose leaders! Instead, the heroes of these clerical fantasies are (surprise, surprise) the clerics – or more specifically, the damnable “prophets” (such as Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and Micaiah) who lied about their capabilities to perform supernatural stunts, lied that they could communicate with the first symmetry-breaking quantum fluctuation in the original void (i.e., God), lied that they knew intimate details about the history of the Jewish people, and in particular, lied that their God had anything to do with choosing the people’s leaders.

In contrast to such lies, the following two quotations seem to be honest appraisals of what really happened. The first is from Wikipedia:
Surveys of surface-finds aimed at tracing settlement patterns and population changes have shown that between the 16th and 8th centuries BCE, a period which includes the biblical kingdoms of David and Solomon, the entire population of the hill country of Judah was no more than about 5,000 persons, most of them wandering pastoralists, with the entire urbanized area consisting of about twenty small villages.
The second summary is more from the article by Daniel Lazare, referenced earlier in this post.
If the Old Testament is to be believed, David and Solomon, rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah from about 1005 to about 931 BCE, made themselves masters of the northern kingdom of Israel as well. They represent, in the official account, a rare moment of national unity and power; under their reign, the combined kingdom was a force throughout the Fertile Crescent. The unified kingdom is said to have split into two rump states shortly after Solomon’s death and, thus weakened, was all too easy for the Assyrian Empire and its Babylonian successor to pick off. But did a united monarchy encompassing all twelve tribes ever truly exist?

According to the Bible, Solomon was both a master builder and an insatiable accumulator. He drank out of golden goblets, outfitted his soldiers with golden shields, maintained a fleet of sailing ships to seek out exotic treasures, kept a harem of 1,000 wives and concubines, and spent thirteen years building a palace and a richly decorated temple to house the Ark of the Covenant. Yet, not one goblet, not one brick, has ever been found to indicate that such a reign existed.

If David and Solomon had been important regional power brokers, one might reasonably expect their names to crop up on monuments and in the diplomatic correspondence of the day. Yet once again the record is silent. True, an inscription referring to “Ahaziahu, son of Jehoram, king of the House of David” was found in 1993 on a fragment dating from the late ninth century BCE [the Tel Dan Stele]. But that was more than a hundred years after David’s death, and at most, all it indicates is that David (or someone with a similar name) was credited with establishing the Judahite royal line. It hardly proves that he ruled over a powerful empire.

Moreover, by the 1970s and 1980s a good deal of countervailing evidence – or, rather, lack of evidence – was beginning to accumulate. Supposedly, David had used his power base in Judah as a springboard from which to conquer the north. But archaeological surveys of the southern hill country show that Judah in the eleventh and tenth centuries BCE was too poor and backward and sparsely populated to support such a military expedition. Moreover, there was no evidence of wealth or booty flowing back to the southern power base once the conquest of the north had taken place. Jerusalem seems to have been hardly more than a rural village when Solomon was reportedly transforming it into a glittering capital. And although archaeologists had long credited Solomon with the construction of major palaces in the northern cities of Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo (better known as the site of Armageddon), recent analysis of pottery shards found on the sites, plus refined carbon-14 dating techniques, indicate that the palaces postdate Solomon’s reign by a century or more.

Finkelstein and Silberman concluded that Judah and Israel had never existed under the same roof. The Israelite culture that had taken shape in the central hill country around 1200 BCE had evolved into two distinct kingdoms from the start. Whereas Judah remained weak and isolated, Israel did in fact develop into an important regional power beginning around 900 BCE. It was as strong and rich as David and Solomon’s kingdom had supposedly been a century earlier, yet it was not the sort of state of which the Jewish priesthood approved. The reason had to do with the nature of the northern kingdom’s expansion. As Israel grew, various foreign cultures came under its sway, cultures that sacrificed to gods other than Yahweh. Pluralism became the order of the day: the northern kings could manage such a diverse empire only by allowing these cultures to worship their own gods in return for their continued loyalty. The result was a policy of religious syncretism, a theological pastiche in which the cult of Yahweh coexisted alongside those of other Semitic deities.

When the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians, the Jewish priesthood concluded not that Israel had played its cards badly in the game of international politics but that by tolerating other cults it had given grave offense to the only god that mattered. Joining a stream of refugees to the south, the priests swelled the ranks of an influential political party dedicated to the proposition that the only way for Judah to avoid a similar fate was to cleanse itself of all rival beliefs and devote itself exclusively to Yahweh.

“They did wicked things that provoked Yahweh to anger. They worshiped idols, though Yahweh had said, 'You shall not do this’.” Such was the “Yahweh-alone” movement’s explanation for Israel’s downfall. The monotheistic movement reached a climax in the late seventh century BCE when a certain King Josiah took the throne and gave the go-ahead for a long-awaited purge. Storming through the countryside, Josiah and his Yahwist supporters destroyed rival shrines, slaughtered alien priests, defiled their altars, and ensured that henceforth even Jewish sacrifice take place exclusively in Jerusalem, where the priests could exercise tight control. The result, the priests and scribes believed, was a national renaissance that would soon lead to the liberation of the north and a similar cleansing there as well.

But then: disaster. After allowing his priests to establish a rigid religious dictatorship, Josiah rode off to rendezvous with an Egyptian pharaoh named Necho in the year 609 BCE. Although Chronicles says that the two monarchs met to do battle, archaeologists, pointing out that Josiah was in no position to challenge the mighty Egyptian army, suspect that Necho merely summoned Josiah to some sort of royal parley and then had him killed for unknown reasons. A model of pious rectitude, Josiah had done everything he thought God wanted of him. He had purified his kingdom and consecrated his people exclusively to Yahweh. Yet he suffered regardless. Judah entered into a period of decline culminating some twenty-three years later in the Babylonian conquest and exile.
The Babylonian conquest and exile, however, certainly didn’t end the lie that leaders were chosen by the gods. Throughout history, many political leaders have similarly used religion to rule “the masses”. As Aristotle said:
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal [or, maybe better, “immoral” and “unjust”] treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.
In his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon summarized well how Roman politicians used religion:
The various modes of worship… were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.
Similar continued throughout history, into the 20th Century. For example, Hitler claimed:
I follow the path assigned to me by Providence with the instinctive sureness of a sleepwalker.
Similarly, George W. Bush reportedly made the following statement to Texas evangelist James Robinson:
I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen… I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.
And sad to say, there was widespread support for Bush’s claim among fundamentalist Christians, such as the statement by General William “Jerry” Boykin:
Why is this man [George W. Bush] in the White House? The majority of America did not vote for him. He’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.
Subsequently, Bush apparently did what God told him to do, for as he reportedly said to Abud Mazen (Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority) when they met in Aqaba:
God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did…
That ancient people concluded that the gods chose their leaders is understandable and forgivable; that “modern” people conclude similar is also understandable – but unforgivable. Surely to sanity it won’t be much longer until any leader who claims to be chosen and/or guided by some god will commit political suicide, by thereby providing ample evidence of his or her megalomania.

www.zenofzero.net

2009/03/21

The Law Lie - 4 - Contracts


Believe it or not, there is some structure behind this series of posts dealing with “The Law Lie” (itself a part of “The God Lie”). In turn, the structure in these posts follows from the historical structure behind laws.

Thus, before any laws could be promulgated, opinions were required about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (i.e., about morality) and about justice; in addition, the laws of any society usually reflect its customs. Consequently, before addressing the lie that laws are dictated by the gods, it seemed necessary (or at least, useful) to expose 1) the lie that morality is defined by the gods, 2) the lie that justice is the jurisdiction of the gods, and 3) the lie that customs were created by the gods. I therefore focused on those three lies in the previous three posts. In this post, as another preliminary before addressing the lie that laws are dictated by the gods, I want to expose aspects of the Law Lie incorporated in another historical precursor to a substantial body of law, namely, contracts.

Written records show that, for at least the past 5,000 years, contracts have incorporated additional facets of the Law Lie. A facet familiar in many cultures is the lie that oaths are binding when sworn to the gods. One example is the oath commonly sworn by Muslims: “In the name of Allah, the merciful, and he is my witness that I promise this.” Another example is the arguably unconstitutional use by U.S. government officials of the phrase “so help me God.”

That second example is especially noteworthy, because swearing with the oath “so help me God” is probably promoted by the majority of Americans – who are also Christian – and yet, as given at Matthew 5, 33–37, Jesus allegedly prohibited such oaths:
“Again, you have learned that our forefathers were told, ‘Do not break your oath’ and ‘Oaths sworn to the Lord must be kept.’ But what I tell you is this: You are not to swear at all… Plain ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ is all you need to say…”
Another facet of the Law Lie occurs in Christian marriage-ceremony contracts, namely, the lie (from Matthew 19, 6): “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” In reality [“In truth, as God is my witness” (!)], no god is involved in putting together any marriage! That is, in contrast to such lies (such nonsense!), since the knowledge that no god exists (or has ever existed) is even firmer than the knowledge that we humans exist, it follows that no god has (or has ever had) anything to do with any oath or any contract.

When such mistakes first occurred (mistakes that are now lies promoted by conniving clerics of the world) is unknown. Even when humans first entered into contracts is unknown, but surely it was tens of thousands of years ago, e.g., when the first man and woman were married, when the first hunter agreed to share his kill with the craftsman who made arrows, or when the first two tribes agreed not to poach on the other tribe’s hunting area. In fact, even other animals (besides humans) seem to enter into contracts, e.g., herd animals such as elephants and dolphins apparently have “contractual relationships” to protect all young members of the herd, and pack animals such as dogs and wolves commonly enforce “territorial contracts”.

The principal definition for ‘contract’ in the Oxford American Dictionary is a[n]… agreement… that is intended to be enforceable by law. “In the beginning”, however, the only laws available to enforce contracts were what-can-be-called natural laws, i.e., instinctive reactions of humans (and other animals) when they find themselves in undesirable situations, namely, fighting, fleeing, or fencing-off. As examples: 1) if disagreements among human tribes arose about rights to a certain territory, then similar to other pack animals, fights might ensue (i.e., reliance on enforcement of the law of the jungle, “might makes right”), 2) if women and children were threatened, then, similar to other herd animals, members of a human tribe might flee from the intruders, and 3) if a member of a tribe violated a marriage agreement, then the tribe might exile the violator (fencing him or her off from future interactions with the tribe). It therefore seems highly probable that people entered into contracts long before Ezra & Co-conspirators (Ezra & C-C) put together (“redacted”) the first five books (the Pentateuch) of the Old Testament (OT, about 2,400 years ago), long before the first laws were written (about 4,000 years ago), and even long before writing was invented (about 5,000 years ago).

In all early societies, no doubt disputes arose over details of many contracts. Thus, someone may have agreed to trade ten sheep for an ox, but when the time for the trade arrived, disputes could arise, for example, about the age of the sheep or the health of the ox. In many cases, such disputes were probably adjudicated by the tribe’s leader or “council of elders”, with the judgment relying on reports of witnesses to the contract. With the invention of writing, contracts could be “spelled out”, certified by the parties involved and by witnesses, and the record could be used both to decrease the number and intensity of disputes that would need to be adjudicated and to permit more rapid resolution of any disputes that were brought before “the court”. Below, I’ll show examples of ancient contracts that scholars have posted on the internet.

The earliest contracts that I found on the internet were from Ancient Egypt and were apparently assembled by William A. Ward of the Department of Egyptology at Brown University as part of his 1995 “NEH Lecture”. A copy of his lecture, with links to the original contracts, is here. The first document Ward lists, dated to be from about 2600 BC, is the Will of Prince Nikaure, son of King Khafre. In part it states the following, with “[…]” representing missing text, “(text)” and “[text]” representing text added by someone else, and I’ve added a few notes in “curly brackets” {such as these!}:
Year of the 12th Counting of [all] large and small animals [of Upper and Lower Egypt] {i.e., similar to Wills written today, this one starts with a specification of the date}.

Prince Nikaure [.....] makes [this deposition], he being alive on his feet and not being sick {a statement similar to the familiar preamble in Wills today: “being of sound mind and body”}.

{The Will now starts listing the desired disposition of his assets.} Given to the King’s Acquaintance (his wife) Kaen-nebty: in the [.....] Nome (the estate named) ‘Khafre [.....].’

His son, the King’s Acquaintance Nikaure {It’s not clear to me if the expression “the King’s Acquaintance” was similar to the modern phraseology, “citizen of…” or if the King (or Pharaoh) really knew these people – but then, Nikaure was a prince}: in the Northern Nome (the estate named) “Khafre [.....].”

His daughter, the King’s Acquaintance Hetepheres: in the Eastern Nome (the estate named) “Khafre [.....]” and in the Northeast Nome (the estate named) “Khafre [.....].” {This prince certainly had a lot of “estates”!}

[His daughter], the King’s Acquaintance Kaen-nebty the Younger: in the [.....] Nome, (the estate named) “Great is the Power of Khafre,” and in the Dolphin Nome, (the estate named) “Khafre [.....]”.

His beloved wife, the King’s Acquaintance Kaen-nebty {I wonder why this item wasn’t listed earlier, as another item left to his wife}: in the Viper Nome, (the estate named) “Khafre is Goodly,” and in the Pomegranate-tree Nome, (the estate named) “Khafre [.....].”

The tomb for his daughter in the pyramid-cemetery of (King) Khafre.
I trust that the reader is impressed with the above document, not only because it’s more than 4,500 years old (!), i.e., more than 2,000 years older than the Pentateuch, but because it gives important glimpses of Ancient Egyptian society. Thus, it shows not only that “marriage contracts” existed and were honored but also that property was owned (at least by this prince), that it could be disposed through inheritances, and that wives and daughters (as well as sons) could inherit property. In fact, according to Ward, the oldest known biography (dating from ~2700 BCE and found in the tomb of an Egyptian fellow by the name of Metchen) mentions land that he inherited not from his father but from his mother.

From the same source, a second document (from ~1900 BCE) shows the Will of two brothers. The information that I’ve added in “curly brackets” is from the same source (i.e., Ward). By way of introduction, he notes:
There are two documents recorded on this papyrus. The first is a copy made from the original in an official archive. This is the Will of the older of two brothers who has given his property to his younger brother. The copy was necessary to validate the provisions of the second document, the Will of the younger brother, who wishes to pass on the family property to his wife. Note that both brothers have the same given name, though are identified by nicknames so that no confusion would arise in the disposition of the property.

First Will
Copy of the Will made by the Trustworthy Sealer of the Controller of Works Ankh-renef.

Year 44, Month 2 of the Summer Season, day 13.

Will made by the Trustworthy Sealer of the Controller of Works Ihy-seneb, nick-named Ankh-renef, son of Shepsut {Ward adds: “His mother. Egyptian men were as-often-as-not identified as the sons of their mother rather than as the sons of their father.”}

All my possessions in field and town shall belong to my brother, the Priest in Charge of the Duty-shifts (of priests) of (the god) Sopdu, Lord of the East, Ihy-seneb, nick-named Wah, son of Shepsut. All my dependents shall belong to my brother…
It’s not clear if this older brother was married or had any children; by “dependents” he may have meant his slaves, which are mentioned in the Second Will, the Will of the younger brother Wah, made five years later and copied below.
Second Will
Year 2, Month 2 of the Inundation Season, day 18.

Will made by the Priest in Charge of the Duty-shifts (of priests) of (the god) Sopdu, Lord of the East, Wah. {Ward adds: “Priests served in regular 8-hour shifts throughout the 24-hour day. This was to maintain the continuous cycle of ritual as well as astronomical observations during the night hours.”}

I am making a will for my wife, a lady of the town of Gesiabet, Sheftu, nick-named Teti, daughter of Sit-Sopdu {her mother; i.e., daughters were also identified by naming their mother} concerning all the property that my brother Ankh-renef, the Trustworthy Sealer of the Controller of Works, gave to me along with all the goods belonging to his estate that he gave to me. She may give these things as she pleases to any children of mine she may bear. {It’s therefore clear that women in Ancient Egypt were much more liberated than they were in Ancient Israel and Judaea and than they are in “modern” Muslim nations.}

I also give to her the four Canaanites that my brother Ankh-renef, the Trustworthy Sealer of Works, gave to me. She may give (them) as she please to her children. {I assume that these ‘Canaanites’ were the ‘dependents’ mentioned in the Will of his brother, Ankh-renef. These Canaanites might be called ‘slaves’ (just as the Hebrews, who allegedly migrated from Canaan to Egypt at about this time, called themselves ‘slaves’), but consistent with material in the OT, Ward adds the note: “The ‘four Canaanites’ are family dependents. It was customary in Egyptian Wills to care for such retainers [Ward uses the word ‘retainers’ rather than ‘slaves’] and make sure they would remain employed by the family in the future. Many Canaanites and other foreigners migrated to Egypt in search of employment and a better life. Due to the fluid social strata in Egypt, many were able to rise far above the rank of household servants into the professions, high government office, etc.” (I don’t know what evidence Ward has to support that statement, besides the OT.)}

As for my tomb, I shall be buried in it with my wife without anyone interfering therewith. As for the house that my brother Ankh-renef, the Trustworthy Sealer, built for me, my wife shall live therein and shall not be evicted from it by anyone. {That is, as Ward notes: “Sheftu not only receives the security of a home, her ownership of which cannot be contested, but is also assured a proper burial in her husband’s tomb. The latter provision is the duty of the children.”} The Deputy Gebu shall act as the guardian for my son.
If you aren’t impressed by the above two documents, then I’d encourage you to read them again – and again! – and then, think about them! Through 4,000 years (four thousand years!!) of fog and murky mist of history (with stories of religions and wars that have been confused, obscured, camouflaged, and polluted by the smoke and mirrors of politicians and priests) these two Wills, like two brilliant lasers, reveal some truth: someone leaves his property and his household dependents to his brother, and that brother leaves his estate to his wife, with provisions for his children. They’re simple, honest, clear statements of life as it really was ~4,000 years ago in Ancient Egypt – at least for those Egyptians wealthy enough to be concerned about writing Wills.

The above Wills also show the importance of written “contracts”. In contrast, a third document given by Ward and copied below, shows a dispute that arose from inadequacies of oral contracts. Unfortunately, Ward doesn’t give an estimate of the date of this document. In his notes, though, he does add the following information.
This dispute was presented to an oracle; oracles were just as legally binding as cases heard in a regular law court. The oracle in question is that of the deified king Amenhotep I who, with his mother, became the patron saints of the village of Deir el-Medineh where a very active cult was maintained on their behalf.
Given that Amenhotep I ruled from about 1526 to 1506 BCE, this dispute therefore occurred after 1500 BCE.

Although this document is confusing, I’ll just quote it:
Help me, my lord! My mother has caused quarreling with my brothers, saying: “I gave you two shares of copper,” though it was really my father who gave me a copper bowl, a copper razor, and two copper jars. It was the Scribe Pentaweret who gave them to me. But she has taken them and bought a mirror. May my (lord) establish a price in deben for them. My father also gave me 5 sacks of emmer and 2 sacks of barley. They belong to my husband for a period of 7 years, but he has only received 4 sacks. “There is one man and one woman; take 2 shares.” Thus my mother said to me.
Ward adds notes trying to infer what was going on, but if you read the notes, I expect that you’ll continue to be confused – and already, that’s the main point I wanted to make: here was a case where confusion (and a family quarrel) arose, because no written contract was prepared and witnessed.

In contrast, Ward’s next document shows a firm contract between a bridegroom and his father-in-law:
Year 23, Month 1 of the Planting Season, day 5.

This day, Telmontu {the father-in-law} declared to the Chief Workman Khonsu and the Scribe Amon-nakht, son of Ipui {i.e., two “officials”}: “Cause Nakhemmut {the bridegroom} to swear an Oath of the Lord to the effect that he will not depart from my daughter.”

The Oath of the Lord which he {the bridegroom} swore: “As Amon lives, as the Ruler lives, if I should turn away to leave the daughter of Telmontu {the father-in-law} at any time, I will receive a hundred blows and be deprived of all profits that I have made with her…”
Ward adds the note:
The prospective bridegroom here renounces all claim to any community property he and his wife may gain during the coming marriage should he leave his wife. In case of a divorce, the wife is thus better off than under normal circumstances where community property is divided. This is a unique case in the known legal literature, but may represent a common practice.
And I would ask the reader to notice that the bridegroom swore his oath to the god, Amon.

I’ll skip showing Ward’s example of a woman charging her husband with abuse (that is, she was struggling against the law of the jungle that her husband’s might made him right!), but I’d call the reader’s attention to two features of this case. One is that the abused wife apparently relates to “the court” that her husband broke his previous oath:
And he swore (an Oath of the Lord) saying: “As Amon endures, as (the Ruler) endures…”
That is, apparently oaths sworn to the gods were no more binding 4,000 years ago than they are now! And second, consider Ward’s note associated with this document, because it provides information about how the courts of Ancient Egypt functioned:
There was no professional judiciary in Egypt. All tribunals, from the Vizier’s court down to the local village courts, were made up of ordinary citizens who functioned as judges, jury, and attorneys for both defendant and plaintiff. The members of the tribunal are named… in all court proceedings as those responsible for hearing the case and passing judgment. “Judges” were appointed on an ad hoc basis for each individual trial, or, as in the case of village courts, for a full day during which several cases were heard.
I’ll similarly skip over Ward’s other examples, but I’d like to quote two sentences from his Document IX, dealing with the Will of Amonkhau in Favor of His Second Wife. In his “presentation” to the court, Amonkhau states:
For Pharaoh has said: “Each one should do as he wishes with his property.”
Amonkhau also states:
… but Pharaoh has said: “Give the dowry of each woman to her.”
From these two statements it seems clear that the Pharaoh has “proclaimed” various “laws of the land” – although, on the internet, I didn’t find an extensive list of what these laws were. Providing a little more information, Ward adds the note:
A woman’s inheritance was at least her dowry plus one-third of the community property gained during the marriage; this also applied in case of divorce. In the present case, the law seems to be that community property acquired during the second marriage should be inherited by the second wife and not by the first wife or her children.
Such evidence suggests to me that later developments of contracts (and laws and judicial proceedings) by the Ancient Greeks and Hebrews were more primitive (by one or two thousand years!) than those of the Ancient Egyptians.

Meanwhile, though, the people living in Mesopotamia seemed to be as advanced as (or even more advanced than) the Egyptians. Thus, marriage “contracts” were certainly already common in Sumer when they invented writing. For example, as I showed in an earlier post, The Instructions to Ziusudra from his father Curuppag, son of Ubara-Tutu (first written before 2600 BCE) contains the advice:
You should not play around with a married young woman: the slander could be serious. My son, you should not sit alone in a chamber with a married woman.
A host of additional Mesopotamian contracts from the same time period and later has been assembled on the internet by Paul Halsall, History Department, Fordum University. In turn, Halsall identifies his source for these documents as the article by George Aaron Barton entitled “Contracts” in Assyrian and Babylonian Literature: Selected Transactions, With a Critical Introduction by Robert Francis Harper (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1904), pp. 256-276.

Halsall has arranged the various contracts that have been found (on clay tablets) into eleven categories, only some of which I’ll illustrate immediately below (because some of the illustrations he gives are not so ancient). In what follows, I’ll quote both the translations (put in italics and colored purple) from the original tablets along with some of Halsall’s comments (colored blue and in which I’ve changed BC to BCE). In a few cases, to the original contracts I’ve added some notes in brackets […]; notes in parentheses (…) are either Halsall’s or Barton’s. When reading what follows, I hope the reader will pause to consider that, in contrast to the fake contracts (summarized later in this post) that were incorporated in the Pentateuch by Ezra & C-C, what follows are “the real McCoy”: real contracts dealings with real problems between and among real people.
I. Sales and Purchases
1. Contract for the Sale of a Slave, Reign of Rim-Sin, c. 2300 BCE.
In this transaction the sellers simply guarantee to make no further claim upon the slave…

Sini-Ishtar has bought a slave, Ea-tappi by name, from Ilu-elatti, and Akhia, his son, and has paid ten shekels of Silver, the price agreed. Ilu-elatti, and Akhia, his son, will not set up a future claim on the slave. In the presence of Ilu-iqisha, son of Likua; in the presence of Ilu-iqisha, son of Immeru; in the presence of Likulubishtum, son of Appa, the scribe, who sealed it with the seal of the witnesses. The tenth of Kisilimu, the year when Rim-Sin, the king, overcame the hostile enemies.

2. Contract for the Sale of Real Estate, Sumer, c. 2000 BCE.
This is a transaction from the last days of Sumerian history. It exhibits a form of transfer and title which has a flavor of modern business…

Sini-Ishtar, the son of Ilu-eribu, and Apil-Ili, his brother, have bought one third Shar of land with a house constructed, next the house of Sini-Ishtar, and next the house of Minani; one third Shar of arable land next the house of Sini-Ishtar, which fronts on the street; the property of Minani, the son of Migrat-Sin, from Minani, the son of Migrat-Sin. They have paid four and a half shekels of silver, the price agreed. Never shall further claim be made, on account of the house of Minani. By their king they swore. [Notice that, for this contract, the parties didn’t swear an oath to some god but to “their king”.] (The names of fourteen witnesses and a scribe then follow.) Month Tebet, year of the great wall of Karra-Shamash.

II. Rentals
Contract for Rent[ing] a House, One Year Term, c. 2000 BCE.
This is the simplest form of rental, and comes from early Babylonian times.

AKHIBTE has taken the house of Mashqu from Mashqu, the owner, on a lease for one year. He will pay one shekel of silver, the rent of one year. On the fifth of Tammuz he takes possession. (Then follow the names of four witnesses.) Dated the fifth of Tammuz, the year of the wall of Kar-Shamash.

III. Labor Contracts
Contract for Hire of Laborer, Reign of Shamshu-Iluna, c. 2200 BCE.
This is a contract from the reign of Shamshu-iluna of the Akkadian dynasty, c. 2200 BCE. It is [one] of many of like character.

MAR-SIPPAR has hired for one year Marduk-nasir, son of Alabbana, from Munapirtu, his mother. He will pay as wages for one year two and a half shekels of silver. She has received one half shekel of silver, one se (1/180th of a shekel), out of a year’s wages.

IV. Co-Partnerships
Contract for Partners to Borrow Money against Harvest, c. 2000 BCE.
The two farmers who borrow the money on their crop are partners.

SIN-KALAMA-IDI, son of Ulamasha, and Apil-ilu-shu, Son of Khayamdidu, have borrowed from Arad-Sin sixteen shekels of money for the garnering of the harvest. On the festival of Ab they will pay the wheat. (Names of three witnesses and a scribe follow, and the tablet is dated in the year of a certain flood. It is not stated in the reign of what king it was written, but it clearly is from either the dynasty of Ur III or that of Akkad.)

VIII. Marriage
Contract for Marriage, Reign of Shamshu-ilu-na, c. 2200 BCE…
The bride was a slave, and gained her freedom by marriage, and hence the penalty imposed upon her in case she divorced her husband is greater than that imposed on him in case he divorced her.

RIMUM, son of Shamkhatum, has taken as a wife and spouse Bashtum, the daughter of Belizunu, the priestess (?) of Shamash, daughter of Uzibitum. Her bridal present shall be… shekels of money. When she receives it she shall be free. If Bashtum to Rimum, her husband shall say, “You are not my husband, [i.e., if she divorces him] they shall strangle her and cast her into the river. If Rimum to Bashtum, his wife, shall say, “You are not my wife,” he shall pay ten shekels of money as her alimony. They swore by [the gods] Shamash, Marduk, their king Shamshu-ilu-na, and Sippar [There was a city, Sippar (now Tell Abu Habbah, Iraq); did they swear also on the city?]

X. Adoption
Contract for Adoption, c. 2000 BCE.

ARAD-ISKHARA, son of Ibni-Shamash, has adopted Ibni-Shamash. On the day when Arad-Iskhara to Ibni-Shamash, his father, shall say, “You are not my father,” he shall bind him with a chain and sell him for money. When Ibni-Shamash to Arad-Iskhara, his son, shall say, “You are not my son,” he shall depart from house and household goods; but a son shall he remain and inherit with his sons.
Next, consider some examples of Mesopotamian contracts during the time period when the Jews were in Babylon and the Pentateuch was being “redacted” by Ezra & C-C. These examples are from the same source and I’ll use the same format as for the examples given above.
I. Sales and Purchases
Contract for the Sale of a Slave, 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, 597 BCE.
This tablet affords a good example of the sale of a slave. In this case the persons who sell guarantee that the slave will neither become insubordinate, nor prove to be subject to any governmental claims, nor prove to have been emancipated by adoption. The word rendered “emancipation” means literally “adoption,” but adoption by a freeman was an early form of emancipation…

SHAMASH-UBALLIT and Ubartum, children of Zakir, the son of Pashi-ummani, of their free-will have delivered Nanakirat and her unsveaned son, their slave, for nineteen shekels of money, for the price agreed, unto Kaçir and Nadin-Marduk, sons of Iqisha-aplu, son of Nur-Sin. Shamash-uballit and Ubartum guarantee against insubordination, the claim of the royal service, and emancipation. Witnesses: Na’id-Marduk, son of Nabu-nacir, son of Dabibi; Bel-shum-ishkun, son of Marduk-zir-epish, son of Irani; Nabu-ushallim, son of Bel-akhi-iddin, son of Bel-apal-uçur. In the dwelling of Damqa, their mother. And the scribe, Nur-Ea, son of Ina-Isaggil-ziri, son of Nur-Sin. Babylon, twenty-first of Kisilimu, eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.

Contract for the Sale of a Standing Crop, 7th year of Cyrus, 532 BCE.
This contract belongs to a class intermediate between rental and the sale of land. Instead of either, the standing crop is sold.

From a cultivated field which is situated on the alley of Li’u-Bel, Itti-Marduk-balatu, the son of Nabu-akhi-iddin, the son of Egibi, has made a purchase from Tashmitum-damqat, daughter of Shuzubu, son of Shigua, and Nadin-aplu, the son of Rimut, son of Epish-Ilu. Itti-Marduk-balatu has counted the money, the price of the crop of that field for the seventh year of Cyrus, King of Babylon, king of countries, into the hands of Tashmitum-damqat and Nadin-aplu. (The names of two witnesses and a scribe then follow) Babylon, Ululu thirteenth, the seventh year of Cyrus.

Contract for the Sale of Dates, 32nd year of Darius, 490 BCE.
Shibtu, the place of this transaction, was a suburb of Babylon. This shows how women, especially of the lower rank, carried on business for themselves. The father of Aqubatum, as his name, Aradya (“my slave”) shows, had been a slave.

One talent one qa of dates from the woman Nukaibu daughter of Tabnisha, and the woman Khamaza, daughter of _______, to the woman Aqubatum, daughter of Aradya. In the month Siman they will deliver one talent one qa of dates. Scribe, Shamash-zir-epish, son of Shamash-malku. Shibtu, Adar the sixth, thirty-second year of Darius, King of Babylon and countries.

Contract for the Sale of Wheat, 35th year of Darius, 487 BCE.
This tablet is a good illustration of the simple transactions in foodstuffs, of which we have many… The farmers usually contracted as in this document the sale of their produce far in advance of the harvest. In this instance the sale was made six months before the grain would be ripe and could be delivered.

Six talents of wheat from Shamash-malku, son of Nabu-napshat-su-ziz, to Shamash-iddin, son of Rimut. In the month Siman, wheat, six talents in full, he will deliver in Shibtu, at the house of Shamash-iddin. Witnesses: Shamash-iddin, son of Nabu-usur-napishti; Abu-nu-emuq, son of Sin-akhi-iddin; Sharru-Bel, son of Sin-iddin; Aban-nimiqu-rukus, son of Malula. Scribe, Aradya, son of Epish-zir. Shibtu, eleventh of Kislimu, thirty-fifth year of Darius king of countries.

II. Rentals
Contract for Rent & Repair of a House, One Year Term, 35th year of Darius, 487 BCE.
This contract is most interesting. Iskhuya, apparently a tenant of Shamash-iddin, undertakes to repair the house in which he is living. In addition to the rent for the year he is to receive fifteen shekels in money, in two payments, at the beginning and the completion of the work. The last payment is to be made on the day of Bel, which seems to be identical with the first of Tebet, a week later than the contract was made. In case the repairs were not then completed, Iskhuya was to forfeit four shekels. Such business methods are not, therefore, altogether modern.

In addition to the rent of the house of Shamash-iddin, son of Rimut, for this year, fifteen shekels of money in cash (shall go) to Iskhuya, son of Shaqa-Bel, son of the priest of Agish. Because of the payment he shall repair the weakness (of the house), he shall close up the crack of the wall. He shall pay a part of the money at the beginning, a part of the money at the completion. He shall pay it on the day of Bel, the day of wailing and weeping. In case the house is unfinished by Iskhuya after the first day of Tebet, Shamash-iddin shall receive four shekels of money in cash into his possession at the hands of Iskhuya. (The names of three witnesses and a scribe then follow.) Dated at Shibtu, the twenty-first of Kislimu, the thirty-fifth year of Darius.

III. Labor Contracts
Contract for Production of a Coat of Mail, 34th year of Darius, 488 BCE.
This tablet is dated in the thirty-fourth year of Darius I (488 BCE) and was regarded as an important transaction, since it is signed by four witnesses and a scribe.

One coat of mail, insignum of power which will protect, is to be made by the woman Mupagalgagitum, daughter of Qarikhiya, for Shamash-iddin, son of Rimut. She will deliver in the month Shebat one coat of mail, which is to be made and which will protect.

Contract of Warranty for Setting of a Gold Ring, 35th year of Artaxerxes, 429 BCE.
The transaction needs no comment. The wealthy representative of the house of Murashu obtained from the firm of jewelers which sold him the ring a guarantee that the setting would last for twenty years; if it does not, they are to forfeit ten manas.

Bel-akha-iddin and Bel-shunu, sons of Bel-_______ and Khatin, son of Bazuzu, spoke unto Bel-shum-iddin, son of Murashu, saying: “As to the ring in which an emerald has been set in gold, we guarantee that for twenty years the emerald will not fall from the gold ring. If the emerald falls from the gold ring before the expiration of twenty years, Bel-akha-iddin, Bel-shunu (and) Khatin will pay to Bel-shum-iddin ten manas of silver.” (The names of seven witnesses and a scribe are appended. The date is) Nippur, Elul eighth, the thirty-fifth year of Artaxerxes.

IV. Co-Partnerships
Contract for a Partnership, 36th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, 568 BCE.
Nabu-akhi-iddin was an investor – a member of the great Egibi family. He contributed four manas of capital to this enterprise, while Bel-shunu, who was to carry on the business, contributed one half mana and seven shekels, whatever property he might have, and his time. His expenses in the conduct of the business up to four shekels may be paid from the common funds.

Two manas of money belonging to Nabu-akhi-iddin, son of Shula, son of Egibi, and one half mana seven shekels of money belonging to Bel-shunu, son of Bel-akhi-iddin, Son of Sin-emuq, they have put into a co-partnership with one another. Whatever remains to Bel-shunu in town or country over and above, becomes their common property. Whatever Bel-shunu spends for expenses in excess of four shekels of money shall be considered extravagant. (The contract is witnessed by three men and a scribe, and is dated at) Babylon, first of Ab, in the thirty-sixth year of Nebuchadnezzar.

V. Loans and Mortgages
Contract for Loan of Money, 40th year of Nabopolassar, 611 BCE.
This is a mortgage on real estate in security for a loan. The interest was at the rate of eleven and one-third per cent.

ONE mana of money, a sum belonging to Iqisha-Marduk, son of Kalab-Sin, (is loaned) unto Nabu-etir, son of _____, son of _____. Yearly the amount of the mana shall increase its sum by seven shekels of money. His field near the gate of Bel is Iqisha-Marduk’s pledge. (This document bears the name of four witnesses, and is dated) at Babylon, Tammuz twenty-seventh, in the fourteenth year of Nabopolassar, (the father of Nebuchadnezzar).

Contract for Loan of Money, Sixth year of Nebuchadnezzar II, 598 BCE.
The rate of interest in this case was thirteen and one-third per cent.

One mana of money, a sum belonging to Dan-Marduk, son of Apla, son of the Dagger-wearer, (is loaned) unto Kudurru, son of Iqisha-apla, son of Egibi. Yearly the amount of the mana shall increase its sum by eight shekels of money. Whatever he has in city or country, as much as it may be, is pledged to Dan-Marduk. (The date is) Babylon, Adar fourth, in Nebuchadnezzar’s sixth year.

Contract for Loan of Money, 5th year of Nabonidus, 550 BCE.
This loan was made Aru third, in the fifth year of Nabonidus. No security was given the creditor, but he received an interest of twenty per cent. [Wow! Either there was serious inflation or the guy was a loan shark!]

One and a half manas of money belonging to Iddin-Marduk, son of Iqisha-apla, son of Nur-Sin, (is loaned) unto Ben-Hadad-natan, son of Addiya and Bunanit, his wife. Monthly the amount of a mana shall increase its sum by a shekel of money. From the first of the month Siman, of the fifth year of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, they shall pay the sum on the money. The call shall be made for the interest money at the house which belongs to Iba. Monthly shall the sum be paid.

VI. Bankruptcy
Contract for Purchase of Mortgage, 2nd year of Evil-Merodach, 560 BCE.
[This contract] exhibits how in a case of bankruptcy the interests of the creditor were conserved in the sale of the mortgaged property. It also proves that in Babylonian law the value of the estate was not in such cases sacrificed to the creditor, but that the debtor could obtain the equity in his property which actually belonged to him.

Two thirds of a mana of money, a loan from Bel-zir-epish, son of Shapik-zir, son of the smith, to Nabu-apla-iddin, son of Balatu, son of the _____, a loan upon the Gin (of land) which was delivered unto the creditor, and (on) the house of Nabu-apla-iddin, (which) Nergal-sharra-usur, son of Bel-shum-ishkun, has bought for money. One-third mana of money for the payment wherewith the creditor to be paid Marduk-apla-iddin, son of Bel-zir-epish, son of the smith, has received as agent for Nergal-sharra-usur, from Nabu-akhi-iddin, son of Shula, son of Egibi. The receipt for two-thirds manas (which) Bel-zir-epish (loaned) to Nabu-apla-iddin, Marduk-apla-usur, his son gave to Nergal-sharra-usur. Until Marduk-apla-usur unto the scribes of the king shall speak and shall receive the seal of possession, Nabu-akhi-iddin, son of Nabu-shum-iddins, son of Bel-shuktanu, shall hold the certificate of the receipt of the two-thirds manas of money. (This instrument is dated) Babylon, Nisan twenty-sixth, of the second year of Evil-Merodach.

VII. Power of Attorney
Contract for Power of Attorney, 12th year of Artaxerxes, 452 BCE.
…It appears that the two brothers mentioned in [this contract] wished to make provision for a slave of one of them, who was perhaps being cared for at the Temple of Sharru. One man, perhaps their tenant, was empowered to pay to another the rent of a house of theirs; he in turn was to take it to the temple and see that certain men receive it.

Eighteen shekels of money, rent belonging to Arad-Anu-ilu-la-ilu-iprus and Shapi, sons of Arad-belanu, of _____. From the month Tebet, of the twelfth year of Artaxerxes, Bel-akhi-iddin, son of Bel-abu-akhi, shall receive eighteen shekels of money from the empowered attorney, Imsa-sharru-arda, son of Bel-iddin, on behalf of Arad-Anu-ilu-la-ilu-iprus and Shapi. He shall enter in the Temple of Sharru, into the little temple, the shrine, and shall deposit in the treasury the money, and the singer and the scribe shall receive it for the exalted divinity [and what the “exalted divinity” didn’t want, no doubt the clerics would put it to “good” use!] from the hand of Bel-akhi-iddin, son of Bel-abu-akhi, on behalf of Khuru, the slave of Arad-Anu-ilu-la-ilu-iprus, and Sharru-shu, son of Dan-ila.

VIII. Marriage
Contract for Marriage, 13th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, 591 BCE.
This contract is dated at Babylon, in the thirteenth year of the Biblical Nebuchadnezzar, and is an example of marriage by purchase – a form of marriage which had practically fallen into disuse at this time [to be resurrected ~1200 years later in Islam!].

Dagil-ili, son of Zambubu, spoke to Khamma, daughter of Nergal-iddin, son of Babutu, saying: “Give me Latubashinni your daughter; let her be my wife.” Khamma heard, and gave him Latubashinni, her daughter, as a wife; and Dagil-ili, of his own free-will, gave Ana-eli-Bel-amur, a slave, which he had bought for half a mana of money, and half a mana therewith to Khamma instead of Latubashinni, her daughter. On the day that Dagil-ili another wife shall take, Dagil-ili shall give one mana of money unto Latubashinni, and she shall return to her place – her former one. (Done) at the dwelling of Shum-iddin, son of Ishi-etir, son of Sin-damaqu.

IX. Divorce
Contract for Divorce, 3rd year of Nabonidus, 552 BCE.

NA’ID-MARDUK, son of Shamash-balatsu-iqbi, will give, of his own free-will, to Ramua, his wife, and Arad-Bunini, his son, per day four qa of food, three qa of drink; per year fifteen manas of goods, one pi sesame, one pi salt, which is at the store-house. Na’id-Marduk will not increase it. In case she flees to Nergal [i.e., she dies], the flight shall not annul it. (Done) at the office of Mushezib-Marduk, priest of Sippar.

X. Adoption
Contract for Adoption, 9th year of Nabonidus, 544 BCE.
This document illustrates not only the method of adoption, but the way in which that process might be made impossible by the will of an ancestor in cases involving property.

Bel-kagir, son of Nadinu, son of Sagillai, spoke thus to Nadinu, his father, son of Ziri-ya, son of Sagillai: “To Bit-turni you did send me and I took Zunna as my wife and she has not borne me son or daughter. Bel-ukin, son of Zunna, my wife, whom she bore to her former husband, Niqudu, son of Nur-Sin, let me adopt and let him be my son; on a tablet record his sonship, and seal and bequeath to him our revenues and property, as much as there is, and let him be the son taken by our hands.” Nadinu was not pleased with the word Bel-kagir, his son, spoke to him. Nadinu had written on a tablet, “For the future any other one is not to take their revenues and property,” and had bound the hands of Bel-kagir, and had published in the midst, saying: “On the day when Nadinu goes to his fate, after him, if a son shall be born from the loins of Bel-kagir, his son shall inherit the revenues and properties of Nadinu, his father; if a son is not born from the loins of Bel-kagir, Bel-kagir shall adopt his brother and fellow heir and shall bequeath his revenues and the properties of Nadinu his father to him. Bel-kagir may not adopt another one, but shall take his brother and fellow-heir unto sonship on account of the revenues and properties which Nadinu has bequeathed.” (From this point the tablet is too broken for translation until we reach the witnesses. It was dated) at Babylon in the ninth year of Nabonidus.

XI. Inheritance
Contract for Division of an Estate, 3rd year of Cyrus, 535 BCE.
A good example of a will has already been given above. It appears there that wills like that of Nadinu [immediately above] would stand in spite of the wishes of some of the heirs. We may here illustrate the division of estates among the heirs. This instrument was executed at Borsippa in the third year of Cyrus.

TABLET concerning the division into gin of an estate the dowry of Banat-Esaggil, their mother, which Marduk-iddin-akhi, son of Nabu-bel-shinati, son of Nur-Papsukal, divided and of which he gave to Tukultum-Marduk, son of Nabu-bel-shinati, son of Nur-Papsukal, his brother, his portion. Thirty-three and two-thirds cubits, the upper long side on the north, twenty cubits bordering on the street of _____, the side of the house of Ina-qibi-Bel, son of Balatu, son of the Rab-Uru, and the side of the house of Nabu-uballit, son of Kabtiya, son of Nabu-shimi; thirty-three cubits and eight hands, the lower long side on the south, by the side of the house of Marduk-iddin-akhi, son of Nabu-bel-shinati, son of Nur-Papsukal; thirteen cubits eight-hands, the upper short side on the west, bordering on the street Katnu-agu, thirteen cubits eight hands, the lower short side on the east, eight cubits eight hands (being on) an alley which is eight fingers wide, on the side of the streets; Katnu-la-acu; the sum is eight and two thirds gin, the measurement of the estate, the portion of Tukultum-Marduk, together with two gin, the difference _____ which the chief justice, the shukkaltum and the judges have written upon the tablet and have granted to Tukultum-Marduk, son of Nabu-bel-shanati, son of Nur-Papsukal, from Marduk-iddin-akhi, son of Nabu-bel-shanati, his brother. Marduk-iddin-akhi has thus given it to Tukultum-Marduk. An exit, an inalienable privilege which belongs to the share of Tukultum-Marduk, Marduk-iddin-akhi, son of Nabu-bel-shanati, son of Nur-Papsukal, will not remove from Tukultum-Marduk, his brother. Their suit with one another concerning their estate is ended. They will not move against one another on the basis of the suit about the estate. In order that neither may undertake it they have issued duplicate (tablets).
It’s interesting (at least to me) that, in contrast to the quoted contracts from Ancient Egypt, essentially all of the above Mesopotamian contracts didn’t invoke any gods. But as the following (and my final) example shows, the Ancient Arabs (similar to the Ancient Egyptians) did invoke their gods to “witness” their contracts – at least, for the case shown, pledging friendship. This example is described in The History, which was written in 440 BCE by “the world’s first historian”, Herodotus:
The Arabs keep such pledges more religiously than almost any other people. They plight faith with the forms following. When two men would swear a friendship, they stand on each side of a third: he with a sharp stone makes a cut on the inside of the hand of each near the middle finger, and, taking a piece from their dress, dips it in the blood of each, and moistens therewith seven stones lying in the midst, calling the while on [the gods] Bacchus and Urania. After this, the man who makes the pledge commends the stranger (or the citizen, if citizen he be) to all his friends, and they deem themselves bound to stand to the engagement. They have but these two gods, to wit, Bacchus and Urania… Bacchus they call in their language Orotal, and Urania, Alilat.
This pledge of friendship is similar to the “blood-brother pledge” of Native Americans – although the method used by the Ancient Arabs was obviously more sanitary!

In fact, Herodotus’s above description of the pledge of friendship among Ancient Arabs brings to mind a Calvin & Hobbs comic strip by a genius of our time, Bill Watterson. The strip is shown below; all figures in this post are © Bill Watterson; below each strip I’ve typed the text of each caption (not only because Google’s translator won’t translate the text in figures but also because, this morning, Google’s blogspot is being a pain).


[1) Calvin (C): Here, Hobbes, I’ve drawn up a friendship contract for you to sign. Hobbes (H): A contract? 2) C: Right. It codifies the terms of our friendship. You can renegotiate in 20 years. 3) H: People are friends because the want to be, not because they have to be! 4) C: That’s what this fixes. H: If your friends are contractual, you don’t have any.]

It might be of interest if some information was added about the two gods on whose names the Ancient Arabs swore their oaths of friendship, since Herodotus wrote his book approximately 1,000 years before Muhammad declared “There is only one god but Allah.” As seen in the above quotation from Herodotus, the two gods were Orotal (whom he considered to be the same as the Greek god Bacchus or Dionysus) and Alilat (or Allāt, al-Lāt, or al-’llāhat, whom he considered to be similar to the Greek goddess Urania or Aphrodite). Aremen Rizal adds:
In pre-Islam era, Allah is the name of the highest deity of Mecca people. He is the protector god of Mecca and was worshipped along with his daughters (female deities) Allat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. Herodotus, the Greek historian from about 450 BCE, tells us that the North Arabians had a god and goddess named Orotal and Alilat. Orotal is simply a corruption of Allah, or Allah Ta’al, Allah The Most High.
Wikipedia gives the following translation for a relevant sentence in Herodotus’s Histories (III:38)
They [the Ancient Arabs] believe in no other gods except Dionysus and the heavenly Aphrodite; and they say that they wear their hair as Dionysus does his, cutting it round the head and shaving the temples. They call Dionysus, Orotal; and Aphrodite, Alilat.
More than a thousand years later, as part of his Islamic revolution in the 7th Century CE, Muhammad elevated Allah to the position of sole, creator god, and simultaneously, he “dethroned”, “disrobed”, and discarded all goddesses, such as the pre-Islamic Allah’s three daughters al-‘Uzzá, Manāt, and al-Lāt (or Alilat or Aphrodite).

The Hebrews had a similar “heave-ho”. During the 7th Century BCE (as described in the OT at 2 Kings 23), the misogynist Jewish clerics discredited, abused, and discarded Yahweh’s female companion i.e., the goddess Asherah. Archeological evidence to support that statement is given by William Dever in a question and answer session associated with the PBS-NOVA TV program “The Bible’s Buried Secrets”:
Q: Are there any images of Asherah?

Dever: For a hundred years now we have known of little terracotta female figurines. They show a nude female; the sexual organs are not represented but the breasts are. They are found in tombs, they are found in households, they are found everywhere. There are thousands of them. They date all the way from the 10th century to the early 6th century. They have long been connected with one goddess or another, but many scholars are still hesitant to come to a conclusion. I think they are representations of Asherah, so I call them Asherah figurines.

Q: There aren’t such representations of Yahweh, are there?

Dever: No. Now, why is it that you could model the female deity but not the male deity? Well, I think the First and Second Commandments by now were taken pretty seriously. You just don’t portray Yahweh, the male deity, but the Mother Goddess is okay. But his consort is probably a lesser deity.

We found molds for making Asherah figurines, mass-producing them, in village shrines. So probably almost everybody had one of these figurines, and they surely have something to do with fertility. They were no doubt used to pray for conceiving a child and bearing the child safely and nursing it. It’s interesting to me that the Israelite and Judean ones are rather more modest than the Canaanite ones, which are right in your face. The Israelite and Judean ones mostly show a nursing mother.

Q: This has been something of a lightning rod, has it not?

Dever: This is awkward for some people, the notion that Israelite religion was not exclusively monotheistic. But we know now that it wasn’t. Monotheism was a late development . Not until the Babylonian Exile and beyond does Israelite and Judean religion – Judaism – become monotheistic.
All of which brings to mind another of Bill Watterson’s creations:

[1) C: Hi Susie! Would you sign this legal document? Susie (S): What is it? 2) C: In essence, it annuls our knowledge of each other’s existence and it prohibits any future social interaction. 3) C: Specifically, it states that I’ll never ask you out on a date, and it imposes severe penalties on any party that attempts to engage the other in conversa… 4) C: It’s almost insulting how fast she signed that.]

And actually, the more Calvin & Hobbs strips I review, the more they seem to illustrate the Pentateuch! To see what I mean, consider this. Apparently the Hebrews exiled in Babylon found themselves living in a culture inundated by contracts (as illustrated earlier in this post). As a result, Ezra & C-C apparently became so enamored by contracts that they decided to concoct a “holy book” (the Pentateuch) that spelled out contracts (or “covenants”) between them and their god! To see links with Calvin & Hobbs cartoons, consider the following illustrations.

1. In the Adam & Eve story of Genesis 2 & 3, the authors have the tyrant-teacher (Yahweh) order the kids (Adam & Eve) not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – thereby preventing them from learning that it was “good” to obey his orders! Subsequently, a more honest teacher (a talking snake) told the kids the truth, that Yahweh had lied when he said (Genesis 2, 16): “You may eat from every tree in the garden, but not from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for on the day that you eat from it, you will certainly die.” The following Calvin & Hobbs version is somewhat restricted – but then, in contrast to the creators of the Bible, it was a part of Watterson’s brilliance to keep his cartoons realistic, not resorting to silly stunts such as talking snakes.

[1) C: Miss Wormwood (MW). I’d like you to sign this contract. 2) C: It’s an agreement that you’ll compensate me for any loss of job income I may suffer as an adult because of a poor first-grade education. 3) MW: If you get a poor first-grade education, it will be from your lack of effort, not mine. Get back to your desk. 4) C: By golly, somebody ought to pay me if I don’t learn anything.]

2. In the Bible’s version of the flood story (plagiarized from earlier Mesopotamian myths), the bully Yahweh hideously kills essentially everyone. Upon realizing that he had made major mistakes (i.e., that he had “sinned”, big time), Yahweh then enters into a contract with the patriarch survivor (Noah, or in earlier versions of the myth, Ubar-Tutu, Ziusudra, Curuppag, Atrahasis, or Utanapishtam). Specifically, Yahweh promises (Genesis 9): “never again will all living things be wiped out by the waters of a flood” – provided 1) that people “not eat meat with its life (that is, meat with blood in it)” [but, but… all meat has blood in it!] and 2) that people not “shed human blood” [apparently, then, people who participate in wars are risking the destruction of us all!]. To remind himself that he entered into this contract (or “covenant”), the bully Yahweh (who apparently has a failing memory) stated (Genesis 9, 14): “Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, then I will remember my covenant with you and with all living creatures of all kinds.” I think Watterson captured the essence of this biblical nonsense with the following:

[1) C: Hold it, Moe (M)! Before you wallop me, I’m afraid you’ll have to sign this form. 2) M: What’s this? C: It’s a statement acknowledging responsibility for your behavior. 3) C: You agree that hitting me entitles me to unlimited compensation for medical treatment as well as reasonable damages for pain and suffering. You affirm that you’re insured for these costs and… 4) C: Nobody takes responsibility for his actions anymore.]

3. Then, there’s Ezra & C-C’s concocted “covenant” (a fancy synonym for ‘contract’) between Abraham and the giant father-in-the-sky, Yahweh, namely (Genesis 17, 4): “You [Abraham] will be the father of a multitude of nations.” To seal this contract, the giant father-in-the sky added (Genesis 17, 10): “This is my requirement that you and your descendants after you must keep: every male among you must be circumcised.” In my view, Watterson summarized such stupidity beautifully:

[1) C: Here, Dad (D) I’d like you to sign this form and have it notarized. 2) D (reading): “I, the undersigned Dad, attest that I have never parented before, and insofar as I have no experience in the job… 3) D (continuing to read): I am liable for my mistakes and I agree to pay for any counseling, in perpetuity, Calvin may require as a result of my parental ineptitude.” 4) C: I don’t see how you’re allowed to have a kid without signing one of those.]

4. And to top it off, there’s Ezra & C-C’s fictitious contract between the tyrant Yahweh and the fictitious group of 600,000 Hebrews (males, alone) who allegedly were led out from Egypt by the fictional character Moses. Specifically, at Exodus 15, 26, Yahweh allegedly states: “If only you will obey the Lord your God, if you will do what is right in his eyes, if you will listen to his commands and keep all his statutes, then I will never bring upon you any of the sufferings which I brought on the Egyptians…” But (so the clerical story goes) the Israelites didn’t keep their part of the bargain (witness the golden calf episode) – which I think Watterson illustrated clearly:

[1) Moe: Get off the swing, Twinky. C: Forget it, Moe, wait your turn. 2) PUNCH! 3) C: It’s hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.]

Of course, though, it wasn’t just Jewish clerics who concocted such silly contracts with some giant Jabberwock in the sky. For example, when considering the following Watterson creation, think of the con game run by Christian clerics:

[1) C: Whee hee hee 2) SPLOOSHH 3) C: Oh, what an awful thing I did! How I regret it now! I hereby resolve to change my evil ways! Oh remorse, remorse! 4) C: My penitent sinner shtick needs work.]

Eventually, the Arabs caught on, and Muslim clerics got their con game up and running, too:

[1) C: I want the last piece of pie! Don’t divide it up! Give it to me! Calvin’s Mom: Don’t be selfish Calvin. 2) C: So, the real message here is “Be dishonest”? 3) (Big-grin Calvin wins again!)]

It’s enough to make a person question the existence of any god – especially since any god idea just doesn’t make sense:

[1) C: This whole Santa Claus thing just doesn’t make sense. 2) C: Why all the secrecy? What all the mystery? If the guy exists, why doesn’t he ever show himself and prove it? 3) C: And if he doesn’t exist, what’s the meaning of all this? 4) H: I dunno… isn’t this a religious holiday? C: Yeah, but actually, I’ve got the same questions about God.]

But then, an amazing number of people can apparently rationalize their way to accept almost any wild idea – if they’re given sufficient incentive:

[1) C: Well, I’ve decided I do believe in Santa Claus, no matter how preposterous he sounds. 2) H: What convinced you? C: A simple risk analysis. 3) I want presents, lots of presents. Why risk not getting them over a matter of belief? Heck, I’ll believe anything they want. 4) H: How cynically enterprising of you. C: It’s the spirit of Christmas.]

A slight problem can arise, however: even if you’re willing to ignore the lack of evidence, ignore reason, and worship some god, then still, which one to choose?

[1) C: Can we burn these leaves? C’s father (F): No, that pollutes. 2) C: But how can we appease the mighty snow demons if we don’t sacrifice any leaves?! We’ll have a warm winter! 3) C’s F: I don’t know whether your grasp of theology or meteorology is the more appalling. C: I guess I’ll go light some candles around the toboggan and beg for mercy.]

I mean, think about it:

[1) C: What if we die and it turns out God is a big chicken?? What then?! 2) C’s Mom: Just eat your dinner, OK? C: Eternal consequences, that’s what!]

But let’s face it: some people apparently prefer to live by rules and contracts set by others – although, Calvin apparently wasn’t one of them:

[1) C: What a ripp-off! They say if you connect these dots, you get a picture. But look! I did it and it’s just a big mess! 2) H: I think you’re supposed to connect them in the order that they’re numbered. 3) C: Oh. 4) C: Everything’s gotta have rules, rules, rules!]

But meanwhile, it’s not as if we didn’t have enough to worry about, without attempting to live according to rules and regulations concocted by clerical con artists and without worrying about the existence of silly, clerically-concocted contracts with their fictitious gods:

[1) C: Trick or treat! Homeowner: Where’s your costume? What are you supposed to be? 2) C: I’m yet another resource-consuming kid in an overpopulated planet, raised to an alarming extent by Madison Avenue and Hollywood, poised with my cynical and alienated peers to take over the world when you’re old and weak! 3) C: Am I scary or what?]

www.zenofzero.net

2009/03/09

The Law Lie - 3 - Customs


In the previous two posts in this series I tried to show some history of two parts of what I call “the Law Lie” (itself a part of what I call “the God Lie”), namely, 1) the lie that morality is defined by the gods and 2) the lie that justice is the jurisdiction of the gods. In this post I want to show a little history of a third part of the Law Lie: 3) the lie that customs were created by the gods. We can be extremely confident that the above (and the many other parts of the God Lie) aren’t valid descriptions of reality, simply because (as I’ve argued elsewhere) the firmest knowledge that we have – even firmer than the knowledge that we exist! – is that no god exists or has ever existed.

I admit, however, that there’s only circumstantial evidence that such “untruths” are also lies (rather than mistakes). This “circumstantial evidence” includes the existence of a huge number of clerical parasites who profit from promoting such silliness, even though ample evidence is readily available to demonstrate that the concepts are wrong. Nonetheless, most clerics may be fools rather than liars; that is, the liars may be only those few clerics who aren’t fools.

In any event, it’s easy to imagine how primitive people reached the mistaken conclusion that, for example, customs were created by the gods. Having convinced themselves that the gods were “the cause” of everything unknown (from the cause of the wind to the reason for the lights in the sky), then upon finding their societies in possession of a host of cultural peculiarities (from sharing food with others to prohibitions against eating certain foods, and from the existence of the concept of marriage to prohibitions against specific sexual activities), it was then logical to deduce (based on the faulty premiss that gods exist) that the gods created their society’s customs.

Now, to investigate the real origins of all customs of any particular society would be an absolutely humongous task; therefore, I plan to severely restrict this post. My goal is to provide some evidence for the origins of only a few of the customs that the authors and “redactors” of the Old Testament (OT) claimed were given to them by their god. The few customs on which I plan to focus are, however, arguably the most important, namely, the customs revealed in “the wisdom literature” of the OT’s Proverbs.

By restricting the scope of this post to customs depicted in the OT’s Proverbs I’m not suggesting my disinterest in origins of other facets of Ancient Hebrew culture. Elsewhere, I’ve already commented (at least a little) on their male chauvinism, which (by the way) is still practiced by most Muslims and which seems to have been derived as a part of the cultural transition from rural to urban life, with associated shift in emphasis from fertility (and female fertility goddesses) to trade and intercity warfare (and associated male gods). Also, in a later post, I plan at least to glance at how the Hebrews apparently combined Egyptian, Persian, and Greek ideas about the gods to (erroneously) conclude that there was only a single god.

Readers interested in other peculiarities of Hebrew culture, such as their aversion to pork and their brutal practice of male circumcision, might want to start by reading The History by Herodotus (who reports in Paragraphs 2.36, 2.37, and 2.47 that both customs were earlier practiced in Ancient Egypt) and then explore further on the internet to find, for example, that the first historical record of male circumcision is associated with the Egyptian physician Ankhmahor (c. 2300 BCE). Originally, the practice of male circumcision seems to have been a part of any boy’s “coming of age” initiation rite, starting in Africa tens of thousands of years ago and spreading worldwide with the aborigines of Australia and South America.

In defense of my plan to focus on Hebrew customs revealed in the OT’s Proverbs, I would not only point to the need to restrict the length of the post but also claim that a substantial portion of the customs of any culture is revealed by its “wisdom literature.” For what follows, my plan is first to display the wisdom literature of earlier, Sumerian and Egyptian cultures, then display some of the Hebrew wisdom literature as given in the OT’s Proverbs, and then, finally, ask the reader to consider clerical claims that the wisdom of the Hebrews was derived not from the people’s experiences but from the first symmetry-breaking fluctuation in the total void that led to the Big Bang (i.e., from “God”).

The first clear record of existing customs appeared when writing was invented, about 5,000 years ago in Sumer, in what’s now called southern Iraq (“Sumer” means “from the south”). Examples of Sumerian customs are contained in their many proverbs available at the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. In that source, I found particularly informative the following proverbs, which I’ve grouped under the indicated headings. Question marks (?) indicate translation uncertainties and (. . .) indicates missing text. Although it’s unknown when these proverbs were developed, they’re obviously from a time period at least twice as long ago as the time period when the OT was put together.

General Sumerian Customs
A good word is a friend to numerous men.

You speak to me – and I will speak to you!

He who insults is insulted. He who sneers is sneered at.

Putting unwashed hands to one’s mouth is disgusting.

One city does not greet another, but one person greets another person.

A hand will stretch out towards an outstretched hand. A hand will open for an opened hand.
Sumerian Family Life
“I’m going home” is what he prefers.

Marry a wife according to your choice. Have children to your heart’s content.

He who does not support a wife, he who does not support a child, has no cause for celebration.

Children and wives and trading agents! How they use up silver! And how they use up barley!

To be sick is acceptable; to be pregnant is painful; but to be pregnant and sick is just too much.

Hand added to hand, and a man’s house is built up. Stomach (?) added to stomach (?), and a man’s house is destroyed.

A malicious wife living in a house is the worst of all afflictions.

When I married a malicious husband, when I bore a malicious son, an unhappy heart was assigned to me.

I will feed you even though you are an outcast (?). I will give you drink even though you are an outcast (?). You are still my son, even if your god has turned against you.

A brewing (?) trough not previously tried is put to the test by means of salt. A mixing jar (?) not previously tried is put to the test by means of water. A son-in-law whose behavior (?) is unknown is put to the test by means of quarrels.

A man’s waterskin is his life. A man’s sandals are his eyes. A man’s wife is his supervisor (?). A man’s son is his protective shade. A man’s daughter is his eager servant (?). A man’s daughter-in-law is his policeman.

The joy of a daughter-in-law is anger.

As for the fiancé, what has he brought? And as for the father-in-law, what has he sorted out?

For his pleasure he got married. On his thinking it over he got divorced.

The married man, having divorced his wife, examined her: “At least I am taking away my dignity!”

An unfaithful penis matches (?) an unfaithful vagina.

No one walks together with him or directs their steps towards him. Life {passes him by like water} {(1 ms. has instead:) eludes him just as he avoids others}. He is dear to no just man, {plague prevails over him} {(1 ms. has instead:) life is not given to him}. Like a worthless penny, {......; no one ......} {(1 ms. has instead:) he is thrown away; no one cares about him}. He is clothed with a garment as if a heavy punishment were assigned to him. {Who is he? His name? A man sleeping with someone’s wife.} {(1 ms. has instead:) Who is he? He is a man who slept with someone’s wife.}
Sumerian Work & Professional Life
While you still have light, grind the flour.

The warrior is unique; he alone is the equal of many.

The axe belongs to the carpenter, the stone belongs to the smith, the good ...... belongs to the brewer.

He who has silver is happy. He who has grain feels comfortable. But he who has livestock cannot sleep.

He who has silver, he who has lapis lazuli, he who has oxen, and he who has sheep wait at the gate of the man who has barley.

He who shaves his head gets more hair. And he who gathers the barley gains more and more grain.

It is on account of being the boss that you bully me.

If the foreman does not know how to assign the work, his workers will not stop shaking their heads.

How will a scribe who does not know Sumerian produce a translation?

The idleness of a low-life causes losses; his shying away (?) from work is perpetual.

Although you poured out water from a river of mighty waters, it did not cool my temper. It did not put an end (?) to the sorcery affecting me.

When battle approaches, when war arises, the plans of the gods, beloved by the gods, are destroyed. You cause fire to devour the Land. May my god know that my hand is suited to the stylus.

A disgraced scribe becomes an incantation priest. A disgraced singer becomes a flute-player. A disgraced lamentation priest becomes a piper. A disgraced merchant becomes a con-man. A disgraced carpenter becomes a man of the spindle. A disgraced smith becomes a man of the sickle. A disgraced mason becomes a hod-carrier.

“You should serve me” is typical of purification priests. Bowing over your hips is typical of leather-workers. To be stationed in all corners is typical of lukur women [“sacred prostitutes”]. “I will be there with you” is typical of gardeners. “I swear by Enki that your garments will take no time in this establishment” is typical of fullers.
General Sumerian Wisdom
The fool is garrulous.

Flies enter an open mouth.

He turns things upside down.

Your role in life is unknown.

Not to know beer is not normal.

The time passed, and what did you gain?

The stupidest of all shameless men.

In the city with no dogs, the fox is boss.

In the city of the lame, the cripple is a courier.

The mighty man is master of the earth.

A palace will fall of its own accord.

Strength cannot keep pace with intelligence.

Who could compete with righteousness?

Good is in the hands. Evil is also in the hands.

A millstone will float in the river for a righteous man.

When righteousness is cut off, injustice is increased.

The expenses (?) of those who neglect justice are numerous.

Let just men be born in good health, and let their lives last long.

The just man’s life lasts long. Life is the gift awarded for it.

What comes out of one’s mouth is not in one’s hand.

Tell a lie and then tell the truth: it will be considered a lie.

As long as you live you should not increase evil by telling lies; for if you do, to succumb will be your lot.

Talking endlessly is what humankind has most on its mind.

Whatever the man in authority said, it was not pleasant.

The poor man inflicts all kinds of illnesses on the rich man.

That which the thief has taken was made by an honest man.

The beloved true commander distributes the leadership (?).

Let great men stir up the conflict for lesser men to fight out.

Is my ox to provide milk for you?

Moving about defeats poverty.

A stranger is leader in a foreign city.

Like an ox, you do not know how to turn back.

He who keeps fleeing, flees from his own past.

Because he always went, because he always ran, “He carried away. He carried away!” is the name assigned to him. A fool.

A fettered dog is quarrelsome.

When a dog snarls, throw a morsel into his mouth.

Don’t start a fight with a dog. Will that dog not bite you?

“Like the wild bull, you only do what pleases you.”

He who says “I will live for today” is bound like a bull on a nose-rope.

A fox urinated into the Tigris. “I am causing the spring flood to rise,” he said.

Brotherhood is founded on the words of a quarrel. At the witness box, friendship becomes known.

Although I spoke, what did I gain? Although I spoke, what did it add? I covered up for myself, but what success did it bring me?

What is in mankind’s mouth is as difficult to hide as a wall. The boy who grew up in your town ...... on you – don’t let your mouth accuse him; don’t slander him; don’t encourage violent retaliation against yourself.

One should pay attention to an old man’s words and one should reap the benefits.

By following craftiness, one learns how to be crafty. By following wisdom, one learns how to be wise.

A child should behave with modesty toward his mother. He should take the older generation into consideration.

A younger brother should honor an older brother. He should treat him with human dignity.

Should not intelligence, wisdom and understanding become perfect ...... to the mouth ...... mankind.

Let the favor be repaid to him who repays a favor.

He who can say “Let him hurry, let him run, let him be strong, and he will carry it!” is a lucky man.

When present, it was considered a loincloth; when lost, it is considered fine clothing.

To eat modestly doesn’t kill a man, but to covet will murder you. To eat a little is to live splendidly. When you walk about, keep your feet on the ground!

The ditches of the garden should not flow with water, or there will be vermin.

Don’t cause the oven in a man’s house to smoke. The smoke will ruin (?) the bread.

Because of his arrogance, may his head be bowed to his neck like a damp reed.

He who possesses many things is constantly on his guard.

A wealthy man had accumulated a fortune. “I am spending it for him.” That said, it was dispersed. Afterwards he could not work out what went wrong. Things change. No one knows what will happen.

My fingernail that hurts is clutched in my embrace. My foot that hurts is in my sandal. But who will find my aching heart?

Let me tell you about my fate: it is a disgrace. Let me tell you of my condition: it makes a man’s mouth taste bitter.

A child without sin was never born by his mother. The idea was never conceived that there was anyone who was not a sinner. Such a situation never existed.

Although the number of unhappy days is endless (?), yet life is better than death.

Pleasure is created. Sins are absolved. Life is rejuvenated.
Notice that none of the above Sumerian proverbs emphasized the gods; in contrast, those listed below emphasize the gods indicated by the headings. For further information on the Sumerian gods see here.

General Gods
… the gods are three. So it is said, so let it be.

A man without a god – for a strong man it is no loss.

To appreciate the earth is for the gods; I am merely covered in dust.

What has been destroyed belongs to a god. No one is able to take it away.

To be wealthy and demand more is an abomination to a god.

Accept your lot and make your mother happy! Run fast and make your god happy!

Should someone clever not act cleverly, then I ......; man’s intelligence comes from god.

Thanks to the word of his personal god, the fate of the man who speaks just words is favorable, and he is with him throughout the day.

A man without a personal god does not procure much food, does not procure even a little food. Going down to the river, he does not catch any fish. Going down to a field, he does not catch any gazelle. In important matters he is unsuccessful. When running, he does not reach his goal. Yet were his god favorable toward him, anything he might name would be provided for him.
The god Utu (Shamash in Akkadian), the Sun god and god of justice
If wickedness exerts itself, how will Utu succeed?

Whenever wickedness may cause trouble, Utu will not be idle!

Uncleared debts ...... are something which makes debts to Utu.

When a trustworthy boat is sailing, Utu seeks out a trustworthy harbor for it.

Adding an inheritance share to an inheritance share is an abomination to Utu.

The palace is an ox; you should catch it by the tail. Utu is lord; you should fix your gaze on him.

He who despises a just decision, who loves wicked decisions, is an abomination to Utu.

Utu, the lord who loves justice, extirpates wickedness and prolongs righteousness.

Utu’s glance is prayerful. Utu’s heart is compassionate. A devotee of Utu is among the holy. Allotted by Utu to be fortunate, a ...... ship reaches the quay.

When a man comes forward as a witness, saying: “Let me tell you what I know,” but does not know the relevant information, it is an abomination to Utu.

A judge who despises justice, cursing with the right hand, and the chasing away of a younger son from the house of his father are abominations to Utu.

Oh Utu, you are my judge: pronounce my judgment! You are my decision-maker, decide my case! The dream that I have seen – turn it into a favorable one!

To spit without covering it up with dust and to use the tongue at midday without protection are abominations to Utu.

To serve beer with unwashed hands, to spit without trampling upon it, to sneeze without covering it with dust, to kiss with the tongue at midday without providing shade are abominations to Utu.

The wolf wept before Utu: “The animals frisk around together, but I am all alone.”

Imagine a wolf is eating. Utu looks down on it and says: “Provided you praise me you will grow fat” would be the reply.

While the wolf sat stuck in a trap, he said to Utu: “When I come out, let me henceforth eat no more sheep. When I am hungry, the sheep I’ve taken, whatever you mention – what will they mean to me? I shall be bound by a righteous oath. – Now, what can I eat?”
Enlil, the god of the Earth, wind, and storms (one of the three great gods, the others two being the sky god Anu and the water god Enki or Ea)
The fox lies (?) even to Enlil.

Enlil’s greatest punishment is hunger.

… you shouldn’t give a lame man a staff. Enlil is his helper.

Don’t give the halt man a club for his arm. Enlil shall be the one to help him!

A fox demanded of Enlil the horns of a wild bull. While it was wearing the wild bull’s horns, it started to rain. But the horns rose high above him, so he could not enter his burrow. Until midnight the wind kept blowing, and the clouds brought rain. Afterwards, when it had stopped raining on him, and he had dried off, he said: “I shall return this feature to its rightful owner!”
Suen, the Moon god and god of wisdom (called Nanna or Sin in Akkadian)
… if the hand touches a woman’s genitals over her clothes – it is an abomination to Suen.

When a man sailing downstream encounters a man whose boat is traveling upstream, an inspection is an abomination to Suen.

When a man comes forward as a witness, saying: “Let me tell you what I know about him”, but does not know the relevant information, it is an abomination to Suen.

The north wind is a satisfying wind; the south wind is harmful (?) to man. The east wind is a rain-bearing wind; the west wind is greater than those who live there. The east wind is a wind of prosperity, the friend of Naram-Suen.
Inana (Akkadian, Ishtar), goddess of fertility, represented by Venus
May Inana pour oil on my heart that aches.

For him who is rejected by Inana, his dream is to forget.

Carrying bread to the oven whilst singing is an abomination to Inana.

May Inana make a hot-limbed wife lie with you! May she bestow upon you broad-shouldered sons! May she find for you a place of happiness!
Ninurta, healing god and god of the South Wind
To take revenge is the prerogative of Ninurta.

To take revenge is an abomination to Ninurta.

Refusing to talk is an abomination to Ninurta.

To remove something from its proper place is an abomination to Ninurta.

They treated an immigrant badly. [1 line fragmentary] It is an abomination to Ninurta.

Coveting and {reaching out for things} {(1 ms. has instead:) spying} are abominations to Ninurta.

The chasing away of a younger son from the house of his father is an abomination to Ninurta.

A judge who despises justice, cursing with the right hand, and the chasing away of a younger son from the house of his father are abominations to Ninurta.
Other Gods
I part the waters (?) like Nirah [a snake deity].

You should not say to Ninjizzida [god of nature]: “Let me live!”

When the authorities are wise, and the poor are loyal, it is the effect of the blessing of Aratta [the land].

He who slanders… for the liar – Ninegala [Ningal (?), the Moon goddess?] will crush his head…

A plant as sweet as a husband, a plant as sweet as a mother; may Ezina-Kusu (the grain goddess) dwell in your home.

The god of the river ordeal will admire the hearts of those who bear words of truth.
Similar sayings were undoubtedly available in Ancient Egypt (and other regions), but most Egyptian writings were recorded on papyrus, which (of course) was much more perishable than clay tablets. Some Egyptian sayings were also carved in stone (e.g., on tombs and in pyramids), but of course, such carvings emphasized the “afterlife” of the dead person. Some of the tomb inscriptions, however, provide at least a glimpse of early Egyptian customs – at least, those customs followed (or claimed to be followed!) by the aristocrats buried in the tombs. An example of a tomb inscription that does convey some ideas about Ancient Egyptian culture is the following.
Inscriptions of Harkhuf, The Explorer (~2525 BCE)
I came today from my city, I descended from my nome, I built a house, I set up the doors. I dug a lake, and I planted trees. The King praised me. My father made a will for me, for I was excellent . . . one beloved of his father, praised of his mother, whom all his brothers loved. I gave bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, I ferried him who had no boat.

I was one saying good things and repeating what was loved. Never did I say aught evil, to a powerful one against any people, for I desired that it might be well with me in the great god’s presence. Never did I judge two brothers in such a way that a son was deprived of his paternal possession.
A much more significant indication of Ancient Egyptian culture is available on “the world’s most precious and oldest papyrus known”, namely, the Prisse Papyrus (named after the Frenchmen who purchased it). It contains The Precepts [or The Maxims of Good Discourse] of Ptah-Hotep.

Actually, the identity of the author isn’t known. There was a vizier under King Isesi called Ptah-Hotep (or Ptahhotep, which seems to mean Ptah is “at peace” or “is satisfied”, where Ptah was claimed by the clerics of Memphis to be the creator god). If this Ptah-Hotep was the author of The Precepts, then they are from 2450–2300 BCE. On the other hand, The Precepts may be a “literary construct”, as apparently were other Instructions of fathers to their sons; if so, then The Precepts may be from ~2300–2150 BCE and by an unknown author. In any case, the author probably relied on available Egyptian proverbs, possibly including those from the time of the first recognized genius in history, the “first engineer, architect, and physician”, Imhotep, c. 2600 BCE.

The full text of The Precepts is available at many places on the web, including here, here, and at The Internet Ancient History Source Book. What follows is an abbreviated form of the text copied from here. I’ve taken the liberty to italicize portions of the text that I found to be particularly perceptive.
Precepts of the Prefect, the lord Ptah-hotep, under the Majesty of the King of the South and North, Assa, living eternally forever.

Beginning of the arrangement of the good sayings, spoken by the noble lord, the divine father, beloved of Ptah, the son of the king, the first-born of his race, the prefect and feudal lord Ptah-hotep, so as to instruct the ignorant in the knowledge of the arguments of the good sayings. It is profitable for him who hears them; it is a loss to him who shall transgress them. He says to his son:

Be not arrogant because of that which you know; deal with the ignorant as with the learned; for the barriers of art are not closed, no artist being in possession of the perfection to which he should aspire. But good words are more difficult to find than the emerald, for it is by slaves that that is discovered among the rocks of pegmatite…

If you find a disputant while he is hot, do not despise him because you are not of the same opinion. Be not angry against him when he is wrong; away with such a thing. He fights against himself; require him not further to flatter your feelings. Do not amuse yourself with the spectacle which you have before you; it is odious, it is mean, it is the part of a despicable soul so to do. As soon as you let yourself be moved by your feelings, combat this desire as a thing that is reproved by the great…

If you have, as leader, to decide on the conduct of a great number of men, seek the most perfect manner of doing so that your own conduct may be without reproach. Justice is great, invariable, and assured; it has not been disturbed since the age of Ptah. To throw obstacles in the way of the laws is to open the way before violence…

Inspire not men with fear, else Ptah will fight against you in the same manner. If any one asserts that he lives by such means, Ptah will take away the bread from his mouth; if any one asserts that he enriches himself thereby, Ptah says: I may take those riches to myself. If any one asserts that he beats others, Ptah will end by reducing him to impotence. Let no one inspire men with fear; this is the will of Ptah. Let one provide sustenance for them in the lap of peace; it will then be that they will freely give what has been torn from them by terror…

If you are a farmer, gather the crops in the field which the great Ptah has given you, do not boast in the house of your neighbors; it is better to make oneself dreaded by one’s deeds. As for him who, master of his own way of acting, being all-powerful, seizes the goods of others like a crocodile in the midst even of watchment, his children are an object of malediction, of scorn, and of hatred on account of it, while his father is grievously distressed, and as for the mother who has borne him, happy is another rather than herself. But a man becomes a god when he is chief of a tribe which has confidence in following him…

Be active during the time of your existence; do no more than is commanded. Do not spoil the time of your activity; he is a blameworthy person who makes a bad use of his moments. Do not lose the daily opportunity of increasing that which your house possesses. Activity produces riches, and riches do not endure when it slackens…

He is a god who penetrates into a place where no relaxation of the rules is made for the privileged…

If you are a leader, setting forward your plans according to that which you decide, perform perfect actions which posterity may remember, without letting the words prevail with you which multiply flattery, which excite pride and produce vanity.

If you are a leader of peace, listen to the discourse of the petitioner. Be not abrupt with him; that would trouble him. Say not to him: “You have already recounted this.” Indulgence will encourage him to accomplish the object of his coming. As for being abrupt with the complainant because he described what passed when the injury was done, instead of complaining of the injury itself let it not be! The way to obtain a clear explanation is to listen with kindness.

If you desire to excite respect within the house you enter, for example the house of a superior, a friend, or any person of consideration, in short everywhere where you enter, keep yourself from making advances to a woman, for there is nothing good in so doing…

If you desire that your conduct should be good and preserved from all evil, keep yourself from every attack of bad humor. It is a fatal malady which leads to discord, and there is no longer any existence for him who gives way to it. For it introduces discord between fathers and mothers, as well as between brothers and sisters; it causes the wife and the husband to hate each other; it contains all kinds of wickedness, it embodies all kinds of wrong. When a man has established his just equilibrium and walks in this path, there where he makes his dwelling, there is no room for bad humor.

Be not of an irritable temper as regards that which happens at your side; grumble not over your own affairs. Be not of an irritable temper in regard to your neighbors; better is a compliment to that which displeases than rudeness. It is wrong to get into a passion with one’s neighbors, to be no longer master of one’s words. When there is only a little irritation, one creates for oneself an affliction for the time when one will again be cool.

If you are wise, look after your house; love your wife without alloy. Fill her stomach, clothe her back; these are the cares to be bestowed on her person. Caress her, fulfill her desires during the time of her existence; it is a kindness which does honor to its possessor. Be not brutal; tact will influence her better than violence; her . . . behold to what she aspires, at what she aims, what she regards. It is that which fixes her in your house; if you repel her, it is an abyss. Open your arms for her, respond to her arms; call her, display to her your love.

Treat your dependents well, in so far as it belongs to you to do so; and it belongs to those whom Ptah has favored…

Do not repeat any extravagance of language; do not listen to it; it is a thing which has escaped from a hasty mouth. If it is repeated, look, without hearing it, toward the earth; say nothing in regard to it. Cause him who speaks to you to know what is just, even him who provokes to injustice; cause that which is just to be done, cause it to triumph. As for that which is hateful according to the law, condemn it by unveiling it.

If you are a wise man, sitting in the council of your lord, direct your thought toward that which is wise. Be silent rather than scatter your words…

If you are powerful, respect knowledge and calmness of language. Command only to direct; to be absolute is to run into evil. Let not your heart be haughty, neither let it be mean. Do not let your orders remain unsaid and cause your answers to penetrate; but speak without heat, assume a serious countenance. As for the vivacity of an ardent heart, temper it; the gentle man penetrates all obstacles. He who agitates himself all the day long has not a good moment; and he who amuses himself all the day long keeps not his fortune…

Disturb not a great man; weaken not the attention of him who is occupied. His care is to embrace his task, and he strips his person through the love which he puts into it. That transports men to Ptah, even the love for the work which they accomplish. Compose then your face even in trouble, that peace may be with you, when agitation is with . . .These are the people who succeed in what they desire.

Let your love pass into the heart of those who love you; cause those about you to be loving and obedient…

If you are annoyed at a thing, if you are tormented by someone who is acting within his right, get out of his sight, and remember him no more when he has ceased to address you.

If you have become great after having been little, if you have become rich after having been poor, when you are at the head of the city, know how not to take advantage of the fact that you have reached the first rank, harden not your heart because of your elevation; you are become only the administrator, the prefect, of the provisions which belong to Ptah. Put not behind you the neighbor who is like you; be unto him as a companion…

Do not plunder the house of your neighbors; seize not by force the goods which are beside you…

If you aim at polished manners, call not him whom you accost. Converse with him especially in such a way as not to annoy him. Enter on a discussion with him only after having left him time to saturate his mind with the subject of the conversation. If he lets his ignorance display itself, and if he gives you all opportunity to disgrace him, treat him with courtesy rather; proceed not to drive him into a corner; do not . . . the word to him; answer not in a crushing manner; crush him not; worry him not; in order that in his turn he may not return to the subject, but depart to the profit of your conversation.

Let your countenance be cheerful during the time of your existence…

Know those who are faithful to you when you are in low estate…

If you take a wife, do not . . . Let her be more contented than any of her fellow-citizens. She will be attached to you doubly, if her chain is pleasant. Do not repel her; grant that which pleases her; it is to her contentment that she appreciates your work…

When a son receives the instruction of his father there is no error in all his plans. Train your son to be a teachable man whose wisdom is agreeable to the great. Let him direct his mouth according to that which has been said to him; in the docility of a son is discovered his wisdom. His conduct is perfect while error carries away the unteachable. Tomorrow knowledge will support him, while the ignorant will be destroyed.

As for the man without experience who listens not, he effects nothing whatsoever. He sees knowledge in ignorance, profit in loss; he commits all kinds of error, always accordingly choosing the contrary of what is praiseworthy. He lives on that which is mortal, in this fashion. His food is evil words, whereat he is filled with astonishment. That which the great know to be mortal he lives upon every day, flying from that which would be profitable to him, because of the multitude of errors which present themselves before him every day.

A son who attends is like a follower of Horus; he is happy after having attended. He becomes great, he arrives at dignity, he gives the same lesson to his children…

Let your thoughts be abundant, but let your mouth be under restraint…
Another important, surviving Egyptian papyrus contains The Instructions of Amenemope. It was written in the eleventh century BCE, mostly in the standard “negative declarations” of the time. The text states that it was “Written by the superintendent of the land, experienced in his office; the offspring of a scribe of the Beloved Land, the superintendent of produce, who fixes the grain measure, who sets the grain tax amount for his lord… Amenemope, the son of Danakht… for his son… [who is also] the son of the… chief singer of Horus, the Lady Tawosret.” Some of the text follows; again I’ve added the italics to emphasize ideas that impressed me.
Chapter 1: Give your years and hear what is said, give your mind over to their interpretation… If you spend a lifetime with these things in your heart, you will find it good fortune; you will discover my words to be a treasure house of life, and your body will flourish upon earth.

Chapter 2: Beware of stealing from a miserable man and of raging against the cripple… Don’t let yourself be involved in a fraudulent business, nor desire the carrying out of it… Something else of value in the heart of God is to stop and think before speaking.

Chapter 3: Do not get into a quarrel with the argumentative man nor incite him with words; proceed cautiously before an opponent, and give way to an adversary; sleep on it before speaking, for a storm come forth like fire in hay is the hot-headed man in his appointed time. May you be restrained before him; leave him to himself, and God will know how to answer him.

Chapter 4: The truly temperate man sets himself apart…

Chapter 5: Do not take by violence the shares of the temple, do not be grasping, and you will find overabundance… 
Do not say today is the same as tomorrow, or how will matters come to pass? When tomorrow comes, today is past… Fill yourself with silence, you will find life, and your body shall flourish upon earth.

Chapter 6: Do not displace the surveyor’s marker on the boundaries of the arable land, nor alter the position of the measuring line; do not be greedy for a plot of land, nor overturn the boundaries of a widow… As for the road in the field worn down by time, he who takes it violently for fields, if he traps by deceptive attestations, will be lassoed by the might of the moon… Take care not to topple over the boundary marks of the arable land, not fearing that you will be brought to court; man propitiates God by the might of the Lord when he sets straight the boundaries of the arable land… Desire, then, to make yourself prosper, and take care for the Lord of all; do not trample on the furrow of someone else; their good order will be profitable for you… So plough the fields, and you will find whatever you need, and receive the bread from your own threshing floor: better is the bushel which God gives you than five thousand deceitfully gotten, they do not spend a day in the storehouse or warehouse, they are no use for dough for beer, their stay in the granary is short-lived, when morning comes they will be swept away. Better, then, is poverty in the hand of God than riches in the storehouse; better is bread when the mind is at ease than riches with anxiety.

Chapter 7: Do not set your heart upon seeking riches, for there is no one who can ignore Destiny and Fortune. Do not set your thoughts on external matters: 
 for every man there is his appointed time… Do not exert yourself to seek out excess and your wealth will prosper for you; if riches come to you by theft, they will not spend the night with you; as soon as day breaks they will not be in your household… Do not be pleased with yourself (because of) riches acquired through robbery, neither complain about poverty…

Chapter 8: Set your good deeds throughout the world that you may greet everyone… Keep your tongue safe from words of detraction, and you will be the loved one of the people… set a good report on your tongue, while the bad thing is covered up inside you.

Chapter 9: Do not fraternize with the hot-tempered man, nor approach him to converse… take care of speaking thoughtlessly; when a man’s heart is upset, words travel faster than wind and rain.

Chapter 10: Do not address your intemperate friend in your unrighteousness, nor destroy your own mind; do not say to him, “May you be praised,” not meaning it, when there is fear within you. 
Do not converse falsely with a man, for it is the abomination of God. Do not separate your mind from your tongue; all your plans will succeed. You will be important before others, while you will be secure in the hand of God. God hates one who falsified words, his great abomination is duplicity.

Chapter 11: Do not covet the property of the dependent nor hunger for his bread…


Chapter 12: Do not covet the property of an official, and do not fill (your) mouth with too much food extravagantly… Do not deal with the intemperate man, nor associate yourself to a disloyal party.

Chapter 13: Do not lead a man astray reed pen or papyrus document: it is the abomination of God. Do not witness a false statement… Better it is to be praised as one loved by men than wealth in the storehouse; better is bread when the mind is at ease than riches with troubles.

Chapter 14: Do not pay attention to a person, nor exert yourself to seek out his hand, if he says to you, “take a bribe”… another time he will be brought (to judgment).

Chapter 15: Do well, and you will attain influence…

Chapter 16: Do not unbalance the scale nor make the weights false, nor diminish the fractions of the grain measure… Do not get for yourself short weights… If you see someone cheating, at a distance you must pass him by. Do not be avaricious for copper, and abjure fine clothes. What good is one cloaked in fine linen woven as med, when he cheats before God?…

Chapter 17: Beware of robbing the grain measure to falsify its fractions; do not act wrongfully through force…

Chapter 18: Do not go to bed fearing tomorrow, for when day breaks what is tomorrow? Man knows not what tomorrow is! God is success; Man is failure… Do not say, “I am without fault,” nor try to seek out trouble… Be strong in your heart, make your mind firm…

Chapter 19: Do not enter the council chamber in the presence of a magistrate and then falsify your speech… Tell the truth before the magistrate, lest he gain power over your body…

Chapter 20: Do not corrupt the people of the law court, nor put aside the just man; do not agree because of garments of white, nor accept one in rags. Take not the gift of the strong man, nor repress the weak for him. Justice is a wonderful gift of God, and He will render it to whomever he wishes… Do not falsify the oracles on a papyrus and (thereby) alter the designs of God. Do not arrogate to yourself the might of God as if Destiny and Fortune did not exist… Hand property over to its (rightful) owners, and seek out life for yourself…

Chapter 21: Do not say, I have found a strong protector and now I can challenge a man in my town. Do not say, I have found an active intercessor, and now I can challenge him whom I hate. Indeed, you cannot know the plans of God; you cannot perceive tomorrow… Empty not your soul to everybody, and do not diminish thereby your importance; do not circulate your words to others, nor fraternize with one who is too candid. Better is a man whose knowledge is inside him than one who talks to disadvantage…

Chapter 22: Do not castigate your companion in a dispute, and do not him say his innermost thoughts… May you first comprehend his accusation and cool down your opponent…

Chapter 23: Do not eat a meal in the presence of a magistrate, nor set to speaking first. 
If you are satisfied with false words, enjoy yourself with your spittle. Look at the cup in front of you, and let it suffice your need…

Chapter 24: Do not listen to the accusation of an official indoors, and then repeat it to another outside. 
Do not allow your discussions to be brought outside, so that your heart will not be grieved…

Chapter 25: Do not jeer at a blind man nor tease a dwarf, neither interfere with the condition of a cripple…

Chapter 26: Do not stay in the tavern and join someone greater than you, whether he be high or low in his station, an old man or a youth; but take as a friend for yourself someone compatible… When you see someone greater than you outside, and attendants following him, respect (him). 
And give a hand to an old man filled with beer: respect him as his children would. The strong arm is not weakened when it is uncovered, the back is not broken when one bends it; better is the poor man who speaks sweet words than the rich man who speaks harshly.

Chapter 27: Do not reproach someone older than you, for he has seen the Sun before you; do not let yourself be reported to the Aten when he rises, with the words, “Another young man has reproached an elder”…

Chapter 28: Do not expose a widow if you have caught her in the fields, nor fail to give way if she is accused. 
Do not turn a stranger away your oil jar that it may be made double for your family. 
God loves him who cares for the poor, more than him who respects the wealthy.

Chapter 29: Do not turn people away from crossing the river when you have room in your ferryboat…

Chapter 30: Mark for your self these thirty chapters: they please, they instruct, they are the foremost of all books; they teach the ignorant. 
If they are read to an ignorant man, he will be purified through them…
Now, consider the OT’s Proverbs. Below, I’ve arranged a number of them in three groups, in an attempt to illustrate that: 1) Similar to the claims made one to two thousand years earlier by the Sumerians and Egyptians, the Jewish clerics claimed that their customs came from their god, 2) Some of the proverbs certainly contain wisdom (reflecting the best customs of the Jews), and 3) Some of the proverbs are quite unwise. I’ve copied these proverbs from the digitized NET version of the Bible and added a few notes in brackets (especially to explain my reasons for claiming that some of the proverbs are unwise).

I. The claim in the OT’s Proverbs that God is the source:
2.6 For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding.

6:16 There are six things that the Lord hates, even seven things that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift to run to evil, a false witness who pours out lies, and a person who spreads discord among family members.

8:22 The Lord created me [Wisdom] as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago. From eternity I was appointed, from the beginning, from before the world existed.

11:1 The Lord abhors dishonest scales, but an accurate weight is his delight.

12:2 A good person obtains favor from the Lord, but the Lord condemns a person with wicked schemes.

14:31 The one who oppresses the poor insults his Creator, but whoever shows favor to the needy honors him.

15:9 The Lord abhors the way of the wicked, but he loves those who pursue righteousness.

16:33 The dice are thrown into the lap, but their every decision is from the Lord.

17:15 The one who acquits the guilty and the one who condemns the innocent – both of them are an abomination to the Lord.

18:22 The one who finds a wife finds what is enjoyable, and receives a pleasurable gift from the Lord.

19:14 A house and wealth are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife is from the Lord.

20:12 The ear that hears and the eye that sees – the Lord has made them both.
II. Some wise sayings in the OT’s Proverbs:
1:10 My child, if sinners try to entice you, do not consent!

1:32 For the waywardness of the simpletons will kill them, and the careless ease of fools will destroy them.

3:27 Do not withhold good from those who need it, when you have the ability to help. Do not say to your neighbor, “Go! Return tomorrow and I will give it,” when you have it with you at the time. Do not plot evil against your neighbor… Do not accuse anyone without legitimate cause, if he has not treated you wrongly. Do not envy a violent man, and do not choose to imitate any of his ways…

3:13 Blessed is the one who finds wisdom, and the one who obtains understanding.

4:24 Remove perverse speech from your mouth; keep devious talk far from your lips.

9:7 Whoever corrects a mocker is asking for insult; whoever reproves a wicked person receives abuse. Do not reprove a mocker or he will hate you; reprove a wise person and he will love you.

10:12 Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers all transgressions.

10:19 When words abound, transgression is inevitable, but the one who restrains his words is wise.

11:2 When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.

12:11 The one who works his field will have plenty of food, but whoever chases daydreams lacks wisdom.

12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own opinion, but the one who listens to advice is wise.

12:16 A fool’s annoyance is known at once, but the prudent overlooks an insult.

13:11 Wealth gained quickly will dwindle away, but the one who gathers it little by little will become rich.

13:20 The one who associates with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm.

14:15 A naive person believes everything, but the shrewd person discerns his steps.

14:23 In all hard work there is profit, but merely talking about it only brings poverty.

14:29 The one who is slow to anger has great understanding, but the one who has a quick temper exalts folly

14:30 A tranquil spirit revives the body, but envy is rottenness to the bones.

15:1 A gentle response turns away anger, but a harsh word stirs up wrath

15:23 A person has joy in giving an appropriate answer, and a word at the right time – how good it is!

16:8 Better to have a little with righteousness than to have abundant income without justice.

16:18 Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

17:1 Better is a dry crust of bread where there is quietness than a house full of feasting with strife.

17:28 Even a fool who remains silent is considered wise, and the one who holds his tongue is deemed discerning.

17:25 A foolish child is a grief to his father, and bitterness to the mother who bore him.

18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in disclosing what is on his mind.

18:9 The one who is slack in his work is a brother to one who destroys.

19:2 It is dangerous to have zeal without knowledge, and the one who acts hastily makes poor choices.

19:11 A person’s wisdom makes him slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.

20:1 Wine is a mocker and strong drink is a brawler; whoever goes astray by them is not wise.

21:9 It is better to live on a corner of the housetop than in a house in company with a quarrelsome wife.

21:19 It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and easily-provoked woman.
III. Some unwise sayings in the OT’s Proverbs:
1:7 Fearing the Lord is the beginning of moral knowledge. [No! Fear of death and desire to live are the beginning of moral knowledge! Recall from the Precepts of Ptah-hotep: “Let no one inspire men with fear; this is the will of Ptah.”]

2:1 My child, if you receive my words, and store up my commands within you… then you will understand how to fear the Lord, and you will discover knowledge about God. [Instead of trying to understand how “to fear the Lord”, try to understand by applying the scientific method!]

3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding. [It’s terrible to advise people not to rely on their own understanding (and to increase their understanding) and to “trust the Lord” rather than trust themselves!]

3:9 Honor the Lord from your wealth… [a ploy by clerics to increase their revenue stream!]

3:19 By wisdom the Lord laid the foundation of the earth; he established the heavens by understanding. By his knowledge the primordial sea was broken open, and the clouds drip down dew. [Riiiiight. And where did you say the data supporting that speculation were hidden?]

9:10 The beginning of wisdom is to fear the Lord, and acknowledging the Holy One is understanding. [Terrible, again!]

10.1 A wise child makes a father rejoice, but a foolish child is a grief to his mother. [That’s just male chauvinism.]

10:4 The one who is lazy becomes poor, but the one who works diligently becomes wealthy. [Would that it were so!]

13:24 The one who spares his rod hates his child… [That’s horrible!]

15:20 A wise child brings joy to his father, but a foolish person despises his mother. [More male chauvinism!]

16:12 Doing wickedness is an abomination to kings, because a throne is established in righteousness. [Riiiight. It’s another part of the Law Lie.]

16:15 In the light of the king’s face there is life, and his favor is like the clouds of the spring rain. [More of the same – an indication of “slave mentality”.]

16:31 Gray hair is like a crown of glory; it is attained in the path of righteousness. [Would that it were so!]

17:8 A bribe works like a charm for the one who offers it; in whatever he does he succeeds. [Maybe that’s a misprint!]

20:24 The steps of a person are ordained by the Lord – so how can anyone understand his own way? [What stupidity!]

20:30 Beatings and wounds cleanse away evil, and floggings cleanse the innermost being. [What evil!]

21:14 A gift given in secret subdues anger, and a bribe given secretly subdues strong wrath. [So, it wasn’t a misprint – it’s corruption!]

21:31 A horse is prepared for the day of battle, but the victory is from the Lord. [Another part of the God Lie.]

22:4 The reward for humility and fearing the Lord is riches and honor and life. [Show me the data!]

22:6 Train a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. [Part is correct (the part about the persistence of childhood indoctrination), but the premiss should be investigated. Does the author know how to “train a child in the way that he should go”? As Schopenhauer suggested, probably the best procedure is to train children not to be “trained” (!) and, instead, to encourage them to learn by themselves via experience.]

22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him. [More hideousness!]
And so on it goes (through Proverbs 31), as readers can attest. If readers do so, I hope they’ll notice that the “Thirty Sayings” [Proverbs 22:17 – 24:22] are similar (and in some cases almost identical) to the Egyptian Instructions of Amenemope. In addition, there are many repetitions through the rest of Proverbs (repetitions that become quite boring), although the final set (Proverbs 31:10 – 31:31) is a refreshing change: they describe a “Wife of Noble Character”.

Finally, I'd ask readers to compare the above illustrations from “the wisdom literature” of the Ancient Sumerians, Egyptians, and Hebrews, and then, chose the one of the following two options that, in your opinion based on the evidence presented, seems most likely to have occurred:
1) That God (i.e., the first symmetry-breaking quantum fluctuation in the total void that led to the Big Bang) dropped in (about 14 billion years later) to provide advice to the authors of the Bible about Jewish cultural norms, or

2) That after living in groups for tens of thousands of years, people slowly developed knowledge about how to live together productively, passed their wisdom along to their offspring, recorded their thoughts when writing finally became available, and unsure about the origin of their customs, mistakenly concluded that their customs must have been decreed by their gods.
For readers who chose the first option, I hope that they’ll reread, especially, the quoted Sumerian proverbs – and I hope that all readers will join me in thanking the many scholars who worked so diligently and competently to decipher the ancient literature.

www.zenofzero.net

2009/02/27

The Law Lie - 2 - Justice


In the previous post in this series dealing with the God Lie, I tried to show some history that exposes the lie that morality is defined by the gods. I presented evidence suggesting that it wasn’t any god but nature (i.e., experience) that taught animals (including humans) how to evaluate morality, i.e., “the extent to which an action is right or wrong.” In turn, moral values (as with all values) must be evaluated with respect to some objective, and it was nature (not any god) that ordained that the prime purpose of all life is to continue, which is then the fundamental basis for the evaluation of morality. In the previous post I included examples demonstrating that, soon after writing was invented (approximately 5,000 years ago), humans recorded moral “rules” that experience had taught them – rules that later religious people [such as the authors and “redactors” of the first books of the Old Testament (OT), whom I’ve been identifying as Ezra and co-conspirators (Ezra & C-C)] claimed were given to them by their gods.

In this post I want to show some history exposing the lie that justice is the jurisdiction of the gods. As in the case of morality, no god had (or has) anything to do with justice; instead, nature (i.e., experience) taught and continues to teach social animals about both the meaning and the demand for justice. Justification for that claim is, however, somewhat more complicated than the similar claim about morality, in part because justice is (in some ways) a more complicated concept than morality. In particular, there are a number of different types of justice, which I’ll identify as natural justice (or nature’s justice), personal justice, and interpersonal justice. In turn, a complicated form of interpersonal justice is social justice, which is also commonly subdivided into different types, including retributive justice (in response to crimes), distributive justice (allocating resources, benefits, and responsibilities within societies), restorative justice (compensating for injustices), and procedural justice. Below, I’ll start with the meaning of the simplest type of justice (natural justice) and while proceeding through each type, I’ll try to show how “the god idea” corrupted and continues to corrupt their meanings.

1. Natural Justice
Natural justice is “just” the principle of causality: every outcome has its causes. Millions of years ago, animals learned the principle of causality by experience; those animals that didn’t learn (for example, that noises have causes) are now extinct. Humans, however, with their powers of imagination greater than animals and their unfortunate propensities to believe in the absence of evidence, identified incorrect causes of, for example, the wind (e.g., the wind god Woden), thunder and lightening (e.g., the gods Thor and Zeus), and volcanic eruptions (e.g., the Aztecs’ Popocatépetl and the Hebrews’ Yahweh). Such misidentification of causes and labeling of unknowns with names of fictitious gods continue today, with theists (approximately 80% of all humans!) convinced that the cause of the universe and life is “Allah” or “Brahma” or “God”, all of which, in essence, are abbreviations for “I dunno”.

That unknown causes are labeled with otherwise nonsensical words would not, in itself, normally cause many problems. Major problems, however, did occur (and continue to occur), because some lying and/or mentally-challenged and/or mentally-ill people (commonly called clerics) claimed (and continue to claim) abilities to communicate with – and worse, speak for – the fictitious causes. This month, for example, Pope Benedict XVI (a fellow who claims to speak for his god and usually and appropriately wears an elaborate dunce cap) promoted, within his clerical hierarchy to Bishop of Linz, a fellow by the name of Father Wagner (although it would seem to be appropriate to investigate the claim that he is a “father”). Earlier, Wagner informed the world that the principal cause of hurricane Katrina (which hit New Orleans in 2005) wasn’t temperatures of the tropical Atlantic’s mixed layer in excess of 80°F and stimulating wind shears, but instead
…the death and destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina was “divine retribution” for excessive sexual permissiveness, including tolerance of homosexuality… He noted that Katrina destroyed not only nightclubs and brothels in New Orleans but also abortion clinics, adding “The conditions of immorality in this city are indescribable”.
Wagner’s “explanation” of the cause of Katrina, however, conflicts with the “explanation” offered by Mohammed Yousef Miaifi, that Katrina was
a wind of torment and evil that Allah has sent to this American empire.
It also conflicts with the “explanation” provided by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef:
America was punished because the Bush administration had pressured Israel into withdrawing settlers from Gaza.
Not incidentally, a similar flood of inane clerical pronouncements inundated humanity “explaining” the cause of the tsunami that hit Indonesia on 26 December 2004, leading many scientific humanists to hope for major, tectonic shifts in the crustal brains of such retards, who seem to have zero understanding of natural justice – or maybe they know, but they’re hooked on the perks that their pronouncements provide them.

Admittedly, though, it’s difficult to determine if such clerics are both fools and liars. They’re certainly fools, if for no other reason than to promote “explanations” that have zero evidence to support them. The liars are those clerics who concoct such “explanations”, knowing full well that they’re just pulling their “explanations” out of thin air. Similar indictments are appropriate for all clerics throughout history: various lying clerics concocted stories to “explain” how their gods created Earth and its life, why people die, why there are different languages, why floods and other natural disasters occur, etc., and later foolish clerics and religious people accepted (and still accept!) such “explanations” as the “true” causes. In addition, in some cases, later, lying clerics and politicians realize that the “explanations” are pure bunk, but they promote the stories anyway, for the profits accrued by selling such crazy stories.

Whenever any god is introduced in such stories (as in all “sacred scriptures” and “holy books”), the god violates natural justice, in that natural links between cause and effect are violated by something “supernatural” (i.e., something that doesn’t exist, since everything that exists is, perforce, natural). Accepting such violations of natural justice destroys our ability to understand natural processes: if some god could snap his fingers (or whatever) to form light, then we’d never understand physical process such as electromagnetic waves; if some god could snap his fingers (or whatever) to create life, then we’d never understand biological processes; if some god could snap his fingers (or whatever) to flood the earth, then we’d never understand meteorology or the hydrological cycle – and similarly for all alleged “miracles”, all of which violate the principle of causality. Stated differently, one of the firmest pieces of knowledge that humans have been able to determine is that no miracle (in the religious sense of the word ‘miracle’) has ever occurred. Therefore, all claims of religious miracles are either misunderstandings or lies, since all such claims violate natural justice.

2. Personal Justice
Appreciation for natural justice (that all effects have their causes) provided and continues to provide all animals (including humans) with a firm basis for the concept of personal justice. Again it’s nature (i.e., experience), not any god, that relentlessly teaches each and every one of us the meaning for personal justice throughout every day of our lives: when an animal seeks some food, when a baby reaches for a rattle, when an infant crawls to obtain a toy, when a child stands to reach an object, and so on, including when adults try to reach their goals, nature teaches us that when we’re able to influence an outcome, then we generally get what we deserve. In some cases, however, the “response time of the system” is slow (i.e., we don’t immediately get what we deserve) and some of us (e.g., smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts, gluttons, and religious people) are slow learners – at our own expense. Furthermore, the concept of personal justice (that we generally get what we deserve – and don’t get what we don’t deserve) is only a general rule, admitting many exceptions.

Sometimes, too, there’s confusion between natural and personal justice. For example, it isn’t personal justice that a baby is born with birth defects, a tornado destroys a person’s home, another person wins a lottery, and similar; instead, those are cases in natural justice (effects have their causes), including outcomes whose probabilities of occurrence were miniscule. Yet, even in such cases, some ingredients of personal justice can arise. Thus, the mother of the child born with deformed limbs would experience some personal justice if, during her pregnancy, she ingested thalidomide after she should have learned that it caused birth defects and its sale was banned worldwide. Similarly, if someone were injured by a tornado, there can be some personal justice if the person didn’t take appropriate precautions. And even a lottery winner experiences some personal justice, in that, although he bought into a game rigged against him, at least he tried to win.

The god idea, in contrast, destroyed (and continues to destroy) the concept of personal justice. Once people decided that some god controlled some outcome, then rather than try to influence the outcome directly (e.g., by seeking better hunting grounds, by domesticating animals, by planting crops, by building dams to stop floods, by storing grain for leaner times, etc.), then religious people chose to try to influence outcomes by propitiating the gods – undoubtedly with the urging of their priests who collected the offerings for the gods (and what the gods didn’t consume, the priests did). The resulting destruction of personal justice is illustrated by the unwise Sumerian proverb (from about 4500 years ago):
Fear of god creates good fortune. Lamentation absolves sin. Offerings extend life.
Similarly, from The Advice of the Akkadian Father to his Son, written in about 2200 BCE, there is the unfortunate recommendation:
Worship your god every day. Sacrifice and pious utterance are the proper accompaniment of incense. Have a freewill offering for your god, for this is proper toward a god. Prayer, supplication, and prostration offer him daily, then your prayer will be granted, and you will be in harmony with god.
And although it's sad to contemplate, consider that, today (4200 years later!), the majority of the people in the world apparently still “believe” that they can achieve favorable outcomes by praying to their gods, violating personal justice.

As a recent illustration of such idiocy, Roman Catholics learned this month that “indulgences” are back:
According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions, or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament. You cannot buy one – the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 [Martin Luther’s denouncement of them ignited the Protestant Reformation 50 years earlier] – but charitable contributions [I wonder if donations only to Catholic charities are acceptable!], combined with other acts [and I wonder what kind of “other acts” the Catholic priests want!] can help you earn one.
I enjoyed the comment on the referenced story by William Manning of Boston, MA:
This can be our next great [financial] bubble! Bundle and securitize indulgences and let’s get them puppies on an exchange! How did Goldman Sachs ever let this one slip through their fingers?!
But in a way, such idiocy doesn’t thwart personal justice, because with their prayers, confessions, penances, indulgences, etc., Catholics (as well as all religious people) will, in the end, still generally get what they deserve.

3. Interpersonal & Social Justice
The concept of interpersonal justice (including social justice) is similar to the case for personal justice: our expectations and desires, based on personal experiences, that we should generally get what we deserve. The major complication of interpersonal justice, however, is that more than one person can influence the outcome; consequently, there’ll commonly be different opinions about who gets what's deserved.

In the simplest case of interpersonal justice, when only two people are involved, an ideal outcome was expressed well by an author whose name I’ve both forgotten and couldn't find using Google. Possibly the author was Eric Fromm. The author stated something close to: “Justice in interpersonal relationships is that you usually get out of them pretty much what you put in.”

As with personal justice, though, any “general rule” for interpersonal justice admits many exceptions. As an example, you may hold the opinion that a certain person should be a loyal friend, given all that you have done for him, but he might choose not to be your friend, assessing you to be a sycophant. As another example, one group obviously holds the opinion that those living in Gaza suffered a terrible injustice with last month’s bombings by Israel, whereas another group obviously holds the opinion that the inhabitants of Gaza got what they deserved for permitting Hamas to shoot rockets into Israel. As Ralf Waldo Emerson (1803–1882) said:
One man’s justice is another’s injustice…
Given that “One man’s [opinion about interpersonal or social] justice is another’s [opinion about] injustice”, the obvious question is: Whose opinion is “right”? In response to that question, nature (i.e., experience) taught all animals (including humans) another critical lesson – but it has taken humans a very long time to learn its full meaning. The lesson that animals know is “the law of the jungle”, i.e., “might makes right”. But another obvious question (at least for humans) is: What’s meant by ‘might’?

In the beginning for humanity, the ‘might’ in “might makes right” meant the same as it is does in the rest of the animal kingdom, i.e., “physical power”. For patriarchal societies, for fundamentalist branches of the Abrahamic religions (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.), and for all bullies ‘might’ still unfortunately means “physical power”. Thus, just as the strongest stud rules his herd, in patriarchal societies the father rules his family (and the Bible and the Koran condone his ruling by force), and according to the con artists of the Abrahamic religions, God (or Allah), “the almighty”, is omnipotent (all powerful) and, therefore, always “right”.

As people assembled in larger groups (e.g., in the first Sumerian cities, populated more than 5,000 years ago), they discovered that, if they acted collectively, “there’s strength in numbers”, i.e., collectively they could have the most ‘might’. A major problem with such a choice, however, soon became apparent: almost invariably a group needs a leader, and although experience has shown that some leaders were benevolent [e.g., Urukagina (the leader of the world’s first known revolution, which occurred in the Sumerian city of Lagash in about 2350 BCE), Cyrus the Great, George Washington, the leaders of the Women’s Suffrage Movement, Mahatma (“great soul”) Gandhi, Martin Luther King…], yet in many other cases, the group leader became another malevolent tyrant (e.g., Sargon “the Great”, Alexander “the Great”, the “butcher emperor” Constantine, Muhammad, Hitler, Stalin, Mao…). In later posts I’ll provide some examples of groups seeking their opinions of social justice by relying on “might makes right” with ‘might’ derived from the truism that “there’s strength in numbers”; i.e., some examples of revolutions driven by “people power”. In this post, however, I want to focus on another approach that people found would sometimes work.

The first written record summarizing this alternative approach (showing that at least some humans had learned that ‘might’ needn’t mean either “physical strength” or “strength in numbers”) seems to be the Sumerian proverb (from more than 4,000 years ago):
Strength cannot keep pace with intelligence.
Of course, with every weapon invented (ever since bows and arrows replaced clubs) the inventors demonstrated that ‘might’ needn’t mean “physical strength”. But besides more lethal weapons, “mental weapons” can also be used to effectively overcome tyranny, satisfying the people’s desire that their opinion about social justice prevail. An illustration appears in the world’s oldest written story, the Sumerian’s Epic of Gilgamesh.

Now, for readers who haven’t read The Epic, a tremendous treat is available for you. You might want to delay reading the rest of this post until after you’ve read The Epic – although I admit that I’m worried that you won’t return, because The Epic is so engaging! The translation by Maureen Gallery Kovacs of the version of The Epic written (about 1,000 years before Ezra & C-C) by Sîn-leqi-unninni (or Sin-leqe-unnini or Shin-eqi-unninni, the world’s first-identified author and who was in the same league with Homer and Shakespeare) is available here, a summary by W.T.S. Thackara is here, and even I provide some background information and note a few highlights of The Epic here. If you want to start by watching some summary videos on YouTube, you might want to start here. If you plan to engage in a internet search for “The Epic of Gilgamesh”, then I might as well bid farewell, now!

For those still with me, what I want to do, next, is review a part of The Epic that deals with social justice. Then, I want to call readers attention to how horribly Ezra & C-C corrupted the concepts of justice compared with what was available to them in The Epic. As a summary, I’ll express my opinion that any student anywhere in the world polluted by the Abrahamic religions shouldn’t be awarded a high-school diploma without demonstrating substantial understanding of The Epic. If that were required, I expect that, within a few generations, the world would be rid of the damnable distortions of justice known as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.

To begin, notice that at the start of the story about Gilgamesh, i.e., about “Gilga the hero” [apparently a story about the 27th century king Gilga of the Sumerian city of Uruk (spelled Erech in the OT and, in its time, probably the world’s largest city, with a population of about 50,000)], he’s depicted as a beast of a man, “a loose bull, nose up in open field”, claiming the right to be the first to sleep with any new bride, as well having sexual relations with other men’s wives and maybe also with other men’s boys. Feeling the injustices of the tyrant Gilga, the oppressed citizens of Uruk complain to the council of the gods, and consistent with the reality summarized by “as below, so above” (rather than the astrologers’ ridiculous “as above, so below”!), the council of the gods relay the people’s concern to Uruk’s city god, the sky god, god of heaven (and eventually the greatest of the Sumerian gods), Anu. In Kovacs’ translation, the council of gods confronts Anu with the accusation:
You have indeed brought into being a mighty wild bull, head raised! There is no rival who can raise a weapon against him. His fellows stand (at the alert), attentive to his (orders!), Gilgamesh does not leave a son to his father, day and night he arrogantly… Is he the shepherd of Uruk-Haven, is he their shepherd (?)... bold, eminent, knowing, and wise, Gilgamesh does not leave a girl to her mother!
The chief god Anu passes the buck to the goddess Aruru (“the almighty gentle mother goddess of the Earth and birth; she who first created humanity from clay”), leaving it to her to clean up the mess (again consistent with “as below, so above”!):
It was you, Aruru, who created mankind(?), now create a zikru to it/him. Let him be equal to his (Gilgamesh’s) stormy heart, let them be a match for each other so that Uruk may find peace!
In the above quotation, the meaning for the word zikru has been the subject of debate. The simplest interpretation is that the man created by Aruru (named Enkidu) was to be the people’s champion, but a case can be made (e.g., see here) that Enkidu was to be Gilga’s homosexual lover.

How the temple priestess Shamhat “tamed” the initially primitive man Enkidu with her womanly ways is another great part of the story (Tablets I & II). The story ends with (Tablet II, Column IV, line 50):
So Enkidu came then to know of Gilgamesh who harshly ruled and was not loved by those men whose girls he often played with all night long.

And before they entered through the gates of Uruk’s mighty walls, Enkidu was hailed as one who might be sent to rival any king who might treat gentle folk unfairly.
Subsequently, Enkidu and Gilgamesh became fast friends, the people had a story, and the story had a lesson: a lesson that social justice is just opinion, that whose opinion is right depends on might, but that ‘might’ needn’t mean “physical strength”, since “strength cannot keep pace with intelligence.” Thus, with the alleged help of the gods, the people used their intelligence to find a way to overcome the strength of Gilga, distracting him from his wanton ways by providing him with a worthy friend who would be his companion in brave new adventures.

If everyone had learned the lesson that “strength cannot keep pace with intelligence”, we would probably now have a more-peaceful world. History shows, however, that people didn’t learn. A major problem seems to be that, although the Sumerian proverb that “strength cannot keep pace with intelligence” may be correct, it neglects to address that the ‘strength’ (or ‘might’) in “might makes right” had a huge head start – after ruling in the rest of the animal kingdom for millions of years. Consequently, although in the long run (measured in tens of thousands of years!) intelligence may outpace strength, yet during the past 4,000 years, the might of the Akkadians, Amorites, Hittites, Kassites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Huns, Christians, Muslims, Imperialists, Fascists, Communists, etc. was based not on intelligence but on armaments. And still today, “smart bombs” seem to vastly outnumber “smart people”.

To help people smarten-up, to help intelligence finally catch-up with strength, to test the wisdom in the Sumerian proverb “strength cannot keep pace with intelligence”, to achieve greater peace not just for Uruk but the world, it seems that we must be wiser than our ancestors. The quotations above suggest that peace in Uruk couldn’t be achieved without justice. That same idea is applicable today:
In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the International Labour Organization (ILO) in 1969, the Nobel Committee referred to the motto enshrined in the foundations of the ILO’s original building in Geneva, “Si vis pacem, cole justitiam.” [If you desire peace, cultivate justice.] As another example, if the documentary about the Los Angeles riots associated with the Rodney King trial is correct, then apparently the rioters chanted the corollary: “No justice; no peace.”
But since social justice is just opinion, peace would seem to require uniformity in opinion, which is essentially impossible to achieve. Instead, as I’ve argued elsewhere, the best we can achieve is apparently as described by the Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c.540 – c.480 BCE): “an attunement of opposite tensions, like that of the bow and the lyre.” In turn, if a melodious attunement of opposite tensions is to be achieved, then most important is that opinions be based on evidence (i.e., on experience, i.e., by applying the scientific method) rather than on speculations (the essence of all organized religions).

Almost 5,000 years ago, according to The Epic, the ancient Sumerians living in Uruk had evidence to support their opinion about Gilga’s injustices. Then, however (so the myth informs us), the people (consistent with their superstitions) petitioned the gods with grievances, gods who the people assumed were in charge of justice. Of course, that’s the story in the myth – written by priests! In reality, if anything similar to the story actually occurred, then more likely is that the temple priestess, Shamhat, knew that Gilga was a beast, heard that a “wild man” was living in the woods, and by herself (or with the help of friends), she set out to tame the wild man, to become the people’s challenger of Gilga. Today, as incredible as it may seem, not only do religious Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc. still consider their (non-existent) gods to be “just”, they accept myths about their fictitious gods as evidence!

That religious people today imagine their gods to be “just” is evident in their “holy books”. We’re told in the “holy Bible”, for example, that the first symmetry-breaking quantum fluctuation in a total void that led to the Big Bang (i.e., “God”) popped in to tell Isaiah and Jeremiah:
“For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and iniquity.” (Isaiah 61, 8)

“… I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice, and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight…” (Jeremiah 9, 24)
Followers of the other Abrahamic religions consider the above quotes to be “sacred scripture”, and in their Koran, Muslims have in addition:
Allah bears witness that there is no god but He, and (so do) the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining His creation with justice… (Sura 3, 18)
Strangely enough, though (at least I hope it seems strange to followers of Abrahamic religions), the clerics of the gods of Ancient Mesopotamia claimed essentially the same. Thus, Utu (Sumerian) or Shamash (Akkadian) was described as both the Sun god and “the god of justice”. Later, in Babylon, Shamash’s two sons, Misharu and Kittu were the gods of justice and truth, respectively. Still later in Babylon, when Marduk (originally son of the Sun god Shamash) was promoted to “chief god”, one of his fifty (!) names was Shazu, who “oversees justice and subdues rebellion, he has rooted out malice, wherever he goes the wrong and the right stand separate.” Given those identifications (one to two thousand years before Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, et al. claimed that theirs was the god of justice!), one would hope that “modern” Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons would become at least a little suspicious that they’ve been had – by clerics promoting a pack of lies.

In reality, interpersonal and social justice aren’t provided or promoted by any god but, as with morality, arise from behaviors that experience demonstrated (and chose by “natural selection”) to be beneficial for the survival of members of the social group. Readers interested in examining support for that claim might want to start at the blog of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center of Emory University. For animals such as mice, monkeys, and canines, failure to achieve perceived justice commonly results in fights, consistent with “might makes right”.

For humans, with social interactions commonly more complicated than among other animals and with desires of the majority of humans to suppress the law of the jungle, assessing and achieving social justice is commonly more difficult. During tens of thousands of years, controversies among humans were resolved by the leaders of tribes, councils of elders, and similar. Clerics of the Abrahamic religions, however, claim that their god oversees such deliberations in procedural justice and promotes distributive and retributive justice. For example, we find in the Bible that the first symmetry-breaking quantum fluctuation in a total void admonished:
Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd… (Exodus 23, 1–2)

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19, 15)

Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. (Deuteronomy 16, 19)

Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. (Deuteronomy 24, 17)
Similarly, we find in the Koran
Surely Allah enjoins the doing of justice and the doing of good (to others)… (Sura 16, 90)
But such ideas obviously weren’t conceived by clerics of the Abrahamic god; instead, the ideas were copied from thousands of years earlier, developed in both Mesopotamia and Egypt. Some examples from Mesopotamia can been seen in Sumerian proverbs, including
The expenses of those who neglect justice are numerous.

He who despises a just decision, who loves wicked decisions, is an abomination.

Thanks to the word of his personal god, the fate of the man who speaks just words is favorable, and he is with him throughout the day.
Many more examples are given in the book (partially available at Google Books) by Elisabeth Meier Tetlow and entitled Women, Crime, and Punishment in Ancient Law and Society, Vol. 1, the Ancient Near East (Continuum Int. Publ. Grp, 2004), including the following.
Royal Sumerian lawgivers expressed their goals of justice and protection of the poor and oppressed, including women, especially vulnerable women such as widows without children. They believed that these goals could be achieved through written laws, impartial courts, and a workable system for the administration of justice. The city-states of Sumer developed judicial systems early in the third millennium. First the assemblies of the city-states functioned as courts and later there were panels of judges. Trials were conducted in a formal manner: facts were gathered in evidence, the arguments of both sides were heard, guilt was deliberated by the assembly, and in the case of conviction, sentence was handed down. Defendants had the right to appeal, generally to their ruler or to the king of the dominant city-state in the area. Women were treated the same as men under the laws and in the courts of Sumer…

The Early Dynastic king Ur-Nanshe [or Ur-Nina, 24th Century BCE] of Lagash built a temple and named it for the god of justice. Four centuries later, king Gudea of Lagash wrote that justice came from the gods and in practice justice meant protecting widows, orphans, and the poor from the rich and powerful. King Lipit-Ishtar of Isin proudly claimed that he establish justice in Sumer and Akkad by implementing fair judicial procedure and by erecting a stele of his laws.

[There are] few extant sources of laws… one exception was Uru-inimgina, king of Lagash in the late twenty-fourth century BCE. Only a few of his laws are known… describe the abuse of power by the aristocracy and priests… who oppressed the poor and the powerless. King Uru-inimgina stated his intent to protect the vulnerable, especially poor mothers and widows, from further oppression… [He] forbade his officials and priests to enter and steal from the gardens and orchards of women. Upper-class men and women were forbidden to steal fish from the ponds of the commoners…

[Gudea, ruler of Lagash from ca. 2144–2124] paid attention to the justice of Nance [or Nanshe, daughter of Enki and who “judged the wicked and fought for social justice”] and Nin-jirsu [the god of war]. He provided protection for the orphan against the rich, and provided protection for the widow against the powerful… A day of justice dawned for him. He set his foot on the neck of evil ones and malcontents…

The extant text includes a prologue and thirty-four laws… The prologue described the ways in which king Ur-Nammu [Third Dynasty of Ur: 2112–2004] acted to establish justice in the land of Sumer and banish crime, violence, and strife. The stated purpose of the laws was to establish justice by correcting abuses prevalent at the time and by mandating the protection of widows, orphans, and poor persons against oppression by the wealthy and powerful…

The last non-Amorite dynasty of ancient Sumer was the first dynasty of Isin, of which Lipit-Ishtar was the fifth king. He promulgated his collection of laws about 1930 BCE. A prologue, an epilogue, and thirty-eight laws are wholly or partially legible. In the prologue, Lipit-Ishtar stated that he was chosen king by the gods “to establish justice in the land, to eliminate cries for justice, to eradicate enmity and armed violence, to bring well-being to the lands of Sumer and Akkad.”… In the epilogue, the king proclaimed his accomplishments: the establishment of “fair judicial procedure”; the eradication of enmity and violence, weeping, and lamentation; and the establishment of right and truth.
Another example from Mesopotamia (during the first Babylonian period) is contained in The Great Hymn to Shamash:
You [Shamash] give the unscrupulous judge experience of fetters [i.e., throw the bum in jail!]. Him who accepts a present [i.e., a bribe] and yet lets justice miscarry, you make bear his punishment. As for him who declines a present but nevertheless takes the part of the weak… it is pleasing to Shamash, and he will prolong his life…
In Ancient Egypt, meanwhile, the first written reference to social justice appears to be from the “wise man” Ptah Hotep, from the 24th century BCE, who wrote:
As a leader, if you have to decide on the conduct of a great number of people, seek the most perfect manner of doing this so that your own conduct may be without reproach. Justice is great, invariable, and assured; it has not been disturbed since the age of Ptah [the creator god – although other translations use, here, the name of the god Osiris; in that case, the quotation would be consistent with the suggestion that there was an early Egyptian ruler named Osiris, who was later worshiped]
Another example from Ancient Egypt containing ideas about social justice is from The Teachings for Merikare, written sometime between 2135-2040 BCE by a father to his son, Merikare, who apparently was to be the successor of the father’s social position:
Be skillful in speech, that you may be strong… words are braver than all fighting… Do justice, that you may live long upon earth. Calm the weeper, do not oppress the widow, do not oust a man from his father’s property… Beware of punishing wrongfully; do not kill…
It seems clear that such ideas from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia were copied into the OT, which contains:
Cursed is the one who moves his neighbor’s boundary marker…Cursed is the one who perverts justice for the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow. (Deuteronomy 27, 17 & 19)

Rob not the poor, because he is poor; neither oppress the afflicted in the gate. (Proverbs 22, 20-21)

Remove not the ancient landmark. (Proverbs 22, 22)
In fact, statements almost identical to the above are included in The Saying of Amenemope (an Egyptian), recorded in the 11th Century BCE:
Beware of robbing a wretch or attacking a cripple.

Do not move the markers on the border of the fields.
So, the clerics who wrote the OT (and the New Testament or NT, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc.) clearly didn’t develop new concepts either of a “god of justice” or details about social justice. Instead, they simply repackaged such ideas described thousands of years earlier by Egyptians and Mesopotamians, who in turn were summarizing ideas about social justice that people had developed tens of thousands of years earlier – and some of these ideas about justice were known by social animals such as monkeys millions of years ago! Furthermore, and more significantly, the Abrahamic clerics’ repackaged “god of justice” isn’t just.

Justifying that last statement (i.e., showing that the god of the principal “holy books” of western culture isn’t just) is a major undertaking. Elsewhere, 30 chapters of my online book describe some of the “sick policies” promoted in the Bible, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon, and approximately half of those “sick policies” are examples of natural, personal, and interpersonal (including social) injustices. Here, I certainly don’t want to go through those examples again. Instead, I’ll review only a single example, taken from the first few pages of the Bible (dealing with the myth about Adam and Eve), an example that’s “revered” by all religious Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons – and thereby, they “revere” an unjust god.

For followers of Orthodox Judaism (who fortunately sum to only a small percentage of all Jewish people), the Adam and Eve myth is straightforward. Adam and Eve were told not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they disobeyed God’s order, and as a result, they – and all their descendants (including us!) – were punished: men would need to work for a living, women would need not only to bear the pains of childbirth but also to submit to their husbands as their masters, and all humans would die. But that judgment (allegedly by God, but in reality, merely the machinations of some misogynous myth makers) was unjust. Thus, Adam and Eve did nothing wrong (and therefore, shouldn’t have been punished at all): the myth makers had their god preclude Adam and Eve from knowing the difference between right and wrong; therefore, they couldn’t know that it was “good” to obey God and “evil” to disobey him. Further, even if Adam and Eve had done something wrong (but they didn’t – because they couldn’t!), it would be unjust to punish subsequent humans for the alleged crime of our ancestors: we’re innocent; we have a perfect alibi; we weren’t there!

Christian (and Mormon) clerics compound the injustices in the myth about Adam and Eve. According to them (following the teachings of the insane “Saint” Paul), God had mercy on subsequent humans (whom he unjustly condemned to death!) and decided to “atone” for the (non-) sin of Adam and Eve by “sacrificing” his “only begotten son”, Jesus, on the cross – and if people would just believe that Paul wasn't crazy (plus pay the clerics for running their con game), then they're promised (for what it's worth!) that they'll be rewarded not with dunce caps but with eternal life in paradise. But Paul's (crazy) speculation just compounded God’s injustice, since thereby, he allegedly killed someone claimed to be the epitome of innocence (Jesus) to atone for the sins of the alleged guilty. Imagine the havoc that such a precedent would wreck on procedural justice today. What would the crazy Christian and Mormon clerics have us do: kill innocent babies in their cribs to “atone” for the crimes of murderers on death row?!

Muslims adopt a different twist on the same myth. Earlier in the biblical myth (Genesis 2, 18–20) God has Adam name all the animals:
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will provide a partner for him.” So God formed out of the ground all the wild animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field…
What language Adam used to name the animals isn’t mentioned – but then, whatever language he used, all he needed to do was issue a series of distinct grunts and the animals would have “names”!

But upon hearing the above story, Muhammad (or subsequent Muslim clerics who wrote the Koran) spun the story differently; as a result, in the Koran it appears as follows (Sura 2, 31–39).
And He [God or Allah] taught Adam all the names [of the animals, rather than let Adam name them], then presented them to the angels; then He said: Tell me the names of those [animals] if you are right. They said: “Glory be to Thee! we have no knowledge but that which Thou hast taught us; surely Thou art the Knowing, the Wise.” [Allah’s “claim to fame” is that he knows the (arbitrary) names of animals? What silliness!]

He said: “O Adam! inform them of their names.” Then when he [Adam] had informed them of their names, He said: “Did I not say to you that I surely know what is ghaib [unseen and unknown] in the heavens and the earth and (that) I know what you manifest and what you hide?” [The evidence that Allah is omniscient consists of his demonstrating that he knows the names of the animals? Somebody’s gotta be kidding!]

And when We [the Roya