Conservative Jews: Bible is Mainly Myth

Chicago Free Press, via the Independent Gay Forum ^ | March 13, 2002 | Paul Varnell

[Commie Basher]

LAST FALL, the United Synagogues of Conservative Judaism, the largest branch of American Judaism, issued a new Torah and commentary titled "Etz Hayim" – "tree of life" – that includes several background essays discussing recent scholarship on the bible and Near Eastern archaeological findings.

According to the March 9 New York Times account, the new Torah, the first in 60 years for conservative Jews, is particularly notable because the new scholarship shows that the early books of the bible have no historical validity.

The Garden of Eden? An etiological myth. Noah and the flood? A legend that arose in Mesopotamia suggested by the regular flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Sodom and Gomorrah? Another myth. Abraham? Like most legendary founders, he probably never existed.

The Israelite captivity in Egypt and the Exodus probably never occurred. There are no Egyptian sources mentioning an Israelite presence and no archaeological evidence anywhere for Israelites wandering in the Sinai – "not a pottery shard," as Rabbi David Wolpe put it.

There was no Israelite conquest of Palestine. Instead, there was a gradual and largely peaceful settlement. And Jericho? It didn't have any walls and it wasn't even inhabited when Joshua's "battle of Jericho" supposedly occurred.

King David? If he existed at all, and there is some dispute, was probably a local tribal leader whose importance was later inflated to promote religious pride. There is an "almost total absence of archaeological evidence" for a sizable Jerusalem at that time.

These and other modern findings have long been accepted by most bible scholars and seminary teachers. They are well known by most priests, ministers and rabbis. But they have not been widely shared with the laity in the pews, so they may even come as a surprise to readers here. Nonetheless, they are now the views of most scholars and supported by substantial evidence.

Why clergy are reluctant to share this information with laymen is a topic for another time. But perhaps intelligent laymen will not be so shocked. After I wrote a column on the Sodom legend, a conservative Jewish friend asked why I bothered. "Some people believe those bible stories," I said. He shook his head. "Fairy tales," he said. "They're just fairy tales."

This growing willingness to face historical evidence is significant for gay men because two key texts religious conservatives cite to attack gay men are in the Leviticus "Holiness Code" purportedly given by the biblical god Yahweh to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

Leviticus 18:22 reads: "Do not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abhorrence" – as the new Torah translates it.

But if there was no Exodus, no wandering in the desert and probably no Moses, then there was no revelation on Sinai and the prohibition of homosexuality lacks divine authority. It is merely the human creation of ancient Jewish scribes.

In fact, so far as biblical scholars can tell, based on internal evidence, the Holiness Code (Leviticus chs. 17-26) was probably compiled no earlier than 750 B.C., and maybe as late as 550 B.C. – far later than the purported revelation on Sinai (traditionally between 1200 and 1450 B.C.) The code was then "backdated" by being inserted into the Moses legend to give it divine authority.

Examined carefully, noting various repetitions and inconsistencies, that section of Leviticus seems to combine at least two sets of laws by different writers who did not entirely agree on what was important and what the penalties should be.

For example, Lev. 18:22 says that anyone who does a number of things including homosexual sex "shall be cut off from his people" because the acts are "unclean." But the scribe who wrote Lev. 20:13, perhaps writing later, had much stronger feelings about homosexuals: "They shall be put to death," he inveighs; "Their blood shall be upon them."

Recognizing that there is no divine mandate to prohibit homosexuality, how do the compilers of the new Torah handle homosexuality? Well, some wanted to preserve the prohibition anyway.

"We couldn't come to a formulation that we could all be comfortable with," Rabbi Joseph Kushner said. "Some people felt that homosexuality was wrong." So the committee ended by saying that the prohibitions on homosexuality "have engendered considerable debate," but that conservative synagogues should "welcome gay and lesbian congregants in all congregational activities."

But while this step forward is welcome, a problem lingers. If homosexuality is wrong, we know from this Torah that it is cannot be wrong for theological reasons but for some secular reasons.

But if the reasons are secular, then people have an obligation to explain them, rather than just asserting their position, so we can examine them. But many people cannot give up age-old habits of thought, even when the rationale for them no longer has any validity.

But having readily dropped the Levitical mandate that gays should be killed, the new Torah would have been well-advised to abandon the idea that homosexuality is wrong and acknowledge that believing so is merely a cultural atavism.

[MedicalMess]

Leviticus 18:22 reads: "Do not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abhorrence" – as the new Torah translates it.

But if there was no Exodus, no wandering in the desert and probably no Moses, then there was no revelation on Sinai and the prohibition of homosexuality lacks divine authority. It is merely the human creation of ancient Jewish scribes.

Ok... the Gays are right... there is no divine authority...

ONLY DISEASES OF BIBLICAL PROPORTION SPECIFIC TO GAY MALE BEHAVIOR!

Stupid people... Darwin award alert!

It is irrelevant whether this is myth or fact. The diseases are a fact that cannot be denied except by a total ignorant fool.

Do these people ever consider that these laws were made to keep society from melting down from terminal diseases which the ancients readily observed?

[Swordmaker]

The Biblical archaeology has problems because of a basic error made at the dawn of the science archaeology. That error was to equate the pharoah of the Exodus with Ramses the Great. The theory was that the most important figure of the Old Testament had to have interfaced with the greatest Pharoah they knew about: Ramses II. But Ramses could NOT have been the Exodus Pharoah because he claims to have been a conqueror of Jerusalem, which under that timeline wasn't even founded yet!

This error was then compounded throughout middle Eastern history by building the entire Egyptian timeline on it. The actual Pharoah of the Exodus was most likely Shoshenk IV who was also a "builder" Pharoah... but he reigned almost 200 years before Ramses II.

This error results in archaeologists looking for Biblical events in all the right places but in the WRONG TIME.

Read David Rohl's "Pharoahs and Kings" for detailed timelines and the actual finds when the Egyptian and Biblical timelines are properly synchronized. Essentially, once the times are put right, evidence is literally falling off the shelves.

[Commie Basher]

Which is going to affect you how? By making you watch it?

Do you deny that we are all potential targets of foreign terrorism? That's how war in the "Holy Land" will affect me.

[Jorge]

I'd love to leave Bible believers (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) to their beliefs. Trouble is, their beliefs are dragging the world into war (yet again).

What does belief in the Garden of Eden, King David or the Flood have to do with "dragging the world into war"???
Show us where any of the beliefs which are challenged by this silly article have anything to do with this.
I suppose if American Christians and Jews didn't believe in King David or any of the other Bible stories, they would sit back and allow terrorists to murder them by the thousands and chant "no war", "peace". How ridiculous.

[Sally II]

It is true that "beliefs" lead to wars. And any belief has a religious element and requires a certain leap of faith. But everyone believes something even if they believe in nothing. And even believing in nothing will lead to wars. It isn't because of a mythical God, it is simply a part of human nature to believe in something and to have conflicts and struggle against other people. Communism is a perfect example: they don't believe God exists and do not believe in competition and possessions. For communists and the watered down Progressive party politics and goverment are the religion, but they can never acheive their utopian ideal without massive bloodshed. And even then they can't acheive utopia because without competition and rewards for work society becomes bleak, depressed and supressed. And take a look at HItler. Some people mistake him for being part of the Christian world, but he was very fascinated with the militant aspects of Islam, was a vegitarian, and was fascinated with pagan, primative symbols. He had more in common with the New Age movement than with Christianity. He turned a political idea into a fanatical religion and he was very hostile towards both Jews and Christians.

[11B3]

I don't live my life any differently than I have before - I still follow the simple strategy that kept the rest of us alive during The Cold War: Stay Alert, Stay Alive. Ever been to the Holy Land? Sinai? Egypt? In my travels to these lands, I never had a problem with anyone - Muslim, Jewish, Bedouin, or Christian. I'd like to see you try to peddle this BS anywhere over there - to any of the religions in the region. That would indeed make you a target, here these views just tend to brand you as a gay Democrat. (Please excuse the redundancy of that.)

[Theresa]

"Read David Rohl's "Pharoahs and Kings" for detailed timelines and the actual finds when the Egyptian and Biblical timelines are properly synchronized. Essentially, once the times are put right, evidence is literally falling off the shelves.

Sounds very interesting!

[Swordmaker]

it is... I just finished re-reading it for the third time.

David Rohl also made a three part TV documentary on his revised timeline.

One of the most interesting things is that under the revised timeline we find a hoard of documents referring to the events in the Levant that include descriptions and NAMES of Biblical events and Biblical personages. The Amarna Letters are correspondence to Pharoahs (Akhenaten, Tutankhamon, Ay and Haremheb) pleading for help from an impotent Egypt and describing the unrest in the Canaan area... including the activities of a 'unlettered' upstart King in the hills called Lebayu (the Young Lion AKA King Saul), Dadua (David), Ayub (Joab), Yishuye (Jesse) and others mentioned in the Bible stories.

Rally facinating... and he provides his evidence and reasoning.

[restornu]

So I can mentally have this in an orderly manner could you give me the definnition of

1-Conservative Jew ( which in my mind I would think be closer to the word, yet to hear you its not so!

2- Reform Jew (I sure he not a Calvinist version:))

3- Orthodox Jew

etc

thank you if helps to understand where folks are coming from and not be confused by the name.

[Commie Basher]

That would indeed make you a target, here these views just tend to brand you as a gay Democrat. (Please excuse the redundancy of that.)

Alas, you are wrong on two counts. I am a straight Libertarian. But your attitude is one reason why I left the GOP (or, to loosely paraphrase Reagan, an example of how "the Republicans left me.")

Back in high school and college, I was a YAFer. But I was never into social conservatism (although, believe it or not, I've defended Christian conservatives when their rights were trampled).

But increasingly, "conservative" has come to mean either pro-war foreign adventurism, or religious conservatism, or some mix of the two. And support neither.

So, the GOP has left me. It may be that my vote for Simon last March was my last for the GOP. I won't be voting Dems (a party of racism and PC tyranny), but neither will I be voting for pro-war religious zealots.

[Commie Basher]

So I can mentally have this in an orderly manner could you give me the definnition of

1-Conservative Jew ( which in my mind I would think be closer to the word, yet to hear you its not so!

2- Reform Jew (I sure he not a Calvinist version:))

3- Orthodox Jew

No, I can't. I assume Orthodox Jews take the Bible pretty literally, whereas Reform Jews the least so. Conservative Jews would be somewhere in the middle.

[Commie Basher]

That is to say, "And I support neither (foreign adventurism or religious conservatism)."

[BlackVeil]

I, too, was over there and I had exactly the same experiences as you. Did not have a problem. If the story of Abraham is a myth, he certainly was put over a lot of people, and part of the archaelogical evidence is not just in the Holy Land, but in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the site of his early travels. These are shrines of great antiquity, very far apart.

[rmlew]

If the Rabbis believe this, then they are in the wrong profession and should be social(ist) workers.

There are quite a few inaccuracies.

Noah and the flood? A legend that arose in Mesopotamia suggested by the regular flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

What about the flooding of the Black Sea?

. Sodom and Gomorrah? Another myth.
REally? I should hall these butts to the Dead Sea and show them excavations.

Abraham? Like most legendary founders, he probably never existed.
Go to the tombs and do radio carbon dating.

The Israelite captivity in Egypt and the Exodus probably never occurred. There are no Egyptian sources mentioning an Israelite presence and no archaeological evidence anywhere for Israelites wandering in the Sinai – "not a pottery shard," as Rabbi David Wolpe put it.
1. Actually there is evidence, but not under the commonly assumed Pahroh, Ramese2.
2. As for the Sinai desert, it isn't the right place. Midian was in soiuthern Jordan and nothern Arabia.

There was no Israelite conquest of Palestine. Instead, there was a gradual and largely peaceful settlement. And Jericho? It didn't have any walls and it wasn't even inhabited when Joshua's "battle of Jericho" supposedly occurred.
Blatant historical lie!
Jericho was settled in approximately 2500 BCE. It was a walled city which fell a few times and was burnt in around 1500 BCE. That is rather consistant with the Book of Joshua.
Someone give the Schlemiels a subscription to Biblibal Archeology Review.

King David? If he existed at all, and there is some dispute, was probably a local tribal leader whose importance was later inflated to promote religious pride. There is an "almost total absence of archaeological evidence" for a sizable Jerusalem at that time.
Inscriptions with his name are not evidence?
As for inflating size of the kingdom, that is probably true.

These and other modern findings have long been accepted by most bible scholars and seminary teachers. They are well known by most priests, ministers and rabbis. But they have not been widely shared with the laity in the pews, so they may even come as a surprise to readers here. Nonetheless, they are now the views of most scholars and supported by substantial evidence.

This explains the failure of these "religious leaders" they lack faith and teach socialism instead of religion.

[LostTribe]

> that include descriptions and NAMES of Biblical events and Biblical personages.

Do you recall if he identifies Joseph ?

[Swordmaker]

Do you recall if he identifies Joseph ?

Yes. The latter third of the book "Pharoahs and Kings" is devoted to seeking out Joseph and identifying him and the Pharoahs he worked under. Rohl claims to have identified an excavation and ruins that he claims are Joseph's mansion and tomb. These particular ruins include a damaged statue of an Asian (Levantine) personage who had been 'Vizier' of Egypt, the Prime Minister of Pharoah. The statue still retains paint of 'many coloured stripes" on the cloak thrown over its shoulder. The head (detached and defaced) show a distinctly non-Egyptian hair style (on more representative of the Levant).

As to who.

"Pharoah named Joseph Zaphenat Pa'aneah..." Genesis 41:45

The Biblical "Zaphenat" is a metathesis (translation error) of the Egyptian "Zataneph" which means "He who is called", a common Egyptian preface added to Egyptian names given to foreigners such as slaves. The "Aneah" of the Biblical "Pa'aneah" is the Egyptian character "Ankh" which means "Life" while the "Pa'" is probably a metathesis of the Egyptian "iPu" or "iPi" meaning "bringer". Rohl then postulates that Joseph was named "He who is called Bringer of Life" or "Zateneph Ipiankh(u)".

Egyptians did not go around referring to people of note by their full names... they shortened them as we do into nicknames... Ramasses II was called "SiSa" (referring to the two bolts of cloth emblems in his name) by the Egyptians instead of Meryamun Ussermaatra Ramesses... and apparently, Joseph's Egyptian name was nicknamed into "Ankhu".

There was a famous Vizier in the Early 13th dynasty named "Ankhu" under Pharoah Amenemhat III. Modern archaeologists refuse to consider Ankhu as Joseph do so because he is considered too early in history according to the the accepted Egyptian timeline. Some tablets of the 12th Dynasty refer to "one of the storehouses of Ankhu" which may refer to the grain storage facilities built by Joseph. Once the timeline has been adjusted, Ankhu falls right into the proper time frame and most likely IS Joseph.

[Swordmaker]

One error in my earlier post... Rohl identifies the Pharoah of the Exodus as Shoshenk I not the IV as I mis-remembered.

Also note that, because there actually were at least TWO kingdoms sometimes ruled by TWO or more Pharoahs, sometimes only one, making up Egypt, Dynasties could overlap... thus a ducument of the 12th Dynasty could refer to an event in the 13th Dynasty which would have been presumed to have been later than the 12th.

[LostTribe]

Thank You very much for that detailed response! Now I just have to go out and BUY the book. {ggg}.

[John Locke]

Rohl then postulates that Joseph was named "He who is called Bringer of Life" or "Zateneph Ipiankh(u)

I think that would be djed-n-f ipi-ankh. Unfortunately the familiar name "ankhu" is very common in Ancient Egypt. (It was also their favorite name for a pet dog, but I digress) The main reason for identifying the Vizier Ankhu with Joseph is the famous "labyrinth" built by his master, Amenemhat III, which some suppose to be Joseph's granaries, against all the evidence of archeology and history.

Note also that David Rohl's book is much disliked by egyptologists; he is one of the advocates of the so-called "new chronology", whose sole proponents, now that Immanuel Velikovsky is no longer among us, are the London Institute of Archaeology. The contributors to KMT wrote a fairly equivocal review of the book.