Homosexuality in the Bible: David and Jonathan

[crazy canuck]

No archaeological evidence, no. Nor is there necessarily going to be, as political events do not, in and of themselves, necessarily leave archaeological evidence.

JR put it best.  We do have archeological evidence of the tribes being united  - just not by the House of David and not in that time period.  So your point that poltical events do not nessarily leave archeological evidence (while perhaps accurate in other contexts) does not hold for the point we are discussing. 

[Malthus]

No archaeological evidence, no. Nor is there necessarily going to be, as political events do not, in and of themselves, necessarily leave archaeological evidence.

JR put it best.  We do have archeological evidence of the tribes being united  - just not by the House of David and not in that time period.  So your point that poltical events do not nessarily leave archeological evidence (while perhaps accurate in other contexts) does not hold for the point we are discussing.

To which I would repeat: absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. The fact that there are more prominent remains of later Kings does not mean that there were not earlier kings. Particularly as the alleged site of the royal city - Jerusalem - is a site that was *extensively* built on by later peoples and one in which, even today, it is difficult to do any work for poilitical reasons (e.g., hysterical religious folk trying to kill you if you mess about on the Temple Mount).

Take this situation - until the discovery of this stele, there was no evidence that the title "House of David" was ever used contemporaneously with the Omrides. That, surely, changes the narrative, no?

Fact is, the evidence for those Omrides we *do* know about is scanty in the extreme. A handful of comments, mostly on comemerative stele carved by their enemies to celebrate victories over them; and attribution of some building remains to the time-period in which it is assumed they ruled.

Similarly, ancient figures of much greater prominence than David are only known from random survivals - for example take Narmur, uniter of ancient egypt (possibly); a wine jar with his name, a palette ... not much really.

What you are not appreciating is that actual archaeological evidence for the existance of ancient persons is rare. So is literary evidence. The Bible is most unusual in its survival.

[The Minsky Moment]

To which I would repeat: absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

It is not the same, but it raises an issue of historiographical method: in making claims about history, does one restrict oneself to claims that have some firm basis in hard evidence, or does one reach and speculate to try to fill in large gaps in our knowledge?  Both are viable approaches and have their justifications; my personal tendency is toward the former.

Take this situation - until the discovery of this stele, there was no evidence that the title "House of David" was ever used contemporaneously with the Omrides. That, surely, changes the narrative, no?

It tells us that the dynastic name David for the Kingdom of Judah was in use from around the time at that kingdom's likely origin.  No more, no less.

What you are not appreciating is that actual archaeological evidence for the existance of ancient persons is rare. So is literary evidence. The Bible is most unusual in its survival.

it would be unusual if it was created contemporaneously with the events it described.  Not quite so unusual if one postulates that it was first set down in something resembling its current format in the late 7th century and completed in the late Hellenistic era.

[The Minsky Moment]

Particularly as the alleged site of the royal city - Jerusalem - is a site that was *extensively* built on by later peoples and one in which, even today, it is difficult to do any work for poilitical reasons (e.g., hysterical religious folk trying to kill you if you mess about on the Temple Mount).

It's true that the Temple Mount is very hard to work on (and under), and there very well could be relevant finds there (though note that the temple is ascribed to Solomon, not David).  But the rest of the land of Israel and Jerusalem itself has to be one of the most heavily and extensively excavated and analyzed places on the face of the earth.  It is theoretically possible that David's kingdom consisted of one single monumental structure now hidden under the Temple Mount, surrounded by a material cultural wasteland, but it is not the most convincing working hypothesis to adopt.

[Razgovory]

Also, it is not quite true that there is no archaeological evidence that the "House of David" existed. This discovery, made in 1993-1994, appears to confirm that it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

Malthus, you really should read Finkelstein's book.  This is the main reason he is a minimalist and not someone who outright denies the house of David existed at all.  However, he also identifies a great many problems with the David story that simply do not agree with the archeological evidence.  Its not simply a case of prior written records not being found.  The story is incompatable with the evidence.

Hopefully it's better then the "Pagan Christ" book you tried to get me to read which purported to translate 18,000 year old inscriptions.

The Pagan Christ was about the Pagan antecedents of Christianity.  It had nothing to do with 18,000 year old inscriptions.  I assume then that you did not actually read it.

It made a lot of stupid claims.  One was 18,000 year old claim.  Are you denying it?

I would have to know what the hell you are talking about first.

The pagan Christ by that Harpur fellow made the claim that the name of Jesus in the form of Iusa dates back 18,000 years in Egypt.  Do you agree with this, claim it's not actually in the book, or what.

[crazy canuck]

The pagan Christ by that Harpur fellow made the claim that the name of Jesus in the form of Iusa dates back 18,000 years in Egypt. 

Really?

Link?

I didnt think there was any writing going back 18000 years.

I dont remember that being a claim.  He did claim that Christainity was heavily influenced by Pagan religions including Egyptian religious beliefs.  Hardly shocking I would think given the cultural influences at time.

[The Brain]

Googling tells me Harpur makes the claim on page 5 (second-hand info).

For instance:

" A failure to anchor the argument in sound historical research leads to assertions such as on page 5 that there was a 'Jesus' in Egyptian lore as early as 18,000 BCE--astounding when one considers the fact that the earliest pre-historic sites in Egypt date to about the 6th millennium BCE with the familiar Egyptian civilization beginning about 3500 BCE."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_12_28/ai_n6102291/

[ulmont]

The pagan Christ by that Harpur fellow made the claim that the name of Jesus in the form of Iusa dates back 18,000 years in Egypt. 

Really?

Link?

http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html

Doesn't give the 18,000 years part, but the specific Iusa -> Jesus from Egypt claim is made.

[Razgovory]

From a review:

http://www.straight.com/article/the-pagan-christ-by-tom-harpur

Harpur was a Rhodes scholar and divinity professor, so it's odd to find his book chock full of factual flubs. He reports that the Egyptian name Iusu, supposedly the root of  Jesus , can be traced to 18,000 BC. But writing doesn't predate the fourth millennium. A god crucified was depicted around 300 BC, he writes. The image dates from six centuries later; regarding Christian origins, the BC/AD thing isn't a fussy detail. The list of mistakes is longer than this review.

There are other sources coveringing his other moonbat claims.

[The Brain]

lol

[crazy canuck]

Doesn't give the 18,000 years part, but the specific Iusa -> Jesus from Egypt claim is made.

I do recall the Iusa name link being used.  But 18,000?  Sounds like the second hand critic is as bad as Raz's quesitoning.

As I said, I doubt anyone was even writing 18,000 years ago.  There is some debate now about whether Egyptians began writing before Sumerians but I dont think anyone claims that happened 18,000 years ago.

But I will go look on page 5 when I get a chance....

[crazy canuck]

From a review:

http://www.straight.com/article/the-pagan-christ-by-tom-harpur

Harpur was a Rhodes scholar and divinity professor, so it's odd to find his book chock full of factual flubs. He reports that the Egyptian name Iusu, supposedly the root of  Jesus , can be traced to 18,000 BC. But writing doesn't predate the fourth millennium. A god crucified was depicted around 300 BC, he writes. The image dates from six centuries later; regarding Christian origins, the BC/AD thing isn't a fussy detail. The list of mistakes is longer than this review.

There are other sources coveringing his other moonbat claims.

The Georgia straight?

[The Brain]

As I said, I doubt anyone was even writing 18,000 years ago. 

Well there was one. Ancient legends speak of an old man with questionable personal hygiene sitting in a cave painting symbols on the walls while muttering to himself "strawman" and "dogpile".

[Razgovory]

From a review:

http://www.straight.com/article/the-pagan-christ-by-tom-harpur

Harpur was a Rhodes scholar and divinity professor, so it's odd to find his book chock full of factual flubs. He reports that the Egyptian name Iusu, supposedly the root of  Jesus , can be traced to 18,000 BC. But writing doesn't predate the fourth millennium. A god crucified was depicted around 300 BC, he writes. The image dates from six centuries later; regarding Christian origins, the BC/AD thing isn't a fussy detail. The list of mistakes is longer than this review.

There are other sources coveringing his other moonbat claims.

The Georgia straight?

?

[crazy canuck]

As I said, I doubt anyone was even writing 18,000 years ago. 

Well there was one. Ancient legends speak of an old man with questionable personal hygiene sitting in a cave painting symbols on the walls while muttering to himself "strawman" and "dogpile".

All claims that Grumbler is that old have been disproven.