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

[Razgovory]

I don't know who names their kid "Ridley".

[Ed Anger]

I don't know who names their kid "Ridley".

'Wiktor'

[Syt]

I'm tired of Ridley Scott movies.

He peaked rather early.

[Ed Anger]

I LOL'ed hard during the Robin Hood movie beach invasion scene.

[Malthus]

I'm sure there's another term for untrustworthy primary sources, but it's not revisionism.

In this case, the appropriate term is "mythology".

[Eddie Teach]

In this case, the appropriate term is "mythology".

But it's not polite to say so.

[Malthus]

I think the original history (you know, with Egypt, Babylon and Israel, but without God, angels and devils) is the original version. 

Who wrote this one?

I don't know "who" but there are other historical sources (both primary and secondary) covering the period during which Jews were present in Egypt, if that is what you are asking. We don't know who wrote "Exodus" either, by the way (but it clearly wasn't Moses, even if he was a historical character, as the book was written several centuries after his alleged death and is heavily influenced by Mesopotamian mythology, which is where Jews ended up only centuries after the Exodus).

I don't think there is any actual evidence, the Bible aside, that there ever were any large population of Jews in Egypt, let alone that there were Jewish slaves etc.

It is best to think of the Exodus as pure mythology, perhaps tangentally inspired by some actual events - sort of like the medieval legendarium of King Arthur.

It is only with the rise of the Israelite kingdom that there is anything approaching history. Even then, the actual amout of "hard" information we really possess is ludicrously slight - until a couple of decades ago, there was not one single non-Biblical mention of King David. Now there is one - a mention of the "House of David" from the reign of the son of King Ahab (found on a broken stele celebrating a victory over said king).

Anything alleged to occur prior to that is not really "history" at all - it is legend and myth. (Much of what is alleged to occur after that is of course also legend and myth, but increasingly verges on the historical - or at least, historical facts are mingled with the legendary).

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

[katmai]

Is Malthus trying to tell me Camelot ain't real?!?!

[Malthus]

Is Malthus trying to tell me Camelot ain't real?!?!

JFK's adultery was certainly of legendary proportions, but it wasn't mythical. 

[Admiral Yi]

Speaking of Camelot, the "knights" that Clive Owen led were recruited/dragooned from the Sarmatians, an Iranian speaking people.

[Razgovory]

I'm sure there's another term for untrustworthy primary sources, but it's not revisionism.

In this case, the appropriate term is "mythology".

There really aren't many primary sources from the time period and supernatural occurrences are reported regularly.  Myth and history are very much blurred together.  You can take the accounts in the bible and say, "this is second hand, it's not trust worthy", or "this is has magic in it, not trust worthy", and that is entirely valid.  But keep in mind that if we apply the same metric to what little we have of written history from that time period we will have precious little left.

[Martinus]

I would say that if someone makes up history of a period, but makes it in a clearly fanciful way (i.e. by describing events that could not have, physically, happened) and at the same time in a way that makes him look good and supporting later territorial claims, then it counts as "historical revisionism", even if you do not know exactly what the actual history of the period was.

[Sheilbh]

How can something be historically revisionist if there's no concept of history?

[Martinus]

How can something be historically revisionist if there's no concept of history?

Err what?

[crazy canuck]

How can something be historically revisionist if there's no concept of history?

Err what?

To put it another way, the Israelis were engaging in exactly the same kind of practice as everyone else in that age - myth making.

So if no one had a concept of history in the way you are using that term how can what the Isrealis were doing be considered to be revisionist?  ie what "history" were they revising?