Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 09-22-2004, 09:20 AM

Hi Anders,

Thanks for your comments.

I am involved with other research now, but when I get the chance, I will revise the website based on your comments. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by anders

Jay,

I had a look at your site. I hoped that I would get more material on Sodom & Co. I was disappointed.

I don't believe in your explanation of the ancient name of Hebron. I (and many others) prefer the 'four' interpretation, like Some scholars make it "the four-square city" and the like.

Your effort to make 'Mamre' develop into 'Abraham' is one of the worst I have seen. You discard letters, like the `ayin at the end of '´arba`'and transpose those that are left, and then add letters, like the 'h'. In that way, it is possible to explain any word in any language from any other word in any other language. In short, I'm not impressed.

Your final comment on the Sodom story, I find equally fanciful and unfounded.

<add>And in your "de/reconstruction", you should have purged 19:29, which is clearly a late addition from the P source</add>

Celsus · 09-22-2004, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I did not mean to suggest that the Hittites wrote the original stories of Exodus. I have not done the research to put forward such an hypothesis. This scenario was meant as an illustration of the type of hypostheses we can make based on the evidence of the forms.

This still doesn't make any sense to me, and it sounds much more like making it up as you go along. What particular Hittite influence do you see on Israelite society such that Anatolian myths passed over to Israelite ones (e.g. Yahweh as an ex-Hittite king)? That's an astonishing claim. There's so many bizarre claims that you make that I don't even know where to begin. Just to pick anders' quote of your page: do you know when Moabites are first attested in the archaeological record? Where do you find any evidence that there were actually twelve tribes of Israel? Where did you get this historiographical claim about 5% and 95%?

Joel

PhilosopherJay · 09-22-2004, 07:02 PM

Hi Joel and others,

If it sounds like I'm making this up as I go along, it is because I am, As I said," this is off the top of my head." I'm currently working on researching Roman Mime Theater and its overlooked role in the creation of Christianity. I don't have time to resurrect my research material in early Hebrew history.

Alas, like Jean Jacques Rousseau I must continue my solitary walk knowing what I believe is true, but having forgotten the proof of why I believe it. In any case, it is always the hope of the avant garde that even if misunderstood in this generation, a future generation will appreciate them. I'm not really sure if that ever happens either.

At this stage the discussion is heading into Abbott and Costello "Who's On First" routine territory, where metaphors are being taken literally and misunderstandings are themselves being misunderstood. Therefore I beg your pardons for having expressed my delusions. Please forget I said anything.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

This still doesn't make any sense to me, and it sounds much more like making it up as you go along. What particular Hittite influence do you see on Israelite society such that Anatolian myths passed over to Israelite ones (e.g. Yahweh as an ex-Hittite king)? That's an astonishing claim. There's so many bizarre claims that you make that I don't even know where to begin. Just to pick anders' quote of your page: do you know when Moabites are first attested in the archaeological record? Where do you find any evidence that there were actually twelve tribes of Israel? Where did you get this historiographical claim about 5% and 95%?

Joel

Ted Hoffman · 09-23-2004, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Or, for that matter, that there was a "Sodom," at all. "Jews" got there, found a destroyed city, and made a story up about how it got destroyed. This latter approach is far more a "general rule" than what you've suggested.

Please cite the scholarly sources that establish this as a general rule. Perhaps it could assist Raskin if I can say so myself.

Celsus · 09-23-2004, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Please forget I said anything.

I'd much rather you put up some sort of fight. It's only meant in good fun you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Please cite the scholarly sources that establish this as a general rule. Perhaps it could assist Raskin if I can say so myself.

As far as I can see, he's not saying that it's a general rule, only a more general or acceptable principle than PhilosopherJay's (which it is, since Jay's assertion is completely baseless, whereas this one is just mostly speculative). Since you asked, there is zero archaeological support for the Israelite conquest of Canaan (only Lachish's destruction layer appears to fall in the right century and be carried out by people who don't disqualify their candidacy for Israelites by being Egyptian or Sea Peoples. Which is hardly a conquest). The aetiology where this explanation of Rick's is used in explaining the so-called conquest of 'Ai, which literally means "ruin". I believe Amihai Mazar has used it as an explanation, but it should still be recognised as speculation, but perhaps Rick heard it first from our own Heathen Dawn.

Joel

Ted Hoffman · 09-23-2004, 05:54 AM

Quote:

...only a more general or acceptable principle than PhilosopherJay's

Acceptable by which scholars? Thats the evidence that we need.

Quote:

Since you asked, there is zero archaeological support for the Israelite conquest of Canaan

With respect to Sodom and Gomorrah, what kind of archaeological evidence would prove that there such cities existed and were destroyed during /after a certain war?

Are we now saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Argument from silence is now acceptable as proof of mythicism of the events in the Pentateuch?

Celsus · 09-23-2004, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Acceptable by which scholars? Thats the evidence that we need.

Amihai Mazar, for one:

Quote:

The most tempting supposition is to relate the narrative in Genesis 14 about the five "cities of the plain" (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, Zoar) to the discovery of five Early Bronze Age sites close to the eastern shores of the Dead Sea. At least two of these cities were fortified (Bab edh-Dhra' and Numeira). Their destruction, which was followed by total abandonment for centuries, was presented by some as real archaeological evidence of the story in Genesis. Perhaps a severe catastrophe bringing an end to these five cities was remembered and transmitted orally in legendary form over centuries down to the first millenium B.C.E., when it was adapted to its final form by the author of the Book of Genesis.

An alternative theory has an etiological basis. Some of the Early Bronze Age sites were prominent ruins visible to the inhabitants of the country in later periods. The remains of the ruined EB cities east of the Dead Sea, as well as of cities such as Arad, 'Ai, and Yarmuth, were exposed for centuries. Even today, ancient fortifications at several of these sites protrude from the surface. Later inhabitants of the country--the Israelites among them--might have invented etiological legends related to these ruins, such as the legend about the cities of the plain, the story about the war against Arad (Numbers 21:1-3) and the conquest story of 'Ai (Joshua 8). These people might have also used terms such as "Rephaim" and "giants (Genesis 15:20; Deuteronomy 2:11, 20; Joshua 13:12; and so forth) to describe the indigenous population of the country.

Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E., pp.143-144

But it is not a general rule--only in reference to those cities.

Quote:

With respect to Sodom and Gomorrah, what kind of archaeological evidence would prove that there such cities existed and were destroyed during /after a certain war?

That they existed would be a certainty if we found reference to it from contemporaneous sources. And Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed in a war according to the Bible. That entire story is aetiological, and so not even on the table as a "historical" story. Mazar is a maximalist, and he's giving far more credence to apologetic nonsense about Sodom and Gomorrah above, even as he's saying in a nice way that it's a load of bollocks.

Quote:

Are we now saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Argument from silence is now acceptable as proof of mythicism of the events in the Pentateuch?

You're getting ahead of yourself here and presuming what isn't being said. I might have expected this from a sophomoric apologist, but not from you.

Joel

Toto · 09-23-2004, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

. . .I'm currently working on researching Roman Mime Theater and its overlooked role in the creation of Christianity. . . .

I look forward to reading about this. One of my favorite references is The Runaway Paul (alas, the link to findarticles no longer works.

)

Lawrence L. Welborn, "The Runaway Paul", Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999), pp. 115-163

Ted Hoffman · 09-23-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

But it is not a general rule--only in reference to those cities.

If it is in reference to specific cities, then by definition, it cannot be "general".
Therefore, Jayraskin's hypothesis and Rick's blanket generalization both do not qualify to be treated as general rules.

Celsus · 09-24-2004, 01:22 AM

Jacob, Jacob...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

If it is in reference to specific cities, then by definition, it cannot be "general".
Therefore, Jayraskin's hypothesis and Rick's blanket generalization both do not qualify to be treated as general rules.

That's exactly what Rick said, and it's not a "blanket generalization":

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Or, for that matter, that there was a "Sodom," at all. "Jews" got there, found a destroyed city, and made a story up about how it got destroyed. This latter approach is far more a "general rule" than what you've suggested. (my emphasis)

Are you forgetting that Rick was explaining what it means to be a general rule already, and not actually calling it a general rule? One can argue that this "general rule" applies to ruined cities visible to the ancients (i.e., the 5 cities of the plain, Arad, Ai, Yarmuth), but we're trying to be precise here. Don't forget Raskin's "general rule":

Quote:

The stories of the Jewish Gods are probably based on stories about kings as they tend to reflect the king-courtier/servant relationship. One can assume that when a God makes an appearance in a story, it comes from an older tale in which a king makes an appearance. Therefore, they were probably meant as strictly natural bodily appearances. Only later, post 500 B.C.E.,when the physicist-philosophers started commentating on the stories did the Gods lose their mortal appearance.

...which is a strange unsupported assertion with sloppy terminology, and showing glaring ignorance of 2nd to 1st millenium BCE mythology (one could perhaps ask Raskin to look at the 14th century BCE Ugaritic texts to see whether his "general rule" applies in any way).

Joel

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.