Celsus

So Jat, apart from your childish posturing, do you still believe that the ancient Israelite genocide really happened? Do you have any evidence to back up your claim, other than "It's in the Bible!" and "The Israelites believed it!"? Or do I need to redirect you to the book of Judges and some real archaeology again?

Joel

Jat

So, you are saying that the Jews have lied about all of their history? That they actually deserved all of the hardships they recieved throughout history?

Celsus

No. I'm saying that myths developed, as you would expect from something being written several centuries after the events. The accuracy of Biblical records starts to increase around the 9th or 8th centuries BCE. Anything before that is tendentious. By the apocryphal books of Maccabees (first century BCE), you get as real a history as you might hope for in the ancient sense of the term.
No, again. Where do you pull these non sequiturs from? Am I anti-Hellenic because I believe Homer's Iliad is mythical?

So, can you answer my question, "Do you still believe that the ancient Israelite genocide really happened?"

Joel

Jat

Yes, it happened, maybe not as complete as it was written, dispite what revisionists are try to do now. The Jews are also known for adopting many of their beliefs and practices from people they have encountered as well. Much of Modern Judaism is from their time as slaves of the Babylonians. Or weren't they slaves then as well now?

Much of Homer's epic poem is myth, but in it is recorded much actually history as well.

They will do and say just about anything now to strengthen their moral claim on the lands they currently occupy.

Celsus

Woah Nelly! Are you accusing all of modern ANE archaeology of "revisionism"? Or are you going to back up this rather strong claim? Any evidence for this invasion? What do you know about pig bones in the Levant (and do you even know what this has to do with the question)? If you have no actual evidence, then I can only suspect ideological reasons for wanting to portray ancient Israelites (who bear little relation to post-Exilic Jews, less still to modern Israelis, despite what Sunday school teachers say) as mass murderers. Finkelstein estimates that the population of the Hill country in the 13th century amounted to about 50,000 people. A genocidal campaign by these people, who lacked iron, against their urbanite neighbours enjoying the protection of Egypt? Please, cite some evidence. This is getting hilariously one-sided.

[P.S. PD moderators, if you'd be so kind as to split this thread off and send it to BC&A I would greatly appreciate it...]

Jat

Originally posted by Celsus

Woah Nelly! Are you accusing all of modern ANE archaeology of "revisionism"?

What is ANE archaeology? Are these the same sort of archaeologists who have evidnece for the Flood and The Ark as well?

Or are you going to back up this rather strong claim? Any evidence for this invasion? What do you know about pig bones in the Levant (and do you even know what this has to do with the question)? If you have no actual evidence, then I can only suspect ideological reasons for wanting to portray ancient Israelites (who bear little relation to post-Exilic Jews, less still to modern Israelis, despite what Sunday school teachers say) as mass murderers. Finkelstein estimates that the population of the Hill country in the 13th century amounted to about 50,000 people. A genocidal campaign by these people, who lacked iron, against their urbanite neighbours enjoying the protection of Egypt? Please, cite some evidence. This is getting hilariously one-sided.

The difference between a revisionists and someone who want to correct history is in motive.

Celsus

I see you refuse to answer any questions. Sorry for the lack of clarity. ANE refers to the Ancient Near East region, which is somewhat larger than the Middle East. ANE archaeology most certainly does not have evidence for an ark (although a local flood in Turkey about 10,000 years ago may have been a candidate for the various flood stories of Noah, Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, Deukalion, etc. etc.).

Now, I believe it's time for you to cite some evidence and answer some questions.

Joel

Jat

The answer is motive. Many revisionists also have apologenic training as well so it is useless to argue with them.

Celsus

Jat, perhaps you're still not understanding how silly this assertion is. The whole field of Ancient Near Eastern archaeology (minus the crackpots and fundamentalists in Bob Jones University and the like), have no time for the Exodus/Canaanite invasion myth. There are the minimalists like Lemche, Thomson, Davies, etc. who reject it (and much more besides). There are maximalists (the mainstream) like Dever, Mazar, Alt, etc. who reject it. There are those in the middle of this like Finkelstein, Silberman, etc. who reject it. This isn't some little revisionist project. You've just disregarded the entire field of ANE archaeology with your assertions. Now, either admit you have no evidence, or stop slandering people who know far more about these things than you do.

Your last few posts have amounted to nothing more than evasions. Please, cite some evidence. For your reference, here are the questions again:

• Any evidence for this invasion? What do you know about pig bones in the Levant (and do you even know what this has to do with the question)? If you have no actual evidence, then I can only suspect ideological reasons for wanting to portray ancient Israelites (who bear little relation to post-Exilic Jews, less still to modern Israelis, despite what Sunday school teachers say) as mass murderers. Finkelstein estimates that the population of the Hill country in the 13th century amounted to about 50,000 people. A genocidal campaign by these people, who lacked iron, against their urbanite neighbours enjoying the protection of Egypt?

This would be a nice place to begin debunking all of ANE archaeology. Hell you'll be famous! But then, my suspicion of ideological motives for this portrayal are growing stronger and stronger for every evasion you make.

Joel

Edit: Aside from that, the minimalists who would argue the strongest case against historicity of the Bible have the least "apologetic" training of the lot. There isn't even a single popularised book of what the minimalist archaeological approach is!

Jat

Originally posted by Celsus

Jat, perhaps you're still not understanding how silly this assertion is. The whole field of Ancient Near Eastern archaeology (minus the crackpots and fundamentalists in Bob Jones University and the like), have no time for the Exodus/Canaanite invasion myth. There are the minimalists like Lemche, Thomson, Davies, etc. who reject it (and much more besides). There are maximalists (the mainstream) like Dever, Mazar, Alt, etc. who reject it. There are those in the middle of this like Finkelstein, Silberman, etc. who reject it. This isn't some little revisionist project. You've just disregarded the entire field of ANE archaeology with your assertions. Now, either admit you have no evidence, or stop slandering people who know far more about these things than you do.

Quote whatever names you want. It is still not a generally accepted theory. Appeal to Authority is a common apologist tactic. BTW, I wasn't calling them the apologists.

In the end you are also saying that all of Jewish recorded history is a lie.