(June 22, 2012 at 12:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Your fundy friend asked you to prove an observation which led to the theory that he just can't handle. IOW, he has no fucking clue, and the monumental wall of ignorance he has built between his beliefs and reality would be impressive if it weren't so common.

The fact that natural selection takes a very very long time just didn't get into his thick head. Oddly I thought he was smarter than that before I started debating with him. He's an extremely reticent individual. Not many of his opinions leave his mouth, the internet sort of opened his mouth (it was an internet debate) too much. This reminds me of a saying, it goes something like: Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

About Tyndale, from what I recall from what I read, his heresy revolves around his religious based reasons for objecting to Henry the 8th's divorce and remarriage and his unauthorized translation of the Bible. I.e. the "right" translation of the Bible was strongly determined by how well it fits into the kings ambitions.

---

(June 22, 2012 at 1:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(June 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm)Ziploc Surprise Wrote: Yeah I experienced this about two weekends ago when one of my fundy friends thought he won a debate because I couldn't produce an experiment that proved evolution (I couldn't find any link to any experiment that produced a separate species, the process by which was completely manipulated by the experimenter). Everything else we said (I had another atheist debating with me) was irrelevant. He was hunting for an admission. When he thought he got this, he stopped debating. I don't think he noticed or cared that the throughout the whole debate he made himself look like a complete dunce.

As for Ehrman, is as narrow minded and as cherry picking as he is accused of being? Or even close to this?

Those experiments are detailed in Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth. Of course, even if you had cited them the jesus freak would have simply ignored them. They ignore anything that does not have their sky-daddy in a starring role.

As for Ehrman, what he has done for textual criticism is what Finkelstein and Silbermann have done for archaeology. Neatly summarized for the layman recent research ( or in Ehrman's case not so recent - the fuck ups in the bible have been known for 300 years) and put it out so that non specialists can understand it. In the course of it Ehrman has let it be known that he used to be a fundie and is now an agnostic because of his research. This is treason to jesus freaks and they will never forgive him.

My only complaint with Ehrman is that he seems unable to take the next step. Having shown that the new testament is a heavily edited pile of shit he still insists on seeking a historical "core" to it instead of facing the reality that it was a concoction meant to fill a specific niche.
And things got out of hand.

BTW, Finkelstein also goes off the track a bit at the end because he abandons his own metholdology. There is no more archaeological evidence for "Josiah" than there is for "Solomon" yet he insists upon treating this story as real rather than as more fiction. It becomes a bit like someone citing King Arthur as real.

Well that's fortunate I'm just about done the book I'm reading and I've bought "the Greatest Show on Earth". This should be interesting.

I read several books at once (mostly because I camp a lot and I don't like to bring electronic books on a camp out). One of the books I'm reading is "The Mythmaker" by Hyam Maccoby. I'm not far into the book but it promises to fill in (to some degree) what Ehrman has left out. It will be interesting if I ever finish it. I've been so busy lately.

As for Josiah, I thought there was some evidence for his existence. If not then it kind of throws off the theory behind the motive for writing most of the Old Testament. Shouldn't there be some sort of motive for writing it or is just general emerging nationalism that developed in the vacuum of failing major empires be enough?

(June 22, 2012 at 1:11 pm)Ziploc Surprise Wrote: About Tyndale, from what I recall from what I read, his heresy revolves around his religious based reasons for objecting to Henry the 8th's divorce and remarriage and his unauthorized translation of the Bible. I.e. the "right" translation of the Bible was strongly determined by how well it fits into the kings ambitions.

Well, the timeline for him being labeled a heretic doesn't add up that way.

At least as early as 1529, Cardinal Wosley had him marked as a heretic officially. His books were being burned and banned at the time. This was the same cardinal who was dismissed when the pope didn't give Henry VIII an annulment. The same cardinal who was going to be tried for treason himself. It wasn't until 1530 that Tyndale wrote against Henry VIII's marriage to Boleyn and was then sought by the king.

It is the general consensus that Tyndale was labeled a heretic and would have been executed if caught, regardless of the king's feelings. He just became a better target once the king was offended by him.

Quote:As for Josiah, I thought there was some evidence for his existence.

Nope. Purely a character in the bible fairy tale. Now, xtians consider that evidence...... I consider it horseshit.

(June 22, 2012 at 2:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:As for Josiah, I thought there was some evidence for his existence.

Nope. Purely a character in the bible fairy tale. Now, xtians consider that evidence...... I consider it horseshit.

Well that kind of tosses Finklestiens and silbermans (I forgot how to spell their names) motive for writing the Bible out the window doesn't it? As I recall from the book textural examination suggests that most of it was written sometime in the 7th century BCE. If F&S's theory has a Josiah sized hole in it and the textual critics are right (or I'm recalling it correctly) What might have been their motive for writing such a large work? Who paid for it? Who was to benefit from it? How was it paid for (Judah was still a relatively po dunk place to be back then). Any wild speculations on this (real fact first if they exist)? I'm sort of a motive opportunity person when it comes to investigation. I see some motive (but perhaps not a large enough organized group behind the motive) and little opportunity (it took a lot money and a bit of power to commission a work like that but even before that you'd have to find and pay for people who could write).

Quote:Well that kind of tosses Finklestiens and silbermans (I forgot how to spell their names) motive for writing the Bible out the window doesn't it

No. The political situation at the end of the 7th century remains the same. The Assyrians were losing the civil war with the Babylonians and were allied with the 26th Dynasty in Egypt ( the Saite Dynasty.) What Finkelstein envisions is a Judah which had grown larger and wealthier as an Assyrian vassal state and may have gotten delusions of grandeur about expanding into the areas which the Assyrians were forced to abandon as the war went against them. The idea that Judah wanted to expand is not reliant on the name of any particular king. However, Egypt had dominated Canaan for 4 centuries and also sought to re-establish hegemony there. The story as told in "Kings" is that Necho summoned Josiah to a meeting and had him whacked. "Chronicles" ( written later) decided that this was not a sufficiently heroic death for ole Josiah so they invented a battle for him to lose instead.

Judah, like any small state caught between larger powers, would have had various factions favoring one side or the other. Necho's actions are understandable as a more powerful king looking at the ruling faction of Judah and deciding to put in someone more to his ( Egypt's) liking. Later called "Regime Change" by that noted political thinker Dubya the Moron. When the Egyptian-Assyrian alliance was defeated by the Babylonians that group wasted little time in seeking to replace what they considered the pro-Egyptian rulers of Judah.

Politics never changes.


Besides, recall that Egyptologist Don Redford has come to the same conclusion about the writing of the OT during the Saite period by using Egyptian sources.

Next add in William Dever's take that Yahweh at this time was part of a henotheistic tradition in Judah. He may have recently been promoted as Jerusalem actually grew into a city in the 7th century but we have nothing to suggest that the resident of Judah at this time were particularly "Jewish." They were Canaanites worshiping the Canaanite pantheon with their own special patron god. The issue about all the Jewish stuff dates to when this bullshit was last edited, not when it was originally written.

@ Min. I'm a bit confused here, could you elaborate. The F&S book practically worshiped Josiah. I don't dispute the political situation with the big empires in existence at the time. Their record keeping was far better than anything the Judites had. If someone wanted to take the Bible as a history book they couldn't even get their fucking dates right. It's all screwed up. I just thought that it took a monumental effort at the time to both afford and coordinate a writing effort such as the early books of the Bible should have taken. It' also takes a ruler who approves or (more commonly at the time) commissions the work because scripture can undermine the king's power if it isn't "properly written". I don't think the religious class/cast (or whatever) had the power to write independently of the king. Are you suggesting that perhaps something was written in or near the 7th century and then much later a fictional king Josiah was edited in? I suppose this is possible.

I understand the motives for the later editing of the Bible. A desire to keep the Jewish people together, preserve the religion. Perhaps the other motives are (as always) to keep the religious cast in money and power and for the ruling class to do what they usually do with holy scriptures (justification for war, murder, some form of divine right of kings, blah blah blah). I can see how they would be motivated to push the myth just as far as they could get away with.

One of the things that always gets me suspicious of editing (beyond the textural criticism, of which I am not an expert so I have to go with what the experts say) is how the older texts are somehow "missing". I understand that there were few of them and that there are serious problems with preserving texts but the disappearance pattern is fairly strong. This text (or fragment) was found hidden there, or that text was in that odd forgotten place, and wasn't one text burred with someone or am I not recalling this correctly.

Quote:The F&S book practically worshiped Josiah.

Yes, it did. Like I said, The Bible Unearthed has charts interspersed which show the archaeological attestation for the various kings claimed in the bible. On page 272 he lists extrabiblical evidence for Hezekiah and Manasseh but none for "Josiah." The archaeoligcal "evidence" is merely the continued propsperity in Beersheba and recovery in the Shephelah in addition to aniconism in seals and seal impressions. But nothing about this so-called most righteous of kings. Anybody could have continued to rule over the Assyrian trade routes which passed though his kingdom.

I once got my head handed to me in a discussion with Niels Peter Lemche when I suggested that we know there was a king in Jerusalem at the time ( there were kings everywhere) so what is the harm if we call him "Josiah?" ( It beats "Hey You" or "Joe Blow." Lemche replied that the problem with accepting biblical stories without evidence of them being true is that they come with a whole pile of other baggage which then also works its way into the story. So the question becomes where do you draw the line?

F&S suggest a ruler with a grandiose plan to occupy northern territories. Someone makes up a horseshit story about how these two kingdoms were once united under "David" ( by this time, a legendary figure...like Romulus). Such a ruler did not need to be a "Jew." That happy horseshit could have been written in later.

There are precious few moments in the entire first millenium when Egypt and Judah were in expansionist modes at the same time. The late 7th century was one of them. And both got their asses kicked by the Babylonians.

(June 22, 2012 at 10:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The F&S book practically worshiped Josiah.

Yes, it did. Like I said, The Bible Unearthed has charts interspersed which show the archaeological attestation for the various kings claimed in the bible. On page 272 he lists extrabiblical evidence for Hezekiah and Manasseh but none for "Josiah." The archaeoligcal "evidence" is merely the continued propsperity in Beersheba and recovery in the Shephelah in addition to aniconism in seals and seal impressions. But nothing about this so-called most righteous of kings. Anybody could have continued to rule over the Assyrian trade routes which passed though his kingdom.

I once got my head handed to me in a discussion with Niels Peter Lemche when I suggested that we know there was a king in Jerusalem at the time ( there were kings everywhere) so what is the harm if we call him "Josiah?" ( It beats "Hey You" or "Joe Blow." Lemche replied that the problem with accepting biblical stories without evidence of them being true is that they come with a whole pile of other baggage which then also works its way into the story. So the question becomes where do you draw the line?

F&S suggest a ruler with a grandiose plan to occupy northern territories. Someone makes up a horseshit story about how these two kingdoms were once united under "David" ( by this time, a legendary figure...like Romulus). Such a ruler did not need to be a "Jew." That happy horseshit could have been written in later.

There are precious few moments in the entire first millenium when Egypt and Judah were in expansionist modes at the same time. The late 7th century was one of them. And both got their asses kicked by the Babylonians.

I wonder why F&S practically worshiped Josiah. I read "The Bible Unearthed" but didn't really digest the minimal evidence for Josiah. My head was still spinning from my deconversion at the time. It was a lot of information (most of it being of the paradigm shifting sort) at one time. Has anyone else written about this period of Canaanite history?

I can't answer that. Like I said, he undercut his own methodology to put the Josiah shit up in lights.

When Philip R. Davies published In Search of Ancient Israel he suggested that all of this crap was cobbled together by the Persians who sent a bunch back in the guise of returning "exiles" to rule. The bible story is meant to give them a reason to rule over the Judahite peasantry which stayed behind to work the fields under Babylonian overseers. Davies' seems to suggest that this was created then and there but, I think if it were it would not be so poorly written. There are duplications and contradictions and fucking lunacy in the bible which a single author would have avoided. Instead, my guess is that they scraped up whatever local lore there was and wrote themselves into it. They then had plenty of time to edit the story as events unfolded in the ensuing centuries.

Try asking yourself this question. In what time period was there a strong Jewish monarchy which might have benefitted from the David story?

(June 23, 2012 at 12:55 am)Minimalist Wrote: I can't answer that. Like I said, he undercut his own methodology to put the Josiah shit up in lights.

When Philip R. Davies published In Search of Ancient Israel he suggested that all of this crap was cobbled together by the Persians who sent a bunch back in the guise of returning "exiles" to rule. The bible story is meant to give them a reason to rule over the Judahite peasantry which stayed behind to work the fields under Babylonian overseers. Davies' seems to suggest that this was created then and there but, I think if it were it would not be so poorly written. There are duplications and contradictions and fucking lunacy in the bible which a single author would have avoided. Instead, my guess is that they scraped up whatever local lore there was and wrote themselves into it. They then had plenty of time to edit the story as events unfolded in the ensuing centuries.

Try asking yourself this question. In what time period was there a strong Jewish monarchy which might have benefitted from the David story?

I don't know,

Interesting story about the horse shit being created by the Babylonians, though I agree that it would have been better written had that been the case. It's a shame it's origins aren't as clear, I really hate not knowing it's origins. At least the golden plate story of Joseph Smith can be easily tracked. The Bible has too many centuries, too many editings, too many cover ups (I still say that older documents were intentionally destroyed), and too little extra biblical evidence.