Jewish Geneology: A Fraud?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I've been mentally running down a list of problems that would be created by the PB, if it literally was evidence of a massive Hebrew slave population in Egypt at the time-period the story claims.

Man your memory must be as long as your little... toe.
We've already had a discussion that answer all your concerns based on the information found in the 'Patterns of Evidence: The exodus' Documentary.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3464018/
Remember you can watch this on net flix.

Oooooh, a little-dick joke. I get it! You're very clever.  

And as we already explained to you, your "documentary" is bunkum. Read a Christian reviewer's analysis of the film:

http://biblicalremains.com/another-broke...-evidence/

So yeah, I remember that discussion; I also remember that we explained to you it was a crackpot video universally scoffed at among academics in that field, including those who are doing serious work to try to show the Exodus happened.

1) The first and most obvious is that Egypt owned the entire region of Canaan at that time, and were engaged in battles in the northern part of that land to keep out the Hittites. Not only does that mean that the Egyptians would have brought slaves back from that region (making it hardly surprising that you'd find Semitic names on their list), but it means that if we accept the story, the entire Exodus was half a million Hebrews [ETA: I'm not trying to give a definitive number, here... only using a randomly large number, since the Bible claims just one of the tribes had more than 600,000, if I recall correctly] running from Egypt to Egypt, a bit like saying "We fled from the United States and went to Alaska!".

"After God smote it with 10 plagues which took the Egyptians acouple hundred years to recover from (The Time between the middle and new kingdoms.)

Um, nope. The intermediate period between the kingdoms takes place "acouple hundred years" before the time period we're discussing (unless you use the "revised chronology" that places the proposed Exodus 1000 years prior to the traditional dates, in which case it's several hundred years after). The time period under discussion is during the New Kingdom, in which Egypt's power and military control of territories reached their greatest height, and they were in combat with the Hittites north of Canaan, as I described. You don't get to just randomly shift timelines around to suit your agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Kingdom_of_Egypt

2) Even if we give the benefit of the doubt and say that the ten names (out of ~90 on the list) were ONLY used by the Hebrews, it begs the question of who were these non-Hebrews?

What makes you think the other names were non hebrew names? They were common names. one can no more discern a persons heritage if he adopts or more likely is given a name by his master. (Toby/Kunta-kente')

Then what do they prove at all? Especially given the fact that one of the "Hebrew" names on there is Ashera, who was a goddess of fertility commonly worshiped by women in the Semitic regions at the time. How many African slaves were named after gods and goddesses? (Thena, Zeus, Hercules, etc.) Your answer degrades the usefulness of the BP in demonstrating the presence of specifically Hebrew slaves in that region, rather than helping it. I was trying to give maximum benefit of the doubt.

Were there as many of their people in Egypt as there were Hebrews?
Were they let go along with the Hebrews? Did they suffer as the Egyptians did in the plagues? Why don't we see any stories from those peoples about their time in captivity in Egypt?

Your questions wrongly presuppose 'freedom' in emperial Egypt under second kingdom rule. After the famine and the consolidation of egypt under one 'pharaoh' Everything and everyone one belonged to one man. In a sense the whole nation of Egypt was a slave. (Because the famine was excessively great and long everyone sold everything they owned to Joseph's Pharaoh and when they ran out of lands and live stock, they sold themselves... Everyone. Before that Egypt was sub divided into city states with controlling regents or governors.)

That said not all slave tasks/life styles were the same, Some under pharaoh lived very well and were thus provided a very good life for their abilities and efforts.

That said all Slaves would not consider themselves slaves, but merely Egyptians just one or two generations into captivity, as Everyone (all Egyptians) were owned by the state.

Um, wut? Where are you getting this crap? Are you just swallowing what one discredited "documentary" maker tells you?

3) Even the article admits the document, being from the southern regions of Egypt, and thus far from Goshen (where the Bible claims the Hebrews were living while enslaved), doesn't give evidence of the Goshen populace.

No but the excavations mentioned in the movie puts the number @ 3/4 of a million people, it at the time of the exodus, but it also mentions 25 to 30 other small towns and villages in the immediate region. All of which have been documented to be semetic as well as the city in goshen.

*sigh* I guess you are. Can you point me to a scholarly article, rather than a crackpot video, which shows actual archaeological evidence of any of this? You sound like a "faked the moon landing" nut-job right now. Further, even if it was true, "Semitic" is a HUUUUUGE category. What you're saying in that sentence, above, is "We found evidence of European settlements in the new world, therefore it was definitely the Italians."

I'm wondering whether they were all released at once, or if the Goshen population pillaged their way through half of Egypt to get to this southern group before turning west toward the Red Sea (as the northernmost tip of the Red Sea requires a walk SOUTH of nearly 200 miles before turning east to reach the northernmost tip of the Gulf of Suez... check a map. I've seen speculation that they went into the Sinai and then turned south to reach the tip of the peninsula before crossing the Gulf of Aquaba into what is now Saudi Arabia, where the famous "parting of the sea" supposedly occurred-- the problem being that the Egyptians militarily controlled the Sinai, as well, and you're high off your ass if you think they couldn't catch the "escapees" before the far side of the Sinai peninsula.

What makes you think the wealth of egypt was spread out over the whole country side? As with most Ancient cities Egypt's wealth was concentrated in it's capitol. Why would Pharaoh want his wealth spread out in regions where his rule and control was not as tight or absolute as in his capitol city?

I didn't say the wealth of Egypt was spread out over the whole countryside, but it does follow that there would be some wealth spread out among regional governors, wealthy merchants, etc. However, NONE of that was my point, with the "pillaging as they go" comment. My point was that they would have had to pass through/near the majority of Egyptian population centers along the river for several hundred miles, en masse, before even reaching the region where the BP was located (relative to Goshen) and turning east to reach the northernmost tip of the Red Sea. And Pharaoh's power WAS concentrated in that southern center, after the conquest of Nubia and the establishment of a power-base in the upper/southern half of the kingdom (and all along the river in general).

As I pointed out, apparently in vain, Egypt was at the height of its military power during the traditional dates of the Exodus/Conquest, and they maintained control the Sinai region utterly until the arrival of the forces of Alexander (who conquered Egypt and then left the lands in their control, under his administrators) and finally the Romans.

You're going to have to address the fact that your hero documentarian is a crackpot who is called a crackpot by every serious scholar in the field, including Christian ones. If you rely on that information to assert your points, you can expect to be treated like someone who wears a tinfoil hat and rambles about alien mind-control.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Oh, and one more thing. It's hilarious to me that you attack Richard Carrier, with a legitimate PhD from a top-level university, who (while they may not agree with him and roundly criticize some of his conclusions, in theological academic circles) is at least respected in his field.

Your guy is badly plagiarizing the ideas of legitimate researchers like Wood, who unfortunately postulated an alternate timeline SO BAD that it requires throwing out the names of all the Egyptians named in the stories (since we know when they ruled) and would place several of the other named places as existing centuries before they were founded.

If you claimed (for instance) that you were placing the early Mormons in Independence, Missouri, in the year 1800, I'd know you were full of shit because I know that it was founded in 1827. If you placed them there in 1600, which is the approximate gap of time proposed by your documentary, I'd know you were not only full of shit but had NO IDEA what you were talking about.

That is the state of your documentary's claims, and that is why legitimate Christian scholars scoff at the findings, and point out the inconsistencies I mention, above.

[Pat Mustard]

I've heard it said that Judaism did not exist until after the common era. I haven't found enough evidence to give credulity to this assertion, but if anyone here has evidence, please share it.

That could be the modern form of judaism where all jews are subject to the religious laws. Prior to the various revolts against Rome, the only jews fully subject to temple law were the priesthood and the nobility (both groups being virtually synonymous).

Judaism as a coherent religious grouping is probably no older than the return from Babylonian captivity (so c550BCE). It is at this period where you'll find the strongest evidence for the cult of yhwh becoming a monotheistic cult, rather than being part of a polytheistic or a henotheistic one. And most of the ideas on monotheism were probably developed from contact with Persian zoroastrians.

[Rhondazvous]

I've heard it said that Judaism did not exist until after the common era. I haven't found enough evidence to give credulity to this assertion, but if anyone here has evidence, please share it.

That could be the modern form of judaism where all jews are subject to the religious laws. Prior to the various revolts against Rome, the only jews fully subject to temple law were the priesthood and the nobility (both groups being virtually synonymous).

Judaism as a coherent religious grouping is probably no older than the return from Babylonian captivity (so c550BCE). It is at this period where you'll find the strongest evidence for the cult of yhwh becoming a monotheistic cult, rather than being part of a polytheistic or a henotheistic one. And most of the ideas on monotheism were probably developed from contact with Persian zoroastrians.

If it goes back to the Babylonian captivity, then it would be interesting to follow the development and divergence of apocalyptic Judaism vis a vis rabbinical Judaism.

[Minimalist]

Hey, Abs.

Quite by accident I found this.  Nice summary of the book.

[Aractus]

Rabbinic judaism, which is what we have now, dates from the destruction of the temple in 70.  Prior to that it was a silly cult based on animal sacrifice.

That's not really true. Judaism was always based on the Pentateuch. What was before that was several different religious mythologies that assimilated their beliefs.

And in the ancient world animal sacrifice was not "silly". The Romans, for example, didn't care what deity you sacrificed your animals to so long as you participated in what was seen as a central part of Roman society. It was like any other social norm you can think of today. For example, punishment for adultery was seen as social norm. Now how different ancient cultures dealt with it varied greatly, but it was a norm shared across several different ancient cultures. Also in the Roman Empire it was considered impolite and anti-social to shun the gods of others: you were expected to acknowledge other people's deities, and they would acknowledge yours. This was one thing that led the Jews into trouble (and the Christians in the second and third centuries).

[Minimalist]

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso...banot.html

For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time.

Sacrifices were stopped after the Temple's destruction because the Torah specifically commands Jews not to offer sacrifices just anywhere; they are only permitted in the place that G-d has chosen for that purpose. It would be a sin to offer sacrifices in any other location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of...ic_Judaism

The destruction of the Second Temple brought about a dramatic change in Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism built upon Jewish tradition while adjusting to new realities. Temple ritual was replaced with prayer service in synagogues which built upon practices of Jews in the Diaspora dating back to the Babylonian exile.

The prime directive of the OT as written by the priests was designed to make sure that jews could only sacrifice AT THE TEMPLE which, not so coincidentally, was controlled by the priests.  Religion has always been a scam.

[Minimalist]

Oh, and thinking that killing an animal saved your ass is not only silly now...it was pretty silly then, too.

What can you expect from primitive assholes?

[Aractus]

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso...banot.html

---

For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time.

Sacrifices were stopped after the Temple's destruction because the Torah specifically commands Jews not to offer sacrifices just anywhere; they are only permitted in the place that G-d has chosen for that purpose. It would be a sin to offer sacrifices in any other location.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of...ic_Judaism

---

The destruction of the Second Temple brought about a dramatic change in Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism built upon Jewish tradition while adjusting to new realities. Temple ritual was replaced with prayer service in synagogues which built upon practices of Jews in the Diaspora dating back to the Babylonian exile.

---

The prime directive of the OT as written by the priests was designed to make sure that jews could only sacrifice AT THE TEMPLE which, not so coincidentally, was controlled by the priests.  Religion has always been a scam.

I didn't say they didn't practise it, just that their religion was based on the text of the Pentateuch and not on animal sacrifice which was quite a common custom at the time. At least they didn't practise human sacrifice as some other tribal cultures of the time did (Celtic Britons for example which were directly referenced in the Red Dwarf episode of "Lemons"). Rome had already outlawed human sacrfice in 97 BC, and there's no evidence that the Jews ever practised it. But animal sacrifice was a practise shared by virtually all ancient cultures, and those that didn't still had customs to do with thanking their deities for the life-force of the animal. It was just a social-norm of the ancient world.

Now true that until 70AD the Jews practised it exclusively in their Temple - but so what? That was just their way of deciding where to do it.

If you're arguing that animal sacrifice is barbaric and primitive then perhaps you'd prefer to defend Christians on that once since from the second century on we have clear evidence they refused to partake in animal sacrifice (and that probably goes all the way back to 50AD following the Jerusalem Council decision). But put it into perspective as well: it was against Roman law to behaving in such unruly and anti-social ways. So if Christians refused to attend public sacrificial ceremonies, and refused to sacrifice their own animals as well in public ceremonies then they could be charged with social misconduct - or whatever the specific charge was they were viewed as a threat to ongoing peace, as well as defying Roman law and customs. Most Roman authorities turned a blind eye to it though, Pliny the Younger's letter and Trajan's response is evidence of that. As Christians we believed that was evidence of direct persecution against the Christians, but in fact it is Trajan saying to Pliny "just let them be, if they are accused of a crime and are also a Christian then you may punish them, but don't seek them out, and don't allow anonymous accusations against them".

Refusing to participate in animal sacrifice though was one of the things that could get Christians executed in the second century. So let me ask you then Min, do you really think that practise was that bad if it was something that would protect you from being hanged on a cross, or beheaded? What would you have preferred as a ancient Roman resident? Participate in animal sacrifice or death?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Participate in animal sacrifice or death?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNjcuZ-LiSY

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)