Lachish letters

[A_Nony_Mouse]

As they were brought up in another thread and I rejected anonymous wiki crap I took a quick look at what was available from other sources. Did you know they also support The Book of Mormon too? This is quick and I have not found translations of all that many. If anyone can direct me to translations of all of them I will appreciate it.

These appear to be letters. They are written on pieces of broken pottery.

1) The state of the art of literacy at that time. Broken pottery NOT anything like dirt cheap clay tablets made specifically for writing. Nor are they on parchment. Not that we could hope to find parchment at this late date but if available why use broken pottery?

So the high priest addresses his staff. "We are going to document our religious, social and political history. First thing go out and find about five thousand big pots we can smash up so we have something to write on."

2) The ones I have found mention YHWH but not Ashara. We know from other sources they were the god/goddess pair for the region. Given letters between in time of war no mention of a fertility goddess is unsurprising.

3) By experience I am suspicious of claimed religion support when only a little bit is readily available. It has always indicated what is missing hurts the case occasionally destroys the case. Again if anyone can direct me to a URL with translations of all of them I will appreciate it.

4) Beyond the use of YHWH there is absolutely no biblical connection whatsoever. There is no mention of any Judah nor any king of Judah or Babylon or Jerusalem or any other identifiable bible context. Anything you read throwing in biblical references is lying. This is biblical archaeology, a shovel in one hand and the bible in the other. Find something interesting but doesn't say anything in particular on its own? Force fit it into some bible story. That is not archaeology. That is biblical archaeology which is to say fake, fraudulent archaeology.

5) The name of the letters because they were found in the ruins of the city of Lachish? No Welcome to Lachish signs were found. Nor was anything else which would identify the name of the city. Calling them the Lachish letters is biblical archaeology.

6) The script certainly looks like Phoenician which really should surprise no one as that was the first alphabet. As noted elsewhere the distinction between Phoenician and the imaginary old or paleo or proto Hebrew is biblical, if found where the bible says "hebrews" lived then it is called Hebrew.

A quick look and a quick opinion. Nothing more.

[semiopen2]

It's amusing to see you put on your scholar robes, and present us with A-Nony analysis as opposed to anonymous wiki. Reminds of my Miniature_Pinscher wearing his special doggy tuxedo.

I brought up the Letters in response to your statement in viewtopic.php?f=6&t=325&start=20#p4873

Archaeologically there is no "hebrew" found in bibleland outside of the DSS.

Your attempt to call the letters Phoenician is hilarious, like you would know the difference.

The letters are considered Paleo-Hebrew - Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet

The independent Hebrew script evolved by developing numerous cursive features, the lapidary features of the Phoenician alphabet being ever less pronounced with the passage of time. The aversion of the lapidary script may indicate that the custom of erecting stelae by the kings and offering votive inscriptions to the deity was not widespread in Israel. Even the engraved inscriptions from the 8th century exhibit elements of the cursive style, such as the shading, which is a natural feature of pen-and-ink writing. Examples of such inscriptions include the Siloam inscription, numerous tomb inscriptions from Jerusalem, the Ketef Hinnom amulets, a fragmentary Hebrew inscription on an ivory which was taken as war spoils (probably from Samaria) to Nimrud, and the hundreds of 8th to 6th-century Hebrew seals from various sites. The most developed cursive script is found on the 18 Lachish ostraca, letters sent by an officer to the governor of Lachish just before the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. (cf. the Mesad Hashavyahu petition for favorable judgment.)

Your lack of erudition is once again exposed by your making fun of the fact that they are on Ostraca.

An Aramaic Contemporary of the Lachish Letters
H. L. Ginsberg
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
No. 111 (Oct., 1948), pp. 24-27 says

The people who wrote them wrote on potsherds because they were not writing legal or official documents; if they had, they would have used papyrus...

They further wrote in beautiful biblical Hebrew because they were not addressed diplomatic notes to some non-Canaanite government... if they had it would be not unreasonable to surmise ... they would have composed them in Aramaic.

I'm not sure if you have grasped the points I've been making. I've been assuming that the outrageous mistakes you make in almost every one of your posts are basically due to ignorance. You should consider this a complement, as the alternative explanations are much less flattering.

Funny that you didn't also open up a new thread analyzing Ketef_Hinnom which I also pointed out in the same post as contradicting your idiotic assertion, in the other thread you simply responded with your usual incoherence.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

It's amusing to see you put on your scholar robes, and present us with A-Nony analysis as opposed to anonymous wiki. Reminds of my Miniature_Pinscher wearing his special doggy tuxedo.

I brought up the Letters in response to your statement in viewtopic.php?f=6&t=325&start=20#p4873

Archaeologically there is no "hebrew" found in bibleland outside of the DSS.

Your attempt to call the letters Phoenician is hilarious, like you would know the difference.

That is what we call a juvenile response, that is, it is not a response at all.

One has to ask just how difficult it is for you to actually find an image of Phoenician scripts from one time frame and compare to what is called "hebrew."
http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-hist ... ian464.gif as one example. And of course
http://www.giwersworld.org/images/gs.jpg significant differences does not a different language make. And of course you source does not claim a different language only that the scripts were different in some ways.
We can also look at the evolution of this supposed hebrew
http://www.giwersworld.org/images/evolu ... brew-l.gif so show even more identities in script over time to this supposed hebrew.
One can also look at the "Gezar Calendar"
http://www.giwersworld.org/images/gezar-calendar.gif to see they are the same.
We can even look at the best effort of some unknown modern forger as to what "ancient hebrew" should look like.http://www.giwersworld.org/images/JehoashRollston.gif
We can even go to the undated Siloam Tunnel inscription.
http://www.giwersworld.org/images/siloam-tunnel.gif

What would I know? More than I have bothered to put on my website to illustrate the points I make. And you know every counter example image you have posted and the opinion of an anonymous source. Pardon if my threshold of being impressed is a touch higher than that.

The letters are considered Paleo-Hebrew - Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet

Still getting your facts from anonymous, high school level sources. That explains much of your problem.

The independent Hebrew script evolved by developing numerous cursive features, the lapidary features of the Phoenician alphabet being ever less pronounced with the passage of time. The aversion of the lapidary script may indicate that the custom of erecting stelae by the kings and offering votive inscriptions to the deity was not widespread in Israel. Even the engraved inscriptions from the 8th century exhibit elements of the cursive style, such as the shading, which is a natural feature of pen-and-ink writing. Examples of such inscriptions include the Siloam inscription, numerous tomb inscriptions from Jerusalem, the Ketef Hinnom amulets, a fragmentary Hebrew inscription on an ivory which was taken as war spoils (probably from Samaria) to Nimrud, and the hundreds of 8th to 6th-century Hebrew seals from various sites. The most developed cursive script is found on the 18 Lachish ostraca, letters sent by an officer to the governor of Lachish just before the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. (cf. the Mesad Hashavyahu petition for favorable judgment.)

Your lack of erudition is once again exposed by your making fun of the fact that they are on Ostraca.

Anonymous opinion therefore worthless even it not an appeal to authority. I give images. Are you going to believe anonymous wiki or your own lying eyes?

An Aramaic Contemporary of the Lachish Letters
H. L. Ginsberg
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
No. 111 (Oct., 1948), pp. 24-27 says

The people who wrote them wrote on potsherds because they were not writing legal or official documents; if they had, they would have used papyrus...

I was unaware there was any document from that time frame establishing the legal standards for letters of transmittal. Do you know where I can find it? Why would they use expensive, imported papyrus instead of much cheaper clay tablets unless the writers were Egyptians?

They further wrote in beautiful biblical Hebrew because they were not addressed diplomatic notes to some non-Canaanite government... if they had it would be not unreasonable to surmise ... they would have composed them in Aramaic.

I'm not sure if you have grasped the points I've been making. I've been assuming that the outrageous mistakes you make in almost every one of your posts are basically due to ignorance. You should consider this a complement, as the alternative explanations are much less flattering.

Funny that you didn't also open up a new thread analyzing Ketef_Hinnom which I also pointed out in the same post as contradicting your idiotic assertion, in the other thread you simply responded with your usual incoherence.

To summarize, you have never actually looked at the script and compared it to Phoenician. Further

1) There is no rational excuse for having only broken pottery to write on if there were dirt cheap clay tablets.

2) The only bible connection is the mention of YHWH who was a god worshiped from ancient Ugarit all the way to the upper Nile.

3) You know of no translation of all of the letters yet hold profound opinions based upon the two the religions sources harp on.

4) You agree this is biblical archaeology using the bible to find a place to shoehorn in these letters, a method professionally discredited since the 1890s.

5) That there is no objective reason, only a biblical reason to refer to these as the "Lachish" letters.

If you have not conceded those points would you care to address them now?

[semiopen2]

To summarize, you have never actually looked at the script and compared it to Phoenician. Further

1) There is no rational excuse for having only broken pottery to write on if there were dirt cheap clay tablets.

2) The only bible connection is the mention of YHWH who was a god worshiped from ancient Ugarit all the way to the upper Nile.

3) You know of no translation of all of the letters yet hold profound opinions based upon the two the religions sources harp on.

4) You agree this is biblical archaeology using the bible to find a place to shoehorn in these letters, a method professionally discredited since the 1890s.

5) That there is no objective reason, only a biblical reason to refer to these as the "Lachish" letters.

If you have not conceded those points would you care to address them now?

These points make no sense and why are you insulting me, juvenile, lying? I've been complementing you by writing to you and this is how I get repaid?

I posted a quote from an article that says the letters are Hebrew. You respond by posting unannotated pictures from your website.

1. Ostracon

In Athens, the voting public would write or scratch the name of a person in the shard of pottery. When the decision at hand was to banish or exile a certain member of society, citizen peers would cast their vote by writing the name of the person on the piece of pottery; the vote was counted and if unfavorable the person was exiled for a period of ten years from the city, thus giving rise to the term ostracism.

Anything with a smooth surface could be used as a writing surface. Generally discarded material, ostraca were cheap, readily available and therefore frequently used for writings of an ephemeral nature such as messages, prescriptions, receipts, students exercises and notes: pottery shards, limestone flakes,[1] thin fragments of other stone types, etc., but limestone sherds, being flaky and of a lighter color, were most common.

These were popular all over the Mediterranean, you seem to be implying that the Canaanites were stupid for using them - I just don't get it.

2. don't understand your fixation with the bible in this discussion. I was responding to your ridiculous statement in the thread I quoted that says Hebrew didn't exist before the dead sea scrolls.

3. This is incoherent.

4. Close to incoherent but see 5

5. The letters are very close to the first temple and are in Hebrew. They were discovered at Lachish. I don't understand the point.

[semiopen2]

After some thought, I'm not sure what the significance of the script is.

The opinion that the various inscriptions are in Hebrew seems unanimous -

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia -http://www.amazon.com/International-Sta ... cyclopedia

Volume 2 goes

D. Early Hebrew Inscriptions. The chief extrabiblical evidence for written Hebrew is as follows. (1) The 'Izbet Sartah inscription was discovered in 1976. Dated to the 11th cent. B.C., it contains around eighty letters (M. Kochavi, Tel Aviv, 4 "1977", 1-13 "also pp. 14-27"). (2) The schoolboy's GEZER CALENDAR lists the agricultural significance of the successive months of the year. It is dated ca. 925 B.C. and is written in the Paleo-Hebrew script. (3) In 1976 about seventy Hebrew and Phoenician inscriptions were found at Kuntillet 'Ajrud in Sinai, and dated between the 9th and 8th cents. B.C. (Z. Meshel, Biblical Archaeology Review, 5/2 "1979". 24-35). One text refers to God — under His covenant name YHWH — in conjunction with the goddess Ashtaroth, reminding one of the Elephantine papyri parallel. (4) The Siloam inscription dates from ca. 705 B.C. (5) The Samaria Ostraca date from the reign of Jeroboam II (ca. 770 B.C.), and consist mainly of receipts for taxes. (6) The Lachish Letters date from ca. 587 B.C., and consist largely of military communications from a Jewish outpost to its headquarters. These inscriptions indicate the way Hebrew was written and spelled in those periods. By the time the DEAD SEA SCROLLS were written (2nd cent. B.C.) the Paleo-Hebrew script had given way to the Aramaic "square script".

Paleo-Hebrew and Phoenician arose from the same source, but even if Paleo-Hebrew was directly based on the Phoenician, I don't see the importance.

The Old Testament: Its formation and development by Artur Weiser - http://www.amazon.com/The-Old-Testament ... evelopment

The following may be regarded as intermediate links: marks of writing on discoveries at Tell ed Duweir (the old Lachish) and on an ostracon of ' Ain Shems, a potsherd of Gezer, a plaque and a fragment from Shechem and a gold ring with illegible marks of writing from Megiddo, which belong in part to the pictorial type of the Sinaitic script and date from the last third of the second millennium, also the Old Phoenician inscription of king Jehimelech from Byblos, the inscription of the Ahiram sarcophagus and of Abibaal and Elibaal, the farmer's calendar of Gezer of the tenth century and the Siloam inscription of the eighth century. The type of Old-Canaanite and Old Hebrew script related to this Old Phoenician script is also found on about eighty Israelite ostraca of Samaria from the ninth century (receipts for deliveries of oil and wine to the royal court) on stone seals, of which the beautiful seal of the ' Shema', of the servant of Jeroboam' from the eighth century is the most famous, on about 100 jar-handles of the eighth to seventh centuries and on the ostraca from Lachish of the sixth century. A similar type of script on the inscription of King Mesha of Moab, on the Kilamuwa writing of Zendjirli ( ninth century) and on the Zakir writing of Hamath ( eighth century) tells us that the Old Canaanite script was also in use with the Moabites and Aramaeans (for the script cf. also the books on biblical archaeology and Galling, BRL, col. 460 ff.).

Seems like an interesting sideline. However, it doesn't have anything obvious to do with what language was being written. In the Lachish Letters case, we are talking about Hebrew.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

To summarize, you have never actually looked at the script and compared it to Phoenician. Further

1) There is no rational excuse for having only broken pottery to write on if there were dirt cheap clay tablets.

2) The only bible connection is the mention of YHWH who was a god worshiped from ancient Ugarit all the way to the upper Nile.

3) You know of no translation of all of the letters yet hold profound opinions based upon the two the religions sources harp on.

4) You agree this is biblical archaeology using the bible to find a place to shoehorn in these letters, a method professionally discredited since the 1890s.

5) That there is no objective reason, only a biblical reason to refer to these as the "Lachish" letters.

If you have not conceded those points would you care to address them now?

These points make no sense and why are you insulting me, juvenile, lying? I've been complementing you by writing to you and this is how I get repaid?

I do not see how asking if you agree to the other points constitutes discourtesy. However I do consider the following discourteous.

"It's amusing to see you put on your scholar robes, and present us with A-Nony analysis as opposed to anonymous wiki. Reminds of my Miniature_Pinscher wearing his special doggy tuxedo."

"Your attempt to call the letters Phoenician is hilarious, like you would know the difference."

and

"You should consider this a complement, as the alternative explanations are much less flattering."

I do not see how they are complimentary.

If you mean my comments upon using an anonymous source targeted at high schoolers then you are using a juvenile source and because of the anonymity a worthless source for this discussion.

I posted a quote from an article that says the letters are Hebrew. You respond by posting unannotated pictures from your website.

1. Ostracon

In Athens, the voting public would write or scratch the name of a person in the shard of pottery. When the decision at hand was to banish or exile a certain member of society, citizen peers would cast their vote by writing the name of the person on the piece of pottery; the vote was counted and if unfavorable the person was exiled for a period of ten years from the city, thus giving rise to the term ostracism.

Anything with a smooth surface could be used as a writing surface. Generally discarded material, ostraca were cheap, readily available and therefore frequently used for writings of an ephemeral nature such as messages, prescriptions, receipts, students exercises and notes: pottery shards, limestone flakes,[1] thin fragments of other stone types, etc., but limestone sherds, being flaky and of a lighter color, were most common.

These were popular all over the Mediterranean, you seem to be implying that the Canaanites were stupid for using them - I just don't get it.

For the Greeks and others not a single written document of any importance ever found on broken pottery. For bibleland prior to Greek rule this and a couple on wood is all that is found. Even merchant contracts used it whereas in Babylon at the same time and millennia before clay tablets were used. Egypt did use papyrus around as long as Babylon and the places where they were stored have been found. So when it comes to creating the OT they still had to go out and find a few thousand pots to break so they had something to write on.

All evidence they used something better than and more standard than broken post will be gratefully accepted.

That still leaves us with, "I was unaware there was any document from that time frame establishing the legal standards for letters of transmittal. Do you know where I can find it? Why would they use expensive, imported papyrus instead of much cheaper clay tablets unless the writers were Egyptians?" as you implicitly accept the claim but have no evidentiary basis for it.

If that is to hard, the man you quoted writes as though he knows the protocol for what kind of documents are written on what material. I want to know how he knows. Did you not think of that question before you quoted him?

2. don't understand your fixation with the bible in this discussion. I was responding to your ridiculous statement in the thread I quoted that says Hebrew didn't exist before the dead sea scrolls.

As you brought it up as evidence of a group called Hebrews and as the only mention of any Hebrews is in the bible it is obvious you were making a bible reference. If you are now rejecting the unprovenanced bible from discussion then there is no hebrew language to discuss because there are no Hebrews to name a language after. The mention of YHWH is thus an indication the people named were Phoenicians or some generic, unidentified Palestinians. You do remember the land was called Palestine in this same century as recorded by Herodotus.

As to what I said about the DSS I generally try to be careful in how I phrase it. If that is what I said, let me rephrase it. There is no evidence of any Hebrew language prior the the DSS. As there is no evidence there is no reason to say there was such a language regardless of any unprovenanced religious traditions or sources.

3. This is incoherent.

As you declare a Hebrew language existed and Hebrews are only found in the bible you are bringing the bible into this discussion. It is difficult to imagine how you are giving a name to a language and declaring its existence without predicating it upon the bible declaration that Hebrews existed.

Is that clear enough?

4. Close to incoherent but see 5

Same as 3. Similarly you brought up the Lachish letters in another thread as though relevant in an OT context as a reply to a comment on the DSS. How is that not bringing up the bible context of these letters? The name itself, Lachish, is biblical only. Your alternate name, (Hoshaiah Letters), is also biblical. As the DSS is the OT which is referred to as biblical and as your response is littered with biblical references how can you claim you are not using the discredited method of force fitting finds into a bible context?

5. The letters are very close to the first temple and are in Hebrew. They were discovered at Lachish. I don't understand the point.

Again the bible. There is no first temple in evidence. Nor are there any Hebrews to speak Hebrew. There is no Lachish in the letters, the name comes only from the bible. You wrote two sentences and made three references to things found only in the bible. Why do you pretend you are not talking about the bible? Without the bible there is no basis for any of the three references. Do you not know that?

The only sources for for such claims are the bible, the OT in particular. You again refer only to material found in the long discredited OT. You can go back and look as my post in the other thread where I pointed out that, by different routes, we had both discredited the OT as a work of fiction created long after the 5th c.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

After some thought, I'm not sure what the significance of the script is.

The opinion that the various inscriptions are in Hebrew seems unanimous -

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia -http://www.amazon.com/International-Sta ... cyclopedia

The Old Testament: Its formation and development by Artur Weiser - http://www.amazon.com/The-Old-Testament ... evelopment

Seems like an interesting sideline. However, it doesn't have anything obvious to do with what language was being written. In the Lachish Letters case, we are talking about Hebrew.

Does the term biased have a meaning for you? Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Appeal to a biased authority is downright dumb. If that floats your boat I am certain Amazon carries a number of books from sources fully convinced we are being visited by little green men. There would be no difference. Most popular or most commonly believed does not indicate most correct. Look up the polls on the idiots who believe in creationism and see for yourself.

What in the hell did you expect sources with those titles to say?

When you are dealing with academic types no matter what I find it is nearly 100% certain there will be a second academic paper saying the opposite and a third straddling the fence between the two. I learned that the hard way decades ago. On interesting points these papers on all sides can be published for decades and they never answer anything. It is almost like keeping the debate alive is job security.

So pick a side, collect all the articles supporting that side and publish a book carried on Amazon essentially no different from what you are citing.

I am presenting evidence and talking about the evidence. Look at the evidence and decide for yourself. You owe it to yourself to think for yourself. Unless you love academia the route you are on will have you chasing your tail for the rest of your life.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

For the record the Biblical Archaeology Review is a newsstand magazine not a professional journal of any kind.

Anyone citing is as an authoritative source is as unqualified to have an opinion on the subject as the magazine itself.

[Peter Kirby]

For the record the Biblical Archaeology Review is a newsstand magazine not a professional journal of any kind.

Anyone citing is as an authoritative source is as unqualified to have an opinion on the subject as the magazine itself.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ttack.html
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

[Peter Kirby]

After some thought, I'm not sure what the significance of the script is.

The opinion that the various inscriptions are in Hebrew seems unanimous -

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia -http://www.amazon.com/International-Sta ... cyclopedia

The Old Testament: Its formation and development by Artur Weiser - http://www.amazon.com/The-Old-Testament ... evelopment

Seems like an interesting sideline. However, it doesn't have anything obvious to do with what language was being written. In the Lachish Letters case, we are talking about Hebrew.

Does the term biased have a meaning for you? Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Appeal to a biased authority is downright dumb. If that floats your boat I am certain Amazon carries a number of books from sources fully convinced we are being visited by little green men. There would be no difference. Most popular or most commonly believed does not indicate most correct. Look up the polls on the idiots who believe in creationism and see for yourself.

What in the hell did you expect sources with those titles to say?

When you are dealing with academic types no matter what I find it is nearly 100% certain there will be a second academic paper saying the opposite and a third straddling the fence between the two. I learned that the hard way decades ago. On interesting points these papers on all sides can be published for decades and they never answer anything. It is almost like keeping the debate alive is job security.

So pick a side, collect all the articles supporting that side and publish a book carried on Amazon essentially no different from what you are citing.

I am presenting evidence and talking about the evidence. Look at the evidence and decide for yourself. You owe it to yourself to think for yourself. Unless you love academia the route you are on will have you chasing your tail for the rest of your life.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.

Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.

Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person's expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.

The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.

It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.

It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics.

There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.

It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.

The person in question is not significantly biased.
If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.

Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.

It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.

The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable.

What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called "chromabullet therapy" and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.

As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history, various scientists had to struggle with the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of their area accepted.

A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified "master psychics" and that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of being certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of expertise. If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master psychics" as true are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.

The authority in question must be identified.
A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.

This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim.

This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I have a book that says...", or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.

As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.

In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.

What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.

In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.

It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger.