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-Younger is clearly on the left – and yes, I’m being facetious. Actually, though, the two Horuses in this picture are distinguishable by their "head gear": because the Horus-on-the-left is wearing the Double Crown (Pschent), signifying the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, then according to Budge, he's Horus-the-Younger, while Horus-on-the-right is wearing the White Crown (Hedjet) of Upper Egypt. That interpretation, however, has been challenged. Thus, Audrey Fletcher proposes that the head gear doesn't represent political organizations but constellations near the constellation that the Greeks called Orion and the Ancient Egyptians called Osiris. In addition and not 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 the "Christian" crosses in their left hands is too long a story to describe in detail. Suffice to say (at least for now) that the "Christian" cross (i.e., the ankh, a symbol for 'life') 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 - 7 – 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