SV: [ANE-2] Re: More 'Ark of the Covenant' mystery the 'show goes on and on and on
- That there is a lot of evidence for Hebrew endogamy is clear but the
notion that they practiced endogamy to preserve their ethnicity
requires considerable proof. How would ancient people know that
endogamy would preserve ethnicity? After all, endogamy may be a
characteristic of some ethnic groups, but most such groups fail in any
case. Most geneological lines die out and very few prosper. This is a
corollary of the Ancestor Paradox which began this discussion.
Consider the European aristocracy who descend from the Medieval counts
of France. They were endogamous to an extreme. Yet, nearly all of the
lines are extinct now though it is possible that several million people
today can claim descent from just one of them, Geoffrey of Anjou.
Landed folks practise endogamy to keep land in the family not to
--- In ANEemail@example.com, Brian Roberts <r.brianroberts@...> wrote:
> I've always heard that the ancient Israelites were much more
endogamous than modern Jews are. Reading the Hebrew Bible it's easy to
see how one could come to that conclusion. One of the biggest faux-pas
for Israelite men was one committed by Solomon - marrying foreign
women. Bringing outside blood into the tribes was a no-no. Funny trait
for a settled people in the 9th-6th century Levant, but in a group
which existed for a great number of years outside of its borders in
various degrees of bondage or captivity, it certainly does make sense.
If one wants to preserve one's ethnicity, that which makes one
different from one's captor's, not intermarrying would seem to be a
necessary first step.
- Good point about the apple. Similarly a description of hell brought forth by Milton (Paradise Lost) was accepted by some in the way they accepted Biblical myths.
If the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden could give knowledge of good or evil or both it has no known parallel in the natural world, and is mythological. While fruits offered nutrients we cannot find a piece of fruit in the fruit section of the supermarket that will give us knowledge without studying. I suppose if you could change the meanings of the worlds you might be able to resolve it, but then it would be difficult to get the correct meanings back again.
Suppose you could get barnyard animals to talk, what would they say? A talking serpent is beyond the realm of the rational and into the surreal. It was a common morphology of some authors of fairy tales to have animals talking. Aesop had a story of the fox trying to steal the grapes from a vine, but could not reach them. Then Aesop pretended to reveal the fox's thoughts. After admitting failure to get grapes the fox tried to minimize the loss by stating, "The grapes were probably sour." While animal thoughts might be presumed, the human does not have the sensory organs to detect animal replies or statements, unless a donkey might be impelled to mimic the voice of human and give a message, similar to a dog trying to wake inhabitants during a fire.
As for the biography of Moses. The "laws of Moses" exist, it is presumed someone with a pen name of Moses had to write them. My personal trips to the Sinai and Negev and many hours in libraries reading Exodus theory, including records of historical volcanic eruptions in Northern Arabia have lead me to conclude the work of Exodus is a work of literature and not history. This does not mean there are no Hebrews, or laws of 'Moses,' only that Exodus is a fiction.
The book of Kings contained some history verified in part by the Assyrian archives found at Kuyunjik/Nineveh across the Tigris River from Mosul, Iraq. The descriptions of the siege of Lachish in the Bible and in Assyrian cuneiform were similar. The archaeology of the citadel did not conflict with the two similar accounts, thus some history from the book of Kings was verified. Part of the book might also have been stories without factual basis that were kept by those without the ability to confirm nor deny them. Forging antiquities to try to prove one's own assumptions does not aid in the search for the truth.
David Q. Hall
"Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...> wrote:
Gary Greenberg wrote:
> As there is no specific mention in Genesis of an apple being the forbidden fruit, would it be fair to say that the idea that Genesis refers to an apple as just a myth about Genesis.The idea that the fruit was an apple entered Western consciousness from
Augustine who noticed the similarity between the Latin words for apple
In any case, please do NOT include the who of an exchange in your
messages to the List when you are responding to only a section of that
exchange. Quote only as much of a post to which you are responding as
is necessary to give your message its proper context..
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]