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 i