This post is a continuation of the topics covered in the first part of the blog and not in continuity with the past issues of social and political mold.
To understand what Christianity is necessary to analyze its roots, which lie in Judaism, and Judaism are the sources we have gathered in the Old Testament. So the problem will move first on this collection of texts: those who wrote them? Who translated them and how? Have changed over time?
The first thing to say about the Scriptures is that the originals were in ancient Hebrew, a language without vowels and spacing between words. Not being in possession of the originals, probably destroyed with the conquest of the Babylonians, and having no grammar, we will find it impossible to definitively verify the accuracy of the translation of texts, either in the Masoretic (Hebrew vocalized a) is in the version of the Septuagint (in greek). All that remains is to keep them an attitude of skepticism, even just thinking about the fact that writing without spaces and vowels are open to much ambiguity, although it may appeal to the context. For example, the phrase "man shot" becomes "lmspr" which, vocalized, can be misinterpreted "man part". The counter-argument that raising the worshipers of the Bible is that in fact every word is fully deductible from the context and there are no ambiguities. So let us take as an example the first words of Genesis, which tradition says that these are "bereshit Barà Elohim", meaning "in the beginning God created." It 'the only possible reading? Not at all. You can also read "ab Reshit Barà Elohim," and that "the Father of the beginning created the gods" (or "God", depending on how you want to interpret the plural) or "barosh itbarà Elohim," "God in the mind will create itself. " It seems obvious that each of these three readings offers a completely different interpretation key from the others. What's true we can say on the Old Testament is not about its content, but the fact that the interpretation depended on the dominant philosophical belief of Masoretes, who voiced the Old Testament in a long process ended at about the tenth century AD.
Even the authors and the authenticity of the writings there are great doubts. Almost everything that the tradition ascribes to Moses in reality is the work of Ezra and his priestly class, who were re-found Jewish identity on mythic roots after the liberation from slavery in Babylon, which ended by the intervention of the Persians in the sixth and the fifth century BC. The authenticity is proved by the fact that narrated story of the death of Moses, much later, until the period in which he lived Ezra. Also, other books, including those of the prophets, may not be autographed. The Book of Daniel, for example, has been repeatedly stated as inauthentic: Uriel Da Costa considers self-righteous work, Spinoza believes that while there have been additions of mold Sadducees (the current conservative opposed to the Pharisees). Unfortunately we can only provide evidence to show the falsity of the traditional beliefs, but nothing we can say with certainty about the real authors: in fact, nothing is known about the history of the texts considered sacred.
But what these books teach? Mainly two things:
1) the fear and respect of God, taught by threats of dire punishment and promises of great wealth;
2) some moral rules of common sense and good conduct relevant to the conservation of society.
These two points are in fact inextricably linked, since the laws were attributed directly to God, and their observance depended proportionally by the faith of each.
All this is immediately clear from the story of Moses. Rescued Jews from slavery in Egypt, is now faced another problem: give the people what political organization, and how to enforce it? The ambition of everyone to govern or a refusal to be governed by peers was the largest problem for the conservation and stability of the new company. Recall that Deuteronomy was written by Ezra, or else by priests close to him, whose purpose was to give a mythical and glorious foundation of the Jewish people, who come to terms even with God himself:
"The Lord has established with us in Horeb " (deuter. 5.2)
The intent of Scripture is not historiography, but to inspire wonder and devotion in those who heard or read. Here, then, that you begin to explain the laws to be followed by the Jewish people, beginning with the reverence for the divine authority:
"have no other gods in front of me. You shall not make an idol or any likeness of what is in heaven above, or what is the earth beneath, nor of what is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation for those who hate me " (deuter. 5:7-9).
In all likelihood, the Jewish people being divided into numerous tribes, each had to have his own patron god. In order to unify the people you must first unify the worship this God who was to be adored by everyone is the same one that freed the Jews from Egypt, as they say in Deuteronomy just above 5.6 ( "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from slavery" ), and there is no reason not to worship a God who has extremely powerful and very dear to his people, this speech was to exercise a strong degree of persuasion on the Volga, which puts more attention on the wonders and the threats which do not, for example, in phrases like " I am a jealous God, "just divine and very human attribute.
The other commandments moral precepts that are not targeted to the social and coated with the force of a divine decree, so as to be respected by all for fear of punishment and the hope of reward:
"Honor your father and your mother ... Thou shalt not kill. You shall not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not covet your neighbor's house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor " (deuter. 5, 17 -21).
The power that Moses exercised here is no different from the kings of antiquity. In order to maintain order and rule over the people was necessary to proclaim each demigod or voice of God on earth. Moses does the same thing: it gives a code of laws to His people and claims that have been dictated directly by God, manifested in the form of fire.
Now, identifying a jew in the time of Ezra, we may ask: but why Moses should speak for God? If God loves his people and his kingdom is that of Israel, why does not manifest itself openly to all the people? This idea is subversive, because it brings into question the legitimacy of the foundation of the Jewish theocratic state. The authority of Moses can not be questioned in any way. So then, later, it tells a true founding myth, a justification fantastic direct to the people that legitimates the established order:
"heard the voice through the darkness, while the mountain was on fire, your chiefs and your old men all came to me and said, Behold, the Lord our God has shown us his glory and his greatness and we have heard his voice from the fire, we have seen today that God can speak to the man and the man to stay alive. But now, why should we die? This great fire will consume us if we hear the voice of the Lord our God shall die. Because who among all mortals like us have heard the voice of the living God speaking from the fire and remained alive? Go near and listen to what the Lord our God will say, we refer to as the Lord our God and we have told you the hear and do it. The Lord heard your words as I spoke, and said: I heard the words he has addressed this people, what they said OK " (deuter. 5, 23-28).
The message is roughly this: the people have already heard the voice of God in the past, proving the truth of what was said by Moses. But it can no longer hear, or he will die, only Moses, or whoever he may be the interpreter, because only those who showed to hear the word of God will continue to do so without consequences. Even a few lines above, it reinforces the concept:
"The Lord spoke face to face on the mountain from the fire, I stood between the Lord and you, the word of the Lord, because you were afraid of the fire and not go up the mountain " (deuter. 5, 4-5).
The importance of this founding myth is enormous because it shows with the greatest evidence that the function of religion was purely political in origin, and therefore later revealed religions (Christianity and Islam) are not that different interpretations of a false doctrine but functional for the Jewish state. We must remember that the Jews of that time the prize was not divine heaven, but mundane and practical rewards, and the Kingdom of God is not synonymous with "Kingdom of Heaven", but "Kingdom of Israel."
I will try to convince the reader suggesting a parallel with another founding myth: that found in Plato's Republic.
The Republic is divided into ten books and his subject of research is justice. In this long discussion, however, Plato presents what for him would be the ideal model was essentially divided into three classes: the guardians (ie leaders) symbolized by gold, silver are the warriors, and workers, whose element is bronze. As for Moses, Plato also has the problem of how to accept and maintain such a state of affairs. The philosopher in the third book of the Republic proposes a "genuine lie" to inculcate in the people, with the order to maintain the social division:
"How did we then to believe a lie genuine ... the rulers themselves, or the rest of the city?
[...]
first try to persuade the rulers themselves and the soldiers, then the rest of the city, had the impression that they receive all the spiritual and physical education imparted to us as it happened in a dream around them, but in reality at that time were molded and educated in the bosom of the earth, they, their weapons and the rest of their equipment already ready-made and when they were fully formed the earth, which was their mother, took them to light. To this must now provide for the land they live in and defend it as their mother and nurse, if someone moves against it, and consider other citizens as brothers and sisters were also born from the earth. " "Not without reason," he said, "before you were ashamed to utter this lie." "And I had good reason," I replied. "But listen to the rest of the myth. You people are all brothers, we tell them the story continues, but the gods, plasma, at the time of birth has imbued gold in as many of you are likely to govern, and therefore they have the highest quality, has instilled in the auxiliary of 'silver, farmers and other artisans in iron and bronze. Since you are all in the same race, you can usually produce children like you, but in some cases can be born offspring from gold and silver from silver offspring of gold, and so on to a metal ' more. Rulers, then the deity imposes, as the first and most important commandment, not to guard anybody and do not monitor as closely as their children, to find out which metal has been mixed in their souls, and if their offspring born of mixed bronze or iron, must dismiss without mercy among the artisans or farmers, giving it the rank that compete with its nature. If, instead they give birth to a child with a vein of gold or silver, will reward him by lifting the rank of guardian or helper, because according to an oracle the city will be ruined when the guard a guard of iron or bronze ... " (Plato, Republic III, 414b-415c).
Basically you need to Plato, the purpose of social conservatives, who tell a lie "noble", which gives a divine origin to the social division of the state, so that everyone accepts their role and is not driven by ambition personal. It 'pretty obvious the analogy with the above-cited passage from Deuteronomy: the fear of death risk of authorizing a certain social class (before Moses and the Levites, then, at the beginning, led by Aaron) to legislate, and ambitions each should be abandoned in the beginning, as God commands. Among other things, there is a strong analogy between the class of Levites and the Guardians of Plato, both were released from work, could not own land but were retained by the people and had to deal with the law.
The big difference between the Platonic myth and that the Decalogue is that the former is admittedly false, the second is presented as true by various statements, but this is only due to the fact that the lie tied to the myth of the Decalogue is operational and has actually worked (maybe even better than expected), while Plato is just a connection that must be improved:
"Know, then some way to convince them of that myth?" To convince them, "he said," Absolutely not, if anything, to convince their children and descendants and posterity in general " (Plato, Republic III, 415c).
That is to say, maybe the first that will hear will not believe you, but if you teach to their children and to their children's children, will certainly a truth as indisputable (the spread and persistence of a certain religion in a given area follows this principle).
I think I have shown, with the help of the Republic of Plato, that the Jewish religion is based on a lie in the time required for the creation and preservation state, and in fact, extending this principle, the whole Jewish religion is a lie built for social and political consequence of Christianity and Islam are religions as false as the Jewish, because their roots lie in this. In addition, given the scriptures unambiguously translatable can not be considered "sacred" a translation of them, also taking into account that have been modified over time in several places and the authors are not, in many cases, those assigned by tradition.
By virtue of what has been concluded so far, the Bible is devoid of all authority and its only value lies in what concerns the history and mythology.
0 comments:
Post a Comment