leonarde

In the same post you are asking for two very different things:

1) a "mass grave" is a largish burial area where bodies are heaped together without individual identification. It is the OPPOSITE of a family burial site.

2) then you switch (in mid-post!) to a family burial site question: 'hasty refitting" of a burial site for a son. (By the way, in an era when death in childhood was very common, there would have been no great impediment to 'hastily refitting' a family tomb; nor, except for the remains of the first born, would there necessarily be any sign of it).

If you don't know what you really consider evidence of such an event (ie the death of first-borns) then it's a safe bet you'll never find it!

Doctor X

Since neither happened. . . .

--J.D.

Postcard73

Sarpedon can no doubt answer for himself, but from reading his post, I understood him to be suggesting mass graves would be used by poor peasants while the family tombs would be reserved for wealthier members of society.

Wayne Delia

It's not a "switch in mid-post." Rather, it's a description of two different burial evidences for two different economic classes of people. I do have a pretty good idea why you chose to view that as an inconsistency, though...

Quote:

If you don't know what you really consider evidence of such an event (ie the death of first-borns) then it's a safe bet you'll never find it!

It serves as a convenient excuse for you to avoid dealing with the issue of a complete lack of evidence of an entire generation of first-born male deaths.

WMD

leonarde

Why mass graves? Are there indications that poor ancient Egyptians were normally interred en masse???? If so, it's news to me....

And as to the wealthy ones, again there would be no tell-tale indication of cause of death (indeed, the state of medicine was such that no real determination of cause of death made at the time would necessarily carry any weight today), no sign of a tomb being 'hastily prepared': far from it: if nothing else the Egyptians were people who not only looked death square in the face but prepared themselves for it, anticipated it.

Cheers!

leonarde

No. A recurrent refrain on this forum is: if X happened then ancient writers A, B, C, D (etc.) should have written about it. But that involves a judgement on the part of the person making the claim. If the person hasn't really thought out how the ancient writer(s) in question evaluated what was truly important, what needed to be recorded, then the claim itself is often a case of special pleading.

Note: I am not myself claiming that the deaths of the first-born male Egyptians occurred. I am merely observing that the way such alleged facts are evaluated in these precincts is itself frequently marred by anachronistic thinking and the like.........

Cheers!

spin

Which specifically Babylonian myths and religious ideas do you have in mind? I am aware of "Semitic" cultural elements which filtered down into both Babylonian and Hebrew traditions, some into one and not the other.

I am also aware of Jews living in Babylon from the beginning of the Persian period onward. There were wealthy families doing business according to archives found in parts of Mesopotamia. Herod got a high priest from Jerusalem from Mesopotamia. Hillel came from Mesopotamia. There is a recension of the Talmud from Mesopotamia. All this should indicate that it would not be too difficult for Mesopotamian tradition to have migrated to Judea. But why would it be necessary?


spin

Postcard73

I think it would be more accurate to say that if writers A, B, C, D (etc.) wrote about it and I'm supposed to consider it accurate history, then there should be additional evidence outside the script corroborating the story. In the case of Exodus and the Conquest, the evidence is usually lacking or directly contradictory...

From what I've read, I get the impression that most scholars now think the early Israelites started out as Canaanites. They migrated east from the low coastal regions of Canaan into the hill country where they gradually began to develop their own distinct culture. I've been reading Dever, so I'll note a couple interesting points he makes:

Early Israelite settlements usually show evidence of advanced farming techniques similar to lowland Canaanite techniques. This suggests that the people were already experienced farmers and seems to contradict the tradition that they had spent their recent past as slaves and nomads. It is far more likely that they learned these techniques farming the low coastal lands before moving east.

Also, early Israelite settlements reveal heavy Canaanite influence on things such as house and village layout, as well as pottery. They show virtually no evidence of Bedouin or Egyptian influences. Again, this suggests that the early Israelites had not spent time in Egypt, nor had they spent four decades wandering the desert en masse. They were simply Canaanites...

I have no idea what other people around here think of Dever, but I have found his book incredibly intriguing...

leonarde

Partial post:Well, by "writers A, B, C, D (etc.)" I was trying to indicate extra-Biblical writers who are (were) at least trying to record historical events. But somehow you interpreted it to refer to OT and NT authors......

Yes. And that, in and of itself, is compatible with the OT account(s).....

Cheers!

Postcard73

Oops- sorry. My mistake.
Yes, but none of the other stuff I mentioned is.