Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult

[A_Nony_Mouse]

...
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.

I have never met the man and I doubt he has heard of me. I have heard of him. He is a believer who assumes his conclusions and argues to them. Therefore he is far from impartial and uses fallacies instead of logical thought.

As to his bowel movements I could care less.

YOU have presented not a single thing which demonstrates there is anything older than the Greek version of these stories. Until you do you are lying about me. That is not nice.

---

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?
...

I am a scholar, in fact at one time nationally recognized by that title. The term scholar is meaningless.

As to consensus reality is not determined by a vote.

As most "scholars" in this field are also believers and there are even atheist believers for political reasons the idea of a consensus if meaningless. You are a believer. Your religious beliefs are superior to any facts you might observe or know. That is the most serious problem with believers. Their and your faith trumps reality and physical evidence.

You invention of an educated Jesus was more than sufficient to demonstrate that.

---

“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)

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

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

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

(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

...

Of the above items which do you say could not possibly have been incorporated into a 2nd c. BC created story and why?

---

...

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.

Evidence the son of some sort of craftsman did not have the education of a priest of the Yahweh cult? One would expect that burden being on you. Priest was hereditary. Joseph was not a priest. You evidence of your invention is ...?

If Joseph were rich enough to afford the equivalent, assuming it existed or were permitted, he would have had many wives. There are no ad hoc explanations. All explanations have to entail every consequence.

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.

As the phrase jot and tittle is an English expression referring to punctuation, I will have to defer to your superior knowledge of the Greek phrase so translated. Please recite the original text and explain the reason for this choice of phrase.

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.

It refers to your assumption of evidence by choice of words used which is circular.

[Aractus]

I have never met the man and I doubt he has heard of me. I have heard of him. He is a believer who assumes his conclusions and argues to them. Therefore he is far from impartial and uses fallacies instead of logical thought.

Wrong. He was a believer and lost his faith after learning Greek and studying it critically. However you are correct on one thing - he does indeed assume his conclusions and argues for them exactly as you argue for yours.

YOU have presented not a single thing which demonstrates there is anything older than the Greek version of these stories. Until you do you are lying about me. That is not nice.

The DSS are older than any Greek mss of the OT - that should be enough.

I am a scholar, in fact at one time nationally recognized by that title. The term scholar is meaningless.

No you're not. You have demonstrated that you know less about the original languages than I do.

As to consensus reality is not determined by a vote.

Maybe you could point out where I said consensus? I said "cumulative opinion" in and of itself that phrase tells you that there's some inherent disagreement in it.

As most "scholars" in this field are also believers and there are even atheist believers for political reasons the idea of a consensus if meaningless. You are a believer. Your religious beliefs are superior to any facts you might observe or know. That is the most serious problem with believers. Their and your faith trumps reality and physical evidence.

You invention of an educated Jesus was more than sufficient to demonstrate that.

Invention? Jesus taught from the scriptures. And not just from the Torah either.

Evidence the son of some sort of craftsman did not have the education of a priest of the Yahweh cult? One would expect that burden being on you. Priest was hereditary. Joseph was not a priest. You evidence of your invention is ...?

Joseph was a legal descendant of David - and he could prove it using the genealogies that existed at the time. Further to that he was a builder. These two facts alone would be enough evidence to show that Joseph's children would have been well educated - including Jesus.

Not convinced? Archaeological evidence shows that the regions of Sepphoris as well as cities in the Galilee and Jordan valley region had a number of large extensive construction projects. Additionally, Sepphoris was the economic centre of the region. Herod's son was rebuilding the city after its seizure, and the city was growing. It would have been a very good time and place to be a builder.

The Palestinian Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud both record that it was decreed by Simeon ben Shetah that every town and district have a "school of the book" (Bet ha-Sefer). True the two Talmud's were not written until much later, but the fact is that they are recognized to record what was understood orally in the first century, and also this relates to a order given by Simeon ben Shetah in the first century BC.

The Bible give you the rest of the evidence.

Evidence that Jesus was educated? 1. He taught from the written scriptures, and makes reference to them. 2. His father was of David's line. 3. He and his father were builders in a time of city growth and numerous building projects being carried out in the city of Sepphoris just 6km away, 4. There was a Jewish order recognized by Palestine that every town and district have a Bet ha-Sefer. So I've fulfilled all requirements to show that Jesus was educated: 1. his family had the finances to educate him, 2. there was a facility located within Nazareth which provided education to families that could afford to educate their sons, 3. Jesus teaches from the written word as an educated man would.

And your evidence that he wasn't educated? (I know I'm left wanting).

As the phrase jot and tittle is an English expression referring to punctuation, I will have to defer to your superior knowledge of the Greek phrase so translated. Please recite the original text and explain the reason for this choice of phrase.

I think it's ironic that you claim it's an "English expression". Ironic because that would then have to originate with none other than William Tyndale. Of course back then the letter j hadn't been invented and it was "iott" and "tytle". You would have been best going to a translation like the NIV:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Yodh ("jot") is the smallest Hebrew letter. A tittle is a tiny point on a Hebrew letter, similar to a serif in English text.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

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?"

I want to compare them to the kingdoms as described in the bible. If they were not as described in the bible then there is additional evidence the stories were made up. The issue I have raised in when they were made up. I have mentioned the use of real names for verisimilitude is nothing new and noted many examples such as Les Miserable which do so.

As noted using the king and place Jerusalem, even if in the same physical location as the present one, is not the one on the prism. The prism tells of its surrender. The Greek story says it was miraculously saved. The prism refers to 46 fortified cities as part of Judah. Archaeology have found nothing of the kind. Therefore the prism most certainly refers to a Jerusalem some place else not the one in the bible stories. The prism is NOT describing the land archaeologists have found around historical Jerusalem.

There are other problems with other cities such as the main players in Samaria which in the Greek is not Omri.

Because they DID build palaces but to think that they would rival Nineveh is setting the bar a tad high.

I think implying I said to rival Nineveh is pushing the bar out of reach. I am talking about finding anything corroborating these Greeks stories in bibleland. Believers are always coming up with something but they have an odd characteristic. One has to go far from bibleland to find anything (which has to be greatly twisted) to mention bibleland but nothing on location.

Imagine mentions of Egypt in Babylon, Assyrian, Greece and Rome but not a single thing along the Nile. What theory could explain that?

The folks who insist upon physical evidence would be surprised to find a single inscription of bible material in the cities mentioned on the prism. Hammurabi produced his laws in stone. How about the big ten in stone? How about anything equivalent? They are found in every other literate culture. What is now Israel and the West Bank is percentagewise the most dug place in the world. But no physical evidence. Any theory must address this fact.

"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.

Is it legitimate to ask you where you got that idea? Where the king or emperor or whatever lives is the center of government. Everything needed to run the kingdom or empire has to be there or close by.

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.

Seems to me if one is going to invoke the prism then the meaning and usage of the words on the prism apply. Working with the idea the bible exaggerates is a common approach to trying to salvage it, to rip it from the jaws of reality.

However here the Assyrians are being invoked and their empire and what they meant by a fortified city or just plain city is what is meant. You cannot back off from the words on the prism. If it says 46 fortified cities belonging to Jerusalem and there is nothing like that to be found then it is not talking about the bible's Jerusalem.

It is true that there is a serious lack of monumental inscriptions by the 9th century Israelites.

I think "serious lack" is an odd way to say none at all. Nor inscriptions of any kind. Nor any buildings of interest.

It is even odder to limit this to the 9th c. when in fact it applies to everything prior to the 2nd c. It is not like the 9th c. stands out. It is the norm prior to Greek rule.

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.

As I said, finding only broken pottery with a few scratched words shows there was no local literacy. There was no production of anything intended for writing. Not even clay tablets which by definition are dirt cheap. As to growth of literacy it is solely connected to the administrative needs of the local whatever, fiefdom to empire. Without literacy fiefdom is about as big as they can be.

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 think it reasonable to ask what inscriptions you are talking about. The only one is the BS tunnel inscription. That undated and undatable are written in Phoenician. Yes, believers look to the bible for their circular reasoning to date it. The dating problem comes from the fact it was removed and sent to a museum in Turkey shortly after it was discovered. It was not properly dated at the time, it can't be put back. There are no do overs here.

There are no words on the inscription which can date it. The language was around for so long it is no help. This kind of tunnel is used at least one other place in bibleland so it is not unique. Any time after the inscription was made a story could have been written about it.

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.

I find it interesting that Canaanites are found only in the bible and not by archaeologists. Even your prism calls the region Palestine. It poisons the discussion to use a name invented by the folks who invented the bible stories and my point is who invented them and when.

No one has found any evidence of a people who were called or called themselves anything like Canaanite. In my reading the closest to the Phoenician word which means peasants or farmers. It was applied to the native population around the colonial city of Carthage, kanana. I wouldn't bet money on it.

Then one is free to ask what is a "high place" and discover there is no answer. High in terms of elevation above sea level does not fit a high priest. There are several real temples known in the region. None are on top of a hill. The only surviving descriptions from Roman times which imply the location of Herod's temple preclude the top of the temple mount as its location. But gee whiz mister translator you did pick the word high. Bottom line without physical evidence they are just words.

---

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.

I say Alexandrian Greeks in the 2nd c. BC. It hardly takes a book. It may take a book to explain it but a statement of a theory is simple.

Let us be honest here. You have no theory which addresses the known facts. No one does. Mine is based primarily upon the impossibility of in situ creation and the appearance of the stories being coincident with the Maccabean revolt which was an alliance with the Ptolemys against the Seleucids. With that everything fell into place.

I say my theory explains more facts than any other. It also addresses "deal breaker" facts like the illiteracy of the religious assumptions of authorship.

I say I am not competing against other theories but rather assumptions based upon religious tradition which never addressed the facts. There is no theory which comes within a light year of the religious tradition.

[Minimalist]

I want to compare them to the kingdoms as described in the bible. If they were not as described in the bible then there is additional evidence the stories were made up.

Why? Would you compare Camelot to Alfred the Great's court? Fiction is always easier....it is not restrained by reality. We know there was no major population center at the site of Jerusalem in the 10th century when, according to the OT, it was the capital of a far-flung empire. Horseshit. It was, at best, a miserable little village but more likely was nothing more than a fortified manor house for the local war lord. The whole raison d'etre for the site is the Gihon spring which was the only reliable water source in the area. We don't have any idea what it was called but we know it was not a city...or even a respectable sized town. Judah, in the 9th and 10th centuries could not support that level of urbanization. It was a region of pastoral nomads.

The population increase around "Jerusalem" (or whatever) begins after the Assyrians overrun "Israel." Even then, the population never grows much beyond 10,000 because that seems to be the practical limit of the water supply. It wasn't until Herod the Great imported some Roman engineers to build an aqueduct that the city began to grow and eventually attained a population of perhaps 30,000.

But you don't have to dismiss 200 years of archaeological research in order to deduce that the bible is bullshit, Mouse. I have no doubt that when these goat-fucking tribesmen went to Nineveh to pay their annual tribute they brought back stories of the opulence of the place. It isn't too hard to see where they got their inspiration for these later tales of "Solomon." ( Shalmeneser the name of several Assyrian kings is a Greek rendition of the Akkadian Shulmanu-Asaredu. Shulmanu? Solomon? Is it really that hard to see the connection?)

---

The prism tells of its surrender. The Greek story says it was miraculously saved. The prism refers to 46 fortified cities as part of Judah. Archaeology have found nothing of the kind.

I don't know where you are getting this stuff. Archaeology has most assuredly located destruction layers consistent with Sennacherib's invasion. The most notable site is Lachish but there are others.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ln5NwF8...ah&f=false

You seem to be saying that because archaeology can't confirm the bible bullshit stories that archaeology can't be trusted either. That's silly. The question to ask is Cui Bono? Who benefits from the bible stories?
There are different answers at different times?

---

As far as "Hezekiah's" inscription goes....

The Siloam (Shiloach) inscription or Silwan inscription is a passage of inscribed text found in the Hezekiah tunnel which brings water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam, located in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan. The inscription records the construction of the tunnel in the 8th century BCE. It is among the oldest extant records of its kind written in Hebrew using the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet.

Scholars say it is written in Hebrew using the Paleo-Hebrew script. Assyrian records tell us that Hezekiah rebelled against them. He fortified his city and took steps to ensure his water supply in case of a siege. These are logical steps for any ruler to take if you are going to do something as illogical as rebel against Assyria in the first place.

The OT claims that "god" smote 185,000 Assyrians...as if such a number could ever be amassed! The Assyrian records tell us that Hezekiah paid a tribute and submitted to Assyrian hegemony. The Assyrian account is more rational...I trust we agree on that. We can speculate on why the Assyrians showed such restraint in their dealings with Hezekiah but I imagine the reasons were tactical.

---

However here the Assyrians are being invoked and their empire and what they meant by a fortified city or just plain city is what is meant. You cannot back off from the words on the prism. If it says 46 fortified cities belonging to Jerusalem and there is nothing like that to be found then it is not talking about the bible's Jerusalem.

Julius Caesar reported that a quarter of a million Gauls came to relieve the siege of Alesia. Herodotus claimed that 2.1 million Persians invaded Greece.

They were both full of shit.

When the Assyrians write that they took 46 "fortified cities" they are simply exaggerating their own accomplishments. It is a common failing of leaders.

Perhaps you know the syndrome?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I want to compare them to the kingdoms as described in the bible. If they were not as described in the bible then there is additional evidence the stories were made up.

Why? Would you compare Camelot to Alfred the Great's court?

I would only compare the claims in the relevant documents to the archaeological record.

Fiction is always easier....it is not restrained by reality. We know there was no major population center at the site of Jerusalem in the 10th century when, according to the OT, it was the capital of a far-flung empire. Horseshit. It was, at best, a miserable little village but more likely was nothing more than a fortified manor house for the local war lord. The whole raison d'etre for the site is the Gihon spring which was the only reliable water source in the area. We don't have any idea what it was called but we know it was not a city...or even a respectable sized town. Judah, in the 9th and 10th centuries could not support that level of urbanization. It was a region of pastoral nomads.

If that is your position then you cannot claim the Taylor prism is in any way related to it. The prism clearly refers to another Jerusalem. It refers to a Jerusalem which matches that on the prism.

As to pastoral nomads, not that either. That invention is from those trying to salvage the bible from the jaws of reality. It is an attempt to claim nomads arrived and settled down and they were the original Hebrews/Israelites or whatever. That is not the case.

The land was settled by farmers, grape and olive growers, and a some sheep and goatherds. There is no apparent record of any nomadic phase nor of the arrival of any new group nor of any radical change in the local culture. This goes back some 5000 years long before bible salvaging invented nomads appeared.

One is not permitted to invent "pastoral nomads" solely to reconcile bible stories after one admits everything before this period is myth. That is assuming facts not in evidence. It serves only to support the preconceived conclusion of an ancient OT.

As to it being ancient that was not accepted in the 1st c. AD as Josephus declared anyone who refused to believe Judeans were ancient simply hated Jews. When the idea it was ancient became the common belief is between then and maybe the 6th c. AD. Of course there was no new evidence introduced between those times -- not that people in those days were capable of producing any.

My point being you are assuming the stories are in some manner ancient. You are arguing to that conclusion. That conclusion appeared some time between the 1st and 6th c. AD. Why would you consider arguing to an invention by unknown people in that time frame?

The population increase around "Jerusalem" (or whatever) begins after the Assyrians overrun "Israel." Even then, the population never grows much beyond 10,000 because that seems to be the practical limit of the water supply. It wasn't until Herod the Great imported some Roman engineers to build an aqueduct that the city began to grow and eventually attained a population of perhaps 30,000.

That is fascinating about Assyria and the population at that time. Fascinating in that I have never found any archaeological papers which supports it. Where did you find the archaeological evidence which supports that? I do not mean what people say about archaeological finds but the finds themselves. The best I would expect would be the volume flow of the springs and believers deciding how many that could support and then declaring that was the population. That would be circular reasoning and clearly disqualifies it as the city of the prism therefore the prism is out. But I will await your presentation of the archaeological evidence.

Consider the Moabite inscription which believers claim confirms the bible. Never do they tell you the inscription is dated using the bible and is therefore a circular confirmation. (There are greater problems with the inscription but that is good enough to start.)

Sidebar: The aqueduct is also of interest in that there is a surviving description that a sluicegate in it was opened to clean out the sacrifice room. However it was not high enough to reach the top of the "temple mount" where the mosques are. It could only reach the level of the plaza in front of the Wailing Wall. Not that important as on the same level as the mosques was invented in the mid-late 19th c. and does not appear in history before then.

But you don't have to dismiss 200 years of archaeological research in order to deduce that the bible is bullshit, Mouse.

Dismiss? I insist upon and only it with no assumptions or "interpretations" beyond the physical evidence. BTW: Archaeology was invented in the 1890s when it was clear the bible was worthless with regard to the reality of ancient Egypt and Palestine. It is amazing how far behind the times believers are -- and proudly so best I can tell.

I have no doubt that when these goat-fucking tribesmen went to Nineveh to pay their annual tribute they brought back stories of the opulence of the place.

They took a plane? Grabbed a bus? or spent a month getting there and back only to discover tribute was a government to government matter. But then the prism does not describe the same Jerusalem or Samaria as archaeologists have found so we only know the prism refers to other cities and places and the old names were adopted for verisimilitude only.

It isn't too hard to see where they got their inspiration for these later tales of "Solomon." ( Shalmeneser the name of several Assyrian kings is a Greek rendition of the Akkadian Shulmanu-Asaredu. Shulmanu? Solomon? Is it really that hard to see the connection?)

Tell me which of those things that are not too hard to see could not have been written in Alexandria in the 2nd. c. BC. Look at the title of the topic I started.

We seem to agree they are all fiction. I add there is no kernel of truth. If there is any kind of basis for the stories it does not go beyond names and places. A prism mentions Jerusalem. It is not the Jerusalem of either the bible or of archaeology. The prism one has no connection to anything we are talking about beyond the name.

---

The prism tells of its surrender. The Greek story says it was miraculously saved. The prism refers to 46 fortified cities as part of Judah. Archaeology have found nothing of the kind.

I don't know where you are getting this stuff. Archaeology has most assuredly located destruction layers consistent with Sennacherib's invasion. The most notable site is Lachish but there are others.

You have stated Jerusalem was barely a city in your estimation. What problem do you have when I point out there is no evidence of 46 fortified cities under the rule of a Jerusalem which is barely a city? According to your bible story there was NO destruction of Jerusalem therefore you are talking about something you hold did not occur. What has been found near Jerusalem is an ash layer of burned grain which does not rise above a local 2 alarm fire. As with anything in bibleland IF the method of dating is not given the date is meaningless. If the method is the bible it is meaningless.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ln5NwF8...ah&f=false

When was the bible story written? by whom? and why is the 2nd c. BC an impossible creation date? There has to be a legitimate, sound, evidence based reason to assume the stories are older than the 2nd c. BC. No one has produced a reason to assume that. You are not doing that here even if the rest were not questionable.

I have not read that particular text nor am I likely to do so because it invokes the prism telling a different story to relate it to an imaginative bible story. One might as well say the prism is the fiction but if one does there is nothing to confirm. Connecting anything to Sennacherib has to first reconcile both stories and give priority to the prism. But if one does that the prism is talking about another Jerusalem not the present day one.

You seem to be saying that because archaeology can't confirm the bible bullshit stories that archaeology can't be trusted either. That's silly. The question to ask is Cui Bono? Who benefits from the bible stories?
There are different answers at different times?

I have no idea how you could get that out of what I have written. I am saying the archaeology is the sine qua non of EVERYTHING related to the OT and ancient Palestine. What cannot be trusted is what believers say about archaeology. That is why I am only interested in what has been found not in what believers say about what has been found.

Pottery from the Xth c. BC is entirely different from saying pottery from the time of King Ahab has been found. But is really gets thick when they start running about about what the pottery shows about the reign of Ahab. The circles are often so tight one wonders why they do not spiral in to self-destruction.

---

As far as "Hezekiah's" inscription goes....

The Siloam (Shiloach) inscription or Silwan inscription is a passage of inscribed text found in the Hezekiah tunnel which brings water from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam, located in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan. The inscription records the construction of the tunnel in the 8th century BCE. It is among the oldest extant records of its kind written in Hebrew using the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet.

Scholars say it is written in Hebrew using the Paleo-Hebrew script.

Called Hebrew based solely upon the bible which is the circular reasoning fallacy. Why are you going along with this? Did you not agree just a couple posts back the whole "hebrew" thing went out the window with Moses and Exodus? Why do you go along with believers with this name?

You can google images of the inscription and of the Phoenician alphabet and see they are the same. As I pointed out days ago the name given to the handful of inscriptions there are is based upon who the bible says ruled where it was found.

Ordinarily one would determine a language grouping by comparing the body of inscriptions. There are not enough words on those two index cards worth of words to establish it as a separate language from Phoenician. And again the people in the region were illiterate so declaring it was a local language in any sense is nonsense.

Assyrian records tell us that Hezekiah rebelled against them.

Clearly the Hezekiah the records are talking about is not the Hezekiah of the bible. Nor is the Jerusalem the one of the bible nor the one of archaeology. There is no Hezekiah of archaeology.

He fortified his city and took steps to ensure his water supply in case of a siege. These are logical steps for any ruler to take if you are going to do something as illogical as rebel against Assyria in the first place.

There is no way to know when the tunnel was dug much less who. And you are forgetting the 46 fortified cities of the Hezekiah of the prism. What did he do with them? Why if he fortified 46 cities did he put off fortifying Jerusalem? You are making up a narrative to salvage the bible but at the same time negating, even trashing, the prism. How can you explain this?

The OT claims that "god" smote 185,000 Assyrians...as if such a number could ever be amassed! The Assyrian records tell us that Hezekiah paid a tribute and submitted to Assyrian hegemony. The Assyrian account is more rational...I trust we agree on that. We can speculate on why the Assyrians showed such restraint in their dealings with Hezekiah but I imagine the reasons were tactical.

What I note is you are invoking the records in support of the bible story even though those records negate the possibility it was the Hezekiah of the bible.

---

However here the Assyrians are being invoked and their empire and what they meant by a fortified city or just plain city is what is meant. You cannot back off from the words on the prism. If it says 46 fortified cities belonging to Jerusalem and there is nothing like that to be found then it is not talking about the bible's Jerusalem.

Julius Caesar reported that a quarter of a million Gauls came to relieve the siege of Alesia. Herodotus claimed that 2.1 million Persians invaded Greece.

They were both full of shit.

But you are holding there are no points of congruence between your de-exaggerated bible story and the inscription not just a single point or two of disagreement. In those days numbers were commonly used as adjectives however they were never used to replace zero. As in zero fortified cities or zero Gauls or zero Persians.

The fact that there are no points of congruence between the two stories suggests only the names were lifted from the prism and incorporated into stories. There is nothing to preclude those stories from having been written in the Greek period. The absence of literacy in the region precludes them from having been written prior to that.

When the Assyrians write that they took 46 "fortified cities" they are simply exaggerating their own accomplishments. It is a common failing of leaders.

Perhaps you know the syndrome?

While it is common to invent threats where none exist the issue remains no points in common between the prism and your invented version of the bible story. Now I could ask for your source of inspiration but as you are not describing the Jerusalem of the bible then the biblical Jerusalem did not exist.

The problem is believers have been making up all kinds of BS to make the OT as old as possible ever since they had to give up on Genesis and Exodus. With no evidence at all and only faith that the bible consists of old material they have been rationalizing and inventing ad hoc explanations why they are still old stories recounting real history at some level.

You are inventing your own Jerusalem contrary to both the inscription and the physical evidence of archaeology. This accomplishes nothing but fantasize a way in which there could be some "truth" to the OT completely independent of and without regard to (both arbitrary and capricious) the evidence which does exist.

The only reason to do that is to start with the conclusion and find a way to support the conclusion. That is arguing to a conclusion. It is not acceptable in rational discussion.

[Minimalist]

If that is your position then you cannot claim the Taylor prism is in any way related to it. The prism clearly refers to another Jerusalem. It refers to a Jerusalem which matches that on the prism.

The Taylor Prism dates from the early 7th century. There is a minimum of two centuries between the observations of "Jerusalem" of, let's use George Athas' toponym, Bytdwd, on the Tel Dan stele. I'm curious why you think that nothing could have changed when archaeology clearly shows a rapid burst in the Judahite population as a result of the Assyrian campaign against "Israel" ( or the House of Umri) and Philistia?

And I am going to have to start replying to you in virtual sound bites because otherwise you divide posts up into multi-quotes which, frankly, annoys the living fuck out of me. So, one at a time.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

If that is your position then you cannot claim the Taylor prism is in any way related to it. The prism clearly refers to another Jerusalem. It refers to a Jerusalem which matches that on the prism.

The Taylor Prism dates from the early 7th century. There is a minimum of two centuries between the observations of "Jerusalem" of, let's use George Athas' toponym, Bytdwd, on the Tel Dan stele.

Every example of the use of the word BYT means place to live from house to temple to town to region. Every example EXCEPT when it comes to David and means dynasty. And that is because during Renaissance some people in Italy started using house to mean dynasty. Perhaps DaVinci also invented a time machine to transport the dynasty meaning back to mythical times.

You are correct though in giving BYTDWD as one word from the inscription as opposed to all other uses such as BYT YHWH being two words for house of the lord. But it does not address the fact that the alignment of the pieces is indeterminent and even the arbitrary alignment chosen has so many missing words any and every translation is arbitrary.

http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/david.phtml and http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-histo...rans.phtml

Note on the latter the believing translators add whole words on the left. Note in line 7 the translators have added the names of both "kings" which come from no other source than the bible. Note also the believers have not invented Omri for the inscription choosing to use the bible instead of the prism for names to insert without justification. But they have invented "killed" for some reason, biblical reasons one presumes.

You might also notice there is no left border to the inscription so how many words missing on the left is arbitrary, i.e. believers' choice, as to how many words and letters need be invented to CREATE a coherent, biblical translation.

I'm curious why you think that nothing could have changed when archaeology clearly shows a rapid burst in the Judahite population as a result of the Assyrian campaign against "Israel" ( or the House of Umri) and Philistia?

I am unaware of any rapid increase which would only mean population density.

And I am going to have to start replying to you in virtual sound bites because otherwise you divide posts up into multi-quotes which, frankly, annoys the living fuck out of me. So, one at a time.

I try to address each point separately. It is a common method creating a separate point of discussion and improves the ability to edit replies to replies, shortening what needs be quoted so the chain of thought is not lost. My experience has been without this ability to delete what is not a point of disagreement leads to hugely long replies often for a simple disagreement of a statement in one sentence. I use ... to mark deletions. Without marking deletions that is what you did here. Fine with me. This is common on usenet and was used on the old BBS system. It never occurred to me it would annoy someone.

[Minimalist]

The threads rapidly become unreadable. I'll get back to you after my hockey game.

[Minimalist]

I certainly agree that Avriham Biran got overly excited when he spotted the partial term DWD on the stele and failed to note the missing word divider which is customary in Aramaic and which is demonstrated extensively on the surviving portions of the stele. All one has to do is look at it.

In regards to the alignment I recommend to you George Athas' "The Tel Dan Stele." Athas does a pain staking (emphasis on the 'pain') analysis of the way the inscription was written out and then carved. He even detects the position of the scribe relative to the stone slab by calculating the angle that the lines decline. It's amazingly detailed work and reading it you risk injury because if you fall asleep you might smash your head on a table. But the point is that Athas detects a differential in the angle of decline on the 3 fragments and he disagrees with Biran's reconstruction. The two main fragments do not go side by side. Instead, fragment b should be located well below fragment a. Obviously, this plays havoc with Biran's translation.

As far as the growth of "Jerusalem" ( or Bytdwd, if you prefer ) try this.

CONCLUSION
In the case of Jerusalem and Judah in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.,archaeology speaks loud and clear: A) The expansion of the city to the southwestern hill and the settlement prosperity in the Judahite country-side did not start before the middle of the 8th century and reached their peak in the last third of that century. B) The population growth in Jerusalem and Judah was so dramatic that it cannot be explained as representing a gradual, natural growth. Remote, mountainous Judah does not offer any economic advantage that could have attracted people from neighboring regions. Therefore, the only way to interpret the demographic transformation of Judah is on the background of the incorporation of the kingdom into the Assyrian world economy and the wave of refugees that came from the Northern Kingdom after the Assyrian takeover. The results of the archaeological surveys and information about about the places where the Assyrians settled deportees from Mesopotamia seem to indicate that the Israelite refugees who settled in Judah originated mainly from southern Samaria.Whoever argues that the population explosion in Jerusalem was theresult of a torrent of refugees who arrived from the Shephelah followingthe Sennacherib devastation in 701 B.C. and that these refugees returnedto their hometowns a while later faces three problems: First, thismeans that the city-wall unearthed in the southwestern hill was built inthe days of Manasseh, with Assyrian consent. Second, such a claim dis-connects the growth in Jerusalem from that in the entire territory of Judah because there can be no doubt that the Shephelah reached its peak prosperity before the Sennacherib campaign. Such a theory, even if pos-sible archaeologically (the pottery of Lachish III continued to dominate the Judahite repertoire in the early 7th century), is untenable historically.Third, if this had been the case, we would have seen a settlement recov-ery in the Shephelah during the 7 th century.

http://www.academia.edu/1070653/The_Sett...turies_BCE

[A_Nony_Mouse]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='426434' dateline='1365053119']
Sound bite reply.
[quote]
CONCLUSION
In the case of Jerusalem and Judah in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.,archaeology speaks loud and clear: A) The expansion of the city to the southwestern hill and the settlement prosperity in the Judahite country-side did not start before the middle of the 8th century and reached their peak in the last third of that century.
[/quote]

Humans as with every species increase their numbers to slightly greater than they can comfortably live. We have a higher population than we can feed. One of the controls of population is starvation. The less obvious control is malnourishment results in greater susceptibility to disease and such which causes early death. You can read about this in hundred places in many different forms. Nothing new here.

Now we have an increase in human population in a land which was already populated slightly above the carrying capacity of the land as is every place humans live.

If there was an increase in population then it was due to methods of increasing the food production of the land. There is no other possibility. A better plow, higher yield grain, more valuable things to grow for trade ... there are many possibilities.

But talking about 8th through 3rd c. is not in the running for being called rapid or sudden. It is more than sufficient time for a dozen improvements in farming to be discovered and spread including cheaper iron plows and opening trade routes for olive oil in exchange for grain.

There is absolutely no way in hell to connect this with Assyria.

I have found an incredible number of cases where the academic "experts" are unaware of the most elementary principles of other fields. Five centuries is not rapid for a species that can double in every generation if well fed.

I also point out Judahite is a bible based name for part of Palestine. Its use is deliberately misleading.

From a very credible source I have an indication some pious believer chose to translate BT MR, byt omri, land of Omri, as Israel on the Taylor prism. I am searching for confirmation of this. If true what did he choose to interpret as Jerusalem and Hezekiah?