(March 28, 2013 at 12:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Point in fact paleo-hebrew is BS. The inscriptions in the region of that age are Phoenician and later Aramaic.

Christopher Rollston disagrees....and as one of the foremost paleographers of our generation I do have to go with him rather than you.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...-language/

There is your first mistake. Go the the home page http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org and do some clicking and quickly learn it is run by the publisher of the Biblical Archaeological Review, a popular magazine for believers, not a journal or academic resource in any sense of the word. So much for its bias. The .org means nothing. My website is a .org.

But what exactly do you present as the disagreement in that article? What is lists as the four possible oldest they are a significant fraction of the total number found which gets back to the index card or two of words.

Then there is "In his study, Christopher Rollston distinguishes between purely Hebrew script and other visually similar alphabets while examining relationships between alphabets and languages." What believers call "visually similar" we, today, call fonts. We have English fonts that "look" more different than the believers consider to be the alphabets of different languages. Consider the letter G.



When each city state would have its own scribe schools and no concept of standardization this grasping at straws. You can find similar arguments on spelling but the idea of standardized spelling did not exist either.

"Old Hebrew script derived directly from Phoenician, and Christopher Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century B.C.E. The Hebrew language existed well before then; the oldest extant Hebrew language texts are recorded in Phoenician script." That is an example of several things. The biggest is that believers will make all kinds of ad hoc arguments but never follow through on the universal implications.

For example, IF the "language existed well before then" it was either the language of ancient Ur, Abraham's home town, or Egyptian where they spent centuries or is just a language of Palestine. You will never find the claim of Hebrew existing before then to prove Genesis and Exodus are BS. But if they are BS there is no excuse to call the language Hebrew without the uniqueness of Abraham and Exodus.

In admitting it is so closely related to Phoenician it negates the possibility it is of separate origin. It can only be called Palestinian. Archaeology finds no "Philistines" or "Canaanites." They are bible inventions. And you can find the phonetic cuneiform of the Ugarit library to be older than either. And it contains some of material later incorporated into the OT.

The idea of calling it Hebrew when there were no Hebrews is bible thumper crap. But if there are no Hebrews it is definitive Genesis and Exodus are BS. This is an ad hoc argument to a conclusion that Hebrew exists without making it universal in its implications. This is not permitted in any field that is considered academic.

Consider this one. "The five-line Qeiyafa Ostracon** has garnered a great deal of attention since its 2008 excavation at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the fortified tenth century B.C.E. Judahite city located on the border of Judah and Philistia." As there is no archaeological find of any peoples called either Judahites or Philistines or who called themselves by those names it is a LIE to use that description of where it was found. And that lie prejudices the determination of the language in which it is written. And those names for the location are only determined by use of the bible. That is the circular argument I described. You found exactly an example of what lead you to look for information in the first place but it confirms the use of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

The rest is the same. I am not going to screw with it -- the premises are false -- unless you have some particular interest.

Quote:Another site notes,

Quote:The name YHWH is not in the modern Syriac squared Hebrew letters, but in the paleo-Hebrew.

http://www.lebtahor.com/Archaeology/insc...scroll.htm

There were people living in Judah during the 7th century BC. They had a language and rudimentary literacy - mainly for record keeping

One cannot call it Judah without reference to the bible. Again circular reasoning. As for the claim of literacy and more humorously "mainly record keeping" in no academic field is it permitted to claim something for which there is no evidence. Show me the records. If no records then the statement is BS. As the statement is BS there is no more evidence of literacy than that the place was called Judah.

Quote:but the Silver Scrolls indicate that they were moving in the direction of actual literature

Absent evidence of literacy and of the name of the location and knowing the oldest mention of YHWH is as a minor local god on the Ugarit tablets dating to about 1100 BC and noting it is written in Phoenician it is unreasonable to assume it is other than a Phoenician scroll. Believers are not reasonable people.

Quote: - and they were stomped on by the Babylonians as the destruction layer in "Jerusalem" (or whatever it was called) attests.

Such as the "destruction" layer is it indicates nothing more than a large fire which has never been uncommon.

Quote:Nothing we have found suggests that they were "Jews" in any sense of the word we understand.

Nor that they were Hebrews or Israelites in any sense we understand. And as they were none of the above they were simply hillbilly Palestinians living the the shadow of the Phoenician, Syrian and Egyptian civilizations.

Quote: Yahweh may have been their chief god...and a shitty job he did protecting them from the Babylonians...I guess Marduk had a bigger dick than Yahweh. Forgetting the later bible bullshit we have records from the Babylonians themselves telling us what they did.

When I pointed out it clearly refers to a sun god that was all. Chief god? No evidence. Protector god? Not in the text. That the Ugarit name is used is interesting but unsurprising.

Quote:In fact, my only complaint with Finkelstein is that he abandons his own methodology at the end in order to enshrine Josiah and some sort of Jewish "revival." There is no archaeological attestation for Josiah. He is a figment of the bible writers' imaginations. There can be a political crisis between Judah and Egypt in the 7th century without inventing a whole new fucking religion to be the basis of it. (Judah lost.)

To claim there was a Judah as you do is solely based upon bible stories. In real history the land in called Palestine, a name unrelated to the invented word Philistine. Herodotus mentions the Palestinians by exactly that name in the 5th c. BC when he traveled there and met them. The idea there would be a political crisis between Egypt and illiterate Palestinian hillbillies is a rather humorous idea. It could be no more than Egypt caring to stomp on them and then getting around to it.

---

Lots of the baggage is not even knowing it is baggage. Using bible names like Judah is baggage. Another category of baggage is talking about bibleland in bible terms instead of the same terms as all other contemporary cultures.

For example, Athens was the capital of the city-state of Attica. It is common to call Athens a city-state but those are the two terms of reference. Therefore Jerusalem is the capital of the city-state of Judea. Of you can call Jerusalem of city-state. Those would be correct terms in the 1st c. BC.

Also in that century Rome was a city-state with an empire that included the Mediterranean less Egypt and moved into Gaul. Similarly the city-state of Judea ruled an empire that consisted of Samaria, the Galilee and Idumaea. But because of the bible the Judean empire is talked about as the remnant of previously powerful kingdom and the conquered peoples as though they were all always Judeans. It is the same bible nonsense that calls any region of Palestine Judah or any other invented bible name.

Among the forms of historical fiction exemplars of two of them are Spartacus and Game of Thrones. The OT is in the latter category.

(March 28, 2013 at 6:33 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Last time you claimed they were both old and discredited and I challenged you to post the discreditations. You produced no discreditations but repeat your nonsense claim they are old. Again, you knowingly and willfully lie about what I post. You are clearly a dishonest person.

You are pathetic. You resort to labelling me as something I'm not because you are unable to substantiate any of your claims. You can't substantiate them because you actually have no idea of what you're talking about. I have pointed this out to you time and time again, you are nothing, your claims are empty, without evidence. Bart Ehrman and the others at least present evidence for their claims - you do nothing of the sort. In fact what you do do is claim that all the real evidence is not evidence because your conclusion requires it so. That is completely circular reasoning. Evidence doesn't "prove" a particular conclusion ANM, it speaks about what we know about it.

For instance, let me tell you about my favourite example on this - the Egyptian Pyramids. For well over two thousands years historians believed that the Pyramids were built by slaves. This was based on one piece of evidence. The evidence was totally wrong, as it turns out, and how did we discover this? With new evidence of course. Now we know that the pyramids were built by Egyptian workers - not slaves.

You are the liar - you have absolutely no evidence, all you do is attack the evidence that you are presented with. It's fine to attack evidence critically - if you either have other evidence, or if you can show why a piece of evidence is questionable. You can do neither.

Quote:You have at best pointed out Origen only used 46 of them. We know there were more scrolls on the theme. Origen has no particular authority. His material just happens to be among that which survived. You fail to notice the Hexapla has no odd scroll out documents. It only includes material which exists in all the languages. Things that do not exist in all the languages -- that he found/included/arbitrary not definitive -- are not included.

You are wrong on this. We do not know that the Apocrypha was ever in Hebrew. Some of it may have been, what we do know - and I'm pointing this out to you now for your information - is the first time we find the Apocrypha is the Hexapla. As for you questioning why I'm calling them "Apocrypha" - that's the term used by Jerome.

Quote:Since the earliest is from the 11th c. AD long after the Christian collection was made canonical I do not see why that surprises you.

And yet you actually have - zero evidence - that between the first century BC and the second century any text was lost. None, no evidence at all. Yes there are small sections of text known to be missing in the MT, however nothing you've presented shows why it could have occurred after the time of Christ and not before.

Quote:Since the earliest is from the 11th c. AD long after the Christian collection was made canonical I do not see why that surprises you. Why would not the Christian and rabbinical sects of Judaism compete and copy each other?

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard of.

Quote:You Jesus was a fucking, illiterate peasant too. Why would you think otherwise? Why you would LIE about, MAKE UP reading temple scrolls is just you faith controlling your reality. Perhaps you are schizophrenic.

Bring some evidence - which you don't have.

Quote:BTW: The DSS have neither jots nor tittles. They first appear in the Masoretic.

The "Jot" or "Yodh" is the fourth letter of the Tetragrammaton, are you telling me the DSS don't have the Tetragrammaton??? Tittle doesn't refer to dots or vowel points as you seem to believe FYI.

Quote:The definition of complete can only exist after codices are invented as all educated people know.

Codices date back to the time of Julius Caesar. But that doesn't prove your point anyway.

Quote:“As for Hezekiah, the Judean, he did not submit to my yoke. I laid siege to 46 of his fortified cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity …. I led off 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horse, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and counted them as booty.” (Taylor Prism)

Quote:700 chariots, 700 cavalry, and 10,000 soldiers belonging to Irhuleni of Hama; 2,000 chariots, and 10,000 soldiers belonging to Ahab, the Israelite Shalmeneser II inscription

Quote:“I received the tribute of Jehoash the Samarian, of the Tyrian [ruler] and of the Sidonian [ruler].”Adad-Nirari inscription

Quote:I called up the kings of the country Hatti and (of the region) of the other side of the river (Euphrates)...Manasseh, king of Judah..
Inscription of Esarhaddon

Quote:(Then) I called up my mighty armed forces which Ashur and Ishtar have entrusted to me and took the shortest road to Egypt and Nubia. During my march (to Egypt) 22 kings from the seashore, the islands, and the mainland [including] Manesseh, king of Judah Inscription of Asshurbanipal

These are Assyrian records....extrabiblical historical references which are realistically the only kind worth a shit. The Assyrians recorded the names of their vassals and/or opponents and they knew the difference between Israel and Judah. Unless you are asserting some kind of grand conspiracy...that the Assyrians were in on! You are coming across as a fanatic, Mouse. These places existed. It does not harm your position at all for them to have existed since we know nothing about them except what archaeology has shown us or what later writers tried to concoct for them.

And BAR may be edited by noted con artist Hershel Shanks....but Rollston is a scholar of the highest order. I'm half surprised that Shanks printed an article by him.

(March 29, 2013 at 11:03 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:“As for Hezekiah, the Judean, he did not submit to my yoke. I laid siege to 46 of his fortified cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity …. I led off 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horse, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and counted them as booty.” (Taylor Prism)

Quote:700 chariots, 700 cavalry, and 10,000 soldiers belonging to Irhuleni of Hama; 2,000 chariots, and 10,000 soldiers belonging to Ahab, the Israelite Shalmeneser II inscription

Quote:“I received the tribute of Jehoash the Samarian, of the Tyrian [ruler] and of the Sidonian [ruler].”Adad-Nirari inscription

Quote:I called up the kings of the country Hatti and (of the region) of the other side of the river (Euphrates)...Manasseh, king of Judah..
Inscription of Esarhaddon

Quote:(Then) I called up my mighty armed forces which Ashur and Ishtar have entrusted to me and took the shortest road to Egypt and Nubia. During my march (to Egypt) 22 kings from the seashore, the islands, and the mainland [including] Manesseh, king of Judah Inscription of Asshurbanipal

These are Assyrian records....extrabiblical historical references which are realistically the only kind worth a shit.

Related to this on the Moabite stone someone declared it had to be confirmation because it was only recently discovered. The correct question is when was it lost and there is no basis to claim it was lost before the 2nd c. BC. There is no reason to assume it was not common knowledge among the educated at that time. So also with this inscription.

How do they differ from a much longer list of characters and events which would prove Les Miserables and The Three Musketeers are true stories? Would a different list confirm the details of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar? Would different lists confirm the reality of the Starz series Spartacus or the movie 300?

They are examples of the only kind of records which were made of events. Yet from the Septuagint we find what are supposedly recountings of the other side of these events in the form of the histories invented by Herodotus and Thucydides centuries later. In reality there were only declarative inscriptions such as these and in the Septuagint we find narrative history that did not appear until centuries later.

I make of it Les Miserables as the narrative history could not have been produced in bibleland until after there is a literate Greek culture in bibleland. As to names and events for local color, noting we have lost some 99.9% of ancient material most of which we would reasonably assume was in the library at Alexandria the source material for the local names and color is found at the library.

A theory explains the greatest number of facts in a consistent manner. Granted some of the above can be explained by assuming the stories were written as contemporary history. That does not explain the absence of literacy or the non-existence of the literary form of history or the absence of archaeological evidence in support of these events.

Consider just the simplest analogy of the inscriptions you refer to. There are ZERO similar inscriptions from bibleland. If they are literate enough to produce a couple hundred words of text why not a few lines carved in stone like every other contemporary civilization? No special pleadings are permitted.

In no event can you get from the above that the Red Sea parted or any of the other people or events in the stories including the "other side" of the events mentioned.

The bible narrative as "hebrews" on both sides of the Jordon and a break out into a north and south kingdom, only two. How many are mentioned there?

If it does just serve as an inspiration or verisimilitude for fiction then we should expect the story to disagree with the inscription.

Quote:

Quote:Isa 37:33-38 "Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the king of Assyria: 'He shall not come into this city, Nor shoot an arrow there, Nor come before it with shield, Nor build a siege mound against it. By the way that he came, By the same shall he return; And he shall not come into this city,' Says the LORD. 'For I will defend this city, to save it For My own sake and for My servant David's sake.'" Then the angel of the LORD went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses--all dead. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went away, returned home, and remained at Nineveh."

The way I read things I would say that makes the Jerusalem part of the story entirely different, thus the inscription is an inspiration.

Quote:The Assyrians recorded the names of their vassals and/or opponents and they knew the difference between Israel and Judah. Unless you are asserting some kind of grand conspiracy...that the Assyrians were in on! You are coming across as a fanatic, Mouse. These places existed. It does not harm your position at all for them to have existed since we know nothing about them except what archaeology has shown us or what later writers tried to concoct for them.

As you noted in you last post the people would not be recognizable as Jews. If not recognizable then they are not and these inscriptions are not about Jews and therefore not about the bible. Now if you wish to say the prism or bible is lying about a real event pick which and give your reasoning.

No, there is no a priori conspiracy. I could take the prism and other inscriptions create an entirely different story and it would have no greater merit than a story written in the 2nd c. BC.

But if you want to write me off as a fanatic that is your business. I do not see how not taking it for more than it is is fanatic. They are not identifiable as Jews and it tells a different story about Jerusalem. At least it shows whomever you wish wrote the bible whenever you wish were liars. Lying in one, lying in all. The source is discredited. Making excuses for the lies in favor of the bible is arguing to a conclusion in that you have already decided before argumentation which is correct. That is a logical fallacy.

Quote:And BAR may be edited by noted con artist Hershel Shanks....but Rollston is a scholar of the highest order. I'm half surprised that Shanks printed an article by him.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465006...0465006493

You might consider going there and reading a couple pages just passed the map. He recounts his intended bible study and quickly discovers deliberate false translations and more just to support the bible. So as to scholars of the highest order what does that matter if they are believers?

What does a fallacious appeal to authority matter? There are "scholars of the highest order" who argue for Noah's flood and a 6000 year old earth and biblical miracles. Catholic heologians are scholars. Do you use them to justify your Catholic faith? Or do you selectively choose your scholars based upon which support your preconceived beliefs?

---

I note also you do not make a single objection to my previous response.

Mins catholic faith.....?

Quote:How do they differ from a much longer list of characters and events which would prove Les Miserables and The Three Musketeers are true stories?

As I said, Mouse. There are times when you simply sound like a fanatic. This is one of those times.

So the Assyrians wrote a bunch of shit just so second century jews could invent a great king?

That is what you sound like and it isn't helping you.

(March 29, 2013 at 11:03 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:“As for Hezekiah, the Judean, he did not submit to my yoke. I laid siege to 46 of his fortified cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity …. I led off 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horse, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and counted them as booty.” (Taylor Prism)

And archaeology does not give the least indication of 46 fortified cities plus walled forts anywhere it JUDAH -- Judean would be a Greek/Roman era name, see wishful thinking translations. So in addition the bible story being different from the prism story we have conclusive evidence whatever and whoever the prism is referring to is not biblical Judah.

(March 30, 2013 at 11:03 am)Rhythm Wrote: Mins catholic faith.....?

Merely an example. Christian, Muslim and Jewish are all the same here. Even atheist Zionists have a belief in this.

---

(March 30, 2013 at 6:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:How do they differ from a much longer list of characters and events which would prove Les Miserables and The Three Musketeers are true stories?

As I said, Mouse. There are times when you simply sound like a fanatic. This is one of those times.

So the Assyrians wrote a bunch of shit just so second century jews could invent a great king?

That is what you sound like and it isn't helping you.

No. So they could invent a great king and a great kingdom which disappeared without a trace. However, any king or kingdom would do. Until there is physical evidence of existence the Septuagint version is just mythology.

As you know the prism you like was found in the royal palace in the ruins of Nineveh. Would you tell me what has been found in the royal palaces of the listed people? Your correct response is, What palaces?

---

(March 30, 2013 at 6:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:How do they differ from a much longer list of characters and events which would prove Les Miserables and The Three Musketeers are true stories?

As I said, Mouse. There are times when you simply sound like a fanatic. This is one of those times.

So the Assyrians wrote a bunch of shit just so second century jews could invent a great king?

That is what you sound like and it isn't helping you.

Question for you: Taking into account all the known physical evidence what is your theory as to who wrote it and when and what do you believe its contents represent?

This is a serious question. It must be answered from the ground up without any assumptions. There is no default answer. Religious tradition has no standing. One cannot assume religious tradition is correct and then argue to that conclusion.

---

(March 29, 2013 at 8:50 am)Aractus Wrote:

(March 28, 2013 at 6:33 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Last time you claimed they were both old and discredited and I challenged you to post the discreditations. You produced no discreditations but repeat your nonsense claim they are old. Again, you knowingly and willfully lie about what I post. You are clearly a dishonest person.

You are pathetic. You resort to labelling me as something I'm not

Produce the discreditations to show you are not lying.

Quote:because you are unable to substantiate any of your claims.

I said the OT stories first appear in history in Greek. You have produced nothing older. That statement is correct. What is there to substantiate?

So I have said nothing incorrect as to the appearance of the stories or the language in which they appear and you have produced nothing which would discredit those statements.

What is your point?

You are so full of yourself - do you know that? Even Min can see it. You have no evidence. You're not an authority on this ya know - in fact you're nothing.

Let's consider something for a moment - almost all scholars - Christian, Jewish, Secular - almost every single one agrees that the OT books were written at different times to each other and over a span of at least several hundred years. You're not even a scholar - why is your opinion more valid than the cumulative opinion of the group?

The.LXX.can.not.be.traced.any.further.back.than.the.Hexapla.

I don't know how to get the point across to you - the source that you keep going to, that you keep claiming is the authority on the written OT Biblical tradition appears first - as we know it - mid 3rd century. It doesn't appear BC, it doesn't appear in the first or the second centuries AD it appears in the third century AD from - *nowhere*. Now those scholars I just mentioned - you know the ones who will tell you that the HEBREW was written in stages - they also have an opinion on the LXX. They're in huge agreement on the fact that the Hexapla represents a recension of that particular written Greek tradition. Maybe you can appeal to the scholars on that one, but not on the Hebrew??

The Masoretic Text represents an ancient textual tradition - almost all scholars are unanimous on this. You claim that it's been revised - in other words that it's a recension of an older Hebrew version which itself is a recension of the Greek. Well produce your evidence.

You have nothing. You don't even know what you're talking about. Made in Alexandria my ass! Bart D. Ehrman shits all over your theory. And that's saying something.

Quote:As you know the prism you like was found in the royal palace in the ruins of Nineveh. Would you tell me what has been found in the royal palaces of the listed people? Your correct response is, What palaces?

You want to compare the Assyrian Empire to "Israel" and the even poorer "Judah?"

Because they DID build palaces but to think that they would rival Nineveh is setting the bar a tad high. "Palace" in this case meaning a place for the king and his immediate retinue to have a place to crash and party for a while before moving on. Samaria, built by the Omride Dynasty, hardly deserves the sobriquet of "city" either. A lot of archaeological texts I have read seem to prefer the term "Administrative Center" meaning a palace, some storehouses, maybe a stable and a defensive palisade where the local populace could take refuge in case of an attack....by an army with no capability for serious siege operations.

It is true that there is a serious lack of monumental inscriptions by the 9th century Israelites. We do have some ostraca with general bookkeeping entries and some odds and ends which is consistent with Finkelstein's observations about the growth of literacy in primitive states. Does not help us a lot, though.

Hezekiah, a century or so later did have some monumental inscriptions and the likelihood is that he had a "palace" but there is no indication of any temple. I do not find that at all surprising as even the OT itself tells us that the Canaanites worshiped at "high places." The only thing which claims that Hezekiah's countrymen were not merely Canaanites is the OT and we both agree on the reliability of that piece of shit.

---

Quote:Question for you: Taking into account all the known physical evidence what is your theory as to who wrote it and when and what do you believe its contents represent?

That would take a book.