Also, bear in mind that most of the events of the New Testament (Gospels) cover a period of only three years. As such, historical confirmation is going to be difficult.

Edited by Cryptic - 22-Sep-2008 at 19:29

The Greeks probably never heard of Josephus, who lived in Rome, even though he wrote in Greek.

Open All
		For instance, saying that David was a great king and not a mere highway bandit or a simple family chieftain has nothing to do with the fact that he lived during the reign of pharaoh X or Y.   Hows that? - if he lived in that time, and stuff was written of him, with no contemporary disputation - it does mean something: either the others knew not how to write - or they had no arguement. No third option. That David conquered the Philistines, and none else could for many centuries, does not mean he was not a good warrior. This was a very difficult battle - the Philistine built underground fortified cities [these tunnels still exist today, and now used by Hamas for weapons smuggling from Egypt], which required some enguinity and expertise to prevail over them. Let's put it this way - the then mighty Egyptian empire, which numerously ruled Gaza, was unable to conquer this peoples.   On the contrary whenever it has been possible to check what the Torah said it has been shown to be if not straight out lies at least a mythification of history see for instance: 1. The exile to Babylon 2. The flight from Egypt 3. The great flood 4. The queen of Sheba, etc.   I thought this was a history thread! There is hardly anyone who doubts the babylonian exile - we have coins and other relics of both the first and second temple period. The Jews remained in babylon [Iraqi Jews] till the recent times when Israel re-emerged in '48; some Jewish prophets who were also exiled [e. Ezekiel] is buried in babylon [Iraq]; the Talmud was written in this city. In fact, the Arab race was initiated here, after Greece conquered Persian ruled Babylon. There are no 'ARABS' before this time [2500 years ago]; they first emerged as gangs offering protection from the invading Greeks, then gradually took over the lands. The Coptics redate the Egyptian Arabs, who lost their lands when the Arab gangs took it over.   Re Egypt. There is no doubt the Hebrews lived here for some 210 years [The Egyptian Stelle, 3250 years old], and that they left suddenly and mysterious, and that they re-entered canaan from whence they left for Egypt. Egypt never freed its slaves, so how they left is a seperate issue.     The flood story has been has been siezed upon by smart alex but less than trye historians. The narratives are true and correct for the discerning reader with good comprehension and who understands ancient writings according to their time space. The flood referred to the particular region, namely the then known world, or only established world [over 5,200 years ago]. The said animals refer to dmestic animals ['they came themselves, following their owner/master'], and this refers to Noah's possession - the reason the list does not include wild beasts such as tigers and elephants. This story has cross-nation evdience.   lol from the top of my mind the Greek tragedies are much older... but never mind   LOL is right, and so is tragicomedy.   Here is a good mishmash of various, diverse links, referring only to stray writings and not books. The issue of a continuous thread of alphabetic books is of course exclusive to Hebrew in the ancient world, but that's another issue.   .http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/HistoryOfTheBible.htm     Hebrew, the northwest branch of the Semitic languages, is one of the world's oldest living languages dating beyond 2000 B.C., but the OT refers to it as "the language of Canaan" (Isa. 19:18) or "the Jews’ language" (2 Kings 18:26, 28 KJV and parallel passages; also Neh. 13:24).    Hebrew has a close affinity to Ugaritic, Phoenician, Moabitic, and the Canaanite dialects.     The Ugaritic from the Ras Shamra Tablets have shed much light on the meaning of the Hebrew Bible.    Click here to see Ugaritic Writing and Alphabet information.     Originally the claim was that ancient Ugarit’s tablets contained a script of only twenty-seven different characters.    This proved to be archaic Hebrew, dated about 1400 B.C., hence one of the earliest alphabetic writings yet known.    This very early dialect of Canaanite, or Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet had about twenty-nine or thirty characters, all of them consonantal (except that three of them indicated the type of vowel occurring after aleph, whether a, i [or, e], or u).     As early as the sixteenth century B.C., evidences of a Hebrew-Phoenician alphabet are found, from which a standardized script emerged about the tenth century B.C.    This is the cursive script, used in Old Hebrew and for the original writing of the OT books.    The ancient Israelites who lived in Palestine (Canaan) during Biblical times spoke and wrote in Hebrew (before the Babylonian captivity).    The Bible itself is the greatest product of Hebrew literature.     The first work of literature in Hebrew was the Biblical poem, 'The Song of Deborah' in Judges 5, which dates around 1,100 B.C.    The biblical date of Deborah is lowered a full century by Albright to 1125 B.C., but only because of his theory that no Philistines (cf. 5:6; 3:31) could reach Palestine before the 1100s; yet see Genesis 21:22 "Abimelech (Philistine king of Gerar) and Phichol (his army captain)"; 21:34 "And Abraham sojourned in the Philistines’ land many days."; 26:1 "... And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar." Inscriptions employing the language include: Sarcophagus of King Ahiram (stone coffin) is dated between 1250-1000 B.C., which shows writing of the twenty-two-letter alphabet for the northwest Semitic languages (Proto-Canaanites). Siloam Inscription in old cursive Hebrew script (Canaanite with prong-like characters), c. 700 B.C. describes the completion of Hezekiah’s tunnel and represents one of the most important monumental piece of writing in Israelite Palestine. Gezer Calendar from 900 B.C. has seven lines and cites the annual cycle of agricultural activities.    It is one of the oldest known pieces of Hebrew writing.    The capture of Gezer is mentioned in the stele of Pharaoh Merneptah about 1220 B.C. Old Lachish mound which yielded a bowl, a jar, and a dagger containing brief inscriptions in alphabetic script similar to that found in Sinai and dating probably between 1750 and 1550 B.C.    One source dates it at 1650 B.C. as the item which is the earliest examples of the acrophonic writing from which all modern alphabets derive, two centuries older than the Sinaitic or the five subsequent Lachish inscriptions.    Around 1406 B Joshua defeated Japhia and Adoni-Zedek (Josh. 10:3; 23-26; 12:11), and Israel's capture of Lachish and annihilation of its inhabitants (Deut. 7:2; Josh. 10:31-32). Moabite Stone, c. 850 B.C. thirty-four lines, in the Moabite language, a dialect of the Hebrew (almost pure, using the old "round" letters), by Mesha, king of the Moabites    The inscription gives an account found in 2 Kings 3 in the time of Ahaziah and Joram, the sons of Ahab.    Since Moab and Jacob were both descendants of Terah it is not strange that their tongues should resemble one another. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4422628.stm 'Oldest Hebrew alphabet' is found The finding is about to spark a vivid debate US archaeologists say they have found what could be the immediate precursor to the Hebrew alphabet - dating back from the 10th Century BC. The two rows of letters were found on a stone in Israel near Jerusalem. "This makes it historically probable there were people in the 10th Century BC who could write," said Ron Tappy, the archaeologist who directed the dig.     This says Hebrew was not spoken by the Babylonians, as was the case with ancient Egypt, Canaan and the Phoenecian:   http://www.ancientdays.net/hebrew.htm Writing: Hebrew Was First and Is the Oldest Language in Continuous Use by Dr. David Livingston First we must dismiss the theory of oral transmission as the source of Genesis. It is utter nonsense to expect that a pure document could be transferred from one generation to another for hundreds of years. Even Middle Easterners, with their prodigious memories could not do it. Concentration on the role of oral tradition has led scholars to underestimate the role of written records. We will give some evidence that the Pentateuch in its entirety was written from the beginning According to Brown, Driver, and Briggs (page 349 of their Hebrew and English Lexicon) the Hebrew verb chaqaq means to "cut in, inscribe, decree" also  "engrave, inscribe" as in Isaiah 30:8  "on the roll of a book."  "of a law: engrave, inscribe (on a tablet)."   There is not the slightest question when this verb (or a noun from it) is used that it means a written statute or decree. In Esther 3:8 Haman complained to the King that the laws of the Hebrews were "different from those of all other people."  So the Jews had their own laws which they kept. These were the laws, no doubt, given to Moses. Leviticus 26:46: "These are the statutes(chuqqim) and judgements(mishpatim) and laws (torot), which the Lord made between Him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (KJV)   Read complete books and articles on: Hebrew Language Hebrew Language - member of the Canaanite group of the West Semitic subdivision of the Semitic subfamily of the Afroasiatic family of languages (see Afroasiatic languages). Hebrew was the language of the Jewish people in biblical times, and most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The oldest extant example of Hebrew writing dates from the 11th or 10th cent. b.c       http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=2&Issue=4&ArticleID=3   Oldest Hebrew Letters Found Near Tel Aviv A clay tablet containing 80 Hebrew letters arranged in five lines has been found in an excavation outside Tel Aviv at Izbet Sarte. The letters appear to date from about the end of the 11th century B.C.—the time of Saul and David. If this dating is correct, the letters are older by about 100 years than the earliest previously known Hebrew writing.   Did someone confuse Alex in Jerusalem's datings and wrongly accuse me of their errors? The best source has to be from those who were there - as opposed to guessmatics from so-called scholars:     [quote]   http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day.asp?tDate=12/1/2007 Alexander in Jerusalem (313 BCE)	Less
		On Kislev 21 of the year 3448 from creation (313 BCE), there occurred the historic meeting between Shimon HaTzaddik and Alexander ('the Great") of Macedonia. The Samarians, bitter enemies of the Jews, had convinced Alexander that the Jews' refusal to place his image in their Temple was a sign of rebellion against his sovereignty, and that the Holy Temple should be destroyed. The Kohen Gadol ("High Priest") at the time was Shimon HaTzaddik, the last of the "Men of the Great Assembly" who rebuilt the Holy Temple and revitalized Judaism under Ezra. On the 21st of Kislev Alexander marched on Jerusalem at the head of his army; Shimon, garbed in the vestments of the High Priest and accompanied with a delegation of Jewish dignitaries, went forth to greet him. The two groups walked towards each other all night; at the crack of dawn they met. As Alexander beheld the visage of the High Priest, he dismounted his horse and bowed respectfully; to his men he explained that he often had visions of a similar-looking man leading him into battle. Shimon HaTzaddik brought the emperor to the Holy Temple and explained that Judaism prohibits the display of any graven image; he offered to name all the male children born to priests that year "Alexander" as a demonstration of loyalty to the emperor (which is how "Alexander" became a common Jewish name). The Samarians plot was rebuffed, and Kislev 21 was declared a holiday. (Talmud Yoma 69a) According to an alternative version, this episode occurred on the 25th of Tevet.

Jospehus is Europe's most widely read ancient document after the Gospels.

Really? First heard of him in this thread.

3 huge wars yes, and all before Rome took over. These began after Alex's sudden death, with the biggest war being the hanuka wars, where the Jews prevailed. The greeks never forgave the Jews for rejecting image worship of Zeus, and they took revenge via Rome, which resulted in the villifications in the NT.

No. Greek religion accepted every other God as well, believing they are just a local aspects of their Gods. The Jewish God was different and Jews too bothersome because of their religion that's why the Seleucids tried to change things.
Note: The Seleucids, a Greek dynasty supported by a Greek upper-class commanding a multi-ethnic empire. The Greeks as a whole didn't give a damn about which God the Jews worshiped. You give Jews too much credit.

And you have repeated several times that the senate was Greek....prepostetous, the senators were members of the oldest aristocratic families of Rome, they just had Greek education since they could afford it.

OK first thing first: you have a tendency to drift from one thing to another which makes discussion a bit difficult. For instance glce said that he doubted that the Greeks read Josephus and you answered that Josephus was the most widely read book in Europe. The only matter is that glce clearly refered to the Greeks of the time of Josephus or the generations just posterior while the public interest for Josephus arose in the 15th century with the invention of print and the spread of protestantism. So you manage to pretend glce is wrong with an argument mixing the Roman empire and the Renaissance... I'd say you have your own version of chronology. Although I can't say I'm surprised since for religious people time is of no importance. But as you mentioned this is a history forum so that's a problem here.

The type of argument you use to "support" the existence of David as he is described in the Torah is just as ludicrious.

1. Saying that nobody said anything against it is far fetched since nobody else than the Hebrew read the Torah in these days. Then it is also assuming that they cared (I don't imagine the Egyptians sending an ambassador telling the Hebrews that their sacred text was full of historical mistakes). And finally, if there has been controversies it is quite likely that they never reached us (it is not as if we had volumes of texts written by the Hebrews in the first millenium BCE).

2. Saying that his profile as depicted in the Torah is correct because the Torah says so is a bit of a circular argument. The Philistines could have been defeated by David's grand son for all we know, isn't it? For instance what do you make of the fact that the description of the armour and weapons of Goliath fits exactly the one of a Greek mercenary common in the Eastern Mediterranean ... 2 centuries AFTER the supposed lifetime of David. In the same way, the epic tone of the book resembles strangely the fashion of combats tells spread in the region by the Greeks (remember the Iliad).

This fits quite well with a vision of King David and Solomon as mythical ancesters supporting the legitimacy of their heirs and of their policies.

Once more, please be kind enough to read what I write and not to caricature what I am saying. The examples I gave of mythicalization of history by the Torah are not lies but severe transformation of reality.

The Hebrew were not deported to Babylon a small part of them was (btw the fact that the Iraki Jews are the descent of those deportees is pure legend as well, nothing to back it).
The queen of Sheba may well have existed but she very likely did not behave has the Torah says.
The flood may have happened but was very likely less enormous than the book says.
There may have been Hebrew slaves in Egypt, it doesn't mean that the whole people was enslaved by Pharaoh. Or that Pharaoh had a foster son who was an Hebrew orphan who "led his people to the promised land" ect.

As you said yourself, some distance is necessary when one reads a text like that. Not everything ought to be taken litterally. Why not adopt this sain criticism and this distance regarding King David? One ought to admit that a very significant share of the Torah is made of bedtime stories, I'm not even talking of the articles of faith (burning bush and all) just sheer tales for entertainment sake (I mean hello, the fight of the baton/snakes...).
Hmmmmmmmm no wait, you think the Noah story is true... so maybe it is pointless to argue (I mean hello even the whole Mid East under the water and a single fellow with a giant ship and all his domestic animals on it... why not vampires since you're at it). Once more, you do as you wish but nobody will make me believe that Job has actually fought with an angel. It is an important symbol but I don't see the smallest shred of reality in it.
Regarding all the 'evidence' you posted, please read your own posts, you were talking about the Torah being the world's oldest unchanged text, not that Hebrew was the oldest language.

I'm not sure they are exact copies, I quite like the explaination that they refer to some archetypes we all understand such as the mean step-mother, the sinful snake, etc. Mankind is just terrified of drawning that's why stories of floods resonate particularly in our minds (just think about the coming flood due to global warming, why did this story captured our attention more than the many other scenarios proposed by scientists?).

You give Jews too much credit.

Good one, I'll try to remember it.

PS: btw Paul/Saul was a Roman citizen there is no clear indication he was a Greek. Too bad for your grand paranoia (we'll never overstate the harm the Da Vinci Code did to history).


Edited by Maharbbal - 24-Sep-2008 at 03:33

To my knowledge, the entire passage is not rejected. What is rejected are certain interpolations, however that the core of the passage most likely was authentic was proved by the famous Jewish scholor, Shlomo Pines.

Originally posted by IamJoseph least I know what I'm talking about. I said the Greeks (of the time but most Greeks even now, like most of the people in the entire world) probably never even heard of Josephus. If You have some evidence that they did, I'd be glad to hear it.   Jospehus is Europe's most widely read ancient document after the Gospels.

Originally posted by gcle2003 ...

Thank you, GCLE2003!

(That other guy has been out in his solar religion for too long, methinks. )

Ahkenaz meand Germany in Hebrew. And Ashkenazi means "German" it's just a designation for a branch of European Jews. Ashkenazis BTW also spoke Idish a Germanic language, but still they were Jewish. No need to transform them to Saxons etc.