Page 2 of 3

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:53 pm
by Ishtar
My own research, such as it is so far, into the mythology of Exodus, is that there is a very big finger pointing at the Canaanites, who were originally from Uruk in Sumeria and even after they left, remained under the Sumero/Akkadian empire for a long time.

There are lots of linguistic and mythological similarities that can be traced, almost like fragments, from the Canaanites into the OT. Adn the first bit of the story of Moses (where he is put in the bulrushes) is the same as the story of Sargon, ruler of Akkad (2333 - 2279 BC).


Neo-Assyrian text from the seventh century BC purporting to be Sargon's autobiography asserts that the great king was the illegitimate son of a priestess. In the Neo-Assyrian account Sargon's birth and his early childhood are described thus:

“ My mother was a high priestess, my father I knew not. The brothers of my father loved the hills. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates. My high priestess mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and […] years I exercised kingship.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:08 pm
by kbs2244
"He shoots himself in the foot when he uses Acharya's Christ Conspiracy as a reference."

I was refering to whoever Min is quoting in the orginal post. It is about 2/3 of the way down the page.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:51 pm
by Ishtar
Do you not think much of Acharya, KB?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:18 pm
by Minimalist
kbs2244 wrote:"He shoots himself in the foot when he uses Acharya's Christ Conspiracy as a reference."

I was refering to whoever Min is quoting in the orginal post. It is about 2/3 of the way down the page.



The excerpt is from The Christ Conspiracy...which makes a lot of good points, although not as convincing as The Jesus Puzzle...but, in any case, Hazelrigg's book is from about 1916 so I don't think you can blame him because Acharya came along later and used the quotation in her book.

As Noth said, no one really knows what the reference to "Israel" means in that context but the simplistic notion that it is the OT "Israel" is under serious scrutiny.

I was more struck by the almost invariable notion of religious writers that the stele says that Merneptah "campaigned" in Canaan and that he was the one who ransacked the area. In fact, he says no such thing.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:09 pm
by kbs2244
I am sorry Min, but like your complaint about the "Biblical Archeologist" who went to find evidence of a pre-held idea, both Acharya's Christ Conspiracy and the Jesus Puzzle suffer from the same flaw.
“I have an opinion and I will find evidence to support the opinion and ignore evidence to the contrary.”

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:31 pm
by Ishtar
kbs2244 wrote:I am sorry Min, but like your complaint about the "Biblical Archeologist" who went to find evidence of a pre-held idea, both Acharya's Christ Conspiracy and the Jesus Puzzle suffer from the same flaw.
“I have an opinion and I will find evidence to support the opinion and ignore evidence to the contrary.”


KB, I'm no apologist for Acharya but I think you need to support that statement with some evidence of what you mean. Otherwise, it's just a meaningless attack on these authors' works.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:59 pm
by Minimalist
kbs2244 wrote:I am sorry Min, but like your complaint about the "Biblical Archeologist" who went to find evidence of a pre-held idea, both Acharya's Christ Conspiracy and the Jesus Puzzle suffer from the same flaw.
“I have an opinion and I will find evidence to support the opinion and ignore evidence to the contrary.”



That's just the problem....there is no evidence except the bible itself. If you apply that standard, then Gone With The Wind becomes history.


And so does the Davinci Code.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:53 am
by kbs2244
Min:
You are right about evidence, but that is constantly changing.

As far as The Da Vinci Code and Gone With Wind compared to The Jesus Puzzle and the Christ Conspiracy, there is a big difference in how a book, and it’s author, is presented to the public.

On a local radio talk show, when The Da Vinci Code first came out and was causing such a stir, they had a Nun (interestingly) on the air to answer questions about it. Her classic put down of the whole concept behind the story was, “When you go to the book store to buy a copy you will not find it in the Religion section, you will find it in the Fiction section.”

Ish:
It has been a while since I have read either of them. I don’t know if I could even find them again. I just remember that I was not impressed with either book as being very objective.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:43 pm
by Minimalist
Min:
You are right about evidence, but that is constantly changing.


True but not for the better for your side. Archaeology has generally written off the whole period prior to David and the C-14 study which is now underway is tending to support the low chronology which means that the David story is a later embellishment.

As far as The Da Vinci Code and Gone With Wind compared to The Jesus Puzzle and the Christ Conspiracy, there is a big difference in how a book, and it’s author, is presented to the public.


In 2000 years if someone finds a copy of The Da Vinci Code will they understand that it was fiction? I don't put too much stock in Acharya's conclusion because "conspiracy theories" usually leave me cold. The evidence she puts forward speaks for itself but it does not need any sort of cabal to make it happen. The Jesus Puzzle, OTOH, merely requires human foolishness to make its point and that is available in abundance.[/quote]

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:05 pm
by Beagle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

Min, The Tel Dan stele makes a good case for the historicity of David. Partial translation:
A line by line translation by André Lemaire is as follows (with text missing from the stele, or too damaged by erosion to be legible, represented by "[.....]"):

[.....................].......[...................................] and cut [.........................]
[.........] my father went up [....................f]ighting at/against Ab[....]
And my father lay down; he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s-]
rael penetrated into my father's land[. And] Hadad made me—myself—king.
And Hadad went in front of me[, and] I departed from ...........[.................]
of my kings. And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha-]
riots and two thousand horsemen. [I killed Jo]ram son of [Ahab]
king of Israel, and I killed [Achaz]yahu son of [Joram kin]g
of the House of David. And I set [.......................................................]
their land ...[.......................................................................................]
other ...[......................................................................... and Jehu ru-]
led over Is[rael...................................................................................]
siege upon [............................................................]


More info in the wiki article. Supper calls.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:35 pm
by Minimalist
No. It makes a case for the existence of David, who is otherwise totally absent in the record. In fact, the stele contradicts the bible story of the event in question.

As Amnon Ben Tor, an Israeli archaeologist once observed, the "king" of anything is significant but there is little to nothing which supports the idea of any great "empire" under David. His "kingdom" was a poor and marginal land of shepherds in the 10th century.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:43 pm
by Beagle
No. It makes a case for the existence of David


Good point. I've never read that he ruled an empire, only that he was the second king of Israel, which were a confederation of 12 tribes.

Gotta go - check out the History channel at the top of the hour. Seems interesting.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:10 pm
by Minimalist
II Samuel...Chapter 8

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Samuela8.html




1 And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them; and David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines.

2 And he smote Moab, and measured them with the line, making them to lie down on the ground; and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full line to keep alive. And the Moabites became servants to David, and brought presents.

3 David smote also Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to establish his dominion at the river Euphrates.

4 And David took from him a thousand and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen; and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for a hundred chariots.

5 And when the Arameans of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David smote of the Arameans two and twenty thousand men.

6 Then David put garrisons in Aram of Damascus; and the Arameans became servants to David, and brought presents. And HaShem gave victory to David whithersoever he went.

7 And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem.

8 And from Betah and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass.

9 And when Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer,

10 then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David, to salute him, and to bless him--because he had fought against Hadadezer and smitten him; for Hadadezer had wars with Toi--and he brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass.

11 These also did king David dedicate unto HaShem, with the silver and gold that he dedicated of all the nations which he subdued:

12 of Aram, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah.

13 And David got him a name when he returned from smiting the Arameans in the Valley of Salt, even eighteen thousand men.

14 And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all the Edomites became servants to David. And HaShem gave victory to David whithersoever he went.



There is not a shred of evidence that any of this ever happened and we are asked to believe that a poverty stricken nation of perhaps 20,000 could have projected such power to the banks of the Euphrates.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:51 pm
by Beagle
I've read somewhere that only 1% of the archaeology has been done in that area of the world. I guess we have to wait on a lot of evidence,

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:12 pm
by john
All -

.........when the written history overcomes the oral history, true mythos is replaced by a polyglot of politics.

Your arguments?


john