Bibleland in history and archaeology

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

New thread, no hijack.

To start 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. Only Josephus extends the existence of this cult to the mid 2nd c. BC. Josephus starts his narrative when it is no more than the cult of the city-state of Jerusalem. Judea was to Jerusalem as Attica was to Athens, city-states both. It is not mentioned by Herodotus nor such a people in his two lists of peoples who practice the circumcision form or genital mutilation. None of Alexander's chroniclers of his conquests mentions it.

While archaeology has found copious evidence the land was inhabited as it likely has been for some 80,000 years or more nothing supports any kind of civilization which could be even remotely confused with the description of the land found in the Septuagint or OT of you like. Only two suggest the religion of the region. They are presumably funerary inscriptions mentioning Yahu and his Ashara. Of course that is not recognizably jewish in any of the multitude of forms of Judaism.

Therefore even by trashing all the magic and miracles of the OT even political archaeology fails to find any ancient jewish kingdom. All that there is is Judea from the mid 2nd c. BC at the earliest and from 67 BC inferred from some Roman mentions. Keep in mind these ancient jewish kingdoms as described can not possibly have avoided leaving major things for us to find in the percentagewise most dug place in the world.

When we do not find any indication of anyone recognizable as Jews the obvious question is who wrote the entertaining and perhaps instructional and moral tales of the Septuagint and when were they written?

Given the OT runs around a half million words in English translation and in all other literate culture religious materials are the least of the surviving materials one can only look at literate cultures which have produced tens of millions of words of material of all kinds. In bibleland all that is found are merchant contracts scratched into broken pieces of pottery. The region did not even have a standard writing material like dirt cheap clay tablets until after Alexander.

So who, where and when were these half million words of fantastical tales created? And these questions much be answered with physical evidence which indicates at least a modest likliehood. For example a half million words on broken pieces of pottery is out.

I am not offering my explanation here. I am asking what people here think is an explanation under the above stated conditions. Please serious responses not a single fragment of written material when evidence of millions of words is needed.

If who created it where and when is to hard how about who was capable of creating it where and when?

Myself I cannot see the answer being Judeans in Judea prior to the 2nd c. BC as no evidence of a multimillion word producing literate culture did not exist before then. Reminder special pleadings that bibleland was different from all the rest to it exactly matches what is believed is circular reasoning. So is, the kingdoms were real but exaggerated circular reasoning.

Answers anyone?
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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by Peter Kirby »

What exactly are you looking for?

The earliest evidence of people called Jews?

The earliest evidence of the use of the tetragrammaton?

The evidence of the date of the earliest book in the Hebrew Bible?

The latest possible date for the last book in the Hebrew Bible?

Something else?
"... 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:What exactly are you looking for?

The earliest evidence of people called Jews?

The earliest evidence of the use of the tetragrammaton?

The evidence of the date of the earliest book in the Hebrew Bible?

The latest possible date for the last book in the Hebrew Bible?

Something else?
Physical evidence of the creation by who, when and where of the creation of the OT as stated. All we have from archaeology is Qumran with the earliest presently dated to around 60 BC. So far as I know no one has suggested they were the original fiction writers and many have questioned any connection at all with the scrolls.

Answers to the same questions for the other non OT things you suggest might be helpful but I could not say without seeing the evidence.

Connect this with my metahistory thread. Take the currently most popular school of thought and the who would be Isaiah and company, the when after the return from Babylon and the where would be Jerusalem. However archaeology precludes that answer which is only the trailing edge of retreat of the objective of claiming them as old as possible without giggling.

It is similar to the same questions for the gospels being written. The oldest mention of more than one is mid-late 2nd c. Is there physical evidence they are older? Same issue, different subject.
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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by Peter Kirby »

Perhaps reference to the academic minimalists would be helpful. Do you find anything worthwhile in what they say?

Biblical Minimalism

I'm also wondering what standard of proof you are interested in. Are there any arguments that might persuade you that a text in its original were older than its oldest surviving physical manuscript? If so, what kind of argument is that?

Are there any arguments that might persuade you that a text, such as the text of Josephus, is reliable for a section of its historical narrative? If so, what kind of argument is that?
"... 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:Perhaps reference to the academic minimalists would be helpful. Do you find anything worthwhile in what they say?

Biblical Minimalism
For years people were reading my postings and telling me I was a minimalist or Copenhagen school. I can think for myself. I didn't bother looking into them for years. When I did I found they are all over the map. I found nothing I hadn't considered. Perhaps I missed something. I get the impression more than a few are holding back for fear of losing a paycheck. If it is "exaggerated" you can still teach it. If it didn't exist they have nothing to teach.
I'm also wondering what standard of proof you are interested in. Are there any arguments that might persuade you that a text in its original were older than its oldest surviving physical manuscript? If so, what kind of argument is that?
Proof is for math and logic and nothing else. Even law defines its use of "proof" in terms of evidence. As one with a scientific background I merely look for evidence. As a physicist I am unlike academics. I am very comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer.

Arguments are of interest if and only if they are to the physical evidence. Evidence is what could be given an exhibit number in court. Then of course witness can testify to the evidence. They may not introduce "facts" not in evidence in their testimony.

As to manuscripts the criteria used for all ancient material is the oldest copy or the oldest mention of the material. Of course oldest mention has to be used carefully as such mentions ordinarily say very little about content. Thus having both Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus (sp) is gravy when considering content. I have used first mention when discussing the Septuagint.

My standard of evidence is that of the science of archaeology for any other ancient culture or document. No exceptions or special pleadings for anything related to religion or anything else just because people then or now happen to believe a thing. Religious traditions are meaningless as they can form so quickly as in the Latter Day Saints and Christian Scientists and Lutheranism. Or as I demonstrated with Josephus and Jews were Hyksos, between him and the Mishna Exodus became the true truth.
Are there any arguments that might persuade you that a text, such as the text of Josephus, is reliable for a section of its historical narrative? If so, what kind of argument is that?
I prefer to READ Josephus rather than hear arguments about Josephus. If you have noticed I have been the one defending the use of Josephus. I don't agree with everything he wrote but no one has brought those things up as yet.

If you mean just any generic historical narrative I would read it only for amusement unless the historicity was independently established and the narrative were expansion of what had happened -- assuming of course it passes giggle tests for forgery and the like.

A specific would be without archaeological evidence that the biblical kingdom of Israel did in fact exist any narrative about it is a waste of one's short time on earth regardless of how clever the argument presented. Without the scientific evidence one might as well argue Oz is real and was once ruled by a wizard from Kansas.

So what kind of argument TO THE EVIDENCE do you have? I am reasonably certain I have seen all of the pro-OT ones but those are always contrary to the known evidence. Maybe you have a new one. I am always interesting in hearing something new.
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
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by Peter Kirby »

I am not pro-OT. I have no arguments to make. I am interested in clarifying the issues, particularly since several have been asking for you to walk the plank for some ideas you hold. I try to be a fair person and so I would have to understand both what views you hold and what evidence or argument might exist concerning them before I would want to consider any such action. So perhaps those who have been rattling the saber can weigh in here with some arguments.

(To be clear, not arguments that some posts to this forum have been obnoxious or something else like that. Arguments/evidence about history.)
"... 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:I am not pro-OT. I have no arguments to make. I am interested in clarifying the issues, particularly since several have been asking for you to walk the plank for some ideas you hold. I try to be a fair person and so I would have to understand both what views you hold and what evidence or argument might exist concerning them before I would want to consider any such action. So perhaps those who have been rattling the saber can weigh in here with some arguments.

(To be clear, not arguments that some posts to this forum have been obnoxious or something else like that. Arguments about history.)
Fine. Happy to clarify anything that might interest you. No one knows better than me that I have no good way to introduce where I am coming from. I have three tries online. My current best is the grabber Made In Alexandria. All I mean to say is the original was in Greek written by Greeks. Exactly where? Ask the Kahuna. My guess as to the most likely place is in the city Ptolemy built for Onias by Greek scholars he provided. If Ptolemy can purpose build a city for "president in exile" military ally he could certainly provide a dozen people for a couple years to create a "we are ancient" backstory. In fact I have never come across a hint of a place to look to find hints as to a specific creation place.

Walking the plank for holding a different ideas when in fact they are the only ideas as to origins being presented based upon evidence is rather an act of desperation. Stalin anyone? It is not like I am telling children there is no Santa Claus. These are adults are they not? If the evidence is so much in favor of what they are promoting (which none of them have been willing to tell me what they are promoting) I would expect them to have inundated me with it days ago.

Do not these same people conduct such an exchange in the Christian texts forum? Calls for the plank appear motivated by religious conviction not the evidence.
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:New thread, no hijack.

To start 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. Only Josephus extends the existence of this cult to the mid 2nd c. BC. Josephus starts his narrative when it is no more than the cult of the city-state of Jerusalem. Judea was to Jerusalem as Attica was to Athens, city-states both. It is not mentioned by Herodotus nor such a people in his two lists of peoples who practice the circumcision form or genital mutilation. None of Alexander's chroniclers of his conquests mentions it.
I've already falsified the assertions here by pointing to the fact that there was a text written in the 4th/3rd century BCE as indicated by the carbondating of certain DSS. However, there were more such datings that came in well before 67BCE. All one need do is consult the C14 analyses of the DSS in print. Worse though, as I pointed out elsewhere, the Elephantine Papyri indicate that there was a Yahu temple in Elephantine maintained by Jews and that these Jews wrote to Jerusalem seeking financial and political aid to restore their temple. The high priest in Jerusalem at the time was Yehohanan. I've given references to this before. Clearly we have a Yahu cult in the 5th century BCE.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:While archaeology has found copious evidence the land was inhabited as it likely has been for some 80,000 years or more nothing supports any kind of civilization which could be even remotely confused with the description of the land found in the Septuagint or OT of you like. Only two suggest the religion of the region. They are presumably funerary inscriptions mentioning Yahu and his Ashara. Of course that is not recognizably jewish in any of the multitude of forms of Judaism.
You are confusing Judaism the culture with the monotheistic religion that emerged sometime during the writing of the Jewish scripture we euphemistically call the old testament. Whatever the state of the Jewish religion, the existence of inscriptions to Yahu and his Asherah indicate a Yahu cult in the 8th century BCE.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Therefore even by trashing all the magic and miracles of the OT even political archaeology fails to find any ancient jewish kingdom.
This is a pure non sequitur.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:All that there is is Judea from the mid 2nd c. BC at the earliest and from 67 BC inferred from some Roman mentions. Keep in mind these ancient jewish kingdoms as described can not possibly have avoided leaving major things for us to find in the percentagewise most dug place in the world.
Taking Judea as merely a Romanized Greek form of Judah, Tiglath-Pileser III refers to tribute from Azriau of Iuda circa 735 BCE (see eg Pritchard, ANET, p.282). The name Azriau is an Akkadian representation of Azariah aka Uzziah. Sennacherib has left an account of the siege of Jerusalem while Hezekiah was king (ANET, p.287). So in Assyrian records there are two Judahite kings, Azariah and Hezekiah with Yahwistic theophoric names, indicating an ascendancy of the Yahwistic cult in Jerusalem well before the fall of Jerusalem.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:When we do not find any indication of anyone recognizable as Jews the obvious question is who wrote the entertaining and perhaps instructional and moral tales of the Septuagint and when were they written?
The premise has been shown to be false. Everything that follows from it has no value until demonstrated in some other way, which is unlikely. But then I don't expect too many things to follow when it seems that non sequitur is one of your means of argument.

Whatever the case, you will probably disregard the evidence I have mustered here against your assertions. One's assertions are always better than grimy evidence.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Given the OT runs around a half million words in English translation and in all other literate culture religious materials are the least of the surviving materials one can only look at literate cultures which have produced tens of millions of words of material of all kinds. In bibleland all that is found are merchant contracts scratched into broken pieces of pottery. The region did not even have a standard writing material like dirt cheap clay tablets until after Alexander.

So who, where and when were these half million words of fantastical tales created? And these questions much be answered with physical evidence which indicates at least a modest likliehood. For example a half million words on broken pieces of pottery is out.

I am not offering my explanation here.
You don't have to offer your explanation again. You've done it frequently enough, which is to treat your assumed terminus ad quem as the terminus a quo.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I am asking what people here think is an explanation under the above stated conditions. Please serious responses not a single fragment of written material when evidence of millions of words is needed.

If who created it where and when is to hard how about who was capable of creating it where and when?

Myself I cannot see the answer being Judeans in Judea prior to the 2nd c. BC as no evidence of a multimillion word producing literate culture did not exist before then. Reminder special pleadings that bibleland was different from all the rest to it exactly matches what is believed is circular reasoning. So is, the kingdoms were real but exaggerated circular reasoning.

Answers anyone?
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 »

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.

===

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.

As to monotheism in bibleland I have found not the slightest bit of evidence for it 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. 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.
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
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Bibleland in history and archaeology

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

To my last add Yahu was worshiped by the people of Ugarit so they also were Jews? They like the folks at Elephantine were polytheists and even worshiped Ashara? How does one include Elephantine but exclude Ugarit? Or does one include Ugarit? A slim similarity is not the same as.

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.

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? 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.
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