Hebrew script?

[Ishtar]

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.

I didn't say the Indians didn't fight in defence of their nation. I said they never went to war against anyone. Big difference.

[Ishtar]

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."

I think you’ve painted yourself into a corner on this one. In other posts, you say that Jerusalem was little more than a village just prior to that time. And you’ve also been known to refer the Jews then as just a bunch of ignorant sheep herders. In fact, you’ve made a similar remark further down this same post:

“That century prior to 722 BC shows in archaeology as Judah being a rather poor, barren and under populated land.”

I cannot quite see how, in just a hundred years, they could get from the situation you've painted them in to a thriving and prosperous kingdom with a king. But I can see how they could have had a rich oral tradition.

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 millennia. Finkelstein's concentration on the late 7th century is not misplaced as that was when Egypt also had a brief resurgence.

But it still an interpretation based on no evidence that Josiah even existed. You use different criteria when you're arguing on Jesus Never Existed. You wouldn't allow Josiah through under those rules.

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 millennium 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.

But not if it’s NOT a story about territorial expansion but an allegory about celestial processes - as the Babylonians, Greeks, Egyptians and Persians would have all recognised. Why? Because they had the self same stories.

They would not have felt threatened by Jewish versions of stories they told themselves about what went on in the heavens. They would have known (unlike Finkelstein who doesn’t appear to know anything about mythos) that these were not accounts of political historians. They would have recognised them for what they are.

The Babylonians, Greeks, Persians and Egyptians would also have been totally familiar with a) using an earthly setting to represent the heavenly setting, and b) places named AFTER the locations in the myths, and not before. That’s why you’re also finding these anachronisms about places being named when they weren’t supposed to have existed. The reason is – it’s true, they didn’t exist then on earth. Only in the heavens.

Think about it. There is nothing in the OT to give any indication that this is/was the political history of the Jews. If it was, why not put something at the beginning, perhaps a foreword stating its purpose? Any other history book would announce its function at the beginning, if only in the title. But no ... right from the get go we are plunged straight into an absurd (if it were literal) story about the world being created by God in six days who on the seventh day rested.

This 6 + 1 can be seen in the Egyptian mythology as the story of the heptanomis (seven pieces of land that were formed in the firmanental waters), which support the poles. The cycle of the precession follows the sun god Horus as he travels over the Great Year through the six poles which are all capsized, one after the other, in the Deluge, leaving the final seventh pole which doesn't capsize, and which stands firm for the god Horus to rest on - "and on the seventh day he rested."

A "god's day" in mythology is one cycle of the Great Year - more than 25,000 years.

Then there follows on a whole bunch of Sumerian/Canaanite/Egyptian myths following on from that which only make any sense if they are used for what they were intended for – teaching astronomy and the measurement of the Great Year.

I’m still not seeing from you any archaeological evidence for the existence of Josiah and that he used these stories for a political campaign. The only reference to this is in the Bible – so you wouldn’t accept that from Arch – and all the rest is just speculation based on very little knowledge of what actually went on in Judea and fueled by ignorance of how the people at that time used myths.

[Minimalist]

I cannot quite see how, in just a hundred years, they could get from the situation you've painted them in to a thriving and prosperous kingdom with a king.

That's because you study mythology and not archaeology. At this point you really need to read "The Bible Unearthed." We have actual evidence for the rapid buildup of population at that point in time.

But it still an interpretation based on no evidence that Josiah even existed.

I don't think it matters. Someone was king and if Finkelstein wants to use the name Josiah to personify the Judaean monarchy in the late 7th century that is up to him. There probably was a King Arthur, too, but he didn't live in castles with knights in armor.
There is a tendency to glorify in history and the David/Solomon period is another example of this.

But not if it’s NOT a story about territorial expansion but an allegory about celestial processes

I guess I am less impressed by mythology than you are. People do things for a reason and they write and twist history for a reason as well. You know, people (like Arch) have been reading the Book of Revelation for 1500 years and can always find, in every generation, conditions which apply to their immediate times and the end of the world. It hasn't happened yet but that doesn't stop them from seeing exactly what they want in it.

Finkelstein's argument is that he has identified a time in history when the "message" of the DH fits exactly into the political events of the time. BTW, forgetting the OT, which I am all too willing to do, we do have evidence that the other powers in the region were at each other's throats. Egypt/Assyria were allied against Babylon. Babylon won. They were then undone by the Persians. In all of this, in spite of the conceit of being "God's Chosen People" the Judahites were no more than a pimple on any of the great powers' butts.

Given their history of repeated conquest by virtually every other power in the region, one does wonder what they were "Chosen" for? Does god have a sense of humor?

[john]

Minimalist -

"Given their history of repeated conquest by virtually every other power in the region, one does wonder what they were "Chosen" for? Does god have a sense of humor?"

Given the fact that HE is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent,

Of course............

If you believe the press release.

Personal story from the early eighties.......

I was the floor boss for a small cabinet shop, and

No shit we were living from hand to mouth.

So, OK, we put in a bid for a big, fancy, expensive job and

Figured we were on the inside lane in this horserace.

We lost.

So we hiked around the corner to the local pub

To drown our miseries.

The guy that owned the company bought a tablefull

Of strong drink, and we drank down the first couple rounds.

On the third round, he raised his glass and said

"Gentlemen, we are all members of God's Wingless Fly Collection,

Crawling futilely on the windowsills of what we perceived as Heaven.

Now, we can't even buzz against the glass."

Then he, and we, all laughed hysterically,

Drank a bunch more, and

Went back to work.

In my opinion, "Chosen" is an internal survival mechanism, and

Not the result of any external hierarchy;

Any connection to actual history

Is extremely remote, especially with regard

To multiple written interpretations,

All of which were ex post facto.








hoka hey

john

[Minimalist]

John,


Just for you.


http://www.satirewire.com/news/march02/chosen.shtml

GOD NAMES NEXT "CHOSEN PEOPLE"; IT'S JEWS AGAIN

"Oh Shit," Say Jews

[Ishtar]

The idea of The Chosen Few comes from Matthew in the New Testament, which is not recognised by the Jews.

Matthew 22:14 states, "Many are called, but few are chosen."

It would be helpful here to refer back to our discussions about the Greater and Lesser Mysteries in Greece. Here, many were called to the Lesser Mysteries at the vernal equinox, but out of those, few were chosen to go on to the second initiation, the Greater Mysteries at the autumnal equinox.

So I think it is obvious what the writer 'Matthew' means.

That there actually was an initiation, a secret Mystery teaching for The Chosen Few, is confirmed from the mouth of the character Jesus.

In Mark 4: 10-12 it says:

"And when he (Jesus) was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

"And he said unto them, 'Unto you it is given to know the Mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

"'That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.'"

Parables is just another word for ‘allegories’. Thus by putting these words into the fictional Jesus’s mouth, the writer “Mark” is making it very clear that the teachings of Jesus that are given to the masses are not literally true and are metaphors for something else which is revealed in full to The Chosen Few.

Also in Mark 4: 34 it says:

"...but without a parable spoke he not to them; and in private he explained all things to his disciples."

The Gnostic Christians had specific terms for those waiting for initiation. Those who had only received the first initiation (the water baptism) were called the Captive. But those who went on to receive the second initiation (fire) were called the Chosen.

And if we need any further confirmation that the concept ofThe Chosen Few comes from the Mystery Teachings, we have this in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas:

"Jesus said, 'It is to those who are worthy of my Mysteries that I tell my Mysteries."

So once again, metaphor has been misunderstood, causing no end of confusion and resentment towards the Jews down the centuries.

[Ishtar]

So Min, after four days of asking for it, you have finally provided some archaeological evidence, which, you say, confirms the existence of King Josiah.

I thank you for at last coming up with something. But I’m afraid it does not in any way prove the existence of any king, let alone a Judaean one called Josiah. All it shows is that there was a rapid population build up in Judea in the 7th century BCE. That’s all.

Let me help you out here. If Josiah really existed, there are a couple of ways we could prove it.

Josiah’s father was named after the Egyptian god Amon. And his father, or Josiah’s grandfather, was named Manesseh, after the Manes of the Egyptian myths.

Manesseh is shown in Chronicles as encouraging the people away from the Israelite religion and turning the Temple (which we know didn’t exist) over to pagan rites.

It is also said in Chronicles that Manasseh was later taken captive to Babylon by the king of Assyria.

So did the king of Assyria see fit to mention his high profile political prisoner anywhere? If he did, it would help your cause enormously.

But if not, don’t give it up. There is one more way we could try.

In Kings and Chronicles, we learn about how Josiah was killed by Necho. After that, on his way back from yet another raiding party, Necho stopped in at Judea to find that the Judeans had put Josiah’s son, Jehoahaz, on the throne. Necho didn’t like this, and immediately deposed Jehoahaz and replaced him with Josiah’s other son, Jehoiakim. Then he took Jehoahaz and brought him back to Egypt where he was held for the rest of his life as a hostage.

So does the Egyptian Necho see fit to mention his high profile political prisoner? Or does he even mention killing Josiah? Or mention any of the Manesseh dynasty at all?

That’s giving you several avenues to prove that Josiah literally existed outside of Biblical sources. If you can’t prove it, your position is no better than Arch’s in that it’s based on faith, and not on science. That's not a bad thing in itself - but it does mean you can no longer beat Arch up over it.

[Ishtar]

There probably was a King Arthur, too, but he didn't live in castles with knights in armor.

There is no evidence of a King Arthur in history.

Arthur was originally a character who featured in the oral tradition of Celtic mythology and these stories can be read now in the Welsh Mabinogian and the Black Book of Camarthen. Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chretian de Troyes later took these Bardic verses and turned them into more elaborate and courtly stories.

The word ARThur derives from the Cult of the Bear (Arth, earlier Art) meaning “the bear”. The Cult of the Bear was widespread across Northern Europe in pre Christian times, and its rituals and stories were built around the Great Bear constellation, or Ursa Major.

This is also seen in Egyptian mythology, where the seven stars in the constellation of Ursa Minor (the Lesser Bear) follow the coffin of Osiris in Ursa Major (the Great Bear).

Giving the hero the name ARTHur PenDRAGON thus neatly brings together the serpent cult and the bear cult. “Pen” means “head” – so that gives us “The Great Bear Who is the Head Serpent”. The Druid teachers were known as Serpents.

[kbs2244]

"A "god's day" in mythology is one cycle of the Great Year - more than 25,000 years."

Ish, could you give us reference for this?
The whole concept of the length of a “day” is wide open.

[Ishtar]

"A "god's day" in mythology is one cycle of the Great Year - more than 25,000 years."

Ish, could you give us reference for this?
The whole concept of the length of a “day” is wide open.

KB, you're right, the concept is wide open due to different ways of measuring time over the millennia.

I learned while studying the Vedas in India that one Great Year (one full astronomical cycle) equalled one day of Brahma (the Hindu God), therefore One Day of God. However, the Indian numbers are much bigger, as they measured time by the stars - sidereal astronomy/astrology being the most ancient way of measuring time. So the Vedic Day of God was 3.1104 trillion years.

However, the Egyptians measured a Great Year by the time it took for one whole cycle of the seven pole stars to pass - thus Horus travels through six as they capsize in the Deluge of the primordial waters, one after the other, until he comes to the seventh which stands firm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession ... _Equinoxes

A consequence of the precession is a changing pole star. Currently Polaris is extremely well-suited to mark the position of the north celestial pole, as Polaris is a moderately bright star with a visual magnitude of 2.1 (variable), and it is located within a half degree of the pole.

On the other hand, Thuban in the constellation Draco, which was the pole star in 3000 BC, is much less conspicuous at magnitude 3.67 (one-fifth as bright as Polaris); today it is invisible in light-polluted urban skies.

The brilliant Vega in the constellation Lyra is often touted as the best north star (it fulfilled that role around 12000 BC and will do so again around the year AD 14000), however it never comes closer than 5° to the pole.

When Polaris becomes the north star again around 27800 AD, due to its proper motion it then will be farther away from the pole than it is now, while in 23600 BC it came closer to the pole.

Later on, in Mesopotamia, time was measured by the moon and then later on from that, the solar reckoning took over which we use today. So now a Great Year or Day of God is around 25,700 years, which is the time it takes for the sun to travel through all the astrological signs.

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

In the history of astronomy, a great year may refer to any real or imagined cycle with astronomical or astrological significance. The Greeks sometimes called the period of time required for the naked eye planets to realign, a great year. It was an important concept in ancient Stoicism.

According to Giorgio de Santillana, there are over 200 myths or folk stories from over thirty ancient cultures that refer to a Great Year tied to the movement of the equinox or the motion of the heavens.

The book The Great Year written by Nicholas Campion describes some of the ancient and modern mythology of the Great Year concept. The documentary film The Great Year, written by Walter Cruttenden and narrated by James Earl Jones, describes some of the archaeological and astronomical evidence for the Great Year.

Hope this helps.

[Minimalist]

There probably was a King Arthur, too, but he didn't live in castles with knights in armor.

There is no evidence of a King Arthur in history.

True, but there are small tidbits of history upon which such legends can grow.

http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/halac.htm


Lucius Artorius Castus

n 180-185, the Romans suffered heavy losses north and south of the Wall,54 and the Picts invaded, striking deeply enough into Roman territory to slay the governor of Britain and the legate of the VI Victrix at Eboracum (Dio, 73.2, Cary 1932:87; Salway 1991:210-211). The Victrix fell to pieces and revolted, attempting to elevate one of Castus's fellow praefecti, Priscus, to the position of emperor. Through this all, there was one island of peace: the territory controlled by Bremetennacum. While everything east of the Pennines disintegrated, everything west stayed calm. The western portion of the Wall held against the invasion. And when the officers of the Victrix were executed by Pertinax (185 C.E.; Dio 73.2a, Cary 1932:89; Salway 1991:213) or transferred to remote locations,55 Castus, in contrast, was promoted to dux and sent to Armorica to put down an uprising.56

[Ishtar]

Lucius Artorius Castus

The Cult of the Bear (Arth) predates the Roman invasion of Britain by possibly thousands of years.

None of the Celtic tales about Arthur bear any resemblance to battles with the Romans. He is not defending his countrymen against an invading force.

I would also expect Celtic lore about a Pendragon - the Head Serpent - to be Druidical and thus, also pre-date the Romans in Britain.

Lucius Artorius Castus was probably named AFTER the mythological Arthur, in the same way that place names were also established on earth AFTER places already established in the mythological heavens.

My father is called Arthur too - I'm sure my Gran had high hopes for him!

[Minimalist]

Lucius Artorius Castus was probably named AFTER the mythological Arthur

I doubt it. Not in the mid second century AD. In Campania (near modern Naples.)

Within 25 years of George Washington's death, fictional tales of his youthful deeds were circulating in the US.

Besides, Artorius was fighting against invaders of Britain...not against the Romans. You see. He WAS a Roman.

[Ishtar]

Min, I think you are what’s known as a evermerist. Don’t worry, it’s not illegal.

It’s the belief that the gods/spirits were derived from the glorification and exaggeration of the actions of a real life hero or king.

One can see how this belief would naturally arise. I can see two factors in its development. There are the hero cults of Greece, where shrines were erected to brave warriors. And there are also many kings throughout history who've tried to ally themselves in their peoples’ minds with gods, in order to hang on to power.

But in fact, even in Plato’s time, the philosophers had an understanding about spirits or gods as beings that existed in their own right (whether metaphorical or literal).

Plato gives Socrates this to say in one of his discourses in Phaedo:

"And upon the earth are animals and men, some in a middle region, others dwelling about the air as we dwell about the sea; others in islands which the air flows round, near the continent; and in a word, the air is used by them as the water and the sea are by us, and the ether is to them what the air is to us. More over, the temperament of their seasons is such that they have no disease and live much longer than we do, and have sight and bearing and smell, and all the other senses, in far greater perfection, in the same degree that air is purer than water or the ether than air.

“Also they have temples and sacred places in which the gods really dwell, and they hear their voices and receive their answers, and are conscious of them and hold converse with them, and they see the sun, moon, and stars as they really are, and their other blessedness is of a piece with this."

This reflects the teachings of the thousands of years older Vedas. That the gods/spirits preceded the kings in importance is obvious from the Indian caste system. The priestly Brahmin caste is superior to the kingly kshatriya caste. Thus gods/spirits come before kings .. and in fact, we know that man worshipped gods/ spirits long before there were kings, or kings that were recorded anyway.

[Minimalist]

Archaeologist Nadav Na'aman with a discussion of the original find.

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_98.pdf

There are many indications, however, that the story of David and Goliath is a late composition (for details see Barthélemy, Gooding, Lust and Tov 1986; Rofé 1987; Auld and Ho 1992; Dietrich 1996; for a discussion of Goliath's armor, see Galling 1966; Finkelstein 2002: 142–148).

Of course, he assumes that there was a "Goliath" to be killed by anyone.