Little or no Evidence to Support Hebrew Bible Before Josephus

M

mojobadshah

Guest
I recently spoke to some linguists about how languages are dated and according to them a lot of the dating are determined through archeology. Keeping this in mind I have discovered, unless anyone can detract, that there is no archeology or secondary sources to verify that the Hebrew Bible was composed earlier than Josephus and therefore any monotheistic development among the Jews until Josephus as well. The Jews themselves are virtually never even mentioned by secondary sources Egyptian, Assyrian, and Greek.

Little more than the name David, if at all, is mentioned in the Shosheq I Egyptian inscriptions (945BC), the Tel Dan Stele in the Aramaic language 850-835, and the Mesha Stele. The war between the Assyrian King Shalmaneser and Ahab is described in the Kurkh Monolith.

The Behistun describes Darius the Great's conquest and makes reference to one God, Ahuramazda, and by his grace Darius says came to power. Herodotus 484 accounts for Darius and Cyrus. Herodotus however makes no mention of the Hebrew Bible, Moses, or the Jews.

Alcibiades I was composed in Greek 429-347 BC and mentions Zoroaster the son of Oromasus (Ahuramazda) and the founder of the Magians.

There is no mention of a Hebrew Bible, Moses, the Jews, or Jesus in any source until Josephus 75AD. The Septuagint was written in Koine Greek which means it could have been composed as late as 300 AD.
 
mojobadshah said:
I recently spoke to some linguists about how languages are dated and according to them a lot of the dating are determined through archeology. Keeping this in mind I have discovered, unless anyone can detract, that there is no archeology or secondary sources to verify that the Hebrew Bible was composed earlier than Josephus and therefore any monotheistic development among the Jews until Josephus as well. The Jews themselves are virtually never even mentioned by secondary sources Egyptian, Assyrian, and Greek.

Little more than the name David, if at all, is mentioned in the Shosheq I Egyptian inscriptions (945BC), the Tel Dan Stele in the Aramaic language 850-835, and the Mesha Stele. The war between the Assyrian King Shalmaneser and Ahab is described in the Kurkh Monolith.

The Behistun describes Darius the Great's conquest and makes reference to one God, Ahuramazda, and by his grace Darius says came to power. Herodotus 484 accounts for Darius and Cyrus. Herodotus however makes no mention of the Hebrew Bible, Moses, or the Jews.

Alcibiades I was composed in Greek 429-347 BC and mentions Zoroaster the son of Oromasus (Ahuramazda) and the founder of the Magians.

There is no mention of a Hebrew Bible, Moses, the Jews, or Jesus in any source until Josephus 75AD. The Septuagint was written in Koine Greek which means it could have been composed as late as 300 AD.
Click to expand...
9th C. BC Mesha Stele mentions YHWH.



  1. I am Mesha, son of KMSYT (Kemosh[-yat]), the king of Moab, the Di-
  2. -bonite. My father was king of Moab thirty years, and I reign-
  3. -ed after my father. And I built this high-place for Kemosh in QRH ("the citadel"), a high place of [sal-]
  4. -vation because he saved me from all the kings (or "all the attackers"), and because let me be victorious over all my adversaries. Omr-
  5. -i was king of Israel and he oppressed Moab for many days because Kemosh was angry with his
  6. land. And his son replaced him; and he also said, "I will oppress Moab". In my days he spoke thus.
  7. But I was victorious over him and his house. And Israel suffered everlasting destruction, And Omri had conquered the lan-
  8. -d of Madaba, and he dwelt there during his reign and half the reign of his son, forty years. But Kemosh
  9. returned it in my days. So I [re]built Baal Meon, and I the water reservoir in it. And I bu[ilt]
  10. Qiryaten. The man of Gad had dwelt in Ataroth from of old; and the king of Israel
  11. built Ataroth for him. But I fought against the city and took it. And I slew all the people [and]
  12. the city became the property of Kemosh and Moab. And I carried from there the altar of/for its DVD ("its Davidic altar"?) and I
  13. dragged it before Kemosh in Qerioit, and I settled in it men of Sharon m[en]
  14. of Maharit. And Kemosh said to me, "Go! Seize Nebo against Israel." so I
  15. proceeded by night and fought with it from the crack of dawn to midday, and I to-
  16. -ok it and I slew all of them: seven thousand men and boys, and women and gi-
  17. and maidens because I had dedicated it to Ashtar Kemosh I took [the ves-]
  18. -sels of YHWH, and I dragged them before Kemosh. And the king of Israel had built
  19. Yahaz, and he dwelt in it while he was fighting with me, but Kemosh drove him out before me. so
  20. I took from Moab two hundred men, all his captains. And I brought them to Yahaz, And I seized it
  21. in order to add (it) to Dibon. I (myself) have built the 'citadel', 'the wall(s) of the forest' and the wall
  22. of the 'acropolis'. And I built its gates; And I built its towers. And
  23. I built a royal palace; and I made the ramparts for the reservo[ir for] water in the mid-
  24. -st of the city. But there was no cistern in the midst of the city, in the 'citadel,' so I said to all the people, "Make [for]
  25. yourselves each man a cistern in his house". And I hewed the shaft for the 'citadel' with prisoner-
  26. -s of Israel. I built Aroer, and I made the highway in the Arnon.
  27. I built Beth-Bamot, because it was in ruins. I built Bezer, because it was
  28. a ruin [with] the armed men of Dibon because all of Dibon was under orders and I ru-
  29. -led [ove]r [the] hundreds in the towns which I have annexed to the land. And I bui-
  30. -lt Medeba and Beth-Diblaten and Beth-Baal-Meon, and I carried there [my herdsmen]
  31. [to herd] the small cattle of the land, and Horonain, in it dwelt the house of [D]VD...
  32. [and] Kemosh aid to me, "Go down, fight against Horonain". And I went down [and I fou-
    [*]-ght with the city and I took it and] Kemosh [re]turned it in my days. Then I went up from there te[n...]
    [*][...a high] place of justice and I [...]

 
seattlegal said:
9th C. BC Mesha Stele mentions YHWH.


  1. I am Mesha, son of KMSYT (Kemosh[-yat]), the king of Moab, the Di-
  2. -bonite. My father was king of Moab thirty years, and I reign-
  3. -ed after my father. And I built this high-place for Kemosh in QRH ("the citadel"), a high place of [sal-]
  4. -vation because he saved me from all the kings (or "all the attackers"), and because let me be victorious over all my adversaries. Omr-
  5. -i was king of Israel and he oppressed Moab for many days because Kemosh was angry with his
  6. land. And his son replaced him; and he also said, "I will oppress Moab". In my days he spoke thus.
  7. But I was victorious over him and his house. And Israel suffered everlasting destruction, And Omri had conquered the lan-
  8. -d of Madaba, and he dwelt there during his reign and half the reign of his son, forty years. But Kemosh
  9. returned it in my days. So I [re]built Baal Meon, and I the water reservoir in it. And I bu[ilt]
  10. Qiryaten. The man of Gad had dwelt in Ataroth from of old; and the king of Israel
  11. built Ataroth for him. But I fought against the city and took it. And I slew all the people [and]
  12. the city became the property of Kemosh and Moab. And I carried from there the altar of/for its DVD ("its Davidic altar"?) and I
  13. dragged it before Kemosh in Qerioit, and I settled in it men of Sharon m[en]
  14. of Maharit. And Kemosh said to me, "Go! Seize Nebo against Israel." so I
  15. proceeded by night and fought with it from the crack of dawn to midday, and I to-
  16. -ok it and I slew all of them: seven thousand men and boys, and women and gi-
  17. and maidens because I had dedicated it to Ashtar Kemosh I took [the ves-]
  18. -sels of YHWH, and I dragged them before Kemosh. And the king of Israel had built
  19. Yahaz, and he dwelt in it while he was fighting with me, but Kemosh drove him out before me. so
  20. I took from Moab two hundred men, all his captains. And I brought them to Yahaz, And I seized it
  21. in order to add (it) to Dibon. I (myself) have built the 'citadel', 'the wall(s) of the forest' and the wall
  22. of the 'acropolis'. And I built its gates; And I built its towers. And
  23. I built a royal palace; and I made the ramparts for the reservo[ir for] water in the mid-
  24. -st of the city. But there was no cistern in the midst of the city, in the 'citadel,' so I said to all the people, "Make [for]
  25. yourselves each man a cistern in his house". And I hewed the shaft for the 'citadel' with prisoner-
  26. -s of Israel. I built Aroer, and I made the highway in the Arnon.
  27. I built Beth-Bamot, because it was in ruins. I built Bezer, because it was
  28. a ruin [with] the armed men of Dibon because all of Dibon was under orders and I ru-
  29. -led [ove]r [the] hundreds in the towns which I have annexed to the land. And I bui-
  30. -lt Medeba and Beth-Diblaten and Beth-Baal-Meon, and I carried there [my herdsmen]
  31. [to herd] the small cattle of the land, and Horonain, in it dwelt the house of [D]VD...
  32. [and] Kemosh aid to me, "Go down, fight against Horonain". And I went down [and I fou-
    [*]-ght with the city and I took it and] Kemosh [re]turned it in my days. Then I went up from there te[n...]
    [*][...a high] place of justice and I [...]

​
Click to expand...


That's true. It also mentions the Isrealites, but a name like "Yahweh" on a vessal is not hard evidence of monotheism. If the vessels described who this Yahweh in the monotheistic context then I could see your point. But don't you think it's kind of weird that NO ONE else has heard of Moses or the Israelites other than Ahab and maybe David until Josephus? Josephus himself did some backprojecting. For example he says that Alexander came into contact with the Jews, but that meeting is NOWHERE mentioned in Greek sources. For all we know the Septuagint was composed as late as 300 AD just before Koine Greek died out and this is where everybody is reconstructing the history of the Jews from. Tell me how this is not outright delusional behavior? It must be why they don't teach Jewish "history" in schools because it can hardly be backed by the historical method, no?
 
To put it another way the Jews/Israelites don't even have a history, or "one" as elaborate as the one described in the Hebrew Bible, apart from the name David and 1 battle against the Assyrians and another against the Moabites, until Josephus, the earliest or am I wrong? The Septuagint aside.
 
mojobadshah said:
To put it another way the Jews/Israelites don't even have a history, or "one" as elaborate as the one described in the Hebrew Bible, apart from the name David and 1 battle against the Assyrians and another against the Moabites, until Josephus, the earliest or am I wrong? The Septuagint aside.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the existence of the Samaritans, then? The Septuagint seems to be based upon the Samaritan Torah, not the Masoretic text.
 
seattlegal said:
How do you explain the existence of the Samaritans, then? The Septuagint seems to be based upon the Samaritan Torah, not the Masoretic text.
Click to expand...

salishan said:
Nash Papyrus (from Egypt , 150bce-100bce)
Dead Sea Scrolls (from Qumran , 150bce-70ce)
Click to expand...

What is there to explain. We know Moses, for example, is first attested to by Josephus who I take it was known by other scholars contemporary to him. That can't be said of any Isrealite other than maybe David and Ahab before then. The Septuagint could have been composed as late as 300 AD. No author mentions material that is in the Septuagint until Josephus. Wikipedia even says that it was Josephus's source material was important for understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Nash Papyrus, which resembles the Septuagint, could have been copied and translated from the Septuagint. Where the Samaritan text differs from the Masoretic text it agrees with the Septuagint. The Masoretes lived between 700 and 800 BC, long after Koine Greek had died out. The Dead Sea Scrolls were composed by the Essenes. The Essenes are mentioned by both Josephus and Pliny. I REPEAT the earliest secondary source supporting the existence of the Jews other than 1. David, and 2. Abraham or a Hebrew Bible was no earlier than Pliny (79) or Josephus. What is to say the Septuagint which could have been composed as late as 300 AD was not the base input stimuli for the Hebrew translations of the Hebrew Bible?
 

Mojobadshaw
exquisite creature

the Pentateuch translation
represents a very early form of Koine Greek
which is why most scholars date the translation to the 3rd century-bce

possibly no canonical Hebrew Bible existed then , admittedly
but certainly lots & lots of texts were floating around , in various versions

Hebrew scholars can trace linguistic changes over time
in Hebrew idioms & grammar , thus can
provide a relative (albeit arbitrary) timeline of composition
(the kind of linguistic changes which would take centuries)
starting (probably) sometime after 800bce & concluding around 150bce

while superficially possible , it is hugely unreasonable
to conclude that the entire Hebrew Bible was composed
during the time of Josephus

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

as to "history of the Jewish people" , pre-Josephus
there is much debate amongst scholars
(sometimes nasty debates , because contemporary politics enters in)

Genesis is pure folk-legend
(sly tales woven around ancestral names)
as is largely the case with Judges , as well as with 1 & 2 Samuel

Exodus & Numbers & Joshua detail a folk-epic
(an elaboration of some kernel of a culturally "remembered" event
which , like the Trojan War as detailed by Greek bards like Homer
even limited to its kernel form , is something which
may or may not have actually happened)

by the time several centuries of "oral history" are finally written down
there remains (typically) very little real-history left
(but sometimes dramatized-"hi/story" makes for some lovely lovely literature)

later Hebrew books , like Chronicles & the writings of the prophets
aligns pretty accurately with known historical events
in the wider Levant of the 1st millennium-bce
(which probably would not be the case , if these "books"
were transmitted orally right-down to the time of Josephus
& only then , transcribed upon scrolls)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

but , Mojobadshaw
if u are suggesting that the Hebrew Bible in the time of Josephus
is merely an ideological document , intended
to give to a disparate group of peoples
(a group loosely identified as "Jews") , to give
to them a "single identity with a single history" , yes

this may be exactly what is going-on in the time of Josephus

this canon of writings takes on a cultural significance
a self-conscious polemical ("unifying" , "nationalizing") significance
(which , for a couple centuries anyway
far outweighs any purely religious significance the texts may contain)

only in later centuries do these texts
become deeply meaningful in the religious
(& no longer the ideological) sense

the "book" (a secular , nationalistic document) is suddenly
important (2000ya) , to galvanize "a people"
(becoming important as a "sacred" text , only later)

or so , some scholars have argued

(though i , myself
am more interested in the tenets of conduct
Judaic monotheism initiated (ethics & compassion) , & thus
am interested in those Judaic sects & individuals , during Josephus' era
who find spiritual-meaning therein , find meaning
in what comes-to-vibrate behind the texts , not within the texts themselves)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this (the early Hebrew Bible as a polemical document)
may prove to be a (largely) correct interpretation
of Hebrew scriptural history for Josephus's era
but stating such aloud will stir a lot of fistfights , Mojobadshaw

so tread carefully

 
mojobadshah said:
I REPEAT the earliest secondary source supporting the existence of the Jews other than 1. David, and 2. Abraham or a Hebrew Bible was no earlier than Pliny (79) or Josephus. What is to say the Septuagint which could have been composed as late as 300 AD was not the base input stimuli for the Hebrew translations of the Hebrew Bible?
Click to expand...

Correction: The earliest secondary source supporting the existence of the Jews other than 1. David 2. Ahab or 3. a Hebrew Bible was no earlier than Pliny 79 AD.
 
salishan said:

Hebrew scholars can trace linguistic changes over time
in Hebrew idioms & grammar , thus can
provide a relative (albeit arbitrary) timeline of composition
(the kind of linguistic changes which would take centuries)
starting (probably) sometime after 800bce & concluding around 150bce

while superficially possible , it is hugely unreasonable
to conclude that the entire Hebrew Bible was composed
during the time of Josephus
Click to expand...

Ultimately, no. Those linguistic changes you're talking about and grammar could have all been different languages or dialects spoken around the same time. This is precisely the discussion I had with the linguists. Linguists rely on archeology to date language. For example they place the language of the Aryan Bible (Avesta) c1500 BC in Yazd Culture Complex because the Aryan people are known to have practiced exhumation and there is no evidence of inhumation in Yazd Culture Complex. There is no way to tell how long the divergence between one language and the language that it develops into is exactly.

salishan said:

the Pentateuch translation
represents a very early form of Koine Greek
which is why most scholars date the translation to the 3rd century-bce

possibly no canonical Hebrew Bible existed then , admittedly
but certainly lots & lots of texts were floating around , in various versions
Click to expand...

The same could apply here, but there probably was enough Koine Greek going around to determine when the Septuigent was composed. Koine was in widespread use around Alexander the Great's time 300 BC. The question is: if Koine was so widespread and there was extent Koine Greek literature around this period then why does no one mention the Jews or a Hebrew Bible?
 
mojobadshah, if I remember correctly you say that zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion and that it was created by the Aryans. Could you start a thread about how the Aryans created something new without any outside inspiration.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
mojobadshah, if I remember correctly you say that zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion and that it was created by the Aryans. Could you start a thread about how the Aryans created something new without any outside inspiration.
Click to expand...

I can't help but feel a sort of resentment about this question. Zoroastrianism was something new in a BIG WAY. The religion of the Aryans and the Persian (Aryan) Empire introduced several ideas that pretty much make the Abrahamic faiths what they are. These ideas were distinct from all the world's religions at the time. They were all either polytheist or henotheist NOT monotheist. The monotheist context changed everything. There was no son of God. There were heros, but NO Messiah or Christ. No concept of the Word Made Flesh. No virgin mother. There were only gods NOT angels or demons. There was no Devil. There was no Heaven or Hell that Christians and Muslims are familiar with. There was a final battle between the Gods, but no final battle between God and the Devil, good and evil.

There may have inspiration, but it wasn't outside inspiration it was a common inspiration the Proto-Indo-European religion. But all those developments I mentioned above which can be found in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Koran didn't develop from Proto-Indo-European they developed from Zoroastrianism. And I stress Proto-Indo-European is a hypothetical ancestor. The Aryan Bible (Avesta) is not a reconstruction.

Speaking in terms of "authority structures" this is a REALLY BIG DEAL. Do those expressions rightfully belong to the Jewish authority structure, the Christian authority structure, the Muslim authority structure. No, ultimately, no. The rightful custodians of those expressions is the Aryan community, but the laws in the world aren't advanced enough to respect this fact. I hope that one day they will be. That way people like me won't have to constantly be threatened by delusionary authority structures and instability as a consequence as I constantly defend these points.

In this thread I have shown how there is little evidence to support the expressions in the Hebrew Bible are as old as people make it out to be. It looks like people have let the delusion get the better of them. Backprojecting a mytho-history that we have no evidence of 300 BC the earliest, but 300 AD the latest. I have also shown that the history of the Irano-Afghans and Zoroaster is known, not just by the Irano-Afghans, but by the Afro-Asiatic speakers as well as other Indo-Europeans as early as Herodotus 500 BC and the Platonic School 429–347 BC.
 
mojobadshah said:
I can't help but feel a sort of resentment about this question. Zoroastrianism was something new in a BIG WAY. The religion of the Aryans and the Persian (Aryan) Empire introduced several ideas that pretty much make the Abrahamic faiths what they are. These ideas were distinct from all the world's religions at the time. They were all either polytheist or henotheist NOT monotheist. The monotheist context changed everything. There was no son of God. There were heros, but NO Messiah or Christ. No concept of the Word Made Flesh. No virgin mother. There were only gods NOT angels or demons. There was no Devil. There was no Heaven or Hell that Christians and Muslims are familiar with. There was a final battle between the Gods, but no final battle between God and the Devil, good and evil.

There may have inspiration, but it wasn't outside inspiration it was a common inspiration the Proto-Indo-European religion. But all those developments I mentioned above which can be found in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Koran didn't develop from Proto-Indo-European they developed from Zoroastrianism. And I stress Proto-Indo-European is a hypothetical ancestor. The Aryan Bible (Avesta) is not a reconstruction.

Speaking in terms of "authority structures" this is a REALLY BIG DEAL. Do those expressions rightfully belong to the Jewish authority structure, the Christian authority structure, the Muslim authority structure. No, ultimately, no. The rightful custodians of those expressions is the Aryan community, but the laws in the world aren't advanced enough to respect this fact. I hope that one day they will be. That way people like me won't have to constantly be threatened by delusionary authority structures and instability as a consequence as I constantly defend these points.

In this thread I have shown how there is little evidence to support the expressions in the Hebrew Bible are as old as people make it out to be. It looks like people have let the delusion get the better of them. Backprojecting a mytho-history that we have no evidence of 300 BC the earliest, but 300 AD the latest. I have also shown that the history of the Irano-Afghans and Zoroaster is known, not just by the Irano-Afghans, but by the Afro-Asiatic speakers as well as other Indo-Europeans as early as Herodotus 500 BC and the Platonic School 429–347 BC.
Click to expand...

Saying there are no angels is like saying there are no humans...not reality.
 
donnann said:
Saying there are no angels is like saying there are no humans...not reality.
Click to expand...

I was saying that according to convention the concept of gods sharing equal divine status among the Proto-Indo-Europeans preceded the concept of beings that did not share equal divine status with God among the Zoroastrians. But am an atheist. I don't believe in angels. I believe in humans.
 
mojobadshah said:
I can't help but feel a sort of resentment about this question. Zoroastrianism was something new in a BIG WAY...
Click to expand...

First, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm more agnostic then anything so I don't assume you are wrong, while I have to admit that I have a different view of how the world works compared to you.

Could we talk about how we know know they were the first? What made you come to that conclusion?
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
First, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm more agnostic then anything so I don't assume you are wrong, while I have to admit that I have a different view of how the world works compared to you.
Click to expand...

No problem. I thought you were implying that because the Zoroastrians took their inspiration from elsewhere that their ideas were not their ideas. That they don't deserve to be credited for their ideas... or their expressions.

A Cup Of Tea said:
Could we talk about how we know know they were the first? What made you come to that conclusion?
Click to expand...



The weight of the combined archeological, historical, and linguistic evidence. The ancient Greeks cross-verify that Darius (550BCE), and Cyrus (600BCE) before him were real personages. Darius was responsible for several inscriptions that make reference to only one God, Ahuramazda. This monotheistic statement, alone, is made before any references to Yahweh in the monotheistic context are made. The Greeks also cross-verify that Zarathushtra was the founder of the Magi and the son of Ahura Mazda in Alcibiades I (429–347 BCE). This is also before any references to Moses or Yahweh the only God. Apart from the names 1. David 2. Ahab 3 Israel 4. Yahweh there is no reference to anything Jewish until Josephus 75 ACE. Even if we were to place the Septuagint at 300 BCE there's no references to any of the material other than the aforementioned detials, just names, and a few battles, before Josephus. All this is hard historical evidence.

The linguistic evidence distinguishes the language of Zarathushstrian scripture or Avestan from the language of the Acheamenids or Old Persian, but there is evidence of Avestan loans in Old Persian, and signs that these loans have developed. For example the name Ahuramazda comes from Avestan, but has gone through some changes having developed from the form Ahura Mazda in the Young Avestan language which comes from Mazda Ahura in Old Avestan. It had to have taken some time for these changes to have taken place. How much time exactly we don't know.

The archeological evidence places the culture described in Zarathushtrian scripture as early as 1500 BCE in Yazd Culture Complex because there are no graves in this complex and the Zarathushtrians practiced exhumation. They didn't bury there dead.
 

Mojobadshah
exquisite creature

on reconsideration
i'm beginning to think u are on
to something , here

the minimalist Biblical scholar , Thomas Thompson
does not place the compositional dates for the Hebrew Bible
(like u) all the way back in the time of Josephus
but he does place them "in the late Persian or early Greek period" (circa 300bce)
(far later than do most scholars)

& Thompson sees the task of the Biblical authors as
like trying to reconstruct a half-forgotten dream
(to create a heart-stirring national heritage , where
nothing all that extraordinary was there to begin with)
Thomas L. Thompson said:

The first story in the Bible in which God meets Moses, the story of the burning bush in Exodus 3-6, illustrates well how a revision of a tradition's stories can revive and modernize old worldviews and outmoded traditions by understanding them in new ways. Traditional beliefs in the old gods of Palestine are saved in Exodus by having Yahweh, the long-forgotten god of ancient Israel, understood not as God himself, but as the name, the representative of the true God - the way that ancient Israel knew the divine. Yahweh recurrently plays the role in the Bible's narratives as mediator between the Most High and Israel, sharing this role with his messiah, with his son, with the king and the prophets. Yahweh is the primary means by which the Old Testament represents the divine acting in this world.
...
The 'true meaning' of the many, now fragmented stories of patriarchs and heroes is gathered together to be remembered and preserved in a way that the past had not grasped or properly understood. More than that, the writers of the Bible were free to create all their great stories about Yahweh, that they might reflect how old Israel had understood - and had misunderstood - the divine.
- The Mythic Past: Biblical Archeology and the Myth of Israel (1999) page 384​
Click to expand...
a disparate (& elite) body of priests & scribes is attempting
to invent a nation , out of nothing

& as their rallying-flag , they resurrect an old
(but rather spicy) "long-forgotten god"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thompson's viewpoint does not fit my "picture" of the Hebrew Bible
but it proves compelling (& worthy of consideration)

why it seems to work , Mojobadshah
is that his picture fits with the whole field of
historical facts (as threadbare as that body of facts are)

& it answers u'r question , as to
"where are the Jews ? "
(a script in second-draft , a "nation" just-then being fabricated)

why (to me) u'r Josephus date does not work , is
while u'r picture fits the narrow facts , it does not
fit "the field of facts" which contextualize the era

case in point , in Josephus's time
Palestine is wild with the idea of apocalypse
(Zoroastrian ideas are the hot commodity , ideas of
heaven & hell , of resurrection of the dead at the end of time &
of final judgment , & Gyd with a tally-book of good & evil deeds)

& if the Hebrew Bible had actually been written during this era
this Persian craze would naturally
come-to-play a prominent role within the budding Hebrew Bible

which clearly is not the case
not , except for the Hebrew Bible's very last books (& also
of course , except for the Christian New Testament
where such faddish ideas become indeed , unmistakably prominent)

but dial u'r timeline back a few centuries , &
Mojobadshah, u may (alongside Thompson)
paint a very credible picture
(of this invisible Jewish Avesta)

 
I am horribly afraid what mojobadshah is (1) just very poor research or (2) another anti-Semitic rant.

There are copies of the Septuagint (translation from the Hebrew to Greek) dating from the second century BCE (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957). There are fragments of some 50% of the books of the old testament in the 25% of the "dead sea scrolls" that are biblical texts. The majority of these are from before 50 BCE (see list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls).

Now, come on, MBS, given that the entire existence of the Jews were twice eradicated from Judea (the First and Third Jewish-Roman Wars), do you really think much evidence remains? Shucks, we only have copies of the Gathas that are medieval, does that mean Zarathustra was a myth?

Let us be rational about this. Is the Old Testament inerrant? No. Finkelstein and the living Israeli archeologists have pretty definitive proof of that. But is the Old Testament "dreamed up" sometime around Josephus? That is about as likely as my sainted IRA-prone Grandmother being confirmed as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Because there are flaws and problems with the text does not mean it is not a honest attempt at writing down the oral tradition. It has been shown (many times) that oral traditions have a life of their own and usually have at their center a core of truth. For Gyd's sake, the Mycenaean Homeland was virtually destroyed during the 400 or 600 years of anarchy following the invasion of the Sea Peoples. Yet the Homeric epics kept the tales of Troy alive (and not written down) until the City States were founded.

Now, is this just really bad, bad research on your part or do you have a hidden agenda, mojobadshah?
 
it's not that hidden. basically, it's "everything was nicked from the aryans / zoroastrians and you're all a bunch of thieves and i wish there was some court i could prosecute you for infringement of our intellectual copyright - especially the jews".

it's mad, but there you are. once you've read that sentence, you're now familiar with everything that mojobadshah has to say here on this site. he really doesn't talk about anything else at all and this frankly comes across as tedious, obsessive and rather unpleasant.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top