The Egyptian book of life

I picked up a book yesterday that I thought was interesting but didn't finish it because I immediately realized that there were problems with it. The title sounded good "The Egyptian book of life". I look at the author's credentials and am a little leary but the fact that she has not had any official degrees in egyptology or ancient religions can be deceiving. So giving her the benefit of the doubt, I open the book, "The ancient Egyptians' concept of neteroo was similar to our own in that they, too, recognized primordial forces that govern all matter and can be unified as One." That is quite a statement on her part- she only has a few sketchy endnotes citing sources. Hmmm...

But she goes on... In the next paragraph, the author claims that ancient egyptians had stories the correlated to what scientists have since found evidence of: that life first evolved from primordial sludge. And how the Egyptians came to this scientific find? Well, they just knew, I guess. Or they had some innate knowledge that they carried within them... who knows?

And that was when I closed the book.

It is easy to spot an imposter. Her "credentials" were related to meditation and mantras-- spiritual exercises not religious studies. Never mind that her postulations have no basis in any archeological findings. She has one short paraphrased segment which she attributes to Zahi Hawass, (a story he tells of finding a tomb) Yet he is one of the foremost Egyptologists of our time! Ignoring him as a source for some of her more historic claims, she leaps to conclusions that are highly suspect because they have more to do with the "wisdom" she claims to dispense than it does with anything we really know.

Folks! Beware those that say what you want to hear in order to make money. They are like fortune tellers- they know how to say what people want to hear with the hopes that pocket books will also open. (Some time groovygrrl should tell us about her experience as a fortune teller. It's very entertaining!)

Why this is important

At the risk of sounding redundant, it is important to understand the inaccuracies of the holy books because there are too many people who live their lives according to said scripture in a public and political way. An obvious example (although I say obvious and yet it seems to be oddly obscure) would be the Jews claim to Israel. If the old testament is mytholgical then jews have no innate right to the land which they are currently fighting for. And it was wrong for the western powers to give them the land in the first place, let alone defend their right to take more property. So religious belief is not just personal and private. It affects public policy all over the world. And to ignore this is to condone the human rights violations that occur all over the world. And anything with that kind of influence on society has to be scrutinized closely.

So here is what we know

You can either read the whole of Brueggeman's "Old Testament Theology" 777 pages(the other O.T. books I waded through won't be helpful) alongside Silberman and Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" 400 pages and the somewhat dry and hard to explain 287 pages of "The early history of god" by Mark Smith or I can give you a Reader's Digest condensed, concise, and REALLY brief version:

The bible began to be documented sometime in 300 b.c.e. Verbal traditions surrounding the Davidic kingdom and the divided kingdoms probably began around 700 b.c.e. well after most of the events that supposedly took place in the bible even occurred. Some will argue that the oral tradition was a legitimate way of communicating real events, but historically throughout the world, oral tradition was simply a way of entertaining and explaining events in a chaotic world. Historical information was left to the kings and their courts-- after all, what did a small group of farmers care about the real world of politics? They were more interested in understanding why their crops would get destroyed in one night by locusts or why it didn't rain enough to keep the water levels at life supporting levels. In other words, they were more interested in life and death stuff, not politics (sound familiar?). And just like every other third world community, they explained these events via mythology about gods or god.

The first actual king that was mentioned in the bible that was also mentioned in public records (and they were keeping records fairly early on in Egypt and Assyria) was Omri, the father of the "evil" King Ahab. In reality, the only people who really thought Ahab was evil were the hill people that lived in the rural areas of southern Israel-- and it was with the hope of delegitimizing this "evil" king that an alternate reality was created --. A history was developed that explained why the little group that lived in the southern regions had suffered so much but also gave them a heritage that revealed their right to the land and god's favor. And they began their stories the way ALL ancient religions began them, from the beginning.

So, we start with how people came to be. *Poof* god made them out of dust with strands of some of the other regional ancient stories about creation still clinging to it's tail. Then the flood-- well, that had it's beginning in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's a great story and would have entertained the people for many happy hours. Both stories originated much earlier and were tailored to fit the political aims of the "leaders" of the ragtag group down south. Abraham-- well, once again, if you want to explain how your particular group of people came to own a piece of land and why the conquering kingdoms that sweep in and out demanding tribute are evil and wrong, you develop a story whereby god gave you the land and the encroachers are enemies of your god. It is absolutely irrelevant that there never was an actual man named Abraham and it is meaningless that his sons never made a trek to Egypt, were enslaved and then eventually escaped the Pharoah's grasp, making a forty year trek through the desert. The point is that you have a mythology that unites your little people group to a common cause. And part of that cause explains the hows and whys of your claim to this little piece of property along the Mediterranean.

(If you ever want to get a flavor for story telling in the middle east, watch Michael Wood's documentary "In the footsteps of Alexander the Great." (1997) You get a real sense of the drama and showmanship that accompanies these ancestors of the middle eastern art of story- even today.)

The bible was shaped for a purpose and it wasn't with the intention of beginning a grand deception, it was simply a common custom of the ancient world. It is worthwhile understanding the intention of it's authors.

~Pictured: Shalmaneser III's (859-824 BC) Kurkh Monolith names King Ahab. Picture taken from Wikipedia.

Which truth is truth

Several comments I read this morning on gocomics.com commented on the bible. One in particular made the comment that christians cherry pick just what they want to believe is true in the bible or not. I think this is well worth noting as I continue down my path.

Fundamentalists believe that the "ten commandments" should be posted and followed as though they were the most profound writings of humankind's history. They don't want evolution taught because it contradicts the creationist stories. They believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, had a short-lived ministry on earth, died and rose again so that each individual who believe in him can go to heaven after they die. Now if you said, "but the Jewish people were never in Egypt and never escaped to the desert and Moses was probably not even a real person" why doesn't that present a problem for the ten commandments? And if you point out that the earth is not 6000 years old and people did not appear on this planet looking like they do now-- well, you get the point. And Jesus is supposedly god's son but apparently only some of what he says is meaningful. The parts that make people feel good about the potential to go to heaven.

You can't cherry pick it. It is either god's word or it's not. And if it is, then there are questions that need to be answered. And if it is not, then what is the point of it? What morality can be derived from it?

Jesus had some interesting things to say about money and the poor--- but not even bible thumpers take those words seriously. And frankly Jesus might have been radical in a Roman world, but he's less radical than the hippies of the 70s. And if you really want to read radical stuff, then read some Karl Marx. Or just dip your toes in some Naomi Klein or Susan Jacoby! Now talk about radical!