Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, dwise1, ICANT, ringo (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,467 Year: 18,503/19,786 Month: 923/1,705 Week: 175/518 Day: 49/52 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical contradictions.
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 304 of 329 (20313)
10-20-2002 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Wordswordsman
10-20-2002 8:28 AM


Wordswordsman writes:
quote:
WS:As to when Isaiah began his prophecy, we begin with 1:1, not 6:1. Isaiah 1:1 "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

quote:
This does nothing for your argument but does show that you excell at nitpicking.

It did wonders for my argument. That nitpicking is required to uncover lies.

What lies? All Britannica said was, "According to 6:1, Isaiah received his call 'in the year that King Uzziah died' (742 BC)." Read the rest of Isaiah 6 and you'll see that this is exactly what it says, that Isaiah received his call to prophecy (God says to Isaiah, "Go and tell the people") the year King Uzziah died. If your interpretation includes a different chronology then go ahead and argue it. Unlike you, we won't call views we disagree with "lies".

Doctrbill and I called this silly nitpicking because precisely when Isaiah began prophesizing has nothing to do with the issues under discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 8:28 AM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 305 of 329 (20314)
10-20-2002 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Wordswordsman
10-20-2002 8:28 AM


Thank you for your response.

quote:
WWS Historical record can't be used in a biased way, except to omit the information.

Historical "record" depends entirely upon the recorder. And it can be misrepresented, embellished, or denied.

quote:

WWS Bible college teaches a person to recognize the appearance of discongruity from the norm, especially when information contradicts what is plainly stated in the Bible. They teach you how to recognize authors who attempt to re-write the Bible, an ongoing task.

A. I am well aware of what Bible College does. By "discongruity from the norm" I assume you mean the ChristianNorm?

B."Plainly stated" is in the mind of the reader. Six hundred different denominations of Christianity can't all be reading it the same.

C. Rewriting the Bible is a favorite Christian pastime. It is called 'creating a new version.'

quote:
WWS ... rather than try to type out the original text, I will scan and try to post that way. I don't have time to do it manually. I thought you would appreciate notes instead.

What I would appreciate is you arguing your own belief from your own reason. Assume that I have no inclination to respect your authorities but will listen to your own personal convictions. I will also accept scriptural arguments, assuming that you have reviewed a number of alternative translations, checked them against the ancient languages, and offer knowledgable rationale regarding why you accept and/or reject a particular point of view. I do not reject the occasional brief quote (with attribution) but I am likely to ignore your cut-and-paste epistles.

In short, I am here to discuss with you, not with your favorite authors.

quote:
WWS I appreciate the honesty. Since you accept the testimony of encyclopedias, I'll post part of this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08179b.htm:

I neither accept nor reject the opinion of anyone out-of-hand. And, I think this discussion of Isaiah is peripheral to the real issue of whether biblical statements can be taken at face value.

db

------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 8:28 AM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 329 (20325)
10-20-2002 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Percy
10-19-2002 10:42 PM


quote:
WS:...and a few, now fulfilled, refer to the first advent (Isaiah 40:3; Isaiah 42:1-3,6-7; Isaiah 49:1-5; Isaiah 50:2-11; Isaiah 52:14; Isaiah 53:1-12; Isaiah 61:1-2)

quote:
It was Christians who decided these ambiguous Isaiah passages were prophecies of the Advent. There are two key qualities of successful prophecy: they're either very vague, or they only predict events that have already happened.

The Hebrew scholars had long before known of two advents. The disagreement was over whether Jesus was he Messiah. Christians recognized the truth the Hebrews missed. God would not reveal that to the OT prophets, however, for had He done so, Christ could never have come and made a bona fide offer of Himself as Israel's Messiah. They would have recognized Him and preserved His life, making Him King of Judah.

quote:
The key point to keep in mind is that the prophet Isaiah did not write the book Isaiah. Isaiah was carried down through oral tradition. Once in Babylon the Jews felt it important to preserve their culture in writing and took full advantage of the advanced scribal technology possessed by their captors, and it was in Babylon that Isaiah first took written form. As Babylon was beset of Cyrus more chapters were added to Isaiah, and more again after Babylon fell to Cyrus.

Josephus cited Cyrus' reading of Isaiah and the prophecies of himself before that idea was birthed. Now just who are those liberals that agree with Pfeiffer? The RCC disagrees with that. Their scholars have been found quite accurate, though biased against Luther and Protestantism. Otherwise their commentaries are quite good, none disproven. WHO are they? Mormons? Jehovah Witness? Who?

quote:
Josephus lived nearly 8 centuries after Isaiah the prophet, and nearly 6½ centuries after the return to Jerusalem. He is silent on Isaiah authorship. His Antiquities of the Jews is a history of the Jews, not a history of the Isaiah scroll. Isaiah was just another source for Josephus.

The concept of dual authorship or the version you post concerning the handing down of Isaiah didn't emerge until very recently compared to the citing of Josephus and Hebrew scholars on the subject. He never once reported such a story about Isaiah's writing, but quoted it frequently. I should have gone ahead and posted the whole study here to avoid picking through it. I won't listen to you about such things again. I've been searching through stored posts from over the years looking for concise statements. That takes time, only for you to come along with unsubstantiated modern claims. Alternatively, if Josephus supports your Isaiah, lets see the reference. Got Josephus online searchable? All Henrew, RCC, Church Father, and other Christian sources I know of support one Isaiah, all written at one time before the Babylonian captivity. What proof have you?

quote:
The Septuagint is a translation of the Torah performed 300 years after the return to Jerusalem. It is not a research work on OT origins.

It and its notes remain irrefutable, unchangeable. There is no indication in it of any suspicion of your theory. Your theory doesn't turn up for many centuries after the Septuagint. The Dead Sea Scrolls are also verifying the unity of the book. There is perfect agreement between Isaiah, written 100 years before Babylon came to power, and of Jeremiah, whose prophesies were written when the empire and the great city were at the height of their glory. The fulfillment is a matter of history.

quote:
The details of origin of all the books of the OT is unknown. Whatever was known and by whom did not pass down to us in history.

Wrong. MUCH is known about the authors of the OT and the NT. The Bible itself cross references. Prove the details are not known. Who says? There are many works of historians, philosophers, scholars B.C. that reveal plenty about the Bible authors and how those books came to be.

quote:
Mining the Internet, I see. Amazing similarity of expression with this website:

I'm mostly using posts in archives on other groups, sometimes the copies on my hard drive and on floppies, CD, and a tapedrive archive, as well as college course CD's, floppies, and sometimes typing out texts from notes and pages in textbooks. At least 3,000 people went through those same (Evangel) college classes, have the same notes I have, the same CD collection, the same library, some ofthem creating websites that now copy one another somewhat, some of which I have copied from over the years posting in other groups, from which much of my material comes. I got through the first 6 semesters before switching majors, taking up teaching. I still have everything for apologetics, typology, old and new testament surveys, the prophets, hermeneutics, all but the upper class courses, lots of resources, most of which is yet not read, but serves as reference. I expect to see some of it repeated verbatim. There are websites that have copied my own original posts from groups and old websites I made, some even asking permission to do so. I don't maintain those, prefering to engage in dialog, reaching more people. There is no need to rehash the same information. I've passed through this dialog many times, this being a full repeat of the past. I stated I am copy/pasting, and try to use quotes to keep it straight. There will be no paraphrasing on my part. I won't play along with you much more since apparently all you are doing is basically denying what I present. This is a common problem with these discussions all over the net. When you come up with some actual searchable databases proving this stuff of yours, we might have something to talk about. It's too easy to simply deny statements, a little tougher to back them up. I find no pleasure in doing the work only to have someone continue denials. You need to refer to a Hebrew Bible, some actual scholarly works. There are secular Roman historians of the days of Jesus to draw from, Jewish scholars, the Church Fathers, all online and fully searchable. Practically everything you could possibly need to study this out is there. You have become caught up in Bible skeptic websites that offer no actual scholarship.

quote:
WS:Christ and the apostles believed and confirmed their faith in one Isaiah and the unity of the book, never once indicating two authors. In the NT there are 32 quotations and allusions to the first section, 36 to the second section, all acsribed to Isaiah, one author.

quote:
This indicates that they valued the prophecies in Isaiah, particularly because he made so many that could be interpreted as prophecies of Jesus, but it says nothing about the origins of the book of Isaiah.

That there are NO references in antiquity to anything but a single writing of Isaiah in the traditionally held time assigned to the book is strong evidence there was no such theory contemplated. That the latter section of Isaiah is quoted by Jesus proves He considered those prophesies applicable to Him (Messiah), and not post captivity commentary only. The whole idea of attempting to split Isaiah into a pre and post captivity work is to water down claims of deity for Christ. Christian Bible scholars certainly don't believe that, never did. It is all a modern day heresy in the view of mainstream Christianity. So-called 'Christian liberals' are considered short of being considered Christian who believe such things. They preach another gospel, not that of Christ.

People have lots of choices about believing which gospel seems true. Most believe the Bible version as reported. Some believe the modern re-written "Bibles" that completely change the ancient message. Some believe well established commentators wh devoted entire lives to Bible study. Others believe works of men who openly deny the validity of the Bible. It takes time to sort it all out. Many won't take the time to do that. That is why I'm here. There is more to choose from now. People can believe simple denials of ancient truth, works that make a myth of the Bible. That is their decision. Many reject such theories as yours when they realize the vast majority of scholars disagree with modern ideas, holding to the decidedly overwhelming concensus of knowledge concerning the Bible.

[Fixed quoting. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-20-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Percy, posted 10-19-2002 10:42 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by doctrbill, posted 10-20-2002 8:11 PM Wordswordsman has not yet responded
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 10-20-2002 9:47 PM Wordswordsman has not yet responded
 Message 310 by Mister Pamboli, posted 10-21-2002 4:15 PM Wordswordsman has not yet responded
 Message 311 by Brian, posted 10-25-2002 6:35 PM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 307 of 329 (20334)
10-20-2002 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Wordswordsman
10-20-2002 7:09 PM


quote:
Percy The Septuagint is a translation of the Torah performed 300 years after the return to Jerusalem. It is not a research work on OT origins.

quote:

WWS It and its notes remain irrefutable, unchangeable. There is no indication in it of any suspicion of your theory.

If the Septuagint is irrefutable and unchangeable then why has so much of it been thrown out by the Christian church?

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 7:09 PM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 308 of 329 (20346)
10-20-2002 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Wordswordsman
10-20-2002 7:09 PM


Wordswordsman writes:
The disagreement was over whether Jesus was he Messiah. Christians recognized the truth the Hebrews missed.

You're half right. Both the Hebrews and the Christians missed the truth.

Josephus cited Cyrus' reading of Isaiah and the prophecies of himself before that idea was birthed.

As I already said in Message 299, Isaiah 1-39 was written in Babylon before Cyrus, 40-48 shortly before Cyrus conquered Babylon, and 49-55 shortly after. So obviously Isaiah 1-48 was available for Cyrus to read.

Now just who are those liberals that agree with Pfeiffer? The RCC disagrees with that. Their scholars have been found quite accurate, though biased against Luther and Protestantism. Otherwise their commentaries are quite good, none disproven. WHO are they? Mormons? Jehovah Witness? Who?

After raising the issue of modern Biblical scholarship yourself, you now deny it even exists, there's just this one weird guy Pfeiffer and maybe a few cohorts? Go figure. Anyway, Pfeiffer's views are representative of liberal Biblical scholarship, a rather large and well-populated field. Other names in the field that I can think of are Crossan, Funk, Hoover, Golb, Eisenman, Wise, Armstrong, Friedman and Spong. Some of the most well known religious denominations are modernist in outlook, like the Methodists, the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians.

I won't listen to you about such things again.

Are you here to debate or lecture? To this point you've chosen to cast aspersions instead of addressing the specifics of the views of the modern school.

Percy wrote:
Mining the Internet, I see. Amazing similarity of expression with this website:

Wordswordsman replied:
I'm mostly using posts in archives on other groups, sometimes the copies on my hard drive and on floppies...<much major dissembling>...

Yes, yes, don't worry, we believe you.

The excerpt I cited from Pfeiffer mentioned stylistic differences between Isaiah 1-39 and Deutero-Isaiah. You replied that, "Over 300 words and expressions used in both sections are not used by other prophets of the post-exilic period." But Isaiah was not written in the post-exilic period. It wasn't even written in Israel but in Babylon. You need to address the stylistic differences between Isaiah 1-39 and Deutero-Isaiah noted by the modern school. For instance, I quoted Pfeiffer saying, "The conciseness, variety, and concreteness of Isaiah's poetry contrast sharply with the eloquent verbosity, repetitiousness, and vagueness of Is. 40-66. Isaiah belongs to the golden age of Hebrew literature, Is. 40-66 to its silver age. The difference is that between naive, unconscious art and deliberate striving for majestic eloquence by means of rhetorical devices." Why not address this in some concrete way?

When one adds text to holy writ one does not advertise that fact - it diminishes the impact. The discovery of the multiple authorship of Isaiah only dates back a century or two because that's when the modern analytical techniques of high criticism began to be developed. Earlier scholars had no such techniques available and limited themselves to interpreting the meaning.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 7:09 PM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4759 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 309 of 329 (20372)
10-21-2002 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Wordswordsman
10-18-2002 4:46 PM


WS:
Possibly thousands of fine books have testified over the years to the relationship between prosperity and the kind of freedom that follows unfettered Christianity. It's pointless to attempt refuting such a large concensus, as it is also a matter of history. Also a matter of history is the loss of power, prosperity, and honor when a nation forsakes God while claiming in word only they remain friendly toward the Gospel while adopting clearly unbiblical politics. Many once powerful, wealthy nations of Europe lost their grandeur upon departing from biblical Christianity. Their grand church monuments to 'the world that was' cannot help them, their temples empty.
**********************************

Hmmmm that is why all of Scandinavia, Germany, the Netherlands, France etc etc have a higher standard of living than US residents? You really need to actually see some of the world as it is rather than how you think it is. The highest proportion of christian fundamentalists live in the poorest parts of the US...seems like your brand of christianity breeds ignorance, hatred, and poverty...what an achievement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-18-2002 4:46 PM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 310 of 329 (20414)
10-21-2002 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Wordswordsman
10-20-2002 7:09 PM


[B][QUOTE]The concept of dual authorship or the version you post concerning the handing down of Isaiah didn't emerge until very recently compared to the citing of Josephus and Hebrew scholars on the subject. [/B][/QUOTE]

Doh! Your scholarship is very patchy, ws. Moses ben Samuel Ibn Gekatilla held the latter chapters to have been written in the era of the second temple. Ibn Gekatilla lived ca 110 AD - only a few years after Josephus and possibly contemporary with his later years. Ibn Ezra followed and amplified Ibn Gekatilla’s atguments in the 12th century AD. Interstingly, Ibn Ezra’s reasoning is remarkably similar to that raised by Doderlein, the first “modern” theorist of multiple authorship in the 18th century.
[B][QUOTE]I won't listen to you about such things again.[/B][/QUOTE]

To avoid hearing uncomfortable truths, perhaps? Or to continue undisturbed in your ignorance?[B][QUOTE]All Henrew, RCC, Church Father, and other Christian sources I know of support one Isaiah, all written at one time before the Babylonian captivity.[/B][/QUOTE]

Yet again, ws, you are merely demonstrating how little you know. Here is a Hebrew site which recognizes multiple authorship of Isaiah quite straightforwardly: http://www.uahc.org/shabbat/stt/3reeh.shtml

On VirtualJerusalem.com, the popular “Ask the Rabbi” feature, specifically intended to answer Jews' questions about their own faith, included an answer in the following terms “Somewhere in Babylonia, sometime in the fifth century BCE, lived an unnamed prophet whose words are included in Isaiah 40-55. For lack of better information, scholars refer to him as Deutero Isaiah to distinguish his writings from those of Isaiah ben Amots who lived in Jerusalem in the eighth century BCE.” http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/judaism/asktherabbi/?disp_feature=/uZaqT1.var

You would do well to “listen to such things.” You might learn something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 7:09 PM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 311 of 329 (20820)
10-25-2002 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Wordswordsman
10-20-2002 7:09 PM


Christians recognized the truth the Hebrews missed.

Did Jews and Israelites miss this truth too, or was it only the Hebrews?

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 7:09 PM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by nos482, posted 10-25-2002 6:37 PM Brian has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 312 of 329 (20821)
10-25-2002 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Brian
10-25-2002 6:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
Christians recognized the truth the Hebrews missed.

Did Jews and Israelites miss this truth too, or was it only the Hebrews?


Aren't all three of these basicially the same people?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Brian, posted 10-25-2002 6:35 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Brian, posted 10-26-2002 1:54 PM nos482 has responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 313 of 329 (20888)
10-26-2002 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by nos482
10-25-2002 6:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
Christians recognized the truth the Hebrews missed.

Did Jews and Israelites miss this truth too, or was it only the Hebrews?


Aren't all three of these basicially the same people?


HI nos, pleased to meet you

Do you mean from the context of the bible, or in the real world?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by nos482, posted 10-25-2002 6:37 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by nos482, posted 10-26-2002 2:34 PM Brian has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 314 of 329 (20889)
10-26-2002 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Brian
10-26-2002 1:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
Christians recognized the truth the Hebrews missed.

Did Jews and Israelites miss this truth too, or was it only the Hebrews?


Aren't all three of these basicially the same people?


HI nos, pleased to meet you

Do you mean from the context of the bible, or in the real world?


The real world. The only difference being the time they were called each of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Brian, posted 10-26-2002 1:54 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Brian, posted 10-28-2002 5:29 PM nos482 has responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 315 of 329 (20953)
10-28-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by nos482
10-26-2002 2:34 PM


Hi nos.

I was hoping you would say from the Bible, as it would be far easier to explain!!

Outside of the biblical tradition it is difficult to equate these three terms. For example, the term ‘Hebrew’ or to be more accurate ‘ivri’ cannot be found anywhere in external sources, history is blissfully unaware of their existence. In the biblical sources the term ‘ivri’ applies to a large group of people who are the descendants of an eponymous ‘Ever’ in biblical ethnology. If the term relates to an ethnic group then it is an ethnic group that can ONLY be found in the Bible. (Halpern, Rise of Israel pp147-9)

So, despite some valiant attempts, scholars have failed to find the ‘Hebrews’ in non-biblical sources.

The best known attempt to solve the mystery of the invisible ‘Hebrews’ was to equate them with the Habiru / ’Apiru that can be found in non biblical sources. The Amarna tablets, which date from the 14th century BCE, do not mention any group called the Israelites but there are references, in letters from the ruler of Jerusalem IR-Heba, to a people called Habiru. (Lemche, pp25-49)

It doesn’t take a great genius to compare the habiru linguistically with the term Hebrew from the Old Testament. The habiru are also connected with the appearance of an element of Asiatic origin, which had been known for some time from Egypt in the form of the term ‘pr.w’

Archaeology provided good evidence from the find at Tel el Amarna that contains a number of texts that mention the habiru. However, the habiru are only mentioned in letters from Jerusalem, which according to the Bible, was only conquered during the reign of David, several hundred years later.

The answer to this problem was provided initially by the recognition of an element labelled SA.GAZ as being additional references to the habiru. These people appear in a context almost identical to the one found about the habiru in IR-Heba’s letters. This hypothesis is also backed up by evidence from the Hittite archive at Baghazkoy / Hattashash.

Then references to the habiru began popping up all over the Near East, as well as the Egyptian references there are also references from Susa in Persia and Mesopotamia. The habiru are identified as a marginal social stratum that was composed of mercenaries, raiders, gypsy type wanderers and slave labour(McNutt, pp46-7)or relates to any person that was hired by someone to do something (McCarter p.147)

All this means that, at the moment, we do not know for sure who the Hebrews actually were, in a non biblical context of course.

In regard to the Israelites, there are similar problems with identifying the origins of the people that came to be known as Israelites.

Archaeology has no evidence for an ‘Israel’ before 1207 BCE and the inscription of the Pharaoh Merneptah, and even this is obscure. The origins of Ancient Israel is an ongoing debate, no one knows where these people came from or when they became a nation. One thing that is universally accepted in regard to the origins of the Israelites is that the bible narratives of their origin, the enslavement in Egypt, the Exodus, the conquest and settlement in Canaan belong to the realms of myth and religious propaganda. Here’s a quote from William Dever who is sure that the bible is useful as an historical source, he really does fight for the bible very well in books, debates and journal articles:

‘…there isn’t a single reputable professional archaeologist in the world who espouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe or America. We don’t have to say anymore about the conquest model’. (William Dever, The Rise of Israel p29)

So we have one of the leading defenders of the ‘bible as history’ acknowledging that the bible narratives regarding the Enslavement, Exodus, and the Military Conquest by Joshua are not taken seriously by any reputable bible scholar.

The flavour of the month at the moment in this area is that the Israelites emerged from within Canaanite society; they never left Canaan in the first place so there didn’t have to be an exodus, military conquest etc. Evidence for this is the cultural continuities found in the lowland city-states and the new villages that appeared in the hill country at the end of the Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age.

I could go on quoting books and opinions of many bible scholars but the bottom line is: we don’t know who the Hebrews were, if they existed at all, we don’t know for sure where the Israelites came from or when they emerged as a nation.

Finally, the Jews are a people who came from a distinct land. They are acknowledged as coming from Judah by Roman and Greek sources and later the name ‘Jew’ was applied to anyone that followed the teachings of the Hebrew Bible.

Therefore, your query about these three groups being basically the same people but called the different terms depending on the time they are looked at, would have to be no. As we are looking at these terms in the ‘real world’ then we cannot identify for sure the Hebrews or the Israelites so they cannot be equated with anyone. This doesn’t mean that they never will be identified as the same group but at the moment it isn’t possible to trace them.

If you wanted to look to the bible tradition for evidence then there are problems too. For example, Abraham is seen as the first Hebrew and it is only his son Jacob/Israel who fathers the Israelites, so the rest of Abraham’s dysfunctional family and their offspring would be Hebrew but could not be Israelites, neither could they be Jews, as Jews are the descendants of Judah, Jacobs son.

You can see in the Bible text that all Jews could be Israelites, but not all Israelites can be Jews. It’s a Holy Rubik’s Cube!!

The study of the Hebrew-Israelite-Jew, from out side the bible tradition, isn’t as straight forward as one might think, especially when there is little or no evidence for two of the three groups. There may be texts or other sources that haven’t been found yet that could clear the mist a bit, but at the moment I for one would treat these three groups as entirely separate entities.

If you are interested in reading more on this topic here are some books you might like to read, I have quoted from some of these in the post.

Shanks, Dever, Halpern and MacCarter. The Rise of Ancient Israel. Biblical Archaeology Society. Wasington 1992.

Paula McNutt. Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. SPCK. London 1999.

Nils Peter Lemche. The Israelites in History and Tradition. SPCK. London 1998.

William Dever. What did the Biblical writers know and when did they know it? Eerdmens Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

John C.N. Laughlin. Archaeology and the Bible. Routledge London 2000.

Take care nos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by nos482, posted 10-26-2002 2:34 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by nos482, posted 10-28-2002 5:49 PM Brian has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 329 (20954)
10-28-2002 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Brian
10-28-2002 5:29 PM


Nearly 6000 years of tradition must have come from somewhere? Or could they be like the difference between Egyptians of today and those of several thousand years ago where all they have in common is their name?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Brian, posted 10-28-2002 5:29 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Brian, posted 10-29-2002 5:54 AM nos482 has responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 317 of 329 (20983)
10-29-2002 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by nos482
10-28-2002 5:49 PM


Nearly 6000 years of tradition must have come from somewhere?

** Yes, from the imaginations of the bible authors as there are NO external sources to many traditions, such as the enslavement, exodus etc. The authors of the bible weren't adverse to borrowing material from other cultures and claims of divine intervention in these traditions hardly constitute reliable history.

Or could they be like the difference between Egyptians of today and those of several thousand years ago where all they have in common is their name?

Egyptian history is strongly verified from many sources, such as Mari texts and Amarna tablets.

Best Wishes

Brian

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by nos482, posted 10-28-2002 5:49 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by nos482, posted 10-29-2002 6:48 AM Brian has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 318 of 329 (20985)
10-29-2002 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Brian
10-29-2002 5:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
Nearly 6000 years of tradition must have come from somewhere?

** Yes, from the imaginations of the bible authors as there are NO external sources to many traditions, such as the enslavement, exodus etc. The authors of the bible weren't adverse to borrowing material from other cultures and claims of divine intervention in these traditions hardly constitute reliable history.

Or could they be like the difference between Egyptians of today and those of several thousand years ago where all they have in common is their name?

Egyptian history is strongly verified from many sources, such as Mari texts and Amarna tablets.

Best Wishes

Brian


In regards to the Egyptians of today I had meant genetically. From what I understand is that because of Egypt being invaded so many times over recent centuries that the people there now bear very little to those who lived there a few thousand years ago. In other words the original Egyptian "race" is basically extinct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Brian, posted 10-29-2002 5:54 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by John, posted 10-29-2002 8:54 AM nos482 has not yet responded
 Message 320 by Brian, posted 10-30-2002 3:34 AM nos482 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019