Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?

[Secret Alias]

But it doesn't make sense. When dealing with evidence from THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO you say "there isn't enough there to identify Israel as the land around Shechem." But surely that's a subjective determination. How much is "enough evidence"? What is reasonable to expect given the fact that Israel sits at the crossroads of almost every world empire and that as one empire was toppled and another became dominant they burned and destroyed buildings, texts and communities. There is an interesting "second part" to Abu'l Fath's chronicle where he documents the fate of the Samaritan community under Islamic rule. So we are just talking about life in northern Israel for less than a millennium. Nothing but death, destruction, razing of buildings, texts, traditions etc. In the previous period it was more of the same. Nothing is left because most of it was burned destroyed or demolished.

What we have from antiquity confirms the implications and suggestions we get from Jewish historical sources. And why exactly would Jewish historical sources identify their neighbors as "the kingdom of Israel" when it was counterproductive to their own status as true Israel in some sense? The answer is clearly that Jewish historical sources identify Omri as king of Israel because Israel was the land around Shechem. Sometimes you just have to take your lumps now rather than later. There is no reasonable explanation for Jewish sources consistently identify the northern lands as "Israel" and their own lands as not Israel unless this was the historical reality.

[neilgodfrey]

But it doesn't make sense. When dealing with evidence from THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO you say "there isn't enough there to identify Israel as the land around Shechem." But surely that's a subjective determination. How much is "enough evidence"?

Enough? How about just "some" -- say, just one inscription. That would be enough.

But we do have "some evidence" that the northern region was called Samaria post 722 BCE. Some evidence. That's enough.

We have evidence it was called Samaria and none that it was known as Israel at this period. That's where the evidence points.

What is reasonable to expect given the fact that Israel sits at the crossroads of almost every world empire and that as one empire was toppled and another became dominant they burned and destroyed buildings, texts and communities. There is an interesting "second part" to Abu'l Fath's chronicle where he documents the fate of the Samaritan community under Islamic rule. So we are just talking about life in northern Israel for less than a millennium. Nothing but death, destruction, razing of buildings, texts, traditions etc. In the previous period it was more of the same. Nothing is left because most of it was burned destroyed or demolished.

We can come up with many reasons we cannot find the evidence we want to support our beliefs, but that doesn't change the simple fact that we are left with no evidence for our beliefs.

A historian can't say "This people was called Israel by their neighbours" unless the historian has some form of contemporary evidence to support that claim.

But you are exaggerating the extent of destruction. There had to be long periods of peace and construction for anything to be destroyed. Again -- we have evidence of periods of peace and constructions, of communities and their ways of life, as well as evidence for wars.

And don't forget that it is a war monument that is our evidence that Omri's kingdom was known as Israel.

What we have from antiquity confirms the implications and suggestions we get from Jewish historical sources.

Scholars would get hauled over the coals if they tried to get away with vague generalizations. It is important to be specific and careful that each statement can be supported by evidence. What Jewish historical sources are you referring to here? There are no sources from the Persian era that confirm the region around Samaria was known as Israel by anyone -- not that I can think of off-hand. Have I overlooked any?

And why exactly would Jewish historical sources identify their neighbors as "the kingdom of Israel" when it was counterproductive to their own status as true Israel in some sense?

Again, we need to be careful and specific. What sources are you talking about and when is the evidence for their existence? When and where do these sources identify the region of Samaria while at the same time trying to identify themselves and no others as uniquely Israel -- if that is what you are suggesting here?

The answer is clearly that Jewish historical sources identify Omri as king of Israel because Israel was the land around Shechem.

But keep in mind all the evidence that has been set out since that time -- yes, Israel was the name of the northern kingdom in the time of Omri. We have Assyrian evidence for that. Later Jewish sources looked back and acknowledged that.

But I then put out evidence that shows that the name of Israel took on a different meaning in later times and was applied differently in later generations.

That's the fun of history. We need to be able to trace how changes happened over time.

[neilgodfrey]

SA -- have you had a chance to listen to any of the "Yahwism under the Achaemenid empire" conference videos yet? There are three there that address Samaritans in particular and they all make the same point:

that there was harmony, a brotherly-sisterly relationship, cooperation and identity as part of the same family, between the Samaritans and Yehudians in the Persian period and early Hellenistic period. Check out the videos by Holm, Schorch and Edelman. They point to a cooperation and togetherness in a mutual acceptance of the Pentateuch. One of them even speaks of the earliest rivalry happening between the Mount Gerizim Yahwists and the Yahwists of the temple at Samaria -- presumably over a new interpretation of Yahweh.

They all speak of Israel as a kingdom ceasing to exist with the Assyrian invasion and the area left being named after its leading city Samaria -- that is, no Israel, only Samaria, throughout the Persian period.

[neilgodfrey]

One of them -- I think it was Schorch -- even said that there was no centre for the Pentateuchal writings -- that it was being copied (and redacted) in several villages and places in both Samaria and Jehud. Neither had primacy over the other.

[Secret Alias]

Here's the part about your kind of person that I don't get. A fair person treats all propositions the same or at least tries to treat all propositions the same. So we look back almost 3000+ years. It looks like "Israel" is the name of the northern land, "Judah" is the name of the southern land. We don't really have a lot of information about "Edom," "Moab" and the rest of these fucking places and we agree to kind of say "this is Israel" "this is Judah" "this is Edom" "this is Moab." None of the knowledge is perfect. None of the knowledge is "exact." It's like looking at the world when you don't have your glasses on recognizing that you don't have your glasses on.

We have to make a choice. We CHOOSE to treat all ancient locales equally. If we have more information about one place we recognize that too. But what you do is, and I can only attribute this to the hyper partisanship you were raised in, point a finger and yell "fire" that our information isn't exact about what the borders or the boundaries or the history or the culture of ancient Israel, the northern kingdom.

But when it comes to something you like, like let's the non-existence of Jesus. The situation is the exact opposite. There is all this evidence of Jesus having been born, having a mother named Mary, being Jewish, having brothers, having died, having been buried, having had a lasting effect on history. But here you actively attack the weight of historical evidence. Why?? I think you are driven by personal animus. Whether or not you like something leads you to be attack or develop arguments for the evidence that supports or denies a proposition.

Why do you call out the lack of evidence about the northern kingdom of Israel? You don't like it. So basically you are driven by what you like or don't like, what you want to be true, what you don't want to be true, all a priori to the situation.

That's where I am different. The Jewish sources say the northern kingdom was called "Israel" they were called "Judah" Josephus doesn't call Judea "Israel" or Jews "Israelites" that's probably enough to set the boundaries around a thing called "Israel" which was just the land mass around Shechem.

Marcion had the first gospel and he thought Jesus could descend from heaven and pass through people and was accused of treating Jesus as a "phantasma" using examples from Abraham's visit with the three "men" when Josephus identified the "man" that wrestled with Jacob as a "phantasma." Chances are Jesus was understood to be the anthropomorphic "man" whom early Israelites venerated as a god or second god.

I don't have an agenda. I am not active trying to "overturn" stuff. "Israel" in the northern kingdom because the Jewish sources say so.

[neilgodfrey]

Here's the part about your kind of person that I don't get. A fair person treats all propositions the same or at least tries to treat all propositions the same.

Thanks, SA. So you have not changed your view that I am not a fair person, do not even believe in fairness. Then I have clearly wasted my time even bothering to take any time with you at all.

Here's the part about "your kind of person I don't get. A fair person" looks into the arguments and evidence of other positions and tries to understand them. You have demonstrated not the least interest in doing so. I really don't get that.

So we look back almost 3000+ years. It looks like "Israel" is the name of the northern land, "Judah" is the name of the southern land.

Here's the part about your kind of person I don't get. You simply ignore all the evidence that is put before you if it contradicts your belief. I cannot understand a person who does that.

I even point to videos of a conference where the same point is clearly established and noted -- that there was no "Israel" as you think of it in the Persian era -- and you simply ignore that and refuse to consider the possibility you might be wrong.

We don't really have a lot of information about "Edom," "Moab" and the rest of these fucking places and we agree to kind of say "this is Israel" "this is Judah" "this is Edom" "this is Moab."

Another thing about you I don't get: you simply ignore the fact that a new book (I linked to it earlier) of several hundred very large pages of what we know about Edom has been published and you continue to refer to Edom as if we can say next to nothing about it. You are not the least curious, it appears, to learn what we do know.

None of the knowledge is perfect. None of the knowledge is "exact." It's like looking at the world when you don't have your glasses on recognizing that you don't have your glasses on.

Woah there -- Here is another thing about you I don't get: You have demonstrated that you don't even care to inquire or find out what knowledge is out there among the specialists in those areas yet you dare to claim that you know they don't know the things they say they know. Many many times in the video lectures you hear them say they don't know something, or that they are speculating when they are speculating, but when the say they KNOW something they make it very, very clear HOW they know it and it is clearly indisputable.

You don't come across as the least interested to learn anything new.

We have to make a choice. We CHOOSE to treat all ancient locales equally. If we have more information about one place we recognize that too.

Exactly. And that's exactly what I do. And what the scholars in the videos do, too.

But what you do is, and I can only attribute this to the hyper partisanship you were raised in,

Either you have a very short memory or you really don't bother to read my replies with any care or detail. I have told you before I was raised in a liberal Methodist family. So what is this "hyper-partisanship" I was raised in? Please tell me and let me know you actually read my replies. And second -- why do you continue to resort to this kind of character attack instead of responding by saying, Hey, that's something that challenges my beliefs, I must look into what those scholars are saying!

point a finger and yell "fire" that our information isn't exact about what the borders or the boundaries or the history or the culture of ancient Israel, the northern kingdom.

No, SA, that is what you do -- say our knowledge isn't' exact. I advised you to listen to videos because the professors are making it very clear that certain knowledge IS VERY EXACT. And I pointed to very EXACT evidence that you have chosen to ignore. You have only made sweeping generalizations in response and failed to point out what piece if evidence offered earlier is actually vague or inexact.

But when it comes to something you like, like let's the non-existence of Jesus.

Okay -- I am now convinced you don't bother to read my responses in full. I have never argued for mythicism. You have clearly never read anything I have written about Jesus mythicism. But for our purpose -- I ask you to go back and actually read my earlier response. I am NOT saying Israel is a myth. But what IS a myth is when people believe in X without evidence.

The situation is the exact opposite. There is all this evidence of Jesus having been born, having a mother named Mary, being Jewish, having brothers, having died, having been buried, having had a lasting effect on history. But here you actively attack the weight of historical evidence.

Rubbish. Show me where I have ever "attacked the evidence". You are talking in your ignorance.

Why?? I think you are driven by personal animus. Whether or not you like something leads you to be attack or develop arguments for the evidence that supports or denies a proposition.

Says the person who attacks me personally at the drop of a hat and refuses to look into any argument, even by scholars, that present a conclusion he does not like.

Why do you call out the lack of evidence about the northern kingdom of Israel? You don't like it.

I have asked you for the evidence to the contradictory and you went quiet. I gave you the evidence for the fact that every scholar I am aware of takes for granted. But a person who rejects all of that and refuses to counter with evidence of their own is usually regarded as a "kook" in the real world. That is the position you are cornering yourself into.

So basically you are driven by what you like or don't like, what you want to be true, what you don't want to be true, all a priori to the situation.

I asked you for a discussion of the evidence. You said discussion was a lot of hot air going nowhere. So why are you even putting in an appearance on a discussion forum? Are you here to derail it wherever you can with your own idiosyncratic ignorance? That's what other people here have said openly about you -- I tried to believe in you a bit more but now must conclude I was mistaken.

That's where I am different. The Jewish sources say the northern kingdom was called "Israel" they were called "Judah" Josephus doesn't call Judea "Israel" or Jews "Israelites" that's probably enough to set the boundaries around a thing called "Israel" which was just the land mass around Shechem.

The Jewish scholars in the video, and non-Jewish ones, disagree with you because you are conflating evidence from different time periods as if it all referred to the one and same thing without break. You refuse point blank to respond to the evidence set out that confirms the view of everyone else in scholarship and just repeat your beliefs without expressing the least interest in examining another point of view, let alone actually discussing it.

You did the same with Russell Gmirkin. After all his efforts you just said, I disagree and continued to repeat outright falsehoods that had been demonstrated with evidence to be falsehoods. You simply ignore alternative views and attack the characters of those who hold them.

I don't have an agenda. I am not active trying to "overturn" stuff.

You really don't know how totally unaware of your own self you come across here. Recall your earlier comment that would seem to otherwise explain your opposition to intellectual curiosity and learning by your own admission.

"Israel" in the northern kingdom because the Jewish sources say so.

Jewish sources do say so. But Jewish sources are not all of one kind and at one time. Jewish sources also say it was not called Israel at a particular time. Jewish sources point to change. Israel in the north, then Samaria, then Israel applied to Jews in the south.

You not only refuse to discuss the evidence I have set out to make this clear, you refuse even to listen to conference videos where professors say the same and it is accepted by all without any controversy by the researchers most knowledgeable in the actual evidence.

I had hoped to give you the time of day and lead you just an inch away from appearing as what some people unkindly refer to as a "crank". But I see my time was not well spent.

[neilgodfrey]

SA, you have a lot to say about me. What do you say about all the scholars, all the authors of the books, basically everybody else who agrees with the facts I have presented (and from whom I have learned the facts) and that you disagree with?

Do you point us to what you said in viewtopic.php?p=146220#p146220 and leave it at that with nothing more to be said? Is that your answer to everyone else, to all the scholars who agree against you?

[Secret Alias]

But it doesn't make sense. To continue to claw at something which was acknowledged by ancient Jews. What is the point of this? Why would the Jews have given the name "Israel" to their cousins? If there is one thing Jews can't be accused of is being innocent or naivete. They surely knew the implications of this but did so anyway. Why? Because it was a basic fact.

[MrMacSon]

A fair person treats all propositions the same or at least tries to treat all propositions the same.

• Utter Rubbish. A fair person treats good arguments in support of good propositions fairly.

So we look back almost 3000+ years. It looks like "Israel" is the name of the northern land, "Judah" is the name of the southern land. We don't really have a lot of information about "Edom," "Moab" and the rest of these fucking places and we agree to kind of say "this is Israel" "this is Judah" "this is Edom" "this is Moab." None of the knowledge is perfect. None of the knowledge is "exact." It's like looking at the world when you don't have your glasses on recognizing that you don't have your glasses on.

• Depends on whether said glasses are rose-colored ...

We have to make a choice. We CHOOSE to treat all ancient locales equally. If we have more information about one place we recognize that too. But what you do is, and I can only attribute this to the hyper partisanship you were raised in, point a finger and yell "fire" that our information isn't exact about what the borders or the boundaries or the history or the culture of ancient Israel, the northern kingdom.

• That reeks of special-pleading and red-herring

The Jewish sources say the northern kingdom was called "Israel" they were called "Judah" Josephus doesn't call Judea "Israel" or Jews "Israelites" that's probably enough to set the boundaries around a thing called "Israel" which was just the land mass around Shechem.

• That doesn't make sense

But when it comes to something you like, like let's the non-existence of Jesus. The situation is the exact opposite. There is all this evidence of Jesus having been born, having a mother named Mary, being Jewish, having brothers, having died, having been buried, having had a lasting effect on history. But here you actively attack the weight of historical evidence.

• There is no actual evidence of any of those things. There are only narratives about those things: narratives that are clearly either edits or embellishments of other narratives (or both)

Marcion had the first gospel and he thought Jesus could descend from heaven and pass through people and was accused of treating Jesus as a "phantasma" using examples from Abraham's visit with the three "men" when Josephus identified the "man" that wrestled with Jacob as a "phantasma." Chances are Jesus was understood to be the anthropomorphic "man" whom early Israelites venerated as a god or second god.

[neilgodfrey]

But it doesn't make sense. To continue to claw at something which was acknowledged by ancient Jews. What is the point of this? Why would the Jews have given the name "Israel" to their cousins? If there is one thing Jews can't be accused of is being innocent or naivete. They surely knew the implications of this but did so anyway. Why? Because it was a basic fact.

I have set out the evidence -- the evidence -- that neither Jews nor anyone else ALWAYS called the region around Samaria "Israel" and that the name changed as a signifier over time. You keep repeating nonsense even when invited to listen to conference videos of Scholar after Scholar confirming my point -- not "my" point though you want to make it "mine" but the point of what every scholar and text book will tell you -- you won't even open a book or click on a video to hear anyone contradict your beliefs.

That puts you in the category of an ignorant crank.

I used to wonder why you like to call scholars "your friend" -- and continue to call me "intelligent" and seem willing to engage at length with me without actually discussing the points I make --- Some people might think such company flatters you -- makes you feel your ideas are in some sense "important" -- while in reality you are failing to realize others are trying to actually help you out of your ignorance.

I have no problem with anyone who is not as intelligent as another (and here I note your own self-assessment) but what I find despicable is bullying and arrogantly proclaiming that one is smarter than everyone else -- scholars included -- and that you have no need to open books or treat the ideas of more educated people seriously, as you make clear here: viewtopic.php?p=146220#p146220

You refuse point blank to respond to the evidence that clearly contradicts your view, evidence that everyone else in the published and scholarly world I am aware of agrees with as a simple matter of fact, and you try to say it is just "me" who has the problem with reality. How are others meant to characterize anyone who acts like that?