Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult

[A_Nony_Mouse]

One does need to do a little archaeological detective work. The Assyrians deported some 20,000 people from "Israel" (somewhere between 10-15% of the population...so much for the "Ten Lost Tribes" horseshit so we do have an indication that there was a history of that kind of thing.

Whatever that might be, I have read the actual inscription and have not found the claims of the believers. Read it yourself. It is in the "P.S." on the 3rd of four sides. Read what is written and no claim beyond what is written.

Second, the Babylonian chronicles report that they attacked the city and carried off "tribute" without specifying what that tribute might have been but again, as with the Assyrians - and Babylon was a rebellious province of the Assyrian empire - it is not unreasonable to think that the ruling classes would have been relocated.

It is entirely nonsense to INVENT a ruling class being relocated. It says what is says. In a practical sense, NO ONE carried off a ruling class. They did take the male children of the king as hostage. That continued through Attilla when it bit Byzantium in the ass.

As to reasonableness, lets see. The entire ruling class was removed from the city and no one ruled it, collected taxes for tribute, kept down revolt against the Babylonians. Is that reasonable? What is the benefit of doing so? Please recite from arkie finds just what that benefit was.

Third, we have archaeological findings of Judahite families prospering in the Babylonian Empire before the Persians arrived.

It would be noteworthy NOT to find such evidence. It is foolish to consider evidence of preconceived reality of the Septuagint. However if you have no physical evidence of forced removal do not bother me. For the record naming styles adopted by whomever created the Septuagint can never preclude people in the 2nd c. BC from copying them.

Fourth, we have the decree of Cyrus the Great indicating that captive nations of the Babylonians - the Judahites were not unique - were to be permitted to return.

READ IT. It does NOT say that. It says, "sacred things [not people] were returned to their places" and nothing more. The Babylonians did in fact take sacred stones to Babylon. If people are BOTH considered sacred (absurd because the believers say they were human rulers) and neuter (they) were returned it clearly refers to the stones.

RTFI, Read The Fine Inscriptions. Screw was believers say about them. Assuming an honest translation, it says what it says and both of us can read what it says and decide for ourselves.

Fifth, we have archaeological evidence that consistent with the beginning of the Persian period - c 539 BC - a small scale settlement resumed on the site of Jerusalem. Bible horseshit aside, Israel Finkelstein cites the build up area as capable of supporting a population of 400. (The Babylonians had not reused the site which they destroyed instead settling their the governor at nearby Mizpah.)

[/quote]

Consistent with a date is interesting. Please tell me about it. But if it does not demonstrate local literacy I really don't give a rat's ass.

Davies point is that a small band of people was sent back to rule the region, renamed Yehud from where we get the name Jews, and that the whole priest-class prophet of god shit was to give them a rationale to rule for the Persians. Cyrus himself had bigger fish to fry and was in fact killed in battle putting down a revolt in the eastern part of his empire.

To paraphrase Davies....crudely which is what I do best.... Cyrus wanted to avoid a situation where his designated rulers went back and the inhabitants said "who the fuck are you?"

Sort of amusing to put motivation into the head of a 2400 year old person just for the fun of it. Why would he give a rat's ass? why would he not send them with a Persian garrison just like EVERY OTHER place in the new empire? Why the special pleading bibleland is unique? Who would give a rat's ass about a hundred thousand or so peasant farmers around Jerusalem and consider them different? Why the special attention in the first place? Why any attention at all?

[quote So they came complete with this silly doctrine about how they were the rightful rulers who had been promised the land by "god" and were being returned by the great Cyrus to resume their destiny. One imagines that the peasants who had been working for the Babylonian overseers would not really have given two shits about which hand held the whip but might respond better to the illusion of having their own "lost" rulers being restored to them.

Oh, and they brought a whole new god who, as Davies also points out, would have been fairly indistinguishable from the Persian's Ahura Mazada...always a good way to get on the king's good side.

EVERY word of that is arguing for Judaism without the least bit of physical evidence.

Sorry. No interest.

---

To paraphrase Davies....crudely which is what I do best.... Cyrus wanted to avoid a situation where his designated rulers went back and the inhabitants said "who the fuck are you?" So they came complete with this silly doctrine about how they were the rightful rulers who had been promised the land by "god" and were being returned by the great Cyrus to resume their destiny. One imagines that the peasants who had been working for the Babylonian overseers would not really have given two shits about which hand held the whip but might respond better to the illusion of having their own "lost" rulers being restored to them.

That would explain the "prophecy" of Isaiah 44:24-28. You ease our return to our home, we make you divine in our "prophetic" book. Now that's how you exchange political favors!

While it might "explain" something it does not DATE something. It is a worthless exercise.

---

Cyrus the Great comes much closer to matching the requirements of a "messiah" than fucking jesus ever did.

So far as we know from real history, the idea of a savior/messiah first appears in the 1st c. AD. If anyone has any PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to the contrary please post it.

I am getting really tired of requesting physical evidence and receiving no response but people continuing to post as though it had been posted.

Nothing new of course. It is what I get on even the best of "fake" atheist sites. Atheism is not limited to anti-christian and anti-muslim. it is primarily anti-judaism.

The Dawkins' website ended its open forum AFTER I made the case that atheism was also anti-judaism. It is nothing unusual.