| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bear" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2005 11:16:59 PM |
| Object: |
Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
It is clear, for a variety of reasons, that the traditional Exodus-conquest
model derived from a literal reading of the Old Testament will not suffice
to explain the origin of the Israelites, and this model is almost
universally discounted by archaeologists today (Mazar 1990, p. 334;
Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 76; Laughlin 2000, p. 112; Dever 2001, p.
41). However, it is equally clear that there was such a people as ancient
Israel. Although the Bible's earlier sections are heavily mythologized and
very likely etiological in nature, textual extra-biblical evidence such as
the Merneptah Stele establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the Hebrew
Bible is not entirely fiction. The question, therefore, is where this people
calling itself "Israel" came from. Various proposals seek to explain this.
Peaceful Infiltration
Even while Albright and other early 20th-century archaeologists still
espoused a conquest model, one of the first alternative hypotheses seeking
to explain the origin of ancient Israel was put forth by the German literary
critic Albrecht Alt. Alt, who was not an archaeologist but had extensive
first-hand observations of the bedouin way of life in Palestine, posited
that the first Israelites were pastoral nomads, probably from Transjordan
initially, who wandered with their flocks in the wooded hills and highlands
of western Canaan. Over time, these groups gradually began to settle down,
clearing the land for agriculture and making the transition from nomadic to
sedentary life. This process was peaceful at first, but as the settled
Israelite population began to grow, disputes over grazing land and water use
arose between the newcomers and the already established native Canaanites.
These skirmishes eventually escalated into battles which formed the
historical nucleus of stories such as those recorded in the Book of Judges
(Alt did not consider Joshua to have historical value). This scenario was
supported by the work of the Israeli archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni, a
defender of Alt, whose surveys in the 1950s of the wooded hill country in
upper Galilee and the arid Beersheba valley revealed a large number of
small, isolated settlements first appearing in the early Iron Age, built on
virgin soil rather than on the remains of destroyed earlier sites. Aharoni
argued with Alt that the first Israelites were peaceful settlers in the
isolated frontier country, away from the powerful Canaanite cities of the
Late Bronze Age (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 333).
One of the acknowledged strengths of this model is that it realistically
envisions the Israelite settlement as a gradual, multifaceted process
(Laughlin 2000, p. 112). However, certain aspects of it have lately been
disputed. For example, the pottery styles of these isolated highland Iron I
villages are now known to derive from local Canaanite traditions;
furthermore, the agricultural technology of these sites is quite
sophisticated and well adapted to farming in this marginal zone - i.e., not
what would be expected from bedouin only just settling down to the
agricultural lifestyle, but what would be expected from people who already
had a thorough knowledge of the local challenges to agriculture (Dever 1992,
p. 553).
Peasants' Revolt
Despite their very different scenarios for the origin of Israel, the
invasion-conquest model and the peaceful infiltration model have one thing
in common: they both propose that the first Israelites were foreigners who
originated somewhere else and traveled to the country of Canaan. This
assumption was overturned by a model postulated by George Mendenhall, a
biblical scholar from the University of Michigan, who in the 1970s put
forward his "peasants' revolt" hypothesis of Israelite origins. Under this
theory, Late Bronze Canaan was a highly stratified society, with
city-dwelling elites dominating the rural population of farmers in the
surrounding countryside - similar to the feudal systems that would later
exist in medieval times. Increasingly onerous systems of taxation imposed by
the urban elite ultimately provoked the peasantry, first to withdraw from
this society, then to actively rebel against it and finally overthrow it.
Mendenhall further proposed that the one element that united the peasantry
and enabled them to succeed in their struggle was a new religious
innovation: worship of a single, transcendent god named Yahweh (possibly
influenced by Egyptian immigrants bringing monotheistic ideas introduced by
the "heretic" pharaoh Akhenaten), in opposition to the elaborate pantheons
and state-dictated rituals practiced by the official priesthood of the
cities. Mendenhall's theory was accepted and modified by a later biblical
scholar, Norman Gottwald, who proposed in 1979 that the hill country
settlements - up until then ignored by Mendenhall's model - were established
by members of this independence movement, who had fled to the fringes of
society to set up their own egalitarian way of life.
However, this model suffers from one of the same problems as the conquest
model: the evidence points to the Philistine/Sea People invasion, not an
internal revolt, as being the most likely cause of the destruction at sites
that were destroyed. Furthermore, new archaeological evidence shows that the
rural sector of Late Bronze Canaan was too depleted to have supplied the
manpower for a wave of highland settlement, and other findings suggest
strongly that the highland settlers were pastoral, not sedentary, in origin
(Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 339).
Symbiosis
Although other theories proposed to explain the origin of Israel have
difficulties, it is an undisputed fact that a great number of small,
isolated highland sites appear in the Iron Age I. Moreover, they are not
restricted to the wooded hills of upper Galilee; extensive surveys carried
out since 1967 have revealed similar villages appearing throughout the
heartland of Palestine, far from the Canaanite cities that were being
destroyed (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, p. 107). Simple and
self-sufficient, these villages - which rarely contained more than a few
hundred people - practiced both agriculture and animal husbandry. They had
no fortifications, nor are weapons or destruction layers known. Far from
major trade routes, the people of these villages appear to have led
peaceful, uncomplicated lives of subsistence.
What could have caused this wave of highland settlement? Finkelstein and
Silberman (p. 118) point out that pastoral nomads cannot subsist entirely on
the meat and milk of their herds; they have always been reliant on trade
with settled villages to obtain commodities like grain. But with the
collapse of Egyptian control over the region and the destruction of many
Canaanite cities at the end of the Late Bronze Age, this trade network
probably would have been disrupted, and the highland-dwelling nomads and
pastoralists would have had to settle down to produce their own crops, and
over time the nomadic lifestyle fell by the wayside entirely. The shift
would not have been difficult to make: "In the Middle East, people have
always had the know-how to rapidly change from village life to animal
husbandry - or back from pastoralism to settled agriculture - according to
evolving political, economic, or even climatic conditions. Many groups
throughout the region have been able to shift their lifestyle according to
the best interest of the moment, and the avenue connecting village life and
pastoral nomadism has always been a two-way street" (ibid., p. 117).
Who were these new settlers? We have only two clues. One is the Merneptah
Stele, which indicates that a people calling itself "Israel" appeared in
Palestine for the first time during this very period. The other, which comes
from surveys of the highland villages themselves, is very significant:
namely, the proportions of animal bones found there. Sheep, goats, and
cattle are all attested - but pigs are not. Although pig bones were found
both in the Philistine settlements on the coast and Ammonite and Moabite
settlements east of the Jordan during this same time period, pigs were
neither raised nor eaten in the villages of the central hill country (ibid.,
p. 119). For whatever reason, these settlers decided to stop eating pork -
perhaps for no greater reason than to distinguish themselves from their
neighbors, perhaps as the first step toward establishing a shared cultural
identity. But whatever the reason, the importance of this evidence cannot be
discounted. Both text (Merneptah Stele) and archaeology point towards the
conclusion that now, and only now, during the early Iron Age, did the first
settlers emerge who would later come to think of themselves as
"Israelites" - and not as invaders from outside the country, but its
indigenous residents, settling down peacefully and only gradually
crystallizing into a distinct group that saw itself as different from its
neighbors. Finkelstein and Silberman say it best:
"...the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the
Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come
from outside Canaan - they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus
from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who
formed early Israel were local people - the same people whom we see in the
highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were -
irony of ironies - themselves originally Canaanites!" (p. 118)
Conclusion
In conclusion, when we consider all the evidence, the pattern that emerges
is clear and distinct. There is no evidence the Israelites were ever
captives in Egypt, nor is there evidence that they escaped in a massive
exodus. There is no evidence that a large group of people wandered in the
desert of Sinai for forty years, nor is there evidence of a lightning
military campaign waged by foreigners against the natives of Canaan. There
is a very plausible alternative cause, supported by both archaeological and
textual evidence, for the destructions that did occur in Canaan during the
Late Bronze Age. And there is an alternative explanation for the origins of
Israel, also supported by both archaeology and text, that removes any
necessity to postulate any other scenario.
Will these discoveries sway those who are committed to belief in the literal
truth of the Bible? That seems unlikely. Religious faith has never been
dependent on facts, and fundamentalist believers will no doubt continue to
postulate ever more convoluted routes for the Exodus, will continue to
invoke pharaonic embarrassment as the reason why no Egyptian records have
been found of the Israelite captivity or their subsequent escape, will
continue to relocate biblical sites willy-nilly as each new tell is
excavated and found to lack destruction layers that can be definitively
assigned to Joshua's conquest. In this way, they are missing the forest for
the trees by proposing ways to explain away each individual contrary datum,
while ignoring the broader patterns visible in the archaeological record
that make the traditional biblical story unlikely in the extreme - and, as
already mentioned, this rear-guard action can at best soothe the doubts of
other believers, not convince atheists and others to convert.
In the end, we may safely say that, like most human endeavors, the Bible has
brought forth both good and evil. Its unifying message helped the Jewish
people to survive a string of national catastrophes that otherwise could
well have been their end. On the other hand, its zealous political vision
and uncompromising territorial claims continue to fuel the fires of hatred
on both sides of the Middle Eastern conflict, since there, as in few other
places on Earth, stories told thousands of years ago resonate down to
present times. Had the ancient Israelites believed all along that they
emerged peacefully from the neighboring peoples of Canaan, rather than that
they swept into the area on a wave of divinely sanctioned military conquest,
there is no telling how the situation with Israel and the Palestinians would
be different today. If only the truth had been known from the beginning, we
might have avoided the senseless centuries of war, bloodshed and death that
opposing faith claims have brought about. Only time will tell whether we
will ever emerge from this darkness, but if knowing the truth about the past
can do anything to help solve the problems of the present, then in the end,
all the labors and dedication of archaeology will have been worthwhile
indeed. (Let the Stones Speak;
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html)
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
.
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 05:31:23 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: which opinions are apparently unfounded.
: so just as we reject a creation based on the erroneous nonsense of
: creationists we must also accept those artifacts which indeed verify
: historical events.
Which is why we should consider the different models of Israel's origination
rather than take just the Bible's word for it.
Can you not make the distinction between my using the TaNaKh in
parallel to forensic evidence, from using the TaNaKh as an authority
for the interpretation of the evidence ... ?
i have been clear and repeating myself makes one weary
: so perhaps now we return to the problem of how humans interpret facts
: lifting them from their context and applying them to social and
: political goals rather than maintaining their context.
No, social and political reality.
This all returns us to the context of culture, where the symbolic world
one inhabits necessarily supplies the morality, the social context, and
of course the political constructs
your social and political "reality" is not uniform across all cultures
since all do not share the same valuation of root and destiny.
Your reasoning seems to be self-contradictory, whether you realize it or
not.
if such is your judgement then perhaps better to save time and ignore
my abortive premises.
It is the right and the duty of every person
i wonder if one day you will provide an explanation for the above
assertion.
an egalitarian goal is a destination,
a destination is an asserted destiny,
which is then buttressed by a moral code.
we are now deep in religious territory.
the only thing i can make of that quotation is that someone has
asserted a universal culture for all humans based on a single destiny
where all will belong to the same caste having the same duties and
enjoying the same privileges and having interest in and access to the
same knowledge, and furthermore having the same expression of
'universal human compassion' as a basis for all moral evaluation ... ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 05:45:30 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : which opinions are apparently unfounded.
: > : so just as we reject a creation based on the erroneous nonsense of
: > : creationists we must also accept those artifacts which indeed verify
: > : historical events.
: >
: > Which is why we should consider the different models of Israel's
origination
: > rather than take just the Bible's word for it.
:
: Can you not make the distinction between my using the TaNaKh in
: parallel to forensic evidence, from using the TaNaKh as an authority
: for the interpretation of the evidence ... ?
Of course.
: i have been clear and repeating myself makes one weary
No you haven't.
: > : so perhaps now we return to the problem of how humans interpret facts
: > : lifting them from their context and applying them to social and
: > : political goals rather than maintaining their context.
: >
: > No, social and political reality.
:
: This all returns us to the context of culture, where the symbolic world
: one inhabits necessarily supplies the morality, the social context, and
: of course the political constructs
But you seem to be leaving important considerations out of your formula.
: your social and political "reality" is not uniform across all cultures
: since all do not share the same valuation of root and destiny.
I realize that it isn't, but the social and political reality is not as you
see it either.
: > Your reasoning seems to be self-contradictory, whether you realize it or
: > not.
:
: if such is your judgement then perhaps better to save time and ignore
: my abortive premises.
Whether you realize it or not, the way you have been "explaining" your
premises would negate any possiblity of a Jew ever becoming an atheist or
even a rational freethinker. And don't say it's my fault for not
understanding.
: > It is the right and the duty of every person
:
: i wonder if one day you will provide an explanation for the above
: assertion.
All I mean by it is that humans have the right and the duty to think for
themselves rather than be lead around by others. Do you have a problem with
that?
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 06:10:45 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : which opinions are apparently unfounded.
: > : so just as we reject a creation based on the erroneous nonsense of
: > : creationists we must also accept those artifacts which indeed verify
: > : historical events.
: >
: > Which is why we should consider the different models of Israel's
origination
: > rather than take just the Bible's word for it.
:
: Can you not make the distinction between my using the TaNaKh in
: parallel to forensic evidence, from using the TaNaKh as an authority
: for the interpretation of the evidence ... ?
Of course.
: i have been clear and repeating myself makes one weary
No you haven't.
: > : so perhaps now we return to the problem of how humans interpret facts
: > : lifting them from their context and applying them to social and
: > : political goals rather than maintaining their context.
: >
: > No, social and political reality.
:
: This all returns us to the context of culture, where the symbolic world
: one inhabits necessarily supplies the morality, the social context, and
: of course the political constructs
But you seem to be leaving important considerations out of your formula.
i did not assert a 'formula' per se beyond that which we already know:
sensory events occur in the physical platform and there is no escaping
the raw reality at that level [same as animals], but in reflective
mode, once the sensory event already occurs it shoots immediately into
the tapestry of our human symbolic which is stitched from the language
[nomenclature, semiotics] and that is fixed and limited and such
provides basis for all that follows, viz. religion [the world view
proposed with root and destiny as the fundamental] followed by the
cultural to which it gives birth.
: your social and political "reality" is not uniform across all cultures
: since all do not share the same valuation of root and destiny.
I realize that it isn't, but the social and political reality is not as you
see it either.
i don't recall making any analysis of the "social and political
reality" in this context and dare say you would not know what my
personal opinions to be.
: > Your reasoning seems to be self-contradictory, whether you realize it or
: > not.
:
: if such is your judgement then perhaps better to save time and ignore
: my abortive premises.
Whether you realize it or not, the way you have been "explaining" your
premises would negate any possiblity of a Jew ever becoming an atheist or
even a rational freethinker. And don't say it's my fault for not
understanding.
friend, why must i take the blame for others misunderstanding?
in any case your above interpretation does not represent anything i
have said.
even if a Jew is atheist or a "rational freethinker" so-called
if one still identifies as a Jew then one is still informed by Judaic
culture and so one's Weltanschauung is still satellite to and a
reinterpretation of the same source as his brother observing torah in
the Yemeni sands.
pronouncing oneself to be an atheist has little relevance to it
whatsoever since a Jewish atheism has radically different
interpretation than a perhaps a purist Confucian atheism.
atheism in any case is a negative attribute and asserts nothing.
it is the absence of something not the presence of something.
the pronouncment of 'atheist' merely means one has a Jew who no longer
claims to be a theist but this does not erase the symbolic world he
inhabits since it was informed by a Judaic culture a single source. He
cannot erase the foundations of his mind, it is already there, and any
changes are minimal in the long term
sub-cultures sub-sub-cultures etc they are still reinterpretations of a
single source which at root informs them all.
Reconstructionist Judaism addresses this in an excellent manner and i
have recommended many times to look into that
Reconstructionist Judaism is a version that informs Judaic culture
without necessity of an actual functional deity.
: > It is the right and the duty of every person
:
: i wonder if one day you will provide an explanation for the above
: assertion.
All I mean by it is that humans have the right and the duty to think for
themselves rather than be lead around by others. Do you have a problem with
that?
yes perhaps i have a problem with the prospect of a universal
'egalitarian' goal
in the first place i don't think everyone should have unlimited access
to knowledge
i also believe castes and slavery are good systems
furthermore i believe each caste should have its own duties and
moralities and privileges which are fixed at birth, and any exceptions
are subject to the higher caste discretion
Do you have a problem with that ?
or is your egalitarian gospel going to exclude me ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 05:20:22 PM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: even if a Jew is atheist or a "rational freethinker" so-called
: if one still identifies as a Jew then one is still informed by Judaic
: culture and so one's Weltanschauung is still satellite to and a
: reinterpretation of the same source as his brother observing torah in
: the Yemeni sands.
Prove it.
: pronouncing oneself to be an atheist has little relevance to it
: whatsoever since a Jewish atheism has radically different
: interpretation than a perhaps a purist Confucian atheism.
Prove it.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 10:01:17 PM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: even if a Jew is atheist or a "rational freethinker" so-called
: if one still identifies as a Jew then one is still informed by Judaic
: culture and so one's Weltanschauung is still satellite to and a
: reinterpretation of the same source as his brother observing torah in
: the Yemeni sands.
Prove it.
simply because he sees himself as an extension of the single source
which gave birth to the culture. even if he does not admit the
'literal' existence of the deity he still sees himself within the
context of torah and its derivative Judaic culture.
you might read some Reconstructionist authors.
without reading Reconstructionist authors or "secular" Jewish writings
concerning the issue post-Napolean right through the wars there is no
way you can understand what i am talking about.
: pronouncing oneself to be an atheist has little relevance to it
: whatsoever since a Jewish atheism has radically different
: interpretation than a perhaps a purist Confucian atheism.
Prove it.
the only way to "prove" such things is to have a depth of experience
with Judaic and Chinese culture.
That's up to you and how it fits into your schedule.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 10:17:29 PM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: That's up to you and how it fits into your schedule.
As far as I'm concerned this dialogue was over when you agreed that there is
more than one possibility to the of the origin of Israel.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 11:12:43 PM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: That's up to you and how it fits into your schedule.
As far as I'm concerned this dialogue was over when you agreed that there is
more than one possibility to the of the origin of Israel.
but not as was 'proposed' in light of the artifacts which survive,
including Merne Ptah Stele, Tel Dan Inscription, and Kef Hinnom
excavation
also the swine bone remnants decreasing would not evidence an
autochthonous people being converted to Greek or Persian propaganda
since this occurs centuries prior to both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 11:30:57 PM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : That's up to you and how it fits into your schedule.
: >
: > As far as I'm concerned this dialogue was over when you agreed that
there is
: > more than one possibility to the of the origin of Israel.
:
: but not as was 'proposed' in light of the artifacts which survive,
: including Merne Ptah Stele, Tel Dan Inscription, and Kef Hinnom
: excavation
:
: also the swine bone remnants decreasing would not evidence an
: autochthonous people being converted to Greek or Persian propaganda
: since this occurs centuries prior to both.
Did you, or did you not, agree that there was more than one possibility for
the origin of Israel?
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
10 Nov 2005 01:11:20 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : That's up to you and how it fits into your schedule.
: >
: > As far as I'm concerned this dialogue was over when you agreed that
there is
: > more than one possibility to the of the origin of Israel.
:
: but not as was 'proposed' in light of the artifacts which survive,
: including Merne Ptah Stele, Tel Dan Inscription, and Kef Hinnom
: excavation
:
: also the swine bone remnants decreasing would not evidence an
: autochthonous people being converted to Greek or Persian propaganda
: since this occurs centuries prior to both.
Did you, or did you not, agree that there was more than one possibility for
the origin of Israel?
this is beginning to sound like an old Perry Mason episode
here we are reinventing the wheel again
"possible?" we are all aware that with a clean slate the possibilities
are endless. but we do not have a clean slate, we have a text in
particular language particular culture, so we are confined to a region,
and then we have artifacts which agree or do not agree with aspects of
the text
to 'prove' anything i suppose that is very limited also and we have all
been through this before
all that we are talking about is likelihood in a relative context
and in a relative context when one sees `Yisrael` circa 1200 BCE coming
from Egyptian source and `bytdvd` there in Tel Dan circa 800 or 825 BCE
and a torah excerpt circa 600 BCE or possibly earlier,
and if a text which at minimum existed 200 BCE agrees with such,
if some wish to dispute the meaning of `Yisrael` and `bytdvd` and wish
it away into the nether region of "reasonable doubt" i am sorry i must
get on with my life and ignore such
since it is now an imitation of the creationist "reasonable doubt"
argument in favor of a creation.
you can mark me down as not agreeing with the proposals at the head of
the thread
what we now even have 1900 BCE semitic alef-bet in Wadi Hol Egypt
experimented by semitic people from the Levant who then returned to the
Levant with their script
if Magee et al wish to say that the Persians or Greeks inserted all the
Egyptian nomenclature to make the Judeans feel comfortable that to me
is as likely as the person who suggests that Y_H_V_H was an alien who
wanted roasted meat delivered to a hovering aircraft
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
10 Nov 2005 01:27:20 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote in message
news:1131606680.668076.43590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Bear wrote:
: > Did you, or did you not, agree that there was more than one possibility
for
: > the origin of Israel?
: you can mark me down as not agreeing with the proposals at the head of
: the thread
Make up your mind.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
10 Nov 2005 02:13:39 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote in message
news:1131606680.668076.43590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Bear wrote:
: > Did you, or did you not, agree that there was more than one possibility
for
: > the origin of Israel?
: you can mark me down as not agreeing with the proposals at the head of
: the thread
Make up your mind.
i am not checking back but i believe i said 'completely agree' to
something you said in principle, but not to the authors of the proposed
origins of Yisrael / Yehuda.
i.e. i agree with your being open minded about any possibility in
principle
but i add to that, this should include aspects of the text when they
agree with forensic evidence
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
10 Nov 2005 02:26:08 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : > Did you, or did you not, agree that there was more than one
possibility
: > for
: > : > the origin of Israel?
: >
: > : you can mark me down as not agreeing with the proposals at the head of
: > : the thread
: >
: > Make up your mind.
:
: i am not checking back but i believe i said 'completely agree' to
: something you said in principle, but not to the authors of the proposed
: origins of Yisrael/Yehuda.
That is not what I asked you. Especially the "completely" part. For all I
know, you may have come acroos other possibilities. We were talking about
Yisrael in this thread; not Yehuda.
: i.e. i agree with your being open minded about any possibility in
: principle
But you are not open-minded that there may be more than one possibility for
the origin of Yisrael, not Yehuda?
: but i add to that, this should include aspects of the text when they
: agree with forensic evidence
I don't believe I ever said anything to imply that. My priority is that the
text not carry more weight than the forensic evidence.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
10 Nov 2005 02:40:05 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : > Did you, or did you not, agree that there was more than one
possibility
: > for
: > : > the origin of Israel?
: >
: > : you can mark me down as not agreeing with the proposals at the head of
: > : the thread
: >
: > Make up your mind.
:
: i am not checking back but i believe i said 'completely agree' to
: something you said in principle, but not to the authors of the proposed
: origins of Yisrael/Yehuda.
That is not what I asked you. Especially the "completely" part. For all I
know, you may have come acroos other possibilities. We were talking about
Yisrael in this thread; not Yehuda.
Good point. well, the Tel Dan Inscription includes `Yisrael`
my current impression is that the competition for dominance was a real
historical event
: i.e. i agree with your being open minded about any possibility in
: principle
But you are not open-minded that there may be more than one possibility for
the origin of Yisrael, not Yehuda?
no i am certainly not dogmatic on that ; what i meant is that we have
the same name 1215-1205 BCE in Egypt and 825 ? BCE in Tel Dan
i want to know the basis for doubting that it refers to `Yisrael` as we
understand it from the text
: but i add to that, this should include aspects of the text when they
: agree with forensic evidence
I don't believe I ever said anything to imply that. My priority is that the
text not carry more weight than the forensic evidence.
well there i can completely agree with you.
it is only the relative confusion occasionally when frothing at the
mouth "rationalists" cannot bring themselves to agree with anything in
the text, when in fact there is an obvious attempt at a narrative there
between the alleged ascension of `bytdvd` and the `galut Bavli`.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
10 Nov 2005 02:51:38 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: no i am certainly not dogmatic on that ; what i meant is that we have
: the same name 1215-1205 BCE in Egypt and 825 ? BCE in Tel Dan
:
: i want to know the basis for doubting that it refers to `Yisrael` as we
: understand it from the text
Some archeologists thought the Tel Dan Inscription was a forgery in whole or
in part.
: well there i can completely agree with you.
: it is only the relative confusion occasionally when frothing at the
: mouth "rationalists" cannot bring themselves to agree with anything in
: the text, when in fact there is an obvious attempt at a narrative there
: between the alleged ascension of `bytdvd` and the `galut Bavli`.
One has to sift through the bias from both sides to get closer to the truth
somewhere in the middle.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
10 Nov 2005 03:04:21 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: no i am certainly not dogmatic on that ; what i meant is that we have
: the same name 1215-1205 BCE in Egypt and 825 ? BCE in Tel Dan
:
: i want to know the basis for doubting that it refers to `Yisrael` as we
: understand it from the text
Some archeologists thought the Tel Dan Inscription was a forgery in whole or
in part.
i don't doubt your words, but i doubt the report you read and the words
of the alleged archaeologists.
as George Athas said, it apparently would require a "genealogy of
forgers"
he only believes they should not be arranged as currently displayed:
"FRAGMENT ARRANGEMENT
The slope of the lines, the nature of the individual characters, the
questionable join between Fragment A and Fragment B (B1+B2), and the
impossibility of the proposed restored text all suggest that the three
fragments do belong to the same inscription, but in a different
arrangement to what is currently displayed. I believe Fragment B
(B1+B2) should be placed significantly lower in the stele than Fragment
A. Again, see my book for the details of the argument (which are too
many to go through here). It contains many of the details which I'm
breezing over here, and many I haven't mentioned."
http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com/2005/02/george-athas-on-tel-dan.html
[GEORGE ATHAS(Sydney, Australia)]
: well there i can completely agree with you.
: it is only the relative confusion occasionally when frothing at the
: mouth "rationalists" cannot bring themselves to agree with anything in
: the text, when in fact there is an obvious attempt at a narrative there
: between the alleged ascension of `bytdvd` and the `galut Bavli`.
One has to sift through the bias from both sides to get closer to the truth
somewhere in the middle.
often times neither is the truth or even occasionally the truth can be
at the most extreme point.
we all know this.
finding the compromise is never finding the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
10 Nov 2005 03:19:39 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: i don't doubt your words, but i doubt the report you read and the words
: of the alleged archaeologists.
I think Finkelstein was one that doubted its authenticity initially, but I
think he has changed his mind. I think Lemche still doubts it.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 02:12:54 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Apparently if you cannot or will not provide alternative readings of
: > : lines 8 and 9 on fragment A of Tel Dan inscription we must leave it
: > : there.
: >
: > It was discussed on the documentary today. Some archeologists say that
it is
: > genuine while others say it is a fraud. What more can I say?
:
: 1. why is it claimed to be a fraud ? after all this time we do not
: have the means to refute it ?
The argument has been going on since it was first discovered.
: 2. what is the purpose in a forger using dot '.' delimiters between all
: the words and even the Yehudi names [am.bar yahu.bar] and then produce
: the deviation in `btdvd` ?
Don't ask me.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
