Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Testing the Persian/Misri Hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • historynow2002 <historynow2002@yahoo.com>
    Jeffrey, Frankly, I don t really understand this test you suggest for my Persian/Misri thesis. Since you, no doubt, are quite familiar with the Hebrew of
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeffrey,

      Frankly, I don't really understand this 'test' you suggest
      for my Persian/Misri thesis. Since you, no doubt, are quite
      familiar with the Hebrew of the DSS, why don't you quote
      a text that you think is relevant to your test.

      Otherwise, I don't have a clue how your test "works".

      Fair enough?

      George

      --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
      <jgibson000@a...> wrote:
      > "historynow2002 " wrote:
      >
      > > I have come to believe that this is because the post-Persian
      > > scribes misunderstood the term for "Musri" (of the Transjordan
      > > area and/or the Sinai) with the term for Egypt proper.
      >
      > Have you checked (a) the texts in which you think post Persian
      scribes
      > got it wrong with (b) the evidence to be found in the DSS MSS
      regarding
      > what these texts were recorded as reading in the time in which the
      DSS
      > Biblical MSS were produced? read? If we were to find there the use
      of
      > the term Misraim for what was originally Mutsri, then you have some
      > confirmatory evidence of your thesis.
      >
      > However, if Mutsri appears in these texts, then the "confusion" is
      not
      > post Persian and your thesis is falsified.
      >
      > So ... have you had a look at what the DSS MSS have to say?
      >
      > JG.
      >
      >
      > --
      > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
      > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      > Floor 1
      > Chicago, Illinois 60626
      > e-mail jgibson000@a...
      > jgibson000@h...
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • historynow2002 <historynow2002@yahoo.com>
      Walter, You write: Redford and other professionals (Dever, Mazar, Aharoni, Stern, etc.)...yourself, have noted that the Pentateuchal narrator is UNAWARE of
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Walter,

        You write:
        "Redford and other professionals (Dever, Mazar, Aharoni, Stern,
        etc.)...yourself, have noted that the Pentateuchal narrator is
        UNAWARE of Egypt> ruling Canaan in the Exodus stories. But they
        didn't conclude from this anomaly that the text HAD to be
        Post-Exilic Persian Era or later."

        And thus, Walter, I think they are missing a pretty obvious
        problem! No doubt because they have grown up with Biblical
        literature, and have never questioned this most glaring of
        incongruity!

        You also write:
        " If the text is Post-Exilic "Persian," please explain why the
        narrator in 2 Kings 25:27 is unaware of any other Babylonian kings
        who follow Evil-Merodach (who reigned ca. 562-560 BCE) ?"

        Walter, you are confusing your earlier research with my
        current views. Unlike you, I have not had a period of time
        when I thought ALL of the bible was Persian-era (or later).

        I believe that much of the Kings texts are pre-Persian.

        But if we look at texts like Genesis, Exodus and 2 Chronicles,
        we find similar vocabulary, pronunciations, and even stories.

        I believe that much of these works were "created" after
        the return from exile in Persia.

        For example, the story of the ark being built describes
        a GORGEOUS ark, made with lots of precious materials.
        And it is quite large.

        The older story of the ark in Deuter. is a much smaller
        ark, because Moses built it to carry his commandments.

        And another text (in Kings?, I can't remember where at
        the moment) describes a very simple and "modest" ark...
        that "evolves" into an incredibly ornate creation in
        Exodus. This, I suggest, comes after the return from
        Persia, when they didn't really have a CLUE what the
        ark really was.


        George
      • historynow2002 <historynow2002@yahoo.com>
        Walter, You write: Redford and other professionals (Dever, Mazar, Aharoni, Stern, etc.)...yourself, have noted that the Pentateuchal narrator is UNAWARE of
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Walter,

          You write:
          "Redford and other professionals (Dever, Mazar, Aharoni, Stern,
          etc.)...yourself, have noted that the Pentateuchal narrator is
          UNAWARE of Egypt> ruling Canaan in the Exodus stories. But they
          didn't conclude from this anomaly that the text HAD to be
          Post-Exilic Persian Era or later."

          And thus, Walter, I think they are missing a pretty obvious
          problem! No doubt because they have grown up with Biblical
          literature, and have never questioned this most glaring of
          incongruity!

          You also write:
          " If the text is Post-Exilic "Persian," please explain why the
          narrator in 2 Kings 25:27 is unaware of any other Babylonian kings
          who follow Evil-Merodach (who reigned ca. 562-560 BCE) ?"

          Walter, you are confusing your earlier research with my
          current views. Unlike you, I have not had a period of time
          when I thought ALL of the bible was Persian-era (or later).

          I believe that much of the Kings texts are pre-Persian.

          But if we look at texts like Genesis, Exodus and 2 Chronicles,
          we find similar vocabulary, pronunciations, and even stories.

          I believe that much of these works were "created" after
          the return from exile in Persia.

          For example, the story of the ark being built describes
          a GORGEOUS ark, made with lots of precious materials.
          And it is quite large.

          The older story of the ark in Deuter. is a much smaller
          ark, because Moses built it to carry his commandments.

          And another text (in Kings?, I can't remember where at
          the moment) describes a very simple and "modest" ark...
          that "evolves" into an incredibly ornate creation in
          Exodus. This, I suggest, comes after the return from
          Persia, when they didn't really have a CLUE what the
          ark really was.


          George
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... No doubt ? Are you actually claiming, as your expression implies, that this is the **only** way their never questioning this most glaring of
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            "historynow2002 " wrote:

            > Walter,
            >
            > You write:
            > "Redford and other professionals (Dever, Mazar, Aharoni, Stern,
            > etc.)...yourself, have noted that the Pentateuchal narrator is
            > UNAWARE of Egypt> ruling Canaan in the Exodus stories. But they
            > didn't conclude from this anomaly that the text HAD to be
            > Post-Exilic Persian Era or later."
            >
            > And thus, Walter, I think they are missing a pretty obvious
            > problem! No doubt because they have grown up with Biblical
            > literature, and have never questioned this most glaring of
            > incongruity!

            "No doubt"? Are you actually claiming, as your expression implies, that
            this is the **only** way their never questioning " this most glaring of
            incongruity (sic)" is to be explained? Are there **no** other
            possibilities?

            Do you actually know what the religious or "growing up" background of
            each or any of these scholars was? Or are you just **assuming** that
            they must have "grown up with biblical literature"?

            And is your implied thesis, namely, that "growing up with Biblical
            literature" keeps (or tends to keep) one from seeing certain things and
            results in an absolute unanimity of vision when it comes to matters
            biblical, actually demonstrable?

            This "no doubt ..." explanation seems to me to be another example of
            your tendency towards Gardnerism. It certainly is a good example of the
            genetic fallacy.

            JG



            --
            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
            1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
            Floor 1
            Chicago, Illinois 60626
            e-mail jgibson000@...
            jgibson000@...



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • ad101867 <andronicus@shaw.ca>
            Walter, I m not interested in your naturalistic nonsense. You re just out to prove the Bible wrong. Thanks anyway. Andy ... anomalies in
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Walter,

              I'm not interested in your naturalistic nonsense. You're just out to
              prove the Bible wrong. Thanks anyway.

              Andy

              --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "Walter R. Mattfeld"
              <mattfeld12@c...> wrote:
              > Andy,
              >
              > You may have an interest in my articles, "detailing ALL the
              anomalies" in
              > setting a date for the Exodus. Cf. the following urls
              >
              > http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusProblems.html
              >
              > http://www.bibleorigins.net/Exodus1540BCHyksos.html
              >
              > http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusTimnaSerabitelKhadim.html
              >
              > http://www.bibleorigins.net/RohlsChronologyDeconstructed.html
              >
              > http://www.bibleorigins.net/AardsmaExodusTheoryEBII.html
              >
              > Regards, Walter
              > www.bibleorigins.net
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: <andronicus@s...>
              > To: <AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:08 PM
              > Subject: ABH Re: Israel in Egypt
              >
              >
              > > Any Internet articles you'd point me to, George? What about the
              > > charge that there's no other era that furnishes evidence of
              > > Israelites being in Egypt? What about the charge that Egyptian
              > > chronology (as it stands now) is unreliable?
              > >
              > > Andy
            • John <jdcroft@yahoo.com>
              Jeffrey wrote ... Jeffrey, what s Gardnerism? Regards John
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Jeffrey wrote


                > This "no doubt ..." explanation seems to me to be another example of
                > your tendency towards Gardnerism. It certainly is a good example of
                > the genetic fallacy.

                Jeffrey, what's Gardnerism?

                Regards

                John
              • Walter R. Mattfeld
                Dear Andy, We ALL have presuppositions and BIASES which underlie our research and our interpretations. Your presupposition/bias is that the Bible is TRUE,
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Andy,

                  We ALL have "presuppositions" and BIASES which underlie our research and our
                  interpretations. Your "presupposition/bias" is that the Bible is TRUE,
                  because it is the word of God, accordingly ANYTHING that contradicts this
                  presupposition is AUTOMATICALLY DISMISSED, and whatever SUPPORTS your
                  PRESUPPOSITION is accepted.

                  Andy, when I began my research on the Bible my PRESUPPOSITION back in 1970
                  was that the BIBLE WAS TRUE and GOD's WORD. I discovered through my research
                  into biblical archaeology that IT WASN'T TRUE and it WASN'T GOD's WORD,
                  because the archaeological data CONTRADICTED the biblical scenarios.

                  Now you know where I BEGAN and where I ENDED UP after 30+ years of research.

                  Regards, Walter

                  Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld, M.A. Ed.
                  www.bibleorigins.net


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <andronicus@...>
                  To: <AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 3:32 PM
                  Subject: ABH Re: Israel in Egypt


                  > Walter,
                  >
                  > I'm not interested in your naturalistic nonsense. You're just out to
                  > prove the Bible wrong. Thanks anyway.
                  >
                  > Andy
                  >
                • Walter R. Mattfeld
                  Dear George, Thank you for clarifying your position, that you beleive parts of the Primary History are pre-Persian but that it also possesses Persian Era
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jan 2, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear George,

                    Thank you for clarifying your position, that you beleive parts of the
                    Primary History are "pre-Persian" but that it also possesses Persian Era
                    redactions. This is not a new theory, a number of professional scholars have
                    suggested Persian era editing of the Texts, Ezra being a favorite for the
                    job.

                    I don't hold to this notion any longer, for the reasons given in my earlier
                    post.

                    As regards Iron II Midianites, you may have something- according to
                    archaeologists like Finkelstein and MacDonald, the Iron II world is the
                    setting for the Exodus texts, because this is the ONLY period witnessing
                    MOST of the towns, villages and cities being in existence at the same time
                    as portrayed in the Exodus scenarios. Sooo- it is just possible that Iron II
                    Midianites might be a part of the Story rather than "exclusively"
                    Late-Bronze-Iron I. Further research of an archaeological nature is needed
                    thought to bolster your theory. For the moment, archaeology does support
                    Late Bronze Age-Early Iron I Midianites in the Negev, Transjordan and Judah.

                    Regards, Walter
                    Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld, M.A. Ed.
                    www.bibleorigins.net


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: <historynow2002@...>
                    To: <AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 12:12 PM
                    Subject: ABH Re: Israel in Egypt


                    > Walter,
                    >
                    > You write:
                    > "Redford and other professionals (Dever, Mazar, Aharoni, Stern,
                    > etc.)...yourself, have noted that the Pentateuchal narrator is
                    > UNAWARE of Egypt> ruling Canaan in the Exodus stories. But they
                    > didn't conclude from this anomaly that the text HAD to be
                    > Post-Exilic Persian Era or later."
                    >
                    > And thus, Walter, I think they are missing a pretty obvious
                    > problem! No doubt because they have grown up with Biblical
                    > literature, and have never questioned this most glaring of
                    > incongruity!
                    >
                    > You also write:
                    > " If the text is Post-Exilic "Persian," please explain why the
                    > narrator in 2 Kings 25:27 is unaware of any other Babylonian kings
                    > who follow Evil-Merodach (who reigned ca. 562-560 BCE) ?"
                    >
                    > Walter, you are confusing your earlier research with my
                    > current views. Unlike you, I have not had a period of time
                    > when I thought ALL of the bible was Persian-era (or later).
                    >
                    > I believe that much of the Kings texts are pre-Persian.
                    >
                    > But if we look at texts like Genesis, Exodus and 2 Chronicles,
                    > we find similar vocabulary, pronunciations, and even stories.
                    >
                    > I believe that much of these works were "created" after
                    > the return from exile in Persia.
                    >
                    > For example, the story of the ark being built describes
                    > a GORGEOUS ark, made with lots of precious materials.
                    > And it is quite large.
                    >
                    > The older story of the ark in Deuter. is a much smaller
                    > ark, because Moses built it to carry his commandments.
                    >
                    > And another text (in Kings?, I can't remember where at
                    > the moment) describes a very simple and "modest" ark...
                    > that "evolves" into an incredibly ornate creation in
                    > Exodus. This, I suggest, comes after the return from
                    > Persia, when they didn't really have a CLUE what the
                    > ark really was.
                    >
                    >
                    > George
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ANCIENT BIBLE HISTORY WEBPAGE:
                    > http://www.angelfire.com/or3/ancientbiblehistory/
                    > ABH GROUP PAGE:
                    > http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/AncientBibleHistory
                    > PUBLIC ARCHIVES:
                    > http://www.eScribe.com/religion/AncientBibleHistory/
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • historynow2002 <historynow2002@yahoo.com>
                    Jeffrey, I m not really sure why you enjoy creating side-disputes over almost anything I might write. They rarely add to advancing the thread. In this case,
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 2, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jeffrey,

                      I'm not really sure why you enjoy creating
                      side-disputes over almost anything I might
                      write. They rarely add to advancing the thread.
                      In this case, you write:

                      "Do you actually know what the religious or
                      "growing up" background of each or any of these
                      scholars was? Or are you just **assuming** that
                      > they must have "grown up with biblical literature"?"

                      Jeffrey, since I'm discussing the O.T. or Jewish Bible,
                      don't you think the odds are quite in my favor that
                      the experts that Walter pointed to would for the most
                      part *not* have grown up as Hindus or Buddhists or
                      other non-Judeo/Christian backgrounds?

                      Jeffrey, it is hard to kick against the goads, is it not?

                      In case you missed this thread before, I have asserted
                      that if the scribes have not provided any commentary or
                      reference to Egyptian messsengers or garrisons or
                      administrators in Palestine, then this omission would
                      indicate that there has been no genuine scribal continuity
                      from, say, the Amarna period to a time AFTER the Hebrew
                      had forgotten that the Egyptians once occupied Palestine.

                      Others then objected that the scribes were not interested
                      in what the Egyptians were doing, and that this should be
                      the explanation for this "silence" on Egyptian doings.

                      And then I counter-asserted that if the scribes could go
                      into considerable detail about the "oppressions" of the
                      Philistines, the Midianites, the Moabites and the Ammonites,
                      and that these foes were both *within* and *outside* of
                      Canaan.... then we can see that the scribes *did* care
                      about the intrusive aspects of these other peoples.
                      And that just like what we find in Amarna, the scribes
                      would be *incredibly* fixated on what Egyptian forces
                      and policies could do to remedy the situation..... and
                      not ignore opportunities for Egyptian assistance, if
                      such assistance was feasible.

                      Thus, if there was an opportunity for "critical" assessment
                      of what we find in the O.T. about "oppressions", this is
                      a key observation: that the scribal texts began their
                      "recordings" long after the Amarna period, and apparently
                      long after the Hebrew had forgotten that the Egyptian
                      garrisons had once dominated the land.

                      And from this conclusion, we are on relatively safe grounds
                      to assume that story lines and texts that have been conventionally
                      interpreted to come from the Amarna period and before, are
                      story lines that the scribes developed from post-Egyptian-
                      hegemony times, and somewhat *fictitiously* applied to more
                      ancient time periods that we know were very *Egyptian* in
                      content.

                      George

                      P.S. Jeffrey, instead of assailing whether or not I
                      *really* know something or not, offer up a counter-assertion,
                      and let's discuss it. It really does make for more interesting
                      reading by the ABH list! Have a great day.
                    • historynow2002 <historynow2002@yahoo.com>
                      Andy, Is it your view that the Bible, as literature, is MORE correct than other ancient literatures? What is your evidence for this? George ... to
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 2, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Andy,

                        Is it your view that the Bible, as literature,
                        is MORE correct than other ancient literatures?

                        What is your evidence for this?

                        George

                        --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "ad101867
                        <andronicus@s...>" <andronicus@s...> wrote:
                        > Walter,
                        >
                        > I'm not interested in your naturalistic nonsense. You're just out
                        to
                        > prove the Bible wrong. Thanks anyway.
                        >
                        > Andy
                        >
                        > --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "Walter R. Mattfeld"
                        > <mattfeld12@c...> wrote:
                        > > Andy,
                        > >
                        > > You may have an interest in my articles, "detailing ALL the
                        > anomalies" in
                        > > setting a date for the Exodus. Cf. the following urls
                        > >
                        > > http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusProblems.html
                        > >
                        > > http://www.bibleorigins.net/Exodus1540BCHyksos.html
                        > >
                        > > http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusTimnaSerabitelKhadim.html
                        > >
                        > > http://www.bibleorigins.net/RohlsChronologyDeconstructed.html
                        > >
                        > > http://www.bibleorigins.net/AardsmaExodusTheoryEBII.html
                        > >
                        > > Regards, Walter
                        > > www.bibleorigins.net
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: <andronicus@s...>
                        > > To: <AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:08 PM
                        > > Subject: ABH Re: Israel in Egypt
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > Any Internet articles you'd point me to, George? What about the
                        > > > charge that there's no other era that furnishes evidence of
                        > > > Israelites being in Egypt? What about the charge that Egyptian
                        > > > chronology (as it stands now) is unreliable?
                        > > >
                        > > > Andy
                      • Willard Scott <wescott@pdotson.org>
                        The best thing is to present your own intelligent post and the offending post will quickly scroll into oblivion. Personal accusations only make static. Scotty
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 2, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The best thing is to present your own intelligent post and the
                          offending post will quickly scroll into oblivion. Personal
                          accusations only make static.

                          Scotty


                          --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "ad101867
                          <andronicus@s...>" <andronicus@s...> wrote:
                          > Walter,
                          >
                          > I'm not interested in your naturalistic nonsense. You're just out
                          to
                          > prove the Bible wrong. Thanks anyway.
                          >
                          > Andy
                          >
                          > --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "Walter R. Mattfeld"
                          > <mattfeld12@c...> wrote:
                          > > Andy,
                          > >
                          > > You may have an interest in my articles, "detailing ALL the
                          > anomalies" in
                          > > setting a date for the Exodus. Cf. the following urls
                          > >
                          > > http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusProblems.html
                          > >
                          > > http://www.bibleorigins.net/Exodus1540BCHyksos.html
                          > >
                          > > http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusTimnaSerabitelKhadim.html
                          > >
                          > > http://www.bibleorigins.net/RohlsChronologyDeconstructed.html
                          > >
                          > > http://www.bibleorigins.net/AardsmaExodusTheoryEBII.html
                          > >
                          > > Regards, Walter
                          > > www.bibleorigins.net
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > From: <andronicus@s...>
                          > > To: <AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:08 PM
                          > > Subject: ABH Re: Israel in Egypt
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > > Any Internet articles you'd point me to, George? What about the
                          > > > charge that there's no other era that furnishes evidence of
                          > > > Israelites being in Egypt? What about the charge that Egyptian
                          > > > chronology (as it stands now) is unreliable?
                          > > >
                          > > > Andy
                        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                          ... It is a term I coined (along with doing a Gardner ) to denote a particular way of explaining why scholars conclude what they have concluded, especially
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jan 2, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "John " wrote:

                            > Jeffrey wrote
                            >
                            >
                            > > This "no doubt ..." explanation seems to me to be another example of
                            >
                            > > your tendency towards Gardnerism. It certainly is a good example of
                            > > the genetic fallacy.
                            >
                            > Jeffrey, what's Gardnerism?

                            It is a term I coined (along with "doing a Gardner") to denote a
                            particular way of explaining why scholars conclude what they have
                            concluded, especially when it goes against or ignores one's pet
                            theories, that echoes the logically fallacious way that Marshall B.
                            Gardner (author of _Journey to the Earth's Interior_ and purveyor of the
                            "fact" that earth was hollow and held a sun 600 miles in diameter at
                            its center and had openings by which one could travel into the hollow at
                            both poles) always employed to account for the guild of professional
                            scientists' rejection or refusal even to countenance his ideas.

                            It was characteristic of Gardener to complain that the **only** reason
                            he never got (or expected to get) a "fair
                            hearing" for **his** views was because of "conservatism of [scholars]
                            who do not care to revise their theories-- especially when that revision
                            is made necessary by discoveries ... made independently of the great
                            universities."

                            These scholars, he wrote (with, notably, the same tone of
                            sactimoniousness sometimes evident in messages from George when he
                            excoriates contemporary scholars for their alleged "credulity" and/or
                            their "suppression" of older scholarship and from L.M Barre), "have
                            their professional freemasonry. If you are not one of them, they do not
                            want to listen to you."

                            What Gardner engaged in was the fallacy of bifurcation. As should be
                            quite evident, the reason that the "scholars" of whom Gardner
                            complained rejected and ignored Gardner and his theories had nothing to
                            do with any real or alleged "conservatism" on their part, but because
                            the theories themselves were found -- after consideration -- to be
                            wanting. It should also be quite evident that Gardner's explanation of
                            his rejection was grounded in **his** own inability to see just how
                            poor and absolutely absurd his own scholarship was, rather than in any
                            "blindness", let alone blindness brought about by being raised in a
                            certain tradition, on the part of those those who allegedly refused to
                            accept anything that challenges what their "faith" and their scholarly
                            training make them "take for granted".

                            Those "scholars" who rejected Gardner and his explanation for his
                            rejection were NOT whom Gardner claimed them to be, nor did they act
                            out of the motives that Gardner attributed to them. Rather they were men
                            and women who had good and well thought out **reasons** for doing
                            dismissing what Gardner thought was "the truth".

                            So when someone acts as George tends to do when explaining why scholars
                            haven't considered or accepted his views has done -- that is to say,
                            when someone refuses to entertain (or cannot even conceive of) the
                            possibility that there might be an explanation **other** than the one
                            he uses (without evidence) to explain why it is that scholars have
                            ignored or dismissed or not considered what he considers to be "the
                            truth" (i.e., these scholars are, given their background, too
                            blind/biased to ever see the truth or to think "outside the box"), what
                            we then have is "Gardnerism".

                            Yours,

                            Jeffrey
                            --
                            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                            1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                            Floor 1
                            Chicago, Illinois 60626
                            e-mail jgibson000@...
                            jgibson000@...



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • ethel jean saltz
                            I m not keeping up in depth this discussion. But something glares out at me. Are you saying that an hypothesis extant in bible science circles is that the DSS
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jan 3, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I'm not keeping up in depth this discussion. But something glares out at
                              me. Are you saying that an hypothesis extant in bible science circles is
                              that the DSS created the canon? That the DSS are not simply reporting
                              activities prior to their writing? Just taking the magnificent DSS Isaiah
                              alone.

                              "historynow2002 " wrote:
                              >
                              > If my hypothesis is correct, then Exodus was written
                              > DURING the Persian Period, BEFORE the writing of the
                              > DSS, making "Moses of Meshor" into "Moses of Mizraim".
                              >

                              --
                              Be-ahavah oo-ve-shalom oo-ve-emet, Ethel Jean Saltz
                              Mac(hiavelli)-Niet(zsche)-Spin(oza)-Gal(ileo), 5370/1609/393 A.G.(after
                              Galileo/measurement science)
                              mailto: nietgal@...
                            • historynow2002 <historynow2002@yahoo.com>
                              Ethel, The DSS, in this thread, doesn t really touch on anything. It was a suggested approach for testing my hypothesis. However, I believe it has been
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jan 3, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ethel,

                                The DSS, in this thread, doesn't really touch
                                on anything. It was a suggested approach for
                                testing my hypothesis. However, I believe it
                                has been determined that the DSS does not have
                                a bearing on this particular hypothesis:

                                That returning from Persia, the Aramaic-speaking
                                elite interpreted the story of "Mesha/Moses of
                                Meshor" as a story of "Moses of Mizur/Egypt".

                                This "misunderstanding" was either due to
                                the lapse of time and/or the lose of Hebrew
                                as the language of the scribes OR it was an
                                intentional effort, by Pro-Persian religious
                                authorities to put Egypt into a negative light.

                                Certainly one of the Persian goals in funding
                                the new Temple in Jerusalem was to create an
                                anti-Egyptian bulwark.

                                If there are still some questions regarding
                                this thread, Ethel, please let me know.

                                George



                                --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, ethel jean saltz
                                <nietgal@a...> wrote:
                                > I'm not keeping up in depth this discussion. But something glares
                                out at
                                > me. Are you saying that an hypothesis extant in bible science
                                circles is
                                > that the DSS created the canon? That the DSS are not simply
                                reporting
                                > activities prior to their writing? Just taking the magnificent DSS
                                Isaiah
                                > alone.
                                >
                                > "historynow2002 " wrote:
                                > >
                                > > If my hypothesis is correct, then Exodus was written
                                > > DURING the Persian Period, BEFORE the writing of the
                                > > DSS, making "Moses of Meshor" into "Moses of Mizraim".
                                > >
                                >
                                > --
                                > Be-ahavah oo-ve-shalom oo-ve-emet, Ethel Jean Saltz
                                > Mac(hiavelli)-Niet(zsche)-Spin(oza)-Gal(ileo), 5370/1609/393 A.G.
                                (after
                                > Galileo/measurement science)
                                > mailto: nietgal@a...
                              • historynow2002 <historynow2002@yahoo.com>
                                Jeffrey, Very interesting discussion of a term you have coined. But the funny thing is that you have spent an awful lot of time talking about something doesn t
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jan 4, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Jeffrey,

                                  Very interesting discussion of a term you have coined.

                                  But the funny thing is that you have spent an awful lot
                                  of time talking about something doesn't appear to apply
                                  to my discussion.

                                  I think I will give your technique a special name.

                                  You write:

                                  > So when someone acts as George tends to do when explaining why
                                  scholars haven't considered or accepted his views has done ..."

                                  Ahhhh..... but my point was that the views of scholars
                                  of 100 years ago have "suppressed". So, as you can see,
                                  these views are not *MY* views. My complaint is that the
                                  "ball" has been dropped. And you haven't contributed to
                                  the resolution of the discussion at all.


                                  You write:
                                  " when someone refuses to entertain (or cannot even conceive of) the
                                  > possibility that there might be an explanation **other** than the
                                  one> he uses (without evidence) to explain why it is that scholars
                                  have ignored or dismissed [etc., etc.]

                                  Jeffrey, you are hilarious!

                                  There is a very simple way to help resolve this question.

                                  Please provide ANY article that has resolved the Arabic
                                  or Sinai "mizraim" hypothesis to your satisfaction. Does
                                  the fact that you have not done this suggest that there
                                  hasn't been one?

                                  You spend *way* too much time antagonizing, and not nearly
                                  enough time advancing a discussion.... by providing evidence
                                  that supports or refutes your position or mine.

                                  George
                                • John <jdcroft@yahoo.com>
                                  George you wrote ... George, Jeffrey was not replying to you he was replying to my question about what was Gardnerism? He illustrated his explanation with
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jan 4, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    George you wrote

                                    > Very interesting discussion of a term you have coined.
                                    >
                                    > But the funny thing is that you have spent an awful lot
                                    > of time talking about something doesn't appear to apply
                                    > to my discussion.

                                    George, Jeffrey was not replying to you he was replying to my
                                    question about "what was Gardnerism?" He illustrated his explanation
                                    with examples from your recent to-and-fro debating.

                                    George, I know you seem to get mightily frustrated by Jeffrey's
                                    approach, as he does by yours. But you should also take into account
                                    how mightily frustrated some of us others are at the acres of
                                    pointless argument that is clogging my bandwidth at the moment. Like
                                    many on this list I feel I only have to see the subject line and the
                                    author and it leads to a reflexual hitting of the delete button.
                                    Let's move on.... Not everything Jeffrey writes is about this matter
                                    (as not everything you write is either).

                                    Hope this helps.

                                    Regards

                                    John
                                  • historynow2002 <historynow2002@yahoo.com>
                                    John, I will reply offlist to this post. George ... explanation ... account ... Like ... the ... matter
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jan 5, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      John,

                                      I will reply offlist to this post.

                                      George

                                      --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "John <jdcroft@y...>"
                                      <jdcroft@y...> wrote:
                                      > George you wrote
                                      >
                                      > > Very interesting discussion of a term you have coined.
                                      > >
                                      > > But the funny thing is that you have spent an awful lot
                                      > > of time talking about something doesn't appear to apply
                                      > > to my discussion.
                                      >
                                      > George, Jeffrey was not replying to you he was replying to my
                                      > question about "what was Gardnerism?" He illustrated his
                                      explanation
                                      > with examples from your recent to-and-fro debating.
                                      >
                                      > George, I know you seem to get mightily frustrated by Jeffrey's
                                      > approach, as he does by yours. But you should also take into
                                      account
                                      > how mightily frustrated some of us others are at the acres of
                                      > pointless argument that is clogging my bandwidth at the moment.
                                      Like
                                      > many on this list I feel I only have to see the subject line and
                                      the
                                      > author and it leads to a reflexual hitting of the delete button.
                                      > Let's move on.... Not everything Jeffrey writes is about this
                                      matter
                                      > (as not everything you write is either).
                                      >
                                      > Hope this helps.
                                      >
                                      > Regards
                                      >
                                      > John
                                    • ethel jean saltz
                                      ... ==================== I have to agree here, since I just wrote something similar in my post on Ecclesiastes Canonization. It was about the Catholic Encyc
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jan 5, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        "historynow2002 " wrote:
                                        >

                                        > Ahhhh..... but my point was that the views of scholars
                                        > of 100 years ago have "suppressed". So, as you can see,
                                        > these views are not *MY* views. My complaint is that the
                                        > "ball" has been dropped. And you haven't contributed to
                                        > the resolution of the discussion at all.
                                        >
                                        ====================
                                        I have to agree here, since I just wrote something similar in my post on
                                        Ecclesiastes Canonization. It was about the Catholic Encyc online being
                                        derided because of it's article on Martin Luther. It doesn't matter what
                                        people say now. In my life what they wrote one hundred years ago is still
                                        important and should be reviewed. As long as the subject is up for debate,
                                        it is. And bringing in 100 year old ideas isn't bad for some of us who need
                                        to see the whole debate picture.

                                        An example of scientific truth. When Jeffrey said in a very direct
                                        statement, about the Book of Esther and the problem: It didn't mention
                                        "God".

                                        When it comes to word games, it can be played forever. It is played
                                        forever, and that's why Hitler is spelled out in TaNaK, scientifically.

                                        --
                                        Be-ahavah oo-ve-shalom oo-ve-emet, Ethel Jean Saltz
                                        Mac(hiavelli)-Niet(zsche)-Spin(oza)-Gal(ileo), 5370/1609/393 A.G.(after
                                        Galileo/measurement science)
                                        mailto: nietgal@...
                                      • ethel jean saltz
                                        ... ================= Well, Jeffrey, I feel that information about OR ADONAI is being suppressed by modern scholars. So thank goodness for the online Jewish
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jan 5, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:
                                          >

                                          > So he **did** make a claim that material found in the EB has been
                                          > "suppressed" by scholars who have come on to the scene after the EB was
                                          > written. And he also claimed that the "suppression" he alleges to have
                                          > occurred is to be explained as something the motivation for which was
                                          > **solely** a desire on the part of these scholars to eliminate what was
                                          > not consistent with their "faith orientation".
                                          >
                                          =================
                                          Well, Jeffrey, I feel that information about OR ADONAI is being suppressed
                                          by modern scholars. So thank goodness for the online Jewish Encyc. And now
                                          the scholars are trying to suppress the Catholic view of Martin Luther 100
                                          years ago in the Catholic Encyc. It happened to me today and last month. I
                                          don't argue. But what scholars do is tell everyone I am wrong and outdated.
                                          However, today, a new person entered the discussion and it was here that
                                          the Martin Luther suppression came out. I announced "I am 73 YO and I'm
                                          grateful for the Catholic Encyc because 100 years ago is not old and the
                                          attitude (historical data) expresses my obstacles in society." -- and
                                          probably the whole Northern Ireland thing come to think of it. The resident
                                          scholar (who is older than me) tried to steer these new folks into not
                                          reading and having contempt for the 100 year old Catholic Encyc. If it
                                          weren't for ABH's freedom of materials and respect for all materials, I
                                          would not thought of looking up Martin Luther with respect to the entire
                                          subject of Canonization and would have missed an important part of my own
                                          historical existence. Too many times the baby is thrown out with the bath
                                          water. Just like the goldfish when my pond was cleaned -- but that was a
                                          considered decision :(

                                          Actually, my cdrom Encyc Judaica featured articles that slanted ETHICS as
                                          non-Jewish (1999), yet in August it was accepted officially by Israel.
                                          (Thank God for Israel to have a Jewish equivalency for me with the
                                          Christian Vatican U.N. Nation). As long as Israel lasts that is. At least
                                          we have Jewish documentation unless Israel gets nuked. Without Israel, I
                                          would have been considered a dult. That's why I have to be careful of what
                                          I say outloud. Of course, y'all have been most educational about it all.

                                          I will continue to use my Webster and Davidson to help me with my biblical
                                          Hebrew. It works for me, even with all y'all's detailed scientific
                                          discussions. Remember how Davidson was treated with disdain on ANE because
                                          it was written before Ugaritic was fathomed.

                                          Which reminds me, a few years back, I got the Hebrew Lit group I then
                                          attended to read BADENHEIM 1939. It was taboo too. People thanked me for
                                          it. Now, I just found out it's included as readable in Jewish groups. Well,
                                          now, there may be hope for MEIN KAMPF. I just scanned my MEIN KAMPF JEW
                                          FILE and created my favorite up-for-historical-discussion quotes about
                                          Jews, and I'll send it to any one interested.


                                          --
                                          Be-ahavah oo-ve-shalom oo-ve-emet, Ethel Jean Saltz
                                          Mac(hiavelli)-Niet(zsche)-Spin(oza)-Gal(ileo), 5370/1609/393 A.G.(after
                                          Galileo/measurement science)
                                          mailto: nietgal@...
                                        • ethel jean saltz
                                          I ll give you the last word. But talking about suppression -- reminds me -- Well, there is one suppression I would enjoy. The teaching of scientific chemistry
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jan 5, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I'll give you the last word. But talking about suppression -- reminds me --
                                            Well, there is one suppression I would enjoy. The teaching of scientific
                                            chemistry using history so that you don't have to hear, they used to think
                                            this and now it's that. There should be a supplementary course, "History of
                                            Chemistry", and just let the Periodic Tables tell their own story :) I took
                                            a big fat "F" instead of withdrawing because I wanted to register a
                                            protest. I never expected to return to college. I was 63 at the time. So
                                            when I returned to take music ed 5 years later, they remembered my two
                                            "F"'s on my record :) I've overcome since. The other "F" -- Calculus 101
                                            textbooks compared to mine from 25 years ago. In the earlier time I could
                                            read ahead of the prof and then enjoy the review of his lecture. I actually
                                            corrected a lot of the board demos and aced the tests. Could do all the
                                            homework ahead too. Actually, the math prof agreed with me and showed this
                                            by passing a little and old calc book around. The intro said it won an
                                            award for preciseness. The youngsters in the class didn't get it.

                                            ===================================
                                            "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:
                                            >
                                            > ethel jean saltz wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:
                                            > > >
                                            > >

                                            > Besides the fact that this isn't the issue, I'm not sure that
                                            > "suppressed" is the right word. The Ptolemaic view of the universe is no

                                            --
                                            Be-ahavah oo-ve-shalom oo-ve-emet, Ethel Jean Saltz
                                            Mac(hiavelli)-Niet(zsche)-Spin(oza)-Gal(ileo), 5370/1609/393 A.G.(after
                                            Galileo/measurement science)
                                            mailto: nietgal@...
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.