the exodus revisitied

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:04 pm

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:10 pm

minimalist--here is a link to another paper by montgomery. i have only glanced at it but it seeems to cover mmuch of the same ground

http://www.ldolphin.org/alanm/chron1.html

hasn't marduk been banned yet? why are such posts tolerated?

Starflower · Post by **Starflower** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:40 pm

I have spent quite a while catching up on all the legitimate posts on this thread. While I am finding all of the links to be extremely good reads I have to bow out of the discussion at this time. Due to circumstances beyond my control I am currently on some really awesome meds and cannot seem to find very many coherent thoughts in my head. When I have come back to earth I hope to be able to make some sense out of everything I've been reading and post something truly profound

Or at the very least legible.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:56 pm

Arch, having started out with a desire to discuss a quasi-scientific paper you have now regressed to the point of staunchly defending the indefensible because it perpetuates your fairy tales.

I didn't really expect you to avoid the pitfall. You never have in the past.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:04 pm

It's the same old shit, Arch.

He starts out by assuming the bible is correct and proposes to re-write history in order to make it happen.

Easier to simply admit that the whole thing is a work of fiction. Then, everyone else's history gets left alone.

There was far more to the Late Bronze Age than you non-existant goatherders.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:04 pm

Starflower wrote:I have spent quite a while catching up on all the legitimate posts on this thread. While I am finding all of the links to be extremely good reads I have to bow out of the discussion at this time. Due to circumstances beyond my control I am currently on some really awesome meds and cannot seem to find very many coherent thoughts in my head. When I have come back to earth I hope to be able to make some sense out of everything I've been reading and post something truly profound
Or at the very least legible.

Wow....those must be strong!

john · Post by **john** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:15 pm

Minimalist wrote:It's the same old shit, Arch.

He starts out by assuming the bible is correct and proposes to re-write history in order to make it happen.

Easier to simply admit that the whole thing is a work of fiction. Then, everyone else's history gets left alone.

There was far more to the Late Bronze Age than you non-existant goatherders.

min-

you're exactly right.

cf., my points about jesus.com.

if you're going to twist everything into the jesus format,

i'm not interested.

he was an historical, and archaeoligical, fiction.

why various people are hell-bent on election to maintain

the facade

is unfortunately based on their own inability

to think.

which is why i'm mostly avoiding this forum at this point.

gimme some bones.

john

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:25 pm

The Jesus Freaks who have painted themselves into a corner by adopting the OT have a severe problem, John. They have to insist that it is all true no matter how many holes are poked in it.

They'd have been better off if they had just stuck to the NT. That doesn't have any historical basis, either, but at least they wouldn't be weighed down by Yahweh the Bloody Handed and his merry band of ethnic-cleansers.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:39 pm

so when i challenge you to do more than post unverifiable statements to support your side, you bail.

that is fine. just substantiates my position and undermines your side. the weakness of your side is the very thing you require. you need actual physical proof before you will change your mind, if that would happen at all.

yet you fail to account for the limitations of archaeology, the ignoring of dating and the subjectiveness of dating among other factors, while accepting poor theoretical work and poorly drawn conclusions.

i will continue to post new developements her and if anyone has constructive things to say that is fine as long as they post credible links and quotes.

i hope to investigate montgomery's thesis a bit more as there are some questions i want to address for myself. in researching Rohl, i am not impressed with his credentials.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:48 pm

You throw shit against the wall and pray that some of it sticks.

Ask yourself why no one outside of the bible-thumpers fan club takes this guy any more seriously than Velikovsky?

john · Post by **john** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:02 pm

archaeologist wrote:so when i challenge you to do more than post unverifiable statements to support your side, you bail.

that is fine. just substantiates my position and undermines your side. the weakness of your side is the very thing you require. you need actual physical proof before you will change your mind, if that would happen at all.

yet you fail to account for the limitations of archaeology, the ignoring of dating and the subjectiveness of dating among other factors, while accepting poor theoretical work and poorly drawn conclusions.

i will continue to post new developements her and if anyone has constructive things to say that is fine as long as they post credible links and quotes.

i hope to investigate montgomery's thesis a bit more as there are some questions i want to address for myself. in researching Rohl, i am not impressed with his credentials.

i have absolute proof that Lucy (not Lucy's deceased daughter) was the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother (squared) of the caananites.

disprove, as you are able.

using physical, not epistolary, evidence, please.

john

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:42 pm

There is not much on the net about the Admonitions of Ipuwer, except the blathering of bible-thumpers who are desperate to find some linkage to their fairy tales.

This seems to be about the most dispassionate examination of the papyrus.

The Admonitions of Ipuwer is a lament prayer from Ipuwer to the “Lord of All,” which could refer either to the king or to the creator god. Ipuwer describes many social upheavals. Before we get into the text itself, we should note that Miriam Lichtheim, renowned for her three-volume set of translations of ancient Egyptian texts (Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings [3 vols.; University of California Press, 1973–1980]), has argued on the basis of genre considerations and comparisons with other texts in the same genre that there is no historical basis for any of Ipuwer’s complaints.

We have seen that Neferti has a political-propagandistic aim which it expresses through the poetic elaboration of the topos “national distress.” In Khakheperre-somb we have encountered the same topos in a work that seems to be largely rhetorical. Both works were written in times of peace and prosperity. When the Admonitions is placed alongside these two words, it reveals itself as a composition of the same genre and character which differs only in being longer, more ambitious, more repetitious, and more extreme in its use of hyperbole. Its very verbosity and repetitiveness mark it as a latecomer in which the most comprehensive treatment of the theme “national distress” is attempted, in short, as a work of the late Middle Kingdom and of purely literary inspiration.

The unhistorical character of the whole genre was recognized by S. Luria in an article that did not receive the attention it deserved. Adducing strikingly similar compositions from other cultures he pointed out the fictional, mythological-messianic nature of these works and the fixed cliches [sic] through which the theme of “social chaos” was expressed. … Luria also made the telling point that the description of chaos in the Admonitions is inherently contradictory, hence historically impossible: On the one hand the land is said to suffer from total want; on the other hand the poor are described as having become rich, of wearing fine clothes, and generally of disposing of all that once belonged to their masters.

In sum, the Admonitions of Ipuwer has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme “order versus chaos.” (vol. 1, pp. 149–150)

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:14 pm

you forgot to put a link in. is this from one of your books or website?

has argued on the basis of genre considerations and comparisons with other texts in the same genre that there is no historical basis for any of Ipuwer’s complaints.

Since we do not have a wide range of texts from that time period is this a correct assumption to make? how can we be sure the author was the only one who wrote such words at that time? we know it was the only one preserved so i wonder about this conclusion.

Its very verbosity and repetitiveness mark it as a latecomer in which the most comprehensive treatment of the theme “national distress” is attempted, in short, as a work of the late Middle Kingdom and of purely literary inspiration

i think such analysis is a little weak because it may be that the works compared to the apyrus were written in times of peace, it still doesn't make it so for the papyrus. e.g. michael crichton is not going to start writing in a style of a non-fiction writer when some travesty appears at his door step. he will write in the style he is accustomed to.

Luria also made the telling point that the description of chaos in the Admonitions is inherently contradictory, hence historically impossible

nice to be able to make such judgments from times of peace and prosperity i would like to see him write coherently when he is facing such problems.

In sum, the Admonitions of Ipuwer has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period,

i think they failed to prove their point and failed to prove the validity of this conclusion.

now as i have finished this critique of their assessment, minimalist will post a link to a christian website to try and make a fool out of me. sorry whether it is christian or not i disagree with the asssessment.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:37 pm

Taken from the review of Jacobovici's work which I posted earlier.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:40 pm

minimalist will post a link to a christian website to try and make a fool out of me

Nah.....I don't need christian websites to make a fool out of you....you handle that pretty well yourself.

So, what are YOUR credentials for a critique of ancient Egyptian literature?

Hopefully, they are more extensive than Montgomery's.