pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

...

Buffy and Angel were clearly from the mind of Joss Wheldon.

He is a creator of fiction. I use him as a point of comparison to other fiction writers.

Quote:

There was probably no singular basis for the storytelling, the Jewish book of myths draws on many others incorporating rewritten tales of others in the Sci-Fi and creative writing.

It is clear from the Whedon example there is no need for multiple sources. It cannot be other than idle speculation as to the number of sources without concrete examples of what was copied. It adds nothing to the subject.

I have exchanged posts with a man who claims to read Greek and to have read the Septuagint who told me it reads uniformly and with the same style throughout.

Quote:

Myths from Canaan are found within as well as all of the pagan gods from Egypt to Greece and even some from the "captivity period". Babylonian and Persian myths and stories are also drawn upon. That all of these stories circulated with caravans throughout trading routes gave those who developed the stories into a religion many sources to use.  The same holds true for all of the religions of the ancients. Many were similar or were the same gods. Jews and Christians deny the connections but they are prevalent throughout the texts.

I find the distinction "pagan" to be meaningless and distracting as there is no difference save for the power of summary execution it gives the priest kings.

Talking about caravans and trade routes and such is again nothing idle fantasy. They are unnecesary inventions serving only to make the stories appear to be other than they are. It gives a false impression of ancient or traditional when there is none in evidence. There is never a justification for extraenious hypothesis. Trust Penn Gillette but use Occam.

I see no point whatsoever for such unnecessary speculation. But it appears necessary if and only if one is trying to salvage the idea the stories were written in bibleland by illiterate people who could not write.

Quote:

And of course archeology also supports that the people of Palestine and Judea clearly worshiped the pagan gods, as in mini idols and statuettes found in the homes throughout the land. These are not just from one century either, but date throughout the periods where the storytelling indicates the Yahweh was the god of the land.  Of course they deny that it is significant and represents only those that fell away from the one true god.

The only two inscriptions found are funerary and mention Yahweh and his consort Ashara. There is no indication of Yahweh alone. The statues that have been found are most all of Ashara alone but a few have room for her consort Yahweh. A god/goddss pair was the norm for local deities. As for the written historical records there are mentions of both Beit Astarte and Beit Yahweh. Herod built a Beit Astarte in Caesarea. That the pious translate the former as Strato's Tower and the later as temple of Yahweh is justified solely by knowing Astarte was not worshipped -- because the women left no written records of course. aSTaRT and STRaTo are the same name without vowels. Beit is dwelling place and takes its English translation based upon what the believer knows it cannot mean.

When Alexander took Tyre, a "Strato's Tower" was north of causeway he build on the shore side of it. The bogus idea that Strato was some local military genius a centur and a half after Alexander goes back to the 4th c. AD. It is also the first mention of a military origin. Needless to say the emperor who mentioned it was a Christian.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

Did Ezra create the OT as indicated in 4 Esdras, which itself may be a created 1st century CE writing as well? 4 Esdras 14:21-48 indicates the books of the law were burnt. In the next 40 days supposedly he and others wrote 94 books, 24 to be published and 70 to be held in secret.

The first problem is we know what literate cultures are like. Items of religious content are the least common. If this were a legitimate local product there should be indications of tens of times more civil laws and decrees, court rulings and official records. But there is nothing. Shall we plead bibleland exceptionalism?
The second is, in what language was it written? So they are dragged off to Babylon from bibleland where all the known inscriptions are written in Phoenician script and they come back to an illiterate culture and choose to write in hebrew a language no one ever spoke using Aramaic script from the 1st c. AD. Something has to give there. I prefer to let the believers fight and drop back to the simplest explanation, it didn't happen.
The third problem is, after 70 years in a land of dirt cheap clay to write on and a reportedly quick method of writing (despite appearances) they did not use it. They did not even use the clay. In fact, from the archaeological evidence, they did not write at all.
For believers the answer to all these problems is simple. The OT exists therefore they could write. The rest is simply rationalizing away the problems. Pardon if I find the reasoning circular.
There are more problems of course. If Ezra wrote chronological history then he, not Herodotus, is the father of history. Want to deal with that one?

I think the Ezra claim in Esdras was a writer trying to explain how these story tales suddenly appeared. There may have been legends that circulated that he's the one that saved the history of the Judeans. Legends can be creative fiction with no basis or they can have basis. I don't see basis to it.

What is the point of speculating upon the origin of material that does not appear until centuries later in Greek? As there is no physical evidence for this speculation and no need to explain anything other than origin in Egypt under the Greeks you introduce the unnecessary to salvage an origin in bibleland. That is not reasonable. But first you need a literate culture and there is no evidence of one. Therefore the speculation is a priori impossible. It is not rational to speculate that the impossible occurred.

By local product I mean the apparent belief that it was written down by illiterate people. It is further compounded by the belief these people actually existed.

Time in Babylon is a myth therefore people returning from a myth are also myths. QED

Quote:

The Assyrians and the Babylonians did drag off many people and relocate them. They also moved in other settlers.

Upon what physical evidence do you base your assertion regarding both those kingdoms?

Without physical evidence it is not reasonable to accept either. To claim people were taken to Babylon based upon a 2nd c. BC story in Greek is not rational.

Quote:

As I have mentioned, I see no reason to conclude the supposed Northern Kingdom ever were believers in the Yahweh as depicted in the storytales. In fact, the opposite is the conclusion one gets from studying the archeology and interrelated history of other cultures.

Nor is there any evidence of a southern kingdom for all the same reasons. Why not come to the same conclusion about both? This is like grasping at any straw to hold on to the belief Buffy is a real person.

Quote:

That no clay tablets were written is suggestive of the type of people that were taken to Babylon, workman and artisans, not writers. Nebuchadrezzar's point in taking captives and prisoners also was to end once and for all problems with Judah and kings that failed to follow his orders. He gutted them of all that could resist. Those that weren't useful weren't around for long.

Again no evidence anyone was taken there. But then how are you going to salvage the idea they returned literate at all? And after that without the tools of literacy?

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

This text is attributed to an unknown writer of Apocalyptic leanings in the 1st century. Was this writer actually passing on a legend of earlier times, that Ezra wrote the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps, or not.

Or was he like every good fiction writer today reimagining a story like many people today reimagining legends of vampires and werewolve and zombies? Night of the Living Dead is the first time zombies are really dead. That was original. Does that make true? Does that make it in any way different from previous stories? Or was he like the educated in ancient times who completed the required "course work" learning to rewrite anything in their own words with an eye to both personalizing and improving it?

Exactly. I don't see it as true. I see it as a way the writer was trying to give legitimacy to the storytales.

Except the tales you claim were being given legitimacy are not in evidence rather only in your imagination. It is not reasonable to imagine something and then come up with a rationalization for your imaginings that salvages a bibleland origin which is based upon nothing but a forgery.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

...

Buffy and Angel were clearly from the mind of Joss Wheldon.

He is a creator of fiction. I use him as a point of comparison to other fiction writers.

And even Joss used legends in his fiction. Though they eventually started making up names of demons as they were running out. See the DVD's extra material for details

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

There was probably no singular basis for the storytelling, the Jewish book of myths draws on many others incorporating rewritten tales of others in the Sci-Fi and creative writing.

It is clear from the Whedon example there is no need for multiple sources. It cannot be other than idle speculation as to the number of sources without concrete examples of what was copied. It adds nothing to the subject.

I have exchanged posts with a man who claims to read Greek and to have read the Septuagint who told me it reads uniformly and with the same style throughout.

There may have been no need, yet the Babble does use other storytelling myths. Perhaps taken out of the archives in the Library.

The Genesis myths incorporate Egyptian where there existed only the primeval ocean of chaos for example. If created in Alexandria as you claim, many of these would be used. Though this story is not unique to them.

In Sumer a similar story is explained, Nammu, the sea, gave birth to heaven and earth or An and Ki, see ETCSL.

According to Sumerian myths, man did not receive eternal life thanks to Adapa who fails to drink the water of life and the bread of life when he is called before An after disrupting the south wind.

The goddess Nin-ti is the lady of the rib in Sumerian myths.

Enki and Ninmah (aka Nunhurgsag or Ki) create man out of clay in Sumerian myths.

Then we have the flood myths, Sumerian and ancient Babylonian where the noise of man disturbed the gods and either Gilgamaesh or Ziudsura was saved by building a boat.

Psalm 74:13-14 is a rewrite of The Ba'al Cycle which is Sumerian based as well. In it Ba'al kills the henchman of Yamm, Litan and the twisty serpent that had 7 heads or the Leviathan in the OT. Babylon had it as Marduk crushing Tiamat and Kingu.

Isaiah 27:1 refers to this mistranslating sea serpent to be a dragon.

Samson is much like the Greek hero Herakles or Heracles (Roman Hercules is slightly different) - from wiki - "Samson bears many similar traits to the Greek Herakles (and the Roman Hercules adaptation), inspired himself partially from the mesopotamian Enkidu tale: Herakles and Samson both battled a Lion bare handed (Lion of Nemea feat), Herakles and Samson both had a favorite primitive blunt weapon (a club for the first, an ass's jaw for the latter), they were both betrayed by a woman which led them to their ultimate fate (Herakles by Dejanira, while Samson by Delilah). Both heroes, champion of their respective people, die by their own hand: Herakles ends his life on a pyre while Samson makes the Philistine temple collapse upon himself and his enemies."

There are many more.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

Myths from Canaan are found within as well as all of the pagan gods from Egypt to Greece and even some from the "captivity period". Babylonian and Persian myths and stories are also drawn upon. That all of these stories circulated with caravans throughout trading routes gave those who developed the stories into a religion many sources to use.  The same holds true for all of the religions of the ancients. Many were similar or were the same gods. Jews and Christians deny the connections but they are prevalent throughout the texts.

I find the distinction "pagan" to be meaningless and distracting as there is no difference save for the power of summary execution it gives the priest kings.

OK then, the gods of their ancestors which were not a single god.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Talking about caravans and trade routes and such is again nothing idle fantasy. They are unnecesary inventions serving only to make the stories appear to be other than they are. It gives a false impression of ancient or traditional when there is none in evidence. There is never a justification for extraenious hypothesis. Trust Penn Gillette but use Occam.

Sorry, there is ample proof of caravans and trade in olive oil especially from Samaria. One of the things Assyria gained after conquering Samaria (Israel) was control of the olive oil trade. Many olive oil presses dating to this period have been found.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I see no point whatsoever for such unnecessary speculation. But it appears necessary if and only if one is trying to salvage the idea the stories were written in bibleland by illiterate people who could not write.

I'm certainly not giving them credit for writing the stories, if anything they were rehashed and spit out by priest shamans trying to control the people in specific areas.

Salvage, not hardly.

Even if your claim of "Created in Alexandria" is true, the stories still have myths and legends in them. The myths obviously could have been in the Library as I said.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

And of course archeology also supports that the people of Palestine and Judea clearly worshiped the pagan gods, as in mini idols and statuettes found in the homes throughout the land. These are not just from one century either, but date throughout the periods where the storytelling indicates the Yahweh was the god of the land.  Of course they deny that it is significant and represents only those that fell away from the one true god.

The only two inscriptions found are funerary and mention Yahweh and his consort Ashara. There is no indication of Yahweh alone. The statues that have been found are most all of Ashara alone but a few have room for her consort Yahweh. A god/goddss pair was the norm for local deities. As for the written historical records there are mentions of both Beit Astarte and Beit Yahweh. Herod built a Beit Astarte in Caesarea. That the pious translate the former as Strato's Tower and the later as temple of Yahweh is justified solely by knowing Astarte was not worshipped -- because the women left no written records of course. aSTaRT and STRaTo are the same name without vowels. Beit is dwelling place and takes its English translation based upon what the believer knows it cannot mean.

So it appears we still agree. The Yahweh of old was derived from Ugaritic origins and was a sub god of El. His consort was Astarte or Ashara sometimes just called Asherah. Asherah is the name for any consort of a god. Yahweh and one of the Ba'als may also be considered the same god as well.

See - The Early History of God: Yahweh and the other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S Smith.

p 64 - " In conclusion, according to the available evidence, Israelite religion in its earliest form did not contrast markedly with the religions of its Levantine neighbors in either number or configuration of deities. Rather the number of deities in Israel was typical for the region."

Throughout this book the author makes clear that Israel (Samaria and its allied cities) was not different than any other kingdom in the area. The Yahweh was worshiped along with Ba'al. One also needs to be aware that there were many ba'als, almost every town and city had one. The major deity called Ba'al is generally thought to have been Ba'al Shemen, a storm god, at least in the time of Ahab. Yahweh also was a storm god in Ugaritic literature as well as in artifacts.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

When Alexander took Tyre, a "Strato's Tower" was north of causeway he build on the shore side of it. The bogus idea that Strato was some local military genius a centur and a half after Alexander goes back to the 4th c. AD. It is also the first mention of a military origin. Needless to say the emperor who mentioned it was a Christian.

Sounds possible, I'd have to look into that further.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

Did Ezra create the OT as indicated in 4 Esdras, which itself may be a created 1st century CE writing as well? 4 Esdras 14:21-48 indicates the books of the law were burnt. In the next 40 days supposedly he and others wrote 94 books, 24 to be published and 70 to be held in secret.

The first problem is we know what literate cultures are like. Items of religious content are the least common. If this were a legitimate local product there should be indications of tens of times more civil laws and decrees, court rulings and official records. But there is nothing. Shall we plead bibleland exceptionalism?
The second is, in what language was it written? So they are dragged off to Babylon from bibleland where all the known inscriptions are written in Phoenician script and they come back to an illiterate culture and choose to write in hebrew a language no one ever spoke using Aramaic script from the 1st c. AD. Something has to give there. I prefer to let the believers fight and drop back to the simplest explanation, it didn't happen.
The third problem is, after 70 years in a land of dirt cheap clay to write on and a reportedly quick method of writing (despite appearances) they did not use it. They did not even use the clay. In fact, from the archaeological evidence, they did not write at all.
For believers the answer to all these problems is simple. The OT exists therefore they could write. The rest is simply rationalizing away the problems. Pardon if I find the reasoning circular.
There are more problems of course. If Ezra wrote chronological history then he, not Herodotus, is the father of history. Want to deal with that one?

I think the Ezra claim in Esdras was a writer trying to explain how these story tales suddenly appeared. There may have been legends that circulated that he's the one that saved the history of the Judeans. Legends can be creative fiction with no basis or they can have basis. I don't see basis to it.

What is the point of speculating upon the origin of material that does not appear until centuries later in Greek? As there is no physical evidence for this speculation and no need to explain anything other than origin in Egypt under the Greeks you introduce the unnecessary to salvage an origin in bibleland. That is not reasonable. But first you need a literate culture and there is no evidence of one. Therefore the speculation is a priori impossible. It is not rational to speculate that the impossible occurred.

So your view is that a scribe in Egypt just created the whole story without any myths or legends at all?

He just wrote a complete fiction drawing on nothing but his own imagination? He or they more likely had a huge library from which to paraphrase stories and you don't think they did so?

How many people does it take to write down a myth? Can one person document a myth or do they have to have school houses in every village for that to happen?

Why do we have storytelling from the Sumerians? Somebody wrote them. Did everyone there read and write? Possibly more literacy in Sumer than in backwoods places like Syria - Palestine. Lots of clay tablets even with grocery lists from Sumer.

...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

By local product I mean the apparent belief that it was written down by illiterate people. It is further compounded by the belief these people actually existed.

Someone existed in Hatti-land. They left behind evidence that has been found.

Not the great vast bunch of bullshit empire as in the babble stories, but small settlements and a slow growth in the southern section and a much faster growth in the Northern part.

I do not know where the stories and myths originated. The ones not specific to the Babble have been documented in many cultures. No, I do not think illiterate people wrote anything. Clearly done by priest shamans or in the courts of kings

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Time in Babylon is a myth therefore people returning from a myth are also myths. QED

Various inscriptions by Assyrians and Babylonians claim to have captured and relocated persons from Hatti-land.

These inscriptions don't document what religious bullshit the people practiced though.

Do you want a list of them or do you already know?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

The Assyrians and the Babylonians did drag off many people and relocate them. They also moved in other settlers.

Upon what physical evidence do you base your assertion regarding both those kingdoms?

Assyria and Babylon documented these in clay tablets and artifacts regarding their campaigns and relocations.

They do not indicate the Bullshit found in the Babble. And NEVER do they indicate what religious bullshit was practiced.

They went out on annual booty ventures? Or you think that the part of Hatti-land where Samaria and those south of them in the hick town of Jerusalem and Lachish were special and not attacked?

Are you asking that those parts of Hatti-land be given special treatment or something? That because the Assyrians made military trips to the cities of Hatti they didn't find anyone in these areas?

If you question that they relocated people see:

http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html Here Nebuchadrezzar captured the city of Judah in Hatti-land, deposing its king and setting another on the throne. This is in ABC 5 as translated by AK Grayson on the reverse lines 11-13.

12'. and besieged the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Addaru he seized the city and captured the king [Jehoiachin; note 2]. 13'. He appointed there a king of his own choice [Zedekiah], received its heavy tribute and sent to Babylon.

The heavy tribute is not detailed in the tablet. The religion of the city of Judah is not mentioned, they could have worshiped Hadad far as anyone would know from this.  Do you think this is make belief?

Examples of Assyria taking captives goes back many years:

King Arik-den-ili approximately 1296-1308 BCE in the following tablet - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/cm/arik-den-ili.html captured an unknown city and took the captives to Ashur.

See lines 19-36.

Shalmaneser I about 1274 to 1245 BCE - See Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon (ARAB) by Daniel David Luckerbill volume 1 chapter 5 . available online at: http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/Luck/arabtoc.html

He was one of the early Assyrian kings to relocate people. See p39 section 114 where he detailed he selected their young men for service of those he conquered.

Shalmaneser III 858-824 BCE invaded Hatti-land several times. He has left several stele indicating his battles and the submission of various kings, including those of Hatti-land. see pp 200-252 in the above book.

These include:

Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III

Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III

Kurba'il Statue of Shalmaneser III

Calah Bulls of Shalmaneser III

Marble Slab inscription of Shalmaneser III

The battle of Qarqar is also detailed.

One of the kings of Assyria practiced mass deportation on a scale never before seen, that would be Tiglath-pileser III 744-727 BCE

see pp 269-297 in ARAB above.

In his detail of tribute received he mentioned Azariah of Judah giving much tribute. (No religion mentioned) On various expeditions he killed Rezin of Damascus and worked his way down the coast. Devastating the Northern kingdom taking all of the towns but Samaria. He deposed the Meneham then installed his own named Hoshea. Most of Israel was administered by Assyria after this.

The king installed in Samaria stupidly revolts seeking help from Egypt. Shalmaneser V, the son of Tiglath-pilesar III is king and sieges Samaria for about 3 years. He dies and his successor Sargon II finished it of or he did, which is not very clear.

Either way he takes the credit - "The inhabitants of Samaria/Samerina, who agreed [and plotted] with a king [hostile to] me, not to do service and not to bring tribute [to Ashshur] and who did battle, I fought against them with the power of the great gods, my lords. I counted as spoil 27,280 people, together with their chariots, and gods, in which they trusted. I formed a unit with 200 of [their] chariots for my royal force. I settled the rest of them in the midst of Assyria. I repopulated Samaria/Samerina more than before. I brought into it people from countries conquered by my hands. I appointed my eunuch as governor over them. And I counted them as Assyrians.(Nimrud Prisms."

It appears from Assyrian records about 20% of the Northern kingdom were relocated. You have something to dispute the records of Assyria on this?

The next event affecting Hatti-land would be Lachish which was totally destroyed - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lachish_Relief,_British_Museum_1.jpg

Sennacherib would then force the Kingdom of Judah (or whatever you'd like to call it to submit):

"As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up earthworks against him— the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bêl, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I lad upon him the surrender of their land and imposts—gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers." - From Column 3 of the Sennacherib Prisim

Is Sennacherib lying about Lachish and Hezekiah? Did the Assyrians invade a land that you claim did not exist?

Note, no religion is mentioned here, Judah is documented being invaded by Assyria, did it happen or not?

He is exaggerating about the captives probably unless he counted all of the animals with the people and even then I'd have doubts.

Nebuchadrezzar II claimed in ABC 5 to have deposed a king  of Judah and put another on the throne taking heavy tribute - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html

Once again Note : there is nothing here that tells one the religion of these people.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Without physical evidence it is not reasonable to accept either. To claim people were taken to Babylon based upon a 2nd c. BC story in Greek is not rational.

I use the clay tablets for such, not bullshit by those in Hatti-land. See above. I do not know who these people prayed to, it's not in the clay tablets, your favorite, Buffy perhaps.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

As I have mentioned, I see no reason to conclude the supposed Northern Kingdom ever were believers in the Yahweh as depicted in the storytales. In fact, the opposite is the conclusion one gets from studying the archeology and interrelated history of other cultures.

Nor is there any evidence of a southern kingdom for all the same reasons. Why not come to the same conclusion about both? This is like grasping at any straw to hold on to the belief Buffy is a real person.

The inscriptions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians do not indicate what religious bullshit was practiced in the southern part of Hatti, only that there were people and kings.

Some sort of kingdom existed in the city called Jerusalem in the land of Hatti.

So, no I'm not saying that the Babble tales have dick for validity at all. All I've indicated is the myths and legends existed that were partly utilized by the fiction writer to create his bullshit tale.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

That no clay tablets were written is suggestive of the type of people that were taken to Babylon, workman and artisans, not writers. Nebuchadrezzar's point in taking captives and prisoners also was to end once and for all problems with Judah and kings that failed to follow his orders. He gutted them of all that could resist. Those that weren't useful weren't around for long.

Again no evidence anyone was taken there. But then how are you going to salvage the idea they returned literate at all? And after that without the tools of literacy?

It appears some people were taken there according to Assyria and Babylon.

The tales may have been written in Greek or in Pig Latin as far as anyone knows, it matters not. They contain the myths and bullshit that is impossible. That some of them use actual events means someone read or knew of the events connected to Assyria and Babylon. That the rest is Sci-Fi and fiction is obvious.

Why deny there were countries in Hatti-land? It appears that Assyria and Babylon could tell they were there.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

This text is attributed to an unknown writer of Apocalyptic leanings in the 1st century. Was this writer actually passing on a legend of earlier times, that Ezra wrote the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps, or not.

Or was he like every good fiction writer today reimagining a story like many people today reimagining legends of vampires and werewolve and zombies? Night of the Living Dead is the first time zombies are really dead. That was original. Does that make true? Does that make it in any way different from previous stories? Or was he like the educated in ancient times who completed the required "course work" learning to rewrite anything in their own words with an eye to both personalizing and improving it?

Exactly. I don't see it as true. I see it as a way the writer was trying to give legitimacy to the storytales.

Except the tales you claim were being given legitimacy are not in evidence rather only in your imagination. It is not reasonable to imagine something and then come up with a rationalization for your imaginings that salvages a bibleland origin which is based upon nothing but a forgery.

The tales and myths I refer to are in Ugaritic stories, Egyptian myths, and Sumerian as well. The other BS in the Babble is creative fiction fitting some of the myths and real historical people into the storytales. If done in Egypt then the use of alot of the myths from there would make sense. As Egypt was not isolated and had a large library the fiction writers would have had access to the myths and legends of others. Perhaps you are correct the Babble was created there. As it contains references to many real kings and leaders, misunderstood many times, and lots of events that could never have happened, someone had access to historical info. That they even got much of that wrong indicates they were using inaccurate info or altered it to suit their goals.

So, all in all I see why you consider it made in Egypt, you may be on to something. I can see how they could have done it.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

And even Joss used legends in his fiction. Though they eventually started making up names of demons as they were running out. See the DVD's extra material for details

We recognize the use of legends because we can point to the legends. We can recognize a few legends in the Septuagint because know of them independently such as the Gilgamesh flood although I do not consider that necessarily correct as any remarkably large flood would do. However none of them are specific to the bibleland stories. We may speculate specific to bibleland legends existed but absent evidence they did in fact exist it is nothing but speculation. No rational person accepts speculation as fact.

Further when the entire purpose of the speculation is to salvage some fragment of the Septuagint stories, ancient origins in far away lands in this case, the objective is clearly self-serving to the ends of the believers, without value other than in preserving belief and assumes the conclusion in the speculation which is a logical fallacy.

PJTS wrote:

There may have been no need, yet the Babble does use other storytelling myths. Perhaps taken out of the archives in the Library.

The Alexandrian library gets us right back to Greek authorship. Greek interest gets us to the proxy war in the mid 2nd c. BC. Aramaic was the language of bibleland at that time so any use of Greek resources for creation by Judeans could only have been into Aramaic which thus excludes them as authors. Assuming they were written by Judeans in Alexandria writing in Greek adds needless complexity and cannot be verified at this time.

Quote:

The Genesis myths incorporate Egyptian where there existed only the primeval ocean of chaos for example. If created in Alexandria as you claim, many of these would be used. Though this story is not unique to them.

 

Not only that I believe I have made a credible case that the characteristics of Amun were given to the minor deity Yahweh. This further establishes authorship by Greeks in Egypt.

 

Quote:

In Sumer a similar story is explained, Nammu, the sea, gave birth to heaven and earth or An and Ki, see ETCSL.

According to Sumerian myths, man did not receive eternal life thanks to Adapa who fails to drink the water of life and the bread of life when he is called before An after disrupting the south wind.

The goddess Nin-ti is the lady of the rib in Sumerian myths.

Enki and Ninmah (aka Nunhurgsag or Ki) create man out of clay in Sumerian myths.

Amun in Egyptian mythology also created the first people out of clay. One does not have to go to ancient Sumaria to get the same myth. Amun was also the first god. There were no gods before him.

Quote:

Then we have the flood myths, Sumerian and ancient Babylonian where the noise of man disturbed the gods and either Gilgamaesh or Ziudsura was saved by building a boat.

Of course we have flood myths all over the world so no particular one can be elevated to the "real" source of the one in the Septuagint.

Quote:

Psalm 74:13-14 is a rewrite of The Ba'al Cycle which is Sumerian based as well. In it Ba'al kills the henchman of Yamm, Litan and the twisty serpent that had 7 heads or the Leviathan in the OT. Babylon had it as Marduk crushing Tiamat and Kingu.

Isaiah 27:1 refers to this mistranslating sea serpent to be a dragon.

Pardon but I am aware of no evidence supporting that speculation. That variations upon dragon, worm and serpent exist all over the world does not make one source more credible than all the others as the source any more than one flood story over all the others as the source.

Quote:

Samson is much like the Greek hero Herakles or Heracles (Roman Hercules is slightly different) - from wiki - "Samson bears many similar traits to the Greek Herakles (and the Roman Hercules adaptation), inspired himself partially from the Mesopotamian Enkidu tale: Herakles and Samson both battled a Lion bare handed (Lion of Nemea feat), Herakles and Samson both had a favorite primitive blunt weapon (a club for the first, an ass's jaw for the latter), they were both betrayed by a woman which led them to their ultimate fate (Herakles by Dejanira, while Samson by Delilah). Both heroes, champion of their respective people, die by their own hand: Herakles ends his life on a pyre while Samson makes the Philistine temple collapse upon himself and his enemies."

There are many more.

As with dragons and floods so also with heroes. But this one takes us back to a Greek source. As Sampson is more in the mold of the heroes of the Illiad than Herakles only strengthens the Greek connection. The heel of Achilles or the hair of Sampson matters little. Running directly to demigods often confuses the issue.

PJTS wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Talking about caravans and trade routes and such is again nothing idle fantasy. They are unnecesary inventions serving only to make the stories appear to be other than they are. It gives a false impression of ancient or traditional when there is none in evidence. There is never a justification for extraenious hypothesis. Trust Penn Gillette but use Occam.

Sorry, there is ample proof of caravans and trade in olive oil especially from Samaria. One of the things Assyria gained after conquering Samaria (Israel) was control of the olive oil trade. Many olive oil presses dating to this period have been found.

The existence of trade does not mean one can pin any desired crime on traders. Mere knowledge of ideas from far away can be attributed to trade. The wholesale importation of that knowledge to replace local myths cannot.

The common understanding of a trade route implies the Chinese traveled to Egypt to sell silk. The Chinese travled to Persia. Persians traveled to Mesopotamia which in turn traveled to Phoenicia which then shipped to Egypt. A later or perhaps parallel route was Mesopotamia to Nabatea to Egypt. Contact with actual believers was limited to those on the previous leg of the trade.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I see no point whatsoever for such unnecessary speculation. But it appears necessary if and only if one is trying to salvage the idea the stories were written in bibleland by illiterate people who could not write.

I'm certainly not giving them credit for writing the stories, if anything they were rehashed and spit out by priest shamans trying to control the people in specific areas.

Salvage, not hardly.

Even if your claim of "Created in Alexandria" is true, the stories still have myths and legends in them. The myths obviously could have been in the Library as I said.

As the material was most likely in the library as Alexander did collect such material and ship it there speculation upon other sources is superfluous and cannot be verified. As such it adds nothing to the subject. As an example the connection to Gilgamesh in the context of the land of its origin is superfluous as the epic was known in the west. Josephus mentions it in Against Apion. Superfluous connection to an "ancient" source appears to be salvage. Knowing the epic was known in the west why bring up its origin in this context?

Also why bring up priests and shamen when there is no need to look beyond their political value to a proxy in the conflict between the Ptolemys and the Seleucids? What is the point of ignoring the obvious? Why invoke a religious context when none is needed? Is this not salvaging the belief it is religious material when it is political material?

Quote:

See - The Early History of God: Yahweh and the other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S Smith.

One hopes we are not assuming the conclusion there was an ancient Israel.

Quote:

p 64 - " In conclusion, according to the available evidence, Israelite religion in its earliest form did not contrast markedly with the religions of its Levantine neighbors in either number or configuration of deities. Rather the number of deities in Israel was typical for the region."

Hopes dashed with mythical israelites.

Quote:

Throughout this book the author makes clear that Israel (Samaria and its allied cities) was not different than any other kingdom in the area. The Yahweh was worshiped along with Ba'al. One also needs to be aware that there were many ba'als, almost every town and city had one. The major deity called Ba'al is generally thought to have been Ba'al Shemen, a storm god, at least in the time of Ahab. Yahweh also was a storm god in Ugaritic literature as well as in artifacts.

 

Abandon all hope ye who see Israel in the title. He recites a generic single male god worship when we know that was not the case. For example the Nabateans had Dushara and Al Uzzi as their male/female pair. West of Nabatea (Petra) were Yahweh and Ashara as the pair. When you see Israel in the tltle always expect some aspect of the Septuagint to be the object of salvage. In this case it is about single male god even if one has to lie by omission to deceive.

Quote:

How many people does it take to write down a myth? Can one person document a myth or do they have to have school houses in every village for that to happen?

Why do we have storytelling from the Sumerians? Somebody wrote them. Did everyone there read and write? Possibly more literacy in Sumer than in backwoods places like Syria - Palestine. Lots of clay tablets even with grocery lists from Sumer.

Why does one need to invoke those locations when their written material was sent to Alexandria by Alexander himself a century and a half before the Septuagint was created?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

By local product I mean the apparent belief that it was written down by illiterate people. It is further compounded by the belief these people actually existed.

Someone existed in Hatti-land. They left behind evidence that has been found.

Yes, the land was inhabited. It would be remarkable if it were not.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Time in Babylon is a myth therefore people returning from a myth are also myths. QED

Various inscriptions by Assyrians and Babylonians claim to have captured and relocated persons from Hatti-land.

These inscriptions don't document what religious bullshit the people practiced though.

Do you want a list of them or do you already know?

Hostages from the family of the puppet rulers left behind is not in question. The idea that something was lost because some family members were in Babylon is not reasonable. The return of family members of the ruling king imposing a religious revolution is not reasonable. The Ezra story is incredible on its face.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

The Assyrians and the Babylonians did drag off many people and relocate them. They also moved in other settlers.

Upon what physical evidence do you base your assertion regarding both those kingdoms?

Assyria and Babylon documented these in clay tablets and artifacts regarding their campaigns and relocations.

They do not indicate the Bullshit found in the Babble. And NEVER do they indicate what religious bullshit was practiced.

They went out on annual booty ventures? Or you think that the part of Hatti-land where Samaria and those south of them in the hick town of Jerusalem and Lachish were special and not attacked?

Are you asking that those parts of Hatti-land be given special treatment or something? That because the Assyrians made military trips to the cities of Hatti they didn't find anyone in these areas?

If you question that they relocated people see:

http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html Here Nebuchadrezzar captured the city of Judah in Hatti-land, deposing its king and setting another on the throne. This is in ABC 5 as translated by AK Grayson on the reverse lines 11-13.

Quote:

12'. and besieged the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Addaru he seized the city and captured the king [Jehoiachin; note 2]. 13'. He appointed there a king of his own choice [Zedekiah], received its heavy tribute and sent to Babylon.

Judah not Jerusalem. King names are added by the website. Tribute not people is mentioned. How Judah was derived from non-phonetic cuneiform is anyone's guess. Arguing Judah means Jerusalem is assuming the bible conclusion. That would be special treatment. It is always advisable to read material before citing it.

Quote:

The heavy tribute is not detailed in the tablet. The religion of the city of Judah is not mentioned, they could have worshiped Hadad far as anyone would know from this.  Do you think this is make belief?

What I think is immaterial. What I know is that it is not the bible story as it does not mention anything in the bible story and is contrary to it in the matter of tribute not people. Pardon if I am one of the yes of little faith.

Quote:

Examples of Assyria taking captives goes back many years:

King Arik-den-ili approximately 1296-1308 BCE in the following tablet - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/cm/arik-den-ili.html captured an unknown city and took the captives to Ashur.

See lines 19-36.

What conceivably is there to see? I do not see how anything from that timeframe could apply.

Quote:

Shalmaneser I about 1274 to 1245 BCE - See Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon (ARAB) by Daniel David Luckerbill volume 1 chapter 5 . available online at: http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/Luck/arabtoc.html

He was one of the early Assyrian kings to relocate people. See p39 section 114 where he detailed he selected their young men for service of those he conquered.

I see no section 114. I do not see how anything those years could apply.

Quote:

Shalmaneser III 858-824 BCE invaded Hatti-land several times. He has left several stele indicating his battles and the submission of various kings, including those of Hatti-land. see pp 200-252 in the above book.

These include:

Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III

Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III

Kurba'il Statue of Shalmaneser III

Calah Bulls of Shalmaneser III

Marble Slab inscription of Shalmaneser III

The battle of Qarqar is also detailed.

One of the kings of Assyria practiced mass deportation on a scale never before seen, that would be Tiglath-pileser III 744-727 BCE

see pp 269-297 in ARAB above.

Rather than me going through all that and guessing what you consider relevant perhaps you could QUOTE exactly what you consider relevant. What I have looked at I do not see as even of remote interest. I see no point in going it on my own and guessing.

PJTS wrote:

The Assyrians and the Babylonians did drag off many people and relocate them. They also moved in other settlers.

Upon what physical evidence do you base your assertion regarding both those kingdoms? Without physical evidence it is not reasonable to accept either. To claim people were taken to Babylon based upon a 2nd c. BC story in Greek is not rational.

Quote:

The king installed in Samaria stupidly revolts seeking help from Egypt. Shalmaneser V, the son of Tiglath-pilesar III is king and sieges Samaria for about 3 years. He dies and his successor Sargon II finished it of or he did, which is not very clear.

Samaria has been stipulated. The later conquest by Judea indicates no cultural connection other than propinquity. Speculation as to what it might have been in the past is speculation, amusing entertainment but not fact.

Quote:

Either way he takes the credit - "The inhabitants of Samaria/Samerina, who agreed [and plotted] with a king [hostile to] me, not to do service and not to bring tribute [to Ashshur] and who did battle, I fought against them with the power of the great gods, my lords. I counted as spoil 27,280 people, together with their chariots, and gods, in which they trusted. I formed a unit with 200 of [their] chariots for my royal force. I settled the rest of them in the midst of Assyria. I repopulated Samaria/Samerina more than before. I brought into it people from countries conquered by my hands. I appointed my eunuch as governor over them. And I counted them as Assyrians.(Nimrud Prisms."

It appears from Assyrian records about 20% of the Northern kingdom were relocated. You have something to dispute the records of Assyria on this?

Still no connection with the Septuagint stories. You calling it Northern Kingdom is nothing more than a desire to believe the Septuagint stories. It is northern nothing until established by real arkies not fake biblical arkies.

Quote:

The next event affecting Hatti-land would be Lachish which was totally destroyed - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lachish_Relief,_British_Museum_1.jpg

For the umpteenth time, I do not deal with anonymous sources.

Quote:

Sennacherib would then force the Kingdom of Judah (or whatever you'd like to call it to submit):

"As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by leveling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up earthworks against him— the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bêl, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I lad upon him the surrender of their land and imposts—gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers." - From Column 3 of the Sennacherib Prisim

Is Sennacherib lying about Lachish and Hezekiah? Did the Assyrians invade a land that you claim did not exist?

I have no idea where the anonymous wiki got this translation. The idea bibleland had 46 cities large enough to be walled begs the question of what country he was conquering.

Quote:

Note, no religion is mentioned here, Judah is documented being invaded by Assyria, did it happen or not?

And you suggest none of this was in the library in Alexandria?

Quote:

He is exaggerating about the captives probably unless he counted all of the animals with the people and even then I'd have doubts.

Nebuchadrezzar II claimed in ABC 5 to have deposed a king  of Judah and put another on the throne taking heavy tribute - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html

Once again Note : there is nothing here that tells one the religion of these people.

Nor any need for any material not in Alexandria and likely long before Alexander was born. I do not see your point in this exercise.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Without physical evidence it is not reasonable to accept either. To claim people were taken to Babylon based upon a 2nd c. BC story in Greek is not rational.

I use the clay tablets for such, not bullshit by those in Hatti-land. See above. I do not know who these people prayed to, it's not in the clay tablets, your favorite, Buffy perhaps.

You are not showing they shared a common culture or a common set of gods nor a common ruler voluntarily. What is your point?

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

As I have mentioned, I see no reason to conclude the supposed Northern Kingdom ever were believers in the Yahweh as depicted in the storytales. In fact, the opposite is the conclusion one gets from studying the archeology and interrelated history of other cultures.

Nor is there any evidence of a southern kingdom for all the same reasons. Why not come to the same conclusion about both? This is like grasping at any straw to hold on to the belief Buffy is a real person.

The inscriptions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians do not indicate what religious bullshit was practiced in the southern part of Hatti, only that there were people and kings.

Some sort of kingdom existed in the city called Jerusalem in the land of Hatti.

So, no I'm not saying that the Babble tales have dick for validity at all. All I've indicated is the myths and legends existed that were partly utilized by the fiction writer to create his bullshit tale.

The inscriptions indicate nothing beyond a few names given phonetic assignment which just happens to match Septuagint names. As such they are indistinguishable from Buffy type fiction. No matter what the inscriptions they say absolutely nothing beyond what is contained in the inscriptions. They cannot be construed to show local creation of the stories.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

That no clay tablets were written is suggestive of the type of people that were taken to Babylon, workman and artisans, not writers. Nebuchadrezzar's point in taking captives and prisoners also was to end once and for all problems with Judah and kings that failed to follow his orders. He gutted them of all that could resist. Those that weren't useful weren't around for long.

Again no evidence anyone was taken there. But then how are you going to salvage the idea they returned literate at all? And after that without the tools of literacy?

It appears some people were taken there according to Assyria and Babylon.

The tales may have been written in Greek or in Pig Latin as far as anyone knows, it matters not. They contain the myths and bullshit that is impossible. That some of them use actual events means someone read or knew of the events connected to Assyria and Babylon. That the rest is Sci-Fi and fiction is obvious.

Why deny there were countries in Hatti-land? It appears that Assyria and Babylon could tell they were there.

The inscription you gave does not mention people to Babylon, therefore myth. That some may have had some relation to real events is a common conceit of historical fiction. That does not reflect credibility of the fiction. Nor does it indicate where or by who the fiction was created.

PJTS wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

This text is attributed to an unknown writer of Apocalyptic leanings in the 1st century. Was this writer actually passing on a legend of earlier times, that Ezra wrote the Hebrew Bible? Perhaps, or not.

Or was he like every good fiction writer today re imagining a story like many people today re imagining legends of vampires and werewolve and zombies? Night of the Living Dead is the first time zombies are really dead. That was original. Does that make true? Does that make it in any way different from previous stories? Or was he like the educated in ancient times who completed the required "course work" learning to rewrite anything in their own words with an eye to both personalizing and improving it?

Exactly. I don't see it as true. I see it as a way the writer was trying to give legitimacy to the storytales.

Except the tales you claim were being given legitimacy are not in evidence rather only in your imagination. It is not reasonable to imagine something and then come up with a rationalization for your imaginings that salvages a bibleland origin which is based upon nothing but a forgery.

The tales and myths I refer to are in Ugaritic stories, Egyptian myths, and Sumerian as well. The other BS in the Babble is creative fiction fitting some of the myths and real historical people into the storytales. If done in Egypt then the use of alot of the myths from there would make sense. As Egypt was not isolated and had a large library the fiction writers would have had access to the myths and legends of others. Perhaps you are correct the Babble was created there. As it contains references to many real kings and leaders, misunderstood many times, and lots of events that could never have happened, someone had access to historical info. That they even got much of that wrong indicates they were using inaccurate info or altered it to suit their goals.

So, all in all I see why you consider it made in Egypt, you may be on to something. I can see how they could have done it.

The only vaguely related inscription refers to the replacement of one unnamed king by another unnamed king and tribute only without taking any people to Babylon.

It should be clear that EVERYTHING you have cited comes from places far from bibleland. If there were inscriptions found in bibleland that tell the local versions of these events then and only then would it be credible to suggest there were local versions of these stories. There are none. Suggesting there were local versions of these stories is nothing but imagining. Any implication of knowing the content of these imaginary local stories is delusional.
 

Obviously I am not bothering with quotes and responses.

If I may speak about myself for a bit as it is easier than dealing directly with your posts.

Back when I started trying to make sense of this I read just about everything. Since I shitcanned it all I have realized i had considered just about every idea ever presented including the areligious jewish inventions going back to the mid-19th c. (Remember literally 20 years of focused interest after a previous 20+ years of general interest.

The most difficult thing for me and from what I have seen for nearly everyone is UNlearning nonsense. Unlearning to the point of learning never to say kingdom in bibleland context because of its semantic load coming from the bible.

 

Once I did that I found research was trivially easy. I could find facts not argumentation. For example I discovered Amun by simply searching for an Egyptian god with the head of a ram because of the Shofar horn. I expected to find nothing but a minor deity in bibleland. I found Amun/Amen the first god of the Egyptian (there were no gods before him in time) and who made the first people out of clay.

I had been looking (in vain) for evidence pro or con the fanciful arguments. I spun my wheels for years. Once i started looking for evidence I not only found it with east I found i was able to make correct predictions about what I would find. And not in the delusional sense. I posted in soc.history.ancient several times I was certain Maccabe was a proxy war and expected to find evidence it was. That was at least a year before I found it spelling out by Josephus in Wars of the Jews.

The best theory is the one that explains the most facts. A robust theory is able to predict facts. I have successfully predicted facts I would later discover. And not in the sense that I can torture an inscription until it confesses sense. In the sense that the man who started the revolt against the Seleucids was maintained in Egypt as a government in exile by Ptolemy.

If I may now reverse the discussion. You still have a huge amount to unlearn. This is not to denigrate what you know about the ancient world, far from it. You are looking into all the wrong places I looked into before I managed to unlearn so much. As I once realized, it is not what you don't know that will hurt you. It is what you know that is not true that will hurt you. The facts you know are likely correct. That there is a Septuagint connection is not a fact in evidence and therefore "knowing" there is a connection is false.

Example. Believers have been looking to Ur to validate Abraham since Ur was rediscovered by Europe solely because Ur is mentioned in the Septuagint. But everything they wanted to find in Ur because of the Septuagint also existed in Egypt including circumcision. Everything that might undermine the Septuagint was not only studiously ignored but that which could not be ignored was speciously argued against. ALL of these arguments are still current among believers even the ones a century and a half old.

Every rationalization has turned to be not only old news but long discredited news. Where they get this stuff these days they refuse to tell me.

Thus one can spend one's next two reincarnations demolishing those arguments or one can simply start over dealing solely with facts in evidence and ignore everything else. That is what I  have done. A robust theory useful for prediction has been the result. As a scientist, this passes every test.

There is no blame for false connections when western culture is replete with dozens of them. We agree we cannot even say kingdom in regard to bibleland without some cultural artifact jumping from kingdom to biblical kingdoms. Life is to short to deal with all of them.

It is completely legitimate to reject the oldest evidence as the least reliable as it is also the least rigorously examined before being accepted. In fact the oldest had no review beyond a press release. The Moabite stone has no provenance therefore it is rejected. If that is not enough all the "bible parts" are not found on the fragments that exist. Discovering the unprovenanced part was easy. Discovering the bible parts are not on it took I have no idea how many hours and different sources and false leads.

[Hint: Be provacative and confrontational and believers will do a lot of the legwork for you. Works for me. Believers found the lead as to what was not on the Moabite stone when I could not.]

Bottom line: If you leap over the crap I did you can cut years off your efforts. Worth a try? I hope the end result is you come up with many things I have missed and that you tell me. Please do better than I have.

I posted this mysterious story in this thread a few months ago:

x wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/nazareth-dwelling-discovery-jesus

It baffled me when I read it as it suggested there was actual evidence.

Live and learn...

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/nazareth-rene-salms-preliminary-response-to-bart-ehrman/#more-28054

Ehrman closes by making a big deal of the ‘Nazareth house of the time of Jesus’ excavation (Alexandre again) which news broke in the press in Dec. 2009. Once again, we have no written report, only press releases. Furthermore, the excavation site was quickly covered over (by a religious tourist venue) making further digging impossible.

Do you smell a rat? Maybe half a dozen rats?