Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult

[Aractus]

I'm not lying about the substance of your posts. You continue to ignore all of the important points I bring up, and refuse to discuss them. Why should I take you seriously?

Your theory is that the Old Testament was written in Greek - not in Hebrew - and later translated into Hebrew. That's your theory. When I point out to you that secular contemporary scholars do not view the text that way, you ignore it. When I point out to you loanwords and transliteration as evidence for the original language you ignore that too. When I point out to you that you have to accept the carbon dating to the 4th century BC of the Great Isaiah Scroll if you're willing to ignore scholarly thought on Biblical Text, you ignore that too. You offer no explanations for any of this.

Hebrew is a much more primitive written language than Greek. What would be the purpose in translating from Greek to Hebrew?

We have multiple Greek versions, because there are multiple Greek translations. We do not have multiple Hebrew versions.

The Tetragrammaton is another piece of evidence. It doesn't appear in any MSS of the LXX. Without it the verses where God clearly gives his name is nonsensical.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

A little detective work is required to connect disparate pieces of evidence.
It can be a rewarding intellectual exercise BUT one must dismiss the bible bullshit stories at the outset. If you are going to insist on video evidence you are more or less stuck in the 20th century or later.

When I was getting into this it was largely an exercise in exclusion. mSomeone tell me where they think the OT came from and then I would explore the idea.

Take for example the old idea still believed by some is that Moses wrote the Torah, Pentateuch, first five books of the OT. Today one simply asks how did it get written in "hebrew" in the 15th c. BC when the language did not exist? Why not in hieroglyphs? But in the good old days that was not a serious question. Everyone knew Adam and Eve spoke and wrote the perfect language, the divine language, Hebrew. That is what everyone spoke before Babel, no? No backsies. The nonsense claim can't be taken back and refined. Any refinement is a NEW claim and has to meet the same requirement as any other new claim.

More relevant today is the claim that the people in Judea created and preserved the books of the Old Testament. To evaluate this claim one is required to look at the total cost of doing so and the consequences of doing so. There has to be scribes or what is called a scribal culture. It is well described for literate cultures. There is no indication of a scribal culture and thus a literate culture prior to the 2nd c. BC in Judea. There was no one to copy, read and preserve the books and no schools to teach reading and writing so how could they have done it?

And it is not just one thing although the absence of the ability to do so is really big one. Another is in literate cultures the most common literature deals with contracts and financial documents. Next are laws and legal decisions related to those laws. Next came government decrees. Way down towards the end is religious material. If we look at bibleland we find only religious materials. This is not indicative of literate cultures.

The costs of writing materials was enormous back then. In fact the cost of writing materials was important until the late 19th c. when wood pulp paper was mass produced. Until then the cost of writing paper and ink was found in household budgets.

Whoever was doing the copying had to pay for it all. They had to pay the total cost of the living expenses of scribes and their families, an entire social class. They had to pay for the materials and the regular copying as old ones wore out. They had to pay for places to preserve the documents and people to do it, i.e. libraries and librarians.

The bottom line is if there is a need to preserve these special religious texts all the rest of the scribal culture must exist to do so and that is a major cost.

To consider the currently popular retreat from Moses, creation after the return from Babylon, the obvious questions which arise, how in Hebrew which did not exist yet and why not in cuneiform which they would have all learned? As with Moses, why is it in a language which did not exist at the time. This is in addition to all the above. Believers tend to come up with a facetiously clever and nonsense solution for one and declare everything has been solved.

===

None of the above should suggest there was any time in Babylon or a Moses or any other person or evident.

---

I'm not lying about the substance of your posts. You continue to ignore all of the important points I bring up, and refuse to discuss them. Why should I take you seriously?

Your theory is that the Old Testament was written in Greek - not in Hebrew - and later translated into Hebrew. That's your theory. When I point out to you that secular contemporary scholars do not view the text that way, you ignore it. When I point out to you loanwords and transliteration as evidence for the original language you ignore that too. When I point out to you that you have to accept the carbon dating to the 4th century BC of the Great Isaiah Scroll if you're willing to ignore scholarly thought on Biblical Text, you ignore that too. You offer no explanations for any of this.

Hebrew is a much more primitive written language than Greek. What would be the purpose in translating from Greek to Hebrew?

We have multiple Greek versions, because there are multiple Greek translations. We do not have multiple Hebrew versions.

The Tetragrammaton is another piece of evidence. It doesn't appear in any MSS of the LXX. Without it the verses where God clearly gives his name is nonsensical.

On the off chance you are being honest in this post and you are not going to lead to a repeat your lies such as I have talked conspiracy theories let me repeat my opening position. I have no interest in unprovenanced religious traditions or beliefs or the opinion of so called scholars. I am only interested in physical evidence. If there is none then there is none. Believers cannot slip their traditions into the vacuum. Without physical evidence they have no merit or standing at all despite what self-declared scholars say about each other and their traditions.

Whether or not a person chooses to call himself a scholar, a word which by itself qualifies you and I as scholars, is a meaningless and superfluous description. It is a matter of historical record that beliefs have always been considered greater than facts. I could suggest the old but irrefutable evidence that Moses wrote the Torah because of the words and language style of it are so much older than the later books. WToday "scholars" have mostly retreated to saying it was written after the (mythical) return from Babylon. Were "scholars" lying when claimed to find word differences or are they lying now in not seeing the differences?

Non-specific reference to loan words is not evidence. Way back when there was a claim based upon words and phrases that the Septuagint had to be the copy because of the "Hebraisms" in the Greek. Then in the 1880s Koine Greek was discovered in Egypt. It turned out these "Hebraisms" were in fact Koine Greek. Over a century ago the "loan words" argument was upset and reversed. Yet believers are incredibly ignorant of this otherwise well known fact. How can this be?

As to the meaning of theory, it is an explanation of the facts. The more facts explained the better the theory. There is no "theory" of Hebrew being the original as it has never been more than a religious tradition. Without evidence traditions have no weight at all. Among other things this theory explains how the OT could have been created when there was no scribal culture in Judea to create and preserve it.

As to the C14 dating of the one scroll, let me repeat. I cannot find that dating claim in any credible source which would include the laboratory and citation of the publication of the results. Further I said I cannot find any proper citation of dating of any scroll older than the 1st c. BC.

The above is largely a repetition of my previous replies. The ones I have not repeated are also found in previous posts.

[popeyespappy]

Mouse would you clarify your argument for me? I'm not sure if you are arguing for a late date for the formulation of the Hebrew language and religion only, or for a late date for the beginnings of a Hebrew culture in general.

---

When I point out to you that you have to accept the carbon dating to the 4th century BC of the Great Isaiah Scroll if you're willing to ignore scholarly thought on Biblical Text, you ignore that too. You offer no explanations for any of this.

Why should we have to accept a 4th century radio carbon date when it conflicts with both the scriptural analysis and with other radio carbon dating that places it in the 2nd?

Through paleographic analysis of the Hebrew script, scholars date the scroll to between 125 and 100 B.C. Radio¬carbon dating of the leather of the scroll indicates a date between 202 and 107 B.C. The scroll is currently housed at the Shrine of the Book, part of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. A replica of this scroll was on display in the Qumran exhibit.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicat...hapid=1446

[Minimalist]

I have to run out, Mouse, so I'll get back to you later. Let me just say that your assessments of ancient literacy are spot on. You wouldn't believe the arguments I've had with fundie morons who insisted that all Jews were literate in the Bronze Age so they could read the fucking torah!
Beyond bizarre. One even told me that "jewish mothers" are known to want their children to become doctors and lawyers.

L8r.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Why should we have to accept a 4th century radio carbon date when it conflicts with both the scriptural analysis and with other radio carbon dating that places it in the 2nd?

Through paleographic analysis of the Hebrew script, scholars date the scroll to between 125 and 100 B.C. Radio¬carbon dating of the leather of the scroll indicates a date between 202 and 107 B.C. The scroll is currently housed at the Shrine of the Book, part of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. A replica of this scroll was on display in the Qumran exhibit.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicat...hapid=1446

I have come across one unsurprising thing in biblical carbon dating. If it is not related to the bible the dating will be expressed as, for example, 2150 +/- 50 years old. The biblehuggers will give it a firm age of 2200 years old. Of course the dating lab will also use the +/- dating. The way it is done, 2200 has a lower probability of being correct than 2150 and the SAME probability as 2100. While they will claim "reasonable" for 2200 they will scream foul at anyone suggesting 2100.

---

I have to run out, Mouse, so I'll get back to you later. Let me just say that your assessments of ancient literacy are spot on. You wouldn't believe the arguments I've had with fundie morons who insisted that all Jews were literate in the Bronze Age so they could read the fucking torah!
Beyond bizarre. One even told me that "jewish mothers" are known to want their children to become doctors and lawyers.

L8r.

I know why they claim it. Around 1870 or so some Jews got the idea from the gospel story of the young Jesus in the temple that there was such a ceremony in ancient Judaism. Thus a 12 year old had to read.

In consideration of this conviction they INVENTED the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. To repeat, invented in the 1870s. It did not exist before that. It is an anecdote in that book "X? thousand years, the weight of jewish history" where an eastern European rabbi poisons a visiting western European rabbi for promoting the Bar Mitzvah heresy.

Think of it. Modern Judaism with the Christian sacrament of Confirmation. Perhaps the ROTF part is it is almost always memorization not literacy.

---

I almost forgot.

you ignore that too. You offer no explanations for any of this.

That is also a lie because I have taken the time to explain every one of them.

Mischaracterization and misrepresentation are also lies. I am not required to tolerate it nor inclined to indulge letting lies pass the fourth or fifth time around.

---

It can be a rewarding intellectual exercise BUT one must dismiss the bible bullshit stories at the outset. If you are going to insist on video evidence you are more or less stuck in the 20th century or later.

Of course I am not insisting upon having been made into a documentary or on Youtube. What I am against is excusing the absence of physical evidence for any reason.

Percentagewise at least the Israel part of bibleland is the most dug place in the world in matters archaeological.
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/bibleland.html

Percentagewise bibleland is the most dug place in the world. There is no excuse for not finding the same physical evidence as is found for other civilizations.

Egypt has more digs and more archaeologists. But in bibleland, which in this case includes modern Israel as well and parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, professional and amateur archaeologists and thieves have swarmed the land for a century and a half. During this time the local population has increased five to ten times greater than a century and a half ago. All of those new people dig the ground to build homes and cultivate news lands for food.

Particularly in Israel highways and high rises and parking garages have been built. And still nothing has been found which would confirm the bible stories as real history.

Israel's museums are also evidence as they display what has been found in Israel and the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They contain large amounts of Roman period artifacts and a much lesser number of Greek period architects. Pre-Greek artifacts are but a handful. And in many cases they are as likely Egyptian as they are of local origin.

Because of all of this digging and searching, intentional and accidental, not finding evidence to support the Old Testament stories indicates the Old Testament being total fiction.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Mouse would you clarify your argument for me? I'm not sure if you are arguing for a late date for the formulation of the Hebrew language and religion only, or for a late date for the beginnings of a Hebrew culture in general.

I am talking about what we, including modern Jews in the we, would recognize of the religion of Judaism. I mean recognize AS it not a recognizable heresy of it. And there is only a jewish religion and no jewish people.

For example, if you are walking around Roman era Jerusalem and find all kinds of temples including a prominent one to Ashara that is not Judaism. It can be considered a recognizable heresy or closely related to or some such but not the Judaism that was codified after the Bar Kokbah revolt. It is not the one we expect to find celebrated in the synagogue on Shabboth today.

Keeping in mind Hebrew is just a name indicating no relation to the mythical Hebrews of Exodus the formulation of the language can be an entirely separate topic. I sort of have to adopt one to hold the rest of the discussion. I have adopted the idea that it was more or less a local slang or pidgin mixing Greek and Aramaic. Before the DSS were discovered it was a common opinion that Hebrew was an invented, liturgical language.

I prefer the pidgin idea as it appears to explain more. Having developed as an unstandardized spoken language, that is, no schools teaching scribes how to write it, all the differences and problems with it as a translation from the Greek are easily explained as people trying to put written Greek into a written version of a spoken language. As a spoken language there would have all kinds of different dialects of it. Finding the DSS in different ones would be expected. It explains why people found differences in the Torah when presuming it was created in the 1400s BC which are still there with a 500BC creation. They are simply different dialects that can exist at the same time.

As to culture and again keeping in mind Hebrew is just a name the subject here would be both Judean and Galilean cultures. Because of their proximity we would not expect them to be much different. Nor either much different from Samaritan, Idumaean or those folks at Petra. Here I expect having to travel well into Syria to begin finding significant differences. For example cities having different patrons is not much of a difference compared to the custom of having patron gods.

Here is a good point to throw in that Athens was the capital of the city-state of Attica and consistent with that description Jerusalem was the capital of the city-state of Judea. There are other ways to express it but we are talking city-states. Thus differences between the regions mentioned in the last paragraph are the kind of thing we find between Athens and Sparta. One can generalize to a Greek culture or at a higher level to Hellenic culture but we would be down to the Sparta/Athens degree of differences to talk about Judea and the Galilee.

So one finds in the region that the city-states all had god/goddess pairs while the customs of particular city-states depending upon which pair and the region's local customs.

So with the Maccabes they produce a Yahweh only cult largely ignoring Ashara and the other gods. While we are lead to believe by tradition and bible stories that there were no other gods worshiped the evidence though not explicit is to the contrary. For example, Strato's Tower is Ashara' Temple and Herod built one in Caesarea. While we do have a problem with very few details on differences having survived the fact of so many similarities should be shocking to believers.

One of the problems explaining this sort of thing is we have forgotten what the world was like before mass communication. It was only in the mid to late 19th c. that European countries were codifying local dialects into a single national language for everyone not just the standard for the educated. There were significant difference in dialects in places just tens of miles apart. That is the situation as it was in bibleland along with different gods and worship customs.

I am also looking for better ways to express these ideas so all questions are welcome.

[Aractus]

You are sounding more and more and more like a troll.

Let me pick apart your argument for you.

• I have no interest in unprovenanced religious traditions or beliefs or the opinion of so called scholars.

1. I'm not presenting you with religious traditions.
2. You're theories are way outside of general scholarly consensus. Not only that, but most secular historians would rightly disagree with you too.

• I am only interested in physical evidence. If there is none then there is none.

I have given you physical evidence. The problem is that you don't think it's evidence.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) have been called the greatest archaeological find of the 20th century, and the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times. Fragments of 21 out of the 22 Jewish scripture scrolls were discovered, which contained part of almost all 39 books as we Xians count them. The fact that not all were discovered isn't significant in itself because for some of the 21 scrolls there was only fragments found from one manuscript.

The Great Isaiah Scroll has been palaeographically dated to the 2nd century BC. However, you don't think this is evidence, thus the only conclusion you can draw from the scientific evidence is that it was written in the 4th century BC - as I will demonstrate.

The Great Isaiah Scroll has been carbon-14 dated at least 4 times. Two of the tests, provided in two separate labs, yielded nearly identical results. The calibrated data gives you the range of 335-324 BC and 202-107 BC.

Now think about that for a moment, why is there a gap from 323 BC to 203 BC? That's it keep thinking.

Did you work it out?

Manuscripts like this one were used for hundreds of years before being "retired". To carbon date manuscripts like this, you take a sample of the ink, and usually a sample of the paper as well. Scribes had the job of maintaining them, as well as making copies. You put new ink on top of old ink and BOOM you've thrown off the carbon-dating. Thus, since you want to ignore palaeographic opinion and rely solely on hard science, the only date that you can accept for this manuscript is 4th century BC.

I'd love to know how you think you can ignore the world's best palaeographers AND the science of Carbon-14 dating as well.

• Believers cannot slip their traditions into the vacuum.

I haven't given you church tradition as evidence.

• Without physical evidence they have no merit or standing at all despite what self-declared scholars say about each other and their traditions.

What gives you more credibility than the contemporary scholars and historians you seem to hate so much?

• Whether or not a person chooses to call himself a scholar, a word which by itself qualifies you and I as scholars, is a meaningless and superfluous description. It is a matter of historical record that beliefs have always been considered greater than facts.

I.have.given.you.facts.

• I could suggest the old but irrefutable evidence that Moses wrote the Torah because of the words and language style of it are so much older than the later books. WToday "scholars" have mostly retreated to saying it was written after the (mythical) return from Babylon. Were "scholars" lying when claimed to find word differences or are they lying now in not seeing the differences?

Moses is believed to be the author of Genesis. Many scholars, in fact most, would say it was written c. 1400 BC. I push the date back further to 2400-2200 BC since that's when I think the Exodus was.

• Non-specific reference to loan words is not evidence.

I'm not a palaeographer. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!

• Way back when there was a claim based upon words and phrases that the Septuagint had to be the copy because of the "Hebraisms" in the Greek.

OK I'm going to point this out to you AGAIN. There is no such thing as "The Septuagint". What you keep calling "The Septuagint" is just the fifth column of the Hexapla. Do you have an exact copy of that? No you don't. Is there a complete intact ancient LXX manuscript? No there isn't. Can you prove to me that the fifth column was a complete manuscript (or set of manuscripts) before Origen put them together in the Fifth column? No you can't. Do you have any evidence at all that Origen used a "single" source/version for the fifth column? What's that? No you don't.

No ifs, no buts, no maybes. The LXX as you and I know it dates to mid 3rd century AD. 245 AD to be exact. You have plenty of Hebrew found in the DSS that predate it by 3 centuries and more. Where's your evidence that Origen had a "complete Septuagint" before he started??

Show me your facts. What's that you say? You don't have any, you think that Origen created the LXX himself from scratch? Perfect.

• As to the meaning of theory, it is an explanation of the facts. The more facts explained the better the theory. There is no "theory" of Hebrew being the original as it has never been more than a religious tradition.

Um yes there is and there has always been. The book of Daniel has necessitated the need for the theory since it is unusually dual-language, and many critics going all the way back to before the time of Christ claimed that it wasn't originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic.

• As to the C14 dating of the one scroll, let me repeat. I cannot find that dating claim in any credible source which would include the laboratory and citation of the publication of the results. Further I said I cannot find any proper citation of dating of any scroll older than the 1st c. BC.

Right of course, how sill of me, it was made up.

---

Why should we have to accept a 4th century radio carbon date when it conflicts with both the scriptural analysis and with other radio carbon dating that places it in the 2nd?

Good question, and I've answered it above.

In short, the palaeographic dating disagrees with the C14 dating by about 200 years. The later C14 dating is not significant because it probably is the "fresh ink" on top of the old ink. Conversely, you can't put old ink on top of new (well you can, if you burn paper and mix it in with the ink to intentionally throw off carbon dating, this is how forgeries are done). So it depends on which you think is more reliable. If you're going to claim that palaeographers are lunatics who are not to be trusted, then you have no choice but to accept the 4th century date.

[Minimalist]

Better a troll than someone who uncritically believes all the bullshit he has ever been told.

What I am against is excusing the absence of physical evidence for any reason.

The problem there is that there is plenty of physical evidence. The bible thumpers went out in the early 20th century and pronounced every rock they picked up as something that some holy joe had pissed on. In 1908 science had few tools to dispute such "findings." Times have changed and not the least of it has been a century's worth of pottery findings which are now far more extensive and detailed and which allow archaeologists to circle in on times and places when such pottery was in use.

Doing C14 dating on cereal grains provides a much more specific date than a sample taken from a door frame which could have been in use for 150 years and then when you add the +/- of the test itself you end up with a 2-3 century spread of dates. But it was only in the 1990's that such precision dating became possible.

I agree it is necessary to dismiss the bible fairy tales in much the same way that scholars of English history pay no attention to Le Morte d'Arthur. But that is not to say that we cannot piece together a large-scale history of much of the region from the finds that have been made. (When I say "large scale" I mean advances/retreats of various peoples as opposed to the OT's absurd "Ahab said this" routine.)

Do you remember a few years ago when Ami Mazar, digging at Tel Rehov (ancient Beth Shean) came up with some bee hives? Right away the shitwits started with the "SEE!!!! THERE IS THE LAND OF MILK AND HONEY!!!! routine. Of course, when Mazar published the site included altars to naked fertility goddesses which shut the jesus freaks up real fast.

Another good example was the Ebla library. When first found there were people shrieking about how Ebla proved the bible. 30 years of steady scholarship has dismissed such pious blather. Ebla was a Syrian town...it had nothing to do with any fucking "Hebrews."

But if you go out there you will still find xtian sites which trumpet Ebla as providing proof for their horseshit. As Aractus is demonstrating on a more or less daily basis there is little hope for those people.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

However, a mere 38 years later the region was "liberated" when Gnaeus Pompey overran the Hasmonean kingdom. One does wonder how deeply a forced religious conversion could have taken root in a such a short period of time, huh?

With an average life expectancy of under 50 years and new generation with every ~18 years, it shouldn't be that difficult to do such conversions in short periods.

Keep in mind Judaism is a ritual/taboo religion not a creedal religion. It makes no difference what you believe. It matters only what one does and does not do. Thus "conversion" for men was circumcision only. Member in good standing was following the rituals and taboos. (Note: the circumcised paid the temple tax on pain of death. Thus there was a rational reason for circumcision, taxation.)

So circumcise or die was all that was needed for conversion. Mohamed did not invent convert or die.

[EGross]

Some of this thread is the theory of the development of the Hebrew language, and like any theory, it provides a possible answer unless disproven of replaced by a better one. I have read several books over the years on how languages of any kind develop, and I am no closer to being an expert than when I started! Now given that, I thought I would throw a few more items into the mix, since I do speak the language and have studied the texts in question.

First of all, the source for the hebrewe language is most likely related to the development of the other semitic langues, given the similarities in style and syntax. Hebrew and Aramaic are not that different, and if you have mastered one, you can read the other. Arabic is a cousin, and the speaker of one can shift to the other with some moderate effort, but not much. Finally, there are a handful of words in the Torah that have always been problematic, since they are Aramaic ones, and not Hebrew, and commentators have come up with some interesting mental gymnastics to explain those.

As far as Moses being the author of the first book, that comes from the single statement that he wrote the sefer haBrit when he came down from the mountain, and many religious commentators make an assumption. But in truth, the story never says what that book was any more than what was in the "book of wars" and so forth.

I would disagree with what it takes to write a scroll. My son in law is a scribe, and while there are a few common elements (the ink is from a common material that needs to crumble with time) and is written on leather, which, while a bit laborous, there usually isn't a lack of cows, sheep, goats, or whatever to write upon their skin.

On the other hand, historically, we know that during the time of Ezra, the Jews were mostly illiterate, and had no real connection with their belief system. According to the jewish writers, it was not the cream of the crop that left with Ezra, but the bottom of the bowl of society. And why call him a scribe? Perhaps he was the writer? It is one way of looking at it. And who were the men of the Great Assembly that put the book together? Nobody knows for sure. Were they great because of their size? Certainly they were not great because of their knowledge.

Now to touch on the Septuigint.

Why is it called that at all? If you are referring to Jewish legend that 70 Rabbis wrote it in seperate jail cess and brought them to the greek King and a miracle happened that they were all the same - well, that is a legend. And if you accept that part of the legend, then why not the part where there is a description of certain passages that they changed because of an assortment of translation issues, problems that are not in the modern text called by the same name. But we really don't know why the Septuigint is called that for certain, but everyone has a theory - each one better or worse than the other.

Finally, an interesting point on the DSS - apparently, there are 2 forms of ancient Hebrew writing, the priestly (modern) form, and the common (paleo-hebrew) form. In the Torah scrolls that were discarded, you find the tetragrammaton written in paleo-hebrew while the rest is in priestly hebrew. You can interpret this as the paleo-hebrew being more important, or less, depending on your bent on things.

There have been changes, edits, and the like. As to the origin of it all, and how it all started, and who wrote what, and how the language and religion developed, nobody really knows. All we really know is that it's literature, like the works of Homer. But unlike Homer, where people do not believe in giant cyclops or witches that turn men into pigs, people have devoted their lives and, tragically, have given up their lives for these writings, willing to be burnt alive as a kiddush HaShem, as an honor to a god who was never there.

Chaval!