Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / Archaeology / December 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Matt Giwer - 06 Dec 2006 04:20 GMT
Ha'aretz, 1999

A Journal of History, Geography, Language and Archaeology

Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho

By Professor Ze'ev Herzog, Tel Aviv University

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel,
archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the
Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer
the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon,
nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been
known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear
about it

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land
of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert,
did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to
the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the
united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a
regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an
unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female
consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the
waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.Most of those who are
engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible,
archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into
the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that
the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence
are radically different from what that story tells.

What follows is a short account of the brief history of archaeology, with
the emphasis on the crises and the big bang, so to speak, of the past
decade. The critical question of this archaeological revolution has not yet
trickled down into public consciousness, but it cannot be ignored.

Inventing the Bible stories

The archaeology of Palestine developed as a science at a relatively late
date, in the late 19th and early 20th century, in tandem with the
archaeology of the imperial cultures of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome.
Those resource-intensive powers were the first target of the researchers,
who were looking for impressive evidence from the past, usually in the
service of the big museums in London, Paris and Berlin. That stage
effectively passed over Palestine, with its fragmented geographical
diversity. The conditions in ancient Palestine were inhospitable for the
development of an extensive kingdom, and certainly no showcase projects such
as the Egyptian shrines or the Mesopotamian palaces could have been
established there. In fact, the archaeology of Palestine was not engendered
at the initiative of museums but sprang from religious motives.

The main push behind archaeological research in Palestine was the country's
relationship with the Holy Scriptures. The first excavators in Jericho and
Shechem (Nablus) were biblical researchers who were looking for the remains
of the cities cited in the Bible. Archaeology assumed momentum with the
activity of William Foxwell Albright, who mastered the archeology, history
and linguistics of the Land of Israel and the ancient Near East. Albright,
an American whose father was a priest of Chilean descent, began excavating
in Palestine in the 1920s. His declared approach was that archaeology was
the principal scientific means to refute the critical claims against the
historical veracity of the Bible stories, particularly those of the
Wellhausen school in Germany.

The school of biblical criticism that developed in Germany beginning in the
second half of the 19th century, of which Julian Wellhausen was a leading
figure, challenged the historicity of the Bible stories and claimed that
biblical historiography was formulated, and in large measure actually
"invented," during the Babylonian exile. Bible scholars, the Germans in
particular, claimed that the history of the Hebrews, as a consecutive series
of events beginning with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and proceeding through
the move to Egypt, the enslavement and the exodus, and ending with the
conquest of the land and the settlement of the tribes of Israel, was no more
than a later reconstruction of events with a theological purpose.

Albright believed that the Bible is a historical document, which, although
it had gone through several editing stages, nevertheless basically reflected
the ancient reality. He was convinced that if the ancient remains of
Palestine were uncovered, they would furnish unequivocal proof of the
historical truth of the events relating to the Jewish people in its land.

The biblical archaeology that developed from Albright and his pupils brought
about a series of extensive digs at the important biblical tells: Megiddo,
Lachish, Gezer, Shechem (Nablus), Jericho, Jerusalem, Ai, Giveon, Beit
She'an, Beit Shemesh, Hazor, Ta'anach and others. The way was straight and
clear: every finding that was uncovered would contribute to the building of
a harmonious picture of the past. The archaeologists, who enthusiastically
adopted the biblical approach, set out on a quest to unearth the "biblical
period": the period of the patriarchs, the Canaanite cities that were
destroyed by the Israelites as they conquered the land, the boundaries of
the 12 tribes, the sites of the settlement period, characterized by
"settlement pottery," the "gates of Solomon" at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer,
"Solomon's stables" (or Ahab's), "King Solomon's mines" at Timna - and there
are some who are still hard at work and have found Mount Sinai (at Mount
Karkoum in the Negev) or Joshua's altar at Mount Ebal.

The crisis

Slowly, cracks began to appear in the picture. Paradoxically, a situation
was created in which the glut of findings began to undermine the historical
credibility of the biblical descriptions instead of reinforcing them. A
crisis stage is reached when the theories within the framework of the
general thesis are unable to solve an increasingly large number of
anomalies. The explanations become ponderous and inelegant, and the pieces
do not lock together smoothly. Here are a few examples of how the harmonious
picture collapsed.

Patriarchal Age: The researchers found it difficult to reach agreement on
which archaeological period matched the Patriarchal Age. When did Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob live? When was the Cave of Machpelah (Tomb of the Patriarchs
in Hebron) bought in order to serve as the burial place for the patriarchs
and the matriarchs? According to the biblical chronology, Solomon built the
Temple 480 years after the exodus from Egypt (1 Kings 6:1). To that we have
to add 430 years of the stay in Egypt (Exodus 12:40) and the vast lifetimes
of the patriarchs, producing a date in the 21th century BCE for Abraham's
move to Canaan.

However, no evidence has been unearthed that can sustain this chronology.
Albright argued in the early 1960s in favor of assigning the wanderings of
Abraham to the Middle Bronze Age (22nd-20th centuries BCE). However,
Benjamin Mazar, the father of the Israeli branch of biblical archaeology,
proposed identifying the historic background of the Patriarchal Age a
thousand years later, in the 11th century BCE - which would place it in the
"settlement period." Others rejected the historicity of the stories and
viewed them as ancestral legends that were told in the period of the Kingdom
of Judea. In any event, the consensus began to break down.

The exodus from Egypt, the wanderings in the desert and Mount Sinai: The
many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites'
presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus. Many
documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during
periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta.
However, this was not a solitary phenomenon: such events occurred frequently
across thousands of years and were hardly exceptional.

Generations of researchers tried to locate Mount Sinai and the stations of
the tribes in the desert. Despite these intensive efforts, not even one site
has been found that can match the biblical account.

The potency of tradition has now led some researchers to "discover" Mount
Sinai in the northern Hijaz or, as already mentioned, at Mount Karkoum in
the Negev. These central events in the history of the Israelites are not
corroborated in documents external to the Bible or in archaeological
findings. Most historians today agree that at best, the stay in Egypt and
the exodous occurred in a few families and that their private story was
expanded and "nationalized" to fit the needs of theological ideology.

The conquest: One of the shaping events of the people of Israel in biblical
historiography is the story of how the land was conquered from the
Canaanites. Yet extremely serious difficulties have cropped up precisely in
the attempts to locate the archaeological evidence for this story.

Repeated excavations by various expeditions at Jericho and Ai, the two
cities whose conquest is described in the greatest detail in the Book of
Joshua, have proved very disappointing. Despite the excavators' efforts, it
emerged that in the late part of the 13th century BCE, at the end of the
Late Bronze Age, which is the agreed period for the conquest, there were no
cities in either tell, and of course no walls that could have been toppled.
Naturally, explanations were offered for these anomalies. Some claimed that
the walls around Jericho were washed away by rain, while others suggested
that earlier walls had been used; and, as for Ai, it was claimed that the
original story actually referred to the conquest of nearby Beit El and was
transferred to Ai by later redactors.

Biblical scholars suggested a quarter of a century ago that the conquest
stories be viewed as etiological legends and no more. But as more and more
sites were uncovered and it emerged that the places in question died out or
were simply abandoned at different times, the conclusion was bolstered that
there is no factual basis for the biblical story about the conquest by
Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua.

The Canaanite cities: The Bible magnifies the strength and the
fortifications of the Canaanite cities that were conquered by the
Israelites: "great cities with walls sky-high" (Deuteronomy 9:1). In
practice, all the sites that have been uncovered turned up remains of
unfortified settlements, which in most cases consisted of a few structures
or the ruler's palace rather than a genuine city. The urban culture of
Palestine in the Late Bronze Age disintegrated in a process that lasted
hundreds of years and did not stem from military conquest. Moreover, the
biblical description is inconsistent with the geopolitical reality in
Palestine. Palestine was under Egyptian rule until the middle of the 12th
century BCE. The Egyptians' administrative centers were located in Gaza,
Yaffo and Beit She'an. Egyptian findings have also been discovered in many
locations on both sides of the Jordan River. This striking presence is not
mentioned in the biblical account, and it is clear that it was unknown to
the author and his editors.

The archaeological findings blatantly contradict the biblical picture: the
Canaanite cities were not "great," were not fortified and did not have
"sky-high walls." The heroism of the conquerors, the few versus the many and
the assistance of the God who fought for his people are a theological
reconstruction lacking any factual basis.

Origin of the Israelites: The fusion of the conclusions drawn from the
episodes relating to the stages in which the people of Israel emerged gave
rise to a discussion of the bedrock question: the identity of the
Israelites. If there is no evidence for the exodus from Egypt and the desert
journey, and if the story of the military conquest of fortified cities has
been refuted by archaeology, who, then, were these Israelites? The
archaeological findings did corroborate one important fact: in the early
Iron Age (beginning some time after 1200 BCE), the stage that is identified
with the "settlement period," hundreds of small settlements were established
in the area of the central hill region of the Land of Israel, inhabited by
farmers who worked the land or raised sheep. If they did not come from
Egypt, what is the origin of these settlers? Israel Finkelstein, professor
of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, has proposed that these settlers were
the pastoral shepherds who wandered in this hill area throughout the Late
Bronze Age (graves of these people have been found, without settlements).
According to his reconstruction, in the Late Bronze Age (which preceded the
Iron Age) the shepherds maintained a barter economy of meat in exchange for
grains with the inhabitants of the valleys. With the disintegration of the
urban and agricultural system in the lowland, the nomads were forced to
produce their own grains, and hence the incentive for fixed settlements
arose.

The name "Israel" is mentioned in a single Egyptian document from the period
of Merneptah, king of Egypt, dating from 1208 BCE: "Plundered is Canaan with
every evil, Ascalon is taken, Gezer is seized, Yenoam has become as though
it never was, Israel is desolated, its seed is not." Merneptah refers to the
country by its Canaanite name and mentions several cities of the kingdom,
along with a non-urban ethnic group. According to this evidence, the term
"Israel" was given to one of the population groups that resided in Canaan
toward the end of the Late Bronze Age, apparently in the central hill
region, in the area where the Kingdom of Israel would later be established.

A kingdom with no name

The united monarchy: Archaeology was also the source that brought about the
shift regarding the reconstruction of the reality in the period known as the
"united monarchy" of David and Solomon. The Bible describes this period as
the zenith of the political, military and economic power of the people of
Israel in ancient times. In the wake of David's conquests, the empire of
David and Solomon stretched from the Euprates River to Gaza ("For he
controlled the whole region west of the Euphrates, from Tiphsah to Gaza, all
the kings west of the Euphrates," 1 Kings 5:4). The archaeological findings
at many sites show that the construction projects attributed to this period
were meager in scope and power.

The three cities of Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer, which are mentioned among
Solomon's construction enterprises, have been excavated extensively at the
appropriate layers. Only about half of Hazor's upper section was fortified,
covering an area of only 30 dunams (7.5 acres), out of a total area of 700
dunams which was settled in the Bronze Age. At Gezer there was apparently
only a citadel surrounded by a casematewall covering a small area, while
Megiddo was not fortified with a wall.

The picture becomes even more complicated in the light of the excavations
conducted in Jerusalem, the capital of the united monarchy. Large sections
of the city have been excavated over the past 150 years. The digs have
turned up impressive remnants of the cities from the Middle Bronze Age and
from Iron Age II (the period of the Kingdom of Judea). No remains of
buildings have been found from the period of the united monarchy (even
according to the agreed chronology), only a few pottery shards. Given the
preservation of the remains from earlier and later periods, it is clear that
Jerusalem in the time of David and Solomon was a small city, perhaps with a
small citadel for the king, but in any event it was not the capital of an
empire as described in the Bible. This small chiefdom is the source of the
"Beth David" title mentioned in later Aramean and Moabite inscriptions. The
authors of the biblical account knew Jerusalem in the 8th century BCE, with
its wall and the rich culture of which remains have been found in various
parts of the city, and projected this picture back to the age of the united
monarchy. Presumably Jerusalem acquired its central status after the
destruction of Samaria, its northern rival, in 722 BCE.

The archaeological findings dovetail well with the conclusions of the
critical school of biblical scholarship. David and Solomon were the rulers
of tribal kingdoms that controlled small areas: the former in Hebron and the
latter in Jerusalem. Concurrently, a separate kingdom began to form in the
Samaria hills, which finds expression in the stories about Saul's kingdom.
Israel and Judea were from the outset two separate, independent kingdoms,
and at times were in an adversarial relationship. Thus, the great united
monarchy is an imaginary historiosophic creation, which was composed during
the period of the Kingdom of Judea at the earliest. Perhaps the most
decisive proof of this is the fact that we do not know the name of this
kingdom.

Jehovah and his consort: How many gods, exactly, did Israel have? Together
with the historical and political aspects, there are also doubts as to the
credibility of the information about belief and worship. The question about
the date at which monotheism was adopted by the kingdoms of Israel and Judea
arose with the discovery of inscriptions in ancient Hebrew that mention a
pair of gods: Jehovah and his Asherah. At two sites, Kuntiliet Ajrud in the
southwestern part of the Negev hill region, and at Khirbet el-Kom in the
Judea piedmont, Hebrew inscriptions have been found that mention "Jehovah
and his Asherah," "Jehovah Shomron and his Asherah, "Jehovah Teman and his
Asherah." The authors were familiar with a pair of gods, Jehovah and his
consort Asherah, and send blessings in the couple's name. These
inscriptions, from the 8th century BCE, raise the possibility that
monotheism, as a state religion, is actually an innovation of the period of
the Kingdom of Judea, following the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel.

The archaeology of the Land of Israel is completing a process that amounts
to a scientific revolution in its field. It is ready to confront the
findings of biblical scholarship and of ancient history. But at the same
time, we are witnessing a fascinating phenomenon in which all this is simply
ignored by the Israeli public. Many of the findings mentioned here have been
known for decades. The professional literature in the spheres of
archaeology, Bible and the history of the Jewish people has addressed them
in dozens of books and hundreds of articles. Even if not all the scholars
accept the individual arguments that inform the examples I cited, the
majority have adopted their main points.

Nevertheless, these revolutionary views are not penetrating the public
consciousness. About a year ago, my colleague, the historian Prof. Nadav
Ne'eman, published an article in the Culture and Literature section of
Ha'aretz entitled "To Remove the Bible from the Jewish Bookshelf," but there
was no public outcry. Any attempt to question the reliability of the
biblical descriptions is perceived as an attempt to undermine "our historic
right to the land" and as shattering the myth of the nation that is renewing
the ancient Kingdom of Israel. These symbolic elements constitute such a
critical component of the construction of the Israeli identity that any
attempt to call their veracity into question encounters hostility or
silence. It is of some interest that such tendencies within the Israeli
secular society go hand-in-hand with the outlook among educated Christian
groups. I have found a similar hostility in reaction to lectures I have
delivered abroad to groups of Christian bible lovers, though what upset them
was the challenge to the foundations of their fundamentalist religious
belief.

It turns out that part of Israeli society is ready to recognize the
injustice that was done to the Arab inhabitants of the country and is
willing to accept the principle of equal rights for women - but is not up to
adopting the archaeological facts that shatter the biblical myth. The blow
to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently too
threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye.

© copyright 1999 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved
Kendall K. Down - 06 Dec 2006 07:10 GMT
> Ha'aretz, 1999

It would, I suppose, be too much to expect Matt to grasp the concept that a
discovery in 2005 trumps an article written in 1999. Still, I'll have a go:

Matt, back in 1921 it was correct to say "No undisturbed royal burial has
ever been found in Egypt." In 1922 Tut's tomb was found. After that date
only a complete idiot would claim that no undisturbed royal burial has ever
been found in Egypt - look, here are all these experts who said so back in
1921, 1920, 1919 and earlier.

The article you have quoted is an accurate (if biased) summary of the state
of things in 1999. It says nothing whatsoever about the situation in 2006.

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
Matt Giwer - 07 Dec 2006 02:53 GMT
>> Ha'aretz, 1999
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> been found in Egypt - look, here are all these experts who said so back in
> 1921, 1920, 1919 and earlier.

> The article you have quoted is an accurate (if biased) summary of the state
> of things in 1999. It says nothing whatsoever about the situation in 2006.

    As nothing has been discovered since 1999 which does in fact constitute
physical evidence there has been no change since 1999.
Kendall K. Down - 07 Dec 2006 07:30 GMT
> As nothing has been discovered since 1999 which does in fact constitute
> physical evidence there has been no change since 1999.

By which we understand that by "physical evidence" Matt does not mean
anything which is either physical or evidence. It's just a phrase he has
come up with to sound rational but really deny anything that contradicts his
irrational and racist world-view.

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
Matt Giwer - 08 Dec 2006 03:22 GMT
>> As nothing has been discovered since 1999 which does in fact constitute
>> physical evidence there has been no change since 1999.

> By which we understand that by "physical evidence" Matt does not mean
> anything which is either physical or evidence. It's just a phrase he has
> come up with to sound rational but really deny anything that contradicts his
> irrational and racist world-view.

    When your fellow believer actually publishes we can talk about exactly what she
says in the paper.

    Until then there is no physical evidence.
Martin Edwards - 08 Dec 2006 08:04 GMT
>>As nothing has been discovered since 1999 which does in fact constitute
>>physical evidence there has been no change since 1999.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Ken Down

That's balls, frankly.  As a historian I don't follow his hard line and
deal in balance of probabilities, but he means exactly what is says, and
it is a valid point of view.

Signature

You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Matt Giwer - 08 Dec 2006 12:17 GMT
>>> As nothing has been discovered since 1999 which does in fact
>>> constitute physical evidence there has been no change since 1999.

>> By which we understand that by "physical evidence" Matt does not mean
>> anything which is either physical or evidence. It's just a phrase he has
>> come up with to sound rational but really deny anything that
>> contradicts his
>> irrational and racist world-view.

> That's balls, frankly.  As a historian I don't follow his hard line and
> deal in balance of probabilities, but he means exactly what is says, and
> it is a valid point of view.

    If I am not mistaken probabilities in the interest of historians are to be
between historical narratives. They are not to be between myth and historical
narrative.

    It is like Herodotus and Josephus. Given their methodology, if any, what is the
likelihood their version is credible? Were the Hebrews, as Josephus said, really
expelled from Egypt because of endemic leprosy? Not likely but no more likely
than the current bible version.
Martin Edwards - 08 Dec 2006 17:04 GMT
>>>> As nothing has been discovered since 1999 which does in fact
>>>> constitute physical evidence there has been no change since 1999.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Josephus said, really expelled from Egypt because of endemic leprosy?
> Not likely but no more likely than the current bible version.

I was stating my approach.  I do not disagree with what you say here.

Signature

You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Kendall K. Down - 08 Dec 2006 18:07 GMT
> I was stating my approach.  I do not disagree with what you say here.

So you also are an irrational racist and anti-semite?

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
Matt Giwer - 09 Dec 2006 07:33 GMT
>> I was stating my approach.  I do not disagree with what you say here.

> So you also are an irrational racist and anti-semite?

    So you agree with the PRIEST Josephus that the Hebrews were expelled from Egypt
for endemic leprosy? What might be your definition of antisemitic?

    What is the probability that tales of magic and miracles and crazy people are
true? Zero of course.
Martin Edwards - 09 Dec 2006 08:33 GMT
>>I was stating my approach.  I do not disagree with what you say here.
>
> So you also are an irrational racist and anti-semite?
>
> Ken Down

I am part Jew and used to object to the "n" word when people looked back
at me puzzled.  Go and argue with another boy, you're not worth my time.

Signature

You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Matt Giwer - 09 Dec 2006 11:32 GMT
>>> I was stating my approach.  I do not disagree with what you say here.
>> So you also are an irrational racist and anti-semite?

> I am part Jew and used to object to the "n" word when people looked back
> at me puzzled.  Go and argue with another boy, you're not worth my time.

    You cannot be part anything unless you accept the religious belief that a
person can be born part anything. If you are not a Jew you cannot accept the
Jewish idea that you can be born a Jew or a part Jew. If you do accept it then
you accept a precept of the jewish religion. Your religious beliefs are fine but
do not expect anyone else to take them seriously.

    Meaning do not expect anyone to take your claim of being part Jew seriously.
The idea is absurd on its face. It is like being part Christian or part Muslim.

    I have seen people like you before but never understood them. This is totally
irrational concept. And please we all know there is no genetic connection
between European and Asiatic Jews but the Ashkenazi Jews of Palestine and the
Muslims of Palestine are the same people.

    I have a long time atheist friend who insist he is a Jew. But I can never get a
straight answer out of him to explain who he, as an atheist, can accept the
Judaism belief that a person can be born a Jew.

    If my mother were a Jew and if I were of another religion or an atheist I would
not be part Jewish. Religion does not transfer by genes. Religion cannot be
inherited. Therefore I could not be part Jew.

    I despair of people unable to grasp this elementary concept.

    No one is born a Christian. That only happens after being baptized.

    By the rules of Judaism only women can be born Jews. Men have to be circumcised
before being Jews. And then by Jewish law they must also have a Bar Mitzvah and
a ritual Mikvah. And those are only the requirements if one has a Jewish mother.
If a convert add "leading a Jewish life" as determined by Rabbis to the list.
Martin Edwards - 10 Dec 2006 08:53 GMT
>>>> I was stating my approach.  I do not disagree with what you say here.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> requirements if one has a Jewish mother. If a convert add "leading a
> Jewish life" as determined by Rabbis to the list.

What is the matter with you?  I am an atheist.  I am partly descended
from Jews.  Nonetheless I do not believe that there is any such thing as
"race" as most people understand it.  I believe that the Israelis should
be evacuated to New York.  I was responding to another poster's
allegation that I was a racist and an anti-Semite.  I had no idea that I
would push one of your buttons.  Try to read more carefully.

Signature

You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Matt Giwer - 10 Dec 2006 12:45 GMT
> What is the matter with you?  I am an atheist.  I am partly descended
> from Jews.  Nonetheless I do not believe that there is any such thing as
> "race" as most people understand it.  I believe that the Israelis should
> be evacuated to New York.  I was responding to another poster's
> allegation that I was a racist and an anti-Semite.  I had no idea that I
> would push one of your buttons.  Try to read more carefully.

    Then you would also say you are partially descended from Christians?

    No one says that.

    Therefore there is an intrinsic difference in saying one is descended from Jews.
Kendall K. Down - 10 Dec 2006 17:42 GMT
> What is the matter with you?  I am an atheist.  I am partly descended
> from Jews.  Nonetheless I do not believe that there is any such thing as
> "race" as most people understand it.  I believe that the Israelis should
> be evacuated to New York.  I was responding to another poster's
> allegation that I was a racist and an anti-Semite.

Well, you are certainly supporting someone who is a racist and anti-Semite.
As I said, be careful about siding with Matt. He is not a rational person.

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
Matt Giwer - 11 Dec 2006 09:07 GMT
>> What is the matter with you?  I am an atheist.  I am partly descended
>> from Jews.  Nonetheless I do not believe that there is any such thing as
>> "race" as most people understand it.  I believe that the Israelis should
>> be evacuated to New York.  I was responding to another poster's
>> allegation that I was a racist and an anti-Semite.

> Well, you are certainly supporting someone who is a racist and anti-Semite.
> As I said, be careful about siding with Matt. He is not a rational person.

    I am an anti-Zionist because it is a moral imperative to oppose murderers and
thieves.

    Anyone who equates Jews with Zionists hates Jews to call all Jews murderers and
thieves.
Kendall K. Down - 08 Dec 2006 18:06 GMT
> >>As nothing has been discovered since 1999 which does in fact constitute
> >>physical evidence there has been no change since 1999.

> > By which we understand that by "physical evidence" Matt does not mean
> > anything which is either physical or evidence. It's just a phrase he has
> > come up with to sound rational but really deny anything that contradicts his
> > irrational and racist world-view.

> That's balls, frankly.  As a historian I don't follow his hard line and
> deal in balance of probabilities, but he means exactly what is says, and
> it is a valid point of view.

To what does your condemnation apply? To the claim that Matt is a racist?
You're on your own if you wish to say that he is not.

To the claim that Matt denies anything that contradicts his distorted world
view? Again, you'll find yourself in a minority of one if you wish to defend
Matt on those grounds.

So what about the claim in the first sentence? Well, the discovery of a
large palace in Jerusalem is certainly physical - I mean, there's no ghosts
involved or spirit stones or ectoplasmic pot sherds. It is also evidence: it
may not be compelling, it may be disputed, but it is evidence. So there we
have *physical* *evidence*, just as Matt constantly claims he wants.

So come on, what are you claiming is a valid point of view?

And be careful: your eagerness to defend sci.arc's leading anti-semite and
racist will tar you with the same brush if you keep it up.

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
Matt Giwer - 09 Dec 2006 07:38 GMT
>>>> As nothing has been discovered since 1999 which does in fact constitute
>>>> physical evidence there has been no change since 1999.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> To what does your condemnation apply? To the claim that Matt is a racist?
> You're on your own if you wish to say that he is not.

    How about the claim that tales of magic and miracles and crazy people hearing a
god talk to them being crucial to the narrative has ZERO probability of being
other than myth?

> To the claim that Matt denies anything that contradicts his distorted world
> view? Again, you'll find yourself in a minority of one if you wish to defend
> Matt on those grounds.

    You are the one who agrees the Hebrews were expelled from Egypt for endemic
leprosy.

> So what about the claim in the first sentence? Well, the discovery of a
> large palace in Jerusalem is certainly physical

    That is not a true statement by anything released to the press. There is not
such thing until there is a professional publication and the peer review process
has accepted it as a palace. And then there is a long way to go before it is the
palace of David which is not even in the newspaper claim.

    Why are you such a silly sh.t who believes such nonsense published in a newspaper?

> - I mean, there's no ghosts
> involved or spirit stones or ectoplasmic pot sherds. It is also evidence: it
> may not be compelling, it may be disputed, but it is evidence. So there we
> have *physical* *evidence*, just as Matt constantly claims he wants.

    There is no palace involved yet you silly little boy.

> So come on, what are you claiming is a valid point of view?

> And be careful: your eagerness to defend sci.arc's leading anti-semite and
> racist will tar you with the same brush if you keep it up.

    The use of guilt by association with your lies about me. Why must you lie even
after I have so clearly corrected you so many times?

    Why is the best you can do lies?
Martin Edwards - 09 Dec 2006 08:35 GMT
>>>>As nothing has been discovered since 1999 which does in fact constitute
>>>>physical evidence there has been no change since 1999.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Ken Down

I am careful, I assure you.  Have you got any links about this supposed
palace?  Exact location, date?

Signature

You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

svo37 - 10 Dec 2006 10:07 GMT
quit playing with your majestic self and give us some facts we
should consider then, if you have or know of any. Otherwise gtf
off to the ufo group where you belong! Nikto Baraada Nikto.
/...

> > As nothing has been discovered since 1999 which does in fact constitute
> > physical evidence there has been no change since 1999.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> |             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
> ========================================================
Matt Giwer - 10 Dec 2006 12:46 GMT
> quit playing with your majestic self and give us some facts we
> should consider then, if you have or know of any. Otherwise gtf
> off to the ufo group where you belong! Nikto Baraada Nikto.

    Klatu Barado Nikto
hippo - 06 Dec 2006 16:02 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

> Ha'aretz, 1999

[.]

> It turns out that part of Israeli society is ready to recognize the
> injustice that was done to the Arab inhabitants of the country and is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently too
> threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye.

This last paragraph identifies Ha'aretz and Herzog with Israeli secularists
who have been chipping away at the Jewish Religion (and Christianity) for
decades for political reasons. Religion is inconvenient to secular
socialists as it competes with their political objectives.

Anyone familiar with Homer and other later written material once passed
orally would have no problems with biblical 'exaggeration'. Only the
citadels at Troy and Mycenae, for example, were fortified, but not something
one would gather from Homer. When viewed by a culture that is familiar with
much later fortifications, Bronze Age walls are not impressive, and neither
is the size of the 'cities' they defended. Famous Ugarit had a population
estimated at only about 8000 souls. In a Bronze Age context, it was a 'city'
and Bronze Age 'wars' often involved no more than a few hundred men and a
'fleet' might only contain twenty ships.

Archaeology can  be 'pushed' from both sides by folk with axes to grind. The
only way to understand how silly it all is, is to stand in the megaron
(king's hall) at Pylos, see how small it is, and balance what you see
against Homer's description. It is then you begin to understand the
importance of thinking in context. -the Troll
Kendall K. Down - 06 Dec 2006 18:08 GMT
> Archaeology can  be 'pushed' from both sides by folk with axes to grind. The
> only way to understand how silly it all is, is to stand in the megaron
> (king's hall) at Pylos, see how small it is, and balance what you see
> against Homer's description. It is then you begin to understand the
> importance of thinking in context. -the Troll

Quite so.

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
Matt Giwer - 07 Dec 2006 02:52 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>> Ha'aretz, 1999

> [.]

>> It turns out that part of Israeli society is ready to recognize the
>> injustice that was done to the Arab inhabitants of the country and is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently too
>> threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye.

> This last paragraph identifies Ha'aretz and Herzog with Israeli secularists
> who have been chipping away at the Jewish Religion (and Christianity) for
> decades for political reasons. Religion is inconvenient to secular
> socialists as it competes with their political objectives.

    This simply one more viewpoint on the absence of evidence.

> Anyone familiar with Homer and other later written material once passed
> orally would have no problems with biblical 'exaggeration'. Only the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> and Bronze Age 'wars' often involved no more than a few hundred men and a
> 'fleet' might only contain twenty ships.

    There is no evidence the OT was ever "oral" history.

> Archaeology can  be 'pushed' from both sides by folk with axes to grind. The
> only way to understand how silly it all is, is to stand in the megaron
> (king's hall) at Pylos, see how small it is, and balance what you see
> against Homer's description. It is then you begin to understand the
> importance of thinking in context. -the Troll

    The religion is nothing more than quid pro quo of reward in this world in
return for following arbitrary and capricious rules.

    Those who wish to salvage the myths by minimalizing the stories fail to realize
no one would put up with a ritual/taboo lifestyle for a crumby hilltop. No man
would put us with circumcision for a crumby hilltop.

    A crumby hilltop is not a sufficient reward for the multitudinous rules.
hippo - 08 Dec 2006 02:21 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

>> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message

>>> Ha'aretz, 1999

>> [.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> This simply one more viewpoint on the absence of evidence.

No, it is consistent with Israeli secularists. I've been there and met them.

>> Anyone familiar with Homer and other later written material once passed
>> orally would have no problems with biblical 'exaggeration'. Only the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> There is no evidence the OT was ever "oral" history.

There is no 'evidence' Homer was ever oral history. It is a peculiarity of
oral history that it leaves no tangible evidence of itself. We can presume
Homer used oral Bronze age material because there is no other way for it to
have passed down to him. We can presume the same for the OT. If composed
from whole cloth, there would be far fewer mistakes and contradictions than
we find and the whole 'tidier'.

>> Archaeology can  be 'pushed' from both sides by folk with axes to grind.
>> The only way to understand how silly it all is, is to stand in the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> A crumby hilltop is not a sufficient reward for the multitudinous rules.

A crumbly hilltop to you, a city, or palace, or refuge, or home and
protection, to Priam, lovely Helen, or the shepherds and early kings of the
OT. If you are looking for a Hollywood Camelot, don't look in Romano-British
Wales. As a professor explained to us in college, "Men, if any of you have
romantic visions about the Middle Ages you'd better unload them before this
course begins. In those days northern Europeans sewed themselves into their
clothes in the fall and didn't come out until spring. The men and boys
occasionally bathed in rivers and streams, the women never bathed at all.
Makes you wonder how we got here." Context, context, context. -the Troll
Matt Giwer - 08 Dec 2006 03:21 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>>> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>> to secular socialists as it competes with their political objectives.
>> This simply one more viewpoint on the absence of evidence.

> No, it is consistent with Israeli secularists. I've been there and met them.

    The absence of physical evidence is a fact not a secular issue.

>>> Anyone familiar with Homer and other later written material once passed
>>> orally would have no problems with biblical 'exaggeration'. Only the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>> than a few hundred men and a 'fleet' might only contain twenty ships.
>> There is no evidence the OT was ever "oral" history.

> There is no 'evidence' Homer was ever oral history.

    Nor has anyone ever claimed it was. That is why everyone gave the credit to
Homer for creating it.

> It is a peculiarity of
> oral history that it leaves no tangible evidence of itself. We can presume
> Homer used oral Bronze age material because there is no other way for it to
> have passed down to him.

    Why would it have to be passed down to a contemporary of whatever the war was
about?

> We can presume the same for the OT. If composed
> from whole cloth, there would be far fewer mistakes and contradictions than
> we find and the whole 'tidier'.

    Even a cursory examination find it filled with internal contradictions. Even
being told about its contents cannot fail to lead to rejecting it as entirely
fiction due to its dependence upon magic and miracles and schizophrenics hearing
voices at crucial junctures in the narrative.

>>> Archaeology can  be 'pushed' from both sides by folk with axes to grind.
>>> The only way to understand how silly it all is, is to stand in the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> The religion is nothing more than quid pro quo of reward in this world in
>> return for following arbitrary and capricious rules.

>> Those who wish to salvage the myths by minimalizing the stories fail to
>> realize no one would put up with a ritual/taboo lifestyle for a crumby
>> hilltop. No man would put us with circumcision for a crumby hilltop.

>> A crumby hilltop is not a sufficient reward for the multitudinous rules.

> A crumbly hilltop to you, a city, or palace, or refuge, or home and
> protection, to Priam, lovely Helen, or the shepherds and early kings of the
> OT.

    As established Arkies in Israel have noted, if cannot have been more than a
hilltop else it would have been found.

    The issue is quite clear here. If the bible stories are to be taken seriously
the people had many gods to choose from and often did. None of those gods
required the ritual/taboo lifestyle and given what we know of what their
worshipers were really like provided much greater rewards than a crumby hilltop.

    Ignoring the bible stories we know much about the religions of the region and
there are none as arbitrary and repressive as that presented in the bible so
clearly the religion as presented would never have been followed by anyone of
sound mind.

> If you are looking for a Hollywood Camelot, don't look in Romano-British
> Wales. As a professor explained to us in college, "Men, if any of you have
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> occasionally bathed in rivers and streams, the women never bathed at all.
> Makes you wonder how we got here." Context, context, context. -the Troll

    I would not look for Camelot at all any more than I would look for biblical
Israel. Arthur and Camelot and all that goes with it are myths, period. It is
the same with bibleland.

    And you still face the problem of the sudden appearance of the people and
stories around 200BC as witnessed by the total absence of mention of any such
people in anything from ancient times or found to this day.

    We are left with the issue of a collection of myths and miracles having been
shown to be nothing but myths. This totally negates the previous assumption that
it was in fact a history of the region and people.

    Now that that has been established attempts to salvage it are contrary to
rational reasoning. Arguments such as "it could have happened this way" are
refusing to accept the obvious that THERE IS NOTHING TO SALVAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
hippo - 08 Dec 2006 05:19 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

[.]

>>>> Anyone familiar with Homer and other later written material once passed
>>>> orally would have no problems with biblical 'exaggeration'. Only the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Nor has anyone ever claimed it was. That is why everyone gave the credit
> to Homer for creating it.

You're not up on your Homer. Every historian believes Homer adopted oral
history for his Iliad and Odyssey. His description of Bronze Age equipment
long out of use by the time he wrote it down makes any other possibility
unlikely. Homer is credited with weaving the tale as we now have it from
oral material with later Iron Age embellishments.

>> It is a peculiarity of oral history that it leaves no tangible evidence
>> of itself. We can presume Homer used oral Bronze age material because
>> there is no other way for it to have passed down to him.
>
> Why would it have to be passed down to a contemporary of whatever the war
> was about?

It had to be passed down orally because in the interim between the events of
the Trojan war and Homer's time there was an intervening dark age during
which writing was forgotten.

>> We can presume the same for the OT. If composed from whole cloth, there
>> would be far fewer mistakes and contradictions than we find and the whole
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> entirely fiction due to its dependence upon magic and miracles and
> schizophrenics hearing voices at crucial junctures in the narrative.

Yes, I agree it is filled with internal contradictions and why it couldn't
have been of spontaneous invention. Homer is filled with contradictions for
the same reason. In one line you have Bronze Age swords, shields, and armor,
and the next Iron Age ones. They did not both coexist at the same time in
history.

I can not say the OT is not fiction, or partly fiction, and neither can you.
The best you can manage is to state an opinion.

>>>> Archaeology can  be 'pushed' from both sides by folk with axes to
>>>> grind. The only way to understand how silly it all is, is to stand in
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> As established Arkies in Israel have noted, if cannot have been more than
> a hilltop else it would have been found.

Established Arkies will tell you there is far more still in the ground than
we have found. Only a fool would claim nothing existed because we have not
yet found it.

> The issue is quite clear here. If the bible stories are to be taken
> seriously the people had many gods to choose from and often did. None of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> bible so clearly the religion as presented would never have been followed
> by anyone of sound mind.

I'm not in the business of debunking or defending religions or religious
myth. I haven't the competence for either. I can say the OT is useful as a
source if used with care. Even Egyptologists have found it useful.

>> If you are looking for a Hollywood Camelot, don't look in Romano-British
>> Wales. As a professor explained to us in college, "Men, if any of you
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> biblical Israel. Arthur and Camelot and all that goes with it are myths,
> period. It is the same with bibleland.

I think the general consensus amongst historians is that Arthur probably did
exist. Given the lack of evidence, they are not willing to say how much
written about him is myth and how much is real. The same can probably be
said about the biblical Israel.

> And you still face the problem of the sudden appearance of the people and
> stories around 200BC as witnessed by the total absence of mention of any
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> are refusing to accept the obvious that THERE IS NOTHING TO SALVAGE IN THE
> FIRST PLACE.

I think you suffer with others who think in absolutes. In debate, if one of
your arguments fails, your entire case collapses. It is far more accurate to
say we don't know how much in the OT is real or how much is myth *if* we are
striving for accuracy. -the Troll
Kendall K. Down - 08 Dec 2006 07:47 GMT
> Established Arkies will tell you there is far more still in the ground than
> we have found. Only a fool would claim nothing existed because we have not
> yet found it.

Oddly, that is precisely what Matt claims.

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
hippo - 08 Dec 2006 19:08 GMT
"Kendall K. Down" wrote in message

> In message "hippo" wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Oddly, that is precisely what Matt claims.

Worse, he is claiming that trained archaeologists are claiming it. Seems to
me making inclusive statements like that would be a great way to get laughed
out of the profession. The professionals I know are only willing to say, 'We
have not yet found evidence of X century occupation.' -the Troll
Kendall K. Down - 09 Dec 2006 07:25 GMT
> >> Only a fool would claim nothing existed because we have
> >> not yet found it.

> > Oddly, that is precisely what Matt claims.

> Worse, he is claiming that trained archaeologists are claiming it. Seems to
> me making inclusive statements like that would be a great way to get laughed
> out of the profession. The professionals I know are only willing to say, 'We
> have not yet found evidence of X century occupation.' -the Troll

Very true - there are no limits to Matt's ignorance, stupidity or mendacity.
However my comment was to underline your statement that "only a fool" would
make such a claim.

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
hippo - 09 Dec 2006 21:29 GMT
"Kendall K. Down" wrote in message

> In message "hippo" wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> would
> make such a claim.

Yup. There is a team of archaeologists digging here at the founding site of
the colony (Carolina). I was given a tour of their dig last week. They've
uncovered several tiny houses - more the size of modern sheds, the outline
of the defensive walls (the Indians were as feared as the Spanish), garden
fences and so on. They hope eventually to recover the entire ca 10 acre site
of 1670-80. It's a fascinating profession. -the Troll
Matt Giwer - 10 Dec 2006 12:38 GMT
> "Kendall K. Down" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> fences and so on. They hope eventually to recover the entire ca 10 acre site
> of 1670-80. It's a fascinating profession. -the Troll

    And therefore things will be found in the future in the currently most dug
place in the world things will be found to support the magic and miracles of the
bible?

    Is that supposed to be reasoning?
hippo - 10 Dec 2006 19:16 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

\
[.]

>> Yup. There is a team of archaeologists digging here at the founding site
>> of the colony (Carolina). I was given a tour of their dig last week.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Is that supposed to be reasoning?

If they are there, they will be found, but to the rational should only
effect history and religion only to the extent of understanding context. I
doubt if there will be proof of miracles. -the Troll
Matt Giwer - 11 Dec 2006 05:12 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
> \
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> place in the world things will be found to support the magic and miracles
>> of the bible?

>> Is that supposed to be reasoning?

> If they are there, they will be found, but to the rational should only
> effect history and religion only to the extent of understanding context. I
> doubt if there will be proof of miracles. -the Troll

    There are no stories of interest without the magic and miracles and the
schizophrenics. What do you expect will be found that will be so remarkably
different from what has been found?

    Remember, without them Exodus is "a handful of people left Egypt and arrived in
Palestine ten days later." That is unquestionably a true statement but it has
nothing to do with the OT.

    So just what is it you think will be found that is of interest? There really
were schizophrenics who heard a god talking to them? Absolutely certainly true.
That there were leaders of hilltop clans? Again, certainly true.

    We _know_ what the region was like in those days. There is so little to find
there is no expectation of finding anything different from what has been found.

    It is a region where few would waste their time and careers were it not for the
OT stories and the religious and political beliefs connected with the region.
There are only two sources of funds for digging in the region, the Israeli
government and bible believers. No one else wastes the time. It is well known
there was no indigenous culture of interest. Study one dirt farmer community you
have studied them all.

    The only remaining possibility is believing more digging even though it can not
result in any significant increase in the percentage of land dug will eventually
find something of interest regarding uninteresting stories of trivial, common
events and facts. Why not dig up your backyard with similar faith?

    Again I suggest you really believe there will be found some support for stories
which can only be of interest if the magic and miracles were real.
hippo - 11 Dec 2006 15:00 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

[.]

> There are no stories of interest without the magic and miracles and the
> schizophrenics. What do you expect will be found that will be so
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> Again I suggest you really believe there will be found some support for
> stories which can only be of interest if the magic and miracles were real.

You're barking up the wrong tree again. I have no idea what will be found in
the ground in future and don't care what it is so long as it is useful.
Useful means something that leads to a better understanding of the history
wherever it leads. Unlike you, I'm not a crusader, except for the discipline
itself. -the Troll
Matt Giwer - 09 Dec 2006 08:53 GMT
> "Kendall K. Down" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> out of the profession. The professionals I know are only willing to say, 'We
> have not yet found evidence of X century occupation.' -the Troll

    The fact is it does not exist until it is found, period.

    You are making the same argument as those who still believe in Atlantis with
equal sanity.

    Lets see, Atlantis, Lemuria, Eden, Noah's Ark, the evil beings in the hollow
earth, the nazi base in Antarctica ...

    The list is endless for the believers who lack sanity.
hippo - 09 Dec 2006 15:22 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

>> "Kendall K. Down" wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> The list is endless for the believers who lack sanity.

I'm not prejudging either way, because that's what it is, prejudgment. I am
prepared to say that, given the present state of evidence, it looks like
biblical scholarship will require considerable re-evaluation in the
future. -the Troll
Matt Giwer - 10 Dec 2006 05:10 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>>> "Kendall K. Down" wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> Lets see, Atlantis, Lemuria, Eden, Noah's Ark, the evil beings in the
>> hollow earth, the nazi base in Antarctica ...

>> The list is endless for the believers who lack sanity.

> I'm not prejudging either way, because that's what it is, prejudgment. I am
> prepared to say that, given the present state of evidence, it looks like
> biblical scholarship will require considerable re-evaluation in the
> future. -the Troll

    The bible has already been shown to be totally false.

    Yet you hope against all reason things will change.

    UNTIL it changes the OT remains in the realm of myth.
hippo - 10 Dec 2006 19:23 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

[.]

>> I'm not prejudging either way, because that's what it is, prejudgment. I
>> am prepared to say that, given the present state of evidence, it looks
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> UNTIL it changes the OT remains in the realm of myth.

Nothing is totally false unless it is *totally* false. You can't know it is
because there is too much we don't know. The Iliad is replete with gods and
goddesses interfering in the daily lives of men. That's clearly bullshit.
It's description of Bronze Age warfare is correct. Therefore the Iliad is
not totally false and can be used responsibly by historians.

I don't hope anything except that the blank spaces in our knowledge of
history can some day be filled. -the Troll
Eric Stevens - 08 Dec 2006 21:10 GMT
>> Established Arkies will tell you there is far more still in the ground than
>> we have found. Only a fool would claim nothing existed because we have not
>> yet found it.
>
>Oddly, that is precisely what Matt claims.

He has some precedent for this line of argument. I remember some years
ago getting involved in an argument in sci.archaeology over whether or
the norse may have had a wider presence in north america than L'anse
aux Meadows. The argument was that as no undisputed norse artifacts
had been found elsewhere in NA then clearly the norse had not been
there.

It's the old 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' argument
and people seem to be able to choose which side they are on according
to the topic. I'm sure Matt could argue the other way if it suited
him.

Eric Stevens
Martin Edwards - 09 Dec 2006 08:26 GMT
>>>Established Arkies will tell you there is far more still in the ground than
>>>we have found. Only a fool would claim nothing existed because we have not
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Eric Stevens

The point here is that prolonged and thorough investigation for over a
century has not unearthed one gobbet of evidence for the tales in question.

Signature

You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Martin Edwards - 08 Dec 2006 08:02 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 129 lines]
> say we don't know how much in the OT is real or how much is myth *if* we are
> striving for accuracy. -the Troll

Mud, mud, glorious mud.

Signature

You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Matt Giwer - 08 Dec 2006 08:25 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
> [.]
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>> Nor has anyone ever claimed it was. That is why everyone gave the credit
>> to Homer for creating it.

> You're not up on your Homer. Every historian believes Homer adopted oral
> history for his Iliad and Odyssey. His description of Bronze Age equipment
> long out of use by the time he wrote it down makes any other possibility
> unlikely. Homer is credited with weaving the tale as we now have it from
> oral material with later Iron Age embellishments.

    You may have other sources but the estimates of when he lived are not
incongruent with the projected date of whatever the battle was. But you want to
go that way, there is at this time ZERO evidence of any battle anything like
Homer described against a city of Illium as he described it. Therefore there is
no way to distinguish his poetry from myth.

    Currently the believer community, which is down to about two people, have
agreed they are at the right level but the city at that time was much too small
to have been the Illium of the story. They are searching for a vanished "outer
wall" at the same level which will match the story. So at the moment the Odyssey
is in the category of myth.

>>> It is a peculiarity of oral history that it leaves no tangible evidence
>>> of itself. We can presume Homer used oral Bronze age material because
>>> there is no other way for it to have passed down to him.
>> Why would it have to be passed down to a contemporary of whatever the war
>> was about?

> It had to be passed down orally because in the interim between the events of
> the Trojan war and Homer's time there was an intervening dark age during
> which writing was forgotten.

    That is an amusing idea but there is no evidence such a period existed. Writing
is continuous every place once it is started. There is no evidence of any such
period ever existed any place in the world.

>>> We can presume the same for the OT. If composed from whole cloth, there
>>> would be far fewer mistakes and contradictions than we find and the whole
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> entirely fiction due to its dependence upon magic and miracles and
>> schizophrenics hearing voices at crucial junctures in the narrative.

> Yes, I agree it is filled with internal contradictions and why it couldn't
> have been of spontaneous invention. Homer is filled with contradictions for
> the same reason. In one line you have Bronze Age swords, shields, and armor,
> and the next Iron Age ones. They did not both coexist at the same time in
> history.

    At least you are immune to the simple fact that anachronisms are killers to any
claim of authenticity.

> I can not say the OT is not fiction, or partly fiction, and neither can you.
> The best you can manage is to state an opinion.

    I can clearly say magic and miracles and crazy people are crucial to the
narrative and therefore it cannot be other than fiction.

    There is no magic. There are no miracles. Crazy people are not inspired by the
gods. Therefore stories that depend upon them are fiction by definition.

    You do not want to address the most obvious evidence that it is fiction.

>>>>> Archaeology can  be 'pushed' from both sides by folk with axes to
>>>>> grind. The only way to understand how silly it all is, is to stand in
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>> As established Arkies in Israel have noted, if cannot have been more than
>> a hilltop else it would have been found.

> Established Arkies will tell you there is far more still in the ground than
> we have found. Only a fool would claim nothing existed because we have not
> yet found it.

    The Arkies in Israel digging in Israel do not agree with you about Israel. I
did not say all the ground in all the world. I said bibleland.

    However you put your faith in something that might be found in the future. The
fact is nothing has been found to date which supports biblical Israel so only an
idiot would believe in a fictional work of magic and miracles and crazy people.

>> The issue is quite clear here. If the bible stories are to be taken
>> seriously the people had many gods to choose from and often did. None of
>> those gods required the ritual/taboo lifestyle and given what we know of
>> what their worshipers were really like provided much greater rewards than
>> a crumby hilltop.

>> Ignoring the bible stories we know much about the religions of the region
>> and there are none as arbitrary and repressive as that presented in the
>> bible so clearly the religion as presented would never have been followed
>> by anyone of sound mind.

> I'm not in the business of debunking or defending religions or religious
> myth. I haven't the competence for either. I can say the OT is useful as a
> source if used with care. Even Egyptologists have found it useful.

    As over a century ago modern archaeology was founded on REJECTING the bible as
a source you are woefully behind the times. NOTHING has been found since then to
change that rejection.

>>> If you are looking for a Hollywood Camelot, don't look in Romano-British
>>> Wales. As a professor explained to us in college, "Men, if any of you
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> biblical Israel. Arthur and Camelot and all that goes with it are myths,
>> period. It is the same with bibleland.

> I think the general consensus amongst historians is that Arthur probably did
> exist. Given the lack of evidence, they are not willing to say how much
> written about him is myth and how much is real. The same can probably be
> said about the biblical Israel.

    Who gives a rat's a.s about a consensus. There is evidence or there is not
evidence. No evidence then no rational person accepts it. The same can be said
about biblical Israel. There is no evidence therefore no rational person accepts
its existence.

    You are clearly not rational to believe in stories of magic and miracles and
crazy people.

>> And you still face the problem of the sudden appearance of the people and
>> stories around 200BC as witnessed by the total absence of mention of any
>> such people in anything from ancient times or found to this day.

>> We are left with the issue of a collection of myths and miracles having
>> been shown to be nothing but myths. This totally negates the previous
>> assumption that it was in fact a history of the region and people.

>> Now that that has been established attempts to salvage it are contrary to
>> rational reasoning. Arguments such as "it could have happened this way"
>> are refusing to accept the obvious that THERE IS NOTHING TO SALVAGE IN THE
>> FIRST PLACE.

> I think you suffer with others who think in absolutes. In debate, if one of
> your arguments fails, your entire case collapses. It is far more accurate to
> say we don't know how much in the OT is real or how much is myth *if* we are
> striving for accuracy. -the Troll

    I am correct in reciting you believe in stories of magic and miracles and crazy
people to the extent you irrationally think there is some truth in them despite
the total absence of physical evidence for anything of interest in the stories.

    That is not an exaggeration or an absolute. It is an accurate description of
your position.
hippo - 08 Dec 2006 15:43 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

[.]

>> You're not up on your Homer. Every historian believes Homer adopted oral
>> history for his Iliad and Odyssey. His description of Bronze Age
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> vanished "outer wall" at the same level which will match the story. So at
> the moment the Odyssey is in the category of myth.

Um, no. We're back to context again. The walls of Troy only surrounded the
citadel just as they did at Mycenae, Athens, and most of the Greek Bronze
Age cities that had walls of any kind. Your interpretation, and Homer's, of
what Bronze Age walls and cities should have looked like are outside of a
Bronze Age context and why I introduced the subject. Because the Trojan war,
and Troy itself, were exaggerated by Homer does not mean the war didn't
happen or that Troy wasn't a large and important place relative to other
Bronze Age cities. Bronze Age 'cities' of the Aegean were more
administrative centers than urban complexes. Often they contained little
more than a palace, some store houses and workshops, and living quarters for
a few soldiers, servants, and officials. Many had no walls at all. Troy must
have looked quite large to a Bronze Age 'king' like Ajax whose 'palace' was
only discovered as recently as 1999 on the island of Salamis. The Trojan war
was probably not much more than a glorified pirate raid to us, but was every
bit a war to those participating in it.

>>>> It is a peculiarity of oral history that it leaves no tangible evidence
>>>> of itself. We can presume Homer used oral Bronze age material because
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Writing is continuous every place once it is started. There is no evidence
> of any such period ever existed any place in the world.

To the contrary, there is no evidence of writing at all between the collapse
of the Bronze Age city states of the Aegean until the early 8th century BCE.
When the new writing appears, it is in a different and later form of Greek
than that recorded in the Bronze Age linear 'B' script and in an entirely
different script adopted from the Phoenicians. The intervening centuries
(1100-800 BCE) were quite dark as far as literacy was concerned. There were
massive cultural changes as well.

>>>> We can presume the same for the OT. If composed from whole cloth, there
>>>> would be far fewer mistakes and contradictions than we find and the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> At least you are immune to the simple fact that anachronisms are killers
> to any claim of authenticity.

It certainly can't be divinely inspired, at least in the form we have it, if
that is what you mean.

>> I can not say the OT is not fiction, or partly fiction, and neither can
>> you. The best you can manage is to state an opinion.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> You do not want to address the most obvious evidence that it is fiction.

Parts may be fiction, parts may be history, parts are certainly borrowed
from other cultures. You can't tar the whole with a wide brush.

>>>>>> Archaeology can  be 'pushed' from both sides by folk with axes to
>>>>>> grind. The only way to understand how silly it all is, is to stand in
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> so only an idiot would believe in a fictional work of magic and miracles
> and crazy people.

I don't put my 'faith' in anything. Most of the 'cities' in the OT have been
found.

>>> The issue is quite clear here. If the bible stories are to be taken
>>> seriously the people had many gods to choose from and often did. None of
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> bible as a source you are woefully behind the times. NOTHING has been
> found since then to change that rejection.

Nonsense, the OT has helped validate ancient town/city names found in
Egyptian sources and is useful to comparative linguists. Debunking the whole
because of evident errors is childish.

>>>> If you are looking for a Hollywood Camelot, don't look in
>>>> Romano-British Wales. As a professor explained to us in college, "Men,
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> You are clearly not rational to believe in stories of magic and miracles
> and crazy people.

Claiming I believe in these things is your problem. I don't. The OT has been
useful to historians and will continue to be useful to historians without
validating its more outrageous claims or supporting the Jewish Religion.

>>> And you still face the problem of the sudden appearance of the people
>>> and stories around 200BC as witnessed by the total absence of mention of
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> That is not an exaggeration or an absolute. It is an accurate description
> of your position.

No, you are not correct. I don't believe in magic, miracles, or the rantings
of crazy people. I am not religious. I look at the OT coldly as an ancient
historical document and , just like every ancient historical document, to be
used as a source with care. Additionally, I don't think much of book
burners, especially ones who claim to champion reason. -the Troll
Eric Stevens - 08 Dec 2006 21:15 GMT
>"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

 --- snip ---

>>> It had to be passed down orally because in the interim between the events
>>> of the Trojan war and Homer's time there was an intervening dark age
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>(1100-800 BCE) were quite dark as far as literacy was concerned. There were
>massive cultural changes as well.

The archaeological record also indicates that there was a marked drop
in the population of Greece and that it took several centuries to
build up again. Whatever happened was clearly traumatic.

 --- snip ---

Eric Stevens
hippo - 09 Dec 2006 02:05 GMT
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message

>  --- snip ---
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> in the population of Greece and that it took several centuries to
> build up again. Whatever happened was clearly traumatic.

Yup. It looks like the king of Salamis abandoned his palace and moved with
his people from the island to possibly Cyprus. Everything of value from his
old palace was removed and there is no destruction level. -the Troll
Matt Giwer - 09 Dec 2006 09:27 GMT
>> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>   --- snip ---
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> (1100-800 BCE) were quite dark as far as literacy was concerned. There were
>> massive cultural changes as well.

> The archaeological record also indicates that there was a marked drop
> in the population of Greece and that it took several centuries to
> build up again. Whatever happened was clearly traumatic.

    Hellene culture runs from Greece north through Macedonia and east through
Anatolia to the eastern side of the Bosporus where it merges with Mesopotamian
culture. Saying Greece is the modern boundary of the nation does not reflect the
reality of the time. Troy is described as a Hellenistic city given the temple
defiled by Achilles(?).

    We can go further and say the folks back then recognized the same gods and same
architectural skills and same interest in learning all the way from Greece to
Persia including a jog down to Egypt.

    The point being isolating it to the modern peninsula called Greece does not
reflect the ancient world.
Matt Giwer - 09 Dec 2006 12:40 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
> [.]
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> anything like Homer described against a city of Illium as he described it.
>> Therefore there is no way to distinguish his poetry from myth.

>> Currently the believer community, which is down to about two people, have
>> agreed they are at the right level but the city at that time was much too
>> small to have been the Illium of the story. They are searching for a
>> vanished "outer wall" at the same level which will match the story. So at
>> the moment the Odyssey is in the category of myth.

> Um, no. We're back to context again. The walls of Troy only surrounded the
> citadel just as they did at Mycenae, Athens, and most of the Greek Bronze
> Age cities that had walls of any kind. Your interpretation, and Homer's, of
> what Bronze Age walls and cities should have looked like are outside of a
> Bronze Age context and why I introduced the subject.

    Cute but dead in the water. Achilles took a day to drag the body of Priam's son
around the city walls. Therefore false. There are numbers of people given. They
cannot have survived within either a citadel wall nor the Homeric wall for ten
years.

> Because the Trojan war,
> and Troy itself, were exaggerated by Homer does not mean the war didn't
> happen or that Troy wasn't a large and important place relative to other
> Bronze Age cities.

    It means you assume it really occurred and was exaggerated and that it not a
rational assumption.

> Bronze Age 'cities' of the Aegean were more
> administrative centers than urban complexes. Often they contained little
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> was probably not much more than a glorified pirate raid to us, but was every
> bit a war to those participating in it.

    It is not a matter of looks it is a matter of details which cannot be true if
exaggerated.

    Once a thing is not true then it has lost all credence and it up to someone
else to produce physical evidence. Nothing so far exists for Illium.

>>>>> It is a peculiarity of oral history that it leaves no tangible evidence
>>>>> of itself. We can presume Homer used oral Bronze age material because
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> Writing is continuous every place once it is started. There is no evidence
>> of any such period ever existed any place in the world.

> To the contrary, there is no evidence of writing at all between the collapse
> of the Bronze Age city states of the Aegean until the early 8th century BCE.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> (1100-800 BCE) were quite dark as far as literacy was concerned. There were
> massive cultural changes as well.

    You fail to recognize the extent of Hellene culture and prefer to think the
three centuries on the peninsula of modern interest are all there was to it. You
do not understand. There was no collapse in this wide region. Troy is recounted
as a Hellene city.

>>>>> We can presume the same for the OT. If composed from whole cloth, there
>>>>> would be far fewer mistakes and contradictions than we find and the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> At least you are immune to the simple fact that anachronisms are killers
>> to any claim of authenticity.

> It certainly can't be divinely inspired, at least in the form we have it, if
> that is what you mean.

    I mean any anachronism makes the entire story worthless as it proves it was
created after the fact without exception. It is the rule applied to everything
but the OT. We reject Christian texts for any anachronism such as the Donation
of Constantine. The rule is the rule. There are no exceptions because it is the
OT. We reject forgeries from "OT" times for anachronisms. A single anachronism
is an absolute cause for rejection.

    We do NOT find anachronisms in other ancient writings including those of Homer.
Therefore we do not reject them as later creations. That is a fact.

    But you go further.

    When we find a story of divine intervention making the story possible we reject
it as myth. You make an exception for the OT when divine intervention is
essential to the story. You refuse to reject it when in every other case of
divine intervention such stories are rejected.

>>> I can not say the OT is not fiction, or partly fiction, and neither can
>>> you. The best you can manage is to state an opinion.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> definition.
>> You do not want to address the most obvious evidence that it is fiction.

> Parts may be fiction, parts may be history, parts are certainly borrowed
> from other cultures. You can't tar the whole with a wide brush.

    There is a very simple rule. There has to be corroboration. There is none for
the OT. ALL of the known real history refutes it. What more do you want?

>>>>>>> Archaeology can  be 'pushed' from both sides by folk with axes to
>>>>>>> grind. The only way to understand how silly it all is, is to stand in
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>> so only an idiot would believe in a fictional work of magic and miracles
>> and crazy people.

> I don't put my 'faith' in anything. Most of the 'cities' in the OT have been
> found.

    None have been found that were not known when the Septuagint first appears.
Several did not exist when the Septuagint says they existed. What more do you
want? And the identification of most of those cities is bible based not
intrinsic to the dig so you really do not have a leg to stand on here. You are
mouthing without fact. A pretend atheist.

>>>> The issue is quite clear here. If the bible stories are to be taken
>>>> seriously the people had many gods to choose from and often did. None of
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> bible as a source you are woefully behind the times. NOTHING has been
>> found since then to change that rejection.

> Nonsense, the OT has helped validate ancient town/city names found in
> Egyptian sources and is useful to comparative linguists. Debunking the whole
> because of evident errors is childish.

    The only city of interest is the city built AFTER the bible says it existed but
well known in Septuagint times. The fact is even one anachronism in any other
source but the OT discredits the entire document. That is the rule everyone uses
in every other context. So please tell me what other cases there are exceptions
for anachronisms or why you insist the OT be given a miss for anachronisms. The
ball is in your court.

>>>>> If you are looking for a Hollywood Camelot, don't look in
>>>>> Romano-British Wales. As a professor explained to us in college, "Men,
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> said about biblical Israel. There is no evidence therefore no rational
>> person accepts its existence.

>> You are clearly not rational to believe in stories of magic and miracles
>> and crazy people.

> Claiming I believe in these things is your problem. I don't. The OT has been
> useful to historians and will continue to be useful to historians without
> validating its more outrageous claims or supporting the Jewish Religion.

    Excuse but if you remove all the magic and miracles from Exodus you have the
following.

"A handful of people left Egypt and about ten days later arrived in the Egyptian
land of Palestine."

    Where do you find history in the bible after the magic and miracles are removed?

    Please tell me where there is any history in Exodus?

>>>> And you still face the problem of the sudden appearance of the people
>>>> and stories around 200BC as witnessed by the total absence of mention of
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>> them despite the total absence of physical evidence for anything of
>> interest in the stories.

>> That is not an exaggeration or an absolute. It is an accurate description
>> of your position.

> No, you are not correct. I don't believe in magic, miracles, or the rantings
> of crazy people. I am not religious. I look at the OT coldly as an ancient
> historical document and , just like every ancient historical document, to be
> used as a source with care. Additionally, I don't think much of book
> burners, especially ones who claim to champion reason. -the Troll

    But you do give credence to stories which are so clearly fabricated on their
face that no one can separate find any reliable fact in the fiction and all
research has found NO fact in the fiction.

    So take this opportunity to recite exactly what fact you are talking about.
hippo - 09 Dec 2006 17:16 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

[.]

>> Um, no. We're back to context again. The walls of Troy only surrounded
>> the citadel just as they did at Mycenae, Athens, and most of the Greek
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> people given. They cannot have survived within either a citadel wall nor
> the Homeric wall for ten years.

Have you seen the terrain at Troy? No, probably not. It isn't conveniently
flat and the citadel was surrounded by houses built outside the walls. These
were not wooden houses that could be burned, but built with walls of mud
brick and not easily removed. The circuit around the citadel, abandoned
houses, and terrain features, all outside of bowshot, would have been
considerable, and because of the terrain, not easily traversed by a
chariot - certainly not at any speed. The numbers of men engaged were
exaggerated to make a better story.

>> Because the Trojan war, and Troy itself, were exaggerated by Homer does
>> not mean the war didn't happen or that Troy wasn't a large and important
>> place relative to other Bronze Age cities.
>
> It means you assume it really occurred and was exaggerated and that it not
> a rational assumption.

It's the only assumption possible given the evidence on the site.

>> Bronze Age 'cities' of the Aegean were more administrative centers than
>> urban complexes. Often they contained little more than a palace, some
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> someone else to produce physical evidence. Nothing so far exists for
> Illium.

That's complete nonsense. In the time of Schliemann, the very existence of
Troy was doubted. Now it is not. At first Schiemann's identification of the
mound of Hissarlik as Troy was doubted, now it isn't. Schliemann identified
the site from Homer's description. Modern evaluation of the effects on
coastlines by river silting reinforces his description of the site. As I
have said, the description of Bronze Age warriors is correct (verified by
archaeological remains) and so is his description of Iron Age warriors. They
just didn't coexist at the same time. Realizing the limitations of Homer
does not negate his value to historians.

>>>>>> It is a peculiarity of oral history that it leaves no tangible
>>>>>> evidence of itself. We can presume Homer used oral Bronze age
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> to it. You do not understand. There was no collapse in this wide region.
> Troy is recounted as a Hellene city.

It's your history failing. The culture of the Greek Dark Ages changed almost
completely, although not everywhere at the same time. Literacy did not
survive, the old art, craft, and architecture styles were forgotten, and
warfare and armaments were transformed.

>>>>>> We can presume the same for the OT. If composed from whole cloth,
>>>>>> there would be far fewer mistakes and contradictions than we find and
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> intervention is essential to the story. You refuse to reject it when in
> every other case of divine intervention such stories are rejected.

Nonsense, Homer is filled with anachronisms and why I brought him into the
discussion. Homer took oral history and wrote it down without ever having
seen Troy, the Bronze Age culture it described, or the weapons used. He
faithfully included later Iron Age material that had been added in the
interim because he could not separate one from the other. From hindsight and
with access to archaeological remains, we can see the differences easily.
Homer could not. That does not mean Homer has no value to historians.

>>>> I can not say the OT is not fiction, or partly fiction, and neither can
>>>> you. The best you can manage is to state an opinion.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> for the OT. ALL of the known real history refutes it. What more do you
> want?

There are no simple rules in the study of histiry, no absolutes, no black
and white. That crap is for mathematicians and children. Grim showed us that
even fairy tales and myth have value to historians. No ancient writing is
useless.

>>>>>>>> Archaeology can  be 'pushed' from both sides by folk with axes to
>>>>>>>> grind. The only way to understand how silly it all is, is to stand
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> based not intrinsic to the dig so you really do not have a leg to stand on
> here. You are mouthing without fact. A pretend atheist.

That is a stupid remark. I am not religious and have no faith in the OT and
never had as a religious document. To a non-believer, the OT is nothing but
an historic document.

>>>>> The issue is quite clear here. If the bible stories are to be taken
>>>>> seriously the people had many gods to choose from and often did. None
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> what other cases there are exceptions for anachronisms or why you insist
> the OT be given a miss for anachronisms. The ball is in your court.

I have dealt with that nonsense above. Egyptologists and Assyrologists have
used the OT for years to flesh out city names found in inscriptions. That
alone is useful.

>>>>>> If you are looking for a Hollywood Camelot, don't look in
>>>>>> Romano-British Wales. As a professor explained to us in college,
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Please tell me where there is any history in Exodus?

Not much, but the OT isn't all Exodus.

>>>>> And you still face the problem of the sudden appearance of the people
>>>>> and stories around 200BC as witnessed by the total absence of mention
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> So take this opportunity to recite exactly what fact you are talking
> about.

There is useful information in every ancient text. If nothing else the style
in which it is written is important. In the case of the OT, the language is
important to linguists, geographic details to historians and geographers,
and so on. -the Troll
Eric Stevens - 09 Dec 2006 20:54 GMT
>"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
>It's the only assumption possible given the evidence on the site.

... evidence on the *assumed* site.

>>> Bronze Age 'cities' of the Aegean were more administrative centers than
>>> urban complexes. Often they contained little more than a palace, some
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>Troy was doubted. Now it is not. At first Schiemann's identification of the
>mound of Hissarlik as Troy was doubted, now it isn't.

It is now heretical to doubt that Hissarlik is Troy. Unfortunately
sustained belief is not enough to make an initialy doubtful claim
become true.

>Schliemann identified
>the site from Homer's description.

He forced it to fit. The wider geography of the voyages of the
Odysseys cannot possibly fit either Hissarlik or the wider region.

>Modern evaluation of the effects on
>coastlines by river silting reinforces his description of the site. As I
>have said, the description of Bronze Age warriors is correct (verified by
>archaeological remains) and so is his description of Iron Age warriors. They
>just didn't coexist at the same time. Realizing the limitations of Homer
>does not negate his value to historians.

 --- snip ----

Eric Stevens
hippo - 09 Dec 2006 21:55 GMT
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message

[.]

>>It's the only assumption possible given the evidence on the site.
>
> ... evidence on the *assumed* site.

Chuckle, we agree with the later Greeks who thought it was.

[.]

>>That's complete nonsense. In the time of Schliemann, the very existence of
>>Troy was doubted. Now it is not. At first Schiemann's identification of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> sustained belief is not enough to make an initialy doubtful claim
> become true.

You are right, continued skepticism is always best.

>>Schliemann identified
>>the site from Homer's description.
>
> He forced it to fit. The wider geography of the voyages of the
> Odysseys cannot possibly fit either Hissarlik or the wider region.

There isn't much doubt these days. I've seen the reconstruction of the
ancient coastline. Bronze Age Hissarlik had the splendid harbor and optimum
location needed to control the straits. If it wasn't Troy, it was a hefty
competitor. Then there is explaining away the later Greek identification of
the site the nearby tumuli, and Tenedos is where it is supposed to be.  -the
Troll
Eric Stevens - 09 Dec 2006 22:58 GMT
>"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>the site the nearby tumuli, and Tenedos is where it is supposed to be.  -the
>Troll

The only way to exclude doubt is to stop thinking about either the
voyages or the list of ships. Homer doesn't remotely fit the marine
geography of Greece.

Eric Stevens
hippo - 10 Dec 2006 01:40 GMT
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message

[.]

>>There isn't much doubt these days. I've seen the reconstruction of the
>>ancient coastline. Bronze Age Hissarlik had the splendid harbor and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>of
>>the site, the nearby tumuli, and Tenedos is where it is supposed to be.

> The only way to exclude doubt is to stop thinking about either the
> voyages or the list of ships. Homer doesn't remotely fit the marine
> geography of Greece.

It's almost certain he didn't know much about Bronze Age geography. By the
eighth century many of the Bronze Age sites had been abandoned or were no
longer power/population centers and their names long forgotten except by the
bards. -the Troll
Eric Stevens - 10 Dec 2006 04:13 GMT
>"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>longer power/population centers and their names long forgotten except by the
>bards. -the Troll

The problem is that if one takes the various ports and islands and
constructs a net with these places as the nodes and the distance
between them based on Homer then one comes up with a shape that does
not remotely fit the geography of any part of the mediteranean. One
can only make it fit by selectively throwing out different parts of
the source material.

It is possible to attribute the lack of fit to errors introduced by
centuries of oral transmission but I don't think it is quite that
easy.

Eric Stevens
hippo - 10 Dec 2006 20:43 GMT
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message

[.]

>>It's almost certain he didn't know much about Bronze Age geography. By the
>>eighth century many of the Bronze Age sites had been abandoned or were no
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> centuries of oral transmission but I don't think it is quite that
> easy.

It isn't improbable at all when you remember that distances at sea were
measured in days of *coastal* travel with nights mostly spent beached. Some
coastal areas had to be avoided because of navigational hazard or for
security reasons, which forced often longer routes. Travel times were
effected by contrary winds and storms which beached or kept ships beached.
The ships of the time were very lightly built and not stable in rough seas.
They could only sail almost directly before the wind, which means sails
could rarely be used. Often the route was determined by who and where your
enemies were and the experience of your pilot. -the Troll
Eric Stevens - 10 Dec 2006 21:38 GMT
>"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>It isn't improbable at all when you remember that distances at sea were
>measured in days of *coastal* travel with nights mostly spent beached.

I don't think that this last can be safely taken for granted for a
variety of reasons. The point is that we tend to only find the wrecks
of ancient ships around the shore. This because it is only around the
shore lines that the water is shallow enough to enable wrecks to be
found. It is also because the shore is where ships principally become
wrecked.

It is a bit like arguing that traffic in cities is concentrated at
intersections on the basis of it being at intersections where
collisions occur.

>Some
>coastal areas had to be avoided because of navigational hazard or for
>security reasons, which forced often longer routes.

Always true.

>Travel times were
>effected by contrary winds and storms which beached or kept ships beached.
>The ships of the time were very lightly built and not stable in rough seas.

Once again, not necessarily true. It depends what ships you have in
mind. In any case when you look at the numbers carried e.g. [Odyssey
Book 2:508]:

 "Of these there were fifty ships in all, and on board
  each of these a hundred and twenty sons of the Boitians"

Even if these numbers were exaggerated, they were not trivially sized
ships.

>They could only sail almost directly before the wind, which means sails
>could rarely be used.

Definitely wrong as modern experiments with ancient replicas have
confirmed. The could probably make a true course up to 60 degrees off
the wind.

>Often the route was determined by who and where your
>enemies were and the experience of your pilot. -the Troll

This last is always true too.

Eric Stevens
hippo - 11 Dec 2006 02:44 GMT
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message

[.]

>>It isn't improbable at all when you remember that distances at sea were
>>measured in days of *coastal* travel with nights mostly spent beached.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> intersections on the basis of it being at intersections where
> collisions occur.

It isn't where we find the wrecks, but the ships themselves. Very few, if
any, Bronze Age ports in the Aegian had piers or quays. The usual drill was
to beach ships and discharge them overside. In consequence, ships had to be
very lightly constructed. They were also narrow compared to breadth to
increase speed under oars. Here is a useful site:

http://cma.soton.ac.uk/histship/shlect18.htm

...the author of which discusses two general types of Bronze Age ships
represented in period art, the symmetrical merchant ship, and the
asymmetrical warship. The later closely resembles ships of the Nordic Iron
Age, examples of which have been found, copies built and tested. They prove
to be poor seakeepers compared to later Viking ships and not suitable for
long sea voyages (see Als boat).

[.]

>>Travel times were
>>effected by contrary winds and storms which beached or kept ships beached.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>  "Of these there were fifty ships in all, and on board
>   each of these a hundred and twenty sons of the Boitians"

I don't think Bronze Age Boiotia had 6000 men of the warrior class to send
on any expedition, but that's not the question. The Uluburun merchantman was
about 15 meters in length, which sounds about right for reasons I have
already discussed for that class of vessel. Later more advanced triremes
were an advancement of the earlier pentakonter, themselves a development
from Bronze Age warships, with about 25 oars per side or fifty rowers.
Beyond rowers there might be a supernumerary crew of at most 15 men for a
total of 65. The Thera wall paintings show similarly sized vessels.

> Even if these numbers were exaggerated, they were not trivially sized
> ships.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> confirmed. The could probably make a true course up to 60 degrees off
> the wind.

There are no replicas of Aegean Bronze Aged vessels built from known
examples of which I am aware. Stability under sail hinges on the size of the
keel and overall proportions of the vessel. The keelless Als boat from 300
BCE had no sail. There isn't enough physical remains of the Uluburun boat to
give us much of an idea how it was built, or if there are I haven't been
able to discover publication of the results. -the Troll
Eric Stevens - 11 Dec 2006 22:23 GMT
>"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>to be poor seakeepers compared to later Viking ships and not suitable for
>long sea voyages (see Als boat).

I suspect you may be going too far back in time and looking at the
wrong style of ship. Lionel Casson in "The Ancient Mariners"
[Princeton University Press, 1991. ISBN 0-691-06836-4 or
0-691-01477-9] wrote on page 29 that ships of the style of the Ulu
Burun wreck (the Kyrenia ship) is typical of shipbuilding back to the
14th century BC which almost certainly covers the period of the siege
of Troy. http://www.dsti.org/html/uluburun.htm shows several
photographs of a replica of the wreck.

With regard to size, further down the page, Casson writes:

 "From written records of the age we know the Levantine merchant men
  could run to great size, to no less than 450 tons in carrying
  capacity"

On this basis, the claim to carry 120 men need not be much of an
exaggeration.

Thinking about this I recalled a discussion in sci.archaeology of
some years ago and I managed to find it in Google - see
http://tinyurl.com/yllpyj

>[.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>give us much of an idea how it was built, or if there are I haven't been
>able to discover publication of the results. -the Troll

I believe two replicas have been built of the Kyrenia ship (above). Of
the first J. Richard Steffy wrote [p 57, Wooden Ship Building and the
Interpretation of Shipwrecks, Texas A&M University Press, 1994.
ISBN I 86176 104 X]

 "It has performed extremely well; it is drier, stronger, faster and
  sails better upwind than expected"

Unfortunately he does not say how well it actually sails upwind. I am
not surprised that the Kyrenia ship can sail up wind. There is no
fundamental reason why a square rigged ship cannot sail upwind.
Although it helps, a keel is not necessary as long as the hull form
offers sufficient lateral resistance to make it easier to sail
forwards than sideways. The square rigged Viking replicas also sail
better upwind then most people will give them credit for.

Eric Stevens
D. Patterson - 19 Dec 2006 13:17 GMT
[....]

> There are no replicas of Aegean Bronze Aged vessels built from known
> examples of which I am aware. Stability under sail hinges on the size of
> the keel and overall proportions of the vessel. The keelless Als boat from
> 300 BCE had no sail. There isn't enough physical remains of the Uluburun
> boat to give us much of an idea how it was built, or if there are I
> haven't been able to discover publication of the results. -the Troll

See for example:

The Kyrenia 2 Project
http://www.kyreniaship.org/text1/english%20text/thek2project_e.htm#k2_mainindex

Kerynia-Liberty
http://www.kyreniaship.org/text1/english%20text/shipproject_e/THE%20K-L%20PROJEC
T-INDEX.htm#START


"Uluburun II will stay in Kas, where the original sank, at a specially built
dock replicating those used in the Bronze Age." (Bronze Age ship roused from
3,300-year slumber. Elcin Sener - The New Anatolian/Bodrum, 13 July 2006).
http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-10792.html
Eric Stevens - 19 Dec 2006 20:57 GMT
>[....]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>3,300-year slumber. Elcin Sener - The New Anatolian/Bodrum, 13 July 2006).
>http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-10792.html

The construction of the Kyrenia wreck and the reconstruction of its
replica is described by J. Richard Steffy in "Wooden Ship Building and
the Interpretation of Shipwrecks", Texas A&M University Press
ISBN I 86176 104 X or 0-89096-552-8

Eric Stevens
Joey - 10 Dec 2006 10:36 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> It's the only assumption possible given the evidence on the site.

The "Iliad" narrates events during a few weeks in the tenth year of
the Trojan War.  Homer's successors created (assuming Homer worked in
the eighth century) a great series of epics, most lost to us or
existing in fragments, telling those parts of the story Homer ignored.
Some of them, like the "Kypria" and "The sack of Ilios" were of
great scope and power. These works may have been written down (700BC
writing was becoming widespread in Greece) but it's clear from
surviving fragments they, like Homer, were drawing heavily on a long
oral tradition.

Homer's Troy is "well-walled", a "broad city" with "lofty
gates" and "fine towers" and has "wide streets" - in fact
most of the descriptive epithets in Homer were stock phases and
shouldn't be taken seriously. His Troy was much larger than any
excavated towns of his own day, and as such it should be seen as a
"fairy tale city" of imagination, a golden age construct.

As to Troy's historicity it's widely accepted that the city stood
on Hisarlik, Troy VI was sacked and deliberately devastated, and may
well have been Homer's city attacked by Bronze Age Greeks around
1260.

It's possible too that the tablet from Boghaz Koy now firmly
attributed to Hattusilis III mentions the Achaian king on the mainland
of Anatolia about this time, possibly fighting on Asian soil. This
could be a reference to the Trojan War.

Certainly, as with most stories with long oral traditions, one may
expect a certain amount of truth within the tale, as well as later
embellishment - that doesn't mean we should dismiss such
narratives. However, we should always proceed with caution - stories
of wars to rescue captured princesses of great beauty are fairly
common, early India, for example, or 13th century Ugarit, not to
mention later Irish and Norman examples.

The ultimate value of all such narratives is the insight it gives us in
to the mores manors and lifestyles of society contemporaneous to the
author, in this case Homer's society.
hippo - 10 Dec 2006 20:46 GMT
"Joey" wrote in message

[.]

> The "Iliad" narrates events during a few weeks in the tenth year of
> the Trojan War.  Homer's successors created (assuming Homer worked in
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> to the mores manors and lifestyles of society contemporaneous to the
> author, in this case Homer's society.
hippo - 10 Dec 2006 21:21 GMT
"Joey" wrote in message

[.]

> The "Iliad" narrates events during a few weeks in the tenth year of
> the Trojan War.  Homer's successors created (assuming Homer worked in
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> to the mores manors and lifestyles of society contemporaneous to the
> author, in this case Homer's society.

Yes, they were stock phrases, an aid to memory. Beowulf and other epics are
filled with them. They also meant different things to Bronze Age people than
they do to us who have seen Carnarvon, the walls of Malta and
Constantinople, and fifth Avenue. It's what I mean by thinking in context or
'in the period'.

I'm not sure how well we have been able to separate the mores of Homer's
time from the oral tradition. If you know a text that deals with this
question, I'd be glad to read it. -the Troll
Joey - 11 Dec 2006 10:55 GMT
.

> I'm not sure how well we have been able to separate the mores of Homer's
> time from the oral tradition. If you know a text that deals with this
> question, I'd be glad to read it. -the Troll

"The Iliad: a commentary", by G S Kirk (Cambridge 6 volumes) is modern
and currently a definitive analysis of this and the whole subject.

On the artist, Homer, you could do much worse than Oliver Taplin's
"Homeric Soundings" (OUP).

Finally, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol CVIII, 1988, P151,
contains M L West's masterly analysis "The Rise of the Greek Epic" on
the origins of the tradition.

Regards
hippo - 11 Dec 2006 16:22 GMT
"Joey" wrote in message

>> I'm not sure how well we have been able to separate the mores of Homer's
>> time from the oral tradition. If you know a text that deals with this
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> contains M L West's masterly analysis "The Rise of the Greek Epic" on
> the origins of the tradition.

I did the epic at school. The course laid the Iliad beside Beowulf for
comparison. With Beowulf it is simple to separate out the later Christian
inclusions because they are not numerous or woven into the fabric. It's more
difficult with the Iliad where Bronze Age, early and later Iron Age material
was mixed almost continuously over the intervening centuries between the
events to the eighth century form we now have. For the purposes of the
course, only the material culture was considered when dating a passage. I'll
be glad to fill in the blanks. Thanks very much. -the Troll
Robert Stonehouse - 09 Dec 2006 20:55 GMT
>> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
...
>> Um, no. We're back to context again. The walls of Troy only surrounded the
>> citadel just as they did at Mycenae, Athens, and most of the Greek Bronze
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>cannot have survived within either a citadel wall nor the Homeric wall for ten
>years.
...
I don't find this dragging in the Iliad. At 22.208, Achilles
has chased Hector three times round the walls in the course
of their fight. At 22.389 ff., Achilles drags the body of
Hector from the battlefield to the Achaean ships. At
24.12-18, the morning after the funeral of Patroclus, he
drags Hector three times round Patroclus' burial mound:
plenty of other things happen that day.

Of course, other sources may elaborate on that.

Signature

Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted

Italo - 13 Dec 2006 21:28 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message

>> Currently the believer community, which is down to
>> about two people, have agreed they are at the right
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>  Athens, and most of the Greek Bronze Age cities that had
>  walls of any kind.

But defenses did extend around the lower town, as is shown
by the rock-cut ditch, which needs to be part of larger
defensive works as it would've been of no use on its own.

If the Romans were as thorough in rebuilding at the lower
town as they were at the site of the temple of Athena, then
it was probably them who cleaned up the remains of this
outer (earthen-) wall.
Michael Kuettner - 10 Dec 2006 22:47 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message

[.]

>>> There is no 'evidence' Homer was ever oral history.
>>
>> Nor has anyone ever claimed it was. That is why everyone gave the credit to Homer for creating it.
>
> You're not up on your Homer. Every historian believes Homer adopted oral history for his Iliad and Odyssey.

Err, no. Not oral history.
Folkstales conserved orally.
There _is_ of course historical content (the ship-list) in his stories, but it
isn't a history.
It is, as you've stated elsewhere, a valuable source for historical information;
like the OT.
And both need to be read carefully to extract the historical kernels from
a sea of good story-telling.
But McGeifer won't ever understand that.

> His description of Bronze Age equipment long out of use by the time he wrote it down makes any other possibility unlikely. Homer
> is credited with weaving the tale as we now have it from oral material with later Iron Age embellishments.

Yes and no.
Homer wrote a moralistic story for his own age; as a stage he used the
wealth of oral poetry which was known to everyone.
So he didn't have to "develop" his characters as everyone already knew them.
Compare it with Michael Crighton writing a novell based on Beowulf or in
German speaking countries novells based on the Nibelungs.

>>> It is a peculiarity of oral history that it leaves no tangible evidence of itself. We can presume Homer used oral Bronze age
>>> material because there is no other way for it to have passed down to him.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> with contradictions for the same reason. In one line you have Bronze Age swords, shields, and armor, and the next Iron Age ones.
> They did not both coexist at the same time in history.

Plus you have the ship catalogue where a mass of people is presented who
don't play any role later.....
And the names of cities unknown at Homer's time (many have been found now).
A fascinating topic ...

> I can not say the OT is not fiction, or partly fiction, and neither can you. The best you can manage is to state an opinion.
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Established Arkies will tell you there is far more still in the ground than we have found. Only a fool would claim nothing existed
> because we have not yet found it.

McGeifer is a fool ....
<snip>
>>> If you are looking for a Hollywood Camelot, don't look in Romano-British Wales. As a professor explained to us in college, "Men,
>>> if any of you have romantic visions about the Middle Ages you'd better unload them before this course begins. In those days
>>> northern Europeans sewed themselves into their clothes in the fall and didn't come out until spring. The men and boys
>>> occasionally bathed in rivers and streams, the women never bathed at all. Makes you wonder how we got here." Context, context,
>>> context.

Oh boy ! I haven't seen so much nonsense in a very long time.
That view of histories was in the fifties, right ?
(That's not directed against you, but against the quaint views of your professor)

<snip>

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner
Joey - 11 Dec 2006 16:09 GMT
> > "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Err, no. Not oral history.
> Folkstales conserved orally.

> <snip>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner

Spot on. In the Classical world it was accepted that Homer was an
"oral poet". The Iliad's language and style are very definitely
suggestive of oral composition. Modern thinking on the subject is,
almost unanimously, that Homer composed orally, but that his work was
recorded in writing at a much later date. The one thing the Iliad
definitely isn't, is history.

Regards
Italo - 13 Dec 2006 20:12 GMT
>>> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Spot on. In the Classical world it was accepted that
> Homer was an "oral poet".

Diodorus alleges that, before Homer, songs were written down
in Pelasgian letters and that Homer's teacher, Pronapides of
Athens, used these. He also mentions that Thymoetes'
"Phrygian song" was written in such old script and language.

> The Iliad's language and style are very definitely
> suggestive of oral composition.

It was meant to be read out loud. But oral composition is an
impossibility.

> Modern thinking on the subject is, almost unanimously,
> that Homer composed orally, but that his work was

Maybe in the 19th century before linear-b was discovered.

> recorded in writing at a much later date. The one thing
> the Iliad definitely isn't, is history.
VtSkier - 13 Dec 2006 20:50 GMT
>(snip)
>
> It was meant to be read out loud. But oral composition is an
> impossibility.

You'd best define yourself here. One of the jobs of the bards
of ancient celtic countries, was to take everyday happenings
and put them into words that were easily remembered because
they either didn't have the means to write them into archives
or they believed that memory was a better way. If this isn't
"oral composition" I don't know what else to call it.

"Making up stories", such as pre-literate poets might have
done can only be called oral composition. Take an event.
Turn the pictures/memories/words/sounds of this event into
a story that will rivet your listeners can only be composition.

For oral only use, that's oral composition.

(snip)
Italo - 13 Dec 2006 21:55 GMT
>> (snip)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> (snip)

How does this relate to the Iliad?
VtSkier - 13 Dec 2006 22:29 GMT
>>> (snip)
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> How does this relate to the Iliad?

It does not, AFAIK, but you stated flatly, it a paragraph
by itself, that "oral composition is an impossibility."
So I just wanted to know what you meant.

BTW, what does all of this have to do with Jericho?
Looks like a lot more thread drift here than that which
I contributed to.
Italo - 14 Dec 2006 00:25 GMT
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>> this event into a story that will rivet your
>>> listeners can only be composition.

If it is of the same size as the Iliad then one needs to
make notes. When one makes notes then it is not an oral
composition any more.

>>> For oral only use, that's oral composition.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>  by itself, that "oral composition is an impossibility."
> So I just wanted to know what you meant.

It was in reply to what Joey wrote;
"The Iliad's language and style are very definitely
suggestive of oral composition. "
And then with my answer I meant that this may appear so
because it had to sound natural as it was to be read out
loud. But for me this only goes for the language and style.
Not when it comes to the amount of information and specifics
in the text. The idea that the Iliad was composed without
the aid of writing, then transmitted over several
generations also without writing, remaining accurate and
unchanged is really unlikely. Especialy when one realizes
that there was literacy, from the period in which the story
is set in, to the time of the composition, up to the time
when it was put in writing. I for one believe that Homer
composed the Iliad and Odyssey in writing, using written
sources and incorporating entire passages from these earlier
texts.

> BTW, what does all of this have to do with Jericho? Looks
> like a lot more thread drift here than that which I
> contributed to.
VtSkier - 14 Dec 2006 00:59 GMT
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>> like a lot more thread drift here than that which I
>> contributed to.

I agree with, "The idea that the Iliad was composed without
the aid of writing, then transmitted over several
generations also without writing, remaining accurate and
unchanged is really unlikely." wholeheartedly. The idea
that an oral transmission will remain unchanged is put to
the lie very easily by simply looking at all the different
versions there are to our oldest folksongs, which were, for
the most part, handed down orally. No oral transmission of
something that is intended for amusement/instruction/
pleasure can/will remain static. For one thing, audiences
and tastes change and the performer is always playing to
his audience.

The big however here, is that there was a culture that existed
up until historical (Roman) times that did not use writing,
apparently believing that memory was more accurate/more
meaningful/whatever. The Celtic peoples of northern Europe
used poetry (which was invented as a memory jogger as much
as for its aesthetic qualities) and memory to record all of
the laws/stories and judgments of the people.

Also, it is a LARGE question whether or not the use of
quipu(sp?) beads as a memory jogger by Andean peoples before
the arrival of Europeans was a form of writing or not.
If not, then their whole civilization relied on memory for
record keeping with some help from a memory jogger.

I think that for reasonable lengths of time (perhaps not the
time from the events of the Iliad to the time of Homer) that
memory can be and effective repository of the records of
a people.
Italo - 26 Dec 2006 15:51 GMT
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
> Europe used poetry (which was invented as a memory jogger
> as much

But this doesn't change with written poetry, here as well
the form serves as memory jogger for a performer who has to
memorize from the writing, which is not oral tradition.
An of course formulas that work as memory aid also serve to
make imprint on the listening audience. I don't see how such
can be taken as evidence for oral tradition or oral composition.

I have wondered about Homer's 'Keteioi' (probably Hittites)
and other such names which only appear once, without clear
context. Could such an name have survived via a non-written
tradition for twenty generations, with only this
alliteration "hetairoi Kêteioi kteinonto" ("fallen Keteian
comrades..") as memory jogger?

> as for its aesthetic qualities) and memory to record all
> of the laws/stories and judgments of the people.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Homer) that memory can be and effective repository of the
>  records of a people.
Joey - 19 Dec 2006 23:00 GMT
> It was in reply to what Joey wrote;
> "The Iliad's language and style are very definitely
> suggestive of oral composition. "

Interesting. Recent studies (some in great detail) of epic poetry have
been made in different parts of the world - Ireland, where the last
(prose) epic performer lived long enough to be recorded in the
1940's, Albania and Armenia, Serbia and Zaire.

All these studies taught us a great deal about how great poems and
exceedingly long ones can be orally composed and transmitted without
the aid of writing.

It really is no great shakes, although it seems troublesome to some
here?

Once a friend listened to an Iranian storyteller recount for two hours
the tale of Alexander (the Great); both this teller of tales and his
father before him were totally illiterate, yet both confessed to adding
greatly to the "epic" - and I'm sure they did.

To those who think oral composition an impossibility, I'd strongly
suggest reading William Wordsworth's prelude, to begin with (he
explains how he created this "epic" by reciting aloud - not by
writing!).

If you wish to know more, please do consult:

"The Homeric question and the oral-formulaic theory"  Minna Skafte
Jensen.

"The Songs of Homer " G S Kirk

Regards and seasons greetings.
Italo - 26 Dec 2006 16:06 GMT
>> It was in reply to what Joey wrote; "The Iliad's
>> language and style are very definitely suggestive of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> lived long enough to be recorded in the 1940's, Albania
> and Armenia, Serbia and Zaire.

> All these studies taught us a great deal about how great
> poems and exceedingly long ones can be orally composed

The Iliad and Odyssey are clearly assembled works, some
parts from non-written songs, other from written sources.
But as whole they cannot be oral compositions, they are too
intricate for that.

> and transmitted without the aid of writing.

For how many generations?

> It really is no great shakes, although it seems
> troublesome to some here?

> Once a friend listened to an Iranian storyteller recount
> for two hours the tale of Alexander (the Great); both
> this teller of tales and his father before him were
> totally illiterate, yet both confessed to adding greatly
> to the "epic" - and I'm sure they did.

So? Do you think their Alexander story came from some
ancient oral tradition? They got their material from the
Persian literary tradition (which when it comes to Alexander
is mostly fictional). It isn't relevant if the storytellers
themselves are illiterate or not.

Jan Vansina's study "Oral Tradition as History" suggests
that oral traditions reach back only three generations, in
modern non-literate societies at least. Any older elements
become distorted, lose historical context.

Imo, there may be up to 20 generations between the Trojan
war and the age of Homer.

There was literacy in lba Greece, why should the towns that
survived the end of the bronze age (like Athens) have lost
all knowledge to read linear-b when in Cyprus similar script
was still used to write Greek up to the 4th century bc.
A folding writing tablet is mentioned is mentioned in the Iliad.

> To those who think oral composition an impossibility, I'd
>  strongly suggest reading William Wordsworth's prelude,
> to begin with (he explains how he created this "epic" by
> reciting aloud - not by writing!).

reciting aloud parts before writing it down is logical, the
end product should be recited out loud too, I don't call
that oral composition.

To me, some passages in the Iliad and Odyssey stand out as
if they were inserted as whole from earlier texts, maybe
only converting to alphabetic writing and adapting it to the
meter.

> If you wish to know more, please do consult:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Regards and seasons greetings.
Kendall K. Down - 08 Dec 2006 07:45 GMT
> There is no 'evidence' Homer was ever oral history. It is a peculiarity of
> oral history that it leaves no tangible evidence of itself.

Don't get technical, hippo. You'll hurt poor Matt's brain.

> A crumbly hilltop to you, a city, or palace, or refuge, or home and
> protection, to Priam, lovely Helen, or the shepherds and early kings of the
> OT. If you are looking for a Hollywood Camelot

You forget that Matt's only source of information about history is the
latest Hollywood blockbuster. I'll bet he thinks that Alexander spoke
English with an American accent. After all, someone as great as Alex
wouldn't speak an impure language with an invented script, would he?

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
hippo - 08 Dec 2006 19:14 GMT
"Kendall K. Down" wrote in message

> In message "hippo" wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> English with an American accent. After all, someone as great as Alex
> wouldn't speak an impure language with an invented script, would he?

Chuckle, he doesn't appear to be up on Bronze Age Greece. I think he is one
of the folks who makes history serve his purposes rather than to listen to
what it says. I was like that when very young. -the Troll
JTEM - 08 Dec 2006 09:22 GMT
> This last paragraph identifies Ha'aretz and Herzog with
> Israeli secularists who have been chipping away at the
> Jewish Religion (and Christianity) for decades for
> political reasons. Religion is inconvenient to secular
> socialists as it competes with their political objectives.

You're an idiot. No, wait. I'm serious.

Matt is a filthy piece of Nazi sh.t. He attacks the bible
because, now get this, he's anti-semetic and he thinks
he's getting even with a vast Jewish conspiracy against
him.

Don't believe me? Matt's actual words:

| On choosing to get even I observed these jewboys hold
| sacred their holy holocaust, their religion and their
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
| the Old Testament and I have enjoyed the intellectual
| exercise in doing so.
http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml

Now why you're an idiot is because of this:

It never mattered. Whether the bible if the very word of
God or total bunk was never the issue the Israeli
supporters -- outside of American *Christian* fundies --
cared about. The issue is an ancient claim to a
homeland.

Saying that the bible is total bunk IS NOT the same as
saying that there was never an ancient Judea, that it
was never conquered, that many of its people were dispersed.

Matt doesn't know this -- it has never once clicked for him --
and apparently you don't know it either.

You have to invent some vast left-wing conspiracy to
account for someone honestly reporting the facts... not at
all different from the way that Matt had to invent a vast
Jewish conspiracy to account for the negative reception
his holocaust denying encountered.
Matt Giwer - 08 Dec 2006 12:09 GMT
>> This last paragraph identifies Ha'aretz and Herzog with
>> Israeli secularists who have been chipping away at the
>> Jewish Religion (and Christianity) for decades for
>> political reasons. Religion is inconvenient to secular
>> socialists as it competes with their political objectives.

> You're an idiot. No, wait. I'm serious.

    You are demonstrating it takes one to know one.

> Matt is a filthy piece of Nazi sh.t. He attacks the bible
> because, now get this, he's anti-semetic and he thinks
> he's getting even with a vast Jewish conspiracy against
> him.

    In challenging the OT I remove the foundations for both Islam and Christianity
which is about 2.4 BILLION people as opposed to a trivial number of Jews, most
of whom agree with me to some extent.

> Don't believe me? Matt's actual words:

> | On choosing to get even I observed these jewboys hold
> | sacred their holy holocaust, their religion and their
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> | exercise in doing so.
>  http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml

> Now why you're an idiot is because of this:

> It never mattered. Whether the bible if the very word of
> God or total bunk was never the issue the Israeli
> supporters -- outside of American *Christian* fundies --
> cared about. The issue is an ancient claim to a
> homeland.

    Regardless of the OT there is no claim to land by prior residence there.

> Saying that the bible is total bunk IS NOT the same as
> saying that there was never an ancient Judea, that it
> was never conquered, that many of its people were dispersed.

    Antisemitism is stupid.

    Anti-Zionism is a moral imperative. Zionism is based upon the premise of
murdering or expelling the right owners of Palestine. It has been that way since
Jabotinsky.

> Matt doesn't know this -- it has never once clicked for him --
> and apparently you don't know it either.

> You have to invent some vast left-wing conspiracy to
> account for someone honestly reporting the facts... not at
> all different from the way that Matt had to invent a vast
> Jewish conspiracy to account for the negative reception
> his holocaust denying encountered.

    Finkelstein calls it the Holocaust Industry and it is immensely profitable at
the expense of Jews as he demonstrates.

    You are a believing fool, ultimately credulous beyond belief.
hippo - 08 Dec 2006 16:48 GMT
"JTEM" wrote in message

>> This last paragraph identifies Ha'aretz and Herzog with
>> Israeli secularists who have been chipping away at the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> You're an idiot. No, wait. I'm serious.

Thanks very much.

> Matt is a filthy piece of Nazi sh.t. He attacks the bible
> because, now get this, he's anti-semetic and he thinks
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> Jewish conspiracy to account for the negative reception
> his holocaust denying encountered.

Vast left-wing conspiracy? I was referring to Ha'aretz and the article
posted by Matt. Ha'aretz is well known as a secular/Labor (Socialist) organ
that is sympathetic to Palestinian aspirations even to the extent of
supporting the PLO. It isn't surprising Matt would find solace and support
in its pages, and every reason why readers here should be aware that
Ha'aretz neither represents majority political opinion in Israel nor
consensus amongst archaeologists working there. To be fair, the Jerusalem
Post is just as venue driven as Ha'aretz on the other side. Israel is not
known for moderation in just about anything. -the Troll
JTEM - 09 Dec 2006 04:02 GMT
> readers here should be aware that  Ha'aretz neither
> represents majority political opinion in Israel nor
> consensus amongst archaeologists working there.

again, you're every bit as bad as the Nazi. You're his
equal opposite.

Look. See what you just did? You're insisting that the
evidence be viewed in terms of your politics... you're
brushing away the facts on the basis of a "vast left
wing consipracy," EXACTLY the way Nazi boy explains
away his problems with a vast Jewish conspiracy.

Idiot.
hippo - 09 Dec 2006 07:36 GMT
"JTEM" wrote in message

>> readers here should be aware that  Ha'aretz neither
>> represents majority political opinion in Israel nor
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Idiot.

Pay attention you uneducated twit. When evaluating the validity of any
written material you must ALWAYS consider the perspective of the writer or
source. I was taught that in high school history and in every historiography
and research course since. It is the most fundamental rule of historical
research. If one of us is an idiot it is you. I suggest you stay away from
serious newsgroups or risk getting laughed at by people who understand
proper evaluative methodology. -the Troll
JTEM - 09 Dec 2006 07:52 GMT
> Pay attention you uneducated twit. When evaluating
> the validity of any written material you must
> ALWAYS consider the perspective of the writer or
> source.

Wrong, you drooling imbecile.

The worst thing you can ever do is allow emotions to
weigh in on a matter.

If & when Matt says something true, I don't throw it
away just because he's a filthy, holocaust denying
piece of sh.t.

Quite a lot of what he says is true, except for his
conclusions. He's correct that there was never any
biblical Disney Land, a kingdom of David or Solomon.
He's correct in arguing that the bible is clearly a lot
younger than biblical literalists require. He & you are
both wrong in thinking that it matters.

Few Jews, and no Israeli secular Jews require biblical
accuracy. Whether God exist or not isn't relevant to
their claim. Their claim is based on ancient ownership,
an ancient occupation. And, they'll tell you that whether
the people were all really Pagans until just a few
centuries before the birth of Christ, they were still
people, the land was still their's, and it now belongs to
them as the ancestors of those people.

Now go back to your drooling...
Martin Edwards - 09 Dec 2006 08:30 GMT
>>Pay attention you uneducated twit. When evaluating
>>the validity of any written material you must
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Now go back to your drooling...

So the English should go back to the Frisian islands.  I'm not sure
whether they could fit us all in.  Ancient occupancy, real or invented,
is a load of bollocks.

Signature

You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

JTEM - 09 Dec 2006 10:14 GMT
> So the English should go back to the Frisian islands.
> I'm not sure whether they could fit us all in.  Ancient
> occupancy, real or invented, is a load of bollocks.

See, that's the problem. The above is a valid argument.

No, I'm not saying it's "Right" or that you'd have to be
stupid to not agree with it. But it is an argument, and
it is based on the facts.

Matt, stupid little holocaust denying Nazi piece of
sh.t, does not argue from reality. He's arguing from
the view that the biblical accuracy matters. It doesn't.

And, yeah, the same with the troll. "A vast left-wing
conspiracy" is NOT a valid argument.
joerevskelton@bellsouth.net - 09 Dec 2006 14:38 GMT
>> So the English should go back to the Frisian islands.
>> I'm not sure whether they could fit us all in.  Ancient
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> And, yeah, the same with the troll. "A vast left-wing
> conspiracy" is NOT a valid argument.

Possibly that is why no one has suggested that it is.
You are responding to a suggestion that political biases should be taken
into consideration when evaluating an archaeologist's conclusions about
evidence.
That is a self-evidently valid argument.
JTEM - 10 Dec 2006 03:56 GMT
> Possibly that is why no one has suggested
> that it is.

You haven't told us directly....

> You are responding to a suggestion that political
> biases should be taken into consideration when
> evaluating an archaeologist's conclusions about
> evidence.

What you're literally telling us is that *You* view
everything through your political filter, and that
everyone else should too.

What I'm pointing out is that, like Nazi boy, you're
a frigging idiot for taking that position.
hippo - 09 Dec 2006 18:26 GMT
"JTEM" wrote in message

>> Pay attention you uneducated twit. When evaluating
>> the validity of any written material you must
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> people, the land was still their's, and it now belongs to
> them as the ancestors of those people.

[.]

You have a reading problem. I don't require biblical accuracy and don't
expect it from the OT or any other ancient document. Ancient documents, just
like modern newspaper articles, have biases, every one of them. Anyone who
evaluates either at face is a fool.

I don't care how old the OT is in its present form. Some parts are very much
older than others having been transmitted orally, some are more historical
than others, and some are clearly borrowed. All of it can be of use to
historians if used with care. -the Troll
Matt Giwer - 09 Dec 2006 09:50 GMT
>> readers here should be aware that  Ha'aretz neither
>> represents majority political opinion in Israel nor
>> consensus amongst archaeologists working there.

> again, you're every bit as bad as the Nazi. You're his
> equal opposite.

    You and him fight. I will hold your coats.

> Look. See what you just did? You're insisting that the
> evidence be viewed in terms of your politics... you're
> brushing away the facts on the basis of a "vast left
> wing consipracy," EXACTLY the way Nazi boy explains
> away his problems with a vast Jewish conspiracy.

> Idiot.

    The Jewish conspiracy while not called vast is openly discussed in Israeli
newspapers in regard to their control over US foreign policy in regard to the
middle east. Anyone who makes a practice of reading the online sources from
Israel knows it.

    Why would you try to deny what is well known and openly discussed in Israel?
Matt Giwer - 09 Dec 2006 09:43 GMT
...
> Vast left-wing conspiracy? I was referring to Ha'aretz and the article
> posted by Matt. Ha'aretz is well known as a secular/Labor (Socialist) organ
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Post is just as venue driven as Ha'aretz on the other side. Israel is not
> known for moderation in just about anything. -the Troll

    And the Jerusalem Post www.jpost.com reports the ongoing racism and
discrimination in Israel. And not just against non-Jews but of Ashkenazi against
Sephardim Jews.

    It is hardly just Ha'aretz.

    Arutz Sheva www.israelnationalnews.com also reports this bigotry and murderous
intent towards non-Jews.

    I do not see what your point is. Anyone who reads Israeli online news sources
knows all about this.

    I do not see why people are interested in denying what is openly discussed in
Israel.
hippo - 09 Dec 2006 18:33 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

[.]

> And the Jerusalem Post www.jpost.com reports the ongoing racism and
> discrimination in Israel. And not just against non-Jews but of Ashkenazi
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I do not see why people are interested in denying what is openly discussed
> in Israel.

We're not talking about discrimination, we were talking about your article
from Ha'aretz. It's safe to say the JP wouldn't agree with the tenor or
content of that article. -the Troll
Matt Giwer - 10 Dec 2006 05:14 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> from Ha'aretz. It's safe to say the JP wouldn't agree with the tenor or
> content of that article. -the Troll

    The facts remain the facts. The style of presentation does not change them.
hippo - 10 Dec 2006 21:33 GMT
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message

[.]

>> We're not talking about discrimination, we were talking about your
>> article from Ha'aretz. It's safe to say the JP wouldn't agree with the
>> tenor or content of that article. -the Troll
>
> The facts remain the facts. The style of presentation does not change
> them.

Style has nothing to do with it. It's the interpretation of what little we
know that is important and the venue of the interpreter. Ha'aretz is not an
unbiased source. It is overtly secular and, like you, blame many of Israel's
ills on religion. Like you Ha'aretz is prone to absolute conclusions when
such conclusions are as little supported as the opinions of the opposing
religious. The truth, as is usually the case, is probably somewhere between
the extremes of opinion. -the Troll
Matt Giwer - 11 Dec 2006 05:22 GMT
> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
> [.]
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> The facts remain the facts. The style of presentation does not change
>> them.

> Style has nothing to do with it. It's the interpretation of what little we
> know that is important and the venue of the interpreter. Ha'aretz is not an
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> religious. The truth, as is usually the case, is probably somewhere between
> the extremes of opinion. -the Troll

    I cite Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post and Arutz Sheva and others for the facts
they report. I do not need others to provide interpretation or viewpoint. The
FACTS of the reason for that riot over opening the other end of the tunnel were
reported in the first two. NEITHER said it was the racism of the Jews in
occupied Jerusalem. I add that point myself.

    In fact in their newspapers I find the lack of apologetic tone and positive
light of the facts reported in jpost.com and israelinsider.com to be must more
damning of Israel. Ha'aretz differs in that it knows how it looks to the outside
world and tries to sugarcoat the facts. So in fact you are accusing me of
reading the source which is worst for Israel. In fact that is the best source
for Israel.

    So when I say EVEN Ha'aretz says something I mean it in the sense that they
would be the last to be blunt about a negative event.
Kendall K. Down - 08 Dec 2006 18:16 GMT
> > This last paragraph identifies Ha'aretz and Herzog with
> > Israeli secularists who have been chipping away at the
> > Jewish Religion (and Christianity) for decades for
> > political reasons. Religion is inconvenient to secular
> > socialists as it competes with their political objectives.

> You're an idiot. No, wait. I'm serious.

Naturally I agree with everything you say about Matt: you have by no means
overstated his stupidity. However when it comes to the Troll (aka hippo) I
can only assume you have misunderstood him. He does not support religion, he
is not pro-Jew, but his statement is strictly accurate.

Israeli secularists do indeed reject the "land of the Bible" claims of many
Jews and some Christians - the claim that archaeology supports a Jewish
state before Christ (which it does) and *therefore* the land belongs to the
Jews (which is nonsense).

> Matt doesn't know this -- it has never once clicked for him --
> and apparently you don't know it either.

No, the Troll does know it, which is why he made his comment above.

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
svo37 - 10 Dec 2006 10:21 GMT
well for whatever it is worth it seems tome you are all missing
some vital point. Ive seen a group more indulgent of itself! The
saddest point is a lot of hard accurate information passes here and
a high percentage of comes from guess who .... Matt. He may be
an antisemite but I would never know that. He must conceal it well -
while the rest of you j.rk off because Matt has thehigh point on
raw scholarship.
shalom.

> > > This last paragraph identifies Ha'aretz and Herzog with
> > > Israeli secularists who have been chipping away at the
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> |             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
> ========================================================
Matt Giwer - 10 Dec 2006 12:42 GMT
> well for whatever it is worth it seems tome you are all missing
> some vital point. Ive seen a group more indulgent of itself! The
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> raw scholarship.
> shalom.

    You are going to be attacked for that.
svo37 - 10 Dec 2006 10:15 GMT
I worked like hell as a child t obe able to kick my football to the end
of our back yard. I thouight I was a super star and destined to play
for the Rams. I still remember the evening I got homefrom gradechool,
grabbed my ball and kicked as hard as I could, and is if by magic
it went very high, kept going, and cleared the back yard fence.

Today you go back to my childhood home and that huge back yard
measures a little over 16 feet, at its longest angle! As a child I would
have sworn it was 300 yards!

> "Matt Giwer" wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> against Homer's description. It is then you begin to understand the
> importance of thinking in context. -the Troll
hippo - 10 Dec 2006 21:36 GMT
"svo37" wrote in message

[.]

>I worked like hell as a child t obe able to kick my football to the end
> of our back yard. I thouight I was a super star and destined to play
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> measures a little over 16 feet, at its longest angle! As a child I would
> have sworn it was 300 yards!

Yup, good analogy. -the Troll
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.