OT development from the evidence
Matt Giwer
In rejecting the ides of divine involvement in the creation of the bible
stories, particularly the OT, the material can be fit into the spectrum of
ancient literature. Fit into this spectrum we cannot have the use of a
literary style before the invention of that style. A style that appears
before its time is an anachronism. The dating must be wrong. The date must
be changed to after the form appears in history.
The most compelling example is the literary style we call history. We have
several books of the bible which are considered the historical works because
they use that style. We also know when the style of writing history was
invented down to a couple decades. The historical books cannot be dated
prior to the invention of the style.
The style is conceded to have been invented by Herodotus in the mid 5th c.
BC within a decade or so of 450 BC. He traveled in the lands east of Greece
which were part of the Persian empire seeking trading opportunities. His
writings are also noteworthy in that while traveling he was in the land
called Palestine by the local people. They are also noteworthy they make no
mention of the "Jews" or any people who could have been them.
After his books became popular other writers began books about history but
incorporating their own idea of what such a book should include. Herodotus
started it and the idea evolved afterwards.
As there is no significant question as to the dating of the writings of
Herodotus, ca. mid 5th c. BC, this presents a problem with dating the Old
Testament material. Believers date the Old Testament material no younger
than the 6th c. BC and many put some of the material centuries older.
The problem is obvious. If we take the datings chosen by the believers
Herodotus, the inventor of history, did not invent it. Rather unknown person
or persons were the original inventors of writing history. Not only that we
find in the historical books material with the type of content used by
historians who came after Herodotus.
This would not present much of an issue if the origin of the Old Testament
material were Mesopotamia, Egypt or Persia. These lands had traditions of
writing and the invention of literary forms going back thousands of years
prior to even the earliest Old Testament creation date which attributes the
first five books to the mythical Moses.
Believers would attribute the creation of this material to people in the
hill country of Palestine. There is no known intellectual or literary
tradition of any kind in this region down to modern times. Believers require
divine intervention to explain these literary accomplishments because they
appear centuries ahead of their time.
The proper skeptic to the contrary observes the known invention of these
literary techniques and dates the creation of the OT material containing
them after they were invented elsewhere. Thus up front we have the earliest
creation of the historical books of the Old Testament after Herodotus moving
them to no earlier than the mid 5th c. BC.
But this requires his writings in Greek to have had immediate circulation
among the intellectuals in the hill region of Palestine. As above there is
no evidence of any intellectual tradition found in the region down to modern
times. Because of the absence of such traditions it is not reasonable to
suggest they took his idea and incorporated their own ideas of what a
history should contain. Thus we have to conclude they were written after
later Greek historians.
It is not reasonable to assume instant adoption of the ideas of a Greek
culture. Nor is there any evidence of Greek literature or culture in the
region until after Alexander who conquered the region in the late 4th c. BC.
Thus the creation of the historical books can be no earlier than the 3rd c.
BC. Those who want them composed earlier and in bibleland require divine
intervention in their creation.
One possibility is these stories could have been created by those educated
in Greek culture earlier than the 3rd c. but they would not have been the
native people of bibleland unless we can show a major Greek influence in the
region prior to that. There is no evidence of such an influence. In fact we
find to the contrary.
When we examine the influence of Greek culture in this region and the
reaction of the native population to it to see when it could have been
created to eliminate this possibility. We find the reaction of the people of
bibleland to Greek culture, i.e. what we consider the precursor of our
civilization, to have been uniformly negative. This is adequately documented
in the first three books of Maccabe. We find the influence of Greek
civilization in Egypt and Syria but only in the coastal cities of Palestine.
We find the hill country of Palestine, Maccabean territory to be as
resistant to civilization as the Taliban of today.
There is another problem. The most common language of the Old Testament
which goes by the misnomer of Hebrew. The only evidence Hebrew is other than
an invented liturgical language is found in a handful of non-scriptural
documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. That is slim in comparison to
everything else written in Phoenician and Aramaic save for documents dealing
with the ruling Greeks and later Romans.<sup>1</sup>
Thus we have the "Hebrew" Old Testament in a language which was never in
common use. We also have the Septuagint in Greek which apparently appeared
in Alexandria which has none of the problems of creation previously recited.
Alexandria became the center of Greek culture. It appears to have had a
significant population who identified with the people of the hill country of
Palestine.
Being the repository Alexander designated for the knowledge of the world in
the form of the great library of Alexandria if there was source material
needed for the creation of the Old Testament it was certainly to be found in
Alexandria. Nothing has been found in bibleland either in ancient
inscriptions down to the Dead Sea Scrolls which could qualify as source
material. Nor is there any ancient mention of the existence of such
materials.
This may not appear important but any repository of documents has many times
more material than would be considered important in later years as no one
could know what to preserve. So it is not just the absence of source
material for the Old Testament books. It is the absence of tens of times
more material which in later years would turn out to be unimportant.
Searching through old records is also looking at it through the eyes of what
a book on history should contain. This view of history did not appear until
Roman times. In fact some could argue it did not appear until Gibbon with
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
In the final analysis we do know that our present day idea of what
constitutes the history of a people requires surviving ancient records,
uncovered ancient inscriptions as well as extensive archaeological finds. We
know there are no relevant ancient inscriptions relative to the Old
Testament to be found. The ancient people of bibleland did not invent
archaeology. They could not have produced historical narratives of the
region.
If people from the hill country or people who identified with the hill
country had written the Old Testament there were limited languages
available. If by people in the hill country then they had only Phoenician or
Aramaic available. If by people who identified with the hill country, those
in Alexandria, they had Greek. The anomaly is the traditional form of the
Old Testament is in the language religious tradition calls Hebrew.
Relating to this matter we have only two items to guide us. The first is the
religious tradition of the ancient creation of the Old Testament in Hebrew
starting with Moses which we have seen to be false. The second is a known
forgery, the Letter of Aristeas. From the letter comes the myth of a
translation of the original Old Testament into Greek and the time frame in
which it occurred.
As this letter is a forgery nothing in it can be taken as related to actual
events. Among these are when the Greek translation was made, when the Greek
version was known in Alexandria. Perhaps the most important things which is
found only in the forgery is that the Greek version is a translation of an
original in another language.
What this other language might have been we have no way of knowing. We know
it cannot have been Hebrew as there is no evidence that language was ever in
use. We do not know what script it was written in but if in the present day
Hebrew script then it could not have existed until that Aramaic script came
into use<sup>2</sup>. At the time given in the forged letter Aramaic was not
yet in use in the hill country and of course there is no evidence Hebrew was
ever in use. That leaves an unsatisfying and puzzling Phoenician as the
remaining possibility.
Many explanations for this have been concocted from the absurd to the
needlessly complex. These have all had the purpose of making the religious
tradition of the origins of the Old Testament appear plausible. But as we
have seen the religious tradition is not plausible starting with Moses
writing in Hebrew.
Once that idea is eliminated there is no religious tradition left. Biblical
archaeologists do not create religious tradition. Unlike real archaeologists
those of the biblical persuasion concoct (the only credible adjective)
explanations which do the least harm to the discarded religious tradition.
Thus while they will more or less clearly state Moses did not write the
Torah nor even exist much less use Hebrew they are hell bent to establish
the creation of the Old Testament as far back as can be claimed with a
straight face.
These days believers put it about a century before Herodotus because that is
the earliest times it is even remotely possible for the existence of writing
in the hill country. But for the reasons previously discussed that is a
century before it was possible because writing history was still in the
future. It is also several centuries before we can say it is plausible
without suspending disbelief.
There is a simple explanation which can explain everything that is known
from surviving records and archaeology. This requires doing what has already
been done when the religious traditions of place, age and language of the
original text were discredited. For place we insert Alexandria, for age the
2nd c. BC and for language we have Greek.
In this case the people who wrote the Old Testament would be those in
Alexandria who identified with the hill country of Palestine writing in
Greek as their daily language and using the resources of the library for
their source material. This simply addresses every problem which existed
with the religious tradition. It is also much simpler than the convoluted
inventions of biblical archaeologists who try to do the least harm to
discredited religious tradition.<sup>3</sup>
As is discussed elsewhere the Old Testament does not address the religion of
the people of the hill country. It addresses a Yahweh cult which is foreign
to the religion of the people who had both Astarte and Yahweh as their
primary gods and the rest of the Phoenician/Ugaritic pantheon as secondary
gods.
Cults can be invented easily. We have seen that in the cult of Allah by
Mohamed as well as the modern examples of the Latter Day Saints and
Scientology. In those times there arose the cults of Jesus, Mithra, Sol
Invictus, Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana among others. These met with
varying degrees of success. What they have in common is having arisen in the
presence of many gods or in modern times many sects of Christianity for the
LDS and Scientology.
In any event whether the Yahweh cult arose in Alexandria or Jerusalem is an
uninteresting question so far as the rise of the cult as all differences are
purely speculative. There is simply no surviving documents on the subject
other than the forgery. But the forgery itself was created or introduced to
support the position of Jerusalem as the origin showing at that time it was
supposed the origin was in Alexandria.
The trappings of the cult, its imaginary history, its use of Greek literary
and historical forms, the earliest known version of the stories first being
mentioned as written in Greek and the library resources mitigate in favor of
Alexandria. That the non-Greek version appears in what can only be described
as an invented liturgical language using a vowelless subset of the Aramaic
alphabet instead of in the Phoenician or Aramaic language is not in favor of
Jerusalem. Both mitigate against Jerusalem.
The idea of the sacred books of a religion being created elsewhere seems a
bit strange to us primarily because we were raised with this now discredited
religious tradition. But telling the stories of another land is far from
uncommon and, in the case of Atlantis, equally long-lived and devoutly
believed by many and is the source of endless mystical inspiration and
searching to this day. As to inspiration the story of Troy in the Iliad is
equally stimulating as was the Aeneid telling the origin of the Romans.
There is nothing inherently incredible about people in Alexandria inventing
tales about their homeland.
As to this being a new idea, far from it. The Letter of Aristeas was forged
to respond to this same idea in the 1st c. AD. Were there no question of its
origin in Jerusalem there would have been no need for the forgery. It was
promoted by Josephus, a priest of the Yahweh cult writing in Greek no less.
As this is the only ancient source on the origin of the Old Testament the
subject cannot be credibly discussed beyond this.
As to these being considered sacred works there is no evidence of that in
any surviving document. In Antiquities, Josephus retells many of the Old
Testament stories including material which is not longer exists such as
Moses having been a prince of Egypt and leading successful military
campaigns against Nubia. The idea of was a prince is contrary to the current
version of Exodus which at best has him a grandson of the king. Josephus
makes no distinction between what is presently considered sacred and the
other material.
This is parallel to the known situation in early Christianity. There were
literally dozens of bogus epistles and gospels and no one knows how many
other types of bogus documents. But the idea of bogus does not appear to
have existed as condemnation and elimination of the non-true documents does
not start until the 4th c. AD and then mainly addresses gnostic materials.
It is unlikely the Yahweh cultist did anything different. Both apparently
prized the Book of Enoch in the 1st c. but neither included it in their
canons.
=====
<sup>1</sup>The name Hebrew is used based upon the religious tradition that
Moses was a real person who wrote the Torah, the first five books of the Old
Testament. As Exodus concerns the Hebrews in Egypt the language of Exodus
was presumed to be their language and thus called Hebrew. There are other
problems with this tradition but they were not known at the time the name
was given.
Because of this religious tradition the pre-Aramaic written material found
in the hill country of Palestine is called archaic or proto-Hebrew instead
of proto-Phoenician from which it has no substantive difference. The only
two scripts used by the natives of the region are Phoenician and Aramaic.
The modern "Hebrew" script and the "Hebrew" of the Old Testament is not
materially different from the Aramaic script.
<sup>2</sup>Phoenician dominated the region prior to Alexander's conquest of
Tyre. Tyre had been the center of Phoenician trading civilization which
extended across the entire Mediterranean Sea. After its fall the center of
its civilization moved to Carthage where the language came to be known as
Punic. So the rise of Aramaic in the region would not have been until the
3rd c. BC.
<sup>3</sup>Present day Christian, Muslim and Judaic believers and even
those who started as members of them but who have progressed to agnostic or
atheist are still attached to the long discredited religious tradition
regarding the origin of the Old Testament. This attachment has few parallels
outside of religion.
When evolution replaced creation only the religious tried to salvage
creation with things like guided evolution or some mysterious point in time
when a soul was added, infused I think is the proper term.
That there is a crank subdivision of archaeology known as biblical
archaeology makes this perhaps the only (pseudo) scientific attempt to
salvage a religious tradition which retains some measure of professional
academic standing. To the impartial observer it is as whimsical creationary
evolutionists.
--
When one says a thing is 'no worse than' he is also saying it is
no better than.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4197
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Thu Dec 10 10:54:14 EST 2009
Dom
[snip]
> As there is no significant question as to the dating of the writings of
> Herodotus, ca. mid 5th c. BC, this presents a problem with dating the Old
> Testament material. Believers date the Old Testament material no younger
> than the 6th c. BC and many put some of the material centuries older.
Since the Samaritans have only the first five books of the Old
Testament, it is highly unlikely that the subsequent books are "no
younger than the 6th c. BC." It is also interesting to note that,
according to the article at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13417a.htm
in the section "The Samaritan Pentateuch and the translations of it,"
at the beginning of the second paragraph:
"A comparison of the Samaritan Pentateuch with the Masoretic text
shows that the former varies from the latter in very many places and,
on the other hand, very often agrees with the Septuagint."
Weland
> On Dec 10, 10:55 am, Matt Giwer <m...@giwersworld.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> As there is no significant question as to the dating of the writings of
>> Herodotus, ca. mid 5th c. BC, this presents a problem with dating the Old
>> Testament material. Believers date the Old Testament material no younger
>> than the 6th c. BC and many put some of the material centuries older.
>
> Since the Samaritans have only the first five books of the Old
> Testament, it is highly unlikely that the subsequent books are "no
> younger than the 6th c. BC."
That argument has been made, but it doesn't bear as much weight as some
think. If the Samaritans are the descendants of the admixture of native
northern kingdom remnants with Assyrians in the late 8th and early 7th
centuries, then a) they would naturally reject texts that made their
ancestors look bad (and by extension, make them look bad) and b) they
would naturally reject anything that made them or their ancestors appear
to be the wrong party in relationship to the south. That means that all
the prophets and almost the entire Deuteronomist history is gone. All
that is left are further texts that come from the south. How they used
texts like Psalms in their worship etc is a question we can't answer,
nor is it clear how much changed from c. 700 to c. 450 BCE and again
between the so-called "Return" and the first century BCE when we really
get any detailed information. In my view, nothing much re: dating can
be determined on the basis of what the Samaritans do and don't accept.
Dating can only be done on an individual basis of each text, and
sometimes even further divided into sub-texts.
It is also interesting to note that,
> according to the article at:
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13417a.htm
>
> in the section "The Samaritan Pentateuch and the translations of it,"
> at the beginning of the second paragraph:
>
> "A comparison of the Samaritan Pentateuch with the Masoretic text
> shows that the former varies from the latter in very many places and,
> on the other hand, very often agrees with the Septuagint."
Well, evidence for both Masoretic and Samaritan texts is medieval, and
so must always be used with some caution. The question is always
whether the Samaritan text is influenced by the LXX or do they derive
from the same ancient textual tradition...and on current mss evidence
that isn't possible to determine in absolute terms.
Dom
Have any excavations been done at the ruins of the Samaritan Temple on
Mount Gerizim, and has any dating of the construction been done?
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Well, evidence for both Masoretic and Samaritan texts
> is medieval,
Hardly telling, as the Masoretic text is far too new
to matter.
> The question is always whether the Samaritan text is
> influenced by the LXX or do they derive from the same
> ancient textual tradition...
That is simply raising the bar.
It's always been about the LXX. DATE the LXX, identify
WHO wrote it and/or WHO it was for and WHEN it was
written, and most everything else can be derived.
Weland
Yes, Yitzhak Magen has excavated off and on for the last 30 years. 2
excavation reports have been published this decade, one on the coins and
inscriptions ranging in date from c. 600 BCE up through the Byzantine
period; the other volume was about the temple there and its history.
The site *SO FAR* has been dated back to the sixth century BCE.
Matt Giwer
> On Dec 10, 10:55 am, Matt Giwer <m...@giwersworld.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>> As there is no significant question as to the dating of the writings of
>> Herodotus, ca. mid 5th c. BC, this presents a problem with dating the Old
>> Testament material. Believers date the Old Testament material no younger
>> than the 6th c. BC and many put some of the material centuries older.
> Since the Samaritans have only the first five books of the Old
> Testament, it is highly unlikely that the subsequent books are "no
> younger than the 6th c. BC."
It is very difficult to make a general statement on this matter as believers
are all over the map on what they support and decline to disagree with each
other. This leads to a false impression of an agreed position among believers.
> It is also interesting to note that,
> according to the article at:
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13417a.htm
> in the section "The Samaritan Pentateuch and the translations of it,"
> at the beginning of the second paragraph:
> "A comparison of the Samaritan Pentateuch with the Masoretic text
> shows that the former varies from the latter in very many places and,
> on the other hand, very often agrees with the Septuagint."
That is hardly surprising. The Masoretic appears more than a thousand years
after the Septuagint and in a liturgical language which was never spoken so
far as evidence goes and which was unused for some six centuries after the
Mishna.
While I have advocated the "extreme" position that the Septuagint is the
original, it is clear that even if it is a translation of this unspoken
liturgical language it is the closest in time to the original meaning of
version in the liturgical language. Thus the Septuagint rather than the
unprovenanced material compiled by people centuries later.
Interestingly the only basis for saying the Septuagint is a translation is
the forgery but in reciting the forgery, Josephus makes no claim the
Septuagint is in error. In fact the citation of the forgery is in support of
it being "miraculously" accurate. Thus we have a late 1st c. AD priest of the
Yahweh cult finding no fault with the contents of the Septuagint.
Which brings us back to the ca. 1000 AD Masoretic text which takes it upon
itself to differ significantly from the Septuagint. Interestingly the
Septuagint supports much of earlyl Christian doctrine whereas the Masoretic
contradicts those doctrines, virgo v alma for example. It is legitimate to ask
if these were changes simply to be anti-Christian. (I only see this as a
conflict between religions. All religions are nonsense.)
In the case of the Samaritans, they did not attempt to exterminate the
Christians -- see Acts of the Apostles for details. As they had no fight with
Christians they had no motivation to skew texts to the detriment of Christianity.
--
Which is better? Many gods or one swiss army knife god?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4202
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Tue Dec 15 22:23:11 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Dom wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 10:55 am, Matt Giwer <m...@giwersworld.org> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> As there is no significant question as to the dating of the writings of
>>> Herodotus, ca. mid 5th c. BC, this presents a problem with dating the
>>> Old
>>> Testament material. Believers date the Old Testament material no younger
>>> than the 6th c. BC and many put some of the material centuries older.
>> Since the Samaritans have only the first five books of the Old
>> Testament, it is highly unlikely that the subsequent books are "no
>> younger than the 6th c. BC."
> That argument has been made, but it doesn't bear as much weight as some
> think. *If* the Samaritans are the descendants of the admixture of native
> northern kingdom remnants with Assyrians in the late 8th and early 7th
> centuries,
*IF* they are not then none of what follows is of interest. Nor is your if
anything other than groundless speculation as there is no evidence any
northern kingdom nor southern kingdom much less a united kingdom ever existed.
From the archaeology of the region it can be no more than confabulation.
Therefore there is no point in entertaining such speculation as it is based
upon a fantasy of an overactive imagination.
--
"As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." -- Godwin's Law
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4196
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Tue Dec 15 22:51:49 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
>> Well, evidence for both Masoretic and Samaritan texts is medieval, and
>> so must always be used with some caution. The question is always
>> whether the Samaritan text is influenced by the LXX or do they derive
>> from the same ancient textual tradition...and on current mss evidence
>> that isn't possible to determine in absolute terms.
> Have any excavations been done at the ruins of the Samaritan Temple on
> Mount Gerizim, and has any dating of the construction been done?
Would it matter?
What one takes from it depends upon the assumptions one brings to it.
Certainly there was a Yahweh cult in the region just as there was an Astarte
cult and a Baal cult and a mess of other cults. Even the surviving writings of
the Yahweh cult say there were other cults. It is no more reasonable to
believe their descriptions of the other cults and their own power than it is
to believe Christian writings on other religions. It also pays to read what
they said not what people say about what they said such as the prohibition of
Christians from visiting prostitutes for the danger of incest and no other
reason.
So the Samaritan temple can be of any age back to 1000 BC without upsetting
any applecarts. It would represent only one of many temples to many gods. The
groups in the region tended to have only two gods, male and female, as their
primary gods. Finding a temple to Astarte, Ashara, would confirm they were no
more interesting than the Judean Yahweh cult.
--
What are millions of German troops against
billions of British pounds?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4207
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Tue Dec 15 22:57:20 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
As there are no answers to those questions nor for the same questions to the
Jewish version that is what I mean by unprovenanced. Believers have answers
made up by unknown people, at unknown times for unknown reasons which only
compounds the problems with lack of provenance.
--
When one says there are people worse than he is, his is also say he is no
better than them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4198
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Tue Dec 15 23:13:55 EST 2009
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > It's always been about the LXX. DATE the LXX, identify
> > WHO wrote it and/or WHO it was for and WHEN it was
> > written, and most everything else can be derived.
>
> As there are no answers to those questions nor
> for the same questions to the Jewish version that is
> what I mean by unprovenanced.
I disagree. There certainly /were/ answers, and the
evidence of those answers may still exist today, though
it is obscured by confusion over the right questions.
> Believers have answers made up by unknown people, at
> unknown times for unknown reasons which only
> compounds the problems with lack of provenance.
"Believers" are called believers for a reasons, and it
is precisely those beliefs which obscure the issues
and the evidence.
Regardless of the task, if you begin with the assumption
that you know the answer then your work will be shit.
A prime RealLife example that everyone can grasp is the
Jonbenet Ramsey murder case. Most murder victims are
killed by someone close -- a friend, family member or,
anyway, someone they know. The police very quickly
latched on to the parents as the killers and spent all
their time & resources trying to squeeze the conclusion
into the evidence.
There are few here who exposed to the early media
coverage that doubted the family's guilt...
Well, turns out that the police were wrong, and with
all the time & opportunity wasted it's almost certain
that they can never catch the guilty party.
You simply can not reach the truth if you have
pre-existing conclusions.
And, yes, that applies equally to you.
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Which brings us back to the ca. 1000 AD
> Masoretic text which takes it upon itself to
> differ significantly from the Septuagint.
> Interestingly the Septuagint supports much of
> earlyl Christian doctrine whereas the Masoretic
> contradicts those doctrines, virgo v alma for
> example. It is legitimate to ask if these were
> changes simply to be anti-Christian. (I only
> see this as a conflict between religions. All
> religions are nonsense.)
That's simple, even logical, and morons would be
busying themselves with "Occam's Razor" right
about now, but life is rarely simple and people
are never logical...
It was Justinian who banned the use of the "Jewish
Bible," wasn't it? That would be the 6th century
AD -- a full 400 years before your 1000 AD -- and
already "Changes" enough to offend the Emperor.
Consider that the most optimistic estimates place
Christians at, maybe, 8% of the population even a
century AFTER Constantine, and that leaves WHAT
for the Jews to respond to?
Oh, I know, if not Constantine then Theodosius...
Dom
Thanks for the reference. A scanned copy of one of Magen's books is
at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6NsxZRnxE70C&pg=PT169&lpg=PT169&dq=%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Martin Edwards
working out where they are making an argument and where they are merely
paraphrasing the Bible. According to them there is plenty of evidence
for Israel from the time of Omri, father of Ahab, and, going by the
Assyrian records, it was actually more powerful than the Bible suggests.
Judah probably also existed, but it was an arse out your trousers
affair. There was never a united kingdom. David and Solomon may have
been kings of Judah. After all they cannot have been called Fred as
English did not yet exist. Judah became important for the first time
(and they cite physical evidence) with the influx of northern refugees.
The myth of origin which is the Torah was, by their reasoning,
composed, though not from whole cloth, in the reign of Josiah precisely
to reinforce the new cult of YHWH only.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Matt Giwer
They say up front they are biblical archaeologists putting them in the same
category as creationist biologists. They also say they are not expert in this
so called kingdom period and defer to others in such matters. What, pray tell,
is to be gained from careful reading of authors who clearly state both bias
and lack of expertise?
> According to them there is plenty of evidence
> for Israel from the time of Omri, father of Ahab, and, going by the
> Assyrian records, it was actually more powerful than the Bible suggests.
I am aware of that assertion. I am also aware it is not accompanied by a
recitation of evidence supporting the assertion. I have noted that many times.
If one wishes to say the settlements in the region COULD have supported a
local political entity that is speculation. Evidence this political entity is
something else entirely. I have found no such evidence.
Again, they are admittedly biased parties who do not recite specific evidence
of what their bias assumes existed. The standard of what needs be demonstrated
is the same as for the claim of the existence of any other kingdom any other
place or time. If you want a kingdom then one shows the trappings of a
kingdom. If one wants named kings one shows inscriptions with the names of of
those kings. Real arkies are skeptical of all written material until confirmed
by physical evidence is unearthed.
> Judah probably also existed, but it was an arse out your trousers
> affair. There was never a united kingdom. David and Solomon may have
> been kings of Judah. After all they cannot have been called Fred as
> English did not yet exist. Judah became important for the first time
> (and they cite physical evidence) with the influx of northern refugees.
You can do your mays and mights and probablys until you sound like a parody
of The History Channel episodes on the bible. It will not bring into evidence
things for which there is no evidence. When there is are inscriptions reciting
exactly KING David and KING Solomon you can get back to me. Until then "might
have been possible" does not make for fact.
> The myth of origin which is the Torah was, by their reasoning,
> composed, though not from whole cloth, in the reign of Josiah precisely
> to reinforce the new cult of YHWH only.
I have no idea what their reasoning is on this matter. Suffice to say they
have not produced nor has anyone produced a single bit of physical evidence as
to who composed it, when it was composed nor why it was composed. Those are
the elements of provenance. Absent such evidence it has no provenance.
One would expect the first thing such a dating would address would be its
composition using an Aramaic script instead of the Phoenician script which was
current in the region at that time. In this matter it is not permitted to
invent a translation or transliteration. That is arguing towards a religious
tradition which is also without provenance.
--
A biblical archaeologist is like an astrological astronomer
or an alchemical chemist. None are scientists.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4199
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Wed Dec 16 15:15:15 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> It's always been about the LXX. DATE the LXX, identify
>>> WHO wrote it and/or WHO it was for and WHEN it was
>>> written, and most everything else can be derived.
>> As there are no answers to those questions nor
>> for the same questions to the Jewish version that is
>> what I mean by unprovenanced.
> I disagree. There certainly /were/ answers, and the
> evidence of those answers may still exist today, though
> it is obscured by confusion over the right questions.
It is my fondest wish those who disagree would present the physical evidence
upon which they based their disagreement. In this case I am waiting for the
physical evidence for the correct answers.
>> Believers have answers made up by unknown people, at
>> unknown times for unknown reasons which only
>> compounds the problems with lack of provenance.
> "Believers" are called believers for a reasons, and it
> is precisely those beliefs which obscure the issues
> and the evidence.
I use the term believers in this newsgroup because the participants here are
remarkably even congenitally unwilling or unable to recite exactly what they
believe. There is also a major disconnect between belief and knowledge which
here is expressed as knew it all along belief based upon the slimmest of
evidence not even rising to belief in witches based upon soured milk.
... contentious and unrelated example deleted
> And, yes, that applies equally to you.
I have "assumed" there is no value to traditions, religious or otherwise. I
have assumed physical evidence is the proper foundation for drawing
conclusions. I have assumed religions have no merit regarding their particular
origins.
What do you see as the assumptions I have made which are leading me to
incorrect statements.
--
When one says there are people worse than he is, his is also say he is no
better than them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4198
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Wed Dec 16 15:56:51 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Which brings us back to the ca. 1000 AD
>> Masoretic text which takes it upon itself to
>> differ significantly from the Septuagint.
>> Interestingly the Septuagint supports much of
>> earlyl Christian doctrine whereas the Masoretic
>> contradicts those doctrines, virgo v alma for
>> example. It is legitimate to ask if these were
>> changes simply to be anti-Christian. (I only
>> see this as a conflict between religions. All
>> religions are nonsense.)
> That's simple, even logical, and morons would be
> busying themselves with "Occam's Razor" right
> about now, but life is rarely simple and people
> are never logical...
> It was Justinian who banned the use of the "Jewish
> Bible," wasn't it? That would be the 6th century
> AD -- a full 400 years before your 1000 AD -- and
> already "Changes" enough to offend the Emperor.
Speaking of rarely simple and logical the convoluted facts and events during
his reign and the dirth of source material as well as the few things which
exist being clearly biased such as Procopius makes any event difficult to
interperate. He put the Byz in Byzantine.
He put down two revolts by the Samaritans and in the second one some Jews
joined in and sided with invading allies of the Persians. There were two
suppressions of the Samaritans separate from the Jews. Jews remained a legal
religion throughout. Something back then was seen as significantly different
between the two either that or what they called themselves was good enough to
be singled out.
At the same time Christians were dividing themselves over arcane differences
on the dual nature of Jesus both of which appear rather absurd today. And as
to lawful Jews and suppressed Samaritans it appears today to have divided
between geographic Judean and Samaritan descendants or perhaps the claimed
tribal (of the 12 tribes) descent rather than a religious difference.
So if anything was banned what it was called and what it contained and in
what form and how interpreted are clearly different things and are lost to us
today but could have been a ball-buster for them.
Yes, I would like to agree on significant differences but there is no
evidence and from the times things were so "byzantine" reasonable inference is
untrustworthy.
> Consider that the most optimistic estimates place
> Christians at, maybe, 8% of the population even a
> century AFTER Constantine, and that leaves WHAT
> for the Jews to respond to?
> Oh, I know, if not Constantine then Theodosius...
These days Jews are grossly over-imagined to have been a huge fraction of the
1st c. AD empire just as an ego trip for Jews. I have come across as high as
20% backed by nothing but chutzpah.
As for any percent, we can read the one expedition outside the major cities
of the Spanish Inquisition returned in frustration finding a near pagan
populace under a veneer of crosses. I have read the same description of Russia
in the 1890s by a visiting lecturer from Russia at Oxford. At both times these
were officially Catholic countries differing only by Roman or Orthodox.
So any declaration of even 8% Christian is needs be examined as to the basis
for the estimate and what was meant by it at the time.
--
In 2009 there were more memorials over the death of John Lennon
than Pearl Harbor. WWII is finally over!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4208
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Wed Dec 16 20:25:04 EST 2009
Martin Edwards
right. As a historian I work with probability. I know I am repeating
myself, but you have still failed to grasp this.
Martin Edwards
Yes it is. If you don't think so, you haven't read it.
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
Read the book. I got it for a bargain price from Amazon.
roj
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
> <center>Anachronism is not permitted</center>
> --
> When one says a thing is 'no worse than' he is also saying it is
> no better than.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 4197
> http://www.giwersworld.org a1
> Thu Dec 10 10:54:14 EST 2009
Thanks for a most carefully though-out and presented arguement.
One of the few remaining on this group.
I would suggest - absolutely no evidence - that verbal history...
"My grandad told me ... & His Grandad told Him...Unto the
Tenth Generation {~300 years}" can be an unreasonable
methodology for historical transmission of events eg Great Flood
= Black Sea infill / Santorini sunami, for instance, but unproveable
in any currently available written/carved/graphical imagery or
document/pot/tile/statue/scribble or any such.
Moreover, given a nomadic tribal presence, harried by invaders
from north, south and every other direction, you are not exactly
in a position to put down roots and foundations on which to build
any great evidential artefacts for the future - the next guy down
the track trashes it for his own beliefs - DuH.
As to 'biblical archaeologists', you know as well as I do, that if
the next season's excavation grant is coming from "believers"
then you will be extremely careful in your choice of words when
applying for funding, neither denying lack of (current) evidence
whilst 'considering' the new site possibilities for such sought-after
evidence - OK dubious practice but how else do you get funding
for your bread-&-butter work? Is it not the Gulf States seeking
Islamic evidence but don't want archaeological teams going deeper
into possibly (Heaven Forbid ) other earlier or over-lapping non-
Islamic strata?
Given a 'belief' system which is faith rather than archaeological
substance, then you have today's situation in biblical archaeology
nicely - but unacceptably and anachronisticly - wrapped, like it or not.
Worse still, 'your' belief will have you working overtime to maintain
your belief. If only each believer would keep it to themselves........
Ah well, can't have everything right with the world, can we?
Have an Improving Day,
roj
Matt Giwer
Then you have found material which I have missed. Perhaps you could
tell me what it is and where to find it.
In this I do not mean there was a local population large enough to
have a local king. I mean the actual evidence of a local king running a
kingdom which has all the trappings of any other kingdom which ordinarily
includes inscriptions name the kings and their ancestors.
Again, I am asking for nothing more than is found in every other
real kingdom. No special pleadings in favor of unprovenanced religious
traditions are acceptable.
--
Which is better? Many gods or one swiss army knife god?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4202
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Thu Dec 17 15:16:41 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@giwersworld.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@dawn.a.b.c...
>> <center>Anachronism is not permitted</center>
> snip
>> --
>> When one says a thing is 'no worse than' he is also saying it is
>> no better than.
>> -- The Iron Webmaster, 4197
>> http://www.giwersworld.org a1
>> Thu Dec 10 10:54:14 EST 2009
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for a most carefully though-out and presented arguement.
> One of the few remaining on this group.
>
> I would suggest - absolutely no evidence - that verbal history... "My
> grandad told me ... & His Grandad told Him...Unto the Tenth Generation
> {~300 years}" can be an unreasonable methodology for historical
> transmission of events eg Great Flood = Black Sea infill / Santorini
> sunami, for instance, but unproveable in any currently available
> written/carved/graphical imagery or document/pot/tile/statue/scribble or
> any such.
True observation. There is absolutely no evidence indicating the
so-called oral tradition has any basis in reality. One would expect
something to frequently invoked would have some basis in fact rather than
none at all but that is not the case.
Fortunately or un, it is invoked most frequently in matters of the
Old Testament. And this invocation was invented after it became painfully
obvious there were no Adam and Eve who both spoke and wrote Hebrew. Having
an absolute certainty in the truth of the bible and faced with the fact that
written records could not have existed oral tradition was invented.
Circularly the exitence of the OT became the evidence of validity of oral
tradition.
> Moreover, given a nomadic tribal presence, harried by invaders from north,
> south and every other direction, you are not exactly in a position to put
> down roots and foundations on which to build any great evidential
> artefacts for the future - the next guy down the track trashes it for his
> own beliefs - DuH.
The identification of the "jews" as originating as a nomadic group
is also a baseless invention. It was invented as one of several mutually
exclusive attempts to salvage something of "value" in the OT. The believers
may hold several of these mutually exclusive ideas at one time and see no
problem.
> As to 'biblical archaeologists', you know as well as I do, that if the
> next season's excavation grant is coming from "believers" then you will be
> extremely careful in your choice of words when applying for funding,
> neither denying lack of (current) evidence whilst 'considering' the new
> site possibilities for such sought-after evidence - OK dubious practice
> but how else do you get funding for your bread-&-butter work? Is it not
> the Gulf States seeking Islamic evidence but don't want archaeological
> teams going deeper into possibly (Heaven Forbid) other earlier or
> over-lapping non- Islamic strata?
Of course the entire field is a captive of the sources of funding
which are primarily religious groups. There is even an acceptable conceit in
the professional literature which permits the first sentence to say the cite
is "thought to be" whatever the financiers are convinced it is. However this
must be immediately followed by the reasons it cannot be that thing even
though the denial need not be explicite.
This means any arkies who devotes more than one sentence to
establishing a connection between a dig and the bible is a fraud, i.e. a
biblical archaeologist.
The matter is in fact worse than the above. I regularly post
articles from Israeli newspapers which, without being blunt about it,
recount scientific and even criminal fraud being supported by these so
called archaeologist. Eldad and Silwan are search terms for the current
hottest area of fraud. This is conducted with the full support of the
government of Israel.
> Given a 'belief' system which is faith rather than archaeological
> substance, then you have today's situation in biblical archaeology nicely
> - but unacceptably and anachronisticly - wrapped, like it or not. Worse
> still, 'your' belief will have you working overtime to maintain your
> belief. If only each believer would keep it to themselves........ Ah well,
> can't have everything right with the world, can we?
Since seriously looking into this matter I have found the fraud
extends far beyond the mere fanciful interpretations of finds in bibleland.
It extends to the entire near east. In includes linguistics and history and
the norms of cultural development. There are contemporary writers freely
citing material discredited a century ago. There are clearly false
statements of fact just to make the bible look good.
One of these days I'll have nothing better to do for a few months
and document it all.
> Have an Improving Day,
Have a better one.
--
Atheism dignifies theism. There is no special name for
those who do not believe in faeries.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4190
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Thu Dec 17 14:39:04 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
Then there is nothing of interest. Real history says the region was
ruled out of Damascus and the only other civilizations in the region were
Egyptian and Phoenician. Anyone wishing to force a hitherto unknown kingdom
into the known history and archaeology of the region has to overcome a quite
large body of evidence. That will require a large amount of compelling
evidence. At the moment there is none at all.
Hitherto unknown is correct. There is a difference between knowledge
and belief. It may have been believed for more than 2200 years but in all
that time up to today there is no knowledge of any such thing.
--
Holocaust denial is not as bad as the Goldstone Report on Gaza.
Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the US, September 2009
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4195
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Thu Dec 17 15:23:42 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
Perhaps you would enlighten me on what you have learned from this
careful reading.
> Also I did not say they were right. As a historian I work with
> probability. I know I am repeating myself, but you have still failed to
> grasp this.
I am familiar with several types of probability as well as many of
its applications. In all cases it involves math of some sort. Even in trying
to avoid the math and keep it dumbed down one has to either establish or
determine an a priori likliehood before examining any particular thing
against that likliehood.
As that is not possible to do in matters of history it is unclear
what you think you are doing.
Perhaps you could explain this also.
--
Happiness is simple. Do not compare yourself to others.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4205
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Thu Dec 17 15:07:40 EST 2009
Ein Sof
Plenty of evidence, are you from another planet?
Matt Giwer
That is a common statement by believers but when asked what this
evidence might be the response is either silence of special pleadings as to
why the evidence does not and can not rise to the level of other
archaeological findings.
Perhaps you will be different.
Would you care to surprise me?
The standard of evidence is the same as for everything else. For
example, if you wish to claim a biblical city has been found the standard of
evidence is the same as for Troy. You can google the debates regarding Troy
and learn what has been required to demonstrate the current level is in fact
the Ilium of Homer. No special pleadings such as often invoked for Jericho
are acceptable.
Please. Surprise me.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Fri Dec 18 08:01:52 EST 2009
Martin Edwards
obvious form your sophistry.
Ein Sof
I see, why dont you use google yourself as you advocate,
Matt Giwer
>> � � � � That is a common statement by believers but when asked what this
>> evidence might be the response is either silence of special pleadings as
>> to why the evidence does not and can not rise to the level of other
>> archaeological findings.
>> � � � � Perhaps you will be different.
>> � � � � Would you care to surprise me?
>> � � � � The standard of evidence is the same as for everything else. For
>> example, if you wish to claim a biblical city has been found the standard
>> of evidence is the same as for Troy. You can google the debates regarding
>> Troy and learn what has been required to demonstrate the current level is
>> in fact the Ilium of Homer. No special pleadings such as often invoked
>> for Jericho are acceptable.
>> � � � � Please. Surprise me.
> I see, why dont you use google yourself as you advocate,
Suffice to say you did not surprise me.
--
Hodie decimo quinto Kalendas Ianuarias MMX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Fri Dec 18 18:32:20 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
Plausibility is a requirement of fiction. Reality does not have to
make sense.
In any situation a large number of things are plausible not merely
in the uncountable small variations but also in macros cases of opposite
decisions. In so many cases both surrender and continuing to fight are
plausible while the terms of surrender may have a great range of variations.
In no case does plausibility have the least bearing upon whether or
not a thing did in fact happen or did exist.
I give you on one hand Atlantis and on the other hand a largely
established case for the Trojan war alongside a companion work of epic
adventures by Odyssius.
On the third hand I give you the tales of the kingdoms of Israel and
Judea replete with fanciful literal interventions of the supernatural as in
the tale of Odyssius.
How could plausibility possibly have a determinative value?
> Your Catholic origins are obvious form your sophistry.
My statement of same having no bearing upon its obviousness.
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Fri Dec 18 18:33:50 EST 2009