Bibleland in history and archaeology

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by spin »

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Failure to agree with the postings of others is not grounds for condemnation.

As to a Yahu cult as Elephantine the devil is always in the details. As I have posted there is no question the region around Judea worshiped both Yahu and Ashara. These are not the heroes of the OT stories. Every non-religious reviewer of the papyri agrees they were polytheists and included Egyptian gods. These are not the heroes of the OT stories. These people appeal to the Persian governor for assistance instead of the restored kingdom under Isaiah. These are not the heroes of the OT stories. Now if today synagogues included statues of Ashara and Khnum and such then I could agree these people were the heroes of the OT stories. Samaritans today are closer to Jews than this. You have to read the Samaritans into the tribe before I consider the Elephantine folks.

Trying to claim polytheists are Jews is absurd. They don't even know when Passover occurs and have to ask a Persian about it certainly indicates Passover originated as a Persian custom. Claiming polytheists were Jews in the 5th c. trashcans the OT content indicating it was written long enough after the fact to forget to mention the other gods.
So you think redefining "Jew" is going to help you to weasel out of your being caught with your pants down. Sorry to disillusion you.

Your initial statement was: there is no evidence of the extent of the Yahu cult of Judea existing prior to the arrival of Pompey in the region in 67 BC. This claim has been shown to be wrong.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The assertion that such things developed during the writing of "scripture" still assumes a fact not in evidence, that a literate culture existed to write it. Literate culture is defined by Babylon and Egypt not by a couple scraps. Until someone can produce evidence from bibleland that tens of millions of words worth of documents of civil texts, in the same rough proportion of the civil to religious texts of literate cultures there is nothing basis for pretending the OT could have been written prior to the 2nd c. BC.
Stupidity. 4QTQahat represents a written tradition that is prior to the 2nd century. :tomato:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As to monotheism in bibleland I have found not the slightest bit of evidence for it
I donb't give a fuck about monotheism. You are running around grasping at straws, when you should be going back to the drawing board and facing the fact that there was a Yahu cult in the 8th c. BCE and signs that there was a continuing Yahu cult at least from that point onwards.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:and much against it which I have recited including BYT STRT, Temple of Astarte, next to the Antonine Barracks on what is today called the temple mount.
This is a false etymology. Did you make it up or did you borrow it from some other bright spark? (A "temple of Astarte" would be BYT `$TRT (עשתרת). What I gather you are trying to manipulate is Straton's Tower. Note first that there is no initial vowel in Straton, while there is necessarily one in Astarte. There is also an omega and a nu in Straton and no equivalent found in Astarte. Folk etymology, probably ultimately from an Israeli scholar.)
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:That is, it was there is Roman times. These may have been priests dedicated to one god but that has nothing to do with the religion of the people. The people rule not the opinions of the priests of one cult god. There is no simple declarative sentence stating monotheism in either Judaism or Christianity until after it is declared by Mohamed. One hopes those who believe such a statement exists can cite it.

The OT itself is filled with mentions of other gods which clearly were believed to be real else condemning their worship makes no sense at all. If someone worshiping a fake god that is what you tell them, it is a fake god. You do not have a god jealous of fake gods. Yahu cannot be a jealous god without other real gods.

Simple declarative sentence from the OT saying there is only one god. Please feel free to post it. Yes it may be an old teaching. What is the evidentiary basis for the old teaching?

===

One has to wonder if an occasional ancient name here and there in the scripts of Buffy or Angel prove the authenticity of those two heroes. One notices that one does not find any of these names in bibleland but rather are found only outside bibleland and often by 19th c. wishful thinking translators. After all the OT confirming inscriptions ceased by discovered AFTER the science of archaeology was established.

However there is room for different opinions. There is no place declaration of having given the final word on the subject and anyone who disagrees deserves the plank no matter how many believers support what is presented.

The issue of course is perhaps one thing cannot be explained but other theories fail to explain more such as the development of the OT by an illiterate culture. A couple scraps does not make a literate culture as much as it makes for wishful thinking. Almost as much wishful thinking as dreaming the suffix "ah" is a theophoric for Yahu. A theophoric for any god for that matter except perhaps Ahmen if one wishes to spell it that way.

===

If polytheists are recognizable Jews then one can as easily claim the Egyptians were Jews. The Egyptians worshiped Amen. There were no gods before him. And he made the first people out of clay. Lets see. The Babylonians had animal sacrifice. The Jews had animal sacrifice therefore the Babylonians were Jews.

One does have to have some standards as to who was a Jew. I submit polytheists do not pass the test and do not match the descriptions of Jew in the OT at the time. Game over. Failure to jump to all the weasel words and exemptions and close enoughs is the only complaint.

I do not accept such foolishness.
Further and further off the rails, old son.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by spin »

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:To my last add Yahu was worshiped by the people of Ugarit so they also were Jews?
I have to work hard not to simply insult you for asking stupid questions. You may as well ask about Arab dwellers in Indonesia and be just as relevant. We were dealing with people with a connection to the area around Jerusalem, so, if you can't concentrate, it would be safer not to say anything rather than demonstrate your problems.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:They like the folks at Elephantine were polytheists and even worshiped Ashara?
I don't care about stupid questions. If you want to say something do it with evidence and stop looking like a dummy.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:How does one include Elephantine but exclude Ugarit?
Did Ugarit have cultural claims to Jerusalem??
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Or does one include Ugarit? A slim similarity is not the same as.
But stupidity is still stupidity.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:That point is relevant to the "out" that Judaism was evolving. When it comes to the OT if this evolution is not reflected in the text then the text is false, a fantasy, not to be taken seriously.
You can't play the fact game then change the topic to the Hebrew literature.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:But as the time of writing it advances to the 2nd c. BC at the earliest, leaving aside the questions of who and where, what was the state of the evolution at what point in history?[/qoute]
Asserting this erroneous date again only shows that you are not communicating.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As a priest of the Yahu cult embraced the Jews as Hyksos then in the late 1st c. AD Judaism had not yet evolved to the Moses of the Torah belief. The idea of the Moses of the Torah may have been in circulation, it may have been an alternate belief among the camps of the priests but it was clearly not a universal identifier of a person being a Jew.

And a closing remark. The concept of a jewish people was invented in the late 19th c. It cannot be invoked to discuss anything which occurred before the idea was invented.
After so many stupid comments and questions and no tangible response from you, I'm getting the idea that you are not after discussion at all.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by spin »

As the initial premise that there is no evidence of the extent of the Yahu cult of Judea existing prior to the arrival of Pompey in the region in 67 BC has been falsified and the poster has not attempted to deal with the problem, I get the idea that the thread has falling into another Matt Giwer ass-covering and exposition exercise, not concerned with facts, evidence or argument, but with spreading—or at least expressing— his "ideas".
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

As the issue is the OT and the definition of Jew as in the OT the suggestion of polytheists who worshiped Yahu as one of many in both Elaphantine and Ugarit is not evidence of that OT cult in bibleland. Yahu and Ashara jointly worshiped is not the OT Yahu cult. Therefore the OT is false by the evidence being presented. As the Romans added Yahu to their pantheon, a bearded guy with ram's horns, aka shofar horns, one could also assert the Romans were Jews for this inclusion. If the definition of Jew is whatever matches the evidence there is no limit to the number of Jews in the ancient world for millennia.

If the issue is solely playing games with grammar then I prefer not to play.

The issue of Astarte's Temple is of course the only translation used by believers going back at least to the 5th c. AD, Strato's Tower. This lets us ask who was Strato and why did he have so many towers? I have found mention of at least four in the eastern med region. The usual explanation is he was a famous general under Alexander however that is the only mention of this general. And as one of the towers was in ruins when Alexander conquered Tyre the explanation is patent nonsense. Therefore, who was Strato and why so many towers? I have yet to find any suggestion of another explanation for these towers.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by spin »

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As the issue is the OT and the definition of Jew as in the OT the suggestion of polytheists who worshiped Yahu as one of many in both Elaphantine and Ugarit is not evidence of that OT cult in bibleland. Yahu and Ashara jointly worshiped is not the OT Yahu cult. Therefore the OT is false by the evidence being presented. As the Romans added Yahu to their pantheon, a bearded guy with ram's horns, aka shofar horns, one could also assert the Romans were Jews for this inclusion. If the definition of Jew is whatever matches the evidence there is no limit to the number of Jews in the ancient world for millennia.
This is the sort of fucked up nonsense that is just so tiring. This is just contentless bile that grabs things purely because they are related to Yahu and you spew them all out as though there is some coherence in doing so.

There is a strong relationship between Elephantine and Jerusalem given the indications in the Elephantine Papyri. You ignore that fact. You ignore the fact that Yahu (and his Asherah) was mentioned in Palestine, where you would expect Jews to mention him. You expect Yahu names in Jerusalem, but you have ignored them. You simply ignore facts and try to smokescreen your ridiculous claims.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:If the issue is solely playing games with grammar then I prefer not to play.
I'm certainly not playing games. You need to provide evidence and argument rather than bullshit held together with chewing gum and string. If you can't I would like you to stop acting like a locust on this focum.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The issue of Astarte's Temple is of course the only translation used by believers going back at least to the 5th c. AD, Strato's Tower. This lets us ask who was Strato and why did he have so many towers? I have found mention of at least four in the eastern med region. The usual explanation is he was a famous general under Alexander however that is the only mention of this general. And as one of the towers was in ruins when Alexander conquered Tyre the explanation is patent nonsense. Therefore, who was Strato and why so many towers? I have yet to find any suggestion of another explanation for these towers.
Here you have a problem to resolve. You don't know the answers to your questions and you apparently don't have the linguistic skills to deal with them. It should be pretty clear that you are peddling a false etymology for Straton's Tower. Come back when you have some evidence to answer your questions.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by Peter Kirby »

You're a physicist right?

Scientific method? Gathering data? Forming a hypothesis? Designing an experiment? Testing the predictions of the hypothesis? Completing the loop, as necessary?

Data gathering: Spin does this, so thank spin.
Original hypothesis : no 'Yahu cult' before 2nd century BCE.
Experiment design: Look for archaeological remains that evince some such cult.
Testing the predictions of the hypothesis: none of these remains date before the 2nd century BCE, or do they?
Completing the loop: There's some kind of said cult some centuries before. Oops.

At this point, scrap the original hypothesis. Thank all those involved in helping explore it.

What you don't do is muddle around in some feeble attempt to defend a non-existent intellectual reputation on an internet forum while posting as A_Nony_Mouse. What you could do is say, oh well, I guess I need to go back to the drawing board, what I really want to talk about is the age of the Old Testament writings. Or the earliest date of this cult's monotheism. Or something else.

Sounds good, ya?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

Peter Kirby wrote:You're a physicist right?

Scientific method? Gathering data? Forming a hypothesis? Designing an experiment? Testing the predictions of the hypothesis? Completing the loop, as necessary?

Data gathering: Spin does this, so thank spin.
Original hypothesis : no 'Yahu cult' before 2nd century BCE.
Experiment design: Look for archaeological remains that evince some such cult.
Testing the predictions of the hypothesis: none of these remains date before the 2nd century BCE, or do they?
Completing the loop: There's some kind of said cult some centuries before. Oops.

At this point, scrap the original hypothesis. Thank all those involved in helping explore it.

What you don't do is muddle around in some feeble attempt to defend a non-existent intellectual reputation on an internet forum while posting as A_Nony_Mouse. What you could do is say, oh well, I guess I need to go back to the drawing board, what I really want to talk about is the age of the Old Testament writings. Or the earliest date of this cult's monotheism. Or something else.

Sounds good, ya?
I did not take this as a debate with a judge. If that were the intent a different format is needed such as a single exchange on each point raised. The absurdity of some claims such as -ah as a suffix is a theonym certainly cannot be taken seriously. Netanyahu is a theonym. Netanah is a question mark.

Nor have I claimed an reputation. And of course I have raised much of what spin has raised in prior posts to different conclusions. The data is essentially the same for both of us.

So far, by different routes, we have agreed the OT is total fiction and does not describe Jews as they really were and being wrong in this essential can not be used for anything else. It means you have no possibility of this earliest date of monotheism as spin holds they were polytheists at least up to and presumably well passed the 5th c. The OT is worthless when discussing Jews because the essential facts are wrong. Which is what I have said.

That leaves us with earliest possible date of monotheism as the earliest date that is mentioned in history. It would make them the strangest people in all the world to have only one god and there is no Roman mention of it.

As to the age of OT writings that would have to have been long enough after the polytheism of people whom spin considers Jews to have disappeared and been forgotten. For that i would suggest centuries not weeks. Centuries after the 5th c. puts us in the 2nd c. as I suggested. Seriously one cannot writing about the sole worship of Yahu while the readers of what one is writing worship the Egyptian gods too. Obviously they would consider the writer deranged at best.

It seems we have both come to a method of estimating the two things you give as examples of your interests by different routes. And those different routes point to centuries after the 5th c. What more can you ask?
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by spin »

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The absurdity of some claims such as -ah as a suffix is a theonym certainly cannot be taken seriously.
Who made this particular claim?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
semiopen2
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:37 am

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by semiopen2 »

Despite mouse not accepting opinions from noted experts or people with 3 digit IQs -

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... monotheism
The doctrine of absolute monotheism is preached in the most emphatic manner by Jeremiah (x. 10; xiv. 22; xxiii. 36; xxxii. 18, 27) and the Deuteronomist(iv. 35, 39), but the Biblical teaching on the subject may be said to have culminated in Isaiah of Babylon. Yhwh, though in a peculiar sense the God of Israel, is still the God of all the world. This prophet's standpoint is uncompromising:
Ironically the book of Isaiah may help refute mouse's 2nd century theory in that 2nd century fragments exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Using m's logic this was copied very quickly after the original Alexandrian authors invented it, and the Aryan god forbid, perhaps even before the Greek version was written.

One aspect of mouse's theory that puzzles me is how we can account for the obvious different authors and different dates of stuff in the bible.

For example, the Book_of_Isaiah is considered the work of at least three different schools.

[wiki]Isaiah identifies itself as the words of the 8th century prophet Isaiah ben Amoz, but there is ample evidence that much of it was composed during the Babylonian exile and later.[3] The scholarly consensus which held sway through most of the 20th century saw three separate collections of oracles:[4] Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of Isaiah; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from exile.[5] While one part of the consensus still holds – virtually no one maintains that the entire book, or even most of it, was written by one person.[/wiki]

One would think that a single "school" writing the entire canon would show more consistency and uniformity.
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

semiopen wrote:Despite mouse not accepting opinions from noted experts or people with 3 digit IQs -

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... monotheism
The doctrine of absolute monotheism is preached in the most emphatic manner by Jeremiah (x. 10; xiv. 22; xxiii. 36; xxxii. 18, 27) and the Deuteronomist(iv. 35, 39), but the Biblical teaching on the subject may be said to have culminated in Isaiah of Babylon. Yhwh, though in a peculiar sense the God of Israel, is still the God of all the world. This prophet's standpoint is uncompromising:
As with the Elephantine Papyri and Josephus the issue is to read the fine sources not what religious sources say about the sources. Anyone who would refer to such a website expecting any possibility of finding anything which might contradict weekend school teachings is not old enough to understand the big words it uses. It is sort of like going to the RNC website to see if there is anything good about Obamacare. What did you expect to find?
Would not an adult seek out a neutral source rather than refer to a partisan source?
Ironically the book of Isaiah may help refute mouse's 2nd century theory in th
at 2nd century fragments exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Using m's logic this was copied very quickly after the original Alexandrian authors invented it, and the Aryan god forbid, perhaps even before the Greek version was written.
Perhaps you can direct me to your source of the proper paper, not article, identifying the dates of these documents by their bible book name not fragment names. You must have read it to make that assertion. I have looked with no success. I can find all kinds of categorizations but not the very simple one relevant to this discussion, bible book name v date.

Back when I first looked into this many decades ago I found one analysis of one book with the proper carbon dating in the form of 60BC +/- 100 years. I did this because I doubted the author's date claim of 160BC. Only a believer would jump to the oldest date which is within the limits of the measurement.

Therefore you can see why I ask both for your source and why, in general, I do not pay attention to any date claim which does not have the +/- years attached. If you are going to use science use it properly. In the above example 60BC is NOT science. Only 60BC +/- 100 is science. 160BC is a matter of faith. 40AD is exactly as likely as 160BC. That is the science. I do not discuss the results of science in a non-scientific manner.

Anyone wishing to play games with the +/- years issue LEARN about gaussian distributions before doing so. Standard deviations and such are important to the discussion.
One aspect of mouse's theory that puzzles me is how we can account for the obvious different authors and different dates of stuff in the bible.

For example, the Book_of_Isaiah is considered the work of at least three different schools.

[wiki]Isaiah identifies itself as the words of the 8th century prophet Isaiah ben Amoz, but there is ample evidence that much of it was composed during the Babylonian exile and later.[3] The scholarly consensus which held sway through most of the 20th century saw three separate collections of oracles:[4] Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of Isaiah; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from exile.[5] While one part of the consensus still holds – virtually no one maintains that the entire book, or even most of it, was written by one person.[/wiki]
The use of anonymous sources such as wikipedia indicates one is at the high school level and uncritically accepts anything.
One would think that a single "school" writing the entire canon would show more consistency and uniformity.
One would think therefore that all science fiction would be show much more consistency and uniformity than it does because it is all science fiction. Rather in reality we know all authors produce different material. We use consistency to identify the same author of different materials such as the letters attributed to someone named Paul.

I did a broad brush address of these inconsistencies in my thread on metahistory. I point out the differences discovered and sworn to by the "Moses wrote the Torah" school -- the one that lasted nearly 2000 years -- are still there regardless of any other view of who wrote them and when. People find what they are looking for. I could exposit things differently. Put up two conflicting but respected academic positions and say things like, obviously they are both wrong.

To repeat, read the source material yourself. Do not adopt what unknown, anonymous sources tell you about the source material. And when anonymous sources like wikipedia give copious but generally improper and useless footnotes never assume they are accurately reporting what is in the material cited. Often you will find the cited material has no relation to what is claimed for it.

Also do not go to obviously biased sources for your information unless all you want to get is confirmation of your beliefs. What you opened with is no different from claiming the Pope is the representative of god on earth and citing the Catholic Encyclopedia to prove it.

You know nothing until you know it yourself.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
Post Reply