IamJoseph

One has to agree with that non-sensical statement. Equally, an ancient Israel proof and a few artifacts do not indicated anything is not based on historical incidence. The incline rests with the positive factor.

My vew is based on imperical, not theological, standards, and I percieve this is not the case with those who target the Hebrew so fastidiously, though it will not be admitted as such. I also percieve a difference in both degree and kind in the other theologies concerning imperical proof - which is always outside the radar.

gentleexit

hence compare with like. Homer's Troad with the Hebrew evidence. Nothing underhand or unfair. No theology. David vs Priam and Agamemnon. Huge Kings. Surely they left huge footprints. Dig and see. And what do you see? The expected size and shape of remains or ...

No it doesn't! If great empires aren't in the ground now in some way, they were never above ground.

spamandham

You would thank that among these relics, some modicum of evidence of a 20 story temple with a 35 mile circumference would have been found. What is the explanation of the lack of any corroborating evidence of this?

IamJoseph

Loads and loads and loads of this already exist. The dimensions are meticulously given in Josephus, backed by numerous Greek and then Roman writers, which I can post if required.

Aside from ancient written archives, a large array of relics, coins and other artifacts have been uncovered, stored in museums in Israel, Briton, US and Europe. The wailing wall which now stands in Jerusalem, was left standing by Titus, who burnt down the Temple, with the stated reason it will be as a mark of rememberence for any nation which saught to challenge Rome again. This does impact positively on the ancient Hebrew Prophetic writings which mentions the first temple, built by Solomon 2900 years ago. The dead sea scrolls package also gave a new document called THE TEMPLE SCROLLS, which is a service manual of the temple's operations and upkeep.

spamandham

No thanks. I'm interested in independent and reliable confirmation. When a text refers to something absurd, we look for hard archaeological evidence.

For example, Josephus also discusses flying chariots around the time of the fall of the 2nd temple. Do you accept this patent nonsense simply because Josephus wrote it?

spin

I don't think "first", but they are certainly anachronisms, suggesting that the writers simply didn't know the facts clearly enough.

And who gives a f*ck? The term "myth" seems to be bandied about a little too frequently and senselessly on this forum.

Manetho just recorded it. (And who "showed" Manetho to be "obsessed in antisemtiism"?) The Egyptians were polemical against the Jews in Egypt, projecting the expulsion of the Hyksos onto the Jews, providing the seeds for the creation of the story of the exodus.

Manetho? Really? Where did he say that? Perhaps you're confusing Manetho and Apion.

This is relevant in the discussion of your other claims somehow?

Where exactly is the tangible evidence for the Israelites in Egypt in the New Kingdom or Second Intermediate Period?

You do realize that if each of the "exodusees" stood a yard ahead of the previous exodusee the line would reach from the Nile to Jerusalem and then some.

Almost none of the places on the trajectory of the 40 year exodus have ever been heard of.

We've suddenly jumped forward in time 800 years into the more historical reaches of the Hebrew bible, so that's not contentious to me. Our problem is from the earliest narratives in the HB to the time of the emergence of Judah when the Assyrians took out Israel.

There is far more physical evidence for the Minoans prior to 1100 BCE than there is for the Jews prior to 700 BCE.

I've already indicated your claims about alphabet is wrong, in that the Egyptian orthography was fundamentally alphabetical from the beginning. The earliest Semitic alphabetical writing is Phoenician, datable by archaeology.

But talking a bout alphabetical books seems to be a red herring, ignoring all the other writings and archaeological evidence.

Your claims about irresponsibility seem to be based on a total lack of logic. That may not be irresponsible, but, if not, totally inept.

This doesn't make too much sense. Is something missing from the beginning of the sentence?

Because you show no scholarly knowledge of them.

As I have already explained, you show no knowledge of the scientific analysis of the material. A person called David is not mentioned in the Tel Dan Stela.

Here's a link to a review of George Athas's book specifically on the Tel Dan Inscription. (Athas is one a few known worldwide as being an expert on the inscription.) And if the review doesn't inspire you check out the book itself: the review starts with the bibliographical reference.

If the same people who wrote any errors in the earliest bits (or their heirs) wrote the HB, why should the later material be discordant with the earlier material? Our interest is in history, not internal consistency of literature.

You abjectly failed to deal with the post you responded to.


spin

IamJoseph

I mentioned greek and roman archives as well - which cannot in any wise be seen as favoring the Jews!

That is a wrong description, nor does it negate the veracity of Josephus - which is affirmed by numerous other sources; in one instance, Josephus is correcting a Roman writer named Apion.

What your description refers to is a Roman sword in the sky sighted by the populace. This is now alligned with a comet which did enter this space-time. The people percieved this as an omen from the heavens, undertsandably in this era. The report is true: there was a firey swordlike image sighted - and Josephus is vindicated again by scientists. It is ubsurd to use such items as a negation of the diary of the Roman war with Judea - this is one of the most pivotal events in history; its non occurence would have made impossible the emergence of christianity, islam, palestine, the ul uqsa mosque or the exile to Europe.

Jayhawker Soule

Isn't that a somewhat strained statement, Toto? Certainly the Bible/Tanakh is laced with preposterous embellishment and jingoistic propaganda, but would you not admit that much is also an attempt at folk history, however imperfect?

bacht

There's always the risk of anachronism, imposing modern ideas onto ancient writers.

Do we know that the Hebrew authors intended to write "folk history"? For one thing the literacy rate was low, so not many people could've read the scriptures anyway. The average peasant or tradesman in monarchic times was probably quite ignorant.

Another theory is that the historical texts started as court apologia, similar to rulers' annals in other nations. The book of Kings is basically a selective survey of what the elites were doing in Israel and Judah.

After the Babylonian exile the documents probably came under the control of the priests, who would've put their own spin on earlier events. Chronicles is obvious in its commentary style: great secular rulers like Omri got minimal attention, while matters pertaining to the temple and national religion were highlighted.

gentleexit

I don't think we suffer from anachronism here. I think most would agree that the presence of "miracles" can't diminish an ancient account's value to history - otherwise we'd be left with no acceptable accounts. Highlighting some events or groups over others is the stuff of narrative history so that's fine too. Even fabricated characters to embody more diffuse trends doesn't make an account pure fable. And an anthology like the bible can combine allegory or poetry (Songs, Job, Genesis etc) with its history (Kings, Exodus etc) without diminishing that history.

But the "bible as history" has two great problems: archeology and the records of other civilizations. Its books of "history" paint a large nation with extensive influence which seems to exist only in its pages. There is a difference between highlighting and hyperbole and pure fabrication.

To the charge, that we hold the bible to a higher standard than other ancient accounts, I think the opposite. The ground has given some validity to others (ex/ Homer). The problem for ancient Judaism is that its large claims seem to begin and end in its manuscripts.