Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Moses Account Influenced Tale of Sinuhe, Not Vice Versa

Cover for 
Israel in Egypt





Because of the appalling chronological dislocation of dynasties due to the conventional Sothic theory of the Egyptian calendar, see:


"Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited"
 

we end up with the biblical events associated with Egypt (e.g. those of the Exodus era) regarded as having been based entirely upon the less substantial Egyptian mythology that these biblical events had actually influenced.
A classic example of this is the famous The Story of Sinuhe, that bears some striking likenesses to the life of Moses (especially his flight to, and return from, Midian). Many have perceived the likenesses. But because Sinuhe is set during the early Twelfth Dynasty (c. 2000 BC, conventional dating), then 'it must have influenced', they say (and logically so in a Sothic dating context), the 'later' Exodus tales.   
 
Professor Emmanuel Anati, for one, has recognized this Egyptian story, the famous Tale of Sinuhe, as having "a common matrix" (Mountain of God, p. 158) with the Exodus account of Moses' flight from pharaoh. 
.... Nahum Sarna, in his book Exploring Exodus, notes the story's similarities to an Egyptian tale circulating at the time of Rameses. In it, the courtier Sinuhe takes refuge with Bedouins in southern Syria fearing he will be blamed for the assassination of a Pharaoh; there he marries the eldest daughter of the local chief. In the end, Sinuhe returns to Egypt to face the new Pharaoh.
Such tales of political refuge and return abound in the ancient Near East. But could someone like Moses ever become a prince?
 

{Israel in Egypt

The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition

James K. Hoffmeier

  • A pathbreaking book that argues for the historicity of the biblical account of the exodus
  • Will interest a large reading public of specialists and non-specialists alike}
....
Hoffmeier notes that the Egyptian court reared and educated foreign-born princes, who then bore the title child of the nursery. He believes Moses was one of these privileged foreigners, some of whom went on to serve as high officials in their adopted land. ....
 
In a revised history, Moses did in fact belong to the era of Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty (and not the conventionally estimated New kingdom) which ancient dynasty needs to be re-located about half a millennium lower on the timescale than according to its conventional dates.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

And Miriam sang to them: 'Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously'.

 

Woman’s Indispensable Role in Salvation History

 
H.H. Pope John Paul II
General Audience
March 27, 1996

 
 
1. The Old Testament holds up for our admiration some extraordinary women who, impelled by the Spirit of God, share in the struggles and triumphs of Israel or contribute to its salvation. Their presence in the history of the people is neither marginal nor passive: they appear as true protagonists of salvation history. Here are the most significant examples.
After the crossing of the Red Sea, the sacred text emphasizes the initiative of a woman inspired to make this decisive event a festive celebration: “Then Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and dancing. And Miriam sang to them: ‘Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea’” (Ex 15:20-21).
This mention of feminine enterprise in the context of a celebration stresses not only the importance of woman’s role, but also her particular ability for praising and thanking God.
 
Positive contribution of women to salvation history
 
2. The action of the prophetess Deborah, at the time of the Judges, is even more important. After ordering the commander of the army to go and gather his men, she guarantees by her presence the success of Israel’s army, predicting that another woman, Jael, will kill their enemy’s general.
To celebrate the great victory, Deborah also sings a long canticle praising Jael’s action: “Most blessed of women be Jael, … of tent-dwelling women most blessed” (Jgs 5:24). In the New Testament this praise is echoed in the words Elizabeth addresses to Mary on the day of the Visitation: “Blessed are you among women …” (Lk 1:42).
The significant role of women in the salvation of their people, highlighted by the figures of Deborah and Jael, is presented again in the story of another prophetess named Huldah, who lived at the time of King Josiah.
Questioned by the priest Hilkiah, she made prophecies announcing that forgiveness would be shown to the king who feared the divine wrath. Huldah thus becomes a messenger of mercy and peace (cf. 2 Kgs 22:14-20).
3. The Books of Judith and Esther, whose purpose is to idealize the positive contribution of woman to the history of the chosen people, present—in a violent cultural context—two women who win victory and salvation for the Israelites.
The Book of Judith, in particular, tells of a fearsome army sent by Nebuchadnezzar to conquer Israel. Led by Holofernes, the enemy army is ready to seize the city of Bethulia, amid the desperation of its inhabitants, who, considering any resistance to be useless, ask their rulers to surrender. But the city’s elders, who in the absence of immediate aid declare themselves ready to hand Bethulia over to the enemy, are rebuked by Judith for their lack of faith as she professes her complete trust in the salvation that comes from the Lord.
After a long invocation to God, she who is a symbol of fidelity to the Lord, of humble prayer and of the intention to remain chaste goes to Holofernes, the proud, idolatrous and dissolute enemy general.
Left alone with him and before striking him, Judith prays to Yahweh, saying: “Give me strength this day, O Lord God of Israel!” (Jdt 13:7). Then, taking Holofernes’ sword, she cuts off his head.
Here too, as in the case of David and Goliath, the Lord used weakness to triumph over strength. On this occasion, however, it was a woman who brought victory: Judith, without being held back by the cowardice and unbelief of the people’s rulers, goes to Holofernes and kills him, earning the gratitude and praise of the High Priest and the elders of Jerusalem. The latter exclaimed to the woman who had defeated the enemy: “You are the exaltation of Jerusalem, you are the great glory of Israel, you are the great pride of our nation! You have done all this single-handed; you have done great good to Israel, and God is well pleased with it. May the Almighty Lord bless you for ever!” (Jdt 15:9-10).
4. The events narrated in the Book of Esther occurred in another very difficult situation for the Jews. In the kingdom of Persia, Haman, the king’s superintendent, decrees the extermination of the Jews. To remove the danger, Mardocai, a Jew living in the citadel of Susa, turns to his niece Esther, who lives in the king’s palace where she has attained the rank of queen. Contrary to the law in force, she presents herself to the king without being summoned, thus risking the death penalty, and she obtains the revocation of the extermination decree. Haman is executed, Mordocai comes to power and the Jews delivered from menace, thus get the better of their enemies.
Judith and Esther both risk their lives to win the salvation of their people. The two interventions, however, are quite different: Esther does not kill the enemy but, by playing the role of mediator, intercedes for those who are threatened with destruction.
 
Holy Spirit sketches Mary’s role in human salvation
 
5. This intercessory role is later attributed to another female figure, Abigail, the wife of Nabal, by the First Book of Samuel. Here too, it is due to her intervention that salvation is once again achieved.
She goes to meet David, who has decided to destroy Nabal’s family, and asks forgiveness for her husband’s sins. Thus she delivers his house from certain destruction (1 Sm 25).
As can be easily noted, the Old Testament tradition frequently emphasizes the decisive action of women in the salvation of Israel, especially in the writings closest to the coming of Christ. In this way the Holy Spirit, through the events connected with Old Testament women, sketches with ever greater precision the characteristics of Mary’s mission in the work of salvation for the entire human race.
 
Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
3 April 1996
 
 
 
 
….
 

"In the tradition of Moses, Miriam, and Deborah, Judith leads the children of Israel in praise and worship of God through a “new psalm".”

....

Judith’s Psalm

Prayer is an integral part of the story of Judith just as we discovered of Tobit [7]. In the tradition of Moses, Miriam, and Deborah, Judith leads the children of Israel in praise and worship of God through a “new psalm.” What else can be done when God has delivered us and through the most unexpected means, but praise him. Judith continues the long line of piety in the Hebrew Bible especially in the Psalter. As with other biblical literature there is the rich use of previous biblical literature to nourish the Spiritual well being of God’s people in a new day and situation.

And Judith said,
Begin a song to my God with tambourines,
and sing to my Lord with cymbals.
Raise to him a new psalm;
exalt him, and call upon his name.
For the Lord is a God who crushes wars;
he sets up his camp among his people;
he delivered me from the hands of
my pursuers.
(Judith 16. 1-2b)

Judith, like the Prophet Miriam (Ex 15.20) and the young ladies in procession in the temple (Ps 68.25) grabs a tambourine and assumes the role of worship leader. In the Bible, God’s fresh act of grace demanded fresh praise. We do not just sing the old song but now in light of God’s new act we sing our own song of worship and praise.
The call to a psalm of praise is grounded in what God has done and is doing. God “crushes” war. Those drunk on the liquor of combat will be disappointed because the Lord simply will put an end to all war. The vision or dream of the prayer is for a world without any more Holoferneses. What a day that would be.
But not only does Judith call to praise because God destroys war but because “he sets up his camp among his people.” Following the destruction of God’s enemies (i.e. war, etc) Judith praises God for one of the great blessings attested to throughout the Hebrew Bible, God lives with his people. It is a vivid image that God “camps” with us. God himself is the desire of the redeemed.
After narrating magnitude of Israel’s dire straits from the Assyrian threat in verses 3 and 4, Judith gives God glory for the unbelievable way in which salvation was granted. Only God could have accomplished salvation through a woman!

But the Lord Almighty has foiled them
by the hand of a woman.
For their mighty one did not fall by the
hands of the young men,
nor did the sons of the Titans strike
him down,
nor did tall giants set upon him;
but Judith daughter of Merari
with the beauty of her countenance
undid him.” (vv. 5-6)

The Lord God is given total credit for the unusual means of deliverance from the tyrannical Assyrians. Judith does not even give God’s enemy, Holofernes, the honor of being named he is just the “mighty one” who suffers the unbelievable (in that culture) of being done in by a woman, a widow no less! The irony drips form this portion of the psalm. God did not use the demi-gods known as the “sons of the Titans,” nor the legendary “giants” of the land. God used a weapon fit for the occasion that undid the arrogance of an insatiable oppressor. .... Should God not be praised?

Judith continues to narrate in the psalm how the God inspired actions of a widow had cosmic consequences. The Persians and the Medes “tremble” with the news of what God has accomplished through one regarded so helpless (v.10). Kicking into high gear Judith continues her “new song” of praise to the Lord.

I will sing to my god a new song;
O Lord, you are great and glorious,
wonderful in strength, invincible.
Let all your creatures serve you,
for you spoke and they were made.
You sent forth your Spirit, and it
formed them;
there is none that can resist your
voice.
For the mountains shall be shaken to
their foundations with the waters;
before your glance the rocks shall
melt like wax.
But to those who fear you
you show mercy.
For every sacrifice as a fragrant offering
is a small thing,
and the fat of all whole burnt
offerings to you is a very little thing;
but whoever fears the Lord is great forever.

Woe to the nations that rise up against
my people!
The Lord Almighty will take
vengeance on them in the day of
judgement;
he will send fire and worms into their
flesh;
they shall weep in pain forever.”
(vv. 13-17).

Judith has unwavering faith in the majesty and uniqueness of our God. He is the Creator of all things. Through the instrumentality of the Spirit life is given and the world is made. God’s all powerful word (voice) cannot be resisted by his creation. Those in rebellion against his lordship (like Holofernes) will find themselves missing their head but mercy is the lot of those who walk the dangerous road of faith.

....

Taken from: http://stonedcampbelldisciple.com/2013/08/21/prayer-in-the-apocrypha-3-judiths-psalm-of-praise/

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Quran Contradiction. Mary, the Mother of Jesus and Sister of Aaron

Miriam

 
 
Taken from: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/sister_of_aaron.htm
 
….
 
Sam Shamoun
 
The Quran confuses Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus, with Miriam the sister of Moses. The Quran identifies Mary as the sister of Aaron, the daughter of Imran, whose mother was the wife of Imran:
When the wife of Imran said, ‘Lord, I have vowed to Thee, in dedication, what is within my womb. Receive Thou this from me; Thou hearest, and knowest.’ And when she gave birth to her she said, ‘Lord, I have given birth to her, a female.’ (And God knew very well what she had given birth to; the male is not as the female.) ‘And I have named her Mary, and commend her to Thee with her seed, to protect them from the accursed Satan.’ S. 3:35-36 Arberry
Then she brought the child to her folk carrying him; and they said, ‘Mary, thou hast surely committed a monstrous thing! Sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother a woman unchaste.’ S. 19:27-28
And Mary, Imran’s daughter, who guarded her virginity, so We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and she confirmed the Words of her Lord and His Books, and became one of the obedient. S. 66:12
Compare this to what the Holy Bible says:
“Then Mary (Hebrew- Mariam), the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand…” Exodus 15:20
“The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam.” Numbers 26:49
“The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.” 1 Chronicles 6:3
“For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.” Micah 6:4
Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. And they said, ‘Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” And the LORD heard it. Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth. And suddenly the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, ‘Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting.’ And the three of them came out. And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent and called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward… When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said to Moses, ‘Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned. Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes out of his mother’s womb.’ And Moses cried to the LORD, ‘O God, please heal her–please.’ But the LORD said to Moses, ‘If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.” So Miriam was shut outside the camp seven days, and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was brought in again.” Numbers 12:1-5, 10-15
It is very hard to accept the idea that the Quran wasn’t identifying Jesus’ mother with the sister of Moses in light of the fact that both these Marys had brothers named Aaron and fathers named Imran/Amram! It is rather obvious to any unbiased reader that Muhammad has clearly confused the identity of Jesus’ mother with the sister of Aaron and Moses. He mistakenly thought that the mother of the Lord Jesus was the sister of Moses and Aaron.
Some Muslims try very hard to get around this and have sought to refute the assertion that the Quran is mistaken:
http://bismikaallahuma.org/Quran/Contra/External/sister_of_aaron.htm
But to no avail. The Muslim responses have been thoroughly addressed and refuted in the following papers:
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qbhc06.html http://answering-islam.org/Silas/mary.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/davids_seed.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi-jesus3.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm
What we want to do in this paper is to quote two specific narrations from two of Islam’s premier commentators so as to see the confusion these Quranic statements caused for Muslims.
According to renowned Sunni Muslim commentator, Ibn Kathir, Aisha thought that Moses was Jesus’ maternal uncle! Aisha was convinced that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the actual sister of Aaron, Moses’ biological brother, making the latter Christ’s maternal uncle!
And from whom would Aisha have gained this understanding that led to her conviction, if not from Muhammad?
Here is what Ibn Kathir narrated:
وَقَالَ اِبْن جَرِير حَدَّثَنِي يَعْقُوب حَدَّثَنَا اِبْن عُلَيَّة عَنْ سَعِيد بْن أَبِي صَدَقَة عَنْ مُحَمَّد بْن سِيرِينَ قَالَ أُنْبِئْت أَنَّ كَعْبًا قَالَ إِنَّ قَوْله : ” يَا أُخْت هَارُون ” لَيْسَ بِهَارُون أَخِي مُوسَى قَالَ فَقَالَتْ لَهُ عَائِشَة كَذَبْت قَالَ يَا أُمّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِنْ كَانَ النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَهُ فَهُوَ أَعْلَم وَأَخْبَر وَإِلَّا فَإِنِّي أَجِد بَيْنهمَا سِتّمِائَةِ سَنَة قَالَ فَسَكَتَتْ وَفِي هَذَا التَّارِيخ نَظَر
It was narrated from Ibn Jarir, narrated from Yaqub, narrated from Ibn U’laya, narrated from Sa’id Ibn Abi Sadaqa, narrated from Muhammad Ibn Sireen who stated that he was told that Ka’b said the verse that reads, “O sister of Harun (Aaron)!” (of Sura 19:28) does not refer to Aaron the brother of Moses. Aisha replied to Ka’b, “YOU HAVE LIED.” Ka’b responded, “O Mother of the believers! If the prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him, has said it, and he is more knowledgeable, then this is what he related. Besides, I find the difference in time between them (Jesus and Moses) to be 600 years.” He said that she remained silent.
(From the Arabic commentary of Ibn Kathir on Sura 19:28, online edition; bold, underline and capital emphasis ours)
Aisha, whom Muslims claim was one of the most knowledgeable persons of Islam, clearly understood the expression, “Sister of Aaron,” to refer to Moses’ brother Aaron, i.e. understanding that Mary the mother of Jesus was the sister of Moses and Aaron, which would make Moses Jesus’ maternal uncle! More specifically, she understood this phrase to be literally saying that Mary was the actual, biological sister of Aaron, the brother of Moses. Although Kab was wrong regarding the length of the time gap between Jesus and Moses, he was correct to see the problem and dilemma that Muhammad’s words caused.
Another prominent Sunni commentator and historian named Al-Tabari narrated a hadith which is also found in our rebuttals above:
الْقَوْل فِي تَأْوِيل قَوْله تَعَالَى : { يَا أُخْت هَارُون } اِخْتَلَفَ أَهْل التَّأْوِيل فِي السَّبَب الَّذِي مِنْ أَجْله قِيلَ لَهَا : يَا أُخْت هَارُون , وَمَنْ كَانَ هَارُون هَذَا الَّذِي ذَكَرَهُ اللَّه , حَدَّثَنَا اِبْن حُمَيْد , قَالَ : ثنا الْحَكَم بْن بَشِير , قَالَ : ثنا عَمْرو , عَنْ سِمَاك بْن حَرْب , عَنْ عَلْقَمَة بْن وَائِل , عَنْ الْمُغِيرَة بْن شُعْبَة , قَالَ : أَرْسَلَنِي النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي بَعْض حَوَائِجه إِلَى أَهْل نَجْرَان , فَقَالُوا : أَلَيْسَ نَبِيّك يَزْعُم أَنَّ هَارُون أَخُو مَرْيَم هُوَ أَخُو مُوسَى ؟ فَلَمْ أَدْرِ مَا أَرُدّ عَلَيْهِمْ حَتَّى رَجَعْت إِلَى النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , فَذَكَرْت لَهُ ذَلِكَ , فَقَالَ : ” إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يُسَمُّونَ بِأَسْمَاءِ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلهمْ ” . وَقَالَ بَعْضهمْ : عَنَى بِهِ هَارُون أَخُو مُوسَى , وَنُسِبَتْ مَرْيَم إِلَى أَنَّهَا أُخْته لِأَنَّهَا مِنْ وَلَده , – حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى , قَالَ : ثنا عَمْرو , قَالَ : ثنا أَسْبَاط , عَنْ السُّدِّيّ { يَا أُخْت هَارُون } قَالَ : كَانَتْ مِنْ بَنِي هَارُون أَخِي مُوسَى
The people of commentary and interpretation have differed on the reason why it was said “O sister of Harun!” (Of Sura 19:28), and who this Harun was that Allah mentioned…
It was narrated by Ibn Hamid, narrated by Al Hakam Ibn Bashir, narrated by Amr, narrated by Simak Ibn Harb, narrated by Alkama Ibn Wa’il, narrated Al Mughira Ibn Shu’ba who said, “The prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him, sent me to fetch some of his needs from the people of Najran who said, ‘Doesn’t your prophet claim that Harun the brother of Mariam (Mary) is the brother of Moses?’ I did not know how to respond to them until I returned to the prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him. I related to him all what was said and he replied, ‘They used to name themselves after the names of those who came before them.’”
Others said the Harun referred to is the brother of Moses, and Mariam was classified as his sister for she is a (descendent) of (his) son.
It was narrated by Musa, narrated by Amr, narrated by Asbat, narrated by Al Suddi who said regarding “O sister of Harun!” (Of Sura 19:28) that (Mariam) was a descendent of the tribe of Harun, the brother of Moses.
(From the Arabic commentary of Al-Tabari on Sura 19:28, online edition; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Here is another instance where Arabs, people whose mother tongue was Arabic, understood the Quran’s statement to be saying that Jesus’ mother was the biological sister of Moses. So, in the Islamic traditions themselves, we now have two witnesses supporting the fact that Muhammad made a gross mistake: one witness who is viewed by Muslims as one of the most knowledgeable persons, the other witness from native Arabic speaking Christians, and both groups understood Muhammad to be teaching that Moses was Jesus’ uncle!
We have already addressed the responses given by Al-Tabari (see the above links for details), so we will only briefly address them here. The Muslims are wrong on two counts. First, Muhammad was wrong when he said that this is what people used when they wanted to name themselves after those who came before them. The way people named themselves after their predecessors wasn’t by calling someone a brother or a sister of so and so, but rather a son or daughter of so and so.
The following Muslim disagrees with this position and tries to provide an example to the contrary:
… In Semitic language the words father, mother, brother and sister are used broadly and do not necessarily imply the very close relations of real mother, father, brother and sister. Thus Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said: “I am the answer of the prayer of my father Abraham.” (Bukhari)
In ancient Semitic usage, a person’s name was often linked with that of a renowned ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Thus, for instance, a man of the tribe Banu Tamim was some times addressed as son of Tamim or brother of Tamim. Since Mary belonged to the priestly class and hence descended from Aaron, she was called a sister of Aaron. In the same manner her cousin Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah, is spoken of in Luke 1:5, as one of the daughters of Aaron.
Numerous are the instances in Bible where tribal names are used to mention descendants. For example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (Genesis 14:14), though he was in fact Abraham’s nephew (Genesis 11:31). Similarly Abraham spoke to Lot saying: “We men are brothers” (Genesis 13:8). But Abraham was actually was the uncle of Lot! Likewise the Babylonian queen referred to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar, when, Nabonidus was evidently his father and Nebuchadnezzar his grandfather (Daniel 5:11). Thus, in New Testament Abraham is referred to as the father of us, when actually he was a distant forefather (Acts 7:2, Romans 4:12, James 2:21). A member of the Jewish race removed from Abraham as much by 2000 years can still refer to Abraham as his father (Luke 16:24-25, 1:67-73; 13:16). In Numbers (20:14), the Israelites are referred to as the brother of the king of Edom, even though Esau and Jacob were the brothers from whom both groups descended. Similarly, Obed is referred to as Naomi’s son in Ruth 4:17, even though he was the son of her daughter-in-law, Ruth. Laban is called Nahor’s son (Genesis 49:5) when he is actually the son of Bethuel, the son of Nahor (Genesis 4:47). Jesus in the synagogue on the Sabbath healed the woman who had a spirit ofresponse to criticism of the healing, Jesus referred to her as a daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:16). In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus placed Lazarus on Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22). Zacchaeus, as tax collector, was socially alienated. The crowd murmured against Jesus’ voluntary visit to Zacchaeus’ house. After his declaration that he would give back to the poor half of his wealth and restore fourfold to those he had defrauded, Jesus called him a son of Abraham (Luke 19:9).
In the longest statement recorded in the New Testament (John 8:37-59), Jesus has used Abraham’s children thrice. St. Paul referred to Jesus as the offering [sic] of Abraham (Galatians 3:16-18, 24:29). Persons in authority are also known as Fathers in Biblical language: priestly officials (Judges 17:10), Prophets (2 Kings 2:12, 6:21), Persons holding office (Genesis 45:8, Isaiah 22:21), benefactors (Job 29:16). Sometimes, families are known after the names of their distinguished ancestors. In the Bible, the name Israel sometimes stands for the Israelites (Deuteronomy 6:3-4) and Kedar for the Ishmaelite (Isaiah 21:16, 42:11). Jesus was titled son of David (Matthew 9:27, 15:22, 20:30-31, Mark 10:47-48).
(Source)
The author apparently didn’t realize how all these examples actually prove our case since they demonstrate that Muhammad made a major blunder. In every single example that the author provided, the word used in connection with one’s lineage, to descendants, isn’t “brother of” or “sister of” but rather “son of” or “daughter of”! Not a single example provided by the author which refers to a person’s lineage ever use the expression “brother of” or “sister of.”
The one example he provides where “brother of” or “brothers” is actually used (i.e. Abraham and his nephew Lot) it refers not to descendants but to two contemporaries! Hence, by using the example of Abraham’s relation to Lot, the author has provided indirect proof that the Quran erroneously assumes that Mary and Aaron were contemporaries and lived at the same time!
His appeal to the Arabic is no better. When a person speaks of “a/the brother of Tamim,” what he/she is implying is that the individual in question is a contemporary of that particular tribe, that both the tribe and the person are living at the same time.
The second mistake made by the Muslims is to assume that Mary was of the tribe of Aaron, i.e. a Levite from the lineage of Aaron. Both the Holy Bible and the extra-biblical evidence show that Mary was from the tribe of Judah, from the line of David. She had no connection to the priestly line. Some Muslims try to appeal to the statement made by Luke 1:36 where Mary is said to be a relative of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, who was from the house of Aaron (Cf. Luke 1:5). The only thing this proves is that Elizabeth had Judean blood from her mother’s side, that her mother was of the tribe of Judah, since it wasn’t uncommon for priests to marry women from the other Israelite tribes. Case in point:
“Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the royal family of the house of Judah. But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah and stole him away from among the king’s sons who were about to be put to death, and she put him and his nurse in a bedroom. Thus Jehoshabeath, the daughter of King Jehoram and wife of Jehoiada the priest, because she was a sister of Ahaziah, hid him from Athaliah, so that she did not put him to death.” 2 Chronicles 22:10-11
Jehoram was the King of Judah and from the line of David, making his daughter a descendant of David. She was married to the Aaronic high priest, proving that priests could marry women from the brethren tribes of Levi. For a more detailed discussion of this argument, see the links provided above as well as this article.
As it stands, all the evidence conclusively shows that the Quran contains a gross mistake since it erroneously teaches that the mother of Christ was the biological sister and contemporary of Aaron the high priest, making Moses Jesus’ uncle!
 
Acknowledgements
 
Our dear brother Dimitrius provided the rough translation of the Arabic Islamic texts. May our risen Lord and immortal Savior Jesus Christ richly bless him for al his efforts and faithfulness. Amen.
 
Responses to Bismikaallahuma Contradictions in the Qur’an Articles by Sam Shamoun Answering Islam Home Page

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Deuteronomy 28 influenced Esarhaddon's Vassal Treaty, not the other way around



 
King Esarhaddon of Assyria, perhaps greatly under the influence of the wise Israelite sage, Ahikar, see our:
 
could well have absorbed the laws and teachings of the Israelite Moses. Thus we would disagree with the suggested source of influence (this being the typical modern approach that always has Israel being influenced) in the following otherwise highly interesting set of comparisons between Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon's document.

 
 
 
....
 
The discovery of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (EST) at Tell Tayinat confirms the Assyrian application of this text on western vassals and suggests that the oath tablet was given to Manasseh of Judah in 672 BC, the year in which the king of Assyria had all his empire and vassals swear an oath or treaty promising to adhere to the regulations set for his succession, and that this cuneiform tablet was set up for formal display somewhere inside the temple of Jerusalem. The finding of the Tell Tayinat tablet and its elaborate curses of §§ 53–55 that invoke deities from Palestine, back up the claim of the 1995 doctoral thesis of the author of this article that the impressive similarities between Deuteronomy 28:20–44 and curses from § 56 of the EST are due to direct borrowing from the EST. This implies that these Hebrew verses came to existence between 672 BC and 622 BC, the year in which a Torah scroll was found in the temple of Jerusalem, causing Josiah to swear a loyalty oath in the presence of Yhwh. This article aimed to highlight the similarities between EST § 56 and Deuteronomy 28 as regards syntax and vocabulary, interpret the previously unknown curses that astoundingly invoke deities from Palestine, and conclude with a hypothesis of the composition of the book of Deuteronomy.


Deuteronomy 28:20–44 and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaties § 56
This section highlights the parallels between Deuteronomy 28:20–44 and EST § 56, the curse of the great gods. Although lists comparing curse motifs in extra biblical texts with Deuteronomy 28 present a lot of motif parallels, a careful look at such lists shows that the paralleling of motifs destroys the sequence of elements in one text in order to fit it to the sequence of the other (eds. Kitchen & Lawrence 2012:244,

Dt 1–32 being number 83 in their counting of ANE treaties). In Deuteronomy 28:20–44 and EST § 56, however, the sequence of motifs is identical. In only two cases does a topic appear at a slightly different position, and in both these cases one can explain the difference as a deliberate scribal arrangement.
Apart from the identical sequence of topics in both curses, there is an astounding parallel regarding the syntax. Curses invoking Yhwh or the gods as subjects causing calamity, alternate with curses in which natural forces are the subjects, or sentences that just describe the result of the preceding curse. In Deuteronomy 28:20–44 and EST § 56, these alternations occur at parallel positions.
There is still another syntactical parallel between the Assyrian and the Hebrew text. The curses invoking the divinity are optative sentences. In Assyrian, precative verbal forms mark the optative. In Hebrew, yiqtol-x formations mark the optative. Although most English translations render Deuteronomy 28:20–44 as indicative, the Hebrew text alternates between invocations of Yhwh that concede to him the option of punishing in optative yiqtol-x, and sections in the indicative dealing with the consequences of Yhwh’s punishments or the harmful effect of natural forces. The following translation will indicate an optative sentence by using ‘may’. A similar comparison has previously been published (Steymans 1995). The comparison presented here has been amended to highlight vocabulary and syntactical features common to both texts.
There is not much need for the diachronic separation in Deuteronomy 28:20–44. Three verses show elements of later elaboration.
Deuteronomy 28:20c
Deuteronomy 28: 20c: ‘[because of your evildoing] in forsaking Me’.

This ending of the first curse reads in Hebrew: mippenê rōac macalelê-kā ’ašer cazabtā-nî. The three words at the beginning do not appear elsewhere in Deuteronomy, however, they appear in Jeremiah three times (Jr 4:4; 21:12; 44:22). Since the curse section following in Deuteronomy 28:45–62 has a lot of links to Jeremiah, it is safe to suggest that the scribe who added the curses after verse 45 also added mippenê rōac macalelê-kā in order to point to the prophetic language (cf. Is 1:16; Hs 9:15) right at the beginning and prepare for the following links with Jeremiah. Nowhere else does the relative clause ašer cazabtā-nî follow ac macalelê-kā in the Hebrew Bible. There is ašer cazābû-nî in Jeremiah 1:16 and ka’ašer cazabtem ’ôtî in Jeremiah 5:19. The relative clause in Jeremiah expressing that the people leave (forsake) Yhwh differs from the one in Deuteronomy 28:20. In addition, it does not occur in context with mippenê rōac macalelê-kā in Jeremiah. In Deuteronomy, the verb c.z.b is linked to the Levites in Deuteronomy 12:19 and 14:27.
Deuteronomy 29:25 quotes the statements of people passing by giving the reason for the disaster that befell Israel: ‘Because they forsook the covenant of Yhwh, the God of their fathers’ (cal ’ašer cāzebû ’et bet Yhwh ’ælōhê ’abōtām). Deuteronomy 31 quotes the words of God, predicting that his people:
… will begin to prostitue themselves to the foreign gods in their midst, the gods of the land into which they are going; they will forsake me [wa-caba-nî], and break my covenant, which I have made with them. (Dt 31:16)
It is important to notice that Deuteronomy 28:20 is the first occurrence in Deuteronomy where the verb c.z.b means ‘leaving or forsaking Yhwh’, and that this meaning is taken up in Deuteronomy 29 and 31. Further use of the verb c.z.b speaks about Yhwh leaving or abandoning his people (Dt 31:6, 8, 16, 17; 32:26). Hence, c.z.b only means leaving Yhwh as a form of disobedience in Deuteronomy 28:20, the first verse of the curse section, and then in two quotations, namely in the words of other people (Dt 29:25) and of Yhwh (Dt 31:16). Prophetic language uses the verb in a similar sense, however, never in the context of ac macalelê-kā.
The verb ezābu, the Assyrian equivalent of Hebrew c.z.b, occurs in line 479 of § 56 with food and water as subjects. The only other occurrence of the verb in the EST is in line 172 of § 14, a stipulation closely linked to the whole treaty’s ‘first commandment’ in § 4 through the word repetition of a.šà ‘field’ (l. 49, l. 165), naāru ‘protect’ (l. 50, l. 168), uru ‘city’ (l. 49, l. 166), gammurtu ‘totality’ (l. 53, l. 169), libbu ‘heart’ (l. 51, 53, l. 169). The treaty’s addressees must protect Assurbanipal in country (field) and town (city), and advise him in total truth of their heart according to § 4. Then § 14, demanding them to protect Assurbanibal, repeats this order in case of a rebellion. The stipulation ends: ‘You shall Assurbanibal […] let escape [leave]’ [the dangerous situation tušezabā-ni-ni, ezābu-causative Š-stem].
Without claiming to be able to prove it, the verb c.z.b in verse 20c may have been inspired by the EST. The verb is rare in Deuteronomy and the EST, but it is existent in § 56 and the important stipulation of § 14 – and in Deuteronomy 28, it may be the relict of the conditional clause that opened the curse section in the Judean loyalty oath. The Judean scribe reversed the main offence against the overlord, using the same verb. As regards Assurbanibal, the main offence is not to let him leave (= rescue him from) any dangerous situation. As regards Yhwh, the main offence is to leave (= forsake) him in disobedience. Thus, the curse section of the Judean loyalty oath might have begun with something like: ‘If you leave [forsake] him [kî tacazbennû; cf. Dt 14:27], Yhwh may send on you curse’, picking up the conjunction of most conditional laws in Deuteronomy. When DtrL, a pre-exilic scribe (Braulik 2011; Lohfink 1997, 2000), added the blessing of Deuteronomy 28 to his account of a covenant in Moab and the conquest of the land – starting with the bārûk-formulas (Dt 28:3–5) together with the corresponding ’ārûr-formulas (Dt 28:16–19) and the alternative introductions of blessing and curse in Deuteronomy 28:1f. and 15 – the conditional clause kî tacazbennû was transferred to the end of verse 20 and the verb changed into perfect cazabtô (cf. Dt 13:11; 22:2, i.e. the taw moved from the front of the verbal form to its end and the nun energicum was deleted). A later scribe inserted the allusion to Jeremiah mippenê rōac macalelê-kā and replaced by ašer. The first person pronoun present in the Masoretic text today may be a technical mistake made by one scribe during the transmission process confusing waw with nun, letters that look similar in the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet as they do in the Hebrew ‘square script’, because he knew Deuteronomy by heart and was influenced by the first person pronouns in Deuteronomy 29:15 and 31:16. One Septuagint manuscript has the third person pronoun, and Old Latin has ‘because you have forsaken the Lord’.
Deuteronomy 28:21a
Deuteronomy 28:21aI: ‘until he has put an end to you [on the soil, 21aR you are entering to possess]’.

The phrase cal hā-’adāmâ ’ašer ’attâ bā’ šāmmâ le-rišt-āh appears similarly in Deuteronomy 12:1, 21:1, 30:18, 31:13 and 32:47. However, it appears absolutely identically in Deuteronomy 28:63. Verse 63 starts with a small poem later inserted in the curse section (Steymans 1995). The scribe who added the poem also added the phrase in verse 21 in order to bracket his addition in Deuteronomy 28:63–65 with the section Deuteronomy 28:20–44. Since a previous scribe already added to verse 20, the first verse of the oldest part of the curse section, this later scribe added to the second verse of this section, namely verse 21.
Deuteronomy 28:36b
Deuteronomy 28:36b: ‘There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. [37a] You will become a horror, a proverb and a byword among all the peoples, [aR] where the Lord will drive you’.

Verses 36b and 37 assess worshipping of other gods as punishment, and not as sin. The same idea is present in Deuteronomy 4:28, 28:64 and 29:17. Thus, this passage may be an addition by the same scribe who added his poem in Deuteronomy 28:63–65.
Italics mark the common vocabulary and syntactical parallels in Deuteronomy 28 and the EST. The Assyrian and Hebrew language only sometimes use common Semitic roots in exactly the same meaning. Identical or semantically corresponding Semitic roots are put in parentheses. Every sentence starts a new line. The Bible text indicates main and subordinate clauses according to Richter (1991): ‘I’ meaning infinitive and ‘R’ meaning relative clause. The Assyrian text follows Parpola and Watanabe (1988).
Since both texts are rather long, they are divided into sections for convenience. The texts are arranged in tables (Tables 2–9) with three columns. Two columns parallel Deuteronomy 28: 20–44 with EST § 56, model for the sequential arrangement of topics. The third column gives the text of other inserted curse paragraphs, because the scribe composing Deuteronomy 28:20–44 considered their topic fitting to the topic indicated by § 56.
Both curse sequences begin with the divinity as subject of the clause and the keyword curse taken from the Semitic root ’.r.r. (Table 2). The predicate of line 474 maāu [to strike] may have been the inspiration for the series of curses using the predicate n.k.h-Hiphil [to strike] in Deuteronomy 28:22, 27, 28 and 35 (Table 4, 7f.).
TABLE 2: Divine curse using the semitic root ’.r.r.

The divinities are the subject of the syntax of the curse. The ending of life is the common topic, in Hebrew it is expressed with an infinitive of k.l.h, and in Akkadian with the Mesopotamian vegetable metaphor of ‘rooting out’ (Table 3).

TABLE 3: The deity brings existance to a termination.


TABLE 4: Natural forces chase the cursed humans.

Pestilence is the concluding illness in EST, line 480 of the following section of § 56 (Table 5). This section is marked in line 479 by a shift of the subject from divinity to natural entities. The Hebrew scribe transferred the topic of pestilence to verse 21, as the beginning of a series of illnesses unfolded in verse 22 (Table 4). Thus, he makes pestilence a heading, whereas it was a conclusion in the Assyrian text. The Hebrew scribe did not adopt the Mesopotamian concern for the ghost of the dead in accordance to the general reluctance of the Hebrew Bible in dealing with the afterlife.

TABLE 5: Lack of food due to the impossibility of agriculture.

The Judean scribe took up the verb ‘to strike’ from the first curse of § 56 together with the divine subject. Then he followed the shift from divine subject to natural entity by making the diseases the actors of the chasing, as are shade and daylight in § 56 (Table 4).

The headwords ‘food’ and ‘water’, as well as ‘want’, ‘famine’ and ‘hunger’ in § 56 provide the topic for this section. The Assyrian curse of § 56 starts with entities (food and water) as subject of the sentence. The Judean scribe follows this by making sky and ground the subjects of the Hebrew sentences. He elaborates on the topic by inserting a curse from § 63. His attention was called to this curse whilst reading the EST through the co-occurrence of ‘ground’ and ‘sky’ together with ‘the great gods […] who are mentioned by name in this tablet’, which is similar to the beginning of § 56. The word kaqquru [ground, earth] is written in syllables in § 63, indicating the Assyrian pronunciation of the logogram ki.tim in § 56 (Parpola & Watanabe 1988:92, sub kaqquru). Hence, when read aloud there is a link (Table 5).
Only one exemplar from Calhu has a dividing line between lines 529 and 530, thus counting a § 63 and a § 64, as do the modern editions. All other manuscripts from Calhu, as well as the tablet from Tell Tayinat, present lines 526–533 (= § 63 + 64) as one single paragraph (Lauinger 2012:120). It is one single curse and the Judean scribe was right in taking it up completely. However, he changed the sequence of the similes. The EST lists the metals in a sequence of decreasing hardness – from iron to lead – in the following § 65. By doing so, the Assyrian text inverts the common sequence of heaven and earth to ground and sky. The Hebrew scribe changed the sequence to heaven and earth, but kept the comparison of sky with bronze and ground with iron. Both curses change their subjects. EST § 63 starts with the gods who turn the ground into iron. The subjects of the next sentence are natural entities, namely rain, dew and burning coals. Mixing both Assyrian syntactical structures, the one with divine subject in lines 526–529 and those with natural elements as subject in line 530 (§ 63) and lines 479 and 480 (§ 56), the Hebrew text starts with sky and ground as subjects, following the vocabulary of lines 526–529 and the syntax of lines 479 and 480. Then Yhwh is the subject causing harmful rain, following the syntax of lines 526–529, where the gods are the subject. Military defeat is the topic of § 65, a curse using the simile of lead in order to denote military weakness. The sons and daughters taken by the hand by their fleeing parents link this paragraph to the young women and young men of § 56, whose bodies are mutilated in the squares of Assur before the eyes of their parents, relatives and neighbours.
EST § 56 does not describe military defeat, however, the scene of line 481f. presupposes deportation because the mutilation of bodies takes place in the city of Assur. This might be the finale of a triumphal procession in which captives of rebellious countries were carried through the streets of Assur. Thus, the topic of military defeat only alluded to in § 56 and the topic of corpses being food for animals then expressed in § 56, probably has lead the eye of the Judean scribe to § 41: the curse invoking Ninurta, which clearly speaks of defeat. He conflated § 41 and § 56 in order to create verse 25f. He began his curse by invoking Yhwh instead of Ninurta and expressing defeat. He kept the Semitic root ’.k.l present as verbal form in the Š-stem in § 41 (feed) in form of the noun expressing the effect of the curse in verse 26a (food). In addition, he changed the subject. The addressees of the curse are the subject of verse 26, as are the addressees’ young women and men in § 56. The Hebrew curse continues to have the corpses being the subject of verse 26, whereas the Assyrian one of § 56 has the earth as subject. Both curses share the topic of refused burial. Both curses have an international flavour by becoming a horror to foreign kingdoms, as well as a spectacle in the capital of the multi-ethnic Assyrian empire. The combination of birds and beasts in verse 26 conflates the birds (eagle and vulture) of § 41 and the beasts (dog and pig) of § 56 (Table 6).
TABLE 6: The results of military defeat using the semitic root ’.k.l.

It has long been noticed that Deuteronomy 28:27–29 parallel the Sin and Shamash curses of Assyrian treaties. However, being aware of the topic indicated by § 56 line 485, one realises that the Judean scribe rearranged the complete sequence of Anu-Venus curses, that is §§ 38A–42, in order to elaborate on the topics he found in § 56. The headwords ‘sighing’ and ‘sleeplessness’ link § 56 with the Anu-curse in § 38A, and the skin disease rendered ‘leprosy’ links the Sin-curse § 39 with the skin disease translated ‘scurvy’ in Deuteronomy 28:27. Loss of eyesight (blindness), as well as darkness, link Deuteronomy 28:29 with § 56 and the Shamash-curse in § 40 (Table 7).

TABLE 7: The curse motifs of Anu, Sin, and Šamaš.

The subjects change. Verse 27 starts with the divinity as subject, as do §§ 38A–40. Verse 29 shifts to the addressees as subject, as do the Sin-curse (roam in the desert) and the Shamash-curse (walk about). Both the biblical and the Assyrian curses focus on the desperate way the people move (grope about).

Having elaborated on the topic of military defeat by using imagery of § 41 to create Deuteronomy 28:25, the Judean scribe now elaborates on § 42. This curse invokes Venus, a manifestation of Ishtar, and offers the headwords ‘eyes’ taken up in verses 32 and 34, ‘lying’ as a metaphor for sexual intercourse and rape taken up in verse 30, ‘sons’ taken up in verse 32, and ‘enemy’ taken up in verse 31. The loss of possession to spoiling soldiers is the common topic. The metaphor of an irresistible flood in § 56 also denotes military defeat. The Biblical text is enriched by futility curses that add the topics house and vineyard, as well as curses that focus on cattle. It is not before Deuteronomy 28:31e and 32a that the Assyrian headwords are taken up again. The Venus curse focuses on the impossibility of transferring property as a heritage to the next generation. There is no deportation from the land. However, the enemy is in the land and takes all goods. The biblical curse goes one step further in making the sons themselves a chattel to be taken by the spoiling army. Their parents remain in their land, consumed by the yearning for their children (Table 8).
TABLE 8: The motif of plundering enemies followed by baleful wishes.

The return to illness in Deuteronomy 28:34 and 35 is inspired by the term ‘ill’ in § 56. The Tell Fekhariye inscription reveals that the rendering of curses that are mere invocations in Assyrian as futility curses in a West-Semitic text is not uncommon (Steymans 1995:156–161, 181–185).

There is no curse in EST that deals with deportation. Deportation, however, is the topic of § 25, an admonition that the oath-takers must enounce. Thus, Judeans who were bound by the EST had to say this to their children. Any Judean scribe must have been aware of this admonition. The headword ‘son’ links it to the topic of several curses of the EST. The most striking correspondence between Deuteronomy 28:36 and EST § 25 is the combination of setting a king over oneself and deportation (Table 9).
TABLE 9: Deportation and appointment of a king.

After the topic ‘lack of food’ in verse 26 in correspondence to line 479, the fact that the topic reappears with the root ’.k.l ‘to eat’ in verse 39 and line 490 is a further indication of the common structure of both curse sections. Another identical root connects both texts, namely c.l.h [to come up, rise]. In § 56, the root occurs in line 489 with the metaphor of a flood that symbolises enemies. In Deuteronomy 28, the root occurs three times in verse 43, turning the stranger (a person to be cared for according to the biblical law) into an enemy. The Judean scribe elaborated on the topics given in § 56 by creating futility curses. He kept the sequence of food, drink, and then ointment. However, he discarded clothing and repeated deportation of sons and daughters instead. The last line of § 56 lists three types of spirits that haunt the dwelling places. The Assyrian verb īaru means ‘to choose, to select’, and exists also in the noun ā’iru/āmiru/āwiru [spouse]. The verb can mean ‘to marry’. The spirits are not evil per se – they may even have protective power (Wiggermann 1992:69, 96, 218f., 221). The point being made in both the Assyrian and the biblical curse is that entities that are not harmful in general and must be protected (as the stranger in the Bible) or may be protecting forces (as the spirits in ANE belief) turn out to be harmful and threaten the intimate space where one dwells (‘in your midst, your houses’) (Table 10).

....

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

The Laws of Eshnunna and the Books of Moses

Moses_1

 
 
Adapted from: http://jerryandgod.com/2012/06/26/the-passover/
 
 
The Laws of Moses and Laws of Eshnunna

Eshnunna, which lay east of Babylon, was for a brief period a dominant city in Mesopotamia, and a code of laws has been discovered from this civilization.
 
Judging from the fragments that remain of the laws’ superscription, it appears that King Dadusha issued this law code for his city.
It is the earliest example of an Akkadian law code discovered to date and anticipates form and content its successor, the much moore famous Code of Hammurabi (who conquered Eshnunna).
 
The code of Eshnunna is fairly short but covers a wide range of topics, including price controls for products like barley and wool and regulations involving theft, the status of slaves, marital relations, crimes of violence, and vicious animals.
It includes, for example, laws concerning a dangerous ox and the liability of its owner, which are closely paralleled in Ex 21:28-32.
The Eshnunna law code is significant for Biblical studies. It confirms that a code of laws similar to those we find in the Bible could have existed as early as the time of Moses.
Some histori­ans have argued that the bulk of Israel’s laws were very late, coming into existence long after Moses’ day.
 
But we think instead that Dadusha was King David himself, ruling Mesopotamia, and continuing to apply the now ancient Laws of Moses.
The laws of Eshnunna began with a royal superscription that proclaimed this standardization as instrumental in establishing justice, eliminating enmity, and protecting the weak.

Laws of Moses Influencing Legal System of Eshnunna





King David as Dadusha the Lawgiver of Eshnunna



We read as follows about the Laws of Dadusha:


The Codex Ešnunna was written in the nineteenth century, about a generation before the more famous Codex Hammurapi of Babylon. It was a time when the kingdom of Ešnunna became very powerful, especially under its king Naram-Sin who ruled Assyria. Laws from Ešnunna were promulagated later by the Ešnunna king Dadusha. These laws have been compared with the biblical Covenant Code for the alternating arrangement of some civil and penal cases; but the most striking parallel for content comes in one specific law about a goring ox:

Codex Ešnunna 53:
“If an ox gored and killed an(other) ox, both ox owners shall divide the price of the live ox and the carcase of the dead ox.”

Exodus 21:35:
“And if one man’s ox harms another’s so that it dies, the owners must sell the live ox and share the price of it … they shall also share the dead animal.”

….
 

The Laws are written in Akkadian and consist of two tablets which are marked with A and B. In 1948, Albrecht Goetze of the Yale University had translated and published them. In some sources the Laws of Eshnunna are mentioned as the Laws of Bilalama due to the belief that the Eshnunnian ruler probably was their originator, but Goetze maintained that tablet B was originated under the reign of Dadusha. The text of the prologue is broken at the point where the ruler who promulgated the laws was specified.
Albrecht Goetze has noticed the specific style of expression. The laws were composed in a mode that facilitated memorizing. A distinguished Israeli scientist and one of the foremost experts on this collection of laws, Reuven Yaron of the University of Jerusalem concerning this matter stated: “What matters to me – and might have mattered to those who fashioned them almost 4000 years ago – is the ease of remembering the text.”
The conditional sentence (“If A then B” – as it also is the case with the other Mesopotamian laws) is an attribute of this codification. In 23 paragraphs, it appears in the form šumma awilum – “If a man…” After the disposition, a precise sanction follows, e.g. LU42(A): “If a man bit and severed the nose of a man, one mina silver he shall weigh out.”
The Laws clearly show signs of social stratification, mainly focussing on two different classes: the muškenum and awilum. The audience of the Laws of Eshnunna is more extensive than in the case of the earlier cuneiform codifications: awilum – free men and women (mar awilim and marat awilim), muškenum, wife (aššatum), son (maru), slaves of both sexes – male (wardum) and female (amtum) – which are not only objects of law as in classical slavery, and delicts where the victims were slaves have been sanctioned, and other class designations as ubarum, apþarum, mudum that are not ascertained.
Reuven Yaron has divided the offences of the Laws of Eshnunna into five groups. The articles of the first group had to be collected from all over the Laws and the articles of the other four were roughly ordered one after the other:
1. Theft and related offences,
2. False distraint,
3. Sexual offences,
4. Bodily injuries,
5. Damages caused by a goring ox and comparable cases.
The majority of these offences were penalized with pecuniary fines (an amount of silver), but some serious offences such as burglary, murder, and sexual offences were penalized with death. It seems that the capital punishment was avoidable (in contrast to the Code of Hammurabi), because of the standard formulation: “It is a case of life … he shall die”.

This is an excerpt from the article Codes of Eshnunna from the Wikipedia free encyclopedia. A list of authors is available at Wikipedia.

….


King David

If Hammurabi was Solomon, as we think, then Hammurabi’s father, Sin-muballit (“The god Sin is the giver of life”, but Sin was also interchangeable with El, see below), must be King David. Unfortunately we know so little about Sin-muballit.
Only scanty information exists about [Hammurabi’s] immediate family: his father, Sin-muballit; his sister, Iltani; and his firstborn son and successor, Samsuiluna, are known by name. [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/545565/Sin-muballit].
A second synchronism (already referred to) between the First Dynasty of Babylon and Larsa is provided in a historical record from the reign of Hammurabi’s father, Sin-muballit. Sin-muballit attacked Isin and reduced it to submission in his year 16, which was year 22 of Damiq-ilishu …. . This event became the year name of Sin-muballit’s succeeding year. (“Orientalia”, series 2, no. 24, “Chronological Notes,” by H. Levy.)
In Sin-Muballit’s 13th year, he repelled the army of Ur, which had invaded the territory of Babylon. In the 17th year of his reign, Sin-Muballit took possession of the city of Isin and his power grew steadily over time as evidenced by his building and fortifying a number of fortresses.[3]

Sin-muballit must have an alter ego, or several.
We would like to propose that Sin-muballit was also the contemporaneous Naram Sin (“Beloved of Sin”) of Eshnunna, whom Marc van de Mieroop (A History of the Ancient Near East, C. 3000-323 BC (2003) Blackwell, Oxford. ISBN 0-631-22552-8) places right alongside a Dadusha (now there is a David name!) in his king list. I take this Dadusha of Eshnunna to be Naram Sin/David also. Naram Sin was, like David (meaning “Beloved”), a beloved of God. He was also a foe of Shamsi-Adad I (the biblical Hadadezer).
When Assyria was conquered by Naram-Sin, king of Eshnunna, Ila-Kabkaba’s son (or descendant), Shamshi-Adad, fled to Babylon.
When Naram-Sin of Eshnunna conquered Assyria, he also captured Ekallatum and Shamshi-Adad fled to Babylon. http://www.oocities.org/garyweb65/oldassy.html
We take the mighty Naram Sim of Eshnunna to be King David, the father of Solomon/Hammurabi, and the same as Sin-muballit and Dadusha, a man beloved of God.
Regarding the meaning of the “fully Akkadian” name of Hammurabi’s father, Sin-muballit [660], we find that it meant, “The god Sin is the giver of life”. Now, since the Aramaeans are known to have equated their god, El, with the name Sin, then this, king David’s Akkadian name, as we are proposing, could just as well have meant “God is the giver of life”. This would be a most appropriate appellation for king David, who would write, in Psalm 21:4: “[The king, David] asked you for life; you gave it to him – length of days forever and ever.”
 

Similarities between the legal system of Babylon and the Law of Moses

Similarities between the legal systems of Babylon and Judah

Benjamin Jones writes in Exodus: The Hammurabi Code

….

“The Covenant Code, the set of laws given by Yahweh to Moses, who conveyed them to the Israelites, bears a marked similarity to the law codes of Mesopotamia, including, in particular, the Code of Hammurabi. Many of the same moral and legal issues are addressed, and both the presentation of themes and the narrative style of the two documents bear a strong resemblance to one another”.

Jones then asks:

“This similarity begs the question: what was the inspiration for the Covenant Code? Do the similarities between the Law of Hammurabi and the Covenant Code reflect similarities between the legal systems of Babylon and Judah, with the two systems and records developing simultaneously? Or was the law in Exodus appropriated directly from the laws of Hammurabi, as a philosophical or scholarly exercise?”

AMAIC Comment:

According to our revision of history, Hammurabi was King Solomon ruling Babylon. Hence the famous Laws of Hammurabi reflect the Law of Moses (Exodus) due to Solomon’s and Israel’s reverence for the great Lawgiver, Moses.