Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Nope...all your evidence is false...written in the early 1920 by a commitee of athiest faking ancient text. Besides...where is your proof that authentics the documents your basing your agruments?? What's good for the goose...is good for the gander. The roman and greek empires. Never really existed...they were made up by european merchents of 1600 to control the trade routes. Everythings a lie. Nothing can be proofed. Everything is faked.

BTW: Should you really be interested in running with Greek and Roman empires really existing one expects the same level of physical evidence of the Judean empire. How about a few thousand equivalent ruins? Walls of huge buildings with inscriptions and baths covered in graffiti and hundreds of times more secular than religious texts for openers? How about mention of this great kingdom in the records of other kingdoms?

---

So this Redford character assumes

Hmmm.... here is the "Redford character's" bio. I'd like to see you compare your qualifications and experience in the subject to his.

Redford received his B.A., M.A. and Ph.D from the University of Toronto, and was an Assistant/Associate Professor (1962–1969) and full Professor (1969–1998) at the same university. He moved to Pennsylvania State University in 1998.

Redford was the winner of the 1993 "Best Scholarly Book in Archaeology" awarded by the Biblical Archaeological Society for his work Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times.[1] In the book he argues that the experiences of the Hyksos in Egypt became a central foundation of myths in Canaanite culture, leading to the story of Moses.

BTW: The Hyksos idea was an invention of Josephus, Against Apion book I. If you do not believe that is true it means you hate Jews solely because they are Jews. It is so easy to be an antisemite. I have no idea if he invented the entire 'if you do not believer our BS then you hate us' paradigm of antisemitism.

He further argues that almost all the toponymic details in the Exodus story reflect conditions in Egypt not earlier than the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, the Saite period, namely the 7th century BC. Whoever, Redford argues, provided the author of Exodus with these details had no access to Egyptian material earlier than that date.[2] This view was expounded upon in The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman.

Redford's work in editing The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, published in 2001, earned the American Library Association's Dartmouth Medal for a reference work of outstanding quality and significance. Since 2006 he is also in the editorial board of RIHAO.

You see, far from being a character...even one with a web site, Redford is a recognized expert in the field.

I think it incredibly strange that you went beyond where the BAR MAGAZINE of the newsstand type is considered recognition of anything just because the editor and publisher incorporated and bought some letterhead claiming to be Biblical Archaeological Society. I think I have been quite clear on the BAR in the past. Let me add that no real, that is nonbiblical, archaeologist has ever published in it. Alternatively no biblical archaeologist can get published in a real archaeological journal.

By definition, biblical archaeology assumes the bible is to some degree an authentic record and then uses it to argue evidence to that conclusion. Again very circular and still a logical fallacy formally identified at least 2500 years ago.

What you first gave was suspicious as well as an appeal to authority. Now I have no interest whatsoever in anything he says about the subject.

However if they did withdraw it is proper to use the known historical name and say they withdrew to Palestine.

This would be some 6 centuries before the first recorded use of the term "Palestine" by Herodotus.

True but Herodotus is also the only credible source for its name. And then your raised an Assyrian name that potentially goes back another three centuries and also a credible source. We know when Herodotus' writings first appeared by external mention which is a credible dating method. Back to my thesis, by the same method we know when the OT stories first appeared some three centuries after Herodotus. It is absurd to give the OT stories superiority over Herodotus. It is even more absurd to suggest the 2nd c. BC bible stories had access to a name used nine centuries earlier.

I just looked into the second Finkelstein book where he weaves a fanciful tale claiming to show Saul, David and Solomon were real people but the stories were distorted.

I read the book some time ago...it is still on my bookshelf. i don't recall this particular characterization but I do recall the anachronism of "Goliath's" armor...which is a dead on description

5 And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.

6 And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders.

7 And the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one bearing a shield went before him.

1 Samuel 17

of a Greek hoplite



a type of fighter which post-dated the ridiculous David/Goliath legend by 3 centuries or so. Further, Greek hoplite mercenaries were employed in the Pharaoh Necho's army but that brings us full circle back to Donald Redford and the Saite Period.

Both Hoplites and Necho are middle iron age characters. The use of much more expensive brass when much cheaper iron would be easily worked into helmets and greaves is not reasonable. I will assume for the moment there is a credible way to get from target to breastplate.

Additionally nothing in that book precludes a 2nd c. BC creation of the same king stories for the same arguments he and his partner in crime use.

One thing I noticed on the Amazon look inside pages was he gave a list of Solomon's characteristics from the books. He failed to note Solomon was also a master of demons omitting an entire book on the subject. So first he limits himself to a selection of scrolls that was created by no known criteria and leaves out one that would have greatly damaged the credibility of all the other arguments and clearly have damaged his personal credibility. It would also have been a work of genius to incorporate into the rest of the song and dance.

I don't let Christians get away with ignoring 42 of the 46 gospels. I see no reason let anyone get away with ignoring any of the related scrolls like Enoch.

[Minimalist]

I think you are just making shit up now, Mouse. BAR may be Hershel Shanks little bastard child but he hardly controls what get published. William Dever uses the term Syro-Palestinian archaeology rather than biblical archaeology. In the early 20th century what you say was true but times have changed. Now it is only the fundies who try to pump life back into the OT. Everyone else has moved beyond them. You should try it. You are still fighting battles that have been over since the 1980's.

Anyway, yes Redford is an Appeal to Authority because he is a Fucking Authority. Until you can demonstrate that you are not some pompous windbag tooting his own horn you are just going to have to deal with that fact.

Both Hoplites and Necho are middle iron age characters. The use of much more expensive brass when much cheaper iron would be easily worked into helmets and greaves is not reasonable.

One would think that was true yet, over a century later the Spartans at Thermopylae were wearing bronze armor, helmets, and shields against the Persians. I suppose you will now accuse those writers of being in on whatever conspiracy you have dreamt up?

BTW, when bronze breastplates went out of fashion they were replaced by linen not iron. Perhaps iron was too hot and heavy in that climate?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I think you are just making shit up now, Mouse. BAR may be Hershel Shanks little bastard child but he hardly controls what get published. William Dever uses the term Syro-Palestinian archaeology rather than biblical archaeology.

When he changes the name of the magazine, get back to me. I have read some of the articles. The crucial issues have all mights, maybes, if and woulds found around ancient aliens. I read his interview of Finkelstein where he is desperately trying to get Finkelstein to say words to support believers. At one point Finkelstein interrupts saying to the effect. I know you want to get to the inclusion of the word israel on the Egyptian inscription and my answer is, I have no idea what the word might have meant at that date and in that context. That should be obvious to all non-believers but not to Dever.

In the early 20th century what you say was true but times have changed. Now it is only the fundies who try to pump life back into the OT. Everyone else has moved beyond them. You should try it. You are still fighting battles that have been over since the 1980's.

Do you not recall I pointed out the 2007 title where Finkelstein invented the currently pervasive hilltop warlord myth for Saul, David and Solomon? Have I not mentioned the City of David scam being currently run by Elad and once fronted (maybe still) by Mazel in occupied Jerusalem? Did I not mention the entire criminal Zionist movement is based upon these stories being true still being claimed today?

How much more would you like? READ some BAR articles on current digs in Palestine. Someone is paying for them. And they are current.

To make it simple. We agree the BAR is not an academic source. Why used anything tainted by it as though it had merit beyond that conferred by any other magazine?

Anyway, yes Redford is an Appeal to Authority because he is a Fucking Authority. Until you can demonstrate that you are not some pompous windbag tooting his own horn you are just going to have to deal with that fact.

If that is the way you want it we have nothing to discuss. I am completely willing to discuss the facts and physical evidence upon which he formed his opinions. By long experience of NEVER having found a single source supporting any bible story that was not going beyond the evidence I see no reason to start now. Not a one and I have been through every one I have heard of in the last 18 years.

Both Hoplites and Necho are middle iron age characters. The use of much more expensive brass when much cheaper iron would be easily worked into helmets and greaves is not reasonable.

One would think that was true yet, over a century later the Spartans at Thermopylae were wearing bronze armor, helmets, and shields against the Persians. I suppose you will now accuse those writers of being in on whatever conspiracy you have dreamt up?

BTW, when bronze breastplates went out of fashion they were replaced by linen not iron. Perhaps iron was too hot and heavy in that climate?
[/quote]

I am not aware of the use of bronze during the Persian wars. I'll try to look into it. It is not just money. The same degree of protection weighs more as bronze. All metals are equally hot. Linen was available before the Bronze age and was probably under any metal shielding.

No problem with being wrong or in learning something new. That is half the value of public discussion.

[Minimalist]

When he changes the name of the magazine, get back to me.

I don't give a shit about Hershel Shanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershel_Shanks

who began his career as a lawyer in the US Justice Department and who is nothing more than an amateur archaeologist who publishes a magazine to make money from dolts.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...18181.html

He trumpets every half-assed idea that comes along ( the james ossuary, the Joash tablet ) in order to SELL MAGAZINES. I'm afraid if you want to learn about archaeology you will have to read works by actual archaeologists not con men.

I am completely willing to discuss the facts and physical evidence

Bullshit. What you want to do is discuss only those "facts" or your interpretation of them that support whatever preconceived notion you have.

Your attribution of the holy horseshit to 2d century Alexandria makes no sense. The Ptolemaic dynasty controlled Jerusalem in the 3d century. By the second, it was under the control of the Seleucids. Egypt was a fading power which had to be propped up by the Romans.
It simply makes no sense to suggest that a kingdom which was struggling to stay afloat would waste any time at all worrying about concocting an origin myth for an insignificant province under the control of another power and which would make Egypt look like the bad guys who were defeated by a rabble.

The story of the Maccabaean revolt being some sort of religious struggle is told only in the Book of Maccabees. That could just as easily have been back-written as all the rest of it. What we know is that as Antiochus withdrew from his invasion of Egypt in the face of Roman opposition he stopped off at Jerusalem and restored a faction which seemed to be either Greeks or Hellenized Judaeans. In 164 BC he died while leading a campaign against Parthia. THEN, the revolt breaks out in Jerusalem. But it was almost traditional that revolts broke out, if they were going to break out at all, when a king died and before the successor had consolidated power. For all we know, this could have simply been some noble with delusions of grandeur deciding the time was right to rebel and all the happy holy horseshit was written out later as a justification.

It is not until the end of the second century BC, c 110 that John Hyrcanus finally threw off the last remnants of Seleucid control and began subjugating other regions. It is at this precise point in time that an independent state which became something of a regional power (in the absence of other real powers ) came into existence and whose kings might actually benefit from a legacy which has them the heirs to an "empire" which just so happens to conform to the territory which was attributed to "David" and what they were able to control.

Cui bono. "Who benefits?" The Egyptians and the Seleucids could never have benefited from a tale which inflates the importance and divine specialness of their subject people.

I asked you once before if you were looking for a smoking gun and I still think you are. This shit was not written in one sitting. Various pieces of local legends and folklore were combined AND EDITED to suit the needs of whoever was calling the shots.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

When he changes the name of the magazine, get back to me.

I don't give a shit about Hershel Shanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershel_Shanks

who began his career as a lawyer in the US Justice Department and who is nothing more than an amateur archaeologist who publishes a magazine to make money from dolts.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...18181.html

He trumpets every half-assed idea that comes along ( the james ossuary, the Joash tablet ) in order to SELL MAGAZINES. I'm afraid if you want to learn about archaeology you will have to read works by actual archaeologists not con men.

So does Dever. As I noted he was fishing for a money quote from Finkelstein. As to advising me to read real arkie sources, what do you think I have been saying?

I am completely willing to discuss the facts and physical evidence

Bullshit. What you want to do is discuss only those "facts" or your interpretation of them that support whatever preconceived notion you have.

Your attribution of the holy horseshit to 2d century Alexandria makes no sense.

Who would you attribute it to and when? There is evidence of a literate culture in Judea until the 2nd c. BC. But if I have missed thousands of examples of literacy outside of the Septuagint stories please direct me to them. While you are at it show me the Judean library where records going back at least 600 years were kept.

If you have evidence the stuff could have been created by Judeans and earlier than that timeframe please tell me about it.

Seriously, Who created them and when? I am working by a process of elimination and alliances.

The Ptolemaic dynasty controlled Jerusalem in the 3d century. By the second, it was under the control of the Seleucids. Egypt was a fading power which had to be propped up by the Romans.
It simply makes no sense to suggest that a kingdom which was struggling to stay afloat would waste any time at all worrying about concocting an origin myth for an insignificant province under the control of another power and which would make Egypt look like the bad guys who were defeated by a rabble.

I will repeat. The Maccabean revolt recounted in I and II Maccabe is expanded when Josephus makes it clear it was a sedition against the Seleucids in favor of the Ptolemys.

As to an origin myth, and wasting time, my statement is the absence of a literate culture in Judean at any earlier date precludes and earlier creation date. I said it was built from scratch FOR the high priest by Ptolemy. He built the priest a copy of the entire city of Jerusalem for him to rule. Setting four or five people to a 1-2 year task of creating a backstory is in the noise in comparison to an entire city.

I have not found the details yet but I read a reference to that created city was so effective in supporting Judea against Tiberius that he had to divert some time to destroying it. Granted that was two centuries later but obviously it was not a cardboard imitation of a city.

As to making Pharonic Egypt look like the bad guy, why would a Greek give a damn? Nationalism was not invented until the 19th c. on our side of zero.

As to struggling to stay afloat and being propped up I am unaware of anything making that a credible description. A century later Caesar shows up and does not try to annex it. A few years later Antony took a shot at controlling the eastern Med against the interests of Rome. If the winds had been different the history of the region could have been much more interesting.

The story of the Maccabaean revolt being some sort of religious struggle is told only in the Book of Maccabees.

And by Josephus in Wars of the Jews. It is a classic proxy war between the major powers. Think Vietnam as a modern example. Post Roman Europe down to the 18th c. is littered with small wars on the marches between large kingdoms.

That could just as easily have been back-written as all the rest of it.

Except that I, II, and III Maccabe and Josephus all tell the same story. Only IV is clearly written after Josephus. And Pompey finds the odd priest king rulers in place as described as being created by Maccabe.

What we know is that as Antiochus withdrew from his invasion of Egypt in the face of Roman opposition he stopped off at Jerusalem and restored a faction which seemed to be either Greeks or Hellenized Judaeans. In 164 BC he died while leading a campaign against Parthia. THEN, the revolt breaks out in Jerusalem. But it was almost traditional that revolts broke out, if they were going to break out at all, when a king died and before the successor had consolidated power. For all we know, this could have simply been some noble with delusions of grandeur deciding the time was right to rebel and all the happy holy horseshit was written out later as a justification.

I can't say you haven't been doing your homework. But read Josephus, Wars of the Jews on the subject. What you say is correct but no pissant country is going to take on hugely greater military power without backup. In 76 Judea had backup from converts all along north Africa including sympathizer factions in Egypt. That is why it took so long to stomp on Judea.

As to it being after the sedition started, that is what I said. But there is ZERO justification from Josephus. Antiochus is only the bad guy after he conquers Jerusalem and puts his gods in the temple.

It is not until the end of the second century BC, c 110 that John Hyrcanus finally threw off the last remnants of Seleucid control and began subjugating other regions.

Note John is a Greek name. Hyrcanus is Hyrcania a kingdom on the Caspian see that was an conquered by Alexander. One does not hate Greeks as in Maccabes and at the same time give your kids Greek names.

It is at this precise point in time that an independent state which became something of a regional power (in the absence of other real powers ) came into existence and whose kings might actually benefit from a legacy which has them the heirs to an "empire" which just so happens to conform to the territory which was attributed to "David" and what they were able to control.

If you look at the history of the Maccabe clan you will find they changed alliances between Ptolemys and Seleucids faster than people change spouses these days.

As to David, he is a total invention but these days even believers will admit he could have been no more than a name.

Cui bono. "Who benefits?" The Egyptians and the Seleucids could never have benefited from a tale which inflates the importance and divine specialness of their subject people.

Considering how little effort creating it would take there is no reason to imply it was something significant particularly in comparison to building a copy of Jerusalem. The wealth of Egypt was demonstrated by Cleopatra dissolving priceless pearls in wine. Now that I think about that might not be a true story. But the quantity of grain it was selling to Rome alone would have made it rich.

I asked you once before if you were looking for a smoking gun and I still think you are. This shit was not written in one sitting. Various pieces of local legends and folklore were combined AND EDITED to suit the needs of whoever was calling the shots.

Please. In comparison there is greater variety and greater coherence in Buffy, The Vampire Slayer and Angel than in these stories. There are maybe twenty times more words and it was all produced in only eight years with two writers. The major difference is those TV series were much better edited and had quite good continuity. In comparison the Septuagint stories are sloppy on both those points.

If this comparison feels wrong, try thinking of five and half seasons of Supernatural

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I don't give a shit about Hershel Shanks.
... etc

Been engaged in the dangerous process of thinking. We seem to have gotten sideways again.

Lets try this. if you consider people like Dever to be minimalists, please do not put me in that category. If that is what he is called, consider me a nihilist. Of the people I have read who are called Minimalists everyone of them has leapt over at least one crucial chain of reasoning that is required to get where they are.

If you should have something in mind from a minimalist who appears coherent please post the justification he uses and I will show you the gap in the reasoning.