| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bear" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 05:16:59 AM |
| 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 |
07 Nov 2005 07:59:52 AM |
|
|
the question, therefore, is where this people
calling itself "Israel" came from.
Various proposals seek to explain this.
Peaceful Infiltration
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).
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).
and [so] Yisrael was * not * a "gradual infiltration" in groups across
"a frontier."
Peasants' Revolt
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
you have 1600 BCE `yud heh` on a rock but can we be sure this is `Yah`
?
(possibly
influenced by Egyptian immigrants bringing monotheistic
ideas introduced by
the "heretic" pharaoh Akhenaten
The above is now making more sense and is more congruent with the
nomenclature of the TaNaKh.
Symbiosis
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.
Yes Exactly as the TaNaKh describes when they sacked the north, cf. the
tribe of `dalet-nun (sofit)`
a.k.a. "Dan."
and if the Tel Dan inscription can be verified then you have another
breakthrough in verifying a loose chronology of kings of Yisrael
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
tell us all about the swine bones
even Masada has swine bones
the people are not likely autochthonous
"...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)
Irony of ironies i doubt very much they were same people living there
as they bring an alien religion and Egyptian nomenclature with them.
dumping the texts as revelation is one thing,
dumping the texts as clues for origins is another.
the blindness of so-called 'materialist rationalism' in action again.
ignoring essential material.
Only time will tell whether we
will ever emerge from this darkness,
ah yes, the "darkness" of these texts.
reminds one i suppose of where the 19th Century pseudo-rationalists are
ridiculing Heinrich Schliemann for utilizing the Iliad to locate Troy.
You've got more in the text suggesting Yehudim came from India than
that they were indigenous.
You can see it coming together even with the 850 ? BCE Moabite stone.
to this day Yehudim forbid naming their children Omri.
if one were a "paleoanthropologist" wouldn*t one rather be following
that clue before getting lost in theories of ancient Jews coming into
being during a tax revolt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
07 Nov 2005 08:12:09 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: >the question, therefore, is where this people
: >calling itself "Israel" came from.
: >Various proposals seek to explain this.
:
: >Peaceful Infiltration
:
: >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).
:
: >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).
:
: and [so] Yisrael was * not * a "gradual infiltration" in groups across
: "a frontier."
:
: >Peasants' Revolt
: >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
:
: you have 1600 BCE `yud heh` on a rock but can we be sure this is `Yah`
: ?
:
: >(possibly
: >influenced by Egyptian immigrants bringing monotheistic
: > ideas introduced by
: >the "heretic" pharaoh Akhenaten
:
: The above is now making more sense and is more congruent with the
: nomenclature of the TaNaKh.
:
: >Symbiosis
: >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.
:
: Yes Exactly as the TaNaKh describes when they sacked the north, cf. the
: tribe of `dalet-nun (sofit)`
: a.k.a. "Dan."
:
: and if the Tel Dan inscription can be verified then you have another
: breakthrough in verifying a loose chronology of kings of Yisrael
:
: >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
:
: tell us all about the swine bones
: even Masada has swine bones
:
: the people are not likely autochthonous
:
: >"...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)
:
: Irony of ironies i doubt very much they were same people living there
: as they bring an alien religion and Egyptian nomenclature with them.
:
: dumping the texts as revelation is one thing,
: dumping the texts as clues for origins is another.
: the blindness of so-called 'materialist rationalism' in action again.
: ignoring essential material.
:
: >Only time will tell whether we
: >will ever emerge from this darkness,
:
: ah yes, the "darkness" of these texts.
:
: reminds one i suppose of where the 19th Century pseudo-rationalists are
: ridiculing Heinrich Schliemann for utilizing the Iliad to locate Troy.
:
: You've got more in the text suggesting Yehudim came from India than
: that they were indigenous.
:
: You can see it coming together even with the 850 ? BCE Moabite stone.
: to this day Yehudim forbid naming their children Omri.
:
: if one were a "paleoanthropologist" wouldn*t one rather be following
: that clue before getting lost in theories of ancient Jews coming into
: being during a tax revolt.
Model: A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that
accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further
study of its characteristics.
The 'models' in my post include citations for further studies.
--
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 |
07 Nov 2005 09:10:19 AM |
|
|
The 'models' in my post include citations
for further studies.
Magee's hypothesis that Persia invented Judaism uses the model where
the Yehudim are autochthonous Canaanites who were there all the time if
i recall correctly ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
07 Nov 2005 09:24:52 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: >The 'models' in my post include citations
: >for further studies.
:
: Magee's hypothesis that Persia invented Judaism uses the model where
: the Yehudim are autochthonous Canaanites who were there all the time if
: i recall correctly?
I'm not sure that I understand what Magee has to do with this particular
post. However, I don't remember his theory demanding any such thing.
These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative possibilities
supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective unfalsifiable claims
of the Christian Bible.
--
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 |
07 Nov 2005 09:38:05 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: >The 'models' in my post include citations
: >for further studies.
:
: Magee's hypothesis that Persia invented Judaism uses the model where
: the Yehudim are autochthonous Canaanites who were there all the time if
: i recall correctly?
I'm not sure that I understand what Magee has to do with this particular
post. However, I don't remember his theory demanding any such thing.
These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative possibilities
supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective unfalsifiable claims
of the Christian Bible.
no it was more like based on this or that fact there was an
interpretation to attempt to create a solution
that is inescapably our human nature
for example the swine bones are in plenty until the end of the bronze
age and then begin to disappear
to one person that might indicate the indigenous people changed their
religion,
to another person that might mean the land was changing over to a new
people
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
07 Nov 2005 09:41:52 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : >The 'models' in my post include citations
: > : >for further studies.
: > :
: > : Magee's hypothesis that Persia invented Judaism uses the model where
: > : the Yehudim are autochthonous Canaanites who were there all the time
if
: > : i recall correctly?
: >
: > I'm not sure that I understand what Magee has to do with this particular
: > post. However, I don't remember his theory demanding any such thing.
: >
: > These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative possibilities
: > supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective unfalsifiable
claims
: > of the Christian Bible.
:
: no it was more like based on this or that fact there was an
: interpretation to attempt to create a solution
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 |
07 Nov 2005 10:02:47 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : >The 'models' in my post include citations
: > : >for further studies.
: > :
: > : Magee's hypothesis that Persia invented Judaism uses the model where
: > : the Yehudim are autochthonous Canaanites who were there all the time
if
: > : i recall correctly?
: >
: > I'm not sure that I understand what Magee has to do with this particular
: > post. However, I don't remember his theory demanding any such thing.
: >
: > These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative possibilities
: > supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective unfalsifiable
claims
: > of the Christian Bible.
:
: no it was more like based on this or that fact there was an
: interpretation to attempt to create a solution
It?
what the author in the opening paragraph called a 'proposal'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
07 Nov 2005 10:16:50 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : > : >The 'models' in my post include citations
: > : > : >for further studies.
: > : > :
: > : > : Magee's hypothesis that Persia invented Judaism uses the model
where
: > : > : the Yehudim are autochthonous Canaanites who were there all the
time
: > if
: > : > : i recall correctly?
: > : >
: > : > I'm not sure that I understand what Magee has to do with this
particular
: > : > post. However, I don't remember his theory demanding any such thing.
: > : >
: > : > These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative
possibilities
: > : > supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective unfalsifiable
: > claims
: > : > of the Christian Bible.
: > :
: > : no it was more like based on this or that fact there was an
: > : interpretation to attempt to create a solution
: >
: > It?
:
: what the author in the opening paragraph called a 'proposal'
Propose: To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption; suggest.
That's why he offered different models.
These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative possibilities
supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective unfalsifiable claims
of the Christian Bible.
--
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 |
08 Nov 2005 04:35:25 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : > : >The 'models' in my post include citations
: > : > : >for further studies.
: > : > :
: > : > : Magee's hypothesis that Persia invented Judaism uses the model
where
: > : > : the Yehudim are autochthonous Canaanites who were there all the
time
: > if
: > : > : i recall correctly?
: > : >
: > : > I'm not sure that I understand what Magee has to do with this
particular
: > : > post. However, I don't remember his theory demanding any such thing.
: > : >
: > : > These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative
possibilities
: > : > supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective unfalsifiable
: > claims
: > : > of the Christian Bible.
: > :
: > : no it was more like based on this or that fact there was an
: > : interpretation to attempt to create a solution
: >
: > It?
:
: what the author in the opening paragraph called a 'proposal'
Propose: To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption; suggest.
That's why he offered different models.
These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative possibilities
supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective unfalsifiable claims
of the Christian Bible.
i see them more as subjective models based on an accumulation of facts
interpreted [subjective].
models need to be tested and that is done either through making
predictions or measuring the scenario against * all * the available
'facts' and one of those would be the text itself, the greatest fact of
all in a sense because it is the actual output of the foundation of the
culture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
08 Nov 2005 06:36:56 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : > : Bear wrote:
: > : > : > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : > : > : >The 'models' in my post include citations
: > : > : > : >for further studies.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Magee's hypothesis that Persia invented Judaism uses the model
: > where
: > : > : > : the Yehudim are autochthonous Canaanites who were there all
the
: > time
: > : > if
: > : > : > : i recall correctly?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > I'm not sure that I understand what Magee has to do with this
: > particular
: > : > : > post. However, I don't remember his theory demanding any such
thing.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative
: > possibilities
: > : > : > supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective
unfalsifiable
: > : > claims
: > : > : > of the Christian Bible.
: > : > :
: > : > : no it was more like based on this or that fact there was an
: > : > : interpretation to attempt to create a solution
: > : >
: > : > It?
: > :
: > : what the author in the opening paragraph called a 'proposal'
: >
: > Propose: To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption;
suggest.
: >
: > That's why he offered different models.
: >
: > These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative possibilities
: > supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective unfalsifiable
claims
: > of the Christian Bible.
:
: i see them more as subjective models based on an accumulation of facts
: interpreted [subjective].
You are free to see them however you wish to see them.
: models need to be tested and that is done either through making
: predictions or measuring the scenario against * all * the available
: 'facts' and one of those would be the text itself, the greatest fact of
: all in a sense because it is the actual output of the foundation of the
: culture.
I see the text as merely a product of its the culture; as are the rest of
its socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and
all other products of human work and thought.
--
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 |
08 Nov 2005 07:04:47 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : > : Bear wrote:
: > : > : > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : > : > : >The 'models' in my post include citations
: > : > : > : >for further studies.
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Magee's hypothesis that Persia invented Judaism uses the model
: > where
: > : > : > : the Yehudim are autochthonous Canaanites who were there all
the
: > time
: > : > if
: > : > : > : i recall correctly?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > I'm not sure that I understand what Magee has to do with this
: > particular
: > : > : > post. However, I don't remember his theory demanding any such
thing.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative
: > possibilities
: > : > : > supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective
unfalsifiable
: > : > claims
: > : > : > of the Christian Bible.
: > : > :
: > : > : no it was more like based on this or that fact there was an
: > : > : interpretation to attempt to create a solution
: > : >
: > : > It?
: > :
: > : what the author in the opening paragraph called a 'proposal'
: >
: > Propose: To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption;
suggest.
: >
: > That's why he offered different models.
: >
: > These models are merely objective falsifiable alternative possibilities
: > supported by archaeological evidence to the subjective unfalsifiable
claims
: > of the Christian Bible.
:
: i see them more as subjective models based on an accumulation of facts
: interpreted [subjective].
You are free to see them however you wish to see them.
: models need to be tested and that is done either through making
: predictions or measuring the scenario against * all * the available
: 'facts' and one of those would be the text itself, the greatest fact of
: all in a sense because it is the actual output of the foundation of the
: culture.
I see the text as merely a product of its the culture; as are the rest of
its socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and
all other products of human work and thought.
Yes it is an output of culture,
therefore it is the greatest source for evidence in any inquiry
concerning origins.
whatever forensic artifacts discovered should be used in concert with
the text not simply as a weapon to refute it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
08 Nov 2005 07:28:55 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Yes it is an output of culture,
: therefore it is the greatest source for evidence in any inquiry
: concerning origins.
Apparently, we disagree on its weight of it as evidence. Unless you can
"prove" that it is a greater source of evidence than the other sources of
evidence it is just another source of evidence carrying no more weight than
the other sources.
: whatever forensic artifacts discovered should be used in concert with
: the text not simply as a weapon to refute it.
You are going to have to "prove" to me that the forensic artifacts were used
as simply as a weapon to refute the text.
--
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 |
08 Nov 2005 10:15:41 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Yes it is an output of culture,
: therefore it is the greatest source for evidence in any inquiry
: concerning origins.
Apparently, we disagree on its weight of it as evidence.
seeing that the alleged revelation is the starting point for all
inquiry into the origins it becomes the context.
Unless you can
"prove" that it is a greater source of evidence than the other sources of
evidence it is just another source of evidence carrying no more weight than
the other sources.
the text is the very mind of the culture and so one way or another will
tell us who these people were.
for example, the prohibitive mitzvot concerning what we call `kashrut`
are more of a guide to the inquiry than the relative absence or
decrease in swine bones following the bronze age.
using the text is not equivalent to submitting to an asserted deity.
: whatever forensic artifacts discovered should be used in concert with
: the text not simply as a weapon to refute it.
You are going to have to "prove" to me that the forensic artifacts were used
as simply as a weapon to refute the text.
more or less this is what people are trying to do, engaging on the one
hand in digging up something to expose an inaccuracy in the text and
then on the other producing an isolated artifact as evidence that the
text is accurate.
overall the text is telling the story of the people, and if the text
says they came from the east it also says they came from the west. and
as the person in the other thread noted, the insertion of the Pelestim
/ Philistine Sea Peoples at two points in the narrative gives us clues.
if we know when Egypt was at war with the Sea Peoples and when they
came to occupy Gaza etc we can fix points in the chronology. we can
also eliminate any speculations that certain peoples are the same under
different nomenclature.
and so Merne Ptah Stele circa 1215-1205 BCE already has a particular
group in mind when it says `Yisrael.`
Then you have Tel Dan circa 800 BCE which could mean `beyt Dovid` *if*
in a different dialect and certainly the invaders speak a different
semitic dialect
although there is no '.' between the "words" `beyt` and `dovid`
and so could treat the string as a single word representing the dynasty
if so it fits well into the chronology of the TaNaKh since by this time
the descendants of the alleged dynastic founder would be one "house"
even as we say today, and `hamelek[.]hadad` mentioned
on line 7 and 8 you see the endings of Hebrew names `...ram bar `
`...yahu bar`
on fragment A there it is on line 8 `melek yisrael`
frag. A line 9 reads `k bytdvd`
the `k` matches the final in `melek` and in context suits "king of the
david house" or "king of the davidic dynasty" i.e. Yehuda.
"The controversial Tell DAn inscription uses word dividers everywhere
but
the crucial BYTDWD, and this lack of divider is the kindling point for
the heated discussion about the proper reading."
even so, strong evidence in favor of a davidic dynasty or at minimum a
house of dovid ha'melek within textual context and chronology.
and `dvd` is an unusual name during this era as an aside.
what it means at minimum is that you have Yisrael and a House of David
circa 800 BCE.
Put this together with the Mesha Stele /Moabite stone and now the
general outline of the TaNaKh is making sense.
for reference:
cf.
http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Schniedewind_files/Tel_Dan_drawing.jpg
the `beyt dovid` as it appears in stele:
http://www.houseofdavid.ca/4DAVIDBEITbw8.gif
http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/israel/house-of-david-inscription.jpg
Notice also that Dan is generally abandoned during 722 BCE through
Persian ascendancy.
The text even if telling lies should not be discounted, for lies are as
significant as the mundane facts it confirms.
refuting the inaccuracy of domesticated dromedaries prior to their
appearance in the alleged region does not dump the text as a general
map to the origins of the people preserving it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
08 Nov 2005 10:56:44 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Yes it is an output of culture,
: > : therefore it is the greatest source for evidence in any inquiry
: > : concerning origins.
: >
: > Apparently, we disagree on its weight of it as evidence.
:
:
: seeing that the alleged revelation is the starting point for all
: inquiry into the origins it becomes the context.
Until it is shown to be unbelievable.
: >Unless you can
: > "prove" that it is a greater source of evidence than the other sources
of
: > evidence it is just another source of evidence carrying no more weight
than
: > the other sources.
:
: the text is the very mind of the culture and so one way or another will
: tell us who these people were.
The only thing the text tells us about the people is that they were not in
touch with reality.
: for example, the prohibitive mitzvot concerning what we call `kashrut`
: are more of a guide to the inquiry than the relative absence or
: decrease in swine bones following the bronze age.
:
: using the text is not equivalent to submitting to an asserted deity.
Of course not; I never thought any such thing.
: > : whatever forensic artifacts discovered should be used in concert with
: > : the text not simply as a weapon to refute it.
: >
: > You are going to have to "prove" to me that the forensic artifacts were
used
: > as simply as a weapon to refute the text.
:
: more or less this is what people are trying to do, engaging on the one
: hand in digging up something to expose an inaccuracy in the text and
: then on the other producing an isolated artifact as evidence that the
: text is accurate.
Sounds like opinion to me.
: overall the text is telling the story of the people, and if the text
: says they came from the east it also says they came from the west. and
: as the person in the other thread noted, the insertion of the Pelestim
: / Philistine Sea Peoples at two points in the narrative gives us clues.
It is telling a story the one sector of the society wanted to foist on
another sector of the society by taking advantage of the latter sector's
credulity and superstitions.
: if we know when Egypt was at war with the Sea Peoples and when they
: came to occupy Gaza etc we can fix points in the chronology. we can
: also eliminate any speculations that certain peoples are the same under
: different nomenclature.
That will not prop up the credibility of the text.
: and so Merne Ptah Stele circa 1215-1205 BCE already has a particular
: group in mind when it says `Yisrael.`
It is also open to interpretation.
: Then you have Tel Dan circa 800 BCE which could mean `beyt Dovid` *if*
: in a different dialect and certainly the invaders speak a different
: semitic dialect
:
: although there is no '.' between the "words" `beyt` and `dovid`
: and so could treat the string as a single word representing the dynasty
: if so it fits well into the chronology of the TaNaKh since by this time
: the descendants of the alleged dynastic founder would be one "house"
: even as we say today, and `hamelek[.]hadad` mentioned
:
: on line 7 and 8 you see the endings of Hebrew names `...ram bar `
: `...yahu bar`
:
: on fragment A there it is on line 8 `melek yisrael`
: frag. A line 9 reads `k bytdvd`
:
: the `k` matches the final in `melek` and in context suits "king of the
: david house" or "king of the davidic dynasty" i.e. Yehuda.
There are alternative explanations concerning this. You would have to
convince me that one of the alyernatives are better than the other. From
what I have seen so far in my studies, neither side has much of an edge.
: "The controversial Tell DAn inscription uses word dividers everywhere
: but
: the crucial BYTDWD, and this lack of divider is the kindling point for
: the heated discussion about the proper reading."
:
: even so, strong evidence in favor of a davidic dynasty or at minimum a
: house of dovid ha'melek within textual context and chronology.
What "strong" evidence?
: and `dvd` is an unusual name during this era as an aside.
:
: what it means at minimum is that you have Yisrael and a House of David
: circa 800 BCE.
:
: Put this together with the Mesha Stele /Moabite stone and now the
: general outline of the TaNaKh is making sense.
Not to everyone.
: for reference:
: cf.
: http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Schniedewind_files/Tel_Dan_drawing.jpg
:
: the `beyt dovid` as it appears in stele:
: http://www.houseofdavid.ca/4DAVIDBEITbw8.gif
:
:
http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/israel/house-of-david-inscription.jpg
:
: Notice also that Dan is generally abandoned during 722 BCE through
: Persian ascendancy.
All I see is propositions; just like the models presented.
: The text even if telling lies should not be discounted, for lies are as
: significant as the mundane facts it confirms.
Then you go ahead and believe it, but don't expect others to follow your
suit.
: refuting the inaccuracy of domesticated dromedaries prior to their
: appearance in the alleged region does not dump the text as a general
: map to the origins of the people preserving it.
Completely different. The text in question makes certain claims in order to
persuade people of its "heavenly: inspiration.
Overall, I would say that you haven't accomplished anything in refutation of
the "possibilities" contained in the models presented.
--
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 05:11:14 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Yes it is an output of culture,
: > : therefore it is the greatest source for evidence in any inquiry
: > : concerning origins.
: >
: > Apparently, we disagree on its weight of it as evidence.
:
:
: seeing that the alleged revelation is the starting point for all
: inquiry into the origins it becomes the context.
Until it is shown to be unbelievable.
until 'which' is shown to be 'unbelievable'?
what a peurile and simplistic evaluation of the text.
if one has abandoned the text as an alleged revelation that is one
aspect,
there is much more to it than that and it is very believable as truth
for the insular culture which it informs.
: >Unless you can
: > "prove" that it is a greater source of evidence than the other sources
of
: > evidence it is just another source of evidence carrying no more weight
than
: > the other sources.
:
: the text is the very mind of the culture and so one way or another will
: tell us who these people were.
The only thing the text tells us about the people is that they were not in
touch with reality.
they were more so in touch with reality than most commentators of this
century, as evidenced by Qohelet, Agur and Iyov.
for one to reach such conclusion means only that one does not
comprehend their meaning apart from a mere assertion of theism.
: for example, the prohibitive mitzvot concerning what we call `kashrut`
: are more of a guide to the inquiry than the relative absence or
: decrease in swine bones following the bronze age.
:
: using the text is not equivalent to submitting to an asserted deity.
Of course not; I never thought any such thing.
: > : whatever forensic artifacts discovered should be used in concert with
: > : the text not simply as a weapon to refute it.
: >
: > You are going to have to "prove" to me that the forensic artifacts were
used
: > as simply as a weapon to refute the text.
:
: more or less this is what people are trying to do, engaging on the one
: hand in digging up something to expose an inaccuracy in the text and
: then on the other producing an isolated artifact as evidence that the
: text is accurate.
Sounds like opinion to me.
that is what i have described regarding the models "proposed"
: overall the text is telling the story of the people, and if the text
: says they came from the east it also says they came from the west. and
: as the person in the other thread noted, the insertion of the Pelestim
: / Philistine Sea Peoples at two points in the narrative gives us clues.
It is telling a story the one sector of the society wanted to foist on
another sector of the society by taking advantage of the latter sector's
credulity and superstitions.
no culture can endure for thousands of years [at minimum 2600] based on
naivete' and superstition.
perhaps review in your studies Agur, Qohelet and Iyov [Elihu section of
Iyov narrative is an insertion]
: if we know when Egypt was at war with the Sea Peoples and when they
: came to occupy Gaza etc we can fix points in the chronology. we can
: also eliminate any speculations that certain peoples are the same under
: different nomenclature.
That will not prop up the credibility of the text.
it's just getting silly this superficial evaluation of the texts
we know they do not adhere to the universe of 20th century physics
nor is it suggested they adhere to astronomical records nor be an exact
history
: and so Merne Ptah Stele circa 1215-1205 BCE already has a particular
: group in mind when it says `Yisrael.`
It is also open to interpretation.
only to those who wish to make the 'Yisrael' disappear into something
indiscernible
: Then you have Tel Dan circa 800 BCE which could mean `beyt Dovid` *if*
: in a different dialect and certainly the invaders speak a different
: semitic dialect
:
: although there is no '.' between the "words" `beyt` and `dovid`
: and so could treat the string as a single word representing the dynasty
: if so it fits well into the chronology of the TaNaKh since by this time
: the descendants of the alleged dynastic founder would be one "house"
: even as we say today, and `hamelek[.]hadad` mentioned
:
: on line 7 and 8 you see the endings of Hebrew names `...ram bar `
: `...yahu bar`
:
: on fragment A there it is on line 8 `melek yisrael`
: frag. A line 9 reads `k bytdvd`
:
: the `k` matches the final in `melek` and in context suits "king of the
: david house" or "king of the davidic dynasty" i.e. Yehuda.
There are alternative explanations concerning this.
are there ... ? would you like to give an example of such on the
lines 8 and 9 on fragment A please ?
You would have to
convince me that one of the alyernatives are better than the other. From
what I have seen so far in my studies, neither side has much of an edge.
Nonsense
: "The controversial Tell DAn inscription uses word dividers everywhere
: but
: the crucial BYTDWD, and this lack of divider is the kindling point for
: the heated discussion about the proper reading."
:
: even so, strong evidence in favor of a davidic dynasty or at minimum a
: house of dovid ha'melek within textual context and chronology.
What "strong" evidence?
The strong evidence that evidences two houses Yisrael and Yehuda circa
800 BCE,
just as the TaNaKh says there is.
: and `dvd` is an unusual name during this era as an aside.
:
: what it means at minimum is that you have Yisrael and a House of David
: circa 800 BCE.
:
: Put this together with the Mesha Stele /Moabite stone and now the
: general outline of the TaNaKh is making sense.
Not to everyone.
certainly not to those who see simplistic choices between theism and a
text that must be ignored when addressing "origins" of people who wrote
the text in the first place.
: for reference:
: cf.
: http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Schniedewind_files/Tel_Dan_drawing.jpg
:
: the `beyt dovid` as it appears in stele:
: http://www.houseofdavid.ca/4DAVIDBEITbw8.gif
:
:
http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/israel/house-of-david-inscription.jpg
:
: Notice also that Dan is generally abandoned during 722 BCE through
: Persian ascendancy.
All I see is propositions; just like the models presented.
Tel Dan and Moabite Stone and Merne Ptah are not propositions, they are
forensic artifacts whose content cannot be discounted
Not to mention the 600 BCE silver seferot with inscribed torah excerpt.
: The text even if telling lies should not be discounted, for lies are as
: significant as the mundane facts it confirms.
Then you go ahead and believe it, but don't expect others to follow your
suit.
One will surely make a poor detective if one ignores lies instead of
pondering their significance
: refuting the inaccuracy of domesticated dromedaries prior to their
: appearance in the alleged region does not dump the text as a general
: map to the origins of the people preserving it.
Completely different. The text in question makes certain claims in order to
persuade people of its "heavenly: inspiration.
will there ever come a day when one can get beyond that ... ?
let's try and get past that please.
Overall, I would say that you haven't accomplished anything in refutation of
the "possibilities" contained in the models presented.
i suppose you would say that.
meanwhile as you strive against the text it is actually your friend in
helping to illuminate the forensic evidence, especially where the text
provides an inaccurate alternative scenario.
observe how much detail is poured into the ascension of Dovid and the
civil war and the sons of Tzeruyah.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 05:52:51 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Nonsense
The point is that the description of the origin of Israel as put forth in
the Bible is not the only possible model for the origination of Israel.
Beyond that it depends on which so-called "authorities" one believes as to
what may be the actual origination scenario. The History Channel had a
program on today the showed how diverse the "opinions" of the so-called
"authorities" are on the very topic were are discussing. If the so-called
"authorities" cannot reach a consensus than I have no alternative than to
leave the conclusion at there are several possibilities as to how Israel
originated.
--
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: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 04:53:44 PM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Nonsense
The point is that the description of the origin of Israel as put
forth in the Bible is not the only possible model for the
origination of Israel. Beyond that it depends on which so-called
"authorities" one believes as to what may be the actual origination
scenario. The History Channel had a program on today the showed how
diverse the "opinions" of the so-called "authorities" are on the
very topic were are discussing. If the so-called "authorities"
cannot reach a consensus than I have no alternative than to leave
the conclusion at there are several possibilities as to how Israel
originated.
All one can do is cite the hard archaeological evidence.
There was no invasion from Egypt, merely a peasceful
creation of numerous iron age settlements on hilltops
by Canaanites whose culture was little different from
native Canaanites of that era.
There was a long and severe drought for 80 years prior
to this, my take is that marginal land became temporarily
unihabitable, agriculture stopped in marginal lands such
as Judea. When the weather shifted again to better times,
the land was there for the taking by those who knew how
to work it.
Those without land simply went where there was free land.
Those who had been farmers but had been forced into
marginal nomadism, went back to farming.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 06:05:25 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Nonsense
The point is that the description of the origin of Israel as put forth in
the Bible is not the only possible model for the origination of Israel.
Point taken; my difference is that i see the text as making an enormous
effort to sketch details in certain places it did not earlier, and so
it is either compensating for a vacuum in it s history,
or it has more information upon which to draw.
and i go with the latter.
Beyond that it depends on which so-called "authorities" one believes as to
what may be the actual origination scenario. The History Channel
One thing i began to do years ago would be to note the following:
the producers
the editors
the foundation or source for the money
Basically that will reveal the agenda
If you have not done so for entertainment purposes you will find the
results very consistent.
and you will also notice how the same groups are behind different
"documentaries" which are marketed as independent once you see the
chain of command.
again, for entertainment, your conclusions are your own.
had a
program on today the showed how diverse the "opinions" of the so-called
"authorities" are on the very topic were are discussing. If the so-called
"authorities" cannot reach a consensus than I have no alternative than to
leave the conclusion at there are several possibilities as to how Israel
originated.
am in complete agreement,
but there again looking for "broad" evidence is much like looking for
"quantity" instead of quality.
some artifacts have a value that rises above others
all are not equal
Tel Dan is one of those
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 06:20:10 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > If the so-called
: > "authorities" cannot reach a consensus than I have no alternative than
to
: > leave the conclusion at there are several possibilities as to how Israel
: > originated.
:
: am in complete agreement,
Good. End of discussion.
--
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 07:43:30 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > If the so-called
: > "authorities" cannot reach a consensus than I have no alternative than
to
: > leave the conclusion at there are several possibilities as to how Israel
: > originated.
:
: am in complete agreement,
Good. End of discussion.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 07:56:53 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : > If the so-called
: > : > "authorities" cannot reach a consensus than I have no alternative
than
: > to
: > : > leave the conclusion at there are several possibilities as to how
Israel
: > : > originated.
: > :
: > : am in complete agreement,
: >
: > Good. End of discussion.
:
: 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?
--
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 08:03:52 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : > If the so-called
: > : > "authorities" cannot reach a consensus than I have no alternative
than
: > to
: > : > leave the conclusion at there are several possibilities as to how
Israel
: > : > originated.
: > :
: > : am in complete agreement,
: >
: > Good. End of discussion.
:
: 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 ?
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` ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 08:30:27 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: 1. why is it claimed to be a fraud ? after all this time we do not
: have the means to refute it ?
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/1865.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 09:29:54 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: 1. why is it claimed to be a fraud ? after all this time we do not
: have the means to refute it ?
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/1865.htm
Please post relevant excerpt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 09:51:17 AM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: 1. why is it claimed to be a fraud ? after all this time we do not
: have the means to refute it ?
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/1865.htm
Please post relevant excerpt
i cannot find anywhere in the article where this is speaking of the Tel
Dan Inscription.
in any case, are the accusations of fraud based on
1. disturbed or inconsistent soil or rock surrounding the artifact ?
2. epigraphical anomalies ?
3. historical anomalies ?
i ask only because all the material i have read on the subject suggests
that the artifact is authentic.
if someone makes an accusation it should appear with a name behind it
and whom is represented.
there must be a line drawn somewhere so that we can include or exclude
artifacts from the physical world into our human symbolic "reality."
invalidation of forensic evidence is different from validation of those
things without forensic evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 10:34:06 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: i cannot find anywhere in the article where this is speaking of the Tel
: Dan Inscription.
:
: in any case, are the accusations of fraud based on
:
: 1. disturbed or inconsistent soil or rock surrounding the artifact ?
: 2. epigraphical anomalies ?
: 3. historical anomalies ?
http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com/2005/02/george-athas-on-tel-dan.html
I have read other archeological in the past but don't remember exactly what
the discussions involved. Only that there was a difference of opinion about
whether it was authentic or a forgery. And something about some letters not
being in line with the rest and something about the tail of one of the "y"s.
--
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 10:48:26 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: i cannot find anywhere in the article where this is speaking of the Tel
: Dan Inscription.
:
: in any case, are the accusations of fraud based on
:
: 1. disturbed or inconsistent soil or rock surrounding the artifact ?
: 2. epigraphical anomalies ?
: 3. historical anomalies ?
http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com/2005/02/george-athas-on-tel-dan.html
I have read other archeological in the past but don't remember exactly what
the discussions involved. Only that there was a difference of opinion about
whether it was authentic or a forgery. And something about some letters not
being in line with the rest and something about the tail of one of the "y"s.
The author you quote in the above link is very supportive that it is
authentic, citing an erosion of the inscribed characters as requiring a
"genealogy of forgers" necessary to weather one section of the stone
for generations.
his particular angle is that he believes `bytdvd` to refer to the
Jerusalem "compound" as he calls it and not necessarily to the dynasty
itself.
i can certainly see that as one valid interpretation.
with Tel Dan we can see that the TaNaKh narrative is not entirely
fictitious and worthless but in fact valuable as an artistic
interpretation of eras of real history.
Notice how much detail occurs from Bereshiyt to Yehoshua and then by
the time we arrive at Shmuel there is a very detailed story of how
Yehuda and Yisrael struggled for domination while fighting external
competitors.
that is not merely to serve to fill a vacuum, that is drawing on some
source for actual events, but what they were is not clear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 10:55:13 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: The author you quote in the above link is very supportive that it is
: authentic, citing an erosion of the inscribed characters as requiring a
: "genealogy of forgers" necessary to weather one section of the stone
: for generations.
Right, but he points out that there has been a difference of opnion.
: his particular angle is that he believes `bytdvd` to refer to the
: Jerusalem "compound" as he calls it and not necessarily to the dynasty
: itself.
:
: i can certainly see that as one valid interpretation.
:
: with Tel Dan we can see that the TaNaKh narrative is not entirely
: fictitious and worthless but in fact valuable as an artistic
: interpretation of eras of real history.
That doesn't make it a guide for modern man in general or evidence for how
the modern Levant should be divided up.
--
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 11:11:00 AM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: The author you quote in the above link is very supportive that it is
: authentic, citing an erosion of the inscribed characters as requiring a
: "genealogy of forgers" necessary to weather one section of the stone
: for generations.
Right, but he points out that there has been a difference of opnion.
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.
: his particular angle is that he believes `bytdvd` to refer to the
: Jerusalem "compound" as he calls it and not necessarily to the dynasty
: itself.
:
: i can certainly see that as one valid interpretation.
:
: with Tel Dan we can see that the TaNaKh narrative is not entirely
: fictitious and worthless but in fact valuable as an artistic
: interpretation of eras of real history.
That doesn't make it a guide for modern man in general or evidence for how
the modern Levant should be divided up.
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.
amusing.
all i can tell you is that in the real world of politics one need no
such verifiable evidence for any claim for territory.
that is all in the category of "justice" and "morality" for both sides.
neither archaeology nor paleoanthropology so-called is an arbiter.
`bytdvd` is a reality.
one can argue its precise meaning just as one can argue the precise
meaning of `Yisrael` on the Merne Ptah stele, if one so chooses.
Shlomo's great empire with ships circumnavigating the earth every three
years and bringing back the riches of all the world's kingdoms circa
900 BCE is not implied or suggested in giving the TaNaKh narrative its
rightful due.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternative Models of the Origin of Israel |
09 Nov 2005 11:20:20 AM |
|
|
"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.
: 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.
Your reasoning seems to be self-contradictory, whether you realize it or
not.
--
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
