It has been a few years since I wrote The real history of Israel. In that time I have learned a few things. As with most of the history and archeology related to the Bible, I have unlearned a few more things.

I wrote about Ezra because I had read of archaeological discoveries of jewish structures in Iraq at the right time for Ezra. I have since looked into and no such thing exists.

There have been some finds which can be construed to be evidence of Judaism but they are dated centuries after the biblical time of Ezra. The entire extent of the connection to Judaism is what appears to be a recessed area in a wall. And as the wall exists only as a foundation it is even more tenuous identification.

The great leap of belief of faith by the believers is that the recessed area is related to a place to keep Torah scrolls in synagogues. Even if it is connected to synagogue construction style it does not support any Babylonian captivity. It is one more bit of wishful thinking.

With all of that there is no basis for connecting this one building with a synagogue or even a place of worship of any sort. Therefore there is no basis for trying to establish the form of worship there. It is not connected in time.

The next thing I learned was that after Alexander conquered the region he had is conquests inventoried. The inventory survives today. This occurred after Ezra. There is no mention of anything, land, people or customs, which can be construed in any manner as evidence of the practice of Judaism or the existence of a Jewish people or of a Judea.

That moved the creation of the OT and this people to after Alexander's conquest as there is no suggestion of their existence any place prior to that. In that case I was left with the absolute requirement for contemporary corroboration of records. For a jewish people that first appears close enough after the Maccabees to credit them with the creation of the people of Judea.

The suggestion that an inventory happened to miss a people is not reasonable at the inventory was the basis for assessing tribute and taxes. If they existed at all they could not have been a separate taxable entity without political independence. Yet the Old Testament has them returned to their former glory at that time. It would be like conducting an extensive tour of Europe and not noticing Germany.

Which leaves us with the Maccabees as the creators of the Old Testament and the legend of an ancient people. With this we invoke another rule in assessing ancient texts. The oldest known version or the oldest contemporary reference to an ancient version is the original version. In applying this rule the original version of the Old Testament is written in Greek. It is known as the Septuagint. By the rules that Greek version is the original version. True believers always want special rules to apply to the Old Testament.

Centuries later Josephus wrote that it was translated into Greek from the original Hebrew. He gives no indication of how he might have known that. He is the first person to say it.

There are no examples of ancient Hebrew in existence. There is something the believers in the Old Testament prefer to call paleo-hebrew but it is indistinguishable from Phoenician. Phoenician has several variations as it became common from Greece and Macedonia around the Med through Palestine. It would be remarkable if it was not used in the region.

It is noteworthy that Judah Maccabee likely named his country after himself. Before his time there are no corroborating mentions of Judea or Israel or bible events. After his time corroborating mentions of Judea start to appear in the writings of other people. The mentions go from none, zero, nada to as many as expected right at his time.

The more recent the invention of the Old Testament is placed the less credible the idea appears to people. In fact the idea of creating an entire people and history appears incredible. Less than two centuries ago the Book of Mormon was discovered and the Latter Day Saints came into existence. It has happened recently and it is modestly successful as religions go. So there is nothing inherently incredible about it.

Why was it done? If we deal only with physical evidence and admit there is none prior to Maccabee, who was he? Since he was not a revolutionary he was a conqueror, likely Bedouin. The Septuagint creates and ancient claim to the land he conquered.

The question of writing itself

What should raise the most suspicions when assuming the OT consists of ancient records is the expense of writing in ancient times. Not just writing materials but also employing people who know how to read and write. In ancient times reading and writing were the domain of the rich because only they could afford it. In fact it was only the kings and priests who did more than who kept and preserved records.

Preservation is one of the critical items. When something is inscribed in stone it can last for millenia. There are scarce few stone inscriptions in the region and none have any Old Testament content. As it was not preserved in stone the choices are parchment and papyrus. Those deteriorate and have to be recopied every few decades. The preservation is therefore expensive.

Someone with the wealth of a king had to have done the preservation. But there is no indication of any such preservation effort. The OT itself is silent upon any preservation efforts. It is without even an admonition to preserve what has been written. In fact mention of written material (scripture) is rare and in no case is the scripture identified by subject or content.

So the kings did the preservation, right? Half the books are condemnations of the kings. Is it credible a king would preserve the condemnations of himself and his ancestors?

The lack of indication of any preservation is in itself worth considering. If there is anything the region has in spades it is stone. As there is nothing from the OT carved in stone clearly nothing in it was thought important enough to preserve in the best way possible.

Just north of the region documents were created on clay tablets which is infinitely cheaper than stone, parchment and even papyrus, dirt cheap you might say. The method of writing takes a pointed stick, not a chisel, not a pen and ink. Pointed sticks are a cheap as dirt. Not one clay tablet found in the entire region.

This source, Jewish Mythology, contains much more material than I have mentioned. I have a problem with the Zoroastrian influence part. I do not see the Zoroastrians would do a major revision of their religion instead of passing on the real thing.