Hebrew script?

[Ishtar]

In 1 Samuel 17 they write out the story of David killing Goliath. In 2 Samuel 19 (cited above) Samuel says Elhanan killed Goliath? Did Sam forget what he wrote in the prior chapter?

Arch wants to use the OT to prove that the stories are literally true. That's just crazy. I am willing, however, to stipulate that the stories that are in the OT are actually written there. So what? There are stories written in Mother Goose that aren't true, either.

Finkelstein's discussion of Josiah goes on for pages and pages. He is portrayed in the OT as the great reformer, virtually the next David, who did what the priests wanted and therefore was regarded as righteous. Then he goes to meet Necho and gets whacked. It is all part and parcel of the same thing, however.

Unlike Hezekiah and Manesseh, we have no extra biblical sources for Josiah. Was he real or was he an idealized monarch such as King Arthur to you Brits? To hear the writers of the OT tell the story he was pious, righteous, brave....he walked on water! Did any of this really happen? Who knows. Only the OT tells us this story. Kings is generally dated to the Exilic period but who knows when it was last edited.

Finkelstein sees the Deuteronomistic History as a poltical document designed to rally the populace for a great effort against Egypt. That it failed is immaterial. His point is that clues in the text and archaeolocial and historical evidence point to the late 7th century as the time of composition (or compilation...as I recall from our earlier discussion.)

The mythological elements of the patriarchal tales are far more evident than the later stories which seem to be far more earth-centered. Would the Jews have been the first to invoke "god" as an assistant for their plans? I think not.

So all of this is just Finkelstein's opinion because he's reading myth as history - exactly what you accuse Arch of doing. You are all taking the Bible literally, but viewing it through different lenses. Arch thinks its literally about a Jewish God and his works. You and the Minimalists think that it's literally about the Jews being lied to about a Jewish God.

If Arch says something is true because The Bible says it's true, he gets leapt upon for it. But you are all using the same document - The Bible - to make your points. It's all in the interpretation. There's nothing scientific about it.

I think you're all wrong.

Josiah is looking more and more mythical to me by the minute - he's even got the old 'righteousness' (Zedek/Zadok) tag, always a dead giveaway.

On your Samuel point, the compilers in Alexandria wouldn't have been bothered about using two different names for the same story in an environment where everyone understood these stories as myths. If they were really was trying to present them as history, editors would have gone through with a fine toothcomb to iron out any of those anomalies.

[Ishtar]

BTW, Arch and I are having, what is for us, two civil discussions at Koko's.

Turns out we agree about hockey and sort of agree about politics.

Go figure?

Well, I'm very happy for you. It would almost be worth coming over to Koko's to witness such a refreshingly grown-up exchange. Almost ... but not quite.

Try to imagine this scenario.

The Year is 5008, and a discussion is raging somewhere in cyberspace. One Minimalist is convinced that the denizens of the world in 2008 were forced into slavery to one J K Rowling. The reason? They all had to worship her creation, Harry Potter, and give her loads of money for the privilege.

Facing Minimalist we have one Arch who is equally convinced that Minimalist has got it all wrong. He believes that Harry Potter actually existed and was a major magician who fought off all the evil spirits and thus was a Great Protector of Righteousness back then in 2008. So of course they gave his Creator, J K Rowling, all their money and made her a millionnaire, and Arch and his pals from the Harry Potter Temple are praying for His Second Coming.

On top of that, back on the ground at Elstree, the archaeologists have dug up an enormous building that they think exactly fits the description of Hogwarts and have carbon-14 dated it to 1994. So they're claiming that they've found Harry Potter's actual school.

Other archaeologists, though, are disagreeing, saying that this building doesn't have a magic moving staircase with portraits of people that talk going up it, so it couldn't be the original Hogwarts. They're also insisting that as Hogwarts hasn't been found, this is scientific proof that Harry Potter never existed and that J K Rowling lied about him in order to enslave the people.

Meanwhile, the mythologists are looking at all of this and scratching their heads, wondering where on earth to begin to explain that Harry Potter was a mythological development of the Saviour Hero who people were more than happy to pay good money to read about and watch movies about in the full knowledge that he wasn't a real person. After all, they had been enjoying these kinds of stories in the same way for tens of thousands of years.

[Grumpage]

Plato's biographer, Thomas Taylor:

"Plato was initiated into the 'Greater Mysteries' at the age of 49. The initiation took place in one of the subterranean halls of the Great Pyramid in Egypt. The Isiaic table formed the altar, before which the Divine Plato stood and received that which was always his, but which the ceremony of the Mysteries enkindled and brought from its dormant state.

“With this ascent, after three days in the Great Hall, he was received by the Hierophant of the Pyramid (the Hierophant was seen only by those who had passed the three days, the three degrees, the three dimensions) and given verbally the Highest Esoteric Teachings, each accompanied with Its appropriate Symbol. After a further three months' sojourn in the halls of the Pyramid, the Initiate Plato was sent out into the world to do the work of the Great Order, as Pythagoras and Orpheus had been before him."

Ish: Can you give me the exact reference please?

[Grumpage]

As far as "history" goes I agree with Napoleon. "History is a lie agreed upon."

Min: I take it, that in your current discussion with Ish, you are looking for a lie to agree upon.

[Ishtar]

Ish: Can you give me the exact reference please?

Ahah... what's this I see?

Yet another demand for information from a grumpy woman on a subject upon which she professes to have no interest.

The book is called Plato, Grumpage, and it's by the 18th century NeoPlatonist Thomas Taylor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Tay ... platonist)

Thomas Taylor (15 May 1758 - 1 November 1835) was an English translator and Neoplatonist, the first to translate into English the complete works of Aristotle and of Plato, as well as the Orphic fragments. The texts that he used had been edited since the 16th century, but were interrupted by lacunae; Taylor's thorough understanding of the Platonists informed his suggested emendations, which, when better manuscripts have been found, were often proved just.

Hope this helps.

[Grumpage]

Thank you, Ish, but we are not quite there yet.

Can you be more specific as I am having difficulty identifying the ref. It isn't the Works of Plato is it?

Also, can you drill down further to the volume, chapter, page no. - the usual academic type reference?

Finally, where can I look at this reference? Internet, library, Amazon?

[Ishtar]

Thank you, Ish, but we are not quite there yet.

Can you be more specific as I am having difficulty identifying the ref. It isn't the Works of Plato is it?

Also, can you drill down further to the volume, chapter, page no. - the usual academic type reference?

Finally, where can I look at this reference? Internet, library, Amazon?

Go forth and multiply.

[Minimalist]

The lie already exists, Grump.

It's called the Old Testament.

I'm thinking it should be torn down. Along that score, "The Bible's Buried Secrets" airs next Tuesday on NOVA over here.

[Ishtar]

As far as "history" goes I agree with Napoleon. "History is a lie agreed upon."

Min: I take it, that in your current discussion with Ish, you are looking for a lie to agree upon.

She doesn't know us very well yet, does she Min?

If she did, she'd know that we could never agree on anything.

[Minimalist]

So all of this is just Finkelstein's opinion because he's reading myth as history

The difference is that Finkelstein has archaeological evidence to support his position. Arch claims the bible is true because it is written in the bible.

There is a tendency to use the names in the OT as conventions and Finkelstein falls into that trap. We have no extra biblical source for even the name "Josiah." What he has is evidence that a minor regional power arose during the 7th century BC. Logic from our own times indicates that small countries located between rival powers have different factions which favor one of those powers or another depending on what advantages they feel they can get. We see no evidence of Assyrian, Babylonian or Egyptian control over Jerusalem at this time period. Might one faction have decided to throw in with the Babylonians against the Assyrian-Egyptian alliance in the hopes of territorial aggrandizement? Sure. Even the OT account notes that Necho did replace the king of Judah with someone more to his liking....but he was unable to sustain it because the Assyrians were ultimately crushed by Babylon.

The dance between Assyria, Egypt and Babylon at this time is established from history (even Herodotus talks about it) and archaeological finds. Minor powers on the periphery would have had to take sides and if you choose wrong you end up crushed. A century before Judah chose right and ended up with the Assyrians and prospered within their economic sphere. There was nothing particularly "special" about Judah. Except for the fact that someone later came along and created this pious fiction which persists to this day.

[Ishtar]

Arch claims the bible is true because it is written in the bible.

Just as Finkelstein is claiming the existence of Josiah because it is written in The Bible.

Double standards at play here, I think.

What is the archaeological evidence to support the existence of Josiah? Where is the archaeological evidence that he was running a PR campaign?

Where is the evidence that the Bible myths were literalised then ... instead of during the first or second centuries, when the Christians were literalising theirs, also in Alexandria?

How come a highly respected Jew, like Philo, was still accepted among the Jewish rabbis when he read the OT as allegorical myth in the early years of the first century? Philo was so respected as a pillar of Jewish society that he was asked to lead an embassy to Rome.

It seems that we only have 'evidence' from Herodotus, which is always a bit dodgy because most what he wrote came from what he was told by others - he wasn't called the Father of Lies for nothing. But even then, Herodotus's 'evidence' is only about Assyria, Babylon and Egypt.

There was nothing particularly "special" about Judah. Except for the fact that someone later came along and created this pious fiction which persists to this day.

Well, if you think that going to war against others makes you 'special', then I agree. But until the last century, India never went to war against anyone. And yet they had and have the richest, most comprehensive and learned mythological literature in the world.

[Grumpage]

Thank you, Ish, but we are not quite there yet.

Can you be more specific as I am having difficulty identifying the ref. It isn't the Works of Plato is it?

Also, can you drill down further to the volume, chapter, page no. - the usual academic type reference?

Finally, where can I look at this reference? Internet, library, Amazon?

Go forth and multiply.

I don't understand.

[Minimalist]

Just as Finkelstein is claiming the existence of Josiah because it is written in The Bible.

I agree...I think it is a trap he fell into. Finkelstein is not a "Minimalist" He describes himself as a "centrist." One can logically assert that there would have been a king ( all the other polities in the area at the time had kings....why not Judah?) without assuming that the king's name was "Josiah."

But what is true is that the story asserts some confrontation between Egypt and Judah which does not seem to have existed at any other time in history.

The Judaean kingdom spent most of the first millenium under the domination of larger powers: Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome. Their independent periods were for about a century prior to the Assyrian conquest of "Israel"; about 30 years between the collapse of Assyria and the Babylonian conquest (the period when Finkelstein attributes the Deuteronomistic History!) and then about 80 years between the successful conclusion of the Maccabaean revolt and the arrival of Pompey and the his Roman legions.

That century prior to 722 BC shows in archaeology as Judah being a rather poor, barren and underpopulated land. They are conspicuously absent from the Assyrian records showing the confederation which fought at the Battle of Qarqar (853BC)...but "Ahab the Israelite" was prominently mentioned. So it would not seem that "Judah" was much of a factor on the regional stage at this time.

That leaves only a combined total of just over 100 years of Judaean independence for the rest of the millenia. Finkelstein's concentration on the late 7th century is not misplaced as that was when Egypt also had a brief resurgence.

The other period, under the Maccabees, also had a period when Egypt and Seleucia fought over Judah but in both cases it was one bunch of Greeks fighting another. Still, the Ptolomies did take on the trappings of the pharaohs but it is also true that Egypt was pretty well beaten by the Seleucids prior to the revolt of the Maccabees.

The threats to Judah in this late period were Nabatea, Parthia, and Rome as well as the fact that they were tearing themselves apart with dynastic quarrels. Egypt was a spent force and by the end of the millenium would be reduced to the status of personal property of the Roman emperor.

I really can't see the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians or Greeks permitting one of their conquered territories to put forward a heroic mythology which sought to justify territorial expansion. Empires don't usually work that way. It is only in the periods of independence that such writings make sense.

[Minimalist]

I'm not spending too much time on Herodotus except to note that he was in the region not too long after the events in question.

BTW, Herodotus has little to say about any Jews. Surely,,, there must have been stories for him to recount? Or perhaps they had not been written out yet?

[Minimalist]

But until the last century, India never went to war against anyone. And yet they had and have the richest, most comprehensive and learned mythological literature in the world.

Alexander the Great might disagree with you about India not fighting. So might Tamerlane, the Moghurs and the Mongols.