The Ethno-Zionist-Revisionism-Old Testament-Bashing Megathread

[jimmy olsen]

B.S.  Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value.  I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu.  While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.

If you say so.  Seems to me lots of historical debate exists about basically everything, to the extent that there are people spending their careers studying Sneferu.  Further I fail to see the proof that the scholars studying ancient history are the same people going on about "wingnuts" and "sky fairies" so that seems like a completely bizarre criticism to level at them.

Think he's talking about regular folks, particular on the internet, not the actual scholars.

[Valmy]

My impression has been that the Bible starts out as pure myth (the Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc) but as it goes along gains historical accuracy to the point it is probably as accurate as any other source from the time period (ie, not very, but somewhat grounded in reality). From what you write, and I think you would know, I suspect that the tour guide was reaching a bit to please the typical audience that I suspect are Jews or Christian pilgrims. I had the impression the David stuff was fairly well substantiated.

Yep.  The old idea that all those myths are all made up is a 19th century idea that does not seem to hold water.  It was just a reaction that went from 'everything literally happened' to 'it was entirely all made up'.  But it seems pretty clear that there was some historical memory in there.  Also the point of religious texts is not to be history books, they can be a historical source just like any ancient document though.

[Valmy]

B.S.  Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value.  I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu.  While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.

If you say so.  Seems to me lots of historical debate exists about basically everything, to the extent that there are people spending their careers studying Sneferu.  Further I fail to see the proof that the scholars studying ancient history are the same people going on about "wingnuts" and "sky fairies" so that seems like a completely bizarre criticism to level at them.

Think he's talking about regular folks, particular on the internet, not the actual scholars.

Ah well I have not seen any internet debates about Egyptian Pharoahs so I have no idea what level of skepticism they might have.  Religious discussions come up about every 5 seconds so...

[Razgovory]

B.S.  Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value.  I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu.  While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.

If you say so.  Seems to me lots of historical debate exists about basically everything, to the extent that there are people spending their careers studying Sneferu.  Further I fail to see the proof that the scholars studying ancient history are the same people going on about "wingnuts" and "sky fairies" so that seems like a completely bizarre criticism to level at them.

Think he's talking about regular folks, particular on the internet, not the actual scholars.

Ah well I have not seen any internet debates about Egyptian Pharoahs so I have no idea what level of skepticism they might have.  Religious discussions come up about every 5 seconds so...

There is no debates on Egyptian pharaohs or whether Spartacus was a real person.  It's simply accepted by most people.  And it's accepted by the enlightened people who love to bully other about believing in "Sky fairies" or argue that there is no proof that Jesus existed.  Their celebrated skepticism has a rather enormous blind spot for the majority of human history.  It's a mindset I find quite annoying.  It's not just layman.  There are scholars who argue that there once was a King of Uruk named Gilgamesh, despite the only accounts of a such a person are depict obviously impossible events.  I don't know of any scholars that claim there was no slave named Spartacus who led an slave uprising despite the fact that the only accounts of him were written over 50 years after he was dead and contradict each other.

[Ed Anger]

The Revalations show on History?

Hilarious

[crazy canuck]

My impression has been that the Bible starts out as pure myth (the Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc) but as it goes along gains historical accuracy to the point it is probably as accurate as any other source from the time period (ie, not very, but somewhat grounded in reality). From what you write, and I think you would know, I suspect that the tour guide was reaching a bit to please the typical audience that I suspect are Jews or Christian pilgrims. I had the impression the David stuff was fairly well substantiated.

Yep.  The old idea that all those myths are all made up is a 19th century idea that does not seem to hold water.

And here I thought Israel Finkelstein wrote in the later part of the 20th century and the beginning of this century. 

[Grinning_Colossus]

B.S.  Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value.  I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu.  While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.

If you say so.  Seems to me lots of historical debate exists about basically everything, to the extent that there are people spending their careers studying Sneferu.  Further I fail to see the proof that the scholars studying ancient history are the same people going on about "wingnuts" and "sky fairies" so that seems like a completely bizarre criticism to level at them.

Think he's talking about regular folks, particular on the internet, not the actual scholars.

Ah well I have not seen any internet debates about Egyptian Pharoahs so I have no idea what level of skepticism they might have.  Religious discussions come up about every 5 seconds so...

There is no debates on Egyptian pharaohs or whether Spartacus was a real person.  It's simply accepted by most people.  And it's accepted by the enlightened people who love to bully other about believing in "Sky fairies" or argue that there is no proof that Jesus existed.  Their celebrated skepticism has a rather enormous blind spot for the majority of human history.  It's a mindset I find quite annoying.  It's not just layman.  There are scholars who argue that there once was a King of Uruk named Gilgamesh, despite the only accounts of a such a person are depict obviously impossible events.  I don't know of any scholars that claim there was no slave named Spartacus who led an slave uprising despite the fact that the only accounts of him were written over 50 years after he was dead and contradict each other.

How often do Spartacus and Gilgamesh come up in everyday conversation? And which scholars assert that there was no historical Jesus?

[Razgovory]

What is your point about the first question?  Because it doesn't come up very often it's okay not to look critically at it?  If one takes the critical view of one part of history one should take a critical view of all it.  And here's a small list.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Notable_proponents  Go knock yourself out.

[dps]

What is your point about the first question? 

I don't see the point of it either, but it seems similar to Valmy's statement in post #77.

[Malthus]

Sure, but without more evidence it may prove impossible to determine what that grain is.

Also, don't get me wrong - I'm the last to insist that absence of evidence = evidence of absence. The actual historical information we do know is very, very spotty. That business about King David only being mentioned in one place indicates that (before this discovery, the 'absence of evidence' folks insisted that King David was also pure myth - that POV is now looking somewhat less likely, but is still around).

Another, similar example: the only unequivocal evidence for the existance of Pontius Pilate is a single inscription, discovered in 1961, dedicating a provincial ampetheatre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate

Thus, a high official of the Roman Empire (both relatively recent, no doubt a generator of tons of official documents during his lifetime, and famous from the Biblical account) is almost totally unknown - yet did exist.

It is interesting what you say about King David. As you know, I got back recently from Israel. While there, I visited the archeological site near Silwan from the first temple period that is billed as "the city of David". The tour started with a movie that credited the Bible stories being the guide for the excavations and the tour was very heavy on pointing out how the excavations matched up with Bible passages.

My impression has been that the Bible starts out as pure myth (the Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc) but as it goes along gains historical accuracy to the point it is probably as accurate as any other source from the time period (ie, not very, but somewhat grounded in reality). From what you write, and I think you would know, I suspect that the tour guide was reaching a bit to please the typical audience that I suspect are Jews or Christian pilgrims. I had the impression the David stuff was fairly well substantiated.

I agree that it starts at pure myth and shades into what amounts to history (or, as you say, as good as any other source - that is, lacking any notion of historical objectivity, like pretty well any other source, but referring to real events that can be independently checked).

The point of live debate is when the inflection-point was reached between 'more or less myth' and 'more or less history'. The general consensus nowadays is that it was well after the reign of David and Solomon. David was, up until two decades ago, more or less consigned wholly to mythology. Now, there is at least some evidence a historical David existed, but it is very, very thin. There is, as of yet, no firm consensus that any particular buildings or remains can be reliably traced to David's reign. It is certain that nothing like the glorious Empire of David and Solomon as described in the Bible ever existed - the best guess, so far, is that David was indeed a "king" of a small and relatively insignificant kingdom, and that his memory was magnified by successors (or the priestly class criticising those successors) for purposes of either enhancing legitimacy, or of pointing out falls from previous glory.

In short, if a historical David existed (and it is looking more likely now that he did), his exploits, and that of his successor Solomon, were greatly mythologized in making them out to be more powerful, wealthy, and influential than they likely were.

[Malthus]

Also, to define terms: "more or less myth" does not mean "did not happen". It means that there is no way to determine whether it happened or not, other than evidence internal to the story itself: one can discard the obviously supernatural elements, but what you are left with is stuff than cannot be proved or disproved - what you will be talking about is probabilities, and a certain amount of arguing from absence of evidence.

Take for example the Exodus story. Eliminate the supernatural and you are left with an account of a mass escape of a class of slaves from Egypt. The strikes against this theory are - the physical difficulty of a mass of slaves living for any length of time in the desert (this can be overcome by posing that the numbers of slaves escaped in the Bible were greatly exaggerated), the lack of any contemporary mention of a mass slave escape (this can be overcome by noting that the historical record of Egypt is very spotty - for large stretches we don't have more than a list of kings), and the fact that ancient Egypt did not, as far as we know, use a large class of slaves for labour to build things, preferring to conscript peasants for corvee labour instead (this can be overcome by posing that the enslavement of Hebrews was a special case).

Ultimately, there is simply no way of knowing whether the story is literally true in some sense (that is, has a kernel of truth that was mythologized by adding supernatural elements and greatly exaggerated numbers), or was simply a myth pure and simple - until some further evidence is uncovered.

[Siege]

You do know that the Israelites were people who worshiped Mesopotamian deities well before the captivity right?  I think you should stop right now, before you make a fool of yourself.

Are you saying you believe that Exodus was actually written by Moses and it is a primary historical source? 

I do.
Don't you?

[Siege]

Why does Hollywood insists in rewriting history?
This exodus version is the most liberal to date.

[The Brain]

Don't date it. Duh.

[Ideologue]

Why does Hollywood insists in rewriting history?
This exodus version is the most liberal to date.

Do you like The Ten Commandments, Siege?