What Stays in the writings? (2024)

George

Jon,

You write:
"ell, I guess if you believe the Biblical account was written
by one person, or group, all at one sitting (so to speak)
post-exile, you end up creating the kind of dilema you find
yourself in."

I don't think you've been reading my posts very carefully.
I specifically describe a rivalry in the texts... written
by more than one person, in more than one time. The
difference between my view and yours is I believe the writings
started at the exile and flowered during the Persian
and Hellenistic periods.

You ask:
"Ok, can you even make an attempt to suggest,
"what stays & what goes?"

You seem quite insistent in discarding every critical
methodology that I present. And you go back to the
Hyksos to boot! I see the Hyksos as FURTHER proof
of the lack of biblical reliability. Here was a HUGE
event... and there is hardly any information on it.
And yet you expect people to believe stories about
one unborn infant reaching outside of the womb to
have a thread put on his hand. Or magical hair on
Samson.... or Balaam's prophesies about Assyria
centuries prior to their rise.... and his talking
donkey. Oh brother.

Jon, virtually ALL of it "goes".... as a collection
of fables that were collected. The problem is not

"Gee, how did those Jerusalem scribes KNOW about
Joshua, the son of Nun" - - the problem is:

"Gee, why did the Englishmen of the Victorian
period actually BELIEVE that these stories were
literally true?"

Jon, why don't you tell me which part YOU think is
the MOST reliable?

Regards,

George

ethel jean saltz

Can we all agree that Deuteronomy stays in, but perhaps presented in a
different sort order? Can we all agree that Deuteronomy should be the
very first book in the Pentateuch?

I tend to feel "tension" within the Jewish Community if I even bring up
this subject. There seems to be an energy to enforce the ordering of
the Pentateuch. Perhaps "they" are afraid that it will change the
ritual calendar. It won't. Things can stay exactly the same, but
sermons can change. Novelty is a great human life form advantage.
Novelty energizes the intellectual juices. Textually nothing has to
change, not even the order of ritual use of text. That what
"imagination" and "what-if" is all about.

George wrote:

George

Ethel,

I think PARTS of Deuteronomy can stay in.

1) It starts its story with a people on
the Transjordan side of the Jordan River.

2) It is very protective of Moab and Ammon
and Edom. Isn't Deuteronomy that says that
these other territories are NOT to be captured?

3) It has a legendary "Mesha" live and die
in Moab territory.

I share Greenberg's position that Deuteronomy
could be the "seed" that inspired the other
books, including those on David and Solomon.
And, of course, I would include Kings in that.

But I do not agree that Deuteronomy appeared
BEFORE the exile. And if it WAS pre-Exilic,
I would suggest that it was the pro-Judah
priests installed in Samaria by Josiah
(this is the one thing I do agree on about
Josiah) who wrote it.

Regards,

George

joseph_mahal

The biggest problem I see with this post is that there is an attempt
to seperate the God from the writings in order to make an intelligent
assessment of its origin. This is a grave error an commonly made.

I will admit that I don't have any familiarity with methodology you
mentioned, being new to this group, and so I'll have to wait and see
what conclusions you arrive at.

However, the miraculous events of the Bible cannot in any way be used
to date or verify the legitimacy of any story, nor can they be used
to discount any of them. Both strategies are of a personal nature,
not anything scientific, and it is in that way that you arrive at the
errors you have mentioned here, the biggest of which is the
assumption that, because the events of the Hyksos period are not
mentioned in the old Testament, they must have been unknown to the
writers (who therefore came after that period).

You have a problem that arises from this conclusion, in that you
assume "history" was a developed science. This advance in thought
belongs to much more modern periods. Ancient peoples indeed had
chroniclers, but that in no way implies the histories were used to
draw conclusions beyond the right to occupy a region. They did not,
for instance, analyze trends in history, generalize about comparitive
ideologies or geography or economic trends, or attempt to find causes
and effects from one historical event to the next.

In fact, many of the events belonging to the Hyksos period ARE
mentioned in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Jericho,
but the writers are not going to tell us to what period those events
belonged because they did not have names for such periods, nor did
they even have a way of counting years in an era as we do.

Nor, in fact, did they write their histories for US. The events were
put to writing for the readers alive at that time, and perhaps for
some little posterity. Certain conditions of the world at that time
were likely taken for granted and NEVER recorded. That Egypt had two
or more men claiming the position of Pharoah may not have occurred to
them as important, nor their ethnic background, nor the political
status of the legitimate pharoah's house.

Ultimately, you may take the words of the Bible at face value, add
nothing, and subtract nothing. And if you wish to CHANGE anything,
you must find a document of equal or greater authority or risk
wanderinng off into scholarly parts unknown.

Respectfully,

Joseph

--- In AncientBibleHistory@..., "George"
<historynow2002@y...> wrote:

Jon,

You write:
"ell, I guess if you believe the Biblical account was written
by one person, or group, all at one sitting (so to speak)
post-exile, you end up creating the kind of dilema you find
yourself in."

I don't think you've been reading my posts very carefully.
I specifically describe a rivalry in the texts... written
by more than one person, in more than one time. The
difference between my view and yours is I believe the writings
started at the exile and flowered during the Persian
and Hellenistic periods.

You ask:
"Ok, can you even make an attempt to suggest,
"what stays & what goes?"

You seem quite insistent in discarding every critical
methodology that I present. And you go back to the
Hyksos to boot! I see the Hyksos as FURTHER proof
of the lack of biblical reliability. Here was a HUGE
event... and there is hardly any information on it.
And yet you expect people to believe stories about
one unborn infant reaching outside of the womb to
have a thread put on his hand. Or magical hair on
Samson.... or Balaam's prophesies about Assyria
centuries prior to their rise.... and his talking
donkey. Oh brother.

Jon, virtually ALL of it "goes".... as a collection
of fables that were collected. The problem is not

"Gee, how did those Jerusalem scribes KNOW about
Joshua, the son of Nun" - - the problem is:

"Gee, why did the Englishmen of the Victorian
period actually BELIEVE that these stories were
literally true?"

Jon, why don't you tell me which part YOU think is
the MOST reliable?

Regards,

George

George

Joseph,

You conclude your post with:
"Ultimately, you may take the words of the Bible at face
value, add nothing, and subtract nothing. And if you wish
to CHANGE anything, you must find a document of equal or
greater authority or risk wanderinng off into scholarly
parts unknown."

This is a worthy approach.... but on lists that are
dedicated to "faith-based" methods of literary
analysis.

And while we have ABH members who would agree with
you on this, there is a clear dividing line between
those who use a non-faith-based approach, and those
who do.

I am of the former "school". And I do not have to
explain why I use this method, any more than you have
to explain why you use *your* method.

It is safe to conclude that you and I will never
agree on which is the better approach. And I have
already completely agreed that there is nothing I could
ever say that will persuade the views of someone who
uses a faith-based method.

Have a nice day, sir.

George

Hello Joseph

Welcome to ABH and thanks for "de-lurking" and becoming a poster
instead of just being a reader. I hope you do not get put off by any
critique of your views you may get here. I know that in Martial
arts, sparring is intended to "sharpen and strengthen your oponent as
well as yourself", and this is the way ABH tends to operate.

You wrote

The biggest problem I see with this post is that there is an
attempt to seperate the God from the writings in order to make an
intelligent assessment of its origin. This is a grave error an
commonly made.

Joseph, this is, I feel, in part where the problem starts. The
concept of "God" has a huge historical weight behind it. On one hand
we have the "God" painted by Michaelangelo on the Sistine Chapel - as
a white elderly Caucasian man with a flowing beard dressed in pseudo-
Middle-eastern Garb as presumed by the European Renaissance. On the
other hand we have the naked figure of "Yahweh and his Asherah"
carved at Serabit el Khadem and at Kuntillet Arjud in Israel - dating
back to pre-exilic Israel. As a "third alternative" we have
the "Mind of God" as used by such astrophysicists Stephen Hawking,
Paul Davies and Albert Einstein. These are three very different
concepts and one could argue mutually incompatible usages of the same
word "God". When you say we should not separate "God" from the
writings, I would ask you "which God are you referring to"?

As over 2,000 years of religious persecution and warfare
demonstrates, by taking the Biblical verses out of their proper
context it is possible to justify almost any behaviour - from
polygamy to genocide. Clearly, I believe, we should refuse to use
the Bible as justification for any behaviour, because completely
contradictory views can be (have and will be) justified. I can think
of no war over the last one thousand six hundred years in which it
has not been claimed by some of the combattants "that God is on our
side".

How then are we to understand "What is in the writings of the Bible?"

You wrote

I will admit that I don't have any familiarity with methodology you
mentioned, being new to this group, and so I'll have to wait and
see what conclusions you arrive at.

I would here argue that *any* methodology which helps us understand
exactly "what is in the writings of the Bible", that helps us gain an
understanding of the historical nature of its world, its belief
systems and cultures for which the Biblical text was originally
intended are valid methods here. If taking the Bible out of its
historical context is the source of the "abuses and misuses" of the
Bible such as I have hinted at above.

For example when we look at the Available Translations and Versions
for Exd 22:18

"A sorceress must not be allowed to live.
NLT Copyright 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

"You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson

"You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation

"You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
RSV copyright info

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Webster's

`A witch thou dost not keep alive.
Young's

-- Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Darby's

Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.
ASV

"You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
HNV

maleficos non patieris vivere
Vulgate

In the name of this verse between 900,000 to 9 million were killed,
not in the Middle Ages, as we frequently suppose, but in the period
up to 1726 in the USA, just 50 years prior to your Declaration of
Independence.

More recently faith-based apologists have attempted to reinterpret
the Hebrew of this verse. For example Patrick McKinnon
(http://www.templeofbast.com/WitchToLive.html) interprets this from :-

"the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, it claims the
word "witch" in Hebrew as " 3784 kashaph, a prim. root; prop. to
whisper a spell, i.e. to enchant or practice magic:--sorcerer, (use)
witch (-craft)."

However, in the Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary, the
term "kashaph", can be broken into two parts: a root word, "kash",
meaning, "straw, herb, reed", and "hapaleh", or "casting, bringing
down, using."

Combined, these words translate into "using/casting
herbs/straws/reeds" - one who uses herbs.

So a better translation is "one who uses/has knowledge of herbs".

Hebrew is a contextual language. Words can have a positive or
negative meaning based upon context.

Kashaph is not the Hebrew term for witch. The Hebrew term for
witchcraft is "keeshoof", meaning sorcery or magic. "Mekhash"
means "to bewitch", and the term for a female who practices magic
is "mekhashah", whereas the term for a male is "mekhashef", (the "ah"
and "ef" suffix denoting gender.)

Note that none of these terms has a similar root to "kashaph".
Therefore, the question is, why did a unrelated term like "kashaph"
get mistakenly translated into "witch" ?? Easy, terms that
denote "knowledge of herbs" have tended to get translated
as "witchcraft" in theological writings for nearly 2000 years.

Now we get into the "to live" or "live" part. Strong's lists that
word in Ex. 22:18 as 02421 chayah {khaw-yaw'} 1) to live, have life,
remain alive, sustain life, live prosperously, live for ever, be
quickened, be alive, be restored to life or health

Again, let's look at the Webster's New World.

Since, "ch" does get changed into a "k" in Hebrew, we'll look up the
word "khay", or "khayah". Webster's gives the definition as: "living,
alive, living among, dwelling, being alive, being full of life."

According to the Hebrew, as backed up by a Hebrew dictionary, the
phrase cited, Ex. 22:18, uses a negative context to refer to "one who
uses herbs, dwelling/living among you". From this it infers that the
injunction only refers to poisoners. Yet this is to take the term
out of context.

If we look at the other verses that use the term "kashaph" we find
Deuteronomy 18:10 states

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in
[ 18:10 Or [ who makes his son or daughter pass through ] ] the fire,
who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in
witchcraft (kashaph)" means what it says - witchcraft. Clearly
keeshoof and kashaph do have the same root!

We need to understand that this was a world in which it was believed
that some people could, through the casting of magical spells, cause
ill-fortune to strike down another. This is a clearly an
unscientific pre-modern world that is being referred to here, and to
try to reinterpret the verse as does Patrick McKinnon, is to actually
do violence to its original intention, which was to protect the
community against those who could cast such spells!

Joseph writes

However, the miraculous events of the Bible cannot in any way be
used to date or verify the legitimacy of any story, nor can they be
used to discount any of them. Both strategies are of a personal
nature, not anything scientific..."

But Joseph, as I have said above, clearly we are referring here to
a "pre-scientific world view". To apply any of our scientific
perspectives upon the Biblical text is once again to misunderstand
the context of the world of the authors. For these people the world
*WAS* miraculous, filled with demons and sorcerers as well as being a
flat earth in which the vault of the arch of the sky (shamayim)
separated the "waters above" of the rain, from the "waters below" -
the ocean which surrounded the Earth ('erets). Only if you read the
text from within this framework do the stories make any real sense.
Only then is the possibility of understanding really achieved.

You have a problem that arises from this conclusion, in that you
assume "history" was a developed science. This advance in thought
belongs to much more modern periods. Ancient peoples indeed had
chroniclers, but that in no way implies the histories were used to
draw conclusions beyond the right to occupy a region. They did
not, for instance, analyze trends in history, generalize about
comparitive ideologies or geography or economic trends, or attempt
to find causes and effects from one historical event to the next.

Exactly. This is a point that I have made again and again on this
list, and yet very many faith based views treat the Bible as though
it was such an objective "history" - having a basis in historical
fact of a kind which only emerged during the European Enlightenment
(for example - with the publication of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire").

In fact, many of the events belonging to the Hyksos period ARE
mentioned in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Jericho,
but the writers are not going to tell us to what period those
events belonged because they did not have names for such periods,
nor did they even have a way of counting years in an era as we do.

In fact again we are making the mistake of misplaced concreteness yet
again. The verses about the destruction of the walls of Jericho have
absolutely nothing to do with the "historic" events of the
destruction of the town of Jericho in the Middle Bronze Age period.
Rather the story of the destruction of Jericho's walls is a mythic
tale of the power the righteous believers can have if they put their
trust in the lord. The fact that to the people alive at the time of
composition of the text it was known that the ancient walls of pre-
present Jericho were cracked and broken was enough to stimulate the
writing of this story. To propose, as some do, that a force led by
Joshua was actually camped outside the walls and blowing on sheep's
horns at the precise moment of an earthquake (or some other such
force of destruction) - is a naturalist fallacy of misplaced
concreteness which completely misinterprets the text from within
an "objectivist" bias.

So, Joseph when you write

Nor, in fact, did they write their histories for US. The events
were put to writing for the readers alive at that time, and perhaps
for some little posterity. Certain conditions of the world at that
time were likely taken for granted and NEVER recorded. That Egypt
had two or more men claiming the position of Pharoah may not have
occurred to them as important, nor their ethnic background, nor the
political status of the legitimate pharoah's house.

Exactly!

And yet this list you present is EXACTLY all the questions of
interest to us, living 2,000 years or more later, working from within
OUR conception of history.

You continue

Ultimately, you may take the words of the Bible at face value, add
nothing, and subtract nothing. And if you wish to CHANGE anything,
you must find a document of equal or greater authority or risk
wanderinng off into scholarly parts unknown.

Joseph, this is exactly what we cannot do. We cannot take anything
Biblical "at face value". We do not know, without careful study, if
the words used are still understood in the same way today as they
were then. For example, is a "witch" or "sorcerer", a kashaph, as
understood today - the same thing as a "witch or a sorcerer" at the
time Exodus or Deuteronomy was composed. Clearly not. There have
been subtle and important shifts of meaning. Otherwise we run the
risk of, once again, perpetrating a means to do violence to each
other by acting upon so called ethical principles totally at variance
with what ethics we understand and practice today.

Hope this helps

Regards

John

joseph_mahal

Just a few comments for the benefit of others who won't want to wade
through a lot of "stuff":

Welcome to ABH and thanks for "de-lurking" and becoming a poster
instead of just being a reader.

Welcome.

I know that in Martial arts, sparring is intended to "sharpen and

strengthen your oponent as

well as yourself", and this is the way ABH tends to operate.

I'm accustomed to groups who prefer to nuke each other from orbit.
The "martial arts" atmosphere will be most welcome.

"God" painted by Michaelangelo...
"Yahweh and his Asherah"...
As a "third alternative"...the "Mind of God"...
I would ask you "which God are you referring to"?

Obviously to the one described in writing you're studying. Why would
you ever use any other? (And I hope you would never use the
divergent concepts of the world to discredit the one of the writer,
just because you can't figure out which one he or she seeks to
describe.)

As over 2,000 years of religious persecution and warfare
demonstrates, by taking the Biblical verses out of their proper
context it is possible to justify almost any behaviour - from
polygamy to genocide.

(I also hope that you would never charge a writer of a Bible verse
with the sins of someone much later. How a verse is used by others
has absolutely no bearing on its meaning. The original writer could
never predict such acts nor anticipate any possible alternative
meaning for a people such as ourselves who dearly love to dissect
words.)

How then are we to understand "What is in the writings of the

Bible?"

Personally, I am a rigid Bible literalist (and a rigid "history
literalist"). By this I mean to say that all historical writings are
to be taken literally until proven otherwise, and the proof must be
of adequate authority (hopefully a primary source). Opinions are a
dime a dozen.

If some nut case wrote in 1450 BC that Moses brought 2 million folks
out of Egypt in 1500 BC with fire and signs and other impressive
stuff, you may believe as you will, but I form no opinion at all
other than to give the writer due credit until corroboration or
conflicting evidence is presented, both of which I hold to at least
as strict a standard as the Exodus writer. (Note that the opinions
of so-called "experts" often does not meet this standard, if they are
nothing more than opinions.)

In the name of this verse between 900,000 to 9 million were killed,
not in the Middle Ages, as we frequently suppose, but in the period
up to 1726 in the USA, just 50 years prior to your Declaration of
Independence.

(I'm sure you mean "1826"?)

Do you really think its realistic to quote such high numbers? Jews
considered America a promised land, and they flooded into New York
and flourished here. (This opinion is held by other Jewish Americans
I've known.)

When was there ever 9 million Jews in the Americas before the 20th
century, and what armadas did they use to get here?

But Joseph, as I have said above, clearly we are referring here to
a "pre-scientific world view".

I believe that your casting of the ancients into a world of darkness
and myth is a great exaduration that you did not intend. This was
also a world where men defeated gods and realized their impotence. I
place only limited significance in the religious thought of the day,
and that importance lies more in political propaganda than in actual
conscious belief. The thought that the ancients were barbaric
religious fanatics of any flavor is a modern prejudice in my book.
We simply don't have nearly enough information on these peoples to
maek that kind of determination.

In fact again we are making the mistake of misplaced concreteness

yet

again. The verses about the destruction of the walls of Jericho

have

absolutely nothing to do with the "historic" events of the
destruction of the town of Jericho in the Middle Bronze Age

period.

Rather the story of the destruction of Jericho's walls is a mythic
tale of the power the righteous believers can have if they put

their

trust in the lord.

There is a much larger error within scholarly circles. Kathleen
Kenyon placed the destruction of Jericho somewhere in the 16th-15th
centuries "and no later than 1400 BC". (She believed that the exodus
took place in the 12th, if at all.) This was to combat other
scholars who tried to place the fall in the 12th WITH the supposed
exodus.

I laugh at all of this, realizing that biblical chronology places the
exodus before 1400 BC, with the destruction of Jericho, right where
you would expect it based on the evidence.

I see no support from any primary source that either the exodus or
the destruction of Jericho is a myth, and I see them happening at the
same time. I think this is no accident. (I think it's not enough to
necessarily link the two, obviously we need more.)

OUR conception of history.

Be careful of conceptual contradiction. If you wish to learn about
events in the past, you have to take them at face value, as
presented. Our conceptions of history are irrelavent and will tend
to color our judgment to our detriment. Allow the ancient writers to
tell their story, and leave it at that.

Joseph, this is exactly what we cannot do. We cannot take anything

Biblical "at face value".

To add anything to an ancient written document is the same as
planting evidence at a dig. You can do NOTHING without tainting the
evidence. You end up interpreting yourself, not history.

Respectfully,

Joseph

George

Joseph,

You conclude your post with:

"To add anything to an ancient written document is the same
as planting evidence at a dig. You can do NOTHING without
tainting the evidence. You end up interpreting yourself, not
history."

Ironically, this is exactly my charge against the
redactors of the Old Testament from Ezra to the
Maccabees. Only back then, I think there were less
taboos against doing this....and when it came to
"survival" or "oblivion" (in the mind of the editor),
it was a no-holds-barred struggle!

Regards,

George

Hi Joseph

I wrote

In the name of this verse between 900,000 to 9 million were
killed, not in the Middle Ages, as we frequently suppose, but in
the period up to 1726 in the USA, just 50 years prior to your
Declaration of Independence.

You replied

(I'm sure you mean "1826"?)

No, the last witch trials held in Mecklenburg, said to have taken
place in 1726. In the USA it was just 30 years before, in Salem in
Massechusetts.

Do you really think its realistic to quote such high numbers? Jews
considered America a promised land, and they flooded into New York
and flourished here. (This opinion is held by other Jewish
Americans I've known.)

The numbers refer to those being accused as "Satanists and Witches"
and slain in the period between 1486 publication of the Malleus
Maleficarum (The Witches Hammer) of Heinrich Kramer and James
Sprenger, and the last witches trial in 1726. While about 150,000
were tried individually as witches in courts of law and killed
(burned, drowned, beheaded and hanged), the German 30 years war, when
all enemies of all forces were accused by this name (justifying the
most unspeakable cruelties) saw 30% of the population killed!

When was there ever 9 million Jews in the Americas before the 20th
century, and what armadas did they use to get here?

Joseph I have not been referring to Jews at all - but to those
accused, in the name of Exodus - of being witches.

I believe that your casting of the ancients into a world of
darkness and myth is a great exaduration that you did not intend.

Joseph you have clearly not read very widely of pre-modern world
views. I intended every word of the darkness of these ages. Life
for most people was nasty, brutish and short.

Joseph wrote

I place only limited significance in the religious thought of the
day, and that importance lies more in political propaganda than in
actual conscious belief. The thought that the ancients were
barbaric religious fanatics of any flavor is a modern prejudice in
my book. We simply don't have nearly enough information on these
peoples to maek that kind of determination.

Oh yes we do. Read the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs in
their treatment of those they conquered. It is blood curdling. It
is in this context that we need to read Deuteronomy 2.33-34 how after
the King of Heshbon refused passage to the Israelites, Yahweh gave
him over to the Israelites who captured and utterly destroyed all the
cities, killing all the men, women, and children. This is genocide
as practiced in the ANE and enshrined in the Bible. Unless we
understand this cultural context we shall never see more than our own
wish fulfilment.

Joseph wrote

I laugh at all of this, realizing that biblical chronology places
the exodus before 1400 BC, with the destruction of Jericho, right
where you would expect it based on the evidence.

Joseph in 1400 BCE the Egyptians ruled Canaan, and had for nearly 150
years. There is no evidence of any new ethnic group, coming out of
Egypt, settling in the area of Israel, which was largely uninhabited
at the time (small settlements at Jerusalem and Shechem only). And
how do you explain the fact that the Israelis were compelled to
labour on the buildings of Pi Raamses (which did not exist for
another nearly 150 years?)

OUR conception of history.

Joseph said

Be careful of conceptual contradiction. If you wish to learn about
events in the past, you have to take them at face value, as
presented. Our conceptions of history are irrelavent and will tend
to color our judgment to our detriment. Allow the ancient writers
to tell their story, and leave it at that.

No Joseph, that leads us to misunderstanding. Try calculating for
instance how much water we need for a worldwide Deluge to cover all
lands to a depth greater than mount Everest? And then try
calculating the scientific energy needed to remove this water. Try
to fit all the species onto Noah's ark. We need to use our
undertanding of the context of these stories otherwise they lead us
into error.

To add anything to an ancient written document is the same as
planting evidence at a dig. You can do NOTHING without tainting
the evidence. You end up interpreting yourself, not history.

Not so. There is enough put in place in checks and balances to, if
we are honest with ourselves and the materials, and if we are
prepared to submit to peer review, to prevent thsi from happening.

Thank you for the depth of your reply

Warm regards

John

joseph_mahal

I highly doubt that there is as much adjusting to Biblical text as
you seem to be implying here in post-exilic times. The Dead Sea
Scrolls seem to attest to separate evolutions of scripture coming
from Babylonian Jews and those in Palestine during the exile, and the
wording between the two is not so different as to suggest major
changes, rather they suggest minor scribal errors.

Rather, post exilic literature suggests a very creative period in the
production of apochryphal texts. I see no reason to believe Biblical
texts underwent substantial change at all. There was no possibility
of oblivion for Jews any time after Solomon. There were so many
communities all over the known world and important cultural centers
in Babylonia, Egypt, and Anatolia that the dangers of those in
Palestine could not possibly have lead them to any kind of oblivion
mentality.

I don't believe that your analysis reflects the times you speak of.

Respectfully,

Joseph

--- In AncientBibleHistory@..., "George"
<historynow2002@y...> wrote:

Joseph,

You conclude your post with:

"To add anything to an ancient written document is the same
as planting evidence at a dig. You can do NOTHING without
tainting the evidence. You end up interpreting yourself, not
history."

Ironically, this is exactly my charge against the
redactors of the Old Testament from Ezra to the
Maccabees. Only back then, I think there were less
taboos against doing this....and when it came to
"survival" or "oblivion" (in the mind of the editor),
it was a no-holds-barred struggle!

Regards,

George

joseph_mahal

The numbers refer to those being accused as "Satanists and Witches"
and slain in the period between 1486 publication of the Malleus
Maleficarum (The Witches Hammer) of Heinrich Kramer and James
Sprenger, and the last witches trial in 1726. While about 150,000
were tried individually as witches in courts of law and killed
(burned, drowned, beheaded and hanged), the German 30 years war,

when

all enemies of all forces were accused by this name (justifying the
most unspeakable cruelties) saw 30% of the population killed!

With numbers like these, there must be ample corroborating evidence
in other areas. Here are some things I would expect to see:

1) Mass graves that account for at least 2/3 of these volumes&#92;
2) Economic response in the colonies due to loss of 1/3 populations
3) A shipyard industry that would support the logistics required to
transport tens of millions of immigrants to the colonies
4) Prisons to house the thousands or tens of thousands that at any
given time must have been awaiting trial

Does such evidence exist? If not, I would be careful of such large
numbers regardless of the source.

Joseph I have not been referring to Jews at all - but to those
accused, in the name of Exodus - of being witches.

My mistake.

Joseph you have clearly not read very widely of pre-modern world
views. I intended every word of the darkness of these ages. Life
for most people was nasty, brutish and short.

In the last 4 months, I've read and indexed over 1600 Sumerian
tablets, almost all of them mythical in nature. I specialize in
Bronze Age literature, though I'm not unfamiliar with Iron or later.
You'll have to do better than this.

Oh yes we do. Read the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs in
their treatment of those they conquered. It is blood curdling.

I'm sure the Assyrians did nothing more than copy those who came
before them. Here is a description of the Elamite conquest of
Sumer. If you can get past the thick religious buzz phrases of the
minstrel, you'll get the idea that there was nothing left of the
cities but piles of corpses.

http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr223.htm

(See especially after line 123.)

Joseph in 1400 BCE the Egyptians ruled Canaan, and had for nearly

150

years. There is no evidence of any new ethnic group, coming out of
Egypt, settling in the area of Israel, which was largely

uninhabited

at the time (small settlements at Jerusalem and Shechem only).

I would suggest that Egypt ruled or greatly influenced Canaan or at
least its southern end from times prior to the 1st dynasty, since
there are monuments to that effect in the Sinai. Egypt had varying
degrees of control until its last hurrah in the Iron age when invaded
by Lybians, Babylonians, Persians, ect. The Hyksos period was one of
those uncertain periods and lasted several centuries.

If you wouild like to, you may choose 1400 BC exactly and try to make
a case for "no ethnic group coming out of Egypt", but you have
several major problems. First, no evidence doesn't mean anything
more than that we have an unclear picture of what happened, and
second, the Hyksos period has left us very little evidence of much at
all. I don't think you can arrive at such conclusions.

As for Palestine being uninhabited, this is complete nonsense.

And how do you explain the fact that the Israelis were compelled to
labour on the buildings of Pi Raamses (which did not exist for
another nearly 150 years?)

I don't believe that this is a correct identification of the
buildings Jewish labor was used for. Pi Ramses is not unique to
history, nor are its builders the first to use slave labor, and Egypt
certainly never limited its use of slave labor to a single generation
for our benefit.

No Joseph, that leads us to misunderstanding. Try calculating for
instance how much water we need for a worldwide Deluge to cover all
lands to a depth greater than mount Everest? And then try
calculating the scientific energy needed to remove this water.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion, but there is no
need for such calculations. The story of the flood in Genesis is
about a deity who caused the flood, not about a world which could
produce the waters. I'm quite sure that a deity capable of creating
a universe would find it child's play creating the necessary water
and then removing it.

On the other hand, the creation of scenarios that explain history is
very reasonable and acceptable, but they must always be referred to
in a theoretical sense. They in no way have any bearing on the
evidence itself.

Respectfully,

Joseph

George

Joseph,

Please offer your explanation as to why
Deuteronomy says that the Transjordan tribes
were NOT hostile to the incoming Hebrew....
while the rest of the O.T. says they were?

Which is correct?

George

--- In AncientBibleHistory@..., "joseph_mahal"
<joseph_mahal@y...> wrote:

I highly doubt that there is as much adjusting to Biblical text as
you seem to be implying here in post-exilic times. The Dead Sea
Scrolls seem to attest to separate evolutions of scripture coming
from Babylonian Jews and those in Palestine during the exile, and

the

wording between the two is not so different as to suggest major
changes, rather they suggest minor scribal errors.

joseph_mahal

This would be a very complex discussion for which we have inadequate
material.

What you're asking is for me to discuss the political arrangements
between the Egyptian overlords with the petty kings of Canaan, the
history of their loyalties toward the Pharaohs, specific attitudes
between the reigning kings that can only come from their diplomatic
exchanges, the current status of other important kings of the time,
namely those in Anatolia, Syria, Ugarit (including the Hapiru) and
possibly Assyria and whether certain petty kings in Canaan would feel
comfortable breaking with Egypt.

You're also asking me to evaluate the impact of 2 million people
leaving the Nile Delta on Egyptian strength and economy, the impact
of those same people entering the Sinai, Negev and transjordan areas,
and how each successive kingdom responded.

Not only are you asking me to do this in the absence of textual
evidence, you're asking me to evaluate the perceptions of writers in
later centuries on these very complex issues.

Before I attempt this task, I would like to ask "why do you ask?"

(And before you offer a long monologue outlining the evidence that
such a contradiction exists, you may want to offer some explanation
that the evidence is actually dependable, given the controversies of
dating the texts of the OT.)

Respectfully,

Joseph

--- In AncientBibleHistory@..., "George"
<historynow2002@y...> wrote:

Joseph,

Please offer your explanation as to why
Deuteronomy says that the Transjordan tribes
were NOT hostile to the incoming Hebrew....
while the rest of the O.T. says they were?

Which is correct?

George

George

Joseph,

Goodness.... I certainly don't need for you
to discuss the poliical arrangements between the
Egyptian overlords with the petty kings of Canaan.

My point was that there is a contradiction between
Deuteronomy and other references to the same
events: did Moab help or refuse to help the
movement of the Hebrew?

Do you agree that there is a contradiction?

George

Joseph wrote

With numbers like these, there must be ample corroborating evidence
in other areas. Here are some things I would expect to see:

1) Mass graves that account for at least 2/3 of these volumes&#92;
2) Economic response in the colonies due to loss of 1/3 populations
3) A shipyard industry that would support the logistics required to
transport tens of millions of immigrants to the colonies
4) Prisons to house the thousands or tens of thousands that at any
given time must have been awaiting trial

Does such evidence exist? If not, I would be careful of such large
numbers regardless of the source.

Yes Joseph, just read anything on "the Thirty Years War". You can
check it out on google.

Joseph I don't know why you are speaking of the Colonies here. The
witch craze, which extended to America, was largely a European affair.

My mistake.

I wrote

Oh yes we do. Read the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs in
their treatment of those they conquered. It is blood curdling.

I'm sure the Assyrians did nothing more than copy those who came
before them. Here is a description of the Elamite conquest of
Sumer. If you can get past the thick religious buzz phrases of the
minstrel, you'll get the idea that there was nothing left of the
cities but piles of corpses.

http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr223.htm

(See especially after line 123.)

Thanks.

Yes it does sound grim. But with the Epic of Tukulti Ninurta
onwards, it seems that the kind of empire they were building required
such bestial*ty on a continuous and unceasing scale.

I would suggest that Egypt ruled or greatly influenced Canaan or at
least its southern end from times prior to the 1st dynasty, since
there are monuments to that effect in the Sinai.

Yes certainly for the Southern Sinai, but not necessarily northwards
much. The only thing I can find other than a continuing influence on
Gubla (Byblos) is the campaigns of Senusret in Retenu, which seem to
have formed some of the background to Sinhue.

If you wouild like to, you may choose 1400 BC exactly and try to
make a case for "no ethnic group coming out of Egypt", but you have
several major problems. First, no evidence doesn't mean anything
more than that we have an unclear picture of what happened, and
second, the Hyksos period has left us very little evidence of much
at all. I don't think you can arrive at such conclusions.

Joseph, 1400 is the reign of Amenhotep II. We have a fairly clear
understanding of this period surely?

As for Palestine being uninhabited, this is complete nonsense.

Not Palestine Joseph, much of the Hill country. See the studies on
location geography that are reported by Finkelstein.

I don't believe that this is a correct identification of the
buildings Jewish labor was used for. Pi Ramses is not unique to
history, nor are its builders the first to use slave labor, and
Egypt certainly never limited its use of slave labor to a single
generation for our benefit.

I was just quoting Exodus on this one Joseph. It makes specific
reference to Raameses.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion, but there is
no need for such calculations. The story of the flood in Genesis
is about a deity who caused the flood, not about a world which
could produce the waters.

Joseph I thought it was about a whole planet covered in water for 40
days and nights, just 5 thousand odd years ago.

I'm quite sure that a deity capable of creating a universe would
find it child's play creating the necessary water and then removing
it.

Hmmmm.... the Universe that the people of this time conceptualised is
very different from ours. This is the point I was trying to make.

Regards

John

joseph_mahal

--- In AncientBibleHistory@..., "George"
<historynow2002@y...> wrote:

Joseph,

Goodness.... I certainly don't need for you
to discuss the poliical arrangements between the
Egyptian overlords with the petty kings of Canaan.

My point was that there is a contradiction between
Deuteronomy and other references to the same
events: did Moab help or refuse to help the
movement of the Hebrew?

Do you agree that there is a contradiction?

George

No, I don't. I don't think that we have sufficient information on
the subject to consider the situation so closely as to charge one or
both with error.

However, I wouldn't mind seeing what evidence you have that leads you
to this conclusion. Which passages are you using?

Respectfully,

Joseph

joseph_mahal

I think its safe to say that you and I come from radically different
viewpoints. Personally, I take after Solomon: "there is nothing new
under the sun". Where you may see brutality in one particular
period, I seem to notice it where ever I look.

--- In AncientBibleHistory@..., "John" <jdcroft@y...>
wrote:

Yes certainly for the Southern Sinai, but not necessarily

northwards

much.

What I've found is that the Hittites considered Egypt the rulers and
owners of everything south of Byblos throughout their history (1650-
1200). Above them was Mitanni and Ugarit at various times, more or
less as a buffer.

I wonder if you're aware of the elitism in most diplomatic
correspondence of the time. Have you ever heard pharoahs or other
rulers referring to each other as "brothers", though they had no
family relation? Hittite records indicate there were 5 "brothers":
the rulers of Hatti, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia and Hurria (Mitanni).
These five more or less carved up the known world between each other
and exercized not necessarily complete control over them but at least
arrived at an understanding between themselves that to encroach in
these areas was an act of war.

So when I refer to Palestine as belonging to Egypt, this is what I
mean.

Joseph, 1400 is the reign of Amenhotep II. We have a fairly clear
understanding of this period surely?

I don't care to get into a debate of high or low chronology for
Egyptian rulers. Suffice it to say that our knowledge of that time
is not altogether clear if we can't even precisely date it, and my
opinion is that the exodus took place long before this date. I think
you're looking for a large group of people leaving Egypt in the wrong
period.

Not Palestine Joseph, much of the Hill country. See the studies on
location geography that are reported by Finkelstein.

Finkelstein is a highly respected Bible minimalist. I take
everything he says with a grain of salt, though I enjoy reading his
work.

My understanding of the material culture left behind by any people is
that we in modern times will almost always find that of the rich and
powerful only. Poor people usually left behind only what was
perishable--food stuffs, leather, clay, wood, etc. The only obvious
exception is pottery. Durable goods, metals, stone, weapons, etc.,
were the property of kings and the affluent, and they can never be
taken as representitive of an entire people.

Therefore I find it difficult to believe that the hill country was
ever uninhabited. I'm sure empty land would always be attractive at
least to shepherds.

I was just quoting Exodus on this one Joseph. It makes specific
reference to Raameses.

I lean more toward the Hyksos capital and a scribal error on the part
of the Bible writer. No justification for this, really, I just don't
think Moses lived in that period.

Joseph I thought it was about a whole planet covered in water for

40

days and nights, just 5 thousand odd years ago.

Well, if you insist:

The Bible puts the flood around 2350 BC
Sumerian history would put it literally about 2 million years ago or
practically around 3500 BC (as did Whooley)
The Shih King (Chinese historical records) puts the flood around 2500
BC or so.
Other legends around the world very.

Hmmmm.... the Universe that the people of this time conceptualised

is

very different from ours. This is the point I was trying to make.

The universe of the writers of the Bible was that described in
Genesis 1, and it was that universe that was destroyed.

So if you would like me to rephrase:

A deity who can simply speak and bring into being a heavens, earth,
sun, moon, and stars would find it child's play to add a surplus of a
single element (water) and then remove it again.

The universe of the Sumerians, who are likely the source of these
stories, was very much the same, though they made a much more
colorful description of places such as Dilmun, Kur and the
combination of the heavens and earth (and their end-products, the
earth and the absu sky). It was their opinion that rain fell only 7
days and that the gates of the deep were the source of the flood, or
more specifically, the waters of the underworld welling up into the
lands of the material world.

Neither of these views change my statement enough to matter.

Respectfully,

Joseph

George

Joseph,

You wanted to know which texts that I find
inconsistencies in. They are below. Especially
interesting are the inconsistencies WITHIN Deuteronomy,
suggesting redactions or inserts.

#############################################

Num 20:18 And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass
by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword.

Num 20:21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through
his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.

Num 24:18 And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a
possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly.

#############################################
Deu 2:4-9
And command thou the people, saying, Ye [are] to pass
through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which
dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good
heed unto yourselves therefore:

Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no,
not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount
Seir unto Esau [for] a possession.

Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat;
and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink.

For the LORD thy God hath blessed thee in all the works of
thy hand: he knoweth thy walking through this great wilderness:
these forty years the LORD thy God [hath been] with thee;
thou hast lacked nothing.

And when we passed by from our brethren the children of
Esau, which dwelt in Seir, through the way of the plain from
Elath, and from Eziongaber, we turned and passed by the way
of the wilderness of Moab.

And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither
contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their
land [for] a possession; because I have given Ar unto the
children of Lot [for] a possession.

##################################################

Deu 23:3
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of
the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into
the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Deu 23:4 Because they met you not with bread and with
water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because
they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of
Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

Deu 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he [is] thy brother:
thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in
his land.

##################################################

Jdg 11:17 Then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying,
Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land: but the king of Edom would
not hearken [thereto]. And in like manner they sent unto the king of
Moab:
but he would not [consent]: and Israel abode in Kadesh.

#############################################

Regards,

George

ethel jean saltz

I use this point a lot now. Indeed, I was using it in reference to USA
education yesterday with agreement from an active teacher. What
happened this morning? The World Trade Organization on farming methods
broke up because of the differences between the wealthy and poor
nations!! Before I read this ABH post, I was thinking what are the
differences? Are the rich nations those that buy into the
Bible/Abrahamic Faith and the poor nations those that don't? All sorts
of the same kind of questions that we ask on this list. I now tend to
look to the Bible first, because it's so much a part of global
intellectuality for the last 2000 years, no matter what other cultures
exist. Can we look at the rich and poor nations of the World Trade
Organization to see the bible effect?

We did change the Japanese religion after WWII and, thus, homicidal
suicide. We also introduced vitamins and they do have more stature
now. If this is true now, then it was true then.

After all is said and done, we only can talk on the evidence and it is
quite possible that the bible text can be a sturdy reflection as in a
textbook of Ancient History. After all we fight over textbooks today.
I do myself. I carry two different calculus I textbooks 25 years apart
to show how the same subject can be told two different ways. Thank
goodness, the committee that canonized the Jewish Testament understood
this historical fact ;)

joseph_mahal wrote:

joseph_mahal

I guess I was expecting something that said "they allowed them to
pass" and others saying "they did not allow them to pass".

I'm sorry, I don't see the contradiction.

Respectfully,

Joseph

--- In AncientBibleHistory@..., "George"
<historynow2002@y...> wrote:

Joseph,

You wanted to know which texts that I find
inconsistencies in. They are below. Especially
interesting are the inconsistencies WITHIN Deuteronomy,
suggesting redactions or inserts.

#############################################

Num 20:18 And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass
by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword.

Num 20:21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through
his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.

Num 24:18 And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a
possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly.

#############################################
Deu 2:4-9
And command thou the people, saying, Ye [are] to pass
through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which
dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good
heed unto yourselves therefore:

Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no,
not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount
Seir unto Esau [for] a possession.

Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat;
and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink.

For the LORD thy God hath blessed thee in all the works of
thy hand: he knoweth thy walking through this great wilderness:
these forty years the LORD thy God [hath been] with thee;
thou hast lacked nothing.

And when we passed by from our brethren the children of
Esau, which dwelt in Seir, through the way of the plain from
Elath, and from Eziongaber, we turned and passed by the way
of the wilderness of Moab.

And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither
contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their
land [for] a possession; because I have given Ar unto the
children of Lot [for] a possession.

##################################################

Deu 23:3
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of
the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into
the congregation of the LORD for ever:

Deu 23:4 Because they met you not with bread and with
water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because
they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of
Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

Deu 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he [is] thy brother:
thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in
his land.

##################################################

Jdg 11:17 Then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying,
Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land: but the king of Edom

would

not hearken [thereto]. And in like manner they sent unto the king

of

Moab:
but he would not [consent]: and Israel abode in Kadesh.

#############################################

Regards,

George