Extracts from the work of Rabbi Philip Biberfeld
Source: Rabbi Philip Biberfeld, "ANCIENT JEWISH HISTORY," NY, 1948.
Divisions of Jewish History
First Period: The Primitive Times, from the Creation
to the time of Abraham.
Second Period: The Patriarchal Age, From Abraham
to the Death of Joseph.
Third Period: Becoming a Nation, From the Exodus to
the Conquest of Canaan.
Fourth Period: The First Commonwealth, From the
Conquest of Canaan to the Destruction of the First
Fifth Period: The Second Commonwealth, to the Destruction of the Second Temple.
Sixth Period: Dominance of the East. (70-1000 CE.).
Seventh Period: Dominance of the West.
Eighth Period: Dominance of Eastern Europe.
Ninth Period: Dominance of the New World and Palestine.
Greeks were Initially Illiterate!
References to the lliad and other epics as parallels for a long oral tradition* are beside the point. The Greeks were unable to write and had to rely on oral transmission for at least six centuries. In Israel, writing was in use from the earliest times and was surely used to preserve the most precious traditions.
Monotheism was the Original Belief of all Promitive Peoples!
Supported by an immense body of data, W. Schmidt, in his monumental work, Der Urspring der Gttesidee (1912-36), has demonstrated that all indications point to a primitive monotheism which gradually degenerated, thus disproving the simple evolutionary progression. He has
successfully disproved the far-spread evolutionary scheme of fetishism - polytheism - monotheism, or animism -polytheis - monotheism.
Biblical Critics Mostly German Anti-Semites!
Another assumption which has exerted a wide influence on the whole area of Jewish history has its origin in modem anti-Semitic prejudices. It is an interesting fact that the foundations of modem Biblical Criticism were laid by a 'brilliant succession of trained German Hebraists and Orientalists', all 'Aryan' Christians, despite repeated anti-Semitic statements to the contrary. One can, with reason, assert that people who, blinded by prejudice, cannot understand a living Jew, are disqualified from giving us a true picture of the Jewish past.
Josephus Quotes from Records of Ancient Tyre Concerning King Solomon
Josephus reproduced the records of Tyre which mention the relations between king Solomon and Hiram, king of Tyre, in conformity with the Biblical accounts.
Canaanites Fled to North Africa
The Byzantine historian, Procopius, secretary of Belisar, reports a Phoenician inscription which was engraved on two stone pillars in Numidia and read: 'We are, that fled before the robber Joshua son of Naue.' This inscription confirms the tradition that part of the population of Palestine fled to Africa when Joshua invaded the country.
The Fall of Samaria in the Bible and Assyrian Records compared to Biblical Ones
The fall of Samaria is recorded in the Book of Kings with the following words: 'And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea, son of Ela, king of Israel, that Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, came up against Samaria and besieged it. And they conquered it at the end of three years.' Only by the change of the regular use of vowels did the Masorah hint that not Shalmaneser but they, the Assyrians, took the city. Modern excavations brought the explanation of this, as it seemed, whimsical irregularity. Shalmaneser besieged Samaria for three years; but he died before the end of the siege, and the city was taken during the first months of his successor, Sargon.
After the conquest of Samaria, the Assyrians, as was their custom, transplanted the population. The details are reported in the Bible. The Israelites were settled ,in Halah and Habor, by the river Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.On the other hand, men from Babylon, Cutha, Ava, Hammath, and Sepharvaim were brought into the cities of Samaria to replace the transplanted Israelites. In complete conformity therewith are the records of king Sargon. "At the beginning of my reign in my first year Samaria I besieged, I captured 27,290 people from its midst I carried captive. 50 chariots I took there as an addition to my royal force. . . I returned and made more than formerly to dwell. People from lands which my hands had captured I settled in the midst. My officers over them as governors I appointed. Tributes and taxes I imposed upon them after the Assyrian manner."
The name of Sargon occurs only once in the Bible, and the critics asserted that it was a synonym for Shalmaneser. Recent discoveries, however, have proved that Sargon was the successor of Shalmaneser and one of the greatest Assyrian rulers. Until the discovery of his palace in 1845, the Biblical passage was the only text which had preserved his name.
The Bible report concluded with the assassination of Sennaherib. 'So Sennaherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the home of Nisroh his god, that Adrammeleh and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Ararat. And Esar-haddon his son reigned in his stead.' In contradiction to this report, the Babylonian Chronicle stated that on the 20th of Tebet, Sennaherib, king of Assyria, was killed by his son in a revolt. Thus, he was assassinated by only one of his sons. The same account was given by Berossus and Nabonid. With respect to this event of first rate significance for Babylonian-Assyrian history all indications seemed to be that the Babylonian records were more reliable than the Biblical ones. However, the fact is that the opposite is true. In a more recently discovered fragment of the prism of Esarhaddon, he reports himself that his brothers revolted and slew Sennaherib, their father, to gain the kingship. Before he could reach them in Nineveh, they fled from there to unknown parts. The Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonid, and Berossus were mistaken; only the Biblical account proved to be correct. It was confirmed in all the minor details by the inscription of Esarhaddon and proved to be more accurate regarding this event of Babylonian-Assyrian history than the BabyIonian sources themselves. This is a fact of utmost importance for the evaluation of even contemporary sources not in accord with Biblical tradition.