The Strange Humility Displayed on the Coins of Agrippa II

[spin]

Nony,

Why can't you ever just give specifics?

Pardon me. Before I posted anything I read or scanned the threads here an in other forums and so far as I can tell my "standards" on giving specifics is at least that of the average post if not higher in at least mentioning sources. And to repeat I have still not, in most cases, found even simple declarative sentences by those who post to challenge me. What I post as opposed to what? With evidentiary sources of course.

I consistently post citations of materials I use for the first time in a thread. This is usually the case with most competent posters here. You are expected to do the same. When challenged to do so, rather than citing your materials you simply shit on the forum, as this post of yours is doing.

Although it may be just a touch of paranoia it feels like I am being held not only to a higher standard but that no one else is being held to any standard at all. I do get the strong impression but after asking I can get no one to state it that the stories told in the weekend school are the de facto standard of fact and need no evidence. Is that what you are saying? If not that WHAT are you saying? Will you just ignore the question like the others have?

Not paranoia. Blinkers. You have been posting far too long to get away with the sorts of trivial responses you are prone to give.

This started with the first challenge on the Hyksos. The man posts a citation and a quote with ellipsis. I refer to what has been omitted by the ellipsis (whatever the plural) and I get challenged for my source. It appears you are giving ellipsis guy a pass as he was clearly cutting and pasting without knowledge of the material. At the same time you expect me to do more than that. Why?

Try to concentrate on the topic of the thread rather than splurging into off-topic holidays.

Most of those who hang out here already know what passages might suggest what you assert (forced conversions of Idumeans and "Galileans" although I am not sure where you get forced Samaritan conversions), or could find them without too much effort, but I have this sneaking suspicion that you do not know where these passages can be found or are clueless how to find them.

Given you are familiar with those two forced conversions why would I assume you folks are not familiar with the Samaritan forced conversion from the same person in the same document?

Because in the context of the Idumeans and other Jewish conversions, there was no forced Samaritan conversion. If you disagree, as you are the one who posited the notion, I look forward to your well-cited argument to the contrary.

Are you getting this kind of rhetoric from a website or modern book and simply parroting them here? Surely, if you are using some sort of scholarly work, there will be the footnotes leading right to the sources of anything they assert. Please don't assume that everyone has read, much less values, everything you have found interesting to read, and that it is "common knowledge" accepted by all who have half a brain. In the real world of biblical criticism, half brain activity may be common, but the conclusions are anything except "common."

If you really want to find the specific passages, already predigested for easy comprehension, you can always turn to the 19th century English translation of Emil Schürer's Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ* (First Division, Volume I, 1890), and which is available online for FREE.

I would have thought you would use Smallwood's Jews under Roman rule from 1976. It is not particularly burdened by faith and only in a few short passages does it refer to a "truth" from NT tradition.

DCH was suggesting a source that is available somewhere on the net. By all means cite from Smallwood.

As I have a cough from a recent bout of flu (nothing like being in the emergency room for high fever at 4:30am on Christmas eve), I am not inclined to do the homework for you. However, if you are game, you might find it enjoyable to do yourself.

Have fun!

You need to learn to separate the facts which I use from the theory I have developed to explain more of the facts than any other theory I can find. By facts of course I mean evidence not argumentation or what someone says about a fact. I am only interested in the fact itself. My objective has been to develop the simplest theory which includes the greatest number of facts and of course including the facts explained by competing theories. Theories like the Judeans wrote the OT.

There are almost no facts in this paragraph.

For the most part I am only taking commonly known material and sources and putting them together absent religious traditions which are not facts. Granted this results in very different explanations.

You can do whatever your heart desires, but unless you can supply sources for your assertions, they are not worth posting.

For example the fact is there is no evidence of literate culture in Judea until the 2nd c. BC.

4QTQahat is carbondated to the 4th/3rd c. BCE. (Doudna, "Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis", in DSS after 50 Years, eds Flint & VanderKam, Vol.1 1998, p.462)

Therefore no theory can assert the OT was created in Judea prior to that time. There are many pitfalls. It is possible that the fake biblical and political archaeologists might uncover something real and us outsiders lose the reality under the weight of ther political and religious fantasies about the find.

Of course I have written it up and have given the link several times. To repeat
http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alex ... index.html
Anyone can develop an explanation for the facts. The challenge is to develop a theory which explains the greatest number of facts. In this exercise the biggest chunk of it was NOT including fake facts such as Judeans wrote the OT which is without evidence and therefore not a fact. The OT has no provenance. Assumptions about provenance are not facts which need be explained.

Perhaps you have missed the other posts where I gave the home link and a few other related links in the same exposition.

Arguments you state here you have to argue here. We don't dispute by internet link.

Given what we know as facts not opinion of facts what is your explanation for the animosity of the Judeans for the Idumaeans, Gallileans and Samaritans? When the OT leaves off the people living in those areas are all happy, healthy Yahu worshipers descending from the tribes of Israel. The only global change between the two periods is the arrival of Greek rule. And the mutual animosity is what Pompey finds in the region. A related fact to explain is the OT is essentially demon free while the one in real history is demon haunted. In fact when rabbis spread after the last revolt their second income appears to be in spells, potions and evil eye protection, aka shamans. Can you include that change in your explanation also?

CItations?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

To clarify. I do NOT argue by URL either. I was asked a question implying I was reciting material from another source. I gave the URL of my source material. To clarify, what I am posting is, to the best of my knowledge, original with me. Therefore citing my material is no different from citing a third party who would then be researched by the questioner.

OTOH, reciting another source would be an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy and should never be encouraged in any public discussion.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

As an example the challenge from the person who cut and paste and did not know what was being left out by the ellipses. I mere referred to what was being left out that Josephus accepted the origin of the Jews as being the Hyksos. This has been known for since he wrote it over 2000 years ago. And of course JKirby posted the entire section so there is no question of that I recited what is so well known.

All I did with it was infer the obvious from it. Josephus as a priest of the Yahu cult did NOT accept the bible story of Moses and Exodus as the origin of the Jews. Rather he accepted something entirely different.

All I concluded from that was the Septuagint in whatever language had not been "canonized" in the time of Josephus. That it was not "doctrine." That today's view of the origin of the Jews as the Moses and slave in Egypt story was not official until after the time of Josephus.

It seems to me obstructionism to declare one cannot read the material PKirby posted and demand a separate citation of what PKirby posted instead of addressing the issue of a priest of Yahu who, because of the Hyksos origin story and no Law, no Torah, could not be considered a Jew today.

I consider this simply evidence of an evolving idea of what constituted the Judean Yahu cult after the temple cult was gone. It was evolving about the same time the Christian community was evolving and redefining itself. That is a touch complicated a theory.

There is a much simpler explanation. Josephus was not who he said he was, a fraud and did not know what he was talking about. I tried to work with that at one time. As a theory it is simple and explains all the facts, the facts in this case being the Hyksos and dozens of other things he gets wrong about Judaism if it were the same as it is today. (Ignoring the eternal debate among Jews as to who is a Jew in the interests of simplicity.)

The problem with assuming that is we then have to reasonably reject all of the writings of Josephus. That leaves our knowledge of "Jews" with a huge gap and a different culture between the close of the OT and 1,2 Maccabe and then, except for a very few sparse mentions by the Romans, a gap until the Mishna. Fine with me. I can live with it. But can believers live with not knowing why the folks who wrote the Mishna don't have a temple? What happened to the one Isaiah (?) had built?

Anyway, if you think what I am saying is radical just erase every bit of information produced by Josephus and learn what radical really is.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

The suggestion that I cite of from Smallwood is incredibly absurd. Why in the world would I indulge in the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority? And what was that absurd idea to use a 19th c. source as a fallacious authority? Here I have the complainants recommending the use of appeal to authority. Should i conclude that is what the complainants do? That is a reasonable assumption.

And yet still not a single recitation of any alternative to my explanation of the facts nor any presentation of facts for that matter. I mean I point out there is no evidence of a literate culture in Judea until the 2nd c. BC and in response a mention of a single fragment of unknown origin with a particular carbon date. Again I overestimated the participants.

A literate culture means written material out the ying yang. It means as we find in Greece and Rome and Egypt and Babylon. It means writing all over the place. It does NOT mean a single scrap. The criteria I suggest of writing all over the place IS the standard. It is holding bibleland to the same standard as every other civilization. Like it or not no special pleadings are permitted. Bibleland must meet the same standards as every other ancient civilization. You are supposed to know this about archaeology and what literate culture means. If you do not know it learn it. Do not waste time demanding I educate you.

That means it must be possible to reconstruct the broad outlines of the ancient civilization from what is dug up as has been done for Babylon and Egypt. No special pleadings for bibleland are permitted just because there is no Israel there. Want know how the people of Egypt and Babylon and "Israel" dressed? Their military weapons and armor? Just google up images of them from pottery and bas relief carvings for Egypt and Babylon and discover nothing for Israel.

Literally every monumental construction and city the fake archaeologists identified as the work of Solomon or other kings has been discredited by real arkies. And discredited by showing they were built by other known cultures foreign to the region not just by saying no evidence. Unfortunately there are still people with a shovel in one hand and the bible in the other. Even worse they have been joined by people with a shovel in one hand and Herzl in the other.

[spin]

To clarify. I do NOT argue by URL either. I was asked a question implying I was reciting material from another source. I gave the URL of my source material. To clarify, what I am posting is, to the best of my knowledge, original with me. Therefore citing my material is no different from citing a third party who would then be researched by the questioner.

OTOH, reciting another source would be an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy and should never be encouraged in any public discussion.

You are thus far totally evidenceless. Sources are what one uses to provide evidence if you can supply clear indications of why you are saying what you are trying to say.

If this still hasn't dawned on you, I would recommend to the forum that you are a hopeless case and have no other potential than to shit on the forum. Therefore you should be banned. Please show me wrong.

[spin]

The suggestion that I cite of from Smallwood is incredibly absurd. Why in the world would I indulge in the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority? And what was that absurd idea to use a 19th c. source as a fallacious authority? Here I have the complainants recommending the use of appeal to authority. Should i conclude that is what the complainants do? That is a reasonable assumption.

Gosh, are you stupid or what? You cite evidence if you can find any in Smallwood. Cite whatever sources you can that provide reliable evidence for your argument. We are not interested in the opinions from these books. We aren't interested in them as authorities. We want evidence. Without it, you are making a vast amount of noise, but saying fuck all.

And yet still not a single recitation of any alternative to my explanation of the facts nor any presentation of facts for that matter. I mean I point out there is no evidence of a literate culture in Judea until the 2nd c. BC and in response a mention of a single fragment of unknown origin with a particular carbon date. Again I overestimated the participants.

I'm sorry, but you are the person who ignorantly claimed that there was no Judean literature before the second century. You are blatantly wrong. So flop goes another inane assertion of yours. The evidence you can check, by consulting the book I referred you to or any other source which reports the carbondating of the tested scrolls.

A literate culture means written material out the ying yang.

That's an interesting empty assertion.

It means as we find in Greece and Rome and Egypt and Babylon.

So's that.

It means writing all over the place.

Utter rubbish. You don't get to dictate what a literate culture was in the centuries before the turn of the millennium. Your opinions are worthless. It is your evidence that counts.

It does NOT mean a single scrap.

Again, just another worthless assertion.

The criteria I suggest of writing all over the place IS the standard.

The word "criteria" is plural. The word "criterion" is singular. Remember that.

Now, you wouldn't know it, but you've just written another unsupported assertion.

It is holding bibleland to the same standard as every other civilization.

The literacy of cultures varied. You cannot assume some arbitrary standard and expect to be taken seriously.

Like it or not no special pleadings are permitted.

YOu are making things up as you go.

Bibleland must meet the same standards as every other ancient civilization.

Whatever you say.

But tell me why do you use the term "bibleland"? It is not in any sense a neutral term. It seems to reflect a certain tendentiousness that runs throughout your efforts.

You are supposed to know this about archaeology and what literate culture means. If you do not know it learn it. Do not waste time demanding I educate you.

I have seen you in practice for long enough to understand y our level of ignorance. You can try to change that or you can remain where you are.

That means it must be possible to reconstruct the broad outlines of the ancient civilization from what is dug up as has been done for Babylon and Egypt.

If there is sufficient physical culture remaining.

No special pleadings for bibleland are permitted just because there is no Israel there. Want know how the people of Egypt and Babylon and "Israel" dressed? Their military weapons and armor? Just google up images of them from pottery and bas relief carvings for Egypt and Babylon and discover nothing for Israel.

Tell me, if you don't have the physical culture of the people who lived in the land, does that mean that they didn't live there?

Literally every monumental construction and city the fake archaeologists identified as the work of Solomon or other kings has been discredited by real arkies. And discredited by showing they were built by other known cultures foreign to the region not just by saying no evidence.

I'm quite aware of the archaeological situation and the conflict between the biblical archaeologist and reality. My problem with you is your inability to be rational about it.

Unfortunately there are still people with a shovel in one hand and the bible in the other.

Ya don't say? It might come as a shock to you, but this is not a religious site. It's one that requires evidence for all claims. You are full of claims and you apparently have no evidence.

Even worse they have been joined by people with a shovel in one hand and Herzl in the other.

I don't care if one is touting Herzl or Hitler. We require evidence and objectivity.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Pardon if this is judged off topic. I am merely responding to issues raised by others which I consider obstructionist. Specifically something that started with claiming not to know of the regional conquests by the Maccabes. Then later the post we know of Galilee and Idumae but you have to "prove" Samaria. As the source is the same how can it be other than obstructionist to claim to know only two of the three? Ordinarily I ignore posts I consider obstructionist however while looking into another subject I came across the following.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fX2Yzk ... us&f=false and continuing from this page. It is of course an opinion of the facts rather than a recounting of the facts.

The discussion is of the conquests of Mad Dog John, aka John Hyrcanus. (Note unlike the first who used the Semitic word Makkah, Maccabe, Hammer as his nom de guerre, this man chooses a Greek name.) The author clearly discusses the destruction of Samaria as recounted by Josephus. At least one other person in this world besides me has heard of it. I do not intend to discuss the author's opinions of the facts. For example I really wish there were something a lot better to cover footnote 39 which appears to require someone was taking census data by religion at that early time. Anyway the author gives citations for the subject in both Wars and Antiquities. This is at least three out of three for me on Josephus although it might be four for four. Who keeps score?

[stephan happy huller]

It was interesting have a mad man run amok all over the forum. Makes us appreciate the sleepy serenity of reason a little more.

[spin]

while looking into another subject I came across the following.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fX2Yzk ... us&f=false and continuing from this page. It is of course an opinion of the facts rather than a recounting of the facts.

This would probably be a step in the right direction (if it were related to the topic of this thread). Somewhere there was mention of Samaria's status, but I can't find where at the moment.

The book which deals with indications concerning Samaria in Josephus provides usable references that you could cite. To support an argument concerning the domination of Samaria. There seems to be not only references from AJ, but also from archaeology, probably relating the archaeology to literary indications regarding John Hyrcanus. It is these references to Josephus and relevant archaeology (when checked) that would constitute the sort of sources that are ultimately needed to make a reasoned argument, ie that would have impact beyond yourself when presented publicly.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Unfortunately it appears necessary to repeat that the citations from Wars and Antiquities are contained in the reference.

One can reasonably conclude from the destruction of their temple the Mad Dog was not all that happy with their religion at the time.

So far as I aware the archaeology of the Gezerim temple has not revealed which god or gods were worshiped there.