I think its a lot more complicated than that. For one Jesus was still Jewish. And was one person. To completely shift an agenda like that at the start of the new testament sounds like a massive shift.
You think what is a lot more complicated than what ? Admittedly I was summarizing - we could look at over 15 lectures given by Israel's top historian / archaeologist ( who is Jewish . by the way ... see post 19 ; Albright Institute lectures ) and at various Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources .
And I dont see what my claim of ' early Jewish monarchy claimers ' has to do with Jesus being Jewish ?
Again , I was talking about around 500 years
before Jesus was supposed to exist .
I clearly stated a different dynamic was behind the NT story ; '' NT is a collection of ancient, 1st-century Greco-Roman literature authored by humans , influenced by both Second Temple Judaism ( see above ) and Greco-Roman literature, with anonymous authors (not the apostles ), creating Jesus as the main character to hold the story plot together and to present the authors ethical and philosophical arguments about justice, mercy and subversion ( due to Roman rule ). '' post 3.
Change doesn't happen that fast. Or if does its not that sustainable.
What change ? The change to Jewish monotheism with Yahweh as the only one being allowed to be worshiped at the Jerusalem Temple , or the change to Christian religion . Both would not have been that fast - perhaps the change to 'Judaism ' was faster than the adoption of Christianity , as Josiah's mob took over and made it law ... changing law can change things fast - by force. And regarding this , of course that change was sustainable .... it holds sway even today ! and is the base of all the major world 'Abrahamic Religions' that came after it .
The Essenes and probably other religious movements probably influenced Christianity with what it is today. The Essnes believed in purifying with water which kind of sounds similar to bapitisms. Heaven and hell weren't the same they are today. Those also were might have been influenced by Norse mythology who has a place for the dead as he'l and the Valhalla. But Vahalla wasn't heaven it was just a place for warriors to train for the end times.
The common influences are due to connections made long ago with Indo-European expansions and influences , even going back to 'Proto-Indo- Europeans . It mainly came through the Greeks into Judaism . Judaism started around 500 bc and was developed with a strong Greek influence . You mention David , people in Judah, at that supposed time would not have heard of the Greeks , yet after Egypt had dealings with them we find 'Greek ' ( well, Mycenaeans , at least ) mercenaries in Canaan .... Goliath was one , we know that from the Biblical description - meaning, the guy that made up the story was describing how people looked during his time .
He'l was just for the rest of the dead who would rest. And Jesus also didn't mention a hell known as today he mentioned those who didn't go wouldn't be tormented by demons as today but just not existing. Or sheol was mentioned but its kind of also just a place? Maybe it was viewed that you would just be sad there?
Yes, the Jews had variant ideas on the afterlife that developed over time Sheol is distinctively Geek ( from a certain period ) . Sheol , to the Jews , was a type of neutral 'underground/ post death ' place ... god or bad were not separated , darkness , and silence .... a 'shadowy existence ' .
It is very close to the Greek concept , even Homer was the first to describe it so ( Odyssey ) and when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (the Septuagint), the translators almost always used the Greek word
Hades to represent Sheol.
Other influences came in from Zoroastrianism with the Exiles being returned ; the concept of good go to heaven, bad to hell and a dualism inherent in divinity ( Jews were not going to adopt that bit ! ). Later development of Greek thought came up with resurrection ideas and immortal souls , local nasty laws and punishments were adopted to make hell more 'interesting ' and it all evolved into the multiple ideas about it in Christianity today .
Yes and I know there is a lot more to this as well
Its also kind of Greek in origin. From what I'm reading ancient Greek mythology thought of soul as immortal whereas some Jewish people did not.
Both developed over time and changed over time and one influenced the other .
Also I don't think the old testament's main character wouldn't be Jesus or Solomon. I think it would be David. I looked it up apparently he's mentioned 1100s times in the bible. He was the one who I think did the uniting.
I agree the OT's main character was not Jesus
Jews think it is Moses . For good reasons .
There might have been some guy called David that trounced someone from another
tribe ( note ; not 'nation' ).. who was in Mycenaean Armour . But the whole Solomon thing and united Empire and the supposed greatness of it , and the claims of ancient monotheism , and and and are clearly fabricated , it didnt exist, Josiah made it up .... just after his scribes 'found ' the Torah ( that no one knew about previously ) while digging around in the ruins of the old temple, while getting ready to build a new one . This is one of the main reasons there are so many discrepancies in the Bible .
For it to fully be a con job then that would require someone to live a while with it.
I dont understand what this means .
It can be interpreted by people to throw their own messages. Or deliberately mistranslated. The original text is made in dead langauges and over thousands of years human error can lead to different messages.
Welcome to the world of religion and scripture !
I think the fact it lasted this long is really cool despite some historical inaccuracies.
YES ! I am still investigating why and how it took off like it did after Josiah . The Omrides seem to have been significant . Its remarkable the influence it has , it used to be THE story of ancient history up to the late 1800s ! , and the concept of the decidedly strange and politically localized Jehovah , as being a similar underpinning and foundation for the modern concepts of God in Abrahamic religions ... to this day , is , for many, rather astounding - but an interesting observation about people and where they are at .
Don't get me wrong though, I am not knocking it as valid scripture though , as a Rabbi (who supports my views here ) said ; '' So what if it's a made up story ? It's a great story and has held the Jewish people and religion together for centuries and allowed us to survive extermination and persecution ... and we are still here today .'' ... can't argue with that one !
Like the fact slavery wasn't really Egypt for Moses but Egyptians did colonize that area so that might be what its referring too but it still happened so long ago that its still up for debate until more archeology comes up.
The Egyptian more than 'colonized' it * That is one possibility , or the remembered Hyksos expulsion from Egypt , or even the regular to and fro , seasonal, or drought cycles , people flow between both areas ; these have been attested by archaeology .
*
I can't see any giant rich powerful Empire of Solomon / Israel anywhere . Note the extent of Egypt .
When I first heard about the bible when I was a kid I thought it was weird that all the names were names still used today. I thought the names would probably be different than they were today because over thousands of years names can change.
Yes, that is more Biblical influence on us . Still, right now, you can go google or AI that period of history and your answers will be Biblically influenced
BUT
if you search again and stipulate ; 'historical and not Biblical' you will get a very different set of answers .
Its lasted so long that it can't just be one thing. Like sure some people can use it for social control but others can use as a philosophy of giving to others. Its complicated and can't be that simple especially since it lasted for thousands of years. Thats a really long time and stuff changes over that time.
Now it seems you are getting into the 'why is the Bible so popular and influential ' ... without getting into a huge analysis , I addressed one simple but major (and perhaps unconscious ) reason for that in post 3 .
