Announcement

Collapse

World History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to World History 201.

Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.

This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.

The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Will the real date of the Exodus please stand out.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    There is absolutely zero, nil, nada, nothing, negatory found of the text of Exodus, the Pentateuch, nor any of the OT before ~400-200 BC. Nothing remotely written in Hebrew related to the Old Testament before ~800-700 BCE. This is a fact you cannot ignore.
    Do you know exactly when our oldest copy of Caesar's Bellum Gallicum is from?

    As I recall, it is in Carolingian Minuscular writing.

    This means (if my memory is correct), some time between 800 and 11-1200 AD.

    For Caesar being author, we depend on tradition, not on archaeology.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
      Do you know exactly when our oldest copy of Caesar's Bellum Gallicum is from?

      As I recall, it is in Carolingian Minuscular writing.

      This means (if my memory is correct), some time between 800 and 11-1200 AD.

      For Caesar being author, we depend on tradition, not on archaeology.
      How is Caesar's Bellum Gallicum remotely relevant here?

      These documents are not relevant to whether Hebrew texts of the Old Testament prior to ~800-700 BCE. At this time there are only fragmentary texts (silver scroll). The best earliest texts date to is the Isaiah scroll about 200-300 BCE maybe.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        How is Caesar's Bellum Gallicum remotely relevant here?

        These documents are not relevant to whether Hebrew texts of the Old Testament prior to ~800-700 BCE. At this time there are only fragmentary texts (silver scroll). The best earliest texts date to is the Isaiah scroll about 200-300 BCE maybe.
        OK, so would you consider Bellum Gallicum as being written 300 years before the oldest copy AD? That would make Bellum Gallicum a work of c. 500 AD - five centuries after Caesar died!
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
          OK, so would you consider Bellum Gallicum as being written 300 years before the oldest copy AD? That would make Bellum Gallicum a work of c. 500 AD - five centuries after Caesar died!
          Not relevant to the discussion. Th Bellum Gallicum is not the basis for religious claims and simply recounts mundane history. Off Topic!
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Other than the Babylonian, Ugarite, and Canaanite cuneiform tablets that are considered the earliest known texts versions which are similar or the same as found in the Old Testament. I do not know of any known texts in Hebrew for the Old Testament before ~700 BCE. If you know of any please post references.
            Just because an extant text doesn't exist doesn't mean there isn't prior material. For example, Philip Davies has argued that Judges 1 may date to the 900s, see his history of Ancient Israel. Similarly, Cross et al. argued the Song at the Sea (Exodus 14, I think) dates to the 2nd millennium BC.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Not relevant to the discussion. Th Bellum Gallicum is not the basis for religious claims and simply recounts mundane history. Off Topic!
              Not so. I use exactly same epistemology about authors of texts relevant to religion and about secular authors.

              If you use radically higher standards in the one case, no premodern books would be securely attributed and so you gurantee that your theory can't be falsified in your standards, even if false.
              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by psstein View Post
                Just because an extant text doesn't exist doesn't mean there isn't prior material. For example, Philip Davies has argued that Judges 1 may date to the 900s, see his history of Ancient Israel. Similarly, Cross et al. argued the Song at the Sea (Exodus 14, I think) dates to the 2nd millennium BC.
                The problem is there is absolutely 'no text' prior to ~800-700 BCE. There is absolutely no evidence that Judges I, nor any portion of the Pentateuch existed as early as you date except as portion found in Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarite cuneiform tablets.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  The problem is there is absolutely 'no text' prior to ~800-700 BCE. There is absolutely no evidence that Judges I, nor any portion of the Pentateuch existed as early as you date except as portion found in Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarite cuneiform tablets.
                  That is not true. The Song at the Sea (Exodus 15) is written in an archaic form of Hebrew, one earlier than the rest of Exodus. That form of archaic Hebrew is best placed in the time of the United Monarchy.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by psstein View Post
                    That is not true. The Song at the Sea (Exodus 15) is written in an archaic form of Hebrew, one earlier than the rest of Exodus. That form of archaic Hebrew is best placed in the time of the United Monarchy.
                    There's also the Song of Deborah, and the Blessings of Jacob which many scholars date very early. Mark S. Smith notes that "many scholars place the poem [Song of Deborah] in the pre-monarchic period." Of course, historians use other methods of determining the age of a text that doesn't involve the use of physical archaeological evidence. As you're probably aware, attempts have been made to explain that to shunya in the past, but it seems he thinks it's some dirty Christian apologist trick or something. You're wasting your time with him unfortunately.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                      Not so. I use exactly same epistemology about authors of texts relevant to religion and about secular authors.

                      If you use radically higher standards in the one case, no premodern books would be securely attributed and so you gurantee that your theory can't be falsified in your standards, even if false.
                      I use the same standards as academic historians who do not consider the Bellum Gallicum necessarily a completely accurate record There is extensive archaeological evidence confirmed the account, but there are also problems with the accuracy and the consistency of Caesar's account. Historical skepticism rules in both cases. The Bellum Gallicum is not the subject of the thread.

                      The difference is that for exodus there is no text nor archaeological evidence to support the account in the Pentateuch. In fact the Pentateuch has no know text before ~800-700 BCE, and no significant text before ~300-200 BCE.

                      Historical skepticism
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-31-2016, 02:59 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        I use the same standards as academic historians who do not consider the Bellum Gallicum necessarily a completely accurate record There is extensive archaeological evidence confirmed the account, but there are also problems with the accuracy and the consistency of Caesar's account. Historical skepticism rules in both cases. The Bellum Gallicum is not the subject of the thread.
                        I think the one about human sacrifice in Druidic cult has at least recently been straightened out as accurate by archaeology. That is what Barry Cunliffe said, at least.

                        It is probable that Caesar misunderstood Vercingetorix as a name, when it was probably a title (but Orgetorix was, it would seem, a name ...)

                        Now, there is NO historical scepticism about Caesar's authorship.

                        That the last book was not written by Caesar is generally known, admitted on all sides. It does not change that Caesar wrote seven books and ordered the eighth one.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        The difference is that for exodus there is no text nor archaeological evidence to support the account in the Pentateuch. In fact the Pentateuch has no know text before ~800-700 BCE, and no significant text before ~300-200 BCE.
                        And Bellum Gallicum has no known surviving text to when Uncials had been replaced by Carolingian Minuscule. 1510 - 700 BC is also an 800 years gap.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Historical skepticism
                        Generally NOT about questions of authorship.

                        When such does arise, it is usually an admirer claiming Cicero couldn't have written as badly as Rhetorica ad Herennium or St Thomas Aquinas couldn't have written as poor Latin with as little metaphysics to go with it as Postilla de Genesi.

                        I think these doubts are wrong, we should admit Cicero and St Thomas wrote what some admire less, and then drop that kind of case against St John writing all of Johannine corpus - a case which some do, but which really has its roots in other sources than "historical scepticism".

                        But in the case of Moses, your "historical scepticism" is not even rooted in linguistic comparisons with other books.
                        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by psstein View Post
                          The Song at the Sea (Exodus 15) is written in an archaic form of Hebrew, one earlier than the rest of Exodus.
                          It couldn't by any chance go back as far as Moses, a half millennium before the place you give it?
                          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            [QUOTE=hansgeorg;405113]I think the one about human sacrifice in Druidic cult has at least recently been straightened out as accurate by archaeology. That is what Barry Cunliffe said, at least.

                            It is probable that Caesar misunderstood Vercingetorix as a name, when it was probably a title (but Orgetorix was, it would seem, a name ...)
                            This is not the inconsistencies in the archaeological evidence I was referring to as showing the Bellum Gallicum
                            is not entirely accurate based on the archeological evidence.

                            Now, there is NO historical scepticism about Caesar's authorship.
                            I never claimed that was the case.

                            That the last book was not written by Caesar is generally known, admitted on all sides. It does not change that Caesar wrote seven books and ordered the eighth one.
                            Ok, so what?!?!?!

                            And Bellum Gallicum has no known surviving text to when Uncials had been replaced by Carolingian Minuscule. 1510 - 700 BC is also an 800 years gap.
                            So what?!?!?!? There is an abundant archaeological evidence that supports Caesar's accounts, but also archaeological evidence that it is not entirely accurate. Apparently like Josephus and Exodus the numbers were exaggerated.

                            Generally NOT about questions of authorship.
                            By far most academic scholars serious question Mose as any sort of author of Genesis.

                            But in the case of Moses, your "historical skepticism" is not even rooted in linguistic comparisons with other books.
                            Historical skepticism is based on the fact that there is not archaeological nor textural evidence dated anywhere close to any of the dates possible for exodus.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                              I think the one about human sacrifice in Druidic cult has at least recently been straightened out as accurate by archaeology. That is what Barry Cunliffe said, at least.
                              This is not the inconsistencies in the archaeological evidence I was referring to as showing the Bellum Gallicum is not entirely accurate based on the archeological evidence.
                              So - reading further down - you simply mean the numbers were exaggerated ... possibly. But still does not add up to Caesar not being author. And as no one now claims Caesar had God as co-author or main author and himself as human co-author, an inaccuracy is no problem.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I never claimed that was the case.
                              Good - then the ACCEPTED authorship of Caesar to Bellum Gallicum is my argument - if we use same methods all over the line - for accepting Moses wrote Genesis.*

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Ok, so what?!?!?!
                              A bit like the fact Moses can't have written last chapter of Deuteronomy does not seriously put his authorship of the book in doubt.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              So what?!?!?!? There is an abundant archaeological evidence that supports Caesar's accounts, but also archaeological evidence that it is not entirely accurate. Apparently like Josephus and Exodus the numbers were exaggerated.
                              Abundant as to direct support of all he says, I doubt it. Someone made a wooden bridge over Lake Geneva - has its poles been found? I don't think so.

                              Even if the account as such were corroborated in many details by archaeology, it would NOT be a major proof Caesar was the author, while this is still even so the accepted position of almost anyone.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              By far most academic scholars serious question Mose as any sort of author of Genesis.
                              If you mean today, we live in a time in which by far most academic scholars have adapted to some version of DiaMat light. You told me the Chinese Academia had abandoned DiaMat ov and adopted academic consensus - that means or at least suggests modern academic consensus is based on a diluted version of DiaMat or of otse precursors.

                              If instead of ideology they used the methodology by which they accept Caesar wrote Bellum Gallicum, they might very well conclude Moses could at least very well have written the Torah and at least we have no better author assignments so far.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Historical skepticism is based on the fact that there is not archaeological nor textural evidence dated anywhere close to any of the dates possible for exodus.
                              Oh, you count textual evidence from writings close enough to the time of Caesar as evidence he wrote Bellum Gallicum (+ confirmation of events in it?)

                              Take Cicero. Now, there is no archaeological evidence for Cicero's writings back in those times either. So on your view, you would have to conclude that Cicero, like Joshua and Judges mentioning Moses and the Law, could be a later invention, projected backwards ... I think the earliest manuscript of at least Letters to Atticus is very late.

                              Or, you accept it would have been a cumbrous task to forge Cicero so much later? Well, why don't you take same approach to Joshua and Judges, then!? And accept them as TEXTUAL evidence of the authorship of Moses.

                              When it comes to archaeological evidence for events, that is another matter.

                              If carbon 14 level in 1510 BC was 97.61% or even 96.436% of modern level of carbon 14, any archaeological evidence actually from 1510 would be likely to have been dated as 1710 or 1810 BC.

                              The major clue would be the Hyksos invasion, if it happened after Exodus had drowned Pharao's army - in which case Hyksos were arguably Amalekites (a few centuries after Exodus, an Amalekite has an Egyptian slave, which indicates Amalekites might still be occupying Egypt.

                              Ipuwer Papyrus can be added as a memory of the ten plagues.

                              * Or, as is more to the point here : Exodus.
                              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                                So - reading further down - you simply mean the numbers were exaggerated ... possibly. But still does not add up to Caesar not being author. And as no one now claims Caesar had God as co-author or main author and himself as human co-author, an inaccuracy is no problem.
                                The exageration of numbers is only an example. It is not as simple as that.


                                Good - then the ACCEPTED authorship of Caesar to Bellum Gallicum is my argument - if we use same methods all over the line - for accepting Moses wrote Genesis.*
                                NO!

                                Oh, you count textual evidence from writings close enough to the time of Caesar as evidence he wrote Bellum Gallicum (+ confirmation of events in it?)
                                No, historians rely on corraborating evidence and archaeological evidence outside the Bellum Gallicum.


                                When it comes to archaeological evidence for events, that is another matter.
                                There is no archaeological evidence.

                                Ipuwer Papyrus can be added as a memory of the ten plagues.

                                * Or, as is more to the point here : Exodus.
                                The fact that some events in Egyptian history are found in Exodus does not lend any credibility to the Exodus being an accurate account of the time. Historical events are found in ancient legends in many different cultures of the world and there is no reason assume that they are accurate first person accounts.

                                The bottom line remains there is no evidence for the account of Exodus in the Pentateuch being a first person account by anyone including Moses.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X