I have
started to collect some notes and web page references to share with
people who question me about ancient history and the Bible. This
should be an on-going project.
Hieroglyphs
Ð
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs
1.
Hieroglyphs emerged from the preliterate artistic traditions of Egypt.
For example,
symbols on Gerzean pottery from circa 4000 BC resemble hieroglyphic
writing.
2.
In 1998 a German archaeological team under GŸnter Dreyer excavating at
Abydos
(modern Umm el-Qa'ab) uncovered tomb U-j of a Predynastic ruler, and
recovered
three hundred clay labels inscribed with proto-hieroglyphs, dating to
the
Naqada IIIA period of the 33rd century BC.
á
The origins
of writing,
Discovery Channel (1998-12-15)
á
Richard
Mattessich (Jun
2002) The oldest writings, and inventory tags of Egypt, The Accounting
Historians
Journal.
3.
The first full sentence written in hieroglyphs so far discovered was
found on a
seal impression found in the tomb of Seth-Peribsen at Umm el-Qa'ab,
which dates
from the Second Dynasty.
4.
One of the earliest known hieroglyphic inscriptions was the Narmer
Palette,
found during excavations at Hierakonpolis (modern Kawm al-Ahmar) in the
1890s,
dating to c. 3200-3000.
The Narmer
Palette Ð (3000Õs BCE)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer_Palette
The
Narmer Palette, also known as the Great Hierakonpolis Palette or the
Palette of
Narmer, is a significant Egyptian archeological find, dating from about
the
31st century BC, containing some of the earliest hieroglyphic
inscriptions ever
found.
* Ancient
Lists of
Egyptian Pharaohs Ð (covering
periods from before 3050 to 30 BCE)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs
Lists
are based on both ancient literature and ancient monuments. Details of these king lists have been
confirmed by archeological finds and even carbon dating.
Major king lists include the Palermo
Stone (the oldest, 2400Õs BCE), the Westcar Papyrus (1700Õs Ð 1500Õs),
the Turin King List (1200Õs), the list at Karnak (erected by
Thutmose)(1400Õs),
two at Abydos (by Seti I and Ramesses)(1200Õs), the Saqqara list by the
priest
Tenry, and ManethoÕs King List (200Õs).
Famous confirmations include inscriptions under DjoserÕs
pyramid, the
surviving pyramids themselves, and the ancient Greek historian
Herodotus (400Õs
BCE).
Inscribed stone
vessels
under the Step Pyramid of Djoser
Ð
(contain the names
of most
kings from 1st-2nd dynasties)
http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html
In
galleries under the pyramid of the Dynasty 3 pharaoh Djoser more than
40,000
stone vessels were found. Inscriptions on them included most of the
kings of
Dynasty 1 and 2, but Djoser's name occurred only once. Perhaps Djoser
gathered
up the vases from the 200-year-old Archaic tombs at North Saqqara. In
Dynasty
12, Amenemhet I actually took bits and pieces of Old Kingdom tomb
chapels and
pyramid temples (including those of the Giza Pyramids) and dumped them
into the
core of his pyramid at Lisht..
The Egyptian
Pyramids, Including The Great
Pyramids and the Sphinx Ð
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramids
, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djozer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giza_pyramid_complex
, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetepheres
,
There
are over 100 pyramids in Egypt. Most were built as tombs for the
country's
Pharaohs and their consorts during the Old and Middle Kingdom periods.
The
earliest known Egyptian pyramid is the Step Pyramid of Djozer, which was built during the third dynasty
(2600Õs
BCE). This pyramid and its surrounding complex were designed by the
architect
Imhotep, and are generally considered to be the world's oldest
monumental
structures constructed of dressed masonry.
The
best known Egyptian pyramids are those found at Giza, on the outskirts
of
Cairo. These pyramids were built
during the Fourth Dynasty (2613 to 2498 BCE), and include the Pyramid
of Khufu
(a.k.a. the "Great Pyramid," the "Pyramid of Cheops"), the
somewhat smaller Pyramid of Khafre (or Kephren), the relatively
modest-sized
Pyramid of Menkaure (or Mykerinus), along with a number of smaller
satellite
edifices known as "Queen's pyramids," and the Great Sphinx.
Of
the three, only Khafre's pyramid retains part of its original polished
limestone casing, near its apex.
The Giza Necropolis has been a popular tourist destination since
antiquity, and was popularized in Hellenistic times when the Great
Pyramid was
listed by Antipater of Sidon as one of the ÒSeven Wonders of the World.Ó Today it is the only one of those
wonders still in existence.
One
of the small pyramids contains the tomb of queen Hetepheres (discovered
in
1925), sister and wife of Sneferu and the mother of Khufu. There was a
town for
the workers of Giza, which included a cemetery, bakeries, a beer
factory and a
copper smelting complex.
Dating the
Pyramids Ð
First,
there are the several king lists that sometimes include the activities
of the
pharaohs. Also, the Greek
historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus (5th century BCE), in
his Histories, describes
the pyramids and the pharaohs with whom
they were associated.
In
addition to ancient literature, modern archeological finds (such as the
inscribed stone vessels under DjoserÕs pyramid) and carbon dating have
confirmed the ancient literary accounts.
Here
are two good articles on Dating the Egyptian Pyramids:
á
Hawass, Dr.
Zahi.
"How Old are the Pyramids?" Ancient Egypt Research Associates.
Retrieved on 2008-04-01. http://www.aeraweb.org/how_old.asp
.
á
David H.
Koch Pyramids
Radiocarbon Project. ÒDating the
Pyramids.Ó Archaeology. Volume
52 Number 5, September/October 1999.
http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html
The Palermo Stone Ð (engraved 2400Õs BCE Ð lists kings c.
3050 Ð 2345 BCE, dynasties 1-5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palermo_Stone
The
Palermo Stone is a large fragment of a stela called the Royal Annals of
the Old
Kingdom of Ancient Egypt. It contains the clearest inscriptions of the
records
of the pharaohs of the first dynasty through the fifth dynasty.
The
Royal Annals is the correct name for the fragmentary ancient Egyptian
stela
comprised of black basalt that was engraved toward the end of the fifth
dynasty
during the twenty-fifth century B.C.
The Westcar
Papyrus Ð (written
1700Õs-1500Õs BCE; used for history
of the 4th dynasty, 2613 to 2498)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Westcar
Westcar
Papyrus (P. Berlin 3033) is a fragmentary ancient Egyptian text
containing a
cycle of five stories about marvels performed by priests. Each of these
tales
is being told at the court of Khufu by his sons.
The
surviving copy of the Westcar Papyrus consists of twelve rolls. It was,
written
in the Hyksos period (18th to 16th century BC), but the tales appear to
have
originated some time in the 12th dynasty of the Middle Kingdom (ca.
20th
century BC).[1] It has been used by historians as a literary resource
for
reconstituting the history of the 4th dynasty.
The Turin Royal
Canon Ð (1200Õs BCE; lists
pharaohs from 1st
Ð 16th dynasties, 3050 to 1535 BCE.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_King_List
http://www.ancient-egypt.org/index.html
The
Turin King List, also known as the Turin Royal Canon, is a hieratic
papyrus
thought to date from the reign of Ramesses II, now in the Museo Egizio
(Egyptian Museum) at Turin.
The
papyrus was originally a tax roll, but on its back is written a list of
the
gods, demi-gods, spirits, and mythical and human kings traditionally
thought to
have ruled Egypt from the beginning.
The
papyrus gives the names of rulers, giving the reign lengths in years,
months
and days for individual kings. In some cases they are grouped together
by
family, which approximately corresponds to the dynasties of ManethoÕs
outline.
The list includes the names of ephemeral rulers or those ruling over
small
territories that may be unmentioned in other sources. The list even
includes
the Hyksos rulers (often left out of other King Lists), although they
do not
have cartouches, and a hieroglyphic sign is added to indicate that they
were
foreigners.
Herodotus Ð (400Õs BCE, mentions information going
back
to 3050 and even before that)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histories_(Herodotus) -
Greek
historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus (5th century BCE), in
book two
of his Histories,
describes the
pyramids at Giza and the pharaohs with whom they were associated. Herodotus was immensely popular in the
ancient world, is sometimes called the Òfather of history,Ó and is
still so
popular that you can find an English translation in just about any good
book
store.
Herodotus
devoted an entire book of his Histories to Egypt. He
mentions or
discusses many of the kings of Egypt
Ð including Menes (1st
king, c. 3050 BCE), Nitocris, MÏris, Sesostris, Pheron, Proteus,
Rhampsinitus
(and the story of the clever thief), Cheops (Khufu) and the
building of the
Great Pyramid (c. 2560 BCE), Chephren (Khafra,
2558Ð2532), Mycerinus (Menkaura, 2532Ð2503), Asychis, Anysis, Sethos, and
later
pharaohs.
Herodotus
said that the Egyptian priests had information/lists passed down to
them from
generation to generation, and that this information went back much
further than
4100 BC. In fact, Herodotus 2.43
says that Egyptian priests had lore going back 17,000 years. In 2.44
he also happens to mention that the Phoenician city of Tyre had been
inhabited
for 2,300 years, putting its initial settlement around 2750 BCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt
- By the late Paleolithic period, the arid climate of Northern Africa
became
increasingly hot and dry, forcing the populations of the area to
concentrate
along the Nile valley, and since nomadic hunter-gatherers began living
in the
region during the Pleistocene some 1.8 million years ago, the Nile has
been the
lifeline of Egypt.[8] The fertile floodplain of the Nile gave humans
the
opportunity to develop a settled agricultural economy and a more
sophisticated,
centralized society that became a cornerstone in the history of human
civilization.[9]
By
about 5500 BC, small tribes living in the Nile valley had developed
into a
series of unique cultures demonstrating firm control of agriculture and
animal
husbandry, and identifiable by their unique pottery and personal items,
such as
combs, bracelets, and beads. The largest of these early cultures in
upper
Egypt, the Badari, was known for its high quality ceramics, stone
tools, and
its use of copper.[10]
In
southern Egypt, the Naqada culture, similar in culture to the Badari,
began to
expand along the Nile by about 4000 BC.
ManethoÕs
Egyptian King
List Ð (200Õs BCE)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manetho
Manetho
was an Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos (ancient Egyptian:
Tjebnutjer) who lived during the Ptolemaic era, ca. 3rd century BC.
Manetho
wrote the Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt). His work is of great interest
to
Egyptologists, and is often used as evidence for the chronology of the
reigns
of pharaohs.
Although
no sources for the dates of his life and death remain, his work is
usually
associated with the reigns of Ptolemy I Soter (323-283 BCE) and Ptolemy
II
Philadelphos (285-246 BCE). If the mention of Manetho in the Hibeh
Papyri,
dated to 241/40 BCE, is in fact Manetho the author of Aegyptiaca, then
he may
well have been working during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes
(246-222 BCE)
as well. Although he was Egyptian and his topics dealt with Egyptian
matters,
he wrote solely in Greek.
Aegyptiaca
(also called Aigyptiaka), the "History of Egypt", was Manetho's
largest work, and certainly the most important. It was organised
chronologically and divided into three volumes, and his division of
rulers into
dynasties was an innovation. However, he did not use the term the way
we do, by
bloodlines, but rather, introduced new dynasties whenever he detected
some sort
of discontinuity whether geographical (Dynasty IV from Memphis, Dynasty
V from
Elephantine), or genealogical (especially in Dynasty I, he refers to
each
successive Pharaoh as the "son" of the previous to define what he
means by "continuity"). Within the superstructure of a genealogical
table of rulers, he fills in the gaps with substantial narratives of
the
Pharaonic rulers.
King
lists
The
king-list that Manetho had access to is unknown to us, but of the
surviving
king-lists, the one most similar to his is the Turin Royal Canon (or
Turin
Papyrus). The oldest source with which we can compare to Manetho are
the Old
Kingdom Annals (ca. 2500-2200 BCE). From the New Kingdom are the list
at Karnak
(erected by Thutmose), two at Abydos (by Seti I and RamessesÑthe latter
a
duplicate but updated version of the former), and the Saqqara list by
the
priest Tenry.
The
provenance of the Old Kingdom Annals is unknown, surviving as the
Palermo
Stone. The differences between the Annals and Manetho are vast. The
Annals only
reach to the fifth dynasty, but its pre-dynastic rulers are listed as
the kings
of Lower Egypt and kings of Upper Egypt. By contrast, Manetho lists
several
Greek and Egyptian gods beginning with Hephaistos and Helios. Secondly,
the
Annals give annual reports of the activities of the kings, while there
is
little probability that Manetho would have been able to go into such
detail.
The
New Kingdom lists are each selective in their listings: that of Seti I,
for
instance, lists seventy-six kings from Dynasties I to XIX omitting the
Hyksos
rulers and those associated with the heretic Akhenaten. The Saqqara
list,
contemporaneous with Ramesses II, has fifty-eight names, with similar
omissions. If Manetho used these lists at all, he would have been
unable to get
all of his information from them alone, due to the selective nature of
their
records. Verbrugghe and Wickersham argue:
Ò
Furthermore, the purpose of these lists was to cover the walls of a
sacred room
in which the reigning Pharaoh (or other worshiper, as in the case of
Tenry and
his Saqqara list) made offerings or prayers to his or her predecessors,
imagined as ancestors. Each royal house had a particular traditional
list of
these "ancestors," different from that of the other houses. The
purpose of these lists is not historical but religious. It is not that
they are
trying and failing to give a complete list. They are not trying at all.
Seti
and Ramesses did not wish to make offerings to Akhenaten, Tutankhamen,
or
Hatshepsut, and that is why they are omitted, not because their
existence was
unknown or deliberately ignored in a broader historical sense. For this
reason,
the Pharaonic king-lists were generally wrong for Manetho's purposes,
and we
should commend Manetho for not basing his account on them (2000:105). Ó
These
large stelae stand in contrast to the Turin Royal Canon (like Saqqara,
contemporaneous with Ramesses II), written in hieratic script. Like
Manetho, it
begins with the gods, and like Manetho, appears to be an epitome very
similar
in spirit and style to Manetho. Interestingly, the opposite side of the
papyrus
includes government records. Verbrugghe and Wickersham suggest that a
comprehensive list like this would be necessary for a government office
"to date contracts, leases, debts, titles, and other instruments
(2000:106)" and so could not have been selective the way the king-lists
in
temples were. Despite numerous differences between the Turin Canon and
Manetho,
the format must have been available to him. As a priest (or chief
priest), he
would have had access to practically all written materials in the
temple.
While
the precise origins for Manetho's kinglist are unknown, it was
certainly a
Northern Lower Egyptian one. This can be deduced most noticeably from
his
selection of the kings for the Third Intermediate Period. Manetho
consistently
includes the Tanite Dynasty 21 and Dynasty 22 line in his Epitome such
as
Psusennes I, Amenemope and even such short-lived rulers here like
Amenemnisu (5
years) and Osochor (6 years). In contrast, he ignores the existence of
Theban
kings such as Osorkon III, Takelot III, Harsiese A and Pinedjem I and
rulers
from Middle Egypt like Peftjaubast of Herakleopolis. This implies that
Manetho
derived the primary sources for his Epitome from a local city's temple
library
in the Delta Region which was under the control of the Tanite based
Dynasty 21
and Dynasty 22 kings. The Middle and Upper Egyptian Pharaohs had no
impact upon
this specific region of the Delta; hence their exclusion from Manetho's
king
list.
- - -
I forgot to mention
that some
have suggested that Middle Kingdom records may be verified by comparing
modern
knowledge of astronomy and movements of the planet Venus with records
kept by
Egyptian priests. Like I said, this post is but the tip of a huge
iceberg. Here is a clip from a page I
visited:
The
Egyptian Calendar
The
ancient Egyptians actually used three calendars,
1. A lunar calendar of alternating twenty-nine
and thirty-day
months.
2. A civil calendar of 360 days plus five
additional days
3. A calendar of 365¼ days based upon the
heliacal
return of the star Sirius.
The
civil calendar of ancient Egypt was used for all official dating and
recognized
three seasons: Akhet or Inudation, Peret or Sowing and Growing, and
Shemu or
Harvest. Each season had four 30-day long periods with five additional
days
after the end of the harvest for a total of 365 days. Because the earth
actually revolves around the sun once every 365 1/4 days, the Egyptian
civil
calendar was constantly losing one day every four years or a whole
month over
120 years. As a result the civil seasons rarely coincided with natural
seasons.
Only once every 1,460 years did the civil and astronomical years occur
on the
same day. The rising of the star Sirius in the eastern horizon just
before
daybreak marks the official starting of the new year. The coincidence
of New
Year's Day and the rising of the star Sirius has been confirmed from
the
writings of the Roman author Censorius that the Sirius rose on New
Year's Day
A.D. 139. From this date we can calculate the coincidence occurring in
1317
B.C. and 2773 B.C. The astronomical record of Sirius has been
deciphered from
hieroglyphic texts which have enabled Egyptologist to correlate the New
and
Middle Kingdom regnal years and civil dates to our present day calendar. - http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/connections/connections_dating_pyramids.html
This is a brief
general
outline. It should be sufficient,
however, to give anyone a general idea of the solidity of basic
information for
the history of ancient Egypt.
Sometimes articles will come out disputing minute details or
differences
of a few years or decades in certain time periods, but the basic
framework is
fairly solidly established by ancient literature which has survived,
ancient
monuments, archaeological artifacts, radiocarbon dating, other forms of
dating
used in archaeology, and comparison with other ancient cultures.
The Sumerian
King List Ð (oldest surviving
copy is from 1953-1730)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List
The
earliest name on the list whose existence has been authenticated
through recent
archaeological discoveries is that of En-me-barage-si of Kish (ca. 2600
BC).
The fact that his name is also mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh has
led to
speculation that Gilgamesh himself might be historical. [despite the
mythical/legendary nature of the Epic of Gilgamesh]
Throughout
its Bronze Age existence, the document evolved into a political tool.
Its final
and single attested version, dating to the Middle Bronze Age, aimed to
legitimize Isin's claims to hegemony when Isin was vying for dominance
with
Larsa and other neighboring city-states in southern Mesopotamia. (Van
De
Mieroop, Marc (2004). A History of the Ancient Near East. Blackwell, p.
41.)
(UNFINISHED)
---
TruthbeltÕs comments: 12/14/2008:
I
don't have the qualifications nor time to respond to each of the
examples you
gave individually, but I would like to make a few general comments, if
I may.
Seems to me that ascribing dates to anything in ancient history is a
rather
uncertain process, and does not allow for dogmatism. Numerous
assumptions are
inevitably involved, even working with things like king lists and
Carbon 14
dating. Not the least of the assumptions is the accuracy and
reliability of the
ancient documents. People have been known to exaggerate and otherwise
twist the
truth to their advantage, and there is no reason to suppose ancient
cultures
were immune to that temptation. The Sothic theory, long a staple of
Egyptian
chronology, was based on assumption, and has been shown to be
unreliable
(link). Even Carbon 14 does not guarantee an accurate date, since poor
methodology can skew the results (link), even assuming the process as a
whole
is accurate, which is assuming quite a bit (link). Independent dating
methods
such as those you mentioned are also based on certain assumptions, and
might
not be as concrete as expected either (link)(link)(link). You dismiss
the Bible
lightly, but it is an ancient document in its own right, and its
historicity
has been verified time and time again, in numerous different areas. If
independent historical evidence can be shown to fit the Biblical
account, given
a relatively modest modification of Egyptian chronology (as suggested
by
several Egyptologists [see here and here), then I can see no reason why
such
possibility should not be investigated. Not all who disagree with
current
Egyptian chronology are "fundamentalist creationists" by the way.
Several non-creationist historians have challenged the status quo, eg.,
Peter
James in Centuries of Darkness. In short, Egyptian chronology is not
set in
stone. One need not be "brainwashed" to reject it, nor is it all that
far out to suggest that the Bible had it right.
Posted
12/14/2008 5:20 PM by TruthBelt - delete - block user Ð reply
- - -
MY REPLY
To Truthbelt:
Thank
you for stopping by and thanks for the comments. Some
of the links are respectable, in my opinion. Peter
James and his cohort are
respectable enough. I do not think
so highly of AnswersInGenesis or the creationist apologetics site, but
I intend
to address them all eventually, even if not today, for lack of time.
- -
-
>>You
wrote, "Not the least of the
assumptions is the accuracy and reliability
of the ancient documents."
I do
not think I have ever suggested that ancient documents be accepted as
accurate
and reliable without investigation. Historians are always skeptical
about
ancient documents. No historian looks at Manetho and says, "Here is an
infallible guide to history."
Rather, Manetho's claims and king lists are compared and
contrasted with
other (and far more ancient) king lists, and all the king lists are
fleshed out
by looking at the huge amounts of inscriptions and monuments in Egypt.
Historians acknowledge where Manetho appears to "get it right" and
where he appears to be off the mark when compared with other evidence.
The
people who really need your warning are those Christian fundamentalists
who
grow up believing the Bible in infallible, completely reliable, and
completely
accurate -- which is not a claim based on thorough knowledge and,
indeed, is
contradicted by the evidence.
Historians
acknowledge that ancient literature was written by fallible humans. It is only the fundamentalists who
imagine that Yahweh watched over the creation of the Bible and ensured
its
infallibility.
Claims
about the gods were ubiquitous in the ancient world. The Jewish claims
about
their gods are not in some special category that makes them immune from
criticism.
The
early books of the Bible are quite comparable to Greek myth and epic,
like
Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Most,
if not all, of the places mentioned in these texts really existed, and
archaeology can confirm some of the customs, artifacts, even that
certain names
were historical names and certain gods really were worshiped during the
alleged
time of the Trojan war. But does
this mean that Athena really guided Odysseus, that Greek oracles and
prophets were
really true and valid, that the gods said all those things just as
Homer
described. To think so would be naive, and the same holds true for the
Bible. At most, the Bible, the
Iliad, the Odyssey, etc. are historical fiction -- containing elements
of real
history but also fabrication.
- Is
the earth and/or humanity only about 6,000 years old?
No. Such is
Jewish myth, contradicted not only by biology, fossils, archaeology,
etc., but
even by the ancient literature of the older neighbors of the Jews.
Archaeological
evidence shows that Stone Age culture goes back much further than
50,000 BC,
and people were around before the Stone Age. By 8,000 BC in Palestine,
agriculture, animal domestication, and permanent town sites had already
developed--and this is long before the Bible says Adam even existed!
Even those
radically conservative Christians who doubt scientists' dating methods
should
note that Adam supposedly lived 930 years; that means he would have
died around
3181 BC, right around the time Egypt and Mesopotamia were developing
into an
advanced civilization and already had kings! Such a story simply does
not fit
with history.
-
Was there a global flood in the 2400's BCE? No
way. Such is
Jewish myth, and the myth was not original to them. They adopted and
adapted it
from the Babylonians, who had adopted and adapted it from the Sumerians. Not only is the Jewish version not the
original version, it also contradicts both science AND the ancient
literature
of the older neighbors of the Jews.
-
Was there ever a flood? Of
course. There were probably
many. But they were not global,
and no lone righteous man put 2 of every animal species in a big wooden
boat-box. And rainbows do not owe
their origin to a promise Yahweh made to Noah.
-
Would God really allow a man's (HamÕs) descendants (not even the man
himself)
to be cursed just because he saw his father (Noah) naked? Anyway, what
is so
horrible about seeing someone naked? ... except that it was a moral
hang-up for
some ancient Jewish people. Would
you let several generations of your great-grandchildren be cursed into
slavery
just because ONE of your children sees you naked? -
First, this is ridiculous. Second, this is unjust.
Third, this is an obvious example of a
myth created to justify prejudice and ethnocentrism and to exalt
Semitic
peoples over their neighbors. Many other nations used myths for such
purposes.
- Is
the "Tower of Babel" story honestly the best explanation for the
world's different languages? No. To people well-acquainted with ancient
mythology, this story is obviously a myth. Anyway,
we have concrete examples of how languages have
evolved over time in various parts of the world.
-
Concerning the tower of Babel, why would any real God punish people for
trying
to make a building to reach his home in the sky?! ... And if
ÒYahwehÓ DID punish people for that, why does Yahweh fail to knock down
the
skyscrapers people build today, which are much higher?
And why does Yahweh not prevent the
other nations from learning English, if he is opposed to all people
speaking
the same language?
-
Did the God of the universe really talk to a man named ÒExalted FatherÓ
(Abram)
4,000 years ago and promise him that his descendants could forever have
the
land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean? Or did the Hebrews
invent
that story to feel justified in taking the land away from the people
who
already lived there, and to lay permanent claim to the region?
- Is
it true that Yahweh turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for looking
back as
the family fled Sodom and Gomorrah, or is that story more likely a
local myth
associated with the large deposits of salt around the Dead Sea? The theme of disaster resulting for the
person who looks back is a common mythological motif.
-
Would a true universal God, creator of all, reveal "himself" only to
one small portion of one small nation out of all the nations on earth,
and then
develop a book for them that sounded comparable to other nations' myths
and
contradicted evidence available from nature, archaeology, astronomy,
etc., and
everyday human experience? Such a
story is obviously the ancient creation of the tribe that is favored in
the
story.
-
Was there ever a real "Moses"?
Maybe something remotely like him. I do not deny the possibility. Plenty of scholars have speculated.
-
Was there ever a Moses exactly as the Bible depicts?
No. The Moses birth story looks obviously like a variation
on the much earlier birth story of Sargon of Akkad, or even of Horus
being
hidden from Seth by Isis, and the story is comparable to typical folk
myths and
exaggerations told of great leaders/heroes (see <A
href="http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/OTChrono.html">http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/OTChrono.html</A>). Plus, it was written long after the
alleged events. Plus, the writers of the story did not even have a clue
as to
who the pharaoh was Ð another indication of late authorship and
fabrication. Plus, Ex 2:10 says
Pharaoh's daughter gave him the name "Moses" saying "Because I drew
him out of the water." But this is a word play (as is common in myth)
AND
the word play only works in Hebrew, whereas the pharaoh's daughter was
supposed
to be Egyptian! AND it could also be a double word play from Hebrew
"masha" and can mean not only "he is drawn out" (i.e. from
the water) but also "he draws
out," symbolically referring to the character's role in leading the
slaves
out of Egypt (again, through water).
-
Was there ever an Exodus? There
may have been.
-
Was there ever an Exodus exactly as described in the Bible? No way! In the
1400's BCE?
with 2.5 million Hebrew slaves? (huge exaggeration.) after
Yahweh
performs magic tricks with Aaron's staff, turning it into a devouring
snake? after the Nile turns to
blood? after plagues of frogs,
gnats, and flies that cover Òthe whole countryÓ? after
ÒALLÓ (9:6) the EgyptiansÕ horses, donkeys, camels,
herds, and flocks in the fields die from a pestilence?
after boils come upon humans and
animals Òthroughout the entire land of EgyptÓ? after
thunder, fire, and hail strike down Òeverything in the
open field throughout all the land of Egypt, both human and animal,Ó
including
Òall the plants of the field,Ó and shatter Òevery treeÓ?
after locusts cover the entire land so
that the land is black and no one can even see the soil, and the
locusts eat
all the plants and fruit so that not a single green thing is left in
the entire
country, not a plant, not a tree?
after darkness covers the entire land for 3 days?
after Yahweh kills every single first-born
male of humans and livestock Òthroughout the whole land of EgyptÓ? with a pillar of cloud leading the
Israelites by day and a pillar of fire by night?
after the sea is miraculous parted for the
Israelites but then miraculously returns to its proportions and
destroys the
ENTIRE army of "pharaoh"?
after a sadistic Yahweh repeatedly hardens the heart of
ÒpharaohÓ just
so he can torture the Egyptians more and more and show how much more he
loves the
Israelites? (1.) The fictional
nature of the story is immediately obvious to any educated person who
has not
been brainwashed or predisposed as a child/teenager to believe it. (2.) It is internally illogical, with
Òall the livestockÓ being destroyed on more than one occasion. (3.) It is extremely unjust and in no
way descriptive of a universal God of love. (4.)
It is ethnocentric and appears to be the creation of
certain Jews who think they are more special than any other people on
the face
of the earth. (5.) It is very much
contrary to observable human experience.
(6.) There is nothing close to sufficient archaeological,
historical, or
scientific evidence specifically for this particular exaggerated (and
deplorable) version of events, and even though Egypt experienced plenty
of
tumultuous periods, it never endured a disaster so complete. If it had, how would it even have
recovered without a single plant (!!!) or farm animal (!) and with most
of the
people dead? Anyone who did
survive would have thinned the population even further by resorting to
cannibalism
and/or would have died of starvation.
Any nation in the world could have conquered all of Egypt after
such an
episode. (7.) The events of the
story are far more characteristic of ancient myth than of real history. Ancient peoples filled their stories
with Gods and miracles; they were generally superstitious and
unscientific.
- If
Yahweh were real and truly rained food for Israel in the desert, then
ÒheÓ
would have no excuse for not raining food for the starving people of
today. Are modern humans less
valuable? Were all the non-Jewish
nations in history less valuable?
No, but the Jewish authors of this story were not into
Òuniversal
justiceÓ at the time the story was written.
-
Did the earth really open up and swallow Moses' enemies so that they
went down
alive into Sheol (Num.16:31-35)?
No.
-
Did Yahweh put a man to death just for collecting wood in the desert on
the
Sabbath (Num.15:32-36)? No. But
humans may really have done such a despicable thing.
-
The so-called ÒLaw of MosesÓ is certainly nothing so amazing as to come
from
divine origin. It is primitive and
is obviously a product of ancient people, not of a universal God. I wrote a bit about this topic here - http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/637600035/the-evolution-of-even-christian-morality.html.
[Now posted here.]
-
Was Òthe lawÓ written by Moses, or was most of it written by Jewish
priests
hundreds of years after the supposed time of Moses?
Did Hammurabi (1700s BC) get his laws from God too?
Why did so many ancient societies claim
that their laws were from God(s)?
Are any of their claims true?
Hardly. The kings and
priests claimed divine authority so that the superstitious populace
would obey
them. The ÒMosaic lawÓ is no more
worthy of divine origin than the laws of Hammurabi, Zoroaster,
Lycurgus,
Romulus, or the Egyptian pharaohs.
-
Did Yahweh make the sun and moon stand still in the sky for about a day
while
Joshua and the Israelites slaughtered their enemies (Jsh. 10)? No. But this kind
of thing does happen in ancient fiction, along
with rivers running backward and other such tales.
If the sun had really stayed in the sky for 24 hours, none
of the men would have felt like fighting anyway, as they would have
been
exhausted by the heat!
-
Did Baalam's donkey really talk to him?
No. But talking animals are
typical of ancient fiction.
To
make matters worse, the fundamentalists, those who buy into the ancient
nonsense and teach it to their children and try to shove it onto
others, have
no semblance of divine or supernatural influence in their own lives,
and this
is totally obvious to everyone except the fundamentalists themselves. They can babble about the power of
their imaginary god, but they themselves are as ÒspirituallyÓ powerless
as the
next human and obviously have nothing to do with any Òholy spiritÓ of
any
almighty God that is not common to ALL of humanity.
They claim a Òpersonal relationshipÓ with Jesus, but they
resemble other lowly humans of any cult you may pick, and their
Òpersonal
relationshipÓ with Jesus is no more realistic than and just as
psychological as
a modern readerÕs relationship with Socrates or Buddha or any other
dead
ancient person or mythical hero/teacher.
They claim Jesus still speaks to Òhis sheep,Ó but they can never
demonstrate it, and they only know what they read Ð they do not have a
real relationship with a personal, living being. They
merely perpetuate false promises, create division, and
hinder the progress of science and knowledge among humanity.
--
-- -- -- --- -- --
>>
You wrote, ÒPeople have been known to
exaggerate and otherwise twist the truth
to their advantage, and there is no reason to suppose ancient cultures
were
immune to that temptation.Ó
Right! Very
right! So why in the world would you
mistakenly suppose that Jewish
priests were immune from this human fallibility!?!?!
The same holds for the early creators of Christianity.
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
>>
You wrote, ÒEven Carbon 14 does not guarantee an accurate date, since
poor
methodology can skew the results (link), even assuming the process as a
whole
is accurate, which is assuming quite a bit (link). Independent dating
methods
such as those you mentioned are also based on certain assumptions, and
might
not be as concrete as expected either (link)(link)(link).Ó
You
write as if radiocarbon experts are unaware of the importance of
methodology. Some of the links you
have sent me are older than the links and information which I have
provided in
my comments above. You should
check out those links -- Posted 12/5/2008 10:04 PM.
Just scroll up.
The precision of radiocarbon dating has only increased in recent
times.
You
also referred me to the home page for the book ÒCenturies of Darkness,Ó written by Peter James, I. J. Thorpe,
Nikos
Kokkinos, Robert Morkot, & John Frankish. These
men are actually serious Egyptologists and
archaeologists, and I would have you note that they themselves
acknowledge in
the validity of radiocarbon dating, as long as careful method is
followed and
multiple labs are used to cross-check one another.
They also acknowledge the validity of the use of tree rings
to establish chronology. See
http://www.centuries.co.uk/faq.htm. If you read their work, you will also
notice that they are CERTAINLY NOT Christian fundamentalists. Their proposals are being debated, but
you should note that even if they are eventually accepted by the
scholarly
community at large, that will in no way Òsave the BibleÓ from the
already
numerous demonstrations of its human origins and fallibility. You should also note that these
scholars disagree with the majority of the work of David Rohl, to whose
book ÒA
Test of TimeÓ and web page
you also
referred me. You should also note
that even if all of these proposals were accepted (which is impossible,
as they
contradict each other), the result would still not rescue the Bible
from its
ÒdebunkedÓ status as far as the details are concerned.
The Biblical exaggerations, errors, and
myths, which I have briefly sketched above, are beyond ÒrepairÓ or
fundamentalist apologetics.
The
Greek Achilleus may have existed.
But even if he did, that does not mean his mother was really a
goddess. Moses may have really
existed, but that would not mean the Bible is Òthe infallible word of
god.Ó
--
-- -- -- -- --
>>
You wrote, ÒYou dismiss the Bible
lightly, but it is an ancient document in its
own right, and its historicity has been verified time and time again,
...Ó
1.
I do not
dismiss the Bible. I study it. I
compare it to and contrast it with other comparable ancient literature. I have ceased, however, to create a
false idol out of it.
2.
ÒlightlyÓ?
hardly. I spent 23 years of
my life immersed in fundamentalist Christianity. I
believed it.
I taught it. I dedicated my
life to it. My
ÒdeconversionÓ was not easy. Here
is a description of the process I went through - http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/662526095/my-de-conversion-from-christianity-a-narrative.html.
You are also welcome to visit my site www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity (although I never finished
it), and you
are welcome to explore my xanga posts (such as http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/640522016/the-words-of-jesus.html, http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/643236583/resurrection-problems.html, or http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/650081546/prayer.html, among many).
I have been free from fundamentalism for 11 years, and
getting free from it was one of the best things that ever happened to
me. I study ancient history and literature
for a living, and my views have not developed Òlightly.Ó
3.
Yes, many
aspects of the Bible have been verified, but
the parts that have been verified are NOT the supernatural or
controversial
parts. The gist of your statement
suggests something comparable to someone saying, ÒTroy has been
discovered;
therefore, HomerÕs Iliad
is the
truth.Ó Archaeological
confirmations of geographical places and customs do not amount to a
confirmation of the supernatural message/aspect of the Bible or any
other book. As I said above, the early
books of the
Bible are quite comparable to Greek myth and epic, like Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Most, if not
all, of the places
mentioned in these texts really existed, and archaeology can confirm
some of
the customs, artifacts, even that certain names were historical names
and
certain gods really were worshiped during the alleged time of the
Trojan
war. But does this mean that
Athena and Zeus really guided Odysseus, that Greek oracles and prophets
were
really true and valid, that the gods said all those things just as
Homer
described. To think so would be naive, and the same holds true for the
Bible. At most, the Bible, the
Iliad, the Odyssey, etc., are historical fiction -- containing elements
of real
history but also fabrication.
- -
- -- -- -- --
I
will try to continue this dialogue at a later date.
I will soon be traveling for the holidays and may be a
little short on time. However, I
intend to address all your links/comments more carefully eventually.
Again,
thank you for your input and for the links.