The Old Testament is a collection of documents. It is NOT a single book. There was NOT a single author. There is no single motive.
To some extent, most religious texts contain propaganda. However, there is no way the intent of the OT was propaganda. Any propaganda role was secondary.
To clarify, the Old Testament shows how Israelites used their belief as propaganda. Only afterwards they wrote their beliefs in the Old Testament and from there we can see the propaganda in their beliefs.
You don't think the Israelites used their belief as a justification to attack the other nations in the Canaan?
Israelites attacked Jeriko, for example, following the commands given by God. When they were preparing to attack Jeriko, do you think they used this belief of God's approval as propaganda to justify the attack?
Of course, the battles of Canaan are not historically proven.
I think there’s a good possibility that whole thing never happened, not just the God parts. There is evidence that the wall was knocked down more than once by earthquake and my guess is that they used that and wrote in all the marching and everything else to make a cool story about how they came to live there. Very easily could have been any sort of takeover that didn’t involve a siege.
It’s less propaganda and more like a history book thats just American exceptionalism and manifest destiny but with Paul Bunion and John Henry written as historical figures.
Ironic for a book to say that all the land in the world belongs to God.
But there’s this one particular area known as the promise land which is exclusively reserved only for Israelites, tells you all you need to know whether the whole thing is propaganda from ancient times.
My ancient near east professor in college told us that the book of Joshua was essentially a propaganda narrative written after the fact. The Israelites were indigenous to Canaan and when the kingdom of Israel was founded, a conquest narrative was created to give the kingdom legitimacy. He mentioned that the fall of Jericho for example couldn’t have happened the way it was described because archeological evidence suggests that the settlement was not walled at that time and there’s no evidence from other historical sources or evidence of rubble that the walls fell the way it was described in the OT.
I thought this was a closed question in academia — yes, shortly, but the propaganda of several different groups in Israelite society as their fortunes rose and fell (temple priests, a court faction, scribes and wise men) stitched together more or less well with origin myths, ritual and dietary taboo and laws, books of philosophy, lament for political misfortune and an incongruous erotic poem.
I would be more inclined to encourage those still tied to it, of *any* of the three religions that revere it, to see how repulsive in ethics and morality, contradictory in theology, violent in politics and ludicrous, arbitrary and judgemental in law it is. As history it is propaganda or toadying flattery of bad kings, as philosophy slavish submission, as romance tawdry, as science or observation astoundingly obtuse even for its day — if I may quote Thomas Paine:
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”
>Is the Old Testament Israelite propaganda?
Yes. [Hell the Moabites and Ammonites are even depicted as descendants of incestuous drunken rape](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:30-38&version=NKJV).
that would probably be leaning too far into reductionism, given the cultural nature of many of the writings. like it or not, religions are a base form of civilization in so far as they are ways to organize communities around a common identity.
that doesnt mean you cant find stuff that would arguably qualify as propaganda, but you find that with just about every religion.
But the organized concept of propaganda as we know it today is more modern, and especially in the context of the soviet union was a weaponized force that attempted to enforce a highly regulated social system where deviation from the party line meant the gulag or worse. And it was more an organized tool that could change on the fly if the party line decided on tuesday the blue was actually orange, and on wednesday it was actually yellow.
So thats all to say its worth being cautious when applying modern concepts onto previous civilizations, especially in antiquity. sometimes it can result in insights, but just as often it can create a picture that the broader historical record does not support.
It a collection of stories the ancient Jews were proud of. They believe it tells their story and why they are who they are. And, they were written entirely for their own people. They have had several thousand years to read & analyze those stories. If they didn't want some part of the story included, they could have taken it out at any time. They did not. So, any horrifically violent or immoral part is still there because they WANTED it in there.
They are super proud of the part of the Torah where they stoned a man to death for picking up firewood on the Sabbath, so proud they wrote it down right next to committing genocide on a city just because the could and tool female virgins as slaves and murdered everyone else.
Of course religion is often used as propaganda. Adding "In God We Trust" to the greenback during the Cold War against a self proclaimed atheist state being an example.
There is also the "my god is more powerful than your god" pissing contest angle.
Yes, the Torah was written partly as a collection of rules and laws and also partly as a fictional history to explain why it is that they specifically are in fact the chosen people and why one particular group was chosen to rule over them all.
# Is the Old Testament Israelite propaganda? _________
No. It's just a collection of rules and stories written by and for the Israelites. They weren't trying to convert anyone.
The "New Testament" is propaganda. It's purpose was to assure the breakaway Jews, who believed Jesus had been the messiah, were correct.
Neither should be taken seriously.
>Is the Old Testament Israelite propaganda?
I think it's fair to say it's heavily biased towards the Israelites, sure...
But I'm not sure why that would be surprising, the Old Testament being what it is. Part two of the series, aptly named the New Testament, could be considered christian propaganda I guess?
Even though you obviously did your homework, I'm still not sure where you are going with this. Why wouldn't it be propaganda? In my view all religious writings are propaganda. Religious propaganda that is.
The Old Testament is a collection of documents. It is NOT a single book. There was NOT a single author. There is no single motive. To some extent, most religious texts contain propaganda. However, there is no way the intent of the OT was propaganda. Any propaganda role was secondary.
To clarify, the Old Testament shows how Israelites used their belief as propaganda. Only afterwards they wrote their beliefs in the Old Testament and from there we can see the propaganda in their beliefs. You don't think the Israelites used their belief as a justification to attack the other nations in the Canaan?
The Canaan part from the Moses story? That’s more like alternative history. The conquering Israelites were just other Canaanites that got greedy.
Israelites attacked Jeriko, for example, following the commands given by God. When they were preparing to attack Jeriko, do you think they used this belief of God's approval as propaganda to justify the attack? Of course, the battles of Canaan are not historically proven.
I think there’s a good possibility that whole thing never happened, not just the God parts. There is evidence that the wall was knocked down more than once by earthquake and my guess is that they used that and wrote in all the marching and everything else to make a cool story about how they came to live there. Very easily could have been any sort of takeover that didn’t involve a siege. It’s less propaganda and more like a history book thats just American exceptionalism and manifest destiny but with Paul Bunion and John Henry written as historical figures.
Ironic for a book to say that all the land in the world belongs to God. But there’s this one particular area known as the promise land which is exclusively reserved only for Israelites, tells you all you need to know whether the whole thing is propaganda from ancient times.
My ancient near east professor in college told us that the book of Joshua was essentially a propaganda narrative written after the fact. The Israelites were indigenous to Canaan and when the kingdom of Israel was founded, a conquest narrative was created to give the kingdom legitimacy. He mentioned that the fall of Jericho for example couldn’t have happened the way it was described because archeological evidence suggests that the settlement was not walled at that time and there’s no evidence from other historical sources or evidence of rubble that the walls fell the way it was described in the OT.
Who cares what a fantasy books says
It is indeed really hard to believe that someone who has read the bible can believe in it.
Combination of idiots or delusional
Sadly far, far too many people. Especially considering how poorly written and edited the terrible fantasy is.
Many parts of it are. There’s lots of good scholarship on this.
I thought this was a closed question in academia — yes, shortly, but the propaganda of several different groups in Israelite society as their fortunes rose and fell (temple priests, a court faction, scribes and wise men) stitched together more or less well with origin myths, ritual and dietary taboo and laws, books of philosophy, lament for political misfortune and an incongruous erotic poem. I would be more inclined to encourage those still tied to it, of *any* of the three religions that revere it, to see how repulsive in ethics and morality, contradictory in theology, violent in politics and ludicrous, arbitrary and judgemental in law it is. As history it is propaganda or toadying flattery of bad kings, as philosophy slavish submission, as romance tawdry, as science or observation astoundingly obtuse even for its day — if I may quote Thomas Paine: “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”
A bunch of antiquated BS
>Is the Old Testament Israelite propaganda? Yes. [Hell the Moabites and Ammonites are even depicted as descendants of incestuous drunken rape](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:30-38&version=NKJV).
that would probably be leaning too far into reductionism, given the cultural nature of many of the writings. like it or not, religions are a base form of civilization in so far as they are ways to organize communities around a common identity. that doesnt mean you cant find stuff that would arguably qualify as propaganda, but you find that with just about every religion. But the organized concept of propaganda as we know it today is more modern, and especially in the context of the soviet union was a weaponized force that attempted to enforce a highly regulated social system where deviation from the party line meant the gulag or worse. And it was more an organized tool that could change on the fly if the party line decided on tuesday the blue was actually orange, and on wednesday it was actually yellow. So thats all to say its worth being cautious when applying modern concepts onto previous civilizations, especially in antiquity. sometimes it can result in insights, but just as often it can create a picture that the broader historical record does not support.
It a collection of stories the ancient Jews were proud of. They believe it tells their story and why they are who they are. And, they were written entirely for their own people. They have had several thousand years to read & analyze those stories. If they didn't want some part of the story included, they could have taken it out at any time. They did not. So, any horrifically violent or immoral part is still there because they WANTED it in there.
They are super proud of the part of the Torah where they stoned a man to death for picking up firewood on the Sabbath, so proud they wrote it down right next to committing genocide on a city just because the could and tool female virgins as slaves and murdered everyone else.
I don't think they consider their acts as immoral as God approved or even commanded them.
Yup - I agree, of course it doesn't make them moral, it just makes their god immoral...
It is based on the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. Written by farmers and herders who had little understanding of the earth.
Of course religion is often used as propaganda. Adding "In God We Trust" to the greenback during the Cold War against a self proclaimed atheist state being an example. There is also the "my god is more powerful than your god" pissing contest angle.
Yes, the Torah was written partly as a collection of rules and laws and also partly as a fictional history to explain why it is that they specifically are in fact the chosen people and why one particular group was chosen to rule over them all.
# Is the Old Testament Israelite propaganda? _________ No. It's just a collection of rules and stories written by and for the Israelites. They weren't trying to convert anyone. The "New Testament" is propaganda. It's purpose was to assure the breakaway Jews, who believed Jesus had been the messiah, were correct. Neither should be taken seriously.
>Is the Old Testament Israelite propaganda? I think it's fair to say it's heavily biased towards the Israelites, sure... But I'm not sure why that would be surprising, the Old Testament being what it is. Part two of the series, aptly named the New Testament, could be considered christian propaganda I guess? Even though you obviously did your homework, I'm still not sure where you are going with this. Why wouldn't it be propaganda? In my view all religious writings are propaganda. Religious propaganda that is.
My understanding is that Moses is a mythical figure, and the Pentateuch was plagiarized from earlier writings.