Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
The thing again is that the Jews of the period didn't claim to be "the kingdom of Israel." The Samaritans do. Now the evidence comes from a later period than the Biblical books of Kings and the like. But I don't understand why anyone would start to try and "out cancel" the Jews of that early period. It's a lot of losers on the internet who make "changing history" their life mission because their life turned out to be a big waste of time.
So when it comes time to evaluation the historical Jesus they quickly reach over and turn the dial to "lower standards of evidence." Oh but something they don't like like the connection of the Samaritans to the former kingdom that was on their land "maximum possible standards of evidence." Such losers. Who does this?
So when it comes time to evaluation the historical Jesus they quickly reach over and turn the dial to "lower standards of evidence." Oh but something they don't like like the connection of the Samaritans to the former kingdom that was on their land "maximum possible standards of evidence." Such losers. Who does this?
Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
Why do you trust the later sources as accurate records about past centutries rather than, for example, propaganda? Such a thing should always be considered as at least possible, and ther likelihood of their innaccracy increases when we have archaeological sources, including writing, which are from earlier times and contradict what later sources say.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:34 am The thing again is that the Jews of the period didn't claim to be "the kingdom of Israel." The Samaritans do. Now the evidence comes from a later period than the Biblical books of Kings and the like. But I don't understand why anyone would start to try and "out cancel" the Jews of that early period. It's a lot of losers on the internet who make "changing history" their life mission because their life turned out to be a big waste of time.
So when it comes time to evaluation the historical Jesus they quickly reach over and turn the dial to "lower standards of evidence." Oh but something they don't like like the connection of the Samaritans to the former kingdom that was on their land "maximum possible standards of evidence." Such losers. Who does this?
The sources for Jesus are of the same calibre, I think - sources from multiple time periods with accounts and ommissions which can be used to reconstruct a figure.
Why are you condemning people who mae changing history their life's mission when you saeem to be one of them, in terms of Samaritans?
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
Honestly. Do you understand the concept of "being fair"? You can't say:
1. yeah there's a lot of evidence for Jesus being a historical figure, but fuck it. I'll take the position based on no actual evidence and say Jesus didn't exist.
2. ah, but there is too little evidence for acknowledging the Samaritans are descendants of "the kingdom of Israel." Let's base our opinions solely on Jewish anti-Samaritan propaganda like Josephus and the Kuthim nonsense.
It's either go with the evidence and accept Jesus is historical/doubt the Samaritans are descendants of the kingdom of Israel
or
say evidence was suppressed that Jesus was ahistorical/it's possible the same thing happened with the Samaritans, Samaritans might be/likely are descendants of the kingdom of Israel.
You can't go easy on one and hard on the other. Have to be "fair"/consistent to not make it look like you are trying to cook the books for what ever hobby horse you happen to be behind.
1. yeah there's a lot of evidence for Jesus being a historical figure, but fuck it. I'll take the position based on no actual evidence and say Jesus didn't exist.
2. ah, but there is too little evidence for acknowledging the Samaritans are descendants of "the kingdom of Israel." Let's base our opinions solely on Jewish anti-Samaritan propaganda like Josephus and the Kuthim nonsense.
It's either go with the evidence and accept Jesus is historical/doubt the Samaritans are descendants of the kingdom of Israel
or
say evidence was suppressed that Jesus was ahistorical/it's possible the same thing happened with the Samaritans, Samaritans might be/likely are descendants of the kingdom of Israel.
You can't go easy on one and hard on the other. Have to be "fair"/consistent to not make it look like you are trying to cook the books for what ever hobby horse you happen to be behind.
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
The typical Samaritan DNA profile from 1920 was way more "Semitic" than the typical Jewish DNA profile from Europe. But we accept one as "sons of Judah" but not the other as "sons of Israel"
Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
1. I believe that Jesus was a historical figure. But reconstructing this figure must take into account early Christian texts which are consistent with mythicism.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:48 pm Honestly. Do you understand the concept of "being fair"? You can't say:
1. yeah there's a lot of evidence for Jesus being a historical figure, but fuck it. I'll take the position based on no actual evidence and say Jesus didn't exist.
2. ah, but there is too little evidence for acknowledging the Samaritans are descendants of "the kingdom of Israel." Let's base our opinions solely on Jewish anti-Samaritan propaganda like Josephus and the Kuthim nonsense.
It's either go with the evidence and accept Jesus is historical/doubt the Samaritans are descendants of the kingdom of Israel
or
say evidence was suppressed that Jesus was ahistorical/it's possible the same thing happened with the Samaritans, Samaritans might be/likely are descendants of the kingdom of Israel.
You can't go easy on one and hard on the other. Have to be "fair"/consistent to not make it look like you are trying to cook the books for what ever hobby horse you happen to be behind.
2. If you had seriously considered my words "Why do you trust the later sources as accurate records about past centutries rather than, for example, propaganda? Such a thing should always be considered as at least possible, and ther likelihood of their innaccracy increases when we have archaeological sources, including writing, which are from earlier times and contradict what later sources say.", you would realize that I regard Josephus and the "Kuthim nonsense" as less reliable than archaeological evidence (including written material) from centuries earlier than Josephus and the completed Hebrew Scriptures.
Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
Well, the Samaritans were more insular and less prone to travelling than the Jews, so conservatism in their DNA profile is to be expected. But I see nothing wrong with regarding the Samaritans as sons and daughters of Israel, albeit with the caveat that they may not have as glorious a past as the Hebrew Scriptures would have us believe.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:53 pm The typical Samaritan DNA profile from 1920 was way more "Semitic" than the typical Jewish DNA profile from Europe. But we accept one as "sons of Judah" but not the other as "sons of Israel"
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
What part of the "scriptures" would that be? The Samaritans only regard the Torah as authoritative. Yes I would agree that all these characters are fictitious. So what's your point?I see nothing wrong with regarding the Samaritans as sons and daughters of Israel, albeit with the caveat that they may not have as glorious a past as the Hebrew Scriptures would have us believe.
Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
Well, even assuming that only the Torah is true, then the Samaritans as Israelites would be descended from a man who wrestled with the uncreated creator god!Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 3:03 pmWhat part of the "scriptures" would that be? The Samaritans only regard the Torah as authoritative. Yes I would agree that all these characters are fictitious. So what's your point?I see nothing wrong with regarding the Samaritans as sons and daughters of Israel, albeit with the caveat that they may not have as glorious a past as the Hebrew Scriptures would have us believe.
But in general, my point is that regarding the Samaritans as sons and daughters of Israel in no way means accepting either Samaritan or Jewish accounts about their orgins and history as true - not when we have archaeological evidence (including writing) contradicting their narratives.
In the same way, I can accept that Koreans are descendants of Dangun even as I recognize that this is contradicted by evidence. Both claims of descent are myths - and myths need not be true.
Last edited by ABuddhist on Wed Feb 01, 2023 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
So this is your angle. Ok. Yes it's all myth. Fine. Doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.Well, even assuming that only the Torah is true, then the Samaritans as Israelites would be descended from a man who wrestled with the uncreated creator god!
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?
So to repeat, the "Jews" are basically Italic converts to the Jewish religion who claim to be descendants of David and his people (ironically my mother's family living in Switzerland used to refer to all Eastern European Jews as "khazerim" in the early 20th century not knowing I think anything about the Khazars per se. I think it was more of a manifestation of the typical German antipathy toward Slavic people. I don't think they would have been nearly as badly disposed toward an association with Italians given that they spent most of their time in casinos in Lugano and northern Italy). The Samaritans are descendants of the residents of the northern kingdom of Israel and call themselves "sons of Israel" accordingly. But, because the descendants of Italic converts bandy about open propaganda against their northern neighbors and lived among Europeans for centuries in very large numbers (mostly owing to their habit of making triple the number of children for many generations) we've learned to accept the Jewish propaganda.
For the record I'd rather be of Italian descent than Jewish descent. Better food.
For the record I'd rather be of Italian descent than Jewish descent. Better food.