Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Anat · 03-02-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

Well, and that's my point. You could learn a lot about Victorian London by reading Sherlock Holmes. Or about medieval England by reading Beowulf.

The stories about Sherlock Holmes were written by a person who lived in Victorian London. The stories of the exodus and conquest were written down centuries after the time when the events were supposed to had happened. So instead of learning about early Israelites you learn about how late Judahites, or maybe postexilic Jews viewed their past.

rob117 · 03-02-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is hardly a settled fact. The Merenptah stele draws a distinction between the Shasu and the Israelites

The Merneptah stele (full text) doesn't mention shasu. Israel here seems to be a tribe of unsettled highland nomads- "shasu" was the general Egyptian designation for any of the linguistically Canaanite nomads in Canaan, Transjordan, or the Sinai; Israel seems to have been a specific tribe of shasu that Merneptah fought.

robto · 03-03-2006, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What exactly is Redford's evidence for this? I can't find any. My understanding is that the Egyptians were extremely xenophobic after the Hyskos expulsion and that they did not take foreign slaves any more. The certainly did not take Israelite slaves.

Here's what he has to say (p.208)

Quote:

From Palestine during the latter half of the 18th Dynasty comes convincing evidence of a certain degree of population disruption. Numerous populous sites of Middle Bronze Age date are found to have been destroyed, and a major shift of population is indicated into valleys and coastal plains, leaving he highlands sparsely occupied. The immediate aftermath of the Egyptian conquest involved the intentional demolition of Canaanite towns and the deportation of a sizable segment of the population..... Amenophis II uprooted by his own account 89,600...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is hardly a settled fact.

Having read some of the links in this thread, I now realize this.

Quote:

If you're talking about the Karnak relief, it's from the time of Seti I, not Raamses II (Raamses II was his son).

He doesn't say "Karnak". "That the relief dates from Ramesses II's reign and not Merneptah's is now virtually certain." Citing IEJ 36 (1986)188.

Quote:

The Shasu in the relief are not Israelites,

Yes, but note that in the Biblical account there is not yet a nation of Israel. There's only Joseph and his brothers.

Quote:

and it's a little too late to represent evidence of a 400 year bondage in Egypt.

Not sure what you mean by this. Could you expand?

Quote:

The stel also offers evidence that "Israel" was already an established presence in Israel by the time of Merentpah.

Right, so the "Exodus" would have had to happen some time before 1200.

Quote:

So what? They weren't conquered by Israelites.

Agreed.

Quote:

No. Any time of "wandering" in the desert (i.e. time spent as desert nomads) would have preceded any hypothetical enslavement of the Shasu, not come after it.

Not sure how you can be so sure of this. If some slaves were released or escaped, wouldn't they have returned to their nomadic lifestyle?

Quote:

There is no evidence for Israel as a "kingdom" in the 13th century. The Merentpah stele just identifies them as a people, not a kingdom or a polity. It also claims to have destroyed them.

Agreed - I shouldn't have used the word "kingdom".

Quote:

It's not "negativity," it's simple observation of the facts. The historicity of the Biblical Exodus is decisively contradicted by the evidence. The Israelites were never enslaved in Egypt, never escaped, never wandered in the Sinai and never conquered Canaan. They were indigenous Canaanite hill people never left southern Canaan. Why is it "negative" simply to acknowledge that?

I appreciate your detailed response, Diogenes, and I think I'm starting to get a better idea of what it means to say "the Exodus is unsupported by archaeological evidence." I still feel that that's putting it in a misleading fashion. Wouldn't it be better to say the archaeological evidence indicates the Israelites DID grow out of a nomadic group (if you accept the Shasu idea, at least), and that some of them may well have been captive in Egypt at some point? At the same time making it clear that there is no evidence for individuals such as Joseph and Moses.

Steven Avery · 03-03-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reena

Hmm, where did you learn this? I'd like to see pictures etc.

Reena, have you looked at the pictures at all? Note also the response of those who try to discredit simply based on a rather fierce propaganda campaign. They love to mock, yet seem to have no real time to research and respond sensibly, though they will seek to quote another mocker without real substance when they take a minute to chase it down.

So, where are the comparable "sand dunes" in Sahara or whereever ?

One person did offer the reverse theory, that the story was built around fitting the unusual geography, I found that interesting :-) And at least a bit more honest. (I think that that post was a general acceptance of the confluence of the Biblical account with the geography, not necessarily the particular Ron Wyatt site).

The pictures and the chemistry and the stinky sulpur and the geography make the Sodom and Gomorrah issue fascinating. Personally, I don't think any honest observer would object to at the very least "interesting case, fits well, possibly that is the Biblical site, good study Ron and friends". And I would go further, the best contender for the Biblical site, and a very good contender. I think this issue is also fascinating for an excellent example of steel-trap-shut minds in action.

Similarly there is really little doubt these days that the best contender for Sinai and the Exodus crossing are Ron's discoveries. Of course to the skeptic who says there was no crossing, that means little. Which is why I think it is good to focus first on the Sodom and Gomorrah site, where one could tie in the Biblical account to a more naturalistic approach, leaving supernatural issues a bit unsettled, and yet having a site that matches the Tanach well.

Shalom,
Steven

Toto · 03-04-2006, 09:50 AM

BCH thread devoted to debunking Ron Wyatt

RED DAVE · 03-04-2006, 01:01 PM

Bryce Canyon

Wyatt was a psycho. He claimed to have discovered Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, the site of the crucifixion, the site of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, Mount Sinai and, the current point of discussion, Sodom and Gommorah. He was not a trained archeaologist. He was, I believe, a nurse.

Now, since not one of his so-called discoveries has ever been validated by scientific archeology, I have to ask to ask you, praxeus, what is your basis for believing his claims since they have all the validity of the face on Mars?

All of Wyatt's pictures are of natural formations. (See the link I posted for similar formations at Bryce Canyon.) If they were of walls, buildings, etc., we would see bricks, stones, etc. Instead, we see the same kind of talus as in Bryce or any other similar situation.

Why would you believe them in the first place unless you have a will to believe that somehow, some way, somewhere, the Bible accounts are going to found to be true?

Something stinks with Wyatt's work, and it ain't the sulphur around the Dead Sea. (Incidentally, my mother's cousin was the foreman at the Dead Sea works for many years.)

RED DAVE

03-04-2006, 06:03 PM

OK. disregarding the Sodom thing, can we redirect the question a bit?

The Iliad was considered to be fiction until they found Troy and Mycenae. Now it's, what, historical fiction? Some of the characters probably existed and the places were real, and there probably was even a war...

How does the bible compare to the Iliad for historicity?

PS: Ebonmuse, your site rocks. Answers to so much!

Anat · 03-04-2006, 11:05 PM

How specific is the Troy site for Homeric Troy? A city in the general area devastated by fire? (Is the timing of the destruction in the right time frame?) - Won't there be several of them anywhere you look where cities existed in ancient times? Is there evidence for the identity of the opposing army?
Are there any specific artefacts that tie the site to the Iliad?
When you say 'some of the characters probably existed' - did they exist at one time or are they a collection of characters from various stories from different times and places brought together into one story?

Many places mentioned in the Bible have been identified, but the time of their occupation does not necessarily match the Biblical account. Classical examples are B'er Sheba and Kadesh Barnea. Or Jericho - identified, but wasn't occupied, or was a very small place at the supposed time of the conquest. In other places there is a controversy regarding dating. For example, was there serious construction activity in Megiddo in the 10th century (Solomon's time) or only in the 9th (Ahab's times)? Some places described as conquered by Joshua were actually conquered by the Sea Peoples.

The Mesha stele is evidence that indeed there has been a war between Israel and Moab, but we have conflicting accounts regarding the details (only to be expected, I suppose). There is also an Assyrian account of Senacherib's campaign that gives a somewhat different description then the Biblical one.

So I'd say from the time of the 2 kingdoms the account is mostly historical, and like all historical accounts displays the biases of the author. (Though a big part of the Elijah and Elisha stories is legendary and suffers both from internal contradictions.) Earlier stories - well, as I said, even if the places mentioned are real they might be used anachronistically. They may reflect social, religious or political realities of early times - but through the filter of generations of oral traditions, or projections of beliefs from later times about the past. We know of some anachronisms, especially in the patriarchal stories. Also, there probably was an attempt to justify late customs by claiming antiquity (for example claiming that late forms of worship started in the desert) and to explain late relationships between tribes or peoples by interactions of their alleged founding ancestors. IOW - in many ways very much like the Iliad and other legends of classical mythology.

yalla · 03-05-2006, 02:58 AM

"How specific is the Troy site for Homeric Troy?"

There is a giant wooden horse there, so it must be the right place.
Sorry about that.

rob117 · 03-05-2006, 10:03 AM

Joining the Iliad discussion:

There is evidence in Hittite records that Mycenaean Greeks ("Ahhiyawa") of the Late Bronze Age were encroaching on the territory of Wilusa- which has been identified from geographical references in the Hittite records as very probably on the site of Troy (Hissarlik, in NW Turkey). Wilusa has also been connected etymologically with the Ilios (an alternate name for Troy) of Homer, and the name of one Wilusan king- Aleksandush- may be related to the Greek name Alexandros, which is used as an alternate name for Prince Paris of Troy in the Iliad. Whether or not the destruction of Troy VIIa c.1180 BC is the work of these Mycenaean incursions is unknown, but there is enough evidence to show that the Iliad has a historical Bronze Age trans-Bosporous conflict in its background, despite the fact that it is highly mythologized- unsurprising since it was composed centuries after it supposedly took place.

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

03-04-2006, 09:50 AM	#45
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	BCH thread devoted to debunking Ron Wyatt

03-04-2006, 01:01 PM	#46
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	Bryce Canyon Wyatt was a psycho. He claimed to have discovered Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, the site of the crucifixion, the site of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, Mount Sinai and, the current point of discussion, Sodom and Gommorah. He was not a trained archeaologist. He was, I believe, a nurse. Now, since not one of his so-called discoveries has ever been validated by scientific archeology, I have to ask to ask you, praxeus, what is your basis for believing his claims since they have all the validity of the face on Mars? All of Wyatt's pictures are of natural formations. (See the link I posted for similar formations at Bryce Canyon.) If they were of walls, buildings, etc., we would see bricks, stones, etc. Instead, we see the same kind of talus as in Bryce or any other similar situation. Why would you believe them in the first place unless you have a will to believe that somehow, some way, somewhere, the Bible accounts are going to found to be true? Something stinks with Wyatt's work, and it ain't the sulphur around the Dead Sea. (Incidentally, my mother's cousin was the foreman at the Dead Sea works for many years.) RED DAVE

03-04-2006, 06:03 PM	#47
cajela Guest Posts: n/a	OK. disregarding the Sodom thing, can we redirect the question a bit? The Iliad was considered to be fiction until they found Troy and Mycenae. Now it's, what, historical fiction? Some of the characters probably existed and the places were real, and there probably was even a war... How does the bible compare to the Iliad for historicity? PS: Ebonmuse, your site rocks. Answers to so much!

03-04-2006, 11:05 PM	#48
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	How specific is the Troy site for Homeric Troy? A city in the general area devastated by fire? (Is the timing of the destruction in the right time frame?) - Won't there be several of them anywhere you look where cities existed in ancient times? Is there evidence for the identity of the opposing army? Are there any specific artefacts that tie the site to the Iliad? When you say 'some of the characters probably existed' - did they exist at one time or are they a collection of characters from various stories from different times and places brought together into one story? Many places mentioned in the Bible have been identified, but the time of their occupation does not necessarily match the Biblical account. Classical examples are B'er Sheba and Kadesh Barnea. Or Jericho - identified, but wasn't occupied, or was a very small place at the supposed time of the conquest. In other places there is a controversy regarding dating. For example, was there serious construction activity in Megiddo in the 10th century (Solomon's time) or only in the 9th (Ahab's times)? Some places described as conquered by Joshua were actually conquered by the Sea Peoples. The Mesha stele is evidence that indeed there has been a war between Israel and Moab, but we have conflicting accounts regarding the details (only to be expected, I suppose). There is also an Assyrian account of Senacherib's campaign that gives a somewhat different description then the Biblical one. So I'd say from the time of the 2 kingdoms the account is mostly historical, and like all historical accounts displays the biases of the author. (Though a big part of the Elijah and Elisha stories is legendary and suffers both from internal contradictions.) Earlier stories - well, as I said, even if the places mentioned are real they might be used anachronistically. They may reflect social, religious or political realities of early times - but through the filter of generations of oral traditions, or projections of beliefs from later times about the past. We know of some anachronisms, especially in the patriarchal stories. Also, there probably was an attempt to justify late customs by claiming antiquity (for example claiming that late forms of worship started in the desert) and to explain late relationships between tribes or peoples by interactions of their alleged founding ancestors. IOW - in many ways very much like the Iliad and other legends of classical mythology.

03-05-2006, 02:58 AM	#49
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	"How specific is the Troy site for Homeric Troy?" There is a giant wooden horse there, so it must be the right place. Sorry about that.

03-05-2006, 10:03 AM	#50
rob117 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: New York State Posts: 440	Joining the Iliad discussion: There is evidence in Hittite records that Mycenaean Greeks ("Ahhiyawa") of the Late Bronze Age were encroaching on the territory of Wilusa- which has been identified from geographical references in the Hittite records as very probably on the site of Troy (Hissarlik, in NW Turkey). Wilusa has also been connected etymologically with the Ilios (an alternate name for Troy) of Homer, and the name of one Wilusan king- Aleksandush- may be related to the Greek name Alexandros, which is used as an alternate name for Prince Paris of Troy in the Iliad. Whether or not the destruction of Troy VIIa c.1180 BC is the work of these Mycenaean incursions is unknown, but there is enough evidence to show that the Iliad has a historical Bronze Age trans-Bosporous conflict in its background, despite the fact that it is highly mythologized- unsurprising since it was composed centuries after it supposedly took place.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.